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
1980s, mountain bikes have become increasingly
popular. In the beginning, off-road riding capabili-
ties and gear shifting levers located on the handlebar
essentially contributed to their popularity. More re-
cently, shock absorption systems also known as
‘suspension systems’ or more simply ‘suspensions’
have been developed to improve comfort and per-
formance. Nowadays, mountain bikes are the num-
ber-one sold bicycle in the US and in Europe. Most
72
models are equipped with a suspended front wheel
often called ‘front suspension’ (FS). Some come
with suspension systems on both wheels generally
known as dual suspension (DS) systems.
When it seems obvious that suspensions improve
comfort, only a limited number of studies have
investigated the effects of such systems on the
mechanics and the energetics of cycling. After a
brief preliminary discussion of some relevant issues
concerning bicycle suspensions, this paper will re-
view and discuss available data on the effects of
bicycle shock absorption systems on energy expen-
diture.
As discussed by De Lorenzo et al.,[1] suspensions
isolate the cyclist from vibrations[1] and terrain-
induced shocks[2,3] by allowing the wheels to move
independently versus the rest of the bicycle. The
cyclist and the bicycle equipped with suspensions
are therefore able to travel a smoother path as only
the wheels follow the contours of the terrain, im-
proving comfort and bicycle handling.[2-7] Suspen-
sions may also improve cornering,[2,3] braking capa-
city,[2,5] and more generally, bicycle control, han-
dling[4,7] and traction[2,5] since they allow better
contact between the tyres and the ground. These
numerous advantages explain why all downhill
mountain bike racers use front and rear large travel
suspension systems that allow much higher speeds
in downhill events.
Alternatively, bicycle suspensions also have
drawbacks. For example, DS bicycles are much
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
hill for 1000m at 6.5 m/sec. On the basis of such
data, Wang and Hull calculated that such an appar-
ently small weight increase would lead to a total
time increase of 46 seconds on a championship race
similar to the Women’s World Mountain Bike
Championships held in Germany in 1995. More-
 2004 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved
Nielens & Lejeune
over, Wang and Hull[8,9] emphasised that suspen-
sions may dissipate the power generated by the
cyclist, which may become unacceptable for cyclists
participating in events organised on hilly terrain.
This issue will be discussed more extensively in
section 1. Power dissipation may occur in the sus-
pensions themselves or in the articulated bicycle
frame that becomes more flexible,[10] especially in
bicycles equipped with DS.
1. Bicycle Suspension Systems
In general, most front and rear shock absorbing
devices are composed of an elastic and a viscous
element mounted in parallel (figure 1). Mechanical
properties of both elements are generally separately
adjustable on most bicycles. The elastic element is
made of a steel spring that can be pre-constrained at
different levels or an air chamber that can be pre-
inflated at varied pressures according to the nature
of the terrain and the cyclist’s preference. The vis-
cous element is generally made of a piston and
cylinder chamber filled with oil. The oil travels
through orifices made in the piston. The total size of
the orifices may be adjusted to modify the damper
viscosity. Some simpler and cheaper systems in-
clude an elastomer part that has both viscous and
To rider, bike frame
Elastic Viscous
element element
(spring) (damper)
To wheel, ground
Fig. 1. Components of a shock-absorbing device. Most shock-ab-
sorbing devices that equip modern suspended bicycles are com-
posed of an elastic (spring) and a viscous (damper) element mount-
ed in parallel between the wheel and the frame of the bicycle.
Mechanical properties of each element can generally be tuned
separately to adjust for terrain characteristics and cyclist prefer-
ences.
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
system may be turned off through command switch-
es located on the handlebar allowing riding in rigid
mode.
While most FS systems are generally made from
telescopic forks with visco-elastic elements in each
arm of the fork, rear suspension systems are numer-
ous. Figure 2 shows several systems that are com-
monly available on the market. Suspension systems
are varied, from the simplest to the most sophisticat-
ed. Many mountain bikes are currently equipped
only with a front telescopic visco-elastic suspension
system integrated in each arm of the fork (figure 2a).
More sophisticated DS systems are: traditional rear
swing arm with one pivot point (figure 2b); multi-
bar linkage rear suspension systems with multiple
pivot points (figure 2c); and a unified rear triangle
system that eliminates interactions between the front
chain-ring and the rear suspension (figure 2d). Much
simpler systems have also been developed that allow
isolating the cyclist from vibrations and/or shocks
generated by terrain irregularities. However, in such
systems, almost the entire bicycle mass is unsprung.
In the Allsop’s Softride system, the saddle is mount-
ed on a flexible composite beam (figure 2e). Suspen-
sion seat posts are relatively cheap and simple sys-
tems that can replace traditional rigid seat posts on
most bicycles (figure 2f). The location of the centre
of rotation of the rear suspension swing-arm (i.e. the
pivot point) is an important technical characteristic

 2004 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved Sports Med 2004; 34 (2)
74
of rear suspensions as it may influence the magni-
tude of cyclist-generated power that is dissipated in
the system.[8,11-14]
Several authors have studied the optimal pivot
point location of the rear suspension through
mechanical modelling[8,9,13] and experimentation.[3]
However, only very few scientific publications have
addressed the issue of the optimal design for suspen-
sion systems. Accordingly, besides more precise
knowledge about rear suspension pivot point loca-
tion that will be presented and discussed more ex-
tensively in section 2, most arguments proposed by
manufacturers favouring their particular system still
need to be objectively assessed.
2. Mechanical Aspects: The Engineer’s
Point of View
By definition, the main function of suspension
systems is to absorb energy. More specifically, the
viscous element (damper) present in most shock-
absorbing devices is precisely designed to dissipate
energy transmitted to the suspension element. In the
bicycle, cyclist and terrain model, energy can be
generated and transmitted to the suspensions either
by the terrain irregularities or by the cyclist them-
self[8,9] (figure 3).
The aim of bicycle suspensions is to dissipate
energy generated by the terrain allowing better com-
fort and bicycle handling for the cyclist. It is worth-
Deformable cyclist
in movement
Front Rear
shock-absorbing b shock-absorbing
b such as climbing or sprinting. Several au-
device device
b more detail by modelling the bicycle and cyclist as a
a a
Fig. 3. Forces transmitted to the suspensions. In off-road cycling,
forces transmitted to the suspensions may be classified in two
categories: (a) forces generated by the terrain irregularities; and (b)
forces generated by the movements of the cyclist which are applied
on the handlebar, saddle and pedals.
 2004 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved
Nielens & Lejeune
while noting that both the tyres[2,8,10,15] and the body
parts of the cyclist[2,3] also dissipate energy generat-
ed by terrain irregularities and thus act as dampers.
Downhill racers are confronted with important ter-
rain irregularities on very steep courses travelled at
high speeds. Hence, suspensions used in such events
must be designed to absorb a large amount of ter-
rain-induced energy. As a result, modern downhill
bicycles are usually equipped with large travel sus-
pensions with large energy absorption capacity.
Unfortunately, suspensions may also dissipate
power generated by the cyclist’s muscles through
small oscillatory suspension displacements often re-
ferred to as ‘pogoing’[2] or, more commonly, ‘bob-
bing’.[3,8,9,12] Bobbing can essentially be generated
by two mechanisms: (i) the displacement of the
cyclist’s body parts; and (ii) the interaction between
the forces applied on the pedals that are transmitted
to the front chain-ring and the rear suspension.
The first mechanism can be reduced either by
tuning the suspension optimally and/or by the cyclist
who can adapt his/her pedalling technique.[2,10]
However, the magnitude of the energy dissipation
that may occur through such a mechanism has never
been studied in detail. It seems clear that such an
issue will be difficult to address since it may be
assumed that displacement of a cyclist’s body parts
is probably highly variable among individu-
als.[14,16,17]
The second mechanism (bobbing induced by
interaction between front chain-ring and rear sus-
pension) is graphically represented in figure 4. As
recalled by Good and McPhee,[13] such a mechanism
may become exaggerated in high-load situations
thors[3,8,12-14,17] have studied this phenomenon in
multi-body system with springs and dampers in
order to evaluate the magnitude of energy dissipated
in the rear suspension.
More specifically, Wang and Hull[11,12] calculat-
ed that the power dissipated in the rear suspension
was 6.9W when cycling uphill at 6.5 m/sec (23.4
km/h) a 6% grade smooth surface. This 6.9W value
represents only 1.3% of the total power developed
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
results in terms of rear suspension displacements as
a function of crank (bottom bracket) angle. Using a
different optimisation method known as a ‘genetic
algorithm’ to determine the optimal design of the
rear suspension (pivot point location) along with
their four-body model, Good and McPhee[13] show-
ed that the optimal rear suspension pivot point was
located 11.6cm above the bottom bracket and 2.7cm
behind the seat tube. Such results are again very
close to the first simulation data obtained by Wang
and Hull.
Finally, in a recent study by Karchin and Hull,[14]
11 experienced cyclists were asked to ride a custom-
built DS bicycle with adjustable geometry and sus-
pension parameters at an approximate power of
300W (6% grade on a treadmill at 24.8 km/h) in a
seated as well as in a standing position. By monitor-
ing the suspension displacements with linear poten-
tiometers, Karchin and Hull showed that: (i) the
minimum power loss at the optimal pivot point
height was quite variable among study participants
(mean 0.89W, range 0.59–1.25) indicating large
variability in pedalling mechanics; (ii) power dissi-
pated in the rear suspension was considerably higher
(mean 6.49W, range 0.7–13.48) in the standing posi-
tion; (iii) no significant interaction between front
and rear suspensions could be found; (iv) the opti-
mal pivot point location is higher in the sitting
position (9.77cm) than in the standing position
(5.88cm); and (v) notwithstanding the wide variabil-
ity in the minimum power loss among study partici-
pants, the optimal pivot point location remained
consistent.
In summary, all mechanical simulation and ex-
perimental studies specifically conducted to evalu-
ate the power dissipated by suspensions in DS bi-
cycles agree that the estimated power lost in the rear
suspension ranges from 0.5–2W in the seated posi-
tion when the pivot point is located optimally
(±10cm above the bottom bracket on the seat tube).
Such a magnitude of power loss remains inferior to
0.7% of the total power developed by the cyclist. It
should therefore be largely compensated by the ben-
efits provided by suspensions in terms of comfort
and performance related to better bicycle handling
 2004 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved
Nielens & Lejeune
(braking, cornering, traction etc.). However, in the
standing position, power dissipated in the rear sus-
pension may reach up to 5% of the total power
developed by some cyclists. It must be kept in mind
that many simplifying assumptions are made in sim-
ulation studies. Hence, numerous factors are ne-
glected that may lead to a systematic underestima-
tion of power losses due to suspension systems, e.g.
multi-articulated DS bicycle frames become more
flexible. It may be hypothesised that the amount of
energy dissipated in the frame itself[2] may increase
significantly. Such a source of energy dissipation is
neglected in computer-simulation studies. However,
it may be significant as witnessed by the efforts
made by manufacturers of bicycle parts to reduce
the flexibility of front telescopic-suspension forks
by designing reinforced front wheel hubs and brake
bridges.[1]
Another method to evaluate the amount of power
lost in suspensions is to measure the energy con-
sumed by the cyclist riding FS or DS bicycles as
compared with non-suspended ones. Section 3 of
this manuscript will review such studies and focus
more on physiological variables that can be observ-
ed in the laboratory or on the field.
3. Energetic Aspects: the Exercise
Physiologist’s Point of View
The energy consumed by the cyclist ultimately
reflects the result of the interaction of the multiple
variables from the terrain, bicycle and cyclist. On
the same irregular terrain travelled at the same
speed, a more efficient suspension system (i.e. a
system that dissipates terrain-induced energy well
without dissipating cyclist-generated energy) should
allow the cyclist to expend less energy than with a
less efficient suspension, since less cyclist-generat-
ed power will be dissipated in the suspension. At
maximal energy expenditure rate, this more efficient
suspension will ultimately allow the cyclist to attain
higher speed.
Berry et al.[4] were the first to evaluate metabolic
expenditure by means of oxygen consumption
(V̇O2) of cyclists riding different types of bicycles
(no suspension, FS, DS and rear suspension only) on
Sports Med 2004; 34 (2)
Bicycle Suspensions and Energy Expenditure
a treadmill with a 4% grade and at a speed of 10.4
km/h with or without a 3.8cm high bump attached to
its belt with duct tape. No significant differences in
V̇O2 were noted in relation to the suspension type in
the no-bump condition. In other words, suspensions
did not significantly increase energy expended by
the cyclist riding on a smooth surface. They observ-
ed a very significant energy consumption increase in
relation to the presence of the bump, ranging from a
63% increase compared with the no-bump condition
for the non-suspended bicycle to 41% for DS bicy-
cle. The DS allowed a very significant 11.5% de-
crease in V̇O2 (p = 0.004) compared with the non-
suspended condition. Adding only a rear suspension
to the bicycle already yielded a significant energy
saving. Surprisingly, the FS alone did not succeed in
lowering energy expenditure significantly, which
suggests that FS does not succeed in reducing ener-
gy consumed by the cyclist when a DS system does.
Such a finding contrasts with data of other authors
that will be discussed further in the next paragraph.
However, a type II statistical error may not be
excluded due to the relatively small number of study
participants (n = 6) included in this study.
Seifert et al.[5] were the first to evaluate the
energy cost of bicycle suspensions in a more natural
outdoor environment. They designed a rather com-
plex protocol during which cyclists were asked to
undergo three consecutive experimental phases us-
ing different suspension types (no suspension, FS
and DS). In one phase, 12 study participants rode at
a constant speed (16.1 km/h) on a flat looped ~400m
course built on hard level ground with 45 fabricated
5cm high wooden bumps. It must be emphasised
that such experimental conditions are relatively
close to those of Berry et al.[4] with 3.8cm high
bumps encountered 42 times/min and a 4% grade
compared with 5cm high bumps encountered 30
times/min and no grade, respectively, in Berry et
al.[4] and Seifert et al.[5] protocols. Only a trend
toward a significant reduction of mean V̇O2 (p =
0.07) was observed with the suspended bicycles
compared with the non-suspended one. Although
experimental conditions were relatively similar, the
results from Seifert et al.[5] contrast with the very
 2004 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved
77
significant 11.5% reduction in energy consumption
observed in the DS mode by Berry et al.[4] Although
up to 12 study participants took part in the first
phase of the study where metabolic measurements
were conducted, a type II error may still not be
excluded. This hypothesis may be supported by the
fact that mean heart rates recorded on the rigid
bicycle were significantly higher than those on the
suspended bicycles. In another phase of the proto-
col, seven study participants were asked to complete
three different time trial courses as fast as possible
including a downhill, a climb and a cross-country
course. In the cross-country trial, the best perform-
ance was achieved on the FS bicycle in five of the
seven cyclists with the mean finishing time being
significantly smaller (p = 0.02) with the FS. This
observation fits well with what is currently observed
in competition. No significant differences in finish-
ing times relative to suspension types were noted in
the downhill and climbing trials.
More recently, MacRae et al.[7] conducted a study
on two different outdoor uphill courses aiming at
comparing performances of six experienced cyclists
riding bicycles equipped with FS and DS. The first
course was a 1.62km asphalted road with a 14.2%
mean grade. The second course was a ‘rocky and
rutted’ fire access road that was 1.38km with a mean
11.3% grade. Traditional physiological variables
(e.g. heart rate and V̇O2) were monitored and
mechanical power generated by the cyclist was mea-
sured and recorded during the runs by a Schoberer
Rad Messtechnik (SRM) Training System (Weldorf,
Germany). On both courses, performances in terms
of finishing times were not significantly different
whether the study participants used the FS or the
DS. Likewise, mean heart rate, V̇O2 recorded during
the runs and blood lactate concentration measured in
samples collected 2 minutes after the end of the
trials were not different, suggesting that metabolic
cost is independent of the suspension types. How-
ever, mean mechanical power generated by the
study participants as recorded by the SRM system
was almost 30% higher with the DS compared with
the FS on both courses, which was very significant.
In our opinion, the findings of this study must be
Sports Med 2004; 34 (2)
78
considered with caution. It is hard to explain how
the study participants could have developed close to
30% more mechanical power on the DS bicycle with
all physiologically recorded parameters remaining
unchanged and when they were all asked to perform
maximally on both bicycle types on both courses.
The authors argue that the usual relationship be-
tween power output, cardiovascular and metabolic
responses usually observed in the laboratory might
be altered on the field. However, it must be noted
that the SRM power-meter system has not been
validated when used with DS bicycles. Another
hypothesis could be that interactions between the
front chain-ring (on which the SRM system is
mounted on) and the rear suspension could have led
to a systematic mechanical power overestimation
due to so-called ‘kick-back’ effects.[12]
Finally, Nielens and Lejeune[6] studied the meta-
bolic cost of riding a bicycle equipped with different
types of suspensions on a smooth surface. In this
experiment conducted in a laboratory, one cross-
country DS bicycle was mounted on a bicycle train-
er. Different suspension systems were obtained by
successively replacing rear and both suspension ele-
ments by rigid links. The aim of the study was to
specifically evaluate any possible cyclist-induced
energy loss when riding a modern cross-country
suspended bicycle after eliminating terrain-induced
energy losses by riding on a smooth surface. Twelve
study participants were asked to perform a 15-min-
ute gradational cycling protocol starting at 50W
with 50W increments every 3 minutes in the three
suspension modes. No difference in V̇O2, nor in
heart rate in any of the stages of the tests was
observed in relation to the suspension type, sug-
gesting that suspensions do not generate any extra
energy expenditure for the cyclist when riding on a
smooth surface. However, in this experiment, the
highest external power reached was 250W, which is
probably significantly lower than powers attained
by competitors in actual cross-country races. More-
over, in all suspension modes, the bicycle frame
remained the same (a modern light cross-country
frame with four-bar linkage front and rear suspen-
sions) and energy losses may have occurred in all
 2004 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved
Nielens & Lejeune
suspension modes in relation to the relatively high
deformability of such articulated frames and forks.
The results of this study should therefore not be
extended to compare high-level cross-country com-
petitors using traditional telescopic FS and DS with-
out caution.
In summary, Berry et al.[4] were the first to report
laboratory data suggesting that the metabolic cost of
riding a bicycle on a bumpy surface could be very
significantly reduced by DS systems. Such observa-
tion illustrates the fact that terrain-induced energy
can indeed be dissipated in the suspension system,
allowing the cyclist to consume less energy to travel
at the same speed over bumpy and shaky surfaces.
The fact that suspensions may also dissipate the
cyclist-generated power remains a major concern
for bicycle manufacturers and competitors. The only
three studies[4,6,7] that evaluated metabolic cost
(V̇O2) of cyclists using suspended bicycles on
smooth surfaces failed to demonstrate any increase
in metabolic cost in relation to suspensions. Unfor-
tunately, the conclusions that can be drawn at this
point are limited because of the paucity of studies
that evaluated metabolic cost on the field, with the
rather poor statistical power of some studies and,
finally, with the relatively low value of the mechani-
cal power outputs that have been investigated.
4. Bicycle Comfort and Physical Stress in
Relation to Suspensions
Seifert et al.[5] evaluated perceived riding com-
fort and rate of perceived exertion of 20 cyclists who
successively rode non-suspended, FS and DS bi-
cycles on a hard, level ground course with 45
fabricated bumps during approximately 1 hour. The
DS bicycle was perceived as the most comfortable,
and the FS as more comfortable versus the non-
suspended bicycle. Perceived exertion data favoured
the suspended bicycles and no significant difference
was observed between suspension types. In the same
study, Seifert et al.[5] also reported lower creatine
kinase levels in the venous blood samples of cyclists
after riding the suspended bicycles (FS and DS)
compared with rigid ones. Although no significant
difference was observed between DS and FS for
Sports Med 2004; 34 (2)
Bicycle Suspensions and Energy Expenditure
creatine kinase change, these data strongly suggest
that suspension systems are effective in reducing
muscular stress.
In summary, comfort is obviously an important
issue for recreational cyclists who often favour soft-
er and more comfortable suspension systems.
Nevertheless, the fact that suspensions seem effec-
tive in reducing physical stress may become partic-
ularly relevant for competitors engaged in long dis-
tance events that may last up to 6–12 hours and for
recreational cyclists who generally favour comfort.
5. Conclusion
Bicycle suspensions have been designed to im-
prove bicycle comfort and handling by dissipating
terrain-induced energy variations. However, they
may also dissipate the energy generated by the cy-
clist through small oscillatory movements often
termed ‘bobbing’. Bobbing is generated by the cy-
clist’s body movements as well as by the forces
exerted on the pedals that interact with the rear
suspension. This phenomenon is a major concern for
bicycle manufacturers and competitive cyclists en-
gaged in events where most of the time is spent
climbing, such as cross-country races. Any cyclist-
generated power dissipated in the suspensions will
slow down the cyclist. Ideally, such a loss in per-
formance that mainly takes place when riding uphill
should always remain smaller than the gain in speed
provided by suspensions through better bicycle han-
dling, mainly in the downhills.
Several mechanical simulation studies conducted
by engineers suggest that if bicycle suspensions and
geometry are optimised, cyclist-generated power
that is dissipated when riding in a seated position is
minimal if not negligible. However, several possible
dissipation sources are neglected in such studies as
they included numerous necessary simplifying as-
sumptions in the models.
Only a few studies have evaluated the effects of
suspension systems on the energy expended by the
cyclist in the laboratory and in the field. One study[4]
showed that the energy expended by the cyclist
could be very significantly reduced by a DS system
when riding on an artificial bumpy course, sug-
 2004 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved
79
gesting that suspensions dissipate terrain-induced
energy variations well. Two studies[4,6] conducted in
a laboratory reported no energy expenditure in-
crease related to suspensions when riding on a
smooth surface. Such studies indicate that if any
energy was indeed dissipated in the suspensions, it
was too small to be measured by traditional respira-
tory gas analysis methods. In other words, the mag-
nitude of any energy dissipation by modern suspen-
sion systems must be very small, if any, and thus
probably negligible compared with the advantages
they provide. Such results are in agreement with
data observed in mechanical simulation studies.
In summary, evidence present in the literature
suggests that cyclist-generated power that is dissi-
pated by suspensions is minimal and probably negli-
gible on most terrains. However, the scarce studies
on the topic, as well as the limitations in the conclu-
sions that can be drawn from most of them, indicate
that we should remain careful before supporting the
use of DS bicycles on all course-types and for all
cyclists. For instance, the fact that most cross-coun-
try racers still use FS bicycles should be kept in
mind.
Finally, suspension systems clearly improve
comfort and reduce physical stress. This issue
should not be overlooked, as most recreational cy-
clists will ultimately favour comfort over perform-
ance.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Mr E.J. Conley for his valuable
help in the writing of this manuscript. No sources of funding
were used to assist in the preparation of this manuscript. The
authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant
to the content of this manuscript.
References
1. De Lorenzo DS, Wang EL, Hull ML. Quantifying off-road
suspension hub stiffness. Cycling Sci 1994; 3: 12-26
2. Olsen J. Bicycle suspension systems. In: Burke ER, editor.
High-tech cycling. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 1996:
45-64
3. Needle SA, Hull ML. An off-road bicycle with adjustable
suspension kinematics. Cycling Sci 1997; 1: 4-29
4. Berry MJ, Woodard CM, Dunn CJ, et al. The effects of a
mountain bike suspension system on metabolic energy expen-
diture. Cycling Sci 1993; 3: 8-14
Sports Med 2004; 34 (2)
 80
5. Seifert JG, Luetkemeier MJ, Spencer MK, et al. The effects of
mountain bike suspension systems on energy expenditure,
physical exertion, and time trial performance during mountain
bicycling. Int J Sports Med 1997; 18: 197-200
6. Nielens H, Lejeune TM. Energy cost of riding bicycles with
shock absorption systems on a flat surface. Int J Sports Med
2001; 22: 400-4
7. MacRae H-H, Hise KJ, Allen PJ. Effects of front and dual
suspension mountain bike systems on uphill cycling perform-
ance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32: 1276-80
8. Wang EL, Hull ML. A dynamic system model of an off-road
cyclist. J Biomech Eng 1997; 119: 248-53
9. Wang EL, Hull ML. Power dissipated by off-road bicycle
suspension systems. Cycling Sci 1994; 4: 10-26
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
energy losses in bicycle suspension systems. Vehicle Syst
Dynam 1996; 25: 223-46
12. Wang EL, Hull ML. Minimization of pedaling induced energy
losses in off-road bicycle rear suspension systems. Vehicle
Syst Dynam 1997; 28: 291-306
 2004 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved
View publication stats
Nielens & Lejeune
13. Good C, McPhee J. Dynamics of mountain bicycles with rear
suspensions: design optimization. Sports Eng 2000; 3: 49-55
14. Karchin A, Hull ML. Experimental optimization of pivot point
height for swing-arm type rear suspensions in off-road bi-
cycles. J Biomech Eng 2002; 124: 101-6
15. Whitt F, Wilson D. The wheel: bicycling science. Cambridge
(MA): The MIT Press, 1989
16. Daly DJ, Cavanagh PR. Asymmetry in bicycle ergometer pedal-
ling. Med Sci Sports 1976; 8: 204-8
17. Good C, McPhee J. Dynamics of mountain bicycles with rear
suspensions: modeling and simulations. Sports Eng 1999; 2:
129-43
18. Kyle C. Chain friction, windy hills, and other quick calculations.
Cycling Sci 1990; 2: 23-6
Correspondence and offprints: Dr Henri Nielens, Sports
Medicine, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Université
catholique de Louvain, Avenue Hippocrate, 10, 1200 Brus-
sels, Belgium.
E-mail: nielens@read.ucl.ac.be
Sports Med 2004; 34 (2)