Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JeffSpicoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    137

    GT suspension vs. Horst vs. VPP vs. DW-Link vs. Maestro

    Just curious how GT's single Pivot suspension stacks up against the usual other suspension variations...Always read about comparisons between other setups but never saw GT mentioned in the same breath....Any info./opinions? Especially to the loyal GT following who have rode multiple setups and designs.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    951
    Wow, that's alot of info your asking for. Hmm? I like the way the I-drives isolate the bottom bracket from the suspension. From the bikes I've ridden: Jamis, Giant NRS, Gary Fisher sugar, and I-drives, I like the feel of the I-drive on climbs because it keeps the suspension working through bumps and roots. This gives you better solid feel traction, It's always plush and eventhough it does bob with the suspension, You're pedaling isnt' really affected. Some of those other suspensions rely alot on chain tightening to negate the suspension movement which makes it a rougher ride and you can loose the rear on rough rocky rooty climbs easier. The maestro works somewhat similar to the I-drive but I don't know the details on that type of suspension. This is my opinion on this so don't hold it to absolute truth. I'm sure there are gurus out there with more knowledge than me. Here's a link to more technical comparison between a bunch of suspension types.

    http://www.mtbcomprador.com/content/category/3/67/105//


    Here's another link to a bunch articles that may interest you.


    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jtalliso/links_bikes.htm



    Enjoy.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    76

    top ten reasons why Independent drivetrain is better

    jorgito.....thanks for the links...except for that pseudo scientific idiot who calls IDrive a perpetual motion machine ......that guy published that thing like 7 or 8 years ago and has ZERO idea of how ID actually works .


    Top ten reasons why ID is better.

    The Idependent drivetrain story

    GT was the first major brand (some might say Pro-Flex, but their sales in comparison to GT were negligible) that produced affordable, functional full suspension with the advent of the RTS that was introduced at Interbike in 1992. The RTS, or “rocker tuned suspension” system, was designed by Jim Busby. Jim Busby has been with GT since 1991. His father was a suspension designer for F-1 and Jim learned much of his technical knowledge by working alongside his father and in his stint in driving in motorsports. Jim is acknowledged today as one of the pioneers in suspension design and is a great rider in his own right. The RTS was a semi-active, high pivot suspension system that used a rocker cam and chain force to effectively “lock out” the rear end when a high amount of chain force was being generated. This meant that when the rider was pushing on the pedals with a great deal of force that the rear end did not move or moved very little. The travel of the RTS was just over 2 inches. The RTS was very reliable, lightweight and many are still on the trail today.
    One must remember that in the early 90’s the holy grail of suspension was travel. Unfortunately the RTS system cannot deliver good performance past three inches of rear wheel travel. This is actually the case with many suspension systems in the market today. As travel increases the inherent flaws in the system become so noticeable that the bike becomes difficult to ride. Jim was working hard to make the next step in suspension since the introduction of the RTS and that new brainchild was the LTS.
    The LTS was the next step in suspension for five reasons
    1. The first edition had over 4 inches of travel at the rear wheel
    2. The suspension was fully active at all times with minimal pedal feedback
    3. The LTS featured sag or positive and negative travel. It followed the terrain up and down.
    4. The LTS ran 100% anti-squat which minimized pedal induced ”bio pacing”
    5. The shock is isolated from frame stress and sideloads and thus did not experience wear or stiction. Suspension designs that use the shock as a stressed member put large side loads on their shocks causing increased stiction, wear and failure along with poor function.

    When first introduced the LTS was hailed as the most advanced suspension design from a major brand when it first was shown at the 1994 Interbike in Anaheim Cal. For 5 years the LTS held sway as the full suspension platform for GT bicycles. As a mature four bar linkage system it had few competitors at that time in terms of function and tune-ability but it had problems that all linkage bikes suffer from and some of these included:

    1. Maintenance: everyone remembers the mind bending squeak that the system could produce when the IGUS bushings developed a nearly impenetrable glaze over them. The use of lightweight bushings was designed to cut weight, increase bearing surface area to add pivot stiffness, and ironically, to reduce maintenance. However this chronic problem was one of the main reasons that Jim moved forward with the invention of the I drive system. Now all mfgs of virtually all linkage systems use heavier yet more durable sealed bearings at all pivot points. However even the use of sealed bearings does not eliminate squeaking, slop or on going service. Only eliminating the pivots completely insures this. This was one of the few aspects of the unified system, exemplified by the Trek “Y” line of bicycles, that was admirable…. from a maintenance standpoint.

    2. Manufacturing: Since the LTS was a four bar linkage there were a total of six
    separate parts that had to be either welded or bolted together very accurately to form
    the functioning rear suspension. The control necessary to achieve this during mfg was
    difficult to establish for less expensive versions. Also at that time bringing the
    cost down further was also difficult due to the prices of suspension components. If you are a GT history buff you will remember the LTS-3 of 1996. This was an attempt to bring LTS function to a lower affordable price. The theory of the foam unit was quite elegant as the shock stiffness was increased or decreased not by preloading but by moving the unit back and forth in a scissor joint. This maintained full travel while varying the spring rate. There was an internal device in the foam that imitated a rebound damper to control the extension of the unit after compression. Unfortunately other mfgs’ who had used elastomer technology had succeeded in trashing the image of elastomers and the LTS 3, and later 4 and 5, did not sell well as a result.

    3. Set up: The set up of full suspension is critical to performance and improper set up can render any system virtually unrideable. The LTS, in it’s last’s iteration in 1997, years ahead of the competition, had three different settings; spring preload, trunnion adjustment, and travel chip adjustment not to mention the damper adjustments of rebound and compression. This plethora of adjustments confused customers and mechanics alike. Any linkage bike with multiple adjustments is subject to improper set up. More is not necessarily better when it comes to set up unless you or your mechanic understand very well the consequences of changes made in suspension tuning and set up.

    4. Function under braking: one of the most well known tendencies of the LTS and linkage systems in general is known as “brake jack” . Brake jack is a ubiquitous term applied to the tendency for the linkage to either extend (hence “jack up”) or compress and become in active during harsh braking. The force of the brake on one of the members of the four bar will push the bar in the direction of brake force. This effect nullifies the benefits of suspension at the time when you need them most. All linkage systems suffer from symptoms of this in varying degrees and form.

    5. Linkage wind up: Wind up is what happens when chain force (and pedal force into the frame) is exerted onto the cassette when climbing or sprinting. The force of the chain on the rear of the bike not only turns the cassette and drives the bike forward it also tries to distort the rear of the bike by twisting the various arms of the 4 bar link. If you recall the notorious Nishiki “Alien” you will remember that the rear end (even though it was a fully welded cro-mo steel structure) of that bike would suffer from “auto shifting” and very poor handling due to the flexibility of the rear triangle. Although the LTS was better than most due to it’s wide spacing of pivots and large bearing surfaces it still suffered from distortion from the BB back through the chain stays. Attempts to mitigate this can be seen in the annual redesign of the bb/chainstay yoke area to eliminate the wrist like flexing of the chainstays back to the rear hub. This same attention to controlling twist can be seen on many linkage bikes today as this inherently weak design is bolstered with ever more amounts of metal thrown at it.

    OK enough techno jargon. Once you understand many of the issues that the LTS, and consequently all linkage designs face, then the next section will make sense. Over time Jim Busby became frustrated with the issues surrounding the LTS and looked for a way to combine the suspension performance of the LTS with the pedaling efficiency of a hard tail and yet would be easy to make and service. Jim threw away the old linkage model and rewrote the book on suspension. The result was the ground breaking I drive.


    1999: ID is born and marks a new chapter in MTB suspension technology. Suspension guru Jim Busby invents a whole new way to suspend the bicycle. The buzz is huge and so is the hype. GT features the technology on 7 models for an across the board roll out designed to leave the competition in the dust. LTS carries on in it’s last year and the final model, the XR-1000, with sealed bearings and FOX air shock is actually the finest LTS ever made and sets the stage for light weight cross country full suspension bikes.

    Idependent Drivetrain
    The ID system, in many ways, is the next step, or the third generation, of suspension design. Why? The ID system achieves one very important goal. It effectively, and actually, isolates the bottom bracket from the rest of the bicycle. This is where “ID” comes from; independent drive train. The ID system is not the I link or the pivot housing or any other part that you see on an ID equipped bike today. It is the theoretical model of leverage points and force positioning of the various components of a linkage system. An ID full suspension bike actually is still a 4-bar in some ways but the linkages have been rearranged to eliminate virtually all of the issues of any suspension design to date. This uniqueness and function is borne out by the many global patents that GT possesses on the ID system. Also it must be noted that the ID system is the only bicycle suspension that is not derived from motorsports. It is a system designed for the unique demands that human locomotion places on a bicycle drive train and hence makes the most of the small amount of power (relative to a gas engine) that humans can generate. It is this efficiency of power transfer that is one of the main reasons that ID system be ridden to be appreciated. The ID system truly feels like it is adding power to your pedal stroke in comparison to any other suspension system.

    Why ID is better
    1. It is has an independent BB (or drive train).
    The suspension does not affect the drive train and the drive train does not affect the suspension. There is chain pull but the I link and the pivoting BB cancel it out.
    2. There is only one main pivot
    The only suspension pivot in the ID system is the big main pivot. The front and rear triangle are joined together not by a lot of small pivots but by one big one. This means a much stiffer frame and much less service.
    3. The ID system is very easy to set up for optimum function
    The recommended sag on an Independent Drivetrain system is 20%. There is no guess work. If the shaft travel is say 2 inches ( for a six inch bike) or 50 mm, then the sag is 10 mm. Just sit on the bike and pump the shock up until the shock compresses 10mm under your full weight when seated on the bike (No bouncing !!) Once you find this pressure, use a sharpie and mark it on the shock.
    4. Very simple to service
    All the bearings in the system are integrated headset bearings, they are available
    at ANY bike shop. Anywhere in the world. This means you are never stuck
    trying to find special parts in some remote area. Also all you need are two tools
    to service the ID system. A 5mm allen key and a Shimano BB tool. No other full
    suspension system can claim this..
    5. No brake jack
    The I Drive system maintains full suspension activity under harsh braking and remains very neutral. This means that the rider can maintain control and position on the bike no matter what the situation
    6. Rear ward Axle path is best for bump compliance
    When the rear wheel encounters an obstacle the high pivot design of the Independent drive train allows the rear wheel to move back and up…this retains momentum and allows the suspension to handle big square edge hits with east.
    7. Even the consumer on a budget can have I drive
    Other bicycle mfgs’ cannot bring their premier susp. technologies down to lower price points. GT can. The consumer on a budget is not penalized because they cannot afford a $2,000 bike . The least expensive GT bike with ID offers the same susp features and benefits as the most expensive ID equipped bike.
    8. The rear triangle has no pivots
    The rear triangle of the ID system has no pivots in it. There is no linkage wind up. That means all the power from the pedals goes into the drive train to move the bike forward. There are no pivots to wear out or service. There are no squeaks. The frame is very rigid especially over off camber, high speed, rough cornering.
    9. Low center of gravity
    The ID system also concentrates all of it’s mass at the center of the bike by the bb. This makes the bike feel “planted” or very stable and smooth. It also allows the bike to change directions very rapidly as the there is less off axis mass to move. The LTS put the shock behind the seat post and the mass of the heavy coil damper could be felt when moving through fast tight single track.
    10. Uses standard shock lengths
    The ID system is designed to use a standard shock. If it breaks for some reason
    the rider can obtain a new shock very easily. Designs that use a special shock
    doom the rider to using that shock forever.

    Independent Drivetrain is the wave of the future. As linkage systems attempt to evolve they will always be faced with their inherent flaws. One way manufacturers can confront the flaws in a traditional 4 bar linkage bike is to compensate for the problems in the linkage system with a special damper (shock) that has motion limiting capabilities to compensate for the flaws in the suspension design.. This can be done with decent effect but in fact it handcuffs the rider to buying a specific shock that they may or may not be able to get and most likely will cost more than a standard shock. Also set up of such systems is usually far beyond the expertise of even most shop employees…..

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: peternguyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,172
    A very good thread i believe, comparing different rear suspension designs, but i think it would be better placed in the 'Bike and Frame Discussion' forum. Here i doubt will get much feedback and in the bike and frame discussion forum there will be a more diverse group of people responding (might be a bit bias here).

    To dirtstar59, that's massive amounts of info, thanks for sharing that with us.

    I myself have an idrive, but i don't feel i can really provide constructive feedback as i have not ridden any other FS designs before. I'm actually investigating others because i hear although the idrive is very efficient, the suspension isn't as active on decents on the idrive (apparently thats why they changed the design for the force and sanction to make it more active but a little less efficient in turn, but not 100% sure on that). So i'm trying to learn about different designs to find which i might find the best suited for me.

  5. #5
    May the Force be with you
    Reputation: norcalchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,028
    good read

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    165
    Awesome read there dirtstar59!

    I'm just glad i'm not the only guy who remembers the RTS, and that the RTS used to win rounds of the world cup.... in Downhill!!!

    I've been riding bikes for over 15 years and have been on many many differant designs from many manufacturers. The thing that keeps me on a GT is that out on the trail i don't notice the suspension at all. I float down the downhills and glide up the up hills with traction and speed on both. I know this is a GT forum, so it's the kind of response you'd expect to see, but everytime something new and shiny comes into our bike shop. i ride it for a bit, and always come back to my iDrives.

    If you wanna find the next best system try the VPP from Santa Cruz or Intense (they are pretty much the same) but then look at the price tag. You could get a very well decked out GT for the cost of the frame set.

    I reccomment going to a good bike shop, getting an iDrive set up correctly for you and going for a test ride. You won't regret it!

    peternguyen, i'm pretty sure the change in the Force and Sanction was just to accommodate the increase in travel. Someone from GT can correct me if i'm wrong on that though.
    Force is still a very very efficient ride.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    23
    I can't agree more, I went from owning a Trek Y5, to a 2008 gt marathon team full carbon.
    It completely blew me away....then I got the 2008 gt sanction.....and if I was blown away by the marathon team....well, I just have no more words to describe the feeling with the sanction....now I just regret not having gone straight into the sanction when I got my marathon team....now it's just in the garage...hahaha

    GT's are the best pedalling full suspention bikes, period.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    27

    linkage question (I never read the forums, hopefully a quick answer)

    I find the BMC APS (advanced pivot system) to more closely resemble a hardtail when climbing than my titus racer X which I belive had a dw-link. Is APS (advanced pivot system) another name for a more commonly found link like the horst 4-bar. Anyone know any other titanium companies using the APS system??
    Thank-you in advance for your help.
    Star

  9. #9
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,063
    I don't see how the I-Drive system has any affect on brake jack. As far as the brake caliper is concerned it is mounted on a swingarm that pivots off the main frame on a single pivot point. I would expect it to react to brake force in an identical manner as a single pivot bike with the swingarm pivot in the same location.
    Keep the Country country.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    76
    the suspension system has no effect on braking forces...typically it is the other way 'round...however if a brake caliper is mounted on swingarm, as opposed to a member of a 4 link system, the force of the caliper does not compress or extend the linkage..it can't as there is no linkage to be affected....the caliper on the end of the swingarm does not compress the swingarm or extend it, it cannot affect the swingarm ....it just slows the bike...as it is intended to do..

  11. #11
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,063
    I guess I wasn't clear enough for you. The brake torque tries to push the swingarm down, extend the shock. This happens on a single pivot bike with the swingarm pivot in the same place as the iDrive's main pivot (I've owned a few). Contrary to Dirtstar's essay I don't see how the iDrive linkage will change that characteristic.
    Keep the Country country.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    76
    you were plenty clear. many people many mistake weight shift / fork compression for brake jack...the LTS had it...the dreaded stinkbug....but if you pedal an i drive on a flat surface and apply only the rear brake the shock will neither compress or extend...it was a key obstacle for Busby to overcome with idrive and why the first dh bike using idrive was so loved by Steve Peat.....so I am going to agree to disagree with you on the effect of a brake caliper on a swingarm....

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    165
    Dirtstar spot on once again! Not all single pivot bikes suffer from brake jack. Pedal bob maybe????? But believe me when your on a bike that jacks, you deffinately know for sure!

    Lelandjt, i guess your just gonna have to take an iDrive for a test spin to see for your self.
    I'm Ron Burgundy?

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    257
    Thought this site might be of interest. This is one of the original GT, Jim Busby patents. The diagram look familiar? They (Maverick)have been paying royalties to GT for years and is why Trek ended the Klein Palamino. Didn't want to pay royalties to a rival.

    http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?...DISPLAY=STATUS

    http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/images4/PC...0/99065760.pdf

    Diagrams start on page 28 of second link.
    Last edited by lml427; 04-20-2009 at 06:53 PM.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    76
    and the maverick design and the seven full suspension design as well....from what I hear the old Klein facility in Washington used to make the Maverick and I guess they thought they could make Klein fullies just like the mavericks.....except they did not know that Turner , who licensed the patent from GT and Busby was not allowed to grant his own license....therefore no more Klein.....another interesting patent story is the one version of a 4 bar linkage Busby designed (never brought to market) and then it was "iterated" by the guys at Felt.....and then turned into their new full suspension....

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nato_the_greato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    312
    I used to work at a Maverick dealer. They're sick bikes, but they're wicked expensive, so I never bought one for myself. My GT Marathon reminds me a lot of the Mavericks, and now I know why.

  17. #17
    May the Force be with you
    Reputation: norcalchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,028
    Very interesting

  18. #18
    My gloves stink
    Reputation: Appendage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,439

    Switching from DW Link to I-Drive

    I'm coming off an Iron Horse MkIII with DW-Link. The frame cracked. I'm switching the parts to a Force frame that I just bought from Norcalchico. Once I get it built up and have taken it for a few good trashings I'll let you guys know how the two compare.
    I dreamed I ate a 10 lb marshmallow. When I awoke, my pillow was gone.

  19. #19
    My gloves stink
    Reputation: Appendage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,439

    ID vs DW Link comparison

    Okay, as promised, by long awaited DW Link - Independent Drivetrain comparo.

    I've been riding a DW Link bike for about 2 years- an Iron Horse MkIII. I recently broke the rear triangle a second time and decided the heck with it. I bought a used Force frame from Norcalchico (thanks, Tim!) and put all my MkIII parts on it. Both bikes use a 7.5" shock, so along with everything else, I am using the Cane Creek AD-12 I had on the MkIII on the Force.

    Both bikes are 5-6" travel trail bikes. Dave Weagle (DW) recommends little to no compression damping for the DWL. When I put the AD-12 on the Force, I made no adjustments other than air pressure to achieve 20% sag. Recommended sag for the DWL is 25-35% and 20% for ID.

    I rode on fire roads with lots of square-edged rocks, rough, occasionally steep, and with some big water bars (wheee!). I spent about 80 minutes climbing and less than half that coming down. I've ridden this route probably 20 times on the DWL. Today, I took the worst lines I could find and put a variety of stresses on the ID.

    Cut to the chase: although different, the two systems both work great and I think most riders would be happy with either one. (I know that comment will cause DWL fans to roll their eyes but that's my observation based on my experience.)

    Okay, the comparison:
    Seated bob: none on either system. Advantage: neither (or both).
    Standing bob: Significant bob when pedalling out of the saddle with both systems, but it's worse with the DWL. Both will bob less during high-torque, low-turnover pedaling. Advantage: ID.
    Climbing: both systems remain active under climbing, even low speed, steep climbing in the granny ring. Both dig in well on sketchy, loose stuff. But the DWL seems more active and supple. Typically, on this particular climb, it will use nearly all of its shock stroke. The ID appeared to use about 75%. Advantage: DWL
    Pedal feedback: negligible on both systems. Advantage: neither
    Descending: both work great and make my Pike feel overmatched by the rear suspension. Advantage: neither
    Brake jack: The DWL is free of brake jack. I didn't notice any with the ID today, but it wasn't the best test venue for it. Advantage: neither (preliminary)
    Big air: sorry, I don't do big air.
    Launchability: I don't know what else to call this. You come to an obstacle (or puddle) and want to float or jump over it. So you throw your weight down to compress the rear shock, and then use the rebound to help boost your takeoff. Right? But it doesn't work so well with the DWL. It has a way of absorbing the energy you put into compressing the shock- it just goes nowhere. It has a dead feel. (No, it's not the rebound damping). The ID returns a lot more of that energy back to you. I like that. Advantage: ID
    Ease of maintenance: The ID has two identical major pivots, both of which can be serviced without inference from the cranks. DWL has 2 link pivots behind the chainrings, seatstay/rocker pivots, and a main rocker pivot. Avantage: ID
    Feel: They feel more similar than different, but let me try to describe this anyway. The DWL has a plush, bottomless feel to it. The sag puts you deep into the pocket of squish. In fact, that's how the DWL fells to me- squishy. I don't mean that it bobs, because it doesn't. It just feels squishy, like a beached jellyfish. ID has a more muted, subtle feel to it. It seems to wait a fraction of a second longer before beginning its compression stroke when a bump is encountered (I noticed this during climbing). It feels like a more energetic pedaler, but I don't know if it really is. But like I said, they're more similar than different. Advantage: I report, you decide. It's totally subjective. But then, so is this whole thing.
    I dreamed I ate a 10 lb marshmallow. When I awoke, my pillow was gone.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: liam2051's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    850
    Im taking delivery of my first DW link bike tomorrow, but having said that, Ive had comparable saddle time on both the Idrive and the DW link, and being honest they are both brilliant, they take my top 2 anyway! Now which is better Im yet to decide, but both systems are far better than anything else ive ridden (alot!)

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    257
    I purchased a 2.0 I-drive in 2001. Broke frame and while waiting for the replacement frame I bought an Specialized FSR. Couldn't wait to get back my I-drive. Got a 2003 replacement frame and sold the FSR. The bike has been updated with XT Mavic 819 wheels,King headset,Thomsom stem and post, DT XM 180 shock(awesome). This is a heavy bike but I still enjoy riding it. It is plush, climbs great and it just works. I may never sell this bike.

    Now to the point. In April I purchased a Mojo SL, XT build and I will try to write a comparison at some time. The bike has been in the shop 2/3's of the time I have owned it. The Fox RP23 was RA'd under warranty, I just sent it to Push instead. Then on an easy ride on my local trail, the Fox Talas RLC fork collapsed, still had the air in it, it just sank. More down time. Still enjoying my I-drive.

    Initial impressions:
    I-drive is plush, great climber all day trail bike, a little sluggish on initial acceleration (may just be the 4-5 extra lbs.), when standing and mashing pedals suspension compresses. No bob when seated, no brake jack.

    Mojo SL DW link is a quick very active suspension. A little firmer on climbs, jets up hill. No bob or brake jack, when standing mashing pedal the bike almost acts like a hardtail, no squat. The suspension is confidence inspiring, I do more and harding things on this bike.

    As it stands I like both DW link and I-drive. I would like to try the newer version of I-drive and may be interested in a Force frame.
    Last edited by lml427; 07-16-2009 at 10:40 AM.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    951
    Great review appendage! I only have GTs so I got nothing to compare them to. Maybe I can borrow my buddy's Titus Ti Racer X. Only if I had a comparable GT. My 2001 is too old to compare to his 2008 Titus. Still a great bike for its age though.
    2009 GT Marathon Team,GT Force 2.0, GT Jelly Belly TT (nude carbon), and a very special Todd Wells Zaskar.

  23. #23
    My gloves stink
    Reputation: Appendage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,439

    Baffling

    Quote Originally Posted by lml427
    when standing mashing pedal the bike almost acts like a hardtail, no squat.
    This baffles me. Other DWL riders insist their bikes don't bob when standing. I've been all over this on the IH forum. Dave Weagle himself told me the problem must be the way I pedal and suggested I send him a video of me pedaling so he could diagnose the problem (I never did).

    So I met 3 other MkIII riders at Annadel State Park we hit the trails together. When we came to a paved climb, I had the other 3 guys line up abreast and asked them to climb the grade out-of-saddle. I trailed behind them and watched for bob. Yup, Bob was there- big time, just like what happens to me. One guy minimized it by shifting his weight forward and using his arms to stabilize his hips. But you can do that with any suspension system. My conclusion: don't tell me your DWL doesn't bob- it does! I seen it!

    Of course, I was riding an Iron Horse, and you're riding an Ibis. Criminy, the idea of a DWL that "almost acts like a hardtail" during mashing is NIRVANA. Are you using a platform shock?

    The Ibis factor raises another issue- economics. Now that IH is BU (belly-up), if you want a DWL, you're going to drop some serious coinage. Comparatively, ID's are a real bargain, and I'm a cheap bastard. Or, as my brother told me, "You take frugality to a new level".
    I dreamed I ate a 10 lb marshmallow. When I awoke, my pillow was gone.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    257
    I never use Pro Pedal. Since the bike is still in the shop, I can't jump on it and check it again. When standing and pedaling the suspension was active, not really a "bob". I will review whenever Fox decides to return my fork!

    As far as affordability goes. The GT Force Carbon Expert is on sale at Perfomance. Was down to $3199 and there might be even more discount available. Full XT. Would love to demo an X-large.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    257
    I got my fork back from Fox 9 days ago(I don't think it was working right when I got it new, because now it is working great). So I went out riding alot. I don't think there is any way to do a fair comparison of my older GT i-drive and the Ibis Mojo SL. The weight difference is to great. As much as I like i-drive, I have to say once I got the Mojo dialed in,(took my shock pump and notebook out on trail and worked on setuup) it is incredible.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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