does the lower chainstay flex in order to activate the travel?
(a belated) merry xmas to me (contains fiber)
- Thread starter xy9ine
- Start date
yeah someone explain the linkage, it looks like it'd rely on a slight flexing of the lower chainstay inorder for it to work
Yes because the distance between the top swingarm pivot and the bottom linkage pulling pivot changes,and to avoid having another pivot/bearing on the chain stay to keep it stiffer the chain stays are designed to flex up and down a small amount,they are wide and thin so they only alow a small amount of flex up and down.
They pull on the bottom link that then rotates around a pivot and pushes the horizontal Fox forward.
They pull on the bottom link that then rotates around a pivot and pushes the horizontal Fox forward.
there is no flex needed in order to activate the suspension which I think is what those guys were wondering.
yeah thats what i thought, cuz otherwise it wouldnt move. it'd be like taking a kona 4-bar and welding the pivot at the wheel so that it doesnt move. it jsut wouldnt move unless it flexed, right?
Yes there is flex in order to activate it. The chainstay pulls on the bottom link and flexs slightly as the Swingarm gets slightly pulled apart.
It is entirely possible for that suspension design to work without the chainstays flexing. Although because I don't own one I couldn't tell you whether they actually do flex or not.
Wrong. As I've tried to explain, the distance from top of swingarm(pivot) to bottom(link pivot) changes it needs some give. If it was aluminium for example and you welded a rod between the top and bottom it would not work and pop the rod welds.
Look at xy9ines top photo. Picture removing the shock and pulling the swingarm all the way back so the linkage is then flat(hypothetically),then you should be able to see that the distance between top and bottom of swingarm would have changed.
i believe it is merk.
where are the carbon bars, carbon seat post, carbon cranks, carbon stem, and carbon break leavers? I think the back end of that bike looks like it has cancer.
if it didnt flex, it'd form like a triangle basically between the 3 pivots. you cant move and change the angles of the triangle without changing the length of atleast one side of it, whcih is why theres flex in the swingarm to allow it to move.
No it's not. Any linkage has to have effectively 4 bars (which entails either 4 pivots or at least one member that bends or changes length) in order to be able to move, as jcook90 has pointed out. The Lahar only has 3 except that the chainstay can flex vertically. It doesn't have to flex far, but it does have to move.
nothing is a bad idea on that frame...
Update! Pictures! Update!
No time for pics now,to busy riding them....
mine left nz wednesday on a 3-5day courier. i just finished building a couple of thrasher wheels for it, got some pimp carbon bar ends too. i take pictures of my one mid week.
xynines is a bit more bling. except no carbon bar ends like me. and he has mass produced by 12yr old kid forks. no offence
xynines is a bit more bling. except no carbon bar ends like me. and he has mass produced by 12yr old kid forks. no offence
Awesome punter,Should be sweet.
i run my 40's at 7inches. so no prob. i'm getting a flat stem this week so will prob raise the forks and change to 7.5inches.
if you wanna see one i'll be at all british NPS races and also innerliethan next wkend for scottish champs, there will be two there.
two in england? wow... pity nps is 60 quid just for entry, i got to get a danm job...
sorry to sound like d1ck but i seriously think your 40 is way too low, looking at lahars web site and xy9s lahars, their forks aren't that slammed.... fox 40s change travel internally and you dont need to change the crown height for different travel settings. i am prolly wrong but just checking man...
sorry to sound like d1ck but i seriously think your 40 is way too low, looking at lahars web site and xy9s lahars, their forks aren't that slammed.... fox 40s change travel internally and you dont need to change the crown height for different travel settings. i am prolly wrong but just checking man...
1. Xynines forks are boxxers.
2. not trying to sound like an ass, but i know my ****, with 7 inch you can run them dropped as the min distance between seal and bottom crown(tyre/crown) is different from 8inch. also, the head tube on a lahar is small, so you can run them low.
cheers for the worrying. but keep your knowledge to bikes that you know, not everyhting is standard out there, and the Lahar is a big eye opener to that.
2. not trying to sound like an ass, but i know my ****, with 7 inch you can run them dropped as the min distance between seal and bottom crown(tyre/crown) is different from 8inch. also, the head tube on a lahar is small, so you can run them low.
cheers for the worrying. but keep your knowledge to bikes that you know, not everyhting is standard out there, and the Lahar is a big eye opener to that.
Try 7.5,I tried mine at 7 then went to 8 and even added a small spacer to the steerer. My rear is over sprung though so I need to soften it as it probably makes the front seem lower as it dives more. At static ,dropped to min on 8 she's above 64 head angle,I think 65 but I'll check later.
i worried coz i have 40s too, and i referred to the lahar on lahar's web site, and xy9's coz i am familiar with the boxxers too, 40's slammed and boxxers with med crowns slammed have very similar amount of stanchion sticking out on top to the top crown...
and with 40's when its slammed for one travel setting, it would be the same for every other setting. only adjustment made is internally.
just had another look at the lahar web site and there is another bike which has the fork as slammed as yours, obviously they run some bikes raised all the way on purpose... maybe to raise the bb?
peace,
adam.
and with 40's when its slammed for one travel setting, it would be the same for every other setting. only adjustment made is internally.
just had another look at the lahar web site and there is another bike which has the fork as slammed as yours, obviously they run some bikes raised all the way on purpose... maybe to raise the bb?
peace,
adam.
40s ajustments are internal but it does affect the hight,even at static.
Changing 40s from 8 to 7 drops them at least an inch. They look slamed because the headtube is small and the headset is intergrated,the bottom crown is still only at it's lowest setting.
I'll put up a pic of mine tomorrow at 8" with 40s on front.
Changing 40s from 8 to 7 drops them at least an inch. They look slamed because the headtube is small and the headset is intergrated,the bottom crown is still only at it's lowest setting.
I'll put up a pic of mine tomorrow at 8" with 40s on front.
I may be wrong. Your moving the spacer into the top out section though that reduces the travel by making the shaft shoter effectivly making the whole fork lower.
I'd say its due to the integrated head set and small head tube. You can run them down like that, or up, depends how high you want your front end. I like my front end lower so slam them. steepens up the HA on a bike which has a pretty slack HA.
bingo
bingo
Hmm - I don't run 40's, but I think that's incorrect.
Changing travel involves rearranging the internal spacers on the spring side, and for whatever travel you reduce via the spacers - the fork will drop the same amount (because effectively you are lowering the topout point).
Basically - that means that you SHOULDN'T be able to lower the bottom crown any further just because you change the travel. The minimum height for the bottom crown should stay the same.
my bottom crown never moves. i lover the forks in the crowns to suit the travel i'm running +10mm. if I'm running 7 inches i run 188mm clear from top of seal to bottom crown. thats how i get to run them low. if i run 8 inches travel then i drop the forks in the crown another 25.4mm, i dont move the crowns ever.
Yeah that's what I thought. You can set the crowns for correct height for 8" and if you reduce the travell the forks(crowns)drop that much.
good to see you've got an m9 back in your hands. been off the bike for a couple weeks (damn holidays in the tropics), and i'm itching to ride. now that we've got a few on the board, it might be time to fire up a generic lahar thread, so there's a singular source for all things lahar (a festering hotspot of fanatic zealotry)...
Banshee - Thats how I run my small Izimu 7" 40, slackest shock mount. I am 5"9' and can't turn as well as I would like (read go faster then I should and then can't make the turn) this seems to be the best set up for me.
Are you ever going to post a pic of your complete bike?
(or i am just an idiot, and missed it)