Anyone have any ideas why the arms of the rear suspension doesn't just hinge from the bottom bracket? But instead from another bearing fixing on the frame.
I would imagine, give or take a few modifications, this would be much easier.
Any ideas? Only thing I can think of it to give a certain angle from the bearing to the rear wheel.
Some systems do that - the Kona A (or is it AA?)
But they don't pedal great as the tension in the upper part of the drivetrain tries to compress the suspension on every pedal stroke. This makes the bike squat, and the bike also squats when you thump down on the pedals, so you get a "double squatting" action.
Pedal-efficient suspension systems try to combat weight induced bobbing with chain tension to counteract one against the other.
Also - the lower the pivot point, the worse the bike reacts to square edge hits, as the axle path needs to move the wheel out of the way, rather than... well...
So
Could go on, but need to go buy some tea.
[url= http://www.rdrop.com/~/twest/mtb/pathAnalysis/ ]"path analysis"[/url]
Some of this stuff makes sense if i stare it for a really long time..
Ahh I see. Thanks for that, I haven't really rode any of these style suspension systems but I can understand that now. So to combat the "double squatting" that is what the system such as the DW Link eliminate, with the extra linkage.
Would you say the ideal axle path would be to move more backwards that upwards? (If that makes sense).
In hunting around I found; [url= http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/buyers-guide-to-mountain-bike-suspension-part-2-28438/ ]axle paths[/url]
I'm doing research into engineering out these limitations, focusing mainly on kick back, pedal bob or whatever you want to call it.
Ahh just the sort of thing I have been looking for angryratio!
Thinking into minimising kick back/loss of energy through pedalling, I would presume the ideal axle path would start out as horizonal/backwards as possible.
For anyone interested, further and a bit clearer report looking into this kind of thing; [url= http://www.webanza.com/bikereport.pdf ]USEFUL![/url]
I found this software useful when i was looking at suspension designs, [url= http://www.bikechecker.com/ ]linkage.[/url]
Yes very useful, have the demo version at the moment, if it is as easy to use as it suggests I am thinking of getting the full version. Did you pay or manage to find it elsewhere for free? 🙄
I got paid for the personal version, can't remember how much I paid, I see it's $25 now.
I would presume the ideal axle path would start out as horizonal/backwards as possible.
Dunno if it's ideal, depends I suppose, but I think the Marin quad system was a bit like that...
Another piece of suspension analysis software, free and web based but quite basic; [url= http://www.bikeforest.com/CAD/fsCAD.html ]BikeCAD[/url]
Yes I think different manufacturers lean more towards a certain style, i.e. Kona always use the same style, but I think this must be forced purely by the style of riding the brand is attached to.
So some setups will more than likely have what I would describe as a vertical initial movement in the axle path, I would say these were more for downhill bikes taking in multiple hits and not much pedalling force. Whereas the opposite of this I would say would be horizontal initial axle path, not taking many hits and a lot more pedal force, would lend itself towards XC riding.