Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Knomer
    Reputation: Dusty Bottoms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,329

    Will Ibis incorporate Weagle's new "Split-Pivot" into the Mojo?

    If so, how soon?

    Discuss....

    http://www.split-pivot.com/

  2. #2
    Mojo0115
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,667
    will be interesting to see - I wonder if they could even incorporate it into the Carbon triangle.

    My first thought when I looked at it as that it just didn't seem like it could be as strong - but I assume that it would be.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms
    If so, how soon?

    Discuss....

    http://www.split-pivot.com/
    Don't know about the Mojo, but it looks a bit like the new Fuel:

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?...h07/abp_detail
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?..._full_rear_end
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?...k_mtb_launch07

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    280
    And my first thought when I saw them both was...

    "bring on the lawers"

    Elvis.
    Last edited by Elvis @ Dirt Works; 06-08-2007 at 05:17 PM.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    423
    So is that not the exact same thing?? I actually saw the trek first and thought, well, that's different! Then I just saw the headline up here on mtbr about the splitpivot. I think Elvis is right on the money, the lawyers are going to have a field day with this one. Only thing I can say is that it appaers trek has a production ready bike whereas the new dw design is still in "prototyping" stages.

    So anyone thinking what I'm thingking- what exactly is wrong with the old design?? I love the way the mojo rides, is the new dw really going to be better? Hard for me to imagine...

  6. #6
    _dw
    _dw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,270
    Quote Originally Posted by sessionrider
    So is that not the exact same thing?? I actually saw the trek first and thought, well, that's different! Then I just saw the headline up here on mtbr about the splitpivot. I think Elvis is right on the money, the lawyers are going to have a field day with this one. Only thing I can say is that it appaers trek has a production ready bike whereas the new dw design is still in "prototyping" stages.

    So anyone thinking what I'm thingking- what exactly is wrong with the old design?? I love the way the mojo rides, is the new dw really going to be better? Hard for me to imagine...
    You just haven't seen the production Split Pivot bikes but they have been prototyped for quite a while now. The bikes shown on the SPlit-Pivot site are actual 2008 models.

    The Split Pivot bridges the gap between a single pivot and a dw-link. It can do everything that an FSR suspension can do, but it can never have the complex anti squat curve and and performance associated with it that dw-link has.

    So bottom line with this system, it is a single pivot for acceleration purposes, a multi pivot for braking purposes. In reallity, performance wise it can exactly duplicate what most FSR bikes have done. With a little knowledge (i.e. pivot placement) I think that it can outshine many of the FSR bikes that have been built.

    The raw idea is that it uses a single pivot location that offers some real benefits for acceleration purposes, but without a floating brake this pivot location that works so well for acceleration would have some real drawbacks under braking. This is where the Split Pivot (the concentric dropout pivot) comes in. The seatstay link and assembly acts as a floating brake arm, exactly like FSR does. Nothing new there at all. The pivot location around the axle is the novelty and why I had to apply for patents etc...

    Is this bike going to be better than a dw-link bike? Sadly, no. Is it going to ride better than a single pivot or other linkage bikes? I believe completely that it has the ability to. No matter what, Split Pivot can be used to build a pretty light bike with good performace characteristics. There is nothing wrong with that in my book.
    dw★link
    Split Pivot
    @daveweagle -Twitter

  7. #7
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,788
    The split-pivot design is completely different geometry than dw-Link.

    A wheel concentric dropout pivot produces monopivot pedaling reactivity with separated floating (virtual pivot) braking geometry.

    Monopivot pedaling is fine for downhill bike design where pedaling is normally at higher gear ratio speeds. But monopivot design limits the ability to produce efficent low geared pedaling with freely active bump compliance.

    DW-link produces both virtual pivot pedaling and braking.

    Future suspension designs using the split-pivot will need to avoid upper swing links that are rather long and near parallel to the chain stay to avoid infringing on patented ICT geometry limits. Ellsworth ICT design is a narrowly limited geometry range of near wheel-concentric dropout-pivot. Like Split-pivot design, ICT geometry produces monopivot pedaling effect combined with virtual pivot braking.

  8. #8
    _dw
    _dw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,270
    Quote Originally Posted by derby
    The split-pivot design is completely different geometry than dw-Link.

    A wheel concentric dropout pivot produces monopivot pedaling reactivity with separated floating (virtual pivot) braking geometry.

    Monopivot pedaling is fine for downhill bike design where pedaling is normally at higher gear ratio speeds. But monopivot design limits the ability to produce efficent low geared pedaling with freely active bump compliance.

    DW-link produces both virtual pivot pedaling and braking.

    Future suspension designs using the split-pivot will need to avoid upper swing links that are rather long and near parallel to the chain stay to avoid infringing on patented ICT geometry limits. Ellsworth ICT design is a narrowly limited geometry range of near wheel-concentric dropout-pivot. Like Split-pivot design, ICT geometry produces monopivot pedaling effect combined with virtual pivot braking.
    Actually, if you look at Split Pivot's design, there is no possibility of infringing on any of the Ellsworth patents based on the claims of the Ellsworth patents, as there is no IC for acceleration characteristics. Split Pivot can use basically any braking linkage arrangement that a designer can think up. I can't imagine that anyone would want an IC positioned tactically in relation to a chainline for braking anyways, so its probably a moot point, you know?
    dw★link
    Split Pivot
    @daveweagle -Twitter

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    423
    Just out of curiosity have you seen the new trek design? Is it the same idea or is something different going on between the two designs? And, by the way, thanks for taking the time to actually participate in these forums. That is pretty awesome in itself. I love my dw link bike. Keep up the good work!

  10. #10
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,788
    Quote Originally Posted by _dw
    Actually, if you look at Split Pivot's design, there is no possibility of infringing on any of the Ellsworth patents based on the claims of the Ellsworth patents, as there is no IC for acceleration characteristics. Split Pivot can use basically any braking linkage arrangement that a designer can think up. I can't imagine that anyone would want an IC positioned tactically in relation to a chainline for braking anyways, so its probably a moot point, you know?
    I can be argued (as SteveFJH has) that the rear wheel is pivoting on the floating link of a concentric dropout “split-pivot” design, so that there is a direct IC relation to acceleration. But his argument goes to prove that a monopivot is the “effective” acceleration pivot of a concentric dropout pivot, and that IC’s are not virtual pivots for acceleration.

    The Ellsworth ICT dropout pivot is always within 25mm of split-pivot in geometry. Specifically it is not the same, but effectively it is the same. No human could sense the difference except by placebo (mental bias) effect.

    Ellsworth effectively designs monopivots with floating link braking, using an ineffective 4-bar IC to chainline intersection in a special gear set, ultimately to align just for braking effect.

    Would Ellsworth argue the fact that his bikes are really emulating monopivot’s except with ICT brake alignment? Was he reasonable with Turner?

Posting Permissions

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