Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Baby Bear is in the house
    Reputation: r1Gel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,972

    Trek ABP/DRCV vs Spec FSR - which is more efficient?

    All else being more or less equal (type of bike/amount of travel and wheel size; same shock settings, e.g., both in Trail or Descend mode), which would be considered the more efficient pedaler/better climber?

    E.g., between a 130-mm travel Fuel EX and a 140-mm travel Stumpjumper FSR, which would pedal more efficiently (i.e., less wallow/bob).

    'appreciate inputs from those who have ridden both.

    TIA
    Better to have and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vizsladog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,320
    The fsr. But the norco and Rocky Mountain version of fsr is the best. Plush and pedals well. The trek abp is a single pivot ( plus they are being sued over the abp design they stole for Dave weigle). And the trek design has some noticeable bob. Speci doesn't need the stupid brain anymore. Norco and Rocky Mountain and others have proved that with pivot placement.

  3. #3
    Baby Bear is in the house
    Reputation: r1Gel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by vizsladog View Post
    The fsr. But the norco and Rocky Mountain version of fsr is the best. Plush and pedals well. The trek abp is a single pivot ( plus they are being sued over the abp design they stole for Dave weigle). And the trek design has some noticeable bob. Speci doesn't need the stupid brain anymore. Norco and Rocky Mountain and others have proved that with pivot placement.
    Good inputs. Thanks.
    I've read quite a few reviews of both, and reports of "wallowing" was pretty common regarding the FSR. I guess the most recent version has improved? I know Spesh claims the current Enduro now pedals better. Most of what I've read about the Trek system has been glowing, but no direct mention of pedal bob. This is the reason I wanted to find out from you guys who have actually ridden both.
    At least a couple of reviews of the RM Altitude say the suspension leverage is off
    Norco ART, I've read nothing but good reviews (apart from Bikemag saying there's notable bob in the granny on the Range).
    Unfortunately, I can't test ride any of these, so I have to rely on mag reviews and reports from real world (hopefully) experiences from the folks here at mtbrdotcom.
    Better to have and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vizsladog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,320
    The trek uses a dcrv shock from fox to reduce the bob. It doesn't feel as plush as a fsr bike to me. I must say the giant suspension design is amazing. Plush like fsr and no bob. Same goes for most of the dual link bikes like,santa Cruz vpp,giant maestro, pivots ect. If you could find a deal on a Rocky Mountain or a norco id go that route. They license the fsr from speci and do a better job with it. Sad really.....speci throws the crap brain down our throats and it no needed.

    A stump jumper fsr with no brain bobs,then you are forced to throw levers on the shock,the trek is pretty good but levers are still needed to get it to pedal well.

    Id go with the speci over the trek,better resale better suspension design. The abp is used on the trek to keep the rear from getting stiff under braking. It works ok but I never cared for any of the trek line.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: timmaayyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    161
    I went from a 120mm EX8 with DRCV to a 130mm Stumpjumper 29. The Stumpjumper with more travel pedals just as well uphill as the EX and I'm running more sag too. I didn't care for the DRCV in the rear, I felt like it was harsh in the midstroke and would ramp up on medium sized hits and buck a little. It did feel bottomless though on bigger hits and I was using all of the travel according to the o ring. On the other hand, I run more sag on my Stumpy and have yet to use all the travel and the Stumpy is more plush feeling. Also my avg. mph times on the same trails are considerably faster but that probably has a lot to do with the bigger wheels. The Stumpy 29 is a little more sluggish to whip around but overall I am completely happy with the switch. Hope this helps.

  6. #6
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,271
    I do not agree the FSR pedals better. It squats major under power and steep slopes. It pedals better on flat ground/slopes. Traditional single pivots/APB are opposite slightly, pedal slightly worse on level ground, slightly better up steep slopes usually. With 2x10 gear combos, the single pivot is pretty darn good these days with at least as good brake isolation. I'd say a wash. My old FSR rear end with an avalanche shock pedaled a little better all-around due to the low-speed compression damping and being able to adjust it while still having good high-speed blow-off, but if the slope got steep, it started squating all the same.

    I'd use other criteria rather than how "efficient" one pedals. Both require some "help" from the shock that will make them a little harsher while climbing.
    "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.

  7. #7
    JCL
    JCL is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    381
    Too many factors involved to give an informed answer. At the very least you need to know the IC location and the leverage rate change of both bikes mentioned.

    I'd guess looking at the main pivot locations that they would have fairly similar anti-squat characteristics. A dual or counter rotating link bike like a Maestro, DW or VPP will have more anti-squat than either so if that is your main concern look at those bikes.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    913

    Re: Trek ABP/DRCV vs Spec FSR - which is more efficient?

    Coming off of a rocky mountain element 999rsl, which is FSR-ish, It 'wallowed' when not in T or D on the ctd shock...one of the reasons I didn't like it as a race bike...

    Bottom line. Test ride both. See what you like.
    http://Theclydeblog.org Big guy cycling product tester

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,344

    Trek ABP/DRCV vs Spec FSR - which is more efficient?

    JCL is correct. In and of itself, FSR means nothing. The pivot locations, shock ratio, and shock all determine the ride. A Horst link (FSR) can be designed anywhere from fully active that softens under braking or on the other extreme to act like a high single pivot.
    Riding slowly since 1977.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-02-2013, 10:20 PM
  2. Trek ABP/DRCV vs Spec FSR - which is more efficient?
    By r1Gel in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-22-2013, 03:39 PM
  3. Trek/Fox DRCV Shock
    By Cutbert in forum Trek
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-10-2013, 09:34 AM
  4. DRCV RP2 on a 2008 Trek EX8?
    By jbsmith in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-11-2011, 05:36 AM
  5. DRCV in trek EX 6
    By davechen in forum Trek
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-11-2011, 02:39 AM

Posting Permissions

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