High pivot suspension is here to stay. It's a design that's steadily becoming more popular on everything from downhill bikes to trail bikes. Recently Norco overhauled their 125 mm travel
Optic with a high pivot and idler suspension layout. In his review, Dario noted that " It truly does offer impressive descending characteristics for a bike with such short travel. Those benefits aren't without tradeoffs though, as the climbing won't be as snappy and energetic as other short travel bikes, and the extra faff of the idler pulley might turn some off."
At the same time, World Cup Downhill races are hardly dominated by high-pivot bikes. At the opening round in Fort William, three out of five of the elite men's podium were on low-pivot bikes; in the elite women's category, the top two finishers were on low-pivot bikes (albeit with a non-essential idler in Vali's case - by high-pivot, I mean a bike that requires an idler for the suspension to function properly). It was a similar story in the juniors. More to the point,
Neko Mulally tested both high- and low-pivot prototypes extensively, and seems to have settled on low-pivot for his Frameworks DH racing team. Of course, this doesn't prove low-pivot bikes are faster, but it suggests high-pivots aren't the game-changing advantage some make them out to be.
A test we conducted revealed that an idler pulley robs around 2% of a rider's power output (with a clean and lubed chain); this isn't a dealbreaker for downhill, but is at least worthy of consideration for enduro and trail riding. Idlers also add complexity and servicing requirements. The noise of the chain running over the idler can be noticeable too, especially if the chain gets dry or dirty, at which point the noise (and presumably the drag) gets steadily worse.
I'm not saying these downsides are the end of the world but there should be a clear performance benefit to offset them. There are benefits on certain terrains, but I'm not convinced I have more fun or ride any faster overall when descending on a high-pivot bike.
What do you think? Which categories of bikes should be rocking a high-pivot and idler suspension system?
I think Emil Johansson's Trek Session, and Cam Zink's Devinci Spartan were two of them.
I am reminded of old king fu movies where they say “my style is the best”
The current answers and question REQUIRE too many assumptions.
But I somewhat agree that the most important thing is that the wheelbase is around where your preference lies and head angle/bb height are are in right the ballpark.
Then again especially BB height and "slackness" will be influenced by your suspension kinematics/setup.
Didn’t know how to answer these poll questions as a Knolly rider. All of the answers were the wrong one.
I was so bummed when it wasn't.
Been there, done that.
The original Podium prototypes from 2008 / 2009 featured Four by 4, with a high forward idler pulley and a forward chainstay pivot location to increase the rear wheel path's radius of curvature. Some of this was based on my experience of riding a Balfa BB7 for a couple of seasons in the early 2000s (that was bike way ahead of its time), so we're not strangers to idler pulley bikes.
We've come a long way since then with our bike designs and we're now not the only ones making successful bikes with dual four bar (or 6 bar if you want to call it that) designs. We're happy with where our new product range is now and the maturity of the Four by 4 Linkage and its ability to separately manage both wheel path and shock progression at the same time.
Cheers,
Why not have the bottom bracket in the rear triangle? It should eliminate chain growth? Although when I see it in a video it looks like the bottom bracket would move independently of the seat tube so maybe that's not desirable for climbing.
Cable routing on the down tube though... I want it back. Add a bolt on shuttle guard and it's clean, functional and incredibly easy to service.
As I currently am? Well, I ride a steel bike that uses bushings instead of bearings everywhere except the main pivot. I've serviced the pivots literally never in the four years I've owned the bike, and it still works like a dream after 6k miles.
The same people who are so opinionated on one design over the over would be better served if they knew how to dial in their LSC and HSC settings better or at all. Just saying...
Or riding 170 mm on green trails and never getting the wheels off the ground?
But I also ride lift served double blacks with the same helmet.
seattime.co/videos/enduro-101-first-time-racers-enduro-veterans
Adjusting to the HP on the sight is not really that jarring, which may speak more to the execution of the design rather than the philosophy. I've definitely had friends who are less picky than me jump on a high pivot design and feel strongly for or against.
As far as pumping the back side of features, I was say it is as good or better except in the tightest of transitions. The limitations there are more about chainstay and wheelbase lengths than the HP characteristics. A more aggressive riding position is rewarded but it does not require the kind of weight shifting that can cause instability on bikes with bigger front center to rear center ratios like my previous ibis bikes. The short rear end on those can stay tucked into tight transitions better but they also require a lot more work to keep traction on the front wheel so it’s a trade off.
For sure, drivline give you a bit more drag on the uphills, especially then you do not clean and lube the chain, pair it with added frame weight and it kind of the challenge for your legs on the long days.
So, depending on your priorities you may benefit from high pivot :-) even for "trail" bikes.
"in the elite women's category, the top two finishers were on low-pivot bikes (albeit with a non-essential idler in Vali's case - by high-pivot, I mean a bike that requires an idler for the suspension to function properly). It was a similar story in the juniors."
personally, i find noisy bikes extremly annoying to the point that i straight up cancel my day on the bike. a rattling idler pulley would drive me absolutely insane. however, oversized idlers like those of the nicolai (?) might be more silent.
AND ALSO - ALL CAPS, ALL THE TIME!
AND ALSO ALSO - BIKES ARE GOOD!
AND ALSO ALSO ALSO - WHY ARE TYRES SO EXPENSIVE?!
BMW - The O.G. gravity machine.
= )
Does a high pivot belong on every bike? Of course not. My up hill charging/xcish bike doesn't have one. But if we're honest with ourselves, 90% of mountain bikers are slow uphill anyway, wouldn't notice a difference if there was an appreciable one, and are only there for a good time on the downhill. They'd stand to benefit massively from this new crop of High Pivot bikes that have massively improved over the last 4 years.
And yet high pivot bikes instead illicit baseless commentary on how inefficient they are from people who have literally never ridden one and average 130W on a 6 mile after work ride.
I'm never going to enjoy climbing, even if my bike was 100% efficient, so I will absolutely sacrifice a minute amount of efficiency to be more able to bomb on the way down.
The thing is, none of us have horsepower on tap like the pros do, so we need all the help we can to get to the top with fresh legs - the flip side of your argument.
jankcomponents.com/products/steel-idler-pulley-kit-forbidden-druid-dreadnought
- silent
- noisy
Idler wise it is irrelevant
Not sure about the lack of batteries though. How is the pedal support going to work then?
Sometimes we have to do things we don't like if we want avoid having our bodies fall apart, especially when you have loose joints and family history of having to have said joints rebuilt because of it.
Looks at my go-to bike
Ah 13kg (28lbs in old money)
Ti 29 inch goodness from Stanton
Utterly capable
Hang on...no pivots at all.....
Damnit…fell for it again, Pinkbait.
I still feel the same way.
www.pinkbike.com/photo/25931504