[mandown]

http://www.bansheebikes.com/news/details.php?recordID=2

so the design has been out there for a while now. anyone ride this? anyone want to comment on it? interesting that the "greatness" of this design did not end up on the new slopestyle frame design (yet).

btw - the funniest thing i read in the text of the above link had to be where they tried to spin a falling rate linkage design as a good thing beacuse it reduces the chances of blowing up your shock. ignore the fact that it makes it easier to bottom-out the deeper you get into the travel

 

[Nick]

coma13 are smrtr than I.

 

[coma13]

http://www.bansheebikes.com/news/details.php?recordID=2

so the design has been out there for a while now. anyone ride this? anyone want to comment on it? interesting that the "greatness" of this design did not end up on the new slopestyle frame design (yet).

btw - the funniest thing i read in the text of the above link had to be where they tried to spin a falling rate linkage design as a good thing beacuse it reduces the chances of blowing up your shock. ignore the fact that it makes it easier to bottom-out the deeper you get into the travel

Somebody has something backwards. A higher leverage ratio at the end o f the stroke will make the bike more prone to bottoming since it takes less force to compress the shock a given amount. A lower leverage ratio at the end of the stroke, would do the opposite.

 

[mandown]

Somebody has something backwards. A higher leverage ratio at the end o f the stroke will make the bike more prone to bottoming since it takes less force to compress the shock a given amount. A lower leverage ratio at the end of the stroke, would do the opposite.

you sure about that?
Quote "Did you know the Scream actually has a decreasing leverage ratio over the length of the travel, thus reducing the chances of blowing up a shock - that's good execution in design."

for argument sake, let us say the leverage decreases from a 3:1 at the start to a 1:1 at the finish. at the start, the rear wheel would need to move 3" to use 1" of shock stroke. at the finish 1" of rear wheel movement would use 1" of shock stroke... yeah, that makes sense. the "decreasing rate" is not the same as a "falling rate" despite the fact that they sound similar. my bad

 

[lovebunny]

virtual floating 4 bar suspension eh? well at least they managed to get all the key words in there.

 

[builttoride]

although the VF4B is a great linkage for XC and all mountain riding, it is limited in terms of how much travel it can produce with out having tire clearance issues with the seatpost or lengthening the effective chain stays etc...

I probably shouldn't be saying this... but we have a completely new style multi pivot linkage (that I have been working on for over a year now) that will be far better suited to DH racing. It's in the works...

 

[Terrorfirma]

so the design has been out there for a while now. anyone ride this? anyone want to comment on it? interesting that the "greatness" of this design did not end up on the new slopestyle frame design (yet).

btw - the funniest thing i read in the text of the above link had to be where they tried to spin a falling rate linkage design as a good thing beacuse it reduces the chances of blowing up your shock. ignore the fact that it makes it easier to bottom-out the deeper you get into the travel

The VF4B or any virtual pivot bike for that matter in our opinion would not make the best design for a slopestyle bike for a few different reasons. The Pyre has a pivot between the main swing arm pivot and the rear axle thus limiting how laterally stiff the bike could remain when doing massive drops... no problem for an all mountain bike as it will never see the loads that the wildcard will oh sure we could make all the pivots larger to compensate for the flex but then we would increase the weight. The other thing is the selling point on VP designs is the pedal induce antisquat, which basically means the chainforce helps to mitigate pedal bob... this is awesome when hammering up a hill or in any intense technical uphill BUT that same antisquat is associated with pedal kickback when you do a big drop which is not something you want to feel cause it could cause you to have your feet get kicked off your pedals. We could have used the VF4B but we figured we pick the design we thought would work best for its intended use. Designing a bike is about where you make comprimises and we figured for this bike the Turner 4bar had the best going for it for this application.

As for falling rate its not... the leverage over the shock reduces through its travel but by no means does that translate into a falling rate suspension curve, the two are two seperate entities. If you actually look at the curve its progressive because as the leverage ratio gets smaller it gets harder to compress the shock meaning the actual suspension curve is a rising rate. 3:1 would be easier to compress then 2:1... if our frame went from 3:1 to 4:1 then that could be a falling rate but again this would depend on the actual shock curve because some shocks - like air - have a steep progressive curve and in creating a frame with a falling rate you could actually end up with the two curves cancelling each other and getting a linear curve.
Don't know if you'll understand everything i'm talking about but theres a lot more going on then meets the eye.... basically if you get a banshee you are buying a bike designed by in house engineers with many years of experience... we're not graphics designers or CAD guys and we don't just get the builder to figure it out for us... we can do the math and have always done so.
Feel free to email or pm me if you need me to clarify the above a little more
jay@banshee

 

[.:Jeenyus:.]

virtual floating 4 bar suspension eh? well at least they managed to get all the key words in there.

 

[Terrorfirma]

virtual floating 4 bar suspension eh? well at least they managed to get all the key words in there.

seriously I wish we didn't name it at all... but people kept saying what is it... is it a VPP, a Maestro, DWLink on and on and on... this came from our customers - givem what they want.
Basically its a boring ole 4bar just like the FSR, Horst link, but more specifically a short first link 4bar just like VPP, DW, Maestro... we didn't start it but....
you know whats really cool is all you guys are asking questions and learning the tech behind the names[suspension] so it really doesn't matter what we call it you'll be able to see it for what it really is. I've been going crazy lately trying to explain different suspension designs and their properties on why they are categorized they way they are... hey if it helps i'm glad.

 

[binary visions]

I hate to say it, but that announcement looks like a 12 year old wrote it.

I am glad that there are some industry people doing their best to dispel the constant misuse of the term 4-bar. Even hearing someone try to refer to a bike as "faux bar" makes me twitch a little.

As for falling rate its not... the leverage over the shock reduces through its travel but by no means does that translate into a falling rate suspension curve, the two are two seperate entities.

They're not really separate, though, right? The leverage over the shock is what creates the suspension rate. It's just that decreasing the leverage over the shock actually creates a progressive rate, not a falling rate.

 

[Westy]

I hate to say it, but that announcement looks like a 12 year old wrote it.

I am glad that there are some industry people doing their best to dispel the constant misuse of the term 4-bar. Even hearing someone try to refer to a bike as "faux bar" makes me twitch a little.


They're not really separate, though, right? The leverage over the shock is what creates the suspension rate. It's just that decreasing the leverage over the shock actually creates a progressive rate, not a falling rate.

Since they are using an air shock, which is naturally progressive, the linkage could be falling rate but overall the suspension could still be progressive.

 

[binary visions]

Since they are using an air shock, which is naturally progressive, the linkage could be falling rate but overall the suspension could still be progressive.

'tis true... but he was describing the linkage (not the shock).

 

[builttoride]

The pyre linkage is designed to have a slightly progressive feel when used with an air shock, it is basically designed so that when combined with an air shock it will have an almost linear slight progressivity, which is just what you want for XC / epic riding.

 

[Banshee Rider]

So it's a DW link with a different shock angle? I'm glad I don't go to school for engineering because that's what it looks like to me.

 

[Fulton]

So it's a DW link with a different shock angle? I'm glad I don't go to school for engineering because that's what it looks like to me.

I think I speak for the rest of us when I say that we're glad you don't "go to school for engineering" too.

 

[Banshee Rider]

I think I speak for the rest of us when I say that we're glad you don't "go to school for engineering" too.

So then how is it different?

 

[Terrorfirma]

So then how is it different?

It depends on what level you compare the differences; I think would be the honest answer.
What I mean by this is if I gave you an analogy and asked you what are the differences between say a Honda CR250 and a Kawasawki KX 250 one could say they look the same so if you painted the KX red it now is a Honda but things like the powerband can make the bike feel totally different.
The devil really is in the details of chaingrowth, suspension rate, leverage ratio, travel, instant center location at each specific travel location... which is determined by each pivot location in the 4bar.
So one could argue that the Maestro, DWlink, VF4B, and I've seen a few others but don't now the names [seen at different tradeshows] all could be classed in a similar category and therefore be considered the same. At a higher level you could then class the VPP, Canfeild style linkage, and the above all in a similar category again.
At an even higher level you could then class the FSR horst link, all the VP designs, the Ellsworth ICT, and Knolly's 4X4 all under a the exact same category.
Basically at the highest level there are only 2 types of suspension... a single pivot and a true 4bar there is no others to my knowledge [maybe the lawwill but it acts like a 4bar]and every single design falls into these 2 categories.

Basically do they look the same... yes.... would they "feel" the same absolutely not... does that make them the same - you decide.
Should we collectively stop naming suspension systems...I wish. But tell that to the marketing guys...

 

[rbx]

The VF4B or any virtual pivot bike for that matter in our opinion would not make the best design for a slopestyle bike for a few different reasons. The Pyre has a pivot between the main swing arm pivot and the rear axle thus limiting how laterally stiff the bike could remain when doing massive drops... no problem for an all mountain bike as it will never see the loads that the wildcard will oh sure we could make all the pivots larger to compensate for the flex but then we would increase the weight. The other thing is the selling point on VP designs is the pedal induce antisquat, which basically means the chainforce helps to mitigate pedal bob... this is awesome when hammering up a hill or in any intense technical uphill BUT that same antisquat is associated with pedal kickback when you do a big drop which is not something you want to feel cause it could cause you to have your feet get kicked off your pedals. We could have used the VF4B but we figured we pick the design we thought would work best for its intended use. Designing a bike is about where you make comprimises and we figured for this bike the Turner 4bar had the best going for it for this application.


jay@banshee

But doesnt DW and maestro supose to eliminate pedal feedback?

 

[OGRipper]

They're not really separate, though, right? The leverage over the shock is what creates the suspension rate. It's just that decreasing the leverage over the shock actually creates a progressive rate, not a falling rate.

I think what he's saying is that the actual rate curve is a function of the frame but also the shock. The leverage generated by the frame is obviously important, but depending on your shock and set-up you can realize a more linear rate, get bottom-out resistence, etc.

 

[binary visions]

So then how is it different?

I think the better question is, what gives you the slightest idea that they're the same?

Because it's two short links and a solid rear triangle? That makes them the same?

 

[builttoride]

But doesnt DW and maestro supose to eliminate pedal feedback?

yes, but thats what all linkages claim, horst linka and VPP, thust link etc... everyone claims it. A lot of mountain bike marketing is based on gimics and made up equations. Be careful what to believe.

 

[rbx]

yes, but thats what all linkages claim, horst linka and VPP, thust link etc... everyone claims it. A lot of mountain bike marketing is based on gimics and made up equations. Be careful what to believe.

Reading reviews few people seem to notice pedal feedback dw and maestro

 

[builttoride]

I never noticed pedal feedback on my scream, and definatly not on my chap, did on my old elsworth, even tho it claimed it didn't...

all I'm saying is that you have to ride a bike for yourself to see if it suits you.

 

[OGRipper]

Pretty sure DW would never say his design completely eliminates feedback. I might be wrong but in fact I seem to remember him specifically saying that no practical design will completely eliminate feedback, even with a concentric design. Pretty much any multi-gear design will have some chain growth. Chain growth = feedback in the sense that the swingarm is tugging on the cranks as you move through travel. The claim is that feedback is minimized (not eliminated) to the point that it's not noticeable or a performance detriment, without compromising bump compliance and other favorable characteristics.

 

[OGRipper]

"I feel I should digress, to explain my synonomous use of "4-bar" and "virtual pivot". Technically they are the exact same thing, with the difference being the length of the "bars" and the location of their respective pivots."

Isn't this wrong? I feel like I'm going back to Suspension 101 here, but isn't a kona-style, single pivot design still a four bar? It's just not a horst link, right? Is Banshee confusing four bar with horst or am I crazy? Both?

 

[Terrorfirma]

"I feel I should digress, to explain my synonomous use of "4-bar" and "virtual pivot". Technically they are the exact same thing, with the difference being the length of the "bars" and the location of their respective pivots."

Isn't this wrong? I feel like I'm going back to Suspension 101 here, but isn't a kona-style, single pivot design still a four bar? It's just not a horst link, right? Is Banshee confusing four bar with horst or am I crazy? Both?

The Kona/Banshee style walking beam suspension aka [fauxbar, turner 4bar] could be classified as a single pivot in that its rear axle is attached to the main swingarm pivot directly, but activates the shock like a 4bar bike would... it kinda lives in two worlds.
Yes you are absolutely correct a 4bar is the same as a virtual pivot... they all will produce an "instant center" which is what I suppose is meant by a "virtual pivot" [virtual pivot = instant center].

To be a horst link [FSR] design there needs to be a pivot infront of and below the rear axle... at least this is what the patent says. Ellsworth gets away with using a horst link that is infront of but NOT below the rear axle so technically it avoids infringement and can be called something else. The Knolly suspension design is Patent Pending which means waiting for the patent and it will be interesting to see if he can actually get it because his "horst link" is similar to the ICT link, even though the main part of his patent surrounds the arms moving the shock.

 

[Terrorfirma]

Pretty sure DW would never say his design completely eliminates feedback. I might be wrong but in fact I seem to remember him specifically saying that no practical design will completely eliminate feedback, even with a concentric design. Pretty much any multi-gear design will have some chain growth. Chain growth = feedback in the sense that the swingarm is tugging on the cranks as you move through travel. The claim is that feedback is minimized (not eliminated) to the point that it's not noticeable or a performance detriment, without compromising bump compliance and other favorable characteristics.

Yeah no design can eliminate feedback and it changes as soon as you go up or down a chainring. So if you practically eliminate chaingrowth in say 32T x 12 as soon as you go to a 24T x 12 combination it will increase.

Seems strange to me there isn't a place on the internet that explains all of this stuff. If there is it'd be great to have a link to send people who want to learn more.

 

[DHS]

i love the post about the banshee scream. it'd scream thru shocks for sure.

it has a 2.25 stroke shock to get 8inches of travel. talk about HIGH ratio.