Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
moaaar shimz
Joined
·
9,125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I read this article (Link) and I found lots of discrepancies, so many that I started to laugh.

Examples:

Question: Variable rate suspension or constant rinsing rate?


Response of Jose Gonzalez, from Trek:
This depends on the shock technology, tune and the desired overall feel and performance objectives. The main thing here is not to have a big swing change from a regressive rate to a progressive rate, or vice versa, during the cycle of the system. It is extremely difficult to properly tune a shock if this is taking place. A little change can be really good depending on the shock type, spring type and technologies.

Response of Dave Weagle:
I'm assuming that you are talking about leverage rate. I have absolutely no idea why anyone who understands even the most rudimentary principles surrounding dampers would want to use a constant rising leverage rate suspension. That would offer no advantages whatsoever. The answer is variable rate, and the possibilities within "variable rate" are endless. Personally I design for wheel rate. Riders can expect that they will hear a lot more about that term through the cycling marketing machines in the next few years. When I know shock spring rate curve shape and damper specifics, I can design for what the rider "feels" at the rear wheel, in the saddle, and in their feet. A rider can "feel" wheel rate when they ride, but a rider cannot "feel" leverage rate. I chuckle a little when I read marketing BS about leverage rates.

Response of Mick McAndrews from Specialized:
It is somewhat dependant on the application but basically I prefer a constant rising rate (linear rate) for the first 70% of the travel and the variable rate (progressive rate) for the last 30%

Response of Steve Wade from Orange Bikes:
Constant rising rate.

Response of Dave Turner:
I like more leverage at the start of travel for plushness on small bumps and less leverage at the end of travel for more resistance to bottoming.

And this is just ONE question comparison. Once you read the entire (and lengthy) interviews you find that either some top industry guys are not very knowledgeable or they have to answer pre-written marketing speeches.

It would be very interesting to invite linkage gurus and let them debate between each other. Dave Weagle, Luis Arraiz, Horst Leitner, Jan Karpiel, Remi Gribaudo, Tony Ellsworth (hey, someone has to laugh at him) Chris and Lance Canfield, some dude at Trek, Santa Cruz, Yeti. And a physics professor from MIT :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,081 Posts
tacubaya said:
I read this article (Link) and I found lots of discrepancies, so many that I started to laugh.

Examples:

Question: Variable rate suspension or constant rinsing rate?


Response of Jose Gonzalez, from Trek:
This depends on the shock technology, tune and the desired overall feel and performance objectives. The main thing here is not to have a big swing change from a regressive rate to a progressive rate, or vice versa, during the cycle of the system. It is extremely difficult to properly tune a shock if this is taking place. A little change can be really good depending on the shock type, spring type and technologies.

Response of Dave Weagle:
I'm assuming that you are talking about leverage rate. I have absolutely no idea why anyone who understands even the most rudimentary principles surrounding dampers would want to use a constant rising leverage rate suspension. That would offer no advantages whatsoever. The answer is variable rate, and the possibilities within "variable rate" are endless. Personally I design for wheel rate. Riders can expect that they will hear a lot more about that term through the cycling marketing machines in the next few years. When I know shock spring rate curve shape and damper specifics, I can design for what the rider "feels" at the rear wheel, in the saddle, and in their feet. A rider can "feel" wheel rate when they ride, but a rider cannot "feel" leverage rate. I chuckle a little when I read marketing BS about leverage rates.

Response of Mick McAndrews from Specialized:
It is somewhat dependant on the application but basically I prefer a constant rising rate (linear rate) for the first 70% of the travel and the variable rate (progressive rate) for the last 30%

Response of Steve Wade from Orange Bikes:
Constant rising rate.

Response of Dave Turner:
I like more leverage at the start of travel for plushness on small bumps and less leverage at the end of travel for more resistance to bottoming.

And this is just ONE question comparison. Once you read the entire (and lengthy) interviews you find that either some top industry guys are not very knowledgeable or they have to answer pre-written marketing speeches.

It would be very interesting to invite linkage gurus and let them debate between each other. Dave Weagle, Luis Arraiz, Horst Leitner, Jan Karpiel, Remi Gribaudo, Tony Ellsworth (hey, someone has to laugh at him) Chris and Lance Canfield, some dude at Trek, Santa Cruz, Yeti. And a physics professor from MIT :D
I don't get it. Everybody gave their opinion. Who the hell knows who is right and who is wrong, they are just opinions.

On a side note, I just read the entire piece and it is kind of interesting. Funny how the guy who claims to have no marketing budget does the most selling.

And the guy that makes the best bikes, gives the best answers.

And the guy that just makes bikes he likes, give the most honest answers.
 

·
"El Whatever"
Joined
·
18,889 Posts
Vespasianus said:
I don't get it. Everybody gave their opinion. Who the hell knows who is right and who is wrong, they are just opinions.

On a side note, I just read the entire piece and it is kind of interesting. Funny how the guy who claims to have no marketing budget does the most selling.

And the guy that makes the best bikes, gives the best answers.

And the guy that just makes bikes he likes, give the most honest answers.
Ideally, there should be no "opinion"... it all comes to engineering.

But even in engineering there are many ways to skin a cat. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
noone there was wrong.
they just all had different opinions on what they want the bike to do.
Orange tends to build big-hit type bikes... small bump plushness not required.
Turner wants small bump plush AND no bottoming.
Specialized wants something different.

different goals= different design parameters.
don't forget, the type of shock used can totally change a suspension system as well (read: santa cruz nomad 1st gen, coil vs. air shock gave completely different feel)
 

·
moaaar shimz
Joined
·
9,125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
One more, condensed for the lazy people here:

Do linkage suspension designs offer real benefits over single pivots?

JG: No.
DW: Yes.
JC: Didn't answer.
MM: Yes.
SW: Most times no.
DT: They can work identically.
 

·
moaaar shimz
Joined
·
9,125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
byknuts said:
noone there was wrong.
they just all had different opinions on what they want the bike to do.
Orange tends to build big-hit type bikes... small bump plushness not required.
Turner wants small bump plush AND no bottoming.
Specialized wants something different.

different goals= different design parameters.
don't forget, the type of shock used can totally change a suspension system as well (read: santa cruz nomad 1st gen, coil vs. air shock gave completely different feel)
Please read the entire article. Your response clearly reflects it.

BTW, your generalizations are very funny. :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,081 Posts
tacubaya said:
One more, condensed for the lazy people here:

Do linkage suspension designs offer real benefits over single pivots?

JG: No.
DW: Yes.
JC: Didn't answer.
MM: Yes.
SW: Most times no.
DT: They can work identically.
Dude, I think you are worrying about this too much. Ride your bike. Drink a beer. Smoke a joint. Relax and enjoy the ride.
 

·
moaaar shimz
Joined
·
9,125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Vespasianus said:
Dude, I think you are worrying about this too much. Ride your bike. Drink a beer. Smoke a joint. Relax and enjoy the ride.
I catched a flu and all I can do is watch TV or sit here and read about vehicle dynamics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,096 Posts
The correct answer to all these questions is: "Depends."

Because it depends on dozens of factors from the rider, the bike, the terrain, the speed etc etc etc.
You might be able to get all these guys to agree on a single specific situation, but they're never going to agree across the board.
 

·
moaaar shimz
Joined
·
9,125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Dougal said:
The correct answer to all these questions is: "Depends."

Because it depends on dozens of factors from the rider, the bike, the terrain, the speed etc etc etc.
You might be able to get all these guys to agree on a single specific situation, but they're never going to agree across the board.
Not just discrepancies on rider based preferences (like a bike that is good for plowing vs. a bike for jumping and finesse) but math an physics discrepancies. For example Luis Arraiz on his suspension patent states that he placed the idler pulley in a location that allows the tensioned chainline to intersect the IC, and Dave Weagle basically said that it doesn't make sense.

Also I'm very curious in stuff like center of traction but I can't find a lot of info about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,096 Posts
tacubaya said:
Not just discrepancies on rider based preferences (like a bike that is good for plowing vs. a bike for jumping and finesse) but math an physics discrepancies. For example Luis Arraiz on his suspension patent states that he placed the idler pulley in a location that allows the tensioned chainline to intersect the IC, and Dave Weagle basically said that it doesn't make sense.

Also I'm very curious in stuff like center of traction but I can't find a lot of info about it.
Did DW say it didn't intersect or it didn't make sense?
I'd like to read the articles in full, but I've got too many other things on my list today.
 

·
moaaar shimz
Joined
·
9,125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Quoting DW:

"Any time I read anything about chainlines passing through instant centers, the credibility meter definitely pegs somewhere around zero.."

And here is a fragment of the patent:

"The Applicant has further appreciated that because there is minimal instant centre migration in accordance with the invention, this gives the opportunity of employing an idler or jockey wheel. Thus in preferred embodiments there is provided a jockey wheel mounted on the chassis to act on the chain. Preferably the jockey wheel is positioned such that it provides a tensioned portion of chain which passes through the instant centre line, that is the line described by the instant centre throughout the suspension travel. In other embodiments the jockey wheel is positioned so that the tensioned section of chain lies on a line that passes through the instant-centre. The tensioned section of chain, or the line on which it lies, preferably passes through the instant centre somewhere between a quarter and half-way through the suspension travel, preferably approximately a third of the way through the suspension travel. In some embodiments the chain or the line on which it lies passes through the instant centre at the mid-travel of the suspension. "
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,096 Posts
tacubaya said:
Quoting DW:

"Any time I read anything about chainlines passing through instant centers, the credibility meter definitely pegs somewhere around zero.."
That's a swipe straight at TE.
It's possible to make the chainline intersect the IC at a magic point or two. But it's not going to happen through the stroke, it's probably not going to happen in the gears you like to ride in and it's not going to produce the benefits people expect.

So yeah, I agree with him on that one.

Personally I dislike patents. They are used to make claims that need no basis in reality (it doesn't have to work to get a patent) and used (mostly in the US) to stifle competition. Like the horst/ICT issue or indeed the DW issue where you patent a specific configuration of an already existing linkage.

That's the interesting thing about living outside the US. I could make any of these patented suspension linkages without concern.
 

·
moaaar shimz
Joined
·
9,125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Dougal said:
That's a swipe straight at TE.
It's possible to make the chainline intersect the IC at a magic point or two. But it's not going to happen through the stroke, it's probably not going to happen in the gears you like to ride in and it's not going to produce the benefits people expect.

So yeah, I agree with him on that one.

Personally I dislike patents. They are used to make claims that need no basis in reality (it doesn't have to work to get a patent) and used (mostly in the US) to stifle competition. Like the horst/ICT issue or indeed the DW issue where you patent a specific configuration of an already existing linkage.

That's the interesting thing about living outside the US. I could make any of these patented suspension linkages without concern.
Yeah that's why in my suspension linkage reunion Tony would be present. That way everyone else could throw dog shiat at him. :D When I first read all his ICT mumbo jumbo I wasn't sure if I wanted to laugh or cry :skep:
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top