Stop trying.
sinister 'passion'
- Thread starter xy9ine
- Start date
you all guys missunderstand me so many times...
i'm here reading at this treath becouse i ride a R9 and i was interested to import sinister in my country, than i saw this bike and it look me like (i never ride it) a bad copy of a fusion, you know i think forum is made to talk, i don't worry to much about galatteo i just say what i think, when my company made something that i do not like it i say it to the company and to the poeple in the pubblic italian forum
i never say "people sinister suck" i'm here for them and for PDC
I never say that durability is the only goal but i'm not interested to talk about fusion, i'm here to read about sinister, i say fusion looks better when i saw this model
i whish you have understand now, i made my work just cose i love mtb, i work with small company, not very popular but great people great brain and great riders, anyway here in US you get hungry for nothing....in italy we are way more easy.. world is cool becouse we are different i will put more atention next time, sorry for flame
i'm here reading at this treath becouse i ride a R9 and i was interested to import sinister in my country, than i saw this bike and it look me like (i never ride it) a bad copy of a fusion, you know i think forum is made to talk, i don't worry to much about galatteo i just say what i think, when my company made something that i do not like it i say it to the company and to the poeple in the pubblic italian forum
i never say "people sinister suck" i'm here for them and for PDC
I never say that durability is the only goal but i'm not interested to talk about fusion, i'm here to read about sinister, i say fusion looks better when i saw this model
i whish you have understand now, i made my work just cose i love mtb, i work with small company, not very popular but great people great brain and great riders, anyway here in US you get hungry for nothing....in italy we are way more easy.. world is cool becouse we are different i will put more atention next time, sorry for flame
What you don't seem to be getting, is that you based this assumption on NOTHING. ZERO. You have no facts, no ride reports, no reviews and nothing to go on but a small, low rez image that doesn't really shwo the linkage or pivot placement.
Not at all man, no hard feelings. Didn't mean to come off as mean either, just being direct. I've had a long day. 
The Man Himself:
god i already sayd sorry for the OT, i will not talk about fusion bikes here we are ot, i'll never post again but just stop to attak...this seems to be ridicule
No attacking, just saying. You can discuss fusion all you want, but if you are calling out another bike or manufacturer, you should probably have facts, that's all. 
i simply find a clone, with the difference that it dos not have horst link, for the rest is a colne...you can't say that, is true, i think fusion works better becouse thay take 4 years to develop the DH bikes, and becouse i know how care the put to weight distribution, and cose i just love the compression curve of the fusion, this is what i think!! you can get angry just beacouse i think different from you
i'm here to read about r9 and than i find this bike i already told you..i ride one R9 and i find it very cool, i was curious and just looking around tha forum, i did not compared anythink i said what i think not what i feel there is a huge difference
I agree that all bikes can break, but only one broken bike ever... I find that impossible.
The bike in question was a Bobby Root signature series whiplash.
unhappy owner:
is true, only one in one years of work and some minor problem with a sealed bearing that it going to wear to fast...the one in the high leverage, they fix it in the 2007 but is early to say if they really fix the problem
p.s. do you ride a Soul bikes?
p.s. do you ride a Soul bikes?
The dude was just opening topic for debate. His bike probablly does ride better having a similer window of travel path but with consistency of feel. Hard to know what the rear of this will feel like,will absorb hits excellently but I'm not sure if the variable wheelbase length will make the handling feel weird,probablly to small a change to notice I GUESS.
I can see truth in the claims about the Sinister pedalling and being active. From spending a minute looking at the picture and breifly mentioned by Zedro.The chain would apear to lock out the small link near the BB by pulling it closed while the other pivot would still remain to be active.
It sure is alot of pivots though and although in theory it would offer shock absorbsion to any number of angled obstacles(square hits or drops to flat or anywhere in between),I don't see any real benefit to a high single pivot or a good horst link design.
I would love to ride one and have no doubts it will ride better than most bikes out there,although I'm also curious as to the execution of rebound forces on the rear suspension,and what affects that may have on feel and traction.
Kona are the most primitive mass produced crap sold by cool factor marketing ever,there's no defence for them,they push crap to nieve masses.
Turners don't do marketing cause their bikes ride well for the same reason Orange do,they pedal well,do the job and are light and compact with good geo,they're a poor suspension design saved by these reasons,why insite debate when you're selling a poor design that's technically flawed.
I just needed a light.
I can see truth in the claims about the Sinister pedalling and being active. From spending a minute looking at the picture and breifly mentioned by Zedro.The chain would apear to lock out the small link near the BB by pulling it closed while the other pivot would still remain to be active.
It sure is alot of pivots though and although in theory it would offer shock absorbsion to any number of angled obstacles(square hits or drops to flat or anywhere in between),I don't see any real benefit to a high single pivot or a good horst link design.
I would love to ride one and have no doubts it will ride better than most bikes out there,although I'm also curious as to the execution of rebound forces on the rear suspension,and what affects that may have on feel and traction.
Kona are the most primitive mass produced crap sold by cool factor marketing ever,there's no defence for them,they push crap to nieve masses.
Turners don't do marketing cause their bikes ride well for the same reason Orange do,they pedal well,do the job and are light and compact with good geo,they're a poor suspension design saved by these reasons,why insite debate when you're selling a poor design that's technically flawed.
I just needed a light.
Ummm. The fusion is just an FSR bike as far as I can tell. Vst has an additonal pivoted member, as in the drawing i posted.... This thread is even better than the DHR thread!
I don't think the above is but if it is in regard to my post but if you read my post you'll see I realise this.
I still don't seem to see any answer as to how this bike will pedal better than an RTS if the wheelbase extends just as much.
Also excellent point that with both levers pushing on the shock that movement one way will reduce it another...i wonder what kind of actual wheel area/path this bike will have.
Also excellent point that with both levers pushing on the shock that movement one way will reduce it another...i wonder what kind of actual wheel area/path this bike will have.
Unless part of the system is against a physical stopper (which renders it a 4-bar, 1 DOF system, at least at that point in time) then it will still have 2 degrees of freedom. If it is a 1 DOF system (say the 5th link is held tight against the stopper when you pedal or something) then yes, it COULD be made to pedal well.first part: total fiction in this case, not sure how else to put it. Under that premise you would pick up the bike and the wheel would just flop around. And no sense in disproving it, the bike is actually being ridden (dont feel bad, my first words were 'this thing cannot work!' too, until i bent my head around it). The system is fully constrained, although you could design a (useless) 5 bar that wasent behaving as you say, but it would have some kind of symetry to it. It's sorta like how some 4 bars (like the VPP) has an ambigous point in the travel (before top-out) where the swingarm wants to reverse direction; the system works within limits, beyond that the geometry falls apart.
second part: you could i believe, depending on design. Foward acceleration could effectively lockout that bottom link; conversely the opposite force would activate it.
Consider this however: if you have an axle in the midst of a useable area of travel (say a 4" by 4" square), and only one shock, moving it from that position in a certain direction (for a small distance dA) will compress the shock a proportionally small amount dS. Rotating that 180 degrees will, for small displacements, yield the same results. However, given that the axle can move in any direction from its original point, if you were to consider rotating the movement vector about the axle's original position, at some stage the shock's displacement must go from being positive to being negative. Given that this must obviously be a smooth transition, there has to be a direction in which the axle can move without compressing or extending the shock. If this direction happens to be restrained by a bumper or whatever, then it's not a 2 DOF system (at that point anyway). It seems that by using such a bumper/stopper, they have bodged up some kind of system that's rideable (speculation - not trying to slander FTW/Sinister here) but from a purely engineering POV, I don't see it being a true mathematical solution to the problems MTB suspension has to deal with.
yep im with you 100% ffman, either the axle is free to move without compressing the shock along a line/curve in space, or they have to put a restrictor in there.
it would be nice to see if that restrictor is just for the unsagged portion or if it actually closes off a whole area of travel.
now, that means some interesting things, for instance, chain tension or braking force could reduce this "no resistance line" to a point, but what happens when you go from pedalling to braking?
it would be nice to see if that restrictor is just for the unsagged portion or if it actually closes off a whole area of travel.
now, that means some interesting things, for instance, chain tension or braking force could reduce this "no resistance line" to a point, but what happens when you go from pedalling to braking?
One of my hobbies is sketching up full suspension frame designs (need something to do during long project meetings ). Over the past few months I’ve been working on a 2-dof (degrees of freedom), single shock concept (I hesitate call it a complete design at this point). My design goals appear to be inline with what Sinister had in mind when they conceived their “Passion” frame. Those goals being to allow the rear wheel to better track the terrain and to be more compliant when encountering a leading edge obstacle. It’s nice to have the concept validated by a reputable and skilled designer/builder like FTW and the Sinister crew. It’s also interesting to see how the same concept can yield different implementations. In my sketches I have no pivots within the rear wheel diameter (i.e. no pivots near the rear drop out), a conventional clamp on front derailleur can be used (no e-type needed) and the bb is floating. With the floating bb I’m working under the assumption that a bb that moves over a short horizontal distance will not be noticeable to the rider. The distance between the saddle and the bb remain virtually unchanged, unlike say a Y-Bike where the bb has a vertical motion causing the distance between the bb and saddle to change which can be felt in by the rider. Some notable designs with a floating bb are the Maverick ML series (also an example of a fixed rearward axle path) and the GT I-Drive series. I haven’t read any negative comments regarding their bb motion. My concept also employs a bumper to restrict the motion of the bb to a neutral and rearward range (i.e. the bb cannot come move forward of the neutral position). If nothing else to the Sinister Passion has inspired me to take my concept to a full design. Time to break out the 3D Solid Modeler software .
). Over the past few months I’ve been working on a 2-dof (degrees of freedom), single shock concept (I hesitate call it a complete design at this point). My design goals appear to be inline with what Sinister had in mind when they conceived their “Passion” frame. Those goals being to allow the rear wheel to better track the terrain and to be more compliant when encountering a leading edge obstacle. It’s nice to have the concept validated by a reputable and skilled designer/builder like FTW and the Sinister crew. It’s also interesting to see how the same concept can yield different implementations. In my sketches I have no pivots within the rear wheel diameter (i.e. no pivots near the rear drop out), a conventional clamp on front derailleur can be used (no e-type needed) and the bb is floating. With the floating bb I’m working under the assumption that a bb that moves over a short horizontal distance will not be noticeable to the rider. The distance between the saddle and the bb remain virtually unchanged, unlike say a Y-Bike where the bb has a vertical motion causing the distance between the bb and saddle to change which can be felt in by the rider. Some notable designs with a floating bb are the Maverick ML series (also an example of a fixed rearward axle path) and the GT I-Drive series. I haven’t read any negative comments regarding their bb motion. My concept also employs a bumper to restrict the motion of the bb to a neutral and rearward range (i.e. the bb cannot come move forward of the neutral position). If nothing else to the Sinister Passion has inspired me to take my concept to a full design. Time to break out the 3D Solid Modeler software .Is that what the cover of MBA is going to say?
:biggrin: Sounds like a great bike, but claims like this just strike me as idiotic (as much as the last 3 pages of arguing have been). I love the Sinister stuff, but please don't come out and make a claim like this. Get some unbiased reviews and make it a production bike, then you can start giving yourself the coveted "best pedaling, most active suspension ever" award.
I loved the Splinter though, so I'd love to try out one of these. Looks promising and I've always been impressed by FTW.
The Ito
Flyin Fatman,
Why the hell would you need a "mathmatical solution" to riding bikes fast? What does that even mean? What matters is if the suspension absorbs bumps, which it does with terrifying alarcrity, and if it pedals well, which it does. When FTW sent ridable protos out to several major bike companies and a Valencia, CA bike magazine, one engineer from a particular norcal company said it was the best pedaling bike he has ever ridden, and a often maligned magazine editor confirmed that statement. So, that would pretty much make everyone who has ever ridden even the crude initial protos in agreement on that statement... I do believe the patent filing will be available at some point in the near future for all you nerds to gripe about as well, and after the show is over hopefully there will be some more in depth pictures available for people to look at as well.
As i said somewhere back on page 3 or so, yes, there is a mechanical stop that engages the lower rocker at sag height. Initally only the upper rocker is actuated, this keeps the chainstays pulled in under pedaling and acceleration. Once the second rocker kicks in it increases the compression rate and creates a "pocket" in which the two different compression rates control upward and downward movement independently. It is nifty, and as the cliche goes hard to understand until you have seen it move and ridden it.
Why the hell would you need a "mathmatical solution" to riding bikes fast? What does that even mean? What matters is if the suspension absorbs bumps, which it does with terrifying alarcrity, and if it pedals well, which it does. When FTW sent ridable protos out to several major bike companies and a Valencia, CA bike magazine, one engineer from a particular norcal company said it was the best pedaling bike he has ever ridden, and a often maligned magazine editor confirmed that statement. So, that would pretty much make everyone who has ever ridden even the crude initial protos in agreement on that statement... I do believe the patent filing will be available at some point in the near future for all you nerds to gripe about as well, and after the show is over hopefully there will be some more in depth pictures available for people to look at as well.
As i said somewhere back on page 3 or so, yes, there is a mechanical stop that engages the lower rocker at sag height. Initally only the upper rocker is actuated, this keeps the chainstays pulled in under pedaling and acceleration. Once the second rocker kicks in it increases the compression rate and creates a "pocket" in which the two different compression rates control upward and downward movement independently. It is nifty, and as the cliche goes hard to understand until you have seen it move and ridden it.
A mathematical solution, in this context, would be one where you balance all forces (bumps, acceleration, braking, etc) out with deliberate system traits that react in a specific way; where every scenario has an actual non-zero reaction force. But going from what you've said, if it's got a stopper, it's not a true 2 degree of freedom system, or you're relying on forces never acting directly in the "neutral" direction where the shock is not made to extend or compress (read my post above).
Controls up and down movements independently? Ahh... up and down are part of the same dimension/degree of freedom. They can't be controlled independently since they're not perpendicular. If you meant horizontal and vertical that would have made more sense, except that without bodging the system up so that it's not a true 2-DOF setup, you can't control both of these orthogonal components with only one shock (at least, not in its current configuration - if you ran it from upper rocker to chainstay, that might be a different story).
Are guys like you just scared of math and physics? Whenever these discussions turn to actual discussions of the physics behind a suspension system, there's always one or two people who feel compelled to jump in and say "but... but... it rides well!"
Thanks, that contributes nothing to the discussion.
Sure, it may ride great. But people are allowed to discuss and hash out the mathematical reasons that it may or may not ride well, and how that may or may not support what a company claims it can do. Of course the ride is what matters in the end, but we're still allowed to disprove ridiculous marketing claims and call B.S. when a manufacturer deserves it. Everyone swore up and down (and still swears, actually), that a Horst link pedals so much better than a single pivot and it's just the God of all suspension designs because of it's vertical axle path.
Physics says different. Physics says that Horst links respond almost identically to low, rearward single pivots and don't have even CLOSE to a vertical axle path. All that anecdotal evidence? Wrong. They don't ride much differently. A well designed suspension system of either type, on a great bike with a great geometry and a well set up shock will ride great. That doesn't mean that this or that Horst link equipped bike won't be an awesome ride, it just means that you should stop and consider your options.
This is a discussion board. We can't ride bikes on a discussion board. What we can do is talk and discuss, and that's what we're doing - don't be scared just because the math may or may not support the claims of a company. It could still be a great bike. Maybe you don't mind the wool being pulled over your eyes but I really like to know what goes on in these systems.
What's annoying me is that the discussions are being lodged on a bunch of non-scientific explanations of what people THINK it does as a result of their either having briefly looked at the bike or briefly ridden it. Most of the people involved in the scientific discussion about why the design can't work have only seen a couple of photos, that in reality only imply what is mechanically going on. As such, its merely a bunch of speculations based upon speculations. Hardly scientific, unlike the conversations on tried-and-true designs that have been disected by engineers globally. It the end, the only person with a scientific and engineering background to have seen the bike (other than those involved with Sinister directly) is Zedro, and he's actually supporting most of the claims made. As we know, in math and science, the smallest changes can equate to the most massive changes. Remember that the VPP and DW-link systems went throught literally thousands of minute changes before reaching the market to find the ideal configuration. A millimeter here and a millimeter there can completely change a system. Who do you expect most people to believe. Oh, and I'm not really scared of either math or physics, it's just that you really need to adhere to the scientific method when practicing physics.
You can determine a great deal about a bike by simply looking at a picture of it. You don't need to get down to the level of millimeters to discuss the possible benefits/drawbacks of a design such as this...
Back to the discussion...
Due to the fact that the shock is actuated on both ends, and that if any link/member of this suspension design is moved, at least one of these shock actuating links must also move; I don't believe it is possible for there to be any wheel travel for which there is no shock "travel". (aka "free play")
In most of the pictures, the linkage has actually been hidden from view....... anyway, on with the discussion
Or hey, you could jsut ride the bikes and not worry about what the marketing department has to say, but I guess thats just not the RM way is it. Much better to sit and postulate and puff up some chests arguing about the most inane details that in reality 98% of the riders on this board (as always, me included) can't even feel on the bike anyways.
"Pff, thats unridable completely. Now move the pivot forward 3mm and up 1.87mm, and there ya go! Now its the worlds greatest machine."
You really can't help but smile really.
"Pff, thats unridable completely. Now move the pivot forward 3mm and up 1.87mm, and there ya go! Now its the worlds greatest machine."
You really can't help but smile really.
and one of the most important parts of the linkage is what is hidden.
i'm 90% sure that suspect device had a hand in part of developing the bike and i know for sure that he has ridden it a good amount so i don't think there is any wool being pulled over his eyes...binary visions said:
i'm sure that once interbike is finished the linkage will make more sense providing someone mentions it in a report and gets a good pic of it. i'm not going to make any claims that it is the "best design ever," but i trust ftw's judgement when it comes to making bikes and understanding how to make them better.
but then if both shock actuating links move, the shock could remain uncompressed (or unchanged) and the wheel still be able to move.
i think you are missing the point of the discussion, its not really about how good the end result is, its more a brainstorming to try to dissect the system and better understand it, not having to rely on the marketing part of things.
i for one think the idea is killer, just think about the potential, a rearward travel path activated by the absence of chain pull, and a more vertical path for use when the chain is tense, no really, im really stoked by this, but that doesnt mean it is truly a 2 D.O.F, and thats what at least i and i think ffman were trying to find out about.
the links move in opposing directions.
True.
But I think this is where FF and Vitox have their point. During top-out, the links could move in the same direction (causing no shock compression but wheel movement) if it weren't for the bumpers. During the stroke of the shock, the only thing preventing the links from moving in the same direction (and therefore causing free play) is the rebound force of the shock, which will force each shock actuating link back to top-out equally.
I still don't understand why this would disqualify the design from being considered a true 2 degrees of freedom design.
New pics posted in the 'non-nude interbike 2006' thread!
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2299961&postcount=58
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2299961&postcount=58
Yeah, I never question anything in the world around me, nor care why things work the way they do.
Excuse me for taking an academic interest in things, I didn't realize that it was offensive to people.
Good shots. I would like to see an air sprung bump stop with hi and low speed compression damping. :biggrin:
This is a promising idea, can't wait to see more and eventually ride one.
The point is, so many sit and and blabber on and on about how the thing is going to ride, all the time ignoring the simple and indeniable fact that no matter how much you dissect the frame and pivots nad blah blah, there are some qualities of a bike that WILL NEVER SHOW UP ON PAPER.Yeah, I never question anything in the world around me, nor care why things work the way they do.
Excuse me for taking an academic interest in things, I didn't realize that it was offensive to people.
For example, Kona leant Dropmachine a Stuff hardtail to try out. By all accounts on paper, the bike stunk. Alivio drivetrain, some ass marzocchi fork, and absolutely nothing spectacular about it. But i swear to god everybody that rode that bike loved it, and it performed better then most of the rest of the hardtails we got in. And nobody could figure out why.
Another good example is the Mountain Cycle 9.5. On paper, that bike is a complete cluster****. 15.75" bb, steep headtube, short TT, and more. It hsoudl ahve ridden like a garbage truck on stilts. But it bloody well railed everything, pedalled like a fiend and one rider here just boosted MASSIVE stuff without any issues at all.
I can understand questioning things around you, but what bugs the hell out of me is that it seems many on here have only ridden bikes on the internet, and can't seem to understand that some things on bikes are just unquantifiable. Some things just are, and you should STFU and just ride it. Or, wait till its available and then ride it.
See my point?
yeah jeff!
No!
I don't believe it.
Next thing, you're going to tell me that you can't tell everything about a man from the contents of his resume.
You bring this silly point up every time there's a discussion like this on here. Guess what? It has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion. None. Nobody has said the bike will ride like crap. Nobody has suggested that, marketing claims or not, it won't be fun to pedal. Nobody has even said one frickin' thing about the bike itself, that wasn't positive. We're discussing a new suspension system with some impressive claims, and trying to hash out how it works.
Take your condescending, sniping comments elsewhere, because nobody wants to hear them. If you actually processed the contents of the posts here, instead of bringing up the exact same two bikes again, under the exact same point you made last time we had a suspension descussion, you'd see that your point is completely useless in the context of this thread. Nobody has called the bike crap. I even read the whole thread again to make sure I didn't miss something, anything that would give your point an ounce of validity.
Fine, though. Everyone, we're now talking about Bike X from Manufacturer Y, a never-to-be-released, never-to-be-ridden bike with this new 5-bar suspension setup that provides an "area" of travel. Since it's never going to be released or ridden, we can actually discuss the suspension system without worrying about being told we're puffing our chests and arguing inane details when really we should just shut up and ride it.
kinda random, but it looks like if one of those bearings dies you get a totaly diffrent axle path. hot bike though.