This unique layout aligns suspension forces in the most efficient layouts possible to enable frame designs with industry leading strength-to-weight ratios and stiffness. This structural advantage lets dw-link riders put down power more efficiently and track straight in the bumps where others veer off course.
Why the dw-link suspension is the best performing suspension system in the bicycle world:. Give TF Tuned a call. Thanks for the input. Or are we talking about perceived chainsty lengthening? Is DW link anything like the giant trance? Weagle vs Ellsworth in a-who spouts the most spurious technobabble bs competition. Who wins….. Remember that the pivots are usually not at the dropout or bottom bracket. Take the usual high mounted single pivot, as the swingarm rises the distance from bottom bracket to dropout grows a little at first.
I think Turner were forced to change design away from horst as they no longer had a contract to run the design, they then looked around and designed the frame around the DW link. He worked on the design team at Iron Horse Bikes too. There are few people who understand mountain bike suspension like Weagle does. This design has been around for almost a decade, and while other suspension designs have come along, the Split Pivot still gets plenty of attention among mountain bike designers. The goal is to limit suspension bob without limiting small bump compliance.
In fact, it works well enough that other suspension systems closely mirror it; slight differences in axle path may be the only variations between systems, in fact. So, Weagle started putting it all down on paper. Those had been done in the past.
This bell-shaped anti-squat profile is typical of twin or horst-link designs with counter-rotating links. The result is good pedalling efficiency throughout the pedalling zone, with minimal extra pedal kickback further into the travel. Also notice the the similarity in anti-squat profile between the single pivot Kona and twin-link Pole. This means the rear axle moves in an arc with a constant radius about the CC, much like a single-pivot, resulting in similar anti-squat behavior.
Namely, the anti-squat usually drops off throughout the stroke. The steeper the anti-squat drops off, the less pedal kickback there will be towards the end of the stroke, but the more the pedaling efficiency will be affected by dynamic sag.
However, the centre of curvature can be designed to sit in a position which would be impractical to place a physical pivot such as within the radius of the wheel, or in the middle of the front triangle.
In this sense, the designers can produce kinematic behavior which would be difficult, in practice, to replicate with a single pivot. Without redesigning your bike, you can tune the amount of anti-squat it has by swapping chain rings. Bigger rings will result in reduced anti-squat but less pedal kickback, or vice versa. More simply, riding over rough terrain in the smaller cassette cogs and bigger chain rings if you have multiple will result in less pedal kickback.
So shift into the harder gears before dropping into a rough descent for maximum sensitivity and minimal feedback. A high pivot point increases the anti-squat coming from the driving force, while an idler pulley minimises pedal kickback Steve Behr. High-pivot bikes bypass this catch The idler means they exhibit virtually zero upper chain growth or pedal-kickback. Yet, due to the high IC, they still have significant levels of anti-squat thanks to the driving force alone. Another concept which depends on the instant centre and affects suspension performance is anti-rise — commonly referred to as brake jack.
This is basically the effect of the rear brake force on the suspension. It works a bit like anti-squat, but in reverse. However, the force going through the rear brake calliper acts to compress the suspension, pushing the mainframe down. If you compress the rear suspension while the rear wheel stays still, the calliper will move around relative to the disc.
If you pull the rear brake when riding forwards, the braking torque from the calliper acts to compress the suspension by an amount proportional to this movement relative to the disc. High levels of anti-rise are generally thought to make the suspension feel firmer and less reactive over bumps, resulting in a harsh feeling when braking.
At the time of writing, the author is not convinced of the significance of this effect. Currently, the general consensus in the industry is that anti-rise is bad. As a result, some companies go to great lengths to reduce its effect. The amount of anti-rise depends on the extent to which the calliper wants to move around the disc, and this depends on the position of the instant centre.
Imagine a line between the rear contact patch and the IC: the shallower the gradient of that line, the lower the amount of anti-rise.
This is called the anti-rise vector and can be used to calculate the percentage anti-rise in just the same way as the anti-squat vector in the diagram above. Here, more than percent anti-rise implies that pulling the rear brake only would cause the rear suspension to compress, while less than percent anti-rise implies it would extend.
Horst-link or twin-link bikes with roughly parallel links e. Therefore, the anti-rise vector sits at a shallow angle, resulting in low levels of anti-rise. Bikes with instant centres placed high up and rearward e. The seatstay moves on an arc which is defined by a floating instant centre, like a Horst-link, which is further forward of the main pivot, so anti-rise is reduced relative to a chainstay mounted calliper.
So take any marketing claims along these lines with a pinch of salt. The axle path is basically the line the rear axle takes as the suspension moves, measured relative to the mainframe. The direction of the axle path at any point in the travel is at right angles to the swingarm line, which connects the axle to the instant centre, via the centre of curvature.
Therefore, you can think of anti-squat purely in terms of axle path — the more the axle path moves away from the bb, the more anti-squat. This is very much the same as saying that a higher instant centre results in more anti-squat, as described above. A more rearward axle path may also help a bike to absorb certain bump forces for reasons unrelated to the chain. But for most bikes, the axle path only moves rearwards by a few millimetres at most. Once again, high pivot bikes are a notable exception.
Their axle path moves significantly rearwards throughout the travel. It makes intuitive sense that a rearward path allows the wheel to move out of the way more easily when faced with large bumps.
The force produced by these is rearward as well as upward the force vector points in the direction at right angles to the point on the wheel where it contacts the bump. Slacker head angles, and therefore forks, tend to absorb kerb-sized bumps more smoothly but are more prone to flex and binding when pushing vertically downwards in the car park or when landing to flat.
The same thing is happening with a high-pivot bike — large bumps push the axle in the direction it wants to go. Think of it another way. A rearwards axle path means the rear wheel travels backwards relative to the mainframe as the suspension compresses. This means the wheel moves more slowly relative to the bump and so moves up and over it more slowly too.
Having said that, one study demonstrated that a full suspension bike required 30—60 percent less power than a hardtail to ride over simulated rough terrain in a lab. So, if high-pivot suspension absorbs bumps more effectively, it stands to reason that those bumps will rob the bike of less forward momentum, but this is largely unproven.
Either way, for bikes without an idler pulley, this is all fairly academic. In that case, the potential bump-absorption advantage of a slightly more rearward axle path is negated by the increase in chain-growth and anti-rise they produce. Arguably the most important aspect of suspension kinematics in terms of ride feel is the leverage curve — the way the leverage ratio changes through the travel. The leverage ratio is the ratio between the distance the rear wheel moves vs.
The average leverage ratio is therefore the ratio of rear wheel travel to the stroke of the shock.
0コメント