Been reading about the new-ish Fairlight Secan 3.0, which got me thinking about the process that bike designers would typically go through, especially for smaller volume brands like Fairlight. I’m interested in how these brands tackle product updates, since;
- They’d most likely lack the ample resources of larger brands (inc. dedicated R&D/design teams)
- They’d most likely operate on a more methodical, committed approach based on a slower development cycle.
For instance, how would you approach the formation of a design objective? Would consumer preferences drive say, tire width limits, and then work on broadening the wheelbase, chainstay lengths, etc to meet that goal, while considering things like handling, compliance, stiffness, etc?
And how iterative would the design process itself be? Do these brands continual to churn out a new frame incorporating a number of minute updates based on test rider feedback until the design objective is reached? On that front, I recall that Baum had “The Darren” testbed for trying different geometries, etc. Is this a somewhat similar approach taken by other brands as well?
Probably an overly simplistic assessment, but I’m keen to hear what actually goes into the development of a bike.
I’ll take a stab a this.
Smaller companies are always able to move fast. Wat faster than those big brands, So if the trend is for bigger rubber, slacker head angles, 1x vs 2x, Long top-tubes, bendy seat stays, etc and so forth, small builders can adapt way faster than those huge S, T, or C brand. They follow the trends and act quickly.
Or, you can go the other way. Be rad! Make the trend!! Build frames that go a whole other direction! Hear me, Sammy Hagar? Slack or steep, head tube or seat tube, Low low chain stays, elevated chainstays, curvy tubes! Go find your path and take it - with lots of justification for ‘why’ along the way.
Fun, right?
There’s a reason why so many bikes look similar. What works, work. Not everyone is Charlie Cunningham, following a true vision. Or Ritchey, refining and refining, and refining further. Thus, if all is equal, what sticker on the downtube do you like best? Pick one and just ride. Because ya still gotta pedal, it no what design process was used.
1 Like
It’s much easier to refine an existing design than to start from scratch, especially with something radically different from what one has done before. Ideally, one would go through several prototypes, honing in on the best balanced final design, i.e., too stiff, too flexible, too twitchy, too stable, etc.
With custom frames this is a problem because every last one is a prototype of sorts, in geometry, or stiffness, strength, usage, rider weight and expectations, etc. Unless you’re lucky and/or working with someone very simpatico, getting it right the first time is difficult. (I’ve test ridden unpainted frames, and had changes made in the past.)
One huge advantage of production frames is that they can be measured and (sometimes) test ridden, which cuts down on any unwanted surprises, which can happen for instance if the builder has a “great idea” and changes the spec without consultation. Sometimes too things just don’t work out as one may have hoped. Iterative processes reduce uncertainty, so are usually more efficient.
Thanks @Bruce_Lee, and big heh heh to the Sammy (Chamois?) Hagar nod right there. I’d agree that the smaller outfits would likely have less hierarchy/layers to negotiate during the bike design phase, with the (possible?) downside of having a team of R&D engineers to continuously research frame design, a team of fabricators to weld tubes together into a frame/fork. Not to mention having at their disposal, better (costlier?) jigs, etc to speed up the fabrication process.
TBH, my head’s all over the place right now, hence the curiosity, but tacking on an added dimension to the original question, I’m wondering how smaller teams of framebuilders negotiate the development process, while maintaining longer term viability. So, for example, I do wonder how many iterations of a new frame design would a framebuilder go through before deciding that they had a viable product or call it a day because they’ve overshot the design budget of a product.
BTW, can’t disagree that riding continues to be an exceedingly visceral experience.
Re: custom frames and prototyping… Right!?!
I’ve had the luxury of getting a custom frame done up in the past, from an established builder. Even then, there were irregularities to the final product, which arguably contributed to the frame’s distinctive flair. It made me wonder if, for the smaller builder teams (usually comprising 1 or 2 welders/builders/mechanics), that the frame building exercise was largely an effort to hit a moving target, given the variety of riding styles/preferences, etc.
But if we looked at the builders like Fairlight that arguably design their bikes inhouse, but outsource the manufacturing, what would the cycle for an entirely new design look like? I wonder how much of the initial design might be relegated to CAD software and other algorithms to “test” a design before having it produced for real world riding for feedback.
I love this question! And it hits on something that isn’t discussed as often as it should. Having gone through this process a few times and with a few different companies (Specialized, Praxis, Ibis, and now Apogee) the process is largely the same with the speed differing due to resources and the people involved.
Many times you start out with the question of “What should this bike do?” or my preferred version “What do we want the rider to experience?” Answering those questions will help narrow down key aspects that you’ll design around. For example, the updated DV9 was focused on giving a good all-around hardtail that can race XC and also serve as a good trail bike. This simultaneously narrows down component choice for the given use and also what people’s expectations are around what that bike will do. That’s when you can sprinkle in that special sauce that is geometry frame flex and create a ride quality that matches what you are looking for.
You might already have a older model that you’ve developed that is 80% of the final answer that you can then iterate and develop. That will just speed up the process.
The biggest difference between big and small companies is the budget and the number of people who have a say in what the final product will be. Smaller companies have a smaller number of people involved so you can try “crazy” things and see what happens. You also don’t have the same budget to throw at the problem so you have to be creative with how you test different ideas. Larger companies mean that the Engineer, Sales Person, Product Manager, Marketing Person all have a slightly different bike in their minds and the end result is a compromise or an average of all those different versions of the bike.
Lastly, on the point of the “more methodical, committed approach based on a slower development cycle.” it fully depends on the company. Some big companies can be really fast, and some small companies can be very slow. It just depends on the working culture of the company.
Hope this helps and if you have any questions, let me know!
2 Likes
Thanks a lot @William_Hilgenberg for the insights! Apologies for the slow follow-up, but I wanted to take my time with this, to mull over the info. It’s also great that Alex Hunt’s touched on this topic a fair bit as well.
In an earlier life, I did R&D for a number of established consumer electronics manufacturers, I think that the ideation and design process sound familiar, esp. the bit about reconciling the different design teams and their needs/wants.
That said, and to keep things simple at this early stage. How does one go about say, designing tube sets (like what Fairlight has done). As in, how does a designer go about deciding how much ovalisation of the down tube is needed, and to that end, how do you even decide at which point of the down tube do you start going from a cylindrical tube to an oval one?
And in the case of tube selections, how would you decide (in Columbus steel speak), between Spirit, SL tubing, etc.
And another question for now. How would a designer decide between something like a 72.8° head tube and a 73.3°. Wouldn’t a 73° one suffice, or is that level of precision really necessary? How would you even decide on the final figure without multiple iterations?
I’ll concede that the questions might be a little “all over the place” right now, as I try to make sense of the process from ground zero. Truly appreciate all insights and thoughts.
@Not_Fast_Enough_To_Keep_Up you’re welcome! I appreciate the consideration between answers as one always comes back with better questions!
From what I know of and my short experience in the consumer electronics world, it is very much the same R&D process.
Regarding tubesets, your shapes will be driven by some of the targets you are designing for. If you want the best weight to stiffness ratio, you are likely to run round tubes given they are efficient shapes. As you start making tradeoffs with torsional stiffness, lateral stiffness, aerodynamics, and weight those tube shapes will vary. You also start to balance design for manufacturing (DFM) constraints as well which dictate how much a given tube can be ovalized as well as the length of butting and length of ovalization. If you want to share tubing between sizes and not have unique ovalization extents per size you would also design the taper of the ovalized section based on the SM or XS frame (which will also likely be limited by bottle boss location) and then have a straight oval section that can be mitered to different frame sizes.
Tubing selection for me falls out largely as a function of what wall thicknesses do you need for the strength and durability of the frame as well as the different shapes and butting lengths that you can use. Hot take here: the actual brand on the tubing matters less than the diameters, wall thicknesses, and butting lengths. The differences in steel alloys is minimal and will have more of an impact on the formability and heat treatment capacity than on the ride quality. Additionally, tube diameter and shape will have an even larger impact on ride quality than wall thickness etc. So you pick the tubing family that has the shapes and sizes that you need.
Here’s another dirty little secret of the bike industry: headtube angles (HTA) vary from frame to frame. Typical tolerances on the HTA will be +/- 0.5deg for a welded frame if they are being held very tightly. Carbon frames can be a bit more accurate but even those will depend on how the bearing seats are made whether through machining or molding. Now to answer the question of does a 72.8 vs 73.3 deg head angle matter? Not a HUGE amount, but it will have a difference. I will choose that number based on a handling calculator that I have and then will test the geo to see if it’s about right. The importance will also vary with the application. If you’re on a TT bike where your position is relatively fixed, it will be more important than on a DH bike where you are very dynamic on the bike and can shift your weight and vary the HTA through different amount of dynamic sag. What is important when it comes to HTA is that you pick a number as a point of reference because it does have an impact on the handling and also the perception of the end use of the bike.
A bigger question for me is the selection of the HTA between frame sizes. Do you want a bike to have the same HTA from size to size even if it means the feeling of an XS frame will be different than that of an XL frame or should a designer choose to vary the HTA to maintain a specific handling characteristic that accounts for changes in rider size and CG location. Put in other words, do you want a bike to handle in a way that people would expect (same HTA across all sizes) or do you want to adjust to maximize the inherent difference between the sizes where you design for more stability for a small rider and less stability for a larger rider? Not sure what the answer there would be but I am curious to find out. It would just require a full size run to be designed and a larger sample size of riders to find out if it would be better or not.
1 Like