Does it really save any energy?
 

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Marzocchi's ETA feature lets the rider lower a 100mm fork by about an
inch and reduce the travel to an inch.

I'm not sure whether the claimed benefit is change in bike attitude,
less energy absorbed by bobbing, or both.


But thinking about the bogging aspect, it seems like it might be a
matter of longer travel through less resistance vs shorter travel
through greater resistance. If that's true maybe the energy
absorbed is a wash.

Anybody?

Work=Force*Distance. You're not exerting more force, and distance is
smaller. Ergo, work is smaller. Work=Energy=Heat=Calories ~= Food

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_work

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Does it really save any energy?
 

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Marzocchi's ETA feature lets the rider lower a 100mm fork by about an inch
and
reduce the travel to an inch.

I'm not sure whether the claimed benefit is change in bike attitude, less
energy
absorbed by bobbing, or both.


But thinking about the bogging aspect, it seems like it might be a matter
of
longer travel through less resistance vs shorter travel through greater
resistance. If that's true maybe the energy absorbed is a wash.


Two different things here. First, with the fork compressed enough and a
steady pedaling motion there will be no movement so no energy loss. Second,
the difference in resistance between the two is minimal, the damping
characteristics aren't that different at the two the levels and the spring
rate is the same, just preloaded.

Greg

Does it really save any energy?
 

"Phil, Squid-in-Training" wrote in
message news:mAj_e.122985$Ep.107755@lakeread02...
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Marzocchi's ETA feature lets the rider lower a 100mm fork by about an
inch and reduce the travel to an inch.

I'm not sure whether the claimed benefit is change in bike attitude,
less energy absorbed by bobbing, or both.


But thinking about the bogging aspect, it seems like it might be a
matter of longer travel through less resistance vs shorter travel
through greater resistance. If that's true maybe the energy
absorbed is a wash.

Anybody?

Work=Force*Distance. You're not exerting more force, and distance is
smaller. Ergo, work is smaller. Work=Energy=Heat=Calories ~= Food


If he was thinking the way I think he was thinking then the force would be
proportionally larger, but in reality it's not.

Greg

ETA: Does it really save any energy?
 

Marzocchi's ETA feature lets the rider lower a 100mm fork by about an inch and
reduce the travel to an inch.

I'm not sure whether the claimed benefit is change in bike attitude, less energy
absorbed by bobbing, or both.


But thinking about the bogging aspect, it seems like it might be a matter of
longer travel through less resistance vs shorter travel through greater
resistance. If that's true maybe the energy absorbed is a wash.

Anybody?
--
PeteCresswell

ETA: Does it really save any energy?
 

I'm running a 120mm MX Comp ETA and find that the ETA lockout does help
significantly on climbs for both reasons you mention below.


On 9/27/05 8:35 PM, in article ,
"(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

Marzocchi's ETA feature lets the rider lower a 100mm fork by about an inch and
reduce the travel to an inch.

I'm not sure whether the claimed benefit is change in bike attitude, less
energy
absorbed by bobbing, or both.


But thinking about the bogging aspect, it seems like it might be a matter of
longer travel through less resistance vs shorter travel through greater
resistance. If that's true maybe the energy absorbed is a wash.

Anybody?