[Closed] linkage designs?

VPP from Santa Cruz Works very well - see SC website
FSR from Specialized also very good - see Specialized site

Some would say that the reason there's so many different designs isn't to get ideal characteristics at all, but to establish USPs and dodge patents. Definately some truth to that IMO.

DW link is used on (at least) Turner and Ibis, and is known for being good at minimising pedal bob.

Maverick Monolink, best IMO.

Ellsworth ICT good too.

AFAIK there are two basic ideas:

1 Single pivot, with a linkage-driven shock
2 Four bar

Both use linkages to increase how hard the shock is squashed as the suspension activates, often to overcome the rising resistance of the air-can as it is compressed.

Maestro, DW, FSR, VPP are all variations on four bar with the bars having different lengths. The main additional feature is the rear axel path is not an arc but a s-shape which is supposed to respond to small bumps better ... Maybe

There was a 5-bar bike kicking around for a while, if I recall. Had an axle zone opposed to a single path. Very interesting stuff!

Good pedal technique will reduce pedal bob far more than any design

No bikes I have seen have an s shaped path if you actually do the analysis.

Knolly have a double 4 bar linkage that looks hideously complicated.
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Doesn't look that complicated.
Isn't that complicated.

That Knolly 'looks' complicated, but if you break it down into "axle path" and "shock path", really it's just a standard four-bar, with a linkage driven shock.

DrP

EDIT - like my commencal meta - just a single pivot (axle path) with a linkage driven shock (shock path).
[img] [/img]

I like the Commencal type designs as it is very similar to what most motorcycles have and I have just spent a frustrating session swapping out 14 bearings in my Stumpjumper and I am quite susceptible to singlepivotitis

There are at least 10 on that commencal

Motor bikes & pedal bikes don't really have similar enough parameters to choose suspension designs on just looking similar

Any linkage design can be optimised to prevent bob (anti-squat), but compromising in wheel path, pedal feedback, brake jack and shock rates. It's just that some linkage designs can build in lots of anti-squat with less compromise in the whole package than others.

For example, a single pivot, ala orange five has plenty of anti squat but compromises on pedal feedback and brake jack. Wheres in comparison to a horst link, for the same amount of anti squat, you can have a little less pedal feedback and brake jack and manipulate the shock rate.

Also on the subject of this stuff, no matter how hard a company harps on about their design is the best, you can't have your cake and eat it, there will be compromise somewhere. What is "better" is purely subjective.

Not being biased or anything, but im a massive fan of switch link used on yetis, doing exactly what i want it to, (4 bar vpp).

Dirtmag did a series of articles a few years ago on bike technology; damping, suspension - and pretty much covered all types of rear suspension design. All the articles were written by a Spanish chap that's behind a DH bike that's AFAIK made in the UK... got talking to him at Fort Bill last year; fascinating, passionate chap. Sorry, can't recall his name - or the bike!

Here you go.

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/buyers-guide-to-mountain-bike-suspension-part-2-28438/

They all have their merits and I think it would be misleading to say one is better than another. They all behave differently and cater to different tastes.

Personally I always buy four bars because I don't like the brake squat you get with single pivots, vpp etc. Four bars do bob lots though but I have pretty much eliminated it with my riding style and modern propedal shocks.

I thought that FSR four bar did next to nothing to reduce bob and that it was based around low chain growth and low brake jack. Seems to give very sure footed handling in the rough. Having back to backed a single pivot and an FSR it is amazing how controlled the FSR is should you need to steer the rear with the back brake on fast chatter.

Last time I rode some bikes, I found that there were just as many differences between same-linkage bikes as there was between different linkage bikes.

My conclusion was that it was fruitless to try and guess how a bike was going to handle without riding it, or at least listening to someone's opinion that you can identify with.

E.G. An Intense 5.5 rode completely differently to a Blur.
A Heckler rode completely differently to a Five.
Whereas a 575 and an FSR where similarly sofa-like and dull when I rode them.

Last time I rode some bikes, I found that there were just as many differences between same-linkage bikes as there was between different linkage bikes.

My conclusion was that it was fruitless to try and guess how a bike was going to handle without riding it, or at least listening to someone's opinion that you can identify with.

wot he said

cheers for the input guys, i find this stuff pretty interesting, mechanics facinates me.

Did anyone see the the New Zeeland DH gearbox bike? they had a completely different axle path as they said "no wheel just goes up and down" theirs went back and forth too iirc

The Zerode?

Doesn't really go back & forward, just a high pivot arc

I saw one of [url= ]these[/url] on Saturday.

I must have looked an idiot looking at it sideways and mumbling to myself "when the wheel rises ... those two parts ... kind of scissor, then ... yes, that bit compresses the shock" 🙂

I think some designs are more complex than they need to be

I'm loving single pivot simplicity at the moment.

My old Kona Stinky design is pretty rubbish. When braking, the wheel and swing arm will vibrate causing a loss of grip. Took it to my LBS and they said it was a fault with the swing arm and it was un fixable.

We've got to a point where even two Horst Link bikes will behave differently, as a result of tiny variations between pivot placement. I give you my 2004 Enduro and my 2011 Camber - both Horst Link bikes with 120-130mm travel. You'd think that they'd feel very similar, right?

Both frames happened to run the same wheels, tyres, forks and gears as the parts were transplanted from the older bike, so the comparison between frames is as fair as you'll get.

The Enduro is very, very plush and never lacks traction. There's a lot of pedal induced squat and it's not especially "reactive" to minor pedal inputs.

The Camber isn't quite as plush and sometimes spits traction. However, it reacts more readily to pedal input and is more resistant to pedal induced squat.

Suspension wise, the Horst Link on the Camber is a teenier bit closer to the dropout and the main pivot placement has moved to the seat tube. It's enough to make a significant difference.

I also have a Marin Wolf Ridge, which has a variation on the four-bar theme. Two short, stubby links contain the shock and swingarm, but the feel of the bike is a world away from both the Specializeds. Traction can be very spitty, but the bike stiffens under pedalling and the suspension is very reactive to pedal input. It's not terribly plush, but it swallows big hits well.

Which is best? That's a tough question, I can't really answer objectively. I love riding them all, to the point that when I'm riding one bike, I seldom feel short changed. I have to judge by purely subjective terms and so should anyone who's buying a full suss bike.

so the comparison between frames is as fair as you'll get.

Damn, beaten to it.

My favourite post of the thread:

"Type X works well - see the manufacturers' website" 😛

My favourite post of the thread:

"Type X works well - see the manufacturers' website"

Yep I'll give all the words you need to put into google 🙂

Whatever you say, mines the best.

I'd challenge PJM1974's claim the the enduro [u]never[/u] loses traction though. *shakes head*

My god that Scott bike looks good, link offered up by Schnor further up.

Dirt Rag had a real good article that explained the various rear suspension variations in Issue 122, July '06. It is on their webpage [url= http://www.dirtragmag.com/suspension ]here.[/url] The one in the mag had photos or drawings which helped.

that BR article is a good read. exactly what i was looking for.

I enjoyed my Marin wolfridge, i didnt mind the pedal bob as it flew hard down hills, it liked to be ridden hard. Heavy bike though. I had a shot of my friends ST4 and i flew up hills on it, it felt very basic suspension wise, but he is a XC whippet so its set quite firm. I seem to enjoy riding bikes no matter what the suspension design.

I guess its all about personell prefference and what you enjoy doing.

I'd challenge PJM1974's claim the the enduro never loses traction though. *shakes head*

Really? I've ridden the Enduro for eight and a half years and have covered well over ten thousand miles on it, so I'm pretty well acquainted with it's suspension behaviour. Maybe I run a taller seatpost than you, given that the seat angle is quite slack, it's possible that my weight is carried further back? I can honestly say that in all the time I owned it, I never found the bike short on traction, even when using some quite skimpy tyre tread.

Only if the are running identical shocks and tunes.

Granted that's a fair point. However, most manufacturers tailor the shock tune to suit the frame. IIRC, the air can on the Camber is larger than on the Enduro, which would make it more progressive in feel. Even with the propedal turned off, the Camber feels more controlled than the Enduro - which had a shock service earlier this year.