Roco Coil. 2nd edition??- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. #1
    Alpine Rider (Italy)
    Reputation: 30x26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    283

    Roco Coil. 2nd edition??

    in a few weeks marzocchi will probably add TST to Roco in order to prevent bobbing.
    roco 1st edition (shown at Interbike) weights 980gr on a digital scale (spring included, 8.5" c/c).

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,648
    Hum interesting but if we could just get some ride reports on the 1st edition that would already be something to chew on. I'm surprised they introduce another platform shock, there is so much of those it was refreshing to see the 1st edition but this 2nd edition with TST sounds more like all the others (DHX, 5th, Swinger).

    Did you weigh it yourself or where is this number coming from? It is quite a bit heavier then a DHX.

    Quote Originally Posted by 30x26
    in a few weeks marzocchi will probably add TST to Roco in order to prevent bobbing.
    roco 1st edition (shown at Interbike) weights 980gr on a digital scale (spring included, 8.5" c/c).

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: knollybikes.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,525

    Hey guys, check this out...

    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.ph...highlight=roco

    I've been running the Roco (non tst version) for the past few weeks - so far, my review of this shock pretty much stays with what I originally posted.

    I've tried the TST version, but only for a parking lot ride. From my understanding, it's not a platform shock. It's a variable compression lockout that basically allows the rider to tune a certain amout of compression lockout into the shock to make climbing easier. You probably wouldn't want to ride agressively with the shock set in partial or full lock out, but I could be totally wrong on that. I'm sure that someone from Marzocchi (Brian?) can fill in the details here!

    Cheers,
    Noel Buckley
    ------------------
    www.knollybikes.com

    Instead of PMs, please contact me here.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,648
    Hey Noel, seems like you were right on the weight, it is heavier.

    So the TST may be the way to go then. I barely ever use the TST on my AllMountain1 fork but I guess for the shock it could be useful to a certain degree. Hopefully you test one on your new Delirium and then tell us what you think!

  5. #5
    Alpine Rider (Italy)
    Reputation: 30x26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by BanzaiRider
    Did you weigh it yourself ?
    yes..

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: knollybikes.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by BanzaiRider
    Hey Noel, seems like you were right on the weight, it is heavier.

    So the TST may be the way to go then. I barely ever use the TST on my AllMountain1 fork but I guess for the shock it could be useful to a certain degree. Hopefully you test one on your new Delirium and then tell us what you think!
    Ya, we've got a Roco in house for the Delirium T as well Unfortunately, in the 2.5" stroke shock department, there's no consistency - some models are 8.5" i2i while others are 8.75" i2i - we're going to have to modify the Delirium T to work with both - currently, it only works with 8.75" i2i x 2.5" stroke shocks. I don't think we'd sell many Roco's with the Delirium T, but it will make for a killer light duty lift serviced bike or slopestyle frame!
    Noel Buckley
    ------------------
    www.knollybikes.com

    Instead of PMs, please contact me here.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    557
    Quote Originally Posted by knollybikes.com
    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.ph...highlight=roco

    I've been running the Roco (non tst version) for the past few weeks - so far, my review of this shock pretty much stays with what I originally posted.

    I've tried the TST version, but only for a parking lot ride. From my understanding, it's not a platform shock. It's a variable compression lockout that basically allows the rider to tune a certain amout of compression lockout into the shock to make climbing easier. You probably wouldn't want to ride agressively with the shock set in partial or full lock out, but I could be totally wrong on that. I'm sure that someone from Marzocchi (Brian?) can fill in the details here!

    Cheers,
    TST equiped ROCO is still a ways off of the production line.... I have seen a few other ROCO protos in the shop....Plus some other goodies that I can't talk about...

    Brian

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Peterson
    TST equiped ROCO is still a ways off of the production line.... I have seen a few other ROCO protos in the shop....Plus some other goodies that I can't talk about...

    Brian
    Brian, I'm going to test my luck a bit and twist your arm as well! hahaha

    Could we kind of interpret "ways off" to be like next spring (March/April) or are we talking more about an introduction for the 2007 bikes next summer/autumn?

    Thanks, its nice of you to give us some hints like this from time to time!

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by knollybikes.com
    Ya, we've got a Roco in house for the Delirium T as well Unfortunately, in the 2.5" stroke shock department, there's no consistency - some models are 8.5" i2i while others are 8.75" i2i - we're going to have to modify the Delirium T to work with both - currently, it only works with 8.75" i2i x 2.5" stroke shocks. I don't think we'd sell many Roco's with the Delirium T, but it will make for a killer light duty lift serviced bike or slopestyle frame!
    Thanks again Noel. If I can ask a bit more, you keep hinting in your comments of the Rocco about a "DH style" shock... Do you feel like the shock is so "bouncy" that for use on trails where you have a lot of technical climbing it would be robbing too much energy bobbing and riders would not like it? I would have thought that with a good "pedaling" design like your Delirium it would be a very good all mountain shock candidate for riders who are not too concerned about the weight of a coil...

  10. #10
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,884
    Quote Originally Posted by knollybikes.com
    Ya, we've got a Roco in house for the Delirium T as well Unfortunately, in the 2.5" stroke shock department, there's no consistency - some models are 8.5" i2i while others are 8.75" i2i - we're going to have to modify the Delirium T to work with both - currently, it only works with 8.75" i2i x 2.5" stroke shocks. I don't think we'd sell many Roco's with the Delirium T, but it will make for a killer light duty lift serviced bike or slopestyle frame!
    Hey Noel...

    Any plans on a 5" travel bike?? I know the Delirium is a killer bike, but some of us don't ride that hard to justify a 6".

    Congratulations on such terrifics bikes you make. Pure bike porn.
    Check my Site

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: knollybikes.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,525

    wow - ok lots of questions to answer!

    Re: the Roco:

    I've been riding my V-tach equipped with the Roco up hill a lot lately, but mainly for fire road climbs like we have on the North Shore. Mt Fromme in particular (for those of you who know the area) is a fairly continuous fire road climb and the Roco didn't really make the climb any harder than normal.

    My fully built V-tach weighs about 47 pounds: it has a full complement of DH components including an 888, Raceface Diabolus everything, fat DH tires, Profile Racing pedals, Gustavs, DT Swiss 440 hubs and 6.1 rims etc...

    To be honest, the Roco is NOT nearly as bad as I expected it to be for climbing - at least on the fire roads. Yes, our bikes have a very neutral pedaling suspension: if you're seated and spinning nicely, the shock will barely move. The difference is that the 5th Element or the DHX WON'T move when you're pedaling like that. However, this shock is far superior to a Vanilla RC in terms of NOT wallowing in it's travel. If you're standing up and mashing on the pedals, then you're going to notice a difference in that the Roco is definitely going to move. So will platform shocks, but obviously not as much.

    I've done some technical climbing on the Roco. Yes, it does move. Platform shocks will move somewhat in these situations, but not nearly as much as the Roco. Does it inhibit your climbing ability? No, absolutely not. However, you are going to use more energy in this situation obviously. How much more? That I can't say because I haven't done enough of this yet :) But, I guess to put it in perspective, people climbed all sorts of stuff 3 years ago before platform shocks were on the on the market, so it's really not a huge concern. Other factors such as frame geometry, suspension design, pedaling efficiency, pedal feedback etc... are probably much more important.

    If you pedal while riding skinnies and such it will also move. The platform shocks are solid in these situations which I have to admit is nice. However, you will adjust to the Roco's feel very quickly if you're used to riding a platform shock.

    One thing anyone reading this must remember is that our bikes have quite a neutral pedaling suspension to begin with and minimal chain length growth. With the 5th shock, we basically have the compression damping totally minimized. We run both the beginning and end of stroke compression dampers pretty much wide open. We run minimum recommended air pressure and we have the volume adjuster typically turned in only one or two revolutions (out of a possible six). Hence, differences between the Roco and platform shocks may not be as apparent on our frames as they will be on other frames.

    I find that you do need a slightly different riding style with the Roco: this is a performance shock and it is happier being pushed. This might sound a bit weird, but frankly, the V-tach frame is very much the same. It's not a bike to just coast through the trails on - it requires the rider to actively push it and it will perform. Much of this is due to the V-tach's fairly low BB height which adds huge stability but at the expense of ground clearance (i.e. the rider has to be astutely aware of the terrain). Yesterday, we were riding on a trail (Upper and Lower Crippler on Fromme, again for those in the know) a moderately difficult North Shore trail. It's very natural, with lots of tight, choppy sections and a couple of reasonably steep chutes. For the first bit, my riding was really off. I couldn't link anything together. My bike was bouncing all over the place. Then, I got my mental game back together and just charged the rest of the trail. The bike worked awesomely as did the Roco. It is so active and bottomless that I could pretty much just blast off what ever I wanted to. In the steeps it took me a bit to get used to the much more active rear end. However, let the bike roll and the shock is really, really smooth.

    With respect to the Delirium T, I designed this frame to be a heavier duty all mountain frame. My personal opinion is that there are a lot of newer all mountain frames coming out with 6-7" of rear travel, but not the "chassis" to back up this amount of travel. The Delirium T was designed to have a moderate amount of travel (160mm) and have geometry that is very favourable to climbing. However, the frame is definitely burley enough to take on fairly technical trails as well as make a lighter duty free ride frame. Frankly, the V-tach is overkill for many riders. The V-tach is super plush and solid and there is a market for this kind of bike. But for many riders, they simply won't have the terrain or the opportunity to need a V-tach frame (or they can't afford to have two or three bikes including a dedicated FR frame). The Delirium T is designed to fill the need of someone who wants to still ride quite technical trails (and not worry about their frame's durability or performance) but still have a bike that they can ride much more moderate terrain on also.

    That being said, there are some tricks up the Delirium T's sleeves (some of which we'll publicly mention and others that we'll let the public find out on their own :) It has adjustments for both head angle and chainstay length, which means that this durable all mountain frame can quickly be transformed into a light duty free ride bike. It can change it's head angle from 68 degrees to both 67.5 and 67.0 degrees with just loosening two bolts - about a 2 minute procedure. That means that the frame can be sufficiently slack for dedicated FR style riding. It also means that the frame could be used as a light duty DH frame or even for slope style riding. This is where a shock like the Roco could be fun. If someone is a smooth rider and wants a play bike that weighs substantially less than a fully built up DH frame, the Roco equipped Delirium T could fill that niche. That is a very SMALL niche, so like I said, we don't expect to sell too many of them with the Delirium T - much more with the V-tach frame. The default shock for the Delirium T will be an air shock - either the Fox DHX air or the Progressive Gravity air. There will be optional coil shocks as well, including the aforementioned Roco as well as either the DHX or 5th coil shocks.

    Warp2003: Thanks for the compliments! We do have plans for a trail bike, probably around the mid 5" travel range. It's still in conceptual design right now and will be released early in 2007. This frame is going to be substantially lighter duty than any of the frames that we currently manufacture - pure trail bike and not really designed for any kind of free riding at all. It will probably lose a lot of the features that our other bikes have including adjustable head angle and chain stay length - those features add a significant amount of weight to those frames. Our trail bike will be a much more weight conscious frame. However, being a Knolly frame, there are some other features that it will keep: high lateral rigidity has been a hallmark of our other two full suspension frames and we want to keep that the case here too. As well, full length seat tubes and extra small frame sizes are important as well. We still build highly durable bikes for their intended application and that is something that I don't ever see changing.

    Cheers!

    Noel Buckley
    Last edited by knollybikes.com; 11-27-2005 at 12:36 PM.
    Noel Buckley
    ------------------
    www.knollybikes.com

    Instead of PMs, please contact me here.

  12. #12
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,884
    Quote Originally Posted by knollybikes.com
    Warp2003: Thanks for the compiments! We do have plans for a trail bike, probably around the mid 5" travel range. It's still in conceptual design right now and will be released early in 2007. This frame is going to be substantially lighter duty than any of the frames that we currently manufacture - pure trail bike and not really designed for any kind of free riding at all. It will probably loose a lot of the features that our other bikes have including adjustable head angle and chain stay length - those features add a significant amount of weight to those frames. Our trail bike will be a much more weight conscious frame. However, being a Knolly frame, there are some other features that it will keep: high lateral rigidity has been a hallmark of our other two full suspension frames and we want to keep that the case here too. As well, full length seat tubes and extra small frame sizes are important as well. We still build highly durable bikes for their intended application and that is something that I don't ever see changing.

    Cheers!

    Noel Buckley
    Noel,

    You don't have to thank for compliments as I think you had nothing but earned them. Also, saying the truth is no compliment.

    I already can see your bike giving a hard fight to the Turner 5-Spot for the absolute domination of the trailbike ground whenever it would be released.

    Make sure you have some frames made for the next Interbike as there'll be lots of people interested. I think the market pretty much settled now and 5" will be the spot that most of us will be searching for average trailriding. As you visualized it, most 6"-7" inches bikes have the travel but not the frame to take what the suspension can do.

    Keep it up, rubber side down!
    Check my Site

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: knollybikes.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,525
    We're planning to have a small fleet of demo bikes for Interbike 2006 - hopefully we'll have some of the trail bikes there as well.

    Turner makes excellent bikes - If we weren't going to make a trail bike, I would purchase a 5 Spot for myself. It is an EXCELLENT product. I'm still thinking about buying a Flux for my wife as she needs a more X-C is bike in addition to her FR bike (Kona Stinky which we'll be replacing with a Delirium T soon

    I think that there is plenty of room in the market for good brands and the 5 Spot and our new trail bike (which is as of yet, unseen!) will be different enough to stand on their own virtues.

    Cheers!



    Quote Originally Posted by Warp2003
    Noel,

    You don't have to thank for compliments as I think you had nothing but earned them. Also, saying the truth is no compliment.

    I already can see your bike giving a hard fight to the Turner 5-Spot for the absolute domination of the trailbike ground whenever it would be released.

    Make sure you have some frames made for the next Interbike as there'll be lots of people interested. I think the market pretty much settled now and 5" will be the spot that most of us will be searching for average trailriding. As you visualized it, most 6"-7" inches bikes have the travel but not the frame to take what the suspension can do.

    Keep it up, rubber side down!
    Noel Buckley
    ------------------
    www.knollybikes.com

    Instead of PMs, please contact me here.

  14. #14
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by knollybikes.com
    Platform shocks will move somewhat in these situations, but not nearly as much as the Roco. Does it inhibit your climbing ability? No, absolutely not. However, you are going to use more energy in this situation obviously. How much more? That I can't say because I haven't done enough of this yet

    Noel Buckley
    For what it's worth I once tried to measure this as scientifically as I could. I rode a bike (Ellsworth) up a paved hill out of the saddle with lockout shocks front and rear. I alternated between them both locked and both unlocked. Both ends bobbed noticeably with the lockouts off.

    I did twenty runs altogether, timed each one, and measured final pulse rate. To my surpise the unlocked, bobbing bike was consistently more efficient. That is, the heart rate was lower for the same time or the time was lower for the same heart rate.

    I expected there to be no significant difference, and if there was one, I naturally expected it to favor the locked out bike. I have no good explanation for why it didn't turn out that way, but I think it lays to rest the worry that a little bobbing wastes energy.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,648
    Thanks much Noel, I think that clears things out for me. I'm not afraid of a little bob and I think the linkage of my Banzai is probably quite neutral as well so even if I'm more into trail riding, I want ultimate suspension smoothness, the Rocco!

    Hey Steve, I find your little experiment quite interesting. You should publish that, some of the weight weenies and bob phobia riders might be shocked! haha

  16. #16
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,884
    Quote Originally Posted by BanzaiRider
    Hey Steve, I find your little experiment quite interesting. You should publish that, some of the weight weenies and bob phobia riders might be shocked! haha
    Well... If you make a search on his posts, you'll find it.

    Basically some people flamed him as his experiment was not accurate, bla, bla, bla... the same jargon-lingo you get when you make some experiment and post it. Some people is never happy.

    Regarding our old friend suspension bob... I had always tought that pedaling technique is way more important than suspension design by itself.

    Also... if your bike bobs and you can't feel it... does it really bob??
    This means for me basically that if you can't feel the bob, it's not robbing you energy and is almost neglectible for your purpouses.
    Check my Site

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: knollybikes.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    For what it's worth I once tried to measure this as scientifically as I could. I rode a bike (Ellsworth) up a paved hill out of the saddle with lockout shocks front and rear. I alternated between them both locked and both unlocked. Both ends bobbed noticeably with the lockouts off.

    I did twenty runs altogether, timed each one, and measured final pulse rate. To my surpise the unlocked, bobbing bike was consistently more efficient. That is, the heart rate was lower for the same time or the time was lower for the same heart rate.

    I expected there to be no significant difference, and if there was one, I naturally expected it to favor the locked out bike. I have no good explanation for why it didn't turn out that way, but I think it lays to rest the worry that a little bobbing wastes energy.
    Ha ha - that's funny! Very, very cool!

    Ya, experiements like that are so difficult to do, because certain people won't see the validity in the result. However, in your case you actually set out to make it scientific - it's a bit like those German bike magazine product reviews:

    here in North America, a bunch of guys from the magazine go ride the bike, that's maybe not set up properly for each of them, then write about how the suspension had too much sag or how the 38 pound all mountain frame was slower on their flat loop around the lake shore than their 23 pound hard tail.

    In Germany, the magazine testing department will build a giant apparatus to hammer on the bike's back end, then put a temperature sensor on the shock body and measure the change in temperature of the shock to see how much energy is converted to heat in the shock. In the end, the frame with the coldest shock is considered the "most efficient pedalling bike". Crazy eh?

    I think you're experiement is awesome - and like I said, at least it's done with a proper scientific approach. Papers have been published in peer reviewed journals based on much less.

    And, I totally agree with what Warp2003 mentioned, that proper pedalling technique will make a huge difference.

    Cheers,
    Noel Buckley
    ------------------
    www.knollybikes.com

    Instead of PMs, please contact me here.

  18. #18
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,313
    Quote Originally Posted by knollybikes.com
    We're planning to have a small fleet of demo bikes for Interbike 2006 - hopefully we'll have some of the trail bikes there as well.
    That is, assuming the cranks are delivered on time.

    Kewl. I'm there.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: knollybikes.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    That is, assuming the cranks are delivered on time. ;)

    Kewl. I'm there.
    Man, you hit me where it hurts - that's nasty!

    Provided we have a full on demo in 2006, we will be driving down with everything. It wasn't just cranks, but rear shocks, chain guides, forks and a bunch of other stuff as well that all came in last minute, or LATE. Ah, the fun of Interbike and working out of Canada!

    :)

    Cheers - see you there!

    Noel
    Noel Buckley
    ------------------
    www.knollybikes.com

    Instead of PMs, please contact me here.

  20. #20
    dft
    dft is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    For what it's worth I once tried to measure this as scientifically as I could. I rode a bike (Ellsworth) up a paved hill out of the saddle with lockout shocks front and rear. I alternated between them both locked and both unlocked. Both ends bobbed noticeably with the lockouts off.

    I did twenty runs altogether, timed each one, and measured final pulse rate. To my surpise the unlocked, bobbing bike was consistently more efficient. That is, the heart rate was lower for the same time or the time was lower for the same heart rate.

    I expected there to be no significant difference, and if there was one, I naturally expected it to favor the locked out bike. I have no good explanation for why it didn't turn out that way, but I think it lays to rest the worry that a little bobbing wastes energy.

    hate to burst your bubble, but that is hardly scientific. (note, i am not bagging on bob, my bike has it alot and you get used to it, i rather optimize for teh down verses the up). but what you said simply violates physics, impossible (i do have a phd in physics, awhile ago though granted). there is no way that bobbing on a paved/fireroad will be as effiecient as no bob, just doesn't work that way (technical climbing is a differetn story, many other variables, hardtail bounces causes spinning , etc).

    there can be many many reasons why your heart was faster etc (more heat that day, you had stress that day, an infinate numeber of reasons.) to be really scietific, you would need a mechnical machine to ride in both conditions, exact same enviroment, and i would bet my life the bob would loose everytime.

  21. #21
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,764

    Steve may be right

    Quote Originally Posted by dft
    hate to burst your bubble, but that is hardly scientific. (note, i am not bagging on bob, my bike has it alot and you get used to it, i rather optimize for teh down verses the up). but what you said simply violates physics, impossible (i do have a phd in physics, awhile ago though granted). there is no way that bobbing on a paved/fireroad will be as effiecient as no bob, just doesn't work that way (technical climbing is a differetn story, many other variables, hardtail bounces causes spinning , etc).

    there can be many many reasons why your heart was faster etc (more heat that day, you had stress that day, an infinate numeber of reasons.) to be really scietific, you would need a mechnical machine to ride in both conditions, exact same enviroment, and i would bet my life the bob would loose everytime.
    An interesting argument. But there may be a performance advantage to rider induced bob.

    Using a ratcheting freewheel like mountain bikes use, and a rearward path around the sag range, such as the lower-monopivot type (ICT) suspension path like Steve used, then rider induced bob action alone would produce some forward acceleration (even without pedaling).

    For example, bind the pedal-crank to the frame so that the rider cannot move it, and then just bounce up and down, pogo style, on the bike.

    The downward direction of bob (again without pedaling, the rider is just bouncing on the bike strait up and down) would produce “chainstay growth” in length and chain tension with the rider locked crank. That chain tension during compression will pull the cog and move the bike forward.

    The spring conserves the compressed energy pretty well and rebounds the rider high to repeat the compression induced forward redirection leverage of the vertical rider inertia and energy input.

    During rebound the path produces “chainstay reduction” in length, but due to the chain tensioner functionality of the rear deraillier and freewheel the chain remains tight and straight around the cog. Subsequent and repeated compression input produces more forward leveraging from ”chainstay growth” and chain tension reaction.

    Only damping and friction and unsprug inertia of the wheels is resisting full efficiency of the rider’s vertical input.

    The leveraging forward pulsing of vertical rider input is what is termed “bio-pacing”. Any bike with the slightest rearward path during pedaling has some amount of bio-pacing, including the low monopivot Steve was riding during his test.

    On a rigid bike, the same locked crank situation and bouncing up and down will not produce forward movement leverage, only rider fatigue and traction losses.

    A smooth input engine such as motorcycle riding on smooth pavement without vertical compression input would have almost no efficiency loss on a rigid bike. But bicycle “engines”, the rider, produces relatively massive pulsing vertical compression input, rather inefficiently utilized on a rigid bike without well balanced bio-paced suspension or gearing, particularly at low speed input cycles during hard acceleration and climbing.

    There may be significant cadence modification, handling, and traction issues due to unbalanced bio-pace suspension bob. The lower the pivot or less rearward the path the less efficient vertical rider input becomes.

    More vertical or forward paths, lockouts, platforms, damping, and friction will reduce the energy conservation and possible performance advantage of bob.

    Only bikes that bob more than their path is rearward, and producing chain tension, is there a problem of total wasted energy into damping and friction. Compression damping keeps nearly all bike suspension designs within the bob-efficient rearward path range.

    However, the better-designed bikes use balanced bio-pace suspension geometry producing very little bob, without utilizing lockouts and platform valves, with damping adjusted for little more than handling coasting situation requirements, and produce stability and consistent acceleration and braking handling over a wide range of uses.

    - ray
    Last edited by derby; 06-30-2006 at 08:40 PM.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.