Sporty bike with road suspension?

[UpWrong]

I'm getting keen on the idea of buying a fast bike for the road with suspension front and rear. I've been thinking along the lines of Moultons and the Pacific Cycles Reach Racing but would prefer something with larger wheels. The Reise and Muller Delite Speed is a possibility http://en.r-m.de/bike/delite-speed/ but is still heavier than I'd like. I'd want to be able to fit mudguards and rack which seems to rule out most MTBs, and they're often overbuilt and heavy being designed for off-road abuse. Any ideas?

[andrewjoseph]

Why do you think you need suspension? I'd go for a comfortable frame and large tyres.

I've no experience of the bikes you mention, but I think suspension and fast won't play well together.

The link you posted seems to have the picture and spec confused. The spec has v brakes, the pic has disks.

Basically that link is a mountain bike, you are carrying about 3kg of suspension weight you and heavy tyres that you don't need. Drophandled bikes allow you to tuck down out of the wind somewhat for extra speed.

Last edit, I promise!

My mtb has 100mm suspension front and rear, big chunky heavy tyres and weighs about 14kg. My Tourer has fat tyres and weighs about 10kg. I can get up to 30 km/h in a short sprint on my mtb. I can cruise at about 30km/h on my unladen Tourer.

[Brucey]

the Muller you link to is little more than a FS-MTB with slick tyres. You could 'make' one of those yourself. However, why anyone would want 4" of suspension travel on the road is beyond me.

The Moulton has suspension as part of an integrated package. Bikes with larger wheels and suspension are usually intended for a specific purpose (hence the origins of the muller) or have it added as an afterthought.

In any event 'fast road bike', 'suspension' and 'carrying luggage' are to a great extent at odds with one another.

Moots do their YBB design for the road, and in lightweight CX/hybrid designs too. It is simple and functional; as close as you can get to 'no downside' rear suspension. But I'm not sure such bikes are ever going to be carrying a lot of luggage.

Some would argue that a conventional (but lightweight and springy) rigid frame, equipped with lightweight ~40mm tyres, should provide a good compromise between speed and comfort for the road without the complexities of 'suspension' per se.

cheers

[Si]

First Q is why do you need suspension? If it's to make things more comfortable on normal roads then something that is designed for off-roading probably won't have the desired outcome as it will be tuned for bigger bumps and will add a fair bit of weight. Also, what have you tried so far - just getting bigger, more subtle tyres, a sus seat post and better bar grips/tape may do what you need at a much lower cost without adding much weight or mechanical complexity. Maybe even a flex-stem if you can source one.

The suspended road bikes that I've tried are the Birdy (comfortable at slow speeds but not at all quick) and the chameleon (similar speeds to an audax bike and comfortable at the rear, but obviously not so good at the front, but could carry plenty of luggage).
Moultons have sus designed for small wheels on the road so I'd hope that these do work well.

[samsbike]

bit of a left field choice is the Trek Domane which has some sort of suspension for the rear triangle. I know it takes 25c tires and maybe 28c.

[UpWrong]

I’m largely interested because of the increased comfort compared to rigid frames when using race type tyres. This is to help me fulfil ambitions to do century rides. I want fast and comfortable. I think lightweight, efficient suspension should be possible with such things as elastomers and unified rear triangles. I agree that the Delite looks like an MTB with road wheels on it, although there’s an elastomer option for the rear suspension. Thanks for the pointers to the Trek Domane and the Moots YBB but I’m not convinced by either approach. Isolating the seat would be better done by a Thudbuster suspension post I think. And the Moots is reliant on flexible chain stays? I would imagine that absorbs significant energy.

I’m temptied with the Pacific Cycles Reach despite the small wheels. Small wheels are more aero, particular if you want to use mudguards as I do.

[Audax67]

The trouble with suspension is that the energy that makes the bike go up and down, and which is dissipated as heat in the elastomer etc, is energy which could have gone into propelling the bike. You already have a suspension system: your legs can lift you half an inch off the saddle to go over the bumps. Good shorts, a good saddle and a bit of gel under the handlebar tape will take care of the rest.

[Vantage]

A road bike with these http://www.rosebikes.co.uk/article/rst- ... aid:558588 fitted and a suspension seatpost might do the trick.
With the condition of british roads these days, these forks are looking all the more tasty. Its an extra 4lb in weight up front though

[iandriver]

Some of the Airnimals have elastomiter rear if you'd consider 24" wheels.

http://www.airnimalfoldingbikes.com/

[Mark1978]

Fast and suspension don't go together at all. As mentioned above if you want a super comfortable road bike for century rides then the Trek Domane is the best choice.

[UpWrong]

The trouble with suspension is that the energy that makes the bike go up and down, and which is dissipated as heat in the elastomer etc, is energy which could have gone into propelling the bike.

The point of suspension is to stop the whole bike going up and down, thereby saving energy.

[UpWrong]

A road bike with these http://www.rosebikes.co.uk/article/rst- ... aid:558588 fitted and a suspension seatpost might do the trick.
With the condition of british roads these days, these forks are looking all the more tasty. Its an extra 4lb in weight up front though

You've reminded me of this one which is lighter: http://practicalcycles.co.uk/products/99573--suntour-swingshock-suspension-forks-30mm.aspx

[UpWrong]

Some of the Airnimals have elastomiter rear if you'd consider 24" wheels.

http://www.airnimalfoldingbikes.com/

Thanks but I already knew that. The front end remains unsuspended.

[Brucey]

the Moots YBB but I’m not convinced by either approach. Isolating the seat would be better done by a Thudbuster suspension post I think....

The YBB design keeps the saddle to pedal distance constant. Suspension seatposts don't; whilst the thudbuster is a better design than most from that standpoint, it is very prone to simply wearing out, and (depending on your build and the saddle position) the linkage can hit your thighs.

And the Moots is reliant on flexible chain stays? I would imagine that absorbs significant energy.

well no more so than any other suspension system, provided you pedal smoothly. Smooth pedalling is required with pretty much any rear (or front) suspension; whilst the chain tension variations with bump travel can be dialled out with clever geometry, or are not signficant with very short travel systems (such as the YBB which moves about 1" max), if you don't pedal smoothly, your whole bodyweight will be moving up and down with every pedal stroke anyway, and this will make suspension of any kind bob and this can cost you. Some folk just never get on with any suspension system of any kind because of this.

I've owned and ridden a Moots YBB-SL MTB for some years and I had to rethink my pedalling style on it; moreso than with full suspension bikes with clever geometry. But the YBB suspension (in combination with tyre, seat post, saddle rails etc which all flex) really works, and can be a good trade in terms of comfort vs speed vs weight. My main reason for a full sus MTB is comfort; there are few places I wouldn't be able to ride a hardtail, but it ceases to be pleasurable on an all-day basis... the Moots gives good comfort on anything that isn't a boulder field or worse, and comes in 4-5lbs lighter than a full sus XC bike. IIRC it is about 23lbs all in with a 4" travel fork. I've had some great rides on it and the next day I'm good to go again because of the comfort vs a hardtail.

But back to your situation. You don't need suspension to do century rides; you just need a decent frame with a nice ride quality, decent saddle, decent riding position and decent tyres. Wide, comfy tyres don't have to be very slow these days.

Any fool can 'solve' a problem (usually creating a load more en route...) with more weight, more complexity, more expense, but the best solutions tend to be the 'less is more' kind on bicycles. I'd suggest trying a few really lightweight steel frames (in standard tube gauges, NOT oversize, NOT 1-1/8" steerer) -or there are some decent carbon and Ti ones out there too- before concluding that you 'need' suspension....

cheers

[Mark1978]

The trouble with suspension is that the energy that makes the bike go up and down, and which is dissipated as heat in the elastomer etc, is energy which could have gone into propelling the bike.

The point of suspension is to stop the whole bike going up and down, thereby saving energy.

No; I'm afraid that's not how it works at all. Suspension absorbs the bumps but by doing so takes a lot of energy out of the bike, think about it, that force going into the suspension has to be energy which has come from somewhere, in this case it's from you! You'll get a smoother ride, but you'll pay dearly for that in terms of the amount of effort you need to put in.

Which is why the road bikes like the Domane have tyres which flex around the bumps and shock absorbing materials etc.

Trust us here; suspension is not the way to go.