Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even...
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even on brands. Yes, there are tons of people who suffer from confirmation bias while bike shopping or bike testing. Most people, in fact. But I think public kinematic graphs have helped make bike design better. Suspension designs are converging in a big way in the last five or so years, corresponding to the same timeframe when graphs have become widespread in product launches. We're mostly in agreement that wild curves in a kinematic graph are bad. Regressive to progressive changes in the same leverage curve are bad, and vice versa. Anti-squat values over 140% start to get really harsh. Very low overall leverage ratios and very high overall leverage ratios are bad. And lastly, very low overall progression (10% or less) or very high overall progression (30%) or more has major downsides. I don't see a lot of variation from these norms anymore, but I saw A LOT of variation from these norms 10, 15, or 20 years ago.
Some of that convergence is a result of independent internal testing and research at the actual bike companies, but I think a lot of that is due to consistent public shaming of bad designs due to consistent bad feedback married to quantifiable data explaining the pattern, instead of just subjective feedback on its own. We are never, ever getting rid of confirmation bias in mountain biking. It's a gear-driven sport, and everyone wants to believe their gear is the answer to their problems, even at the highest levels of racing. So I think introducing data is a net positive.
I’m not sure I see a downside to progression in the mid 30% range other than small volume air shocks not being good and some people not being able or use full travel. Some of the most well received links we make are around 35%. To date my fastest lap time on predator is on a bike that’s 36%.
The thing I see giving people a hard time as of late is anti rise. There is still a very wide range between different bikes here. Sometimes I get the feeling that people perceive no downside to super low anti rise values. Trouble is at a certain point naming it pro rise would be more accurate. I think there’s a fine line between active suspension under braking and low chasis movement and when people make a choice based on getting super low anti rise it might not actually be doing them any good.
Lastly, here is a recent example where I can see why a brand might not want people immediately analyzing leverage curves. The new Norco Sight has a longer shock then it previously did and, as such, a lower average leverage ratio. This is great. Exactly what I would have hoped for. Looking at the leverage curve, it appears the initial leverage ratio is actually a little higher than the previous version of the sight. This is not a bad thing by any means because it’s still within reason. Trouble is people often interpret a higher initial leverage ratio as a bad change. It’s not necessarily bad at all though. I can see how a brand would think hey maybe we don’t publish leverage curve so that people don’t get hung up on this one detail that they don’t fully understand. Personally I’m partial to putting the information out there and trying to educate people on what the implications might be. But at the same time I understand because one of the things we get lots of push back on is initial leverage ratio.
When they have a competing sponsor (Pirelli, Continental, Kenda, Vittoria) and they do not believe the product to be competitive or trust the tire yet. They...
When they have a competing sponsor (Pirelli, Continental, Kenda, Vittoria) and they do not believe the product to be competitive or trust the tire yet. They run blacked out logos of Maxxis tires as to not offend their sponsors.
I wonder about this. Any bike brand has had the opportunity to notice that the way the plots of leverage ratio, antisquat, and antirise are misunderstood...
I wonder about this. Any bike brand has had the opportunity to notice that the way the plots of leverage ratio, antisquat, and antirise are misunderstood in a lot of settings (reviews, forums) might not be a net benefit to them or their customers. Is it transparency if it’s going to be used to build some internet doofus’ imaginary narrative about the bike? Yes and no?
The most fundamental ideas at play when looking at the output of a program like linkage should include 1) it’s a model, and it’s a model of just some of the behavior of the bike suspension. 2) almost every bike company and hobbyist that posts the output uses a style of graph that is visually misleading, the consequence of which is that baseline literacy at interpreting the output is gonna be low. While leverage ratio X travel may be a line, antirise and antisquat have parameters that make them fat bands as the parameters are swept through their ranges. Looking at two thin, bright lines of the plot of bike A vs bike B with all the white space around them gives the impression of distinct difference between them that isn’t necessarily there in the model, let alone out on the trail.
And now we have a cohort of reviewers doing the first ride and then looking at the plots included in the product introduction and saying oh yeah bro this isn’t confirmation bias—i rode the bike and the plots totally match. I think it’s fantasy.
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even...
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even on brands. Yes, there are tons of people who suffer from confirmation bias while bike shopping or bike testing. Most people, in fact. But I think public kinematic graphs have helped make bike design better. Suspension designs are converging in a big way in the last five or so years, corresponding to the same timeframe when graphs have become widespread in product launches. We're mostly in agreement that wild curves in a kinematic graph are bad. Regressive to progressive changes in the same leverage curve are bad, and vice versa. Anti-squat values over 140% start to get really harsh. Very low overall leverage ratios and very high overall leverage ratios are bad. And lastly, very low overall progression (10% or less) or very high overall progression (30%) or more has major downsides. I don't see a lot of variation from these norms anymore, but I saw A LOT of variation from these norms 10, 15, or 20 years ago.
Some of that convergence is a result of independent internal testing and research at the actual bike companies, but I think a lot of that is due to consistent public shaming of bad designs due to consistent bad feedback married to quantifiable data explaining the pattern, instead of just subjective feedback on its own. We are never, ever getting rid of confirmation bias in mountain biking. It's a gear-driven sport, and everyone wants to believe their gear is the answer to their problems, even at the highest levels of racing. So I think introducing data is a net positive.
Have to agree with this. There is no way I am buying a potentially very expensive purchase without knowing the rear kinematic.
Luckily, I'm a giant nerd/engineer and can use linkageX3.
My norco Range VLT never released any of the kinematic, so I modeled it pre-purchase, Not sure why they don't release the graphs because it's nothing outlandish and just a good old 4 bar. It's 25% progressive which is my goldilocks number, low antisquat (because motor) and minimal pedal kickback. From those graphs I knew it would suit me. Your average punter 1, Doesn't know what suits them and 2, Cant read/understand the graphs lol.
I’m not sure I see a downside to progression in the mid 30% range other than small volume air shocks not being good and some people...
I’m not sure I see a downside to progression in the mid 30% range other than small volume air shocks not being good and some people not being able or use full travel. Some of the most well received links we make are around 35%. To date my fastest lap time on predator is on a bike that’s 36%.
The thing I see giving people a hard time as of late is anti rise. There is still a very wide range between different bikes here. Sometimes I get the feeling that people perceive no downside to super low anti rise values. Trouble is at a certain point naming it pro rise would be more accurate. I think there’s a fine line between active suspension under braking and low chasis movement and when people make a choice based on getting super low anti rise it might not actually be doing them any good.
Lastly, here is a recent example where I can see why a brand might not want people immediately analyzing leverage curves. The new Norco Sight has a longer shock then it previously did and, as such, a lower average leverage ratio. This is great. Exactly what I would have hoped for. Looking at the leverage curve, it appears the initial leverage ratio is actually a little higher than the previous version of the sight. This is not a bad thing by any means because it’s still within reason. Trouble is people often interpret a higher initial leverage ratio as a bad change. It’s not necessarily bad at all though. I can see how a brand would think hey maybe we don’t publish leverage curve so that people don’t get hung up on this one detail that they don’t fully understand. Personally I’m partial to putting the information out there and trying to educate people on what the implications might be. But at the same time I understand because one of the things we get lots of push back on is initial leverage ratio.
I agree there are riders and applications where a 35% leverage ratio is great (I rode a CC link on my Gen 1 Megatower for a long time and loved it), but I think most brands don't want to go quite that aggressive in their stock suspension for every customer. CC link customers are a distinct subset of riders, and the PNW is a distinct blend of trail conditions, too. Maybe I should have said 15-35%, but the point is that everyone who isn't Privateer (39%) or Starling (0%?) seems to agree on overall progression somewhere in the middle.
I wonder about this. Any bike brand has had the opportunity to notice that the way the plots of leverage ratio, antisquat, and antirise are misunderstood...
I wonder about this. Any bike brand has had the opportunity to notice that the way the plots of leverage ratio, antisquat, and antirise are misunderstood in a lot of settings (reviews, forums) might not be a net benefit to them or their customers. Is it transparency if it’s going to be used to build some internet doofus’ imaginary narrative about the bike? Yes and no?
The most fundamental ideas at play when looking at the output of a program like linkage should include 1) it’s a model, and it’s a model of just some of the behavior of the bike suspension. 2) almost every bike company and hobbyist that posts the output uses a style of graph that is visually misleading, the consequence of which is that baseline literacy at interpreting the output is gonna be low. While leverage ratio X travel may be a line, antirise and antisquat have parameters that make them fat bands as the parameters are swept through their ranges. Looking at two thin, bright lines of the plot of bike A vs bike B with all the white space around them gives the impression of distinct difference between them that isn’t necessarily there in the model, let alone out on the trail.
And now we have a cohort of reviewers doing the first ride and then looking at the plots included in the product introduction and saying oh yeah bro this isn’t confirmation bias—i rode the bike and the plots totally match. I think it’s fantasy.
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even...
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even on brands. Yes, there are tons of people who suffer from confirmation bias while bike shopping or bike testing. Most people, in fact. But I think public kinematic graphs have helped make bike design better. Suspension designs are converging in a big way in the last five or so years, corresponding to the same timeframe when graphs have become widespread in product launches. We're mostly in agreement that wild curves in a kinematic graph are bad. Regressive to progressive changes in the same leverage curve are bad, and vice versa. Anti-squat values over 140% start to get really harsh. Very low overall leverage ratios and very high overall leverage ratios are bad. And lastly, very low overall progression (10% or less) or very high overall progression (30%) or more has major downsides. I don't see a lot of variation from these norms anymore, but I saw A LOT of variation from these norms 10, 15, or 20 years ago.
Some of that convergence is a result of independent internal testing and research at the actual bike companies, but I think a lot of that is due to consistent public shaming of bad designs due to consistent bad feedback married to quantifiable data explaining the pattern, instead of just subjective feedback on its own. We are never, ever getting rid of confirmation bias in mountain biking. It's a gear-driven sport, and everyone wants to believe their gear is the answer to their problems, even at the highest levels of racing. So I think introducing data is a net positive.
Have to agree with this. There is no way I am buying a potentially very expensive purchase without knowing the rear kinematic.
Luckily, I'm a giant...
Have to agree with this. There is no way I am buying a potentially very expensive purchase without knowing the rear kinematic.
Luckily, I'm a giant nerd/engineer and can use linkageX3.
My norco Range VLT never released any of the kinematic, so I modeled it pre-purchase, Not sure why they don't release the graphs because it's nothing outlandish and just a good old 4 bar. It's 25% progressive which is my goldilocks number, low antisquat (because motor) and minimal pedal kickback. From those graphs I knew it would suit me. Your average punter 1, Doesn't know what suits them and 2, Cant read/understand the graphs lol.
This is my.point exactly.
You pay £5000 for an Atherton frame, and they don't include suspension data, meaning independent tuning is harder (but obviously not impossible).
Also LinkageX3 is fine for horst-links etc but for 6 link and VPP/DW bikes you have to be very accurate taking measurements (I don't have the equipment to do so) making it even harder to figure it out yourself.
If the view is that customers don't understand leverage graphs or anti-squat therefore were not going to provide them for fear of being misunderstood. That is blaming your own communication and justifying leaving informed consumers in the dark.
This is my.point exactly.
You pay £5000 for an Atherton frame, and they don't include suspension data, meaning independent tuning is harder (but obviously not impossible)...
This is my.point exactly.
You pay £5000 for an Atherton frame, and they don't include suspension data, meaning independent tuning is harder (but obviously not impossible).
Also LinkageX3 is fine for horst-links etc but for 6 link and VPP/DW bikes you have to be very accurate taking measurements (I don't have the equipment to do so) making it even harder to figure it out yourself.
If the view is that customers don't understand leverage graphs or anti-squat therefore were not going to provide them for fear of being misunderstood. That is blaming your own communication and justifying leaving informed consumers in the dark.
It’s not fair to the Athertons to assume that that’s their view.
Given the super customisable nature of their bikes it’s no surprise they don’t have public graphs.
However they do quite openly offer the option for you “to speak to an expert” if you require further information.
The geometry and sizing measurements are all there on their tech sheets so it shouldn’t be that hard to plug those numbers in and get a basic idea. And isn’t that all the graphs do anyway!
The lack of graphs isn't due to the Athertons, it's coming from Dave Weagle. I've asked Ibis for graphs before when considering their bikes, and they told me they aren't allowed to share them due to the agreement with DW.
The lack of graphs isn't due to the Athertons, it's coming from Dave Weagle. I've asked Ibis for graphs before when considering their bikes, and they...
The lack of graphs isn't due to the Athertons, it's coming from Dave Weagle. I've asked Ibis for graphs before when considering their bikes, and they told me they aren't allowed to share them due to the agreement with DW.
As someone who has iterated full suspension bikes with Dave Weagle before- the design matrix he shares with his customers to iterate kinematics is more sophisticated than a few graphs, there are a few more integrative rider-focused parameters that I don’t usually see people talk about on message boards he likes to use to relate feel and function. Dave will tell you those unspoken variables are actually the things to look at to compare bikes.
Dave’s customer service Special Sauce, if you will…
The lack of graphs isn't due to the Athertons, it's coming from Dave Weagle. I've asked Ibis for graphs before when considering their bikes, and they...
The lack of graphs isn't due to the Athertons, it's coming from Dave Weagle. I've asked Ibis for graphs before when considering their bikes, and they told me they aren't allowed to share them due to the agreement with DW.
As someone who has iterated full suspension bikes with Dave Weagle before- the design matrix he shares with his customers to iterate kinematics is more sophisticated...
As someone who has iterated full suspension bikes with Dave Weagle before- the design matrix he shares with his customers to iterate kinematics is more sophisticated than a few graphs, there are a few more integrative rider-focused parameters that I don’t usually see people talk about on message boards he likes to use to relate feel and function. Dave will tell you those unspoken variables are actually the things to look at to compare bikes.
Dave’s customer service Special Sauce, if you will…
This, it's part of the deal with a DW. And while an opinionated engineer, he's right about the other inputs, or at least convincing...
The lack of graphs isn't due to the Athertons, it's coming from Dave Weagle. I've asked Ibis for graphs before when considering their bikes, and they...
The lack of graphs isn't due to the Athertons, it's coming from Dave Weagle. I've asked Ibis for graphs before when considering their bikes, and they told me they aren't allowed to share them due to the agreement with DW.
Iirc Weagles patents for his suspension systems are not based on their layout but specific anti-squat curves. It makes sense why they want to protect this information but it's not like you can't measure a frame and plug the numbers into Linkage.
The lack of graphs isn't due to the Athertons, it's coming from Dave Weagle. I've asked Ibis for graphs before when considering their bikes, and they...
The lack of graphs isn't due to the Athertons, it's coming from Dave Weagle. I've asked Ibis for graphs before when considering their bikes, and they told me they aren't allowed to share them due to the agreement with DW.
Iirc Weagles patents for his suspension systems are not based on their layout but specific anti-squat curves. It makes sense why they want to protect this...
Iirc Weagles patents for his suspension systems are not based on their layout but specific anti-squat curves. It makes sense why they want to protect this information but it's not like you can't measure a frame and plug the numbers into Linkage.
I mapped out the AM200 in SynBike. The biggest issue without having exact lengths and locations is the short link off the frame. 1mm is a giant change.
My average guesswork, the bike would pedal well, rear shock would be free feeling while using the rear brake. The leverage I don’t think was correct, but it was slightly progressive then linear towards the end. But I can’t confirm or deny until I ride the bike, but I put money on it being wrong. Axle path was slight rearward then forward.
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even...
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even on brands. Yes, there are tons of people who suffer from confirmation bias while bike shopping or bike testing. Most people, in fact. But I think public kinematic graphs have helped make bike design better. Suspension designs are converging in a big way in the last five or so years, corresponding to the same timeframe when graphs have become widespread in product launches. We're mostly in agreement that wild curves in a kinematic graph are bad. Regressive to progressive changes in the same leverage curve are bad, and vice versa. Anti-squat values over 140% start to get really harsh. Very low overall leverage ratios and very high overall leverage ratios are bad. And lastly, very low overall progression (10% or less) or very high overall progression (30%) or more has major downsides. I don't see a lot of variation from these norms anymore, but I saw A LOT of variation from these norms 10, 15, or 20 years ago.
Some of that convergence is a result of independent internal testing and research at the actual bike companies, but I think a lot of that is due to consistent public shaming of bad designs due to consistent bad feedback married to quantifiable data explaining the pattern, instead of just subjective feedback on its own. We are never, ever getting rid of confirmation bias in mountain biking. It's a gear-driven sport, and everyone wants to believe their gear is the answer to their problems, even at the highest levels of racing. So I think introducing data is a net positive.
I’m not sure I see a downside to progression in the mid 30% range other than small volume air shocks not being good and some people...
I’m not sure I see a downside to progression in the mid 30% range other than small volume air shocks not being good and some people not being able or use full travel. Some of the most well received links we make are around 35%. To date my fastest lap time on predator is on a bike that’s 36%.
The thing I see giving people a hard time as of late is anti rise. There is still a very wide range between different bikes here. Sometimes I get the feeling that people perceive no downside to super low anti rise values. Trouble is at a certain point naming it pro rise would be more accurate. I think there’s a fine line between active suspension under braking and low chasis movement and when people make a choice based on getting super low anti rise it might not actually be doing them any good.
Lastly, here is a recent example where I can see why a brand might not want people immediately analyzing leverage curves. The new Norco Sight has a longer shock then it previously did and, as such, a lower average leverage ratio. This is great. Exactly what I would have hoped for. Looking at the leverage curve, it appears the initial leverage ratio is actually a little higher than the previous version of the sight. This is not a bad thing by any means because it’s still within reason. Trouble is people often interpret a higher initial leverage ratio as a bad change. It’s not necessarily bad at all though. I can see how a brand would think hey maybe we don’t publish leverage curve so that people don’t get hung up on this one detail that they don’t fully understand. Personally I’m partial to putting the information out there and trying to educate people on what the implications might be. But at the same time I understand because one of the things we get lots of push back on is initial leverage ratio.
I, personally, am not a fan of high progression. You can't use all of the travel and you get terrible mid stroke support. My current ride is a Nicolai G1 and I wish it was less progressive because I actually like the geo.
I, personally, am not a fan of high progression. You can't use all of the travel and you get terrible mid stroke support. My current ride...
I, personally, am not a fan of high progression. You can't use all of the travel and you get terrible mid stroke support. My current ride is a Nicolai G1 and I wish it was less progressive because I actually like the geo.
More progressive bikes provide more mid stroke support IF they are sagged the same. What’s often overlooked is the fact that sag at the wheel is increasingly greater than the sag at the shock as a bike gets more progressive. This gives the perception of less mid stroke and riding deep in travel, but is usually just the result of having more sag at the wheel than expected. The other nuance is how damping is affected. You have to run a stiffer tune. In the end if you aren’t hammering on the bike none of this is ideal, but it’s also not a massive downside.
Personally I don’t get why companies would be guarded when it comes to their curves from the standpoint of them being copied. I doubt Norco is trying to copy Ibis or the other way around. But even if they were, replicating the geo is easy when you have the time and resources.
In regards to unspoken metrics, you can come up with a billion different things if you really want. Curvature, derivatives of things, integrals of things and such. One of the more interesting ones to me is percent increase in damping force for a given wheel speed input as a function of shock stroke. Makes it easy to visualize how a certain impact might feel starting from different points in travel.
Edited to add: you can also create leverage curves in different directions. Differences in shock speeds for high pivots make sense when looking at it from literally different angles. Leverage ratio might be the same for a vertical impact, but is much different the closer it gets to horizontal.
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even...
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even on brands. Yes, there are tons of people who suffer from confirmation bias while bike shopping or bike testing. Most people, in fact. But I think public kinematic graphs have helped make bike design better. Suspension designs are converging in a big way in the last five or so years, corresponding to the same timeframe when graphs have become widespread in product launches. We're mostly in agreement that wild curves in a kinematic graph are bad. Regressive to progressive changes in the same leverage curve are bad, and vice versa. Anti-squat values over 140% start to get really harsh. Very low overall leverage ratios and very high overall leverage ratios are bad. And lastly, very low overall progression (10% or less) or very high overall progression (30%) or more has major downsides. I don't see a lot of variation from these norms anymore, but I saw A LOT of variation from these norms 10, 15, or 20 years ago.
Some of that convergence is a result of independent internal testing and research at the actual bike companies, but I think a lot of that is due to consistent public shaming of bad designs due to consistent bad feedback married to quantifiable data explaining the pattern, instead of just subjective feedback on its own. We are never, ever getting rid of confirmation bias in mountain biking. It's a gear-driven sport, and everyone wants to believe their gear is the answer to their problems, even at the highest levels of racing. So I think introducing data is a net positive.
I’m not sure I see a downside to progression in the mid 30% range other than small volume air shocks not being good and some people...
I’m not sure I see a downside to progression in the mid 30% range other than small volume air shocks not being good and some people not being able or use full travel. Some of the most well received links we make are around 35%. To date my fastest lap time on predator is on a bike that’s 36%.
The thing I see giving people a hard time as of late is anti rise. There is still a very wide range between different bikes here. Sometimes I get the feeling that people perceive no downside to super low anti rise values. Trouble is at a certain point naming it pro rise would be more accurate. I think there’s a fine line between active suspension under braking and low chasis movement and when people make a choice based on getting super low anti rise it might not actually be doing them any good.
Lastly, here is a recent example where I can see why a brand might not want people immediately analyzing leverage curves. The new Norco Sight has a longer shock then it previously did and, as such, a lower average leverage ratio. This is great. Exactly what I would have hoped for. Looking at the leverage curve, it appears the initial leverage ratio is actually a little higher than the previous version of the sight. This is not a bad thing by any means because it’s still within reason. Trouble is people often interpret a higher initial leverage ratio as a bad change. It’s not necessarily bad at all though. I can see how a brand would think hey maybe we don’t publish leverage curve so that people don’t get hung up on this one detail that they don’t fully understand. Personally I’m partial to putting the information out there and trying to educate people on what the implications might be. But at the same time I understand because one of the things we get lots of push back on is initial leverage ratio.
Totally with you on the anti rise. I came of a 21’ sight onto a current range and the difference in control trying to approach a steep chute is enormous. Granted the range is lauded for particularly good braking but the sight just wanted to hit that eject button. I know that behaviour is similar to many other Horst bikes but doesn’t have to be, I believe the current strive is quite high in this respect.
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even...
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even on brands. Yes, there are tons of people who suffer from confirmation bias while bike shopping or bike testing. Most people, in fact. But I think public kinematic graphs have helped make bike design better. Suspension designs are converging in a big way in the last five or so years, corresponding to the same timeframe when graphs have become widespread in product launches. We're mostly in agreement that wild curves in a kinematic graph are bad. Regressive to progressive changes in the same leverage curve are bad, and vice versa. Anti-squat values over 140% start to get really harsh. Very low overall leverage ratios and very high overall leverage ratios are bad. And lastly, very low overall progression (10% or less) or very high overall progression (30%) or more has major downsides. I don't see a lot of variation from these norms anymore, but I saw A LOT of variation from these norms 10, 15, or 20 years ago.
Some of that convergence is a result of independent internal testing and research at the actual bike companies, but I think a lot of that is due to consistent public shaming of bad designs due to consistent bad feedback married to quantifiable data explaining the pattern, instead of just subjective feedback on its own. We are never, ever getting rid of confirmation bias in mountain biking. It's a gear-driven sport, and everyone wants to believe their gear is the answer to their problems, even at the highest levels of racing. So I think introducing data is a net positive.
I’m not sure I see a downside to progression in the mid 30% range other than small volume air shocks not being good and some people...
I’m not sure I see a downside to progression in the mid 30% range other than small volume air shocks not being good and some people not being able or use full travel. Some of the most well received links we make are around 35%. To date my fastest lap time on predator is on a bike that’s 36%.
The thing I see giving people a hard time as of late is anti rise. There is still a very wide range between different bikes here. Sometimes I get the feeling that people perceive no downside to super low anti rise values. Trouble is at a certain point naming it pro rise would be more accurate. I think there’s a fine line between active suspension under braking and low chasis movement and when people make a choice based on getting super low anti rise it might not actually be doing them any good.
Lastly, here is a recent example where I can see why a brand might not want people immediately analyzing leverage curves. The new Norco Sight has a longer shock then it previously did and, as such, a lower average leverage ratio. This is great. Exactly what I would have hoped for. Looking at the leverage curve, it appears the initial leverage ratio is actually a little higher than the previous version of the sight. This is not a bad thing by any means because it’s still within reason. Trouble is people often interpret a higher initial leverage ratio as a bad change. It’s not necessarily bad at all though. I can see how a brand would think hey maybe we don’t publish leverage curve so that people don’t get hung up on this one detail that they don’t fully understand. Personally I’m partial to putting the information out there and trying to educate people on what the implications might be. But at the same time I understand because one of the things we get lots of push back on is initial leverage ratio.
I, personally, am not a fan of high progression. You can't use all of the travel and you get terrible mid stroke support. My current ride...
I, personally, am not a fan of high progression. You can't use all of the travel and you get terrible mid stroke support. My current ride is a Nicolai G1 and I wish it was less progressive because I actually like the geo.
Air VS Coil makes a big difference too. High progression with a linear rate coil spring works really good. Just need enough LSC so the bike doesn't feel lethargic with the softer initial travel.
Going to assume im dumb but this looks like a new TRP lever??? looks like a EVO capiler with R1 rotors. **edit, confirmed they are TRP EVO calipers with Saint hoses
Saw an e-bike on the trail yesterday that looked like the new Trek Slash with a motor. Didn’t get to snap any pictures. Completely white frame, same lower roller and chainstay protection as the Slash. New Rail probably?
Saw an e-bike on the trail yesterday that looked like the new Trek Slash with a motor. Didn’t get to snap any pictures. Completely white frame...
Saw an e-bike on the trail yesterday that looked like the new Trek Slash with a motor. Didn’t get to snap any pictures. Completely white frame, same lower roller and chainstay protection as the Slash. New Rail probably?
could be, i might've heard that something new is coming out in that regard, and it should as the current rail is very "meh"
Saw an e-bike on the trail yesterday that looked like the new Trek Slash with a motor. Didn’t get to snap any pictures. Completely white frame...
Saw an e-bike on the trail yesterday that looked like the new Trek Slash with a motor. Didn’t get to snap any pictures. Completely white frame, same lower roller and chainstay protection as the Slash. New Rail probably?
Saw an e-bike on the trail yesterday that looked like the new Trek Slash with a motor. Didn’t get to snap any pictures. Completely white frame...
Saw an e-bike on the trail yesterday that looked like the new Trek Slash with a motor. Didn’t get to snap any pictures. Completely white frame, same lower roller and chainstay protection as the Slash. New Rail probably?
Would be quite bice if the high-pivot e-bike market moves a lil bit! The 2 neutralize each other’s cons - high-pivot is heavy and pedals bad, e-bike doesn’t care about weight because it’s 20+kg anyway, doesn’t care about pedaling efficiency because, duuhh, motor! In the same time e-bikes are beasts downhill, so a high-pivot will only make it even more beastly! A win-win! They just need to make it dc-fork compatible!
Wow, struggled to make it through that.
This is my first DS video, and seems like internet clickbait to me.
My thoughts
-Obviously SRAM doesnt want...
Wow, struggled to make it through that.
This is my first DS video, and seems like internet clickbait to me.
My thoughts
-Obviously SRAM doesnt want you using Shimano rotors, does this need any further explanation other than this appeared to be a prevailing attitude throughout the video.
-These arent designed for intermediate or beginner riders, full stop. Its a peak performance product, designed with heavy use gravity riders in mind. As noted by the Extreme Duty++++ designation, so lets assume that Dale at 110lbs isnt the target market
-Why wouldnt you test all the options made available, or even follow the recommendations by SRAM in the Expert kit, no sense in doing that to provide an unbiased review.
-Brakes that require high effort both help to change the way you brake (late and hard) and allow for more precise modulation of the brake than light action brakes. Again, meant as a high performance product, for those that perform at that level.
-You ever hear F! drivers talk about the effort required to brake, or Indy, stock car, etc.....
-inevitably itll find its way on to every enduro bike on the market, and be lamented for its fatigue inducing lever pull, when its meant for a market segment that is in need of something more powerful and precise.
-Can confirm the Martha Creek DH is a wild ride of non-stop good times. If youve never ridden it, put it on your bucket list!
lots of points are good, but some are just invalid.
While every rider is going after lighter and lighter lever action, even some swearing by the latest hayes levers. We are already being shaken by everything tumbling down the trail, we don't need to unnecesserily spend more energy than the bare minimun to stop.
I did a full rebuild of my shimano levers, with a polishing step inside the barrel, and the braking action did improved, for the better.
F1 drivers do oppose their weight while braking hard. They don't have servo brakes because the feeling of the brake is more important than the total force. But you need a certain leverage and movement to actuate the brakes, you can't have it super powerfull and light brake without free stroke while the pads are away. You need this movement of the pads, and thats why every brake has a limited amount of force and movement, thanks to phisics.
With a 9mm main piston and mavens calipers, you'll have gigantic power, but equally gigantic free stroke because youll need to move the lever a lot to get the pads to bite. If you want instant engagement and high power, you'll need a swing link or servowave.
Formula Cura's had the same power, 2 or 4 piston, because the 2 piston had gigantc pistons, equaling the force. The pads were the same too.
My bet is that sram ducked up the seal, because Formula cura has 4 18mm pistons, and the mavens have 2 18mm, and 2 19,5mm.
I’m not sure I see a downside to progression in the mid 30% range other than small volume air shocks not being good and some people not being able or use full travel. Some of the most well received links we make are around 35%. To date my fastest lap time on predator is on a bike that’s 36%.
The thing I see giving people a hard time as of late is anti rise. There is still a very wide range between different bikes here. Sometimes I get the feeling that people perceive no downside to super low anti rise values. Trouble is at a certain point naming it pro rise would be more accurate. I think there’s a fine line between active suspension under braking and low chasis movement and when people make a choice based on getting super low anti rise it might not actually be doing them any good.
Lastly, here is a recent example where I can see why a brand might not want people immediately analyzing leverage curves. The new Norco Sight has a longer shock then it previously did and, as such, a lower average leverage ratio. This is great. Exactly what I would have hoped for. Looking at the leverage curve, it appears the initial leverage ratio is actually a little higher than the previous version of the sight. This is not a bad thing by any means because it’s still within reason. Trouble is people often interpret a higher initial leverage ratio as a bad change. It’s not necessarily bad at all though. I can see how a brand would think hey maybe we don’t publish leverage curve so that people don’t get hung up on this one detail that they don’t fully understand. Personally I’m partial to putting the information out there and trying to educate people on what the implications might be. But at the same time I understand because one of the things we get lots of push back on is initial leverage ratio.
Argotals actually
Have to agree with this. There is no way I am buying a potentially very expensive purchase without knowing the rear kinematic.
Luckily, I'm a giant nerd/engineer and can use linkageX3.
My norco Range VLT never released any of the kinematic, so I modeled it pre-purchase, Not sure why they don't release the graphs because it's nothing outlandish and just a good old 4 bar. It's 25% progressive which is my goldilocks number, low antisquat (because motor) and minimal pedal kickback. From those graphs I knew it would suit me. Your average punter 1, Doesn't know what suits them and 2, Cant read/understand the graphs lol.
I agree there are riders and applications where a 35% leverage ratio is great (I rode a CC link on my Gen 1 Megatower for a long time and loved it), but I think most brands don't want to go quite that aggressive in their stock suspension for every customer. CC link customers are a distinct subset of riders, and the PNW is a distinct blend of trail conditions, too. Maybe I should have said 15-35%, but the point is that everyone who isn't Privateer (39%) or Starling (0%?) seems to agree on overall progression somewhere in the middle.
This is my.point exactly.
You pay £5000 for an Atherton frame, and they don't include suspension data, meaning independent tuning is harder (but obviously not impossible).
Also LinkageX3 is fine for horst-links etc but for 6 link and VPP/DW bikes you have to be very accurate taking measurements (I don't have the equipment to do so) making it even harder to figure it out yourself.
If the view is that customers don't understand leverage graphs or anti-squat therefore were not going to provide them for fear of being misunderstood. That is blaming your own communication and justifying leaving informed consumers in the dark.
It’s not fair to the Athertons to assume that that’s their view.
Given the super customisable nature of their bikes it’s no surprise they don’t have public graphs.
However they do quite openly offer the option for you “to speak to an expert” if you require further information.
The geometry and sizing measurements are all there on their tech sheets so it shouldn’t be that hard to plug those numbers in and get a basic idea. And isn’t that all the graphs do anyway!
The lack of graphs isn't due to the Athertons, it's coming from Dave Weagle. I've asked Ibis for graphs before when considering their bikes, and they told me they aren't allowed to share them due to the agreement with DW.
As someone who has iterated full suspension bikes with Dave Weagle before- the design matrix he shares with his customers to iterate kinematics is more sophisticated than a few graphs, there are a few more integrative rider-focused parameters that I don’t usually see people talk about on message boards he likes to use to relate feel and function. Dave will tell you those unspoken variables are actually the things to look at to compare bikes.
Dave’s customer service Special Sauce, if you will…
This, it's part of the deal with a DW. And while an opinionated engineer, he's right about the other inputs, or at least convincing...
Iirc Weagles patents for his suspension systems are not based on their layout but specific anti-squat curves. It makes sense why they want to protect this information but it's not like you can't measure a frame and plug the numbers into Linkage.
I mapped out the AM200 in SynBike. The biggest issue without having exact lengths and locations is the short link off the frame. 1mm is a giant change.
My average guesswork, the bike would pedal well, rear shock would be free feeling while using the rear brake. The leverage I don’t think was correct, but it was slightly progressive then linear towards the end. But I can’t confirm or deny until I ride the bike, but I put money on it being wrong. Axle path was slight rearward then forward.
Looks like new bikes from Specialized on Tuesday. Assuming this is the new Epic/Epic Evo.
I, personally, am not a fan of high progression. You can't use all of the travel and you get terrible mid stroke support. My current ride is a Nicolai G1 and I wish it was less progressive because I actually like the geo.
More progressive bikes provide more mid stroke support IF they are sagged the same. What’s often overlooked is the fact that sag at the wheel is increasingly greater than the sag at the shock as a bike gets more progressive. This gives the perception of less mid stroke and riding deep in travel, but is usually just the result of having more sag at the wheel than expected. The other nuance is how damping is affected. You have to run a stiffer tune. In the end if you aren’t hammering on the bike none of this is ideal, but it’s also not a massive downside.
Personally I don’t get why companies would be guarded when it comes to their curves from the standpoint of them being copied. I doubt Norco is trying to copy Ibis or the other way around. But even if they were, replicating the geo is easy when you have the time and resources.
In regards to unspoken metrics, you can come up with a billion different things if you really want. Curvature, derivatives of things, integrals of things and such. One of the more interesting ones to me is percent increase in damping force for a given wheel speed input as a function of shock stroke. Makes it easy to visualize how a certain impact might feel starting from different points in travel.
Edited to add: you can also create leverage curves in different directions. Differences in shock speeds for high pivots make sense when looking at it from literally different angles. Leverage ratio might be the same for a vertical impact, but is much different the closer it gets to horizontal.
Totally with you on the anti rise. I came of a 21’ sight onto a current range and the difference in control trying to approach a steep chute is enormous. Granted the range is lauded for particularly good braking but the sight just wanted to hit that eject button. I know that behaviour is similar to many other Horst bikes but doesn’t have to be, I believe the current strive is quite high in this respect.
Air VS Coil makes a big difference too. High progression with a linear rate coil spring works really good. Just need enough LSC so the bike doesn't feel lethargic with the softer initial travel.
I wonder if Fox, with the new GX2 Damper have fixed the damper knocking sound often found in their forks...
GripX will 100% be more than enough for 99.9% of forum riders(just as GRIP currently is)
Going to assume im dumb but this looks like a new TRP lever??? looks like a EVO capiler with R1 rotors. **edit, confirmed they are TRP EVO calipers with Saint hoses
Saw an e-bike on the trail yesterday that looked like the new Trek Slash with a motor. Didn’t get to snap any pictures. Completely white frame, same lower roller and chainstay protection as the Slash. New Rail probably?
could be, i might've heard that something new is coming out in that regard, and it should as the current rail is very "meh"
Titanium hardtail ebike anyone? This is a prototype from Nordest Cycles
https://www.instagram.com/p/C4OcWWovQ9q/?igsh=Y3BqcWVqajY3aHM1
tq or bosch motor?
is the white frame the new Enduro?
Would be quite bice if the high-pivot e-bike market moves a lil bit! The 2 neutralize each other’s cons - high-pivot is heavy and pedals bad, e-bike doesn’t care about weight because it’s 20+kg anyway, doesn’t care about pedaling efficiency because, duuhh, motor! In the same time e-bikes are beasts downhill, so a high-pivot will only make it even more beastly! A win-win! They just need to make it dc-fork compatible!
If that is the new Enduro they were definitely yanking our chains with this photo.
It’s the current one with a custom paint job and polished links.
I wonder if the reduced chain wrap with a high pivot e-bike will cause wear issues? Also 90nm going through the idler.
lots of points are good, but some are just invalid.
While every rider is going after lighter and lighter lever action, even some swearing by the latest hayes levers. We are already being shaken by everything tumbling down the trail, we don't need to unnecesserily spend more energy than the bare minimun to stop.
I did a full rebuild of my shimano levers, with a polishing step inside the barrel, and the braking action did improved, for the better.
F1 drivers do oppose their weight while braking hard. They don't have servo brakes because the feeling of the brake is more important than the total force. But you need a certain leverage and movement to actuate the brakes, you can't have it super powerfull and light brake without free stroke while the pads are away. You need this movement of the pads, and thats why every brake has a limited amount of force and movement, thanks to phisics.
With a 9mm main piston and mavens calipers, you'll have gigantic power, but equally gigantic free stroke because youll need to move the lever a lot to get the pads to bite. If you want instant engagement and high power, you'll need a swing link or servowave.
Formula Cura's had the same power, 2 or 4 piston, because the 2 piston had gigantc pistons, equaling the force. The pads were the same too.
My bet is that sram ducked up the seal, because Formula cura has 4 18mm pistons, and the mavens have 2 18mm, and 2 19,5mm.
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation