Zesty or Five?
Comments
-
Nukeproof's rate curve is basically a single progressive curve, with a bit on the end at the bottom out region where the rate goes right up, all coupled to a linear coil spring.
Not trying to start an argument over this, but this is not that complicated a curve. Two points:
*) just for example, the shock I have has a bottom out chamber that hikes the compression rate at this point in the curve, bottom out adjusters are not uncommon on better shocks AFAIK - that takes care of the bottom out portion of the rate curve
*) as for the rest of the curve, a basic spring progression would give exactly that sort of characteristic that the linkage does
I'm not saying linkages are bad, they're just another solution to the problem. IMO, I think a different spring winding would be an easier solution than extra linkages and bearings. However, that gives frame manufacturers no opportunity to really differentiate their frames from other manufs. Which is basically a marketing thing. Whacking on linkages gives a big visible difference that people can jump on.
Ultimately it doesn't make a lot of difference which way it is done, as long as the whole bike rides right.0 -
It does make it harder for us poor punters though.
For example, I could buy a stock Orange (or whatever) then swap the shock (or just send it off to be tuned) and transform the way the bike rides. That's great in theory, but means that you can never really say whether a particular make of bike suits you or not. You can only say that this particular complete package suits you or not.
Of course, turning this on its head, that does mean that you should be able to buy any half decent bike that's roughly the right size and adapt it to suit the way you ride.0 -
Putting all the spring rate characteristics in to the spring or shock is ok but you still need linkages to alter axle paths or it's limited purely by the position of the pivot and the chain stay length.
You would never be able to make and frame feel exactly how you want just by changing the spring to one with the curve that suits you.Transition Patrol - viewtopic.php?f=10017&t=130702350 -
What i also don't get though is if the orange is so simple and the design so established why is it still so expensive? If a simple design reduces design costs and production complexity there should by now be some filtering down of savings. but its not.0
-
You're assuming that design costs get transferred to a single model, but I expect that's not how it works. I don't have access to Orange's books, so it's all speculation. But, if they are making the same bike in the same way year after year I can't really see why the price should fall. It should just fluctuate as the cost of raw materials and wages change. It doesn't cost them any less to make. Whatever they spend on R&D and marketing (which is probably just the wages of a designer and a marketing person) is spread over the range i.e. they may not change much on the Five this year as they have been working on the Five29 and Gyro, but they still get paid from the income generated by all the sales.0
-
Normaly R&D will be set to be recouped accross te life of a product, so for a bike roughly it would be accross 5 years.0
-
maybe they see themselves as a status symbol, british, handmade and all that, when alls said and done, plenty of people are willing to pay what they ask, so why should they drop the price ?Thewaylander wrote:What i also don't get though is if the orange is so simple and the design so established why is it still so expensive? If a simple design reduces design costs and production complexity there should by now be some filtering down of savings. but its not.Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc 10- CANYON Nerve AM 6 20110 -
RockmonkeySC wrote:Putting all the spring rate characteristics in to the spring or shock is ok but you still need linkages to alter axle paths or it's limited purely by the position of the pivot and the chain stay length.
You would never be able to make and frame feel exactly how you want just by changing the spring to one with the curve that suits you.
Do many frames that much of anything clever with axle paths?0 -
Thewaylander wrote:Normaly R&D will be set to be recouped accross te life of a product, so for a bike roughly it would be accross 5 years.
Possibly 10 if expected to be a long life bike product.0 -
Maybe, if you are writing a business plan. I've not seen Orange's business plan. Not even sure if they've got one, but I'm happy to bow to anybody who really understands how they operate. From what little I've read it seems to be a small operation so they probably don't look much beyond recovering all their costs from however many bikes (of whatever sort) they plan to sell this year. I'd be surprised if they even knew what the total R&D spend for the Five was, let alone factored it into any pricing model. But, as I say, I may be totally wrong about that.0
-
mrmonkfinger wrote:RockmonkeySC wrote:Putting all the spring rate characteristics in to the spring or shock is ok but you still need linkages to alter axle paths or it's limited purely by the position of the pivot and the chain stay length.
You would never be able to make and frame feel exactly how you want just by changing the spring to one with the curve that suits you.
Do many frames that much of anything clever with axle paths?
It's more of an issue with long travel bikes. A few DH bikes even have a rearward axle path, some only curve forward at the bottom end of the stroke. A rearward axle path works better on square edge hits, the compressing suspension isn't trying to pull the wheel in towards what it's trying to go over.Transition Patrol - viewtopic.php?f=10017&t=130702350 -
You can still design a small amount of suspension rate change into a non linkage full suspension - it all depends on how the force enters the shock, and how the angle of the shock changes.
However a linkage driven shock offers more scope for design - and you cannot build in regressive suspension rates into coil or air shocks. Progressive yes, not the other way round. Some designs utilise regressive rates in parts of the travel. Linkages also offer less wear on the shock bushings and more lateral stiffness in that area.
When we are talking 'single pivot' here, we are essentially talking about the 'forward and in line with the top or big chainring' designs as found on the Orange. I personally don't get on with these designs. They do offer a good level of anti squat, but the trade off is that you get pedal kickback as the chain length grows. This feeling through the pedals really puts me off, especially when climbing or pedaling through rutted terrain. It interrupts my rhythm (especially in tandem with a hub with poor pick up) and it feels that I lose traction and effort. Even descending the feeling is off putting in some gears.
I prefer a design that is more active and has little or no kickback - the trade off is that these bob more, but good low speed tunes combined with selected suspension leverages can help here and generally not at the expense of small bump sensitivity.
However, a linkage bike that uses a virtual pivot (true 4 bar) can offer some advantages. If the pivot is designed to move (and therefore the axle path is not a simple arc), then you can offer levels of anti squat at the start of the travel, with less deeper in the travel where you do not need it. This results in much less pedal kickback over medium and larger hits, but still good all round pedaling performance. Such designs are the DW link and Maestro. In addition the action of brake forces can be tuned to to prevent suspension extension due to forward mass transfer - think Spesh FSR. You can tune the brake and acceleration effects somewhat independently with 4 bar designs as the instant centre of rotation is not in the same place as the virtual pivot. It is with single pivot.
What works best is what suits your preferences. But there are very good reasons some bikes have linkages.0 -
Interesting stuff there supersonic. Thanks.0
-
No probs ;-). It has got to the stage where the designers understand all there is to know about suspension kinematics. A big shout has to go to Dave Weagle for this, he really pushed forward suspension theory. However it doesn't mean his design is the best - people like different things, and there isn't really any all round 'bad' designs anymore.
Many manufacturers do talk a lot of BS when explaining how their products works though. At least Orange claim nothing here!0 -
Recently bought a 2013 Zesty 314 going from a Giant Reign 1 then a Vitus Blitz 1. The Zesty climbs like you have a tail wind and decends effortlessly - couldn't be happier. It also looks the business. I debated a Canyon myself but I decided to go with a established company for peace of mind. Lapierre's also seem hold their prices better. Never liked the Orange 5 - looks like my dad could knock one up in the workshop in his lunchbreak
0 -
Tested both, as well as pretty much everything else I could get my hands on, found the Five the most fun bike out of the lot. Keep chomping down all the fashion/marketing spiel about curves chaps, you guys keep the industry alive buying a new bike every year.
The weight is seriously a non-issue on a trail bike, to be honest every concerted effort I've made to drop weight from my trail bikes I've regretted, especially carbon frames. Mine is silent, certainly not any creaking, I've heard the hose knocking around inside the swingarm when flying down stuff but then it's no worse than other bikes, once again stones hitting my Mojo downtube made a FAR more terrifying sound.
Found the Zesty very dull feeling, really wanted to like it, the end of season deals meant I could have a full bike for less than my Five frame and forks. Just as reliant, if not more so, on the pro-pedal to get rid of bob as the single pivot.
Such bizarre arguments, always the same few faces too, ho hum. Keep regurgitating the same rubbish into every thread. My favourite bit was the "If Fives and Megas cost the same, I'd still have a Mega because it's got more links." Fantastic stuff, had me chuckling, keep it up
Even MBR gave the 314 a higher mark than the five!!
Both WMB and MBR gave the Five a higher score than the Mojo HD, man, that's a fortune you've wasted there
Loads of links though, all is not lost! 0 -
supersonic wrote:When we are talking 'single pivot' here, we are essentially talking about the 'forward and in line with the top or big chainring' designs as found on the Orange.
I've always thought that stuff like the Mega, or Kona's bikes, are (linkage driven) single pivot. Basically the same animal as a 'high forward single pivot' with a different rate curve and the pivot dropped down and back a bit.supersonic wrote:However, a linkage bike that uses a virtual pivot (true 4 bar) can offer some advantages.
Yeah but no but yeah but no... different kettle of fish, DW/VPP explicitly manipulate the IC to achieve anti-squat & dive. Clever stuff and I agree, this is a genuine improvement (although personally I don't find the pedal kickback that big a problem, so I'm happy with a simpler frame, but my riding style is not your riding style etc).
My contention was that the vast majority of single pivot and linkage driven single pivot could be made to perform almost* entirely equally by an appropriate spring curve, at least equally enough that the average rider could not tell the difference.
* (ignoring any differences of the rate of damping & compression, because having the frame do the progressive rate means the rate at which compression & damping work are also progressive, that may or may not be a good thing)
good thread, all0 -
Toasty wrote:Even MBR gave the 314 a higher mark than the five!!
Both WMB and MBR gave the Five a higher score than the Mojo HD, man, that's a fortune you've wasted there Loads of links though, all is not lost!
Frankly I couldn't care less what you think, simply making the point that MBR bummed the hell out of the 5 for years until recently as better and cheaper bikes put it in it's place...0 -
Frankly I couldn't care less what you think
What I think? Aren't we quoting reviews as gospel here?
Such childish MBR trolling, gets so old very quickly. People used to say the same about Spesh bikes and MBR. WMB gave them chain 4.5s for years too, but we ignore those, less cool trolling WMB on here.
Review agrees with me? It's obviously fact and I was right. They disagree? Clearly it's biased and badly written.0 -
All magazine reviews are based on who spends the most on advertising.Transition Patrol - viewtopic.php?f=10017&t=130702350
-
Yeah, because Canyon, Boardman and Norco spend a fortune, right? I heard the moon landings were FAKE guys!0
-
Toasty wrote:Yeah, because Canyon, Boardman and Norco spend a fortune, right? I heard the moon landings were FAKE guys!
Backhanders.Transition Patrol - viewtopic.php?f=10017&t=130702350 -
mrmonkfinger wrote:supersonic wrote:When we are talking 'single pivot' here, we are essentially talking about the 'forward and in line with the top or big chainring' designs as found on the Orange.
I've always thought that stuff like the Mega, or Kona's bikes, are (linkage driven) single pivot. Basically the same animal as a 'high forward single pivot' with a different rate curve and the pivot dropped down and back a bit.supersonic wrote:However, a linkage bike that uses a virtual pivot (true 4 bar) can offer some advantages.
Yeah but no but yeah but no... different kettle of fish, DW/VPP explicitly manipulate the IC to achieve anti-squat & dive. Clever stuff and I agree, this is a genuine improvement (although personally I don't find the pedal kickback that big a problem, so I'm happy with a simpler frame, but my riding style is not your riding style etc).
My contention was that the vast majority of single pivot and linkage driven single pivot could be made to perform almost* entirely equally by an appropriate spring curve, at least equally enough that the average rider could not tell the difference.
* (ignoring any differences of the rate of damping & compression, because having the frame do the progressive rate means the rate at which compression & damping work are also progressive, that may or may not be a good thing)
good thread, all
The Mega pivot is still fairly high, the Kona is much lower and further back and produces practically no anti squat at all. I think most people associate single pivot with the higher type, though of course is certainly right to call the Kona one. With the linkages I thought I'd mention the distinction between a bar linkage and SP linkage driven one as wasn't clear from posts being made: as for shocks, you still cannot make a shock regressive. If you should want to ;-).
But like before, all this is theory, however theory I thought I'd try and clear up a bit: I always have maintained that the best set up for you is the one you like. For many the SP of the Orange ilk offer many traits that the rider might like. Linkages may offer none.0 -
If I were you I'd go with the Zesty. I came from road riding into Mountain Biking and found the Zesty to be an ideal starter bike. It climbed well (especially technical, rooty, rocky stuff where you needed to think about line choice) was fairly light so accelerated well and was a blast downhill. I had a 2012 Zesty 314 and immediately upgraded fork to Fox 32 Talas RLC so that I could adjust travel for climbing (sorry - that was the roadie in me). However, it was the 150 version which meant I had the extra 10mm for descending - awesome!!
I have since moved on as my riding has changed. I no longer go out for all day epics as much and much prefer to use my few hours for steep, technical downs with a few jumps with the odd climb here and there to get back up. My preferred choice - Commencal Meta SX.
Go with the Zesty, it's cheaper and you'll probably end up getting another bike as your skills/riding gets better. One thing I would also say is work on your core! Your core needs to be a lot stronger for mtb!0 -
Neither! Then zesty is French and therefore likely to break haha
and the 5 looks good but feels "numb"?
Saying that ... The 5 feels very stable for big drops...
I test rode a trek ex8, an orange 5 and a yeti asr 5. Ended up loving the yeti but the trek felt pretty good too just not as lively.0 -
Zesty's used to be fragile but I haven't heard of many newer ones breaking. But it still means giving your money to the French.
Not sure if I would rather my money went to Yorkshire or France. North Korea would be preferable to either to be honest.Transition Patrol - viewtopic.php?f=10017&t=130702350 -
It's not so much a case that Zesty's crack. All bikes crack. It's the fact that it seems to be harder to get them fixed when they do. See here for a recent example.
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cracked-lapierre-zesty-514-frame
Contrast that with a Five (since that's the subject of this thread) where it would be pretty easy to get a new rear end for pretty much any iteration of the Five.
Whatever you might think of the good people of Yorkshire, the fact is that if you give your money to them then you are more likely to get it back i.e. the Yorkshire worker is more likely to spend that money in the UK, a fraction of it will go to taxes that pay for things that you use etc. But we're getting somewhat off topic.0 -
andy_welch wrote:It's not so much a case that Zesty's crack. All bikes crack. It's the fact that it seems to be harder to get them fixed when they do. See here for a recent example.
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cracked-lapierre-zesty-514-frame
Contrast that with a Five (since that's the subject of this thread) where it would be pretty easy to get a new rear end for pretty much any iteration of the Five.
Whatever you might think of the good people of Yorkshire, the fact is that if you give your money to them then you are more likely to get it back i.e. the Yorkshire worker is more likely to spend that money in the UK, a fraction of it will go to taxes that pay for things that you use etc. But we're getting somewhat off topic.
That's just a poor policy from that particular shop, or so it seems. I would bet others would be more willing to order them in.0 -
0
