neils on wheels Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) Eddie , i think he means the technology is the same not the action of the units. As in it directly transfers the impact from one point to another with no cushion inbetween as thats what the levers do , smooth out the action. It's a crude but simply effective method of providing a mono shock set up. Please don't take that as " I told you so" comment it's not ment to be . Ted. The 'levers' are not there to smooth out the action, arguably they would do the reverse by adding friction. Their purpose is to change the leverage ratio applied to the shock to control the rate at which the suspension rate increases.The Rev3 shock achieves the same with internal valving. Edited March 1, 2015 by neils on wheels 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel dabster Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 The rev 3 does not achieve a parabolic compression curve its impossible with internal valving. However good the valving its no different to a very good valved pair of twinshocks. If the valving could achieve the same effect a) beta would not have fitted the evo with one or every manufacturer would follow this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2stroke4stroke Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) The rev 3 does not achieve a parabolic compression curve its impossible with internal valving. However good the valving its no different to a very good valved pair of twinshocks. If the valving could achieve the same effect a) beta would not have fitted the evo with one or every manufacturer would follow this. You may well be right but I don't care what shape the curve is; what matters to me is how it works. I do know that the rear suspension on my Rev 3 feels far better than that on the previous two monoshocks I had and they had linkages, but that's what development is all about. By the same token the Evo suspension will be "better" but not necessarily because it has linkages. I can guarantee that any marks I lose are not due to the lack of a linkage on the Rev 3 and I don't recall anyone decrying the system when Dougie was winning World titles with it. I enjoy working on a bike but when I want to do it, not when forced by bad design, and a trials bike with a linkage system not equipped with grease nipples is bad design in my book. It's all down to individual priorities/ preference. If you want to save on the weight of a grease nipple or two then you accept the penalty of needing to strip down and grease. I choose the penalty of the theoretical (at my level) disadvantage of a simpler system. Edited March 2, 2015 by 2stroke4stroke 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neils on wheels Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 The rev 3 does not achieve a parabolic compression curve its impossible with internal valving. However good the valving its no different to a very good valved pair of twinshocks. If the valving could achieve the same effect a) beta would not have fitted the evo with one or every manufacturer would follow this. Dabster, I'm not sure I understand the parabolic bit. I thought the compression curve would be some shape of rising rate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baldilocks Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Dougie didn't win any championships on the rev 3, he signed for Montesa the year it came out. I had two rev 3s, not a bad bike at all. However the rear shock is much more lively which is great for some things but not better in all situations. I noticed it would bounce off things where a gas gas or sherco didn't. Edited March 2, 2015 by baldilocks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel dabster Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 You may well be right but I don't care what shape the curve is; what matters to me is how it works. I do know that the rear suspension on my Rev 3 feels far better than that on the previous two monoshocks I had and they had linkages, but that's what development is all about. By the same token the Evo suspension will be "better" but not necessarily because it has linkages. I can guarantee that any marks I lose are not due to the lack of a linkage on the Rev 3 and I don't recall anyone decrying the system when Dougie was winning World titles with it. I enjoy working on a bike but when I want to do it, not when forced by bad design, and a trials bike with a linkage system not equipped with grease nipples is bad design in my book. It's all down to individual priorities/ preference. If you want to save on the weight of a grease nipple or two then you accept the penalty of needing to strip down and grease. I choose the penalty of the theoretical (at my level) disadvantage of a simpler system. Dabster, I'm not sure I understand the parabolic bit. I thought the compression curve would be some shape of rising rate? This is where personal choice comes in and thats fine. I would respectfully suggest that most of us dont need a linkage, simply put, in all situations it gives us a better suspension set up and without question a back to back test on various terrain would prove this conclusively. The fact that mostly we ride well with our capabilities means that disc brakes hydaulic clutches linkages generally light weight parts could all easily be changed for 80's components and make no difference in marks lost. I possibly could explain the variable rate rise of a linkage as opposed to valving but id end up like dadoff and im resisting that! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neils on wheels Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 I possibly could explain the variable rate rise of a linkage as opposed to valving but id end up like dadoff and im resisting that! Much appreciated 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shyted Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) The 'levers' are not there to smooth out the action, arguably they would do the reverse by adding friction. Their purpose is to change the leverage ratio applied to the shock to control the rate at which the suspension rate increases. The Rev3 shock achieves the same with internal valving. Do you know who Ron Williams is ? i'll tell you if you don't . He owns MAXTON suspension. I talked to Ron and his step son Paul over dinner at the TT about the mounting method of the back shock on the Honda Hornet and the then current method of the shock mounting on the CBR 600 .They mount the same as the REV 3 and some other bikes.We talked about improving the rear shock and he explained there was only so far you can go compared to levers Rons words were " it's a crude but effective way of mounting a mono shock " . Seeing he's had several teams on the podium as a result of chassis and suspension design i recon he knows exactly what he's on about. It's true as you say that the lever alter the lever ratio. Oh yes Suzuki, call the dog bones,lever links, whatever , cushion levers by the way . Its in the Factory manual for the RGV 250 M which i'm looking at right now . They call them that because they help smooth out the impact action No one says it's no good . I didn't say it's no good .If any of you like it fine ,i like it ,i can't tell the difference on a trials bike , Can you ? Maybe Eddie can as as far as i know he's the only proffessional rider here . But if there's one thing ,if utilising a lever creates more friction which it might do ,it's so miniscule that the bennifit of levers outwieghs the negative effect and i would say that's why they use leverage as it lessens effort . Not having a slant there but i wouldn't have said a thing if i was second guessing . Edited March 3, 2015 by shyted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neils on wheels Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 Not having a slant there but i wouldn't have said a thing if i was second guessing . No slant felt or intended here. I'm merely seeking to understand how things work. My understanding is that the effect of the 'levers' is to move the bottom shock mount rearward as the shock compresses, thus reducing the leverage ratio applied to it and making the suspension harder to compress and thus 'stiffen up'. I've not studied the kinematics of this, it is just an educated guess based on what I would expect to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guys Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 This explains it very well: http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Honda_Pro-Link 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2stroke4stroke Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) Dougie didn't win any championships on the rev 3, he signed for Montesa the year it came out. I had two rev 3s, not a bad bike at all. However the rear shock is much more lively which is great for some things but not better in all situations. I noticed it would bounce off things where a gas gas or sherco didn't. I stand corrected - I'll put it down to the onset of old age. But it does rather suggest that Beta felt, at that time, that the linkless was better. You would have thought that, after so long on monoshocks, everything that could be known about using the levers would be known with no further improvement to come but we still get improvements (though I daresay the latest versions are set up for a different riding style to mine). I haven't looked closely at modern trials bikes to compare linkages to see if there are real differences but the proliferation of different configurations on mountainbikes suggests that experimentation continues, in that field at least.. Edited March 3, 2015 by 2stroke4stroke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_earle Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 The Rev 3 shock is quite a hefty unit, It works, but I find the Rev 3 rear end and also the Scorpa SY with the same set up, is prehistoric compared to modern set ups. By using a linkage, the rear shock can be a lot lighter with a lighter spring and this is made possible by the lever effect of the linkage. Manufacturers wouldn't go to all the hassle and expense of designing and making lots of extra parts if it wasn't needed. I like the idea of the JTG shock position, The biggest problem with shocks is heat soak from exhausts. I would like to see the rear shock on the JTG moved over 10mm or so and a protector fitted as if you land it on a rock its a 500 liability. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan williams Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 I think the difference is the Rev3 shock characteristics are tuned to provide the effect of rising rate internal to the shock body. This made for a much more expensive shock and Beta could save money going back to the linkage suspension. This isn't a slight on Beta. They simply saw no more advantage to the side shock since every other manufacturer was using linkage. That JotaGas and now TRS are showing a side shock is actually rather surprising. I wonder who's making their shocks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baldilocks Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 Jotagas still use a linkage Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dadof2 Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 A linkless system does give a rising rate based on the shock angle, rear wheel travel and spring stiffness. The rising rate is near linear. The linkage system gives a rising rate which increases at a greater than linear rate as the spring compresses. Different sections of suspension can have different rising rates, This makes the suspension more effective over a wider range of travel. Using compression oil damping to give a rising rate effect has the drawback of putting a lot of energy into the shock oil which would cause overheating which is difficult to compensate for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.