URT sucks?
Dave Stocker
So after all of the URT bashing in the Giant Warp thread, I was wondering
what everyone's beef is with URT anyway. It is a design with advantages and
disadvantages, just like any other suspension design. It seemed to be a fad
a few years ago to build URT designs (Trek Y-bikes, Klein Mantra, etc) and
that it has fallen out of favor because it did not deliver on it's hype. At
one time URT was considered a great thing (
http://www.cycletech.com/TechTips/body.htm and look at the bottom). Now is
seems to be hated. In a recent Velo News article, the author seems to sneer
at somebody he meets on the trail because that rider liked his URT bike.
http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/4082.0.html So the mags say it
is fashionable to hate URT, but a few years ago they were touting it. Does
it really suck that bad?
From googling a bit, I can say that the generally accepted behavior traits
of the URT are:
- It is immune to bob on out of saddle sprints. <good>
- Supposedly they bob (especially low pivot designs) <bad>
- It has no pedal kickback. <good>
- Prone to brake jack <bad>
- BB-seat distance varies <bad>
- Only active if rider remains seated (rider stands on swing arm when out of
saddle) <bad?>
I have a mid-90's Katraga Proto Winner in my garage that I have logged a lot
of miles on. FYI, a little background- Katarga is an Austrian bike maker
that I would not call boutique. They are a small maker of low to mid end
bikes, inhabiting the same ecological niche as e.g. GT. The Proto Winner
was a URT design that they sold in the mid to late 90's. It is not a high
pivot design like the Mantra. The BB sits about 2" directly behind the
pivot. If you are interested in what it looks like, I could photograph it,
but I do not have a web page at the moment to post it to.
From my experience on this bike I can report:
- It does bob a little bit if you pedal very badly, but bob is easy to
completely eliminate with a seated spin (easier than with 4-bar). I do not
know where the low pivot URT bikes developed the reputation for bobbing. It
really does behave like a hardtail on out of saddle sprints. On steep
climbs this is a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your perspective.
I tend to pull hard on the upstroke and climb better on a more
"conventional" FS design than on a URT.
- Never experienced pedal kickback. Hell, I could run this bike as an SS.
- Brake Jack. I hate that term. This bike has a low pivot and this is not
really an issue. I have heard that it can be quite severe on a high pivot
bike.
- BB-Seat distance only varies by about a half an inch at full travel on
this bike. No biggie.
- The not active part I can attest to. I recently bought a four bar bike
and now the old URT bikes seems quite harsh and inactive. It is still
taking the edge off of hits. In this respect, it behaves a bit like a heavy
(13kg) Giant NRS.
There is no suspension design that is the Holy Grail. Path Analysis makes
interesting reading if you have the proper background:
http://www.mtbcomprador.com/pa/english/ IMHO- URT does quite well in a
couple of applications:
1) The lightest FS frames are single pivot. URT is basically single pivot
with the BB on the rear triangle. It follows that a URT frame could make it
into the 4lb range. One good application would be XC marathon bike where
big travel was not an issue and the suspension is mostly there to take the
edge off and delay the onset of fatigue. The NRS works this way. My old
low pivot URT bike is too heavy to be considered for racing, but it is great
on epic rides. Too bad URT is unfashionable. It could in principle be used
for a great XC marathon bike.
2) Touring bikes and Walgooses. Wallgoose buyers want the FS look and
tourers want to take the edge off, but both are ridden by people who
probably have never (and never will) practiced a clean spin. I do not buy
the "URT bobs like crazy" line. The FSR bobs like crazy if I do not spin
smoothly. The URT bike is very forgiving.
In short, it URT has shortcomings, but the vilification of URT has more to
do with fashion than anything else. Remenber, the macstrut is making a
comback.
Runs for cover.
-Dave
P e t e F a g e r l i n
<dave...@t-online.de> wrote:
|From googling a bit, I can say that the generally accepted behavior traits
|of the URT are:
|- It is immune to bob on out of saddle sprints. <good>
Bullshit.
|- Supposedly they bob (especially low pivot designs) <bad>
All FS bikes bob to some extent.
|- It has no pedal kickback. <good>
|- Prone to brake jack <bad>
|- BB-seat distance varies <bad>
Very bad.
|- Only active if rider remains seated (rider stands on swing arm when out of
|saddle) <bad?>
Not necceessarily.
<huge snip>
|In short, it URT has shortcomings, but the vilification of URT has more to
|do with fashion than anything else.
URTs have many shortcomings when compared to four bar bikes.
The "vilification" isn't always based upon fashion issues. Many times
it is based upon the fact that there are much better full suspension
designs available.
Dave Stocker
news:ctohfv0e37gq7o982...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 00:34:30 +0200, "Dave Stocker"
> <dave...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> |From googling a bit, I can say that the generally accepted behavior
traits
> |of the URT are:
> |- It is immune to bob on out of saddle sprints. <good>
>
> Bullshit.
Perhaps "immune" is a strong word, but standing does act as a lockout.
>
> |- Supposedly they bob (especially low pivot designs) <bad>
>
> All FS bikes bob to some extent.
>
Yup. What I should have said was the "URT bikes are especially prone to
bob". My four bar is far more prone to bobbing than my URT.
> |- It has no pedal kickback. <good>
> |- Prone to brake jack <bad>
> |- BB-seat distance varies <bad>
>
> Very bad.
>
> |- Only active if rider remains seated (rider stands on swing arm when out
of
> |saddle) <bad?>
>
> Not necceessarily.
>
Actually true. I have never ridden a Mantra, but from what I have heard
about its behavior, this is a prominent feature. Some like it, some hate
it.
> <huge snip>
>
> |In short, it URT has shortcomings, but the vilification of URT has more
to
> |do with fashion than anything else.
>
> URTs have many shortcomings when compared to four bar bikes.
>
> The "vilification" isn't always based upon fashion issues. Many times
> it is based upon the fact that there are much better full suspension
> designs available.
But Pete, what I am trying to say is that many of the supposed problems of
URT stem from specific implementations of it, not the principle itself. Is
my FSR a better trail bike than the Katarga? You betcha. It is smoother
and faster over the rough stuff and I do steep technical climbs better with
it than with the URT bike or with a hardtail.
But- if I were entering a race, I would have to think long and hard about
which bike to use, even though the Katarga weighs 5lb more. The FSR climbs
and descends better, but the Katarga sprints better and bobs less. Also
smoother and more active is not necessarily better. There are people in
this NG who advocate rigid. After riding the FSR for a couple of months now
I can see how it can lull me into bad habits and I understand this rigid
advocacy much more.
What I tried to say in my original post was that URT, like any other
suspension type, has its pros and cons and it has its niche. When people
say URT sucks, they are usually extrapolating the shortfalls of a particular
design to the principle.
-Dave
P e t e F a g e r l i n
<dave...@t-online.de> wrote:
>"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pe...@petefagerlin.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:ctohfv0e37gq7o982...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 00:34:30 +0200, "Dave Stocker"
>> <dave...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>> |From googling a bit, I can say that the generally accepted behavior
>traits
>> |of the URT are:
>> |- It is immune to bob on out of saddle sprints. <good>
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
>Perhaps "immune" is a strong word, but standing does act as a lockout.
Not on all URTs.
>> |- Supposedly they bob (especially low pivot designs) <bad>
>>
>> All FS bikes bob to some extent.
>>
>
>Yup. What I should have said was the "URT bikes are especially prone to
>bob". My four bar is far more prone to bobbing than my URT.
>
>> |- It has no pedal kickback. <good>
>> |- Prone to brake jack <bad>
>> |- BB-seat distance varies <bad>
>>
>> Very bad.
>>
>> |- Only active if rider remains seated (rider stands on swing arm when out
>of
>> |saddle) <bad?>
>>
>> Not necceessarily.
>>
>
>Actually true.
Actually false. The Ibis Bow Ti is active when you are out of the
saddle. Less active than when you are seated, but active nonetheless.
I have never ridden a Mantra, but from what I have heard
>about its behavior, this is a prominent feature.
So because you've heard that this is a characteristic of one flavor of
URTs, it follows that all URTs are only active when the rider is
seated?
Some like it, some hate
>it.
>
>> <huge snip>
>>
>> |In short, it URT has shortcomings, but the vilification of URT has more
>to
>> |do with fashion than anything else.
>>
>> URTs have many shortcomings when compared to four bar bikes.
>>
>> The "vilification" isn't always based upon fashion issues. Many times
>> it is based upon the fact that there are much better full suspension
>> designs available.
>
>But Pete, what I am trying to say is that many of the supposed problems of
>URT stem from specific implementations of it, not the principle itself.
That sounds like double speak.
The "suppsed" problems associated with URTs (principle) aren't
"supposed," they are very real.
<snip>
>What I tried to say in my original post was that URT, like any other
>suspension type, has its pros and cons and it has its niche. When people
>say URT sucks, they are usually extrapolating the shortfalls of a particular
>design to the principle.
You seem to be hung up on creating a difference between design and
principle.
For example, the URT principle involves a constantly changing BB to
saddle distance. This is not specific to a particular design, but
rather to all URTs..
Dave Stocker
> >> |- Only active if rider remains seated (rider stands on swing arm when
out
> >of
> >> |saddle) <bad?>
> >>
> >> Not necceessarily.
> >>
> >
> >Actually true.
>
> Actually false. The Ibis Bow Ti is active when you are out of the
> saddle. Less active than when you are seated, but active nonetheless.
>
Holy Cow! That monstrosity is a URT? I have never seen this thing in real
life, but I found this picture. http://www.soresaddle.com/ibisbowbi.jpeg
OK, lets define URT before we go any further. If you defined it as variable
BB-saddle distance, then yes, it would be a URT. But titanium monstrosities
are not comparable to pivot based bikes made with relatively inflexible
materials. From the fact that it is ti and a look at the layout, I think I
get the basic principal of how it works*. Calling this bike a URT would be
like cutting the seatstay out of a Scalpel or Unicoi (or most hardtails for
that matter) and redefining them as URT bikes. I would define unified rear
triangle as a pivot based bike with the BB on the rear triangle. In this
definition of URT, when you get out of the saddle, you are standing on the
rear triangle and holding on to (in a roundabout way) the front triangle.
*It appears to be a big leaf spring. When you sit on it, you add a
considerable preload and thus it is not very active. When you stand, you
are unloading that preload. It looks clever. Has anyone here ever ridden
one? Nevertheless, IMHO, it is inappropriate to label this thing URT.
-Dave
Dave Stocker
<start with some snippage>
> >But Pete, what I am trying to say is that many of the supposed problems
of
> >URT stem from specific implementations of it, not the principle itself.
>
> That sounds like double speak.
Hmmm, work is wearing off on me. ;-). Alow me translate: Just because
certain URT designs blow mokey chunks, it does not follow that all possible
URT designs blow monkey chunks.
> >> |- Only active if rider remains seated (rider stands on swing arm when
out
> >of saddle) <bad?>
> >>
> >> Not necceessarily.
> >>
> >Actually true.
>
<snip bit about titanium monstrosity>
> I have never ridden a Mantra, but from what I have heard
> >about its behavior, this is a prominent feature.
>
> So because you've heard that this is a characteristic of one flavor of
> URTs, it follows that all URTs are only active when the rider is
> seated?
>
So because I have seen this characteristic on one flavor of URT that I have
ridden extensively and (mostly) because on all URTs, you are standing on the
swingarm, it follows that all URTs are dampened to some degree depending how
far the BB is from the pivot. Actually the mantra bit results from a
misunderstanding. When you answered "Not necessarily", I had initially
assumed you were referring to the statement, so I answered "Actually True".
Then it occurred to me that you were referring to the "<bad>" part.
Standing on the swingarm does essentially causes the rear to have two
spring rates where the difference in k is proportional to the distance from
BB to pivot. I myself like it when sprinting and cutting through fast
singletrack, but not when bombing downhill. Now I had heard that some
people like this feature and some do not (just like I have heard on this NG
that some people like SS). So I could see how you would answer that way.
Of course I had a brain fart and did not edit my initial reply.
After seeing the Ibex reference, I now believe that you meant to answer to
the whole statement. I misunderstood you and was not clear myself. For
this I apologize.
<more snippage>
>
> You seem to be hung up on creating a difference between design and
> principle.
>
Yes, I am being anal. Bear with me for a moment: If we define the URT as
having the BB on the rear triangle then this is the principle. It could be
a single pivot or a multi-pivot bike, but the BB must be on the rear
triangle - and yes, the BB moves around relative to the saddle, but is fixed
with respect to the rear hub. This encompasses the set of all possible ways
(existing or not) this could be done. The only things that ALL URT designs
share are the BB-saddle thing and the fact that you stand on the rear
triangle. Even these two things are greatly variable due to pivot
placement.
When people say "URT sucks", they are saying the "all possible ways" suck.
That is what I am taking issue with. And I bet at least one of those people
who chimed in that "URT sucks" never actually rode one. I am mot saying URT
is the best day to go. I am not even saying that MY URT is better than MY
FSR (I take the FSR out 95% of the time for a reason). I am saying that my
URT has some strengths and does not have some of the weakness attributed to
the "set of all possible ways". It is better suited than my FSR for
"fireroad epics" and smooth singltrack. IMHO- it has its proper niche(s),
but it had the misfortune of being a fad that fell out of fashion.
BTW- I rode a mid/late-80's Bianchi road bike with Biopace chainrings a
couple of weeks ago. Biopace is almost THE example of a "discredited
technofad". I came away neither impressed, nor unimpressed.
-Dave
MTBSc...@aol.com
Thanks for the informative post Dave
P e t e F a g e r l i n
<dave...@t-online.de> wrote:
|"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pe...@petefagerlin.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
|news:hcljfvsv98fae9aj2...@4ax.com...
|> >> |- Only active if rider remains seated (rider stands on swing arm when
|out
|> >of
|> >> |saddle) <bad?>
|> >>
|> >> Not necceessarily.
|> >>
|> >
|> >Actually true.
|>
|> Actually false. The Ibis Bow Ti is active when you are out of the
|> saddle. Less active than when you are seated, but active nonetheless.
|>
|
|Holy Cow! That monstrosity is a URT? I have never seen this thing in real
|life, but I found this picture. http://www.soresaddle.com/ibisbowbi.jpeg
|
|
|
|OK, lets define URT before we go any further.
How can you define something when you apparently don't understand what
bikes are URTs?
If you defined it as variable
|BB-saddle distance, then yes, it would be a URT. But titanium monstrosities
|are not comparable to pivot based bikes made with relatively inflexible
|materials.
Again, you are discussing things that you apparently have no
experience with.
From the fact that it is ti and a look at the layout, I think I
|get the basic principal of how it works*. Calling this bike a URT would be
|like cutting the seatstay out of a Scalpel or Unicoi (or most hardtails for
|that matter) and redefining them as URT bikes.
Uh, you're just digging yourself deeper and deeper.
I would define unified rear
|triangle as a pivot based bike with the BB on the rear triangle. In this
|definition of URT, when you get out of the saddle, you are standing on the
|rear triangle and holding on to (in a roundabout way) the front triangle.
|
|
|
|*It appears to be a big leaf spring. When you sit on it, you add a
|considerable preload and thus it is not very active.
Uh, again, you're just digging yourself deeper and deeper.
When you stand, you
|are unloading that preload. It looks clever. Has anyone here ever ridden
|one? Nevertheless, IMHO, it is inappropriate to label this thing URT.
LOL.
Educate yourself:
http://www.math.chalmers.se/~olahe/Bike/Rear/urt.html
http://www.titusti.com/techtalk.html
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Flats/3877/fullsus.html
To answer your question, yes, I'm pretty sure that someone in this NG
has ridden a Bow Ti.
Dave Stocker
> When you stand, you
> |are unloading that preload. It looks clever. Has anyone here ever
ridden
> |one? Nevertheless, IMHO, it is inappropriate to label this thing URT.
>
> LOL.
>
> Educate yourself:
>
> http://www.math.chalmers.se/~olahe/Bike/Rear/urt.html
Says:
"This category of bikes is, or at least used to be, characterised by the
fact that the rear triangle and the bottom bracket is one unit, connected to
the main triangle via one pivot point. I say used to be since there are some
newer designs (like Kona) that still puts the bottom bracket on the swingarm
but also uses a linkage between the swingarm and the shock. I will call this
new design "linked URT" and the old design just URT. URT's are also called
"floating drivetrain"."
>
> http://www.titusti.com/techtalk.html
Says:
"The basic idea behind all unified rear triangle designs is to isolate the
drivetrain from the forces of the suspension. There are two basic types of
unifieds: Sweet Spots and low pivots. Sweet Spot designs do a good job of
eliminating any pedal or rider induced suspension movement. On Sweet Spot
Unifieds, the suspension is fully-active while the rider is seated and
becomes less active when the rider stands up. Most builders of unified
designs focus their design towards cross-country rather than down hill. On
Sweet Spot designs, there is a large change in seat to pedal distance as the
suspension goes through its travel. This occurs because the seat and cranks
are on separate moving parts of the frame and the pivot is approximately
midway between these two points. You will not experience any Bio-pace or
DISC on a Sweet Spot unified design."
>
> http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Flats/3877/fullsus.html
Says:
"The unified rear triangle (URT), or floating drivetrain, is a rear
suspension design whose popularity is waning in the current climate of
downhill and freeriding.
The basic premise of this type of design is to isolate the rear suspension's
effect on the drivetrain by placing the entire drivetrain on the swingarm
itself. Thus, the various components of the drivetrain move together as the
suspension compresses and extends. This eliminates any chain reaction and
can also allow for a very clean, simple suspension configuration consisting
of a single large pivot and a directly driven shock.
The inherent problem with this design is that the rider is in effect
standing on the swingarm. This is less of a problem when the rider is
seated, but the natural tendency when going over larger obstacles, rough
terrain, or technical sections is to stand up, rendering the rear suspension
almost useless. The flip side to this effect is that during sprinted or
climbing out of the saddle, the suspension's lack of movement is considered
a bonus, as less energy is wasted in suspension movement.
There have been several very popular URT bikes in the past, most notably the
Klein Mantra, the Trek/Gary Fisher Y-bikes, and the Ibis Sweet Spot. There
have also been twists on the URT design in the form of the GT iDrive and the
Paul Turner desiged Maverick."
LOL! This is all consistent with what I said.
but from http://www.castellanodesigns.com/diff.html
"While developing the Sweet Spot suspension, John became intrigued by the
idea of incorporating spacecraft-style pivotless flexures into his
long-travel suspension system, and began modeling and testing pivotless
prototypes. This work culminated in the Ibis BowTi, the ultimate expression
of his Sweet Spot Suspension. With 5" of travel and no pivots, the titanium
BowTi is in a class by itself. Castellano's next inspiration led to the
SilkTi and Ripley softails, also built by Ibis, featuring John's pivotless
Flat-Plate chainstays and Critically Damped Elastomer shock."
So the bow tie is considered a variant of URT. More importantly, the guy
who designed it did so with the intention of building a pivotless high pivot
bike.
So I stand corrected about the Bow Ti. But I still maintain that it is a
titanium monstrosity! ;-)
-Dave
Dave Stocker
> |
> |*It appears to be a big leaf spring. When you sit on it, you add a
> |considerable preload and thus it is not very active.
>
> Uh, again, you're just digging yourself deeper and deeper.
>
> When you stand, you
> |are unloading that preload. It looks clever. Has anyone here ever
ridden
> |one? Nevertheless, IMHO, it is inappropriate to label this thing URT.
>
> LOL.
>
> Educate yourself:
My finite element analysis is a bit rusty and I do not know the relative
elastic properties of the stays that run from the head tube to the rear hub
(what would they be called on this bike?), the chainstays and the "seat
tube", but I still think this is a reasonable approximation unless I am
missing some secret ingredient.
So if I am wrong in my assumptions about how this thing works, then I ask
you: How does it work?
-Dave
Dave Stocker
> Standing on the swingarm does essentially causes the rear to have two
> spring rates where the difference in k is proportional to the distance
from
> BB to pivot.
Sorry, this is a mistake. If the hub moves x0, the BB moves x1, the shock
compresses x2, the shock has spring constant k a the rider wieghs R, then
the work done would be:
W=x1*r+k*x2^2
This is not delta k, nor is it preload. It is more like additional unsprung
wieght.
-Dave
R.White
>
> For example, the URT principle involves a constantly changing BB to
> saddle distance. This is not specific to a particular design, but
> rather to all URTs..
GT's I-Drive eliminated that problem. Maybe. Don't really know.
I guess all they eliminated were themselves.
P e t e F a g e r l i n
<dave...@t-online.de> wrote:
|"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pe...@petefagerlin.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
|news:kikkfv88e2u7cv4t0...@4ax.com...
|
|> When you stand, you
|> |are unloading that preload. It looks clever. Has anyone here ever
|ridden
|> |one? Nevertheless, IMHO, it is inappropriate to label this thing URT.
|>
|> LOL.
|>
|> Educate yourself:
|>
|> http://www.math.chalmers.se/~olahe/Bike/Rear/urt.html
|
|Says:
|"This category of bikes is, or at least used to be, characterised by the
|fact that the rear triangle and the bottom bracket is one unit, connected to
|the main triangle via one pivot point. I say used to be since there are some
|newer designs (like Kona) that still puts the bottom bracket on the swingarm
|but also uses a linkage between the swingarm and the shock. I will call this
|new design "linked URT" and the old design just URT. URT's are also called
|"floating drivetrain"."
Apparently you missed this part:
"Unified Rear Triangle (URT) "
"Placements ranges from very close to the BB (Trek/Gary Fisher) to in
the middle of the downtube (John Castellianos patented "Sweet Spot" on
for example Schwinn, Ibis)"
The Bow Ti is a URT.
|> http://www.titusti.com/techtalk.html
|Says:
|"The basic idea behind all unified rear triangle designs is to isolate the
|drivetrain from the forces of the suspension. There are two basic types of
|unifieds: Sweet Spots and low pivots. Sweet Spot designs do a good job of
|eliminating any pedal or rider induced suspension movement. On Sweet Spot
|Unifieds, the suspension is fully-active while the rider is seated and
|becomes less active when the rider stands up. Most builders of unified
|designs focus their design towards cross-country rather than down hill. On
|Sweet Spot designs, there is a large change in seat to pedal distance as the
|suspension goes through its travel. This occurs because the seat and cranks
|are on separate moving parts of the frame and the pivot is approximately
|midway between these two points. You will not experience any Bio-pace or
|DISC on a Sweet Spot unified design."
"UNIFIED REAR TRIANGLE DESIGNS:"
"SOME COMPANIES THAT USE THE UNIFIED SWEET SPOT DESIGN: CATAMOUNT,
IBIS, KLIEN, SCHWINN, WTB."
The Bow Ti is a URT.
|> http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Flats/3877/fullsus.html
|Says:
|"The unified rear triangle (URT), or floating drivetrain, is a rear
|suspension design whose popularity is waning in the current climate of
|downhill and freeriding.
|
|The basic premise of this type of design is to isolate the rear suspension's
|effect on the drivetrain by placing the entire drivetrain on the swingarm
|itself. Thus, the various components of the drivetrain move together as the
|suspension compresses and extends. This eliminates any chain reaction and
|can also allow for a very clean, simple suspension configuration consisting
|of a single large pivot and a directly driven shock.
|
|The inherent problem with this design is that the rider is in effect
|standing on the swingarm. This is less of a problem when the rider is
|seated, but the natural tendency when going over larger obstacles, rough
|terrain, or technical sections is to stand up, rendering the rear suspension
|almost useless. The flip side to this effect is that during sprinted or
|climbing out of the saddle, the suspension's lack of movement is considered
|a bonus, as less energy is wasted in suspension movement.
|
|There have been several very popular URT bikes in the past, most notably the
|Klein Mantra, the Trek/Gary Fisher Y-bikes, and the Ibis Sweet Spot. There
|have also been twists on the URT design in the form of the GT iDrive and the
|Paul Turner desiged Maverick."
|
|LOL! This is all consistent with what I said.
How can it be consistent with what you said, when you claim that the
Bow Ti should not be labeled as a URT, and each article shows that the
Bow Ti is a URT?
How can it be consistent with what you said when you claimed :
"| Only active if rider remains seated (rider stands on swing arm when
out of
|saddle)"
...and the articles make this assessment:
"On Sweet Spot
|Unifieds, the suspension is fully-active while the rider is seated and
|becomes less active when the rider stands up"
Hmnmm, that sounds familiar....oh yeah, that's what I wrote here:
">Perhaps "immune" is a strong word, but standing does act as a
lockout.
Not on all URTs."
...and here:
">> |- Only active if rider remains seated (rider stands on swing arm
when out
>of
>> |saddle) <bad?>
>>
>> Not necceessarily.
>>
>
>Actually true.
Actually false. The Ibis Bow Ti is active when you are out of the
saddle. Less active than when you are seated, but active nonetheless."
...etc., etc.
Apparently you are suffering from Googlitis coupled with a dose of
assumptionitis.
|
|but from http://www.castellanodesigns.com/diff.html
|"While developing the Sweet Spot suspension, John became intrigued by the
|idea of incorporating spacecraft-style pivotless flexures into his
|long-travel suspension system, and began modeling and testing pivotless
|prototypes. This work culminated in the Ibis BowTi, the ultimate expression
|of his Sweet Spot Suspension. With 5" of travel and no pivots, the titanium
|BowTi is in a class by itself. Castellano's next inspiration led to the
|SilkTi and Ripley softails, also built by Ibis, featuring John's pivotless
|Flat-Plate chainstays and Critically Damped Elastomer shock."
|
|So the bow tie is considered a variant of URT.
NO. The Bow Ti, and all Sweet Spot bikes, are URTs.
You assume that there is only one type of URT, when in fact they come
in many flavors, depending upon where the pivot point is located.
More importantly, the guy
|who designed it did so with the intention of building a pivotless high pivot
|bike.
...that is/was a URT.
P e t e F a g e r l i n
As noted before, when seated it is quite active, contrary to your
claim, and when standing, it is considerably less active, but active
nonbetheless, also contrary to your claim.
Spider
> "Dave Stocker" <dave...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:<bdbfvt$u7j$02$1...@news.t-online.com>...
<snip>
> > What I tried to say in my original post was that URT, like any other
> > suspension type, has its pros and cons and it has its niche. When people
> > say URT sucks, they are usually extrapolating the shortfalls of a particular
> > design to the principle.
> >
> > -Dave
>
>
> Thanks for the informative post Dave
You had to quote that whole damn thing to write six words of "me too?"
Sheesh.
Spider
Sorni
news:73da2590.03062...@posting.google.com...
And this surprises you...why?
Bill "whaddya, new?!?" S.
PS: Totally agree with your sentiments, Peter Parker; just given up on
pointing 'em out to the ones who do it...
Dave Stocker
> Apparently you missed this part:
>
> "Unified Rear Triangle (URT) "
>
> "Placements ranges from very close to the BB (Trek/Gary Fisher) to in
> the middle of the downtube (John Castellianos patented "Sweet Spot" on
> for example Schwinn, Ibis)"
>
> The Bow Ti is a URT.
>
No I did not miss it. Just because Ibis used Castellianos' "Sweet Spot", it
does NOT automatically follow that the Bow Ti is a URT.
<snip more of the same>
> |
> |The inherent problem with this design is that the rider is in effect
> |standing on the swingarm. This is less of a problem when the rider is
> |seated, but the natural tendency when going over larger obstacles, rough
> |terrain, or technical sections is to stand up, rendering the rear
suspension
> |almost useless. The flip side to this effect is that during sprinted or
> |climbing out of the saddle, the suspension's lack of movement is
considered
> |a bonus, as less energy is wasted in suspension movement.
> |
> |There have been several very popular URT bikes in the past, most notably
the
> |Klein Mantra, the Trek/Gary Fisher Y-bikes, and the Ibis Sweet Spot.
There
> |have also been twists on the URT design in the form of the GT iDrive and
the
> |Paul Turner desiged Maverick."
> |
> |LOL! This is all consistent with what I said.
>
> How can it be consistent with what you said, when you claim that the
> Bow Ti should not be labeled as a URT, and each article shows that the
> Bow Ti is a URT?
>
The seated vs standing part is consistent with what I said. As I said
earlier, there was no specific mention of the Bow Ti in any of these. But
this is a moot, bucause I already said in my last post that I now agree that
the Bow Ti is a URT. So what is the problem?
-Dave
P e t e F a g e r l i n
<dave...@t-online.de> wrote:
|"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pe...@petefagerlin.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
|news:su4mfv4vfsmtheo3v...@4ax.com...
|> Apparently you missed this part:
|>
|> "Unified Rear Triangle (URT) "
|>
|> "Placements ranges from very close to the BB (Trek/Gary Fisher) to in
|> the middle of the downtube (John Castellianos patented "Sweet Spot" on
|> for example Schwinn, Ibis)"
|>
|> The Bow Ti is a URT.
|>
|
|No I did not miss it. Just because Ibis used Castellianos' "Sweet Spot", it
|does NOT automatically follow that the Bow Ti is a URT.
Sigh...you can lead a horse to water, but...
|<snip more of the same>
|
|> |
|> |The inherent problem with this design is that the rider is in effect
|> |standing on the swingarm. This is less of a problem when the rider is
|> |seated, but the natural tendency when going over larger obstacles, rough
|> |terrain, or technical sections is to stand up, rendering the rear
|suspension
|> |almost useless. The flip side to this effect is that during sprinted or
|> |climbing out of the saddle, the suspension's lack of movement is
|considered
|> |a bonus, as less energy is wasted in suspension movement.
|> |
|> |There have been several very popular URT bikes in the past, most notably
|the
|> |Klein Mantra, the Trek/Gary Fisher Y-bikes, and the Ibis Sweet Spot.
|There
|> |have also been twists on the URT design in the form of the GT iDrive and
|the
|> |Paul Turner desiged Maverick."
|> |
|> |LOL! This is all consistent with what I said.
|>
|> How can it be consistent with what you said, when you claim that the
|> Bow Ti should not be labeled as a URT, and each article shows that the
|> Bow Ti is a URT?
|>
|
|The seated vs standing part is consistent with what I said.
Again, bullshit.
You wrote that the suspension is only active if the rider remains
seated. That is incorrect.
As I said
|earlier, there was no specific mention of the Bow Ti in any of these.
The Bow Ti is a Sweet Spot bike---------------->URT.
It's really not that difficult.
But
|this is a moot, bucause I already said in my last post that I now agree that
|the Bow Ti is a URT. So what is the problem?
Hmmm...I would ascribe it to some reading comprehension issues on your
part or an inabilty to understand exactly what "Sweet Spot" means (URT
with the pivot located in the middle, rather than at the extremes).
Dave Stocker
> |
> |So if I am wrong in my assumptions about how this thing works, then I ask
> |you: How does it work?
>
> As noted before, when seated it is quite active, contrary to your
> claim, and when standing, it is considerably less active, but active
> nonbetheless, also contrary to your claim.
>
Ok, you said this a couple of posts ago:
>Actually false. The Ibis Bow Ti is active when you are out of the
>saddle. Less active than when you are seated, but active nonetheless.
I misread this as:
>Actually false. The Ibis Bow Ti is active when you are out of the
>saddle. Less active when you are seated, but active nonetheless.
So I understood a claim that it was more active out of the saddle than in
it. This went against my understanding of how URT works and was scratching
my head coming up with a reason it could be so. So now that that is out of
the way, we can safely say it acts like every other URT: less active out of
the saddle than seated.
I think it is possible to generalize quantitatively how pivot location and
rider wieght affect how the suspension acts, but I want to sleep first.
-Dave
Dave Stocker
>
> The Bow Ti is a Sweet Spot bike---------------->URT.
>
> It's really not that difficult.
>
> But
> |this is a moot, bucause I already said in my last post that I now agree
that
> |the Bow Ti is a URT. So what is the problem?
>
> Hmmm...I would ascribe it to some reading comprehension issues on your
> part or an inabilty to understand exactly what "Sweet Spot" means (URT
> with the pivot located in the middle, rather than at the extremes).
>
I started this thread hoping to talk a bit about the physics of these
things. Oh well, it was not to be...
-Dave
Dave Stocker
Let:
L= the distance from the pivot to the rear dropout
l= the distance from the pivot to the BB
TL = "Theta L", the angle between a plumbline dropped at the pivot and L
Tl = "Theta l", the angle between a plumbline dropped at the pivot and l
R = Rider wieght
F = the force up on the rear wheel due to terrain
Now FL acts as a lever on Rl. You could model the rider by suspending an
equavalent wieght to the rider from the point where the L line is directly
above the BB. I will call this point l'.
l' = l*Sin(Tl)
If the line between the pivot and L were level (TL=90deg), at equilibrium we
would have:
FL = R*l'
Any greater F and we get travel.
We account for TL!=90deg by:
FL = (R*l')*Sin(TL)
so
F = ((R*l')*Sin(TL))/L
on a low pivot bike such as mine l~l' and Sin(TL)~1, so I have:
F = R*l/L or F=R/10 in my case; about 18lb
On a high pivot bike, you have to keep all of those ugly thetas:
F = (R*l*Sin(Tl)*Sin(TL))/L
I fiddled with some arbitrary pivot placements and came up F figures as much
as 3 or 4x as my bike, but still much lower than I has expected. This is
not the same a preload and it does have a dampening effect on the upstroke.
-Dave
Sorni
Or just push down on the saddle and furrow your brow a bit.
Bill "sorted" S.
Dave W
Haven't you figured that out yet? It's Pete "never wrong" Fagerlin. As
soon as you realize this you'll save yourself a whole lot of crap,
like you just went through.
Dave W
not with that guy it ain't.
>
Spider
While he might not have figured that out, he certainly knows not to
take advice from Dave "always wrong" Wussyass, because banging your
head against the wall is so much more productive.
Spider
Dave W
He arachnoid, don't you think the advice is sound given what Pete lead
this thread into. Oh, nevermind, I forgot you're a dumbass...
Sorry, my mistake.
Dave (Kiss my wussyass!)
P e t e F a g e r l i n
LOL.
Is post humping a congenital defect or something that you learned from
your parents or perhaps you picked up your particular flavor of
retardation after one too many bowls?
Hilarious, regardless of the cause.
P e t e F a g e r l i n
So you usually start discussion, wherein you want to talk about the
physiscs of bike suspensions, by posting a bunch of stuff that is
inaccurate and based upon supposition?
Interesting.
P e t e F a g e r l i n
|Haven't you figured that out yet? It's Pete "never wrong" Fagerlin. As
|soon as you realize this you'll save yourself a whole lot of crap,
|like you just went through.
If you had any experience with the Bow Ti, you would understand how
silly the other Dave's assumptions are.
Since you don't, and you're just post humping again, I guess you're
just in the mood to make yourself look like a total idiot, again.
p.s. Where have I ever claimed that I'm "never wrong" fruitloop?
P e t e F a g e r l i n
That is deeply disturbing.
Might I suggest a ride as penance?
P e t e F a g e r l i n
|>>
|>> Haven't you figured that out yet? It's Pete "never wrong" Fagerlin. As
|>> soon as you realize this you'll save yourself a whole lot of crap,
|>> like you just went through.
|>
|>While he might not have figured that out, he certainly knows not to
|>take advice from Dave "always wrong" Wussyass, because banging your
|>head against the wall is so much more productive.
|
|He arachnoid, don't you think the advice is sound given what Pete lead
|this thread into. Oh, nevermind, I forgot you're a dumbass...
ROTFLMAO!
"what Pete lead this thread into"
Yeah, heaven forbid that someone who has four years of experience
riding a Bow Ti comment on how they really ride, rather than letting
some inaccurate assumptions stand.
Gee, if I hadn't set the record straight, you wouldn't have had a
chance to make yourself look like a total fool once again...
Spider
LOL! He knows a hell of a lot about URTs, considering his bike is
one...
> Oh, nevermind, I forgot you're a dumbass...
Considering the amount of useful information you have given to this
thread, I'll just chalk it up to more WussyAss irony.
> Sorry, my mistake.
This should be your sig line. It's about the only thing you've ever
written that even makes a little bit of sense, or is even relevant,
for that matter.
> Dave (Kiss my wussyass!)
I would, but I don't have all day.
Spider
Dave W
Just learning from the master. hehehe
>
>Hilarious, regardless of the cause.
yes you are, no matter where you post!
Dave W
<pe...@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:08:24 -0400, Dave W <frt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>|>>
>|>> Haven't you figured that out yet? It's Pete "never wrong" Fagerlin. As
>|>> soon as you realize this you'll save yourself a whole lot of crap,
>|>> like you just went through.
>|>
>|>While he might not have figured that out, he certainly knows not to
>|>take advice from Dave "always wrong" Wussyass, because banging your
>|>head against the wall is so much more productive.
>|
>|He arachnoid, don't you think the advice is sound given what Pete lead
>|this thread into. Oh, nevermind, I forgot you're a dumbass...
>
>
>ROTFLMAO!
>
>"what Pete lead this thread into"
>
>Yeah, heaven forbid that someone who has four years of experience
>riding a Bow Ti comment on how they really ride, rather than letting
>some inaccurate assumptions stand.
WOW I am impressed. You really are someone with experience. Did it
require your particular "patented" Fagerlin response? Abusive bullshit
doesn't illustrate your points worth a fuck. I appreciated the links
you provided for Mr Stocker, really, it was a learning experience. But
we could do without your lame ass MTBR diatribes here. But this IS an
ALT group, and you're free to "color" your responses any way you want.
But as you do, be expecting a reply from someone like me.
>
>Gee, if I hadn't set the record straight, you wouldn't have had a
>chance to make yourself look like a total fool once again...
Thanks for setting the record straight then. I really wouldn't want
that to happen.....hehehehe
Dave (does anyone really care WHAT I look like?)
Dave W
>Dave W <frt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<4buofvgv3klu2kd4d...@4ax.com>...
>> On 27 Jun 2003 09:16:46 -0700, beelz...@hotmail.com (Spider) wrote:
>>
>> >While he might not have figured that out, he certainly knows not to
>> >take advice from Dave "always wrong" Wussyass, because banging your
>> >head against the wall is so much more productive.
>>
>> He arachnoid, don't you think the advice is sound given what Pete lead
>> this thread into.
>
>LOL! He knows a hell of a lot about URTs, considering his bike is
>one...
Point already conceded. So?
>
>> Oh, nevermind, I forgot you're a dumbass...
>
>Considering the amount of useful information you have given to this
>thread, I'll just chalk it up to more WussyAss irony.
Chalk it up to whatever you like. I, and I'm sure nobody else here,
gives a rats ass...
>
>> Sorry, my mistake.
>
>This should be your sig line. It's about the only thing you've ever
>written that even makes a little bit of sense, or is even relevant,
>for that matter.
I like it. But see below for the final product.
Dave (My fault, I forgot you were an idiot!)
Dave W
Here's my question for you Petey; Where did I ever say you where
wrong?
Seems to me you're just being overly defensive for no reason. My
original response had absolutely nothing to do with your facts and
obvious experience. those are not irrefutable. I haven't the time to
explain it to you. But you "SEEM" like a smart boy, I'm sure you can
figure it out....
Dave (but then again...)
P e t e F a g e r l i n
|On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:47:57 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n
|<pe...@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
|>ROTFLMAO!
|>
|>"what Pete lead this thread into"
|>
|>Yeah, heaven forbid that someone who has four years of experience
|>riding a Bow Ti comment on how they really ride, rather than letting
|>some inaccurate assumptions stand.
|
|WOW I am impressed. You really are someone with experience. Did it
|require your particular "patented" Fagerlin response? Abusive bullshit
|doesn't illustrate your points worth a fuck.
LOL! "abusive bullshit"?
Just when I thought you couldn't get any more idiotic, you come up
with this.
Are you this fragile in real life?
I appreciated the links
|you provided for Mr Stocker, really, it was a learning experience. But
|we could do without your lame ass MTBR diatribes here. But this IS an
|ALT group, and you're free to "color" your responses any way you want.
|But as you do, be expecting a reply from someone like me.
I always anticipate relies from thin-skinned hypocritical delicate
flowers, but thanks for the useless advice anyway
p.s. "diatribe"? If you view a discussion of the relative merits of
various URts to be a diatribe, you need to go grab a dictionary.
P e t e F a g e r l i n
|On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:43:46 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n
|<pe...@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
|
|>On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 02:12:56 -0400, Dave W <frt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
|>
|>
|>|Haven't you figured that out yet? It's Pete "never wrong" Fagerlin. As
|>|soon as you realize this you'll save yourself a whole lot of crap,
|>|like you just went through.
|>
|>If you had any experience with the Bow Ti, you would understand how
|>silly the other Dave's assumptions are.
|>
|>Since you don't, and you're just post humping again, I guess you're
|>just in the mood to make yourself look like a total idiot, again.
|>
|>p.s. Where have I ever claimed that I'm "never wrong" fruitloop?
|
|Here's my question for you Petey; Where did I ever say you where
|wrong?
Uh, Dave, put down the bong and read what you wrote.
And go see that doc about the post-humping again. Your latest meds
aren't working anymore.
Dave W
<pe...@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:34:43 -0400, Dave W <frt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>|On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:47:57 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n
>|<pe...@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>
>|>ROTFLMAO!
>|>
>|>"what Pete lead this thread into"
>|>
>|>Yeah, heaven forbid that someone who has four years of experience
>|>riding a Bow Ti comment on how they really ride, rather than letting
>|>some inaccurate assumptions stand.
>|
>|WOW I am impressed. You really are someone with experience. Did it
>|require your particular "patented" Fagerlin response? Abusive bullshit
>|doesn't illustrate your points worth a fuck.
>
>LOL! "abusive bullshit"?
>
>Just when I thought you couldn't get any more idiotic, you come up
>with this.
The point remains, you are an overly abusive person. No need to be so
defensive about it. Realise it!
>
>Are you this fragile in real life?
Hardly, but then I am fortunate enough not to be associated with the
likes of you. If I had you as a friend, I might try being a serial
killer or something...
>
>
> I appreciated the links
>|you provided for Mr Stocker, really, it was a learning experience. But
>|we could do without your lame ass MTBR diatribes here. But this IS an
>|ALT group, and you're free to "color" your responses any way you want.
>|But as you do, be expecting a reply from someone like me.
>
>I always anticipate relies from thin-skinned hypocritical delicate
>flowers, but thanks for the useless advice anyway
There's the point I was making. If you wouldn't be so freakin negative
you wouldn't have to anticipate any responces.
>
>p.s. "diatribe"? If you view a discussion of the relative merits of
>various URts to be a diatribe, you need to go grab a dictionary.
You still don't get it do you? I said nothing about the context of
your discussion, just your posting style. Why must you be so
defensive?
Dave (Guilty consciance?)
>
Dave W
<pe...@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:44:43 -0400, Dave W <frt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>|On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:43:46 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n
>|<pe...@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>|
>|>On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 02:12:56 -0400, Dave W <frt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>|>
>|>
>|>|Haven't you figured that out yet? It's Pete "never wrong" Fagerlin. As
>|>|soon as you realize this you'll save yourself a whole lot of crap,
>|>|like you just went through.
>|>
>|>If you had any experience with the Bow Ti, you would understand how
>|>silly the other Dave's assumptions are.
>|>
>|>Since you don't, and you're just post humping again, I guess you're
>|>just in the mood to make yourself look like a total idiot, again.
>|>
>|>p.s. Where have I ever claimed that I'm "never wrong" fruitloop?
>|
>|Here's my question for you Petey; Where did I ever say you where
>|wrong?
>
>Uh, Dave, put down the bong and read what you wrote.
I did Petey, and my question remains, why are you so defensive? The
point also remains that you provided some informative links, but you
suck at presenting them....
>
>And go see that doc about the post-humping again. Your latest meds
>aren't working anymore.
ROTFLMAO. Whattsamatta? Got nothing further to say, so you resort to
this. how pathetic....
Dave (typical)
P e t e F a g e r l i n
>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 10:03:02 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n
><pe...@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:44:43 -0400, Dave W <frt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>|On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:43:46 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n
>>|<pe...@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>|
>>|>On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 02:12:56 -0400, Dave W <frt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>|>
>>|>
>>|>|Haven't you figured that out yet? It's Pete "never wrong" Fagerlin. As
>>|>|soon as you realize this you'll save yourself a whole lot of crap,
>>|>|like you just went through.
>>|>
>>|>If you had any experience with the Bow Ti, you would understand how
>>|>silly the other Dave's assumptions are.
>>|>
>>|>Since you don't, and you're just post humping again, I guess you're
>>|>just in the mood to make yourself look like a total idiot, again.
>>|>
>>|>p.s. Where have I ever claimed that I'm "never wrong" fruitloop?
>>|
>>|Here's my question for you Petey; Where did I ever say you where
>>|wrong?
>>
>>Uh, Dave, put down the bong and read what you wrote.
>
>I did Petey, and my question remains, why are you so defensive? The
>point also remains that you provided some informative links, but you
>suck at presenting them....
So you wrote:
"Pete "never wrong" Fagerlin"
You were either being sarcastic, or as you now claim, you truly
believe that I'm never wrong.
Interesting corner you backed yourself into, once again.
<snip more whining>
P e t e F a g e r l i n
>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 10:00:47 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n
><pe...@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:34:43 -0400, Dave W <frt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>|On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:47:57 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n
>>|<pe...@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>
>>|>ROTFLMAO!
>>|>
>>|>"what Pete lead this thread into"
>>|>
>>|>Yeah, heaven forbid that someone who has four years of experience
>>|>riding a Bow Ti comment on how they really ride, rather than letting
>>|>some inaccurate assumptions stand.
>>|
>>|WOW I am impressed. You really are someone with experience. Did it
>>|require your particular "patented" Fagerlin response? Abusive bullshit
>>|doesn't illustrate your points worth a fuck.
>>
>>LOL! "abusive bullshit"?
>>
>>Just when I thought you couldn't get any more idiotic, you come up
>>with this.
>
>The point remains, you are an overly abusive person. No need to be so
>defensive about it. Realise it!
The point remains in your head (perhaps on top as well).
The fact that you continue to whine about me "abusing" the other Dave
is hysterical. Almost as hysterical as the fact that you can't
diferentiate between a discussion and a flame.
"abusive bullshit" ROTFLMAO!
>>Are you this fragile in real life?
>
>Hardly, but then I am fortunate enough not to be associated with the
>likes of you. If I had you as a friend, I might try being a serial
>killer or something...
Given that, it seems that you must be this fragile in real life.
>> I appreciated the links
>>|you provided for Mr Stocker, really, it was a learning experience. But
>>|we could do without your lame ass MTBR diatribes here. But this IS an
>>|ALT group, and you're free to "color" your responses any way you want.
>>|But as you do, be expecting a reply from someone like me.
>>
>>I always anticipate relies from thin-skinned hypocritical delicate
>>flowers, but thanks for the useless advice anyway
>
>There's the point I was making. If you wouldn't be so freakin negative
>you wouldn't have to anticipate any responces.
Nope. It's a fact that there are thin-skinned hypocritical flowers in
every group, be it online or in real life.
They are the folks who whine when everything isn't a kumbaya group hug
fest and can't accept the fact that people who actually have
experiences that contradict assumptions/speculation/etc. sometimes
will ruffle feathers.
>>p.s. "diatribe"? If you view a discussion of the relative merits of
>>various URts to be a diatribe, you need to go grab a dictionary.
>
>You still don't get it do you?
Oh, I've gotten it for a long, long time Dave.
>I said nothing about the context of
>your discussion, just your posting style.
See above, bust out a dictionary, read the thread again when you are
sober, and best of luck.
>Why must you be so
>defensive?
Defensive? Hardly. When a known loon such as yourself begins his
post-humping routine, it's funny to poke a bit and watch you get
worked up, back yourself into corners, get all hypocritical again,
etc.
I'm still continually amazed that someone can be a confused as you
are, and still allegedly function in society.
The miracles never cease.
Spider
> On 30 Jun 2003 09:08:27 -0700, beelz...@hotmail.com (Spider) wrote:
>
> >Dave W <frt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<4buofvgv3klu2kd4d...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 27 Jun 2003 09:16:46 -0700, beelz...@hotmail.com (Spider) wrote:
> >>
> >> >While he might not have figured that out, he certainly knows not to
> >> >take advice from Dave "always wrong" Wussyass, because banging your
> >> >head against the wall is so much more productive.
> >>
> >> He arachnoid, don't you think the advice is sound given what Pete lead
> >> this thread into.
> >
> >LOL! He knows a hell of a lot about URTs, considering his bike is
> >one...
>
> Point already conceded. So?
Sooo, that was *sort of the point* dimwit. Read it a few more times.
Move your lips if you have to.
> >> Oh, nevermind, I forgot you're a dumbass...
> >
> >Considering the amount of useful information you have given to this
> >thread, I'll just chalk it up to more WussyAss irony.
>
> Chalk it up to whatever you like. I, and I'm sure nobody else here,
> gives a rats ass...
It's a nice try at an apathetic air, but I know different, Wuss.
> >> Sorry, my mistake.
> >
> >This should be your sig line. It's about the only thing you've ever
> >written that even makes a little bit of sense, or is even relevant,
> >for that matter.
>
> I like it. But see below for the final product.
>
>
> Dave (My fault, I forgot you were an idiot!)
I didn't think that even you could screw up something so simple. You
have indeed lived down to your reputation yet again.
Congratulations, Doofus.
Spider