[jchamber]

http://mtb.live555.com/rides/SoquelDemo.html

Honestly, the Product Manager just made it up. After weeks of meetings involving dozens of people, we had nothing worthwhile name wise. And when the deadline hit, Brandon simply just pronounced "Demo is it".

It was not named after Demo forest, though that is a common thought. We don't really ride Demos there. It's more of an Enduro area.

Jason C

 

[Dogboy]

Honestly, the Product Manager just made it up. After weeks of meetings involving dozens of people, we had nothing worthwhile name wise. And when the deadline hit, Brandon simply just pronounced "Demo is it".

It was not named after Demo forest, though that is a common thought. We don't really ride Demos there. It's more of an Enduro area.

Jason C

Urban myth I guess.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[iRider]

Honestly, the Product Manager just made it up. After weeks of meetings involving dozens of people, we had nothing worthwhile name wise. And when the deadline hit, Brandon simply just pronounced "Demo is it".

It was not named after Demo forest, though that is a common thought. We don't really ride Demos there. It's more of an Enduro area.

Jason C

Don't tell me that a company that is so protective of their names (Stumpjumper-Stumptown, M5.....) can't come up with a name in a more professional way. And you must have run it by trademark people to see if no other company already uses it.

 

[JCL]

The weight for a Medium Anodized frame is less than 9 lbs w/o the shock, and it’s the stiffest frame we’ve ever measured.

I don't doubt for one minute that it's the stiffest frame you measured, but could you remove a pound or so from the frame and maintain that stiffness ? More than a few frames are coming in below 8 lbs without a shock these days.

I'm waiting for an 8" travel, non-sub seatstay, 1.5 HT, 12x150mm frame.

Something like a Pitch toptube/downtube with super low standover and an old style SX rear suspension design with the Hill adjusted geo.

 

[zzsean]

Don't tell me that a company that is so protective of their names (Stumpjumper-Stumptown, M5.....) can't come up with a name in a more professional way. And you must have run it by trademark people to see if no other company already uses it.

That doesn't follow at all. lthumbsdown:

Think about it, if you have a hard time coming up with good product names, when you finally do you would protect them more than someone who can do it at will.

Although I expect name protection has little to do with how easy or hard it is to come up with product names....

 

[buckoW]

Jason, will you guys keep the short chainstays?

 

[klamsi]

Something like a Pitch toptube/downtube with super low standover and an old style SX rear suspension design with the Hill adjusted geo.

Yeah, always thought a Pitch has the ability to be a good DH-Bike with the right modifications.

1,5" headtube, low and wide (83mm) BB, 12x150mm, 8" travel and a shock assembled into the frame (like giant glory, lapierre DH 920 but not as ugly as they set it).
But of course I´ve no idea

simply dreams...

 

[numerik]

Why everybody wants 12x150, when 10x135 is stiff enough? Not too mention it's lighter as well combined with 73mm BB...No sign of flex on Demo 8 at all...

 

[klamsi]

Why everybody wants 12x150, when 10x135 is stiff enough? Not too mention it's lighter as well combined with 73mm BB...No sign of flex on Demo 8 at all...

I think 10x135 will be ok. But I don´t like the 68mm or 73mm BB on a Downhillbike. But thats just what I like!

 

[istratetm]

longer chainstays(430-440mm) and the demo will be perfect

 

[djivotno]

longer chainstays(430-440mm) and the demo will be perfect

Why?!
Shorter is way more fun And the WB is as long or longer than same size on other bikes so stability is not that much of an issue (Yeah i'm running a short CS bike too)

 

[- seb]

What benefit do longer chainstays give? My DHi was pretty short (it had a bit you could flip over to extend it by an inch, I NEVER tried it, in 4 years of ownership, eek!) I really liked it (because I was used to it I suppose) - so much so that it was one of my main priorities in looking for a new bike, so many bikes seem to have crazy long back ends

I've no idea of measurements, but I compare chainring to rear tyre when I see a bike, on my DHi it was almost overlapping, almost every other bike out there has at least an inch gap there (about 1" on my Wilson).

I can see the benefits of short, and understand them. I know that long is more "stable", but I don't really understand what people mean by that, my bike seems perfectly stable as it was?

 

[BigHitComp04]

Dont forget, short chain stays = good jumping and sick manuals.

 

[jchamber]

That doesn't follow at all. lthumbsdown:

Think about it, if you have a hard time coming up with good product names, when you finally do you would protect them more than someone who can do it at will.

Although I expect name protection has little to do with how easy or hard it is to come up with product names....

The only way to come up with a name is for someone to make one up. The only thing harder than naming a new bike/car/ipod is trying to agree on a name for a band.

JC

 

[jchamber]

Jason, will you guys keep the short chainstays?

Yes, we will be keeping the stock CS length. The Demo has always had short chainstays - 16.5 in or 420 mm.

Sam's first prototype had 2 rear ends - 420 and 432. In the end, he preferred the short stays (and so do we) so that is what he's running.

Short stays are better suited for modern riding technique where bikes are "steered from the back" and essentially manualled through the rough. It also steers quickerer and sharper and responds to bumps faster.

Jason C

 

[jchamber]

Why everybody wants 12x150, when 10x135 is stiff enough? Not too mention it's lighter as well combined with 73mm BB...No sign of flex on Demo 8 at all...

We've discovered in our test lab (and in the field) that a 10x135 provides the same frame stiffness as a 12x150.

We use a 135 offset assymetrical design which gives you the chain line benefits of a 150, but the lighter weight and increased hub compatibility of 135.

The only real argument for 150 is a stronger and possibly stiffer rear wheel, which has not proven neccessary for most people with the robust rims & spokes available today.

Jason C

 

[MDJ]

Yes, we will be keeping the stock CS length. The Demo has always had short chainstays - 16.5 in or 420 mm.

Short stays are better suited for modern riding technique where bikes are "steered from the back" and essentially manualled through the rough. It also steers quickerer and sharper and responds to bumps faster.

Jason C

Yes! Right answer - it suits my riding style. Thank you.

 

[jchamber]

Yeah, always thought a Pitch has the ability to be a good DH-Bike with the right modifications.

1,5" headtube, low and wide (83mm) BB, 12x150mm, 8" travel and a shock assembled into the frame (like giant glory, lapierre DH 920 but not as ugly as they set it).
But of course I´ve no idea

simply dreams...

The Pitch was NOT designed for DH or Freeride in any way. It is a price point version of the Enduro SL, which is an all mountain bike. It does not meet the same strength requirements as the Demo/SX Trail platforms.

Please try to understand the intended use of the different bikes available and select according to how you ride.

Jason C

 

[jonKranked]

Why everybody wants 12x150, when 10x135 is stiff enough? Not too mention it's lighter as well combined with 73mm BB...No sign of flex on Demo 8 at all...

We've discovered in our test lab (and in the field) that a 10x135 provides the same frame stiffness as a 12x150.

We use a 135 offset assymetrical design which gives you the chain line benefits of a 150, but the lighter weight and increased hub compatibility of 135.

The only real argument for 150 is a stronger and possibly stiffer rear wheel, which has not proven neccessary for most people with the robust rims & spokes available today.

Jason C

Yup. One other advantage of a 150mm hub/wheel is that they are intended to be dishless, so you would have the same length spokes for drive and non-drive side. Which is nice if you're like me, and keep spare spokes in your toolkit for races.

 

[jchamber]

More than a few frames are coming in below 8 lbs without a shock these days.

What bikes are you guys finding that weigh under 8 lbs, medium size w/o shock?

Building a light bike is not hard - you just keep removing material.

Building one that is strong is tougher. Fortunately for engineers at Specialized we have the best test lab in the world. Some of you have perhaps seen it. We generally do not try to have the lightest bikes in the world, but they are definitely on the lighter end of the spectrum, are strong and perform great. A balance is often better.

Jason C

 

[buckoW]

Yes, we will be keeping the stock CS length. The Demo has always had short chainstays - 16.5 in or 420 mm.

Sam's first prototype had 2 rear ends - 420 and 432. In the end, he preferred the short stays (and so do we) so that is what he's running.

Short stays are better suited for modern riding technique where bikes are "steered from the back" and essentially manualled through the rough. It also steers quickerer and sharper and responds to bumps faster.

Jason C

Cool, thanks for the quick reply. I agree completely and was wondering if Sam would be asking you guys to lengthen the CS to 440mm like he was riding before. Interesting to know that he is one of the fastest guys riding the shortest chainstays.

 

[davep]

We've discovered in our test lab (and in the field) that a 10x135 provides the same frame stiffness as a 12x150.

We use a 135 offset assymetrical design which gives you the chain line benefits of a 150, but the lighter weight and increased hub compatibility of 135.

The only real argument for 150 is a stronger and possibly stiffer rear wheel, which has not proven neccessary for most people with the robust rims & spokes available today.

Jason C

It would take you less than 5 minutes of searching here and MTBR to realize what a cluster your current bb width/rear end is and what a disaster it is for your customers. I would bet that a full 50% or more of your customers have no idea how to find a correct crank set-up for the Demo frame.

When the Demo 9 camo out, there was some validity to your arguement. ISIS cranks were the norm, and 150mm was not quite fully accepted as the 'other' hub width. The choices in 135 far outweighed the choices in 150. Now, both of these factors are gone. You guys are stuck using tech from 5+ years ago with the current set-up. There is not a single external crank out of the box that fits the Demo correctly, 150 hubs are as common as 135, and they can be found at every price point.

At the very least, give the bike a proper 83mm bb so people are not stuck cobbleing together cranks with mis-matched chainlines and limmited guide compatibility or stuck using heavy and outdated Truvativ parts.

 

[- seb]

What bikes are you guys finding that weigh under 8 lbs, medium size w/o shock?

Building a light bike is not hard - you just keep removing material.

Building one that is strong is tougher. Fortunately for engineers at Specialized we have the best test lab in the world. Some of you have perhaps seen it. We generally do not try to have the lightest bikes in the world, but they are definitely on the lighter end of the spectrum, are strong and perform great. A balance is often better.

Jason C

Certainly Socoms and Session 88s are close to 7lb without shock (3200g or thereabouts - for LARGES!). Not saying I'd want to own one though. Mind you, out of the 3 (light, strong, pretty) at least they both score on 2 points; the demo only scores on 1 as far as I can tell!

An Izumu is a shade under 8lb, and even an M6 is only just over 8.

http://www.sicklines.com/weights/fullsuspensionframes/


Anyway, very cool to have another industry figure on the forum, so nice to hear fact instead of weak rumour!

 

[jchamber]

I wonder how many monkeys know that Hill has previously won an Australia Red Bull Freeriding event back here in Oz?

He beat Gracia, Shaums March and a bunch of pro "free-riders" (oxymoron or what) at the Jindabyne Red Bull Challenge.

Great memory toodles!

I have that vid in my library and went back and watched it last night.
Jindabyne 2003 - the second and last of that event.

Sam won with an excellent turn on the skinny, nailed the "Sledsaw" and pulled a huge low and fast-no footer.

Jason C

 

[ohio]

Yup. One other advantage of a 150mm hub/wheel is that they are intended to be dishless

So is a 135mm offset hub.

 

[ohio]

At the very least, give the bike a proper 83mm bb so people are not stuck cobbleing together cranks with mis-matched chainlines and limmited guide compatibility or stuck using heavy and outdated Truvativ parts.

That is the only part of your post I agree with.

 

[Inclag]

It would take you less than 5 minutes of searching here and MTBR to realize what a cluster your current bb width/rear end is and what a disaster it is for your customers. I would bet that a full 50% or more of your customers have no idea how to find a correct crank set-up for the Demo frame.

When the Demo 9 camo out, there was some validity to your arguement. ISIS cranks were the norm, and 150mm was not quite fully accepted as the 'other' hub width. The choices in 135 far outweighed the choices in 150. Now, both of these factors are gone. You guys are stuck using tech from 5+ years ago with the current set-up. There is not a single external crank out of the box that fits the Demo correctly, 150 hubs are as common as 135, and they can be found at every price point.

At the very least, give the bike a proper 83mm bb so people are not stuck cobbleing together cranks with mis-matched chainlines and limmited guide compatibility or stuck using heavy and outdated Truvativ parts.

I agree somewhat with your sentiment. I think either a proper 83mm shell should be in order or at the very least, the frame should include a qty3, 5mm spacers for those who want to run 83mm cranks aside from the oddball 73mm (56mm chainline) Truvativ's. Personally, I see no real benefit of running a 150mm spaced rear hub. As the Specialized engineer points out there is not any tangible advantage to a 150mm hub. In theory, the 150 will be stronger, but reality is that you are going to encounter other failure modes of the wheel before encountering a wheel failure due to spoke flange spacing. In anycase, the wheel is dishless since it is an asymmetrical rear triangle.

I did like how Specialized used to paint/laser etch the geometry and setup information on some of their frames. I do think it would help if there were some notes laser etched onto or around the BB area. Something to the effect of;

" <-- (2) 5mm Spacers -- 83mm Cranks -- (1) 5mm Spacer --> "
" <-- No Spacers -- 56mm Chainline Truvativ Cranks -- No Spacers -->"
" <-- Chainring mount on outboard tabs -- 73mm Non-Truvativ Cranks"

I think that Specialized's justifications for optimizing the rear hub width/BB shell are valid and hold merit. However, with the development of lighter and more robust cranksets that use standards that are different from Truvativ's wacky system, there are alot of hamfisted people that are throwing on cranks with chainlines that are all out of sorts. I like that you can functionally use both 73mm and 83mm cranksets with the frame as it is, but as your pointing out, it needs to be clearer since most consumers don't understand proper chainline alignment to begin with and the Specialized setup amplifies this problem.

 

[Supa8]

A light frame weight is a bit useless with out durability factored in. I have owned an M3 and a Sunday over the last few years. Both were tin cans as far as durability is concerned.

With very little effort my Demo 7 weighs 38Lbs with real DH parts and 2.5 dual ply tires. I am sure with a Ti spring and lighter tires I could shave another pound or more.

If you want the lightest frame by all means go that way. I wanted a frame that will last more than a few seasons at a reasonable weight and has an exceptional warranty policy.

 

[jchamber]

At the very least, give the bike a proper 83mm bb so people are not stuck cobbleing together cranks with mis-matched chainlines and limmited guide compatibility or stuck using heavy and outdated Truvativ parts.

Since this has turned into a BB question, can you tell me what cranks you would LIKE to run but can't? I agree that 83 is now very common and pretty standard.

Internally, we run XT, XTR, 73 Saint, Stylos and Holzfellers. Race Face works too.

Jason C

 

[Dogboy]

Since this has turned into a BB question, can you tell me what cranks you would LIKE to run but can't? Jason C

It's not that you can't run them, it's that you can't achieve a proper chainline. You spec the Demo with a 56mm chainline Truvativ Howitzer BB so you obviously know this.

 

[davep]

Since this has turned into a BB question, can you tell me what cranks you would LIKE to run but can't? I agree that 83 is now very common and pretty standard.

Internally, we run XT, XTR, 73 Saint, Stylos and Holzfellers. Race Face works too.

Jason C

Well, I guess you/I need to define terms like 'fit' and 'run' a little more formally to properly discuss this. For me, (If I owned a Demo) I would like to be able to simply buy a crankset based on the bb required, install it, and have the correct chainline. XTs, XTR,s any 73mm bb external, and Stylos will not provide anything near the correct chainline...unless you move the ring to the outter mount and forgo the ability to run a bash.

If you purchase a crank based on the rear chainline (that a large percentage of your customers do not understand nor does Specialized explain this well) or because you want to be able to run a bash, you end up with a bb set-up that will not fit without the purchase of unknown Race Face 83 - 73 adapter kit. Then you end up with having to cantilever your guide way out from the frame mounts..something else that many do not understand.

Like I said, do a simple search, and you will find page after page of mis-information about what is 'correct' and what is not. I have personally (as well as a few others here) walked people through the possibilities and trade-offs of the different possible crank mounting options time after time.

The team America bikes are a perfect example of 100% incorrect crank set-up http://declineteamamerica.com/home/bikes/bikes.html . This is a 50mm chainline crank set-up on a 56 (ish) mm frame. Pictures like this (and the unofficial endorsement from Specialized for this kind of set-up) serve to further confuse your customers.

BTW, I dont really care about the hub, I was simply stating that 150s are no longer difficult to find nor limiting in any way...Just the combo that is used in the Demo and the lack of proper info the public has, leads to lots of confusion and poor set-ups.

 

[iRider]

We've discovered in our test lab (and in the field) that a 10x135 provides the same frame stiffness as a 12x150.

We use a 135 offset assymetrical design which gives you the chain line benefits of a 150, but the lighter weight and increased hub compatibility of 135.

The only real argument for 150 is a stronger and possibly stiffer rear wheel, which has not proven neccessary for most people with the robust rims & spokes available today.

Jason C

This is the way to go IMO!

And most hub manufacturers have the same distance between the flanges for 135 and 150 mm hubs anyways, so the only thing that makes a stiffer wheel is getting rid off the different spoke angles on drive and non-drive side.
One of the few companies that don't go the 83 mm BB route.

 

[Inclag]

Well, I guess you/I need to define terms like 'fit' and 'run' a little more formally to properly discuss this. For me, (If I owned a Demo) I would like to be able to simply buy a crankset based on the bb required, install it, and have the correct chainline. XTs, XTR,s any 73mm bb external, and Stylos will not provide anything near the correct chainline...unless you move the ring to the outter mount and forgo the ability to run a bash.

If you purchase a crank based on the rear chainline (that a large percentage of your customers do not understand nor does Specialized explain this well) or because you want to be able to run a bash, you end up with a bb set-up that will not fit without the purchase of unknown Race Face 83 - 73 adapter kit. Then you end up with having to cantilever your guide way out from the frame mounts..something else that many do not understand.

Like I said, do a simple search, and you will find page after page of mis-information about what is 'correct' and what is not. I have personally (as well as a few others here) walked people through the possibilities and trade-offs of the different possible crank mounting options time after time.

The team America bikes are a perfect example of 100% incorrect crank set-up http://declineteamamerica.com/home/bikes/bikes.html . This is a 50mm chainline crank set-up on a 56 (ish) mm frame. Pictures like this (and the unofficial endorsement from Specialized for this kind of set-up) serve to further confuse your customers.

BTW, I dont really care about the hub, I was simply stating that 150s are no longer difficult to find nor limiting in any way...Just the combo that is used in the Demo and the lack of proper info the public has, leads to lots of confusion and poor set-ups.

In SAT terms.


davep is to chainlines as Jm_ was to pre-2005 Rock Shox.

 

[davep]

Hmmm, I understand chainlines

JM hates older RS products

I dont see the connection

 

[jchamber]

Well, I guess you/I need to define terms like 'fit' and 'run' a little more formally to properly discuss this. For me, (If I owned a Demo) I would like to be able to simply buy a crankset based on the bb required, install it, and have the correct chainline. XTs, XTR,s any 73mm bb external, and Stylos will not provide anything near the correct chainline...unless you move the ring to the outter mount and forgo the ability to run a bash.

If you purchase a crank based on the rear chainline (that a large percentage of your customers do not understand nor does Specialized explain this well) or because you want to be able to run a bash, you end up with a bb set-up that will not fit without the purchase of unknown Race Face 83 - 73 adapter kit. Then you end up with having to cantilever your guide way out from the frame mounts..something else that many do not understand.

Like I said, do a simple search, and you will find page after page of mis-information about what is 'correct' and what is not. I have personally (as well as a few others here) walked people through the possibilities and trade-offs of the different possible crank mounting options time after time.

The team America bikes are a perfect example of 100% incorrect crank set-up http://declineteamamerica.com/home/bikes/bikes.html . This is a 50mm chainline crank set-up on a 56 (ish) mm frame. Pictures like this (and the unofficial endorsement from Specialized for this kind of set-up) serve to further confuse your customers.

BTW, I dont really care about the hub, I was simply stating that 150s are no longer difficult to find nor limiting in any way...Just the combo that is used in the Demo and the lack of proper info the public has, leads to lots of confusion and poor set-ups.

Dave p,

You are obviously very versed in crank compatibility. I assume you work at at shop? For sure, Specialized has not made it easy for customers or shops to build up frames. DH assemblies are often challenging. We rely heavily on experts at the retail level to be able to help our customers. Sounds like you are doing a great job - thanks!

We spec the Truvativ 56 chainline because that is what is "proper", as you wisely point out. However, we have never found a drawback to running a 50 chainline with a single front ring. In fact, with the increased angle on the chain we find that the shifting is cripser in the rear and the front actually lines up better, so long as your crankarms clear the stays. We all run 50, "proper" or not.

Nevertheless, 83 has become common enough that there are good reasons to consider it in the future.

Jason C

 

[ciszewski]

So wait; I CAN run a 50mm chainline? I knew if I did, it wouldn't explode, but the increased angle would put forces on the chain and wear the drivetrain faster.

Oh and I agree with just about everything davep is saying. This 'weird' chainline has had me very puzzled on what cranks I should purchase, not that I don't understand it. But really, I think there is no real advantage to the 78mm shell, other than you can 'run' lighter cranks and have more to choose from. If you spec a chainline appropriate with 83mm, why not run 83mm shell.

edit; And what exactly does 'line up better' mean? Line up with the top 3 cogs, bottom 3 (definately not this one) or middle 3?

 

[CBJ]

Jason C when the the Demo was designed was it all function over form? As fan of both design and bikes I like when they can be combined but I am not sure if I think the Demo is the best example.

 

[Supa8]

So wait; I CAN run a 50mm chainline? I knew if I did, it wouldn't explode, but the increased angle would put forces on the chain and wear the drivetrain faster.

Oh and I agree with just about everything davep is saying. This 'weird' chainline has had me very puzzled on what cranks I should purchase, not that I don't understand it. But really, I think there is no real advantage to the 78mm shell, other than you can 'run' lighter cranks and have more to choose from. If you spec a chainline appropriate with 83mm, why not run 83mm shell.

edit; And what exactly does 'line up better' mean? Line up with the top 3 cogs, bottom 3 (definately not this one) or middle 3?

Pretty sure if you use a chain guide like an LG1 you can mount the chain ring to the outer tabs on any 50 mm chainline crankset to achieve near a 55mm chainline. Davep covered this many times recently.

Spacing of a chain guide is not rocket science for an 83mm adapted crankset. By using the included with a chain guide ISCG/ISCG 05 adapters flipped outwards it makes up any spacers needed. You can thread the adapter into the tabs or use it on the BB shell. On a Demo spaced at 55mm and using the ISCG adapter flipped outward you do not need any spacers to space an LG1 correctly. I use this setup now with an LG1 and prefer to run the adapter just as a BB ISCG mount instead of on the tabs.

The Race Face spacer kit for 83mm down to 73mm BB shell is now readily available and is rather simple to obtain. If you want to run Saint, or Raceface 83mm cranks it makes it a no brainer.

True an 83 BB shell would be preferred but it does appear to be in consideration for the future. Light weight durable 83mm cranksets are fairly new to the market so its just now people are starting to ask for something else other than Truvativ spec'd cranks on their Demo's.

 

[klamsi]

The Pitch was NOT designed for DH or Freeride in any way. It is a price point version of the Enduro SL, which is an all mountain bike. It does not meet the same strength requirements as the Demo/SX Trail platforms.

Please try to understand the intended use of the different bikes available and select according to how you ride.

Jason C

I never said that the Pitch is a Downhill- or Freeridebike!

I just think that the Pitch/Enduro... design looks way better than the Demo, and that with some changes (like strength and geo) on the frame it could be a nice Downhillbike.

 

[jchamber]

Jason C when the the Demo was designed was it all function over form? As fan of both design and bikes I like when they can be combined but I am not sure if I think the Demo is the best example.

You raise a good question. The short answer is yes. One must make a choice, and at every turn we have chosen ugly function over pretty dysfunction.

Actually, I would recommend that you simply ride it until the parts you don't like are covered in mud.