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...
"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.
Nah, long way out. Manitou's latest charts recommend a lower ratio and something like 53/81psi for my weight. Without taking into consideration bike geometry. Because they can't. I've been running the same pressures for the last 5 years, that chart has been out two months.
Here's 40/80 vs 55/83 which was the closest comparison I had to hand:
Manitou Mezzer G2 Air pressures.
Let me know your fork and pressure or coil spring, I can overlay them.
But anyway. I keep trying to pull this discussion back to brake squat and how you think you can keep the back wheel weighted through setup on steep downs. Can you expand on that?
Ah yes, that graph of spring pressures that you don't run is very useful in proving your point.
You'll have to forgive me for only graphing out fork pressures in even steps. If you want to visualise my exact static pressures simply picture a line just below the red one. At 94%. Dynamic pressures are much higher, adiabatic heating.
Do tell us what you run so I can overlay it. Also, you know, this thread was about brake squat.
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...
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:
Respectfully, the mass grave that I've filled over the years with cooked brake pads and rotors, broken rear wheels, and punctured tires and inner tubes from riding steep trails tells me that my center of mass has a much stronger relationship with my rear wheel than what you've depicted in that free body diagram.
The main difference being bumps and holes. as opposed to the endless monochromatic smooth grade that's implied by the instantaneous snapshot of your freebody diagram.
Well, to be a devil's advocate, at least I really take care of getting over bumps and holes with my front wheel smoothly and not caring as much when it comes to the rear wheel. The front steers (so you can get jacknifed) and if it gets caught, you're out through the front door. The rear gets pulled over an obstacle more easily than the front pushed...
I think we'd all prefer if the discussion returned to all things Anti-Rise instead of a couple of bros in d*ck swinging contest about what pressures they run in their niche suspension
Respectfully, the mass grave that I've filled over the years with cooked brake pads and rotors, broken rear wheels, and punctured tires and inner tubes from...
Respectfully, the mass grave that I've filled over the years with cooked brake pads and rotors, broken rear wheels, and punctured tires and inner tubes from riding steep trails tells me that my center of mass has a much stronger relationship with my rear wheel than what you've depicted in that free body diagram.
The main difference being bumps and holes. as opposed to the endless monochromatic smooth grade that's implied by the instantaneous snapshot of your freebody diagram.
On this sort of steepness you can put a decent load and heat into a back brake:
This sort of steepness you can't use your back brake much at all. Your weight is all over the front wheel contact patch and you can't get any more rearwards to help it.
I'll see if I can get together a graphic for how much your back brake can do on different slopes. Might take all week though.
Respectfully, the mass grave that I've filled over the years with cooked brake pads and rotors, broken rear wheels, and punctured tires and inner tubes from...
Respectfully, the mass grave that I've filled over the years with cooked brake pads and rotors, broken rear wheels, and punctured tires and inner tubes from riding steep trails tells me that my center of mass has a much stronger relationship with my rear wheel than what you've depicted in that free body diagram.
The main difference being bumps and holes. as opposed to the endless monochromatic smooth grade that's implied by the instantaneous snapshot of your freebody diagram.
On this sort of steepness you can put a decent load and heat into a back brake:This sort of steepness you can't use your back brake...
On this sort of steepness you can put a decent load and heat into a back brake:
This sort of steepness you can't use your back brake much at all. Your weight is all over the front wheel contact patch and you can't get any more rearwards to help it.
I'll see if I can get together a graphic for how much your back brake can do on different slopes. Might take all week though.
"This sort of steepness you can't use your back brake much at all."
I can't speak to your experience, but I promise you that the steeper the trail gets, the more I use my rear brake to slow me down.
I’d put it out to everyone to think about if they only had one brake to ride a steep trail, what brake would they want? I would choose my front brake to get down the slowest.
I ride in an area with much steeper than average trails and I run my 38 at 94 psi and one spacer for 150 lb rider. Less than that and it dives and I get pitched forward. LSC doesn’t help much when it’s turbo steep for 200m. Many trails are quite linear and steep.
If there are steps and compressions you can definitely push your feet into your back wheel and get some extra traction. But I guess those steps where you get traction would technically not be steep.
@cascade I’m surprised you would use your rear brake enough to get pitched forward going into a rock slab. Perhaps I don’t realize how little braking would make your rear rise.
I’d put it out to everyone to think about if they only had one brake to ride a steep trail, what brake would they want? I...
I’d put it out to everyone to think about if they only had one brake to ride a steep trail, what brake would they want? I would choose my front brake to get down the slowest.
I ride in an area with much steeper than average trails and I run my 38 at 94 psi and one spacer for 150 lb rider. Less than that and it dives and I get pitched forward. LSC doesn’t help much when it’s turbo steep for 200m. Many trails are quite linear and steep.
If there are steps and compressions you can definitely push your feet into your back wheel and get some extra traction. But I guess those steps where you get traction would technically not be steep.
@cascade I’m surprised you would use your rear brake enough to get pitched forward going into a rock slab. Perhaps I don’t realize how little braking would make your rear rise.
Or going from the other way. What is the steepest trail you can ride with only a rear brake?
I’d put it out to everyone to think about if they only had one brake to ride a steep trail, what brake would they want? I...
I’d put it out to everyone to think about if they only had one brake to ride a steep trail, what brake would they want? I would choose my front brake to get down the slowest.
I ride in an area with much steeper than average trails and I run my 38 at 94 psi and one spacer for 150 lb rider. Less than that and it dives and I get pitched forward. LSC doesn’t help much when it’s turbo steep for 200m. Many trails are quite linear and steep.
If there are steps and compressions you can definitely push your feet into your back wheel and get some extra traction. But I guess those steps where you get traction would technically not be steep.
@cascade I’m surprised you would use your rear brake enough to get pitched forward going into a rock slab. Perhaps I don’t realize how little braking would make your rear rise.
I would probably choose just the rear brake most of the time - especially if its loose it would close to impossible to make a tight switchback with just the front. Maybe if you could slow to a stop then crawl around, but even that would be hard with just the front. At least rear only can slide the back wheel.
And as @CascadeComponents said - people underestimate how much work the rear brake does, but I also think people struggle to picture what anti-rise is actually doing (I know I did for a long time). It's not really the brake applying a torque directly to the swingarm (I mean it does, but thats not the thing you feel), but the reaction of the whole suspension link to pulling against the sprung mass.
I try to picture it something like imagine a water heater on a skateboard rolling down the hill and you throw a lasso over it - if the rope pulls at the bottom, the whole thing will tip forwards as you pull back (low anti rise), but if its near the top it will fall backwards (too much anti rise). If the rope is at the bottom, even if you aren't pulling very hard it will start tipping forwards (assuming your horse is keeping up with the skateboard here) and thats how a low anti rise bike can still pitch forwards at low speed. The point of anti-sqaut/rise diagrams is trying to simplify the link down to a single line pushing/pulling through the bike and whether it is acting above of below the centre of gravity
I’d put it out to everyone to think about if they only had one brake to ride a steep trail, what brake would they want? I...
I’d put it out to everyone to think about if they only had one brake to ride a steep trail, what brake would they want? I would choose my front brake to get down the slowest.
I ride in an area with much steeper than average trails and I run my 38 at 94 psi and one spacer for 150 lb rider. Less than that and it dives and I get pitched forward. LSC doesn’t help much when it’s turbo steep for 200m. Many trails are quite linear and steep.
If there are steps and compressions you can definitely push your feet into your back wheel and get some extra traction. But I guess those steps where you get traction would technically not be steep.
@cascade I’m surprised you would use your rear brake enough to get pitched forward going into a rock slab. Perhaps I don’t realize how little braking would make your rear rise.
If I'm riding Squamish slabs with an almost infinite amount of grip? Sure, I'll take a front brake only.
On every other steep trail in the world where there's a premium of grip, I'll take a rear brake only. Having ridden bikes with rear brakes that failed and bikes with front brake that failed, it's not even a question for me. Sure, the front brake is great on sections where there's grip, and I would miss not having it in those sections, but on the sections with sketchy and inconsistent grip, especially if it's dusty, loose, or features wet roots or rocks, the front brake is a death trigger.
Having a front brake only on a steep trail that features less than perfect grip is like playing Russian roulette- it might not kill me the first time, but rest assured it's going to kill me eventually.
Since we're on the topic of suspension in this particular forum, my hands can last 2-4 minutes riding a DH bike without a rear brake before they're completely knackered. The weight shift onto my hands from having no rear brake is otherworldly. By contrast, I could probably ride all day at Whistler Bike Park on a DH bike without a front brake and have a pretty entertaining time. Of course I'd have to be choosier with my braking spots, but it would be doable. I'd have maybe 2-3 runs in me on the front brake-only bike before my hands would be throwing in the towel.
Shout out to Neko for testing this question about high vs. low AR, and I loved the test results because they were so undefinitive and subjective...
Shout out to Neko for testing this question about high vs. low AR, and I loved the test results because they were so undefinitive and subjective. Neko and Asa liked lower AR values (70-75%) and Angel liked higher AR values:
"The better rider you are, the higher AR value you might want. If you're braking really intentionally, late, and hard with both brakes, I can see why you'd want the bike to squat, even though it loads the spring and feels stiff, the position is definitely more confidence-inspiring when you need to brake hard and late. If you drag your brake a lot, like me, I'm pretty bad at that, I've been bad at that my whole career, you want the value to be lower because you want the bike to be active while you're dragging your brake. I guess on steeper tracks as well you'd want it a bit higher, and on flatter tracks lower values are pretty good, I've noticed that this weekend at Rock Creek, there's these really choppy ruts that you have to brake through, and they're not that steep, and the whole bike feels pretty locked out when you're doing that, suspension's not tracking as well, but last weekend at Windrock where there were some steeper sections while you're braking, it's nice to be in that more confidence inspiring geometry position."
So maybe this is a personal preference thing and not a good/better/best kind of thing?
In Neko's defense, Greg Minnaar is also a self-described rear brake dragger, and Greg seemed to do alright at the races.
Anybody know the anti-rise values on the old 26" aluminum Evil Revolt? I remember that bike being insanely confidence inspiring on rough chop, and especially under braking, but I had to be stronger than the bike when I hit the brakes. I also remember running the fork almost locked out to keep up with the rear suspension. That's the only bike I can remember where the feel under heavy braking was super noticeable. Neko's description of "braking really intentionally, late, and hard with both brakes" reminded me of the Revolt.
Speaking of 2009 Revolt, here’s a 17 year old rear suspension POV. Had no idea my old Vimeo account still exists. This would have been 2009 US Open weekend. Rider out front getting a flat in the rocks is a young Steve Smith.
Definitely riding a bit low here, but I also remember that bike feeling the same as what Charlie’s describing. I quite liked it too. When braking hard and late it seemed to even out chassis rotation from fork dive a bit.
If there's corners to slap then I'll take a rear brake any day of the week. If it's a featureless slab then obviously front.
Funny that Neko also agrees that high AR is useful on steeper trails. He made a point in one of his development videos that the way they've chosen some aspects of their geometry and how they set up their bikes, to a degree, is to account for a lower AR.
I like their take on a DH bike and I'd love to have a go on one. At the end of the day it's not the largest factor in how a bike rides and there's a lot of personal preference but still, the argument that a rear brake is impossible to make use of on a steep trail is hilarious.
For those asking - red line is Anti-rise (only for the revolt, the others are anti squat)
For those asking - red line is Anti-rise (only for the revolt, the others are anti squat)
Holy shit, so it's pretty damn high on the Revolt. If I loved braking on that bike and thought it was confidence inspiring, then maybe I'm a high AR kinda guy.
Holy shit, so it's pretty damn high on the Revolt. If I loved braking on that bike and thought it was confidence inspiring, then maybe I'm...
Holy shit, so it's pretty damn high on the Revolt. If I loved braking on that bike and thought it was confidence inspiring, then maybe I'm a high AR kinda guy.
My question was meant to be what brake would you use to get down a steep trail the slowest.
Catch berms aren’t steep. They are catch berms. Tight switch backs are steep trails. I’m talking steep shit. Dead Dog.
For sure you’d get spanked once in a while with just the front but if I had to go slow down something I’m using my front. You don’t need the steepest trail in the world to know that you’ll be accelerating with just the rear.
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...
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.
I was always told 100% anti-rise is neutral and the bike staying at a constant ride height? That's not the case?
The center of gravity is where I always find issues with the anti-rise debate because it's only a rough estimate based off center of gravity and instant center. That means two different riding styles/center of gravities could have different effective anti-rises.?
I was always told 100% anti-rise is neutral and the bike staying at a constant ride height? That's not the case?The center of gravity is where...
I was always told 100% anti-rise is neutral and the bike staying at a constant ride height? That's not the case?
The center of gravity is where I always find issues with the anti-rise debate because it's only a rough estimate based off center of gravity and instant center. That means two different riding styles/center of gravities could have different effective anti-rises.?
Geometry is preserved but that’s only because the force of your weight shifting forward is equal to the force driving the bike into compression. A perfectly 0% antirise bike would feel like someone grabbing the back of your back wheel, an OTB machine
I was always told 100% anti-rise is neutral and the bike staying at a constant ride height? That's not the case?The center of gravity is where...
I was always told 100% anti-rise is neutral and the bike staying at a constant ride height? That's not the case?
The center of gravity is where I always find issues with the anti-rise debate because it's only a rough estimate based off center of gravity and instant center. That means two different riding styles/center of gravities could have different effective anti-rises.?
Yes, 100% is the theoretical point that the suspension doesn't compress or extend. In my lasso analogy above, it would equivalent to catching it right around the centre of gravity
And yes, published anti squat/rise values assume a certain CoG and it isn't alway the same, so taller/shorter riders or different size bikes will respond a ittle different in the real world, but if you compare 2 bikes with the variables the same then you can roughly guess how they will behave relative to each other
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...
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.
I was always told 100% anti-rise is neutral and the bike staying at a constant ride height? That's not the case?The center of gravity is where...
I was always told 100% anti-rise is neutral and the bike staying at a constant ride height? That's not the case?
The center of gravity is where I always find issues with the anti-rise debate because it's only a rough estimate based off center of gravity and instant center. That means two different riding styles/center of gravities could have different effective anti-rises.?
Yes that's correct, 100% antirise requires the linkage to fight 100% of the extension forces. It does this by trying to squat in exactly the same proportions.
@Blake_Motley 0% antirise means the suspension is free to react to the weight shift. It's not going to throw you over the bars. It's just going to lift as the rear shock lets it. Same as bunny hop.
I’d put it out to everyone to think about if they only had one brake to ride a steep trail, what brake would they want? I...
I’d put it out to everyone to think about if they only had one brake to ride a steep trail, what brake would they want? I would choose my front brake to get down the slowest.
I ride in an area with much steeper than average trails and I run my 38 at 94 psi and one spacer for 150 lb rider. Less than that and it dives and I get pitched forward. LSC doesn’t help much when it’s turbo steep for 200m. Many trails are quite linear and steep.
If there are steps and compressions you can definitely push your feet into your back wheel and get some extra traction. But I guess those steps where you get traction would technically not be steep.
@cascade I’m surprised you would use your rear brake enough to get pitched forward going into a rock slab. Perhaps I don’t realize how little braking would make your rear rise.
On really steep trails I am usually using the middle brake. Common for BMX riders, this brake works will but it wears out shoes not pads.
Nah, long way out. Manitou's latest charts recommend a lower ratio and something like 53/81psi for my weight. Without taking into consideration bike geometry. Because they can't. I've been running the same pressures for the last 5 years, that chart has been out two months.
Here's 40/80 vs 55/83 which was the closest comparison I had to hand:
Let me know your fork and pressure or coil spring, I can overlay them.
But anyway. I keep trying to pull this discussion back to brake squat and how you think you can keep the back wheel weighted through setup on steep downs. Can you expand on that?
Ah yes, that graph of spring pressures that you don't run is very useful in proving your point.
You'll have to forgive me for only graphing out fork pressures in even steps. If you want to visualise my exact static pressures simply picture a line just below the red one. At 94%. Dynamic pressures are much higher, adiabatic heating.
Do tell us what you run so I can overlay it. Also, you know, this thread was about brake squat.
Respectfully, the mass grave that I've filled over the years with cooked brake pads and rotors, broken rear wheels, and punctured tires and inner tubes from riding steep trails tells me that my center of mass has a much stronger relationship with my rear wheel than what you've depicted in that free body diagram.
The main difference being bumps and holes. as opposed to the endless monochromatic smooth grade that's implied by the instantaneous snapshot of your freebody diagram.
Well, to be a devil's advocate, at least I really take care of getting over bumps and holes with my front wheel smoothly and not caring as much when it comes to the rear wheel. The front steers (so you can get jacknifed) and if it gets caught, you're out through the front door. The rear gets pulled over an obstacle more easily than the front pushed...
I think we'd all prefer if the discussion returned to all things Anti-Rise instead of a couple of bros in d*ck swinging contest about what pressures they run in their niche suspension
On this sort of steepness you can put a decent load and heat into a back brake:
This sort of steepness you can't use your back brake much at all. Your weight is all over the front wheel contact patch and you can't get any more rearwards to help it.
I'll see if I can get together a graphic for how much your back brake can do on different slopes. Might take all week though.
"This sort of steepness you can't use your back brake much at all."
I can't speak to your experience, but I promise you that the steeper the trail gets, the more I use my rear brake to slow me down.
When your trail gets to the steepness of the second picture your back brake does nothing but skid. It can't slow you down at all.
Someone better tell Troy Brosnan that his 220 rotor on the back of his DH bike is doing nothing and can't slow him down at all.
We got 2 weeks out of him guys, kind of proud of Dougal here for lasting so long without a diatribe of rhetorical baiting.
I’d put it out to everyone to think about if they only had one brake to ride a steep trail, what brake would they want? I would choose my front brake to get down the slowest.
I ride in an area with much steeper than average trails and I run my 38 at 94 psi and one spacer for 150 lb rider. Less than that and it dives and I get pitched forward. LSC doesn’t help much when it’s turbo steep for 200m. Many trails are quite linear and steep.
If there are steps and compressions you can definitely push your feet into your back wheel and get some extra traction. But I guess those steps where you get traction would technically not be steep.
@cascade I’m surprised you would use your rear brake enough to get pitched forward going into a rock slab. Perhaps I don’t realize how little braking would make your rear rise.
Or going from the other way. What is the steepest trail you can ride with only a rear brake?
I would probably choose just the rear brake most of the time - especially if its loose it would close to impossible to make a tight switchback with just the front. Maybe if you could slow to a stop then crawl around, but even that would be hard with just the front. At least rear only can slide the back wheel.
And as @CascadeComponents said - people underestimate how much work the rear brake does, but I also think people struggle to picture what anti-rise is actually doing (I know I did for a long time). It's not really the brake applying a torque directly to the swingarm (I mean it does, but thats not the thing you feel), but the reaction of the whole suspension link to pulling against the sprung mass.
I try to picture it something like imagine a water heater on a skateboard rolling down the hill and you throw a lasso over it - if the rope pulls at the bottom, the whole thing will tip forwards as you pull back (low anti rise), but if its near the top it will fall backwards (too much anti rise). If the rope is at the bottom, even if you aren't pulling very hard it will start tipping forwards (assuming your horse is keeping up with the skateboard here) and thats how a low anti rise bike can still pitch forwards at low speed. The point of anti-sqaut/rise diagrams is trying to simplify the link down to a single line pushing/pulling through the bike and whether it is acting above of below the centre of gravity
If I'm riding Squamish slabs with an almost infinite amount of grip? Sure, I'll take a front brake only.
On every other steep trail in the world where there's a premium of grip, I'll take a rear brake only. Having ridden bikes with rear brakes that failed and bikes with front brake that failed, it's not even a question for me. Sure, the front brake is great on sections where there's grip, and I would miss not having it in those sections, but on the sections with sketchy and inconsistent grip, especially if it's dusty, loose, or features wet roots or rocks, the front brake is a death trigger.
Having a front brake only on a steep trail that features less than perfect grip is like playing Russian roulette- it might not kill me the first time, but rest assured it's going to kill me eventually.
Since we're on the topic of suspension in this particular forum, my hands can last 2-4 minutes riding a DH bike without a rear brake before they're completely knackered. The weight shift onto my hands from having no rear brake is otherworldly. By contrast, I could probably ride all day at Whistler Bike Park on a DH bike without a front brake and have a pretty entertaining time. Of course I'd have to be choosier with my braking spots, but it would be doable. I'd have maybe 2-3 runs in me on the front brake-only bike before my hands would be throwing in the towel.
This is getting entertaining. Do the "back brake only" riders have any videos of steep trails being ridden with only a back brake?
Speaking of 2009 Revolt, here’s a 17 year old rear suspension POV. Had no idea my old Vimeo account still exists. This would have been 2009 US Open weekend. Rider out front getting a flat in the rocks is a young Steve Smith.
Definitely riding a bit low here, but I also remember that bike feeling the same as what Charlie’s describing. I quite liked it too. When braking hard and late it seemed to even out chassis rotation from fork dive a bit.
If there's corners to slap then I'll take a rear brake any day of the week. If it's a featureless slab then obviously front.
Funny that Neko also agrees that high AR is useful on steeper trails. He made a point in one of his development videos that the way they've chosen some aspects of their geometry and how they set up their bikes, to a degree, is to account for a lower AR.
I like their take on a DH bike and I'd love to have a go on one. At the end of the day it's not the largest factor in how a bike rides and there's a lot of personal preference but still, the argument that a rear brake is impossible to make use of on a steep trail is hilarious.
For those asking - red line is Anti-rise (only for the revolt, the others are anti squat)
Holy shit, so it's pretty damn high on the Revolt. If I loved braking on that bike and thought it was confidence inspiring, then maybe I'm a high AR kinda guy.
Maybe it just wasn’t a Felt
My question was meant to be what brake would you use to get down a steep trail the slowest.
Catch berms aren’t steep. They are catch berms. Tight switch backs are steep trails. I’m talking steep shit. Dead Dog.
For sure you’d get spanked once in a while with just the front but if I had to go slow down something I’m using my front. You don’t need the steepest trail in the world to know that you’ll be accelerating with just the rear.
I was always told 100% anti-rise is neutral and the bike staying at a constant ride height? That's not the case?
The center of gravity is where I always find issues with the anti-rise debate because it's only a rough estimate based off center of gravity and instant center. That means two different riding styles/center of gravities could have different effective anti-rises.?
Geometry is preserved but that’s only because the force of your weight shifting forward is equal to the force driving the bike into compression. A perfectly 0% antirise bike would feel like someone grabbing the back of your back wheel, an OTB machine
Yes, 100% is the theoretical point that the suspension doesn't compress or extend. In my lasso analogy above, it would equivalent to catching it right around the centre of gravity
And yes, published anti squat/rise values assume a certain CoG and it isn't alway the same, so taller/shorter riders or different size bikes will respond a ittle different in the real world, but if you compare 2 bikes with the variables the same then you can roughly guess how they will behave relative to each other
Yes that's correct, 100% antirise requires the linkage to fight 100% of the extension forces. It does this by trying to squat in exactly the same proportions.
@Blake_Motley 0% antirise means the suspension is free to react to the weight shift. It's not going to throw you over the bars. It's just going to lift as the rear shock lets it. Same as bunny hop.
On really steep trails I am usually using the middle brake. Common for BMX riders, this brake works will but it wears out shoes not pads.
Post a reply to: High vs Low Anti Rise Bikes