Evil Undead!

[Nick53]

Mate i can see where your coming from but ,
It was only the swing arm that cracked . At some point , All frame` s from All manufacture`s crack regardless of the brand shape or material . Ive cracked a couple chain stays and they just crack , there is no catastrophic death preventing fail unless continual used after . The Undead is only in testing , they probable have many swing arms there testing . So yes the swing arm was rubbish , yes the swing arm failed , but hay the bike is a proto . Why do people think the Evil bikes are on the WC and Champs ? Sure sales through podium and race finnish results , but testing is the main one . The guys ridding the Evil this year and past years have all pinned on the bike/s , I can understand the hate on Evil and they were a let down to there costumers , but if they sort the frame out and have a good Australian distributor there will be no reason not to buy the frame .

Nick, I think you need to remember that pretty much everything breaks on the World Cup Circuit, its just that we don't always hear about it.

I think both of you have misinterpreted the point I was trying to make. The base of my post was simply to appose Kamikazee Ideki's theory (post #42) on how they go about manufacturing frames and how this is most likely not the case (for the reason's I stated in my post). What has probably come across is my post just bagging them for doing it that way which isn't the case at all because I find it hard to believe that is how they manufacture and design their bikes. I have nothing against Evil and I would still consider buying their bikes.

I'm assuming this was directed at me, in which case all I can say is that if you follow the World Cups, you would know that this is true.
Examples of frames being replaced midseason:
- Specialized Monster - Fairclough and Brosnan have been on at least 4 different frames that I've seen this year ( 3 x alloy and 1 x carbon)
- Trek World Racing team has changed bikes at least 3 times that I know of this year (2 x alloy and 1 x carbon)
- Santacruz - Replace their frames at least once (change to new frame at VDS) during the season, not exactly sure on how many though.
- Same goes for Scott 11, Animal Commencal, Morewood United Ride, Team GT, MS Evil, Giant etc...

You can't just assume that this was done to prevent failure. Changing to a redesigned frame is irrelevant as this is done to provide the riders with better equipment. The other replacements of frames could be purely marketing as well. The Specialized bikes were identical replacements however you could argue that they were replaced to gain hype, introduced next years colour scheme etc. Basically my point is you have no evidence that they were replaced to stop failure occurring. I think if you're going to continue developing these theories you should support your point with some kind of source which isn't just 'I heard'.

Winge, generalise, winge, irrelevant information etc

Please, unless your have further info, stop talking shit to which you know sweet fuck all about. If your some sort of carbon expert, leave the age old debate to rest, or take it elsewhere...

Irony in this post is too much for me. You had very minimal further info to contribute to the discussion and you can't tell people to stop discussing a topic when you are on an open forum.


<3

 

[Tomtom Wyatt]

It could be the unidirectional carbon instead of the regular type cosmetic weave layer. It looks cool in real life on my roadie.

Yeah, the steriotipical weave look on frames is purely for asthetics. This is what carbon looks like without that finishing layer.

 

[SideFX]

I think both of you have misinterpreted the point I was trying to make. The base of my post was simply to appose Kamikazee Ideki's theory (post #42) on how they go about manufacturing frames and how this is most likely not the case (for the reason's I stated in my post). What has probably come across is my post just bagging them for doing it that way which isn't the case at all because I find it hard to believe that is how they manufacture and design their bikes. I have nothing against Evil and I would still consider buying their bikes.



You can't just assume that this was done to prevent failure. Changing to a redesigned frame is irrelevant as this is done to provide the riders with better equipment. The other replacements of frames could be purely marketing as well. The Specialized bikes were identical replacements however you could argue that they were replaced to gain hype, introduced next years colour scheme etc. Basically my point is you have no evidence that they were replaced to stop failure occurring. I think if you're going to continue developing these theories you should support your point with some kind of source which isn't just 'I heard'.



Irony in this post is too much for me. You had very minimal further info to contribute to the discussion and you can't tell people to stop discussing a topic when you are on an open forum.


<3

Hi Nick , im totally cool . Im some times wrong and like to here other peoples opinion on things . We dont all think the same and can see things from different angles , no e fight here mate . I like your impute , sorry if i have misinterpreted your post , Damo

 

[ToranaJudd]

Yeah, the steriotipical weave look on frames is purely for asthetics. This is what carbon looks like without that finishing layer.

Nick... Google is your friend. I don;t need to copy and paste facts about carbon. Just saying rotorburn and bike forums in general isn't the authority on such matters...

From what I understand, in the layup process they use unidirectional carbon for the strength and this is used in ALL bike applications.

They then use your asthetic carbon layer on top being a 90 degree layup, which gives the nicer look. My Scott Ransom has thi (as does the new antidote and plenty other bikes).

I assume evil are using the unidirectional ONLY as a weight saving technique. Santa Cruz probably did the same and offered a painted finish to make it look better...

We have not seen the finished evil product, so all is speculation at present.

 

[ToranaJudd]

Oh,

And nick, I don't want to silence people. A forum is just that, a FORUM.

Just annoy's me when people join a bandwagon with no knowledge... Blind leading the blind.

Ill be more than willing to let anyone who doubts the revolt take mine from a spin, as will I do the same with the Undead.

The bike has its issues, I carry locktight, torx bits and a torque wrench with me on most occasions, but it still rides faster than anything I have been on, so I put up with the loose pivots and the cracking possibily... I could afford another frame but that would just be wasting money....

 

[SideFX]

Nick... Google is your friend. I don;t need to copy and paste facts about carbon. Just saying rotorburn and bike forums in general isn't the authority on such matters...

From what I understand, in the layup process they use unidirectional carbon for the strength and this is used in ALL bike applications.

They then use your asthetic carbon layer on top being a 90 degree layup, which gives the nicer look. My Scott Ransom has thi (as does the new antidote and plenty other bikes).

I assume evil are using the unidirectional ONLY as a weight saving technique. Santa Cruz probably did the same and offered a painted finish to make it look better...

We have not seen the finished evil product, so all is speculation at present.

I was under the impression that the v 10 isn't painted to save weight , hence there is only one colour . You can sort of see the weave . Would it or is it possible to colour carbon weave then clear coat .
Also would the latest move towards carbon have anything to do with the rising coast of raw metal and alloy and poor availability ?
Im with you on the evil there very fast bikes .

 

[Kamikazee ideki]

I think both of you have misinterpreted the point I was trying to make. The base of my post was simply to appose Kamikazee Ideki's theory (post #42) on how they go about manufacturing frames and how this is most likely not the case (for the reason's I stated in my post). What has probably come across is my post just bagging them for doing it that way which isn't the case at all because I find it hard to believe that is how they manufacture and design their bikes. I have nothing against Evil and I would still consider buying their bikes.

From Mr. Weagle himself on Ridemonkey:

Yes, some of the prototypes have broken, that's the goal, to start light, and add material after issues are found. It's pretty much impossible to start heavy and then try to reduce weight and pray for no failure. It just doesn't work that way. Plus, FEA with composite construction is dodgy at best. Testing is just a far more efficient means of arriving at the end goals that we're shooting for. So to answer the call for "transparency", here's what I've got for you: 1) I didn't design the bike, I just act as an advisor to Evil, just as I do with Ibis, Pivot, Turner, Morewood, Devinci, BH, Spooky, IF, Seven and a couple other brands that you don't know about. 2) We've seen the bikes have failures in a couple areas. The chainstay yoke was too thin on one version and that cracked. It wasn't as stiff as we wanted anyways so that's a good thing. We removed material in the front end to add flex and changed the stiffness profile of the swingarm mounts in the front end as well. I think that one early frame may have cracked up by the seat tower, it certainly was blemished. We added material just to be safe as it was an area that did not make a stiffness change. The front of a couple of the swingarms broke where the aluminum insert will be. Brook did break one but the other is all good. 3) To answer the conspiracy theorists questions, no, I did not know that Brook broke one of the two swingarms until after I was on here last, but it was not unexpected. The swingarm Brook broke had almost 300 runs on it so honestly I am completely amazed that it lasted that long given that initially they were just for stiffness testing and not for big hits. They seemed to be holding up so Zink, Strobel, and Cam and Mason have been riding them without inserts. I rode it hard myself and it held together. That being said, the insert design was signed off on in June and new swingarms and frames with the latest layups will be here in the next week I am told. 4) I expect at least one more revision after this, maybe two. 5) We don't learn anything if nothing breaks in testing, so I am hoping for more failures.

You can't just assume that this was done to prevent failure. Changing to a redesigned frame is irrelevant as this is done to provide the riders with better equipment. The other replacements of frames could be purely marketing as well. The Specialized bikes were identical replacements however you could argue that they were replaced to gain hype, introduced next years colour scheme etc. Basically my point is you have no evidence that they were replaced to stop failure occurring. I think if you're going to continue developing these theories you should support your point with some kind of source which isn't just 'I heard'.

World Cup race bikes take a beating, one of the recent Vital slide shows, I think La Bresse? Showed the Scott 11 team mechanic trying to salvage the frames for the race as the new ones hadn't arrived yet... The frames were well fucked...