See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/8692613

Bicycle Shock Absorption Systems and Energy Expended by the

Cyclist

Article  in  Sports Medicine · February 2004

DOI: 10.2165/00007256-200434020-00001 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
24 11,660

2 authors:

Henri Nielens Thierry Lejeune

Université Catholique de Louvain - UCLouvain Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc
53 PUBLICATIONS   1,997 CITATIONS    157 PUBLICATIONS   3,998 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Rehabilitation robotics View project

Functional heterogeneity and plasticity of single human muscle fibers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Henri Nielens on 20 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Sports Med 2004; 34 (2): 71-80
LEADING ARTICLE 0112-1642/04/0002-0071/$31.00/0

 2004 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved

Bicycle Shock Absorption Systems

and Energy Expended by the Cyclist
Henri Nielens and Thierry Lejeune
Saint-Luc University Hospital, Catholic University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium

Abstract Bicycle suspension systems have been designed to improve bicycle comfort
and handling by dissipating terrain-induced energy. However, they may also
dissipate the cyclist’s energy through small oscillatory movements, often termed
‘bobbing’, that are generated by the pedalling movements. This phenomenon is a
major concern for competitive cyclists engaged in events where most of the time
is spent climbing, e.g. off-road cross-country races. An acceptable method to
assess the overall efficacy of suspension systems would be to evaluate energy
consumed by cyclists using different types of suspension systems. It could be
assumed that any system that reduces metabolic expenditure for the cyclist would
automatically lead to performance improvement. Unfortunately, only a limited
number of studies have been conducted on that subject. Moreover, the conclusions
that can be drawn from most of them are limited due to unsatisfactory statistical
power, experimental protocols, measuring techniques and equipment.
This review presents and discusses the most relevant results of studies that
focused on mechanical simulations as well as on energy expenditure in relation to
off-road bicycle suspension systems.
Evidence in the literature suggests that cyclist-generated power that is dissipat-
ed by suspensions is minimal and probably negligible on most terrains. However,
the scarce studies on the topic as well as the limitations in the conclusions that can
be drawn from most of them indicate that we should remain cautious before
supporting the use of dual suspension bicycles on all course types and for all
cyclists. For example, it should be kept in mind that most cross-country racers still
use front suspension bicycles. This might be explained by excessive cyclist-
generated power dissipation at the high mechanical powers developed by elite
cross-country cyclists that have not been studied in the literature.
Finally, suspended bicycles are more comfortable. Moreover, the fact that
suspension systems may significantly reduce physical stress should not be over-
looked, especially in very long events and for recreational cyclists.

Since their introduction in the US in the early cently, shock absorption systems also known as
1980s, mountain bikes have become increasingly ‘suspension systems’ or more simply ‘suspensions’
popular. In the beginning, off-road riding capabili- have been developed to improve comfort and per-
ties and gear shifting levers located on the handlebar formance. Nowadays, mountain bikes are the num-
essentially contributed to their popularity. More re- ber-one sold bicycle in the US and in Europe. Most
72 Nielens & Lejeune

models are equipped with a suspended front wheel over, Wang and Hull[8,9] emphasised that suspen-
often called ‘front suspension’ (FS). Some come sions may dissipate the power generated by the
with suspension systems on both wheels generally cyclist, which may become unacceptable for cyclists
known as dual suspension (DS) systems. participating in events organised on hilly terrain.
When it seems obvious that suspensions improve This issue will be discussed more extensively in
comfort, only a limited number of studies have section 1. Power dissipation may occur in the sus-
investigated the effects of such systems on the pensions themselves or in the articulated bicycle
mechanics and the energetics of cycling. After a frame that becomes more flexible,[10] especially in
brief preliminary discussion of some relevant issues bicycles equipped with DS.
concerning bicycle suspensions, this paper will re-
1. Bicycle Suspension Systems
view and discuss available data on the effects of
bicycle shock absorption systems on energy expen- In general, most front and rear shock absorbing
diture. devices are composed of an elastic and a viscous
As discussed by De Lorenzo et al.,[1] suspensions element mounted in parallel (figure 1). Mechanical
isolate the cyclist from vibrations[1] and terrain- properties of both elements are generally separately
induced shocks[2,3] by allowing the wheels to move adjustable on most bicycles. The elastic element is
independently versus the rest of the bicycle. The made of a steel spring that can be pre-constrained at
cyclist and the bicycle equipped with suspensions different levels or an air chamber that can be pre-
are therefore able to travel a smoother path as only inflated at varied pressures according to the nature
the wheels follow the contours of the terrain, im- of the terrain and the cyclist’s preference. The vis-
proving comfort and bicycle handling.[2-7] Suspen- cous element is generally made of a piston and
sions may also improve cornering,[2,3] braking capa- cylinder chamber filled with oil. The oil travels
city,[2,5] and more generally, bicycle control, han- through orifices made in the piston. The total size of
dling[4,7] and traction[2,5] since they allow better the orifices may be adjusted to modify the damper
contact between the tyres and the ground. These viscosity. Some simpler and cheaper systems in-
numerous advantages explain why all downhill clude an elastomer part that has both viscous and
mountain bike racers use front and rear large travel To rider, bike frame
suspension systems that allow much higher speeds
in downhill events.
Alternatively, bicycle suspensions also have Elastic Viscous
drawbacks. For example, DS bicycles are much element element
(spring) (damper)
more expensive and average between 1–2kg and
even 3kg heavier than equivalent rigid models. Such
a 10–15% increase in bicycle weight may be a
concern during uphill racing and accelerations as it
will demand an excess of energy expenditure for the
competitor. Wang and Hull[8] calculated that a 1.8kg
increase in bicycle weight would result in an extra
4.7 seconds for a 60kg cyclist to climb a 6% grade
To wheel, ground
hill for 1000m at 6.5 m/sec. On the basis of such
Fig. 1. Components of a shock-absorbing device. Most shock-ab-
data, Wang and Hull calculated that such an appar- sorbing devices that equip modern suspended bicycles are com-
ently small weight increase would lead to a total posed of an elastic (spring) and a viscous (damper) element mount-
ed in parallel between the wheel and the frame of the bicycle.
time increase of 46 seconds on a championship race
Mechanical properties of each element can generally be tuned
similar to the Women’s World Mountain Bike separately to adjust for terrain characteristics and cyclist prefer-
Championships held in Germany in 1995. More- ences.

 2004 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved Sports Med 2004; 34 (2)
Bicycle Suspensions and Energy Expenditure 73

Suspension element
Rear suspension pivot

a d

b e

c f

Fig. 2. Most common bicycle suspension designs: (a) front telescopic visco-elastic suspension system integrated in each arm of the fork; (b)
traditional rear swing arm with one pivot point; (c) multi-bar linkage rear suspension systems with multiple pivot points; (d) unified rear
triangle system that eliminates interactions between front chain-ring and rear suspension; (e) the Allsop’s Softride system; and (f)
suspension seat posts.

elastic properties. On some bicycles, the suspension bar linkage rear suspension systems with multiple
system may be turned off through command switch- pivot points (figure 2c); and a unified rear triangle
es located on the handlebar allowing riding in rigid system that eliminates interactions between the front
mode. chain-ring and the rear suspension (figure 2d). Much
While most FS systems are generally made from simpler systems have also been developed that allow
telescopic forks with visco-elastic elements in each isolating the cyclist from vibrations and/or shocks
arm of the fork, rear suspension systems are numer- generated by terrain irregularities. However, in such
ous. Figure 2 shows several systems that are com- systems, almost the entire bicycle mass is unsprung.
monly available on the market. Suspension systems In the Allsop’s Softride system, the saddle is mount-
are varied, from the simplest to the most sophisticat- ed on a flexible composite beam (figure 2e). Suspen-
ed. Many mountain bikes are currently equipped sion seat posts are relatively cheap and simple sys-
only with a front telescopic visco-elastic suspension tems that can replace traditional rigid seat posts on
system integrated in each arm of the fork (figure 2a). most bicycles (figure 2f). The location of the centre
More sophisticated DS systems are: traditional rear of rotation of the rear suspension swing-arm (i.e. the
swing arm with one pivot point (figure 2b); multi- pivot point) is an important technical characteristic

 2004 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved Sports Med 2004; 34 (2)
74 Nielens & Lejeune

of rear suspensions as it may influence the magni- while noting that both the tyres[2,8,10,15] and the body
tude of cyclist-generated power that is dissipated in parts of the cyclist[2,3] also dissipate energy generat-
the system.[8,11-14] ed by terrain irregularities and thus act as dampers.
Several authors have studied the optimal pivot Downhill racers are confronted with important ter-
point location of the rear suspension through rain irregularities on very steep courses travelled at
mechanical modelling[8,9,13] and experimentation.[3] high speeds. Hence, suspensions used in such events
However, only very few scientific publications have must be designed to absorb a large amount of ter-
addressed the issue of the optimal design for suspen- rain-induced energy. As a result, modern downhill
sion systems. Accordingly, besides more precise bicycles are usually equipped with large travel sus-
knowledge about rear suspension pivot point loca- pensions with large energy absorption capacity.
tion that will be presented and discussed more ex- Unfortunately, suspensions may also dissipate
tensively in section 2, most arguments proposed by power generated by the cyclist’s muscles through
manufacturers favouring their particular system still small oscillatory suspension displacements often re-
need to be objectively assessed. ferred to as ‘pogoing’[2] or, more commonly, ‘bob-
bing’.[3,8,9,12] Bobbing can essentially be generated
2. Mechanical Aspects: The Engineer’s by two mechanisms: (i) the displacement of the
Point of View cyclist’s body parts; and (ii) the interaction between
the forces applied on the pedals that are transmitted
By definition, the main function of suspension to the front chain-ring and the rear suspension.
systems is to absorb energy. More specifically, the The first mechanism can be reduced either by
viscous element (damper) present in most shock- tuning the suspension optimally and/or by the cyclist
absorbing devices is precisely designed to dissipate who can adapt his/her pedalling technique.[2,10]
energy transmitted to the suspension element. In the However, the magnitude of the energy dissipation
bicycle, cyclist and terrain model, energy can be that may occur through such a mechanism has never
generated and transmitted to the suspensions either been studied in detail. It seems clear that such an
by the terrain irregularities or by the cyclist them- issue will be difficult to address since it may be
self[8,9] (figure 3). assumed that displacement of a cyclist’s body parts
The aim of bicycle suspensions is to dissipate is probably highly variable among individu-
energy generated by the terrain allowing better com- als.[14,16,17]
fort and bicycle handling for the cyclist. It is worth-
The second mechanism (bobbing induced by
interaction between front chain-ring and rear sus-
Deformable cyclist pension) is graphically represented in figure 4. As
in movement
recalled by Good and McPhee,[13] such a mechanism
Front Rear may become exaggerated in high-load situations
shock-absorbing b shock-absorbing
b such as climbing or sprinting. Several au-
device device
thors[3,8,12-14,17] have studied this phenomenon in
b more detail by modelling the bicycle and cyclist as a
multi-body system with springs and dampers in
order to evaluate the magnitude of energy dissipated
in the rear suspension.
a a More specifically, Wang and Hull[11,12] calculat-
Fig. 3. Forces transmitted to the suspensions. In off-road cycling, ed that the power dissipated in the rear suspension
forces transmitted to the suspensions may be classified in two
categories: (a) forces generated by the terrain irregularities; and (b)
was 6.9W when cycling uphill at 6.5 m/sec (23.4
forces generated by the movements of the cyclist which are applied km/h) a 6% grade smooth surface. This 6.9W value
on the handlebar, saddle and pedals. represents only 1.3% of the total power developed

 2004 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved Sports Med 2004; 34 (2)
Bicycle Suspensions and Energy Expenditure 75

Fig. 4. Rear suspension compression (a) and extension (b) forces in relation to pivot point location. In bicycles equipped with rear suspensions, the cyclist-generated pedalling
forces are transmitted to the rear shock-absorbing devices. According to the location of the rear suspension pivot point, pedalling forces may cause the rear suspension to
by the cyclist, which is in agreement with data
presented by Kyle.[18] Noteworthy, power dissipated
in the FS was found negligible. Wang and Hull[11]
also validated their findings experimentally by mea-

compress (a) or to extend (b), which generates cyclist-induced power dissipation (adapted from Wang and Hull,[12] 1997, with permission  Swets & Zeitlinger).
suring front and rear suspension displacements with
linear transducers while a cyclist rode a commercial-
ly available DS bicycle on a treadmill at the same
grade and speed.
Later, Wang and Hull[12] studied the optimal rear
suspension pivot point location in terms of energy
loss minimisation. The vertical position of the pivot
point was the most critical factor. Their model
Pivot

showed that power dissipated in the rear suspension

could be reduced to 1.2W when the pivot point was
positioned on the seat tube, 11cm above the bottom
Chain
force

bracket for a 32-teeth front chain-ring. They also

Suspension

showed that optimal pivot point location was very

extends

insensitive to the fore-aft location of the pivot point,

to pedalling mechanics, and to both spring and
damping parameters. Due to the U-shape of the
power dissipation versus vertical location of the
b

pivot point curve, a sub-optimal pivot point location

lead to only a small increase in energy loss. Wang
and Hull’s results also indicated that the optimal
pivot point location is directly dependent of the size
of the front chain-ring, which is understandable
because that parameter directly determines the posi-
tion of the chain-line.
Needle and Hull[3] conducted an experimental
study with a DS bicycle with adjustable geometry
and suspension parameters to verify the validity of
both the previously proposed model and the location
Pivot

of the rear suspension pivot point obtained by simu-

lation. In this experimental study of suspension dis-
Chain
force

placements with only one cyclist, the optimal pivot

compresses
Suspension

point location was found to be 8.4cm above the

bottom bracket, which was relatively close to the
result obtained by simulation.
Good and McPhee[17] developed a less complex
four-body dynamic model of a rear suspended bicy-
a

cle that was quite different than that of Wang and

Hull.[11] The response of their four-body model was
compared with simulation data previously obtained
by Wang and Hull.[11] Although this four-body
model was considerably simpler, it produced similar

 2004 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved Sports Med 2004; 34 (2)
76 Nielens & Lejeune

results in terms of rear suspension displacements as (braking, cornering, traction etc.). However, in the
a function of crank (bottom bracket) angle. Using a standing position, power dissipated in the rear sus-
different optimisation method known as a ‘genetic pension may reach up to 5% of the total power
algorithm’ to determine the optimal design of the developed by some cyclists. It must be kept in mind
rear suspension (pivot point location) along with that many simplifying assumptions are made in sim-
their four-body model, Good and McPhee[13] show- ulation studies. Hence, numerous factors are ne-
ed that the optimal rear suspension pivot point was glected that may lead to a systematic underestima-
located 11.6cm above the bottom bracket and 2.7cm tion of power losses due to suspension systems, e.g.
behind the seat tube. Such results are again very multi-articulated DS bicycle frames become more
close to the first simulation data obtained by Wang flexible. It may be hypothesised that the amount of
and Hull. energy dissipated in the frame itself[2] may increase
significantly. Such a source of energy dissipation is
Finally, in a recent study by Karchin and Hull,[14]
neglected in computer-simulation studies. However,
11 experienced cyclists were asked to ride a custom-
it may be significant as witnessed by the efforts
built DS bicycle with adjustable geometry and sus-
made by manufacturers of bicycle parts to reduce
pension parameters at an approximate power of
the flexibility of front telescopic-suspension forks
300W (6% grade on a treadmill at 24.8 km/h) in a
by designing reinforced front wheel hubs and brake
seated as well as in a standing position. By monitor-
bridges.[1]
ing the suspension displacements with linear poten-
tiometers, Karchin and Hull showed that: (i) the Another method to evaluate the amount of power
lost in suspensions is to measure the energy con-
minimum power loss at the optimal pivot point
sumed by the cyclist riding FS or DS bicycles as
height was quite variable among study participants
compared with non-suspended ones. Section 3 of
(mean 0.89W, range 0.59–1.25) indicating large
this manuscript will review such studies and focus
variability in pedalling mechanics; (ii) power dissi-
more on physiological variables that can be observ-
pated in the rear suspension was considerably higher
ed in the laboratory or on the field.
(mean 6.49W, range 0.7–13.48) in the standing posi-
tion; (iii) no significant interaction between front
3. Energetic Aspects: the Exercise
and rear suspensions could be found; (iv) the opti-
Physiologist’s Point of View
mal pivot point location is higher in the sitting
position (9.77cm) than in the standing position The energy consumed by the cyclist ultimately
(5.88cm); and (v) notwithstanding the wide variabil- reflects the result of the interaction of the multiple
ity in the minimum power loss among study partici- variables from the terrain, bicycle and cyclist. On
pants, the optimal pivot point location remained the same irregular terrain travelled at the same
consistent. speed, a more efficient suspension system (i.e. a
In summary, all mechanical simulation and ex- system that dissipates terrain-induced energy well
perimental studies specifically conducted to evalu- without dissipating cyclist-generated energy) should
ate the power dissipated by suspensions in DS bi- allow the cyclist to expend less energy than with a
cycles agree that the estimated power lost in the rear less efficient suspension, since less cyclist-generat-
suspension ranges from 0.5–2W in the seated posi- ed power will be dissipated in the suspension. At
tion when the pivot point is located optimally maximal energy expenditure rate, this more efficient
(±10cm above the bottom bracket on the seat tube). suspension will ultimately allow the cyclist to attain
Such a magnitude of power loss remains inferior to higher speed.
0.7% of the total power developed by the cyclist. It Berry et al.[4] were the first to evaluate metabolic
should therefore be largely compensated by the ben- expenditure by means of oxygen consumption
efits provided by suspensions in terms of comfort (V̇O2) of cyclists riding different types of bicycles
and performance related to better bicycle handling (no suspension, FS, DS and rear suspension only) on

 2004 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved Sports Med 2004; 34 (2)
Bicycle Suspensions and Energy Expenditure 77

a treadmill with a 4% grade and at a speed of 10.4 significant 11.5% reduction in energy consumption
km/h with or without a 3.8cm high bump attached to observed in the DS mode by Berry et al.[4] Although
its belt with duct tape. No significant differences in up to 12 study participants took part in the first
V̇O2 were noted in relation to the suspension type in phase of the study where metabolic measurements
the no-bump condition. In other words, suspensions were conducted, a type II error may still not be
did not significantly increase energy expended by excluded. This hypothesis may be supported by the
the cyclist riding on a smooth surface. They observ- fact that mean heart rates recorded on the rigid
ed a very significant energy consumption increase in bicycle were significantly higher than those on the
relation to the presence of the bump, ranging from a suspended bicycles. In another phase of the proto-
63% increase compared with the no-bump condition col, seven study participants were asked to complete
for the non-suspended bicycle to 41% for DS bicy- three different time trial courses as fast as possible
cle. The DS allowed a very significant 11.5% de- including a downhill, a climb and a cross-country
crease in V̇O2 (p = 0.004) compared with the non- course. In the cross-country trial, the best perform-
suspended condition. Adding only a rear suspension ance was achieved on the FS bicycle in five of the
to the bicycle already yielded a significant energy seven cyclists with the mean finishing time being
saving. Surprisingly, the FS alone did not succeed in significantly smaller (p = 0.02) with the FS. This
lowering energy expenditure significantly, which observation fits well with what is currently observed
suggests that FS does not succeed in reducing ener- in competition. No significant differences in finish-
gy consumed by the cyclist when a DS system does. ing times relative to suspension types were noted in
Such a finding contrasts with data of other authors the downhill and climbing trials.
that will be discussed further in the next paragraph. More recently, MacRae et al.[7] conducted a study
However, a type II statistical error may not be on two different outdoor uphill courses aiming at
excluded due to the relatively small number of study comparing performances of six experienced cyclists
participants (n = 6) included in this study. riding bicycles equipped with FS and DS. The first
Seifert et al.[5] were the first to evaluate the course was a 1.62km asphalted road with a 14.2%
energy cost of bicycle suspensions in a more natural mean grade. The second course was a ‘rocky and
outdoor environment. They designed a rather com- rutted’ fire access road that was 1.38km with a mean
plex protocol during which cyclists were asked to 11.3% grade. Traditional physiological variables
undergo three consecutive experimental phases us- (e.g. heart rate and V̇O2) were monitored and
ing different suspension types (no suspension, FS mechanical power generated by the cyclist was mea-
and DS). In one phase, 12 study participants rode at sured and recorded during the runs by a Schoberer
a constant speed (16.1 km/h) on a flat looped ~400m Rad Messtechnik (SRM) Training System (Weldorf,
course built on hard level ground with 45 fabricated Germany). On both courses, performances in terms
5cm high wooden bumps. It must be emphasised of finishing times were not significantly different
that such experimental conditions are relatively whether the study participants used the FS or the
close to those of Berry et al.[4] with 3.8cm high DS. Likewise, mean heart rate, V̇O2 recorded during
bumps encountered 42 times/min and a 4% grade the runs and blood lactate concentration measured in
compared with 5cm high bumps encountered 30 samples collected 2 minutes after the end of the
times/min and no grade, respectively, in Berry et trials were not different, suggesting that metabolic
al.[4] and Seifert et al.[5] protocols. Only a trend cost is independent of the suspension types. How-
toward a significant reduction of mean V̇O2 (p = ever, mean mechanical power generated by the
0.07) was observed with the suspended bicycles study participants as recorded by the SRM system
compared with the non-suspended one. Although was almost 30% higher with the DS compared with
experimental conditions were relatively similar, the the FS on both courses, which was very significant.
results from Seifert et al.[5] contrast with the very In our opinion, the findings of this study must be

 2004 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved Sports Med 2004; 34 (2)
78 Nielens & Lejeune

considered with caution. It is hard to explain how suspension modes in relation to the relatively high
the study participants could have developed close to deformability of such articulated frames and forks.
30% more mechanical power on the DS bicycle with The results of this study should therefore not be
all physiologically recorded parameters remaining extended to compare high-level cross-country com-
unchanged and when they were all asked to perform petitors using traditional telescopic FS and DS with-
maximally on both bicycle types on both courses. out caution.
The authors argue that the usual relationship be- In summary, Berry et al.[4] were the first to report
tween power output, cardiovascular and metabolic laboratory data suggesting that the metabolic cost of
responses usually observed in the laboratory might riding a bicycle on a bumpy surface could be very
be altered on the field. However, it must be noted significantly reduced by DS systems. Such observa-
that the SRM power-meter system has not been tion illustrates the fact that terrain-induced energy
validated when used with DS bicycles. Another can indeed be dissipated in the suspension system,
hypothesis could be that interactions between the allowing the cyclist to consume less energy to travel
front chain-ring (on which the SRM system is at the same speed over bumpy and shaky surfaces.
mounted on) and the rear suspension could have led The fact that suspensions may also dissipate the
to a systematic mechanical power overestimation cyclist-generated power remains a major concern
due to so-called ‘kick-back’ effects.[12] for bicycle manufacturers and competitors. The only
three studies[4,6,7] that evaluated metabolic cost
Finally, Nielens and Lejeune[6] studied the meta-
(V̇O2) of cyclists using suspended bicycles on
bolic cost of riding a bicycle equipped with different
smooth surfaces failed to demonstrate any increase
types of suspensions on a smooth surface. In this
in metabolic cost in relation to suspensions. Unfor-
experiment conducted in a laboratory, one cross-
tunately, the conclusions that can be drawn at this
country DS bicycle was mounted on a bicycle train- point are limited because of the paucity of studies
er. Different suspension systems were obtained by that evaluated metabolic cost on the field, with the
successively replacing rear and both suspension ele- rather poor statistical power of some studies and,
ments by rigid links. The aim of the study was to finally, with the relatively low value of the mechani-
specifically evaluate any possible cyclist-induced cal power outputs that have been investigated.
energy loss when riding a modern cross-country
suspended bicycle after eliminating terrain-induced
4. Bicycle Comfort and Physical Stress in
energy losses by riding on a smooth surface. Twelve Relation to Suspensions
study participants were asked to perform a 15-min-
ute gradational cycling protocol starting at 50W Seifert et al.[5] evaluated perceived riding com-
with 50W increments every 3 minutes in the three fort and rate of perceived exertion of 20 cyclists who
suspension modes. No difference in V̇O2, nor in successively rode non-suspended, FS and DS bi-
heart rate in any of the stages of the tests was cycles on a hard, level ground course with 45
observed in relation to the suspension type, sug- fabricated bumps during approximately 1 hour. The
gesting that suspensions do not generate any extra DS bicycle was perceived as the most comfortable,
energy expenditure for the cyclist when riding on a and the FS as more comfortable versus the non-
smooth surface. However, in this experiment, the suspended bicycle. Perceived exertion data favoured
highest external power reached was 250W, which is the suspended bicycles and no significant difference
probably significantly lower than powers attained was observed between suspension types. In the same
by competitors in actual cross-country races. More- study, Seifert et al.[5] also reported lower creatine
over, in all suspension modes, the bicycle frame kinase levels in the venous blood samples of cyclists
remained the same (a modern light cross-country after riding the suspended bicycles (FS and DS)
frame with four-bar linkage front and rear suspen- compared with rigid ones. Although no significant
sions) and energy losses may have occurred in all difference was observed between DS and FS for

 2004 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved Sports Med 2004; 34 (2)
Bicycle Suspensions and Energy Expenditure 79

creatine kinase change, these data strongly suggest gesting that suspensions dissipate terrain-induced
that suspension systems are effective in reducing energy variations well. Two studies[4,6] conducted in
muscular stress. a laboratory reported no energy expenditure in-
In summary, comfort is obviously an important crease related to suspensions when riding on a
issue for recreational cyclists who often favour soft- smooth surface. Such studies indicate that if any
er and more comfortable suspension systems. energy was indeed dissipated in the suspensions, it
Nevertheless, the fact that suspensions seem effec- was too small to be measured by traditional respira-
tive in reducing physical stress may become partic- tory gas analysis methods. In other words, the mag-
ularly relevant for competitors engaged in long dis- nitude of any energy dissipation by modern suspen-
tance events that may last up to 6–12 hours and for sion systems must be very small, if any, and thus
recreational cyclists who generally favour comfort. probably negligible compared with the advantages
they provide. Such results are in agreement with
5. Conclusion data observed in mechanical simulation studies.
In summary, evidence present in the literature
Bicycle suspensions have been designed to im- suggests that cyclist-generated power that is dissi-
prove bicycle comfort and handling by dissipating pated by suspensions is minimal and probably negli-
terrain-induced energy variations. However, they gible on most terrains. However, the scarce studies
may also dissipate the energy generated by the cy- on the topic, as well as the limitations in the conclu-
clist through small oscillatory movements often sions that can be drawn from most of them, indicate
termed ‘bobbing’. Bobbing is generated by the cy- that we should remain careful before supporting the
clist’s body movements as well as by the forces use of DS bicycles on all course-types and for all
exerted on the pedals that interact with the rear cyclists. For instance, the fact that most cross-coun-
suspension. This phenomenon is a major concern for try racers still use FS bicycles should be kept in
bicycle manufacturers and competitive cyclists en- mind.
gaged in events where most of the time is spent Finally, suspension systems clearly improve
climbing, such as cross-country races. Any cyclist- comfort and reduce physical stress. This issue
generated power dissipated in the suspensions will should not be overlooked, as most recreational cy-
slow down the cyclist. Ideally, such a loss in per- clists will ultimately favour comfort over perform-
formance that mainly takes place when riding uphill ance.
should always remain smaller than the gain in speed
provided by suspensions through better bicycle han- Acknowledgements
dling, mainly in the downhills.
Several mechanical simulation studies conducted The authors wish to thank Mr E.J. Conley for his valuable
by engineers suggest that if bicycle suspensions and help in the writing of this manuscript. No sources of funding
were used to assist in the preparation of this manuscript. The
geometry are optimised, cyclist-generated power authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant
that is dissipated when riding in a seated position is to the content of this manuscript.
minimal if not negligible. However, several possible
dissipation sources are neglected in such studies as
they included numerous necessary simplifying as- References
1. De Lorenzo DS, Wang EL, Hull ML. Quantifying off-road
sumptions in the models. suspension hub stiffness. Cycling Sci 1994; 3: 12-26
Only a few studies have evaluated the effects of 2. Olsen J. Bicycle suspension systems. In: Burke ER, editor.
High-tech cycling. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 1996:
suspension systems on the energy expended by the 45-64
cyclist in the laboratory and in the field. One study[4] 3. Needle SA, Hull ML. An off-road bicycle with adjustable
showed that the energy expended by the cyclist suspension kinematics. Cycling Sci 1997; 1: 4-29
4. Berry MJ, Woodard CM, Dunn CJ, et al. The effects of a
could be very significantly reduced by a DS system mountain bike suspension system on metabolic energy expen-
when riding on an artificial bumpy course, sug- diture. Cycling Sci 1993; 3: 8-14

 2004 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved Sports Med 2004; 34 (2)
 80 Nielens & Lejeune

5. Seifert JG, Luetkemeier MJ, Spencer MK, et al. The effects of 13. Good C, McPhee J. Dynamics of mountain bicycles with rear
mountain bike suspension systems on energy expenditure, suspensions: design optimization. Sports Eng 2000; 3: 49-55
physical exertion, and time trial performance during mountain 14. Karchin A, Hull ML. Experimental optimization of pivot point
bicycling. Int J Sports Med 1997; 18: 197-200 height for swing-arm type rear suspensions in off-road bi-
6. Nielens H, Lejeune TM. Energy cost of riding bicycles with cycles. J Biomech Eng 2002; 124: 101-6
shock absorption systems on a flat surface. Int J Sports Med 15. Whitt F, Wilson D. The wheel: bicycling science. Cambridge
2001; 22: 400-4 (MA): The MIT Press, 1989
7. MacRae H-H, Hise KJ, Allen PJ. Effects of front and dual 16. Daly DJ, Cavanagh PR. Asymmetry in bicycle ergometer pedal-
suspension mountain bike systems on uphill cycling perform- ling. Med Sci Sports 1976; 8: 204-8
ance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32: 1276-80
17. Good C, McPhee J. Dynamics of mountain bicycles with rear
8. Wang EL, Hull ML. A dynamic system model of an off-road
suspensions: modeling and simulations. Sports Eng 1999; 2:
cyclist. J Biomech Eng 1997; 119: 248-53
129-43
9. Wang EL, Hull ML. Power dissipated by off-road bicycle
18. Kyle C. Chain friction, windy hills, and other quick calculations.
suspension systems. Cycling Sci 1994; 4: 10-26
Cycling Sci 1990; 2: 23-6
10. Olsen J. Bicycle suspension meet Mr Simple Dynamics. Cycling
Sci 1992; 3: 6-12
11. Wang EL, Hull ML. A model for determining rider induced Correspondence and offprints: Dr Henri Nielens, Sports
energy losses in bicycle suspension systems. Vehicle Syst
Medicine, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Université
Dynam 1996; 25: 223-46
12. Wang EL, Hull ML. Minimization of pedaling induced energy catholique de Louvain, Avenue Hippocrate, 10, 1200 Brus-
losses in off-road bicycle rear suspension systems. Vehicle sels, Belgium.
Syst Dynam 1997; 28: 291-306 E-mail: [email protected]

 2004 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved Sports Med 2004; 34 (2)

View publication stats