[Closed] Could Maverick make a come back?

JCL is fo realz. IIRC he is a carpenter. Quite talented too 😉

[img] [/img]

Shut it hardtail lover!

Will, is that little collection next to your bed?

In one corner we have JLS, who if my memory serves me, rides so fast he actually noticed his old 26" wheeled bicycle being unstable and now rides bigger wheels to cope with his extreme velocity. He also despises hardtails as they make riding off road more difficult. I think he lives where they have mountains.

In the other corner we have mboy, who frequently [s]s[/s]talks with very influential people within the mtb world, often advising them on best practice in design, ranging from tyre tread pattern through to expension pneumatics. He's hails from the UK and is without doubt Britain's 'go to' mtb guy.

We've reset out the shitsave filter and we're ready for round two of the Transatlantic Bullshit Battle. Let's get it on!

or in one corner someone who hasn't ridden the bike and in the other someone who has 🙂

I'm remembering JCL's summing up of the bronson as only been really suitable for fat useless people or something like that 🙂

I've ridden bikes that would be better in a 6 minute race but for something to get you to the top of a mountain and everything else in between that lasts for 6 hours, I'd rather a bike like the ML8 but with the alterations I've been taking of.

It's basically what Chiefgrooveguru said up there: they are very good at going uphill and seem to hold traction where other designs don't, with the rider seeming to have to do very little. Even though my body hates it, I like riding up hills, and I enjoy technical trails. The Monolink design is well suited to that, and to riding singletrack. I didn't like the stiffening up on standing downhills which is why I sold it.

Whoever said it was URT doesn't understand the design, as it's semi-urt with the BB independent of both front and rear frame sections. Mostly.

FWIW, having ridden some trails in Vancouver before I had the Maverick, it would have worked really well on the XC stuff out there. Take it on the downs and it'd be outclassed by a more active design, but that was my previous point.

Also, what Vinneyh says is, IMO, true too in that the performance advantage of the Monolink has been matched by the advances in shock damping circuits (was the 5th Element the first platform damped shock in the early 2000s? a year or so after the first Maverick was available).

I think the discipline I mentioned before was Super D or some other made up awesome name.

Also, I'm most definitely not gullible when it comes to this stuff, and I have a fair level of engineering knowledge & experience, so I think I can understand how mountain bike suspension works, but thanks for patronising me.

rearward axle path and required bb movement (reducing chain growth) look fine. Shock position looks iffy, causing long rear end and daft seat angle.

I wonder if the design could keep the first bit but then actuate the shock inside the front triangle like more regular designs?

Having never ridden a Maverick frame, frankly I just like the idea of home serviceable, cheap parts forks. And the one set I bounced on round a car park and 100m of rocky Peaks descent felt plush...

meanwhile, in a parallel universe....

[img] [/img]

rearward axle path and required bb movement (reducing chain growth) look fine. Shock position looks iffy, causing long rear end and daft seat angle.

Indeed, which is why I think though it worked well for 26" applications, it wouldn't translate too well to a bigger wheel sadly. Unless someone managed to redesign the back end a bit... How about a pushrod actuated shock sat somewhere else in the frame maybe? Might look a little complicated (to say the least) but would solve some packaging issues.

Irony alert.

Glad somebody was paying attention and has got a sense of humour! 😉

But anyone trying to argue that the design was superior in any aspect to a number of designs currently on the market is having a laugh.

Seated climbing traction... Honestly! Try one...

This is an oft said but illogical statement.

Just curious, but why do you say illogical?

Looking back at reviews from the era it seems Mavericks were considered very good uphill but not quite as good downhill. Considering that 6" bikes are far more downhill focused than back then, one suspects that the Monolink wouldn't be a great design for an enduro (TM) bike, although I can see it having its place in XC bikes.

I'd wholeheartedly agree. If you want a fully active 160mm travel trail bike with a DH focus, I'd look at any other number of suspension designs first. For a short-mid travel XC bike, with 26" wheels (which is a large sticking point these days!), the Monolink worked pretty well.

pjbarton.
I believe there was a standard-front-triangle version in prototype form.
This is a quote from Ethan on the MTBR 'Maverick moves on' thread.

I wish i could put them up, but they are not mine to do so! The bike looked pretty cool, we had gone to a convention shock with a swing link (like everyone else on the planet) but still retained the magical Monolink. This M-link was heavily modified from what you know now, much better out of saddle compliance than ever before. But alas, it was not to be, at least for the time being, who knows what lurks yonder for Maverick!

Who was responsible for this proto, I have no idea - in fact I have no idea who Maverick were at the end.

Indeed, which is why I think though it worked well for 26" applications, it wouldn't translate too well to a bigger wheel sadly. Unless someone managed to redesign the back end a bit... How about a pushrod actuated shock sat somewhere else in the frame maybe? Might look a little complicated (to say the least) but would solve some packaging issues.

In essence, the rearward path should help with packaging larger wheels (wheel moves away from frame, not just up) - the shock placing messes that up. interesting stuff, the bb link kinda allows for an incorrect single pivot point - looks like you could go for a high single pivot pushing a shock in the front triangle. The lower link effectively fixing the design by moving bb back.

it would be quite different!

I'm remembering JCL's summing up of the bronson as only been really suitable for fat useless people or something like that

I never said that! Overweight guys who can't pedal smooth for shit I think is what I said 🙂

Still, a Bronson isn't even on the same planet of crap as a Maverick.

And you should know...

How dare you call me obese.

I'm remembering JCL's summing up of the bronson as only been really suitable for fat useless people or something like that

semi URT or whatever it's called doesn't [i]look[/i] like it would work very well, however several mag reviews (mongoose and maverick) and a bunch of people have said it's actually pretty good, so I'll save my comments until I've ridden one.

Paul Turner is/was the Godfather of suspension on a Mountain Bike

You lost me there, he is king of marketing spin, whatever new design that comes out it is hailed as the best ever and better than the old design which was also the 'best ever' despite the fact that it's licencing/patents that made him change not some revolutionary design.

Having met JCL briefly and seen him ride a bike I would rather ask him for advice on a suitable bike for a plodder (a plodder that wants a bike with a low BB that handles not a sit down and pedal over everything bike) than a lot of the nobs on here just recycling what they read somewhere on the Internet.
He does have some funny ideas about road bikes though 😉

he is king of marketing spin

I have this view too (see my post way up there^). He seems to be very good at spinning what one would normally think of as a compromise into a non-issue or even an advantage. That said, a good mate of mine took a Mav bike out for a test spin and was impressed. This was some years ago though, and things have moved on.

Mavericks? This pic sums them up nicely (yes Ive ridden iDaves POS which was custom painted by Paul turners personal artist, or something)

[img] [/img]

[b]Paul Turner is/was the Godfather of suspension on a Mountain Bike[/b]

And Mr Smith replied...

You lost me there, he is king of marketing spin, whatever new design that comes out it is hailed as the best ever and better than the old design which was also the 'best ever' despite the fact that it's licencing/patents that made him change not some revolutionary design.

Pardon me, but I think your slip is showing.....

The wrong Mr Turner.