Not that I particularly care about this issue, but does it matter how the design operates in the abstract if it clearly works on dirt?Is that really a good idea/design ?
Not that I particularly care about this issue, but does it matter how the design operates in the abstract if it clearly works on dirt?Is that really a good idea/design ?
Actually yeah, to the extent it helps combat chain growth and other common complaints with bike suspension, it is a good design.Is that really a good idea/design ?
Yes you're right the design will 'combat chain growth'. If that was a priority of the designer then it was a success. However, it was ONLY a success if chain growth was more important than isolating the rider from the movement of the suspension. I would have thought that isolating the rider from the terrain they are riding over would be the priority or main design criteria of any bicycle suspension designer ? Especially with DH bikes.Actually yeah, to the extent it helps combat chain growth and other common complaints with bike suspension, it is a good design.
The thrust of your argument is that it's not "normal" and that it's kinda sorta like a URT, but you have no real-world experience with which to contradict the opinions of people here who have actually ridden it and who have developed some respect here with prior posts.
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how Hannah does this year.
to get this on topic a bitYes you're right the design will 'combat chain growth'. If that was a priority of the designer then it was a success. However, it was ONLY a success if chain growth was more important than isolating the rider from the movement of the suspension. I would have thought that isolating the rider from the terrain they are riding over would be the priority or main design criteria of any bicycle suspension designer ? Especially with DH bikes.
Yes I haven't ridden the bike but I have ridden URT's in the past. I even knew some people who actually liked them. At the time it was claimed by the proponents of URT designs that you shouldn't criticise them until you had ridden them. However, a widespread increase in the knowledge of the consumer and marketing by other companies offering other designs caused the URT to become almost extinct. Using your reasoning, even if on paper a URT design appears flawed, riders who are newer to the sport who perhaps encounter a proponent of URT's (maybe even a highly respected member of this forum) should ride a URT before formulating an opinion that on paper the design is totally flawed ?
If that were the case then there would be no such thing as progressional theoretical in the bike industry. Every new bike company would have to make prototypes of every type of suspension design that's come and gone. As real world testing of a product would be the only indication of performance.
is our bike the plushest bike ever...probably not , will it win the fastest bike through the gnarliest rock garden known to man, probably not...
and are the new Mongoose bikes "Mongoose" (I assume so but...?).....or B. Mongoose had some sort of relationship with Turner and they used Turners with Mongoose stickers.
Gnarly rock sections aren't where races are won, holding speed through corners does.Good luck to Mick then
contrary to popular belief, WC most racers don't have their bikes set up to be super plush through rock gardens. a nice, comfy bike is not necessarily a fast bike on a race course and most of those guys are able to carry enough speed to skim over the top of rough sections. a squishy bike slows you down.Good luck to Mick then
It's got nothing to do with the bike being squishy or firm. It's whether the suspension design works well or not. I appreciate Andrew Neethling's ability. My point is would he be even more competitive on another design.contrary to popular belief, WC most racers don't have their bikes set up to be super plush through rock gardens. a nice, comfy bike is not necessarily a fast bike on a race course and most of those guys are able to carry enough speed to skim over the top of rough sections. a squishy bike slows you down.
Neethling kills it on a Mongoose and is one of the smoothest, fastest, and most stylish riders out there. 'nuff said
And then again, your point would be wrong.It's got nothing to do with the bike being squishy or firm. It's whether the suspension design works well or not. I appreciate Andrew Neethling's ability. My point is would he be even more competitive on another design.
dude give it a rest. You clearly don't understand how the design works. Like others have said before you, it is NOT URT. the cranks do not move with axle. The cranks move, but it is an extremely slight movement. Abstract discussions aside you've never even ridden the fuggin thing.It's got nothing to do with the bike being squishy or firm. It's whether the suspension design works well or not. I appreciate Andrew Neethling's ability. My point is would he be even more competitive on another design.
Unfortunately we don't know that.And then again, your point would be wrong.
Uh we do know that. Needles has had better results on his mongoose than he did before on his DHR, wildly different bikes. It is also clear that he is much more confident on it as well from watching him ride.Unfortunately we don't know that.
Anyway in his last WC season Mick won at Vigo. Let's wait and see how he gets on this year
This is a pretty funny one. "the cranks do not move with axle" - "the cranks move"dude give it a rest. You clearly don't understand how the design works. Like others have said before you, it is NOT URT. the cranks do not move with axle. The cranks move, but it is an extremely slight movement. Abstract discussions aside you've never even ridden the fuggin thing.
Mongoose is just as competitive as other companies.
Fair point.Uh we do know that. Needles has had better results on his mongoose than he did before on his DHR, wildly different bikes. It is also clear that he is much more confident on it as well from watching him ride.
its clever how you only include the parts that suit the point your trying to make.... this platform may not be something you would like...the suspension might not suit your style...but it does a lot of riders out there.Good luck to Mick then
The points I'm arguing are valid whether I've ridden the bike or not.its clever how you only include the parts that suit the point your trying to make.... this platform may not be something you would like...the suspension might not suit your style...but it does a lot of riders out there.
fact:
you can make all the claims and assumptions you want ...but as you stated.....you have NEVER rode the bike
hopefully we can all stop responding to this azzhat after this.
I just took the time to type up a response and explain that the BB doesn't move at the same rate as the swingarm, but then decided against it. If you can't figure that out but still bash it, if you haven't ridden it but still bash it, and you tell people who are doing quite well (see: Eric Carter) and had a helping hand in designing the bike that they're wrong, then you're just being contentious.This is a pretty funny one. "the cranks do not move with axle" - "the cranks move"
If the cranks move then what are they moving in relation too ?
It's obvious the BB does move in relation to the rear axle or it simply wouldn't work.
I can't find a good side profile photo of the DH bikes rear end but form what I can tell, looking at the pivot location and shock stroke, the BB must move at least 2" relative to the main frame (or your hands) from static to fully compressed.
hopefully we can all stop responding to this azzhat after this.
that's because I'm not trying to counter you...hey captain obvious everyone agrees there is movement in the cranks, yes the bb moves when the rear wheel does. yes the main pivot is not on the front triangle,The points I'm arguing are valid whether I've ridden the bike or not.
You haven't got a piss in the wind at a to counter anything I've said except "you have never rode (ridden?) the bike". If you're going to come back with a counter argument to my points then do, otherwise don't give me all this 'you haven't ridden the bike' crap.
I might weld up a nice single pivot next week with the main pivot under the middle of the toptube. Then post some pics on here and state that it's great and nobody can argue otherwise because they haven't ridden it.
I never said the BB moves at the same rate as the swingarm (rear axle). I said 'relative to the rear axle. Meaning that the BB is related to the movement of the axle. The rear axle is moving in a vertical plane, the BB a more horizontal plane. Both are obviously shallow arc's not planes, as was noted earlier in the thread. But I think it helps with the visualization to think of linear motion in this instance.I just took the time to type up a response and explain that the BB doesn't move at the same rate as the swingarm, but then decided against it. If you can't figure that out but still bash it, if you haven't ridden it but still bash it, and you tell people who are doing quite well (see: Eric Carter) and had a helping hand in designing the bike that they're wrong, then you're just being contentious.
I'm done.
Well, If that's really the case then I should ride one.that's because I'm not trying to counter you...hey captain obvious everyone agrees there is movement in the cranks, yes the bb moves when the rear wheel does. yes the main pivot is not on the front triangle,
now what?
I've even told you it isn't the super plush couch bike designed for leaning back with your eyes closed.
it's funny but seems like your the only one arguing the "points"
this bike isn't for everyone.....i don't think there is a bike that is?
if you like to ride a bike that maneuvers really well, that you can easily manual and still soaks up the bumps this bike will fit that...it isn't a lean back and plow bike, nor was it designed to be.
From what i can see here is everyone who has ridden the bike likes the way the bike feels and likes the way they ride......i don't think everyone of these people are first time buyers of a DH bike and went with the Mongoose......
many of these are guys who have had what i will call traditional style DH bikes...or guys who get to test many bikes and they like these as much or better.
think about it....a rider gets to choose which bike he likes and they keep coming back and buying them, i know guys who can afford any bike they want and have gotten off the $3500 frame set bikes to ride these bikes after test riding a buddies.
how do you argue with that?
there is nothing else for me to say on this, that wouldn't be a waste of my time.
im done
yup. i am still in awe of how long it took you to accept this fact though.Well, If that's really the case then I should ride one.
BTW the majority of my posts are responses to people misquoting what I was saying about the design.
You're point about Eric Carter is interesting.
I agree, I remember an interview in pinnd about him riding the legend this yearWeren´t Mick and her sister going to ride the new Banshee Legend?!?!
Well thanks for helping me understand how incorrect my statements and descriptions were...and happens to be one of the people you are trying soooo hard to argue with.
Whatever your goal here is (other than just to hear yourself talk), your continued assumptions and incorrect descriptions of the frame dynamics makes you come across as an overzealous first year ME student. You think you know so much, but unfortunately you dont actually understand much....
People are not mis-quoting you...you are making gross assumptions and incorrect statements about something that you do not understand. Whether that is what you have (repeatedly) ment to say or not, you have.