Ask the experts

[Dee Hubbs]

Regrettably, Felt appears to have gotten out of the mountain bike business.

They are now marketed under the Rossignol name.

[HAB]

They are now marketed under the Rossignol name.

What's even the point, if they're not going to use a weird, unnecessary 6 bar layout?

[Huskier]

This is the second worst news I've heard all day. (The worst news being that the spur I ordered is only going to be good on the downhills).

False!! It TRUCKS on the up, provided your uphill has no switchbacks. If it does things get a little awkward. I only have the GX build and I'm already shaving time on climbs vs my Patrol. Is it a crazy xc race machine a la Supercaliber? No way...it's more fun!

[Roxtar]

I guess someone's gonna have to break the news to Specialized, Norco, Scott, YT, Guerrilla Gravity, Transition, Cannondale, NS bikes, Raaw, Privateer, Whyte, Knolly, and a whole bunch of others that their bikes aren't good for all around use.

But seriously. Most modern horst link bikes have almost identical kinematics to modern short link bikes. And if they differ, it's by choice, not by any inherent limitation of the suspension design. These days, any notion that any given suspension design rides a given way is almost entirely bullshit. You can make a horst link bike that prioritizes pedaling efficiency, and you can make a DW link bike that pedals like utter shit. And the patents for almost all of those designs have either expired or been invalidated. If there was a clearly superior design, everyone would be using it. (And arguably the horst link is the clearly superior design, since most companies use it and only a handful of companies are using multi link designs).

And would any of those brands (with the exception of GG's cult following-I don't "get it", Specialized's size and $, and YT's cheapness) be considered current industry leaders? Are any of them building the "hot, gotta-have" bikes?
Do they make good bikes? Sure. Are they making ground breaking, paradigm shifting bikes. Not even close.
Who are the current leaders in this regard? Pivot, Yeti, Evil, Santa Cruz, Ibis, Canfield/Revel,..
All companies who have jumped into multi-link design with both feet.
It's not just marketing.
You said that horst links can be designed to do whatever you want, downhill or XC. You're right, you can make them do one thing or another pretty well, however, you have to pick your poison. With H-L you have your DH bike, your XC bike, your trail bike. We've always had to choose.
It comes primarily down to the chainline and axle path. You're stuck with one round path around one pivot point. The bikes tend to one dimensional or, at best, compromised.
Multi-link allows you to tweek that path and chainline to be whatever you want. This allows you to keep that chainline in the sweet spot. Add to that, companies like Yeti and Arktos who are designing the travel to go from progressive to regressive in various places in the axle path. That's why these bikes are so multi-dimensional.
My Ripmo is a 147mm travel 29er that is amazingly quick handling, poppy, playful, accelerates like an XC hardtail, and absolutely rips technical downhill. Lockouts need not apply,

[rideit]

So, anyone know if the crank arms for Shimano XTR 9100 and 9120 are the same chainring mount? Found a pair of the double ring versions for much cheaper than the single ring, but I don’t want to fubar myself.

[bagtagley]

FMUBAR?

[Andeh]

Roxtar, you're really picking a weird hill to die on. So much of what you're saying is just flat false. I'm sure Toast or someone will respond better, but here's a couple:
*Evil is a linkage driven single pivot, not a "multi-link"
*Yeti does not change from progressive to regressive in any part of the travel in any of their current (SB-1xx) bikes. They're all linear-progressive to curved progressive.
*the Arktos style leverage curve with a regressive end is a dumb old design concept to address bad old air shocks which were inherently very progressive and not tuned with volume tokens. In other words, it's a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist anymore, at least not on good shocks.

You may wish to read up on what these terms actually mean here: https://enduro-mtb.com/en/mtb-suspension-systems/

[Roxtar]

Roxtar, you're really picking a weird hill to die on. So much of what you're saying is just flat false. I'm sure Toast or someone will respond better, but here's a couple:
*Evil is a linkage driven single pivot, not a "multi-link"
*Yeti does not change from progressive to regressive in any part of the travel in any of their current (SB-1xx) bikes. They're all linear-progressive to curved progressive.
*the Arktos style leverage curve with a regressive end is a dumb old design concept to address bad old air shocks which were inherently very progressive and not tuned with volume tokens. In other words, it's a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist anymore, at least not on good shocks.

You may wish to read up on what these terms actually mean here: https://enduro-mtb.com/en/mtb-suspension-systems/

Evil is a multi link system. Different approach, similar concept. Sorry about the syntax.
You may be right about the current Yeti, I recalled reading about the original switch which I thought (and could be wrong) started regressive (for smal bump compliance) before the switch assy reversed.
Calling BS on the Arktos. Current air shocks, as good as they've gotten, still suffer from stiction and small bump compliance; both of which are helped by an initial regressive ramp. The end stroke regression aids in softening the final hard progressiveness that is still inherent all air shocks. Similar to what a RUNT does with forks.

You're missing the forest for the trees. I wasn't discussing the merits of individual designs.
My point was that the current group of multi link bikes have taken suspension to a whole new level that can't be reached by the horst link designs.
Do you disagree with that?

[detrusor]

My damn near new fox transfer post has stuck periodically since installed. If I smear a little slick honey on it the post will start to work again. Thoughts? Is it just a break in thing?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[HAB]

My point was that the current group of multi link bikes have taken suspension to a whole new level that can't be reached by the horst link designs.
Do you disagree with that?

I'll respond in more detail later, but: Yes.

[HAB]

My damn near new fox transfer post has stuck periodically since installed. If I smear a little slick honey on it the post will start to work again. Thoughts? Is it just a break in thing?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Check your seatpost clamp torque. Having that too tight can make droppers bind up, though the Transfer isn't particularly susceptible, in my experience.

Carbon assembly paste can help stop the post from slipping at light torque, if needed, even if you're not in a carbon frame.

[toast2266]

Multi-link allows you to tweek that path and chainline to be whatever you want. This allows you to keep that chainline in the sweet spot.

Almost everything you've said is wrong, but this seems to be the crux of your argument.

Here's Joe Graney explaining why you're wrong: https://www.santacruzbicycles.com/en-US/news/344

Also, the Arktos is straight linear, despite what their marketing tells you. And it doesn't ride very well. There's a reason that company is on the verge of bankruptcy. Also #2 all the new yetis are linearly progressive. As are all the new Santa Cruzs. There is no regression anywhere in the curve. The leverage curve on the Megatower is almost identical to the Specialized Enduro. As are the anti-squat values at sag.

[tgapp]

before we have another 12 pages of arguing about suspension design

can one of you experts explain to me why chainline matters? i understand why kinematics matters in shock design (make the shock start out softer and progressively ramp up), but why does chainline matter?

[toast2266]

before we have another 12 pages of arguing about suspension design

can one of you experts explain to me why chainline matters? i understand why kinematics matters in shock design (make the shock start out softer and progressively ramp up), but why does chainline matter?

It doesn't, aside from the obvious shifting issues and clearance issues (clearance around the tire, and clearance of the stays near the cassette). Pivot placement might make some of those clearance issues easier or harder, especially if the company is trying to keep chainstays really short.

Your gear ratio definitely affects anti-squat; your pedaling efficiency will be different in different gears, but that doesn't have anything to do with chainline.

[Roxtar]

Almost everything you've said is wrong, but this seems to be the crux of your argument.

Here's Joe Graney explaining why you're wrong: https://www.santacruzbicycles.com/en-US/news/344

Also, the Arktos is straight linear, despite what their marketing tells you. And it doesn't ride very well. There's a reason that company is on the verge of bankruptcy. Also #2 all the new yetis are linearly progressive. As are all the new Santa Cruzs. There is no regression anywhere in the curve. The leverage curve on the Megatower is almost identical to the Specialized Enduro. As are the anti-squat values at sag.

No, the crux of my argument was far more simple. I wrote it in a later post:

"My point was that the current group of multi link bikes have taken suspension to a whole new level that can't be reached by the horst link designs."
(Pretty sure Joe Graney would agree with this statement)

Yes, I could have gone in depth about the chainline being far more important, etc. Going into individual suspension details was beyond the scope I intended. General picture, understand?

As for Arktos, I'm sure you're right. After all, what would their engineers know about the design they created?

[simple]

Someone please explain to him that Alchemy didn't design the Arktos suspension...they hired the old Yeti designer. Similar to when you hire Dave Weagle but not quite the same.

[toast2266]

No, the crux of my argument was far more simple. I wrote it in a later post:

"My point was that the current group of multi link bikes have taken suspension to a whole new level that can't be reached by the horst link designs."
(Pretty sure Joe Graney would agree with this statement)

And what exactly is that whole new level? Like I said before, the kinematics of the current crop of Santa Cruz bikes are very, very similar to the current crop of Specialized bikes (and those are just the examples I'm using, but the same statement could be made for a majority of the other companies out there). Anti squat is within a couple percent. Leverage ratio is nearly identical. Axle path is very similar.

The differences between those bikes is almost entirely in the geometry, shock tune, frame stiffness, etc.

As for Arktos, I'm sure you're right. After all, what would their engineers know about the design they created?

Their engineers know that they were trying to copy yeti's suspension design, since the guy that designed the arktos suspension is the same guy that designed yeti's original SB design, but they had to tweak it a tiny bit to dodge patents. (Edit - ha! Simple beat me to it) Older yeti's were essentially straight linear. The arktos is essentially straight linear as well.

The hiccup there, of course, is that yeti realized that straight linear suspension designs don't actually work very well. So all the modern yeti's (everything since they changed from inches to millimeters in their naming scheme) are linearly progressive with leverage curves that are almost identical to Santa Cruz and Specialized (and most other modern bikes). But the Arktos is still on the old kinematics because they're broke and they can't afford to make a new frame. So they slap a 27.5 wheel on the back of their existing frame and call push out a bunch of marketing to act like it's a new bike.

[HAB]

"My point was that the current group of multi link bikes have taken suspension to a whole new level that can't be reached by the horst link designs."

Right, and we're saying that's incorrect.

Mini link designs do open up a wider range of traits that a designer can target than some other layouts, but in practice, the types of kinematics that have been determined to work well are totally achievable with a horst link, and modern VPP/DW link etc bikes don't really do anything outside of that window.

As we've discussed, leverage curves on good modern bikes are uniformly fairly linearly progressive. Sure, the exact degree varies, but you can do that with a HL too.

Ditto for axle paths. High pivot bikes with an idler excepted, nobody does anything other than a very close approximation of a true single pivot, with a few mm of rearward travel initially, and then arcing back forwards somewhere around sag.

Anti squat? Same deal. Everything is a little over 100% around sag, in the lower gears, and falls off some deeper in the travel and in the higher gears. Achievable with a horst link? You bet.

I'll be charitable and grant that some of the modern mini link bikes do have somewhat flatter anti-rise curves than you tend to get with horst link bikes, which generally fall off somewhat deeper in the travel, but I'd argue that that effect is pretty subtle, and it's debatable which is really better. Like just about anything, it's a tradeoff.

[panchosdad]

At the risk of going further down this rabbit hole, what does it mean that a leverage curve is "linearly progressive"? I thought that linear and progressive were opposites when it came to those curves.

[XXX-er]

Check your seatpost clamp torque. Having that too tight can make droppers bind up, though the Transfer isn't particularly susceptible, in my experience.

Carbon assembly paste can help stop the post from slipping at light torque, if needed, even if you're not in a carbon frame.

I couldn't get the fox in my yeti to stop creaking until I used the paste, it also sticks the odd time but not real bad, I don't know if I torqued it but I will have to check it

[HAB]

At the risk of going further down this rabbit hole, what does it mean that a leverage curve is "linearly progressive"? I thought that linear and progressive were opposites when it came to those curves.

Progressive, in a straight line (i.e. not some weirder shaped curve).

People do use "linear" to mean "flat", but it's shitty terminology. Linear just means a straight line, not necessarily a flat one.

E.g. the 2009 DHR, especially, is progressive, but not linearly so:



All the bikes in this graph are progressive, and linear(ish), especially the YT and Geometron:

[Andeh]

Yes, I disagree with that statement. Suspension design has gotten to a point where a designer can tweak the linkages / pivot locations in either a 4-bar or twin-link (DW, VPP) system sufficiently to achieve their desired balance of leverage ratios, progression, and anti-squat. How good they are doing at that is pretty much all that matters now, not the type of suspension.

I'd also add that I've owned two bikes that were regressive to sag, then progressive after (a VPP Nomad 3 and a 4-bar Sentinel 1), and they were both a bitch to tune an air shock on, because that stupid regressive hump made it always want to fall to the sag point. I dropped the air shock on the Nomad for coil fast. On the Sentinel, I could literally change the pressure 40 psi and still get the same sag, but it would feel very different deeper in the stroke. TLDR: regressive initial stroke is a terrible design, and there's a reason why no good bike design does that now.

[rideit]

Long Live Falling Rates!

[shirk]

It's not just marketing.

Yes it is. Buy a copy of Linkage and mess around for 20-30 hours and you will learn just how much marketing bs is spewed.

1x drivetrain was the real change. Short link multi link bikes were designed to get anit-sqaut figures to play nice across multiple front chainrings, once we all started using 1x it made that null and void.

It's all packaging and picking your compromise, then market the shit out of it in hopes that guys like Roxtar believe your gospel.

[Roxtar]

Yeah all the work in suspension design over the last several years by guys like Weigle amounted to nothing.
Just marketing