Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 74
  1. #1
    Thumper
    Reputation: WickedLite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    378

    Fatty Look Fournales Suspension Fork

    Just had my Look Fournales machined up with just enough room for a 5.0 if I want. 3.8 Nate on there now.

    I love link forks and just couldn't go Lefty. I think I'm under their weight too. Unverified, I added about 200g to the already light fork. I was too excited and had to get them on. I will get to weighing in soon.

    Fatty Look Fournales Suspension Fork-img_2875.jpgFatty Look Fournales Suspension Fork-img_2876.jpgFatty Look Fournales Suspension Fork-img_2877.jpg

  2. #2
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    8,580
    right on!!
    plus+, plus+ = win:

  3. #3
    Thumper
    Reputation: WickedLite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    378

    Machined parts

    Pics of 35mm wider machined links.

    Fatty Look Fournales Suspension Fork-rsz_img_2860.jpgFatty Look Fournales Suspension Fork-rsz_img_2861.jpg]

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,723
    Nice!
    '15 Specialized Fatboy
    '14 Kona Zone Two
    '13 Surly Big Dummy

  5. #5
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,637
    Very nice! I have a pair of Noleen forks I'm going to give the same treatment.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  6. #6
    Thumper
    Reputation: WickedLite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    Very nice! I have a pair of Noleen forks I'm going to give the same treatment.
    Noleen top links should be cheaper to get machined up. The hardest part you might have is cutting and extending the legs since they are not round stock. You could clear a 24" fat tire without adding height. But then again.... you can machine a height spacer, just not the cheaper mill process.

    I cut and added a 1.5" gap in the legs with .75" overlap each way.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,222
    You disappoint me Drew.

    At the very least, bamboo legs.

    I've had the same idea, I've dismantled my Girvins with the same purpose, but stopped when I realised that I was just doing it to see if it could be done. (I don't really want suspension - just another thing to maintain).

    If I was going to do it, I'd do it to my Fournales too.

    If it was the Girvin, I'd change the lengths of the links to alter the suspension path.

    EDIT: Forgot to congratulate Wickedlite on a neat conversion.
    Last edited by Velobike; 03-11-2013 at 05:37 AM.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Schott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    586

    Fatty Look Fournales Suspension Fork

    Awesome!

  9. #9
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    You disappoint me Drew.

    At the very least, bamboo legs.
    Off topic: hey, I own a lathe now. Some day.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    293
    Nice machining and great fork

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,488
    Any side views or what the linkage looked like pre-modification?

  12. #12
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,345
    Here you go:

    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  13. #13
    Thumper
    Reputation: WickedLite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    378
    Those pics are the newer version Fournales which you can see are more 3D machining and they have bearings which are replaceable. I have the new ones too but thought the machining to match would cost more but I did lengthen them for one of my 29ers. The ones I fattened are the older version with flatter machining and unreplaceable bushings.

    Name:  fournales.jpg
Views: 3436
Size:  19.9 KB
    Fatty Look Fournales Suspension Fork-fatnecro.jpg

    I'm gonna tear it down and do a weigh in today. I'm not a weenie but definitely a gram counter. I will get some pics side by side so you can see diff.

    And I tell ya after riding all winter with out suspension and going for a ride last night with...I forgot how great suspension was and I was gigglin the whole way. Smooth, fun, long ride it was.

  14. #14
    Smash Mode: ON
    Reputation: Dustin Mustangs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    299
    Hide yo kids, hide yo wife!
    Whatever floats your bike, dude

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Schott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    586

    Fatty Look Fournales Suspension Fork

    How much does it lengthen the wheel base?

  16. #16
    Thumper
    Reputation: WickedLite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Schott View Post
    How much does it lengthen the wheel base?
    Schott, Fournales add .25" to wheel base and remains the same under compression. Great thing about link forks.
    Last edited by WickedLite; 03-11-2013 at 07:15 PM. Reason: spelling error

  17. #17
    Thumper
    Reputation: WickedLite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    378
    Ok... so weights as far as I can get them.

    I didn't weigh forks before or after mods. I didn't weight the fork tube spacer before I bonded them on but they are extremely light.

    Note: bushings are out of old links and in new links as well as oil ports.
    Original top link 84.7g (wo bushings), New top link 145.9g(w bushings)= +61.2g
    Original bottom link 101.8g (wo bushings), New bottom link 162.7(w bushings)= 60.9g
    New wider face plate 33g+16g nuts and bolts= 49g

    So that's 171.1g more weight(give or take because of bushings)
    This does not include leg spacers.

    I know I can drop weight in the nuts and bolts and still drill/cut out some weight.
    Fatty Look Fournales Suspension Fork-img_2880.jpgFatty Look Fournales Suspension Fork-img_2881.jpg

    The new face plate is longer and bolts to old face plate and the legs. This was a cheaper route than machining the old face plate with shock mount
    Fatty Look Fournales Suspension Fork-img_2882.jpg
    Fatty Look Fournales Suspension Fork-img_2884.jpg

    Small Fournales originally weigh 1230g. G-Dang, I shoulda weighed in before I put them back on. I rush to put back on because I hate down time on riding so bare with me. I will get complete weight soon.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Greenfin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by WickedLite View Post
    Those pics are the newer version Fournales which you can see are more 3D machining and they have bearings which are replaceable. I have the new ones too but thought the machining to match would cost more but I did lengthen them for one of my 29ers. The ones I fattened are the older version with flatter machining and unreplaceable bushings.

    Name:  fournales.jpg
Views: 3436
Size:  19.9 KB
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FatNecro.jpg 
Views:	1550 
Size:	86.9 KB 
ID:	779841

    I'm gonna tear it down and do a weigh in today. I'm not a weenie but definitely a gram counter. I will get some pics side by side so you can see diff.

    And I tell ya after riding all winter with out suspension and going for a ride last night with...I forgot how great suspension was and I was gigglin the whole way. Smooth, fun, long ride it was.
    What's with the wheels covers?
    Still cleaning my Fatback.
    It's a life style.

  19. #19
    Thumper
    Reputation: WickedLite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    378
    I find I'm .6 mph faster and it keeps the snow off my rims and why not.... I always loved disc wheels

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,222
    How much would it cost to get a set of those linkages?

    It looks like the most straightforward method of building a fat suspension fork.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    How much would it cost to get a set of those linkages?

    It looks like the most straightforward method of building a fat suspension fork.
    is that rim brake only?

  22. #22
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,345
    Speaking more as a gadget-guy, could you tell us the length of the two links, and the distance between their pivots on the steer tube and the fork legs? Basically the lengths of the 4 sides of the linkage. Also, the fork leg length from top pivot to center of drop out?

    I have an old spreadsheet built to analyze these linkages, and I'd like to see the curve produced.

    Thanks.
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  23. #23
    Thumper
    Reputation: WickedLite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    How much would it cost to get a set of those linkages?

    It looks like the most straightforward method of building a fat suspension fork.
    My machinist cost me $800 cash for both links, face plate and milling the $9 tube I brought in. Add $40 (if I remember correctly) for Loctite Hysol 9430 resin and hardener to bond carbon to aluminum and that's $849 for mods.

    He did say it normally would cost about $1500 for that job but I bring him cool projects quit often.

    Just a note: It cost me $200 just for the fork leg spacers when I got those milled for my 29er Fournales. So $600 for just the links and faceplate is a pretty sweet deal.

  24. #24
    Thumper
    Reputation: WickedLite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by easterntide View Post
    is that rim brake only?
    Disc baby!

  25. #25
    Thumper
    Reputation: WickedLite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by wadester View Post
    Speaking more as a gadget-guy, could you tell us the length of the two links, and the distance between their pivots on the steer tube and the fork legs? Basically the lengths of the 4 sides of the linkage. Also, the fork leg length from top pivot to center of drop out?

    I have an old spreadsheet built to analyze these linkages, and I'd like to see the curve produced.

    Thanks.
    Make your own ehh?

    Fork legs from center top pivot to dropout center: 21.5"

    Top link:
    Front center pivot to rear center pivot: 4"
    Top link front width: 5"
    Top link rear width: 3.228"

    Bottom link:
    Front center pivot to rear center pivot: 4.5"
    Front width: 4.316" (approx because of O-Rings)
    Rear width: 3.233"

  26. #26
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,345
    Quote Originally Posted by WickedLite View Post
    Make your own ehh?

    Fork legs from center top pivot to dropout center: 21.5"

    Top link:
    Front center pivot to rear center pivot: 4"
    Top link front width: 5"
    Top link rear width: 3.228"

    Bottom link:
    Front center pivot to rear center pivot: 4.5"
    Front width: 4.316" (approx because of O-Rings)
    Rear width: 3.233"
    Thank you, and yes - I wouldn't mind making my own. If the tool still works, I'll post front axle movement path relative to headtube. Don't know if I can prove the "trail stays the same" claim.

    Still need top-to-bottom dimensions, top link front to bottom link front, top link rear to bottom link rear. Please.
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  27. #27
    Thumper
    Reputation: WickedLite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by wadester View Post
    Thank you, and yes - I wouldn't mind making my own. If the tool still works, I'll post front axle movement path relative to headtube. Don't know if I can prove the "trail stays the same" claim.

    Still need top-to-bottom dimensions, top link front to bottom link front, top link rear to bottom link rear. Please.
    I can't say trail stays exact but it is less trail change by far compared to telescopic forks. Here is a pic from manual.
    Fatty Look Fournales Suspension Fork-img_2895.jpg

    I'm seein 6.5" t-b f and 6" t-b R

    You might want to look up G.A. Kilo No. 1 Link Forks or Amp Link forks. If you can make stuff yourself, their link system fork would be easier and more cost effective to make, I believe.
    Fatty Look Fournales Suspension Fork-rsz_img_2896.jpgFatty Look Fournales Suspension Fork-img_2897.jpg

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,222
    There are other alternatives

    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  29. #29
    Thumper
    Reputation: WickedLite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    There are other alternatives

    They don't have 29er size and weigh in at 1960g.

    Very cool looking fork though. A little odd looking on the bike itself.
    Liteville-m.jpg

  30. #30
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,345


    Much like the Whyte PRST-1

    Name:  whyte-prst-4-xt.gif
Views: 3327
Size:  8.3 KB
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  31. #31
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,345
    Back in my skinny 26er days, I adapted a Girvin Vector fork to my bike. Suspension wise, it was better than the lame telescopic the bike came with - despite the elastomeric spring (at least it had a hydro damper).

    Point being, the one bad behavior it had was from the "J" shape at the beginning of travel. If you unexpectedly hit an obstacle, the wheel would travel backward while you and the rest of the bike traveled on forward, then instead of coming to a sudden stop - the fork would rebound and flip the bike out from under you. Land flat on your back with your head just past the obstacle and the bike upside down back up the trail. This happened 3 times over the four years I had that setup. My spreadsheet showed a more pronounced "J" - or more backward movement in the initial travel than implied by factory literature.

    I still have that fork, as well as an AMP F1 that I've never ridden. I think that one of the reasons that girder/linkage forks have never caught on is that altho they offer many possible/theoretical advantages - they all have different paths and are not really comparable. Moving backwards initially was supposed to cushion the hit - but look at the tradeoff {flip}. The ideas of maintaining trail, and anti-dive have value but haven't caught the attention of the users. Either that or they just look too funny
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,222
    Quote Originally Posted by wadester View Post
    Much like the Whyte PRST-1


    Name:  whyte-prst-4-xt.gif
Views: 3327
Size:  8.3 KB
    The Whyte is a superior design IMO - it separates the suspension from the steering.


    Quote Originally Posted by wadester View Post
    ....I adapted a Girvin Vector fork to my bike.

    ...The ideas of maintaining trail, and anti-dive have value but haven't caught the attention of the users....
    I'm not surprised that they haven't become popular, although I think it's a shame. Properly designed they have many advantages.

    In my opinion the problem was that the linkage forks used for bicycles totally ignored the lessons learned from motorcycles. A girder fork on the likes of a Velocette (usually a Webb fork) or a Girdraulic on a Vincent all worked well, and at speeds we can only dream of (on a bicycle).

    It is important to stop the travel of the linkages before the fork reaches the point where there is dramatic change of direction of the wheel path - none of the bicycle forks I have (5 different types of linkage fork) have long enough links (IMO) and so are suitable for short travel only. Wadester's Girvin fork demonstrates the dangers of this nicely.

    For example the Vincent fork worked quite well until people realised it could be made longer travel by tweaking the fork and shock for more travel. Then followed tales of the fork topping out and stuttering when the brakes were applied at speed, nearly always in twisty stuff. Eventually it was shown to be a combination of the brakes being applied immediately after a period of hard acceleration (ie racing). The fork was already in the top position and because of the extra travel the linkages were too high and the forces actually tried to push the fork higher - in other words it acted like a rigid fork at high speed! Usually followed by tankslappers, expensive grinding noises and cursing. (There was no problem with an unmodified fork)
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  33. #33
    Thumper
    Reputation: WickedLite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    378
    Well I have head over bars on many different forks but I ride pretty hard on stuff xc forks and bikes aren't made for. I love the look and feel of links and I do have girders on my Triumph Bonnies too. They are pretty chopped out so no over bars there.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    479
    damn where's the engine?

  35. #35
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,637
    Velobike - wasn't the Whyte designed by some F1 engineers or something? I seem to recall something about Marin not wanting to risk the "extreme" looks, thinking the lay person wouldn't understand it.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  36. #36
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    Velobike - wasn't the Whyte designed by some F1 engineers or something? I seem to recall something about Marin not wanting to risk the "extreme" looks, thinking the lay person wouldn't understand it.
    According to Dirt Rag Whyte PRST-1 | Dirt Rag Magazine that is all true:

    "There is a story behind all of this. If you know your mountain bikes, then right away you see the similarity between the rear triangles of the Whyte and Marin’s full suspension models. The two British fellows responsible for Marin’s monocoque design are Jon Whyte and Adrian Ward, both of whom are Formula One engineers, so their expertise in suspension designs speaks for itself. But during their work with the Marin bikes, they discovered what they saw as inherent weaknesses in traditional telescopic forks: a lack of torsional stability (flex side to side) and a steepening of the head tube angle as the fork compressed.

    In response to these perceived flaws, the two came up with their own fork design, the one you see on the Whyte bike, called the Plus Fours (for its 4” of travel and increased stability). The story goes that the fork was too radical in design for Marin to embrace, so Jon and Adrian set out to make their own bike."
    Also -
    "I see the Whyte PRST-1 bike as an over-designed, over-built bike that performs well at the expense of mechanical simplicity—and at the expense of your wallet! Most of the “solutions” that the Whyte offers are to problems that don’t exist, at least not in this writer’s opinion."
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,222
    I'd buy a Whyte PRST like a shot at the right price - just to keep in my collection.

    I suspect any problems with the Whyte PRST will be down to the shock used or simple wear items like pivots and ball joints, rather than a design flaw.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  38. #38
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,637
    wadester - thank you for clarifying! And putting up with my lazy self.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  39. #39
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    wadester - thank you for clarifying! And putting up with my lazy self.
    No problem. I was really taken by the Whyte PRST-1 when it came out. Such an elegant front suspension - and a crappy low-forward single pivot rear. I recall that they finally came out with the "Quad Link" two-link rear suspension along with the "Plus Four" front - but I never could afford (or find) any of them.

    Looking at the Plus Four, in the light of Velobike's comment on short links giving too much curvature to the travel path - look at the length of the lower link compared to all of the available linkage forks. I haven't located my spreadsheet as yet - but I don't think I ever mapped the Plus Four system.

    For an available fat-moddable linkage system, the girder style "short" links are gonna be the place to go since longer involves a proprietary frame.

    The fournales is:
    ___4"___
    6" 6.5" F->
    ___4.5"__
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  40. #40
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,345
    Woot! Found my old spreadsheet, and I've done -
    Girvin Vector - up to 2.5" travel!
    Fatty Look Fournales Suspension Fork-linktrak-girvin.jpg

    The Whyte PlusFour
    Fatty Look Fournales Suspension Fork-linktrak-whyte.png

    Now I just have to remember how to set up a new geometry! The two gridded graphs show the linkage in initial and final positions - but for some reason I set it up so the calculations have the things layed over, then rotated to true head angle.

    I actually had a linkage fork laid out with similar curve shape to the Whyte, and 4.5" travel.
    ___3.5"___
    8.5" ___8" F->
    ___5.75"__

    Fournales:
    ___4"___
    6" ____6.5" F->
    ___4.5"__
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    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.

    I do think my AMP fork was significantly better riding than a rockshox of the same vintage, but I probably never rode the top end shocks the racers used.

    Is Answer winning any races yet with their Kilo design?
    It seems to be the best overall effort currently.

    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? 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?

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,222
    I think the biggest problem linkage forks have to overcome is racing.

    They have a completely different feel and if you have a top level racer who has invested years in getting the skills to handle a bike that dives under brakes, one that doesn't (ie a properly designed linkage) is going to feel all wrong. If you set up a linkage fork to dive like a tele, then you have removed one of its virtues.

    If the racers don't use it, then the rest of the market isn't interested either.

    Wadester - thanks for the graphs
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    most of the linkage forks look like they would have a pro-dive tendency for the first half or so of the travel, then go towards anti-dive. I assume this was to try and keep some of the dive feeling of a telescopic fork, as well as making the first part of the travel be more responsive to small bumps.

    the Kilo is an exception. It looks to have anti-dive as the overall tendency throughout the travel.

    I would like to see someone build an anti-dive telescoping fork. All you would need to do is mount the caliper to a bracket that can rotate about the axle, and has a link going up to the crown, or upper leg, just below the crown. You could even have multiple mounting holes on the bracket to adjust how much anti-dive by moving the link rod closer or further from the axle centerline.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    Here's a front fork with disc brakes that has way too much anti-dive.

    The fork is basically a single pivot at the bottom of the steerer tube. I imagine any brake force at all will top out the fork.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Fatty Look Fournales Suspension Fork-4-6-09036.jpg  


  45. #45
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,345
    Quote Originally Posted by autodoctor911 View Post
    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.
    Name:  220px-Telelever04.jpg
Views: 1646
Size:  13.3 KB

    And the "K" model DuoLever, which is a girder - but with the links on the frame and ball joints for steering.
    Name:  170px-Duolever600.jpg
Views: 1686
Size:  15.6 KB

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by autodoctor911 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by autodoctor911 View Post
    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.
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by wadester View Post
    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.
    I had one of the original Horst bikes(AMP/Mongoose Amplifier, same as B2), and it had no rocker.
    The chainstays were clamped to the shock, so it worked kind of like a sideways version of a McPherson strut. With the spring to wheel rate pretty much linear, it didn't allow the kind of ramping up in spring rate the rocker arm ones can offer. It's instant center was somewhere near the back of the front tire, but varied with the frame sizes. Instant center didn't matter much on those though, since the lever between the lower link pivot and the axle was very short and horizontal.

  47. #47
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,345
    Here's an excerpt from Tony Foale's excellent book "Motorcycle Handling and Chassis Design - the art and science", 2006.

    Chapter 9 - "Squat and Dive", pg 9-28 "Dive (Front)"
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by wadester View Post
    Here's an excerpt from Tony Foale's excellent book "Motorcycle Handling and Chassis Design - the art and science", 2006.

    Chapter 9 - "Squat and Dive", pg 9-28 "Dive (Front)"
    very good reading. too bad it cuts you off before you get to the actual dynamic performance of the linkage designs. Guess they want you to buy the book.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by wadester View Post
    Thank you, and yes - I wouldn't mind making my own. If the tool still works, I'll post front axle movement path relative to headtube. Don't know if I can prove the "trail stays the same" claim.

    Still need top-to-bottom dimensions, top link front to bottom link front, top link rear to bottom link rear. Please.
    I just made a android app that calculates the changes to trail, H.T. Angle and wheelbase when telescoping forks compress. What's My Trail?

    I am designing a fork like the Look Fournales. I hope to have it finished by the end of summer. I just started modeling the linkage to see what the axle path will be. This thread has been a great help.
    Fatty Look Fournales Suspension Fork-linkfork.jpg
    Fatty Look Fournales Suspension Fork-isolinkfork.jpg

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    39
    Here are some numbers I calculated to to compare the changes in Rake/offset at the axle with 3" lower link moving +/-20 degrees giving 2" of travel and a 2.5 and 2.375 upper link the pivot points where 5" apart. (Ignore the 71.xxxxdeg numbers).

    2.5” upper link, 3” lower link, 2” Travel

    70deg 1.4330Offset 71.4508deg (compressed)

    75deg 1.4608Offset 71.2454deg

    80deg 1.4823Offset 71.1066deg

    85deg 1.4956Offset 71.0263deg

    90deg 1.5000Offset 71deg (upper and lower links perpendicular to H.T. Angle)

    95deg 1.4958Offset and 71.0263deg

    100deg 1.4842Offset and 71.1066deg

    105deg 1.4675Offset and 71.2454deg

    110deg 1.4491Offset and 71.4508deg(uncompressed)


    2.375” upper link, 3” lower link, 2” Travel

    70deg 1.4701Offset 71.5977deg(compressed)

    75deg 1.4811Offset 71.3241deg

    80deg 1.4912Offset 71.1405deg

    85deg 1.4978Offset 71.0346deg

    90deg 1.5Offset 71deg (upper and lower links perpendicular to H.T. Angle)

    95deg 1.4981Offset 71.0346deg

    100deg 1.4937Offset 71.1405deg

    105deg 1.4899Offset 71.3241deg

    110deg 1.4915Offset 71.5977deg(uncompressed)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Look Fournales Linkage Fork Now On Bike!
    By Axis II in forum Weight Weenies
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 08-28-2014, 05:54 AM
  2. Look Fournales
    By Velobike in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-02-2014, 08:44 AM
  3. Full Suspension Fatty!?!?!?
    By crazybeach in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 09-10-2013, 06:44 PM
  4. 2012 Cannondale Fatty fork 650b fit?
    By Bradyab in forum 27.5
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-02-2012, 08:06 PM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-25-2011, 08:16 AM

Posting Permissions

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