 .. without a paper bag on your head.
I want one.
|
 |
 My visualisation of the suspension movement says the axle path is an arc upwards and forwards (but never back) around a virtual pivot which starts somewhere forward of the BB and moves back.
The leverage of the shock on the arm increases through the travel which combined with an already progressive shock is going to make for suspension which is initially soft then ramps up quickly.
The above features suggest it will track well and be sensitive to small stuff but shoot through it's travel then go hard on bigger hits. Without a platform shock it will wallow on climbs. Not for me.
|
|
 Think I'll stick with an earlier model :-)
|
|
 Don't worry Pennine, when yours breaks they'll give you one of those for free.
|
|
 personally i'm holding out for the santa cruz nomad
|
|
 i'll take anything!
|
|
 Even a SARACIN
|
|
lol, fark off, anythign better than my hr
|
|
 Katos summer 06 bike me thinks!
|
|
lol, it's not fugly enough
|
|
And heres me just bought a friggin ellsworth joker and this comes out just brilliant.
|
|
 "My visualisation of the suspension movement says the axle path is an arc upwards and forwards (but never back) around a virtual pivot which starts somewhere forward of the BB and moves back."
The instant centre starts out somewhere just behind the front wheel and well above hub height, and ends up down near the BB somewhere.
It's supple, it doesn't do crazy ramping up and you can pedal it like a gibbon if you must. That's from riding it, not looking at it ;-)
|
|
 Nice looking bike and I'm in no was a 46 or whyte liker, but that works for me.
Tooo much Cash though, BIG time.
|
|
Bloody hell now I don't know which one I want,I was all set to test the 06 46 when available,gonna have to try the 46 and E-5 now,
|
|
 Clever looking design, but still pretty ugly I think, as are all Whyte's. You can see that form follows function and I'm sure it will ride well but expensive and ugly - still - IMO.
There's an interview with Jon Whyte in this months WhatMTB about this bike and he speaks about making bikes look good as well as ride well. Not sure he's totally spot on with this but he's getting there.
|
|
I find it interesting that after trying to convince us that a huge triangulated swingarm (PRTS1) was the way forward, he's slowly worked his way back to a very narrow one which looks like it will place too much loading on the frame around the downtube area. Any closeups of the linkage Mike?
|
|
Thanks for the complementary information Mike D. There aren't too many Whytes over here so I doubt that I will ever be able to see if practice follows theory in this case.
I've always been intrigued by the fact that the virtual pivot of the other VPP must have, the Blur, does exactly the opposite to the Quads. It starts just above the BB and moves towards the front wheel as the suspension compresses - they can't both be right :ç)
Surely it would be better if the virtual pivot point started and stayed out front like a Turner four bar.
|
|
Linkage closeups are in the linked article. Although as for "looks like it will place too much loading on the frame around the downtube area" I can't quite see what you mean - the loads are spread across the links.
"I've always been intrigued by the fact that the virtual pivot of the other VPP must have, the Blur, does exactly the opposite to the Quads. It starts just above the BB and moves towards the front wheel as the suspension compresses - they can't both be right :ç)"
It's partially the fact that it goes the other way that makes it a VPP as defined by the patent. The Quad (and Maestro) is essentially a regular four-bar with very short links. Blur and Quad have substantially different rides, but both very good in their own ways. It'd be pretty dull if all bikes worked the same ;-)
"Surely it would be better if the virtual pivot point started and stayed out front like a Turner four bar."
The Turner IC still swings down and back, but yes, it starts from further forward and doesn't end up as close to the BB. But as with so many problems, there's a bunch of solutions ;-)
|
|
What I mean Mike is that it looks from your closeups that the swingarm is fixed to two points very close together. In the past JW has put links as far apart as possible to spread the load around the frame. This one looks like it has a 'lump' fixed to the downtube with the linkages and shock fixed to it? I know there are some closeups in the article, I wanted to see the 'lump' from the side rather than front/side.
|
|
I'm done Mike D - just keeping you on your toes :) Choice is a good thing.
|
|
