Hands up – who is commenting about the ride of the bike and has never actually ridden one?
Is exactly what I was just going to ask…
You will find that the vast majority of people who have ridden a Maverick, actually prefer it for most kinds of riding – the stuff that most of us actually do.
I was ready to dislike the Monolink design a lot. Then I had a go on one… Then I cursed that I couldn’t afford one! I saved up, and found a VGC 2nd hand ML7 some months later, rode that for a few years, then managed to get one of the very last Durance’s to come to the UK before they stopped being imported which I still have, and probably always will.
The thing is, most Bike companies rely heavily on marketing BS to sell bikes. Maverick are/were the total opposite. They always had a long waiting list to get hold of a (not cheap) frame, and those who’ve owned them, love them. The Rearward axle path thing makes total sense, both front and rear axle on the bike moving in the same plane, so whatever happens, the wheelbase never shortens undesirably. Also, the rearward path is the most efficient for the rear wheel to deal with square edged hits effectively, part of why Mavericks are such great climbers, but also incredibly good descenders too. A single pivot with a short swingarm has a nasty habit of bucking around, as the wheelbase shortens drastically under compression, with both axles heading towards each other. A Horst Link bike is more effective with it’s pretty linear (not quite totally linear) axle path, that moves pretty much vertically (rather than forward), but not perfect. The Maverick Monolink just makes sense in this respect, and until you’ve ridden one properly, you really can’t comment with any authority at all.
EVERY full sus design has its shortfalls, none are perfect. In creating the Monolink design, Maverick realised it wasn’t going to be for everyone. If you want a bike that’s super plush whilst stood up descending, then it’s not for you. The fact of the matter is though, that the suspension only stiffens by 7% when you’re stood up as opposed to seated. To many people, me included, this is actually a desirable feature. It’s almost like an automatic propedal feature every time you get out of the saddle and sprint. Also, it allows you to run the suspension pretty soft for traction and comfort whilst seated, yet when hammering DH (stood up of course), the suspension will resist bottoming a bit better. As far as undesirable suspension characteristics go, the fact that the Monolink stiffens by 7% (it’s not a URT remember, some of those were awful to ride!) is by far and away a lesser evil than most other suspension designs posses.
To sit there, throwing armchair science theories onto the computer screen as if they were fact, does nothing except to prove your ignorance. I can understand anyone who says they don’t like the look of a Maverick (they’re definitely marmite in that respect), I can understand anyone who says the proprietary shock and forks and need for increased TLC over other designs is not for them, and I can understand those who may dismiss it on the grounds of geometry even as compared to some modern designs it could be seen as a little steep and tall. Don’t dismiss the suspension system until you’ve ridden one properly though, as Tim says above, for the riding that most of us do most of the time, it’s a fantastic suspension design that works exceptionally well.
Put it this way, if they did make a comeback, and figured out how to package the Monolink into either a 29er (preferable) or 650b frame without unduly increasing the chainstay length, I will be first in the queue for a new frame!
10411778_10152795066276474_4055149057289692365_n by Richard Munro[/url], on Flickr
