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).

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

I think you should count it again.

think he was talking about the whole forum and TBH he probably has a point 🙂

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 that 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.