i was thinking the same thingfreerider67 said:
is it me or is this design really wierd........
JBsoxB
21 - 28 of 28 Posts
Joined
·
1,310 Posts
wow you must pretty bored right now, huh henry...scabrider said:
Joined
·
895 Posts
Umm, no...jp3d said:This frame would have chain growth and no travel because of the chainstay pivit between rear axel and BB. So basically the frame has no advantages at all
The frame will have very little chaingrowth, I would guess around 10mm. And yes, it will still have travel, it will just require more force for the shock to activate when you are standing on the pedals.
Joined
·
1,365 Posts
I love watching a random bunch of Internet flamers predict the suspension behavior without riding the bike or even understanding how the linkage works, and then pat each other on the back for being smarter than the engineers who designed the frame.
The BB is very close horizontally to the frame pivot. This means that very little of the rider's weight will affect the suspension, for the same reason a teeter doesn't slam down once you get three inches past the pivot. We went over all this before in the RAM Bikes thread.
Note that Maverick does exactly the same thing: their BB is on a link to the rear axle carrier. Since the Maverick link is much shorter, standing will have a greater effect on the rear suspension than on this bike, especially as the suspension compresses. But I don't see people flaming Maverick for being a URT.
There will be some rider weight effect, but it's not very large -- I'll guess on the order of adding 12-16 pounds to the spring, depending on your weight. This is the tradeoff you get for nearly zero chain growth and pedal feedback. You might not like that tradeoff, but it's a long way from "the suspension doesn't work" or "URT sux0rs".
Yes, "sweet spot" URT designs suck. The GT LTS sucked, too, but that doesn't mean all 4-bar linkages suck.
The BB is very close horizontally to the frame pivot. This means that very little of the rider's weight will affect the suspension, for the same reason a teeter doesn't slam down once you get three inches past the pivot. We went over all this before in the RAM Bikes thread.
Note that Maverick does exactly the same thing: their BB is on a link to the rear axle carrier. Since the Maverick link is much shorter, standing will have a greater effect on the rear suspension than on this bike, especially as the suspension compresses. But I don't see people flaming Maverick for being a URT.
There will be some rider weight effect, but it's not very large -- I'll guess on the order of adding 12-16 pounds to the spring, depending on your weight. This is the tradeoff you get for nearly zero chain growth and pedal feedback. You might not like that tradeoff, but it's a long way from "the suspension doesn't work" or "URT sux0rs".
Yes, "sweet spot" URT designs suck. The GT LTS sucked, too, but that doesn't mean all 4-bar linkages suck.
Joined
·
895 Posts
I think the reason people don't flame Maverick is because they are such a high quality manufacturer, not because their designs are exceptional.El Caballo said:
There are other designs out there with zero pedal feedback/chaingrowth that don't have to compromise bump absorption, so I don't feel that there is a benefit of a floating bb.
Joined
·
1,365 Posts
I agree with you that there are other, better ways to accomplish that. It just pisses me off when people rag on a design based on bad assumptions.WheelieMan said:
For instance, here's a Versus Cycles Weapon-X, which has a similar linkage, but uses a concentric pivot around the BB to (nearly) eliminate chain growth.
there is none now that people better understand the science behind suspension (or at least what works by design). No i dont believe this is crap incarnate, but it's a relic of another time and doesnt have a place among modern technology. I feel it's been proven that BB integrated suspension is completly unessary and has no benefits over moderne sensible design.WheelieMan said:
So yeah it's pretty stupid
21 - 28 of 28 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
