Interesting observation of mine regarding full suspension nomenclature-

[MRGisevil]

Originally Posted by Marc

I actually expected this kind of response for an architect, since all you can manage to design is a 3 bar linkage, otherwise known as a truss.

Might only be a 3 bar linkage, but you can bet your nomenclaturing ass it'll be a LEED silver linkage, at the minimum. I'll even shave half a point off energy and atmoshphere by utilizing recyclable links.

[bvibert]

Originally Posted by Marc

I'm just saying.... four bar isn't accurate. It would make as much sense as going around calling a truss on a bridge a four bar linkage.

It's not all that different from what is considered a 4 bar suspension in the automotive world though. They don't count the car/truck chassis as a link like you're doing with the front triangle.

[Marc]

Originally Posted by bvibert

It's not all that different from what is considered a 4 bar suspension in the automotive world though. They don't count the car/truck chassis as a link like you're doing with the front triangle.

Depends on what type of suspension design you're talking about. Double wishbone suspension-



This is technically also a six bar slider, but it's reduntant. Take away the shock and spring, and you're left with a four bar linkage that will track the same. It just wouldn't function very well.

The car chassis in this case, and the front triangle to a lesser degree would probably be considered (by any competent mechanical engineer) to be designated the ground link, but it is a link nonetheless. One of the characteristics of linkages is you can designate any one link as the ground link and the thing will still create the same motion.

It's arguable, though, whether the front triangle is really a "ground" link since it moves an awful lot with respect to ground.... however, it is a as much a link as any other in that design.

[Marc]

And actually, you're right about the similarity to a bike design. It is the same design, but the shock is on the opposite side on a bike, to get the leveraged travel advantage which isn't necessary on a car. Saying it's reduntant isn't really right. The slider does affect the motion in that it limits travel. So it is necessary. It can be simplified at the sacrifice of functionality though.

[bvibert]

An example of a rear 4 link suspension (no shocks/springs shown):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6s88d2FbPE

Similar in number of linkages, except the axle on a bike stays (thankfully) parallel to the frame (front triangle). My point is there's still as many links by your definition, yet it's still called a 4 link. I'm not saying you're wrong, rather pointing out that it's not necessarily just the bike industry that's been in error all these years.

[Marc]

Originally Posted by bvibert

An example of a rear 4 link suspension (no shocks/springs shown):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6s88d2FbPE

Similar in number of linkages, except the axle on a bike stays (thankfully) parallel to the frame (front triangle). My point is there's still as many links by your definition, yet it's still called a 4 link. I'm not saying you're wrong, rather pointing out that it's not necessarily just the bike industry that's been in error all these years.

Can't watch yt at work.

They are in error, most definitely. They just dumbed it down for consumers, that's all.

[Greg]

[bvibert]

Don't worry, it's a stupid animation anyway.

4 bar sounds much better than 6 bar slider.

[bvibert]

Originally Posted by Greg

This is some serious work here, don't douche up our thread...










()

[Marc]

Originally Posted by bvibert

This is some serious work here, don't douche up our thread...










()

Cereal, this is important stuff.