[roel_koel]

Dirt finally released their test on the new Devinci Wilson Split-Pivot DH bike

Steve Jones seemed pretty damn impressed, a direct quote "Cornering and steering on the Wilson is truly inspired, it really is absolute perfection"

 

[IH8Rice]

i can guess the outcome before reading...."its great, but its not a Orange 22X"

 

[MarkDH]

i can guess the outcome before reading...."its great, but its not a Orange 22X"

QFT. Did he come up with some pretentious nonsensical comparison with the Canadian shipbuilding industry or whatever?

'It's a good bike. No, it's a great bike. But oh so complicated, but in a simple way'. Yeah, ok....

 

[Uncle Cliffy]

i can guess the outcome before reading...."its great, but its not a Orange 22X"

Surprisingly no. He does mention the Summum and Makulu with Bos suspension though...

 

[norbar]

In their latest 4 dh bike shootout he wasn't as possitive as allways about the 224. Strange indeed


btw. Do you guys at freeborn plan to get the legend mk2 to Jonsey for a dirt test?

 

[Dogboy]

In their latest 4 dh bike shootout he wasn't as possitive as allways about the 224. Strange indeed

Exactly. He pretty much said the 224 had peaked and been surpassed. Can't knock him for liking very specific traits as he knows what works and does a good job of putting it in context.

 

[SPDR]

Can't knock him for liking very specific traits as he knows what works and does a good job of putting it in context.

Only issue with Jonesey is he can waffle for ages without actually saying anything and he's built up his own vocabulary to describe bikes that no-one else knows and there isn't a glossary for. Most of it's just nonsensical gibberish.

Having said that I do agree with one of the aspects of the Wilson review and that is that the full build is damn expensive in the UK. It's a very reasonable frameset price at £1999 but the build is £5694.99 with pretty generic components. As he says for that money you'd expect top line hand picked, best of the best stuff not a SRAM Corp DH groupset and Fox RC4.

Looks like a really nice frame.

 

[IH8Rice]

Only issue with Jonesey is he can waffle for ages without actually saying anything and he's built up his own vocabulary to describe bikes that no-one else knows and there isn't a glossary for. Most of it's just nonsensical gibberish.

i thought that was typical Englander talk and all of you knew what he meant

 

[yd35]

Only issue with Jonesey is he can waffle for ages without actually saying anything and he's built up his own vocabulary to describe bikes that no-one else knows and there isn't a glossary for. Most of it's just nonsensical gibberish.

I think part of the Jonesey-speak is deliberate. I'm sure that he and the other Dirt boys have relationships, obligations, etc. with these bike companies and that it's in their best interest to not break anyone's balls too hard. If no one can understand what you're talking about, you won't hurt anyone's feelings!

 

[RMboy]

Only issue with Jonesey is he can waffle for ages without actually saying anything and he's built up his own vocabulary to describe bikes that no-one else knows and there isn't a glossary for. Most of it's just nonsensical gibberish.

Having said that I do agree with one of the aspects of the Wilson review and that is that the full build is damn expensive in the UK. It's a very reasonable frameset price at £1999 but the build is £5694.99 with pretty generic components. As he says for that money you'd expect top line hand picked, best of the best stuff not a SRAM Corp DH groupset and Fox RC4.

Looks like a really nice frame.

Yeah I have to agree with you. sometimes I feel he does not know what to say, so he just fills the lines. But I am more the technical engineering knowledge Person. Prefer that at the end of the day

Im sure the bike is great, however I feel the lines do not really flow and it seems all to technical again. Just like the evil!

However I think it may just be one of these bikes that is not very photogenic and prob look better in the flesh!

 

[Pete..]

I cannot stand how they write in Dirt Mag. I bought one to read for a plane ride and I just couldn't get through it. At least, for the most part, it had pretty pictures.

 

[roel_koel]

Yeah I have to agree with you. sometimes I feel he does not know what to say, so he just fills the lines. But I am more the technical engineering knowledge Person. Prefer that at the end of the day

Im sure the bike is great, however I feel the lines do not really flow and it seems all to technical again. Just like the evil!

However I think it may just be one of these bikes that is not very photogenic and prob look better in the flesh!

I did not think anything of the "looks" until I actually saw one "in the metal"

its one of those bikes that perhaps does not photograph very well, but looks awesome in reality - looks like a 'heavy weapon'

this is my friend's Wilson XP (entry level) which he has pimped out with Fox 40s, XT brakes, etc. and it photographs better in the white, helps that he's a professional photographer too

 

[RMboy]

I did not think anything of the "looks" until I actually saw one "in the metal"

its one of those bikes that perhaps does not photograph very well, but looks awesome in reality - looks like a 'heavy weapon'

this is my friend's Wilson XP (entry level) which he has pimped out with Fox 40s, XT brakes, etc. and it photographs better in the white, helps that he's a professional photographer too

I have to agree with you there. That picture you have does make it look alot better.

I think I'm just been picky! it's the top part of the swing arm that ruins it for me. To large, needs to Flo more from front. Ha bloody industrial designers!

 

[smithyM1]

What can i say, i read the Wilson test, like i did the supposed DH bike test in the previous issue and came away none the wiser. Do they actually ride the bikes or just take pictures of them? Not once does Jones mention how any of the bikes handle in a given situation, you just get the usual non sensical bull**** about the what quarry the metal was mined in or some other pish. Ok ok Jones, its slack as ****, must mean it handles amazing... I've been buying Dirt since day 1 (literally) and i'm not gonna bother anymore.

If you're testing bikes back to back, you take them out, rag the **** out of them and do comparisons, and put the results in the magazine...its not that hard!

 

[Pslide]

You guys are hilarious. Did you actually read the article? There is no waffling. No comparing to a 224. It's concise and easy to understand. Seriously, what planet are you guys from? LOL...

 

[Dogboy]

You guys are hilarious. Did you actually read the article? There is no waffling. No comparing to a 224. It's concise and easy to understand. Seriously, what planet are you guys from? LOL...

Truth.

 

[IH8Rice]

It's concise and easy to understand. Seriously, what planet are you guys from? LOL...

thats because it doesnt say anything really.

and go change your tampon.

 

[Inclag]

You guys are hilarious. Did you actually read the article? There is no waffling. No comparing to a 224. It's concise and easy to understand. Seriously, what planet are you guys from? LOL...

I don't necessarily think so based on other's opinions.

This is how I translated it.

- The reviewer thinks the bike is good.
- The reviewer thinks that its handling is ideal and inspired in "tight" situations.
- The reviewer thinks the full build is too expensive for what you get.
- The reviewer thinks that the frameset is priced very reasonably.
- The reviewer thinks that the Summun and Makula are the current benchmarks due to their combinations of suspension, handling, and weight (probably more Summun than Makula with the weight).
- The reviewer thinks that it pedals well, but incorrectly associates that with it being a split pivot.

Based on most of the recent reviews and how the downhill shoot out read, it appears to be another very capable downhill bike. Seems like we're reaching a point where things like properly tuned suspension, tires, and cockpit setup are what's going to differentiate bikes more so than a magical frameset. Kind of sucks for folks like us as it makes it increasingly more difficult to excuse our riding or lack thereof.

 

[bizutch]

I think knowing how to set up your own equipment based on your weight & riding style is the key.

 

[smithyM1]

You guys are hilarious. Did you actually read the article? There is no waffling. No comparing to a 224. It's concise and easy to understand. Seriously, what planet are you guys from? LOL...

My criticism was more against the 4-bike test, however, would you seriously consider buying a bike on the strength of what that article says? Obviously noone relys solely on what they read before laying down the cash on a bike but c'mon, that article tells you nothing apart from its fairly grounded but can change line if need be.

 

[Pslide]

I think knowing how to set up your own equipment based on your weight & riding style is the key.

Boom, there it is. Not really the point here, but truth!

My criticism was more against the 4-bike test, however, would you seriously consider buying a bike on the strength of what that article says? Obviously noone relys solely on what they read before laying down the cash on a bike but c'mon, that article tells you nothing apart from its fairly grounded but can change line if need be.

OK, their bike reviews aren't perfect. I would hope no one would buy a bike based on a review - I see them more as a starting place and interesting reading.

The other thing is that us Americans miss out on is Jones' history and racing pedigree. Most of the Brits know the guy, so an endorsement from him goes a long way. Having met him and knowing his ability to feel what's going on with the bike, I also highly respect his opinions. But a lot of that doesn't come out in the articles.

You've got to understand how much gets filtered out of a written review, especially for a frameset. You have to filter out the effects of the components on the bike, your particular set up of the shock, even your personal preferences to some degree.

Imagine the author goes into great detail about how a bike absorbs bumps. Then someone else jumps on the bike, tunes the shock to their preference, and everything's different. So you have to talk in generalizations, which is usually what Jones does.

At the end of the day, a review is only opinion - and only the parts of that opinion that the writer felt were worth sharing.

 

[Jim Mac]

I think knowing how to set up your own equipment based on your weight & riding style is the key.

STOP BEING SO LOGICAL!

You are sooooo anti-impulse buy. Purchase with your heart, not yer head!

 

[smithyM1]

Boom, there it is. Not really the point here, but truth!



OK, their bike reviews aren't perfect. I would hope no one would buy a bike based on a review - I see them more as a starting place and interesting reading.

The other thing is that us Americans miss out on is Jones' history and racing pedigree. Most of the Brits know the guy, so an endorsement from him goes a long way. Having met him and knowing his ability to feel what's going on with the bike, I also highly respect his opinions. But a lot of that doesn't come out in the articles.

You've got to understand how much gets filtered out of a written review, especially for a frameset. You have to filter out the effects of the components on the bike, your particular set up of the shock, even your personal preferences to some degree.

Imagine the author goes into great detail about how a bike absorbs bumps. Then someone else jumps on the bike, tunes the shock to their preference, and everything's different. So you have to talk in generalizations, which is usually what Jones does.

At the end of the day, a review is only opinion - and only the parts of that opinion that the writer felt were worth sharing.

I agree, you do have to filter out things such as components when writing a review, but most of the time that along with geometry is his all he writes about. I also agree that what works for the author might not work for you or me but thats not really the point in a bike test. What he should be doing is testing the bike on various types of terrain, writing about how it handles and making comparisons etc etc.

I've met him and ridden with him and i know he's fast on a bike, theres no disputing that. When it comes to him testing and writing about a bike though you really are none the wiser. Look at that 4bike test in the last issue, you dont actually find out anything about how any of the bikes handle do you? Your last sentance is also true, it just seems that the thing Jones neglects to share, is the part everyone wants to know!

 

[scottishmark]

Most of the Brits know the guy, so an endorsement from him goes a long way.

Yes we do and no it doesn't

 

[Pslide]

Yes we do and no it doesn't

Well if you're Scottish then maybe it doesn't.

 

[roel_koel]

well I can give you a mini-review, as I got to ride a Wilson SP at the 'Forest of Dean' here in the UK last week

conditions were f*cking terrible, the Forestry people were cutting down timber and most of the trails were closed, and the trails that were open were deep in mud and bits of trees

I rode a Wilson SP (not a stock model, but one of the show bikes from interbike's Dirt Demo, it was a bit of a mutt in terms of the parts, and has been abused for months by magazines and websites as well as customers demo'ing it)

It was fitted with Specialized Storm DH tires, which helped me slither down the muddy track, those tires were very impressive

2 things really came to my notice:

1. the bike pedals in a way I have never experienced with any FSR / 4-Bar / VPP bike - I could stand and hammer on the pedals without any funky bouncing movements, even on the mile long fireroad you have to traverse before you reach the trail head, but the bike was also very comfortable in the rough which is a problem I have felt on many VPP style bikes, they can feel 'harsh' on the small bumps

2. the bike felt incredibly solid in the rear, there was no flex or hint or any sideways movement either whilst pedalling or going downwards with the brakes locked up, and the back wheel smacking rocks and roots.

I owned Big Hits, Demos and Banshee Screams and the Wilson felt like a different league in terms of lateral stiffnes

it truly felt "on rails" on the single run I did at the Forest of Dean, a very odd feeling!


other observations? The Boxxer World Cup fork felt like sh*t, it was well overdue for a service, but the rear suspension completely outclassed the fork - I'd like to try it with a Boxxer R2C2 (Team) or Fox 40 for a better comparison

it was heavy - but I was riding a 27lb All-Mountain on the other 10 runs I did that day, so any DH bike would feel heavy

geometry? I could not really comment in huge detail...

it was too muddy, and too alien after several years of riding short-travel freeride bikes and all-mountain bikes, but it definitely felt very low down in terms of standover height and centre of gravity, and the head angle was very slack!

 

[Inclag]

1. the bike pedals in a way I have never experienced with any FSR / 4-Bar / VPP bike

Single pivot.

 

[roel_koel]

Single pivot.

nope, very different to those too..I've owned simple single-pivot and faux-bar (rocker activated single pivots)

I don't claim to understand why it rides differently (anti-squat?)

 

[Mo(n)arch]

Maybe a Fox damper with a real ('cause custom tuned) low speed compression damping?

 

[Inclag]

nope, very different to those too..I've owned simple single-pivot and faux-bar (rocker activated single pivots)

I don't claim to understand why it rides differently (anti-squat?)

Look, you're an importer of them right? I'm not looking for a pissing match, but SP, ABP, etc. are all single pivots in terms of pedaling dynamics. Essentially they're single pivots with floaters, except the floater is a structural component of the frame doubling as a shock linkage. Ingenious? That could be debated, but a very good way of making an efficient frame structure whilst not constraining braking characteristics or wheel-rate.

Reason why you probably like it so much and many people will is that it's well thought out, has a well tuned shock and wheel-rate, brakes well, and has a good pivot location.

I'm sure at that frame price, you'll have plenty of chaps chomping at the bit for them

 

[dw]

Maybe a Fox damper with a real ('cause custom tuned) low speed compression damping?

The Wilson uses the lightest LSC circuit available in the RC4 chassis. Pedaling performance, I feel that it is pretty good, comes from the fact that I'm using a more rearward and higher than your typical single pivot, and I'm able to do this because the Split Pivot takes care of braking forces through the designed in floating brake. Pretty simple really. A finely tuned anti-squat response opens up a lot of options for what can be done with regards to leverage ratio and braking. Its the same formula I've been using for almost 10 years now.

Dave

 

[dw]

Look, you're an importer of them right? I'm not looking for a pissing match, but SP, ABP, etc. are all single pivots in terms of pedaling dynamics. Essentially they're single pivots with floaters, except the floater is a structural component of the frame doubling as a shock linkage. Ingenious? That could be debated, but a very good way of making an efficient frame structure whilst not constraining braking characteristics or wheel-rate.

Yup, you have it, no majic there, Split Pivot is a single pivot for acceleration, multi link for braking and leverage ratio. Real simple in terms of layout. Basically it lets me use a single pivot that's great for acceleration but without a floater would really suck for braking. Bradflyn invented it in 1943, he can tell you all about it and describe the awesomeness of the Split Pivot in all of its glorious wonderment.

Reason why you probably like it so much and many people will is that it's well thought out, has a well tuned shock and wheel-rate, brakes well, and has a good pivot location.

I'll take that as a very nice complement, thanks! I am trying my best out here. For sure the Split Pivot designs are kinematically quite a bit different than other bikes on the market in the past few years. I feel that the new Devincis push some boundaries.

I'm sure at that frame price, you'll have plenty of chaps chomping at the bit for them

That would be nice, although I am more hoping that riders can get them, ride them, and enjoy them. None of that chomping at the bit stuff!

 

[time-bomb]

Bradflyn invented it in 1943, he can tell you all about it and describe the awesomeness of the Split Pivot in all of its glorious wonderment.

 

[slyfink]

Yup, you have it, no majic there, Split Pivot is a single pivot for acceleration, multi link for braking and leverage ratio. Real simple in terms of layout. Basically it lets me use a single pivot that's great for acceleration but without a floater would really suck for braking. Bradflyn invented it in 1943, he can tell you all about it and describe the awesomeness of the Split Pivot in all of its glorious wonderment.



I'll take that as a very nice complement, thanks! I am trying my best out here. For sure the Split Pivot designs are kinematically quite a bit different than other bikes on the market in the past few years. I feel that the new Devincis push some boundaries.



That would be nice, although I am more hoping that riders can get them, ride them, and enjoy them. None of that chomping at the bit stuff!

DW, are those ride characteristics carried over to the smaller bikes in the SP range at Devinci? Also, how does the "anti-squat response" affect the activeness of the suspension under pedalling? In other words, does the suspension "firm up" if one were to pedal through a rough section (such as trying to climb up a rock garden for example)?

I really like the look of the bikes, and may try and take one out for a test ride this summer....

 

[dw]

DW, are those ride characteristics carried over to the smaller bikes in the SP range at Devinci? Also, how does the "anti-squat response" affect the activeness of the suspension under pedalling? In other words, does the suspension "firm up" if one were to pedal through a rough section (such as trying to climb up a rock garden for example)?

I really like the look of the bikes, and may try and take one out for a test ride this summer....

Yes, I try to carry these ride characteristics over in any product that I work on, the Split Pivot Devinci's included. One could correctly state that this type of design approach has been my personal "calling card" through the years.

From the dw-link blog, but still applicable.. (slightly tweaked)

Anti-squat in suspensions has become a focal point for cycling suspension designers recently. The term is beginning to become more "en-vogue" for cycling marketing, and I imagine that in a few years, it will be one of the main points discussed in marketing brochures. A good deal of this is partly due to the success of my dw-link suspension, which is a position sensitive anti-squat design, the first of its kind.

Over the years I've been asked "what is anti-squat" hundreds of times. A lot of times I've been asked that question by people with their own preconception on what it is or how it works. This makes explanations challenging at times, but not impossible, just longer winded. I'm not the best at oversimplifying, I tend to think that every detail in necessary in a discussion, and this has not helped me to publish simplified accounts of how the dw-link works. After all, it's not simple at all! I have been working on breaking it down.

One of the incorrect preconceptions that I frequently hear is that more anti-squat somehow equals less traction. Actually, the opposite is the truth. The closer a suspension is to being balanced, the more traction it can deliver at the wheel.

Anti-squat and the concept of squat in general can be difficult to grasp sometimes. As its core, squat is a suspension's reaction to mass transfer that happens during acceleration. Anti-squat is a term for a force that balances the suspension's reaction to load transfer.

100% anti-squat is the exact amount that a suspension would need to develop to completely counteract the effects of load transfer. One way to simplify this relationship is to think of it like an old style weight balance. More than 100% anti-squat would overbalance the suspension, and the suspension would extend under power. Less than 100% anti-squat would underbalance the suspension, and it would be allowed to compress under power. pro-squat (negative anti-squat) (and yes, some well advertised bikes actually feature this) not only allows the suspension to compress under power, it forcibly compresses the suspension while accelerating. Any amount of pro-squat is about the worst case scenario from an efficiency and traction standpoint.

A somewhat useful exercise is to imagine your suspension as a weight balance. (like in pictures of 1800's drugstore counters)

On one side of the suspension balance you have load transfer weighting the suspension. On the other side, you have a balancing force. There are three approaches used in cycling suspensions today that one could take to balance (or not balance) out this load transfer.

1) you could do nothing. The suspension would compress with every acceleration and subsequent load transfer, and with every compression stroke and rebound stroke of the shock, you will lose energy. Your wheel rate rises as the suspension compresses, and your suspension is now stiffer with less compressive travel. Your suspension is at a disadvantage to absorb bumps. Traction decreases.

2) you could use a shock with a great deal extra low speed compression damping. The suspension would compress less than the first case with every acceleration and subsequent mass transfer, but still some, every time your shock compresses or rebounds you lose energy.

-a little bit of basic damper theory-

Keep in mind, that in order to support the load that has transferred to the rear wheel under acceleration, the shock needs to develop force at the damper shaft. A damper develops force by pushing oil through a small orifice. As the oil in the damper is pushed at high pressure through the small orifice, the shearing force in the oil causes friction and energy is converted to heat and dissipated. The more resistance in the damper, the higher the shearing force, and the more energy is converted to heat and dissipated.

Here is the worst part. Now your suspension is unbalanced when you are cornering or not accelerating under power.

Think about it, your compression damping is raised to deal with the additional forces of load transfer due to acceleration. When you are not accelerating, that load transfer does not exit, and there is less force that the shock needs to deal with. Your shock is now overdamped when you are coasting. Most of your cornering happens when you are coasting, so effectively you have unbalanced your suspension for cornering. Traction decreases in all cases.

Note: Some people take this to mean that an ideal is absolutely zero low speed compression damping. This is not the case. Low speed compression damping is of paramount importance to a properly set up suspension, but like many things, too much is not good for you..

3) you could use anti-squat. This would allow the suspension to react to load transfer only during acceleration. The closer a suspension is to operating at 100% anti-squat, the closer to being perfectly balanced the suspension is. The closer to balanced the suspension is, the MORE TRACTION the suspension has in all conditions.

In short, a position sensitive anti squat, with a higher level of anti-squat gives MORE TRACTION than any other approach, and especially more traction than approaches using less anti squat.

Also, anti-squat DOES NOT EQUAL pedal feedback. All you need to do to understand that is ride a dw-link around. Truthfully, from my personal experience, some of the worst pedal feedback bikes that I've ever ridden actually operate in the pro-squat range.

Hope this helps

Dave

 

[dw]

I realize that I may not have fully answered slyfinks question, so to put it as simply as possible;

You will find the anti-squat approach that I use is designed to provide a maximum of compliance over roots on the climbs. Although I don't really like the term, the suspension would have to be termed "very active". Plus, if you want to add more LSC like used on other bikes, YOU CAN. It's your choice.

Dave

 

[Pslide]

As one who hasn't visited your blog, really enjoyed that read. Thanks Dave, good stuff. Your bikes really have lead the way in many respects.

Although I have one question, does the bike below have "position sensitive anti-squat"? Just saying...

 

[Mo(n)arch]

The Wilson uses the lightest LSC circuit available in the RC4 chassis. Pedaling performance, I feel that it is pretty good, comes from the fact that I'm using a more rearward and higher than your typical single pivot, and I'm able to do this because the Split Pivot takes care of braking forces through the designed in floating brake. Pretty simple really. A finely tuned anti-squat response opens up a lot of options for what can be done with regards to leverage ratio and braking. Its the same formula I've been using for almost 10 years now

Thanks Dave
Like I mentioned already in an other thread, I really like this bike. Maybe my next ride? Currently I'm riding a Session 88 and really like the split pivot/abp (not offending dave) design and I think with the features like the low leverage ratio and the rearward travel it must be an even better ride. I'll try one for sure in the future!

 

[dw]

As one who hasn't visited your blog, really enjoyed that read. Thanks Dave, good stuff. Your bikes really have lead the way in many respects.

Although I have one question, does the bike below have "position sensitive anti-squat"? Just saying...

None that was planned for in advance by the designer.

Just saying

 

[Pslide]

None that was planned for in advance by the designer.

Just saying

Well I must admit, you are one of the best at articulating articulation...