Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 118
  1. #1
    fc
    fc is offline
    mtbr founder Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    23,592

    Felt Equilink revealed...

    . Well not yet but I've taken it on a few rides and now I'm taking the suspension apart to analyze it. I'm learning a few things.

    Any ideas on how I should bench test it? As you can see, I'm taking pieces out to isolate their role in the system. Suggestions?

    Obviously, I'm going to take it out on a bunch of rides. But there might be something to be learned by tinkering in the garage too.

    francois
    Attached Images Attached Images
    IPA will save America

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    422
    I don't think there is a lot you can do to isolate the various parts and their roles in the suspension behavior. Without the link connected the lower linkage is free to rotate around the pivot on the back of the BB and the wheelbase of the bike will be free to extend and compress as you pedal and brake.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: itsdoable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,896
    I'd be careful about what you do there, since there is no pivot at the dropout, removing the red link (and shock) allows the upper and lower rockers to counter rotate under the weight of the bike, spreading apart the seat and chain stay - and it doesn't take much to push them past their elastic limit can cause permanent damage. There is a reason the red link is there - it limits this motion.

  4. #4
    Not just famous; infamous
    Reputation: coolhandluchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,073

    Axle path map?

    What I'd like to see is an actual axle path. Could you maybe put a pen thru the dropouts and show us what the axle path looks like? Don't know what other steeds are in your stable, but it'd be really nice to compare it to other bikes' axle paths. (VPP, single pivot, short link, etc.)

  5. #5
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable
    I'd be careful about what you do there, since there is no pivot at the dropout, removing the red link (and shock) allows the upper and lower rockers to counter rotate under the weight of the bike, spreading apart the seat and chain stay - and it doesn't take much to push them past their elastic limit can cause permanent damage. There is a reason the red link is there - it limits this motion.
    If you remove the red link, it will essentially be like a DW link with a differect IC but a DW-like linkage, in any case. My uninformed guess is, that red link is a design around the DW link. Though the absence of a rear triangle will cause what you describe.
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  6. #6
    conjoinicorned
    Reputation: ferday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,527
    My uninformed guess is, that red link is a design around the DW link.
    that's an extremely uninformed guess.

    DW did NOT invent parallel linkage, therefore it is NOT a copy of the actual DW link.
    what would rainbow unicorn do?

  7. #7
    fc
    fc is offline
    mtbr founder Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    23,592
    Quote Originally Posted by itsdoable
    I'd be careful about what you do there, since there is no pivot at the dropout, removing the red link (and shock) allows the upper and lower rockers to counter rotate under the weight of the bike, spreading apart the seat and chain stay - and it doesn't take much to push them past their elastic limit can cause permanent damage. There is a reason the red link is there - it limits this motion.
    I hear ya. Just fyi, I'm not going to ride it like this. I'm just disconnecting it to understand what it does.

    I've learned a little bit already. Just removing the shock and seeing the travel path and action is interesting. Then seeing how the pedal load affects the suspension is interesting too. I'll take some videos later.

    fc
    IPA will save America

  8. #8
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by ferday
    that's an extremely uninformed guess.

    DW did NOT invent parallel linkage, therefore it is NOT a copy of the actual DW link.
    Perhaps but your argument is illogical or fallacious (non sequitur to be specific).

    Wasn't it Earl MacPherson then adopted by Horst Leitner for bicycles then designed around by other bike manufacturers?

    You should read my post carefully. I DID NOT say it is a copy; I said it's DW-like; there's a diference. But for argument's sake, let's assume DW did not invent the parallel linkage, which he evidently did not, it certainly does not mean the Equilink minus the "red link" and assuming a similar resulting IC is not DW-like in function; now does it?
    Last edited by SCUBAPRO; 02-02-2007 at 10:46 AM.
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  9. #9
    fc
    fc is offline
    mtbr founder Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    23,592
    Quote Originally Posted by coolhandluchs
    What I'd like to see is an actual axle path. Could you maybe put a pen thru the dropouts and show us what the axle path looks like? Don't know what other steeds are in your stable, but it'd be really nice to compare it to other bikes' axle paths. (VPP, single pivot, short link, etc.)
    I'll take a video of the axle path. There's a ton of horses on the stable. I just need a lot of beer to entertain me while wrenching.

    fc
    IPA will save America

  10. #10
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by francois
    I'll take a video of the axle path. There's a ton of horses on the stable. I just need a lot of beer to entertain me while wrenching.

    fc
    fc, my sincere apologies for the slight derailment. I too am interested in what you come up with. Thanks, in advance, for the info.
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fat Elvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    943
    Quote Originally Posted by francois
    Any ideas on how I should bench test it? As you can see, I'm taking pieces out to isolate their role in the system. Suggestions?
    I for one would love it if you would remove the rear shock and go for a long, technical downhill ride.

  12. #12
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe mañana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,162
    Quote Originally Posted by francois
    As you can see, I'm taking pieces out to isolate their role in the system. Suggestions?
    You can safely bolt the shock back on, isolating it out of the system would make it impossible to ride test. And we all know how those work, anyhow.

    Seriously, however, it would be interesting to add to coolhandluchs' idea of the pen in the dropout and to plot the axle path without the red link bolted in. Comparing it to a DW linkage bike would reveal whether Scuba's suspisions are grounded.

    _MK
    .
    "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
    -- Einstein, Albert

  13. #13
    the 36 year old grom
    Reputation: demo_slug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,726
    I would be interested in what the spring rate of the flex pivot in situ. The design is over constrained ( 6 pivots) so it has to flex at the stay(designed to flex). which is why it may look like DW but I realy think it is a different animal.

    so you could take the shock off and use a fish scale to pull the wheel up thru its travel. would interest me to see the spring curve. probably too hard for you to do with out a jig of some sort.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nwmtb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,164
    a few more pics of the Virtue 2


    no trail time in yet as we've got a little too much snow. The manufacturing is tight However, the first thing i noticed down at the chainstay yoke was the very tight toleraces between moving links. So tight that it has NO dirt or mud shedding abilities. My fear is that a rock or pebble can get logged and actually do damage.

    We'll see once we get her in the dirt.



    later, Chad
    Attached Images Attached Images

  15. #15
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by SCUBAPRO
    Perhaps but your argument is illogical or fallacious (non sequitur to be specific).

    Wasn't it Earl MacPherson then adopted by Horst Leitner for bicycles then designed around by other bike manufacturers?

    You should read my post carefully. I DID NOT say it is a copy; I said it's DW-like; there's a diference. But for argument's sake, let's assume DW did not invent the parallel linkage, which he evidently did not, it certainly does not mean the Equilink minus the "red link" and assuming a similar resulting IC is not DW-like in function; now does it?
    Try this animation of a a 6-bar design. You can click and drag the pivot points around to change dimentions.

    http://www.igorion.com/_hf_files/_st...tephenson.html

    There was quite a look in the MTBR Interbike threads at the Felt path and it turns out to be more round and long radius within the travel range, more FSR like, than the dw-Link's more elliptically shorter to longer radius shaped path.

    DW may have borrowed the cantilevered type dropout from earlier parallel link design, but dw-Link is not a parallel link design, actually 70 - 90 degree away from parallel, and doesn't ride at all like one. (Yes, I've ridden the parallel link design Rocket-88 too, not very impressive other than for short travel sprint racer use).

    There are many designs now obviously closely following the dw-Link invention, but the Equilink is probably not one of them.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by derby
    Try this animation of a a 6-bar design. You can click and drag the pivot points around to change dimentions.

    http://www.igorion.com/_hf_files/_st...tephenson.html
    Nice

    I have a question about the chainstay / seatstay connection near the dropout in the Equilink - is it rigid? If no and assuming there is no significant flex on the chainstay or seatstay I can see only two reasons they put red link there:
    1) durability,
    2) marketing/ patent issues.

    Sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by derby
    DW may have borrowed the cantilevered type dropout from earlier parallel link design, but dw-Link is not a parallel link design,
    What do you mean by "parallel link design"? Parallel upper and bottom linkages? Imho it is not so important unless both links have the same length. In the later case we got a straight line axle path.

    I do not say it is DW-link copy but imo it is another Outland-like design.

    Cheers
    marcin

    PS. My English is not fluent but I hope it is good enough.
    PS. 2. This is my first post here so Hi everybody!

  17. #17
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573

    What the path should look like

    The picture below comes from my playing around with a Stephenson 6-bar linkage program. The pivot positions are not perfect but pretty close. The red line between the left hand red dot and the point of the black angle above it would be the Felt axle path approximately.

    In real life the path should be slightly more rearward. But this diagram shows how straight it is--straighter than any other design I think.

    The thing that sets the Equilink apart from other linkages is that you can't calculate the anti-squat from simply knowing the axle path. The red link acts to short circuit the transmission of forces from axle to frame so that the bike has much more accelerational anti-squat than the axle path angle would indicate.

    The design will pretty much eliminate squat from acceleration but does very little to reduce squat from rider bounce. Some riders will like this; some will not.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    "Don't criticize what you can't understand."

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcin J.
    What do you mean by "parallel link design"? Parallel upper and bottom linkages? Imho it is not so important unless both links have the same length. In the later case we got a straight line axle path.
    oops, my mistake - I mixed IC with CC. Radius of the rear axle path will be equal to the length of these links.

    Cheers
    marcin

  19. #19
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    The picture below comes from my playing around with a Stephenson 6-bar linkage program. The pivot positions are not perfect but pretty close. The red line between the left hand red dot and the point of the black angle above it would be the Felt axle path approximately.

    In real life the path should be slightly more rearward. But this diagram shows how straight it is--straighter than any other design I think.

    The thing that sets the Equilink apart from other linkages is that you can't calculate the anti-squat from simply knowing the axle path. The red link acts to short circuit the transmission of forces from axle to frame so that the bike has much more accelerational anti-squat than the axle path angle would indicate.

    The design will pretty much eliminate squat from acceleration but does very little to reduce squat from rider bounce. Some riders will like this; some will not.
    I agree with your assessment. There is a mechanical bias between low and high leverage torque rates when combined in the same mechanism. A higher torque leverage will override the influence of low leverage rate. The Equilink design’s cross-link has higher leverage torque during acceleration tension but a much lower leverage torque relation during bump activation.

    During pedal and acceleration there is more horizontal tension directed across the straighter aligned lower stay and lower frame link and so the cross-link would be a higher leverage factor binding the activity of the upper frame link against vertical movement. But vertical input from bumps or rider bob would direct leverage torque along the upper stay and upper frame link, and then the cross-link is in a low torque relation mainly keeping the system from collapsing and not binding the suspension so as when there is horizontal tension.

    Looking at Francois’s picture at the top with the shock and cross-link disconnect reveals the answer to the question I earlier had about spring rate. I had earlier thought there might be a falling rate spring tension from rather stiff flex stays. (falling rate springs or shock damping produces a pedaling platform effect). But it appears that the rear stays flex fairly easily so there would be very little spring rate influence within the travel range.

    So there is something special about the Equilink. I look forward to demo riding one hopefully at Sea Otter this April. I’m curious if low pedal bob comes at a cost of mush deadening pedal performance like platform shocks do for monopivots compared to the lively and snappier performance of a more purely path based high anti-squat suspension such as VPP and the exceptionally well balanced dw-Link. I’m expecting the Equilink pedaling is also very snappy when the shock has minimal platform damping.

  20. #20
    Chillin the Most
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,028
    Quote Originally Posted by SCUBAPRO
    Wasn't it Earl MacPherson then adopted by Horst Leitner for bicycles then designed around by other bike manufacturers?
    Not wanting to get into a pissing match or even sure this is relevant info, but...Horst Leitner didn't actually design the Horst Link, it was Karl Nicolai that came up with the idea while he was working for Horst. Horst merely put into production Karl's design and everyone started calling it the Horst Link.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    92
    Check this out...

    Felt's inspiration?

  22. #22
    melon farmer
    Reputation: marcus_dukakis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    564
    Kavik - I just read this too:

    http://thylacinecycles.com/wordpress/?p=50

    I felt a bit queasy afterward.

  23. #23
    TM1
    TM1 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    237

    I'm a little confused with this ...

    as far as I can tell, if you remove the red link you get a DW-link suspension. the same location of pivots and links.
    now, the DW-link do not have any flex in it when it comes to path movement. so the red link have NO part in the linkage or path.

    you can not say that the red link is responsible for the rotation of the links because they will rotate just the same without the red link.

    correct me if I'm wrong.

  24. #24
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by TM1
    as far as I can tell, if you remove the red link you get a DW-link suspension. the same location of pivots and links.
    now, the DW-link do not have any flex in it when it comes to path movement. so the red link have NO part in the linkage or path.

    you can not say that the red link is responsible for the rotation of the links because they will rotate just the same without the red link.

    correct me if I'm wrong.
    You're wrong.

    The two rear links, seatstay and chainstay, are carbon fiber and designed to flex. If you removed the red link, the mechanism would be unstable. The lower short link would be free to move without activating the shock as the rear stays flexed under the rider's weight or from hitting bumps.

    If you connect the red link the rear stays have to flex (or have an extra pivot as in the longer travel version) because the two rear pivots move apart and come together as the suspension cycles.

    If the rear end is rigid and there is no red link, then you do have a DW type linkage.
    "Don't criticize what you can't understand."

  25. #25
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,762
    Steve and every other felt shill will of course conveniently continue to ignore the kavik evidence and the fact that felt blatantly ripped the design.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  26. #26
    conjoinicorned
    Reputation: ferday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,527
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    Steve and every other felt shill will of course conveniently continue to ignore the kavik evidence and the fact that felt blatantly ripped the design.

    from who? DW?

    umm...whatever.
    what would rainbow unicorn do?

  27. #27
    TM1
    TM1 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    237

    then, wrong I am NOT

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    You're wrong.

    The two rear links, seatstay and chainstay, are carbon fiber and designed to flex. If you removed the red link, the mechanism would be unstable. The lower short link would be free to move without activating the shock as the rear stays flexed under the rider's weight or from hitting bumps.

    If you connect the red link the rear stays have to flex (or have an extra pivot as in the longer travel version) because the two rear pivots move apart and come together as the suspension cycles.

    If the rear end is rigid and there is no red link, then you do have a DW type linkage.
    felt is saying it is a special suspension design but basicaly, it is a DW with carbon rear.
    notice that any DW (or VPP for that mater) design has a bar that "closes" the rear triangle. in the felt design it is replaced with a red HOT link and 4 more pivots ...

    as I said. it's a DW.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by TM1
    felt is saying it is a special suspension design but basicaly, it is a DW with carbon rear.
    notice that any DW (or VPP for that mater) design has a bar that "closes" the rear triangle. in the felt design it is replaced with a red HOT link and 4 more pivots ...

    as I said. it's a DW.
    Uhh there's a large difference between the DW vertical member that connects with the rear triangle behind the rocker and swing arms, with no pivots on the actual member, AND the felt design which has the vertical member pivoting on the rocker and swing links.

    Personally I like the DW design more, because it isn't relying on bending materials for the suspension to compress, that's just a retarded design. Save the conflicting geometry for the WalMart bikes (they do this crap too).

    Regardless of Science, once again does it ride good? Most of the reports I've read say is pedals well but doesn't absorb bumps very well. With conflicting geometry and bending carbon fiber uner compression it doesn't surprise me that it has no give on small bumps. In which case, I would rather have a lighter hardtail!

    My opinion would be completely different if there was a pivot in the triangle rather than bending chain and seat stays.

  29. #29
    On MTBR hiatus :(
    Reputation: Speedub.Nate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    9,145
    Quote Originally Posted by TM1
    felt is saying it is a special suspension design but basicaly, it is a DW with carbon rear.
    notice that any DW (or VPP for that mater) design has a bar that "closes" the rear triangle. in the felt design it is replaced with a red HOT link and 4 more pivots ...

    as I said. it's a DW.
    Nope. It's not.

    They were showing a proto with 6" of travel, and sporting an additional pivot near the dropout. Remove the red link on that bike and it becomes a noodle.

    BTW, you wrote "<i>as I said. it's a DW.</i>" Are you referring to the appearance? Or the function?

    I demoed the Three, but had some setup issues that I couldn't resolve in the time I had available. It is an active rear end, and it climbed well, but I have no idea how the shock was set up, the fork was soft and my cockpit was too far forward, so I had a rather unpleasant ride.
    speedub.nate
    · MTBR Hiatus UFN ·

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fat Elvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    943
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    Steve and every other felt shill will of course conveniently continue to ignore the kavik evidence and the fact that felt blatantly ripped the design.
    The dude should have made the Felt guys sign an NDA. I obviously don't know if he did or did not, but if he didn't, then he pretty much screwed up and that's that. The world's a tough place.

  31. #31
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,762
    Quote Originally Posted by ferday
    from who? DW?

    umm...whatever.
    No...god... the equilink is NOT a ripoff of the DW-link... its a ripoff of a Kavik design shown at Interbike FOUR years ago and which Felt sent people to investigate and then claimed "they weren't really interested in".

    This link... http://www.tsunamirock.com/images/se...t/link_ani.htm shows the Kavik suspension actuation including the wheel path of the axle and the original frame shown at Interbike.

    Or read this... http://thylacinecycles.com/wordpress/?p=50
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  32. #32
    conjoinicorned
    Reputation: ferday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,527
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    No...god... the equilink is NOT a ripoff of the DW-link... its a ripoff of a Kavik design shown at Interbike FOUR years ago and which Felt sent people to investigate and then claimed "they weren't really interested in".
    whew....thanks d8. you of all people i didn't think was on the DW bandwagon, that guy's followers are freaking zealots.

    nice link btw, i wonder why no-one else is making the kavik design? looks neat, i like the lower link better than the one on the felt.
    what would rainbow unicorn do?

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    No...god... the equilink is NOT a ripoff of the DW-link... its a ripoff of a Kavik design shown at Interbike FOUR years ago and which Felt sent people to investigate and then claimed "they weren't really interested in".

    This link... http://www.tsunamirock.com/images/se...t/link_ani.htm shows the Kavik suspension actuation including the wheel path of the axle and the original frame shown at Interbike.

    Or read this... http://thylacinecycles.com/wordpress/?p=50
    Word

  34. #34
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    Steve and every other felt shill will of course conveniently continue to ignore the kavik evidence and the fact that felt blatantly ripped the design.
    That's the guerilla marketing of felt and another company steve from jh supports as well.

  35. #35
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,762
    Quote Originally Posted by ferday
    nice link btw, i wonder why no-one else is making the kavik design? looks neat, i like the lower link better than the one on the felt.
    Because Kavik's genius, got out of the bike industry a few years ago (let's face it, a genius welder/fabricator can scrape by in the bike world, or support a major family in another field of work) and didn't really pursue the design himself. If you look at the bike pic shown at Interbike, you'll see the dropouts are VERY nice looking. Kavik dropouts were used by several other framebuilders (like Peyto Cycles) because with one dropout design/mount standard, you can alter a frame to different configurations in a couple minutes (singlespeed, track, disc compatible, etc). Kavik's leaving the bike world cost these other framebuilders these amazing dropouts. Oddly enough, another brand ripped the design for the dropouts and marketed them as their own invention.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  36. #36
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    where is kavik now and what is he doing?

  37. #37
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    The pivot structure that extends beneath the bb reminds me of the early Outland designs. Clearly not a VPP, but the point is even though they have similar rocker and tension links, the lower pivot structure fairly different...different enough to make an arguement with really good legal representation... and in this business sometimes that's all it takes.

    That does not change what's right or how who got what idea. But since when does what's right have anything to do with law?
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  38. #38
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe mañana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,162
    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Elvis
    The dude should have made the Felt guys sign an NDA. I obviously don't know if he did or did not, but if he didn't, then he pretty much screwed up and that's that. The world's a tough place.
    The dude was showing his design. He didn't have to disclose squat for them to take a few photos and replicate. It probably took them this long to reverse engineer it. NDA would not help a whole lot. But yes, the world is a tough place and biking industry is particularly viscous. Take the formidable Horst Link for example. If the rumors are true it wasn't even invented by Horst Leitner, simply brought to American from Germany and patented here, then stolen over and over.

    _MK
    .
    "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
    -- Einstein, Albert

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,551

    Nicolai

    Quote Originally Posted by MK_
    The dude was showing his design. He didn't have to disclose squat for them to take a few photos and replicate. It probably took them this long to reverse engineer it. NDA would not help a whole lot. But yes, the world is a tough place and biking industry is particularly viscous. Take the formidable Horst Link for example. If the rumors are true it wasn't even invented by Horst Leitner, simply brought to American from Germany and patented here, then stolen over and over.

    _MK
    Not really brought "here", but close. Nicolai http://www.nicolai.net/ was working for Horst when he developed the "Horst" link.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  40. #40
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    No...god... the equilink is NOT a ripoff of the DW-link... its a ripoff of a Kavik design shown at Interbike FOUR years ago and which Felt sent people to investigate and then claimed "they weren't really interested in".

    This link... http://www.tsunamirock.com/images/se...t/link_ani.htm shows the Kavik suspension actuation including the wheel path of the axle and the original frame shown at Interbike.

    Or read this... http://thylacinecycles.com/wordpress/?p=50
    Yes, the Felt design works very similar to how the Kavik animation shows. It is a 6-bar 7 pivot suspension design (not including axles as pivots).

    If Kavik has a prior patent it might be infringing, depending on the description of what is claimed. The angle of the lower link is so different I wouldn’t call it a copy, the Kavik probably has more acute semi-active torque sensitive effect.

    The Felt and Kavik produce chain torque sensitive platform effect. It is another type of semi-active suspension, in that it semi-locks-out compression compliance only when there is pedal torque.

    The dw-Link and all 4-bar/4pivot designs are for the most part path based acceleration squat balanced (not so well balanced in most cases).

    The Kavik and Felt designs are about as far in contrast from dw-Link as possible. Dw-Link is classified as fully active the Felt is in a class of semi-active designs, including hign pivot swingarm, URT, and semi-URT (iDrive/Maverick) types.

  41. #41
    Too Much Fun
    Reputation: benja55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,212

    Lets call it like it is... A ripoff.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcus_dukakis
    http://thylacinecycles.com/wordpress/?p=50

    I felt a bit queasy afterward.
    Me too. Thats straight up FUCT, whether Felt managed to slip under the "10% rule" or not. I was kind of curious about the Equilink myself. Now, not so much.

    I hate biters and ripoff artists.
    - -benja- -

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hairylegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by benja55
    Me too. Thats straight up FUCT, whether Felt managed to slip under the "10% rule" or not. I was kind of curious about the Equilink myself. Now, not so much.

    I hate biters and ripoff artists.
    Is making the link red constitute 10%? Come on Felt! Make it right.

  43. #43
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    Not really brought "here", but close. Nicolai http://www.nicolai.net/ was working for Horst when he developed the "Horst" link.
    once again, davide bends the truth.

  44. #44
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573

    Disagree

    Quote Originally Posted by derby

    The Felt and Kavik produce chain torque sensitive platform effect. It is another type of semi-active suspension, in that it semi-locks-out compression compliance only when there is pedal torque.

    The dw-Link and all 4-bar/4pivot designs are for the most part path based acceleration squat balanced (not so well balanced in most cases).

    The Kavik and Felt designs are about as far in contrast from dw-Link as possible. Dw-Link is classified as fully active the Felt is in a class of semi-active designs, including hign pivot swingarm, URT, and semi-URT (iDrive/Maverick) types.
    I see nothing in the Felt or Kavik design that would make them be "semi-active". Through the first half or so of the travel path there would be much less pedal feedback than on a DW link. And it's pedal feedback that reduces compliance on regular rear suspension bicycles. On URT's and semi-URT's it's the rider's weight on the swingarm that reduces compliance.

    I know, I know, you can't feel the feedback on your DW-link. But I'm not talking about perception here; I'm talking about mechanically measurable reverse rotation of the cranks accompanying suspension travel. If I rub my finger around the inside of the toilet bowl, I can't perceive any bacteria on it. But theoretical considerations alone are enough to keep me from then sticking that finger in my mouth!
    "Don't criticize what you can't understand."

  45. #45
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    I see nothing in the Felt or Kavik design that would make them be "semi-active". Through the first half or so of the travel path there would be much less pedal feedback than on a DW link. And it's pedal feedback that reduces compliance on regular rear suspension bicycles. On URT's and semi-URT's it's the rider's weight on the swingarm that reduces compliance.

    I know, I know, you can't feel the feedback on your DW-link. But I'm not talking about perception here; I'm talking about mechanically measurable reverse rotation of the cranks accompanying suspension travel. If I rub my finger around the inside of the toilet bowl, I can't perceive any bacteria on it. But theoretical considerations alone are enough to keep me from then sticking that finger in my mouth!
    get your royalty check from Felt yet?

  46. #46
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573

    Self defense

    I haven't been posting much recently. The main reason is that I'm fed up with the way what I intend to be purely intellectual discussions keep turning into personal attacks.

    D-8 has called me a "shill". Thylacine says the thread I started last year about the Felt bike was "guerilla marketing". Both of these accusations imply that I'm benefitting financially somehow from promoting Felt's product.

    Well first, I'm not promoting it. I'm simply trying to analyze how it ought to work theoretically. For all I know it might ride like crap.

    Second, I never have, do not now, and undoubtedly never will, benefit financially from any aspect of the bicycle business. Neither Thylacine nor D-8 can say the same. I'm simply a daily mountain bike rider who has an arm-chair interest in suspension theory. I've been studying it for the last 7 years or so.

    I didn't know anything about the Kavik bike until the last few days. It does indeed look like he had the idea first.

    You can go back through all the posts I've made on this subject and substitute "Kavik" for "Felt Equilink". It's fine by me.
    "Don't criticize what you can't understand."

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fat Elvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    943
    Quote Originally Posted by benja55
    Me too. Thats straight up FUCT, whether Felt managed to slip under the "10% rule" or not. I was kind of curious about the Equilink myself. Now, not so much.

    I hate biters and ripoff artists.
    That's jumping a bit fast to conclusions, if you ask me. What if Felt was already working on a similar design concept as Kavik when they first met? It's perfectly possible. Certainly, if they found out a competitor was working in the same area, they would patent their work as quickly as possible to protect themselves.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    I haven't been posting much recently. The main reason is that I'm fed up with the way what I intend to be purely intellectual discussions keep turning into personal attacks.

    D-8 has called me a "shill". Thylacine says the thread I started last year about the Felt bike was "guerilla marketing". Both of these accusations imply that I'm benefitting financially somehow from promoting Felt's product.

    Well first, I'm not promoting it. I'm simply trying to analyze how it ought to work theoretically. For all I know it might ride like crap.

    Second, I never have, do not now, and undoubtedly never will, benefit financially from any aspect of the bicycle business. Neither Thylacine nor D-8 can say the same. I'm simply a daily mountain bike rider who has an arm-chair interest in suspension theory. I've been studying it for the last 7 years or so.

    I didn't know anything about the Kavik bike until the last few days. It does indeed look like he had the idea first.

    You can go back through all the posts I've made on this subject and substitute "Kavik" for "Felt Equilink". It's fine by me.
    I really dig the tech discussions. Steve, remember, suspension theory and thrashing on the trail will nearly always produce a conflicting result. Throw in opinions, and the pure science gets all muddied up. Stay on track, you are getting there.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Elvis
    That's jumping a bit fast to conclusions, if you ask me. What if Felt was already working on a similar design concept as Kavik when they first met? It's perfectly possible. Certainly, if they found out a competitor was working in the same area, they would patent their work as quickly as possible to protect themselves.
    Their time table, according to their press releases and issue of patent, aren't early enough. I have no doubt they had looked at a lot of designs...

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Thylacine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    If you connect the red link.......
    Don't you mean the silver link?

    No longer member of the bike industry nor society, so don't hassle me.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •