# Which design does this resemble more? VPP or DW-Link?



## Robot Chicken (Jun 3, 2005)

Found these frames. Never heard of them before. Is this more of a VPP or DW-Link or something entirely different? On a side note, the frame looks like it has really nice welds. I wonder how having the lower pivot in front and above the BB changes the travel path?
www.pdcracing.com


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

Robot Chicken said:


> Found these frames. Never heard of them before. Is this more of a VPP or DW-Link or something entirely different?


Neither, resembles a Karpiel more than either of those.

I think it looks like a great design, depending on shock choice you've got a freerider or a mountain cross racer.


----------



## COmtbiker12 (Jan 12, 2004)

And PDC definitely seems to have high quality products.


----------



## Chikity China (May 3, 2004)

where does the shock get mounted  

that looks more like vpp/fsr wasnt the karpiels like them?

edit: oh i see. cool. havent seen this kind of shock positioning before. looks good


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

Chikity China said:


> where does the shock get mounted
> 
> that looks more like vpp/fsr wasnt the karpiels like them?


The shock is actually mounted on the swingarm. Gotta love the low COG and standover.


----------



## something cool (Jan 31, 2005)

i like it , looks like it has a crazy low standover. any one know how much it costs


----------



## COmtbiker12 (Jan 12, 2004)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> mountaincross bike?????


 Didn't you pay any attention at all to Interbike? PDC had a few models of this frame built up, one with a long shock and built up as a freeride bike and another with a shorter shock (I think maybe a different shock shuttle???) and only had about 3-5" front and back, hot stuff.


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

mountaincross bike?????


----------



## Robot Chicken (Jun 3, 2005)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> mountaincross bike?????


That frame has 8.5 inches of travel!! Quite a bit even for Freeriding. I guess it can take a shorter shock for less travel, but then you would just have a heavy/long short travel bike.

Looks pretty over built, but that could be a good thing! I would like to see some reviews of these bikes.


----------



## themarsvolta55 (Dec 23, 2004)

for some reason is reminds me of fsr and the linkage that the mountain cycle shockwave 9.5 has.....the way how the rear shock is tucked in the rear swing arm


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

DW'ish to me....


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

That looks like a fairly unique linkage system. Kind of reminds me of a combo between Giant's Maestro design and Mert Lawwill's stuff. I can't think of anything that has the shock mounted on the dropout link like that though...

Overall seems like a solid bike.


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

...actually I'm sure zedro will be along soon enough to enlighten us.


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

Andrewpalooza said:


> ...actually I'm sure zedro will be along soon enough to enlighten us.


Enlighten us about what?


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

WheelieMan said:


> Enlighten us about what?


The nature of the rear suspension...

How it works, who designed it, what it is similar to, etc. He seems to be an authorative figure on the subject.


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

Andrewpalooza said:


> The nature of the rear suspension...
> 
> How it works, who designed it, what it is similar to, etc. He seems to be an authorative figure on the subject.


Works like every other multi-pivot, PDC designed it, and it is not similar to anything currently produced.


----------



## MarzocchiFork (Jan 5, 2005)

Kinda like an IH Sunday, except for different pivot placements.


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

MarzocchiFork said:


> Kinda like an IH Sunday, except for different pivot placements.


It also looks kinda like A demo 9, kinda, in a way. I mean they both have 4 pivot points... So they must be the same. I think?


----------



## Dougal (Jan 23, 2004)

WheelieMan said:


> Works like every other multi-pivot, PDC designed it, and it is not similar to anything currently produced.


"Multi-pivot" is a pretty broad category. It includes every bike which isn't a single pivot. So there goes the whole performance spectrum.

The DW bikes, Karpiel, Schwinn Rockets are all four bars using a similar system. It has been around for many years but application is the key.


----------



## Robot Chicken (Jun 3, 2005)

what about this one?

IS this a DW link?


----------



## TheSherpa (Jan 15, 2004)

Robot Chicken said:


> what about this one?
> 
> IS this a DW link?


No, its Giants Maestro suspension.


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

Robot Chicken said:


> what about this one?
> 
> IS this a DW link?


No, that is Giant's Maestro design.

Most companies don't widely share their suspension innovations...

Maestro = Giant
DW Link = Iron Horse
VPP = Santa Cruz and Intense
FSR = Specialized, Norco, Devinci, Giant NRS, (others too)
Horst Link = Ellsworth to name one (same general concept as FSR)
Lawwill = Profile has a bike with that linkage I think.

Generally, if it is not one of the companies with their own suspension technologies, it isn't a VPP bike or a DW bike, or whatever. Many bikes (Salsa, Kona) fake a horst-link four bar linkage, creating a stiffer single pivot. Don't think just because it appears at first glance to be a certain design that it is. You have to study the position of the pivots, the movements of the members, etc.


----------



## TheSherpa (Jan 15, 2004)

Andrewpalooza said:


> No, that is Giant's Maestro design.
> 
> Most companies don't widely share their suspension innovations...
> 
> ...


I think FSR/Horst Link should be considered the same thing.

ICT=Ellsworth and Turner


----------



## sriracha (Jun 23, 2004)

cortina came up with this design about a decade ago (1994), then came canfield, and now it's all the rage (iron horse).

http://www.go-ride.com/prod_frames_cortina.html


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

Robot Chicken said:


> what about this one?
> 
> IS this a DW link?


I still wonder how did Giant convinced the Patent Officers that their Maestro stuff is any different from the DW's one.

They might do different things based on pivots location but the principle is the very same. Actually either company could re-arrange their pivots to copy the other company's and the Patent's office would have a handful trying to make a decision... who infricts who???

For example... Marin's gotta use the infamous FRS sticker while their design doesn't even gets close to the Specialized ones.... weird.


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

My IQ dropped after reading this thread.


And I've always wondered how Ellsworth is able to patent their Instant Center, in my opinion it should fall under the FSR patent.


----------



## themarsvolta55 (Dec 23, 2004)

Andrewpalooza said:


> No, that is Giant's Maestro design.
> 
> Most companies don't widely share their suspension innovations...
> 
> ...


"Lawwill = Profile has a bike with that linkage I think."

yup and the ride is great


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

WheelieMan said:


> My IQ dropped after reading this thread.
> 
> And I've always wondered how Ellsworth is able to patent their Instant Center, in my opinion it should fall under the FSR patent.


My understanding is that both Specialized and Anthony Ellsworth have their names on the patent, or at the very least there is some sort of agreement between the two parties.

The deal with Ellsworth's Instant Center is that it creates a virtual pivot point right in front of the the front wheel. (the concept of a VPP is far from unique) That technology has been used in F1 cars for a long time; a happy Ellsworth rider (I guess they do exist  ) who worked in auto racing told Mr. Ellsworth about the concept.


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

Warp2003 said:


> I still wonder how did Giant convinced the Patent Officers that their Maestro stuff is any different from the DW's one.


Yeah, you'd be hard pressed to find any major differences between the two designs. I can't find anything significant to require a second patent...

I forgot to mention earlier that Independent Fabrications is also making DW link bikes...


----------



## COmtbiker12 (Jan 12, 2004)

Dougal said:


> "Multi-pivot" is a pretty broad category. It includes every bike which isn't a single pivot. So there goes the whole performance spectrum.
> 
> The DW bikes, Karpiel, Schwinn Rockets are all four bars using a similar system. It has been around for many years but application is the key.


Saying they all use similar systems is like saying that coke and pepsi taste the same.


----------



## COmtbiker12 (Jan 12, 2004)

themarsvolta55 said:


> "Lawwill = Profile has a bike with that linkage I think."
> 
> yup and the ride is great


As well as Yeti and Rotec to say the least.


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

COmtbiker12 said:


> As well as Yeti and Rotec to say the least.


Except the old Lawwill Yeti has been supersceded by the 303 ...and that suspension slides on rails.

Does Rotec still make a Lawwill bike? As near as I can tell they are out of business.


----------



## COmtbiker12 (Jan 12, 2004)

Andrewpalooza said:


> Except the old Lawwill Yeti has been supersceded by the 303 ...and that suspension slides on rails.
> 
> Does Rotec still make a Lawwill bike? As near as I can tell they are out of business.


 Rotec is making better and better Lawwill bikes, and from what I've heard about the 303 the axle path follows the Lawwill design closer than the DH9 did. (not positive but that's what I recall hearing)


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

COmtbiker12 said:


> Rotec is making better and better Lawwill bikes, and from what I've heard about the 303 the axle path follows the Lawwill design closer than the DH9 did. (not positive but that's what I recall hearing)


...Rotec's domain registration expired, so I'm assuming that they are either in the red or too lazy to renew. Either way it isn't good. Haven't seen their new stuff yet....

The axle path means nothing. Its about how the suspension mechanically works that defines a linkage system. Considering that the 303 has rolling bearings instead of stationary pivots it could never be a Lawwill design. Regardless I find it hard to believe that a non Lawwill bike (303) has a more Lawwill-esque axle path than a pure Lawwill bike (DH9).

Contrary to some of the hype out there, I think axle path means less than an isolated axle and brake system (something that any of the aforementioned four bar systems have in common).


----------



## COmtbiker12 (Jan 12, 2004)

Andrewpalooza said:


> ...Rotec's domain registration expired, so I'm assuming that they are either in the red or too lazy to renew. Either way it isn't good. Haven't seen their new stuff yet....
> 
> The axle path means nothing. Its about how the suspension mechanically works that defines a linkage system. Considering that the 303 has rolling bearings instead of stationary pivots it could never be a Lawwill design. Regardless I find it hard to believe that a non Lawwill bike (303) has a more Lawwill-esque axle path than a pure Lawwill bike (DH9).
> 
> Contrary to some of the hype out there, I think axle path means less than an isolated axle and brake system (something that any of the aforementioned four bar systems have in common).


 I must have read something wrong then...oh well.

Here's the 05 Rotec though...


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

Andrewpalooza said:


> I forgot to mention earlier that Independent Fabrications is also making DW link bikes...


IF's are given the go by DW himself as far as I remember.... I guess the Tungsten Electrode is Dave's creation (at least the linkage).


----------



## Curb Hucker (Jan 1, 2005)

Wow some of you people are dumber than a drunk homeless man. The PDC is not VPP or DW-Link, it resembles neither. The PDC is a variation of a paralell linkage design. It is similar to a Karpiel, Canfield, or Cortina. Where the pivots are placed, and the length of the pivots determines how the suspension acts.


----------



## COmtbiker12 (Jan 12, 2004)

Curb Hucker said:


> Wow some of you people are dumber than a drunk homeless man. The PDC is not VPP or DW-Link, it resembles neither. The PDC is a variation of a paralell linkage design. It is similar to a Karpiel, Canfield, or Cortina. Where the pivots are placed, and the length of the pivots determines how the suspension acts.


 Sorry I'm so stupid Don, I thought that I read that stuff somewhere.


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

Curb Hucker said:


> Wow some of you people are dumber than a drunk homeless man. The PDC is not VPP or DW-Link, it resembles neither. The PDC is a variation of a paralell linkage design. It is similar to a Karpiel, Canfield, or Cortina. Where the pivots are placed, and the length of the pivots determines how the suspension acts.


Really??? I haven't noticed...... it's freaking four bar linkage. Give it the name you want it, it's still four freaking bars.... twist the pivots all you like, all of them are four bars.

Yes, they work different from each other .... even my 5mo old kid can tell you that if you change the location of a pivot the suspension will work different.

Thanks anyway for the enlightening insight.


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

Andrewpalooza said:


> ...Rotec's domain registration expired, so I'm assuming that they are either in the red or too lazy to renew. Either way it isn't good. Haven't seen their new stuff yet....
> 
> The axle path means nothing. Its about how the suspension mechanically works that defines a linkage system. Considering that the 303 has rolling bearings instead of stationary pivots it could never be a Lawwill design. Regardless I find it hard to believe that a non Lawwill bike (303) has a more Lawwill-esque axle path than a pure Lawwill bike (DH9).
> 
> Contrary to some of the hype out there, I think axle path means less than an isolated axle and brake system (something that any of the aforementioned four bar systems have in common).


Axle-path means nothing? Shape of the axle-path is extremely important to how a suspension design works. Axle-path shape is the reason why FSRs have very little chaingrowth, why VPP bikes pedal very well, why the PDC dh frame swallows bumps well, etc...


----------



## Steve from JH (Dec 30, 2003)

Andrewpalooza said:


> Contrary to some of the hype out there, I think axle path means less than an isolated axle and brake system (something that any of the aforementioned four bar systems have in common).


You're right about that. Although axle path is important too.


----------



## Robot Chicken (Jun 3, 2005)

COmtbiker12 said:


> I must have read something wrong then...oh well.
> 
> Here's the 05 Rotec though...


Whooh, cool!

It's neat how the suspension compresses into itself. Forget about a front derailleur though.

So DW and VPP have patents on axel path more so than linkage type?


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

Robot Chicken said:


> So DW and VPP have patents on axel path more so than linkage type?


Could be.... ICT and FSR hold different patents because the respective owners claimed the suspension would do different things based on wheelpath and instant center tracking. bla, bla, bla.......

Who knows??? As I said above, Marin has to bear the FRS stickers, could you tell their suspension does the same as Specialized's?

Actually I think that if you make a beverage can and claim it makes something different that being a beverage can you can apply for a patent and if you convince the patent officers that your beverage can can do what you claim, you can hold a patent on the stuff... weird.


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

COmtbiker12 said:


> I must have read something wrong then...oh well.
> 
> Here's the 05 Rotec though...


wow...

that frame looks really stiff


----------



## Chikity China (May 3, 2004)

sriracha said:


> cortina came up with this design about a decade ago (1994), then came canfield, and now it's all the rage (iron horse).
> 
> http://www.go-ride.com/prod_frames_cortina.html


no they didnt. they were one of the first to come up with an 8" travel dh frame in 1994 but not that design i dont think

u should read more carefully


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

WheelieMan said:


> Axle-path means nothing? Shape of the axle-path is extremely important to how a suspension design works. Axle-path shape is the reason why FSRs have very little chaingrowth, why VPP bikes pedal very well, why the PDC dh frame swallows bumps well, etc...


No, you misunderstood...

What I meant was, take, for example, a DW link bike. The DW link suspension design refers to the layout of the bars and pivots, and how the suspension mechanically functions. Axle path is a result of this, but not the chief characteristic. You wouldn't look at a bike, and, ignoring the layout of the linkage systems, call it a DW link based upon axle path. Axle path is obviously very important, that is why full suspension evolution didn't stop at the advent of the well refined single pivot bike. (amongst other things)

Anyway, what about the PDC axle path makes it so adept at bump swallowing. Does it have a slight rearward initial movement like the Yeti 303 or something?


----------



## Innocent Bystander (Dec 19, 2003)

There is a part of the VPP patent that states that the VPP links rotate in opposite directions (one CW while the other CCW). DW-Link and Giant's Maestro both have links that rotate in the same direction. I am not sure of the other specifics of the patent, but that is one that really sticks out to me as to where other companies are getting around any patent issues with Santa Cruz.


----------



## COmtbiker12 (Jan 12, 2004)

Innocent Bystander said:


> There is a part of the VPP patent that states that the VPP links rotate in opposite directions (one CW while the other CCW). DW-Link and Giant's Maestro both have links that rotate in the same direction. I am not sure of the other specifics of the patent, but that is one that really sticks out to me as to where other companies are getting around any patent issues with Santa Cruz.


 They're getting around patent issues because they're using entirely different designs.


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

Steve from JH said:


> You're right about that. Although axle path is important too.


Yeah, like I said before, axle path means a lot in terms of ride characteristics and other things, such as squat, chain growth, etc.

It is only unimportant when you are defining different suspensions based upon it. The linkage design is what is important.


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

COmtbiker12 said:


> They're getting around patent issues because they're using entirely different designs.


Yup.

VPP has one CW link and one CCW link. DW and Maestro both have CW on both rockers. Quite different. Just because they appear similar doesn't mean they are.


----------



## zedro (Jan 12, 2004)

COmtbiker12 said:


> They're getting around patent issues because they're using entirely different designs.


 its the old mentality that came from FSRs marketing; its number one and everyone else is just trying to rip it off or fool people. Most people dont know what they are looking at, let alone understand how they work.


----------



## Dougal (Jan 23, 2004)

Warp2003 said:


> I still wonder how did Giant convinced the Patent Officers that their Maestro stuff is any different from the DW's one.
> 
> They might do different things based on pivots location but the principle is the very same. Actually either company could re-arrange their pivots to copy the other company's and the Patent's office would have a handful trying to make a decision... who infricts who???
> 
> For example... Marin's gotta use the infamous FRS sticker while their design doesn't even gets close to the Specialized ones.... weird.


FSR, FRS, spot the difference. 

The DW patent is still pending, so at present there aren't many people who know what is and isn't included in the patent scope.

I also don't believe the ICT patent should fall outside the FSR one, but I'm an engineer, not a patent attourney.


----------



## TheSherpa (Jan 15, 2004)

Dougal said:


> FSR, FRS, spot the difference.
> 
> The DW patent is still pending, so at present there aren't many people who know what is and isn't included in the patent scope.
> 
> I also don't believe the ICT patent should fall outside the FSR one, but I'm an engineer, not a patent attourney.


Bike:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...=PG01&s1=weagle.IN.&OS=IN/weagle&RS=IN/weagle

Vehicle:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...=PG01&s1=weagle.IN.&OS=IN/weagle&RS=IN/weagle

I know there just applications, but its a start.


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

Andrewpalooza said:


> No, you misunderstood...
> 
> What I meant was, take, for example, a DW link bike. The DW link suspension design refers to the layout of the bars and pivots, and how the suspension mechanically functions. Axle path is a result of this, but not the chief characteristic. You wouldn't look at a bike, and, ignoring the layout of the linkage systems, call it a DW link based upon axle path. Axle path is obviously very important, that is why full suspension evolution didn't stop at the advent of the well refined single pivot bike. (amongst other things)
> 
> Anyway, what about the PDC axle path makes it so adept at bump swallowing. Does it have a slight rearward initial movement like the Yeti 303 or something?


You seem to be contradicting yourself.

The PDC downhill frame (not the one in this thread) is good at swallowing sharp bumps because of the extremely rearward axle-path. I'm not sure how the Yeti 303 has a "rearward axle-path" like the designers claim, when the Center of Curvature is positioned so low and far out in front of the bb. Seems pretty vertical in comparison to other frames on the market.


----------



## ironhorsebike1 (Dec 5, 2004)

Andrewpalooza said:


> Except the old Lawwill Yeti has been supersceded by the 303 ...and that suspension slides on rails.
> 
> Does Rotec still make a Lawwill bike? As near as I can tell they are out of business.


rotec's definately not under. i met a guy that i'm racing against and he is riding for them.


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

WheelieMan said:


> You seem to be contradicting yourself.
> 
> The PDC downhill frame (not the one in this thread) is good at swallowing sharp bumps because of the extremely rearward axle-path. I'm not sure how the Yeti 303 has a "rearward axle-path" like the designers claim, when the Center of Curvature is positioned so low and far out in front of the bb. Seems pretty vertical in comparison to other frames on the market.


You're still not getting what I am saying...

In terms of bike performance, yes axle path is very important. But that isn't what I was refering to. I was saying that a suspension is defined by the arrangement of its various members. When you look up the patent, there is a technical drawing of the suspension arrangement, not of the axle path. You just took my comment out of context.


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

Dougal said:


> but I'm an engineer, not a patent attourney.


That's what I meant.... don't they have engineers in there???


----------



## Robot Chicken (Jun 3, 2005)

Warp2003 said:


> That's what I meant.... don't they have engineers in there???


Every patent attourney IS an engineer.


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

Robot Chicken said:


> Every patent attourney IS an engineer.


Say it isn't so!!!

They must be not very good at engineering then... ICT is pretty much the same as FSR and both have separate patents...

Again, it looks like with enough blah-blah-blah work you can convince a patent attorney to issue a patent, IMHO.


----------



## flymybike (Jan 6, 2004)

Warp2003 said:


> Say it isn't so!!!
> 
> They must be not very good at engineering then... ICT is pretty much the same as FSR and both have separate patents...
> 
> Again, it looks like with enough blah-blah-blah work you can convince a patent attorney to issue a patent, IMHO.


Look basicly the FSR is a pivot location patent. 
The ICT is a patent that covers the steps used in designing a bike. It is the IC placment falling on the chain line throughout the travel, starting very far forward and moving back along the chain line.


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

flymybike said:


> Look basicly the FSR is a pivot location patent.
> The ICT is a patent that covers the steps used in designing a bike. It is the IC placment falling on the chain line throughout the travel, starting very far forward and moving back along the chain line.


Your post clarifies it all.

Still.... how do you obtain the rights over a patent that uses another patent inside your design without paying roayalties???

I understand the idea of the ICT and why it got patented... but yet, shouldn't they pay royalties to Specialized for the use of the Horst-Link??? Could they be forced to?? How do you get an ICT design without using the Horst-Link pivot??


----------



## zedro (Jan 12, 2004)

Warp2003 said:


> Your post clarifies it all.
> 
> Still.... how do you obtain the rights over a patent that uses another patent inside your design without paying roayalties???
> 
> I understand the idea of the ICT and why it got patented... but yet, shouldn't they pay royalties to Specialized for the use of the Horst-Link??? Could they be forced to?? How do you get an ICT design without using the Horst-Link pivot??


 i think its based on claim and purpose. Like say i have a patented mechanism that i claim can do this, its protected in that context. But if someone takes the exact same mechanism and uses (claims) it do something else, it can be seperatly protected under that context or purpose. In other words, you cannot patent a mechanism alone, you need to state its purpose and only that context is protected.

Really its splitting hairs, and the US patent office likes them thin it seems. For example, GT has some patents from the late 90's (may be pending still?) on drivetrain/suspension arrangements based on their new transmission bike. However the mechanisms and arrangements are basically the same as as any motorcycle out there (ie. secondary drive off a tranny, non-concentric single pivot). So somehow GT got the patents to the human powered motorcycle .

Come to Canada, most of these patents do not apply here...DW-Link knockoffs, here i come....


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

zedro said:


> Really its splitting hairs, and the US patent office likes them thin it seems.


That' what I meant Zedro... you got my point.



zedro said:


> Come to Canada, most of these patents do not apply here...DW-Link knockoffs, here i come....


Uhh.... I don't care much. If I would have a factory I'd be knocking off Specy's, DW'is, you name it.... I'm in mexico and those patents do not apply here either....

It knocks me in the sense that most of our bikes we get them from the US market and whatever applies there, it'll be more expensive here.


----------



## flymybike (Jan 6, 2004)

Warp2003 said:


> Your post clarifies it all.
> 
> Still.... how do you obtain the rights over a patent that uses another patent inside your design without paying roayalties???
> 
> I understand the idea of the ICT and why it got patented... but yet, shouldn't they pay royalties to Specialized for the use of the Horst-Link??? Could they be forced to?? How do you get an ICT design without using the Horst-Link pivot??


Don't quote me: 
If there is a patent that protects "X' and you come up with a idea that improves on "X" you can file a patent stating that the benefits over patent "X" are blabbly bla so you product will be better in these specific ways. 
So ICT is a improvement because the design concepts are based on having pivot centers fall directly on the chain line (and forward along said chainline) to provide a very consistant pull on the pivot, without pulling up or down thought the travel. 
FSR has no accomidation in there patent to make the bike pedal well, just that if you have a pivot there you pay up!
I was going to add what Canfield design concepts are but I erased it because I gave to much away. I don't want some sucka trying to juke us.


----------



## hardcore newbie (Nov 6, 2004)

turner dhr


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

flymybike said:


> ....... I don't want some sucka trying to juke us.


you can just send in the militia to regulate.......


----------



## zedro (Jan 12, 2004)

flymybike said:


> I was going to add what Canfield design concepts are but I erased it because I gave to much away. I don't want some sucka trying to juke us.


 saw my first Canfield in person this weekend; unfortunatly i did have time to NC probe the pivots.....


----------



## rzozaya1969 (Nov 28, 2004)

Warp2003 said:


> I still wonder how did Giant convinced the Patent Officers that their Maestro stuff is any different from the DW's one.
> 
> They might do different things based on pivots location but the principle is the very same. Actually either company could re-arrange their pivots to copy the other company's and the Patent's office would have a handful trying to make a decision... who infricts who???
> 
> For example... Marin's gotta use the infamous FRS sticker while their design doesn't even gets close to the Specialized ones.... weird.


I think that Giant's Maestro is an offset of Santa Cruz VPP. Giant used their design and modified it enought, I read that somewhere, and it was an agreement between Giant and Santa Cruz.

I don't know about Marin.


----------



## COmtbiker12 (Jan 12, 2004)

rzozaya1969 said:


> I think that Giant's Maestro is an offset of Santa Cruz VPP. Giant used their design and modified it enought, I read that somewhere, and it was an agreement between Giant and Santa Cruz.
> 
> I don't know about Marin.


 That wouldn't work because even the basic way that the rear triangles move throughout compression of the suspension is entirely different even just aesthetically to say the least.


----------



## gemini2000 (Apr 14, 2005)

*Lets stir it up*

Simple single pivot floating brake . Light stiff and simple , look what the fastest downhiller in the world uses (steve peat)


----------



## dante (Jan 12, 2004)

gemini2000 said:


> Simple single pivot floating brake . Light stiff and simple , look what the fastest downhiller in the world uses (steve peat)


well, theoretically the single fastest DHer in the world uses a single-pivot with a linkage driven suspension...  steve peat may have been the most consistantly fast person last year, but the *fastest* person last year was Barrell.


----------



## flymybike (Jan 6, 2004)

*Rearward wheel path*



gemini2000 said:


> Simple single pivot floating brake . Light stiff and simple , look what the fastest downhiller in the world uses (steve peat)


What about Nico? He was the most winning DH racer in history. He ran a linkage driven high single pivot steel frame with a upper pulley wheel and the year he switched from that to a non-pulley wheel bike he lost the title and has struggled ever since to get it back.
True rearward arc wheel path rules! Carries momentium like no other.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

rzozaya1969 said:


> I think that Giant's Maestro is an offset of Santa Cruz VPP. Giant used their design and modified it enought, I read that somewhere, and it was an agreement between Giant and Santa Cruz.
> 
> I don't know about Marin.


You thought wrong. Maestro has nothing to do with VPP.


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

rzozaya1969 said:


> I think that Giant's Maestro is an offset of Santa Cruz VPP. Giant used their design and modified it enought, I read that somewhere, and it was an agreement between Giant and Santa Cruz.
> 
> I don't know about Marin.


Roberto, Check out the Ironhorse Hollowpoint from '02 to the MKIII, all those designs by Canfield, Independent Fabrications, etc. You'll notice how similar the Maestro stuff is to those.

The VPP has a very different wheelpath and of course different dynamics (including a CCW rotating link)...

The agreement between SC and Giant was something like this. SC said to Giant  "If you don't use a CCW rotating link in your suspension scheme, we will not sue you" 

If that can be considered an "agreement in goodwill"....

Marin had John Whyte (the very same guy who made Michael Schumacher and Benetton twice world champions in F1) to design their suspension. Its suspension has a IC behaviour more in common with DW'esque designs but with some tweaks.... some people swear about that design. He also first figured out that quality of the bearings was crucial in this short-linked design.... SC had to learn it the hard way. Lest's see how it does with Giant.


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

flymybike said:


> What about Nico?


What about Anne Caro????

Those are outta this world riders... simply much more above the rest. Giv'em a trike and they'll win anyway.... Same with Peaty and Minaar (and I'm not ditching on the Honda before anyone would flame me, he won a WC with an Orange single pivot bike before that).


----------



## rzozaya1969 (Nov 28, 2004)

Jm. said:


> You thought wrong. Maestro has nothing to do with VPP.


Well, check this out.

http://www.mbaction.com/detail.asp?id=1123


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

rzozaya1969 said:


> Well, check this out.
> 
> http://www.mbaction.com/detail.asp?id=1123


yup, maestro has nothing to do with VPP. Only thing in common is that both are four bar linkages.... and that's it. Meastro has the same in common with VPP as it does with a Horst Link (nothinn basically).

What MBA's RC is describing as negotiations is something like I stated before. A REAL negotiation would have ended in the licensing of the VPP to Giant for a fee as Specialized does with some other brands. And maybe even Giant would have ended up fabricating some frames for SC (If they already don't).

SC wants exclusivity over the VPP concept taken from Outland who invented the concept years ago. VPP relies more on SPV shocks to control bobbing than a DW link like the Ironhorses and Maestro bikes.

This means that basically SC forced Giant to look somewhere else when designing a nice suspension scheme. As the patent over DW Link is still pending, Giant saw the opportunity and went for it.... who know's? Maybe they'll even get the patent for the linkage before DW or a separate one depending on how their claims were issued.

It's not the first time Giant wants to copy something and in the process makes some tweaks to get off..... the NRS was the first occurence. The NRS is a Horst-Link bike with a few tweaks. I ignore if Giant pays royalties to Specialized on the NRS but I guess not. Besides, Giant had been experimenting with VPP/DW'esque linkages some years ago on one of their DH bikes.


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

Dougal said:


> FSR, FRS, spot the difference.
> 
> The DW patent is still pending, so at present there aren't many people who know what is and isn't included in the patent scope.
> 
> I also don't believe the ICT patent should fall outside the FSR one, but I'm an engineer, not a patent attourney.


I think that main difference between FSR and ICT is that in an FSR design the shock is at a right angle to the "horst link" bar when it is fully extended. I don't think ICT has that. The function of the rear suspension is still identical, the arrangement differs.


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

Andrewpalooza said:


> I think that main difference between FSR and ICT is that in an FSR design the shock is at a right angle to the "horst link" bar when it is fully extended. I don't think ICT has that. The function of the rear suspension is still identical, the arrangement differs.


Not on the Demo bikes...... the way the shock is mounted is important as per leverage rates but not beyond. The pivots placements are the key.


----------



## Steve from JH (Dec 30, 2003)

Warp2003 said:


> Not on the Demo bikes...... the way the shock is mounted is important as per leverage rates but not beyond. The pivots placements are the key.


The pivot locations on the Demo bikes (not counting the shock mounting pivots) are almost exactly the same as on the Ellsworth Dare.


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

Steve from JH said:


> The pivot locations on the Demo bikes (not counting the shock mounting pivots) are almost exactly the same as on the Ellsworth Dare.


I was talking about the shock pivot locations... Andrew mentioned that FSR bikes have the shock perpendicular to the horst link bar.... I only mentioned the Demo does not follow this arrangement.


----------



## Steve from JH (Dec 30, 2003)

Warp2003 said:


> I was talking about the shock pivot locations... Andrew mentioned that FSR bikes have the shock perpendicular to the horst link bar.... I only mentioned the Demo does not follow this arrangement.


I know. I was just throwing in a fact that I happened to have noticed some time ago.

This FSR bike is definitely also an ICT.


----------



## sriracha (Jun 23, 2004)

flymybike said:


> What about Nico? He was the most winning DH racer in history. He ran a linkage driven high single pivot steel frame with a upper pulley wheel and the year he switched from that to a non-pulley wheel bike he lost the title and has struggled ever since to get it back.
> True rearward arc wheel path rules! Carries momentium like no other.


just for clarification purposes, does a high single pivot have a true rearward arc? assuming it does, does this mean that the issues with single pivot are chain/pedal kickback and brake jack? 
that said, those nicolai nucleon frames with the gbox and high concentric single pivots are looking mighty choice. would anyone agree?


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

Steve from JH said:


> I know. I was just throwing in a fact that I happened to have noticed some time ago.
> 
> This FSR bike is definitely also an ICT.


Who will sue who????

this brings back my point that issueing two patents for basically the same thing (as it happened with FSR/ICT and could happen with Maestro/DW) could lead to confusions in the best of cases (idiotic in my honest opinion).

I guess neither LLessworth nor Specialized would follow a legal action as it would take centuries before a resolution arise (if any) due to the idiocy of the fact of the two patents for the same stuff.


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

Warp2003 said:


> Not on the Demo bikes...... the way the shock is mounted is important as per leverage rates but not beyond. The pivots placements are the key.


Actually, what I should have said is that the shock link (horst link) is at a right angle to the seatstay when at proper sag. This further prevents the brake forces from disrupting the rear shock. I am pretty sure that the Demo follows this rule.


----------



## gunfodder (Jan 13, 2004)

*patent cross-licensing*



Warp2003 said:


> Who will sue who????
> 
> this brings back my point that issueing two patents for basically the same thing (as it happened with FSR/ICT and could happen with Maestro/DW) could lead to confusions in the best of cases (idiotic in my honest opinion).
> 
> I guess neither LLessworth nor Specialized would follow a legal action as it would take centuries before a resolution arise (if any) due to the idiocy of the fact of the two patents for the same stuff.


Ellsworth is definitely infringing on the Horst link patent; chances are Specialized is also infringing on ICT (I believe Steve from JH already stated this). They probably have a cross-licensing deal where they agree not to sue each other. This is very common in the semiconductor industry, where it's basically impossible to do anything interesting without infringing on a couple dozen patents.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

Warp2003 said:


> .....The agreement between SC and Giant was something like this. SC said to Giant  "If you don't use a CCW rotating link in your suspension scheme, we will not sue you"  .........


stand on the other side of the bike and you have ccw rotating links goofball......


----------



## flymybike (Jan 6, 2004)

*agree*



sriracha said:


> just for clarification purposes, does a high single pivot have a true rearward arc? assuming it does, does this mean that the issues with single pivot are chain/pedal kickback and brake jack?
> that said, those nicolai nucleon frames with the gbox and high concentric single pivots are looking mighty choice. would anyone agree?


If the b-b to pivot distance is as high or higher than the length of travel then it wouldn't move forward anywhere in the travel. Just rearward. 
Yes the issues are mainly chaingrowth, but not really brake jack, it squats, stiffening the suspension causing it to skip around. Feels similiar though. Things like gear boxs , jack drive and upper pulley wheels mask or eliminate the stretch giving you the best of both worlds. With the Canfield bikes we design in a small amount of squat to counter the dive in the fork, settling into the travel slightly to keep you balanced.


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

Warp2003 said:


> yup, maestro has nothing to do with VPP. Only thing in common is that both are four bar linkages.... and that's it. Meastro has the same in common with VPP as it does with a Horst Link (nothinn basically).
> 
> What MBA's RC is describing as negotiations is something like I stated before. A REAL negotiation would have ended in the licensing of the VPP to Giant for a fee as Specialized does with some other brands. And maybe even Giant would have ended up fabricating some frames for SC (If they already don't).
> 
> ...


Right...the NRS is simply a FSR design run with a no-sag setting on the shock to create a virtual hardtail without using platform-valve technology. I have ridden one, and it works, but I still would prefer the full-active feel of a true FSR. Maestro accomplishes the same thing as VPP, a more pedal-able bike, but the two concepts are not really related. There is no aggreement between SC and Giant to my knowledge, and I have read the MBA articles...DW and Maestro still raises questions though. Very similar systems.


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> stand on the other side of the bike and you have ccw rotating links goofball......


whatever.......

That post of yours was pretty informative and enlightening.... I haven't noticed about the relativity of the point of view of CW


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> stand on the other side of the bike and you have ccw rotating links goofball......


The point is that VPP has rocker links that rotate in opposite directions, while Maestro has them moving in the same direction. As to what SC said to Giant (probably nothing, I'd be willing to bet that Giant just talked to the patent office), who knows...


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

Warp2003 said:


> whatever.......


besides giant has been woking on their maestro lineup since like 2000......


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

......


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> besides giant has been woking on their maestro lineup since like 2000......


When do you think SC started working on the VPP concept if they released their VPP bike two years before the Maestro line???

The whole VPP concept is even older than the use of disc brakes on a bike.


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

Warp2003 said:


> When do you think SC started working on the VPP concept if they released their VPP bike two years before the Maestro line???
> 
> The whole VPP concept is even older than the use of disc brakes on a bike.


Santa Cruz never started working on the VPP concept; in fact they never really worked on it at all, they just bought it. Outland was the company that actually created the VPP concpet, but had trouble bringing it to market for a variety of reasons. Santa Cruz purchased the idea from Outland, got their exclusive rights, and turned around and made the Blur frame. Then came the v10, vpFree, and Nomad. They also sold rights to the technology to Intense, but I'm pretty sure that SC get to come out with new VPP frames before Intense does.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

Warp2003 said:


> When do you think SC started working on the VPP concept if they released their VPP bike two years before the Maestro line???
> 
> The whole VPP concept is even older than the use of disc brakes on a bike.


my point is, i know a few inside people, and the maestro design has never even come close to infringing upon VPP patents....

people see links rotating in a non-conventional direction and automatically scream VPP.....


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> my point is, i know a few inside people, and the maestro design has never even come close to infringing upon VPP patents....
> 
> people see links rotating in a non-conventional direction and automatically scream VPP.....


Could be.

As for people screaming VPP.... it depends on what SC (outland) put on the patent scope. If SC states that their stuff has a counterrotating link, then you'll probably inflict their patent.

It's like saying "people see an above and below pivot relative to the rear axle and scream horst-link"


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

Warp2003 said:


> ......it depends on what SC (outland) put on the patent scope. If SC states that their stuff has a counterrotating link, then you'll probably inflict their patent......


thing is (from a drive side perspective) typical links rotate in a CW motion. where Maestro rotates CCW. the giants links have always rotated both in the same direction, never was there any designing done with counter rotating links.... therefore there was never any potential infringement to begin with....


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> thing is (from a drive side perspective) typical links rotate in a CW motion. where Maestro rotates CCW.


UH??????!!! Check your writing on this dude. You have soemthing mixed up.



.WestCoastHucker. said:


> the giants links have always rotated both in the same direction, never was there any designing done with counter rotating links.... therefore there was never any potential infringement to begin with....


So the person who spread the rumor on patent infringement in the first place lied. Plain and simple.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

Warp2003 said:


> UH??????!!! Check your writing on this dude. You have soemthing mixed up.


my canfield links rotate counter-clockwise while the faith links rotate clockwise...

no counter-rotating (2 links rotating in opposite directions at the same time) going on here with either bike....


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> my canfield links rotate counter-clockwise while the faith links rotate clockwise...
> 
> no counter-rotating (2 links rotating in opposite directions at the same time) going on here with either bike....


I'm not saying you're wrong but check your writing again... now you're mixing up things with your previous post.....

Again... whatever. Let's ride.


----------



## Robot Chicken (Jun 3, 2005)

I think one thing that should be made clear is this:

Patentability doesn't have to do with infringement. An infringing utility patent can still obtain a patent from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Any resulting infringement issues are litigated (sp?) by the courts.

Example. You can get a patent by improving an existing patent as long as the USPTO considers it a novel improvement and not in the specification scope of the original patent. IT DOES NOT GIVE THE RIGHT TO THEN CREATE THE IMPROVED PATENT WITHOUT INFRINGING ON THE PREVIOUS PATENT RIGHTS.

A patent isn't the "RIGHT" to make some thing. It's a federal contract saying that NO ONE ELSE CAN MAKE THE PATENTED DESIGN that isn't given liscencing rights by the patent owners. Likewise you cannot "SELL" a patent either. The patent owner can only give permission to use the patent, and once that contracted time of patent use is used up ALL molds and what not must be either given to the patent holder or destroyed. There are some cases when a patent expires (20 years) in which someone else can lay claim to the patent.

Patent infringment is a common thing these days. Many patent owners don't have the money to file such lawsuits (expensive!!) and thus many ideas are stolen and illegal but never inforced. It's the patent owners responsibility to go after infingments and staight up patent jackings. There is no federal organization activly seeking wrong doers.

You know those three wheeled jogging strollers for kids? The original patent is owned by some ladies in Seattle WA. They never really did any good at marketing their product and never made much off it. As of now there;s quite a few companies making those in direct viiolation of the patent rights and not giving a single dime in royalties. Those ladies who own the patent don't have the resources to go after them and would spend more money on legal fees than they would gain in monetary rewards.


It's a tricky game. Despite what people may think the rules are bent all the time.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

Warp2003 said:


> I'm not saying you're wrong but check your writing again... now you're mixing up things with your previous post.....
> 
> Again... whatever. Let's ride.


i'm not sure where yuo are going with this...

maybe we are trying to explain the same thing to each other in different words....


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

One thing I can determine from all of this, is that VPP braking performace should be more desirable compared to Maestro, because the links rotate in opposite directions. On the other hand, Maestro designs will behave very similar to single-pivots under braking.


----------



## biketiger (Mar 25, 2004)

*Sorry, man...*



Warp2003 said:


> For example... Marin's gotta use the infamous FRS sticker while their design doesn't even gets close to the Specialized ones.... weird.


Sorry, man...

...but not one of the Marins carries an *FSR* sticker. The two work nothing alike.

If you are talking about the *"FRS"* decals on the old models, the FRS simply stands for "FRONT and REAR SUSPENSION".


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

biketiger said:


> Sorry, man...
> 
> ...but not one of the Marins carries an *FSR* sticker. The two work nothing alike.
> 
> If you are talking about the *"FRS"* decals on the old models, the FRS simply stands for "FRONT and REAR SUSPENSION".


Yup...somebody already corrected me on that one (read above)... my bad.


----------



## scabrider (Oct 3, 2004)

i think it looks like no other bike i have seen...


----------



## mtbkid (Mar 18, 2004)

first of all, the maestro and the DW are exactly the same thing. The only difference between any suspension design is axle path. VPP and DW are basicly the same they got away with the patent because the used a forward rotating link, the axle paths of the two designs are almost the same when set up correctly the suspension will sag into postion moving almost away from the bike then when the suspension is activated it moves in a forward arc the same as a single pivot, but because of the "sweet spot" that the suspension sags into pedaling forces are eliminated the difference is; the VPP relies on a stable platform shock(ie: progressive 5th, manitou spv, etc) and the DW does not this is because the shock is in a less linear postition. so the only answer to the original question about the PDC is "yes it is". 
To clear up some other things; an FSR creates a near virtical axle path the same way a lawill does. fsr has sold the patent to several different companies.
A single pivot: Any time the main pivot and the rear axle is fixed to the same member it is a single pivot creating a forward arcing axle path. This means that almost everything is a single pivot like, kona stinkys, giant acs, giant VTs, yeti asx, RMXs, turner DHRs, etc. all because they have the same axle paths.
before all of the pissed off people respond to this please stop and think about what i have just said, if you can try to visualize it in your head first
Just because it looks different does not mean it is.
sorry its so long


----------



## DH'er16 (Jan 28, 2004)

Yeah its all alot less complicated then people think, Specialized patented the "Horst Link" (correct me if I'm wrong on this", the pivot thats on the chainstay. Single pivots have that on the seatstay only to reduce stress to the frame.

But VPP does have a sweet spot, thats why you have to sag into just the right spot on the s-curve...

But really looking at the first question proposed (not to piss anyone off) but who cares? we could debate until the end of time and no one would give up their side. 
What kind of frame does it resemble? I think it resembles a freakin sick frame, period.

The end


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

DH'er16 said:


> Single pivots have that on the seatstay only to reduce stress to the frame.


Completely false


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

mtbkid said:


> first of all, the maestro and the DW are exactly the same thing. The only difference between any suspension design is axle path. VPP and DW are basicly the same they got away with the patent because the used a forward rotating link, the axle paths of the two designs are almost the same when set up correctly the suspension will sag into postion moving almost away from the bike then when the suspension is activated it moves in a forward arc the same as a single pivot, but because of the "sweet spot" that the suspension sags into pedaling forces are eliminated the difference is; the VPP relies on a stable platform shock(ie: progressive 5th, manitou spv, etc) and the DW does not this is because the shock is in a less linear postition. so the only answer to the original question about the PDC is "yes it is".
> To clear up some other things; an FSR creates a near virtical axle path the same way a lawill does. fsr has sold the patent to several different companies.
> A single pivot: Any time the main pivot and the rear axle is fixed to the same member it is a single pivot creating a forward arcing axle path. This means that almost everything is a single pivot like, kona stinkys, giant acs, giant VTs, yeti asx, RMXs, turner DHRs, etc. all because they have the same axle paths.
> before all of the pissed off people respond to this please stop and think about what i have just said, if you can try to visualize it in oyur head first
> sorry its so long


Sorry but I have to correct you.

VPP and DW-link are not even close design wise.

VPP designs do not "rely" on stable-platform shocks, fox shocks are available for and work very well on the VPP models.

DW-link designs do "rely" on stable-platform shocks, particularly the custom valved 5th elements.

All single-pivots do not have the same axle-path. There is a huge variation in axle-path shape between designs like the Orange 223 and Turner DHR, both single-pivots.


----------



## Curb Hucker (Jan 1, 2005)

TheSherpa said:


> Mtbkids post shows why society is so horrible, and it makes me want to kill myself.


seriously, what a fcukin idiot


----------



## TheSherpa (Jan 15, 2004)

WheelieMan said:


> Sorry but I have to correct you.
> 
> VPP and DW-link are not even close design wise.
> 
> ...


Mtbkids post shows why society is so horrible, and it makes me want to kill myself.


----------



## _dw (Jan 20, 2004)

WheelieMan said:


> Sorry but I have to correct you.
> 
> VPP and DW-link are not even close design wise.
> 
> ...


 Neither of you guys have it right. Sorry.

The dw-link bikes use less low speed compression damping than ANY other bikes on the market today. Actually, the number is generally about 1/3 of the damping of the other frames.

DW-Link bikes have close to 100% anti-squat in the range of travel that you are pedaling.

VPP bikes start off with pro-squat, and end up with anywhere between 20% and 50% anti squat later in the travel.

The less anti squat you have, the more damping you need to keep the suspension from moving.

Its that simple.

Dave


----------



## _dw (Jan 20, 2004)

mtbkid said:


> first of all, the maestro and the DW are exactly the same thing. The only difference between any suspension design is axle path. VPP and DW are basicly the same they got away with the patent because the used a forward rotating link, the axle paths of the two designs are almost the same when set up correctly the suspension will sag into postion moving almost away from the bike then when the suspension is activated it moves in a forward arc the same as a single pivot, but because of the "sweet spot" that the suspension sags into pedaling forces are eliminated the difference is; the VPP relies on a stable platform shock(ie: progressive 5th, manitou spv, etc) and the DW does not this is because the shock is in a less linear postition. so the only answer to the original question about the PDC is "yes it is".
> To clear up some other things; an FSR creates a near virtical axle path the same way a lawill does. fsr has sold the patent to several different companies.
> A single pivot: Any time the main pivot and the rear axle is fixed to the same member it is a single pivot creating a forward arcing axle path. This means that almost everything is a single pivot like, kona stinkys, giant acs, giant VTs, yeti asx, RMXs, turner DHRs, etc. all because they have the same axle paths.
> before all of the pissed off people respond to this please stop and think about what i have just said, if you can try to visualize it in your head first
> ...


 I am sorry to call you out, but you have it so backwards its tough to know where to start. Luckily there is about 5 years of technical info written by yours truly on this very site.

Follow my 3 step program-

Read up.

Understand.

Then write.

You will be happy that you did.

Have fun

Dave


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

_dw said:


> Neither of you guys have it right. Sorry.
> 
> The dw-link bikes use less low speed compression damping than ANY other bikes on the market today. Actually, the number is generally about 1/3 of the damping of the other frames.
> 
> ...


What's wrong with what I said? Only the custom valved 5th elements are recommended for your frames no?


----------



## Genetic (Jun 12, 2005)

Warp2003 said:


> , Marin has to bear the FRS stickers.


Hmmm. My '04 Attack Trail has no such stickers...


----------



## _dw (Jan 20, 2004)

WheelieMan said:


> What's wrong with what I said? Only the custom valved 5th elements are recommended for your frames no?


 The bikes use 5th elements that are valved to have as low compression damping as possible. They are custom valved, but in the exact opposite direction as every other bike that I know of.

With a 5th Element on a dw-link, you run as little chamber pressure as possible, and a very large chamber volume. This in essence "shuts off" the pedaling platform and makes use of it more or less as an end travel hydraulic bump stop. Sort of in the same vein as a WP shock on a KTM dirt bike.

Most other frames use high pressures and small chamber volumes to give extra compression damping the beginning of the travel to help pedaling. The difference between the two setups is just about the biggest one possible.

Hope this clears things up.

Have a good ride!

Dave


----------



## sriracha (Jun 23, 2004)

_dw said:


> With a 5th Element on a dw-link, you run as little chamber pressure as possible, and a very large chamber volume. This in essence "shuts off" the pedaling platform and makes use of it more or less as an end travel hydraulic bump stop.
> Have a good ride!
> 
> Dave


not that it matters, but this is how i set up the 5th for my vpfree. very large air chamber, no compression damping (beginning and ending), and about a 1/2 turn of rebound damping. this makes the vpfree feel a lot more active, and it still pedals well.


----------



## TheSherpa (Jan 15, 2004)

_dw said:


> The bikes use 5th elements that are valved to have as low compression damping as possible. They are custom valved, but in the exact opposite direction as every other bike that I know of.
> 
> With a 5th Element on a dw-link, you run as little chamber pressure as possible, and a very large chamber volume. This in essence "shuts off" the pedaling platform and makes use of it more or less as an end travel hydraulic bump stop. Sort of in the same vein as a WP shock on a KTM dirt bike.
> 
> ...


Jesus Dave,

You need to make a robot that automatically answers all questions about DW-link bikes. Just dig deep into your Army robot training and do it.


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

TheSherpa said:


> Jesus Dave,
> 
> You need to make a robot that automatically answers all questions about DW-link bikes. Just dig deep into your Army robot training and do it.


No kidding, either that or an FAQ to refer people to!


----------



## El Caballo (Nov 22, 2004)

WheelieMan said:


> One thing I can determine from all of this, is that VPP braking performace should be more desirable compared to Maestro, because the links rotate in opposite directions. On the other hand, Maestro designs will behave very similar to single-pivots under braking.


Actually, I'm reasonably sure it's the opposite.

The rear triangle on a VPP rotates more as it goes through the travel, making it behave less like a floating brake and more like a single pivot.

The rear triangle on a dw-link rotates much less, making it behave more like a floating brake and less like a single pivot.


----------



## TheSherpa (Jan 15, 2004)

El Caballo said:


> Actually, I'm reasonably sure it's the opposite.
> 
> The rear triangle on a VPP rotates more as it goes through the travel, making it behave less like a floating brake and more like a single pivot.
> 
> The rear triangle on a dw-link rotates much less, making it behave more like a floating brake and less like a single pivot.


Good thing he was talking about VPP vs. Maestro.


----------



## El Caballo (Nov 22, 2004)

TheSherpa said:


> Good thing he was talking about VPP vs. Maestro.


Woops! You're right.

The Maestro will act quite similarly to a VPP as far as the rotation of the rear triangle during braking.

Yes, the upper link rotates one way on the Maestro and the other way on the VPP. That's not important. What is important is the points at which the swingarm attaches to the links, and which way they move when the suspension compresses.

In both designs, as the suspension compresses, the upper link attachment point rotates primarily forward, and the lower link attachment point rotates backward and upward. This is in contrast to the dw-link, where both attachment points rotate primarily upward.


----------

