1. It’s expensive the manufacture and so also to buy
2. Rear suspension opinion for regular UK riding appears to be turning more towards 100mm-125mm and the benefits of VPP are dubious under 125mm travel (??)
3. The physics of DW link are superior and it works better over a wider range of travel eg 105mm Flux to full on downhill bikes
4. Platform shocks are so good that simpler systems do the job as well
5. The novelty of your suspension locking out when pedel has worn off
6. Heavy

?

1. No moreso than DW and plenty mfrs add needless linkages etc to distinguish their designs anyway.

2-3. No doubt the magazines are saying that!

I’d replace 4-5 with:

4. If you learn to pedal properly then bob need not be an issue.

HAS VPP SUSPENSION HAD IT’S DAY?

trailertrash – Member
1. It’s expensive to manufacture and to buy
2. Rear suspension opinion for regular UK riding appears to be turning more towards 100mm-125mm hardtails, and the benefits of VPP suspension are dubious under 125mm travel (??)
3. The physics of DW link are superior and they works better over a wider range of travel eg 105mm Flux to full on downhill bikes we’re not all getting paid to race Dh
4. Platform shocks hardtails are so good enough that simpler systems do the job as well
5. The novelty of your suspension locking out when pedel has worn off

fixed it for you!

People do realise that DW link designs are just a type of four bar with added marketing, don’t they? That’s not to say they’re not good but what they do is just a particular tweak of the four bar and it’s only because of the US’s stupidly lax patent rules (also allowing silly things like patenting Horst link) that it can be marketed as a unique design and why Giant fell foul with the Maestro design.

1. give me an example of a needless linkage. if you need to distingiush your design then it’s not needless. irrelevant reply anyway. vpp bikes are expensive.
2. lots of people are saying that. look around…? lot’s of folk going back to ht
4. you might be able to lessen bob by using spds and honking less but the fundamental problem is a result of moving masses and technique isn’t going to fix it.

@ahwiles

I quite agree actually 🙂

The novelty of your suspension locking out when pedel has worn off

I don’t understand this bit.
If it offers an advantage, then how is that a novelty ?

People do realise that DW link designs are just a type of four bar with added marketing, don’t they? That’s not to say they’re not good but what they do is just a particular tweak of the four bar and it’s only because of the US’s stupidly lax patent rules (also allowing silly things like patenting Horst link) that it can be marketed as a unique design and why Giant fell foul with the Maestro design.

I think you are oversimplifying slightly. Sure there are patent issues, but by the same token Rocky Mountain’s ETSX system is a VPP system just with different length linkages. It’s not really a valid criticism of the arguments.

I don’t understand this bit.
If it offers an advantage, then how is that a novelty ?

I think you mean why would one not find that desirable forever?

Because permanently active suspension give better traction and control?

1. Don’t care
2. Ride the bike you want and not the one that you have been ‘told’ to ride
3. I’m with clubber on this one
4. Your just solving a problem by adding complication elsewhere but only if you perceive there to be a problem in the first place
5. Sprinting on a VPP bike is a joy and the suspension still works. So that’s a good thing
6. Heavy, really? No more so than anything else

What’s your beef with VPP?

give me an example of a needless linkage

it’s starts off life as a 5-bar linkage – which won’t work. but then the magic ‘equilink’ ties 2 of the 5 links together, removing 1 degree of freedom, making it work like a 4 bar.

completely pointless.

the action of the felt equilink is not unlike the Edge bikes/DW link/maestro design, it’s just much more complicated.

What’s your beef with VPP?

No beef, just starting a potentially interesting debate 🙂

That linkage is a necessary part of the VPP system, otherwise the rear axle could wander around all over the place rather than follow an arc. Have a think about it or make a model with paper and drawing pins.

i understand it perfectly.

the equilink is necessary, yes you’re right, but only because there are 5 pivot points.

the e-link ties 2 of them together, making it an Edge/DWlink/maestro with 5 pivots.

it’s a 4-bar with 5 pivots

sorry, 7 pivots.

it’s a 4-bar with 7 pivot points.

completely pointless.

Fair enough. Debate is good and good VPP bike is a lovely thing to ride and own IMHO.

My point is that dw is just one implementation, not the holy Grail.

but by the same token Rocky Mountain’s ETSX system is a VPP system just with different length linkages

Well yes, but really they’re just all four bars. VPP is marketing as is DW as they’re all four bars and not inherently better than eachother.

Here’s another one:

10 speed and gearboxes will increasingly remove pivot point placement issues and further reduce the problems of chain tension variation induced bob in suspension bikes, making single pivot bikes even more attractive.

i understand it perfectly.

the equilink is necessary, yes you’re right, but only because there are 5 pivot points.

the e-link ties 2 of them together, making it an Edge/DWlink/maestro with 5 pivots.

it’s a 4-bar with 5 pivots

sorry, 7 pivots.

it’s a 4-bar with 7 pivot points.

completely pointless.

Equilink is necessary but completely pointless? eh? 😀

I had VPP on a Blur.
As I understand it, the weight of the rider lunging on the pedals tries to extend the linkage.
The tension on the chain tries to shorten it.
The two cancel each other out.

The effect of the chain tension will vary depending on gear, because of the position of the chain in relation to the linkage, so it will work better in some gears than others.
However, I used it with a Rohloff and found it did exactly what it claimed to do in all gears.

the link is necessary to make the design work, the design is pointless.

it works like a 4-bar, but it’s got 7 pivot points.

it’s a stupid design, clever, but stupid.

they’ve removed the ‘tie’ from between the seatstay/chainstay, and put a pivot down near the rear axle, and introduced the ‘equilink’ to remove the degree of freedom that’s only there because they removed the ‘tie’ from between the seatstay/chainstay, and put a pivot down near the rear axle,

Well yes, but really they’re just all four bars. VPP is marketing as is DW as they’re all four bars and not inherently better than eachother.

I think the interesting thing is that the number of bars is irrelevant. It’s all about axle path not the number of bars. Gettign hung up on the number of bars is to fall for the oversimplification side of the hype itself no?

The good thing about VPP imho is that it gives the opportunity for some vertical or rearward axle path at the start of the stroke (remember when everyone used to talk about J shaped axle paths?) and this might actuall offer some advantages in terms of traversing rough terrain….

Trailertrash – Possibly to a point but that’s saying that chain forces are all that affect suspension. There’s braking and also wheel thrust – the last of which is usually forgotten about – basically the rear wheel pushing the bike forward. If the rear axle isn’t in line with the pivots the suspension will compress or extend even if the chain is in line with the pivot. Propedal helps but ultimately always reduces small bump compliance.

Possibly to a point but that’s saying that chain forces are all that affect suspension. There’s braking and also wheel thrust – the last of which is usually forgotten about – basically the rear wheel pushing the bike forward. If the rear axle isn’t in line with the pivots the suspension will compress or extend even if the chain is in line with the pivot. Propedal helps but ultimately always reduces small bump compliance.

in a far as I am aware it’s the line of action of the force that counts, not the path by which it’s transferred, but I could be wrong.

But there’s more than one effect. Most designs including dw are just trying to balance them so they cancel out.

the link is necessary to make the design work, the design is pointless.

it works like a 4-bar, but it’s got 7 pivot points.

it’s a stupid design, clever, but stupid.

No dude. I see the confusion, but it’s more complex than that. It’s quite different to SC’s version of VPP for sure but it’s not a 4 bar, whatever we agree that that might be.

But there’s more than one effect. Most designs including dw are just trying to balance them so they cancel out.

Well actually no, because classic Santa Cruz VPP emphasises the chain growth thing to stiffen the suspension, which DW link does not. Very different and very interesting.

They’re still trying to balance forces so that braking and pedalling don’t stop the suspension behaving how they want.

They’re still trying to balance forces so that braking and pedalling don’t stop the suspension behaving how they want.

Yup. Do you think SC will go fully over to the single pivot bikes eventually, the Nickel etc?

I thought this could be an interesting thread. but I CBA engaging with an OP who just has a point to prove and wants to rubbish anyone that disagrees with her.

“The good thing about VPP imho is that it gives the opportunity for some vertical
or rearward axle path at the start of the stroke ( remember when everyone used
to talk about J shaped axle paths?) and this might actuall offer some advantages
in terms of traversing rough terrain . . ..“

This shows your ignorance/magazine dependence.

If it made a difference, there’d be no “might” about it. Mfrs and the press rely on this smoke and mirrors approach in their marketing because there is little to separate the different systems in use.

Don’t…don’t….don’t believe the hype!

The ‘lockout’ on a VPP design is caused by the two bars rotating against each other in turn caused by blah blah blah, it works.

oh I just remembered a classic faux pas in the latest mag…one reviewer saying a bike had been designed to work with the chain in the small chainring!

LOLLERCOPTERS111

I never understood how strange axle travel paths were supposed to help.
I just looked at VPP as a way of using the horizontal force on the chain to counteract the vertical force on the pedal and I was happy with it.

oh al, pot/kettle.

I never understood how strange axle travel paths were supposed to help.
I just looked at VPP as a way of using the horizontal force on the chain to counteract the vertical force on the pedal and I was happy with it.

I think it’s to do with the rear wheel being able to move backwards relative to the frame on hitting a rock rather than avin to move in an arc about the single pivot point. This would reduce the stopping force on the bike.

+2 hwiles on yer 1st post.

Hmm,yeah,OK.
But the forward movement of the bike will be significantly faster than the rearward movement of the axle, so I can’t see this making a difference in theory and never noticed it making a difference in practice.

But the forward movement of the bike will be significantly faster than the rearward movement of the axle, so I can’t see this making a difference in theory and never noticed it making a difference in practice.

Yup, that’s the bit that confuses me too. I think it’s a question of reducing the stopping force relative to a single pivot bike, not eliminating it. But yeah totally, very complicated physics. I have gone back to a hardtail and to be honest I have just as much fun….

If you learn to pedal properly then bob need not be an issue.

Can you explain this technique of pedalling that does not involve you applying a downward force I am intrunqued – youcan reduce it but NEVER eliminate it without lock out which is just cheating.

Having a single pivot and a VPP you can tell the difference and I know which is easier to pedal uphill- the systems do work and not that much price difference between say a Turner, Orange 5 or an Intense at frame only prices.

Having a single pivot and a VPP you can tell the difference and I know which is easier to pedal uphill- the systems do work and not that much price difference between say a Turner, Orange 5 or an Intense at frame only prices.

Nice to hear first hand experience of the two.

Although you can find deals etc there is about £500 between them at £1350 and £1850. That’s quite a bit. Orange 5 seems a bit overpriced imho.

give me an example of a needless linkage

a 4-bar driving a 4-bar.

7 pivots to make a bike that works exactly like one with 4 pivots