[Closed] Simplicity vs Performance - Suspension design

Smiles. That's the only important factor unless you race.

Of course, there might be a more smiley bike out there somewhere, but who's to know? Ride bike, like bike, buy bike. It's that simple.

Singletrack should do a group test of knackered, abused bikes that have seen no maintenance.

1 x hardtail
1 x single pivot
1 x multi bearing'd bike

maybe also 1 of each bike in mint condition.

and compare how the performance has degraded between the models and if the fancy suspension design means much if you don't maintain your bike. It might revel nothing or might reveal everything.

I find myself agreeing completely with molgrips, again - I'm in no shape to be thinking about winning anything, so it's all about "do I like this?"

And then not spending the next year wondering if something else would be in tangibly better!

I want the bearings to last so a good design well made is what I look for. Then when the bearings do need replacing I won't be so bothered whether there are two or eight. My preference so far has been Horst link type so plenty of bearings when the time comes

R_B +1ish

There's a difference between for example a multi pivot suspension frame that's not quite aligned properly and eats bearings, and one that could potentially last the lifetime of the frame. Most bikes with short links should fit into that category. So something like a Specialized stumpjumper needing 12+ bearings and a kit costing £100+ labor isn't really such an issue if it only needs doing every 3 years.

On the other hand some multi pivot frames are just easier to service so it's not a problem.

Singletrack should do a group test of knackered, abused bikes that have seen no maintenance.

1 x hardtail
1 x single pivot
1 x multi bearing’d bike

maybe also 1 of each bike in mint condition.

and compare how the performance has degraded between the models and if the fancy suspension design means much if you don’t maintain your bike. It might revel nothing or might reveal everything.

Probably depends on the rider, some people will just ride anything even if it sounds like a skeleton avoiding the swear filter in a biscuit tin, others will refuse to ride if the jockey wheels feel a bit gritty!

It's not quite as simple as that, particularly as multi-pivot designs put lower forces through each pivot under lateral and torsional loads, so (as long as nothing is misaligned) can give potentially far better bearing durability (obviously you can overcome this on a single pivot by speccing massive bearings, which you have space to accommodate more easily).

I'm therefore pretty much with Rubber Buccaneer. It's like frame materials - not worth worrying about as you can make a very durable or very fragile frame out of any commonly used material.

Out of interest, what drives you when choosing a new frame? Outright performance? Simplicity? A combination?

Discuss……

You missed budget/affordability from your list.
Sadly it is a factor for some of us, and we have to ride what we can afford, not what we'd really lust after...

lust is the number one factor in bike purchase imo.

Then its design. bikes are fairly simplistic. theres a lot of variations on a theme and i cant believe stuff that goes out with rubbing cables / shimmed bearings and all sorts of stuff like that. Bodges around a bad design imo.

then if its fun (for me) i know some folks have bought bikes on them being fast. I bought my last bike because it was fun and as it turned out a bit slower than others.

Maintenance is low low low on my list.

As others have said i would change my bearings every year, check every 6. I have friends that are running the same bearings after 5 years. Apparently they are fine. I know they are not!

a good point cookeaa.

Do we see a trend of more expensive bikes having multi linkage suspension?

Although you can still spend 6k on an orange...?!

It’s not quite as simple as that, particularly as multi-pivot designs put lower forces through each pivot under lateral and torsional loads, so (as long as nothing is misaligned) can give potentially far better bearing durability

I'm not so convinced, you could I suppose halve the load in the main pivot if the chainstay linkage took half the force, but on the whole those bearings tend to be much smaller. Single pivots with the pivot on the downtube tend to be much wider too so it's better triangulated than squeezed between the chainring and seatube.

Do we see a trend of more expensive bikes having multi linkage suspension?

Naa, bossnut is a Horst link and orange, starling, etc are all single pivots.

I don't even think it's simpler to make, look at the number of welds on an orange or starling (or going back in time, bullit or heckler). One piece, but far more complicated to fabricate.

I’m a serial bike component destroyer (heavy, frequent hard riding, all weather) and switch to a single pivot frame a couple of years back to reduce and simplify maintenance – from that perspective it’s certainly worked. I find multi-pivot only as good as their weakest joint, and if that goes the rest follow in short order as the load tends to transfer to the next weakest joint. Not that it would stop me owning a multi pivot again (the rest of the family bikes are, they just don’t see the same levels of abuse) but I’d definitely seek out single.

Choice of single pivot frames is limited though, most manufactures make multi pivot. While it might be true they slightly superior in performance, it’s probably more because manufactures make what sells first and foremost.

The frame I bought – the last of the 27.5 Santa Cruz Hecklers – was discontinued by Santa Cruz in favour of the alloy Bronson. More money, more profit, more demand I guess. Not sure what I’ll replace it with when it finally dies, nice to see manufactures (other than Orange) making single pivots.

TBF budget has always played a part for me and because I tend to buy 2nd hand frames I've had a mixture of both simple and complex FS bikes.

If you want robust and functional bushes rather than bearings are cheap and cheerful and work (I doubt most of use could really spot the difference).
If you want to spend your life maintaining a bike buy something with a Lawill linkage back end... the biggest factor (IMO) isn't the linkage (or lack thereof) but the shock, a crap shock can ruin an otherwise good bike and a good shock can improve an otherwise unremarkable one.

Single pivot/4 bar/faux bar? all much of a muchness now IMO.

People rave about the Bossnut (cheaper end of the Single pivot spectrum) and whatever fancy FSR or VPP concoction SBC or SC are pushing this week.

The Murmur is an interesting one as it's USPs are different from most of the rest of the market, a bouncer trading on the whole "Steel is real" thing plus the simplicity of a single pivot coupled with sorted geometry, rather than composites and "high tech" multi-pivot designs...
But it's still and £1800+ frame, if you've arrived at the conclusion that you need to spend that amount, on that particular frame, it's going to be because that fits you're specific needs better than the equivalent Al/carbon hyper machine that the bigger outfits would tend to flog you...
Of course if it was just about "simplicity" of the suspension design you'd just buy a Bossnut and throw the remaining budget at accessories and toys...

Budget, looks, ride..

My bike only has 2 bearings... however it has loads of bushings.. I serviced it recently and really should've taken a pic of all the parts laid out on the garage floor. Was quite scary (especially as I am very prone to losing small parts in my garage!).
However, having serviced that, and a few Yeti 575s in my time, complexity doesn't come into my decision.

Echo previous comments ...

I don't race so most important factor for me is "is the bike fun and does it make me smile when I ride it"

I check to see if the manufacturer has an OK reputation regarding durability and quality but after that I just go for what feels good regardless of 1 bearing or 100 bearings!

Also its possible to badly engineer a simple design so it is not durable and possible to engineer well a complicated design so it is durable. So complexity of the design is not a big factor for me but the reputation of the design is.

I bought my last frame because it looked nice and it was the style of bike that suits my riding (somewhere between XC and Enduro).

I've got a Starling Swoop, and over the years have ridden lots of different designs, materials, suspension systems. Initially I wanted the Swoop to get the geometry I wanted (I'm very long in the body and short in the leg, and wanted to be able to run a 150+ dropper post).

I would say the performance of any suspension bike (in fact any bike) is hugely affected by set up. I've ridden complex designs that have felt terrible, but with a bit of tinkering have become excellent.

I love the bike and would happily get another, or a murmur. The suspension system might be simple, but don't confuse simplicity for "worse".

If you have test ridden the bike and like it, then I'd highly recommend one.

I think reading magazines and reviews over the years helps hammer home this message that linkages / multi pivot / VPP / and all sorts of modified axle path is better.

For elite riders riding hard on DH bikes with 20mm travel, this is maybe true. For average joes on 140mm travel trail bikes, maybe not so much...

My previous susser was a Pole Evolink, which drove me nuts with it's incessant creak form the poorly designed and executed BB link. Cue much changing of expensive bearings and truly shite customer care. Never again!

I always remembered riding an Orange 5 Alpine at a demo years ago, on the Laggan black. It stuck with me as the best susser I had ridden. I didn't buy one when the time came though, because of the aforementioned conditioning that SP is bad.
Once I got rid of the Pole, I got me a custom Murmur running a Fox X2 shock. It's fantastic. The bearings, once they die, are £4 each and a ten minute job.

Complicated linkage suspension is great for marketing. If they were so much better than single pivot designs the. Bikes with single pivot designs would continually and consistently get crap reviews. They don’t. I suspect it doesn’t matter that much and really down to how the bike feels. But humans are adaptable so even if you get a bike that doesn’t suit you at first you can adapt and make it work. How do you think pro’s get on when they change sponsors and get new bikes. If they’re successful and the bike is so much of a big part of their success then there is no way they’d risk not winning and changing bikes. You’re just as well buying from colour preference or brand preference than trying to be clever about analysing the suspension set up.

I think reading magazines and reviews over the years helps hammer home this message that linkages / multi pivot / VPP / and all sorts of modified axle path is better.

For elite riders riding hard on DH bikes with 20mm travel, this is maybe true. For average joes on 140mm travel trail bikes, maybe not so much…

You say that But Amaury Pierron is winning the odd WC DH race on a Commencal with a high, single pivot (with linkage driven shock), Danny Hart is still inside the top 5 at present on another linkage actuated single pivot. So Elite WC DH would seem to suggest that Horst/VPP/DW/single pivot?... Meh, they all work well enough. I'd worry more about tyre choice...

It's all about smiles. I was put off single pivot after my orange 5 a few years ago that would lock the rear suspension when you used the back brake. They may have moved on since then and fixed the issue

I was thinking similar thoughts myself recently while writing a review of my Orange.

People - usually internet dullards - are quick to point out the downsides of a single pivot (though there's only one real issue IMO), but there's much less talk about the big upside of how a good one rides.

My Stage 6 is without a doubt the most engaging, fun and versatile MTB I've owned. And it's very fast too, FWIW.

I'm of the opinion that there's very few people around, me included, that could tell the difference in a blind pepsi-style test between each different suspension platform. I've not had that many full sussers - Heckler, SB66, Capra, Spectral 29 and now Bronson.

The only one I really had to work at was the Capra, to try and get the suspension working as a pedal all day bike took a bit of tuning, but got there eventually. The Heckler just worked, Yeti was hands down the best descending bike I've had, but 120 quid in bearings on a regular basis pissed me off a bit. The canyon was decent, if unspectacular, and the Bronson just does everything well.

I'll be keeping it for at least 5 years, it's only 2 years old now and still feels packet fresh, and the free bearings are a really good added bonus. Yes, it was expensive, but some folks spend a shit load on bikes in 5 years, and this is the only MTB I have.

I’m of the opinion that there’s very few people around, me included, that could tell the difference in a blind pepsi-style test between each different suspension platform.

+1

I have found that without a decent shock pure single pivots without a secondary link bottom out far too easily and blow through their travel too quickly.

I also like the fact the frame has two bearings and not much else going on, so its fairly maintenance free.

No bearings / bushings on the shock mounts?

What do I look for? Erm, one I like and can afford

Single pivot is distinctive enough to identify in a hypothetical blind test, I reckon.

Everything else would be harder to differentiate, I agree

A mix of Performance/fitness for purpose and lust from me.

I was kind of anti single pivot for a long time, using pretty much anything but SP (had VPP, FSR and DW).

Then I tried a high single pivot with an idler (linkage driven shock). By far the best descending setup I’ve ever used. Not quite as good as a DW link for climbing smooth trails but as soon as it gets techy, HSP wins.

The DW link bike will be replaced with a HSP trail bike.

I doubt you could say 'this is a horst' or 'dw' or 'vpp' in a blind test, but you could probably pick a bike you liked. Even trying two different bikes with the same travel and suspension design, small changes in their implementation have a big effect on how they ride.

Single pivots (simple ones anyway) do generally tend to ride in a certain way though which is a bit marmite.

I have found that without a decent shock pure single pivots without a secondary link bottom out far too easily and blow through their travel too quickly.

But that's tunable via the shock, or should be.

Never liked single pivots myself. The way they pedal, respond, brake, flex. Everything. There's no way I'd have one.

Choosing bikes is pretty easy though. Just ride them. A mate has a DW-link bike, which is really well prepped/specced/setup but prefer my four-bar pretty much straight away. Whether it's the geo or what, who knows, but it's clear in no time.

For me weight and efficiency, e.g. the bike has to surge uphill with each pedal stroke, can't stand anything with a sluggish response. I'd happily sacrifice downhill speed for uphill efficiency.

Simplicity/few moving parts isn't as big a deal as people think... I pay £32 for a complete bearing set for my frame (Remedy) but most times I don't even need to do that, I just change the bearings that need it. And it's like 1 hour's work or so. An absolute drop in the bucket considering the price of frames etc.

Not to say simple/lower maintenance frames can't also perform well, but I think it's basically mental to give up even a tiny bit of performance to reduce the number of bearings.

But as per my previous comment, what if you gain a really fun ride character by having fewer bearings?

Is "performance" just making the trail feel as smooth as possible?

What if a bike was more challenging to ride but also one of the faster contenders in its class?

Further to this thread, I did a review of the Stage 6 which may be of interest to some...
http://unduro.co.uk/mtb/review-orange-stage-6/

“Single pivot is distinctive enough to identify in a hypothetical blind test, I reckon.”

I’m not convinced.

There are two big differentiators for suspension performance on MTBs, anti-squat (and thus pedal kickback) and leverage curve.

The former depends upon the pivot point or instant centre relative to the chain line. The latter depends upon how the swing arm moves the shock.

The latter can’t be manipulated on a single pivot significantly without an additional linkage but plenty of complex designs have similar curves to single pivot bikes. The former depends on where you put the main pivot or where the links point to - that point can be the same for single pivots or complex designs.

Give a bike loads of anti-squat and it’ll pedal well but kickback somewhat. Doesn’t matter what the suspension design is, that’s what you’ll notice.

How bad is kickback? My long travel bike has loads of pedal kickback, I notice it but it doesn't really stop me riding stuff. I mean, the bike is slow on the ups but that's cos it's got massive slow tyres on it, and the riding position is upright.

You'd tell a single pivot from the stiffening under braking, assuming you were familiar with the feel from riding one previously of course.

And having the opportunity to ride it somewhere at least mildly bumpy.

“You’d tell a single pivot from the stiffening under braking, assuming you were familiar with the feel from riding one previously of course.”

How much a bike stiffens under braking (aka anti-rise) is purely a function of the pivot point vs the rear tyre contact patch, you just draw a line through the two and the the steeper the angle vs the horizontal, the greater the anti-rise.

It’s very high on high pivot bikes like the Commencal Supreme, and it’s very low on FSR style 4-bar bikes where the chainstay and upper link co-rotate and point a long way forwards, or on Split Pivot / Trek bikes.

But anti-rise is very similar on 4-bar bikes that counter-rotate (where the upper link hangs from the top tube), Switch Infinity, VPP, KS-link, linkage driven single pivots (Cotic, Kona, etc), and simple single pivots - you can’t separate the designs, they overlap far too much in braking behaviour.

Amazing how powerful placebo effect is, every bike journalist is convinced that single pivot bikes are totally different under braking to all others.

all very interesting stuff.

Is there a guide anywhere of the advantages or disadvantages of the various suspension setups?

I am still pondering the purchase of a Murmur, but I tend to ride most of my downhills with a bit of back brake drag, so fear 'brake jack' 'anti rise' etc. Or as mentioned above, is it placebo effect or something literally to just not worry about and to just get on and ride?! (I have a problem with over analysing things!)

Is there a guide anywhere of the advantages or disadvantages of the various suspension setups?

There probably is, but it's all rubbish. I mean theoretically one design might transfer slightly less bump impact to the rider, but there are SO many more variables that affect how much you enjoy a bike that this is not significant.

Basically, demo a bike, if you like it buy it. You aren't trying to eke out maximum performance (unless you're a racer), so just ride whatever's fun.

Brake jack especially is bobbins. I mean, on some suspension designs if they have the brake caliper on a different linkage to the wheel, then operating the brake can make the rear suspension extend. This is rare and I'm not sure if anyone designs frames like this any more - what people notice when the rear suspension extends under braking is the simple fact that their weight has pitched forward which is always going to make the front go down and the back go up. Some designs may minimise this which makes other designs feel worse. My long travel bike dived terribly, but that's cos I was riding it with the saddle all the way up. Dropping the saddle meant I could get behind the bike properly, problem solved.

@molgrips - Some current Horst type designs appear to have the rocker link arranged so that the braking/suspension interaction is pretty much zero in the initial part of the suspension movement. That is, the link between the "seatstay" and the rocker pivot is near horizontal. Look at current Transitions and Treks, for example. Whether braking behaviour was part of that design decision I don't know, I would imagine that fine-tuning the pedalling/suspension behavior and the spring rate wouild be higher priorities*. As you say, the major factor you will notice is the front diving, which isn't really anything to do with that.

I wouldn't rule out that some people might notice the effect when they initially squeeze the rear brake. I could do a back-to-back test as my previous frame is still in the garage, but just moving from one to the other I didn't notice anything different in the braking department (same brakes, wheels etc.).

*From an engineering perspective that is. Trek make a big play of the braking thing in their marketing, but engineering bollocks and marketing go hand in hand as we know. I read somewhere that the reason they went for their concentric suspension and axle pivots was to get round an Ellsworth patent, what they actually wanted to do was a Horst with the axle and pivot point close together - which is what many current Horst type designs have, making them behave like single pivots (apart from the braking thing...)

Some current Horst type designs appear to have the rocker link arranged so that the braking/suspension interaction is pretty much zero in the initial part of the suspension movement.

Yes, Horst links are potentially a problem here. But on other designs such as single pivot or linkage actuated single pivot where the calliper is fixed to the same piece of metal as the wheel, there's no direct interaction between brake and suspension.

EDIT Just had a look at a Transition Sentinel online. Nice looking bike isn't it?

“But on other designs such as single pivot or linkage actuated single pivot where the calliper is fixed to the same piece of metal as the wheel, there’s no direct interaction between brake and suspension”

Yes there is. The rearward force from the ground to the rear tyre contact patch generates a torque that attempts to lift the rear suspension, thus squatting the back end of the bike downwards.

@molgrips - my previous bike (what I still have the frame of) is a Transition Bandit, with the caliper attached to the swingarm. I was looking for a longer travel modern geometry bike and nearly got an ali Sentinel, but a carbon Trek Slash frame came up on PinkBike so I took a punt on it. Haven't regretted it, the Slash is awesome, but I am sure the Sentinel would be also.

@chief - I am not sure about that. The torque from the rear braking forces is transmitted through the axle and caliper, ie to the bit of metal/carbon that connects the two. Things can be arranged for that torque to compress or extend the suspension, or to do nothing. In addition to that of course, there is the fact that under braking weight will shift to the front. With rear suspension arranged for there to be no brake/suspension interaction, the rear suspension would extend, as it would if you were doing all your braking on the front. With a caliper on the swingarm arrangement, the braking forces would oppose this. Which may or may not be an appreciable effect, or a good thing.

ETA if the (virtual) swingarm is not horizontal, there will also be an effect from the net rearward forces on the axle, but I think this will be even smaller particularly on 29ers.

URT all the way!

Orange rider here, for 20 years. I pick my bikes for performance and fun first and foremost, but the reliability of single-pivot is a massive plus for me here in the Pennines, riding all year round. There may be marginally 'plusher' multi-link systems out there, but there's just something about the 'feel' of Oranges for me, and the geometry is always spot on. There's much more to a full-sus than just the kinematics of the system anyway. Besides which, the set-up on my current Five is actually super-smooth (36s and a Float X) - perfect for the Pennines and Lakes, where I do 99% of my riding. I'd happily hammer the Alps on it too (though not massive jumps). Also, the negative traits of single-pivots often come with positive flip sides too - in my experience they dig in and climb technical trails well, and are also nippy to accelerate on pedally flat sections. I do reckon that perhaps single pivots suit beginner riders a bit less, as they work at their very best at speed, with the back brake off. At the end of the day, some folk like them, some don't. There's no better or worse, just different.

Way too many variables involved even for a professional mechanical engineer to get their head around! All the various kinematic layouts have their pros and cons and I wouldn't like to say one design was clearly better than the rest. What I would say is that multi-bar links do give a little more scope for designers to fiddle about with the kinematics, but that's not necessarily any major advantage. Personally I look more at the overall design and geometry of the bike and ignore the marketing blurb.

Basically, demo a bike, if you like it buy it. You aren’t trying to eke out maximum performance (unless you’re a racer), so just ride whatever’s fun.

sound advice. Which is luckily what I did with the murmur, so I should stop worrying and buy the bike I tried and enjoyed!

Interesting reading with regards to all the other points people are making. I appreciate the time and energy people are putting into replying!

You do know the primary reason for the Horst link was when we all had cantilevers, and if you didn't put the brakes on the same link as the wheel, the pads would slide off the rim under compression?

You do know the primary reason for the Horst link was when we all had cantilevers, and if you didn’t put the brakes on the same link as the wheel, the pads would slide off the rim under compression?

^^This^^

It's also worth remembering the old AMP B2 while being an early "horst link" bike didn't have an upper link the seatstay member was clamped straight to the shock... The more interesting aspect of the whole beast being the linkage forks...

It would have behaved more like a single pivot than a modern day FSR and was designed to be a relatively simple suspension system.

Absolutely agree WL - did you read the review I linked yesterday?

I assume the Five is also a very fast bike and good company for big days out.

Read it just earlier, chaka. Interesting stuff, and thorough. The Five is amazing to be honest - fun, fast and trouble-free. I demoed a Stage 5 which was also great but opted for the smaller wheels in the end - just a personal preference as I found the regular Five got around very tight switchbacks with a bit less effort (not quite so quick over the rough stuff in a straight line though, as you'd expect). Demoed an Alpine 6 too, which was also mint, just a bit overkill for my regular riding. Had my Five for two years and it's perfect for big days, and in the Factory spec very capable indeed for a 140mm bike. Biggest day out so far was both sides of Nan Bield from Staveley. Around 30 miles, 2,000m climbing/pushing, took roughly 8 hours. Bike was awesome. Four Passes no bother either. My normal local stuff is 20-30 milers in Calderdale - natural trails with techy steeps and rough moorland singletrack. Toying with selling it soon...just to buy the updated Five.

You do know the primary reason for the Horst link was when we all had cantilevers, and if you didn’t put the brakes on the same link as the wheel, the pads would slide off the rim under compression?

I am struggling to see the relevance of this tbh.

I am struggling to see the relevance of this tbh.

Several brands have some cool aid you can drink which will make you believe it’s very relevant to modern bikes.

Ah right, the real reason vs marketing bullshit reason thing. Fair enough.

I am struggling to see the relevance of this tbh.

Also sounds a bit unlikely. Single pivot and URT both already had this feature so you didn't need to create a new design if that was your primary goal

I am struggling to see the relevance of this tbh.

Well these days everyone want to tell you their suspension design is imbued with axle path magic and the word "kinematics" is getting a bit overused...

The point of that factoid was that regardless of what SBC put in their marketing, their proprietary suspension uses a concept invented to solve a different issue at a much earlier point in the evolution of the MTB...

Bonus point question for you bicycle history buffs: who first bought 'VPP' to market? No Googling!

Ooh, me, me! - Was it Intense?

The rearward force from the ground to the rear tyre contact patch generates a torque that attempts to lift the rear suspension, thus squatting the back end of the bike downwards.

I said there's no [i]direct[/i] interaction. That to me is indirect, and it's inevitable as long as you have a rear brake. However I think it's minimal compared to the unweighting effect of the rider's weight moving forward.

Ooh, me, me! – Was it Intense?

No

With the advent of 1X transmissions the single pivot suspension system is more relevant now than it ever was .

The 4-bar link principle in mechanical engineering is about as old as the hills, whatever fancy name bike manufacturers give it. I first learned about it at uni back in the late 80s as a mech eng. undergrad and it was hardly a new concept then. It certainly existed well before full suspension mountain bikes ever became a thing. It does makes sense to utilise this classic engineering principle on a bike, but there is nothing glaringly wrong with a well designed single pivot either.

VPP is a trade mark of Santa Cruz. They use it on their suspension that incorporates some patented aspects invented by employees of Outland Sports Inc, which Santa cruz bought. "Virtual Pivot Point" on the other hand is free for anyone to use.

VPP, FSR, DW, etc, etc are all 4-bar linkages with fancy patented names. Their actual kinematics can vary wildly depending on the relative location of the pivot points. Stiffness of the linkage system will also greatly affect performance. As will the system's interaction with the shock and of course the shock spring/damping characteristics themselves. It adds up to almost infinite potential variations, but most of these systems seem well sorted today (which wasn't the case 15 years ago when I first started riding).

The Outland/ Santa Cruz patents (or one of them anyhow) is interesting in that its claims are limited by reference to a particular shape of axle path, rather than a particular linkage arrangement:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5553881?oq=us+patent+5%2C553%2C881

"I said there’s no direct interaction. That to me is indirect, and it’s inevitable as long as you have a rear brake. However I think it’s minimal compared to the unweighting effect of the rider’s weight moving forward."

It isn't indirect at all. You use the brake, the momentum you're fighting against generates forces which create torques in the linkages. Whether you think it's minimal or not, it's a clear effect which can be modelled in simple software packages.

And it's pretty bloody obvious if you swap between two bikes with similar travel and geometry and similarly set up suspension, one of which has high anti-rise and one of which has low anti-rise. Throw in a hardtail which also has similar geometry and a similar fork and set-up and it's even more obvious.

I've had three bikes in the last year at the same time which tick these boxes. Brake squat / anti-rise exists. I prefer quite high anti-rise but my current full-sus has quite low anti-rise, so the rear suspension feels less harsh when braking but I have to shift my body slightly more rearward to stop it diving at the front.

Absolutely ****loads of anti-rise graphs here: http://linkagedesign.blogspot.com/

And here they are for a load of single pivot bikes vs others: http://linkagedesign.blogspot.com/search/label/Orange

Highest brake squat (stiffening) at sag is the linkage-driven single pivot Evil, then the Switch Infinity Yeti, then the simple single pivot Orange, then the DW link Pivot (though that increases deeper in the travel, which is the opposite of most bikes) and then the VPP Santa Cruz.

Only noticing "brake jack" on single pivot bikes is placebo effect - most other bikes have plenty too, the FSR style 4-bar bikes / Split Pivot are the exception where it's lower.

Brake squat / anti-rise exists.

Yes, I was talking about brake [i]jack[/i]. Anti-rise is a thing for sure.

@chief

And it’s pretty bloody obvious if you swap between two bikes with similar travel and geometry and similarly set up suspension, one of which has high anti-rise and one of which has low anti-rise. Throw in a hardtail which also has similar geometry and a similar fork and set-up and it’s even more obvious.

As I noted above, I have done pretty much that switching between two bikes, and I didn't notice it. I am not a noticer.

"Yes, I was talking about brake jack. Anti-rise is a thing for sure."

I can't see how any modern MTB suspension design can suffer brake jack, all the linkages and pivots are in the wrong places!

https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/a20022920/mountain-bike-feature-jacks-not-here-man/

"As I noted above, I have done pretty much that switching between two bikes, and I didn’t notice it. I am not a noticer."

Be glad, it's much less annoying not to notice! Although once I get the right bike dialled in, it is very satisfying... If I was 50% faster I'd be an awesome test rider! 😉

That's all well and good, but I could tell a single pivot from the stiffening under braking.

"That’s all well and good, but I could tell a single pivot from the stiffening under braking."

You think you can but the facts are that plenty of other suspension designs stiffen just as much under braking. So of the bikes on your (rather good) blog reviews, the Stage 4, Stage 6, FlareMax, RocketMax, Process 111 and Mega 290 all have high anti-rise (stiffening under braking) which are all single pivots (linkage driven or otherwise) apart from the Mega's counter-rotating four bar. The Radon Swoop has very low anti-rise as do the Enduro 29 and Smuggler (all four bar). And you haven't reviewed any short-link bikes, many of which behave like single pivots under braking.

Yeah, but I could tell from the stiffening un.... oh alright, I'll stop trolling you now.

But there is truth there. The Stage 6 has made me realise that the Konas did stiffen under braking to an extent that affected the ride, possibly the Mega too but that was shit in a few different ways so it was hard to tell.

The Cotic FS bikes I've ridden were much more subtle about it, whatever the graphs say. Like a very muted version of the Orange feel. Didn't punish you for brake-dragging anyway.

I've also owned Giant Maestro bikes, Mondraker "zero" bikes and a DW link and they all felt very composed in all situations - especially the Mondies. Are they "short link" bikes?

TBH I purposefully don't write about the physics-y side of suspension, there's enough of that everywhere else and I'm just not that into it.

“The Cotic FS bikes I’ve ridden were much more subtle about it, whatever the graphs say. Like a very muted version of the Orange feel. Didn’t punish you for brake-dragging anyway.”

The Cotics have quite a progressive curve so will be softer at the start of the travel which could make the difference. Also recent Orange bikes have moved the pivot quite high hence the sprightly but kickbacky pedalling.

“I’ve also owned Giant Maestro bikes, Mondraker “zero” bikes and a DW link and they all felt very composed in all situations – especially the Mondies. Are they “short link” bikes?”

Yes, they’re short link bikes. All depends on where the links point, the less far forward and higher they point, the more the brake squat.

Have you tried any of the new high pivot point idler bikes? They manage to have high anti squat for good pedalling with almost no kickback but have tons of brake squat, more than anything else.

I’ve only had one single pivot bike (a Univega Ram990 back in the early 2000’s), and that had a falling rate that meant it pedalled well, but then smashed through its travel / wallowed quite badly through compressions. Other than that I had some sort of urt with a linkage that made it look like a 4 bar (Kona U’hu) then Horst link bikes - a GT LTS back in the day, a Boardman Pro FS 2015, and now my Bird Aeris.

I’ve enjoyed all of them but it would be interesting to try a non linkage driven single pivot like an Orange with a modern shock in.

I have recently ridden a linkage driven single pivot (Kona Process 134) but it felt a bit like a hardtail back to back with the Aeris. That must be partly due to less travel / a worse quality shock - but also maybe the placebo of a load of chain noise as it still had a front mech on and don’t retain the chain like a 1x.

This is an interesting read:

https://www.bird.bike/2016/02/08/kinematics/

and that had a falling rate that meant it pedalled well, but then smashed through its travel / wallowed quite badly through compressions

This is where the shock comes in. On my now retro Patriot I have a Manitou Swinger x4 which has a piggyback chamber and I can turn a knob to set how much the rate rises. It's actually not particularly noticeable when riding except I suddenly start smacking pedals all over the place if it's too low.

Have you tried any of the new high pivot point idler bikes?

No, part of me would be very interested to obviously - but happy to hold off in case I liked it too much. I really can't afford to change the stable round again.

Acciording to Mr Bird:

When you see a bike company presenting a graph plotting axle path, ask yourself this: What are they trying to tell me? Is this axle path good or bad? Is it better than the other axle path on X’s bike? The truth is that it’s meaningless; What does mean something is how much anti-squat is present in the rear suspension.

Apart from the fact that a particular axle path (in a conventional bike) defines how anti-squat varies over the suspension travel. True, some interpretation is needed, but if someone is that interested, they can do that.