Well...it is a little too late for a bike launch...
don't know what to say. From what I have seen, these were the dates. Specifically, these dates..., not plus one day, not minus
re: statuses, the big (i mean huge) specialized dealer here didn't get a single one. was told they went to places like bellingham and santa cruz area. it's a perfect shred sled for all the dirt jumpy/bike parks here. i can only imagine there are none left.
Well...it is a little too late for a bike launch...:silly: don't know what to say. From what I have seen, these were the dates. Specifically, these...
Well...it is a little too late for a bike launch...
don't know what to say. From what I have seen, these were the dates. Specifically, these dates..., not plus one day, not minus
FYI, all the A2C and slammed stem riders, the handlebars are back in the original position. But the BB and the seat (seat tube angle most importantly) are not. I'd prefer a handlebar height change to a seat tube angle change. Slackening the STA and putting the handlebars back closes the hip joint (the angle). Doing it the other way around just opens it, which is supposedly beneficial for most people.
Following all the fork A2C stuff, and the fact the New Shore is 27.5 only, I decided to do some quick Maths and figure out what would happen if you try to mullet it. The Press release says no, but what do bike designers know? There's also one with a 200mm boxxer which really made this worth some work time. So with a 38 29 from you get 1.5° slacker, 12mm higher BB, 17mm shorter reach, when compared to the fox 38 27.5 version. So 61.1 HA but a 453 reach on a large,and the overall stack height is approx 30mm higher than before. You could of course go to a 170mm and a zeb or Boxxer as they have smaller ac2 but that was enough of a rabbit hole
Following all the fork A2C stuff, and the fact the New Shore is 27.5 only, I decided to do some quick Maths and figure out what...
Following all the fork A2C stuff, and the fact the New Shore is 27.5 only, I decided to do some quick Maths and figure out what would happen if you try to mullet it. The Press release says no, but what do bike designers know? There's also one with a 200mm boxxer which really made this worth some work time. So with a 38 29 from you get 1.5° slacker, 12mm higher BB, 17mm shorter reach, when compared to the fox 38 27.5 version. So 61.1 HA but a 453 reach on a large,and the overall stack height is approx 30mm higher than before. You could of course go to a 170mm and a zeb or Boxxer as they have smaller ac2 but that was enough of a rabbit hole
When I 180-ed my Sanction, I used off-set bushings to get the BB umder control. I sacrificed some reach but, personally, I hate the feel of a high (bb)bike.
Looks like it, yeah, but doesn't look like a split pivot like all the other Devincis. The catch is that the retail Wilson is effectively a high pivot bike with a BB concentric rocker driving the shock and the brake mounted to the (floating link) chainstay. So still a split pivot. This proto is likely the same in regards to the rocker, but not in regards to the brake link setup.
Following all the fork A2C stuff, and the fact the New Shore is 27.5 only, I decided to do some quick Maths and figure out what...
Following all the fork A2C stuff, and the fact the New Shore is 27.5 only, I decided to do some quick Maths and figure out what would happen if you try to mullet it. The Press release says no, but what do bike designers know? There's also one with a 200mm boxxer which really made this worth some work time. So with a 38 29 from you get 1.5° slacker, 12mm higher BB, 17mm shorter reach, when compared to the fox 38 27.5 version. So 61.1 HA but a 453 reach on a large,and the overall stack height is approx 30mm higher than before. You could of course go to a 170mm and a zeb or Boxxer as they have smaller ac2 but that was enough of a rabbit hole
It is a split pivot, yeah, visible in the additional photos if you blow up the brightness of the photo.
Supposedly Trek did the ABP on their own at the same time. Plus they used a full floater shock as well, which was their official differentiation to the whole thing.
As for stealing, Commencal also did it with the first gen clash, so...
Ah, didn't know about the Split Pivot/ABP timeline.
As for the DW link, if I understood the patent correctly, the gist of it is that going through the travel, the IC moves towards the lower link and is positioned between the two pivots of the lower link at the end of the travel. That's how I understood the patent. If that is true, looking at some of the 'DW link' bikes, that can not be true as the upper link rotates way more than that and the IC actually should come out the back of the lower link and into the rear wheel.
Supposedly if you do not enforce a patent, it can 'fail' (competitors have grounds to claim that you did not enforce it in other cases, if you do enforce in their case), but I don't know what it means if you're marketing something as X when it's not actually the same as the patent. A grammatical/legality detail, where you market it as X, but the original thing that was patented was Y, where originally X=Y, but X is not Y anymore?
Thanks guys, now I see it. So this is a true high pivot bike as far as wheel path goes, but with the braking tunability of an horst link. Really nice, I always wondered why Devinci didn't go for an high pivot on the current wilson. I wish they would get rid of the shock extension though, but it looks like it might not be a pita as before on this bike.
Like I mentioned, the retail Wilson already is a relatively high pivot bike, just without an idler. It was the same for the old Gambler, that had the single pivot arrangement with it also relatively high.
With this proto the pivot location moved up even further, making an idler necessary to prevent pedal kickback and not have the antisquat too high.
As for horst link (brake-wise) and high pivot, nobody ever said a high pivot needs to be a single pivot, it's just that the majority of bikes with a high pivot are single pivots (Norco's incoming bikes are not, for example). I'm guessing it's much easier to tune a high pivot and the idler position with a single pivot (less variables), but I think you do get benefits with a 4-bar high pivot bike - less brake squat. With the high pivot nomenclature here indicating a rearward axle path. The pivots can actually be in locations close to what we currently use for 'normal' bikes, it's just the kinematics that are different.
Like I mentioned, the retail Wilson already is a relatively high pivot bike, just without an idler. It was the same for the old Gambler, that...
Like I mentioned, the retail Wilson already is a relatively high pivot bike, just without an idler. It was the same for the old Gambler, that had the single pivot arrangement with it also relatively high.
With this proto the pivot location moved up even further, making an idler necessary to prevent pedal kickback and not have the antisquat too high.
As for horst link (brake-wise) and high pivot, nobody ever said a high pivot needs to be a single pivot, it's just that the majority of bikes with a high pivot are single pivots (Norco's incoming bikes are not, for example). I'm guessing it's much easier to tune a high pivot and the idler position with a single pivot (less variables), but I think you do get benefits with a 4-bar high pivot bike - less brake squat. With the high pivot nomenclature here indicating a rearward axle path. The pivots can actually be in locations close to what we currently use for 'normal' bikes, it's just the kinematics that are different.
It puzzles me how, and why, ppl deter the rearward axle path. It makes for such a good and complying ride, that the overall quality of riding is increased for the better.
It puzzles me how, and why, ppl deter the rearward axle path. It makes for such a good and complying ride, that the overall quality of...
It puzzles me how, and why, ppl deter the rearward axle path. It makes for such a good and complying ride, that the overall quality of riding is increased for the better.
Most likely due to the aversion to chain growth and the use of idlers that has prevailed until now. Since the Supreme has started winning, the trend towards high pivots has been returning. I'm keen to see a new refinement of the dual link high pivot arrangement like the Jedi used.
It puzzles me how, and why, ppl deter the rearward axle path. It makes for such a good and complying ride, that the overall quality of...
It puzzles me how, and why, ppl deter the rearward axle path. It makes for such a good and complying ride, that the overall quality of riding is increased for the better.
A too rearward axle path makes for more chain growth, change in geometry throughout the travel etc. For downhill it seems to be quite good, but it still is not something we see a lot in pedal oriented bikes. Slight rearward axle path in the beginning is not that bad, though. Yeti's Switch (Infinity) is an example of this.
You ever ridden a high pivot bike in the carpark. It’s the worst thing ever. You wouldn’t believe how much the carpark test plays in sales. As ridiculous as it sounds.
You ever ridden a high pivot bike in the carpark. It’s the worst thing ever. You wouldn’t believe how much the carpark test plays in sales...
You ever ridden a high pivot bike in the carpark. It’s the worst thing ever. You wouldn’t believe how much the carpark test plays in sales. As ridiculous as it sounds.
Daamn, it seems that, for such a long time, I've been doing it totally wrong, using carparks only to park my car.
It puzzles me how, and why, ppl deter the rearward axle path. It makes for such a good and complying ride, that the overall quality of...
It puzzles me how, and why, ppl deter the rearward axle path. It makes for such a good and complying ride, that the overall quality of riding is increased for the better.
Most likely due to the aversion to chain growth and the use of idlers that has prevailed until now. Since the Supreme has started winning, the...
Most likely due to the aversion to chain growth and the use of idlers that has prevailed until now. Since the Supreme has started winning, the trend towards high pivots has been returning. I'm keen to see a new refinement of the dual link high pivot arrangement like the Jedi used.
I really liked the aos system..more so than the i-drive i was using at the time. Too bad though that all aos bikes where a let down from geometry pov, especially for my constitution/height.
Pretty much all of the tests and reviews are praising Forbiddens, which are pedal oriented high pivots...
Also about the patents, it should be noted that the US and EU laws are pretty different, in EU you can only patent something that is "new and inovative", so when Specialized tried to patent FSR in EU as in US they've been told something like its just another suspension design and were rejected... so thats why likes of YT and canyon were unable to sell their bikes to US in early days, but can do so now because the patent expired a couple of years ago...
Pretty much all of the tests and reviews are praising Forbiddens, which are pedal oriented high pivots...
Also about the patents, it should be noted that...
Pretty much all of the tests and reviews are praising Forbiddens, which are pedal oriented high pivots...
Also about the patents, it should be noted that the US and EU laws are pretty different, in EU you can only patent something that is "new and inovative", so when Specialized tried to patent FSR in EU as in US they've been told something like its just another suspension design and were rejected... so thats why likes of YT and canyon were unable to sell their bikes to US in early days, but can do so now because the patent expired a couple of years ago...
FSR is not Specialized's invention FFS! It is called a Horst Link, which was patented by Horst Leitner. He shared the IP with Karl Nicolai, and owned the rights in the US. Horst did at some point need money and sold his patent to Specialized, which acted as normal for Specialized and enforced it like bullys all over North America (like f-ing up Titus). In Europe, Karl Nicolai didn't give a shit, and everyone could use Horst links in their designs, but not sell them in the US.
There are also lots of patents in Europe, which are enforced. Kavenz did have to change their idler position due to a patent.
Like I mentioned, the retail Wilson already is a relatively high pivot bike, just without an idler. It was the same for the old Gambler, that...
Like I mentioned, the retail Wilson already is a relatively high pivot bike, just without an idler. It was the same for the old Gambler, that had the single pivot arrangement with it also relatively high.
With this proto the pivot location moved up even further, making an idler necessary to prevent pedal kickback and not have the antisquat too high.
As for horst link (brake-wise) and high pivot, nobody ever said a high pivot needs to be a single pivot, it's just that the majority of bikes with a high pivot are single pivots (Norco's incoming bikes are not, for example). I'm guessing it's much easier to tune a high pivot and the idler position with a single pivot (less variables), but I think you do get benefits with a 4-bar high pivot bike - less brake squat. With the high pivot nomenclature here indicating a rearward axle path. The pivots can actually be in locations close to what we currently use for 'normal' bikes, it's just the kinematics that are different.
It puzzles me how, and why, ppl deter the rearward axle path. It makes for such a good and complying ride, that the overall quality of...
It puzzles me how, and why, ppl deter the rearward axle path. It makes for such a good and complying ride, that the overall quality of riding is increased for the better.
Most suspension designs are equally meant for going reasonably slow whether it be climbing, flatter terrain, Or your more fit but less skilled user. Those type of bikes are very plush and extremely quick when going fast but can feel pretty damped compared to a bike which moves forward and up in it’s travel. I’d love to see some a company play with a suspension design which progressively had more rearward travel. I’d sacrifice some small bump sensitivity for some liveliness but would love for some of that feeling when casing a jump, in rock gardens, or pushing the rear wheel thru flat corners.
re: statuses, the big (i mean huge) specialized dealer here didn't get a single one. was told they went to places like bellingham and santa cruz area. it's a perfect shred sled for all the dirt jumpy/bike parks here. i can only imagine there are none left.
Is it a single pivot? Looks like the rear pivot is on the chainstay/swingarm, but I can't really tell
Supposedly Trek did the ABP on their own at the same time. Plus they used a full floater shock as well, which was their official differentiation to the whole thing.
As for stealing, Commencal also did it with the first gen clash, so...
https://www.bicycleretailer.com/north-america/2012/09/07/weagle-sues-tr…
DW did not win, though:
https://www.vitalmtb.com/news/news/Judge-Rules-Treks-ABP-Design-Does-No…
As for the DW link, if I understood the patent correctly, the gist of it is that going through the travel, the IC moves towards the lower link and is positioned between the two pivots of the lower link at the end of the travel. That's how I understood the patent. If that is true, looking at some of the 'DW link' bikes, that can not be true as the upper link rotates way more than that and the IC actually should come out the back of the lower link and into the rear wheel.
Supposedly if you do not enforce a patent, it can 'fail' (competitors have grounds to claim that you did not enforce it in other cases, if you do enforce in their case), but I don't know what it means if you're marketing something as X when it's not actually the same as the patent. A grammatical/legality detail, where you market it as X, but the original thing that was patented was Y, where originally X=Y, but X is not Y anymore?
With this proto the pivot location moved up even further, making an idler necessary to prevent pedal kickback and not have the antisquat too high.
As for horst link (brake-wise) and high pivot, nobody ever said a high pivot needs to be a single pivot, it's just that the majority of bikes with a high pivot are single pivots (Norco's incoming bikes are not, for example). I'm guessing it's much easier to tune a high pivot and the idler position with a single pivot (less variables), but I think you do get benefits with a 4-bar high pivot bike - less brake squat. With the high pivot nomenclature here indicating a rearward axle path. The pivots can actually be in locations close to what we currently use for 'normal' bikes, it's just the kinematics that are different.
Also about the patents, it should be noted that the US and EU laws are pretty different, in EU you can only patent something that is "new and inovative", so when Specialized tried to patent FSR in EU as in US they've been told something like its just another suspension design and were rejected... so thats why likes of YT and canyon were unable to sell their bikes to US in early days, but can do so now because the patent expired a couple of years ago...
There are also lots of patents in Europe, which are enforced. Kavenz did have to change their idler position due to a patent.
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation