Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 37 of 37
  1. #26
    Dissolved member
    Reputation: StiHacka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,568
    IMO the equation is simple - the more antisquat - that has much more to do with the main pivot placement than actual suspension design - the more chain growth and sucky climbing over square edges. It is all about the trade offs you are willing to make.

    One frequently ignored element is the front chainring size. The smaller the chainring, the more antisquat and the worse square edge climbing. The same bike will behave *very* differently when ridden with 22T, 28T or 34T chainrings.

  2. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: charging_rhinos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,479
    ^yep.
    tangaroo: What electrolytes do chicken and turkey have again?
    rck18: All of them, because they're meat.

  3. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 53119's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,846
    linkagedesign.com is a pretty cool little site that has quite a big log of bikes to compare and contrast designs.

  4. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,301

    Re: Square edge hits and suspension design.

    Since this is related. How is the leverage ratio interpreted based on this Graph?

    Is the Capra better on small bumps with less resistance in the begging of the stroke than the other 2?
    Which leverage ratio do you prefer and why?
    Linear, progressive, regressive?

  5. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,798
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    Since this is related. How is the leverage ratio interpreted based on this Graf?

    Is the Capra better on small bumps with less resistance in the begging of the stroke than the other 2?
    Which leverage ratio do you prefer and why?
    Linear, progressive, regressive?
    Yes. The way I read it, the Capra wheel moves 3.3mm for the first 1 mm of shock compression. So it is softer at the beginning of travel, but if you figure that normal sag could be 50mm or so, then for normal riding set up they should all feel about the same for small bump compliance at normal sag (actually the Norco is softest at 50mm sag).

    As far as which curve is better, remember that as the shock compresses, pressure goes up in the shock and it is harder to move, so you may want to compensate for that by dropping the leverage ratio (which they all do at the end of stroke).. A coil spring on the other hand is linear.

    If you look at the curves and can tell how the bike will feel, you are a better man than I. The linkage program is interesting, but you can't put too much faith in it. Riding a bike will tell you far more than any graph.

  6. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 53119's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,846
    ^agree. can be used as a rough comparison to something you may not be able to demo BUT geos and ergos along with actual skill level and style are more useful in making a bike work for you.

  7. #32
    Dissolved member
    Reputation: StiHacka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,568
    Leverage ratios alone will not tell you much. Take a look at this blog that also shows charts of antisquat, antirise, pedal kickback; plus you have to consider what shocks will be supplied with these frames. Clear as mud, heh?

    Santa Cruz Nomad III 2015 - Linkage Design

  8. #33
    Dissolved member
    Reputation: StiHacka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,568
    Here is a great article discussing some of suspension design topics from SC's chief engineer Joe Graney. I highly recommend to go through his posts, he is the man.

    Instantaneous Center Migration | Santa Cruz Bicycles

  9. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,306
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    The Norco Sight rides awesome. Horst Link is associated by a lot of people with bobbing and poor climbing efficiency because of older Specialized bikes where the design goal was to maximize active suspension and minimize chain influence. Specialized has changed their suspension characteristics a lot of the last few years.

    These days, priority has been taken away from having a super active rear end during climbing. Now less movement during climbing is prioritized at the expense of small bump compliance. Although DW wants everyone to think only the DW link can do this, all the suspension designs these days can be optimized to perform similarly, and most are performing pretty damn well.
    You can design in any amount of anti squat into a HL bike just like you can in any other suspension design. Check out the Anti Squat numbers for the Norco Sight here:

    Norco Sight Carbon 2014 - Linkage Design
    Yup, all suspension designs have pluses and minuses. And all are designed to work certain ways in specific chainring/cog set-ups. Some of the dw bikes were nice in that they were pretty neutral over the entire range. With that said, there was still some pedal kickback in the lower rings.

    Honestly, I am predicting that the bike of the future will be the one from the past. You can make a HL bike with great anti-squat numbers, little or no pedal kickback and no brake squat. The kicker is that the bike will have a single front ring. Things like the dw link and vpp addressed the short-comings of having 3 rings. Europe has figured this out. Will the US?
    Last edited by Vespasianus; 06-27-2014 at 11:42 AM.
    On MTBR, the reputation is infamous.

  10. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,258
    Quote Originally Posted by StiHacka View Post
    .. the more chain growth and sucky climbing over square edges. It is all about the trade offs you are willing to make.
    Maybe it should be called pivot rape

  11. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,567
    I've owned Horst, DW, 4X4, VPP2 bikes and I've found on our very rocky terrain the shock you use and set up is most important in avoiding getting hung up. For example I had my Fox CTD boost valve shock tuned by avalanche on my Mach 5.7c and it transformed the bike. Whereas the base tune on my chilcotin with ccdba and the bike was great on the square edged stuff.

  12. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,301

    Re: Square edge hits and suspension design.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    I've owned Horst, DW, 4X4, VPP2 bikes and I've found on our very rocky terrain the shock you use and set up is most important in avoiding getting hung up. For example I had my Fox CTD boost valve shock tuned by avalanche on my Mach 5.7c and it transformed the bike. Whereas the base tune on my chilcotin with ccdba and the bike was great on the square edged stuff.
    You give me hope.
    I have just gotten back my rp23 from Avalanche for my 650 SC TRc. Will put it on with a 650b 130mm Pike. Hopefully the bike will not sit too high...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Bandit Suspension design.
    By Douger-1 in forum Transition Bikes
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-05-2014, 05:11 PM
  2. Weight vs Suspension Design
    By PHeller in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-23-2013, 06:50 AM
  3. Brain and initial square hits
    By flafonta in forum Specialized
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-23-2011, 03:08 AM
  4. Replies: 75
    Last Post: 03-15-2011, 05:12 AM
  5. Best Suspension Design for 1x9?
    By Guy.Ford in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 01-15-2011, 11:00 PM

Posting Permissions

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