milesthedog wrote:some quick thoughts: I didn't suggest using a dw-link rear end, I suggested using the Naild philosphy for the rear end.
A) Then why the *f##k* are you using a DW eccentric pivot bike as an example of why the Naild philosophy won't add weight?
B) In your first post (before you re-wrote it) you said that the Naild philosophy was the same as a DW link. You said that because the Naild rear works well, you wanted DW forks. You said you wanted it because they were both the same thing.
In summary - can I have some of what you're smoking? It seems fun
An eccentric pivot on the linkage fork could potentially address weight and the wheel axel path. I definitely never presented or shared the non-sequitur logic in your point b).
Here, I'll talk a little slower and ask some questions, as that method of engagement is often best with people stuck on low-brow criticism based on poor reading comprehension:
a) Does the Naild system use longer travel while claiming to have the climbing abilities and low pedal feedback characteristics of lower travel bikes?
b) would that be desirable to apply to a 120mm bike?
c) why or why not?
e) Does the Naild philosophy consist of letting kinematics do the work rather than shock damping/rebound settings?
f) could that be advantageous to use on a front suspension fork paired with rear suspension utilizing that philosophy?
g) if trying to implement that philosophy in a front suspension fork, would a telescoping or linkage fork be best?
h) if attempting to create a linkage fork that avoid brake dive but also avoids the C-shaped wheel path, how would you best go about solving that problem?