Interesting take here from Jordy https://youtu.be/mnl9xQJF9ok?is=Aa7TLQLWLpn97NtUSeems like the Suspension Engineers don't like the teams using DAQ that much. I also noticed this... In the videos...
Seems like the Suspension Engineers don't like the teams using DAQ that much. I also noticed this... In the videos from last years worldcup you saw maybe 30% of the teams using DAQ system and this year you see pretty much 100% of them running the BYB DAQ.
I feel like DAQ is almost more useable for "normal" riders that haven't the experience of a racer that know what "suspension feel" they're chasing. For example I don't know what my bike feels like at its best possible setup. For the longest time I thought this feels great but later learned that everything was too soft.
Yeah I saw this also. And in this thread is definitely leaning on the side of DAQ, but there’s some people out there who don’t like it and that’s Ok. Jordi in all the Fox videos never seemed to care for Daq. It’s ok, personally I know the benefits, it helps me and my friends. I know you can get lost in it, but you can also get lost in rider feedback who doesn’t know how to explain what they are feeling. To me, data doesn’t lie.
Interesting take here from Jordy https://youtu.be/mnl9xQJF9ok?is=Aa7TLQLWLpn97NtUSeems like the Suspension Engineers don't like the teams using DAQ that much. I also noticed this... In the videos...
Seems like the Suspension Engineers don't like the teams using DAQ that much. I also noticed this... In the videos from last years worldcup you saw maybe 30% of the teams using DAQ system and this year you see pretty much 100% of them running the BYB DAQ.
I feel like DAQ is almost more useable for "normal" riders that haven't the experience of a racer that know what "suspension feel" they're chasing. For example I don't know what my bike feels like at its best possible setup. For the longest time I thought this feels great but later learned that everything was too soft.
Yeah I saw this also. And in this thread is definitely leaning on the side of DAQ, but there’s some people out there who don’t like...
Yeah I saw this also. And in this thread is definitely leaning on the side of DAQ, but there’s some people out there who don’t like it and that’s Ok. Jordi in all the Fox videos never seemed to care for Daq. It’s ok, personally I know the benefits, it helps me and my friends. I know you can get lost in it, but you can also get lost in rider feedback who doesn’t know how to explain what they are feeling. To me, data doesn’t lie.
"Data doesn't lie, but it also doesn't tell the whole truth" - I can't remember who originally made that quote but it is very true
I'm not as blunt as Jordi but I agree on a lot of the points and I think the other mechanics summed it up better - You need to focus on listening to the rider and understanding what they want instead of burying yourself behind a computer screen and expecting the lines to give you the answer. The data can supplement a technicians skills but it can't give the result all on its own. I remember photographers calling it "chimping" when they were hunched over their camera screen looking at the previous shots instead of engaging with their subject and giving them proper direction. Whenever I use data I kind of offset the analysis by a run, as in I'll have a set plan of things to try or test and do most of the analysis between runs. I'll adapt what needs to be done depending on the results but I don't like having a rider sitting around while I make up my mind either. So the rider feedback is the main guide and the data is used to check what direction things are moving in, or being added to the pool of factors to consider.
But if you just bolt the sensors on and start looking at numbers after the first run and making changes to try and bring those numbers back to the "correct" amount then you will rapidly go off track and thats exactly what Jordi is seeing. I've know several world cup guys in the same boat who will constantly test and try to chase the numbers around but never get anywhere. but if you take a step back and focus on the basics you make a lot more progress. You can still use the data as a reference point if you get stuck, and I think its good to use it over a long period of time to collect a range of samples so you can see how much variation there is in different tracks, but just using it for a day and expecting it to give you all the answers is the wrong way to look at things
Hey I’ve been cruising through this thread and just at first glance it seems pretty technical. I love doing bike setup for myself and friends, is...
Hey I’ve been cruising through this thread and just at first glance it seems pretty technical. I love doing bike setup for myself and friends, is telemetry pretty easy to understand once you’ve actually got your own data, or do you need to have a technical background to actually get any use out it? Looking to pick myself up a new toy.
If you like data and nerding out and have a technical mind then using the system isn't too bad. I learned by recording my base settings, what my bike was already set up as. Then I started changing 1 setting at a time, like fork LSR fully closed, then fully opened. Same 1:30 run over and over recording in a note book my changes and what I felt. Then I compared that to the data I saw. This took several days to get through. I then set everything in the middle & standard sag, made a run then using the data started to decipher what settings changes to make. After that I experimented on friends and then customers. Through it all you also have to ask the rider questions and base changes on that as well. The lines may align perfectly but if it feels like poo it is poo. I've got one racer he loves his bike firm and static sag is very low. Another guy liked his softer for more comfort over longer rides. Both had balanced systems but were quite different in feel.
Interesting take here from Jordy https://youtu.be/mnl9xQJF9ok?is=Aa7TLQLWLpn97NtUSeems like the Suspension Engineers don't like the teams using DAQ that much. I also noticed this... In the videos...
Seems like the Suspension Engineers don't like the teams using DAQ that much. I also noticed this... In the videos from last years worldcup you saw maybe 30% of the teams using DAQ system and this year you see pretty much 100% of them running the BYB DAQ.
I feel like DAQ is almost more useable for "normal" riders that haven't the experience of a racer that know what "suspension feel" they're chasing. For example I don't know what my bike feels like at its best possible setup. For the longest time I thought this feels great but later learned that everything was too soft.
Yeah I saw this also. And in this thread is definitely leaning on the side of DAQ, but there’s some people out there who don’t like...
Yeah I saw this also. And in this thread is definitely leaning on the side of DAQ, but there’s some people out there who don’t like it and that’s Ok. Jordi in all the Fox videos never seemed to care for Daq. It’s ok, personally I know the benefits, it helps me and my friends. I know you can get lost in it, but you can also get lost in rider feedback who doesn’t know how to explain what they are feeling. To me, data doesn’t lie.
"Data doesn't lie, but it also doesn't tell the whole truth" - I can't remember who originally made that quote but it is very trueI'm not...
"Data doesn't lie, but it also doesn't tell the whole truth" - I can't remember who originally made that quote but it is very true
I'm not as blunt as Jordi but I agree on a lot of the points and I think the other mechanics summed it up better - You need to focus on listening to the rider and understanding what they want instead of burying yourself behind a computer screen and expecting the lines to give you the answer. The data can supplement a technicians skills but it can't give the result all on its own. I remember photographers calling it "chimping" when they were hunched over their camera screen looking at the previous shots instead of engaging with their subject and giving them proper direction. Whenever I use data I kind of offset the analysis by a run, as in I'll have a set plan of things to try or test and do most of the analysis between runs. I'll adapt what needs to be done depending on the results but I don't like having a rider sitting around while I make up my mind either. So the rider feedback is the main guide and the data is used to check what direction things are moving in, or being added to the pool of factors to consider.
But if you just bolt the sensors on and start looking at numbers after the first run and making changes to try and bring those numbers back to the "correct" amount then you will rapidly go off track and thats exactly what Jordi is seeing. I've know several world cup guys in the same boat who will constantly test and try to chase the numbers around but never get anywhere. but if you take a step back and focus on the basics you make a lot more progress. You can still use the data as a reference point if you get stuck, and I think its good to use it over a long period of time to collect a range of samples so you can see how much variation there is in different tracks, but just using it for a day and expecting it to give you all the answers is the wrong way to look at things
It’s definitely just a tool and depends how you use it. Hopefully these riders test in the off season and everyone finds baselines. Using data in my opinion can speed up the suspension setup process so much
The way I use it for testing different bikes and parts, is that I know my general speeds comp/reb that give me the comfort feel I like. I’ve done so much setup I can get it pretty close by feel now. Then get to a window I feel good and data looks goods. But when I’m trying to tune out a sensation and it’s not possible to do from suspension setup, then I can now start looking at other areas of the bike like, are the tires different, wheels, bars and even frame compliance.
OK, interested to see how y'all read this data. I've put my own conclusions and proposed tuning directions at the bottom...Rider is a local first-year elite...
OK, interested to see how y'all read this data. I've put my own conclusions and proposed tuning directions at the bottom...
Rider is a local first-year elite enduro racer who was top of the heap in U19s. Bike is a 2026 megatower with a Zeb and Super Deluxe coil. Trails are typical Perth Hills goodness: short, rough, rocky and moderately steep. Logged on my logger and visualized on data.syn.bike.
I strongly suggest that people are very careful when comparing the numbers between different telemetry systems, especially with the homegrown ones. Relatively minor filtering/grouping/binning changes lead...
I strongly suggest that people are very careful when comparing the numbers between different telemetry systems, especially with the homegrown ones. Relatively minor filtering/grouping/binning changes lead to very different speeds and graphs and there isn't a "true" one.
For example there can be a big difference what "average" speed is, depending on how is it calculated. My app supports both the MotionIQ way - stroke-peak averaged, which counts each stroke once by peak velocity and peak travel and what I believe is the BYB way - sample averaged, which counts every sample inside compression and rebound strokes. The stroke-peak averaged produces twice the numbers of sample averaged. The BYB tuner was very confused, when I was explaining the speeds I am seeing.
Nobody works with raw numbers either. I have inherited from Tamás a Savitzky-Golay filtering of suspension speeds. Velocity is the first derivative of travel, which amplifies high-frequency noise, so this filter trades responsiveness for noise rejection. On the same data, no filter gives me 509 mm/s rebound, while 50ms (the default) is 466mm/s.
There is a lot of processing and nobody tells you what they do with the data before they show it to you.
Definitely agree about comparing data. I’ve heard there is even variance between the same systems and using different potentiometers.I’ve been working on my own app for...
Definitely agree about comparing data. I’ve heard there is even variance between the same systems and using different potentiometers.
I’ve been working on my own app for MotionIQ data. I made the trimming of the run faster and also a page for comparing 2 runs. Trying some new things with “feedback to rider” also.
Maybe flip the colors? Compression is usually blue on the adjusters (and rebound red), maybe it would make sense to align with that?
I strongly suggest that people are very careful when comparing the numbers between different telemetry systems, especially with the homegrown ones. Relatively minor filtering/grouping/binning changes lead...
I strongly suggest that people are very careful when comparing the numbers between different telemetry systems, especially with the homegrown ones. Relatively minor filtering/grouping/binning changes lead to very different speeds and graphs and there isn't a "true" one.
For example there can be a big difference what "average" speed is, depending on how is it calculated. My app supports both the MotionIQ way - stroke-peak averaged, which counts each stroke once by peak velocity and peak travel and what I believe is the BYB way - sample averaged, which counts every sample inside compression and rebound strokes. The stroke-peak averaged produces twice the numbers of sample averaged. The BYB tuner was very confused, when I was explaining the speeds I am seeing.
Nobody works with raw numbers either. I have inherited from Tamás a Savitzky-Golay filtering of suspension speeds. Velocity is the first derivative of travel, which amplifies high-frequency noise, so this filter trades responsiveness for noise rejection. On the same data, no filter gives me 509 mm/s rebound, while 50ms (the default) is 466mm/s.
There is a lot of processing and nobody tells you what they do with the data before they show it to you.
Definitely agree about comparing data. I’ve heard there is even variance between the same systems and using different potentiometers.I’ve been working on my own app for...
Definitely agree about comparing data. I’ve heard there is even variance between the same systems and using different potentiometers.
I’ve been working on my own app for MotionIQ data. I made the trimming of the run faster and also a page for comparing 2 runs. Trying some new things with “feedback to rider” also.
Maybe flip the colors? Compression is usually blue on the adjusters (and rebound red), maybe it would make sense to align with that?
Maybe flip the colors? Compression is usually blue on the adjusters (and rebound red), maybe it would make sense to align with that?
I can flip the colors if it helps you. 😅 I just read the top as comp and the bottom rebound no matter what the color is. I’m going to try some testing this weekend and put the app through its paces.
is anyone on here still using Motion instruments and want me to make this public? It just runs off HTML.
My $0.02 on Jordi and DAQ... He's clearly not an idiot, but neither are the teams running DAQ at world cup level. Most likely, they're both right.
Jordi sits in the Fox stand and deals with whatever walks through the door, under enormous time pressure. There's probably 3/5 of 5/8 he doesn't know about how Fox product behaves, both through his own honed intuition and through dyno data. Having people bring their own interpretations probably does get in the way of him doing his thing. Even if you loved DAQ, you might think it belonged in the off season and not at a world cup race weekend.
I've noticed a tendency for people with access to real suspension performance data - i.e. taken off a dyno under controlled conditions - to be a bit dismissive of DAQ. If we measure 'suspension behaviour' on the bike we're really measuring the rider, the track and the suspension all at once. That's a fair criticism and a real limitation. But if you set up suspension solely on the dyno then without necessarily admitting it you have a model in mind for how it will be ridden and on what.
At some point you have to have a negotiation with reality, whether you measure pure suspension behaviour on the dyno or messy in-use behaviour on the bike.
Definitely agree about comparing data. I’ve heard there is even variance between the same systems and using different potentiometers.I’ve been working on my own app for...
Definitely agree about comparing data. I’ve heard there is even variance between the same systems and using different potentiometers.
I’ve been working on my own app for MotionIQ data. I made the trimming of the run faster and also a page for comparing 2 runs. Trying some new things with “feedback to rider” also.
I can flip the colors if it helps you. 😅 I just read the top as comp and the bottom rebound no matter what the color...
I can flip the colors if it helps you. 😅 I just read the top as comp and the bottom rebound no matter what the color is. I’m going to try some testing this weekend and put the app through its paces.
is anyone on here still using Motion instruments and want me to make this public? It just runs off HTML.
Do you still need a pro subscription to export all the data? I haven't used it since specialized took over but I could be tempted if it can be used without a paid subscription
My $0.02 on Jordi and DAQ... He's clearly not an idiot, but neither are the teams running DAQ at world cup level. Most likely, they're both...
My $0.02 on Jordi and DAQ... He's clearly not an idiot, but neither are the teams running DAQ at world cup level. Most likely, they're both right.
Jordi sits in the Fox stand and deals with whatever walks through the door, under enormous time pressure. There's probably 3/5 of 5/8 he doesn't know about how Fox product behaves, both through his own honed intuition and through dyno data. Having people bring their own interpretations probably does get in the way of him doing his thing. Even if you loved DAQ, you might think it belonged in the off season and not at a world cup race weekend.
I've noticed a tendency for people with access to real suspension performance data - i.e. taken off a dyno under controlled conditions - to be a bit dismissive of DAQ. If we measure 'suspension behaviour' on the bike we're really measuring the rider, the track and the suspension all at once. That's a fair criticism and a real limitation. But if you set up suspension solely on the dyno then without necessarily admitting it you have a model in mind for how it will be ridden and on what.
At some point you have to have a negotiation with reality, whether you measure pure suspension behaviour on the dyno or messy in-use behaviour on the bike.
I think you still find a world cup level guys who bolt it on at a race, think the numbers are way off and start changing things right away....thats the type of team Jordi is talking about, as they will likely be asking him for certain change based totally on the data instead of anything the rider is asking for - thats the big mistake. The tools are still really good and useful to have, as long as teams don't let it dominate the decisions. It's fine if people come up with the own interpretations but it puts people like Jordi in a tough spot if its clear what theyre asking for doesn't have a solid enough reason. I see the exact same thing all the time where someone has seen an "issue" in the data and want you to make a change to the bike or the suspension, when the problem is elsewhere. I know if you make that change it will just take you further in to the hole (and the product will get blamed even more) but if you push back and try to suggest something different - if that doesn't immediately help then you are also in the wrong.
This stuff does come back to a basic issue with how teams do set up - they should be doing the bulk of it in the off season so they don't need to be making drastic changes, but also there needs to be a point of contact in the team who is able to communicate with the suppliers at a level of mutual trust. Then the manufacturer can leave them to mostly make their own decisions and give them support when needed, and the team feels like the manufacturer will listen and take on their feedback. IMO teams need to pick whether they take care of all of the suspension work themselves or just trust the supplier to do it all - I know it can be tough to feel like they get enough support, but its also tricky when someone does half a job and you get asked to fill in the gaps. There can be a middle ground but thats a trickier balance to find
And that gets to my last point about guys who dismiss DAQ systems - I'm trying not to come across like that but I know there are for sure a few people who "don't believe" in using data and you only need maths for the "correct" tune (some of those guys also used to think a Dyno isn't needed because you can supposedly calculate the damping accurately.....). There are also DAQ guys who don't believe in using a Dyno - they are both wrong. Both are tools that can give a small part of the picture and the most important part is always knowing that you don't have that full picture and there are several limitations on what you are measuring. It's fine if people don't want to/can't afford/don't need both, as long as you aren't dismissing the other just because you don't "believe" in it.
They both compliment each other for reasons like the dyno can tell you how useful the adjusters are so if you look at your bike data and need to make a change, you can be much more confident that 1 click is all you need, or it might need 4 clicks but you are more likely to get the desired result straight away. If you are working with a rider doing 1 click at a time that gets punishing pretty quickly.....Or, even if you can't perfectly calculate the "correct" damping you can definitely work out a decent working window, but you often get people think they have too much damping (according to the "data") but the dyno data shows you are miles outside the working window already so its obvious something else is the problem. That kind of thing is likely what Jordi comes up against all the time
My $0.02 on Jordi and DAQ... He's clearly not an idiot, but neither are the teams running DAQ at world cup level. Most likely, they're both...
My $0.02 on Jordi and DAQ... He's clearly not an idiot, but neither are the teams running DAQ at world cup level. Most likely, they're both right.
Jordi sits in the Fox stand and deals with whatever walks through the door, under enormous time pressure. There's probably 3/5 of 5/8 he doesn't know about how Fox product behaves, both through his own honed intuition and through dyno data. Having people bring their own interpretations probably does get in the way of him doing his thing. Even if you loved DAQ, you might think it belonged in the off season and not at a world cup race weekend.
I've noticed a tendency for people with access to real suspension performance data - i.e. taken off a dyno under controlled conditions - to be a bit dismissive of DAQ. If we measure 'suspension behaviour' on the bike we're really measuring the rider, the track and the suspension all at once. That's a fair criticism and a real limitation. But if you set up suspension solely on the dyno then without necessarily admitting it you have a model in mind for how it will be ridden and on what.
At some point you have to have a negotiation with reality, whether you measure pure suspension behaviour on the dyno or messy in-use behaviour on the bike.
I think you still find a world cup level guys who bolt it on at a race, think the numbers are way off and start changing...
I think you still find a world cup level guys who bolt it on at a race, think the numbers are way off and start changing things right away....thats the type of team Jordi is talking about, as they will likely be asking him for certain change based totally on the data instead of anything the rider is asking for - thats the big mistake. The tools are still really good and useful to have, as long as teams don't let it dominate the decisions. It's fine if people come up with the own interpretations but it puts people like Jordi in a tough spot if its clear what theyre asking for doesn't have a solid enough reason. I see the exact same thing all the time where someone has seen an "issue" in the data and want you to make a change to the bike or the suspension, when the problem is elsewhere. I know if you make that change it will just take you further in to the hole (and the product will get blamed even more) but if you push back and try to suggest something different - if that doesn't immediately help then you are also in the wrong.
This stuff does come back to a basic issue with how teams do set up - they should be doing the bulk of it in the off season so they don't need to be making drastic changes, but also there needs to be a point of contact in the team who is able to communicate with the suppliers at a level of mutual trust. Then the manufacturer can leave them to mostly make their own decisions and give them support when needed, and the team feels like the manufacturer will listen and take on their feedback. IMO teams need to pick whether they take care of all of the suspension work themselves or just trust the supplier to do it all - I know it can be tough to feel like they get enough support, but its also tricky when someone does half a job and you get asked to fill in the gaps. There can be a middle ground but thats a trickier balance to find
And that gets to my last point about guys who dismiss DAQ systems - I'm trying not to come across like that but I know there are for sure a few people who "don't believe" in using data and you only need maths for the "correct" tune (some of those guys also used to think a Dyno isn't needed because you can supposedly calculate the damping accurately.....). There are also DAQ guys who don't believe in using a Dyno - they are both wrong. Both are tools that can give a small part of the picture and the most important part is always knowing that you don't have that full picture and there are several limitations on what you are measuring. It's fine if people don't want to/can't afford/don't need both, as long as you aren't dismissing the other just because you don't "believe" in it.
They both compliment each other for reasons like the dyno can tell you how useful the adjusters are so if you look at your bike data and need to make a change, you can be much more confident that 1 click is all you need, or it might need 4 clicks but you are more likely to get the desired result straight away. If you are working with a rider doing 1 click at a time that gets punishing pretty quickly.....Or, even if you can't perfectly calculate the "correct" damping you can definitely work out a decent working window, but you often get people think they have too much damping (according to the "data") but the dyno data shows you are miles outside the working window already so its obvious something else is the problem. That kind of thing is likely what Jordi comes up against all the time
I'm certainly no suspension expert but I've tuned a few things, from engines to inkjet printers. I think the First Rule of Tuning is that whatever you aren't measuring is the thing that will screw you 🙂
I think Jordi's point is mostly about data collection and analysis being most important in the bike design, validation and product testing phases, and not so much on the day to day of riding the bike during a race event. If I were at the pointy end of the field as a mechanic or engineer involved in the world cup circuit, I would likely just take data all of the time and share none of that with the rider until the season was over. The most important thing a rider could do with regards to data acquisition and analysis is to provide the rider feedback component to see if any connections can be made in the data that would start to correlate to what the rider is feeling. Realistically, it would take 2-3 years of this type of data and feedback collection to start to be able to draw conclusions from it that would be actionable in real time.
That being said, this type of data and kinematic/design and setup validation could be incredibly helpful to an engineering company, frame company or a suspension engineer/tuner. That's easily a place where dynamic sag information, shaft speeds etc can be very insightful.
I think you still find a world cup level guys who bolt it on at a race, think the numbers are way off and start changing...
I think you still find a world cup level guys who bolt it on at a race, think the numbers are way off and start changing things right away....thats the type of team Jordi is talking about, as they will likely be asking him for certain change based totally on the data instead of anything the rider is asking for - thats the big mistake. The tools are still really good and useful to have, as long as teams don't let it dominate the decisions. It's fine if people come up with the own interpretations but it puts people like Jordi in a tough spot if its clear what theyre asking for doesn't have a solid enough reason. I see the exact same thing all the time where someone has seen an "issue" in the data and want you to make a change to the bike or the suspension, when the problem is elsewhere. I know if you make that change it will just take you further in to the hole (and the product will get blamed even more) but if you push back and try to suggest something different - if that doesn't immediately help then you are also in the wrong.
This stuff does come back to a basic issue with how teams do set up - they should be doing the bulk of it in the off season so they don't need to be making drastic changes, but also there needs to be a point of contact in the team who is able to communicate with the suppliers at a level of mutual trust. Then the manufacturer can leave them to mostly make their own decisions and give them support when needed, and the team feels like the manufacturer will listen and take on their feedback. IMO teams need to pick whether they take care of all of the suspension work themselves or just trust the supplier to do it all - I know it can be tough to feel like they get enough support, but its also tricky when someone does half a job and you get asked to fill in the gaps. There can be a middle ground but thats a trickier balance to find
And that gets to my last point about guys who dismiss DAQ systems - I'm trying not to come across like that but I know there are for sure a few people who "don't believe" in using data and you only need maths for the "correct" tune (some of those guys also used to think a Dyno isn't needed because you can supposedly calculate the damping accurately.....). There are also DAQ guys who don't believe in using a Dyno - they are both wrong. Both are tools that can give a small part of the picture and the most important part is always knowing that you don't have that full picture and there are several limitations on what you are measuring. It's fine if people don't want to/can't afford/don't need both, as long as you aren't dismissing the other just because you don't "believe" in it.
They both compliment each other for reasons like the dyno can tell you how useful the adjusters are so if you look at your bike data and need to make a change, you can be much more confident that 1 click is all you need, or it might need 4 clicks but you are more likely to get the desired result straight away. If you are working with a rider doing 1 click at a time that gets punishing pretty quickly.....Or, even if you can't perfectly calculate the "correct" damping you can definitely work out a decent working window, but you often get people think they have too much damping (according to the "data") but the dyno data shows you are miles outside the working window already so its obvious something else is the problem. That kind of thing is likely what Jordi comes up against all the time
I would be curious to hear more on your last paragraph. I have noticed when testing on my 2 bikes with 2 different forks (fox and ohlins). I end up running less damping up front then in the rear. Are you seeing this both in the compression and rebound strokes?
Anyone have success getting a BYB kit set up on a Forbidden Supernought? That shock tunnel is tight and the rearward shock bolt passes through the shock tunnel during its travel so can’t mount directly to there. I’d love to take advantage of someone else’s solution as opposed to having to use my brain do some math on a weird mounting point.
Yeah I saw this also. And in this thread is definitely leaning on the side of DAQ, but there’s some people out there who don’t like it and that’s Ok. Jordi in all the Fox videos never seemed to care for Daq. It’s ok, personally I know the benefits, it helps me and my friends. I know you can get lost in it, but you can also get lost in rider feedback who doesn’t know how to explain what they are feeling. To me, data doesn’t lie.
"Data doesn't lie, but it also doesn't tell the whole truth" - I can't remember who originally made that quote but it is very true
I'm not as blunt as Jordi but I agree on a lot of the points and I think the other mechanics summed it up better - You need to focus on listening to the rider and understanding what they want instead of burying yourself behind a computer screen and expecting the lines to give you the answer. The data can supplement a technicians skills but it can't give the result all on its own. I remember photographers calling it "chimping" when they were hunched over their camera screen looking at the previous shots instead of engaging with their subject and giving them proper direction. Whenever I use data I kind of offset the analysis by a run, as in I'll have a set plan of things to try or test and do most of the analysis between runs. I'll adapt what needs to be done depending on the results but I don't like having a rider sitting around while I make up my mind either. So the rider feedback is the main guide and the data is used to check what direction things are moving in, or being added to the pool of factors to consider.
But if you just bolt the sensors on and start looking at numbers after the first run and making changes to try and bring those numbers back to the "correct" amount then you will rapidly go off track and thats exactly what Jordi is seeing. I've know several world cup guys in the same boat who will constantly test and try to chase the numbers around but never get anywhere. but if you take a step back and focus on the basics you make a lot more progress. You can still use the data as a reference point if you get stuck, and I think its good to use it over a long period of time to collect a range of samples so you can see how much variation there is in different tracks, but just using it for a day and expecting it to give you all the answers is the wrong way to look at things
If you like data and nerding out and have a technical mind then using the system isn't too bad. I learned by recording my base settings, what my bike was already set up as. Then I started changing 1 setting at a time, like fork LSR fully closed, then fully opened. Same 1:30 run over and over recording in a note book my changes and what I felt. Then I compared that to the data I saw. This took several days to get through. I then set everything in the middle & standard sag, made a run then using the data started to decipher what settings changes to make. After that I experimented on friends and then customers. Through it all you also have to ask the rider questions and base changes on that as well. The lines may align perfectly but if it feels like poo it is poo. I've got one racer he loves his bike firm and static sag is very low. Another guy liked his softer for more comfort over longer rides. Both had balanced systems but were quite different in feel.
It’s definitely just a tool and depends how you use it. Hopefully these riders test in the off season and everyone finds baselines. Using data in my opinion can speed up the suspension setup process so much
The way I use it for testing different bikes and parts, is that I know my general speeds comp/reb that give me the comfort feel I like. I’ve done so much setup I can get it pretty close by feel now. Then get to a window I feel good and data looks goods. But when I’m trying to tune out a sensation and it’s not possible to do from suspension setup, then I can now start looking at other areas of the bike like, are the tires different, wheels, bars and even frame compliance.
Maybe flip the colors? Compression is usually blue on the adjusters (and rebound red), maybe it would make sense to align with that?
I can flip the colors if it helps you. 😅 I just read the top as comp and the bottom rebound no matter what the color is. I’m going to try some testing this weekend and put the app through its paces.
is anyone on here still using Motion instruments and want me to make this public? It just runs off HTML.
My $0.02 on Jordi and DAQ... He's clearly not an idiot, but neither are the teams running DAQ at world cup level. Most likely, they're both right.
Jordi sits in the Fox stand and deals with whatever walks through the door, under enormous time pressure. There's probably 3/5 of 5/8 he doesn't know about how Fox product behaves, both through his own honed intuition and through dyno data. Having people bring their own interpretations probably does get in the way of him doing his thing. Even if you loved DAQ, you might think it belonged in the off season and not at a world cup race weekend.
I've noticed a tendency for people with access to real suspension performance data - i.e. taken off a dyno under controlled conditions - to be a bit dismissive of DAQ. If we measure 'suspension behaviour' on the bike we're really measuring the rider, the track and the suspension all at once. That's a fair criticism and a real limitation. But if you set up suspension solely on the dyno then without necessarily admitting it you have a model in mind for how it will be ridden and on what.
At some point you have to have a negotiation with reality, whether you measure pure suspension behaviour on the dyno or messy in-use behaviour on the bike.
Do you still need a pro subscription to export all the data? I haven't used it since specialized took over but I could be tempted if it can be used without a paid subscription
I think you still find a world cup level guys who bolt it on at a race, think the numbers are way off and start changing things right away....thats the type of team Jordi is talking about, as they will likely be asking him for certain change based totally on the data instead of anything the rider is asking for - thats the big mistake. The tools are still really good and useful to have, as long as teams don't let it dominate the decisions. It's fine if people come up with the own interpretations but it puts people like Jordi in a tough spot if its clear what theyre asking for doesn't have a solid enough reason. I see the exact same thing all the time where someone has seen an "issue" in the data and want you to make a change to the bike or the suspension, when the problem is elsewhere. I know if you make that change it will just take you further in to the hole (and the product will get blamed even more) but if you push back and try to suggest something different - if that doesn't immediately help then you are also in the wrong.
This stuff does come back to a basic issue with how teams do set up - they should be doing the bulk of it in the off season so they don't need to be making drastic changes, but also there needs to be a point of contact in the team who is able to communicate with the suppliers at a level of mutual trust. Then the manufacturer can leave them to mostly make their own decisions and give them support when needed, and the team feels like the manufacturer will listen and take on their feedback. IMO teams need to pick whether they take care of all of the suspension work themselves or just trust the supplier to do it all - I know it can be tough to feel like they get enough support, but its also tricky when someone does half a job and you get asked to fill in the gaps. There can be a middle ground but thats a trickier balance to find
And that gets to my last point about guys who dismiss DAQ systems - I'm trying not to come across like that but I know there are for sure a few people who "don't believe" in using data and you only need maths for the "correct" tune (some of those guys also used to think a Dyno isn't needed because you can supposedly calculate the damping accurately.....). There are also DAQ guys who don't believe in using a Dyno - they are both wrong. Both are tools that can give a small part of the picture and the most important part is always knowing that you don't have that full picture and there are several limitations on what you are measuring. It's fine if people don't want to/can't afford/don't need both, as long as you aren't dismissing the other just because you don't "believe" in it.
They both compliment each other for reasons like the dyno can tell you how useful the adjusters are so if you look at your bike data and need to make a change, you can be much more confident that 1 click is all you need, or it might need 4 clicks but you are more likely to get the desired result straight away. If you are working with a rider doing 1 click at a time that gets punishing pretty quickly.....Or, even if you can't perfectly calculate the "correct" damping you can definitely work out a decent working window, but you often get people think they have too much damping (according to the "data") but the dyno data shows you are miles outside the working window already so its obvious something else is the problem. That kind of thing is likely what Jordi comes up against all the time
I'm certainly no suspension expert but I've tuned a few things, from engines to inkjet printers. I think the First Rule of Tuning is that whatever you aren't measuring is the thing that will screw you 🙂
I think Jordi's point is mostly about data collection and analysis being most important in the bike design, validation and product testing phases, and not so much on the day to day of riding the bike during a race event. If I were at the pointy end of the field as a mechanic or engineer involved in the world cup circuit, I would likely just take data all of the time and share none of that with the rider until the season was over. The most important thing a rider could do with regards to data acquisition and analysis is to provide the rider feedback component to see if any connections can be made in the data that would start to correlate to what the rider is feeling. Realistically, it would take 2-3 years of this type of data and feedback collection to start to be able to draw conclusions from it that would be actionable in real time.
That being said, this type of data and kinematic/design and setup validation could be incredibly helpful to an engineering company, frame company or a suspension engineer/tuner. That's easily a place where dynamic sag information, shaft speeds etc can be very insightful.
I would be curious to hear more on your last paragraph. I have noticed when testing on my 2 bikes with 2 different forks (fox and ohlins). I end up running less damping up front then in the rear. Are you seeing this both in the compression and rebound strokes?
Anyone have success getting a BYB kit set up on a Forbidden Supernought? That shock tunnel is tight and the rearward shock bolt passes through the shock tunnel during its travel so can’t mount directly to there. I’d love to take advantage of someone else’s solution as opposed to having to use my brain do some math on a weird mounting point.
Post a reply to: Suspension Data Acquisition