S
Simon Brooke
Guest
I was looking at a picture of a Whyte PRST1 earlier today, and musing as one does... The Whyte uses
quite similar suspension units for both front and rear suspesion: <URL:
http://www.whytebikes.com/whyte-2004/images/whyteprst1side72dpi.jpg >
and what I was musing about was the Citroen Deux Chevaux and the original Issigonis designed Austin
Mini. The 2cv had a single suspension unit on each side of the car which linked the front and rear
swing-arms; the original mini used 'hydrolastic' suspension units where the oil reservoir in the
forward suspension unit was linked with a pipe to the oil reervoir in the rear unit on the same
side. This was a conscious imitation of the principle of the 2cv system while avoiding the Citroen
patents. The hydropneumatic Citroens - DS, GS, SM, BX, CX, XM, Xantia and C5 - have of course more
complex hydraulic interconnection of the suspension units but that isn't what I'm thinking of here.
The point is that on both the 2cv (a car I love - in my opinion the world's most under-rated
sportscar) and the early minis the scheme worked extremely well to limit pitch, giving a perception
of a much smoother ride. When the front hit a bump and the front suspension compressed the rear
suspension would extend, keeping the body of the vehicle relatively level.
It struck me that this principal, if applied to mountain bikes, would possibly give a steadier and
more controllable ride particularly over fast rough sections, and that with modern air/oil
suspension struts it would not actually be that hard to rig up, and would add very little in weight.
So the question is, who has tried it and what were the results? I've done a quick web search but
haven't come up with anything... but the idea is so obvious _someone_ must have tried it, surely?
--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; this is not a .sig
quite similar suspension units for both front and rear suspesion: <URL:
http://www.whytebikes.com/whyte-2004/images/whyteprst1side72dpi.jpg >
and what I was musing about was the Citroen Deux Chevaux and the original Issigonis designed Austin
Mini. The 2cv had a single suspension unit on each side of the car which linked the front and rear
swing-arms; the original mini used 'hydrolastic' suspension units where the oil reservoir in the
forward suspension unit was linked with a pipe to the oil reervoir in the rear unit on the same
side. This was a conscious imitation of the principle of the 2cv system while avoiding the Citroen
patents. The hydropneumatic Citroens - DS, GS, SM, BX, CX, XM, Xantia and C5 - have of course more
complex hydraulic interconnection of the suspension units but that isn't what I'm thinking of here.
The point is that on both the 2cv (a car I love - in my opinion the world's most under-rated
sportscar) and the early minis the scheme worked extremely well to limit pitch, giving a perception
of a much smoother ride. When the front hit a bump and the front suspension compressed the rear
suspension would extend, keeping the body of the vehicle relatively level.
It struck me that this principal, if applied to mountain bikes, would possibly give a steadier and
more controllable ride particularly over fast rough sections, and that with modern air/oil
suspension struts it would not actually be that hard to rig up, and would add very little in weight.
So the question is, who has tried it and what were the results? I've done a quick web search but
haven't come up with anything... but the idea is so obvious _someone_ must have tried it, surely?
--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; this is not a .sig