|   Is Bob Fox full of sh*t? | cesman
Nov 21, 2002 6:32 AM | | On the Epic:
"When Specialized first came to us with
this project, we immediately recog-
nized and were excited by the prom-
ised rider benefits. What we did not real-
ize was how difficult the engineering
challenges would be. Although basic
inertia valve concepts have been around
for over 80 years, it took the Fox engi-
neering team more than 3 years to invent
and perfect the revolutionary technology
that makes this shock work so well on
the new Epic. There is no other accom-
plishment in Fox's 27- year history that I
am more proud of."
Bob Fox, President, Fox Racing Shox |
| I don't think so..... | Shylock
Nov 21, 2002 6:54 AM | | ..But then, I'm not all that impressed with the concept anyway.
My concern with the Epic (aside from the fact the bike feels dead) is this:
the way I see it, If the shock resists downward forces, then on a super steep climb --often requiring the rider to get out of the saddle----the wheel would be more likely to spin out. Whereas with a fully active bike , the wheel would continue to get traction regardless of how the rider flailed or mashed the pedals.
FS bikes have always been easier to climb with than hardtails because they don't require the body english to keep the tire grabbing the terrain. seems that in the case of the Epic, this benefit has been given up for efficiency.
Feel the gin |
| No. And that title is flame bait. | GrahamKracker
Nov 21, 2002 7:00 AM | | Bob Fox did exactly what was asked of him as an engineer. His company's invention works as claimed. I, and many others on this board, do not happen to like what the design does, but that does not mean it cannot be perfected to the point where we will enjoy it. This is a very ambitious project, and while I do not think it is the "Holy Grail" of suspension or any such nonsense, I am curious to see how far they can push this idea with a little tweaking.
PS - Cesman, perhaps you should consider the likely reaction to some of the unusual blanket statements you make on these boards. Particularly when discussing someone who, aside from the Brain technology, runs arguably the best suspension company in the business. While I respect your right to express your opinions, perhaps if you fleshed them out a little more your posts would have more content to deliver to this discussion. As it stands, you have quoted a marketing blurb we have all seen before, and slung a little mud at Bob Fox without really saying much.
Graham |
| it's called a rhetorical question | cesman
Nov 21, 2002 7:08 AM | | It should be obvious to anyone who's read my posts that I don't think Bob Fox is full of it.
Also, I think it's a mistake to assume Bob Fox operated in some kind of engineering vacuum and has no concept of how the thing works on the trail. The thing was developed by Fox and Specialized together, with input from people like Ned Overend. The tweaked the thing to make it something for the TRAIL and RACECOURSE, not just to fulfill some "engineering parameters" as you imply. |
| bad rhetoric, bad use of the "rhetorical question" | gonzostrike
Nov 21, 2002 11:33 AM | | cesman, you are one of the worst debaters I've ever seen. you don't know how to play fair. exaggeration isn't good enough for you, and you resort to outright whole-cloth creation of phantom issues that you claim to originate in your adversary's post.
BTW, working with The Lung doesn't mean that Fox achieved its goal of the greatest-ever XC race bike or XC-biased trail bike. The Lung happily rides Special Ed because he likes them. If The Lung likes the Epic, that says only one thing -- The Lung likes it. It does NOT mean that the Epic is anyone's riding savior, nor does it mean that it achieved the RIDING PERFORMANCE GOAL claimed by Special Ed.
Fox simply engineered the thing. You can debate that fact all you want, but it won't change the fact. |
| Agreed.. | ringlord
Nov 21, 2002 7:13 AM | | Cesman's comments are generally unsubstantiated and lack any real foundation for worthy discussion, incoherent babble at best. |
| lacking foundation or just disagreeing with you? | cesman
Nov 21, 2002 7:19 AM | | OK, my position is that the Epic is not 100 percent marketing gimmick. So I cite as "substantiation" a statement by a very well respected person, Bob Fox.
Next time you offer a "blanket" criticism of me, maybe it should at least apply to the particular post to which you are responding. |
| marketing blurb or not, he said. Did he lie? | cesman
Nov 21, 2002 7:15 AM | | By the way, you guys know full well why I am bringing Fox into this. It's the same reason many of the Epic detractors leave Fox out of the story -- it kinda puts a dent in the idea that the whole thing is 100 percent marketing gimmick.
Sorry if that upsets anyone, but I am not holding back here. The facts will be brought out, one way or the other. |
| I think you are questioning the time........ | NAHTNOJ
Nov 21, 2002 7:08 AM | | ....over which inertia valve technology has existed? Im curious too, I wonder what the original application was 80 years ago? The cars of that era had leaf springs. Probably had some industrial application. |
| No, but you are proving that you are... | MattK
Nov 21, 2002 7:31 AM | | Anyone who would carry the argument to this length day after day has issues. You can't "win" this argument on the board. Instead, your potential win is that you ride your Epic, smiling inside with the benefits you have gained for your chosen riding style and terrain, and knowing that you now have an advantage over all those other riders who wouldn't believe you. As long as you have confidence in this, then everyone is happy. The argument itself just makes you out to be a doofus, to the point that nobody will take you seriously. In fact, you're probably doing a fantastic job of helping to bias people AGAINST the Epic with your rants. You are shooting yourself and Specialized in the foot by instilling a negative association towards the Epic for everyone on this board. Maybe you are working for a Specialized competitor to defuse their marketing campaign? (just kidding) |
| why do you need slurs to make your point? | cesman
Nov 21, 2002 7:45 AM | | Your point, as I understand it, is that anyone who participates vigorously in a debate in favor of a position, who for the most part is responding to other people's arguments, is "ranting."
I will admit that anyone doing that opens themselves up to being "painted" as someone with "issues" who is "not to be taken seriously," as you are doing.
But there is no logical connection between arguing something strongly and being wrong. You're just taking advantage of a cheap and easy slur tactic. Congratulations, you did well. |
| I for one... | RP
Nov 21, 2002 8:37 AM | | ...enjoy the lively debate that springs from an individual like cesman pushing a point that isn't part of the board's main stream. He also has done a remarkable job of keeping his cool.
Regarding Fox, I don't buy the idea that their involvement gives legitimacy to the inertia concept. Recent history is filled with company's spending billions in "engineering vaccums". The rear shock market is as competitive as ever with a lot of small makers gaining market share. The Epic is a great way for Fox to create a market niche protected from competition. It's an interesting approach but it's still a bit of a science project. |
| Argument for the sake of it | KonaMan
Nov 21, 2002 8:41 AM | | Cessman - You are wasting everyone's time and space on this board. You said in a previous thread that you enjoy arguing. That differs from 'participating vigorously in a debate' because you are so remarkably ill informed. You only experience with mountain bikes is your Trek Y and a demo or two. The rest of your 'knowledge base' is merely reading magazines and web reviews.
Several exceptional riders and bike designers (Charles at Hammerhead comes to mind) have taken the time to respond to you with the clarity that only comes from thousands of hours of riding, and riding on dozens of different designs and prototypes. Yet you, as a self-proclaimed novice, wish to pursue this argument apparently simply for the sake of the argument itself. Doing this has discredited you on this board and does indeed make one wonder if you do have 'issues' spending all this time arguing with a minimal knowledge base 'for fun'.
I've forwarded this thread to Mr. Fox. Perhaps he will email you or the board moderators with his opinion on your thread title or opening quote. It's an embarrassment and waste of time and space to mtbr.
I expect you'll get great pleasure from your new Epic. Go buy it, then ride it alot! It is, after all, what the truly passionate mountain bike rider spends the majority of their time doing! (I'm off for my lunck break ride in the snow now...brrr!) |
| nobody is perfect | cesman
Nov 21, 2002 9:21 AM | | Look, I should have used a different title, like "Is Bob Fox lying?" or is "Is Bob Fox not honest?" or something even more watered down. I am sorry for any offense to Mr. Fox or anyone else that I chose that particular title.
Unfortunately when I make "mistakes," people seem to seize upon them to discredit me. That's fine, but as a reader, you might wonder why people are shifting the debate to me. Why not answer the original (modified) question: Is Bob Fox so wrong in being proud of the Epic design? |
| preconditions for speaking? | cesman
Nov 21, 2002 9:37 AM | | A lot of people are "novices" about topics and they have to think through things with the available information, including secondary information. There's nothing inherently invalid about that. Nor are such novices somehow prohibited from debating things.
Sure, I have done it for fun. But I think I made clear that was not the only reason. I feel there has been too much overly negative comments on a good bike here. Not a bike for everyone, but a good bike for many people.
Also, I am not that much of a novice mt. biker. I have tried to be modest and not brag about things. Actually, I'm a pretty damn good rider if you want to know the truth. |
| "pretty dmn good rider" compared to whom? | gonzostrike
Nov 21, 2002 11:36 AM | | that's like the ditzy airheaded blonde contending she's not stupid. her frame of reference is her fellow ditzy superficial birds. no wonder she doesn't know she's dumb. |
| no, but cesman is full of coprolites... let's change his name... | gonzostrike
Nov 21, 2002 11:37 AM | | ...from "cesman" to "cesspool" |
| Specialized is the boy band... | om
Nov 21, 2002 1:07 PM | | ...of bike companies. This is why you will notice that there are SOME poster that have a negative bias against the Epic and Specialized in general.
Take N Sync for example (bear w/me here, just trying to make a point). ONE of the reasons people hate em is cause they don't write their own music and is basically a group that was marketed. It doesn't mean they can't sing well (uh oh, again, just trying to make a point).
Now, take Specialized, they may not hand make their bikes, or have a founder that is some hero in the biking world, and they sure as hell market the crap out of their products, and they're popular. (I don't know the company that well, but I assume this is the case). If true, then we have the boy band of bike companies.
Yo cessman, trying to get anyone to admit it or realize that this is why they hate Specialized so much just won't happen. |
| So what does that make Santa Cruz? | AlphaDog
Nov 21, 2002 2:06 PM | | They make there own bikes, but need to buy someone else's technology to come out with new innovations(VPP)? So what band is SC most like?
Most bike companies use other companies skills and technology today. We call this "Corporate Partnership". Its all the rage as companies focus on what there good at and nothing else. So we know Specialized is a good marketer of decent technology, is that all bad? |
| Blink 182 | andy f
Nov 21, 2002 2:26 PM | | Blink 182 = N'Sync with piercings and guitars.
BTW, Anodizing Inc. makes Santa Cruz's bikes. Not that there's anything wrong with that. |
| hey now, that's a low blow... | gonzostrike
Nov 21, 2002 2:52 PM | | Blink 182 sucks lemons, but my Bullit kicks arse.
I'd say that Santa Cruz is closer to a band that has great artistic integrity AND just happens to stumble into a radio "hit" despite itself. Pavement, maybe? Radiohead, maybe? Nirvana, maybe? Camper van Beethoven, maybe? But surely not Stink 182.
Besides, we can't all have El Chamucos, Andy! heh heh heh How is that new rig, anyway? |
| I know... | andy f
Nov 21, 2002 3:39 PM | | it was a low blow but I have an excuse: El Chamuco made me do it.
I only have 4 rides on the new bike so far but it absolutely rips. Easily the best handling bike i've ever ridden. I don't miss my Enduro one bit. The suspension's not quite as supple as La Bruja but the new bike is smaller, lighter, and a bit slacker. It just fits.
Sherwood Gibson had time last week to give a friend and I the grand tour. He's a fascinating guy. I think you'd really appreciate his ideas regarding bikes, business, and suspension designs. |
| THAT's a good one, andy! heh heh heh | gonzostrike
Nov 21, 2002 3:46 PM | | I stopped at the Ventana tent at the interbike on-dirt demo day, but I didn't do so until the end of the day. wish I'd got there sooner to ride the El C and to chat with Sherwood.
I'm still loving my Bullit, though. Rode urban on it last night, had a blast. Between that and my Curtlo SS, I don't know if it's possible to love a bike more. But I'm open to other opportunities! |
| Anodizing Inc... Is this still true? Taiwan? | Jaak
Nov 21, 2002 6:17 PM | | I was riding today and bumped into a guy with a brand new Heckler (NICE--ordered it last May and just got it two weeks ago) and he said Santa Cruz told him his frame was made in Taiwan and the bike was assembled in the US. Thought he might have misunderstood them or something. Anybody hear anything about this? I was going to e-mail Santa Cruz but I have been bugging Scott lately (blur order stuff) so I thought I would check here quick. |
| Anodizing Inc... Is this still true? Taiwan? | FredK
Nov 21, 2002 6:32 PM | | Far as I know, there is a facility in Washington State, named Anodizing Inc. that does a lot of contract work for different manufactuers, and I am almost certain Santa Cruz is made in the Washington facility.
FredK |
| Anodizing Inc... Is this still true? Taiwan? | Wayne
Nov 21, 2002 11:39 PM | | The bikes made in Taiwan are the Juliana's and the Roadster. The rest are made in the U.S. by Kinnesis. I think that is the right spelling? I would assume that Kinnesis builds the Taiwan bikes also as they have like 5 factories around the world. I could be wrong. My Heckler will be in around Christmas, so I hope It is U.S. made. |
| Anodizing Inc... Is this still true? Taiwan? | MDD
Nov 22, 2002 7:06 AM | | If the same company is building the bikes, but in different countries, should there be a difference country to country? Sorry about my ignorance (or naivety.) |
| Kinesis makes some, if not all... | D.F.L.
Nov 22, 2002 7:54 AM | | While I was at Interbike, talking to Kinesis, one of the S.C. guys came over to talk about some new idea he had. Kinesis has had S.C. frames on display in their booth for a couple of years now. Thay may not be making them all, but certainly do some of them.
SAPA Anodizing (inc.) builds for a lot of people, and do work for Ellsworth and Marin (plus the split-extrusion stiff) I think they used to make the enlitened Homegrowns, too.
Other than nationalism, there's no real reason to fear a Taiwanese built frame. They use the same materials, and are built by skilled workers. |
| Specialized, N Sync, Blink 182 will be hated by some because... | om
Nov 21, 2002 4:37 PM | | ...of their image and nothing more. That was my point. |
| Spice Girls... | DeeEight
Nov 22, 2002 1:03 AM | | and actually they outsource production of the frames last time I checked.
In any case, the only thing new they did was ummm, ummm, well come to think
of it, is buying someone elses patent really new? |
| |
