Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: xl_cheese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    523

    geeky techy post here.

    I stumbled across this online article that analyzes a lot of suspension designs.

    I don't understand all of the hoopla yet, but it seems the author tries to explain holes in ellsworths theories.

    http://www.mtbcomprador.com/content/...9/105/1/4/#ICT

    Can anyone find the holes in the article?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    113
    I just read it 4 times, and still can't make sense of it. We need one of the techies to translate....

  3. #3
    Time is not a road.
    Reputation: chad1433's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    4,146
    I've read this before. It pokes holes in all suspension designs (if you see the entire paper) and says that single pivot is generally the best design. But it's from a purely static point of veiw and doesn't seem to take into account how the bike rides.

  4. #4
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,096

    exactly...

    Quote Originally Posted by chad1433
    I've read this before. It pokes holes in all suspension designs (if you see the entire paper) and says that single pivot is generally the best design. But it's from a purely static point of veiw and doesn't seem to take into account how the bike rides.
    they put few designs under the microscope - and no one is as they claim to be - go figure...

    too much physics and static laws, not enough riding...

    who really cares...

  5. #5
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,117
    This website it pretty old and has been beaten to death on the forums in the past.

    The only real thing to believe here is "ignore all marketing."

  6. #6
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,678
    A classic example of "armchair philosophy"...throw in a little jargon, structure your phrases to imply a gentle disdain, word your analysis with a negative weighting to the claims made by the target, and be vague enough to give you some wiggle room should anyone question your findings.

    Nowhere does this article involve an actual bike, just a patent document and a desire to discredit the thesis. These types of articles are always written in a vacuum and draw only on theories that support a predetermined conclusion. The dead givaway is the fact that the positive position is never examined.

    A classic example of the way most academics try to envision reality without stepping out their door...just a paid writer with a good vocabulary and some training in physics being paid to put a negative spin on a patent...probably another bike company who can't compete with Ellsworth on the strength of their product alone...something to send out with their marketing and product knowledge kit.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: xl_cheese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    523
    I actually started to question the ICT stuff when I read this on ells website:

    http://www.ellsworthbikes.com/bikes/...ngle-pivot.cfm

    Comparing "atlas" to a single pivot.

    total propaganda.

    THe ICT explaination looses credibility because of it.

  8. #8
    853+29+1x24=Fun
    Reputation: kev0153's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,020
    I don't really buy into the 100% effiecent thing or any of the marketing. I could care less about patents etc... What I do like is the way the bike rides. My Id rides great and everybody that rides it likes it. That's all that matters to me. I have a buddy who is trying to talk him self into buying a Moment after riding my Id.

  9. #9
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573

    I'm your man

    Quote Originally Posted by xl_cheese
    I stumbled across this online article that analyzes a lot of suspension designs.

    I don't understand all of the hoopla yet, but it seems the author tries to explain holes in ellsworths theories.

    http://www.mtbcomprador.com/content/...9/105/1/4/#ICT

    Can anyone find the holes in the article?
    This paper was the result of arguments that Ken Sasaki, the author, had here on MTBR, mainly with me. This was about 5 years ago. In many respects he was wrong then and still wrong now. I'll explain how but it will take some time and right now I have something I have to do.

    Stay tuned.

  10. #10
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,117
    Quote Originally Posted by xl_cheese
    I actually started to question the ICT stuff when I read this on ells website:

    http://www.ellsworthbikes.com/bikes/...ngle-pivot.cfm

    Comparing "atlas" to a single pivot.

    total propaganda.

    THe ICT explaination looses credibility because of it.
    Exactly! Futhermore, the joking nature makes the whole thing seem like a joke! Tell it like it is if you think you have something good. That +/- table is pathetic at best!

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    26
    Hmmm.... can't say I ever take what's written on a manufacturer's website without a grain (or spoon) of salt. I like my moment - regardless of ICT marketing. Rides great and has really made me more confident on things that I was nervous about before.

    As an aside, I've heard that the DW link is the best designed suspension setup (physics-ly speaking). Can anyone confirm or deny?

    Grant

  12. #12
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,117
    Quote Originally Posted by fringe_dweller

    As an aside, I've heard that the DW link is the best designed suspension setup (physics-ly speaking). Can anyone confirm or deny?

    Grant
    Man I love reading that DW link stuff. http://www.dw-link.com/reasons.html

    I think sometimes it works like this with the marketing folks:

    1. Make up a random suspension system.
    2. Study it enough to write a English 101 essay arguing why it's the best (remember in english critical writing it wasn't what you were writing about, it was how well you argued the point). Use lots of partially related physics examples to prove your point. Make sure they are simple enough though so that you can find one case that applies to your system and show how all the others don't have it.


    With that said, lets now debate on whether the Horst link or chainstay faux-bar is a better geometry.

  13. #13
    "Its All Good"
    Reputation: Whafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    10,683
    We wait Steve with anticipation, you will write it with good plain speaking english
    The_Lecht_Rocks: whafe - cheeers - may i offer an official apology for the wagon wheeler "dis-belief"

  14. #14
    trail fairy
    Reputation: trailadvent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    9,546
    My 2c

    Forget the marketing!

    Ride and know

    thats all ya need.

    I have become a little selfish on this topic myself, if people need to make this big a deal about Es then go ride something else, personally I don't want to see stacks of Es on my trails.
    I brought mine because I wanted something different from everybody else.

    And I'm a happy camper
    "Those that ride know" like your work!!!

    Ride time, Later..
    Just riding a muddy trail. . ..

    MAXXIS 4C!
    Helmet for your neck

    Leatt FAQs


  15. #15
    MTB Coyote
    Reputation: greg.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    63

    Hmmmmm

    Interesting to see a tech article that challenges the ICT theory. I think that it is good thing that bicycle manufacturers are scrutinised when making claims that are likely to influence consumers in choosing thier products over thier competitors. Keeps them honest !

    I would really like to see the response given by the techs who awarded the patent in the first place! I reckon that the articles assertion (did I read it right?) that the suspension design is no more efficient than other designs is definitely wrong. We can't all be that dumb ? Maybe Ellsworth just know it works, but have absolute no idea how or why ?

    I think the guys at Ellsworth are first and foremost riders like you and I. They probably stumbled across the design and thought " Hey man putting the pivot over here really works well ! " Even if ICT is absolute crap, Ellsworth suspension designs still have a solid reputation of being some of the best. I think that this reputation was built more on the experience of Ellworth bicycle riders than on marketing hype!

    As trailadvent pointed out! (and Tony E) "Those who ride know".

  16. #16
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573

    Are you ready?

    I can't make this completely non-techy, because the subject is very techy.

    Much of Sasaki's paper is accurate enough but I will focus on his main attack on Ellsworth's ICT theory. That is the idea that the chain line passing through the IC is neutral. Sasaki's theory is that a chain parallel to the axle to IC line is the neutral line instead.

    If you do something like his "wheel on a pole" experiment, it will indeed show that the only way the pole won't fall is if you pull parallel to it. If we were dealing with a wheel on a bike spinning freely with no traction, a chain parallel to the axle/IC line would in fact be neutral and not produce any suspension movement. And a chain passing through the IC would tend to extend the suspension. But that bike ain't going nowhere.

    The only resistance that the chain would be overcoming is the resistance of the wheel itself to being rotated. But if we had traction then the wheel would not be spinning but rolling. And as it rolls it forces the mass of the bike and rider to move. The resistance of this mass is much much greater than the resistance of the wheel to spinning.

    Now a machine will always take the path of least resistance. Although a "moment" or rotational force is always produced when a line of force does not pass through a potential pivot point for a body that the force is acting on, the moment may be superseded by some other moment if the resistance is less.

    With no traction the path of least resistance is for the parallel chain to rotate the wheel and not move the swingarm (or floating link) even though the chain passing above the pivot or IC creates a compressive moment around the pivot. That's because the resistance of the wheel to rotating on its axle is less than the resistance of the dead weight of the wheel at the end of the swingarm to being rotated around its pivot.

    But with traction the rotation of the wheel means the acceleration of the entire mass of the bike. The path of least resistance with a parallel chain would be for the suspension to compress some as the wheel rotated because it would mean the mass would be accelerated less.

    There's much more to it than this. But I hope this at least gives some idea of what is wrong with the approach in Ken Sasaki's PATH ANALYSIS.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: adlo76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    115

    Wink

    blah blah blah...
    haha..seriously, nothing like complicating articles to simplify things eh?

    hence the "those who ride know"

  18. #18
    Brass Nipples!
    Reputation: Bob the Wheelbuilder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,006
    Quote Originally Posted by adlo76
    blah blah blah...
    haha..seriously, nothing like complicating articles to simplify things eh?

    hence the "those who ride know"
    Adam, howya been?
    {Principal Skinner} Hmm. Whoever did this is in very deep trouble.
    {Martin} And a sloppy speller too. The preferred spelling of 'wiener' is w - i - e - n - e - r, although 'e - i' is an acceptable ethnic variant.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: adlo76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    115
    Been very well Bob Thanks for askin.
    How about you? (& I guess the rest of yous guys in here too)

  20. #20
    Trail rider and racer
    Reputation: Trevor!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,691
    Quote Originally Posted by xl_cheese
    I stumbled across this online article that analyzes a lot of suspension designs.

    I don't understand all of the hoopla yet, but it seems the author tries to explain holes in ellsworths theories.

    http://www.mtbcomprador.com/content/...9/105/1/4/#ICT

    Can anyone find the holes in the article?

    I believe there are holes within the ICT concept but it has been worded by a marketing department so it makes sense to the consumer even if some of it isn't 99.9% correct. Would you buy a bike, car or fly a plane if it was explained to you in a scientific manner?
    Trev!

  21. #21
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by adlo76
    blah blah blah...
    haha..seriously, nothing like complicating articles to simplify things eh?

    hence the "those who ride know"
    So I'll make it simpler.

    There's nothing wrong with Tony E's theory that the chain line running through the IC means no effect from the chain tension on the suspension. Ken Sasaki's attack on it is based on mistaken physics. The mistake lies in not distinguishing between a freely spinning wheel with no traction and a rolling wheel with traction driving the bike.

  22. #22
    Brass Nipples!
    Reputation: Bob the Wheelbuilder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,006
    Quote Originally Posted by adlo76
    Been very well Bob Thanks for askin.
    How about you? (& I guess the rest of yous guys in here too)
    I've been great. Don't y'all be such a stranger.
    {Principal Skinner} Hmm. Whoever did this is in very deep trouble.
    {Martin} And a sloppy speller too. The preferred spelling of 'wiener' is w - i - e - n - e - r, although 'e - i' is an acceptable ethnic variant.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    So I'll make it simpler.

    There's nothing wrong with Tony E's theory that the chain line running through the IC means no effect from the chain tension on the suspension. Ken Sasaki's attack on it is based on mistaken physics. The mistake lies in not distinguishing between a freely spinning wheel with no traction and a rolling wheel with traction driving the bike.

    I think that the PA paper is outdated too, but it's a good way to start reading and learnig about MTBs suspensions. Steve, you should have a website explaining all you know about this stuff.


    Happy Trais.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: adlo76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    So I'll make it simpler.

    There's nothing wrong with Tony E's theory that the chain line running through the IC means no effect from the chain tension on the suspension. Ken Sasaki's attack on it is based on mistaken physics. The mistake lies in not distinguishing between a freely spinning wheel with no traction and a rolling wheel with traction driving the bike.
    THanks for the simplification, but I think you missed my point.
    I could care less about all the scientific lingo.
    I have an Ells. It works better than any full suspension I've ever ridden, and I've ridden many.
    I dig it.
    Eazy peezy.

  25. #25
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by adlo76
    I have an Ells. It works better than any full suspension I've ever ridden, and I've ridden many.
    Ditto for me.

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.