[kidwoo]

Less sidewall = less round

You'd have to maintain at least a semi-circle but then you'd lose a lot of the deformation that makes tires work to begin with.

your truck turning like shlt has nothing to do with a bike NEEDING to be leaned over to turn. The current shape of tires is an advantage, not a detriment.

 

[dan-o]

Tufo tires has been making a 'tubular clincher' tire that basically does what you want.
Works on standard clincher rims (so a tire could be made for any rim width/application) in theory.

http://www.tufonorthamerica.com/tiretypes.php

 

[4130biker]

I think demo9 is saying, attempt the same effective tire profile/ contact patch, but getting rid of the useless, rolly, and damage- prone sidewall. It'd take a larger rim dia to maintain the same tire outer diameter. I think it's a cool concept. Maybe more along the line of a racing road motorcycle. Those lean like a motherfvcker and It seems like those tires work.

 

[4130biker]

Reading woos response again, tire deformation is a good point, but I think profile could be designed to replicate what we already have..

 

[kidwoo]

Keep in mind that all that volume not only allows deformation but also provides quite a bit of cushion for the pushin.

 

[4130biker]

And I suppose you could experiment with lower pressure and tube foam "tubes" to replicate the deformation needed.

 

[4130biker]

Keep in mind that all that volume not only allows deformation but also provides quite a bit of cushion for the pushin.

Good point, the rims would take quite a beating, too.

 

[demo 9]

I just see the sidewall as a pretty "weak" part of the bike, how many pinch flats do you see every weekend, and tubeless only half solves the problem. I think there could be a low-pro sort of design, maybe taking a 650B rim, making it VERY strong (so you didnt need deformation) and using a "foam" tube that comes in different "PSI's" Less roll in the corners, about the same weight? and potentially stronger? Just thinking aloud, i have no idea how to do this, but i always felt that one of the things i hated was how much tires roll, especially since i run tubeless.


Edit, what if tires were triangular, so when you went into corners, you had a 1.25 contact patch (on a 2.5) It could roll faster since only the center (or 2 side) knobs would be touching, and you would have more traction in the corners where you need it most. off camber wouldnt be as bad either?

Double edit! If the tire was triangular, you would have a low profile sidewall and get rid of "some" pinch flats, potentially?

 

[OGRipper]

Deformation is good, that's one reason low pressure is so nice. The trick is to figure out a tubeless set up that allows low pressure and deformation without burping or other seal failures. That's why I like the idea of a locking bead.

You can already get solid/foam tires. Not sure about tubes.

 

[kidwoo]

I just see the sidewall as a pretty "weak" part of the bike, how many pinch flats do you see every weekend, and tubeless only half solves the problem. I think there could be a low-pro sort of design, maybe taking a 650B rim, making it VERY strong (so you didnt need deformation) and using a "foam" tube that comes in different "PSI's" Less roll in the corners, about the same weight? and potentially stronger? Just thinking aloud, i have no idea how to do this, but i always felt that one of the things i hated was how much tires roll, especially since i run tubeless.


Edit, what if tires were triangular, so when you went into corners, you had a 1.25 contact patch (on a 2.5) It could roll faster since only the center (or 2 side) knobs would be touching, and you would have more traction in the corners where you need it most. off camber wouldnt be as bad either?

Double edit! If the tire was triangular, you would have a low profile sidewall and get rid of "some" pinch flats, potentially?

Tire deformation is what makes them work.

I also haven't had a flat on my dh bike in about 4 years. I've got a good non tubeless setup, but it should be lighter.

 

[dw]

I'd like to see more honesty when it comes to explaining the technical benefits of their design(s).
I'm sure most engineers behind these designs do have a good understanding of the benefits and flaws in each design. Unfortunately, by the time this info gets onto the website (via the marketing department), it usually ends up reading like a bunch of bogus claims.

I feel for the less informed consumers (probably around 90% of bike consumers), who rely on this marketing material to make a purchase, especially if they are basing their decision on technical benefits.

I'd love to see less marketing hype and more truth too, I've been talking about chassis physics for a little more than 10 years with anyone who will listen. The old timers on this board I'm sure will remember me doling out a long line of technical reality over the years.

The problem is that almost nobody is listening... The vast majority of riders just don't care, and the VAST amount of riders don't visit ridemonkey.com or participate in any internet forum at all. They go to the biggest shop around, buy their Specialized (nothing wrong with that in my book BTW) and get on the trail.

Let's face it, not everybody is an engineer, and many companies are more than happy to try to spin some kind of marketing yarn to lure people in. Plus there's the very sad proven fact that glitzy marketing sells more bikes (or iPhones) than a truly better product. It's a frustrating reality at times to realize that the market success of one product over another is clearly tied to marketing dollars spent, especially for me considering that the historical marketing budget for dw-link, Split-Pivot, and Delta combined for 10 years has been exactly $0.00. Compare that with near millions per year for some other brands.

I'd love to see more reality based technical discussion, but sadly it seems that this is one of our only forums for that type of discussion. It's too bad really, I very much enjoy it.

To your point, and not to have this come off the wrong way but I'm sure someone out there will get their panties in a bunch over it, but I seriously doubt (based on purely technical merits) that some of the "engineers?" behind some of the designs being promoted today really have a full or even partial grasp on what they are designing and selling. That doesn't mean that they are bad products, you can do some great work with empirical testing and there are some really great examples of that in all kinds of industries. I read WAY more BS than fact out there.

The main solace that I have in it all is that no amount of talking or marketing can affect actual ride quality, and for the riders that "get it", hearing how product's I've developed have added to their riding experience in a positive way makes it all worth the effort.



Industry wide, I'd like to see better setup instructions for bikes, simpler bike setup, and most of all more industry encouragement of rider participation in trail maintenance and advocacy. Why should our trail use and maintenance be dictated by hikers & horseback. Get involved and let your voice be heard. Get your friends and family on a mountain bike and let them share in the fun of riding too.

That sums up my one post/ 6 months!

Dave

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

I'd love to see less marketing hype and more truth too, I've been talking about chassis physics for a little more than 10 years with anyone who will listen. The old timers on this board I'm sure will remember me doling out a long line of technical reality over the years.

The problem is that almost nobody is listening... The vast majority of riders just don't care, and the VAST amount of riders don't visit ridemonkey.com or participate in any internet forum at all. They go to the biggest shop around, buy their Specialized (nothing wrong with that in my book BTW) and get on the trail.

Let's face it, not everybody is an engineer, and many companies are more than happy to try to spin some kind of marketing yarn to lure people in. Plus there's the very sad proven fact that glitzy marketing sells more bikes (or iPhones) than a truly better product. It's a frustrating reality at times to realize that the market success of one product over another is clearly tied to marketing dollars spent,
...
Dave

quoted for axiom.

 

[dump]

Nicely put dw.

 

[djjohnr]

Plus there's the very sad proven fact that glitzy marketing sells more bikes (or iPhones) than a truly better product. It's a frustrating reality at times to realize that the market success of one product over another is clearly tied to marketing dollars spent, especially for me considering that the historical marketing budget for dw-link, Split-Pivot, and Delta combined for 10 years has been exactly $0.00. Compare that with near millions per year for some other brands.

Of course you need to spend money on marketing...that's a basic necessity of any business. But remember, marketing includes a) figuring our what to build (feature set) b) where to sell it/how to get it there c) how much to sell it for d) how to communicate your product to the people you want to sell it to. True, most people in the bike industry just skip to D, but that's just another example of how ass backwards the bike industry is. But back on topic - how do you ever expect to sell more bikes without investing in telling people about them?

 

[bullcrew]

Id like to see dw come and help me tune my pivot phoenix....(just to say he did lol)

 

[Vrock]

I'd love to see less marketing hype and more truth too, I've been talking about chassis physics for a little more than 10 years with anyone who will listen. The old timers on this board I'm sure will remember me doling out a long line of technical reality over the years.

The problem is that almost nobody is listening... The vast majority of riders just don't care, and the VAST amount of riders don't visit ridemonkey.com or participate in any internet forum at all. They go to the biggest shop around, buy their Specialized (nothing wrong with that in my book BTW) and get on the trail.

Let's face it, not everybody is an engineer, and many companies are more than happy to try to spin some kind of marketing yarn to lure people in. Plus there's the very sad proven fact that glitzy marketing sells more bikes (or iPhones) than a truly better product. It's a frustrating reality at times to realize that the market success of one product over another is clearly tied to marketing dollars spent, especially for me considering that the historical marketing budget for dw-link, Split-Pivot, and Delta combined for 10 years has been exactly $0.00. Compare that with near millions per year for some other brands.

I'd love to see more reality based technical discussion, but sadly it seems that this is one of our only forums for that type of discussion. It's too bad really, I very much enjoy it.

To your point, and not to have this come off the wrong way but I'm sure someone out there will get their panties in a bunch over it, but I seriously doubt (based on purely technical merits) that some of the "engineers?" behind some of the designs being promoted today really have a full or even partial grasp on what they are designing and selling. That doesn't mean that they are bad products, you can do some great work with empirical testing and there are some really great examples of that in all kinds of industries. I read WAY more BS than fact out there.

The main solace that I have in it all is that no amount of talking or marketing can affect actual ride quality, and for the riders that "get it", hearing how product's I've developed have added to their riding experience in a positive way makes it all worth the effort.



Industry wide, I'd like to see better setup instructions for bikes, simpler bike setup, and most of all more industry encouragement of rider participation in trail maintenance and advocacy. Why should our trail use and maintenance be dictated by hikers & horseback. Get involved and let your voice be heard. Get your friends and family on a mountain bike and let them share in the fun of riding too.

That sums up my one post/ 6 months!

Dave

Well, I don't think that you have talked about suspension as much as you think, and in the last years you are pretty much gone, you only show up when there is a new bike. And there are a few good threads from time to time, so there is really no excuse.

Tony.

 

[Tomasz]

With some simple calculations, I can get a halfway decent approximation of sagged in BB height. But I am too lazy to bust out the geometry/trigonometry required to determine sagged inn HA.

I would like both figures made available on the regular.

Other than that, complete bike weight figures. Never including pedals, for the sake of standardization.

 

[Scrub]

Here's your new tires
302 Found

 

[gemini2k]

I'd love to see less marketing hype and more truth too, I've been talking about chassis physics for a little more than 10 years with anyone who will listen. The old timers on this board I'm sure will remember me doling out a long line of technical reality over the years.

Well put. What I'd like to see is more complete product manuals. With the several hundred page manual on my yz450f it comes with an exploded diagram of every part of the bike. Every bolt size, every bolt torque spec, every part number, step by step of how to change engine oil, fork maintenance, tools required. Nearly all the hardware is standard stuff so I can go to my local fastener store to get replacement stuff. Why can't MTB's do that? They are far less complicated and far less parts to even do that for. The e13 stuff comes pretty close, but missing that little extra bit.

 

[Sandwich]

every bike co should have a schematic like the one in the sunday thread, with a listing of what bolts are what! Made it super easy to rebuild

 

[dump]

every bike co should have a schematic like the one in the sunday thread, with a listing of what bolts are what! Made it super easy to rebuild

Knowing what bolts are what, even a list would be a start!

 

[rav400]

every bike co should have a schematic like the one in the sunday thread, with a listing of what bolts are what! Made it super easy to rebuild

Drawings with an exploded view, dimensions, tolerances, wall thickness and a bill of materials with every frame would be amazing!

 

[Sandwich]

I don't think you need to go into that much detail. No rider really needs to know wall thickness and dimensions of his top tube. Having a parts list, with part numbers for links and axles re-orderable from the mfg and off-the shelf bolts with specs listed would be great.

 

[TWeerts]

More technical details from more frame manufacturers would be much appreciated. I like the idea of the exploded diagrams of the frames, specialized has this (at least available to dealers). As mentioned above, a parts list for axles and machined parts specific to the frame as well as mfg part numbers made very accessible to the customer would be very useful. This would empower the customer to know exactly what they need when they go into a dealer.

edit: fsr schematics including exploded views are available to dealers, but if any customer came into my shop, i would happily print it for them. specialized actually does a great job of distributing documentation, its just not easily accessible electronically. This file has been shipping in print form with new fsr bikes, but I had to dig around a bit to find this electronically:

http://service.specialized.com/collateral/ownersguide/new/assets/pdf/OM0393_revB.pdf

I also like the videos dw did on the split pivot devinci frames. I really enjoyed hearing about the thechincal aspects of the suspension designs and the frames. While these videos dont have deep technical info, they are a very good explanation of the engineering that went into it without bogging down joe customer and loosing them in technical details.

fox also has a VERY thorough service website. part of what makes all this technical information spread across many different places (web, distributed with frames, at dealers, etc) is due to the component and build-your-own-bike community we have. each sector does a relatively good job of providing tech info, but its not all in one place. ie, you buy a specialized with a fox fork, and you get info on the frame and maybe a suggested fork pressure, but no info on how to rebuild the fork like you would in the moto world.

so dw - keep it up

come on industry - we have made a nice list of customer requirements for you, and i know some industry peeps lurk here. ridemonkey is doing your research for you!

 

[gemini2k]

Oh and ALL hardware should be sourced from a standard supplier like McMaster Carr. I don't want some specialty $15 bolt just because it lets you save 5 grams or some bullsh*t. Engineer around standard hardware.

AND NO PHILLIPS HEAD SCREWS!

(sorry this thread just seemed like a good place for random rants)

 

[MinorThreat]

Yeti does an excellent job with owner documentation: assembly, setup, shock setup, maintenance, exploded view/parts list with bolt sizes/thread pitch, etc. It's all there on the web site to download. The 303WC manual:

http://www.yeticycles.com/pdf/manuals/2013_OwnersManual_303WC.pdf

Just get a Yeti . . . problem solved.

 

[HardtailHack]

I know it would never happen but I'd love to see average alignment tolerances for each frame builder, after owning a frame that would kill a set of bearings in three months it made me quite weary of companies that seem to pop up overnight.

Oh and no more internal cable routing, what a wank!

 

[Sandwich]

AND NO TORX

FTFY kbye

 

[ronnyg801]

Oh and no more internal cable routing, what a wank!

Why no internal cable routing? I love how clean the commencal looks! Serious question cause in my eyes that is the future, cleaner more tidy looking, cant get beat up.

Is it premature wear on cables in that ONE spot? Or do you just not like the easy accessibility?

 

[HardtailHack]

It was the future in the 90's too, why put a hole in a frame if you don't have to?

As long as the cables don't bow out at full compression or ghost shift I don't care, with me on the bike it automatically looks **** so a couple of exposed cables won't make a difference.

 

[dump]

Yeti does an excellent job with owner documentation: assembly, setup, shock setup, maintenance, exploded view/parts list with bolt sizes/thread pitch, etc. It's all there on the web site to download. The 303WC manual:

http://www.yeticycles.com/pdf/manuals/2013_OwnersManual_303WC.pdf

That's a great user manual. I am impressed!

 

[daisycutter]

Drawings with an exploded view, dimensions, tolerances, wall thickness and a bill of materials with every frame would be amazing!

This would be great information for other companies to make knock off frames.

 

[Thrillkil]

Tubular DH wheels and tires.

 

[wiscodh]

Tubular DH wheels and tires.

why? they feel great on the road, but as much as i take tires on and off, **** all the gluing and streching and waiting 5 days to mount up a tire.

 

[gemini2k]

Yeti does an excellent job with owner documentation: assembly, setup, shock setup, maintenance, exploded view/parts list with bolt sizes/thread pitch, etc. It's all there on the web site to download. The 303WC manual:

http://www.yeticycles.com/pdf/manuals/2013_OwnersManual_303WC.pdf

Just get a Yeti . . . problem solved.

Wow that is legit. If only they made a real XL

 

[4130biker]

Integrated dropper posts with a new standard (what am I saying?!?) that every framebuilder and seatpost builder can use. Similiar to how MacNeil created the pivotal seat system for bmx.
(or even better, like ISIS, where everyone can use it, FOR FREE)
I saw some brand is doing this, but it also sounded like it left a lot to be desired, especially seatpost brand choice.

 

[joeg]

Integrated dropper posts with a new standard (what am I saying?!?) that every framebuilder and seatpost builder can use. Similiar to how MacNeil created the pivotal seat system for bmx.
(or even better, like ISIS, where everyone can use it, FOR FREE)
I saw some brand is doing this, but it also sounded like it left a lot to be desired, especially seatpost brand choice.

This is something I was really into a couple years ago, but after looking at it more, it's pretty complicated for what you're going to get out of it. The way I see it, you have two ways to implement it:

1. Have the "collar" (the part where the sliding part enters the stationary part on an adjusto post) in a fixed position - presumably attached to the top of the seat tube, and the "stationary" part is actually part of the frame. Then you need to be able to adjust the saddle height at the top position, and either the stroke changes as you adjust (no big deal), or its some kind of TALAS type deal, like you twist a knob under the seat. It would need to be in pretty small increments.

2. Have the "collar" be mobile. But thats basically what we have now

With #1, you end up with a tight looking system, but realistically, if you have to remove the mechanism from the frame for service, **** gets complicated pretty quick. The best thing I can think of is that you're basically bonding the bottom half of the post into the frame and making it so you can't see the fixed portion. It would look trick though.
Frames are big parts, with varying sizes on front triangles, which make tooling more expensive and tolerances harder to control than on smaller parts like a post. its hard enough to get a ST ream consistent without adding to the complexity. Maybe there's another way I'm not considering though.

 

[iRider]

True, joeg!
Two things that I want to add are that with an integrated design you won't be able to slide the post out so that you can clamp the bike in a workstand. Further, some people switch from a dropper to a conventional seatpost when riding in smaller bike parks. These parks often have those T-bar lifts that hook behind your seatpost and would scratch the sliding surface of a dropper post.

 

[4130biker]

This is something I was really into a couple years ago, but after looking at it more, it's pretty complicated for what you're going to get out of it. The way I see it, you have two ways to implement it:

1. Have the "collar" (the part where the sliding part enters the stationary part on an adjusto post) in a fixed position - presumably attached to the top of the seat tube, and the "stationary" part is actually part of the frame. Then you need to be able to adjust the saddle height at the top position, and either the stroke changes as you adjust (no big deal), or its some kind of TALAS type deal, like you twist a knob under the seat. It would need to be in pretty small increments.

2. Have the "collar" be mobile. But thats basically what we have now

With #1, you end up with a tight looking system, but realistically, if you have to remove the mechanism from the frame for service, **** gets complicated pretty quick. The best thing I can think of is that you're basically bonding the bottom half of the post into the frame and making it so you can't see the fixed portion. It would look trick though.
Frames are big parts, with varying sizes on front triangles, which make tooling more expensive and tolerances harder to control than on smaller parts like a post. its hard enough to get a ST ream consistent without adding to the complexity. Maybe there's another way I'm not considering though.

Yeah, the more I thought about it, the more it doesn't make a whole lot of sense beyond some sort of blingy totally custom frame. You could deal with different rider height by having a long seat tube stock, then cutting to the correct length like some of the aero roadbikes, but the resale would be more of a pain, etc, etc.
So yeah, maybe I would not like to see this from bike manufacturers
And irider, good points as well.

 

[tacubaya]

Moaaar shimz