Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 106
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,251

    Funky linkage bike

    Just saw this up on PB earlier today, really has me scratching my head and asking why.
    Yes to be different sometimes you need to be a lot not like everyone else, but something this proprietary, really? I don't think it'll take off because of how proprietary it is, that you have to buy an entire bike, no choice and then ontop of that, it's FUGLY as hell.

    https://www.pinkbike.com/news/struct...tler-2017.html

    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  2. #2
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    3,770
    I thought Scurra II was the pinnacle of bad design, but then here we are.....






    I want one


    won't sell though.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUsl-qb138A
    "Put your seatbelt back on or get out and sit in the middle of that circle of death." - Johnny Scoot

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    477
    I dig it. Telescopic forks are a poor compromise for the stresses involved in moto and MTB . Necessitating larger and larger structural components to counter them. Linkage designs if done right are superior in every way. Hope this works. I'll be 1st in line.
    But hey.... I am a Mech Engr. geek.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,604
    I see it as overly heavy and complicated for what it is. I am also a mech engineer. There are quite a number of pivot points on this design and from a pure design standpoint there is no reason it can't work. The problem I see is if it is actually better than a standard fork all things considered.

    It might be smoother, but it is 2lbs heavier then that is a problem.

    Appearance is only a concern if you are shallow. If it works then do it. I still think a left looks all wrong, but I know they work. However they don't see to work as well as normal forks all things considered. If they were they would be alot more common than what they are. The latest "new" front suspension design was the Rock Shock RS-1. This fork by all accounts works, but has not really taken hold in the market place. Seems to me it advantages are not significantly large enough to counter its drawbacks. I am not sure if more technological development would resolve these, but for now it looks like a dead end.

    The Lauf fork is another. It is not true suspension in that it has no true damping, but it also has not taken hold. Some guy like them, but it not a rigid fork nor it a true suspension fork. It somewhere in between leaving it no-mans land currently. These are all designs the are easy retro fits to existing bikes.
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", Vassago Verhauen SS 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4,516
    With linkage, you can control how the front end geometry changes over the range of compression. You can also include anti dive and eliminate compression friction due to braking forces. Things like this have been tried many times on motos. Whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages is the question.

    Adding damping to a Lauf fork would be pretty straightforward.
    Do the math.

  6. #6
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    3,770
    if this design were superior we'd see it on trials motos and stadiumcross and motocross

    in a lab, sure, it has huge benefit

    in practice, an operational and maintenance cycle, endless headaches

    BMW made the telelever, no one else jumped on that
    "Put your seatbelt back on or get out and sit in the middle of that circle of death." - Johnny Scoot

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    862
    Interesting. Looks just like a BMW Duolever. Though I'm sure, given the way linkages work in the bicycle industry, there's some subtle difference that makes it completely defensible in court.

    Name:  front_sus_rhs_bg.jpg
Views: 1881
Size:  36.0 KB

    I had an R1200GS, it was not an endless maintenance headache. Certainly no better or worse than the rear. Maybe easier since you can just pull off the shock rather than pull apart the fork. The Telelever works a lot like the sliding-linkage bikes this year, like the one from Marin.

  8. #8
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    3,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Lefty View Post
    Interesting. Looks just like a BMW Duolever. Though I'm sure, given the way linkages work in the bicycle industry, there's some subtle difference that makes it completely defensible in court.

    Name:  front_sus_rhs_bg.jpg
Views: 1881
Size:  36.0 KB

    I had an R1200GS, it was not an endless maintenance headache. Certainly no better or worse than the rear. Maybe easier since you can just pull off the shock rather than pull apart the fork. The Telelever works a lot like the sliding-linkage bikes this year, like the one from Marin.
    large heavy bearings and parts make it reliable for motorized

    human power, weight doesn't sell bikes
    "Put your seatbelt back on or get out and sit in the middle of that circle of death." - Johnny Scoot

  9. #9
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    32,470
    These linkage designs in one configuration or another have been around since the invention of mountain bike suspension. None have made it because of the complication and weight penalties.

    Next


    Edit: Here ya go. 2001 Whyte bikes fail.

    Funky linkage bike-img_3122.jpg
    Quote Originally Posted by mileslong View Post
    I passionately remove rocks and corners and other stuff I find too hard to ride.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by 127.0.0.1 View Post
    if this design were superior we'd see it on trials motos and stadiumcross and motocross

    in a lab, sure, it has huge benefit

    in practice, an operational and maintenance cycle, endless headaches

    BMW made the telelever, no one else jumped on that
    BMW telelever works well on the bikes they use it on. You have to commit to it though.

    Dave Weagle (DW link,Split Pivot, etc.) as well as Boyesen have had patented superior suspension designs for Moto bikes floating around in Prototype form for years but marketing issues have always kept the basic formats static. The Ribi designs back in the 80's were purchased by Honda who shelved them despite working better than conventional designs for cost reasons. Britten successfully raced a version of this front suspension years ago and would probably be a player today had he not died of cancer before it could be mass marketed.
    With Carbon Fiber now being common. This idea is worth another shot as I think it can match a Fox 36 in weight easily. With an coil option as well as air shocks. Think of the possibilities.
    Haters gonna hate.Carry on.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by DIRTJUNKIE View Post
    These linkage designs in one configuration or another have been around since the invention of mountain bike suspension. None have made it because of the complication and weight penalties.

    Next


    Edit: Here ya go. 2001 Whyte bikes fail.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_3122.jpg 
Views:	558 
Size:	138.7 KB 
ID:	1152148
    That bike failed for its poor rear suspension dynamics as much as the front end.

  12. #12
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    32,470
    Quote Originally Posted by chasejj View Post
    That bike failed for its poor rear suspension dynamics as much as the front end.
    . . . and the complexity and the weight and. . It's

    Funky linkage bike-img_3126.jpg
    Quote Originally Posted by mileslong View Post
    I passionately remove rocks and corners and other stuff I find too hard to ride.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    862
    BMW has sold many thousands of Telelever bikes. The Duolever started as an aftermarket adaptation of the Telelever. BMW is not a novice at this, they are the ones who started selling telescopic hydraulic forks when most bikes had a girder.

    There are other leading-link front suspension concepts for bikes. Some were inferior to hydraulic telescopic forks and some might be better - maybe not lighter or cheaper, but definitely better motion.

    I'm not convinced weight is such a big concern when it seems like the most popular form of MTB is a full suspension trail bike with increasingly huge wheels/tires. The concern with those bikes are efficient pedaling, effective downhill, and level braking. Complex rear suspension proved out - the rear suspension on an average trail bike is way more complicated than what's on an average motorcycle, with more links and a more complicated shock. Complex front could prove out too.

    FWIW, I agree that the bike in the article isn't pretty. The best looking FS bikes have some good design helping them.
    Last edited by Darth Lefty; 08-14-2017 at 11:37 PM.

  14. #14
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    32,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Lefty View Post
    BMW has sold many thousands of Telelever bikes. The Duolever started as an aftermarket adaptation of the Telelever. BMW is not a novice at this, they are the ones who started selling telescopic hydraulic forks when most bikes had a girder.

    There are other leading-link front suspension concepts for bikes. Some were inferior to hydraulic telescopic forks and some might be better - maybe not lighter or cheaper, but definitely better motion.

    I'm not convinced weight is such a big concern when it seems like the most popular form of MTB is a full suspension trail bike with increasingly huge wheels/tires. The concern with those bikes are efficient pedaling, effective downhill, and level braking. Complex rear suspension proved out - the rear suspension on an average trail bike is way more complicated than what's on an average motorcycle, with more links and a more complicated shock. Complex front could prove out too.

    FWIW, I agree that the bike in the article isn't pretty. The best looking FS bikes have some good design helping them.
    All legit concerns except you left out the fact that with all that new technology came carbon fiber. The larger wheels and longer suspension weight gains have been offset in a huge way by the addition of carbon fiber frames. A 6" carbon fiber bike of today with larger wheels averages 2lbs lighter than 4" suspended 26" wheel bikes of yesteryear.
    Quote Originally Posted by mileslong View Post
    I passionately remove rocks and corners and other stuff I find too hard to ride.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,199
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Just saw this up on PB earlier today, really has me scratching my head and asking why.
    Yes to be different sometimes you need to be a lot not like everyone else, but something this proprietary, really? I don't think it'll take off because of how proprietary it is, that you have to buy an entire bike, no choice and then ontop of that, it's FUGLY as hell.

    https://www.pinkbike.com/news/struct...tler-2017.html

    I'm absolutely convinced that I'd lose an extremity if I rode that bike and not out of choice either!

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kubikeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    846
    I think it's awesome that we're seeing a resurgence of "old" technology. Sometimes, ideas are ahead of their time, and as other technologies, materials or manufacturing techniques progress, it might begin to make more sense. Take wide rims for example. Remember Sun Double Wide? They had a whopping 33 mm internal width! Now, many riders, myself included, won't even look at a rim less than 30 mm. Modern aluminum and carbon manufacturing have brought the weights down, tire companies are offering wider sizes, and boost frames eliminate clearance issues. Now it all makes sense.

    I tip my beer to these guys! And from a purely industrial design esthetic, I think it looks amazing.
    The cake is a lie.

  17. #17
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    32,470
    Quote Originally Posted by kubikeman View Post
    I tip my beer to these guys! And from a purely industrial design esthetic, I think it looks amazingly flexy.
    Fixed that for you.
    Quote Originally Posted by mileslong View Post
    I passionately remove rocks and corners and other stuff I find too hard to ride.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,820
    Bob Girvin developed this fork in the mid '90s. I have never ridden one, but it was supposed to work fairly well until the bushings wore out. Not proprietary, either.

    Funky linkage bike-image.jpeg
    It just rolled in and rolled out again Β« Singletrack Forum

    It is interesting watching old technology make a comeback because of better materials and manufacturing processes. I'd love to try a linkage fork like this old Girvin with a new shock, bearings, and disc mounts. If a fork can maintain the wheelbase of the bike through the compression stroke, it should make the bike more stable when needed most. I don't think eliminating friction during braking is a good thing, though.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,919
    This design need to be test throughly before consumers will trust the brand

    Sent from my F3213 using Tapatalk

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    862
    That's an interesting one.

    The Telelever is more like a Macpherson strut, but the Duolever and Structure are like a wishbone. They completely divorce the fork's steering axis from the head tube. That opens up a lot of design space. You can run the steering on a different axis than the caster/HTA, like a car. And you can put the front wheel anywhere in relation to the steering, also like a car, if you want to. The steering linkage is interesting because it seems like it should eliminate bump steer, which is a built-in problem/feature of a wishbone front suspension on a car.

  21. #21
    In dog years, I'm dead.
    Reputation: burtronix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,038
    I'd ride that! I don't know that I'd buy it, but I'd ride it. And therein lies the marketing problem. I don't even have a problem with how it looks. As a matter of fact, I think I would enjoy the stares on the trail. I don't think the weight is a problem - that will come down & it looks to be moved further back relative to the wheel-base.

    But I don't think I'd pony up the $$$ until somebody else proves out the design for a few years.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might.... (Ecclesiastes 9:10)

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,919
    who will be the guinea pig to test ride that bike?

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,070
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    . If a fork can maintain the wheelbase of the bike through the compression stroke, it should make the bike more stable when needed most.
    Those forks actually had a "J" shaped axle travel path IIRC, moving rearward before upward. They loved to throw you over the bars (I definitely remember that correctly). Tracked well though.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,820
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    Those forks actually had a "J" shaped axle travel path IIRC, moving rearward before upward. They loved to throw you over the bars (I definitely remember that correctly). Tracked well though.
    Shouldn't the wheel move forward then backward as it compresses through the travel? If the linkage was designed to, it could move entirely forward until bottom out. It would still be on an arc, but that's a design variable.

  25. #25
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    4,614
    A thread was already started on this:

    http://forums.mtbr.com/frame-buildin...s-1053109.html

    Some interesting insight from some knowledgeable folk.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oh My Sack! View Post
    Remember, there's always quilting and knitting if pedalling becomes too tough.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,070
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Shouldn't the wheel move forward then backward as it compresses through the travel? If the linkage was designed to, it could move entirely forward until bottom out. It would still be on an arc, but that's a design variable.
    '

    Dunno what it should or shouldn't do, but it definitely tucked back before up. They were actually pretty good forks for the time back in the early to mid 90s.

    A friend of mine made this:

    Funky linkage bike-16114447_1908622692703333_4317684653596652511_n.jpg

    (Sorry couldn't get the vid to embed but shows it in motion)
    https://www.facebook.com/wraithbicyc...0303469201922/
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    862
    The fork needs to maintain trail through the motion so the steering remains stable, so wheelbase would be second fiddle to that.

  28. #28
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Just saw this up on PB earlier today, really has me scratching my head and asking why.
    Yes to be different sometimes you need to be a lot not like everyone else, but something this proprietary, really? I don't think it'll take off because of how proprietary it is, that you have to buy an entire bike, no choice and then ontop of that, it's FUGLY as hell.

    https://www.pinkbike.com/news/struct...tler-2017.html

    Hi Lynx,

    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so I'll address only the proprietary issue. With standards changing every season, the last thing we want to do is make our bike difficult to live with. You'll be happy to know you can buy only a frame and fork and all mounts are industry standard:


    • Shocks: 205 x 65 mm trunnion (front may use an extra low damping tune - to be determined during an upcoming test phase)
    • Brakes: Post (180 mm F & R)
    • BB: BSA
    • Hubs: Boost
    • Seatpost: 31.8 mm
    • Headsets: IS41 upper; IS52 lower
    • Tires: 27.5 x 2.6" with plenty of room to spare
    • Bearings: 6903 (Enduro Max are OE spec, with lifetime warranty)

    I'll also address the "why" question as concisely as possible

    1. A linkage design allows us to do things you simply can't do with a telescoping fork. We've chosen to focus on dynamic stability by slackening the head angle, increasing trail, and holding steady on front-centre length as the suspension compresses, whereas a telescoping fork does the opposite. Our design becomes most stable when you need it most. To put it another way, the geometry does what you would hope it would do under load.

    2. We were also able to reduce brake dive force by 40%. In our testing, too much anti-dive compromises suspension function.

    3. We matched the front and rear motion ratios for perfectly balanced progressivity at both ends.

    4. Forces are handled as efficiently as possible: the fork is kept short and stiff (that's a very large, hollow, carbon double-crown, connected to cross-braced links as wide as your dropouts); everything moves on bearings, rather than sticky, soft bushings (and the bearings are connected by colleted through-shafts and the frame is internally braced); and mass is kept low and centralized.

    5. Steering feel is actually more precise than with a telescoping fork due to everything moving on rigid bearings and using more torsionally stiff elements.

    6. Every pivot location is tuned for every size, resulting in consistent dynamics across the size range. We're the only company doing that! (A few companies adjust chainstay length and Commencal uses tuned progressivity, but no one else adjusts every point.)

    7. We have a unique approach to geometry. We offer three chassis with three distinct personalities. Just like how you choose your ski or snowboard length to suit your riding style, not your height, Structure cuts our seat tube and tailors the cockpit to fit you, allowing you to choose the chassis that suits your riding style, not your height. We also measure our fit parameters more realistically: for example, the seat tube angle is measured at the assumed hip height for each size, not at the convenient, but meaningless, industry standard of taking the angle at head tube height.

    8. The Horst Link rear was chosen because it provides consistent kinematics throughout the travel. Twin-short-link designs allow the designer to rapidly change the properties, which does have benefits, but can produce quirky side-effects.

    We believe the SCW 1 is the mos t neutral-handling bike ever created. It's a complex design that's intended to create a simpler, more confident ride by eliminating the bad habits of more conventional designs - a philosophy that goes beyond the ride dynamics and includes warranty (lifetime), maintenance (surprisingly easy), and purchasing (two month money back guarantee - four months for the first 50).

  29. #29
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by chasejj View Post
    I dig it. Telescopic forks are a poor compromise for the stresses involved in moto and MTB . Necessitating larger and larger structural components to counter them. Linkage designs if done right are superior in every way. Hope this works. I'll be 1st in line.
    But hey.... I am a Mech Engr. geek.
    Hi chasejj,

    Thank you! Telescoping forks have been refined to a remarkably capable state, but yes, they do have inherent limitations. Their best feature is the price and we can't top them there, but we've certainly improved on dynamic geometry and smoothness!

  30. #30
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    I see it as overly heavy and complicated for what it is. I am also a mech engineer. There are quite a number of pivot points on this design and from a pure design standpoint there is no reason it can't work. The problem I see is if it is actually better than a standard fork all things considered.

    It might be smoother, but it is 2lbs heavier then that is a problem.

    Appearance is only a concern if you are shallow. If it works then do it. I still think a left looks all wrong, but I know they work. However they don't see to work as well as normal forks all things considered. If they were they would be alot more common than what they are. The latest "new" front suspension design was the Rock Shock RS-1. This fork by all accounts works, but has not really taken hold in the market place. Seems to me it advantages are not significantly large enough to counter its drawbacks. I am not sure if more technological development would resolve these, but for now it looks like a dead end.

    The Lauf fork is another. It is not true suspension in that it has no true damping, but it also has not taken hold. Some guy like them, but it not a rigid fork nor it a true suspension fork. It somewhere in between leaving it no-mans land currently. These are all designs the are easy retro fits to existing bikes.
    Thanks for keeping an open mind, JoePAz. Although I feel weight is the most overrated parameter in our sport, we realize many people value it highly. Target weight for the final version is under 9 lbs for the frame and fork. We're not asking riders to take on a weight penalty. The structural advantages of centralizing the forces, eliminating sliding structural elements, and using more rigid contact points (bearings vs. bushings) keeps the weight under control. And our factory has done some amazing manufacturing engineering to help optimize the design.

  31. #31
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by 127.0.0.1 View Post
    if this design were superior we'd see it on trials motos and stadiumcross and motocross

    in a lab, sure, it has huge benefit

    in practice, an operational and maintenance cycle, endless headaches

    BMW made the telelever, no one else jumped on that
    Hi 127.0.0.1,

    We would rather be riding than wrenching, too, so the frame has a lifetime warranty that includes bearings! If you ever need to change them, they're one of the most common sizes in the mountain bike world and they can be driven out from the opposite side. Easiest bearing replacement you'll ever do.

    To address your weight concerns, the chassis is right in the middle of the weight range for full carbon enduro bikes.

    Thanks for posting Steve's Tuesday Tune video. He's one of my favourite people in the bike industry and we spoke a couple times at Crankworx. His optimism about our ideas means a great deal to us.

  32. #32
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Lefty View Post
    Interesting. Looks just like a BMW Duolever. Though I'm sure, given the way linkages work in the bicycle industry, there's some subtle difference that makes it completely defensible in court.

    Name:  front_sus_rhs_bg.jpg
Views: 1881
Size:  36.0 KB

    I had an R1200GS, it was not an endless maintenance headache. Certainly no better or worse than the rear. Maybe easier since you can just pull off the shock rather than pull apart the fork. The Telelever works a lot like the sliding-linkage bikes this year, like the one from Marin.
    Hi Darth Lefty,

    You're correct that our configuration is similar to a Duolever. The Duolever uses a pair of spherical bearings in the load path and a soft joint in the steering path; we have eliminated the spherical bearings from the load path (ask a Whyte PRST owner how well that worked!) and placed just one spherical in the steering link.

  33. #33
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by DIRTJUNKIE View Post
    These linkage designs in one configuration or another have been around since the invention of mountain bike suspension. None have made it because of the complication and weight penalties.

    Next


    Edit: Here ya go. 2001 Whyte bikes fail.
    Hi DIRTJUNKIE,

    To be fair, there have been some rather poor telescoping forks and rear suspension designs, but we didn't write off the entire concepts. Whyte took a bold step by pursuing their front linkage and Structure owes a great deal to these sorts of pioneering efforts.

    We have done our best to learn from the past and avoid the same mistakes. Our design is more conceptually different from other front linkages than are any telescoping designs, and I'm sure you wouldn't say all telescoping bikes are equivalent.

    A few examples of what we learned from earlier designs:

    Axle path & dynamic geometry: Many front linkages have attempted to align the axle path with the bump force for ultimate smoothness. This worked, but created the much bigger problem of severe losses of head angle, trail, and front-centre length. Instead, we are prioritizing dynamic geometry and relying on the frictionless feel of bearings (vs. sliding bushings) to provide plenty of compliance and smoothness. We also have an eccentric (similar to a flip chip) that allows the rider to choose the desired balance of support vs. compliance.

    Bearings: We have eliminated the spherical bearings from the bump load path and placed one, nicely shielded spherical in the low stress steering linkage.

    Frame stiffness: Loads are distributed around the frame to avoid the stress concentrations that caused flex in other designs, links are vastly larger than in earlier designs, and pivots are stouter than in rear suspension linkages. As Mike noted in his review of our Generation 1 prototype, which was deliberately underbuilt to expose flex points, that noodly old thing actually feels solid because the stresses are so evenly distributed. The full carbon version replaces skinny aluminum tubes with carbon sections that have cross-sectional areas up to an order of magnitude greater. If anything sounds flexy, it's a pair of sliding legs that are longer, thinner, and bound together by a little, trussed, magnesium arch!

    The proof is in the ride, though, and I hope you'll take a SCW 1 for a demo before concluding all frames without telescoping forks are identical!

  34. #34
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Just J View Post
    I'm absolutely convinced that I'd lose an extremity if I rode that bike and not out of choice either!
    Hi Just J,

    Your extremities will get caught in our design with the same frequency as they get caught inside the front of your conventional front triangle, between your fork arch and crown, or between your cables and your head tube.

  35. #35
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Bob Girvin developed this fork in the mid '90s. I have never ridden one, but it was supposed to work fairly well until the bushings wore out. Not proprietary, either.

    It is interesting watching old technology make a comeback because of better materials and manufacturing processes. I'd love to try a linkage fork like this old Girvin with a new shock, bearings, and disc mounts. If a fork can maintain the wheelbase of the bike through the compression stroke, it should make the bike more stable when needed most. I don't think eliminating friction during braking is a good thing, though.
    Thanks for keeping an open mind, mountainbiker24!

    Regarding eliminating friction while braking: Presumably, your concern is that too little friction will allow the fork to dive. Valid concern, which is why have tuned our linkage with an anti-dive component, creating 40% less dive than a typical telescoping fork. And when you don't have friction creating harshness, you can use far more low-speed compression damping to help support the front end; this is not only more effective, but the low-speed compression damping reliably and predictably opens into the high-speed damping circuit when you encounter an impact. Friction is less predictable, in that an impact may overcome the friction and allow the fork to move or it may increase the binding problem; if the fork does begin to slide, the motion must then pass through the low-speed damping circuit before accessing the high-speed circuit.

    Bottom line: friction is never a good thing in suspension!

  36. #36
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Picard View Post
    This design need to be test throughly before consumers will trust the brand
    We agree, Picard! We've been developing the bike for five years, but you don't have to take our word for it. We offer a money back guarantee: ride it for two months (four months for the first fifty buyers) and if it's not everything we say it is, just give it back.

  37. #37
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    Those forks actually had a "J" shaped axle travel path IIRC, moving rearward before upward. They loved to throw you over the bars (I definitely remember that correctly). Tracked well though.
    Spot on, slapheadmofo! Many previous front linkages used the "J-hook" axle path in an attempt to align the movement with bump forces. This slightly improved compliance, but, as you mentioned, the dynamic geometry was ... is there a polite way to say "death trap"? This is why we've chosen to prioritize dynamic geometry.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    862
    @Structure-Ryan thank you very much for presenting your product. How does it behave in pedaling?

  39. #39
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Lefty View Post
    @Structure-Ryan thank you very much for presenting your product. How does it behave in pedaling?
    Hi Darth Lefty,

    I'm as big a bike nerd as anyone here, so while yes, I am representing the product, I also enjoy discussing bike design and the science behind it!

    I gave the SCW 1 a little more anti-squat than average, which creates a very firm and crisp pedaling feel; it's definitely not a squishy bike. The unavoidable consequence of anti-squat is pedal kickback; I've tried to minimize it by reducing the anti-squat deeper in the travel, but a Horst link design doesn't facilitate dramatic changes in kinematics. That's the main reason I like the Horst: the kinematics can be very stable and predictable throughout the travel, which fits with the design philosophy of the SCW 1. The design may be complex, but the the ride is intended to be the most consistent, predictable, and quirk-free experience available.

    Another part of this consistency - and to return to your question - is something we're calling "Size-Specific Kinematics". Thousands of pages on this page are devoted to arguing the finest nuances of different suspension layouts (ex. Horst vs. VPP vs. DW vs. KS vs. Zero vs. Maestro vs. i-Drive vs. ...), yet few people realize the differences between layouts are often less than the differences between sizes of a given model. The location of a rider's centre of mass has a considerable effect on a bike's dynamic properties (pedaling anti-squat, rear brake anti-rise (AKA brake jack or brake squat), front brake dive). For example, if the dynamics are optimized for a size Medium, the size XS may have ~15% firmer pedaling (often resulting in pedaling-induced jack) and the XL may have ~15% softer pedaling (assuming typical rider sizes for the corresponding frame sizes).

    The only way to fix this would be to create an entirely new kinematic package for every size - i.e. moving every point, including front points. The design and manufacturing expenses are why no one does this - not to mention the inability to do so with a telescoping fork. I felt it was unacceptable to permit these large variances in certain properties between sizes, so I created a unique kinematic package for each SCW 1 size, ensuring each chassis size feels exactly the same.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,919
    Has anyone here test ride it? Can Francis test ride it?

  41. #41
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Picard View Post
    Has anyone here test ride it? Can Francis test ride it?
    So far, the only riders have been Structure staff, local racers, and Mike from Pinkbike - and only the aluminum prototypes.

    The first batch of carbon frames will be produced in late fall or early winter. Many of those will be destructively tested by us and for government and independent certification; the remainder will be tested initially by us, then by racers, then by the media.

    We would love it if MTBR took it for a test!

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    552
    I could never see myself buying one of these beasts. Call me vain, but if I am going to drop $3,000 or more, aesthetics become part of the reason to pull the trigger, and visually, these bikes are like the googles and they do nothing for me
    2016 Rocky Mountain Thunderbolt BC Edition
    2017 Rocky Mountain Blizzard -50
    2015 Giant Fastroad

  43. #43
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,744
    What's the rear suspension doing, just a horst link with rapidly decreasing anti-squat?
    "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.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by Structure-Ryan View Post
    I gave the SCW 1 a little more anti-squat than average...
    Thank you, but I meant how does the front ​behave in pedaling.

  45. #45
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Lefty View Post
    Thank you, but I meant how does the front ​behave in pedaling.
    Ah, I see. Same as any other front, just with less friction. With telescoping forks, I've never used any "climb" setting, even on pavement, but the bearing pivots on our linkage move so freely that I do use the middle setting of a three position climb switch on pavement and smooth doubletrack.

  46. #46
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    What's the rear suspension doing, just a horst link with rapidly decreasing anti-squat?
    I suppose that's accurate. All four-bar systems are conceptually similar. Some change dramatically throughout the travel, while others are more consistent. Being a Horst, ours is fairly consistent, with a little extra pedaling anti-squat early in the travel that then decreases more than some Horst systems and less than others. The motion ratio is moderately progressive - again, more than some and less than others - with a flat curve to the sag point, becoming more progressive deeper in the travel. Braking anti-rise is on the low end of the spectrum throughout the travel to remain supple when braking.

    All parameters are related, so a system that's designed to dramatically change one parameter through the travel usually produces undesirable changes in one or more other parameters. Ours isn't trying to do anything exotic, it's just a consistent, predictable, and quirk-free system with a very low leverage ratio (2.3:1). The unique feature of ours is the "Size-Specific Kinematics". A few companies use two or more chainstay lengths across the size range and at least one company changes the position of one point to produce varying levels of progression for each size, but, to my knowledge, no one varies all* points for each size.

    * To be fully accurate, I didn't move the pivot nearest the rear dropout.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,251
    Well, I must say props to you Ryan for becoming aware of discussion of your bike in the forums and coming in to give your thoughts and ideas behind it and to discuss in a very civil way

    As with a few others, despite being a logical person, who values function over form, I still would have a very hard time owning this bike as it stands/looks unless it performed light years ahead of your standard frame and telescoping fork design. I would actually say that I tend to prefer your original alu test mule over the new carbon vunder design, seems like it was made too "futuristic" for that sake alone, doesn't look like a mountain bike to me, more to the roadie side of things.

    I kind of somewhat agree with J on the possibility of getting a body part caught in all that movement, as right now it's all in the imagination, no actual video of the suspension movement. Any possibility of creating a video of the new protos full range o movement, showing both front and rear only compression along with F&R at the same time?

    Interesting to read your projected weight for this frame/fork combo, if you can honestly make it even under 10lbs you'd be way ahead of most normal frame/fork combos. Curious to see a shot of the frame only on a scale, with shocks of course, because while some may give frame weight without shock, you cannot give fork weight without the suspension parts.

    Like others, will be very interested to read and see videos of other peoples thoughts on this design as you tour the US and hopefully other places letting people ride it. Also curious to see how it handles getting thrown down into some sharp rocks, as this is a regularity where I live and why I still ride alu.

    One thing that hasn't even had a ballpark figure thrown out for is the cost, that I'd be very curious about, as I'm sure others would too, so can you give us even a very rough high/low ballpark figure? A high end carbon frame and fork can run you as much as $5-6k, so I'm kind of expecting this to be there abouts.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  48. #48
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Structure-Ryan View Post
    I suppose that's accurate. All four-bar systems are conceptually similar. Some change dramatically throughout the travel, while others are more consistent. Being a Horst, ours is fairly consistent, with a little extra pedaling anti-squat early in the travel that then decreases more than some Horst systems and less than others. The motion ratio is moderately progressive - again, more than some and less than others - with a flat curve to the sag point, becoming more progressive deeper in the travel. Braking anti-rise is on the low end of the spectrum throughout the travel to remain supple when braking.

    All parameters are related, so a system that's designed to dramatically change one parameter through the travel usually produces undesirable changes in one or more other parameters. Ours isn't trying to do anything exotic, it's just a consistent, predictable, and quirk-free system with a very low leverage ratio (2.3:1). The unique feature of ours is the "Size-Specific Kinematics". A few companies use two or more chainstay lengths across the size range and at least one company changes the position of one point to produce varying levels of progression for each size, but, to my knowledge, no one varies all* points for each size.

    * To be fully accurate, I didn't move the pivot nearest the rear dropout.
    Yeah, I tend to find those bikes "pedal well" in a static vacuum, like on a totally smooth road with no grade changes if always operating at the exact same sag, when the rear wheel is further in the travel from more sag, or more rearward weight like in climbing, or just on a longer ride you use your heavier pack, it starts to affect pedaling more, and then when your encounter bumps, it really starts to bog. If you can keep supplying the pedaling energy, it'll "dig in" and use more travel due to the rearward weight shift, so seemingly endless traction, but it also robs a lot more energy at the same time, so IME takes a big toll, especially on a longer travel bike. It's a feedback cycle IMO, more travel used when climbing and pedaling causes more rearward weight shift due to very low AS deep in the travel, which requires more pedaling and acceleration, which causes even more weight shift. These days, even simple single pivot bikes like Kona and Trek are more efficient and manufacturers like Devinci and others have much flatter AS profiles that don't drop to 50% and less through the travel, more like 100 down to 90%. I'm not sure why so many still think the horst link is such a hot ticket, but I'm done with them. Back when we had to use 3 rings you needed dramatically higher AS than the larger rings provided, which the horst took care of in the small ring (but still with the dramatically sloping profile usually), but those days are gone. Being honest, it seems like all the energy spent designing this bike was put into the fork, which may or may not offer significant advantages, but without the "total picture", it's an incomplete bike IMO. It's still somewhat rare that you find a bike that is well balanced in terms of pedaling characteristics and bump absorption. Not because it's an impossible balance, but because there's so much variance with shock tunes, air can volumes, etc. Your leverage ratio has to be designed accordingly and the OEM tune has to mach, and while most manufacturers SAY they do this, in practice it's often BS, as they are specing different shocks on the same frame that are in no way the same as far as air can size and so on. It's not that the horst link is bad or it can't work, but the manufacturers that are flattening out the profile to account for the single ring systems in use now are few and far between. A few have jacked up the AS way past what was used in the past, trying to make it around 120% or more at the sag point, which might be ok for XC racers that can take the punishment, but most just need to flatten out the curve and at that point, you can achieve it easier with a single pivot and eliminate the source of flex (pivot) between the rear wheel and BB pivot.

    Also, your comment about the motion ration getting more progressive deeper in the travel is a red flag. Air shocks are more progressive deeper in their travel naturally, so most bikes tuned to use air shocks go flat and regressive latter in the travel, to offset the natural progression of an air shock, otherwise, the bike ends up wildly progressive and extremely harsh on chunky terrain (with an air shock). If it really does what you claim, it needs a coil shock.

    The fork appears to be a nice achievement, but the bike must be a good bike in totality.
    "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.

  49. #49
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Well, I must say props to you Ryan for becoming aware of discussion of your bike in the forums and coming in to give your thoughts and ideas behind it and to discuss in a very civil way


    As with a few others, despite being a logical person, who values function over form, I still would have a very hard time owning this bike as it stands/looks unless it performed light years ahead of your standard frame and telescoping fork design. I would actually say that I tend to prefer your original alu test mule over the new carbon vunder design, seems like it was made too "futuristic" for that sake alone, doesn't look like a mountain bike to me, more to the roadie side of things.


    I kind of somewhat agree with J on the possibility of getting a body part caught in all that movement, as right now it's all in the imagination, no actual video of the suspension movement. Any possibility of creating a video of the new protos full range o movement, showing both front and rear only compression along with F&R at the same time?


    Interesting to read your projected weight for this frame/fork combo, if you can honestly make it even under 10lbs you'd be way ahead of most normal frame/fork combos. Curious to see a shot of the frame only on a scale, with shocks of course, because while some may give frame weight without shock, you cannot give fork weight without the suspension parts.


    Like others, will be very interested to read and see videos of other peoples thoughts on this design as you tour the US and hopefully other places letting people ride it. Also curious to see how it handles getting thrown down into some sharp rocks, as this is a regularity where I live and why I still ride alu.


    One thing that hasn't even had a ballpark figure thrown out for is the cost, that I'd be very curious about, as I'm sure others would too, so can you give us even a very rough high/low ballpark figure? A high end carbon frame and fork can run you as much as $5-6k, so I'm kind of expecting this to be there abouts.

    Hi LyNx,


    The appearance of the bike - and any front linkage system - will always be polarizing. Everyone at Crankworx agreed it's much nicer in person than in the photos, but it's still not to everyone's taste. As you said, if it rides better, that will help folks move past the looks!


    Agreed about the compression video. I have only a choppy .gif right now; we'll make something better. You're no more likely to get an appendage caught in our steering link than you are to put said appendage through a conventional frame or fork. If you somehow manage to do this, once you lose your grip on the bar, the suspension will be fully unloaded and topped out, so it's extremely unlikely the suspension could compress down onto said appendage. Nothing is impossible, of course, but I would guess you're countless times more likely to die from a dozen other variables during your ride than for this to happen!


    You're correct that the cost is going to be high: frame, fork, and two external reservoir shocks runs US$7000. We're using a direct sale model to keep the price as low as possible - yes, that really is as low as we can go at our projected volumes! A large part of that is the manufacturing engineering package from our factory: they planned for up to 10x their usual time requirement, with extra staff on the project. They've taken the project seriously and have optimized it beautifully, but they've also charged accordingly. I like to frame the value proposition in the following terms:

    1. Four month money back guarantee for the first 50 sales (two months after that). If it's not everything we say it is, just give it back
    2. Lifetime warranty on the frame and bearings
    3. Consider the incremental cost-to-performance ratio for conventional bikes at the high end. For a similar cost increase, we offer a much larger performance increase
    4. If linkage desigs were the norm and someone introduced a fork that could save $2500, but it dives 40% more, produces unstable handling when compressed, and is extremely sticky under load, perhaps we would say that's not a good way to save money


    Regarding weight: Target weight is under 9 lbs. without shocks, which places it on the lighter end of the enduro spectrum. The front shock experiences so little stress that we may recommend an inline shock, saving a further 1/3 lb. over the competition. I'll copy and paste further thoughts on weight from the other thread discussing our bike:
    [Weight is] the most overrated parameter in cycling*. I use titanium and aluminum bolts and I even weigh my clothes because weight does matter, but I still think it's a minor – almost trivial – variable. The upper limit of the effect of extra weight on climbing speed is proportional to total system weight (you + bike + gear). Two pounds** is about one percent; factor in air resistance and friction – especially the losses at the rubber/dirt interface (different from rolling resistance, as typically measured in lab experiments) – and those two pounds may slow you down half a percent, or a few seconds up an entire mountain. But if those two pounds create a more capable bike, I believe you'll gain far more time on the flats and descents than you lost on the climb – and you'll certainly have more fun! I contend that design choices in the bike world often satisfy consumer demand for light products, with the engineers knowing the decision will make a worse bike – certainly a worse experience – yet will generate more revenue.


    * Sprung:unsprung mass is an entirely different conversation.
    ** 2 lb is just a convenient number; our bike does not weigh two pounds extra!

  50. #50
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Yeah, I tend to find those bikes "pedal well" in a static vacuum, like on a totally smooth road with no grade changes if always operating at the exact same sag, when the rear wheel is further in the travel from more sag, or more rearward weight like in climbing, or just on a longer ride you use your heavier pack, it starts to affect pedaling more, and then when your encounter bumps, it really starts to bog. If you can keep supplying the pedaling energy, it'll "dig in" and use more travel due to the rearward weight shift, so seemingly endless traction, but it also robs a lot more energy at the same time, so IME takes a big toll, especially on a longer travel bike. It's a feedback cycle IMO, more travel used when climbing and pedaling causes more rearward weight shift due to very low AS deep in the travel, which requires more pedaling and acceleration, which causes even more weight shift. These days, even simple single pivot bikes like Kona and Trek are more efficient and manufacturers like Devinci and others have much flatter AS profiles that don't drop to 50% and less through the travel, more like 100 down to 90%. I'm not sure why so many still think the horst link is such a hot ticket, but I'm done with them. Back when we had to use 3 rings you needed dramatically higher AS than the larger rings provided, which the horst took care of in the small ring (but still with the dramatically sloping profile usually), but those days are gone. Being honest, it seems like all the energy spent designing this bike was put into the fork, which may or may not offer significant advantages, but without the "total picture", it's an incomplete bike IMO. It's still somewhat rare that you find a bike that is well balanced in terms of pedaling characteristics and bump absorption. Not because it's an impossible balance, but because there's so much variance with shock tunes, air can volumes, etc. Your leverage ratio has to be designed accordingly and the OEM tune has to mach, and while most manufacturers SAY they do this, in practice it's often BS, as they are specing different shocks on the same frame that are in no way the same as far as air can size and so on. It's not that the horst link is bad or it can't work, but the manufacturers that are flattening out the profile to account for the single ring systems in use now are few and far between. A few have jacked up the AS way past what was used in the past, trying to make it around 120% or more at the sag point, which might be ok for XC racers that can take the punishment, but most just need to flatten out the curve and at that point, you can achieve it easier with a single pivot and eliminate the source of flex (pivot) between the rear wheel and BB pivot.

    Also, your comment about the motion ration getting more progressive deeper in the travel is a red flag. Air shocks are more progressive deeper in their travel naturally, so most bikes tuned to use air shocks go flat and regressive latter in the travel, to offset the natural progression of an air shock, otherwise, the bike ends up wildly progressive and extremely harsh on chunky terrain (with an air shock). If it really does what you claim, it needs a coil shock.

    The fork appears to be a nice achievement, but the bike must be a good bike in totality.
    Well, it seems you've completely analyzed our design and perfected it. That was easy!

    First, anti-squat - like other parameters - isn't an absolute value; it depends on the rider's centre of mass, gear combination, etc. It's interesting you've mentioned Kona and Trek, as the latter has approximately double the anti-squat of the former (Process series), making it difficult to lump them into the same category.

    The anti-squat of a Horst bike is pretty darned similar to that of a single-pivot, as the path of the instant centre is dominated by the long chainstay. The difference between a Horst and a single-pivot isn't the anti-squat, but the brake anti-rise (Split Pivots, like the Trek, behave almost identically to Horsts). So, my Horst pedals very much like the single-pivots you praise, just with a touch less anti-squat past 50% travel, where you're unlikely to still be pedaling, and I've chosen to give it an anti-squat that's between bikes often described as "soft/neutral" and "extremely firm".

    The fact that Structure's kinematic parameters are "right down the middle" isn't by coincidence. When I came on board with Structure, I spent the first several months creating a database of geometry parameters that currently stands at 19,298 data points and analyzing the dynamics of a few hundred existing bikes. I selected seventy of my favourite designs and weighted them by: 1. public review ratings, 2. press review ratings (excluding reviews that I was fairly certain were bought), 3. my own fondness for them. Using these weighted numbers, I treated the whole world's experience like my own test laboratory and created numerous weighted-average curves for almost every design parameter. Thankfully, they all agreed fairly closely - i.e. it looks like we really can zero in on preferred designs.

    Regarding the spring curve: What you said is very, VERY well understood in the bike design world. Every engineer knows it. So of course we take it into account. Some do a better job of it than others, but it's not new information.

    Recent updates on air shocks have brought SRAM, Fox, and DVO products into much better agreement on spring geometry, reducing the effect of shock spec. I intend to spec only one brand, so it's been even easier for me. In any case, most current enduro bikes have a flat to rising rate, right to the end. A couple do feature a sharp fall-off at the end to compensate for the rising rate of an air spring; these are generally found on bikes with a rate that rises dramatically prior to that point. This was a design that tried to compensate for air springs with tiny negative springs and too great of a compression ratio; thankfully, both these trends are disappearing (especially with DVO - love that negative spring!) and motion ratios for air sprung bikes are beginning to look similar to those intended for coils.

    The motion ratio on the SCW 1 is mildly progressive. A little more than a Specialized or Yeti and a lot less than a YT. As I mentioned before, it's right in the middle of the best-liked levels of progressivity and that didn't happen by accident.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,919
    The manufacturer need to send the bike to Francis so he can test it out. There isn't enough people test it.

    Sent from my F3213 using Tapatalk

  52. #52
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Structure-Ryan View Post
    Well, it seems you've completely analyzed our design and perfected it. That was easy!

    First, anti-squat - like other parameters - isn't an absolute value; it depends on the rider's centre of mass, gear combination, etc. It's interesting you've mentioned Kona and Trek, as the latter has approximately double the anti-squat of the former (Process series), making it difficult to lump them into the same category.
    Single pivots seem to have a lot more variation than most of the horst-link bikes as far as AS profile. Some are nearly flat, some fall off significantly like most horst-links, some actually increase through the travel. But these traits are designed into the bike (hopefully it's not random chance or hope), they are absolute values when the variables are accounted for. The most significant variable here is the bikes actual AS curve and numbers.

    The anti-squat of a Horst bike is pretty darned similar to that of a single-pivot, as the path of the instant centre is dominated by the long chainstay.
    No, it's not. First of all, you need to tell us what numbers you are using, in what gear combinations, what percentage at 0% travel, what at 20%, what at 40%, and so on.

    Secondly, some horst link bikes start off with 30% and go down from there. Some start with 200% and go down from there. Yet others start around 120% and end up around 30%. Some single pivot bikes only go from around 110% to around 95% at the extremes of the travel. So a general statement that "the anti-squat of a horst-link bike is pretty darned similar to that of a single-pivot" is completely off-the-wall inaccurate.

    The difference between a Horst and a single-pivot isn't the anti-squat, but the brake anti-rise (Split Pivots, like the Trek, behave almost identically to Horsts). So, my Horst pedals very much like the single-pivots you praise, just with a touch less anti-squat past 50% travel, where you're unlikely to still be pedaling, and I've chosen to give it an anti-squat that's between bikes often described as "soft/neutral" and "extremely firm".
    This is blatantly false. There is most often a significant difference in the anti-squat between the designs. One can't make a general statement here though. While the profile of the majority of horst-link bikes is similar(but not necessarily in a good way), single pivots are much more all-over-the-place. What you really got to do is compare two designs.

    Here's a rather dramatic example of a horst-link:
    Cube Stereo 120 2014 - Linkage Design
    You can see the AS going from about 93% at zero travel down to about 10% at the end. This will have significantly less AS than 100% at the sag point and as you go over bumps and the suspension compresses, you will have less and less, creating that feedback I was mentioning earlier.

    Here's an example of a modern single pivot:
    Devinci Marshall 29'' 2017 - Linkage Design
    About 114% down to 93%. That's not a dramatic difference and it means that even more than halfway through the travel, it retains enough AS to offset almost all of the acceleration weight shift.

    These two are pretty dramatically different.

    I had a 3rd example to show you, but I forgot which bike it was, but it was a horst link that had a fairly flat profile around 83% through a majority of the travel, not falling off dramatically, but in what I've looked at, those bikes are exceedingly rare, the vast majority of the horst-link bikes have the dramatic difference between beginning and ending AS. Another interesting trend I've noticed is that quite a few companies like Yeti, Canfield, Intense, SC, etc., have all incorporated the general design of having a significant amount of AS, up around 90-100%, through a significant part of the travel, extending halfway or more. This should give consistent pedaling characteristics through a variety of pedaling and riding situations, rather than something that has 100% only at a specific spot and once you move out of that spot, the characteristics change dramatically.

    Also, I don't know about you, but I pedal around 50% of travel all the time. It's called encountering bumps, and it's no reason to stop pedaling. Why would you coast when you can pedal and go faster? Sure, you are unlikely to be pedaling at say 80% of travel, but 50? All the time. Heck, I was doing that all over the place yesterday during my race. In some cases, your suspension is cycling over terrain rather fast and on a 6" bike, considering you are already at almost 2" into the travel, 3" into the travel from the zero position is almost nothing, yet this is where many horst-link bikes have very low AS, vs. many others these days that maintain around 100% to this point or past. I'd go on to say that pedaling around 70% wouldn't be unheard of at all.

    Now, it depends on how the horst is tuned as far as braking, some examples were absolutely terrible, like the GT LTS bikes, that extended under braking, known as "brake jack". After having owned many Horst-link bikes, I can say I'm no fan of completely neutral braking, it shifts too much weight to the front and unweights the rear, which is the opposite of what you want in steep terrain. That doesn't mean we want massive squat where it turns the suspension way too harsh, but some squat seems to be highly beneficial and many bikes these days of course have it. One of the advantages touted by the designer of the DW link is that it allows him to have just enough squat without going too far. I find this to be generally true, as I've had bikes with both extremes. I had the last generation Iron Horse Horst-link bike, also designed by DW, which didn't seem too bad, but all of my other Horst-link bikes had the weight shift issue where the rear end rose up too far during braking, due to the "neutral" nature of the braking on those designs. At the very least, this isn't a situation where you can sit and tell me that neutral braking is optimal for all situations, because it's going to cause the rear end to rise up.

    The fact that Structure's kinematic parameters are "right down the middle" isn't by coincidence. When I came on board with Structure, I spent the first several months creating a database of geometry parameters that currently stands at 19,298 data points and analyzing the dynamics of a few hundred existing bikes. I selected seventy of my favourite designs and weighted them by: 1. public review ratings, 2. press review ratings (excluding reviews that I was fairly certain were bought), 3. my own fondness for them. Using these weighted numbers, I treated the whole world's experience like my own test laboratory and created numerous weighted-average curves for almost every design parameter. Thankfully, they all agreed fairly closely - i.e. it looks like we really can zero in on preferred designs.
    This is a whole lot of nothing. You haven't mentioned any AS numbers. "Right down the middle" of what? Sorry if that comes off harsh, I don't mean to be that way.

    Regarding the spring curve: What you said is very, VERY well understood in the bike design world. Every engineer knows it. So of course we take it into account. Some do a better job of it than others, but it's not new information.
    Well, what you said conflicts with air shock characteristics. Every air shock, even those with large cans, has the same general characteristics. The shapes vary a bit, but the overall profile is the same. I've seen maps of this where it's been measured. No one has been able to make an air-shock for mountain bike that is anywhere near linear. If you know of one, I'm all ears.



    This is why when you were describing this as getting more progressive deeper in the travel doesn't make sense. Perhaps you mean the overall rate being mildly progressive, but if it's tuned to work with an air shock, it should flatten out or even go slightly regressive at the end of the travel. Otherwise, if you have a curve that is progressive from the beginning of travel to the end, it's going to work best with a coil shock, not an air shock. ALL air shocks have flat mid-stroke as well, so you'd want that section of your travel, the mid-stroke, to be fairly progressive, again, opposite of what you were saying that it continues to the end of travel.


    In any case, most current enduro bikes have a flat to rising rate, right to the end.
    Nope. I suggest you go check out the Specialized Enduro models, Kona Process 167, Turner RFX, Knolly Delerium. I tried to include some different designs here to show you that they do go flat to regressive at the end of the travel, presumably to make up the difference for the progressive nature of an air shock at the end of it's travel. Leverage ratios are to some extent "all over the place" depending on what manufacturer and specific model you look at, but there are enough mainstream enduro bikes (using air shocks) that have this feature to invalidate the claim. For one that you could show me with a flat rate or a straight-line rate, while intended to be equipped with an air shock, I could show you 10 or 100 that do not have this.

    A couple do feature a sharp fall-off at the end to compensate for the rising rate of an air spring; these are generally found on bikes with a rate that rises dramatically prior to that point. This was a design that tried to compensate for air springs with tiny negative springs and too great of a compression ratio; thankfully, both these trends are disappearing (especially with DVO - love that negative spring!) and motion ratios for air sprung bikes are beginning to look similar to those intended for coils.
    These trends won't disappear because you can't fix the inherent shape of an air spring without exotic methods that don't exist within mtb shocks. This is not "a couple" of bikes, this is a large number of bikes that have this feature. Unless you have some data on the DVO that proves otherwise...

    The motion ratio on the SCW 1 is mildly progressive. A little more than a Specialized or Yeti and a lot less than a YT. As I mentioned before, it's right in the middle of the best-liked levels of progressivity and that didn't happen by accident.
    Maybe we are missing the point here, it's not the overall progressiveness, it's the shape of the curve. Since you stated originally that the bike had a flat curve to the sag point, and then got significantly more progressive the further it went into the travel. That is the shape of the curve we are talking about. If it truly looks like that, it's likely better suited for a coil shock, since it doesn't take an air-spring progression curve into account.
    "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.

  53. #53
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Hi Jayem,

    It's good you're looking at some existing data, but be aware of the lack of standardization. If you look at Antonio Osuna's files in Linkage, you'll find a lack of standardization in centre of mass location - and I don't mean a small variance. It's something most authours overlook and the difference can be over 20%. Pull the files of the authours you trust (try Antonio and Andre Santos, for starters), then edit the files to standardize the gear combination and centres of mass. Add custom shock dimensions (I suggest DVO's dimensions - at the least, try the new RockShox Super Deluxe with Debonair can - and also run the shock through Andre's air spring tool). Finally, add the SCW 1 to the analyses. These are all steps you can take using free, publicly available tools.

    You'll see what I mean about the SCW 1 being "right down the middle" on most parameters and how the progressivity plays nicely with an air shock.

    Let me know when you've given it a go and I'll let you know how close you are to the actual values!

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Eric Malcolm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,110
    If I don't make an attempt, how will I know if it will work?

  55. #55
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    3,770
    can't argue away ugly


    like I said, I want one, but not kidding myself about it's viability as a bike line



    you can talk all day about linkage and kinematics and the math behind it. fine,
    keep it. built it into the design

    but to execute that math...
    but you gonna have to re-engineer that linkage mess up front.
    Last edited by 127.0.0.1; 08-29-2017 at 05:40 AM.
    "Put your seatbelt back on or get out and sit in the middle of that circle of death." - Johnny Scoot

  56. #56
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    4,614
    Hats off to all you guys who know and understand all the engineering that goes into our bikes. Pretty cool just how complex it is. And I think it's a pretty cool looking bike. Now those "V" bikes, those were some fugly things.

    I just ride.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oh My Sack! View Post
    Remember, there's always quilting and knitting if pedalling becomes too tough.

  57. #57
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Structure-Ryan View Post

    Let me know when you've given it a go and I'll let you know how close you are to the actual values!
    Why are you afraid of posting the actual values? You made some pretty grand claims back there that were just not true, I'd appreciate it if you would save the time and possible issue of misplacing the pivot exactly, that way we'll cut out a possible source of error.
    "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.

  58. #58
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Thanks for the offer, but I think I have it covered


    The reason I'm reluctant to post data is because people take it as absolute. If I gave some anti-squat numbers, most people would take those to be the actual, unchangeable numbers, rather than a set of numbers that vary based on gear choice, rider height, etc. People would compare them without realizing the other numbers to which they were comparing may not use the same variables. For those who can't perform an analysis themselves, I'll describe things verbally; those who can do the analysis will, hopefully, be wise enough to standardize their model inputs (there's ample evidence this isn't the case, but maybe that will change).


    As I said before, if you wish to join the latter group - i.e. those who can perform an analysis - I welcome you to do so and we'll discuss it in more detail.


    EDIT: I'll help you get started by providing numbers with which to calibrate your Linkage analysis:


    - The blue bike in Pinkbike's photo has a wheelbase of 1191 mm and both shocks are 205 mm x 65 mm.
    - Static (full extension) head angle is 65°.
    - Chainstay length is 430 mm.
    - BB drop is 10 mm


    The final bike's geometry is considerably different, but the dynamics are similar, so this will be a good approximation.
    Last edited by Structure-Ryan; 08-29-2017 at 01:01 PM. Reason: Additional information

  59. #59
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by 127.0.0.1 View Post
    can't argue away ugly

    like I said, I want one, but not kidding myself about it's viability as a bike line

    you can talk all day about linkage and kinematics and the math behind it. fine,
    keep it. built it into the design

    but to execute that math...
    but you gonna have to re-engineer that linkage mess up front.
    The appearance of a front linkage will always be polarizing and we're not trying to take over the market, just introduce a new, higher-performance segment; we don't have to convince everyone and we don't expect to.

    The dynamics of the front end feel great, to me. Do you have any suggestions for what would be more to your taste?

  60. #60
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    3,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Structure-Ryan View Post
    Do you have any suggestions for what would be more to your taste?

    no, that is not my role.

    you are the one making the bike. I am the one raggin on it.
    "Put your seatbelt back on or get out and sit in the middle of that circle of death." - Johnny Scoot

  61. #61
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by 127.0.0.1 View Post
    no, that is not my role.

    you are the one making the bike. I am the one raggin on it.
    At least we're each doing what we do best!

  62. #62
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    3,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Structure-Ryan View Post
    At least we're each doing what we do best!
    that's a stretch... on both counts.
    Last edited by 127.0.0.1; 08-29-2017 at 02:55 PM.
    "Put your seatbelt back on or get out and sit in the middle of that circle of death." - Johnny Scoot

  63. #63
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Structure-Ryan View Post
    Thanks for the offer, but I think I have it covered


    The reason I'm reluctant to post data is because people take it as absolute. If I gave some anti-squat numbers, most people would take those to be the actual, unchangeable numbers, rather than a set of numbers that vary based on gear choice, rider height, etc. People would compare them without realizing the other numbers to which they were comparing may not use the same variables. For those who can't perform an analysis themselves, I'll describe things verbally; those who can do the analysis will, hopefully, be wise enough to standardize their model inputs (there's ample evidence this isn't the case, but maybe that will change).
    That's the thing about data. It IS absolute. That's why it's DATA and not conjecture or opinion. Some of the things you said above were flat out wrong, single pivots=horst link for AS. That's so far from reality that it's hard to take any what you are saying seriously at this point. Interpreting the data is the tricky part, but we can now determine many characteristics of a bike by looking at the data, something that was not widely understood a few years ago. The real question marks that we end up with have to do with the shock tune and spring characteristics, which is a little trickier to get data on, so sometimes the bump-absorption is more difficult to predict unless there's a red flag that is going to affect it regardless of the shock, but it's fairly easy to predict the efficiency these days with the data.

    Honestly, it sounds like you threw a lot of resources into this fork, but the rear end of the bike is same old energy-sapping horst-link that has been around for decades. For some reason in Europe, there are many bike companies that think this is the best thing since sliced bread, even though one of the primary reasons is now gone (multiple rings).

    I would challenge you to go look at a recent Devinci, Evil, Trek, Gorilla Gravity, and other all-mountain/enduro bikes. These are single pivots, but they have far flatter AS profiles closer to 100%. These bikes are killing it right now, because they fix that soggy-pedaling problem that you run into with the Horst-link. They don't have a pivot between the rear wheel and chainstay BB pivot, so you can have a stiffer design. These are single pivot designs and in my experience, they blast those horst link bikes out of the water. I had the opportunity to compare back to back when I owned horst and single-pivot bikes from Turner at the same time. Now that many manufacturers know what to design for, single pivots are arguably better. The only possible advantage with a horst link is braking IF you design it so it doesn't stinkbug, but since a bit of squat has proven to be beneficial in many cases, that part is a wash. There are many more anti-squat profiles that are more easily achieved with dual link designs, but at fairly marginal improvements over the single-pivots these days, so it may be hard to justify the cost and complexity as far as manufacturing for a marginal performance gain.

    Is it just the perception that Specialized has created over the year that the horst-link was the absolute pinnacle of mountain bike engineering?

    Heck, I didn't even get into the issues with the front end un-weighting because of the squat when you are pedaling through something technical uphill (suspension cycling and using travel).

    I'm not knocking the horst-link as crap, it is totally possible to make it with a higher and flatter AS curve so it works decent, but all the rear end of this bike does is the same old thing as before, so while the fork appears to be a significant achievement, I can't say the same for the entire bike and that would affect my decision to ever purchase something like this. It's got to be the total package. Doesn't need to be fancy dual-linkage system with highly loaded pivots. Does need to pedal decent and not like a wet mattress, in addition to absorbing bumps.

    EDIT: I'll help you get started by providing numbers with which to calibrate your Linkage analysis:

    - The blue bike in Pinkbike's photo has a wheelbase of 1191 mm and both shocks are 205 mm x 65 mm.
    - Static (full extension) head angle is 65°.
    - Chainstay length is 430 mm.
    - BB drop is 10 mm


    The final bike's geometry is considerably different, but the dynamics are similar, so this will be a good approximation.
    I may still take you up on this and run it, but from your answers (and lack of) above I'm not sure doing so is going to tell me anything I'm not already guessing correctly.
    "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.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    862
    At this point I bet you wish you'd have made it a hardtail

  65. #65
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Lefty View Post
    At this point I bet you wish you'd have made it a hardtail
    Not at all! The rear design works great and the neutral, balanced feel compliments the front nicely.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,070
    I would rock it; I love funky bikes.
    One thing that kind of sticks out to me is the way the linkage protrudes out front.
    I could see myself messing that stuff up on a somewhat regular basis.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  67. #67
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    I would rock it; I love funky bikes.
    One thing that kind of sticks out to me is the way the linkage protrudes out front.
    I could see myself messing that stuff up on a somewhat regular basis.
    Hi slapheadmofo,

    I understand it looks vulnerable, but you might be surprised how difficult it is to access that region. If you draw a straight line from the tire to the bar, the updated (slightly more compact) linkage is behind that line; the prominent wheel and wide bar shield it extremely well. We've also made the updated version much burlier - not because it needs it, but to give a visual impression of strength! It's at least as strong as a handlebar.

    Another way to look at it: how often do your cables and hoses in that region hit hard objects with great force? That's the frequency with which you'll hit the steering links - and even then, they're built to take it!

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,251
    Well, looks like it's not only the N.Americans giving this a go, seems the Euros are as well. This one seems ready for production, has a price and everything They even have a video and no linkage protruding from the front of the bike.

    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  69. #69
    Mudhorse
    Reputation: Grassington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    412
    Linkage front suspension for bicycles is nothing new - my father built one when he was young (so probably sometime in the 1950s), just for the fun of it I guess. IIRC he took a conventional fork, turned it round 180 degrees, made a new wheel mount and linkage rods and slipped in some kind of spring and shock arrangement. I'll bet there were individuals doing something similar even before that.

    It's going to be interesting to see how the new front linkage designs develop. BMW had a crack at it a few years back, but it never caught on, possibly because it was a terrible bike all round and very expensive to boot. I recall these bikes being given to their F1 drivers at the time - here's Juan Pablo Montoya sat on one and trying to look enthusiastic.
    Hose me down till the water runs clear.

  70. #70
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Grassington View Post
    BMW had a crack at it a few years back, but it never caught on ...
    BMW may beg to differ!

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Structure-Ryan View Post
    Another way to look at it: how often do your cables and hoses in that region hit hard objects with great force? That's the frequency with which you'll hit the steering links - and even then, they're built to take it!
    I take a tree to the steerer tube a few times a season at least, and walk off over the bars every few weeks at a minimum, letting the bike to fend for itself in whatever rocky mess threw me over in the first place. Hell, I won't buy carbon in general just because of the type and regularity of get-offs in hard-n-pointy terrain it's likely to see.

    But yeah, it's not something I think many folks would have issues with, but I personally would want to make sure I have spare parts at home for rebuilding that linkage if I owned one of those. Seems like something might be a bit of a weak spot for hack riders like myself.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  72. #72
    Mudhorse
    Reputation: Grassington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by Structure-Ryan
    That's interesting, I didn't know BMW also produced a motorbike with linkage front suspension. It might be assumed that this didn't catch on either, as while I see plenty of BMW motorbikes out and about, they've all got stanchion forks.

    Don't get me wrong, Structure-Ryan, I'm not dissing the concept or your design. What you've done is quite an achievement, and if your front suspension design overcomes the drawbacks of stanchion forks without introducing overwhelming drawbacks of its own then the mountain-biking world will be a better place for it. Have at it, sir! I await news of your future developments with interest. I'd be keen to ride that Structure bike; less keen, however, to ride BMW's terrible attempt.
    Hose me down till the water runs clear.

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Grassington View Post
    I'd be keen to ride that Structure bike; less keen, however, to ride BMW's terrible attempt.
    Why is that? I'm not really a motorcycle guy but BMW's design seems proven and well regarded.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  74. #74
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    I take a tree to the steerer tube a few times a season at least, and walk off over the bars every few weeks at a minimum, letting the bike to fend for itself in whatever rocky mess threw me over in the first place. Hell, I won't buy carbon in general just because of the type and regularity of get-offs in hard-n-pointy terrain it's likely to see.

    But yeah, it's not something I think many folks would have issues with, but I personally would want to make sure I have spare parts at home for rebuilding that linkage if I owned one of those. Seems like something might be a bit of a weak spot for hack riders like myself.
    You do have health insurance, right? Really good health insurance?

    The links are stronger than people seem to think - and the final version's links will be more than 50% burlier. The mounting points are wider than a typical air shock, to give you a sense of it.

    When Pinkbike tested the Gen. 1 prototype, Mike crashed into a tree hard enough to rip out our hydraulic lines, leave bark embedded in a couple stem bolt heads, and ovalize the crown/steerer junction*, but the tiny Gen. 1 steering links and spherical bearing were fine.

    No frame or component is invincible, of course, but any crash that destroys the steering links will probably be the sort of crash where a lot of other things also broke!


    * This can no longer happen as the aluminum single-crown fork has been replaced by a one-piece carbon double-crown.

  75. #75
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Grassington View Post
    That's interesting, I didn't know BMW also produced a motorbike with linkage front suspension. It might be assumed that this didn't catch on either, as while I see plenty of BMW motorbikes out and about, they've all got stanchion forks.

    Don't get me wrong, Structure-Ryan, I'm not dissing the concept or your design. What you've done is quite an achievement, and if your front suspension design overcomes the drawbacks of stanchion forks without introducing overwhelming drawbacks of its own then the mountain-biking world will be a better place for it. Have at it, sir! I await news of your future developments with interest. I'd be keen to ride that Structure bike; less keen, however, to ride BMW's terrible attempt.
    No offense taken! The understanding of front linkage designs is, naturally, far below that of telescoping forks and some past designs have given the concept a bad reputation, so I'm just here to provide information.

    Agreed that BMW's mountain bike was a half-hearted effort to capitalize on the success of their motorcycles' linkage suspension.

    The Duolever and Telelever suspension designs are reserved for their high-end touring and adventure bikes and have been well received. Visually, they're quite subtle, so you may have seen them and not even noticed!

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Structure-Ryan View Post
    You do have health insurance, right? Really good health insurance?

    That and a horseshoe up my ass.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Structure-Ryan View Post
    Agreed that BMW's mountain bike was a half-hearted effort to capitalize on the success of their motorcycles' linkage suspension.
    Ah, mountain bike. I thought BMW just slapped a sticker on that, I didn't think they had anything to do with actually designing it. Porsche had a mtb as I recall too. Hot.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    477
    I find this linkage masturbation discussion boring. Let's get some out there and ride them.
    I own a DW bike (Turner) and a Horst Bike (GG) both ride great once setup properly. I must say that my HL GG is more pleasant a ride most of the time, but the RS SD shock vs the Fox DPS Evol could be the difference.

    Ryan- Is you plan to offer different shock variations? Specific tunes? Or only work with a single supplier?

    The one criticism I have of this entire concept is the lack of bottle mounts. I know it seems trivial in the big picture. But I HATE hydro packs and ride with a dog. So 2 bottles are almost an imperative with me. Seems like this design will need to get creative to mount bottles and hide some trail tools somewhere.

  79. #79
    Mudhorse
    Reputation: Grassington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    Why is that? I'm not really a motorcycle guy but BMW's design seems proven and well regarded.
    I should clarify, it was their effawful MTB attempt I was referring to. I can't comment on their motorbikes, except to say that they are deservedly popular, and standard issue for the motorcycle police in the UK. I'm guessing that BMW didn't have much MTB experience when they brought that early bike out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Structure-Ryan
    The Duolever and Telelever suspension designs are reserved for their high-end touring and adventure bikes and have been well received. Visually, they're quite subtle, so you may have seen them and not even noticed!
    It is entirely possible I've seen one of these and not noticed - looking at the minority of google image pics that show a pic of the whole bike (most show a stripped-down chassis or 3D CAD representation), the working gubbins of the front end is indeed mostly hidden by the cowling.

    I'm normally quite conservative when it comes to designs I'll buy into, and an early adopter I ain't, but every now and then I come across something that tickles my fancy. I'm currently on my 7th big Citroen car as I just love their hydropneumatic suspension: Instead of springs and shocks it has nitrogen reservoirs and hydraulics, and the high-end models have a dedicated computer system that control both the spring rate and the damping on-the-fly, dependent on driver presets and sensor inputs from steering, speedo, anti-roll bars and brake line pressure. Despite all the advantages, the rest of the auto world seems happy with springs and dampers (though Rolls Royce do licence some of the tech from Citroen). If linkage front MTB suspension offers similar advantages over stanchion forks then I could certainly be converted.
    Hose me down till the water runs clear.

  80. #80
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Structure-Ryan View Post
    I am curious, can you tell me what % of their line-up uses these linkage forks?

    http://www.bmwmotorcycles.com/_commo...r_2016_EAL.pdf

    The guy you replied to said they didn't really catch on. That appears to be the exact situation with BMWs lineup. They may have tried it and produced it in limited numbers, but his post is factional, it hasn't really caught on.
    "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.

  81. #81
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    3,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    I am curious, can you tell me what % of their line-up uses these linkage forks?

    http://www.bmwmotorcycles.com/_commo...r_2016_EAL.pdf

    The guy you replied to said they didn't really catch on. That appears to be the exact situation with BMWs lineup. They may have tried it and produced it in limited numbers, but his post is factional, it hasn't really caught on.
    BMW moves back to telescopic tube forks because they cannot deny the endless reports of owners ...can't feel the road, it's too vague up front. true story. it works so well you lose a lot of spatial and feedback reference on what the front wheel is doing. turns out, that is a bad thing.

    like I said...telescopic forks win, sure... has downsides a linkage/parallelogram can fix, but as pilots, we understand what the bike is doing moment by moment with these old school front forks, therefore the 'ride' and 'experience' is better

    sure I want a marshmallow ride, but I need that feedback, and linkages erase much of that feedback we need.


    I like weird bikes too, I have a 12 foot long chopper, and raced a slingshot for three years....I love me a wacky bike...but ....I don't see this thing getting much demand.
    "Put your seatbelt back on or get out and sit in the middle of that circle of death." - Johnny Scoot

  82. #82
    Mudhorse
    Reputation: Grassington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    The guy you replied to said they didn't really catch on. That appears to be the exact situation with BMWs lineup. They may have tried it and produced it in limited numbers, but his post is factional, it hasn't really caught on.
    I was referring to the BMW MTB, and wasn't aware of their linkage motorbike until it was pointed out. Their linkage MTB didn't catch on because it was an all-round bad bike for a very high price, and the only people I've seen riding them were their F1 drivers who were probably contractually obliged to do so. Dunno about the linkage motorbikes, that may indeed be a superior system, but one that has proved to be unpopular for whatever reason. Sometimes the best systems lose, just look at Betamax videos, 20 mm MTB axles... even Citroen are discontinuing their hydraulic suspension.
    Hose me down till the water runs clear.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by Grassington View Post
    I was referring to the BMW MTB, and wasn't aware of their linkage motorbike until it was pointed out. Their linkage MTB didn't catch on because it was an all-round bad bike for a very high price, and the only people I've seen riding them were their F1 drivers who were probably contractually obliged to do so. Dunno about the linkage motorbikes, that may indeed be a superior system, but one that has proved to be unpopular for whatever reason. Sometimes the best systems lose, just look at Betamax videos, 20 mm MTB axles... even Citroen are discontinuing their hydraulic suspension.
    BMW's Telever System is very successful and 20mm axles are still very viable and available. Every bike in my garage has them including my most recent 2018 GG Trail Pistol. I literally will not use any other.

    Funky linkage bike-telelever_p0013231.jpeg

  84. #84
    Enginerd
    Reputation: Structure-Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by chasejj View Post
    I find this linkage masturbation discussion boring. Let's get some out there and ride them.
    I own a DW bike (Turner) and a Horst Bike (GG) both ride great once setup properly. I must say that my HL GG is more pleasant a ride most of the time, but the RS SD shock vs the Fox DPS Evol could be the difference.

    Ryan- Is you plan to offer different shock variations? Specific tunes? Or only work with a single supplier?

    The one criticism I have of this entire concept is the lack of bottle mounts. I know it seems trivial in the big picture. But I HATE hydro packs and ride with a dog. So 2 bottles are almost an imperative with me. Seems like this design will need to get creative to mount bottles and hide some trail tools somewhere.
    The bottle mount concern is valid and I share your feelings about packs. The current design has one mount under the down tube; adding a mount inside the frame is on our list of future design objectives.

    The concept of "specifically tuned" shocks for a frame is often overstated: most shock manufacturers offer approximately three levels of compression and rebound range and the "custom tune" is usually just a single version of this. For example, the shock may have the medium compression level and low rebound. Some particularly unimpressive "custom tunes" are as little as a standard medium/medium with one or two factory-installed volume reducers on the positive spring. A few manufacturers spec one tune for the smaller sizes and another for the larger sizes. It's impossible to get any more precise than this when a manufacturer doesn't know the weight and riding style of an end user prior to delivery.

    We will be doing extensive shock testing over the winter. Our intention is to offer two shocks from one manufacturer, with a few different tunes. The front and rear linkages use the same shock dimensions and motion ratios, but the front carries less weight, so, for some riders, it can work nicely with a lighter damping tune and presents an opportunity to save weight (inline vs. external reservoir). A tune that works well on the rear shock for a lighter rider works on the front for a heavier rider, which helps us keep the shock inventory at a realistic level. If you strongly prefer a different model of shock, any 205 mm x 65 mm that clears the frame will work. A Cane Creek DB Air is definitely too large and we need to confirm clearance for the Fox DPX2, but you have choices and off-the-shelf medium and light shock tunes work nicely. In the case of a light rider who wants a custom, extra-light front tune for a shock we don't stock, we're happy to provide recommended specs to the customer or a shock tuner.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    862
    BMW has Telelever on the R1200GS, GSA, and RT bikes (big adventure bikes and the cop bike) and the Duolever on all their K1600 bikes (big sport and touring bikes that occupy space somewhere between Hayabusa and Gold Wing). These bikes also all have the Paralever rear end which uses a 4-link design to prevent jacking from the shaft drive. Imagine the reaction you'd get to a shaft drive in this thread!

    I don't know how many K bikes they sell but the R bikes are pretty popular, especially the cop bike, which was eating Harley's and Honda's lunch in that market for a long time, being an air cooled bike that was way better than the Harley and yet not water cooled like the Honda.

    BMW went through a pinch in the last decade where all they made were bikes like that, and a 650 single dirt bike. Since then they've really expanded their lower-mid range with some conventional sub-liter doubles and some liter bikes, all of which have regular forks. They are mostly chain drive too, a few have a belt.

    I liked my GS a lot.
    Last edited by Darth Lefty; 09-01-2017 at 03:13 PM.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    59
    The potential for lack of feel was of great concern to me when designing the front suspension/steering system, but it turns out not to be an issue at all; in fact, Structure bikes have more sensitivity to what happens at the contact patch than telescoping forks have.

    We have a couple of theories as to why:

    1. The steering links are stiff and mounted by very precise bearings, and are thus communicative of vibration from the tire/fork directly below them, whereas a telescoping fork deflects under longitudinal, lateral, and torsional loads and has damper, spring, seals, and bushings that come together to dampen *some* fine-grained details of the trail surface.

    2. Perhaps more importantly, we didn't prioritize 100% brake anti-dive, opting for only a 25-40% reduction (over 30-35% pro-dive telescoping forks) of brake dive in any iteration to date. This still allows some weight transfer to the front. The sensitivity of the suspension to small bumps (trading sliding elements and bushings for bearings works wonders) - and the communicative nature of the steering linkage - do the rest.

    We believe that systems that prioritize closer to 100% anti-dive - or that use soft/heavy bushings and hardware at the steering links - absolutely kill feel, perhaps unnecessarily! In other words, we acknowledge your concern but don't have any of the numbness of linkage systems designed with priorities different from ours.

    Even the rub of a cable on the steering links will grate on your nerves pretty quickly (so we're making sure they won't ever rub). We were surprised how much info we get at the hands, and we know you will be too.
    Last edited by StructureBikes; 09-04-2017 at 01:22 PM.

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,070
    Good 'n funky New Hampshire steel

    Funky linkage bike-mantis.jpg

    Funky linkage bike-mantis-2.jpg
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    862
    It's been a year. Any updates?

  89. #89
    Nothing seems to kill me
    Reputation: CUP-TON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    671
    Looks like you can pre-order the Structure bike in full carbon for $6000 frame and fork and both shocks. Full bike for 10k. Suppose to ship by June '19
    Twilight falls upon old souls darkening our skin & bone.Soon I'll follow Prudence home until then just let me chase this sun

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by CUP-TON View Post
    Looks like you can pre-order the Structure bike in full carbon for $6000 frame and fork and both shocks. Full bike for 10k. Suppose to ship by June '19
    True.

    Our SCW 1 bikes / frames will carry a lifetime warranty on frame and bearings (30 mm Enduro MAX bearings at the main pivots, with easy through-frame removal if they ever need service; we'd rather ride than work on bikes) for the original owner.

    The goal with pre-orders is to fund an initial small batch of frames with the factory and get them out for media review and EFBe benchmarking (we'll be testing to a mix of enduro and DH standards exceeding ISO 4210) before delivering the full production run.

    Incidentally, the SCW 1 has been in development for over 5 years, and one of the engineers on our team designed a 2016 and 2018 Bike of the Year. We're serious about what we're doing.

    For the brave who help us launch and join the Foundation, we offer big perks, including $1000 in credit toward components, the ability to weigh in on future product, and more. We'll also give you a production frameset in addition to the early frame, if the short run of frames are anything short of equal to full-production units.

    That's two frames just for becoming part of our development crew by ordering a frame now.

    We know asking you to take the plunge with us is a big deal, so we offer a two month money-back guarantee. Think of it as the ultimate demo program. Ride for two months and if you aren't faster and more confident down the mountain than you've ever been, give the bike back and get your money back.

    We want as many as possible to get on a Structure, and we're doing everything we can think of to make that happen! Check out www.structure.bike for all the details.

    Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

  91. #91
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    3,770
    what will be your 'OEM' shock(s) ? made a choice yet ?
    "Put your seatbelt back on or get out and sit in the middle of that circle of death." - Johnny Scoot

  92. #92
    Nothing seems to kill me
    Reputation: CUP-TON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    671
    What about crash replacement? What bb are you using? What? No Superboost? Lol
    How many pre orders do you need? How many do you have?
    Twilight falls upon old souls darkening our skin & bone.Soon I'll follow Prudence home until then just let me chase this sun

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by 127.0.0.1 View Post
    what will be your 'OEM' shock(s) ? made a choice yet ?
    Yes, we're using the DVO Topaz. Same shock front and rear, with the same motion ratio and leverage curve. Nice shocks!

    Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by CUP-TON View Post
    What about crash replacement? What bb are you using? What? No Superboost? Lol
    How many pre orders do you need? How many do you have?
    Half-price crash replacement parts, and Foundation members get upgraded frame parts at cost to future-proof their bikes.

    BSA threaded bb. No press-fit for us and no Superboost, ha ha. Geez, keeping up with changing standards will drive you mad...

    We have a five confirmed pre-orders and more in the works, but we could use another ten+ to show traction to the factory. It's a chicken-egg conundrum, because we need carbon bikes on the ground for riders and bike mags, but don't want to sell our souls to fund full production.

    Bringing riders on board with a small run of bikes bridges the gap. We're ready to roll, but we want to grow the company organically and build a serious group of riders to represent us. No other option has the same appeal.




    Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,251
    Man, I wish you guys good luck, but to me it's just too radically different to get people to easily pony up hard earned cash to be a guinea pig, when there's tried and true complete offerings out there for the price of the frame. Still have to be able to look at it and be happy when all's said and done and to me, still fugly.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Man, I wish you guys good luck, but to me it's just too radically different to get people to easily pony up hard earned cash to be a guinea pig, when there's tried and true complete offerings out there for the price of the frame. Still have to be able to look at it and be happy when all's said and done and to me, still fugly.
    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, for sure. When demos come your way, take one for a rip and see if we can change your mind (at least a little), and if you're ever in Calgary, hit us up and we'll take you out on our favourite trails.

    Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

  97. #97
    100% PRIME ALBERTA BEEF
    Reputation: mtnbkrmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    2,034
    Quote Originally Posted by StructureBikes View Post
    ...and if you're ever in Calgary, hit us up and we'll take you out on our favourite trails.

    Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk
    Hmmm...

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,251
    Hey man, I totally understand that and maybe Fugly was too strong a word, guess it's kind of like a Lefty for me, no mater how much I know about them, how strong they are, after 14 years I still can't wrap my head around the looks.

    Will not be getting any demos down my way in the future, I can guarantee that, not unless I won the lottery and brought them in myself. If I was the sort of person that spent $$$ eating out, thought a $500 bottle of wine was cheap etc, for sure I'd be in on one of these, because despite the looks (could maybe grow on you) it is very interesting, just a bit too radically interesting for someone who's fund are month to month to take a risk on.
    For sure next time I'm in Alberta I'll be looking to make a stop by and see what's up with this project, would be "right" on the way heading to the mountains through Canmore, Banff and over into BC

    Quote Originally Posted by StructureBikes View Post
    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, for sure. When demos come your way, take one for a rip and see if we can change your mind (at least a little), and if you're ever in Calgary, hit us up and we'll take you out on our favourite trails.

    Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Hey man, I totally understand that and maybe Fugly was too strong a word, guess it's kind of like a Lefty for me, no mater how much I know about them, how strong they are, after 14 years I still can't wrap my head around the looks.

    Will not be getting any demos down my way in the future, I can guarantee that, not unless I won the lottery and brought them in myself. If I was the sort of person that spent $$$ eating out, thought a $500 bottle of wine was cheap etc, for sure I'd be in on one of these, because despite the looks (could maybe grow on you) it is very interesting, just a bit too radically interesting for someone who's fund are month to month to take a risk on.
    For sure next time I'm in Alberta I'll be looking to make a stop by and see what's up with this project, would be "right" on the way heading to the mountains through Canmore, Banff and over into BC
    We want as many people as possible to ride our bikes, but it's kind of like wanting everyone to have an opportunity to drive a Formula 1 car. Our volumes will be low, and ride and build quality have to be perfect, so it will take time to make bikes and opportunity available.

    One possibility: We would be happy to license linkage chassis technology to a brand who wants to offer bikes at a mid-market price point, making the advantages (extra stability, 40% less brake dive, amazing bump compliance) available to more riders.

    In the meantime, Canmore, Banff, and BC are where we ride, so come on out!

    Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

  100. #100
    100% PRIME ALBERTA BEEF
    Reputation: mtnbkrmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    2,034
    PMs have been exchanged. Unfortunately, it's turning nasty weather-wise here. That said, I am going to do my best to at least meet with these gentlemen for a coffee. With any luck I will be able to get out on one of their bikes prior to Canadian Thanksgiving. Unfortunately I have a badly strained MCL. While I am still riding and commuting daily (per the direction of my physio), I am doing so with much greater care.

    ***off topic alert***

    On a side note, LyNx, I just completed another Western Canada bike trip. It made me (again) appreciate how good Calgary is. West Bragg Creek and Moose Mountain each alone have significantly more riding (more diverse, and more trails) than MANY other ENTIRE areas. And that is just scratching the surface. Some of the stuff off Moose (and Razor's) has as much gnar as anyone could possibly want.

    https://mmbts.com/trails/

    Trail Maps – GBCTA – Volunteer Trails Assoc.

    Add to that all of the various sub-regions of Kananaskis Country (Prairieview/Jewell/Razor's Edge/Baldy area, Cox/Jumpingpound area, Powderface area and others), plus Canmore (including the Canmore Nordic Centre), Banff (including Minnewanka and the Tunnel Mountain network) and even Canada Olympic Park if you want some lift assisted stuff, all of which are within an hour of my driveway, and Fernie and Golden, which are both within striking distance (2.5 hours for each) and yeah, Calgary is an incredibly under-rated biking epicentre.

    https://www.albertaparks.ca/media/39...trails-map.pdf

    And 95% of my daily commute from the extreme west side of Calgary to downtown, is on one of two car-free bike paths (one on each side of the Bow River), with a decent 5 minute twisty downhill dirt blast in the middle that's a great eye opener each morning.

    https://www.visitcalgary.com/story/1...ays-in-calgary

    Don't overlook the riding in the Calgary area - it's awesome - stay a while. Hang with the Structure Bike gang. I'll buy you a beer.

    Here's a pic from Prairieview - the trailhead for that pic is 35 minutes from my driveway...

    Funky linkage bike-fullsizeoutput_14.jpg

    EDIT: coincidentally, from today. This is only scratching the surface...maybe 1% at best of the local riding:

    https://m.pinkbike.com/news/east-of-...mountains.html

    And then there is this:

    https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/lifest...orld-1.4051997

    ***back on topic...***
    Last edited by mtnbkrmike; 09-27-2018 at 12:24 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The official Funky Bar thread
    By Cloxxki in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 03-12-2012, 09:03 AM
  2. Funky Buddha to distribute in 2012
    By JFryauff in forum Beer Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-30-2011, 02:56 PM
  3. Simple funky front derailleur routing
    By Jaybo in forum Turner
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-23-2011, 01:14 PM
  4. Reccomend me a NON funky drop bar.
    By Johnny K in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06-21-2011, 09:47 AM
  5. manitou minute fork acting funky... any suggestions?
    By playdead in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-09-2011, 08:22 AM

Members who have read this thread: 180

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

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.