[zephyr424]

Just curious if anyone has ridden, or noticed major kinematic differences between bikes with a mostly vertical mounted shock and one that is more horizontal, say, mounted at or around 15-25 degrees?

Ibis has used the latter setup for a long time now and brands such as Trek, Specialized etc. have gone to it on their high end bikes (the Trek Supercaliber is one in mind). Do the dissimilar methods make much of a difference with energy and impact absorption, pedaling efficiency, braking, traction, control (over rough terrain) etc.? Is one more capable, while the other is fast becoming obsolete?

Thanks

 

[294037]

Doesn’t really make a difference, you could theoretically have identical kinematics from both layouts. Most of the time it is a packaging thing, a vertical shock is usually easier to fit a bottle and allow low stand over height.

The epic in your picture isn’t too concerned with standover as it’s a cross country bike, and they need the hose for the brain unit to be able to follow the seatstay to the dropout.

Horizontal shocks function fine but often take up more space or require extension yokes like specialized uses on most of their trail bikes. This Lay-out also puts tons of side loads on the shock so a lot of shock breakages are in bikes like that. Pivot for example has been changing from horizontal shocks to most of their latest designs being vertical. Specialized and other have also moved their horizontal shocks down to near the bb with a tunnel to remove the yoke and seat tube clearance issues

 

[kevine1785]

A big contributor to the positioning of the shock is the method of suspension design (Single Pivot, Linkage driven, 4-bar, flex stay etc...) and the patent holders for these designs. Trek as an example uses the vertical design due to their proprietary use of ABP single pivot (the Trek Supercaliber is an exception as it uses another unique patented design). But overall the feel has more to do with the suspension travel and the shock tune... although newer bikes are really looking at "Kinematics" to get more suspension with less travel (look at Revel Ranger, Yeti SB115 and Rocky Mountain Element). This uses a combination of frame geometry, shock tune and suspension design to get bikes with 120mm to perform as good as, or better than bikes from just 2-3 years ago with 150mm+ suspension.

In the end reading reviews, looking at geo charts and suspension parts are no substitute for test riding bikes.

here is more on suspension design if you are interested:

https://www.bikeradar.com/features/the-ultimate-guide-to-mountain-bike-rear-suspension-systems/

 

[kapusta]

Orientation of the shock by itself tells you nothing about the kinematics of the suspension.

 

[misterha]

A big contributor to the positioning of the shock is the method of suspension design (Single Pivot, Linkage driven, 4-bar, flex stay etc...) and the patent holders for these designs. Trek as an example uses the vertical design due to their proprietary use of ABP single pivot (the Trek Supercaliber is an exception as it uses another unique patented design). But overall the feel has more to do with the suspension travel and the shock tune... although newer bikes are really looking at "Kinematics" to get more suspension with less travel (look at Revel Ranger, Yeti SB115 and Rocky Mountain Element). This uses a combination of frame geometry, shock tune and suspension design to get bikes with 120mm to perform as good as, or better than bikes from just 2-3 years ago with 150mm+ suspension.

In the end reading reviews, looking at geo charts and suspension parts are no substitute for test riding bikes.

here is more on suspension design if you are interested:

https://www.bikeradar.com/features/the-ultimate-guide-to-mountain-bike-rear-suspension-systems/

Wonder how that patent works with DW split pivot for Devinci.

Another reason I've heard for vertical sock orientation is with frame design structure. A bb junction is already going to be beefy so why not have one of the eyelet in that area.