Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 118 Posts

·
Mtbr Founder
Joined
·
35,503 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
:skep:. Well not yet but I've taken it on a few rides and now I'm taking the suspension apart to analyze it. I'm learning a few things.

Any ideas on how I should bench test it? As you can see, I'm taking pieces out to isolate their role in the system. Suggestions?

Obviously, I'm going to take it out on a bunch of rides. But there might be something to be learned by tinkering in the garage too.

francois
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
426 Posts
I don't think there is a lot you can do to isolate the various parts and their roles in the suspension behavior. Without the link connected the lower linkage is free to rotate around the pivot on the back of the BB and the wheelbase of the bike will be free to extend and compress as you pedal and brake.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,902 Posts
I'd be careful about what you do there, since there is no pivot at the dropout, removing the red link (and shock) allows the upper and lower rockers to counter rotate under the weight of the bike, spreading apart the seat and chain stay - and it doesn't take much to push them past their elastic limit can cause permanent damage. There is a reason the red link is there - it limits this motion.
 

·
Not just famous; infamous
Joined
·
1,069 Posts
Axle path map?

What I'd like to see is an actual axle path. Could you maybe put a pen thru the dropouts and show us what the axle path looks like? Don't know what other steeds are in your stable, but it'd be really nice to compare it to other bikes' axle paths. (VPP, single pivot, short link, etc.)
 

·
Amphibious Technologies
Joined
·
3,472 Posts
itsdoable said:
I'd be careful about what you do there, since there is no pivot at the dropout, removing the red link (and shock) allows the upper and lower rockers to counter rotate under the weight of the bike, spreading apart the seat and chain stay - and it doesn't take much to push them past their elastic limit can cause permanent damage. There is a reason the red link is there - it limits this motion.
If you remove the red link, it will essentially be like a DW link with a differect IC but a DW-like linkage, in any case. My uninformed guess is, that red link is a design around the DW link. Though the absence of a rear triangle will cause what you describe.
 

·
conjoinicorned
Joined
·
3,525 Posts
My uninformed guess is, that red link is a design around the DW link.
that's an extremely uninformed guess.

DW did NOT invent parallel linkage, therefore it is NOT a copy of the actual DW link.
 

·
Mtbr Founder
Joined
·
35,503 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
itsdoable said:
I'd be careful about what you do there, since there is no pivot at the dropout, removing the red link (and shock) allows the upper and lower rockers to counter rotate under the weight of the bike, spreading apart the seat and chain stay - and it doesn't take much to push them past their elastic limit can cause permanent damage. There is a reason the red link is there - it limits this motion.
I hear ya. Just fyi, I'm not going to ride it like this. I'm just disconnecting it to understand what it does.

I've learned a little bit already. Just removing the shock and seeing the travel path and action is interesting. Then seeing how the pedal load affects the suspension is interesting too. I'll take some videos later.

fc
 

·
Amphibious Technologies
Joined
·
3,472 Posts
ferday said:
that's an extremely uninformed guess.

DW did NOT invent parallel linkage, therefore it is NOT a copy of the actual DW link.
Perhaps but your argument is illogical or fallacious (non sequitur to be specific).

Wasn't it Earl MacPherson then adopted by Horst Leitner for bicycles then designed around by other bike manufacturers?

You should read my post carefully. I DID NOT say it is a copy; I said it's DW-like; there's a diference. But for argument's sake, let's assume DW did not invent the parallel linkage, which he evidently did not, it certainly does not mean the Equilink minus the "red link" and assuming a similar resulting IC is not DW-like in function; now does it?
 

·
Mtbr Founder
Joined
·
35,503 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
coolhandluchs said:
What I'd like to see is an actual axle path. Could you maybe put a pen thru the dropouts and show us what the axle path looks like? Don't know what other steeds are in your stable, but it'd be really nice to compare it to other bikes' axle paths. (VPP, single pivot, short link, etc.)
I'll take a video of the axle path. There's a ton of horses on the stable. I just need a lot of beer to entertain me while wrenching.

fc
 

·
Amphibious Technologies
Joined
·
3,472 Posts
francois said:
I'll take a video of the axle path. There's a ton of horses on the stable. I just need a lot of beer to entertain me while wrenching.

fc
fc, my sincere apologies for the slight derailment. I too am interested in what you come up with. Thanks, in advance, for the info. :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
938 Posts
francois said:
Any ideas on how I should bench test it? As you can see, I'm taking pieces out to isolate their role in the system. Suggestions?
I for one would love it if you would remove the rear shock and go for a long, technical downhill ride.
 

·
carpe mañana
Joined
·
7,308 Posts
francois said:
As you can see, I'm taking pieces out to isolate their role in the system. Suggestions?
You can safely bolt the shock back on, isolating it out of the system would make it impossible to ride test. :eek: And we all know how those work, anyhow. :thumbsup:

Seriously, however, it would be interesting to add to coolhandluchs' idea of the pen in the dropout and to plot the axle path without the red link bolted in. Comparing it to a DW linkage bike would reveal whether Scuba's suspisions are grounded.

_MK
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,721 Posts
I would be interested in what the spring rate of the flex pivot in situ. The design is over constrained ( 6 pivots) so it has to flex at the stay(designed to flex). which is why it may look like DW but I realy think it is a different animal.

so you could take the shock off and use a fish scale to pull the wheel up thru its travel. would interest me to see the spring curve. probably too hard for you to do with out a jig of some sort.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,171 Posts
a few more pics of the Virtue 2


no trail time in yet as we've got a little too much snow. The manufacturing is tight :thumbsup: However, the first thing i noticed down at the chainstay yoke was the very tight toleraces between moving links. So tight that it has NO dirt or mud shedding abilities. My fear is that a rock or pebble can get logged and actually do damage.

We'll see once we get her in the dirt.



later, Chad
 

Attachments

·
www.derbyrims.com
Joined
·
6,766 Posts
SCUBAPRO said:
Perhaps but your argument is illogical or fallacious (non sequitur to be specific).

Wasn't it Earl MacPherson then adopted by Horst Leitner for bicycles then designed around by other bike manufacturers?

You should read my post carefully. I DID NOT say it is a copy; I said it's DW-like; there's a diference. But for argument's sake, let's assume DW did not invent the parallel linkage, which he evidently did not, it certainly does not mean the Equilink minus the "red link" and assuming a similar resulting IC is not DW-like in function; now does it?
Try this animation of a a 6-bar design. You can click and drag the pivot points around to change dimentions.

http://www.igorion.com/_hf_files/_stephenson/stephenson.html

There was quite a look in the MTBR Interbike threads at the Felt path and it turns out to be more round and long radius within the travel range, more FSR like, than the dw-Link's more elliptically shorter to longer radius shaped path.

DW may have borrowed the cantilevered type dropout from earlier parallel link design, but dw-Link is not a parallel link design, actually 70 - 90 degree away from parallel, and doesn't ride at all like one. (Yes, I've ridden the parallel link design Rocket-88 too, not very impressive other than for short travel sprint racer use).

There are many designs now obviously closely following the dw-Link invention, but the Equilink is probably not one of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
derby said:
Try this animation of a a 6-bar design. You can click and drag the pivot points around to change dimentions.

http://www.igorion.com/_hf_files/_stephenson/stephenson.html
Nice :thumbsup:

I have a question about the chainstay / seatstay connection near the dropout in the Equilink - is it rigid? If no and assuming there is no significant flex on the chainstay or seatstay I can see only two reasons they put red link there:
1) durability,
2) marketing/ patent issues.

Sorry.

derby said:
DW may have borrowed the cantilevered type dropout from earlier parallel link design, but dw-Link is not a parallel link design,
What do you mean by "parallel link design"? Parallel upper and bottom linkages? Imho it is not so important unless both links have the same length. In the later case we got a straight line axle path.

I do not say it is DW-link copy but imo it is another Outland-like design.

Cheers
marcin

PS. My English is not fluent but I hope it is good enough.
PS. 2. This is my first post here so Hi everybody! :)
 

·
The Ancient One
Joined
·
1,573 Posts
What the path should look like

The picture below comes from my playing around with a Stephenson 6-bar linkage program. The pivot positions are not perfect but pretty close. The red line between the left hand red dot and the point of the black angle above it would be the Felt axle path approximately.

In real life the path should be slightly more rearward. But this diagram shows how straight it is--straighter than any other design I think.

The thing that sets the Equilink apart from other linkages is that you can't calculate the anti-squat from simply knowing the axle path. The red link acts to short circuit the transmission of forces from axle to frame so that the bike has much more accelerational anti-squat than the axle path angle would indicate.

The design will pretty much eliminate squat from acceleration but does very little to reduce squat from rider bounce. Some riders will like this; some will not.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Marcin J. said:
What do you mean by "parallel link design"? Parallel upper and bottom linkages? Imho it is not so important unless both links have the same length. In the later case we got a straight line axle path.
oops, my mistake - I mixed IC with CC. Radius of the rear axle path will be equal to the length of these links.

Cheers
marcin
 

·
www.derbyrims.com
Joined
·
6,766 Posts
Steve from JH said:
The picture below comes from my playing around with a Stephenson 6-bar linkage program. The pivot positions are not perfect but pretty close. The red line between the left hand red dot and the point of the black angle above it would be the Felt axle path approximately.

In real life the path should be slightly more rearward. But this diagram shows how straight it is--straighter than any other design I think.

The thing that sets the Equilink apart from other linkages is that you can't calculate the anti-squat from simply knowing the axle path. The red link acts to short circuit the transmission of forces from axle to frame so that the bike has much more accelerational anti-squat than the axle path angle would indicate.

The design will pretty much eliminate squat from acceleration but does very little to reduce squat from rider bounce. Some riders will like this; some will not.
I agree with your assessment. There is a mechanical bias between low and high leverage torque rates when combined in the same mechanism. A higher torque leverage will override the influence of low leverage rate. The Equilink design's cross-link has higher leverage torque during acceleration tension but a much lower leverage torque relation during bump activation.

During pedal and acceleration there is more horizontal tension directed across the straighter aligned lower stay and lower frame link and so the cross-link would be a higher leverage factor binding the activity of the upper frame link against vertical movement. But vertical input from bumps or rider bob would direct leverage torque along the upper stay and upper frame link, and then the cross-link is in a low torque relation mainly keeping the system from collapsing and not binding the suspension so as when there is horizontal tension.

Looking at Francois's picture at the top with the shock and cross-link disconnect reveals the answer to the question I earlier had about spring rate. I had earlier thought there might be a falling rate spring tension from rather stiff flex stays. (falling rate springs or shock damping produces a pedaling platform effect). But it appears that the rear stays flex fairly easily so there would be very little spring rate influence within the travel range.

So there is something special about the Equilink. I look forward to demo riding one hopefully at Sea Otter this April. I'm curious if low pedal bob comes at a cost of mush deadening pedal performance like platform shocks do for monopivots compared to the lively and snappier performance of a more purely path based high anti-squat suspension such as VPP and the exceptionally well balanced dw-Link. I'm expecting the Equilink pedaling is also very snappy when the shock has minimal platform damping.
 

·
Chillin the Most
Joined
·
4,025 Posts
SCUBAPRO said:
Wasn't it Earl MacPherson then adopted by Horst Leitner for bicycles then designed around by other bike manufacturers?
Not wanting to get into a pissing match or even sure this is relevant info, but...Horst Leitner didn't actually design the Horst Link, it was Karl Nicolai that came up with the idea while he was working for Horst. Horst merely put into production Karl's design and everyone started calling it the Horst Link.
 
1 - 20 of 118 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top