Difficult to tell for certain but in this photo and others it looks like the actual seat tube angle is still pretty slack on the new Pivot Firebird. No good for tall people like myself.
Difficult to tell for certain but in this photo and others it looks like the actual seat tube angle is still pretty slack on the new...
Difficult to tell for certain but in this photo and others it looks like the actual seat tube angle is still pretty slack on the new Pivot Firebird. No good for tall people like myself.
Almost all bikes seat tubes look slack when sitting at sag. Believe its already been pointed out in one of the teaser videos it'll be 76.5 seat tube 64 head tube angles. Sounds about right based on Pivots history of conservative geometry. Also got me thinking why brands using DW links all go conservative geo numbers. Pivot and Ibis come to mind.
76 virtual. Which doesn't mean anything for tall riders.
As for dw link, it might just be a coincidence that they use dw link, otherwise in general North American brands tend to be a bit more conservative if you ask me. Ibis, Pivot, Evil, Intense, Rocky Mountain, Trek, maybe some others too (Spec is mid range lately, they used to be quite conservative, while Norco has their game handled).
I think it's more related to brand size & developmental inertia than geographical location. As you said, Norco is pretty progressive, as is Transition. Santa Cruz has been dragging their feet, and only started going into the mid-77s with the '21/'22 models. Yeti is pretty progressive and mid/large-ish.
But I do suspect that the DW Link brands are all following some guidance from DW. I recall seeing some BS answer to a Vital interview question with Chris Cocalis of Pivot, claiming that they didn't need to run steeper seat angles because the DW Link platform was so efficient. That's just nonsense; a bike with a certain amount of travel and at 30% sag will have the same seat angle regardless of suspension design. That's especially true now that most suspension designs now run 100-110% anti-squat at sag, so even while actively pedaling the seat angle is going to stay roughly the same.
Overall SC is quite progressive, at least the Hightower is quite up there in terms of top tube length and effective seat tube angle, there are many brands that are worse in that regard. Yeti is, to be honest, fairly meh in that regard, nothing special, so I'd hazzard saying they are somewhat conservative.
DW does do a lot of bike (geometry) development, so it might in fact be a correlation in that regard, you're right.
As for progressiveness... Man, I don't know. I have a very progressive bike (1292 mm wheelbase in the largest, XL size at 150/150 mm travel, 75-ish seat height actual seat tube angle, 680 mm top tube and 522 mm reach, 65,5° HA I think) and while it's the best bike I've ever ridden, it's also very noticeably long. No debate, it's an XL issue as well (which is what JamesOliver alluded to), as I wouldn't mind trying an even steeper seat tube angle (the BB to seat angle of course), the top tube length or the cockpit length is perfect for pedalling though, so that would require a longer effective top tube and reach.
With the bike long (and cumbersome in tight twisties) as is, that would make it longer, unless you went for ultra short chainstays and maybe a steeper headtube angle. So while the fit and pedalling could improve a bit, it would make it even more cumbersome (and much faster). And I'm not sure I want that after experiencing a jump from 1224-ish mm wheelbase to 1292 mm.
I think it's more related to brand size & developmental inertia than geographical location. As you said, Norco is pretty progressive, as is Transition. Santa Cruz...
I think it's more related to brand size & developmental inertia than geographical location. As you said, Norco is pretty progressive, as is Transition. Santa Cruz has been dragging their feet, and only started going into the mid-77s with the '21/'22 models. Yeti is pretty progressive and mid/large-ish.
But I do suspect that the DW Link brands are all following some guidance from DW. I recall seeing some BS answer to a Vital interview question with Chris Cocalis of Pivot, claiming that they didn't need to run steeper seat angles because the DW Link platform was so efficient. That's just nonsense; a bike with a certain amount of travel and at 30% sag will have the same seat angle regardless of suspension design. That's especially true now that most suspension designs now run 100-110% anti-squat at sag, so even while actively pedaling the seat angle is going to stay roughly the same.
DW definitely averages a higher overall ride height when pedaling (even when sag is set the same) than Horst Link for instance, so I don't think it's BS at all.
You shouldn't need quite as much STA steepness out of a DW link bike as well as a few others for it to feel the same when pedaling your favorite chunky climb.
Same travel, same sag, same BB drop, how is the ride height higher? (meaning, there is more to it than what you said here)
The ride height and resulting seat tube angle come into effect only in case the sag is lower on DW link bikes. Since with less rear sag, the front triangle rotation will be less, this dynamic seat tube angle will be steeper in that case. A higher ride height has nothing to do with it, if the sag is the same (as the higher ride height will come from the BB drop being smaller).
As for chunkies, can confirm from personal experience, sitting more over the BB definitely helps a lot. I prefer pushing down vs. forward on the pedals.
Just got the new Freehub mag and noticed this DVO fork that is not the typical blue/green/black that DVO typically runs. Stanchions also seem to be fairly thicc.
Just got the new Freehub mag and noticed this DVO fork that is not the typical blue/green/black that DVO typically runs. Stanchions also seem to be...
Just got the new Freehub mag and noticed this DVO fork that is not the typical blue/green/black that DVO typically runs. Stanchions also seem to be fairly thicc.
Looks to be the same chassis to me (36mm stanchions), but new damper/dials.
I think it's more related to brand size & developmental inertia than geographical location. As you said, Norco is pretty progressive, as is Transition. Santa Cruz...
I think it's more related to brand size & developmental inertia than geographical location. As you said, Norco is pretty progressive, as is Transition. Santa Cruz has been dragging their feet, and only started going into the mid-77s with the '21/'22 models. Yeti is pretty progressive and mid/large-ish.
But I do suspect that the DW Link brands are all following some guidance from DW. I recall seeing some BS answer to a Vital interview question with Chris Cocalis of Pivot, claiming that they didn't need to run steeper seat angles because the DW Link platform was so efficient. That's just nonsense; a bike with a certain amount of travel and at 30% sag will have the same seat angle regardless of suspension design. That's especially true now that most suspension designs now run 100-110% anti-squat at sag, so even while actively pedaling the seat angle is going to stay roughly the same.
"a bike with a certain amount of travel and at 30% sag will have the same seat angle regardless of suspension design"
This isn't exactly true, since sag percentages are generally measured at the shock, not the wheel. At least in theory (maybe someone else can back me up on this), leverage ratio can have an impact on the actual wheel travel for a specific % of shock stroke. Say you have 'Bike 1' which is entirely linear, with 150mm travel and a 60mm stroke shock (average LR of 2.5), and 'Bike 2' which has the same amount of travel and shock stroke, but has a linearly progressive leverage rate from 3.0-2.0 (average LR is still 2.5). 30% sag on Bike 1 would give 45mm of wheel travel (exactly 30% of the wheel travel), but 30% sag on Bike 2 gives around 51mm of travel, which is 34.2% of the wheel travel. Assuming both bikes have identical static geometry, Bike 1 will have the steeper seat tube angle when sagged.
At least as a general 'rule', the lower the leverage ratios are in that initial third or so of shock stroke, the less wheel travel you'll have for a set sag value, and therefore less deviation from the static geometry. As for Cocalis' statement, to my knowledge DW-link bikes don't have especially unique leverage curves, so he was likely referring only to the pedal efficiency (which in that case could be a more accurate statement, as DW-link bikes often have a reputation for good anti-squat tuning). I have no idea how much a steeper seat tube angle actually improves efficiency, though.
Your points are true, both that the sag measurement at the shock is influenced by the leverage ratio (Banshee for example a while ago specified how much shock travel in mm you need to achieve 30 percent wheel sag) and that there aren't such great differences in leverage ratio around the sag point (well, the differences are huge, as bikes with the same teavel have different shock strokes, but yeah).
Let's say I meant sag at the rear wheel. I specifically didn't want to say vertical travel sag (that would cover high pivot bikes too), because different suspension systems aren't that different between each other in the axle path. Or better yet, different systems can be much more similar to each other than the same systems could be made different.
Came across a new Rocky Powerplay model out in the wild today. Extremely clean frame, didn't even notice it was an Ebike at first. Huge step up from the last one.
Overall SC is quite progressive, at least the Hightower is quite up there in terms of top tube length and effective seat tube angle, there are...
Overall SC is quite progressive, at least the Hightower is quite up there in terms of top tube length and effective seat tube angle, there are many brands that are worse in that regard. Yeti is, to be honest, fairly meh in that regard, nothing special, so I'd hazzard saying they are somewhat conservative.
DW does do a lot of bike (geometry) development, so it might in fact be a correlation in that regard, you're right.
As for progressiveness... Man, I don't know. I have a very progressive bike (1292 mm wheelbase in the largest, XL size at 150/150 mm travel, 75-ish seat height actual seat tube angle, 680 mm top tube and 522 mm reach, 65,5° HA I think) and while it's the best bike I've ever ridden, it's also very noticeably long. No debate, it's an XL issue as well (which is what JamesOliver alluded to), as I wouldn't mind trying an even steeper seat tube angle (the BB to seat angle of course), the top tube length or the cockpit length is perfect for pedalling though, so that would require a longer effective top tube and reach.
With the bike long (and cumbersome in tight twisties) as is, that would make it longer, unless you went for ultra short chainstays and maybe a steeper headtube angle. So while the fit and pedalling could improve a bit, it would make it even more cumbersome (and much faster). And I'm not sure I want that after experiencing a jump from 1224-ish mm wheelbase to 1292 mm.
I also (180cm, shortish arms) went from 440reach to 500 reach bird am9 in the recent years. After the initial surge of confidence the long reach starts feeling quite dull. Now back with 460 on a mullet megatower and building up a M sized 2020 5010.
I think the ultra long reach thing is fading and most suited towards intermediate racers looking for raw speed & beginners looking for safety and confidence.
Overall SC is quite progressive, at least the Hightower is quite up there in terms of top tube length and effective seat tube angle, there are...
Overall SC is quite progressive, at least the Hightower is quite up there in terms of top tube length and effective seat tube angle, there are many brands that are worse in that regard. Yeti is, to be honest, fairly meh in that regard, nothing special, so I'd hazzard saying they are somewhat conservative.
DW does do a lot of bike (geometry) development, so it might in fact be a correlation in that regard, you're right.
As for progressiveness... Man, I don't know. I have a very progressive bike (1292 mm wheelbase in the largest, XL size at 150/150 mm travel, 75-ish seat height actual seat tube angle, 680 mm top tube and 522 mm reach, 65,5° HA I think) and while it's the best bike I've ever ridden, it's also very noticeably long. No debate, it's an XL issue as well (which is what JamesOliver alluded to), as I wouldn't mind trying an even steeper seat tube angle (the BB to seat angle of course), the top tube length or the cockpit length is perfect for pedalling though, so that would require a longer effective top tube and reach.
With the bike long (and cumbersome in tight twisties) as is, that would make it longer, unless you went for ultra short chainstays and maybe a steeper headtube angle. So while the fit and pedalling could improve a bit, it would make it even more cumbersome (and much faster). And I'm not sure I want that after experiencing a jump from 1224-ish mm wheelbase to 1292 mm.
I also (180cm, shortish arms) went from 440reach to 500 reach bird am9 in the recent years. After the initial surge of confidence the long reach...
I also (180cm, shortish arms) went from 440reach to 500 reach bird am9 in the recent years. After the initial surge of confidence the long reach starts feeling quite dull. Now back with 460 on a mullet megatower and building up a M sized 2020 5010.
I think the ultra long reach thing is fading and most suited towards intermediate racers looking for raw speed & beginners looking for safety and confidence.
I think most brands reach measurements are now in the right kind of place. 460ish for a M, 480ish for a L and 500ish for an XL, with 10mm each way or so. I'm 174cm and have a M with 470mm of reach and I think that's about right. With 440mm chainstays I wouldn't want to go any bigger
I think most brands reach measurements are now in the right kind of place. 460ish for a M, 480ish for a L and 500ish for an...
I think most brands reach measurements are now in the right kind of place. 460ish for a M, 480ish for a L and 500ish for an XL, with 10mm each way or so. I'm 174cm and have a M with 470mm of reach and I think that's about right. With 440mm chainstays I wouldn't want to go any bigger
I have also found this to work well, though I'm a touch taller than you with short arms and wish my bikes reach was 480 instead of 470.
I'm surprised more companies have not jumped on the adjustable reach wagon yet like Guerilla Gravity does - to me that makes a lot of sense, especially since you effectively 'double' the number of front ends you offer. With a +/- 5/10mm headset, you could offer only three sizes with low standovers and seat tubes and still serve most people. I suppose that requires a suspension design with an uninterrupted seat tube so your Small and pseudo-XS can fit a decent dropper post inside.
I think most brands reach measurements are now in the right kind of place. 460ish for a M, 480ish for a L and 500ish for an...
I think most brands reach measurements are now in the right kind of place. 460ish for a M, 480ish for a L and 500ish for an XL, with 10mm each way or so. I'm 174cm and have a M with 470mm of reach and I think that's about right. With 440mm chainstays I wouldn't want to go any bigger
I have also found this to work well, though I'm a touch taller than you with short arms and wish my bikes reach was 480 instead...
I have also found this to work well, though I'm a touch taller than you with short arms and wish my bikes reach was 480 instead of 470.
I'm surprised more companies have not jumped on the adjustable reach wagon yet like Guerilla Gravity does - to me that makes a lot of sense, especially since you effectively 'double' the number of front ends you offer. With a +/- 5/10mm headset, you could offer only three sizes with low standovers and seat tubes and still serve most people. I suppose that requires a suspension design with an uninterrupted seat tube so your Small and pseudo-XS can fit a decent dropper post inside.
I have short legs, around 29" inseam, and struggle with some seat tube lengths. I've got a 180mm Oneup pretty much all the way in with a 420mm seat tube. Some brands have a 440mm on their Medium frames (looking at you Propain and GT)
Same travel, same sag, same BB drop, how is the ride height higher? (meaning, there is more to it than what you said here)
The ride...
Same travel, same sag, same BB drop, how is the ride height higher? (meaning, there is more to it than what you said here)
The ride height and resulting seat tube angle come into effect only in case the sag is lower on DW link bikes. Since with less rear sag, the front triangle rotation will be less, this dynamic seat tube angle will be steeper in that case. A higher ride height has nothing to do with it, if the sag is the same (as the higher ride height will come from the BB drop being smaller).
As for chunkies, can confirm from personal experience, sitting more over the BB definitely helps a lot. I prefer pushing down vs. forward on the pedals.
You are quite incorrect.
When you ride a bike down a trail, pedaling, during undulations/ roots/ bumps, the suspension moves in the the 20% - 60% travel range. It does not sit at 30% sag exactly the entire time. If you don't believe me reset your travel indicator and pedal down any trail and then notice that your o-ring will have used over 50% travel on most bikes before any jumps or obstacles are encountered.
You will find that bikes that have high AS even deeper into their travel and linear suspension ride quite high overall.
For example, a very active suspension bike like say a '19 SJ Evo maybe be at 60% of it's travel over a root where-as a Mach 6 might hit the same bump and only be at 45% travel, particularly when pedaling. As a result DW link bikes will have considerably less average travel being used while pedaling down the trail, that's what gives them their firm feel. Too firm imo, but it does have it's advantages.
I also (180cm, shortish arms) went from 440reach to 500 reach bird am9 in the recent years. After the initial surge of confidence the long reach...
I also (180cm, shortish arms) went from 440reach to 500 reach bird am9 in the recent years. After the initial surge of confidence the long reach starts feeling quite dull. Now back with 460 on a mullet megatower and building up a M sized 2020 5010.
I think the ultra long reach thing is fading and most suited towards intermediate racers looking for raw speed & beginners looking for safety and confidence.
I specifically did not mention reach that much. Reach is useful for DH and park bikes. For bikes that need to be pedaled, to me, the top tube is much more important. The Privateer 161 has a reach of 515 in the largest size, size 4. My Bird is, as mentioned, 522 in XL. The top tube comparison is 630 mm vs. 680 mm between the Privateer and AM9. The Medium-Long AM9 has a top tube of 630 mm.
Sittin on a Large AM9, I DO NOT want to ride an L. Let alone a medium-long. Because of the top tube.
Want a correctly fitting top tube (cockpit) and a steep seat tube? The reach will be long. Want a 'normal' or even short reach and a steep seat tube? Prepare for an insanely short cockpit (90 mm stem anyone?). 'Normal' reach and a proper cockpit fit? Slack seat tube.
I specifically mentioned shorter chainstays and a steeper headtube, but not a shorter top tube.
The long reach did not come about for the sake of the bike being long. The long reach came about because of the seat tubes getting steeper and cockpits (in the case of companies doing it the right way cockpit fit wise) staying at the correct length. That increases the reach. As for why the cockpit length matters, it's simple (as I've said many times before) - bikes that get pedalled make the rinder spend... 90 % of all the energy riding/climbing seated. Seated fit is the most important thing of any bike like that. Any bike that gets pedalled. If you're an EWS level rider (or a serious racer) there could be an argument made about prioritising for descending fit, but most weekend warriors and 'just riding along' riders benefit most from the seated fit, energy expenditure wise.
You are quite incorrect.
When you ride a bike down a trail, pedaling, during undulations/ roots/ bumps, the suspension moves in the the 20% - 60%...
You are quite incorrect.
When you ride a bike down a trail, pedaling, during undulations/ roots/ bumps, the suspension moves in the the 20% - 60% travel range. It does not sit at 30% sag exactly the entire time. If you don't believe me reset your travel indicator and pedal down any trail and then notice that your o-ring will have used over 50% travel on most bikes before any jumps or obstacles are encountered.
You will find that bikes that have high AS even deeper into their travel and linear suspension ride quite high overall.
For example, a very active suspension bike like say a '19 SJ Evo maybe be at 60% of it's travel over a root where-as a Mach 6 might hit the same bump and only be at 45% travel, particularly when pedaling. As a result DW link bikes will have considerably less average travel being used while pedaling down the trail, that's what gives them their firm feel. Too firm imo, but it does have it's advantages.
The problem with what you are saying is that you assume pedalling down the hill. We were specifically talking about riding uphill. Pedalling downhill does not fit into the efficiency debate... well, at all, since it's done standing up. Bike kinematics and antisquat values change radically once you're not sitting on the saddle anymore.
As for the suspension movement range, if you're suspension is moving from 20 to 60 % sitting down... Well, sad to break it to you, but that's is some LOW antisquat.
Just got the new Freehub mag and noticed this DVO fork that is not the typical blue/green/black that DVO typically runs. Stanchions also seem to be...
Just got the new Freehub mag and noticed this DVO fork that is not the typical blue/green/black that DVO typically runs. Stanchions also seem to be fairly thicc.
Interesting…
I have a new ‘21/‘22 Onyx that has a few upgrades. The graphics are new, maybe the one in this pic got to Freehub before those new graphics were ready?
“The biggest changes are the lowers are a new casting and the bushings are new from a different manufacturer that allows us to get the tolerance down to 0.01mm”
“The uppers are a new coating with a new press process thats so far has eliminated any creeking and has a massive reduction in friction”
“We have a new air piston, new damper seal head, new bladder, compression tune, new air bleeders and a firmer OTT spring seat to prevent any rattle” (stolen from a thread from another forum)
I specifically did not mention reach that much. Reach is useful for DH and park bikes. For bikes that need to be pedaled, to me, the...
I specifically did not mention reach that much. Reach is useful for DH and park bikes. For bikes that need to be pedaled, to me, the top tube is much more important. The Privateer 161 has a reach of 515 in the largest size, size 4. My Bird is, as mentioned, 522 in XL. The top tube comparison is 630 mm vs. 680 mm between the Privateer and AM9. The Medium-Long AM9 has a top tube of 630 mm.
Sittin on a Large AM9, I DO NOT want to ride an L. Let alone a medium-long. Because of the top tube.
Want a correctly fitting top tube (cockpit) and a steep seat tube? The reach will be long. Want a 'normal' or even short reach and a steep seat tube? Prepare for an insanely short cockpit (90 mm stem anyone?). 'Normal' reach and a proper cockpit fit? Slack seat tube.
I specifically mentioned shorter chainstays and a steeper headtube, but not a shorter top tube.
The long reach did not come about for the sake of the bike being long. The long reach came about because of the seat tubes getting steeper and cockpits (in the case of companies doing it the right way cockpit fit wise) staying at the correct length. That increases the reach. As for why the cockpit length matters, it's simple (as I've said many times before) - bikes that get pedalled make the rinder spend... 90 % of all the energy riding/climbing seated. Seated fit is the most important thing of any bike like that. Any bike that gets pedalled. If you're an EWS level rider (or a serious racer) there could be an argument made about prioritising for descending fit, but most weekend warriors and 'just riding along' riders benefit most from the seated fit, energy expenditure wise.
I had to adapt to a shorter cockpit when going from a 460 reach Strive 2016 with very slack seat tube to a 510 reach Pole, both with same stem length. I actually had to go for a 50mm stem for a while because my back was hurting from wanting to lean forward. After a while, and some strength training og my upper back, I went back to the 35mm stem and love it. High handlebar, short cockpit, steep seat tube, slack head tube, long reach works well, vut you need to let go of the old school leaned forward seating position. I habe been riding mtbs for 30 years, so I had to dig deep into the the relearning pit. Now on a 515 reach XL Starling Murmur with the saddle all the way forward, and I think I could have gone for a large (475/480?) for my height at 185cm.
You are quite incorrect.
When you ride a bike down a trail, pedaling, during undulations/ roots/ bumps, the suspension moves in the the 20% - 60%...
You are quite incorrect.
When you ride a bike down a trail, pedaling, during undulations/ roots/ bumps, the suspension moves in the the 20% - 60% travel range. It does not sit at 30% sag exactly the entire time. If you don't believe me reset your travel indicator and pedal down any trail and then notice that your o-ring will have used over 50% travel on most bikes before any jumps or obstacles are encountered.
You will find that bikes that have high AS even deeper into their travel and linear suspension ride quite high overall.
For example, a very active suspension bike like say a '19 SJ Evo maybe be at 60% of it's travel over a root where-as a Mach 6 might hit the same bump and only be at 45% travel, particularly when pedaling. As a result DW link bikes will have considerably less average travel being used while pedaling down the trail, that's what gives them their firm feel. Too firm imo, but it does have it's advantages.
The problem with what you are saying is that you assume pedalling down the hill. We were specifically talking about riding uphill. Pedalling downhill does not...
The problem with what you are saying is that you assume pedalling down the hill. We were specifically talking about riding uphill. Pedalling downhill does not fit into the efficiency debate... well, at all, since it's done standing up. Bike kinematics and antisquat values change radically once you're not sitting on the saddle anymore.
As for the suspension movement range, if you're suspension is moving from 20 to 60 % sitting down... Well, sad to break it to you, but that's is some LOW antisquat.
You really don't know what you are talking about and I really have no interest in going around and around on this topic with you.
The fact is that Pivot and some others are correct when they say that they don't need as steep as a static STA to equal others dynamic STA because their suspension does in fact ride higher. It's a fact.
I specifically did not mention reach that much. Reach is useful for DH and park bikes. For bikes that need to be pedaled, to me, the...
I specifically did not mention reach that much. Reach is useful for DH and park bikes. For bikes that need to be pedaled, to me, the top tube is much more important. The Privateer 161 has a reach of 515 in the largest size, size 4. My Bird is, as mentioned, 522 in XL. The top tube comparison is 630 mm vs. 680 mm between the Privateer and AM9. The Medium-Long AM9 has a top tube of 630 mm.
Sittin on a Large AM9, I DO NOT want to ride an L. Let alone a medium-long. Because of the top tube.
Want a correctly fitting top tube (cockpit) and a steep seat tube? The reach will be long. Want a 'normal' or even short reach and a steep seat tube? Prepare for an insanely short cockpit (90 mm stem anyone?). 'Normal' reach and a proper cockpit fit? Slack seat tube.
I specifically mentioned shorter chainstays and a steeper headtube, but not a shorter top tube.
The long reach did not come about for the sake of the bike being long. The long reach came about because of the seat tubes getting steeper and cockpits (in the case of companies doing it the right way cockpit fit wise) staying at the correct length. That increases the reach. As for why the cockpit length matters, it's simple (as I've said many times before) - bikes that get pedalled make the rinder spend... 90 % of all the energy riding/climbing seated. Seated fit is the most important thing of any bike like that. Any bike that gets pedalled. If you're an EWS level rider (or a serious racer) there could be an argument made about prioritising for descending fit, but most weekend warriors and 'just riding along' riders benefit most from the seated fit, energy expenditure wise.
That's assuming that people pedal for the sake of pedaling. Only reason why I accept to pedal hours is to spend minutes riding downhill and considering how many people accept to pedal heavy DH tires uphill, you argument doesn't seem valid at least for the AM/Enduro crowd. I'd rather do 10% less elevation during my spin if that means that every single downhill is done with the best possible conditions.
That's assuming that people pedal for the sake of pedaling. Only reason why I accept to pedal hours is to spend minutes riding downhill and considering...
That's assuming that people pedal for the sake of pedaling. Only reason why I accept to pedal hours is to spend minutes riding downhill and considering how many people accept to pedal heavy DH tires uphill, you argument doesn't seem valid at least for the AM/Enduro crowd. I'd rather do 10% less elevation during my spin if that means that every single downhill is done with the best possible conditions.
I've just gone from a slack seat tube, and averagish reach, (73 deg seat tube, 440mm reach, and 610mm top tube) to a long reach, steep seat tube bike (80 deg seat tube, 470mm reach and 580mm top tube) and it's so much better for climbing, the steeper seat tube has bought my weight further forwards so I no longer get aches in my low back from trying to get my weight forward, and the shorter top tube means that I am much more upright when sitting which is a lot more comfortable, it's definitely the way forward for enduro bikes, or any bike geared towards descending.
Forgive the source
https://youtu.be/-UNLIohwyjg
https://www.vitalmtb.com/product/guide/Forks,33/hlins/RXF38-m-2,34557#p…
https://www.instagram.com/p/CRO5i5HMbB-/
As for dw link, it might just be a coincidence that they use dw link, otherwise in general North American brands tend to be a bit more conservative if you ask me. Ibis, Pivot, Evil, Intense, Rocky Mountain, Trek, maybe some others too (Spec is mid range lately, they used to be quite conservative, while Norco has their game handled).
But I do suspect that the DW Link brands are all following some guidance from DW. I recall seeing some BS answer to a Vital interview question with Chris Cocalis of Pivot, claiming that they didn't need to run steeper seat angles because the DW Link platform was so efficient. That's just nonsense; a bike with a certain amount of travel and at 30% sag will have the same seat angle regardless of suspension design. That's especially true now that most suspension designs now run 100-110% anti-squat at sag, so even while actively pedaling the seat angle is going to stay roughly the same.
DW does do a lot of bike (geometry) development, so it might in fact be a correlation in that regard, you're right.
As for progressiveness... Man, I don't know. I have a very progressive bike (1292 mm wheelbase in the largest, XL size at 150/150 mm travel, 75-ish seat height actual seat tube angle, 680 mm top tube and 522 mm reach, 65,5° HA I think) and while it's the best bike I've ever ridden, it's also very noticeably long. No debate, it's an XL issue as well (which is what JamesOliver alluded to), as I wouldn't mind trying an even steeper seat tube angle (the BB to seat angle of course), the top tube length or the cockpit length is perfect for pedalling though, so that would require a longer effective top tube and reach.
With the bike long (and cumbersome in tight twisties) as is, that would make it longer, unless you went for ultra short chainstays and maybe a steeper headtube angle. So while the fit and pedalling could improve a bit, it would make it even more cumbersome (and much faster). And I'm not sure I want that after experiencing a jump from 1224-ish mm wheelbase to 1292 mm.
You shouldn't need quite as much STA steepness out of a DW link bike as well as a few others for it to feel the same when pedaling your favorite chunky climb.
The ride height and resulting seat tube angle come into effect only in case the sag is lower on DW link bikes. Since with less rear sag, the front triangle rotation will be less, this dynamic seat tube angle will be steeper in that case. A higher ride height has nothing to do with it, if the sag is the same (as the higher ride height will come from the BB drop being smaller).
As for chunkies, can confirm from personal experience, sitting more over the BB definitely helps a lot. I prefer pushing down vs. forward on the pedals.
This isn't exactly true, since sag percentages are generally measured at the shock, not the wheel. At least in theory (maybe someone else can back me up on this), leverage ratio can have an impact on the actual wheel travel for a specific % of shock stroke. Say you have 'Bike 1' which is entirely linear, with 150mm travel and a 60mm stroke shock (average LR of 2.5), and 'Bike 2' which has the same amount of travel and shock stroke, but has a linearly progressive leverage rate from 3.0-2.0 (average LR is still 2.5). 30% sag on Bike 1 would give 45mm of wheel travel (exactly 30% of the wheel travel), but 30% sag on Bike 2 gives around 51mm of travel, which is 34.2% of the wheel travel. Assuming both bikes have identical static geometry, Bike 1 will have the steeper seat tube angle when sagged.
At least as a general 'rule', the lower the leverage ratios are in that initial third or so of shock stroke, the less wheel travel you'll have for a set sag value, and therefore less deviation from the static geometry. As for Cocalis' statement, to my knowledge DW-link bikes don't have especially unique leverage curves, so he was likely referring only to the pedal efficiency (which in that case could be a more accurate statement, as DW-link bikes often have a reputation for good anti-squat tuning). I have no idea how much a steeper seat tube angle actually improves efficiency, though.
Let's say I meant sag at the rear wheel. I specifically didn't want to say vertical travel sag (that would cover high pivot bikes too), because different suspension systems aren't that different between each other in the axle path. Or better yet, different systems can be much more similar to each other than the same systems could be made different.
I think the ultra long reach thing is fading and most suited towards intermediate racers looking for raw speed & beginners looking for safety and confidence.
I'm surprised more companies have not jumped on the adjustable reach wagon yet like Guerilla Gravity does - to me that makes a lot of sense, especially since you effectively 'double' the number of front ends you offer. With a +/- 5/10mm headset, you could offer only three sizes with low standovers and seat tubes and still serve most people. I suppose that requires a suspension design with an uninterrupted seat tube so your Small and pseudo-XS can fit a decent dropper post inside.
When you ride a bike down a trail, pedaling, during undulations/ roots/ bumps, the suspension moves in the the 20% - 60% travel range. It does not sit at 30% sag exactly the entire time. If you don't believe me reset your travel indicator and pedal down any trail and then notice that your o-ring will have used over 50% travel on most bikes before any jumps or obstacles are encountered.
You will find that bikes that have high AS even deeper into their travel and linear suspension ride quite high overall.
For example, a very active suspension bike like say a '19 SJ Evo maybe be at 60% of it's travel over a root where-as a Mach 6 might hit the same bump and only be at 45% travel, particularly when pedaling. As a result DW link bikes will have considerably less average travel being used while pedaling down the trail, that's what gives them their firm feel. Too firm imo, but it does have it's advantages.
Sittin on a Large AM9, I DO NOT want to ride an L. Let alone a medium-long. Because of the top tube.
Want a correctly fitting top tube (cockpit) and a steep seat tube? The reach will be long. Want a 'normal' or even short reach and a steep seat tube? Prepare for an insanely short cockpit (90 mm stem anyone?). 'Normal' reach and a proper cockpit fit? Slack seat tube.
I specifically mentioned shorter chainstays and a steeper headtube, but not a shorter top tube.
The long reach did not come about for the sake of the bike being long. The long reach came about because of the seat tubes getting steeper and cockpits (in the case of companies doing it the right way cockpit fit wise) staying at the correct length. That increases the reach. As for why the cockpit length matters, it's simple (as I've said many times before) - bikes that get pedalled make the rinder spend... 90 % of all the energy riding/climbing seated. Seated fit is the most important thing of any bike like that. Any bike that gets pedalled. If you're an EWS level rider (or a serious racer) there could be an argument made about prioritising for descending fit, but most weekend warriors and 'just riding along' riders benefit most from the seated fit, energy expenditure wise.
As for the suspension movement range, if you're suspension is moving from 20 to 60 % sitting down... Well, sad to break it to you, but that's is some LOW antisquat.
I have a new ‘21/‘22 Onyx that has a few upgrades. The graphics are new, maybe the one in this pic got to Freehub before those new graphics were ready?
“The biggest changes are the lowers are a new casting and the bushings are new from a different manufacturer that allows us to get the tolerance down to 0.01mm”
“The uppers are a new coating with a new press process thats so far has eliminated any creeking and has a massive reduction in friction”
“We have a new air piston, new damper seal head, new bladder, compression tune, new air bleeders and a firmer OTT spring seat to prevent any rattle” (stolen from a thread from another forum)
The fact is that Pivot and some others are correct when they say that they don't need as steep as a static STA to equal others dynamic STA because their suspension does in fact ride higher. It's a fact.
Couldn't get any further than this photo on their website.
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation