Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 101
  1. #51
    The Bubble Wrap Hysteria
    Reputation: mtnbiker4life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Flystagg
    Iheartbycles, I just want to say good job bringing out real data, and sticking to your guns in the face of this much fandom, it is pretty obvious to any outside reader that most of the posters here are completely biased and unwilling to consider any negative traits of their bike. I personally can list off half a dozen things about each of my bikes that I don't like, or think could be better, but that doesn't mean they are still not the best bikes I've ever ridden, but if I find a new bike that fixes the problems of the old, then that is what I will be riding, I wont keep my head in the sand blind to other options, and other bike's strengths over mine.
    I think iheart did a great first swag at the analysis but like I stated in my posts it needs to be substantiate with mainstream analysis software coupled with hand calculations.....not forgetting a viable engineering test plan. Anything less is a SWAG with pretty pictures.

    I like my Ventana with the good, bad and ugly. I like Sherwood....he's a great chap. Like most posters here they may or may not understand all the physics behind FS bikes. That doesn't discount their opinion on the fit, feel or performance of any FS bike. It's an opinion.

    Since we're offering up design challenges here list up your half dozen things.......can you hand out hard calculations what you don't like or could better about your bikes? I don't think anybody here has their head in the sand....they are riding what they like for reasons told and untold. I personally would like to own a Turner if they did semi-custom front triangle changes like Ventana offers but they only offer color changes. So that puts Turner off of my list.

    It's been my experience as an engineer that it's very easy to criticize someone elses design when you're staring at hardware but a lot harder to come up viable ideas when you're starring at a white sheet of paper or blank computer screen.

  2. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    370

    Right on!

    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbiker4life

    It's been my experience as an engineer that it's very easy to criticize someone elses design when you're staring at hardware but a lot harder to come up viable ideas when you're starring at a white sheet of paper or blank computer screen.
    Very true. Since this is the internet, I'll throw in my 2 cents: I like the motivation of Iheart to try and quantify a feeling on the bike. How far off the numbers are...who knows.

    Though I am curious about Iheart referring to inertia and then talking about F=ma. Those two aren't the same. I'd think if you are talking about leverage ratios and antisquat, you have to be talking about moments of inertia. Which, now that I think about it...that probably is what he was talking about when he (or someone) referred to being about the bike's center of gravity.

    I also wonder if that software package is doing a static or dynamic analysis. Yes, a static analysis should give you a fair indication as to a frames ability to resist "bob." However, I'd argue that bob is a dynamic characteristic and doing a dynamic analysis...you need to consider the effect of rider weight shifts as well.

    Anyway, I'd say the qualitative sense of the analysis he did though does seem to mach my experience (though I guess limited). Last summer I rented a Heckler with an RP23 in Downieville when I had issues with the ring drive on my CK hub that couldn't be fixed while there. I have a pushed RP23 on my 07 X-5. The heckler with unmodified RP23 felt a lot stiffer under pedaling than my X-5. However, I liked riding my X-5 better, for whatever reason. Also, (I haven't asked Push this myself), but someone on here once had issues with their pushed RP23...felt it was too soft and bobing too much. They reported that after talking to Push...the usually tune down the platform on the RP23 for the Ventanas. So, that may explain why the heckler felt stiffer under pedaling. But again, I liked the ride of my X-5 (same fork on both bikes) much better than the heckler.

    And, FWIW, I just finished up my MSME and I've often thought about drawing up a frame in SOLIDWORKS and running an Analysis in ANSYS (which for me...modeling the rider input to the bike would be the biggest challenge). But, I'd rather ride my bike with my free time.

  3. #53
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,293
    Uhhh. I have a Pivot and a El Cap and a El Rey. Engineering analysis aside, which I'm not qualified to perform, I have come to the conclusion that both designs have weaknesses and strengths. My PUSHed Ventanas feel better in the techy stuff. The Ventanas have better mud clearance. The Pivot and my old Blur packed up like crazy. Stiffness of the El Cap is unparalleled (I think). The El Rey and the Pivot are about equal as far as stiffness. The Pivot is a better pedaler. Not outstandingly so, but it is noticeable to me. I can tweak the Rey to be just as efficient, but then I lose the plushness. That being said, my Ventanas still put a smile on my face. I liked my Weyless XP either in AM or XC trim much more than the Blur I had at the time. The way a bike performs for a specific rider is much more important than graphs to me. That being said if the techno stuff turns you on, so be it.

  4. #54
    Shot Down in Flames...
    Reputation: D-Rock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,221
    WhereTF is uktrailmonster? And why hasn't he responded to this thread? That guy could shed some light on this pissing match.


    D.

  5. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    421

    + / -

    Does the selection of pivot location always involve compromises? If so, a good designer picks one which maximizes the positive aspects of that trade-off. I believe this to be true of all suspension designs, not just Ventana's. If he ends up with something satisfying the majority of users most of the time has he not chosen well?

  6. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,076
    I like my squatty ventana. I don't have extended fireroad climbs, I have ledgy, rocky, rooty climbs and I like a stiff rear end that is active.

    Is it less pedal-efficient? Sure.
    Is it more efficient to not have to use body english to get over everything? Sure!

    Hey, Iheartarguingaboutbicycles...you have your work cut out for you. You can throw as many scienticians at this as you can hire, but you aren't going to change too many minds that like their Ventanas...and that is the majority of the people on this very quiet board. Good luck with that. You held out pretty well, and starting a new thread was good (note that I haven't really chimed in due to the tone), but you digress again in insulting people. Not going to get sucked into that.

  7. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,076

    squat on climbs is well documented.

    Just another reference to it that I posted a long time ago:
    Quote Originally Posted by CharacterZero
    Saturday: 16ish mile ride. Good first leg to stretch out the legs and then lots of up/down/technical riding with a few creek crossings and steep switchbacks, followed by a sweeping descent that begs for little braking.

    The bike felt great! The TM is a stronger climber than the X-6 was (with the fork at any length). The front end was easier to keep on the ground, especially around uphill switchbacks. On the way down, the rear end felt very smooth, this was running both 5 clicks of compression and 0 clicks compression on the PUSH'd shock. (FWIW, PUSH removes the PP functionality - it is hard-wired based on rider weight/style. The PP lever then becomes a straight compression dampening function.). The performance of the shock is in line with what you expect from PUSH - it felt snappy on acceleration on the flats with minimal compression dampening, but wallowed a bit on the steeper stuff. Then again, I wouldn't sacrifice an active rear suspension for anything, so the bit of wallow is completely acceptable. The geometry is definitely a bit more drop-friendly; it took almost no body english to get the front end up while approaching ledges, just a slight tug. I didn't notice the longer wheelbase. Standover was fine (although close - but the wife says that it can only save us money on a vasectomy). BB height was noticeably lower (both in feeling just a bit lower and a couple pedal strikes in sections that I hadn't had before). .

  8. #58
    locked - time out
    Reputation: iheartbicycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,058
    Quote Originally Posted by CharacterZero
    I like my squatty ventana. I don't have extended fireroad climbs, I have ledgy, rocky, rooty climbs and I like a stiff rear end that is active.

    Is it less pedal-efficient? Sure.
    Is it more efficient to not have to use body english to get over everything? Sure!

    Hey, Iheartarguingaboutbicycles...you have your work cut out for you. You can throw as many scienticians at this as you can hire, but you aren't going to change too many minds that like their Ventanas...and that is the majority of the people on this very quiet board. Good luck with that. You held out pretty well, and starting a new thread was good (note that I haven't really chimed in due to the tone), but you digress again in insulting people. Not going to get sucked into that.
    I can't tell if people simply don't understand what I am saying or are reading into what I am saying - but I am absolutely NOT arguing against ventana bikes as a whole. I am explaining with a level of exactitude the reasons why the bikes squat. This thread is a response to many, many threads posted on the subject wherein several users try to ascertain what the problem is. The problem is very specific.

    With regard to technical climbs - you're absolutely right - my 6" travel bike is much better than either my 4" travel bike or even my hardtail - no question about it. I would even go so far as to say an active single pivot (in my case I have a Foes FXR, but it would probably hold true for the Ciclon and Terremoto as well) would climb better than a DW link!

    BETTER THAN A DW LINK!

    Because DW's stiffen noticably when pedalling, they do stiffen up and will skip a little over rocks.

    I have owned the DW's and can make this comparison directly. It's one of the reasons I dropped the DW for my "all mountain" bike.

    But with regard to a specific problem/question - the squatting that is so noticable with my Salty is directly due to the main pivot placement and lack of antisquat. So many other single pivots do not have this problem and that information is easy to come by.

    With regard to "digressing into insulting people" (sic) go back and read the thread - I've only used the term "fanboi" and suggested people keep their heads in the sand - meanwhile I am called several names and no one seems to think anything of those.
    Last edited by iheartbicycles; 09-23-2009 at 08:53 AM.

  9. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,076
    Quote Originally Posted by iheartbicycles
    With regard to "digressing into insulting people" (sic) go back and read the thread - I've only used the term "fanboi" and suggested people keep their heads in the sang - meanwhile I am called several names and no one seems to think anything of those.
    Sorry, you are correct, you don't insult anyone in this thread.
    No doubt there are some real fanbois around here.

  10. #60
    locked - time out
    Reputation: iheartbicycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,058
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbiker4life
    I think iheart did a great first swag at the analysis but like I stated in my posts it needs to be substantiate with mainstream analysis software coupled with hand calculations.....not forgetting a viable engineering test plan. Anything less is a SWAG with pretty pictures.

    I like my Ventana with the good, bad and ugly. I like Sherwood....he's a great chap. Like most posters here they may or may not understand all the physics behind FS bikes. That doesn't discount their opinion on the fit, feel or performance of any FS bike. It's an opinion.

    Since we're offering up design challenges here list up your half dozen things.......can you hand out hard calculations what you don't like or could better about your bikes? I don't think anybody here has their head in the sand....they are riding what they like for reasons told and untold. I personally would like to own a Turner if they did semi-custom front triangle changes like Ventana offers but they only offer color changes. So that puts Turner off of my list.

    It's been my experience as an engineer that it's very easy to criticize someone elses design when you're staring at hardware but a lot harder to come up viable ideas when you're starring at a white sheet of paper or blank computer screen.
    I haven't forgotten about this and I still intend to check all measurements myself. My guess is you will once again raise the bar or change the level of proof required.

    That's ok. People who read this thread will make up their own minds. For me, I am always learning and you have actually caused me to think beyond what most people do.

  11. #61
    The Bubble Wrap Hysteria
    Reputation: mtnbiker4life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,519
    Quote Originally Posted by iheartbicycles
    I haven't forgotten about this and I still intend to check all measurements myself. My guess is you will once again raise the bar or change the level of proof required.
    The level of proof required is totally governed by how much creditability you wish to gain from the results you have put forth. Since, this topic is related to physics and engineering, I have mealy stated what you need to provide to be taken seriously in the engineering community. I am not saying your results are wrong and some on mtbr may blindly take them as absolute truth. But as an engineer, I have to ask for some test methodology if I am to take these results as reliable analysis.


    Quote Originally Posted by iheartbicycles
    That's ok. People who read this thread will make up their own minds. For me, I am always learning and you have actually caused me to think beyond what most people do.
    I’m a little confused about this statement. Because you have stated there are folks on this forum that do not understand the physics regarding this type of analysis so they really can’t make up their own minds, can they? I am sure there is a way to present this data so the lay-person can understand your methodology.

    -

  12. #62
    locked - time out
    Reputation: iheartbicycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,058
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbiker4life



    I’m a little confused about this statement. Because you have stated there are folks on this forum that do not understand the physics regarding this type of analysis so they really can’t make up their own minds, can they? I am sure there is a way to present this data so the lay-person can understand your methodology.

    -
    Ventana fanboi's aren't the only people who read this forum. Those with an open mind and a little technical knowledge will see the thread for what it is.

  13. #63
    post-ride specialist
    Reputation: icegeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,010
    Quote Originally Posted by iheartbicycles
    Ventana fanboi's aren't the only people who read this forum. Those with an open mind and a little technical knowledge will see the thread for what it is.

    Arm-chair engineer strikes head with hammer. Repeats. ?
    Since when did Need have anything to do with this?

  14. #64
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,850

    Pro squat and proud

    ...of it.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  15. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    267
    I hear the new Squatnleavit Constipation is the ultimate anti squat.

  16. #66
    MV Rider
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by tl1
    ...of it.
    tl1

    Brilliant! You have validated with undisputed scientific evidence the old adage that " a picture is worth a thousand words."

  17. #67
    Retired Firefighter
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    14
    On the salty is there a difference when using 5" rockers over 4", with the correct fork travel up front?

  18. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldHouseMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,449
    So...Does this program really cost $199?
    I only ride bikes to fill the time when I'm not skiing.

  19. #69
    locked - time out
    Reputation: iheartbicycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,058
    Quote Originally Posted by OldHouseMan
    So...Does this program really cost $199?
    you can download trial software for free - but the full blown version ain't cheap.

  20. #70
    BC
    BC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    867
    There is no magic bullet. Even if you have 100 pivots., ther is no getting around axle path/chain growth relative to the bottom bracket.(chain tension induced "anti squat") etc. Suspension performance is relative to the rider/style of riding. There are many types that have different charecteristics. Pick your poison. 1st gen VPP's have a lot of chain growth (chain tension induced "lockout"). So much so, that if set your chain up too short, compressing the suspension will rip the rear derailure off. Any suspension design can have a lot or little chain growth. The only thing unique I see about DW, is the chain growth has been tuned to be chainring dependant (or at least more so than other designs). That's why the man himself says the hammerschmidt will not work well with his design. Although I'll bet it works just fine for some people. The terrain on this planet as well as riding styles are too diverse for any single design to be "better" than another. This doesn't even take execution of the design in to account, which is a huge factor in performance.

    my .02

  21. #71
    IPAs make me wanna puke.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,603
    This is very well put. Each rider will have preferences and a riding style that is met better by one design over another.

    Your $0.02 is in reality, the gold standard.
    My presence would be the equivalent of painting lamb's blood on your frame, causing the "angel of crash" to nail me instead.

  22. #72
    Petty and weak
    Reputation: Gruntled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    742
    Oh yes, climbing a La Bruja? Either dial in so much propedal that the shock doesn't work, or suffer the squat, the bob and the pedal strikes.
    ~ Downride and Freehill, nothing else ~

  23. #73
    The Bubble Wrap Hysteria
    Reputation: mtnbiker4life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Gruntled
    Oh yes, climbing a La Bruja? Either dial in so much propedal that the shock doesn't work, or suffer the squat, the bob and the pedal strikes.
    So answer this question - did you test ride the Bruja before you laid down that much cash? With all the shops and the Ventana demo program it's hard to put blame on the frame when it didn't work for you. I don't ride a Ventana because I'm a local "Fanboy" I ride one because it works for me. I also have other branded bikes. If I were to consider spending $2500 on a frame, better believe I would be taking a long hard demo or buy used.

  24. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,495
    Quote Originally Posted by iheartbicycles
    Ventana fanboi's aren't the only people who read this forum. Those with an open mind and a little technical knowledge will see the thread for what it is.
    I have never owned a Ventana but I can tell you that I'm a big fan. I could care less about anti squat theory. If it fits and feels good..it is good. The whole is the sum of the parts and that seems to be the main reason why the vast majority of Ventana owners are happy with their rides.

  25. #75
    locked - time out
    Reputation: iheartbicycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,058
    Quote Originally Posted by ronny
    . If it fits and feels good..it is good. .
    Did you miss all these threads?

    El Salt Set-Up??? Horrible bob on steeps
    Moots-Ventana Suspension (Can PUSH save it?)
    Long travel and efficiency?
    How necessary is the platform on your Ventana?

    Ventana's bob worse than just about any other bike out there. They have lower antisquat than any bike I know of. Yet all the Ventana fanboi's answers to the problem is to run tons of compression damping (propedal) to hide the problem.

  26. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,495
    Read em all and you seem to be the loudest voice on each thread. I know what you are getting at and you actually come across quite logically in most of the threads. Ventana bikes are single pivot and the pivot placement is pretty much the same on all the bikes except the dh model. I know that Ventana is going to bob a little more than most brands with a higher pivot placement or different suspension design. With that said, the vast majority of Ventana riders are happy with their rides. As said previously, the whole is the sum of the parts. Always a compromise.

    One thing I am wondering is there is rarely any complaints about the Terremoto with excessive bob or squat. The pivot placement seems pretty low. I wonder if there is less complaints because Terremoto riders are using coil shocks or what? Does the extra travel mask the problem or would the bike not wallow in it's travel even more? Moto users please chime in. IheartVentana, what are your thoughts?

  27. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bogmonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    451

    ****????

    This is why i ride a hardtail....

  28. #78
    locked - time out
    Reputation: iheartbicycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,058
    Quote Originally Posted by ronny
    Read em all and you seem to be the loudest voice on each thread. I know what you are getting at and you actually come across quite logically in most of the threads. Ventana bikes are single pivot and the pivot placement is pretty much the same on all the bikes except the dh model. I know that Ventana is going to bob a little more than most brands with a higher pivot placement or different suspension design. With that said, the vast majority of Ventana riders are happy with their rides. As said previously, the whole is the sum of the parts. Always a compromise.

    One thing I am wondering is there is rarely any complaints about the Terremoto with excessive bob or squat. The pivot placement seems pretty low. I wonder if there is less complaints because Terremoto riders are using coil shocks or what? Does the extra travel mask the problem or would the bike not wallow in it's travel even more? Moto users please chime in. IheartVentana, what are your thoughts?
    There's any number of reasons why terromoto riders haven't voiced concerns as much - including coincidence.

    Being that all ventana suspension bikes other than the cuervo have identical wheels paths, there's no reason to think the terremoto has any different characteristics than the salty, ciclon or bruja.

    Yep, I've been pretty vocal on this forum. My goal is to fight ignorance. It's harder than I thought!

  29. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    410
    Quote Originally Posted by iheartbicycles
    A few points of clarification.

    The numbers posted are all derived from a gear ratio of 32/30 - which I picked just cause it's a common climbing gear - but antisquat curves change based on gearing - so each bike will differ a bit based on this.

    Generally speaking, the lower the gear in the front - the more anti squat and the smaller (higher) the gear in the back, also the more antisquat. The converse holds true as well.

    Also - the anti squat posted for each bike is at top out - assuming sag of 20mm or so, each bike will behave a little differently. I haven't checked each - but of the ones I have (dw and ventana) antisquat decreases during suspension compression.

    I've been avoiding this thread cause it looked like math was involved. . .

    But, it's pretty interesting, actually. I appreciate these points above. My impression was that the old Turners and the Ventana XC/trailbikes had pivots as low and close to the BB as they do to improve pedaling efficiency in the 22t ring up front while maintaining stiffness through to the rear-wheel. This certainly mirrors my trail experience as I ran 1x9 last year and 2x9 starting a month ago. The difference is noticeable to me climbing even with the same gear ratios. It'd be cool to know what the numbers were with 22t up front.

    Likewise, I wonder how the anti-squat changes through the sag. Intuitively, you're right, it should decrease, but I doubt it's a linear relationship for bikes with VP or DW links, as chain growth isn't linear on these bikes. I dunno, just sayin.

    Also, there are a lot of 0's plugged into the program (that I can see on the 1st pic anyway). Front and rear susp sag, etc. Wonder what these values do to the anti-squat number when changed to match real riding conditions?

    Lastly, is there an upside to the design that made Sherwood pick it? Is what I heard about the lateral stiffness and small ring pedal efficiency just bunk? Certainly the Propedal "fixes" the problem for my riding style, just wondering if there's an upside.

    Anyhow, I guess I did feel a bunch of squat on my Ciclon pedaling around in 32 or 34 up front and going up steep hills. Now that I broke down and got a granny, it seems to have lessened considerably. Now feels better than my last bike (FSR design), but much, much stiffer laterally.

  30. #80
    locked - time out
    Reputation: iheartbicycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripes
    Forget it. I'd rather go ride my bike than reply.
    bring your lights!

  31. #81
    locked - time out
    Reputation: iheartbicycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,058
    Quote Originally Posted by iheartbicycles View Post
    Thanks to a local engineer to helped my find the linkage program - here are a few anti squat profiles showing how ventana's stack up compared to a DW link and GT Idrive. These are just a few examples for refernce purposes only.
    BUMP! Seemed the time was ripe.

  32. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,076
    because there is 1 thread that asks about comparison to dw.
    That and he is a bit of a bumper.

  33. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,605
    I would really like to see the curves posted at the beginning of this thread. It sucks that MTBR dumps not so old attachments now.

  34. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    481
    You can see the profiles of at least a few Ventana frames at Linkage Design

    Here's one of the new vs old Ciclón:


    Name:  Ventana El Ciclon 2012_Anti-squat.gif
Views: 198
Size:  23.7 KB

  35. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,605
    Thanks man!
    So, I assume that (32/15), is the gear combo for that anti-squat curve, which he seems to use as a standard for comparison. Wouldn't it be better to use a small ring gear combo (22/28 for example) since you would be most interested in anti squat during steep climbing?

    Now that I think about it, how much meaning does a graph like that even have?

    If you are comparing 2 different bikes, all you are really looking at is the amount of anti-squat in that gear combo, which might not be representative of any other gear combo, or is it?

  36. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    481
    You're right, but the site has lots more info on lots of bikes, including Alpino, Zeus, and El Cap. Here's another image for the "new" Ciclón:

    Name:  Excell.gif
Views: 184
Size:  7.9 KB

  37. #87
    locked - time out
    Reputation: iheartbicycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,058
    Quote Originally Posted by albeant View Post
    You can see the profiles of at least a few Ventana frames at Linkage Design

    Here's one of the new vs old Ciclón:


    Name:  Ventana El Ciclon 2012_Anti-squat.gif
Views: 198
Size:  23.7 KB
    that's a strange gear combo. I did most of my calculations at 32 front 30 rear. This gives a good feel for what's going on when you're climbing.

  38. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,605
    Quote Originally Posted by albeant View Post
    You're right, but the site has lots more info on lots of bikes, including Alpino, Zeus, and El Cap. Here's another image for the "new" Ciclón:

    Name:  Excell.gif
Views: 184
Size:  7.9 KB
    It is interesting that the A-S curves are completely different in the 3 chain rings in this example. In the large ring, A-S increases dramatically as you move to larger cogs. In the middle ring, A-S increases more gradually moving into larger cogs. In the small ring, A-S decreases as you increase the cog size.

    I can't really picture an explanation for those numbers, but it goes back to my point that an A-S number , or an A-S curve on a specific gear combo isn't that informative of a bikes performance.

  39. #89
    locked - time out
    Reputation: iheartbicycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,058
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    It is interesting that the A-S curves are completely different in the 3 chain rings in this example. In the large ring, A-S increases dramatically as you move to larger cogs. In the middle ring, A-S increases more gradually moving into larger cogs. In the small ring, A-S decreases as you increase the cog size.

    I can't really picture an explanation for those numbers, but it goes back to my point that an A-S number , or an A-S curve on a specific gear combo isn't that informative of a bikes performance.
    Isnt this brake squat and not antiquat?

  40. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,605
    Quote Originally Posted by iheartbicycles View Post
    Isnt this brake squat and not antiquat?
    I think the table is anti-squat (A1). Then the bottom of the table shows brake squat A2. Brake squat would be independent of gear combo I think.

  41. #91
    locked - time out
    Reputation: iheartbicycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,058
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    Thanks man!
    So, I assume that (32/15), is the gear combo for that anti-squat curve, which he seems to use as a standard for comparison. Wouldn't it be better to use a small ring gear combo (22/28 for example) since you would be most interested in anti squat during steep climbing?

    Now that I think about it, how much meaning does a graph like that even have?

    If you are comparing 2 different bikes, all you are really looking at is the amount of anti-squat in that gear combo, which might not be representative of any other gear combo, or is it?
    the Linkage program defaults to really weird gear combos. You have to choose the gearing you're looking for. And i agree - we're interested in climbing gears, not downhill gears.

  42. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripes View Post
    While I don't expect to understand the numbers, I can tell you that there is a HUGE difference in the pedal bob from going to a 1x from a 30T to a 28T. The 28T was so horrible that it lasted one ride before I switched back to a 30T (2012 Ciclon). My rear cassette was a 11-36, but even so, it's not clear to me why the feel would be so different between losing those two teeth.

    Could you expect in layman's terms why that would be the case?
    That is actually strange as generally, most SP bikes are designed to pedal better (more anti-squat) in smaller chain ring combo's than in larger. And honestly, 2 teeth is not alot. If I were to guess, and don't take this personally, it could be a sign of a poor pedal stroke. By spinning a little faster, in too small of a chain-combo, you are activating the suspension by weight shifts.

    I actually notice this myself. For example, when I ride my road bike, after a long hiatus, I often feel like I have "pedal bob" when I drop down to too low of a gear. Sounds crazy I know, but is a sign that my pedal stroke is gotten sloppy. There is of course, not "bob" but it feels very similar. And my dw linked bob actually makes me lazy and does not really respond to a bad pedal stroke. In contrast my old SP and HL bikes did.
    On MTBR, the reputation is infamous.

  43. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,605
    I agree the difference between 28 and 30 is small, but it sounds like 30 is "just right." Going to 28 may have increased or decreased anti-squat, (probably increased), but either way that can increase bob. To much anti squat can cause bob by extending the shock with each stroke.

    Also, remember pedal kickback is greater in lower gears (the crank turns more for a given amount of chain length).

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 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
  •