Flat vs progressive leverage ratio

Wuffles · Aug 22, 2016

There's nothing inherently wrong with flat (or even regressive) leverage curves, it all comes down to the riding application. Since this is the DH forum, or at least "gravity" related, people here tend to care more about descending performance than climbing or cruising performance. Generally speaking a progressive LR is better for descending because of how a bike responds to typical descending terrain.

If you think about your normal somewhat technical, somewhat high-speed descent, you spend a lot of time hitting small bumps/roots/rocks/whatever, a little bit of time pedalling on the smooth sections, with a few big hits thrown in at critical moments. To deal with this, you want a bike that has a supple early stroke to smoothly deal with all the little chatter and bumps you'll be hitting while keeping a big reserve to handle the big hits. This is harder to do with a flat leverage curve, since the difference between the small hits that sap your speed and traction and big hits that break your face is, um, big. It's much easier to tune a shock on a progressive bike to accomplish both of these things than it is a shock on a linear bike. It is of course possible to have too much of a good thing (YT Capra with a small-volume air shock being a perfect example).

The other nice upside of having a progressive LR is they play very nice with coil shocks (supple early stroke without having to worry about blowing through the travel).

For an XC or trail bike, something where pedalling efficiency over mild-moderately bumpy terrain is a primary concern, flat or regressive curves make sense- you're trying to get near HT performance out of the cranks, but still not getting your kneecaps punched through your sternum hitting a jump.

Udi · Aug 22, 2016

Increased traction, reduced force transmission to the rider, and ultimately faster times.

If you can isolate the scenario where the frame will only be used with a coil shock, it definitely does reduce the demands on the LR curve aggression, however the answer is not flat.

Wuffles is correct in that having higher initial leverage improves bump sensitivity - which results in less force transmission to the rider (= less fatigue), improved tracing of terrain (= more traction), and less movement / upsetting of the sprung mass and rider as the result of bump contact (= more stability). Keep in mind coil shocks still have air preload effects from chamber pressure, some spring preload force, and other frictional forces to break through as well - just far less than a coil shock.

However Wuffles is incorrect in suggesting that pedalling performance should be related to LR curve design - it shouldn't be and doesn't need to be. This is the realm of antisquat which allows correcting the problem at its source (acceleration-forced load transfer as a function of total mass * CoM height). Using LR to address this is a blanket fix and results in vastly inferior suspension performance.

You've also related damping to LR curve - and while damping certainly changes with the LR, it's important to separate spring forces and damper forces. Shimmed dampers are velocity sensitive, while the damping changes due to LR are position sensitive - so changing the shim configuration certainly cannot compensate for different LR curve shapes.

Finally, you can have too much progression in an LR curve - which manifests itself in excessive travel use (i.e. wastage), and wallowing / instability which is highly undesirable especially under faster riders - where geometrical stability tends to be more important than bump absorption and force transfer. You can definitely have "too much of a good thing" and while DH bikes these days are very good on the whole, if I could pinpoint the biggest mistake many make, this would be the one.

Remember that the wheel regularly leaves and re-contacts the ground, which causes an abrupt change in force at the wheel (which causes reduced traction, reduced forward velocity, and increase in transmission/fatigue to the rider). This contact impulse should be reduced as much as possible while minimising impact on vehicle stability (unfortunately opposing objectives). This can be done by reducing damping (which is not ideal since the impulse is greatest at the start of stroke, and damping adjustment being *speed* sensitive means you'd then have less than ideal damping later in the stroke), it can be done by reducing overall spring rate (i.e. reduced spring force through entire stroke - not ideal since you'd bottom out), or by reducing spring force at start of travel via LR (works quite well, damper force also reduced from a position sensitive perspective).

Interestingly, we've only addressed the force component of the impulse.

However we can also alter (increase) the time component to reduce the impulse, and this can be done by changing axle path - a more rearward one will increase the time over which the bump force is delivered, thus achieve the same effect. Using an axle path that is too rearward also causes geometrical instability (a forward-shift of CoM) so again you can have too much of a good thing. An excellent bike will use the right balance of LR curve and axle-path delta to maximise geometrical stability for the desired bump absorption performance.

There is certainly an optimal setup even if you assume a coil shock (and that setup is NOT a horizontally flat LR curve) - there are a few DH bikes that are too linear, and many that are too progressive. When it comes to enduro bikes there are definitely more noticeably-less-than-perfect choices out there. If you isolate either a coil shock or an air shock as the one to be used in the bike, you can make a far better optimisation - but few manufacturers really know what they're doing in this regard so it's better to look at the curves and make an informed choice as a consumer.

The take home message is that increasing traction and reducing rider fatigue can come at the cost of stability. Given that going fast requires all three, a careful balance will net a faster bike and faster times. Bad designers can make some of these aspects worse without seeing a proportional improvement in the others. This is what makes some bikes better than others, often noticeably so.

ebarker9 · Aug 22, 2016

Udi said:
The take home message is that increasing traction and reducing rider fatigue can come at the cost of stability. Given that going fast requires all three, a careful balance will net a faster bike and faster times. Bad designers can make some of these aspects worse without seeing a proportional improvement in the others. This is what makes some bikes better than others, often noticeably so.

As someone who is looking for a new DH bike...which ones, specifically do a good job of this? Preferably bikes with good sizing for someone 5'11"...

SDet · Aug 22, 2016

With what Udi said, a flat leverage curve isn't the end of the world. A shock can be tuned to work with it because it's predictable. Add a bunch of humps and dips, (like some of our many link setups) and who knows what you'd get.

Kanye West · Aug 22, 2016

Rebound acceleration curves are not to be ignored when using a progressive linkage versus linear, all else being equal. That's the main difference demanded of the damping - the wheel rate/forces can be dramatically higher deep in the travel on a progressive frame and generate a much different rebound acceleration or "pogo" character.

hmcleay · Aug 23, 2016

Happymtb.fr said:
If bike #1 has a 400 lbs/in coil, bike #2 would need a 500 coil to get the same bottom out force which is in line with what is recommended on Fox's online caculator.

If Bike #2 is has a more progressive LR, then it will require a softer spring to achieve the same bottom out force.
I think the Fox calculator selects a 500lb/in spring for you so that it achieves the same sag point (rather than targeting a specific bottom out force).

See some graphs below:
Bike1 and Bike2 have LRs that achieve 200mm travel with a 76mm stroke shock.
Bike1 LR is constant (i.e. 200/76 = 2.63).
Bike2 LR is linear, set up so that the delta between start and finish travel is -1. To achieve the 76mm shock stroke at 200mm travel, this ends up being 3.16-2.16.

Assuming we're not playing with preload on springs...
With Bike1 is fitted with a 400lb/in spring, you'll have a bottom-out wheel force (due to spring only) of about 2000N.
With Bike2 is fitted with a 500lb/in spring, you'll get about the same amount of sag, but a significantly higher bottom out force of about 3100N.

If you were aiming for the same bottom out forces on Bike2 as you have on Bike1, you'd need to fit Bike2 with a 325lb/in spring, which will result in significantly more sag (red line on graph).

Hope that helps.

Udi · Aug 23, 2016

Yeah the rebound thing is an interesting point especially in recent times - the digressive rebound curves that tend to come with twin tube dampers (like the CCDB and X2) aren't necessarily ideal for rear shocks in offroad applications where forward pitching is a concern. Another story for another day.

ebarker9 said:
As someone who is looking for a new DH bike...which ones, specifically do a good job of this? Preferably bikes with good sizing for someone 5'11"...

The last time I answered a question like this I had my head bitten off unfortunately.
Feel free to PM.

Muddy · Aug 23, 2016

Happymtb.fr said:
Forks do actually have flat LR of 1:1.

Forks actually do have a what and where was I?

Wuffles · Aug 23, 2016

Udi said:
However Wuffles is incorrect in suggesting that pedalling performance should be related to LR curve design - it shouldn't be and doesn't need to be. This is the realm of antisquat which allows correcting the problem at its source (acceleration-forced load transfer as a function of total mass * CoM height). Using LR to address this is a blanket fix and results in vastly inferior suspension performance.

I meant to say something about antisquat in there, but it slipped my mind. Shouldn't have mentioned pedaling at all.

Also, are you a wizard?

Electric_City · Aug 23, 2016

ebarker9 said:
As someone who is looking for a new DH bike...which ones, specifically do a good job of this? Preferably bikes with good sizing for someone 5'11"...

Check out Tantrum...

Muddy · Aug 23, 2016

Happymtb.fr said:
Yes, sorry about that, the forks are slightly angled so that the vertical travel of the front wheel is not exactly equal to the stanchion travel but it's pretty close to 1:1 ratio.

But maybe you are using one of those
View attachment 123161

Leverage ratios must only apply to something being acted upon with leverage.
A 180mm fork has 180mm travel.
A rigid fork has no travel. Or, does it?

norbar · Aug 24, 2016

Muddy said:
Leverage ratios must only apply to something being acted upon with leverage.
A 180mm fork has 180mm travel.
A rigid fork has no travel. Or, does it?

Depends on how rigid it is.

Muddy · Aug 24, 2016

norbar said:
Depends on how rigid it is.

Or who it is referring to it. :wave:

Electric_City · Aug 24, 2016

Isn't the Sunday regressive?

norbar · Aug 25, 2016

Electric_City said:
Isn't the Sunday regressive?

Only at the end but that was due to the fact that it was designed with a progressive shock in mind (5th).

@Happymtb.fr 3-5mm is shit not rearward. For conventional drivetrain I think Banshee Legend and Gambler are close to max without kicking like crazy. Giants and newer DW link give a bit less pedal feedback at least acording to what I have ridden.

More for pure susp performance is still better if you are open to an idler but then again you have problems with anti squat (though I-Track susp solves that problem) but you are left with geometry problems because the CS length changes so much when you go into travel (one that some people dont like it, two that you have to start with super short static CS which causes design problems)

norbar · Aug 25, 2016

Happymtb.fr said:
Thanks @norbar for mentioning the Legend and Gambler!
They have respectively 15mm and 9mm of rearward path both at 90mm of travel.
some more examples:
- ENR has a whooping 50mm at 150mm of travel
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gtuWuAhnARc/V5z3ExPwYDI/AAAAAAAAaBY/rRXPRrVg3GsYeILF9tX4Am3l8d7wyEOHwCLcB/s1600/Crafworks+ENR+27.5%27%27+2017_AxlePath.gif
- Supreme V4 has 35mm at 170mm of travel
- Jedi 33mm at 140mm
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hHWg4jjt57U/V0t5pyP0e_I/AAAAAAAAZn0/zkr1Afi3Q2k26MPwbKV2VwZU7zOcoZMdACLcB/s1600/Commencal+Supreme+V4+2016_AxlePath.gif
- Zerode G2 has 63mm at 200mm of travel

3-5 mm is indeed very little as I hinted in my previous post... But where to put the limit between a delayed impulse and too much compromise of the geometry? I tried once a rented Gambler that was badly set up and that my only experience coming close to rearward axle path...

@Udi mentioned "too rearward also causes geometrical instability (a forward-shift of CoM)" but it could also be seen as increased stability since it lengthen the wheelbase? it is probably a bit of both and more one than the other depending on how extreme rearward the path is...
Then the CoM on a bike is not fixed in regard to the frame and should be able to learn to react to these changes.
Maybe some long time users of bikes with rearward path could comment on that?

The Jedi model is correct? I remember they claimed the rearward component in it is 74mm but maybe that was an older model.
I'm wrong on the gambler though or there is something wrong with the model. I know the legend goes long and it is a bit harder to stay on the pedals sometimes.

On conventional drivetrain bikes the shift of up to 15mm is not a big difference geometry wise if you design geometry to work with the susp (jesus so many companies forget that it's a surprise that so many current bikes are good)

As for what Udi said.
1. Very rearward travel doesn't elongate the wheelbase. It just doesn't shorten it as usually when you go through your rear travel you also go through your front one so in most cases a very rearward travel means getting closer to constant wheelbase
2. Assuming the front and rear sags the COM is shifted far more forward towards the front axle as the extending rear pushes you away from the front axle while the front going through its travel brings you closer to the front axle. Though I think you can compensate some of it with geometry (longer reach is finally a thing) and super short stems
3. Too rearward COM is also a problem since that causes the front wheel to loose traction, especially on flatter sections of the trail so again you have to find a compromise.

Personally I ride a bike with a short reach and a long rear (the legend) and you can feel it on the steeps vs a longer tt, shorter CS bikes even with similar HT angle. Hell it's the only reason I'd want to change the legend since I love the frame so much (even though for the last 2 years I ride like my balls have receeeded it's nice to have a bike you can throw while crashing and be sure it won't even be dented).

Udi · Aug 25, 2016

Happymtb.fr said:
@Udi mentioned "too rearward also causes geometrical instability (a forward-shift of CoM)" but it could also be seen as increased stability since it lengthen the wheelbase? it is probably a bit of both and more one than the other depending on how extreme rearward the path is...
Then the CoM on a bike is not fixed in regard to the frame and should be able to learn to react to these changes.

You can put a positive twist on anything you want (which is what you've tried to do in a few cases already, eg. flat leverage ratio), but ultimately there's a best way to do most things. I stand by what I said firmly, and do not think randomly "increasing stability" proportional to elapsed travel is a benefit, especially at the cost of varying traction and mass shifts.

Of course there are some choices that are specific to course, rider speed / ability (and occasionally preference - which I can't speak for) - but when it comes to the things being discussed in this thread so far, I think there is a "best way" and "a bunch of other ways that aren't the best way".

Here's why:
The human body, particularly in high-adrenalin scenarios like operation of a racing vehicle will rely heavily on intuition and subconscious response - so predictability is a very key factor if going fast is your goal. Sure you can get used to compensating for your entire body weight shifting forward (and thus decreasing rear traction, increasing front traction, and also making it easier to flip over the bars) randomly every time you hit a deep bump in a corner or steep section (the "learning" that you refer to) - but suddenly that's additional load you've placed on your subconcious response system. It's the exact same case for geometrical instability - a bike that uses more travel than is necessary (eg. by having an overly high % of overall progression in the LR curve) will require the rider to make more corrections for dynamic geometry changes and thus place more loading on their automated response system. The result of not removing this avoidable unpredictability is that you have reduced mental and physical capacity left to deal with all the rapid-paced unavoidable unpredictability that comes with off-road racing on inconsistent and constantly varying terrain. End result: harder to go fast, easier to crash, and at least for me - less enjoyment.

Anyway, RE: the CoM shifts, rearward path tradeoffs, and most of the other stuff you've asked about - it's all been discussed on RM in detail before. If you play with the search feature you can probably find a wealth of info without starting another mass debate.

The only thing I'd like to add here that may differ from our past discussions on the topic is this: 650b has reduced the dependence on both axle path and leverage progression for the purposes of bump absorption, since net bump force transmission has been reduced noticeably (especially lower amplitude higher frequency bumps which tend to increase rider fatigue the most). This means you don't need a crazy rearward axle path or a huge amount of progression to have a bike that absorbs bumps well - thus you can also avoid the geometrical instabilities (and some other potential issues - like weight) that come with those things.

You should be aware that at these fine levels of comparison in things like axle path (as you are doing), errors in Linkage mapping do come into play, so one bike you think has more x-axis travel than another at a given travel may actually have less (when we're comparing bikes with only a few mm difference). I respect the program's use from a general sense but if I'm choosing a bike for myself I'll map the bikes in question myself.

Finally, the answers to these questions vary heavily if you are referring to a Trail/Enduro bike or a DH bike. A DH bike needs to be good at less things and has less conflicts of performance interests, thus can be far better optimised. On a Trail/Enduro bike, you are restricted to a certain maximum of rearward travel (since AS and AP are directly linked) before you need an idler to avoid sacrificing acceleration performance. But on a bike you need to pedal uphill, weight is also of key importance - you can probably see where I'm going with this. Even DH bikes are getting very light these days, so I think the frame weight is an important one to keep in mind with the other factors I mentioned.

As a disclaimer:
My thoughts are based on a DH racing viewpoint. I've talked about bump transmission and traction vs. predictability and geometrical stability here. Realise that depending on your riding goals you may be able to trade off one side of that equation for the other. Also realise that a making one side of that equation worse doesn't automatically make the other side better, it just gives that potential under a good designer. I've avoided giving specific numbers (and bikes!) on purpose as it tends towards drama on the open forum. I think the ideal numbers can vary a little depending on the individual application and priorities. I'm happy to answer PMs but include details of intended riding. Finally and most importantly - I don't claim to have the golden numbers for anything here (in fact, to know for sure you'd have to do timed double-blind testing with a high level pro rider, almost impossible given sponsorship product restrictions) - but I do try to consider a wide spectrum of factors as you can probably see, and numbers I think are ideal are based on this.

norbar · Aug 25, 2016

@Udi I'd go as far as you need double blind testing with a few riders over a few courses since predictability of a bike often comes to preference and some people after riding years one one type of a bike just feel at home with it even if it's a shitty bike in principle.

I'd love to be able to do this. I remember Future Snowboarding did blind snowboard tests when 5 testers rode all the male boards and 5 testers all the female boards. While it wasn't a scientific comparison it was at least blind and averaged over 5 people with different backgrounds which gave at least something resembling objectivity.

I'd be really curious though to get a few super old bikes for cheap and comparing their times on a trail over a few runs and see at least if any of us were right about past designs.

norbar · Aug 25, 2016

Happymtb.fr said:
Thanks again for your answers @Udi and @norbar !

I don't try to put a twist on anything, I am just curious and genuinely interested in bike geometry and suspension. There is so much marketing BS to read everywhere on the Web that I found the level of knowledge on this site to be quite refreshing! So don't be offended by the simplicity/weirdness of my words.

I will do my homework and do some research before coming back to you.

I highly suggest reading the I-Track webpage. While it is obvious Hugh prefers a more reward wheelpath it's probably the best source of condensed bike suspension knowledge on the web.

Wuffles · Aug 25, 2016

Udi said:
As a disclaimer:
My thoughts are based on a DH racing viewpoint. I've talked about bump transmission and traction vs. predictability and geometrical stability here.

Your links appear to be broken, but I'd be interested in reading them, any chance we can get them fixed?

Udi · Aug 25, 2016

@Happymtb.fr -
No offence taken, personally I am a huge fan of the euros that show up here because there seems to be a cultural bias towards numerical analysis and quantitative testing, which I appreciate. If you read a European review or magazine compared to an American/Canadian one there is a very different approach taken (in my opinion a superior and more useful one) and this seemingly cultural difference extends well beyond mountainbikes. I find it interesting, because on the flipside, a lot of larger R&D leaps in the MTB industry have come out of North America. A little off topic.

@norbar
I agree on all counts.
Unfortunately this is not easy to do, because if you want to test only suspension kinematics, then ideally you need to match sizing/geometry (already a bit hard to do), mass, build/spec, and setup. If you don't match these things, the result is blurred (eg. was bike A faster than B because of geometry or kinematics?). Like you said, human adaptation plays a huge role as well - likely too large a factor unless the rider was given ample runs to adapt to a bike before taking measurements. This is possible to perform quite objectively, but would require a large time/money commitment from an unbiased group of people.

That's why some careful logical analysis can be more useful (and much easier), provided you consider all factors (which many designers don't), particularly the factor of human behaviour and adaptability as you mentioned. Human adaptation is actually a huge hindrance to finding the "best" solution experimentally rather than analytically - since it acts very quickly to mask flaws!

Roughly on this note (the human factor) - one example I personally find very cool is the Sam Hill / Sunday pairing. The pairing itself was probably just lucky, but on one hand a top-5 rider with great steep/tech skills and poor pedalling ability, and on the other hand a bike with substantially superior acceleration performance to the competition at the time. The end result of an entire period of domination was no doubt helped by a good match between man and machine.

@Wuffles
Apologies - unfortunately those aren't links, I just coloured them to highlight that they are often conflicting objectives. Apparently colour picking is not my forte. If you have another read of post #3 though I did try to explain how those things interact to some extent. Some time away from the keyboard for me now.

norbar · Aug 26, 2016

@Udi I think now it's a bit easier given the geometry standarisation. Though I agree we can compare bikes more than we can compare suspension kinematics unless you create a frame with interchangable links, pereferably also drilled with a few shock and link positions to test different kinematics. The frame would be heavy but it would alow for the fly changes. Though it would still probably require you machine out a few sets of links. I think it's the most doable and cost effective way of testing susp theories IRL. That would also mean it is easy to blind test given different susp setups would look similar. The only thing is dialing suspension setup.

As for human adaptability I think it becomes less of the factor with a larger test group.

PS. You read some strange euro magazines. Germans like enginering for quirkyness (jesus just go to their local expos and think about all the drugs the designers must have taken) and their freeride magazine used to review bikes by weight and components. I know a few german magazines tried to do numeraical analysis in their reviews but the ones I have seen were super flawed (like that brake power review)

Mo(n)arch · Aug 29, 2016

PS. You read some strange euro magazines. Germans like enginering for quirkyness (jesus just go to their local expos and think about all the drugs the designers must have taken) and their freeride magazine used to review bikes by weight and components. I know a few german magazines tried to do numeraical analysis in their reviews but the ones I have seen were super flawed (like that brake power review)

This. There are lots of magazines that are utter crap.

Also @norbar : Transworld snowboarding still does the blind test even with pro riders for the "Good Wood" tests as far as I know. That's why its reputation is quite good and all board builders are proud if their boards are praised in these tests.

norbar · Aug 30, 2016

Mo(n)arch said:
This. There are lots of magazines that are utter crap.

Also @norbar : Transworld snowboarding still does the blind test even with pro riders for the "Good Wood" tests as far as I know. That's why its reputation is quite good and all board builders are proud if their boards are praised in these tests.

Really? Maybe when I stop being poor I will use it. Good to know. Thanks.

Udi · Sep 1, 2016

Mo(n)arch said:
This. There are lots of magazines that are utter crap.

Have you read any PB or Vital review ever?
There are definitely errors in some of the Euro mags when they try to do a quantitative test (no doubt the brake test @norbar mentioned had some flaws), but on the other hand, the average North American review consists entirely of horse shit like "this bike was really fun" and "it starts supple and really ramps up for those big hits". They're a complete waste of reading time, I usually just skim through the pictures.

On the other hand, enduro-mtb.com (German) for example do thorough long-term reviews with multiple riders on most parts, and thus manage to find the real wins (and failures) in products with reasonable accuracy.

Back when 15mm came out, another Euro mag set up a torsional stiffness testing jig, and showed the relative stiffness of 20mm and 15mm forks in comparison. This would have only required a simple fixed load vs. deflection measurement, but when was the last time you saw an American mag do that on a 40/boxxer/dorado for example (when they wank on about how deflection is beneficial in forks - yeah it's great if you like an uncontrolled unpredictable torsional spring on your front wheel).

Just in case this seems a bit harsh on North America - a lot of UK outlets like Dirt are far, far worse when it comes to factless drivel. I think PB has improved a lot but they still have RC to keep the average down.

Jm_ · Sep 1, 2016

Udi said:
the average North American review consists entirely of horse shit like "this bike was really fun" and "it starts supple and really ramps up for those big hits". They're a complete waste of reading time, I usually just skim through the pictures.

Jesus christ, it makes me so mad to read these reviews sometimes. I don't want to know if it "really did well" or if it was "really rowdy". I want to know which bikes it's better than and why, what it does better and worse, specifically. This concept is completely lost in most reviews.

Kanye West · Sep 1, 2016

I think you bros just need to brush up on your bro-speak....bro. All makes perfect sense to me. Bro.

Mo(n)arch · Sep 1, 2016

Udi said:
Have you read any PB or Vital review ever?
There are definitely errors in some of the Euro mags when they try to do a quantitative test (no doubt the brake test @norbar mentioned had some flaws), but on the other hand, the average North American review consists entirely of horse shit like "this bike was really fun" and "it starts supple and really ramps up for those big hits". They're a complete waste of reading time, I usually just skim through the pictures.

On the other hand, enduro-mtb.com (German) for example do thorough long-term reviews with multiple riders on most parts, and thus manage to find the real wins (and failures) in products with reasonable accuracy.

Back when 15mm came out, another Euro mag set up a torsional stiffness testing jig, and showed the relative stiffness of 20mm and 15mm forks in comparison. This would have only required a simple fixed load vs. deflection measurement, but when was the last time you saw an American mag do that on a 40/boxxer/dorado for example (when they wank on about how deflection is beneficial in forks - yeah it's great if you like an uncontrolled unpredictable torsional spring on your front wheel).

Just in case this seems a bit harsh on North America - a lot of UK outlets like Dirt are far, far worse when it comes to factless drivel. I think PB has improved a lot but they still have RC to keep the average down.

I am a fan of the enduro-mag tests and reviews aswell. What I meant with crap was the "Freeride magazine" which is written like a teenager's magazine. I simply can't stand that sh!t.
Actually if I am interested in a product, I read everything I can find about it. And then I do my analysis.

That's all, bro.

troy · Sep 1, 2016

Don't even get me started on those "bike tests". Jeeeeysus christ, every single one of those is written like:

"Here is a bikespec - components are awezome, avid brakes are fantastic, pike is awesome, too bad they didn't put there a bos suspensionz. We have fun riding it. Pros: Weights 10kg Cons: it's expensive. THE END; PS PLZ send us sum moar bikz for ze testing"

No fuckin single word about the handling, possible improvements, quality issues, etc.. Every freakin product is fantastic. Just like @Udi said: They're a complete waste of reading time, I usually just skim through the pictures.

norbar · Sep 1, 2016

Udi said:
Have you read any PB or Vital review ever?
There are definitely errors in some of the Euro mags when they try to do a quantitative test (no doubt the brake test @norbar mentioned had some flaws), but on the other hand, the average North American review consists entirely of horse shit like "this bike was really fun" and "it starts supple and really ramps up for those big hits". They're a complete waste of reading time, I usually just skim through the pictures.

On the other hand, enduro-mtb.com (German) for example do thorough long-term reviews with multiple riders on most parts, and thus manage to find the real wins (and failures) in products with reasonable accuracy.

Back when 15mm came out, another Euro mag set up a torsional stiffness testing jig, and showed the relative stiffness of 20mm and 15mm forks in comparison. This would have only required a simple fixed load vs. deflection measurement, but when was the last time you saw an American mag do that on a 40/boxxer/dorado for example (when they wank on about how deflection is beneficial in forks - yeah it's great if you like an uncontrolled unpredictable torsional spring on your front wheel).

Just in case this seems a bit harsh on North America - a lot of UK outlets like Dirt are far, far worse when it comes to factless drivel. I think PB has improved a lot but they still have RC to keep the average down.

Those articles you mention happen very rarely and much more often you have bad maths, bad assumptions and mindless charts which are more misleading than informative. Plus Germans used to review bikes by weight for a long time (hey it's a number)

@Mo(n)arch Enduro magazine reviews seem very brief. They review bikes close to each other but give very litle info about bikes themselves.

Udi · Sep 3, 2016

Well at least we can agree on the fact that we're all bros here, now let's go shred!

johnbryanpeters · Sep 3, 2016

Udi said:
Well at least we can agree on the fact that we're all bros here, now let's go shred!

Gnar the shred, wok!

Flat vs progressive leverage ratio

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

RM Chief Ornithologist

Monkey

Monkey

220# bag of hacktastic

i-track suspension

RM Chief Ornithologist

Turbo Monkey

ancient crusty bog dude

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Torture wrench

ancient crusty bog dude

KESSLER PROBLEM. Just cause

Turbo Monkey

ancient crusty bog dude

Torture wrench

Turbo Monkey

KESSLER PROBLEM. Just cause

Turbo Monkey

KESSLER PROBLEM. Just cause

RM Chief Ornithologist

KESSLER PROBLEM. Just cause

Turbo Monkey

KESSLER PROBLEM. Just cause

Monkey

RM Chief Ornithologist

KESSLER PROBLEM. Just cause

Turbo Monkey

KESSLER PROBLEM. Just cause

RM Chief Ornithologist

sled dog's bollocks

220# bag of hacktastic

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

KESSLER PROBLEM. Just cause

RM Chief Ornithologist

Hero