Soft-Tail Design And Gravel: A Match Made In Heaven?

From Ritchey's Twitter feed last Wednesday.

I came across a Tweet from Ritchey-Official last Wednesday. Apparently some Italian folks got a hold of an old Ritchey soft-tail MTB and turned it into a gravel bike. 

The soft-tail design, where chain stays are relied upon for some flex and a small, very short travel damper is placed between the seat stays and the seat tube, is nothing new. The idea has been banging around on mountain bikes since the 1980's, and earlier design patents show that the idea was at least around in the late 19th Century. However; you do not see many of these bikesout and about.

Perhaps that is because the modern soft-tail was always aimed at being a solution for XC mountain biking. The trouble was that typically the travel/damping was not very effective and the design introduced other problems like flex, stress breakage to the chain stays, and difficulties making the design work for smaller sized riders. 

That said, Moots has been making their "YBB" soft tail design for years, and Ritchey and Salsa Cycles made some well known versions of this design over the years as well. That said, it just hasn't really ever been a great mountain bike solution for most riders. This kept sales low, and in some cases, the bikes went away due to design faults and low sales numbers.

My Salsa Cycles Dos Niner at the 2010 DK200

I've tried a soft tail design before in "real" mountain biking situations and for gravel riding. In my experience, the idea seemed to be far more at home on gravel versus the mountains. That said, the soft-tail generally is not designed to mitigate vibrations as much as it is designed to "take the edge off" trail obstacles when the rear tire hits them. 

There is a big difference there. I feel as though the soft-tail design has merit for gravel travel, it is just that no one has really hit the nail on the head with regard to using the idea to mitigate vibrations and not be a "suspension" platform. 

Sure, Moots, as mentioned, does a Routt YBB gravel bike, and BMC has their URS 1. Trek integrated their ISO Speed rear damping design into their Checkpoint bikes. So, there are examples of the idea out there for gravel. It's just that there aren't many choices that don't cost an arm and a leg, so many riders would never benefit from this idea.

And as well, one could counter with the idea of a suspension seat post, which could go into any frame, and is transferable, bike-to-bike. Obviously, such devices cost a lot less as well and have similar, if not the same results in ride feel for the rider. 

One could argue that a suspension seat post turns any bike into a soft-tail.

And if the idea is to protect the rider from vibrations, a suspension seat post is perhaps the better solution here. It doesn't matter if the rider stands up or not, because we only are concerned about vibration reductions at the saddle if the rider is seated. We are not looking for better wheel traction. Plus the design doesn't require expensive frames, and it doesn't over-stress chain stays, which are often the weak point in soft-tail design.

So, is a soft-tail design not a good idea? I wouldn't dismiss this design idea out of hand. If done elegantly and with rider vibration reduction in mind, it makes sense for gravel riding. I don't think "travel" at the rear wheel is what gravel riders necessarily need here, so over-stressing chain stays needn't happen either. 

But yes- Obviously a suspension seat post, or even a rigid post designed to mitigate vibrations, is a much more elegant, less expensive, and non-proprietary way to go. Either way, I think riders could benefit from the designs. 

Maybe I should build up that Dos Niner again and test out my theories.....