BH & Trek Spot the difference

TimB34

The Northern Monkey

Confused... there isn't 1 thing that is similar about those 2 frames, which is what I assume you were trying to point out?

bennett_346

Nothing like one another.

nicklouse

TimB34 wrote:

have a read
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/b ... ide-30209/

benpinnick

You chaps are right you know, other than the fairly fundamental suspension atributes that are the same or near, and of fairly uncommon type, such as the four bar set up with axle pivot, floating shock mount, then other than an overall similar look, including the distinctive kink in the downtube, they are totally different.

supersonic

The suspension is very different.

benpinnick

How so? Sure the pivots are not in the very same place, but the fundamental characteristics are the same. You could claim that all frames are completely different as none are identical, but that way lies madness. Clearly lots of designs are similar, these being examples. Why do you think that DW and Trek got into such a tizzy about the design of the Split pivot versus Fuel when they are so different? Because they had nothing better to do?

supersonic

The main pivot is one of the main points, and the fundamental characteristics are vastly different! Did you even read the link Nick posted? The main pivots lie is very different places, which completely dictates how the bike behaves under acceleration. The BH has a LOT more anti squat in the design, and a much different leverage curve. The axle pivot is there to control braking forces, as the caliper lies on the floating part of a four bar link, much like a FSR, but with slightly different effect.

cat_with_no_tail

lol, pwnd!!!!!1111

benpinnick

Yeah, I read it. All I got was a load of meaningless Weagle-waffle about anti-squat and floating links. unless I am missing something, the Trek has a floating shock mount too - admittedly infront of the main pivot, not behind, but like the BH its attached to the chain-stay, not the front triangle. What instead you get from the marketing nonsense that was that article, is that this bike is unique for having the 'Floating Split Pivot' design. They are the only company that has a design named that for sure, but I fail to see why moving a shock mount to the other side of a pivot (where the mounts are both on the same piece of metal) qualifies it as a completely different design. Yes one will have an accelerating rate of stroke while the other is falling, which will change the ride characteristics quite a lot, but thats not what the OP commented on. He said the bikes were very similar - which they are. For example despite what you might read, the main pivot is not even close to being in a different place. Look for the exploded diagram of a BH lynx on their website, you'll spot that the main pivot near the BB is pretty much bang on where a Trek has it. The complex kinking of the BH makes it look that way probably, but its just not.

As for different linkage and pivot positions, absolutely. I don't deny that this bike might ride completely differently, I just disagree that it is a fundamentally different design. I think its another case of dave Weagle trying to convince the world that his designs are somehow completely unique. Undeniably mostly very good - yes, unique in a wider context, no.

supersonic

Yes one will have an accelerating rate of stroke while the other is falling, which will change the ride characteristics quite a lot, but thats not what the OP commented on.

No, but it is what you commented on! Unless you meant fundamental characteristics to mean the looks, not the suspension, which IS very different!

For example despite what you might read, the main pivot is not even close to being in a different place. Look for the exploded diagram of a BH lynx on their website, you'll spot that the main pivot near the BB is pretty much bang on where a Trek has it

They are VERY different places, and it is not what I have 'read' but what I can see and know from suspension physics! The BH has the pivot high and slighty forward of the BB. The Trek is lower and further back which very much changes the anti squat. Read up on DW, and why the pivot is there, not where trek have it.

I'm not denying they look similar, and use a similar method to control brake squat, but the actual action is markedly different.

benpinnick

Why would reading up on why Dave Weagle thinks his pivot point is better, and looking at some pointless graphs comparing shock curves which are only showing the ones DW want you to see, possibly resolve the question of whether these two bikes are similar?

supersonic

I have resolved it for you. They look similar. They behave differently because of the main pivot position, and shock linkages. Not a bit differently, there is a LOT of difference in anti squat and leverage curves.

If you think it is all pointless and you can just stick the pivots anywhere then there is not much anyone can say. Maybe download Linkage and have a look, or read my article in WMB, or this:

http://members.home.nl/vd.kraats/ligfiets/pa/index.htm

benpinnick

No, I think it is pointless believing one person who makes their living by telling you his design is the best. Theres a whole section in that site you linked to on just how pointless that is. Of course the bikes ride differently, I never said they didn't. Of course pivot positions make a load of difference, again, I never said they didn't. In fact, I don't remember saying anything like that at all during this thread. Maybe its just that you thought I did? I only stated their fundamental design was the same. Your argument is like saying that your FSR XC and a Norco Sight are completely different designs. That of course is nonsense. They are fundamentally the same despite the fact that every tube, angle, pivot position and linkage is in some way different, there is not two common parts on those two bikes, and yet they are at a fundamental level the same design.

I have a copy of linkage by the way. And that site you linked to is quite interesting. Especially the way in which he shows the various suspension designs with lots of different pivot positions, but still bracketed as the same design.

supersonic

I think most people reading this would draw the same conclusions to what we thought you said! You said the fundamental characteristics are the same. That is wrong with these two bikes (except braking forces, which share a fundamental concept). Unless, as before, you meant the looks or rough bracketed design. You said: the main pivot is not even close to being in a different place. That, in my opinion, is wrong, and why the pedal so differently.

Yes there is some ambiguity to what we class as 'the same sort of design' (and many we class as the same are very close), but my comments are not sweeping, I am looking at these two designs, not Norcos or FSRs (a licensed design to Norco in any case), and in this 'similar looking design' there are a lot of large differences. Not small ones. That is my point. I stated the suspension is very different, and it is.

As for what is best, that is not the argument either, I am pointing out differences. My conclusion to what is best in my own articles have been is what works for the rider. Many designers will state why they think their design is best, and can be interesting reading. DWs patents are good reading if you are into suspension.

benpinnick

supersonic wrote:

I stated the suspension is very different, and it is.

... And I stated (all the way back), in response to two people posting that after someone posed the question to 'Spot the Difference' and they responded that the bikes were completely different and somehow they were incapable of spotting that there are a number of fundamental (fundamental in a "that's one of the top 5 things that define how this bike rides' kind of way) things about the bikes that were in fact very similar between the two. Oh, and that they also look the same.

supersonic

Look similar lol. Same way my Saracen looks like an Orange 5 ;-)

benpinnick

POIDH.

chez_m356

TimB34 wrote:

this one is identical too, apart from the colour, but then again that probably looks the same to the op too

Briggo

benpinnick wrote:

supersonic wrote:

I stated the suspension is very different, and it is.

... And I stated (all the way back), in response to two people posting that after someone posed the question to 'Spot the Difference' and they responded that the bikes were completely different and somehow they were incapable of spotting that there are a number of fundamental (fundamental in a "that's one of the top 5 things that define how this bike rides' kind of way) things about the bikes that were in fact very similar between the two. Oh, and that they also look the same.

Honestly, what the facking hell are you waffling on about. You're wrong and accept it.

stevieboy308

Briggo wrote:

benpinnick wrote:

supersonic wrote:

I stated the suspension is very different, and it is.

... And I stated (all the way back), in response to two people posting that after someone posed the question to 'Spot the Difference' and they responded that the bikes were completely different and somehow they were incapable of spotting that there are a number of fundamental (fundamental in a "that's one of the top 5 things that define how this bike rides' kind of way) things about the bikes that were in fact very similar between the two. Oh, and that they also look the same.

Honestly, what the facking hell are you waffling on about. You're wrong and accept it.

i'm with ben

benpinnick

Briggo wrote:

benpinnick wrote:

supersonic wrote:

I stated the suspension is very different, and it is.

... And I stated (all the way back), in response to two people posting that after someone posed the question to 'Spot the Difference' and they responded that the bikes were completely different and somehow they were incapable of spotting that there are a number of fundamental (fundamental in a "that's one of the top 5 things that define how this bike rides' kind of way) things about the bikes that were in fact very similar between the two. Oh, and that they also look the same.

Honestly, what the facking hell are you waffling on about. You're wrong and accept it.

Ok, I'll rephrase the OPs question: please could you find a bike that is more similar to the trek than the lynx, and of course not made by trek or one of its sub-brands. Good luck with that.

prawny

OMG Turner copied the design to, a bit off admittedly but them crystal balls can be a bit blurry

benpinnick

Which exactly proves my point. Some people are infact incapable of spotting when two bikes are similar...

sigorman85

Nothing better todo on a sat night?

supersonic

What is similar to you may not be similar to others. Depends what you are looking at - aesthetics, design, geometry, tubing, parts and so on. The OPs question was very open. People commented on different areas, myself the suspension.

nicklouse

what really surprises me is that they are for different uses.

one is a 100mm XC bike and the other is a 130mm trail bike.

paul.skibum

benpinnick wrote:

No, I think it is pointless believing one person who makes their living by telling you his design is the best. Theres a whole section in that site you linked to on just how pointless that is. Of course the bikes ride differently, I never said they didn't. Of course pivot positions make a load of difference, again, I never said they didn't. In fact, I don't remember saying anything like that at all during this thread. Maybe its just that you thought I did? I only stated their fundamental design was the same. Your argument is like saying that your FSR XC and a Norco Sight are completely different designs. That of course is nonsense. They are fundamentally the same despite the fact that every tube, angle, pivot position and linkage is in some way different, there is not two common parts on those two bikes, and yet they are at a fundamental level the same design.

I have a copy of linkage by the way. And that site you linked to is quite interesting. Especially the way in which he shows the various suspension designs with lots of different pivot positions, but still bracketed as the same design.

Funnily enough I had the opportunity to ride a Spesh Big Hit and a Norco Aurum the other day - two bikes which both run on the FSR suspension system with similar large amounts of travel (albeit the Aurum larger) and I can honestly say that the two bikes handled the trails i rode them on (same trails) in completely different ways - the Aurum felt nothing like as supple over small bumps, was more willing to jump and assisted rather than absorbed the take off from lips and was far smoother in absorbing bigger hits than (ironically) the Big Hit.

And yet when you look at them they have basically the same suspension, pivots, etc etc. So I am prepared to believe that a fairly significant change such as the position of the main pivot and the point at which the shock acts are going to make vast differences to the way a bike reacts.

On a seperate point, that BH sounds like my kind of xc bike. Alloy with a 120 fork huh......how much?