The present disclosure relates generally to the field of bicycle suspensions and geometry and more particularly mountain bicycle suspensions. Mountain bike suspension has offered a number of advantages to riders including the ability to ride extreme mountain and desert terrain as well as increasing comfort for the more casual rider. While offering certain benefits, current mountain bike suspension systems suffer from a number of limitations, drawbacks and design compromises. For example, mountain bike rear suspension should ideally perform very differently under different riding conditions. While climbing the suspension would preferably be very stiff or locked out and should resist or eliminate rider bob associated with hard pedaling. Furthermore, it would be desirable to change overall frame geometry so that fork rake is steeper and rider position is advanced forward to suit the needs of a climb. In contrast, downhill descents present very different, and apparently conflicting, performance needs. When descending it would be desirable to change frame geometry to move the rider position rearward and provide a less steep fork rake. Furthermore, different spring rate, compression and rebound characteristics would be desired. On relatively level terrain the suspension needs are different still. These are but a few examples of a fundamental and long felt need in mountain bike suspension, namely, the need for different suspension and different frame geometries to accommodate the varied and contrasting riding conditions encountered by a mountain bike. Heretofore many efforts at improved mountain bike suspension have been attempted but have not overcome the what appear to be fundamental design compromises. A number of these attempts and their shortcomings are discussed in my U.S. Pat. No. 7,712,757 (“the '757 Patent”). The '757 patent, and its commercial embodiments in the Kona® MagicLink,™ represent the most significant effort to meet the challenges described above. While these designs provide significant benefits as to performance and function of mountain bicycle suspension, they too are subject to a number of limitations that appear to require fundamental design compromises including needs for multiple shocks and biasing members among others. There remains a long felt, unaddressed need for mountain bike suspension systems that provide fundamentally different performance and geometries across the gamut of potential riding conditions.
For the purposes clearly, concisely and exactly describing exemplary embodiments of the invention, the manner and process of making and using the same, and to enable the practice, making and use of the same, reference will now be made to certain exemplary embodiments, including those illustrated in the figures, and specific language will be used to describe the same. It shall be understood that no limitation of the scope of the invention is thereby created, and that the invention includes and protects such alterations, modifications, and further applications of the exemplary embodiments as would occur to one skilled in the art to which the invention relates.
Exemplary embodiments are illustrated in referenced figures of the drawings. It is intended that the embodiments and figures disclosed herein are to be considered illustrative rather than restrictive.
Throughout the following description specific details are set forth in order to provide a more thorough understanding to persons skilled in the art. However, well known elements may not have been shown or described in detail to avoid unnecessarily obscuring the disclosure. Accordingly, the description and drawings are to be regarded in an illustrative, rather than a restrictive, sense.
The term “bicycle” used herein refers both to chain-driven pedal-powered bicycles and chain-driven motor-powered bicycles or motorcycles. While the exemplary embodiments disclosed herein have particular utility for mountain bicycles, they are also useful for any type of chain-driven bicycle or motorcycle.
With reference to
When pedaling power/forward acceleration is applied, as shown in
At one extreme, as shown in
This alignment of pivots 32, 42, 48 can be geometrically configured to occur when the upper end of link 40 is pushed to a rearward position due to pedaling/forward acceleration forces. In these conditions, the upper end of link 40 will stay rearward even when the rider's pedal input (and therefore forward acceleration force) varies with crank frequency. Without this alignment, the link 40 would tend to rotate whenever pedaling pressure was momentarily reduced. This link rotation would allow undesirable effects such as vertical chassis movement, soft/lazy forward acceleration response, and less vertical fork and seat angles. Normally, these effects would cycle freely as those forces vary, but the alignment of the links, combined with the stiff motion ratio, substantially or entirely eliminate those undesirable effects.
At this position in the suspension travel, any effort to extend the suspension further is also met by increased rebound damping due to the increased motion ratio in that direction. This results in increased stability in rough terrain where the rear suspension might have a tendency to extend too fast and kick the back of the bike up.
The rotation of link 40 changes the alignment of all the aforementioned pivot points, such as the upper shock mount 32 and the chainstay pivot 44, allowing the main shock 30 to gain a leverage advantage/transmission angle at a point where the extra suspension and all of the other benefits are most needed.
In this area of suspension travel, between full extension and 25% compressed as shown in
This allows the most rapid response for the wheel to roll over the bump with the least resistance, and the least reaction force input to the chassis/rider.
The suspension will be more plush in the initial stages and on smaller bumps, to better absorb the bumps. It also causes the fork angle and seat tube angle to relax, adding stability (especially at high speeds and/or descending), and shifts rider weight to the rear. The movement of the bottom of link 40 to the rear also means that the chainstay 26 and thus the rear wheel 20 are moving to the rear. This provides the benefit of additional ability to absorb square edge bumps and also aids stability at high speeds and/or descending.
When the link 40 rotates to rear, the changes in the shock motion ratio mean that the rear wheel 20 will have more vertical travel for each increment of shock compression. This results in a suspension that has more travel available when it is needed most (i.e. hitting bumps) as shown in
Under braking, the horizontal force pulling the wheel to the rear is magnified, and the changes are more aggressive, making those benefits more pronounced when they are needed most. The larger the bump force, or more aggressive the braking effort, the more the bottom of link 40 wants to rotate to the rear. During braking, the advantages of better bump absorption, more rearward rider weight bias and geometry changes result in much more rear wheel traction, allowing a much higher braking force from the rear wheel 20. During combined descending and braking over bumps, these advantages are magnified. High speed stability of the bicycle under braking is also enhanced due to the rearward weight transfer and less vertical fork rake angle.
Thus it is possible to manipulate the force level required to rotate the link, allowing the ability to configure the link to suit various priorities, such as pure climbing or descending. The horizontal force input from the forward or rearward acceleration acting on the chainstay 26 can also be manipulated to modify its effect on the rotation of link 40. The lever arm and angle of transmission both have an effect, as illustrated in
It shall be understood that the exemplary embodiments summarized and described in detail above and illustrated in the figures are illustrative and not limiting or restrictive. Only the presently preferred embodiments have been shown and described and all changes and modifications that come within the scope of the invention are to be protected. It shall be appreciated that the embodiments and forms described below may be combined in certain instances and may be exclusive of one another in other instances. Likewise, it shall be appreciated that the embodiments and forms described below may or may not be combined with other aspects and features disclosed elsewhere herein. It should be understood that various features and aspects of the embodiments described above may not be necessary and embodiments lacking the same are also protected. In reading the claims, it is intended that when words such as “a,” “an,” “at least one,” or “at least one portion” are used there is no intention to limit the claim to only one item unless specifically stated to the contrary in the claim. When the language “at least a portion” and/or “a portion” is used the item can include a portion and/or the entire item unless specifically stated to the contrary. Furthermore, while a number of exemplary aspects and embodiments have been discussed above, those of skill in the art will recognize certain modifications, permutations, additions and sub-combinations thereof. It is therefore intended that the following appended claims and claims hereafter introduced are interpreted to include all such modifications, permutations, additions and sub-combinations as are within their true spirit and scope.
This application is the National Phase of International Application PCT/US2013/024865, filed Feb. 6, 2013 which designated the U.S. and that International Application was published in English under PCT Article 21(2) on Aug. 15, 2013 as International Publication Number WO 2013/119616 A1. PCT/US2013/024865 claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/595,272, filed Feb. 6, 2012. Thus, the subject nonprovisional application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/595,272, filed Feb. 6, 2012. The disclosures of both applications are incorporated herein by reference.
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/US2013/024865 | 2/6/2013 | WO | 00 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2013/119616 | 8/15/2013 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5244224 | Busby | Sep 1993 | A |
6206397 | Klassen et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
7427077 | Lesage et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7712757 | Berthold | May 2010 | B2 |
7717212 | Weagle | May 2010 | B2 |
7837213 | Colegrove et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
20070194550 | Wadelton | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070246909 | Weng | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20080258427 | Buckley | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20090315296 | Berthold | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100264623 | Peterson | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20120228850 | Tseng | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20150054250 | Hu | Feb 2015 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
M417317 | Dec 2011 | TW |
Entry |
---|
PCT/US2013/024865 Written Opinion of the ISA. |
PCT/US2013/024865 Int'l Search Report. |
PCT/US2013/024865 Int'l Preliminary Report on Patentability. |
European Extended Search Report, Application No. EP 137464962, dated Jun. 23, 2016. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20150001829 A1 | Jan 2015 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61595272 | Feb 2012 | US |