Hi. I'm gonna introduce myself to the forum with a pet peeve of mine.
"Faux bar" seems to be the label for bikes with four bar linkages with the rear lower pivot on the seatstay instead of on the chainstay (Horst Link). Well, a "four bar linkage" is just an engineering principle that includes both varieties of swingarm designs, so a "faux bar" is a "four bar" just as much as a Horst link bike.
I wish the mag(s) would stop talking about "faux bars".
It is a nice try but you need to rant in an incomprehensible manner about something we know nothing about and is beyong our understanding.
Sadly your post is lucid, reasonable and well thought out.
Hi. I'm gonna introduce myself to the forum ...........
But you've been on this forum for years 
Or was the previous 'Dazed' a 'faux' Dazed 
Heh. Yeah, well. i might have been registered before. I just renewed my subscription and DL'ed a few back issues I'd missed, and got a little annoyed by all the talk about "Faux bars". Not a trolling attempt or anything. 
simple.. stop reading magazines
Faux bar is not the same as four bar however - you do not have the same control of the axle path - ie the rear dropout is not floating. Faux bar is simple single pivot / swinging arm with a linkage to work the shock
YOu are right however in that is sloppy terminology to make it sound scientific and interesting. There is only 3 basic ways of doing rear suspension. Swinging fork ( single pivot) Double wishbone ( four bar and varients) and sliding member ( plunger frames on old motorcycles)
You then add in how you wish to work the shock - direct or by linkages.
all sus designs are variants on these - making the linkages longer or shorter etc
it seems to me a valid distinction. 4 bar attempts to give a more vertical axle path under flexion. Faux bar is essentially single pivot with a circular arc axle path.
I don't think it's sloppy engineering at all. If you were to call them both 4-bars how would you distinguish them? Why can bikes not have a language that differs from other industries?
Faux bar is simple single pivot. Horst links usually make *** all differnce to asle path anyway - the point (unless you believe Specialised et all's marketing/lies) is to stop brake jack.
As GW says it's mostly there to give the mags/designers some BS to spin us.
Point is they ARE both four bar linkages. The kind people like to call "faux bar" just has the rear lower pivot on the seatstay, so It's practically a single pivot with a linkage driven shock absorber. The kind called FSR, ICT or Horst Link has the lower rear pivot on the chainstay, making it possible to tune the axle path. (But with most manufacturers placing the pivot so close to the rear dropout instead of more forward and down the way Horst Leitner did back in the day, the difference to "faux bars" is really negligible.)
I get the point of having two names for the designs to distinguish between them, but then one of the names probably shouldn't be the name of a linkage design that both variants conforms to.
but then one of the names probably shouldn't be the name of a linkage design that both variants conforms to.
how about "faux" bar and "foo" bar ??
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
