Top

Sevo’s Crystal Ball #1: Suspension

Ah it’s always a joy to go online and see what people think should be next and why. More often than not, many predictions though of what the arm-chair engineers think will be next are whatever they think will get the most “likes” or “me too’s” to make their work day go faster.

There are a few predictions and naysaying from the peanut gallery I’d like to put in real world perspective for all.

Suspension: I want XYZ fork or XYZ company to make a version of their squish in a fat bike.

My first thought in my head is what tire pressure these guys are running? Second if they reached said tire pressure by personally trying to perform CPR on their Presta valves. After that, I breath a few times and this is what I think about…your tire is really a 1000 little springs already. If it’s too harsh, let out some more air just like you would with suspension forks and such. Boohyah. Extra squish…and extra traction. I’m 235lbs and I’ve been pretty happy doing just this.

I do however see suspension having it’s place…just not how we typically see it. Key thing you have to realize is that you are rolling on a 1000 little springs that are going to be really hard to dampen in rebound. Add into the mix that suspension typically helps you go a lot faster and we now get more bouncy bounce from the tires. Get going fast enough and, well, now you are going to be loosing more control than you gain from any current suspension design.

Bummer huh?

That said, I do predict we’ll see someone in the US come up with a 50mm-65mm travel fork. (german: A are already playing around with fat bike suspension in Europe with their FLAME fork as used by Sandman fat bikes in Belgium!) And in the rear, something like a Moots YBB or the old Ibis Silk ti. Both would be enough to take the edge off the trail as well as lesson the uncontrollable rebound of those 1000 little springs on each wheel we generally lump in under the term “tires”. I’m sure the fork will come first…maybe one or two companies by May or June. Perhaps will see the old Maverick single crown come back around even with a shorter travel option.

This is not to say someone won’t try a 100mm, 130mm, or even a 150mm fork. Or try to make one on their own. But really, in the end, you are just adding weight and complexity to a bike that is already pretty heavy…and the joy of riding it is the simplicity of it.

As far as rear suspension? Many current designs actually already have issues trying to be adapted to 29ers. Ibis stating that trying to get the DW link design to adapt to a 29er the way they wanted is no marketing BS. Santa Cruz didn’t jump into a 29er right away for similar reasons. I was in Hurricane post Interbike I was sitting around drinking beer when someone asked Noel of Knolly Bikes when he was going to do a 29er…same thing, he didn’t see an easy way to adapt the design to a 29er because of the various dymanics of the extra 3″ to the diameter of the wheel. Citing things like wheel flex, lengthening of the chain stays, pivot locations, and change in load dynamics (note: I was 4 beers in, I’m not quoting word for word here) made it tough.

In each of those cases, you have a HUGE market for the 29er and it takes companies time to adapt a design as well as put aside precious dollars towards the R&D. However, fat bikes pose new problems on top of those already encountered adapting a 26″ design to a 29er ┬ájust in physical wheel size. Not to mention, we have a new factor suspension designers have never really never had before…trying to control the near uncontrollable rebound of those 1000 little springs on each wheel in relation to your suspension design. It’s tough enough to get people to understand sag, now tell people you’ll have to most likely do a fancy math equation made up of your own body weight (which will mean weighing yourself in full gear…and not on your wife’s scale), what your tire pressure is on your fatties (I only recently bought a gauge that properly tells the PSI…nearly all bike pumps/gauges won’t work at the low PSI we run on fat-bikes), and then figure out the shock pressure.

Yeah….just ride rigid.

Suspension isn’t all mechanical shocks though. I for one am looking forward to ditching my alloy bar for something like a Moots ti handlebar (or the Thomson which is not far away from real world purchasability) or throw on a carbon bar. Keep it wide to help take the edge off. I threw on an ENVE riser on my 6″ travel dual squish and it helped that take off the stutter bumps quite a bit. I also honestly think that a lot of what Jeff Jones has been tinkering with over the last 4-5 years will play heavily into fat bike “suspension” in the future. Had a nice long chat with him a month or so ago on the phone. Talked briefly about his love of big fat tires up front and pivot less suspension. It all made sense. And in the future, I have a feeling his wild and crazy designs may not seem so wild and crazy in our fat bike world.

In the end, undoubtedly, suspension will come and go. Its’ inevitable. Vitamin G is well used in the world of bikes. It’s sure to spawn some whacky stuff. But my feeling is we’ll find other things to worry about and spend money on that will make more sense. Like lightening up our wheels. But that my friends, will be for another day….

Sevo

9 Responses to Sevo’s Crystal Ball #1: Suspension

  1. djonnymac December 26, 2011 at 9:29 am #

    if it’s just ride harshness someone wanted to get rid of I suppose they could go with a suspension seat post. but as a totally rigid 29er rider who thinks of his Pugs as the closest he’ll ever get to dual suspension, I agree, let those 1000 little springs do the work. those things are magical!
    but it will be interesting to see what smaller companies and garage engineers will come up with to address this and other fat bike possibilities in the future.

  2. Jerry December 26, 2011 at 5:41 pm #

    Fatbike….front suspension…Moots YBB?

    Here’s one excellent example: http://forums.mtbr.com/8382951-post105.html

  3. Sevo December 27, 2011 at 1:01 pm #

    Djonnymac-Yep I see a resurgence in suspension posts possible. I actually have a small stash of the old Rock Shox suspension posts. Loved them. I also see thef ti posts as well as the new carbon posts from Syntace and Niner that factor in flex in the design.

    Yep we’re sure to see someone try to do a 5″ travel fat bike. But it’s silly. Smart designers will start with new designs or learn the dynamics of fat bike tires. To those people, I highly suggest memorizing the MIT Press Gem “Bicycle Sciecne” bit on tires and such before you start welding stuff.

    Jerry-Yep doesn’t surprise me MC has such a rig. I don’t know him, but we think along the same lines except I disagree with DH type 29er rigs. The rest, yep. Thanks for sharing the pic….I like his setup and this is exactly what I’m envisioning aside from the long travel fork, but you work with what we have at this stage.

  4. MG December 27, 2011 at 4:40 pm #

    I concur Sevo… A little damped squish to compliment the undamped squish would be mui bueno.

  5. Boomking December 27, 2011 at 8:26 pm #

    Ha…just added a Origin8 air shock post to my Muk-A-luka! Hammering my favorite xc single track for three hours was hurting my old slipped disc injury last weekend. I also have a RED rockshock seat post to try out! I was thinking a ti fork in the front would be the ticket. A ti bar, with ti stem (I am on a low carbon diet) might take some buzz off as well. Ohh the ergon grips are the bomb. I think the cork ones would be great ESP. In the cold.

  6. Gary December 28, 2011 at 7:38 am #

    I would like to see other companies get into the fat tire market. Conti and Kenda have great tread designs. I’m curious as to how some side knobs would affect the 1,000 little springs.

  7. Tommy December 28, 2011 at 2:31 pm #

    I predict the glorious return of the Girvin Flex-stem…………….NAAAAHT!

  8. Sevo December 29, 2011 at 1:32 pm #

    MG-Thanks.

    Boomking-Sure…just had to tease me that you had one of the rare red Rock Shox posts. I live in RS R&D Mecca…no one has one. Jealous. And yes….Ti goodies i see making a come back big time for fat bikes. Just plain makes sense.

    Gary-I would too but here is the problem: Making tires ain’t cheap. I approached a certain Japanese tire company few years ago to bring back a certain tread. Cost? $10k just for the mold…and that has a certain live cycle. Top in minimum orders. You have $30-$50k worth of tires you need to sell. Also….a lot of your favorite treads don’t make sense on the big tires. It’s a different game. I do see some of the low profile “racer” type treads coming around for these soon….and in narrower tires by Interbike.

    Tommy-Actually those weren’t as bad as everyone wanted to make them sound. I knew a guy who could kick most people’s buts on a to Girvin flexstem/bar combo with bar end shifters and road bar wrap. Was a sweet setup I wanted to try but could not afford too.

    Softride stems ruled the Midwest for a while and for good reason…they worked. Believe 3-4 World MTB championships were won on them as well. Only reason they aren’t around really is marketing and for many that strayed away from racing there was not enough travel. They’d be great for today’s 29er/carbon fork/carbon bar racer geek crowd now and suiting for a fat bike. Sadly…the two I have are a bit long for my fat bike. And well one is a quill

  9. VeloBike December 30, 2011 at 8:08 am #

    Every time I think of suspension, I remember the bounce in the fat tyres. It seems to me we’ll need a new design in fat tyres to go with suspension, ie low profile to minimise the volume but still spread the tyre for flotation.

    As the bounce is only a problem at speed, which with me only happens on steep downhills, I figure I’ll stick with the existing setup which is much lighter – it’s heavy enough as is.

    I vaguely remember some research on limiting tyre bounce on motorbike tyres about 40 years ago, but since then low profile has come in for them.