Results 1 to 55 of 55
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    6

    Is the single pivot design out of date?

    For example, the rumblefish is on its last year and trek has replaced it with the rocker Fuel EX 29er. I know the newer designs offer more linear response, but in actual riding Is there really a large difference between the single pivot and more contemporary designs if one does apply some value to simplicity.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944

    Re: Is the single pivot design out of date?

    The abp/full floater is still basically a single pivot. It just has floating shock mounts and a concentric rear pivot instead of above the chain stay.
    http://Theclydeblog.org Big guy cycling product tester

  3. #3
    I Tried Them ALL... SuperModerator
    Reputation: Cayenne_Pepa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,320
    Yes, it's dated, but it works great still....thanks to ABP.
    "This is a male-dominated forum... there will be lots of Testosterone sword-shaming here" ~ Kenfucius

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944

    Re: Is the single pivot design out of date?

    And remember. FSR is old also. So is GTs iDrive.


    They all work really well.
    http://Theclydeblog.org Big guy cycling product tester

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Epic_Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,030
    I think single pivot designs are still popular for XC FS bikes for the lightweight and simple design. Seems like horst link four bar suspension have also been around a long time, but there are plenty of new versions of that design hitting the market, particularly in AM or Enduro bikes, I assume because it's a heavy duty linkage that allows for more suspension travel.

  6. #6
    Tough Guy Extraordinaire
    Reputation: Shmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    599
    I agree the single pivot is still a pretty good option for XC type bike. It's cheap, light weight and does not require much thought. Improving shock technology over the last few years has also done a reasonable job of improving the poformance of this platform.
    - 2013 Pivot Mach 429 C
    - 2010 Niner MCR
    - 2009 Cannondale Super Six HM
    - 2007 Santa Cruz Super Light

  7. #7
    Cactus Cuddler
    Reputation: tehllama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,760
    I had a chance to ride a few older ones, the Heckler being among my favorites there. I feel like it really relies on having the right shock tune to feel right, and the mid-travel plushness has to be balanced well against making the tail feel rigid enough while pedaling - but with the newer Fox CTD units I was really impressed with how good that was. The travel isn't going to be great with those setups, and I agree that the four-link's ability to have bigger travel with the small chainstays (that help compensate for the 29er wagon wheel-iness) will keep that a very common design, and the CTD shocks are just plain good across the board.

    I think the biggest price argument that has wound up hurting the older designs is that the cost of the frame between an older, dated design, and a newer setup like VPP/DWLink/EccentricSwivel is only like 8% of the overall price of the bike. Why would people want older technology on a top end bike, if all they'd need to give up is a couple hundred dollars to get the latest and greatest.

    The components on the bike are so much of the cost and value, updating the frame is basically trivial in terms of cost. The only cases I see it working really well is the superlight XC setup, where mechanical simplicity which means lighter weight.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pixelninja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,044
    After having owned an Ellsworth Isis and Yeti 575 (single pivot designs) and now own a Giant Trance (floating-pivot design) I would say yes, it is out of date. The Trance pedals much more efficiently, and the suspension doesn't stiffen up when braking.
    "If you suck, that means I'm better. The more you suck, the better I am. So. Let me count the ways you suck." - Scribb

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944

    Re: Is the single pivot design out of date?

    While it may brake better, most if not all modern single pivots are more effecient climbers. Not plush though
    http://Theclydeblog.org Big guy cycling product tester

  10. #10
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,250
    the only thing more outdated than a single pivot is a hardtail, both require significant retardation to purchase

  11. #11
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,516
    People have been declaring single pivots dead for at least 15 years now. They aren't going anywhere.

    -W

  12. #12
    tg
    tg is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,460
    My Satori does not feel out of date.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Is the single pivot design out of date?-0825121244a.jpg  


  13. #13
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,975
    Quote Originally Posted by Zachariah View Post
    Yes, it's dated, but it works great still....thanks to ABP.
    And in addition to that, it's a linkage-controlled single pivot. Before specialized changed the meaning of "4-bar", we would have called it a "4-bar", because there are 4 main parts, frame, linkage, seatstay, chainstay. Typically this allows for a very controlled ride with a good shock-rate, as opposed to simple single pivot bikes that have more drawbacks.

    With one chainring up front, you can get a fairly optimal pivot placement with such a design. With more chanirings it gets a little more difficult, but ABP and two-ring setups mitigate this to a large effect.

    Although I may feel that some designs are a little better, these types of single-pivot bikes are still darn good and I wouldn't pass them up unless they were either simple single pivots like old cannondales, santa-cruz bikes, etc, or very low-pivot linkage bikes like Lenz, Kona, some others. With the former you get a less active ride due to the chain tension that tends to stiffen and cause problems maintaining traction up rough uphills, and with the latter it tends to bob so much that they use shocks with very stiff compression settings, kind of creating the same problem in a different way.

    But, a decently designed single pivot, especially with a one-ring setup (lots of DH bikes, a couple new single-ring XX1 setups) works great and some of the well designed bikes like the ABPs are also pretty darn good.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  14. #14
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,250
    do u still ride an FXR? those were pretty rad

  15. #15
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,975
    Quote Originally Posted by FoShizzle View Post
    do u still ride an FXR? those were pretty rad
    That was a horrible bike (linkage actuated SP). Horrible shock that was sent back 3x. Horrible scissor-link that used like a 6" long bolt that kept bending (because it was 6" long), and very limited ability to actually put in a good shock, although I got a DHX in there. I went through a few other mediocre bikes before the turners, which were actually designed pretty well for a change. The one good thing about the foes was that every design aspect was intended to make it laterally "stiff", but other than that they dropped the ball.

    My enduro 29er doesn't pedal exceptionally well, just "ok" up steep hills, it's definitely no better than many single-pivot bikes...contrary to what specialized would like people to believe.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SteveF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,978
    You could call it dated or you could call it timeless. It's simple and it works well, especially with a platform-valved shock. I think it's still a solid choice for a lot of riders...especially those who follow the KISS principle.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,969
    Quote Originally Posted by FoShizzle View Post
    the only thing more outdated than a single pivot is a hardtail, both require significant retardation to purchase
    I hope you're being sarcastic.
    2016 Santa Cruz Hightower 29er
    2016 Chromag Surface 27.5+
    2013 Transition TransAM 29er

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,969
    Single pivot bikes are a proven design. If you look at many full suspension bikes today they're linkage driven single pivots. They're are many single pivot bikes for DH, XC, AM, etc. To see say single pivot is dead is silly. Yes its been around for awhile but its continues to be improved upon and it'll always be around.

    For example, the 90s saw URT single pivots (unified rear triangle). That evolved into more advanced single pivots like the SC Heckler, Butcher, Yeti 575, Spec. Status, the list goes on.
    2016 Santa Cruz Hightower 29er
    2016 Chromag Surface 27.5+
    2013 Transition TransAM 29er

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    341
    Riders on linkage-activated single pivots are a) kicking butt in every mtb discipline at elite levels; b) having fun on their bikes.

    So no, single pivots are not outdated, despite boutique mini-link marketing and it's syncophants to the contrary.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by FoShizzle View Post
    the only thing more outdated than a single pivot is a hardtail, both require significant retardation to purchase
    +100! Absurd threads necessitate absurd replies

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,715
    Quote Originally Posted by DukeNeverwinter View Post
    And remember. FSR is old also. So is GTs iDrive.


    They all work really well.
    And so is VPP and for that, most mini-link designs. What has improved most suspension bikes is not the design but the shocks and the geometry. That has made the absolute biggest difference. Single pivot bikes can still be very, very good. The Super-light is still one the most under-rated bikes out there.
    On MTBR, the reputation is infamous.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kubikeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    772
    Go ahead, I double dare you to tell the Atherton's that single pivot is dead.
    The cake is a lie.

  23. #23
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,975
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus View Post
    And so is VPP and for that, most mini-link designs. What has improved most suspension bikes is not the design but the shocks and the geometry. That has made the absolute biggest difference. Single pivot bikes can still be very, very good. The Super-light is still one the most under-rated bikes out there.
    Disagree with that, at the very least the first generation superlight was a pretty flexy semi-active design. The elevated chainstays and "swingarm post" style allows the rear end to twist without much more than the shock to try and keep it straight. Although you can make the main pivot larger, it doesn't really do a lot to keep the rear end from twisting, as it's a giant lever. This is one area where linkage bikes are often quite a bit better, although it's possible to screw those up too and make a flexy bike. Then you add the semi-active nature and usually aggressive climbing aids, and you got something that is fairly far from optimal. Is it horrible? Well no, people ride it and do ok. Is there much better stuff available? Yep.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus View Post
    The Super-light is still one the most under-rated bikes out there.
    Agree

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Disagree with that, at the very least the first generation superlight was a pretty flexy
    I have heard of people with larger Superlights having flex issues, but my medium is stiffer than my VPP 29er.

    semi-active design.
    Semi active is simply an incorrect label. Unless you want to call any bike that uses chain tension to provide anti-squat as semi active. Which would be most of them.

    It is true that there is more brake squat on the Superlight and similar designs. Which can be good or bad, depending on the situation, or your preference.

  26. #26
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Bulldozer27 View Post
    +100! Absurd threads necessitate absurd replies
    I disagree. This thread is not absurd...not if you are of the Amish community, retarded, or happen to be a retarded Amish Mennonite

  27. #27
    I ride bikes
    Reputation: moefosho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,379
    Is the single pivot outdated? I would say yes.

    Does it still work pretty dang well and keep things simple and light? I would say yes.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Disagree with that, at the very least the first generation superlight was a pretty flexy semi-active design. The elevated chainstays and "swingarm post" style allows the rear end to twist without much more than the shock to try and keep it straight. Although you can make the main pivot larger, it doesn't really do a lot to keep the rear end from twisting, as it's a giant lever. This is one area where linkage bikes are often quite a bit better, although it's possible to screw those up too and make a flexy bike. Then you add the semi-active nature and usually aggressive climbing aids, and you got something that is fairly far from optimal. Is it horrible? Well no, people ride it and do ok. Is there much better stuff available? Yep.
    Yup, the SL almost locks out on climbs and is one of the few SP bikes that I can feel a brake effect on but is still one heck of a fun bike. Is there stuff that is better. Sure, but for the price and simplicity, it is friken killer deal.
    On MTBR, the reputation is infamous.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fix the Spade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,721
    Quote Originally Posted by mic43 View Post
    but in actual riding Is there really a large difference between the single pivot and more contemporary designs if one does apply some value to simplicity.
    You have it the wrong way round, the various four bar systems are products of the nineties, when shocks were rubbish and manipulating chain growth was the most effective way of reducing pedal bob in lieu of proper damping.

    Fast forward nearly two decades and a number of very large brands are still pushing the systems they developed twenty odd years ago. They spent millions on buying the patents, millions on advertising, they need a return on investment and to stick to the image they have built themselves.
    One brand especially has spread so much FUD they've effectively painted themselves into a corner. Even so these designs are (mostly) excellent, two decades of incremental refinement is a wonderful thing, whether the original problem being addressed still exists or not.

    A more accurate statement would be single pivots feel markedly different to four bar designs. Riders will gravitate to the design they like the feel of and for individual tastes one design can be 'better' than the other, but it's all in the user's perception.

    More objectively, if one train of design really were better than the other, you would see it reflected in racing.

    If the idea that single pivots are somehow worse was true racing teams would have ditched them long ago. Instead the most successfull DH bikes over history have been a spread of lots of designs.

    In the nineties, Afterburner, M1 (Horst Link) and the Radical (single). 2000's, VProcess, 222/3/4, RN-01, Stab, Supreme (singles) and the V10, Sunday at the other end (stub links) with a few wins for the Demo (Horst Link) right at the end of the decade.

    So far this decade, it's pretty even yet again for the single pivots you've got Trek, Devinci and GT, for four bars Santa Cruz, Spesh and Mondraker. Although for the record this is defining single pivot in MTB marketing terms, rather than correctly (if being strict, move everyone but GT into four bar designs and thank Mr Sinyard).

    If some all conquering design comes along that's so good all the riders on the world cup adopt it, maybe the assertion that design X is outdated will become true (see, Disc vs Vee brakes, external bearing bb vs square taper/isis, URT vs anything but URT). Until that point anyone declaring single pivots 'outdated' is pushing a product or justifying their spending.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Bravo to Fix the Spade!

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fix the Spade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,721
    It's been a slow day, can you tell

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Fix the Spade View Post
    You have it the wrong way round, the various four bar systems are products of the nineties, when shocks were rubbish and manipulating chain growth was the most effective way of reducing pedal bob in lieu of proper damping.

    Fast forward nearly two decades and a number of very large brands are still pushing the systems they developed twenty odd years ago. They spent millions on buying the patents, millions on advertising, they need a return on investment and to stick to the image they have built themselves.
    One brand especially has spread so much FUD they've effectively painted themselves into a corner. Even so these designs are (mostly) excellent, two decades of incremental refinement is a wonderful thing, whether the original problem being addressed still exists or not.

    A more accurate statement would be single pivots feel markedly different to four bar designs. Riders will gravitate to the design they like the feel of and for individual tastes one design can be 'better' than the other, but it's all in the user's perception.

    More objectively, if one train of design really were better than the other, you would see it reflected in racing.

    If the idea that single pivots are somehow worse was true racing teams would have ditched them long ago. Instead the most successfull DH bikes over history have been a spread of lots of designs.

    In the nineties, Afterburner, M1 (Horst Link) and the Radical (single). 2000's, VProcess, 222/3/4, RN-01, Stab, Supreme (singles) and the V10, Sunday at the other end (stub links) with a few wins for the Demo (Horst Link) right at the end of the decade.

    So far this decade, it's pretty even yet again for the single pivots you've got Trek, Devinci and GT, for four bars Santa Cruz, Spesh and Mondraker. Although for the record this is defining single pivot in MTB marketing terms, rather than correctly (if being strict, move everyone but GT into four bar designs and thank Mr Sinyard).

    If some all conquering design comes along that's so good all the riders on the world cup adopt it, maybe the assertion that design X is outdated will become true (see, Disc vs Vee brakes, external bearing bb vs square taper/isis, URT vs anything but URT). Until that point anyone declaring single pivots 'outdated' is pushing a product or justifying their spending.
    Downhill racing is a very one-sided aspect of suspension design. Pedaling performance is basically irrelevant. Modern trail/all-mountain bikes need to pedal well and descend well.

    Edit: So if anything, single pivots ought to hang around the longest in DH bikes, and I think in general, that's what you see.

    It will be interesting to see what happens now that the Horst Link design is in the public domain in America. It adds almost no mechanical complexity relative to linkage-driven single pivots, so it's hard to think of a reason for not moving to it.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    940
    What TG said - 25 yrs of refinement and it works and works well - not perfect - but hey - there is no "prefect" be all, do all suspension design out there - if there was everyone would either be riding the same bike or all bikes would be the same in the FS category...

    i just appreciate that technology in FS mt bikes has incrementally increased in recent years - you have to try pretty hard to get a "crappy" bike nowadays... (im not inc the low spec, dept store stuff here - legit bike shop stuff)

    anyhoo - good thread - and it's great to have choices for our individual needs and riding styles

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,384
    Quote Originally Posted by kamper11 View Post
    What TG said - 25 yrs of refinement and it works and works well - not perfect - but hey - there is no "prefect" be all, do all suspension design out there - if there was everyone would either be riding the same bike or all bikes would be the same in the FS category...

    i just appreciate that technology in FS mt bikes has incrementally increased in recent years - you have to try pretty hard to get a "crappy" bike nowadays... (im not inc the low spec, dept store stuff here - legit bike shop stuff)

    anyhoo - good thread - and it's great to have choices for our individual needs and riding styles
    It is still worth pointing out that IP is a big part of why there are so many single pivots. Almost all of the existing designs that actually improve upon suspension performance are protected. So the options are license one of them (money), develop a new one (lots of money), or use a single-pivot. Now the Horst Link is fair game, so it will be interesting to see where things go.

    Edit: And all you have to do is look at Europe, where there are many companies using Horst Link suspensions.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fix the Spade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,721
    Quote Originally Posted by hillharman View Post
    Edit: And all you have to do is look at Europe, where there are many companies using Horst Link suspensions.
    But still many more using single pivots.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Quote Originally Posted by hillharman View Post
    It will be interesting to see what happens now that the Horst Link design is in the public domain in America. It adds almost no mechanical complexity relative to linkage-driven single pivots, so it's hard to think of a reason for not moving to it.
    There's a really good reason to not move to Horst: Because I like my single pivot better.

    As Fix the Spade said so well:

    A more accurate statement would be single pivots feel markedly different to four bar designs. Riders will gravitate to the design they like the feel of and for individual tastes one design can be 'better' than the other, but it's all in the user's perception.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fix the Spade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,721
    Quote Originally Posted by hillharman View Post
    Downhill racing is a very one-sided aspect of suspension design. Pedaling performance is basically irrelevant.
    Sorry to be rude, but do you ever watch or take part in downhill? Pedaling is critical, not simply pedaling, but being able to stay full gas across uneven ground and get those extra turns of the crank.

    If a design doesn't work under power, it's no more obvious than in DH, because the rider won't pedal, or they'll lose time when they try.

  38. #38
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,975
    Quote Originally Posted by Fix the Spade View Post
    Sorry to be rude, but do you ever watch or take part in downhill? Pedaling is critical, not simply pedaling, but being able to stay full gas across uneven ground and get those extra turns of the crank.

    If a design doesn't work under power, it's no more obvious than in DH, because the rider won't pedal, or they'll lose time when they try.
    Thats not the point. DH bikes do not need to deal with a changing chainline, which is what you get with a non-DH bike. Higher pivot SP bikes did ok in the middle ring, but switch to the granny and that pivot is effectively much higher, the bike now pedals better, but chain tension now interferes with bump absorption much more. With a DH bike that doesn't have to shift front rings, this is not an issue and you only need to account for one chainline. Single-ring single-pivot bikes tend to work very well with the proper-range gear up front. You simply can't do this with an XC bike intended to use multiple rings up front.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Fix the Spade View Post
    Sorry to be rude, but do you ever watch or take part in downhill? Pedaling is critical, not simply pedaling, but being able to stay full gas across uneven ground and get those extra turns of the crank.

    If a design doesn't work under power, it's no more obvious than in DH, because the rider won't pedal, or they'll lose time when they try.
    Jayem beat me to it, but I guess I should have said: the kind of pedaling one does on a DH bike is a very narrow type of pedaling. Bikes intended for climbing and descending require good pedaling and suspension performance across a wider range of gearing.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    SP bikes did ok in the middle ring, but switch to the granny and that pivot is effectively much higher, the bike now pedals better, but chain tension now interferes with bump absorption much more. With a DH bike that doesn't have to shift front rings, this is not an issue and you only need to account for one chainline. Single-ring single-pivot bikes tend to work very well with the proper-range gear up front.
    If you are in the granny, that means you are climbing. Many suspension designs use chain tension to stiffen the rear end for pedaling efficiency. Other designs do not get around this same basic compromise.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fix the Spade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,721
    Quote Originally Posted by hillharman View Post
    the kind of pedaling one does on a DH bike is a very narrow type of pedaling. Bikes intended for climbing and descending require good pedaling and suspension performance across a wider range of gearing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Thats not the point. DH bikes do not need to deal with a changing chainline, which is what you get with a non-DH bike..
    That's not really relevant or true, all suspension designs (except URTs and concentric bb pivots) have an ideal chain ring size.

    Some are less sensitive to it than others, but even within single pivots the importance changes between designs. On my old Prophet 36t was best, end of, on my Cotic now anything from 22t to 38t feels just fine, it's a little less tractable in the 22t, but the difference is less marked than on a Santa Cruz (specifically a Nomad, which I spent time on on the way to my Cotic).

    Without sitting down and drawing out the instant centre, it's very hard to tell at a glance how a frame will behave across different chainring sizes. As for XC, the guy with the strongest legs tends to win, the fact that hardtails pretty much own the world cup shows how important suspension is to efficient climbing.

    There are some horst links out there that effectively lock out if you stray outside the ideal chain ring range. You really can't make blanket principal X is better for Situation Y than principal Z statements when there's so much divergence in design and execution out there.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Fix the Spade View Post
    That's not really relevant or true, all suspension designs (except URTs and concentric bb pivots) have an ideal chain ring size.

    Some are less sensitive to it than others, but even within single pivots the importance changes between designs. On my old Prophet 36t was best, end of, on my Cotic now anything from 22t to 38t feels just fine, it's a little less tractable in the 22t, but the difference is less marked than on a Santa Cruz (specifically a Nomad, which I spent time on on the way to my Cotic).

    Without sitting down and drawing out the instant centre, it's very hard to tell at a glance how a frame will behave across different chainring sizes. As for XC, the guy with the strongest legs tends to win, the fact that hardtails pretty much own the world cup shows how important suspension is to efficient climbing.

    There are some horst links out there that effectively lock out if you stray outside the ideal chain ring range. You really can't make blanket principal X is better for Situation Y than principal Z statements when there's so much divergence in design and execution out there.
    No one is making the argument that every virtual pivot design is better than every single pivot design, just that there are advantages to balancing pedaling performance versus suspension activity present in virtual pivot designs relative to single pivot designs. At any rate, linkage driven "single pivot" is just a particular kind of four-bar linkage. Virtual pivot is a larger class of four bar designs that can in principle approximate single pivots at the limit. So this argument is uncontroversial in that sense.
    Last edited by hillharman; 07-19-2013 at 02:18 PM. Reason: clarity

  43. #43
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,975
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    If you are in the granny, that means you are climbing. Many suspension designs use chain tension to stiffen the rear end for pedaling efficiency. Other designs do not get around this same basic compromise.
    It depends on how it's implemented. If the "chain tension" is only enough to offset pedaling forces, then it's perfect. If it's more than necessary (such as a high pivot bike) then it's going to be too much and not allow the suspension to react to bumps. There seems to be some sort of idea that things can "never get any better" than they are. It seems like you are thinking back in the 90s when there were only high-pivot bikes with lots of chain tension, which caused many less than desirable characteristics. With virtual pivot bikes we can place those pivot points in places that allow for a much better compromise and are not just "one way or the other".
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,493
    The single swing arm style single pivot can be a bit flexy. Surprising how if you stiffen up the front end with the taper steerer and or large dia stanchion fork then rear flex almost disappears and tends to just follow the accurate front.


    I've had virtual pivot and single pivot bikes. My current crop of bikes are 1/2 and 1/2. All have linkage driven shocks though which dramatically changes the leverage ratio profiles. I actually like the way the high single pivot without linkage ride with their regressive suspension curve. They usually have lots of anti-squat and firm initial travel that gives instant acceleration and great smooth climbing ability. They also usually still have a lush mid-stroke but blow through to use all the travel. Ends up being a great efficient pedaling bike for all day seated rides that gobble up tree roots and seated g outs. They can tend to be a bit more choppy descending trail chunder than similar travel virtual pivot bikes.

    Some my virtual pivot bikes had less usable travel as they were too progressive at the end of the stroke.Some were way to active and bobbed to much on smooth climbs. So each design can have it's merits. Just need to know what you like in a bike. IMHO pivot posn is as if not more important. To my mind many of the virtual pivot bikes are way over priced for the benefits.Does the average rider even notice ? Some of my single pivot bikes, like my Meta's, are great smooth climbers as they have gobs of anti squat which actually increases as you add more sag. The draw back is pedal feed back[ which I actually like for climbing and acceleration] and stiffening under brakes. Is that really a huge problem?. Just need lots of travel and careful use of the brakes. Turner 5 spot and Burner also have a high pivot . As a result the anti squat, brake squat and pedal feedback figures are high and along with the leverage ratio profiles are very similar to my lowly single pivot Meta's. Everybody goes on about how well the Turners climb not about brake squat and pedal feedback. Once again how much does the average rider actually notice? What previous bike mag reviews used to call great climbing ability they now bemoan pedal feedback. Now some bike mags call a great climber something with little pedal feedback on tech climbs but bob on smooth climbs? You can't win.

    I don't quite understand peoples arguments about how a virtual pivot bike enhances smooth climbing compared to a single pivot?Multiple or single chainrings it doesn't matter. You all climb on the smaller ring with more antisquat and descend on the big ring with lower antisquat. No relevance to suspension design.Smooth climbing is is dependant on both shock tune and antisquat at sag and it's related pedal feedback,which is usually dependant on pivot posn.Sure pedal feedback is reduced on the VP bike compared to the single pivot as it hits a large obstacle and the suspension compresses. This will enhance it's tech climbing ability for some. I'd rather still have the higher antisquat of the Single pivot to accelerate over the obstacle. Each to their own. I see the virtual pivot major advantage is descending with reducing pedal feedback and lower brake squat. As the suspension moves through it's travel the virtual pivot moves lower reducing the pedal feedback and leverage ratio. So the suspension characteristics are dynamic rather than fixed. I that's why some single pivot bikes , with or without linkage driven shocks feel a little choppier than most virtual pivot bikes on choppy terrain. With some careful trail shock tuning this can be lessened.

    Most Mfg of bikes other than Horst link are lowering antisquat on recent designs and so the associated pedal feedback is reduced. This has the affect of further reducing the gap between virtual pivot bikes and well designed single pivots. I don't think there is any bad contemporary designs and linkage driven single pivot are very similar ride and performance to a virtual pivot bike.The virtual pivot is a bit smoother and feels like it has slightly more travel. But once again some virtual pivot designs may be too progressive and so a single pivot that is more linear and uses it's travel easier would probably be superior.

    You just have to get out and ride each design when you are choosing a bike. Don't discount it on paper. The new Trek Remedy 29er is a perfect example.I'd discount a bike because of geometry before the suspension design these days.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,196
    One needs an adjustable link between the seat and chain stay on a dw link style setup. One could adjust the amount of pedal feedback by adjusting that link. Ya wouldn't need much adjustment..maybe 5 mm or so. That would be enough to change the lower links angle of attack so to speak. One could tune in or out the contribution of the chain to anti bob in the beginning stroke. Or maybe aftermarket eccentrics for that new Yeti? Come on Homebrew Components..
    lean forward

  46. #46
    TR
    TR is offline
    Angry bunny
    Reputation: TR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,894
    I thought Ihad stumbled upon a grave dig from last year but then realised it was a repeat of a thread from last year.
    My 26er Superlight was as good a climber or descender as my Jet9 or Tallboy.
    People who think that single pivot are outdated have probably never ridden a well set up one.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    126
    I have the 2001 Superlight with Sid Fork (Mavic Crossmax wheelset) and the worst thing i hate about it is the vicious brake jack i get when i'm going downhill. It makes the bike feel like a hardtail when i want the benefits of the suspension.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    126

    Can you predict a ride by looking at the bike's design?

    Is it possible to predict how a bike will ride by looking at the design? If yes how would you describe the personality of the Cube AMS 120 - it's got a lot of beefy bearing points - i've circled in red the bearing/pivot spot - all 5!!!
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  49. #49
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,488
    With what seems to be a happy medium towards the outdated SP design based on the amount of posts here, I am fairly confident that my soon to be built 3.2 Superlight 1x 650B bike with a 110mm travel fork will suit me and my XC riding needs just fine in climbing, roll over, braking and descending.
    Last edited by JMac47; 07-20-2013 at 07:37 AM. Reason: typo
    Wait whuuut, who did he tell you that!?!?....

  50. #50
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,250
    Quote Originally Posted by TR View Post
    I thought Ihad stumbled upon a grave dig from last year but then realised it was a repeat of a thread from last year.
    My 26er Superlight was as good a climber or descender as my Jet9 or Tallboy.
    People who think that single pivot are outdated have probably never ridden a well set up one.
    two major flaws. Firstly, topics never get revisited on mtbr. Your 26er also no way could have been as good as a 29er, any 29er...since wheel size is independently the only parameter that matters...other than frame material where if carbon, not much else matters either. I suspect its your retarded accent confusing you.

  51. #51
    TR
    TR is offline
    Angry bunny
    Reputation: TR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,894
    Quote Originally Posted by FoShizzle View Post
    two major flaws. Firstly, topics never get revisited on mtbr. Your 26er also no way could have been as good as a 29er, any 29er...since wheel size is independently the only parameter that matters...other than frame material where if carbon, not much else matters either. I suspect its your retarded accent confusing you.
    Thanks Do.
    Luckily you are still around to put me straight.

  52. #52
    bipolar-roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    808

    We the people ...

    Quote Originally Posted by mic43 View Post
    For example, the rumblefish is on its last year and trek has replaced it with the rocker Fuel EX 29er. I know the newer designs offer more linear response, but in actual riding Is there really a large difference between the single pivot and more contemporary designs if one does apply some value to simplicity.
    I think the question was answered in the original post since the new rocker Trek Fuel EX 29er is a single pivot. It is a rocker driven single pivot, but single pivot none the less. Unless your trying to point out that the new Fuel is still a single pivot like the rumblefish and want to know if this design is outdated. Hard to tell what your getting at.

    Single pivot refers to the rear axle traveling in the path of a circle due to only one pivot determining the axle's path. Rocker, floater or neither, the Fuel's rear axle path is the same motion as every other single pivot.

    So is it the circular axle path that you are asking is out of date?

    If so, then no. I think the new trek fuel 29er that uses a rocker with a floater shows that the single pivots design is not out dated.
    Last edited by singletrackmack; 08-24-2013 at 09:42 PM.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    379
    So what does everyone think of Yeti's new ASR-c 29er with the single pivot design still?

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,558
    2.5 months on a Single pivot Heckler and loving it. i haven't noticed issues when braking, but on rough descents I try to save my braking for when the trail is smooth.

  55. #55
    I ride bikes
    Reputation: moefosho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,379
    The single pivot isn't going anywhere. Weight, simplicity, maintenance, geometry, cheap.

    The ASRC is built for pedaling efficiency so you will probably feel some pedal kickback and brake squat, but if you are used to riding a single pivot, this is nothing new.

Similar Threads

  1. Single pivot K2 attack vs dual pivot?
    By Tulok in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-23-2012, 03:22 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-25-2012, 07:57 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-25-2012, 07:47 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-25-2012, 07:33 AM
  5. Rize Seatstay Pivot/Bearing Design
    By tgoff in forum Cannondale
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-23-2012, 04:21 PM

Members who have read this thread: 6

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •