[aerius]

One thing that eicca touched on is the difference between a bike feeling sluggish on climbs (due to bobbing) and traction on techy climbs.
I so often read "not a good climber," often with no context. Drives me nuts.

In my area, we don't have 30 minute climbs with 400mph downhills.
Our climbs tend to be very short, steep and often very loose and rooty.

I don't care if a rear suspension bobs a bit, I want it to track the terrain to provide climbing (and overall) traction, control, and some comfort.
I find that an active rear suspension provides much better traction up our climbs than a stiffened rear or hardtail (I consider myself to be a reasonably skilled techy climber, so the issue isn't my technique).

Does anyone other than me like the rear suspension active, but feeling kinda dead?

I'm in a fairly similar situation where I live and have the same suspension preferences, though handling rough high speed downhills (however short they may be) remains a high priority for me. Bikes like the Ibis Mojo and various Pivots which have a firmer platform feel under hard climbing need to be ridden more like my hardtails to make it up the climbs, whereas I can just mash the pedals on my Norco and let the suspension handle things. I lose out on a bit of pedaling efficiency from slight suspension bob, but it's more than made up for I don't need as much body english to keep traction and I don't need to get on & off the power as much to get the rear wheel over obstacles without spinning out. It just works better for what I ride and the way I like to do things.

 

[inonjoey]

I have experience with Horst link (older Turner Flux and YT Jeffsy), DW Link (2017 Turner Burner) and modified Horst link (Knolly 4x4 on Fugitive LT). I’m a fairly average climber, although I can make it up some fun tech stuff, but like most I live for going downhill as fast as I can (which really isn’t that fast). I love rocky technical terrain and pretty much despise purpose built “flow” trails. I think this sort of rider characterization is important when discussing suspension.

Of all of those, I personally liked the implementation of the DW Link on the Burner better than any suspension system I’ve been on. When I put down power it responded while staying reasonably active on the climbs, and when I pointed it downhill it let me push my limits and had excellent behavior while braking. It was not the liveliest feeling suspension by any means, but it was plenty stiff, allowed me to ride with the shock wide open all the time and provided enough traction on the ups and downs.

Being able to compare the YT and the Knolly was an eye opener. The YT sacrificed traction for pedaling efficiency and the progression curve just didn’t work for me; the bike felt great hitting man made jumps and flow trails, but that’s not my thing. I was worried that the Knolly would be a bobbing mess while climbing without a pedaling platform, but I was completely wrong. Yes, there is absolutely movement while putting power down, but while seated and grinding it’s barely noticeable and the traction on tap is awesome. And when I need to stand up and get some extra power to get over an obstacle while climbing, again the traction and ability of the rear wheel to get up and over more than makes up for any extra motion. Overall, I’m very happy with the Knolly as any trade offs are worth it. That said, if only Turner had come out with a mid travel 29er with updated geometry.....

The one suspension system I would really like to try is Canfield’s CBF, but I can’t justify another bike. Or can I.....

No interest in the Yeti system. I’m sure it works great, but having seen multiple examples pulled apart at my old shop, I’ll pass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[eicca]

That's why I'm currently such a CBF fanboy. They aim for 100% anti-squat at all points in the travel, and they do this by keeping the chain perpendicular to the axle path, which effectively means that pedaling forces have no impact on traction and that deep compressions don't make the bike stall. In my experience the hype is real.

Which got me thinking: you can put a single pivot in the right spot to keep the chain perpendicular, super easy. Horst links can also be tuned to keep the chain perpendicular. I believe Norco's newest Sight and Optic are tuned that way. But both of those instances are missing something, either the high traction or the alive feeling. It must have something to do with the combination of leverage ratios and axle path and that stuff. I don't know. CBF still wins it all for me. But it seems like DW-Link does the job too.

The final answer is a test ride, of course...

 

[Carl Mega]

You can find many, many exceptions in individual models but of the 150mm+ travel bikes I've pedaled in recent memory:

Horst Link:

Climbing: least favorite
Composed on hits: decent
Chunk: pretty decent though could have stand out moments. Varies on size and frequency.

DW: (I hold similar opinions on VPP bikes)

Climbing: excellent
Composed on hits: decent
Chunk: ok. Often felt like rider could be more insulated from terrain and could simultaneous edge toward getting overwhelmed.

CBF:

Climbing: excellent
Composed on hits: very decent
Chunk: very decent

^CBF ticks all my boxes but as other have mentioned what you ride, what qualities you prefer and how you ride all factor in to your opinions and impressions. FWIW, I really do like DW bikes and wouldn't shy from another one.

 

[eicca]

Good comparison, thank you!

 

[233946]

I have experience with Horst link (older Turner Flux and YT Jeffsy), DW Link (2017 Turner Burner) and modified Horst link (Knolly 4x4 on Fugitive LT). I'm a fairly average climber, although I can make it up some fun tech stuff, but like most I live for going downhill as fast as I can (which really isn't that fast). I love rocky technical terrain and pretty much despise purpose built "flow" trails. I think this sort of rider characterization is important when discussing suspension.

Of all of those, I personally liked the implementation of the DW Link on the Burner better than any suspension system I've been on. When I put down power it responded while staying reasonably active on the climbs, and when I pointed it downhill it let me push my limits and had excellent behavior while braking. It was not the liveliest feeling suspension by any means, but it was plenty stiff, allowed me to ride with the shock wide open all the time and provided enough traction on the ups and downs.

Being able to compare the YT and the Knolly was an eye opener. The YT sacrificed traction for pedaling efficiency and the progression curve just didn't work for me; the bike felt great hitting man made jumps and flow trails, but that's not my thing. I was worried that the Knolly would be a bobbing mess while climbing without a pedaling platform, but I was completely wrong. Yes, there is absolutely movement while putting power down, but while seated and grinding it's barely noticeable and the traction on tap is awesome. And when I need to stand up and get some extra power to get over an obstacle while climbing, again the traction and ability of the rear wheel to get up and over more than makes up for any extra motion. Overall, I'm very happy with the Knolly as any trade offs are worth it. That said, if only Turner had come out with a mid travel 29er with updated geometry.....

The one suspension system I would really like to try is Canfield's CBF, but I can't justify another bike. Or can I.....

No interest in the Yeti system. I'm sure it works great, but having seen multiple examples pulled apart at my old shop, I'll pass.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Keep in mind the burner has realitively long chainstays at 447 which also affects climbing. This and the similar kinamatics are why I bought a Banshee Prime to replace my burner with a 29" bike.

 

[233946]

That's why I'm currently such a CBF fanboy. They aim for 100% anti-squat at all points in the travel, and they do this by keeping the chain perpendicular to the axle path, which effectively means that pedaling forces have no impact on traction and that deep compressions don't make the bike stall. In my experience the hype is real.

Which got me thinking: you can put a single pivot in the right spot to keep the chain perpendicular, super easy. Horst links can also be tuned to keep the chain perpendicular. I believe Norco's newest Sight and Optic are tuned that way. But both of those instances are missing something, either the high traction or the alive feeling. It must have something to do with the combination of leverage ratios and axle path and that stuff. I don't know. CBF still wins it all for me. But it seems like DW-Link does the job too.

The final answer is a test ride, of course...

There is nothing magical about the CBF, it is just another four bar. They tune it to have a relatively flat antisquat slope, so it isn't as sensitive to sag as some designs, but there are tradeoffs. First, 100% antisquat does not mean that pedaling forces have no impact on traction, it means that the chain compensates for the rider's weight transfer. 0% is pedaling independent with no chain growth or shrinkage. It is not done because the compromises are too large (we used to see under 50% in downhill bikes). By keeping antisquat at approximately 100% through the travel range, Canfield has a higher level of pedal kickback on large bumps than designs that aim for antisquat that drops after the sag point. Here is a good article about antisquat and the tradeoffs:

Enginerding: What Is Anti-Squat & How Does It Actually Affect Mountain Bike Performance? - Pinkbike

Put on those thinking caps and get ready for a deep dive, complete with illustrations, into the definition of anti-squat.

www.pinkbike.com

Again, there is no free lunch, it is choosing the tradeoffs. A 4bar is a 4bar is a 4bar no matter what it is called and they all follow the same laws of physics.

Finally, some graphs showing the antisquat and pedal kickback of the CBF designs.

 

[Dougal]

I ride a 2015 Horst link Norco, it was about the stiffest bike around when I bought it. A lot of the stiffness comes down to design details such using clevis joints on the pivots and good size bearings instead of single shear pivots and dinky little bearings & hardware. It ain't the lightest bike since they overbuilt the hell out of it to the point where I've bent forks and trashed wheels while the frame just laughed it off.

Mrs Dougal rides a 2014/15 Norco Range. It's a massively under-rated frame that climbs and pedals exceptionally. No plans to replace it. No original parts though.

 

[mrallen]

I had been warned for years that HL bikes pedal poorly and it's true they don't feel nearly as rigid as other options out there.
However it turns out that HL is faster in my terrain because it's so chunky up and down. The bike ends up maintaining better traction, you can run a bit faster rolling tire, it wears you out less and you get hung up less. Of course my '21 Evo is probably one of the most efficient HL bikes that Specialized has made to date.

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6920 using Tapatalk

How does the bike pedal when the shock is in the Open position?

 

[Jayem]

That's why I'm currently such a CBF fanboy. They aim for 100% anti-squat at all points in the travel, and they do this by keeping the chain perpendicular to the axle path, which effectively means that pedaling forces have no impact on traction and that deep compressions don't make the bike stall. In my experience the hype is real.

Which got me thinking: you can put a single pivot in the right spot to keep the chain perpendicular, super easy. Horst links can also be tuned to keep the chain perpendicular. I believe Norco's newest Sight and Optic are tuned that way. But both of those instances are missing something, either the high traction or the alive feeling. It must have something to do with the combination of leverage ratios and axle path and that stuff. I don't know. CBF still wins it all for me. But it seems like DW-Link does the job too.

The final answer is a test ride, of course...

But A, they do not have 100% at all points in the travel (and it's arguable that you don't want that at certain points in the travel) and B, what they achieve is the same as other profiles, like you can get from single pivot and newer "flattened" horst link bikes.

I would chock up better feeling bikes to shock and leverage curve tunes.

Too many people get hung up on "visual bob" IMO too. It's not the visual bob I'm concerned about, it's % of pedal stroke into forward movement. If your pedal stroke is keeping the rear end compressed due to very low AS, you might not see it "bobbing", but you are not getting your full effect to pedal yourself forward.

And for test rides, I can feel the "efficiency" usually pretty quickly, but it generally takes me at least a week to get honed in on the damping and spring settings that I like, riding varied terrain, etc. A test ride is often fairly useless to me, unless it's more comprehensive/longer time period. Some shops will do demos, but most people probably don't have that ability.

 

[Suns_PSD]

How does the bike pedal when the shock is in the Open position?

Irrelevant as per the Fox manual the open position is for descending and the middle trail position is for undulating terrain which is what we ride.
It wouldn't make sense to run the shock in a position that provides essentially no support as it's not supposed to, not the bike's fault.

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6920 using Tapatalk

 

[jeremy3220]

decided that I don't love that super high AS deep in to the travel that the VPP/ SI provides.

I thought that was part of what the newer VPP fixes.

Behind the Numbers: Santa Cruz Megatower Suspension Analysis - Pinkbike

Got a thing for graphs? Take a look at the suspension design analysis for the Santa Cruz Megatower.

www.pinkbike.com

 

[mrallen]

Irrelevant as per the Fox manual the open position is for descending and the middle trail position is for undulating terrain which is what we ride.
It wouldn't make sense to run the shock in a position that provides essentially no support as it's not supposed to, not the bike's fault.

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6920 using Tapatalk

I don't find it irrelevant. It's comparing apples and oranges in some cases. In our terrain, you don't have the luxury of flipping the switch as you know. What I was getting at is that some HL bikes pedal pretty well in the open mode and some don't. DW, Yetis and some of the others here pedal well in the open position. I would say that knowing you are referring to a bike pedaling well with the shock in middle position is relevant, since my questions at that point would be, "How does it feel going down chunky stuff? Does it feel as plush as you want/need it to be?" There are plenty of HL bikes that climb just fine in the open position, but not all so it should be pointed out when you are referring to something requiring the shock platform to help it out. It's also helpful to know that while you need the pedal platform to make the climbing work, not having to flip the switch for the downs is ok.

This isn't just pointed at HL bikes either. DW can feel different based on the implementation. Ibis can sell bikes without any LSC adjustment because their implementation is optimized for pedaling. Pivot on the other hand needs a bit of LSC in my opinion. The tradeoff is that Pivot is more composed in the chunk than Ibis typically.

 

[Jayem]

Irrelevant as per the Fox manual the open position is for descending and the middle trail position is for undulating terrain which is what we ride.
It wouldn't make sense to run the shock in a position that provides essentially no support as it's not supposed to, not the bike's fault.

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6920 using Tapatalk

Ah yes the "blow through the travel" position that makes people think shocks should have no support for chassis movement...

Terrible tune.

 

[inonjoey]

Keep in mind the burner has realitively long chainstays at 447 which also affects climbing. This and the similar kinamatics are why I bought a Banshee Prime to replace my burner with a 29" bike.

Great point. I'm happy to see that more manufacturers are offering longer chainstays - I never bought the "shorter chainstays are better for climbing" nonsense. I would love to try one of Banshees, and I think their modular dropout system is a smart way to appeal to a wide range of riders.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Suns_PSD]

Ah yes the "blow through the travel" position that makes people think shocks should have no support for chassis movement...

Terrible tune.

I briefly played with the 'open' position on the DPX2 and have no idea when it could be useful. Maybe a natural rough downhill with no jumps?

In the Evo thread several guys running this shock in the 'open' position and running way too little sag/ too much air to try and prevent bottom outs so of course their opinion is 'this shock is terrible'.

 

[233946]

Ah yes the "blow through the travel" position that makes people think shocks should have no support for chassis movement...

Terrible tune.

It fits with the general Fox philosophy, the more adjustments, the better, who cares if it works. DPX2 factory gives 12 positions of low speed compression that suck, instead of the 3 that the lower end models have. I like the Manitou Mara switch, two modes, work and party. If it doesn't work for you, you can easily retune it until it does. For Fox and Rockshox, get the least expensive model that Avelanche or Vorsprung can tune and never look back.

 

[aerius]

Mrs Dougal rides a 2014/15 Norco Range. It's a massively under-rated frame that climbs and pedals exceptionally. No plans to replace it. No original parts though.

Same bike I have, only original parts left on mine are the headset and front derailleur. I bought mine with the intention of using it as a weekend DH bike at the resorts, but it did everything so well that it became my every day bike. No plans of replacing mine either till it breaks, given what it's survived so far I'm probably going to run out of rims & tires before that happens since everything's going to 29er.

 

[eicca]

Ah yes the "blow through the travel" position that makes people think shocks should have no support for chassis movement...

Terrible tune.

I and many I know find compression damping to be utterly stupid. The point of suspension is to absorb the terrain and keep traction.

What about chassis movement when standing and hammering? Use better technique. That's what I do. What about midstroke support and bottom out resistance? Tune the spring. I'll touch bottom maybe once or twice a ride and it stays nice and active and ready to rock the rest of the time.

I'm on a 160mm 34lb Canfield, fork is a DVO Diamond, rear shock is a DVO Topaz, both tuned with as little compression damping as possible, and I leave them wide open 100% of the time. This is the first bike I've ever been able to keep up with or actually out-climb my regular riding buddies on their Rocky Mountains, Pivots, Cannondales, etc. And I don't sacrifice any grip or control.

 

[jeremy3220]

I and many I know find compression damping to be utterly stupid.

You don't mean zero compression damping right? As in no compression damper? Cause that's not going to work too well.