[StiHacka]

I would like to have a climb switch optionally triggered by a dropper - dropper up: cs ON. Dropper down: cs OFF.

(I climb the toughest chunky crap with the saddle down so I have that corner covered, too)

 

[big-ted]

^ Fox did that with the DOSS. Except it sucked about as much as one would expect it to.

 

[Bikael Molton]

I want to control the shock, dropper and derailleur with my Android, too!

I would like to have a climb switch optionally triggered by a dropper - dropper up: cs ON. Dropper down: cs OFF.

(I climb the toughest chunky crap with the saddle down so I have that corner covered, too)

 

[4130biker]

I want to control the entire bike from my couch. Even the air pressure in the tires. Ghost ryde Mark V is what I will call it.

 

[Fool]

I want to control the entire bike from my couch. Even the air pressure in the tires. Ghost ryde Mark V is what I will call it.

Never go full e-bike.

 

[Lelandjt]

I was intrigued by the Kona Magic Link but never got to check one out. Above I saw one 1 line review. Anyone else have experience with it and want to give a more in depth report? So this bike has a shitty shock rate? If that was changed is there any reason the concept couldn't work? The idea of changing the shock rate based on chain torque seems to me like a good idea if the change is seamless.

The Scott I had that changed the spring rate climbed better than all the bikes I've had who's climb levers change the LSC.

 

[jackalope]

Never go full e-bike.

Pffft, e-bikes are so early 2016. Time to embrace V(irtual)-bikes. The evolution of mountain biking is coming. Soon you will be able to design your own suspension "system" using the free (shitty) version of Linkage, automatically file a patent for said (shitty) design, spec new non-existent "standards", watch a family in Asia live in abject poverty via facetime, create your own outrageously incoherent marketing material, select a $5,000 color coordinated component build (sorry, no option on the tires - automatically comes with shitty Nobby Nics), and finally charge your high interest credit card approximately the same amount of money as a new 3 series BMW. In return, you will get a well used mid-2000's spin bike, 3 automatic KOM cards, a clown costume/enduro kit and virtual reality goggles. Soon you will be able to kick the fuck out of the likes of kidwoo and Hab without leaving your above garage bonus room, all the while slowly acquiring diabetes via endless take out dinners from PF Changs and Cheese Cake Factory.

V-bikes...its the future bro.

 

[4130biker]

Pffft, e-bikes are so early 2016. Time to embrace V(irtual)-bikes. The evolution of mountain biking is coming. Soon you will be able to design your own suspension "system" using the free (shitty) version of Linkage, automatically file a patent for said (shitty) design, spec new non-existent "standards", watch a family in Asia live in abject poverty via facetime, create your own outrageously incoherent marketing material, select a $5,000 color coordinated component build (sorry, no option on the tires - automatically comes with shitty Nobby Nics), and finally charge your high interest credit card approximately the same amount of money as a new 3 series BMW. In return, you will get a well used mid-2000's spin bike, 3 automatic KOM cards, a clown costume/enduro kit and virtual reality goggles. Soon you will be able to kick the fuck out of the likes of kidwoo and Hab without leaving your above garage bonus room, all the while slowly acquiring diabetes via endless take out dinners from PF Changs and Cheese Cake Factory.

V-bikes...its the future bro.

I like your enthusiasm for this product series, but after a lot of self reflection, I have a couple of concerns: V riding sounds great, but I'd like to keep the ability to stir things up in the real world. How will I have a hand in closing trails, pissing off hikers, and ruining parts to complain about on the Internet?
Thanks
4130biker

 

[Toshi]

I want to control the shock, dropper and derailleur with my Android, too!

That'd be this in a few years: http://e-tubeproject.shimano.com/about/

 

[Westy]

I want to control the entire bike from my couch. Even the air pressure in the tires. Ghost ryde Mark V is what I will call it.

I want a robot that rides my bike and posts sick Go Pro videos to my youtube channel.

 

[jackalope]

I like your enthusiasm for this product series, but after a lot of self reflection, I have a couple of concerns: V riding sounds great, but I'd like to keep the ability to stir things up in the real world. How will I have a hand in closing trails, pissing off hikers, and ruining parts to complain about on the Internet?
Thanks
4130biker

All good points, as per the usual. But don't under estimate V-riding. You're faux Strava rides (replete with 60 mph top speeds and in the shape of a penis) will be automatically emailed/facebook'd to important land managers. You will also receive weekly talking points that outline things to bitch about (eg - tolerances, shim stacks, $400 cassettes, etc...)

And hikers are already pissed off, namely because Ralph Nader still isn't President, so you're good there.

 

[norbar]

Has been a while since I have had a long travel bike, but don't most shocks have a low speed adjustment these days? Can't we compromise suspension for pedaling and have good suspension with the turn of a dial without a shitty linkage? Is turning a dial too hard? Perhaps electronic dial turning is the next big thing.

Or maybe just learn to pedal and you won't have to shit on your suspension settings to get to the start of the trail...

 

[hmcleay]

With Kona Magic Link, the axle path has two degrees of freedom (2dof), and therefore the axle can move within a 'window' of travel. It needs (and has) two independent springs/dampers to control this.

On the Tantrum Meltdown, the axle path is governed by a 6-bar linkage. Therefore, the axle path has one degree of freedom (1dof), and can only move along a single pre-determined axle path. It only needs (and only has) one spring/damper.

I find a lot of the marketing literature on this bike misleading.
For example, in the video where he removes the shock bolt, it also completely removes one of the pivots necessary to govern the axle path.
Then, with that bolt removed, goes on to demonstrate how the "missing link can respond to horizontal forces - forward for pedalling, rearward for bump..." To me it seems like he's trying to imply that the axle path can move horizontally as well as vertically (which it can't, because it's a 1dof system).

As I always say with complicated suspension systems, regardless of the physical configuration, the Leverage Ratio, Anti-Squat, and Anti-Rise curves will describe the suspension behaviour. There is no 'magic' going on that can't be modelled in Linkage, it's just physics.

To me, the simplest explanation would be something like: "The axle path is initially sharply rearward, which then becomes more vertical after around 10%-20% travel. This causes the suspension to extend into 'climbing mode' under hard pedalling efforts". No mention of 'magic' required.

Vrock's explanation on mtbr sums it up nicely:

If you are pedalling slowly, the bike it's going to stay around sag like any other bike and work the same as any other bike with 120% of Anti-squat. If you start pedalling really hard it's going to extend, top out, and stay there for a while, because that LR (combined with that AS Curve) works "as a trap" for the rear wheel. If you hit something and you keep going the bike it's not going to absorb the bump, but I think that there is an instinct to relax a bit when you hit something really big, if that happens the suspension can react to the bump.

The only other thing I would add to this, is that because the AS curve is decreasing so steeply near top out, it means when you are pedalling hard in this zone (e.g. climbing), it would significantly reduce the overall wheel rate.
And since the wheel rate is ridiculously high near top out, hard pedalling in this zone would bring the overall wheel rate down to more reasonable levels (perhaps even enough to be able to absorb an impact if you encounter one while pedalling hard).
However, when cornering/pumping/jumping etc, the initially very high wheel rate would surely make it incredibly harsh each time you make contact with the ground.
Also, if it's intended to be at sag for coasting, and at top-out for pedalling, you're going to be dealing with a ton of chassis movement each time you get on the gas.

I was intrigued by the Kona Magic Link but never got to check one out. Above I saw one 1 line review. Anyone else have experience with it and want to give a more in depth report? So this bike has a shitty shock rate? If that was changed is there any reason the concept couldn't work? The idea of changing the shock rate based on chain torque seems to me like a good idea if the change is seamless

The shitty shock rate on this bike is necessary for it to hold itself up at top-out position when pedalling, which appears to be the intent of the design.

 

[CBJ]

I'm so sick of bikes that prioritize pedaling at a severe compromise of a leverage curve.

We pedal up for descents. Just make it tolerable. The down is the good part. Quit fucking it up. Especially if your pedaling characteristics still aren't really that great.

Could not have said this any better and do bikes really pedal that bad? My GT Sensor is only 130mm but I have no problem getting uphill.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Could not have said this any better and do bikes really pedal that bad? My GT Sensor is only 130mm but I have no problem getting uphill.

Whiners gotta whine.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

I think the idea is cool- would like to try one!
I wonder if linkage can even evaluate this thing accurately?

You are correct in wondering. It's better to do a free body diagram of each link to get a real feel for everything that's going on

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

'Twas wondering the same thing....re linkage

I know they say it doesn't, but it seems that it would jack-hammer the pedals when switching modes?
What about pedaling through the chop? Can't see this being a lot of fun in this case.
Still - Interesting...

'Twas wondering the same thing....re linkage

I know they say it doesn't, but it seems that it would jack-hammer the pedals when switching modes?
What about pedaling through the chop? Can't see this being a lot of fun in this case.
Still - Interesting...

Check out the youtube videos. Super slomo thru a nasty rock garden:

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

Is this 2002, are we still reading MBA and praising dh bikes for their uphill capability?

I thought we were over obesessing with ultimate pedaling performance in longer travel bikes and we are happy with decent to good pedalling as long as the susp provides great performance when going down?

If you don't care at all about your bikes climbing ability, this is not the bike for you. But many, if not most, are. Otherwise, we would have a DH bike. I don't really climb for the shear fun of it, but it is a good way to get to the top of the descents and the more energy I have from a better climbing bike, the better. Most of the population lives in a variety of terrain including, gasp, flat ground. This is for the rider that wants the bike that works great everywhere.

 

[slimshady]

If you don't care at all about your bikes climbing ability, this is not the bike for you. But many, if not most, are. Otherwise, we would have a DH bike. I don't really climb for the shear fun of it, but it is a good way to get to the top of the descents and the more energy I have from a better climbing bike, the better. Most of the population lives in a variety of terrain including, gasp, flat ground. This is for the rider that wants the bike that works great everywhere.

Well, a single pivot bike with a decent amount of anti-squat pedals well and has a simpler layout. Take the Orbea Rallón for an example. I can sprint the hell of that thing while standing without any appreciable energy loss and without reaching for the platform lever on the shock.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

I'm so sick of bikes that prioritize pedaling at a severe compromise of a leverage curve.

We pedal up for descents. Just make it tolerable. The down is the good part. Quit fucking it up. Especially if your pedaling characteristics still aren't really that great.

Exactly. I was sick of. And sick of needing a lockout to make it tolerable. And sick of compromised compression damping in every single shock available. Just to dampen out unwanted motion induced by pedaling.

So, what if we could have both? What if, by a clever arrangement of linkages to manage available forces in ways nobody else has, we could have both?

Unbelievable climbing, smooth and rough. Superior sprinting capability. Enhanced small bump absorption. Bottomless. Ultra active in rock garden/chunder. Slacker active geo when descending. Steeper active geo when climbing.

What if we could have that in a 29 pound bike with an aluminum frame for a reasonable cost, with no lockout or electronics needed?

 

[Jeremy R]

But wait.....there's more.....

 

[4130biker]

You are correct in wondering. It's better to do a free body diagram of each link to get a real feel for everything that's going on

I'll let people who know more than me fight about it, but after some reading it sounds like linkage should do a fine job of approximating things. Would still like to ride one and see what this linkage approximation equates to in seat of the pants feel.

 

[kidwoo]

Unbelievable climbing, smooth and rough. Superior sprinting capability. Enhanced small bump absorption. Bottomless.

The leverage curve as it appears mapped in that linkage program would very much suggest that the suspension certainly has a discoverable 'bottom'. Is that general shape accurate?


Also if this is brian, I demand you post under your old handle, shock.

 

[norbar]

If you don't care at all about your bikes climbing ability, this is not the bike for you. But many, if not most, are. Otherwise, we would have a DH bike. I don't really climb for the shear fun of it, but it is a good way to get to the top of the descents and the more energy I have from a better climbing bike, the better. Most of the population lives in a variety of terrain including, gasp, flat ground. This is for the rider that wants the bike that works great everywhere.

You completely miss the point of modern trail bikes. They are not long travel xc rigs. Also you are completely wrong about DH bikes. Pedaling is actually very important in DH bikes, hell it even wins races.


Going back to the trailbike. The majority of the population climbs so they can ride down. Your bike features horrible leverage curve that compromises downhill performance for slight uphill gains. I congratulate you on thinking up something original and finding a clever solution to a problem. Unfortunately it's not a real problem for most of us. You behave like most current bikes pedal horribely. It's not 1999 so they don't. They pedal quite decent and you won't feel pedal bob unless you pedal in some bizzare way. You also miss what people want. I know you won't believe me but think about the most liked trailbikes in recent years. For many years people have been praising specialized trailbikes (The Pitch, Sumpjumper, Enduro) yet they pedal worse than 90% of their competition. Overall people don't think about suspension on the uphills unless they pedal really bad and there are almost no such bikes anymore since it's not 1999. Again I congratulate you on building a bike that works for you. I just doubt some of your marketing claims as I see some compromises many riders won't be happy with even when a large majority of them wont notice the same way they didn't notice the bad early degressive leverage curves on Santa Cruz bikes.

PS. Is Vrock's aproximation of your leverage curve even slightly true? is it degressive in the first part of travel? Because if yes then your claims about small bump absorption are simply false. I'd rather have have some LSC (which is still needed for stability on the ride down and I also use it on my never pedal dh bike) than a suspension system that can't overcome seal stiction

PS2. @Udi I assume this might be relevant to your interests.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

With Kona Magic Link, the axle path has two degrees of freedom (2dof), and therefore the axle can move within a 'window' of travel. It needs (and has) two independent springs/dampers to control this.

On the Tantrum Meltdown, the axle path is governed by a 6-bar linkage. Therefore, the axle path has one degree of freedom (1dof), and can only move along a single pre-determined axle path. It only needs (and only has) one spring/damper.

I find a lot of the marketing literature on this bike misleading.
For example, in the video where he removes the shock bolt, it also completely removes one of the pivots necessary to govern the axle path.
Then, with that bolt removed, goes on to demonstrate how the "missing link can respond to horizontal forces - forward for pedalling, rearward for bump..." To me it seems like he's trying to imply that the axle path can move horizontally as well as vertically (which it can't, because it's a 1dof system).

As I always say with complicated suspension systems, regardless of the physical configuration, the Leverage Ratio, Anti-Squat, and Anti-Rise curves will describe the suspension behaviour. There is no 'magic' going on that can't be modelled in Linkage, it's just physics.

To me, the simplest explanation would be something like: "The axle path is initially sharply rearward, which then becomes more vertical after around 10%-20% travel. This causes the suspension to extend into 'climbing mode' under hard pedalling efforts". No mention of 'magic' required.

Vrock's explanation on mtbr sums it up nicely:


The only other thing I would add to this, is that because the AS curve is decreasing so steeply near top out, it means when you are pedalling hard in this zone (e.g. climbing), it would significantly reduce the overall wheel rate.
And since the wheel rate is ridiculously high near top out, hard pedalling in this zone would bring the overall wheel rate down to more reasonable levels (perhaps even enough to be able to absorb an impact if you encounter one while pedalling hard).
However, when cornering/pumping/jumping etc, the initially very high wheel rate would surely make it incredibly harsh each time you make contact with the ground.
Also, if it's intended to be at sag for coasting, and at top-out for pedalling, you're going to be dealing with a ton of chassis movement each time you get on the gas.



The shitty shock rate on this bike is necessary for it to hold itself up at top-out position when pedalling, which appears to be the intent of the design.

When I remove the bolt, it is only to give a physical demonstration of how the horizontal forces are fed into the shock mount, thus influencing the geometry and spring rate. When the linkages are connected, there is only as fixed axle path, but the influence of those horizontal forces remain. Removing the bolt was the easiest way to show this.

I also replace the bolt and show exactly the same effect, with just the shock removed. It is more dramatic, because it does show the assembly in action, as opposed to the individual forces on each link. Hopefully, in combination, people can start to understand what's really going on instead of the overt fixation with AS and LR.

Vrock's conclusion is just wrong. It is based on incorrect assumptions and poor analysis. In reality, there is no harshness whatsoever while cornering/pumping/jumping. None. Incredibly plush.

That is really the way the bike rides. With pedaling action that's "better than all of them" (famous independent review). This means in the rough and smooth.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

Well, a single pivot bike with a decent amount of anti-squat pedals well and has a simpler layout. Take the Orbea Rallón for an example. I can sprint the hell of that thing while standing without any appreciable energy loss and without reaching for the platform lever on the shock.

That's kinda my point. Almost any bike you ride has had a significant amount of time put into the suspension linkage and the shock, for the sole purpose of enhancing climbing and pedaling performance. Anti-squat wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for that desire. Neither would lockouts, travel reducing forks, and most low speed compression damping.

All bikes pedal pretty well. Just not even close to this well. Without compromise on the DH side

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

But wait.....there's more.....

absolutely

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

The leverage curve as it appears mapped in that linkage program would very much suggest that the suspension certainly has a discoverable 'bottom'. Is that general shape accurate?


Also if this is brian, I demand you post under your old handle, shock.

I'm not sure which misrepresentation of the LR you may be looking at, but the one I've seen has serious issues, especially at both ends of the travel. As I've mentioned before, the wheel rate, which is the vertical force at the wheel, is a combination of the LR calculated thru the rising rate of the air spring, which is controlled by the air volume.

The LR in the last half of the travel is flat. When combined with the rising rate of the air spring, it is indeed bottomless, even at 35-40% sag. It gives a nice cushion at the end.

This is actually all by design.

This is Brian. My old account got retired for inactivity decades ago. Feel free to call me shock

 

[johnbryanpeters]

absolutely

Bring a few to Ascutney State Park (Vermont) July 28-31; we will have a crew ready to test your assertions.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

You completely miss the point of modern trail bikes. They are not long travel xc rigs. Also you are completely wrong about DH bikes. Pedaling is actually very important in DH bikes, hell it even wins races.


Going back to the trailbike. The majority of the population climbs so they can ride down. Your bike features horrible leverage curve that compromises downhill performance for slight uphill gains. I congratulate you on thinking up something original and finding a clever solution to a problem. Unfortunately it's not a real problem for most of us. You behave like most current bikes pedal horribely. It's not 1999 so they don't. They pedal quite decent and you won't feel pedal bob unless you pedal in some bizzare way. You also miss what people want. I know you won't believe me but think about the most liked trailbikes in recent years. For many years people have been praising specialized trailbikes (The Pitch, Sumpjumper, Enduro) yet they pedal worse than 90% of their competition. Overall people don't think about suspension on the uphills unless they pedal really bad and there are almost no such bikes anymore since it's not 1999. Again I congratulate you on building a bike that works for you. I just doubt some of your marketing claims as I see some compromises many riders won't be happy with even when a large majority of them wont notice the same way they didn't notice the bad early degressive leverage curves on Santa Cruz bikes.

PS. Is Vrock's aproximation of your leverage curve even slightly true? is it degressive in the first part of travel? Because if yes then your claims about small bump absorption are simply false. I'd rather have have some LSC (which is still needed for stability on the ride down and I also use it on my never pedal dh bike) than a suspension system that can't overcome seal stiction

PS2. @Udi I assume this might be relevant to your interests.

i'm not sure why you think I'm missing the point of the trailbike. As I mentioned, any bike you are riding now and any bike that is in development by ANY company has a serious amount of time, budget, testing, suspension design and shock development all for one sole reason, better climbing and pedaling.

Going downhill is relatively easy. A single pivot bike with a good shock can win the world championship. Combining that with the best possible climbing and pedaling characteristics is a good thing. It's a freakin GREAT thing.

Your description of the majority of the population is also a bit biased, maybe toward a west coast, bigger mountain rider. Riders all around the world, in fact, the majority, ride on trails that go both up and down, frequently in very rapid succession. Sometimes, these climbs and descents are quite short, too short to bother with lockouts and dropper posts, but long enough where you can appreciate great capability all around. You hold your speed better, have more fun, shred the entire trail better.

You want to claim horrible leverage curves based on somebody's bad approximation? That compromise DH performance? At slight uphill gains? Sorry, you can't possibly know this and if you've calculated it, you are seriously off.

Do bikes pedal horribly? I stated elsewhere to the contrary. But they are all compromised in the bump department because of it. This bike just happens to pedal and climb significantly better without those compromises and in fact, with enhanced bump absorption.

Vrock's analysis is the most flawed I've seen. Completely missing major forces and force interactions.

But yes, it IS a digressive LR at the first part of the travel. It is also intentional. It as also overlayed with a nice, low volume rising rate, for a sweet, smooth progressive feel as it sinks into the travel after absorbing a bump. Never wallows, always ready for the next one.

These aren't marketing claims. This is based on decades of engineering experience and analysis and a lifetime of riding at a high level. And testing. Lots of testing. On some scary stuff.

 

[kidwoo]

I just looked at the video on your website and you've got an extra pivot that vrock didn't account for maybe? The version of linkage I have doesn't really have the inputs for it from what I remember. At the very least it would be tough to locate the bottom shock mount which does affect what he came up with for LR.

Hard to tell without seeing his setup. Just a thought.

 

[Nick]

@Tantrum Cycles : I just watched your tech talk v.1 video.
Nice to see something dangerously close to innovation. nice work.

 

[hmcleay]

This post has extreme inaccuracies. The most obvious is in the second paragraph stating "the axle path is governed by a 6-bar linkage. "

This is wrong. The axle path is governed by a 5 bar linkage. The 6th bar does not affect it at all, and could be eliminated with no change to the axle path. It seems that most of the negative comments come from people that cannot understand this.

Let me count that for you:

All of these links and pivots are necessary to constrain the axle path to 1dof.
Remember the 'mobility' equation? (Probably not)
N = No. of Links, in your case 6
j = No. of joints (maybe you've had a few too many of these?), in your case this is 7.
Mobility = 3*(N-1-j)+j = 1
e.g. 6 links, with 7 pivots gives 1 degree of freedom.

If you think that one of these links does not affect the axle path, then it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of planar linkages.
Removal of any one of these links will increase the Mobility to 2, making it a 2dof system, where the axle is free to move within a 'window' area (like the Kona magic link).

Given how links 2 and 3 are nearly in a straight line, and the shock is driven by the pivot between these two links, it is critical to model these pivot locations accurately to calculate an accurate initial leverage ratio.
Even if the model is out by just a millimeter, the resultant LR could be out by a factor of 10.
I can see how the LR values published by @Vrock might be quite different from your 'design' values. So, to settle this, please post your 'design' leverage ratio curve.
On a related topic, I would also be concerned at how manufacturing tolerances are likely to affect the outcome of this bike. If the two pivots in the front triangle are further apart than design by just 0.1mm, then it is going to mean the 'knee' (pivot #4) will be much straighter (rather than a slight kink), which means the LR will be significantly lower than design.
Same would apply if the shock is longer than design by a small amount.
These real world variations are likely to result in huge variances in production outcomes. And at an educated guess, I think some frames would end up being 'stuck up' with links 2 and 3 being in a dead straight line (or even inverted).

 

[jackalope]

To my walnut sized brain, suspension is primarily intended to provide maximum traction, namely in downhill/rough cornering situations. I disagree with the assertion that "going downhill is relatively easy" from a design perspective, and quite frankly, I only expect a trail/AM bike to be adequate (ie - not super shitty) going uphill. I give a minimal amount of fucks about climbing performance, because its just a means to an end for me. And fwiw, I live in an area with rolling terrain and never long for a climb switch, which I do have for the occasions I ride in more traditional mountain terrain with sustained climbs. Personally, I'm all about minimal frame maintenance and optimized downhill / cornering performance.

 

[wood booger]

Let me count that for you:

View attachment 122719
All of these links and pivots are necessary to constrain the axle path to 1dof.
Remember the 'mobility' equation? (Probably not)
N = No. of Links, in your case 6
j = No. of joints (maybe you've had a few too many of these?), in your case this is 7.
Mobility = 3*(N-1-j)+j = 1
e.g. 6 links, with 7 pivots gives 1 degree of freedom.

If you think that one of these links does not affect the axle path, then it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of planar linkages.
Removal of any one of these links will increase the Mobility to 2, making it a 2dof system, where the axle is free to move within a 'window' area (like the Kona magic link).

Given how links 2 and 3 are nearly in a straight line, and the shock is driven by the pivot between these two links, it is critical to model these pivot locations accurately to calculate an accurate initial leverage ratio.
Even if the model is out by just a millimeter, the resultant LR could be out by a factor of 10.
I can see how the LR values published by @Vrock might be quite different from your 'design' values. So, to settle this, please post your 'design' leverage ratio curve.
On a related topic, I would also be concerned at how manufacturing tolerances are likely to affect the outcome of this bike. If the two pivots in the front triangle are further apart than design by just 0.1mm, then it is going to mean the 'knee' (pivot #) will be much straighter (rather than a slight kink), which means the LR will be significantly lower than design.
Same would apply if the shock is longer than design by a small amount.
These real world variations are likely to result in huge variances in production outcomes. And at an educated guess, I think some frames would end up being 'stuck up' with links 2 and 3 being in a dead straight line (or even inverted).

RuuRooo Shaggy...

 

[Toshi]

Lesson from this thread: if you have to tell people you're brilliant then they're not likely to accept it.

 

[Nick]

RuuRooo Shaggy...

.

What am i failing to see here?

Edit: nevermind i think i see

 

[jackalope]

What am i failing to see here?

Apparently there's a patent pending, but more importantly, someone is running an Ardent.

 

[kidwoo]

hmcleay labeled his bars a little oddly.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

@Tantrum Cycles : I just watched your tech talk v.1 video.
Nice to see something dangerously close to innovation. nice work.

thanks. You will like it when you get to ride it.

b