It's actually pretty fun to ride. But that's not the point here I guess.
Jon-boy.
Shizzle...
I acknowledge that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but come on, it is just bikes, way too much hate here.
While it might not be my cup of tea, I like to see different stuff - happy that not everything looks like a cough Trek/Specialized/whatever mass brand.
Cheers
Jon-Boy,
I do believe it's a good riding bike. And I like that they're taking the more affordable approach. Absolutely a good thing if you enable more people to afford a bike.
But I just don't get why affordable in some cases has to be ugly. There's clearly no relation between price and a unicolor paint job. And bikes are a luxury good, at least for recreational users. So looks are a factor.
There are tons of great(!) bikes to buy nowadays. And a lot of them even look the part.
Because if affordable looked as good as a bling bike, who would buy the bling?
Jon-Boy,
I do believe it's a good riding bike. And I like that they're taking the more affordable approach. Absolutely a good thing if you enable more people to afford a bike.
But I just don't get why affordable in some cases has to be ugly. There's clearly no relation between price and a unicolor paint job. And bikes are a luxury good, at least for recreational users. So looks are a factor.
There are tons of great(!) bikes to buy nowadays. And a lot of them even look the part.
My tastes must be loosing favour then as in person the bike doesn't look at all bad. Fine a matching black rim at the rear might look better if you are being fussy. I think it's a bold move to do something different aesthetically and did not just give us the popular bright bubblegum colours that seem popular.
Jon-boy.
Alright, I relent.
The two-tone paintjob enabled me to identify the bike in the vid. And the vid ist pretty cool!
And you probably can have a lot of fun on it - it´s a bike after all.
@Heckler: You´re right. Marketing, different target audience and all that.
I am not a business man however, so I am entitled to the opinion, that nobody should produce anything that isn´t THE ABSOLUTE BEST he can do. Everything else is a waste of resources.
But that´s admittedly a radical position.
No, that is backwards logic.
The leverage rate is regressive to sag to promote the bike to sit in that sag point consistently, as that is the sweet spot for pedaling of the VPP system.
At that sag point in the articulation of the 4-bar suspension the instant center of the rear axle (essentially the point at which chain pull is to be analyzed) is ahead and below the bottom bracket. This results in chain pull pulling against the shock, aka anti-squat. Similar to a bike with a high single pivot. Difference being in a 4-bar linkage with two unequal short links and one large rear triangle is that the location of the instant center of the rear axle (this is the VIRTUAL PIVOT POINT) varies at any given point in the suspension travel.4-bar linkage like a HORST or Smoothlink achieves similar properties although to a greatly reduced magnitude than a system like VPP or this "level link".
The leverage rate is regressive at the point in travel when spring rate offers the least support and pedaling efficiency matters the most. Sure, they can use a larger volume air can to flatten the curve a little but a counter rotating link design with top tube positioned shock is always going to have a large rate change at some point.
I'm a bit confused about your instant centre and virtual pivot point descriptions. Instant centre is the position of the combined pivot force trajectory at that instant in the travel. VPP is used to describe the location of the rear axle. All the bikes you mentioned are VPP's. Short linked bikes will typically have more instant centre migration and a more pronounced axle path. That's the main reason I would never buy such a bike. Braking performance and the suppleness of the suspension around sag point is compromised.
"I do like how you generally bring an open-minded and positive vibe to the threads you participate in"
- Morgman
Velonews posted a photo of a more monotone colour scheme. All blue.
Debate? Bikes are made for riding not pushing.
The one bike seems like exactly what I wanted for a long time: a long, low, slack, short travel VPP bike I could comfortably pedal around that would hold up to regular abusive descents. I eventually got over my VPP requirement, stomached the forced change in wheel-size, and am no longer in the market, but it still looks like a bike I'd enjoy riding.
JCL I do see you outlining how bad the suspension is, but I generally have the exact opposite opinion of what's good/bad than you so I'd probably like it.
Did Diamondback mange to create two nice bikes everyone hates without riding purely due to their aesthetics? I wonder if everything would have been better received if it was all 26".
Steeper lower link angle.
But SC lower links are now almost horizontal, eh?
Did Diamondback manage to create two nice bikes everyone hates without riding purely due to their aesthetics?
What were the first eight words spoken it the first page video again?
Freedom of contract. We sell them guns that kill them; they sell us drugs that kill us.
gwh… No, that is backwards logic.
The leverage rate is regressive to sag to promote the bike to sit in that sag point consistently, as that is the sweet spot for pedaling of the VPP system.
At that sag point in the articulation of the 4-bar suspension the instant center of the rear axle (essentially the point at which chain pull is to be analyzed) is ahead and below the bottom bracket. This results in chain pull pulling against the shock, aka anti-squat. Similar to a bike with a high single pivot. Difference being in a 4-bar linkage with two unequal short links and one large rear triangle is that the location of the instant center of the rear axle (this is the VIRTUAL PIVOT POINT) varies at any given point in the suspension travel.4-bar linkage like a HORST or Smoothlink achieves similar properties although to a greatly reduced magnitude than a system like VPP or this "level link".
JCL…The leverage rate is regressive at the point in travel when spring rate offers the least support and pedaling efficiency matters the most. Sure, they can use a larger volume air can to flatten the curve a little but a counter rotating link design with top tube positioned shock is always going to have a large rate change at some point.
I'm a bit confused about your instant centre and virtual pivot point descriptions. Instant centre is the position of the combined pivot force trajectory at that instant in the travel. VPP is used to describe the location of the rear axle. All the bikes you mentioned are VPP's. Short linked bikes will typically have more instant centre migration and a more pronounced axle path. That's the main reason I would never buy such a bike. Braking performance and the suppleness of the suspension around sag point is compromised.
So I can simply avoid this controversy then by buying a DW link bike?
Freedom of contract. We sell them guns that kill them; they sell us drugs that kill us.
But SC lower links are now almost horizontal, eh?
They are getting flatter all the time. Compare a Bronson V1 to V2 for example. They're engineering the original VPP kinematics out of their designs. I think deep down they know it's shit but I guess a lot of people buy the marketing.
"I do like how you generally bring an open-minded and positive vibe to the threads you participate in"
- Morgman
So I can simply avoid this controversy then by buying a DW link bike?
Yeah or any other dual-link like Maestro (and single pivots and 4-bar/Horst etc). Although any design can still be buggered up if a linkage pivot is 5mm away from ideal but I still think a counter rotating link is a bad place to start. It's introducing another variable into an already rather complex system.
Santa Cruz's argument is that the progressive nature of an air shock is such an overwhelming factor (which it kind of is) that you can do any old crap kinematics wise. :|
"I do like how you generally bring an open-minded and positive vibe to the threads you participate in"
- Morgman
They're engineering the original VPP kinematics out of their designs. .
The analogy that comes to mind is Porsche spending the last 67 years engineering a rear engine car that doesn't handle like,….a rear engine car.
But yeah, I bought a first year Maestro bike because I bought their line that everthing rotating in the same direction worked.
My current rides rear end looks similar except the pivot's 6.5 cm from the rear axle instead of the swing arm pivot.
Freedom of contract. We sell them guns that kill them; they sell us drugs that kill us.
Great analogy. As you probably know Porsche tried to kill the 911 but the public wouldn't let them. I guess that's the power of marketing?
I think it's a shame though because their bikes are nice and the geo on the Nomad is close to perfect IMO.
"I do like how you generally bring an open-minded and positive vibe to the threads you participate in"
- Morgman
Forum jump:
