The suspension design is truly awful – and amazingly they’ve put a graph of how bad it is on their website. It’s regressive from 2 to over 2.7, so 35% regression. I presume they didn’t understand what the software was telling them and thought that because the graph was going up that it was progressive!
OK, I didn’t delve deep enough into their website to find any statistics on the designs… It is obvious from looking at the design that it’s going to be highly regressive, I didn’t quite realise just how much by. 35% regression is staggering! I didn’t get on with my Starling because it was mildly regressive, even with a DPX2 fitted chock full of volume spacers it still didn’t work for me, felt a little harsher off the top that I wanted and didn’t have enough mid stroke support or bottom out resistance for my taste. The Starlings are almost linear, only about 5% regression or something from memory…
Every full sus I’ve owned and liked has had in the region of 25-35% progression built into the linkage design, and has been complemented either by a high volume air shock or a coil shock.
Boasting about a “rising rate” shock leverage curve seems VERY odd… 🤷🏻♂️
And the stuff about the axle path over obstacles… Eh?!?! 🤷🏻♂️
I’ve just called the shiller out on the Vital thread… “Suspension expert” yet he doesn’t realise how a 35% regressive ratio affects the bikes suspension performance?!?! 😧