[TantrumCycles]

You can say that "The chaingrowth on this design is actually pretty minimal", but that's another lie and you don't want to post the real data because then everyone would see that you are not telling the truth.

Now we're getting carried away. The word "minimal" is pretty vague. It's an opinion, right? How do I form my opinion? Decades ago, when I first started designing suspension, I did a series of tests to determine an "acceptable" rate of chain growth. One that had a minimal (to me) amount of pedal kickback. I've ridden the worst and the best. I decided on a "minimal" value, and it's been pretty good to me over the years. If you concentrate and are a perceptive test rider, you can make yourself aware of it. But when you ride the bike the way you want, it's a non-issue.

Again, I don't post a chain growth number because it is meaningless to me, and really, the feel of the bike, therefore to every other rider. I am trying my best to not overload the customer with meaningless marketing jargon that can't be proven, i.e., my AS/LR/WP/chaingrowth/dick is better than yours. I am showing meaningful RESULTS to my marketing claims, hopefully in a way that people can identify with, rather than arcane specifications.

 

[TantrumCycles]

You can say "If you are pedaling through a rock garden, the suspension will be firm enough to keep high in the travel, but not too firm to hurt traction or control". All I can say it's that your bike has a lot of Pedal-kickback and a Regressive LR, so it's not going to work as well as many other bikes in that situation. A Knolly, a Lenz or a Rocky Mountain it's going to work much better than your bike climbing trough a rock garden...

I can say that because I've spent a few years, thousands of hours and iterations, untold dollars, a few prototypes and samples, shocks, developments, (and wheel sizes) to achieve that result. It's not a marketing claim I cooked up and tried to figure out how to back it up. It's a goal I worked hard to achieve. And I did. And I want people to enjoy it.

Still, you attack "pedal kickback" as if you had ridden the bike. And are extremely worried about your incorrectly calculate LR, without even trying to worry about the other forces involved (namely, spring progression and missing link contribution.) Do you call that a good engineering analysis? Good enough to call me a liar?

I have never ridden a Knolly, but I have ridden some RMs and actually raced a Lentz in a DH, when Devin was kind enough to loan me a bike when fedex lost mine at a NORBA National DH event.

Those bikes have tendency to compress under power, especially while climbing, so this is not better in a rocky climb. The rear will be deeper into its travel, with a higher spring force and a slacker geometry. Not optimum. It's better to stay higher in the travel, keeping a higher BB for pedal clearance and a steeper geometry for power transfer and rider position.

How do I know this? Countless hours of backtobacktobacktoback testing. Being objective and open minded (hint). Looking for a solution where nobody else is looking. Not relying soely on theory and software but seat of the pants and experience.

 

[TantrumCycles]

Your system is patented and you say that nobody can archive the same goals with a 4-Bar, so there isn't any risk of being copied... if there is no risk, why don't you post the real data???

Whew, last paragraph. But I appreciate the opening to explain some misconceptions you and others might have. You might not believe how hard it is to get new innovation accepted. I was there for bicycle suspension and disc brakes, among many other "lies" and marketing claims (anyone remember Risego?).

My previous design, the Magic Link, from which this is an extension of philosophy, is patented. The Missing Link is U.S. and Internationally Patent Pending. Both are available for public consumption if you care to dig. If you're lazy, I provide the links here, Home

But a patent protects your general concept, the trick to making it work is the grunt part of the equation. And when you write a patent, you cover not only your ideal scenario or "preferred embodiment", but every other way that you think someone might use your idea to gain even 20% of your theoretical 100% preferred embodiment. the goal of the patent is to make any potential infringer work quadruple hard to figure out if it's even WORTH trying to infringe. And hopefully dissuade them altogether when they can't figure out the finer details.

And it is the goal of any potential designer or infringer to try to figure out EXACTLY how everything works, the better to find a way around.

good luck to all of you.

cheers,

Brian

 

[Jayem]

Ok, so when are you going to post the data?

 

[scottzg]

I'm seeing a pivot that moves ~100% rearward, a falling leverage rate, and a designer who wants to crusade against the lockouts that we all know are decorative on any good linkage design. Arguing with antonio and not knowing what Linkage is is just weird. I have no idea what the bike rides like, but a more candid approach from the designer would make me more interested in the bike as more than just a novelty linkage and amusing forum drama.

It took a fair bit of effort just to find a clip of the suspension cycling, and that doesn't really show its operation either.

 

[TantrumCycles]

Ok, so when are you going to post the data?

Please check out the website, Home

There is a ton of data, possibly overload. Along with videos and slomos. Please try to look at this while thinking about what you would like the bike to do in each riding situation. This is the data that matters to me and should matter to you.

I'll be happy to answer specific questions, but please understand when I decline for proprietary reasons.

 

[TantrumCycles]

I'm seeing a pivot that moves ~100% rearward, a falling leverage rate, and a designer who wants to crusade against the lockouts that we all know are decorative on any good linkage design. Arguing with antonio and not knowing what Linkage is is just weird. I have no idea what the bike rides like, but a more candid approach from the designer would make me more interested in the bike as more than just a novelty linkage and amusing forum drama.

Suspension designers have been crusading against lockouts since they first appeared, and yet they're still on every bike. And NECESSARY, if you really want no movement (such as a smooth climb).

What's more, this is as much or more about climbing geometry. The real reason I want the shock to fully extend is to give me steeper climbing geometry. Automatically. Nothing else can do that except for the Magic Link.

Arguing with antonio is just weird? Why? Is his knowledge and superiority just a given? Is he "The One Who Should Not Be Argued With"? Is it not possible he has misrepresented what he thinks he sees and is not taking the entire design into account? I agree with the drama part. A bit ridiculous to try and have an intelligent engineer discussion and have that thrown in. Oh, wait, this is the internet. Funny how these discussions stay more respectful and logical in person.

As for not knowing what Linkage is, this is where it's a little hard to not be condescending. I bet there are apps I don't have on my phone and you thinks that's weird too. I have never played angry birds or candy crush.

I have done pages and pages of calculations by hand to determine LRs and RC's of 4 wheeled race cars (a bit more complicated), which I designed and drew with pencil and paper, before the PC was invented. When we finally got punch cards, I wrote programs in assembly level language to do that. I had one of the first PC's in '86, which was a godsend. Now, in addition to writing my linkage software, I could write my own finite element code.

I still write and use my own analysis software. You can provide the exact inputs and outputs and you know there isn't a bug or error that you might find in a canned program. I do use solidworks for all of my modeling, which is great, but you have to be careful with some of their analysis as well. It doesn't always work the way you want.

so no. I'm not familiar with Linkage. Nor do I really care. I have better things to do than take bad pictures of other peoples designs and try to figure out what's happening using sketchy numbers.

 

[TantrumCycles]

It took a fair bit of effort just to find a clip of the suspension cycling, and that doesn't really show its operation either.

Almost forgot, while there are a number of videos that should be easy to find that show the suspension in action, once again, Home, I am also working on an "instructional" video where I cycle the suspension and demonstrate some force reactions. It will help everyone get a better idea. Why haven't I yet?? I'm busy as hell. It turns out there's a lot to do to start up a bike company. And keep in mind these are 2017s

 

[Varaxis]

Tough crowd. I see Jekyll, Strive, Bionicon, etc. kind of ambitions in this. Automatic adjustments to suspension and geometry for climbs, descents, etc, rather than use of a switch that you can forget is set in 1-mode or another.

 

[kyle242gt]

I'm seeing a ... designer who wants to crusade against the lockouts that we all know are decorative on any good linkage design.

Well put.

 

[jim c]

Anyone may feel our shocks' lockouts are merely decorative, but you shouldn't actually believe that no one ever uses them just because you don't. I love how the Pedal setting on my RS Monarch RT changes the Kona P134 into a much better peddler. I also rarely use that setting because the trails I ride are rough enough that the loss of traction is sucky and I notice it pretty quickly. When I owned a SC Blur w/ VPP the platform setting on my RP23 NEVER got used, but I also didn't enjoy the feel of an elongating chain-stay. (To be totally honest I loved the way the Blur held traction in the roughest climb even with the pedal-jack VPP delivers.) I bought a single pivot bike because of VPP feel, and a pedal platform has it's (limited) place.

 

[TantrumCycles]

Tough crowd. I see Jekyll, Strive, Bionicon, etc. kind of ambitions in this. Automatic adjustments to suspension and geometry for climbs, descents, etc, rather than use of a switch that you can forget is set in 1-mode or another.

Hi Varaxis, everybody is tough on the internet....

the Bionicon was around when I did the Magic Link, and yes, they had the same motivation, but their system of changing geometry was very cumbersome. I haven't seen what they're up to lately. Peter Denk went from Scott to C'dale with the shocks that change travel, but again, you have to flip a switch.

the Strive is very close to a manually activated Magic Link. Which, had I been smart, I would have covered under that patent. But I didn't (and still don't) want manually activated anything. i want the suspension to know. and it does.

Ya, nothing worse than forgetting your lockout is on after a long climb and you started bombing the descent. And what I really want it for is all of trails that you don't have time to mess with settings. Short, steep, rapidfire up and down. I don't use a dropper on those trails either, run the saddle low and rip it.

 

[TantrumCycles]

Anyone may feel our shocks' lockouts are merely decorative, but you shouldn't actually believe that no one ever uses them just because you don't. I love how the Pedal setting on my RS Monarch RT changes the Kona P134 into a much better peddler. I also rarely use that setting because the trails I ride are rough enough that the loss of traction is sucky and I notice it pretty quickly. When I owned a SC Blur w/ VPP the platform setting on my RP23 NEVER got used, but I also didn't enjoy the feel of an elongating chain-stay. (To be totally honest I loved the way the Blur held traction in the roughest climb even with the pedal-jack VPP delivers.) I bought a single pivot bike because of VPP feel, and a pedal platform has it's (limited) place.

Hi Jim, Right, nobody WANTS to use a lockout. Get on that long paved climb up to Mt Wilson and you'll take lockout, fork shorter, saddle waaay up. The climb still sucks.

Your comments about the pedal setting are really what I'm talking about. EVERY manufacture still feels the need to use this crutch. But as you mentioned, with a loss of traction. Funny, I seem to recall an earlier protagonist claiming they didn't want or need any pedal assist, but always leave their shock in pedal position. Purposely giving up supple traction......

Interesting comments on the Blur. I've had some friends say it jacks them off the bike when it gets rock garden-y

 

[Vrock]

Nobody wants to use a lockout, or a button that change the geometry.
Nobody wants a bike with a Regressive LR.

Each option has pros and cons.

 

[TantrumCycles]

Nobody wants a bike with a Regressive LR.

why not? what is your basis for this statement? Have you tested and ridden such designs? Do you have examples of bikes with regressive LR's that were poor performers?

i'm happy to discuss these parameters.....

 

[banditpowdercoat]

Ya, Regressive LR with a Progressive Air shock can make a linear, or even slightly Progressive total suspension. Most likely lighter weight with the smaller air shock compared to a linear LR and coil shock.

 

[Vrock]

You think you are fixing a problem with a small air shock, but you are actually creating a new problem... Breaking the balance between the Spring Ratio and the Damper Ratio.

The only bikes that use a regressive LR are some XC Race bikes, and they are the exception, not the norm.... Nobody use it in a DH bike, and almost nobody uses it in an Enduro bike.

 

[kyle242gt]

I seem to recall an earlier protagonist claiming they didn't want or need any pedal assist, but always leave their shock in pedal position. Purposely giving up supple traction......

If that was me, I don't ever use pedal ("Climb" in fox speak). It's in Trail all the time. Decend is underdamped.

 

[TantrumCycles]

You think you are fixing a problem with a small air shock, but you are actually creating a new problem... Breaking the balance between the Spring Ratio and the Damper Ratio.

ok, here's the key, there is NO official "balance" between Spring and Damper. Since springs are position sensitive and damping is velocity sensitive, there actually is always a conundrum between the two. That is to say, they frequently don't want to act well together. One of the keys to damper tuning for performance, is to find that for each unique combination. You might be surprised what appears to be a mismatch can offer significant gains.

But for the shock companies, they're screwed. They are trying to find this balance for the myraid of LR's, progressions, linkages, AS, etc. It is not really possible. Typically, they will offer 3 stages of generic "tune". None of which is optimum for any particular design. And they are very reluctant to do any special tuning for an oe.

I prefer to rely less on compression damping and more on spring rate and rising rate spring rate deep in the travel. Too much damping gives a muddy feel. Yes, you need some, it will cycle ridicolously without enough, but too much causes problems, especially deeper in the travel, where you really need the shock to react quickly.

Most of the available shocks have too much compression damping for optimum bump performance. It is there for one reason. Pedaling. In spite of everyone's magic suspension, this remains the single most sought after aspect, better pedaling with ever increasing travel and bump performance. So the shock companies comply by overdamping the shock to make up fro what the linkages cannot do.

I'm actually using a lower damping package than recommended. Why? Better bump performance and I do not need the extra damping to "calm" the pedaling.

 

[TantrumCycles]

The only bikes that use a regressive LR are some XC Race bikes, and they are the exception, not the norm.... Nobody use it in a DH bike, and almost nobody uses it in an Enduro bike.

You might be surprised what some bikes are using and what bike companies are working on.