[Jon Richard]

Not sure about the Tomac but I understand how the Nickel and Butcher weren't cheap and effectively put Santa Cruz in a position of competing with themselves having the Heckler and Super light as well as Mountain Cycle's demise with the poor aesthetics of the San Andreas 2.0. What I don't get is why this suspension design didn't garner more interest. I guess the Foes Shaver is still an option.

I said it before, if the single pivot/intermediate link driven shock design hit the scene 15 years ago it would have enjoyed the same if not more popularity and staying power as Horst Link.

DW and VPP are awesome, but most do not ride at the competitive level. While not all designs are implemented equally single pivot bikes are generally renowned for their fun factor and what I can say about my Mountain Cycle is the best compliment one can apply to a bike suspension: It never even crosses my mind when I'm riding, I enjoy my ride without ever having to be mindful of what the back end is doing. I couldn't say that about my El Guapo and that was an epic bike in it's own right.

 

[Dougal]

A HL bike with a coil shock is a thing of beauty. With a coil shock, I found HL bikes to squat less, climb better and bomb the downhills way better than any air shock.

Which is why 15 years on I'm still riding coil sprung horst-link bikes. My current one was built in 2001. My shocks have no platform, but I do revalve for my weight and riding style.

The horst link bikes are very subtle, most of them have absolutely no bad habits. Climbing/acceleration varies from bike to bike but generally slight squat (far less squat than faux bars, but more than the high single pivots).
Braking is the most neutral of any bike suspension type. Slight brake squat which generally doesn't completely offset the weight shift, but lets the suspension move with the brakes on.

 

[Dougal]

I'm gonna try these back to back for a good honest comparison. I was on the TNT (faux bar) for some time before I went with the Horst Link. I think climbing was slightly better on the TNT, which I basically relate to less squat/bob. Both are outfitted with "tuned" shocks, and are essentially the same build with a few exceptions like a 27.5" Subrosa front wheel. The Horst (with less travel) is a super fun platform, definitely seems more lively than the TNT as far as I can tell. I'll know more later in the week.

If all other geometry is the same, a faux bar has more squat under climbing and braking than a horst link.

 

[iheartbicycles]

If all other geometry is the same, a faux bar has more squat under climbing and braking than a horst link.

Simple math proves this to be incorrect. Antisquat is a derivative of chain growth.

No chain growth, no antisquat.

If all other geometry is the same (pivot points, angles etc) a horst link bike can very easily have less chain growth than a single pivot or "faux bar."

This is because the HL causes the rear axle to rotate slightly forward, during suspension compression.

Forward rotation axle = less chain growth = less antisquat.

 

[bulerias]

Simple math proves this to be incorrect. Antisquat is a derivative of chain growth.

No chain growth, no antisquat.

If all other geometry is the same (pivot points, angles etc) a horst link bike can very easily have less chain growth than a single pivot or "faux bar."

This is because the HL causes the rear axle to rotate slightly forward, during suspension compression.

Forward rotation axle = less chain growth = less antisquat.

Braking and pedaling are different inputs. Study Trek's ABP system and figure out why it works- and it does. For the same reason an HL does. And a faux bar will squat.

I have yet to see any simple math regarding rear suspension systems. It's minefield of overlapping factors that rarely vary linearly. Beware all perfectionists who enter the cave of disappointment.

 

[Dougal]

Simple math proves this to be incorrect. Antisquat is a derivative of chain growth.

No chain growth, no antisquat.

If all other geometry is the same (pivot points, angles etc) a horst link bike can very easily have less chain growth than a single pivot or "faux bar."

This is because the HL causes the rear axle to rotate slightly forward, during suspension compression.

Forward rotation axle = less chain growth = less antisquat.

Bulerias has already said "it's not that simple", but he stopped short of saying "you have it completely wrong".

Suspension squat is not simply chain-growth (a term I find completely useless). But even if it were, under that criteria alone a horst link bike will squat less from chain tension than a faux bar with the main pivot in the same place.
The actual squat reaction is dominated by acceleration effects, with chain tension being a minor player. Because it is dominated by acceleration effects the fore/aft position and height of the rear axle centre of curvature (what I have called the Effective Pivot) is the #1 determinant of squat. On horst link bikes this is further rearward than the main pivot, which gives a stronger anti-squat effect to oppose the suspension squatting under acceleration.

In extreme cases (Giant NRS) the overall effect is so strong that the bike suspension tries to extend with each pedal stroke.

To understand the differences between a four-bar horst link and a faux bar or swingarm bike, you can start right here in the MTBR archives for this exact sub-forum 15 years ago. 1998.
There you will find in depth discussions from myself, OlaH, PeterE and Steve from JH on exactly how, what and why.
The problem was approached through three different angles, OlaH mathematically mapping out the influence of each pivot, Steve from JH using established motorcycle suspension theory and myself using physical geometry and motion.

And we hit agreement. All three methods when applied correctly were getting the same overall squat prediction.

Here is a diagram produced by PeterE way back then showing the effective pivot of a horst link rear end:

Here is the NRS mapped out in exactly the same way:

You will find it embedded in the "pedalling effects" section on my website Dougal.co.nz with a lot more worked examples.

 

[jhtopilko]

i also can comment on fsr and dw link. agree with what hawg says. however i do use propedal while on dw link simply because i like to run my shock softer than recommended. also to me another big advantage of dw link is how it tracks in tech climbs. also how easy it gets over square edge hits. fsr tends to hang and requires finer technique. i had been on fsr for 5 years and thought its great. this is my second year on dw link and its way way better imho. there is also difference how the same system is implemented to one bike and another.

Which dw link bike did you go with? I just demod a ripley for an hour. It does everything better like you say than a my camber carbon. I found no need for the greatest platform setting on the rp23 when riding the ripley.

 

[tmabiker]

Actually, designs have improved. They improved by changing to better cater to the demands of riders today. IMO, the biggest improvement in suspension design over the past few years isn't linkage design, but rather tighter tolerances and alignment in all the connected and moving parts.

Santa Cruz VPP on their Solo and Bronson has become very well tuned with carefully designed anti-squat and anti-rise (brake squat) curves, and much less pedal kickback that they were notorious for years ago. Santa Cruz's VPP leverage curve is still regressive-progressive-regressive which is a love-hate thing (position sensitive, getting proper sag is important). Yeti also went a similar route, with their new 575 displaying "new school" suspension philosophy that rivals Santa Cruz's, but their leverage ratio curve is a bit more shock tune friendly, but it lacks the fully triangulated rear swingarm. It used to be more shock dependent, but I guess there's more people who prefer not to deal with flicking a pro-pedal lever or people who expect a lock-out and hate the squish feeling, despite that bit of give providing optimal traction and comfort. Intense has tried to tune their anti-squat curve, but it's still a bit immature/rough/inconsistent across models and the curves change when you change travel modes, and they still have the pedal kickback that VPP was infamous for. The anti-squat curve is actually a bit more aggressive on some models, allowing them to be hammered without any "squishy" sensation at all (ex. Spider 29 Comp, fun bike). That's probably due to having different designers working on different models, and not sticking to any set suspension policy/philosophy.

There are still brands that follow the suspension design philosophy in trying to create a neutral pedaling bike that has the chain torque not want to pull the swingarm one way other the other (chainstay along average chain torque line). Thankfully, they're not bad due to shock tech with adjustable platform that fights the bob, but still has enough give to allow optimal traction (unlike a true lockout).

DW fanboys... don't get me started on them. DW Link has evolved, but it's a love-hate thing still. DW is sticking to his higher anti-squat values and suspension design philosophy. In one of the last interviews I saw of him, he said he'd go with one of his Split Pivot designs for a personal bike (BH Lynx, I think), if he had to choose one, which is a single pivot design with his high anti-squat curve (high pivot).

Honestly, I don't even look at the smaller brands anymore. When comparing the big names, the difference mainly is in frame weight, stiffness, and maintenance upkeep. Hard to beat the simpler designs in weight and lower upkeep, but stiffness is worth it to some who like to go big and want that confidence. I think Yeti is on top of the game for overall suspension performance, but their avante garde beefy and/or long travel trail bike designs don't fit everyone (beefy for a light person, but oddly not strong enough to be recommended to a heavy 250+ lbs rider). Santa Cruz has nice balance of weight, stiffness, and "reliability" (lifetime bearing replacement), with bold yet sleek looks and smart super high performance parts specs, but that leverage ratio/shock rate curve isn't for everyone. Not sure why they keep the full lower external headset cup either, when they can go zero stack or integrated for lower total stack height. Plenty of bikes to choose from with FSR/Horst Link, with Norco, Cube, Rocky Mtn, Spec, being fine choices, with Spec and Rocky being more shock dependent and Norco and Cube not so much with similar anti-squat as the new Santa Cruz and Yetis. Most single pivots are fine too, many being shock dependent like Treks, but some like Morewood/Pygmy and Split Pivot bikes not so much. It's a personal preference thing, with people who demand max pedaling efficiency (as long as they properly use the CTD/platform function) and max suspension sensitivity (even when pedaling) opting for the lower anti-squat shock dependent bikes (Spec, Trek, Cannondale, Lapierre etc), and those just wanting a balance between suspension efficiency and pedal efficiency, wanting to avoid the hassle of hit switches, going for the higher anti-squat tuned bikes (SC, Yeti, Norco, Giant, Split Pivot, etc.). I suppose the higher anti-squat bikes expect riders to coast through bumps for good bump compliance, while Trek/Spec are expecting riders to want to pedal through the bumps to make up time, seeing it from a racing perspective that the FS allows one to pedal through rough spots that a HT can't.

Summed up, a lot of it is personal preference. Can't please everyone with one design. It's just like trail preference, some like to do long miles and climb high elevations, and would climb fireroads to do it, while others would prefer to shuttle or only ride park, while others prefer to ride low land flow trails. Some enjoy a trail where they can go fast and not have to touch the brakes once, while some prefer a trail where they can go fast, and must use the brakes else fly off the side of the mountain. Helps if people knew themselves first, before trying to figure out what they want in something else.

Okay so first off I don't want to muck up the awesome vibe of what is the best thread ever (now that I've discovered it), so I'm not saying this to mean any disrespect whatsoever or just to be contradictory. You made a lot of good points. But when you are talking about the the small guys not being very good that just doesn't add up. There are good reasons to go with the big guys like convenience and support etc., but in terms of innovation, in any industry it's almost always the little guys that produce the biggest leaps forward since they have to beat the big guys and since they are less invested in whatever the status quo is. The hard part is that the little guys are little, and often have zero $ for marketing. For example we don't hear about it much in the US, but Bionicon is doing some really cool stuff right now with on the fly adjustable travel/geometry. Specialized and Scott tried for a while too I think (I still happily ride and Enduro with Itch Switch and Horst-link for what it's worth). In the general tune of this thread, I agree that all bikes are pretty much awesome right now and personal preference is key, but that said I wouldn't mind seeing some bigger step changes in design/idealogy instead of these relatively tiny iterations of linkages and damping. What if your enduro bike was also your xc bike and also your hardtail (slap on some diff tires/wheels and you've got a cross/road bike)? I'd like to see more bike makers go after the adjustable travel/full lockout designs rather than hype up the latest linkages or damping as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Might sell fewer bikes though

 

[Mudguard]

What if your enduro bike was also your xc bike and also your hardtail (slap on some diff tires/wheels and you've got a cross/road bike)? I'd like to see more bike makers go after the adjustable travel/full lockout designs rather than hype up the latest linkages or damping as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Might sell fewer bikes though

Your problem is compromise. Take a DH bike, 2.3-2.5 dual sticky rubber, 200mm of travel and weighing near 40lb.
XC bike weighing nearer 20lb, 100mm of travel, 1.9-2.2 rubber. Both excel at what they do, but if you want to do both, say my bike Specialized Enduro with 160mm of travel and about 28lb, I won't win an XC race on it, or a DH race, but I can ride both.

Which is fine for me. However if you are adding adjustable travel into the mix I am certain you'll compromise the quality of your suspension. I'm finding it hard enough dialing in my Pike and Monarch, all it does is make me lust after coil. That's without going into frame geometry, linkages and pivots.

 

[Jayem]

Okay so first off I don't want to muck up the awesome vibe of what is the best thread ever (now that I've discovered it), so I'm not saying this to mean any disrespect whatsoever or just to be contradictory. You made a lot of good points. But when you are talking about the the small guys not being very good that just doesn't add up. There are good reasons to go with the big guys like convenience and support etc., but in terms of innovation, in any industry it's almost always the little guys that produce the biggest leaps forward since they have to beat the big guys and since they are less invested in whatever the status quo is. The hard part is that the little guys are little, and often have zero $ for marketing. For example we don't hear about it much in the US, but Bionicon is doing some really cool stuff right now with on the fly adjustable travel/geometry. Specialized and Scott tried for a while too I think (I still happily ride and Enduro with Itch Switch and Horst-link for what it's worth). In the general tune of this thread, I agree that all bikes are pretty much awesome right now and personal preference is key, but that said I wouldn't mind seeing some bigger step changes in design/idealogy instead of these relatively tiny iterations of linkages and damping. What if your enduro bike was also your xc bike and also your hardtail (slap on some diff tires/wheels and you've got a cross/road bike)? I'd like to see more bike makers go after the adjustable travel/full lockout designs rather than hype up the latest linkages or damping as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Might sell fewer bikes though

I've ridden the bionicon bikes, I hope they get a lot better than they were the last time I rode them. One of the big problems are the shocks, propriety and without the more complex valving you can get with something like a Float X, Vivid Air, BOS Void air, etc. Same thing with the fork, poor damping quality. If it's going to be used for DH and all around riding, it needs damping capable of supporting it, not to mention when the travel and rate change, the damping will need to change. The bionicon thing is a nice try, but I don't think it will ever catch on. Besides, there's more to geometry than just letting the fork and shock compress a bit.

 

[iheartbicycles]

If bionicon was going to take off, it would have by now. They've been in business for 16 years.

 

[ColinL]

While we're reviving old threads, I am surprised that no one told Captain that his inability to wheelie on the Specialized Epic was because it's an XC race bike with geometry built to carry a lot of weight on the front end.

If you put a 35mm stem on it, you could wheelie a lot easier because your weight would be farther behind the front axle. It was not due to the suspension, unless the sag was set completely wrong. At the recommended 15% sag - it's not squishy at all. It's only hard to wheelie because you can't lift the front as easily as a typical trail/AM bike.

 

[tmabiker]

Yeah I agree, it's gonna be a long time before we see a 20lb that can also be DH bike. But a trail/xc bike seems pretty doable, although maybe not 20lb yet. Regarding the quality compromise, I'm not quite sure what you mean, I guess maybe it's always a personal preference getting things dialed in. One of my bikes goes from 100-130mm it's pretty straightforward and I really like it, just wish it was more like a 0-130 interval and anything between.

 

[tmabiker]

Well high end full suspension mountain bikes are a pretty niche market so I wouldn't ever expect them to be in every house, but for what it's worth it took Apple about 25 years before they really "took off", so years in business isn't really a good indicator of success. Moreover I wasn't saying that Bionicon is going to be the Apple of the bike world or something, I've never even ridden one, but I do think the concept of on the fly geometry changes is pretty cool and potentially useful, a lot more-so than the latest linkage or damping design.

 

[tmabiker]

I've ridden the bionicon bikes, I hope they get a lot better than they were the last time I rode them. One of the big problems are the shocks, propriety and without the more complex valving you can get with something like a Float X, Vivid Air, BOS Void air, etc. Same thing with the fork, poor damping quality. If it's going to be used for DH and all around riding, it needs damping capable of supporting it, not to mention when the travel and rate change, the damping will need to change. The bionicon thing is a nice try, but I don't think it will ever catch on. Besides, there's more to geometry than just letting the fork and shock compress a bit.

Wish they were still in the US, I'd like to try their newer ones.

 

[iheartbicycles]

Well high end full suspension mountain bikes are a pretty niche market so I wouldn't ever expect them to be in every house, but for what it's worth it took Apple about 25 years before they really "took off", so years in business isn't really a good indicator of success. Moreover I wasn't saying that Bionicon is going to be the Apple of the bike world or something, I've never even ridden one, but I do think the concept of on the fly geometry changes is pretty cool and potentially useful, a lot more-so than the latest linkage or damping design.

Intense, Turner, Foes all entered the market between 1992 and 1994. Each of them pushing their own particular ideas and designs. by 1998-1999 each had proven themselves in the market and taken off. For these companies, it took 5-7 years to gain a solid foothold and reputation.

Bionicon entered the market in 1999 - and has been pushing the same concept for 16 years. The market has spoken.

 

[CaptDan]

While we're reviving old threads, I am surprised that no one told Captain that his inability to wheelie on the Specialized Epic was because it's an XC race bike with geometry built to carry a lot of weight on the front end. If you put a 35mm stem on it, you could wheelie a lot easier because your weight would be farther behind the front axle. It was not due to the suspension, unless the sag was set completely wrong. At the recommended 15% sag - it's not squishy at all. It's only hard to wheelie because you can't lift the front as easily as a typical trail/AM bike.

My thought was that the Brain on the Spec. is set to react on sudden, sharp vertical inputs, so when I kicked the pedals, slammed down on the seat, and jerked back on the bars the Brain did its job and let the rear suspension compress. Instead of the front end coming up, the back end went down, and I felt monumentally silly instead of daring & dashing -- which is the only reason I do wheelies in the first place.

But to your point, yes, setup and geometry play big roles in the ability to leverage a bike around. The hardtail and VPP bikes I ride are XC-oriented (as was the Spec.), so my test ride was pretty close to Apples-to-Apples.

I know the Specialized FSR is a very capable bike, especially in the hands of smooth, high-cadence, experienced riders (read; Roadies or ex-Roadies), but I lack all those qualities. My VPP Spider doesn't hold that against me, but rather coddles my clumsy low-RPM mashings and reactive bike control.

Which brings us back to rider style as a factor in evaluating a rear suspension design philosophy.

Great thread, with lots of excellent input and observations. Bravo!

 

[tmabiker]

Intense, Turner, Foes all entered the market between 1992 and 1994. Each of them pushing their own particular ideas and designs. by 1998-1999 each had proven themselves in the market and taken off. For these companies, it took 5-7 years to gain a solid foothold and reputation.

Bionicon entered the market in 1999 - and has been pushing the same concept for 16 years. The market has spoken.

Yeah the market doesn't seem to be that impressed right now, but could be at some point in the future? Cell phones started in the early 70's, tablets in the early 90's and the market didn't approve for many years. And from what I know of Bionicon (which is not much) they have strong foothold especially in Europe, just not a particularly big one. Or look at electric cars with Tesla, until a couple years ago you could have said that the market had spoken and it was impossible to build a good electric car, now they have the best car on the road and gas engines are starting to look old-fashioned and they're building the largest battery factory in the world.