I doubt its an inerter, its not connect to the lower legs, so only way it could be if its a oil based j-damper (McLarens code...
I doubt its an inerter, its not connect to the lower legs, so only way it could be if its a oil based j-damper (McLarens code for their original oil based inerter) running of the airpsring shaft somehow, way too complicated.
I think it could be there to monitor the airspring pressures for telemetry (explains why its bolted to air spring side.
Inerters aren't needed on a MTB, its what arms and legs are for.
I doubt its an inerter, its not connect to the lower legs, so only way it could be if its a oil based j-damper (McLarens code...
I doubt its an inerter, its not connect to the lower legs, so only way it could be if its a oil based j-damper (McLarens code for their original oil based inerter) running of the airpsring shaft somehow, way too complicated.
I think it could be there to monitor the airspring pressures for telemetry (explains why its bolted to air spring side.
Inerters aren't needed on a MTB, its what arms and legs are for.
Doubt it. The block is unsprung on the rear but sprung on the front. It would also have to be a tuned mass damper to achieve...
Doubt it. The block is unsprung on the rear but sprung on the front. It would also have to be a tuned mass damper to achieve this functionality and I think a tuned mass damper might be quite heavy to do anything, depending on the frequencies that were intended to be filtered out.
To be completely honest, not thinking it through completely, I don't see much of a use for an interter-type unit on a mountainbike, except for pedalling performance. In F1 (and prototypes) Inerters were used to take off the spikes in forces in suspension to ensure as constant force as possible on the tyre patch as that gave the most grip. And I think one of the effects was it made the car seem much heavier to the suspension than it actually was, effectively improving the sprung/unsprung ratio.
Seen a number of motogp bikes a few years back with them on the rear swingarm, have also seen them in the rear tail section. Would be interesting to see the test results of each location. My thought is that the inertia damper is to counteract noise when the suspension is in more of an unweighted position
I wonder why they chose the DHF MaxxTerra Exo+ over the much better Assegai MaxxGrip Exo+. Note that the rear tire they chose is a DHR...
I wonder why they chose the DHF MaxxTerra Exo+ over the much better Assegai MaxxGrip Exo+. Note that the rear tire they chose is a DHR MaxxGrip. I can't imagine the price going significantly higher if they chose the Assegai over the DHF (someone please correct me if I'm wrong).
16.35kg OOTB is pretty good these days for a solid aluminum bruiser bike. A few key upgrades down the line can easily shave this down to about 15kg.
Because when have bike companies ever actually specced tires in a way that makes sense
The front and rear thing are not necessarily the same device. The rear thing looks like a rubber hose or grip zip tied over something to protect it. Might be an accelerometer, quite large for one tho. Could be a wheel speed sensor, or a pressure transducer for brake force? The way it's sticking up so far might be relevant. If its a post mounted to the frame rigidly with an accelerometer at top and bottom and a front triangle mounted one, they could compare the readings to to see how much torsional flex is occurring in the frames rear. To be honest I have no idea if this would work in the real world or if the data would be just too noisy. It'd be comparing only lateral accelerations relative to each other. Vertical displacement is measured by the lvdt on the shock. Tuning flex is a big deal, they have swap out seat stay braces to alter the frames torsional stiffness, but I don't know if they can data log it directly or just go by rider feel. Like isolating torsional flex without using strain gauges and calibrating it to a given frame so x reading from strain gauge equates to y torsional displacement. The accelerometers would be far simpler than strain gauge but less precise, and again might not work at all. And neither method accounts for wheel flex, which is a big part of it.
For the thing on the fork? It's probably not a pressure transducer for the air spring, like shock wiz does. They already have the lvdt (or whatever it is) on the other side of the fork to record the travel more accurately than a shock wiz type device does via gas laws and some calibration. It's got to be something for data logging.
Edit: Actually it'd require a pair of accelerometers on the main frame too to cancel out lean in. Or... you know, they just ziptied some random crap to a bike to keep people guessing.
The front and rear thing are not necessarily the same device. The rear thing looks like a rubber hose or grip zip tied over something to...
The front and rear thing are not necessarily the same device. The rear thing looks like a rubber hose or grip zip tied over something to protect it. Might be an accelerometer, quite large for one tho. Could be a wheel speed sensor, or a pressure transducer for brake force? The way it's sticking up so far might be relevant. If its a post mounted to the frame rigidly with an accelerometer at top and bottom and a front triangle mounted one, they could compare the readings to to see how much torsional flex is occurring in the frames rear. To be honest I have no idea if this would work in the real world or if the data would be just too noisy. It'd be comparing only lateral accelerations relative to each other. Vertical displacement is measured by the lvdt on the shock. Tuning flex is a big deal, they have swap out seat stay braces to alter the frames torsional stiffness, but I don't know if they can data log it directly or just go by rider feel. Like isolating torsional flex without using strain gauges and calibrating it to a given frame so x reading from strain gauge equates to y torsional displacement. The accelerometers would be far simpler than strain gauge but less precise, and again might not work at all. And neither method accounts for wheel flex, which is a big part of it.
For the thing on the fork? It's probably not a pressure transducer for the air spring, like shock wiz does. They already have the lvdt (or whatever it is) on the other side of the fork to record the travel more accurately than a shock wiz type device does via gas laws and some calibration. It's got to be something for data logging.
Edit: Actually it'd require a pair of accelerometers on the main frame too to cancel out lean in. Or... you know, they just ziptied some random crap to a bike to keep people guessing.
The two accelerometer idea, the post connecting them would influence the measurement much more than just using a gyroscope (a MEMS device) directly on the frame. And you don't have the issue of measurement synchronisation as well (always a pain when acquiring data off multiple sensors).
But, as you alluded, even a gyro would be influenced by bike lean. And using two gives you the same issue as you have with the accelerometers.
You can easily and precisely measure flex on a fixture. If you use strain gauges all over the frame when doing the measurements, you can also calibrate the strain gauges to certain flex values or to a 3D model. If you have enough of them you can even recreate loadings from the field in your finite element model to see what the external loads are like and use that when developing the next bike.
The two accelerometer idea, the post connecting them would influence the measurement much more than just using a gyroscope (a MEMS device) directly on the frame...
The two accelerometer idea, the post connecting them would influence the measurement much more than just using a gyroscope (a MEMS device) directly on the frame. And you don't have the issue of measurement synchronisation as well (always a pain when acquiring data off multiple sensors).
But, as you alluded, even a gyro would be influenced by bike lean. And using two gives you the same issue as you have with the accelerometers.
You can easily and precisely measure flex on a fixture. If you use strain gauges all over the frame when doing the measurements, you can also calibrate the strain gauges to certain flex values or to a 3D model. If you have enough of them you can even recreate loadings from the field in your finite element model to see what the external loads are like and use that when developing the next bike.
Two gyros that measures roll, (like yaw pitch roll) one the front triangle and one on the rear near axle, would work as well. The roll of the front triangle would be subtracted from the rear, thus giving torsional flex. The accelerometers would be two on front triangle two on rear arranged vertically, so four total. Either way: sample rate, accuracy, and synchronicity (as you said) would have to be very good to get useful data. Probably not what's going on here, but it's an idea.
The two accelerometer idea, the post connecting them would influence the measurement much more than just using a gyroscope (a MEMS device) directly on the frame...
The two accelerometer idea, the post connecting them would influence the measurement much more than just using a gyroscope (a MEMS device) directly on the frame. And you don't have the issue of measurement synchronisation as well (always a pain when acquiring data off multiple sensors).
But, as you alluded, even a gyro would be influenced by bike lean. And using two gives you the same issue as you have with the accelerometers.
You can easily and precisely measure flex on a fixture. If you use strain gauges all over the frame when doing the measurements, you can also calibrate the strain gauges to certain flex values or to a 3D model. If you have enough of them you can even recreate loadings from the field in your finite element model to see what the external loads are like and use that when developing the next bike.
Two gyros that measures roll, (like yaw pitch roll) one the front triangle and one on the rear near axle, would work as well. The roll...
Two gyros that measures roll, (like yaw pitch roll) one the front triangle and one on the rear near axle, would work as well. The roll of the front triangle would be subtracted from the rear, thus giving torsional flex. The accelerometers would be two on front triangle two on rear arranged vertically, so four total. Either way: sample rate, accuracy, and synchronicity (as you said) would have to be very good to get useful data. Probably not what's going on here, but it's an idea.
Works in theory, but I would not expect any usefull data from the MEMS inertial measurements units in such dynamic and noisy environment.
Don't have experience with MEMS gyros, but if it can be made in millions of units to handle airbags, ABS and ESC in cars, I'm sure it's possible to make a sensor precise enough to handle a mountainbike riding down a hillside.
Don't have experience with MEMS gyros, but if it can be made in millions of units to handle airbags, ABS and ESC in cars, I'm sure...
Don't have experience with MEMS gyros, but if it can be made in millions of units to handle airbags, ABS and ESC in cars, I'm sure it's possible to make a sensor precise enough to handle a mountainbike riding down a hillside.
I doubt its an inerter, its not connect to the lower legs, so only way it could be if its a oil based j-damper (McLarens code...
I doubt its an inerter, its not connect to the lower legs, so only way it could be if its a oil based j-damper (McLarens code for their original oil based inerter) running of the airpsring shaft somehow, way too complicated.
I think it could be there to monitor the airspring pressures for telemetry (explains why its bolted to air spring side.
Inerters aren't needed on a MTB, its what arms and legs are for.
Size and position makes sense. I haven't seen somebody use them before on a MTB, wouldn't the front one need to be on the lower leg though (mounted to the unsprung mass)
Looks like Kilian Bron has the new Meta on Remy Metailler's latest YT vid. New colour way(?) and definitely has headset routing. Either that, or it's still the proto (filmed before Remy got injured).
*Edit* - Or is it darn aggressive riding on a Tempo? Looks like it's got a bit of a kink in the top tube.
Looks like Kilian Bron has the new Meta on Remy Metailler's latest YT vid. New colour way(?) and definitely has headset routing. Either that, or it's...
Looks like Kilian Bron has the new Meta on Remy Metailler's latest YT vid. New colour way(?) and definitely has headset routing. Either that, or it's still the proto (filmed before Remy got injured).
*Edit* - Or is it darn aggressive riding on a Tempo? Looks like it's got a bit of a kink in the top tube.
Looks like Kilian Bron has the new Meta on Remy Metailler's latest YT vid. New colour way(?) and definitely has headset routing. Either that, or it's...
Looks like Kilian Bron has the new Meta on Remy Metailler's latest YT vid. New colour way(?) and definitely has headset routing. Either that, or it's still the proto (filmed before Remy got injured).
*Edit* - Or is it darn aggressive riding on a Tempo? Looks like it's got a bit of a kink in the top tube.
The new lever body seems to match the shape of the new stealth levers. What stood out to me is bleed port plug that matches the one found on the DB8, which uses mineral oil and makes me believe there’s some truth behind the switch to mineral oil.
Because the DHF/DHR2 is the best tire combination in the history of 2 wheels.
I will not be convinced of anything otherwise. A 991 911 may be better than a c4 vett in every possible metric, but it’s not a motherfuckin c4 vett.
I was aiming at the tests done last year with the shapely, red caliper with paint splots on it, those were ran with standard Code RSC levers.
Telemetry doesn't explain the rear one though...
really looks like an e-bike…
Looks like a tunable mass damper of sorts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afa9L2ocZPY
Like that motorcycle tech.
Could it just be a way of measuring travel at the wheel rather than at the shock?
Might be wrong but think that its just a fr 541 wheelset
Seen a number of motogp bikes a few years back with them on the rear swingarm, have also seen them in the rear tail section. Would be interesting to see the test results of each location. My thought is that the inertia damper is to counteract noise when the suspension is in more of an unweighted position
Because when have bike companies ever actually specced tires in a way that makes sense
The front and rear thing are not necessarily the same device. The rear thing looks like a rubber hose or grip zip tied over something to protect it. Might be an accelerometer, quite large for one tho. Could be a wheel speed sensor, or a pressure transducer for brake force? The way it's sticking up so far might be relevant. If its a post mounted to the frame rigidly with an accelerometer at top and bottom and a front triangle mounted one, they could compare the readings to to see how much torsional flex is occurring in the frames rear. To be honest I have no idea if this would work in the real world or if the data would be just too noisy. It'd be comparing only lateral accelerations relative to each other. Vertical displacement is measured by the lvdt on the shock. Tuning flex is a big deal, they have swap out seat stay braces to alter the frames torsional stiffness, but I don't know if they can data log it directly or just go by rider feel. Like isolating torsional flex without using strain gauges and calibrating it to a given frame so x reading from strain gauge equates to y torsional displacement. The accelerometers would be far simpler than strain gauge but less precise, and again might not work at all. And neither method accounts for wheel flex, which is a big part of it.
For the thing on the fork? It's probably not a pressure transducer for the air spring, like shock wiz does. They already have the lvdt (or whatever it is) on the other side of the fork to record the travel more accurately than a shock wiz type device does via gas laws and some calibration. It's got to be something for data logging.
Edit: Actually it'd require a pair of accelerometers on the main frame too to cancel out lean in. Or... you know, they just ziptied some random crap to a bike to keep people guessing.
Spotted this cap on Marmalades bike, any clues? My guess is a bottle cap…
Are we safe to assume this is an aluminum Spartan HP? If so, why the different name?
And why not make it a freeride/park bike with 180ish mm of travel?
motion instruments fork cap for mounting telemetry
https://motioninstruments.com/collections/enduro/products/mips-200-moun…
Ah! Recognized the logo but could´t figure. Thanks!
The two accelerometer idea, the post connecting them would influence the measurement much more than just using a gyroscope (a MEMS device) directly on the frame. And you don't have the issue of measurement synchronisation as well (always a pain when acquiring data off multiple sensors).
But, as you alluded, even a gyro would be influenced by bike lean. And using two gives you the same issue as you have with the accelerometers.
You can easily and precisely measure flex on a fixture. If you use strain gauges all over the frame when doing the measurements, you can also calibrate the strain gauges to certain flex values or to a 3D model. If you have enough of them you can even recreate loadings from the field in your finite element model to see what the external loads are like and use that when developing the next bike.
As for the name, #LongLiveChainsaw.
Two gyros that measures roll, (like yaw pitch roll) one the front triangle and one on the rear near axle, would work as well. The roll of the front triangle would be subtracted from the rear, thus giving torsional flex. The accelerometers would be two on front triangle two on rear arranged vertically, so four total. Either way: sample rate, accuracy, and synchronicity (as you said) would have to be very good to get useful data. Probably not what's going on here, but it's an idea.
Works in theory, but I would not expect any usefull data from the MEMS inertial measurements units in such dynamic and noisy environment.
The strain gauges could be way more precise tho
Don't have experience with MEMS gyros, but if it can be made in millions of units to handle airbags, ABS and ESC in cars, I'm sure it's possible to make a sensor precise enough to handle a mountainbike riding down a hillside.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsjvaYAFN1M
Man I just gotta ask- how do you know something about everything? lol
Thats actually a good idea,
Size and position makes sense. I haven't seen somebody use them before on a MTB, wouldn't the front one need to be on the lower leg though (mounted to the unsprung mass)
Looks like Kilian Bron has the new Meta on Remy Metailler's latest YT vid. New colour way(?) and definitely has headset routing. Either that, or it's still the proto (filmed before Remy got injured).
*Edit* - Or is it darn aggressive riding on a Tempo? Looks like it's got a bit of a kink in the top tube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSLPMRx5ET0&t=276s
Enhance:
Ha ha. Your CSI skills are much better than mine.
New SRAM brake levers to go with the new callipers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R47lxfLHm-g
Looks very similar, but the stealth levers have angled hose and the levers installed alongside with the new "Mave" calipers have straight hose.
The new lever body seems to match the shape of the new stealth levers. What stood out to me is bleed port plug that matches the one found on the DB8, which uses mineral oil and makes me believe there’s some truth behind the switch to mineral oil.
pole e-bike goods
pole e-bike bads
It's a brake lever. A goddamned two piece brake lever.
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation