why? it's god own country. he should help
DVO Suspension - potential new player?
- Thread starter 'size
- Start date
-
- Tags
- carbon shimz
Haha, the righteous will prevail!...
Also, PB you are legend..."twin tube system is is found within some of the most acclaimed off-road moto suspension designs, especially those created by a certain highly rated Swiss company" Sweden is only a completely different country, but whatevs.
Haha I win on the collet system, almost. I didn't think about it being threaded, but it is a split tapered collet, so I'll take that. Great idea imo. Maybe I missed it, but do you have a cone hydraulic bottomout ala Avalanche?
Last edited:
wow with all the armchair engineers here we should be able to create a fork that's so perfect we could ruin the entire suspension market. just need some funding.
except for the funky colour, this fork just about ticks all the boxes for me.
key point tho is the support/tuning help they plan to offer.
having owned BOS stuff, i can safely say even if its a bit more expensive to buy, its gonna be saved in postage and service charges later on.
key point tho is the support/tuning help they plan to offer.
having owned BOS stuff, i can safely say even if its a bit more expensive to buy, its gonna be saved in postage and service charges later on.
Nevermind. The product will speak for itself.
Last edited:
You gotta admit......that 'crown' thing isn't going to do shlt bolted to the bottom of the stanchions. 50% stiffer than what? 2 fork guards?wow with all the armchair engineers here we should be able to create a fork that's so perfect we could ruin the entire suspension market. just need some funding.
Do you know where twisting occurs in an assembled inverted fork and why? Care to explain?You gotta admit......that 'crown' thing isn't going to do shlt bolted to the bottom of the stanchions. 50% stiffer than what? 2 fork guards?
hey let's talk about young's modulus!You gotta admit......that 'crown' thing isn't going to do shlt bolted to the bottom of the stanchions. 50% stiffer than what? 2 fork guards?
i didn't know you switched to unicycles
NON inverted suspension unicycles at that.
let me guess, its a fixie
I think it's to prevent the legs from moving up and down independently of one another to some extent.You gotta admit......that 'crown' thing isn't going to do shlt bolted to the bottom of the stanchions. 50% stiffer than what? 2 fork guards?
A good stout bushing support does that though.
Still.....think of the leverage on that thing.
I'm not saying it doesn't help in some minute, lab measurable quantity.....but it looks (and reads) far more gimmicky than functional.
Still.....think of the leverage on that thing.
I'm not saying it doesn't help in some minute, lab measurable quantity.....but it looks (and reads) far more gimmicky than functional.
sort of the same effect that your flock of seagulls haircut had, i assume
Wrong answer. Fork flex occurs in an inverted design simply because the uppers and lowers can rotate independently of one another, pending deflection at the axle/hub assembly. The solution is to constrain the whole lower assembly, or key each upper to each lower. Keying them isn't too practical, although Cannondale did a good job of it.
With the power of those ho shorts, there is no haircut.
just stop
seriously
That bolt on plastic thing isn't going to do shlt mounted that far down.
edit: and yes, that is in fact 'where my wheel is'
jesus that where ANY fork flexes (twists), including no inverted designs
Last edited:
And I assume you have data to substantiate this, no?just stop
seriously
That bolt on plastic thing isn't going to do shlt mounted that far down.
edit: and yes, that is in fact 'where my wheel is'
Sounds legit.
None legitter™
I have no doubt these guys might make a sick inverted fork. They do exist. You ever ride one of those white brothers groove forks? Not the DH2/3 things but the groove ones? They aren't at the top of the heap because of damping, weight and some other things but they're damn stiff. By far the stiffest inverted fork I've ever ridden. And that's nothing but crazy bushing overlap. I'm already convinced it can be done with an inverted design but putting all the engimacneering a foot and half away from where it's needed isn't exactly the brightest approach. You know the loads that get put on dh bikes. Even carbon FRAMES flex quite a bit with all the beef as close as it can be to the stressors, and they're far more stout than this thing is going to be.
I have no doubt these guys might make a sick inverted fork. They do exist. You ever ride one of those white brothers groove forks? Not the DH2/3 things but the groove ones? They aren't at the top of the heap because of damping, weight and some other things but they're damn stiff. By far the stiffest inverted fork I've ever ridden. And that's nothing but crazy bushing overlap. I'm already convinced it can be done with an inverted design but putting all the engimacneering a foot and half away from where it's needed isn't exactly the brightest approach. You know the loads that get put on dh bikes. Even carbon FRAMES flex quite a bit with all the beef as close as it can be to the stressors, and they're far more stout than this thing is going to be.
I don't disagree with you there.
And now,a doctor with a flashlight will show us where shims come from
You mean there's moar?
Do you use carbon toilet paper?
Depends on the young's modulus of the particular weave.
It's not the 90's. There have been obvious advancements.
It's not the 90's. There have been obvious advancements.
You obviously know more about this than they do. And you obviously know what their bushing arrangement is from all the info they've let be shown on about it.
Sorry, on the topic of anything suspension related, I can't take seriously the opinion of someone who buys and runs a Boxxer by choice..
In my opinion, the effectiveness of the carbon brace will be almost entirely dependent on how sturdy the anchors between the brace and the dropouts are. It's a pretty clever idea - you already need stanchion guards anyway, so making them structural and linking them together to replicate a conventional fork's arch is a good idea provided that the attachment between the brace and the dropouts is stiff enough. Bushing overlap doesn't have a whole lot to do with torsional stiffness actually (though it is directly related to fore/aft stiffness when braking) - it has some effect but preventing rotation of the dropouts relative to one another is far more efficient.
So I'm supposed to take seriously every claim the bike industry has ever made?
Thank GOD we have FEA testing that completely eliminated concepts that never panned out in the real world
edit: also..........
Last edited:
For sure. They've at least got them attached on both sides.
But that's not anywhere near what I would be imagining in order to really work. They're claiming it's 200 grams, and you know most of that by far is in the arch itself and the guards. It would be hard to do as far as a replaceable piece (which this looks like to me) but if you could get a full tube going around the back of the stanchions as well, plus a little more stout mounting system, you'd be mimicking the lowers of a non inverted design.
Last edited:
wow, are you affiliated with DVO or do they just hang their balls on your chin?
Nah he knows something no one else here could possibly know.
What he read on pinkbike that the rest of us did too. You know. "data"
Yeah it's obviously never going to be quite as efficient as actually having conventional lowers in terms of torsional stiffness, but my main point is that given that you need stanchion guards anyway, it's a pretty clever idea to add very little weight between the stanchion guards and increase the torsional stiffness in doing so. So incredibly rigid that Fox 40 owners complain about it being too stiff? Probably not. Better than it would otherwise be? Obviously.For sure. They've at least got them attached on both sides.
But that's not anywhere near what I would be imagining in order to really work. They're claiming it's 200 grams, and you know most of that by far is in the arch itself and the guards. It would be hard to do as far as a replaceable piece (which this looks like to me) but if you could get a full tube going around the back of the stanchions as well, plus a little more stout mounting system, you'd be mimicking the lowers of a non inverted design.
I'm not really a huge fan of the aesthetics personally, but I'm pretty interested in this fork for a few reasons:
1. The damper looks pretty neat. Externally adjustable HS/LS for both compression and rebound, using what looks like fairly well considered valve design (speculation - haven't actually run numbers, ridden the thing or chucked it on the dyno yet). Compression midvalve AND high/low speed rebound adjustments on the one piston is pretty cool, nobody has combined the two before. Looks like they've also avoided using an enormous shaft like the Boxxer, which IMO is a good thing as the Boxxer's shaft/bore ratio is quite high for a non-recirculatory design (where a check valve takes up quite a large portion of the available area).
2. Obviously they've designed it with serviceability in mind. Having to take knobs off top caps and stuff is annoying - not really a big deal but if you can make it better then you might as well.
3. Hopefully standard NOK seals like the Marz forks use. Similar/same bushings would be great as well.
4. Pinchbolt 20mm axle. Another way of saying "we get it".
5. CNC'd everything = virtually no chance of messed up tolerances (unless the actual design spec was bad).
6. Different crown offsets for 26" and 650B to keep the trail the same. Nice touch.
In fact my personal concerns for the fork relate entirely to the air spring. If they can get that right though, it should be pretty awesome, especially since being air sprung, there won't be the standard Marzocchi issue of "I weigh more than 170lbs and can't get hold of the right spring" or "I weigh less than 160lbs and can't get hold of the right spring".
Edit: The collet idea is nifty, but not if it means needing a special tool. Crown pinchbolts don't give people too many headaches. Also, direct post-mount is annoying. IS-PM adaptors let you have the adjustability of post mount with the servicing convenience of IS.
Last edited:
I know, that is what I'm saying.
Yeah it has lots of interesting and clever features for sure.
But HOW 'obviously'?
Technically speaking, some zip ties and duct tape provide something over nothing. I just laugh at '50% stiffer' more than anything else. There's no way that thing is making the entire fork 50% stiffer. If so, they built a shltty fork. Or it's 50% stiffer for the first few torque cycles until it develops enough stress cracks to negate itself.
I'm interested in this thing too because a world with only two viable DC fork companies is just silly, plus for all the reasons you mentioned.
But I have this nagging reminder of who's running the company and who has some personal responsibility for keeping the dental industry in business everywhere there's a set of good sized dirtjumps. Not to mention some of the absolutely fabulous direct owner to consumer interactions I've seen first hand when said owner was presented with some really shltty product failures. Products that had you know.....data, before they were released.
And hell yeah, I'd love to see them come up with a good air spring. The one in the boxxer I ride that hack thinks I'm in love with sucks dick. And infinite tunes with not only spring pressure but also progressiveness rules.
Last edited:
This thing looks awesome but the Dorado has all raving reviews including particularly for its air spring and damper. Is this supposed to be better feeling? More adjustable? Better sealed or smoother feeling? Lighter? Stiffer? I think that's gonna be its main competition even more than RS & Fox so what are the marketing department's points on why to choose the DVO?
Last edited:
Figures for stiffness can pretty easily increase by factors of 2/5/10, it is effectively a logarithmic scale. You will most likely find that say a 40 is quite seriously more than 10 times stiffer torsionally than say a Shiver. 40 stanchions, for example, are approximately 50% stiffer in bending than Boxxer stanchions, but that doesn't mean you go 50% faster. I don't think their claim that torsional stiffness is increased by 50% with the arch (vs without it) is outrageous in the slightest. Whether the claim is accurate, who knows, but it's actually not unrealistic.But HOW 'obviously'?
I just laugh at '50% stiffer' more than anything else. There's no way that thing is making the entire fork 50% stiffer. If so, they built a shltty fork. Or it's 50% stiffer for the first few torque cycles until it develops enough stress cracks to negate itself.
I'm interested in this thing too because a world with only two viable DC fork companies is just silly, plus for all the reasons you mentioned.
But I have this nagging reminder of who's running the company and who has some personal responsibility for keeping the dental industry in business everywhere there's a set of good sized dirtjumps. Not to mention some of the absolutely fabulous direct owner to consumer interactions I've seen first hand when said owner was presented with some really shltty product failures. Products that had you know.....data, before they were released.
And hell yeah, I'd love to see them come up with a good air spring. The one in the boxxer I ride that hack thinks I'm in love with sucks dick. And infinite tunes with not only spring pressure but also progressiveness rules.