[Stanceslao]

I am trying to compare Polygon T8's Faux bar suspension against Giant's Maestro ...

So which one is better, or which one is a better choice for what?

Thanks

 

[yzedf]

The Giant will be noticeably better at rear wheel braking on chunky terrain and will probably have a bit more side to side flex in the rear which is also good for mud/ruts. (Based on my having owned a Reign and a Kona)

 

[PhillipJ]

I quickly got used to the brake squat when I was riding a single pivot Nukeproof (from a Trance X, fwiw) and then had to re-learn shifting my weight back when I changed to a more neutral bike.

I certainly wouldn't choose or dismiss a bike just on that difference. The actual shock is probably going to make a bigger difference.

 

[Jayem]

"faux bar" is just a marketing term from Specialized. If a bike has 4 members, as in fixed link (frame) moving link one, moving link two, moving link three (might be the rear triangle, or the shock linkage) it's a 4-bar linkage. Both bikes above are 4-bar linkages.

Brake squat can be beneficial during hard cornering, steep stuff, situations where you don't want the weight transfer of braking to be making your front end steeper. It'll get steeper anyway, but not as much as with a "fully active" rear brake.

And yeah, the type of suspension isn't really important, it's the application and how they pulled it off, the shock on there, the tune on the shock, etc. Single ring systems have freed up bike designers considerably, as now you can get good suspension kinematics out of a single pivot bike without virtual pivot points and having to account for 3 possible front chainrings.

 

[Dougal]

Faux bars are awful climbers. They squat more under acceleration/climbing which makes everything worse.

I've ridden lots, only owned one and it was worth it for the geometry and handling. But it was pretty lame going up hills. The first ride back on the new bike was a revelation.

 

[phantoj]

Pink bike tested both the bikes you're looking at.

https://m.pinkbike.com/news/field-trip-ripley-vs-trance-x-vs-siskiu-vs-marshall-vs-rift-zone-value-full-suspension-roundtable.html

The execution of the design is IMO more important than the particular topology...

 

[Dougal]

Pink bike tested both the bikes you're looking at.

https://m.pinkbike.com/news/field-trip-ripley-vs-trance-x-vs-siskiu-vs-marshall-vs-rift-zone-value-full-suspension-roundtable.html

The execution of the design is IMO more important than the particular topology...

How's the correlation between advertising budget and result?

 

[Jayem]

Faux bars are awful climbers. They squat more under acceleration/climbing which makes everything worse.

I've ridden lots, only owned one and it was worth it for the geometry and handling. But it was pretty lame going up hills. The first ride back on the new bike was a revelation.

That's a pretty ridiculous generalized statement given the AS characteristics that are possible.

 

[Dougal]

That's a pretty ridiculous generalized statement given the AS characteristics that are possible.

All the Faux bar bikes put their main pivot in a really similar spot. True four bars vary a lot but I don't ride the crappy ones.

 

[stevieray05]

the Faux bar is multi bar designed after the original "horst" link "four" bar Specialized had patented for much of the 2000's. The faux 4 bar has the pivot on the seat stay while the original "4 bar" Horst link has the pivot on the chain stay. They look similar but the location of that pivot has a pretty big affect on how the bike handles. The real (Horst) 4 bar is very active with little to no pedal bob and good brake isolation. I haven't ridden a Horst link bike in a while but the ones I did did not have a very progressive feel in the suspension. The shock was either too hard or soft. Good for climbing and small bumps but would blow through the suspension at speed. The fake four bars will have some pedal feed back/pedal bob, horrible performance under hard braking and will not have the efficiency as a modern multi link virtual pivot design such as the Maestro.
I have had two Giants (Maestro) and now a BMC with their design virtual pivot point and both are all around much better than any Faux or Horst link bike I have ever ridden. The only negative is all those pivots and bearings can be a ***** to service. The Maestro has 10 bearings in the all that linkage, the BMC has 8. Giant, Santa Cruz, Pivot, BMC, Diamond back are a few that come to mind with the VPP, but I am sure there are others. You can Google the topic and be bombarded with articles.
You Cant beat the value on those Polygon's but I personally would go with ta local vendor that can support the bike. I have had 6+ suspension bikes of multiple brands and designs breaking some suspension component at some point on every one of them over the past 20 years. Thankfully I had the LBS to bail me out.

 

[Jayem]

All the Faux bar bikes put their main pivot in a really similar spot. True four bars vary a lot but I don't ride the crappy ones.

All? Shirley you aren’t serious?

 

[WHALENARD]

I went from a horst link Turner six pack to a faux link Turner 6 pack after cracking the seat stay and he stopped licensing or was sued by Specialized. The faux link absolutely squatted less than the horst. And I'm not talking subtle and or anecdotal ruminations, I mean substantially noticeable squatted less.

All the horst link bikes I've owned squatted really bad under power until my very last one, a Specialized Stumpjumper Evo. It's still squats a bit on really steep stuff but offers gobs of traction in those scenarios too, so I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing.

One thing I really liked about split pivot is it didn't do that at all but still offered horst like braking. Regardless, on the faux bar, I imagine the most important factor is where the front pivot is placed.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

 

[stripes]

All? Shirley you aren’t serious?

 

[Dougal]

All? Shirley you aren’t serious?

Pivot position is dictated by chainring. They're all very close.

I went from a horst link Turner six pack to a faux link Turner 6 pack after cracking the seat stay and he stopped licensing or was sued by Specialized. The faux link absolutely squatted less than the horst. And I'm not talking subtle and or anecdotal ruminations, I mean substantially noticeable squatted less.

All the horst link bikes I've owned squatted really bad under power until my very last one, a Specialized Stumpjumper Evo. It's still squats a bit on really steep stuff but offers gobs of traction in those scenarios too, so I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing.

One thing I really liked about split pivot is it didn't do that at all but still offered horst like braking. Regardless, on the faux bar, I imagine the most important factor is where the front pivot is placed.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

You've got that backwards. The TNT (faux bar) squatted more than the horst links.

TNT was when Tony Ellsworth sued Turner and wanted licensing fees. It was a stop-gap only used for a year or so between stopping horst link and redesigning to short link 4 bar. It was a performance decrease and it was fascinating to see all the fan boys convince themselves TNT was better.

 

[Jayem]

Pivot position is dictated by chainring. They're all very close.




You've got that backwards. The TNT (faux bar) squatted more than the horst links.

TNT was when Tony Ellsworth sued Turner and wanted licensing fees. It was a stop-gap only used for a year or so between stopping horst link and redesigning to short link 4 bar. It was a performance decrease and it was fascinating to see all the fan boys convince themselves TNT was better.

Most of the riders that had both will disagree with you that the TNT was a performance decrease. Turns out the kinematics of the Horst link weren’t all that special…but years of specialized marketing had people believing otherwise.

Structurally, the non-Horst link is better without a pivot in between the main pivot and rear wheel. Easier to make stiffer and lighter. Then there’s the braking advantages . Then the kinematics, which with single ring systems are actually superior, as they are getting flatter anti squat curves out of them. In fact, that’s where the Horst links are either now, trying to flatten their AS curves out more like the Devinci, Trek, Evil and other “faux” bars…

 

[WHALENARD]

Pivot position is dictated by chainring. They're all very close.




You've got that backwards. The TNT (faux bar) squatted more than the horst links.

TNT was when Tony Ellsworth sued Turner and wanted licensing fees. It was a stop-gap only used for a year or so between stopping horst link and redesigning to short link 4 bar. It was a performance decrease and it was fascinating to see all the fan boys convince themselves TNT was better.

No, I don't. I owned and rode them both very much. Also, Ellsworth's beef with Turner was with ICT.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

 

[Dougal]

Most of the riders that had both will disagree with you that the TNT was a performance decrease. Turns out the kinematics of the Horst link weren’t all that special…but years of specialized marketing had people believing otherwise.

I don't read specialized marketing material. I was here 23 years ago showing everyone the difference in axle paths and acceleration based squat.

The horst links were better. This isn't a marketing debatable thing. They have more antisquat.

 

[Jayem]

I went from a horst link Turner six pack to a faux link Turner 6 pack after cracking the seat stay and he stopped licensing or was sued by Specialized. The faux link absolutely squatted less than the horst. And I'm not talking subtle and or anecdotal ruminations, I mean substantially noticeable squatted less.

All the horst link bikes I've owned squatted really bad under power until my very last one, a Specialized Stumpjumper Evo. It's still squats a bit on really steep stuff but offers gobs of traction in those scenarios too, so I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing.

One thing I really liked about split pivot is it didn't do that at all but still offered horst like braking. Regardless, on the faux bar, I imagine the most important factor is where the front pivot is placed.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

Are you saying squat when you mean jack?

 

[Dougal]

No, I don't. I owned and rode them both very much. Also, Ellsworth's beef with Turner was with ICT.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

Ellsworth claims were made up BS. He was literally patent trolling.

The suspension kinematics of Turners Horst Link vs TNT are extremely clear. The Horst Link has more antisquat.

 

[WHALENARD]

Are you saying squat when you mean jack?

Regarding split pivot, I'm speaking to both.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk