[ciszewski]

Supa8 - I understand all the ways to achieve the 'correct' chainline. Rather questioning that there is no real downside to actually running a 50mm chainline...

Oh and I looked by eye at my chainline today. If moved towards the bb 6mm, it would line up nicely with the top 3 cogs and be on an extreme angle for the bottom three. I have trouble understanding how this could not have an effect and give crisper shifting, unless your just using the top 3 cogs.

 

[Jonny5]

Been running a 50mm chainline here on my norcos for the last 5 years or so, I have never had an issue. Shifting is great in the lower gears and acceptable in the higher. I too know its not proper, but I've never had a reason to 'fix' it.

 

[CBJ]

every turn we have chosen ugly function over pretty dysfunction.

That is all I wanted to hear

I of course do not ride in conditions where my bike would get dirty so people could not see how pretty it is.

 

[P.T.W]

Jason, Can you get into the wheelpath at all on the new vs old bikes?

It seems that it would be good to keep the linkage arrangement the way it was and lower the BB by putting the BB shell lower and keeping the pivots where they were. I know that would require much more change, and maybe a 2nd gen version would/could be just that.

Thanks for the entertaining info on my lunch break!

Krispy

The wheelpath is the same. We didn't just lower the BB by compressing the suspension. Linkage and pivot points were adjusted to compensate.

Jason C

jc it dosnt look like you've moved the pivot points up to compensate for the lower bb height......the top link on sams bike defantly slopes down toward the front wheel,where on a standard demo the top link is quite flat...and other pics iv seen also show that the main pivot is still part of the one piece forged bb/pivot assembly.
Please correct me if im wrong...pics would be good

 

[epic]

Can we assume that once you guys have finalized Sam's bike you'll start working on a FACT carbon version? Probably with BB30

 

[no skid marks]

I also prefer the Pitch design and feel it has a lot more potential as a DH design than the Demo. A floating shock set up could also be incorperated to get desired ramp up(unless Trek have patented it). I'd like to see a lower Horst link giving a more rearward axle path.
135mm is definatly better IMO, but I'd like to see a dishless 5 or 6 speed set up offered on the bikes, as this is the most logical set up.
I'm becoming a big Specialized fan, love some of the innovation like the shock pivot that was discussed earlier(looked at one yesterday coincidently), and the SX trails shock pivot.

 

[Rigger]

the Pitch design doesn't have the strength nor stiffness like the Demo. There is currently a rearward axle path from 30% to 50% on the Demo... there are downsides to having a lot of rearward including longer WB and loss of traction.

Just saying....

 

[Kanye West]

For sure, Specialized has not made it easy for customers or shops to build up frames. DH assemblies are often challenging.

I have built up plenty of frames, DH/suspension frames in particular, that needed no funny spacing or shimming or anything beyond the basic frame prep. Almost ALL modern DH frames are very very easy to throw together, and there's really no reason Specialized should be an exception, especially with the combined efforts of the engineering department you have at your disposal. With the resources available, those frames should be nothing short of amazing in terms of performance, durability, and serviceability.

This isn't an attack or anything - I appreciate manufacturers coming onto the board and being open to input. I'm just pointing out that that really isn't the norm to have to accommodate a modern frame that does not accept bolt-on parts in standard sizes.

 

[JCL]

If a Pitch-esque design weighed as much as a Demo (more material as Jason mentioned earlier) I'm sure it would be plenty strong and stiff enough. I'd still prefer a horizontal shock position like the old SX but with a downtube curved to allow the shock to be positioned very low.

I think the sub-seatstay bikes still have a place for someone who wants a plough or FR bike but it's time for an S-Works DH program

 

[Kanye West]

... there are downsides to having a lot of rearward including longer WB and loss of traction.

What?? Justify this please.

 

[Udi]

There is currently a rearward axle path from 30% to 50% on the Demo... there are downsides to having a lot of rearward including longer WB and loss of traction.

I don't think any of the demos thus far have been rearward enough to even call them that. Mapped in linkage, every demo I've seen has been a fairly standard FSR arc (a little rearward and then forward, moreso) and in my experience riding them, it translates over. Fast bike but nothing special over rough stuff.

I agree there are some downsides to going excessively rearward - wheelbase growth in tight corners is not the quickest way through them, but like I said, using the word rearward to describe a demo (at all) is just misleading IMO.

 

[Rigger]

It may not be rearward per say but more so in relative terms than previous years (06, 05 and 04) and is quite noticeable on square edge hits. The 09 SXT is now similar to the Demos.

 

[Rigger]

If a Pitch-esque design weighed as much as a Demo (more material as Jason mentioned earlier) I'm sure it would be plenty strong and stiff enough. I'd still prefer a horizontal shock position like the old SX but with a downtube curved to allow the shock to be positioned very low.

I think the sub-seatstay bikes still have a place for someone who wants a plough or FR bike but it's time for an S-Works DH program

having a sub-seatstay frame doesn't mean its plough bike... if the Pitch weighed the same, the center of gravity is still going to higher and will not be as stiff as the Demo.

 

[JCL]

having a sub-seatstay frame doesn't mean its plough bike... if the Pitch weighed the same, the center of gravity is still going to higher and will not be as stiff as the Demo.

Well if it's an unnecessary aspect of an FSR design, (the sub-seatstay) it could be considered OTT and may add to the Demo's boat anchor/plough bike reputation.

No, the C of G would probably be similar if not lower. Look how high the trapizodal link is on the current Demo. The unsprung mass would defintely be lower. Again I'm sure the frame would be plenty stiff enough. As is the current SX.

 

[no skid marks]

if the Pitch weighed the same, the center of gravity is still going to higher and will not be as stiff as the Demo.

If you put all of the weight of the Demos multi stays into one stiff chain-stay, and decent seat stay and link, I can't see how it wouldn't be stiffer. Nor can I see how it's COG couldn't be the same or lower. I dare say you could easily make it stiffer, lighter, and have a lower COG, quite easily. I'd like to see a lower Horst link, to at least give it vertical wheel travel, but preferably rearward, but then they'd need a idler, still would be my preference. They could have a slightly lower idler than VPP if they wanted anti squat pedaling characteristics.

 

[Rigger]

a bike is not going to be as stiff with one stay versus two stays, even doubling the mass of the single stay which would serve as absolutely no purpose. The substay has more purpose than having a stiff rear end.

I find it absolutely hilarious that a substay on a bike would assume that it's a plough bike. These people should not be allowed on bikes.

Should be interesting to see what the next generation of Demos will be.

 

[JCL]

Should be interesting to see what the next generation of Demos will be.

I bet they won't have sub-seatsays.

 

[no skid marks]

a bike is not going to be as stiff with one stay versus two stays, even doubling the mass of the single stay which would serve as absolutely no purpose. The substay has more purpose than having a stiff rear end.QUOTE]

Yes the bottom seat stay and shock mount would help to stiffen the rear, but not by much, and the Pitch design would have a shorter(read stiffer)top link, with shwanky,stiff Specialized shock mounts. So I think the weight of the current demo rear, could be used better with the Pitch design.

 

[Rigger]

your opinion but only Jason would really know...

 

[no skid marks]

Yes for sure it's just my opinion, and my reason for stating it was in hoping Jason or others would indeed explain why the Pitch design was not beneficial. So I could learn and understand more. Or see something I may have missed, like you did by stating the added stiffness that's added by the second stays.
Jason may to some degree have his hands tied also by company ideals(Horst Link for example).

 

[JCL]

Jason may to some degree have his hands tied also by company ideals(Horst Link for example).

Nail on the head IMO. The apperance of the bike must be a factor and I'm sure the Specialized marketing department don't want the top bikes looking like a Devinchi Wilson, even if that's what they should look like !

However, I still think they should stick with FSR no matter what.

 

[- seb]

Does FSR stand for something, if so what? And (I know I should have researched this before buying my Wilson) are all horst-links the same, or is there variation on where the chainstay pivot is placed, and if so what factors make what differences? And holy cow as I write this I've just noticed the Wilson has two mount positions for the horst link, hadn't realised before!

 

[no skid marks]

Loosely speaking, the lower the Horst link(in relation to rear axle), the more rearward travel, due to the chain stay lengthening as the H link opens up. Also will provide more anti squat when pedaling, but more chain growth, when suspension is activated..
The higher the pivot, the more it might as well be a Faux bar(like Kona).
Can't remember how Elseworth got around it with their ICT Patent.

 

[P.T.W]

Does FSR stand for something, if so what? QUOTE]

If my memory serves me right FSR = Full Suspension Racing

 

[marshalolson]

Can't remember how Elseworth got around it with their ICT Patent.

they had been using the suspension design since before specialized BOUGHT the FSR setup from horst leitner. if you have never ridden an AMP, do yourself a favor, get one and rally it.

 

[Udi]

Does FSR stand for something, if so what?

If my memory serves me right FSR = Full Suspension Racing

Nope, it stands for "Future Shock Rear".

 

[Pebble]

I thought it stood for Front Suspension Rear

 

[Demomonkey]

I thought it stood for Front Suspension Rear

And that would be logical

 

[burly50]

Copied from the Spec web site under FAQ:

Question
What do you mean by FSR?

Answer


"FSR" or "Future Shock Rear" was the original name that Specialized assigned to our patented 4-bar linkage design. In the early and mid-90's, Specialized manufactured a front shock named "Future Shock". "Future Shock Rear" seemed to be a logical extension of that name for rear suspension.

Happy Trails!!!

 

[Udi]

I hate being right

 

[jchamber]

jc it dosnt look like you've moved the pivot points up to compensate for the lower bb height......the top link on sams bike defantly slopes down toward the front wheel,where on a standard demo the top link is quite flat...and other pics iv seen also show that the main pivot is still part of the one piece forged bb/pivot assembly.
Please correct me if im wrong...pics would be good

Looking at just the slink doesn't tell the entire story. When you lower the BB, your drivetrain vectors drop too. Trust me, its the same kinematics as the current bike.

The photo in this thread is also an earlier prototype. You will see the final final version next week in South Africa.

Jason C

 

[jchamber]

the Pitch design doesn't have the strength nor stiffness like the Demo. There is currently a rearward axle path from 30% to 50% on the Demo... there are downsides to having a lot of rearward including longer WB and loss of traction.

Just saying....

Too much rearward wheel path makes the bike tough to manual. When you lean back to get behind the rear wheel, the wheel moves back underneath you, meaning you have to shift back even further.

Additionally, excessive rear wheel shift creates high pedal kick back.

Jason C

 

[jchamber]

I agree there are some downsides to going excessively rearward - wheelbase growth in tight corners is not the quickest way through them, but like I said, using the word rearward to describe a demo (at all) is just misleading IMO.

Riders with a lot of experience on our bikes and whose opinion I respect can tell the difference. The small amount of rearward at the sag point takes the edge off small sharp hits, while a forward arc at the end of the stroke keep chain growth in check.

Jason C

 

[no skid marks]

Too much rearward wheel path makes the bike tough to manual.This is true, but we're talking DH bike here. I've found high pivot bikes(or VPP) are not limited enough to get the front up when needed, never even noticed it(will pay attention to it now though). Every design is a compromise at some level. I thought the rearward travel designs benefits in absorbing impacts would outweigh it's small inherent flaws. When you lean back to get behind the rear wheel, the wheel moves back underneath you, meaning you have to shift back even further.Theoretically true, though the lengthening wheelbase adding stability, and the bump absorption could mean you don't need to get over the back as far.
Additionally, excessive rear wheel shift creates high pedal kick back.

Can be solved with an idler that possibly doesn't add much more friction than your average chain guide, and could be used to get whatever anti squat or other pedalling characteristics might be desired

Riders with a lot of experience on our bikes and whose opinion I respect can tell the difference. The small amount of rearward at the sag point takes the edge off small sharp hits, while a forward arc at the end of the stroke keep chain growth in check.

I heard a rumour that there was a Specialized test bike with more rearward travel, i hope it proves it's worth. Same with the Pitch style DH bike I'd heard about.
Sorry for being a pest, I appreciate your opinion, and it helps having things explained some times.

 

[ilfreerider]

from : www.descent-world.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&Itemid=81&task=view&id=1071


"But maybe there will be something new that blows everyone out of the water in the next year or 2. We will just have to wait and see."

 

[P.T.W]

I hate being right

I hate you being right...na all goodoster_oops:

 

[ska todd]

I saw this on Huff-Po this morning. Sammus, always the trend setter!

-ska todd

 

[nenjarickard]

I saw this on Huff-Po this morning. Sammus, always the trend setter!

-ska todd

Finally! No more picking.

 

[Rigger]

wrong... still do. Regarding the sub stays.

 

[ritche]

SAM HILL: "I was specialized!"