That was the science, practice said different, hence the discussion.

Link to it?

linky

kinked hydraulic cables 😆

I was expecting something with a bit more weight to it; I’m not sure that has anything to do with it. STA issue, but not to do with suspension kinematics.

The MBA stuff was quite involved but I can’t find the links now. It was discussed on here last year as well.

You got two things (claimed) used to prevent bob, assisted by chain growth and rider/bike kinematics.

Gearing has a direct impact on chain growth, hence anti-bob or squat.

On the subject of marketing and whatnot, kinematic reasons are typically BS. All that has really been manipulated is chain growth.

When designing for the kinematics, it all hinges on the riders COG, of which is virtually impossible to determine, it’s always changing, people are different heights, ride in different positions, ride in the saddle, ride out of the saddle, it’s purely chance whether the designer has the correct COG location for 1 in 100.

Science in the bike industry 😆

I also agree that gear choice means diddly squat in the grand scheme of things in comparison to pedalling technique.

As for the wind down forks altering kinematics, it will, due to changing the IC and COG locations and altering their interactions. Dependant on frame design/rider, it may be beneficial, it maybe detrimental.

I.e. 32/32 places more torque on the cassette and so suspension than 22/22.

No, think about it backwards if it’s easier, there’s a constant power and speed at the rear wheel regardless of gear choice, therefore a constant energy/time, and as energy is force * distance) a constant force at the tyre, so a constant torque on the wheel, therefore a constant torque at the cassette.

So 33-33 is the same as 22-22 just with 50% more tension on a 33% smaller lever.

Then if you think of it as a parralelogram with the BB and hub providing the reaction forces via the chainstay in compression the whole caboodle stops making sense (well in my mind anyway)

So what is dave weagle talking about, and why does my giant squat in the granny when spinning gently up tarmac inclines since I went 1×9 when it barely moved at all when I had a front granny?

Because you don’t have a granny in a 1×9

I dunno, I’d guess becasue in a 1×10 you have to mash the pedals at a lower cadence rather than spin?

I think that he has a point if you assume the rider is always in the 32t at the back and just shifts the front gear, which changes the angle the chain pulls at, but if your strong enough to push whatever gear your in at a reasnoble cadence then I reckon it shouldn’t make any difference.

Bessides, I went 1×10 to gain ground clearance and reliability not the ability to pedal uphill.

Dave is on about paper maths and physics not real life maths and physics.

Your giant squats when running middle big more than small big because the chain is in a different place which has an effect on how and where the floating pivot acts. It’s ALSO because you’re more likely to be moving your CoG about as you put more force through the pedals.

So what is dave weagle talking about, and why does my giant squat in the granny when spinning gently up tarmac inclines since I went 1×9 when it barely moved at all when I had a front granny?

I don’t understand what you are saying. You seem to contradict yourself. Pedaling up tarmac in the granny it squats. Then you say you went 1×9 but it doesn’t squat in front granny gear. Makes no sense at all.

He’s using the term granny for the lowest gear at the back unlike the rest of us who use it as a term for the lowest gear at the front

So what is dave weagle talking about, and why does my giant squat in the granny when spinning gently up tarmac inclines since I went 1×9 when it barely moved at all when I had a front granny?

Maestro is not his design, it just impinges on his design, so you can’t blame him for your Giant’s performance.

shirly its all to do with the poition of the main pivot (theoretical or actual) relative to teh chainring.

if you are in the granny and its lower than the main pivot you get anti squat

if its above (bigger chain ring than designed for)you get the opposite.

therefore if you climb with a bigger chainring it feels more porridgy.

then again you could set your shock up to deal with this/eat less/have a dump/ one less beer the night before which may affect the ride more.

Thank you for your enlightening and not-vitriolic-at-all reply Turnerguy.

The net result seeming to be: 1x drivetrains ruin the anti-squat capabilities of suspension design, so go 2x.

Thank you for your enlightening and not-vitriolic-at-all reply Turnerguy.

that’s ok – not sure I can anything vitriolic in it – you can’t cast aspersions on Dave Weagle’s comments based on someone else’s design, that is all I am saying.

If you’d read his comments it might be cleared. His claim is that any suspension design whatsoever suffers, my trance just happens to be one that is similar to dw link.

I rode a Trance X in a back-to-back comparison with a 5-spot, both climbing a steep flat road and some normal terrain.

Although I thought the suspension didn’t work as well I didn’t notice it having trouble climbing, unlike the single-pivot designs I also tried.

Plus the number of 5-spots and trances with single rings plus a bash must be significant now and I have never seen a comment about a 5-spot squating or bobbing, and only ever some about bob on the maestro system.

Maybe your setup is suboptimal somewhere. Can you find another Trance to compare?

I’m sure there are a lot of other factors that may have affected how my trance was pedalling. I was merely using my trance as anecdote, as the suspension setup did not change when I went 1×9, only the gearing.