demo 9 - scho wer gfahrn?

[Tyrolens]

Und wir als reinen Downhiller sind nun mal eine Minderheit.

Nur ist das nicht nur bei den DH Radln so, sondern bei allen.

@anonym: Die Physik wirkt für alle gleich. Und wenn die Drehpunkte ungünstig gesetzt werden, dann wird das auch nicht dadurch besser, dass 20 Dipl. Ing. dafür verantwortlich sind.

@feuerlocke: Santa Cruz bekommt das Problem mit dem Umwerfer beim VP Free auf einfachere Weise hin. Allerdings hat das bloß 210 mm Federweg

Die Herren von der Fahrwerksbibel schreiben zu diesem Thema folgendes:



Bogus Marketing:


Companies have to lie. Consumers expect us to say certain things and if we don?t say them, then they will not buy our products.


The above is a very close paraphrase from a marketing executive working for one of the world?s largest bicycle manufacturers (I cannot make it a quote, since there is a word or two that I am not 100% sure about, but the above is very close to the actual quote).


One must parse the words of advertisements very carefully because ads are often crafted to give a particular impression, while saying something completely different.


Perhaps the king of all slippery marketing phrases is the drug company mainstay, ?Nothing has been proven to last longer ? be stronger ? perform better...? If you ask most people what this means, they will say that the referred-to product is proven to last longer etc. then everything else. The phrase actually means nothing of the sort. It says simply that no one has demonstrated the product to be worse then anything else ? quite a different assertion. The product could in fact be the worst thing on the market; the phrase just states that no one has proven this.


We earlier looked at Ellsworth?s marketing phrase, ?Up to 100% pedal efficiency (in every gear, and throughout the entire suspension travel range)?. I discussed this phrase with a professor of mechanical engineering at our local university. We agreed that the ?Up to? at the beginning of the sentence makes the sentence so vague that it could mean almost anything.


However, unlike the drug company phrase, which is definitely crafted to deceive, we believe that the ?Up to? phrase may just be the result of clumsy wording. Ironically, this is in part indicated because Ellsworth has gone much further in their advertisements, claiming ?100% pedal energy-efficiency? without any qualifications [see page 22, Mountain Bike Action, May 2001]. This last constitutes the most extreme interpretation of the ?Up to? phrase, so Ellsworth obviously has no problem in making such an extreme claim directly.


To be fair, we must note that many companies make claims for no suspension bob and 100% efficiency. But without question, the most egregious example of bogus marketing we have ever seen regarding bicycle rear suspensions comes from Kona, in their ads for the King Kikapu and Mokomoko [see page 7, Mountain Bike Action, May 2001].


The ad claims, ?SHOCK FUNCTION IS AFFECTED BY WEIGHT, FORCE AND GRAVITY ? NOT BY PEDALLING_?. One can tell that this was not written by anyone with any significant technical knowledge. An object?s ?WEIGHT? is a measure of the attractive ?FORCE? between the earth and that object due to ?GRAVITY?. Your guess is as good as ours. (The language here is very reminiscent of those VW commercials where they claim that they get ?a maxim amount of volume in a minimum amount of space? ? !?!?)


Humorous wording aside, the phrase does claim no pedal activation of the shock, so we have a more serious issue to consider. Since the rear pivot is on the seat stay in these designs (more on this later) we know that the designs are essentially mono-pivots under pedaling, with the upper links acting as suspension tuning. We have proven directly that no mono-pivot is completely non-reactive to pedaling, so we know immediately that Kona the claim is certainly not true. For example, there are no qualifications for gearing.


The ad goes on to claim, ?SHOCK IS MOUNTED IN LINE WITH SEAT TUBE ALLOWING SMOOTH SHOCK FUNCTION AND SUPERIOR SHOCK RESPONSIVENESS_?. By ?IN LINE?, we suppose that they mean parallel to the seat tube. But there are an infinity of other directions that the shock could be mounted that would allow the same ?SMOOTH? shock function (witness the Ventana Marble Peaks, and Rocky Mountains), so we ask, ?What is the point?? We also ask, ??SUPERIOR? compared to what?? Not to any of the competing designs we are aware of anyway. Does Kona believe that a shock mounted out of plane to the frame is viable enough to merit a comparison?


Lastly, the ad claims that, ?REAR STAY PIVOT MOUNTED ON SEATSTAY INSTEAD OF CHAINSTAY SO ALSO NOT AFFECTED BY PEDALING FORCES_?. Here is the most abject bit of nonsense. What is not ?AFFECTED?? Clearly the reader is to believe it is the suspension. Again, the ?SEATSTAY? pivot essentially makes these bikes mono-pivots (upper link suspension tuning aside). This fact, in and of itself, is irrelevant to the degree with which the design is ?AFFECTED? by pedaling forces.


Is this a deliberate attempt to mislead potential customers or just a case of extreme ignorance? We leave the answer to the readers. We simply conclude that when it comes to suspension ad mumbo-jumbo, Kona is King.


Another little trick we see now and then is the source-less quote. This is exemplified by Iron Horse, the company that brought us the G-spot [see the back inside cover, Mountain Bike Action, May 2001]. All in quotes, we have, ?BEST ALL AROUND DESIGN?, ?TOP OF ITS CLASS?, and ?THIS BIKE IS A MUST HAVE?. None of these have any attribution attached. The quotes make it seem as if there is some independent opinion being expressed, as is the general purpose of quotes in ads. Younger people especially, who are not experienced in looking for these things, are the most likely to be fooled. The company did not even bother to pay for a quote whore, as has become standard practice in the movie industry.


We conclude this section by reiterating our assertions regarding advertising in the ?Main Conclusions.?:


Our advice is to ignore all suspension theories and other claims put forth by frame manufacturers and industry magazines, and base your buying decisions exclusively on experimentation. That is, make your decisions by test riding the bikes, even if it is just a parking lot test (you can get a lot from a parking lot test). Ignore all marketing! Bogus Marketing. Companies have to lie. Consumers expect us to say certain things and if we don?t say them, then they will not buy our products. The above is a very close paraphrase from a marketing executive working for one of the world?s largest bicycle manufacturers (I cannot make it a quote, since there is a word or two that I am not 100% sure about, but the above is very close to the actual quote). One must parse the words of advertisements very carefully because ads are often crafted to give a particular impression, while saying something completely different. Perhaps the king of all slippery marketing phrases is the drug company mainstay, ?Nothing has been proven to last longer ? be stronger ? perform better...? If you ask most people what this means, they will say that the referred-to product is proven to last longer etc. then everything else. The phrase actually means nothing of the sort. It says simply that no one has demonstrated the product to be worse then anything else ? quite a different assertion. The product could in fact be the worst thing on the market; the phrase just states that no one has proven this. We earlier looked at Ellsworth?s marketing phrase, ?Up to 100% pedal efficiency (in every gear, and throughout the entire suspension travel range)?. I discussed this phrase with a professor of mechanical engineering at our local university. We agreed that the ?Up to? at the beginning of the sentence makes the sentence so vague that it could mean almost anything. However, unlike the drug company phrase, which is definitely crafted to deceive, we believe that the ?Up to? phrase may just be the result of clumsy wording. Ironically, this is in part indicated because Ellsworth has gone much further in their advertisements, claiming ?100% pedal energy-efficiency? without any qualifications [see page 22, Mountain Bike Action, May 2001]. This last constitutes the most extreme interpretation of the ?Up to? phrase, so Ellsworth obviously has no problem in making such an extreme claim directly. To be fair, we must note that many companies make claims for no suspension bob and 100% efficiency. But without question, the most egregious example of bogus marketing we have ever seen regarding bicycle rear suspensions comes from Kona, in their ads for the King Kikapu and Mokomoko [see page 7, Mountain Bike Action, May 2001]. The ad claims, ?SHOCK FUNCTION IS AFFECTED BY WEIGHT, FORCE AND GRAVITY ? NOT BY PEDALLING_?. One can tell that this was not written by anyone with any significant technical knowledge. An object?s ?WEIGHT? is a measure of the attractive ?FORCE? between the earth and that object due to ?GRAVITY?. Your guess is as good as ours. (The language here is very reminiscent of those VW commercials where they claim that they get ?a maxim amount of volume in a minimum amount of space? ? !?!?) Humorous wording aside, the phrase does claim no pedal activation of the shock, so we have a more serious issue to consider. Since the rear pivot is on the seat stay in these designs (more on this later) we know that the designs are essentially mono-pivots under pedaling, with the upper links acting as suspension tuning. We have proven directly that no mono-pivot is completely non-reactive to pedaling, so we know immediately that Kona the claim is certainly not true. For example, there are no qualifications for gearing. The ad goes on to claim, ?SHOCK IS MOUNTED IN LINE WITH SEAT TUBE ALLOWING SMOOTH SHOCK FUNCTION AND SUPERIOR SHOCK RESPONSIVENESS_?. By ?IN LINE?, we suppose that they mean parallel to the seat tube. But there are an infinity of other directions that the shock could be mounted that would allow the same ?SMOOTH? shock function (witness the Ventana Marble Peaks, and Rocky Mountains), so we ask, ?What is the point?? We also ask, ??SUPERIOR? compared to what?? Not to any of the competing designs we are aware of anyway. Does Kona believe that a shock mounted out of plane to the frame is viable enough to merit a comparison? Lastly, the ad claims that, ?REAR STAY PIVOT MOUNTED ON SEATSTAY INSTEAD OF CHAINSTAY SO ALSO NOT AFFECTED BY PEDALING FORCES_?. Here is the most abject bit of nonsense. What is not ?AFFECTED?? Clearly the reader is to believe it is the suspension. Again, the ?SEATSTAY? pivot essentially makes these bikes mono-pivots (upper link suspension tuning aside). This fact, in and of itself, is irrelevant to the degree with which the design is ?AFFECTED? by pedaling forces. Is this a deliberate attempt to mislead potential customers or just a case of extreme ignorance? We leave the answer to the readers. We simply conclude that when it comes to suspension ad mumbo-jumbo, Kona is King. Another little trick we see now and then is the source-less quote. This is exemplified by Iron Horse, the company that brought us the G-spot [see the back inside cover, Mountain Bike Action, May 2001]. All in quotes, we have, ?BEST ALL AROUND DESIGN?, ?TOP OF ITS CLASS?, and ?THIS BIKE IS A MUST HAVE?. None of these have any attribution attached. The quotes make it seem as if there is some independent opinion being expressed, as is the general purpose of quotes in ads. Younger people especially, who are not experienced in looking for these things, are the most likely to be fooled. The company did not even bother to pay for a quote whore, as has become standard practice in the movie industry. We conclude this section by reiterating our assertions regarding advertising in the ?Main Conclusions.?: Our advice is to ignore all suspension theories and other claims put forth by frame manufacturers and industry magazines, and base your buying decisions exclusively on experimentation. That is, make your decisions by test riding the bikes, even if it is just a parking lot test (you can get a lot from a parking lot test). Ignore all marketing!

[bunny]

also ich gehöre zu der fraktion, die wippen akzeptieren kann wenn dann keine antribseinflüsse entstehen! denn das wippen kann man mit nem angepassten fahrstil so ziemlich eliminieren! runder statt stampender tritt! und im sitzen wippt bei mir nichts merklich!
am schlimmsten find ich die systeme die beim treten einsacken, also mit sehr tiefn drehpunkt, da hilft auch runder tritt fast nichts!

zum demo: war ein konstruktions ziel nich auch ein besonders tiefer schwerpunkt

sagt mir falls ich mich irre, aber es gibt doch keine systematischen unterschied zwischen klassischen viergelenkern und einem VPP system, ausser dem namen? und das das horstlink extrem weit weg von der hinterrad achse ist? also im prinzip nur ne andere kinematik!

[Tyrolens]

Es gibt schon Untschiede. Jedenfalls sollte es die geben

Während Viergelenker ungefähr eine elliptische Raderhebnungskurve haben, sollten VPP Radln eine leicht S-förmige haben. Durch diese Raderhebungskurve soll der Hinterbau durch den Kettenzug aus jeder Einfederungsposition wieder zurück in den Sag gezogen werden. Vorteile: Kein Wippen, nicht einmal im Wiegetritt und trotzdem recht guter Komfort (meistens sogar besser als bei Viergelenkern, weil sich die Hinterachse nach oben/leicht hinten bewegt). Nachteil: Pedalrückschlag auf dem kleinen und zum Teil mittleren Kettenblatt. Und zwar wie bei einem Eingelenker mit (sehr) hohem Drehpunkt. Allerdings gibt´s diesen Pedalrückschlag nur, wenn der Hinterbau stark einfedert. Sprich: Wer stark verblocktes, unebendes Gelände auch bergauf fährt, der muß mit Pedalrückschlag rechnen. Wer hingegen, so wie ich, fast nur über Forststraßen berauf fährt (fahren muß), der kommt mit diesem System sehr gut zurecht.

Ich würde sagen: Wer gerne mit dem Giant NRS fährt, fährt auch mit den VPP Radln gerne.

Das Wippen an sich bekäme man heute übrigens auch mit einem SPV Dämpfer weg...

[FLo33]

des NRS is ja eh das paradebeispiel für wippstop durch kettenzug. so offensichtlich zu sehen is es selten und funktionieren tuts ja auch nicht schlecht.

[robertsmith]

hier sei noch zu betonen, dass das VPPsystem nicht immer tatsächlich vorhanden ist, auch wenn es die Werbeaussagen der hersteller (i.M. nur Intense und Santa Cruz, wegen Patent) sagen möchten.
Das SC Blur hat eine echte "S"-förmige Raderhebungskurve, das V10 von SC hingegen nicht!
Wie es bei den Intenserädern und dem Vfree aussieht, hab ich noch nicht nachgerechnet, zumindest das "blur"-pedant von Intense scheint aber ebenfalls eine echte "S"-förmige REK zu haben...

[LOLO]

nochmal zum grundsatz: optisch find ichs gut
meine frage ist der ganze kram ums hinterrad muss ja gefedert werden(ungefederte masse...)

das andere @troy: wie z.B eine art bremsmomentabstützung vom hinterbau zum umwerfer;
das moecht ich auch haben!!!

[Tyrolens]

Genau so ist es. Das Blur hat die S-förmige Raderhebungskurve, ebenso das Intense Spider und 5.5 EVP. Das VP Free konnte ich noch nicht berechnen, aber ich glaube, bei dem dürfte sie auch vorhanden sein. Das V10 hat sie jedenfalls nicht, und beim Intense M3 bin ich mir auch nicht sicher.

[bunny]

cih sagte doch die kinematik ist anders, aber es sind viergelenker!

ich muss sagen das ich fürs mountainbike, ganz besonders bikes mit umwerfern , viegelenker favorisiere:

- eingelenker können nur auf 1 kettenblatt antriebsfrei sein!

- moderne eingelenker haben meist einen sehr langen und dadurch reicht weichen oder schweren hinterbau!

- wenn nich abgestüst, querkräfte auf den dämpfer (auch eingelenker)

- durch dopppelte abstüstund werden die lager weniger belastet! und der hinterbau ist leicht und steif!

- oft keine bremseinflüsse!

- mit ein paar ausnahmen (nrs...) voll aktives system

den nachteil, das viel lager schnell kaputt gehen und deutlich mehr reibung erzeugen, find ich nich berechigt! besonders im vergleich zu abgestüzten eingelenkern!

[BoB]

des kannst alles so pauschal ned sagen.....

[bunny]

nich alles, da hast recht, aber n paar sachen kann man schon recht allgemein festhalten, denk ich! w.z.bsp. dass ne alnge eingelenks schwinge entweder schwerer oder weicher iss als ne kurze! usw...

ich find halt nur das n gescheiter viergelenker viele problem nich hat die n stino eingelenker nunmal hat! und das die vielen lager kein problem darstellen! bei mir hab ich jedenfalls (fast) nichts negatives gemerkt, und hatte sowohl schon nen eingelenker als auch 2 viergelenker, udn letzteres bevorzuge ich!

[FLo33]

aus gegebenem anlass:

burschen passts beim demo 9 auf, wenns euch drausetzts und in am shop a runde drehts! sattelrohr unbedingt auf genug freiraum zum dämpfer (swinger 6-way) kontrollieren und NICHT einfach fahren und über gehsteigkante hobbeln.
tut dem dämpfer nicht gut - nein - ganz und gar nicht gut

apropos demo 9: gewicht rahmen plus sattelstütze plus tretlager, und jetzt halts euch fest: 7,2 Kilogramm!!!!!!!

also auch wenns sonst für manche keine sachlichen argumente gegen des radl gibt, des is z´vü!!!

aussadem isses net grad schön anzusehen, is aber geschmackssache...

[B4sT3lW4sT3l]

aber hallo

7,2 kg wenn 'mer da grosszügig is' und für stütze und innenlager jeweils 300gr. abziehen, dann sim'mer immer noch in 'nem bereich eines rahmengewichts ... der ... gelinde gesagt, a frechheit ist ...

da brauch ich von meinem scream gar keine bilder mehr posten ... wenn die neuen bikes bald an der 30kg grenze kratzen

gruss

basTelwasTel

[Tyrolens]

Ich frag´ auch, warum das Demo9 wie eine Fachwerkbaustelle aussehen muß. Wozu soll denn dieses riesige Schmiedeteil am Tretlager sein?

Übrigens soll´s ab dem Modelljahr 2005 nur mehr das Demo9 im DH/FR Bereich geben. Die Produktion des Big Hit soll eingestellt werden...

[Old Anonym]

NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEIN! quelle?

[Tyrolens]

Ein ziemlich großer Specialized Händler...