favourite suspension platforms :)
Comments
-
Is the Kona not a dw link? I had a serious look at Marin before i bought my Lapierre but thought it was fugly! It look's too over engineered!yeehaamcgee wrote:
Don't clean it then!Swiftyx2 wrote:My vote!!,
The new Marin Quad link, solid, tracks well, reassuring feel under you when the going gets tough. Only down side it's a ***** to clean!!!!!!, lol.
Steve.
The new quadlink is very veeeeery similar in concept to the DW-Link. (well, the old quad links were too, but I think they missed the mark rather)0 -
Nah, two very different designs.0
-
Kona use a low single pivot swingarm design with a rocker activated shock.0
-
Sorry perhap's i should buy WMB :oops:0
-
Actually was my old Coiler dee lux 2005 a dw link?0
-
The DW-link system, (Or Marin/Whyte's quadlink II) has the wheel attatched to a member, the rear triangle in DW's case, the swingarm in Marin's case.
That swingarm/rear triangle is then attatched to the mainframe by two short links.
The position of the links vareis between DW and Marins, but the end goal is similar. They both have similar rear axle trajectories, and similar ideas towards countering bobbing and bump absorption.
The main difference being, the DW link is marketed with a load of bullcrap hippy guff, whereas (unusually) the Marin brochure just tells you what the characteristics are, and why they were chosen them to be like that.
Oh, SantaCruz also make a bike which is fundamentally similar to the DW link. In fact, I think they were the first ones to use the setup.0 -
Ha ha Tesco's will be getting four quid in the morning! WMB here we come! I'm very tempted to buy something which is a bit lighter(still fs) i might demo a Marin and see how i go. I used to own a Rockridge but sold it to buy the Lapierre.yeehaamcgee wrote:
No.clioterus wrote:Actually was my old Coiler dee lux 2005 a dw link?0 -
I actually like the DW website, I think he has explained what is going on well, and certainly a lot better than many site such as Spesh and Ellsworth.
The SC VPP uses quite a different axle path to the DW.0 -
True, it's a different axle path due to the link tuning. But the engineering principle behind it is very similar.
As for the guff, are you kidding me?dw-link the world’s most efficient and traction-aiding suspension system
Newton’s 3rd law states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When a vehicle accelerates, the reaction is that its mass is transferred rearward. dw-link’s patented position sensitive anti-squat perfectly balances this rearward mass transfer, increasing efficiency, traction, and bump sensitivity, and eliminating pedal feedback.
Unlike other suspension systems, dw-link’s does not rely on pedaling platform type dampers, giving the best bump absorption and traction of any suspension available today.
The dw-link suspension projects its instant center to an ideal location, achieving a balance of traction and stability under hard braking that is unmatched by other suspensions.
position sensitive dw-link axle path intelligently changes to meet the demands of the trail
Now, you and I both know that anti squat and pedal kickback are always a compomise, more of one = more of the other.
This crap is designed to sell bikes to people who read it and think "Ooooh, SHINY!"0 -
Oh, and here's Marin's take on it...By allowing the wheel to move backwards early in its travel, the QUAD-Link 2.0 system is able to respond to square-edged bumps with very little interruption to your forward momentum. Even the smallest bump activates the suspension, keeping the wheel in constant contact with the ground and improving traction. About one third of the way through its travel the wheel's path shifts to a zero chain growth curve, eliminating suspension induced pedal feedback.
With the QUADLink 2.0 system, the shock is driven directly off the swingarm that is pivoted on a moving center (IPC) allowing us to tune our shock to move proportionately less early on in the travel, giving the bike a plusher long travel feel and making the suspension much more sensitive to smaller bumps. As the wheel moves through its travel, the wheel to shock ratio decreases, meaning proportionately more shock travel to wheel movement. This stops the suspension from blowing through its travel when the bike takes a big hit.
It's not that I'm more of a fan of either system. But I really like Marin's marketing approach. It's just "this is what it ACTUALLY does"
They still have the fluffy stuff in there, but the technicalities are presented accurately and without mincing any words.0 -
It is not really crap though, all what is said there is true. The only thing miesleading from that excerpt is the pedal feedback, but that is dealt elsewhere on the site. I like how he explains what is going on and how it is achieved in his blogs. Marin mentions nothing about braking in that, but they may have further reading too. I guess you have to look at the whole site, not just a summation.
The systems behave a little differently ie amount of anti squat, how it changes, resulting pedal feedback, and suspension ratios. While the goal is the same, they way they get there is different, and they feel different to ride.0 -
Braking is a non issue as far as I'm concerned though. The rear will compress under breaking, but this is massively outbalanced by the rider's forward weight transfer, causing the bike to nosedive.
I get the impression that the Americans make quite a fuss about "brake jack", which leads others to believe it.
I mean, you must remember the fad not too long ago, where everyone claimed that all single pivot designs cause brake jack?
I also believe that some designers will mention "No brake jack" simply because other manufacturers DON'T mention it. Leading the casual reader into thinking this must be better than "brand X", because it has no jack - because they don't realise that "brand X" also has no brake jack.0 -
Well I have certainly ridden bikes where braking is different. It is not always just 'jack'. Some will squat overall. But if the bike is 'nose diving' as you say, then some will say overall this is 'brake jack'. There is not enough braking squat to balance the weight transfer. DW says nothing about brake jack in his literature, but does mention that he has tuned to give the best compromise of traction and stable geometry.
If you look at linkage, it calculates differing amounts which does affect geometry under braking, and also levels of traction.
While it may be subtle, it does vary between designs, and as ever, the rider can have preferences.0 -
Sorry, I just don't buy the whole brake jack nonsense. Wheelbase extension from current position is all I can see affecting it.
You're going to have a forward weight transfer under braking, due to your momentum, there's just no two ways about it. The only way to counter it would to have an incredibly low c.o.g. but in order to achieve that on a pushbike you'd end up with something akin to a recumbent.0 -
But you just said it yourself - the bike nose diving. This extends the rear suspension.
To balance it, it needs enough squat built in the design, which you have also mentioned.
The rear sus will extend when the squat forces from braking (most designs DO input a squatting force) does not match the forward weight transfer.0 -
Well, either the rear suspension extends, or it comes off the ground, simple as that.
If you could mount a weight lower in the bike, you'd find that they all squatted.
Same as most french cars, specifically something like a Pegeot 306/405 - when you pull the handbrake the rear end squate like crazy. BUT, if the majority of their weight was much higher up as it is on a pushbike, they'd nosedive (well, provided the handbrake actually works well enough, which it rarely does)
Basically, as the bike leans forwards, there is less traction available to pull the rear wheel rearwards and compress the suspension, so it extends until it reaches a new equilibrium.0 -
Yes the COG does have affect. You can see this in linkage IE the FSR XC:
To calculate brake squat, a line is taken from the rear tyre contact patch through the IC. Where this line intersects a vertical line drawn through the front axle will determine the squat - it is compared to a line drawn horizontally from the COG, and where that one intersects previous vertical line. It is the ratio of these heights above the ground level.
With the FSR you can see point a2 is a little lower than what would give 100%. It is around 70% as you can see from the graph .So FSR inputs a squatting force 70% of that which would be caused and opposed by forward mass transfer in steady state decceleration. Therefore overall this design will cause the rear to extend slightly, improving grip.0 -
I don't follow. That seems to assume a rigid fork. The forwards weight transfer under deceleration will cause the fork to compress, changing all the angles. Furthermore, the rider's mass is shifted forwards, changing the c.o.g.
I just don't buy it. (and I'm not alone!)
Hardtails suffer nosediving under braking, they don't call that "brake jack".0 -
Have you got the software? You can have a play and compress the fork too.
They call it brake dive with hardtails.
But you do agree that some designs will extend the rear sus due to weight transfer?0 -
It must be very difficult to calculate and measure these things to be meaningful. Within 100mm of trail the whole angle of the terrain could easily have changed by 30 degrees, if the rear is going over a rock and compressing and the front is in a dip extending a split second later it could all be opposite.
Personnaly I've ridden at length a Stumpy FSR with Horst link and my lovely simple Orange 5. The FSR climbed really well but did feel flexy. The Orange descends much better but still climbs well. I can't compare the two though as they had different head angles, seat angles, BB height, forks, tyres, bars, stem, saddle heights etc etc. There's just too many variables to categorically say that one is better than the other!0 -
I see it that all the designs will extend due to weight transfer, because that very same weight transfer means there is less load on the rear.
I don't believe in "brake jack" where the suspension mechanically pushes the rider forwards, I firmly believe it is a result of the weight transfer, not a cause.0 -
I think we are actually agreeing with each other, and have all along, but terminology of this, as we discussed before, can confuse things.
People hae used the term 'jack' for:
a) Overall net geomtery change
b) Just considering the forces imputted from braking, and not mass transfer
c) and some even use it for when the suspension can feel harsher through overall squat!
So basically just about every condition out there! Some very high pivot points will cause a net squat ie the squat force is more than the weight transfer forward.0 -
This can be seen here:
0 -
Fair enough. I think you're right, we do generally agree.
But, even on that 222, I reckon if you're trying to decelerate as fast as possible with the tyre just about to break traction, you're going to be thrown forwards and effectively nosedive. Unless you're sat very low down, and very far back.
(in fact, I know this
)
Actually, what I reckon could be the discrepancy is that on the 222, you're pretty much always in the "attack" position, due to the nature of the beast, and the c.o.g. looks pretty low in linkage for that position.0 -
This is the thing, many of these calculations are done in steady state conditions, with assumptions about COG. If a rider moves his weight on purpose then the whole things change.0
-
The best suspension systems I have ridden are the 2010 Fuel EX and Remedy by Trek. Wasn't a fan of 1st generation ABP but the DRCV shock (which isn't technically a platform but spring technology) has transformed the system.
ICT by Ellsworth and VPP 2.0 by Santa Cruz and Intense is also quite good. I don't rate FSR particularly highly, and neither do Specialized if they keep insisting on using "Brain" lockout bollocks on their own bikes. Not sure about single pivots, the Cannondale Rush is great but find the Moto and Orange 5 a bit weird to ride. I've had 4 Fishers with linkage actuated single pivots and they ride very firm underfoot but not very plush, not my favourite back end but I can live with it 'cos I like the handling. Same with Kona, great handling bikes so can be forgiven for not being the best suspension systemI had to beat them to death with their own shoes...
HiFi Pro Carbon '09
LTS DH '96
The Mighty Dyna-Sore - The 90's?0 -
Single pivot is my favourite even if it isn't the best. It's simple and less bearings/bushings for me to worry about replacing.
You can't go wrong with a true single pivot bike but the right shock is more important here. This is where shock technology over the past 5 years has help a lot. But there are noticable short falls even with the best shock in the word. Climbing traction and braking with the suspension extending and locking out. Both of which can be tackled with multi pivot designs to some degree or another.
DW link works great from my brief try of it
VPP 1 works great
VPP2 works great
FSR is so so.
Virtual 4 Link is stupidly plush.
Freedrive is just wrong
I Drive has never really worked (from what I have read)
Don't listen to the marketing claims or technical answer from 1 expert as to why X suspension design is best as most are biased.0 -
weescott wrote:Single pivot is my favourite even if it isn't the best. It's simple and less bearings/bushings for me to worry about replacing.
I don't agree with this, it's a particular pet hate of mine. When you say single pivot, I assume you mean single swingarm like an Orange Five or Santa Cruz Heckler, rather than a linkage actuated single pivot like a Kona or Trek since they have just as many bushings and bearings as an FSR / VPP type system.
The first problem with your argument is, whilst there are less bearings to go wrong, all of the load is concentrated onto 2 bearings so they wear out quicker. Generally a pair of bearings from a single pivot manufacturer cost whatever they decide to charge (usually quite a lot) so don't end up costing more to replace, plus labour is usually the same in most bike shops for changing one bearing or 10. As an example, Trek and Marin don't charge for replacement bearings, you just pay labour at your local dealer, and if that's where you bought your bike, you can expect a deal on that.
Second, and by far the most important is that unless you completely overengineer the entire frame, you will get sideloading on the shock, wearing out the anodizing on the shaft if you're lucky, writing it off if you're not. Tell me, what costs more to replace, a £350 rear shock or £40 of bearings?I had to beat them to death with their own shoes...
HiFi Pro Carbon '09
LTS DH '96
The Mighty Dyna-Sore - The 90's?0 -
I mean true single pivot. Not linkage actuated single pivot. When I had the bearings replaced in my Heckler frame my LBS didn't want to charge me anything for it. I have new bearings to put in at some point that I will do myself. It's only a few quid and nothing like £40. Something like a blur on the other hand can be about £100 for bearings. Easily trashed after a few months winter riding.0
