[EVIL JN]

Not to take sides but it is interesting how little credit new ideas get, and cold hard conclusions are drawn on sub standard material or concrete facts. I call it speculation. And to tell Tantrum that he should scrap his current design and re do it ground up is quite a big attack on his abillities as a frame designer. He has to my knowledge designed and brought more bikes to trails than the other posters combined.

Will I be first inline for a tantrum, not really, I ride a ht's and dh bikes and next dh bike will come from ze germans. But I would give a design such as this the benefit of the dubt before I had done real world testing.

As Tantrum explains, one would naturally guess that patents and real world product is not an =. You want to patent the idea not the actual implementation.



Then of course I might suck, will probably hear that quite fast when paying joe's start to go out and actually ride them.

 

[Udi]

Instead of wasting your time debating what I've said here - invest it in reading post #325 without a defensive attitude and maybe you can learn something.

The answers linkage gives are only as good as the input. Garbage in, garbage out.

With the air shock comparison, you are really losing it. The rising rate of the air spring is particularly matched to my LR. Why? Because I designed it that way. It would not be good with a linear coil spring.

Alright, you got me.
I know nothing about air spring curves and have no idea how to use Linkage. No one ever calls me out on this stuff so I really managed to milk it for the last decade.

How do I license your design? I think you really nailed it to be honest.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

Alright, you got me.
I know nothing about air spring curves and have no idea how to use Linkage. No one ever calls me out on this stuff so I really managed to milk it for the last decade.

How do I license your design? I think you really nailed it to be honest.

ha, I've apparently been milking it for almost 40 years with my degree from Whattsamatta U. Please don't tell the championships.

But by all means send money and we'll get your license in the mail.

Oh, it doesn't matter if you know how to use linkage if you are putting the wrong numbers in. When you "milk it" are you designing by photo? Do you send the machinist a photo? Send a photo to the people welding the frame and say "make it like this, it's accurate enough for RM?

 

[troy]

Degressive LR bikes suck.
My frame is super degressive up to the sag point.
My frame is the best in the biz.
I won't publish any data to support my claims, because I don't have to prove anything to anyone.
You have to believe me, because everything I say is true!!1!!11!one!!!1!eleven!

[/thread]

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

Degressive LR bikes suck.
My frame is super degressive up to the sag point.
My frame is the best in the biz.
I won't publish any data to support my claims, because I don't have to prove anything to anyone.
You have to believe me, because everything I say is true!!1!!11!one!!!1!eleven!

[/thread]

Of course all digressive rates in all parts of the travel are the same. If you are inferring that I said digressive LR suck, you may want to re-read.

My frame offers advantages not possible with other suspension designs. Whether those advantages matter to you (or anyone) is for you (or the market to decide).

I have posted numbers here. No not complete, should I just put my solidworks model up for you?

If I were to post a complete LR, it wouldn't matter. You and others have decided a photo provides more accurate numbers than the source file. So I could publish anything, actual numbers (I have), vague for sure, but pointing out serious discrepancies between reality and what is being tossed around as "fact" here.

I have also posted several video and more to come, including the one you requested. I wonder how you will discount them?

The proof is in the riding, not numbers tossed around by pundits. Plenty of proof available. It will keep coming.

I wonder what the pundits will say then. Maybe EVERYBODY is wrong.

 

[was?]

If I were to post a complete LR, it wouldn't matter. You and others have decided a photo provides more accurate numbers than the source file. So I could publish anything, actual numbers (I have), vague for sure, but pointing out serious discrepancies between reality and what is being tossed around as "fact" here.

This is the very gist of the matter.

You really are missing the point by saying that posting facts wouldn't matter. In fact there were several attempts at having a fact based discussion, or even any discussion that's worthwhile with you. You haven't made any real attempt to enable the people to have a factual discussion. Instead you are refuting their arguments as dim and unfounded, which these very arguments must be, because you never did post anything tangible. As far as most of everything, you have contributed to this thread is concerned, it is not to be taken as factual content or substantial in any way . Just as you have proven over and over again, by rephrasing, refuting and reassessing your own claims.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

This is the very gist of the matter.

You really are missing the point by saying that posting facts wouldn't matter. In fact there were several attempts at having a fact based discussion, or even any discussion that's worthwhile with you. You haven't made any real attempt to enable the people to have a factual discussion. Instead you are refuting their arguments as dim and unfounded, which these very arguments must be, because you never did post anything tangible. As far as most of everything, you have contributed to this thread is concerned, it is not to be taken as factual content or substantial in any way . Just as you have proven over and over again, by rephrasing, refuting and reassessing your own claims.

what I have stated, repeatedly, is that I will not post physical information on the geometry of the linkage. posting exact leverage curves is pretty damn close.

You're correct in saying that I do not want to engage in an arcane engineering discussion over the numbers everyone knows and loves LR and AS. We could get every bike designer in the world on board, all telling us why there LR and AS are superior. I have stated repeatedly that I do not care about that as a comparison to other suspension designs. Neither should you.

I do not want to have a "factual discussion" when those facts involve proprietary information. You wouldn't either. No designer inventor would.

I have never claimed anyone's argument was dim or unfounded, just based on bad data. Their arguments are true when correlated to the data they're presenting, it's just not relevant to my design. Any engineer claiming facts based on a scaled photo needs to have their degree yanked.

I am here to tell people how the bike rides. in terms non-engineers can understand and appreciate. The "facts" in this equation are a hundred different details that were carefully chosen and engineered to work together. Not distilled to buzzwords.

The information I am posting here all has to be taken with a grain of salt, as you would anyone posting ANYTHING. Although the videos would be tough to fake, for me anyway. And what about those videos showing behaviour other than predicted by the pundits? I am prepared to back it all up into perpetuity with actual fact. The bike.

But because I refuse to give exact details of my design, surely everything I say is a lie.

Dalai Lama would not be happy.

 

[William42]

I think if you posted your numbers people will be easier on you than you think. If the numbers people are running with are wrong, than correct them. It sounds like what your link does, no other bike can do, and you've already applied for a patent on it, which means that as soon as it hits market people will post it up anyway and get accurate measurements. Accurate measurements will happen sooner or later, and the only people on this thread arguing are people who are trying to figure out what your numbers are and whether or not they will like the bike based on that.

Even if the bike doesn't appeal to them, that doesn't mean you're a giant failure. If you can appeal to some segment of the market and sell bikes, that's awesome.

On an easier to answer question, can you tell me how it rides in comparison to a coilair? What were the problems with the coilair (with a magic link)? My friend had one, and I absolutely hated it. The suspension was extremely difficult to predict, and I would have traded pretty much any suspension performance downgrade for knowing where the suspension would be. Not that the suspension really did its job of smoothing out bumps and keeping the bike stable, just that I would have traded any amount of harshness for the bike at least feeling stable. I know you designed both and tried to address some of the problems with the coilair, but from what you've described, you're trying to do something pretty similar with this bike, namely have it ride pretty high in the travel when you are on the pedals, and then having the wheel just totally buckle and give way the second it encounters something. If so, that's cool, it isn't for me but I'm sure some people will quite like it, just curious what the design goals are.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

I think if you posted your numbers people will be easier on you than you think. If the numbers people are running with are wrong, than correct them. It sounds like what your link does, no other bike can do, and you've already applied for a patent on it, which means that as soon as it hits market people will post it up anyway and get accurate measurements. Accurate measurements will happen sooner or later, and the only people on this thread arguing are people who are trying to figure out what your numbers are and whether or not they will like the bike based on that.

Even if the bike doesn't appeal to them, that doesn't mean you're a giant failure. If you can appeal to some segment of the market and sell bikes, that's awesome.

On an easier to answer question, can you tell me how it rides in comparison to a coilair? What were the problems with the coilair (with a magic link)? My friend had one, and I absolutely hated it. The suspension was extremely difficult to predict, and I would have traded pretty much any suspension performance downgrade for knowing where the suspension would be. Not that the suspension really did its job of smoothing out bumps and keeping the bike stable, just that I would have traded any amount of harshness for the bike at least feeling stable. I know you designed both and tried to address some of the problems with the coilair, but from what you've described, you're trying to do something pretty similar with this bike, namely have it ride pretty high in the travel when you are on the pedals, and then having the wheel just totally buckle and give way the second it encounters something. If so, that's cool, it isn't for me but I'm sure some people will quite like it, just curious what the design goals are.

Hi William,

No exact numbers will be posted. Everyone can wait, try to figure it out with photos or wait till they can get a hold of a bike. If you disagree with my strategy to protect my proprietary information, so be it. Feel free to post yours as you see fit. I have no interest in sharing it here or in public at all. It is a competitive advantage to keep as many details secret for as long as possible. It is a very competitive industry and sometimes cutthroat, as we have seen with various competing patents over the years.

If you are a manufacturer interested in a license, you will sign an NDA and you can have the solidworks model and more.

I have no worries about being a failure in this venture. I know there is a market for this performance. Some won't like it, for any number of reasons. The number of links/bearings will always eliminate a certain segment. That's fine, there's enough customers for this technology.

The main problem with the magic link was the it was intimidating to set up. You had to set sag correctly on both shocks. If not, they would not work harmoniously. That and the fact it took forever to get the air shock done. When properly setup, it worked great. Numerous mag tests and private reviews have attested to that. But, perhaps that's for another thread.

This bike was designed with more emphasis on climbing ability, simplicity, light weight, and ease of manufacture. The Magic Link could steepen geometry and stiffen the suspension for climbing, but it could never go as steep or as stiff. The Magic Link did have an advantage in pure bump absorption, due to the series action of the 2 springs. The Missing Link cannot do that, but the falling rate, combined with the rotation of the link to compress the shock, give a softer bump response than a normal suspension could.

Long Story longer

Design goals

1) provide a steeper geometry when climbing
2) to provide a slacker geometry when descending
3) provide a stiffer suspension when climbing, up to full stiff
4) provide instant reaction to bumps, even when climbing in full stiff mode
5) provide plusher response and more travel when descending.
6) maintain sag level when pedaling on level ground, with no bobbing.
7) do all of the above seamlessly, with no switches or electronics, all in a proportional manner (to effort)
8) sell a ton of them

Neither the Magic Link or Missing Link were designed to ride high in the travel on level ground or descending. Only climbing. Of course this is setup dependent,like any bike. Run less sag, ride higher.

The wheel should never totally buckle,only respond instantly to the bump encountered, with the necessary travel.

One thing you will be able to see in the next video is how the suspension responds differently from a vertical input, than a horizontal input. I think this will help.

 

[Udi]

Not to take sides but it is interesting how little credit new ideas get, and cold hard conclusions are drawn on sub standard material or concrete facts. I call it speculation. And to tell Tantrum that he should scrap his current design and re do it ground up is quite a big attack on his abillities as a frame designer. He has to my knowledge designed and brought more bikes to trails than the other posters combined.

Unfortunately, correlation doesn't imply causation.
Building frames nor bringing bikes to trails causes an instant understanding of all frame kinematics and their interactions, and these threads have unfolded on RM multiple times. Keep in mind that frame kinematics (bump absorption, acceleration, braking, geometry - both static and dynamic) can be represented and calculated analytically with great ease. This is different from a suspension fork (for example) which has internal friction and spring/damper rate factors which cannot be calculated from static external measurement. The end result is that it's pretty easy (for someone with the right tools and knowledge) to say whether a frame will or won't suck, compared to things like shock absorbers or brakes which have more dynamic variables.

I'll be the first to admit RM probably isn't the most positive breeding ground for less-than-perfect ideas, but it never has been. We have pinkbike and RC for that, personally I'd rather scroll through PB for the pretty pictures and check back here (or any European magazine that takes actual measurements) for the facts.

Believe it or not there are people on here who will actually go and measure frames (in real life) to validate 'Linkage' outputs. Most of the time, anyone throwing around claims about how supposedly 'inaccurate' Linkage is doesn't actually have significant experience with the software.

In my 11 years here I have only seen ONE case of a Linkage graph (published on RM) misrepresenting something substantially - and funnily enough this was the original Sunday frame which DW claimed only had minor digression at EOS (2.55-2.65 variation iirc) compared to the Linkage graph which showed a more aggressive digression.

We measured the frame 4 years ago (my personal frame in fact) and mapped it in Linkage - DW was exactly right (no surprises there). However EVEN in this case the difference was small, and the basic shape of all graphs were still valid.

When you see a Linkage graph created by a reputable source (of which I think Hugh is one, considering he's contributed to the software himself) and the curve behaviour is the *complete opposite* of ideal, it's usually safe to say that the small magnitude change due to measurement inaccuracy isn't going to cause a magical reversal of behaviour. That's the thing most people don't get - which is why warning bells should always go off when you hear someone say Linkage is "garbage in, garbage out".

 

[William42]

Hm, we'll I'm pretty confident that this new bike isn't for me then. I felt pretty comfortable with the suspension being setup as best it could be given the tools, it just felt extremely unstable due to the unpredictable nature of pedaling over bumpy terrain, as well as forcing the bike into a higher and steeper position during mid-grade sections of downhill. The last thing I wanted, was coming into a gnarly section and feeling the bike in a high and high and steep position, or finding it in a high and steep position after a drop midway through a steep rock garden as the suspension topped out. It's difficult for me to name I bike I cared for less than the coilair as far as suspension performance went.

Suspension forcing you into a steeper and higher position with a sharp knuckle that kicks in at seemingly random times due to the nature of rocky trails and where you want to pedal seems less than ideal to me. It also, forgive me for saying so, seems to be pretty much exactly the type of behavior that several of the engineers on this thread are suggesting it should have based on their linkage graphs.

I'm also inclined to agree with Udi - even if the exact numbers are off, I'm pretty willing to bet the real life behavior of this bike mirrors what linkage is currently suggesting.

Anyway, reserving final judgement until I actually get a chance to ride it, but if I might make a suggestion, which is that if you're unwilling to post numbers to a bunch of people who are pretty much exclusively interested in numbers (as you don't actually have a bike available for them to ride yet), you're facing a pretty steep uphill PR battle. And telling everybody that they're wrong, or that they setup their suspension wrong and RC thinks your bikes are awesome isn't exactly a PR coup.

 

[Jm_]

I remember, a long time ago, a bike that made these claims. It was called bionicon. I rode it. It sucked. It got steeper, lower, with less travel, for the climbs. A bionicon with 2" more travel than my AM rig couldn't DH as well because the shock and suspension sucked.

 

[Sandwich]

Why do you want a bike to be topped out while climbing?

 

[kidwoo]

Hey Brian.

Just send a bike to vital.

Why do you want a bike to be topped out while climbing?

Because Giant NRS. Duh.

 

[dump]

In my 11 years here I have only seen ONE case of a Linkage graph (published on RM) misrepresenting something substantially - and funnily enough this was the original Sunday frame which DW claimed only had minor digression at EOS (2.55-2.65 variation iirc) compared to the Linkage graph which showed a more aggressive digression.

We measured the frame 4 years ago (my personal frame in fact) and mapped it in Linkage - DW was exactly right (no surprises there). However EVEN in this case the difference was small, and the basic shape of all graphs were still valid.

You know this was intentional... photos of linkage positions of the Sunday that were published online were intentionally altered to throw off would-be copiers.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

You know this was intentional... photos of linkage positions of the Sunday that were published online were intentionally altered to throw off would-be copiers.

WHAT!!!!! DW DID NOT SHARE EXACT DETAILS AND WENT SO FAR AS TO ALTER PICTURES????

all so forum pundits chase their tails? Hmmmmmmmmm. I guess he's the only one allowed to do that.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

Hey Brian.

Just send a bike to vital.




Because Giant NRS. Duh.

Do monkeys trust Vital? They have done a couple features already. There will be a test ride soon, I hope,.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

Why do you want a bike to be topped out while climbing?

When the rear is at full extension when climbing, you have much steeper climbing geometry. The fork will be more compressed, the seat and headtube angles will be steeper. This is one reason modern enduro bikes have gone to steeper ST angles. It's easier to climb with less effort when your body is further forward, over the pedals and your arms are more on top of the bars instead of wasting effort pulling your weight forward.

The front end stays on the ground and doesn't wander. The Meltdown Race that I raced at Sea Otter has a 64 degree HT angle, but climbs great.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

I remember, a long time ago, a bike that made these claims. It was called bionicon. I rode it. It sucked. It got steeper, lower, with less travel, for the climbs. A bionicon with 2" more travel than my AM rig couldn't DH as well because the shock and suspension sucked.

Isn't bionicon still around? I remember the bike you mentioned. Nothing was automatic. It had lines running all over to the fork and back shock so you could position the bike and change a switch on the handlebars.

I think the biggest problem was, as you put it "the suspension sucked". They had to use their own fork and shock to make all the stuff work, but unfortunately, the fork and shock weren't the best execution.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

Unfortunately, correlation doesn't imply causation.

Didn't you steal that line from The Matrix?

Does that mean, just because the bikes work great deosn't mean I know why?

 

[kidwoo]

Do monkeys trust Vital? They have done a couple features already. There will be a test ride soon, I hope,.

The entire north American bike population that's been in the sport longer than 5 minutes trusts most of the people at vital far more than they trust RC. That's not as much a comment on vital as it is a statement of how much you just need to get the bike in someone else's hands before people pay attention. RC ain't gonna do it. People learned he was useless back when he was in print.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

Building frames nor bringing bikes to trails causes an instant understanding of all frame kinematics and their interactions,

There is no such thing as an "instant understanding". but building and riding bikes to confirm and compare your designs and analysis is invaluable. I'd rather ride a bike built from an experienced rider/tester than I would a number cruncher any day. This thread is a good example why.

Those that can, do. The rest argue about numbers.

 

[Jm_]

Isn't bionicon still around? I remember the bike you mentioned. Nothing was automatic. It had lines running all over to the fork and back shock so you could position the bike and change a switch on the handlebars.

I think the biggest problem was, as you put it "the suspension sucked". They had to use their own fork and shock to make all the stuff work, but unfortunately, the fork and shock weren't the best execution.

That and making it steeper made it feel like you were driving the front wheel into the ground on climbs, like the marzocchi ETA. Was not a good bike.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

The entire north American bike population that's been in the sport longer than 5 minutes trusts most of the people at vital far more than they trust RC. That's not as much a comment on vital as it is a statement of how much you just need to get the bike in someone else's hands before people pay attention. RC ain't gonna do it. People learned he was useless back when he was in print.

Good, I like BT and I like the way they write their tests.

But, believe it or not, RC is pretty well respected, both in and outside the industry. His test and review got the phone ringing from Brands interested in licensing and got orders coming in to the website. Common response from respected industry veterans, "the man knows a thing or two about suspension". Some of these comments were from people that make the bikes and parts that you guys are riding.

And while he is a journalist (meaning he cannot possibly be right all the time), the man knows what he is riding and is still a pretty bad ass rider. At 62 yrs old, I'm betting he could still smoke a good number of riders here.

So, RC is just one point of view. Obviously, you guys are all smarter and better riders, so you need a better point of view. But it does not invalidate his.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

Keep in mind that frame kinematics (bump absorption, acceleration, braking, geometry - both static and dynamic) can be represented and calculated analytically with great ease. This is different from a suspension fork (for example) which has internal friction and spring/damper rate factors which cannot be calculated from static external measurement. The end result is that it's pretty easy (for someone with the right tools and knowledge) to say whether a frame will or won't suck, compared to things like shock absorbers or brakes which have more dynamic variables.

You ARE joking, right???? Last time I checked, my rear suspension had a shock with internal friction and spring/damper rate factors that cannot be calculated from static external measurement. Go figure.

And IF there were a static, external measurement being discussed, that would be different.

BTW, this is the biggest engineers folly, while kinemetics can be calculated with great ease (apparently only if you have a canned program, I don't see anybody calculating anything, just punching bad numbers in and making pretty graphs), calculating kinematics and predicting trail behaviour are two different things, especially if you are using bad input data and leaving out force interactions.

if it IS so easy, I wonder why the "best" bikes in the world are all so different.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

I'll be the first to admit RM probably isn't the most positive breeding ground for less-than-perfect ideas, but it never has been.

This is funny, let's see all those PERFECT ideas, folks.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

Believe it or not there are people on here who will actually go and measure frames (in real life) to validate 'Linkage' outputs. Most of the time, anyone throwing around claims about how supposedly 'inaccurate' Linkage is doesn't actually have significant experience with the software.

Seriously, you guys have to get over your love affair with Linkage. You seem to think it is the only possible tool for evaluating linkages. Do you realize we calculated all this by HAND, before PC's were even around? pages of calculations. Then, DOS and fortran appeared and we could write the equatiuons and have them crunch numbers for us? THEN, we could write our own analysis software for even more results. Some of us have been doing this before linkage was even born.

When I look at Linkage, I see a klunky amateurish interface. That is just an opinion. It looks like a kid's toy program. Of course, I have no idea how the equations were written, but certainly coding has never been in error in the history of mankind. Comparing accuracy for one case (4 bar linkages) does not constitute accuracy for other linkages, especially when using CRAP input numbers.

I don't have significant experience with that software because I have better tools. I played with it to see what the hoopla was and discarded it.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

In my 11 years here I have only seen ONE case of a Linkage graph (published on RM) misrepresenting something substantially - and funnily enough this was the original Sunday frame which DW claimed only had minor digression at EOS (2.55-2.65 variation iirc) compared to the Linkage graph which showed a more aggressive digression.

We measured the frame 4 years ago (my personal frame in fact) and mapped it in Linkage - DW was exactly right (no surprises there). However EVEN in this case the difference was small, and the basic shape of all graphs were still valid.

I'll bet that difference wasn't minor to DW or he wouldn't have bothered.

So, now, we will have the SECOND case in 11 years, with a graph that is 70% wrong.

How??? bad numbers, how else?

 

[Sandwich]

When the rear is at full extension when climbing, you have much steeper climbing geometry. The fork will be more compressed, the seat and headtube angles will be steeper. This is one reason modern enduro bikes have gone to steeper ST angles. It's easier to climb with less effort when your body is further forward, over the pedals and your arms are more on top of the bars instead of wasting effort pulling your weight forward.

The front end stays on the ground and doesn't wander. The Meltdown Race that I raced at Sea Otter has a 64 degree HT angle, but climbs great.

What happens when the suspension is locked out and you drop the wheel into a hole?

I agree with you on the seat tube angle. Placing the rider further forward while pedaling uphill keeps the front end planted, which tends to wander especially with the shorter stems and slacker head angles we play with nowadays.

if it IS so easy, I wonder why the "best" bikes in the world are all so different.

It's very timely that you post this today:

I know, you don't believe in Linkage nor that 75% of the bikes on the market are narrowing in on the same, successful, well liked trend, but I noticed how similar all of the above bikes were in Tony's analysis of the new Niner this morning. Obviously this isn't a cross section of ALL of the "best" bikes on the market, but it's interesting to see so many different companies all settle on almost the exact same leverage curves...

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

When you see a Linkage graph created by a reputable source (of which I think Hugh is one, considering he's contributed to the software himself) and the curve behaviour is the *complete opposite* of ideal,

WOW, you ARE the smartest guy here. You know what IDEAL looks like!!! Would you please tell all the other bike designers too, so we can stop trying to figure out what that is and make all our bikes to your ideal?

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

What happens when the suspension is locked out and you drop the wheel into a hole?

I agree with you on the seat tube angle. Placing the rider further forward while pedaling uphill keeps the front end planted, which tends to wander especially with the shorter stems and slacker head angles we play with nowadays.



It's very timely that you post this today:

I know, you don't believe in Linkage nor that 75% of the bikes on the market are narrowing in on the same, successful, well liked trend, but I noticed how similar all of the above bikes were in Tony's analysis of the new Niner this morning. Obviously this isn't a cross section of ALL of the "best" bikes on the market, but it's interesting to see so many different companies all settle on almost the exact same leverage curves...

Those are the same??? I see a variation 25% difference at the beginning AND at the end of stroke on LR. 3 of them have a falling rate toward the end of stroke, while the other continue to rise.

AS values from 85% to 115% at sag value and from 10% to 90% at EOS

These are some pretty significant variations. Thanks for posting that.

 

[Jm_]

When I look at Linkage, I see a klunky amateurish interface. That is just an opinion. It looks like a kid's toy program. Of course, I have no idea how the equations were written, but certainly coding has never been in error in the history of mankind. Comparing accuracy for one case (4 bar linkages) does not constitute accuracy for other linkages, especially when using CRAP input numbers.

 

[AngryMetalsmith]

@Tantrum Cycles Instead of insinuating that everyone here is stupid and can't possibly grasp your design, why don't you try to convince us why we should buy a full suspension bike that rides like a hardtail ? All the condescending, number brandishing does nothing to sell your product.

All you have done here is insult potential customers, not cultivated them.

You really need to work on your sales approach. Wether your bike does what it claims or not shouldn't be your issue this far into the game. A little marketing savvy and you could sell a fucking ton of these bikes. Why ? Because 29rs, 650b, Boost, Fat Bikes, Mid Fat bikes, etc. A well courted customer base in the bike industry has proven to buy anything.

So shut the fuck up about your engineering, start marketing and get on the bike industry gravy train.

 

[Westy]

Along with my brilliant graphic design I will contribute more free marketing advise.

Rename the bike Cold Fusion.

 

[RoboDonkey713]

You should make a few different models that are covered in faux animal fur. You could have one called the Pony, one called the Cow and one called the Zebra. Or even do a dinosaur skinned one and sell it as a limited edition.

 

[AngryMetalsmith]

@RoboDonkey713 Unicorn would be more appropriate.

 

[jstuhlman]

what about a robo-donkey?!?!

 

[RoboDonkey713]

@RoboDonkey713 Unicorn would be more appropriate.

Why didn't I think of that.

 

[Sandwich]

RM doesn't disappoint.

Robo donkey covered in unicorn skin coming right up, 18" chainstays, fat tires, and falling rate suspension, delivered in two weeks with rootbeer paint.

 

[WestCoastHucker]

is this already taken?