Review: Motion Instruments System 2 Data Acquisition Kit
Data acquisition is becoming more commonplace, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a serious racer who hasn't experimented with it. For your more casual rider, though, there have been barriers to overcome before benefiting from using it. Motion Instruments has tried to make acquisition more accessible to more riders by making a cheaper, user-friendly system that's easier to live with.
System 2 Details
• Waterproof tracers
• Bluetooth Operation
• Electronic position sensing fork tracer
• Rear sensor uses link rotation to plot axle position
• $499 USD
• motioninstruments.com
• Waterproof tracers
• Bluetooth Operation
• Electronic position sensing fork tracer
• Rear sensor uses link rotation to plot axle position
• $499 USD
• motioninstruments.com
The Sensors
System 2, which uses two independent tracers that run on rechargeable batteries and are read via a Bluetooth connection to your mobile phone, put the emphasis on ease of use and simplicity. The fork tracer is a very tidy bit of kit and does without the membrane roller system that tends to attract dirt or wear. Instead, it uses electronic position sensing with no wearing of electromechanical components.
Simply put, a flat, plastic rod passes through a slot attached to the lower. This has advantages not only in longevity but also in terms of alignment and cleaning. Both tracers are 100% waterproof, which means not only you can ride in the slop but also wash your bike care-free afterwards. The top of the tracer mounts using a custom air valve cover to clamp down on the sensor on to the top of the fork. Should you be using dual-crown forks, there is another clamping style.
While the front sensor is a reimagined version of the rods that you're familiar with, the rear sensor is something else altogether. It's a clever device that manages to avoid some of the pitfalls of normal systems. That said, it is also compromised in certain aspects.
The rear tracer can be fitted with several different sizes of Allen key fitments to secure to the centre of your frame's main pivot. You then clamp down the wing of the sensor on the rocker itself, set the position at 0% travel, and again at 100%. Once the system knows these two extreme positions, it can work out where you are in the stroke. There are limitations, however. Firstly, this won't work on bikes where the main rocker is concealed behind another piece of the frame, or at least it will work less effectively. For best accuracy, the link with the most rotation will be best. Secondly, because you set the end position, it's limited by the stiff elastomers that you can find in some shocks. However, every system has drawbacks, and not worrying about alignment makes for a very quick and easy install. Motion Instruments also say that this solution is stop gap, and they hope to one day have a bank of bikes with all the leverage curves saved, meaning you can just fit the part, select the bike and you're good to go.
System 2 also does without external cables or a central box. Again, this makes installation far easier. The tracers can be used by themselves, but for a system that puts so much emphasis on balance, it might undermine it to an extent.
The Software
The MotionIQ app gives riders plenty to go on. Used via a mobile app on iPhone, iPad, Mac or Android, it shows you all you could need to know regarding position, balance, axle speed. Whenever I use data acquisition, how much learning I have left to do always strikes me. Maybe that feeling never goes away. That said, I think the data-led approach will work better for people who already have a decent understanding of different types of graphs and technical language. While the app does a good job of breaking down the information for the more casual user, I think it's best to go into using it, anticipating that it will be a new skill to learn and not something that confirms things you already know.
System 2 also uses the GPS function of your phone. That means you can drop in as soon as the sensors are connected. The recorded data is then overlayed on a map. This is particularly useful if only to remember which run is which.
The software is free when purchasing the kit and can be upgraded to the Pro version for an additional subscription of $99 per year.
The Setup
The app focuses on getting a balanced bike and is far less prescriptive than the BYB Telemetry system. The setup that you'll get to isn't so much about what's fastest but rather what balances front and rear. This isn't bad, but it feels like it's missing a certain piece. Data acquisition is inherently limited because it only goes off the data that it's been fed. What is balanced on one track might be out of balance for another. With that in mind, I think it would be helpful if that app gave some guidance regarding axle speed and how to interpret it.
The idea seems to be much less rigid regarding setup and takes a more pragmatic approach. Not everyone will like a certain attribute, but everyone can benefit from a better-balanced bike, even if they then bias it in a certain direction. I often rode with the system recording data, but using it to reflect upon my setup after I'd already established how I felt about it.
Almost always, when I thought the bike felt best was when it was most balanced according to the data. That said, I am very happy to not have the deepest events equal, especially on the front. Often, when using data to setup my bike, I don't pursue using full fork travel as I would rather have something spare for extreme hits. It can only read the data it's fed, after all, and I try not making a habit out of bottoming my fork out on every single run.
That said, the app does a very respectable job of giving users a very solid interface that allows them to cut sections out of the track for more accurate readings and interpret the data in a variety of graphs. It explains, expressed as a plus or minus, whether the shock is compressing faster or slower than the fork. From there, you can tune it to be as near to equal as possible. When you have a clear idea of what you want, this is easy because you can read what is closest to the speeds you want in the data. For beginners, though, it would be good to get some ratings or suggestions to guide them a little.
What's it Like Compared to Other Systems?
The system takes literally minutes to put on, and is so easy to live with. You don't have to worry about crashing on it, or having to bend it back when you do. I loved how robust and clutter-free it was. In some ways, this feels like a cross between the all-out tech of BYB's system and the user-friendly and hardy nature of ShockWiz. I feel like it will bring data acquisition into the realm of more riders, which is a good thing. That said, for ultimate accuracy and guidance I think that BYB's system is going to cater to the people wanting to extract the most out of their bike. There were two occasions that the Motion Instruments linkage sensor felt loose in its Allen-key fitting and was giving a dead zone to the travel. After reclamping it, it worked well, but all in all, it just felt less precise.
BYB uses data collected from various riders to give you prescriptive instructions on what to do. While this isn't the end goal, it does help guide users to a solid base setting. From there, they can familiarise themselves with the data and inputs to add their own flair to the suggestions.
Pros
+ Waterproof
+ Ease of installation
+ Software is fast and easy to connect
+ Focusing on balance rather than suggesting a particular setup
Cons
- Elastomer bumpers shocks limit rear tracer
- Focusing on balance rather than suggesting a particular setup
- Data takes time to learn how to interpret, and what works for you
Pinkbike's Take
 | Motion Instruments have done a very good job with System 2. While it isn't perhaps as high-performance as BYB's system, it also does without much complication thanks to its wireless functions and lack of data rods on the rear shock. That said, it does mean that it can never be quite as accurate, on the rear at least. If I had to throw one on a bike for an hour, it would be the System 2 that I would use. If I were to spend a day getting increasingly granular, it would probably be the BYB. System 2 is waterproof, easy and vastly cheaper than most other systems. Bike nerds, rejoice. If you want to tinker with your suspension, there's probably never been a better time than now. |
Author Info:
Member since Jun 3, 2014
Must Read This Week
[UPDATED] Final Elite XCO Results & Overall Standings from the Nove Mesto XC World Cup 2024
35521 views
35521 views
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
Solutions like these have been popping up more and more and I am very happy to see, especially at this price point. The data acquisition partner we use for our Superbike (2D Data Recording) has been dabbling in MTB/E-MTB data acquisition as well, and they're the industry leaders in our space, I fully expect this segment of the MTB market to develop rapidly.
The Motion Instruments solution in place of a traditional front/rear linear potentiometer is an elegant solution and I hope folks recognize how hard it is to design something that has so much versatility and protection from the elements. Data sampling resolution and accuracy will also be a large consideration, I don't see any mention of how many samples per second are taken, but for a linear potentiometer for a motorcycle I'd want no less than 400 Hz to trust what I am seeing, and that's on smooth tarmac, let alone someone doing some chunky downhill.
The crux of this is going to be either tailoring the data analysis experience for the end user to draw conclusions for them (ala Shockwiz) or providing the kind of training to your end users that they can best utilize the data being gathered. All of the data in the world isn't of any use if you don't know what to do with it.
The sky is the limit here.
I'd like to be the dissenting opinion on not liking to read the manual. There is very little in this world better than good documentation. I skimmed the Motion IQ documentation and I am impressed at not only the verbosity, but also giving real world comparisons of what to look for in a users data. Bonus points if you allow an export of data or CAN recording so I can parse the data using 2D Analyzer on a desktop.
The "Magic algorithm" for set everyone up is a challenge for sure, the biggest variable not accounted for is an individuals frame modulus of elasticity. The frame is just a big spring at the end of the day.
You're likely past the point of needing testers, but if not, and you want one let me know. Otherwise I'll likely end up buying a kit anyways.
Would you consider a Fox38 with a Smashpot "traditional"?
Here's what this has to do with mountain bike DA. I'd guess that if you expect to see a 5% reduction in your segment times driven solely by a DA+tuner guided change in spring rates and damper settings, you're awfully optimistic. But let's run with it, this is for illustration. You don't need to do 46 runs, thank goodness! You do what's called a power calculation based on the effect size (the effect of A vs B) and find that to credibly see evidence that Tune A is faster than Tune B with a magnitude similar to my bike A vs B, you _only_ have to do 14 pairs of runs (N = 28.). 28 runs where you don't miss a line, don't make a major mistake, don't shut down your effort part way through. On the same segment, with real timing. That's the minimum, under the best conditions, to detect a hypothetically huge difference between A and B. But it might not be a huge difference. What if Tune A really (really) is faster, but only 3% or 1%? Smaller effect size, larger sample size required or else you won't see it. Could be real, but undetectable. And if your system can't detect it, you don't know if it's real.
I'd like to see the technology-curious amateur who is actually doing the program and not just looking at the pretty lights, the gorgeous scatterplots, the alluring histograms. A hell of a lot of work. I'd like to applaud that rider.
That way you could see which settings worked better for pedaling, and more importantly you could get information to balance the best performance for pedaling vs coasting/descending.
"Everyone can benefit from a better-balanced bike, even if they then bias it in a certain direction". I think this is largely true, and where their desired balance is going to sit will be a preference. That said, being empowered with the knowledge to choose where that point is is the key bit. That said, I think that compression and rebound speed are best matched at the axle rather than not. I hope that helps and if you feel it's unclear I can amend. Thanks
My conclusion is 1:1 front and rear is not always 100% ideal, it depends on the geometry and kinematics of the bike, however when it comes to rebound velocities you want them closer than not. There seems to be more variability in compression and especially travel usage, which don't forget has an effect on the geometry of the bike and your balance. The system provides enough information for you to make these judgement calls by reading the data without being spoon fed instructions, but it will need to be correlated to feeling. It also gathers real data you can observe, not data gather indirectly and the way it presents the data allows you to eliminate outliers.
When I ran it, I ran the same track over and over. The GPS data allowed time measurement across segments, but for me it mostly came down to feel. Reading the balance data helped enormously because I found a ratio of balance front/rear where the bike felt the most centered, so when I made tweaks or adjustments one way or another, I could adjust the opposite end to find that balance again. So if I had to tweak the fork because I was bottoming out or it was too harsh, I could make adjustments to the rear to keep it within that balance point to compensate. This is very important and an undervalued part of suspension setup IMO, if one side is setup wrong then it can be really hard to diagnose where the problem is.
It'll always come down to how the rider feels, but most riders are so far off where they should be that this gives people a really valuable tool to demonstrate a rough starting range for setup. These data points can be really helpful especially for coaches looking to help people who have no idea what adjusters do or how suspension works. I learned how this balance works and how my suspension should feel when it is balanced properly, which helped me learn down the line how to set stuff up even without this system in place.
This is a huge improvement over the earlier version, very well done. I am sad to see it doesn't work with coil forks, though.
Data acquisition like this makes people more comfortable and confident on their bikes. We're paying $1k+ for high end forks, close to that for shocks, and thousands for bikes yet I'd argue 90% of mountain bikers or more have zero clue how to set any of that stuff up properly. They are mostly over sprung, over progressive, under damped, and that's if they even bother setting those things up in the first place.
There are objectively correct setups for all of these things and putting people at least in the ballpark will make them more comfortable and confident. It's not always about speed or shaving seconds off, for the average rider it's about the realization of how these things should work together and how that can make them more confident and comfortable on the bike, along with getting the value out of their setup.
Regardless, it doesn't change anything I said. I obviously don't have an objective measurement, but in my experience most people have things setup wrong and not even in the ballpark. If you wanna miss the forest for the trees, that's on you.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWIhRzrLVI8&ab_channel=MotionInstruments