# Worst Suspension design ever nominees.



## sandmangts (Feb 16, 2004)

I have been looking for XT and XTR parts for my Ritchey and Brave builds and the prices are just insane for the older stuff so when I found these I thought they would make good donor bikes. The 9500 is all XTR and the 9000 is mostly DX. Except for the dust and spider eggs they are almost NOS. I think these are probably the worst, most flexy suspension bikes ever. What do you think? I can't wait to see these XTR bits mounted on my Brave.


----------



## Vlad (Feb 7, 2004)

As bad as these Treks were, I'd bet that Europe had even worse suspension bikes at the time. Carbon fiber suspension handlebars??


----------



## Kevin_Federline (Nov 19, 2008)

wow that swingarm looks like something i would design in one druken weekend..

(ninja edit)


----------



## KDXdog (Mar 15, 2007)

> wow that looks like something i would design in one druken weekend..


Speaking of drunk, that front tire is on backwards, maybe that's the reason that trek handles badly!

Good parts donors!


----------



## sandmangts (Feb 16, 2004)

KDXdog said:


> Speaking of drunk, that front tire is on backwards, maybe that's the reason that trek handles badly!
> 
> Good parts donors!


Well, that was my fault, just threw it back on to wheel it out of the car. Should I clean them or wait for the spider eggs to hatch? I just did the math looking at closed auctions on ebay and it would've cost me over $500 to get all those XTR bits. This is what they are going on


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

What I find really funny is the first bike that came in my head when I read the title was that exact bike.
 

I love to share the story about the first one of those we built BITD, one of the hot shot kids that worked at the shop decided to take the drop off this wall in the parking lot that was at least 3 feet high or more, and I got to witness my first suspension assisted power ejection :yesnod: 

He never lived it down....


----------



## sandmangts (Feb 16, 2004)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> What I find really funny is the first bike that came in my head when I read the title was that exact bike.
> 
> 
> I love to share the story about the first one of those we built BITD, one of the hot shot kids that worked at the shop decided to take the drop off this wall in the parking lot that was at least 3 feet high or more, and I got to witness my first suspension assisted power ejection :yesnod:
> ...


 My riding buddy had one and he was a pretty light guy and the rebound would almost eject him every time he took a little jump. He always came down front wheel first. I remember the tracking was horrible because of the flex. The guy I got it from said he paid 3 grand plus an extra 300 for the Risse shock. Wow. He must have felt like those people who paid $700 for an I-phone only to have apple drop them to $300 a few months later.


----------



## yo-Nate-y (Mar 5, 2009)

they'll be great as donors though!! if the Ringle cage needs a new home let me know 


if you don't mind, could you post a pic of the snowman choco-donut looking elastomer stack?


----------



## sandmangts (Feb 16, 2004)

yo-Nate-y said:


> they'll be great as donors though!! if the Ringle cage needs a new home let me know
> 
> if you don't mind, could you post a pic of the snowman choco-donut looking elastomer stack?


I was wondering if they were Ringles or not. You lost me on the donut thing though. Do you mean the Manitou stacks? They are toast the forks move freely but they just stay down.


----------



## banks (Feb 2, 2004)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> What I find really funny is the first bike that came in my head when I read the title was that exact bike.


*Me2 !*


----------



## yo-Nate-y (Mar 5, 2009)

oh man, I must have been pretty beat last night when I posted that---I see now they have Risse shocks. The original shocks on the Treks were these funny roll of mini chocolate donuts-looking things if I recall correctly 

Yep, those are Ringles!


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

Those will indeed be great donors. If one fits, take it for a spin first - I've always thought of those as one of the worst, but haven't ever ridden one... Of course, I've also read here that the upgraded shocks made a big difference vs. the donuts.


----------



## 92gli (Sep 28, 2006)

Ah, I was doing alot of hanging out at the local trek dealer when that came out. The original rubber turd setup even made a simple 5 inch bunnyhop interesting.

I wonder if the frames could be made into a coffee table or something. They'd finally live a useful life.

Such a shame really, two people really _tried_ to love those bikes... gave them nice upgrades, dry shelter... only to have to abandon them.


----------



## sandmangts (Feb 16, 2004)

92gli said:


> Ah, I was doing alot of hanging out at the local trek dealer when that came out. The original rubber turd setup even made a simple 5 inch bunnyhop interesting.
> 
> I wonder if the frames could be made into a coffee table or something. They'd finally live a useful life.
> 
> Such a shame really, two people really _tried_ to love those bikes... gave them nice upgrades, dry shelter... only to have to abandon them.


It is kinda sad but I don't think the black and pink one was ever ridden. The other was used a little maybe. I don't think I will be riding either of them. It would take too much time and money to get them into a safe rideable condition again. There were a few other designs that were pretty bad but I think this one is just about the worst.


----------



## byknuts (Aug 9, 2008)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> What I find really funny is the first bike that came in my head when I read the title was that exact bike.
> ..


+2

but OOOH how i lusted after those back in the day.
there was a dark purple one I saw in a shop, with lime green swingarm... SOO obnoxious.
LOVED it.

can I nominate the mac-strut bike?
ANY mac-strut bike!
anything that effectively uses the shock's seals as a structural element... :madman:

yes I think the early amps are glorious designs in simplicity and light weight, but damn, keep risse on speed dial.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Actually having owned and ridden a 9000 for four years, I can say that while the stock shock sucked in the damping department (there wasn't any, it was a straight elastomer spring setup - but then that's no different than any early Proflex for example), and the high-pivot point meant you could lockout the drivetrain in EVERY gear which leads to a lot of biopacing if you get the cadence to match the resonance frequency of the shock, what really was unfortunate is that with the stock fork length (about 16.5"), the BB height was only 11.5" off the ground. That was fully-rigid hardtail territory. Pedal strikes happened a lot. Otherwise though, it actually was a good design. Oh yes EVERYONE whines about it now, but what were the options otherwise back then (1992) for PRODUCTION brand bikes? A Proflex with one to two inches of wheel travel, an Softride with the moose-tongue suspension beam, a Fisher RS-1 with about the same 2 inches of wheel travel but an even worse shock setup (and a terrible rear brake), a Boulder Gazelle which was EIGHT pounds for a 17" sized frame (my 22" trek 9000 frame was 6.6 pounds), and had just as high a pivot point. And that was essentially it when they came out. Everything else from all the other brands who were playing catch-up, were strictly racer-only equipment at the time. You couldn't walk into an Iron Horse, GT, or Mongoose dealer and buy a full suspension bike until they unveiled the 1993 models. 

As it stands, both Noleen and Risse offered shock upgrade options for the Trek beam bikes, and with careful application of upgrades you could drop the weight of a 9500 from its stock 28 pounds (amazing for a full suspension at the time as it was, hell that was lighter than many top full rigid bikes only a year or two earlier) down to 24 pounds. I rode my 9000 setup around 26 1/2 pounds myself. Even today most of my trail bike setups... around 26 pounds.

No, worst FS design... not the trek bikes. Now the Mountain Goat with that steel cable wrapped around the BB shell....


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> No, worst FS design... not the trek bikes. Now the Mountain Goat with that steel cable wrapped around the BB shell....


Yep, it was one of your previous posts I was remembering - interesting to hear some perspective from someone who lived with one of these for some time.

Now...how about that early Cannondale FS with the REALLY high pivot?


----------



## sandmangts (Feb 16, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> Actually having owned and ridden a 9000 for four years, I can say that while the stock shock sucked in the damping department (there wasn't any, it was a straight elastomer spring setup - but then that's no different than any early Proflex for example), and the high-pivot point meant you could lockout the drivetrain in EVERY gear which leads to a lot of biopacing if you get the cadence to match the resonance frequency of the shock, what really was unfortunate is that with the stock fork length (about 16.5"), the BB height was only 11.5" off the ground. That was fully-rigid hardtail territory. Pedal strikes happened a lot. Otherwise though, it actually was a good design. Oh yes EVERYONE whines about it now, but what were the options otherwise back then (1992) for PRODUCTION brand bikes? A Proflex with one to two inches of wheel travel, an Softride with the moose-tongue suspension beam, a Fisher RS-1 with about the same 2 inches of wheel travel but an even worse shock setup (and a terrible rear brake), a Boulder Gazelle which was EIGHT pounds for a 17" sized frame (my 22" trek 9000 frame was 6.6 pounds), and had just as high a pivot point. And that was essentially it when they came out. Everything else from all the other brands who were playing catch-up, were strictly racer-only equipment at the time. You couldn't walk into an Iron Horse, GT, or Mongoose dealer and buy a full suspension bike until they unveiled the 1993 models.
> 
> As it stands, both Noleen and Risse offered shock upgrade options for the Trek beam bikes, and with careful application of upgrades you could drop the weight of a 9500 from its stock 28 pounds (amazing for a full suspension at the time as it was, hell that was lighter than many top full rigid bikes only a year or two earlier) down to 24 pounds. I rode my 9000 setup around 26 1/2 pounds myself. Even today most of my trail bike setups... around 26 pounds.
> 
> No, worst FS design... not the trek bikes. Now the Mountain Goat with that steel cable wrapped around the BB shell....


Just the kind of debate I was looking for. You are right, considering the age of the bike they are certainly not the worst.


----------



## ameybrook (Sep 9, 2006)

D8 I think you're referring to another bike, but I agree that the Goat was a horrible suspension design.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

sandmangts said:


> I have been looking for XT and XTR parts for my Ritchey and Brave builds and the prices are just insane for the older stuff so when I found these I thought they would make good donor bikes. The 9500 is all XTR and the 9000 is mostly DX. Except for the dust and spider eggs they are almost NOS. I think these are probably the worst, most flexy suspension bikes ever. What do you think? I can't wait to see these XTR bits mounted on my Brave.


That 9500 is a text book parts bike. :thumbsup:


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

ameybrook said:


> D8 I think you're referring to another bike, but I agree that the Goat was a horrible suspension design.


I think he means the IRD.


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

At least the Goat looks cool. The TREK looks like pooh and rides like pooh.

I recall the Goat getting really bad reviews......

There was a really small company that made an fs frame that used what amounted to rubber bungee cords for the suspension.. can't recall the name. Hands down, the worst frame I have ever laid eyes on.

-Schmitty-


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

Schmitty said:


> At least the Goat looks cool. The TREK looks like pooh and rides like pooh.
> 
> I recall the Goat getting really bad reviews......
> 
> ...


Crestone Peak. Amazing.


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

*Yesss!*

Nice work FB. It is a bit scary you know the name though... Anyone got a pic?

-Schmitty-


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

Schmitty said:


> Nice work FB. It is a bit scary you know the name though... Anyone got a pic?
> 
> -Schmitty-


indeed. I flinched a bit when that bike came to mind.


----------



## ameybrook (Sep 9, 2006)

http://mombat.org/1992_IRD_FS.htm

Damn.


----------



## sandmangts (Feb 16, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> indeed. I flinched a bit when that bike came to mind.


I think we have a winner. Is it a bike of a BowFlex? That should be on the A&E show Engineering Disasters.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

ameybrook said:


> http://mombat.org/1992_IRD_FS.htm
> 
> Damn.


the concept is not bad at all for the early days (high pivot), it's just that cable used to hold the spring that is a little hokey. A welded member to do that job instead of the cable would have made a world of difference. Not saying the cable doesn't do its job, but it looks like an after thought... or worse.


----------



## FairfaxPat (Jan 29, 2008)

I've gotta nominate the Slingshot-a cable downtube with a hinge in the middle of the top tube passing for some kind of full flex frame suspension. It didn't matter which fork you had on it, it was terrible!


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

ameybrook said:


> http://mombat.org/1992_IRD_FS.htm
> 
> Damn.


That thing is badass :thumbsup:


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

The crestone peak SAS bike actually worked though, and that rubber band... saw one a year or so ago at a local shop. The drivetrain was done, it had survived ten years of commuting all year round (and we use rocksalt like its the second coming around here in the winter) and the suspension still worked fine. Every other part of the bike was dead so the owner balked at the repair bill, but the suspension at least was still working. Better than can be said for more modern designs after only a couple winters here.


----------



## jeff (Jan 13, 2004)

The Crestones were made here in Ft. Collins. You'll see one out and about on occasion.Well, on a rare occasion.
J


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

I'd just like to point out that the idea that elastomer suspension is undamped is incorrect, elastomers or micro-cellular urethane can be compressed faster than they naturally return to their uncompressed form, this provides damping, early elastomer forks (Manitou, Halson) allowed you to experiment with almost infinite variations of small elastomers in a stack so you could find your preferred spring rate and damping. Primitive, but enough to put Manitou in a very healthy second place in the early suspension market.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

problem is the usage of short stacks and short travel meant that there was too much energy for the elastomers, and the damping sucked. That's why Manitou went to a longer bumper stack for the Manitou 3. On the Manitou 1/2, there was 3.75" of compression elastomer and 1.8" travel, on the M3 it was 6" of compression elastomer for 2" of travel, plus a second bottom out elastomer stage of 1" worth.


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

I'm sticking with my nomination.

-Schmitty-


----------



## mtnbiker72 (Jan 22, 2007)

Well, it didn't biopace at least...but the Softride rep took a few shop employees (including me) out on a MTB ride back in 1995 to get our shop to carry their mountain bikes. The beam was nothing short of a catapult!


----------



## Farmfield (Jun 27, 2009)

The Allsop thingie is insanely stupid, hehe... Assuspension works for commuters, but riding trails you need it on the pedals (so to speak)...

And that suspension w/o dampening is a bad idea, that was known in the day of the horse & carriage...


----------



## ssulljm (Sep 3, 2006)

Farmfield said:


> The Allsop thingie is insanely stupid, hehe... Assuspension works for commuters, but riding trails you need it on the pedals (so to speak)...
> 
> And that suspension w/o dampening is a bad idea, that was known in the day of the horse & carriage...


Ever ridden one more than around a parking lot?
Didn't think so.....
Never would recommend the Softride for purely agro Mt Biking, sure works damn good for pretty much all Norcal has to offer that suits my tastes. And that's the point of bicycle suspension design evolution, as far as I can see, to each their own.

Now, rather than launching an avalanche of retorts, I'll just say to any + all Softride haters, let's ride.
Anytime, almost any place over here on the coastal dirt from SF to Santa Cruz. That should clear up, better than any yap attack, the point counter point regarding Softride suspension design meeting muster.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

I've used the softride beam extensively (well I had one of the conversion kits on a Rocky Mountain TeamComp hardtail for about six months) and it actually does work well offroad. Its just a mental thing. You have to remember NOT to lift your ass for bumps. The beam has about 5 inches of travel, and 1 1/2 inches is the sag part. On an XC ride, its really cushy as the back end of the bike pitches up like ANY hardtail does... but your body doesn't pitch forwards that much in the process. Actually... i have another NOS beam kit downstairs... maybe i'll put it on a bike. I have enough frames at the moment to run it. I could even do it to a 29er.


----------

