I took a peek at
Whyte's website and It looks like they've abandoned th radical linkage forks a while back in favor of standard telescopic ones. They are also getting rid of the twin link rears in favor of standard 4 bar setups. Nice bikes though.
As an extreme technophile myself, I am always looking for innovative and elegant solutions that are quite different from the standard setups everyone has, even if they work great as is.
I do see the value in going to extremes in radical designs to get even a small advantage in performance or practicality.
It seems though, that as promising as linkage forks are technically, both the motorcycle, and bicycle designers, as hard as they've tried haven't come up with one that works better than the best telescoping forks, at least as far as winning races.
Oh yeah. Linkage forks do have potential advantages over telescopic - but teles are cheap, work well enough, and are what the non-technophile expects. I note that BMW motorcycles have not one, but two different linkage based front suspensions -
The "R" model TeleLever, which uses telescopic legs, but has spring and damping on an "A" arm that takes all the load.
And the "K" model DuoLever, which is a girder - but with the links on the frame and ball joints for steering.
I note that both of these look conventional, so you can sell them to the clueless as well as technophiles. Can't get away with that on bicycles.
I think the same could be said about the twin short arm linkage rear suspension, except that they have won quite a few races. It seems all the reviewers in the press at least consider the old 4 bar Horst link to have less pedal bob, and feedback though. Isn't the twin arm's strong point supposed to be those points?
Gonna disagree on this one. Read between the lines on reviews and find that twin link systems don't require "platform" - whereas 4 bar/faux bar systems do. Until you stand and start bouncing around - then they all do. Every rear suspension system I have looked at (with the exception of Lenz Milk Money and others with a BB concentric pivot - all 4/faux types) change chain length with travel. This will cause some bob or feedback between suspension and pedalling. The twin link bikes I have owned (R88, ETSX, RIP9) didn't have any noticeable amount of either - and my best reasoning says it is because the "instant center" (the equivalent simple swingarm pivot point for the "normal" link position) is out around the front axle. Why should this matter? Well, the line between that point and the rear axle is nearly parallel to the chainline/force vector, and the leverage of the chain force vs that equivalent long swing is very low.
DW link trys to align that leverage to counter squat, VPP uses its "pocket" of inflection to try to keep the suspension there under chainload. Set the sag wrong on any twin link and things don't line up so well.
When you add rocker arms to a Horst link, it should be able to get the same kind of wheel/spring rate curves, so if the twin link setups can't beat the 4 bar in pedal bob/feedback what is their advantage?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. A Horst link is a 4 bar with the rear axle on the seatstay. The 4 bars are seattube, swingarm, seatstay, rocker(with shock). Faux bar puts the rear axle on the swing arm - where the linkage doesn't affect it's travel at all.
Twin link, the 4 bars are seattube, lower link, rear triangle, upper link.
Spring rate curves are set by the upper link/rocker vs the shock.