Results 1 to 42 of 42

Thread: 2006 Fat daddy

  1. #1
    crumb
    Reputation: saviorself's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    890

    2006 Fat daddy

    I like it alot, besideds the two guys stroking it
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #2
    Cheesiest
    Reputation: intheways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,558
    besideds the two guys stroking it
    Well...they are a French company. Some 'Zoke chics would definitely do it better justice.

    It surely does look like a sick frame though!

  3. #3
    Meh.
    Reputation: XSL_WiLL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    17,509
    Quote Originally Posted by saviorself
    I like it alot, besideds the two guys stroking it
    That bike looks incredibly stiff. I want one. Though... Maybe not in catp!ss yellow color.

  4. #4
    Eyes of the world
    Reputation: DesertYeti's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    898
    Quote Originally Posted by XSL_WiLL
    That bike looks incredibly stiff. I want one. Though... Maybe not in catp!ss yellow color.
    And heavy. Anyone know the weight?
    Find 'em hot leave 'em wet

  5. #5
    crumb
    Reputation: saviorself's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    890
    Quote Originally Posted by DesertYota
    And heavy. Anyone know the weight?
    dont know exactly, but it shouldnt be that heavy. 24 usually uses huge tubing (i.e. pornking) and with the air sock it shouldnt be too bad.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26
    Any word on price/avalibility?

  7. #7
    crumb
    Reputation: saviorself's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    890
    Quote Originally Posted by Colorado_Prophet
    Any word on price/avalibility?
    all i know is what ive showed you, check the 24 site often it should be on there soon

  8. #8
    Disco-Superfly
    Reputation: Jake_HT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    4,854
    <html> </html>
    <body> <center><font color="blue"> Jake </font><center><body>
    <body> <center> I never knew you could use HTML coding in posts.... cool <center>
    <BODY BGCOLOR="khaki">
    Jake
    Yeti 303 WC 25th

    Quote Originally Posted by Dwight Moody
    Didn't you read the sticker on that shock? It said not to do whatever you did.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBSully's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,205
    jeez those chainstays are like less than a foot long
    Sully

  10. #10
    kona-tize me captain
    Reputation: austinb89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,117
    can someone give me a link. lately all the pics that have been posted dont come up for me.
    Looking for a 7.87 x 2.25mm shock, any brand any age that runs well!! cheap would be appreciated!

  11. #11
    Bum Buzzer
    Reputation: Huck Banzai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,988
    Another VPP bike. Wow, now that Iron Horse and Giant have their clones (of course they were seperate ideas that just HAPPEN to appear identical and surface at approximately the same time.)

    I wonder what BS engineering claims come with this one.

    NOTE: This isnt to say that VPP isnt THE SHYT, just that everyones making a tweak and trying to call it their own.

    Dave Weagle rules - Sundays and 7 Points rock - but a VPP is a VPP and all the patent doubltalk and engineering minutiae wont change that!

    Single - Bullit, 224, RN01
    4 Bar Single (Linkage) - Kona Stab, Turner DHR, Rocky RMX
    4 Bar FSR - M1, Big Hit, Demo (it is just an FSR, no more complicated - visual trick)
    4 Bar VPP/DPP - Faith, V10, VPfree, Sunday, 7 Point...


    SHUT UP!
    Last edited by Huck Banzai; 09-24-2005 at 02:27 AM.

  12. #12
    _dw
    _dw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Huck Banzai
    Another VPP bike. Wow, now that Iron Horse and Giant have their clones (of course they were seperate ideas that just HAPPEN to appear identical and surface at approximately the same time.)

    I wonder what BS engineering claims come with this one.

    NOTE: This isnt to say that VPP isnt THE SHYT, just that everyones making a tweak and trying to call it their own.

    Dave Weagle rules - Sundays and 7 Points rock - but a VPP is a VPP and all the patent doubltalk and engineering minutiae wont change that!

    Single - Bullit, 224, RN01
    4 Bar Single (Linkage) - Kona Stab, Turner DHR, Rocky RMX
    4 Bar FSR - M1, Big Hit, Demo (it is just an FSR, no more complicated - visual trick)
    4 Bar VPP/DPP - Faith, V10, VPfree, Sunday, 7 Point...


    SHUT UP!
    Just about the last thing you can call dw-link is a "clone" of anything, especially a VPP bike. dw-link perferms in just about the exact OPPOSITE of VPP in every measureable performance parameter. Just about the only thing that is comparable is that they have short links and a triangulated rear end. Other than that, every other performance trait is just about opposite. Its just by chance it ends up that way, dw-link was designed for a specific purpose. The existence of VPP was not even a consideration during the developmenmt process (in 2000 and 2001). At that time, VPP was an obsolete suspension from Outland abandoned in the mid 90's. Santa Cruz then resurrected it, and since then has done an amazing job marketimg and selling it. I have always been a big fan of the Santa Cruz brand, so it has been great to watch it all come together for them.

    This will be a great week for dw-link, a new website with a huge amount of information launches on Wednesday, and we are doing dw-link Symposiums at Interbike, similar to what we did for Iron Horse distributors last year, but out in the open for anyone to see this year. I cannot wait. For any of you reading that will be at interbike, feel free to come by booth 2049 at 2PM on Wednesday or Thursday and hear all about it. There will be some special guests and lots of things to look at.

    dw-link is patent pending worldwide, and the patent application dates predate Giant's system by about 2 years. When you read the patents (they will issue in the coming months) you will see just how amazingly different the dw-link is from any vehicle suspension ever built. Not just bike suspensions, VEHICLE suspensions. Its a whole new ball game all around. I'm psyched to be in that ball game.


    So all that being said aboiut dw-link, that bike above appears to be a serious VPP clone. Not so cool in my book, but I guess I'm jaded because the new thing seems to be to make a dw-link knockoff. Patent issue week will be insane!
    Last edited by _dw; 09-24-2005 at 07:29 AM.
    dw★link
    Split Pivot
    @daveweagle -Twitter

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ianjenn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,184
    Hey dw; I had a question for you. You obviousley work for the company. I wanted to get your thoughts on how you would feel if a magazine or website did a bike test of one of your rigs, but used their own biuld kits? Also would you get mad mad if there was a large cross section of riders, we are talking like 5-7 of varying degrees of speed who would not only fill out a large grade card with about 20 different parts, but now here is where some producers might not like it. If we stop watched all the riders on the same trails and got an idea of which bike makes them faster? Would that be of concern for you or would you find that unique? The reason for the biuld kits is because I want the bikes to feel the same except for the frames. I have talked to a few others in the industry about the stop watch idea and they were like, "well you can't get all the info from a stop watch you know". I think they thought I was a real smart ass bastard when I told them to tell that to Nico and Bossard when they used stop watches extensively when setting up Nicos rigs before races.

  14. #14
    /dev/null
    Reputation: binary visions's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    720
    Quote Originally Posted by Huck Banzai
    Another VPP bike. Wow, now that Iron Horse and Giant have their clones (of course they were seperate ideas that just HAPPEN to appear identical and surface at approximately the same time.)

    I wonder what BS engineering claims come with this one.

    (snip)

    SHUT UP!
    This post shows you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about suspension designs

    Aside from Dave defending his design, it's cute that you look at a bike, see that it's got two linkage plates and a solid rear triangle, and dub it "VPP". There has been a lot of question as to whether or not the Giant is actually a genuine DW-link ripoff (with subsequent patent violations), and DW doesn't seem to like to comment on the subject, but that doesn't mean that the two are even remotely related to the VPP design.

    What about Canfield Bros? Karpiel? Heck, Rocky Mountain made a similar design - the ETS-X or whatever it was.

    VPP has a specific design and specific traits that make it a patented design. Whether or not bikes live up to the claims is a different issue, but there is a specific axle path and related chain tension that causes VPP to act the way it does.

    It's one thing to just not be knowledgable about suspension workings, but it's just dumb to come in here making unequivocal, blanket statements about something you don't understand.

    Back to the original topic, rumor was that 24 wasn't going to be able to sell this bike in the US because of VPP patents?

  15. #15
    Cynical Bystander
    Reputation: COmtbiker12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,770
    Quote Originally Posted by binary visions
    Back to the original topic, rumor was that 24 wasn't going to be able to sell this bike in the US because of VPP patents?
    That's the impression that I received when the proto pictures were posted up on Ridemonkey last summer. Looks to be a nice bike, I'm interested to see how it rides.
    Tony
    is making a comeback.

    Turns out that five years of not mountain biking, really makes one strive to get back to it.

  16. #16
    Bum Buzzer
    Reputation: Huck Banzai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,988
    Quote Originally Posted by _dw
    Just about the last thing you can call dw-link is a "clone" of anything, especially a VPP bike. dw-link perferms in just about the exact OPPOSITE of VPP in every measureable performance parameter. Just about the only thing that is comparable is that they have short links and a triangulated rear end. Other than that, every other performance trait is just about opposite. Its just by chance it ends up that way, dw-link was designed for a specific purpose. The existence of VPP was not even a consideration during the developmenmt process (in 2000 and 2001). At that time, VPP was an obsolete suspension from Outland abandoned in the mid 90's. Santa Cruz then resurrected it, and since then has done an amazing job marketimg and selling it. I have always been a big fan of the Santa Cruz brand, so it has been great to watch it all come together for them.

    This will be a great week for dw-link, a new website with a huge amount of information launches on Wednesday, and we are doing dw-link Symposiums at Interbike, similar to what we did for Iron Horse distributors last year, but out in the open for anyone to see this year. I cannot wait. For any of you reading that will be at interbike, feel free to come by booth 2049 at 2PM on Wednesday or Thursday and hear all about it. There will be some special guests and lots of things to look at.

    dw-link is patent pending worldwide, and the patent application dates predate Giant's system by about 2 years. When you read the patents (they will issue in the coming months) you will see just how amazingly different the dw-link is from any vehicle suspension ever built. Not just bike suspensions, VEHICLE suspensions. Its a whole new ball game all around. I'm psyched to be in that ball game.


    So all that being said aboiut dw-link, that bike above appears to be a serious VPP clone. Not so cool in my book, but I guess I'm jaded because the new thing seems to be to make a dw-link knockoff. Patent issue week will be insane!
    Dave - I have loads of respect for you, and recognize that it isnt 'as simple as all that' - AND for all I know you are the originator of this generalized design.

    That being said, to dismiss the idea that 'all of a sudden' there are numerous designs with a triangulated rear and short links as not being influenced or inspired by one or the other is ludicrous. You even go so far as to point out the differences are in the PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS. Having worked with IH SGS etc, you are certainly and directly experienced with link tuning an FSR and how drastically it can effect the performace characteristics of that basic design. No, they may not have the same exact wheel path or leverage rates - but PLEASE explain to me what FUNDAMENTALLY makes it different? Maestros design had to be tweaked to avoid infrigning on the VPP patent - maybe you can distance DW from VPP, but what about that?

    Np doubt a great design will be copied and then reengineered/tweaked - this is inevitable, and a good thing!! Tweaking the link lates to change leverage rates (dynamic or static) or wheel path is done on all suspension designs to customize and tune the ride and suspension characteristics. I speak layman, and I know I dont need to explain this to you, but I'm tired of hearing these described as if they're drastically different or independent designs AND this usually coming from those who havent the slightest understanding or insight in the matter. (Not from you, I expect an engineer to advocate and promote his desigins)

    BE ASSURED - Everything I have seen come from the Pen of DW that is out there now, that I have tried - IS OUTSTANDING - and I have come to expect as much. No ass kissing, no smoke-up-the-ass-blowing - and no disrespect intended.

  17. #17
    Bum Buzzer
    Reputation: Huck Banzai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,988
    Quote Originally Posted by binary visions
    This post shows you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about suspension designs

    Aside from Dave defending his design, it's cute that you look at a bike, see that it's got two linkage plates and a solid rear triangle, and dub it "VPP". There has been a lot of question as to whether or not the Giant is actually a genuine DW-link ripoff (with subsequent patent violations), and DW doesn't seem to like to comment on the subject, but that doesn't mean that the two are even remotely related to the VPP design.

    What about Canfield Bros? Karpiel? Heck, Rocky Mountain made a similar design - the ETS-X or whatever it was.

    VPP has a specific design and specific traits that make it a patented design. Whether or not bikes live up to the claims is a different issue, but there is a specific axle path and related chain tension that causes VPP to act the way it does.

    It's one thing to just not be knowledgable about suspension workings, but it's just dumb to come in here making unequivocal, blanket statements about something you don't understand.

    Back to the original topic, rumor was that 24 wasn't going to be able to sell this bike in the US because of VPP patents?
    You then arwe who I am talking about. THIS post demonsrates your willingness to argue without any foundation.

    Thanks for your input. I clearly understand suspension designs VERY well despite your derision.

    I can see the differences because I can see the wheel path, I understand the way it works, even if I cannot 'do the math' - there are clearly differences between DW and VPP (Lite V. : DW has a much straighter wheel path, that is tuned to disconnect from pedal input, where the VPP uses an S shaped path that uses significant degree of pedal input to control the suspension) ETS-X using links is far from a commoditizing similarity. It can be described as elevated CS 4 Bar (But not TECNHICALLY FSR because the rear link pivot is above the Dropout, etc..) You can even drag Lawwill into 4 bar - but the tuning options and effects are drastically different - I am being so bold as to group- a sub-category when I *COULD* simply lump every 4 Bar together, but that would be generalized and not very useful. 4 Bar includes virtually every design that isnt a single piv or uses a mac strut.

    I did not accuse DW of anything, If your an adult by now, you will have noted that people see a good idea and try to claim it for their own. Your comments to the Maestro AND closing sentence regarding the 24 speak directly to this. VPP certainly has distinctive characterstics, but how do YOU explain the flurry of 'short link - triangulate rear' designs popping up allof a sudden? Are you familar with the concept of geographically isolated evolution? is it your contention that these designs evolved as contemporarys with no influence or imitation?

    My point isnt to take anything away from DW or SC or Giant - good enginnering is good engineering - there are plenty of proven designs that are implemted as shyt because the engineer sucks - there are plenty of crappy bikes out there sporting every design - the minutiae I keep evoking is the difference between s sluggish mush mobile and a quick handling Sunday or M3. Please dont assume my intentions.


    I clearly have an excellent understanding of suspension, physics, and mechanical engineering. Growing up with an Architect and Engineer for a father, being a mechanic for years, and those silly classes in engineering all seemed to help. Being disdainful and offensive iis not the way to argue or prove a point. I may not be absolutely right, but to dismiss me as not knowing what I am talking about is demonstrative of the fact that you apparently have this failing.
    Last edited by Huck Banzai; 09-24-2005 at 10:18 AM.

  18. #18
    /dev/null
    Reputation: binary visions's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    720
    Quote Originally Posted by Huck Banzai
    You want to argue 4 bar - pretty much anything that isnt a single and doesnt use a mac strut is a 4 bar
    Uhh... Where in my post am I arguing what is, or isn't, a 4 bar?

    You stated that all of these designs are the same, which is wrong, whichever way you look at it. What, exactly, are you saying here? That differences in the wheel path, suspension rate, and chain interactions doesn't make one design fundamentally different than the other?

    If you want to look at it in that respect, one could easily state that no design, single pivot, 4 bar, or anything else is different from the other - after all, the rear wheel goes up and down in all of them.

    I certainnly understand the suspension designs VERY WELL - thankyou for objectively calling me dumb and claiming I dont understand.
    I didn't call you dumb, but if you understand the designs "very well" then you understand the fundamental differences between them. If you don't see the fundamental differences, then you don't understand the designs as well as you think you do.

    DW is perfectly capable of defending himself and his designs with your help or derisive comments.
    I am not defending DW, as he is certainly more capable than I am at defending his designs. I responding to your post, which was, at a fundamental level, incorrect.

    If you want to discuss the evolution of suspension designs, well, certainly it's not a coincidence that every manufacturer is now jumping on this linkage configuration, but there's a lot more to it than claiming that all designs are the same. It's partly marketing driven, in that manufacturers feel they have to offer this type of design in order to stay competitive, but the designs are simply evolving in an attempt to be better.

    All the tire manufacturers are offering some variety of sticky rubber now, but that doesn't make all of the tires the same. They all grip differently, shed mud differently, have different sidewalls, etc. All of this through the minor differences in tread pattern, durometer of the rubber, and thickness of sidewalls.

    Am I not understanding your argument? I've just re-read your posts in an attempt to better understand, and you're just stating that differences in axle path, leverage rates, squat curves, braking characteristics and all that goes along with suspension designs does not constitute a fundamental difference in suspension design. What else do you think would be a fundamental difference?

  19. #19
    Uhhhhh...
    Reputation: TheSherpa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by binary visions
    Uhh... Where in my post am I arguing what is, or isn't, a 4 bar?

    You stated that all of these designs are the same, which is wrong, whichever way you look at it. What, exactly, are you saying here? That differences in the wheel path, suspension rate, and chain interactions doesn't make one design fundamentally different than the other?

    If you want to look at it in that respect, one could easily state that no design, single pivot, 4 bar, or anything else is different from the other - after all, the rear wheel goes up and down in all of them.


    I didn't call you dumb, but if you understand the designs "very well" then you understand the fundamental differences between them. If you don't see the fundamental differences, then you don't understand the designs as well as you think you do.


    I am not defending DW, as he is certainly more capable than I am at defending his designs. I responding to your post, which was, at a fundamental level, incorrect.

    If you want to discuss the evolution of suspension designs, well, certainly it's not a coincidence that every manufacturer is now jumping on this linkage configuration, but there's a lot more to it than claiming that all designs are the same. It's partly marketing driven, in that manufacturers feel they have to offer this type of design in order to stay competitive, but the designs are simply evolving in an attempt to be better.

    All the tire manufacturers are offering some variety of sticky rubber now, but that doesn't make all of the tires the same. They all grip differently, shed mud differently, have different sidewalls, etc. All of this through the minor differences in tread pattern, durometer of the rubber, and thickness of sidewalls.

    Am I not understanding your argument? I've just re-read your posts in an attempt to better understand, and you're just stating that differences in axle path, leverage rates, squat curves, braking characteristics and all that goes along with suspension designs does not constitute a fundamental difference in suspension design. What else do you think would be a fundamental difference?
    Your dreamy BV. Very DW like in prose.
    Fayetteville, AR and N.W.A RePrEsEnT

  20. #20
    Bum Buzzer
    Reputation: Huck Banzai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,988
    You didnt object to my lumping of everything together in 4 bar - accepting differences, is it such a stretch to group these very similar designs (VPP, DW, Maestro) into a sub category? I did NOT claim the designs are the same, but that they arer CLEARLY influenced by one another, and as with most cases there is an original.

    I dont think you got my point, my fault or not - But your responses seem more to be in effort to dismiss my comments as incorrect or incomplete than to illuminate the details and information that explain the differences.

    I did NOT say all of the desings were the same, I said they were all 4 bar, and obviously there are drastic differences in performance among them - even among the almost identical - I am extending that logic towards the 'short link, triangulated swingarm' bikes - and have lumped them together under the term VPP for lack of a better grouping name.

    I referred to them as CLONES in my original message, and any disdain was directed at 24 for being another one (You did say something about the possibilities of no import due to VPP infringment - and it may well be a fantastic bike - burly - needs to pedal good - voila VPP) - Went through the same with the Merida/Specialized and the LSD (apparently solved by Spec buying Merida? not sure).

    I am totally open to be enlightened, and would gladly be taught the intricacies of the differences in the designs - but I never said they were outright copies, or the same. We all tend to read things to fast and get impressions - rather than the actual content - *I* am certainly guilty of this from time to time.

    Pardon my need of sterotyping, but I dont think its unreasonable to categorize these new bikes outside of existing types and without assigning a uniqe title to each.

    Oh, anf you left out the cannondales and KHS's when you tossed the Canfield and ETS in there.... except the CD and KHS are closer to concept as they have short links (although they are placed very differently and no triangulated rear)
    Last edited by Huck Banzai; 09-24-2005 at 10:45 AM.

  21. #21
    /dev/null
    Reputation: binary visions's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    720
    Well, I disagree with your assessment that they should be lumped into the same category, unless you give them a really big category like "4-bar".

    VPP and DW-link are no more similar than VPP and a single pivot. I think trying to lump them into a category is very misleading since their performace characteristics aren't even close to each other. To try and pidgeonhole these bikes into some kind of category makes it seem like they're similar in their performance, which isn't true, so why do it?

    It's akin to people who try and give a definition to "freeriding" - people do wildly disparate things that they consider to be "freeriding", so why try and give it a rigid definition?

  22. #22
    Uhhhhh...
    Reputation: TheSherpa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Huck Banzai
    You didnt object to my lumping of everything together in 4 bar - accepting differences, is it such a stretch to group these very similar designs (VPP, DW, Maestro) into a sub category? I did NOT claim the designs are the same, but that they arer CLEARLY influenced by one another, and as with most cases there is an original.

    I dont think you got my point, my fault or not - But your responses seem more to be in effort to dismiss my comments as incorrect or incomplete than to illuminate the details and information that explain the differences.

    I did NOT say all of the desings were the same, I said they were all 4 bar, and obviously there are drastic differences in performance among them - even among the almost identical - I am extending that logic towards the 'short link, triangulated swingarm' bikes - and have lumped them together under the term VPP for lack of a better grouping name.

    I referred to them as CLONES in my original message, and any disdain was directed at 24 for being another one (You did say something about the possibilities of no import due to VPP infringment - and it may well be a fantastic bike - burly - needs to pedal good - voila VPP) - Went through the same with the Merida/Specialized and the LSD (apparently solved by Spec buying Merida? not sure).

    I am totally open to be enlightened, and would gladly be taught the intricacies of the differences in the designs - but I never said they were outright copies, or the same. We all tend to read things to fast and get impressions - rather than the actual content - *I* am certainly guilty of this from time to time.

    Pardon my need of sterotyping, but I dont think its unreasonable to categorize these new bikes outside of existing types and without assigning a uniqe title to each.

    Oh, anf you left out the cannondales and KHS's when you tossed the Canfield and ETS in there.... except the CD and KHS are closer to concept as they have short links (although they are placed very differently and no triangulated rear)
    Go ride a Sunday and an M3 and tell me theres no difference. That, and Merida owns Specialized.
    Fayetteville, AR and N.W.A RePrEsEnT

  23. #23
    Bum Buzzer
    Reputation: Huck Banzai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,988
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSherpa
    Go ride a Sunday and an M3 and tell me theres no difference. That, and Merida owns Specialized.
    I have ridden both, and am working out a ride on a Faith 2 - as soon as the Jr T comes off and Dorado goes on - dont want to be crippled by the hucker fork.

    Go ride a Bullit and a 224 and tell me theres no difference. How simple can ya get?
    Last edited by Huck Banzai; 09-24-2005 at 11:20 AM.

  24. #24
    Bum Buzzer
    Reputation: Huck Banzai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,988
    This is a semantic issue, and I still give props to all the engineers, but the denial of commonality is at best proud, and at worst arrogant.

    These are variations of the same concept - regardless of whether they are independently developed or tuned differently.

    2 Different FSR's or SP's have differnt wheel paths, braking and pedaling characteristics etc... Why does the same disparity between VPP, Maestro and DW amount to an absolute difference?

    Dont answer, the question and subject are now rendered moot.
    Last edited by Huck Banzai; 09-24-2005 at 11:19 AM.

  25. #25
    Uhhhhh...
    Reputation: TheSherpa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Huck Banzai
    This is a semantic issue, and I still give props to all the engineers, but the denial of commonality is at best proud, and at worst arrogant.

    These are variations of the same concept - regardless of whether they are independently developed or tuned differently.

    2 Different FSR's or SP's have differnt wheel paths, braking and pedaling characteristics etc... Why does the same disparity between VPP, Maestro and DW amount to an absolute difference?

    Dont answer, the question and subject are now rendered moot.
    Quit taking that Vicodin.
    Fayetteville, AR and N.W.A RePrEsEnT

  26. #26
    /dev/null
    Reputation: binary visions's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    720
    Quote Originally Posted by Huck Banzai
    2 Different FSR's or SP's have differnt wheel paths, braking and pedaling characteristics etc... Why does the same disparity between VPP, Maestro and DW amount to an absolute difference?
    Anyone who refers to a bike as simply a "single pivot" when describing the suspension behavior isn't correctly describing it. "Single pivot" is similar to "4 bar" in that there are a million different types, and nobody should be fooled into thinking they're similar.

    When describing a single pivot, you should use terms like "high forward single pivot" or "low rearward single pivot" or "high rearward single pivot with chain idler". Those terms more accurately describe how the suspension will behave.

    That's actually a problem when describing single pivots, that the types are so completely different, yet they are all lumped into one category, and people assume that everything in that category behaves the same. Why would you want to intentionally create the same problem with these other 4-bar suspensions that don't behave the same? They have been given different names so that you can tell them apart, and they should be differentiated.

  27. #27
    Pro Crastinator
    Reputation: .WestCoastHucker.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,846
    i don't care what it resembles, that thing is a piece of smokin' machined hotness....

  28. #28
    /dev/null
    Reputation: binary visions's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    720
    Quote Originally Posted by .WestCoastHucker.
    i don't care what it resembles, that thing is a piece of smokin' machined hotness....
    Courtesy of the Ridemonkey thread...

    http://img218.echo.cx/img218/7391/10000146va.jpg






    Nice machining, but there's some butt-ugly welding going on for a few of those weld beads
    Last edited by binary visions; 09-24-2005 at 01:30 PM.

  29. #29
    Pro Crastinator
    Reputation: .WestCoastHucker.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,846
    Quote Originally Posted by _dw
    ....... dw-link is patent pending worldwide, and the patent application dates predate Giant's system by about 2 years......
    not that i don't believe you. but i know Giant has been working on the maestro suspension design since way back when Tomac used to ride for them (back in the 90's for those of you who don't know who Tomac is). i believe at the time (although i could be mistaken) he even had some strange maestro prototype design he was riding . this is far from a new idea for Giant.......

  30. #30
    Bum Buzzer
    Reputation: Huck Banzai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,988
    Quote Originally Posted by .WestCoastHucker.
    i don't care what it resembles, that thing is a piece of smokin' machined hotness....
    Upon this - I concur. Brutal Freeride!

    Whats up with the other bolt options? Looks like a geometry change (switch all locations) - or is for tuning the suspension?

    Is the Le Dude Le Gone?

  31. #31
    _dw
    _dw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by .WestCoastHucker.
    not that i don't believe you. but i know Giant has been working on the maestro suspension design since way back when Tomac used to ride for them (back in the 90's for those of you who don't know who Tomac is). i believe at the time (although i could be mistaken) he even had some strange maestro prototype design he was riding . this is far from a new idea for Giant.......
    I think you are mistaken, I rode the prototype Giant last summer, and it was a far, FAR different bike than what was shown at Interbike last year and what was sold in 05. Much more like VPP. Tomac never rode a short linked Giant prototype frame, it just never existed. Of this, I am almost 100% certain.

    Dave
    dw★link
    Split Pivot
    @daveweagle -Twitter

  32. #32
    _dw
    _dw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,269
    I am just an outside consultant who developed new and radically different technology and licensed it to several companies. I think its an interesting idea for the test, but my one issue is that a lot of riders dont really have the background to accurately pinpoint performance parameters on the trail and discuss them clearly later. SOmetimes, with so much happening at once, the senses get fooled. I would however, be all about using a data aquisition system that shows exactly what the frame si doing at a given time and can pinpoint setup issues. I use data aquisition quite a bit in the refinement and development of dw-link frames.

    dw
    dw★link
    Split Pivot
    @daveweagle -Twitter

  33. #33
    /dev/null
    Reputation: binary visions's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    720
    Quote Originally Posted by Huck Banzai
    Whats up with the other bolt options? Looks like a geometry change (switch all locations) - or is for tuning the suspension?

    Is the Le Dude Le Gone?
    Looks to me like the bolt holes on the chainstay and seatstay will alter the geometry a bit (steepen the headangle, raise the BB), and the bolt holes on the black swing link will change the shock rate/travel.

    If they do away with the Le Dude, what will they sell in the US?

  34. #34
    _dw
    _dw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Huck Banzai
    Dave - I have loads of respect for you, and recognize that it isnt 'as simple as all that' - AND for all I know you are the originator of this generalized design.

    That being said, to dismiss the idea that 'all of a sudden' there are numerous designs with a triangulated rear and short links as not being influenced or inspired by one or the other is ludicrous. You even go so far as to point out the differences are in the PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS. Having worked with IH SGS etc, you are certainly and directly experienced with link tuning an FSR and how drastically it can effect the performace characteristics of that basic design. No, they may not have the same exact wheel path or leverage rates - but PLEASE explain to me what FUNDAMENTALLY makes it different? Maestros design had to be tweaked to avoid infrigning on the VPP patent - maybe you can distance DW from VPP, but what about that?

    Np doubt a great design will be copied and then reengineered/tweaked - this is inevitable, and a good thing!! Tweaking the link lates to change leverage rates (dynamic or static) or wheel path is done on all suspension designs to customize and tune the ride and suspension characteristics. I speak layman, and I know I dont need to explain this to you, but I'm tired of hearing these described as if they're drastically different or independent designs AND this usually coming from those who havent the slightest understanding or insight in the matter. (Not from you, I expect an engineer to advocate and promote his desigins)

    BE ASSURED - Everything I have seen come from the Pen of DW that is out there now, that I have tried - IS OUTSTANDING - and I have come to expect as much. No ass kissing, no smoke-up-the-ass-blowing - and no disrespect intended.
    Thanks a lot for the kind words, I appreciate it for sure. It has been really hard to explain dw-link in a short and concise way to bike riders. There are just so many parameters taken into account, and there is so much information to dilute that it is really easy to get people bogged down in it. Wait until next week, when the new dw-link web site goes live. I have spent a year working on how to get the information into a digestable format. I think we have it pretty close. The simplest thing is to ride the bikes. That is the real telling factor, and thats what I put the most stock in. They are definitely fun, maybe not the right bike for everyone becuase of geomety or some other intangible, but I am confident that there is no suspension system on the planet that is better suited for the unique needs of off-road pedal bikes.

    After the new site goes up on Wednesday, and we are back from Vegas the week after, lets talk again.

    Dave
    dw★link
    Split Pivot
    @daveweagle -Twitter

  35. #35
    Pro Crastinator
    Reputation: .WestCoastHucker.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,846
    Quote Originally Posted by _dw
    I think you are mistaken, I rode the prototype Giant last summer, and it was a far, FAR different bike than what was shown at Interbike last year and what was sold in 05. ......
    i too have also had extensive time on a pre-production faith (and current faith models) and from what i can tell it is identical to the production model that was released last year and continues to be built today..... (i suppose there could be a difference between early prototypes and pre-production models that i am not aware of)
    for the record, i am not trying to argue with you when it comes to bike mechanics, you totally smoke me. i am just trying to dispell the myth that the Maestro is a knock-off of the DW link.....

  36. #36
    _dw
    _dw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,269
    In future, people will stop talking about "where the pivot is" or "what the links look like" and start focusing on anti-squat curves, leverage rate progressions, pedal feedback curves, and braking influence curves. These are the things that matter, this is what you feel on the trail.

    The dw-link patent applications are the first published documents to recognize this information, and use it as the basis for a suspension, and the new dw-link web site attempts to bring it to the people.

    dw-link is not the only vehicle suspension that I have applied for patent on. There is more coming.

    Dave
    dw★link
    Split Pivot
    @daveweagle -Twitter

  37. #37
    _dw
    _dw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Huck Banzai
    Having worked with IH SGS etc, you are certainly and directly experienced with link tuning an FSR and how drastically it can effect the performace characteristics of that basic design.
    I wanted to anwer this seperately. In regards to tuning the FSR bike, it was SO simple compared to what I have to do with dw-link. The FSR bikes are foar all intents and purposes (as far as pedaling is concerned) single pivots with improved braking characteristics. For the SGS it was so easy. I gave the bike a higher than normal center of curvature location that gave a little more anti squat in the beginning of the travel, and I tuned the leverage rate progression to get rid of the notorious super progressive initial travel. This made a night and day difference in acceleration from the original bike. The last bit was giving it a little more forward, but not to forward instant center to get a bit more balanced feel when you stab the rear brakes. It was cake. As good as that bike was, and I thought is was pretty good, the first Sunday prototype blew my mind.

    dave
    dw★link
    Split Pivot
    @daveweagle -Twitter

  38. #38
    _dw
    _dw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by .WestCoastHucker.
    i too have also had extensive time on a pre-production faith (and current faith models) and from what i can tell it is identical to the production model that was released last year and continues to be built today..... (i suppose there could be a difference between early prototypes and pre-production models that i am not aware of)
    for the record, i am not trying to argue with you when it comes to bike mechanics, you totally smoke me. i am just trying to dispell the myth that the Maestro is a knock-off of the DW link.....
    I'm with you, I have spent a consideralble amount of time researching things like this for patent support so I am just sharing what I know with you. (I have applied for patents on several other suspensions besides dw-link in the last years so I do a lot of research to cover myself) Its no big deal, I'm just trying to share the facts.

    The prototype bike that I rode in July 2004 had counter rotating links, with the lower link attached below the bottom bracket and the top attaching to the swingarm so that the lower link rotated rearward as the suspension compressed. It was totally different than the bikes shown at Interbike.

    Nobody in the world other than me is qualified to discuss whether Maestro is a knockoff of dw-link, and I refuse to discuss that subject one way or the other. It is not of consequence right now.

    dw
    dw★link
    Split Pivot
    @daveweagle -Twitter

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ianjenn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,184
    I wasn't concerned with the in depth details, it would be more the conclusion of which bike would suite what type of rider. The only thing that concerns me is what bike would make what riders faster. Just because, something is newer doesn't mean it works better. I would want people to believe what was written and come away from it with a better idea of what frame to look at. If the people I have in mind can't set up their bikes, how couls the average EXPERT or SPORT racer? I was just planning on following the maufactures set up instructions. I realize there are things that a rider can't determine out on the hill, but I also know that the rider gets more out of it than a comp. ever could, they get fear, doubt, hope, determination and the ultimate goal of any DH bike should be the instillment of CONFIDENCE in the rider.

  40. #40
    N* Bomber Crew
    Reputation: Raptordude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,272
    Dude is the rear for a wheelbase adjusment? if so..thats so AWESOME. Freakin make it short for f-in around and DJ or something. Extendo position for DH....
    Northstar 2008 Riding Crew

  41. #41
    Bum Buzzer
    Reputation: Huck Banzai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,988
    *I* have decided that for *MY* purposes of general classification to call these bikes I have pulled into question - Short Link bikes.

    Not that anyone cares! lol...

    I do not mean disrespect to any of the engineers and companies in question - my comments were driven through years of bike industry hype where similar designs with different tuning or options are touted by every company as unique and disparate. SupaInnovativeOriginalBahBlah-NOT!

    The differences between DW and VPP are very noticeable in the ride, and visually noticable, although similar. Between VPP and Maestro - they are less noticeable (I got a quickie so far on the Faith - trying to get it to a mountain) - as in they perform much more similarly (IMHO).

    I need more time on the short travel stuff to make a solid opinion, but on the DH stuff - *I* prefer the DW -- I feel like my riding/pedaling is independent of the suspension, although I can preload/manipulate the bike and really control it as a result. The VPP I felt was more an inversion of my SP experience. On my SP, I get feedback from the suspension -- on the VPP I fell like I can influence the suspension from the pedals - very connected feeling. I didnt like this in technical situations -- HOWEVER on the Blur I felt it was an advantage in lower speed tech situations. Now I need to get on a hollowpoint and see wassap....

    I also need to try a 7 point as I have heard the links are tuned a little different... DW?
    (Gotta decide between a VP-Free and a 7Point or Sunday - Am a 'TrailRider that Downhills alot!' )

    Oh yeah - new thread?

    So is that 24 a VPP bike? Is it a seperately engineered deal?

    Based on the location and config ofd the links - it looks very VPP.

  42. #42
    SNOWRIDER
    Reputation: Deweydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,564
    I want one ! anyone got a pic of that thing built-up ?
    "If you don't go [skibiking] this year, you'll be at least one year older when you do." ~ Warren Miller
    (Check out the 'IMPACT' video for some skibike footage)

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •