# The Empire Strikes Back! Pure Bike P*rn



## The Orange Prophet (Oct 4, 2006)

No words required

http://www.dirtmag.co.uk/news/categ...mpire-bike-lands-at-dirt-hq/dirt-1231288.html


----------



## chooofoojoo (Feb 22, 2007)

I always get mad when people say this but...

Damn that looks flexy.


----------



## Wizard4620383 (May 12, 2007)

what the hell is this .. i hope its a prototype .. that thing is unridable ..


----------



## atomlab (Sep 15, 2007)

it looks sweet but the swingdesign looks a little bit 2000!


----------



## Acme54321 (Oct 8, 2003)

Wizard4620383 said:


> what the hell is this .. i hope its a prototype .. that thing is unridable ..


Care to say why it's unridable?


----------



## rep_1969 (Mar 25, 2004)

It looks just like a Mountain Cyle, but "hollowed out".


----------



## Surfinguru (Feb 6, 2004)

Unridable? Whatever man. IMO, it looks ALOT like the Honda RN01 minus the gearbox.

Honda:









Empire:


----------



## Wizard4620383 (May 12, 2007)

the front end look very high to me and check how close the cocpit is , the wheelbase seem very short too .. idk, i says unridable by i wont be confortable on it personnaly ...


----------



## downhiller12345 (Jun 4, 2007)

looks more ridable than the Honda


----------



## rocman1287 (Oct 26, 2006)

looks rideable to me, its got two wheels right? may turn out to be pretty durable with the wide flanged frame.


----------



## Wizard4620383 (May 12, 2007)

idk the honda look way more suited for DH than the empire to me, im probably judging with own preference too ...


----------



## euroford (Sep 10, 2006)

very interesting. if that works out, seams a possibility of very efficient manufacturing.


----------



## 08nwsula (Oct 19, 2005)




----------



## rep_1969 (Mar 25, 2004)

Actually, looks more like a hollowed-out Shockwave to me.

Empire:







[/QUOTE]


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

The side view pic looks like the lense has twisted the perspective.

I think there was an article on it in a magazine some time ago, and they said it was very promising. We'll see. There's a lot of cast aluminum there...


----------



## Nick. (Dec 19, 2003)

Its nothing like the MC.
It appears that the chain is routed over a pulley in-line with the main pivot.

As far as it "looking" better or worse ... LOL @ you.

Until somebody rides it and can pick it apart, I say kick ass.


----------



## snow-man (Aug 19, 2004)

Is that the new 2009 Cannondale Raven?
Their carbon proved to be to flexy so they used aluminum?


----------



## cmooreboards (Jan 24, 2007)

Yea that looks like a really sick idea! Why bash it? You ever ridden one? If that works out I really think that it could be a unique niche in the cycling industry. I would like to know the weight on that thing though.........


----------



## Wizard4620383 (May 12, 2007)

ah im not bashing it .. i says it was my own opinion of the bike .. didnt say it was crap... it might be a good rig, but i just can't feel it ..


----------



## Mwehahaha (Oct 3, 2006)

I-beam type tubing (if you can call it tubing)

Hmmmmmm.... interesting.


----------



## maca (Jan 19, 2008)

saw a guy riding an empire prototype at an uplift day, he wasn't hanging around


----------



## joelalamo45 (Aug 3, 2006)

To borrow one of Snaky69's lines...

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.


----------



## JBaltaxe (May 11, 2004)

There seems to be a lot of nay sayers...Geometry aside, the frame does have strong points from an engineering perspective. Pardon my rant ahead of time, but I am an engineering student, and already in the engineering industry...

I am looking as closely as I can on the frame, and the first thing I notice is NO WELDS. Welds are the #1 area for failure, so eliminating that is a feat on it's own. Another cool thing is that is a one piece cast aluminum front triangle, which is an amazing, because it cuts back on required man power to make a frame. So if the bike winds up getting embraced by the community, cost might come down to something very reasonable. 

The one thing that concerns me, a little bit, is that because it is cast, the easiest way to make the frame is by using an I-beam style frame. I beams are insanely strong for their mass, but only in bending and axial loading(compression and tension). When it come to torsional loads(a twisting motion), I-Beams aren't very good. so that may yield some issues in the BB, or the head tube. but it looks awfully reinforced in those areas. 

Also, to make the bike he had to design it using some sort of computer aided modeling program, maybe pro-E or Solidworks, which both have wonderful FEA software that analyze the design before it has to be made. The great thing about this frame is that the production version will be WAY closer to the computer analysis. Especially compared to any welded frame, which are much more complex to model accurately in the analysis packages.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I'd buy one.


----------



## NorKal (Jan 13, 2005)

I-Beams are a great way to build a light and strong structure.


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

more edges to cut yourself on or cause more damage to your body because the force is pin-pointed instead of dispearsed area.....no effing way....plus no fan of single pivot, plus it looks heavy


----------



## Prettym1k3 (Oct 11, 2005)

#1 - Looks scary and NOT as nice/cool as the Honda bike.

#2 - What is that headtube angle? 60-degrees? Looks un-peda-lable.

-Mike


----------



## Nut! (Nov 2, 2007)

I wish we knew what the weight was.
Oh yeah, and since when does having a bike with round tubes protect you from crashing into pointy rocks? Come on SMT, that one doesn't even make sense.


----------



## psycoben (Feb 5, 2008)

its all I-beam. I bet the regular-tubed rear triangle flexes more than the main triangle. 

They say its cast though, and that scares me, why not forged. 

Either way, you are seriously going to have some beat up knees on that thing.


----------



## XSL_WiLL (Nov 2, 2004)

Duno if this has already been said, not big on reading.

I-beam should be light and stiff... As for twisting forces, it shouldn't be a problem since it has multiple members. Perhaps changing the orientation of one of the beams would help?

No welds? Looks good to me. No chance for a bad weld. No chance for bad penetration or too much heat etc.

Casts aren't cheap though... It does worry me a little bit about the usual inconsistency of structure with cast parts.

They might not use forging because of the difficulty to produce intricate shapes. But with the hard angles... it might be hard with casting too... metal doesn't flow so well into those corners when injected.

They'd also have to weld if it were forged.


----------



## NorKal (Jan 13, 2005)

did anyone catch the adjustable wheelbase? Looks pretty trick to me.


----------



## XSL_WiLL (Nov 2, 2004)

Khemical said:


> did anyone catch the adjustable wheelbase? Looks pretty trick to me.


Evil and Banshee had similar ideas... this one looks cooler though.


----------



## Bryguy17 (May 19, 2007)

as a bike, i think its ugly and im not a fan of single rear swingarms. As a concept, its a good thing though.

assuming the casting is free(ish) of imperfections, it will likely be stronger. The welds are where most bikes break, so if you eliminate the welds, you make its stronger. Also, you pretty much completely eliminate denting as a way of ruining a frame. You could throw this thing at a tree, and as long as the whole frame doesn't bend, the bike will be perfectly fine/ridable. 

In terms of production cost, it can probably still be greatly reduced. while casting things isnt exactly cheap, it can be automated. this gives a more consistent end product at a lower price point.

lastly, they shouldn't have put those decals in the frame. i would have been a lot happier with a raw cast aluminum finish. its just a really nice gunmetal color. This doesn't matter too much though


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

Prettym1k3 said:


> #1 - Looks scary and NOT as nice/cool as the Honda bike.
> 
> #2 - What is that headtube angle? 60-degrees? Looks un-peda-lable.
> 
> -Mike


1) That is your opinion, and in this case, irrelevant.

2) You are basing that off a static photo of the bike. Irrelevant.

I think this is a damn cool project, and would like to see some riding impressions, geo charts, and the weight. Until then, I'm glad to see someone thinking outside of convention and trying something new and unusual. Congrats to them. Screw the haters.


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

Looks cool, but aren't those sharp edges stress concentration areas?


----------



## JBaltaxe (May 11, 2004)

amen brotha


----------



## Orange-Goblin (Jan 27, 2008)

Revolutionary?? Just because no-ones ever made a bike that looked that f-ugly before!!!

But seriously, Structurally, many benefits, like a few have mentioned. Torsional loading is the biggest issue but i'm pretty sure they'll have ironed it out. Gonna hurt reeeeal bad when you come off and that thing lands on your legs!!

Good to see experimentation and progression though - this sport NEEDS it.


----------



## Karupshun (Jun 13, 2006)

I remember reading about this bike months ago

The process that they use to cast the bike is a closely held secret. I think the composition of the metal is specific to their process too.

Many MX frames take advantage of using cast parts. I see no drawback bringing the technology to the sport.


----------



## Prettym1k3 (Oct 11, 2005)

Andrewpalooza said:


> 1) That is your opinion, and in this case, irrelevant.
> 
> 2) You are basing that off a static photo of the bike. Irrelevant.
> 
> I think this is a damn cool project, and would like to see some riding impressions, geo charts, and the weight. Until then, I'm glad to see someone thinking outside of convention and trying something new and unusual. Congrats to them. Screw the haters.


Since when was this thread about anything relevant?

I thought relevant and opinion oriented posts were allowed in such a thread.


----------



## Cabdoctor (Jun 22, 2006)

one thing to remember is how many parts on cars are cast in the same manner as this bike. For instance piston rods, which must endure the pressures of starting a piston, stopping its motion, and then reversing that motion thousands of times a second. Have a turbo diesel truck? Well that compressor wheel was investment cast. Ever see the load/stress models for a compressor spinning at a 10,000+ rpm? I think this bike will be fine


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

It looks strong and light and ready to race. Only thing that would sketch me out would be hitting the side of my knee on the ibeam-ish top or down tube, dang that would hurt.


----------



## norbar (Jun 5, 2007)

XSL_WiLL said:


> Evil and Banshee had similar ideas... this one looks cooler though.


Commencal also has adjustable WB. Yet I think the headtube thing is an even better idea.

The bike seems nice. If it will be light why not give it a try. Can't wait for the next issue of dirt.


----------



## OilcanRacer (Jan 4, 2008)

first off most bikes break next to a weld from over heating or improper welding. not usually right on the weld.

second, how can company after company just copy the old tired designs over and over? patriot, shock wave etc.....

the cast idea works good for short, lower load bearing application which see forces in one direction. i would like to see what kind of numbers that front triangle does on lateral deflections. let along how it will last from continual use. those side braces could crumble after a while. the alloy and casting will be its only savior.

those sharp edges really need to be more crash freindly. guitine bike might be a better name. you can ride around and people can yell "hey your bike looks sharp"


























you can see the chain guide better here.

.


----------



## LoozinSkin (Jun 29, 2004)

is it just the angle of the shot or is this thing using the 26/24 wheel setup?


----------



## Heals120 (Apr 16, 2006)

Haha. It's basically made out of I-Beams.


----------



## lelebebbel (Jan 31, 2005)

It's always amazes me how some people can judge a bike from a single, angled 500px photo on the internet, without knowing ANYTHING about it, and seriously expect that their judgement is somehow better than that of the engineers who actually designed the bike.

looks flexy? looks heavy? geometry looks strange? front end looks tall (that was my favorite comment in this thread. because on this frame, the same fork thats installed on thousands of bikes is miraculously taller, right?)

seriously people, what the HELL are you thinking?

That said, cast bike frames are nothing new. See here:
https://www.firstflightbikes.com/KirkPrecision.html

There was also a MTB frame by the same company, later sold with "Centurion" labels. It had some serious issues though, like trouble with the press fit BB, corrosion, and generally being far too expensive, because a custom mold was required for each frame size.
Search for it in the Vintage boards here.








My former neighbour had one of those and used it as a town/beaterbike...

Casting a frame instead of welding it out of tubes has some drawbacks and some advantages. Apparently, the advantages do not outweigh the drawbacks enough, which is why there haven't been many cast frames. Diversity is always a good thing though, and the Empire does look kinda cool, with the exception of the swingarm. Just don't expect this to become a mainstream thing.


----------



## Wizard4620383 (May 12, 2007)

Prettym1k3 said:


> #1 - Looks scary and NOT as nice/cool as the Honda bike.
> 
> #2 - What is that headtube angle? 60-degrees? Looks un-peda-lable.
> 
> -Mike


exactly what i wanted to say about the HA ... thats what i mean by saying it wont be fun to ride ... that thing must so hard to control lol ..


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

The edges could be a big issue, that looks like its gonna hurt when it hits you.

Casting has come a long way, I think the technology is there to have very few flaws in a cast material, which could make a cast frame weight-competitive...

such as:

"SSM Process
Semi-solid casting of metal alloys is a production process that is increasingly being used to produce high quality aluminium alloy components for structural applications."

more info on SSM:
http://imi.cnrc-nrc.gc.ca/Carrefour_d_informations/Factsheets/moulage_semi_solide_e.html


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

Nut! said:


> I wish we knew what the weight was.
> Oh yeah, and since when does having a bike with round tubes protect you from crashing into pointy rocks? Come on SMT, that one doesn't even make sense.


think about it....if a force is coming at your body....the one spread (bigger rounded) out will 
will apply the force to a wider area of the body, so that the force is divided in a bigger area...meaning each place doesn't get full blunt force...don't get hurt as bad

if you get hit by an edge...the force is in a tighter vector, so either it could, but not likely pierce skin, or will apply greater force to the smaller area.

it's like getting punched or slapped.....fist is tighter and smaller so you have a more direct amount of force transferreed......a slap comes at the same speed, but the force is spread out to a larger area.....you never here people breaking bones from a slap, but you do with a fist.

hopefully you understand


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> think about it....if a force is coming at your body....the one spread (bigger rounded) out will
> will apply the force to a wider area of the body, so that the force is divided in a bigger area...meaning each place doesn't get full blunt force
> 
> if you get hit by an edge...the force is in a tighter vector, so either it could, but not likely pierce skin, but will apply greater force to a smaller area
> ...


No offense, but that is like 3rd grade science...


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

tacubaya said:


> No offense, but that is like 3rd grade science...


exactly....that is why I didn't understand why he posted back


----------



## Uncle Cliffy (Jul 7, 2006)

This bike looks dope to me... :thumbsup: 

I read about them in Dirt months ago. It was next to my throne for a while where I must have read the article 12 times. The 2 guys designing it worked on elements for months before getting the final design for prototype molds and initial casting.

Single pivot for simplicity. The main designer poured over every "super virtual multi jack-knife tripple bearing magic hype pivot suspension" design before throwing his hands up and deciding on the tried and true SP.

The bike is only 3 pieces!!!


----------



## NoBrakes! (Jun 15, 2007)

I like it

Sereously though let it get some road tests before people who think they know stufff about frame design and mettle working jump in and hate all over it.

If the company was going to go into production with it dont you think they would try to get the rinkles out and test and refine designs
my 2cents


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Single pivot is not bad when you get it right. There's plenty of examples of that rolling up and down trails.

The edges are a concern (never thought I'd agree on something with SMT :eekster: ).


----------



## The Orange Prophet (Oct 4, 2006)

*Rideable?*

http://www.rideon.co.uk/dynamic/?pageId=9&templateId=1

"On 18th August Craig competed in the Masters World Downhill Championships and finished in a very commendable 5th place. Considering you can count the number of times Craig has ridden a bike this year on one hand (and still have a thumb spare), his time of 4:14:91s is more impressive and only 3s off the podium! Craig admits that the track definately suited his 'moto' inspired riding style with a mix of deep, dusty ruts and off camber sections, however he hasn't competed in a downhill race for almost 5 years due to the addition of two new family members. Craig was also riding the prototype Empire AP-1 cast downhill bike which performed perfectly the whole weekend and certainly turned a few heads in the process! Following the event we have been inundated with emails from all over the world enquiring about where to buy the AP-1. Rest assured Empire are doing everything possible to get the bike out there! Check out the images below of Craig ripping it up!"

I had a conversation with Craig from Ride On a while ago and from memory, they have plans for some world cup outings. Time will tell.

If Dirt are excited about it then there's got to be something in it, those guys aren't exactly muppets.

The damage it might cause you if you laned on it might be an issue. I suppose it won't be available in sthe states in case someone breaks a nail and runs off crying to their lawyer 

As for ugly, whatever floats your boat. I'm not sure I'm a fan of the graphics but dark matt grey with the single EB logo and the shock outline in gold with black forks and wheels with maybe some 50:50's with gold plate would look pretty bling. Not that looks would be top of the decission making criteria


----------



## bundyloco (Jun 22, 2007)

*I could care less either way.*

It's an interesting idea. I-beam construction is also interesting, as the guy on the first page said, I-beams a great in tension and compression...not so good in torsion...ie - I-beams are great for static structures. Casting presents many challenges and many solutions depending on what you want to do. Casting is great if you have to many, small, intricate details such as an engine block. It can withstand heat well, but does a poor job handling thermal irregularities....Try welding a cast piece of iron. It can definitely be done, but it nothing short of an art to not crack the workpiece, yet get a good weld.

One other problem with cast (from what I remember, this is true about iron...not sure about aluminum alloys) it has the tendency to work harden over time. This means as it encounters loads, it becomes less ductile, stronger, yet more brittle. You anneal this back out, and I think you can continue to do so through the life of the part.

I admire them for trying something new and it looks interesting. It may be the next "big" thing. However, casting is usually done more for manufacturing reasons than for design reasons. Once you have the capital equipment (huge cost), it is relatively cheap to produce marginal quality parts or high detail as I stated above.

Here is a simple question though...

Why aren't there any I-beam structures in space frame chassis cars?


----------



## rep_1969 (Mar 25, 2004)

You know the more I look at this thing, the more I like it. At first I wasn't a big fan, but it's growing on me.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 26, 2005)

Some good points have been made - 

Eliminating welds is a good thing - if you are'nt heat treating afterward. If you are it's a moot point

Bikes are made of tubes for a reason. And I-beams are shaped like they are for a reason. Unfortunately these reasons are as dissimilar as they come.

A tube can have stress put on it from any direction, and still react the same way every time.

An I-beam is only designed to handle stress in the direction of the center web. Up and down. Side to side, they are flexy. Because they are not designed to be loaded that way.

They've done a fabulous job of combining modern construction methods with an antique suspension design, though...


----------



## frisky_zissou (Jun 4, 2006)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> exactly....that is why I didn't understand why he posted back


What he was trying to say is that if you say crashed in a rockgarden, the least of your worries will be a slightly worse bruise from the beam. Using your incredible theory on why the lack of surface area creates more pain, it is safe to say that the things you are going to land on will do allot more damage then the side of the bar. The edge of a rock will also give allot less than a frame which will generally move upon colliding with something.

And seriously, who's limbs actually hit the frame anyways.

I personally think it could potentially revolutionize frames, however, that thing must flex like a crazy mofo


----------



## ianinco (Jan 19, 2006)

> I-Beams are a great way to build a light and strong structure.
> __________________
> http://www.wickedracin.com


My point exactly. Know why they use "I Beams" for bridges, houses, trusses. H'mmmm.

Flexy? No way. Unridable? What, are the fu?#$n cranks welded to the frame? Grow up and stop making ridiculous assumptions based on a photo without any sort of intelligence.

As JBaltaxe said the I section is a great, light structure but can be subject to torsional loads. The cross flanges should eliminate this.


----------



## dwnhlldav (Feb 2, 2006)

bundyloco said:


> One other problem with cast (from what I remember, this is true about iron...not sure about aluminum alloys) it has the tendency to work harden over time. This means as it encounters loads, it becomes less ductile, stronger, yet more brittle. You anneal this back out, and I think you can continue to do so through the life of the part.


It depends on the Alloy used. At my last job we manufactured goods from cast aluminum pieces. I did a lot of hardness and failure testing. I can't remember the alloys at the moment (had my trusty book so I didn't have to memorize it), but some will work harden, some will air harden and some should remain fairly constant.

The only thing that worries me is the sharp edges, they would hurt. But I'd through a leg over it given the chance.


----------



## bundyloco (Jun 22, 2007)

*Assumption junction, what's your function?*



ianinco said:


> My point exactly. Know why they use "I Beams" for bridges, houses, trusses. H'mmmm.
> 
> Flexy? No way. Unridable? What, are the fu?#$n cranks welded to the frame? Grow up and stop making ridiculous assumptions based on a photo without any sort of intelligence.


Did you just tell others to not make assumptions based on pictures...



ianinco said:


> As JBaltaxe said the I section is a great, light structure but can be subject to torsional loads. The cross flanges should eliminate this.


...And then made an assumption based on pictures?

You sir have violated the decency and integrity of the interweb...this use to be such a perfect place. What will the interweb's neighbors think?

Besides...who cares, good on them for trying something new. You are so wound up, you didn't even take the time to proof your last thread...you were typing crazy symbols all over the place.



ianinco said:


> What, are the fu?#$n cranks welded to the frame?


I'm just giving you a hard time of course, no harm intended


----------



## Sim2u (Nov 22, 2006)

I think its very interesting and for the many points that have already been made...however, I also am not a fan of SPDesigns...NOT AT ALL!!! But the aesthetic design is actually pretty cool, even Niicolai could do no better.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Looks like the Empire DH bike is in production.
http://www.empire-cycles.com/product.html

I seem to have a Dealer/Distributor in my area and their sponsored rider has gone to Tenerife to get a feel for the bike...

promotional video:
http://video.mpora.com/watch/3NeoBxSRJ/


----------



## mfreak (Oct 26, 2008)

well when steve peat rides one then every one will want the bike  the k.i.s.s. idea comes to mind when i see it. from some of the jobs ive had in die casting with the auto industry and office furniture you can process out almost every defect that could come up. also you can xray every part for internal defects plus shot peening will relive stress all making it more durable. and im sure they have done some stress testing to see exactly where, when, and how the frame will bend crack or break. but the head tube angle dose look crazy from the pics. 

just my 2cents :thumbsup:


----------



## Irlbiker (Feb 14, 2007)

I was out in Les Gets a year or two ago and i saw the head tube snap clean off one of these. I for one won't be buying it.


----------



## xterrain (May 6, 2008)

Well...I found my new DH bike! Any ideas on pricing and spec parts sheet or will it be frame/shock only?


----------



## 4 Jaw Chuck (Oct 2, 2004)

A cast AL bike? WTF is that guy thinking?

Oh right, its cheaper to produce.

Whatever, if you like a frame full of porosity sounds great.

I wonder why engineers have been using tube shapes to construct bicycles for so long, ohhh right...multidirectional rigidity.

Geez how stupid of me, its cheaper to produce!

Somehow I bet the price won't reflect that fact.:skep:


----------



## derekr (Mar 21, 2008)

Ive seen that frame before its supposed to be v.strong i.e. no flex and pretty damn light. Not my taste looks wise but you dont look at the frame when your doing 50mph do ya?


----------



## el saltamontes (Oct 14, 2008)

empire

not sure if that has been linked before, but somehow i knew i've seen that before 

ps. of course, the vid doesn't say anything about rideability, but it's cool enough for itself...


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 26, 2005)

They're actually going through with this project and taking it to producton??

Have any of you ridden one of these or even seen one yet?

I'm no engineer (I've out-thought a few in my time though) All I'm really thinking about here is the hundreds of steel I-beams I've personally rigged to lift into place, usually in the course of building gas station canopies.

If the chokers stayed tight and the beam lifted with the web running up and down (vertically) then the beam stayed straight. But you could still look down it from one end to the other and watch it flex side-to-side with the naked eye.

If the chokers slipped and the beam turned 90 degrees while being lifted, it would sag in the chokers like a piece of spaghetti, and we'd have to have the crane operator put it back down so we could reset the chokers. Because of one simple fact, I-beams are not designed to bear loads side-to-side, period.

I-beams are only designed to be loaded on a single plane, where a tube can take a load from any direction. Sure, it may take a ton of stress up-and-down, but when you push this frame in corners its gonna feel like a noodle.

Why else do you think bike frames have been made from tubing for over 100 years? I don't care if it's round, square like an old Hawk frame, aero or teardrop like an old JMC, round tubes flattened in a press like a Karpiel, any shape, straight gauge or butted or custom-drawn, whatever, it's still a "tube", and has a much better chance of successfully bearing a load in a bike frame structure than an I-beam has...


----------



## CaliforniaNicco (Oct 13, 2008)

neato!....psyche...I'd hate to have that seat tube crack and have half of it up my ass....


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Big Mike said:


> Have any of you ridden one of these or even seen one yet?
> 
> ...it would sag in the chokers like a piece of spaghetti, ...


So you are telling us that it would have been easier to build a gas station canopy out of tubes?

No I haven't ridden one, or even seen one myself. Neither have you.

I am convinced that a bike has been built up in my country, far enough from the Empire factory. The rest? I want to know how it turns out, before making my judgement.
http://www.retki****a.net/www/content/view/656/49

edit:
apparently the forum software thinks my link and pic link are indecent.... They are not. Let's see... it should say "_r e t k i k u n t a_" (remove spaces) between www and .net


----------



## Sim2u (Nov 22, 2006)

Personally I like MANY things about this design...except the weight, the Single Pivot blows loads, the various designed I-Beams (to put it that way) are extremely flexy when in the context of lateral twisting and if and when you hit them either riding, jumping, landing...etc etc, those edges would leave serious bruises (even in the context of just railinig a berm if touched hard enough and then bump...OUCH. I guess shin gaurds are great for that too) and if crashed would break bones with ease. If you are going to bomb straight down the mountain OK, no problem. However, trails are never straight up and down and just because it was designed by a "Design Engineer" Does not make it good.

There are THOUSANDS of extremely bad bridge designs, car designs, components design...etc etc etc, so dont for a second think that this is good purely based upon the fact that a designer made it. There are a lot of building designs that fall under the catagory of strategically BAD design, which were made by VERY VERY VERY famous architecs and are now almosts relegated to lemons in light of how they work, allow people to flow through them either functionally or ergonomically. At times, we deisgners let the design take over what is perhaps more needed or usefull to the project to state it in such simple terms.

Currently at my job, we are designing a new form of HUD unit for BMW and other brands and I can say that from fact that designs DO take over the functionality of the project at times.

So, I guess what I am saying is that new inovations are always good, but that does not make them good.

Another example would be the new RASE seat post. I absolutely LOVE this product and I have used this now for a few months and I will never give it up yet...that does not mean it is flawless...far from the fact. Its seat angle is severely restricted limiting it to ONLY XC type bikes (or AM if you want to have a wonky seat angle), when you tighten the seat collar at normal strength, the seat tube is rendered usless as the internal rail structure HITS its own internal seat tube housing so it can neither be raised or lowered. When lowered at ANY hight, the bottom of the seat tube is completely exposed to the elements so the spring and internal housing is then also exposed to all manner of trail debre - dependingon models.

All he would have to do in order to make that product severely GREAT, would be to address those problems ASAP, which can and could be done rather cheaply. Yet, over 5 years were invested in the R&D process...!?

Well at the end of the day I still LOVE it for what it gives me, but haiving to put the seat tube on backwards in order to gain the almost right seat angle for more agressive AM use is perhaps not one of the best of ways in which to reach such a simple sollution. Likewise with this new design, I will not pass any factual design judgements till I have ridden it or read boat loads of data on it...so far though...PASS!:thumbsup:



ianinco said:


> My point exactly. Know why they use "I Beams" for bridges, houses, trusses. H'mmmm.
> 
> Flexy? No way. Unridable? What, are the fu?#$n cranks welded to the frame? Grow up and stop making ridiculous assumptions based on a photo without any sort of intelligence.
> 
> As JBaltaxe said the I section is a great, light structure but can be subject to torsional loads. The cross flanges should eliminate this.


----------



## JOURNEYC6 (Jun 7, 2008)

whats wrong with single pivots???? to name a few of the best bikes with "single pivots":
Tomac, Broklin, MC, Orange, Chumba, GT, Intense, R. Mountain, Honda, Norco, Iron horse, Foes, .......you want me to keep going??
Love the bike, we have to get out of the tube and triangle idea, we still welding tubes like they did 100 years ago:madman:


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

JBaltaxe said:


> There seems to be a lot of nay sayers...Geometry aside, the frame does have strong points from an engineering perspective. Pardon my rant ahead of time, but I am an engineering student, and already in the engineering industry...
> 
> I am looking as closely as I can on the frame, and the first thing I notice is NO WELDS. Welds are the #1 area for failure, so eliminating that is a feat on it's own. Another cool thing is that is a one piece cast aluminum front triangle, which is an amazing, because it cuts back on required man power to make a frame. So if the bike winds up getting embraced by the community, cost might come down to something very reasonable.
> 
> ...


but you posted something about being gay????


----------



## Sim2u (Nov 22, 2006)

OMG...Here we go again...Meh!!!!

I am not even going to waist my time on that... :thumbsup: moreover, you show your knowledge level with that answer. Either way its rather ironic when you mention; Quote "*we have to get out of the tube and triangle idea, we still welding tubes like they did 100 years ago*" End Quote, yet in almost the same sentence you mention how SPDesigns are great - indrectly by asking the rhetorical Question "*whats wrong with single pivots????*" WOW, thats a bit of a disconnected idea perhaps!? Thats like some double faced republican coming up and making claims about waistfull spending when his arse is 'bottom over head in the sand', responsible for the iconic debt intially...if I could put it in such simple terms.



JOURNEYC6 said:


> whats wrong with single pivots???? to name a few of the best bikes with "single pivots":
> Tomac, Broklin, MC, Orange, Chumba, GT, Intense, R. Mountain, Honda, Norco, Iron horse, Foes, .......you want me to keep going??
> Love the bike, we have to get out of the tube and triangle idea, we still welding tubes like they did 100 years ago:madman:


And if you think you are the only person who thinks welds are old tech...think again. And in terms of your so called "Out Of the Box" thinking, perhaps try not limiting your imagination to ONLY metal materials as such. I mean, read New Scientist and MANY MANY MANY other tech related mags and websites (unless like me you are in R&D in some areas) and you would know that in the next few years a few intersting materials will be applied to the traditional idea of building with metals.

This is NOT a new idea as someone has already pointed out. If I were to build a bike, would I do what they have done...NO! They seem to have really thought about the material in a VERY litteral manner.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

JOURNEYC6 said:


> we have to get out of the tube and triangle idea:


Not necessarily...
whats wrong with tubes and triangles???? to name a few of the best bikes with "tubes and triangles":
... nah, you know there's lots of good tubes and triangles bikes out there.

just: I am not prepared to throw this cast frame thing into the Recycle Bin just because some Armchair Engineers think it is junk.


----------



## Sim2u (Nov 22, 2006)

Myself...I dont think its junk...neither do I put myself in the context of an "Armchair Engineer"...ha ha ha, had to laugh at that really.

I *am* rather interested to see where this goes and how *far* they will push both the *design* and *materials*.

But again, would I do it in the way they have...perhaps not.


----------



## thump (Aug 10, 2007)

perttime said:


> I am convinced that a bike has been built up in my country, far enough from the Empire factory.


Engineering geek talk aside.. that is a sexy bike pic.


----------



## Sim2u (Nov 22, 2006)

Yeah it does in way...it looks like a tool you would use to "smash the living sh!t" out of ANY trail...he he he. Still...as I said a WHILE back up in the thread, its an interesting design although, I am more interested to see where it goes and how far it will be taken. It certainly has been K.I.S.S.S.ed though.


----------



## JOURNEYC6 (Jun 7, 2008)

Well....I'm not republican:nono: , and yes I like the "old" single pivot technology because it gets better every day with the new shock technology. Absurd to me to have 10 bearings, 4 links...... and at the end more parts than a Swiss watch:nono: . I will like to see more cast, forged, monocoque construction.....


----------



## his dudeness (May 9, 2007)

I for one think it's a good CONCEPT solely for the fact that this is a pretty innovative and new way of making a frame. While I'm not the biggest fan of SP's it looks like this one was executed relatively well. Would I buy one? No. But it is showing off how the future of dh bikes might look if engineers keep pushing the envelope.


----------



## Prettym1k3 (Oct 11, 2005)

The scary thing is that it's cast. That just freaks me out.


----------



## farmerjohn (May 7, 2007)

*Unleash the Fury*



his dudeness said:


> I for one think it's a good CONCEPT solely for the fact that this is a pretty innovative and new way of making a frame. While I'm not the biggest fan of SP's it looks like this one was executed relatively well. Would I buy one? No. But it is showing off how the future of dh bikes might look if engineers keep pushing the envelope.


While I appluade concepts and pushing the envelope of design and engineering, I cante help but laugh at this thread. It reminds me of when GT first introduced their new all carbon DH Fury; where so many were commenting on how the bike is unriddable, just a macked up prototype and how scary Carbon is. 
So, some guy in the UK has a big sandbox and poured in some liquid alloy. Is it innovative? No! Is GT's bike innovative? No! Are both progressive in their engineering, YES.

Can it be commercialized? Now that is the question. Concepts are great, they get us all thinking and talking but at the end of the day, who is helping the average joe DH'er? The whole idea is to bring these concepts to market at fair prices allowing the average joe to take advantage of all this progressive engineering


----------



## NorKal (Jan 13, 2005)

LOL, it's funny to go back over this old thread...people are so angry over this bike. I don't get it. :skep: 


On a separate note, what if Yeti, Empire and GT combined forces and mated the 303's sliders with the I-beam and added GT's i-drive. Now we're talkin'!


----------



## Sim2u (Nov 22, 2006)

Meh...not angry at all!!!!

Although some have a rather strong disspossition against it.

Khemical, I think you could make a new thread about that called, "Mished / Mashed - what would be the perfect frame-tech combintations"...or something!? 

Would be cool I think!


----------



## ruppguts (Sep 7, 2007)

Wouldn't buy it. Looks too hard to clean!


----------



## Sim2u (Nov 22, 2006)

..................:ciappa: he he he. Well...you would'nt really have to worry about it being dinged-up or scratched as much as traditional frames, [per say] yet, imagine the mud build-up though ... !


----------

