RideMonkey How To Series: Throwing a Tantrum in Public
Disclaimer: Blatant editing of quote is blatant
All we got was special linkz because its missing make it so, so trust me. Bravo on the high level of technical discussion you really do fit in here.
You came with big claims, and finished with puffery and butt hurt extreme, all along failing to engage in actual conversation. You of course have no need nor requirement to placate the poo flinging simians of the monkey, but seem unable to leave or lurk, so by all means continue digging your by now spacious hole it is providing great entertainment for many.
Would be cool to actually learn how the "missing link" functions as part of the suspension both annecdotally and theoretically. Alas I finally understand what is missing.
So about that technical discussion you engaged in, where is that thread? I remember you spending great effort to argue the validity of using linkage to evaluate your frame, which seems strange as general suspension behavior (from linkage, or freebody diagram funz as you seem to prefer)for most modern frames reflects real world experience when evaluated.
All we got was special linkz because its missing make it so, so trust me. Bravo on the high level of technical discussion you really do fit in here.
You came with big claims, and finished with puffery and butt hurt extreme, all along failing to engage in actual conversation. You of course have no need nor requirement to placate the poo flinging simians of the monkey, but seem unable to leave or lurk, so by all means continue digging your by now spacious hole it is providing great entertainment for many.
Would be cool to actually learn how the "missing link" functions as part of the suspension both annecdotally and theoretically. Alas I finally understand what is missing.
Last edited:
In many ways, it doesn't make sense to stock a lot of frames for warranty replacement.
In my experience, if a problem/failure happens once, it is probably not an isolated instance. More often than not, it is a design flaw. If not, it is a manufacturing flaw that affects the whole batch. So, it doesn't make sense to me to be replacing frames with more frames that have exactly the same likelihood of failure. whether design or manufacturing, it needs to be corrected and another batch needs to be made.
I would also believe that very few customers would really complain about getting a new, updated and or next gen frame in replacement for their first gen. One of my brothers used C'dale lifetime warranty in the 90's to get 3 different gen bikes since he would break them like clockwork every 2 years. C'dale didn't have 2 yr old stock, my bro was happy for the new gen.
This question might be better directed at the OP, I came in about page 5 or so. Not to answer for the OP, but I would say it's relevance is simply being a new, interesting design that is doing something nobody else is doing. The DH scene has always bee a bit earlier and tolerant (HA, how funny is that now) of new technology. Less inclined to be as judgmental as road or XC as to what you HAVE to run, or believe, or whatever.
Kinda sad, now that I put it that way, DH used to be the hotbed. Now, apparently if it does not comply to accepted norms, it can't possibly be good. At least with some of the assembled cast of RM.
I have stated before that this iteration of the Missing Link is not meant to be a definitive DH suspension. But it will evolve into a hybrid between this and the original Magic Link...and hey, maybe we can have this fun all over again.
What relevance? 21 pages and counting. I didn't start this thread and you guys are keeping it relevant. If you didn't care, it would go away......
Velocipedist,
If you are going to quote me, please quote me and don't make stuff up, (obviously blatant, and to what constructive purpose?, disclaimer or not?). You gave the following as a quote of mine:
"I refused to and questioned the validity of that program as a tool that could properly analyze this linkage..... it really can't be taken seriously in a technical discussion.
Oh ya, technical discussion,It's hard to take anyone seriously when your most intelligent response is your toolz are wrong!."
Don't you think leaving some context out before "it really can't be taken seriously in a technical discussion", is a fair technical discussion? Does the fact that they started this linkage analysis by scaling a picture that (by their own admission) couldn't have possibly had better than +/- 2 mm at each of the many critical locations has to do with "it really can't be taken seriously in a technical discussion"??
It should.
And the last part of my quote, you just put that in there. I never said that. Bullshit.
I never asked anyone to "trust me" I just told the assembled cast of experts that their info was wrong. The started with a shitty pic. They did a shitty job of assuming and calculating the forces and directions involved. Was I arguing from my own analysis? Partly, and I had a huge advantage of knowing the real numbers. But, more importantly, I had the bike. And it has been tested and developed hard. I know what it does. I'm not an idiot and I know how to ride. I'm an old man and I would put money on beating a great percentage of you down a hill, even today.
Maybe, before you start fake quoting me and talking about puffery, if you are really interested, go back thru when there was actual technical discussion. When I asked Vrock and Hmcleay and the others serious, straight forward questions about holes in their own statements. No malice. Straight up engineering. The same silence we're hearing now.
Or, if you are REALLY interested in learning and not flinging shit with the rest of them, trey asking me an actual question. If you wan to ask for exact dimensional information, it will not be provided, nor will exact LR curves as really, that's the same thing. Whether you think my patent pending status is a valid reason or not, that is my reason.
Be open minded. Listen to what people are saying besides those that have a vested interest in being right, like maybe the people riding the bike.
As for being butt hurt, I could give a shit whether kevin or whoever likes me or says nice things. I am just continued to be amazed as the chicken shit that the anonyminity of the internet brings out. Are you guys all really that big of assholes in real life? This is how you treat people? Call it butt hurt all you want, but do we have to be facebook bullies? WTF. We're riding bikes and having fun.
At least I am
Last edited:
No. It was directed at you. For blatantly obvious reasons. By completely sidestepping the question I can only assume the answer is that it has no relevance to DH riding or racing at all. This is all I really wanted confirmation of.
^^
THIS needs done! ASAP
How much money are you willing to put up? Enough to make it worth some of us booking flights?
Gary, did you miss this part of my post?? Is this a sidestep?
"Not to answer for the OP, but I would say it's relevance is simply being a new, interesting design that is doing something nobody else is doing. The DH scene has always bee a bit earlier and tolerant (HA, how funny is that now) of new technology. Less inclined to be as judgmental as road or XC as to what you HAVE to run, or believe, or whatever.
Kinda sad, now that I put it that way, DH used to be the hotbed. Now, apparently if it does not comply to accepted norms, it can't possibly be good. At least with some of the assembled cast of RM.
I have stated before that this iteration of the Missing Link is not meant to be a definitive DH suspension. But it will evolve into a hybrid between this and the original Magic Link...and hey, maybe we can have this fun all over again.
What relevance? 21 pages and counting. I didn't start this thread and you guys are keeping it relevant. If you didn't care, it would go away......"
NOW you're talkin. At least if you're gonna talk shit, talk racin....my next race might be the Sea Otter Enduro next year.......oops, this year.
FFS!
sidestep (verb)
Utterly irrelevant answers would pretty much fit the dictionary definition. Yes.
..Bit like this one too...
sidestep (verb)
- 1.
avoid (someone or something) by stepping sideways.
Utterly irrelevant answers would pretty much fit the dictionary definition. Yes.
..Bit like this one too...
ok then, thanks for the useful exchange
If you look at the number of people riding them on the internet yeah they are doing good but for the hype they got I see very few of them.
So what happens if you underestimate your sales numbers? Let's have a hypothetical situation when you start selling in late March and you are sold out by late may. There has been some manufacturing defect that causes your frames to crack but given to the fact that many people need to wait for other parts to complete their bikes and//or start riding mid april first cracks appear afteer 4 weeks of riding. That means that a large % of your client base with faulty frames will want them replaced after you sold all of yours. Will you tell them to one year and miss the summer of riding?
btw. Most companies you associated with probably had bigger production runs than yours. That's why there are sales at the end of every season. They produce more than they sell.
As said before - self-fulfilling prophesy.
This jolly time venture will have properly loosened any coffers of the greater-agenda dreamt up once the first frame is comp'd:
Politics (not ours of course)
False-Flag coverups / Doctor Shopping for Disability Scammers
Shell companies for continued laundering of investor monies
Rupert Murdoch's Australian Newspaper publishing
Brian did make mention on MTBR that 'the Government' is following him because of 'their experiment'.
Kinda fucked up, I didn't turn down a job offer with Blackwater 20 years ago for this shit - yet here it is being generated by this fucked up lone wolf.
The Doctor is In.
Isn't it more about what all of you think about the brand and its owner, without even having tried the product or wanting to accept that several testrides are in general telling the same story - That the design is doing what it's designed to do, with a few adjustments being done to make it perform even better..
A famous quote:
"All genuinely creative ideas are initially met with rejection, since they necessarily threaten the comfort of Status Quo.
An enthusiastic reception for a new idea is a sure sign that it is not original."
Over here that one or two times a year occurrence is generally followed by pointing and laughter..
Isn't it you being one of those gadget crazed people who thinks every crazy idea is good because it promises you to win big? When is the prince of Nigeria sending you that money he promised?
And if we are done making crazy assumptions about each other you can read the topic instead of only taking time to disliking our posts. We tried to have a civilsed discussion about the bike. People were curious about the design but found some design ideas to be bad. The owner of the brand didn't provide us with ANY information about the bike yet told us we were 100% wrong and suggested we were all stupid. He claimed he doesn't want to give us accurate representation of his suspension system out of fear of patent theft but he also did not provide us with an aproximation of his suspension system. He provided us with no data all he gave us is claims about what his suspension will do. Unless he is starting a religion it's a rather bad way to start discussion. Especially given bicycle suspension is a simple thing.
Given he also gave you no data on what do you base your idea the design will do what it is designed to do? If you are so sure can you response to criticisms in this topic about the leverage curve and favouring pedaling performance over bump compliance?
PS. Gary has said it best. Tantrump dude can't provide one advantage his suspension provides over others when going down. He only concentrates on the pedaling. So guess why the "downhill" forum is not so hot about the idea.
I see a 1-2 each year in Morzine or L2A plus 1-2 by the guy who buys them and sells them in the dump I live in
OK, just to clarify a couple of things.
This is technically the "DH" (and freeride what) forum but realistically it's a place for technical discussion and I welcome the creation of this thread and threads like this. It's gone a bit off track since the start but it's interesting nonetheless.
I think a lot of people have stopped commenting for the reasons @norbar listed above. It's an interesting design, it was broken down kinematically and shown/suggested to be maybe not so great, and the inventor came in to say that all of our preconceived notions of suspension are wrong but didn't really explain why.
As for @Axa, sorry dude, but about 90% of your posts have been about how great this design is, with the remaining 2 posts or so in the linkage fork thread. I thought it was funny to jokingly give you the "corporate shill" title, but then you gravedug and disliked every post that disagreed with Brian (and liked all that agreed with him). So now you get what you got. If you continue to participate here after this shitstorm dies down, I promise I'll change your title.
I for one don't really see the need for geometry correcting suspension when I climb and would prefer sensitive and consistent suspension that isn't compromised elsewhere in favor, but I'm interested to hear what professional reviewers (and more importantly respected amateur riders) eventually come up with. I'd also like to know why the linkage model is wrong and how that changes the interpretation of the design.
Lastly, I've seen two additional evils in addition to my own out on the trails or on the road, and I barely get any riding time these days. I'm in dentist country so maybe that's it, but somebody is buying them.
This is technically the "DH" (and freeride what) forum but realistically it's a place for technical discussion and I welcome the creation of this thread and threads like this. It's gone a bit off track since the start but it's interesting nonetheless.
I think a lot of people have stopped commenting for the reasons @norbar listed above. It's an interesting design, it was broken down kinematically and shown/suggested to be maybe not so great, and the inventor came in to say that all of our preconceived notions of suspension are wrong but didn't really explain why.
As for @Axa, sorry dude, but about 90% of your posts have been about how great this design is, with the remaining 2 posts or so in the linkage fork thread. I thought it was funny to jokingly give you the "corporate shill" title, but then you gravedug and disliked every post that disagreed with Brian (and liked all that agreed with him). So now you get what you got. If you continue to participate here after this shitstorm dies down, I promise I'll change your title.
I for one don't really see the need for geometry correcting suspension when I climb and would prefer sensitive and consistent suspension that isn't compromised elsewhere in favor, but I'm interested to hear what professional reviewers (and more importantly respected amateur riders) eventually come up with. I'd also like to know why the linkage model is wrong and how that changes the interpretation of the design.
Lastly, I've seen two additional evils in addition to my own out on the trails or on the road, and I barely get any riding time these days. I'm in dentist country so maybe that's it, but somebody is buying them.
Only more difficult to resort to violence as a retort.
I've seen a few up here, which means they are usually being produced in some numbers somewhere, since here is like freaking Alaska...well, it is Alaska. My trips to WA showed me where that "somewhere" was. Lots and lots of them on the popular trails in WA.
bunch of Evil here in CO.
... Or even worse, arguing with a telemarketer at 4AM...
If I underestimate my sales numbers, I think that means I'm having a good year.
But let's follow your logic. 4 weeks after delivery, cracks start to appear due to a mfg defect. That means that whatever frames that are available will have already been made, maybe on the boat, when we realize this problem. The last thing I want to do is replace defective frames with some that have the exact same problem.
Yes, that means they would have to wait. But to me, that's better than giving somebody a replacement that I know will fail. I just can't see any point in that. No matter what another batch will have to be made. Why not the new gen that's already in the works?
With my previous model bike, they were usually completely sold out by May/June, except for maybe an XXL or extra small or 2. I had to have one of my personal frames warrantied after a couple years due to corrosion. There were none, so I got a frame that was 2 years newer. Worked for me.
You might want to see that doctor about that tinfoil hat. I mentioned the government is following me because of their experiment?????? Could you please show me that quote??
Maybe you shoulda taken that job with blackwater.....there might actually be real conspiracies there other than an engineer/rider starting a bike company.
Hey Gary, all you had to do was ask me what relevance my suspension design might have to DH racing.Given that the designer/owner can't come up with ONE single desirable trait to riding his design DOWNHILL. WTF else would the members of a Downhill forum be interested in?
A famous quote:
Instead, you asked my what relevance this THREAD had to do with DH racing. (Which I did not start.)
The difference is not small. It's like the difference between listening to argue and listening to learn, but that slight nuance seems to escape you as well.
There is a very desirable trait to riding this suspension DH. The active geometry change allows a slacker HT angle to be used to achieve similar climbing or flat land handling. To put it another way, this suspension can run a slacker than normal HT angle and still retain better handling on level ground.
Also, the LR is designed to allow the rear suspension to sag slightly more at speed. This is again, to allow a slacker HT angle. It is also to allow more negative suspension travel at high speed. This keeps the rear tire on the ground and maintains traction. When reviewers comment about the security in rooty DH corners, that is exactly where that is coming from. The back is low, with lots of travel to keep in contact, instead of having the back jump around or step out.
If you are actually interested, I can show you video of what I mean, with the rear wheel staying planted to the ground over severe DH root hits.
This is also why the Vital review mentioned these DH traits:
"the bike has a great ability to maintain speed" seemingly useful in dH situations
and "It has a precise nature that allows you to change lines easily. " also, possibly useful on the DH.
The connection and security of the back wheel to the ground are the reasons for these qualities.
Could it possibly be that AXA is just telling the truth? That he has and still rides a kona magic link bike because he likes the traits that the suspension has? And even though he has had a chance to ride and test a lot of new bikes, despite all their "gadgets", hasn't found one that can provide the same advantages?
Axa has been following the development of this suspension for years. He only has slightly more information than most of you. That is to say, he knows what the advantages of dynamic geometry due to his ownership of the only bike on the market that can do that. He also knows the advantages of having a variable spring force for vertical compressions, depending o the situation and terrain, again, due to the fact that he's been riding the only bike ever made that can do that (automatically)
Are some of you done? That I am creating multiple accounts and reviews and buying all of my own bikes? That I am really RC and ZO and BT, plus all of the demo riders and reviewers?
That I am just lying by saying the numbers used for the analysis were so far off that they did not warrant a discussion relative the actual bike?
Right, let's stop making crazy assumptions (that you can scale a pic and get accurate numbers)
So now you are going to fill my position as official thread derailler with some US workforce eh? Trump all over the place...
I see cycles of tantrums.
apologies, i was on holiday
That's OK, as long as it makes Teh Monkey great again.
You might want to reconsider those statements in light of the actual thread. I came in a few pages in, when an extremely poor analysis was presented, which had no bearing on the actual suspension. It had LR's that were fully 30% off the charts, AS numbers that bore no meaning to the real bike. Claims of evil, unrideable traits that these numbers most produce.
No. I did not and will not provide dimensional info to satisfy you. I DID tell everyone that the numbers presented were severely inaccurate and did not reflect the bike. I told them that most of the LR curve was off the charts, I even mentioned which parts of the curve. I mentioned hard numbers, that my LR never exceeded 3.0 :1. I told them that the starting LR used was also beyond reality.
If I was really trying to find out what the suspension did and the designer give me the above clues (listening to learn), I would go back to my analysis and adjust it and see if it made more sense. Instead, I am told that MY numbers are wrong, and Hmcleay comes up some conclusions that are NOT EVEN POSSIBLE!!!! When I question him and these very direct, very obvious contradictions in his conclusion, he clams up.
Just like any of you, when asked a serious question by me. Or you just resort to name calling, funny memes and avoidance of the topic.
I did give you data. You just didn't want to use it. Didn't want to believe it. Didn't want to discuss it. It's easier to spew hatred than have a discussion where you already claimed and flamed you knew it all and might have to back up a bit.
Sandwich, if you have the stomach for it, you can wade thru the shit and see that, yes, I did explain why. The numbers used were so bad as to be pure fiction. Secondly, the understand of the "Missing Link" and how it manages to use the horizontal forces on the CS and manipulate the compressive force on the shock is clearly not understood or properly analyzed/represented by the linkage program or whatever else you guys are using.
That's why I suggested (then and now) free body diagrams. There's no where to hide using free body diagrams and if any of you engineers are afraid of them, yes, you should go back to school and I fear for future engineers if this basic block is no longer mandated in school.
I put a lot of time in here explaining things that are obviously not well understood. Is this a slam on you guys? Only if you insist you do understand and then come up with an erroneous conclusion. it is what it is. If you DID understand it.....well, you then would have a better understanding of it, wouldn't you.