st49

Most of the articles on pinkbike describing anti sag or anti rise are very poorly written. Poorly written as in, the individual sounds like he has never sat through a kinematics or linkage class in their life. it is hard to find but if you can get your hands on a copy of Tony Foale Motorcycle Chassis Design I would recommend it. or read https://www.wideopenmountainbike.com/images/C19_Habit_WHITE_PAPER.pdf The comment of "Anti-squat works because as the suspension compresses the cassette moves away from the chainring so the chain tension is acting to pull the swingarm back down and extend the suspension" is a very inaccurate statement. With regards to the effect of chain tension it is 100% dependent on the location of pivot point the axle is rotating around. This can either cause the suspension to compress or lengthen. It also has a lot more to do with mass transfer when accelerating or decelerating then chain tention. Any type of suspension system from single pivot to VPP can have vastly different anti rise or anti squat characteristics depending on how they are designed. it is not inherent to the system. The amount of tune ability is though. I haven’t been on pinkbike in a while but it has gone downhill. it seams like it is now just what is the weirdest products we can inaccurately write about while still hitting the right marketing buzz words.

I 100 percent agree with innovation. its just it seems a lot of new tech going in the wrong direction seams to be popping up here. my main point is to me the rear drive system on bike is never really an "overhaul the entire system" issue . its not perfect but it is going in the rite direction. the main drive line of this system still relies on a chain and sprocket that is exposed to all the elements. also I would rather have a clutched derailleur attached to my rear wheel then a system in an area that constantly is get smashed up. Might have to pay 100 every other year as apposed to the large bill of an entire sprocket set and housing, much more often, The gear box starts to gain traction in prototype phase but then major problems become apparent after a lot of use. how long has this been going on for, yet top of the line bikes are still derailleur driven. the core design of a gear box on a pedal bike has complicated inherent tissues that are hard to overcome, that the derailleur system does not have. . design simplicity in when possible and have less headaches down the road. e bikes are a different story. gear box makes more scenss

this is definitely cool form a creativity stand point. from an engineering perspective it is a project that should have been stopped at the first concept meeting. again all I see is huge disadvantages. . its not just this one either every other month there is some goofy lets solve a minor problem by making a ridiculously complicated linkage fork or moving the entire derailleur to a non protected area under the down tube, type product. what are the advantages of this and who is funding this???, . I think the chain drive derailleur system is one of the most efficient and simple inventions of the last 100 years. there is room for improvement but I think it is going to be figuring out new ways to make the existing system more efficient (clutched detailers or electronic shifting are good examples) not completely overhaling the system. all i see are huge problems with this. weigh, complexity, a single front sprocket strike now destroys your entire drive system. the only thing I kind of got is they are improving handling by moving the COG. the whole moving components on bikes to alter COG seems to be vary market driven. yes you are changing the COG but it is such a small amount when you are talking about a 2 lb component that is part of a 220+ lb system . Seriously moving a STD shock 4 inches closer to your bottom bracket has the same effect as just lower your hips .125 inches. your body weighs around 180 lbs. this is what governess your COG more then anything when ridding. watch pro DH riders, constantly adjust their COG. What are the advantages to this. excuse my spelling English is my second first language.

I was hoping someone would say this. lol

@mdinger. another option might be getting towed by a magic car down a rail road track with ties spaced every 10 inches at 600 mph. was talking real world not hypothetical. in order for the BIKE FRAME to see100 % the cyclic loading in the scenario you described you would need a completely undampened system containing a rigid wheel set, fork and, frame and the the tire would have to stay in constant ground contact while traveling 60 mph. Assuming you accomplish this. you now have a rider trying to control a bike who's handle bares, pedals, and wheels are moving up and down one thousand times per second. While traveling 60 mph. I don't think this fits in the real world category. Not going to get into theorizing about what frequency or amplitude values should be used for fatigue failure testing. Pole based there testing criteria of ISO's bicycle safety testing recommendations. All relevant information is located on ISOs web site not in this comment section.

What real world conditions would produce a cyclic loading rate of 1000 cyles/seconds (16Hz) on a bike frame?

@PabloBrightRacingShocks: this is a rabitt hole you don't want to go down. 95% of the the "technical" conversations on this forum could be debunked by anyone with a 1st year level physics class under their belt. At times even the PB staff writers are just repeating marketing lines that severely lack technical merit. this then gets repeated over and over by a lot of commenters. Also when it comes to the comment section high school humor governs actual engineering knowledge. glad to see inverted forks are starting to enter the MTB world. keep at it!

@pisgahgnar: Not bought just by outside. bought by the company that owns outside and some 40+ other companies like backpaker, ski, and other BS "active lifestyle industries"