Orbea’s 2024 Rallon Gets More Travel & Slacker Geo

 Piss us off consistently for christ sake

 For my personal tastes, no amount of correct cable routing can overcome a kinked top tube. I’ve heard Orbeas are great bikes, though.

 @PHX77: amen

 Maybe just maybe they listened to the revolt? I for one had ruled at any such headset routed bike.

 @PHX77: they really are. I got to demo the last gen Rallon and that that thing was like a magic carpet. Not a looker unfortunately.

 @PHX77: No kink shaming

 @PHX77: But look at that water bottle space

 I was about to say something similar. My first and only eMTB and Orbea product is a Rise. I love it but the quality level of the frame, especially in suspension linkage system, has be questioning the quality level, especially compared to some of my other bikes I have in my quiver (Transition, Evil, Yeti, Commencal).

 The same goes for YTs IME. Great bikes, but the build quality is not up there with Specialized or similar.

 Counterpoint: I switched from an Occam to a Stumpjumper last year and the Orbea quality is vastly superior to what I'm seeing from Specialized. Every bike has its quirks but in general riding or working on the Stumpy has a been a significantly less pleasant experience. I beat the shit out of the Occam for 3000 miles and it's held up significantly better than the Stumpy after 1/2 the mileage.
Buddy is mine is on a Rallon now, coming from a Pivot, same feedback.

 I have a 2020 Rallon, that thing has been bulletproof. It has taken so much abuse and has not given any trouble. I have a first gen Rise and the linkages are the huge downside of that bike. I think the new upper linkage has mostly addressed that issue. The Rise is a flexy bike, the Rallon is somehow a razor sharp weapon that is built like a tank.

 End ratio is 33 percent more progressive than start ratio.

 Shit, that's a bad explanation, I used bad words. coffee morning.

 At the beginning of the stroke, the ratio of displacement between the wheel and the shock, or leverage ratio is 3.1, at the end of the stroke, the leverage ratio is about 2.35. This means, the leverage ratio is about 33%, that is the leverage ratio is about 1.33x higher at the beginning.

Idk what Matt is on here. You are correct to call into question that sentence, makes no sense.

 I'm thinking it has something to do with sag, as at 30% sag, the bike sits at 51mm travel, and this corresponds to a leverage ratio of like 2.9 or so, which is about 22% higher than at bottom out where the ratio is 2.35.

Maybe he is trying to say the leverage ratio is 22% progressive from sag to bottom out or 33% progressive from full extension or top out to bottom out. Idk but technical writing requires some specificity.

 Especially "progression that starts X and moves to Y". From that graph, the rate of change to the ratio (slope of the tangent to the curve) actually decreases, which would be a decrease in "progression" through the travel.

Pretty sure they "measure" progression by computing how much more of the end ratio would be needed to get the starting ratio. At least that's the only way I can get ~33% "progression": 2.36 * 1.33 = 3.14.

Going the other way, removing 33% of the starting ratio, which I think is the usual way to measure since it's measuring the ratio changes as the suspension "progresses" through the travel, would give an ending ratio much lower than that chart indicates: 3.14 * 0.66 = 2.07.

22% doesn't line up in any way with that chart either, so who knows what the hell they're actually measuring.

 @j-t-g: A ratio isn't progressive by itself. it's the relative change in ratios that is called progression in the mtb world. A linear "curve" (a straight line) would be considered "progressive" if the ending ratio is smaller than the starting.

Real progressive leverage curves would have an increase in the _rate of change_ of the ratios: not only does the leverage ratio get smaller, but it gets smaller faster. This is what really helps a coil sprung bike feel bottomless.

 That is a very confusing statement for sure. (Starting-Ending)/Starting and it looks like about 3.12 starting and maybe 2.36 ending, which would be about 24%.

 @rideordie35: hahahaha! You made me spit coffee all over my phone, calling Pinkbike "technical writing". What a joker you are!

 I like how the travel on the chart starts at ~8mm.... 8-167mm is the travel the wheel goes through. lol.

 @NorthEasternDownhiller: If you put a Vivid on it, the first 16mm don't get damping, so...

 @NorthEasternDownhiller: The chart starts at 0, but the tick labels of the x-axis don't make that obvious

 @pmhobson: the line doesn't start at the start of the x-axis

 @justinfoil: d'oh. you are, of course, correct.

 @justinfoil: yup, the way the article wrote it is utter nonsense. What I assume @mattbeer misunderstood from Orbea is that the old model had about 22% progression and the new one has about 29% progression, which is a 33% *increase in progression vs the old model* (22%x1.33=29%), NOT from the beginning to the end of the stroke (which as you point out, makes no sense).

 while I'm at it, it looks like they just overshocked the old model from 60mm to 62.5mm stroke (same 230mm i2i), and *may* have shortened the yoke to get a slightly slacker starting geometry. That said the bike already had an extremely low BB, so my guess is the head angle didn't change at all and they just fudged it a half degree for marketing.
I could be wrong and there's a chance they modded the yoke and link, but it's very unlikely they opened new molds for carbon and left everything but 0.5deg exactly as it was on the old model. If I'm right, good news for us bargain hunters that can just buy the old version and overshock it 2.5mm.

 Last one, but I may have misspoke slightly. Given the change in progression, they probably do have a fresh link and/or yoke. I'd still be very shocked if there are new seatstays or chainstays. So still good news for owners of the previous frame... my bet is it won't take much to bring it up to '24 spec.

 @ohio: The geo chart also shows a 4mm longer fork - which I assume entails a spacer under the headtube, since there is no a-c change between the 23 and 24 fox 38. So, if it is not a different frame (which I guess it could be since I think Orbea build everything in house), then I would guess it is a 4 mm fork spacer and a new yoke to bring the bb back down and keep the rest roughly the same... although I would guess that should change the stack and reach a little. If anyone has answers on this please say! I have a 22 Rallon and would love to be able to add a spacer, change the yoke, and remove a spacer in the shock to get these geo changes.

 @urbss: Ah, nice find. Yup, that would do it - a few mm of height up front and a mm or two out of the link or yoke, and you'd have your 0.5 deg change with the same BB. The only weirdnesss remaining is how to get from 22% progression to 29% with only a 4% increase in shock travel. I've never examined a Rallon, BUT depending on the forging, it may just be a slightly different machining op to the *link* that moves the yoke mount rearward/downward. That would get the BB drop and move the compression curve into a slightly steeper section *without* changing the yoke.
Whatever it is, I'm sure owners will figure it out pretty quickly, but given what you just highlighted my $20 is on it only required a new upper link, and not even a new yoke.

 @ohio: Response from orbea: Good morning and thank you for contacting Orbea and for trusting in our bikes!

Regarding your enquiry, the frame of the Rallon 2024 has been slightly modified compared to the 2022, making the geometry slightly more launched.

The shock has also been modified from 230x60 to 230x62.

That said, we can confirm that the new shock will fit your 2022 frame without the need to modify either the linkage or the extension.

We recommend that if you are thinking of making this type of modification, you should always go to an official Orbea dealer , as in addition to offering you the best advice and technical service, this will prevent the bicycle's warranty from being compromised.

We thank you again and invite you to contact us for any further information you might need.

Best regards

My opinion is that they didn't change anything. How can you modify the head angle without modify reach and wheelbase? Reading the bluepaper there is no any spacer under the crown. Maybe they modified the moulds, but it's very espensive and do that for 0,5 is strange..

 @fabio77: I got a similar response. Odd if they changed the mould for such a small shift (or maybe it is easier than I think if production is in house?). I also didn’t see a spacer on the blue paper (and that would also change the reach and other details) but it is odd that this frame is listed with a longer fork length without explanation.

 @urbss: I am trying to crack this as well and got consfused (I have moved from 2021 frame to 2023 one). This is the answer I got from them when I asked if it's possible to have mullet on longer stroke shock and if longer shock will affect head angles. Of course I think they made a typo and meant slacker instead of steeper

"What this means is that on the 2022 and 2023 Rallon models you can install 230x62mm shocks, like the ones we install on our new Rallon 2024. Both with 29" wheels and in Mullet configuration. This will give you 167mm of rear travel, just like on the Rallon 2024.

However, the geometry you would get would not be exactly the same as the new Rallon 2024; as the new models have undergone a slight modification that provides a steeper steering angle than the 2022 and 2023 models. "

Also, which spacer under the crown you're referring to? Can't find in the blue paper, and I started to wonder what geo my bike has now as it has 2021 fork (although 2023 headset)

 @elmoneighties: I didn't say there was defo a spacer under the crown, just that that seems to be implied by the fact they list the fork as longer even thought it is the same according to Fox. I now think that a spacer is unlikely, but I still can't explain where the different fork length on the geo chart comes from. That alone is almost enough to shift the head angle 0.5 (assuming some rounding error), but then of course the other numbers should change then also.

 @fabio77: you get by further with figuring this one out? keen to understand what they have actually done to get that geo.

 True, but unlike Kona-style faux-bars or Orange style single pivot, the brake isn't mounted on the chain stay, so there should be less brake jack, if that's something that bothers.

 @mountainsofsussex: I'd still like to see a break down between those two. Split pivot, chainstay pivot, seat post pivot. Where's the math?

 @icanreachit: Chainstay pivot = 4 (at least) bar, seatstay pivot = signle pivot, split pivot = single pivot with less AR, so it can brake like a (typical) 4 bar, but has pedal kickback like a single pivot. 4-bar is a very wide category, it gives flexibility to do many things, so having low AR is not per se a feature of a 4-bar. So called virtual pivots (like VPP) are also really 4-bars from mechanical perspective.

 @icanreachit: Two plus two is four minus one that's three, quick maths

 Btw if you wonder why the hell I am talking about pivots it's because this press release specifically mentioned that Rallon is a 4-bar, but since then this part was removed.

 Yea lets just set the score straight here, this is a Linkage Driven Single Pivot. Same as Trek's ABP system. Sure the brake may be mounted on the chain stay on some, and seat stay on others but they're still all LDSP

 @icanreachit: Just visualize it:

If the brake is on the chainstay, the torque from the wheel will want to rotate the chainstay _into_ the travel. This will create unmitigated anti-rise.

Brake on the seat stay (horst/FSR or split/ABP) causes the brake torque to be directed into the linkage, actually applying a tiny force towards extending the suspension, since the linkage end of the seatstay is going to rise through the travel but the rotation from brake torque wants to push it down. This means anti-rise can be tuned via the linkage pivot locations (and chainstay pivot on horst), though axle path and leverage ratios are also effected by those same pivot positions.

You can also experience it by taking the shock out of a bike in a workstand, getting the rear wheel up to speed, and grabbing the rear brake. A single-pivot, or anything with high-ish anti-rise, will slam the suspension compressed, while a multi-link bike with lower anti-rise will stay mostly extended.

 @justinfoil: Great explanation.

 @mariomtblt: for leverage curve, yes, there are 4 bars. But for axle path, no: there is but a single pivot and bar that define the entire wheel movement.

 @KJP1230: "essentially, a solid rear triangle"

What? No. Are you describing a hardtail. Or maybe a multi-link like VPP or dw-link, which are very much NOT single-pivot. Or maybe you are thinking of something like an Orange or a Specialized P.Slope, but until like a year ago there was no linkage on any Orange, and never a linkage on P.Slope.

 @justinfoil: I see what you mean now, good point. But what is the concern? I've ridden an evil and a reeb and honestly they ride pretty dam good.

 @justinfoil: What? A solid rear triangle (without multi-links like VPP or DW, or a moving pivot like Yeti) IS a true single pivot.

Here are some examples off the top of my head: Orange, V1 Forbiddens, Deviate Cycles, Propain, Starling, Evil, Commencal.

Solid. Rear. Triangles. The point of my post is to say that true, strict "single pivots" (as defined by the bike industry) have ride characteristics that are different than (arguably) similar designs like split pivot.

 @KJP1230: I think you have to forget about the whole solid rear triangle thing. If there is 1 bar connecting the rear wheel to the main pivot, it is a single pivot period. The rear wheel is rotating around the main pivot. After that, you can direct mount the shock, like the old Oranges did, or you can drive the shock with a linkage - enter Linkage Driven Single Pivot. Under the umbrella of LDSP you'll find the likes of Konas Treks, older Commencals, Orbea's, etc. Whether the seatstay pivot is right down above the rear axle, or all the way up near the seat tube, it doesn't matter, both are linkage driven single pivots because of the rear axle path being concentric to the main pivot. Everything after that is just driving suspension curves/progressivity.

Okay so lets talk anti-rise. Anti rise, brake jack, whatever you want to call it is dependent on where the brake caliper is mounted. On a Kona, older Commys, its on the chainstay. On this Orbea and Treks, its on the seatstay giving different characteristics under braking. @justinfoil did a fantastic job explaining that, but lets remember, a single pivot bike is not defined by the brake being mounted to the chainstay, its defined by the axle being connected to the main pivot by a single solid bar.

 @KJP1230: Wrong.

 @icanreachit: What, of what I have said, is wrong?

The US patent office provided 2 patents (one to Dave Weagle, one to Trek), to show a protectable and material difference between what I am describing as single pivot as compared to concentric/split pivot designs.

The only thing I have ever argued is: there is a material difference in the performance and characteristics between single pivot (both traditional and linkage driven) and split/concentric pivot. I have also argued that reviewers and the brand typically, correctly, label bikes as such because of these terms are useful.

Finally, in the way that these terms ARE used by brands and reviewers, a single pivot or linkage driven single pivot will have a solid rear triangle (although a solid rear triangle can ALSO be used in multilink designs such as VPP, DW Link and Switch Infinity).

I am just not sure why these facts are even being debated. They are just flat out true.

 @KJP1230: Ultimately we are arguing a small nuanced difference in the terminology around "Split Pivot". I would argue, as many others would that "Split Pivot" falls under the umbrella of "Linkage Driven Single Pivot" and is simply a different flavor, not the full isolated suspension layout that marketing companies want you to believe. I don't want to act like I am the guru of rear suspension layouts, I just dislike in the bike industry when something is given a fancy acronym, that is really not new tech. In this case, ABP, Split pivot etc, feels like its promising some fancy suspension tech, when in reality, the rear axle path, and the way the shock is driven is EXACTLY the same as a linkage driven single pivot... because according to my definition of a single pivot bike, it is one...

So the question is how do you define a "Single Pivot"? For me, as I understand it, and as I feel it SHOULD be defined is a bike whos rear axle is attached to the main pivot by one solid bar resulting in an axle path that is concentric to the main pivot. Whether that bar is part of a solid rear triangle, or is its own link with a pivot above the rear axle on the seat stay, it doesn't affect the axle path. To say ABP/split pivot is an isolated rear suspension layout from a linkage driven single pivot is just confusing people with terminology and smoke and mirrors IMO.

Now that's not to say some bike reviewers don't misunderstand this concept and will claim a split pivot has better small bump sensitivity or something but that's just bs and placebo because it is just a ldsp. But there's alot of bs in marketing terminology in the bike industry which is what I am trying to push back on.

I'm fine with calling it a "Split Pivot" bike, if the brake is mounted to the seat stay, to refer to a certain rear end characteristic that happens under braking, but it. is. still. just. a. linkage driven single pivot bike. The solid rear triangle thing you just have to forget about, that is simply just defining where the linkage for the suspension is pivoting from, and drives suspension characteristics, not axle path.

 We all agree. But from a linkage standpoint, a single pivot implies that the wheel path is defined by single linkage between it and the pivot on the frame. However the mtb industry has marketed it. While a a linkage driven system may have the same number of pivots as a four bar, and it's technically a four-bar linkage, where the axle is is attached has the wheel pivoting around a fixed point in space, making it perform like a single-pivot bike.

A split pivot is still a single pivot. The full name is a "Linkage driven split pivot". People just get lazy and call it a "split pivot".

www.pinkbike.com/news/pinkbike-poll-whats-your-favourite-suspension-system.html

 @misteraustin: Apparently I was just typing slow.

 @misteraustin: I don't inherently disagree with your logic and your well reasoned statement. I'm not arguing that split pivot and single pivot bikes don't share many similarities and identical axle paths. However, there is a material difference between single and split/concentric pivot bikes. Those difference mostly come down to an increased ability to reduce "brake jack" and retain suspension performance due to lower anti-rise.

Personally, (and I have ridden some) I don't love the feel of single pivot bikes. It doesn't mean they're bad - some people don't mind and even prefer higher anti-rise, as this will maintain geometry when the going get rough. But when I am reading a review and investigating a new bike, if I see it accurately described as a single pivot, I can more-or-less skip ahead on that one.

Case in point: the current Deviate Claymore is exactly the kinda bike I would love - including that Moss Green color. But I am confident I wouldn't get along with the rear suspension braking performance, and it's the primary gripe I've heard from some reviewers. It's a high, single pivot bike. Conversely, the new Trek Slash is quite similar on paper, but it has a much lower anti-rise curve because it is a split pivot, rather than a single pivot design. Hence: the distinction is useful, and this is why reviewers/brands use the terms in this way.

 @KJP1230: Context means things, too. In the context of axle path & anti-squat, all single pivots, whether direct, linkage, or split-pivot, are the same in that neither of those kinematics can be changed without affecting the others. For non-split-pivot single-pivots anti-rise is also directly linked to the others. So they can be talked about as a group to some extent.

 @misteraustin: brake feel is important, though. Split-pivot has the advantage of being able to tune that independently of axle-path and anti-squat. And that can be pretty huge for some people.

 @KJP1230: "higher anti-rise, as this will maintain geometry when the going get rough"

When the going gets STEEP, not just rough! Anti-rise only has effect when you're hard on the rear brake.

 @KJP1230: you're correct here. Mech engineer with a long history in both mountain bike and motorcycles.

A split pivot will have the same axle path as a linkage driven single pivot, however, a Horst link has virtually the same axle path as a linkage driven single pivot with the main pivot offset parallax to the horst link vs the rear axle. Put another way, there is nothing about the axle path of a Horst link that cannot be achieved with a single pivot.
BUT, a Horst link will have distinctly different anti-rise (braking) behavior than a single pivot, and a split pivot falls into the same family as a Horst link. A single pivot cannot do what either of those 4 bar systems do WRT to braking. In fact, Dave Weagle developed his split pivot ABP for DeVinci specifically as a workaround for the Horst link patents that Specialized started enforcing. It achieves the exact same functionality (optionality, to be technical about it) by making the 2nd bar of the 4-bar the braking arm.

 @ohio: Thank you. So we've arrived at my original point: bike engineers, marketing managers and reviewers correctly use the term "single pivot" as distinct from "split/concentric pivot" because there is a meaningful difference between these designs in terms of both design and performance characteristics.

And it is easy to identify single pivots as (and this should be obvious) having a single pivot and a solid rear triangle

@justinfoil - as an aside, I have never argued that axle path and anti-squat are somehow isolated or distinct between single pivot and split pivot bikes. In fact, I've affirmed this notion repeatedly in some of my prior posts. I may not be an engineer, but I do have a relatively firm grasp on mountain bike suspension dynamics.

 @KJP1230: yeah, but you do seem to ignore this distinction when it suits your argument. In the context of axle path and anti-squat, they're the same and can be grouped. When talking about anti-rise split is close to horst and can be grouped in that context.

What is this solid rear triangle hang-up? A Kona is a single-pivot and does not have a solid rear triangle. An Orange, including the new ones with a linkage, don't even have a "triangle". But VPP and dw-link do have solid triangles in the rear. It's a pointless distinction. Number of pivots between BB and axle, and number of pivots between brakes, axle and BB, are the important differences.

 @ohio: "Put another way, there is nothing about the axle path of a Horst link that cannot be achieved with a single pivot."

That's just _completely wrong_. There is an extra moving member/bar and pivot in-between the main pivot and the axle. This _can_ make the axle path quite different from a single-pivot and single-bar which make just an arc.

You _could_ argue that some horst link bikes don't alter the axle path much compared to a single pivot, although many contemporary designs do have a bit less forward travel on the axle path, and that doesn't mean it's not possible.

Some designs, such as the previous gen Demo 8 with its very low chainstay pivot and relatively large rocker, can give a very nearly vertical axle path. A path that no single pivot could ever hope to approximate without resorting to almost infinitely long chainstays, which BTW are quite impractical.

 @justinfoil: I get it, you're ideological and sure are technically correct, but at the point where the chainstay pivot is that far from the axle you're starting to blur the lines between what is a horst (which is a marketing term and an awkwardly approved patent) and what is a medium link 4-bar like the recent Poles and some Marin designs if I remember correctly. And that Demo 8 axle path could absolutely be achieved for all detectable purposes with a single pivot, albeit in an awkward impractical placement that interferes with the rear tire. They chose that option because of the concentric BB pivot and the need to move the instant center back to an appropriate place for decent antisquat. Another way I could prove my point is to graph the movement of the IC through the travel for any horst link on the market - what you will find is that they move minimally and to almost no real effect - if the IC doesn't move then for purposes of axle path and anti-squat you're focused on, it could have just been a fixed single pivot at that IC.

Back to the main point, a) what actually matters to the rider, or b) the kinematic options and results for the engineer - for those two purposes a split pivot and a horst link have much more in common than a split pivot and a single pivot, and given the same performance goals are made to perform nearly identically in practical use.

 @ohio: "placement that interferes with the rear tire"

So then, actually not possible. Even if it didn't interfere some how, not it's not possible to make it match, because a single-pivot axle path is a simple arc centered on the pivot, with a single fixed radius. It cannot be anything else, ever, unless... You've invented length-changing chainstays!

Regarding the IC not moving much: that's just an artifact of current design trade-offs, it says nothing about what is possible with multi-links. It also helps disprove your false equivalency, because on a single-pivot the IC DOES NOT MOVE at all, ever!

The Demo didn't have the large rear link "because of the concentric BB pivot". They didn't need to use that concentric design, they just chose to use it as part of getting the desired anti-squat and axle-path. It's all a combination, and that's kind of the point. There is only one "combination" on a single-pivot: main-pivot location and swing-arm length, and all of those combinations can only make a simple arc axle-path of a single radius (and all will also have a pretty high anti-rise, but we're ignoring that for now).

Interesting how you try to both _generalize_ that all single-pivots can make axle-paths that they can't, and try to prove it by picking _specific_ horst/multi-link examples that happen to fit (except not really) your flawed hypothesis.

 @ohio: And there is the context again. Split and horst only have in common the independent anti-rise. While split and single have in common dependent axle-path and anti-squat. Looks like more in common between split and single, 2 out of 3.

 @justinfoil: It's almost like....(I know this is a stretch, but hear me out)... we are describing 3 distinct suspension designs, and it would be wise that the industry should use 3 separate descriptors to denote the difference.

Nah. That's just crazy talk.

 @KJP1230: yup, there are are three (or more), and two of them share more interconnected kinematics then any other combo, so it's ok to group them in the context of those kinematics. And it's ok to group other combos of designs in the context of other kinematics. And those groupings can help people understand how one should feel based on their own experience with other designs in the group. I never said single and split pivot should always be considered equivalent, that they should never be marketed as distinct. Just that there are similarities between many designs, and pointing those out can help with understanding.

Then you rolled in with falsehoods like "single-pivot can make any axle-path that horst can", and took it off the rails.

 @justinfoil: No I didn't. I never said single pivots and horst link share axle paths. I know this is not true becuase I have a horst link bike with a rearward axle path. You're referencing someone else.

The original point I made that kicked all this off was, principally, that split pivots and single pivots are distinct designs and are correctly referred to as distinct designs by brands and reviewers.

 @KJP1230: You're right, what was ohio about the axle-path.

And yes, they are distinct but they are ALSO similar depending on context. Both sides are OK correct: to refer to them as distinct AND to group them in relation to shared characteristics. And since split and single share more than they don't (only anti-rise independence), it's maybe more OK to group them for the most generalized description, because they're more alike than they are different.

 @justinfoil: jesus dude, calm down. I bet you're real fun at parties.

Here's an exercise for you - compare actual curves (axle path, anti-squat, anti-rise) for actual bikes on the market, and what you will find is that those the curves between horst and split pivot bikes have much more in common than split pivot and single pivot bikes. The differences in braking will be dramatic. The differences in pedaling will be minimal or unnoticeable. Again, this is what matters to both customers and engineers. So when marketers or reviewers categorize them together, I hope you can read that without an aneurism, because it is a very reasonable simplification. We're not saving lives here.

 @ohio: The axle path curve AND anti-squat curve between a single pivot and a split pivot will LITERALLY be the exact same. Not similar. The Exact Same. That is the point and that is why split pivot is under the umbrella of single pivot. Because it is one.

 @ohio: " those the curves between horst and split pivot bikes have much more in common than split pivot and single pivot bikes"

Just wrong. You could argue that they're all very similar in contemporary designs, but as @misteraustin said, single and split will _literally_ be the same. Not more or less in common, THE SAME, a single arc.

 @misteraustin: yes, thank you captain obvious. But as I already highlighted, the anti-rise curves will be dramatically different. So to repeat - the differences between a horst and single pivot or split pivot will be minimal WRT to axle path and anti-squat. The differences between a horst and a split pivot WRT to anti-rise will be minimal or none. The differences between a horst OR split pivot and a single pivot WRT to anti-rise will be dramatic.

You two are so caught up in a 1st year engineering student's silly debate on taxonomy that you're missing that the factors that actually drive the final result are largely in the decisions an engineer makes in implementation. I'm guessing it is because you don't yet understand the relative impacts these differences have or don't have on the actual bike performance. And in that context, I can make a split pivot do what any current horst bike on the market does (and vice versa). I cannot make a single pivot do the same.

 guys please stfu

 @ohio: "I can make a split pivot do what any current horst bike on the market does"

No, you can't. Might be able to get and axle path close to some, perhaps anti-squat close to others, but simply cannot match "any".

And why are you comparing some hypothetical split pivot to "on the market" horst bike? "Horst" covers a pretty damn large gamit of possible designs. Yet no matter what you do the hypothetical split-pivot will never be able to split anti-squat and axle-path, which it turns out some people care a lot about re: ride feel.

 I have one too and it's been pretty awesome. Surprisingly, the tool kit hasn't fallen out yet.

 @NWBasser: I hope there are a few of those 23 bikes now going for a bargain price.

 Yeah, it doesn’t add up. Wheelbase and reach will also be different depending on flip chip position. I suspect there is some rounding happening.

 Reach will change, but wheelbase might not. A flip-chip isn't actually making the head-angle slacker relative to the rest of the frame, it's just lowering the BB slash raising the rear wheel. If the suspension is designed such that the axle moves very rearward at the top of the travel then you might get some wheelbase lengthening when using the flip-chip to effectively move the suspension partially into the travel.

 I guess you could theoretically do that by shortening the chainstay and increasing the top tube length commensurately with the reach you lose by changing HTA. But that would have to be a magic flip chip in this case.

 If you change headangle by different headsetcups, its possible that reach doesnt change or even gets longer, if the drop trough the slacker headangle is big enough. For example see new trek slash

 Decrease stack or shorten CS.

 @Foxy87: That's not a flip-chip, that's an adjustable headset.

 It does change reach, just not that much.

 @sanchofula: They noted a 2mm change in chainstay length between 29er and mullet, and a whopping 1mm change in wheelbase. With 7mm of BB drop, a half degree of angle change, reach change is going to be at least that much.

 Just to update this, spoke to Orbea and they confirmed this is just a typo on their website. It actually is 62.5mm!

 and the head tube is way too short on larger sizes

 @haen: so close, yet so far, as they say

 @haen: stack is still 637 on the large, is that not the important thing?

 Really? 435mm for a large seems ok. And the effective will be less.

 @redrook: I'm only considering S/M frames, so I'm not sure what a L frame should look like. A size S highlander 2 has a 380mm seat tube. S Spire has a 360mm seat tube, M has a 390. K1/K2 Vikkela both have 360mm seat tube. My 2022 S3 stumpy evo has 405mm seat tube. S giga has 380mm, M has a 410. Size S/M rallon both have 415mm. Just too long to be considered when there are so many other options with shorter tubes

 @twonsarelli: How long are your legs/what size dropper are you looking to run? I have a 30" inseam and can run a 180mm dropper slammed on a 420mm seat tube and that is plenty for me. Also need to consider how much insertion a frame has - some of those frames you mentioned will not be able to fully insert anything longer than a 150mm which leaves you with a ton of post sticking out of the seat tube which looks bad (imo).

 @Zaeius: yeah, this is a major selling point for my next purchase. my S3 stumpy evo has just enough insertion that i can get a 180mm post in there (same for my S2 stumpy). on something like the vikkela or the spire, i could probably get somewhere in the 210 range without much issue. i did have a size L highlander 150 and was able to run a 180 post in there, but it was absolutely slammed. i think all the frames i mentioned in my previous post have very straight seat tubes, or at least much much longer before any bends than my current bikes!

 @Zaeius: yeah +1 to this.

We have medium carbon Spire and a medium '22 Rallon in the house.

The Spire has limited seatpost insertion, so in practice we can have the same or longer dropper on the Rallon.

 @downtohuck: good to know!

 @WillW123: It is but the stack doesn't scale proportionately with reach so bikes get longer but not taller.

 I have a 213mm dropper on my size L and have 85mm of exposed post. The seat tube is plenty short. Eventually people will get over riding bikes that are ~2 sizes too big for them.

 You break yours? On my '19 I could flex the walls of the down tube by squeezing them, but that's not the case on my '22. Stiffer doesn't mean stronger, though.

 Asking the real questions here!

 hopefully not.

 Always this comment... Take a look back at when Orbea first released this design vs Specialized.

 What was wrong with it?

 @NWBasser: it's not a very secure fit and the bottom half interfaces directly with bare carbon. If you ride with a bottle, the mass of the bottle being shaken makes the door rattle and wear against the carbon. Eventually you wear away enough carbon that the door can move a few mm in any direction and it makes a pretty impressive racket as you're riding down the trail. Mine was completely toast after half a season. The warranty fix was a replacement front triangle. Props to them for replacing it, but it was still a shop warranty fee and multiple hours of my time to swap it (plus the cost of a new frame wrap).

I now wrap multiple layers of electrical tape around the edges of the carbon to make it a snug fit and prevent it from wearing.

 @DaneL: good to know. Mine rattles and the electric tape sounds like a good idea.

 You would think so, but the HTA changed without the STA or BB drop changing, so unless there was a typo in the geo chart, it's a new front triangle at least.

 The kink in the top tube is correctly placed in the middle if the purpose was to maximise standover clearance. The front half of the top tube still lines up with the chainstay, which is aesthetically pleasing. There are a few Rallons of the previous two generations where I live. Owners are happy and the bikes look great. A mate had an issue when he hit the rear derailleur on a rock and the sturdy stock hanger damaged the chainstay instead of bending. Orbea covered it under warranty.

 Interesting. I've broken several carbon frames, but no issue with my Rallon, nor am I aware of anyone in my area who has had any problems with their frames.

 @ratedgg13: my Wild has been bulletproof for 7 months. Build quality is top notch.

 As mainly a road rider (and road fan), why is Purito “hated”? I haven’t really followed him after his career, seemed like an okay guy back then So I am just curious to hear more, hehe…

 @ice29: he posted a video along the lines of "imagine me making more money in a year by working less than your yearly holidays"

As far as I'm concerned he and everyone surrounding him can get f*cked by a rusty rod

 A bigger chainring will reduce that in a pinch.

 Correct - this bad boy will climb like no one's business - but would almost mandate an O-chain to reduce pedal kickback.

 I have a 2022 and haven't noticed any pedal kickback. Which seems odd, given the relatively high AS.

 Stumpy looks like an Orbea