Want: adapt the Naild R3act-2Play philosophy to XC race rear and front suspension

Discuss light weight issues concerning mountain bikes & parts.

Moderator: Moderator Team

User avatar
Lelandjt
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 7:10 am

by Lelandjt

milesthedog wrote:
TheRookie wrote:
What the heck is dynamic suspension design?



DW, Maestro, Split Pivot, VPP, Delta, Switch Infinity.... are typically referred to as "dynamic" due to their linkage designs yielding a more optimal wheel path vs single pivot and first-gen 4-bar linkage systems.

As for the fork, linkage fork designs are typically faulted for what appears to be a less than ideal axel path. Could Dave Weagle design a fork that keeps the axel path 'more ideal' (adjustable for different HT angles)?

I look at something like the Turner Czar which is now selling with a Fox 34 120mm fork. That rear end is very much race-worthy as is the Flux rear end, but I'd never race XC on a Fox 34 or equivalent fork. It would be nice to have a front linkage fork that made 120mm race-worthy. Pinkbike had a video on linkage forks and the faults cited seem like they could be overcome with a 'dynamic' linkage front fork.

I've won a lot of pro XC races on a Fox 34. Back in the 90s I won a lot of races on a Noleen linkage fork. I wouldn't go back but this year I'm building a Spark RC with a 32sc.

Just to clear something up for you: DW's rear suspension designs are all about anti-squat curves and shock rate curves. Anti-squat doesn't exist for forks because there's no chain tension so a "DW style fork" is jibberish.
Last edited by Lelandjt on Wed May 17, 2017 6:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

by Weenie


User avatar
Lelandjt
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 7:10 am

by Lelandjt

In the 120mm "XC marathon" frame catagory you currsntly have to choose between single pivot and light (Spark, ASRc) or mini-link and heavy (TB3, Ripley). They both ride great and have their fans.

User avatar
milesthedog
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:21 pm

by milesthedog

Lelandjt wrote:
milesthedog wrote:
TheRookie wrote:
What the heck is dynamic suspension design?



DW, Maestro, Split Pivot, VPP, Delta, Switch Infinity.... are typically referred to as "dynamic" due to their linkage designs yielding a more optimal wheel path vs single pivot and first-gen 4-bar linkage systems.

As for the fork, linkage fork designs are typically faulted for what appears to be a less than ideal axel path. Could Dave Weagle design a fork that keeps the axel path 'more ideal' (adjustable for different HT angles)?

I look at something like the Turner Czar which is now selling with a Fox 34 120mm fork. That rear end is very much race-worthy as is the Flux rear end, but I'd never race XC on a Fox 34 or equivalent fork. It would be nice to have a front linkage fork that made 120mm race-worthy. Pinkbike had a video on linkage forks and the faults cited seem like they could be overcome with a 'dynamic' linkage front fork.

I've won a lot of pro XC races on a Fox 34. Back in the 90s I won a lot of races on a Noleen linkage fork. I wouldn't go back but this year I'm building a Spark RC with a 32sc.

Just to clear something up for you: DW's rear suspension designs are all about anti-squat curves and shock rate curves. Anti-squat doesn't exist for forks because there's no chain tension so a "DW style fork" is jibberish.


The downside of linkage forks is the wheel path being non-linear - an eccentric pivot as seen on the Ripley could potentially keep the wheel path linear and also prevent the brake dive associated with telescoping forks. still jibberish?

KWalker
Posts: 5837
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:30 pm
Location: Bay Area

by KWalker

Brake dive shouldn't be an issue if damping and rebound are properly set. Loads of people have tried to incorporate anti-dive designs from touring motos and it hasn't caught on and for good reason. I'm fairly sure that is what he is referencing especially since front and rear wheel path can't be treated the same given frame and travel dynamics.
Don't take me too seriously. The only person that doesn't hate Froome.
Gramz
Failed Custom Bike

User avatar
Lelandjt
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 7:10 am

by Lelandjt

Okay, but this is the first time brake dive has been mentioned. I'm on the side that says it's a non-issue. If you're riding fast than the spring rate and damping you need to keep the bike stable are also enough to minimize brake dive. Basically it's only an issue for people who are heavy and want the plushest fork (touring motorcyclists).

mattr
Posts: 3456
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: The Grim North.

by mattr

You need a prst-1.

More linkages than a bmw touring moto.

Probably more expensive to service it as well.

User avatar
milesthedog
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:21 pm

by milesthedog

LeDuke wrote:The 120mm bike that intrigues me most at this moment is the new 120mm Scott Spark.

Has the same rear end, albeit with a different shock placement, as Yeti, Cannondale, etc. Same as Kona, from the looks of things.

Not really a fan of DW-link, VPP, or Maestro. I've owned three and, despite "new and improved" labels that sucked me in, always had to put way too much air into them to get them to act as the marketing literature described. Unless I was running like 10% sag or less (way, way too much), they bobbed quite a bit and never had the amazing pedaling performance I was told they'd provide.

Also, if this is the same Milesthedog from Blacksburg, VA:

All of the trails in our area can be ridden extremely fast on a modified single pivot bike like the ASRc, Scalpel, Kona Hei Hei Race DL, Spark (120 or 100), etc. I'd argue that tire selection is going to make more of a difference in getting up Royale and Prickly Pear quickly, and down Snake Root in one piece, than suspension design.


Interesting comment - riding dw-link back to back with single pivot designs, I found the difference to be pretty big in terms of having a more active rear suspension while still getting rid of most of the pedal feedback.

So, back to my original post: climbing up steep technical stuff is easier on a 120mm bike, despite skill level, compared to a low travel bike. My original post was in response to the Naild R3act-2Play suspension which aims to allow suspension to be run more open and still have minimal pedal feedback and to have the performance associated with lesser suspension travel. I'd like to see that brought to XC-level mtb's and I'm interested in a front suspension design that has the same feature with regard to leaving the suspension nearly wide open and not having to worry about pedal bob or brake dive.... and accomplishing that via kinematics rather than shock set up.

I get that people are happy with their current bikes and with current technology and some people have innovation-fatigue, but the original post was more about thinking forward.

User avatar
milesthedog
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:21 pm

by milesthedog

KWalker wrote:Brake dive shouldn't be an issue if damping and rebound are properly set. Loads of people have tried to incorporate anti-dive designs from touring motos and it hasn't caught on and for good reason. I'm fairly sure that is what he is referencing especially since front and rear wheel path can't be treated the same given frame and travel dynamics.


referencing my above post, my original post was citing the recent claims with the Naild R3act-2Play suspension in which the rear shock can use less damping and rebound and then citing my interest in a fork that followed the same philosophy.

User avatar
milesthedog
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:21 pm

by milesthedog

milesthedog wrote:So, the Polygon Square One and its Naild R3act-2Play suspension has me thinking about a 120 XC race rig. Since the Polygon is near DH travel, but is said to ride like a trail bike, it reignites my desire for a 120mm XC race bike using that Naild R3act-2Play philosophy of using a shock with few damping and rebound adjustable settings - so a no thank you to the beautifully light 120mm Scott Spark which depends heavily upon those settings and ultimately cuts into the ascent/decent gobbling ability of 120mm trail bikes while also not able to keep pace with an 80-100mm pure race oriented rig.

I'm also interested in taking that philosophy to mtb front suspension. I'm just let down by 120mm forks and 100mm XC forks. The 120 forks are no good through fast turns compared to 100mm race-worthy forks, and 100mm forks feel I'm riding on an air canister. Can the Naild R3act-2Play philosophy be adapted to a linkage front fork, using an eccentric pivot as found on the dw equipped Ripley to provide a 120mm fork that can keep up with 100mm forks in terms of better resistance to brake dive pedal feedback?


I went ahead and edited that original post to make it a bit more clear.

wingguy
Posts: 3666
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

milesthedog wrote:My original post was in response to the Naild R3act-2Play suspension which aims to allow suspension to be run more open and still have minimal pedal feedback and to have the performance associated with lesser suspension travel. I'd like to see that brought to XC-level mtb's...

One word - weight.

User avatar
milesthedog
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:21 pm

by milesthedog

wingguy wrote:
milesthedog wrote:My original post was in response to the Naild R3act-2Play suspension which aims to allow suspension to be run more open and still have minimal pedal feedback and to have the performance associated with lesser suspension travel. I'd like to see that brought to XC-level mtb's...

One word - weight.


... with the hope that the use of Ripley-like eccentric pivots and the reduced damping/rebound controls on the front and rear suspension could bring the weight down

wingguy
Posts: 3666
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

milesthedog wrote:... with the hope that the use of Ripley-like eccentric pivots and the reduced damping/rebound controls on the front and rear suspension could bring the weight down

What's the Ripley got to do with anything that you're talking about? It doesn't have anything like either a DW link or a Naild system.

Suspension kinematics isn't like going to the pick and mix. You can't take bits of all the systems you like and mash them together into something that'll have the best of everything. Honestly now - do you really have any structured idea of what it is that you actually want?

User avatar
milesthedog
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:21 pm

by milesthedog

wingguy wrote:
milesthedog wrote:... with the hope that the use of Ripley-like eccentric pivots and the reduced damping/rebound controls on the front and rear suspension could bring the weight down

What's the Ripley got to do with anything that you're talking about? It doesn't have anything like either a DW link or a Naild system.

Suspension kinematics isn't like going to the pick and mix. You can't take bits of all the systems you like and mash them together into something that'll have the best of everything. Honestly now - do you really have any structured idea of what it is that you actually want?


the Ripley is a dw-link design (but that google search might have cut into the time and energy you put into crafting a response to sound like such a nice and intelligent person). the lower link was replaced with an eccentric pivot. So, if creating a linkage front fork, I'd opt to replace the lower linkage with an eccentric pivot - not necessary, but possibly lighter - with the intended goal of obtaining linkage forks' resistance to brake dive while also correcting for the C shaped axel path that is the fatal flaw in most linkage forks.

As for the rear suspension kinematics, I wrote that I'd be interested in the "philosophy" behind the Nalid system - that is, creating a 120mm bike that has the best of a 100mm bike with the best of a 120mm bike... at least that's how the reviewers of the Nalid system have described both the Polygon and Marin using that suspension design. But then, I just re-wrote what I had already written, so it's still probably not structured enough, honestly now. H

I didn't exactly suggest anything ground breaking: the Nalid system takes a 170mm bike and makes it reportedly have the best of a 170mm bike and the best of a trail bike with little shock rebound/damping - I suggested that philosophy be brought to a XC bike that has 120mm travel, and the proposed that philosophy be implemented in a linkage front fork design (120mm fork with little rebound/damping & no brake dive) that out performs telescoping forks.

wingguy
Posts: 3666
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

milesthedog wrote:the Ripley is a dw-link design (but that google search might have cut into the time and energy you put into crafting a response to sound like such a nice and intelligent person). the lower link was replaced with an eccentric pivot.


OK, fair play - I didn't know that. However, your problem now is that the Ripley already exists. A 120mm bike with an eccentric pivot DW system. Has it managed to make shocks lighter by getting rid of lots of unneccessary damping circuits? Well... no. No it hasn't. So....?

As for the rear suspension kinematics, I wrote that I'd be interested in the "philosophy" behind the Nalid system - that is, creating a 120mm bike that has the best of a 100mm bike with the best of a 120mm bike...

And the Naild system is going to be a lot heavier than a normal XC pivot or linkage, not to mention the single piece swingarm reinforcement needed. So... weight.

User avatar
milesthedog
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:21 pm

by milesthedog

wingguy wrote:
milesthedog wrote:the Ripley is a dw-link design (but that google search might have cut into the time and energy you put into crafting a response to sound like such a nice and intelligent person). the lower link was replaced with an eccentric pivot.


OK, fair play - I didn't know that. However, your problem now is that the Ripley already exists. A 120mm bike with an eccentric pivot DW system. Has it managed to make shocks lighter by getting rid of lots of unneccessary damping circuits? Well... no. No it hasn't. So....?

As for the rear suspension kinematics, I wrote that I'd be interested in the "philosophy" behind the Nalid system - that is, creating a 120mm bike that has the best of a 100mm bike with the best of a 120mm bike...

And the Naild system is going to be a lot heavier than a normal XC pivot or linkage, not to mention the single piece swingarm reinforcement needed. So... weight.


some quick thoughts: I didn't suggest using a dw-link rear end, I suggested using the Naild philosphy for the rear end.

So, one more time: I a) suggested a Naild philosophy for front and rear suspension - longer travel with no damping/rebound knobs, a near full-open shock once sag is accounted for - I don't know the best kinematics for that, but possibly a Naild design made by folks who can make stuff light - thinking Vroomen-related-THM/3T/Open, and b) a linkage front fork that is light (but those forks are already light) that prevents break dive while using a shock using the Naild near-wide-open shock philosophy, and prevents the C-shaped wheel path that's been the downfall of linkage forks (could an eccentric pivot help that happen? not sure)

So, neither a) nor b) exists. But, from the biased reviews, the 170mm Polygon one Naild equipped bike has the climbing and handling abilities of a trail bike, leading me to want a 120mm bike that could be a xc race machine - a light xc race machine. Seeing how the pros aren't even using the SL Spark, but opting for the HMX version, I think some THM/Open magic could go a long way to getting the weight of Naild type system down and with the loss of the damping/rebound controls, I'd think there could be some weight trade offs. So, weight aside for the moment...

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post