Suspension Data Acquisition

I mean I don't know the BYB Software but I am not sure if it can take all the LiveValve magic into account. After all LiveValve is altering settings on the go. Is there a way to disable the LiveValve and just ride in the open setting? I would try to do that first.

Plus the already meantioned comment about the auto settings thing. Is the auto setting to your liking? I mean there is always personal preference. I would always take that into account if setting up a bike.

Yeah, I can leave it off and see what I get.  Good idea.  

Will have to wait a couple of days to do it unfortunately because I'm not going to have time until at least Saturday but will definitely try it on my next ride multiple ways to see how it is reflected in the charts.  

Most of the trail is flow but that section of the run definitely includes one significant drop that I didn't exactly nail perfectly but it doesn't surprise me that 40mm would be the average.  I see 28.4% showing as the average which seems reasonable.  The max of 81.4% was that drop I mentioned.  Here's the stack view and the line version of the other chart.  This run was ~25 min.  Thanks for the comments and ideas.

Thank you. In retrospect that seems so obvious. My initial thought was to give it a ton of data but I can easily see why that blurs the results instead. Especially with me stopping to examine the extremely techie climbs before attempting them. 
 

I’m laughing at myself for not analyzing that correctly. Really appreciate everyone that has chimed in. 

I finally had time on Sunday to get a run in and I'm much closer now.

A few thoughts:

1. BYB has the ability to trim runs and save them as new files so that I can isolate that shorter time period.  This is really helpful and I used that, combined with some previous runs to do compares. 

2. I'm very driven to hit "perfect" or whatever on recommendations but I'm not sure that should really be my goal.  After spending quite a bit of time looking through the charts I think I'm pretty close even though autotune thinks I'm way off.  I get why, think it is correct and yet still think that very minor adjustments are required.  

3. My degree is in software engineering so I always try to solve problems like these like I would if I were debugging code but that approach, much like how you initially debug something, needs to be refined when you realize that changing one variable can make another one look incorrect even if it is fine.

4. My suspension was way too firm.  I mean, by a lot and yet it was dead on with manufacturer recommendations.  I went back to those for a test yesterday and my bike felt like crap.  I've been most likely riding with suspension being too firm for the last 10 years or so.  I spoke to a friend who is a national level XC racer about this and he stated that he's always thought the manufacturer recommendations were trash and he uses way less pressure and far more static sag than they want him too.  He wasn't the least bit surprised and had actually told me that he thought my bike was too firm when we rode together prior to me starting this assessment.

More testing to come but hopefully speaking out loud helps others not make the same mistakes as I did/am The info here as been excellent and I must also compliment Enrico from BYB on his top notch customer service.  His quick response and thoughtful answers have also been extremely useful.

Not quite yet but I will share every meaningful thing I find.  That's the best part of forums like this.  Too much work is not leaving me with enough time to get regular runs in for the time being but as I progress I will try to show the results.  I will tell you that I feel faster (and Strava/GPS back this up) and more confident.  Even little doubles where I used to have to try to pump hard to get any boost are easier to hit.  I cleared one on Sunday that I always screw up (hard to get the speed right after a flat corner) and I almost wiped out because I was shocked I made it   I'm used to basically completely screwing it up and losing speed instead.  I need to take to it down the skills track and hit some drops and table tops so that I can see the effect on bigger events but just haven't had time.

Awesome! sounds like great progress. I agree that shorter runs are the ticket - too much data tends to create a lot of noise and skews the distributions and average data. What is "perfect" on one track will be bad on another so its worth doing a few tweaks on one trail and then move to a different one to see how the data changes and then you can decide if you want to bias towards one or the other, or find a middle ground that is OK for both.

Been following this thread because the technology is interesting and it’s cool to see it grow. Looking at some of that output and some people’s questions it seemed like a good time to add this. As a greater quantity of data gets generated from the bike, i think a problem similar to one faced by a lot of researchers working on large datasets is cropping up—data dredging. If all you start with is a lap time or a ride-feel report and try to go into a dataset to try to suss out which of those many factors seems to correlate, you’re increasingly likely to draw the wrong conclusion as the dataset increases in size. It’s just more probable some misleading apparent pattern will be there to be found. It’s not necessary that every principle of good setup be known in advance; surprises are sure to be waiting and people continue to learn. But the rush to make data acquisition do something useful outside of well controlled test tracks raises questions about how good the evidence is that any and which ones of these metrics should be elevated to targets. What you can measure seems more advanced currently than the whys.

Would you be willing to share the files needed to 3d print this stuff? Also I see you're using EXT springs on a DHX2, where did you find that spring spacer?

These are good points - its an interesting discussion because on the one hand, some will argue that DAQ systems are pointless and can't tell you whats going on, and on the other you will see some people read far too much in to the data and expect it to give answers that just aren't there. From my perspective its just a tool - a really powerful too but only one piece of the puzzle. I will still start out with listening to rider feedback or feel, and then hopefully the data might have a clue as to what direction to go with but sometimes it doesn't so I will still make an educated "guess" or bracket a couple of settings and then see if theres a clear change that correlates to an improved feel. I bought a kit before I opened my business and have for sure learnt more than I ever could have without it.

One thing that might disappoint people is that proper testing can be super boring because you are testing lots of different changes over and over again, at least in the beginning. With time you will be able to spot trends but to begin with its best to do a few runs without making adjustments to get a set of baselines, ie different tracks, different weather, before & after a service, or days you feel "off" and just get your head around the kind of ranges you see when you look at them all. 

I know I can set bikes up well without it, but theres a point where it does become invaluable because things are clearly not 100% right but theres no obvious indicators of which way to go. The key is not leaning on it too much if you don't have something specific to you're looking for - it can be handy to do those baseline tests of something that works "OK" so you can compare it to a day it works better, but I would be wary of changing things just because you think the data says so.

One other "epiphany" that I should have included.  I spent way too much time trying to go with small changes at first.  I didn't really see progress on hitting the right values until I went extreme and then backed it down.  Kind of a binary search principle.  I set my shock to 110psi and my fork to 55psi (fully kitted weight 190-195lbs depending on how much water I'm carrying) because I needed to see numbers that were on the other side in order to make sure that I wasn't doing something else wrong.  That worked quite well.  Everything went from far left to far right for the most part (rebound didn't but that would come later).  That gave me confidence that I was using the product and the software correctly and also made for a very bouncy, multiple bottom out on light chunk, miserable 5 minute ride. 

A few quick hit learnings from me:

1. The Mach 4SL was considerably harder to dial in than I thought it would be but after spending a bunch of time assessing why that would be I came to the conclusion that the sensors were not stable enough.  It was hard to get them right because that bike just doesn't have a lot of surface area to attach them to.  I did finally figure it out and get them to work but I run that as a 106/120 and it is very stiff in general.  It is much more widely dispersed on the best settings for climbing vs descending than the Switchblade.  I would have guessed that to be the opposite but I think it has to do with how stiff it is in general.  All in all, I did end up much closer to where I started than I did with the Switchblade though and I can detect a positive impact in both situations but nothing like the Switchblade.  I still haven't been able to best my PR on the downhill test trail with the Mach 4SL.  It used to be ~10 seconds faster than the Switchblade, now it is dead even.  Uphill the M4SL still wins easily as you might imagine given that it weighs 6lbs less.

2. If any of you are curious if LiveValve has a meaningful impact on your suspension, I can confirm that it is crystal clear when collecting data.  I mistakenly left it in firm on a descent once and the numbers vs comfort were way different.  I could feel it before but I'm not sure I'm a good enough rider to really get the full feel and nail it down (although, when I descending that time I kept saying "WTF is wrong with this bike?" in my head, realized after I stopped) but the data shows it easily.

3. I'm sure this is part me getting better at it but the Firebird has proven to be the easiest one so far.  Instead of just going with what I had on the first run, I made some assumptions based on my other two bikes that I've dialed in and it was pretty close to where I wanted it after one run.  I haven't had time for a second run yet but that should be enough to do it.

Next up is the Repeater PT.  I don't ride it very often without my child up front (Kids Ride Shotgun 2.0 seat) and don't ride e-bikes very much in general so it will be interesting to see how far off that one is.

Again, thanks to everyone here for the advice and pointers.  This has been a lot of fun to figure out so far and it would have been far more difficult without your help.

Hello @az2au,

thanks for your comments! 
I noticed just now this thread and it looks very interesting!

About the BYB Telemetry system, I can give some tips on the software here (in random order):
- When looking at the distribution charts you can always click "hide zeros" to get a better view of the lines. More than that, I'd recommend clicking on the "enlarge" button that will open the chart in a new dialog (with totally customizable zoom).
- Switch a lot between "lines", "dots" and "histograms" visualizations to get the best out of any chart.
- Use the comparison and have a look at the delta-time chart to know in which section of the track you were faster.
- The auto-tuning is considering the whole run. It's almost ready with a new software version, that includes the summary and the auto-tuning referred to a specific selection.
- The auto-tuning is thought to analyze mainly the downhill section. We're working on the possibility of adding more parameters to refine the tunings (such as track type, etc....).
- We always recommend tuning suspension by looking at the charts rather than only the auto-tuning. The auto-tuning is not always true, sometimes riders do like specific setups.
- The software is updated every 1-2 months with new charts, features, and bug fixes.
- The smartphone app shows some basic and interesting stuff, but it's nothing compared to the software.
- The system can be used as a lap timer (both based on GPS and with an external sensor).
- The software can handle different "BYB modes": MTB, MX, QUAD (3 suspensions), CAR (4 suspensions), OPEN (any kind of analog sensor) and even BrakeAce (wired version of their sensors). All the views on the software are automatically updated according to the mode selected.
- Working directly with all the major World Cup teams - no time to waste between runs (literally 5 minutes) - drove us to make the software as usable and understandable as possible in very fast times. They can now set up bikes in less than 5 minutes, taking into account a lot of different charts and parameters.
- The software can be used by data-addicted, engineers and "normal" persons
- We can provide custom and 1:1 training session 
-I'd recommend to tweak the parameters of the bikes one at a time. Once you get more experience you can do more parameters at a time. For example, in just 4 runs is possible to move from a "crap" bike to a very well-balanced one. After that, it's always possible to spend nights and nights on the data to find perfection.

About the BYB Telemetry hardware, I can say:
- Some World Cup riders, bike shops, and other types of riders did a very nice job on the cable management (see image below).
- We started by getting sensors from a supplier, but we ended up manufacturing our custom linear sensors. They're now at 80mm and 210mm of stroke. Perfect size to maximize stroke travel and overall footprint.
- The calibration is automatic. It's true if you're jumping at least one time during the run. In the next releases, we'll add also a new type of manual calibration (just for those who want to do it).
- The hardware can be used on MTB, MX, QUAD (3 suspension) and CAR (4 suspension).
- We can provide frame mountings or design services.
- We can create custom loggers for any kind of sensors and need. For example, the data acquisition unit you can see installed on the Commencal (previous page) has been developed by us just for Commencal Muc-off. They have several and they're using it with Pierron, Daprela, Marini, Nicole, Rudeau, etc... The same applies to the custom unit that Madison Saracen is running. Again, the same for MS-Mondraker and various bike or parts manufacturers.

They're running a full BYB Telemetry data acquisition here (Matt Walker's bike). In this neat configuration, you can have: fork sensor, shock sensor, x2 brake sensor, x1 speed sensor, and automotive GPS antenna.

Feel free to throw any questions,

Cheers!
Enrico

PS: new piece of hardware that is about to be released. BYB Chrono (https://www.bybtech.it/chrono) - lap timer with external triggers to get super accurate timings. You can already download the app from the Apple Store and play with it (the Android release should be available in a couple of days). Strangely the process with Apple was faster than Android... never happened! ahah

That's the BYB-Commencal custom logger mentioned in the previous message.
It has remote IMU and other stuff...

Great to see Enrico posting here.  FWIW, he's answered every question I've sent him via email by the next day and always offered me additional support.  BYB is a great product that is very fun to play with (normal people edition) but having Enrico back it with his time and replies just makes it even better.

Hello all

I've been lurking here for a while and have now taken notice of this chat regarding telemetry and BYB in particular,   you see I'm looking to invest in Enrico's product in the new year so I'm finding this chat extremely interesting, I'm sure I'll have questions !

Richie

Would pay for something like this

If you need something custom (from mountings to units or whatever) we can do it.
Just the drawing or even the 3D printed part if needed.

Is that tyre pressure monitoring?! Thats an impressive bike, progressive wound shock spring too! Any idea whos it was?

It is a japanese brand and together with the Kowa suspension this might be from a local race there.

Yeah I went down the rabbit hole - anchor was the flagship brand for Bridgestone cycling (still exists! Mostly making road bikes) and the rider was probably Kenichi NABESHIMA who seems to be the only downhiller they mention. Looks like an interesting bike, Kowa appeared to make some cool suspension which I know got rebranded as MSC to be raced by the European maxxis team who had guys like Pascal and Vasquez. Japan made (makes?) a ton of cool kit that never really got exported, and by the looks of things took it pretty seriously