Results 1 to 35 of 35
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    149

    What makes an AM bike a "fast pedaling"?

    I read some folks commenting that a certain bike pedals better than others. What are the factors of a bike design that improves it's pedaling?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4,524
    Main one is anti-squat. A lot of anti-squat also means a lot of pedal kickback, so there's a happy medium. More low speed compression also helps pedaling, hence the climb setting or lockout.
    Do the math.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,719
    I don't think there's too many mushy bikes anymore. Most bikes pedal great these days, but yes, it's related to high anti squat.

  4. #4
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,769
    The rider....

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    530
    Having the seat stays welded to the seat tube has worked for me.

  6. #6
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,761
    Bikes use to be "all over the place" in terms of anti-squat. Some high pivot bikes were extremely harsh in rough terrain when you tried to pedal and would easily break traction uphill (in the rough) due to the abnormally high levels of anti-squat (~150-200%). Any time you tried to pedal through the rough you'd get a hard "spike" sent through the system as the pedaling forces opposed the bump absorption direction.

    There were also excessively low or even negative anti-squat bikes that pedaled like wet mattresses and were pretty horrible to do anything other than descend on. Up a hill, these would sink into the travel further the harder you pedaled, lifting up the front end, when you went over bumps, this was magnified.

    These days, there seem to be two general ways this is being handled. It doesn't take a horst link, single pivot, parallel linkage, or any other specific design, it can be had with any of them, but generally, there are manufacturers that are keeping the anti-squat around 100% for a majority of the travel (in other words a fairly level line for around 2/3rds of the travel) and ones that run a sloping anti-squat line, going from say 150% down to 70%. The first one should pedal fairly consistently in a wide variety of situations, weight changes, etc. The latter one tries to achieve "100% anti-squat" at the sag point and thereafter, it falls off. I find the first one to be more orientated towards "real world" situations where the 2nd is more towards "ideal on a completely smooth surface" where the suspension never moves.

    A lot of the horst-link manufacturers have been doing that 2nd anti-squat curve thing for a while, but a couple have started to flatten out the curves to kind of blur the lines. I find if the "falling curve" type bike is too excessive, it creates that situation above where when you go over bumps uphill, your suspension reaches a point where the AS is too low, your pedal strokes shift the weight rearwards, lifting the front and further compressing the suspension, where there is even less AS, in a sort of "feedback loop" situation. It should be noted though that this is generally not nearly as bad as years ago when designers didn't seem to have a clue about these things. Still, I think we are seeing the makers of these bikes gradually shift towards flatter AS "curves". This isn't just limited to horst-link bikes of course, there have been parallel linkage bikes with far worse kinematics and the general arrangement does not necessarily predict the kinematics. As a further example, single-ring systems have freed designers up so they can make approximately 100% anti-squat "flat curve" designs even with single pivot bikes, like devinci, evil, and others have done. So you don't need a fancy "virtual" pivot type bike to achieve this.

    In general, it appears that those "steep curve" designs are slowly being flattened out by the manufacturers, but there are a lot out there and some are still very excessive.

    It seems every mtb review states the bike pedals "awesome" and "like a way lighter bike". 99.9% of these reviews are worthless ****. They generally don't go into the difference between bikes or rate the efficiency/bump absorption on any kind of quantitative scale. It's fairly worthless to me and although bikes are generally a lot better than years ago when no one knew what they were doing, I still find and notice significant differences that should be explained in these reviews. For the most part, they seem to be "dumbed down" to the point where you can't use them to make a decision about one bike over another.
    "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
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,782
    As Jayem said, the vast majority of reviews make it sound like the 32lb, 6.5Ē bike in question goes uphill like Nino Schurter with his ass on fire.

    News flash: many of them donít. At all. Quite the opposite.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    As Jayem said, the vast majority of reviews make it sound like the 32lb, 6.5Ē bike in question goes uphill like Nino Schurter with his ass on fire.

    News flash: many of them donít. At all. Quite the opposite.
    Yeah, I think it's all relative. Will an AM bike climb like a lightweight hard-tail? No.

    I think it's much more than just suspension design, that's just one factor. The shock and fork themselves, how stiff the frame is, how heavy the bike is, type of tyres, geometry, there are lots of things that will add up. I've had two hard-tails that weighed about the same, one was noticeably faster than the other. Rear suspension design ain't a factor in that!

  9. #9
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,761
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    Yeah, I think it's all relative. Will an AM bike climb like a lightweight hard-tail? No.

    I think it's much more than just suspension design, that's just one factor. The shock and fork themselves, how stiff the frame is, how heavy the bike is, type of tyres, geometry, there are lots of things that will add up. I've had two hard-tails that weighed about the same, one was noticeably faster than the other. Rear suspension design ain't a factor in that!
    I agree, there's a lot of factors, and it does matter what the suspension kinematics are for most of us. At the highest levels of XC racing, I see the pros racing with the lockout on for everything but the downhills or roughest flats, at which point the kinematics really don't mean jack, but that's a class of racing that is so elite most of us never have to worry about it and a bike that is decently efficient is a good thing. Then there's the light-factor too, light wheels/bike with low-travel will always be far more efficient than a heavy bike that is "very efficient". I met a guy trying to wildly pedal a big + hardtail for all he was worth last night and I just cruised by on my AM bike, the watts it takes to keep those giant wheels going is huge, in some cases, more than an enduro bike. But in general, a bigger bike will pedal worse and will never be like riding an XC bike, it just wont. The suspension kinematics therefore DO make a difference, but these days there is a lot of good stuff and it may not make as big a difference as you'd think, unless you get one of the crazy bad or crazy good designs that seems to rise above, which is most likely due to a combination of things as Mr. Pig points out.
    "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.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: EatsDirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    As Jayem said, the vast majority of reviews make it sound like the 32lb, 6.5Ē bike in question goes uphill like Nino Schurter with his ass on fire. News flash: many of them donít. At all. Quite the opposite.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Wait... WHAT!?!? This is amazing news! You guys have talked me into it. Any suggestions on the best sausage suit and 20lb bike for all mountain?

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    490
    What makes it fast is the rider and having minimal resistance. It needs to transfer as much as your power output to forward propulsion without waste. Minimal weight to accelerate, minimal rolling resistance in the tires, minimal drag in all the moving parts, minimal power going into the suspension, minimal handling misbehavior that throws you off your line or causes you to lose traction, and most importantly, encouragement to put down more power (rather than distractions that discourage, such as bob, flex).

    I'd ague that it's delusion to think that an AM bike with the same anti-squat and susp kinematics as the fastest XC bikes, just with more travel and perhaps a stouter frame, will be fast pedaling. Anti-squat is a small factor in the big picture. There's way more to it than that. I'd say the biggest factor is the good handling behavior. If the bike can somehow just have you relax, rather than tense up to get precisely modulated power, or precisely modulated control, to avoid slips and bobbles, such as through optimized chassis stiffness, you are free to just lay down more power. The more you lay down power (training), the more efficient you become at it and the faster you go. Optimized levels of anti-squat helps by reducing distractions that discourage power output--too much anti-squat is a very bad thing, moreso than having too little. Encouragement to put down more power comes from all the factors added up... once you're going fast, it's easier to encourage you to keep up that speed.

  12. #12
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,276
    Quote Originally Posted by scycllerist View Post
    I read some folks commenting that a certain bike pedals better than others. What are the factors of a bike design that improves it's pedaling?

    Proper setup, proper tires, proper technique, and a rider with his head screwed on straight.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: plummet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    363
    Some of you guys seem to have a facination comparing XC bikes pedal efficiency against am bikes. Why? they are different fish all together. You might as well compare road bikes.


    Come for a ride with me on your xc bike and yourl pedal like a monster up the hill but on the down you will do one of 4 things....., The downhill walk of shame, bleed, go to hospital or take the p u s s y route.

    Rant over!!...

    Now apart from the prolific comparing to xc bikes i agree with the comments above.

    Tyres make a huge impact also.

  14. #14
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,782
    Quote Originally Posted by plummet View Post
    Some of you guys seem to have a facination comparing XC bikes pedal efficiency against am bikes. Why? they are different fish all together. You might as well compare road bikes.


    Come for a ride with me on your xc bike and yourl pedal like a monster up the hill but on the down you will do one of 4 things....., The downhill walk of shame, bleed, go to hospital or take the p u s s y route.

    Rant over!!...

    Now apart from the prolific comparing to xc bikes i agree with the comments above.

    Tyres make a huge impact also.
    Because reviewers are the ones making the comparisons. Not us.

    Also, your rant is laughable.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: plummet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by twodownzero View Post
    Having the seat stays welded to the seat tube has worked for me.
    Thats sooooooo 1932. I only role with laminated carbon these days. What sort of heathen are you?

  16. #16
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,761
    Quote Originally Posted by plummet View Post
    Some of you guys seem to have a facination comparing XC bikes pedal efficiency against am bikes. Why? they are different fish all together. You might as well compare road bikes.


    Come for a ride with me on your xc bike and yourl pedal like a monster up the hill but on the down you will do one of 4 things....., The downhill walk of shame, bleed, go to hospital or take the p u s s y route.

    Rant over!!...

    Now apart from the prolific comparing to xc bikes i agree with the comments above.

    Tyres make a huge impact also.
    Well, for one, we tend to ride these bikes up so we can ride down. Riding up faster or more efficiently maximizes the time we can spend riding down.

    To get even more specific, the higher anti-squat numbers allow us to do things like ride uphill with 170mm forks. I'm not sure if you remember the mid-2000s, but we were running all kinds of ridiculous travel-adjustments and lock-down devices to try and keep the front end down on climbs. The higher anti-squat values have a lot to do with how we can run the big forks today and the bikes don't shift weight back and make the fork come off the ground when you are trying to climb up stuff. This in turn makes it much easier to ride said bike all day long on a big ride with climbs, once again, allowing us to maximize our riding experience. Ain't it wonderful?

    Thanks for the offer to participate in your downhill. I'm fine with what I have. (that's Mark in the picture and I'd put money he can ride that fatbike downhill faster than you on an AM bike).

    What makes an AM bike a "fast pedaling"?-g0147373.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.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: plummet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Well, for one, we tend to ride these bikes up so we can ride down. Riding up faster or more efficiently maximizes the time we can spend riding down.

    To get even more specific, the higher anti-squat numbers allow us to do things like ride uphill with 170mm forks. I'm not sure if you remember the mid-2000s, but we were running all kinds of ridiculous travel-adjustments and lock-down devices to try and keep the front end down on climbs. The higher anti-squat values have a lot to do with how we can run the big forks today and the bikes don't shift weight back and make the fork come off the ground when you are trying to climb up stuff. This in turn makes it much easier to ride said bike all day long on a big ride with climbs, once again, allowing us to maximize our riding experience. Ain't it wonderful?

    Thanks for the offer to participate in your downhill. I'm fine with what I have. (that's Mark in the picture and I'd put money he can ride that fatbike downhill faster than you on an AM bike).

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	G0147373.jpg 
Views:	72 
Size:	119.9 KB 
ID:	1212680
    That looks like an epic trail. I want to ride it!. Anything that requires carrying up has to to be fun on the down.

    I've never seen a fat bike riden fast. Up or down. They always seem to be ridden by slow fat guys round here. Usually they have the look of "why the hell did i buy this stupid bike" on their face.

  18. #18
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,588
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    What makes it fast is the rider and having minimal resistance. It needs to transfer as much as your power output to forward propulsion without waste. Minimal weight to accelerate, minimal rolling resistance in the tires, minimal drag in all the moving parts, minimal power going into the suspension, minimal handling misbehavior that throws you off your line or causes you to lose traction, and most importantly, encouragement to put down more power (rather than distractions that discourage, such as bob, flex).

    I'd ague that it's delusion to think that an AM bike with the same anti-squat and susp kinematics as the fastest XC bikes, just with more travel and perhaps a stouter frame, will be fast pedaling. Anti-squat is a small factor in the big picture. There's way more to it than that. I'd say the biggest factor is the good handling behavior. If the bike can somehow just have you relax, rather than tense up to get precisely modulated power, or precisely modulated control, to avoid slips and bobbles, such as through optimized chassis stiffness, you are free to just lay down more power. The more you lay down power (training), the more efficient you become at it and the faster you go. Optimized levels of anti-squat helps by reducing distractions that discourage power output--too much anti-squat is a very bad thing, moreso than having too little. Encouragement to put down more power comes from all the factors added up... once you're going fast, it's easier to encourage you to keep up that speed.


    This is really good, and what you said right here makes a big difference...

    ... I'd say the biggest factor is the good handling behavior. If the bike can somehow just have you relax, rather than tense up to get precisely modulated power, or precisely modulated control, to avoid slips and bobbles, such as through optimized chassis stiffness, you are free to just lay down more power. The more you lay down power (training), the more efficient you become at it and the faster you go....


    It is in tune with my own experience. I'd like to elaborate that "good handling behavior" is product of so many things. Proper shock set up and suspension design, tires and pressure, cockpit set up (including bars and saddle). Its like doing a heavy weight lift with proper form and position - you can just push a lot more weight. Matching the correct bike and setup to the trails you ride is a big part as well. Ride overly aggressive tires and you will loose out on snap and fun and feel draggy. Ride skimpy tires and you'll be nervous and twitchy.

    If I feel in tune with the bike I can ride longer, faster, harder, more often. That in turn improves the most important part...

    The motor.


    Anti-squat matters as J said, especially in longer travel bikes. Steeper STAs probably offset less squat. But, the trail/AM bike I currently own has probably the lowest AS values of any bike I've had in many years. And, its one of the heavier bikes. But, it only 150/130 in travel. And it is set up to feel so good under me, that I really mesh with the bike. I never have to fight it. The cockpit, the angles, the suspension, the tires, etc... That bike lets me push it harder for more hours than any other bike. I stay, for a lack of a better word, comfortable, on the bike for longer time and don't fatigue out.


    Oh, yeah, another thing. All else being equal, bigger hoops just seem to roll better and faster with less rider power than smaller hoops.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    149
    Wow!! did I step in it or what! LOL

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: EatsDirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by scycllerist View Post
    Wow!! did I step in it or what! LOL
    Laugh all you want... but you won't ride like Nino with anus ablaze on an AM bike!

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by EatsDirt View Post
    Laugh all you want... but you won't ride like Nino with anus ablaze on an AM bike!
    Just about no one can.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,754
    Quote Originally Posted by plummet View Post
    Some of you guys seem to have a facination comparing XC bikes pedal efficiency against am bikes. Why? they are different fish all together. You might as well compare road bikes.


    Come for a ride with me on your xc bike and yourl pedal like a monster up the hill but on the down you will do one of 4 things....., The downhill walk of shame, bleed, go to hospital or take the p u s s y route.

    Rant over!!...

    Now apart from the prolific comparing to xc bikes i agree with the comments above.

    Tyres make a huge impact also.
    I know a guy who rides his 120mm XC bike faster than his 140-150mm bike up and down. He doesn't do it often for the same reason most of us ride 140-150 bikes is it would beat him up if he did it every day. He races XC but has made skills.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: teK--'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    272
    Close to 100% antisquat at rear suspension sag.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,306
    For some reason that escapes me, I think you want more than 100% AS to have ideal pedaling. But AS comes with negatives too, which is why I think suspension designers attempt to have over 100% AS in the lowest climbing gears but then as speeds increase, they have the AS fall off.

    I assume if we ever get internal transmissions on bikes, the rear suspension design could sit exactly at the desired AS value at all suspension angles and in any gear instead of changing every moment as your suspension cycles and your gear selection changes.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    For some reason that escapes me, I think you want more than 100% AS to have ideal pedaling. But AS comes with negatives too, which is why I think suspension designers attempt to have over 100% AS in the lowest climbing gears but then as speeds increase, they have the AS fall off.

    I assume if we ever get internal transmissions on bikes, the rear suspension design could sit exactly at the desired AS value at all suspension angles and in any gear instead of changing every moment as your suspension cycles and your gear selection changes.
    Intense has it opposite for the Carbine 29--more AS in the mashing gears, less in the spinning gears:

    Name:  001.gif
Views: 161
Size:  55.0 KB

    The older Carbine 29 (and Spider 29 Comp) were known to ride stiff like a hardtail out-of-the-saddle on climbs:

    Name:  Intense+Carbine+29+2014_Anti-squat.gif
Views: 155
Size:  24.5 KB

    Fundamentally, I'd argue that anti-squat is only a tiny factor of "fast pedaling". People are getting too caught up focusing on suspension, when the bike *and rider* (and the environment, such as trail and weather) is a complete system that needs to be considered as a whole. It also relies on the assumption that it's inefficient to your power transfer to be without it, which I can also argue.

    When someone says a bike pedals better than another, I think of one that simply gets up to higher speeds with less strain/resistance/discomfort for any given effort. Refer to post #11 (above) to see my thoughts, though I'll add that I'm welcome to discussion that wants to focus on how big of a factor the rider is in the whole system, curious about the needs of skilled veteran mtn bikers that have been switching between various FS bikes regularly, compared to inexperienced folks who have only been on hardtails. The difference in pace (average speeds), the trails, etc. all adds up to something very complex and hard to analyze without breaking down. How about something besides anti-squat, considering there are bikes that make you question conventional thought out there (e.g. MissingLink). xD

    andrextr and antonio osuna both sing praises for Canfield's kinematics (notably the Jedi). Their bikes, on the other, show that geo and chassis stiffness, build kits, and riding style matter considerably in terms of the quality in riding experience. Are they considered to be fast pedaling? Hints that there's much more to things and that such focus on the suspension's pedaling response is short-sighted. Can be arguably summed up as "whatever makes you happy"; I write this as I'm sensitive to snobby remarks that make people feel like they're on inferior bikes since their bikes don't have such traits, making them lose this happy effect and buy into the marketing wank.

    P.S. nothing personal. Your post just happened to be the straw that broke the camel's back. 1 too many anti-squat posts for me to tolerate.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,754
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    For some reason that escapes me, I think you want more than 100% AS to have ideal pedaling. But AS comes with negatives too, which is why I think suspension designers attempt to have over 100% AS in the lowest climbing gears but then as speeds increase, they have the AS fall off.

    I assume if we ever get internal transmissions on bikes, the rear suspension design could sit exactly at the desired AS value at all suspension angles and in any gear instead of changing every moment as your suspension cycles and your gear selection changes.
    It depends on suspention type and terrain. 100% around sag and not falling to quickly in travel seems to be the best allrounder. 120% +can hang up on climbs. And if it stays high throughout travel it gives a lot of feed back.

  27. #27
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus75 View Post
    It depends on suspention type and terrain. 100% around sag and not falling to quickly in travel seems to be the best allrounder. 120% +can hang up on climbs. And if it stays high throughout travel it gives a lot of feed back.
    Isnít that going to vary based on rider input?

    Meaning, isnít a 150lb rider going 12mph up a climb going to have more active suspension than a 150lb rider going 6mph up the same climb?

    Iím guessing/hoping that suspension designers and tuners take this into account, based on bike type and subsequently, intended use.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,754
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Isnít that going to vary based on rider input?

    Meaning, isnít a 150lb rider going 12mph up a climb going to have more active suspension than a 150lb rider going 6mph up the same climb?

    Iím guessing/hoping that suspension designers and tuners take this into account, based on bike type and subsequently, intended use.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    If the rider is putting down the power to go 12mph there's more chain tention so the suspension is less active with a bike that has high antisquat.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,306
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    Intense has it opposite for the Carbine 29--more AS in the mashing gears, less in the spinning gears:

    Name:  001.gif
Views: 161
Size:  55.0 KB

    The older Carbine 29 (and Spider 29 Comp) were known to ride stiff like a hardtail out-of-the-saddle on climbs:

    Name:  Intense+Carbine+29+2014_Anti-squat.gif
Views: 155
Size:  24.5 KB

    Fundamentally, I'd argue that anti-squat is only a tiny factor of "fast pedaling". People are getting too caught up focusing on suspension, when the bike *and rider* (and the environment, such as trail and weather) is a complete system that needs to be considered as a whole. It also relies on the assumption that it's inefficient to your power transfer to be without it, which I can also argue.

    When someone says a bike pedals better than another, I think of one that simply gets up to higher speeds with less strain/resistance/discomfort for any given effort. Refer to post #11 (above) to see my thoughts, though I'll add that I'm welcome to discussion that wants to focus on how big of a factor the rider is in the whole system, curious about the needs of skilled veteran mtn bikers that have been switching between various FS bikes regularly, compared to inexperienced folks who have only been on hardtails. The difference in pace (average speeds), the trails, etc. all adds up to something very complex and hard to analyze without breaking down. How about something besides anti-squat, considering there are bikes that make you question conventional thought out there (e.g. MissingLink). xD

    andrextr and antonio osuna both sing praises for Canfield's kinematics (notably the Jedi). Their bikes, on the other, show that geo and chassis stiffness, build kits, and riding style matter considerably in terms of the quality in riding experience. Are they considered to be fast pedaling? Hints that there's much more to things and that such focus on the suspension's pedaling response is short-sighted. Can be arguably summed up as "whatever makes you happy"; I write this as I'm sensitive to snobby remarks that make people feel like they're on inferior bikes since their bikes don't have such traits, making them lose this happy effect and buy into the marketing wank.

    P.S. nothing personal. Your post just happened to be the straw that broke the camel's back. 1 too many anti-squat posts for me to tolerate.
    You clearly know more about this topic than I do. And definitely no offense taken and I apprecdiate the perspective.

    However, all those other factors, while relevent, are mostly independent of the rear suspension design so irrelevent for this discussion. I mean I know that faster tires, roll faster. That's a given. What I want to know, as a rider that gets very tired on sustained climbs (and can fall behind on fast group rides as a result), which rear suspension design will help the most with this weakness of mine. (Hint: It was the Foxy 29!)

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: teK--'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus75 View Post
    It depends on suspention type and terrain. 100% around sag and not falling to quickly in travel seems to be the best allrounder. 120% +can hang up on climbs. And if it stays high throughout travel it gives a lot of feed back.
    Not to mention if antisquat is high through all travel then you are going to feel like your weight is pitched forward when you least want it to be.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,719
    I think suspension engineers (and riders, for the most part) have realized that over the top active suspension isnt really all that great, and crazy high anti squat isnt necessary with a good shock.

    For the most part, most non xc through non dh bikes have settled on fairly firm anti squat paired with a decent quality shock. Its not the most active thing in the world, but it works well with a good shock. You dont need crazy high anti squat if you have a little bit of LSC.

    In short, what makes a fast pedaling bike? Not having an RP23 anymore!
    WTB: Small aluminum hardtail 26 or 27.5 frame. Pm me!

  32. #32
    Weekdays..
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,124
    Technique = pedal in smooth circles...if you can, smooth power delivery helps far better than any anti-"tourettes" linkage ; )
    video=youtube;][/video]...

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TripleR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    108
    Ride a Tantrum and see what happens when you climb...its eye opening for a 165mm full suspension.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Isnít that going to vary based on rider input?

    Meaning, isnít a 150lb rider going 12mph up a climb going to have more active suspension than a 150lb rider going 6mph up the same climb?

    Iím guessing/hoping that suspension designers and tuners take this into account, based on bike type and subsequently, intended use.
    This is what I'm talking about! Yes, this question interests me greatly.

    I find that the faster you go, the easier it is to maintain that speed. Those that are going 6 mph, will notice the issues of squat under acceleration much more than those holding a faster pace.

    This is related to a new experiment of mine--I just built up a Thunderbolt BC Edition, which I previously had as a "trail/AM" bike. I put it away after it got hit by a car (driveside seatstay) at low speed, since I feared of its structurally integrity, but just now rebuilt up as a lightweight trail bike (maiden ride today).

    It has less than 40% anti-squat (w/34t oval), built up to be 25.6 lbs vs ~28 lbs (old build), with the intention of allowing it to spend less time accelerating, and more time holding onto higher speeds. I will see for myself just how faster pedaling it is, in terms of overall pace (average speed), over some of my times set on 29er trail bikes back when I was averaging 12-13 mph on 1 hour trail rides. My impression of the bike before, with a heavier build, was that it was sluggish, not being as fast as my other bikes, despite good geo/fit, using it more as my "street bike" building up technique.

    It's basically a challenge to see if my recent lax riding habits will "feel faster pedaling" due to the optimization of acceleration, challenging the 100% anti-squat idea. I'm going in expecting that it'll be different than the outgoing generation of Whyte T-130, which had similarly low AS but an "electrifying ride" (quote from some Brit media review). Hopefully, I come out of this experiment with fresh info regarding what makes a bike fast pedaling, and possibly learn of how low AS can be adapted to, to make it not a downside (e.g. perhaps changing my pedaling style to one in which the bike rocks side-to-side with my body sort of floating independently of my limbs).

    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus75 View Post
    If the rider is putting down the power to go 12mph there's more chain tention so the suspension is less active with a bike that has high antisquat.
    Doesn't chain tension correlate to torque, instead of power (watts)*? If so, wouldn't this bring up the question of crank length? xD

    * I don't see the two as being the same, as you have have different torque at different RPM. So the 6mph 150lb rider mashing can be putting out more torque/chain tension than 12mph 150lb rider who's spinning.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails What makes an AM bike a "fast pedaling"?-img_1154.jpg  


  35. #35
    jcd's best friend
    Reputation: Battery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,164
    A rider on race day will make any bike a "fast pedaler."
    Trek | Octane One | Transition

Similar Threads

  1. What makes a tire fast?
    By fixgeardan in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-18-2012, 11:38 AM
  2. What makes the Epic so "fast"?
    By RTTR in forum Specialized
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 02-04-2008, 09:27 PM
  3. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-07-2006, 08:54 PM
  4. Why fast pedaling makes cyclists more efficient, article
    By upstateSC-rider in forum XC Racing and Training
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 01-31-2005, 12:49 AM
  5. Back-pedaling brake hubs.Who makes them?
    By What&son in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-24-2004, 09:12 AM

Members who have read this thread: 234

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.