Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

What were the first decent full suspension bikes?

Jump to Latest
21 - 40 of 78 Posts
#21 ·
First really good FS were the SC VPP stuff and a few other brands around the same time which I would put around 2002 or so, although there were major geometry changes in the following 6 or 7 years which have stuck, separate from suspension design. There were definitely usable FS before that, but IMO those sorts of change from single pivot and URT and other stuff was the game changer. SC Blur 1.0 and similar were the ones people would still ride now. And yes superlight and other frames have made single pivot more usable but IMO the multi pivot designs are what really changed everything.
 
Discussion starter · #22 ·
My first FS bike was a 2001 Titus Switchblade with 100mm of travel and a Marzocchi X-fly 100 fork. I had decided that the Horst Link was the way to go and the Titus seemed more solidly built than the Specialized FSR bikes. I came close to getting a Santa Cruz Superlight, but the Switchblade's Horst Link design had less pedal kickback which allowed more efficient pedaling. With a pretty typical Shimano XT build with no particularly unique parts, the bike weighed a surprisingly light 26.5 to 27 lbs.
 
#23 ·
jestep said:
First really good FS were the SC VPP stuff and a few other brands around the same time which I would put around 2002 or so, although there were major geometry changes in the following 6 or 7 years which have stuck, separate from suspension design.
Click to expand...
Enduro, Stumpy,Giants, a heap of Konas, there's a big list by 2002 or so. I still think the 05/06 Enduro is one of the most enduring (pun intended) bikes made. The only thing holding back from a modern bike is the seatpost angle.
 
Discussion starter · #24 ·
rockcrusher said:
I think there was thoughts involved but the experience to design a suspension that actually worked wasn't with the company, so they did what a lot of companies did and used a similar design as the flavor of the month. Lots of companies did this and to be fair most suspension in this era sucked.
Click to expand...
Good point. Trek being located in Wisconsin really seemed to lack mountain bike expertise in the 90s. A lot of what they did , even with their early 90's hardtails, was pretty conservative in their geometry choices. The build quality of their higher end steel mountain bike frames (the 900 series of bikes vs the lower-end 800 series of bikes) was quite nice though. I think they were even made in the US.
 
#26 ·
I'll buck the trend here and say that what made early suspension bikes less than awe inspiring, wasn't the design, or pivot placement, or name on the frame, or which "guru du jour" laid their blessed hands on the design page.

It's the shock units themselves that has transformed our rides.

Single Pivot bikes get a bad rap, mostly with the "I want 6 inches of travel but I never want to feel it moving", AKA, racer boy, suspension action is robbing my efficiency, crowd.

And sure, any SP bike with a coil over on it, will boing boing boing, down the trail. Does it allow for faster perambulation, which makes up for a bit of *energy loss*? I'd venture it does, but, whatever.

However, they also EAT IT ALIVE, compared to Horst link designs, or now, the lotsa pivots makes it lotsa better, designs, that all seem kinda stiff and high, and otherwise underwhelming in their own ways.

Someone mentioned the Cannondale EST. Crazy bike, and certainly hampered by it's utter junk, shock unit. Much like the Trek 9500. Load it up and watch the rider fly..... =: /

But, toss a modern shock, onto a solidly designed, older SP bike, like, say, a Super V, and suddenly, it's alive!!! The Uber V trend of a few years ago, bears that out.

It's not so much the carefully curated precision placement of pivots X, Y or Z, it's controlling what those members do, when in motion.

So, yay for the folks who pump out rear units that get the job done. But you can stop micromanaging improvements now, and calling them *game changing*, it's time to let bikes be bikes, and stop thinking that because you smoothed the edge of the compression stroke curve, you suddenly found nirvana in a box, and need to market it to the world as such.

There's a young guy who's joined us on rides a fair bit lately. He's all consumed with the tech. He was telling me about some new Fox rear, going all poetic about it's been totally redesigned, valving changed, and "now it sit's higher in the mid stroke, and is more resistive to compression".

Oh, I said, so they made it firmer?

He fought that so hard. No, you run the same pressure as before.

Oh, so, they made it, firmer?

I was being somewhat facetious of course, but honestly, technology plateaued at very awesome, about 10 years ago, and the industry has been running on fumes of promised improvements that in all honesty, 99% of the riding public, will never be able to even detect, and for what, exactly?

I have a full suspension, single speed, 29er, from 1896 hanging in my shop.

Anyone who thinks the industry is capable of coming up with something truly new, is deluding themselves in hopes of profits.
 
#27 ·
I reckon we started to get into interesting usable suspension around 2000. Maybe you could argue 96-97 for 4" bikes. To be honest they were fairly ****. Around that 2000 mark dampers were getting reasonable and there was longer travel options as standard.
 
#29 ·
plummet said:
I reckon we started to get into interesting usable suspension around 2000. Maybe you could argue 96-97 for 4" bikes. To be honest they were fairly ****. Around that 2000 mark dampers were getting reasonable and there was longer travel options as standard.
Click to expand...
Kids always thinking their stuff was the first / best.

:p

The only really meaningful difference between the 1995 LTS and the 2020 LTS force, is about 4LBS of beef, a better tuned shock, and better / easier math to get the pivots in the right spot. Oh, and 40mm travel. New one is better in every way, but the old one very much DID work.

The bigger change has been that bikes back then were "mountain bikes". Now, they tailor them much more specifically for riding types and need to compromise less. People rode the LTS in downhill world cups, and in XC world cups. For downhill they put on the Judy DH with a whopping 60mm travel :p
 
#30 ·
smashysmashy said:
For downhill they put on the Judy DH with a whopping 60mm travel :p
Click to expand...
That is completely and utterly false. It had 63.5 mm of travel. And that extra 3.5 mm made all the difference. :)
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#32 ·
mid-late 90's... it has a judy SL, which came out in '95.

There were lots of bikes like that one with 1-2" travel. they sucked, mostly cause it was just a bit of rubber for the shock. Some hipster today would call it a cutting edge gravel bike.
 
Discussion starter · #35 ·
Thinking back to my first FS bike in 2001, having a decent fork was as much of a motivation to get full suspension as was the quality of the shock and the suspension design. My Titus Switchblade had a Marzocchi X-fly 100 which was light years better than the RS Judys. It didn't seem to make sense to get full suspension with forks that were better suited to a hardtail frame.

Suspension pivots that seemed reasonably durable was another consideration that I remember.
 
#36 ·
Mudguard said:
I couldn't get over how much better the 99 Judy SL I bought was over the 2001 Judy TT. The latter being absolutely awful.
Click to expand...
I've said this many times but the 97/98 gen 1 SID is still better than many forks being made now. I have 2 of them on old bontragers, but they were such an upgrade over the elastomer and air or coil stuff at the time I still can't believe that fork was made when it was. Pretty sure the Judy SL went to that same air air setup on 28mm stanchions before it went to crap in 2001 or so.
 
Discussion starter · #37 ·
jestep said:
I've said this many times but the 97/98 gen 1 SID is still better than many forks being made now. I have 2 of them on old bontragers, but they were such an upgrade over the elastomer and air or coil stuff at the time I still can't believe that fork was made when it was. Pretty sure the Judy SL went to that same air air setup on 28mm stanchions before it went to crap in 2001 or so.
Click to expand...
What made the gen 1 SID work really well? I never got to ride one of those. Did it have a negative spring to reduce initial stiction?
 
#38 ·
SID had a negative spring. So did the bomber - which I would call one of the first "good" forks. SID was definitely the first rockshox for that was "good". I don't know if Id say it was better than a new one - I had a 2000 model. It was fine.
 
#39 ·
celswick said:
Ritchey made a rear suspended bike in the early 90's for Thomas Frishnect. I think he won a World Cup or a world championship on it.

https://images.app.goo.gl/TMj589sWMnaTzfVc7

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I would not call that a great or even decent FS bike. Moots made a bike like that as well. They took a slight edge off of hits but that was about it. Henrik Djernis raced on a pro-flex but they basically locked everything out and it was a fully rigid bike.

In the early 90's - Amp, KHS, GT and eventually specialized made good active FS bikes (all HL bikes). The original Santa Cruz Tazmon and the Heckler were amazing SP bikes that was rock solid and reasonably priced. I had a 1998 Specialized FSR with a BETD link and a Pushed Fox Vanilla that was fantastic.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#40 ·
I think this is a very fun topic.

The Superlight is just a Heckler on a diet, right?

Anyway, those early days were a time of great experimentation. I feel like the modern bikes are all pretty good, but there were some major duds back then. And forks -- most of them were quite bad on several fronts. The old Bombers being a notable exception!

I have a 2000 Diamondback X-Link that has a modern X-fusion shock on it, and I think it's pretty good. Linkage-driven single pivot is what folks would call it. Pivot is about at the height of the middle chainring.

I had a Proflex 897 and it was... just OK. Mac Strut with a highish pivot. My friends had the Cannondale Super-Vs, Ravens, and early Jekylls, and they were all pretty good, just a simple single pivot.

I agree with the guy who said shock technology is the big change on modern bikes. A simple single pivot with a well-designed shock can make a solid all-around bike.
 
21 - 40 of 78 Posts
About this Discussion
77 Replies
26 Participants
Last post:
Vespasianus
Mountain Bike Reviews Forum
posts
16M
members
534K
Since
1990
A forum community dedicated to Mountain Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, trails, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General Discussion Downhill - Freeride California - Norcal Shocks and Suspension Passion