Bikes: front suspension, seat suspension

[space-time]

Why is seat suspension so rare in bikes? if they have suspension, it is usually the front fork. For example, Raleigh only has a 2 models with seat suspension. fitness, hybrid: no seat suspension and in many cases not even front suspension.

I would think that seat suspension is more important that front suspension but I could be wrong.


https://www.raleighusa.com/pavement/comfort

[mrbigstuff]

I have a bike like that and I hate it. This reminds me to find a solid seat post.

[mattkime]

I think this falls into the "it looks comfortable but its not" category of bike parts, which is considerable.

[NewtonMP2100]

.....know that bikes have banana seat......would banana hammock help.....??

[raz]

also, seat suspensions add weight and reduce your pedaling efficiency. If you are riding on anything but near flat trail it's a lose.

[Markintosh]

It's easy to add aftermarket seat posts with suspension. The Suntour SP12ncx is a popular one. I think the comments above are correct.

The one I have dampens just the lightest of road shocks and isn't enough for big bumps. But it also makes pedaling more inefficient as i feel like I am working against the spring with each pump.

Consider a different seat...

[davester]

I'm wondering if space-time is actually asking about rear wheel suspension (which is common but expensive) rather than seat suspension (which is rare). I will assume this is the case in my answer below.

Front suspension is critical when riding off road on tracks with large bumps and big rocks. Without it, your handlebars vibrate so hard on descents that is almost impossible to hold on to the handlebars or to pull the brake levers. Early mountain bikes had no suspension at all and this was a major problem that front suspension solved.

Rear suspension is not that necessary because having a bouncy rear wheel doesn't affect control of the bike that much. Also, if it's getting too bouncy you can always stand on the pedals and use your legs as suspension. Rear suspension is also horribly complicated and adds weight. That said, I currently have a mountain bike with both front and rear suspension. It helps maintain control and provides some additional comfort on extremely gnarly rocky terrain.

Note that neither front nor rear suspension is needed on regular relatively smooth dirt and gravel roads. It is better in cases like this to have an unsuspended gravel bike where the road irregularities are smoothed out by the tires.

In my experience, seat suspension (i.e. a flexible seat post) is something occasionally used by a few long distance bike tourists to add a little bit of comfort on rough roads. The Thudbuster is the only one I know of that is commonly used. The problem with these (other than that they add weight) is that they can mess with your pedaling cadence and your pedal to saddle distance and therefore your efficiency. I would not use one personally.

[space-time]

I was asking about seat post suspension like the last 2 models in my link. I guess the rear wheel suspension is better but significantly more $$$

[NewtonMP2100]

....are you taking about your......'under carriage'......???

[davester]

space-time wrote:
I was asking about seat post suspension like the last 2 models in my link. I guess the rear wheel suspension is better but significantly more $$$

Ah, I didn't notice the link. I see that you are asking about comfort bikes, not mountain bikes. Frankly, the need for any kind of suspension is based on the kind of terrain you are riding. My tendency would be to have the least amount of suspension possible that matches where you are riding. If riding extremely bumpy, potholed or rocky trails then suspension is a good idea. Otherwise it is just an unnecessary complication and extra weight to haul around.