Thinking about bikes and there’s a few I like but there’s something, if it were available, I’d buy in an instant.

Similar build up front to the ML8, tapered head tube, braze-on front mech? (no longer needed so not an issue) with a beefier built bolt through rear end in 27.5 with today’s geometry thrown in with stealth dropper routing. Maybe the monolink could be increased width-wise as it would be single ring only.

Such a shame that it’s no longer and the idea of this build would appeal to many. Or would it? Would it end up the way it went or could the new fangled ways transform them and make them one of the most sought after bikes?

I wish they would bring back the SC32 forks, I’m looking everywhere for some at the moment! They seem to be very popular as well 🙂

I wish they would bring back the SC32 forks, I’m looking everywhere for some at the moment! They seem to be very popular as well

I’ve got a new pair in a box in the garage (just in case) and you can’t have them. 😆

I think the popularity of the SC32 is that it is fat compatible

I love my Ml7

Along with Moongoose it’s the worst suspension design in recent times.

That said if BillMC enjoys his goodluck to him.

I have some Duc 32s on a Trek 69er.
Very nice fork. Annoying that thru axle is proprietary (24mm)

Hope they do make a comeback have the forks on 3 of my bikes so I bought these two sets of forks for spares just in case! 🙂
[url=https://flic.kr/p/pfhenG]10411778_10152795066276474_4055149057289692365_n[/url] by Richard Munro, on Flickr

Along with Moongoose it’s the worst suspension design in recent times.

Said someone who’s clearly not ridden one!

Everyone’s a hater… Until they have a proper go on one… The design isn’t perfect, but then neither is any other suspension design. You’ve always got a trade off one way or another, Maverick’s being that to gain such incredible traction and lack of pedal induced bob, that the system stiffened up by 7% when you’re out of the saddle.

As for them making a comeback? A few years ago when Paul Turner bought the name back there was talk of it, but I think if it was going to happen, it would have done so by now. Lots of discussions over time on the MTBR forums in the Maverick section though. Sadly the monolink doesn’t lend itself especially well to wheel sizes larger than 26″ though, because of packaging constraints chainstay lengths would be unacceptable on a 29er and simply very long on a 650b I suspect.

I loved my ML7. It climbed like a goat in stickies. Would love to see them come back again but I don’t think it’ll happen….

Beaker, ex owner of ML7 ‘Galvanise’

I’ve got a spare ML8 – and I keep eyeing it up for a ‘Fatty conversion’ (There’s a Fat Palomino out there) – this would be unstoppable / maybe even cheating 🙂

Everyone’s a hater… Until they have a proper go on one… The design isn’t perfect, but then neither is any other suspension design. You’ve always got a trade off one way or another, Maverick’s being that to gain such incredible traction and lack of pedal induced bob, that the system stiffened up by 7% when you’re out of the saddle.

Anti-squat can be achieved without resorting to a semi-URT design.

Also increased traction isn’t due to anti-squat. If that was the case a hardtail would have more traction than a FS.

Cobham extreme rider has spoken.

I just watched some videos on their old site – whilst showing the rearward axle path they also show the riders feet being shifted up and back when the bike hits a bump and as most of your weight is through your feet this surely cancels out the benefits? The other strange thing is they claim that chain growth reduces pedalling efficiency when everything else I’ve read says the opposite!

That’s all bollox. They are the best bikes I’ve ever ridden, and I’ve had some decent ones. Here’s my current Durance…

I just watched some videos on their old site – whilst showing the rearward axle path they also show the riders feet being shifted up and back when the bike hits a bump and as most of your weight is through your feet this surely cancels out the benefits?

I don’t see the benefits but yeah, the fact that the rear axle is not independent of the BB is a totally flawed.

Always fancied a maverick but never got round to it.

JCL – Member
I don’t see the benefits but yeah, the fact that the rear axle is not independent of the BB is a totally flawed.

The BB is on a floating link… So it is not dependent either.

Along with Moongoose it’s the worst suspension design in recent times.
That said if BillMC enjoys his goodluck to him.

I thought that was SC’s VPP design? Or is it just that every suspension design is the worst ever? Something to do with the kinematics, I presume?

Dammit you guys are such a tease, has nobody got a spare pair that they will sell to me? 🙁

Get a bluto?

The BB is on a floating link… So it is not dependent either.

The bottom line is the BB link with all the riders mass is not independent (it has to move) of the rear axle and ultimately, impacts to the rear wheel.

Tom, counter rotating links or VPP as SC call it is obviously nowhere near as flawed, they just don’t make as much sense as single pivots, 4-bars, dual link designs.

SC has gone to a lot of trouble to flatten out the leverage rate on their bikes in an effort to end up with something that’s easy to achieve with a boring old single pivot. It sucks because the bikes are nicely made and in the case of the Nomad, have killer geo. Whoever advised them to buy that Outland VPP patient (that they seem to be stuck with) needs a good kicking.

Watch this video and see what I mean about his feet!

http://www.maverickbike.com/cms_images/file_187.mov

Hands up – who is commenting about the ride of the bike and has never actually ridden one?

You will find that the vast majority of people who have ridden a Maverick, actually prefer it for most kinds of riding – the stuff that most of us actually do.

As far as a come back, it would be great – the forks and monolink were so far ahead of the curve, they’d fit in quite nicely nowadays.

Hands up – who is commenting about the ride of the bike and has never actually ridden one?

Is exactly what I was just going to ask…

You will find that the vast majority of people who have ridden a Maverick, actually prefer it for most kinds of riding – the stuff that most of us actually do.

I was ready to dislike the Monolink design a lot. Then I had a go on one… Then I cursed that I couldn’t afford one! I saved up, and found a VGC 2nd hand ML7 some months later, rode that for a few years, then managed to get one of the very last Durance’s to come to the UK before they stopped being imported which I still have, and probably always will.

The thing is, most Bike companies rely heavily on marketing BS to sell bikes. Maverick are/were the total opposite. They always had a long waiting list to get hold of a (not cheap) frame, and those who’ve owned them, love them. The Rearward axle path thing makes total sense, both front and rear axle on the bike moving in the same plane, so whatever happens, the wheelbase never shortens undesirably. Also, the rearward path is the most efficient for the rear wheel to deal with square edged hits effectively, part of why Mavericks are such great climbers, but also incredibly good descenders too. A single pivot with a short swingarm has a nasty habit of bucking around, as the wheelbase shortens drastically under compression, with both axles heading towards each other. A Horst Link bike is more effective with it’s pretty linear (not quite totally linear) axle path, that moves pretty much vertically (rather than forward), but not perfect. The Maverick Monolink just makes sense in this respect, and until you’ve ridden one properly, you really can’t comment with any authority at all.

EVERY full sus design has its shortfalls, none are perfect. In creating the Monolink design, Maverick realised it wasn’t going to be for everyone. If you want a bike that’s super plush whilst stood up descending, then it’s not for you. The fact of the matter is though, that the suspension only stiffens by 7% when you’re stood up as opposed to seated. To many people, me included, this is actually a desirable feature. It’s almost like an automatic propedal feature every time you get out of the saddle and sprint. Also, it allows you to run the suspension pretty soft for traction and comfort whilst seated, yet when hammering DH (stood up of course), the suspension will resist bottoming a bit better. As far as undesirable suspension characteristics go, the fact that the Monolink stiffens by 7% (it’s not a URT remember, some of those were awful to ride!) is by far and away a lesser evil than most other suspension designs posses.

To sit there, throwing armchair science theories onto the computer screen as if they were fact, does nothing except to prove your ignorance. I can understand anyone who says they don’t like the look of a Maverick (they’re definitely marmite in that respect), I can understand anyone who says the proprietary shock and forks and need for increased TLC over other designs is not for them, and I can understand those who may dismiss it on the grounds of geometry even as compared to some modern designs it could be seen as a little steep and tall. Don’t dismiss the suspension system until you’ve ridden one properly though, as Tim says above, for the riding that most of us do most of the time, it’s a fantastic suspension design that works exceptionally well.

Put it this way, if they did make a comeback, and figured out how to package the Monolink into either a 29er (preferable) or 650b frame without unduly increasing the chainstay length, I will be first in the queue for a new frame!

What a load of nonsense.

Everyone I know who rides a full suspension bike wants the bike to isolate them from the terrain as best as possible.

As I said earlier, pedalling induced anti squat to the same level as a Maverick can easily be achieved in a number of other designs by positioning the IC higher relative to BB. Without the drawback of a BB link that is coupled to the rear triangle.

It’s great that it works for you but don’t try and argue that it has ANY advantage over a number of other designs.

mboy, if you respond to customers in your shop like you do to posters on here then I’d quickly stop being one! Or maybe we’d have an argument and you’d learn something! Unlike you and JCL and I don’t live in a black and white world where everything is either awesome or awful – but I can see there are some issues with the kinematics of the Monolink. That rearward BB path concerns me – what does that do to the rider? I can see it working better on an XC bike than something longer travel. I’ve yet to hear why reducing chain growth increases pedalling efficiency when chain growth is the dominant anti-squat component in every other suspension design.

I like innovative designs – I spent a long time looking at the Maverick site with curiosity a few years ago. Reading your tome it strikes me that your understanding of bike suspension is based on what you’ve been fed in magazines and press releases and that you don’t actually get the mechanics of it. Where does your 7% parroting come from? Are you sure it isn’t 12.5% (pieces of eight?) 😉

The BB is always ‘linked’ though on any bike, never isolated. The suspension doesn’t completely absorb the impact, just takes the edge off it, so the BB is always moving upwards with the rear wheel regardless, theres as many links between the rear suspension and BB on a single pivot.

Ridden one?

…not hearing that jcl and cgg have actually had a go on one yet…
Neither have i but fwiw the sc32 rides a lot better than it looks like it should, the mud clearance is fantastic, the whole system (ie including the hub) is still light by today’s standards, and it is delightfully serviceable with normal tools. What other fork manual encourages you to get in and fiddle with oil weights and swap round the shim stacks? Oh and pop a couple of spacers in and your 26″ fork becomes a fatty, 650b or 29er. What a great fork, wish it was on my bike not the wife’s.

mboy.
You post a good post.
You sound just like you know what you’re talking about.
If I’d not seen you ride I’d almost be fooled by what you post. 😛

I had a Durance for a few years. Honestly I never really understood exactly how it worked. I just know after riding one, it worked amazingly well. Never ridden anything since that climbs as well. Searched ages and found one for sale. Scamper was mine.

Rear geo was spot on, but the front needed to be a lot slacker for me to have confidence to go as fast as I thought i could. The suspension when travelling fast wasnt great, far better non proprietry products out there.

Then I rode a 29er full suss and Scamper had to go.

Great bikes, great history and following and I do miss it, but better stuff is out there.

The BB is always ‘linked’ though on any bike, never isolated. The suspension doesn’t completely absorb the impact, just takes the edge off it, so the BB is always moving upwards with the rear wheel regardless, theres as many links between the rear suspension and BB on a single pivot.

If you can’t see the negatives of having the main mass of a vehicle (the rider in this case) positioned on a link between the frame and rear axle I give up!

Look at the above video. Ignore the axle path crap, it’s pure marketing. Impacts are causing that BB to move relative to the frame. And that is on those minor, slow speed impacts in the video. Imagine hitting high frequency bumps going into a turn. If the rear suspension isn’t fully independent and has to move the riders mass to react it will absolutely effect traction and braking.

I haven’t ridden one. Some designs are so obviously flawed that you don’t need to ride them. Harsh but true.

I was on a NWMTB demo day today where I rode a Bronson, Solo and an Orange Segment. Due to geometry and strength and wheel size they were more stable and ‘planted’ than my Maverick ML7/5. Faster as a result.

But not more fun.
I came away very underwhelmed.

Put me down for a come-back Maverick.

Lolz

I don’t need to have a go on one to see some of the issues! It might work great for some riding but thinking back to last Thursday’s ride, I dropped in a bit quick over the edge of a chute and bottomed out hard where it transitions to flat, with one of those “push the bars really hard to stop you going over them” moments. The last thing I’d have wanted is my feet to be pulled back by an inch or so, causing further forward rotation, I’d have been out the front door!

I have a set of SC32’s gathering dust with a green king hub built onto a stans arch 29er rim which I dont want.

I’ve just ran the numbers and according to my calculations this thread is approaching a 320% bullshine threshold (in case you weren’t aware, the shitsave filter kicks in at anything over 320%, so take it easy lads).

Sideways Tim – the ML8 you sold me in 2005 is still running. Now with an X Fusion 140/ 170 fork, had a great time in the Alps this year.

Arguing about suspension designs is so 2013, don’t ya know!

It’s all about bamboo hardtails with 27.5 wheels..come on people, get with the programme 😉