[Steve M]

What about Evil Revolt's LVR curve ? I'd guess it couldn't be achieved without floating shock.

I'd bet it could (or at least a very close approximation thereof), and IIRC DW himself said that that specific leverage rate curve didn't inherently require the floating lower mount. Remember the new Turner DHR has a similar shaped leverage rate curve.

I think it's entirely possible to have pretty well any leverage rate you'd actually want in the real world with almost any mounting of the shock. By changing where the shock is mounted (traditionally between adjacent "bars" of the suspension, which typically have quite simple motion relative to each other), you can potentially introduce more variable rates - but in reality, who wants a curve that goes progressive to sharply falling then back to progressive again? It might be attainable with a "floating" shock or any other more unconventional mounting (incl using 6-bar linkages) but really... it's not actually any use.

In summary - I don't think there is any INHERENT advantage of a floating shock. You can use it to achieve certain goals (packaging probably being the #1 in my opinion) but just having a floating shock does NECESSARILY deliver certain benefits.

 

[Jm_]

but in reality, who wants a curve that goes progressive to sharply falling then back to progressive again?

Anyone who thinks the DHX-Air is the sh*t!

 

[blackohio]

This is one of the main problems with those that don't really understand the "floating shock" idea. It doesn't matter, and relative to the shock I guess you can always say it's being compressed at both ends. A force is applied, and the shock compresses. Relative to another part of the bike, or the earth, or whatever, doesn't really mater, doesn't change the forces.

no, mine was a simple question relating to the design of the bike as I havent looked at any real pics of the frame and didnt know what the design was. Thanks for more or less calling me uninformed.

 

[dilzy]

I don't agree with the earlier comment by Socket that you can achieve rates with a "floating shock" design that you can not achieve without it. I think a better way to put it is that in some cases, a "floating shock" design can allow more flexibility in frame construction while maintaining a desired leverage rate. This is what Trek is doing with many of their new bikes, which makes it fairly easy for them to maintain a straight seat-tube and also they don't have to fabricate or engineer two shock-mounts into the frame, so it possibly allows you to locate the shock in someplace that is better.

Trek does it to get out of DW's split pivot patents, pure and simple. The floating shock idea is a marketing joke. The tangibly large increase in un-sprung weight (now the entire shock weight rather than about a 1/3) is not worth the structural efficiency gained by placing the shock forces back into the reinforced likage pivots.

 

[dilzy]

I'd bet it could (or at least a very close approximation thereof), and IIRC DW himself said that that specific leverage rate curve didn't inherently require the floating lower mount. Remember the new Turner DHR has a similar shaped leverage rate curve.

I think it's entirely possible to have pretty well any leverage rate you'd actually want in the real world with almost any mounting of the shock. By changing where the shock is mounted (traditionally between adjacent "bars" of the suspension, which typically have quite simple motion relative to each other), you can potentially introduce more variable rates - but in reality, who wants a curve that goes progressive to sharply falling then back to progressive again? It might be attainable with a "floating" shock or any other more unconventional mounting (incl using 6-bar linkages) but really... it's not actually any use.

In summary - I don't think there is any INHERENT advantage of a floating shock. You can use it to achieve certain goals (packaging probably being the #1 in my opinion) but just having a floating shock does NECESSARILY deliver certain benefits.

I remember DW said the origional Revolt had a normal setup, but for packaging and structural reasons (read they want light weight over traction), they (Evil blokes) wanted a floating shock.

 

[Steve M]

Yeah the best part is SC admits they were full of sh*t just like Specialized and Ellsworth's propaganda

It takes a lot of balls to admit that kind of thing publicly. Full points for that one IMO. I still don't see VPP as the be-all, end-all, nor do I agree with some other points they raise, but you can hardly criticise a company for actually publicly saying "Yep, that was actually false, sorry - here's the real deal...". Even if they are actually wrong, at least they're honest. You can't really compare that to Ellsworth...

 

[Tetreault]

I fully agree, I also give lots of respect for a company that admits when they have made a mistake.

The only reason that this article intrigued me was because i have always found that vpp bikes do feel really nice compared to other systems in my experiences. This was especially evident this year when i demo'd a nomad, reign, and cannondale moto back to back, although i wont say that the linkage system accounted for 100% of my decision, but i found the nomad to have a much nicer and predictable ride with more "pop" when compared to the others.

 

[essenmeinstuff]

Trek does it to get out of DW's split pivot patents, pure and simple. The floating shock idea is a marketing joke. The tangibly large increase in un-sprung weight (now the entire shock weight rather than about a 1/3) is not worth the structural efficiency gained by placing the shock forces back into the reinforced likage pivots.

Not true, you can't take the shock weight as is, its attached to the axle via a lever, and that lever reduces the effective unsprung mass.

 

[syadasti]

It takes a lot of balls to admit that kind of thing publicly. Full points for that one IMO. I still don't see VPP as the be-all, end-all, nor do I agree with some other points they raise, but you can hardly criticise a company for actually publicly saying "Yep, that was actually false, sorry - here's the real deal...". Even if they are actually wrong, at least they're honest. You can't really compare that to Ellsworth...

I don't think Joe was around for the first generation VPP bikes. They weren't a great improvement and yet there was still a truck full of bandwagon suckers who bought the marketing hook line and sinker even when you pointed it out to them:

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121195

I do think he did a great job as I bought a BLT2 when it was first released and owned it for a while and it was a great bike.

 

[Steve M]

Trek does it to get out of DW's split pivot patents, pure and simple. The floating shock idea is a marketing joke. The tangibly large increase in un-sprung weight (now the entire shock weight rather than about a 1/3) is not worth the structural efficiency gained by placing the shock forces back into the reinforced likage pivots.

Look at the moment arm of the swingarm (axle to pivot) vs the shock mount to pivot distance and then try to say the entire mass of the shock is moving at a significant fraction of the axle's speed... nup. "Tangibly large increase in unsprung weight" is a joke.

I don't think Joe was around for the first generation VPP bikes. They weren't a great improvement and yet there was still a truck full of bandwagon suckers who bought the marketing hook line and sinker even when you pointed it out to them:

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121195

I do think he did a great job as I bought a BLT2 when it was first released and owned it for a while and it was a great bike.

Regardless of which employee says it, Santa Cruz have put their reputation on the line by publicly admitting that their prior marketing claims were in some way erroneous - deliberately or not. Good on them. I'm not commenting on the bikes themselves, just the fact that they're willing to look past their own corporate image and say "Sorry we were wrong about that".

 

[Jm_]

Meanwhile, Ellsworth bike's ICT is still "quantifiably the most-energy efficient suspension system in the WORLD". Apart from the absolutely over-the-top horrible website, you gotta laugh whenever you seen Tony Ellsworth's claims.

 

[General Lee]

Look at the moment arm of the swingarm (axle to pivot) vs the shock mount to pivot distance and then try to say the entire mass of the shock is moving at a significant fraction of the axle's speed... nup. "Tangibly large increase in unsprung weight" is a joke.



Regardless of which employee says it, Santa Cruz have put their reputation on the line by publicly admitting that their prior marketing claims were in some way erroneous - deliberately or not. Good on them. I'm not commenting on the bikes themselves, just the fact that they're willing to look past their own corporate image and say "Sorry we were wrong about that".

That is to say a new marketing claim apologizing for a previous marketing claim. Do you really suppose this was done out of remorse, or for anything less than on purpose? Kool-aide comes in all sorts of flavors, and 'admitting previous errors while pointing out misleading statements from competitors to increase credibility and make new designs appear more informed and ultimately correct or better than the competition' is on page 10 of Marketing Department for Dummies.

These are the same guys who told us that the only reason the Syndicate V10's use longer (proper?) stroke shocks is because the team riders are just soooo much faster than the rest of us and needed more durability, but honestly they really can't tell the difference . . . . . uh-huh

but this one is still my personal fav. : ISCG "standards" include about 13 different ways to configure three stupid holes around the bottom bracket. And even then half the chain-guides on the market don't fit right without spacers, and putting your cranks on, then taking them off, and on, and off to get it right. And then there's ISCG05, same 3 holes 'cept we moved 'em! These holes initially held a back-plate to orient rollers that weren't abused much, but now people are hanging "taco" style bash guards on there which puts a lot more force on that little frame tab. And how do you weld that tab on anyway? It's only in the way of the freaking DOWN-TUBE on a lot of bikes. Beauty standard you got there. Well thought out.

. . . funny, I've shattered tacos, seen bolts sheer and backplates bend without so mush as a whimper from "that little frame tab." Of course I've also seen companies do a piss-poor job applying the standard, paying it no attention beyond the simple orientation of the tabs which even then they get wrong. Whose fault is that???

Joe's Corner is most certainly part of their marketing strategy. Grains of salt not included.

 

[Viv92]

That is to say a new marketing claim apologizing for a previous marketing claim. Do you really suppose this was done out of remorse, or for anything less than on purpose? Kool-aide comes in all sorts of flavors, and 'admitting previous errors while pointing out misleading statements from competitors to increase credibility and make new designs appear more informed and ultimately correct or better than the competition' is on page 10 of Marketing Department for Dummies.

These are the same guys who told us that the only reason the Syndicate V10's use longer (proper?) stroke shocks is because the team riders are just soooo much faster than the rest of us and needed more durability, but honestly they really can't tell the difference . . . . . uh-huh

Not the first time either. Anyone remember the 'S-shaped' axle path on the old V10, which SC later apologized for somewhere?

 

[Steve M]

That is to say a new marketing claim apologizing for a previous marketing claim. Do you really suppose this was done out of remorse, or for anything less than on purpose? Kool-aide comes in all sorts of flavors, and 'admitting previous errors while pointing out misleading statements from competitors to increase credibility and make new designs appear more informed and ultimately correct or better than the competition' is on page 10 of Marketing Department for Dummies.

These are the same guys who told us that the only reason the Syndicate V10's use longer (proper?) stroke shocks is because the team riders are just soooo much faster than the rest of us and needed more durability, but honestly they really can't tell the difference . . . . . uh-huh

but this one is still my personal fav. : ISCG "standards" include about 13 different ways to configure three stupid holes around the bottom bracket. And even then half the chain-guides on the market don't fit right without spacers, and putting your cranks on, then taking them off, and on, and off to get it right. And then there's ISCG05, same 3 holes 'cept we moved 'em! These holes initially held a back-plate to orient rollers that weren't abused much, but now people are hanging "taco" style bash guards on there which puts a lot more force on that little frame tab. And how do you weld that tab on anyway? It's only in the way of the freaking DOWN-TUBE on a lot of bikes. Beauty standard you got there. Well thought out.

. . . funny, I've shattered tacos, seen bolts sheer and backplates bend without so mush as a whimper from "that little frame tab." Of course I've also seen companies do a piss-poor job applying the standard, paying it no attention beyond the simple orientation of the tabs which even then they get wrong. Whose fault is that???

Joe's Corner is most certainly part of their marketing strategy. Grains of salt not included.

As I've said SEVERAL TIMES now, I don't necessarily agree with everything they say, nor have I ever said SC are somehow "above" marketing strategies. Simply pointing out that unlike Spesh, Ellsworth et al, they were willing to at least say "Yep sorry, that one was incorrect and we apologise for misleading you". Most companies just wouldn't do it because it's easier (and in this industry, acceptable) to say "no we're not wrong, our physically unpossible claims are true!" No **** they're trying to gain some credibility... you get that from honesty.

Not the first time either. Anyone remember the 'S-shaped' axle path on the old V10, which SC later apologized for somewhere?

But why male models?

Seriously dude, read the thread, that one is exactly what we're talking about!

 

[syadasti]

As I've said SEVERAL TIMES now, I don't necessarily agree with everything they say, nor have I ever said SC are somehow "above" marketing strategies. Simply pointing out that unlike Spesh, Ellsworth et al, they were willing to at least say "Yep sorry, that one was incorrect and we apologise for misleading you". Most companies just wouldn't do it because it's easier (and in this industry, acceptable) to say "no we're not wrong, our physically unpossible claims are true!" No **** they're trying to gain some credibility... you get that from honesty.

Its more like, "Yep, sorry we intentionally lied to you SUCKERS!!!"

They had to have tested it in CAD, mockups, and/or prototypes (they talk about their extensive design and testing process in their PR campaigns even) which is why they didn't use an S-shaped axle path period - not suited to the application and yet they still knowingly published completely bogus propaganda - just as slimy as everyone else other than the fact they admitted they intentionally spouted what they knew was a farce.

 

[General Lee]

SC makes great bikes, I'd ride one. Just like I'd ride probably a dozen other DH frames without much concern.

But I still give them zero credit for admitting their 'mistake.' not because they spin it off as being a mistake (oops, we published something untrue but it wasn't totally on purpose . . . yeah, right.), but because it's objective is so obvious: claim to have made a mistake, own up to it, and what follows immediately comes off as credible. Everyone falls for it, maybe not when it comes to bikes where we are hyper-attentive, but with other products more in our peripheral vision. We probably don't even realize it, but that's the point.

I don't think it's good or bad, or they are right, wrong, misleading or otherwise. It's marketing, albeit more palatable than some but marketing all the same. But hey, they make great bikes and want people to buy them instead of another great bike. Fair play. Game on.