Vertical vs horizontal shock

[chuck]

Is either one a better design? If so why?

[bikemonster]

I'll bite. I prefer horizontal. For two reasons:

 

1 - The shock is out of the way of the mud and crud that a MTB invariably picks and throws around.

 

2 - There is no need for fancy pivots and linkages to transmit the forces through 90 degrees from the angle they "arrive" at, IYSWIM. That means that horizontal designs can be simpler in construction, often with fewer pivot points.

 

 

 

Then again, Giant went from a horizontal to vertical design with the Anthems, and it is just possible that Giant's lab rats know more about suspension design than I do.

 

 

 

In truth, it's prolly a matter of personal preference, nothing more. But I know which design I prefer, and I chose a Scott Spark.

[Capricorn]

weight distribution, ie center of gravity.

 

fancy linkages create types of movement for the rear wheel which some riders prefer over others. It's never really a simple notion about causing the shock to move along it's travel. It's about what your want the rear wheel to do.

every shock gets caked in mud eventually, horizontal or otherwise. All depends on how you ride thru what you ride.

Point is: each orientation depends on what the design goal is, ie how the designer wants the suspension to work. Whether it's horizontal or vertical as a standalone fact, is almost irrelevant.

[MintSauce]

Mostly agree with what Capricorn says. To add my 2c, horizontal or vertical doesn't matter....it has ABSOLUTELY NO baring on the performance of the suspension system.

 

The suspension performance is determined by the shock rate. The rate is determined by the position of the pivot points of the linkage/swingarm/chainstays in relation to the shock's direction of movement. Therefor, by tweaking the position of the pivots in relation to the shock, you can achieve the same/similar performance on vastly different frame architectures, irrespective of the orientation of the shock itself.

 

WRT to weight distribution, the differences here are barely worth noting, espcially on lightweight XC bikes. Perhaps more so on FR/DH bikes which tend to have heavy coil shocks and large linkages. Even then, the bikes are much heavier overall so again the difference in feel/performance would be negligible

 

 

 

 

 

[chuck]

That's what I figured but since I overheard some tjop advising his buddy to stay away for vertical shock mount I figured that maybe I'm missing something. Maybe one day when I battle to hold onto my zimmer frame I'll consider a dual sus, until then my shock is mounted in my bud (orientation unknown)

[Headshot]

Mostly agree with what Capricorn says. To add my 2c' date=' horizontal or vertical doesn't matter....it has ABSOLUTELY NO baring on the performance of the suspension system.

The suspension performance is determined by the shock rate. The rate is determined by the position of the pivot points of the linkage/swingarm/chainstays in relation to the shock's direction of movement. Therefor, by tweaking the position of the pivots in relation to the shock, you can achieve the same/similar performance on vastly different frame architectures, irrespective of the orientation of the shock itself.

WRT to weight distribution, the differences here are barely worth noting, espcially on lightweight XC bikes. Perhaps more so on FR/DH bikes which tend to have heavy coil shocks and large linkages. Even then, the bikes are much heavier overall so again the difference in feel/performance would be negligible

 

Yes, and no. Yes, shock rate is variable depending on the suspension design and shock itself but the rate is not the sole determinant of suspension performance. My Raliegh RDS has a slight falling rate so it uses all its 100mm travel and if pushed will bottom out. The Zula is the same if the reviews are to be believed. Santa Cruz have just brought out a new design mono pivot with a linkage driven shock that mimics their VPP shock rate curve - they want a suspension that has a rising rate at the end of its travel to prevent bottoming - So opposite to my Raliegh and the Zula!

 

The axle path is the other big factor - on a mono-pivot design,  the wheel travel is in an arc around the actual pivot that varies the bikes wheel base lightly as it cycles up and down. Some designers believe this is a problem as it results in a less compliant suspension in certain circumstances so things like the SC VPP,  Giant Maestro, DW link and so on create a virtuial pivot point that allows the axle to follow a straighter up and down path.

 

The actual poistion of the shock in the frame is  determined by the  design being used although a mono-pivot would usually have a horizantal shock as the design just works like that...

 

In my opinion simple is best in the bike world and a Zula is high on my list of must haves...

 

 




[/quote']

Headshot2010-04-30 05:59:12

[Santa C]

If you take looks into it, I prefer it sitting straight under the top part of the frame

[Slowbee]

Surely with more linkages the energy of the force transfer is lost in a vertical shock ?

Also does the placement of the horizontal fork matter ? The santa cruise, vs the titus vs the spark vs the rocky mountain all differ? The older anthem frames with the shock on the lower part of the frame.

[Headshot]

Don't think all bikes with linkages driving the rear shock are the same. Many are mon pivots (circular axle path) unless they have the so called Horst Link on the chainstay or some kind of VPP design like a giant. Specialized I believe has  a patent on this which is why the Scott Genius could not be sold in the USA.