You are hereForums / By Discipline / Mountain (off road) / MTB Gear / links
links
I am quite keen to understand this subject better. However, best `literature' I could find browsing internet is DW-link original patent only - which is not the most exciting read.. Anyone knows any other good resources? Maybe a publication, a survey, anything that goes beyond "words, words, and words.." alas.. too much rubbish hype in this area..
I'd be very keen to learn on knowledgeable people opinions on the modeling ideas in this subject.
[Mod. moved to MTB Gear]
- Login to post comments
- Bookmark & share
Tags
the subject line was actually "comparative analysis of various suspension systems" in small font and the post area was different - but it would not let me post it - the error message being I am using `shouting' caps in my subject line..
The linkages themselves are just a means to achieve the desired axle path.
The simplest is a single pivot. This simply lets the wheel move up in an arc.
The placement of this pivot determines what sort of ride characteristic you get.
A lot of bikes that look to have complex linkages are simply single pivots and all the links do is activate the shock.
Next up with have 4 bar. Specialised came up with and patented the horst link ages ago. This puts an extra pivot on the chain stay. By having this in front of and below the rear axle you get good pedaling characteristic and it allows you to change the way the axle moves so it can come straight up, back then up and other combos to get the desired result. Systems such as the Lawwill and ellsworth ITC are very specific versions of the 4 bar. (Speciffic enough to get their won patents independent of the FSR)
Multi link. In my opinion all these multi link drives were developed as a way to get around specialised horst link patents.
Outlander came up with the Virtual pivot in the mid 90s and it was later purchase and further developed in a joint venture by Santa Cruz and Intense.
Early version stress an axle path that took in an s curve. so the wheel at first moved back then up then forward...
DW. Dave Weagal took into consideration the actual weight distributions of a rider pedalling and came up with his version.
Maestro: the cynical among us will tell you Giant seen the DW and modified it just enough to get around DW patents... But the maestro relies on different pivot placements and wheel paths so that not really fair
Each system will come with a bunch of marketing gumph which is just that. Recent axle path analysis I've seen all conclude that even the modern versions of the VP and DW have pretty basic alxe paths that are 5 fifth of freak all different to that of a high placed single pivot.
Bottom line is all the really bad suspension designs (like unified rear triangle) were tried and failed in the 80s and 90s and are now really only seen on supermarket bikes.
The designs you find on up market bikes all work well, though mostly not for the reasons the marketeers baffle us with.
A paper worth checking out is
http://www.rdrop.com/~/twest/mtb/pathAnalysis/
Chapter 5 talks about bogus marketing claims.
Thank you very much for the pointer - it looks more interesting.