Linking forward and rear suspension

whytebikes.comwhyteprst1side72dpi.jpgOpen ↗ Is it just me, or is there
something not right about the lacing on these wheels?

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I was looking at a picture of a Whyte PRST1 earlier today, and musing as one does... The Whyte
uses quite similar suspension units for both front and rear suspesion: <URL:
whytebikes.comwhyteprst1side72dpi.jpgOpen ↗

The Bimota Tesi D1 uses dual swingarms.

bikepics.com042949Open ↗

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Simon,

The original BMC mini used rubber for a suspension medium. The later ones, IIRC 1965 and later used
the Hydrolastic suspension setup. In rallying and racing any hydrospastic minis I have seen were
converted to a dry suspension.

The interlinking of suspension does have some merit to contol roll, dive
and squat in the automotive world. Such active systems do add complexity
and to work well need microprocessor control and a host of sensors.

I really don't see it being much use with the light weight, relatively short wheelbase and varying
conditions faced by an offroad bicycle.

That being said I'm sure somebody with time on their hands and some hose, double acting hydraulic
cylinders and a couple of diaphramed air/oil reservoirs could have hours of entertainment.

Marcus

Simon Brooke may have said:

So the question is, who has tried it and what were the results? I've done a quick web search but
haven't come up with anything... but the idea is so obvious _someone_ must have tried it, surely?

Maybe not, with good reason.

While it might seem logical to want the suspension to work that way, consider the effect in a
*downhill* situation. I think the problem will be immediately apparent. Then consider that unless
the system is disengaged during braking, it *accentuates* the forward weight transfer effect; this
is not desired behavior at all.

I had noticed the 2CV's tendency to exhibit unusual dive effects long before I knew why they were
present. When I looked at the design, I understood why it wasn't more widely used.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy. Words processed in a facility that
contains nuts.

Stu Ted writes:

whytebikes.comwhyteprst1side72dpi.jpgOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Is it just me, or is there something not right about the lacing on these wheels?

It's just you. That's conventional 23 x 3. How about exposing your doubts. What is it you find odd?

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

In article said:

whytebikes.comwhyteprst1side72dpi.jpgOpen ↗ Is it just me, or is there
something not right about the lacing on these wheels?

They're the new VariCross(tm) wheels from VariSpoke, scheduled to be released in early April. Notice
the hubs are 100% hidden in the picture in accordance with the VariSpoke pre-release product rules.

Greg
--
Gregory S. Sutter "How do I read this file?" "][email hidden] "You uudecode it."
zer0.org~gsutterOpen ↗ "I I I decode it?"

stu said:

whytebikes.comwhyteprst1side72dpi.jpgOpen ↗ Is it just me, or is there
something not right about the lacing on these wheels?

Apart from there being something fundamentally wrong with the whole bike? It appears that it could
have been done better if they had thought even _more_ outside the box. Although I can't visualize it
at the moment, I imagine there must be a _much_ simpler solution to the idea of putting both shock
absorbers on the frame, rather than the front in the fork.

However, even so, doesn't the fork represent unsprung weight, which, IIRC, should be minimized for
better handling? Or is that not true of bikes?

Okay, back to the question: I'm no wheel expert, but the spoke lacing does appear a bit odd; I
seem to see parallel spokes where I shouldn't, and such pairs aren't evenly spaced from other such
pairs either.

It does appear to have very low gearing, though. I like that in a gnarly off-road bike...especially
if it also appears to weigh 50 pounds. 😉 (The site says "Weight 27.8lbs fully built!"😉
--
Rick Onanian

Quoted message said:

It's just you. That's conventional 23 x 3. How about exposing your doubts. What is it you
find odd?

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Happy to take your word on it What I was looking at was how, on one half of the wheel you 3 places
where 4 spokes cross almost at the same spot, yet on the other half of the wheel it looks nothing
like that. I use 38 myself, so I guess I have just never noticed this before. thanks stu

stu said:

Quoted message said:

It's just you. That's conventional 23 x 3. How about exposing your doubts. What is it you
find odd?

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Happy to take your word on it What I was looking at was how, on one half of the wheel you 3 places
where 4 spokes cross almost at the same spot, yet on the other half of the wheel it looks nothing
like that. I use 38 myself, so I guess I have just never noticed this before.

I certainly find it odd that Jobst considers 23 spokes to be conventional and that you use 38. 🙂 I
think the appearance that's bothering you is just due to the perspective not being quite
perpendicular to the wheel and lining up some left-side and right-side spokes.

Quoted message said:

I certainly find it odd that Jobst considers 23 spokes to be conventional and that you use 38. 🙂

lol oops I noticed Jobst's typo, lucky I didnt have a go at him about it hey lol

Quoted message said:

I think the appearance that's bothering you is just due to the perspective not being quite
perpendicular to the wheel and lining up some left-side and right-side spokes.

yes you are right, l went and had another look at my wheels and they do the same thing. l had
throught about that before l posted but l didnt find the right angel. thanks again stu (who must
look more carefully next time) and install his spell check

">

Quoted message said:

I certainly find it odd that Jobst considers 23 spokes to be conventional and that you use 38. 🙂

lol oops I noticed Jobst's typo, lucky I didnt have a go at him about it hey lol

Quoted message said:

I think the appearance that's bothering you is just due to the perspective not being quite
perpendicular to the wheel and lining up some left-side and right-side spokes.

yes you are right, l went and had another look at my wheels and they do the same thing. l had
throught about that before l posted but l didnt find the right angel. thanks again stu (who must
look more carefully next time) and install his spell check

">

Quoted message said:

I certainly find it odd that Jobst considers 23 spokes to be conventional and that you use 38. 🙂

lol oops I noticed Jobst's typo, lucky I didnt have a go at him about it hey lol

Quoted message said:

I think the appearance that's bothering you is just due to the perspective not being quite
perpendicular to the wheel and lining up some left-side and right-side spokes.

yes you are right, l went and had another look at my wheels and they do the same thing. l had
throught about that before l posted but l didnt find the right angel. thanks again stu (who must
look more carefully next time) and install his spell check

my posts have started not to appear????? l hope you arent all seeing this for the fourth time

Quoted message said:

I certainly find it odd that Jobst considers 23 spokes to be conventional and that you use 38. 🙂

lol oops I noticed Jobst's typo, lucky I didnt have a go at him about it hey lol

Quoted message said:

I think the appearance that's bothering you is just due to the perspective not being quite
perpendicular to the wheel and lining up some left-side and right-side spokes.

yes you are right, l went and had another look at my wheels and they do the same thing. l had
throught about that before l posted but l didnt find the right angel. thanks again stu (who must
look more carefully next time) and install his spell check

Rick Onanian writes:

whytebikes.comwhyteprst1side72dpi.jpgOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is it just me, or is there something not right about the lacing on these wheels?

It's just you. That's conventional 32 x 3.

Quoted message said:

Apart from there being something fundamentally wrong with the whole bike? It appears that it could
have been done better if they had thought even _more_ outside the box. Although I can't visualize
it at the moment, I imagine there must be a _much_ simpler solution to the idea of putting both
shock absorbers on the frame, rather than the front in the fork.

Ah, but you missed the feature. This bicycle uses the BMW patented anti-dive fork suspension
with unequal length leading links. I don't know how important the feature is for bicycling, not
having tried a suspension front end. It is a useful function for motorcycles that have large
suspension travel.

Quoted message said:

However, even so, doesn't the fork represent unsprung weight, which, IIRC, should be minimized for
better handling? Or is that not true of bikes?

It is probably untrue of bicycles about the same as wheel balancing. Weight of bicycle wheels and
forks is small compared to rider weight and poses no significant inertial dynamics.

Quoted message said:

Okay, back to the question: I'm no wheel expert, but the spoke lacing does appear a bit odd; I
seem to see parallel spokes where I shouldn't, and such pairs aren't evenly spaced from other such
pairs either.

As was mentioned, it's perspective.

Quoted message said:

It does appear to have very low gearing, though. I like that in a gnarly off-road bike...
especially if it also appears to weigh 50 pounds. 😉 (The site says "Weight 27.8lbs fully built!"😉

I he weight is probably correct.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Rick Onanian said:

Quoted message said:

whytebikes.comwhyteprst1side72dpi.jpgOpen ↗

Although I can't visualize it at the moment, I imagine there must be a _much_ simpler solution to
the idea of putting both shock absorbers on the frame, rather than the front in the fork.

However, even so, doesn't the fork represent unsprung weight, which, IIRC, should be minimized for
better handling? Or is that not true of bikes?

That fork looks like a variation on the BMW "Telelever" design, whose main virtue is to be
non-reactive to braking forces.

encycleopedia.comindex.cfmOpen ↗

Chalo Colina

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Rick Onanian writes:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Okay, back to the question: I'm no wheel expert, but the spoke lacing does appear a bit odd; I
seem to see parallel spokes where I shouldn't, and such pairs aren't evenly spaced from other
such pairs either.

As was mentioned, it's perspective.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Dear Jobst,

Yeah, perspective and smaller brains. I hate all you guys who didn't have to go out to the garage
and stare at a front wheel from different angles. I hate all optical illusions.

Time to go out in the back yard and pretend to throw the stick for the dog to make myself feel
smarter. Unfortunately, basset hounds lose interest in chasing sticks at about one year old, so I
may have to borrow the neighbor's dog to tease.

You guys should all be ashamed for trying to fool me.

Carl Fogel

(Carl Fogel) said:

Unfortunately, basset hounds lose interest in chasing sticks at about one year old, so I may have
to borrow the neighbor's dog to tease.

Just get a younger stick.

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel

--
Rick Onanian

"Peter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:NnUwb.231289$9E1.1260594@attbi_s52...

Quoted message said:

stu wrote:

Quoted message said:

I certainly find it odd that Jobst considers 23 spokes to be conventional and that you use 38. 🙂

LOL !