Who has bought EM3EV's bicycle frames and how do you like it

I think Lurkin is asking an awful lot for the price. It's clear he needs a better product, and they are out there, just not at this price.

Go to Croatia or Australia for it would be my advice. Or Canada, for a carbon one. The rest of us mob that ride dirt, but not at X games level, can be quite happy with this frame. I can't afford the front shock it would take to make it ride to it's potential, so I'm sure what I could afford on the rear would not make any difference to me. But don't misunderstand, I can feel the difference when I ride my FSR. It feels better despite a cheap ass shock on it. That's how the cheap genesis can feel ok with a fkn pogo stick shock on it. BUT, the main thing is lowering the shock performance is not going to make me keep crashing. The simple no linkage shock bike I also own rides fine, for my riding skill level. I'm no x games rider, but I still do ride dirt better than average. I've done plenty.

On street, I need to carry more. So personally I have zero interest in riding this type of bike where a cop has any thing to say. So how it looks doesn't matter. It looks unable to carry a whole cart load of groceries to me. You could put a trailer on it though, and have a does both bike.

Hey Paul, if you want me to go ride some rock staircases and test that frame, send me one. :lol:
 
I don't think anybody in small production doing similar style frames is doing the sort of testing being mentioned here (and i still am really not sure about the specifics of what would be tested and how these tests would be accomplished). These frames are not weight weenies, they are pretty damn substantial (more a light motorcycle than bike) and far better suited (impo) to riding down a bumpy road at 45mph than the vast majority of regular bikes that people are using on ES and doing just that.
i am not aware of anyone reporting this frame or other similar frames, that are falling to bits, cracking or anything else (please correct me if i am wrong). I'm sorry, but the concerns regarding the structural integrity of this frame are misplaced impo and until there is evidence to even suggest there is some sort of problem, then i don't really get the whole argument. The general consensus seems to me that so long as the steel is in any way a reasonable grade, with sufficient material quantity and the welds look ok, then it should be more than up to the task of supporting 200kg or less, with full suspension and at moderate speeds of typically 60kmh, up to maybe 80kmh.
There is nothing to indicate this (or other similar frames) are not fit for the intended purpose. It is steel, it would bend and start to show signs before it failed, not like alloy which could fail more suddenly.
there are a significant proportion of users on es riding round on cheap bikes with too much power, which are genuinely unsafe and pose significant risks to their health (but surprisingly enough, you don't really hear about as many problems as might be imagined). To pick on this frame in particular and single it out as being somehow unfit for purpose.. I'm sorry but i just don't see it. I hope the same arguments are made against the other likely candidates, or maybe they are exempt as they cost more?
Nobody is forcing anyone to buy this frame, if something else ticks your boxes, buy that instead. I didn't come here to talk up the frame and make a sale or 2, i saw my company name and came to help in any way i could. I will try to get pics i promised, just a bit short handed at the factory at the moment.
oh and maybe we will have to get the DM fixed up some time, i am very sure he'd love it 8)
cheers Paul
 
Pauls sales volume is irrelevant as the manufacturer should test their own products rather than an incentivised reseller. Further, how many other people are reselling these now? We dont know what the sales volume for the manufacturer is, or what margin they are making on them!

And unlike Pauls previous advice you can definitely buy these direct, cheaper, from the manufacturer. What do you think I was planning to do!

I haven't asked this level of detail from other manufacturers. But then I have had poor responses from them with dodgy information! If you read my prior posts you'll realize why I'm totally fine with buying frames from alternative suppliers.

The uncertainty had arisen from poor, inconsistent or contradictory information provided by Paul, Evelbike and Jason (represents the actual manufacturer, not a reseller).

As previously stated, I tried to work out the quality of these frames BEFORE anyone on here had them and before Paul was even offering them. The responses I received are still be debated even in this thread!

Paul has provided his very well written point of view. But it's just more of the same with no new information at all. I find it a little disturbing that his view is being serenaded because it has been eloquently put yet it's a just well put summary of his assumptions and opinion- there's no new facts or confirmed information there!

Each to their own. If you guys are happy to assume the frames are strong enough based on Pauls (potentially) biased advice and the other poor information Ive written in here without confirmed, tangible facts then that's totally fine, I'll leave you to it.
 
But your assertion that they are no good is equally based only on speculation!

You've had trouble getting technical information from sellers/manufacturers in China, but I'd guess that's because you were talking to a SALESMAN in his second language. The product could have been designed by an engineering whiz, but you're not talking to him. Best case you'll get second-hand, misinterpreted and mistranslated information.

Product testing can be a useful and reassuring attempt to simulate whole-life end use in a rapidly accelerated manner, but it is only an approximation. A product that's proven in the field is arguably superior.

Dogman hit the nail on the head - you're asking an awful lot for a mail-order, inexpensive Chinese bike frame.
 
Punx0r said:
But your assertion that they are no good is equally based only on speculation!

You've had trouble getting technical information from sellers/manufacturers in China, but I'd guess that's because you were talking to a SALESMAN in his second language. The product could have been designed by an engineering whiz, but you're not talking to him. Best case you'll get second-hand, misinterpreted and mistranslated information.

Product testing can be a useful and reassuring attempt to simulate whole-life end use in a rapidly accelerated manner, but it is only an approximation. A product that's proven in the field is arguably superior.

Dogman hit the nail on the head - you're asking an awful lot for a mail-order, inexpensive Chinese bike frame.

I have never, at any point said these products are 'bad'. Again, another instance of twisting my words.

To the contrary, I was interested in these frames because I think they could be really, really good, as are many products from China these days. Similarly, some of the customer service I have had has been superior to that received in Australia by a long shot. The implicit assumption of your response is that there should be an expectation of low service.... I don't agree.

Regardless of the position or experience of the manufacturers representative, there isn't anyone else there to contact from overseas. Given he is the chosen representative from what I could work out, its fair to assume he should be able to answer queries appropriately.

Whether Dogman and yourself consider it a lot to expect or not is a matter of opinion. From my perspective, expecting consumers to purchase untested products, subject themselves to product testing without realising it without facts based on others assumptions and opinions... crossing their fingers hoping the frame doesn't fail is negligent and dodgy.

Again, as I've said previously on multiple occasion:

- This is not a criticism of Chinese products AT ALL. Some of the best products I own come from China.
- I think this product COULD BE AWESOME and as a result I will be following it with a close eye.
- I have tried to share all of the information provided to me from the manufacturer with others on the forum so they can make educated decisions about their purchase.
- I have had an experience that has made me risk averse and may put me in a different position to other people, who will make a difference choice accordingly. This isn't to poo poo the frame, its to raise awareness that there is risk that some may not have considered associated with custom frames and vague suppliers.
- Other people will come to a different conclusion - and that is totally fine. Whether they think its enough is up to them, but its an opinion or judgement call, NOT a fact.
 
With all respect,..
...bike frame failure is probably the least risk you face riding any bike on or off road these days !
And most of the risks are totally out of your control or sphere of influence !
Look on the bright side, you have suffered on major frame failure, so the probability of it happening again to you are now statistically extremely small ! :wink:
 
Lurkin said:
Pauls sales volume is irrelevant as the manufacturer should test their own products rather than an incentivised reseller. Further, how many other people are reselling these now? We dont know what the sales volume for the manufacturer is, or what margin they are making on them!

I'm a supplier, I don't claim to be a charity or doing this to further a revolution etc. I wouldn't sell them if i didn't think they were good value, safe and a good product. They are produced in quite small batches, they are very far from mass produced, they are a niche product. The margin is irrelevant, you don't ask the shop to itemise the profit they make on each part.

Lurkin said:
And unlike Pauls previous advice you can definitely buy these direct, cheaper, from the manufacturer. What do you think I was planning to do!

That shouldn't be the case and if it is, more words will be said. The whole idea is to let Dealers buy them, not to have loads of cheapskates bugging the maker, so someone can save themselves 50USD. Direct sales from the factory is what is bad about many Chinese Products, at least this way the local dealers have a chance to buy in bulk and supply locally. Direct retail sales from the factory sucks for everyone sooner or later. Dealers have to put their hand in their pocket and wait for the parts to arrive, field all the questions etc, why shouldn't they make a living too?

Lurkin said:
I haven't asked this level of detail from other manufacturers. But then I have had poor responses from them with dodgy information! If you read my prior posts you'll realize why I'm totally fine with buying frames from alternative suppliers.

So this is largely based on not being treated with the care and attention you feel you deserve? The factory is not interested in supplying 1 frame to 1 guy with a stack of difficult questions, that they don't understand. The Factory have been told by myself and Evel, that it is unfair and counter-productive to take the small minded approach and try to grab every little sale and disrespect/undermine the dealers. The Factory are seeking Dealers, not retail sales. If you bought a quantity and showed you were a genuine business buyer, I might imagine they would be more interested in trying to answer numerous and difficult questions. I repeat, the factory is not interested in direct single frame sales, so don't expect a warm welcome when you send them an email from your gmail account with a long list of difficult questions. If you even got a reply, you are lucky, they will generally just ignore what they see are time wasting/difficult small customers (very common for China Factories, they are not interested in these sort of sales).

Lurkin said:
The uncertainty had arisen from poor, inconsistent or contradictory information provided by Paul, Evelbike and Jason (represents the actual manufacturer, not a reseller).

As previously stated, I tried to work out the quality of these frames BEFORE anyone on here had them and before Paul was even offering them. The responses I received are still be debated even in this thread!

I know the guys at Evel, they have been my customers for several years. I knew about this frame a long time ago and had 1 of the first units when samples were built. Show me where I have made any inconsistent claims? I see lots of generic requests that are very easy to ask, but I don't see any specific tests, or procedures to do measurements, tests, or anything else. If questions are being thrown in, in the middle of bashing the person (referring to a sales thread I only read last night.... hmmm) and when the person being asked the question uses English as their 2nd language, it is easy to get mixed up and for misunderstandings to occur.

Lurkin said:
Paul has provided his very well written point of view. But it's just more of the same with no new information at all. I find it a little disturbing that his view is being serenaded because it has been eloquently put yet it's a just well put summary of his assumptions and opinion- there's no new facts or confirmed information there!

Each to their own. If you guys are happy to assume the frames are strong enough based on Pauls (potentially) biased advice and the other poor information Ive written in here without confirmed, tangible facts then that's totally fine, I'll leave you to it.

Thanks, I do try :) I've also heard lots of positive things from both suppliers (that in many cases deal with lots of other products, so do have a good point of reference) and buyers too. I don't think i have read anybody that has tried these frames or who owns 1, to have anything more to offer in the way of negative comments, other than minor details. I do resent the suggestion that I'd supply something that posed a significant risk of falling to bits and hurting someone, just so i could profit in some way. Just because someone profits in some way, does not mean they are blinded by greed. I sell this frame, because I like it, it looks cool, has loads of room for a huge battery, a big Hub motor drops in (with no concerns about TAs) rides well and the factory is maybe 2 hours drive from me. If I could easily get some frames from Vector or Qulbix, I'd offer them too, but the logistics would be a nightmare, so I don't current do that, but would certainly consider drop shipping other frames, offering packages to go with the frame.

My belief that the frame is sound, are based on my experience, and common sense (that is also what others are doing, they are not just plucking something out of thin air). This is not infallible (I'm not talking about a set of 747 wings here), but I do believe you can look at the material type, quantity of material and take a visual look at the welds, then make a judgement as to the suitability of a particular object with regards to it's ability to withstand the expected normal usage and even extreme usage. If the normal usage was very extreme and/or the materials used, were marginal (minimal material to save weight) or more prone to catastrophic failure (aluminium or carbon fibre), then yes, I could see that a more thorough investigation is warranted. But really, I don't see that this frame would normally be used in such a way and the forces we are talking are not huge. Others are simply doing the same thing, they are making a reasonably educated judgement. Look, I really do not think the normal usage of this frame will get remotely close to the structural limits of the materials, design and construction, for this frame. It is absolutely over-built (IMPO) and therefore, that is why I don't see questioning the structural integrity as being hugely relevant. If it is relevant here, it is relevant on all such frames and every bike out there, but I don't see many discussions along these lines.

This is an analogy that springs to mind. I cross the road very often and have done so many times in my life. I sometimes take a chance, but I will always look both ways and not put myself in too much harms way (except that night where I drank way too much, fell into the road in front of someone's car.... luckily they stopped in time, but i digress :) ). Yes, there is a chance that a car will lose a wheel and career off unexpected, or the building behind me might collapse, but the chances are very slim. I don't see that making a reasonable judgement (based on knowledge and experience), that a mechanical object is comfortably able to meet a required level of strength and therefore, it is safe to use that device, as being hugely different to this scenario. IMPO, the required strength and what I believe a steel structure such as this should be capable of, are not even close, so as to be a major concern. I am not trying to make fun, or belittle the concerns, I am just trying to explain how I see it.

If anyone has a specific and reasonable test, that can be performed on 1 of these frames, please detail it, we can discuss and maybe some sort of test, can actually be performed. I have repeated several times, that I need specifics, all these general comments do not help. If you want to get the answer you want, you need to ask the right questions. Some open ended generic comment is very difficult, to respond back to with anything meaningful.

Thanks and Peace, I am just coming back with responses to the points, not wanting to cause offense or anything else. I really should get back to doing some work now.
Paul :)
 
The mention of sales volume and margin are with reference to the ability to cover R&D costs. If anything, sales revenue is irrelevant - margin is, as it will be applied to cover R&D costs.

In other words, I am totally for both manufacturers and resellers making margin, via sales volume. You have gotten the wrong end of the stick thinking its a jab against dealers. Welcome to re read the post and realise this is what I am saying. Dealers are an important customer service element and I have paid higher prices previously, including to you, to get it. If anything, applying your dealer "definition", I was considering stocking these frames for the purpose of a potential group buy and ongoing relationship, as I have done previously with batteries in order to lower the cost for local forum members. The more people with ebikes the merrier and the cheaper they are to make, the more will buy them. Whilst you are a dealer, you are still in China. I was considering holding these locally a low price for Australians, I cannot just pop over to the factory for a visit - its an expensive international flight for me.

As technology improves and local Chinese (and other labour based economies) vendors improve enough, businesses simply clipping the ticket inbetween will become obsolete. Why do you think I have suggested directly to you (which you have ignored) to improve your business model to include servicing and extended warranties?! the initial sale of the product is a small piece of the pie - why do you think you are seeing Microsoft and other software vendors switch to ongoing subscriptions rather than up front sales of software? Answer: 'improved product offering' and ongoing revenue. Leaf Motors is a perfect example of how dealers will be cut out - their not perfect, but their product is good and they handle international sales directly without issue and without dealers.

Thanks for implying I am a cheapskate and assuming I've pestered the factory for the purpose of buying one frame. To give you the heads up - this is a budget frame at a budget price and it naturally it attracts new entrants to ebikes or those looking for a bargain.

If you actually read my posts, you will realise there were no dealers at the time I was getting interested in this frame, at least not publicly anyway - there was no one else to deal with. I was looking to group buy in bulk with another Chinese shipment I had coming through. All I needed was sufficient information to be convinced I would not be offering a hand grenade to other people. Each time I asked questions, I got weird answers. Eventually it came down to wanting a sample at a low price because I was not convinced there was quality - as far as I knew, it could be another alibaba/aliexpress scam. At that time, no other other forum member had publicly admitted to owning one of these - there was no one else to ask. This process had nothing to do with wanting to be patted on the head - it had everything to do with trying to confirm the frames were of sufficient quality that I wouldn't be shafting someone receiving it.

The inconsistency of information is by comparison to the information received by the three of you, not individually. You accuse me of wanting a lot, yet you've overlooked that I was initially considering sending a considerable amount of money overseas without being in China, on information or being able to verify physically ANYTHING. It takes a huge amount of trust to do that - trust which can only be obtained by the provision of sufficient information. I've posted everything - you are welcome to trawl for it yourself.

I haven't specified any tests because I am not an engineer, and no, I am not going to engage others to design tests to assist you to sell your frames. Yes, I considered doing this before offering it to others. When I realised this was required to really have any comfort these frames are decent, I decided it was beyond what I wanted to get involved in and I gave up while I was ahead.

Further, I have been trying to achieve a positive definition regarding these frames. I.e. they are GOOD because they can be subjected to X and are totally fine afterwards. Stop and re read my posts, I'm not bagging you or stating these frames will fall apart. I have questioned whether they are as strong as people think they are, based on the poor information provided and my own experience and pointed out that there is a real risk there if the assumed strength isn't there. If anything, I am in full support of Asian frame production but in order to be a buyer, I need to be convinced that they are of sufficient quality for purchase as would be the others who were also interested.
 
OK. If you were looking to import and retail these frames in Australia, then the legal onus for their safety, quality and suitability for purpose would likely fall on you (Aus law may vary, but it's generally that way in the Western world). You would be responsible for providing evidence of compliance with any relevant legislation, including test work. Simply passing on test reports from the Chinese manufacturer suffices in some cases, in others they may have to be from a limited number of accredited test houses (I'm unfamiliar with Aus law on bicycle/motorcycle (parts) safety requirements).

Even if there are no specific legislation, it would be a good idea to order at least one frame as a sample to conduct your own evaluation (inspection for suitability for your business, or to conduct performance or safety tests).

Lurkin said:
I haven't specified any tests because I am not an engineer, and no, I am not going to engage others to design tests to assist you to sell your frames. Yes, I considered doing this before offering it to others. When I realised this was required to really have any comfort these frames are decent, I decided it was beyond what I wanted to get involved in and I gave up while I was ahead.

See? You want to buy a product from the cheapest source, yet get the level of support and guarantee as if you were buying a premium product from a Western retail outlet. Cheapness = risk. Why do you think you can buy fasteners at one price for general use, but if the same ones certified for aircraft use cost ten times as much?

I'm sure if you signed a sufficiently large contract of supply with the manufacturer of this frame, they would have it tested and provide you with the level of guarantee you require. Western law demands a minimum level of safety and suitability for retail products. This is part of the reason why the same parts cost 2-3x as much as if you buy them direct from China - that guarantee costs.

You might hope that anything you buy, regardless of whether it's inexpensive and direct from China, isn't unsafe junk, but experience suggests that isn't the case. The reputation of a seller in these kinds of transactions if often the closest thing you have to a guarantee. I don't think you're wrong in your basic expectations for the performance of a product, just unrealistic.
 
PLEASE stop twisting my words. A group buy is hardly retailing a frame, frankly, I hadn't even gotten that far as to consider the laws it was subject to.

The people I would have been organising the frames for would have been friends and family, who trust me to make the correct judgement call. Theres no way I would put them up to being test dummies for a frame of dubious source.

I haven't asked for a guarantee or certification, or asked for support. Far from it, I've asked simple questions to determine whether the frame been tested in any case to understand whether it is worth purchasing or not. If you think this is the level of scrutiny aircraft grade parts go through, you are sorely mistaken.

It's entirely your own judgement call that cheap = risk. It doesn't have to be at all, just requires being smart about what tests to apply to maximise the benefit from $ spent. Again, an engineer is the best person to consult as to what those tests are or should be. After all, its a once off expense spread across many produced frames. This is why it makes perfect sense for a frame manufacturer to do it....

Your expecting to put the cart before the horse "You have to make a big order to get it and take the massive risk of buying a large number of lemon frames" rather than "you need to prove your product before the big orders will come". Being willing to sign large contracts on an Aliexpress ad without physically verifying the product exists, testing it of any kind... thats the worst advice ever! Great way to get scammed.

Go back and read my posts before you continue to critique me. The frame manufacturer had no reputation that I was aware of, there was no one else to ask at the time, dealer, forum member or otherwise...

I asked the frame manufacturer for a frame at a reduced price (a) for testing (b) to demonstrate to the others they were fine. They thought it would be a better idea to volume load the pricing and ignore the issues I was having trying to convince other people they were of any real quality. Been there, done that - the frame manufacturer was completely uninterested unless it met their MOQ.

In any case, I test what I get before I give it to people I care about, regardless of its source or whether a dealer has promoted their own products for sale.
 
Lurkin said:
It's entirely your own judgement call that cheap = risk. It doesn't have to be at all, just requires being smart about what tests to apply to maximise the benefit from $ spent. Again, an engineer is the best person to consult as to what those tests are or should be. After all, its a once off expense spread across many produced frames. This is why it makes perfect sense for a frame manufacturer to do it....

It's like you understand it but don't at the same time: Testing costs money. As does warranty and providing indemnity against failure. These costs are amortised over the expected production run and passed onto the customer via per-unit pricing. You, the customer, pay more in return for these value-added benefits.

As a rough estimate you could be looking at around $50,000 for comprehensive testing of a bike frame. Maybe less if there happen to be existing standardised tests, considerably more if you have to design and build the test rigs. $100+/hr labour rates soon. Of the 40 frames sold by EM3EV so far, that's over $1000 added to the cost of each frame. Would you be prepared to pay it? Do you now understand why production volume matters?

Lurkin said:
Your expecting to put the cart before the horse "You have to make a big order to get it and take the massive risk of buying a large number of lemon frames" rather than "you need to prove your product before the big orders will come". Being willing to sign large contracts on an Aliexpress ad without physically verifying the product exists, testing it of any kind... thats the worst advice ever! Great way to get scammed.

You misread my post. The contract (which you pay handsomely for) is to guarantee you a minimum performance spec and recourse in the case of non-compliance. Again, want a guarantee? You pay for it in one-off cost or agreement to buy in high volume.

Lurkin said:
Go back and read my posts before you continue to critique me. The frame manufacturer had no reputation that I was aware of, there was no one else to ask at the time, dealer, forum member or otherwise...

EM3EV is the manufacturer's agent in this case and they have a reputation. They may not have been at the time you first enquired, but you're still insisting the frame is no good, despite the reassurance that comes with EM3EV attaching their name to it.

Lurkin said:
I asked the frame manufacturer for a frame at a reduced price (a) for testing (b) to demonstrate to the others they were fine. They thought it would be a better idea to volume load the pricing and ignore the issues I was having trying to convince other people they were of any real quality. Been there, done that - the frame manufacturer was completely uninterested unless it met their MOQ.

As stated above, they are not interested in low volume sales. I doubt they are also interested in providing free or discounted samples to individuals for an unqualified, non-specified appraisal. This might hurt your feelings, but it's normal. Large companies often have to pay for part/product samples (and at MOQ) for testing. Especially where transport is a significant cost in providing a sample.

Lurkin said:
In any case, I test what I get before I give it to people I care about, regardless of its source or whether a dealer has promoted their own products for sale.

Your sentiments are honourable, but what testing would you have done? You have already said you are not an engineer and could not suggest what tests the manufacturer ought to do on the frame.
 
Punx0r said:
It's like you understand it but don't at the same time: Testing costs money. As does warranty and providing indemnity against failure. These costs are amortised over the expected production run and passed onto the customer via per-unit pricing. You, the customer, pay more in return for these value-added benefits.

As a rough estimate you could be looking at around $50,000 for comprehensive testing of a bike frame. Maybe less if there happen to be existing standardised tests, considerably more if you have to design and build the test rigs. $100+/hr labour rates soon. Of the 40 frames sold by EM3EV so far, that's over $1000 added to the cost of each frame. Would you be prepared to pay it? Do you now understand why production volume matters?

Yes, the cost of testing is a function of the extent, who does it and their efficiency. I have no idea of the capability of the manufacturer - perhaps they have an engineer about? However, I guess if their designs are given to them without any form of testing, perhaps they don't.

Perhaps their company represents a world class facility with engineers about?
Perhaps it represents a one man band with no skills at all?
Perhaps its somewhere in between?
Perhaps they have a relationship with an engineer?
Who knows? You can't make assumptions about what it costs without this information.

Yes, testing costs money. No, I'm not prepared to fund it. No, staring at a mild steel frame (again, assumed because I am the only one providing ANY information about that) and assuming it's safe is an ASSUMPTION. Congrats on making up figures, which are completely meaningless without the above function. Again, as above, if they had any ability to test in house this argument becomes pretty irrelevant and really just a management reporting issue.

I.e. No, this request was not made out of ignorance or a snap decision. I dwelled on this for some time, including enquiring with engineers re if they would be willing to help out. Sure, they were willing to offer their time - but whats in it for them? whos paying the consumables? More importantly, given I've decided I don't want to be a dealer - whats in it for me?? = absolutely nothing, not even a discounted frame to test with let alone any form of testing coverage.

Punx0r said:
You misread my post. The contract (which you pay handsomely for) is to guarantee you a minimum performance spec and recourse in the case of non-compliance. Again, want a guarantee? You pay for it in one-off cost or agreement to buy in high volume.

No ones asked for a guarantee. This is your second post well and truly missing the point. This is exactly why I suggested you re read my posts.

Punx0r said:
EM3EV is the manufacturer's agent in this case and they have a reputation. They may not have been at the time you first enquired, but you're still insisting the frame is no good, despite the reassurance that comes with EM3EV attaching their name to it.

Em3ev are a dealer, not the manufacturer. Its pretty clear Paul has no information about the production processes, testing if any that the manufacturer has applied and so forth. Enquiring with him is a waste of time if he has no new information - this is a well and truly boiled egg in this thread.....

To date, Paul has done nothing but eloquently summarise and pass off his opinion as fact. Which is fine, if attaching a brand makes you sleep at night, hooray for you. Pity its relatively meaningless, especially after he is openly admitted he has done nothing other than physically inspect the frame to be satisfied of its strength.

Punx0r said:
As stated above, they are not interested in low volume sales. I doubt they are also interested in providing free or discounted samples to individuals for an unqualified, non-specified appraisal. This might hurt your feelings, but it's normal. Large companies often have to pay for part/product samples (and at MOQ) for testing. Especially where transport is a significant cost in providing a sample.

This is exactly where you are wrong again. You are reading Paul's commentary and providing generic explanations without doing any work. The manufacturer was more than happy to deal with relatively small MOQ - had I have known at the time they were legit, I would have purchased it. 5 frames is what it was.

This isn't about hurt feelings or personal dealings, its business. The reality is they are were an unknown frame producer and I was effectively offering to test and promote their product. Theres really no need to keep trying to give me CHIN101 on how to interact with large companies. I've dealt with them for a very long time and this is usually a tactic on their part - they don't really want to pay for it either but surprise surprise, they are more than willing to supply additional sales.

I was aiming for mutually beneficial relationship for both parties, or to give you an example - exactly what Paul is doing!

Theres a consistent theme in this thread that supplying a frame for testing or really assisting in the sale process at all will break the bank of the manufacturer. Its absurd - your looking at their sale price, not cost.... its totally normal to have these costs in business....

Punx0r said:
Your sentiments are honourable, but what testing would you have done? You have already said you are not an engineer and could not suggest what tests the manufacturer ought to do on the frame.

None, how many times would you like me to write it! What I would have done is more than covered - consult an engineer and do it properly. This is well covered in here already.....
 
I pulled the trigger on one of these frames and I'm starting my second ebike build with it. I may even do a thread if I can find time. Here's what I can say so far.

1. The welds although not the prettiest I've seen, are solid.

2. The battery compartment is, in fact, HUGE. I'm planning on putting around 40lbs of Lipo in mine. :mrgreen:

I'll be updating as I get it built up. Happy to answer any questions that I can along the way.
 
GmagNeato said:
...
2. The battery compartment is, in fact, HUGE. I'm planning on putting around 40lbs of Lipo in mine. :mrgreen:
I'll be updating as I get it built up. Happy to answer any questions that I can along the way.

My first question. Are you going to charge that thing outside? haha
 
Lurkin said:
ozman said:
@ Lurkin Did you ask Qulbix for the test reports?
go back and read my earlier posts and youll find exactly why I haven't. This is another well boiled egg.

You relied on their reputation? Or you once saw someone land a jump on one?
 
ecycler said:
GmagNeato said:
...
2. The battery compartment is, in fact, HUGE. I'm planning on putting around 40lbs of Lipo in mine. :mrgreen:
I'll be updating as I get it built up. Happy to answer any questions that I can along the way.

My first question. Are you going to charge that thing outside? haha

Haha yes actually I've considered doing that when temperature permits. Either way it will be in an outbuilding, not the house. And never overnight or unattended. :)
 
Disclaimer: I have not bought one of these frames , nor am I an engineer. However, I used to work with downhill bikes; repairs, service , setup, and warranty questions towards users and national suppliers.

Suspension: 4link (horst link,VPP,FSR and so on) vs single pivot isn't just about pedal bob. It negates pedal bob by putting the upper front pivot above the chain , pulling the rear wheel down when you push the pedal.

But it does more. The part of the rear swingarm wich the rear wheel and the brake caliper is attached to, does not rotate as it moves up and down , in contrast to the single pivot swingarm where the brake caliper rotates around the single pivot point. This negates brake jack , as the rotational force acting on the brake caliper while braking does not affect the suspension, at least not nearly as much as on a single pivot.

Last , 4link's makes it possible to create a wheel path where the wheel can move backwards and up at the beginning of the compression stroke , more in line of where the wheel will be hit by curbs and obstacles while riding at speed.to do this on a single pivot would mean a very high pivot point, and unbelieveable chain growth. Or go the bomber route with a gearbox up to the pivot point. On a downhill bike , it makes it easier to get over large square bumps without catching the rear wheel. Not too much of an issue on motorized bikes with knobby moto-tires. As the path of the wheel is more or less in line with where the bump will hit , less of the energy should be absorbed by the wheel, and more transferred to the suspension.
But if this is a real advantage , or if the wheelpath is actually a bad thing in some terrains, well , the jury is still out...

Still , 99% of all motorbikes still have single pivot suspension. The brake jack issue can be solved with a floating rear caliper, and chainsuck and chaingrowth can be minimized with careful chainline/pivot placement.

Falling/rising rate: simply put the relation between the compression of the wheel vs the compression of the shock. If the shock compresses faster relative to the wheel movement towards the end of the stroke , it's a rising rate.

Spring: downhillers wants linear spring rate and low weight. coil springs are linear and heavy , air springs are progressive and light.

My own all mountain ride , the santacruz nomad has a falling rate geometry and a progressive air spring. this works ok as the resulting spring curve is quite linear with a small dip in the midstroke. a reccomended mod is reducing the air chamber volume wich removes the dip in the midstroke and adds a progressive end stroke.
But because of the falling rate geometry, the compression damping has to be quite progressive to avoid falling rate compression damping.

Big huck freeride bikes on the other hand often has coil springs and rising rate geometry , more suited to big jumps and hard landings. Downhillers go for high speed over rough terrain.

Most people prefer a linear or somewhat rising shok rate, easy to get with a coil spring and single pivot.
With a 4link you can get this with an air spring , you can even make it extra soft and comfy in the beginning of the stroke while keeping the needed compression later into the stroke + ramping it up towards the end of stroke

Still , with a well designed linkage, like the dhteam or hayabusa , a single pivot comes pretty darn close.

Thoughts on the design:
The pivot point seems narrow. it looks to me like the pivot point could be much wider, ideally using allmost all available space beween the chainwheel and the left pedal arm.
Inverting the shock. by putting the rod above the chamber, the rod seal will dry out.
"Seatpost meets rebound adjuster" looks like a accident waiting to happen.
The headtube angle seems a bit steep to me. Still , without a decent drawing , max headtube to axle length and correct geometry , it's hard to choose fork , calculate rake , and predict front wheel handling.


Testing: On this topic I cant claim much expertise , but generally , the welds on bike frames should not give , period. the frame should buckle , about when the fork bends.

so.. load your bike up with your maximum rider weight +maximum length fork, and crash it into a wall at your recomended top speed, in front of a high speed camera. remember , noone expects the frame to magically save the rider in such conditions , but it should not under any achieveable conditions have a cathastrophic failure and snap into sharp pieces.

Then drop it , in same testing conditions , until you are satisfied, or the shock blows , frame buckles and fork bends. But it should not snap in the welds.

But then again, I come from a downhill background , where bikes are expected to get trashed now and then . but not cause injuries themselves. I guess motor veichles has a whole other set of demands.

I think the frame looks nice , exept the points adressed above.

.manitu
 


Objective, non biased, factual, and informative. Very dam nice.

Also, I think lurkin's points were valid all the way, tho maybe overdone due to lack of any aggreeance. I would add just as Dogman did that it's unlikely to get full exaustive testing especially on bargain steel products. Some faith is needed in the seller, as would be still if tests were claimed.

I actually take those points more towards heavily modded or repurposed bike frames of non ferrous material, which are far more closely engineered offering less leeway in material design/use/strength than most any frame of steel. I would worry on this 10x that of a brandnew heavily built steel frame.
 
Brake squat/jack is interesting, but it might not be that cut and dried: http://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/tech/jacks-not-here-man

Orange seem to do well with a single-pivot design?

I would like to know more about rear shock orientation affect the seals as this is relevant to a frame I'm building. The only results I see on a Google search concern the forks (storing the bike upside down), with the odd comment that for rear shocks different bikes vary in shock orientation?
 
Great article on brake squat/jack. need to study more.

Hell yeah , I love my single pivot Giant DHTeam 72V Ht35 e-bike. I doubt it would be much better , built on the nomad frame. Any improvements in suspension geometry would be destroyed anyway by placing the batteries elsewhere

When the shock is mounted with the body up and the piston rod down , the piston inside the shock is at rest at the bottom of the stroke at the bottom of the oil inside the shock, wich keeps the piston seal and the piston rod seal lubed , even if the bike sits for a while. One reason this makes a difference only becomes apparent when you get air in the shock. If it is up the other way the internal piston will be at rest in the air when the suspension is extended. As the piston will be submerged as soon as weight is put on the bike it may not be noticeable when you ride. It will however give you an annoying knock in your rear shock when you are pushing the bike up a hill or may top out if you don't run much rebound damping. A clear indication that your shock has air in the oil and needs a rebuild.

.manitu
 
Given that we are talking about ebikes, shouldn't we be more concerned with squatting under power than under braking? These are simply low powered motorcycles and not bicycles anymore and should look to lightweight MXers for chassis geometry inspiration and to bicycles for lightweight construction. Chain pull moment and swingarm downslope and their anti-squat effect while under power are far more important in the overall handling equation than squatting under rear braking. Unless, of course you are only talking about coasting/pedaling or rolling downhill and don't care about how the bike feels at speed under power.

Now, front dive under braking is a whole other matter and is something that both DH bikes and motorbikes have in common and are dealt with the same way: low-speed compression damping and spring rate. (Low speed as in speed of the suspension shaft and not of the vehicle. Response to bumps is high speed damping, brake dive is low speed.)
 
This is called...."Sweating the Details". ,!
You do realise what you are discussing probably only concerns 0.001% of Ebikers, ..and I suspect most of those only in a theoretical way, with nothing practical to gain from any changes.
Does anyone actually tide that close to the limit ?
Is there any serious competition for Ebikes where this could be advantageous ?
 
Back
Top