Proceedings, Bicycle and Motorcycle Dynamics 2013
Symposium on the Dynamics and Control of Single Track Vehicles,
Vertical Dynamic postural model for Semi-Active Mountain Bike rider
L.S. Lima
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
Politecnico di Milano
Via La Masa 1, 20158, Milano, Italy
e-mail: leonardo.lima@mail.polimi.it
ABSTRACT
The main objective of this present work is to
present a systematic approach to representing
the interaction between the parameters
comprising both primary (tires) and secondary
(fork/linkage) suspensions of a Mountain
Bike and its rider, over rough terrain. Proper
dimensioning of the system allows for an
ergonomically suitable riding position without
penalizing the general compliance of the
system or concentrating muscle efforts on one
single region of rider´s body. In-plane
kinematics is used to determine instant frame
linkage leverage ratio, which in turn interacts
with the spring-damper unit´s rheological [1]
parameters, resulting in frame rate, which is
then associated in series with tire´s properties
to determine reduced suspension characteristic
values. Rider position is considered to be
standing and not pedaling, and its variation
from initially determined posture is here
named as rider offset. Maximum rear, front,
up and down variation with respect to zero
offset position define the space within which
the rider is allowed to position with respect to
the front triangle. By neglecting non-
suspended masses, the model aims to maintain
the uncoupled condition (1) between front and
rear suspensions so that both work
independently [2] and vehicle pitch motion is
ruled by the phase between front and rear
vertical motions. Such aim is tracked by
means of variation in rider posture.
Differently from previously presented rider
models [3], rider body´s stiffness is
represented by 4 torsional springs positioned
at the rider´s knees, hips, shoulders and
elbows. Variations on angular position
between rider´s body segments are obtained,
according to the maneuvers being performed,
11 - 13 November 2013, Narashino, Japan
and serve as input for a muscle-skeletal model
[4], used in the determination of activation
level on muscles in the human body. Such
information allows the development of
Mountain Bike Rider specific exercises that
prioritize determined muscles and optimize
training. Rider is here named semi-active for
being able to vary only posture with respect to
the bicycle, but no rider-input forces are
considered. Though, rider-joint optimal
stiffness distribution can be evaluated for each
instant of a determined maneuver, so that a
rider´s optimal posture and muscle activation
level can be obtained for either comfort and/or
endurance purpose or for minimal time riding
performance evaluation. Besides, once the
rider´s inertial and compliance data is added
to the formulation, a complete integration of
vehicle´s and rider´s compliances can be
obtained, and the same previous condition (1)
for uncoupling front and rear suspension
behaviours can be evaluated, so that mass
distribution is complemented by rider posture
and suspension parameters can be integrated
to the corresponding desired rider stiffness
distribution. By ignoring rider input forces,
we conclude that further optimization of
riding performance can be done, as well as
higher level of specific training is required to
fully understand the behaviour and output of
top-level riders.
Keywords: Integrated suspension, rider
compliance, posture, ergonomy, specific
training.
1 INTRODUCTION 2 Compliance levels
It is very intuitive that when we hear “bicycle The first step in order to understand
suspension”we associate the idea to telescopic compliance, is to divide it according to the
forks or 4-bar linkage systems, restricting the nature of each level. Following the
whole concept to only one part of the nomenclature used in railway vehicles,
compliant system. In that sense, the concept compliance levels are here defined as:
of compliance is used here instead, so we can
include all the components being deformed or
articulated in order to absorb, transmit and  primary: deformation of tyres
dissipate the input coming from terrain  secondary: wheels vertical movement
irregularities or maneuvers performed by the
rider. Compliance allows forces generated by  third: rider-body vertical movement
irregularities to be partially dissipated and
transmitted in proper directions, other than
Wheels are here considered to be fully rigid,
those that could affect the forward momentum
once radial deformations are small enough to
of the moving system, but not completely. No
be negleted, when compared to the amount of
compliant system is able to absorb
deformation happening at other components.
irregularities to an extent that no penalty is
felt in terms of rolling efficiency, so that
getting as close as possible to ideal primary secondary third
compliance is the goal here. And when we say
ideal, we should also understand that ideal is Travel
(m) 0,05 0,15 0,4
not the same for every situation. For example,
in downhill mountain bike racing, where Moving
classification is defined by fractions of mass ~0 1,6 20
seconds and the runs rarely exceed 7 minutes (Kg)
in time, comfort is not a priority, so that
“ideal” is driven by minimum time. For Table 1. Representativity of
marathon endurance mountain bike racing compliance levels
instead, classification times are not as sharply (Values for 2.25 section tyre, all-mountain
close to each other and the race runs go for bicycle type, and a 70 Kg rider)
hours, so that “ideal” is better related to
In order to cause the minimum alteration to
comfort, as to provide the minimum energy
forward momentum, a compliant system
expenditure due to absorbing terrain
should be able to absorb disturbances in a way
irregularities. In that sense, understanding the
that the least possible mass is moved
purpose of compliance and its effects on rider
verticaly, but since travel is limited and forces
performance is important in the system
are transmitted from one level to another, all
optimization, and benefits from its own
levels end up being activated to different
complexity so it can be fine tuned to very
travel amounts. And a balanced system should
specific combinations of intrinsic parameters
activate diferent levels proportionaly to the
and surrounding conditions. Understanding
mass being moved, and the total available
the interaction and effects of such elements
travel of each component. Here lies the core
can make crucial difference to those who
of this work, which is that of tuning
require the most out of such systems, but not
suspension parameters so that one suspension
only, it is part of the duties of those who work
level works in accordance with each other and
in designing, tuning and fitting the right
with the whole system itself. But, for
vehicle for the right place and a specific
example, tyre inflation pressure, which
biotype under particular conditions.
defines a tyre´s radial stiffness, also
Compliance happens by means of interaction,
influences traction performance, so that
so in this work, we intend to identify the
compliance cannot be taken as a general rule,
potentials and effects of each of the
and other factors will influence the final
compliance levels, so we can represent such
decision for parameters definition.
interaction mathematically, and control it in
order to go a step further in creating faster and
more comfortable human-bicycle-terrain
systems.

2
2.1 Tyre compliance
Tyre being the primary element of contact
between the complete system and the ground,
plays a key role in the absorption of high-
frequency and low-amplitude excitations, by
means of its elastic deformation. In order to
characterize tyre properties that are
representative for system compliance, one
single variable is sufficient, being it Radial
Stiffness the force resistance to variation in
the distance between the wheel axle and the
point of contact between the outer diameter of
tyre and the ground, starting from
unloaded/undeformed condition on flat
ground. In this work, only deformations on
the vertical plane are considered. In order to
dimension compliance levels, the first step is
to identify is the travel range, representing
how much linear deformation is accepted at
that level. Here, for tyre compliance travel,
we assume that the maximum accepted
deformation is that when upper and lower
inner walls of tyre´s carcass touch each other.
Such assumption is due to the fact that any
deformation beyond that point will result in an
exponential increase in radial stiffness, with a
consequent sensation that the wheel is directly
touching the ground, which brings discomfort
and possible damage to system´s components,
mainly the tyre itself and the wheel. Besides,
the recent introduction of tubeless tyres has
allowed the use of much lower inflation
pressures, making the definition of such
limits still more valuable.
Figure 1. Tyre maximum accepted
radial deformation ( lt )
2.1.1 Radial stiffness
The first indicated value for radial stiffness
[6] was measured statically at kt=150000 N/m
for 688 kPa and used as referece for later
work [7], where static deflection was further
studied for one single combination of tyre and
inflation pressure and a range of different
contact surface geometries, allowing the
estimation of forces generated by tyre
deformation over bumps and hollows of
differente sizes. [8] proposes values for
cornering and camber stiffnesses, but no
radial estimations, while [9] presents
maximum and minimum values that are in
good agreement with the previous.
Table 2. Previously presented values
for radial stiffness
[6] [7] [9]
Kt 150000 22.727 125.787
150.000 178.165
type n.d. MTB road
In that scenario we see that a reference value
for stiffness can be infered from previous
work [10], with the appropriate correction for
different kinds of tyres. But still, tyre radial
stiffness depends mostly on air pressure, in
the sense that an experiment [11] evaluating
sensitivity of radial stiffness to inflation
pressure was needed, once varying air
pressure in the tyre is an extremely simple
procedure.
Figure 2. Tyre radial stiffness
sensitivity to inflation pressure
(non SI units)
3
Such experiments were performed at the
Bicycle Dynamics Laboratory from TUDelft,
by James Dressel [12], with a 700X28c tyre,
showing good agreement with previously
proposed values, and a strong dependence of
radial stiffness on inflation pressure. Such
information is of essencial importance in
harmonizing stiffness properties at different
system levels, which allows one to benefit
from the whole capacities of available travel.
In order to implement such values to our MSC
ADAMS model, different strategies were
tried, and that which worked best was one of
modelling wheel and tire as two concentric
rings on the vertical plane, connected by
springs having a parametrized stiffness
coefficient ki , so that by attributing different
values to this coefficient simulates variation
in tyre inflation pressure.
Figure 3. Spring-wheel used to
implement and vary radial stiffness.
Once inflation pressure will influence other
characteristics of the final vehicle, and
tendency is that one will try to use as low of a
pressure as one can, it was considered
important to determine the minimum inflation
pressure in order to guarantee that carcass
inner walls won´t touch. Such hypothesis
should then be based on the maximum force
input a tyre could receive, and the chosen
condition was a landing maneuver with 80%
of total weight being delivered to one wheel
only, and for a 100kg rider landing on flat
ground from 2 meter-high. Such information
is very important in order to guarantee the
integrity of the system and the safety of the
ride, but no requirement is made to tyre
manufacturers to include minimum inflation
pressure in tyre information, the same way
they are required to include a maximum value
for it.
2.2 Fork/linkage compliance
The subsequent level of compliance in our
analysis, earlier defined here as secondary, is
that represented by the vehicle suspension
system, being it either the front fork or the
articulation/linkage system used in the rear
wheel. Such analysis is of virtual importance,
once the introduction of suspension systems
to mountain bicycles not only increased the
capabilities of using it over previously
unconceiveable rough terrain, but also, it
raised prices, complexity and maintenance
requirements to a whole new level, which can
many times create an erroneous belief that an
enormous amount of suspension on your bike
is essential for the use of it in general, which
may stop many potential enthusiasts from
attempting an approach to such practice. The
first concept concerning linkage suspension is
Leverage Ratio (LR), which is calculated
instantaneously by the ratio involving the
amount of travel at the wheel and the amount
of linear advance of the spring-damper unit.
(1)
Such parameter makes it very simple to relate
movement, forces and velocities between the
wheel axle and the damping device. In order
to compare different frame linkage designs,
16 different frame models have been modeled
on the vertical plane and kinematically
analysed. Such comparison showed that
values around 3 are common practice in the
industry, and higher values are typical for the
initial stages of travel, in order to improve
compliance sensitivity, with a decrease along
travel aiming to avoid bottom-out
Figure 4. Leverage ratio absolute
values (mm/mm) for 16 different
commercially available frames.
4
2.2.1 Spring-Damper Unit
A core element of a suspension system is its
spring-damper unit. The versatility of settings
made possible by different construction
strategies and the ability to change its
properties by means of valve control make it
very much adaptable to different kinds of
bicycles, riders and terrain. Spring work can
be done by means of a coil spring or an air
spring. Coil springs show a more linear
behaviour along compression when compared
to air springs, which also suffer from output
behaviour variation due to the increase in air
temperature with extended use in time. Air
springs are lighter. The primary function of
the spring is to store the energy received from
the linkage. The damping work is then
performed by the passage of hydraulic fluid
through restrictive orifices, generating viscous
friction that aims to dissipate part of the
stored energy in the spring, in the form of
heat. Spring work is ruled by position
variation, while damping forces generated by
the hydraulic circuit depend on the velocities
at which the movement happens [13].
Figure 5. Non-linear spring
behaviour
Figure 6. Velocity-dependent
damping forces for 3 different valve
settings.
2.2.2 Reduced Suspension
Once linkage properties are known (LR inst)
and the properties of the spring-damper unit
are know, we are able to determine
characteristic values for Reduced Suspension
[14] which simplify very much the dynamic
analysis on the vertical plane, once both
linkage and fork are represented by a single
spring each, and only the vertical movement
of the wheels (zs) is considered. For the rear
spring-damper unit (shock), reduced values
for spring and damping are:
(2)
(3)
At this point we can say we have enough
information to determine the dynamic output
of the vehicle itself. Tyre properties and
suspension properties are described, so that
combining them with each body´s inertial
parameters we can write inertia, stiffness and
damping matrixes that properly related will
represent the dynamic behaviour of the
vehicle without the rider [15]. In this case,
unsprung masses are not neglected, and the
importance of such parameter can be
analysed. Such tool can be useful to adjust a
series of geometric, static and dynamic
properties of the vehicle according to the
preferences for a determined situation.
Natural frequencies can be calculated too, like
wheel hop ressonance, and vertical modes of
the suspended mass [14]. Such assumptions
consider no rider, or a rider rigidly attached to
the vehicle´s chassis, by simply adding the
mass of the rider to the main frame. Good
aproximation can be achieved for some
situations. In mountain biking though, the
movement of the rider over the bicycle is
representative to an extent that further
refinement is needed, and assuming the rider
rigidly attached to the frame will neglect most
of a rider´s capabilities to adapt to terrain. It
is simple to understand that differently from
motorcycles, here, the mass of the rider
represents nearly 80% of the total mass of the
system, and according to Table 1, variations
in travel regarding the rider are twice more
significant than the sum of tire deformation
and suspension travel.
5
2.3 Rider Compliance
The third level of compliance present in our
system is that performed by the articulated
movement of rider´s limbs. As mentioned in
Tab.1, the most representative travel range is
that performed by rider compliance and also
in terms of moving mass, that is the
movement with the biggest potential to
influence system behaviour as a whole. In that
sense, special attention is dedicated to
represent the influence of rider position and
its characteristic parameters that serve to us in
compliance analysis. The rider position
considered is that of standing and not
pedaling, and the reason for that is because
this is the position at which maximum
compliant travel range and posture variation is
possible, being the typical strategy for
overcoming rough sections where rider
positioning defines the output of the system.
Figure 7. Compliant rider model
Our rider model is a simplification of the
human body and is composed of 6 solids, with
right and left legs and arms being colapsed
into one single body for each of them, once
the analysis happens on the vertical plane
only. Lower legs comprise both feet and
shanks into one single solid, which is attached
by means of a revolute joint to the axle where
pedal cranks intersect the bicycle frame. The
revolute joint at this point is equivalent to that
of pedals. Such assumption neglects the
articulation and compliant properties of
ankles, and also pedal positioning, being the
latter most important for maneuvers out of the
vertical plane. In order to represent stiffness
generated by muscle activity, 4 torsional
springs have been used at the knees, hips,
shoulders and elbows, and these will be the
four variables defining the attitude of the rider
towards an obstacle.
Mass and Inertia data [19] used in this work
has been recalculated in order to meet the
assumptions made in colapsing different body
segments as single bodies.The attachment of
rider´s hands to the handlebar has alson been
chosen to be a revolute joint, and the reason
for this is that a very common mistake by less
experienced riders is that of bending the wrist
upwards or downwards. As a first analysis, we
see that the force and torque amplitude
evaluated at the hand-handlebar interface
during a free-fall landing maneuver is
reduced with the use of a revolute joint. That
leads us to conclude that for each maneuver
there will be an optimal grip positioning of
the hands, in order to avoid stress at the wrist,
being it the most common fatigue-related
injury due to mountain bike riding.
Figure 8. Comparison between rigid
and revolute handlebar attachment
The reduction of lower-leg limbs into one
single body simplifies the model to a
convenient extent, without compromissing the
validation of results. Since both right and left
legs are also colapsed into one single body.
Due to the fact that pedal position on one side
is all the time the opposite along the pedal
cycle with respect to the other side, assuming
both legs being positioned at the center of the
circle described by the pedal trajectory does
not compromise inertial analysis.
6
The envelope within which rider´s upper-body
is able to position with respect to the bicycle
has been measured and validated with the
multi-body ADAMS model. Weight
distribution can be considered as the key
relation in order to understand the influence of
rider position on the dynamic behaviour of the
system. By changing weight distribution, the
functioning of front and rear suspensions can
be coupled or uncoupled, which means that by
being coupled, the functioning of one
suspension will influence the other and vice Figure 10. Amount of compliant
versa. Such interaction can be avoided, so that travel performed by each level.
both work independently, and the condition The complete system multibody model also
for such behaviour is given by eq. 4 [14], allows us to extract valuable information,
where m is the total mass of the system, p is such as angular variation at each of the rider´s
the wheelbase and Iyg is the moment of inertia joints. Such information can be fed into a
around the y axis, muscular-skeletal model [21] which is able to
identify the muscle firing pattern, which
details the activation level os muscles of the
(4)
human body according to external input.

b represents the distance between the system´s

center of mass and the point of contact
between tha rear tyre´s contact point and the
ground. And this is the variable affected by
variation in rider position, here called rider
offset. Its influence on weight distribution is
seen in Fig. 9:

Figure 11. Angular variation at rider

body´s articulations.

Figure 9. Effect of rider offset on
weight distribution.
Rider offset is performed both horizontally
and vertically. Vertical variation is followed
by consequent variation in angular stiffness in
order to adapt to discontinuities of the ground
plane. The amount each compliance level
performs in the total movement of the system
while passing over 2, 5 and 8cm-high bump
can be seen in Fig. 10, in good agreement
with theory, once heavier parts present
smaller variations in vertical movement.
3. CONCLUSIONS
Investigations on the vertical plane have little
representativity in literature when compared to
lateral dynamics. Though, much of the perception
one gets while riding a mountain bike over rough
terrain happens on the vertical plane. A model
relating different levels of compliance allows full
balanced benefit from each level and also permits
to study the interaction between them. The
integration of a system model and a muscle-
skeletal model can avoid injury due to effort
concentration on one single part of rider´s body
and also serve as valuable information in
developing specific training according to one´s
biotype and desired riding conditions.

7
REFERENCES
[1] R. Redfield (2005): Large motion
mountain biking dynamics, Vehicle
System Dynamics: International
Journal of Vehicle Mechanics and
Mobility, 43:12, 845-865
[2] V. Cossalter, Motorcycle Dynamics
2006, ISBN: 978-1-4303-0861-4
[3] E.L. Wang; M.L. Hull, “A Dynamic
System Model of an Off-Road Cyclist”
Transactions of the ASME, 119
(1997) 248-251
[4] Biomechanics of Body – BoB –
J.Shippen, University of Coventry – UK
[5] M.L.Hull; E.L. Wang; D. F. Moore,
“An empirical model for determining the
radial force-deflection of off-road bicycle
tyres” - Cycling Science Spring 1996
[6] Wang, G. M. and Hull, M. L.
(1983), "Analysis of Road Induced
Loads in Bicycle Frames," Journal of
Mechanisms, Transmissions and
Automation in Design, 105(1):138-
145.
[7] M.L. Hull, E.L. Wang, D.F. Moore
“An Empirical Model for determining the
Radial Force-Deflection Behaviour of Off
Road Bicycle Tyres” Cycling Science,
Spring 1996
[8] Shoop, S.A., “Finite Element
modelling of Tire-Terrain interaction”
2001, Technical Report ERDC/CRREL
TR-01-16US Army Corps of Engineers
[9] D. J. N. Limebeer and R. S. Sharp,
"Bicycles, motorcycles and models.,"
IEEE Control Systems Magazine 36
(2006), pp. 34-61.
[10] P.Cangley, L.Passfield, H.Carter,
M.Bailey “Modelling Mechanical
Enhancements in Competitive Cycling”
Proceedings, BMD 2010
[11] R. D. Roland and J. P. Lynch, "Bicycle
dynamics tire characteristics and rider
modelling.," Cornell Aeronautical
Laboratory (1972), pp. Report no. YA-
3063-K-2.
[12] Experimental results, kindly shared by
Andrew Dressel, TUDelft
[13] M. Whitaker, A. Grant, S.
“Experimental Evaluation of Mountain
Bike Dynamic Systems” Acta
Polytechnica (43) 5 (2003)
[14] Damgaard, B.F., Svendsen G. W.,
Bloch N. C., Nielsen R. B., Morsbol J.,
Kann J., “Modelling and Dimensioning
the Rear Suspension of a Mountain Bike”
(2009) Aalborg Universitet, Department of
Mechanical Engineering
[15] Good, C., McPhee, J. : “Dynamics of
mountain bicycles with rear suspension:
modelling and simulation” Systems
Design and Mechanical Engineering,
University of Waterloo, Canada, Sports
Engineering, 1999. 2,129-143
[16] Tanouye, T.K., “Force Channeling
Mountain Bike Rear Suspension” 2010,
US Pat. 7.703.788B2
[17] Gordon, D.G., Papadopoulos, J.,
“Bicycling Science”, 3 ed. 2004,
Massachussets Institute of Technology
[18] Zatsiorsky V. Seluyanov V. “The
mass and inertia characteristics of the
mains segments of the human body”
Biomechanics VIII-B, Int. Series of
Biomechanics, ed. By Matsui H.,
Kobayashi K. Human Kinetics,
Champaign, IL, pp 1152-1159, 1983
[19] Hull, M.L., Wang, E.L., “A Dynamic
System Model of an Off-Road Cyclist”,
Transactions of the ASME, 119 (1997)
248-251
[20] J. Shippen “Bob - Biodynamics of Body”
Coventry University UK