Full Suspension Pivots and what they all mean- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 40 of 40
  1. #1
    Rutland All Star
    Reputation: Frac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    62

    Full Suspension Pivots and what they all mean

    I'm going to be in the market for a new bike in the near future, and I'm trying to make sense of all the new suspension designs out there. (the old designs as well)

    Before I get into what company to buy from and this bike is better than that bike, I'd like to develop a better understanding of how the shock position and mounting effects the ride of a bike and what the different pivot position mean.

    With the help of the community here perhaps we can get a listing of the different designs, who makes them and what they do.

    The list begins with:

    Single Pivot
    HORST
    FSR
    ABP
    DW-Link
    Spit Pivot concentric dropout

    Please add to this list, and if you know anything about the physics or theory of how these different pivots work add that as well.

    Thanks

  2. #2
    Rutland All Star
    Reputation: Frac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    62
    Single pivot

    The Single pivot is the simplest type of rear suspension. It simply consists of a pivot near the bottom bracket and a single swingarm to the rear axle. The rear axle will always rotate in a part-circle around the pivot point. Some implementations use linkages to attach the rear triangle to the rear shock for a progressive spring rate. Other implementations directly attach the rear triangle to the rear shock for a more linear rate. Santa Cruz's Superlight is such an example. The main benefit of this design is its simplicity. There are few moving parts, relatively easy to design and has good small bump compliance. Challenges with this design are brake jacking, and chain growth.

    Manufacturers that use a single pivot design are Trek, GT, K2, Morewood, Transition, Orange, Cannondale, Mountain Cycle, Haro, small boutique frame builders such as bcd and, due to its simplicity, many inexpensive department store bikes.
    [edit] Unified rear triangle

    The "Unified rear triangle" or "URT" for short, keeps the bottom bracket and rear axle directly connected at all times. The pivot is placed between the rear triangle and the front triangle so that the rear axle and bottom bracket move as one piece, and the saddle and handlebars move as another piece. This simple design uses only one pivot, which keeps down the number of moving parts. It can be easily modified into a single-speed, and has the benefit of zero chain growth and consistent front shifting. On the other hand, when the URT rider shifts any weight from the seat to the pedals, he or she is essentially standing on the swingarm, resulting in a massive increase in unsprung weight, and as a result the suspension tends to stop working. During braking, riders naturally brace themselves on the pedals,[citation needed] and combined with brake dive leads to more severe pitching, sometimes called "stinkbugging".[citation needed] Because of lockout and pitching, along with persistent suspension bob in low-pivot URTs, and a constantly changing saddle-to-pedal distance, the URT design has fallen out of favor in recent years.[3]

    Examples of bike with this kind of suspension include the Castellano Zorro, Catamount MFS, Ibis Szazbo, Klein Mantra, Schwinn S-10, Trek Y, and Voodoo Canzo.
    [edit] Four-bar suspensions and the Horst link

    The four-bar active suspension utilizes several linkage points to activate the shock. A Horst link suspension has one pivot behind the bottom bracket, one pivot mounted at the chain stay, in front of the rear wheel drop-out (this pivot being the venerated "Horst link"[1] ), and one at the top of the seat stay. Some examples of Horst link four-bar designs include the now-discontinued AMP B-5, the Specialized FSR and related bikes, Ellsworth, KHS, Titus, and Merida.

    A four-bar, seat-stay pivot suspension is similar looking, having a pivot above the drop out instead of in front of the drop out (ie no Horst link and no patent problem). Having the pivot in front of the drop out (i.e. on the chain stay) allows the linkage components to affect the path of the rear axle, thereby allowing for a more complex arc of the axle path. Placing the pivot on the seat stay (above the drop out) makes the rear axle travel path like that of a single-pivot bike, since the chain stay is the only component that affects the rear axle's arc.

    Seat-stay four-link pivot bikes perform exactly like similarly placed monopivots under acceleration and chain forces, which means they aren't as neutral under acceleration as Horst-link, four-bar bikes, dw-link, or Split Pivot bikes. However, when brakes are mounted on the seat stays, dw-link, Split Pivot and FSR four-link bikes have an advantage while braking over rough ground.[4] One manufacturer well known for their long-time use of the seat-stay pivot four-bar link suspension is Kona, who incorporate the design on their entire line-up, along with other manufacturers such as Infiza and Icon.
    [edit] Horst link
    Specialized FSR rear suspension with AFR Brain shock.

    The bike company Specialized worked with Leitner Technologies to develop a heavier-duty version of the four-bar/Horst link suspension which was marketed as the Specialized FSR. The FSR patent describes a four-bar bicycle suspension system with the rear wheel mounted to the seatstay. The rear pivot though, is located on the chainstay both in front of and below the rear axle. Through this pivot positioning, the popular FSR system works by providing a wheel path that helps prevent the suspension preload or unload (squatting and locking) during acceleration and braking. The design is regarded by some[who?] as superior to single-pivot/four-bar system due to other designs having a wheel path that either squats or "locks", depending on the position of the swingarm. The FSR system uses a wheel path that is in the middle of either squatting and lockout throughout most of the travel (circular, like single pivots). The FSR proved popular, and became a standard for full suspension designs, although recent innovations from competitors have set the company back. Specialized bought several of Leitner's patents in May 1998 and other manufacturers must now pay license fees to Specialized for the use of the 'Horst link' suspension design. The Horst link suspension design is the most leased or "borrowed" suspension design. It is very popular with companies such as Norco, Ellsworth, Chumba, KHS, and Fuji.[5]

    In 2003 Specialized introduced the Brain, an external inertia valve designed to effectively eliminate pedal bob. The system utilizes a brass weight inside a cylinder situated atop the non-drive-side chainstay, near the rear dropout, and connected to the shock directly or through a hose. The weight closes the shock valving and deactivates the rear shock at rest. Upward force from rough terrain displaces the weight, opening the valve and engaging the suspension. In the original Brain mechanism, when the terrain evens out, the weight returns to its original position through a return spring, and deactivates the shock again. The position of the weight near the rear axle is designed to prevent downward pedaling force from affecting the mechanism while optimizing response from terrain. A newer version of the Brain was developed that utilizes the rebound hydraulic fluid flow to return the weight to its rest position instead of relying on a return spring. This was developed to address a noticeable delay in the shock activation/deactivation.[6]
    [edit] VPP
    This article's tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (November 2008)

    The VPP (or Virtual Pivot Point) is a linkage designed bike frame that is built to activate the suspension differently depending on what inputs the suspension has received. The "Virtual Pivot Point" system owned by Santa Cruz Bicycles, Inc is protected by four US patents, three of which were originally issued to Outland Bicycles. The four patents cover a specific linkage configurations that are designed to aid the pedaling performance of a rear suspension bike without negatively affecting the overall bump absorption capabilities. The Santa Cruz Blur and V-10 models introduced in 2001 popularized "dual short link" type suspension systems, but have the unique characteristic of having links that rotate in opposite directions. VPP suspension is also licensed to Intense Cycles.
    [edit] DW-link
    Diagram of the dw-link suspension, as implemented on an Iron Horse Sunday, showing the location of the virtual pivot point
    Main article: DW-link

    Dave Weagle's dw-link suspension is claimed by many cycling media and user reviews at consumer sites like MTBR.com to be the pinnacle of cycling suspension performance today. The dw-link design is protected by patents in the USA and Europe, with patent coverage in more countries than any other bicycle suspension in existence today. The dw-link is licensed to Ibis, Independent Fabrication, Turner Suspension Bicycles, and Pivot Cycles.[7]
    [edit] Split pivot

    DW-Link inventor David Weagle applied for patents on a concentric rear axle pivot rear suspension system called Split Pivot in 2006.[8] The Split Pivot design was awarded it's first patent in the USA on May 18, 2010, US Patent 7,717,212. The Split Pivot suspension is also described in patent applications in the USA (US2008/006772 A1 and US 2008/00738 A1) and Europe (WO2008/027277 A2).[9][10]

    The Split Pivot System was designed to allow the separation of braking and acceleration forces in a bicycle suspension. As with Dave's dw-link design, the Split Pivot design has been licensed within the bicycle industry, with licensing companies releasing new models in 2010 and beyond. In June 2010, speculation that Cycles Devinci from QC, Canada would be a Split Pivot partner was confirmed on the cycling news site pinkbike.com.

    After Mr. Weagle's patent applications were filed, Trek Bicycle Corporation released a version of the Split Pivot design called active braking pivot (ABP) in early 2007. In identical fashion to the Split Pivot design, the ABP system uses a rear pivot concentric to the rear axle. Trek's design allowed their new full suspension system to look very similar to previous models, but dramatically improved their ride quality. ABP reduces brake feedback that is typically felt by the rider as suspension stiffening. This allows the suspension to remain active while braking hence the term, active braking pivot.

    Split Pivot patent applications predate all patent applications filed by Trek.[9][10]

    Trek also introduced a full floater system to go along with the ABP. The full floater system mounts the rear shock to two moving points in the suspension (rocker link and an extension of the chainstay). Other systems mount the shock to one end on the swing-arm, and the other to a fixed mount on the frame. This means as one part of the suspension compresses the shock, the other end of the shock moves as well. This allows Trek engineers more freedom to more accurately and precisely tune the system's leverage ratio. This functionality is also described in David Weagle's Split Pivot patent applications.[10]
    [edit] Independent Drivetrain

    The Independent Drivetrain (AKA IDrive) Pat # 6,099,010 / 6,073,950, was the 4th commercialized suspension design developed by pioneering MTB suspension designer Jim Busby Jr. The independent drivetrain system was a direct result of the limitations encountered with the GT LTS (links tuned suspension) 4 bar linkage design used by GT Bicycles from 1993 to 1998. The defining feature of Independent Drivetrain is the isolation of the bottom bracket (crank) from the front or rear triangle. This isolation allows the bb to move in such a manner as to neutralize the unwanted characteristics of chain growth at the pedal. Some may call this a "modified URT" but in reality it is a highly reconfigured 4 bar if examined theoretically. By using this isolated BB construction, pedal forces do not induce undesired suspension compression or extension nor does suspension activity produce pedal actuation through chain growth.

    Monolink

    The "Monolink" made by Maverick Bikes uses 3 pivot points and places the bottom bracket on a floating linkage between the front and rear triangle. It was designed by Paul Turner. It is a licensed variant of the Independent Drivetrain suspension system Pat # 6,099,010 / 6,073,950. The monolink design varies from the Independent Drivetrain original design in that it uses a shock body that is integrated into the rear triangle, and that the saddle to bottom bracket distance changes as the suspension is compressed, although not as large as a URT design. The suspension is more active when in the saddle, as pressure on the cranks actively works against the suspension. However, because of this property, there is less bob in out of the saddle sprints. The monolink design is also unique in having a rearward axle path, which is similar to the angle of attack of the front suspension. Examples are the Maverick ML7/5, ML8, Klein Palomino, and Seven Duo.
    The Optima Stinger recumbent with rear suspension
    [edit] Equilink

    The "Equilink" suspension system was developed by Felt Bicycles for their full suspension line. The system is a "Stephenson-style six-bar" suspension system:[11] the Equilink ties the lower link (between the rear triangle and main frame) to the upper rockers. Felt contends that this system "equalizes" movement of the suspension in response to chain forces by linking the motion of the upper and lower linkages.[12] Some, however, argue it works on the same principle of the dw-link; that is it creates a dropping rate of chain growth as it moves through its travel.[citation needed]

  3. #3
    Rutland All Star
    Reputation: Frac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    62
    Ended up answeing my own post with some wiki searching. However, comentary from the community on your own experience with these different systems would be greatly appreciated.

  4. #4
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    26

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Frac
    Ended up answeing my own post with some wiki searching. However, comentary from the community on your own experience with these different systems would be greatly appreciated.
    a picture example of each one would be nice

  5. #5
    Rutland All Star
    Reputation: Frac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    62
    Single Pivot

  6. #6
    Rutland All Star
    Reputation: Frac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    62
    HORST / FSR

  7. #7
    Rutland All Star
    Reputation: Frac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    62
    DW-Link, showing the location of the virtual pivot point


  8. #8
    T.W.O.
    Reputation: mimi1885's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,172
    You'll start seeing the Split pivot next year, hopefully as soon as this year Interbike.


    Really though, according to the companies, each of their design is the best, optimized, most efficient design out there, head and shoulder above the competitor. If you are in the market for a new bike the more important questions to be answer would be

    Your Budget
    riding style
    Race? or for fun only.

    That would narrow down your choice a bit.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    260
    Priorities when choosing a FS bike:

    1. "cool" factor- looks in general.
    2. Intended use.
    3. Components (value for money).
    4. Fit to my bike carrier.
    5. Location and overall relation to the closest shop that carries each model.
    6....
    7....
    8....
    9....
    10. All other factors to consider.
    .
    .
    .
    999. Suspension design type.

  10. #10
    Saving lives with knives.
    Reputation: frank daleview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    944
    Really?! Maybe we are very different types of consumers, but I feel like different suspension designs lend themselves better/worse to different disciplines. it's not the first consideration on my list but it's definitely in the top 3.

    For example, I like how when people speak of the horst link, they never talk about it's drawbacks. Yes, the suspension is minimally influenced by braking and chain forces... but there are other things at work. Horst link bikes tend to feel mushy under hard acceleration forces--it's the price you pay for not having a bike that stiffens during hard acceleration. Platform shocks dramatically improve this... as does specialized's "brain".

    Everybody beats up monopivots for pedal feed-back and brake induced suspension stiffening... Yes, the later is a definite drawback but, on a cross country bike, stiffening under acceleration is rarely a drawback, and if you are a pure cross country rider, chances are a small degrees of brake-induced suspension stiffening isn't going to have you grumbling too much.

    The only DW/VPP bikes I've ridden have been the blur (which had really sloppy pivots) and a Pivot Mach 5 which was an absolute animal. Both bikes pedaled well--the pivot you could practically stand and hammer on with impunity. I really can't comment on the Blur during hard braking, but after riding the Mach 5 in Co, I can say that if it does stiffen under braking I didn't notice much of it.

    Honestly, the most important thing to consider when buying any bike is fit. Tube lengths & angles can make a huge difference to a rider-- if a frame/fork doesn't maximize your power & handling everything else goes out the window. The next thing I consider is execution-- how stiff is the frame? How much play is in the pivots points? Does it feel like a quality product. Next is design/engineering. If I were to build up a dual suspension bike tomorrow, it would be a mach 5. If I were building it as a free-ride bike I would consider horst-links and other neutral braking designs as well. If I was building up an XC bike, I would still take the mach 5, but I would also consider monopivots & there relatives (mac-struts).

    This is all really a moot point for me... I live in SE Michigan and ride a Castellano Softail; pivots really aren't my gig
    Formerly known as iceaxe

  11. #11
    Saving lives with knives.
    Reputation: frank daleview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    944
    The position of the virtual pivot point changes depending on where you are in the suspension stroke... or am I mistaken?
    Formerly known as iceaxe

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaxe
    Really?! Maybe we are very different types of consumers, but I feel like different suspension designs lend themselves better/worse to different disciplines. it's not the first consideration on my list but it's definitely in the top 3.

    For example, I like how when people speak of the horst link, they never talk about it's drawbacks. Yes, the suspension is minimally influenced by braking and chain forces... but there are other things at work. Horst link bikes tend to feel mushy under hard acceleration forces--it's the price you pay for not having a bike that stiffens during hard acceleration. Platform shocks dramatically improve this... as does specialized's "brain".

    Everybody beats up monopivots for pedal feed-back and brake induced suspension stiffening... Yes, the later is a definite drawback but, on a cross country bike, stiffening under acceleration is rarely a drawback, and if you are a pure cross country rider, chances are a small degrees of brake-induced suspension stiffening isn't going to have you grumbling too much.

    The only DW/VPP bikes I've ridden have been the blur (which had really sloppy pivots) and a Pivot Mach 5 which was an absolute animal. Both bikes pedaled well--the pivot you could practically stand and hammer on with impunity. I really can't comment on the Blur during hard braking, but after riding the Mach 5 in Co, I can say that if it does stiffen under braking I didn't notice much of it.

    Honestly, the most important thing to consider when buying any bike is fit. Tube lengths & angles can make a huge difference to a rider-- if a frame/fork doesn't maximize your power & handling everything else goes out the window. The next thing I consider is execution-- how stiff is the frame? How much play is in the pivots points? Does it feel like a quality product. Next is design/engineering. If I were to build up a dual suspension bike tomorrow, it would be a mach 5. If I were building it as a free-ride bike I would consider horst-links and other neutral braking designs as well. If I was building up an XC bike, I would still take the mach 5, but I would also consider monopivots & there relatives (mac-struts).

    This is all really a moot point for me... I live in SE Michigan and ride a Castellano Softail; pivots really aren't my gig
    You're right of course but it's not the suspension type that makes the ride, it's the execution of that design. for example: can a monopivot be totally active under pedalling and feedback-free? of course....place the pivot around the BB. Could a horst link be designed to be acceleration effective? I guess it could.
    Are those good designes?....It doesn't matter. The point is, all designs can be executed in many ways and can be tuned to the intended use.

    Bicycle suspension is a combination of two elements:
    1. Axle path
    2. leverage ratio curve
    All suspension configurations deal (to some extent) with those elements and the trade-offs they pose. It's up to the designer to tune the design, any design, according to the intended use choosing the "right" spot between the trade-off extremes.

    Bottom line is - don't mind if it's a monopivot/DW/VPP/FSR/whatever...If it's a good bike, it's good regardless...

  13. #13
    Rutland All Star
    Reputation: Frac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    62
    My goal in this thread isn't to buy a new bike, or to decide on which bike to buy. The goal is to develop a basic understanding on how rear suspension works, in relation to the rest of the bike/frame.

    So far there have been some really great contributions to this thread. It's nice to get information on this, that's not from the manufactures website.

    If anyone can provide input on shock mounting positions that would be great too.


    Thanks

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaxe
    The position of the virtual pivot point changes depending on where you are in the suspension stroke... or am I mistaken?
    That is correct. That's why it was created in the first place.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    260

    I'll Try

    Quote Originally Posted by Frac
    My goal in this thread isn't to buy a new bike, or to decide on which bike to buy. The goal is to develop a basic understanding on how rear suspension works, in relation to the rest of the bike/frame.

    So far there have been some really great contributions to this thread. It's nice to get information on this, that's not from the manufactures website.

    If anyone can provide input on shock mounting positions that would be great too.


    Thanks
    I'll go on with this "elements" line of thinking.

    1. Axle path - Associated with square edge hits but actually has more to do with side effects (positive and negative) like chain growth that causes pedal feedback and like brake effects of sorts. As it's easy to see why, single pivots of all kinds "draw an arc" with the rear axle as the suspension moves. Multy pivot designes have the ability to some extent, to draw a certain axle path and to control chain growth and/or brake effects (it's not just the axle path but also controlling the angle of the brake caliper but let's leave it for now as I still find it hard to explain to myself ).
    2. Leverage ratio curve - The overall ratio is simply dividing the travel by the shock's stroke but, the rate is never constant throughout the travel: it can be rising, falling or even a combination of the two. There are many ways to control the way the rate changes as the swingarm moves. IMO this element has the most influence on how the bike "feels".
    3. Chain pull while pedalling - Many designs use the chain to pull the swing arm down while pedalling (most commonly only when the chain is on the small front chainring) to control "acceleration squat".


    Now, ALL suspension types are addressing those elements each in it's own way. And don't let looks fool you. Two designs can look the same and feel, act and ride different and vice versa.

    Hope this answers some of your questions. Tried to keep it simple...
    I havn't listed the trade-offs.

  16. #16
    Rutland All Star
    Reputation: Frac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    62
    EXCELLENT post ntha.

    As someone who has only owned 1 full suspension bike, can you expand upon the differnt "feels' associated with certain types of systems, or shock mounts?

    Also feel free to get super eggheady/technical on this stuff, those that don't want to read it, don't have to.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    260

    Something bothers me with this drawing

    Quote Originally Posted by Frac
    DW-Link, showing the location of the virtual pivot point

    I don't know where you took it from but I'm not quite sure it shows the correct pivot point....
    If you follow the rule of the pivot point being at the crossing of those lines (the links are rotating clockwise as the swingarm goes up), it means that from this current position, the axle must move up and forward....it doesn't make sense...

    I may be wrong.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    260

    Thanks, hope others wil fell the same ;)

    Quote Originally Posted by Frac
    EXCELLENT post ntha.

    As someone who has only owned 1 full suspension bike, can you expand upon the differnt "feels' associated with certain types of systems, or shock mounts?

    Also feel free to get super eggheady/technical on this stuff, those that don't want to read it, don't have to.
    At this point you'll have to be more specific but here's two more comments:

    1. Most brands are using the same design throughout their product line, from XC race to full DH racing machines (Intense, Turner, Trek, Specialized etc). This means that a certain design is not limited to just one use.
    2. I really do have to go now..... . I'll try to come back later.

  19. #19
    Rutland All Star
    Reputation: Frac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    62
    I just pulled that picture from Wiki. If that picture is wrong, link up what it should look like and I'll replace it.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    685
    Quote Originally Posted by ntha
    Priorities when choosing a FS bike:

    1. Intended use.
    2. Fit to person
    3. Components (value for money).
    4. Fit to my bike carrier.
    5. Location and overall relation to the closest shop that carries each model.
    6.Suspension design type.
    7....
    8....
    9....
    10. All other factors to consider.
    .
    .
    .
    999. "cool" factor- looks in general.
    Fixt for the non-fashion conscious.
    Quote Originally Posted by ridelikeafatkid
    "MOMMY, I WANT TO RIDE LIKE THAT FAT KID!" true story.

  21. #21
    T.W.O.
    Reputation: mimi1885's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,172
    There are so many different elements involving a suspension designs and final products. It's not the design, but more designers (brand) as well.

    Not all SinglePivot would ride like Foes, or Santa Cruz, or Cannondale for example. It's the most simplistic design and yet, each house can put the Pivot placement to tweak out the most for their particular model. New Santa Cruz APP comes to mind.

    Then you've got the variation of the SP design like the Trek 4-bar single pivot with their version of the concentric drop out(ABP). or the Kona's design.

    The multi link like Spech, Ellsworth ICT, then the mini link DW, Maestro, VPP.

    Sooo many companies doing about the same thing, sell you their product.

    OP, you stated that you are in the market of buying a new FS bike, then change your mind? and this is just educational?

    I don't know how I would really rank the importance of the design, I don't think it's 999th, but it's more than just the design. For example, I'm a DW fan, and in a market for a DW-link bike, which one? Ibis, Pivot, or Turner, even Iron horse. Ok, let say I stick with Ibis since I have 2 already and I know how it feel.

    Then the question become, which model, Ibis offer the least amount of models, comparing to the other 2 companies.

    Mojo, Mojo SL, Mojo HD, furthermore the HD is available in both 140mm and 160mm, Which one.

    Each of these elements contribute to a different ride personality. Your thread is too vague, but yet you want such detail info such as the different between shock mount, dunno if that would help if you like the design but hate the shock mount position, because there's nothing you can do, as they ain't changing the shock mount position to fit your need.


    It would be more beneficial to you, if you have some bikes in mind and throw it up on the table then discuss it.

    For example, I'm in a market for a new FS bike my budget is $4000, I want a good reasonable weight AM bike that can climb travel from 4-6" I'm 5'9" and not doing any serious racing, love to get better on the technical descend. The bike I'm currently looking at are

    Gary Fisher Hifi 29er, Rumblefish, Roscoe3
    Cannondale RZ140, Or the new Jekyll
    Ibis Mojo SL
    Giant Trance X2
    Santa Cruz Blur LTc
    Intense Tracer
    Pivot Mach 5
    Spech Enduro or FSR

    I'm not trying to be a prick or anything but the info is all over net, if you want a juicy discussion throw some example up then people would share. Suspension designs debate is too broad I think.
    I own different bike and suspension design, though I like most of them, from my personal experience, my 2 favorite bikes are Ibis Mojo, and Maverick ML8. I'd take my Mojo anywhere as the Geometry and suspension are spot on to what I'm doing, it response really well to terrain and tech stuff. But if I can only keep one it would be the ML8, there's a lot to say about the bike that's just disappear from under you, and just ride, not to mention the bike climb really well, not for a 6.5" bike, it climbs well period.

    Another one that I love to hate is the Ellsworth Moment, the bike is a beast. It's the heaviest bike I own, and it's a chore to climb, but I probably have the most memorable technical climb on it. What it lack on the snappy climbing sensation, it makes up with the sure-footed traction needed on the tech sections, very rare in my book.

    If you like Gary Fisher, I'd go with the Roscoe, GF put all the eggs in one basket on that bike. Proprietary Fox shock, Tapered head tube, ABP, G2 geometry, and great geometry. If I didn't have too many bike in that travel range already, I'd owned one already, what a bike.

  22. #22
    Rutland All Star
    Reputation: Frac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    62
    OP, you stated that you are in the market of buying a new FS bike, then change your mind? and this is just educational?

    Nahh, I'm still in the market to buy a new bike. But I don't want this specific thread to be about buying a bike. I'm trying to get an understanding of how different suspension systems work so that when I read through what should i buy threads I have some understanding of what people are talking about and recommending.

    I guess I'm trying to get a handle on what ride personality is, and how the frame setup effects ride personality.

    Following your advice about narrowing down this thread,lets talk about designs that are good for All Mountain and Light Free ride. (when i get to the what bike should I buy, iI'll post specific video's of my favorite local trails in that thread =) )

  23. #23
    T.W.O.
    Reputation: mimi1885's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,172
    K then, giant reign, faith are pretty good reign maestro are quite impressive. Although the one I rode was 33# I didn't feel a drag in the drive train, then you'd want to test the mojo hd I just ordered the small one, I know I'd be great as I'm planning to switch it back an forth between the travel and wheel size (650b&26").

    If you want to get even longer travel and light enough to pedal try the Canfield bros " the one" suspension. Personally I think the can diggle is awesome.

    If you want the bike that climb well and can be built relatively light check out Maverick ML8 you the 2010 is lighter and stiffer. You can also use the Hammerschmidt drive train as the 3 Pivot Monolink is not effected by the chainring size. I've got one on mine worth the 2 lbs it tag on.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by Frac

    Following your advice about narrowing down this thread,lets talk about designs that are good for All Mountain and Light Free ride.
    The important point I'm trying to get across is that all suspension designs are good fo all mountain and light free ride. It's how they're executed and tuned that matters.

    Morewood
    Trek
    Santacruz
    Yeti
    Ibis
    Mondraker
    Scott
    Banshee
    Kona
    GT
    The list goes on....

    All the above brands have fine all-mountain models and each has it's own suspension configuration (some are similar and some aren't).

    It's the whole package you're looking at not just the way certain aluminum tubes and plates are bolted together.
    Suspension dynamics is an interesting topic (to me at least) to discuss but IMO a little overrated. Geometry, fit, construction build quality come first. And after all, at a certain level and up, it's hard to find a "bad" bike.

  25. #25
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,656
    Quote Originally Posted by ntha
    I don't know where you took it from but I'm not quite sure it shows the correct pivot point....
    If you follow the rule of the pivot point being at the crossing of those lines (the links are rotating clockwise as the swingarm goes up), it means that from this current position, the axle must move up and forward....it doesn't make sense...

    I may be wrong.

    Actually, the axle path from this immediate position would be up (obviously) and BACK slightly..
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  26. #26
    I Tried Them ALL... SuperModerator
    Reputation: Cayenne_Pepa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,431
    What class is Giant's Maestro suspension? Looks more like a DW-Link deviant, to me.
    "This is a male-dominated forum... there will be lots of Testosterone sword-shaming here" ~ Kenfucius

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta
    Actually, the axle path from this immediate position would be up (obviously) and BACK slightly..
    I would expect that, that's why the drawing seem to be off...

  28. #28
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,656
    Quote Originally Posted by ntha
    I would expect that, that's why the drawing seem to be off...
    It is exactly what the drawing is indicating.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta
    It is exactly what the drawing is indicating.
    Rotate the links clockwise and the imaginary lines crossing shifts down and backwards. How can the axle move (up and) back? Again, it doesn't make sense to me, unless the rule of the virtual pivot being where the imaginary lines cross each other is wrong and the virtual pivot could be anywhere.
    Most chances are that it is me that is wrong.....

  30. #30
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,656
    Quote Originally Posted by ntha
    Rotate the links clockwise and the imaginary lines crossing shifts down and backwards. How can the axle move (up and) back? Again, it doesn't make sense to me, unless the rule of the virtual pivot being where the imaginary lines cross each other is wrong and the virtual pivot could be anywhere.
    Most chances are that it is me that is wrong.....
    The axle path moves up and back in the initial stages (shallow) part of the travel, not throughout the whole travel. This may be the confusion.

    I just had my MKIII apart for bearing maintenance and I actually followed where the virtual pivot moves to. That drawing is basically accurate. It moves (basically) down and back. However, as long as the virtual pivot is higher than the axle, the axle path will be up and back.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta
    The axle path moves up and back in the initial stages (shallow) part of the travel, not throughout the whole travel. This may be the confusion.

    I just had my MKIII apart for bearing maintenance and I actually followed where the virtual pivot moves to. That drawing is basically accurate. It moves (basically) down and back. However, as long as the virtual pivot is higher than the axle, the axle path will be up and back.
    OK, Thanks

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    40
    Just find a early GT idrive frame that isn't cracked ( 2001-2004 ) and call it a day. Best suspension design every created, hands down.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chas_martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by ntha
    The important point I'm trying to get across is that all suspension designs are good fo all mountain and light free ride. It's how they're executed and tuned that matters.

    Morewood
    Trek
    Santacruz
    Yeti
    Ibis
    Mondraker
    Scott
    Banshee
    Kona
    GT
    The list goes on....

    All the above brands have fine all-mountain models and each has it's own suspension configuration (some are similar and some aren't).

    It's the whole package you're looking at not just the way certain aluminum tubes and plates are bolted together.
    Suspension dynamics is an interesting topic (to me at least) to discuss but IMO a little overrated. Geometry, fit, construction build quality come first. And after all, at a certain level and up, it's hard to find a "bad" bike.
    Why do some people have such a hard time with discussions solely about suspension design?

    While I understand your point, I've owned several bikes with differing suspension types and there is no way you will convince me that there are not discernible differences in handing/ride characteristics. As such it is valid to discuss them and their characteristics.

    For purposes of this type discussion I challenge you to try and hold execution as a constant in your mind.
    Nobody cares...........

  34. #34
    T.W.O.
    Reputation: mimi1885's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,172
    Quote Originally Posted by chas_martel
    Why do some people have such a hard time with discussions solely about suspension design?

    While I understand your point, I've owned several bikes with differing suspension types and there is no way you will convince me that there are not discernible differences in handing/ride characteristics. As such it is valid to discuss them and their characteristics.

    For purposes of this type discussion I challenge you to try and hold execution as a constant in your mind.

    CM, I see your point, but nowdays newer bike designs are more than just suspension performance and shock rate. For example, DW link desing allow the design to be slacker HA and lower BB, and the BB does not sink when accelerate. So you have to consider the whole pic.

    The older bike designs share somewhat similar geo when compare to their peers in the same class. Now you've got anti-squat, anti dive, anti jack built in to the design mechanically engineer into the design to prevent excessive movement of suspension(f/r) so geo on the paper look different than the good ol' 4 bars.

    Another word, it just got better but more complicated, but in a good ways

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chas_martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by mimi1885

    Another word, it just got better but more complicated, but in a good ways
    Yep, on this point I'm with you 110%.
    Nobody cares...........

  36. #36
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,656
    Quote Originally Posted by chas_martel
    Why do some people have such a hard time with discussions solely about suspension design?
    .
    I blame the schools and lazy parenting.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  37. #37
    Singletrack Slayer
    Reputation: DavidNeiles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,960
    Quote Originally Posted by GTfreefall
    Just find a early GT idrive frame that isn't cracked ( 2001-2004 ) and call it a day. Best suspension design every created, hands down.
    Are you serious!!!!! I Drive is crap! Much better designs out there, who the hell thinks 10yr old suspension is as good as now a days. So much is better on todays bikes!
    ~~~~~~Singletrack Slayer~~~~~~~

  38. #38
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,656
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidNeiles
    Are you serious!!!!! I Drive is crap! Much better designs out there, who the hell thinks 10yr old suspension is as good as now a days. So much is better on todays bikes!
    VPP and the Horst Link are even older than that.

    For that matter you will be very hard pressed to find a current design that is not the result of tweaking some other, older basic suspension platform. Don't assume that the I-drive today is the same as the one introduced a decade ago.

    I have no opinion on whether the I-drive is any good, but it regularly gets pretty high marks these days as a design that works well.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  39. #39
    T.W.O.
    Reputation: mimi1885's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,172
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta
    VPP and the Horst Link are even older than that.

    For that matter you will be very hard pressed to find a current design that is not the result of tweaking some other, older basic suspension platform. Don't assume that the I-drive today is the same as the one introduced a decade ago.

    I have no opinion on whether the I-drive is any good, but it regularly gets pretty high marks these days as a design that works well.
    +1

    The old I-drive is actually pretty good, it comes it's sag alignment aid which is cool, climb and descend well. One problem with older I-Drive is the Geometry. It was set up for "back in the days" geo a bit too XCish, other than that still is a solid bike at quite affordable price.

    DavidNeiles my 10+years design Monolink w/ Hammerschmidt can out perform many latest designs nowadays. Tested back to back, time and time again. Maverick ML8 is still my favorite bike.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by mimi1885
    +1

    The old I-drive is actually pretty good, it comes it's sag alignment aid which is cool, climb and descend well. One problem with older I-Drive is the Geometry. It was set up for "back in the days" geo a bit too XCish, other than that still is a solid bike at quite affordable price.

    DavidNeiles my 10+years design Monolink w/ Hammerschmidt can out perform many latest designs nowadays. Tested back to back, time and time again. Maverick ML8 is still my favorite bike.
    Heh.. my iDrive bushings are giving up the ghost, and I'm struggling to find another non race bike with decently steep angles. I want 5" (iDrive is 4.6") with a 70*+ head angle. My trails haven't changed in 10 years, so I'm not sure why I need a slower handling bike all of a sudden.

    Side note: If anyone knows where to find replacement bushings for a 2000 XCR3000, let me know!

Members who have read this thread: 0

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

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.