We asked eight suspension experts to talk us through it all

Watch: Six common suspension mistakes

In an attempt to clarify areas of agreement and to highlight the differences in suspension philosophy we asked eight suspension experts the same set of questions.

Suspension theory is based on hard science, but if you read two different manufacturers’ suspension blurbs, the chances are you’ll get conflicting information.

>>> How to set up mountain bike suspension

In an attempt to clarify areas of agreement and to highlight the differences in suspension philosophy we asked eight suspension experts the same set of questions.

Their answers were naturally long and complicated, meaning there wasn’t enough space in the mag to fit them all in, so here are the unedited answers for you to study at length.

Jose Gonzalez, director of suspension technology at Trek

What is the primary function of suspension on a mountain bike?

JG: The most important element of suspension in a sport application is to add or enhance control for the rider. This is more important than comfort and it is why performance suspension, balances comfort and control with the emphasis on enhanced control. It’s more important to have predictability, stability, traction/ grip, good terrain tracking and feel along with a high level of bump absorption capability; but comfort doesn’t trump those things.

Additionally, having some external controls to allow the rider to choose a suitable setting for that particular moment in the ride also greatly enhances control and comfort. The key here is to have a design that’s very well tuned and only offers a certain percentage of adjustment variables so that the rider can’t stray too far from the optimum performance.

Can air sprung forks and shocks match the performance of coil sprung units, or are they just one size fits all, lightweight alternatives?

JG: For mountain bikes, it is realistic to view air springs as a viable option to closely match coil spring performance – to a point where the difference is negligible and the adjustment and weight advantages of air offer a greater benefit.

Air is a viable option for mountain bikes due to the fact that mountain bike suspension does not develop the extreme heat that motorsport suspension units see. Heat and the ensuing increase of air pressure are the big nemesis of air springs.

For mountain bikes, it more about eliminating the static friction of the seals, etc. and manipulating the air spring to have different performance characteristics than it traditionally has.

Are comfort and control opposite sides of the same coin?

JG: To a great extent, yes. It’s contradicting to have comfort and control. There are many examples of this outside our industry as well – a town car vs. a sport car, a motocross bike vs. an enduro bike, a Moto GP bike vs. a cruising motorcycle.

With massive variations in chain angle in relation to the pivot, how can any manufacturer claim to have optimum anything?

JG: Due to the changing chain line and changing “chain pull effect”, it is a balance and compromise to best address all the requirements. As far as I’ve seen, there’s no magic system out there and the optimum claims without some compromise or balance is marketing BS – especially when using multiple chainrings up front.

Bottom line, something gives with that much change in “chain pull effect” regardless of system.

Variable rate suspension or constant rising rate?

JG: This depends on the shock technology, tune and the desired overall feel and performance objectives. The main thing here is not to have a big swing change from a regressive rate to a progressive rate, or vice versa, during the cycle of the system. It is extremely difficult to properly tune a shock if this is taking place. A little change can be really good depending on the shock type, spring type and technologies.

There is a trend for suspension uniformity within brands, but do bikes with different intended use benefit from being restricted to one suspension design?

JG: A good design can be engineered and adjusted to achieve the performance requirements of a specific category. The key elements are the chain pull effect, leverage ratio/ rate and braking influence on the suspension system. The critical thing is being able to decouple those 3 things so they can be adjusted independently. The more those are decoupled from each other, the more opportunity to design and tune for specific categories with the same general design and technologies. You can achieve a completely different performance characteristic and feel by changing the chain pull effect, leverage rate and/or ratio.

Are there ideal amounts of travel for each application (XC, Trail, FR, DH)?

JG: Not really. Two key elements in deciding travel are the desired weight and geometry objectives for the bike. There’s no way around the fact that a longer fork adds weight, raises the BB, etc. Additionally, the more travel the bike has, the greater the swing in geometry change as the bike is ridden.

It gets to a point where the bike just doesn’t handle well. This is why we’ve seen gravity bikes come back down from 10”+ travel to settle in at 8” of travel. Weight and geometry offered more advantages and a better balance. On top of that, suspension performance has been elevated to a point where less is more.

Motocross went through a similar process two decades ago, where travel crept up to 16”-20” and the bikes handled like crap. That’s how motocross settled on 12-13” being the best balance of all the requirements.

Are new suspension designs driven by performance or marketing?

JG: I can’t speak for other companies, but Trek/Fisher designs are truly driven by performance.

In the years I’ve been at Trek, I can honestly say that we use the designs we do because we truly believe they offer the best balance of performance for that intended use. But I have seen the industry put way too much “spin” put on certain designs over the years.

What is the biggest misconception about bicycle suspension?

JG: That its maintenance free and that it’s difficult to set-up properly. Two of the biggest performance enhancements a rider can invest in for a full suspension bike are to set it up properly for their needs/ style and regularly maintain the fork and shock.

You will not believe the performance difference both of these things make – just ask a pro downhiller like Peaty. This is easier than ever now with quality shops like TFtuned coming on the scene in recent years.

Do linkage suspension designs offer real benefits over single pivots?

JG: Not really, it’s more marketing than real performance on the trail.

We have done a lot of research, engineering and investigation of all the designs out there, to the point of testing competitors designs and building our own prototypes with those systems, and the reality is that we can accomplish all the performance requirements with a single pivot design – and end up with a better balance of performance

If intellectual property didn’t exist, which rear suspension design would everyone use?

JG: It’s hard to say because there are many different philosophies with suspension. Certain riders prefer one feel over the other and there’s no right or wrong there – it’s ultimately about what makes the end user enjoy the ride more and offers the best control for them.

Why is it that a rearward axle path is often assumed to be better than a vertical or inward one?

JG: The reality is that axle paths were given too much credit in the past and it was an easy thing for people to “grab on to”. I think that it was logical to think that a rear wheel moving completely rearward would respond to rough terrain better by going away from the direction the bike is travelling.

The truth is that the arc created by a normal length swingarm is large enough to have an upward/rearward component in the part of the travel that really benefits from this effect. The arc then recedes forward towards the end. This slight forward curvature of the wheel path, at the later stages, allows for desirable performance characteristics when that deep in travel.

We’ve analyzed wheel paths very extensively and found that all the main designs are very, very close in trajectory.

Can a good shock/tune compensate for a poor suspension design?

JG: No. A good shock tune on a poor suspension design is only a bandaid and a huge compromise. It’s a balance of both to achieve a good suspension system. Bottom line is that the suspension design and shock technology/tune have to happen in unison to truly have a great suspension system.

Is suspension set-up and the array of adjustments currently on offer overly complex for the average rider?

JG: The reality is that riders would be better off with suspension that was more dialled in for a given design and adjusters that had a smaller range, only allowing for small variations in performance. This would make it easier for riders to properly set-up their bikes and it would also not allow them to stray too far from the right performance.

An adjuster is a double edge sword – you can make it feel better… or way worse.

The challenge for the suspension companies is that most bike companies won’t take the time to test and tune (I know that for a fact due to being on the other side of the fence), which requires a one size fits all approach from the suspension companies. This is where Trek, and a handful of other bike companies, differs from the majority of the industry.

What does the future hold for mountain bike suspension?

JG: The next big advancement for mountain bike suspension, and mountain bikes in general, is not necessarily a direct suspension thing – it’s the elimination of the varying chainring diameters up front, which has a huge degree of “chain pull effect” change. A constant chain line that does not vary much – or at all ideally – will make a big difference in suspension designs and tuning.

Obviously, the elimination of the rear cassette and replacing it with a single sprocket would be the next frontier – and now we are taking about additional enhancements such as unsprung weight reduction, stronger wheels that are lighter, quieter bikes, eliminating a critical component that’s exposed to damage and contamination…well, you get the point.

Dave Weagle, inventor of the Split Pivot suspension design

What is the primary function of suspension on a mountain bike?

DW: The primary function of suspension on a mountain bike (or any vehicle for that matter) is supposed to be increased rider comfort and control through the mitigation of impacts at the wheels. Sometimes I think that the primary function of suspension for some companies is to increase bike sales, with little regard to how the suspension actually functions.

Can air sprung forks and shocks match the performance of coil sprung units, or are they just one size fits all, lightweight alternatives?

DW: From a rear suspension perspective, I think that currently the offered air springs provide some unique design possibilities, but it’s quite hard to beat a coil spring in terms of absolute performance.

I like designing around air springs because my suspension platforms (dw-link, for example) are very tuneable, and therefore able to take advantage of the air spring’s unique traits and turn them into advantages on the trail. If I was stuck designing with less flexible suspension platforms I might feel differently.

Air springs do have the benefit of being one size fits all; their end user tunability is hard to beat. I think that it’s possible to build air springs that can compete if not overtake coils in terms of absolute performance, but I’m saving those ideas for a rainy day.

Are comfort and control opposite sides of the same coin?

DW: Ask anyone who has raced automobiles competitively and they will tell you that the answer is yes. Humans have thresholds of how much vibration (both frequency and amplitude) they can take. If those thresholds did not exist, and if human reaction times were faster, we could change suspensions to suit and vehicles would travel circuits faster.

With massive variations in chain angle in relation to the pivot, how can any manufacturer claim to have optimum anything?

DW: This is an awesome question! There are so many variables that come into play here, I love it. I think that I could write a hundred pages on this subject, but I’ll do my best to keep this short.

Bicycles have evolved in an interesting way over time. Over the first hundred or so years, the measurements of wheel diameters, bottom bracket heights, top tube lengths, etc. had just been empirically “figured out” by tinkerers.

The geometry that we ride today in the grand scheme of things is not all that far removed from what people were on long ago. Sure, small changes make big differences in feel, but we are talking about really small changes at this point. (No adult is riding 10 inch rear wheels on their mountain bike.)

Of course, this empirical geometry development was really just a systematic chain of choices based on what worked for human ergonomics. What felt right lived on, the Darwinian selection of cycling geometry if you will.

As bikes got more complex, gears were added, derailleurs, shifters, this original ergonomic heritage lived on. Drivetrain companies figured out through testing that a 22T front sprocket worked out well for climbing with an 11-32T and later 11-34T cassette.

A 32T front sprocket felt good on flat ground with that same cassette range. A 44T front sprocket gave enough push for descending and getting up to speeds that would scare even the hairiest of men.

Then suspension came, and a whole new era of Darwinian selection began for cycling. Some designs were far ahead of their time, some were downright comical. A set of physical elements never before encountered were at work against cycle suspensions.

Suspensions bobbed when riders pedalled hard, climbed hills, and did all kinds of other crazy things. Forces like gravity and anti-squat were acting on the suspension systems, yet few if any people in the world understood the how’s and why’s of why suspensions reacted the way they did.

One thing remained the same through this entire time. Drivetrains still used 3 rings, 22, 32, 44. It’s my opinion that the cycling public got extremely lucky here, as the variable front chainline is the saviour of cycling suspensions.

I will go out on a limb here and say that without the variable front chainline of the front rings 22, 32, 44 (or 48 whatever), the suspension bicycle would have died in its infancy. Sounds crazy, I know, but hear me out.

This is going to take just a little bit of physics, but its not going to be hard to follow I swear. Earlier, I mentioned gravity and anti-squat. You can’t have anti-squat without gravity. I’ll explain both briefly here.

Everyone reading this knows the feel of gravity. It’s acting on everyone on the planet Earth right now. Gravitational force is pulling you directly downward at the earth, right toward the core of the planet.

When you ride your bike on flat ground, gravity is pulling you toward the earth at a 90 degree angle to the ground. When you ride your bike uphill, say a 10 degree incline, gravity is pulling you toward the earth at a 100 degree angle to the ground. Gravity is still pulling straight through the center of the earth, but the angle of the ground has changed in relation to gravitational force. When you ride your bike downhill, say on a 10 degree decline, gravity is pulling you toward the earth at an 80 degree angle to the ground.

You might be asking yourself, “What exactly is “anti-squat”? Anti squat is a force that balances the effects of mass transfer on the suspension, giving the best possible bump compliance, while at the same time providing excellent energy efficiency. There are two forces that combine to create anti-squat; chain pull and driving force.

Chain pull force is multiplied through your rear cogs and wheel as a lever creating driving force. Because of this leverage, driving force is always the greater than chain pull force, but both are significant. If you hear someone talking about “chain pull force” without mentioning “driving force” in the next sentence, there is a good chance that they have a bridge to sell you somewhere.

OK, now for the tie in! The amount of anti-squat that a suspension can develop is based on (among other things) the angle of the ground that the bike is riding on and the angle of the chainline.

It just so happens that as a bike is climbing a hill, the amount of anti-squat drops because the direction of gravity in relation to the bike changes. What this means is that if you are pedalling along in your 32-18 on flat ground and have just the right amount of anti-squat, then start to climb a steep hill, say 15 degrees or so, the amount of anti-squat is going to lessen.

It just so happens that moving the chainline downward, say like if you selected your 22T ring, increases anti-squat. In an Apollo 13 like turn of events, people actually use their 22T ring when they climb hills as steep as 15 degrees (you basically have to). The two changing anti-squat amounts balance out, leaving the rider with very similar riding characteristics while climbing in the granny and riding on the flat in the middle ring. Amazing, huh? As you may have guessed, the same goes for descending with a larger ring.

Because of this, chainline variability made some very poorly designed suspension bikes that would have otherwise been unrideable at least reasonably useful enough that people eventually tinkered away and arrived at bikes that performed well enough for suspension to become a reality for the masses.

Variable front chainlines are ALWAYS going to be a good thing for mountain bikers who ride their bikes on variable terrains. Without them, suspension bikes might still be considered a bad idea, and I would most likely be riding motocross.

I design for optimization in the middle ring in the flats and light climbs, granny for the big climbs, and big ring for the descents. There is a lot of overlap there.

Variable rate suspension or constant rising rate?

DW: I’m assuming that you are talking about leverage rate. I have absolutely no idea why anyone who understands even the most rudimentary principles surrounding dampers would want to use a constant rising leverage rate suspension. That would offer no advantages whatsoever.

The answer is variable rate, and the possibilities within “variable rate” are endless.

Personally I design for wheel rate. Riders can expect that they will hear a lot more about that term through the cycling marketing machines in the next few years.

When I know shock spring rate curve shape and damper specifics, I can design for what the rider “feels” at the rear wheel, in the saddle, and in their feet. A rider can “feel” wheel rate when they ride, but a rider cannot “feel” leverage rate. I chuckle a little when I read marketing BS about leverage rates.

There is a trend for suspension uniformity within brands, but do bikes with different intended use benefit from being restricted to one suspension design?

DW: If the suspension design is one that is adaptable, then I think it can be a great benefit to use one system across the line. I keep relating things to dw-link because that is where most of my experience is, but with the dw-link design, there is a huge advantage to the position sensitive anti-squat across the boards. From XC to DH platforms, the benefits are the same.

Add to that the design’s incredible variability possible with leverage rates (and therefore wheel rates) and you have one system that can be optimized for a variety of cycling disciplines.

With other systems, that tunability is not there, and I think that is ultimately what is important. A suspension needs to be very tuneable and versatile to be used across cycling disciplines: what works on the trail for Sam Hill’s DH rig will not work for Ned Overend’s XC rig. My answer is that it depends on the suspension system being used.

Are there ideal amounts of travel for each application (XC, Trail, FR, DH)?

DW: I feel like the cycling industry as a whole is getting closer by trial and error. Complete bike weight and fork technology are the ultimate drivers right now, but realistically human ergonomics define a certain range of travels.

If we all were 5 meters tall with 2 meter long legs and could sustain 5KW continuous while pedalling, we would probably be riding more suspension travel.

Are new suspension designs driven by performance or marketing?

DW: Well, for me, it’s all about suspension performance, but then again, I have absolutely zero marketing budget. Think of how many dw-link ads you have seen in your life. Hah!

I am a guy in a 30 x 30 ft. workshop, so I don’t have too much time or money to spend on glitzy advertising campaigns. I basically have to make it work and make it work right, or racers won’t be winning and nobody is going to care.

I see your point though, I think that the majority of suspension bikes out there are sold on and driven by hype and advertising dollars, I would love to have that kind of marketing horsepower to back up something legitimate.

What is the biggest misconception about bicycle suspension?

DW: That you need it. The more time I spend on my hardtail, the faster I get on my DH bike. Sure, you need it to race, but if you want to corner like a champ and learn to control your bike, nothing beats the razor-like precision that a hardtail demands.

Do linkage suspension designs offer real benefits over single pivots?

DW: The benefits are enormous and numerous. There is no way around it.

If intellectual property didn’t exist, which rear suspension design would everyone use?

DW: From an absolute performance standpoint, I would be stunned if a great deal of people were not using dw-link. Actually, quite a few are today! The system offers levels of traction, control, and efficiency that have been the “marketing holy grail” for cycling companies since the beginning. I’m guessing that’s why so many riders are such strong advocates of the system.

Of course there are other reasons that companies choose suspensions—marketing, the name, a logo—in those cases, I’m not sure what the answer would be.

The reality is that you really have to not care to make a horrible bike, so whatever was the standard I would ride one because anything is better than nothing!

Why is it that a rearward axle path is often assumed to be better than a vertical or inward one?

DW: I have no idea. It must be one of those things that intuitively seems right to people. I think that people forget that your wheel acts like a big lever when it hits bumps and they don’t take the effect of the lever into account.

Axle paths don’t have as drastic of an effect on bump performance as people think, there are other overriding factors.

That’s a really complex question though, so I’m going to give a really short answer with no backup so as to keep this from being a physics dissertation. Bumps = rearward axle paths are not the worst. Cornering = rearward axle paths are not the best.

Can a good shock/tune compensate for a poor suspension design?

DW: A good shock tune can certainly mask a poor suspension design, but a great suspension design can really take advantage of a good shock tune.

Ideally, the only way to really dial in a suspension is to engineer the kinematics and spring/dampers together. 80-90% of my daily rides are on new shock tunes that I test from various suspension companies.

When I engineer the kinematics for a new suspension bike, the first phone call I make is to the shock companies. We talk about the design intent, the wheel rates that I want to achieve, and the valving strategies that would need to be employed.

Dw-link bikes use a position sensitive anti-squat response to balance out acceleration forces, so they use shock tunes that are quite a bit different than what most other bikes use. They can use a significant amount less low speed compression damping, so it’s a necessity that I work closely with the shock makers to get tunes dialled in.

Is suspension set-up and the array of adjustments currently on offer overly complex for the average rider?

DW: I think so. I mean, it’s no secret that most people don’t like instruction manuals and roadmaps. Look at how many GPS units are in cars nowadays, it’s just easier to get on the road and go!

Riders are constantly asking me to give them the hot setup for their shocks when we are out riding or at the races. The times are few and far between when people actually have their shocks set up correctly.

For someone like me, who wants to understand and use those adjustments to my benefit, I think that they are a good thing, but not everyone can use them to their benefit.

Case in point, a friend in the media told me this story that made me laugh. A few months ago, a bike company had a media camp where they had their new downhill bike platform matched up against an Iron Horse Sunday for comparison purposes. The bike company rode the Sunday with the incorrect dials turned on the shock for the entire weekend and then made performance comparisons to the ill-tuned bike!

If the “bike engineers” can’t tune a shock correctly, maybe there is too much going on. I try to engineer the systems that I put out there to take advantage of all shocks, low end to high end.

What does the future hold for mountain bike suspension?

DW: Electronics applied into semi-active suspensions can help make cycle suspensions just that little bit better, but I hope that the UCI bans batteries from cycling competition now rather than later.

Jean Christophe Charrier, Bos Engineering

What is the primary function of suspension on a mountain bike?

JC: As for any other vehicle, suspension has to offer: comfort and traction. Then geometry and suspension are linked, for example with the fork, where the same part acts on suspension but also steering. But that’s another story.

Can air sprung forks and shocks match the performance of coil sprung units, or are they just one size fits all, lightweight alternatives?

Currently, for DH, there is no doubt that coil is better. When it comes to XC or all mountain air becomes a best choice, because of the importance of the weight. It’s just a question of balance.

When you design a DH fork or shock function comes first. The weight is important, but the priority is a good damping system. If we make a cross-country fork, we will take care to have a very lightweight structure, with an air spring, then use a damping system according to the needs of XC use.

Currently you don’t find the same performance with air springs but we are investigating in this direction and our aim, when it is time for us to launch our first air sprung fork, will be to get as close as possible to coil springs in terms of behaviour. We are currently working on the first N’dee prototype for Nico, in both directions: coil and air.

Are comfort and control opposite sides of the same coin?

JC: Well people usually think that comfort and performance are opposite functions. And very often, when you try to set up a bike (or a car, or a motorbike…) you have to make the choice between one or the other.

At Bos we have two interesting examples that proves the contrary: 1st, we started working with Mitsubishi for Rallyraid, and got some good results quite fast. Then, improving step by step the shocks, we finally brought a very important evolution on the shocks, that increased the comfort, without losing performance.

In the end, comfort is also a part of performance, especially for these cars, when you have to drive for hours. Better comfort means that you are less tired, and it helps to keep pushing hard until the end of the stage. It was possibly the most important step in three years collaboration.

2nd : Nico is very demanding and has always asked for very comfortable suspension. For him, it’s the same thing even for a 3min race. If you can keep clear headed in the last third of the race, you will make less mistakes, so there must be almost no compromise.

Improving comfort on a performance basis is something that needs a lot of experience and takes a lot of time to develop. This is a great challenge, and I hope that we will make a big step ahead with Idylle Pro.

With massive variations in chain angle in relation to the pivot, how can any manufacturer claim to have optimum anything?

JC: Now, we just focus on shocks and forks, so I won’t tell you about bike design. Just one thing: variation in chain angle is not necessarily the main point for the pivot location!

Variable rate suspension or constant rising rate?

JC: Depends of the use of the bike. There is no Ideal Rule. Our job, is to make a shock that fits to the manufacturer’s choice in terms of bike design.

There is a trend for suspension uniformity within brands, but do bikes with different intended use benefit from being restricted to one suspension design?

JC: Sometimes bikes look similar due to shock location or use the same VPP system, but that doesn’t mean that there is no difference between the behaviour of the suspension. Just a small difference on a linkage can bring a very big difference in function.

The only way to design a bike is to think first about the use and how it has to handle. Then if the current suspension system existing on other bikes in the range is not able to provide what you are looking for, you must forget it.

But if you can get the right behaviour with something that looks like the other bikes, it brings identity to your brand, so, it’s normal to follow a shared appearance.

Are there ideal amounts of travel for each application (XC, Trail, FR, DH)?

JC: Today we could define the ideal travel for each use, but tomorrow it may be different. It depends of many things. Trends are linked very closely between bike geometry, damping quality and travel.

So with more damping in the fork, we can decrease the travel for DH, then get a more compact bike, with better handling, but this has to be followed by the right bike design in terms of geometry, head angle, bottom bracket height and rear suspension design. In the past five years the trend has been completely different.

This is what makes bike and suspension design interesting, the fact that nothing’s done for ever, and that everything is constantly acting on each other and evolving in suspension technology, brakes, tires, bike design and very important – riding.

Are new suspension designs driven by performance or marketing?

JC: Performance is our first and only aim. Performance is also our marketing argument. From the beginning of suspension there have always been people putting marketing first, and some looking for performance.

Now, with riders getting more experienced in suspension, it should be more difficult to sell fake systems.

What is the biggest misconception about bicycle suspension?

JC: There are so many misconceptions, and even more false use of technical words that bring misunderstanding. The first of which is the confusion between the role of the spring and the damper. In terms of bike design, it is the way that suspension and pedaling interact.

Do linkage suspension designs offer real benefits over single pivots?

JC: People are confused about single pivots because they see many connections on the whole rear triangle. But and the main thing is not single pivot Vs linkage, but main/or single pivot location.

If intellectual property didn’t exist, which rear suspension design would everyone use?

JC: The system itself is not the most important thing it is to follow your own way, and reach real efficiency. I like single pivot + linkage as a system. Sometimes systems are just names given to a particular way of designing a suspension, sometimes it’s just one detail of the whole design, which is raised to reach to a full system status.

This is the worst part of suspension design, when systems are mostly just marketing.

Why is it that a rearward axle path is often assumed to be better than a vertical or inward one?

JC: It can’t be assumed; it depends of the intended use of the bike.

Can a good shock/tune compensate for a poor suspension design?

JC: Definitely, but there is no miracle, even if you live close to Lourdes. Our job is to adapt our product to the bike design. Later, the bike design may evolve depending on the damping technology improvements, but at first, we have to get the best from the suspension design with a proper damping system.

Is suspension set-up and the array of adjustments currently on offer overly complex for the average rider?

JC: Marketing says that you need millions of setting. But it depends mostly on your knowledge, and your level of riding. It’s very complicated to set up suspension, you need a lot of experience and very few riders are able to understand how to set up a real three or four way damper.

Our philosophy is to bring to the customer what he needs in terms of settings. We already do it for cars or motorbikes, and often advise our customers to buy a cheaper shock, better suited to their settings skills.

For MTB, we have now a three-way rear shock, and the fork features three ways plus an adjustable hydraulic bump stop. We could make a four-way shock or fork, but it would be too complicated for the average riders. Also when I say settings, I mean ONLY hydraulic settings.

What does the future hold for mountain bike suspension?

JC: This is a secret!

Mick McAndrews, Specialized’s forks and shocks guru

What is the primary function of suspension on a mountain bike?

MM: When the wheel of a bike is suspended it will release into the travel upon bump impact. This allows the momentum of the rolling mass to continue rolling forward without interruption. This act alone significantly improves the rolling efficiency of a bicycle moving over rough terrain.

So properly set-up suspension allows both wheels to follow the terrain more accurately; greatly improving tire traction for cornering, braking and acceleration. The result being improved control and efficiency.

Can air sprung forks and shocks match the performance of coil sprung units, or are they just one size fits all, lightweight alternatives?

MM: I think both spring technologies have their place within the mountain bike application. If we look at both ends of the spectrum, we can see why air springs make sense for an XC race application and why big hit riders prefer the performance of the coil.

The categories in the middle (XC Trail and All Mtn.) are a harder call because the preferences of these rider’s are pretty broad. I think the rider’s preferences for these categories are driven by the rider’s perspective (values: climbing vs. descending) and geographical concerns.

I always look at spring curves in 3 sections.

The first section is the initial rate (and curve) that helps maintain the proper ride height and small bump release of the component.

The second section is the bump zone, the middle 40% of the travel that we use the most for absorbing bumps in the trail.

Section 3 is the last 30% of the travel that is needed to slow down and ultimately stop the suspension at the end of the travel. Basically, control bottom-out.

The coil spring performs really well in sections 1&2 as we’re able to accurately set ride height and balance the release point of the component with the spring rate and pre-load. Also, the linear spring curve through the bump zone (section2) allows for the best use of travel. The linear spring rate of a coil spring has a very consistent (predictable) feel as the loads increase.

Where the coil spring has its weakness is the last 30% of the travel. Although I really like the linearity through the bump zone of the travel, the lack of progression in the spring rate can make it difficult to stop the suspension from bottoming abruptly at the end of the travel.

To prevent this, most good coil shocks will have a secondary system that will add either more spring rate (jounce bumper) or more damping force (position sensitive damping) to assist the coil from harsh bottoming.

The attributes I like most about air springs are the lightweight, range of adjustability and the progressive rate at the end of the stroke. Within the bicycle industry, we have developed air spring technology that helps sections 1 & 2 behave like a coil spring but they still don’t have true linearity and that can be felt in longer travel applications especially in the bump zone as the rate tends to be a little flat.

Are comfort and control opposite sides of the same coin?

MM: They can be. An extremely soft, non damped suspension system can be quite comfortable to a point; but can actually be detrimental to the handling characteristics of the bike when the trail conditions become extreme and/or speeds increase.

Conversely; a suspension set-up that would allow a world class DS rider to get through the gates and over the jumps with speed would probably be too firm for a Marathon rider to use in an extended event.

With massive variations in chain angle in relation to the pivot, how can any manufacturer claim to have optimum anything?

MM: Frame designer do find optimization from their designs within a given zone of gear selection and points of the wheel travel. The better frame designs have a much broader sweet spot for optimization and the smarter design teams know how to tailor these designs to better utilize their technology for the intended use.

Variable rate suspension or constant rising rate?

MM: It is somewhat dependant on the application but basically I prefer a constant rising rate (linear rate) for the first 70% of the travel and the variable rate (progressive rate) for the last 30%

There is a trend for suspension uniformity within brands, but do bikes with different intended use benefit from being restricted to one suspension design?

MM: I think they are restricted. I feel one of the best opportunities to advance mtn. bike designs going forward will be in the development of frame and suspension technologies specific for the intended use.

For sure there will be some carry over between categories, but when uniformity is driven by supply and manufacturing pressures, the end product and ultimately the rider experience will suffer.

Are there ideal amounts of travel for each application (XC, Trail, FR, DH)?

MM: I think there is and I believe this is driven somewhat by rider position. As we all know, the rider’s CG has a major influence with regard to stability and handling. Basically, the lower the rider’s weight the better.

Most of the big hit type riders run very low seat heights not because they get better power but because with that much wheel travel (150mm +) you have to compromise your saddle position to get proper handling. I think because of this, there will be a limit to XC travel (an XC racer will never give up his power position).

Are new suspension designs driven by performance or marketing?

MM: Within our industry there are companies that are truly driven by being the leaders of innovation. I know first hand these companies are driven by the advancement of technology for the sole purpose of improving the experience.

What is the biggest misconception about bicycle suspension?

MM: It used to be that it was less efficient than a rigid frame but I’m pretty sure we’ve busted that myth!

Do linkage suspension designs offer real benefits over single pivots?

MM: Yes, even if you take the pedalling efficiency component out of the equation, using multiple pivots allows for a structure that is lighter and torsionally stiffer than any single pivot design. Also, when done correctly, a linkage system will greatly reduce or eliminate any side loading to the shock.

If intellectual property didn’t exist, which rear suspension design would everyone use?

MM: FSR technology with inertia valve dampers (I’m a little biased!)

Why is it that a rearward axle path is often assumed to be better than a vertical or inward one?

MM: The trajectory of the rear wheel has an effect on the forward momentum of the rolling mass. If the trajectory causes the wheelbase of the bike to shorten, then the rear suspension, when activated, is actually pulling the front half of the bike (and the rider’s mass) backwards as it absorbs bumps.

This event is so subtle that most of us don’t feel it but it does “scrub off” speed. The rearward path is the best at eliminating this, but has a different set of issues when it comes to chain length, during pedalling and bump absorption.

Can a good shock/tune compensate for a poor suspension design?

MM: Most definitely, a good shock tuner/designer can manipulate spring rates, spring curves and damping rates to compensate for deficiencies of a frame design. Conversely, a shock set up incorrectly can ruin the performance of even the best frame design.

Is suspension set-up and the array of adjustments currently on offer overly complex for the average rider?

MM: They can be but I do think these adjustments are needed to ensure the best performance for a given rider’s ability as well as their given geographical terrain.

I tell people this all the time; if you’re serious about your riding, take the time to learn how these adjustments work. They are there to help you find the best possible set-up; learn how to use them effectively.

What does the future hold for mountain bike suspension?

MM: A new generation of very efficient mountain bikes (lighter, stronger and better pedalling) through the use of design integration.

Steve Wade, founder of Orange Bikes

What is the primary function of suspension on a mountain bike?

SW: To make the sport more fun. I started mountain biking when all bikes were rigid, we’ve moved on a long way since then.

Can air sprung forks and shocks match the performance of coil sprung units, or are they just one size fits all, lightweight alternatives?

SW: For extreme riding and for DH racing, a coil shock will outperform an air shock. For XC racing, air forks have to be good, but for us in between air shocks are also good. They are lighter and the spring weight can be set up easily and accurately. I haven’t yet found an air fork that works anything like a coil fork.

Are comfort and control opposite sides of the same coin?

SW: They are one and the same; a bike can be comfortable and can be set up to ride well.

With massive variations in chain angle in relation to the pivot, how can any manufacturer claim to have optimum anything?

SW: There is no optimum, its all a matter of opinion. Most XC bikes have pivots behind the BB with short chainstays making the bike look like a hardtail. I prefer the pivot in front of the BB, the stays swing through a bigger radius and the chain can be used to help climbing, but with two or three chainrings, there can’t be an optimum.

Variable rate suspension or constant rising rate?

SW: Constant rising rate.

There is a trend for suspension uniformity within brands, but do bikes with different intended use benefit from being restricted to one suspension design?

SW: No.

Are there ideal amounts of travel for each application (XC, Trail, FR, DH)?

SW: No, these travel amounts have been made up by the industry to categories riding styles and I don’t agree with it.

Are new suspension designs driven by performance or marketing?

SW: New things help sell bikes, however designers are still working on new design concepts or modifications without being prodded by marketing bollocks

What is the biggest misconception about bicycle suspension?

SW: That a link will improve the way a suspension system works. Links can provide a function, but the majority of times they will compromise a more simple design.

Do linkage suspension designs offer real benefits over single pivots?

SW: Most times no.

If intellectual property didn’t exist, which rear suspension design would everyone use?

SW: Elevated single pivot swing arm design.

Why is it that a rearward axle path is often assumed to be better than a vertical or inward one?

SW: I don’t know.

Can a good shock/tune compensate for a poor suspension design?

SW: The suspension and the shock should be as one and rarely are.

Is suspension set-up and the array of adjustments currently on offer overly complex for the average rider?

SW: Definitely.

What does the future hold for mountain bike suspension?

SW: Hopefully it will become simpler, more reliable and less fashion led. Also, the quality of the travel and the frame geometry will be more important than the quantity of travel.

David Earle, independent design consultant, Sotto Design

What is the primary function of suspension on a mountain bike?

DE: I think that the goal of suspension is consistent with the universal goal of designing anything for bicycles, it is to enhance the experience of riding, that is, be able to ride faster and longer over more challenging terrain, thus allowing the rider to push further into the riding experience.

Can air sprung forks and shocks match the performance of coil sprung units, or are they just one size fits all, lightweight alternatives?

DE: Air sprung forks can and do match the performance of coil sprung units. However rear shocks are a little different. The real issue is that the air volume of the shock is limited compared to a fork, and makes the spring curve ramp up at the end of the stroke.

Another issue for long travel air shocks in use on DH bikes is that the heat from the damper changes the spring rate during a run.

Are comfort and control opposite sides of the same coin?

DE: Comfort and control should go hand in hand, that is, the ultimate bike is comfortable and provides a high level of control.

If a system moves the rear wheel in response to bumps well, generally that means that less bump force is transferred to the rider and at the same time the wheel is in contact with the ground longer, thus, more comfort and more control.

It is possible to have a bike that is comfortable to ride to a point, but when pushed it lacks control. The goal is to connect the rider to the trail and not interfere with his complete control of that situation at that exact instant… instant to instant…

With massive variations in chain angle in relation to the pivot, how can any manufacturer claim to have optimum anything?

DE: Marketing of course! I think in our industry there is a lot of mixed up physics and engineering ideas. Further, what is optimum for one rider or riding style is not optimum for another.

My company works for many different brands, thus many different systems. The first question we ask when someone wants us to design a suspension frame is “what is your favourite bike and why?” Actually we ask for several.

Then we do pretty detailed study of those systems and their subsystems and understand, in the engineering sense, what those bikes are doing and what it is about those bikes that that person likes (and dislikes). Then we tailor the new design to be optimal for that person (typically the owner or product manager of the company).

If that person loves the bike when it is done, he will believe it is the best bike in the world and will happily and truthfully tell others that, and that sells bikes.

Variable rate suspension or constant rising rate?

DE: Variable, I like swoopy graphs, they look cool. Honestly, I am primarily a frame designer, and I think that there are a lot of benefits to being able to really tune the rate of the system (shock guys might argue with that).

Different areas (depths) of the travel have different purposes and factors that effect them, thus need to work with the shock differently…

There is a trend for suspension uniformity within brands, but do bikes with different intended use benefit from being restricted to one suspension design?

DE: If I owned a bike company I would love to use a different suspension design for each category of riding because the different systems really can provide benefits to certain travels and riding applications.

Are there ideal amounts of travel for each application (XC, Trail, FR, DH)?

DE: I bet if you could make a 8” travel bike that weighed 20lbs and had pedal response like a hardtail the XC riders would ride it for sure, actually, the DH guys would probably ride it too…

Are new suspension designs driven by performance or marketing?

DE: The most successful are driven by both. I think Santa Cruz and Specialized are prime examples of this.

My goal is and always will be to push performance of bicycles to higher levels. My goal is to allow the rider to experience things in new and better ways than in the past, to do things that they could not before because the equipment limited them.

If everyone in the industry concentrated on this instead of marketing mediocre design, we would be a lot farther ahead in many ways.

What is the biggest misconception about bicycle suspension?

DE: There are two.

People think bicycle suspension is very similar to motorcycle suspension. While there are similarities in some cases they are two really very different birds. I think motorcycle science is pretty well sussed out; bicycle science is a lot less understood and a lot more susceptible to gimmicks and hype.

I believe that the system of the suspension bicycle is also a lot more difficult to figure out. The motor on a motorcycle is a very predictable machine, the motor on a suspension bike is about the most unpredictable machine imaginable.

Further, the rider to machine mass relationship on a suspension bike makes the suspension dependant on the rider, again, a very unpredictable variable.

Secondly that there is a magic bullet. Anyone who claims that there is one single thing that makes their suspension better, that only they have, feels they have a better understanding than anyone else of what is going on, or thinks they have it all figured out, is doing a disservice to the progress of the sport. I think that all of us should strive to keep learning and improving.

Do linkage suspension designs offer real benefits over single pivots?

DE: Absolutely and without question…. they also offer real disadvantages. Think about it this way, but keep in mind that the more complexity you add, the more likely you will have problems with service, the higher the cost, the harder to manufacture….

Single pivot: limited control of shock and wheel parameters.

Single pivot with shock linkage: high control of shock parameters, limited control of wheel parameters.

Linkage: high control of shock and wheel parameters.

If intellectual property didn’t exist, which rear suspension design would everyone use?

DE: Intellectual property is an interesting thing in the bike business. When you get deep into the web of patents and technology that exists and deep into what is happening in all the different systems you see that most all patents are being violated by someone else, and most all patents have prior art.

Even so, patents are a deterrent for sure, it is really complex. If it didn’t exist it would allow engineers much more freedom to really fine tune systems.

Nowadays getting around all the patents is really tough, if you could mix this patented shock rate with that patented IC migration and that patented travel path you could really come up with something pretty fantastic.. As it is now, it’s tough, very tough.

Why is it that a rearward axle path is often assumed to be better than a vertical or inward one?

DE: Well according to the studies I have read and the testing we have done rearward axle path allows the wheel to go over bumps a little smoother and it also provides for some chain growth.

That said chain growth provides for some corrective force when pedalling that helps cancel out pedal bob.

The problem is, rearward movement gives you pedal feedback and, if it is too much, will cause the bike to inchworm when you pedal hard.

Can a good shock/tune compensate for a poor suspension design?

DE: Absolutely, the guys at Fox are miracle workers, BUT, the goal is 100% best performance possible, thus you need to give the shock guys something great to work with, then they can tune the shock easily and perfectly. Then you will have a great riding bike.

For example if a suspension bike bobs a lot you can increase the compression dampening to compensate, however when you do this you will lose good bump feel. Better to design the suspension right to minimize bob, and allow the shock to use a proper amount of compression dampening, which in turn will allow it to do the rest of its job correctly.

Is suspension set-up and the array of adjustments currently on offer overly complex for the average rider?

DE: It is overly complex for me.. BUT.. I think that it has its place for getting every ounce of performance out of the machine in competition, and for the bike-o-philes that can feel every little thing that is happening under them, and for those who need to blame something else for getting to the bottom of the hill last… (-; …

What does the future hold for mountain bike suspension?

DE: I can answer this question but I will have to ask all of your readers to sign a non disclosure first…

Think electronics…

Think no front derailleur.. (front derailleurs are a suspension designers nightmare).

Think about voice activated, on the fly, suspension tuning (don’t think about your buddy yelling “LOCKOUT” when you hit that big drop).

Maybe some safety bubbles for crashing like in the new Speed Racer movie (that is what I want).

Think about interactive front and rear suspension.

The bicycle is really unlike any other vehicle, and it is living in an old old body in a world that has seen incredible technological advancements. I think, some smart guy at some point is going to think of something that completely changes things.

David Turner, Turner Bikes

What is the primary function of suspension on a mountain bike?

DT: Traction, control and comfort.

Can air sprung forks and shocks match the performance of coil sprung units, or are they just one size fits all, lightweight alternatives?

DT: If performance is gauged by Lake District rocks or downhill racing, then no, air does not perform as well as coils.

On a XC bike grinding up moderately rough climbs or smooth forest single track then yes, air performs as well as coil.

There is no denying that air is way lighter than metal so lighter weight can be “performance” as well. If the leverage ratio is high enough the stiction of air shocks is easily overcome for most riders to be happy with air most of the time.

Are comfort and control opposite sides of the same coin?

DT: Ones suspension can give the vehicle considerable control yet not provide ‘comfort’ as the word is defined.

With massive variations in chain angle in relation to the pivot, how can any manufacturer claim to have optimum anything?

There are gear combinations that work better than others on any given bicycle suspension design.

Variable rate suspension or constant rising rate?

DT: I like more leverage at the start of travel for plushness on small bumps and less leverage at the end of travel for more resistance to bottoming.

There is a trend for suspension uniformity within brands, but do bikes with different intended use benefit from being restricted to one suspension design?

DT: If there is a benefit to being restricted to one design it would be that the designers and engineers become very familiar with the idiosyncrasies of that design and are able to increase performance through familiarity.

Are there ideal amounts of travel for each application (XC, Trail, FR, DH)?

DT: Absolutely! And whatever I write today may be outdated next week!

Are new suspension designs driven by performance or marketing?

DT: Both of course, depends on who you talk to.

What is the biggest misconception about bicycle suspension?

DT: That all Horst link suspension does this… And all mini links are that… And all single pivots are this…. and finally if it looks like an egg therefore if cracked a raw egg will pour out.

Do linkage suspension designs offer real benefits over single pivots?

DT: There are links both Horst style and mini link style that function almost identically to raised single pivots.

If intellectual property didn’t exist, which rear suspension design would everyone use?

DT: Hopefully whatever the designers and engineers knew how to make the best bike with.

Why is it that a rearward axle path is often assumed to be better than a vertical or inward one?

DT: Because the bike is travelling forward. Of course a completely rearward axle path is not the holy grail of suspension, just ask anyone that has ripped a rear mech off at full travel.

Can a good shock/tune compensate for a poor suspension design?

DT: Custom tuning can certainly improve any suspension, good or bad. The variables of customers and terrain are almost infinite, so getting a shock ‘tuned’ to the rider, terrain and bike will certainly ride better.

To the point, no a crap bike cannot be made fantastic by sending the shock to PUSH, improved yes, transformed no.

Is suspension set-up and the array of adjustments currently on offer overly complex for the average rider?

DT: Almost every Turner rider has had several different brands before they get a Turner so I don’t consider my customers average. They are usually quite experienced, but there are still questions to be answered, especially when one suspension adjustment overlaps another.

Just wait ‘till we have high AND low speed compression damping like many of the motocross models do! I am dizzy thinking about it.

What does the future hold for mountain bike suspension?

DT If I knew the future I would have invested heavily in Microsoft and be riding my bike more!

Joe Graney, head of engineering at Santa Cruz Bicycles

What is the primary function of suspension on a mountain bike?

JG: I like having suspension on bikes because it’s more comfortable, and because it gives greater control on certain terrain which can allow one to go faster.

It also makes jumping (and landing) a lot more enjoyable, and spares your body quite a bit.

On DH applications, the types of challenging terrain that one can get through, at speed, is pretty exciting. So, uh, faster and more fun, spares some aches and pains. This isn’t a very technical answer, but it pretty much boils it down.

Can air sprung forks and shocks match the performance of coil sprung units, or are they just one size fits all, lightweight alternatives?

JG: For certain applications, on short travel bikes, I prefer certain air shocks (the tune and volume and quality of the shock has to be right), but bigger travel stuff I’ve never been able to get a long travel air shock that was quite as good as coil.

Right around 6 or 7 inches it seems to make a switch. But air shocks and forks are practical as well, they are easier to adjust and spring rate characteristics can be changed.

On forks, typically coils feel much better, although the Lyrik Solo Air is my favourite fork right now, so there goes that. I think they are damn close, but it requires getting a specific good component, as not all the designs from any manufacturer are good. There are not many short travel coils anymore either, so the market apparently made that decision for certain applications already…

Are comfort and control opposite sides of the same coin?

JG: Well, theoretically, the technical answer is that comfort and traction (not control) are opposed characteristics.

But the boring but correct answer is that there’s a happy balance, if your bike shook you like crazy but the wheels stayed glued to the ground, you’d have a fucker of a time descending anything with your vision shaking all over the place.

Your shaking arms and hands probably wouldn’t do a good job on the brakes or with shifting either. You’d have brain damage in a few years of mountain biking, you’d lose your job and your girlfriend would leave you.

But if you have a bike that “floats”, where reaction to bumps was to get the wheels off the ground (can’t get much more comfortable of a ride than when wheels aren’t on the ground), then your ability to control the machine turning, braking or accelerating would obviously be diminished.

Finding a happy place is what we aim to do on each model.

With massive variations in chain angle in relation to the pivot, how can any manufacturer claim to have optimum anything?

JG: Companies make these claims because most magazines reprint anything they are told, and consumers then read it and many believe the claims.

This is a loaded question, the kind I can write a book on. A book nobody would ever want to read. A mega rant of epic proportions.

What about bi-ovalized tubes, are they really stiffer at the head-tube AND the bottom bracket? That’s amazing!

Are curved seat-stays really good at providing “comfort, but are extremely stiff laterally?”

Is anything that uses hydraulic fluid anywhere on the machine considered hydro-forming?

If a “rearward axle path” allows the bike to go over objects faster when compressing, wouldn’t the rebound slow the bike down again?

How can someone claim a shock that “is actuated from both ends helps to overcome seal stiction?” Are Newton’s laws not valid in bicycle design, or is it simply bicycle marketing? Oh wait, that’s another question. Sorry.

Variable rate suspension or constant rising rate?

JG: Big question there, but I can’t really write an answer that long. Depends on the application, the shock being used, and the ability of the mechanism at hand to achieve your goals.

You also can have a nice suspension (like our V10) with a rising rate that isn’t a constant rate. But then we gotta get into derivatives, which is kinda geeky.

Basically though, most mechanisms give a fairly constant rate, so most people are either going to say flat or rising, because falling much doesn’t work so good

There is a trend for suspension uniformity within brands, but do bikes with different intended use benefit from being restricted to one suspension design?

JG: Hey, everyone’s got their little thing to deal with, but sometimes you just feel comfortable with a particular design, you can do the manufacturing the same.

This might be a huge one for some folks because it’s more up to their Asian factory than it is to them remember. It’s more work to figure out another platform, and it can also be confusing for customers.

People tend to like to think of one company, one suspension. And maybe thirty or forty acronyms.

There are some companies out there that seem like they are just throwing darts with every new model. Maybe that’s good, maybe it’s not, but that’s for the marketers to decide.

Are there ideal amounts of travel for each application (XC, Trail, FR, DH)?

JG: What kind of loaded question is that? Here’s my side-step: Yes, the riders decide what’s ideal for their use.

Are new suspension designs driven by performance or marketing?

JG: You mean just at Santa Cruz Bicycles, right? I think Mike would attest to the fact that he has damn close to zero point zero input on product development – unless, as on the Stigmata – he knows a lot about cross bikes and gets consulted as a rider and racer. He gets to ride the prototypes and mules just as anyone at SCB can and give feedback.

Billy, as product manager, gets to weigh in on design, but we don’t allow decision making for arbitrary reasons.

We build prototypes or design tests or do analysis and gather data. We then evaluate the data into a comprehensible set of results and make decisions based on that. The process starts because we want to improve a model, because we can, and we employ people who do that. I think we’re one of those weird bike companies like that.

We have several talented engineers, and a support crew of techs, machinists and fabricators and we try to do things the right way. “Figure out the best way, and let’s do that” is an example of something Roskopp would say that actually means hundreds of hours of work to just get through one decision.

What is the biggest misconception about bicycle suspension?

JG: Chicks will dig you because of your new bike. They don’t care dude, shut up about bikes or you’ll never get laid.

Do linkage suspension designs offer real benefits over single pivots?

JG: Absolutely. We make both though, so we’re not haters.

If intellectual property didn’t exist, which rear suspension design would everyone use?

JG: I think there would continue to be a variety used, since nobody would be able to “prove” that one worked best, and that would be more of a marketing approach.

Automotive and other motor-sports still have different suspension designs and components even though many of the mechanisms aren’t under patent protection. It might make things even crazier!

Why is it that a rearward axle path is often assumed to be better than a vertical or inward one?

JG: I believe that this is because it is easy to conceptualize how this is true in your mind. It’s unfortunate because it’s not better.

Or maybe it’s because the answer is different at some companies. Or maybe it’s because the bike industry is incestuous. Hmmm.

Maybe it’s because some people never got jobs where they actually had to know something before they worked at a bike company, or maybe it’s because people barely made it through Physics 101 and can’t do the math anymore.

Maybe because of the same reasons that journalists re-write it – because there isn’t enough time to figure out the real answer and the pay scale is too low to attract and retain talent.

Can a good shock/tune compensate for a poor suspension design?

JG: It can certainly help, and a bad shock tune can wreck a good design. Just set-up alone can make or break bikes. I mean, if you run your shock at 50% sag, then you might not think a bike has good small bump sensitivity…

Is suspension set-up and the array of adjustments currently on offer overly complex for the average rider?

JG: I found checking out different bikes at our Blur LT launch in January that it’s overly complex for the average journalist!

So yes, it’s the reason we don’t offer adjustable suspension, adjustable geometry, and why we try to steer people toward less adjusto shocks.

But here we go again – marketing and the media push the bling, and bling means more and more knobs and tweakiness. Maybe if people made it so that less adjustments was more expensive we could get around it.

“It costs more because we adjusted it for you”. Got a nice ring to it.

What does the future hold for mountain bike suspension?

JG: I’d say that we’re going to run out of acronyms pretty soon, but we’ll be really excited to have ABP, EVO, E2, DW, FACT, DOPE, and the EIEIO.

For suspension components themselves, I’ll bet people start following Specialized, and try to wring out more profit instead of giving it to Bob (Fox)– or at least more “exclusives” and co-branding.

That may lead to the inability to switch parts back and forth, so then there’ll be less of the custom build, and more of a stock set-up, and a proliferation of sizes and styles of the super best radness you can imagine so that you can’t find a replacement unless you buy it from the company who sold it to you.

Also as China’s standard of living increases, so will prices for many goods, especially with the dramatic rise in material and energy costs over the last 36 months.

That sort of big price increase might slow some of the product development a bit, as newer and better products tend to become more labor reliant, since eke-ing out grams makes processing times longer.

Pedal good, squish good, turn good, no breaky. If we got those four down, I’ll be pretty happy.