[dw]

dw, do you have some animations? im not so good to vizualize something in brains regarding compllicated suspensions thing especially concentric point while braking. To understand single pivot while accelerating is no problem.

dw, do you have some animations? im not so good What program do you suggest if I want to play with simple 3d tubes connected to each other to see how the suspension works and at the same time understand your explanations? I have your pdf and feel like

There's a new Split Pivot website coming, it's supposed to launch on 9/1/10, we will see what happens but there will be a lot more info and hopefully a couple animations for you too. Sorry, I know the current website is not all that great but it has been up for a few years so it's time for an update.

I'm not aware of any program that will help understand suspensions, actually every one that I am aware of only will add to confusion and send you down the wrong paths, but you can read some books. I suggest Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics and Tony Foale's book also. They don't cover everything, but it's a start. Take your time, this stuff doesn't come overnight. Then get a seat of SolidWorks and start modeling for the 3D part!

Dave

 

[bizutch]

I was smiling all three days, wow it was awesome, makes me feel so lucky to do what I do and gives me the motivation to work harder and think harder so I can keep doing so.

Did Brady Owens find you within 5 seconds of arrival?

 

[no skid marks]

I'd say that compared to most other single pivot, horst link, or similar type bikes on the market, every one of the designs that I've worked on would be considered a "high pivot". That's one of the real advantages to the Split Pivot design in my opinion, being able to use a higher main pivot location for acceleration. The Split Pivot's integrated floating brake and the ability to get a little more leverage ratio control tie it all together. You won't see any Split Pivot bikes come from my shop with low main pivot locations, I can guaranty that.

I meant a bike with a pivot higher than the chainline, with the wheel path ending at least just past vertical, with an idler(or better still a gearbox).

 

[dante]

Just like back in teh day when Giant used to build bikes for Speccy, and they built a bike very simmular to a Speccy suspension..... Even speccy couldnt get Giant to stop.....

Uh, beyond knowing exactly how things are going to play out, you're flat out wrong on this aspect (assuming you're talking about the NRS).


http://archive.giant-bicycles.com/us/030.000.000/030.000.006.asp?year=2004&model=10874

Some elements of the NRS frame design were licensed from SPECIALIZED® and relate to the FSR Suspension Design U.S. patents 5,509,679/5,678,837/5,899,480

 

[Wilhelm]

BERGAMONT (Hamburg): Another player in the DW´s "SplitPivot licensee" liga for 2011? They call it "Coax Pivot System".

 

[Wilhelm]

Hugo Auguste BECKER: A true "silverback" in the full suspension bike scenery for 120 years. Look at his Split Pivot like patent from October 28th 1890:

 

[dw]

Hugo Auguste BECKER: A true "silverback" in the full suspension bike scenery for 120 years. Look at his Split Pivot like patent from October 28th 1890:

Not that this has not been brought up 15 times elsewhere, but the Becker patent discloses a URT design with no damping whatsoever, and is referenced as prior art by the Split Pivot patents (literally on the first page of the patent). The patent office views Split Pivot as patentable over Becker.

Dave

edit: Wilhelm, I notice that you posted that information on the German site also, seeing as I don't speak or write German, would you mind amending your post on the German site to include this information?

 

[Wilhelm]

Not that this has not been brought up 15 times elsewhere, but the Becker patent discloses a URT design with no damping whatsoever, and is referenced as prior art by the Split Pivot patents (literally on the first page of the patent). The patent office views Split Pivot as patentable over Becker.

Dave

edit: Wilhelm, I notice that you posted that information on the German site also, seeing as I don't speak or write German, would you mind amending your post on the German site to include this information?

Dave, thank you for your clearing up remarks, very interesting. Of course I will amend my post in the German forum. However, it is always fascinating to realize what striking ideas our ancestors did already have under far less evolved technological conditions. Why did BERGAMONT create the term "Coax Pivot System"? BTW, I would be very glad to see the first gearbox bike(s) with your "SplitPivot" design in the not so distant future.

Wilhelm

 

[Wilhelm]

Dave, thank you for your clearing up remarks, very interesting. Of course I will amend my post in the German forum. However, it is always fascinating to realize what striking ideas our ancestors did already have under far less evolved technological conditions. Why did BERGAMONT create the term "Coax Pivot System"? BTW, I would be very glad to see the first gearbox bike(s) with your "SplitPivot" design in the not so distant future.

Wilhelm

Done.

 

[DH biker]

Any word on Spooky Cycles bike?

 

[no skid marks]

The Burgamonts just seem to have the pivot a chainline height or possibly a touch higher, hardly "high pivot" is it.

Not that this has not been brought up 15 times elsewhere, but the Becker patent discloses a URT design with no damping whatsoever, and is referenced as prior art by the Split Pivot patents (literally on the first page of the patent). The patent office views Split Pivot as patentable over Becker.
Dave

It's probably better in your hands Dave, but is rumaging through old designs, then patenting them for profit realy cool? Yeah sure you had the insight, and sure someone else would do it if you hadn't, but isn't that the curse of mankind?
URT or not, damping or not, Burgamonts bike is a split pivot, and where you sourced the idea?
wiffle ball flame suit please

 

[Steve M]

The Burgamonts just seem to have the pivot a chainline height or possibly a touch higher, hardly "high pivot" is it.

I don't mean to sound like a twat, and it's probably better in your hands Dave, but is rumaging through as many old designs as you can get your hands on, then patenting them for profit realy cool? Yeah sure you had the insight, and sure someone else would do it if you hadn't, but isn't that the curse of mankind?
URT or not, dmaping or not, Burgamonts bike is a split pivot, and where you sourced the idea?
wiffle ball flame suit please

So what you're saying is that other than the differences, it's exactly the same... ingenious.

 

[no skid marks]

So what you're saying is that other than the differences, it's exactly the same... ingenious.

I toned down my post as you were writting, and would have tonned it down more, but you'd already quoted it. I should never post before coffee
Is the fact that it's an URT really relevant?
Or undamped?
I guess anything can be argued legally. My point was it was an exisiting idea, just executed slightly diffently. But the piovt at the axle concept, that is the crux of the split pivot, had been done.
So does that mean Mongoose/GT/Lapier could use a split pivot arguing it's an URT?
I should've known, you being the king of semantics would chime in.

 

[Steve M]

I toned down my post as you were writting, and would have tonned it down more, but you'd already quoted it. I should never post before coffee
Is the fact that it's an URT really relevant?
Or undamped?
I guess anything can be argued legally. My point was it was an exisiting idea, just executed slightly diffently. But the piovt at the axle concept, that is the crux of the split pivot, had been done.
So does that mean Mongoose/GT/Lapier could use a split pivot arguing it's an URT?
I should've known, you being the king of semantics would chime in.

As far as relevance goes: Undamped - for the most part not that big a deal, other than the fact that braking vibrations require significant damping, pointing to the fact that the original bike wasn't concerned with braking performance in the slightest. The fact that it is a URT is a pretty major difference, as IMO the major point of split pivot/ABP is that it allows easy separation of braking and pedalling characteristics from a design point of view, as you can change one without affecting the other. The original axle-centric pivot bike didn't use the pivot as a form of floating brake at all, in fact nowhere in the whole patent does it even mention brakes (patent here http://ip.com/pdf/patent/US439095.pdf ). More than likely, it was a fixed gear bike, since to the best of my knowledge, freehubs weren't invented yet, hence the reason for the URT design.

So call it semantics if you want, but if you're gonna do that, how about actually doing some research instead of just screaming that everyone is ripping off everyone else and should instead build a high-pivot bike.

 

[bradflyn]

I would be very glad to see the first gearbox bike(s) with your "SplitPivot" design in the not so distant future.

Wilhelm

How about the distant past for ideas. Before Dave did the split pivot he said he worked with nicolai on the g-conn standard. Heres a g-boxx before the g-conn standard dave could have worked with to get an idea.

Pretty sure the is clearly a 4 bar linkage as labled not a flex stay as others have theorized. so that rear pivot must hold the wheel and pivot. clever.


Maybe this 8 year old frame idea can finally be made and we can see a real one.

 

[P.T.W]

Dude how many times are you going to post that pic an bring up the same subject????

 

[bradflyn]

Dude how many times are you going to post that pic anD bring up the same subject????

Endlessly. Just sharing common knowledge that Wilhem didn't seem to know about.

Knowing is half the battle.

 

[Kanye West]

Next month: DW patents toilet paper with a new cutting-edge name. Now in order to use that you must pay royalties on it.

 

[Vrock]

I live in Europe so I'll give you my point of view... I really don't care about Split pivot. Around here we can use the FSR without problems, so all this debate seems pointless. In a few years The FSR patttent will expire in USA too, so you will be in the same position. If FSR were free, S-P probably wouldn't exist.

The funny thing is that if a few brands start using it, it'll will be percieved as a better system than FSR, and other brands will try to use it. This could be the case of Bergamont??? I really don't understand why they decided to Copy the S-P.

 

[fluider]

Why dou you think Bergamont copied SplitPivot and gave unique name to their invention. Dave Weagle himself told several times that position of his SplitPivot patent is VERY strong and he feels confident about it. It's patented in every single important market. Bergamont can't just come up with their replica. And if I remember correctly DW mentioned some "cooperation" with Bergamont last year but he couldn't (was not allowed) to say any more details. We can only guess what DW asked for and got from Bergamont for allowing them to use different name of SplitPivot. We don't know details of their trade. Bergamont have some good name in German market so it might have been a good candidate to promote SplitPivot. Choise of German market is also good as German mtb magazines have good reputation in Europe and are influential.
Anyway, that FR rig is nice, the others I don't like.

 

[Wilhelm]

How about the distant past for ideas. Before Dave did the split pivot he said he worked with nicolai on the g-conn standard. Heres a g-boxx before the g-conn standard dave could have worked with to get an idea.

Pretty sure the is clearly a 4 bar linkage as labled not a flex stay as others have theorized. so that rear pivot must hold the wheel and pivot. clever.


Maybe this 8 year old frame idea can finally be made and we can see a real one.

One point of criticism of this design is that the low main pivot nearby the gearbox (in other words not exactly the localization of the output shaft of the gearbox or alternatively the pivot where the chain gains the chainwheel [tight span]) requires a chain tensioner so that the chain can oscillate a lot, may hit the chain stay, rattle and can jump off, too (unless you don´t use a chain guide). Otherwise the design has a clean look.

 

[blackohio]

i love how random dudes in suspension design threads give critiques to one of if not the best suspension designers out there.

 

[Vrock]

Why dou you think Bergamont copied SplitPivot and gave unique name to their invention. Dave Weagle himself told several times that position of his SplitPivot patent is VERY strong and he feels confident about it. It's patented in every single important market. Bergamont can't just come up with their replica. And if I remember correctly DW mentioned some "cooperation" with Bergamont last year but he couldn't (was not allowed) to say any more details. We can only guess what DW asked for and got from Bergamont for allowing them to use different name of SplitPivot. We don't know details of their trade. Bergamont have some good name in German market so it might have been a good candidate to promote SplitPivot. Choise of German market is also good as German mtb magazines have good reputation in Europe and are influential.
Anyway, that FR rig is nice, the others I don't like.

I don't know, but it will be really weird to use the Split pivot and then use another name for it. I think they simply copied it.

 

[eatmyshorts]

the year is 2015..

company "X" has patented the single pivot - all companies using a single pivot layout are now developing new bikes on the FSR platform...

 

[jonKranked]

the year is 2015..

company "X" has patented the single pivot - all companies using a single pivot layout are now developing new bikes on the FSR platform...

 

[Bikael Molton]

 

[bikesair]

I understand a lot of peoples point of view that most likely all suspension knock off's probably ride damn near identical to the original. But I couldn't imagine DW would be in business if this was the case...

I know Maestro and DW are almost identical but from what I have heard they much different riding characteristics. Right now I am in the process of deciding whether I want a Pivot PhoenixDH or a Glory. I've ridden Maestro for several years now and have no complaints but am also looking to try something new. Theres a lot of great DH frames out right now but the DW reviews are hard to ignore

 

[no skid marks]

I understand a lot of peoples point of view that most likely all suspension knock off's probably ride damn near identical to the original. But I couldn't imagine DW would be in business if this was the case...

I know Maestro and DW are almost identical but from what I have heard they much different riding characteristics. Right now I am in the process of deciding whether I want a Pivot PhoenixDH or a Glory. I've ridden Maestro for several years now and have no complaints but am also looking to try something new. Theres a lot of great DH frames out right now but the DW reviews are hard to ignore

Can you link to any of the "reviews" please. Are they Sunday reviews, or freshies of new bikes? Hopefully the later. Would be great to hear back to back reviews of all the current DW bikes to know the differences in how they perform, and of cause compared to the Sunday.

 

[dw]

How about the distant past for ideas. Before Dave did the split pivot he said he worked with nicolai on the g-conn standard. Heres a g-boxx before the g-conn standard dave could have worked with to get an idea.

Pretty sure the is clearly a 4 bar linkage as labled not a flex stay as others have theorized. so that rear pivot must hold the wheel and pivot. clever.


Maybe this 8 year old frame idea can finally be made and we can see a real one.

WOW, getting pretty old..

G-CONN was Karl's design from 2006, and the website didn't happen until even later. Anyways, as I've replied to you multiple times, the demonstrative illustration that you keep showing is not a real design, it's an illustration of a flex stay bike, I designed the GBOXX1 myself.

Your endgame baffles me. Just get out and ride your bike, I'm sure it will help to make you happier, it helps for me!

 

[dw]

Dave, thank you for your clearing up remarks, very interesting. Of course I will amend my post in the German forum. However, it is always fascinating to realize what striking ideas our ancestors did already have under far less evolved technological conditions. Why did BERGAMONT create the term "Coax Pivot System"? BTW, I would be very glad to see the first gearbox bike(s) with your "SplitPivot" design in the not so distant future.

Wilhelm

Thanks Wilhelm,

I would also like to see a Split Pivot gearbox DH bike, but one that weighs less than 9 lbs with gearbox and shock. A tall order, but maybe someday.

 

[dw]

I live in Europe so I'll give you my point of view... I really don't care about Split pivot. Around here we can use the FSR without problems, so all this debate seems pointless. In a few years The FSR patttent will expire in USA too, so you will be in the same position. If FSR were free, S-P probably wouldn't exist.

The funny thing is that if a few brands start using it, it'll will be percieved as a better system than FSR, and other brands will try to use it. This could be the case of Bergamont??? I really don't understand why they decided to Copy the S-P.

Actually, the design's patent has already been approved by the European patent office, and entered the national phase well over a year ago, so patent coverage in Europe should happen soon. FSR is a good design in my opinion, and if Split Pivot has 1/10 of the success of FSR in the marketplace then I will be really happy. I can't control that directly though. All I can do is work to make the best bikes that I possibly can, stay humble and always learn, keep trying to apply new ideas, challenge myself and push the limits of what I can do.

Not every bike that I work on will be everything to everybody, and I'm not trying to make them be ubiquitous. People have wildly varying tastes, I am just trying to satisfy some of those different tastes and with any luck improve life just that little bit for people. It beats working on tactical equipment (my previous job), which is a stretch to suggest that they truly improve life..

 

[dw]

Next month: DW patents toilet paper with a new cutting-edge name. Now in order to use that you must pay royalties on it.

was that really necessary?

 

[bizutch]

was that really necessary?

No. But funny still.

You should give all these haters some background on your initial trip to Interbike and how it encouraged you and John P to become so diligent in protecting intellectual property. It might help them understand why patents play such an important role in your life.

 

[DirtyMike]

Uh, beyond knowing exactly how things are going to play out, you're flat out wrong on this aspect (assuming you're talking about the NRS).


http://archive.giant-bicycles.com/us/030.000.000/030.000.006.asp?year=2004&model=10874

No, Im not..... I know players from both sides from this one, yes that is the bike I was reffering to..... Inside scoop from it...... Speccy couldnt stop giant in teh courts.... only way they got what you listed to happen was to find someone else to build there bikes and threaten to pull the contract from giant...........

Like everything else, thre is always alot more to the stories that the public see's.

 

[bullcrew]

Next month: DW patents toilet paper with a new cutting-edge name. Now in order to use that you must pay royalties on it.

LMAO! Per square. roll or by the ply?