While I have hit on some technical and design points with my earlier Superfly 100 and Rumblefish reports, there are a few other things we saw and heard at the gathering that are notable. Some have to do with the Superfly single speed model, so let’s dig in!
Suspension Overhaul: The suspension team at Fisher has really put in a lot of time and effort to transform the old HiFi line into two distinctly different feeling rigs that are essentially based off the same chassis. Not only are the two bikes in question very different feeling, but both are head and shoulders above what the HiFi of old was. Inspired by last years well received Roscoe and its DRCV design shock, Fisher set to re-invent the HiFi’s and create a new trail bike, the Rumblefish, and have done so in a relatively short period of time. You can read more about the specifics of DRCV in the Rumblefish post, but it should be said that the Superfly/Hi Fi shocks are totally re-designed as well. Featuring a Fox RP-23 with Boost Valve technology, Fisher was able to work with Fox to create a Boost Valve setting that would appease the racers, yet still have an acceptable level of small bump compliance. I think they have achieved what they set out to do, and apparently Jeremy Horgan-Kobelski has already made his mind up, choosing the Superfly 100 for all of his racing since he got it about midway through the season. Flatter suspension curves and valving technology aside, the new suspension overhaul has seemed to be an early success for Fisher’s 2010 full suspension 29″ers.
Frame Overhaul: Not only did the suspension get the once over, but the frame got totally overhauled for 2010 as well. Gone are the seat stay pivots, the two piece seat stays themselves, and the linkage points were moved in two key areas all creating a laterally stiffer, stronger, and better performing bike. Not only that, but Fisher manages to build a 29″er with shorter chain stays than they had before with a reduced wheel base. Here is a closer look at the details of the 2010 frames.
Net Molded/Co-Molded OCLV Construction: The Superfly 100 is a Waterloo, Wisconsin made frame using the tried but true OCLV carbon construction techniques that have been refined to a very high degree over the years. Notice in the photo above that there are no aluminum parts bonded to the frame to mount the pivot points of the suspension to. This “co-molded” construction technique, is being applied to the Fisher Superfly 100 and results in the lightest full suspension frame ever made by Fisher of any wheel size. The bottom bracket (BB-95), employs the net molding technique, first seen in Trek’s Madone road models and does away with aluminum threaded inserts. Fisher designers are specifically proud of the 44 gram carbon fiber suspension link on the Superfly 100.
ABP Brake Pivot: Here is one of the biggest improvements in the Superfly 100, HiFi, and Rumblefish bikes for 2010. This was designed to enhance rear braking, which it does well, but for a wagon wheeler, it has a very important side benefit. It rids the seat stays from carrying the pivots. This is a big deal because the seat stay pivots, which are inherently independent of each other, and are also further from the contact patch of the rear wheel, create a longer lever force on the seat stay pivots. This was felt in the Hi Fi’s of 2008/09 as a twisting, flexy feel in the rear triangle of the bike. The ABP moves this pivot lower, in line with the axle, lessening the lever forces, and can utilize the skewer and hub axle as a stiffening agent. This results in an almost through axle stiffness to the Rumblefish, HiFi and Superfly 100 for 2010. Gone is the torsional twist that typified the old HiFi rear end.
Hydro-formed Downtube, Main Suspension Pivot: I have received a few e-mails about how “ugly” the new Fisher Hi Fi down tube is. Well, beauty is certainly is in the eye of the beholder, but the tube shape serves a very important function. Fisher saw the chance to redesign the Hi Fi and Rumblefish aluminum frames when developing the 2010 bikes and saw that in their FEA work that the “bellied” down tube provided much stiffer and stronger results. Not only that, but at the junction of the down tube and bottom bracket the tube could be shaped to take advantage of the direct mount front derailluer and BB-86 bottom bracket. This provides a bigger weld area and a bigger down tube makes for a less flexy frame.
Not only was the Hydro-formed downtube an intentional design enhancement, but the design also moves the main pivot behind the seat tube, making for an even shorter swing arm assembly, which also tightens up the rear end of the bikes significantly.
E2 Steer Tube System: Again, originally seen on the Trek Madone road bike, the E2 steer tube design is essentially a 1 1/8th to 1 1/2 tapered steer tube housed in a special head tube as seen in the photo above. What it also does for a 29″er is that it provides for larger diameter tubes to be joined at the head tube to fight torsional flexing loads incurred by the longer forks on 29 inch wheeled bikes. This is felt by a rider as a more precise steering bike that stays on line better than a bike without it. Also, it makes for a better sprinting machine in the case of a race bike like the Superfly 100. 2010 marks the first use of this technology on a Fisher full suspension 29″er.
The Switchblade Fork Makes An Appearance: The much waited for Bontrager Switchblade fork was in attendance at the Press Camp on the front of Jesse LaLonde’s Superfly single speed rig. Jesse is pretty pumped about how it has been performing and in combination with the carbon Superfly single speed his rig is an astonishing 16lbs of serious race machine. At any rate, the fork will be coming soon, but as of yet, I have no official date. Stay tuned.
The New Sliding Drop Out Design: In a nod to some small custom builders, Fisher designers took the swinging drop out design idea and modified it to accommodate the carbon fiber Superfly frame. Swinging only on the non-drive side, the drop out also allows for a four tooth change in rear cogs with no reason to break the chain to get your different ratios. You can also use a quick release wheel on this design without fear of slippage. Compact, sano, and easy to use, this drop out design promises to be step above the track ends of last years limited edition Superfly single speed.
Stay tuned for more as the race team members relate their seasons experiences onboard Fisher 29″ers.
The Switchblade won’t be available until late winter/early spring. Have to wait a bit longer.
Ted,
this looks great for fisher 29er progression…does this mean trek has abandoned their 29er program and pushed it off to fisher? The 2009 69er looked like a metal superfly to address slow acceleration issue and also used the 51mm fork offset or fisher G2 geometry for great handling but there is no trek 69 or 29 offering for 2010…
@dspeed: I thought Trek would do a 29er, but not anymore. They are differentiating Fisher from Trek, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all to see Fisher have all 29″er bikes by as early as the 2011 model year with Trek being only 26″ers.
I agree…probably a smart play for trek corp since they have alot of irons in the fire trying sell mass quanities with low risk. Travis gave the 69er experiment alot of creditability and now that he is hangin’ around the fisher press event it seems that fisher will be assuming the progressive edge for both companies…
Another question GT, will GF produce a “Trek” bikes labelled as GF- such as GF top fuel or GF fuel ex. Simply 29er versions of Trek bikes but labelled “GF”. Is it what you mean by saying GF will be 29r only company.
What about Roscoe? Will it be replaced with Roscoe 29er?
If they commit, and hold, Fisher as the 29″ brand, and Trek as the 26″ brand, Fisher will need to be ALLOWED to become the bigger of the 2 MTB brands. Trek possibly continuing to focus on road bikes, Fisher again becoming the foremost MTB company it originally was. Gary Fisher was the name giver of the mountain bike after all. His co-owned brand or shop was called mountainbike, if I am not incorrect. The guy knows MTB bikes. Was there when they raced down repack mountain, invented already then. Won a UCI gold metal in MTB (masters 40+?) and continues to lead the cutting edge MTB category of bikes.
Trek is making some bad, or changing choices. 69ers always were a bad plan. NOT making 29″ers, is directly costing them money. No way they can channel all the loyal Trek buyers who will inevitaby upgrade to 29″, to Fisher alone. They are missing out. The competition IS selling 29″ers, and probably more than they care to let Trek know.
Only a few years ago, Fisher was intended to be a B-brand within the Trek group, I heard from a source close to Trek then. Lower quality, high value bikes, to reach the masses. Well, they are taking the lead in innovative mainstream MTB sales, making bikes to ride well first, and making them look good second.
I want that Switchblade, hope it will come in 1-1/8″ straight. Too bad I’ve yet to try my 470/55mm custom steel fork, been lazy to complete the Superfly build.
@dspeed: Keep in mind that T-Brown is a R&D guy for all off road Trek/Fisher products, and not simply tied to one or the other brands, which is the case for many of Trek’s employees, who work on both Fisher and Trek projects. That said, you are correct in your assumptions that Fisher will be more of the “progressive edge” company while Trek will remain more conservative in their designs.
@Davidcopperfield: I really do not see that happening as far as a direct copy of a Trek design with 29″er wheels and dressed up in Fisher livery. Fisher, as stated to “dspeed” above, will be a different company with different designs and goals. It will be a company that shares technologies though, as in the ABP pivot, for instance, but as far as homogenous models with the only difference being wheel size goes, no. I do not believe that will ever occur.
Roscoe 29″er? I asked. Answer? No forks available yet that would keep up with what Fisher designers could/can do with a longer travel rear end. When the fork comes though………………
@Cloxxki: Interesting isn’t it? Another way to look at it though is that with 26 inch DH and long travel rigs being the main focus at Trek lately, (Remedy, Session, Scratch) it might be that Trek abandons the shorter travel 26″ers altogether. Hmm……..maybe, who knows.
Also, keep in mind that Trek probably is thinking they will get less canibalization of sales if Trek doesn’t have competing product to Fisher on the mountain bike side. (Or across all categories, for that matter) Also, it would be easier for Trek to sell dealers on becoming BOTH a Trek and Fisher dealer if both lines are not so homogenous. Trek only? Yes, then in certain areas the fact that Trek doesn’t have 29″ers and other lines do may hurt certain dealers, but it isn’t just a Trek or Fisher world and LBS have the autonomy, however small, to choose a line that does have 29″ers and still be a Trek dealer.
As far as Trek is concerned, I think they have it right for now. Will Fisher become the premium mtb brand at Trek? Maybe. But Trek sells a whole lot of sub $700.00 26 inch product, and until 29″er prices get there, I don’t think that Trek will have any problems being a 26 inch only company. Heck…….some people don’t even like 29″ers, as shocking as that may be to read for you.
Speaking of the Trek/Fisher mtb relationship, any comment on why the Fisher ABP designs don’t use a floating shock mount scenario like Trek’s mtbikes do?
@jimmythefly:
Well, in simple terms, Fisher uses one basic design- swing link/top tube mounted damper- and Trek has always used a rocker/BB area mounted damper design. Trek’s design can make use of a floating shock mount, Fisher’s can not.
Ted I just wanted to confirm that you sure the Superfly 100 is OCLV? There has been a debate at the shop about this and there seems to be no documentation regarding it. Does that mean the hardtail is OCLV? Funny the Superfly would be and not the Chronus (sorry I spoke road bike)
As always you are producing some very coherent objective analysis.
Sad to think we have to wait til next year to ride these bikes right? Delivery dates seem to be wobbly.
@prphoto: We were told that the Superfly 100 only was made in Waterloo, Wisconsin and is indeed OCLV construction.
The Superfly 100 is supposed to be available now, also. This is from the Brand Manager.
Thanks, GTed.
I think I understand the design limitations, my question is more about if full-floater is a better design, why not abandon the top-tube mounted shock? Tradition “we’ve always done it that way” is not a good reason to stick with a design. Cost/benefit/retail price target is a better reason, but is tougher to justify to the consumer when it comes to the top-line bikes.
As a consumer, here’s the questions I’d ask Trek/GF:
So does the design of the Fisher’s shock negate the advantages of “full-floater”? Or was “full-floater” never an advantage in the first place? Or is full-floater and advantage, but Fisher’s top-shelf bikes don’t actually get the best available from Trek, just second-best? Or is there some limitation from design around 29″ wheels that limits the suspension design in this case?
I’m genuinely curious about this.
@jimmythefly: Okay, I think I now understand where you are coming from with this. I think that rather than a “this or that” mentality to looking at the suspension design choices of Trek and Gary Fisher, one may want to open the scope of the perspective a moment for a different viewpoint.
For instance, if it were as you are putting it here- ie: one suspension design is superior- then wouldn’t it make sense that almost all suspension designs would be similar, and almost all riders would desire that “one” great design, while inferior designs would be relegated to the trash heap? I know you don’t mean that, but it is what you are writing here, as far as I can fathom it.
No- in reality, there is “more than one way to skin a cat”, and technical innovations, evolutions, and tweaks just keep moving the target all the time. I think that in terms of the overall mountain biking world, there are several takes on the modified single pivot design. (Which both Trek’s and Fisher’s designs fall under) Which one is “the best”? Well, you’ll get as many answers as there are variations on the theme.
And of course, some will say none of them are good.
It is the way it should be. More choices are good. Most bikes are at least decent, some are really good, a few are absolutely brilliant. There aren’t many “stinkers” out there, and Trek and Fisher certainly have their stuff dialed for 2010. If you think one of the brands is getting “second rate” treatment/ideas/products, then you would be dead wrong.
I have a different perspective than many, since I get to meet the folks that work on the stuff, hear their passion, and I know how much they want the products that come from their minds and hands to succeed. Most of these folks work on both brands stuff. I think they are equally proud of both brands.
So Trek has “this way” of looking at a solution, and Fisher has “another way” of looking at it. Which is better? Maybe neither. Maybe one or the other, it depends on a lot of variables. Neither is bad, and really, both have very refined and top notch products. Just different ways of getting there.
That’s my take. Your mileage may vary.
The “which suspension system is best” question loses a lot of relevance once racers do well on either system. JHK wins races on his SF100, Craig is 6th in the Champery world cup last weekend on his 26″ Giant FS.
Like GT said: There are more ways to excellent performance. Every rider is different, every course is different, so there is no superior suspension system or wheel size for that matter. Excuse me for the curse in this church.
@JeroenK: No offense taken. At least by me. You know, it puzzles me as to why folks think I am a zealot for 29″ers when in reality I have said time and again, they are all “just bikes”. Of course, I am speaking only for myself, and yes- there are zealots and haters.
Anyway, feel free to voice your opinions here. I always appreciate them.
During Gary Fisher’s life testing of the frame and fork on a laboratory test rig, have they determined what their consumers can expect as a useful life from this product and what the required maintenance schedule of the replaceable/serviceable parts will be in the best case laboratory environment?
Does the carbon product have a longer useful life expectancy and/or cost of ownership (purchase price plus required maintenance schedule of the replaceable/serviceable parts) than the aluminum product?
@Alan 2Dogwalk: Well, considering that Trek/Fisher offers lifetime warranties against defects on all frames, then I suspect that you should be riding quite some time.
Now as to components, suspension hardpoints, and the like, as a bicycle mechanic myself, I can tell you “it depends”.
I see all types of riders. In my experience, guaging those that ride a lot, the folks that maintenance, clean, and use their equipment within the design intent of the bicycle they have get phenomenal lifetime out of components. Those that are more aggressive, careless, and use their bicycles beyond the scope of the intended use by the manufacturer get dramatically less life from the components and frames they ride on.
For a manufacturer to test in a lab environment and say “you will get this” is not living in the “real world”. I can tell you, it wouldn’t happen that way. That’s why you only see testing for fatigue strength in terms of safety.
That all said, my experiences on the new Fisher HiFi/Rumblefish platform are giving me the impression that these 2010 models are going to be much better in terms of frame longevity out in the field.
With all due respect:
I have found in my extensive interaction with mechanical products over long periods of time (many broken under the number of G’s my legs can hold due to excessive speed), that “manufacturing defect” is in the eye of the beholder.
I get all of my jumping done with a Kite on water, I don’t like riding in mud or salt water and sand, I like to keep things a long time and put a lot of time on/in them including vehicles and women, while of course only using them for their intended purpose, properly cleaning them, and replacing worn parts.
Does Gary Fisher have an estimate of the number of years/decades (3hours/day x 365 days = 1095 hours/year) that I can expect to use the Frame and Fork, they are selling as a complete bike, before the fatigue of “intended use” prevents further use due to safety or deteriorated performance? Do they estimate their carbon product out performs their aluminum product in the aforementioned area?
The laboratory life testing strategy developed by the military for mechanical objects (especially airborne) has proven very useful in enhancing design quality, estimating best case Mean Time Between Failure and life cycle costs, as well as saving crew members lives.
If I want to buy a car, I get to look at the owners’ manual with a suggested maintenance schedule for moving parts that would elude to a cost of ownership. If I know my self to be a person that will take it to Baja and drive it like it was a Trophy Truck, I can estimate the cost of ownership for moving parts (and perhaps non-moving parts) will go up extensively, depending of course on my estimated number of Baja excursions.
Has Gary Fisher developed a suggested maintenance schedule for moving parts? Do they estimate their carbon product out performs their aluminum product in the aforementioned area?
Is there a size of obstacle/speed that a person bunny hops or rides over that exceeds Gary Fishers “intended use” for this product?
Alan 2dogwalk: Also with all due respect………..
Your questions should really be directed at Gary Fisher Bikes, and not this writer, as I am not well versed in the technical engineering aspects that the company has, or what exactly the numbers would be that you are searching for.
That said, the CEN Standards that all cycling companies are tested under are extremely difficult to pass. How the end user puts the product through the fatigue cycles is anyones guess. An “X” factor, if you will.
To use military, or commercial aircraft examples to compare the cycling industry with is quite unfair. Aircraft are forced by law to be maintained at specific intervals and in specific ways. Bicycles? Hardly even close.
All component parts bolted to any manufacturers frames are also subject to each component manufacturers maintenance schedules and techniques. The suspension hard points have suggested maintenance intervals, (again see Fisher Bikes for the specifics).
It’s all out there if you want to research it.
Thanks for your patience in my quest for carbon versus aluminum product/critical pivots useful life and cost of ownership information.
I am sure Gary Fisher is a fine company producing great bicycles that meet all applicable standards and who is providing similar product information as their competitors.
I am considering purchasing one after their demo rig comes through my area again.
My reference to the Military was based on the fact that all of the materials and design techniques we depend on originated from their efforts. Learning from their successes seems like a reasonable approach.
I am not sure what kind of information is passed around at press camps or what you asked or was answered. I am sorry if I exceeded threshold.