Too much emphasis on lockout?

RideMonkey · Sep 15, 2002

In some places we do LONG rides from our houses. We might ride 10 miles on pavement or dirt road just to get to the trail head. This is where I use lockout. I'm glad I have it.

I don't use it on the trail ever. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have a place.

proglife · Sep 16, 2002

Originally posted by Thylacine
Theres been a lot of hype about the Specialized 'inertia valve' recently. I'm generally of the opinion that its a novel idea, but as a guy that has gotten used to full suspension, the whole concept of lockout to me seems like a feature that isnt worth the trouble. Is there a point to having suspension that doesnt work?

Novelty is the nature of things. It's in the very fabric of time/space. We NEED to come up with such things.

http://www.deoxy.org/t_twzrev.htm

...if interested...

James

wirly · Sep 16, 2002

What's your point?? Are you personally offended by trying new things to see if they make the biking experience better? There is NO WAY to really know if it will make things "better" until you try it. MTBers will decide through experience and vote with dollars for what "works." Sure there are lots of things in biking that could be better (a 20mm rear axle not high on that list), get on it! But I hardly see how that makes any work in other areas less valuable.

Hooray for you getting "used to suspension," that "novelty" from way back. I love my suspension, every inch of whatever I am riding that day...except when I am paying for my downhill on that wicked long fire road where it only hinders me. (see, I don't have a chase vehicle to swap out to my climbing rig) I had lockout on my UZZI DH so I could climb it out of everything, I have it on my XC FS bike so I can get that 15 mile climb over quicker feeling better, and I wish I had it on my Armageddon when I am freeriding it.

Why, on my 4.5" travel trailbike, do I leave my Fuel riding buddies for dead?

Um, just a shot in the dark, but did you ever think that maybe you are in better shape than you Fueled buddies? (3 and 4.5 inch bikes are NOT that different, it's all XC at that point)

Enjoying my little novelty.

oldfart · Sep 16, 2002

Personnaly I think lockouts on shorter travel bikes is a waste of time. As soon as the surface is the least bit rough, suspension makes the bike faster because the bike with you on it does not have to rise up and over the bump. In a seated position my old Heckler with Psylo race at 125mm up front barely bobs. I have a lockout on both ends but I rarely use it. I use it rarely on long road rides to trails. It makes no difference in my speed that I can detect.

A longer travel bike might be a different story. DH bikes though with DH tires are going to climb like a pig no matter what, but they're made to go down anyway, so; so what .

One of Britsh mags just printed the results of a non-scientific test. They had I think 5 riders ride a lap of a long course on a Trek hardtail and a Fuel. All were a minute or two faster on a course that was around 50 minutes long. One guy was slower but he flatted. I've read about Giant doing a similar test with WC stars. Same result. faster times on the full suspension bike and lower pulse rates too. But the riders felt the hardtail was faster. It could be that the rough ride feels faster. The same way a Chevy Chevette at 140 kph feels faster than a Corvette at the same speed.

spincrazy · Sep 16, 2002

Dunno, but I like my new full suspension a lot. It adjusts from 4-4.75 in the rear and 3-5 inches up front. The fork has lock out, but I never use it and don't plan on it. The rear is great and doesn't lock out, and it never will.

Like oldfart said, I think it's more important on DH bikes and not-as-good suspension designs. The poorer the design, the more need for lockout.

Bacardi · Sep 16, 2002

HAHAHhahaha, I use Lockdown on Stratos LR1 when riding home
on the road (4-5 miles) after my descend; it helps.

Doesn't really help climbing tho. changes the geometry too much on my 6" stinky. I prefer it up even with the 2" of saggy fork.

Merwin5_10 · Sep 16, 2002

I think maybe we need to clarify what a lockout on an FS is supposed to accomplish, then we can move on.

*****A lockout increases efficiency byreducing unwated motion in any suspension system. This helps to eliminate power put into the pedal being absorbed by the supsension, instead of making it to your wheel where it becomes forward momentum.*****

So, why the hype? Because if a designer can create an FS bike that does not react to downward forces on the pedal or the seat (effectively isolating rider initiated "bob" and the susequent loss of power associated with this) AND maintain an active suspension that absorbs forces against the wheel (in the form of bumps, divits, potholes, sticks, rocks, ledges, squirels, etc.) then they have created the most effecient, XC tuned, comfotable and performance enhancing bicycle since the old days of Mt. Tamoplis.

Has anyone done this completely?

NO, and don't beleive the hype. You can't have both; yet. Presently you can either have a limited travel XC appropriate FS bike (EPIC, NRS, SUGAR) that may not be the most comfortable or plush ride out there, but will be the most efficient,

OR

you can have a fully active, plush, comfy, easy-on-the-ass ride (Jekyl, Fuel, Razorback, I-Drive) that must rely on a lockout to achieve efficiency.

No one has been able to do both completely. (NO ONE, No not even the maker of your bike. Sorry, hasn't happened yet.) That explains the VAST scope of what is considered Full Suspension (excluding free ride and DH bikes.)

Personally, I feel that companies that use lockouts are patching shoddy frame designs with shocks that shut off. If your goal is to create a fully active full suspension, and a comfoptable ride quality, why obsess over the bike's ability to lockout and then try to pass it off as an efficient XC FS ride?

If your goal is to create an efficient, powerful, keep-the-tire-on-the-dirt-at-all-times ride, then do it. Don't make me start reaching all over creation turning sh*t on and turning sh*t off to get teh damn thing to work.

But that's just me...

EBasil · Sep 16, 2002

I'm just an FS newibe, and cranky old hardtail rider, but I do have a question...

Why do the "Pro" versions of Rockshox forks (you know, the obscenely priced forks only used by pros or over-funded wannabes) have lockout switches on them? Hasn't someone figured out that there may be a useful application?

:devil:

wirly · Sep 16, 2002

EBasil put the goal very well

*****A lockout increases efficiency byreducing unwated motion in any suspension system. This helps to eliminate power put into the pedal being absorbed by the supsension, instead of making it to your wheel where it becomes forward momentum.*****

The interest lockouts address (or try to) is that of efficiency: least energy expenditure for most cycling gain (speed/altitude/distance or whatever is your goal). Suspension gives more traction, control, and reduces the energy the body has to absorb from the trail in the form of bumps and jars or the standing involved in avoiding such, yada-yada-yada. Great, we love this (well, I do), but suspension also absorbs the energy we try to put BACK to the trail. Hmm, suspension is not the panacea imagined. Therein lies the balance always needing to be adjusted to the particular goal at hand when designing a frame or shock. But I'm regurgitating to the choir, this is your bread and butter, Thylacine.

Since Thylacine isnt talking racing, and I am going to ASSume we can agree any riding done pointing south or on rough/technical trails will be best (read most efficiently though I prefer most funly) done suspended, we are only concerned with loss of efficiency on relatively smooth straights and climbs. I would put money on a fully rigid bike over any FS bike on a short or long fire road climb, and would take the FS over a HT or rigid on anything technical all other things being equal. The only time suspension ADDS anything to a climb is when you are losing more energy to loss of traction than you are gaining by being locked out - not an issue on most fire road with a good spin. Also, if a climb gets so steep that my little legs cant push circles while seated anymore I prefer the option of not pogo-ing the rest of the way to the top out of the saddle.

Merwin sums up the state of things beautifully, and I have to agree with him almost 100%. My only divergence is personal in that I dont mind reaching all over creation turning sh*t on/off because for me its very infrequent but invaluable when done.

But my personal experience with suspension is from a not-at-all-interested-in racing, riding way the F to the top to bomb the back side; give me more suspension so I can hammer the wicked rocky sections faster, climb the traction-less steeps cleaner and not have to pull my shorts from quite so far up my colon after its all done point of view. In that world lockout works great on SOME occasions, shoot, I ALWAYS ride my road bike locked out! Everyone values something else...damned diversity!

Do you think a single 14 speed shifter could possibly be worse than the current 2 shifter set-up?

Only if it increased the wieght and put it all at one end of the bike...or allows one to strip the gears while hammering up a hill. (Kidding aside, when did I argue the dirivetrain standard was NOT weakest link on bikes today?)

Have you ever seen a newbie ride?

Uh, yeah?

Have you ever dreamed of something new that wasnt forced upon you by some great marketing guru?

No, I don't own anything Gary Fisher.

As to the value of ideas, how can you possibly tell me that all ideas are of equal value or importance?

Poor wording on my part: absolutely some things have more or less value than others (thus the existence of the word). I was failing to point out that just because someone is doing work in an area you value less than another does not render it valueless and should therefor NOT be pursued. (still a LOT of money made on single speed cruisers in San Diego)

I think we all got used to suspension, especially if we grew up on hardtails ( Which I assume you didnt ) - its a different riding style, and it definitely helps if you already know how to pedal. I never said suspension was a novelty, I never thought of it as a novelty - In fact, I brought a good friend of mine into the mtb game in 1990 after he became disillusioned with car racing. His passion for bike suspension meant that there was, and I cant stress this enough - no chance for novelty.

"Grew up" on rigid, baby, FS still not that old.
I assume you mean you brought your friend in as a designer(?); to decide what will be novel and what will be the future in the biking world is great power indead, very cool.

I'm curious to see how lockout on a climb makes you quicker and make you feel better.

Maybe it IS the placebo effect, I just feel stronger and fresher (no Masengil needed) during and after a long fire road ascent if locked out.

Why, on my 4.5" travel trailbike, do I leave my Fuel riding buddies for dead?

You said it aint fitness...

I used to ride the same trail on a Mantis Pro-Floater, with a friend of the same fitness. He rides an Ellsworth Truth - I couldnt keep up.

...so maybe on my way back to school you could throw me a bone and make this a multiple choice point you are making:
A)Ellsworth rules while Trek sucks and Mantis is just darn average by todays standards B) It's NOT the motion of the ocean, 4.5" really IS better than 3" (aw crap! Can't...get...tounge...out of cheek!)

Thanks for ranting!

Serial Midget · Sep 16, 2002

I have two Trek Y bikes a 22 and a Glide. Neither climbs as fast as a hardtail but both are more fun to ride because the rear end stays put and does not get thrown off track. But if I was XC racing I would go hardtail all the way, they are just faster on the climbs. One of my Y-bikes has a Stratos XC Pro (not the OEM model a 2001 aftermarket) it has the lock out and I do use but only on pavement or fire roads. The increases power transfer is so significant you can feel it. No lie Y frames bob wildly when you are pumping fast. I also have a Rock Shox SID SL 2002 model with a lockout and never use it. I dont know why I just dont.

dwnwrd · Sep 17, 2002

If you pick up the latest Mountainbike Action with the V10 on the cover there is an article on "The War on Bob".

oldfart · Sep 17, 2002

Its nice to see some passion but lets not get too confrontational. We're all in this together.

I 've read lots of times how bobbing suspension is inefficient but I have never seen it quantified much less proven. I can imagine the mechanism of why front bobbing will use rider energy to compress the fork and the energy is returned in a direction somewhat bacwards but mostly upwards. Same thing on the rear if the axle path is slightly rearward initially. I suppose if you compress a bike and suddenly remove the weight it will jump backwards a bit. This motion repeated hundreds of times would I guess have a negative effect. But how much. And more importantly how much in relation to what is saved or gained by not having to raise and lower the bike and rider over each and every bump. I guess it makes sense on smooth surfaces where tires are all the suspension you need to lock out if the rider feels slower.

Lockouts might be the modern equivalent of a friction mode on our shifters. All the first indexed systems had it. Some needed it because they never indexed very well. I never used it ever in many years of thumb shifters and down tube shifters and many bent derailleurs. But still when it was eliminated people complained. I really think lockouts are over emphasised (sorry my spelling stinks) I've raced a ton and watched several World Cup races. The number of times one stands and hammers is pretty low compared to time in the saddle. And if you alter your pedaling you can eliminate lots of bob. So if one pedals on a hardtail in that same bob inducing fashion, does that up down energy get transfered to the rear wheel as forward motion? Or is it also wasted in other places we don't feel.

I know when I ride a while on my suspended bike on the road, then lockout, I can feel my butt bounce but can eliminate this by smoothing out my pedaling, or maybe I just get used to it and don't feel it anymore.

My point is we feel a lot of things when we ride, lots of sensations, but that shouldn't be taken as proof of too much. Road sprinters have always liked stiff bikes that don't flex and react to rider input right now. So how did Sean Kelly win all those sprints on those noodely Vitus aluminum bikes? I think to proove that bobbing is wasting energy we need to actually take some measurements with force meters and strain guages etc. Then there would be some hard data.

Serial Midget · Sep 17, 2002

I would never swap my full squishy for a hard tail but I have come to beleive that URT suspensions waste energy, espially those with plush travel. I have 5.75" on the glide with the boulton rear end - without locking out it is not a good climber. I've ridden it since 1998 with and without a lockout. I have recently purchased a 4 bar frame and will swap the parts out and retire the y-glide. Not because of the bob but because the frame is too large for me.

Now... I am glad I have the lockout on the XC pro but... for my purposes it was not money well spent since I don't climb very much on that bike. My plastic trek has the OEM FOX Alps5 with no lock out - it use it for XC and climbing bob or no bob.

Merwin5_10 · Sep 17, 2002

Originally posted by Thylacine

and bike companies start consulting suspension engineers to finally get their systems right. Also its about education too - people still think that suspension is bad for climbing, and that 'bob' wastes energy.

Good point. Giant's chief suspension designere was hired in from a truck company ( I think it was Toyote) where he designed suspension for 4x4 trucks. Needless to say, he probably knows a thing or two about suspension. In fact, he went so far as to tell the bike industry, in a round-about way, that the goals they were setting for their design teams were misplaced.

Supsension should keep the rider in the saddle where he/she can maintain a consistent turnover. IT shoudl also keep the rear wheel on the ground in uneven conditions where it can create forward momentum. The better a design does these things, the more efficient it is; period.

As far a Hardtail vs. FS vs. Rigid vs. my daughter's big wheel, it depends on your type of riding, your riding style (strengths etc) and the terrain your on.

The original question was focused directly to lockouts not the validity of FS bikes. Although it helps to understand what a FS desing is trying to accomplish, put bluntly, lockouts are a band-aid for inefficient FS designs.

As for "how much" and hard data, I would bet money that anyone who has ridden various FS rides, various HT rides and various rigid rides on the same trail, under the same conditions would feel the benefits of solid FS design on climbs, tech single track and really bumpy trails. Without this first hand experience, you'll have to wait until someone invents the "AssThump meter" and can quantify for us the specific forces we experience while riding, and seperate the good, the bad and the fugly.

Merwin5_10 · Sep 17, 2002

Oh and BTW, the engineer I spoke of,

yeah, he designed the NRS technology.

Serial Midget · Sep 17, 2002

Wooo ho! This seems like good news. I just bought a Giant frame designed by a Toyota engineer.

I specifically want a short travel XC bike. I wanted a Sugar frame but... I'm too cheap.

boboso · Sep 18, 2002

Recently got an Intense Trace and Fox RLC, I use the lockouts mainly on the way to and from the trails. The fork lockout I use at times to stiffen the front but it is not fully locked out

evilbob · Sep 19, 2002

"The War on Bob"

What war? What did I do now?

I am in total agreement on the benefits of lock outs for some XC racing conditions and some design applications. However, IMO most riders tend to ignor this extra distraction once they become accustomed to their bikes traits. As for inertia valves and VPP technology, this is good stuff, no rider distractions, just riding. I have ridin booth designs recently and can tell you they both do what they are supposed to with out any adjustments from me. Just more bike traits (good ones) to get used to but no manual lockouts, so no distractions! :thumb:

Personally I ride a Big Hit DH (new 2003 frame on the way

) it is my only bike so it is a 2ringer for trails/DH/freeride. 45 squishy pounds, and the only real place I have problems are long constant climbs. I ride with all ages and all bike types. I am also 44, ex roady type not in that great of shape but I do know how to pedal. Learn how to pedal and most bikes can be ridin just fine without playing with the gadgets :eek:

But, gadgets are fun to have none the less! :cool:

:evil:

Will_Jekyll · Sep 19, 2002

I saw an EPIC in my local bike shop two weeks ago and it seemed pretty sweet. The part that interested me most was that since you had the inertia valve you can ride with much lower air pressure than on a normal FS. For a rider my size (6'6" 200 lbs) Specialized recommends 140 lbs psi air pressure giving you a much smother and more active over small bumps ride. And there was absolutly no delay in the suspensions reaction to bumps. I thought the suspension would take a hit unlock and be ready for the next but tht's not how it works. When it senses upwards force on the axel it unlocks instantly ( so fast I couldn't feel it was locked) sucks up the pump extends and instantly locks again. The thing I would like to see is how the bike feels pedaling out of the saddle over ruff stuff. Since it has the low air pressure if you are out of the seat pedaling hard when it keeps unlocking I imagine you would feel alot of bob.

evilbob · Sep 19, 2002

The thing I would like to see is how the bike feels pedaling out of the saddle over ruff stuff.

I'm 215lbs the Epic is (road one last week can't say where

) greate out of the saddle in the rough. I think the inertia valve is not just open or closed but is a little progressive in this condition. Not really sure. I think what you are concerned about is a mushy wallowing ride in that riding condition. That is what I was concerned with in the rough and I didn't notice that condition at all nor did I notice that the suspension was harsh for the same reason. It just seems to work and can be ignored.

MikeD · Sep 20, 2002

M'kay, Thy....

I've NEVER been a fan of lockout. Unless one is on a road, there's no real advantage, and the lockout is 1) a psychological band-aid for a nonexistant problem or 2) an engineering band-aid for poor design.

However, putting the Epic/Brain design in these categories doesn't work for me. It's not a band-aid, but rather an integral part of a suspension design which realizes the goals of suspension designers since the beginning...

Bike designers have to deal with the influence rider weight and the consequences of the relatively large motions it takes to make one go a lot more than a car or even a motorcycle designer has to. I'm sure you're aware of this more acutely than I... :rolleyes:

Motorcycles have engine vibration and shaft-drive torque to deal with; bikes have pedalling.

The Brain idea is the ultimate way to separate these influences; now you've got a suspension that's not influenced by the rider, but only by the terrain, giving you the optimal ride for every condition and reducing any unwanted motion. If you're gonna bash that, you might as well call your idler sprocket a 'crutch,' even though it's an effective, integrated component of your design. And the psychological benefits of a solid-feeling ride are there, too, as much as you want to discount them.

Still, what really intrigued me was the idea of learning to ride F/S bikes differently. We DHers have a secret...we can 'pump' our suspensions to keep our speed up without pedalling. (Learned this in the 'Insane Wayne' Croasdale clinic.)
When your suspension is compressed on the back side of a roll in the ground, we can push it down further and let the suspension's return action contribute to our speed. You can argue physics with me all you want, but I know my time through a section without pedalling was improved a little bit when I pumped the bike. (Then again, maybe chalk it up to it being the second time thru the section...a guy named 'Insane Wayne' might not be the perfect physics professor.

)

That aside, there ARE a lot of techniques that are unique to riding an F/S bike, esp. a long travel one (mainly sitting down and simply crushing things on the way down the hill

). Cornering on a DH bike can be heavily influenced by suspension.

If there is no value to suspension on smooth ground, then why do street moto racers spend so much time tuning theirs? True, they're not facing the influence of their engines on the suspension as much as a bicycle, but there's a real reason.

Sorry for this incoherent rant; I had to write something, but I'm short on time and need to get to work.

Great avatar, thy...when do I get my stickers?????

MD

PS I don't think the Epic cares whether you're sitting or standing, as the brain's not supposed to react to the rider in any way.

oldfart · Sep 20, 2002

Food for thought on the Epic. My understanding of the inertia valve is its an automatic and near immediate on/off switch for the rear shock. So if rider induced suspension movement is counterproductive when on smooth ground, why iisn't it counterproductive on rough? Or is it rendered irrelevant because the benefits of suspension in the rough overshadows the rider induced allegedly negative movements? If this were true than perhaps the VPP designs are better because they work at eliminating or reducing rider induced movements all the time.

Motorized vehicles do have power induced effects to take into account. I've watched motocross rear wheels dig in when power is throttled up fast. Not really sure what i'm seeing though. Drag cars have traction bars which eliminate the wheel hop caused when the pinion gear rides up the ring gear and rotates the differential and axle housing, Front wheel drive cars with transverse engines can pull to one side under hard accelerations.

I think there probably are some measurable affects of rider induced bobbing but the issue is, how great is the effect and is it worth doing anything about. I take manufacturers claims with a grain of salt. They are trying to sell us stuff. No problem with that at all, its a free market society. I would think it would behoove them to sell things like lockouts with a little more than bobbing is bad m'kay, buy a new shock with a lockout. is anyone aware of any engineering test which demonstrates the magnitude of the bobbing effect has on the forward progress of a bicycle? I have never seen a good explanation of what the negative affect is. I assume its when the fork or rear end goes down from the weight of the leg, the energy absorbed by that motion is returned when the shoks extend back to equilibrium, but when they extend back its a slightly backwards push.

MikeD · Sep 20, 2002

Re: 'Power induced effects'

Bikes break traction and spin tires just like motorcycles under the right conditions...(high torque, low traction) so I don't think we can relate that to the effect of the 'engine' (rider or internal combustion engine) of either vehicle.

However, I'm sure that the drivetrain torque of a chain-driven motorcycle affects the bike somehow...squats or extends or something...it's just that there's so much power on tap that the effect is essentially negligable (guessing here...engineer-types please chime in!)

Also, the pistons in an engine are moving in a short, linear path. They cause vibration, but they probably [Again, ???] don't really affect the overall movement of the very heavy machine to which they're attached. Feet, however, move in a large, circular path, and the legs and body to which they're attached move in a rythym along with them. And the feet weigh significantly more, percentage-wise, than those pistons do...and the whole 'engine assembly' of the rider outweighs its bike by several times over. So I think you've got very distinct situations there.

It's like buttah. Talk amongst yourselves. And relate this back to lockout somehow.

MD

PS What is the airspeed velocity of a laden Thylacine?

MikeD · Sep 23, 2002

wait wait wait wait.

"More is better?" Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you were an American like me.

I'll see ya at the bottom of the Big Bear chairlift.

Anyhow, I still disagree in one sense. I don't agree that the 'Brain' is a essentially a lockout device (it is, yes, but hang on!) I think it's primarily a way to isolate the rider from the suspension. Like I've been repeating, the rider of a 30 lb bicycle has an undue amount of influence on the suspension for most average applications.

As a DHer, I rely on my influence over the suspension to ride the type of terrain I do...and I think most technical f/s riders do the same.

However, most people just want suspension to smooth out the bumps; they're not using it to negotiate otherwise unnavigable terrain (unless you're Hans Rey on a mod bike).

I think I just convinced myself that any real rider wouldn't want the Brain feature :eek:

.

But I think it has a lot of application for xc racing. Wow, we're right back where we started. :confused:

Could it be that Thy is right? Heavens no!

-MD

PS I have no idea who the Avalanches are. But you might be referring to my Royal Tennenbaums quote in my sig.

crashing_sux · Jan 5, 2003

Great thread. I just wanted to clarify a few of the technical points for people.

For the comment about pumping your bike down the backsides of hills, this works great but has nothing to do with suspension. Actually, pumping works much better on a hardtail as the suspension soaks up some of your pump. Watch a BMX race sometime, they all pump, or for a much easier to view example watch anybody riding a bike or skateboard in a halfpipe, they rely on pumping for all of their speed and without pedaling at all continually go higher and higher each time they go through the halfpipe just by pumping in the curved sections near the bottom.

Regarding proof that shocks absorbs energy. There is a ton of proof. "Shock" is a shortened version of shock absorber that we use because nobody bothers to say "absorber" but the very name of the item shows that it is meant to absorb energy. It doesn't return it, it just absorbs it. Go to dictionary.com and look up shock absorber, you'll find this definition...

"mechanical damper; absorbs energy of sudden impulses"

That's just what they do, absorb energy. If a shock didn't absorb energy and just returned it as someone previously mentioned then after dropping off of a ten foot wall you would bounce ten foot back off the ground! This doesn't happen because both the shocks in your legs and on the bike absorb the energy preventing it from hurting your or sending you flying back into the air. Somehow maybe you are confusing a shock with a spring. If you just had a spring on your bike with no shock absorber to absorb the energy fed into the spring you would get most of the energy back, but then you'd be riding a pogo stick and would have some serious control issues with your bike.

Someone else mentioned that if shocks weren't of value on smooth surfaces why would street bikes have them. This is a ridiculous argument. I am not saying that they are or are not of value on smooth surfaces, just that paved streets aren't smooth surfaces. If you've ever been in a sports car with minimal suspension then you'd quickly realize how bumpy the streets really are. Yes, the bumps are smoother than found offroad and usually aren't even noticeable at 15mph on your bicycle but at 60mph in a car they definately are. At 150mph on a racing motorcycle you'll find a section of the road you previously considered smooth now seems like it has jumps in the road. Racetracks aren't as smooth as they seem either, race cars on the brakes hard into corners heat up the track and put so much force into it that they quickly create what are known as "braking bumps". These are usually the biggest concern of people tuning suspension on a racebike. The suspension isn't for the smooth sections, it's for all of the sections that aren't smooth.

Great input everyone, I hope this thread starts up again.

Rik · Jan 6, 2003

Everyone should do mandatory BMX or track racing before they ride a suspension bike. Better spin = Less bob. That's my 1step trick to eliminating pedal induced bob. So there.

But really though, the idea of lockout seems to be more "wow factor" than anything. The only real application you'd need it for is roads, paved surfaces and the like. Even a compacted dirt firetrail will have little bumps and lumps, so why beat yourself up in the name of "efficiency" when your suspension could be doing its job by absorbing these bumps.

But then again, I'm considering putting lockout on my Mars, only because that hardtail gets mainly road use. I really should relearn pedalling, then there'd be no need for lockout! And I couldn't even think of something as silly as using lockout when riding offroad, even climbing hills or on smooth trails, it's just not right. Think of it as buying a single speed bike, just because it's supposedly more efficient... it doesn't add up.

Rik · Jan 7, 2003

And I bet you get half as much pedal bob as other people on similar bikes

johnbryanpeters · Jan 7, 2003

crashing_sux,

You hit one of the questions square on the head. Damping eats some unknown number of watt hours. That energy might otherwise be available to make the bike go further or faster, but while a bunch of qualitative assertions have been made, nobody seems to have measured it.

It might also turn out that the energy dissipated by damping gets expended anyway because without the suspension, you have to do the damping with your body, again, we'll never get away from the argument until it's measured.

The lost energy is a fee paid to keep tires attached to the trail...

To the original point, I tend to agree with Thylacine and regard manually operated lockouts as a marketing gadget. I would prefer to spend my money on a nice pinwheel or possibly a chrome horn with a squeeze bulb.

J

crashing_sux · Jan 7, 2003

Originally posted by johnbryanpeters
crashing_sux,

You hit one of the questions square on the head. Damping eats some unknown number of watt hours. That energy might otherwise be available to make the bike go further or faster, but while a bunch of qualitative assertions have been made, nobody seems to have measured it.

J

I am not a fan of using lockouts for the most part but I don't race. While you may be correct that nobody has measured the differences between being locked out or not locked out in watts I don't believe it is true that it has not been measured at all. One measurement is lap times. Top race teams have gone to the trouble of of measuring lap times with and without activating lockouts on the smoother sections and after having done so they are still using lockouts in some cases which tells me they have found use for them. While their budgets and time to test may be greater at any level racers are trying to do the same thing, win. In situations where dual suspension really is the optimal solution and lockouts are useless you'll see that being used by the top racers, as we see in downhill racing. In some situations dual suspension may not be the optimal solution or lockouts may prove to be more efficient, in that situation you will see it also, as we do in XC racing.

I know a lot of people believe that at the pro level they all ride whatever their sponsors tell them to ride so they can sell more bikes but I say that's BS and an obvious example of that is that most of the XC pro's are riding hardtails when the manufacters are trying everything they can to get a dual suspension bike produced that truly is faster than a hardtail in XC races just so they can get them on top of the podium and selling some duallies which they have higher profit margins on.

In the end sponsors will push their racers to use whatever will make them the most money but since their paychecks depend on winning races and they are a competitive bunch racers will ride what works.

Westy · Jan 7, 2003

Originally posted by johnbryanpeters

I would prefer to spend my money on a nice pinwheel or possibly a chrome horn with a squeeze bulb.

J

I wish those fiberglass poles with the flags on them came back, those things rocked.

Lock outs for efficiency are just not a good idea. It is more important to spend your time and money on getting a well designed suspension and getting it tuned properly. I would much rather have more damping adjustability than a lock out. My superlight has both fron and rear lockouts. The only time I use a lock out is on the rear end during extremely steep techinical climbs. I can climb better if I can feel the terrain and use my legs as an active suspension rather then relying on a reactive suspension. I've been riding a hardtail for a very long time and probably just need to get used to the suspension.

crashing_sux · Jan 7, 2003

I'm sure not going to be the one to flame you, I agree with you for the most part. I would love to see XC race courses start to resemble mountain bike trails a little more.

The only point I don't agree with you on is your seeming animosity towards racers as a group. You mention that they are a bunch of genetic freaks that will ride whatever their sponsors put under their bums. Do you really believe that when sponsors are paying riders to win on their brand of bike so they can sell more of their brand of bike that they are asking these riders to ride hardtails? No way. The manufacturers are begging these guys to get on their dual suspension bikes and the racers are the ones telling them "sorry, if I ride that dually I won't be able to win".

I'll repeat my original assertion, racers are going to ride what wins. I don't follow downhill much anymore but I know a couple of years ago there were a couple of riders that were riding different brands of bikes than who they were sponsored by and then putting their sponsors stickers on their bikes. They weren't even riding their sponsors bikes, how embarassing is that? When it comes down to it though, they rode what they thought they could win on.

I wish I had specifics to give you but I have both talked to a few racers and read a few interviews in mountain biking magazines that said when they checked lap times back to back the duallies couldn't keep up which is why they were still racing hardtails. Of course I don't expect anyone to take my word for it since I can't find the sources at this time.

If it matters, I ride a dual suspension and never touch my lockouts, I'm just presenting an alternative point of view.

I'm a little surprised how easily you discount the efforts of others though, by calling racers a bunch of genetic freaks without outright saying it you insinuate that they were just born lucky which is insulting to those who work their asses off training hours every day to maintain peak physical health and build incredible technical skills. Do you really think they just accept their genetics instead of doing everything in their power to win, whether it be by experimenting with every possible bike setup or training hard, eating right, practicing technical skills hour after hour? Seems a little naive or jealous but I can't be sure which it is.

What's up with that?

Originally posted by Thylacine
Every 'test' I've seen in magazines and on the web ( Last one I saw was in MBUK I think ) XC lap times on FS bikes are QUICKER than a hardtail. I've yet to see anything that contravienes (sp) that. Apparently even Giant did a field test with its XC pros and got the same result. If anyone can show me any annecdotal evidence to the contrary, let me know, coz I havent found any.

The other thing you have to factor in is the XC mentality. You have a bunch of conservative genetic freaks paid to ride whatever their sponsor puts under their bums. They're generally anal, conservative types, most seem to be ex roadies these days which explains the obsession with suspension being a bad thing. These are the same people obsessed with 'stiffness' and 'light weight'...and wonder why they've snapped yet another Aluminium hardtail.

Hehe, I'm gonna get flamed for sure, but hey, even though I'm generalising, its easy to see why lockout is a fad that must die, especially for the 95% of us that dont race XC. Horses for courses, for sure, but perhaps instead of getting all retrogressive ( Whats next, gear lockout? ) maybe we should make the XC courses into....mountainbike courses?

indieboy · Jan 7, 2003

Originally posted by Thylacine

The other thing you have to factor in is the XC mentality. You have a bunch of conservative genetic freaks paid to ride whatever their sponsor puts under their bums. They're generally anal, conservative types, most seem to be ex roadies these days which explains the obsession with suspension being a bad thing. These are the same people obsessed with 'stiffness' and 'light weight'...and wonder why they've snapped yet another Aluminium hardtail.

Hehe, I'm gonna get flamed for sure, but hey, even though I'm generalising, its easy to see why lockout is a fad that must die, especially for the 95% of us that dont race XC. Horses for courses, for sure, but perhaps instead of getting all retrogressive ( Whats next, gear lockout? ) maybe we should make the XC courses into....mountainbike courses?

um well i race xc and road, and i would say that dh'ers have become more anal then xc riders are :monkey:

i personally like light weight stuff but who races cant say that? i like stiff parts too, but i know certain restrictions. the MAIN reason why i hate aluminum frames, they are only stiff and crack over a short period of time. for most racers who are sponsored, that's great for those guys, it's a simple solution. a light weight bike that's stiff, once it cracks it's done, and they get another one. you may think lockout's are a dumb idea but it obviously wasn't designed for you, espically since you frown upon racing. these lockout designs are sponsors admits to make their riders happy. i personally LOVE my lock out on my Sid. i would NEVER ride a FS, think for xc racing they are shietty, but w/ that in mind they weren't designed for me either ya know. iono i'm kinda rambling now. and if you think xc racing is so dumb and the courses are lame, yes some of em are, mainly national races are like that b/c they have to cater to allowing a LARGE amount of ppl on the course to supple ample passing room. but i think if you raced xc you wouldn't think it's so lame. personally i think xc racing is challenging and it wasn't i wouldn't do it. same goes for many other ppl who race. but i will say this, rear suspension lockout systems aren't dumb, they serve a purpose for racers. however i do not think that they meet the needs of the general cycling population. all these companies marketing departments pretty much get away talkin ppl into everything except murder.....

VTinCT · Jan 7, 2003

As usual, Im late to the party, but I do have this one, completely non-scientific observation:

The crew I ride with have heavy(er) bikes, in the 30-40lb range. My buddy Scoot got a new RM Switch with a lockout on it. I loved the ride of the bike, but when I flipped on the lock out just for laughs, I swear that bike gained 10lbs! :eek:

For whatever reason the sus really made the rig work and feel lively, without it it felt so dead and heavy.

Like I said, just an observation.

:monkey:

Too much emphasis on lockout?

Monkey

RideMonkey

Guest

Monkey

Monkey

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

I love to climb

Monkey

Monkey

Don't Mess With Texas!

Monkey

Monkey

Al Bundy

dwnwrd

Guest

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Al Bundy

Don't Mess With Texas!

Don't Mess With Texas!

Al Bundy

Chimp

Monkey

CUSTOM Chimp

Monkey

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Turbo Monkey

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Monkey

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Hero

Monkey

the teste

Monkey

Monkey

Want fries with that?

Flexmaster Flexy Flex