And another variation of a 6-bar linkage. And such a painfully simple spin on their rail system - use a Watt's linkage to achieve the same (near) linear movement of the swingarm pivot, but get rid of the rails.
So yes, it should have less maintenance or at least it will be easier as it should use normal bearings (or bushings).
Interesting solution with the flex wings, though it'll be interesting to see how it will work with such short flexible links - they should be quite stiff, trying to move the suspension towards the location where the wings are not deformed. Though maybe the link can be made in such a way where it's relaxed at zero travel? But there are quite a lot of possibilities on this front as well.
Maybe they'll be able to make aluminium frames now? Though I kind of doubt that they'd want to with their current brand status
As for pivots, look at the current Enduro. It's painfully to look at the diagrams :D
Leo Molloy how does Mojo 4 fare in Linkage? That DW link design also actually switches over in the link travel.
EDIT: considering there are mentions of e-bikes... Their current system isn't something that couldn't work with a mid-mounted motor, at least not kinematically. I mean if it did have problems, this patent solves nothing. The kinematics are more or less the same. I was wondering though if there are problems with the loads put into the system on e-bikes when using the rails setup?
Plus, looking at the patent itself, to me the most interesting part is that which was not yet covered in the wheelbased article, it's the use of crossed links to drive the swingarm pivot, which is essentially a Chebyshev mechanism (with some modifications of the main pivot placement). It achieves a similarly vertical(-ish) path of the main pivot in a certain range of motion, but it is MUCH more compact than either the Watt's linkage or the rail system that we're mostly discussing, at least frame construction wise.
As for the e-bike solution, this patent implies their own drive design with the casing of the drive featuring the mounting for the watt's linkage.
I'd say we will see the designs in the patent in action fairly soon, possibly even with the first refresh of the current lineup, as they would have been working on this well before the patent was filed, which was almost a year ago.
I really appreciate you reading this and giving your feedback. As far as the Chebyshev system, that will be the second article. This patent is broken down into 4 distinct patentable ideas (embodiments), each idea encompassing a set of claims at the bottom of the patent. So, Yeti wrote this 1 huge patent and will submit the patent 4 times with the same specification but with 20ish different claims for each idea.
So they've got 4 Watt 4 bar, the Chebyshev, another Watts 4 bar that is integrated into the frame, and a motor/gearbox assembly.
another thing I noticed about the patent was that the the 6 bar linkage was used on a frame with a DPX2 whilst the one with the more compact Chebyshev mechanism used a DPS. I feel like this suggests that the Chebyshev mechanism would only work in an SB100 application due to the added flex from having less bracing.
Also do you think yeti would actually leave switch infinity? I feel like seeing an extra bit of kashima on a yeti has become apart of there brand image. I get the feeling that a 6 bar linkage to a not very nerdy consumer might look like an inferior product even though it functions in a similar way.
Due to the reason above I don't actually believe this is going to manifest into production. I think its a patent designed to prevent other brands from implementing vertical link movement into there frame designs.
With, I suppose, the first Watt 4 bar variant covered by incorporating either 3 separate links, connected via bearings or by having a single flexible part (either by making it an actual single part or by screwing flexible wings to a central part).
I noticed the integrated links variant as well (didn't touch on it above) and it seems... interesting. Considering the single piece variant uses bearings and the integrated one doesn't, the flexing shapes of the wings will be quite a bit different and will have to take into account the frame as well. The way it's drawn in the patent, the top and bottom mount will have quite different flex... Plus if anything goes wrong, the frame is basically a throwaway item. Is it possible they're just adding this to cover the bases and then they won't use it, at least not very often (maybe for an XC bike at the most, weight and all...)? Even the manufacturing on these shapes seems PITA.
Since you're here, I skimmed over the Fox Multi-Mode shock article, but isn't that more or less just a patent covering (and expanding on) what they did with Scott and their Ramp Adjust?
Leo you can spin marketing in many different ways. Even 'more bearings, more better'. Or more reliability, etc. Plus if it's easier (cheaper) to make the frames, you can be sure they will do their best to make it work in the shops as well. Also, how does the Switch Infinity system hold up in the real world? There was noise of some problems in one of the SB100 reviews, but that bike uses a slightly different rail system to the other ones.
As for the Chebyshev linkage bikes, stiffness is a possible point, but on the other hand the frame can be made stiffer with that linkage compared to a Watt's linkage (with a 'hanging out' BB shell and lower linkage pivot) One possible benefit could also be pivot placement - it appears the main swingarm pivot could be closer to the tyre than on the Watt linkage version, enabling shorter rear ends (if you move the complete linkage forwards a bit over the BB ).
I would be very surprised if we see the integrated 4 bar actually in production other than an XC bike. It's possible it's written so no one else can use it. Maybe it'll be a showpiece to say "look what we can do".
As far as Fox's shock, Scott have 2 air chambers. From their site: "Our Proprietary FOX Nude shock features two positive air chambers.". This new Fox patent has 3 positive air chambers. So, yes, it could be a variant of the Scott implementation but the 3rd chamber is also adjustable like the Megneg system (but on the positive side). Thanks for the insight, I didn't even think to look at Scott's system.
If my memory serves me correctly. I think a patent lawyer had a proper look at the Shimano patent and concluded that they were only patenting the low friction lubricant. So the 14 speed gearbox functioned as an example use case not the idea.
With, I suppose, the first Watt 4 bar variant covered by incorporating either 3 separate links, connected via bearings or by having a single flexible part...
With, I suppose, the first Watt 4 bar variant covered by incorporating either 3 separate links, connected via bearings or by having a single flexible part (either by making it an actual single part or by screwing flexible wings to a central part).
I noticed the integrated links variant as well (didn't touch on it above) and it seems... interesting. Considering the single piece variant uses bearings and the integrated one doesn't, the flexing shapes of the wings will be quite a bit different and will have to take into account the frame as well. The way it's drawn in the patent, the top and bottom mount will have quite different flex... Plus if anything goes wrong, the frame is basically a throwaway item. Is it possible they're just adding this to cover the bases and then they won't use it, at least not very often (maybe for an XC bike at the most, weight and all...)? Even the manufacturing on these shapes seems PITA.
Since you're here, I skimmed over the Fox Multi-Mode shock article, but isn't that more or less just a patent covering (and expanding on) what they did with Scott and their Ramp Adjust?
Leo you can spin marketing in many different ways. Even 'more bearings, more better'. Or more reliability, etc. Plus if it's easier (cheaper) to make the frames, you can be sure they will do their best to make it work in the shops as well. Also, how does the Switch Infinity system hold up in the real world? There was noise of some problems in one of the SB100 reviews, but that bike uses a slightly different rail system to the other ones.
As for the Chebyshev linkage bikes, stiffness is a possible point, but on the other hand the frame can be made stiffer with that linkage compared to a Watt's linkage (with a 'hanging out' BB shell and lower linkage pivot) One possible benefit could also be pivot placement - it appears the main swingarm pivot could be closer to the tyre than on the Watt linkage version, enabling shorter rear ends (if you move the complete linkage forwards a bit over the BB ).
After looking at this further, I think you may be right that this would be the Nude TR. This is an interesting situation, though, because Fox Originally released this in 2018 as patent 20180313423. They resubmitted this application without changing (as far as I can tell) any of the claims. BUT they did add paragraph 0067 in the 2020 patent, which supports some electronic modulation of the shock system. Lawyers will typically do this to protect an idea without distancing from the scope of the claims. So they may have some level of protection to say "we have this in our spec so you can't do it".
Yeah, the TR is a dual mode only, that's why I said the new patent would be expanding on the idea. The one you linked does look VERY much like the Nude TR
EDIT: I'm looking at some schematics now, the Nude TR does in fact appear to have 3 chambers, with the main and second chamber being controlled by the handlebar remote and the third being controlled by the sleeve lever, effectively just adding volume to the second chamber (so it's either two smaller or two larger chambers in effect).
As for Simano, while it would definitely be cool to see it in production, it's kind of hard for me to imagine it being made any time soon. It will require a huge paradigm shift in how bikes are made with the gearboxes centrally mounted and higher pivot placements becoming much more prevalent. It might be a hard sell for some customers (even though it would be better in almost all situations), so I'm not holding my breath to see this anytime soon.
That said, I think if anyone, Shimano can be the driving force behind popularisation of gearboxes. They have the volumes, the connections and the reputation in the cycling world to be taken serious by the other parties and biting into it.
Here's the next article if anyone is interested. It's similar to the first one but, like Primoz mentioned, with a Chebyshev 4-bar system. I appreciate all of you reading it.
I'm kinda hoping the range will be a 29er, probably carbon, 170mm travel version of the shore
When is the new Range coming out then?
And I'd say it's pretty safe to say more than one engineer has been riding it considering it's rumored the release is imminent or should already happen under normal circumstances, if there was enough stock of components to build the bikes.
And I'd say it's pretty safe to say more than one engineer has been riding it considering it's rumored the release is imminent or should already happen under normal circumstances, if there was enough stock of components to build the bikes.
Piggy looks pretty much like present topaz 2, the can is definitely different. Considering its very similar in appearance to float x2 it might be DH/EN large volume shock. Just my guess but comparing to what others have...
So yes, it should have less maintenance or at least it will be easier as it should use normal bearings (or bushings).
Interesting solution with the flex wings, though it'll be interesting to see how it will work with such short flexible links - they should be quite stiff, trying to move the suspension towards the location where the wings are not deformed. Though maybe the link can be made in such a way where it's relaxed at zero travel? But there are quite a lot of possibilities on this front as well.
Maybe they'll be able to make aluminium frames now? Though I kind of doubt that they'd want to with their current brand status
As for pivots, look at the current Enduro. It's painfully to look at the diagrams :D
Leo Molloy how does Mojo 4 fare in Linkage? That DW link design also actually switches over in the link travel.
EDIT: considering there are mentions of e-bikes... Their current system isn't something that couldn't work with a mid-mounted motor, at least not kinematically. I mean if it did have problems, this patent solves nothing. The kinematics are more or less the same. I was wondering though if there are problems with the loads put into the system on e-bikes when using the rails setup?
Plus, looking at the patent itself, to me the most interesting part is that which was not yet covered in the wheelbased article, it's the use of crossed links to drive the swingarm pivot, which is essentially a Chebyshev mechanism (with some modifications of the main pivot placement). It achieves a similarly vertical(-ish) path of the main pivot in a certain range of motion, but it is MUCH more compact than either the Watt's linkage or the rail system that we're mostly discussing, at least frame construction wise.
As for the e-bike solution, this patent implies their own drive design with the casing of the drive featuring the mounting for the watt's linkage.
I'd say we will see the designs in the patent in action fairly soon, possibly even with the first refresh of the current lineup, as they would have been working on this well before the patent was filed, which was almost a year ago.
I really appreciate you reading this and giving your feedback. As far as the Chebyshev system, that will be the second article. This patent is broken down into 4 distinct patentable ideas (embodiments), each idea encompassing a set of claims at the bottom of the patent. So, Yeti wrote this 1 huge patent and will submit the patent 4 times with the same specification but with 20ish different claims for each idea.
So they've got 4 Watt 4 bar, the Chebyshev, another Watts 4 bar that is integrated into the frame, and a motor/gearbox assembly.
Also do you think yeti would actually leave switch infinity? I feel like seeing an extra bit of kashima on a yeti has become apart of there brand image. I get the feeling that a 6 bar linkage to a not very nerdy consumer might look like an inferior product even though it functions in a similar way.
Due to the reason above I don't actually believe this is going to manifest into production. I think its a patent designed to prevent other brands from implementing vertical link movement into there frame designs.
I noticed the integrated links variant as well (didn't touch on it above) and it seems... interesting. Considering the single piece variant uses bearings and the integrated one doesn't, the flexing shapes of the wings will be quite a bit different and will have to take into account the frame as well. The way it's drawn in the patent, the top and bottom mount will have quite different flex... Plus if anything goes wrong, the frame is basically a throwaway item. Is it possible they're just adding this to cover the bases and then they won't use it, at least not very often (maybe for an XC bike at the most, weight and all...)? Even the manufacturing on these shapes seems PITA.
Since you're here, I skimmed over the Fox Multi-Mode shock article, but isn't that more or less just a patent covering (and expanding on) what they did with Scott and their Ramp Adjust?
Leo you can spin marketing in many different ways. Even 'more bearings, more better'. Or more reliability, etc. Plus if it's easier (cheaper) to make the frames, you can be sure they will do their best to make it work in the shops as well. Also, how does the Switch Infinity system hold up in the real world? There was noise of some problems in one of the SB100 reviews, but that bike uses a slightly different rail system to the other ones.
As for the Chebyshev linkage bikes, stiffness is a possible point, but on the other hand the frame can be made stiffer with that linkage compared to a Watt's linkage (with a 'hanging out' BB shell and lower linkage pivot) One possible benefit could also be pivot placement - it appears the main swingarm pivot could be closer to the tyre than on the Watt linkage version, enabling shorter rear ends (if you move the complete linkage forwards a bit over the BB ).
As far as Fox's shock, Scott have 2 air chambers. From their site: "Our Proprietary FOX Nude shock features two positive air chambers.". This new Fox patent has 3 positive air chambers. So, yes, it could be a variant of the Scott implementation but the 3rd chamber is also adjustable like the Megneg system (but on the positive side). Thanks for the insight, I didn't even think to look at Scott's system.
https://wheelbased.com/2020/11/19/multi-mode-air-shock-by-fox/
The old one is here: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d1/49/aa/3ccd3310f2ea6d/US2…
EDIT: I'm looking at some schematics now, the Nude TR does in fact appear to have 3 chambers, with the main and second chamber being controlled by the handlebar remote and the third being controlled by the sleeve lever, effectively just adding volume to the second chamber (so it's either two smaller or two larger chambers in effect).
As for Simano, while it would definitely be cool to see it in production, it's kind of hard for me to imagine it being made any time soon. It will require a huge paradigm shift in how bikes are made with the gearboxes centrally mounted and higher pivot placements becoming much more prevalent. It might be a hard sell for some customers (even though it would be better in almost all situations), so I'm not holding my breath to see this anytime soon.
That said, I think if anyone, Shimano can be the driving force behind popularisation of gearboxes. They have the volumes, the connections and the reputation in the cycling world to be taken serious by the other parties and biting into it.
https://wheelbased.com/2020/12/06/multi-body-vehicle-suspension-linkage…
Check section Product Launches:
https://www.mtb-news.de/
https://www.instagram.com/p/CIgQUK5l4Iq/?igshid=zonwlk8qijgf
https://www.mountainbike-magazin.de/mtb/canyon-stoic/
Crazy good value on the entry level one. If they released a 26 inch version of the xxs/xs for kids at 800e it would be a no brainer.
https://wheelbased.com/2020/12/08/multi-body-vehicle-suspension-linkage…
And I'd say it's pretty safe to say more than one engineer has been riding it considering it's rumored the release is imminent or should already happen under normal circumstances, if there was enough stock of components to build the bikes.
And I'd say it's pretty safe to say more than one engineer has been riding it considering it's rumored the release is imminent or should already happen under normal circumstances, if there was enough stock of components to build the bikes.