New Stuff Thread....

[philstar]

Frame looks kinda cool - but I'm not sold on the smartness. Nothing on their "smart" platform that you can't do already with a standard bike computer/Strava/some other app?

the problem i have with integrated smartness is if it breaks it is much harder to replace, like a non-standard car stereo. modular integration is all good.

cable run to the back must limit the steering



but I would assume they have something else to limit the steering before it rests on the cable

[Astoria Paranoia]

The new Canyon Sender DH bike

[AgrAde]

I hope this is good because I really want to like Canyon.

[el_booto]

Time For a new standard folks, by decree of SRAM

Love how they're dredging all their old names out and saying "don't call it a comeback"

Makes me wonder if they'll be like the old ones... shipped in an oil soaked cardboard box and no oil fill in the damper

[AgrAde]

Thank God. Shocks are going to get better. We won't all have to run crippled shocks just because the range needs to be compatible with stupid sizes. Hopefully the new mounting system will mean Giant can figure out how to put sane shock sizes in their trailbikes?!

[Wobbler]

For every "standard mount" metric stroke length there is a shorter i2i current omg spooky imperial shock, so unless everyone is going to trunion mount everything I fail to see what this solves at all.

[AgrAde]

More flexibility with internals and internals standardisation due to canning the irregular sizes they were previously forced to use.

[Astoria Paranoia]

CCDBAirCS master race reporting in.

[Wobbler]

More flexibility with internals and internals standardisation due to canning the irregular sizes they were previously forced to use.

"

Now with 12 sizes instead of 9

And a few of those 9 were identical shocks with limits to stop the stroke

[Dougal]

Time For a new standard folks, by decree of SRAM

Love how they're dredging all their old names out and saying "don't call it a comeback"

Makes me wonder if they'll be like the old ones... shipped in an oil soaked cardboard box and no oil fill in the damper

Metric shocks with 12.7mm shafts. I thought this was an april fools day joke the first time.

Yes the old Deluxe and Super Deluxe names really should not have been bought back. Move on guys. I bet the frame manufacturers are going to hate having to redesign around longer (and heavier) shocks to get the same stroke. I also notice standard DU bushings being shown in the pictures despite pictures of bearings. What is so wrong with bearings being installed in the frames as per now?

Regarding friction and bushing life. We've had one guy wear out a Shockcraft stainless/IGUS setup in about 2 years. Replaced the bushing and he's good again. My own main bike has done over 4 years on IGUS with sealing collars and grease.

Looks like the custom shock hardware game just got better.

So maybe in 2018 I can buy a bike with 26+ wheels, 110mm front axles, 148mm rear axles, BB47 bottom bracket, metric shocks and know it's not going to be full of parts I can't replace in 2 years time?

[Velocipedestrian]

So maybe in 2018 I can buy a bike with 26+ wheels, 110mm front axles, 148mm rear axles, BB47 bottom bracket, metric shocks and know it's not going to be full of parts I can't replace in 2 years time?

Bahahaha!

[AgrAde]

More flexibility with internals and internals standardisation due to canning the irregular sizes they were previously forced to use.

"

Now with 12 sizes instead of 9

And a few of those 9 were identical shocks with limits to stop the stroke

All with internals designed to fit crammed up shitty standards that were never intended for air shocks. I dunno about you guys, but I don't upgrade my shock every year, nor do I take shocks between frames. None of my suspension bikes have shared a shock size with any others, even though they've been similar-use bikes with similar travel. The compatibility is shit anyway, may as well fix the standards and have better performing and more reliable suspension. I'm looking forward to the Cane Creek Inline metric, the extra room they have with the new standards will probably see a big reliability jump, finally giving people a viable option for inline-only frames.

Maybe it's just my perspective with a 600g vivid air on my trail bike. But I don't think that a little bit more weight right in the middle of your bike between your legs is a problem, and I'd rather have better performance and reliability for the sake of 60g. We've done super light rear shocks, they're called fox CTD/RP2 etc, and everyone blew them up and hated them.

[Wobbler]

More flexibility with internals and internals standardisation due to canning the irregular sizes they were previously forced to use.

"

Now with 12 sizes instead of 9

And a few of those 9 were identical shocks with limits to stop the stroke

All with internals designed to fit crammed up shitty standards that were never intended for air shocks. I dunno about you guys, but I don't upgrade my shock every year, nor do I take shocks between frames. None of my suspension bikes have shared a shock size with any others, even though they've been similar-use bikes with similar travel. The compatibility is shit anyway, may as well fix the standards and have better performing and more reliable suspension. I'm looking forward to the Cane Creek Inline metric, the extra room they have with the new standards will probably see a big reliability jump, finally giving people a viable option for inline-only frames.

Maybe it's just my perspective with a 600g vivid air on my trail bike. But I don't think that a little bit more weight right in the middle of your bike between your legs is a problem, and I'd rather have better performance and reliability for the sake of 60g. We've done super light rear shocks, they're called fox CTD/RP2 etc, and everyone blew them up and hated them.

I've taken one shock through, but that frame was specifically purchased so I could take that shock through. Yes compatibility is shit but this system offers fuck all in the way of fixing that. Are manufacturers suddenly going to go oh I have xyz travel therefore I need this particular metric size shock? There was nothing stopping them doing that before with the imperial sizes yet we still ended up with all sorts of combos.

The extra room is only there with the trunion mounts, the non trunion mounts offer sfa over the existing. Assuming widespread acceptance and switching to trunion then sure we may see some "better" shocks and more options opened up but that is going to require a total rejigger of everyones frames so I wouldn't expect fuck all coming out for a few years at least.

So if a bit of weight in the middle of the bike is no big deal can we expect a front mech comeback, its gotta be better than hanging a dinner plate off the arse end right

[AgrAde]

You did read the article right? It's the dropping of the bottlenecking sizes that allow better internals throughout the range. Most existing standards are OK, but the shocks for the good sizes rely on the same tech that was developed for much more limiting sizes. The fact that there's a 200*57 monarch plus means that all monarch plus shocks, including the 215*63, is disadvantaged because of it.

This is the shock industry saying "fuck you, we're not wasting time developing things for your shitty sizes anymore, we want to make shocks that don't suck" to frame manufacturers, but just dropping a particular size like 200*57 would not work because other manufacturers would keep making it and take the market. With a full review of shock sizing, they can do the same thing, but it's actually going to work.

[Dougal]

You did read the article right? It's the dropping of the bottlenecking sizes that allow better internals throughout the range. Most existing standards are OK, but the shocks for the good sizes rely on the same tech that was developed for much more limiting sizes. The fact that there's a 200*57 monarch plus means that all monarch plus shocks, including the 215*63, is disadvantaged because of it.

This is the shock industry saying "fuck you, we're not wasting time developing things for your shitty sizes anymore, we want to make shocks that don't suck" to frame manufacturers, but just dropping a particular size like 200*57 would not work because other manufacturers would keep making it and take the market. With a full review of shock sizing, they can do the same thing, but it's actually going to work.

By "better internals" they simply mean more internal length for the same stroke. I have no idea what you mean by your comment in bold above.

Running out of internal room is solved completely by external reservoirs. Whether they be piggy back, concentric (dual tube) or remote on a hose. Trunnion mount shocks are another option.

IFP volume is a constraint, but it's not a show-stopper. it's a constraint that solves itself by going to a smaller diameter shaft. IFP piston travel (and hence volume change) is driven entirely by the ratio of shaft diameter to IFP diameter.