[Tantrum Cycles]

The shitty shock rate on this bike is necessary for it to hold itself up at top-out position when pedalling, which appears to be the intent of the design.

how does this reconcile with your other statements? We can even remove the word shitty just for the sake of an engineering discussion.

Hugh, I am asking you specifically because you clearly have put a lot of time and thought into thinking about this and trying to be honest in your opinion, (as opposed to spending your time making funny videos).

You have brought up legitimate questions, but there seems to be contradiction in your statements.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

Given how links 2 and 3 are nearly in a straight line, and the shock is driven by the pivot between these two links, it is critical to model these pivot locations accurately to calculate an accurate initial leverage ratio.

Even if the model is out by just a millimeter, the resultant LR could be out by a factor of 10.

I can see how the LR values published by @Vrock might be quite different from your 'design' values. . If the two pivots in the front triangle are further apart than design by just 0.1mm, then it is going to mean the 'knee' (pivot #4) will be much straighter (rather than a slight kink), which means the LR will be significantly lower than design.

Same would apply if the shock is longer than design by a small amount.

not to pick on you either, but these are your statements, particularly, "resultant LR could be out by a factor of 10".

A factor of 10. By 1 mm off.

and this:

"If the two pivots in the front triangle are further apart than design by just 0.1mm, .......... which means the LR will be significantly lower"

And you are just speaking of a couple of the 8 pivot locations. How on earth, then, can you get so specific in your analysis?

 

[Udi]

@Tantrum Cycles
If you want to read about leverage curve digression and how it plays with current air spring curves (which have been accurately mapped on current products, and thus can be used in leverage curve design and analysis effectively) there are some of my posts below on the topic - particularly with regard to traction losses on bikes with low initial leverage values.

http://ridemonkey.bikemag.com/threads/woah-nsmb-just-dropped-a-sweet-shock-rate-article.271671/#post-4034222

http://ridemonkey.bikemag.com/threads/woah-nsmb-just-dropped-a-sweet-shock-rate-article.271671/#post-4034461

http://ridemonkey.bikemag.com/threads/new-downhillers-trail-bike.275986/#post-4119423

http://ridemonkey.bikemag.com/threads/new-downhillers-trail-bike.275986/page-2#post-4119709

I have no intention of debating these facts in this thread with you, however I think you might find them interesting. I mean no offence at all - just trying to share something that might be useful, and elaborates on some of the digression vs. traction issues that hmcleay very correctly points out above. It also covers the fact that *less* digression or a flat leverage curve in the first 1/3 of travel is *not* a good thing (it's just "less bad") - and from this you can extrapolate why we've pointed out that small inaccuracies in plotting your frame don't mean that problem areas identified are magically reversed.

Unfortunately the 2nd thread is a very good example of what happens when people want to argue and water down sufficiently accurate data instead of taking the information on board and moving on.

I think your design puts great emphasis on acceleration performance (which isn't necessarily an optimal implementation anyway) at the cost of optimal bump absorption - and given that this is the DH forum you'll find that people (including me) are much more interested in prioritising the latter.

Trailbikes need to be good at both, while also being very lightweight - and believe it or not, once you've correctly optimised a trailbike design for the optimal LR curve and AS curve at a competitive frame weight (which limits complexity), there isn't a whole lot of freedom for variations in design. If there are large variations there are often large compromises to go with that.

As a sidenote (re: one of your earlier comments) frames should work well with existing shocks. Current technology is great (current air shocks are very good, current coil shocks are excellent), and minor nonlinearities can be very effectively corrected with LR curve design. Consumers also prefer to use standard existing parts which is why many proprietary shocks have faded into history.

Finally, I think Harry Barnowl makes some really good suggestions for you. Like you've probably now established, plenty of people here live and breathe this stuff - entering into heated debate is not productive for your company or this forum. A lot of these topics have been covered in great detail if you use the search function, and a lot of the questions you pose have been argued and concluded on multiple times.

When it comes to Linkage inaccuracy, at this point it's a case of "put up or shut up". An analysis of your frame has been done - you can either sit here and verbally debate it for another 14 pages (which no one is going to believe), or you can publish a blueprint with your own analysis and let someone verify it. I personally don't think anyone here has any interest in stealing your design - but if you don't provide actual proof of your claimed inaccuracies then no one here is magically going to take your word for it. Feel free to not do that in the interests of "protecting your work" - just don't simultaneously expect people to believe your unverified claims on this topic if that's the route you take.

Again - this is not a stab at you or your work and I mean no disrespect - just some logical information that might be useful and a few suggestions.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

@Tantrum Cycles


An analysis of your frame has been done -.

And here are the results, from the person doing the analysis

"resultant LR could be out by a factor of 10".

 

[Udi]

And here are the results, from the person doing the analysis

I don't think anyone is taking your word over Hugh's - he is a reputable member of this forum as far as I'm concerned and I'm yet to see errors in anything he has stated. You on the other hand are relying on attacking a small and convenient part of his net statement without actually providing any conclusive counter-arguments yourself.

Also if that's the only response you have to my attempt at sharing some worthwhile info - then I think you deserve the responses you get here.

Try addressing this one and people might take you seriously:

So, to settle this, please post your 'design' leverage ratio curve.

And this:

When it comes to Linkage inaccuracy, at this point it's a case of "put up or shut up". An analysis of your frame has been done - you can either sit here and verbally debate it for another 14 pages (which no one is going to believe), or you can publish a blueprint with your own analysis and let someone verify it. I personally don't think anyone here has any interest in stealing your design - but if you don't provide actual proof of your claimed inaccuracies then no one here is magically going to take your word for it. Feel free to not do that in the interests of "protecting your work" - just don't simultaneously expect people to believe your unverified claims on this topic if that's the route you take.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

UDI and everyone else, if I posted my exact design info, my patent attorney would only be the first inline to kill me. If you do not believe that or don't think it's important, feel free to post all of your IP, but don't ask me to.

it wouldn't matter anyway. if I post my LR, it will show, as I have stated many times, that fully 70% of hmcleays values do not exist in real life. I have also stated an 8% drop (in LR) between sag and 50% travel, and a flat LR from there to bottoming. As well as starting pressures and sag values.

All of these numbers contradict what has been posted as accurate. You simply refuse to believe me. Note, these are not marketing claims, they're simple geometry. So, if I were to post an actual curve showing this, why would you believe me then?

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

I'm yet to see errors in anything he has stated. You on the other hand are relying on attacking a small and convenient part of his net statement without actually providing any conclusive counter-arguments yourself.

"resultant LR could be out by a factor of 10". True, this statement is not an error, just points out his results cvould be off by a factor of TEN.

This would seem to indicate a high degree of uncertainty from the results, especially in the context of my conclusive counter arguments, not only in what I am stating, but in the absolute contradictions in his conclusions.

i am very much looking forward to Hugh answering my questions about these discrepancies. I do believe he is trying to be logical and unbiased in his evaluation and can look at his errors logically and unbiased.

If you were really interested in a logical discussion yourself, instead of just discounting everything I say, feel free to address the questions I asked Hugh. They are serious and very relevant.

 

[Adventurous]

I will chip in $5 towards shipping a demo bike to UDI so we can prove/disapprove the assertions levied in this thread.

 

[Udi]

I believe this thread has run its course.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Vote for Pogo Possum.

 

[WestCoastHucker]

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

I believe this thread has run its course.

Why? Because you do not want to address legitimate questions about the contradictions posted?

Why not? Are they now beneath you to answer?

I think hmcleay might. Maybe we should see before you write it off.

 

[Udi]

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

To quote yourself "put up or shut up". Are you afraid of a logical discussion?

Do you think my questions to Hugh were in some way out of order or not relevant? Please explain.

 

[Adventurous]

To quote yourself "put up or shut up". Are you afraid of a logical discussion?

Do you think my questions to Hugh were in some way out of order or not relevant? Please explain.

Honestly at this point it's ceased to become a logical discussion. Your position is counter to that of @Udi and @hmcleay and I cannot forsee that changing unless you release AS/LR curves that accurately reflect the performance of your bikes (to which you have rightly stated that you cannot because your patent lawyer would throw a fit). The only place this conversation is going is further tarnishing your company's reputation.

The best way to "put up or shut up" would be to provide demo bikes to your critics and let their performance speak for itself. Take the high road and make advocates out of the critics if you believe that strongly in what you are offering.

Like I said, I will gladly donate $5 to the cause. I can't imagine I'd be the only one.

 

[Sandwich]

I would head down to vietnam in Milford if you're demoing bikes. Totally open minded and will gladly update if my opinions have been changed. I'll even wear my pisspot helmet so I fit in.

@hmcleay- how many people have stolen your designs, as they are clearly posted in full view on your website (with LR and AS curves)?

 

[kidwoo]

http://ridemonkey.bikemag.com/threads/woah-nsmb-just-dropped-a-sweet-shock-rate-article.271671/#post-4034461


Unfortunately the 2nd thread is a very good example of what happens when people want to argue and water down sufficiently accurate data instead of taking the information on board and moving on.

Actually it and this are better example of the following.

you pedantic asshats really need to chill the fuck out.

 

[Adventurous]

Also, skip Vietnam and host the demo day at Lynn Woods. Unless of course you want to demonstrate your bikes ability to ride groomed trail between rock walls.

 

[Udi]

You know the funniest thing about the circular-logic claim (or rather, excuse for poor designs) that sharing frame blueprints are going to cause patent infringement / design theft?

It's the fact that all you need to do is buy and carefully measure ONE frame to generate an accurate linkage graph.

In fact that's what happened with the Sunday. I bought one, we then measured it accurately and mapped it. It was probably the most significant advance in DH frame technology (kinematically, geometrically, and structurally) that has ever occurred - and this was evident even from the crude initial Linkage graphs - however we didn't suddenly gain any desire to steal the idea. We just bought the bikes, and they rocked.

Let's stop pretending that posting some accurate graphs is going to cause mass plagiarism, it'd only cost a few bucks to do that for someone who cared.

Are you afraid of a logical discussion?
Do you think my questions to Hugh were in some way out of order or not relevant? Please explain.

Read my above posts again carefully if you want to know why, I've already answered.
Long story short: I have nothing to gain, and it's a waste of my time.

Actually it's a better example of this.

That thread is actually a classic example of how you continually water down accurate scientific discussion on this forum with nonsense, but I digress (unlike my LR curve ).

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

Also, skip Vietnam and host the demo day at Lynn Woods. Unless of course you want to demonstrate your bikes ability to ride groomed trail between rock walls.

Are you saying Lynn Woods is a better tech trail? Is it nearby? I will be in the Boston are.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

It's the fact that all you need to do is buy and carefully measure ONE frame to generate an accurate linkage graph.

Yes, that will happen. and the facts that I've stated about my linkage, yes, facts, about the shape of the curve, the amount of digression, etc, will be found to be accurate.

Until that time....

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

I however we didn't suddenly gain any desire to steal the idea.

Nope, nobody ever tried to use the DW link or it's variants without authorization. Do you want to ask DW about that?

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

Long story short: I have nothing to gain, and it's a waste of my time.

Because clearly, you have everything figured out and it's not possible to learn more.

Now I see where you're coming from.

If it's such a waste of your time, why don't you stop doing your best to clutter up the thread for those who still feel it might not be a waste? Surely all these posts and making funny pictures is a waste of your time.

 

[Udi]

Nope, nobody ever tried to use the DW link or it's variants without authorization. Do you want to ask DW about that?

Already spoken to him about the topic (nearly 6 years ago), but thanks for the suggestion.

Congratulations on missing the point - which was that all someone would have to do (if they actually wanted to copy your design) is buy ONE of your frames.

I just wanted to make it clear to everyone that you're posting rubbish and wasting everyone's time instead of correcting hmcleay's post with actual data (that can be verified by a 3rd party) as he already suggested you do.

Also, DWs design was really, really good.

If it's such a waste of your time, why don't you stop doing your best to clutter up the thread for those who still feel it might not be a waste? Surely all these posts and making funny pictures is a waste of your time.

No, the waste of my time was trying to engage in serious conversation with you.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

Honestly at this point it's ceased to become a logical discussion. Your position is counter to that of @Udi and @hmcleay and I cannot forsee that changing unless you release AS/LR curves that accurately reflect the performance of your bikes (to which you have rightly stated that you cannot because your patent lawyer would throw a fit). The only place this conversation is going is further tarnishing your company's reputation.

The best way to "put up or shut up" would be to provide demo bikes to your critics and let their performance speak for itself. Take the high road and make advocates out of the critics if you believe that strongly in what you are offering.

Like I said, I will gladly donate $5 to the cause. I can't imagine I'd be the only one.

There are serious inconsistencies in hmcleay statements. I believe he is objective enough to address them, even if UDI would rather just have fun bashing. we'll see. They are very logical, non-inflammatory questions based on his exact quotes.

As for demo's, that is happening now and will continue to happen, especially after Interbike when i will have production bikes. I've stated all along that arguing bad numbers on the internet is futile, the proof is always in the ride.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

I would head down to vietnam in Milford if you're demoing bikes. Totally open minded and will gladly update if my opinions have been changed. I'll even wear my pisspot helmet so I fit in.

@hmcleay- how many people have stolen your designs, as they are clearly posted in full view on your website (with LR and AS curves)?

Sandwich,

Are you near Vietnam? Is it lame? Is there a better trial nearby (Lynn woods?) What size bike?

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

Congratulations on missing the point - which was that all someone would have to do (if they actually wanted to copy your design) is buy ONE of your frames.

Right, but they're not available yet. Time is an advantage with IP. This is pretty common knowledge.

it's not even about copying. It's about learning and trying to get around the patent. It's done ALL the time, even in the bike industry.

 

[Udi]

even if UDI would rather just have fun bashing.

Actually, if you read post #523 you'd see I posted links to 4 threads and an explanatory paragraph that provides a wealth of info on the points hmcleay made about your leverage curve, and I also addressed why your bogus claims about data accuracy don't really cover the magnitude of error present in your frame.

You've just shown that you'd rather pick out a single line and start arguments than actually accept any flaws in your design - which there are plenty of may I add.

But there's an old quote about arguing with idiots (I'm getting beaten with experience here), hence my pictures of trainwrecks.

Anyway - for some tangible data you can provide (excuse-free) that we can compare with other bikes, what's the actual frame-only weight of this frame? I feel like that's probably a bigger issue on this bike (that needs to go up as well as down) than any of the kinematic flaws.

 

[Adventurous]

Are you saying Lynn Woods is a better tech trail? Is it nearby? I will be in the Boston are.

In my opinion Lynn is hands down more technical than current day Vietnam. The northern part of the park is a lesson in slow speed, chunky, techy bike handling. I can't profess to have ridden a ton of places but that is definitely in my top 3 for difficulty (Dakota Ridge and Blackjack being the other two).

It is 13ish miles north of Boston.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

I just wanted to make it clear to everyone that you're posting rubbish and wasting everyone's time instead of correcting hmcleay's post with actual data (that can be verified by a 3rd party) as he already suggested you do.

How can any 3rd party possibly verify my data without having the bike or my original drawings? It can't be done. So one way or another, any data I post is subject to that same standard.

I have posted actual data. It is in direct contradiction with "actual data" posted from a bad pic.

If you have even ONE BALL, answer this question:

If I post a complete curve and it shows what I say, in direct contradiction to what others have posted, would you believe it? How could you if you've discounted every single thing I've said or posted?

if I send you a bike and you measure it and it verifies what I say, what will your response be? That I was an idiot all along for disputing bad numbers? Or that you were wwwrrrrooonnngggg?

 

[Udi]

if I send you a bike and you measure it and it verifies what I say, what will your response be? That I was an idiot all along for disputing bad numbers? Or that you were wwwrrrrooonnngggg?

Actually I'd just measure it and post up the graphs (if requested) as I'd do for any other frame. You're not a special snowflake here and you're not being treated differently, in fact the only way you're different to any other manufacturer is that you're being openly unprofessional on a public forum.

Also, as I've stated multiple times, there needs to be a blueprint to compare a claimed curve to - so you'd need to provide both if you wanted anyone to believe you. Feel free to come back when your patents have gone through, however at this point without the ability to provide those, you're just wasting everyone's time.

 

[shirk007]

Actually I'd just measure it and post up the graphs (if requested) as I'd do for any other frame. You're not a special snowflake here and you're not being treated differently, in fact the only way you're different to any other manufacturer is that you're being openly unprofessional on a public forum.

Also, as I've stated multiple times, there needs to be a blueprint to compare a claimed curve to - so you'd need to provide both if you wanted anyone to believe you. Feel free to come back when your patents have gone through, however at this point without the ability to provide those, you're just wasting everyone's time.

Weak sidestep on his question.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

Anyway - for some tangible data you can provide (excuse-free) that we can compare with other bikes, what's the actual frame-only weight of this frame?

I have posted frame weight before, 3232 grams, frame only, about 7 lb, 2 oz.

with xfusion shock, 3512 grams, 7 lb, 12 oz.

M frame, 6061 painted. The production frames, are about 100-200 grams lighter.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

In my opinion Lynn is hands down more technical than current day Vietnam. The northern part of the park is a lesson in slow speed, chunky, techy bike handling. I can't profess to have ridden a ton of places but that is definitely in my top 3 for difficulty (Dakota Ridge and Blackjack being the other two).

It is 13ish miles north of Boston.

Ok, I'm sure I can do that. I'll actually be in Framingham.

What about some fast DH stuff?

 

[Udi]

Weak sidestep on his question.

I haven't actually made any direct claims in this thread, so what exactly would I be wrong about?

I've only stated that hmcleay is a respected member and I'll take his word over this guy's. If a blueprint and linkage analysis provides a substantially different result (assuming the blueprint matches the frame that was analysed previously by hmcleay) then yes that should be taken as fact.

Weak effort at calling me out on something.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

Also, as I've stated multiple times, there needs to be a blueprint to compare a claimed curve to - so you'd need to provide both if you wanted anyone to believe you.

This is just GOOFY. Do you not think I would be clever enough to make a blueprint that showed the exact numbers I wanted to present??? I could post a FAKE blueprint. And it would agree with my curve exactly, if my goal was to deceive people.

Instead, I posted real information, BASED on my EXACT blueprints and my EXACT curves. You just choose not to believe me or anything I say. If I posted said blueprint and curve, would you believe me then?

 

[Adventurous]

Ok, I'm sure I can do that. I'll actually be in Framingham.

What about some fast DH stuff?

Kinda hosed for fast, sustained DH stuff close to Boston. I think about the best you'll do is 1.5-3 hours away at Highland, Thunder Mountain, Jiminy Peak, Attitash. Something like that.

 

[Udi]

This is just GOOFY. Do you not think I would be clever enough to make a blueprint that showed the exact numbers I wanted to present??? I could post a FAKE blueprint. And it would agree with my curve exactly, if my goal was to deceive people.

Instead, I posted real information, BASED on my EXACT blueprints and my EXACT curves. You just choose not to believe me or anything I say. If I posted said blueprint and curve, would you believe me then?

Again - you need to stop thinking you're a special case here - it's the year 2016 and people are in general skeptical (perhaps moreso in your case since you've already released one design that was by some reports here a bit of a flop).

I think it's pretty reasonable that no one will just take your word for something, in a world where there is a lot of marketing about, and a lot of tools (and knowledgeable people) to help verify these claims.

I don't just "choose to believe" anything ANYONE says. In fact, even for something as simple as a frame weight, a scale pic is nice to have. Not doubting you on that one, but I'm just illustrating something that should be obvious to you - it's no longer the age of jesus and his supposed bible, people want proof for everything.

Edit - @Tantrum Cycles just post up the exact leverage curve for now if that doesn't affect your patent process. I think people can make their own minds if it's believable and/or good, until you are able to post a point of verification. I'm mildly curious how different the curve is from Hugh's - the old saying "a picture is worth a thousand words" rings true here.

 

[Sandwich]

Sandwich,

Are you near Vietnam? Is it lame? Is there a better trial nearby (Lynn woods?) What size bike?

I'm on a large Evil Following with a 50mm stem. I stick to those reach measurements. Had a L Enduro 29 before the Evil. Both fit great.

Vietnam is a series of stunts connected by relatively smooth trails. It's a local favorite, no doubt, but it's not really a great place for a technical exhibition.

My favorite local place is Russell Mill. It combines technical spots with decent singletrack and is an out-and back loop from an easily accessed parking lot. I call it the proving ground because I usually fuck my shit up there, and can walk back to the car when I do. It's north of the city in Billerica on Rt 3.

Harold parker forest is supremely technical, also north of the city. Lynn woods is also OK, but not my favorite. A lot of companies run demos in the Fells, as it's so close to the city, but it's a pretty big loop compared to some of the others.

 

[Mo(n)arch]