Over the past 5 years, mountain bike suspension designs have evolved from a few designs (essentially Horst and single-pivot) to a myriad of high-performance suspension designs (VPP, DW-Link, CVA, Maestro, ABP, I-Drive, ICT, ETS and the like). All the while, Specialized has become cornered–pinned in by the very patent that they’ve held so dear all these years. Their way is a great way, but is it the BEST way?
In no way am I discounting the Horst-link suspension design, but at this point, I could take it or leave it. Five years ago, that wasn’t the case though because it was the most reliable and efficient suspension design available. Now, there are several designs vying for the “best” suspension design on the market. While the topic of “Best Suspension Design” will be quite subjective, it’s still an interesting debate.
This year alone, I’ve ridden the following suspension designs:
- DW-link (Iron Horse MKIII, Iron Horse 6Point6, Pivot Mach 5 and Ibis Mojo)
- Horst-link (Norco Fluid LT and Ellsworth Evolve)
- ICT (Ellsworth Evolve)
- CVA (Niner RIP 9, Niner Jet 9)
- Maestro (Giant Reign 1)
- VPP (Santa Cruz Blur LT)
- Single-pivot (Ventana El Terremoto, Rocky Mountain Slayer, Kona Hei Hei 2-9 and Salsa Big Mama)
- ETS (Rocky Mountain Altitude)
My Thoughts on Modern Suspension Design
At this point, every manufacturer will tell you that their suspension design is the best. Of course they believe it and of course you should look at those claims with some degree of scrutiny. Those claims are just marketing hooey until rubber meets dirt and bumps are met with squishy travel in all it’s glorious varieties.
Quite honestly, every suspension design I’ve ridden in recent years has been good and sometimes they have been outstanding, but no single modern suspension design is inherently bad. There can be bad renditions, but each suspension design on the market has merit and can be stellar when properly executed with the right implementation.
Yes, you can easily tell the difference between each design and some are better suited to climbing while others are more well-suited to descending. Some are built for simplicity while others end up being flush with complexity. Again, the marketing engine will try to pit one design against another–claiming superiority.
Single-pivot designs are typically the most picked-on design these days, but when one is properly executed, you’ll have a hard time differentiating it from a Horst-link. On the other end, the VPP, DW-Link and their copycats are often written off as too complex or prone to breakdown.
The performance of virtual pivot designs is proof that the simplest solution is not always the best.
Is the Horst-link Becoming Irrelevant?
Horst-link suspension designs have been the ideal for a long time and suspension designers have been held back because of their reluctance to push the limits of the Specialized-owned patent. For 2009, Rocky Mountain is splitting hairs between the Horst and their own ETSX patent on the new Altitude platform. The untrained eye will never notice the subtle differences and even the most experienced rider will likely not be able to tell the difference in ride quality. Though only a few millimeters differentiate this from the Horst-link, you won’t find the Big S knocking on Rocky’s door because they know it’s clearly out of their patent, yet still offers all the good of the fabled Horst.
Rocky Mountain's ETS Suspension Design
Trek is also pushing the Horst-link into its corner with the introduction of their Active Braking Pivot or ABP design, which puts both the axle and rearward pivot at the same location. Braking, suspension and pedaling forces are isolated with a stellar ride quality.
Trek's Active Braking Pivot (ABP) Suspension Design
All the virtual pivot designs share enough similarities that I’ll lump them together. Each one does ride slightly different, but they are all awesome alternatives and sometimes superior alternatives to the traditional Horst-link. Pedaling and braking forces are canceled out and isolated from the suspension action.
Santa Cruz's VPP Suspension Design
Single-pivot designs can be simple (swingarm and shock) or more complex (four bar), but in the end the pivoting chainstay produces a simple arced wheel path. I dare you to ride a Rocky Mountain Slayer, Ventana El Terremoto or a Kona Hei Hei 2-9 and tell me that single-pivot designs have poor ride qualities. When done well, they offer outstanding performance.
Ventana's Single Pivot (Faux Bar) Suspension Design
So, I throw it out there to you… do you think the Horst-link (Specialized-owned suspension design) is becoming irrelevant in today’s mountain bike suspension world? Chime in below.
I think the modern shock, especially the Fox RP23 has made it easier to develope a non-horstlink suspention as well. Having a solid platform shock is the fondation for a good single piviot desighn it seams.
So true! The RP23 is a great shock which can make up for deficiencies inherent to some suspension designs.
By the way, you couldn’t be more wrong about vpp not being effected by pedaling and braking! All wheelpaths will be effected somewhat by pedaling and braking and vpp’s are actually among the worst! Why do you think shocks now have stupid pedal platform? it’s just extra low speed compression damping to deaden crappy ride characteristics caused by complicated, multi-arc vpp wheelpaths. Sounds like technology you can do without if you don’t buy a piece of crap vpp.
And that Rocky ets design isn’t as similar to a horst as you think, definitely not worthy of comparison. The chainstay pivot needs to be below and in front of the rear axle to have a true 4-bar wheelpath. That is how specialized define and protect the Horst-link; if you place the link in other places it actually makes a huge difference. and I bet that Rocky’s pivot is as close as it can be without violating Specialized’s technology.
All of the recent vpp bandwagoners are either misinformed or lying IMO, it’s just simple physics.
The performancce of vpp designs are proof that the more simple designs aren’t always best?
How is that?
When other companies are making aftermarket suspension parts (for bikes like santa cruz and intense) to try to improve the stiffness and cure creakiness, i think that is a bad sign. definitely not a sign of performance or durability.
and it wasn’t just a coincidence that platform valving (pedal platform) has become popular as vpp designs have become more trendy.. vpp bikes especially can ride so crappy, if they aren’t set up perfectly (like exact manufacturer sag) things happen that most people find too annoying to ignore. and over-damping with low-speed compression became an accepted way to deaden these poorly designed suspension systems in my opinion…
In addition, using chain torque to hold the rear axle in a certain spot in the wheelpath isn’t exactly efficiency. all vpp’s work this way and claim it’s just “pedalling efficiency” when it’s actually using a complex axle path to allow chain torque to pull the rear wheel to a certain spot, making the bike less active, sacrificing traction. and all vpp designs have brake-jack comparable to a single pivot as far as i’ve seen..
Whoa Jake… I obviously struck a raw nerve with you. Do us all a favor and tell us which bike company you work for.
Just kidding man…
You’re very correct in pointing out some of the challenges that have plagued the VPP designs of the past. I’m sure if we went back in time and pointed out every flaw with the first Horst designs or the first iDrive designs or the first single-pivot designs, we’d find the same things. With every new technology, it takes work to fix all the little issues. That said, there will always be issues with any full-suspension bike–no matter the suspension design.
And, I don’t think that there’s a clear correlation between suspension tuning and platform shocks and VPP designs. All suspension designs benefit from those technologies and who sells the most bikes? You guessed it… the Big S. Not satisfied with the way Fox was running the platform show, they built their own platform shock–they realize that all suspension designs–even the Horst–can benefit from modern shock technology.
I completely agree with you that there are trade offs with each suspension design. And, I’ve spared everyone the detailed engineering drawings and physics only to point out the riding characteristics of each design–isn’t that what counts?
Each design has limits, but, as I pointed out… each has merit and I’ve ridden great renditions of each suspension design. It all proves the point that the Horst link is further being pushed into the corner by other, equally suitable designs. Am I saying the Horst sucks? Heck no… I’m just saying that there are other alternatives and the Big S IS being pigeon-holed.
In the end, ride characteristics–not physics lessons–are the most important judge of a suspension design. Personally, I’ll be happy as a clam with any of the above suspension designs if it’s done well. I can name several kick-butt designs in each camp.
Great article. From a total noob’s perspective, where does the Yeti 575 suspension fit in?
575 is a single pivot…. a very well executed single pivot.
I think the Elsworth ICT and Specialized Horst link are the “gold standard” and others are trying to get as close as possible to that performance. Some designs are closer than others to the Horst link and most riders wouldn’t know the difference anyway.
It all comes down to axle path. A single pivot bike still needs a floating brake arm and more sensitive compression tuning to perform similiar to a horst link.
or…get a hardtail and harden up girls!
Good exchange on Horst-link suspensions. I have a related, but separate question> I have a 1995 Norco FTS-1, one of the first Horst-Link bikes made by Norco. Does anyone have a clue where I might find a replacement rear shock for this antique? the OEM unit, which has a proprietary mounting schema for the bottom of the shock, blew out on me. Anyone? thanks so much!
@Bob… have you contacted Norco? They would be the only ones I can think of who may know the eye-to-eye measurements and stroke of the shock.
However, if it has a proprietary lower housing/mount, my guess is you’re out of luck since suspension technology has changed A LOT since 1995 (HALLELUJAH!).
Do you have pics of it?