Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
Been watching this thread and had to kick in a few opinions.
As an engineering mgr for far too long see data, but it has to be meaningful with the right boundary conditions and model setup. I think the dynamics of a motorcycle landing from jumps and the assumptions are very hard to determine; certainly the biggest concern is no part failure when designing flex into our out of the frame interface. From there I agree with Luxon is where do you design flex in? What do you prefer as a rider? What amount of flex/rigidity and in what direction does what to the handling?
I was listening to Grant Langston on Whiskey Throttle and in one of his factory rides he was given a very stiff setup where he preferred it to be looser. Windham used to prefer non A-kit forks so he had more compliance.
I have no doubt that the chassis mods have very little intellectual property and even fewer trade secrets they can keep - so I think providing too much data makes these parts even easier to knock off.
I think it's a very clever performance mod that should persist - even if not everyone can feel the difference.
https://www.apple.com/iphone/compare/
https://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-s10/compare
Why? Because saying "our phone works really well and most people who try it like it" won't sell phones...
If you're referring to my analysis offer, I wasn't asking for CAD models to be posted to the forum. I was offering to to perform some analysis for free. Nothing would be posted unless they wanted the results posted. And they could be protected by a non-disclosure agreement should they want to.
Regardless, publishing some stiffness numbers (% difference from stock for example) won't really help someone knock off or steal the design. It would be far cheaper and faster to just buy a set of mounts and sit in front of the CAD program for an hour with a set of calipers.
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Free shipping: VITALMX
i work in marketing. apple has more lifestyle branding aimed pushes than hardly any other tech company, if not the most, and their campaigns are still riddled with comparative analysis. watch a keynote. it's 90% highlighting what the device can do. not just 'it works, look, shiny'.
someone earlier mentioned weights/etc. exactly. when is the last time you saw 'brand a footpegs/triple clamps/bars/wheelset/chain are ###.## oz, oem is ###.##'. it's not common. most are just assuming 'look! pretty ano/heat treating, it must be factory!'
look at the mtb or road cycling world. i can tell you to the gram what my new build of mixed parts is about to add up to...
posting analysis is not the same as releasing blueprints
A lot of aftermarket stuff doesnt even fit right either, but people lap it up.
Fair play to them I suppose. Lol
These mounts are all about flex characteristics, adding, taking away, basically changing the flex of the chassis.
What does this do to the overall longevity of the frame?
We see frames cracking and breaking all the time. Could these chassis changes lead to a premature, catastrophic failure? Maybe it won't be the original owner, but the poor SOB that bought it from that guy with 40 hours on the bike.
Shouldn't that be part of the testing as well???? I know it's hard to test that, but we all know that frames flex and stretch, but do these accelerate that?
Product validation comes from the test track and data is needed to make the FEA more realistic. Would first need to instrument a bike with micro-strain gages and accelerometers on the chassis and stock mounts. These would be wired to a data collection device like an eDaq. A software such as TrueLoad would be used to identify the areas of high stress to help place and orient all of the gages. Additionally, you would want to run several other of these gages throughout the bike to understand how the rigidity of the mounts propagates out to the rest of the chassis. The test rider would log several hours of ride time with the instrumentation running and collecting. Would typically run the eDaq at 1,000 hz (which means the data is being recorded at a rate of 1,000 times per second) which helps ensure small, but high amplitude events, are not missed.
After the test riding is complete, I would download the data from the eDaq into a software like nCode to do a statistical analysis of the raw data. From the strain gages, would be able to tell how much the chassis and mounts are deflecting (movement) and the accelerometers would provide vibrational data, or frequencies, that are being seen in the mounts and chassis. Repeating this test over and over again with different mount designs, and a test rider capable of detecting the feel, you would eventually be able to get to the point to where an algorithm could be developed that can translate the instrumentation data into "feel"
The data that is collected from the test riding would be back-fed into the FEA to update the input dynamics with actual values to make the analysis more accurate for the next round of simulations. Sometimes these input dynamics are less than anticipated and the part can handle it if the design safety factor is 3 to 5x, but often times we find there are data spikes in corner condition events (example: casing a SX triple) that put tremendous loads on the parts over a very short period of time. These events are the catalysts for metal fatigue, cracking, deformation, etc and the only way to accurately simulate them is to have actual data from an instrumented bike.
So the typical path is design, FEA, TrueLoad, instrument a bike and test to collect data, nCode, FEA, design review and then the process repeats many times again.
Interesting enough, after collecting enough data from an instrumented bike, you could eventually get to the point where you could develop a test stand that had a duty cycle created from the real track data.
FEA can provide valuable insight into the structural performance of a part. It's an approximation of reality and how close of an approximation is dependent on the assumptions made in the model. Any amount of (properly set-up) analysis will give useful data towards making design decisions.
With metallic components undergoing the loads we're seeing on a motocross bike, it's pretty straightforward to come up with a high confidence analysis model to understand the stiffness properties of a design and make comparisons to different designs and to stock parts. You don't need a dynamic model with loads representative of actual riding conditions for that. And it would provide very valuable data that currently isn't available.
I saw it as a "The proof is in the pudding" thread. Hopefully, it will get back to talking about pudding.
Thanks.
Pit Row
Rider feedback is great, but as a potential customer, that's not enough for me (and it seems the same for a few others in this thread too). There are well known test riders making wildly incorrect statements all the time, so I always take rider comments with a grain of salt...
However, one sure way to arrive at solid, real product data, is to "spit out some computer info". And doing so would help them to sell more product. What's the problem with that?
I suspect that most people in this thread know this and the discussion about data collection is nothing more than a "my knowledge of testing & analysis is greater than yours" pissing contest.
I’ll be the first to admit I’m far from a genius, I’m really not even that smart, but I’m usually able to at the very least recognize my own ignorance and learn from those with experience and knowledge beyond my own. I’d highly suggest picking up any of Carrol Smith’s books, they’re a great read and will explain a large number of the concepts discussed in this thread, as well as tune your BS meter to a higher resolution. You’ll quickly see exactly why many of the questions in this thread popped up, as well as the value providing some hard numbers to the marketing would provide. Having someone say “I think it felt great” does absolutely nothing for me, however quantified data definitly helps me make an informed decision/opinion on a product. That’s all that’s been asked for here, data to back up the consensus of test riders.
Guys with big computers dog pile on about not having data from a big computer.
Why don't you "my computer is bigger than you" guys start a new thread to shit on the guy and his product?
but would we even know how to interpret the data into how it would actually affect the bike? saying it's 10% stiffer then stock is great, but how does that translate to how it feels on the bike? Data is great, but so is real world experience.
Something like this:
Stiff Upper Mounts
20% more flex than stock vertically (bumps, hard landings)
30% more flex than stock horizontally (cornering)
Soft Upper Mounts
50% more flex than stock vertically
60% more flex than stock horizontally
With this kind of information, I can immediately see the difference from stock and the difference between each option. It also shows that there has been a reasonable amount of thought put into the design and the options.
This should be supplemented with a nice text description, which I think Works Chassis Lab already does a good job of (not so much for FCP, though).
But if i was in the market for a product then i wanna know more about it then people say about it.
if i would see this on a website what Luxon MX is explaining then i would buy it without a heartbeat.
Stiff Upper Mounts
20% more flex than stock vertically (bumps, hard landings)
30% more flex than stock horizontally (cornering)
Soft Upper Mounts
50% more flex than stock vertically
60% more flex than stock horizontally
It would even better when TI ,carbon and alu would be in the test. To see the difference and make the choice for the rider with some back up data what the person is looking for.
Wanna go faster a lap get better suspension set up, even if some say 52mm are way to stiff to ride with.So every one is different in what they search for. A shame that such topics don't come more.
1. Scoff at the type of system used as not being adequate and explain why the system they use is better
2. Ask for FEA samples and explain how the analysis was wrong and how the parts should have been made.
3. Explain how the data means shit because there was no real blind or control testing done.
4. Still not purchase the product, which is fine but why would the manufacturer bother pandering to these types?
Seriously I have no problem with people asking for info but it should go more like " Do you have any further info?" and if the answer is no then "Thanks but I don't think this product is for me"
Post a reply to: Workschassislab