BMC -Fourstroke/Trailfox

 

Marin Quad-Link

 

Good additions. BMC just changed, right?

 

Can't really understand...

what makes BMC Fourstroke/Trailfox differ from dwLink?

Of course, the same goes with Giant Maestro.

 

You're compiling a list of all bikes that aren't monopivot or faux bar?
This will be a massive list.
Basically every true four bar has a virtual pivot, most of them will migrate as the suspension cycles.

Tradenames like DW, Maestro etc are just tradenames. They're all just four bars.

 

Would the Lawill and old Schwinn Rocket designs be in there? What about Yeti's sliding rail bikes?

Also comes one of those knock-off designs by Astro. I believe the DW Link is what it infringes on in the US.

And really, where does BMC's design lie?

 

JoeC, Maestro is very similar to DW Link and I don't know the details of patents. The only difference I see is that the lower link on Giants go around to the front of the seat tube while the DW Link stays behind the seat tube. I don't know what difference this makes, if any.

Dougal, four-bars typically consist of the seat tube, chainstay, seatstay, and rocker arm.

A bike with a virtual pivot adds another linkage.

See that little black thing at the bottom and to the right of the shock? It's definitely different.

This is how Candield does it [I changed it to a smaller pic]:

 

Don't know about the Yetis or Schwinn. Astro bikes look kind of interesting.

Here's a BMC:

 

yea that lower linkage thing is important I believe it allows the axle path to go straight up in the beggining of the travel, rather than curve the entire way. Its kind of a true floating rear end.
I love my dw-link why get anything else?

 

Rockadile, I really want an Iron Horse Mkiii. I think I would drop the $1000 for one right now if I had the money. Even with the risk of frame cracks.

Question: Does anyone know why Independent Fabrication is a DW Link partner when they don't have any full suspension bikes?

 

I think this thread would be very useful if the different types of rear suspensions were all listed, with illustrations like above, and then the pros and cons of each type listed, and what type of riding they are normally used for.

 

schro, I will add some picks. I think many of these bikes will have similar pros and cons and it would be difficult to objectively discern which are better than others. EDIT: Actually, Felt's Equilink seems unique and Marin's Quad Link may also be different. Something to research. Going to work.

 

Niner CVA design for 29ers

 

JoeC, Maestro is very similar to DW Link and I don't know the details of patents. The only difference I see is that the lower link on Giants go around to the front of the seat tube while the DW Link stays behind the seat tube. I don't know what difference this makes, if any.

Right, I see the same little difference on the position of an end link between Maestro and dwLink. From a theoretical point of view and an engineering point of view, I have no idea how that difference is different...

However, how about the BMC's VPS (Virtual Pivot System) and the dwLink? The position of the lower link is almost the same...above BB.

[all the photos shown are collected from the mtbr and manufacturer sites.]

 

Would the Lawill and old Schwinn Rocket designs be in there? What about Yeti's sliding rail bikes?

Also comes one of those knock-off designs by Astro. I believe the DW Link is what it infringes on in the US.

And really, where does BMC's design lie?

Sure are. Lawwill appeared to be a great fan of four bars.

Tim, if you can see through the marketing hype, they're all four bars. Doesn't matter if they call it VPP, DW, floating rear end or what direction the links rotate.
All true four bars (i.e. axle not fixed to the frame by one link) have a set of virtual pivots which move about as the suspension moves.

I have a webpage which explains it all (I wrote it 10 years ago) and how to find these points. Unfortunately my web hosting is currently a mess so it's not viewable at the moment.

The bottom line is, none of these designs are new, they have all been explored and built before. Some around 100 years ago. The finer points of the geometry changes, as does the market segment the bikes are targetted towards. For example, the DW link system is the same basic system used in the Schwinn Rocket 88's which preceded them.

 

dougal, we all know dw link was sent down to earth by god himself to disgrace and trample all other suspension systems, and it and only it is the true virtual pivot system

 

.....................
Tim, if you can see through the marketing hype, they're all four bars. Doesn't matter if they call it VPP, DW, floating rear end or what direction the links rotate.
All true four bars (i.e. axle not fixed to the frame by one link) have a set of virtual pivots which move about as the suspension moves......................................................

They are all four bars BUT the difference is that the "DW link" type designs has a rear triangle that puts the axle far way from the links, where as a horste link type has the axle very near the chainstay link.

In the end they all differ in the axle paths.

But I'll be darn if the BMC APS/VPS is not a direct rip off of the DW-link. But I still love my Fourstroke!!!:thumbsup:

 

They are all four bars BUT the difference is that the "DW link" type designs has a rear triangle that puts the axle far way from the links, where as a horste link type has the axle very near the chainstay link.

Obviously.
But that changes nothing as the exact same rules of physics and geometry apply. Further, these designs are all targeting virtual pivots (I call it effective pivots) in a reasonably small area.

The main difference between horst link type and the triangulated rear link type is rotation under braking. In general of course, it's possible to get extreme behaviour from either design.

 

dougal, we all know dw link was sent down to earth by god himself to disgrace and trample all other suspension systems, and it and only it is the true virtual pivot system

And defended by a legion of IH riding groms.

 

deleted

 

Dude, we all know that the bikes we have listed on this thread are different than a standard four-bar or faux-bar. You are highjacking this thread.

 

Yeah, the BMC looks pretty much the same. There is more to it than pivot placement, though. The wheel path and immediate centers also need to be considered. And a patent is only as strong as the lawyers involved. Are BMCs even sold in the US? I am not really smart about this stuff - I am just reading this: http://www.socaltrailriders.org/forum/general-discussion/28374-just-thought-dw-link-vs-maestro.html

 

Yeah, the BMC looks pretty much the same. There is more to it than pivot placement, though. The wheel path and immediate centers also need to be considered. And a patent is only as strong as the lawyers involved. Are BMCs even sold in the US? I am not really smart about this stuff - I am just reading this: http://www.socaltrailriders.org/forum/general-discussion/28374-just-thought-dw-link-vs-maestro.html

Pivot placement defines wheel path and instantanious centres. Not the other way around. Pivot placement is it.
Seriously, all this has work has been done.

Just because you can patent it, doesn't mean it's worth a damn. Doesn't even mean it even works as claimed.

*edit* Just had a read of that thread on socalriders.org. Best you ignore all of it. */edit*

 

So DW Link, VPP, and Maestro are not worth anything? I am glad to know this. Wal-mart, here I come.

 

So DW Link, VPP, and Maestro are not worth anything? I am glad to know this. Wal-mart, here I come.

DW Link, VPP and Maestro are marketing labels. So no they don't guarantee anything.