[Bulldog]

Why don't more companies offer bikes that overlap use-wise, but feature different suspension designs? Say you love Santa Cruz CS/paint/pricing/whatever, but you want a Horst bike. Say you love the VPP but you've bought 3 Foes bikes in a row cuz their geometry just feels right. Stuff like that. I'm sure it's cuz the market just isn't there for a company to spread themselves that thin, but then again, could a company make a killing by offering all sorts of bikes? The new offering from Foes got me thinking about this again. Their bikes have a lot of overlap, but they use shock linkages on some and direct swingarm attachment on others. They now have 4 DH-able bikes with 7.5-10" of travel. Santa Cruz has it going on too, with their single pivot and VPP lines both doing well. I like that. Or do you prefer that a company be 100% committed to doing things 1 way, even if they may dump those ideas in favor of another (Intense with Horst now VPP)?

Friendly discussion commence.

 

[Silver]

I'd imagine a lot of it has to do with licensing and patent costs. It'll be interesting to see what IronHorse does in the future, for example, because right now they are paying for two different suspension designs.

Full speculation here, but I'd expect their whole line to be DW-Link in the next couple of years. Why pay for two designs?

 

[Bulldog]

Originally posted by Silver
Full speculation here, but I'd expect their whole line to be DW-Link in the next couple of years. Why pay for two designs?

In the simplest terms, cuz maybe some people prefer to buy Horst?

 

[DßR]

Marketing. That way they can't claim that their suspension design is the be-all and end-all of all suspension designs. Like the VVP companies claim, the FSR companies claim, the single-pivot guys, and yes, even the dw-link!

That and it would cost so goddamn much to design and license all the dw, fsr, and vpp systems.....

 

[Bulldog]

Originally posted by DßR
Marketing. That way they can't claim that their suspension design is the be-all and end-all of all suspension designs. Like the VVP companies claim...

Yeah but Santa Cruz sells a helluva lot of single pivots! But yes I get your point about marketing. I forget a lot of impressionable people believe marketing.

 

[buildyourown]

I think it comes down to marketing. Companies spend alot of money trying to convince you that their design is better than the other guys. As for licensing costs for patents, you pay per bike so that wouldn't matter. (for horst / specialized anyways)

However, Specialized does make some entry level single pivot bikes that are pretty decent for the money.

And for other companies, it has more to do with image and brand association. What would BMW be without the jackshaft and burly steel construction? Just another bike company.

 

[zedro]

have to agree, its marketing. The patent based stuff is the top of the line models, the non patent stuff in the line is the budget simple 'workhorse (ie. single pivot non-linkage) stuff.

Its hard to work in why both the Horst, VPP, Lawill and DW-Link are all the best all at the same time.

 

[dw]

Originally posted by zedro


Its hard to work in why both the Horst, VPP, Lawill and DW-Link are all the best all at the same time.

Which leads to the obvious answer that some or all are not really what the marketing says they are.

dw

 

[Jm_]

Originally posted by buildyourown
I think it comes down to marketing. Companies spend alot of money trying to convince you that their design is better than the other guys. As for licensing costs for patents, you pay per bike so that wouldn't matter. (for horst / specialized anyways)

However, Specialized does make some entry level single pivot bikes that are pretty decent for the money.

And for other companies, it has more to do with image and brand association. What would BMW be without the jackshaft and burly steel construction? Just another bike company.

lol...every new DH bike is the "best pedaling ever!"....

 

[dw]

I personally see advantages for using more than one suspension system. I mean if you are comparing a Horst link to a single pivot, then it is entirely possible to build a single pivot frame that will emulate all pedaling and feedback characteristics of a Horst link frame. Add a floating brake and now your have equal and most likely better braking chacteristics if done correctly. This substitution could not be done for a dw-link or VPP frame.

Some people plain wont buy a linkage bike. The reasons why are usually personal preference based on one reason or another. It goes the other way too. I think that a nice rounded line is a good thing to have, but I also think that the product has to be quality too. A crappy linkage bike can be a lot worse than many single pivot frames. Just because a bike is a single pivot doesnt have to equate to low performance. It all comes down to whether or not the designer truly understands the systems that they are working with in my opinon.

dw

 

[dw]

Originally posted by Jm_
lol...every new DH bike is the "best pedaling ever!"....

Well I think a lot are marketed as such, but really, Ive ridden most of them, and some of the systems with the most marketing behind them really dont have the performance to back it up on the trail or on the drawing board for that matter. Thats just opinion though.

You can build a very nice bike in a lot of ways, thats all that matters.

dw

 

[zedro]

Originally posted by dw
Which leads to the obvious answer that some or all are not really what the marketing says they are.

dw

yeah, that was sorta implied...

 

[thaflyinfatman]

Originally posted by dw
Well I think a lot are marketed as such, but really, Ive ridden most of them, and some of the systems with the most marketing behind them really dont have the performance to back it up on the trail or on the drawing board for that matter. Thats just opinion though.

You can build a very nice bike in a lot of ways, thats all that matters.

dw

For sure, the only DH bike I've ridden that *really* pedals well is the DHi (I've owned 4 FSR bikes [including an 04 SGS] and they all suck pedalling-wise). Nearly everything else feels much of a muchness really... V10s don't pedal anything like they're claimed to (they rely on the 5th to help), Lawwills don't pedal particularly well (not particularly badly either), and as for bb-centric pivot bikes.... *shudder*.

Edit: that should be 3 FSR bikes that I've owned...

 

[crashing_sux]

As has allready been stated it comes down to marketing. The companies who do sell multiple linkage designs normally have one design they say is the best thing since sliced bread and another that is cheap if you don't have much to spend. Specialized and Santa Cruz are two that come to mind.

The other way companies do it so they can say this design is the best thing out there is by using different brands. Look at Trek, using different designs on their Kleins, Gary Fishers, Treks (what else do they own?) and saying each brand has "the best" solution. It doesn't look like they are contradicting themselves since they use different brands to do it.

 

[vitox]

Originally posted by Silver
I'd imagine a lot of it has to do with licensing and patent costs. It'll be interesting to see what IronHorse does in the future, for example, because right now they are paying for two different suspension designs.

Full speculation here, but I'd expect their whole line to be DW-Link in the next couple of years. Why pay for two designs?

part of the reason has got to be r&d and stock costs, maybe if the market grows a lot in the coming years we could see that some manufacturers do things like having broad lineups like that, but then again its hard to have a "race" or "hi tech" image and push several suspension platforms just because you really want to fill all niches.

think about the parts, r&d, stock, and warranty mayhem having a full lineup of suspension bikes changing almost every season, and add to that having multiple suspension plaforms, ouch.
maybe modular frames would solve some of that?

 

[dw]

Originally posted by zedro
yeah, that was sorta implied...

I was figuring as much, but I wasnt so sure

 

[dw]

Originally posted by thaflyinfatman
For sure, the only DH bike I've ridden that *really* pedals well is the DHi (I've owned 4 FSR bikes [including an 04 SGS] and they all suck pedalling-wise). Nearly everything else feels much of a muchness really... V10s don't pedal anything like they're claimed to (they rely on the 5th to help), Lawwills don't pedal particularly well (not particularly badly either), and as for bb-centric pivot bikes.... *shudder*.

Ive also owned a DHi and an 03 SGS. (My brother now owns the DHi and I still own the SGS frame) I have to say, back to back, same tires, same trail, those 2 bikes are pretty evenly matched as far as pedaling goes. They are pretty close on paper too. The SGS does brake noticably better though. A lot of it has to do with bike setup really. Running ther right spring and damper for your body weight and tire weight/ tread pattern/ conditions go a long way. I will say, that the 03-04 SGS FSR bikes pedal significantly better than other popular FSR bikes that I have ridden/ raced on.

That brings me to another good point. Your suspension is only as good as the person who set it up. The best suspension in the world will not feel good if it has no rebound damping.

dw

 

[Jm_]

Originally posted by Acadian
I'm still amazed sometimes when I jump on some other peoples bikes...some have NO rebound damping at all. Don't get me wrong, they are still faster than me, but it just doesn't feel right to me!

sometimes I find it difficult to find a good balance between high speed performance (lots of choppy bumps at real high speed) and low speed performance (doesn't necessarily mean going slow, just the shock shaft speed), so when you ride some place that is ultra-rocky or just has tons of choppy-rocky sections, sometimes I adjust my stuff to have almost "no" damping, especially my fork. I think some sort of rebound "blow-off" might help, maybe we'll get something like that in the future, but as for now I usually go with "faster" rebound, but I'm always tinkering with things, I got my 5th set real slow (tire sticks to ground) and I gotta let it off a little bit for sure...

 

[go-ride.com]

Originally posted by Bulldog
Why don't more companies offer bikes that overlap use-wise, but feature different suspension designs? Say you love Santa Cruz CS/paint/pricing/whatever, but you want a Horst bike. Say you love the VPP but you've bought 3 Foes bikes in a row cuz their geometry just feels right. Stuff like that. I'm sure it's cuz the market just isn't there for a company to spread themselves that thin, but then again, could a company make a killing by offering all sorts of bikes? The new offering from Foes got me thinking about this again. Their bikes have a lot of overlap, but they use shock linkages on some and direct swingarm attachment on others. They now have 4 DH-able bikes with 7.5-10" of travel. Santa Cruz has it going on too, with their single pivot and VPP lines both doing well. I like that. Or do you prefer that a company be 100% committed to doing things 1 way, even if they may dump those ideas in favor of another (Intense with Horst now VPP)?

Friendly discussion commence.

Sorry to sort of hi-jack your post, but has anyone noticed how similar the Intense and Santa Cruz offerings are becoming? When the whole Vpp thing came to light it seemed obvious that Intense would offer the ultra highend version of each bike and SC would have a more budget option. But, the new bikes being shown seem to be getting closer and closer to the same. The new mono V10 is looking a lot like the new M3 and I bet the new V10 will start creeping up in cost. The SC VpFree looks almost identical to the Intense V8. From the beginning the Spyder and Blur were pretty similar.

I'm just wondering if SC has lost sight of why the Bullit and V10 are so successfull, ie: lot of bike for the $. Or, are they trying to put Intense out of business by offering the same bikes for a few $ less? At minimum you think they would have picked bikes with about 1" different travel to creat some obvious seperation?

 

[go-ride.com]

Originally posted by Acadian
I'm still amazed sometimes when I jump on some other peoples bikes...some have NO rebound damping at all. Don't get me wrong, they are still faster than me, but it just doesn't feel right to me!

I notice this a lot too and just as much on Pros DH bikes. If you go through the pits and sit on 10 different Pro bikes they will range from unbelievably plush with little damping to super stiff and way over damped. The funny thing is that sometimes the biggest guys have the softest bikes. With all the different suspension designs, riding styles, course variations, and tire choices it seems that there is no exact science for how a DH bike should be set up. Certainly, I have my opinions as others do to, but you still see riders winning on radically different set ups.

 

[crashing_sux]

Originally posted by Jm_
... I think some sort of rebound "blow-off" might help...

I've thought about that in the past but it seems like it would be a difficult beast to conquer. Rebound damping isn't nearly as complex as compression damping because the forces don't vary much. With compression damping you have to deal with a range of force from nothing up until the bike or rider start breaking.

With rebound damping the only force will be the spring. Sure there is some variance in how stiff the spring is and how much of the riders weight he is placing on the bike (maybe it's riding light in some sections to unload the shock) but in general you have a pretty linear and well defined force going into the rebound circuit.

That's why you never hear of anyone complain of "rebound spiking"

You could end up doing something force sensitive or position sensitive (which I think would be fairly similar in this case since position is going to closely correlate to force except the rider unweighting the bike factor) but that leaves you with two options that I can see.

1. More damping high in the stroke and less near the end. This leaves you with a bike that might pedal well and would pack up a little but not too bad. Sure each successive stutter bump would place it a little lower in the travel but as it went lower the resistance from the spring would increase and the damping would decrease so the shock would start reacting faster. It would put you into a firmer portion of the travel but I don't think it would feel as bad as what we usually think of when we refer to packing up.

On high speed bottom outs such as square edged rocks the wheel would try to get right back down initially and then slow. Hmmm....might feel good. Even on big bottom outs like drops it would try to rebound quickly at first which stinks of bucking you off the bike but as the bike came up it would slow to mellow things out. Just might work.

2. Start with little damping and use more damping later in the stroke. Sounds like this would feel great on high speed stutters, very supple. If you had a few big square edged hits in a row though (rock garden?) you might get packing up which could be an issue. Sounds great for big drops, the rear end would accelerate you back up in a controlled manner, slowly then faster at the end instead of just bouncing you back up.

As for an actual blow off the only scenario I could see it coming into effect is if you had it adjusted exactly for your spring rate and weight then you could have it rebound slowly unless you unweighted the bike in which case it could blow past the damping. Might bunny hop well

Now that I think about it that almost sounds good. Basically it sounds like you could make the suspension extend very quickly if it wasn't lifting your weight, like if it dropped into a whole, or between the tops of stutter bumps but rebound slowly if it was lifting your weight which could prevent bucking you on those hits when you're bottomed out (you know, pulling a Bender).

Any suspension guru's want to weigh in on this?

 

[Jm_]

Originally posted by crashing_sux


That's why you never hear of anyone complain of "rebound spiking"

It's called packing, and it makes the bike feel choppy when the terrain gets real choppy at high speed, that is if you are running too much rebound damping for that speed. I think it is like spiking, but just the reverse basically.

 

[Jm_]

Originally posted by crashing_sux




1. More damping high in the stroke and less near the end. This leaves you with a bike that might pedal well and would pack up a little but not too bad. Sure each successive stutter bump would place it a little lower in the travel but as it went lower the resistance from the spring would increase and the damping would decrease so the shock would start reacting faster. It would put you into a firmer portion of the travel but I don't think it would feel as bad as what we usually think of when we refer to packing up.

On high speed bottom outs such as square edged rocks the wheel would try to get right back down initially and then slow. Hmmm....might feel good. Even on big bottom outs like drops it would try to rebound quickly at first which stinks of bucking you off the bike but as the bike came up it would slow to mellow things out. Just might work.

2

well, the 5th element already uses a "top out" circut that is very "slow", definitely makes tuning a little harder.

 

[Jm_]

Check out this avy shock. One side of the piston is controlling the compression, and one side the rebound if I am not mistaken, but if you look, it definitely looks like there are shims on BOTH sides of the piston, meaning that the rebound actually controls low-speed rebound bleed, and if you go faster, it will blow off some, which is what I think that I'd like (lotsa speculation!).

 

[zedro]

in 'ideal' damping models (as taught in vehicle dynamics class), rebound damping is progressive (v. velocity sensentive), in the opposite fashion the compression damping should be (regressive velocity sensitive). Guess that'll be the next frontier.

 

[thaflyinfatman]

Originally posted by dw
Ive also owned a DHi and an 03 SGS. (My brother now owns the DHi and I still own the SGS frame) I have to say, back to back, same tires, same trail, those 2 bikes are pretty evenly matched as far as pedaling goes. They are pretty close on paper too. The SGS does brake noticably better though. A lot of it has to do with bike setup really. Running ther right spring and damper for your body weight and tire weight/ tread pattern/ conditions go a long way. I will say, that the 03-04 SGS FSR bikes pedal significantly better than other popular FSR bikes that I have ridden/ raced on.

That brings me to another good point. Your suspension is only as good as the person who set it up. The best suspension in the world will not feel good if it has no rebound damping.

dw

I dunno, the DHi with fox + 350lb spring (I'm 200-210lbs, obviously it wasn't my bike) compared to the SGS with Swinger 6 way with 400lb spring (admittedly with minimum air pressure, max air volume, although it still feels oversprung... go figure)... the DHi definitely has the edge IMO. Not perfect mind you, but I really don't find the SGS to be quite the same.

Speaking of which, since you'd be the person to know: what do you reckon is better in terms of bump absorption, slow rebound or fairly fast rebound? I tend to run mine on the faster side, but I know a few guys who swear by running it full slow. I also noticed that motos run their suspension incredibly slow, I'm wondering what you'd recommend (especially on an SGS)? Having tried mildly slow setups as well as my usual fairly fast setups, I couldn't really find much difference other than the bike felt like it didn't want to hop over stuff (which I like to be able to do, even though I suck at it and usually end up smashing into it anyway).

 

[Curb Hucker]

Originally posted by Jm_
Check out this avy shock. One side of the piston is controlling the compression, and one side the rebound if I am not mistaken, but if you look, it definitely looks like there are shims on BOTH sides of the piston, meaning that the rebound actually controls low-speed rebound bleed, and if you go faster, it will blow off some, which is what I think that I'd like (lotsa speculation!).

hmm, ive seen the inside of my Push "Works" RC and it is 95% identical to that avy, shims on both sides.

 

[Jm_]

Originally posted by ViolentVolante
hmm, ive seen the inside of my Push "Works" RC and it is 95% identical to that avy, shims on both sides.

yeah, not too suprising.

 

[vitox]

Originally posted by Jm_
yeah, not too suprising.

not surprising at all considering the stock RC has shims on both sides, too, just as risse, romic, stratos........

 

[vitox]

Originally posted by Jm_
Check out this avy shock. One side of the piston is controlling the compression, and one side the rebound if I am not mistaken, but if you look, it definitely looks like there are shims on BOTH sides of the piston, meaning that the rebound actually controls low-speed rebound bleed, and if you go faster, it will blow off some, which is what I think that I'd like (lotsa speculation!).

dang where is my camera when i need it......

there ARE shims on both sides of the piston, lots of them actually, about a dozen on each side, thats a big difference when you compare with other brand shocks that have just a couple on each side. plus avys have a double stage pyramid (shims get smaller as they are stacked on top of each other on each side of the valve, thats a pyramid, double pyramid is they get smaller then they jump in size and get smaller again).

on that picture, the upper shims are the rebound stack, the lower shims are the compression stack, if its a twin pyramid, then one stack would be the "hi speed compression" and the other the low speed.

just remember, they are all that way, WB forks too for instance.
manitou TPC is the same too but with two pistons and oil in between instead of a piston in between the oil

 

[Jm_]

Originally posted by vitox
dang where is my camera when i need it......

there ARE shims on both sides of the piston, lots of them actually, about a dozen on each side, thats a big difference when you compare with other brand shocks that have just a couple on each side. plus avys have a double stage pyramid (shims get smaller as they are stacked on top of each other on each side of the valve, thats a pyramid, double pyramid is they get smaller then they jump in size and get smaller again).

on that picture, the upper shims are the rebound stack, the lower shims are the compression stack, if its a twin pyramid, then one stack would be the "hi speed compression" and the other the low speed.

just remember, they are all that way, WB forks too for instance.
manitou TPC is the same too but with two pistons and oil in between instead of a piston in between the oil

yeah, pretty much what i thought, although i didn't know the fox had it as well, but in the fox is it just a couple, insead of a big stack?

The pyramid is a pretty basic part of the shim stack, I used to take apart my manitou TPC piston and rearrange them, although I couldn't get it to feel very good, TPC+ was a pretty big improvement.

 

[vitox]

well tpc+ is another compression stack that comes into play at a certain point when mechanically forced into a static position inside the chamber

fox rcs have 3 compression shims if im not mistaken, that probably varies on OEM valved shocks.

 

[crashing_sux]

Originally posted by Jm_
It's called packing, and it makes the bike feel choppy when the terrain gets real choppy at high speed, that is if you are running too much rebound damping for that speed. I think it is like spiking, but just the reverse basically.

Packing is not "rebound spiking". In compression spiking the force you feel hammering away at you is the force trying to compress the shock that can't be absorbed because the shock won't compress fast enough.

With packing the force you feel is not from the rebound because the shock won't extend fast enough, it's still from force trying to compress the shock. It's just that now the reason the shock won't compress easily enough is that it's too low in it's stroke because the rebound was too slow to let the shock extend back up in time.

See the difference? I'm not sure if I explained that well.

 

[JRogers]

Originally posted by crashing_sux


force you feel is not from the rebound because the shock won't extend fast enough [... it's] because the rebound was too slow to let the shock extend back up in time.

See the difference? I'm not sure if I explained that well.

No, I don't think there is a difference. Maybe I'm not seeing something here but your explanation basically makes some differentiation between "extend fast enough" and "extend back up in time"...seems pretty similar to me.

 

[Jm_]

Originally posted by crashing_sux
Packing is not "rebound spiking". In compression spiking the force you feel hammering away at you is the force trying to compress the shock that can't be absorbed because the shock won't compress fast enough.

With packing the force you feel is not from the rebound because the shock won't extend fast enough, it's still from force trying to compress the shock. It's just that now the reason the shock won't compress easily enough is that it's too low in it's stroke because the rebound was too slow to let the shock extend back up in time.

See the difference? I'm not sure if I explained that well.

well, i was saying that it was kind of opposite to spiking

I know what the difference is, and I know how to tune a shock to make it feel like either. Turn up a vanilla RC on the compression and you'll get spiking, it can't compress because you've constricted it with the compression damping, and turn up the rebound past a resonable amount and it will pack up, both will make it ride like crap. Notice the quotations that I used in my original post on it.

spiking=not compressing due to hydro lock
packing=shock can't keep up because it can't rebound.

Yeah, they aint exactly the same, but they are problems on the oppsite sides of the spectrum that basically make a bike feel like crap, that's why i said "rebound spiking", to contrast with compression spiking, if you want to be as technical as possible just say packing, that is what I usually use, but as I said, I was trying to put it in the perspective of both things that make a shock ride like crap.

 

[crashing_sux]

I see where you're coming from. My main point was that while they look like opposite sides of the coin I don't know that the same solution applied in reverse would be that useful as the compression circuit has wildy varying amounts of force being fed into it and the rebound circuit has a relatively predictably and narrow range of force fed into it.