Seka Exceed RDC

[dsveddy]

The new supersix has the same geo as the previous one.

Sure, that doesn't really change my point--the Exceed's geometry is very similar to actual race bikes.

[toxin]

The supersix is an outlier, pretty much every other race bike is more aggressive

[alanyu]

Last post to you: Exceed was wrongly designed to the same stiffness from M to XL. The HT and fork are no issue but the rear end is not stiff enough for heavy riders, especially those tall and heavy, also strong racing guys who prefer one size down for aggressive position.

You are finding excuses for what you believe in mind, and you don't want to believe what I posted. Just don't believe me and stop replying to me.

Again, assertions without evidence and wanting to forbid me from responding to assertions in a public forum or not doesn't speak for you either. I argued based on facts and asked questions. Unfortunately, I got nothing but assertions - again.
But yes, I agree that such a conversation based on assertions and beliefs leads nowhere. So I'm out with this

Read the details in the public white paper before making your words..

Thank you - I know the (marketing) white paper of the Spear (I don't know any of the Exceed) very well and even know something about physics and road bike construction and some other bikes
https://www.sekabikes.com/wp-content/up ... 062502.pdf
As already mentioned, if you are aware of other documents, we would be happy to receive them from you here.

Again the Spear's white paper does not say at all, that the exceed is not stiff enough -> also not in the rear triangle, where the torsional stiffness of the wheels is regularly the limiting factor in terms of power transmission/ stiffness.

On the contrary - even in the rear triangle - you only want the frame to be as stiff as necessary (this is even written in the white paper - and is no technical secret) -> weight, shape and comfort/compliance send their regards.
The rear triangle in particular usually appears excessively stiff to drivers of the Exceed. I'm excluding Watt monsters like Andre Greipel, as they are irrelevant for 99.9 percent of the world's population or guys with 120 kg or above.
(And just btw: For larger, heavier, aggressive riders on smaller frames, the rear triangle is less critical than the cockpit.)

A factual suggestion: Just more facts and less making things up and presenting them as facts.
If required, I can also recommend specialist literature on the subject.

Have a nice weekend

You said you know well about their white paper, but you disregard of the fact of non-stiffness-increase from M to XL of Exceed, which is clearly showed in the pdf? LOL. Talking about the (not-high-enough) stiffness of rear triangle, of course I'm emphasizing on lateral and torsional stiffness, and you now try to derail to comfort?

You want stiff as necessary. What is necessary? Spear in XL is designed to double the stiffness improvement in % than M, compared to the same size of Exceed, which has the necessary stiffness? A specialized retailer who is just an averaged rider in my home city, and several good racers, prefer the ride feel of SL6 than SL8, even though they all understand SL8 is faster than SL6. They all think SL8 is not stiff enough compared to SL6. TCR is also well known for its high stiffness, and tested on par if not better than SL6, but has any one complained TCR too stiff? No, I only read the praises. Owners mostly enjoy the stiffness yet comfort of TCR. Exceed in size M (and also Spear) stiffness is tested in between SL6 and SL8, so what is "necessary" in your dictionary, and others are overkill?

Cockpit > You again try to derail to what was not talked about? Anyone can put his preferred cockpit with 3D printed adaptor.

You are asking internal data again and again? LMAO, do you understand the word "internal"? It's better for you to understand the public rig test data other than marketing numbers in pdf.

[spdntrxi]

seka has too many shills working for them..

[lemeneid]

seka has too many shills working for them..

Agree. Own an Exceed RDC and while it is a very nice bike, it is not the GOAT bike that some people make it out to be.

Also stiffness be damned, we aren't racers, I want my bike to be compliant and comfortable as possible on longer rides and I feel this is where the Exceed excels in.

[nino10]

Again, assertions without evidence and wanting to forbid me from responding to assertions in a public forum or not doesn't speak for you either. I argued based on facts and asked questions. Unfortunately, I got nothing but assertions - again.
But yes, I agree that such a conversation based on assertions and beliefs leads nowhere. So I'm out with this

Read the details in the public white paper before making your words..

Thank you - I know the (marketing) white paper of the Spear (I don't know any of the Exceed) very well and even know something about physics and road bike construction and some other bikes
https://www.sekabikes.com/wp-content/up ... 062502.pdf
As already mentioned, if you are aware of other documents, we would be happy to receive them from you here.

Again the Spear's white paper does not say at all, that the exceed is not stiff enough -> also not in the rear triangle, where the torsional stiffness of the wheels is regularly the limiting factor in terms of power transmission/ stiffness.

On the contrary - even in the rear triangle - you only want the frame to be as stiff as necessary (this is even written in the white paper - and is no technical secret) -> weight, shape and comfort/compliance send their regards.
The rear triangle in particular usually appears excessively stiff to drivers of the Exceed. I'm excluding Watt monsters like Andre Greipel, as they are irrelevant for 99.9 percent of the world's population or guys with 120 kg or above.
(And just btw: For larger, heavier, aggressive riders on smaller frames, the rear triangle is less critical than the cockpit.)

A factual suggestion: Just more facts and less making things up and presenting them as facts.
If required, I can also recommend specialist literature on the subject.

Have a nice weekend

You said you know well about their white paper, but you disregard of the fact of non-stiffness-increase from M to XL of Exceed, which is clearly showed in the pdf? LOL. Talking about the (not-high-enough) stiffness of rear triangle, of course I'm emphasizing on lateral and torsional stiffness, and you now try to derail to comfort?

You want stiff as necessary. What is necessary? Spear in XL is designed to double the stiffness improvement in % than M, compared to the same size of Exceed, which has the necessary stiffness? A specialized retailer who is just an averaged rider in my home city, and several good racers, prefer the ride feel of SL6 than SL8, even though they all understand SL8 is faster than SL6. They all think SL8 is not stiff enough compared to SL6. TCR is also well known for its high stiffness, and tested on par if not better than SL6, but has any one complained TCR too stiff? No, I only read the praises. Owners mostly enjoy the stiffness yet comfort of TCR. Exceed in size M (and also Spear) stiffness is tested in between SL6 and SL8, so what is "necessary" in your dictionary, and others are overkill?

Cockpit > You again try to derail to what was not talked about? Anyone can put his preferred cockpit with 3D printed adaptor.

You are asking internal data again and again? LMAO, do you understand the word "internal"? It's better for you to understand the public rig test data other than marketing numbers in pdf.

I'm not digressing - you're digressing from the start to a marketing white paper on the spear in order to piece together something in your head about the exceed
“the fact of non-stiffness increase from M to XL of Exceed, which is clearly shown in the PDF”
Where is that and that and where are the total values ​​that give a conclusion about too much or too little?

Feel free to name the page.

If you mean page 21 then this again shows your lack of understanding of the matter.

1. As already tried to explain - these are relative values. And that doesn't even include the stiffness values.
These are the stiffness/weight values ​​= if the larger frames on the Spear are proportional just a little lighter than on the Exceed, this step is already created in the diagram = that still says nothing about the total stiffness values (especially in certain areas of the bikes).

And as someone who had something like that at university (years ago ) - a little tip:
the diagram, because marketing is, is distorted as usual = what looks like a big jump in L and XL are below on the scale and a maximum of 10
= and us we are not talking about 10 Nm, but 10 from the coefficient (stiffness to weight).

You can take your calculator and see that the jump from L is maybe caused solely by the fact that the spear is proportionally lighter in the larger sizes.
And again it's not even 10 Nm, but up to 10 of the coefficient stiffness to weight over the whole bike = the Spear from L can be even less stiff (in certain areas) and the level only comes about because of the good lightness of larger sizes in comparison.
Larger frames tend to be stiffer in most cases and heavier = this means that weight savings usually have a more significant effect on the stiffness to weight coefficient here too.

However - again nothing about total values ​​= no indication of how stiff the Exceed is and especially where.

-> As already said, you and we don't know anything because of this paper!

Welcome to marketing.
(Which is fine, the legitimate aim of this source is not to comply with scientific standards or inform about the exceed, but to market a new product- the spear.)

2. An again there is also nothing about the rear triangle you introduced when you noticed that the official stiffness values ​​of the exceed are clearly high enough.

I would again recommend that you first deal with technical and scientific matters or at least read carefully and objectively and question yourself before presenting untenable claims as truth.
Or you want to secretly advertise the spear - but then you unfortunately achieve the opposite of this goal.
I think everyone can get an idea.
Have a sunny Sunday!

[alanyu]

You said you know well about their white paper, but you disregard of the fact of non-stiffness-increase from M to XL of Exceed, which is clearly showed in the pdf? LOL. Talking about the (not-high-enough) stiffness of rear triangle, of course I'm emphasizing on lateral and torsional stiffness, and you now try to derail to comfort?

You want stiff as necessary. What is necessary? Spear in XL is designed to double the stiffness improvement in % than M, compared to the same size of Exceed, which has the necessary stiffness? A specialized retailer who is just an averaged rider in my home city, and several good racers, prefer the ride feel of SL6 than SL8, even though they all understand SL8 is faster than SL6. They all think SL8 is not stiff enough compared to SL6. TCR is also well known for its high stiffness, and tested on par if not better than SL6, but has any one complained TCR too stiff? No, I only read the praises. Owners mostly enjoy the stiffness yet comfort of TCR. Exceed in size M (and also Spear) stiffness is tested in between SL6 and SL8, so what is "necessary" in your dictionary, and others are overkill?

Cockpit > You again try to derail to what was not talked about? Anyone can put his preferred cockpit with 3D printed adaptor.

You are asking internal data again and again? LMAO, do you understand the word "internal"? It's better for you to understand the public rig test data other than marketing numbers in pdf.

I'm not digressing - you're digressing from the start to a marketing white paper on the spear in order to piece together something in your head about the exceed
“the fact of non-stiffness increase from M to XL of Exceed, which is clearly shown in the PDF”
Where is that and that and where are the total values ​​that give a conclusion about too much or too little?

Feel free to name the page.

If you mean page 21 then this again shows your lack of understanding of the matter.
Screenshot 2024-09-15 090737.png
Screenshot 2024-09-15 083625.png

1. As already tried to explain - these are relative values. And that doesn't even include the stiffness values.
These are the stiffness/weight values ​​= if the larger frames on the Spear are proportional just a little lighter than on the Exceed, this step is already created in the diagram = that still says nothing about the total stiffness values (especially in certain areas of the bikes).

And as someone who had something like that at university - a little tip:
the diagram, because marketing is, is distorted as usual = what looks like a big jump in L and XL are below on the scale and a maximum of 10
= and us we are not talking about 10 Nm, but 10 from the coefficient (weight/stiffness).

You can take your calculator and see that the jump from L is maybe caused solely by the fact that the spear is proportionally lighter in the larger sizes
- and again it's not even 10 Nm, but up to 10 of the coefficient weight to stiffness over the whole bike = the Spear from L can be even less stiff (in certain areas) and the level only comes about because of the good lightness of larger sizes in comparison. Larger frames tend to be stiffer in most cases and heavier = this means that weight savings usually have a more significant effect on the weight/stiffness coefficient here too.

However - again nothing about total values ​​= no indication of how stiff the Exceed is and especially where.
As already said, you and we don't know because of the paper!

Welcome to marketing.

2. An again there is also nothing about the rear triangle you introduced when you noticed that the official stiffness values ​​of the exceed are clearly high enough.

I would again recommend that you first deal with technical and scientific matters or at least read carefully and objectively and question yourself before presenting untenable claims as truth.
Or you want to secretly advertise the spear - but then you unfortunately achieve the opposite of this goal.

LOL. You can't even read pdf correct and try to teach else? The chart is not stiffness to weight ratio. How do you read that as ratio when you claim that's corresponding to marketing? 350*114.5%=400.75, not even close. LOL. It's a weighted rating similar to shoes stiffness index claimed by Shimano, can only be used to compare their own stuff but not to other brands.

Official number, 144, high enough? Only you and few other guys claim Exceed excels in stiffness. On the same rig and same test section, SL6 and TCR are much higher. LOL.

Answer my question directly now:

Exceed in size M (and also Spear) stiffness is tested in between SL6 and SL8, so what is "necessary" in your dictionary, and others are overkill?

I want to advise Spear when I have clearly shown Spear is also not-high-enough stiffness? LOL.

And again, you are only contradicting yourself.
Reading and understanding are simply different things.
What does it say on the left-hand side of the slide? “Stiffness coefficient” not stiffness
And again, wild assertions without sources.
Everything has been said.

Enjoy your world

One more correct thing you have stated: "Reading and understanding are simply different things."

Read the title: stiffness distribution; and the numbers. Understand yourself

Yes you don't need to believe my wild words, because I have much more data (unsharable) other than public materials.

Some published data you probably have never read:

[alanyu]

One more correct thing you have stated: "Reading and understanding are simply different things."

Read the title: stiffness distribution; and the numbers. Understand yourself

Yes you don't need to believe my wild words, because I have much more data (unsharable) other than public materials.

Some published data you probably have never read:
1.png

And again, nothing of substance.
It's getting wilder and wilder - you'd better stop at some point
In such cases I'd say to my students - sorry, but they'll have to repeat the course - luckily we're not at university here and my free time is definitely too precious at this point.
As I said - have a nice Sunday

Keep on diregarding the facts.

I can see, that you are keeping on disregarding in facts, sience and even reading (among other things the axis labels of diagrams - this is just lower school education for understanding graphs - I don't even want to start with the basics of scientific quality criteria).
That's the point: Unfortunately you have only made (even contradictory and wild) claims and no facts.
And so you are going on not to reflect yourself. That's sad, but your free choice!
So we agree at least to disagree - all the best on this path

Keep on selectively omitting the data I posted. Keep on selectively igoring the question I asked you. Keep on disregarding the facts I see your manner being a teacher

[maxim809]

alanyu and nino10, there were so many ways you guys could have kept it civil, but you guys chose to go HAM on each other. Not cool.