This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
While I can't yet find a source that explicitely addresses which is correct, dictionary.com defines
SRAM uses 'damping' to describe their products (Rock Shox) on their web site. So does Fox Racing. It seems that damping would be prefered. Should 'dampening' stay in just for completeness? Is there a manufacturer that uses 'dampening'? - AndrewDressel ( talk) 18:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
damping is the correct term, dampening is used incorrectly at times. You made the right decision. Tremanaps ( talk) 18:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
There are quite a few other suspension systems that have come along that all fall into a category that I'm terming "short link" based on their appearance. These include: Balfa's dual link suspension from the 2-Step, BMC's APS system, Canfield Brother's parallel link suspension, Giant Bikes's Maestro, Niner Bikes CVA suspension, Lapierre's thing, whatever it is.
Here is what I propose should be included so far. Probably some kind of chronological order of when designs were introduced to the marketplace. For example, the Balfa 2-Step was introduced in 1999, and Niner Bikes showed a nearly identical version called CVA 7 years later. Canfield Brothers have been building what they call "parallel link" bikes since 2001. Based on prior art and use, it is understood that none of these designs are patented or at this time, even patentable. Based on the bicycle industry's fixation on patents, and IP, some discussion about the suspensions as it relates to patented designs should exist, especially in light of the widely understood situation with Giant's Maestro and the BMC designs and the previously patented dw-link. A similar discussion should be had about Lapierre's bikes and Santa Cruz's VPP patents. Another area that would be good to talk about is the reality of these suspension designs and performance. Most of these designs perform similarly to single pivot bikes when it comes to acceleration. All too often, wild claims are made about performance, when the actual product is incapable of "living up to the hype". Perhaps this could be the start of a different section altogether? Tremanaps ( talk) 13:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep. The article should definitely include designs like CVA and Maestro.
Laxman2001 (
talk)
00:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I read a comment by Andrew D that said [Newton's_3rd_law#Newton's laws of motion:_law_of_reciprocal_actions|Newton's 3rd law] does not impart ...
Newton's third law states that "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" Tremanaps ( talk) 18:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
A vehicle has mass. A vehicle's complete mass can be broken down into sprung mass and unsprung mass. A vehicle can have multiple unsprung masses and masses. Each mass amount has a measurable value (weight) and centroid (also known as center of mass). A vehicle like a full suspension bicycle has a compliant rear wheel suspension, which allows the rear wheel to move independently of the chassis. When a vehicle accelerates, it's complete mass is accelerated forward. In newton's third law, and for the discussion at hand, this vehicle acceleration can be regarded as the Action. As the vehicle sits at rest on flat ground, gravity's action on it's mass produces a measurable load or weight at each wheel. As the vehicle accelerates, the measured load of the sprung mass transfers rearward to the rear tire. This can be regarded as the Oppposite Reaction in Newton's third law. Tremanaps ( talk) 18:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
This load transfer can be measured as a weight difference at the rear wheel during acceleration. This principle is discussed in detail in several textbooks on the subject. Milliken and Milliken's Race Car Vehicle Dynamics; Thomas Gillespie's Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics are both examples of books where this terminology and basic explanation are depicted. Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics is a common textbook for Vehicle Dynamics students. Tremanaps ( talk) 18:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I've thought about this overnight, and regardless of fact that the textbooks seem to use the terms "load transfer", "weight transfer", and "mass transfer" interchangeably, load transfer is probably the best to describe the physical action. I propose that we choose "load transfer" for all future discussion so as to keep things simple and as accurate as possible. Tremanaps ( talk) 14:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Since both the DW-Link website, which lists Iron Horse as a partner, and the Iron Horse website which lists DW-Link as a technology used in the 2009 Sunday, suggest strongly that Iron Horse is a current licensee of the DW-Link technology. And since interviews with the designer, unless published, are not verifiable sources, as required here on Wikipedia, could we have links or publishing information; author, date, publication, etc.; of at least one of the numerous reports that confirm that the relationship was ended by Dave Weagle in 2007. - AndrewDressel ( talk) 17:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
trek were independantly awarded a patent for the abp design as they were shown to have developed prototypes before weagle filed his patent. even if they hadnt been awarded the patent they could still have used the system in a simlar fashion to turner uding the fsr/ horst link system without having to pay specialzed as they were already using the system before the patent was awarded. also this article is biased towards one company and should be editted to remove this bias. - 141.163.196.38 07:31, 11 February 2011
Did anyone else see this image over on commons? Seems like it could be useful for this article. I'm not knowledgeable enough (or particularly into suspension) to insert it myself. -- Keithonearth ( talk) 23:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The previous version of this mentioned that a high forward single pivot suspension compresses when pedaled in the small ring. This is not accurate, so I changed it. The effect is just the opposite: you get an extending force that make the suspension somewhat resistant to compression, thus the term "semi-active". I have assumed this was common knowledge among people who are a well versed in suspension, so I do not have a citation for it. If this is an issue, feel free to remove my edit, but I would also remove that entire section, as the previous version is also not backed with a citation. Kapusta7 ( talk) 15:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)kapusta7
Article text:
"Mountain bike technology has made great advances since first appearing in the early 1990s."
This is severely misinformed. While early 1990's may be before the author of the above was born, there certainly existed mountain bikes in the 1980's. In fact, they exploded in popularity around that time.
Forks with shock absorbers appeared on mountain bikes well before 1990.
Citation: I was, like, there.
24.85.131.247 ( talk) 05:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I made loads of changes and rewritten a few sections in an overall attempt to improve quality. I think better sectioning would be a great improvement at the moment.
Some things to mention/discuss/do:
That's as far as I'v gotten so far.
Victorvandenberg ( talk) 00:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like to suggest moving a lot of information found in the current article to its own, dedicated, article on "Mountain bike suspension". I believe this would benefit both articles. The current article now overwhelms any reader looking for information on bicycle suspension in general, with mountain bike related information. And the reader only interested in mountain bikes has to filter out the non-mtb related information. I think it would allow for proper cleanup of the information. How much would be left of the article should correspond with the prevalence of suspension systems in bicycles other than mountain bikes. It should of course be made clear that much more information on suspension systems can be found in the mountain bike suspension article.
I imagine bicycle suspension to then cover:
Mountain bike suspension would cover all types and variations of suspension typically found on mountain bikes with significantly more detailed information. It would also be much more technical. I intend on the addition of a section on 'floating' drivetrains, much improvement on the terminology section and improvements in sections on linkage suspensions.
What do you think? - Victorvandenberg ( talk) 15:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree on the separate article because it may allow for better definition of what comprises a "Suspension," and also fill in the obvious gap between late 1800's (whippet) and the greater 20th century. Are "springer" forks, such as those on Beach Cruisers , Muscle Bikes and Motor-bikes (motor-less), also not suspensions. (Springers have an elastomer along with the springs). The separate articles on motor vehicle suspensions and motorcycle forks give good descriptions in comparison. A $40 springer fork, fat tires and good seat springs is the working man's suspension system. Suggest a picture of the Monark T-springer fork.
Bicycles with only front suspension are referred to as hardtail and bicycles with suspension in both the front and rear are referred to as full suspension bikes.
Says who? In the USA, perhaps, bicycles with suspension in both the front and rear are referred to in the trade as full suspension bikes only. In Australia and in the UK, however, such bikes are also referred to as dual suspension bikes or simply as suspension bikes.
For example, as I write, full-suspension bikes are listed on Australia's biggest online bike website
https://www.bikeexchange.com.au under the category heading of Mountain - Dual Suspension Bikes for Sale in Australia.
By contrast, Chain Reaction Cycles at
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com who claim to be the world's largest online seller of bikes merely lists the same bikes as Suspension Bikes.
As always, editors need to beware of sounding pompous, of making sweeping statements in the
passive voice or
middle voice that sound plausible but in fact are incorrect, that may only reflect US practise or terminology, or as is so often the case, and most importantly of all, are uncited.
124.186.93.94 (
talk)
14:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
As per title, Does anyone know how it's correctly spelled? I think it's MonoLink as in ML7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.191.27.236 ( talk) 19:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering where to mention the Mongoose EC-D suspension in this article http://www.sicklines.com/gallery/data/567/medium/mongoose_ec-d_suspension_detail.jpg What do you think about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mib84 ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Bicycle suspension. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.marzocchi.com/Template/detailSPAForksMTB.asp?IDFolder=208&LN=UK&Sito=usa%2Dmtb&IDAnno=2147&IDOggetto=56226When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The French link is wrong. It should point to fr:Suspension de vélo rather than to fr:Cadre suspendu which is Rear suspension!
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
While I can't yet find a source that explicitely addresses which is correct, dictionary.com defines
SRAM uses 'damping' to describe their products (Rock Shox) on their web site. So does Fox Racing. It seems that damping would be prefered. Should 'dampening' stay in just for completeness? Is there a manufacturer that uses 'dampening'? - AndrewDressel ( talk) 18:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
damping is the correct term, dampening is used incorrectly at times. You made the right decision. Tremanaps ( talk) 18:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
There are quite a few other suspension systems that have come along that all fall into a category that I'm terming "short link" based on their appearance. These include: Balfa's dual link suspension from the 2-Step, BMC's APS system, Canfield Brother's parallel link suspension, Giant Bikes's Maestro, Niner Bikes CVA suspension, Lapierre's thing, whatever it is.
Here is what I propose should be included so far. Probably some kind of chronological order of when designs were introduced to the marketplace. For example, the Balfa 2-Step was introduced in 1999, and Niner Bikes showed a nearly identical version called CVA 7 years later. Canfield Brothers have been building what they call "parallel link" bikes since 2001. Based on prior art and use, it is understood that none of these designs are patented or at this time, even patentable. Based on the bicycle industry's fixation on patents, and IP, some discussion about the suspensions as it relates to patented designs should exist, especially in light of the widely understood situation with Giant's Maestro and the BMC designs and the previously patented dw-link. A similar discussion should be had about Lapierre's bikes and Santa Cruz's VPP patents. Another area that would be good to talk about is the reality of these suspension designs and performance. Most of these designs perform similarly to single pivot bikes when it comes to acceleration. All too often, wild claims are made about performance, when the actual product is incapable of "living up to the hype". Perhaps this could be the start of a different section altogether? Tremanaps ( talk) 13:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep. The article should definitely include designs like CVA and Maestro.
Laxman2001 (
talk)
00:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I read a comment by Andrew D that said [Newton's_3rd_law#Newton's laws of motion:_law_of_reciprocal_actions|Newton's 3rd law] does not impart ...
Newton's third law states that "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" Tremanaps ( talk) 18:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
A vehicle has mass. A vehicle's complete mass can be broken down into sprung mass and unsprung mass. A vehicle can have multiple unsprung masses and masses. Each mass amount has a measurable value (weight) and centroid (also known as center of mass). A vehicle like a full suspension bicycle has a compliant rear wheel suspension, which allows the rear wheel to move independently of the chassis. When a vehicle accelerates, it's complete mass is accelerated forward. In newton's third law, and for the discussion at hand, this vehicle acceleration can be regarded as the Action. As the vehicle sits at rest on flat ground, gravity's action on it's mass produces a measurable load or weight at each wheel. As the vehicle accelerates, the measured load of the sprung mass transfers rearward to the rear tire. This can be regarded as the Oppposite Reaction in Newton's third law. Tremanaps ( talk) 18:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
This load transfer can be measured as a weight difference at the rear wheel during acceleration. This principle is discussed in detail in several textbooks on the subject. Milliken and Milliken's Race Car Vehicle Dynamics; Thomas Gillespie's Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics are both examples of books where this terminology and basic explanation are depicted. Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics is a common textbook for Vehicle Dynamics students. Tremanaps ( talk) 18:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I've thought about this overnight, and regardless of fact that the textbooks seem to use the terms "load transfer", "weight transfer", and "mass transfer" interchangeably, load transfer is probably the best to describe the physical action. I propose that we choose "load transfer" for all future discussion so as to keep things simple and as accurate as possible. Tremanaps ( talk) 14:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Since both the DW-Link website, which lists Iron Horse as a partner, and the Iron Horse website which lists DW-Link as a technology used in the 2009 Sunday, suggest strongly that Iron Horse is a current licensee of the DW-Link technology. And since interviews with the designer, unless published, are not verifiable sources, as required here on Wikipedia, could we have links or publishing information; author, date, publication, etc.; of at least one of the numerous reports that confirm that the relationship was ended by Dave Weagle in 2007. - AndrewDressel ( talk) 17:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
trek were independantly awarded a patent for the abp design as they were shown to have developed prototypes before weagle filed his patent. even if they hadnt been awarded the patent they could still have used the system in a simlar fashion to turner uding the fsr/ horst link system without having to pay specialzed as they were already using the system before the patent was awarded. also this article is biased towards one company and should be editted to remove this bias. - 141.163.196.38 07:31, 11 February 2011
Did anyone else see this image over on commons? Seems like it could be useful for this article. I'm not knowledgeable enough (or particularly into suspension) to insert it myself. -- Keithonearth ( talk) 23:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The previous version of this mentioned that a high forward single pivot suspension compresses when pedaled in the small ring. This is not accurate, so I changed it. The effect is just the opposite: you get an extending force that make the suspension somewhat resistant to compression, thus the term "semi-active". I have assumed this was common knowledge among people who are a well versed in suspension, so I do not have a citation for it. If this is an issue, feel free to remove my edit, but I would also remove that entire section, as the previous version is also not backed with a citation. Kapusta7 ( talk) 15:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)kapusta7
Article text:
"Mountain bike technology has made great advances since first appearing in the early 1990s."
This is severely misinformed. While early 1990's may be before the author of the above was born, there certainly existed mountain bikes in the 1980's. In fact, they exploded in popularity around that time.
Forks with shock absorbers appeared on mountain bikes well before 1990.
Citation: I was, like, there.
24.85.131.247 ( talk) 05:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I made loads of changes and rewritten a few sections in an overall attempt to improve quality. I think better sectioning would be a great improvement at the moment.
Some things to mention/discuss/do:
That's as far as I'v gotten so far.
Victorvandenberg ( talk) 00:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like to suggest moving a lot of information found in the current article to its own, dedicated, article on "Mountain bike suspension". I believe this would benefit both articles. The current article now overwhelms any reader looking for information on bicycle suspension in general, with mountain bike related information. And the reader only interested in mountain bikes has to filter out the non-mtb related information. I think it would allow for proper cleanup of the information. How much would be left of the article should correspond with the prevalence of suspension systems in bicycles other than mountain bikes. It should of course be made clear that much more information on suspension systems can be found in the mountain bike suspension article.
I imagine bicycle suspension to then cover:
Mountain bike suspension would cover all types and variations of suspension typically found on mountain bikes with significantly more detailed information. It would also be much more technical. I intend on the addition of a section on 'floating' drivetrains, much improvement on the terminology section and improvements in sections on linkage suspensions.
What do you think? - Victorvandenberg ( talk) 15:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree on the separate article because it may allow for better definition of what comprises a "Suspension," and also fill in the obvious gap between late 1800's (whippet) and the greater 20th century. Are "springer" forks, such as those on Beach Cruisers , Muscle Bikes and Motor-bikes (motor-less), also not suspensions. (Springers have an elastomer along with the springs). The separate articles on motor vehicle suspensions and motorcycle forks give good descriptions in comparison. A $40 springer fork, fat tires and good seat springs is the working man's suspension system. Suggest a picture of the Monark T-springer fork.
Bicycles with only front suspension are referred to as hardtail and bicycles with suspension in both the front and rear are referred to as full suspension bikes.
Says who? In the USA, perhaps, bicycles with suspension in both the front and rear are referred to in the trade as full suspension bikes only. In Australia and in the UK, however, such bikes are also referred to as dual suspension bikes or simply as suspension bikes.
For example, as I write, full-suspension bikes are listed on Australia's biggest online bike website
https://www.bikeexchange.com.au under the category heading of Mountain - Dual Suspension Bikes for Sale in Australia.
By contrast, Chain Reaction Cycles at
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com who claim to be the world's largest online seller of bikes merely lists the same bikes as Suspension Bikes.
As always, editors need to beware of sounding pompous, of making sweeping statements in the
passive voice or
middle voice that sound plausible but in fact are incorrect, that may only reflect US practise or terminology, or as is so often the case, and most importantly of all, are uncited.
124.186.93.94 (
talk)
14:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
As per title, Does anyone know how it's correctly spelled? I think it's MonoLink as in ML7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.191.27.236 ( talk) 19:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering where to mention the Mongoose EC-D suspension in this article http://www.sicklines.com/gallery/data/567/medium/mongoose_ec-d_suspension_detail.jpg What do you think about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mib84 ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Bicycle suspension. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.marzocchi.com/Template/detailSPAForksMTB.asp?IDFolder=208&LN=UK&Sito=usa%2Dmtb&IDAnno=2147&IDOggetto=56226When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The French link is wrong. It should point to fr:Suspension de vélo rather than to fr:Cadre suspendu which is Rear suspension!