Lahar DHV M9 First Look

[Scott]

So it’s a downhill bike. That’s nice. It’s all been done before – hasn’t it? What has anyone got left to offer? Check out this Lahar and see.

Check it out here (http://www.farkin.net/page.php?zp=2bbd5d).

[Oddjob]

Yay first post.

Well I gotta say it does look purdy with all that carbon fibre and it certainly appears to have all the mod cons. Any word on Australian pricing, is it much different from the NZ pricing?

Given I've just refurbished my DH steed (which is also from NZ) its unlikely I'll be looking for a year or two but it certainly is being put on the short list.

[j5ive]

So what happens when you smack the shit out of that lower strut?

[Cletus]

im glad these g-boxx's are seeing there way onto more bikes. i really think it's the way of the future. now, if i could only afford one:rolleyes:

[S.]

So what happens when you smack the shit out of that lower strut?

Supposedly nothing, according to Lahardesign. I didn't manage to hit it, but since it moves with the suspension anyway, I'd guess not a great deal.

[MrPlow]

Good article.
Looks really long, I think the mud shot with the 40's pushed right down in the crowns says it all.

How about the centre of gravity? The gearbox is up pretty high by the looks. I wonder if this too is such a good thing. Seems a bit of a shame so much effort is put into the techy side and then they stuff something as simple as geometry.

[ajay]

Is this the 1st design to use a rolhoff hub outside of the wheel?

Nice review Steve, so thats why you werent at the ballarat racs eh? to busy testing out boutique carbon dh bikes....:rolleyes:

[Butch]

Is this the 1st design to use a rolhoff hub outside of the wheel?

Nice review Steve, so thats why you werent at the ballarat racs eh? to busy testing out boutique carbon dh bikes....:rolleyes:

:S right ... just have a better geeze at some of the photos on there website . the main frame design looks simple , but i'd be more concerned about the the seat post mast
seeing that its high up n all and somone like me 90 kgs upwards would put alot of force on that one section , as for the rear it reminds me of the old balfas , but none the less nice :)

[Pat H]

i recon it looks stupid, looks as if you could snap it off a 5ft drop!

[CAM]

yuck.
10 characters

[louispijpers]

yuck......

[the F.H.B]

Wow, how intellegent the last few posts are...
Someone comes up with a new angle on the DH bike and all you can say is "yuck"...
Great Bike, cant wait to see one in the flesh, now if only I could win the lottary:rolleyes:

[MrPlow]

i recon it looks stupid, looks as if you could snap it off a 5ft drop!
If it were made from steel it probably would.
But carbon fibre is a bit different.
It doesn't look that great, form follows function. Agree with FHB tho:rolleyes:

[brisneyland]

i recon it looks stupid, looks as if you could snap it off a 5ft drop!

I reckon you'd know less less than two parts of bugger all about very little.

[Lahardesign]

Cheers steve, durn good effort.

Its the mark 9 version of the bike since 1996.
Some may remember the first rohloff version at mt Buller oz nats in 2001 (earlier ones used nexus).

No-ones snapped any and the m8's have seen up to 8 pro seasons each in the ownership of the countries worse bike busters- who I've targeted to (successfully) convince the scene that Carbon is the right material for high performance high durability hardcore bikes.
Remember that not using very much of the $200 per kg material and using it badly is a good way for the worlds largest manufacturers to convince you that $5 per kg metals are strong- to their financial gain.

The geometry is pro racer specified and no apologies. Its very refined after 10 years of race tuning, both hemispheres for 4 of the last 5.
:cool:

[Lahardesign]

No offence but the standard styling for bikes has been "farm gate" for so long that ~30% of people tend to find the Lahar strange looking at first. Most think its gorgeous, especially in the flesh. Never seen anyone not convinced of its elegance and beauty after max a day in its prescence.

[Lahardesign]

Good article.
Looks really long, I think the mud shot with the 40's pushed right down in the crowns says it all.

How about the centre of gravity? The gearbox is up pretty high by the looks. I wonder if this too is such a good thing. Seems a bit of a shame so much effort is put into the techy side and then they stuff something as simple as geometry.

Seriously, the f40's are at their factory lower crown position.
The C.O.G is low as the gearbox, shock, structure is all within the sweep of the crank and rearward of the bb. It may look high until you realise that your foot on the pedal comes higher than the top of the mainspar. The inverted 4 bar link gives this illusion- think of it as nothing higher than the chainstay of a normal setup.

I can't take credit for this being a new idea, its just standard high performance chassis design since all the scientific work on suspension was done around 1900. ;)

[S.]

Good article.
Looks really long, I think the mud shot with the 40's pushed right down in the crowns says it all.

How about the centre of gravity? The gearbox is up pretty high by the looks. I wonder if this too is such a good thing. Seems a bit of a shame so much effort is put into the techy side and then they stuff something as simple as geometry.

The centre of gravity seemed great actually. The gearbox *looks* high because of the high pivot and the single beam section that attaches the headtube which exaggerates the distance from where the downtube would be, to where the front wheel is. When you chuck a leg over it, the bike seems fairly low.

BTW Aaron (Lahardesign) tells me the BB height is 375mm (14.75" or thereabouts) on the clean bike with all the closeup pics, and about 365mm (14.4" ish) on the muddy one (which was the one I was riding - yes two different bikes are pictured, nearly identical builds though). I agree that it looks higher in the pic, but it felt fairly low to me.

As far as geometry goes - test ride one if you get the chance, and I really mean that, because it's the only way to really appreciate just what this bike does. I'm not the kind of person to recommend buying anything just because I liked it, but if you can give that bike a run on a real DH track and not like the way it rides, I'd be surprised.

i recon it looks stupid, looks as if you could snap it off a 5ft drop!

Thank god it's not you building the bikes we all ride then. :rolleyes:

[Lahardesign]

Anyone want me to put a race summary up here? - showing the margins that saw the UCI putting 5/5 Lahar pros on drug report for "an unusually abrubt increase in race performance" :D

[Ryan]

Anyone want me to put a race summary up here? - showing the margins that saw the UCI putting 5/5 Lahar pros on drug report for "an unusually abrubt increase in race performance" :D

Yes, yes we do.

[---Matt---]

Anyone want me to put a race summary up here? - showing the margins that saw the UCI putting 5/5 Lahar pros on drug report for "an unusually abrubt increase in race performance" :D
YES PLEASE!!!

---Matt---

[Lahardesign]

This summary from 02, 03.

The company was crushed by an apparent hostile takeover bid and theft of our m8 production tooling at the end of the 03 national season.

I'll edit up a list of pro and junior race times from that season tonight.
I've Honda's 04 Norba season for comparison.

I'm getting together an updated race victory list, theres been a hell of a lot since, but I kinda lost count.:D

Lahar race results May 2002-dec 2003

May 02 Oceania UCI category C DH 2nd, plus 0.04 seconds
Rider Byron Scott NZ ranked 6, Marzocchi shiver.

July 02 New Plymouth secondary school champs, 1st under 16
Rider Wyn Masters age 15.
August 02 New Plymouth champs, 1st under 19
Rider Wyn Masters age 15.
September 02 Wanganui Champs, 1st under 19
Rider Wyn Masters age 15.

September 02 Auckland champs,
1st pro Class Rider Tim Nelson
1st under 19 Rider Wyn Masters

September 02 New Zealand Champs single race. 2nd + 1.67 sec
( flat tire for 1/3 race) Tim Nelson NZ#18, Marzocchi shiver

October 02 Nelson Champs 1st pro Class
Rider Tim Nelson, Marzocchi Shiver

October 02 Christchurch Champs 1st pro Class
Rider Tim Nelson, Marzocchi shiver

November 02 Dunedin champs, 1st pro Class
Rider Tim Nelson, Marzocchi shiver

January-March 03 New Zealand National Championship series

round one Wanaka
Pro Class 1st Tim Nelson, second +3 seconds Nathan Rankin (foes)
3rd justin Leov +8.75sec
Under 17 1st Wyn Masters

round 2 Wanaka
Pro Class 1st Nathan Rankin (lahar DHV), 2nd Tim Nelson +0.4 sec.
3rd Dan Lynch +5.28sec
Under 17 expert 1st Wyn Masters
Over 30 expert 1st Jarrod Boyce (only race contested in series)

round three Nelson
Pro Class 1st Tim Nelson, second +1 second Nathan Rankin
- 3rd +7.17 s in 2m42sec race, John Kircaldie (intense/Maxxis). US norba champ!
- 4th +13 s Dan Lynch orange. -5th Best 03 Foes result for Mark Johnston +15 s.
Under 17 3rd Wyn Masters (he did not tighten odiGrip. He did stop to up it pick. This unfortunately denied us an unbroken record of no bike beating a Lahar from 14 starts from 4 person team in 5 race national series. We’re pretty happy with 13 from 14 though).

round four Rotorua.
Pro Class 1st Nathan Rankin, second +1 second Tim Nelson (both had flu+ tim poisoned foot)
- 3rd +3secs on his home track, John Kircaldie(intense/Maxxis). US norba champ! 4th Glenn Haden +5.03sec
Under 17 1st Wyn Masters.

round five Auckland
Pro Class 1st Nathan Rankin ( tim broke his arm in training two weeks before) 2nd Justin Leov +4 sec

April 03 New Zealand Champs single race.
4th, +4 sec Tim Nelson NZ#2. (tim crashed badly 5 secs before end of race losing over 10 seconds.)
DNS Nathan Rankin – Injured in practice.

August 03 Canterbury DH Champs.
Pro Class 1st Mark Johnston. (Debut Lahar team race)

Sept-Oct 03 top of the South Island DH Champs Pro Class.
Round 1 1st Mark Johnston. (2nd L Neal (foes) +25 sec!)

Round 2 1st Mark Johnston 3m15.51s (with flat tyre for last 1m28s)
2nd Tim Nelson (Orange) on home town track he built himself 3m17.28s
3rd Byron Scott (Orange – poached after UCI Cat C success –top New Zealand and Australia on Lahar last year.)

Round 3 2nd Mark Johnston +1.8 s (With 3 practice runs on muddy course, 1 crash)
(winner 2003 fra wcup #9 Justin Leov(giant)- his dad owns the Track-400+ practice runs)


Nov 03 Christchurch DH Champs.
1st Lucky break for Byron Scott (orange)
2nd Scott Sheldon +0.2 sec (1st race on a Lahar from ex-foes best ‘03 6th place pro )
3rd Mark Johnston +3 sec(Chain broke 12secs into 3 min run - this is the only mechanical to have interfered with training, practice or race for any of 4 person Lahar team in a year. The chain was 9 mths old and Mark says he was meaning to replace it for some time though it had never misbehaved before. )


nov 03 Auckland champs final of 3 races
Mark johnston 2nd, total mudbath, brakes gave up, I result gives series 3rd place

Dec 03 Jentree Race, nationals course.
Mark Johnston 1st run one , 2nd run two and overall.
Winner Justin Leov , giant (fra 03Wcup #9) on his personal track after ~1000 practice runs
Mark missed practice day.

Dec 03 Canterbury Champs.
1st Mark Johnston.
2nd Scott Sheldon.

[Binaural]

Anyone want me to put a race summary up here? - showing the margins that saw the UCI putting 5/5 Lahar pros on drug report for "an unusually abrubt increase in race performance" :D

So,your last post tells us results but you don't list what the results of these racers was before they joined your team, so they are useless for answering the question that was put to you. I suggest you need to provide a LOT more proof before you make this sort of statement.

[MrPlow]

So,your last post tells us results but you don't list what the results of these racers was before they joined your team, so they are useless for answering the question that was put to you. I suggest you need to provide a LOT more proof before you make this sort of statement. oooh your harsh!:eek:

[Binaural]

oooh your harsh!:eek:

I've had a record-breaking bad week :)

[the F.H.B]

Give the guy some time, he said he'd get it done later tonight.
Hopefully that means he's to busy building bikes at the moment, would love to see Lahar get the recognition they deserve, can still remember throwing my leg over one back in the late 90's...
(I was driving out to my usual trails and passed a hand painted Mtb park sign, pulled in to have a look and the next thing I know im riding a lahar around a Hari krishna farm, not what I expected!)

[No Skid Marks]

Lahari krishna,krishna krishna.

[S.]

So,your last post tells us results but you don't list what the results of these racers was before they joined your team, so they are useless for answering the question that was put to you. I suggest you need to provide a LOT more proof before you make this sort of statement.

Usually I'm quite skeptical of such claims too, but WTF... a lot more proof? UCI doing non-random drug tests on people because their results ALL jump suddenly isn't enough for you?

[Binaural]

Usually I'm quite skeptical of such claims too, but WTF... a lot more proof? UCI doing non-random drug tests on people because their results ALL jump suddenly isn't enough for you?

a. A quick google does not turn up anything at all on this supposed extra testing. As far as I can see, the only person to claim this extra drug testing was done is by the manufacturer, here. I am of course open to be proven wrong but I am highly suspicious of this claim. Top level athletes get routinely tested all the time anyway and I doubt that any such special testing program even exists.

b. Lahardesigns dodged the question of the claimed performance boost of using his bikes by posting a download of current results, not before-and-after. Whether his intentions were good or not in trying to slip in a bit of bragging about his bikes I read that as evasion.

[S.]

a. A quick google does not turn up anything at all on this supposed extra testing. As far as I can see, the only person to claim this extra drug testing was done is by the manufacturer, here. I am of course open to be proven wrong but I am highly suspicious of this claim. Top level athletes get routinely tested all the time anyway and I doubt that any such special testing program even exists.

b. Lahardesigns dodged the question of the claimed performance boost of using his bikes by posting a download of current results, not before-and-after. Whether his intentions were good or not in trying to slip in a bit of bragging about his bikes I read that as evasion.

Because naturally, the UCI would have uploaded any and all negative drug tests for such matters in an easy-to-find location. Be suspicious all you want, but I doubt anybody would bother to make such a claim in public if they couldn't back it up. Of course, I too am open to be proven wrong here :)

[Grip]

Damn fine article Steve. Very informative without being so technical as to turn people off. I'd say you've given the average "joe" a bloody good idea of what the Lahar is all about. Now... where does one score a ride again?:D

[brisneyland]

You gonna be seen riding a CF bike Grip?

:p

[Davf]

You gonna be seen riding a CF bike Grip?

:p

Don't you mean, "You're going to be seen riding a bike Jon" :p

Brisney, it was a joke, sheesh some people :rolleyes: :D

[brisneyland]

Don't you mean, "You're going to be seen riding a bike Jon" :p

Huh? Inside joke, speak when you're spoken to.

[Freewheelin Franklin]

a. A quick google does not turn up anything at all on this supposed extra testing. As far as I can see, the only person to claim this extra drug testing was done is by the manufacturer, here. I am of course open to be proven wrong but I am highly suspicious of this claim. Top level athletes get routinely tested all the time anyway and I doubt that any such special testing program even exists.

b. Lahardesigns dodged the question of the claimed performance boost of using his bikes by posting a download of current results, not before-and-after. Whether his intentions were good or not in trying to slip in a bit of bragging about his bikes I read that as evasion.
Get a life dude,your calling him a lier for what. who'd make up that stuff,even if it was exagerated BIG DEAL the bike looks like sex.That thing has the sweetest lines accept fo tha fat bit.Would look BLING dressed in Gold bits with a splash of red and black.Shit and I'd just paid off my credit card.

[S.]

Get a life dude,your calling him a lier for what. who'd make up that stuff,even if it was exagerated BIG DEAL the bike looks like sex.That thing has the sweetest lines accept fo tha fat bit.Would look BLING dressed in Gold bits with a splash of red and black.Shit and I'd just paid off my credit card.

Take it easy mate, it's all healthy debate. :)

[arpit]

Be suspicious all you want, but I doubt anybody would bother to make such a claim in public if they couldn't back it up.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt temporarily, but I too would very much like to see him back it up.

To the dude who said that the bikes look like sex-

I see exaggerating as unethical behaviour.
And the bikes look like sex do they? Sex with WHAT exactly? :P I personally hate the way they look. I think they look really really ugly. That's not to say that I wouldn't very very much like to own one though :)
The idea of a durable bike is very appealing.

[Bodin]

Brilliant work Aaron. Ever since the first time I tore a rear mech off a frame, I've been wishing that gearboxes would become a reality. To combine this with what looks to be a very well-sorted rear linkage and geometry says great things about your dedication to your art.

Any time there's one of these babies in Melbourne, I'd love to know about it. ;)

Cheers.

[MrPlow]

The centre of gravity seemed great actually. The gearbox *looks* high because of the high pivot and the single beam section that attaches the headtube which exaggerates the distance from where the downtube would be, to where the front wheel is. When you chuck a leg over it, the bike seems fairly low.

I consider anything heavy above the BB / axle line (my contact with the bike) to be high? Is this right? I imaging this bike is very flickable having it's weight right in the centre of the bike too?

How would it compare braking into corners compared to my Yeti DH9? I am a late braker and a brake dragger (ie I have no skill) so generally single pivot bikes that lock out under braking dont suit my style. Do you attribute the supple and impressive suspension to low unsprung weight or high pivot?
I gotta say Lahar have taken the words out of my mouth with this design in it's main characteristics except for the high gearbox placement, and geometry (which I would have taken from my Yeti Anyway) The front and rear axles following the same path , the chain line, no derailleurs... it just seems to make so much sense!

[NCR600]

Carbon fibre AND red anodised chainring bolts... Tres retro!
http://www.farkin.net/image.php?image=bb08da73b6.jpg

Can't get my head around the carbon fibre thing. Every time I see it, all I can think of is those couple of times John Britten's bike's forks broke (once killing the rider) and that time a year or 2 back a '99 Ferrari F1 car broke in half at Laguna Seca's Corkscrew in a Thoroughbred F1 race.

Still, a VERY good effort, and leaves me wondering what the hell they put in the water in NZ. Maybe we'll see Aaron Lahar's name next to those of John Britten and Bruce McLaren?

[Lahardesign]

As promised.
The 04 and 05 seasons are on my old computer and I'll have to dredge but podiums including two 2nds by privateers scott sheldon were achieved.

All the lahar riders have shown lowered times on lahars and slowered ones(which the UCI computers don't select for) before and after on other leading bikes, and acknowlege it, all saying the Lahar is the best bike They've ever ridden, I have it in writing but as some have other sponsors I'll not clip them here.Punters been pretty vocal himself on numerous forums.

that quote should have been "the uci's computers have selected you as a potential drug cheat due to an unusually sudden increase in race performance":eek:

We've got a govt grant to have a Phd sports scientist test the stats on his journal published peer reviewed analysis software. Also physical testing of perf data like gmeters etc. Keep you posted.

The latest win was two weeks ago when 15yo Pete Cooper beat Leighton Neil both runs on his home track in Blenheim- where he's considered on a par with justin leov also local. Petes first Lahar race.:D

[NCR600]

I consider anything heavy above the BB / axle line (my contact with the bike) to be high? Is this right? I imaging this bike is very flickable having it's weight right in the centre of the bike too?

How would it compare braking into corners compared to my Yeti DH9? I am a late braker and a brake dragger (ie I have no skill) so generally single pivot bikes that lock out under braking dont suit my style. Do you attribute the supple and impressive suspension to low unsprung weight or high pivot?
I gotta say Lahar have taken the words out of my mouth with this design in it's main characteristics except for the high gearbox placement, and geometry (which I would have taken from my Yeti Anyway) The front and rear axles following the same path , the chain line, no derailleurs... it just seems to make so much sense!

The amount the CofG would be affected by placing the gearbox high is virtually nothing when you consider where the CofG is with a rider on board.

I'd say the reduction in unsprung weight would more than offset the penalty incurred by a slightly higher (and more central) CofG.

[Lahardesign]

Get a life dude,your calling him a lier for what. who'd make up that stuff,even if it was exagerated BIG DEAL the bike looks like sex.That thing has the sweetest lines accept fo tha fat bit.Would look BLING dressed in Gold bits with a splash of red and black.Shit and I'd just paid off my credit card.

The Fat bit is the arsecover. I sculpted it ofn the perfect natural curves of the lithe feminine specimen. No one notices because I cunningly disguised it with batwing sharkfin thingys. Get within 10 ft and your subconcious will enslave you. It also looks like a gun and a damn fine thrash guitar. The rear stays are the dimensions of a F! cars struts (I did it first) and don't need deal with 300kph 600kg shunts. Britten used open mold tech with 60+% resin and would have done better if he'd Stuck Around.

[Mugger]

Interesting frame I must admit, whether it'll grow on me is another story.

Wouldn't mind a test ride anywho :eek:

[arpit]

The Fat bit is the arsecover. I sculpted it ofn the perfect natural curves of the lithe feminine specimen. No one notices because I cunningly disguised it with batwing sharkfin thingys.

So..... can I get one without the batwing sharkfin thingeys? :p

[Lahardesign]

This photo of Frodo shows how low the total mass is.
It may be that mass centralisation counts for something in the verticle as well as horizontal direction. Lean angle is reduced by low mass, and stability.
the Rohloff is centred 5 inches above the bb and to the rear, the shock is near touching the bb and horizontal.

[Lahardesign]

So..... can I get one without the batwing sharkfin thingeys? :p
sure but it wouldn't have an independant brake. No point for the arsecover in oz since it doesn't get dirty over there does it? The m8s run without them.

I was considering making the forward shock mounts look like hooters.:D

[Lahardesign]

the drug report thingy means you have to supply your day by day whereabouts 2 months in advance for 6mths. So you can be ambushed for random tests. Its why punter retired for 18mths, in protest. He doesn't ever train let alone take enhancing drugs. Rankin got out of it by writing a huge NO! on their form and sending it back. Everyone agrees its rare. :cool:

[MrPlow]

The Fat bit is the arsecover. I sculpted it ofn the perfect natural curves of the lithe feminine specimen.
I thought it was scultpted reminisent of the head of a Ovis Aries, hence, the horns. :)
Did you get my email Aaron?

[brisneyland]

Does the chainstay flex in a vertical plane? Is it intended to? Does this affect shock damping, rate, etc?

[broccoli]

The new lahar looks awsome i reckon and all the design ideas sound perfect for a dh race bike and everyong that has ever riden one says they are the best bike they ever riden.:) Top job Aaron.

[chie]

Excellent read.
If I was in the market for a pure dh bike I think I'd definitely consider one.
And on the looks side i think it's very batmobilish, except for those damn grey 40's, when are fox going to paint them a decent colour? :rolleyes:

[S.]

I consider anything heavy above the BB / axle line (my contact with the bike) to be high? Is this right? I imaging this bike is very flickable having it's weight right in the centre of the bike too?

How would it compare braking into corners compared to my Yeti DH9? I am a late braker and a brake dragger (ie I have no skill) so generally single pivot bikes that lock out under braking dont suit my style. Do you attribute the supple and impressive suspension to low unsprung weight or high pivot?
I gotta say Lahar have taken the words out of my mouth with this design in it's main characteristics except for the high gearbox placement, and geometry (which I would have taken from my Yeti Anyway) The front and rear axles following the same path , the chain line, no derailleurs... it just seems to make so much sense!

Then everything would have a high centre of gravity - how many bikes have anything at all below the BB/axle line? I found the overall weight to seem quite low, but at the same time I'm not a huge subscriber to the "everything needs to be stupidly low" theories either. Notably, neither was Wayne Gardner.

Flickable, yes and no. It's not heavy or sluggish, but it is still long and you're not going to throw it around like a dirtjump frame.

Braking hard it doesn't pitch forward as much as most bikes do, and the suspension seemed to work fine at that point. I think the bike's bump absorption characteristics are more to do with the high pivot than the unsprung weight - in theory unsprung weight would contribute, but then again Monster Ts are some of the best bump-absorbing forks that have ever been made, and the lowers on those things were absolute tanks compared to most fork lowers too.

[S.]

Does the chainstay flex in a vertical plane? Is it intended to? Does this affect shock damping, rate, etc?

Yes, yes and yes but to what extent I'm not sure.

[brisneyland]

Is there any reason to *want* it to flex, other than the weight savings (and maybe space?) of not having a vertical strut in there to create a fully rigid triangle?

[brisneyland]

What do you mean by 'mellow out'? Slightly less rising rate than would otherwise be the case?

[S.]

Is there any reason to *want* it to flex, other than the weight savings (and maybe space?) of not having a vertical strut in there to create a fully rigid triangle?

Well yeah, it's in place of a pivot. Otherwise there would only be 3 pivots in the linkage - you need 4 for it to be able to move :)

[brisneyland]

haha, um yeah, I knew that :o

[Lahardesign]

The spr/ unspr weight is the main reason that this and other gearbox bikes get so smooth as speed increases. Minaars reported it on Hondas site despite their low pivot.
When you consider that most bikes have wheels etc (unsprung) weighing 2-5 times what the rear end of the mainframe and rigidly attached mass (sprung),
its a basic conservation of momentum result that when the bikes tying to get the wheel back on the ground, the frame will rebound up faster than the wheel rebounds down! :eek:
Not a good look.

[S.]

The spr/ unspr weight is the main reason that this and other gearbox bikes get so smooth as speed increases. Minaars reported it on Hondas site despite their low pivot.
When you consider that most bikes have wheels etc (unsprung) weighing 2-5 times what the rear end of the mainframe and rigidly attached mass (sprung),
its a basic conservation of momentum result that when the bikes tying to get the wheel back on the ground, the frame will rebound up faster than the wheel rebounds down! :eek:
Not a good look.

Provided, of course, that you don't have a rider on board at the time :p

[the F.H.B]

So how long till we see one in Aus? I seem to remember that the production rate is fairly slow, about 2 a month or something, is it possible (read:easy) to step that up if demand requires?

[Lahardesign]

Provided, of course, that you don't have a rider on board at the time :p

I've talked to you before about how difficult it is to transfer momentum to loosely attached bodys like a rider in short periods. If you always ride dh seated then the riders mass is partially involved in the primary suspension system but we're such bags of jelly at high freq that even a seated rider is not completely involved.

[Lahardesign]

So how long till we see one in Aus? I seem to remember that the production rate is fairly slow, about 2 a month or something, is it possible (read:easy) to step that up if demand requires?

We have a board meeting this weekend about exactly that. We're going to allow an investor in to fund some CNC molds that will allow production rates of over 1 per day with less skilled labour.

[MrPlow]

We have a board meeting this weekend about exactly that. We're going to allow an investor in to fund some CNC molds that will allow production rates of over 1 per day with less skilled labour.
And therefor cheaper prices right?:D

[shmity]

Hrm, so im guessing that means a fixed sizing? Im shorter than S. considerably, and if he felt the bike was longer than usual, im quite sure i would be more than a little stretched out on it. :(

[Lahardesign]

Hrm, so im guessing that means a fixed sizing? Im shorter than S. considerably, and if he felt the bike was longer than usual, im quite sure i would be more than a little stretched out on it. :(

the wheelbase is long(neccesary with the tight mass centralisation) but the cockpit is not at a TT of 56cm. 5'3" Olivia has been practicing on Nicks full size one and loves it. Her Wchamps rig is shorter by 1.5 inches in the TT. I can do short versions.

[shmity]

the wheelbase is long(neccesary with the tight mass centralisation) but the cockpit is not at a TT of 56cm. 5'3" Olivia has been practicing on Nicks full size one and loves it. Her Wchamps rig is shorter by 1.5 inches in the TT. I can do short versions.

Ok now you're just making me horney...no fair.

[MrPlow]

the wheelbase is long(neccesary with the tight mass centralisation) but the cockpit is not at a TT of 56cm. 5'3" Olivia has been practicing on Nicks full size one and loves it. Her Wchamps rig is shorter by 1.5 inches in the TT. I can do short versions.
Would that be at extra cost?
Is it possible to fit a Nexus 8 speed hub into the frame? I already have one. I reckon I could engineer it.

[Lahardesign]

Would that be at extra cost?
Is it possible to fit a Nexus 8 speed hub into the frame? I already have one. I reckon I could engineer it.

Difficult. The CNC chainringcarrier and mounting plates would need to change, and the shifter on the same side as the chains would likely take up too much room. Shortening the bike at present is a pain I'd have to charge for as it requires chopping the mainspar and rejoining it with an internal lug. In practice the cockpit is quite short at 56cm cntr-cntr horiz at the top of the head and the seatpost angle moves the seat forward as its lowered.

[toodles]

Difficult. The CNC chainringcarrier and mounting plates would need to change, and the shifter on the same side as the chains would likely take up too much room. Shortening the bike at present is a pain I'd have to charge for as it requires chopping the mainspar and rejoining it with an internal lug. In practice the cockpit is quite short at 56cm cntr-cntr horiz at the top of the head and the seatpost angle moves the seat forward as its lowered.

This isn't a go at anyone here, but I'd like to see the standard measurement for bike length go to BB - headtube. It's way more useful IMO.

[xy9ine]

This isn't a go at anyone here, but I'd like to see the standard measurement for bike length go to BB - headtube. It's way more useful IMO.
indeed. that's actually a usefull measurement - i use that when i'm comparing effective front center lengths; conventional tt measurements make little sense for comparing dh frames given the variety of layouts utilized.

[No Skid Marks]

Yep I'm down with that,the other measurenents are a vague guide at best.Ideally need bottom headset height and/or expected BB height also.Otherwise you could have a bike with that measurement but the BB was nearly dirrectly underneath the headset(exagerated) and it wouldn't ride real good.

[Lahardesign]

bb to center of bottom of head tube is 640mm.
agree its a more informative measurement,

[toodles]

bb to center of bottom of head tube is 640mm.
agree its a more informative measurement,

Damn straight - who sits down anyway? (Apart from S. but he only does that to pee)

[Lahardesign]

Just heard Camerons chalked up another win in Montgenevre France. :D

[Kingy]

A well thought out design.

It is almost like watching evolution from the GT RTS, to the SUNN radical Plus, then the Giant Team DH, albiet with motor cycle suspension influences thrown into toss up the mix.

One thing that has me excited is the intelligent use of carbon fibre.

No over kill, just simple adapting of the flex properties of carbon applied to an area of the bike which usually display inherrant fatigue propreties specifically the chain stays.

I have been holding off on my next DH purchase because I wanted an internal gerabox, I was tossing up the idea of a nicolai but was holding off because I did not like all the CNC aluminumn construction.

It was interesting to hear deregatory comments about the bikes appearence, I was quite taken by it.

I can noramlly spot a dud......Nah no dud here, this is the real deal!

This bike has future, I can't wait to have a ride on one.

Good luck Aarron

[ED young master]

Hi from France to all of you !

I happen to see Cole's bike here in July on the Oz race track, I was like :eek: :eek: :eek: :confused:

Just a few days ago, I started a topic on your brand, it's in French :rolleyes: http://forum.velovert.com/index.php?showtopic=73825

The more I see it , and read about it, the more I'm interested by this strange looking bike !

I was recently wondering about the total weight and the eventuality of seing your frames sold in this hemisphere ????
(considering I read your saying about sprung & unsprung weight)

Congrats for this junior worl title !

[the F.H.B]

Hey Ed, welcome to farkin:D. Having a look at that site made me wish I could speak french!
Im sure you'll start to see privately owned Lahars in europe soon, if your interested you should get hold of Aaron directly, im sure he would be more than helpful with any information you need on his bikes.
As for the sprung/ unsprung weight thing that is more about weight distribution and its effect on preformance than total weight of the bike, if you want a good run down on this try and get the attention of "S" on this forum, he'll happily explain in no more than 10,000 words ;)

[S.]

Actually that's one area where myself and Aaron somewhat disagree :). Personally I don't think the change is big enough to be significant, however at the very least we can safely say that lower unsprung mass will always be better - regardless of whether it's significant or not. Aaron may well be right about the benefits becoming noticeable at higher frequencies, however I am skeptical until numbers show me otherwise - I attribute the exceptional smoothness of the suspension at high speed mainly to the axle path and shock rate.

Hint hint Aaron... we want numbers :)

[No Skid Marks]

To the death,LOL.

[ED young master]

Hey Ed, welcome to farkin:D. Having a look at that site made me wish I could speak french!
Thanks !
It's a good way to learn ...

So nothing about total weight someone ???

[No Skid Marks]

Average build is about 41lbs,I'm planning to get mine to 38-39 with a selection of quality strong light parts,will post it on here in post your ride when I do.Should be within two weeks.

[Daver]

I have a few questions:

Why doesn't Lahar use the G-boxx or G-con standards? Both offer a reliable and more readily available than the Lahar specific job, not to mention that the guys behind the G- standards are arguably the smartest guys in the industry (Karl Nicolai and Dave Weagle). Surely adopting the G-standard would also drop the prices even more, making the Lahar the only gearbox style bike that is relatively affordable.

Given so many bikes have adopted the G-boxx 2 standard i don't understand why you guys don't. (Just so everyone knows, the G-boxx 2 standard involves a bolted on gearbox as opposed to the welded G-boxx 1).

Secondly, is the geometry fixed, or is it possible to choose more normal geometry? The chainstays look (and after Steve's test, sound) too long, or is the geometry limited due to the design or mouldings?

As for comparing a junior world's victory to Honda's Silver, i wouldn't go there. Especially suggesting that the constant cleaning/dissassembly/monitoring of the Honda is unecessary (which you did on RM).

[No Skid Marks]

Speeking from my own understanding and I'm sure Aaron will correct me or ad if I'm wrong. The G-Boxs were designed after the Lahar,and that's irrelivant anyway. The G-boxs are or would apear designed to cater for the masses of companies by offering versatility over in my opinion function.They offer the same output location for thechain as a conventional front chainring therfore not really catering for the Lahars high pivot design. The Lahar is a race bike and it's geometry for that is arguably perfect,as you should be able to see by the marked improvements of those that have raced it,and or wish to.The rear ends actuation works with the front on a similer plane mildly counteracting what would appear a lazy angle,this is mild speculation on my part and I will ad to this after more riding time. The rear is very light which also takes from the long feeling,so does having the bulk of the weight centered low beetween your legs.The Lahar was designed from Aaron listening to feedback from riders of it's predecessor the Mk8.
The Lahar/Rohloff is proven to be rediculously reliable whereas the G-Boxs are yet to do that,even if they are reliable they offer no performance gain really apart from shifting system possibly,moot point in my opinion.When I receive the first Lahar I will offer it for test riding for those I see genuine,I will not offer car park tests only DH runs to avoid any poor judgements.

[Daver]

Speeking from my own understanding and I'm sure Aaron will correct me or ad if I'm wrong. The G-Boxs were designed after the Lahar,and that's irrelivant anyway. The G-boxs are or would apear designed to cater for the masses of companies by offering versatility over in my opinion function.They offer the same output location for thechain as a conventional front chainring therfore not really catering for the Lahars high pivot design. The Lahar is a race bike and it's geometry for that is arguably perfect,as you should be able to see by the marked improvements of those that have raced it,and or wish to. The Lahar/Rohloff is proven to be rediculously reliable whereas the G-Boxs are yet to do that,even if they are reliable they offer no performance gain really apart from shifting system possibly,moot point in my opinion.When I receive the first Lahar I will offer it for test riding for those I see genuine,I will not offer car park tests only DH runs to avoid any poor judgements.

Firstly, the current G-boxx 2 still uses a Rohloff, with a 7(?) speed alternative coming out soon via SR Suntour (V-boxx). The reliability of the Rohloff hub should be amazing, regardless of how its run, but I just can't see the amount of time and brainpower behind the Lahar being anywhere near that of the G-boxx.

Geometry wise, I don't want to argue anything until i see it on paper, but based on looks the chainstays are too long (this point comes across in the review too) and the headangle looks pretty slack (again, this is on looks, and it may be the angle or whatever). Given its a geometry is a pretty personal thing, i would have thought that Lahar would have stayed in the middle ground with say, 17" stays. I'd argue that the IH Sunday, Intense M3 and Specialised Demo 8 are the best race bikes at the moment, and if you look at their geometry they're definately not as long or as slack as the Lahar.

http://si6.mtb-news.de/fotos/data/13667/Centurion_G-Boxx_2.jpg

The whole point of the G-boxx 2 is that the gearbox can work with more than one suspension design. Yes i can see that the Lahar runs a high pivot design (a lot higher than just about anything out there), but if Dave Weagle can work a DW-style linkage around a G-boxx (the Orion), and so can Centurion, then i don't see why Lahar can't. And even then the G-boxx can be rotated forwards, like the Solid. G-boxx bikes will be the future, but it needs to be standardised in order for it to work, and unfortunately for Lahar, they're not the standard.

http://si6.mtb-news.de/fotos/data/13667/Solid_G-Boxx.jpg

[No Skid Marks]

The centurion I believe is just using a Rohloff hub in the guts,and due to no chain device means it's running around a virtual pivot in the middle of the Rohloff drive sprocket,therfore you can say they've not acheived much but variety and possibly stifness and brake bennefits Vss weight.
The Rohloff works,the weight of the unused gears are a small flaw for it's use as a DH specific gearbox but with the light weight of the Lahar frame counteracting this then the extra gears are just an added bonus.
I'm sure the G-Boxs will be fine and don't wish to be misinterpreted predicting they won't be reliable,the Rohloff has proven itself thats all I'm saying.I'm stocked on any gearbox inovation as deraileurs are 120 year old design of fragile rubbish(due claws of the bike).
Like I said the G-Box is made to suit the masses of manufacturers and their sales and I believe saleability won over possible design benefits but thats an argument I wont surrender on and will remain unproven(agree to dis agree). I've not seen DWs version around the G-box yet.The output sprocket limits design and I think they should and no doubt will offer different shape options.
Facts and blah blah,just ride my Lahar when I get it then form your own opinion based on experience. Like you said personal preferance will always make a particuler bike design not right for everyone.

[toodles]

What shifters do all these G-Boxx and Lahar designs use?

[Daver]

What shifters do all these G-Boxx and Lahar designs use?

A rohloff shifter. Its sort of like a grip shift shifter, just with less indexing and more movement. A rohloff compatable sram trigger is in the works at nicolai.

[Davf]

IMO the twist grip shifter feels horrible and its quite easy to grab too many gears at once, the trigger when it does become available would make g-boxx much more attractive to a potential buyer(although rumored price for the shifter is quite high)

[the F.H.B]

Yes i can see that the Lahar runs a high pivot design (a lot higher than just about anything out there), but if Dave Weagle can work a DW-style linkage around a G-boxx (the Orion), and so can Centurion, then i don't see why Lahar can't. And even then the G-boxx can be rotated forwards, like the Solid. G-boxx bikes will be the future, but it needs to be standardised in order for it to work, and unfortunately for Lahar, they're not the standard.

Aaron has been working on the Lahar design for some time now (hence the current bike being called the mk9), im fairly sure he and his riders are happy with the high pivot design and how it works.

Now it might surprize you but not everybody wants to clone DW's designs, I would put money on it that its not that Aaron cant "work a DW-style linkage around a G-boxx" but that he doesn't want to.

And where do you get this bollicks about "G-boxx bikes will be the future, but it needs to be standardised in order for it to work, and unfortunately for Lahar, they're not the standard"? Is this the same standard as head tube diameter, bottom bracket width, and rear hub width, etc, etc, etc?
When the hell did a non production prototype (gboxx2) become "standard"?
Lahar have been doing gearbox bikes for years, and now your telling them they're 'not' the standard!?!
Im sorry I dont know what your smoking, but I suggest you get off it and come back to the real world!

[Daver]

Aaron has been working on the Lahar design for some time now (hence the current bike being called the mk9), im fairly sure he and his riders are happy with the high pivot design and how it works.

Now it might surprize you but not everybody wants to clone DW's designs, I would put money on it that its not that Aaron cant "work a DW-style linkage around a G-boxx" but that he doesn't want to.

And where do you get this bollicks about "G-boxx bikes will be the future, but it needs to be standardised in order for it to work, and unfortunately for Lahar, they're not the standard"? Is this the same standard as head tube diameter, bottom bracket width, and rear hub width, etc, etc, etc?
When the hell did a non production prototype (gboxx2) become "standard"?
Lahar have been doing gearbox bikes for years, and now your telling them they're 'not' the standard!?!
Im sorry I dont know what your smoking, but I suggest you get off it and come back to the real world!

I didn't say Aaron should copy DW, and good for him that he likes the high pivot point. All i'm saying is that the suspension design can be based around the gearbox and tweaked to give the goaal ride- hence how the DW link is adapted to the Orion, and how Centurion have adapted a Lawill style linkage to the G-boxx.

G-boxx 2 (Universal transmissions) and v-boxx (SR Suntour) use the same mounting standard. Both are used by several companies (Nicolai, Orange, Diamondaback Centurion, BCD, Ellesworth, Solid, MSC and a few others). I daresay that that is a lot more of a 'standard' than what Lahar are offering. It is being offered as a 'standard' just like ISIS was in the early days.

As for "G-boxx bikes will be the future, but it needs to be standardised in order for it to work, and unfortunately for Lahar, they're not the standard", it makes perfect sense. Given that gearboxes are undoubtedly the future, they need to iron out the designs of the actual gearboxes to get them to work. A 'standard' for the manufacturers to work to (and a standard that has been designed and tested by the smartest guys behind the linkage designs) makes it easier for everyone else to work a gearbox into their line. Lahar are a small company, and rather than continuing to produce a unique design when they have the opportunity to use a standardised gearbox seems an unnecessary expense. If its a labour of love then they can go ahead, but unless they have the backing of say, Honda, it's going to be hard for them to make ends meet. Ultimately, if they keep using their own gearbox design it will pose a problem once everyone else follows onto the g-boxx design, and at the end of the day, people will usually go with the cheaper (standardised) design au lieu of significantly more expensive exotica.

[the F.H.B]

Interesting post Dave, you make some interesting points but unfortunately they are mostly based on future actions rather than current fact.
To begin with I am believe that at this stage "Orange, Diamondaback Centurion, BCD, Ellesworth, Solid, MSC and a few others" are all at the prototype stage, they are unproven designs with an unproven box going up against a World champs winning bike.
At this stage I do not think any of the bikes above are in production so to say "Lahar are a small company, and rather than continuing to produce a unique design when they have the opportunity to use a standardised gearbox seems an unnecessary expense. If its a labour of love then they can go ahead, but unless they have the backing of say, Honda, it's going to be hard for them to make ends meet" is assuming alot!
Last time I checked, Roholff(sp) hubs have been around a long time so is hardly unique? And Lahar never have had or could hope to have the backing of a company like honda, what they offer instead is passion and commitment to the sport. I know what I'd rather have.
Lastly we have no prices on the Gboxx bikes yet but they would struggle to beat them for price, I'll believe when I see it

[Daver]

Interesting post Dave, you make some interesting points but unfortunately they are mostly based on future actions rather than current fact.
To begin with I am believe that at this stage "Orange, Diamondaback Centurion, BCD, Ellesworth, Solid, MSC and a few others" are all at the prototype stage, they are unproven designs with an unproven box going up against a World champs winning bike.
At this stage I do not think any of the bikes above are in production so to say "Lahar are a small company, and rather than continuing to produce a unique design when they have the opportunity to use a standardised gearbox seems an unnecessary expense. If its a labour of love then they can go ahead, but unless they have the backing of say, Honda, it's going to be hard for them to make ends meet" is assuming alot!
Last time I checked, Roholff(sp) hubs have been around a long time so is hardly unique? And Lahar never have had or could hope to have the backing of a company like honda, what they offer instead is passion and commitment to the sport. I know what I'd rather have.
Lastly we have no prices on the Gboxx bikes yet but they would struggle to beat them for price, I'll believe when I see it

You're right about the future actions part. Most of the designs so far have proved unsuccessful (GT IT-1 is a prime example), and the Lahar is one of the few that is performing (along with the Nicolai TST evo (which i beleive has outplaced the Lahar in sevral WC's this year?)). I think that by not following the Gboxx path (and word is that Lahar have spoken with Universal Transmissions, but to no outcome), Lahar are working themselves into a corner, especially when the manufacturers using/about to use the G/V boxx already have a leg up. And without the costs involved in designing, testing and building a gearbox bike, these new manufactuers would be able to beat the price at the same performance.

[Lahardesign]

Oh dear!
using a standard rohloff with trained service agents worldwide and a proven record of years of trouble free pro racing (camerons has raced in Lahars since 2001 for 6 pro seasons) is the only way to achieve the standard of support neccessary for the international privateer at present.
As the weight of the rohloff(1700g) and the m9 mainframe (1300g) together are 3kg compared to the g-con's 3.6kg + mainframe the gbox fails on acceptable weight.
I have tried all pivot heights with the gearbox layout and the g-boxes and g-cons(like Hondas) restrict your geometry to far too low pivot placement for a performance orientated mtb. They will unavoidably pedal squat, brake jack and have poor large bump performance. (All this has been tested by 7 NZ #1 riders and a lot more top 10 NZ pro's who have raced the bikes since 1997 and they are unanimous on all of this) If DW wants to put his fad linkage on the We-box then its an admission its badly conceived.
the chainstay of a lahar m9 is 17.5 inches and if it went shorter I would be as short as another high pivot bike unanimously kicked out of the NZ race scene cause its stays were to short to acceptably race. My Scottish based distributor reports the same Phenom there:rolleyes:

[the F.H.B]

Yeah your not wrong about the GT IT-1:D great example for gear box bikes that set...
I would say that the biggest problem Aaron will have for a while is going to be meeting demand, from the information I have gleaned lately most of their efforts have been in that direction at the moment.
Im also sure that Lahar will be able to adapt with changes in tech over time, so 'when' gboxx proves itself to be better than his current system im sure he'll move forward.

[Lahardesign]

Happy to report that a deal has been signed with a major NZ performance engineering firm The Fraser group to manufacture the Lahar Ruapehu m9 en-mass.
They make most of you Aussies Fire engines amongst other things.:D
Fastest laser cutter in sth hem, 9 axis 2-chuck 2-turret Lathe-Mill and about 40 other computer controlled metal chewers of all shapes and sizes.

So: working on getting delivery to "on demand" within next 2 months.:cool:

[Lahardesign]

In early 1997 pictures of my shi-nexus Mark 1 DHV proto were published in NZmountainbike magazine. I was told later by the editor that 15 copies of this were sent to GT headquarters in US as they were a major advertiser.
18mths later they unveiled their nexus bike at interbike. Its a pity they' ve never developed it in high level racing. Since Rohloff won't give them their gearbox they can't.;)
Hondas designer was at mammoth in 2001 when my rohloff m4,m5,m6 protos were being raced. Honda had con' der' bikes there. He tried mine, took pictures, liked the one with the highest pivot the best. I told him with Hondas susp design knowlege he should do a gearbox bike. He said maybe he would.:D

[Lahardesign]

I have prototyped many gearbox variants.
I'd love to use a standard but am very dissapointed in it.
Nicholai races only der' dh bikes I believe. He makes elegant ones of them for some reason. When his latest, lightest gearbox one has a compression strut to the shock that weighs more than a lahar swingarm and rocker somethings wrong.

[the F.H.B]

Happy to report that a deal has been signed with a major NZ performance engineering firm The Fraser group to manufacture the Lahar Ruapehu m9 en-mass.
They make most of you Aussies Fire engines amongst other things.:D
Fastest laser cutter in sth hem, 9 axis 2-chuck 2-turret Lathe-Mill and about 40 other computer controlled metal chewers of all shapes and sizes.

So: working on getting delivery to "on demand" within next 2 months.:cool:
Just make sure you get the QC spot on, hope you've got a barrage of tests to make sure the mass produced ones make the grade.

P.s nice to see you've given it a name!

[Lahardesign]

Just make sure you get the QC spot on, hope you've got a barrage of tests to make sure the mass produced ones make the grade.

No probs. The tools they can make me and the QC processes there will ensure the quality only goes up!
Marty bought a computerised fatigue test machine the other day with us in mind. He's real fizzing on Lahar!

[the F.H.B]

Oh, just translated 'Ruapehu' are you sure thats a safe name for a bike:D
Cheers Ed

[Lahardesign]

I'm concerned that people may base their expectations of gearbox bike performance potential on the gcon standard. It would be a shame if gearbox layouts were passed off as a fad with no performance advantage.
Like Honda, bikes with this system will show some advantage on fast rough stuff where their sprung/unsprung weight advantage starts to matter. The rest of the time they are probably worse than conv der bikes.
Nicolai, Suntour, DW etc have seriously painted themselves into a corner with this ill-conceived standard. Everyone should email them to pull up their socks!

[Lahardesign]

Oh, just translated 'Ruapehu' are you sure thats a safe name for a bike:D
Cheers Ed

High velocity Lahars roar down Ruapehu regularly.
(I'd love to ride the Lahar Ruapehu atop a Ruapehu Lahar):D

[No Skid Marks]

So using trivial facts that seem so easy to blurt out on the net,you could say the smallest and largest budget gearbox bikes are not using the G-Box.Yet they're both kicking arse. Lets see if this happens in the future or not.Lets see what racers(not forced by sponsors)use the G-Box over a deraileur option if available. G-Box is the bread and butter staple for those companies wanting to jump on the bandwagon and cash in,if they're all in it doesn't matter if it floats or sinks,nobody will loose respect.
The GT failed due to geometry flaws and the Nexus hubs reliability as well as poor marketing and a cautious market.Not from poor idea,just poorly executed.

[ED young master]

Oh, just translated 'Ruapehu' are you sure thats a safe name for a bike:D
What does that mean ? And what about Lahar ?

So the frame alone's 1300g :eek: excellent !
800g for a DHX5 with Ti spring = 2100g !!! Even with the Rölhoff hub at 1500g ==> 3600g total ... my DHR is at 5000g with the Ti spring !!!!

And the weight being low ... :D :D

[Lahardesign]

and a standard that has been designed and tested by the smartest guys behind the linkage designs

As linkages have been 99% about deceiving people that der bikes "finally work right this year" by confusing them about whats happening with their suspension, I don't think you should idolise or trust those guys.
Any bike designer with access to half a brain (the right half) can work out all the linkage gimmicks they like and theres no advantage over any layout. Its wheelpath and minimal chaingrowth that matters on any type of design.

Be careful your not signing up for another 17 years of "we finally got it right this year".

Theres a reason I say "not the next big thing, simply the final destination." I'll continue to use the lightest and most reliable efficient and supported gearbox whatever it is. I will never compromise my geo for any standard that flies in the face of Physics.
I've never talked to a bike designer that doesn't agree privately on all this.
The only testing that matters is the controlled experiment of pro racing.

[Lahardesign]

What does that mean ? And what about Lahar ?

So the frame alone's 1300g :eek: excellent !
800g for a DHX5 with Ti spring = 2100g !!! Even with the Rölhoff hub at 1500g ==> 3600g total ... my DHR is at 5000g with the Ti spring !!!!

And the weight being low ... :D :D

Ruapehu's the biggest Volcano in NZ at just under 3000m
"Lahar" means Mud Flow.
Agitated mixtures of up to 98% rock and a little water are as fluid as water (consider this when choosing a mud tyre) but 5 times more dense. Meaning they flow downhills and river valleys at far higher speeds than flash floods.

[ED young master]

Thanks for the detailed answer ! So we'll have to GO with the flow ! ;)

Is that you on the right ? Very pleased if so !
1 more question, how possible to eventually get a frame in Europe and what about the total cost ? (shipping etc ...)
PM if you wish ...
http://www.2006rotoruamtb.com/gallery/407p10.jpg

[Lahardesign]

I have to wonder...
How standard are gcon cranks? do you have to get some sent from Germany if you bend yours on a rock? What if Germany is out of stock? also whats the advantage of hiding the front chain inside a heavy housing where it can't be easily accessed?

[Lahardesign]

Thanks for the detailed answer ! So we'll have to GO with the flow ! ;)

Is that you on the right ? Very pleased if so !
1 more question, how possible to eventually get a frame in Europe and what about the total cost ? (shipping etc ...)
PM if you wish ...
http://www.2006rotoruamtb.com/gallery/407p10.jpg

Yeah thats me on the right. ugly bastard ain't I!:D

Frame+drivetrain Kits(incl Rlf,rearhub,saintcranks,DHX5.0,chains) are ~3000 Euros depending what the x rates doing, and shipping 150 euros for 4day.

On the left of the picture peeking from behind the tentpole is Frasers group General Manager Martie who will soon be able to ship bikes on demand.:cool:

[ED young master]

Mail sent !

[S.]

I didn't say Aaron should copy DW, and good for him that he likes the high pivot point. All i'm saying is that the suspension design can be based around the gearbox and tweaked to give the goaal ride- hence how the DW link is adapted to the Orion, and how Centurion have adapted a Lawill style linkage to the G-boxx.

G-boxx 2 (Universal transmissions) and v-boxx (SR Suntour) use the same mounting standard. Both are used by several companies (Nicolai, Orange, Diamondaback Centurion, BCD, Ellesworth, Solid, MSC and a few others). I daresay that that is a lot more of a 'standard' than what Lahar are offering. It is being offered as a 'standard' just like ISIS was in the early days.

As for "G-boxx bikes will be the future, but it needs to be standardised in order for it to work, and unfortunately for Lahar, they're not the standard", it makes perfect sense. Given that gearboxes are undoubtedly the future, they need to iron out the designs of the actual gearboxes to get them to work. A 'standard' for the manufacturers to work to (and a standard that has been designed and tested by the smartest guys behind the linkage designs) makes it easier for everyone else to work a gearbox into their line. Lahar are a small company, and rather than continuing to produce a unique design when they have the opportunity to use a standardised gearbox seems an unnecessary expense. If its a labour of love then they can go ahead, but unless they have the backing of say, Honda, it's going to be hard for them to make ends meet. Ultimately, if they keep using their own gearbox design it will pose a problem once everyone else follows onto the g-boxx design, and at the end of the day, people will usually go with the cheaper (standardised) design au lieu of significantly more expensive exotica.

As Aaron has already said, the G-Boxx/G-Con standards are relatively limiting. Yes you can rotate it around, but unless you use ANOTHER idler pulley (actually technically it's not an idler since it bears load, but whatever) to redirect the chainline, you're not going to be able to use a higher pivot. Standards are a bit irrelevant at this stage IMO - the technology still needs to be stabilised in the mass market before we go around setting standard heights for output shafts and whatnot. The height, as I've seen, is not very high anyway - however as you say, with something like a DW-link setup it could well be more than enough.

Got any pics of this Orion? I haven't seen it.

You're right about the future actions part. Most of the designs so far have proved unsuccessful (GT IT-1 is a prime example), and the Lahar is one of the few that is performing (along with the Nicolai TST evo (which i beleive has outplaced the Lahar in sevral WC's this year?)). I think that by not following the Gboxx path (and word is that Lahar have spoken with Universal Transmissions, but to no outcome), Lahar are working themselves into a corner, especially when the manufacturers using/about to use the G/V boxx already have a leg up. And without the costs involved in designing, testing and building a gearbox bike, these new manufactuers would be able to beat the price at the same performance.

Sorry but I have to side with Aaron again here - putting a gearbox in a bike doesn't necessitate the same performance. It's like tarring all conventional derailleur bikes with one brush - yes they all have SOME things in common but that doesn't mean they're all identical.

Oh dear!
using a standard rohloff with trained service agents worldwide and a proven record of years of trouble free pro racing (camerons has raced in Lahars since 2001 for 6 pro seasons) is the only way to achieve the standard of support neccessary for the international privateer at present.
As the weight of the rohloff(1700g) and the m9 mainframe (1300g) together are 3kg compared to the g-con's 3.6kg + mainframe the gbox fails on acceptable weight.
I have tried all pivot heights with the gearbox layout and the g-boxes and g-cons(like Hondas) restrict your geometry to far too low pivot placement for a performance orientated mtb. They will unavoidably pedal squat, brake jack and have poor large bump performance. (All this has been tested by 7 NZ #1 riders and a lot more top 10 NZ pro's who have raced the bikes since 1997 and they are unanimous on all of this) If DW wants to put his fad linkage on the We-box then its an admission its badly conceived.
the chainstay of a lahar m9 is 17.5 inches and if it went shorter I would be as short as another high pivot bike unanimously kicked out of the NZ race scene cause its stays were to short to acceptably race. My Scottish based distributor reports the same Phenom there:rolleyes:

I suggest you put a bit of time into investigating DW-link - call it a fad linkage all you want, but the fact is (and I have checked this myself) that it does a number of things that NO other linkages do, and combined with a gearbox system stands to offer better pedalling performance than your bike. Whilst your bike has a falling anti-squat profile through the travel (like most bikes), the DW-link bikes keep it pretty much constant over the first half of the travel, which means that the bike's pedalling performance is unaffected by your sag settings (within reason of course) - something no other bike can, to my knowledge, claim. Combining that with a single chainline = win. I think that your design - whilst certainly very much up there at the pointy end right now - could indeed be improved on (don't take this as an attack on the bike, I'd like to take this opportunity to reiterate that it IS indeed excellent in its own right in this regard - just not perfect!). If you were really keen, you could achieve virtually zero pedal feedback throughout nearly all the travel, have constant anti-squat throughout the usable pedalling regions of the travel, and even lower the effective pivot if you wanted to (which personally I could see as being useful to reduce the chainstay extension at sag - perhaps not something you personally want however)... might want to speak to DW about licencing his linkage though :). Please be aware that every time you make incorrect comments like that about other systems, I'll be more than happy to point out the imperfections in your design too. Tout the strengths of your own bike all you like, but slagging such a setup off as admission of poor design is both false and unprofessional IMO. Yes yes arguing to the death and all that... but if you make big claims they better be right :)

BTW - you don't need a certain pivot height to achieve a given amount of anti-squat - you need the sum of the anti-squat components, INCLUDING CHAIN TENSION, to equal the weight shift backwards. You could have a pivot the same height as the rear axle that pedalled perfectly, if the chainline was angled down enough. Obviously there would be chain extension issues in a setup like that, but that's not the point. You CAN make bikes with much lower pivots than yours that pedal as well or better.


Firstly, the current G-boxx 2 still uses a Rohloff, with a 7(?) speed alternative coming out soon via SR Suntour (V-boxx). The reliability of the Rohloff hub should be amazing, regardless of how its run, but I just can't see the amount of time and brainpower behind the Lahar being anywhere near that of the G-boxx.

Geometry wise, I don't want to argue anything until i see it on paper, but based on looks the chainstays are too long (this point comes across in the review too) and the headangle looks pretty slack (again, this is on looks, and it may be the angle or whatever). Given its a geometry is a pretty personal thing, i would have thought that Lahar would have stayed in the middle ground with say, 17" stays. I'd argue that the IH Sunday, Intense M3 and Specialised Demo 8 are the best race bikes at the moment, and if you look at their geometry they're definately not as long or as slack as the Lahar.



The whole point of the G-boxx 2 is that the gearbox can work with more than one suspension design. Yes i can see that the Lahar runs a high pivot design (a lot higher than just about anything out there), but if Dave Weagle can work a DW-style linkage around a G-boxx (the Orion), and so can Centurion, then i don't see why Lahar can't. And even then the G-boxx can be rotated forwards, like the Solid. G-boxx bikes will be the future, but it needs to be standardised in order for it to work, and unfortunately for Lahar, they're not the standard.



Keep an open mind about the geometry (in spite of my criticisms, and yes I'm dead serious here), and try one when you get the chance. Whilst yes, it is long compared to a standard bike, it ISN'T a normal bike and that's the whole point. The suspension works differently, it handles differently, and to me the whole thing seemed to be designed to comfortably operate at higher speeds than a normal bike - probably well suited to the high speeds and roughness of WC tracks. Whether or not it's the kind of bike you'd buy for tighter local tracks is another issue however, but again I'd ride it before you go really ragging on the geometry. Even though I found the rear end long (actually really liked the length of the front end/front centre), I would really like to spend a lot more time on the bike getting used to it, just to see what you can do with it.

Besides that, all the standardisation stuff is crap and irrelevant IMO for consumers - what are you gonna do, install an aftermarket gearbox?

[Lahardesign]

Thanks S..
though:
I'm of the opinion that controlling squat with anything but absolutely minimal chainforce is not acceptable as it destroys the ability of the design to pedal smoothly over bumps.
furthermore the requirement to minimise chaingrowth particularly in big travel displacements means low pivots have to have forward wheelpaths in the second half of travel and I don't think thats defensible in any circumstance. Years of testing all the configurations with the most expert bike handlers has made these conclusions inescapeable to me.
I don't believe that any linkage system offers any advantage in wheelpath over what can be achieved with intelligent placement of a single pivot. I drew, modelled and analysed every linkage design that has appeared since, and a lot more in the early 90's and believe I'm on firm ground sticking to this.
Looking forward to you trying a m9 with its finalised geo settings rather than the first which was slightly off ideal.:D

[Lahardesign]

On the standardisation issue.
As the current marketed standard WILL change as the market demands more optimum performance, where will that leave people with bikes that only fit an outdated standard? Are they to be considered disposible?

Using a Rohloff you are guaranteed future maintainablity. This is Important to me with my dedication to a design standard that has my bikes remain durable, reliable and competitive for 10 pro race seasons.

[S.]

Thanks S..
though:
I'm of the opinion that controlling squat with anything but absolutely minimal chainforce is not acceptable as it destroys the ability of the design to pedal smoothly over bumps.
furthermore the requirement to minimise chaingrowth particularly in big travel displacements means low pivots have to have forward wheelpaths in the second half of travel and I don't think thats defensible in any circumstance. Years of testing all the configurations with the most expert bike handlers has made these conclusions inescapeable to me.
I don't believe that any linkage system offers any advantage in wheelpath over what can be achieved with intelligent placement of a single pivot. I drew, modelled and analysed every linkage design that has appeared since, and a lot more in the early 90's and believe I'm on firm ground sticking to this.
Looking forward to you trying a m9 with its finalised geo settings rather than the first which was slightly off ideal.:D

Yeah, it really depends how much chaintug you consider acceptable. There is more than one way to skin a cat though. I agree regarding the forward wheelpaths.

I suggest you model a Sunday and take note of how the centre of curvature moves. It's very well calculated to stay at almost a constant height above the axle, only moving downwards slightly through the travel to account for the increasing downwards component of the chainline. Towards the end of the travel, it also lets the radius of curvature tighten back up to reduce overall chain extension effects outside the pedalable region of the travel. It also has very little chain pull due to its positive gearing effects. I am of the opinion that you MAY be able to achieve a similar result with a high chain output and singlepivot design (insofar as it not being an inherent trait of such a layout that it HAS to work in a different way), but I am 100% certain that nobody has done this yet. Not to say your design and others like it don't work *well*, but as with pretty much everything in the known universe, there is room for improvement IMO :)

Oh and if you're willing to give me another ride of one of your bikes (esp if geometry is altered at all), that'd be pretty cool too :) Might have to pinch Rod's one for a spin at some stage.

[No Skid Marks]

So how much do you feel the VPP on the sunday actually moves? and where abouts would you say it is most of the time? Do you think the moving VPP would have any drawbacks,like unsettling rider or traction through it's inconsistent axle path? Or a varity of other small inconsistencies my brain can't be arsed to fathom.

[S.]

So how much do you feel the VPP on the sunday actually moves? and where abouts would you say it is most of the time? Do you think the moving VPP would have any drawbacks,like unsettling rider or traction through it's inconsistent axle path? Or a varity of other small inconsistencies my brain can't be arsed to fathom.

It moves from within the rear wheel, a few inches above the axle height (tight radius, somewhat rearwards axle path) to somewhere roughly above the BB (again a few inches up), then back towards the rear axle after about 75% travel. Nah it's not really an inconsistent axle path as such, it's just variable radius, but that is definitely not something people are able to actually feel IMO. The actual direction of the axle path, wheelbase change between any two points in the travel etc I think are far noticeable than the subtle effects of varying the radius of curvature, and the Sunday doesn't have a great deal of wheelbase change, nor any sudden strange fluctuations in the axle path. Nobody has ever mentioned it with VPP bikes either. Frankly I think the design pretty much does the best you can do with a DH bike's suspension (in terms of pedalling) without altering the chainline (balfa style) and keeping in mind the limitations of multiple-chainline (derailleur) bikes. As much as I'd like to, I can't really pick any holes in the DW-link claims (especially since they're very careful with the technicalities).

[Lahardesign]

so it sounds like its averaging around the front of the wheel where I have mine, I agree the radius of curvature change would have little percievable effect, but consistancy is usually good and a pivot close behind the output sprocketand above the axle-output sprocket line also has the effect of controlling the max of chain extension and can produce too closely simular wheelpath to be really perceptable.
If you can actually shorten chainlength on big travel then the effect can be to increase effective travel at the pedal and smooth chassis stability pedalling big displacement bumps.

[Lahardesign]

I'm Gonna offer my own gearbox standard.:cool:
Two flat plates 135mm apart with tapered cam holes two inches apart.

There you go. I'll sell you the mounting plates to fit any bare planetry gearbox
to any frame with these gearbox mounts at any height or foraft position you want. And the cam buttons. Everything else on the bike can be whatever standard parts ya like and its the lightest gearbox standard around!:D

[Daver]

As Aaron has already said, the G-Boxx/G-Con standards are relatively limiting. Yes you can rotate it around, but unless you use ANOTHER idler pulley (actually technically it's not an idler since it bears load, but whatever) to redirect the chainline, you're not going to be able to use a higher pivot. Standards are a bit irrelevant at this stage IMO - the technology still needs to be stabilised in the mass market before we go around setting standard heights for output shafts and whatnot. The height, as I've seen, is not very high anyway - however as you say, with something like a DW-link setup it could well be more than enough.

Got any pics of this Orion? I haven't seen it.

Keep an open mind about the geometry (in spite of my criticisms, and yes I'm dead serious here), and try one when you get the chance. Whilst yes, it is long compared to a standard bike, it ISN'T a normal bike and that's the whole point. The suspension works differently, it handles differently, and to me the whole thing seemed to be designed to comfortably operate at higher speeds than a normal bike - probably well suited to the high speeds and roughness of WC tracks. Whether or not it's the kind of bike you'd buy for tighter local tracks is another issue however, but again I'd ride it before you go really ragging on the geometry. Even though I found the rear end long (actually really liked the length of the front end/front centre), I would really like to spend a lot more time on the bike getting used to it, just to see what you can do with it.

Besides that, all the standardisation stuff is crap and irrelevant IMO for consumers - what are you gonna do, install an aftermarket gearbox?

The Orion is the other linkage that Weagle patented along with DW-link (there may be more, but he's only eluded to the Orion in one of the gearbox threads on RM- I'll get you a link later tonight). As far as i can gather the orion is a gearbox compatable linkage that achieves the same goals as DW link.

As for the geometry, saying "it ISN'T a normal bike and that's the whole point" doesn't work, because it's trying to compete with normal bikes. Making it long and slack will make it a relatively course specific bike. This is purely speculation, and i will take NSM up on his offer when i get the time.

Finally, i think standardisation is going to be a help with the development of gearbox bikes- it gives a fixed standard that works which makes it possible for designers to work their bikes around it.

[ED young master]

Oh dear!
As the weight of the rohloff(1700g) and the m9 mainframe (1300g) together are 3kg .............

Please ... what do you precisely call the mainframe ?
I would like to have the total weight of the whole chassis (without shock)

[No Skid Marks]

Standards could and probably will work in the future but it's a tad early now,and they will have to offer options, and the gearboxes will have to offer performance. Shimanno won't be following no standard if/when they come out with their own and the current stanard doesn't suit them.History will repeat again,like with 1 1/4 vs 1 1/8th headset,followed by 1 1/8th vs 1 1.5,IS chainguide mount now changing again,however many disk mount options we went through,4,5 and settling on 6 bolt rotor mounts,etc etc etc.

[brisneyland]

In early 1997 pictures of my shi-nexus Mark 1 DHV proto were published in NZmountainbike magazine. I was told later by the editor that 15 copies of this were sent to GT headquarters in US as they were a major advertiser.
18mths later they unveiled their nexus bike at interbike. Its a pity they' ve never developed it in high level racing. Since Rohloff won't give them their gearbox they can't.;)
Hondas designer was at mammoth in 2001 when my rohloff m4,m5,m6 protos were being raced. Honda had con' der' bikes there. He tried mine, took pictures, liked the one with the highest pivot the best. I told him with Hondas susp design knowlege he should do a gearbox bike. He said maybe he would.:D

You're not seriously trying to imply that you invented the internal gearbox bike and GT and Honda ripped the idea of you? Cause that's a veeerrrrry long bow to draw...

[Lahardesign]

You're not seriously trying to imply that you invented the internal gearbox bike and GT and Honda ripped the idea of you? Cause that's a veeerrrrry long bow to draw...

just saying it like it happened. Mine was the first gearbox bike published in a magazine...We were racing Pro at world cups and Norbas in 2001 when Honda only had a junior at Mammoth.
those other guys saw them and if they were already working on gb proj then maybe I just made it neccessary they go public. maybe they did copy me. we will never know. BCD didn't, i'm sure, and wasn't far behind.
Gearboxes where they should be was obvious to those with suspension knowlege. No-one races scooters in serious motorcycle classes.
Synchronicity is an interesting phenomonon that usually crops up with anything new.
Theres about 40 different companies and smaller developers with stuff on public display now according to ridemonkey.

The swingarm 500g, rockerplates,bearings and bolts 200g mainframe 1300g so 2kg + 100g floater without shock .

[Daver]

John Sullivan (from Rotec):
I'am stoked to see the G-Boxx-2 both in design and function work. The G-Con standard is whats needed to make it easier for mfgs to comply and its the only way Karl can make the system work cost wise.

The fact that Suntour is getting onboard shows that their are overeseas mfgs interested in producing the gearbox itself for mass consumpution so mfgs like myself can actually build one with some degree of standards.

I can't wait to see whats ahead!

Dave Weagle (designer of DW link):
Have you ever considered that maybe, just MAYBE, Honda hasn't realized the benefits of linkage suspensions for their engine powered vehicles yet because the engines dont complain when they have to push harder?

I can GUARANTEE you that use of dw-link would reduce lap times on a motorcycle in Moto GP or Supercross. You won't have to take my word for it on this for long.

BTW, the Sunday has less moving parts and fewer links than a Honda CR 450F.

I will take one simple link and pivot over massve internal shock complexity any day, especially when the linkage system is superior in performance.

It sounds to me like you want the linkage suspension, you just dont realize it.

Dave

And again:

No problem, I can see how that could be confusing. Let me clarify.

The first statement I am talking about the ACTUAL G-Boxx standards as they are proposed now, just the hardware that is shown and being proposed by actual manufacturers. If a gearbox is to be successful, its going to need to be able to accomodate suspension designs like dw-link, vpp, horst link, etc... The current designs dont allow that easily and are intended to be used for single pivot, concentric pivot designs, which are really not preferable in any way (in my opinion at least).

I have applied for patents almost 2 years ago on a linkage suspension system called Orion engineered to tackle the unique situations surrounding motorcycle and non-human powered vehicle use, although it will have huge benefits for human poweed vehicles also. In addition to the new system, dw-link has been adapted for use on motor vehicles also. Can't really comment further right now...

Dave

[S.]

so it sounds like its averaging around the front of the wheel where I have mine, I agree the radius of curvature change would have little percievable effect, but consistancy is usually good and a pivot close behind the output sprocketand above the axle-output sprocket line also has the effect of controlling the max of chain extension and can produce too closely simular wheelpath to be really perceptable.
If you can actually shorten chainlength on big travel then the effect can be to increase effective travel at the pedal and smooth chassis stability pedalling big displacement bumps.

No, it's not really "averaging" somewhere, it starts at about the radius of the rim (without tyre) and approx 70mm above the axle and moves forwards, only lowering slightly (at a rate noticeably less than the rate the BB drops - I am referring to the situation as both wheels being a constant height, ie different sag settings) to allow for the alteration in chainline. The difference between this bike and everything else on the market is the consistent anti-squat profile this setup is able to offer. Also, until approx 60% of the way through the travel (both axles constant height that is, fork with ~40mm sag), the axle path is very slightly backwards to begin with - not hugely, but certainly not forward like most low-pivot bikes. It never becomes more than maybe 2 or 3 degrees forward even at the very end of the travel, and at that point the axle path is pretty much irrelevant except regarding chain extension anyway.

The axle path difference between that and a singlepivot with the pivot ~4" above the BB would not be noticeable in handling terms IMO, but there is no question in my mind that you simply cannot get the same squat profile from any singlepivot offerings currently on the market. Not to say it can't be done per se... but it hasn't been.

The negative pedal feedback thing is an interesting idea and I can see how it could help when pedalling over bumps (giving "more travel at the pedal" type thing) but the suspension has to extend after the bump too, and you're going to get chaintug there if not in compression. Obviously rebound effects are never going to be as fast as the compression ones. However by the same token, you can't really pedal a bike through the kind of terrain that will bottom it out or even use most of its travel, it's just too rough regardless of what the chain situation is like IMO. Personally I feel that true chain pull (after compensating for gearing effects) is usually not that big a deal in real pedalling situations, but I can see where you're coming from all the same.

[Lahardesign]

John Sullivan (from Rotec):


Dave Weagle (designer of DW link):


And again:

now I know the guys an apparent scammer.:rolleyes:

Jesus! everyone was messing with silly links at the end of the 19th century trying to use chainforce to stop the bucking generated by slow revving engines, high COM and wrong geometry. and platform, threshold and inertia shocks. Before the physics boys told them they were Nana's.
The 4 bar link is no stranger to motor vehicles of any design for 100 years along with every other suspension type.

[Lahardesign]

No, it's not really "averaging" somewhere, it starts at about the radius of the rim (without tyre) and approx 70mm above the axle and moves forwards, only lowering slightly (at a rate noticeably less than the rate the BB drops - I am referring to the situation as both wheels being a constant height, ie different sag settings) to allow for the alteration in chainline. The difference between this bike and everything else on the market is the consistent anti-squat profile this setup is able to offer. Also, until approx 60% of the way through the travel (both axles constant height that is, fork with ~40mm sag), the axle path is very slightly backwards to begin with - not hugely, but certainly not forward like most low-pivot bikes. It never becomes more than maybe 2 or 3 degrees forward even at the very end of the travel, and at that point the axle path is pretty much irrelevant except regarding chain extension anyway.

The axle path difference between that and a singlepivot with the pivot ~4" above the BB would not be noticeable in handling terms IMO, but there is no question in my mind that you simply cannot get the same squat profile from any singlepivot offerings currently on the market. Not to say it can't be done per se... but it hasn't been.

The negative pedal feedback thing is an interesting idea and I can see how it could help when pedalling over bumps (giving "more travel at the pedal" type thing) but the suspension has to extend after the bump too, and you're going to get chaintug there if not in compression. Obviously rebound effects are never going to be as fast as the compression ones. However by the same token, you can't really pedal a bike through the kind of terrain that will bottom it out or even use most of its travel, it's just too rough regardless of what the chain situation is like IMO. Personally I feel that true chain pull (after compensating for gearing effects) is usually not that big a deal in real pedalling situations, but I can see where you're coming from all the same.

You can too pedal a bike through all its travel. you do it every time you manual a big slam, or land a big jump with all your weight on the front pedal as is most efficient.
the extension of the chain on rebound slows a fast response tuned suspension kicking up after the slam and firms the pedal as the bike unweights over hollows.
You obviously don't remember the pendulum debate on "fully active" vs "semiactive" bikes thru the 90's or you would understand that even in 2 inches of travel no-one liked the feedback of full chainforce antisquat. Todays bikes hide behind the "speed sensitive", "threshold", "platform" mirage with pedalability claimed as the result of geometric design but really more the shocks resistance, also not well viewed by riders.

[S.]

now I know the guys a scammer.:rolleyes:

Jesus! everyone was messing with silly links at the end of the 19th century trying to use chainforce to stop the bucking generated by slow revving engines, high COM and wrong geometry. and platform, threshold and inertia shocks. Before the physics boys told them they were Nana's.
The 4 bar link is no stranger to motor vehicles of any design for 100 years along with every other suspension type.

And just because they didn't MANAGE to get them to work for MOTORBIKES - those would be bikes powered by MOTORS not PEOPLE - 100 years ago, means that 4-bar suspensions are somehow fatally flawed? Sorry but no. As I've explained above, there are many things you CAN do with 4-bar linkages that you just can't do with a singlepivot. Personally I am of the opinion that they are ideally suited for bicycle suspension because of the need for precise control over things like anti-squat that motorbikes simply do not need.

[S.]

You can too pedal a bike through all its travel. you do it every time you manual a big slam, or land a big jump with all your weight on the front pedal as is most efficient.
the extension of the chain on rebound slows a fast response tuned suspension kicking up after the slam and firms the pedal as the bike unweights over hollows.
You obviously don't remember the pendulum debate on "fully active" vs "semiactive" bikes thru the 90's or you would understand that even in 2 inches of travel no-one liked the feedback of full chainforce antisquat. Todays bikes hide behind the "speed sensitive", "threshold", "platform" mirage with pedalability claimed as the result of geometric design but really more the shocks resistance, also not well viewed by riders.

Not really a manual if you're pedalling is it? And personally when I take a big hit I prefer to have both feet on the pedals and taking up the weight, if only for the fact that otherwise your pedals smash into the ground.

And actually I am quite familiar with the fully active/semi-active thing, all the inchworming bullshit and the kind of retarded ideas that people came up with to try and combat bob whilst ignoring suspension movement in general (I can't believe I'm sitting here on bike forums, I have a freaking huge FEA assignment that needs typing up... ahh priorities), but I think you're deliberately trying to polarise the issue here. Chain tension forces are pretty huge (if I simply put all my weight on the front pedal when the cranks are horizontal, chain force is in the order of ~2000N), and you don't need a lot of chain extension to create a sizeable difference in the extensive force acting on the suspension, especially since you can use the tractive force as a baseline and then just tune the chain tension component around that. Herein is something of a compromise:

Small amount of chain feedback vs rapidly decreasing anti-squat profile.

That's the guts of it, and there can be slight variations on that, but short of actually rotating the output shaft within the chassis, them's the breaks.

[Lahardesign]

And just because they didn't MANAGE to get them to work for MOTORBIKES - those would be bikes powered by MOTORS not PEOPLE - 100 years ago, means that 4-bar suspensions are somehow fatally flawed? Sorry but no. As I've explained above, there are many things you CAN do with 4-bar linkages that you just can't do with a singlepivot. Personally I am of the opinion that they are ideally suited for bicycle suspension because of the need for precise control over things like anti-squat that motorbikes simply do not need.


not saying that at all. They have always shown excellent results on motorbikes. simple independant brake placement, elimination of shaft torque effects, and light triangulated stiffness are all advantages. If dw is suggesting his axle path and chainforce theories are applicable to motorbikes etc then I would think him deluded and ignorant.
Performance motorcycles have perfectly well controlled antisquat or they would bite you with the accelerations they generate.
You are far too obsessed with antisquatforce at big susp displ where it is insignificant or bad.

[Daver]

not saying that at all. They have always shown excellent results on motorbikes. simple independant brake placement, elimination of shaft torque effects, and light triangulated stiffness are all advantages. If dw is suggesting his axle path and chainforce theories are applicable to motorbikes etc then I would think him deluded and ignorant.
Performance motorcycles have perfectly well controlled antisquat or they would bite you with the accelerations they generate.
You are far too obsessed with antisquatforce at big susp displ where it is insignificant or bad.

What?

I'm fairly sure if you take the pedalling aspect out of the DW linkage it still presents a pretty simple and clever idea as to how suspension works, something that is a lot better than what a single pivot and an overdampened shock could ever achieve. But obvioulsy [power] efficiency and traction is not soughtafter in motorbiking too.

Simultaneously engineered anti-squat and leverage ratio curves are the mathematical formulas that make dw*link the world’s most efficient and traction-aiding suspension system.

Newton’s 3rd law states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When a vehicle accelerates, its mss is transferred rearward. The worldwide patent-pending dw-link anti-squat curve counteracts this rearward mass transfer under acceleration. This action eliminates pedal bob, increases small bump sensitivity, and increases traction.

dw-link does not rely on pedaling platform type dampers, unlike many other suspension systems. Its lightly progressive-to-linear leverage rate curve is engineered to work in harmony with the 2-stage anti-squat curve. Advanced riders use it to pump terrain in the trail and add momentum. This approach gives the best small bump absorption during acceleration and big hit control of any suspension available today.

The dw-link suspension projects and instant center to a tactical location just behind the front wheel. This ideal instant center location achieves the perfect balance of traction and stability under hard braking that is unmatched by other systems.

As suspension travel increases, the dw-link axle path changes to meet the demands of the trail. In the beginning of the travel, its rearward profile gives incredible small bump absorption and traction on the climbs. In the middle of the travel, the dw-link axle path works with the front suspension to provide a balanced feel for amazing cornering confidence and jumping ability. The end of the travel provides an increase in compression damping for bottomless suspension feel and big hit absorption.

[S.]

not saying that at all. They have always shown excellent results on motorbikes. simple independant brake placement, elimination of shaft torque effects, and light triangulated stiffness are all advantages. If dw is suggesting his axle path and chainforce theories are applicable to motorbikes etc then I would think him deluded and ignorant.
Performance motorcycles have perfectly well controlled antisquat or they would bite you with the accelerations they generate.
You are far too obsessed with antisquatforce at big susp displ where it is insignificant or bad.

No, I only care about the anti-squat force in the same region that I care about pedal feedback - in the region of the travel that I'm going to be pedalling. That's from about 25-55% in my estimation. After that, anti-squat can go to hell, who cares if a bike "bobs" if it's currently bottomed out?

And sorry but I have to side with DW again here - his systems have similar benefits in acceleration (no squat, or at least, totally controllable squat without having to resort to using compression damping or higher spring rates to do it) on motorbikes as they do on pushbikes. To quote you (probably not word for word), "glad someone understands the same physics apply to bikes as the rest of the world". This is a similar thing to Britten's anti-dive forks, except it applies when you're accelerating rather than braking. IMO the effects are less pronounced on smoother surfaces like road racing, but if Britten's forks could make that much difference to braking traction then there is legitimate reason to suppose that applying the same principle to acceleration in the other direction would yield similar results.

Seriously I would urge you to spend some time to really analyse what Weagle's system does, and how. Because while it's not the be-all and end-all of suspension right now, it does have some legitimate claims to fame that I think anyone would benefit from understanding. Calling him or his principles deluded or ignorant is, well, deluded and ignorant.

[S.]

What?

I'm fairly sure if you take the pedalling aspect out of the DW linkage it still presents a pretty simple and clever idea as to how suspension works, something that is a lot better than what a single pivot and an overdampened shock could ever achieve. But obvioulsy [power] efficiency and traction is not soughtafter in motorbiking too.

Efficiency is pretty much a non-issue in motorbike suspension, they have far more power than they can get to the ground, and they reach dynamic equilibrium much more easily than mountain bikes. All they care about is traction and handling.

[Daver]

Efficiency is pretty much a non-issue in motorbike suspension, they have far more power than they can get to the ground, and they reach dynamic equilibrium much more easily than mountain bikes. All they care about is traction and handling.

I disagree. If a design is more efficient its going to mean more power at the rear wheel, with less output and strain on the engine. Even if its a small amount, any increase is going to be an increase.

[Lahardesign]

What?

I'm fairly sure if you take the pedalling aspect out of the DW linkage it still presents a pretty simple and clever idea as to how suspension works, something that is a lot better than what a single pivot and an overdampened shock could ever achieve. But obvioulsy [power] efficiency and traction is not soughtafter in motorbiking too.

Sure and 4 bar linkages are well proven on motorcycles. I think the motorcycle world knows a lot more about them than dw and I wish people wouldn't show me hype like that. I can see so many things that contradict even S.s analysises and he's a fan!
The good thing about dw's is that like a lot of simular designs it stops chainextension getting out of hand at big displ. It uses not too much chfc antisquat as it has a platform shock to back it up.
I am utterly convinced by years of experience of me and 30 or more racers that no chainextension is good chain extension as it is commonly halving your travel at the pedal and needs to be to give antisquat through most of the travel. Single pivot bikes with pivots forward of the bb are worst at this with increasing chain ext hmm whats that dw said about just behind the front wheel? I'm confused I thought you said inside the rear wheel S.
bumps yanking your chain is a detriment to suspension performance period. I wouldn't run my output sprocket any lower than I do cause I've tried and no-one performed on it. Even with a weight advantage. More rearward wheelpaths that what I run have shown promise and I have definately found through much prototyping and the most credible rider testers that less chain extension is always better even into the negative.
and I reckon if minnaar was on a Lahar then Sam and his ferrous pony woulda been dust. Honda at least don't like chainextension they are only testing sprung/unsprung weight at present an would cringe at the effects on this that a geared up leg produces. thats probably why they've got lockout buttons for pedalling.

[No Skid Marks]

Is the moto and gearbox DW link the same as the current one used or a different formular?

[Lahardesign]

Look if your wheel is coming up at 70kph as it often does then if you have chainextension enough for anti squat and a con drivetrain then your pedal will come up at you at over 30 kph.:eek:

[Lahardesign]

Is the moto and gearbox DW link the same as the current one used or a different formular?


He'd have to move the drive output sprocket up in the chassis along with the vpp or use a shaft. only a complete idiot would consider using chainext on a motorcycle. it'd shred your gears and engine.

[S.]

I disagree. If a design is more efficient its going to mean more power at the rear wheel, with less output and strain on the engine. Even if its a small amount, any increase is going to be an increase.

You misunderstand - there ARE no such efficiency problems