Talk us through what system you’re using on Heather’s bike. I think the key point I wanted to come across here is the differences between this and, say, maybe a BYB. These sensors that you use aren’t the linear actuators. Where do you have them situated? I guess all of it correlates to each other. So the accelerometers you’re using allow you to almost validate that suspension information? Does the system run when you remove the big sliding sensors, the linear potentiometers? It’s not like you’re missing a big chunk of data is it? Or are you able to make up for it with the others? The way the system’s mounted, especially the big sliding sensors, the linear potentiometers, you have to have those isolated from the bike on bearings, right?
You almost want the sensor floating on the fork, the fork acting upon it, not it acting upon the fork. They’re pretty special systems that you have. They’re bespoke for each frame size? With a carbon frame, it’s not ideal. You’ve got some pretty unique shapes on this frame as well. So that’s giving you some more challenges as well, right? And it spends a lot of time with those wires on it too, right? How long did it take to develop the unique algorithms and tools behind your data acquisition system? It seems like gathering data is one thing, but making use of it is the hard part. Do all the riders in your team embrace the data accusation approach, or do some find it challenging to adjust? How do you navigate the balance between what the rider feels and the data you’re presenting? Is it always a challenging conversation to have? Do you think it makes it a bit easier for them being able to see that visual graph? It’s not a abstract concept really, once you’re able to visualize it. What we have spoken about so far has been data acquisition, not telemetry. There is a difference, right? Do you think we could ever see telemetry used in mountain biking?
About Us
Advertise
Cool Features
RSS
