Results 1 to 69 of 69
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498

    Suggestions for a light DW-link / VPP / SI frame

    I'm planning to purchase a full suspension frame for my second daughter, who is now 14 and who will shortly stop growing. So she will ready for a full sized bike.

    I'm inclined towards a VPP/DW-link/Switch Infinity type frame, for the reason that the rigid swingarm and large bearings would (theoretically) provide greater durability than small pivots on the stays (4-bar designs). I also like the idea of anti-squat being provided by the geometry of the suspension rather than by platform shocks, hence I am not looking at single-pivot designs.

    What would be a good choice for a light-weight VPP/DW Link/SI type frame?

    It ought to be in the region of 4-inches of travel (as anything more would be overkill in my view), and if built with XC components should hit around the 22lbs mark without resorting to disposable parts like aluminium cassettes etc.

    Suggestions welcome!

  2. #2
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    28,908
    Quote Originally Posted by joeadnan View Post
    I'm planning to purchase a full suspension frame for my second daughter, who is now 14 and who will shortly stop growing. So she will ready for a full sized bike.

    I'm inclined towards a VPP/DW-link/Switch Infinity type frame, for the reason that the rigid swingarm and large bearings would (theoretically) provide greater durability than small pivots on the stays (4-bar designs). I also like the idea of anti-squat being provided by the geometry of the suspension rather than by platform shocks, hence I am not looking at single-pivot designs.

    What would be a good choice for a light-weight VPP/DW Link/SI type frame?

    It ought to be in the region of 4-inches of travel (as anything more would be overkill in my view), and if built with XC components should hit around the 22lbs mark without resorting to disposable parts like aluminium cassettes etc.

    Suggestions welcome!
    429SL is pretty light, I think you can search for my posts on it on this board where I got the frame weight for my large. If I had to do it again and I had unlimited funds, I'd probably try the Turner Czar, but I have no big complaints and the 429SL has worked out great for me this season overall.

    There are lighter frames though, although I don't know how many dual-link frames are truly/significantly lighter.

    My end-of-race-season thoughts are here, as we just concluded over the weekend: Thoughts on 429SL

    These bikes do not all ride the same or have the same characteristics, just beacuse it has two links doesn't really mean anything. There are two-link frames with low anti-squat that mimic horst-link bikes, there are ones with flat curves (canfield) that mimic what is now possible with single pivot bikes due to understanding of these forces, so makers like Devinci and Evil (and others) are now producing single pivots with relatively flat AS curves to give you good pedaling throughout a significant amount of the travel. The benefit of this is that during situations where the suspension is working (so like all the time for me!) you won't encounter rapidly decreasing anti-squat that lets the rear end mush down and unweights the front. This doesn't take dual links, but according to DW, the dual-link DW bikes are better tuned and the anti-squat curve is a little more beneficial than is possible than with a single pivot bike. I would say this effect is not huge. To further muddy the waters for you, if racing is your only goal, I'd think heavily about something with remote lockouts, but IMO if you aren't a pro that can deal with the constant abuse of running suspension on lockout for climbs and flats, it is a good idea to be looking for a suspension design that is a good combination of compliance and efficiency.

    I will say that it is more common now for the bikes like Yeti, SC, Intense, and others to have that increased anti-squat up through a significant portion of the travel, it's just that it's not because the bikes have dual links. It's a specific arrangement, so you might want to checkout the linkage blog to see what the bike's actual numbers are, and test-ride if you can.

    What kind of weight target are you looking at? Planning on a dropper post? Do you want remote lockouts? Internal routing ok (if it's done well?)?
    "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.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498
    Thanks for the detailed reply, Jayem.

    The bike will be for my daughter, who follows me on tight and twisty jungle singletrack trails. She won't be racing, and she is small and light.

    A light bike will be ideal, because of how slight she is. She'll be able to get away with weight weenie components simply because the won't be as hard on equipment as the average Joe.

    I'm thinking that 27.5" will suit her better than 29" (she will be upgrading from a 24"). No remote lock outs, no FD. Better to keep it simple, just set and ride. 22lbs would be a nice target weight, which is not impossible with the right frame and careful component selection.

    At the moment, some candidates:

    Juliana Furtado
    Pivot Mach 4

    I ride a Yeti SB5 myself. It's great though perhaps not the best for very tight and twisty jungle trails. It would be nice if they made an XC/trail bike with Switch Infinity.

    I'm not what else is out there: Ibis? Intense Spider 275?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    28,908
    I wouldn't immediately discount 29er frames, some like the small pivots, have excellent stand-over and there are some newer carbon rims using better layups now that are significantly lighter, like the Light Bicycle Flyweights, which might suit her perfectly. If she's smaller than say 5'2", then sure, but there are some shorter riders doing just fine on 29ers these days due to the geometry and frame improvements.

    That said, it still might be easier/better to go with a 27.5. The good thing is that at her light weight you can probably go for some pretty lightweight components, so I wouldn't worry too much about the absolute lightest frame weight, you'll probably still be able to make your weight target.
    "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.

  5. #5
    ●●●●●●●●◌◌
    Reputation: phlegm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,833
    I may have some timely info for you Joe.

    My son just turned 10, and outgrew his 24" Opus Fever. This is (was) an aluminum hardtail that we mostly purchased due to the air fork, which is surprisingly difficult to find in bikes of this size. Only change I made was a switch to 1X gearing, with an SLX RD. Weight is 24.5 lbs (first 2 pics).

    His early love of trail riding has waned, so we opted for a more standard bike this time around. While he absolutely does not need full suspension, we opted for a Norco Storm, mostly because of the local shop, and because his friend has an identical bike. It is an XS 27.5, full suspension bike, ALU frame, but with a lesser fork (coil) and lesser groupset. Weight is a massive 31.4 lbs (next 2 pics).

    The significant jump in wheel size if helpful, but this frame is slightly big for him now, and as mentioned it is significantly heavier.

    I pass this along as a reference, because I believe your 22 lb goal is pretty aggressive, especially on a FS bike. That said, I believe it can be done for ~ $5K, assuming new components - that's quite a machine. I would love to see step-by-step pics and details of this build though, as we don't have much in the way of WW kids bikes in this subforum.

    The only question I'd have would be around the need for full suspension. Our trails here are the typical roots, rocks with small drops, which are easily navigable by kids and adults alike on a hardtail. If your daughter is fine with one, then that's probably 2 lbs+ of weight savings right there, and perhaps a more easily attainable goal.

    Suggestions for a light DW-link / VPP / SI frame-20170830_094047-1008x756.jpg

    Suggestions for a light DW-link / VPP / SI frame-20170830_094042-1008x756.jpg

    Suggestions for a light DW-link / VPP / SI frame-20170830_093926-1008x756.jpg

    Suggestions for a light DW-link / VPP / SI frame-20170830_093828-1008x756.jpg

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,090
    Yeti ASR is one of the lightest FS frames out there.
    Small ring in front makes it easier. Small ring in back makes it harder. That blows my mind.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by joeadnan View Post
    Thanks for the detailed reply, Jayem.

    The bike will be for my daughter, who follows me on tight and twisty jungle singletrack trails. She won't be racing, and she is small and light.

    A light bike will be ideal, because of how slight she is. She'll be able to t, which is not impossible with the right frame and careful component selection.

    At the moment, some candidates:

    Juliana Furtado
    Pivot Mach 4


    I'm not what else is out there: Ibis? Intense Spider 275?
    Pivot makes great bikes, well made and quality. Maybe look at the trek fuel ex as well.

    For a light rider I would really recommend a light weight wheel set too. I have this experience, it's more important because the spring rate is so low and the mass ratio. I weigh 120 and demoed a bike with a 10lb wheel set (with tires and rotors and cassette) it was terrible because it could not react to bumps anything like my normal wheels could. Going through a rock garden it was actually hard to see, even though the bike had 170mm of travel that should have soaked up everything way better than my bike I just kept getting bucked around and the wheels wouldn't stay down so I had less control too. Amazing what havoc 4 lbs of unsprung weight can do--but at the same time for a 200lb rider I think it wouldn't have mattered nearly as much.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    294
    Scott frames are light

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,849
    Quote Originally Posted by joeadnan View Post

    What would be a good choice for a light-weight VPP/DW Link/SI type frame?
    Pretty much all 120-150 carbon VPP/DW are around 5.50-6.25 pounds. And in my opinion the difference between the weights, and the uncertainty of the data available, is not enough to drive a decision.

    The only way I can think of to save more in the frame is to get a 100-120 non-VPP/DW. Then you have a few, like NORCO revolver or Scott Spark (both available in 27.5) that are 4.25-4.75. But I think you do pay a price for that in terms of performance on the trail.

    So ... my suggestion is to get the frame you like best, and if you want to save weight do wha tit takes with the components. A 130-150 DW/VPP can be built in the 24-25 pounds range quite easily.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    266
    I must admit that I like the Maestro suspension of Giant. Maybe a Liv Pique frame would do the trick?

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by phlegm View Post
    I pass this along as a reference, because I believe your 22 lb goal is pretty aggressive, especially on a FS bike. That said, I believe it can be done for ~ $5K, assuming new components - that's quite a machine. I would love to see step-by-step pics and details of this build though, as we don't have much in the way of WW kids bikes in this subforum.

    The only question I'd have would be around the need for full suspension. Our trails here are the typical roots, rocks with small drops, which are easily navigable by kids and adults alike on a hardtail. If your daughter is fine with one, then that's probably 2 lbs+ of weight savings right there, and perhaps a more easily attainable goal.
    Thanks for your thoughts, Phlegm. I agree, 22lbs will be aggressive with a FS frame.

    I know that a hardtail will likely be sufficient for most of the rides that my daughter will be riding on, but I also think she might enjoy riding a full suspension more. I remember the first time my wife rode a full suspension bike (a Maverick Durance). She looked at me in utter shock that I had "forced" her to ride a hardtail all the years prior!



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenny7 View Post
    Yeti ASR is one of the lightest FS frames out there.
    Thanks. I looked more closely at the ASR at your suggestion. It ticks all the boxes, save that it is essentially a single pivot design. I know all the trade offs (simplicity and light weight v performance), but at this time I'm inclined to a design by which anti-squat is provided by the linkage geometry.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by litany View Post
    Pivot makes great bikes, well made and quality. Maybe look at the trek fuel ex as well.

    For a light rider I would really recommend a light weight wheel set too. I have this experience, it's more important because the spring rate is so low and the mass ratio. I weigh 120 and demoed a bike with a 10lb wheel set (with tires and rotors and cassette) it was terrible because it could not react to bumps anything like my normal wheels could. Going through a rock garden it was actually hard to see, even though the bike had 170mm of travel that should have soaked up everything way better than my bike I just kept getting bucked around and the wheels wouldn't stay down so I had less control too. Amazing what havoc 4 lbs of unsprung weight can do--but at the same time for a 200lb rider I think it wouldn't have mattered nearly as much.
    The Treks have a split pivot arrangement at the dropout, right? What is the consensus about how they work? I have some reservations about the durability of such a small pivot on the swing arm.

    I completely agree with you on the weight. It is a much more important factor for lighter riders, and, I think, for ladies generally because of their lower upper body strength.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide View Post
    Pretty much all 120-150 carbon VPP/DW are around 5.50-6.25 pounds. And in my opinion the difference between the weights, and the uncertainty of the data available, is not enough to drive a decision.

    The only way I can think of to save more in the frame is to get a 100-120 non-VPP/DW. Then you have a few, like NORCO revolver or Scott Spark (both available in 27.5) that are 4.25-4.75. But I think you do pay a price for that in terms of performance on the trail.

    So ... my suggestion is to get the frame you like best, and if you want to save weight do wha tit takes with the components. A 130-150 DW/VPP can be built in the 24-25 pounds range quite easily.
    Wise words. Thank you.

    This is my thinking. A light rider ought not need so much suspension. In addition 100mm forks are much lighter than those in the 140mm category. So, the ideal solution would be to pair a fork like the step cast Fox with a frame with compatible travel.

    The only nub, it seems, is that there is no such thing as a 100-120mm VPP/DW/Switch Infinity frame. Or am I mistaken?

    For example, if the ASR had Switch Infinity, and assuming that the switch mechanism adds 0.5lbs to the weight, we'd be looking at low 5lbs for the frame. But then I would be able to pair it with a XC fork, which runs about 3lbs rather than 4lbs.

    I guess what I am seeing is that the choice is between a 100-120mm single pivot design or 130-150mm dual link design, with a 2lb weight penalty for the latter, all other things being equal.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by lRaphl View Post
    I must admit that I like the Maestro suspension of Giant. Maybe a Liv Pique frame would do the trick?
    You are right! I just had a look at a review of the Liv. My interest is piqued. I'll have to do more reading and perhaps hit the local Giant dealer.

    A short travel dual link bike for lighter riders. Seems like they have cornered the market?

    The taller BB and old school geometry might work better on my local trails (a small sampling of which is depicted in the linked video).

    https://youtu.be/xgdax8TzzC4


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,849
    Quote Originally Posted by joeadnan View Post
    Wise words. Thank you.

    This is my thinking. A light rider ought not need so much suspension. In addition 100mm forks are much lighter than those in the 140mm category. So, the ideal solution would be to pair a fork like the step cast Fox with a frame with compatible travel.

    The only nub, it seems, is that there is no such thing as a 100-120mm VPP/DW/Switch Infinity frame. Or am I mistaken?
    The only exception is the Pivot Mark 4 with 115 travel. I rejected it because of the looks but you might like. Its declared weight is "as little as 5.2 pounds", probably unpainted size small.

    Quote Originally Posted by joeadnan View Post
    I guess what I am seeing is that the choice is between a 100-120mm single pivot design or 130-150mm dual link design, with a 2lb weight penalty for the latter, all other things being equal.
    Everything else being equal I would call it a 1 pound difference. I went through the same process and I finally picked a Norco Revolver 27.5. This is a Horst four bar, which painted Red is 2148 grams (4.7 pounds), somewhat matching the advertised 1800 grams frame weight without shock, collar and unpainted.

    Final weight is just shy of 22 pounds, see Norco (Rev)Olve(r) Build and Weights

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide View Post
    The only exception is the Pivot Mark 4 with 115 travel. I rejected it because of the looks but you might like. Its declared weight is "as little as 5.2 pounds", probably unpainted size small.


    Everything else being equal I would call it a 1 pound difference. I went through the same process and I finally picked a Norco Revolver 27.5. This is a Horst four bar, which painted Red is 2148 grams (4.7 pounds), somewhat matching the advertised 1800 grams frame weight without shock, collar
    Thanks Davide. Yes, I'll have to look into the Mach 4. I don't think the looks will be deal breaker for my daughter, as long as it comes in Lavender!

    Great job on the Norco. When I said 2 pounds, I meant that 1lb would from the frame and another from the fork, being the approximate difference between a step cast Fox 100mm and say a Fox 34 140mm.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498
    Looks like the XS Pivot Mach 4 has 100mm travel, which will match perfectly with the 100mm Fox stepcast forks.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  19. #19
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    28,908
    Quote Originally Posted by joeadnan View Post
    Looks like the XS Pivot Mach 4 has 100mm travel, which will match perfectly with the 100mm Fox stepcast forks.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I like the low standover on the Pivot frames, I think even the 29ers work well for small people, but they seem to take it seriously (for smaller riders).
    "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.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by joeadnan View Post
    This is my thinking. A light rider ought not need so much suspension. In addition 100mm forks are much lighter than those in the 140mm category. So, the ideal solution would be to pair a fork like the step cast Fox with a frame with compatible travel.

    The only nub, it seems, is that there is no such thing as a 100-120mm VPP/DW/Switch Infinity frame. Or am I mistaken?
    The 429SL is 100mm of rear travel at 5.2lbs. Mach 429SL Carbon - Pivot Cycles | Pivot Cycles | Performance Redefined

    I'm not sure why you think lighter riders need less travel.

    The DW bikes that that 429SL really feel best with 120mm forks. The rear end rides real smooth and well and a 100mm fork really feels like it holds the bike back and that it can't keep up with what the rear is capable of. 120 feels more balanced. Something like and RS-1 might be perfect.

  21. #21
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,405
    Quote Originally Posted by joeadnan View Post
    Wise words. Thank you.

    This is my thinking. A light rider ought not need so much suspension. In addition 100mm forks are much lighter than those in the 140mm category. So, the ideal solution would be to pair a fork like the step cast Fox with a frame with compatible travel.

    The only nub, it seems, is that there is no such thing as a 100-120mm VPP/DW/Switch Infinity frame. Or am I mistaken?

    For example, if the ASR had Switch Infinity, and assuming that the switch mechanism adds 0.5lbs to the weight, we'd be looking at low 5lbs for the frame. But then I would be able to pair it with a XC fork, which runs about 3lbs rather than 4lbs.

    I guess what I am seeing is that the choice is between a 100-120mm single pivot design or 130-150mm dual link design, with a 2lb weight penalty for the latter, all other things being equal.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Why are you dead set on a VPP/SI type linkage?

    Also, weight is irrelevant when talking about suspension travel.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  22. #22
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    28,908
    Quote Originally Posted by litany View Post
    The 429SL is 100mm of rear travel at 5.2lbs. Mach 429SL Carbon - Pivot Cycles | Pivot Cycles | Performance Redefined

    I'm not sure why you think lighter riders need less travel.

    The DW bikes that that 429SL really feel best with 120mm forks. The rear end rides real smooth and well and a 100mm fork really feels like it holds the bike back and that it can't keep up with what the rear is capable of. 120 feels more balanced. Something like and RS-1 might be perfect.
    I disagree, 100mm works great.

    Suggestions for a light DW-link / VPP / SI frame-21077730_10154913365007060_4141870457620873522_n-2-.jpg

    Suggestions for a light DW-link / VPP / SI frame-sportograf-94383519s.jpg
    "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.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Why are you dead set on a VPP/SI type linkage?

    Also, weight is irrelevant when talking about suspension travel.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    My preference is for anti-squat to be provided by the suspension geometry rather than a platform shock. No fiddling with shocks on the ride. I can't trust myself to remember to put the shock on the correct setting when descending or ascending, and am not certain I want to constantly monitor my daughter that she does so.

    The other reason is that I prefer a rigid triangulated rear swingarm pivoting on large bearings, rather than a 4-bar arrangement with small pivots on the chainstay.

    These are just preferences, and am open to persuasion. I am not "dead set" on anything, which suggest a closed mind that is not open to possibilities.

    As for lighter riders, maybe I ought to have said that my daughter, who is very light, will not need much more than 100mm/4 inches of suspension travel, given her experience and skill today. There is a trade off between travel and weight, and at this point I see the equation favouring a lighter frame. This may change in the future as she gets stronger and more skilled.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  24. #24
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    28,908
    Quote Originally Posted by joeadnan View Post
    My preference is for anti-squat to be provided by the suspension geometry rather than a platform shock. No fiddling with shocks on the ride. I can't trust myself to remember to put the shock on the correct setting when descending or ascending, and am not certain I want to constantly monitor my daughter that she does so.

    The other reason is that I prefer a rigid triangulated rear swingarm pivoting on large bearings, rather than a 4-bar arrangement with small pivots on the chainstay.

    These are just preferences, and am open to persuasion. I am not "dead set" on anything, which suggest a closed mind that is not open to possibilities.

    As for lighter riders, maybe I ought to have said that my daughter, who is very light, will not need much more than 100mm/4 inches of suspension travel, given her experience and skill today. There is a trade off between travel and weight, and at this point I see the equation favouring a lighter frame. This may change in the future as she gets stronger and more skilled.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Well, I agree that the DW frames do this as far as anti-squat. There was one short-track race that I did with my shock on "trail" setting, but otherwise I have to go to the open mode, because I can't take the beating after a few laps otherwise. They do pedal well in open and I like how the suspension works overall on my 429SL. Until you start putting out some crazy high watts, lockouts aren't going to be very important anyway.

    Stiffness though comes from something else IME. Yes, my 429SL is ungodly stiff and that's one of the things I like about it, but that's because pivot makes a stiff frame. You can make horst link or seatstay-pivot bikes just as stiff, if not stiffer. This is more about execution. My old Turner 6pack with it's IGUS bushings was great in this respect, the surface area of these provided a lot more stiffness than many bikes I have owned. What you tend to get more with bikes like the Pivot is something that's intended to be ridden season after season, and when it comes time to change the bearings, it's usually straightforward. In the case of many of the larger manufacturers, you often get proprietary shocks or parts and the bike seems to get blown out after a season or two and options to rebuild, re-shock or re-bearing it can be limited.

    Also, suspension kinematics are not dictated by having the "mini-links". The kinematics can be anything from ultra-low anti-squat to way-too-much. With the DW you have an idea what you are getting, but apart from that, you have to look at each frame/manufacturer and see what traits they are designing into the bike. Giant approximates horst-link bikes these days with a falling AS profile. I also wouldn't count on them to produce the stiffest and longest-lasting "mini-link" bike, although I'm not saying their bikes suck, they are a good company making good bikes.

    Yeti, SC, Intense, Canfield and others have a generally "flat" AS profile around 100% through a good portion of the travel. This will give pretty good pedaling characteristics, but again, you have to look at each bike specifically. Use this site to see how much AS a particular bike has: Linkage Design

    Lastly, I think the less travel you have, the less efficiency matters. The exception is that with a good efficient design, like you said you may not have to touch the lockout much, but it is absolutely critical that the bike absorb the bumps and terrain well too, because that's what an FS bike is for. With only 100mm of travel though and a lighter rider, a few percentage points different in efficiency isn't going to make an real difference. Again, she'd have to be putting out massive watts to really make a big difference and then she could probably endure a lockout for climbs and flats. If we were talking an 150mm travel bike, then the suspension design would be a lot more significant IMO, in terms of an efficient one feeling like it accelerates well and a poor one feeling like you are pulling a wet mattress.
    "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.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: racebum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,306
    how light? fuel ex 9.9 is 5lbs if you want a 130 bike. yeti 4.5.....should in theory be light. no idea on exacts. yeti lies often. santa cruz {which i love} makes a strong and reliable vpp but they are not lightest in class.

    if i was going for a 23lb with pedals build i would probably use.....the top fuel 9.9 it pedals nice. very easy to toss around. predictable and as light as an asr-c

    if you used a dt xmc1200 wheelset and xx1 with a step cast 32 , evoke carbon saddle, next bar you could do 22s. only thought is if you would be faster with a dropper even if it does give you a 1lb hit over a masterpiece

    edit> lol just looked at the 2018 top fuel 9.9 complete build. 22.1 lbs

    https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...Code=black_red

    only thing i would change is the handlebar and brakes, next and xtr which by the way can be matchmade to xx1 shifters

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498

    Suggestions for a light DW-link / VPP / SI frame

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Also, suspension kinematics are not dictated by having the "mini-links". The kinematics can be anything from ultra-low anti-squat to way-too-much. With the DW you have an idea what you are getting, but apart from that, you have to look at each frame/manufacturer and see what traits they are designing into the bike. Giant approximates horst-link bikes these days with a falling AS profile. I also wouldn't count on them to produce the stiffest and longest-lasting "mini-link" bike, although I'm not saying their bikes suck, they are a good company making good bikes.

    Yeti, SC, Intense, Canfield and others have a generally "flat" AS profile around 100% through a good portion of the travel. This will give pretty good pedaling characteristics, but again, you have to look at each bike specifically. Use this site to see how much AS a particular bike has: Linkage Design

    Lastly, I think the less travel you have, the less efficiency matters. The exception is that with a good efficient design, like you said you may not have to touch the lockout much, but it is absolutely critical that the bike absorb the bumps and terrain well too, because that's what an FS bike is for. With only 100mm of travel though and a lighter rider, a few percentage points different in efficiency isn't going to make an real difference. Again, she'd have to be putting out massive watts to really make a big difference and then she could probably endure a lockout for climbs and flats. If we were talking an 150mm travel bike, then the suspension design would be a lot more significant IMO, in terms of an efficient one feeling like it accelerates well and a poor one feeling like you are pulling a wet mattress.
    Thanks for taking the trouble for this comment, Jayem. My day job requires me to listen carefully to sometimes complex arguments, and the points you raise are well made.

    The takeaway I have from your comment is that with a shorter travel bike, adequate anti-squat can be provided without the need for dual link designs like DW, SI or VPP. I looked up the curves for the Yeti ASR on the linkage design blog, and this is indeed borne out.

    To put it another way, a short travel modified single pivot design can be an efficient climber. So I should not necessarily discount these, given the simplicity and potential weight savings.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Last edited by joeadnan; 09-02-2017 at 09:35 PM.

  27. #27
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    28,908
    Quote Originally Posted by joeadnan View Post
    To put it another way, a short travel modified single pivot design can be an efficient climber. So I should not necessarily discount these, given the simplicity and potential weight savings.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Absolutely.
    "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.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: racebum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,306
    Quote Originally Posted by joeadnan View Post
    Thanks for taking the trouble for this comment, Jayem. My day job requires me to listen carefully to sometimes complex arguments, and the points you raise are well made.

    The takeaway I have from your comment is that with a shorter travel bike, adequate anti-squat can be provided without the need for dual link designs like DW, SI or VPP. I looked up the curves for the Yeti ASR on the linkage design blog, and this is indeed borne out.

    To put it another way, a short travel modified single pivot design can be an efficient climber. So I should not necessarily discount these, given the simplicity and potential weight savings.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Also agree but more than anything you have to value fit. These bikes feel different. They behave different. If at all possible try to rent a bike for the day of a frame you were considering and ride it. I honestly never really warmed up that much to the asrc and the suspension is not why. The suspension is fine. It's the fit and how the bike felt under me. The Top Fuel was much easier to manhandle. Similar weight. Lighter actually if you keep the front at 100. The asrc is designed around a 4lb 120 fork

  29. #29
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,405
    Quote Originally Posted by racebum View Post
    Also agree but more than anything you have to value fit. These bikes feel different. They behave different. If at all possible try to rent a bike for the day of a frame you were considering and ride it. I honestly never really warmed up that much to the asrc and the suspension is not why. The suspension is fine. It's the fit and how the bike felt under me. The Top Fuel was much easier to manhandle. Similar weight. Lighter actually if you keep the front at 100. The asrc is designed around a 4lb 120 fork
    Then throw on a 1490g 120mm fork.



    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,849
    Quote Originally Posted by joeadnan View Post

    The takeaway I have from your comment is that with a shorter travel bike, adequate anti-squat can be provided without the need for dual link designs like DW, SI or VPP. I looked up the curves for the Yeti ASR on the linkage design blog, and this is indeed borne out.

    To put it another way, a short travel modified single pivot design can be an efficient climber. So I should not necessarily discount these, given the simplicity and potential weight savings.

    Maybe. The Norco Revolver is the first 100 mm travel I own and I thought along similar lines: maybe on short travel a DW does not make such a big difference. I was sort of surprised to find that the bike is less capable than my 150 DW. The Horst bobs, a lot, unless in the trail setting, and in the trail setting it climbs great (what bike would not with a tight suspension) but traction is limited and I really doubt I really doubt a single pivot would be any better.

    Don't get me wrong, it is a very fun bike on smooth trails, but I would not take in places with technical climbs. Forgetting looks, I would get the Pivot Mach 4 without a second thought.

  31. #31
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    28,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide View Post
    and I really doubt I really doubt a single pivot would be any better.
    Most horst-link bikes have steep falling-profile anti-squat that ends up significantly less than 50% at the middle or end of travel. The Revolver is low-AS through the entire travel, it starts at about 82%, goes to about 75% at the sag point, and continues downwards from there. Even the horst-link bikes that have stignificantly more AS will follow the traits that you describe, as they seem to be designed in a static-vacuum, where it's assumed the suspension will always stay at the sag point, where they've engineered around 100% AS, and that's best-case scenario, your Revolver is obviously a lot less than that.

    A lot of horst-link bikes were designed for 2 or 3 rings. It seems that many/most designers haven't fully figured out how to incorperate this for single-ring systems. On the multiple ring systems, the AS would boost up high to around 150% or more in the granny gear, but now with one ring up front, many do not seem to have "re-engineered" the kinematics to flatten the AS profile for the one ring.

    The single pivot bikes on the market today DO flatten the profile, not only with significantly more AS than your bike, but a flatter profile around 100%. This obviously isn't ALL of the single pivot bikes, but there are definitely good examples of this.

    Yeti AS-R Carbon 29'' 2015 - Linkage Design

    Yeti has more AS at the end of travel than yours has at the beginning.

    Cannondale Scalpel 2017 - Linkage Design

    Cracknfail goes from 97% to 91% at the end of travel, very flat profile and again, significantly more AS than your revolver had at the beginning of travel.

    Trek Top Fuel 29'' 2016 - Linkage Design

    94% to 76%, kind of flat-ish, not the best example, still, flatter and more AS than the Revolver.

    Linkage Design: Devinci

    114% down to 93%, very flat profile. I was heavily considering the Devinci Atlas C, but they discontinued it. A year or two went by and they came up with this to replace it.

    But anyways, the Norco Revolver is a very traditional horst-link bike, very low AS and if it had a granny gear, it'd boost the AS significantly, almost as if it was kind of meant to or the engineers never really did anything to the bike except remove the front derailleur mount when single-rings became the standard. Even Specialized has been significantly boosting the AS on their designs, still with a massive falling-profile, but starting out higher and not going quite so low at the end of travel. Once you move to a much shorter travel bike, and as long as it's not falling off massively or starting out at some ridiculously low number, the bike should work pretty well.

    The flatter curves are what the suspension designs lacked for years, of course leverage rate and shock tune are also important, if those aren't designed well the bike won't absorb bumps well, but that's a separate issue from this efficiency issue. It doesn't take fancy dual-linkages to make this work well. Dual linkages do have a couple advantages for being able to design in more AS before the sag point, to help bring the wheel down off the backside of bumps to regain traction, but this and the slightly different braking characteristics are not very significant, the main piece is the flatter profile through the travel, which is easily achievable these days with single-pivot suspension designs.

    Edit: I kind of misspoke, the Norco is a low-AS bike overall, but a fairly flat profile, as compared to many/most other horst-links that have a more radically sloping profile.
    Last edited by Jayem; 09-03-2017 at 03:48 PM.
    "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.

  32. #32
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,405
    Just so we don't get it mistaken:

    Horst =! MSP.




    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: racebum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Then throw on a 1490g 120mm fork.



    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    who makes such a thing? the step cast is a 100mm, is it extendable? sid xx is 1630g claimed. no idea on actual. fox 32 120 is a 4 pounder


    also agree on jayem's point on single pivot. the ASRc was a wonderfully efficient bike. my gripe with it is that it felt big. i never crashed on it however and was able to ride it hard. it was a terrible jumper. tried various combos and it was never truly neutral. the large frame was also 4lb 13oz

  34. #34
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,405
    DT Swiss.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post

    The single pivot bikes on the market today DO flatten the profile, not only with significantly more AS than your bike, but a flatter profile around 100%. This obviously isn't ALL of the single pivot bikes, but there are definitely good examples of this.

    Yeti AS-R Carbon 29'' 2015 - Linkage Design

    Yeti has more AS at the end of travel than yours has at the beginning.
    Thanks Jayem. Your explanations have been very helpful.

    Just to be clear, if I installed a 28T chainring on an ASRc, the anti squat would increase, correct? Because the pivot would be further above the top of the chainring, and the pedaling forces would tend to extend the shock.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  36. #36
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    28,908
    Quote Originally Posted by joeadnan View Post
    Thanks Jayem. Your explanations have been very helpful.

    Just to be clear, if I installed a 28T chainring on an ASRc, the anti squat would increase, correct? Because the pivot would be further above the top of the chainring, and the pedaling forces would tend to extend the shock.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yes, should, increasing much above 120% can start to impact the suspension when pedaling, but it's probably not going to be much above the numbers posted in the blog using a 30t.
    "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.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Most horst-link bikes have steep falling-profile anti-squat that ends up significantly less than 50% at the middle or end of travel. The Revolver is low-AS through the entire travel, it starts at about 82%, goes to about 75% at the sag point, and continues downwards from there. Even the horst-link bikes that have stignificantly more AS will follow the traits that you describe, as they seem to be designed in a static-vacuum, where it's assumed the suspension will always stay at the sag point, where they've engineered around 100% AS, and that's best-case scenario, your Revolver is obviously a lot less than that.
    ...
    The main problem I had with all my Horst bikes (GT STS, Turner 5-spot, Norco) is indeed the more or less pronounced blowing through the travel on large obstacles. Take them up a smooth trail and it is ok, if you are very smooth, run over a small root and it is fine, get into a something bigger and the bike nicely stalls no matter how little rebound you use ... and the only way to fix that is to stiffen the compression and there goes your small bump compliance and traction.

    But, to keep up with the original question, Horsts do come down very well, and the same cannot really be said of single pivots. So, joeadnan, get a DW-link for your daughter, forget about single pivots or horsts! A Mojo 3 will be a wonder bike for her and it is only 5.5 pounds.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide View Post
    But, to keep up with the original question, Horsts do come down very well, and the same cannot really be said of single pivots. So, joeadnan, get a DW-link for your daughter, forget about single pivots or horsts! A Mojo 3 will be a wonder bike for her and it is only 5.5 pounds.
    I'm sure many will disagree that single pivots are poor descenders!

    I'll certainly look into the Mojo 3, but at the moment, the 27.5" frames that fit the criteria for 100mm travel are the Pivot Mach 4 and Yeti Beti ASRc, Trek Top Fuel 9.8 and the Liv Pique. I suspect it will come down to the first two.

    Having said that, I saw that there is small '16 SB5 for sale locally as well as a Juliana Furtado. They are priced reasonably, but will likely be more bike than what my daughter will need.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: racebum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,306
    Did you check Competitive Cyclist. They had the 2016 sb5 and Yeti beti on a massive clearance. I want to say the sb5 was 1600. I'm not sure what sizes they have left in the Beti. Sb5 is a fun bike. You can always set the suspension firm if you want it to Pedal better. You cannot make a 100 bike take a bigger hit.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by racebum View Post
    Did you check Competitive Cyclist. They had the 2016 sb5 and Yeti beti on a massive clearance. I want to say the sb5 was 1600. I'm not sure what sizes they have left in the Beti. Sb5 is a fun bike. You can always set the suspension firm if you want it to Pedal better. You cannot make a 100 bike take a bigger hit.
    I don't think the uphills will be an issue with the SB5. I own one, and it just pedals outstandingly well, better than my hardtail in rough technical ascents. The geometry is not optimized for climbing, but once you have your fore/aft balance adjusted, this bike will just eat up the hills.

    I had a look at the geometry tables for the 2016 SB5, and the standover height is significantly higher compared to the 2017 models: 85mm or more than 3 and a third inches! Despite the fact that reach is shorter by 10mm.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: racebum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,306
    2017 has the dip on xs and s sizes now. the 16 bike didn't that's where the massive difference is. 2017 santa cruz is also going on sale and the 5010 is another popular xc/trail bike. comp cyclist will haggle to 20% off on those

    the sb5 deal is really good if you can live with 142 and the taller stand over. i agree they pedal great and they also sit you up more than the XC oriented asrc.

    bikes are such a get what you pay for thing. just have to figure out what budget you can afford. if you happen to be around portland oregon there is a demo bike around the size you're looking for at a great buy. may be a bit more bike than you were wanting but the price is right

    Trek DEMO Remedy 9.8 Women's - www.bikegallery.com

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,849
    Quote Originally Posted by joeadnan View Post
    I'm sure many will disagree that single pivots are poor descenders!

    I'll certainly look into the Mojo 3, but at the moment, the 27.5" frames that fit the criteria for 100mm travel are the Pivot Mach 4 and Yeti Beti ASRc, Trek Top Fuel 9.8 and the Liv Pique. I suspect it will come down to the first two.

    Having said that, I saw that there is small '16 SB5 for sale locally as well as a Juliana Furtado. They are priced reasonably, but will likely be more bike than what my daughter will need.
    Maybe, but "brake jack" is a problem with single pivots ... hold on your brakes and a bunch or rear suspension goes away, the brake stiffening the suspension in a reaction that makes the rear loose traction. It was one of the problems Horst tried to solve almost 30 years ago.

    And, not to be insistent with the Mojo 3, but 130 vs 100 is not such a big gap. Going uphill my (rev)Olve(r) 100 is maybe just marginally better, on smooth trail, than my HD3 150.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide View Post
    Maybe, but "brake jack" is a problem with single pivots ... hold on your brakes and a bunch or rear suspension goes away, the brake stiffening the suspension in a reaction that makes the rear loose traction. It was one of the problems Horst tried to solve almost 30 years ago.

    And, not to be insistent with the Mojo 3, but 130 vs 100 is not such a big gap. Going uphill my (rev)Olve(r) 100 is maybe just marginally better, on smooth trail, than my HD3 150.
    Based on what I have read recently (thanks @Jayem), it would not be correct to paint all single pivots with the same brush. Looking at the linkage design blog, the ASRc has significant anti-rise (probably a little more than ideal) throughout its range of travel, which suggests that brake jack will not be a problem. I am not an expert of course, but this is what the analysis appears to say.

    I will certainly have a look at the Mojo 3. The real issue is not the 130mm travel by itself, but the fact that I would have to match the rear travel with a suitable fork, and 130mm forks will likely be a pound heavier than a 100mm step cast Fox 32.

  44. #44
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,225
    Check out a Santa Cruz Blur XC carbon. They can be had for cheap and they will take 27.5 wheels. My XL is 22.7LB with 27.5 wheels.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: racebum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,306
    Asrc won't use a step cast. It's a 120 bike. The 34 is 4lbs or a 32 120 is 4lbs

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498
    A number of those who have replied to this thread (racebum & Le Duke) own or have owned a Yeti ASRc. What are you thoughts on long term durability and serviceability of the frame?

    I saw a number of people with corrosion issues with the bearings. If the bearings are corroding in North America, I hate to think what would happen in the 100% humidity here in the equatorial tropics.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that the bearings are also custom made for the ASRc. That may also be a factor to consider, given that Yeti has discontinued the ASRc for 2018. Time spent on faffing around with bearings is better spent on trails.

    Of course, the ASRc would be approx 0.9lbs lighter than the Pivot Mach 4, which makes the 22lbs goal more realistic. On the flip side, the consensus appears to be that Pivots are well made.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by racebum View Post
    Asrc won't use a step cast. It's a 120 bike. The 34 is 4lbs or a 32 120 is 4lbs
    Thanks racebum. I actually had a look at what Yeti says on its FAQs regarding forks:

    "The ASR is designed to run a 120mm fork. Running a 140mm travel fork gives the bike a slacker head angle and a higher bottom bracket. A 100mm travel fork will steepen the head angle and make the steering slightly sharper."

    I don't think running a 100mm fork on our local trails (twisty narrow jungle singletrack) will put the bike outside the envelope of the ability of the rider to adjust to the slightly quicker steering. If necessary, the steering can be slowed down with wider bars/longer stem. We'll see.

  48. #48
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    28,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide View Post
    Maybe, but "brake jack" is a problem with single pivots ... hold on your brakes and a bunch or rear suspension goes away, the brake stiffening the suspension in a reaction that makes the rear loose traction. It was one of the problems Horst tried to solve almost 30 years ago.

    And, not to be insistent with the Mojo 3, but 130 vs 100 is not such a big gap. Going uphill my (rev)Olve(r) 100 is maybe just marginally better, on smooth trail, than my HD3 150.
    Except those horst bikes allowed the front end to pitch during braking on the steeps, which is the exact opposite of what you want. Having ridden many horsts for many years, this was definitely one of the negative traits. If you could have neutral braking without the weight shift, then sure, but un-metered, it's scary to have the fork compress more/front end steepen in the situations where that's the last thing you want. Some squat is a good thing, which is purportedly one of the benefits of the DW, it's "just enough", but having owned many decent single pivots, like Turner Hiline, I'll take the "stiffening" for the geometry benefit, as long as the stiffening is not some outrageous number.

    And the split-pivot designs, devinci, trek, etc., free the single-pivot design from the constraint of the braking having to be fixed to the chainstay, making it tune-able for the designer, much like the horst-link.

    I agree that you don't want to get carried away with insignificant differences, but one race two weekends ago I got 2nd place by 0.9 seconds, on another on the same weekend I just missed out on the 2nd-3rd-4th progression, being about 2 min behind them, but all those guys were just a couple seconds apart from each other after 4000' of vertical. It's amazing how "close" you will be to riders of similar caliber during long and even short races. Seconds count for racing and you want to stack as much in your favor as possible. It doesn't mean going stupid-light with the bike or making unreasonable sacrifices like narrow flat bars and 1.8" tires, but you generally use your nose to go as light as you know will hold up considering what you are willing to replace during the race season and considering your expectations for lifetime beyond. You want the bike to work perfectly every single time you race. The sponsored pros get their bikes totally taken apart and put back together for each race, which when you are depending on each and every part to work perfectly every time, is just a good idea. Most of us can't dedicate that time and energy, so we have to prioritize accordingly.
    "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.

  49. #49
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    28,908
    Quote Originally Posted by joeadnan View Post
    Thanks racebum. I actually had a look at what Yeti says on its FAQs regarding forks:

    "The ASR is designed to run a 120mm fork. Running a 140mm travel fork gives the bike a slacker head angle and a higher bottom bracket. A 100mm travel fork will steepen the head angle and make the steering slightly sharper."

    I don't think running a 100mm fork on our local trails (twisty narrow jungle singletrack) will put the bike outside the envelope of the ability of the rider to adjust to the slightly quicker steering. If necessary, the steering can be slowed down with wider bars/longer stem. We'll see.
    Heck, you could even try setting the Yeti up as a 69er, with a 29" front wheel and 100mm fork and 27.5, for better roll-over and less sluggishness of a full 29er. Just an idea. I agree this probably won't be a big deal, but the main thing to consider is how it all pushes the weight and travel envelope. A big source of bob is your front fork as you hammer, so having more travel there will make you a bit less efficient, not by much, and mainly just annoying, but it depends on your goals. I'd have to really wonder about the factory yeti XC riders, I doubt they are running around with 120mm forks on those things, not based on all the XC racers I've observed this year on the SC platform.

    As far as the bearings, there's no easy answer. It's highly unlikely that they use "custom" bearings, IE: something that is not available from a bearing supply shop or that can be ordered from such. Usually, the more expensive bikes like Yeti and Pivot come with not only higher quality bearings, but the system is usually made in such a way that it's easier to remove/install them on many of the cheaper big-manufacturer bikes. Those bikes, Scott, Trek, Giant, Specialized, etc., seem to concentrate more on bikes that may last a season or two, and then they are done. That isn't always the case, but it seems to get significantly harder to keep bikes like that running, vs. my old turner that all I had to do every once and a while was pump some grease in the zerk fittings and it would just go on year after year. Some of the mass-produced bikes have bearings and fittings that are not practical to remove and reinstall and it's usually far less common to run into those kind of issues on bikes like Yeti, Pivot, Turner, etc. On my newer turner, they designed the bearings in the links, rather than the frame, to assist with changing them. So it's often little details like this. Living in an ocean environment near the tropics, yeah, you are going to have to clean the hell out of your bike all the time to keep as much salt away as possible and store in a cool dry environment if you can. I have to do similar things in the winter time when they lay out salt here in all the parking lots and other places, and the salt persists for a while until we get enough rain, but there is sometimes no easy answer here or invulnerable bike.
    "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.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Except those horst bikes allowed the front end to pitch during braking on the steeps, which is the exact opposite of what you want. Having ridden many horsts for many years, this was definitely one of the negative traits. If you could have neutral braking without the weight shift, then sure, but un-metered, it's scary to have the fork compress more/front end steepen in the situations where that's the last thing you want. ...
    Completely agree. Back in the days I had a number of unfortunately heated conversations on the Turner forum. The Horst 5-spot was all the rage and the observation that the back of the bike raised downhill if you touched the brakes was not really well received. It was actually quite apparent and it required a lot of body work to tame it. I still remember the revelation that was riding the Mojo Classic after I dropped the 5-spot: small bump compliance, and it climbs, does not stall ... oh my: when you brake it stays level!!!!!!!

    So again, humble opinion: let's stick with DW (any of his designs) and make a daughter happy! (almost feel like an uncle right now!)

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498

    Suggestions for a light DW-link / VPP / SI frame

    Quote Originally Posted by Davide View Post
    So again, humble opinion: let's stick with DW (any of his designs) and make a daughter happy! (almost feel like an uncle right now!)
    Haha! I'll be sure to post an update once I get going.

    Here is a thread I started last year when I lightened up her current bike, a 24" Scott. She has stopped growing since then.

    2006 Scott Jr Racing 24

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498
    Hmm, the link is not appearing correctly in Tapatalk for some reason.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498

    Suggestions for a light DW-link / VPP / SI frame

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    As far as the bearings, there's no easy answer. It's highly unlikely that they use "custom" bearings, IE: something that is not available from a bearing supply shop or that can be ordered from such.
    User "nyrdrms" over in the Yeti forum says that he spoke to Enduro who says that they are indeed specially made for Yeti.

    Yeti ASR Carbon

    This isn't such a problem except for the fact that the bearings also appear to be chronically susceptible to corrosion.

    Coupled with the fact that the frame is being discontinued, means I will need to think very carefully about this.

    I must also add that my '17 SB5 has held up very well in the climate here. There is a good argument to wait until the second iteration of a product before making a significant investment.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: racebum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,306
    Quote Originally Posted by joeadnan View Post
    Thanks racebum. I actually had a look at what Yeti says on its FAQs regarding forks:

    "The ASR is designed to run a 120mm fork. Running a 140mm travel fork gives the bike a slacker head angle and a higher bottom bracket. A 100mm travel fork will steepen the head angle and make the steering slightly sharper."

    I don't think running a 100mm fork on our local trails (twisty narrow jungle singletrack) will put the bike outside the envelope of the ability of the rider to adjust to the slightly quicker steering. If necessary, the steering can be slowed down with wider bars/longer stem. We'll see.
    get the top fuel if you run a 100, BB bracket drops. i had a 2016 asrc and it wasn't bad with the 120. no way would i have wanted to run a 100. would jack up the geometry and clearance. top fuel runs great with a 100 fork

    that said i would focus less on weight and more on performance. you can still keep it really light but a 25lb bike with good suspension and good tires will run circles around a 22lb bike with ultra light tires and suspension with the average rider

    the asr is a long bike. if you compare geo between trek and the asr let me tell you....they measure differently. the medium asrc is more like the 18.5 trek even though the large asrc on paper looks like the 18.5. if you get a tape it's different

    if you have a new smaller teenage girl riding that sb5 will be a LOT more forgiving and comfortable

    cutting every last ounce is a professional distance rider field. i love light bikes too but you have to balance that with performance

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498
    I'm doing this with a fair degree of contemplation and meticulousness. I had in fact compared the reach measurements for '15/'16 SB5, '17 SB5 and ASRc, and guess what, in size XS, from shortest reach to longest is:

    ASRc (361mm), '16 SB5 (372mm), '17 SB5 (382mm). I do however take the point that a bike may ride differently than what its geometry suggests on paper.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: racebum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,306
    Asr has a more slack seat tube and steep head tube. The taller that seat post gets the longer the reach becomes at a greater degree than a steeper seat tube. The asr also rides well with 50 to 70mm stems. The sb5 can go 40 if need be and rides great on a 50.

    I can't even express how much renting the bike for the day can solve so many unanswered questions. There is definitely the question of if geometry on paper transitions to real life. If you stay within the same brand it is usually close if you try comparing Yeti to Trek you're going to have two completely different bikes that measure the same on their respective papers. I'm not going to point fingers at one being right or wrong all I can say is they don't measure bikes the same way.

    That said if you stay within Yeti if someone is a size Xs in the ASR they probably are the same thing in the sb5. You can use stem length and handlebar width to fine-tune the fit

    I have ridden both of these bikes and the sb5 is definitely the easier bike for someone to learn on. it's a lot more forgiving and seats you more upright. It's also still possible to build one pretty light.

    26lbs with a dropper and wider knobbies is doable. That's only one pound more than the ASR would be.

    I had a large ASR. 1650 G wheelset. All XTR 1x 9020. Nobby nics. Thomson dropper Carbon Bar. 25.4 with pedals. With lighter tires and a masterpiece rather than a dropper it was 24 flat. An xs will probably be a half a pound lighter just in the frame. If you do a nice 1500 Gram carbon wheelset that's even better still. Carbon saddle. Another 100 grams over a decent performance seat.

  57. #57
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    28,908
    Quote Originally Posted by joeadnan View Post
    User "nyrdrms" over in the Yeti forum says that he spoke to Enduro who says that they are indeed specially made for Yeti.

    Yeti ASR Carbon.
    Enduro may indeed make those bearings specifically for the ASR, but I'd put money on if you measured the ID, OD and width, you'd find plenty of options of bearings that would fit and work. Bearings come in all sorts of sizes and pretty much everything used on mountain bikes is available aftermarket. Only, people usually don't go that route, they usually order from the manufacturer or a bit more rarely, someone like Enduro/RWC.
    "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.

  58. #58
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,225

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: racebum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,306
    Not always the case. Using non-standard bearings in bike frames is actually pretty common. The thing is yeti and Enduro are probably going to carry this bearing for the next five to 10 years they have absolutely nothing to gain by discontinuing them. You can still get bearings for Yeti frames made in 2010

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    106
    2016 Top Fuel - Setup the way I like it!

    @joeadnan - your requirements/specs sound a lot like my Trek Top Fuel. My previous bike was a Pivot Mach 4 (aluminum). I am a relatively lightweight rider (120lbs) and short (5'-4").

    Any bike you get for your daughter will require tuning (possibly custom) of the suspension if you intend to get the most out it.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498
    Just an update to this thread...




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498
    So, this Mach 4 has 100mm of travel in size XS. What are the recommendations for a matching fork? The two that I have in mind are the Fox 32SC (100mm) and the DT Swiss OPM Race (120mm). Are there reliable weight info about these? Regardless of the weight, I’m thinking that 120mm would be a better match for this frame.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    266
    I've been using the DT swiss OPM O.D.L. 120mm for 2 seasons now and really like it. On the other side, finding someone to service it after 200h of use isn't that easy (at least in Canada). I had to send it on the other side of the country.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by lRaphl View Post
    I've been using the DT swiss OPM O.D.L. 120mm for 2 seasons now and really like it. On the other side, finding someone to service it after 200h of use isn't that easy (at least in Canada). I had to send it on the other side of the country.
    Thanks for that IRalph. Good to know that it is reliable. The difference in the prices for each is not great where I am, so I might opt for the DT.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,555
    Quote Originally Posted by joeadnan View Post
    So, this Mach 4 has 100mm of travel in size XS. What are the recommendations for a matching fork? The two that I have in mind are the Fox 32SC (100mm) and the DT Swiss OPM Race (120mm). Are there reliable weight info about these? Regardless of the weight, I’m thinking that 120mm would be a better match for this frame.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    DT swiss OPM O.D.L. 120mm Race carbon with un-cut steer tube.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Suggestions for a light DW-link / VPP / SI frame-008.jpg  

    Suggestions for a light DW-link / VPP / SI frame-009.jpg  

    Suggestions for a light DW-link / VPP / SI frame-007.jpg  


  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by xc71 View Post
    DT swiss OPM O.D.L. 120mm Race carbon with un-cut steer tube.
    Thanks very much. I assume that is 27.5” and not 29”?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  67. #67
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    28,908
    Quote Originally Posted by joeadnan View Post
    Just an update to this thread...




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


    Looking nice!

    My main concern would be damping performance, the Fox Factory 32 SC is pretty good in my experience, with the LSC adjustment in the open mode, I run about 5 clicks, gives me some stability without turning it into a jackhammer.


    Suggestions for a light DW-link / VPP / SI frame-0112c632b13926e76e92d524fab963184de1d3e483.jpg
    "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.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,555
    Quote Originally Posted by joeadnan View Post
    Thanks very much. I assume that is 27.5” and not 29”?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yes, 27.5" great fork.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    498
    Unfortunately the DT Swiss fork had been mislabeled in the inventory of the bike shop. So there was none in 27.5”.

    I decided to go for the Fox 32 SC. The only one that was in stock was orange.






    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Similar Threads

  1. How does Marin Quad Link differ from VPP and DW Link?
    By SingleTrackHound in forum Marin
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-25-2017, 07:06 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-28-2014, 01:16 PM
  3. 2nd Gen VPP Box Link...worthy upgrade?
    By bent_spoke_dave in forum Intense
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-05-2011, 12:28 AM
  4. DW-Link vs VPP
    By drinkwat in forum Santa Cruz
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 03-25-2011, 02:51 AM
  5. VPP bearing problems on new VPP bikes?
    By jonesjus in forum Santa Cruz
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-23-2011, 01:44 AM

Members who have read this thread: 128

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.