Stinky = linkage actuated singlepivot. Can be a "four bar", but I like the term "faux bar" better.
FSR vs Single pivot? What will I get or lose from each?
- Thread starter biker3
- Start date
This thread is very nice evidence that Specialized has really done their homework when it comes to marketing their product. They've clearly got a bunch of you guys wrapped around their little finger.
The best part of the whole thing, is claims like "FSR is the best suspension design". You can design a good Horst link suspension setup, yes, but you can also design a poor one. There are plenty of good and bad traits about each type, which the originator of this thread intended to be discussed, but it seems that the FSR mafia, like the Marzocchi mafia and Avalanche mafia, jumped in with the "FSR IS TEH BOMB" comments.
Ahh well, people will have their loyalties, I guess, but sheesh..
The best part of the whole thing, is claims like "FSR is the best suspension design". You can design a good Horst link suspension setup, yes, but you can also design a poor one. There are plenty of good and bad traits about each type, which the originator of this thread intended to be discussed, but it seems that the FSR mafia, like the Marzocchi mafia and Avalanche mafia, jumped in with the "FSR IS TEH BOMB" comments.
Ahh well, people will have their loyalties, I guess, but sheesh..
Heh, yeh, all thread I've been playing "spot the brandwhore".
To say that a Specialized, any Specialized, pedals better than anything other FSR design, is pretty damn narrow minded. Especially when, as far as I've seen through e-ngineering, alot of FSR designs put the IC where most faux-bar bikes pivot, giving similar pedalling performance.
To say that a Specialized, any Specialized, pedals better than anything other FSR design, is pretty damn narrow minded. Especially when, as far as I've seen through e-ngineering, alot of FSR designs put the IC where most faux-bar bikes pivot, giving similar pedalling performance.
...Rik said:
Just wanted to quote that part of your post for emphasis.
Most FSR designs generally pedal no better than, say, a Turner DHR or Kona Stinky. Low, rearward pivots.
You dont like FSR you dont buy FSR, you like FSR you buy FSR. Simple as that.
The only comparable systems are DW link and VPP, imho.
The only comparable systems are DW link and VPP, imho.
You obviously dont know how to correctly pedal a bike. Yes, you can make a bike bob if you deliberately jump up and down while pedaling, but if you.....I dont know how to explain it.....float on top of the bike kind of thing, they dont bob at all. I could put a video camera on the linkage of my demo 9 and it would show that it moves maybe 1/4 of an inch when pedaling. Same with the bighits. Your probably just some curb dropper anyway, so why bother.thaflyinfatman said:
KleinMp99 said:
Between calling TheMontashu a "stupid guy" in the post that you subsequently deleted, and deciding that you know theflyinfatman is a "curb dropper", you really are busting out the third grade insults today aren't you? Oh, and it's "you're".
The fact is, that a low single pivot like a DHR or a Stinky will behave in exactly the same manner if you pedal it properly. So get off your FSR high horse. FSR is a good design, but it's not the be-all, end-all of suspension designs that somehow pedals better than anything else in existance. It doesn't. It's simply a decent design that, if engineered properly, will perform and behave well. But so will a single pivot.
There's no cut and dry winner. I personally like the price tag single pivots have over horst link bikes. Consider the trend of high end manufacturers like Turner who have liscensed FSR designs for years are now moving to single pivots with a linkage actuated shock, I don't think it's really because single pivots are inherantly better or worse, they just have different trade offs for similar performance.binary visions said:
Between calling TheMontashu a "stupid guy" in the post that you subsequently deleted, and deciding that you know theflyinfatman is a "curb dropper", you really are busting out the third grade insults today aren't you? Oh, and it's "you're".
The fact is, that a low single pivot like a DHR or a Stinky will behave in exactly the same manner if you pedal it properly. So get off your FSR high horse. FSR is a good design, but it's not the be-all, end-all of suspension designs that somehow pedals better than anything else in existance. It doesn't. It's simply a decent design that, if engineered properly, will perform and behave well. But so will a single pivot.
Don't consider the type of linkage as the #1 reason to buy a bike use the main pivot location as a deciding factor. The higher and more forward the pivot the better the bike will pedal, the lower and farther back the pivot is the less it will be affected by pedaling. The type of linkage will determine how plush the suspension feels to a point but, don't let anybody fool you into believing that the leverage ratio, progression rate and such you get on a big hit is something you can only get with a horst link, fact is the only thing you get with a horst link is a modified axle path which most can't notice, some single pivots even mimic specialized's axle path or improve upon it even.
A well designed single pivot can out perform a poorly designed FSR while a well designed FSR can outperform a poorly designed singlepivot that's obvious. In the case of a well designed FSR and a well designed single pivot the performance factor depends on the rider much more than the bike.
Is there a badly designed FSR?Kornphlake said:
Just curious...
Oh probablly, I haven't ridden every FSR since its inception. Being a FSR doesn't inherantly make a bike really good just because I can't cite a specific example of a bad FSR though. Ellisworth is coming to mind for some reason, that's more of a CS problem coupled with a material strength problem than a suspension performance problem though. It would be just as easy for somebody to botch up pivot placement on a FSR as it is to botch up pivot placement on a single pivot though. Assuming that the FSR design is from the ground up that is. It may be that a high percentage of the companies that liscence the FSR design also take the time to refine their bicycle designs unlike certain companies that are willing to sell a half engineered single pivot. Overall performance of a high end bike really has more to do with the amount of engineering that goes into the design not the type of linkage it has IMO.
I guess I deleted it because I myself thought it was dumb....binary visions said:
Between calling TheMontashu a "stupid guy" in the post that you subsequently deleted, and deciding that you know theflyinfatman is a "curb dropper", you really are busting out the third grade insults today aren't you? Oh, and it's "you're".
The fact is, that a low single pivot like a DHR or a Stinky will behave in exactly the same manner if you pedal it properly. So get off your FSR high horse. FSR is a good design, but it's not the be-all, end-all of suspension designs that somehow pedals better than anything else in existance. It doesn't. It's simply a decent design that, if engineered properly, will perform and behave well. But so will a single pivot.
Somebody needed to put him in his place - I tried but I had to make it to my next class so I just decided to delete it. I know its "you're"....but whatever....
I dont< take time to insert apostrophes<. I guess I dont always know when to use them anyway
Any yes I called him a curb dropper, because I am probably arguing with an internet biker who dosent even use a bike to its potential.
And you have to understand that myself and thaflyinfatman are good buddies.
The funny thing is the three are easy to compare because they are SO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.... almost INcomparable...math2014 said:
As for differences between single pivots (with a floater) and FSRs... I would be willing to bet that the majority of difference people think they feel has a lot more to do with the shock compression curve and damper setup, as well as bike geometry than anything else.
Both are good designs, and work just fine if well built and thought out. Find a bike that fits you (size), your riding style (geometry), and your budget (duh... price). Then make sure you have the right spring weight. THEN worry about which suspension design you're on.
gotta chime in briefly w/ my recent experience...i rode a friend's enduro the other day on some rocky, rooty NE singletrack and was amazed at how well it would tackle technical climbs. i've been on these trails countless times w/ various bikes (hardtails, amp-style rear ends, single pivots) but really felt like the bike was making a big difference (esp because i've got horrible fitness right now).
I was just refering to the fact that FSR, VPP, DW, Lawhill are all true 4bars....duhohio said:
uh duh, so why does that make them any more comparable than an FSR to a single pivot?math2014 said:
You know a single pivot with a floating brake is actually a 4-bar right? And a Walking beam (kona-style single pivot) is a 4 bar too.
Oh wait, you're talking about 4-bars where the wheel is attached to the 3rd member. So you mean a set of conditions that can produce such a wide range as to be completely indefinable.
When you compare an FSR to a single pivot to a Lawwill, you are comparing subtleties, and a good engineer can make them all perform quite similarly. When you are comparing an FSR to a VPP to a DW, you are comparing VERY VERY different styles of suspension performance. The fact that people love all three should tell you something about the relative importance of suspension style compared to other factors.
(p.s. not to take away from good suspension design. Each system can be horrendously facked up, and it takes a good engineer or years of refinement to actually get good performance out of each design)
ohio said:
Mate i think you got me all wrong.
I said that FSR compares to Lawhill VPP DW from the point of view that they are patented rear suss designs... not from a point of view that FSR is so much better or anything. Also from a point of view that the wheel is having 2 pivots between rear axle and bb shell.
Personally i dont think that there is a "better" rear suss design. I am mostly concerned by the overall quality of a bike than just a design.
A turner walking beam design or linkage driven single pivot is still a 4 bar, it's even a "true" 4 bar. Ask any engineering student, who doesn't relate linkages to bicycles specifically, and they'll agree that any linkage with 4 pivots in any configuration is a 4 bar linkage. My AS-X is a 4 bar even though 2 of the links are very short. You're just another victim of specialized's marketing claiming that the FSR is the only "true" 4 bar. You probablly already knew that though and FSR, VPP, DW, and lawill were just the buzzwords that came to mind.
As far as i am concerned marketing plays no role to me, that is why i am here learning stuff from people i trust (YOU).
My definition of 4bar means as i said to ohio is that 2 pivots are between the wheel and the body of the vehicle. Similar to a multilink suspension on an F1 car. I might be wrong but this is how i define it in my mind, after having studied some engineering in the past ( i am not an engineer).
As for the flak war between FSR/VPP/DW or anything else...i just dont give a damn... i would rather get a nicely built SP bike to a poorly built or/and overpriced patented design.
My definition of 4bar means as i said to ohio is that 2 pivots are between the wheel and the body of the vehicle. Similar to a multilink suspension on an F1 car. I might be wrong but this is how i define it in my mind, after having studied some engineering in the past ( i am not an engineer).
As for the flak war between FSR/VPP/DW or anything else...i just dont give a damn... i would rather get a nicely built SP bike to a poorly built or/and overpriced patented design.
I remember once when I thought my banshee was a "4 bar" and my friends Foes DHS was "just a single pivot". Come to learn we both had single pivots with shocks driven by different looking linkages.
I'll have to say though that I love my Single Pivot DHR, and my FSR 5-spot, although I tend argue with myself all the time.....
I'll have to say though that I love my Single Pivot DHR, and my FSR 5-spot, although I tend argue with myself all the time.....
You have the best that two of the world best companies have to offer as your choices, I don't think you will be disapointed either way. I love both of the bikes you chose (gemini dh and the demo 8) they are my two favorite choices and they both ride very well. Have fun. Ride hard. Pick the one that appeals to you the most. color,specs,company image, friends, whatever. You can't lose, they are both great companies that will back you for years to come.
Big disadvantage of FSR; It's hard to design an FSR to be laterally stiff without using exotic bearing designs and interfaces.
Big disadvantage of Single Pivot; Not progressive. Other aspects like pedaling and pedal feedback vary IMMENSLY with pivot placement.
One can make a flexy single pivot, like a RM6, heckler, and the bullit isn't the stiffest design out there either. Take that same type of design though and add a linkage like the Yeti AS-X or Foes Fly, and you get an EXTREMELY stiff bike. Usually much stiffer than an FSR will ever be.
You can make a stiff FSR like turner by using bushings or some kind of bearing setup that gives a lot of lateral rigidity, but it drives up cost and engineering. The thing is that the rear wheel "floats" on what is essentially the seatstay, and the member the rear wheel sits on is not directly connected to the main frame (as with a Foes Fly or similer bike). This makes the bearings and interfaces critical for lateral rigidity. Many companies that mass-produce bikes simply do not put in the time and effort to make them work well years down the road. Ovalizing bearing interfaces, pitting of the surface, bearing self-destruction, etc.
If you get an FSR, do it right and get a Titus LocoMoto or Knolly V-tach. Specialized wouldn't be "bad", but they tend to lean on the side of "mass produced, may not hold up in the long run".
Big disadvantage of Single Pivot; Not progressive. Other aspects like pedaling and pedal feedback vary IMMENSLY with pivot placement.
One can make a flexy single pivot, like a RM6, heckler, and the bullit isn't the stiffest design out there either. Take that same type of design though and add a linkage like the Yeti AS-X or Foes Fly, and you get an EXTREMELY stiff bike. Usually much stiffer than an FSR will ever be.
You can make a stiff FSR like turner by using bushings or some kind of bearing setup that gives a lot of lateral rigidity, but it drives up cost and engineering. The thing is that the rear wheel "floats" on what is essentially the seatstay, and the member the rear wheel sits on is not directly connected to the main frame (as with a Foes Fly or similer bike). This makes the bearings and interfaces critical for lateral rigidity. Many companies that mass-produce bikes simply do not put in the time and effort to make them work well years down the road. Ovalizing bearing interfaces, pitting of the surface, bearing self-destruction, etc.
If you get an FSR, do it right and get a Titus LocoMoto or Knolly V-tach. Specialized wouldn't be "bad", but they tend to lean on the side of "mass produced, may not hold up in the long run".
single pivots are better and stuff though because FSRs suck the big one !!!1111one!!111!!
Who cares how progressive a linkage is with SPV and 5th elamentJm_ said:
Not everyone likes to use so called 'bandaid shocks' to make their frame run the way they want it to. Even Avys work best on a progressive frame.TheMontashu said:
Going off on a tangent: Does one design suit a certain size/weight rider than another design, e.g Does an FSR, VPP, Lawill etc suit a heavy guy better than a singlepivot or vice versa,etc?
by that, you are implying that a different rate of travel (progressive + or -) is needed for a different weight rider.The Hitman said:
I've never heard that to be true, you simply need a stiffer spring.
One thing you might be able to argue is damping. For small differences (140vs 160 vs 180lbs) this may not be a big deal, but for someone 250lbs or 100lbs, the "stock damping" could be pretty far off. This is where companies like avalanche and Push come into play.
Some interesting points there JM. I just thought that a linkage/4 bar bike would better suit a heavy guy due to more pivots to distribute stress plus they are ussually more progressive.
A heaver guy will put more force on the pivots, like pushing harder on a lever.The Hitman said:
Whether this induces flex is dependant on the design, but it's pretty much a no-brainer that a flexy design will flex that much more with a heavier person aboard.
Jm, are you assessing my question in terms of flex? Because I was more addressing the question in terms of durability and suspension performance. I dont think 'flex' inherently links to durability, all the time, but can do... It depends on different factors etc... (I think) lol
The Hitman said:
Would large amounts of flex actually contribute to bearing wear? Just another question that comes to mind.
I would think a little flex would be healthy to spread the force over more area, possibly preventing cracks
I'm not an e-engineer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn express last night 
This thread got pretty ugly, all I gotta say is even though I like the FSR design, that frame geometry and quality construction matter more.
erm...what? Generally, the higher and more forward, the more effect it has on pedaling. Closer to the BB means less impact on suspension. That's why the GT RTS was called Semi-active and the Diamondback V-Link was fully-active.Kornphlake said:
Anyways, can we make an agreement on what a 4bar is? IMO, a DW or Karpiel or VPP is NOT a 4bar, even if, technically, it has the same number of links. I think 4 bars should remain linkage bikes, in the (fsr, m1, Kona, Turner, etc.) variety.
VPPs, etc. should be known by other names.
Walking beams should be single pivot OR horst linked with a long bar connecting the seatstay and shock (a la 5-spot, kona, etc.). Yes, an m1 is the same design, but can we, for clarity's sake, say they are different?
Does that make sense, or are we going to piss and moan over what is what forever?
Okay, please don't take offense at this, but:Sandwich said:
This is rediculous. It is what it is. And "faux-bar" (as was mentioned earlier) is a stupid term.
What would you guys say if I said, "Oh. It's not a Raceface crankset. I like to call all non-Raceface cranksets 'pseudocranks'."
Everyone would tell me I was a moron. Why, exactly, is this different? If it's a 4 bar design, it's a friggin' 4 bar design - nothing you say or do or call it will make it any different. Anything else is just catering to Specialized's rediculous (but apparently very effective) marketing.
What the heck is wrong with Horst link?! That's what it is. Not a "true" 4-bar. It's a Horst link bike. Period.
</end rant>
Higher and more forward means more pedal kickback, which also means that the suspension will stiffen up under pedalling and will bob less because the chain torque. to a point, counteracts the rider's weight shift. Closer to the BB means that the bike will have less chainline extension and pedaling won't cause the suspension to stiffen, it will remain active over bumps even under hard pedaling but may bob because the rider is bouncing up and down while pedaling.Sandwich said:
I think you're getting too caught up in marketing jargon, physics is physics, buzzwords just try to give people without a basic understanding of physics some idea of how things work. Kind of like a thread I read a while back about people going to motorcycle shops and asking if a certain model bike had "powerbands," when a salesman explained that a powerband is a range of RPM's where the engine has optimal output, all bikes have a powerband it isn't something that you can bolt on, the customers would get all hazy looking and say well I'm going to X shop because they have a bike that has powerbands. How about positraction? Sounds like a good idea, sure I'll plunk down the cash for positraction because I like to drive my car in the snow and I can use all the traction I can get.
Oh yeah and what Binary said too.
a well tuned FSR does everything well...but IMO a closed rear triangluated closely coupled suspension links (a la dw or vpp) can achieve(if well designed) the pedalling cataristics of the FSR design but with better lateral stiffen.
That being said IMO i wonder how much those complex axle paths make a difference, i mean people with rotecs find that they pedal very well.
So for me the best suspension design is still to come, wich will be a closed triangulated rear swing arm with a linkage activated shock with a low jackshaft design or gearboxx plus a floating brake and the pivot would concentric for zero chaingrowth.
That being said IMO i wonder how much those complex axle paths make a difference, i mean people with rotecs find that they pedal very well.
So for me the best suspension design is still to come, wich will be a closed triangulated rear swing arm with a linkage activated shock with a low jackshaft design or gearboxx plus a floating brake and the pivot would concentric for zero chaingrowth.