Results 1 to 24 of 24
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,616

    The Official Marin Wolf Ridge with Naild R3ACT suspension thread.

    OMG, this is cool! Those who have ridden it, say it's as good as the hype. I just love when something different and ground breaking comes along. I just hope they have a 27.5 version.


  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J_Bone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    92
    Wow, interesting.

    Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,479
    @ 4:15 or so, he's compressing the suspension. The derailleur cage is flexing forward. This indicates that the BB to axle distance is getting longer, and there is a rearward axle path. This in turn, usually means that pedal forces will oppose suspension compression.

    It still might be very good suspension, but this refutes the claim that 'pedal forces and suspension are 100% isolated from each other".

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    122
    Wonder how it compares to Kona's Magic Link

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Procter View Post

    It still might be very good suspension, but this refutes the claim that 'pedal forces and suspension are 100% isolated from each other".

    I agree. Look at the piece on vitalmtb, Voss says enough blatantly untrue things that a reasonable person would be pretty skeptical of everything else he says. (my personal favorite: that the bike is maybe 10% of the mass of the rider - in the context of a 30# bike).
    There's also the obvious question: if this design needs that little damping, why did they spec one of the most expensive, sophisticated dampers you can buy? They said they got it de-tuned from Fox, but again, if it's not relying on damping, why not get an inexpensive mono-tube shock (according to that Vorsprung video, the main advantage of twin-tube dampers is you can get really high damper forces without risking cavitation)?


    I'm sure it's different than what's out there now. It might be great, but it's almost guaranteed to under-deliver on their promises just because they've made such outrageous claims.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by Joules View Post
    I agree. Look at the piece on vitalmtb, Voss says enough blatantly untrue things that a reasonable person would be pretty skeptical of everything else he says. (my personal favorite: that the bike is maybe 10% of the mass of the rider - in the context of a 30# bike).
    There's also the obvious question: if this design needs that little damping, why did they spec one of the most expensive, sophisticated dampers you can buy? They said they got it de-tuned from Fox, but again, if it's not relying on damping, why not get an inexpensive mono-tube shock (according to that Vorsprung video, the main advantage of twin-tube dampers is you can get really high damper forces without risking cavitation)?


    I'm sure it's different than what's out there now. It might be great, but it's almost guaranteed to under-deliver on their promises just because they've made such outrageous claims.
    I took the "pedal forces are 100% isolated from suspension" to mean that the anti-squat was near 100%, so while the chain growth does interact with the suspension, it is to a degree that balances natural weight transfer induced squatting. That is in contrast to a totally chain neutral bike with 0% anti-squat, which would feel quite mushy. Having said that, the anti-squat charts I saw on Pinkbike were in the 120-150% range, which would suggest, as Procter mentioned, that it actually overshot the target and might try to actually rise a bit under high pedal loads due to excess chain growth.

    Regarding the Vital article, I went when I saw that "bike is 10% of total weight comment too!

    This whole "we did a bunch of calculations and figured out something everyone is missing" really sounds like BS when they only back up their claim with vagaries.

    Regarding the damping, aside from the question of if the only reason we usually use more damping is for firm pedaling, I have seen the question raised as to if there is a lot of stiction in the telescope assembly and so the lack of damping is simply compensating for this "friction damping".

    I've been hoping to see some IC migration charts, and asked on AndreXTR's facebook page if he or some of the other guys could post the calculations they said they already did.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jbsocal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    238
    I am more interested in how the bike rides than whatever is claimed.

    I would also like to know how much rear tire clearance there is and what size tire will fit in the back.

    I may consider one of these models for a future purchase along with the 2017 Specialized Enduro 29/6 Fattie.

    It is kind of odd that they don't recommend it for bike parks (or was not designed for)...seems like a fairly strong frame.

    I didn't find a mailing list on their site, hopefully they will have some demo bikes to ride in Southern California.
    '15 Canfield Riot
    '14 Specialized Enduro Comp 29
    '13 Banshee Prime (29+)
    '12 LenzSport PBJ

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Joules View Post
    if this design needs that little damping, why did they spec one of the most expensive, sophisticated dampers you can buy?
    Because shocks do more than damp.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by jbsocal View Post
    I would also like to know how much rear tire clearance there is and what size tire will fit in the back.

    It is kind of odd that they don't recommend it for bike parks (or was not designed for)...seems like a fairly strong frame.
    They claim clearance for a 2.6" tire in the back, which seems very reasonable to me given the intended usage. With that swingarm design, I wouldn't be surprised if you could even downsize to 27.5 and run a 3.0" tire if you wanted.

    Regarding the strength, it has a definite visual mass to it, but it also has some thin link arms, a relatively unsupported bottom bracket, and that whole telescope assembly all placed in one of the most highly stressed areas on the bike. I'm not saying it couldn't take bike park riding, just that the visual strength may not be representative of the mechanical strength of it.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Because shocks do more than damp.
    Such as?

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by TheKaiser View Post
    Such as?
    Dissipate heat generated from repeating compression cycles, control rebound to allow better tracking through different terrain, provide progressive or linear feels that are more fine tuneable than that around which the frame was designed... etc etc etc.

    I feel like the people here are the same people that could be found in the 650b plus forum bashing plus tires before they ever even rode one. How about we wait until they are out and being ridden before jumping to conclusions about suspension performance when you haven't even ridden the bike yourself.

    If this bike even remotely performs as well as ALL (yes, ALL) of the first ride reviews have indicated, it's going to be an amazing bike! For me, it's the perfect bike... long travel 29er brawler that can climb like a 120mm bike. From the videos I've seen of Kyle Warner riding this bike, it does ride as well as they say.

    Yes, mine is on order... and yes, I splurged for the pro model... and yes, it's going to be f(*king awesome!

    Don't be haters on something you haven't even ridden.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,616
    Quote Originally Posted by bigmike9699 View Post
    Dissipate heat generated from repeating compression cycles, control rebound to allow better tracking through different terrain, provide progressive or linear feels that are more fine tuneable than that around which the frame was designed... etc etc etc.

    I feel like the people here are the same people that could be found in the 650b plus forum bashing plus tires before they ever even rode one. How about we wait until they are out and being ridden before jumping to conclusions about suspension performance when you haven't even ridden the bike yourself.

    If this bike even remotely performs as well as ALL (yes, ALL) of the first ride reviews have indicated, it's going to be an amazing bike! For me, it's the perfect bike... long travel 29er brawler that can climb like a 120mm bike. From the videos I've seen of Kyle Warner riding this bike, it does ride as well as they say.

    Yes, mine is on order... and yes, I splurged for the pro model... and yes, it's going to be f(*king awesome!

    Don't be haters on something you haven't even ridden.
    Very well said! Yeah, this bike is going to piss off a lot of people who recently spent a lot of money on a bike, only to have it seriously outdated.
    Last edited by Mountain Cycle Shawn; 1 Day Ago at 07:52 PM. Reason: I ****ed up!

  13. #13
    Co Springs
    Reputation: bachman1961's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    535
    Quote Originally Posted by bigmike9699 View Post

    I feel like the people here are the same people that could be found in the 650b plus forum bashing plus tires before they ever even rode one. How about we wait until they are out and being ridden before jumping to conclusions about suspension performance when you haven't even ridden the bike yourself.

    Don't be haters on something you haven't even ridden.
    +

    I don't have the experience on these type of bikes (full sus) nor the technical acuity to understand many aspects of design compromises and successes but I do believe a design can trump the ability to have it adequately explained in a short simple Q & A setting.

    Some things engineering, physics and kinesthetic don't lend themselves to easy or simple explanations nor do engineers always align themselves as the best layperson decoder.

    I do understand if the critics feel they've caught an exaggeration or misrepresentation in something that sounds like B.S. but I'm sure given more time and opportunity, poorly stated or worded explanations can be better thought out or better translated.

    It seems to me the excitement of this concept has slipped out a bit ahead of the information curve. I hope it's as good as they say or even more impressive by delivering better than expected performance.

    In the Middle Ages, the biggest mistake was not putting on your armor because you were 'just going down to the corner.'

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by bigmike9699 View Post
    Dissipate heat generated from repeating compression cycles, control rebound to allow better tracking through different terrain, provide progressive or linear feels that are more fine tuneable than that around which the frame was designed... etc etc etc.
    I agree with you on all those points, however those demands for heat dissipation, rebound control, etc...should all be significantly lower with this bike, because there will be a commensurate reduction in the heat generation that goes along with 40-60% less damping force that this design allows. In other words, this bike isn't one that is likely to be overdriving any generally high quality shock.

    Air volume tunability is certainly important, but I am not aware of the X2 being uniquely tunable in this way.

    Having said that, it is possible that the X2 has some other quality that makes it better on this bike, like greater independence of hi/low speed damping or something like that, so that you can run very light low speed while maintaining the ability to adjust high speed, or something like that.

    Congratulations on the new bike order, I hope that it is awesome, and it very well may be the best thing ever. I am really hoping that these thing are as good as they say, and I will gladly place an order myself if they prove to be. I don't think people are being unreasonable in their skepticism, though. It is the old extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence thing, and the only evidence we have so far so far are some magazine "first ride" puff pieces, which are almost always favorable for any new model, and some tech explanations from the designer that seem to deliberately skirt the generally agreed upon measures of rear suspension engineering. That nowhere close to meeting my minimum threshold to buy in to the claims, however I am eager to learn more, as the info becomes available, and would certainly love to take a spin on one.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Very well said! Yeah, this bike is going to piss off a lot of people who resenlty spent a lot of money on a bike, only to have it seriously outdated.
    I love disruptive tech as much or more than anyone, but you have to understand that truly revolutionary designs are a real rarity, while claims about a design being revolutionary are fairly common. Keep in mind that all these same claims were made about VPP when it came out, and while it is a good system, it isn't dramatically better than DW-link, FSR, or even a really well designed single pivot. They all turned out to have compromises, where the initial presentation of this bike seems to be that it is no-compromise. Similarly, platform valve shocks like the Manitou SPV and 5th Element were billed as being best of both worlds. Firm under pedaling loads but supple over the smallest bump. As it turned out, they weren't, and they still forced you to choose between firm pedaling and supple suspension. Now, that revolutionary tech has been abandoned. And that was tech that was already proven in off-road truck and mini bike racing. This R3ACT design doesn't even have that background to support it.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by TheKaiser View Post
    I love disruptive tech as much or more than anyone, but you have to understand that truly revolutionary designs are a real rarity, while claims about a design being revolutionary are fairly common. Keep in mind that all these same claims were made about VPP when it came out, and while it is a good system, it isn't dramatically better than DW-link, FSR, or even a really well designed single pivot. They all turned out to have compromises, where the initial presentation of this bike seems to be that it is no-compromise. Similarly, platform valve shocks like the Manitou SPV and 5th Element were billed as being best of both worlds. Firm under pedaling loads but supple over the smallest bump. As it turned out, they weren't, and they still forced you to choose between firm pedaling and supple suspension. Now, that revolutionary tech has been abandoned. And that was tech that was already proven in off-road truck and mini bike racing. This R3ACT design doesn't even have that background to support it.
    Nor did Yeti's switch system have any background other than an engineer's design philosophy, yet, that system has become one of the better suspension designs on the market (albeit needing some durability refinement, which they've done over the years).

    I can appreciate people's skepticism, especially in the MTB industry that has seen new standard after new standard introduced... some to prove a good benefit, others not so much.

    Unlikely we'll see the R3ACT design on other bikes, just has with the Switch system, but that doesn't mean it's a bad design...

    I am so excited to ride this bike.

  17. #17
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,479
    Quote Originally Posted by bigmike9699 View Post

    Yes, mine is on order... and yes, I splurged for the pro model... and yes, it's going to be f(*king awesome!

    Don't be haters on something you haven't even ridden.
    LOL - ooooohhhhkaaaaay. But kicking down $8K on something you haven't even ridden is toooootalllllly fine.



    But seriously I hope you like it and let us know how it rides.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by Procter View Post
    LOL - ooooohhhhkaaaaay. But kicking down $8K on something you haven't even ridden is toooootalllllly fine.
    As do 95% of the mountain biking community who purchase bikes in that price point. You have to rely on A) what the company says about it, B) what reviews say about it, and C) what the shop(s) say about it. There are, unfortunately, very few opportunities to demo bikes...

    Having owned two high end Marins now (a 2016 Attack Trail Pro, and a 2017 Rift Zone Pro) that I've absolutely loved riding, I have faith in Marin's ability to deliver an amazing bike with the Wolf Ridge! "

    Disclaimer, I do ride under Marin's Ambassador program, so while I might be a bit biased, I have ridden TONNES of bikes over the years (yes, I have commitment issues, don't judge me), the Marin's are, honestly, among the most fun bikes I've ridden, and I don't doubt for a second that the Wolf Ridge will be any different.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    185


    Relatively high chaingrowth and kicback and relatively forward axle path. Leverage ratio is OK for a 160mm bike. Overall you can get similar or better values with more "traditional" designs.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by andrextr View Post
    [
    Relatively high chaingrowth and kicback and relatively forward axle path. Leverage ratio is OK for a 160mm bike. Overall you can get similar or better values with more "traditional" designs.
    So you're basing suspension/bike performance based off that? Again, lets wait until you ride the bike before jumping to conclusions.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,616
    Quote Originally Posted by andrextr View Post


    Relatively high chaingrowth and kicback and relatively forward axle path. Leverage ratio is OK for a 160mm bike. Overall you can get similar or better values with more "traditional" designs.
    Except you forgot something. That video is without a rider. With a riders weight on the pedals the slider acts differently. That's the whole purpose of this suspension system. The designers really don't want people figuring out exactly how it works. So, I won't say anymore.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,616

  23. #23
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,479
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Except you forgot something. That video is without a rider. With a riders weight on the pedals the slider acts differently. That's the whole purpose of this suspension system. The designers really don't want people figuring out exactly how it works. So, I won't say anymore.
    Ooooo I wanna know! Is this like Nixon's plan to end the war?!

  24. #24
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,479
    I believe this is the patent is here:

    https://www.google.com/patents/US20140265208

    Figures 8a/b/c seem to describe the Marin/Polygon design. The relevant claims are:


    The present invention solves the above need in the art with a linked suspension system that maintains the instant center of rotation rearward of the front frame of the vehicle. The system is usable on most any type of ground-engaging vehicle to improve the suspension action. Thus, the shocks and springs of the suspension do not have to be as specially designed and tuned to deal with pedal-induced forces, braking forces, rider bob and other inputs. The suspension linkage design itself cancels or counters much of the undesirable, energy and control-robbing movements.

    ...

    The suspension has a slide link coupled to the frame and to the rear arm. The slide link is rotationally fixed to the arm to rotationally move therewith. The slide link is pivotally secured to the frame to rotate relative to the frame.
    ...


    [0080]
    The anti-squat 160 and pro-squat 162 zones for the control arm link are also shown in FIG. 8A. The control arm zones are shown independent of the slider zones. The interplay between the combination of zones can be used to create desired suspension characteristics. The control arm anti-squat zone 160 is created by moving the forward link pivot 100 above the chain tension vector 146 (assuming the rearward link pivot 102 is lower relative to the vector 146. The control arm pro-squat zone 162 is created by moving the forward link pivot down in its mounting location.
    [0081]
    FIG. 8B depicts the resolution of forces with regard to the slider 88 and the chain tension vector. As discussed above, the angles change depending on the front/rear gearing combination and on the amount of suspension compression of the rear triangle relative to the front triangle. The resultant inline force is the amount the slider is pushed into or pulled out of the cylinder to stiffen or soften the suspension. Of course, this is independent of other links and forces. The angle of the slider in the uncompressed and compressed states is shown at 168, 168′. The angles are shown at 124, 126. The chain force is shown at 146 with the perpendicular force of 164 and inline force of 166.


    ========================
    So, best I can tell, what's going on is:

    The slider is a telescopic member which acts to move the instant center of rotation throughout the travel, such that the force of the chain is always exactly perpendicular to the forces being acted on the swingarm by the ground. See figure 8b. The slider might be a spring or a damper, or both - the patent is general on this. I think that Mt Cycle Shawn is hinting, is that rider weight affects the slider travel, so the spring, or dampiness of it, would need to be tuned to the riders weight to maintain the perpendicular relationship.

    But, there might actually be some secret sauce here.

Similar Threads

  1. New Marin wolf Ridge bike video
    By jacksonunlimited in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 1 Day Ago, 06:45 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-30-2014, 10:41 AM
  3. 650B Marin Wolf Ridge
    By Waterat Pat in forum 27.5
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-23-2013, 09:01 AM
  4. 09 marin wolf ridge
    By sra1218 in forum Marin
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-23-2012, 12:53 PM
  5. 29'ering a 2002 Marin Wolf Ridge !
    By Dr Feelygood ! in forum Marin
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-01-2011, 08:21 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
  •