Difference Super V Active vs Carbon / Aluminium Swingarm

[Brotrob]

Hi all,

I am trying to understand the difference between the fundamental Super V swingarm design options:

- 1993 - 1995 - Aluminium or Carbon "Elevated Chain Stay" Swingarm with higher pivot point and shock against the seat support
- 1996 onwards - Aluminium "Super Active" swingarm made from aluminium tubing with low pivot neat bottom bracket and shock against the fat down-tube


The old version swingarm 1993-1995 seems to have the following pros and cons

Pro:

- much lighter
- eliminates chain suck

Con

- cannot drop the seatpost without hitting the shock
- Ride quality?


Have I understood this correctly? I am particularly interested in the last point - how does the ride quality differ between the two versions? Is the old version bobbling more? Is it less stiff (laterally)?

What were the engineering reasons for changing the design?

Any comments would be greatly appreciated

For reference: here the old version:

And the new version (active)

 

[JohnnyD]

I can't speak for the engineering reasons for the change. However, one of the cons for the original design would have to be limited travel and shock upgrade options when compared to the later design. It doesn't really matter much now since both versions use shock sizing and design that are obsolete and non-standard by today's standards.

 

[Brian]

I feel you need to ride both to understand. I have owned a few Super V. The early design was great in the day. But I feel the newer design is far better 96+. My friend feels the opposite. For the newer design there were a few versions. 80mm/100mm and the last bonded rear swing. I currently own a 99 and a 2000 with the short tabs.

This topic is the same for SE1000/2000 early/late, Raven Gen 1 vs 2, and Jekyll early/late...

 

[Brian]

I can't speak for the engineering reasons for the change. However, one of the cons for the original design would have to be limited travel and shock upgrade options when compared to the later design. It doesn't really matter much now since both versions use shock sizing and design that are obsolete and non-standard by today's standards.

The pivot is the biggest change. High vs Low.

 

[Brotrob]

Thank you for these helpful answers! I also came across this super helpful post at MTBR forum which helped me a lot - to quote "archone":

Super V's are just fine for their intended purpose. You need to put things into context. Back in 92-97 full suspension bikes were light, fast cross country bikes that were designed to reduce fatigue and increase performance on cross country trails. A properly optioned out Super V will hit the scales in the high 24 lbs range. Weight at the time were a design priority. Essentially, these were smoother riding hardtails in concept.

If this is your type of riding, the Super V will suit you fine. Otherwise, move along and get something new.

Super V's are NOT Downhill, all mountain, or bash bikes.

There are two designs of Vintage Super V's. One with the high pivot box swing arm, and one with the lower pivot Active design. (The Active design comes and 80cm & 100cm models.) I have owned both.

The Box swingarm had a lesser tendency to bob. It used an old design that locked out the suspension travel when the chain tension was higher than than the bump force. This actually worked well and was liked by many. (but hated by everyone that rode dirt bikes)

Around '95 or '96, in my opinion partially because of new editors in Mountain Bike Magazines with motorcycling backgrounds, a shift in tastes to a more "active" design was started. The theory was that more suspension travel was more desirable than the bobbing and weight it would bring. It was seen as an acceptable trade off in the public eye. After all, bigger suspension numbers are better, right? All the bike companies started dumping their older lockout designs in favor of longer travel active designs. Hence the Super V active with 70mm in front instead of 50mm and 100mm in back instead of 80mm.

In my opinion the box rear Super V had more precise handling. It was very hardtail-like in handling, but allowed you to go through the rougher stuff faster and with less regard. The Active swing arm felt slower, but went through the rough stuff with less drama. The customization of the Fatty Headshox was awesome at the time, IF you could find a mechanic who knew how to tune it and had the box of shims that was needed to do it. Those were very rare even back in the day.

Then came all the funky really long travel designs, but they're out of the scope of discussion here.

New bikes have a lot of newer technology and better manufacturing capability and depending on where you ride, may be more suited to the trails today.

 

[JohnnyD]

Thank you for these helpful answers! I also came across this super helpful post at MTBR forum which helped me a lot - to quote "archone":

His assessment of the weight is dead on. With some very heavy tires and tubes on my '94 Super V it weighed just over 27 lbs. (12.2 kg) I am curious how much it will change after the rebuild with a Lefty, tubeless tires and the addition of some carbon parts like the seat post and crankset. For comparison, both of my Jekyll's weigh just over 30 lbs. (13.6 kg) and my 2020 Cannondale Habit weighs in at 35 lbs. (15.8 kg). I need to reweigh the Jekyll's though since those weights were before the Mavic wheels and being set up tubeless.

I also have to agree with his opinion as to why the change happened in MTB's . The "bigger is better" mentality is still used to market full suspension MTB's to this day. The push by bike reviewers to have the most suspension travel was one of the things I was aware of when I was looking for a new MTB to ride on more aggressive trails. It took me a while to figure out my "sweet spot" of the amount of suspension travel that I needed to safely and comfortably ride. Once I did, that is where I figured out that the Habit with 130 mm of travel in both front and back was what I should be looking for. In the end I had to tweak that bike to have 135 rear and 150 front to get it exactly how I wanted. Now it is pretty much the perfect bike for me to ride all day down trails. Although, I still take the time to ride at least one other bike when I go. It's fun to watch others react to 20+ year old mountain bike flying down a trail. The comments I get about how "crazy" I must be to ride a bike with a "broken" fork are hilarious. Kids these days have never really seen a Lefty apparently. Makes me smile and appreciate my bikes more. I am looking forward to my trip to Virginia next year to see my daughters, I plan on stopping by Bentonville in Arkansas and Berm Peak in North Carolina for some fun riding on the way there and back.

 

[Nico]

I am not entirely sure of the exact reasons behind these changes because I was not directly involved with the Engineering department in the US. My work was primarily based in the assembly plant in Europe, where I focused on assembling and servicing bikes.

To better understand the engineering, it's important to consider the Delta V and its pivot point. For the Delta V models from 1991 to 1993, the pivot point was positioned significantly higher compared to the later Super V models (1993-1995). This design caused the bike to exhibit a 'pumping' effect during acceleration. The force applied to the chain would pull the swing arm toward the frame, creating an odd sensation for the rider and dissipating energy as the rider worked against the damper.

Riders familiar with the Super V will recognize that it also exhibits this effect, though not as prominently as the Delta V.

When examining the Super Active, changes to the pivot point and the damper position made the bike feel more neutral and less prone to pumping. Additionally, newer models from Fox with tunable damping further improved this aspect of performance.

In 1994, I designed and built a 'Super V' myself, using the specifications of a 19" Super V frame with a Headshok. Aware of the Super V’s pumping issue, I was motivated to create a design that minimized this effect. I designed the frame and swingarm using an early version of AutoCAD, printed the design, and, with the help of a friend skilled in aluminum welding, built a prototype with the tubing that was available in the shop.This design has the vertical damper and pivots around the bottom bracket.

My 1994 bike

Somewhere in my archives, I have a photo of my bike in its half-built state inside the Cannondale facility. A few colleagues at Cannondale Europe took it for a test ride and noted that it felt neutral, particularly concerning the pumping or bobbing effect.
This was before any production started for the Super Active, which was still in development at the time. Some pictures of my bike ended up in Bedford when a colleague took them to the US, but I never received any feedback.

Funny thing, when I came to work with this bike some thought I had build a Magic 4000 (Pong Bike).

 

[JohnnyD]

I am not entirely sure of the exact reasons behind these changes because I was not directly involved with the Engineering department in the US. My work was primarily based in the assembly plant in Europe, where I focused on assembling and servicing bikes.

To better understand the engineering, it's important to consider the Delta V and its pivot point. For the Delta V models from 1991 to 1993, the pivot point was positioned significantly higher compared to the later Super V models (1993-1995). This design caused the bike to exhibit a 'pumping' effect during acceleration. The force applied to the chain would pull the swing arm toward the frame, creating an odd sensation for the rider and dissipating energy as the rider worked against the damper.

Riders familiar with the Super V will recognize that it also exhibits this effect, though not as prominently as the Delta V.

When examining the Super Active, changes to the pivot point and the damper position made the bike feel more neutral and less prone to pumping. Additionally, newer models from Fox with tunable damping further improved this aspect of performance.


View attachment 12610


In 1994, I designed and built a 'Super V' myself, using the specifications of a 19" Super V frame with a Headshok. Aware of the Super V’s pumping issue, I was motivated to create a design that minimized this effect. I designed the frame and swingarm using an early version of AutoCAD, printed the design, and, with the help of a friend skilled in aluminum welding, built a prototype with the tubing that was available in the shop.This design has the vertical damper and pivots around the bottom bracket.

My 1994 bike
View attachment 12611


Somewhere in my archives, I have a photo of my bike in its half-built state inside the Cannondale facility. A few colleagues at Cannondale Europe took it for a test ride and noted that it felt neutral, particularly concerning the pumping or bobbing effect.
This was before any production started for the Super Active, which was still in development at the time. Some pictures of my bike ended up in Bedford when a colleague took them to the US, but I never received any feedback.

Funny thing, when I came to work with this bike some thought I had build a Magic 4000 (Pong Bike).

Even with the bike in the early proto-type stages you what stands out to me most? The stupid ubiquitous derailleur hanger used by so many Cannondale frames during that era!

 

[Nico]

I really liked that deryy hanger, saved me a lot of time by using that instead of having to machine a derry mounting point myself. ;-)

 

[Brotrob]

Its so cool to see what an informative discussion developed here, with real insiders to Cannondale posting

@Nico Thank you for your input! I was wondering whether you could comment more on the pumping / bobbing topic.

Pumping and bobbing refer to the same phenomenon? Or are they different? The person I quoted in post 5 in this thread suggested that the early Super V 1993-1995 (non active) had less bobbing than the Super V active 1996 onwards.

Can you confirm that?

For more context. The article from MBA below seems to suggest this was achieved by setting up the sag at the rear shock of the early Super V to zero!