Talk:Bicycle suspension

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Cycling (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

damping vs dampening[edit]

While I can't yet find a source that explicitely addresses which is correct, dictionary.com defines

damping
  1. a decreasing of the amplitude of an electrical or mechanical wave.
  2. an energy-absorbing mechanism or resistance circuit causing this decrease.
  3. a reduction in the amplitude of an oscillation or vibration as a result of energy being dissipated as heat.
dampening
  1. to make damp
  2. to deaden, restrain, or depress

SRAM uses 'damping' to describe their products (Rock Shox) on their web site. So does Fox Racing. It seems that damping would be prefered. Should 'dampening' stay in just for completeness? Is there a manufacturer that uses 'dampening'? -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, without a reference, such as a manufacturer that uses 'dampening', it should come out. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

damping is the correct term, dampening is used incorrectly at times. You made the right decision. Tremanaps (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


short link suspensions[edit]

There are quite a few other suspension systems that have come along that all fall into a category that I'm terming "short link" based on their appearance. These include: Balfa's dual link suspension from the 2-Step, BMC's APS system, Canfield Brother's parallel link suspension, Giant Bikes's Maestro, Niner Bikes CVA suspension, Lapierre's thing, whatever it is.

Here is what I propose should be included so far. Probably some kind of chronological order of when designs were introduced to the marketplace. For example, the Balfa 2-Step was introduced in 1999, and Niner Bikes showed a nearly identical version called CVA 7 years later. Canfield Brothers have been building what they call "parallel link" bikes since 2001. Based on prior art and use, it is understood that none of these designs are patented or at this time, even patentable. Based on the bicycle industry's fixation on patents, and IP, some discussion about the suspensions as it relates to patented designs should exist, especially in light of the widely understood situation with Giant's Maestro and the BMC designs and the previously patented dw-link. A similar discussion should be had about Lapierre's bikes and Santa Cruz's VPP patents. Another area that would be good to talk about is the reality of these suspension designs and performance. Most of these designs perform similarly to single pivot bikes when it comes to acceleration. All too often, wild claims are made about performance, when the actual product is incapable of "living up to the hype". Perhaps this could be the start of a different section altogether? Tremanaps (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. It sure could use some organization. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


Yep. The article should definitely include designs like CVA and Maestro.Laxman2001 (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Mass transfer -vs Load Transfer[edit]

I read a comment by Andrew D that said [Newton's_3rd_law#Newton's laws of motion:_law_of_reciprocal_actions|Newton's 3rd law] does not impart ...

Newton's third law states that "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" Tremanaps (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and what that means is simply "for a force there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions." In the case of an accelerating vehicle it means that the earth pushes on the vehicle exactly as much and in exactly the opposite direction as the vehicle pushes on the earth. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A vehicle has mass. A vehicle's complete mass can be broken down into sprung mass and unsprung mass. A vehicle can have multiple unsprung masses and masses. Each mass amount has a measurable value (weight) and centroid (also known as center of mass). A vehicle like a full suspension bicycle has a compliant rear wheel suspension, which allows the rear wheel to move independently of the chassis. When a vehicle accelerates, it's complete mass is accelerated forward. In newton's third law, and for the discussion at hand, this vehicle acceleration can be regarded as the Action. As the vehicle sits at rest on flat ground, gravity's action on it's mass produces a measurable load or weight at each wheel. As the vehicle accelerates, the measured load of the sprung mass transfers rearward to the rear tire. This can be regarded as the Oppposite Reaction in Newton's third law. Tremanaps (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No, this is not what the 3rd law is about. Instead, this is an application of Newton's second law, F=ma, when generalized to moments. The wheels generate a net moment about the vehicle's center of mass, and the vehicle responds by accelerating angularly about them. This is then resisted, in turn as springs compress in the suspension. No rotation is necessary, however, for the wheels to experience a change in load. The braking section of the Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics article gives more details with a good source. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with your assessment that the above is not a physical realization of Newton's third law. F=MA goes one level deeper into calculations than I have tried to point out. At the base level, Newton's third law correctly and completely characterizes the situation that I propose for discussion. This is not my opinion, it's the realization of an accepted equation that is mathematically based, hundreds of year's old, and taught at the most basic levels of Physics. Tremanaps (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I guess then we are going to need a source that confirms your interpretation of Newton's 3rd Law. All the ones I have simply explain that it states "mutual forces of action and reaction between to particles are equal, opposite, and collinear." That quote is from Engineering Mechanics by Hibbeler. Engineering Mechanics by Schmidt, Engineering Mechanics by McGill and King, Engineering Mechanics by Bedford and Fowler, Dynamics by Tongue and Sheppard, Engineering Mechanics by Meriam and Kraige, and Vector Mechanics for Engineers by Beer and Johnston all agree. In fact, the last two books relegate discussion of the 3rd law to their statics sections. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, the core issue behind our very minor debate here is that you are talking about characterizing the dynamic problem, wheras I am simplifying the problem for the sake of this discussion to an instantaneous moment in time, a static problem. F=MA is only a tiny part of the full dynamic problem, whereas Newton's third law, at the base level, and at an instantaneous moment in time (static analysis) sums up the problem simply and completely. The quotes that you have provided support this. Tremanaps (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
First, it is only a dynamics issue. Without motion, it would not occur, and it cannot be calculated by static methods. Second, I see no point in dumbing down this article to the point of being incorrect. Third, Newton's third law, being only about equal, opposite, and collinear forces, as all the sources I list above confirm, completely does not apply. There is nothing collinear about load transfer or weight transfer. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Almost any dynamic situation can be analyzed statically at an instant in time. There is no "dumbing down this article to the point of being incorrect" as you state. I am sorry that you are having a hard time understanding what is presented here, but it is what it is. I suggest that you take some time to analyze the problem, consult with experts, and reconsider the problem after you have some time to think about it.Tremanaps (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not having any trouble with what is presented here. I am simply correcting a misinterpretation of Newton's laws. His third law is strictly about the equal, opposite, and collinear pairs of forces between particles, as the published sources mentioned above confirm. Weight transfer is covered generally under his second law and specifically under Euler's second law. Unless you can provide a verifiable reliable source that provides a different interpretation of these laws, I consider this matter closed. -AndrewDressel (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll take that as meaning no such source can be found. Newton's 3rd law does not apply. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This load transfer can be measured as a weight difference at the rear wheel during acceleration. This principle is discussed in detail in several textbooks on the subject. Milliken and Milliken's Race Car Vehicle Dynamics; Thomas Gillespie's Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics are both examples of books where this terminology and basic explanation are depicted. Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics is a common textbook for Vehicle Dynamics students.Tremanaps (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've thought about this overnight, and regardless of fact that the textbooks seem to use the terms "load transfer", "weight transfer", and "mass transfer" interchangeably, load transfer is probably the best to describe the physical action. I propose that we choose "load transfer" for all future discussion so as to keep things simple and as accurate as possible.Tremanaps (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

While wikipedia articles should not be uses as a source, of course, and the current [load transfer] and [weight transfer] articles do not cite any sources, I think a good goal is for all these articles to be consistent. They currently make strong distinctions between the terms, and this article should match or they should be corrected. I, sadly, do not have one of the vehicle dynamics texts mentioned above. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that you read the suggested text before making any further assumptions or assertions, as these texts (and not a wikipedia article) are two of the accepted textbooks for suspension dynamicists. (Milliken and Milliken's Race Car Vehicle Dynamics (ISBN:1-56091-26-9); Thomas Gillespie's Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics (ISBN:1-56091-199-9))Tremanaps (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Here are some bike specific sources instead.
  • Cossalter, in his Motorcycle Dynamics, on page 84 says "Load transfer" refers to the fact that there is a decrease in the load on the front wheel and a corresponding increase in the load on the rear wheel.
  • Foale, in his Motorcycle Handling and Chassis Design, on page 9-1 says This is normally referred to as weight transfer, but that is really a misnomer. Weight is the gravitational attraction of all the particles in the bike towards the centre of the earth, and for convenience we usually consider the sum of these forces to act through the CoG. Neither acceleration nor braking can cause this weight to transfer elsewhere. As a result the use of the term 'load transfer' is preferable.
  • Cocco, in his Motorcycle Design and Technology, on page 40 says We must calculate a variation in the vertical loads acting on the wheels. The same component is referred to in the literature as weight transfer.
I find Foale's argument pursuasive and so agree with you on this point, as I did in my original edit that sparked this debate. I've already updated the load transfer and bicycle and motorcycle dynamics articles with these sources. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Here are some non-bike specific sources.
  • Jazar, in his Vehicle Dynamics, on page 72 says The higher the C, the more load transfer. He does not appear to define the term explicitly and does not list it in the index.
  • Newcomb, in his Braking of Road Vehicles, on page 23, in a section titled Weight Transfer says during braking less load is carried on the rear and more on the front than when the vehicle is stationary, but then continues with Motor cycles [sic] and scooters present an extreme case of weight transfer.
I still like the case Foale makes above. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Interesting that there are so many varying nomenclatures, huh? Why do you think that is? Maybe, just maybe, not everyone who's published has it exactly right. Use your brain to understand, and textbooks as a guide.Tremanaps (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I see it all the time, and I have helped clean up conflicting definitions from the literature like this on several occasions, as I mention on my user page. There is often no 'right' or 'wrong', just different authors using different terms to mean the same thing or the same term to mean different things. In this case it could be a matter of authors not writing in their native language; Cossalter and Cocco are Italian, I believe. The best hope is to find an established author, such as Sheldon Brown, or in this case Tony Foale, who makes sense of the situation. Without that, all we can do is explain the different usages as clearly as possible. To do otherwise is to introduce original research, which might be fine on some other site but strictly forbidden here. -AndrewDressel (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I still haven't found a source that uses "mass transfer" as in the text I removed from the article that sparked this discussion. That appears to have been copied from promotional material on the dw-link website. Do either of the two sources you mention above use "mass transfer"? Can you provide a quotation? -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll take that as meaning no such source can be found. "Mass transfer" is not a term used in the literature to describe this phenomenon. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Iron Horse bicycles as dw-link licensee[edit]

Numerous reports and interviews with the designer confirm that the relationship was ended by Dave Weagle in 2007. -anon.

Since both the DW-Link website, which lists Iron Horse as a partner, and the Iron Horse website which lists DW-Link as a technology used in the 2009 Sunday, suggest strongly that Iron Horse is a current licensee of the DW-Link technology. And since interviews with the designer, unless published, are not verifiable sources, as required here on Wikipedia, could we have links or publishing information; author, date, publication, etc.; of at least one of the numerous reports that confirm that the relationship was ended by Dave Weagle in 2007. -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link from an interview with the designer. This was published online and in print. The first question addresses the cessation of license to Iron Horse. This took me 10 seconds to find with Google. Less time most likely than it took you to write your post..
http://bikemag.com/features/onlineexclusive/dave-weagle-interview/ -76.24.199.56 (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2009
Thanks for contributing that 10 seconds. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Bias[edit]

trek were independantly awarded a patent for the abp design as they were shown to have developed prototypes before weagle filed his patent. even if they hadnt been awarded the patent they could still have used the system in a simlar fashion to turner uding the fsr/ horst link system without having to pay specialzed as they were already using the system before the patent was awarded. also this article is biased towards one company and should be editted to remove this bias. - 141.163.196.38 07:31, 11 February 2011

It would be great to find sources to confirm any of this. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
If the names of the inventors/patent holders need to be mentioned, then I think it would be ok to mention that the matter is currently being settled in the court. A search engine will provide enough news to cover the matter in detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.157.17.8 (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

useful image[edit]

MtbInertiaValveSteps.png

Did anyone else see this image over on commons? Seems like it could be useful for this article. I'm not knowledgeable enough (or particularly into suspension) to insert it myself. --Keithonearth (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Might be useful with the right explanatory text, but it is pretty opaque as is. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I will take a crack at it.
  • A and E are the inital and final positions, identical. The dark brown piece moves on a spring, and opens and closes a valve. It moves due to its own inertia. If the entire cylinder accelerates upward, then the mass moves downward relative to it. The cylinder is not the entire suspension, only a chamber for absorbing shock.
  • In B, the bicycle has hit a protrusion in its path, causing an upward acceleration. The valve moves down relatively to the cylinder, opening a valve.
  • C shows that because the valve is open, a hydraulic fluid displaced by the compressing suspension (not shown) is able to rush inside. The pressure of the hydraulic fluid moves the piston (green), causing it to compress the air in the other compartment (blue) providing cushioning.
  • D shows that the air is able to expand again and push the fluid back, while the valve is momentarily open, and recover to the original configuration.
The picture shows that during a heavy shock, this air cushioning is opened via an inertial mechanism. But when the shocks are light, the valve remains closed: the mass on a spring does not move sufficiently to open the valve. When the valve is closed, the hydraulic fluid cannot move, which means that the suspension is rigid. So it looks like the suspension can show two "personalities": it is like a stiff road bike suspension until something is hit. For instance, during hard pedaling on a level pavement, the fork does not move up and down, and so the valve does not activate. A simple suspension will move up and down in rhythm to the pedaling, sapping the rider's energy. 24.85.131.247 (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

High Forward Single Pivot[edit]

The previous version of this mentioned that a high forward single pivot suspension compresses when pedaled in the small ring. This is not accurate, so I changed it. The effect is just the opposite: you get an extending force that make the suspension somewhat resistant to compression, thus the term "semi-active". I have assumed this was common knowledge among people who are a well versed in suspension, so I do not have a citation for it. If this is an issue, feel free to remove my edit, but I would also remove that entire section, as the previous version is also not backed with a citation. Kapusta7 (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)kapusta7

Mountain bikes since early 1990's? What?[edit]

Article text:

"Mountain bike technology has made great advances since first appearing in the early 1990s."

This is severely misinformed. While early 1990's may be before the author of the above was born, there certainly existed mountain bikes in the 1980's. In fact, they exploded in popularity around that time.

Forks with shock absorbers appeared on mountain bikes well before 1990.

Citation: I was, like, there.

24.85.131.247 (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So fix it. Find a good source for Gary Fisher riding fat-tyred cruisers downhill and add it. Describe the BMX and cyclocross precursors to MTBs and add them. Whilst agreeing with you that 26" MTBs were sold as such in retail shops in the late '80s, I'm no more WP:RS on this than you are. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I had a mountain bike in 1984, which is early to mid 80's. The reference we're looking for is in the Wikipedia itself. The Mountain Bike pegs the start of mass production of mountain bicycles to the 1970's to early 1980's. Certain improvements didn't appear until 1990, but it's not clear exactly which ones. Some weren't common on mass produced mountain bikes until later, like disc brakes or rear suspensions. I think it's safe to fix the 1990 reference in this page, in any case. 24.85.131.247 (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I fixed it to say that mountain bike suspension technology made advances since appearing in the early 1990's. That makes more sense and looks like what the intent may have been. There is no citation though. It would be better to have an externally verified fact which pins the first consumer MTB suspension to a particular year, make and model. 24.85.131.247 (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Loads of changes[edit]

I made loads of changes and rewritten a few sections in an overall attempt to improve quality. I think better sectioning would be a great improvement at the moment.

Some things to mention/discuss/do:

  • I recon suspension is never 'active' unless energy is supplied to the system, or the system itself changed, by something other than the rider. Terming things 'active' when they are not is purely for marketing purposes and as such does not belong in an encyclopedia. An active suspension system would for instance be one where electronics measure some input and change damper settings as a result.
  • There is no such thing as 'isolating forces' or 'independent linkage'; the words create a paradox by itself.
  • Four-bar ideally has its own article explaining linkages can be used for the rear axle, but also for the bottom bracket, or the shock, or the brake and any combination thereof. Wether they employ sliders, flexing members, eccentric bearings, links pointing forward, links pointing backward, concentric pivots, swingarms, rockers, pivots located here or pivots located there doesnt matter.
    For instance one could categorize designs like Trek Fuel EX as swingarm+4bar shock. Lapierre's DH720 as swingarm+4bar actuated shock+4bar actuated BB. Yeti's Switch link is simply 4bar with one really short link. And GT IDrive as swingarm+4bar BB.
    Furthermore it would explain some concepts like brake jack, brake squat, anti squat, bob, chaingrowth, pedal kickback, leverage ratio, axle path, instant center (virtual pivot point), center of curvature, etc.
  • I dont particularly like the mentioning of multiple chambers in air suspension since the information is very incomplete now. Nor do I believe this article should attempt to explain how air would act as a spring and how exactly it would not have a constant rate. I believe it would require its own article to decently explain and most definitely graphs and diagrams to really properly explain.
    Sentences like "Air springs work by using the characteristic of compressed air to resist further compression." are rather pseudo-technical.
    Not sure what to do with how it is now.
  • The part about 'dual chamber' in fact seems to somewhat advertise Trek's DRCV system.
  • Soft tail could really do with a nice picture like this: Siren soft tail. Actually dozens of pictures would be really helpful for this article
  • What's with all the stuff on patents? I do not see its value for this article. The section on Independent Drivetrain and Monolink seem almost as if companies or designers are trying to fight things out on wikipedia! They are filled with pseudo-technical marketing-like talk.

That's as far as I'v gotten so far.

Victorvandenberg (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggested creation of article dedicated to mountain bike suspension[edit]

I would like to suggest moving a lot of information found in the current article to its own, dedicated, article on "Mountain bike suspension". I believe this would benefit both articles. The current article now overwhelms any reader looking for information on bicycle suspension in general, with mountain bike related information. And the reader only interested in mountain bikes has to filter out the non-mtb related information. I think it would allow for proper cleanup of the information. How much would be left of the article should correspond with the prevalence of suspension systems in bicycles other than mountain bikes. It should of course be made clear that much more information on suspension systems can be found in the mountain bike suspension article.

I imagine bicycle suspension to then cover:

  • Linking to mountain bike suspension as main article where applicable
  • Simple summary of front suspension. Generally using telescopic fork. Mentioning that linkages, and air springs can be used. Also linking to suspension (motorcycle)
  • Summary of rear suspension types. The bit of history on gary fisher and horst leitner can either stay or be migrated, I think its fine to stay here.
  • Summary of single pivot
  • Section on URT
  • Section on suspension on recumbents
  • Sections on stem, saddle, seatpost and hub suspension; including info on softride (and zipp?)
  • Section on roadbikes; frames are designed to provide the needed suspension, tires also serve as suspension
  • No coverage of any specific linkage suspension type

Mountain bike suspension would cover all types and variations of suspension typically found on mountain bikes with significantly more detailed information. It would also be much more technical. I intend on the addition of a section on 'floating' drivetrains, much improvement on the terminology section and improvements in sections on linkage suspensions.

What do you think? -Victorvandenberg (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Where would terminology end up? It probably matters more to mountain bikes, right? -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Vague support for the split, although probably not as that name. I'd see a better split to be front vs. rear suspension. Mountain bikes predominate for suspension anyway, and especially for wheels rather than "comfort" stems or seatposts. If there's the volume to support MTB-specific articles (and I think there is), then I'd rather see that split for forks vs. rears, rather than big vs little. I still ride an ancient AMP girder fork on my XC race MTB - are you going to throw me to the leg-shavers because it's not some triple clamp DH fork? 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Haha well anything that's ever put on a bike meant for mountain biking would be welcome as far as I'm concerned. I am a fan of linkage type front suspensions myself (Britten V1000 8) ).
So, if splitting, you would suggest 3 articles: bike suspension, mtb front suspension and mtb rear suspension? What kind of article names would you suggest? I dont mean to differ between big and little, just between suspension found on mountain bikes, and basically everything else. The difference between front and rear is the front needs to accommodate for turning the wheel, and the rear needs to accommodate the drivetrain. Though having two different articles might suggest there is some fundamental difference in how they act to provide suspension. Also any information about how damping and springing are provided, equally applies for both front and rear. This information would need a place. Same goes for general information about linkage suspensions.
I recon the terminology is most important for mountain bikes. Something like travel can easily be explained in bicycle suspension, something like sag would be linked. -Victorvandenberg (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd use simple names of Bicycle suspension, Bicycle front suspension and Bicycle rear suspension
Bicycle suspension gives an overview of the places where suspension can be applied, and a section on each. For seatposts and stems, this is quite detailed as it's as far as we're going to go. It also covers suspension components such as the rebound and damping elements: elastomers vs foam elastomers vs coil springs vs air springs vs sprung cantilever beams. Also material damping vs oil. The front suspension section should mention that girders have been used, but that most are now telescopic. Note that almost all forks are sprung outboard and carried on a headstock that provides the steering swivel, as this isolates the bars from the bumps too. It could also briefly describe applications, such as road shocks being lightweight and possibly air-based, whilst DH offers long travel and high strength but has a cost in weight.
The rear section mentions that there are multiple linkages (but doesn't go further) and again it describes primarily the application needs, rather than the implementation solution. So note the need for travel, for a geometry that permits the drivetrain to work and for the problem of "pumping" when pedalling. Also note the problem of weight shift, and how a touring bike may be heavily loaded at the rear, compared to a DH bike that has almost all weight over the front wheel.
Bicycle front suspension goes into more detail on everything.
Bicycle rear suspension describes geometries that address the various problems inherent in rear sus design. List each geometry one by one, and discuss their virtues and drawbacks in a similar format each time, for easy comparison.
Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

US usage is not global usage[edit]

Bicycles with only front suspension are referred to as hardtail and bicycles with suspension in both the front and rear are referred to as full suspension bikes.

Says who? In the USA, perhaps, bicycles with suspension in both the front and rear are referred to in the trade as full suspension bikes only. In Australia and in the UK, however, such bikes are also referred to as dual suspension bikes or simply as suspension bikes.
For example, as I write, full-suspension bikes are listed on Australia's biggest online bike website https://www.bikeexchange.com.au under the category heading of Mountain - Dual Suspension Bikes for Sale in Australia.
By contrast, Chain Reaction Cycles at http://www.chainreactioncycles.com who claim to be the world's largest online seller of bikes merely lists the same bikes as Suspension Bikes. As always, editors need to beware of sounding pompous, of making sweeping statements in the passive voice or middle voice that sound plausible but in fact are incorrect, that may only reflect US practise or terminology, or as is so often the case, and most importantly of all, are uncited.124.186.93.94 (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

No need for a hissy fit. Just make the improvement. It would be helpful if you could find some non-sales related links to support your point. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

MonoLink or Monolink?[edit]

As per title, Does anyone know how it's correctly spelled? I think it's MonoLink as in ML7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.191.27.236 (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)