Hello Vital MTB Visitor,
We’re conducting a survey and would appreciate your input. Your answers will help Vital and the MTB industry better understand what riders like you want. Survey results will be used to recognize top brands. Make your voice heard!
Five lucky people will be selected at random to win a Vital MTB t-shirt.
Thanks in advance,
The Vital MTB Crew
Forgive the source
https://youtu.be/-UNLIohwyjg
https://www.vitalmtb.com/product/guide/Forks,33/hlins/RXF38-m-2,34557#p…
https://www.instagram.com/p/CRO5i5HMbB-/
As for dw link, it might just be a coincidence that they use dw link, otherwise in general North American brands tend to be a bit more conservative if you ask me. Ibis, Pivot, Evil, Intense, Rocky Mountain, Trek, maybe some others too (Spec is mid range lately, they used to be quite conservative, while Norco has their game handled).
But I do suspect that the DW Link brands are all following some guidance from DW. I recall seeing some BS answer to a Vital interview question with Chris Cocalis of Pivot, claiming that they didn't need to run steeper seat angles because the DW Link platform was so efficient. That's just nonsense; a bike with a certain amount of travel and at 30% sag will have the same seat angle regardless of suspension design. That's especially true now that most suspension designs now run 100-110% anti-squat at sag, so even while actively pedaling the seat angle is going to stay roughly the same.
DW does do a lot of bike (geometry) development, so it might in fact be a correlation in that regard, you're right.
As for progressiveness... Man, I don't know. I have a very progressive bike (1292 mm wheelbase in the largest, XL size at 150/150 mm travel, 75-ish seat height actual seat tube angle, 680 mm top tube and 522 mm reach, 65,5° HA I think) and while it's the best bike I've ever ridden, it's also very noticeably long. No debate, it's an XL issue as well (which is what JamesOliver alluded to), as I wouldn't mind trying an even steeper seat tube angle (the BB to seat angle of course), the top tube length or the cockpit length is perfect for pedalling though, so that would require a longer effective top tube and reach.
With the bike long (and cumbersome in tight twisties) as is, that would make it longer, unless you went for ultra short chainstays and maybe a steeper headtube angle. So while the fit and pedalling could improve a bit, it would make it even more cumbersome (and much faster). And I'm not sure I want that after experiencing a jump from 1224-ish mm wheelbase to 1292 mm.
You shouldn't need quite as much STA steepness out of a DW link bike as well as a few others for it to feel the same when pedaling your favorite chunky climb.
The ride height and resulting seat tube angle come into effect only in case the sag is lower on DW link bikes. Since with less rear sag, the front triangle rotation will be less, this dynamic seat tube angle will be steeper in that case. A higher ride height has nothing to do with it, if the sag is the same (as the higher ride height will come from the BB drop being smaller).
As for chunkies, can confirm from personal experience, sitting more over the BB definitely helps a lot. I prefer pushing down vs. forward on the pedals.
This isn't exactly true, since sag percentages are generally measured at the shock, not the wheel. At least in theory (maybe someone else can back me up on this), leverage ratio can have an impact on the actual wheel travel for a specific % of shock stroke. Say you have 'Bike 1' which is entirely linear, with 150mm travel and a 60mm stroke shock (average LR of 2.5), and 'Bike 2' which has the same amount of travel and shock stroke, but has a linearly progressive leverage rate from 3.0-2.0 (average LR is still 2.5). 30% sag on Bike 1 would give 45mm of wheel travel (exactly 30% of the wheel travel), but 30% sag on Bike 2 gives around 51mm of travel, which is 34.2% of the wheel travel. Assuming both bikes have identical static geometry, Bike 1 will have the steeper seat tube angle when sagged.
At least as a general 'rule', the lower the leverage ratios are in that initial third or so of shock stroke, the less wheel travel you'll have for a set sag value, and therefore less deviation from the static geometry. As for Cocalis' statement, to my knowledge DW-link bikes don't have especially unique leverage curves, so he was likely referring only to the pedal efficiency (which in that case could be a more accurate statement, as DW-link bikes often have a reputation for good anti-squat tuning). I have no idea how much a steeper seat tube angle actually improves efficiency, though.
Let's say I meant sag at the rear wheel. I specifically didn't want to say vertical travel sag (that would cover high pivot bikes too), because different suspension systems aren't that different between each other in the axle path. Or better yet, different systems can be much more similar to each other than the same systems could be made different.
I think the ultra long reach thing is fading and most suited towards intermediate racers looking for raw speed & beginners looking for safety and confidence.
I'm surprised more companies have not jumped on the adjustable reach wagon yet like Guerilla Gravity does - to me that makes a lot of sense, especially since you effectively 'double' the number of front ends you offer. With a +/- 5/10mm headset, you could offer only three sizes with low standovers and seat tubes and still serve most people. I suppose that requires a suspension design with an uninterrupted seat tube so your Small and pseudo-XS can fit a decent dropper post inside.
When you ride a bike down a trail, pedaling, during undulations/ roots/ bumps, the suspension moves in the the 20% - 60% travel range. It does not sit at 30% sag exactly the entire time. If you don't believe me reset your travel indicator and pedal down any trail and then notice that your o-ring will have used over 50% travel on most bikes before any jumps or obstacles are encountered.
You will find that bikes that have high AS even deeper into their travel and linear suspension ride quite high overall.
For example, a very active suspension bike like say a '19 SJ Evo maybe be at 60% of it's travel over a root where-as a Mach 6 might hit the same bump and only be at 45% travel, particularly when pedaling. As a result DW link bikes will have considerably less average travel being used while pedaling down the trail, that's what gives them their firm feel. Too firm imo, but it does have it's advantages.
Sittin on a Large AM9, I DO NOT want to ride an L. Let alone a medium-long. Because of the top tube.
Want a correctly fitting top tube (cockpit) and a steep seat tube? The reach will be long. Want a 'normal' or even short reach and a steep seat tube? Prepare for an insanely short cockpit (90 mm stem anyone?). 'Normal' reach and a proper cockpit fit? Slack seat tube.
I specifically mentioned shorter chainstays and a steeper headtube, but not a shorter top tube.
The long reach did not come about for the sake of the bike being long. The long reach came about because of the seat tubes getting steeper and cockpits (in the case of companies doing it the right way cockpit fit wise) staying at the correct length. That increases the reach. As for why the cockpit length matters, it's simple (as I've said many times before) - bikes that get pedalled make the rinder spend... 90 % of all the energy riding/climbing seated. Seated fit is the most important thing of any bike like that. Any bike that gets pedalled. If you're an EWS level rider (or a serious racer) there could be an argument made about prioritising for descending fit, but most weekend warriors and 'just riding along' riders benefit most from the seated fit, energy expenditure wise.
As for the suspension movement range, if you're suspension is moving from 20 to 60 % sitting down... Well, sad to break it to you, but that's is some LOW antisquat.
I have a new ‘21/‘22 Onyx that has a few upgrades. The graphics are new, maybe the one in this pic got to Freehub before those new graphics were ready?
“The biggest changes are the lowers are a new casting and the bushings are new from a different manufacturer that allows us to get the tolerance down to 0.01mm”
“The uppers are a new coating with a new press process thats so far has eliminated any creeking and has a massive reduction in friction”
“We have a new air piston, new damper seal head, new bladder, compression tune, new air bleeders and a firmer OTT spring seat to prevent any rattle” (stolen from a thread from another forum)
The fact is that Pivot and some others are correct when they say that they don't need as steep as a static STA to equal others dynamic STA because their suspension does in fact ride higher. It's a fact.
Couldn't get any further than this photo on their website.