Mountain Bikes · Public discussion

Setting the record str8 on rear suspensions

Started by ..::Tbf::.. · · Last activity · 6 posts · 1,217 views

← Back to Mountain Bikes

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postSetting the record str8 on rear suspensions..::Tbf::.. · 5 Mar 2003 02 / This pagePosts 1–6Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #6Westie · 9 Mar 2003

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Mountain Bikes
Published
5 March 2003
Last activity
9 March 2003
Original author
..::Tbf::..
Posts
6
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,217
Views / 30 days
0
Topics
Spoke count

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–6 of 6
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Original post
    ..::Tbf::..
    Archived post
    #1

    The other day I was in my LBS checking out the new 2003 bikes, when I happened to overhear a
    conversation between two people debating the benefits of each suspension type. Both of them had a
    few good points but were generally way off the mark.

    I thought I would post some facts on rear suspension types, based on what I've read. Add any
    comments you like if you know better.

    There are three main types of rear suspension designs
    members.rogers.comcool bike.htm

    Single Pivot
    ------------

    The axle rotates around the main pivot, kind of like an arc made with a compass. Not very useful for
    the type of XC riding that seems to be popular on this newsgroup. When the pivot is above the
    chainline, pedaling forces pulls the rear wheel into the ground, which tends to lock out the
    suspension unless you hit something harder than the force generated by your pedaling.

    When the pivot is below the chainline, pedaling forces pull the rear wheel away from the ground. DH
    bikes tend to make better use of this type because they only use one chainring which helps in
    dialing the correct pivot location.

    Faux Bar
    ----------

    These are single-pivot suspensions with multiple linkages used to drive the rear shock. Still
    limited due to the fact that the chainstay is uninterrupted, therefore the same movement in the
    shape of an arc can be expected. This type of suspension is usually used for DH or Freeride
    type bikes.

    An example of a Faux Bar design is the Kona Dudu

    Four Bar
    ---------

    In this type, the axle path is determined by the combination of linkages and their positions,
    length, etc in relation to each other. The rear axle of a four bar suspension rotates around a
    virtual pivot point. It's called "virtual" because the point exists only in physics, and changes in
    relation to the movement of the suspension.

    The design allows for controlling chain growth, pedal and braking feedback.

    Some four bar suspension bikes are Specialized FSR/EPIC, Whyte Quad, and Giant NRS

    as for which is the best...everyone has their own opinion. Me, I opted for a true four bar design.
    Other design though like Santa Cruz' VPP bikes are awesome.

    Cheers

    --
    members.rogers.comtheblackfoxx

    Report
  2. Miles Todd
    Archived post
    #2
    ..::TBF::.. said:

    The other day I was in my LBS checking out the new 2003 bikes, when I happened to overhear a
    conversation between two people debating the benefits of each suspension type. Both of them had a
    few good points but were generally way off the mark.

    I thought I would post some facts on rear suspension types, based on what I've read. Add any
    comments you like if you know better.

    There are three main types of rear suspension designs
    members.rogers.comcool bike.htm

    Single Pivot
    ------------

    The axle rotates around the main pivot, kind of like an arc made with a compass. Not very useful
    for the type of XC riding that seems to be popular on this newsgroup. When the pivot is above the
    chainline, pedaling forces pulls the rear wheel into the ground, which tends to lock out the
    suspension unless you hit something harder than the force generated by your pedaling.

    When the pivot is below the chainline, pedaling forces pull the rear wheel away from the ground. DH
    bikes tend to make better use of this type because they only use one chainring which helps in
    dialing the correct pivot location.

    Faux Bar
    ----------

    These are single-pivot suspensions with multiple linkages used to drive the rear shock. Still
    limited due to the fact that the chainstay is uninterrupted, therefore the same movement in the
    shape of an arc can be expected. This type of suspension is usually used for DH or Freeride
    type bikes.

    An example of a Faux Bar design is the Kona Dudu

    Four Bar
    ---------

    In this type, the axle path is determined by the combination of linkages and their positions,
    length, etc in relation to each other. The rear axle of a four bar suspension rotates around a
    virtual pivot point. It's called "virtual" because the point exists only in physics, and changes in
    relation to the movement of the suspension.

    The design allows for controlling chain growth, pedal and braking feedback.

    Some four bar suspension bikes are Specialized FSR/EPIC, Whyte Quad, and Giant NRS

    as for which is the best...everyone has their own opinion. Me, I opted for a true four bar design.
    Other design though like Santa Cruz' VPP bikes are awesome.

    Cheers

    --
    members.rogers.comtheblackfoxx

    math.chalmers.seBike

    Miles

    Report
  3. Bomba
    Archived post
    #3
    ..::TBF::.. said:

    The other day I was in my LBS checking out the new 2003 bikes, when I happened to overhear a
    conversation between two people debating the benefits of each suspension type. Both of them had a
    few good points but were generally way off the mark.

    I thought I would post some facts on rear suspension types, based on what I've read. Add any
    comments you like if you know better.

    There are three main types of rear suspension designs
    members.rogers.comcool bike.htm

    Single Pivot
    ------------

    The axle rotates around the main pivot, kind of like an arc made with a compass. Not very useful
    for the type of XC riding that seems to be popular on this newsgroup.

    Er, Santa Cruz SL / Heckler / Blur, Titus Locomoto, Orange Sub 5 / Patriot, Marin's Tara FS XC
    bikes, etc, etc.

    When the pivot is above the chainline, pedaling forces

    Quoted message said:

    pulls the rear wheel into the ground, which tends to lock out the suspension unless you hit
    something harder than the force generated by your pedaling.

    When the pivot is below the chainline, pedaling forces pull the rear wheel away from the ground.
    DH bikes tend to make better use of this type because they only use one chainring which helps in
    dialing the correct pivot location.

    Rubbish.

    Quoted message said:

    Faux Bar
    ----------

    These are single-pivot suspensions with multiple linkages used to drive the rear shock. Still
    limited due to the fact that the chainstay is uninterrupted, therefore the same movement in the
    shape of an arc can be expected. This type of suspension is usually used for DH or Freeride
    type bikes.

    An example of a Faux Bar design is the Kona Dudu

    Four Bar
    ---------

    In this type, the axle path is determined by the combination of linkages and their positions,
    length, etc in relation to each other. The rear axle of a four bar suspension rotates around a
    virtual pivot point. It's called "virtual" because the point exists only in physics, and changes
    in relation to the movement of the suspension.

    I'm confused between your defininitions of a faux bar and a four bar. Placing one of the bearings
    below the mech hanger, as opposed to above the mech hanger, totally changes the type of
    suspension it is?

    Quoted message said:

    The design allows for controlling chain growth, pedal and braking feedback.

    What and the other designs don't?

    Quoted message said:

    Other design though like Santa Cruz' VPP bikes are awesome.

    Absolutely no justification. Where's your evidence?

    Interesting, but ultimately flawed due to poor understanding of subject matter and an obvious bias
    towards one type of design.

    --
    a.m-b FAQ: t-online.deambfaq.htm

    b.bmx FAQ: t-online.debmx faq.htm

    Report
  4. 2trax
    Archived post
    #4
    ..::TBF::.. said:

    The other day I was in my LBS checking out the new 2003 bikes, when I happened to overhear a
    conversation between two people debating the benefits of each suspension type. Both of them had a
    few good points but were generally way off the mark.

    I thought I would post some facts on rear suspension types, based on what I've read. Add any
    comments you like if you know better.


    <snip>

    Hmm, hard to tell the difference between facts and marketing these days if you are relying on bike
    mags for your research 🙂

    Bicycle suspension analysis is horribly complicated because of two factors:

    (1) the variety of situations a bike is ridden in and (2) the component in the system with the
    greatest mass (you the rider) is constantly moving, changing the centre of gravity.

    Body mass has a significant effect on the rest of the system and is one reason why we can't model
    the suspension performance of bikes the same way as we can for a car.

    Since trying to devise a rigorous FEM or BEM model for this application is such a nightmare, most
    companies rely upon simpler methods. I think this complexity is what allows some manufactures to get
    away with outrageous claims.

    Anyway, one simple tool that was posted here recently is called the 'path analysis method'
    [mtbcomprador.comenglish] which is being proposed by a group of technical
    mountain bikers.

    While I'm not 100% sure on all their conclusions (been a while since I did any of the maths) its a
    good read and I agree with their statement:

    "Our advice is to ignore all suspension theories and other claims put forth by frame manufacturers
    and industry magazines, and base your buying decisions exclusively on experimentation."

    So rather than propagate half truths as fact (where did you get the idea that single pivots are no
    good for xc?) I suggest that you simply encourage any one you know who is buying to try as many
    types as possible and go with the one they liked the best...

    Cheers,

    Sam.

    Report
  5. ..::Tbf::..
    Archived post
    #5

    "2trax" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    ..::TBF::.. said:

    The other day I was in my LBS checking out the new 2003 bikes, when I happened to overhear a
    conversation between two people debating the benefits of each suspension type. Both of them had
    a few good points but were generally way off the mark.

    I thought I would post some facts on rear suspension types, based on what I've read. Add any
    comments you like if you know better.


    <snip>

    Hmm, hard to tell the difference between facts and marketing these days if you are relying on bike
    mags for your research 🙂

    Bicycle suspension analysis is horribly complicated because of two factors:

    (1) the variety of situations a bike is ridden in and (2) the component in the system with the
    greatest mass (you the rider) is constantly moving, changing the centre of gravity.

    Body mass has a significant effect on the rest of the system and is one reason why we can't model
    the suspension performance of bikes the same way as we can for a car.

    Since trying to devise a rigorous FEM or BEM model for this application is such a nightmare, most
    companies rely upon simpler methods. I think this complexity is what allows some manufactures to
    get away with outrageous claims.

    Anyway, one simple tool that was posted here recently is called the 'path analysis method'
    [mtbcomprador.comenglish] which is being proposed by a group of technical
    mountain bikers.

    While I'm not 100% sure on all their conclusions (been a while since I did any of the maths) its a
    good read and I agree with their statement:

    "Our advice is to ignore all suspension theories and other claims put forth by frame manufacturers
    and industry magazines, and base your buying decisions exclusively on experimentation."

    So rather than propagate half truths as fact (where did you get the idea that single pivots are no
    good for xc?) I suggest that you simply encourage any one you know who is buying to try as many
    types as possible and go with the one they liked the best...

    Cheers,

    Sam.

    True, I always tell my buddies to try out a bike based on the type of riding they do and ignore the
    suspension type before hand.

    thanks

    Report
  6. Westie
    Archived post
    #6

    "2trax" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    ..::TBF::.. said:

    The other day I was in my LBS checking out the new 2003 bikes, when I happened to overhear a
    conversation between two people debating the benefits of each suspension type. Both of them had
    a few good points but were generally way off the mark.

    I thought I would post some facts on rear suspension types, based on what I've read. Add any
    comments you like if you know better.


    <snip>

    Hmm, hard to tell the difference between facts and marketing these days if you are relying on bike
    mags for your research 🙂

    I think that I saw the article myself. As they mentioned in it, the Horst 4 bar linkage is,
    apparently, patented and licensed to approved manufacturers. So even if it WAS the best suspension
    setup for mountainbikes, there are very few people allowed to use it. The point being that you're
    going to get a thousand and one different suspensions designs with everyone claiming that their's is
    the best - and supplying test data to match. The theory is good but reality usually throws a spanner
    into the spokes.

    Westie

    Report

Keep exploring

Browse the sectionMountain Bikes Return to CyclingForumsStart at the home page Search discussionsFind another thread

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.