I'm currently running a Range that I've fitted a 200mm 40 to and removed a 2.5mm stroke spacer from the shock to get ~180mm travel out back. I'd also been planning to put a WRP link on over the winter. So I've been keen to get a look at how the Supernought stacks up to it. I figured I might as well put the comparison up here for others to take a look at as well.
Leverage Ratio
We can see that the Range has a leverage ratio starting at 3.24 and ending at 2.47. It would be 2.87 at sag (60mm).
The Supernought has the same starting ratio of 3.24 and ends at a lower 2.16, with a slightly higher 2.88 at the 60mm sag point.
Anti-Squat
Moving on to anti-squat, we can see that the Range actually has a lower starting rate of just about 80% and ends at 26%, with roughly 68% at sag.
The Supernought on the other hand starts at about 100%, ends at a way lower figure of -110%, and has a notably higher figure at sag with about 90% or so.
Please note, due to the fact that Forbidden was cool enough to provide a range based on an 11-25t cassette, vs WRP choosing a middle of the road 17t cog, there is some guestimating on my part here.
Anti-Rise
For anti-rise, the Range starts at a higher 150%, ends at -10%, with just sub 120% at sag.
The Supernought is relatively similar aside from a lower starting point. It starts at 136%, ends at a negligibly lower -14%, and hits about 115% at sag.
Axle Path
The Range has a less rearward axle path hitting 30mm of rearward movement at the 160mm mark before going vertical, and eventually slightly forwards from about 190mm to 201mm.
The Supernought goes more rearward, as you might expect from a Forbidden. It hits 34mm of rearward movement similarly at the 160mm mark. However it also has a more significant portion of its travel that has a forward axle path. 35mm from about 170 through to bottom out at 205mm.
Geometry
Lastly, I'd like to briefly touch on geometry.
A size large Range with a 200mm Fox 40 installed, should have a reach of roughly 470mm based on some work I did with a geo comparison app a while back. Unfortunately I don't have the full run down saved anywhere anymore. It would also have a shorter static RC length at 443 for a size large. WRP does note that their links maintain stock geometry, though from what I can tell, this does not take into account any change in A2C.
Reach wise the bikes should be pretty similar, with the Supernought clocking in at 466 for the MX, or 470 for the full 29. The static RC length is also notably longer at 460mm.
My take away here, is that the bikes are more similar than I'd expected them to be, especially with the similar reach measurements and leverage ratio. Though they do differ more significantly in the anti-squat department.
I hope this is interesting to some of you. Please comment and discuss if you like!
Ed
Great nerding dude, I thought they'd be close when I saw the supernaughts graphs.
This is great. Awesome you dug in and did all the graphs. I’ll admit a lot of that stuff doesn’t mean squat to me. Pun intended…
As has been touched on in the announcement thread; I feel there will be a monumental difference in feel between these bikes because of the rear center/chainstay length. The S4 Supernaught is a whopping 28 mm longer in the ass compared to an XL Range. And that is static! The difference between how these bikes will turn and behave is probably going to be huge the larger the size.
I have an XL Range and I can attest to its stability. It’s still Enduro mode with a 180 mm fork. It’s the most stable bike I’ve ever had. Saying that, I think the chainstays are the perfect length. Not too long and not too short for its intended purpose. Definitely intrigued by the Aurum prototype and I’m curious the geo numbers that bike will have.
Great comparison! Just as a minor note though, the Supernought doesn't really have a "more significant portion" of its axle path going forwards; both have barely 2-3mm of forward movement over the last 40mm of travel. The Forbidden graph might look more forward, but that's because they compress the graph to exaggerate the rearward path (look at the units on the x-axis).
Also, given the similarities in leverage rate, I wonder if the Forbidden would be noticeably harder to bottom out, as it seems designed in such a way as to effectively shorten the amount of travel that can be physically used.
I definitely agree in regards to the difference in weight balance between the Range and Supernought. The rear center length on the bike is quite a bit longer. The wheel does also move rearwards more quickly at first on the Supernought, with 32 of its 34mm of rearward movement happening from 0-120mm or so. The Range on the other hand moves roughly 27mm or so in the same portion of its travel. So the weight balance of the bikes would be further skewed from top out through sag to the mid stroke.
Personally I actually like the balance on the Range a bit better with the longer fork installed. I did have the bike set up with a 170mm fork originally, and found the weight balance a bit off. I found the 38 would sit deeper into its travel than I would have liked, and that the bike would occasionally understeer a bit when pushing it into a berm. There's a lot going on there including rider input, but I haven't had those issues with the longer fork on the bike. Ride height is where I want it, and I haven't had any issues with understeer.
The above being noted, I am considering installing a +5mm reach adjust headset to claw back a bit of reach. Though I may also install XL dropouts when I do that to maintain the balance I have right now.
Good point TheShortestCharles, I misread that!
I've drafted up a quick Geo revision for the Range below. The only modification here off stock geometry for a Range is the fork length, as WRP notes that their links maintain stock geo. I've taken the axle to crown measurements from a 29" 170mm Fox 38, and 29" 203mm Fox 40. I've re-pasted the Supernought geo below it for easy reference.
Definitely agree about the fork. The 38 was terrible. I couldn’t get it to ride higher in it’s travel without being harsh, no matter what set up I tried. Much happier with the 180 mm Zeb. The rear suspension outperformed that 38 by such a huge margin, but the Zeb has closed it up a little bit.
I have the opposite issue, Zeb rides to low unless i run it damn hard. a Serviced 38 is awesome. lower pressure so Can run higher rebound(faster) and firm up the Compression to control dive.
You sure the BB height's correct? To me it looks like you added the BB drop where you should've been substracting. Another sin of convoluted tech sheet standards using -BB drop for + BB offset. And add to that, with MX setup, some Mfrs state the BB offset to the rear axle, some use the offset to the line between axles.
Based on a measurement I just took off of my bike, it seems like you are correct. With my crowns dropped down the stanchions 10mm I have a BB height of roughly 360mm. So only about 5mm higher than stock.
I slapped that geo chart together pretty quickly, since I felt like it was a hole in my comparison. Sorry for the oversight on my end folks.
Post a reply to: Supernought VS Range (WRP DH) Comparison