Soundtrack/song: The Hives “Won’t Be Long”
I recently took a random survey asking friends and family what things they hated. I am not talking about sort of disliking something, but truly hate (def: Intense or passionate dislike). Litter, cold calls, cold hands, made appearances along with old favorites like racism, chauvinism, and toe-stubbing. I have very little that I hate as I just do not wish to expend energy on such things. Also, in today’s piece I mostly just dislike (sans passion) the following attributes in bicycle suspension design. Maybe I do hate them, but whatever. So, let’s jump in.
Okay, take a deep breath, as we get into some murky suspension water ahead…
Diving deeper into the suspension design cauldron and my own experiences (25+ years on full-suspension bikes), I have noticed some factors that my preferred choices have in common. The first being that all of them basically will feel the same regardless of what shock you run. Said another way, their design is independent of shock tunes. This is not to say that shock-dependent designs cannot ride well, but they do require more time tinkering with one’s settings to nail your desired ride characteristics. Horst-link bikes are a prime example of this. File Mr. Weagle’s Split pivot and Trek’s ABP here as well.
More recently I’ve read/listened to the TCI editors praise for the Ibis Ripley. Considering Ibis, I believe they produce the finest example of a DW-link bike. There are a few similar platforms to the DW-link (Giant’s Maestro, Canfield/Revel’s CBF, Banshee’s KS2) along with other manufacturers (Pivot, Turner [mostly RIP], Iron Horse [RIP]) specifically employing the DW-link. These all possess its positive attributes with slightly different points of emphasis and nuance. I’ve ridden all of them, and I appreciate their collective “hover-bike” effect, but I tend to vibe more with systems that provide more trail feedback (Single-pivots, APP [Santa Cruz’s dig at everyone’s use of 3 letter suspension abbreviations, but it was a damn good design) Santa Cruz’s VPP, and Evil’s DELTA).
As an aside, I find it interesting that the geometry on the alloy Ibis Ripley is more aggressive than its carbon brother. Ibis seems to use their AF models to “prototype” where they plan to go next as they did the same thing with the Ripmo. Now its carbon and AF models are the same, but the original was much more conservative. My smash-y riding style which I still have not completely exorcised (exercise exorcism?) appreciates anything “AF”.*
Back to the shock-dependent suspension, I have found these designs to have two issues not including the shock fiddling that I do not care for (hate if you like). First, the presence of that nebulous term known as flex. This translates as a vague feeling where the bike behaves as if it is not following the path you wish to take. My perception of this occurs under hard pedaling forces, g-outs and aggressive cornering. The pedaling portion of that was generally referred to as “pedal-bob” and was an issue that was considered a mortal sin when full-suspension bicycles first appeared. Fortunately, most have come to realize that there is no point in having suspension if you want the bike to feel/pedal like a hardtail.
As for the cornering and G-out flex, I believe this or the perception thereof is dependent on the rider’s size/weight, frame design and the level of aggression being exacted on the bike. The flex perceived is more pronounced for heavier and more aggressive riders. I recall reading years ago that most bikes were designed around a rider weighing 150 pounds. I have hovered around the Clydesdale size (14.2 Stone or 200 Freedom pounds) since high school and do not have any riding peers in the buck fifty bucket. I do however ride aggressively and so does everyone I roll with on the regular.
But wait, there’s more hate! (kidding, not much is worthy of my hate…okay, overly sweet ketchup and fruit in salads) …Progressivity or lack thereof. Coupled with Horst-link bikes ability to move into their travel quickly (a good thing for smoothing out chop) is their often lack of or low progressivity. These bikes will blow through their travel quickly and can lack any mid-stroke support to provide for snappy pedaling.
Bike makers using this design must employ specially tuned shocks to abate this (just about every bike company using essentially the FSR** design i.e. the standard Stumpjumper EVO, most Transition bikes, etc.) Alternatively, additional links can be added to build the progressivity back in (Knolly, Specialized Demo/Enduro models) or taken away (Stumpjumper/Epic, SC Blur, Yeti ASR uh and basically every pro XC bike today) where seat stay flex “makes up” for the loss of the chain stay pivot and provides a firmer albeit less active platform. Again, there is nothing wrong with these bikes. However, in my search for a frame with more precision than plow yet still “wearing” a hoody with “FUN” spray painted in big letters on the back I was beginning to close in.
Forthcoming we’ll take some detours and digressions as well as more bike design minutiae. You’ll love it!***
*This is Metal AF! and from RVA, natch!
**This stands for “Future Shock Rear” and has become synonymous with the Horst-link suspension design. Nineties-era Specialized bikes had their own house-brand forks called the “Future Shock”. They adopted the FSR acronym when they rolled out their first full suspension Stumpjumper models in the late nineties.
***This is what I tell anyone I am introducing to a hectic trail, questionable music or any arduous task.