View attachment 99166
Part 2 Review: Suspension
In the
Part 1 Review and subsequent posts, I’ve focussed heavily on Voima geometry, if not beating the topic into submission. But the supporting player in the riding characteristics of this bike is the suspension, but you can only start to to focus on it after you’ve synthesized the progressive geometry. And again, Pole has forced me to rethink my notions of suspension design as well.
A big chunk of MTBs intellectual property is its suspension. Geometries can be copied but suspension design is often protected by patents, with design owners making sometimes wild claims about their unique performance and things can get heated in MTB forums on the topic with whatever biases a contributor/member might come to the table with.
My particular bias is for Horst Link four-bar linkages. Way back in 1993 I rode an Amp Research B2 which was made by Horst himself, in a age where full suspension bikes were mostly folly and unproven (URT, anyone?). Many designs languished but the Horst Link endured, with the Amp Research patent quickly acquired by Specialized which became the pervasive FSR suspension (and exploded into many other brands after the patented expired). The Levo I own posses this same suspension, essentially, which for me made the bike both familiar and usable at the get go. I always preferred the pure Horst Link design ( over, say, VPP-style designs) because both braking force and pedal force tended not the affect the suspension plushness. This kind of suspension is very noticeable because its always there and fully available and things like the older Specialized Brain remote dampers and platform shock controls could be used to reduce unwanted pedal induced bob.
The Voima’s suspension on the other hand, for me, is strangely not noticeable at all. The plushness is utterly and totally there (heck, there’s 190mm of it), but there is a sublimation of the suspension into the kinematic feel of the bike as whole. The suspension does not draw attention to itself, other its polarizing looks (a praying mantis, a USS starship?). When I’m pedaling hard or when torque from motor quickly engages, I don’t see the suspension move, no matter the gear I’m in. As such, the bike does not need rear shock platform setting - it can be full left open. So it seems Pole’s claim of anti-squat characteristics do hold water.
But what about anti-rise? It isn’t mentioned in the product literature, so I asked Pole about this and they sent me this graph:
View attachment 99167
Basically, the Voima has high anti-rise, which markedly lowers as the bike moves through the travel. The downside of high anti-rise is the tendency to compress the suspension while braking, hence limiting its effects. The positive side is that it tends to keep the geometry of the bike intact even while braking. For example, the Levo has low anti-rise and Specialized makes this known as an advantage in their product literature. Pole seems to have taken the opposite tack, as if not to even care.
Based on my testing, I’m not really sensing any effective difference in suspension when applying brakes and I’m not sure why. Perhaps its the 190mm of ample travel that can take up anti-rise compression and still provide ample travel for the suspension. Or perhaps it’s the progressive rate of the suspension framing the ride characteristics of the bike that overtakes any direct sense of suspension effects (unlike, say the Levo, where I can always feel it at work). Overall my impression is that the suspension seems designed to keep the geometry consistent in multiple ride modes and under various terrain contours. Hence why I don’t seem to notice it at work, rather, it just works.
Regarding damping, the current bike setup biases toward progression (as opposed linear or fall rates), keeping the bike from bottoming out rather that having super plush response that blows through the travel at times. I must admit I’m interested in exploring removing the spacers and changing the shock pressures to see where its takes me in the plushness department with the freaking 190mm of travel on tap. But then again, perhaps this is not what Leo intended, where doing so might make the bike’s geometry work against you rather than for you. I’ll report back after some experimentation. Also, it’s not worth lending much discussion about shock compression and rebound settings as this is something that can be easily assessed by individual rider preference. That said, for me, I’ve backed off compression and rebound settings pretty far.
Regarding the looks of the suspension, perhaps the elevated swing-arm throws people off, reminding folks of fat, elevated, single pivot swing-arms on bikes from Orange all the way back to the San Andreas. To be clear, this is four-bar linkage suspension, sharing this base DNA with FSR, VPP, and DW-Link, as they too are four-bar, albeit with different linkage lengths and rotations. But the linkages with Sensei are long compared to others, which somewhat adds to the "otherness" of the design. This too appears deliberate as it puts the bulk of the suspension well above the motor, which allows the both the long 190mm travel and chain stay length to stay consistent despite which bike size is chosen. The same cannot be said of, say, the new Ibis Oso (yet another bike with a polarizing rear end) where the smaller sizes are forced into a mullet configuration, turning the small sizes into seemingly different bikes altogether. And it also helps that the Voima swingarm is absent a cross-brace / crown, allowing the entire apparatus to freely ingress in the inner triangle of the frame without complication, allowing good mud clearance with a 29' wheel and full 190mm of articulation.
OK, so I still need to cover build choice, materials, finish and other details, so looks like there will be a Part 3. I hope at that point I won’t have overstayed my welcome.