Posted by: pedalhound
I do see the amazing correlations between the rise of the MTB and the introductuion of suspension
fyp
I would also love to see presta die for mountain bikes...just a bad standard, go back to schrader...tougher, more airflow and a better design for our bikes.
Get outta' town. Booooooooooooooooooo....................!
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: xy9ine
Posted by: andy-eunson
The next big thing will be compliance. Frames designed to flex a bit for better control. As far as geometry I think we’ll see seat tube angles relax a touch but variable length rear centres will be a thing.
would love to see adjustable dropouts commonplace. if you're not going to offer size specific chainstay lengths, at least do a flip chip dropout. about time that manufacturers realized that offering frame sizes with a front center range of around 4" with the same rear center for all is just dumb.
With adjustable dropouts do you think any effort needs to be put into considering how changing CS affects suspension kinematic? Should there also be some adjustments on the shock mounts?
No question a longer chainstay means different kinematics. I read somewhere that is one reason why we don’t see many bikes offering longer chainstays as frame sizes increase. It would mean more engineering for all the sizes as well as greater costs to make multiple sized swing arms particularly in carbon. I wouldn’t think the difference in kinematics would be that great though. Especially DW or VPP type set ups. I think Norco accomplish this by moving the bottom pivot back relative to the bb.
When I said seat tube angles will moderate I was thinking about some of the super steep 78 angled bikes. My take is that as reach increased, manufacturers made seat tube angles more steep to keep the cockpit the same and to allow shorter chainstays which still seems to be a buzzword measuring stick for some. This also meant wheelbase could be shortened to allow for slacker head tube angles because some people read spec sheets and decide how a bike will ride based on that alone. To me, a bike like a Pole might ride better if the wheelbase and reach all stayed the same but that bb moved forward a bunch. A steep seat tube angle will put a riders weight further ahead of the rear axle which makes the bike have better traction but if that seat tube angle is too steep it may be hard to obtain a proper hip torso angle for more efficient pedalling.
Posted by: syncro
Now that it seems wheel size and frame geo's have more or less settled what do you think mtb's will look like in 3-5 yrs from now? More electric than pedal? Electric deraileurs to match or will internally geared hubs take over? Is the sport going to be the same five years from now or something radically different altogether?
Maybe, after the first wave of awe at the magical powers of the electric engine has passed (greetings from 1890!), the next trend might swing in the opposite direction. Fitness, endurance and XC-racing might be king again, who knows?
Oh, and with all that talk about forks flexing and the current trend for taping multitools to frames, how about a return to 20mm through-axles with pinchbolts?
More compliant parts. Oneup has just released a new 35 mm clamp bar with oval sections for compliance in one direction and stiffness for steering precision. Plus a stem and grips to suit.
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: xy9ine
that said, if not adjustable dropout or different swingarm lengths, why they don't just alter the suspension pivot(s) to bb distance in the front triangle to affect size specific effective rear-centers (while using the same swingarm for the range, a la norco) is just confounding. wtf, industry people? no excuses. apart from laziness or just sheer obliviousness.
Maybe part of that want on the rider end is us being in the fishbowl of S2S riding when compared to the majority of the mtb world they are typically riding different terrain and technical difficulty so those sorts of adjustments or frame considerations simply aren't as important for the majority of riders (customers). I can see how it's much easier for a boutique builder to do but as soon as you start mass producing frames if every frame is different in terms of CS, STA, ETT, shock position etc then that increases design and manufacturing costs which means we'll be paying more.
Proper fit and frame proportion has nothing to do with the S2S in particular.
Posted by: andy-eunson
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: xy9ine
Posted by: andy-eunson
The next big thing will be compliance. Frames designed to flex a bit for better control. As far as geometry I think we’ll see seat tube angles relax a touch but variable length rear centres will be a thing.
would love to see adjustable dropouts commonplace. if you're not going to offer size specific chainstay lengths, at least do a flip chip dropout. about time that manufacturers realized that offering frame sizes with a front center range of around 4" with the same rear center for all is just dumb.
With adjustable dropouts do you think any effort needs to be put into considering how changing CS affects suspension kinematic? Should there also be some adjustments on the shock mounts?
No question a longer chainstay means different kinematics. I read somewhere that is one reason why we don’t see many bikes offering longer chainstays as frame sizes increase. It would mean more engineering for all the sizes as well as greater costs to make multiple sized swing arms particularly in carbon. I wouldn’t think the difference in kinematics would be that great though. Especially DW or VPP type set ups. I think Norco accomplish this by moving the bottom pivot back relative to the bb.
When I said seat tube angles will moderate I was thinking about some of the super steep 78 angled bikes. My take is that as reach increased, manufacturers made seat tube angles more steep to keep the cockpit the same and to allow shorter chainstays which still seems to be a buzzword measuring stick for some. This also meant wheelbase could be shortened to allow for slacker head tube angles because some people read spec sheets and decide how a bike will ride based on that alone. To me, a bike like a Pole might ride better if the wheelbase and reach all stayed the same but that bb moved forward a bunch. A steep seat tube angle will put a riders weight further ahead of the rear axle which makes the bike have better traction but if that seat tube angle is too steep it may be hard to obtain a proper hip torso angle for more efficient pedalling.
Do you find Pole geometry doesn't ride well? In case you haven't actually ridden these bikes as much as I have: your speculation is incorrect, unless you ride a small. No doubt a 78' seat angle could be too steep for some, but you know what's nice, finally? Options. There's still plenty of conservative companies making bikes with 74' seat tubes.
Posted by: craw
Proper fit and frame proportion has nothing to do with the S2S in particular.
I was just looking at it from the perspective that as the technical demands of the riding increases then the benefits of frame fit/proportion become more apparent. I think most of us can relate to this after noticing the difference even a small change in say stem length can have on the handling characteristics and comfort of your bike.
with all the technology in bikes, Fox and RS and figure out how to make CSU's that don't creak after a couple of weeks?
Posted by: LoamtoHome
with all the technology in bikes, Fox and RS and figure out how to make CSU's that don't creak after a couple of weeks?
The surge in ebike sales will probably drive this forward. I don't think creaky CSUs have been a big deal outside of the S2S but now that heavy ebikes are under more and more riders that could change.
Every component using one or two torx bolt sizes? Too much to ask ?
Posted by: craw
Posted by: LoamtoHome
with all the technology in bikes, Fox and RS and figure out how to make CSU's that don't creak after a couple of weeks?
The surge in ebike sales will probably drive this forward. I don't think creaky CSUs have been a big deal outside of the S2S but now that heavy ebikes are under more and more riders that could change.
Funny how the s2s has been a driving force in the need for 36mm stantions and Lyriks over Pikes etc and yet when they can't figure out the creaking, they say we're too small of a market to cater to.
what is s2s?
Seattle to Squamish?
Posted by: taprider
what is s2s?
Seattle to Squamish?
Sea To Sky corridor. Typically referring to Vancouver to Pemberton.
^thanks,
I have reached my lifetime quota for memorizing acronyms, and honestly couldn't figure it out
S2oS
Shore to overnight Sensation
or
S2S
Shore to Skelu'la7 (but I don't think many know that trail)
or Shore to Squirrels
Posted by: craw
Posted by: andy-eunson
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: xy9ine
Posted by: andy-eunson
The next big thing will be compliance. Frames designed to flex a bit for better control. As far as geometry I think we’ll see seat tube angles relax a touch but variable length rear centres will be a thing.
would love to see adjustable dropouts commonplace. if you're not going to offer size specific chainstay lengths, at least do a flip chip dropout. about time that manufacturers realized that offering frame sizes with a front center range of around 4" with the same rear center for all is just dumb.
With adjustable dropouts do you think any effort needs to be put into considering how changing CS affects suspension kinematic? Should there also be some adjustments on the shock mounts?
No question a longer chainstay means different kinematics. I read somewhere that is one reason why we don’t see many bikes offering longer chainstays as frame sizes increase. It would mean more engineering for all the sizes as well as greater costs to make multiple sized swing arms particularly in carbon. I wouldn’t think the difference in kinematics would be that great though. Especially DW or VPP type set ups. I think Norco accomplish this by moving the bottom pivot back relative to the bb.
When I said seat tube angles will moderate I was thinking about some of the super steep 78 angled bikes. My take is that as reach increased, manufacturers made seat tube angles more steep to keep the cockpit the same and to allow shorter chainstays which still seems to be a buzzword measuring stick for some. This also meant wheelbase could be shortened to allow for slacker head tube angles because some people read spec sheets and decide how a bike will ride based on that alone. To me, a bike like a Pole might ride better if the wheelbase and reach all stayed the same but that bb moved forward a bunch. A steep seat tube angle will put a riders weight further ahead of the rear axle which makes the bike have better traction but if that seat tube angle is too steep it may be hard to obtain a proper hip torso angle for more efficient pedalling.
Do you find Pole geometry doesn't ride well? In case you haven't actually ridden these bikes as much as I have: your speculation is incorrect, unless you ride a small. No doubt a 78' seat angle could be too steep for some, but you know what's nice, finally? Options. There's still plenty of conservative companies making bikes with 74' seat tubes.
I would be on a small at 5’ 5”. And options are good for sure. I just think there is enough adjustment available with saddle rails and offset post heads to accommodate a lot of riders at a slacker seat tube angle. 74 75 is perfectly fine. I’d love to ride one of these more extreme Geo bikes though. It might change my thinking, but it might not.
Forum jump:
