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.
ha. i just left a comment on the 2026 rumors thread about that Rallon frame- except regarding 2026 vs 2027 and stiffness.anti rise- i dunno.but, I...
ha. i just left a comment on the 2026 rumors thread about that Rallon frame- except regarding 2026 vs 2027 and stiffness.
anti rise- i dunno.but, I DO know that my Claymore was dramatically smoother through rough sections hard on brakes vs my previous megatower and sb150. no understatement, I mean it was like "woah" slap me in the face noticeable brake control
What's funny about your anecdotal experience with those bikes is that it's the opposite of what we'd expect based on their anti-rise values. The Claymore should be the "harshest" under braking because it has the highest anti-rise rate, and the other two have either lower or much lower AR rates:
Claymore- 140% AR, dropping down to 115-ish at full travel. Link here.
SB150- I don't know what the AR% is for the SB150, but it's pretty much bang on 100% on the SB160, and I'd imagine it's pretty similar with the SB150.
Megatower- I don't know which generation you had, but the anti-rise was 85% going all the way down to the crazy low value of -25% at full travel for V1. No idea what the AR% is on the V2 model, but probably similar.
I was also super impressed by the Claymore when I got to ride it, but I couldn't put it down to any one thing. I just remember it being really stable, highly "damped" feeling, and confidence inspiring everywhere. I wonder if you're experiencing the pro-squat nature of anti-rise as "noticeably more brake control" and "dramatically smoother through rough sections hard on brakes," or if there's another factor at play that has nothing to do with those three bikes AR rates?
Honestly curious what your thoughts are, as I don't have a dog in this fight.
Anti-rise alone, no impact. How stiff a bike is perceived to be at a given moment is a combination of many things. Feedback from the chain...
Anti-rise alone, no impact. How stiff a bike is perceived to be at a given moment is a combination of many things. Feedback from the chain when you're hard on the brakes is more noticeable especially when it's trying to ratchet your feet back. If you're braking hard and the sensitivity of the suspension is impacted by both chain growth and higher anti-rise then maybe if you decrease the impacts of chain growth the stiffness on a whole falls in a range that you're happy with.
I find myself nodding along in agreement to just about everything Cascade Components has said here. My previous enduro bike, A Santa Cruz Megatower V2 pitched forward more than I'd like in steep sections while on the brakes, and gave me that sensation of the chain ratcheting my feet backwards and slightly out of position. It was unnerving. That was probably exacerbated by the Megatower's antirise value of 80-90% at start of travel and 50-65% at sag. I like riding steep trails and prefer setting up my bike for that type of terrain because it's where I'm most sensitive and need the bike to help me. I find that I prefer the riding experience on my Trek Slash Gen 6 in steep terrain much more. It has antirise of 100% at start of travel, 90% around sag, and 65% "deep in travel". It preserves geometry better in steep sections (doesn't pitch forward), and I don't feel that sensation of the chain ratcheting my feet backwards, probably due to the mid-high pivot isolating the kickback. I can live with the suspension being a bit less active under braking.
A floating brake arm is probably the easiest way to change anti-rise but could it be possible to have a flip chip at one of the...
A floating brake arm is probably the easiest way to change anti-rise but could it be possible to have a flip chip at one of the pivot that actually change significantly enough anti-rise ?
So my first thought was no, a typical flip chip wouldn't make a big enough difference to be worth it, but on second thought yes you...
So my first thought was no, a typical flip chip wouldn't make a big enough difference to be worth it, but on second thought yes you could do it, and here's how it could work:
A standard Horst link rear triangle has the brake caliper and the rear axle mounted to the seatstay, which allows the brake caliper on this image to stay relatively level as the suspension compresses (instead of rotating in orientation around the rear axle as the rear suspension compresses) keeping the anti-rise value low, typically somewhere in the 50-80% range. It's not really true that FSR bikes have a "vertical axle path," but the brake caliper on a Horst link bike is held in a relatively stable and level position even as it travels on an arching axle path, because that's what four bar linkages are great at doing. The brake position is less affected by suspension movement, thus lower AR and less brake-induced squat:
On a faux bar bike like a Kona Process, the brake caliper and the axle are both mounted to the chainstay, which means the brake caliper rotates in orientation around the rotor as the suspension compresses. Because the brake is hard mounted to the same swingarm as the wheel that pivots around the main pivot, as far as the brake knows, it's on a single-pivot bike with higher levels of anti-rise, typically 110% or more:
Now hear me out: if a bike brand really wanted to let riders choose between lower anti-squat and higher anti-squat, you could have a rear triangle design that included an optional pivot point on the seatstay (for a faux bar with higher 100%+ anti-rise) and another optional pivot on the chainstay (the red dot below, for a Horst link with 70% or less anti-rise) and allowed customers to decide which of those two pivots to use and which of them to lock out:
Obviously manufacturing this idea in a way that doesn't break is no simple task, and neither is idiot-proofing it against the average customer. But crazier things have happened. If both pivots are free to pivot at the same time the suspension won't work (too many degrees of freedom), but you could force the rider to swap the hardware from the dummy pivot to the active pivot and vice versa when they want to change AR setups, in order to prevent the possibility of the customer unknowingly leaving both of the pivots live.
Another way you could do it that would be much simpler is to use a Split-Pivot bike (Devinci/Salsa/Trek ABP) and a removable brake mount that can either be mounted to the swingarm or the chainstay, for the same effect. Actually that would be way easier than my first idea.
The point is that yes, a manufacturer could give customers a meaningfully adjustable anti-rise rate without resorting to a floating brake arm.
Do both the chainstay and the seatstay ends in a similar vein to Nicolais mutator enabled rear ends and have two sets of dropouts made that bolt to both the seatstay and chainstay. In one case the axle and brake bolt to the chainstay with the pivoted interface to the seatstay and vice versa in the other one.
So my first thought was no, a typical flip chip wouldn't make a big enough difference to be worth it, but on second thought yes you...
So my first thought was no, a typical flip chip wouldn't make a big enough difference to be worth it, but on second thought yes you could do it, and here's how it could work:
A standard Horst link rear triangle has the brake caliper and the rear axle mounted to the seatstay, which allows the brake caliper on this image to stay relatively level as the suspension compresses (instead of rotating in orientation around the rear axle as the rear suspension compresses) keeping the anti-rise value low, typically somewhere in the 50-80% range. It's not really true that FSR bikes have a "vertical axle path," but the brake caliper on a Horst link bike is held in a relatively stable and level position even as it travels on an arching axle path, because that's what four bar linkages are great at doing. The brake position is less affected by suspension movement, thus lower AR and less brake-induced squat:
On a faux bar bike like a Kona Process, the brake caliper and the axle are both mounted to the chainstay, which means the brake caliper rotates in orientation around the rotor as the suspension compresses. Because the brake is hard mounted to the same swingarm as the wheel that pivots around the main pivot, as far as the brake knows, it's on a single-pivot bike with higher levels of anti-rise, typically 110% or more:
Now hear me out: if a bike brand really wanted to let riders choose between lower anti-squat and higher anti-squat, you could have a rear triangle design that included an optional pivot point on the seatstay (for a faux bar with higher 100%+ anti-rise) and another optional pivot on the chainstay (the red dot below, for a Horst link with 70% or less anti-rise) and allowed customers to decide which of those two pivots to use and which of them to lock out:
Obviously manufacturing this idea in a way that doesn't break is no simple task, and neither is idiot-proofing it against the average customer. But crazier things have happened. If both pivots are free to pivot at the same time the suspension won't work (too many degrees of freedom), but you could force the rider to swap the hardware from the dummy pivot to the active pivot and vice versa when they want to change AR setups, in order to prevent the possibility of the customer unknowingly leaving both of the pivots live.
Another way you could do it that would be much simpler is to use a Split-Pivot bike (Devinci/Salsa/Trek ABP) and a removable brake mount that can either be mounted to the swingarm or the chainstay, for the same effect. Actually that would be way easier than my first idea.
The point is that yes, a manufacturer could give customers a meaningfully adjustable anti-rise rate without resorting to a floating brake arm.
Split pivot bikes with the chainstay/seatstay pivot concentric to the axle are the obvious candidate here. Moving the caliper from the seat stay to the chainstay would change it from a 4-bar to a single pivot
I’m genuinely confused about the ‘pitching forward on steeps’ critique of low AR. Rear brake doesn’t do jack (pun intended) on really steep stuff. If you’re hard on the rear brake you’re skidding and sliding out.
The pitching forward concern makes more sense to me when going fast on what I consider moderate grades-lots of rear brake force in that scenario. But that’s also where I want my bike to feel smoother.
Frankly I’ve never noticed a diff in AR between bikes. I spend way more blood and treasure worrying about the best front tire.
I’m genuinely confused about the ‘pitching forward on steeps’ critique of low AR. Rear brake doesn’t do jack (pun intended) on really steep stuff. If you’re...
I’m genuinely confused about the ‘pitching forward on steeps’ critique of low AR. Rear brake doesn’t do jack (pun intended) on really steep stuff. If you’re hard on the rear brake you’re skidding and sliding out.
The pitching forward concern makes more sense to me when going fast on what I consider moderate grades-lots of rear brake force in that scenario. But that’s also where I want my bike to feel smoother.
Frankly I’ve never noticed a diff in AR between bikes. I spend way more blood and treasure worrying about the best front tire.
Ultra steep jank is my happy place.
In general I think people really underestimate the amount of braking force the rear wheel can generate. While weight does transfer to the front under braking, the initial weight distribution is skewed towards the rear (in the realm of 2/3rds of your weight on the rear wheel). Until enough weight transfers to the front wheel, which isn’t instantaneous, the rear can out brake the front. Food for thought for anyone wondering why some racers might have a larger rear brake rotor.
My biggest gripe with low anti-rise is trying to creep into steep rocky things. The braking causes the bike to lean forward and creates a suspension position that will change the moment you let off the brakes, which you have to if you practically can’t brake in the middle. That is not a fun feeling when trying to be very precise. Especially if the top contains a few instances of going on and off the brakes. This is ultimately what made me realize the Enduro is not for me. You can kind of tune it out with a bunch of compromises but they ultimately aren’t worth it if you value the suspension feeling good on high frequency stuff. The other scenario I’m not a fan of is the mid angle hard braking you described. There’s a long and low step down at 27 that you might know (the 45). On a low anti-rise bike the rear will go to full or near full extension braking hard for the berm after it and then just kind of skip around.
But ultimately it does kind of depend on the trails in question. Any time the rear brake is getting trailed more and there’s less on/off, the geo shifts become less apparent or even stop because it becomes a steady state. Like a steep but not rock roll steep rake and ride is better with lower anti-rise because of just have to brake almost the whole time just to maintain speed. Personally I can live with higher anti-rise in that scenario better than I can live with low anti-rise in the scenarios where it falls short.
What's funny about your anecdotal experience with those bikes is that it's the opposite of what we'd expect based on their anti-rise values. The Claymore should...
What's funny about your anecdotal experience with those bikes is that it's the opposite of what we'd expect based on their anti-rise values. The Claymore should be the "harshest" under braking because it has the highest anti-rise rate, and the other two have either lower or much lower AR rates:
Claymore- 140% AR, dropping down to 115-ish at full travel. Link here.
SB150- I don't know what the AR% is for the SB150, but it's pretty much bang on 100% on the SB160, and I'd imagine it's pretty similar with the SB150.
Megatower- I don't know which generation you had, but the anti-rise was 85% going all the way down to the crazy low value of -25% at full travel for V1. No idea what the AR% is on the V2 model, but probably similar.
I was also super impressed by the Claymore when I got to ride it, but I couldn't put it down to any one thing. I just remember it being really stable, highly "damped" feeling, and confidence inspiring everywhere. I wonder if you're experiencing the pro-squat nature of anti-rise as "noticeably more brake control" and "dramatically smoother through rough sections hard on brakes," or if there's another factor at play that has nothing to do with those three bikes AR rates?
Honestly curious what your thoughts are, as I don't have a dog in this fight.
Angle of the impacts could be a factor in a why a high anti-rise bike might feel smoother. Although preserving geo is something I would say is always confidence inspiring. Leverage ratio is generally relative to vertical motion, but you can take leverage ratio in any direction you want. Introducing any angle to the impact such that it can be split into a vertical and horizontal component that are both greater than zero results in a high pivot being softer even if both have the same leverage ratio relative to vertical. That could potentially offset the high anti-rise. Haven’t ridden one so who knows though.
Kickback is what a lot of people are feeling when they think they're feeling the harshness from AR. High pivot removes a lot of kickback, so it feels better under braking than you might expect.
Kickback is what a lot of people are feeling when they think they're feeling the harshness from AR. High pivot removes a lot of kickback, so...
Kickback is what a lot of people are feeling when they think they're feeling the harshness from AR. High pivot removes a lot of kickback, so it feels better under braking than you might expect.
Actually, I think low antirise tends to exaggerate pedal kick when braking. If you have a regular single pivot bike, holding the rear brake while compressing the suspension will cause the wheel to roll forward slightly, taking the cassette with it. That cassette movement will mitigate some chaingrowth that would happen if you had an otherwise identical 4-bar bike.
So my first thought was no, a typical flip chip wouldn't make a big enough difference to be worth it, but on second thought yes you...
So my first thought was no, a typical flip chip wouldn't make a big enough difference to be worth it, but on second thought yes you could do it, and here's how it could work:
A standard Horst link rear triangle has the brake caliper and the rear axle mounted to the seatstay, which allows the brake caliper on this image to stay relatively level as the suspension compresses (instead of rotating in orientation around the rear axle as the rear suspension compresses) keeping the anti-rise value low, typically somewhere in the 50-80% range. It's not really true that FSR bikes have a "vertical axle path," but the brake caliper on a Horst link bike is held in a relatively stable and level position even as it travels on an arching axle path, because that's what four bar linkages are great at doing. The brake position is less affected by suspension movement, thus lower AR and less brake-induced squat:
On a faux bar bike like a Kona Process, the brake caliper and the axle are both mounted to the chainstay, which means the brake caliper rotates in orientation around the rotor as the suspension compresses. Because the brake is hard mounted to the same swingarm as the wheel that pivots around the main pivot, as far as the brake knows, it's on a single-pivot bike with higher levels of anti-rise, typically 110% or more:
Now hear me out: if a bike brand really wanted to let riders choose between lower anti-squat and higher anti-squat, you could have a rear triangle design that included an optional pivot point on the seatstay (for a faux bar with higher 100%+ anti-rise) and another optional pivot on the chainstay (the red dot below, for a Horst link with 70% or less anti-rise) and allowed customers to decide which of those two pivots to use and which of them to lock out:
Obviously manufacturing this idea in a way that doesn't break is no simple task, and neither is idiot-proofing it against the average customer. But crazier things have happened. If both pivots are free to pivot at the same time the suspension won't work (too many degrees of freedom), but you could force the rider to swap the hardware from the dummy pivot to the active pivot and vice versa when they want to change AR setups, in order to prevent the possibility of the customer unknowingly leaving both of the pivots live.
Another way you could do it that would be much simpler is to use a Split-Pivot bike (Devinci/Salsa/Trek ABP) and a removable brake mount that can either be mounted to the swingarm or the chainstay, for the same effect. Actually that would be way easier than my first idea.
The point is that yes, a manufacturer could give customers a meaningfully adjustable anti-rise rate without resorting to a floating brake arm.
Split pivot bikes with the chainstay/seatstay pivot concentric to the axle are the obvious candidate here. Moving the caliper from the seat stay to the chainstay...
Split pivot bikes with the chainstay/seatstay pivot concentric to the axle are the obvious candidate here. Moving the caliper from the seat stay to the chainstay would change it from a 4-bar to a single pivot
Yeah, I wrote out that really long response about a bike with modular pivot points on the stays and then after typing it all out and finding pictures, I went "Oh yeah, it would be way simpler to do the same thing with a Split Pivot bike and a movable brake mount."
The only catch is that a frame with adjustable anti-rise would be a super niche product that I can't see Trek or Devinci offering anytime soon, and any small brand that would want to offer it would need to cross through the DW Split Pivot patent obstacle course. The only brands I'm aware of that have fought a patent battle with DW and won are Giant (Maestro vs. DW Link patent) and Trek (ABP vs. Split Pivot patent), and both those brands have deeper pockets for protracted legal battles than the sort of garage bike brand that I imagine offering a bike with adjustable anti-rise.
Angle of the impacts could be a factor in a why a high anti-rise bike might feel smoother. Although preserving geo is something I would say...
Angle of the impacts could be a factor in a why a high anti-rise bike might feel smoother. Although preserving geo is something I would say is always confidence inspiring. Leverage ratio is generally relative to vertical motion, but you can take leverage ratio in any direction you want. Introducing any angle to the impact such that it can be split into a vertical and horizontal component that are both greater than zero results in a high pivot being softer even if both have the same leverage ratio relative to vertical. That could potentially offset the high anti-rise. Haven’t ridden one so who knows though.
My biggest takeaway from an extended time on the Craftworks ENR (super high pivot) was that when the pivot is that high, the relationship between how firm the bike feels for the terrain inputs and how firm it feels for your own inputs is completely different. You feel like you're riding a 150mm trail bike with a sporty tune in terms of how it pumps through things, but you also watch it eat bumps below you like a 180mm monster. For exactly the reasons you've said.
It introduced other handling oddities, but it convinced me that if you're doing an idler on a bike you plan on pedalling, it may as well be a proper high pivot rather than the mid pivot rear-centre-length-preserving designs. Just maybe not quite as high as the ENR. Which was the reason i came up with the bike i put at the start of the kinematics thread.
The ENR would drop its ride height and lengthen noticeably under hard braking, which would make it super stable. Getting off the rear brake as you transition into the corner would lift it up, shorten the rear and make it change direction easier, then in the corner it would lengthen again and become stable. I'm a fairly bouncy rider so I liked being able to unweight a little during the transition and enjoy the change in handling, but you could definitely argue that it was a bit much, and a bit more consistency would be better for most riders.
I’m genuinely confused about the ‘pitching forward on steeps’ critique of low AR. Rear brake doesn’t do jack (pun intended) on really steep stuff. If you’re...
I’m genuinely confused about the ‘pitching forward on steeps’ critique of low AR. Rear brake doesn’t do jack (pun intended) on really steep stuff. If you’re hard on the rear brake you’re skidding and sliding out.
The pitching forward concern makes more sense to me when going fast on what I consider moderate grades-lots of rear brake force in that scenario. But that’s also where I want my bike to feel smoother.
Frankly I’ve never noticed a diff in AR between bikes. I spend way more blood and treasure worrying about the best front tire.
Ultra steep jank is my happy place.
100% this. Brake squat has no influence on steep terrain as the back end is already unweighted, at/near full extension and has no weight for traction for the brake to influence the suspension. The bike is already rocked forwards almost as far as it can go. You'll have a little left in the fork but not much if you're already on the brakes. That's almost exclusively front brake, the rear doesn't do anything but skid without slowing you down.
I suspect those worried about bike rocking around are battling suspension without enough low speed damping to tame the body/chassis movements.
There are additional things going on with high pivot bikes, like the wheelbase and back centre getting longer as they compress. This rocks more of your weight onto the front of the bike by itself unless you're actively compensating for it.
Anyone else find talking in double negatives painful? IMO the name brake squat makes a lot more sense than anti-rise.
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...
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.
I think I get what you’re saying but still confused on why a 100% anti-rise bike wouldn’t be the most active because it has the least amount of chassis change.
Yes. That’s actually something I was just talking to a buddy about and is why bikes like the Raaw seem to work well (for a 4 bar) in a lot of people’s eyes. The higher stack accounts for the pitching sensation. Though, without going down the geo rabbit hole too much I am constantly reminded that the effective stack/anti-rise safety is done with length to the head tube meaning you could active a similar bar height with spacers..?
What you possibly mean Dougal, is "when I ride my bike on steep terrain the back end is already unweighted, at/near full extension and has no weight for traction for the brake to influence the suspension. The bike is already rocked forwards almost as far as it can go." And so from your perspective AR on steeper stuff seems pointless.
Others might call that a setup issue. Personally, the difference in steep stuff with high AR is pretty obvious with the way I set my bikes up.
I think I get what you’re saying but still confused on why a 100% anti-rise bike wouldn’t be the most active because it has the least...
I think I get what you’re saying but still confused on why a 100% anti-rise bike wouldn’t be the most active because it has the least amount of chassis change.
Yes. That’s actually something I was just talking to a buddy about and is why bikes like the Raaw seem to work well (for a 4 bar) in a lot of people’s eyes. The higher stack accounts for the pitching sensation. Though, without going down the geo rabbit hole too much I am constantly reminded that the effective stack/anti-rise safety is done with length to the head tube meaning you could active a similar bar height with spacers..?
Brake squat requires the wheel to be torqued forwards under braking to try and keep the rear suspension compressed while it unweights. The corresponding motion is the wheel wanting to rotate rearwards as the suspension unwinds and extends. This has the effect of adding extra friction damping to your suspension. Either from the disc brake or from the tyre contact patch.
The suspension with the least braking interaction (doesn't try to squat or jack, just reacts to weight shifts) is the most free to move under braking because of the lack of extra friction damping.
100% anti-rise is suspension that actively tries to squat pretty hard under braking. That requires a lot of interaction. I haven't checked to see if any current bikes get close to that number.
Yes squat and antisquat calcs depend on not only the wheelbase but centre of gravity height. Head-tube doesn't matter but bar height will.
What you possibly mean Dougal, is "when I ride my bike on steep terrain the back end is already unweighted, at/near full extension and has no...
What you possibly mean Dougal, is "when I ride my bike on steep terrain the back end is already unweighted, at/near full extension and has no weight for traction for the brake to influence the suspension. The bike is already rocked forwards almost as far as it can go." And so from your perspective AR on steeper stuff seems pointless.
Others might call that a setup issue. Personally, the difference in steep stuff with high AR is pretty obvious with the way I set my bikes up.
Can you expand on that a bit? How can bike setup change or stop the rear wheel unweighting on steep downs?
Can you expand on that a bit? How can bike setup change or stop the rear wheel unweighting on steep downs?
Evidence suggests that you run a soft and unsupportive setup. You also ride a knolly right? Low AR, long reach, low stack? Don't you run fairly high tire pressures?
I'm not shocked that you think it's impossible to use the rear brake on steeper trails.
Evidence suggests that you run a soft and unsupportive setup. You also ride a knolly right? Low AR, long reach, low stack? Don't you run fairly...
Evidence suggests that you run a soft and unsupportive setup. You also ride a knolly right? Low AR, long reach, low stack? Don't you run fairly high tire pressures?
I'm not shocked that you think it's impossible to use the rear brake on steeper trails.
That's not evidence, that's vicious rumour. My actual setup is: Tyres 24/30psi, fork 40lb/in mid-stroke, rear shock 400lb/in coil, bars 3" rise on a 29" 170mm fork (used to 20mm spacers on a 27" 170mm fork = same stack).
I had a nice free-body diagram of a rider on a steep downhill, showing the back wheel with basically no weight for traction. But most people know this already.
Can you expand on what setup can weight the back wheel on steep down slopes?
Evidence suggests that you run a soft and unsupportive setup. You also ride a knolly right? Low AR, long reach, low stack? Don't you run fairly...
Evidence suggests that you run a soft and unsupportive setup. You also ride a knolly right? Low AR, long reach, low stack? Don't you run fairly high tire pressures?
I'm not shocked that you think it's impossible to use the rear brake on steeper trails.
I found that pic I used for to show weight transfer. This is a rotated photo to show a few different slopes:
The above is a mild downslope. Riders weight is just in front of the BB so there's still a decent amount of weight on the back. Maybe 50/50.
Rotate it a bit steeper, the riders weight is now acting almost all on the front wheel:
Vicious rumour? You couriered me your fork with your own setup and it was unrideably soft regardless of whatever geometry bike you'd set it up with. If you're still riding a setup that's anywhere near the ballpark of that one then I think we have proven the rumor true.
If you consider a steep trail to be a featureless uniform gradient that's the right steepness to show that all the weight must be on the front wheel in your free body diagram, then sure. In practical terms, on an actual trail, it's a different story.
Vicious rumour? You couriered me your fork with your own setup and it was unrideably soft regardless of whatever geometry bike you'd set it up with...
Vicious rumour? You couriered me your fork with your own setup and it was unrideably soft regardless of whatever geometry bike you'd set it up with. If you're still riding a setup that's anywhere near the ballpark of that one then I think we have proven the rumor true.
If you consider a steep trail to be a featureless uniform gradient that's the right steepness to show that all the weight must be on the front wheel in your free body diagram, then sure. In practical terms, on an actual trail, it's a different story.
You're talking about the Mattoc I sent back in 2018 right? I don't even remember which bike that was used on. Let alone which pressures it was set to. Bike geometry was all over the place back then and that changes fork setup hugely. I have covered this already and you keep bringing it up.
I figured we would find some common ground on a simple example before adding in constantly changing gradient. A steep local trail would be Lower Drainpipe. I don't have a trailforks subscription to check this link: https://www.trailforks.com/trails/lower-drainpipe/
But I'm still hoping to hear how you think bike setup can weight the back wheel on steep slopes.
You're a suspension tuner and bike nerd, you should know what affects the balance of a bike...
I get the idea that you're interested in pure theory with your static FBD, while i've been talking about how i've observed actual bikes to behave on actual trails.
Yeah, you running a stiffer setup yet?You're a suspension tuner and bike nerd, you should know what affects the balance of a bike...I get the idea...
Yeah, you running a stiffer setup yet?
You're a suspension tuner and bike nerd, you should know what affects the balance of a bike...
I get the idea that you're interested in pure theory with your static FBD, while i've been talking about how i've observed actual bikes to behave on actual trails.
Yep. When I got Joe Nation's old Bergamont Encore with great geometry everything came together. The Avanti Torrent and Lapierre something or other I had before never handled well and everything was a weird compromise. Bergamont I was running 40/80psi in the Mattoc and 40/60 in the Mezzer. I run 37/75 on my current Knolly's Mezzer.
Putting together the theory and observations to explain each other is the goal no?
Yep. When I got Joe Nation's old Bergamont Encore with great geometry everything came together. The Avanti Torrent and Lapierre something or other I had before...
Yep. When I got Joe Nation's old Bergamont Encore with great geometry everything came together. The Avanti Torrent and Lapierre something or other I had before never handled well and everything was a weird compromise. Bergamont I was running 40/80psi in the Mattoc and 40/60 in the Mezzer. I run 37/75 on my current Knolly's Mezzer.
Putting together the theory and observations to explain each other is the goal no?
"I run 37/75 on my current Knolly's Mezzer."
That's slightly less pressure than Manitou recommends for a 120lb rider with descent focused riding, you're off the bottom end of the chart. I'm not surprised that you're struggling to make use of your rear tire on steeper terrain.
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.
What's funny about your anecdotal experience with those bikes is that it's the opposite of what we'd expect based on their anti-rise values. The Claymore should be the "harshest" under braking because it has the highest anti-rise rate, and the other two have either lower or much lower AR rates:
I was also super impressed by the Claymore when I got to ride it, but I couldn't put it down to any one thing. I just remember it being really stable, highly "damped" feeling, and confidence inspiring everywhere. I wonder if you're experiencing the pro-squat nature of anti-rise as "noticeably more brake control" and "dramatically smoother through rough sections hard on brakes," or if there's another factor at play that has nothing to do with those three bikes AR rates?
Honestly curious what your thoughts are, as I don't have a dog in this fight.
I find myself nodding along in agreement to just about everything Cascade Components has said here. My previous enduro bike, A Santa Cruz Megatower V2 pitched forward more than I'd like in steep sections while on the brakes, and gave me that sensation of the chain ratcheting my feet backwards and slightly out of position. It was unnerving. That was probably exacerbated by the Megatower's antirise value of 80-90% at start of travel and 50-65% at sag. I like riding steep trails and prefer setting up my bike for that type of terrain because it's where I'm most sensitive and need the bike to help me. I find that I prefer the riding experience on my Trek Slash Gen 6 in steep terrain much more. It has antirise of 100% at start of travel, 90% around sag, and 65% "deep in travel". It preserves geometry better in steep sections (doesn't pitch forward), and I don't feel that sensation of the chain ratcheting my feet backwards, probably due to the mid-high pivot isolating the kickback. I can live with the suspension being a bit less active under braking.
Do both the chainstay and the seatstay ends in a similar vein to Nicolais mutator enabled rear ends and have two sets of dropouts made that bolt to both the seatstay and chainstay. In one case the axle and brake bolt to the chainstay with the pivoted interface to the seatstay and vice versa in the other one.
Split pivot bikes with the chainstay/seatstay pivot concentric to the axle are the obvious candidate here. Moving the caliper from the seat stay to the chainstay would change it from a 4-bar to a single pivot
I’m genuinely confused about the ‘pitching forward on steeps’ critique of low AR. Rear brake doesn’t do jack (pun intended) on really steep stuff. If you’re hard on the rear brake you’re skidding and sliding out.
The pitching forward concern makes more sense to me when going fast on what I consider moderate grades-lots of rear brake force in that scenario. But that’s also where I want my bike to feel smoother.
Frankly I’ve never noticed a diff in AR between bikes. I spend way more blood and treasure worrying about the best front tire.
Ultra steep jank is my happy place.
In general I think people really underestimate the amount of braking force the rear wheel can generate. While weight does transfer to the front under braking, the initial weight distribution is skewed towards the rear (in the realm of 2/3rds of your weight on the rear wheel). Until enough weight transfers to the front wheel, which isn’t instantaneous, the rear can out brake the front. Food for thought for anyone wondering why some racers might have a larger rear brake rotor.
My biggest gripe with low anti-rise is trying to creep into steep rocky things. The braking causes the bike to lean forward and creates a suspension position that will change the moment you let off the brakes, which you have to if you practically can’t brake in the middle. That is not a fun feeling when trying to be very precise. Especially if the top contains a few instances of going on and off the brakes. This is ultimately what made me realize the Enduro is not for me. You can kind of tune it out with a bunch of compromises but they ultimately aren’t worth it if you value the suspension feeling good on high frequency stuff. The other scenario I’m not a fan of is the mid angle hard braking you described. There’s a long and low step down at 27 that you might know (the 45). On a low anti-rise bike the rear will go to full or near full extension braking hard for the berm after it and then just kind of skip around.
But ultimately it does kind of depend on the trails in question. Any time the rear brake is getting trailed more and there’s less on/off, the geo shifts become less apparent or even stop because it becomes a steady state. Like a steep but not rock roll steep rake and ride is better with lower anti-rise because of just have to brake almost the whole time just to maintain speed. Personally I can live with higher anti-rise in that scenario better than I can live with low anti-rise in the scenarios where it falls short.
Angle of the impacts could be a factor in a why a high anti-rise bike might feel smoother. Although preserving geo is something I would say is always confidence inspiring. Leverage ratio is generally relative to vertical motion, but you can take leverage ratio in any direction you want. Introducing any angle to the impact such that it can be split into a vertical and horizontal component that are both greater than zero results in a high pivot being softer even if both have the same leverage ratio relative to vertical. That could potentially offset the high anti-rise. Haven’t ridden one so who knows though.
Kickback is what a lot of people are feeling when they think they're feeling the harshness from AR. High pivot removes a lot of kickback, so it feels better under braking than you might expect.
Actually, I think low antirise tends to exaggerate pedal kick when braking. If you have a regular single pivot bike, holding the rear brake while compressing the suspension will cause the wheel to roll forward slightly, taking the cassette with it. That cassette movement will mitigate some chaingrowth that would happen if you had an otherwise identical 4-bar bike.
Yeah, I wrote out that really long response about a bike with modular pivot points on the stays and then after typing it all out and finding pictures, I went "Oh yeah, it would be way simpler to do the same thing with a Split Pivot bike and a movable brake mount."
The only catch is that a frame with adjustable anti-rise would be a super niche product that I can't see Trek or Devinci offering anytime soon, and any small brand that would want to offer it would need to cross through the DW Split Pivot patent obstacle course. The only brands I'm aware of that have fought a patent battle with DW and won are Giant (Maestro vs. DW Link patent) and Trek (ABP vs. Split Pivot patent), and both those brands have deeper pockets for protracted legal battles than the sort of garage bike brand that I imagine offering a bike with adjustable anti-rise.
My biggest takeaway from an extended time on the Craftworks ENR (super high pivot) was that when the pivot is that high, the relationship between how firm the bike feels for the terrain inputs and how firm it feels for your own inputs is completely different. You feel like you're riding a 150mm trail bike with a sporty tune in terms of how it pumps through things, but you also watch it eat bumps below you like a 180mm monster. For exactly the reasons you've said.
It introduced other handling oddities, but it convinced me that if you're doing an idler on a bike you plan on pedalling, it may as well be a proper high pivot rather than the mid pivot rear-centre-length-preserving designs. Just maybe not quite as high as the ENR. Which was the reason i came up with the bike i put at the start of the kinematics thread.
The ENR would drop its ride height and lengthen noticeably under hard braking, which would make it super stable. Getting off the rear brake as you transition into the corner would lift it up, shorten the rear and make it change direction easier, then in the corner it would lengthen again and become stable. I'm a fairly bouncy rider so I liked being able to unweight a little during the transition and enjoy the change in handling, but you could definitely argue that it was a bit much, and a bit more consistency would be better for most riders.
100% this. Brake squat has no influence on steep terrain as the back end is already unweighted, at/near full extension and has no weight for traction for the brake to influence the suspension. The bike is already rocked forwards almost as far as it can go. You'll have a little left in the fork but not much if you're already on the brakes. That's almost exclusively front brake, the rear doesn't do anything but skid without slowing you down.
I suspect those worried about bike rocking around are battling suspension without enough low speed damping to tame the body/chassis movements.
There are additional things going on with high pivot bikes, like the wheelbase and back centre getting longer as they compress. This rocks more of your weight onto the front of the bike by itself unless you're actively compensating for it.
Anyone else find talking in double negatives painful? IMO the name brake squat makes a lot more sense than anti-rise.
I think I get what you’re saying but still confused on why a 100% anti-rise bike wouldn’t be the most active because it has the least amount of chassis change.
Yes. That’s actually something I was just talking to a buddy about and is why bikes like the Raaw seem to work well (for a 4 bar) in a lot of people’s eyes. The higher stack accounts for the pitching sensation. Though, without going down the geo rabbit hole too much I am constantly reminded that the effective stack/anti-rise safety is done with length to the head tube meaning you could active a similar bar height with spacers..?
What you possibly mean Dougal, is "when I ride my bike on steep terrain the back end is already unweighted, at/near full extension and has no weight for traction for the brake to influence the suspension. The bike is already rocked forwards almost as far as it can go." And so from your perspective AR on steeper stuff seems pointless.
Others might call that a setup issue. Personally, the difference in steep stuff with high AR is pretty obvious with the way I set my bikes up.
Brake squat requires the wheel to be torqued forwards under braking to try and keep the rear suspension compressed while it unweights. The corresponding motion is the wheel wanting to rotate rearwards as the suspension unwinds and extends. This has the effect of adding extra friction damping to your suspension. Either from the disc brake or from the tyre contact patch.
The suspension with the least braking interaction (doesn't try to squat or jack, just reacts to weight shifts) is the most free to move under braking because of the lack of extra friction damping.
100% anti-rise is suspension that actively tries to squat pretty hard under braking. That requires a lot of interaction. I haven't checked to see if any current bikes get close to that number.
Yes squat and antisquat calcs depend on not only the wheelbase but centre of gravity height. Head-tube doesn't matter but bar height will.
Can you expand on that a bit? How can bike setup change or stop the rear wheel unweighting on steep downs?
Evidence suggests that you run a soft and unsupportive setup. You also ride a knolly right? Low AR, long reach, low stack? Don't you run fairly high tire pressures?
I'm not shocked that you think it's impossible to use the rear brake on steeper trails.
That's not evidence, that's vicious rumour. My actual setup is: Tyres 24/30psi, fork 40lb/in mid-stroke, rear shock 400lb/in coil, bars 3" rise on a 29" 170mm fork (used to 20mm spacers on a 27" 170mm fork = same stack).
I had a nice free-body diagram of a rider on a steep downhill, showing the back wheel with basically no weight for traction. But most people know this already.
Can you expand on what setup can weight the back wheel on steep down slopes?
I found that pic I used for to show weight transfer. This is a rotated photo to show a few different slopes:
The above is a mild downslope. Riders weight is just in front of the BB so there's still a decent amount of weight on the back. Maybe 50/50.
Rotate it a bit steeper, the riders weight is now acting almost all on the front wheel:
Vicious rumour? You couriered me your fork with your own setup and it was unrideably soft regardless of whatever geometry bike you'd set it up with. If you're still riding a setup that's anywhere near the ballpark of that one then I think we have proven the rumor true.
If you consider a steep trail to be a featureless uniform gradient that's the right steepness to show that all the weight must be on the front wheel in your free body diagram, then sure. In practical terms, on an actual trail, it's a different story.
You're talking about the Mattoc I sent back in 2018 right? I don't even remember which bike that was used on. Let alone which pressures it was set to. Bike geometry was all over the place back then and that changes fork setup hugely. I have covered this already and you keep bringing it up.
I figured we would find some common ground on a simple example before adding in constantly changing gradient. A steep local trail would be Lower Drainpipe. I don't have a trailforks subscription to check this link: https://www.trailforks.com/trails/lower-drainpipe/
But I'm still hoping to hear how you think bike setup can weight the back wheel on steep slopes.
Yeah, you running a stiffer setup yet?
You're a suspension tuner and bike nerd, you should know what affects the balance of a bike...
I get the idea that you're interested in pure theory with your static FBD, while i've been talking about how i've observed actual bikes to behave on actual trails.
Yep. When I got Joe Nation's old Bergamont Encore with great geometry everything came together. The Avanti Torrent and Lapierre something or other I had before never handled well and everything was a weird compromise. Bergamont I was running 40/80psi in the Mattoc and 40/60 in the Mezzer. I run 37/75 on my current Knolly's Mezzer.
Putting together the theory and observations to explain each other is the goal no?
"I run 37/75 on my current Knolly's Mezzer."
That's slightly less pressure than Manitou recommends for a 120lb rider with descent focused riding, you're off the bottom end of the chart. I'm not surprised that you're struggling to make use of your rear tire on steeper terrain.
Post a reply to: High vs Low Anti Rise Bikes