Doug Taylor said:In the June issue of Mountain Bike, Horst Leitner (inventor of the Horst Link used on such f.s.
bikes as Titus Racer X, Specialized FSR, and his own, now defunct, AMPs) is quoted as follows:
WORST SUSPENSION INNOVATION? - "Bikes like the Santa Cruz Blur. They're too heavy because they
don't use their suspension element as a structural member to keep weight down and to maximize
rigidity. The VPP has too many pivots, which makes it too flexy. Our bikes from 10 years ago are
probably more rigid."
OK, I'll bit eon this one. I have owned an AMP B2, B4 and a B5. I currently ride a Blur. I think the
b2 weighed around 25, the b4 was a bit heavier and the B5 weighed 24.5. They were decent enough
bikes, but suffered from various shortcomings. I won't even speak of the companies utter inability
to make a functioning rear shock. Oh wait, I just did. The Amps were flexy. They were not at all a
good choice for anyone who weighed over 170 pounds. The bushings at every pivot point wore out
quickly. My Blur weighs just under 26 pounds, this, mind you, with "heavy" items like tubeless tires
and hydraulic disc brakes. Though it is quite new, it already feels like the least flexy dual
suspension frame I have yet inhabited. Is my Blur the be all and end all? I very much doubt it. But
is sure is a nice ride, and I think it represents a notch up in the evolution of suspension. (Note:
as with the first round of VPP bikes, sometimes evolutionary steps are quickly commited to the
fossil record. See also: Manitou's first full suspension bike, the Pulstar hub, the Stegosaurus, and
suspension stems.)
Quoted message said:
INNOVATION YOU ADMIRE MOST? " The mountain bike industry is going backwards, so I can't admire
anything. Manufacturers are moving more and more toward freeride bikes. The result is a shrinking
market. There's no way to make money there. They should be making bikes that are light, suspended
and comfortable. Instead, they're making bikes with tons of travel, and they're getting stuck with
them. As for DH bikes, they're good for a few sales, then it's over."
Methinks he's thinking of the racer's market as the pinnacle, Around here, more people are bagging
on racing and going for longer, more technical rides. NO BRA has upped it's fees, ad they are losing
venues and sponsorship left and right. Plus the courses all seem like groomers relative to some of
the trails that people actually spend time on riding. Here in central Texas, there is a series of
very successful grass roots events like time trails, 12 hour endurance rides and even a night time
trial or two. 4x4 bikes are pretty common at these events, along with free beer.
Ten years ago a bike with 63mm of travel up front and 80mm in the back was viewed by and large as
"burly" and overkill for most trails. I think back then there just wasn't a pigeonhole word like
"freeride" to describe the phenomenon. If you can't figure out how to make money by selling 4,000
buck bikes to kids who jump off of cliffs and houses on them, it might be best to stay out of the
front office and stick to the lab.
Quoted message said:
STILL TO COME? "I don't know. Right now no one's headed in the right direction. If someone comes
up with something better than an AMP-type suspension design, maybe. But so far, no one has."
Well of course he would say that no one is headed in the right direction if he thinks that the AMP
type suspension is the only right direction.
I think there are better supsension options available to a wider cross sewction of consumers than
there were ten years ago.
Quoted message said:
From this and other quotes, it's clear the guy is full of himself, though maybe with some
justification. My gut is that he has a point, as I'm biased in favor of x-c and light bikes.
So, is the guy just a cantankerous, out of touch reactionary or still a visionary?
-dt
--
My hands are full of thorns but I can't quit groping for the rose.