Suspension energy losses?

Quoted message said:

Hi All,

I went for a MTB ride today. The first real MTB ride in many months. My
bike has full suspension which I like from a comfort and control
perspective. I dropped decisively my riding buddies for the first time
ever. This caused much good natured teasing and joking at my expense,
as well as the observation that were I to get a "real" cross-country
hard-tail bike, I would be even more of a menace. I do not agree. I do
not belive that a fully suspended bike wastes an appreciable amount of
energy while riding, either seated or standing. I never lock my front
fork either, as the slight po-going while standing does not bother me.

So what is the deal? Do FS bikes waste energy? Anyone have some data to
back up any claims?

Joseph

I guess you can be curious but does the bike fit? Work? Get you
'there'?
Does it work for you? Why do you care about the coffee shop opinion?

Find a hardtail for a ride, ride the same route-then decide.

Quoted message said:

Hi All,

I went for a MTB ride today. The first real MTB ride in many months. My
bike has full suspension which I like from a comfort and control
perspective. I dropped decisively my riding buddies for the first time
ever. This caused much good natured teasing and joking at my expense,
as well as the observation that were I to get a "real" cross-country
hard-tail bike, I would be even more of a menace. I do not agree. I do
not belive that a fully suspended bike wastes an appreciable amount of
energy while riding, either seated or standing. I never lock my front
fork either, as the slight po-going while standing does not bother me.

So what is the deal? Do FS bikes waste energy? Anyone have some data to
back up any claims?

No data, just suppostion. I have never ridden a FS bike but have been
wondering about their possible advantage because I have noticed the
fatigue and additional challenge in maintaining control of the bike on
a hardtail when riding over technically challenging terrain that is
continuously very bumpy or rocky.

As I understand it, the FS bike is heavier and more expensive than a
hardtail of the same quality for the rest of the bike, and it's hard
for me to believe that the FS is as efficient in transferring power to
the wheel on more moderate terrain. But I also suspect that the FS will
absorb energy that must be absorbed by your body with a hardtail and
that it is entirely possible that in many cases you will be faster on a
FS. Jostling of muscles causes them to fatigue.

I would be interested to hear other opinions on this myself, in case I
ever have a couple thousand or so dollars lying around that I could
spare for a quality lightweight FS.

Quoted message said:

So what is the deal? Do FS bikes waste energy? Anyone have some data to
back up any claims?

I'd be curious to know where you dropped them. I've witnessed that a FS
bike is faster on rough terrain provided that you are not climbing.
Many years ago I was in a friendly dual with the owner of Intense, he
on a full suspension bike and me on my MB-1 (no suspension). It was a
flat section with alternating rough and smooth parts. On the smoother
areas I would pull ahead, but on the rough spots he would pull ahead...
the difference was not subtle. The rough parts were not super rough
either, but I was bouncing around a little. Since I was a stronger
rider, I think the suspension was definately helping overall.

On climbs you'd be better off with less weight and less pogoing.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Quoted message said:

Hi All,

I went for a MTB ride today. The first real MTB ride in many months. My
bike has full suspension which I like from a comfort and control
perspective. I dropped decisively my riding buddies for the first time
ever. This caused much good natured teasing and joking at my expense,
as well as the observation that were I to get a "real" cross-country
hard-tail bike, I would be even more of a menace. I do not agree. I do
not belive that a fully suspended bike wastes an appreciable amount of
energy while riding, either seated or standing. I never lock my front
fork either, as the slight po-going while standing does not bother me.

So what is the deal? Do FS bikes waste energy? Anyone have some data to
back up any claims?

Joseph

I guess you can be curious but does the bike fit? Work? Get you
'there'?
Does it work for you? Why do you care about the coffee shop opinion?

Find a hardtail for a ride, ride the same route-then decide.

I don't care even if it does waste some energy. I like FS, and I
believe the advantages are well forth the extra weight and complexity.
I just wonder why so many bogus things are taken as self-evident truths
by so many, particularly when the bogus info comes from people faster
than others. If they are faster than me, they must be right, right?
Seems to be the way it goes.

Joseph

Ron Ruff said:

Quoted message said:

So what is the deal? Do FS bikes waste energy? Anyone have some data to
back up any claims?

I'd be curious to know where you dropped them. I've witnessed that a FS
bike is faster on rough terrain provided that you are not climbing.
Many years ago I was in a friendly dual with the owner of Intense, he
on a full suspension bike and me on my MB-1 (no suspension). It was a
flat section with alternating rough and smooth parts. On the smoother
areas I would pull ahead, but on the rough spots he would pull ahead...
the difference was not subtle. The rough parts were not super rough
either, but I was bouncing around a little. Since I was a stronger
rider, I think the suspension was definately helping overall.

On climbs you'd be better off with less weight and less pogoing.

We stuck to very non-technical dirt roads and a little singletrack.
Very little climbing and virtually no technical sections. I could drop
them at will at any section. Certainly less weight helps for climbing,
but I suspect that the FS advantage or disadvantge is primarlity
related to rider preference. I think the wasted energy (if there is
any) is so small it ends up making no difference, or at least less
difference than the negative effects of a rider using something they
felt was uncomfortable.

Joseph

Joseph Santaniello said:

I went for a MTB ride today. The first real MTB ride in many
months. My bike has full suspension which I like from a comfort and
control perspective. I dropped decisively my riding buddies for the
first time ever. This caused much good natured teasing and joking at
my expense, as well as the observation that were I to get a "real"
cross-country hard-tail bike, I would be even more of a menace. I do
not agree. I do not believe that a fully suspended bike wastes an
appreciable amount of energy while riding, either seated or
standing. I never lock my front fork either, as the slight po-going
while standing does not bother me.

Of course suspension absorbs energy, but it gives back more control
when traveling over rough stuff. For climbing, there is a lockout
option on some suspension to avoid those small losses but the main
purpose is to not have suspension interfere with the pedal strokes.
It is less efficient to pedal against a moving support that yields
with pedal force (bounce).

Quoted message said:

So what is the deal? Do FS bikes waste energy? Anyone have some
data to back up any claims?

Shock absorbers get warm and that energy has got to come from the
motor just as with a motor vehicle.

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

Joseph Santaniello said:

I went for a MTB ride today. The first real MTB ride in many
months. My bike has full suspension which I like from a comfort and
control perspective. I dropped decisively my riding buddies for the
first time ever. This caused much good natured teasing and joking at
my expense, as well as the observation that were I to get a "real"
cross-country hard-tail bike, I would be even more of a menace. I do
not agree. I do not believe that a fully suspended bike wastes an
appreciable amount of energy while riding, either seated or
standing. I never lock my front fork either, as the slight po-going
while standing does not bother me.

Of course suspension absorbs energy, but it gives back more control
when traveling over rough stuff. For climbing, there is a lockout
option on some suspension to avoid those small losses but the main
purpose is to not have suspension interfere with the pedal strokes.
It is less efficient to pedal against a moving support that yields
with pedal force (bounce).

Quoted message said:

So what is the deal? Do FS bikes waste energy? Anyone have some
data to back up any claims?

Shock absorbers get warm and that energy has got to come from the
motor just as with a motor vehicle.

But how much energy is it? What order of magnitude is it compared with
other energy losses on a bike? Not even getting into the amount of
energy used to heat a butt by applying a seat repeatedly!

Joseph

Joseph Santaniello said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I went for a MTB ride today. The first real MTB ride in many
months. My bike has full suspension which I like from a comfort
and control perspective. I dropped decisively my riding buddies
for the first time ever. This caused much good natured teasing
and joking at my expense, as well as the observation that were I
to get a "real" cross-country hard-tail bike, I would be even more
of a menace. I do not agree. I do not believe that a fully
suspended bike wastes an appreciable amount of energy while
riding, either seated or standing. I never lock my front fork
either, as the slight po-going while standing does not bother me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course suspension absorbs energy, but it gives back more control
when traveling over rough stuff. For climbing, there is a lockout
option on some suspension to avoid those small losses but the main
purpose is to not have suspension interfere with the pedal strokes.
It is less efficient to pedal against a moving support that yields
with pedal force (bounce).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So what is the deal? Do FS bikes waste energy? Anyone have some
data to back up any claims?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Shock absorbers get warm and that energy has got to come from the
motor just as with a motor vehicle.

Quoted message said:

But how much energy is it? What order of magnitude is it compared
with other energy losses on a bike? Not even getting into the
amount of energy used to heat a butt by applying a seat repeatedly!

As you may have noticed the shock absorber does not get HOT to the
touch so the energy is not large, while the bounce that interferes
with pedaling is a bigger problem and that depends on the ability of
the rider to negate that effect in the absence of a lockout mechanism
(that's why it's there).

Jobst Brandt

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Joseph Santaniello said:

Quoted message said:

> I went for a MTB ride today. The first real MTB ride in many
> months. My bike has full suspension which I like from a comfort
> and control perspective. I dropped decisively my riding buddies
> for the first time ever. This caused much good natured teasing
> and joking at my expense, as well as the observation that were I
> to get a "real" cross-country hard-tail bike, I would be even more
> of a menace. I do not agree. I do not believe that a fully
> suspended bike wastes an appreciable amount of energy while
> riding, either seated or standing. I never lock my front fork
> either, as the slight po-going while standing does not bother me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course suspension absorbs energy, but it gives back more control
when traveling over rough stuff. For climbing, there is a lockout
option on some suspension to avoid those small losses but the main
purpose is to not have suspension interfere with the pedal strokes.
It is less efficient to pedal against a moving support that yields
with pedal force (bounce).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> So what is the deal? Do FS bikes waste energy? Anyone have some
> data to back up any claims?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Shock absorbers get warm and that energy has got to come from the
motor just as with a motor vehicle.

Quoted message said:

But how much energy is it? What order of magnitude is it compared
with other energy losses on a bike? Not even getting into the
amount of energy used to heat a butt by applying a seat repeatedly!

As you may have noticed the shock absorber does not get HOT to the
touch so the energy is not large, while the bounce that interferes
with pedaling is a bigger problem and that depends on the ability of
the rider to negate that effect in the absence of a lockout mechanism
(that's why it's there).

The latest technology, which the poster's bike may or may not have, is
"stable platform" valves, now typically available on both forks and
shocks. The mechanism is roughly a spring-suspended weight which tends
to respond to sudden shocks but not to the steady motion of the pedals.
since the weight determines whether (or in some cases, how much) the
suspension is locked, it functions as an automatic lockout mechanism
which, in the better implementations, is supposed to be so fast it can
even unlock itself momentarily on climbs to deal with small,
traction-robbing obstacles.

Power meter data might give you the answer you seek (if they were
hub-based), but racing lap times are probably a pretty good proxy for
energy losses, and they would be about the most direct measure of what
you really care about, the "net energy" gained or lost with the bike* on
that type of course.

I tried googling up some stuff on this:

Annoyingly, I can't tell from the abstract which bike was the hardtail:
http://biomech.me.unr.edu/[censored]/abstracts/dual_suspension_test.htm

This one is a bit specialized, but the "Paul N" in this topic is a guy I
know and a very experienced racer. He's talking about the 6-day, 600km
TransRockies Challenge, one of the most epic MTB races on the planet. FS
bikes excel in marathon events like this, but he also says the FS bikes
can go up "technical" climbs faster than hardtails:

http://www.transrockies.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4&start=0&postdays=0&po
storder=asc&highlight=&sid=f43f74204f00f7c286842b1c8b276e34

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=su
spension+hardtail+lap+times&btnG=Search

*It is possible you might see a net loss on a particular course for the
FS bike but still prefer it for reasons of fatigue-reduction, being able
to hit bigger obstacles, or just because it's fun.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Joseph Santaniello said:

>> I went for a MTB ride today. The first real MTB ride in many
>> months. My bike has full suspension which I like from a comfort
>> and control perspective. I dropped decisively my riding buddies
>> for the first time ever. This caused much good natured teasing
>> and joking at my expense, as well as the observation that were I
>> to get a "real" cross-country hard-tail bike, I would be even more
>> of a menace. I do not agree. I do not believe that a fully
>> suspended bike wastes an appreciable amount of energy while
>> riding, either seated or standing. I never lock my front fork
>> either, as the slight po-going while standing does not bother me.

Quoted message said:

> Of course suspension absorbs energy, but it gives back more control
> when traveling over rough stuff. For climbing, there is a lockout
> option on some suspension to avoid those small losses but the main
> purpose is to not have suspension interfere with the pedal strokes.
> It is less efficient to pedal against a moving support that yields
> with pedal force (bounce).

Quoted message said:

>> So what is the deal? Do FS bikes waste energy? Anyone have some
>> data to back up any claims?

Quoted message said:

> Shock absorbers get warm and that energy has got to come from the
> motor just as with a motor vehicle.

Quoted message said:

But how much energy is it? What order of magnitude is it compared
with other energy losses on a bike? Not even getting into the
amount of energy used to heat a butt by applying a seat repeatedly!

As you may have noticed the shock absorber does not get HOT to the
touch so the energy is not large, while the bounce that interferes
with pedaling is a bigger problem and that depends on the ability of
the rider to negate that effect in the absence of a lockout mechanism
(that's why it's there).

The latest technology, which the poster's bike may or may not have, is
"stable platform" valves, now typically available on both forks and
shocks. The mechanism is roughly a spring-suspended weight which tends
to respond to sudden shocks but not to the steady motion of the pedals.
since the weight determines whether (or in some cases, how much) the
suspension is locked, it functions as an automatic lockout mechanism
which, in the better implementations, is supposed to be so fast it can
even unlock itself momentarily on climbs to deal with small,
traction-robbing obstacles.

The po-going may be somewhat rider dependant. Some riders through some
combination of CG, standing posture, bike frame size, crank-length, who
knows what, may not be as detrimentally affected by po-going. So
perhaps these stable platform type valves provide a solution for people
who are affected by it. But I think it is a mental block. I think the
only reason people want lock-out is because they think it would be
robbing them of power if they did not have it, and this affects them in
a negative mental way. It is of course impossible to conduct a blind
test with FS and hardtail, but I think on a smooth non-technical course
(dirt road) FS riders could produce as good times on hardtail bikes,
while hardtailers would not be able to match their times on an FS bike.
That is of course pure conjecture, but as Jobst pointed out, the shocks
don't get hot (at least not from the minor po-going up a hill) so the
energey "lost" is very small. I don't think people can feel that small
amount of energy. Sometimes on (road) rides I like goofing off and
holding on to the saddle of some of my buddies. I have long arms, and
if I am very gentel with my touch, and only add resistance as the road
gets steeper, I can sometimes ride for many meters with somebody
partially towing me up the hill without them noticing it. If riders
don't notice pulling me up a hill, how are they going to notice heating
up a shock by 1/2 a degree?

Quoted message said:

Power meter data might give you the answer you seek (if they were
hub-based), but racing lap times are probably a pretty good proxy for
energy losses, and they would be about the most direct measure of what
you really care about, the "net energy" gained or lost with the bike* on
that type of course.

That's the problem. the fast guys ride hardtail, so hardtail is faster
right? And a VW bus is safer than a Corvette.

Quoted message said:

I tried googling up some stuff on this:

Annoyingly, I can't tell from the abstract which bike was the hardtail:
http://biomech.me.unr.edu/[censored]/abstracts/dual_suspension_test.htm

This one is a bit specialized, but the "Paul N" in this topic is a guy I
know and a very experienced racer. He's talking about the 6-day, 600km
TransRockies Challenge, one of the most epic MTB races on the planet. FS
bikes excel in marathon events like this, but he also says the FS bikes
can go up "technical" climbs faster than hardtails:

http://www.transrockies.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4&start=0&postdays=0&po
storder=asc&highlight=&sid=f43f74204f00f7c286842b1c8b276e34

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=su
spension+hardtail+lap+times&btnG=Search

I think that may be the essence of it. I think the difference is in the
riders and what they perceive. Sort of a placebo effect, combined with
a weight-per-money ratio that favors hardtails. I believe a strong
rider on a FS that was equally light as a hardtail, would be just as
fast up hills as on the hardtail as long as the rider didn't THINK the
FS was going to slow them down. I suspect that people who race races
like the Trans Rockies Challenge are people who think their own
thoughts about their equipement, and don't pre-judge as much as weekend
warriors. For technical FS wins no contest.

Quoted message said:

*It is possible you might see a net loss on a particular course for the
FS bike but still prefer it for reasons of fatigue-reduction, being able
to hit bigger obstacles, or just because it's fun.

Hmm.. Bigger obstacles... I've been contemplating an "All-Mountain"
type bike...

Joseph

Ryan Cousineau said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> I went for a MTB ride today. The first real MTB ride in many
>> months. My bike has full suspension which I like from a comfort
>> and control perspective. I dropped decisively my riding buddies
>> for the first time ever. This caused much good natured teasing
>> and joking at my expense, as well as the observation that were I
>> to get a "real" cross-country hard-tail bike, I would be even
>> more of a menace. I do not agree. I do not believe that a
>> fully suspended bike wastes an appreciable amount of energy
>> while riding, either seated or standing. I never lock my front
>> fork either, as the slight po-going while standing does not
>> bother me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Of course suspension absorbs energy, but it gives back more
> control when traveling over rough stuff. For climbing, there is
> a lockout option on some suspension to avoid those small losses
> but the main purpose is to not have suspension interfere with the
> pedal strokes. It is less efficient to pedal against a moving
> support that yields with pedal force (bounce).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> So what is the deal? Do FS bikes waste energy? Anyone have
>> some data to back up any claims?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Shock absorbers get warm and that energy has got to come from the
> motor just as with a motor vehicle.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But how much energy is it? What order of magnitude is it compared
with other energy losses on a bike? Not even getting into the
amount of energy used to heat a butt by applying a seat
repeatedly!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As you may have noticed the shock absorber does not get HOT to the
touch so the energy is not large, while the bounce that interferes
with pedaling is a bigger problem and that depends on the ability
of the rider to negate that effect in the absence of a lockout
mechanism (that's why it's there).

Quoted message said:

The latest technology, which the poster's bike may or may not have,
is "stable platform" valves, now typically available on both forks
and shocks. The mechanism is roughly a spring-suspended weight
which tends to respond to sudden shocks but not to the steady motion
of the pedals. Since the weight determines whether (or in some
cases, how much) the suspension is locked, it functions as an
automatic lockout mechanism which, in the better implementations, is
supposed to be so fast it can even unlock itself momentarily on
climbs to deal with small, traction-robbing obstacles.

Sounds like snake oil to me. Whoop-de-doos on rough surfaces come in
frequencies much like pedaling. You need to explain how the higher
intelligence of bicycle suspension can destinguish between a bump it
is to absorb and one that it isn't.

Quoted message said:

Power meter data might give you the answer you seek (if they were
hub-based), but racing lap times are probably a pretty good proxy
for energy losses, and they would be about the most direct measure
of what you really care about, the "net energy" gained or lost with
the bike* on that type of course.

Quoted message said:

I tried googling up some stuff on this:

Quoted message said:

Annoyingly, I can't tell from the abstract which bike was the
hardtail:
http://biomech.me.unr.edu/[censored]/abstracts/dual_suspension_test.htm

You see it is a problem in that lockout is widely used in climbing.

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

Ron Ruff said:

Quoted message said:

So what is the deal? Do FS bikes waste energy? Anyone have some data to
back up any claims?

I'd be curious to know where you dropped them. I've witnessed that a FS
bike is faster on rough terrain provided that you are not climbing.
Many years ago I was in a friendly dual with the owner of Intense, he
on a full suspension bike and me on my MB-1 (no suspension). It was a
flat section with alternating rough and smooth parts. On the smoother
areas I would pull ahead, but on the rough spots he would pull ahead...
the difference was not subtle. The rough parts were not super rough
either, but I was bouncing around a little. Since I was a stronger
rider, I think the suspension was definately helping overall.

On climbs you'd be better off with less weight and less pogoing.

We stuck to very non-technical dirt roads and a little singletrack.
Very little climbing and virtually no technical sections. I could drop
them at will at any section. Certainly less weight helps for climbing,
but I suspect that the FS advantage or disadvantge is primarlity
related to rider preference. I think the wasted energy (if there is
any) is so small it ends up making no difference, or at least less
difference than the negative effects of a rider using something they
felt was uncomfortable.

Joseph

'It's not about the bike'? heard that someplace.

Quoted message said:

That's the problem. the fast guys ride hardtail, so hardtail is faster
right? And a VW bus is safer than a Corvette.

This is somewhat related to the perception that you need a stiff road
frame for climbing and sprinting... except that a shock actually *does*
absorb energy... and the amount of flex due to suspension movement is
much greater.

No... the suspension hurts you on the climb, but helps everywhere else.
Since races are often won or lost on the climbs though, it makes sense
that most racers prefer a hardtail.

Face it Joseph... you are getting stronger.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

Quoted message said:

>>> I went for a MTB ride today. The first real MTB ride in many
>>> months. My bike has full suspension which I like from a comfort
>>> and control perspective. I dropped decisively my riding buddies
>>> for the first time ever. This caused much good natured teasing
>>> and joking at my expense, as well as the observation that were I
>>> to get a "real" cross-country hard-tail bike, I would be even
>>> more of a menace. I do not agree. I do not believe that a
>>> fully suspended bike wastes an appreciable amount of energy
>>> while riding, either seated or standing. I never lock my front
>>> fork either, as the slight po-going while standing does not
>>> bother me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Of course suspension absorbs energy, but it gives back more
>> control when traveling over rough stuff. For climbing, there is
>> a lockout option on some suspension to avoid those small losses
>> but the main purpose is to not have suspension interfere with the
>> pedal strokes. It is less efficient to pedal against a moving
>> support that yields with pedal force (bounce).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> So what is the deal? Do FS bikes waste energy? Anyone have
>>> some data to back up any claims?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Shock absorbers get warm and that energy has got to come from the
>> motor just as with a motor vehicle.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> But how much energy is it? What order of magnitude is it compared
> with other energy losses on a bike? Not even getting into the
> amount of energy used to heat a butt by applying a seat
> repeatedly!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As you may have noticed the shock absorber does not get HOT to the
touch so the energy is not large, while the bounce that interferes
with pedaling is a bigger problem and that depends on the ability
of the rider to negate that effect in the absence of a lockout
mechanism (that's why it's there).

Quoted message said:

The latest technology, which the poster's bike may or may not have,
is "stable platform" valves, now typically available on both forks
and shocks. The mechanism is roughly a spring-suspended weight
which tends to respond to sudden shocks but not to the steady motion
of the pedals. Since the weight determines whether (or in some
cases, how much) the suspension is locked, it functions as an
automatic lockout mechanism which, in the better implementations, is
supposed to be so fast it can even unlock itself momentarily on
climbs to deal with small, traction-robbing obstacles.

Sounds like snake oil to me. Whoop-de-doos on rough surfaces come in
frequencies much like pedaling. You need to explain how the higher
intelligence of bicycle suspension can destinguish between a bump it
is to absorb and one that it isn't.

Bumps have a higher amplitude and shorter period than pedaling motion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Power meter data might give you the answer you seek (if they were
hub-based), but racing lap times are probably a pretty good proxy
for energy losses, and they would be about the most direct measure
of what you really care about, the "net energy" gained or lost with
the bike* on that type of course.

Quoted message said:

I tried googling up some stuff on this:

Quoted message said:

Annoyingly, I can't tell from the abstract which bike was the
hardtail:
http://biomech.me.unr.edu/[censored]/abstracts/dual_suspension_test.htm

You see it is a problem in that lockout is widely used in climbing.

I don't know the age of that study, and MTB technology has changed
pretty fast of late. It also depends on the climb, though of course if
the climb is smooth enough that a hardtail would have an advantage over
a FS bike, the FS rider will want to have an inactive suspension.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Quoted message said:

Ron Ruff said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> So what is the deal? Do FS bikes waste energy? Anyone have some
> data to back up any claims?

I'd be curious to know where you dropped them. I've witnessed that
a FS bike is faster on rough terrain provided that you are not
climbing. Many years ago I was in a friendly dual with the owner of
Intense, he on a full suspension bike and me on my MB-1 (no
suspension). It was a flat section with alternating rough and
smooth parts. On the smoother areas I would pull ahead, but on the
rough spots he would pull ahead... the difference was not subtle.
The rough parts were not super rough either, but I was bouncing
around a little. Since I was a stronger rider, I think the
suspension was definately helping overall.

On climbs you'd be better off with less weight and less pogoing.

We stuck to very non-technical dirt roads and a little singletrack.
Very little climbing and virtually no technical sections. I could
drop them at will at any section. Certainly less weight helps for
climbing, but I suspect that the FS advantage or disadvantge is
primarlity related to rider preference. I think the wasted energy
(if there is any) is so small it ends up making no difference, or at
least less difference than the negative effects of a rider using
something they felt was uncomfortable.

Joseph

'It's not about the bike'? heard that someplace.

I see you've ridden your Moots fixie on the local FR and DJ tracks, right?
😉
--
Philip Lee

Quoted message said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

Quoted message said:

>>> I went for a MTB ride today. The first real MTB ride in many
>>> months. My bike has full suspension which I like from a comfort
>>> and control perspective. I dropped decisively my riding buddies
>>> for the first time ever. This caused much good natured teasing
>>> and joking at my expense, as well as the observation that were I
>>> to get a "real" cross-country hard-tail bike, I would be even
>>> more of a menace. I do not agree. I do not believe that a
>>> fully suspended bike wastes an appreciable amount of energy
>>> while riding, either seated or standing. I never lock my front
>>> fork either, as the slight po-going while standing does not
>>> bother me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Of course suspension absorbs energy, but it gives back more
>> control when traveling over rough stuff. For climbing, there is
>> a lockout option on some suspension to avoid those small losses
>> but the main purpose is to not have suspension interfere with the
>> pedal strokes. It is less efficient to pedal against a moving
>> support that yields with pedal force (bounce).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> So what is the deal? Do FS bikes waste energy? Anyone have
>>> some data to back up any claims?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Shock absorbers get warm and that energy has got to come from the
>> motor just as with a motor vehicle.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> But how much energy is it? What order of magnitude is it compared
> with other energy losses on a bike? Not even getting into the
> amount of energy used to heat a butt by applying a seat
> repeatedly!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As you may have noticed the shock absorber does not get HOT to the
touch so the energy is not large, while the bounce that interferes
with pedaling is a bigger problem and that depends on the ability
of the rider to negate that effect in the absence of a lockout
mechanism (that's why it's there).

Quoted message said:

The latest technology, which the poster's bike may or may not have,
is "stable platform" valves, now typically available on both forks
and shocks. The mechanism is roughly a spring-suspended weight
which tends to respond to sudden shocks but not to the steady motion
of the pedals. Since the weight determines whether (or in some
cases, how much) the suspension is locked, it functions as an
automatic lockout mechanism which, in the better implementations, is
supposed to be so fast it can even unlock itself momentarily on
climbs to deal with small, traction-robbing obstacles.

Sounds like snake oil to me. Whoop-de-doos on rough surfaces come in
frequencies much like pedaling. You need to explain how the higher
intelligence of bicycle suspension can destinguish between a bump it
is to absorb and one that it isn't.

Agreed. Manipoo's SPV valving is a total joke. It does nothing for
increasing pedaling efficiency.

Fox's Terralogic valving in their forks, like the Specialized Epic Brain
shock, does work, and it works well.

I find it funny that Specialized has been updating the Epic with more and
more adjustability to the Brain shock, giving it a more and more traditional
damping function. Essentially they're making the Brain shock dumber and
dumber until it's back to being a regular ol' Stumpjumper FSR with a fancy
reservoir. What's old is new again. Pretty soon we'll be seeing non-aero
levers in the Tour again!

--
Philip Lee

Quoted message said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

Quoted message said:

>>> I went for a MTB ride today. The first real MTB ride in many
>>> months. My bike has full suspension which I like from a comfort
>>> and control perspective. I dropped decisively my riding buddies
>>> for the first time ever. This caused much good natured teasing
>>> and joking at my expense, as well as the observation that were I
>>> to get a "real" cross-country hard-tail bike, I would be even
>>> more of a menace. I do not agree. I do not believe that a
>>> fully suspended bike wastes an appreciable amount of energy
>>> while riding, either seated or standing. I never lock my front
>>> fork either, as the slight po-going while standing does not
>>> bother me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Of course suspension absorbs energy, but it gives back more
>> control when traveling over rough stuff. For climbing, there is
>> a lockout option on some suspension to avoid those small losses
>> but the main purpose is to not have suspension interfere with the
>> pedal strokes. It is less efficient to pedal against a moving
>> support that yields with pedal force (bounce).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> So what is the deal? Do FS bikes waste energy? Anyone have
>>> some data to back up any claims?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Shock absorbers get warm and that energy has got to come from the
>> motor just as with a motor vehicle.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> But how much energy is it? What order of magnitude is it compared
> with other energy losses on a bike? Not even getting into the
> amount of energy used to heat a butt by applying a seat
> repeatedly!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As you may have noticed the shock absorber does not get HOT to the
touch so the energy is not large, while the bounce that interferes
with pedaling is a bigger problem and that depends on the ability
of the rider to negate that effect in the absence of a lockout
mechanism (that's why it's there).

Quoted message said:

The latest technology, which the poster's bike may or may not have,
is "stable platform" valves, now typically available on both forks
and shocks. The mechanism is roughly a spring-suspended weight
which tends to respond to sudden shocks but not to the steady motion
of the pedals. Since the weight determines whether (or in some
cases, how much) the suspension is locked, it functions as an
automatic lockout mechanism which, in the better implementations, is
supposed to be so fast it can even unlock itself momentarily on
climbs to deal with small, traction-robbing obstacles.

Sounds like snake oil to me. Whoop-de-doos on rough surfaces come in
frequencies much like pedaling. You need to explain how the higher
intelligence of bicycle suspension can destinguish between a bump it
is to absorb and one that it isn't.

Sounds like snake oil to me too. At best I see it only occasionally
defeating the purpose of having a suspension in the first place, at
worst not absorbing bumps when the rider expects it to with bad
results.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Power meter data might give you the answer you seek (if they were
hub-based), but racing lap times are probably a pretty good proxy
for energy losses, and they would be about the most direct measure
of what you really care about, the "net energy" gained or lost with
the bike* on that type of course.

Quoted message said:

I tried googling up some stuff on this:

Quoted message said:

Annoyingly, I can't tell from the abstract which bike was the
hardtail:
http://biomech.me.unr.edu/[censored]/abstracts/dual_suspension_test.htm

You see it is a problem in that lockout is widely used in climbing.

Yes, but is it really a problem? Or do people just think it is? Just
because it is widely used does not mean it is necessary or effective. I
hear all kinds of bogus claims made by people who I'd think would know
otherwise. A guy recently tried to convince me that stem length was the
most important factor in bike stability. He has a very twitch bike and
thought it was due to his long stem. I asked if it was also twitchy
when riding no hands, which it was but he still meant it was the stem
length. Another guy uses long crank arms so he can have his seat lower
so he is more aero (!?) But this guy is strong and fast, so who am I to
argue?

Joseph

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ron Ruff wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'd be curious to know where you dropped them. I've witnessed that a
FS bike is faster on rough terrain provided that you are not
climbing. Many years ago I was in a friendly dual with the owner of
Intense, he on a full suspension bike and me on my MB-1 (no
suspension). It was a flat section with alternating rough and smooth
parts. On the smoother areas I would pull ahead, but on the rough
spots he would pull ahead... the difference was not subtle. The rough
parts were not super rough either, but I was bouncing around a
little. Since I was a stronger rider, I think the suspension was
definately helping overall.

On climbs you'd be better off with less weight and less pogoing.

If you're pogoing you need to adjust your suspension or learn to pedal
smoothly. It shouldn't be a problem.

I think people make way too much of this. Most FS bikes from major
manufacturers are pretty good these days -- good enough to win races even
when other bikes are considered better. They can all be adjusted for good
performance. This wasn't the case a few years ago but it is now.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We stuck to very non-technical dirt roads and a little singletrack.
Very little climbing and virtually no technical sections. I could drop
them at will at any section. Certainly less weight helps for climbing,
but I suspect that the FS advantage or disadvantge is primarlity
related to rider preference. I think the wasted energy (if there is
any) is so small it ends up making no difference, or at least less
difference than the negative effects of a rider using something they
felt was uncomfortable.

Quoted message said:

'It's not about the bike'? heard that someplace.

FS is a better tool for the job sometimes but so what. All bikes are
a compromise, based on some kind of personal preference.

Suspension does waste some energy, but less than the body english needed
to keep a bike moving over rough terrain. The longer the ride the more
this matters.

People who complain their FS bikes are slow on climbs ought to look at
their tires. Moto-x style "freeride" tires can make you ride a gear or
two lower on climbs than good XC tires.

Matt O.

In article
<[email hidden]>
,

Quoted message said:

Yes, but is it really a problem? Or do people just think it is? Just
because it is widely used does not mean it is necessary or effective. I
hear all kinds of bogus claims made by people who I'd think would know
otherwise. A guy recently tried to convince me that stem length was the
most important factor in bike stability. He has a very twitch bike and
thought it was due to his long stem. I asked if it was also twitchy
when riding no hands, which it was but he still meant it was the stem
length. Another guy uses long crank arms so he can have his seat lower
so he is more aero (!?) But this guy is strong and fast, so who am I to
argue?

If arguing will make him faster, do not argue.

--
Michael Press