As explained (or not) here:

http://www.mbr.co.uk/news/bike_news/canyon-disconnect-363997

Unless I am missing something, this is pointless. If you are freewheeling the drive will be “disconnected” anyhow. And it doesn’t work when you are pedalling because with it on you can’t pedal. (The video clip demonstrating “pedal kickback” is with a stationary bike, not a freewheeling bike.)

It disconnects the freehub, so that if you pedal nothing will happen. The crank will spin either backwards or forwards, the cassette will still rotate but won’t turn the hub.

You’ll probably falloff trying to pedal if you don’t reconnect.

The idea being that when the rear suspension compresses, the chain hinders the compression because of your weight on the pedals holding the chain tight at the top of the chairing to the cassette.
Allow the cassette to rotate forward disengaged and the chain doesn’t hinder the compression.

Well yes, but not when you are freewheeling. Have you ever noticed your freewheel stop clicking when you are rolling over bumps and not pedalling? No, it keeps on clicking, the wheel is always rotating way faster than your cassette. All that chain extension does is pull the top run of chain which pulls the cassette slowly round a few degrees, meaning the freewheel clicks a little slower during suspension compression and a little faster during suspension extension. (I have never noticed this, maybe if I listened hard I would). The difference in forces felt at the pedals will be tiny, just a bit of change in freewheel drag.

They’ve run put of new wheel sizes to sell…

The difference in forces felt at the pedals will be tiny, just a bit of change in freewheel drag.

It’s primers reason for existence is how chains compromise suspension performance. Which is worse now with clutch mechs.

Do some DH runs with a chain, and then without. I had this recently when I snapped my chain at a race. I rode the stage without the chain, on the bits I didn’t need to pedal, the rear suspension was remarkably different.

I have ridden chainless, and it did feel a bit different. Certainly sounded different, a confusing factor. But… disconnecting the (already disconnected) drive won’t make it feel like the chain isn’t there. The forces that actually are there (freewheel/ whatever that thing is drag, working the mech spring and clutch, as you say) will remain until you actually remove the chain.

OK, maybe this device has a wee bit less drag in its bearing than would be in the freewheel. But the “pedal kickback” demonstrated in the litle video is nothing to do with these things, that is not present at all in a freewheeling bike. So even if there is an appreciable effect due to lower freewheel drag, that has nothing to do with the reasons they give.

I would lay money on this being an evolutionary dead end that people only vaguely remember 5 years from now.

In “do you remember the ….? ” type threads.

..

It’s total Bull**** – the one thing I can’t fathom is why anyone with any engineering brains is giving it any credit and why at a clever company like Canyon it even got off the drawing board let alone to prototype stage.

Any improvement when running chainless is down to a reduction in sprung and unsprung weight and a reduction in the spring tension/friction (or damping if you will) induced by a mech, clutch or otherwise. This could however just be seen as part of the overall springing/damping package and that if it’s that much of a problem it should be treated as a constant & accounted for in the spring/damping rates.

It’s daft to say the suspension is better without a chain because until we can do away with it we’re kind of stuck with the things to get us up hills.

It’ll be no surprise to anyone that Chris Porter has looked at it already

I don’t get why a switched on and otherwise sane Fabien Barel seems to have been associated with it.