OMG… so THAT’s how iDrive works 😯

WTF?? Who on earth would want their pedals swinging backwards as the rear pivot moves???

Good luck Gee, Rachel, Dan et al., but I’m out.. 😕

that’s because chain tension stops the system from moving.

pedalling? – it’s a hardtail

not pedalling? – it’s a bouncy bike.

‘s quite clever in way…

(and this new one looks sort of similar, but the BB’s mounted in the rocker, interesting, but i’m out)

Interesting as it is I don’t think I’m sold, it’s pedaling efficiency / minimal chain grow thing would make sense but what you’re getting is basically a URT without the simplicity of a URT, I sot of like the idea of a URT still, I think it’s one of those unfashionable ideas that’s not been explored enough, that GT is as complicated as any FSR/VPP bike without the (supposed) benefits.

The staggered rearward motion of the BB still looks a bit much too IMO, it’s basically another variation on the I-drive, not a terrible idea, but not as clever as they are making out either.

Seems to be working for Gee this year. Two from two in the UCI World Cup and they do still need a bike that can pedal.

It looks a lot like the Mongoose version of the I-Drive system that they use on the Teocali, etc to me.

Aren’t they owned by the same company these days?

That was it, the Mongoose Khyber/Teocali, I knew I’d seen this before and both brands are owned by Pacific now aren’t they (or at least they were)?

TBH it’s not a terrible solution at all it has some merit.

I think people get a bit caught up with all the bollocks written about various suspension systems by mags and marketeers; rearward axle paths, pedal bob, rising rate linkages, Brake jack, chain grow, etc, etc all sorts of stuff has been dreamed up and justified by telling people there’s an issue they’d never really noticed before, but is so detrimental to their riding that they should just bin their current bike and buy this new one.

The thing is, these days people are wanting 140-160mm “AM” bikes that they can pedal up a hill efficiently and trundle down again insulated from the bumps, any suspension design catering for that market has to make a compromise or two, this one strikes a balance that some people might like, some may not and others will object to simply because that video shows the BB moving and so they will never try riding it.

The OP mentioned the RTS, funnily enough this AOS thing does pretty much the polar opposite of what the RTS did.

Where the RTS design was claimed to use pedaling forces and a load path linkage to effectively lock the suspension under load, this “AOS” places the BB on a rocker allowing it to move rearwards with the axle, minimize chain grow and keeping the suspension active under load…

So ~18 years ago GT created a solution to a perceived problem, and then came full circle and are now presenting a product that does exactly what the RTS apparently put an end to… Genius…

Bear in mind you’re actualy moving over the ground at 20mph while all that’s happening, when the suspension hits something you’re bodyweight is slowed down a fraction, the bike deals with the impact, then accelerates your weight as it unloads down the the other side. So it’s probably actualy somewhere between ‘too small an effect to notice’ and ‘a good thing’.

Yes, Mongoose/GT are both one and the same these days, have been sionce GT went bankrupt for the umpteenth time.

On this video, they actually look very nice:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=X8oUkz8OKJ0[/video]