#!markdown
I recall the bike you are talking about. It truly diverged from the norm as
you say, and taking it for a ride, but leaving the prejudices out the ride,
made Omar enjoy it a lot. Now what if I told you I wanted long, low and slack
bikes back in the 90s. Oh, and short chaisntays too. I know for sure I wasn't
the only one, and for that reason I'm quite happy with the actual trends.
Now getting back into full suspension bikes, when I said the marketing and/or
graphic design departments could throw overboard the pivot layout I wasn't
joking. Sometimes you can have a single suspension layout which could be
adapted to a whole gamma, from XC to DH with a common frame format, as in the
cases of Trek, Evil, Giant, Pivot, etc. while some other times, you can't, and
if you force the layout to fit the frame shape, you'll end up with a crappy
riding bike. Perhaps Kona is the best example of a company who chose to fit
the best variant of the faux bar layout to a given bike type, instead of
pasting some scaled version of the primal design to each travel option.
I recall an interview with Roxy Lo, Ibis' frame designer. She said David
Weagle would give her some fixed points which would determine the geometry and
riding characteristics of a bike, and the she was free to conect them with
whatever tubes/shapes she wanted. But the key from the beginning was the way
they wanted the bike to ride and handle.
The Robot Bike co. bike got pretty discussed in RideMonkey. Even Hugh Mcleay,
I-Track's suspension creator, praised it. I wonder why DW chose to go with a
pivot on the seatstays rather than with a HL.
Now about your last question, I'm a frustrated Physics student, and a proud
UNIX Admin since a long time ago ;-). But I do have a lot of friends in the
industrial and graphic design and engineering fields.
July 26, 2016, 3:35 p.m. - Luix
#!markdown I recall the bike you are talking about. It truly diverged from the norm as you say, and taking it for a ride, but leaving the prejudices out the ride, made Omar enjoy it a lot. Now what if I told you I wanted long, low and slack bikes back in the 90s. Oh, and short chaisntays too. I know for sure I wasn't the only one, and for that reason I'm quite happy with the actual trends. Now getting back into full suspension bikes, when I said the marketing and/or graphic design departments could throw overboard the pivot layout I wasn't joking. Sometimes you can have a single suspension layout which could be adapted to a whole gamma, from XC to DH with a common frame format, as in the cases of Trek, Evil, Giant, Pivot, etc. while some other times, you can't, and if you force the layout to fit the frame shape, you'll end up with a crappy riding bike. Perhaps Kona is the best example of a company who chose to fit the best variant of the faux bar layout to a given bike type, instead of pasting some scaled version of the primal design to each travel option. I recall an interview with Roxy Lo, Ibis' frame designer. She said David Weagle would give her some fixed points which would determine the geometry and riding characteristics of a bike, and the she was free to conect them with whatever tubes/shapes she wanted. But the key from the beginning was the way they wanted the bike to ride and handle. The Robot Bike co. bike got pretty discussed in RideMonkey. Even Hugh Mcleay, I-Track's suspension creator, praised it. I wonder why DW chose to go with a pivot on the seatstays rather than with a HL. Now about your last question, I'm a frustrated Physics student, and a proud UNIX Admin since a long time ago ;-). But I do have a lot of friends in the industrial and graphic design and engineering fields.