All

Not everyone agrees but in my opinion having the rise inline with the fork is the neutral roll position. (Gwin made a video on this btw). Why? Because it doesn't affect the steering geometry as you increase or decrease rise. If you run the bars straight up then as rise increase your hands move further away from the steering axis. The steering axis is inline with your head tube angle so it's pointing back about 64°. This has the same effect as running more spacers and a longer stem. You can't cheat the reach! Moving your bars around doesn't somehow...

I was curious where some of you land on for shock velocities. I know different systems will record different velocities but I was reading the motion instruments user guide and saw this - "Next focus on high speed compression. If you are riding really tough downhills, your max speed range will be in the 3000 mm/s range. Enduro pros are in the 4000 - 5500 mm/s range. Downhill can achieve speeds > 7000 mm/s. You want your wheel up and out of the way, if your fork is over damped on compression, something has to give, and it ends up...

@synBike That looks like super nice functionality! Making it easier to mount away from the shock is a big help for sure I've nearly got a working analog rotary sensor - should be fairly easy to plug it in to any BYB system, and the potentiometer uses a universal mount that plugs in to a custom bracket for each frame. I moulded the 6mm hex with knead-it (I think JB weld plastic weld is the closest thing) around the potentiometer shaft. If it works I'll try and tidy it up, maybe find a better potentiometer for the job too. Just...

I have been seeing the request for leverage curves for offset-mounted linear sensors come up quite a bit more in the last 12 months. If you don't want to calculate this manually I finally got around to actually surfacing this functionality in the UI. The basic process is: - measure your sensor eye to eye length at full extension (or what you want full extension to be, recommended to have a little buffer) - enter the stroke (only required for the visualization) - drag or enter the position points. For convenience the length is fixed and you can just move...

That was me, and a lot of fiddling it was too. But it's been bombproof. Happy to share the files if there's interest.

RAD is boot fitting. FC/RC is mounting location of bindings

I've done it a very similar way in the past - I think this was an aluminium bar or timber board attached to the frame parallel to the "ground". I recorded the points then plugged it in to excel and used the fitted trendline to create the leverage curve. Although this was using the Aim system where you could make a custom math channel using that equation directly in the software I've been making progress on a set of tools to help with set up, DAQ and frame measurement - *testing magentic encoders as rotary sensors, and also a tool...

Just to put a word in on direct comparison, I had a bike with Xt8120 and another with Cura4, both with MTX red pads. I found the cura 4 easily more power on tap. So to me something seems weird here. I never used formula pads, but the enduro mag test made it seem a pad upgrade had a major impact on power, that maybe is the case here? The bleed shouldn’t matter unless it feels spongy. I would try doing a full reset bedding process using acetone on the rotor and a bit of sandpaper on both the rotor...

When I did it, I flipped the bike upside down, took the wheel out but replaced the rear axle. I tried to set it up so that the tires were level before I removed the wheel (extended seatpost IIRC). I then hooked a ratchet strap to the rear axle to hold it up, at the starting shock stroke position, then removed the shock. Key is figuring out what your zero stroke is, most frames can extend a bit past that. Then I measured vertically axle to floor in 5mm increments, taking corresponding measurements from the sensor stroke. When I plotted...

Just measuring the travel on the sensor is part of the story. You also need the leverage ratio as that affects how wheel travel applies to sensor travel. Or shock travel. The more progressive the leverage ratio is, the bigger the non-linearity between the two. Measuring wheel travel is also a big question - how to do it reliably? Clamp the bike horizontally and move the rear wheel upwards and measure vertical travel? Measure travel along the path (even more complicated)? It's not as easy as with a fork and could change everything I mentioned above. Or is the whole...

Yup you can use linkage in the same way and just pretend the sensor is the "shock" and calculate the wheel position relative to shock position from there. You can manually calculate a shock position reading later on if you need that but you will probably only have measurements for one or the other in the "raw" data. I think BYB has added live sensor readings as well in the new kit, so you can mount the fork sensor to your rear axle and take the measurements that way.

This is where the argument for measuring at the wheel comes from - you are correct when looking at % sag at the wheel, but the change in rate through the stroke means you have an inversion of % shock stroke used vs % of wheel travel used. Ie on a progressive bike, 25% shock sag might equal 30% wheel travel and 75% at the shock is 70% at the wheel. But on a more linear bike 30% at the shock might be 25% at the wheel.