Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 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
    1,400
    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
    17,516
    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
    4,855

    Jake

    I never knew you could use HTML coding in posts.... cool

    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
    1,206
    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
    3,118
    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 03:27 AM.

  12. #12
    _dw
    _dw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,270
    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 08:29 AM.
    dw★link
    Split Pivot
    @daveweagle -Twitter

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ianjenn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,097
    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
    6,775
    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 11:18 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
    2,908
    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 11:45 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
    2,908
    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 12:20 PM.

  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 12:19 PM.

  25. #25
    Uhhhhh...
    Reputation: TheSherpa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,908
    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

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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