I agree with @CascadeComponents , some anti-rise (can we just call it squat) initially, then rising antisquat as you pass the sag point. I'd add some...
I agree with @CascadeComponents , some anti-rise (can we just call it squat) initially, then rising antisquat as you pass the sag point. I'd add some nuance:
Only for greater than 150mm of travel.
Less than that, I want no squat. The geometry changes experienced by shorter travel bikes is obviously less, but since the available suspension to work with is also less I don't want it firming up at all.
REALLY, for medium and shorter travel bikes, I don't think it matters much anymore. I ride a single pivot. It mattered a lot in 2008 during the heyday of the Brake Therapy solutions when 70% of us were on Konas (RIP) because suspension compression performance was so much more rudimentary back then.
@CascadeComponents, thoughts on this: chassis stability (antirise) during braking isn't just what the rear end is doing, our perception of it is also hugely affected by fork dive. In 2008 when every fork was like a Marzocchi (RIP) or modern day DVO, and bottomed out just by breathing on your brakes, and braking squat (anti-rise) completely ruined rear suspension performance because damping was so much worse than it is now, having a floating brake helped a ton. In the last decade, its become almost a non-issue unless you're racing. Your fork doesn't dive anymore, so anti-rise is less valuable. Your rear suspension damping is so much more sophisticated that a low speed compression event like anti-rise (squat) is easily isolated from higher speed compressions of the trail texture.
But there’s already an antisquat, and antisquat and antirise are not in opposition to one another.
Brake squat, he means. I'll keep saying anti-rise (AR).
I have a strong preference for single pivots for predictability over horst link, but wouldn't refuse an ABP style single pivot, if this says anything about anti-rise. Not sure what to think of Yeti's move to 6-bar and lower AR, but if anyone can sell me kool air on slightly lower AR, it's them due to what and how I ride being similar to what they tune for.
I'll admit that my understanding is quite basic. I presume that europeans like low AR since I see them doing nose pivots on switchbacks. I don't like that feeling of the rear rising under braking, personally, as I'd prefer to keep my body more centered and ready for other upcoming things on the trail rather than getting more rearward to counter that rising reaction.
I love doing endo turns and I like high AR. Need a predictable/stable bike if you want to get weird on it IMO.
Saying that dampers are good now so they can control brake forces is missing the point I reckon. Riding a low AR bike means you either have to set your dampers up to deal with an extra factor that it wouldn't otherwise need to, or deal with a more compromised riding position during braking to make up for the lack of stability that your bike has. Everything is a compromise.
Personally, I find it a lot easier to set up a bike when I can rely on the mechanical properties of the linkage to take care of as much of the stability of my suspension as possible, so I can focus more on balancing the spring and damper setup between working well for the terrain, and giving the overall stiffness/response I want from the bike for my inputs into the bike (pumping, cornering, jumping, etc). That's a hard enough balance as it is, as I prefer to work the terrain rather than pedal.
Sure the rear will track better over choppy shit with the brake on when I've got low AR, but that's after I've added slightly more support to the fork that I didn't want, slowed down the rebound in the rear a little more than I'd prefer, and put myself in a more compromised position during braking that wears me out quicker. Anti-squat bleeds over into preferred anti-rise too - If you have to take into account how your bike pedals when you're setting up your shock, then it's just another thing that you need to prioritise over braking performance. Nothing worse than trying to dial in the climbing performance of a low-AS horst link bike that really loses the pedal support in the midstroke, for instance, where I always end up with a setup to keep me up high during the low speed compressions, then trying to get the thing to brake properly on steep descents when the shock and the linkage are both pushing me forward onto the fork.
I like bikes where I don't even need to think about setting up for pedalling or braking. Just set up the bike for the fun stuff and then it works everywhere. For me that's a fairly high amount of AR.
There's a tradeoff for stability vs suspension. Anti-Rise uses the wheel/brake dragging to keep the back of the bike down. The less of that goes on...
There's a tradeoff for stability vs suspension. Anti-Rise uses the wheel/brake dragging to keep the back of the bike down. The less of that goes on the more active (less hindered) the suspension is.
Some people would get scared on a bike that's free to move all the time. Like everyone was scared of suspension moving in the 90's.
I guess I missed that part of my Anti-rise class but I never put that thought into it. By that logic wouldn't a bike that pitched the same amount as another bike that squatted be similar in activity since the ride height is changing the same amount?
We are all trying to active a desired ride height for our bikes. Any thoughts on compensating with spring/damping or maybe baseline for high vs low AR spring/damping setup?
Brake squat, he means. I'll keep saying anti-rise (AR).I have a strong preference for single pivots for predictability over horst link, but wouldn't refuse an ABP...
Brake squat, he means. I'll keep saying anti-rise (AR).
I have a strong preference for single pivots for predictability over horst link, but wouldn't refuse an ABP style single pivot, if this says anything about anti-rise. Not sure what to think of Yeti's move to 6-bar and lower AR, but if anyone can sell me kool air on slightly lower AR, it's them due to what and how I ride being similar to what they tune for.
I'll admit that my understanding is quite basic. I presume that europeans like low AR since I see them doing nose pivots on switchbacks. I don't like that feeling of the rear rising under braking, personally, as I'd prefer to keep my body more centered and ready for other upcoming things on the trail rather than getting more rearward to counter that rising reaction.
"All Europeans like low AR, 'cos I've seen a few do nose-pivots" - that is a cooked take. Especially as an endo type turn requires you to shift your mass forward rapidly, totally negating the impact of AR, as your 200lbs leaps forward.
Otherwise I've really enjoyed this thread so far. Keep the nerding up everyone
There's a tradeoff for stability vs suspension. Anti-Rise uses the wheel/brake dragging to keep the back of the bike down. The less of that goes on...
There's a tradeoff for stability vs suspension. Anti-Rise uses the wheel/brake dragging to keep the back of the bike down. The less of that goes on the more active (less hindered) the suspension is.
Some people would get scared on a bike that's free to move all the time. Like everyone was scared of suspension moving in the 90's.
I guess I missed that part of my Anti-rise class but I never put that thought into it. By that logic wouldn't a bike that pitched...
I guess I missed that part of my Anti-rise class but I never put that thought into it. By that logic wouldn't a bike that pitched the same amount as another bike that squatted be similar in activity since the ride height is changing the same amount?
We are all trying to active a desired ride height for our bikes. Any thoughts on compensating with spring/damping or maybe baseline for high vs low AR spring/damping setup?
The bikes that pitch more are more active and give more traction with the rear brake on. A rear linkage trying to squat under braking reduces weight and traction on the rear wheel through the transition to steady state braking. In the extreme opposite case a bike that actively jacked under braking would give great rear traction for the split second that happens. If the rider can handle it!
I don't think compromising spring and damping to help is worth you. You would have to change the setup a lot and hinder bike stability/handling in all other areas to make a noticeable change.
Also geometry. Anyone remember the GT I-Drives? They were one of the first to go longer and slacker and they had to. Because that awful rear suspension unwound quickly to full height under braking. Mostly because it's a URT and when you stand up the rear suspension unweights.
But there’s already an antisquat, and antisquat and antirise are not in opposition to one another.
Brake squat, he means. I'll keep saying anti-rise (AR).
I have a strong preference for single pivots for predictability over horst link, but wouldn't refuse an ABP style single pivot, if this says anything about anti-rise. Not sure what to think of Yeti's move to 6-bar and lower AR, but if anyone can sell me kool air on slightly lower AR, it's them due to what and how I ride being similar to what they tune for.
I'll admit that my understanding is quite basic. I presume that europeans like low AR since I see them doing nose pivots on switchbacks. I don't like that feeling of the rear rising under braking, personally, as I'd prefer to keep my body more centered and ready for other upcoming things on the trail rather than getting more rearward to counter that rising reaction.
I love doing endo turns and I like high AR. Need a predictable/stable bike if you want to get weird on it IMO.
Saying that dampers are good now so they can control brake forces is missing the point I reckon. Riding a low AR bike means you either have to set your dampers up to deal with an extra factor that it wouldn't otherwise need to, or deal with a more compromised riding position during braking to make up for the lack of stability that your bike has. Everything is a compromise.
Personally, I find it a lot easier to set up a bike when I can rely on the mechanical properties of the linkage to take care of as much of the stability of my suspension as possible, so I can focus more on balancing the spring and damper setup between working well for the terrain, and giving the overall stiffness/response I want from the bike for my inputs into the bike (pumping, cornering, jumping, etc). That's a hard enough balance as it is, as I prefer to work the terrain rather than pedal.
Sure the rear will track better over choppy shit with the brake on when I've got low AR, but that's after I've added slightly more support to the fork that I didn't want, slowed down the rebound in the rear a little more than I'd prefer, and put myself in a more compromised position during braking that wears me out quicker. Anti-squat bleeds over into preferred anti-rise too - If you have to take into account how your bike pedals when you're setting up your shock, then it's just another thing that you need to prioritise over braking performance. Nothing worse than trying to dial in the climbing performance of a low-AS horst link bike that really loses the pedal support in the midstroke, for instance, where I always end up with a setup to keep me up high during the low speed compressions, then trying to get the thing to brake properly on steep descents when the shock and the linkage are both pushing me forward onto the fork.
I like bikes where I don't even need to think about setting up for pedalling or braking. Just set up the bike for the fun stuff and then it works everywhere. For me that's a fairly high amount of AR.
I guess I missed that part of my Anti-rise class but I never put that thought into it. By that logic wouldn't a bike that pitched the same amount as another bike that squatted be similar in activity since the ride height is changing the same amount?
We are all trying to active a desired ride height for our bikes. Any thoughts on compensating with spring/damping or maybe baseline for high vs low AR spring/damping setup?
"All Europeans like low AR, 'cos I've seen a few do nose-pivots" - that is a cooked take. Especially as an endo type turn requires you to shift your mass forward rapidly, totally negating the impact of AR, as your 200lbs leaps forward.
Otherwise I've really enjoyed this thread so far. Keep the nerding up everyone
The bikes that pitch more are more active and give more traction with the rear brake on. A rear linkage trying to squat under braking reduces weight and traction on the rear wheel through the transition to steady state braking. In the extreme opposite case a bike that actively jacked under braking would give great rear traction for the split second that happens. If the rider can handle it!
I don't think compromising spring and damping to help is worth you. You would have to change the setup a lot and hinder bike stability/handling in all other areas to make a noticeable change.
Also geometry. Anyone remember the GT I-Drives? They were one of the first to go longer and slacker and they had to. Because that awful rear suspension unwound quickly to full height under braking. Mostly because it's a URT and when you stand up the rear suspension unweights.
Post a reply to: High vs Low Anti Rise Bikes