For years the default tire purchase was maxxis despite wobbly casings and knobs ripping off as their qc took a nose dive. Even though schwalbe, michelin...
For years the default tire purchase was maxxis despite wobbly casings and knobs ripping off as their qc took a nose dive. Even though schwalbe, michelin and later conti had as good or better tires.
The word is out now, those 3 other manufactures, and possibly the new spesh cannibal are better than maxxis tech. It was cool to see Moi moi have the option to run what he wanted with yt. He started on maxxis but cautiously tried the contis, went bsck to maxxis and had a bunch of flats and went back to conti and stayed with conti. Maxxis are the tioga of yesteryear. The dogs breakfast
You sound as if Maxxis tires are all the sudden unrideable. I'm glad Maxxis has competition now but calling them "the dogs breakfast" is fried. You don't ride like Moimoi - you'll be fine on exo+... (or if you actually know how to ride, doubledown).
Maybe our friend from Maxxis can answer, but does anyone know why new tires from Maxxis and Schwalbe cost 50-70€ in Europe and $90-120 in the...
Maybe our friend from Maxxis can answer, but does anyone know why new tires from Maxxis and Schwalbe cost 50-70€ in Europe and $90-120 in the US? It's sometimes double the cost, or more. I appreciate that currency plays a role (the dollar is relatively strong), but that wouldn't double the cost. Is this a tariff thing?
For years the default tire purchase was maxxis despite wobbly casings and knobs ripping off as their qc took a nose dive. Even though schwalbe, michelin...
For years the default tire purchase was maxxis despite wobbly casings and knobs ripping off as their qc took a nose dive. Even though schwalbe, michelin and later conti had as good or better tires.
The word is out now, those 3 other manufactures, and possibly the new spesh cannibal are better than maxxis tech. It was cool to see Moi moi have the option to run what he wanted with yt. He started on maxxis but cautiously tried the contis, went bsck to maxxis and had a bunch of flats and went back to conti and stayed with conti. Maxxis are the tioga of yesteryear. The dogs breakfast
You sound as if Maxxis tires are all the sudden unrideable. I'm glad Maxxis has competition now but calling them "the dogs breakfast" is fried. You...
You sound as if Maxxis tires are all the sudden unrideable. I'm glad Maxxis has competition now but calling them "the dogs breakfast" is fried. You don't ride like Moimoi - you'll be fine on exo+... (or if you actually know how to ride, doubledown).
Exo+ wouldnt work for long. DD worked for a bit until flats and flexy sidewalls and generally poor qc put me on to the michelin 34.
Emtb now and i think the conti dh casing are better in every way than maxxis dh tires. Grip, durability, seal, rolling resistance, weight and qc.
Currently on v rubber snap flow/attack dh casing. Good inexpensive alternative. 80cad/pair with tons of grip. They wear a bit faster and a bit of a slow roller. If i was just riding steep dh trails id probably buy a bunch of those
Everything is supply and demand, right? Maybe the competition is a lot more aggressive on pricing in Europe, we have a bunch of european tyre makers also (no idea where they are actually producing the tyres though).
Personally, I'm still able to get my tyres around or below €50 (mostly Schwalbe, although I sometimes test conti, vittoria or spesh). This is all online however, most bike shops around me have only Maxxis for €80 on the shelves, and pretty much always EXO casing with some weird thread and sizing combo.
enduro-mtb also mentions it:"However, the new casing’s increased deformation is expected to result in slightly higher rolling resistance. According to Schwalbe, the Albert with radial casing...
enduro-mtb also mentions it:
"However, the new casing’s increased deformation is expected to result in slightly higher rolling resistance. According to Schwalbe, the Albert with radial casing should offer the same rolling resistance as a Magic Mary in the old casing, which is mainly due to the tread pattern."
And again in their summary,
"an excellent all-rounder provided you can leave with slightly more rolling resistance."
sounds to me like a great chasing for a front tyre, slower rolling means nothing up front compared to the back, more grip and compliance are...
sounds to me like a great chasing for a front tyre, slower rolling means nothing up front compared to the back, more grip and compliance are definetely what you want
Idk man as one of the many people who’s just switched from an Assegai up front to a Kryptotal front does make more of a difference...
Idk man as one of the many people who’s just switched from an Assegai up front to a Kryptotal front does make more of a difference than you think. I even went back and looked at my time/calories burned on a 1mi, gradual, 10-ish mph, road climb on my normal route and both were lower. Wasn’t Pierron running a cut Dirty Dan in the front and an uncut in the rear at Les Gets?
These bikes have about 2/3s of their weight on the rear tire and about 1/3 on the front tire. And that is the exact ratio of their relative contribution to RR.
So, the front RR absolutely matters, it's just half as much as the rear so we should make less traction compromises up front in pursuit of lower RR than we might make out back.
A front tire change is very easy to feel and notice the RR change.
I just read the other site's review of the new Rock Mountain, and the reviewer thought the compression tune was too light and had both high & low fully closed. He moved up a compression tune and got along with the bike better (Fox X2). Rocky suggested that hard chargers could contact their local Fox dealer and get their rear shock retuned.
Wasn't this the whole point of moving to the twin tube design? Other twin tubers like CC don't have frame specific tunes as far as I'm aware since there is a massive range for those damp(en)ers.
If shocks still need to be custom shimmed for specific performance, could we see more companies doing what Formula does with the user-swappable shim stacks contained in a cool cartridge? Its a shame Formula doesn't seem to believe in negative air chambers.
I just read the other site's review of the new Rock Mountain, and the reviewer thought the compression tune was too light and had both high...
I just read the other site's review of the new Rock Mountain, and the reviewer thought the compression tune was too light and had both high & low fully closed. He moved up a compression tune and got along with the bike better (Fox X2). Rocky suggested that hard chargers could contact their local Fox dealer and get their rear shock retuned.
Wasn't this the whole point of moving to the twin tube design? Other twin tubers like CC don't have frame specific tunes as far as I'm aware since there is a massive range for those damp(en)ers.
If shocks still need to be custom shimmed for specific performance, could we see more companies doing what Formula does with the user-swappable shim stacks contained in a cool cartridge? Its a shame Formula doesn't seem to believe in negative air chambers.
Twin Tube designs reduce hysteresis as the shock transitions from compression to rebound. I don’t think they increase the range of adjustment.
As far as I know, Cane Creek was the only one saying that you didn’t need frame specific tunes.
I’m kinda skeptical of those CTS valves that Formula is doing. The pictures I’ve seen make them look tiny and I’m not sure how much shim tuning you could fit into one. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were just orifice dampers with different hole sizes.
It’s kinda shocking how half assed a lot of MTB suspension is, especially when it comes to dampers. I think that’s the reason a lot of riders just open their compression adjusters all the way and then try to support the bike with air pressure and volume tokens. With bad dampers compression damping just means harsh.
Schwalbe was quietly saying in most article that rolling resistance is significantly worse which will be a automatic no for XC/gravel/road. Thanks to the independant testing...
Schwalbe was quietly saying in most article that rolling resistance is significantly worse which will be a automatic no for XC/gravel/road. Thanks to the independant testing of BicycleRollingResistance people are often now basing their tire purchase on the road because they are 1-2 watts faster at 32kph per tire (decent road at 10w and good tires are below 8w). We won't know for sure until we get 3rd party rolling resistance data on those Schwalbe radial tire and it's not really the type of tires that BCR test usually.
To add to this, there is a reason that MTB tires (other than XC) rarely make a appearance on 3rd party rolling test sites. Practically all utilize a rolling drum test, and unless we only care about rolling performance on the tarmac, the comparison of such results don't mean much. Quantifying rolling performance on varying levels of aggregate or soil composition is a multi variable problem that is likely more costly than it is beneficial. I'd be interested to see such numbers, but I'd be even more interested to know how a tester came to such results.
As for the Albert, there is no denying that a larger contact patch equals more frictional losses. But that is not the full story (as was described by many articles and forum posters). First, increasing the tire pressure above a riders usual preference would yield a smaller contact patch, but they would still reap the benefits of a more supple casing. Most reviewers have claimed a 2-3psi increase was a positive change. Second, time or energy savings could also be found with the increased confidence of a supple tire, and maybe going to a more durable rubber compound since the casing is more dynamic.
Anyways, this is probably more fitting in that fancy new Tire Forum!
I just read the other site's review of the new Rock Mountain, and the reviewer thought the compression tune was too light and had both high...
I just read the other site's review of the new Rock Mountain, and the reviewer thought the compression tune was too light and had both high & low fully closed. He moved up a compression tune and got along with the bike better (Fox X2). Rocky suggested that hard chargers could contact their local Fox dealer and get their rear shock retuned.
Wasn't this the whole point of moving to the twin tube design? Other twin tubers like CC don't have frame specific tunes as far as I'm aware since there is a massive range for those damp(en)ers.
If shocks still need to be custom shimmed for specific performance, could we see more companies doing what Formula does with the user-swappable shim stacks contained in a cool cartridge? Its a shame Formula doesn't seem to believe in negative air chambers.
Twin Tube designs reduce hysteresis as the shock transitions from compression to rebound. I don’t think they increase the range of adjustment.As far as I know...
Twin Tube designs reduce hysteresis as the shock transitions from compression to rebound. I don’t think they increase the range of adjustment.
As far as I know, Cane Creek was the only one saying that you didn’t need frame specific tunes.
I’m kinda skeptical of those CTS valves that Formula is doing. The pictures I’ve seen make them look tiny and I’m not sure how much shim tuning you could fit into one. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were just orifice dampers with different hole sizes.
It’s kinda shocking how half assed a lot of MTB suspension is, especially when it comes to dampers. I think that’s the reason a lot of riders just open their compression adjusters all the way and then try to support the bike with air pressure and volume tokens. With bad dampers compression damping just means harsh.
Paul Aston's latest bike runs a flat leverage curve and the results were pretty interesting.
"When testing the Commencal Supreme with two different linkages, approximately 40% progression and 20% progression, using a data system with Rulezman, we found on a 2-metre drop the less progressive setup actually used 10mm less travel and pushed only 20% of the G-force into the rider than the more progressive linkage - the opposite of what is expected. This is because the bike absorbs more force during the initial phases of the travel and has less to deal with when it gets to the end-stroke."
I just read the other site's review of the new Rock Mountain, and the reviewer thought the compression tune was too light and had both high...
I just read the other site's review of the new Rock Mountain, and the reviewer thought the compression tune was too light and had both high & low fully closed. He moved up a compression tune and got along with the bike better (Fox X2). Rocky suggested that hard chargers could contact their local Fox dealer and get their rear shock retuned.
Wasn't this the whole point of moving to the twin tube design? Other twin tubers like CC don't have frame specific tunes as far as I'm aware since there is a massive range for those damp(en)ers.
If shocks still need to be custom shimmed for specific performance, could we see more companies doing what Formula does with the user-swappable shim stacks contained in a cool cartridge? Its a shame Formula doesn't seem to believe in negative air chambers.
Twin Tube designs reduce hysteresis as the shock transitions from compression to rebound. I don’t think they increase the range of adjustment.As far as I know...
Twin Tube designs reduce hysteresis as the shock transitions from compression to rebound. I don’t think they increase the range of adjustment.
As far as I know, Cane Creek was the only one saying that you didn’t need frame specific tunes.
I’m kinda skeptical of those CTS valves that Formula is doing. The pictures I’ve seen make them look tiny and I’m not sure how much shim tuning you could fit into one. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were just orifice dampers with different hole sizes.
It’s kinda shocking how half assed a lot of MTB suspension is, especially when it comes to dampers. I think that’s the reason a lot of riders just open their compression adjusters all the way and then try to support the bike with air pressure and volume tokens. With bad dampers compression damping just means harsh.
Paul Aston's latest bike runs a flat leverage curve and the results were pretty interesting. "When testing the Commencal Supreme with two different linkages, approximately 40%...
Paul Aston's latest bike runs a flat leverage curve and the results were pretty interesting.
"When testing the Commencal Supreme with two different linkages, approximately 40% progression and 20% progression, using a data system with Rulezman, we found on a 2-metre drop the less progressive setup actually used 10mm less travel and pushed only 20% of the G-force into the rider than the more progressive linkage - the opposite of what is expected. This is because the bike absorbs more force during the initial phases of the travel and has less to deal with when it gets to the end-stroke."
I do find it interesting that bike's generally run a flat leverage curve on the front and progressive leverage in the rear.
I don't find it perplexing at all that a more progressive design uses more travel for the same impact. The point of having progression is that it's softer at the beginning to absorb repeated small and medium impacts, but still retains bottom-out resistance. "Softer" means it uses more suspension travel for the same impact compared to a more linear design.
The RM Altitude is designed for janky riding where there are a lot of small, unpredictable impacts that sap speed. Think places like BC, the northeast US, and lots of Europe. Riding in such terrain requires suspension to quickly react and return to full travel.
More linear designs work better when the terrain has more slow-speed g-forces and being glued to the ground is less advantageous. Think places like Colorado, SoCal, etc. That's why you find companies like Yeti and Pivot designing bikes that fit that terrain well - home-grown companies tend to be solving for local conditions first.
Twin Tube designs reduce hysteresis as the shock transitions from compression to rebound. I don’t think they increase the range of adjustment.As far as I know...
Twin Tube designs reduce hysteresis as the shock transitions from compression to rebound. I don’t think they increase the range of adjustment.
As far as I know, Cane Creek was the only one saying that you didn’t need frame specific tunes.
I’m kinda skeptical of those CTS valves that Formula is doing. The pictures I’ve seen make them look tiny and I’m not sure how much shim tuning you could fit into one. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were just orifice dampers with different hole sizes.
It’s kinda shocking how half assed a lot of MTB suspension is, especially when it comes to dampers. I think that’s the reason a lot of riders just open their compression adjusters all the way and then try to support the bike with air pressure and volume tokens. With bad dampers compression damping just means harsh.
Paul Aston's latest bike runs a flat leverage curve and the results were pretty interesting. "When testing the Commencal Supreme with two different linkages, approximately 40%...
Paul Aston's latest bike runs a flat leverage curve and the results were pretty interesting.
"When testing the Commencal Supreme with two different linkages, approximately 40% progression and 20% progression, using a data system with Rulezman, we found on a 2-metre drop the less progressive setup actually used 10mm less travel and pushed only 20% of the G-force into the rider than the more progressive linkage - the opposite of what is expected. This is because the bike absorbs more force during the initial phases of the travel and has less to deal with when it gets to the end-stroke."
I don't find it perplexing at all that a more progressive design uses more travel for the same impact. The point of having progression is that...
I don't find it perplexing at all that a more progressive design uses more travel for the same impact. The point of having progression is that it's softer at the beginning to absorb repeated small and medium impacts, but still retains bottom-out resistance. "Softer" means it uses more suspension travel for the same impact compared to a more linear design.
The RM Altitude is designed for janky riding where there are a lot of small, unpredictable impacts that sap speed. Think places like BC, the northeast US, and lots of Europe. Riding in such terrain requires suspension to quickly react and return to full travel.
More linear designs work better when the terrain has more slow-speed g-forces and being glued to the ground is less advantageous. Think places like Colorado, SoCal, etc. That's why you find companies like Yeti and Pivot designing bikes that fit that terrain well - home-grown companies tend to be solving for local conditions first.
I don’t agree that softer necessarily means it uses more travel for the same impact. It’s about the speed of deceleration. With a progressive system, it is possible to have a majority of the support could come at the end of the travel, creating a more abrupt deceleration.
With Aston’s linear setup, there is more support through the entire range of travel, so the suspension can adsorb the impact over a longer period of time.
Again, forks on our bikes are linear and everyone seems cool with that setup regardless of terrain.
A softer spring compresses more under the same load than a stiffer spring. That's where the softer means more travel thinking comes. But it is based in the general understanding of the world which is a lot more static than what is happening with bikes. With these kinds of impacts the dynamics come into play first and foremost, then we have the impact of the dampers taking a part of the load plus then the difference in progressivity.
So yes, while in general terms softer means more travel, it is not necessarily true for mtb suspension. Qed, if you feel your fork is too hard, raise the pressure it is running at. But this works precisely because (air) forks are anything but linear. The keversge ratio is linear, but the wheel force, because of the progressive air spring, is not linear.
If two bikes are compared and one is twice as progressive as the other, there are only two ways the more progressive bike uses more travel: a softer spring (it should run a stiffer spring to maintain sag) or a comparatively soft shock tune. The damping is the most often overlooked. It’s not uncommon to need a 20-30% stiffer tune if you make a 10% jump in progression and want damping to feel similar. This is just conservation of energy plain and simple. The issue WC riders have once progression gets past the mid 30s is their damping tune and spring rate become stiff enough that they can’t use full travel.
I just read the other site's review of the new Rock Mountain, and the reviewer thought the compression tune was too light and had both high...
I just read the other site's review of the new Rock Mountain, and the reviewer thought the compression tune was too light and had both high & low fully closed. He moved up a compression tune and got along with the bike better (Fox X2). Rocky suggested that hard chargers could contact their local Fox dealer and get their rear shock retuned.
Wasn't this the whole point of moving to the twin tube design? Other twin tubers like CC don't have frame specific tunes as far as I'm aware since there is a massive range for those damp(en)ers.
If shocks still need to be custom shimmed for specific performance, could we see more companies doing what Formula does with the user-swappable shim stacks contained in a cool cartridge? Its a shame Formula doesn't seem to believe in negative air chambers.
Twin Tube designs reduce hysteresis as the shock transitions from compression to rebound. I don’t think they increase the range of adjustment.As far as I know...
Twin Tube designs reduce hysteresis as the shock transitions from compression to rebound. I don’t think they increase the range of adjustment.
As far as I know, Cane Creek was the only one saying that you didn’t need frame specific tunes.
I’m kinda skeptical of those CTS valves that Formula is doing. The pictures I’ve seen make them look tiny and I’m not sure how much shim tuning you could fit into one. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were just orifice dampers with different hole sizes.
It’s kinda shocking how half assed a lot of MTB suspension is, especially when it comes to dampers. I think that’s the reason a lot of riders just open their compression adjusters all the way and then try to support the bike with air pressure and volume tokens. With bad dampers compression damping just means harsh.
If two bikes are compared and one is twice as progressive as the other, there are only two ways the more progressive bike uses more travel...
If two bikes are compared and one is twice as progressive as the other, there are only two ways the more progressive bike uses more travel: a softer spring (it should run a stiffer spring to maintain sag) or a comparatively soft shock tune. The damping is the most often overlooked. It’s not uncommon to need a 20-30% stiffer tune if you make a 10% jump in progression and want damping to feel similar. This is just conservation of energy plain and simple. The issue WC riders have once progression gets past the mid 30s is their damping tune and spring rate become stiff enough that they can’t use full travel.
but with your cascade linkage, you talk more about 10% stiffer spring than the original one , not 20-30% stiffer ?
I just read the other site's review of the new Rock Mountain, and the reviewer thought the compression tune was too light and had both high...
I just read the other site's review of the new Rock Mountain, and the reviewer thought the compression tune was too light and had both high & low fully closed. He moved up a compression tune and got along with the bike better (Fox X2). Rocky suggested that hard chargers could contact their local Fox dealer and get their rear shock retuned.
Wasn't this the whole point of moving to the twin tube design? Other twin tubers like CC don't have frame specific tunes as far as I'm aware since there is a massive range for those damp(en)ers.
If shocks still need to be custom shimmed for specific performance, could we see more companies doing what Formula does with the user-swappable shim stacks contained in a cool cartridge? Its a shame Formula doesn't seem to believe in negative air chambers.
Twin Tube designs reduce hysteresis as the shock transitions from compression to rebound. I don’t think they increase the range of adjustment.As far as I know...
Twin Tube designs reduce hysteresis as the shock transitions from compression to rebound. I don’t think they increase the range of adjustment.
As far as I know, Cane Creek was the only one saying that you didn’t need frame specific tunes.
I’m kinda skeptical of those CTS valves that Formula is doing. The pictures I’ve seen make them look tiny and I’m not sure how much shim tuning you could fit into one. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were just orifice dampers with different hole sizes.
It’s kinda shocking how half assed a lot of MTB suspension is, especially when it comes to dampers. I think that’s the reason a lot of riders just open their compression adjusters all the way and then try to support the bike with air pressure and volume tokens. With bad dampers compression damping just means harsh.
It seems the very linear, flat leverage curve of that frame plays nice with both coil and air, although I'm ver skeptical of the "11% progression over the total travel" claim.
I do prefer linear, modestly-progressive suspension myself. As its been said before, for a given sag (not spring rate), a progressive suspension design tends to wallow and doesn't hold you up as well. Of course its foolish to set up different suspension designs assuming the same sag....
Three example bikes with different progression and same amounts of travel. All straight lines for the sake of simplicity.
Force at the wheel due to spring rate alone with each bike having identical sag at the wheel (stiffer spring for more progressive bike). Lets say you are railing a long long berm and your rear wheel needs to support 400 lbs of force… if the berm is long enough shaft speed goes to zero (save for bumps in the berm of course) so spring is what holds you up. 27% bike will sit at 180mm of travel used and 37% bike will sit at 165mm of travel used. Also, area under each of these curves is the amount of energy the springs stores between top of travel and full compression. But to put into perspective how important damping is, if you ride off a ledge seated with zero damping you would bottom off an 11.8” ledge. Not much for a DH bike.
A multiplier for damping that conveys how much force will be felt at the wheel for a given wheel speed input and shock tune. This number multiplied by wheel speed multiplied by damping ratio is force at the wheel due to damping. This is where adjustments to the shock come in because about 60% travel is where these curves intersect.
If you factor damping ratio into this plot with a similar mentality as is followed for setting all bikes to have the same ride height you get this. This is more or less what a lot of WC riders because they prioritize pumping and why they can get to a point of using less than full travel as progression gets into the upper 30% range.
TLDR, you can make a more progressive bike be significantly more supportive than a less progressive bike at the cost of making it harder to use full travel. More progressive bikes do not inherently give up early travel easier than a less progressive bike. It drives me crazy a little bit when that assumption gets repeated as fact to be honest. All a more progressive leverage curve assures you is a larger differential between wheel force at top and bottom of travel. That differential can be used however you see fit.
Paul Aston's latest bike runs a flat leverage curve and the results were pretty interesting. "When testing the Commencal Supreme with two different linkages, approximately 40%...
Paul Aston's latest bike runs a flat leverage curve and the results were pretty interesting.
"When testing the Commencal Supreme with two different linkages, approximately 40% progression and 20% progression, using a data system with Rulezman, we found on a 2-metre drop the less progressive setup actually used 10mm less travel and pushed only 20% of the G-force into the rider than the more progressive linkage - the opposite of what is expected. This is because the bike absorbs more force during the initial phases of the travel and has less to deal with when it gets to the end-stroke."
I don't find it perplexing at all that a more progressive design uses more travel for the same impact. The point of having progression is that...
I don't find it perplexing at all that a more progressive design uses more travel for the same impact. The point of having progression is that it's softer at the beginning to absorb repeated small and medium impacts, but still retains bottom-out resistance. "Softer" means it uses more suspension travel for the same impact compared to a more linear design.
The RM Altitude is designed for janky riding where there are a lot of small, unpredictable impacts that sap speed. Think places like BC, the northeast US, and lots of Europe. Riding in such terrain requires suspension to quickly react and return to full travel.
More linear designs work better when the terrain has more slow-speed g-forces and being glued to the ground is less advantageous. Think places like Colorado, SoCal, etc. That's why you find companies like Yeti and Pivot designing bikes that fit that terrain well - home-grown companies tend to be solving for local conditions first.
I don’t agree that softer necessarily means it uses more travel for the same impact. It’s about the speed of deceleration. With a progressive system, it...
I don’t agree that softer necessarily means it uses more travel for the same impact. It’s about the speed of deceleration. With a progressive system, it is possible to have a majority of the support could come at the end of the travel, creating a more abrupt deceleration.
With Aston’s linear setup, there is more support through the entire range of travel, so the suspension can adsorb the impact over a longer period of time.
Again, forks on our bikes are linear and everyone seems cool with that setup regardless of terrain.
Dang, Paul and Rulezman REALLY did it wrong. It's pretty simple, they didn't correctly correlate spring rate to the new leverage ratio. They used more travel because the spring rate was too soft, then they got into the progressive end stroke.
Forks are not linear. Even a coil fork has an air space that gets compressed and ramps up in a linear manner, but most forks are air, and a few are a hybrid of coil & air.
Paul Aston's latest bike runs a flat leverage curve and the results were pretty interesting. "When testing the Commencal Supreme with two different linkages, approximately 40%...
Paul Aston's latest bike runs a flat leverage curve and the results were pretty interesting.
"When testing the Commencal Supreme with two different linkages, approximately 40% progression and 20% progression, using a data system with Rulezman, we found on a 2-metre drop the less progressive setup actually used 10mm less travel and pushed only 20% of the G-force into the rider than the more progressive linkage - the opposite of what is expected. This is because the bike absorbs more force during the initial phases of the travel and has less to deal with when it gets to the end-stroke."
I don't find it perplexing at all that a more progressive design uses more travel for the same impact. The point of having progression is that...
I don't find it perplexing at all that a more progressive design uses more travel for the same impact. The point of having progression is that it's softer at the beginning to absorb repeated small and medium impacts, but still retains bottom-out resistance. "Softer" means it uses more suspension travel for the same impact compared to a more linear design.
The RM Altitude is designed for janky riding where there are a lot of small, unpredictable impacts that sap speed. Think places like BC, the northeast US, and lots of Europe. Riding in such terrain requires suspension to quickly react and return to full travel.
More linear designs work better when the terrain has more slow-speed g-forces and being glued to the ground is less advantageous. Think places like Colorado, SoCal, etc. That's why you find companies like Yeti and Pivot designing bikes that fit that terrain well - home-grown companies tend to be solving for local conditions first.
I don’t agree that softer necessarily means it uses more travel for the same impact. It’s about the speed of deceleration. With a progressive system, it...
I don’t agree that softer necessarily means it uses more travel for the same impact. It’s about the speed of deceleration. With a progressive system, it is possible to have a majority of the support could come at the end of the travel, creating a more abrupt deceleration.
With Aston’s linear setup, there is more support through the entire range of travel, so the suspension can adsorb the impact over a longer period of time.
Again, forks on our bikes are linear and everyone seems cool with that setup regardless of terrain.
Air sprung. forks aren't linear. They are progressive. Even when all the volume spacers are removed, air is inherently progressive. Maybe the rate of progression is less than rear suspension, but it absolutely increases over the length of the stroke. That's why people sometimes get coil forks - they want something truly linear.
The differences you are talking about here are influenced by damping, not by spring rate or progressivity. More damping means the suspension moves slower, so it takes more time to absorb the same impact.
I feel like people are not grasping the physics involved. It's not about dynamic vs static forces. Here's an experiment for you to ponder:
Suppose you had 2 bikes, 1 more linear and 1 more progressive. You chose spring rates so that, for a large drop, both bikes use the same amount of travel - let's call it 90%. And let's say the damping is tuned to compensate for the differences in spring rate.
How would you expect these 2 bikes to react to small or medium sized impacts, with regards to how much travel they utilize in absorbing them?
Obviously the linear bike would use less travel, and the progressive bike would use more.
Three example bikes with different progression and same amounts of travel. All straight lines for the sake of simplicity.Force at the wheel due to spring rate...
Three example bikes with different progression and same amounts of travel. All straight lines for the sake of simplicity.
Force at the wheel due to spring rate alone with each bike having identical sag at the wheel (stiffer spring for more progressive bike). Lets say you are railing a long long berm and your rear wheel needs to support 400 lbs of force… if the berm is long enough shaft speed goes to zero (save for bumps in the berm of course) so spring is what holds you up. 27% bike will sit at 180mm of travel used and 37% bike will sit at 165mm of travel used. Also, area under each of these curves is the amount of energy the springs stores between top of travel and full compression. But to put into perspective how important damping is, if you ride off a ledge seated with zero damping you would bottom off an 11.8” ledge. Not much for a DH bike.
A multiplier for damping that conveys how much force will be felt at the wheel for a given wheel speed input and shock tune. This number multiplied by wheel speed multiplied by damping ratio is force at the wheel due to damping. This is where adjustments to the shock come in because about 60% travel is where these curves intersect.
If you factor damping ratio into this plot with a similar mentality as is followed for setting all bikes to have the same ride height you get this. This is more or less what a lot of WC riders because they prioritize pumping and why they can get to a point of using less than full travel as progression gets into the upper 30% range.
TLDR, you can make a more progressive bike be significantly more supportive than a less progressive bike at the cost of making it harder to use full travel. More progressive bikes do not inherently give up early travel easier than a less progressive bike. It drives me crazy a little bit when that assumption gets repeated as fact to be honest. All a more progressive leverage curve assures you is a larger differential between wheel force at top and bottom of travel. That differential can be used however you see fit.
Right, but if you control for one variable (force required to bottom out fully), then a progressive linkage will use more travel on smaller-than-full-bottom-out impacts vs a more linear design.
I think progressive linkage designs are great for janky terrain (higher typical shaft speed), whereas more linear designs are better suited to riding in areas like bike parks or smoother terrain where the forces are more spread out over time/space (lower typical shaft speed).
Right, but if you control for one variable (force required to bottom out fully), then a progressive linkage will use more travel on smaller-than-full-bottom-out impacts vs...
Right, but if you control for one variable (force required to bottom out fully), then a progressive linkage will use more travel on smaller-than-full-bottom-out impacts vs a more linear design.
I think progressive linkage designs are great for janky terrain (higher typical shaft speed), whereas more linear designs are better suited to riding in areas like bike parks or smoother terrain where the forces are more spread out over time/space (lower typical shaft speed).
Running the same dynamic ride height between setups makes the most sense because you get the geo between the two to be consistent. Conversely you could tune them to have similar sensitivity off the top and the progressive bike would be massively hard to bottom.
I definitely agree that more linear bikes are better suited to smooth terrain.
Right, but if you control for one variable (force required to bottom out fully), then a progressive linkage will use more travel on smaller-than-full-bottom-out impacts vs...
Right, but if you control for one variable (force required to bottom out fully), then a progressive linkage will use more travel on smaller-than-full-bottom-out impacts vs a more linear design.
I think progressive linkage designs are great for janky terrain (higher typical shaft speed), whereas more linear designs are better suited to riding in areas like bike parks or smoother terrain where the forces are more spread out over time/space (lower typical shaft speed).
Running the same dynamic ride height between setups makes the most sense because you get the geo between the two to be consistent. Conversely you could...
Running the same dynamic ride height between setups makes the most sense because you get the geo between the two to be consistent. Conversely you could tune them to have similar sensitivity off the top and the progressive bike would be massively hard to bottom.
I definitely agree that more linear bikes are better suited to smooth terrain.
Agreed.
The thing I am confused about is, it seems like there is an ideal overall progression rate sweet spot (taking into account the progression of the linkage plus the progression of the shock).
Some designs use a more linear linkage with an air shock (which adds progression above the linkage's rate).
Others use a more progressive linkage paired with a coil shock (which adds ~0 progression above the linkage's rate).
So why all this debate over progressivity of linkage? Seems like whichever you pick, you can then get a shock that compliments it. Most of the issues are when bikes are specced with a shock that doesn't mesh well with the linkage's progression rate, either due to the shock's progressivity (or lack thereof) or its damping is not appropriate.
I think it's awesome that bikes are coming out with a wide range of progressivity, given the constraints of shock choice. You can pick the bike + shock combo that best suits your terrain.
Agreed.The thing I am confused about is, it seems like there is an ideal overall progression rate sweet spot (taking into account the progression of the...
Agreed.
The thing I am confused about is, it seems like there is an ideal overall progression rate sweet spot (taking into account the progression of the linkage plus the progression of the shock).
Some designs use a more linear linkage with an air shock (which adds progression above the linkage's rate).
Others use a more progressive linkage paired with a coil shock (which adds ~0 progression above the linkage's rate).
So why all this debate over progressivity of linkage? Seems like whichever you pick, you can then get a shock that compliments it. Most of the issues are when bikes are specced with a shock that doesn't mesh well with the linkage's progression rate, either due to the shock's progressivity (or lack thereof) or its damping is not appropriate.
I think it's awesome that bikes are coming out with a wide range of progressivity, given the constraints of shock choice. You can pick the bike + shock combo that best suits your terrain.
Yeah personal preference is such a huge portion of it that there will never be a one size fits all. I know for a fact that I will not get along with an 11% bike that only has 135mm of travel regardless of whether or not it has an air or coil shock, but I'm not everyone. The only downside to relying on air for pressure for ramp is you get more variable rebound between top and bottom of travel.
You sound as if Maxxis tires are all the sudden unrideable. I'm glad Maxxis has competition now but calling them "the dogs breakfast" is fried. You don't ride like Moimoi - you'll be fine on exo+... (or if you actually know how to ride, doubledown).
Freedom.
here's a thread dedicated to mountain bike tires 🤘
https://www.vitalmtb.com/forums/hub/mountain-bike-tires
Exo+ wouldnt work for long. DD worked for a bit until flats and flexy sidewalls and generally poor qc put me on to the michelin 34.
Emtb now and i think the conti dh casing are better in every way than maxxis dh tires. Grip, durability, seal, rolling resistance, weight and qc.
Currently on v rubber snap flow/attack dh casing. Good inexpensive alternative. 80cad/pair with tons of grip. They wear a bit faster and a bit of a slow roller. If i was just riding steep dh trails id probably buy a bunch of those
Everything is supply and demand, right? Maybe the competition is a lot more aggressive on pricing in Europe, we have a bunch of european tyre makers also (no idea where they are actually producing the tyres though).
Personally, I'm still able to get my tyres around or below €50 (mostly Schwalbe, although I sometimes test conti, vittoria or spesh). This is all online however, most bike shops around me have only Maxxis for €80 on the shelves, and pretty much always EXO casing with some weird thread and sizing combo.
It'd be nice to keep this thread on topic "tech rumors and innovation". This thread has been so off topic the last few weeks / months even.
Ask yourself "does my comment have to do with tech rumors and or innovation"? If no, stop.
Heres a quick guide to others places to chat about various other hot topics.
Tires: New One by sspomer https://www.vitalmtb.com/forums/hub/mountain-bike-tires
Nerding out on Tires: https://www.vitalmtb.com/forums/hub/tire-chat-nerds-only
Brakes https://www.vitalmtb.com/forums/hub/nerding-out-brakes-shall-we-not-another-tech-deraliment
E-bike https://www.vitalmtb.com/forums/hub/e-bike-talk-not-tech-rumor-derailment
Debates on wireless : https://www.vitalmtb.com/forums/hub/poll-electric-shifting-vs-mechanical-shifting
These bikes have about 2/3s of their weight on the rear tire and about 1/3 on the front tire. And that is the exact ratio of their relative contribution to RR.
So, the front RR absolutely matters, it's just half as much as the rear so we should make less traction compromises up front in pursuit of lower RR than we might make out back.
A front tire change is very easy to feel and notice the RR change.
Richie running the new Fox Neo wireless transfer post
Duh, yes you're right. Dollar strong = cheap imports. Brain fart.
I just read the other site's review of the new Rock Mountain, and the reviewer thought the compression tune was too light and had both high & low fully closed. He moved up a compression tune and got along with the bike better (Fox X2). Rocky suggested that hard chargers could contact their local Fox dealer and get their rear shock retuned.
Wasn't this the whole point of moving to the twin tube design? Other twin tubers like CC don't have frame specific tunes as far as I'm aware since there is a massive range for those damp(en)ers.
If shocks still need to be custom shimmed for specific performance, could we see more companies doing what Formula does with the user-swappable shim stacks contained in a cool cartridge? Its a shame Formula doesn't seem to believe in negative air chambers.
Twin Tube designs reduce hysteresis as the shock transitions from compression to rebound. I don’t think they increase the range of adjustment.
As far as I know, Cane Creek was the only one saying that you didn’t need frame specific tunes.
I’m kinda skeptical of those CTS valves that Formula is doing. The pictures I’ve seen make them look tiny and I’m not sure how much shim tuning you could fit into one. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were just orifice dampers with different hole sizes.
It’s kinda shocking how half assed a lot of MTB suspension is, especially when it comes to dampers. I think that’s the reason a lot of riders just open their compression adjusters all the way and then try to support the bike with air pressure and volume tokens. With bad dampers compression damping just means harsh.
To add to this, there is a reason that MTB tires (other than XC) rarely make a appearance on 3rd party rolling test sites. Practically all utilize a rolling drum test, and unless we only care about rolling performance on the tarmac, the comparison of such results don't mean much.
Quantifying rolling performance on varying levels of aggregate or soil composition is a multi variable problem that is likely more costly than it is beneficial. I'd be interested to see such numbers, but I'd be even more interested to know how a tester came to such results.
As for the Albert, there is no denying that a larger contact patch equals more frictional losses. But that is not the full story (as was described by many articles and forum posters).
First, increasing the tire pressure above a riders usual preference would yield a smaller contact patch, but they would still reap the benefits of a more supple casing. Most reviewers have claimed a 2-3psi increase was a positive change.
Second, time or energy savings could also be found with the increased confidence of a supple tire, and maybe going to a more durable rubber compound since the casing is more dynamic.
Anyways, this is probably more fitting in that fancy new Tire Forum!
Paul Aston's latest bike runs a flat leverage curve and the results were pretty interesting.
"When testing the Commencal Supreme with two different linkages, approximately 40% progression and 20% progression, using a data system with Rulezman, we found on a 2-metre drop the less progressive setup actually used 10mm less travel and pushed only 20% of the G-force into the rider than the more progressive linkage - the opposite of what is expected. This is because the bike absorbs more force during the initial phases of the travel and has less to deal with when it gets to the end-stroke."
https://www.astonmtb.bike/reviews/pt4-kinematics
I do find it interesting that bike's generally run a flat leverage curve on the front and progressive leverage in the rear.
I don't find it perplexing at all that a more progressive design uses more travel for the same impact. The point of having progression is that it's softer at the beginning to absorb repeated small and medium impacts, but still retains bottom-out resistance. "Softer" means it uses more suspension travel for the same impact compared to a more linear design.
The RM Altitude is designed for janky riding where there are a lot of small, unpredictable impacts that sap speed. Think places like BC, the northeast US, and lots of Europe. Riding in such terrain requires suspension to quickly react and return to full travel.
More linear designs work better when the terrain has more slow-speed g-forces and being glued to the ground is less advantageous. Think places like Colorado, SoCal, etc. That's why you find companies like Yeti and Pivot designing bikes that fit that terrain well - home-grown companies tend to be solving for local conditions first.
I don’t agree that softer necessarily means it uses more travel for the same impact. It’s about the speed of deceleration. With a progressive system, it is possible to have a majority of the support could come at the end of the travel, creating a more abrupt deceleration.
With Aston’s linear setup, there is more support through the entire range of travel, so the suspension can adsorb the impact over a longer period of time.
Again, forks on our bikes are linear and everyone seems cool with that setup regardless of terrain.
A softer spring compresses more under the same load than a stiffer spring. That's where the softer means more travel thinking comes. But it is based in the general understanding of the world which is a lot more static than what is happening with bikes. With these kinds of impacts the dynamics come into play first and foremost, then we have the impact of the dampers taking a part of the load plus then the difference in progressivity.
So yes, while in general terms softer means more travel, it is not necessarily true for mtb suspension. Qed, if you feel your fork is too hard, raise the pressure it is running at. But this works precisely because (air) forks are anything but linear. The keversge ratio is linear, but the wheel force, because of the progressive air spring, is not linear.
If two bikes are compared and one is twice as progressive as the other, there are only two ways the more progressive bike uses more travel: a softer spring (it should run a stiffer spring to maintain sag) or a comparatively soft shock tune. The damping is the most often overlooked. It’s not uncommon to need a 20-30% stiffer tune if you make a 10% jump in progression and want damping to feel similar. This is just conservation of energy plain and simple. The issue WC riders have once progression gets past the mid 30s is their damping tune and spring rate become stiff enough that they can’t use full travel.
look, someone who never tried formula suspension
but with your cascade linkage, you talk more about 10% stiffer spring than the original one , not 20-30% stiffer ?
10% stiffer spring = 20-30% stiffer damping tune is what was said.
Sure looks like an orifice damper to me.
https://nsmb.com/articles/formula-selva-c-fork-teardown/
On this topic, @iceman2058 's review of the Starling just dropped.
https://www.vitalmtb.com/product/guide/frames/starling/murmur-v3-29446
It seems the very linear, flat leverage curve of that frame plays nice with both coil and air, although I'm ver skeptical of the "11% progression over the total travel" claim.
I do prefer linear, modestly-progressive suspension myself. As its been said before, for a given sag (not spring rate), a progressive suspension design tends to wallow and doesn't hold you up as well. Of course its foolish to set up different suspension designs assuming the same sag....
Three example bikes with different progression and same amounts of travel. All straight lines for the sake of simplicity.
Force at the wheel due to spring rate alone with each bike having identical sag at the wheel (stiffer spring for more progressive bike). Lets say you are railing a long long berm and your rear wheel needs to support 400 lbs of force… if the berm is long enough shaft speed goes to zero (save for bumps in the berm of course) so spring is what holds you up. 27% bike will sit at 180mm of travel used and 37% bike will sit at 165mm of travel used. Also, area under each of these curves is the amount of energy the springs stores between top of travel and full compression. But to put into perspective how important damping is, if you ride off a ledge seated with zero damping you would bottom off an 11.8” ledge. Not much for a DH bike.
A multiplier for damping that conveys how much force will be felt at the wheel for a given wheel speed input and shock tune. This number multiplied by wheel speed multiplied by damping ratio is force at the wheel due to damping. This is where adjustments to the shock come in because about 60% travel is where these curves intersect.
If you factor damping ratio into this plot with a similar mentality as is followed for setting all bikes to have the same ride height you get this. This is more or less what a lot of WC riders because they prioritize pumping and why they can get to a point of using less than full travel as progression gets into the upper 30% range.
TLDR, you can make a more progressive bike be significantly more supportive than a less progressive bike at the cost of making it harder to use full travel. More progressive bikes do not inherently give up early travel easier than a less progressive bike. It drives me crazy a little bit when that assumption gets repeated as fact to be honest. All a more progressive leverage curve assures you is a larger differential between wheel force at top and bottom of travel. That differential can be used however you see fit.
Dang, Paul and Rulezman REALLY did it wrong. It's pretty simple, they didn't correctly correlate spring rate to the new leverage ratio. They used more travel because the spring rate was too soft, then they got into the progressive end stroke.
Forks are not linear. Even a coil fork has an air space that gets compressed and ramps up in a linear manner, but most forks are air, and a few are a hybrid of coil & air.
Air sprung. forks aren't linear. They are progressive. Even when all the volume spacers are removed, air is inherently progressive. Maybe the rate of progression is less than rear suspension, but it absolutely increases over the length of the stroke. That's why people sometimes get coil forks - they want something truly linear.
The differences you are talking about here are influenced by damping, not by spring rate or progressivity. More damping means the suspension moves slower, so it takes more time to absorb the same impact.
I feel like people are not grasping the physics involved. It's not about dynamic vs static forces. Here's an experiment for you to ponder:
Suppose you had 2 bikes, 1 more linear and 1 more progressive. You chose spring rates so that, for a large drop, both bikes use the same amount of travel - let's call it 90%. And let's say the damping is tuned to compensate for the differences in spring rate.
How would you expect these 2 bikes to react to small or medium sized impacts, with regards to how much travel they utilize in absorbing them?
Obviously the linear bike would use less travel, and the progressive bike would use more.
Right, but if you control for one variable (force required to bottom out fully), then a progressive linkage will use more travel on smaller-than-full-bottom-out impacts vs a more linear design.
I think progressive linkage designs are great for janky terrain (higher typical shaft speed), whereas more linear designs are better suited to riding in areas like bike parks or smoother terrain where the forces are more spread out over time/space (lower typical shaft speed).
Running the same dynamic ride height between setups makes the most sense because you get the geo between the two to be consistent. Conversely you could tune them to have similar sensitivity off the top and the progressive bike would be massively hard to bottom.
I definitely agree that more linear bikes are better suited to smooth terrain.
Agreed.
The thing I am confused about is, it seems like there is an ideal overall progression rate sweet spot (taking into account the progression of the linkage plus the progression of the shock).
Some designs use a more linear linkage with an air shock (which adds progression above the linkage's rate).
Others use a more progressive linkage paired with a coil shock (which adds ~0 progression above the linkage's rate).
So why all this debate over progressivity of linkage? Seems like whichever you pick, you can then get a shock that compliments it. Most of the issues are when bikes are specced with a shock that doesn't mesh well with the linkage's progression rate, either due to the shock's progressivity (or lack thereof) or its damping is not appropriate.
I think it's awesome that bikes are coming out with a wide range of progressivity, given the constraints of shock choice. You can pick the bike + shock combo that best suits your terrain.
Yeah personal preference is such a huge portion of it that there will never be a one size fits all. I know for a fact that I will not get along with an 11% bike that only has 135mm of travel regardless of whether or not it has an air or coil shock, but I'm not everyone. The only downside to relying on air for pressure for ramp is you get more variable rebound between top and bottom of travel.
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation