Review: Marin Mount Vision - Strange Looks, Intriguing Performance
Marin claims that the Mount Vision is one of the most unique trail bikes the market has seen, and there's no denying that it stands out from the crowd. The Mount Vision has 150 millimeter of rear travel, 27.5" wheels, and is built around the Naild R3act suspension system. Its construction, spec, and numbers target all-mountain riding and enduro racing.
The Mount Vision expands upon what the team at Marin learned in the development of their Wolf Ridge, which was the first model that used the Naild R3act suspension platform. It's available in three different builds, the 8, 9, and Pro.
The Mount Vision expands upon what the team at Marin learned in the development of their Wolf Ridge, which was the first model that used the Naild R3act suspension platform. It's available in three different builds, the 8, 9, and Pro.
Mount Vision 9 Details
• Full carbon fiber frame
• Wheel size: 27.5"
• Travel: 150mm front and rear
• 65° head angle, 75.3° seat angle, 420mm chainstays
• Small - XL sizes
• Weight: 32.8 lbs(14.9kg)
• MSRP: $6,400 USD
• Contact: Marin Bikes
• Full carbon fiber frame
• Wheel size: 27.5"
• Travel: 150mm front and rear
• 65° head angle, 75.3° seat angle, 420mm chainstays
• Small - XL sizes
• Weight: 32.8 lbs(14.9kg)
• MSRP: $6,400 USD
• Contact: Marin Bikes
The 8 has a SRAM NX/GX/Rockshox suspension build and is priced at $5,299 USD, the model 9 that's tested here with a SRAM X01 Eagle/Fox suspension build sells for $6,699 USD, and the Pro model, decked out with Shimano XTR, e*thirteen, and Fox Factory suspension sells for $8,899 USD .
There's a lot going on with this design.
 | The first time I rode the Mount Vision with a crew of friends, several of them thought I was on an e-bike until most of the way through the ride. Although this was demoralizing given that we all pushed the same steep section of a climb that I should have no doubt cleaned with a few more watts, it goes to show just how different this bike is from almost anything else on the market. |
Construction and Features
So, what makes this bike unique and how does it work? Let's dig in.
There are six links on the Mount Vision, and if you want the in-depth story, PB's Dan Roberts investigated the design in the Behind the Numbers. There is clearly a ton going on.
Acting upon knowledge gained with the debut of the Wolf Ridge, Marin shored up the Mount Vision's links and added a rocker to the top tube in to stiffen everything up. In addition to the links, the central feature to this suspension design is a large slider that alters the linkage kinematics, helps generate the Marin's excellent pedaling dynamics, and creates one of the most polarizing profiles in the brief history of long-travel trail bikes.
The Mount Vision has a full carbon frame that conceals some secrets. The down tube has a vertical rib that reinforces the bottom bracket area and affords some serious bash protection. Similarly, the swingarm is double-chambered to boost its stiffness. The slider has a bleed valve (similar to DH fork lowers) to allow the rider to equalize air pressures between its internals and the atmosphere outside. Large bearings at each pivot point are double sealed and have additional external shields to keep dust and grit out. The head tube area is also reinforced with a box-section. A top tube mounted shock and its accompanying rocker link address the need for a full-sized bottle mount and provide additional lateral stiffness.
![Daniel Sapp in Pisgah National Forest.]()
![Daniel Sapp in Pisgah National Forest.]()
![photo]()
So, what makes this bike unique and how does it work? Let's dig in.
There are six links on the Mount Vision, and if you want the in-depth story, PB's Dan Roberts investigated the design in the Behind the Numbers. There is clearly a ton going on.
Acting upon knowledge gained with the debut of the Wolf Ridge, Marin shored up the Mount Vision's links and added a rocker to the top tube in to stiffen everything up. In addition to the links, the central feature to this suspension design is a large slider that alters the linkage kinematics, helps generate the Marin's excellent pedaling dynamics, and creates one of the most polarizing profiles in the brief history of long-travel trail bikes.
The Mount Vision has a full carbon frame that conceals some secrets. The down tube has a vertical rib that reinforces the bottom bracket area and affords some serious bash protection. Similarly, the swingarm is double-chambered to boost its stiffness. The slider has a bleed valve (similar to DH fork lowers) to allow the rider to equalize air pressures between its internals and the atmosphere outside. Large bearings at each pivot point are double sealed and have additional external shields to keep dust and grit out. The head tube area is also reinforced with a box-section. A top tube mounted shock and its accompanying rocker link address the need for a full-sized bottle mount and provide additional lateral stiffness.
Geometry & Sizing
The Mount Vision's head tube angle sits at 65-degrees for all sizes. The reach numbers are in line with modern trends, with a medium checking in at 453mm.
On paper, the effective seat tube angle is a fairly modern 75.3 degrees for the size medium (and its size-specific geometry stays close to that number in all the other options) The actual seat tube angle, however, is a a super slack, 63.1-degrees.
Marin acknowledges that its dramatically angled seat tube could cause some confusion between the bike's actual and effective seat tube angles. Marin claim they take the measurement slightly higher than the average saddle height for the correct rider of each sized bike. This, in their eyes, assures most customers will be at or very close to the Mount Vision's stated seat angle.
The design of the suspension limits Marin's option to use a more conventional seat tube configuration.There has to be clearance for that massive swingarm and its sliding element, which is why the actual seat tube angle is so slack. The further a rider is from the saddle height that Marin used for its average, the larger the change in top tube measurements and effective seat tube angle will become. Riders with longer or shorter inseams than average do need to take this into consideration.
The Mount Vision's head tube angle sits at 65-degrees for all sizes. The reach numbers are in line with modern trends, with a medium checking in at 453mm.
On paper, the effective seat tube angle is a fairly modern 75.3 degrees for the size medium (and its size-specific geometry stays close to that number in all the other options) The actual seat tube angle, however, is a a super slack, 63.1-degrees.
Marin acknowledges that its dramatically angled seat tube could cause some confusion between the bike's actual and effective seat tube angles. Marin claim they take the measurement slightly higher than the average saddle height for the correct rider of each sized bike. This, in their eyes, assures most customers will be at or very close to the Mount Vision's stated seat angle.
The design of the suspension limits Marin's option to use a more conventional seat tube configuration.There has to be clearance for that massive swingarm and its sliding element, which is why the actual seat tube angle is so slack. The further a rider is from the saddle height that Marin used for its average, the larger the change in top tube measurements and effective seat tube angle will become. Riders with longer or shorter inseams than average do need to take this into consideration.
Suspension Design
The Marin's geometry is very interesting indeed, but the uniqueness of the Mount Vision more lies in its suspension design and the way it works.The Mount Vision uses Naild's "R3act-2play" suspension system. The goal of this design is to deliver supple, full-time suspension action with near 100 percent pedaling efficiency. Most riders will likely agree that its design does not lend itself to an intuitive explanation. It's a bit of a curiosity, but it's not quite as complicated as it looks.
The R3act-2play suspension design is the brainchild of Darrell Voss, who spent the better part of the last 15 years developing it and it's based upon the notion that contemporary suspension is dependent upon excessive levels of hydraulic damping - which is basically friction - and while that friction may play a beneficial role within the confines of a narrow speed range, it also wastes pedaling energy and robs forward momentum. His suspension design was crafted to operate with extremely low compression damping, while the suspension kinematics were configured to produce efficient pedaling across the entire gearing range.
More of the different: Marin's second-generation R3act suspension has seen a number of improvements, but its looks are still a left turn for the sport's traditionalists.
Voss says his design balances acceleration and mass lag with what most refer to as anti-squat, and in the opposite direction, creates an opposing force just strong enough allow the rear suspension to overwhelm those forces in response to impacts to the rear wheel that are essentially rearward accelerations trying to impede the forward momentum of the bike. Voss says it's simply using Newton's 3rd law, (that's the "3" in the R3act 2play moniker) "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
As any vehicle accelerates, the mass above the wheels wants to stay put. That phenomenon tends to squash the rear suspension - your mass appears to be moving backward as the bike accelerates forward. Naild's linkage counters that "mass lag" with a large dose of anti-squat geometry that builds up seamlessly, so it doesn't destabilize the feel of the suspension. When the rear wheel hits a bump, however, that odd-looking slider tube instantly decouples the anti-squat forces and sets the suspension free. So, it facilitates two actions that are most desireable: good pedaling when we need it and free acting rear suspension when the bike encounters an impact - without levers or electronics - and without massive shock damping and a stack of air volume spacers to rob your forward progress.
Pipe dream? Probably not. With few exceptions, almost every rider's first impression of the R3act suspension is that it seems to accelerate on the backside of bumps. It doesn't, but it slows significantly less, and because our minds and muscle memories are so conditioned to the deceleration created by our over-rigid suspensions, for a brief period, we are fooled by the new sensation and it feels like a slight acceleration.
| Friction is friction - if you add damping friction to the level bike designers have done, it's stealing your forward momentum. The less damping friction you can use, the faster it is across rough ground. |
| Specifications | ||
| Price | $6400 | |
| Travel | 150mm | |
| Rear Shock | Fox Float X2 Performance, 205x50mm, | |
| Fork | Fox Performance Elite 36 27.5", 150mm | |
| Headset | FSA Orbit | |
| Cassette | SRAM XG-1295 12-Speed, 10-50T | |
| Crankarms | SRAM Descendant Carbon, 170mm | |
| Rear Derailleur | SRAM X01 Eagle,12-Speed | |
| Chain | SRAM GX Eagle | |
| Shifter Pods | SRAM GX Eagle | |
| Handlebar | Deity Skyline, 787mm Width, 25mm Rise | |
| Stem | Deity Copperhead | |
| Brakes | Shimano XT 4 Piston | |
| Wheelset | Stan's NoTubes Sentry MK3 | |
| Tires | WTB Trail Boss 27.5x2.6 | |
| Seat | WTB Volt Race | |
| Seatpost | KS LEV Integra Dropper Post, 30.9mm | |
Test Bike Setup
Setting up the Mount Vision is not all that tricky if you follow Marin's set up directions rather than following what you think you know about suspension set up. Running the compression fully open may seem counterintuitive, but that's what Marin recommends as a starting point. I ran no compression damping and minimal rebound damping on the back of the bike with the Fox Float X2, and in the fork I did the same thing. If you're going to simply bounce around and push on the bike in the parking lot, the suspension feels a bit quick and a lot smooth. I wanted to add some damping and slow the rebound a touch but I refrained.
I ran 162psi in the shock with the compression fully open, and 63 psi and one click of LSC on the fork.
I ran the seat at 73cm. This put me a good bit above where Marin measures their actual seat angle from and pretty far back over the rear end of the bike. With my long legs, I could have also fit on a large but, my reach is most comfortable with the size medium.
Daniel Sapp
Location: Brevard, NC, USA
Age: 32
Height: 5'10"
Weight: 150 lbs
Industry affiliations / sponsors: None
Instagram: @d_sapp1
Location: Brevard, NC, USA
Age: 32
Height: 5'10"
Weight: 150 lbs
Industry affiliations / sponsors: None
Instagram: @d_sapp1
I ran the stock set-up on the bike for a month or two and the only thing I ended up swapping out were the tires, going from the 2.6" WTB Trail Boss to a 2.5" Maxxis Aggressor WT in the back and the new Tioga Edge22 up front.
Testing took place in western North Carolina in a variety of wet and dry conditions.
Climbing
The Mount Vision's marketing claims tout the bike's tremendous amounts of anti-squat and great pedaling efficiency. The bike does indeed pedal well and it sits up in its travel when you get on the gas. The relatively high level of anti-squat makes it feel firm climbing up and over roots and square edges, keeping the suspension high in its stroke.
The seat tube angle feels noticeably slack...really slack. With the seat at the height I needed, which isn't all that ridiculous, I was sitting a ways over the back end of the bike, even with the seat pushed forward on the rails. On mellower climbs this was fine, but when things got slower and more technical, my weight was far enough back that while seated I would sink into the suspension a decent amount. This compounded the slack seat tube angle and put me in a position where the front end of the bike was more challenging to control on technical bits of trail. Lurching over roots I usually cruise up was, at times, difficult and frustrating.
Standing up and getting off of the seat in these bits of trail was helpful as the bike can climb up almost anything if your weight is in the right spot. Standing up for prolonged periods of time on overly steep terrain, however, isn't all that viable.
My other qualm is that the bike is a bit of a tank. For the "9" level build, it's still not light, at almost 33 lbs (15 kg) for a $6,400 150mm travel trail bike. The tires spec'd - 2.6" WTB Trail Boss' are slow and make the bike feel a bit lethargic. While they offer up a ton of grip, swapping over to lighter and faster rolling tires made the Mount Vision more pleasant to get to the top of any climb.
![Daniel Sapp in Pisgah National Forest.]()
The Mount Vision's marketing claims tout the bike's tremendous amounts of anti-squat and great pedaling efficiency. The bike does indeed pedal well and it sits up in its travel when you get on the gas. The relatively high level of anti-squat makes it feel firm climbing up and over roots and square edges, keeping the suspension high in its stroke.
The seat tube angle feels noticeably slack...really slack. With the seat at the height I needed, which isn't all that ridiculous, I was sitting a ways over the back end of the bike, even with the seat pushed forward on the rails. On mellower climbs this was fine, but when things got slower and more technical, my weight was far enough back that while seated I would sink into the suspension a decent amount. This compounded the slack seat tube angle and put me in a position where the front end of the bike was more challenging to control on technical bits of trail. Lurching over roots I usually cruise up was, at times, difficult and frustrating.
Standing up and getting off of the seat in these bits of trail was helpful as the bike can climb up almost anything if your weight is in the right spot. Standing up for prolonged periods of time on overly steep terrain, however, isn't all that viable.
My other qualm is that the bike is a bit of a tank. For the "9" level build, it's still not light, at almost 33 lbs (15 kg) for a $6,400 150mm travel trail bike. The tires spec'd - 2.6" WTB Trail Boss' are slow and make the bike feel a bit lethargic. While they offer up a ton of grip, swapping over to lighter and faster rolling tires made the Mount Vision more pleasant to get to the top of any climb.
Descending
The Mount Vision is a comfortable and capable descender, with a smooth, supple suspension feel. Running minimal amounts of compression damping creates a huge contrast between the way the bike rides to almost any other bike out right now. It takes a little getting used to as you do feel less hung up on certain sections of trail.
There's a very unique bottomless feel to the bike. It does feel as if you're going through more of the travel and riding a much bigger bike than you actually are at times. The ramp up at the end of the stroke does feel slightly abrupt - the lack of compression damping seems to get you there sooner and more smoothly, but as you get to the end of the road things firm up fast.
Traction on the Mount Vision is remarkable. The bike feels as if you're on a sled on rails in high speed roots and chatter. Slower, larger impacts felt smooth, but also a bit bigger than normal with how fast everything ramps up at the end of the bikes' travel. It's not a bad thing, but rather something that requires a little getting used to and a slightly different riding style. Square edge hits are smoothly absorbed and the rear end of the bike doesn't easily become choked up.
There's no hiding that the Mount Vision wants to go downhill fast. It does a great job of maintaining composure and traction in choppy sections of trail. It also doesn't hesitate to get in the air. Out of the box, it certainly wasn't the most nimble descender and felt a bit portly at times, but swapping tires for a lighter set-up helped make it a little more playful in all respects. Overall, the amount of traction and "locked-in" trail feel that the bike offers is very impressive.
The Mount Vision is a comfortable and capable descender, with a smooth, supple suspension feel. Running minimal amounts of compression damping creates a huge contrast between the way the bike rides to almost any other bike out right now. It takes a little getting used to as you do feel less hung up on certain sections of trail.
There's a very unique bottomless feel to the bike. It does feel as if you're going through more of the travel and riding a much bigger bike than you actually are at times. The ramp up at the end of the stroke does feel slightly abrupt - the lack of compression damping seems to get you there sooner and more smoothly, but as you get to the end of the road things firm up fast.
Traction on the Mount Vision is remarkable. The bike feels as if you're on a sled on rails in high speed roots and chatter. Slower, larger impacts felt smooth, but also a bit bigger than normal with how fast everything ramps up at the end of the bikes' travel. It's not a bad thing, but rather something that requires a little getting used to and a slightly different riding style. Square edge hits are smoothly absorbed and the rear end of the bike doesn't easily become choked up.
There's no hiding that the Mount Vision wants to go downhill fast. It does a great job of maintaining composure and traction in choppy sections of trail. It also doesn't hesitate to get in the air. Out of the box, it certainly wasn't the most nimble descender and felt a bit portly at times, but swapping tires for a lighter set-up helped make it a little more playful in all respects. Overall, the amount of traction and "locked-in" trail feel that the bike offers is very impressive.
Mount Vision
Santa Cruz Bronson
How does it compare?
The Mount Vision is no doubt an outlier, but if we're going to stack it up next to another bike, the Santa Cruz Bronson sports the same size wheels and 150mm of rear travel. The Mount Vision 8, Marin's most affordable build is pricier than the Bronson's R build - their most value oriented carbon frame kit, but it's also a bit nicer than the R and right in line with the S option from Santa Cruz. There are three different build options with the Mount Vision spanning a smaller range than the Bronson's near endless option of builds to pick from, but they hit what matters to most riders with three competitive build kits.
Ride wise, the Mount Vision is quite different. With its very supple suspension platform, it soaks up small bumps better and holds traction through quick chop a bit better than the Bronson while still managing larger hits with equal composure. It's not that the Bronson isn't supple, the Marin just feels as if it's using more of its suspension more quickly and staying more active in the first half of its travel. The geometry of the two bikes overlaps in a few spots, but when you get down to it, it's pretty different. The Bronson sports a steeper climbing position and shorter reach than the Mount Vision. The Mount Vision has shorter chainstays, by 10mm, and a lower bottom bracket. Both bikes have the same measured standover.
Another point worth noting is the weight. The Mount Vision 9 tips the scale at 32.8 lbs (14.9kg) which is heavier than the most affordable carbon framed Bronson build.
Technical Report
WTB Trail Boss Tires: The 2.6" wide WTB Trail Boss tires ride well and offer gobs of traction and durability but that comes at a cost...weight. It's easy to swap to a lighter and narrower tire to shed a solid pound (.45kg) off of the bike, which I ended up doing about midway through my time on the bike.
Fox Suspension: The Fox 36 fork and X2 rear shock are both great values and top performers. The rear shock is notably missing a lockout lever, as with the suspension properly set up Marin believes riders shouldn't feel the need to be reaching for it on every climb.
SRAM Eagle Drivetrain: SRAM's Eagle X01 drivetrain is reliable and light weight, and the wide range of gearing helps the Mount Vision feel comfortable a range of pitches.
Deity Bar and Stem: The 787mm wide aluminum handlebar and stem from Deity are nice additions to the build as well as solid components. It's refreshing to see a company spec smaller brands on a bike.
![Daniel Sapp in Pisgah National Forest.]()
WTB Trail Boss Tires: The 2.6" wide WTB Trail Boss tires ride well and offer gobs of traction and durability but that comes at a cost...weight. It's easy to swap to a lighter and narrower tire to shed a solid pound (.45kg) off of the bike, which I ended up doing about midway through my time on the bike.
Fox Suspension: The Fox 36 fork and X2 rear shock are both great values and top performers. The rear shock is notably missing a lockout lever, as with the suspension properly set up Marin believes riders shouldn't feel the need to be reaching for it on every climb.
SRAM Eagle Drivetrain: SRAM's Eagle X01 drivetrain is reliable and light weight, and the wide range of gearing helps the Mount Vision feel comfortable a range of pitches.
Deity Bar and Stem: The 787mm wide aluminum handlebar and stem from Deity are nice additions to the build as well as solid components. It's refreshing to see a company spec smaller brands on a bike.
Pros
+ Excellent small-bump sensitivity
+ Great pedaling efficiency
+ Excellent parts spec
Cons
- Very slack actual seat tube angle
- On the heavier side
- Looks like an e-bike
Pinkbike's Take
| The Mount Vision is a truly unique bike. It's not the lightest option out there, nor the best climber, but when it comes to absorbing small bumps, square edge hits, or chatter, there aren't many bikes that do a better job of managing the terrain. The Mount Vision is an enjoyable bike to descend on and the Nail'd R3act suspension system works very well. |
Author Info:
Member since Jan 18, 2007
Must Read This Week
Marin: "Take a look at this..."
PB comment: "It's ugly, take it away. Why can't you make bikes that look like everyone else's?"
www.pinkbike.com/buysell/2642304
On the other hand I have a hard time
thinking of more boring looking bikes than the latest Santa Cruzes... they even managed to mess up the V10. Especially this sand paint job, ugh... it’s going down since 2012 for them.
My issue is not the aesthetics, I think it looks cool, but that money for a 33lb bike seems to be an increasing trend.
As with PB, I have a small pile of 2.6/2.8 tires from 'downgrading' to 2.4.
Apologies for any butts hurt.
And the latest alpine trail has better geo than this and a couple good price points.
Good looking = looks like all other bikes.
We can only wonder what advances we are missing for the sake of a conservative sense of aesthetics.
Thanks for the advice. So glad there are people like you out there.
Figure out how to have a BB area that doesn't look like it's got a motor stuck in there, fix that seat-tube angle, and use a more normal shaped swingarm / rear triangle.
People are shallow and don't like change - this is a world of horst-links, you can't come in with an alien spaceship. People will freak out about the aesthetic and miss everything about how the bike actually works.
but I miss all the crazy, experimental bikes of the 90’s. I think that it’s cool that they are stepping out of the box. Would I spend that much on it over a Santa Cruz, Yeti, whatever? Hmmmm, not sure.
If you have the rest of the bike designed around the steeper seat tube (a la Nicolai or Pole for enduro, or super short XC bikes with longer slammed stems), then you get the benefits of a more central weight distribution. But all these recent 1-2 degree slacker seat tube 2019 models from popular manufactures aren't doing shit for you. They are just hopping on the recent trend to get you to upgrade.
I definitely rode bikes with 73 degree seat tube angles that did that. I also rode modern bikes with 75 degree seat tube angles that did that as well. Only my Pole Machine, which has a very long wheelbase and a very steep seat angle doesn't do that, but the bike is way less agile on tight singletrack.
Yes, but that doesn't change my point - the bike has to be designed around a steep seat tube angle. If you have a short chainstays and a slack head angle, which a lot of people like, its impossible to have a steep enough seat tube angle to make it good at climbing tech (unless you want to run a +50 mm stem with lower bars). Simply changing the seat tube angle by a few degrees on this bike would not do anything.
This bike is fine as it is for what it does.
It needs to support a long dropper and ideally the seat is still in a decent position and not super far back over the axle. Two bikes with the same STA can be screwy.
If you are at a 35m inseam, you are likely running a XL frame, which has a longer wheelbase and a longer reach, equalizing the weight.
Yes, but you do carry some weight through your arms when seated, and you need that weight on any bike to be able to climb without wheelies. A taller person will move the CG more forward when he leans more due to longer reach.
Speaking of climbing it is amazing. Especially noticeable on rocky roots climbs. Best bike I’ve ever owned.
www.pinkbike.com/photo/16931508
I tend to like complicated designs, but Cs and ST are a no go so far with the bikes they released.
concerning the upper limit, i once had a bike with 460 reach and 450 stays -for me that was too much. my current one has 445mm stays and i like it.
That said, I liked every Canfield I‘ve ridden so far, so chainstay length might also have to do with personal preference.
This is one of the reasons why I'm so skeptical of this suspension design- "reviews" of it never mention it, but they do on other bikes with more similar kinematics. Norcos from a few years ago had tons of anti-squat and pedal kickback- so much that they would bob "up" out of the sag point when pedaling, rather than "down" from the sag point, and they had less chain growth than this design does.
Wait, did i read that right that you removed all compression damping on the fox 36 up front?
I hadn't thought that the front should follow suit. I'll give that a try and see how it feels.
"
Less damping, Voss says, means less resistance and in turn less loss of energy. While “others rely on damping to compensate for poor kinematics,” the R3ACT design comes paired with FOX Float X2 shock featuring “40% less damping” than a typical light tune – something Marin had to convince FOX to create specially for the Wolf Ridge. Because it’s designed to be so efficient, there’s also no need for a lockout or quick compression adjustment. When pointed downhill this has benefits claimed by Voss as well: “If you run a system wide open going down a hill, you’re going to be hellaciously faster on a system that has zero hydraulic damping.”
"
mountainbikegateway.com/first-ride-2018-marin-wolf-ridge-pro-and-naild-r3act-suspension
Yes, it's faster in situations where the rider is seated and simply coasting down bumpy terrain. It's not faster when the rider's speed is limited by the ability to remain in control.
He's simply wrong.
What do you think give a rider that level of control?
Could it be the most consistent level of traction with the least amount of mass transfer?
That’s exactly what this system is designed to do. Seated or descending is the same concept on this design. You don’t have to compromise one for the other.
While I agree a person shouldn't have unfounded prejudices, we must also build on existing knowledge; if we didn't, we would all be apes trying to rediscover fire over and over. Instead, we can discover things as exotic as the presence of water on planets orbiting other stars without having left our solar system, let alone visited these foreign stars and planets. Physics can tell us many things.
Kinematic properties don't care what system generated the properties. If you created a Horst bike and a VPP bike with the same pedaling anti-squat, brake squat, motion ratio curve, damper, frame geometry, stiffness curves, etc., then they will ride the same. EXACTLY the same. Same for a R3act-2Play. There isn't some magic at work that's beyond the laws of physics.
Bike suspension is pretty simple in the context of machine design; if a supersonic airplane can exist, bikes don't have to be a mystery. That's not to say we can determine the one perfect design, but we can zero in on a narrow range of optimal properties by understanding the physics that drive optimal results - and we've done exactly that in recent years. If you plot the kinematic properties of every bike on the market - as I have, because it's part of my job to do so - you'll see things have really begun to converge. The days of crazy and terrible suspension and geometry are coming to an end; there are few bad bikes left out there, though many have considerable room for fine-tuning.
Many elements of the R3act-2Play design philosophy are in line with the established physics, but some are not. As I said, Voss' statements about damping being wasted energy and slowing you down are correct, at literal level, and are equally true for other vehicles. You don't see F1 cars or Baja trucks without damping, though. Voss has expressed an incomplete understanding of the situation. Yes, energy dissipation can slow you down, but it's necessary for faster overall riding - if energy dissipation was unnecessary and harmful, we would do away with the ultimate source of it: brakes!
I agree with Voss that pedaling anti-squat is the efficient way to stabilize a bike when pedaling and low-speed compression damping is the inefficient way to do it. I also agree an undamped vehicle can ROLL faster downhill, under certain circumstances, but I don't agree it can be RIDDEN faster in real-world circumstances. Damping exists for a reason. If you want to test Voss's philosophy of damping being harmful, you can remove the damping from any bike with high pedaling anti-squat and achieve the same results. There's nothing about the kinematics of R3act-2Play that make it uniquely suited to this set-up.
Can you please help me understand why you are on board with the one design that is different from all others? When an entire industry - and other, related industries - do things a certain way and one man says they're all wrong, the burden of proof is on that one man - and you, it seems - to explain why we're all wrong.
So, I'm listening ...
"I've noticed many of your comments are to attack anyone with an opinion and to espouse a "keep an open mind" attitude. I agree with you about things like the CeramicSpeed drivetrain having potential"
your observation...
My intent is not to attack anyone with an opinion, everyone has one, and they entitled to it. However, it is my intent to challenge some opinions (and possibly to agitate just a little). Opinions are not fact, however, some people get confused by this from time to time and state things as absolutes. When I see something that feels like that I respond. You'll notice that I am also pretty careful to qualify any opinion I may express as just that (and only worth the 1's and 0's it took to express it).
Still, I notice that dodged my original question.
The balance of your response is interesting though and I will give it more thought...
When they first announced the Naild platform a few years ago, I was completely turned off by the marketing nonsense. However, when the inventor said that they asked Fox for a custom tuned shock with no damping at all, but had to settle for an X2 with extremely light damping I knew it was all a sham.
Its also nearly impossible to have high antisquat and low pedal kickback, a claim they frequently make. Most of the force of antisquat comes from chain growth, which is pedal kickback.
Still, if I claim to have ridden this one, that would be an attempt to add credibility when I would prefer for the science to speak for itself. Or if I claim I haven't ridden it, that's a easy way for those who are ignorant and/or contrarian to dismiss me.
So, have I or haven't I? Does it matter? Does it change the science? Does it change where the burden of proof lies when one person challenges essentially every person in multiple industries, including those with vastly higher R&D budgets?
Firstly, Not every system is designed to do this. Almost every one on the planet uses an scale to balance efficiencies in one area compared to another (ie climbing in the big cog compared to descending in the middle of the cassette). The biggest difference between all of these systems and the Marin is that all of these operate on one axis (rotational pivots), and by doing so are limited in how they can deal with different situations. The closest system out there would be the Yeti Switch Infinity system and they still approach it differently with a lot of the traditional hardships of conventional pivot systems.
When trying to define ride characteristics of a bike strictly by looking at kinematic charts and being compared to conventional designs, its really like comparing apples to oranges.
If you want proof of concept, why do motocross and supercross race bikes have a linkage for the rear shock? you could accomplish a stronger, more consistent, and more progressive damping curve using a non-linkage, direct to swingarm system.
They use linkage be able to run a softer, more linear suspension setup to increase traction and decrease rider feedback throughout more of the travel. To make it feel more like the front end and increase overall stability.
Extremely light damping is not the same and riding on a spring which is what most people miss about the arm chair engineering of this bike. I would encourage you to get one in your proper size (im 5'10 and chose the large) and take it out on your favorite 2 hour loop.
This is on the right track. If the front and rear sprockets are directly connected (i.e. no idler), for a given sprocket combination, the anti-squat is best thought of as a function of the *rate* of kickback. The *total* kickback can be minimized by having the anti-squat drop off a cliff at a certain point, when it's assumed the rider is unlikely to be pedaling. For example, no one is putting down the power while also absorbing a 100% travel hit!
Some bikes do a great job of this. Achieving a fancy pedaling anti-squat curve while also hitting your targets on other kinematic properties is an impressive feat - that's where the real magic happens, not by using an exotic configuration to achieve unspectacular kinematics, which is what we see here. The biggest downfall of this design - aside from geometry, weight, damper tune, cost, and aesthetics - is the flat to *rising* rate of kickback, depending on the sprocket combination. That's indefensible.
Yeah? Would you care to name a few suspension designs that don't want to maximize traction and reduce pedal bob? Maybe you just phrased it oddly. The closest I can think of is Knolly, who likes to absolutely max out pedaling traction and minimize kickback, even if it means squishy pedaling.
"When trying to define ride characteristics of a bike strictly by looking at kinematic charts and being compared to conventional designs, its really like comparing apples to oranges."
No, it's not. Another bike with the same kinematic charts would have the same suspension properties. The main differences would then be the geometry, shock tune, and frame stiffness.
"If you want proof of concept, why do motocross and supercross race bikes have a linkage for the rear shock? you could accomplish a stronger, more consistent, and more progressive damping curve using a non-linkage, direct to swingarm system."
This doesn't even make sense. Linkages are used to tune the motion ratio and, to a lesser degree, make the rear end stiffer. What do you mean by a "more consistent, and more progressive damping curve"? How do you define "consistent"? Please clarify your terminology before we can proceed. Also, a linkage always has more flexibility in the curves it can achieve, whether more or less progressive.
"Extremely light damping is not the same and riding on a spring"
Yes, it is. Not exactly the same, as there's still some damping, but the less damping there is, the closer it is to an undamped spring.
"arm chair engineering"
Something that most charts don't take into account, however, is frame flex from pedaling. Just because your suspension doesn't appear to bob doesn't mean its being efficient. I had the first gen magic link ten years ago, and while it didn't bob it flexed sideways like a fish with every downstroke, robbing you of your energy. By several reports this design has the same flaw.
Also, with all this talk of fancy curves and damping tunes, we forget the most important part of efficient pedalling- tire choice. The reviewer kinda touched on this. Thats what really gets my goat with all this marketing nonsense. 95% of modern suspension designs (and even the humble single pivot) pedal really well, and your tires are going to make a bigger difference in actual watts required to reach the top of a trail than the number of pivots, linkages, and sliders your frame has.
Totally agree that slow tires can consume dozens of watts more than fast tires, which is a greater difference than between almost any suspension designs. Still, kinematics are worthy of discussion, even if we should give more attention to other factors, especially when they're so significant.
The good news is, as I mentioned earlier, most bikes are quite good now, so we rarely need to discuss issues like one rear end having several times the deflection of another.
Yeah that makes sense.
However, I thought the point of this suspension design was to reduce the need for heavy damping because the design is inherently, for a lack of a better term, “controlled”. Given this, the fork would have to be similarly tuned to match and opening everything up doesn’t seem like that right idea.
I don’t think anyone can say that a fully opened damper in a fork is ideal in any situation, regardless of rear suspension.
" I've ridden more bikes than many professional reviewers - again, because it's part of my job to do so."
Confirmation bias came to mind when I read that.
How about we look at this in another way:
I'm saying Voss is wrong on some things. You seem to be saying I should keep an open mind.
Alternative view:
Voss holds views that contradict the views of every suspension engineer in the bike industry, suspension engineers at damper manufacturers with decades of experience apiece, and, as far as I can tell, suspension engineers with every land-based racing team.
By contradicting me, you are not being neutral, you are contradicting all the aforementioned people. When Voss has to request a shock with half the damping of the lightest available tune, he's contradicting all the suspension engineers at Fox and the decades of R&D that led them to the current shock tunes. Are you going to tell dozens of bicycle suspension engineers, with hundreds of years of experience, that we're wrong? And countless more in other industries? I'm not; I'm one of them and I agree with my peers. Physics calculations and extensive empirical evidence support these view.
If Person A said the sky isn't blue and Person B on a forum said it is, it's not really a one vs. one argument. It's entirely possible Person A is the only person holding that opinion and many people disagree with Person A, and it's entirely possible there are good reasons for disagreeing with Person A.
It seems they were attempting to do what the Tantrum Bikes do, but with a lot more complication/ weight/ cost and probably not as effective.
Yes, this bike does look like a tank or an e-bike which is going to be a turn off to most riders...esp for an asking price of $6k
Slap that suspension technology on a lighter sub 30lbs bike and you might change peoples minds.
So ... they talk the tech talk, but don't walk it.
1.It looks ugly
2. when the suspension system came out they said its the best ever but we wont tell you why -you would not understand.
3. actually looking at linkage reveals that it has monstrous antisquat and kickback -no magic involved
4. i liked the old polygon dh platform, it had great kinematics, this system replaced it.
5. seatangle -meh
maybe i should try one one day, would be hard if i like it though
hurts my brain
I wont be buying one though, for the same reason i wont be driving a top fuel car to work.
I'm sure it is better! but i dont feel the need for the extra seals and maintenance when a lumpy single pivot gets me down the hill with a smile on my face.
I didn't see a discussion of the service requirements of that sliding assembly?
This allows it to shift the instant centre around. Again, same thing other suspension systems can do, just doing it with different hardware. Nothing magic - not even unique in what it does.
The axle path is more rearward than some, less than others. Again, it's not unique.
It really is just like any other bike, only with different hardware. It doesn't do anything that other systems can't do.
We should buy the same bike and swap ends!
I'm same height with a mere 28.5" inseam. L reach, M standover... it would work!
Seriously guys... that's shallow. It's a mountain bike for crying out loud, and an AM one at that. A pound or two is almost insignificant, compared to body weight, and certainly won't kill you. Yeah, it sort of looks like an ebike, but if it performs drastically better... to be markedly different you've gotta be markedly different. You can't ask for change and progress and then complain about things being new and different.
It’s like putting shreks head on Beyoncé’s body, it probably rides amazing but you wouldn’t want one.