# Single Pivot DH/FR Bikes Are The BEST!!!



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

I'm no engineer but it seems to me that all the funky suspension designs coming out these days are really only great for pedalling efficiency and marketing hype...not for actual DH/FR performance.

The reason I say this is because when I look at dirt bikes and the motocross world ALL of those bikes are basic single pivot designs. Motocross is a lot like DH/FR in that you've got big jumps, races over knarly terrain etc. The only real fundamental difference is that pedalling isn't a factor. So *if funky VPP or Horst Link designs really provide an honest advantage, other than pedalling efficiency, why don't we see them on MTX bikes*? These racers have way bigger budgets and it's a much larger and more competitive scene, so if there was any advantage to be gained, why aren't they doing it?


----------



## mrpercussive (Apr 4, 2006)

dandurston said:


> The only real fundamental difference is that pedalling isn't a factor. So *if funky VPP or Horst Link designs really provide an honest advantage, other than pedalling efficiency, why don't we see them on MTX bikes*?


Exactly... pedaling is a big part of DH/FR... especially if you're competitive... Also, designs like the horst link make the suspension more sensitive and progressive for bottom out assist and such... a lot of it also plays with leverage ratio through out travel... MTB suspension is way more advanced then MTX imo... And no SP is not the best... it's just a matter of preference of the rider... I'm a single pivot rider btw... XD


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

brush up on your search-fu young grasshopper, this topic comes up every other week....


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

I know the single pivot vs everything else topic comes up but I haven't seen the MTX vs MTB question asked.


----------



## DWF (Jan 12, 2004)

> Single Pivot DH/FR Bikes Are The BEST!!!


....I remember my first dual suspension bike....


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

mrpercussive said:


> Exactly... pedaling is a big part of DH/FR... especially if you're competitive... Also, designs like the horst link make the suspension more sensitive and progressive for bottom out assist and such... a lot of it also plays with leverage ratio through out travel... MTB suspension is way more advanced then MTX imo... And no SP is not the best... it's just a matter of preference of the rider... I'm a single pivot rider btw... XD


Pedalling isn't a big part of slopestyle...would you say a single pivot is ideal for slopestyle?

Regarding the Horst link making the suspension more sensitive, bottom out resistant and progressive...can't this all be accomplished on a single pivot with the right shock (ie. Roco TST)?

As for the MTB suspension being ahead of MTX, I disagree...the generally accepted top dog of the MTB world is the Cane Creek Double Barrell which was designed in collaboration with Ohlins. If you have a look at some of Ohlins MTX shock offerings you'll see features and adjustability we can only dream about in the MTB world.


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

DWF said:


> ....I remember my first dual suspension bike....


I choose the "single pivots are the BEST" thread title to grab attention to get the discussion going, not to praise my 1st full squish bike. You would have had to be on here in the 90's to see that thread.

I've been through many dual suspension bikes, some funky, some not, but I still haven't heard a good reason why the funky ones are better that can't also be accomplished with the right shock...other than pedalling efficiency which I acknowledge is a benefit, but personally it's not a concern for me because of the type of riding I do. I've just been on MTBR for a couple years now and I see so much chatter about the latest and greatest design but there seems to be way more hype that fact out there.


----------



## DHidiot (Aug 5, 2004)

Is having better pedaling efficiency not a legitimate reason to develop a multi-link system? After all, it is a MOUNTAIN BIKE where you are the motor and the linkage could be argued to be part of the transmission since it has an effect on upper chainline tension.

Single pivots usually have a controlled leverage ratio through a linkage similar to that of a MX bike, or high end monopivots (Orange/Morewood) have the shock wisely placed to give it a favorable leverage ratio. Having a multi link system does not offer any more possibilities for the leverage ratio than a linkage driven single pivot.

That said I ride a linkage driven single pivot and just rely on a smooth pedal stroke intsead of buying into bandaid fixes for poor basic technique. You don't see motorcycles yanking on the chain intermittently in the middle of their torque curve.


----------



## GnaR9 (Jul 7, 2007)

dandurston said:


> So *if funky VPP or Horst Link designs really provide an honest advantage, other than pedalling efficiency, why don't we see them on MTX bikes*?


Because you don't have to pedal a MTX bike... maybe.... 
And it's not only pedal performance they are trying to improve, it's braking forces on the suspension. 
This is a dumb argument, I like my SP, other like their VPP, FSR, DW, etc... it's a preference on how you'd like your bike to act.


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

But the braking forces also exist in the MTX world yet they don't bother with funky suspension designs. Do they even use floating brakes?


----------



## 006_007 (Jan 12, 2004)

For Sale, 1 Knolly V-tach, Blue, Medium Size. Can negotiate pricing as single pivots are the best and I need to now get one really bad.


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

DHidiot said:


> Is having better pedaling efficiency not a legitimate reason to develop a multi-link system?


Yes pedalling efficiency is a great reason and I'll admit that for many types of bikes (XC, AM, DH) it is reason enough. However, for a bike that is intended for largely pure old fashioned FR or Slopestyle it seems like there should be better justification than pedalling efficiency for the added cost, maintenance and complexity of these designs. Even if pedalling effiency is the only reason, I'm fine with that. I just wish they'd come out and say that instead of tossing out a bunch of other supposed benefits that don't seem to hold any water. For example, I've heard a lot of chat about how great the axle paths are with some of these funky designs. Is this true? If these axle paths (ie. rearward axle paths) are better why aren't they on MTX bikes? I'm not saying it's not true....I'm just wondering why we don't see this on MTX bikes if it's really so great?


----------



## GnaR9 (Jul 7, 2007)

dandurston said:


> But the braking forces also exist in the MTX world yet they don't bother with funky suspension designs. Do they even use floating brakes?


Apparently not, according to a friend, they like squat; which many mtber like as well. I don't mind it. The style of riding it totally different though and shouldn't be compared IMHO, we need traction in corners because we don't have a throttle to power through them like a moto does. So I wouldn't use moto's to help your point. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing that one type of linkage is better than another, that is left up to what the rider prefers. It's a never ending argument.


----------



## DHidiot (Aug 5, 2004)

dandurston said:


> But the braking forces also exist in the MTX world yet they don't bother with funky suspension designs. Do they even use floating brakes?


If the swingarm on your dirt bike is rotating so much that you notice braking input to the suspension or loss of traction, chances are you're going fast enough for the rear brake not to matter or you have bigger problems to worry about. The weight of a dirt bike and the suspension stiffness required also negates a lot of that. You have to remember that a moto is 5-6 times as heavy as a DH bike, and usually weighs more than the rider does.


----------



## GnaR9 (Jul 7, 2007)

dandurston said:


> For example, I've heard a lot of chat about how great the axle paths are with some of these funky designs. Is this true? If these axle paths (ie. rearward axle paths) are better why aren't they on MTX bikes? I'm not saying it's not true....I'm just wondering why we don't see this on MTX bikes if it's really so great?


Rearward axle path isn't the reason behind multi pivot bikes, plenty of single pivots have rearward axle paths. Multi pivots are designed for different reasons. For neutral braking and pedal forces, increased or maintained traction during these forces. Or for a number of other things depending on the purpose or engineer.


----------



## DHidiot (Aug 5, 2004)

dandurston said:


> Yes pedalling efficiency is a great reason and I'll admit that for many types of bikes (XC, AM, DH) it is reason enough. However, for a bike that is intended for largely pure old fashioned FR or Slopestyle it seems like there should be better justification than pedalling efficiency for the added cost, maintenance and complexity of these designs. Even if pedalling effiency is the only reason, I'm fine with that. I just wish they'd come out and say that instead of tossing out a bunch of other supposed benefits that don't seem to hold any water. For example, I've heard a lot of chat about how great the axle paths are with some of these funky designs. Is this true? If these axle paths (ie. rearward axle paths) are better why aren't they on MTX bikes? I'm not saying it's not true....I'm just wondering why we don't see this on MTX bikes if it's really so great?


Most MX bikes (250cc+) do have a significantly rearward axle path, at least in the first half to 2/3 of the travel. Ever sat on one? Better yet sit on one that's undersprung and watch the movement of the footpegs from the rear wheel.

With those designs, the axle path is actually what makes the bike pedal well. In reality, most of them end up centered around more or less the same location as most MX bike pivot points. It's just achieved differently and is tweaked a tiny bit to keep constant upper chainline tension to the rear cogs, though at the cost of being more complex and higher maintenance and blahblahblah.


----------



## rm_racer (Feb 3, 2006)

dandurston said:


> The reason I say this is because when I look at dirt bikes and the motocross world ALL of those bikes are basic single pivot designs. Motocross is a lot like DH/FR in that you've got big jumps, races over knarly terrain etc. The only real fundamental difference is that pedalling isn't a factor. So *if funky VPP or Horst Link designs really provide an honest advantage, other than pedalling efficiency, why don't we see them on MTX bikes*? These racers have way bigger budgets and it's a much larger and more competitive scene, so if there was any advantage to be gained, why aren't they doing it?


here's my view: because in mountain biking, you do have to pedal. and in motocross, you have a foot of suspension so you don't absolutely have to make the best of each mm of travel with wheelpath etc (even though those claims by maestro, vpp, fsr, etc may not live up to the hype). it also does not need the plaform for pedaling, because this would make the suspension much less supple when powering over bumps and stuff. plus, there is really only room for a single pivot type of suspension on a motorcycle.

also, since works bikes have been banned by the AMA in 1985 (i think) in order to level the playing field, you don't see any experimental suspensions, frames, or motors in the U.S. you have to look to the japanese mx series to see works stuff, like Suzuki's EFI. but even there, suspension stays relatively the same.

because the combined weight of a motorcycle and its rider is usually around 350-450 pounds, the shock plays a much much bigger role than the pivot. as far as braking, just like GnaR9 said, squat is good, it lowers the bike and keeps the angles in check as you turn. brake sliding also helps get the back end around quickly, so easy lock-up is good especially for squaring a turn.


----------



## jimage (Dec 22, 2006)

cove peeler............

.......single pivot sweetness


----------



## DHidiot (Aug 5, 2004)

rm_racer said:


> plus, there is really only room for a single pivot type of suspension on a motorcycle.


Good point. Original poster, go design me a multilink dirt bike that still works the same and wont shatter in 2 weeks.


----------



## mrpercussive (Apr 4, 2006)

dandurston said:


> Pedalling isn't a big part of slopestyle...would you say a single pivot is ideal for slopestyle?
> 
> Regarding the Horst link making the suspension more sensitive, bottom out resistant and progressive...can't this all be accomplished on a single pivot with the right shock (ie. Roco TST)?
> 
> As for the MTB suspension being ahead of MTX, I disagree...the generally accepted top dog of the MTB world is the Cane Creek Double Barrell which was designed in collaboration with Ohlins. If you have a look at some of Ohlins MTX shock offerings you'll see features and adjustability we can only dream about in the MTB world.


hi main pivots on a single pivot usually pedal very well cause of the chain growth...


----------



## Huck Banzai (May 8, 2005)

DHidiot said:


> Good point. Original poster, go design me a multilink dirt bike that still works the same and wont shatter in 2 weeks.


Dont tell Mert Lawwill.


----------



## #1ORBUST (Sep 13, 2005)

"Single Pivot DH/FR Bikes Are The BEST!!!"

I've known this for some time now, I've just been waiting for yall to catch on. Come on Yall!!!


----------



## konut (Mar 25, 2006)

if you look at old mtx suspension designs they had linkage activated shocks,the one and only reason mtx are better of with single pivot is weight better shock internals and time,also the mtx frame cradles the swingarm,i,e the swingarm is sandwiched between the frame,similar to the honda g-cross bike,so a lot stiffer.

for me a faux bar or four bar is better,just because it causes less wheel flex.


----------



## tls36 (Dec 10, 2005)

MX suspension is SO far ahead of what we ride with, but I expect the Mtn bike designs to improve steadily. After all, all of our suspension tech is trickle down from MX bikes, think about it?? Good post.


----------



## jonnyp (Sep 1, 2005)

the Rocky Mountain shockwave 9.5 has suspension design as an MX bike. MX bike do have linkages so they are(as DHidiot put it) linkage driven single pivots


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

jonnyp said:


> the Rocky Mountain shockwave 9.5 has suspension design as an MX bike. MX bike do have linkages so they are(as DHidiot put it) linkage driven single pivots


I think you mean *Mountain Cycle* not Rocky Mountain..


----------



## foxracing (Feb 20, 2007)

Weight, Guys, Weight!!!
Everyting's About Weight.


----------



## matt (Feb 2, 2004)

Everyone should buy one of these.... because single pivots are the best. :thumbsup:


----------



## potvinwannab (Jun 23, 2006)

Motor bike vs. Mountain Bike
Apples and oranges when it comes to suspension. Take a freeride/dh bike. Somewhere here it was said that for slopestyle/freeride single pivot would actually work alright. Thats great and all but the people who are manufacturing the bike are building it for fr/dh and it is meant to be pedalled. If you LOVE single pivot enough to buy one just for freeride and slopestyle and then buy a linkage actuated bike for actual pedaling go for it. The point is both systems will do fine when it comes to doing what they are meant to do, its just a linkage system for most people is better. It allows better adjustability, leverage ratios are easier to to adjust, and linkage plates which are usually cnc'd from pure aluminum are much stronger than a hollow swingarm. It is true that with certain shock options you can make your single pivot feel similar in efficiency to multi link system but why go through the trouble just to find out you dont like another factor of the shock. As for the freeride argument, just look at all the major hucking bikes karpiel, demos, banshee scream, bmw racelink-most have damn complex suspension systems and they are among the strongest bikes of all time. Multi link systems are more efficient, stronger (probably applies more at the extreme end of the spectrum), and more versatile. Motocross bikes have engines. They can be made out of 100% pure cast iron plated with lead, if a bigger engine is put into it performance remains the same. There are no stifness issues, probably no brake jack issues since there is enough weight to keep the bike on the ground, and they dont have to be pedalled (keep in mind i have never actually TOUCHED a motorbike)


----------



## wormvine (Oct 27, 2005)

dandurston said:


> But the braking forces also exist in the MTX world yet they don't bother with funky suspension designs. Do they even use floating brakes?


I have read somewhere on the IH boards that Dave Weagle is working with a major MX manufacturer on a DW-link dirt bike! I can't find where I read it though!



> also, since works bikes have been banned by the AMA in 1985 (i think) in order to level the playing field, you don't see any experimental suspensions, frames, or motors in the U.S. you have to look to the japanese mx series to see works stuff, like Suzuki's EFI. but even there, suspension stays relatively the same.


Okay, I have to cry foul on this statement. When were "Works" bikes banned? I bought just about every MX mag out there from 2000-2004 and read every damn article. I used to own a KX250. The whole sport is about works bikes. Works magnesium hubs, titanium bolt kits, titanium axles. Thermal coated pistons, cylinder heads, etc. Custom coated stanchions, tuned works suspension. Have you ever seen Marzocchi's MX forks? SICK. Yamaha even has a works division that you can buy high end parts from but I also read all the time about works parts i couldn't get for my bike!


----------



## Squatch_ (Jun 7, 2006)

potvinwannab said:


> Motor bike vs. Mountain Bike
> (keep in mind i have never actually TOUCHED a motorbike)


I can tell.

As anyone who rides MX will tell you, weight is a big factor. Even though the locomotion is machine-powered, rider input is still a) very important, and b) very tiring. Imagine pumping a 100 lb bike.


----------



## potvinwannab (Jun 23, 2006)

yah but are they lifting the bike when they are racing? (do motorbikes even race in places other than a pump track ) oh man i just realized i am the wrong person to be in this thread:madman:


----------



## jonnyp (Sep 1, 2005)

tacubaya said:


> I think you mean *Mountain Cycle* not Rocky Mountain..


ya that's what I meant


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

potvinwannab said:


> It is true that with certain shock options you can make your single pivot feel similar in efficiency to multi link system but why go through the trouble just to find out you dont like another factor of the shock.


I see it the opposite way....why permanently be stuck with the platform effects of a funky frame when you could buy a plush frame and then turn the platform on and off with a switch on the shock. A single pivot with Propedal or TST can be mega plush when that's turned off or ultra platform when it's cranked up, unlike a VPP bike which always has some platform feel going on so you're compromising a bit of small bump suspension feel always instead of just when you need to. I guess I don't understand why you'd want to be permanently saddled with something when you could have the option of flicking it on and off.

The way I see it...AM, DH, FR and Slopestyle frames should be designed to be as plush and good handling as possible and then if you want it to pedal good also, use a shock with that capability.


----------



## djamgils (Oct 23, 2006)

only problem is that you will be pedalling down a hill when you do DH. So should you turn the pro pedal on and off before and after each rock garden?

I think you are better of with a good fully tunable damper then with a complex linkage. 

Suspension is always about compromises. with a tunable damper you can change the compromise. With a linkage you are stuck with the linkage.


----------



## rep_1969 (Mar 25, 2004)

Sorry. I went from a Super 8 to a M1 and the M1 is 10 times more plush and 10 times faster. Sure, there are proably newer and better "single piviots" out there now than the Super 8 but I'm positive a M3 or M5, or V 10, Stab or any similar DH bikes will destory them as well.


----------



## pedro_sandchez (May 6, 2006)

potvinwannab said:


> yah but are they lifting the bike when they are racing? (do motorbikes even race in places other than a pump track ) oh man i just realized i am the wrong person to be in this thread:madman:


I've raced motocross since I was 7 and recently I've moved on to GNCC racing. Let me tell, a GNCC race is no 'pump track'. three hours weaving through single track narrower than the bars and rock gardens that make you glad you're sporting a foot of perfectly tuned suspension is perhaps the most tiring thing I've ever done.

on to the topic at hand.

I agree with most of what has been said. In essance, MX suspension isn't simply a single pivot since there is typically some form of linkage for the shock. The shock doesnt mount directly to the frame and swing arm, there are usally linkages that connect them. Yes, the swing arm only pivots about a single pivot, so I guess that makes motorcross suspension a 'linked single pivot' in MTB terms. So you should change your claim to say that 'linked single pivots are the BEST!!!' but I think even then your argument wouldn't hold water since the suspension on MTB's functions somewhat differenlty than on MX.
On MTB's you want a nice firm pedal platform so you dont want the rear to move up and down under acceleration, while at the same time absorbing bumps and jumps. MX suspension really only has to do one thing and that is absorb hits and bumps in order to maintain traction and make the ride smoother. 
You also have to take into account that MX shocks are way more advanced that MTB shocks. To have three adjustments with 12 clicks each is common.

If you dont pedal your bike ever and you think MX suspension is exactly what you need, I suggest buying an mx and taking the motor out and coasting down the hill, lets see how that goes

Why waste your time claiming that one suspension design is the 'BEST'? it just seems so pointless. You like single pivots. I like linked single pivots. Others like FSR and VPP. Who cares? riding style is the biggest determination of what suspension is best for you, and trust me, riding style on an MX bike and riding style on a MTB are comletely different.

While we are on the topic, of MX, I would recommend to anyone serious about MTB to spend some time on the seat of an MX bike on some moto trails. I honestly believe that my experience on MX bikes helps to make me a better MTB'r. It seems like the MX guys I've biked with are always less afraid to try crazy **** on their MTB's and are also much more able to control the bike in hairy situations than people who have never ridden an MX bike. I think this probably comes from experience muscling around a bike that is 6 or 7 times heavier than a MTB. If I spend a weekend at a GNCC race and then get on my MTB the following weekend, my full squish 35 lb 6 inch AM bike feels so light and nimble its scary.

peace


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

djamgils said:


> only problem is that you will be pedalling down a hill when you do DH. So should you turn the pro pedal on and off before and after each rock garden?


Well for a DH race you'd probably want it on the whole time but you can get bar mounted TST adjusters right now for Zoke forks and so maybe this isn't far behind for shocks.


djamgils said:


> Suspension is always about compromises. with a tunable damper you can change the compromise. With a linkage you are stuck with the linkage.


Well said...this is exactly how I feel too which is why I don't want to buy a complex frame for pedalling efficiency reasons. If someone can make a good argument that VPP or DW Link or whatever frame has other advantages seperate to pedalling efficiency like wheelpath or something then I'm all ears but right now all I'm seeing is people spending an extra $1000 for a funky frame when they could have accomplished the same thing with a $300 shock and also had the option to turn it off when you wanna do some leisurely DH riding and just let it all hang out.


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

Just to clarify and respond to a few comments....I'm not trying to convince everyone that single pivots are the best (contrary to the thread title which I choose to grab attention) but rather I'm looking for some good arguments to convince me that the opposite is true. I don't buy the pedalling efficiency argument because I'd rather do it with a shock damper than a linkage and I think for a lot of applications (Slopestyle, DJ'ing, Freeride, casual DH riding) it's neccesity is overrated anyways.

Can anyone toss out a good argument why multi-pivot designs are better than single pivots, other than pedalling efficiency? I believe Canfield was making some claims about their great rearward wheelpath. Is this true? Are there other benefits?


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

you guys all sound like a bunch of old yentas....


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

dandurston said:


> Can anyone toss out a good argument why multi-pivot designs are better than single pivots, other than pedalling efficiency? I believe Canfield was making some claims about their great rearward wheelpath. Is this true? Are there other benefits?


A multilink suspension makes fewer compromises than a single pivot.

This is beating a dead horse, so I don't feel like explaining... its all out there for you to find.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

dandurston said:


> Well said...this is exactly how I feel too which is why I don't want to buy a complex frame for pedalling efficiency reasons. If someone can make a good argument that VPP or DW Link or whatever frame has other advantages seperate to pedalling efficiency like wheelpath or something then I'm all ears but right now all I'm seeing is people spending an extra $1000 for a funky frame when they could have accomplished the same thing with a $300 shock and also had the option to turn it off when you wanna do some leisurely DH riding and just let it all hang out.


A single pivot with a platform doesn't equal a VPP/DW/Maestro without a platform.

Yes there are many other real advantages, do a search.


----------



## Huck Banzai (May 8, 2005)

I love all the 'band-aid' etc comments..

My product is propa, yours is a band aid.

My band-aids work great.


----------



## Djponee (Dec 20, 2006)

I love single pivot bikes, cheap and still perform. My friend has a maestro link bike and mine pedals better than his and i have more travel


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

Steve71 said:


> A single pivot with a platform doesn't equal a VPP/DW/Maestro without a platform.


Is that what their ads told you? Have you tried some of the latest versions of Propedal or TST? I realize a lot of those funky frames pedal great but so does any single pivot with a Roco TST on the climbing setting or a DHX with the Propedal cranked up.


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

dlb post


----------



## dusthuffer (Nov 30, 2006)

dandurston said:


> But the braking forces also exist in the MTX world yet they don't bother with funky suspension designs. Do they even use floating brakes?


um ... they don't brake dude. ever. ok, maybe just before a berm, briefly.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

dandurston said:


> Is that what their ads told you? Have you tried some of the latest versions of Propedal or TST? I realize a lot of those funky frames pedal great but so does any single pivot with a Roco TST on the climbing setting. In the saddle I can't discern any bob with mine.


Platform is just a another way of saying stiction. Any platform degrades the shocks small bump performance. I have a Propedal shock on my Reign and I hate the ride when the platform is turned on.

How many well regarded forks have a platform? 

Nothing wrong with a single pivot, especially for DH (i.e no climbing), but to say that the "funky" linkages are just a waste of $$ and the same thing can be achieved with a platform shock is simple incorrect.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

dandurston said:


> I did and all I can find is hype.


Well go ride one and decide for yourself.


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

davec113 said:


> This is beating a dead horse, so I don't feel like explaining... its all out there for you to find.





Steve71 said:


> Yes there are many other real advantages, do a search.


I did and all I can find is hype....there's no real explanations or facts behind the generic claims that Brand X's new design is the greatest ever. It's like the superiority of these designs is a given and we're all just supposed to accept it without question. This is forum intended for discussing DH & FR topics yet it seems like asking for frame design explanations to support the hype is this taboo thing. Everyone assumes this has been settled long ago and says to do a search but there aren't any threads where people pull out cold hard facts. They all go like this:

*Original Poster:*
Yay! I just got teh new overpriced frame from company X with the XXX Dino Slayer suspension design! It's the greatest thing ever! Teh frame Roxors my sox!

*Respondant One:*
Yeah it's the greatest thing ever! Did you notice how pretty it looks!!!! I went for a 5 min test ride in the parking lot and it's definately the sickest big huck bike around. You could just tell the new design is so [insert generic accolades here]!

*Respondant Two:*
Yeah it truely is the best Freeride frame ever...I went for a long XC ride on mine and I was able to keep up with my buddies Santa Cruz Superlight easily!

*Original Poster Reply:*
Wow that's amazing! Keeping up with a Superlight!!! This truly is the most knarcore freeride bike. I can't wait to stand around the chairlift at Whistler and let everyone see it!

Reading about VPP, DW Link etc reminds me of beer commericals where every brand is the most 'smooth, crisp, refreshing' thing ever.


----------



## sittingduck (Apr 26, 2005)

I like the simplicity of the single pivot. More pivots, links, bearings, etc. just means more to worry about, IMO. I don't mind admitting that I have no use or desire for whatever advantages the other designs offer, but that some people will, and do. How much benefit they really offer most people is what I wonder about. I'm guessing 90% of the people riding these bikes get no real benefit, and are just buying the marketing hype.


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

rep_1969 said:


> I went from a Super 8 to a M1...the M1 is 10 times more plush and 10 times faster.


Wow you measured that? Finally some scientific results 

You're giving the M1 a lot of credit, while not mentioning the decade of shock refinement that also exists between these two frames.


----------



## konut (Mar 25, 2006)

multi pivots,i would say would make a stiffer rear end.

watch any decent downhill video,super 8 for instance,and you can see the difference between a iron horse rear wheel and a orange rear wheel,the amount of flex the rear wheel is going through is scary, on the orange downhill bike and look at how much less flex the wheel is going through on the iron horse.

it makes perfect sense that the more you have of something the stiffer it will be.


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

Steve71 said:


> Well go ride one and decide for yourself.


I have....at first I was blown away because these frames are clearly way ahead of 90's single pivot frames in terms of pedalling efficiency but then I spent some time on a 6" single pivot bike with a Fox Float RP3 and was just as blown away by how well that pedalled. Have you ridden a single pivot with a good shock lately?


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

konut said:


> watch any decent downhill video...you can see the difference ...the amount of flex the rear wheel is going through is scary on the orange downhill bike and look at how much less flex the wheel is going through on the iron horse.
> 
> it makes perfect sense that the more you have of something the stiffer it will be.


You're suggesting that I evaluate frames by watching MTB videos of them 

I think most people would agree that that single pivots are generally stiffer than multipivots because each pivot and linkage is a potential area for slop/flex. Obviously there are sloppy single pivot bikes and super tight multipivot ones but if the sole purpose of a frame design was to minimize rear end flex, I think you'd see all single pivot frames (or hardtails). Perhaps you're thinking of single bar, single pivot designs like old RM7's that had a lot of slop.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

dandurston said:


> I have....at first I was blown away because these frames are clearly way ahead of 90's single pivot frames in terms of pedalling efficiency but then I spent some time on a 6" single pivot bike with a Fox Float RP3 and was just as blown away by how well that pedalled. Have you ridden a single pivot with a good shock lately?


Then were's the beef? Do we agree that a platform compromises suspension performance?

I agree with you that Single pivot's can suspend well, or pedal well. *BUT* not at the same time with the same shock setting. I'm sure that's a non issue for a lot of people/trail situations

However a DW/VPP/Maestro bike will pedal well and suspend well at the same time without adjusting your shock.

Single pivots tend to be lighter, which might be more important to you. There isn't a suspension design that is superior in every way. Pick and choose what works for you.


----------



## mrpercussive (Apr 4, 2006)

dandurston said:


> You're suggesting that I evaluate frames by watching MTB videos of them
> 
> I think most people would agree that that single pivots are generally stiffer than multipivots because each pivot and linkage is a potential area for slop/flex. Obviously there are sloppy single pivot bikes and super tight multipivot ones but if the sole purpose of a frame design was to minimize rear end flex, I think you'd see all single pivot frames (or hardtails). Perhaps you're thinking of single bar, single pivot designs like old RM7's that had a lot of slop.


Nope... multi pivots are stiffer laterally... unless of course bushings are worn on the multi pivots...


----------



## rep_1969 (Mar 25, 2004)

dandurston said:


> Wow you measured that? Finally some scientific results
> 
> You're giving the M1 a lot of credit, while not mentioning the decade of shock refinement that also exists between these two frames.


Damn it Jim, I'm a graphic designer, not an engineer!! 

Super 8 was a 99 with a Fox RC, M1 is a 2003 with a 5th Element.


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

n/m


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

Steve71 said:


> Platform is just a another way of saying stiction.


Not at all! The engineers at Fox and Marzocchi would be pulling out their hair if they read this. Stiction refers to how much force is required before the suspension starts moving. It's basically how much of a jar does it take to overcome the friction in the shock. Platform shocks are not like this because it's not like platform shocks are perfectly still when you are pedalling along and only work by requiring a large force before they jar loose and then they'll like any other shock. A good platform shock should not have more stiction that non-platform shocks. Stiction is what you see with a Wal-Mart bike where you practically have to jump up and down on the bike before the shock moves.

Platform shocks work by having stiffer low speed compression so forces that act slowly on the shock, like pedalling forces or maybe rolling over a log at low speeds, don't compress the shock as much as they normally would.



Steve71 said:


> Any platform degrades the shocks small bump performance.


So do suspension designs aimed at improving pedalling efficiency


Steve71 said:


> How many well regarded forks have a platform?


Platform is less important up front but you do still see it in Marzocchi's All Mountain Line.


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

Steve71 said:


> Then were's the beef? Do we agree that a platform compromises suspension performance?


Yes we agree that platform shocks are a compromise for some aspects of suspension performance like small bumb sensitive. However, I feel that these fancy frames also are compromises in the same areas so you're not really getting ahead with either except atleast the shock you can turn on and off.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

dandurston said:


> However, I feel that these fancy frames also are compromises in the same areas so you're not really getting ahead with either except atleast the shock you can turn on and off.


So you're saying that you think a DW link/Maestro/Vpp bike with an non-platform shock, has the same small bump compliance as a single pivot running a platform shock (with some platform turned on)? :shocked:


----------



## Huck Banzai (May 8, 2005)

dandurston said:


> Platform is less important up front but you do still see it in Marzocchi's All Mountain Line.


And what about Terralogic forks? and what about Floodgate? These arent platforms?

(I am agreeing with you, just trhrowing some more into the mix)


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

Yes, I would say it's similar although the severity of the compromise obviously depends on the frame. I would say a VP-Free has similar small bumb sensitivity characteristics as a Kona Stinky with a Roco TST for example. I believe if you asked suspension/frame experts they would agree that these frames compromise in this area for the greater good of pedalling efficiency.

If you think about it, eliminating pedalling bob is really just eliminating low speed forces from affecting the suspension. Rolling over a small bump and a pedal stroke are similar types of forces so you can't really eliminate one without eliminating the other. They're both low speed, small impact forces. Platform shocks and these frames both accomplish this and thus have the same bottom line compromise, even though they accomplish it different ways. These aforementioned frames use a wheelpath that's not condusive to small bumps, whereas platform shocks offer more initial stiffness (aka compression) to tone down the effects of the small bumps. The means is different, but the result is the same, a bike that pedals well because it doesn't let small impacts have a large effect on the suspension.


----------



## Huck Banzai (May 8, 2005)

an itially rearward axlepath similar to the start of a SP's stroke is somehow going to resist movement more? No.

IF you are pedaling, you activate the suspensions 'platform' otherwise it is free to move without any interaction and the remaining issue is axle path. Not pedaling on my SP allows the suspension to compress without issue, but will kick the pedals/chain forward on rebound (especially in consideration of current gear - if I am in a big copg in back ,there will be significantly more kick.)

While I certainly recognize that nothing suspends better than an SP, there are other interactions on a bicycle and considerations that are present that are not on an MX. To continue to deride accomodations as band-aids is at best anti-marketing hype, and at worst ignorant.


Ultimately I agree that the superiority of the design goes hand in hand with riding style, setup and preference. With regards to pedaling through the rough, you would need a jackshaft to pedal through things on an SP that can be mashed through on a VP. I have VPP, SP and HT and they all do the job.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

dandurston said:


> Yes, I would say it's similar...obviously the level of small bump compromise for those DW/Maestro/VPP frames differs for each design, but you're compromising in the same areas as a platform type shock.


Only if you're pedaling. And not even then really. For example climbing on my Reign is super plush with the platform turned off. Turn in on and is not as sensitive. The Reign still bobs a bit out of the saddle (depending on the chain ring), so that tells you that it's only using a little bit of chain torque.



dandurston said:


> If you think about it, eliminating pedalling bob is really just eliminating low speed forces from affecting the suspension. Rolling over a small bump is the same type of force as pedalling so you can't really eliminate one without eliminating the other. Platform shocks and these frames both accomplish this and thus have the same bottom line compromise, even though they accomplish it different ways.


Once again, only if you're pedaling. The torque used to counter pedal bob only effects the suspension when your pedaling.

With a platform shock you have to choose small bump sensitively or pedaling efficiency. The platform doesn't turn off when you stop pedaling.



dandurston said:


> These frames use a wheelpath that's not condusive to small bumps whereas platform shocks offer more stiffness initially to tone down the effects of the small hits. The means is different but the result is the same, a bike that pedals well because it doesn't let small bumps have a large effect on the suspension.


:nono: DW/VPP/Maestro all have reward axle paths (as does a high foward single pivot) which responds beautifully to small bumps and square edge hits.

FSR & low single pivots (link actuated or otherwise) have a more vertical/forward axle path which is a compromise on square edge hits. But they have less chain growth so less pedal feedback.


----------



## djamgils (Oct 23, 2006)

is a transition gran mal a single pivot bike? I would say yes. 

but anyway, open the gran mal and a iron horse sunday in linkage and show both their curves in the same graph. Am I wrong or are they pretty much the same?


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

Steve71 said:


> Only if you're pedaling...The torque used to counter pedal bob only effects the suspension when your pedaling. With a platform shock you have to choose small bump sensitively or pedaling efficiency. The platform doesn't turn off when you stop pedaling.





Huck Banzai said:


> IF you are pedaling, you activate the suspensions 'platform' otherwise it is free to move without any interaction and the remaining issue is axle path.


Okay maybe I'm wrong here and might have to retract this later, but for now, I gotta call the hype police on this one...the idea that the pedalling efficiency on these VPP et al frames is 'activated' or 'turned on' when you pedal sounds like marketing hype to me. The linkages are fixed...nothing moves, lights up or flicks on when you spin the cranks. The idea that the torque of your pedal stroke somehow stiffens up the travel seems pretty far out there. Pedalling bob occurs because you natural bounce your body up and down while you pedal. If we all pedalled like perfect 'spinners' and not 'mashers' then there would be no pedal bob. *How does applying torque at the same time stiffen up the suspension*?

Even if this is true...then the bottom line is that these frames offer the small bump compromise when you're pedalling, whereas the platform shock equipped frames offer this compromise when you turn it on. While it might sound ideal to have it 'activated' when you pedal...if I'm doing a leisurely DH run and I just want to bomb the hill while casually pedalling a bit, I'd rather be able to turn off the platform for the entire run and enjoy the entire run in the uncontaminated silky goodness rather than have my suspension stiffen up every time I think about spinning the pedals. There are many situations (ie. most non-race situations) where because able to flick the pedalling efficiency on or off yourself is perferential to having it turn on whenever you pedal.


----------



## Danke (Sep 19, 2005)

dandurston said:


> Ireminds me of beer commericals where every brand is the most 'smooth, crisp, refreshing' thing ever.


Wait, wait, wait, do you mean I've been wasting my life in the search for the maltiest beer?

Moto-X bikes dont' have floating rear brakes because it's not that big a deal. I know several times a year the entire staff of all Hi-Torque publications is sent to "Brake Jack Camp" but so far the only people the programing has worked on has been the MBA crew.

Most motorcycles now use a rocker and link system that traces back to the 70's and is termed a 4-bar linkage when applied to a mountain bike. The motorcycle guys do not stay up at night obsessing over where the pivots are and if it can be truely called a 4 bar if it doesn't come from Specialized. There may be a few bikes out there still using a simple cantilever suspension but I can't bring one that's in common use to the top of my memory right now.


----------



## mrpercussive (Apr 4, 2006)

this thread is getting really ridiculous... like preaching to a wall... there are a lot of reasons why bikes are designed the way they are... pedal feedback, pedalling effieciency, leverage ratio, leverage rate, i think dandurston has already made up his mind on what he wants to believe and is trying to make us see it his way... not going to happen when we have clearer vision... XD


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

dandurston said:


> The idea that the torque of your pedal stroke somehow stiffens up the travel seems pretty far out there.


It's a pretty basic mechanical principle. Not to be rude, but a lot of what you're arguing just doesn't add up or make any sense.


----------



## konut (Mar 25, 2006)

i would like to know what you base your information on,and how you can say a hardtail is sloppy is just ridiculous.

also if you look at the vast majority of manufacturers,all have multi pivot bikes,and single pivot bikes its only the lower end of the spectrum that you see single pivot,i,e iron horse.

to sum it all up i have to agree with mrpercussive,you have made your mind up on what works and what dosnt,just on the basis of mx.

my theory is and its mine is that single pivots are for cheap @ss bicycle manufacturers,who cant be bothered to make anything decent,and come up with there own solution,to this ever boring topic of,single pivot vs linkage.


----------



## mrpercussive (Apr 4, 2006)

konut said:


> also if you look at the vast majority of manufacturers,all have multi pivot bikes,and single pivot bikes its only the lower end of the spectrum that you see single pivot,i,e iron horse.
> 
> my theory is and its mine is that single pivots are for cheap @ss bicycle manufacturers,who cant be bothered to make anything decent,and come up with there own solution,to this ever boring topic of,single pivot vs linkage.


not nescesarily... they all have pros and cons... high end single pivots would be swd, izumu, patriots, bullit, kumicho etc...


----------



## GnaR9 (Jul 7, 2007)

konut said:


> my theory is and its mine is that single pivots are for cheap @ss bicycle manufacturers,who cant be bothered to make anything decent,and come up with there own solution,to this ever boring topic of,single pivot vs linkage.


Well you're theory is just wrong. I can think of plenty of SP frames from manufactures that are just as much if not more than some of the offerings from "vast majority." Decent? Give me a break, ride some of these offerings before knocking them. I've gone from the once "holy grail" of multi pivot bikes to a SP and couldn't be happier w/ my choice. Like I said earlier in this thread, it's all personal preference. 
I personally don't care if a bike is multi pivot or single pivot, as long as it has a nice ride and does what it's supposed to. Knocking SP's in general is covering a field that includes some of the best DH/FR rigs ever made.
Edit - A quote from the great WCH regarding single pivot vs. multi pivot;


.WestCoastHucker. said:


> bottom line. some riders need excuses, some don't.....


----------



## dervishboy05 (Jun 28, 2007)

stronger yes better.... idk?


----------



## matt (Feb 2, 2004)

rep_1969 said:


> Sorry. I went from a Super 8 to a M1 and the M1 is 10 times more plush and 10 times faster. Sure, there are proably newer and better "single piviots" out there now than the Super 8 but I'm positive a M3 or M5, or V 10, Stab or any similar DH bikes will destory them as well.


Yeah the Stab is awesome since it has that totally sweet DW Link suspension...

You're wrong if you think an M3, M5 or V10 will destroy any new single pivots. Just go ride some properly setup for you and decide which you like more rather than basing your decisions off of a 1999 Super 8 and a 2003 M1. (BTW the M1 is awesome. I've always wanted to ride a tin can down the hill. )

Personally, I think any DH bike setup properly for you does fine. I feel just as good if not better on my SWD (single pivot) than I did on my Demo or my DHR. Just take the time to dial in whichever bike you ride, and be honest with yourself about ride quality. I used to buy into all the hype about DW Link/FSR/insert latest design here, but then I actually thought about it and quit imagining things that weren't there... and honestly my super simple SWD rides as well for me as any other DH bike I've slid around on.

It also doesn't flex. Contrary to poopular belief.

Just ride whatever you want and don't buy into all the hype on why _____ eliminates all negative characteristics and makes the trail into a paved bikepath with magical gnomes guarding you the whole way down and making you 72% faster.


----------



## Huck Banzai (May 8, 2005)

konut said:


> i would like to know what you base your information on,and how you can say a hardtail is sloppy is just ridiculous.
> 
> also if you look at the vast majority of manufacturers,all have multi pivot bikes,and single pivot bikes its only the lower end of the spectrum that you see single pivot,i,e iron horse.
> 
> ...


Yeah, cheap ass Honda RN01, Orange 224, Turner DHR, BMW Race Link....


----------



## wormvine (Oct 27, 2005)

dandurston said:


> Yes, I would say it's similar although the severity of the compromise obviously depends on the frame. I would say a VP-Free has similar small bumb sensitivity characteristics as a Kona Stinky with a Roco TST for example. I believe if you asked suspension/frame experts they would agree that these frames compromise in this area for the greater good of pedalling efficiency.
> 
> If you think about it, eliminating pedalling bob is really just eliminating low speed forces from affecting the suspension. Rolling over a small bump and a pedal stroke are similar types of forces so you can't really eliminate one without eliminating the other. They're both low speed, small impact forces. Platform shocks and these frames both accomplish this and thus have the same bottom line compromise, even though they accomplish it different ways. These aforementioned frames use a wheelpath that's not condusive to small bumps, whereas platform shocks offer more initial stiffness (aka compression) to tone down the effects of the small bumps. The means is different, but the result is the same, a bike that pedals well because it doesn't let small impacts have a large effect on the suspension.


the ROCO TST is not a platform shock. The tst function is just a rapid way to increase compression damping. With it set to CL the shock is very dead and small bump compliance is nill and it never opens up when it hits larger bums. I know cause I have one.
The Kona with the TST set to CL would not have the same small bump compliance as a vpp bike with no platform. The reason I have the Roco tst is because when I set it to DS it has no platform.
Fox shocks always have some bit of platform on, even when turned off. PUSH can get rid of it.

And why do you keep saying these multi link bikes are so complicated and expensive. I see no relative price difference between high end SP bikes and high end VPP bikes. 
I own 2 dw-link bikes and 1 SP bike. It's no more complicated to work on any bike I own.
Some linkage assisted single pivots are just as complicated mechanically!


----------



## rm_racer (Feb 3, 2006)

wormvine said:


> Okay, I have to cry foul on this statement. When were "Works" bikes banned? I bought just about every MX mag out there from 2000-2004 and read every damn article. I used to own a KX250. The whole sport is about works bikes. Works magnesium hubs, titanium bolt kits, titanium axles. Thermal coated pistons, cylinder heads, etc. Custom coated stanchions, tuned works suspension. Have you ever seen Marzocchi's MX forks? SICK. Yamaha even has a works division that you can buy high end parts from but I also read all the time about works parts i couldn't get for my bike!


"works" meaning non-production motorcycles. that means experimental engines, hand-made or prototype frames. now they have to be based off of a production bike. stock frame and motor. they can modify it, but it has to be a production product that they modify. today a company can get a one-year "works exemption" if they are coming out with a brand-new motorcycle (say Honda's CRF 450 in 2003) where they can do prototype development testing while racing the bike in the AMA circuit for one year. to see REAL works motorcycle you have to travel to Japan to see them. anyone can make a works bike by today's AMA standards.


----------



## djamgils (Oct 23, 2006)

I think the best bike should have a almost lineair leverage rate. with maybe a bit lower in the end stroke for bottoming resistance. With the lineair rate you can really use the shock to determine the way it rides. And not be dependand on the linkage. 

I would also like to see a adjustable floating brake(dont know if it is possible) I think that could be done easily by making the front mounting point adjustable. In that way you can determine wich amount of brake jack/dive/squat or whatever you like. 

As for pedalling you want a semi lockout like the RS floodgate. Something you can really turn on and of.


----------



## rm_racer (Feb 3, 2006)

djamgils said:


> I think the best bike should have a almost lineair leverage rate. with maybe a bit lower in the end stroke for bottoming resistance. With the lineair rate you can really use the shock to determine the way it rides. And not be dependand on the linkage.
> 
> I would also like to see a adjustable floating brake(dont know if it is possible) I think that could be done easily by making the front mounting point adjustable. In that way you can determine wich amount of brake jack/dive/squat or whatever you like.


i sort of agree, but i would rather have a continually rising rate suspension. you can have it really supple off the bottom then it gradually ramps up for medium, large, and bottoming hits.

as for the brake thing, with the Brake therapy floating brakes you can adjust the front pivot up and down (except with Kona's d.o.p.e.) and change the length of the "torque strut" or whatever you want to call it.


----------



## djamgils (Oct 23, 2006)

If you have a rising rate. And you go to a track like willingen. I dont think that bottom out resistance is of any importance there because it is a flowing track. So if you would have a damper with adjustable progressiveniss you could tune it to the track conditions. 

I have a trek session with the brake therapy floating brake and I still aint sure about the effect it had on handling. so thats why I would like to have a adjustable floater.


----------



## rm_racer (Feb 3, 2006)

ok, that makes sense. i just was thinking that it may not be ideal to put even more dependence on the shock. but doesn't an adjustable piggyback volume only control the ending stroke?


----------



## konut (Mar 25, 2006)

Huck Banzai said:


> Yeah, cheap ass Honda RN01, Orange 224, Turner DHR, BMW Race Link....


sorry im not a hater of the single pivot,and most of my observations,are based on the orange 224,if designed properly a single pivot could be just as good i,e honda rno1,turner dhr,foes.

the problem with the orange is the length of the swingarm,compared to dhr and rno1.

is it not also common knowledge that cannondale had over flexy rears resulting in worn shock shafts,resulting in there linkage to stiffen things up it was featured in mbuk.

and im sorry if people disagree,with the orange 224 statement,but like i said its easy to see in any video the amount of rear wheel induced flex,now with the advent of gearbox bikes on the horizon a 20mm axle rear single pivot bike is not out of the question.


----------



## Quarashi (Aug 23, 2006)

Can MTX gearboxes handle inconsistent axle paths like the VPP "S"-like axle path? I always thought that moto's had Single Pivots because they had to turn around the gearbox so that the chainstay length would not grow or shorten. This would allow them to live without the horrors that we call dérailleurs.

I'm no expert on gearboxes, I just notice that every MTB with a gearbox uses a moto-like suspension design in which the pivot is in the centered around the chain-gearbox interface.


----------



## djamgils (Oct 23, 2006)

motorcycles have a very loose chain to make up for the chain extension. motocross even uses chainguides. so I guess that isn't the reason for single pivots. 

motocross bumps are different to DH bumps. DH is slower, Dh has more roots, rocks. MX has relatively smooth dirt tracks. MX has a more equal torque output because of the high revs. Bikes are around 80/min. MX has heavier bikes. 
Seems like a lot of differences, why compare?

Also read somewhere that bike shock are more difficult to valve because of the lower weight. One more or less shim makes more difference on a bike then on a motorcycle.


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

Steve71 said:


> It's a pretty basic mechanical principle. Not to be rude, but a lot of what you're arguing just doesn't add up or make any sense.


Point taken...I still don't understand how this works and it does seem out there but there are quite a few people echoing this so I imagine there must be some weight to it.


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

wormvine said:


> the ROCO TST is not a platform shock. ...The reason I have the Roco tst is because when I set it to DS it has no platform.


If the Roco TST is not a platform shock, why do you have to turn it to 'Descend' to get no platform? I have a Roco TST as well and it most certainly is a platform shock. I've done quite a few rides the middle and even climbing settings and it stiffens up the initial travel but still retains the big hit capabilities. It's great for XC or AM rides with a few stunts along the way.


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

konut said:


> i would like to know what you base your information on...how you can say a hardtail is sloppy is just ridiculous


I said that?


----------



## tls36 (Dec 10, 2005)

So, for freeride, such as bikes like the Yeti AS-X, how does the single pivot work for big hits? The rear suspension on the AS-X has beeen described by many as bottom less. As for MX vs Mtn bike suspension, I agree with pedro as I raced Hare Scrambles back East for years and he is right on the money as to the differences. My .02


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

Just to remind everyone, the original question was comparing the FR/DH world of mtn bikes to *dirtbikes* and the motocross...not just MTX. A few people have been pretty fixated on the MTX aspect of dirt bikes but keep in mind that dirt bikes are designed for more than just MTX races...a lot of riders use them for blasting around on knarly, rock and root strewen trails which is a lot closer to FR and DH riding that MTX because you've got similar speeds and similar trail conditions. Both dirtbikes (and mountain bikes) are designed to work in a variety of conditions.


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

tls36 said:


> So, for freeride, such as bikes like the Yeti AS-X, how does the single pivot work for big hits? The rear suspension on the AS-X has beeen described by many as bottom less.


I'm not familar with the AS-X but generally when bikes are described as being bottomless they have a rising rate suspension so the first few inches are soft and then it gets stiffer and stiffer as the suspension compresses so it's very hard to bottom it out (if you set it up correctly). Rising rate designs can be either single pivot or multi-pivot. I believe it's just a matter of how you set up the linkages.

Alternatively, some bikes have a linear rate and then you can use the shock to accomplish the same thing. Instead of the actual leverage ratio changing like the Yeti probably has, the shock itself just gets stiffer and stiffer as it compresses. I believe on Fox's DHX series they call this the bottom out adjustment and it really just affects how much stiffer the shock gets as it compresses.


----------



## wormvine (Oct 27, 2005)

dandurston said:


> If the Roco TST is not a platform shock, why do you have to turn it to 'Descend' to get no platform? I have a Roco TST as well and it most certainly is a platform shock. I've done quite a few rides the middle and even climbing settings and it stiffens up the initial travel but still retains the big hit capabilities. It's great for XC or AM rides with a few stunts along the way.


Sorry Dan and no offense but you are confusing what a platform shock is and does. A platform shock has an initial resistance to suspension movement. Once this threshold is breached by larger impacts the shock's platform should open up and the shock will have plusher movement. The Roco TST's dial is just a rapid compression damping adjustment. When it is set to CL, it is just a stiff setting. It will always be stiff no matter how hard of a bump you hit.

Lets use this analogy. Think of a kitchen cabinet door. It should open fairly easy. Lets put a magnetic catch on it. So to open the door you have to pull hard enough to break free of the magnet. Once you break free of the magnet, the door will swing freely. If you add a stronger magnet, It will be harder to break the door free but once you do the door will still swing freely. That is the platform effect. Once the platform is breached, the shock should move feely so to speak.

The TST is different. There is no magnetic catch on our door. It opens freely every time. But now lets add resistance to the hinges so it's harder to open the door. This resistance to the door opening is the same throughout its movement. Tighten the hinges more and now it's even harder to swing the door. It never gets easier through it range of motion. That's what TST does. It is not a platform. It's just a fast way to stiffen or loosen compression damping through the whole stroke of the shock. 
Using the CL setting will make a FS bike perform more like a hardtail and should only be used for climbing. Use of the CL setting for DH is strictly recommended against in the ROCO user manual.

So by putting the TST to CL, you in effect make the rear end very stiff. This of course limits pedal bob. But at the expense of small bump compliance. Since my DW-link bike bobs very little with the shock set to DS (plush-minimal damping), The rear end is free to move slowly and track over trail obstacles. This translates to better traction and less back pain, IMO. 
The newest best platform shocks are getting better at determining whether it is experiencing pedal bob forces or trail obstacle forces. These advances have minimized the negative characterisics of SP designs. Look at the Yeti 575. SP design, advanced platform shock, awesome bike. 
So I ride my dw-link bike cause I have studied its mechanics, read about its pros/cons and also read many reviews and like what this design has to offer. But my buddies Foes inferno pedals awesome. I have watched it perform and it climbs well with minimal bob and looks plush on the DH.


----------



## cbrbighit (Nov 18, 2005)

dandurston said:


> I'm no engineer but it seems to me that all the funky suspension designs coming out these days are really only great for pedalling efficiency and marketing hype...not for actual DH/FR performance.
> 
> The reason I say this is because when I look at dirt bikes and the motocross world ALL of those bikes are basic single pivot designs. Motocross is a lot like DH/FR in that you've got big jumps, races over knarly terrain etc. The only real fundamental difference is that pedalling isn't a factor. So *if funky VPP or Horst Link designs really provide an honest advantage, other than pedalling efficiency, why don't we see them on MTX bikes*? These racers have way bigger budgets and it's a much larger and more competitive scene, so if there was any advantage to be gained, why aren't they doing it?


i was thinking of the same thing just never posted it.


----------



## wormvine (Oct 27, 2005)

cbrbighit said:


> i was thinking of the same thing just never posted it.





> Originally Posted by dandurston
> I'm no engineer but it seems to me that all the funky suspension designs coming out these days are really only great for pedalling efficiency and marketing hype...not for actual DH/FR performance


If that was the absolute truth, then why has Sam Hill and Sabrina Jonnier won so many races on their IH dw-link bikes. Something must be working well for them. And yeah they would probably do well on SP designs as well cause I know it's way more about the rider than the bike. All specs being equal that is! 
So these racers are doing real well on these "funky suspension designs". And if they add better pedal characteristics for us recreational riders, well that's a big bonus IMO.


----------



## rm_racer (Feb 3, 2006)

dandurston said:


> Just to remind everyone, the original question was comparing the FR/DH world of mtn bikes to *dirtbikes* and the motocross...not just MTX. A few people have been pretty fixated on the MTX aspect of dirt bikes but keep in mind that dirt bikes are designed for more than just MTX races...a lot of riders use them for blasting around on knarly, rock and root strewen trails which is a lot closer to FR and DH riding that MTX because you've got similar speeds and similar trail conditions. Both dirtbikes (and mountain bikes) are designed to work in a variety of conditions.


my background is desert racing. for the most part, it's wide open 5th pinned type stuff. but there's also hill climbs/descents, really gnarly rocks, and chopped-up sandwashes.

but let me lay the groundwork here: there are really two distinct markets for dirt motorcycles. motocross and off-road. the majority of bikes out there are motocross bikes (honda CR, CRF-R, yamaha YZ, YZ-F, suzuki RM, RMZ, kawasaki KX, KX-F, and ktm and SX). that's the mass market. then there are the off-road bikes (honda CRF-X, XR, yamaha WR, kawasaki KLX, and ktm EXC, XC, XC-W). those off-road bikes have softer suspension than the MX bikes. they are designed for tight woods and trail riding where softer suspension is needed. they perform at speeds closer to MTB speeds. also, they are mostly just adapted MX bikes. mellowed engines, larger gas tanks, headlight, and soft suspension are the major changes. the motorcycle's rear suspension is mainly designed for MX applications where you have high-speed bumps and i don't think axle path would really matter there. plus, the swingarm is longer on a motorcycle so the axle path will be a little straighter anyways.

my viewpoint: the vast majority of motorcycles do not spend most of their time going down hill, where brake jack is an issue. they don't race downhill. they also don't try to get power to the ground as efficiently as possible through vertical pedal strokes. they don't need any bob-reducing s-curve axle paths. the vast majority motorcycles spend most of their time going fast over mostly level terrain with large bumps in the way with jumps thrown in. they need suspension that will react to these bumps. this duty falls on the shock. all the wheel needs to do is move up and out of the way so the motorcycle can continue on. that is the main duty of motorcycle suspension. same thing with a car. it just needs to react to bumps in the road.
mountain bike riders/designers want to get the small amount of power that we produce down to the ground as efficiently as possible. this means reducing power-sucking pedal bob through elaborate suspension designs or through shocks. to keep supple suspension, the elaborate suspension designs are more desirable than a platform shock. then, they want to cancel out braking forces to keep it really supple on the descents. elaborate suspension goes to work again. so, the purposes and needs of mountain biking suspension and motorcycle suspension are different.


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

Hmm....your analogy was well written and easy to understand. I did some more research and it seems you are right about the Roco TST. Thanks for the lesson.


----------



## GnaR9 (Jul 7, 2007)

wormvine said:


> If that was the absolute truth, then why has Sam Hill and Sabrina Jonnier won so many races on their IH dw-link bikes. Something must be working well for them.


Great argument.......


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

As sort of a conclusion to this thread....it seems like some good arguments have been made as to why these funky designs are better at pedalling than a single pivot, although I did conceed that in my initial post ("the funky suspension designs coming out these days are ...great for pedalling efficiency"). It seems there aren't any other fundamental advantages to these frames although many have pointed out the incredible importance of this pedalling advantage. The intent of my question relating to dirtbikes was just to get the focus away from pedalling efficiency since you don't pedal dirtbikes and on to other aspects of suspension which we do share but most people seemed more interesting in challenging this relationship than discussing these other aspects of suspension performance. Indeed, it's not a completely accurate or fair comparison although I still believe if there was something radically better about say a VPP design (ignoring pedalling efficency) then we'd see copy-cats of this in the dirtbike world and vice versa.

The main question I was trying to get answered was: Other than pedalling efficiency, are there other advantages to these frames that you can't get with a single pivot? To which the answer seems to be no. The question of which is better, funky frame or platform shock? ...Hasn't really been settled yet though although good points have been made about how the pedalling efficiency is activated when you pedal with these frames whereas it's activated when you flick a switch with the shocks. I can imagine different situations where both activation methods would have their place.


----------



## dandurston (Jan 20, 2005)

wormvine said:


> If that was the absolute truth, then why has Sam Hill and Sabrina Jonnier won so many races on their IH dw-link bikes.


You could easily make the opposing arguement and say if single pivots aren't the best why did Steve Peat win so many races on his Orange? The reality is, Steve is now on a Santa Cruz and although I don't follow DH racing I imagine he's still kicking butt which shows that a great rider can win with any decent bike.


----------



## LIFECYCLE (Mar 8, 2006)

I would buy a hardtail!


----------



## wormvine (Oct 27, 2005)

dandurston said:


> You could easily make the opposing arguement and say if single pivots aren't the best why did Steve Peat win so many races on his Orange? The reality is, Steve is now on a Santa Cruz and although I don't follow DH racing I imagine he's still kicking butt which shows that a great rider can win with any decent bike.


I agree completely. I never said that VPP designs are the best and I don't think you are saying single pivot designs are either. I was just giving examples of 2 DH champions who are riding VPP suspension designs. The point was that even if the VPP bikes were designed primarily with pedal efficiency in mind, they are not lacking in DH capability. :thumbsup:

As far as the Dirtbike debate goes, My first post in this thread mentioned the rumor that Dave Weagle was working with a dirtbike manufacturer to develop a DW-link for a dirtbike. It's somewhere here or on RideMonkey. So maybe we will see that happen someday!


----------

