Bike Set Up Thoughts | Onward MTB
Well then, here we are - it’s Autumn in Queenstown and that means one thing. Hero. Dirt.
Coaching always gets quieter at this time of year, so it’s prime time for working on my own riding and equipment. Having new equipment always gives me ‘the fizz’ to get out and ride, so I thought I’d smash some laps on the RAAW Madonna V3 to get it set up.
Whilst I was at it, it got me thinking about the different ways of setting a bike up. Here’s some of my thoughts on the different methods available, and what I think is the best process of getting a bike set up.
All time fall time.
Bike Set Up Theory.
Ways of setting a bike up.
In my mind, there’s four main ways to get a bike set up:
The ‘old fashioned’ way - solely by feel. This method uses simplistic benchmarks like static sag and processes like bracketing for each fork/shock adjustment - eventually arriving at what the rider feels is a good set up. The basis for making adjustments relies on the rider’s feedback - sensations, perceptions, feelings.
Solely use computer tuning methods, like our BYB Telemetry system (I understand the ‘proper’ way to refer to this is data acquisition, but BYB market themselves as ‘Telemetry’ so I use both). You can go as far as you like with this system - either to find a baseline, or go through numerous rigorous testing procedures like you see on some athlete’s bikes.
Blend both 1. & 2. together.
Trust someone else’s opinion on what they think is a good setup for you. Your suspension service centre, manufacturer’s recommendations and your mates seem to fill this role.
I’ll go into more detail later, but I only see one of these as ‘complete’ solutions.
What’s the goal?
My goal with bike set up is primarily getting the bike balanced for the way I ride. The word ‘balanced’ carries a few meanings:
Front to rear balance - the front and rear wheels are harmoniously responding to the terrain and rider inputs. This is quantitative - Positions & velocities from the BYB system can measure these.
A balance of characteristics - traction (grip), support and control are the three main ones I look for. This is qualitative, based on my feelings.
To achieve this goal, spring adjustments (spring rate and progression) come first, damper adjustments second, all while keeping the rest of the bike in the big picture - tyres, pressures, bar height, grips etc etc. I’m looking to find the ‘best compromise’, rather than search for the ‘perfect’ set up. As tracks, conditions and myself as a rider change, I want to find the setup with the least amount of sacrifices as these variables fluctuate (particularly on an enduro bike, but it’s relevant for everything).
Learning where to draw the line is sometimes an important skill, but the aim here is to reach a solid baseline set up that has a balanced behaviour.
Goals can be more specific, like you want the bike to be comfortable or carry as much speed as possible on a race track. Whatever it is, the clearer you are on what you’re trying to achieve, the better your outcome will be.
Side note - the whole ‘black art’ narrative of suspension setup bugs me. If you are motivated to understand more and apply yourself to it, anyone is capable of understanding suspension and getting their bike setup to a good place. There really is no need for the ‘mystery’ and ‘wizardry’ illusion that gets associated with suspension at a basic bike setup level. Do the basics well and you’re 90% of the way there.
Method One - Setting Up Entirely By Feel
I’ll kick things off by giving my 2 cents on some of the pros and cons of setting a bike up by feel:
Pros of setting up by feel:
It’s relatively easy to get a setup in the ball park. Bikes and suspension are bloody good these days. Different people will have different feelings on being happy in a ball park (on a bike that’s probably worth $5k+….)
You learn. Those that dedicate themselves to a bracketing process (an effective ‘analogue’ process of bike set up) come away with a bike that feels great to them and a bunch of knowledge about bike set up. Riders will develop their own awareness of bike feel too, something we all have different degrees of.
It can be quick - With the help of manufacturer’s recommendations (some of these are considerably better than others, as I shall discuss) and a few carpark bounces, its pretty easy to get the bike rideable - and that’s where most will stop, because they don’t have the time, don’t know what adjustment to make, or don’t care (whatever floats your boat).
It’s cheaper - It’s essentially free, unless you attribute a dollar value to the time you spend doing it, haha.
Cons of setting up by feel:
It takes a very long time to actually go through a proper bracketing system for the bike. I don’t think people appreciate just how long this takes to do properly and less people are willing to dedicate precious ride time to this. It’s a big ask to get a rider to apply themselves to a tedious process of experimenting with one adjustment at a time, on the same track, at the same intensity, over and over again.
On the subject of adjustments… a high end air fork and air shock will have about 6 adjustments each (spring rate, spring progression, HSC, LSC, HSR, LSR, sometimes HBO). Some of these adjustments can have up to 26 clicks, or are on a scale like PSI. Add in a bunch of frame adjustments like shock progression, head angles, BB heights too. I can’t do the maths, but when you think of the possible combinations of all of those variables, that is going to work out to be an ASTRONOMICAL number. This leaves me skeptical about whether it’s possible to get a bike truly dialed in without the assistance of data acquisition.
It relies entirely on rider awareness, experience and knowledge to be able to accurately diagnose what is going on with the bike. The better the quality and specificity of rider feedback, the better chance you have to make the right change. A rider’s feedback will improve over time, as will their ability to match symptoms with causes - but, the learning curve is long and steep.
Measurements like static sag are subject to many inaccuracies. Why? Do a static sag set up three times by yourself and measure the results to the nearest 0.1mm. Chances are you wont be able to repeat the process accurately. For that, and many other reasons, I don’t use static sag for anything other than a quick check of how firm a spring is. It’s easy for everyone to do, hence why it exists, but don’t treat it as anything other than a basic starting point.
It’s easy to get lost. Lost in terms of which adjustment is the right adjustment to make, in which direction you should adjust it (faster/slower, firmer/softer, etc.), and lost in the sense that you lose track of what adjustments you have made.
You adapt as a rider to your bike. If you’ve ended up with a sub-par setup, over time you will adapt to this - for better or for worse, it’s just not as good as it could be.
When it’s done properly, setting a bike up solely by feel can be good. But, it does require dedication, commitment to learning and a big time investment to get it to a point beyond satisfactory. With experience you can improve on this.
Method Two - Setting Up Only With Telemetry
I wont go into as much detail here, as most of it is just flipping the pros and cons of method one above. It’s truly a game changer now that quality data acquisition systems are available to mere mortals like us.
What I will say, is that using data acquisition addresses many of the cons of setting up a bike only by feel. It’s quick, efficient and accurate. Bolting on sensors to the bike gives black and white data on exactly what is happening to the bike, so for those riders who aren’t as in tune with their bikes it can provide essential insight into what’s actually happening to the bike.
Some of the shortfalls of using telemetry solely to set up your bike, are that:
At some point, the human on top of the bike needs to have priority over what the computer might be suggesting. I make this clear in my telemetry tuning days with clients - their sensations are paramount, even if the computer is saying something otherwise (within reason).
Telemetry is not a silver bullet to a reaching set up nirvana - the person interpreting the data still needs some feedback from the rider and the better it is, the better the outcome will be.
Pigeon holing yourself in the data is also a real possibility - e.g chasing down peak velocities, when really the rider isn’t experiencing any majorly negative feedback from the bike.
You can lose sight of the big picture and forget there may be some simple explanations outside of the data, too - for example, the rider chose a different line, the rider is fatigued, etc etc.
Essentially, the human element is always present, so you can’t ignore it. Improving the rider’s awareness and connection to the bike is a big part of completing the set up process. Which leads me to….
Method Three - Setting Up With Telemetry & Feel
The best of both worlds. And, to be honest, you can’t really have one without the other (assuming the rider is genuinely interested in getting their bike to perform better for them).
Using data acquisition to reach a measured baseline quickly, or validate adjustments that have been made to the bike is hugely beneficial (this should still be developed with the feedback of the rider on whether they felt any changes were helpful or not). In many ways it makes it easier having clear data that can back up a riders opinion, or it can highlight many of the more nuanced events that might be happening. Kind of a ‘once you know, you know’ type of learning experience. Once a measured baseline is in place, we’re on like Donkey Kong.
From the baseline, I think a rider who wants to truly invest in their set up should then take the time to experiment with different settings and tune (Waheyyy, what a pun) into the sensations they feel when they ride.
Learning to become more specific and accurate with analyzing their sensations is important too - this could relate to parts of a track, which end of the bike is working, body parts that felt different or changes it made to their weight distribution/position, as examples. Elite riders will usually be better than this, but indeed it’s a skill in it’s own right that takes time to develop. It’s a dynamic sport, so building knowledge on what to change and when is an important skill to have in one’s repertoire.
The best thing about these experiments, is It’s risk free. The ‘insurance’ of being able to go back to what they know (for certain) as a good baseline is always there.
Method Four - Rely on Others
This is either banging in your manufacturer’s recommendations in and calling it a day, or, receiving a baseline setup from your suspension service centre, the bike sales person who sold you the bike, or relying on your mate’s opinion.
Bear in mind what these sources of set up information don’t know, is anything about you. How fast you ride, your weight distribution on the bike, what tracks you ride, your braking techniques, the rest of your bike set up, whether you ride clips or flats, your tyre choices/pressures, any other preferences you have… the list goes on. I’d say the suspension service centre and bike manufacturer stand to offer the most meaningful advice (unless your mate is a suspension guru.).
I have noticed many of the bike manufacturers guides have vastly improved and I have recently been impressed with RAAW’s guidance on the Madonna V3. As I have found out, it was an excellent resource in getting started with the initial starting point.
Overall, this method is…..less than ideal. And it probably says more about the person, who is either just happy to ride something ‘in the ballpark’ or just doesn’t care enough to dedicate themselves to getting more out of their bike. Which is cool, some of these riders absolutely shred and it works for them.
(This is a bit of a tricky one, as I myself am putting myself in a position where clients are relying on me. My justification to this is that I’m either taking measurements to back up my opinions, I’m considering the big picture or I’m trying to improve my client’s own knowledge.)
The Best Option?
I alluded earlier to what I think is a ‘complete’ solution. In my opinion, its blending the best of the data acquisition (computers) and feel-based (human) methods to achieve whatever goal you’re aiming for with your set up.
What makes it truly complete is that:
It can be validated with hard data;
It includes the rider in the adjustment process and acknowledges that this supersedes data (within reason);
It improves the knowledge, awareness and connection of the rider to the bike.
A blend of telemetry and feel will produce excellent results, every day of the week. This is what I want to offer people in my work as a mountain bike coach for Onward MTB Coaching - a truly complete solution to unlocking the performance potential of their bike.
Outro - RAAW Madonna V3 Set Up.
So, back to the Madonna set up - did I go through an in depth set up process, adjusting by feel and using processes like bracketing? No. No I did not. Why? Because I didn’t want to allow myself the time to adapt to something that wasn’t ideal. It’s also late in the season and ride time is precious. I rode for about 2 weeks and made adjustments based on my own heuristics. Honestly, I was reasonably happy with how the suspension was feeling.
But, having experienced what a truly balanced bike rides like, I knew I hadn’t got it quite as balanced as it could be despite my best efforts. Stay tuned for more on the process of adjustments I went through to get the bike set up.
Cheers.
About this blog:
As a MTB coach, my gear gets used. A lot. Over the years I have used a huge amount of gear from different brands and have put them through their paces. Some have triumphed, some have been been average, and many have failed. This blog series aims to give you an honest insight into the stuff we rate and trust to use in our daily work as mountain bike coaches in Queenstown. While we do get some support from brands, the majority of our gear is purchased through stores, just like any other customer. In the cases where we have pricing privileges, we’ll make it clear. Ultimately, we choose everything we use.
