[Closed] Those comments by Chris Porter

No.
My suspension feels great.

I have a HT. I like clutched mechs

He needs to get a job doing bike reviews for magazines - I'm sure he could tell the difference in vertical compliance between 2 hardtails. Exactly how much chain growth do bikes have, hence what is the levarage ratio and how much force does a clutch mech put on the chain? I suspect the answer is that one click less of compression damping has an order of magnitude more effect than running a clutch mech.

It's funny that he mentions Neko Mulally, who says "I guess I changed my mindset because I had nothing to lose and just pinned it.", nothing to do with the chain.

Basically it's a bag o shite, the amount of force you're talking about is absolutely trivial- probably measurable in the lab but unnoticable if you push it with your pinkie let alone with your entire body weight.

It's [i]possible[/i] he believes it, I suppose.

[quote=Northwind ]It's possible he believes it, I suppose.

I'm sure he believes it. It does at least make things easier for me - now I know some of what he says is complete bollocks, I'm a lot happier to just ignore all the other stuff I wasn't sure about.

He needs to get a job doing bike reviews for magazines

He's been there, done that? Assuming he's the same Chris Porter of MBI magazine from a while back.

Ah, well that would explain a lot 😉

It's annoying though because it's not all mince, he just undermines the good stuff with the bad

Tell me I'm talking bollox, but I can feel through the suspension when I've left the clutch off (from taking a wheel out) or the clutch is broken.

YMMV depending on your suspension design and if you ride as slowly as me.

Was the shock in though, surely a suspension's spring is going to be 1000x stiffer than the mech spring, and the damping probably a similar amount?

Northwind - Member
It's annoying though because it's not all mince, he just undermines the good stuff with the bad

+1

I'd love to see the numbers to prove it or anyone do a blind test and tell the difference

In his defence you can certainly feel friction in a suspension from sticky bearings/bushes even though they have no effect on the actual spring rate. But they do add unwanted friction damping which can seriously undermine small bump sensitivity. Whether it would actually make your bike significantly slower is highly debatable. I guess he's saying a clutched mech does something similar i.e. effectively adds parasitic damping into the system.

Anyway it's not something I would lose sleep over as a casual rider and it's certainly nice to have a quiet drivetrain!

I use a chain guide to hold the chain on and look at the wear on every second tooth on my chainring and know I'm suffering from half the drag that I would be on a thick/thin.

Sounds like he'd be better off with a Rohloff on a hard tail. 😛

Does he also get XTR copper bracelets and a couple of magic crystal bar ends.
Anyway the clutch and narrow wide mean my chain stays on. Quite a good thing for me, everything is a compromise until you find me something that climbs like a 100mm carbon ht and descends like a dh bike

moshimonster - Member
In his defence you can certainly feel friction in a suspension from sticky bearings/bushes even though they have no effect on the actual spring rate. But they do add unwanted friction damping which can seriously undermine small bump sensitivity.

This is correct.

Speaking of stiction, have you ordered the Monarch Plus for you bike yet?

[quote=moshimonster ]In his defence you can certainly feel friction in a suspension from sticky bearings/bushes even though they have no effect on the actual spring rate.

Due to leverage ratios, the effect of a clutch mech is at least an order of magnitude less.

if Chris Porter makes a good point, it's because he accidentally hit it with his scattergun nonsense.

I think we need an exact number for the effects on suspension, is mega gnar the appropriate unit or is it the milli mince?

Spending a lot more my working life dealing with people saying things are different but the real world impact is completely insignificant. I guess it all depends if you are trying to make a point or riding a bike.

I took my rear shock out to do the bush the other day and then lifted the bike to move it, it felt like the bearings had gone to. It had 2 real areas of resistance which I then realised to be the clutch mech. It is probably not significant when you factor your body weight in. Give it a go and you will see what he means.

I use a Shimano XTR transmission because it's still possible to buy it without a clutch much. 

Does he not realise that clutch mechs have an 'off' switch?

Anyway, it's just his opinion. Opinions are like arse holes. Every one's got one and they all stink!

Chris Porters wanderings are like Steve Jones but in a more legible font/background combination. They have huge experience & skill & make valid points somewhere along the mutterings but it isn't wholly relevant to the normal world, a bit like Shimano reckoning 3x11 and new style of front mechs is a good idea.

I agree Scruff - I was going to liken his mutterings to those of Jones' - just more comprehensible. His comments about geometry are interesting but I can't get my head round the way is Nicolai looks...its awful.

My current bouncy bike started life off without a clutch mech and I don't recall fitting a clutch mech ruining the suspension action at all.

With regards to the drag on the drive train, I noticed far more with a chain device than without. Not to mention that eveyrthing is quieter no and I don't loose my chain. I'm still sold on the clutch mech solution.

it's easily testable - put your bike in a work-stand, take the shock out, and lift+lower the rear wheel by hand.

repeat this with the clutch on and off - it wouldn't even be too hard to rig up a pulley so you could [i]measure[/i] the force required, with weights and stuff.

anyone done this?

(i haven't, but will soon, i'm great fun at parties.)

Jones has an unusual way with words in print, but his ideas are crystal clear and reasonably convincing compared to Porter's angry manifesto.

Why does Dirt give him airtime? He's like the Katie Hopkins of the bike world.

[i]Anyway, it's just his opinion. Opinions are like arse holes. Every one's got one and they all stink! [/i]

There use to be a bloke in the m/c mags who analysed stuff properly; he was soon replaced by folk that could wheelie and just repeat manufacturers claims.

Speaking of stiction, have you ordered the Monarch Plus for you bike yet?

Not yet, but I did take note. I'm not going to get much riding in now until spring for various reasons, but I should get enough to dabble with the Cane Creek it came with. I've been impressed so far with the standard settings. It's actually the Pike I'm not 100% happy with at the moment in that it's not as buttery smooth as I was expecting.

to be fair to the chap, he is talking specifically about racing with those comments, where one should be taking every conceivable advantage you can.

I agree that sometimes he draws a little too deeply on the crack pipe of utter shite, but it's always worth listening to for the genuinely interesting and innovative stuff that crops up now and again.

Due to leverage ratios, the effect of a clutch mech is at least an order of magnitude less.

Exactly this. It's the same principle of using a crowbar. And we're not talking about the difference between a clutch mech and no mech, it's the difference between a clutch mech and a non clutch mech.

Utter tosh IMO, he's just trying to be a smart @rse.

Surely by the same argument you would only use a coil shock for a lower break away force???

Surely by the same argument you would only use a coil shock for a lower break away force???

Well that's one of the drawbacks with air sprung shocks. They're getting much better, but there was a time when I definitely preferred coil shocks for that very reason.

[quote=ahwiles ]it's easily testable - put your bike in a work-stand, take the shock out, and lift+lower the rear wheel by hand.

Then compare with how hard it is with the shock in. Though some measurements sounds like a great idea.

it's easily testable - put your bike in a work-stand, take the shock out, and lift+lower the rear wheel by hand.

Does he mention whether or not he slowed the rebound down to counteract the rear mech is trying to extend the shock?

Wouldn't the effect be mitigated by the freehub allowing thee chain length to change when your not peddling?

Then compare with how hard it is with the shock in.

But you could say the same for stiction in a racing car suspension. It's very small compared to the spring and damper forces involved, but still makes a significant difference to the small bump sensitivity. Certainly have measured it in that environment and as a result spent a lot of time and money to reduce stiction to a bare minimum.

But anyway, at a recreational level (or quite possibly at any level) any adverse effects of a clutch mech are not going to be anything to worry about.

Wouldn't the effect be mitigated by the freehub allowing thee chain length to change when your not peddling?

Any increase in rear center length caused by suspension action will always cause the cage to move forwards in order to compensate for the increase in chain length.

Any increase in rear center length caused by suspension action will always cause the cage to move forwards in order to compensate for the increase in chain length.

Good point, had a numpty moment there and forgot the whole purpose of the rear mech

Jones has an unusual way with words in print, but his ideas are crystal clear and reasonably convincing

Are you reading the same Dirt magazine? I cancelled my subscription to it because Jones had got so offensive and incomprehensible.

It's a race down the hill

Assuming it's a WC DH race, he might have a point - winning or losing can be by the smallest of margins. But don't most of them run some sort of guide anyway?

For your average trail rider (or average Enduro racer), it won't be the clutch mech holding back the lump on the bike.

The way my demo eats clutch rear mechs, i'd concur.