stoicbear

@finnspin: I didn't do any math to come up with my design. I simply recognized that when the front triangle is over center to the chain tension force vector, chain tension can't apply a torque to the front triangle (when the rear triangle rotates about the rear triangle). It's as simple as that. Ditto the acceleration force vector. (Torque is applied to the front triangle by acceleration because the center of mass is above the linkage, and that mass wants to stay in place when the bike moves forward beneath it. Newton's Laws.) When the front triangle rotates about the rear triangle, there is very little leverage to lift the rider. That means the rider is only supported by the shock. Each pivot on the front triangle has half the chain tension to steady the chassis/rider, and that chain tension is "used" to resist the torque generated when the rider rotates about the linkage as the bike moves forward beneath them.

@finnspin: Anti-squat theory WRT bicycles is a THEORY. It's not fact. Science is about proving theories. The fact is, if you have two bikes with the same anti-squat number designed using kinematics, they almost certainly behave differently. That means anti-squat theory does not apply to bicycles. I used Statics to design these bikes, which is the correct theory (or at least significantly more correct) than Kinematics WRT bicycle acceleration. These bikes disprove anti-squat as the dominant theory for bicycle acceleration. You will have to explain to me why my bikes perform "the same", even with different amounts of anti-squat, for me to take your arguments seriously. I can easily explain the slight difference between the two different rear ends on my bikes: 1. The dual link bike's IC is a little higher above the two pivots on the front triangle than the horst link rear end, so there is a little more leverage to rotate the triangles about each other. That leverage allows more influence due to chain tension. 2. The leverage rate on the shock of the dual link version is more progressive, so resistance to suspension movement is greater compared to the horst link. The dual link rear end is slightly less plush when compared to the horst link rear end. It is significantly more plush than other bikes, including high pivot bikes. With my bikes, you need to put the climb switch on to get them to perform like other bikes with the climb switch off. IE, you have to degrade the suspension performance to get them to feel like other bikes. Unfortunately an article is not a test ride, so you can't feel what's going on. Matt said at the end of the video that the bikes do what's said on the tin; the suspension moves as if the chain is not there. Explain that using anti-squat theory. You can't. You can only explain that behavior using Statics.

@ChrisGX: The Missing Link suspension design was developed using Statics. My second patent is very broad, and the only thing it specifies is where the pivots on the front triangle are located with respect to the location of the IC. I don't need to specify anything that may reduce the scope of the patent. The dual link rear end is slightly less plush when compared to the horst link rear end. It is significantly more plush than other bikes, including high pivot bikes.

@ChrisGX: The reason the rear wheel rotates forward when going over a bump has to do with leverage. The leverage of the force couple between the rear tire's contact patch and the top of the cog does not change. However, the ability for that leverage to be used to lift the rider is much reduced because of the very low leverage of the suspension. It is easier to move the rider forward than it is to lift the rider into the air.

@ChrisGX: The issue is acceleration based kinematics derived from motorcycles does not really apply to mountain bikes, because bicycles do not accelerate fast enough for it to be the controlling theory. Anti-squat theory to mountain bikes is akin to the theory that everything in the heavens revolving around the earth. It generally fits, but falls apart in the details. The reason I am not engaging with you is that you are not considering what I've been saying that statics is the dominant theory WRT mountain bike suspension. I've written a handful of long replies describing what is going on, and you don't seem to have read them or even consider the argument. Static theory is akin to the theory of the earth orbiting the sun and rotating on it's axis. It works even in the details.

@finnspin: Thanks for continuing to ask questions. The more pointed the better, really. I introduce concepts as people as questions. If I present it all at once, people glaze over. I'm presenting it as it unfolded, which is how I began to understand what's going on. My first design has an interesting characteristic. If I lifted the front wheel off the ground when climbing, by pedal pressure alone, and then pushed harder on the pedals when the front wheel was in the air, the front wheel would be propelled to the ground. (In many cases.) The front wheel did not drop due to gravity. Chain tension was rotating the front triangle into the ground. (That behavior is very similar to what happens when you PINCH a watermelon seed between your fingers. You apply more and more pressure, until you reach a tipping point, and the pressure is released.) This behavior taught me to think of the space between the two pivots on the front triangle in a very different way. I began looking at it as a link in a suspension system that could be manipulated, not the thing the rear suspension system hangs off of. The frame link is something that hasn't really been looked at to improve performance before, to my knowledge. The above behavior can not be explained by anti-squat. The only way it can be explained is by using force vectors and leverage. I started figuring it out when I traced how pedaling force goes through the frame. Your comments about tangential sprockets are true, but you have to complete the force couple with the tire on the ground, and it's the force couple that ends up pushing the frame forward at the rear axle. The rear axle pushes on the rear triangle. The rear triangle pushes on two links. How much pressure goes into each link depends on the location of the chain tension force vector and the elevation of the IC. How much pressure gets into the front triangle from those force vectors depends on the location of the pivots on the front triangle and the IC. Note the change from "chain tension force vector" to "IC". This difference is the leverage the rear suspension has on the front triangle due to chain tension. It will change as the locations of the IC and link orientation change. My design makes the frame link over center to the acceleration force vector and the "chain tension force vector that occurs when the rear triangle rotates about the front triangle". Because the chain tension force vector is directly over center the frame link, no leverage can be transferred to it. That results in no chain tension force acting on the suspension when the rear triangle rotates about the front triangle. The result is chainless suspension feel because chain tension can't affect movement of the rear suspension. Which triangle rotates about the other depends on how much of the rider's weight is being supported by the triangle. This is a big difference, because when you are climbing, most of your weight is on the rear wheel/triangle. That means it's easier to rotate the front triangle about the rear triangle. This is what my first bike was doing. When you are going downhill, most of your weight is on the front wheel, which is rigidly attached to the front triangle. This means the rear triangle rotates about the front triangle, and is what most people think is the most important thing. It's actually the thing that creates the leverage to prevent acceleration squat. In all designs but these, "the chain tension force vector that goes through the bottom bracket when the front triangle rotates about the rear triangle" applies most of that torque to the main pivot. That creates a scissoring action between the main pivot and the IC. On my bikes, each pivot on the front triangle gets half the force of the chain tension force vector. For simplicity, that results in both pivots trying to lift the rider vertically. The cool thing is there is very little leverage to lift the rider. It feels like whatever leverage there is goes to stabilizing the front triangle. It's one of the reasons these bikes feel so stable. You aren't pitched forward a tiny bit when the rear wheel goes over a bump. It's kind of like you are suspended in a pocket of plushness. It's really just that chain tension has very little affect on suspension movement when the front rotates about the rear, either. You're suspended by the shock alone, not chain tension. This is just the benefits from chain tension not affecting suspension movement. Just like chain tension can't affect suspension movement, chain tension does not have enough leverage to compress the suspension or cause pedal kickback. The increase in chain length as the suspension compresses is accounted for by forcing the rear wheel to rotate forward. This is an excellent effect. It's excellent because when the rear wheel rolls over a bump, it has to travel a further distance than the rider does. I know this happens with all suspension bikes, but my bike FORCES the rear wheel to rotate forward over the bump to accommodate chain growth. (All other designs sort of drag or freewheel the rear tire over the bump.) This behavior translates the kinetic energy of lifting the rear suspension by a bump into rotation of the rear wheel. It keeps the rear tire contact patch in the static friction regime. (Static friction is stronger than sliding friction. It's why there are anti-lock brakes.) The traction of the rear tire is increased in all conditions. My first bike has this characteristic. The rotation of the rear wheel due to chain tension when going over bumps translates into increased speed when pedaling on flatter terrain. Every little bump transmits a tiny bit of forward momentum. Most people push one harder gear on my bikes with the same apparent energy output compared to other bike designs. My first bike has this characteristic too. (It could be that my bikes just feel so good to pedal that people just push harder, but I've been told by a long term tester that it's not. She said she is faster on my bike than her bike, which is a good bike. And my bike frames weigh a little over 7kg, or 15.5lb, including the shock.)

@ChrisGX: I stopped reading your comment after I read "the information you have disclosed the anti-squat numbers are pretty much exactly where you would want them to be in order to get a hardtail like ride on relatively smooth trails". I'll continue reading if you give me a plausible answer to this question: How do you explain a bicycle suspension that has very high anti-squat values, but is more sensitive than any other design? Remember, Matt said that the bikes are so supple they feel weird.

@IsaacWislon82: Single pivot bikes do not use the front triangle as a link in the 4-bar suspension.

After sleeping on it, my comment about the Demo's link driving the shock is incorrect. The link just drives the shock, and does not have anything to do with chain tension. (I was tired and a little inebriated when I wrote my reply.)

@finnspin: Based on your question, I don't know how to respond in a way that you would understand. I've described almost everything in my replies to comments. If you don't understand what I've explained, explaining it again here is no help.