Yea agreed, If someone sends me a Sunday/R-9 i'll measure it up
R- 9 compared to Sunday
- Thread starter intensified
- Start date
or better yet - RIDE them!Yea agreed, If someone sends me a Sunday/R-9 i'll measure it up
Oh that would happen as wellor better yet - RIDE them!
The sunday I rode had a dhx with the boost valve maxed and the proper spring. When I got home I checked on the reccomended spring weight for my weight and it was the right one. Kind of odd considering the guy who owns the bike is lighter than me but whatever. It sagged great, felt nice and balanced, just didn't ramp up. I do know the difference.
I also am used to my turner which has one of the most progressive end strokes of any bike out there which I'm sure had a lot to do with it. Two other guys that rode the same bike and are close to the same wieght said they bottomed the thing a few times on one run.
I really liked everything else about the bike. That low BB is badass.
5th element?
If the wheelpath arcs are [relatively] accurate, then why do the bikes ride so much differently?
A turner and a Sunday, both setup equally stiff, should have similar wheelpaths. Granted, the Sunday extends back slightly more than the turner in the middle of the stroke, but where the turner wheel tucks in so harshly, a stiff suspension setup (25% sag) would hardly see that point in the wheel travel, except under really hard hits.
I am not arguing either way, but as I am a novice engineering student, I am genuinely curious what other factors need to be considered in the ride characteristics of a chassis.
I say this because I have ridden turners a lot, and I own a sunday and I notice that the sunday is definitely smoother over choppier surfaces, while being not as easy to pull off the ground. The Turner, while being physically longer and having deeper feeling travel, is more flickable and is much more susceptable to being slowed by square edge bumps. The Sunday is shorter and has less travel, but feels more glued. This is with both suspension setups having similar suspension setups in term of boost valve pressure, sag, rebound, propedal and bottom out resistance (attempting to compensate for differences in progression).
Why is this? Any insight I'd appreciate
You happen to know how much psi he was running? That solved the little bottoming issue I had w/ mine. It would bottom only in one place on the Keystone racecourse - the first drop into cowboy up, which is relatively small, but maybe a little flat or maybe convex. A little extra psi solved it, and didn't make the bike noticeably harsher anywhere else.
That I don't know. I do know he was running whatever dw told him to on the shock.
I just know he had the spring for my weight and the boost valve cranked.
Either way, I tend to like a design that's more inherently progressive and doesn't rely on shock fixes to get it that way.....makes switching/trying out different shocks easier and puts less stress on them. Just a preference for the hoppy, pumping kind of thing. I liked the way it charged over rough sections.
or better yet - RIDE them!
Imagine that.... test riding bikes with proper set up and then deciding on which one to get... hmm..... girl... you talkin crazy talk!
Oh yeah, S.K.C. put up a ridiculously good thread on Dave Weagle's knowledge on the dw-link bikes.
I am pretty sure R9 info is abundant on this site, bustedspoke and perhaps HCOR.
Michael
e.thirteen
I created a file from a side-on CAD rendering that was posted up on Pinkbike, which I then blew up to some huge size so I could get it fairly accurate (unless of course you changed the dimensions of the rendering to protect against that, which wouldn't surprise me in the slightest). However - in spite of whatever relatively minor inaccuracies and blah blah no good for actual acceleration calculations etc, it DOES plot the axle path with reasonable accuracy and that DOES back up what I was saying about the axle path not being very rearwards at all. It's there, but it's very slight and it's not a big factor compared to a standard low/mid pivot bike at all.
I have followed the threads about the Sunday tech with considerable interest, have read most of the stuff in the archives etc... would appreciate you answering my q's directly if you've got the time.
Shock rate and shock tuning (Sundays obviously running very little compression damping) would be the obvious ones to look at - Turners are very progressive whereas Sundays are very linear. I have my doubts about how much smoother the lowered low speed compression (nobody's ever mentioned high speed? Unless I am to assume it's been dropped proportionally to low speed too) would make things, and a fairly linear shock rate is nothing special.
Good luck with getting a direct answer fatman, im still waiting for my answer on direct mount stems........
Now that the patents have cleared and the financial investment is protected i am looking forward to the peer reviewed scientific journal article on the dw link.
In my experiance, the DHR rides nicer with a softer spring and a bit more preload to try and even things out, i find the DHR a bit too progressive if anything.
No idea. That is just my perception of my DHR. Not bagging the sunday, the one i rode with a DHX felt nice (well, besides all the linkage play). Is it the design or the nice geometry (slack head angle and low bb) that makes it ride nice?
Cant comment on the design philosophies of either bike, i didn't design them. Like i said, a peer reviewed paper showing and proving why things are like they are would go a long way to supporting the bold claims that are made all the time. A patent means squat in terms of scientific credibility. Flame away.
how do thoes r9s pedal?
They don't, the rider does the pedalling.
Maybe his question wasn't worded the best but regardless that's no reason to be a prick.
To answer, almost all single pivots with no idler will pedal the same. The pivot location/chainring size will dictate feedback but the bob will remain almost the same.
The Sunday's DW link suspension isolates mass transfer (your body bobbing when you pedal) from suspension action, so it won't bob very much but it will absorb bumps well too. It's the best of a platform shock and a regular shock combined!
I hope that helped.
Ok I don't particularly keep in touch with suspension design but there's no way you can throw a blanket statement like that over all singlepivots. There's a massive difference in the pedal feedback, bob and extension, etc in singlepivots.
No... I was explaining why they feel different despite having fairly similar axle paths (for the purposes of bump absorption - those small differences are big differences in terms of pedalling).
Feedback and anti-squat are directly, if not linearly, related. Singlepivots can pedal MASSIVELY differently based on the position of the pivot - some singlepivots pedal fairly well and some pedal like absolute crap.
BTW mass transfer is not your body bobbing when you pedal (nothing a linkage does can cancel that effect out because it's not related to acceleration as such), it's the way that the bike/rider mass tries to rotate backwards due to the accelerating force being applied well below the centre of mass (at the tyre obviously), which increases the normal reaction (ie vertical) force on the rear axle and proportionally reduces it on the front axle.
Fairly well. Nothing amazing but how often do you really need pedalling efficiency on your DH bike? It is after all being ridden downhill.
hahahahaha! keep working on the jokes, dick.
Every race ever.
Ok, Well I don't pedal my DH bike very much. Only on flat sections, and even then it's not like it's enough pedalling that I need the bike to be able to do XC type climbs. Maybe I worded that poorly, but I think my point is pretty valid.
Thats like saying you don't want to win!!!!!
It wasn't supposed to be funny, and my name is not Richard, not sure where you got that from.
Not at all. There are plenty of racers would could beat ANYONE on this forum without a chain (Sam Hill comes to mind). Having a DH bike that is designed around efficient pedalling doesn't make much sense. You'll be much faster if the bike has comfortable geometry and absorbs bumps the way you want it to. Pedalling efficiency really isn't high on my list of priorities for DH bike characteristics.Thats like saying you don't want to win!!!!!
bballe,
You have to realize than not everyone is blessed with the terrain we have here in New England. In the South they have to race down landfills and whatnot, so pedaling actually is much more important.
You have to realize than not everyone is blessed with the terrain we have here in New England. In the South they have to race down landfills and whatnot, so pedaling actually is much more important.
But what if you want a bike that has all the features you speak of "comfortable geometry and absorbs bumps the way you want it to." AND it has efficient pedaling? that would seem like the smart move.
I am sure if you covered the backs of 2 identical bikes in trash bags and changed shock settings, you'd be getting wildly detailed stories about the intricacies of bike A versus bike B from the same e-stooges that are the go-to guys for advice here and in the industry.
I think the reason for this is twofold: bikes are far more complex than we give them credit for, and yet people want to pump up their e-cred.
It seems the only threads we see these days are a BB-height thread, or an axle path thread, but what about pedal feedback, leverage curve, front-rear weight bias during straight bombing v. cornering, wheelbase changes during corners? The feel of a bike is so complex, so subjective, and so dependent on setup and a menagerie of other factors that it's complete idiocy to make the kind of statements we all see any given day on here. There are lots of quality guys here who have just given up trying to explain to people who are either too lazy to consider or don't ride enough to understand their impressions of what they ride. I don't claim to be one of these people.
It takes a certain amount of humility to realize that we and even the most educated and seasoned riders and designers can't do this, but that doesn't jibe well with how internet forums and e-cred work. I understand that this seems chock-fulla hate, but there's a time and place to realize the limitations of what sorts of advice we can effectively relate to one-another online, and for the most part when it comes to technical stuff, it's not much.
sd
Now on a somewhat related note...
I think the reason for this is twofold: bikes are far more complex than we give them credit for, and yet people want to pump up their e-cred.
It seems the only threads we see these days are a BB-height thread, or an axle path thread, but what about pedal feedback, leverage curve, front-rear weight bias during straight bombing v. cornering, wheelbase changes during corners? The feel of a bike is so complex, so subjective, and so dependent on setup and a menagerie of other factors that it's complete idiocy to make the kind of statements we all see any given day on here. There are lots of quality guys here who have just given up trying to explain to people who are either too lazy to consider or don't ride enough to understand their impressions of what they ride. I don't claim to be one of these people.
It takes a certain amount of humility to realize that we and even the most educated and seasoned riders and designers can't do this, but that doesn't jibe well with how internet forums and e-cred work. I understand that this seems chock-fulla hate, but there's a time and place to realize the limitations of what sorts of advice we can effectively relate to one-another online, and for the most part when it comes to technical stuff, it's not much.
sd
Now on a somewhat related note...
...this is the kicker, most average Joes don't take advantage of what the bike set out to be, they may well be better off with something more forgiving in terms of setup, and yet it's overwhelmingly the flagship privateer bike of the internet. The question then is, is the bike just that good, or are people swept away by the mystique of what's trendy? Not a bash on this frame or D-dub, just an observation about how we're influenced by our peers.
While us as mere mortals may not be able to pedal in the spots where a Sam or Peaty or Minnaar do, we all certainly can benefit from better pedaling bikes. It's the difference between cleaning a jump or casing it, having the entry speed into a section so you can ride it more cleanly, or just helping us keep up with faster riders for even a little while longer. It makes the riding more enjoyable overall, which is the ultimate reason us mere mortals get new/better/different bikes. I can't think of a time when I said to myself "nah, I think I'll need that less-efficient bike" or "yeah, I like pedal feedback" or "oh, cool it stiffens under braking" about a bike I've owned. Increased performance is a good thing, even when in small doses or for riders without a pro skill set. Just balance your wants, needs, & budget and you can walk away with a more enjoyable bike.
-ska todd
-ska todd
IMO, setup on the Sunday isn't that hard - follow the guidelines by IH/ DW, and vary it a little to weight/taste.
Or maybe the flagship privateer bike of the internet should really be whatever doesn't need setup directions - like a hardtail!
Or maybe the flagship privateer bike of the internet should really be whatever doesn't need setup directions - like a hardtail!
I know what you're saying. The importance of pedaling efficiency of downhill bikes is often overstated.
I would say that in the average downhill race, riders pedal for well less than 1/4 of their race run, yet the bike's suspension quality is a factor during the entire run. There are simply too many bikes out there that compromise suspension quality for better pedaling.
You're right, I didn't even consider that. I haven't ridden much downhill outside of new england. For the riding I do pedalling isn't extremely important to me.
to pedal or not to?
when in doubt, pedal.
it seems to be what sets the better racers apart when you look at times.
when in doubt, pedal.
it seems to be what sets the better racers apart when you look at times.
hahahahahahahaha wow.
That was acutally aimed at Jeremy. So happy to have escaped South Carolina.
Sugar was rad and so it seems is Windrock... But everything else?
Sounds like you need to get the "I'm a cool east coast racer brah" bug out of your ass.
Ha, you lived on the coast at Hilton Head and the only elevation change you got was riding back and forth over a bridge.
I was there for a week one time and I wanted to stick my head in alligator's mouth to stop the boredom. A big surprise you were stoked to get out of there.
As far as where I live, I now live on the SC/NC border, 40 minutes away from Asheville. I have a gazillion great places around to ride, but the lift access does suck around here. That said, we have a bunch of good places to shuttle on some brutal stuff.
But all this $hit is besides the point.
I have raced all over the country, on all kinds of courses and bikes that don't pedal well suck. Sprinting into jumps, out of corners, to the finish line etc....
The pros lose by such close margins that they actually sport nut flattening skin suits. Ask them if they want a bike that pedals well.
I could care less though, I choose my bikes on the "fun" factor, because that is all I really care about.
R9 is the pinner...I'm not going to name anyone but I know of three people that raced with no drivetrains on R9's and beat like everyone at the same race..totally gnar
nuff said
p.s. East coast owns you
nuff said
p.s. East coast owns you