 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
No idea if this has been done before.
http://dirt.mpora.com/featured-article/fresh-produce-empire-mx-6.html
[img] 
[/img]
what an arse about face, heavy, wasteful and excessive way of doing things.
Headtube is clearly too short too.
(IMO etc.)
Doesn't do anything for me either, but then I never had Meccano as a kid.
People have been hating on this bike for the last year, but in green I think it looks brilliant. Far too expensive, but it makes more sense putting the money into machining that than spending thousands building some ballsed up niche-core titanium rigid 29er singlespeed that's no use whatsoever on properly exciting trails. THAT is a waste of materials.
hmm ok. but that's another question.
meanwhile, high single pivot, bolt on interrupted seat tube, short headtube, ugly as sin.
some ballsed up niche-core titanium rigid 29er singlespeed that's no use whatsoever on properly exciting trails. THAT is a waste of material
*Refills coffee, reaches for a croissant*
This could be good.
That is flippin' fantastic. I want one.
🙂
high single pivot
But is it? I think not. That pivot is bang inline with the chain on the big ring.... And that's a double chainset, not a triple, so that's the ring you'll spend most of your time in, isn't it?
Drop to the inner ring for climbing, suspension tightens up a bit.
Spot on IMO. 🙂
Liking it.
Good to see something that looks different.
Plus, it's simple and we all know how much people like Orange 5's for simplicity.
hmmm. a cutting edge solution there then...
Does it come with someone to scrape the mud out of all the collection points? Would double in weight with the amount of mud it could gather.
Also, it looks rank.
I wonder how different this thread would be if that had 'Orange' written on it?
And there's a passing resemblance, isn't there? 🙂
Does it come with someone to scrape the mud out of all the collection points? Would double in weight with the amount of mud it could gather.
Again, doubtful. That's exaggerating at least.
Q- Where does most mud gather?
A- Fork crown, inside of chainstays and seatstays.
And as we all know from the Orange 5, elevated single pivot stays have plenty of mud room, don't they...?
Still, why let the facts get in the way of a slagging match?
🙂
but, in it's defense (and whilst it is staggeringly overpriced) the orange is built using reasonably efficient and sensible manufacturing methods.
and since the orange is the butt of SO many jokes, why remake it?
I do find when I ride my bike TONS of mud ends up clinging to the outside of the swingarm.
Oh, wait, that never happens. Sorry.
weight of mud aside... how much of it is going on the shock?
Shouldn't we be worrying more about where all the various bits of the bike are in relation to each other, how the suspension works etc.
The choice of material to keep everything in the right place plus how the material is formed is secondary, isn't it?
On the other hand, I quite like the aesthetics of it. Like Nicolai have gone even more 'function over form' with the cnc machine than normal.
[i]Where does most mud gather?[/i]
GregMay definitely has a point - I get a fair bit of muck in the 'fluted' sections of my 575's chainstays. I'd hate to clean that Empire.
(apologies to the owner of this pic, just used for illustrative purposes)
[img] 
[/img]
The choice of material to keep everything in the right place plus how the material is formed is secondary, isn't it?
not if they are chosen for the sake of being chosen and different, and at the expense of sense and function.
'machining from solid' is just about the most expensive, wasteful, time consuming way to make something.
i don't hate this bike, i feel sorry for it. so much effort has gone into this deeply flawed design, it should have been left on the back of an envelope.
quoting:
The entire rear swingarm is machined from one solid piece of aluminium which starts life as a 42Kg lump before ending up as the intricately machined 1Kg swingarm
oh dear.
it's cast isn't it?
bosh. good stuff adam. there's a man that talks sense.
CNC milling and casting have a place, and could be used to make a really exciting structure that you couldn't do with tubes....
but they haven't. they've made a very basic frame structure. and therefore tubes and hollow structures are far and away a better solution.
it's cast isn't it?
the first 'Dh' ones were...
i believe they were made in the building next-door-but-one from where i'm sitting now...
it's cast isn't it?
think bits of it are, then machine finished. - still not exactly an efficient concept.
and (as they boast) the back end is proper machined from solid...
The San Andreas is infinitly better looking than this.
bosh. good stuff adam. there's a man that talks sense.
it's what i do for a living innit.
they should give me a call, i could probably help reduce their machining costs by at least 50%.
and that's more or less my professional sales pitch.
some ballsed up niche-core titanium rigid 29er singlespeed that's no use whatsoever on properly exciting trails. THAT is a waste of material
Where do I get me one of those?
Is it too early for waffles with my coffee?
Dez, I was thinking that. But, tell me, where is that fluted section exactly? Low, right near the front mech and (partially behind?) the chainset, both mud traps in their own right, yes? 🙂
I've just been looking at the pics and that is one stunning bike.
I didn't realise it wad UK made either. It's just not flavour of the (29er) month or niche (Jones) enough to make people think its worth the moolah.
Tell me, what's the price range of Jones bikes these days?
Solution looking for a problem. Also who in their right minds builds a 6" travel bike with only the provision for a 27.2 post, with the explosion of dropper posts over the last 2 years?
Not to mention it's ugly as sin. Pass the eye bleach. That thing makes the AP1 I had years ago look half decent.
for the record i have a 26" wheeled 5 inch traveled FS bike from a very major brand.
i am not on the niche 29er bandwaggon.
whether anyone else spends 4k on a ti niche 29er frame or not... that empire is ****in daft.
deeply flawed design, it should have been left on the back of an envelope.
Not to mention it's ugly as sin
WARNING - Opinions only. Other opinions are available.
How many bikes have you designed and sold..? 🙂
who in their right minds builds a 6" travel bike with only the provision for a 27.2 post
i'd not even noticed that. why build a bolt on tower in a smaller diameter than FS/Alu standard? that's completely illogical...
Not sure if this pic will work - but this is the original DH'er I saw in Dirt yonks ago. Tasty mochine.
[img] 
[/img]
http://www.mtb-news.de/forum/showthread.php?t=490155&page=3
How many bikes have you designed and sold..?
?
are we only allowed to comment on design and manufacturing if we are in the trade?
I'm not really interested in a bike that's heavier and more expensive than most of the alternatives (leaving aside the aesthetics) - but I wouldn't wish ill on a small British bike business.
So I hope some of the people defending this will buy one.
(Also, isn't that BB rather high?)
?
are we only allowed to comment on design and manufacturing if we are in the trade?
Not at all. I never even suggested that. But it would be nice if you could stop passing opinions off as facts, thanks.
🙂
passing opinions off as facts, thanks
when?
and why does opinion/fact on engineering technique relate to number of bikes sold?
How many bikes have you designed and [s]sold[/s] built..?
three?
But it would be nice if you could stop passing opinions off as facts, thanks.
they are my [i]professional[/i] opinions... reducing waste in manufacturing processes is what i/we do for a day job. i/we are very good at it.
I think it looks great.
I also think it's a solution that doesn't really have a problem.
CNCing it isn't the best way to make it though to be fair, any number of people (myself included) buy things not on a purely functional basis. The cost is high (considering that it's unlikely to have a performance benefit over cheaper design/manufacturing methods) but then people buy other more conventionaly frames at those sorts of prices for which you could say the same.
I wouldn't be buying one but I'd have no issue with people that do so long as they don't try and claim that it's somehow functionally better.
So Hope producing things by CNC is fine but it's not ok for a bike itself.
So Hope producing things by CNC is fine but it's not ok for a bike itself.
er... yes.
i'm not sure if you are joking? or agreeing?
reducing waste in manufacturing processes is what i/we do for a day job. i/we are very good at it.
Erm, the excess metal from CNC machining isn't wasted, it's recycled. Do carry on with this silly spiteful thread though.
Erm, the excess metal from CNC machining isn't wasted, it's recycled. Do carry on with this silly spiteful thread though.
why is discussing a product silly and spiteful? it's ok to have an opinion...
also:
it's recycled
using what process? and what is it recycled into?
He is right - it can be recycled (and usually is) though turning 42kg of metal into 1kg of metal isn't very efficient even if you do still recycle the 41kg.
Arrwh it's like an old Kirk and San-andreas had a baby
- but not a Mg one.
it's cast isn't it?
The head tube and seat tower are cast
CNC milling and casting have a place, and could be used to make a really exciting structure that you couldn't do with tubes....
Like intricate fuel pipes for planes where weight saving is a huge issue etc
i'm not sure if you are joking? or agreeing?
Both simultaneously?
...the excess metal from CNC machining isn't wasted, it's recycled...
Waste is still waste. Until it's recycled. Up to then it's waste.
I agree that it's a good case of a problem looking for a solution and that it looks like it began life on the back of an envelope, but why should it remain there? Surely there's room in the market for daft stuff like this - if someone wants to have a bash at actually making it then go for it. You can guarantee there's plenty of people out there willing to buy one because it's different/ looks cool/ just because.
Whether or not it's a great product to run a business around is another matter and, personally, I'll stick with a Five thanks...
my point is...
it isn't recycled into billet. or if it is...
that recycling process is MASSIVELY energy intensive.
re-using waste metal from CNC does not make it efficient
Erm, the excess metal from CNC machining isn't wasted, it's recycled. Do carry on with this silly spiteful thread though.
Is it better to remove material and then recycle it afterwards or use less material / generate less 'waste' in the first instance?
One of these options is still wasteful of energy / time not counting the actual material waste (even if it is subsequently recycled).
[quote=ScottChegg ]
Waste is still waste. Until it's recycled. Up to then it's waste.
And the energy used in all that milling and recycling is also wasted.
Good god. Never mind pivot points and manufacturing process. They need to look up 'torsion' in a dictionary. Hint - it's found closer to 'tube' than it is to 'I-beam'.
To be honest I haven't carried out a life cycle analysis of the CNC machining process and can't tell you whether recycling waste alu is more energy-efficient than paying some children to mine bauxite in a mud-filled death pit in South America.
I would bet good money that given the numbers this frame is likely to be produced in, it could forged in a furnace fuelled with narwhal ivory and pumped with a bellows made with panda skin and it would still have less overall environmental impact than a minor change to the packaging used in milk cartons.
Didn't we have this exact same thread but in red anodizing a few months back?
I would bet good money that given the numbers this frame is likely to be produced in, it could forged in a furnace fuelled with narwhal ivory and pumped with a bellows made with panda skin and it would still have less overall environmental impact than a minor change to the packaging used in milk cartons.
tangential!
Well, a quick visit to everyone's favourite online encyclopaedia brings this up:
Recycling involves melting scrap, a process that requires only 5% of the energy used to produce aluminium from ore, though a significant part (up to 15% of the input material) is lost as dross (ash-like oxide).[28] The dross can undergo a further process to extract aluminium.
Every day's a school day, eh?
Yep it has been done a couple of times already but it's still good fun...
TBH as much as I like the idea of empire as a small Independent company "Doing something Different" I have to say that from the outset Empire have been from the "solution looking for a problem" School of engineering, they seem determined to do everything in the most complicated and expensive way they can with minimal discernible benefits to the end user...
It's a real shame, because I remember looking at the AP1 and thinking Wow, but logic and cost has just put me off their approach to making bikes... I still think they should have gotten into designing a carbon bike rather than piss off casting and machining a relatively heavy, expensive AM frame...
Given the current state of the economy and the standard of their competition I really can't see how they are surviving, do they sell many of these? I've only seen a couple of AP1s out and about, Nice bikes but bloody pricey for what they are...
I couldn't give a shit over waste - i don't ride bikes for eco-warrior type reasons, but because it makes me smile. I like it for the sake of doing differently, and think it looks great (I'm a bit of a Nicolai & Orange fanboy).
Every day's a school day, eh?
yeh but the point isn't that recycling is more efficient than mining. its that using a process with a 41:1 waste ratio is a staggeringly bad idea when well-used alternatives are available...
Im glad people are up for making something different.
Sure, it has some daft design bits like the small seatpost diameter. Sure it may be ugly to some, but I applaud diversity.
Not sure Id buy one though.
Sure, it has some daft design bits like...
....machining out all the strength and stiffness, leaving something heavier/weaker and more expensive and no advantage.
Why is it a "staggeringly bad idea" when it's a product that you can price to cover the extra costs, you're only making fifty or so per year, and the result is a distinctive, covetable bike that has the good points of monocoque frames without sounding like a bag of spanners?
using a process with a 41:1 waste ratio is a staggeringly bad idea when well-used alternatives are available...
because it's wasteful.
By coincidence I've just been analysing the posts on this forum, splitting them into the category of "moany dross that gets you through to lunch hour" and "useful". You'll never guess what the ratio is...
I like it for the sake of doing differently
"Different for the sake of different" doesn't really flick my button TBH, I doubt it does for that many others really if they're being honest...
Demonstrate some real benefits to the end user or else it is just a worthless product for people who like to be contrite and different for the sake of it...
Environmental concerns aside, inefficient, wasteful manufacturing methods cost time and money and those costs just gets passed on to the customer, paying for that "Because its a bit different" factor seems like the stupidest idea ever IMO, you're not paying for better function or less weight just "being different"...
Empire have been knocking about with their cast frames about since what 2005~ish?
The AP1 was a nice idea at that time, when pretty much all DH frames were assembled from hydroformed and welded aluminium tubes, these days though it looks old hat, heavy and is still very expensive, Especially when DH-WC races are being won on lighter, cheaper composite frames and Privateer racers are starting to be able to afford the same sort of products, AM/Gravity Enduro type bikes are using the same sort of manufacturing technologies and Empire are stuck in a bit of a quirky rut with...
It's interesting the OP compared it to the old Mountain cycle, San Andreas; as that bike was pretty ahead of the game when it came out, most other manufacturers were still welding together tubes, where Mountain cycle were pressing out monocoque forms to produce stronger, stiffer (lighter?) frames...
As clever as the Empire seems it achieves none of the benefits that the San-Andreas did at the time and costs even more...
I got excited by the original because I thought it was made of composite. It looked like some kind of composite that had just been poured into a mould. Kind of like an air-fix kit.
The original looked great, especially in the flesh, but the MX-6 above looks like a bit of a compromise. And I've never seen a good looking seat tower on a bike.
both of cookeaa's posts +1
As clever as the Empire seems it achieves none of the benefits that the San-Andreas did at the time and costs even more...
yeh but it looks the same 😉
a lazy comparison perhaps.
The bike doesn't look that bad really IMO.
It is as though Empire at the initial design stage sat down and said 'what are the daftest most time consumptive & energy consumptive ways we could build a bicycle frame? We shall use as many as possible in one fell swoop.'
By coincidence I've just been analysing the posts on this forum, splitting them into the category of "moany dross that gets you through to lunch hour" and "useful". You'll never guess what the ratio is.
Quite a few (most of) are reasonable counter arguments for why this is a bad idea. I think you should count it again. This time split the posts into 'useful' vs 'liking because it is different and bemoaning anyone who challenges the logic behind making such a needless bit of kit'.
i've known Craig at Ride On ever since he first started trading in 1996 and i still remember the day he told me that he was developing the original AP-1. everything he told me about the design of the frame turned to reality and he was really proud of this. i fully understood the philosophy he had implimented into the design of the frame and that he was applying his knowledge of the manufacturing process of motorcross bike frames to mountain bike frames.
i used to love popping into the shop to get updates on the progress of the frame and i remember when he got his hands on the first prototype. it was a beautifully designed and manufactured machine. obviously its one of those marmite bikes that you either love or hate but i for one loved the bike from the moment i laid eyes on it.
everything was so well designed and the way Craig described the reasoning behind some of the design details of the frame made sense. i wanted one for myself and realised it would take some serious work on my part to convince the missus to let me get one.
i never did get one as at the same time we made the decision to buy a house instead so the plan to buy the bike was shelved.
although i love the original bike i can agree with a lot of people here that this effort is a bit of a miss....yes it looks like some serious work has gone into the manufacturing process but aesthetically it looks like the AP-1's ugly little brother in my opinion.
i know that Craig is no longer involved with Empire bikes now and hasnt been involved for a number of years...and this is evident in the design of this new frame. i dont think his input would have allowed the bike to be this much over engineered to the point where it is form over function.
mud-filled death pit
What tyres for... etc etc
think he was talking about the whole forum and TBH he probably has a point 🙂I think you should count it again.
now was that a constructive post or another of the 41/42 wasteful dross?
for the record I like single pivot bikes, not a fan of seat towers, pivot looks high and forward like sintesi bazooka of yonks ago but could be the chainset tricking my eyes, dislike "for the sake of it" stuff. I think the 5 is overpriced frame only so guess what I think about this one at with an extra £1k ontop. Don't think it's [i]that[/i] ugly, bet it's a bugger to clean tho.
now was that a constructive post
Mine or yours?
mine 🙂
yours was definitely constructive.
i've even offered to help them reduce their machining costs.
as in, i'm totally serious, e-mail in profile, etc.
how many do they make?
its probably cheaper to make them from billet than tool up and ammortize that cost over the numbers involved!
The 5 has more in common with the san andreas than the empire does
cheaper to machine frame from billet than weld or braze some tubes together?
are you for real?
did they design a steel frame ? oh it appears not
Ha a frame building jig will cost a fraction of the total machining costs. They would also be able to manufacture more in the same time period.
its probably cheaper to make them from billet than tool up and ammortize that cost over the numbers involved!
That's why the frame is comically over priced.