Concepts, Videos and Updates from PhatWorks

[Mark W]

19 hours ago, Ross McArthur said:

There he goes!

 

Trials riders and the fetishisation of wheelbase.  Never changes.  I thought he was the development/test rider for those Yess frames so it seems kind of strange he didn't get the geo done to what he wanted, rather than bolting some forks on backwards to get to an arbitrary wheelbase length.

[Paperclip]

I have been following these updates on Facebook but nice to see them on the forum and people picking your brains a little Mike. I think it's nice to some negative/positive towards these ideas. The disc only drawing looks great. Something I could see myself buying. 

I seem to remember Crewkers making a bike with a similar geo idea which caught my attention as at the time the people who used to troll the forum with "they don't make strong frames with a shorter lower geo anymore" had exactly that on sale at Tartybikes. I am sure it was 1065/1070 with a 40mm bb.  Someone with more info will correct me but I imagine it wasn't the best seller due to the fact you can't buy them anymore. 

What realistically is the market for these with that in mind or would you be willing to make a geometry in these frames that could appeal more to the riders of 2018. I personally like the idea of 1065 and low bottom bracket but a longer headtube and steeper head angle could make this project rival the currently sold out hex. 

 

 

 

[Ross McArthur]

Shudder.

You got all Rusevelt’y at the end there.

[Phatmike]

AndyT, you're the first person wanting to try a set! From the few rides I've had so far, I wouldn't say it uses the biceps or even any muscles in the arms differently or particularly more than normal bars. Having not ridden them hugely, and being well out of practise anyways I'm wanting to get more riders' feedback on them.

The initial design was for a longer stem, and having them coming back down from the cross bar, and a newer design has them bent up from the same position on my bike now. Planning to get some of these versions made up soon for more people to try out. Much of this kinda stuff will be short runs - like the first 5 frames we did.

Mark, on the surface of it, it doesn't sound like Jeff sounds like a fetish and I can see how having the front wheel further back makes sense for some moves. I'm curious to give it a try myself just for the experience (still talking backwards forks?). As we're finding out with all this, there's so much left to explore, which is really part of the fun. It could well be that shorter (or even negative rake) does make sense, but we don't really know until there's some evidence that it's more fun to ride or higher sidehops.

Aye, you guys have hit the nail on the head with the Kicker Sprocket - if you can run two on your splines/threads, sweet. However, there's still a limit of 12, maybe 11 teeth, whereas hitting pace with 18:9 on a stock would be pretty reasonable! It would make a big difference to mods too. As Flipp said, it largely comes down to the tensioner, which I think we've nearly solved.

I did see an awesome prototype hub last week, which opens up a few other doors for drivetrains that I wanna try! One thing at a time hey.. You guys should see the pedals we're working on. 

 We actually made these prototypes in 4 different geos. Only mine and Andy Pontings are the same, and there's one more in Italy (I think.. very long story) that's getting built up now. We'll have more announcements about all this soon, and I can't freaking wait. Just spend more time designing the stuff than talking about it!

[forteh]

Tensioner? What's that all about then?

[Ross McArthur]

Aren’t you scared that Echo, Czar are going to come out with slightly worse looking versions in a few months time - like they do with most stuff?

[Phatmike]

They'll probably have it ready in a few weeks aye.

 

Tensioner.. Yeah - taking bloody ages. Staff issues

[Swoofty]

Not so sure about those handlebars. What's the supposed advantage there? It looks like something you'd use if an injury prevented you from using normal bars. 

[Al_Fel]

Looking at those handlebars it looks to me like the ones on the green bike wouldn't fit your hands properly? There's a curve where you're little fingers would rest.

Looking at the forks/lefty thing I can't see how they could ever be stronger than a traditional set of forks? The image that comes to my mind is if you got a stick and put it though a wheel then put either hand on either side of the wheel holding the stick and tried to do a press up using that wheel everything would balance out and you'd be fine. If you put both hands on one side of the stick there's no way you'd be able to do a press up. You're using the same tools but the leverage would make it impossible. Does the leverage not come up in your calculations?

Edit: I never went to Uni or did any kind of engineering I might be totally off with what I'm saying but that's just how my brain works.

[Paperclip]

23 hours ago, Ross McArthur said:

Shudder.

You got all Rusevelt’y at the end there.

Oh I'm sorry. 

I forgot asking a pretty serious question isn't the norm on T-F. 

Don't mind me, I'll just sit and think to myself who that hasn't already quit that I know would want a frame with a geo from 2005. Oh JJ Gonzales. 

 

 

[Phatmike]

4 hours ago, Al_Fel said:

Looking at those handlebars it looks to me like the ones on the green bike wouldn't fit your hands properly? There's a curve where you're little fingers would rest.

Looking at the forks/lefty thing I can't see how they could ever be stronger than a traditional set of forks? The image that comes to my mind is if you got a stick and put it though a wheel then put either hand on either side of the wheel holding the stick and tried to do a press up using that wheel everything would balance out and you'd be fine. If you put both hands on one side of the stick there's no way you'd be able to do a press up. You're using the same tools but the leverage would make it impossible. Does the leverage not come up in your calculations?

Edit: I never went to Uni or did any kind of engineering I might be totally off with what I'm saying but that's just how my brain works.

Al. Put bluntly - yeah we really have considered that. It is a funny one to get your head around, and we've done quite a lot of work to prove it as far as we can mathematically & using FEA - even as far as calculating the load on each single sheet of carbon. For sure we will really find out when we build them. If we're wrong, we'll learn a hell of a lot more, but so far, it works. I really like how they look too.

Sometimes things aren't quite as intutitive as they seem, let me give you a really simple example about something that is really not obvious, but true when you get to the nitty gritty:

In the image below, lets say these are two steel axles. They're the same material, lets say a decent quality, stainless steel, both the same length, subject to the same force - in bending.

The only difference between them is one is a solid, 12mm rod. The other - just a slightly larger 14mm dia, is a flimsy 1.54mm wall thickness, right?

The the solid bar, what w'being solid, weighs 88.4g. The thin-walled one, what wit great big ole down't middle is not far off half (53.2%) of the weight. Makes sense - there's a hole lot less (waay!) material there.

Yet, when you put a force on these two, they undergo the same stress, so in effect the same strength. What's more, the one that's half the weight is actually 16.6% stiffer. 

It doesn't seem intuitively right that something half the weight and so similar, could be stiffer, but as you know - it's where you put your meat that counts, not how much meat you have. Kinda all we're doing with a lot of things we're working on - just putting the right stuff in the right place.

Stuff like this, when applied in other areas, can really lead to parts that are stiffer, stronger, lighter, and with less material and processing; cheaper too. Of course there's a lot more to it than a simple bit of bent pipe, but that's really all a fork (or chopstick) is. 

 

The handlebars - yeah you're probably right there's not enough length on that model - that was mainly to visualise it. I'm close to getting something ready to produce for more folk to have a go with. Thanks for the thought.

 

Swoofty - Idea came from finding the benefits of an outwards hand rotation during yoga practise and seeing if they'll cross over to trials. It leads to a more open chest and heart, better and stronger posture and better breathing. I've found a feeling of more control and physiologically feeling more confident with my hands (ergo arms, chest, shoulders and back) in that posture. 

 

[aener]

I've been curious about the feeling of the bars since I first saw them.

For times when you're in an upright position I can understand what you mean.
When I started getting serious about riding I got some Monty bars and suddenly got a lot better quite quickly - I put this largely down to them being narrower and placing wrists at very close to shoulder width, making transfer of power easier. (How true that is, I have no idea, but it's what I told myself and I'm Ok with that )
The issue I foresee is when you get into the more "forced" positions that you're only in for very short times.
Tucking in a sidehop.
Leaning over the front in a hook.
Hanging over the back wheel at the limit of your tap height.
These kinds of positions require significant flexibility in wrist positioning and wrists have a far greater range of motion in pitch vs roll, and if you need to go even further than the joint flexibility allows, you palms can roll forwards or backwards around the bar. Most of trials is up/down or forwards/backwards.
My instinct is that whilst changing to a vertical wrist orientation might be more ergonomic, and better for natural posture (and possibly power transfer as a result?) in resting or balancing positions, your hand positioning being restricted in the pitch axis would heavily diminish your manoeuvrability. Have you found anything like this in your test rides? Also, specific to sidehops, does your forearm hit on the "crossbar"? I imagine not because you don't on a mod stem, but it's a big bar in a place there isn't one so who knows    

For all the reasons you mentioned, it makes perfect sense to have them on roadies. I'm kind of surprised they're not more common on thoroughbred XC bikes too. But - and I know precious little about health and fitness - they're aerobic sports where all that kind of breathing stuff makes a bigger difference. I know sections are taxing, but I think trials riding would come squarely under anaerobic? Which would make the benefits... not really applicable?

I'm not poo-pooing - I can't see myself running the bars or fork, but these are genuine questions and thoughts. I'm very interested in the difference these parts would make.

Some of them feel a little like innovation for innovation's sake to me, but then I guess I'm just really not your target market. (Again - that's not to say I'm not glad you're doing it.)
How about a silent freehub that can handle trials torques, ideally with King/Hope ish number of engagements (or equivalent thereof)? Sprags slip and clutches explode. Been racking my brains for years with threads and splines and all sorts, but I guess there's a reason said hub doesn't already exist!

[JD™]

Edited December 19, 2018 by JD™

[Phatmike]

Flipp, you're insights are spot on - especially the bit about innovation for its own sake; it's fun! 

Like you say, some of the parts - cogs etc, are gonna have some real benefit when we get them working. Same with the forks, in theory they'll be the lightest on the market so, higher sidehops.

Without giving too much away, strength hasn't been a design constraint for us, we're really confident they're strong enough. Our design considerations basically boil down to a stiffness to weight ratio, and we've got a design that we're happy to proceed with and then can tweak our layups in the real world and get off the pc.

Like I said you're right on the money with the bars. I'd say that sidehops have been absolutely fine with zero discomfort at all, and no hitting the crossbar like you mentioned. The only times I've found a limitation is when you've got your front wheel a lot higher than the back (static swaps, hooks etc) and you're right over the front. Even then it's really minor and you can adjust your posture subtly and easily to get around it. Getting the angle set right is the key. Everything else I literally jumped on and rode it. Hooks, gaps to front, taps, gaps, everything else yeah! 

I'm trying not to be biased and to genuinely critique what I'm doing. Really looking forward to other guys trying them and sharing findings. 

I'm not actively working on any drive train stuff for now, as of yet I don't think I've got much to give above what I know some other people are doing. I'm definitely putting my dream spec-list together for a rear hub though.

[Al_Fel]

12 hours ago, Phatmike said:

Al. Put bluntly - yeah we really have considered that. It is a funny one to get your head around, and we've done quite a lot of work to prove it as far as we can mathematically & using FEA - even as far as calculating the load on each single sheet of carbon. For sure we will really find out when we build them. If we're wrong, we'll learn a hell of a lot more, but so far, it works. I really like how they look too.

Sometimes things aren't quite as intutitive as they seem, let me give you a really simple example about something that is really not obvious, but true when you get to the nitty gritty:

In the image below, lets say these are two steel axles. They're the same material, lets say a decent quality, stainless steel, both the same length, subject to the same force - in bending.

The only difference between them is one is a solid, 12mm rod. The other - just a slightly larger 14mm dia, is a flimsy 1.54mm wall thickness, right?

The the solid bar, what w'being solid, weighs 88.4g. The thin-walled one, what wit great big ole down't middle is not far off half (53.2%) of the weight. Makes sense - there's a hole lot less (waay!) material there.

Yet, when you put a force on these two, they undergo the same stress, so in effect the same strength. What's more, the one that's half the weight is actually 16.6% stiffer. 

It doesn't seem intuitively right that something half the weight and so similar, could be stiffer, but as you know - it's where you put your meat that counts, not how much meat you have. Kinda all we're doing with a lot of things we're working on - just putting the right stuff in the right place.

Stuff like this, when applied in other areas, can really lead to parts that are stiffer, stronger, lighter, and with less material and processing; cheaper too. Of course there's a lot more to it than a simple bit of bent pipe, but that's really all a fork (or chopstick) is.

^ That works for solid and hollow bars but I'm talking about the front wheel. I think of a pizza when you explain it like that with two varying size diameters. A 10" pizza is a fair bit more pizza that two 5" pizzas haha.

Are you going to have a 100mm (not calculated just off the top of my head) through axle to match the stiffness of a standard axle held on both sides? As far as I know 20mm is the largest through axle available. Carbon is a great material but as far as I know its a lot softer than aluminium hence not being able to screw bolts directly into it. Is the axle going to be carbon as well?

 

Edit: Not trying to bash you at all. I'm just interested in your findings and the way you think. I appreciate the work you are doing and its good to see someone trying new things

[Phatmike]

Gotcha, I get what you mean now - was imagining someone putting a stick through your spokes, and then doing a pressup  

Yeah, you're quite right. The large diameter of the axle is 32mm. We've nearly finished the custom hub to match - Alex Dark has been working on that.

Aye, a pizza's a good analogy. A muffin would be more accurate.

[Lucky124]

Hi, your parts look very nice (to be honest, the bars look a bit crazy). I can imagine there are many people who want a more classic trial geometry and an option to change the gear ratio quick out there. Street trial bikes are actual a little bit too short in my opinion, especially if you want to ride in nature. How did you manage the rim brake? Always thought no other company does it this way, because Hoffmann Bikes patented it.

[Swoofty]

Back in the 90's everybody that raced XC had bar ends. I raced several seasons with them, but I honestly never felt more comfortable on the bar ends than on the handlebar. With the introduction of the first early carbon handlebars, they didn't play nice with bar ends, but bar ends were already on their way out and you rarely see them anymore. Anyone who wants to try out that hand position could easily install some bar ends and dial in the width to boot. Those contoured nubby bar ends that stuck in the ends of a handlebar seemed to make more sense to me, but brake levers would likely be an issue.

 

In response to the bar vs tube example, in the case of a lefty fork vs a traditional fork, it would be more intuitive to compare a tube to 1/2 a tube (ie an arch) and say that the arch is stiffer and stronger. I realize it's only an example of the fallibility of intuition, but humans are predisposed to accept symmetry and question asymmetry so you'll only ever be able to convince the engineers no matter how many numbers you throw at regular people. I'd still like to try one ;-)

[Phatmike]

Haha, I think the engineers are still skeptical - even I am!

We'll really find out when we make them and can run analyses and destruction testing vs other forks.

This is a good watch - skip to 5:00 minutes in for the real science.

 

[bing]

On 18/12/2018 at 8:00 PM, Paperclip said:

I have been following these updates on Facebook but nice to see them on the forum and people picking your brains a little Mike. I think it's nice to some negative/positive towards these ideas. The disc only drawing looks great. Something I could see myself buying. 

I seem to remember Crewkers making a bike with a similar geo idea which caught my attention as at the time the people who used to troll the forum with "they don't make strong frames with a shorter lower geo anymore" had exactly that on sale at Tartybikes. I am sure it was 1065/1070 with a 40mm bb.  Someone with more info will correct me but I imagine it wasn't the best seller due to the fact you can't buy them anymore. 

What realistically is the market for these with that in mind or would you be willing to make a geometry in these frames that could appeal more to the riders of 2018. I personally like the idea of 1065 and low bottom bracket but a longer headtube and steeper head angle could make this project rival the currently sold out hex. 

 

 

 

Yorkshire Dale has one, crewkerz freed I think, green thing that's a lot shorter than a normal tgs barge

[Ross McArthur]

Are you running bar ends?

[Mark W]

On 19/12/2018 at 7:51 AM, Ross McArthur said:

Aren’t you scared that Echo, Czar are going to come out with slightly worse looking versions in a few months time - like they do with most stuff?

The double wheel sprung tensioners they've just put out aren't particularly great compared to other sprung tensioners out there, but what "most stuff" have they done that with in the past few years?  I know in the past they were a bit snakey, but they've done their own thing for a while now.

On 18/12/2018 at 8:27 PM, Phatmike said:

Mark, on the surface of it, it doesn't sound like Jeff sounds like a fetish and I can see how having the front wheel further back makes sense for some moves.

It seems that was the key number for him, otherwise wouldn't he have said "I wanted shorter offset forks"?  What I meant was that people are fixated on the wheelbase figure over everything else, and attribute changes in ride/feel to a difference in wheelbase rather than the geo relevant to it.  It's something I see a lot when people are asking for recommendations on frames, parts, etc.

On 18/12/2018 at 8:00 PM, Paperclip said:

I seem to remember Crewkers making a bike with a similar geo idea which caught my attention as at the time the people who used to troll the forum with "they don't make strong frames with a shorter lower geo anymore" had exactly that on sale at Tartybikes. I am sure it was 1065/1070 with a 40mm bb.  Someone with more info will correct me but I imagine it wasn't the best seller due to the fact you can't buy them anymore. 

That was the Freed, which got replaced by the Desire.  The previous Atomz Premier was broadly similar though too.  When I binned mine off after going for a Sky, Ali built it up briefly and enjoyed riding it. 

The Freed was the frame that people kept asking for, but not many people actually wanted to buy (see also: every V-Brake frame/fork for the past 10 years).  It had quite a lot going for it.  Simple design, some nice details, integrated tensioner, good geo, etc. - it could just be that the brand was wrong.  Crewkerz have an 'image', and that doesn't necessarily square with the image that people wanting that kind of frame looked for.  The people who did want the Crewkerz 'image' wanted to have a bike more like a Jealousy.  When the Freed got replaced by the Desire they gave it Jealousy-ish geo, presumably for that reason.