EVO review on Bikemagic.com- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 55 of 55
  1. #1
    Time is not a road.
    Reputation: chad1433's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    4,146

    EVO review on Bikemagic.com


  2. #2
    locked - time out
    Reputation: TIMBERRR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,389
    Not sure but are they reviewing the 1st generation seat angle?

    Good review.

  3. #3
    Compulsive Bike Builder
    Reputation: DirtDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,512

    Definitely

    Quote Originally Posted by TIMBERRR
    Not sure but are they reviewing the 1st generation seat angle?

    Good review.
    Yes they are. They had many of the same feelings about that that I had. Now that I have ridden both the slack geo EVO and the steeper AM EVO, I finally understand the slack model.

    Ted really invented a different bike category with the slack EVO. The slack EVO falls very close the the FR category. In some ways it feels like a DH bike that you can put a triple crankset on and climb. Really. It is a unique bike.

    I think people would understand the slack EVO better if it just had a couple of FR touches to it, like a thru axle rear, 150 mm rear hub spacing, ISCG mounts, an oversize bb (85 or 100), coil shock standard, another inch of travel, etc. Not that the bike needs them, but in the absence of any of those things it is easy to pigeon hole the slack EVO as an all mountian bike, but it really is not.
    Disclaimer: ComCycle USA

  4. #4

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    I still don't understand how Chumba says they're not part of the FSR patent. I'm sure the linkage performance is nice, but it seems to only be another variant of another FSR design.

  5. #5
    locked - time out
    Reputation: TIMBERRR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,389
    Dirtdad,

    Would you say the Am seat angle makes the bike a way better climber? Here in the Front Range of CO I do just as much if not more climbing than decending.

    Basically would you say its a definate improvement for the AM person?

    OOOOPS. may be thread jacking a bit. Sorry.

  6. #6
    Compulsive Bike Builder
    Reputation: DirtDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,512

    Way

    Quote Originally Posted by TIMBERRR
    Dirtdad,
    Would you say the Am seat angle makes the bike a way better climber?
    One word: way. Way better climber that is.

    I set up my AM EVO with a bias for climbing. A longer stem to make up for the shortish top tube (for my taste) and no offset post to move my weight forward just a touch. Droppable fork - Lyrik 2 step. Got the total weight down to 30 lbs or so. For a beefy 6" bike, it climbs great. How great?

    I had a Moment prior this - same build kit (I just moved parts over) with a shorter stem and longer TT like the Ells has. And the Moment is known as a good climbing 6" bike. And it is. But the EVO has it beat on the climbs. I was very pleased.

    I think there really is something to the whole FC2 thing. Instead of having a shock doing an up and down motion and pushing on your frame perpendicular to your movement, the shock is moving back an forth in the direction you are going. Even though the back movement may cancel the forward movement, it at least cancels, wheras the up and down movement is all wasted. It may not be a big thing, like you would not bother to worry about it on a motorcycle or a car, but on a bike where you are dealing with something like 1/4 horsepower, I think it is not just theoretical.
    Disclaimer: ComCycle USA

  7. #7
    Time is not a road.
    Reputation: chad1433's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    4,146
    Quote Originally Posted by DirtDad
    One word: way. Way better climber that is.

    I set up my AM EVO with a bias for climbing. A longer stem to make up for the shortish top tube (for my taste) and no offset post to move my weight forward just a touch. Droppable fork - Lyrik 2 step. Got the total weight down to 30 lbs or so. For a beefy 6" bike, it climbs great. How great?

    I had a Moment prior this - same build kit (I just moved parts over) with a shorter stem and longer TT like the Ells has. And the Moment is known as a good climbing 6" bike. And it is. But the EVO has it beat on the climbs. I was very pleased.

    I think there really is something to the whole FC2 thing. Instead of having a shock doing an up and down motion and pushing on your frame perpendicular to your movement, the shock is moving back an forth in the direction you are going. Even though the back movement may cancel the forward movement, it at least cancels, wheras the up and down movement is all wasted. It may not be a big thing, like you would not bother to worry about it on a motorcycle or a car, but on a bike where you are dealing with something like 1/4 horsepower, I think it is not just theoretical.
    Good points! I definitely see an Evo in my future...

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hardway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    768
    DirtDad: how does the new geometry compare when descending? I have adapted to my Evo's climbing position and really like it actually, but the bike truly shines on the downs. I would be scared to lose some of that magic with the new specs.

  9. #9
    locked - time out
    Reputation: TIMBERRR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,389
    Just wondering what the axlepath on the EVO looks like.

    I know the Moment is nearly verticle. It would be cool to see a side by side axle path Comparo on a graph. EVO vs. Moment.

  10. #10
    Compulsive Bike Builder
    Reputation: DirtDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,512

    Trade off

    Quote Originally Posted by hardway
    DirtDad: how does the new geometry compare when descending? I have adapted to my Evo's climbing position and really like it actually, but the bike truly shines on the downs. I would be scared to lose some of that magic with the new specs.
    That is a trade off, for sure. The slack EVO descends like nothing else out there. I do not know what the head angle is for sure, but I would be willing to bet it is slacker than the spec on the web page. I never had so much fun as throwing the slack EVO over drops and steep stuff, it makes you feel indestructible like there is no way to go over the bars. The AM model desends nicely and stable, too, but not like the slack EVO does.
    Disclaimer: ComCycle USA

  11. #11

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    I would expect it to be some type of forward arc.

  12. #12
    Compulsive Bike Builder
    Reputation: DirtDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,512

    A couple ways to look at it

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    I still don't understand how Chumba says they're not part of the FSR patent. I'm sure the linkage performance is nice, but it seems to only be another variant of another FSR design.
    The FSR is not a patent on the Horst link itself. It is a patent on it in combination with other suspension features. If you can come up with an overall suspension that is different enough, it will not be covered by the FSR patent. It is even better if you apply for a patent of your own for your own combination of features.

    Ellsworth ICT is an example of this. It uses the Horst link, they say they align the linkages in a certain way the FSR does not specify, they put their own patent on it, and voila! Legal non-FSR Horst link.

    Giant, on the other hand, never put a patent on their NRS design as far as I know. NRS certainly did some things that FSR does not in general. They decided to go with Maestro instead for their own reasons.

    The Titus Motolite is another example. It is clearly NOT FSR, it is a Horst link on a Mac Strut for crying out loud. This reeks of Titus just rolling over and paying licensing fees rather than taking on Specialized lawyers.

    The Mac Strut suspension is past the point where you can patent it. You cannot take a common design that companies have used for years and never patented, then submit a patent for it and try to make others start to pay licensing fees.

    The XCL is a Mac Strut Horst link also. I am pretty sure Chumba is ready to stand up and defend this bike when they get the inevitable phone call from Specialized's legal squad. I hope they win. I think they should call Titus when that happens and team up. I love rooting for the little guy.
    Disclaimer: ComCycle USA

  13. #13

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    Quote Originally Posted by DirtDad
    The FSR is not a patent on the Horst link itself. It is a patent on it in combination with other suspension features. If you can come up with an overall suspension that is different enough, it will not be covered by the FSR patent. It is even better if you apply for a patent of your own for your own combination of features.

    Ellsworth ICT is an example of this. It uses the Horst link, they say they align the linkages in a certain way the FSR does not specify, they put their own patent on it, and voila! Legal non-FSR Horst link.

    Giant, on the other hand, never put a patent on their NRS design as far as I know. NRS certainly did some things that FSR does not in general. They decided to go with Maestro instead for their own reasons.

    The Titus Motolite is another example. It is clearly NOT FSR, it is a Horst link on a Mac Strut for crying out loud. This reeks of Titus just rolling over and paying licensing fees rather than taking on Specialized lawyers.

    The Mac Strut suspension is past the point where you can patent it. You cannot take a common design that companies have used for years and never patented, then submit a patent for it and try to make others start to pay licensing fees.

    The XCL is a Mac Strut Horst link also. I am pretty sure Chumba is ready to stand up and defend this bike when they get the inevitable phone call from Specialized's legal squad. I hope they win. I think they should call Titus when that happens and team up. I love rooting for the little guy.
    Actually, the EW ICT design is part of the FSR licensing system.

    The moto lite and similar designs are not mac struts. please look up the true definition and not mtb message board bastardizations and mistruths.

    The Giant design did use a Horst Link and they did pay Specialized for the license, even though it didn't behave as an FSR was designed to. And look at the location of that pivot position.

    I understand you're a dealer of Chumba and stand to gain from getting them out there, but spreading incorrect information via message boards, whether out of lack of knowledge or not is not a way to drum up business.

    Specialized has blocked companies even larger than themselves, ie: Scott and Giant. While I don't care for them, I think they'd have no trouble crushing Chumba. Hell, they even had two of the designers pay license fees in their own companies.

  14. #14
    locked - time out
    Reputation: TIMBERRR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by DirtDad
    That is a trade off, for sure. The slack EVO descends like nothing else out there. I do not know what the head angle is for sure, but I would be willing to bet it is slacker than the spec on the web page. I never had so much fun as throwing the slack EVO over drops and steep stuff, it makes you feel indestructible like there is no way to go over the bars. The AM model desends nicely and stable, too, but not like the slack EVO does.
    How would the AM seat angle effect decending? I don't know about you guy's but I don't sit for that part of the ride.

    I didn't think they did anything to the head angle?

  15. #15
    Compulsive Bike Builder
    Reputation: DirtDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,512
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Actually, the EW ICT design...they even had two of the designers pay license fees in their own companies.
    Thanks for all the good info, always willing to get more input, that is what I love about these forums.
    Disclaimer: ComCycle USA

  16. #16

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    EW won't say it, but I got the scoop and they do. It's been posted where I got it from before.

  17. #17
    MTBGremmie
    Reputation: jSatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by DirtDad
    .........

    I think there really is something to the whole FC2 thing. Instead of having a shock doing an up and down motion and pushing on your frame perpendicular to your movement, the shock is moving back an forth in the direction you are going. Even though the back movement may cancel the forward movement, it at least cancels, wheras the up and down movement is all wasted. It may not be a big thing, like you would not bother to worry about it on a motorcycle or a car, but on a bike where you are dealing with something like 1/4 horsepower, I think it is not just theoretical.
    The energy of the shock piston is obviously buffered by displacement of a viscous liquid, and conversion to heat. As nothing is perfect, the remaining vectoral energy should affect its contact point by both adding motion and vibration. As you said, for a motorcycle or car this is no problem- lots of mass to absorb that energy. The lighter weight of a bike should present a different paradigm.

    It would 'seem' that the downward movement of the rocker arm/shock of the Ells might actually offset the upward movement of the rear wheel grounding the bike. Mounting the shock horizontally might give more of a forward push (and who couldn't use a little push from time to time ). However, it would seem that the optimal mounting of a shock in this direction would be the down tube where excess energy would be distributed to the bottom bracket and headtube. Although this horizontal mount might somewhat affect de-weighting of the front wheel, mounting on the top tube would seem to have an even more profound effect on de-weighting and steering vibrations. These effects should be minimal unless the shock goes off perfect horizontal and points upwards (think lift).


    Just an idea.
    Last edited by jSatch; 05-10-2007 at 05:26 PM.

  18. #18
    Compulsive Bike Builder
    Reputation: DirtDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,512

    A little follow up

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Actually, the EW ICT design is part of the FSR licensing system.
    Is that the scoop you mention below? Where you say "EW won't say it, but I got the scoop and they do. It's been posted where I got it from before."? So in other words, they pay an FSR license in secret? But you know about it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    The moto lite and similar designs are not mac struts. please look up the true definition and not mtb message board bastardizations and mistruths.
    I was quoting Mountain Bike Action from their review of the bike this month, June 2007. A great review, by the way. At the top of page 84 they refer to the XCL as a "Swing link guided Mac Strut." I accept their descriptoin over others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    The Giant design did use a Horst Link and they did pay Specialized for the license, even though it didn't behave as an FSR was designed to. And look at the location of that pivot position.
    So we agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    I understand you're a dealer of Chumba and stand to gain from getting them out there, but spreading incorrect information via message boards, whether out of lack of knowledge or not is not a way to drum up business.
    I am not spreading incorrect information as far as I can tell. Nothing you have stated here makes me think otherwise. Perhaps you disagree, that is fine. I quit a corporate job to pursue my dream of making a living in the bike business even though it means making less money. For that, I am not allowed to have input in public forums without having my motivation called into question? We may disagree on some things (nothing big as far as I can tell), but I would never use that to impugn your character as you have with mine, sir.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Specialized has blocked companies even larger than themselves, ie: Scott and Giant. While I don't care for them, I think they'd have no trouble crushing Chumba. Hell, they even had two of the designers pay license fees in their own companies.
    We agree again.
    Disclaimer: ComCycle USA

  19. #19

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    Actually, I got the info direct from Specialized. I have posted it on this board before, so please do some searching. Your info on Specialized and FSR patents is incorrect as well.

    As far as the "swing link guided mac strut" phrase, please read carefully, as it seems that your ability to read things that are not aligned with your business is flawed. I mentioned there's a lot of BS in the bike industry, including making a lot of crap up. The "swing link guided" mac strut makes it otherwise by the exact nature of that phrase in quotes.

    You appear to have zero ability to analyze and understand any suspension design, let alone comment on one type you apparently are making a business around selling. If you can't understand suspension design and can't explain it, you'd do a big service to your business and Chumba by not speaking at all.

    I am still laughing at how you said the Motolite is "Clearly NOT FSR, but a Horst Link on a Mac Strut". This is one incredibly laughable statement you made that might even become a signature for me. It's so beyond ridiculous, I don't even know where to start.

    As far as motivation, you were really nowhere to be found in Chumba's corner until you became a dealer. This is a dicey area on these consumer forums and it amounts to shilling for sales, especially when you're actually bending the truth and pretending ignorance.

  20. #20
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Actually, I got the info direct from Specialized. I have posted it on this board before, so please do some searching. Your info on Specialized and FSR patents is incorrect as well.

    As far as the "swing link guided mac strut" phrase, please read carefully, as it seems that your ability to read things that are not aligned with your business is flawed. I mentioned there's a lot of BS in the bike industry, including making a lot of crap up. The "swing link guided" mac strut makes it otherwise by the exact nature of that phrase in quotes.

    You appear to have zero ability to analyze and understand any suspension design, let alone comment on one type you apparently are making a business around selling. If you can't understand suspension design and can't explain it, you'd do a big service to your business and Chumba by not speaking at all.

    I am still laughing at how you said the Motolite is "Clearly NOT FSR, but a Horst Link on a Mac Strut". This is one incredibly laughable statement you made that might even become a signature for me. It's so beyond ridiculous, I don't even know where to start.

    As far as motivation, you were really nowhere to be found in Chumba's corner until you became a dealer. This is a dicey area on these consumer forums and it amounts to shilling for sales, especially when you're actually bending the truth and pretending ignorance.
    A little harsh, don't you think JC? Maybe it's time to get out and go for a ride...after all, this is just the internet.
    Extreme stationary biker.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134

    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Actually, I got the info direct from Specialized. I have posted it on this board before, so please do some searching. Your info on Specialized and FSR patents is incorrect as well.

    As far as the "swing link guided mac strut" phrase, please read carefully, as it seems that your ability to read things that are not aligned with your business is flawed. I mentioned there's a lot of BS in the bike industry, including making a lot of crap up. The "swing link guided" mac strut makes it otherwise by the exact nature of that phrase in quotes.

    You appear to have zero ability to analyze and understand any suspension design, let alone comment on one type you apparently are making a business around selling. If you can't understand suspension design and can't explain it, you'd do a big service to your business and Chumba by not speaking at all.

    I am still laughing at how you said the Motolite is "Clearly NOT FSR, but a Horst Link on a Mac Strut". This is one incredibly laughable statement you made that might even become a signature for me. It's so beyond ridiculous, I don't even know where to start.

    As far as motivation, you were really nowhere to be found in Chumba's corner until you became a dealer. This is a dicey area on these consumer forums and it amounts to shilling for sales, especially when you're actually bending the truth and pretending ignorance.
    Jerkchicken, I think you should really take a step back. As someone with intimate knowledge of various suspension designs, patents, and related litigation, I must say that you are far beyond yourself with some of the personal attacks you are making against Dirtdad. For obvious reasons, I can't comment on much of this subject matter, but I would greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from making personal attacks on our forum. Thanks.
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  22. #22

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    Quote Originally Posted by CHUMBAevo
    Jerkchicken, I think you should really take a step back. As someone with intimate knowledge of various suspension designs, patents, and related litigation, I must say that you are far beyond yourself with some of the personal attacks you are making against Dirtdad. For obvious reasons, I can't comment on much of this subject matter, but I would greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from making personal attacks on our forum. Thanks.
    Actually, I made no personal attacks. I understand you're partnered with him, but that's no excuse for a business partner to throw out information that's not factual. In this case, it's better for your partner to be asked to bow out and not get involved with technical conversations. He may speak of the rides and what he found, but not go into the technical aspects.

    Additionally, I don't care for bullying from businesses, if this is what you're trying to imply. I have not made negative statements against Chumba, you should note, and I'm curious about how they ride, but at the same time, your dealers should not be bending the truth, such as making statements about something "not being FSR, but being a Horst Link".

    Please don't be so obtuse to think I have not read the patents myself and don't understand engineering in an intimate fashion.
    Last edited by Jerk_Chicken; 05-11-2007 at 08:28 AM. Reason: added quote for response

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134

    ..

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Actually, I made no personal attacks. I understand you're partnered with him, but that's no excuse for a business partner to throw out information that's not factual. In this case, it's better for your partner to be asked to bow out and not get involved with technical conversations. He may speak of the rides and what he found, but not go into the technical aspects.

    Additionally, I don't care for bullying from businesses, if this is what you're trying to imply. I have not made negative statements against Chumba, you should note, and I'm curious about how they ride, but at the same time, your dealers should not be bending the truth, such as making statements about something "not being FSR, but being a Horst Link".

    Please don't be so obtuse to think I have not read the patents myself and don't understand engineering in an intimate fashion.
    Fair enough -- now get out there and throw a leg over a CHUMBA!
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  24. #24

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    GET SOME DEALERS OUT HERE ALREADY!!!

    You guys out there forget about the other side of the country

  25. #25
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    You guys out there forget about the other side of the country
    JC, that's because the West is the best...and the East Coast is dumb.
    Extreme stationary biker.

  26. #26

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    DAAAAAAAMMMMMMMM!!!

    But our riders aren't Starbeans drinking sissies

  27. #27

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    208
    Hey JC thats al you had to say . I will be working on that as soon as I get back from Colorado. I have not forgot the other side . Its just a long drive. Contact the nearest dealer an tell him you are interested and they will order out a bike to demo . Some times it's up to the customers to show the shops what is cool . Well its back on the road for me .

    J

  28. #28
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    DAAAAAAAMMMMMMMM!!!

    But our riders aren't Starbeans drinking sissies
    Yes they are. Starbucks is on every street corner in the world. Prepare to be assimilated.
    Extreme stationary biker.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hardway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    768
    Hey JC, I think you're being way too critical of DD here. You guys obviously have a difference of opinion regarding this FSR patent stuff, and you may be totally right, I'm not qualified to make that determination. As far as I can tell, he was just trying to answer your original question as best he could.

    I don't see anything in his responses that amounts to "shilling for sales" or intentionally misleading anyone in an attempt to make money. Unless there's some backstory I'm not privy to here, I don't think DD deserves such harsh judgment.

    On another note, I hope you get a chance to try out some of Chumba's bikes soon. The suspension on my Evo kicks so much ass, no matter what you call it.

  30. #30
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,325
    nm...
    Last edited by Jayem; 05-11-2007 at 05:51 PM.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  31. #31
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,325
    Quote Originally Posted by DirtDad
    The Titus Motolite is another example. It is clearly NOT FSR, it is a Horst link on a Mac Strut for crying out loud. This reeks of Titus just rolling over and paying licensing fees rather than taking on Specialized lawyers.

    You obviously haven't been around enough to know that the AMP bikes were the original "horst link" bikes, and the B3/B4 were also both "mac strut" type bikes. I doubt you really know what you are talking about here, or what makes the bike a "horst link".

    Specialized bought the rights to produce bikes with the same arrangement at the rear axle/pivot.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  32. #32
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,325
    Quote Originally Posted by DirtDad
    I was quoting Mountain Bike Action
    This could be the problem.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  33. #33
    Compulsive Bike Builder
    Reputation: DirtDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,512

    Ugh

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    You obviously haven't been around enough to know that the AMP bikes were the original "horst link" bikes, and the B3/B4 were also both "mac strut" type bikes. I doubt you really know what you are talking about here, or what makes the bike a "horst link".

    Specialized bought the rights to produce bikes with the same arrangement at the rear axle/pivot.
    I was, I do. I know all of that. Go away. Please.
    Disclaimer: ComCycle USA

  34. #34

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    Don't forget the original Racer X, an improved version of an Amp Mac Strut suspension that no longer existed as a mac strut when that swing link was added. Such things that differentiate it from the mac strut is the influence the swing link has on the relative leverage throughout the stroke. I still have to point out that if you're claiming you know something, there are 100 people on this board reading what you wrote and rolling their eyes at what you posted. I mean, I can't even believe what I read between your posts.

  35. #35

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    Oh, btw, here's another ICT design that has no ICT sticker anywhere on it:


  36. #36

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    208
    The EVO rides great. Thatís all we need to know. The Force Channeling Centralization of the upper link transmits all your peddling forces to the down tube. This Isolates Vibration and shock resonance. The Inverted chain stay lug strengthens the lateral stability of the Bottom bracket. The FCC = Force Channeling Centralization also Cannels all your peddle force into forward motion with no peddle feed back even when climbing under load in rough terrain.

    Everyone loves the EVO. Let's just see smiles.8-)
    Our sales have been off the hook on the EVO and XCL . Sice our tour has launched. Now that everyone has had a chance to ride the world class Down hill bike, The calls have been rolling in like crazy.

    Please call the 1-800 # on our site if you want to get a chance to meet up with us and try a Chumba.

  37. #37
    MTBGremmie
    Reputation: jSatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    451
    Dear Jerk Chicken and Jayem,

    Perhaps you could define, specifically, the different suspension designs under discussion, and the differences you find so astronomically laughable.

    Please educate us less knowledgeable underlings so we too can get in on the joke.

  38. #38
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,325
    Quote Originally Posted by DirtDad
    I was, I do. I know all of that. Go away. Please.
    No, you don't know that. The B5 on the other hand was not a mac strut, it was a linkage design. The mac-strut was also on the SPECIALIZED GROUND CONTROL FSR bikes...hmm, seems like the mac-strut is NOT a differentiating factor here. The Titus on the other hand is linkage driven design, like the B5, although it uses a different linkage arrangement to acheive the same result. It only looks a little different. Difficult concept I know.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  39. #39
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,325
    Quote Originally Posted by jSatch
    Dear Jerk Chicken and Jayem,

    Perhaps you could define, specifically, the different suspension designs under discussion, and the differences you find so astronomically laughable.

    Please educate us less knowledgeable underlings so we too can get in on the joke.
    There are no different suspension designs under discussion.

    There's only one. The Horst link, which is what Specialized has patented as the "FSR".
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  40. #40

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    208

    The AMP research bikes .

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Don't forget the original Racer X, an improved version of an Amp Mac Strut suspension that no longer existed as a mac strut when that swing link was added. Such things that differentiate it from the mac strut is the influence the swing link has on the relative leverage throughout the stroke. I still have to point out that if you're claiming you know something, there are 100 people on this board reading what you wrote and rolling their eyes at what you posted. I mean, I can't even believe what I read between your posts.
    The Amp mac strut was interesting. You are so right about the big change by adding the swing link. That changed everything. With the amp I had back in the day I broke it every time I rode it. It was a wet noodle but it was lighter than most bikes today. I still have amp forks on an old bike in my garage. That poor thing is tired.
    They remind me of air plane landing gear. Thatís neat if you like that kind of thing.
    The mac strut was much like a cars mac strut. The top of the shock was clamped. The shock was part of the control arm. The mantis pro floater is a classic bike that also used it . That is a great riding XC bike if you can find one. One of the big problems with that design is your rear end would flex because the shock could never take the side load.
    My seat stays would smash into my seat tube all day on the amp. The seat stay was made of weak aluminum. The mantis used cromoly. At the time the amp was still a great bike even with all the problems it had. The amp still is but I would hang it on the wall because they are so cool looking. I remember taking the amp to big bear and running it down the mountain people thought I was crazy. The dbl down tubes have been known to break. This meant you would most definitely face plant. Well my opinion was if you ride clean / smooth this would not happen. Ok so it broke. But only the chain stays broke.
    I think riding all the bikes you can helps you understand what need to be done to make a bike better.
    With the bikes today the leverage ratio and the pivot location is everything.
    Iím not going to go into the legal facts about it. Who really cares anyways. It seems to me that riding should more on everyoneís list of things to do. All I am going to say is to put a patent on all pivot points on a bike is like trying to patent water of air. If you believe in all the stuff you read. There would only be one full suspension bike on the market. The patent is so vague it would mean no riding unless you rode the one bike that had the mighty patent. And just so you know there are several bikes out on the market that use suspension designs that we retired a long time ago. The Zulu has many imitators. Iím sure you already know that. I think that you all should be happy to have people like us build great bikes so you can enjoy riding. Letís leave the legal issues to the people whoís job that it is to deal with them. We all have the same goal to ride and let ride.
    (( B.T.W. how did this thread get so hi jacked?))

    ((Happy trails))

    Iím off to Moab

    J

  41. #41
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,325
    Quote Originally Posted by ChumbaJason
    The Amp mac strut was interesting. You are so right about the big change by adding the swing link. That changed everything.
    No, it changed the rate, and a different link can give you a different rate. It didn't change "everything", the design of the horst link is at the rear axle. That's like trying to say that a linkage actuated single pivot changes "everything" as opposed to a monopivot bike, and that's just not a very accurate statement given that the pivot location (high, low, etc) will have a huge influence on the suspension. The rate may have changed, but that can be a good or bad change, or not even necessary.

    It would be accurate to say that moving to linkage actuated horst link bikes was a big step up, but it's still a horst link bike, and it's what's going on at the rear axle that defines it as such, so it didn't "change everything" in regards to the horst link/FSR.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  42. #42
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    No, it changed the rate, and a different link can give you a different rate. It didn't change "everything", the design of the horst link is at the rear axle. That's like trying to say that a linkage actuated single pivot changes "everything" as opposed to a monopivot bike, and that's just not a very accurate statement given that the pivot location (high, low, etc) will have a huge influence on the suspension. The rate may have changed, but that can be a good or bad change, or not even necessary.

    It would be accurate to say that moving to linkage actuated horst link bikes was a big step up, but it's still a horst link bike, and it's what's going on at the rear axle that defines it as such, so it didn't "change everything" in regards to the horst link/FSR.
    Too much coffee this morning? Or not enough?
    Extreme stationary biker.

  43. #43

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    Quote Originally Posted by geolover
    Too much coffee this morning? Or not enough?
    I don't think that's fair.

    The reason I believe this manifested itself is because this is a consumer forum. I presented my thoughts asking about what makes Chumba think their suspension design is so different from everything out there. While it's appreciated they have a presence on the forum, it's important they make people understand what makes the XCL, for instance, so different from a Motolite, especially since they're claiming different technology. While we can dismiss this, what would make me understand is telling me what their interpretation means to me, as a rider. That is at the core of the issue and Chumba has not made this clear in any way. DD went on further to represent Chumba, as he is a partner of theirs, and make completely false and evasive statements, after which, he was again corrected. This is where Chumbaevo made some bullying statements, later softened, to indicate their belief that the consumer isn't as intelligent, educated, and versed in this area of design, as if it is above us.

    The moral to the story is a company should NEVER think its potential customers and consumers as a whole are not as intelligent as them and not capable of understand, or even learning for that matter. Surf around and you'll see many here even helping with the design characteristics with the manufacturers. The thoughts of the consumer are more valuable than you think and we don't like being lied to or being spoken down to.

    This is basically what happened.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hardway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    768
    This is basically what happened.
    Let's get real for a moment.
    "Basically what happened" is you got bored from swingin' on DT's nutsack over at the Turner forum, and came over here trolling for fun. You hooked DD, and then proceeded to start a fight where there wasn't one.

    Chumbaevo asked you not to be a dick in his company's forum (obviously impossible for you) and you proceeded to accuse him of threatening you, even though he didn't. Just like DD never tried to sell you anything.

    I think DT's left ball is drying out, why don't you see to that?

  45. #45

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    Quote Originally Posted by hardway
    Let's get real for a moment.
    "Basically what happened" is you got bored from swingin' on DT's nutsack over at the Turner forum, and came over here trolling for fun. You hooked DD, and then proceeded to start a fight where there wasn't one.

    Chumbaevo asked you not to be a dick in his company's forum (obviously impossible for you) and you proceeded to accuse him of threatening you, even though he didn't. Just like DD never tried to sell you anything.

    I think DT's left ball is drying out, why don't you see to that?
    Wow, so you attack me by attacking another person. I suggest you actually attack that person directly. Myself, I couldn't care less about what you say about this person. I just ask you go over there and do it directly.

    Additionally, your view of the facts are skewed. You are also using terminology that is incorrect. I mentioned being "bullied", after which point things have been settled. The latter part of this is key because you only showed up now to bring this back and it's likely you're actually here to troll.

    I posted constructive criticism for Chumba. Could it be a bit harsh? Well, if they want things sugar-coated, yeah, but I got directly to the point. I told them to have this dealer keep his mouth closed when something technical comes up and I told them to respect and not underestimate the intelligence of their customer base. This is key in this business that's so hard to break into and so hard to get yourself noticed above the competitors. It's only made tougher when the customers are underestimated in their intelligence and ask about details, but don't get any, but then get a dealer that makes incorrect/untrue statements.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SoCal66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    74
    All I have to say is that the EVO is a solid platform and the guys at Chumba are top-notch. Very versatile frame design...not to mention just as much fun to look at as it is to ride

  47. #47
    MTBGremmie
    Reputation: jSatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by jSatch
    Dear Jerk Chicken and Jayem,

    Perhaps you could define, specifically, the different suspension designs under discussion, and the differences you find so astronomically laughable.

    Please educate us less knowledgeable underlings so we too can get in on the joke.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    There are no different suspension designs under discussion.

    There's only one. The Horst link, which is what Specialized has patented as the "FSR".

    Sarcasm is truely dead.

  48. #48

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by jSatch
    Sarcasm is truely dead.
    I don't think sarcasm is dead, I think Jerk Chicken posts to threads to start arguments.
    I have seen this exact scenario go down before in other threads and it usually involves JAywhatever his name is. They both post a lot and pick fights. There is nothing wrong with Chumba and there patents, people like em and thats all that matters, these guys just want some entertainment. Don't give in to the temptation to respond to them.

  49. #49
    MTBGremmie
    Reputation: jSatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by walrasian
    I don't think sarcasm is dead, I think Jerk Chicken posts to threads to start arguments.
    I have seen this exact scenario go down before in other threads and it usually involves JAywhatever his name is. They both post a lot and pick fights. There is nothing wrong with Chumba and there patents, people like em and thats all that matters, these guys just want some entertainment. Don't give in to the temptation to respond to them.
    Actually it was my original post that was meant to be sarcastic.

    On to the bigger issue you bring up, yes I agree it appears there were some rather aggressive statements made, under the guise of petty distinctions in linkage. I don’t know where Chumba claimed anything officially about their linkages, only that they were not at liberty to discuss the patent wording, or something thereabouts.

    I have had communication with both DirtDad and Chumba beyond this forum and I found them friendly, knowledgeable, and enthusiastic. Even under the language posed in this thread I feel both DirtDad and Chumba handled the situation with grace and dignity. More than I could say for myself, had it been me.

    And as for DirtDad, or maybe from the 'shilling for sales' accusation should be called DirtBag, this couldn’t be more off the mark. DirtDad made me a remarkable offer on a demo Evo. When I told him I needed to cannibalize my old ride for parts he asked about those parts. He said the (120mm XC) fork would not be suitable for the (AM) Evo and knowingly lost the sale rather than have an unhappy customer.

    Yes, come to think of it, I have been secretly shedding a tear, or two or three, every night thinking about the Evo…......

    Maybe they were right…..........

    Damn you Dirt Dad. Why couldn't you just shill for sales!!!!!

    Last edited by jSatch; 05-16-2007 at 05:13 PM.

  50. #50
    MTBGremmie
    Reputation: jSatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Wow, so you attack me by attacking another person.
    I only read his comments as being directed towards you, not at Turner, if that's what you meant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Additionally, your view of the facts are skewed. You are also using terminology that is incorrect.
    The Mac(pherson) strut may have been a bastardized term coming from an earlier bike strut design, however, from what I understand the true design as it applies to cars was bastardized in the first place when adapted to bikes. I suppose that means the current design is bastard squared?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    I posted constructive criticism for Chumba.
    I think I may have missed the constructive part.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Could it be a bit harsh?
    I think most would consider it was your approach that over the top, so I guess it all depends on how you define harsh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Well, if they want things sugar-coated, yeah, but I got directly to the point. I told them to have this dealer keep his mouth closed when something technical comes up and I told them to respect and not underestimate the intelligence of their customer base. This is key in this business that's so hard to break into and so hard to get yourself noticed above the competitors. It's only made tougher when the customers are underestimated in their intelligence and ask about details, but don't get any, but then get a dealer that makes incorrect/untrue statements.
    I agree completely with your reasoning here in regards to educating vs misleading the customer base. However, all the knowledge you apparently have in suspension design only comes across as an aggressive diatribe in nit-picking. I think it would have been far more valuable to explain WHY the technicalities you describe are important changes and HOW they might translate into differences in riding.

    Now that would have been constructive.

    I look forward to your addressing these issues.

  51. #51
    locked - time out
    Reputation: TIMBERRR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by hardway
    "Basically what happened" is you got bored from swingin' on DT's nutsack over at the Turner forum, and came over here trolling for fun.

    This is friggin hilarious!!!!

  52. #52
    MTBGremmie
    Reputation: jSatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by TIMBERRR
    This is friggin hilarious!!!!
    ditto

  53. #53
    nerfherder
    Reputation: scruffylooking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,674
    Blah blah blah blah...

    Whatever Chumba uses, it rides like magic.

  54. #54

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    208

    Well Said

    ((( WELL SAID ))) 8-)

    Quote Originally Posted by jSatch
    I only read his comments as being directed towards you, not at Turner, if that's what you meant.



    The Mac(pherson) strut may have been a bastardized term coming from an earlier bike strut design, however, from what I understand the true design as it applies to cars was bastardized in the first place when adapted to bikes. I suppose that means the current design is bastard squared?



    I think I may have missed the constructive part.



    I think most would consider it was your approach that over the top, so I guess it all depends on how you define harsh.



    I agree completely with your reasoning here in regards to educating vs misleading the customer base. However, all the knowledge you apparently have in suspension design only comes across as an aggressive diatribe in nit-picking. I think it would have been far more valuable to explain WHY the technicalities you describe are important changes and HOW they might translate into differences in riding.

    Now that would have been constructive.

    I look forward to your addressing these issues.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hardway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    768
    TIMBERRR
    How would the AM seat angle effect decending? I don't know about you guy's but I don't sit for that part of the ride.

    I didn't think they did anything to the head angle?
    I've been thinking about this since you made this post. I've only been able to ride twice, but I've tried to analyze my descents as best as possible in regards to this question.

    I find that, while I stand up off the seat for the majority of my downs, I kind of hover around my seat, and clench and bump the front and sides of my saddle with my knees as I'm going downhill. If the seat was farther forward in it's down position, I think I'd wind up being farther forward too, doing the same thing.
    Plus, the angle of the seat post on my Evo is such that when I drop the seat for the downhill sections, the cockpit definitely gets smaller.
    If the seat were moved forward while extended, I'd think it would be forward even more when the seat is put down. I wouldn't want to lose the space in the cockpit, but I have a long torso and arms.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.