Not too many folks (other than real Buell fans) know that Erik Buell worked on a bicycle project with Schwinn Bicycles back in 1991. Chris Fiorini, a product designer at Schwinn’s Paramount Design Group, wanted to design a mountain bike for downhill racing with long travel suspension. He contacted Buell because he had heard about the suspension system they were using and thought it might work on the bike. Erik liked the idea of working on the project and the SASS (Schwinn Active Suspension System) was born. The bike was called the Paramount Buell SASS bicycle.
The prototype bikes were built in the famous Buell Quonset hut factory and testing was done by riding back and forth on nearby railroad tracks. A 3rd generation prototype was sent to Italy and Glen Adams, seeded 52nd for the 9th World Mountain Bike Downhill Championship, rode the bike to a Bronze medal, just .002 seconds from the Silver.
The bike was then released to the public in September 1991. It had 4 inches of rear suspension travel with the shock working under extension, just like Buell motorcycles do it. Everyone building mountain bikes took a look at the suspension and said, “Nice idea!” and it started popping up everywhere.
If you’re looking for some bicycle history or something to park next to your Buell in the garage, this is it!
Link: auction over
More photos below:
Don says
Interesting idea, but putting the suspension under the bottom bracket like that will subject it to rocks, logs, and other obstacles. That may be why most mountain bikes are made with the rear shock somewhere above the bottom bracket–usually along the seat tube, where it’s less likely to be trashed.
Maybe all motorcycle ideas don’t transfer over so good to bicycles. It may function well, but most practical bicycle riders look not just for performance, but for durability.
pghcyclist says
um can anyone say Britten. The v1000 uses a pull shock too right?
OHh Ohh check the magura hydraulic rim brakes. The first perimeter brake?(just kidding… sort of)
Chris says
Don took the words right out of my mouth. That’s a neat bike but the design is really only useful for downhilling. It would suck for rockhopping or other cross-country stuff because you’d always be bashing the spring on logs, etc.
I’d be curious to see it in action on an uphill, too. A lot of rear-suspension mountain bike designs absorb large amounts of pedaling energy going uphill, which slows down the rider and destroys the efficiency of the bike.
cl
Tim says
I think its an interesting illustration of the progression of how far mountain bikes have come in the intervening years.
That shock location is really really bad for a mountain bike. it wears every bit of crap thrown up by the front wheel, and is really exposed to any log or rock the bike bashes into. Since a modern downhill course is all about big drops, gnarly technical sections and big jumps then it would last not long. I also think it wouldnt last that long in a trailriding context either: same problem.
Chris’ point about pedal bob is another good one, but the other major effect on a pushbikes suspension is application of the rear brake: in some designs when the rear brake is applied the rear suspension locks out entirely (not optimal) or the shock or linkage fully extends as well. Not sure that would be the case here but I would love to take it for a spin!
the most neutral suspension designs are the “Horst link” (named after Horst Leitner, and patented by him, the patent now owned by Specialized) and the Lawwill Leader design: penned by Mert Lawwill the well known motorcycle guy (and AMA GNC, whose son was a professional DH rider)
Oh, and imagine going fullbore on rim brakes and Mag 21’s!! we really have come a long way: even my singlespeed has disc brakes!
Mike says
pghcyclist: The Britten has pull rods, and a rocker lever linkage. The Damper (both front and rear suspension) are in compression.
Erik says
Kind of a neat bit of history but I wouldn’t want to bash this bike around on the trails for the same reasons other commenters have said. I tend to prefer a hard tail on my bikes to maximize efficiency, minimize weight and because I’m not much of a jumper (but I do rip it up on the downhills!).
pghcyclist says
mike i think the kneeslider has misrepresented the action of the rear shock. The shock is run under compression. Thats a pull rod running from the bottom of the shock up to a large aluminum washer that compresses the spring. The dampening runs in extension while the spring runs in compression
Its true mountain bikes have come a long way. I just got done building a c-dale moto. Full carbon frame and 160cm of highly controllable travel all below the 30lbs mark.
Oh man when are motorcycles gonna start coming with carbon frames at the consumer level.
kneeslider says
pghcyclist:- “i think the kneeslider has misrepresented the action of the rear shock”
I wrote,”the shock working under extension,” which is also what you say, “dampening runs in extension.” Coils springs obviously work when compressed, I was referring to the shock.
In most rear swingarm setups, the shock is compressed when the swingarm moves up, which is opposite both this bike’s configuration and Buell motorcycle configuration.
What did I misrepresent?
pghcyclist says
Sorry kneeslider i certainly did not want to start an argument. I was just trying to clarify the difference between Britten’s design and the buell sass. The spring is in compression via a pullrod. The damper doesnt care what direction it moves in.The damper washers are moved through the fluid inside the chamber and the pressure diffencial between the two sides of the damper looks the same weather its in extension or compression.
(I certainly dont want to bring this conversation to a flame war. so feel free to delete my comments if you like)
kneeslider says
pghcyclist, nothing to delete and I’m not angry, I was honestly wondering what you thought I misrepresented. (Honest questions and debate help everyone. This is neither politics nor a flame war, just discussion.)
You may want to rethink your latest statement, “the pressure diffencial between the two sides of the damper looks the same weather its in extension or compression.”
How a shock acts in each direction is highly dependent on internal valving. There is much more in there than a simple washer in fluid.
john says
The shock is a is a multi-pound chunk of metal that can probably take damage that will beer can an aluminum frame, and might damage it’s steel frame before failing. I’ve never hit the thing substantial with it, but I usually try not to destroy my crank arms or wedge something in between the frame and the wheel. you can damage the linkage which extends beneath the chain ring. It looks sturdier than a standard chain ring and moves out of the way under compression, but I wouldn’t want it hitting anything harder than bark or a rotting log. The frame heavy for an expensive early 90’s bike. It weighed around 31 lbs with that light fork and xt parts.
The pivot is above the chain so that the top of the chain gets longer as the swing arm moves with larger front gears this gets some canceling from the rear moving up.
I’ve been riding these so I probably don’t notice as much as I would have in 1992. There is a difference, but I only notice the effects on pedaling when in to tall of gear for my speed. Stomping short gears like a 20t front pulls the swing arm down which may cost energy and may increase traction depending who’s talking. The Bike needs to have a stiff enough spring. With a black spring (200 lbs?) the suspension is stable for me at around 190lb. With the gray spring (160lbs?) the suspension is to noticeable and the rebound dampening can limit extension of the arm.
I like the braking design flaw. Usually the force of decelerating the rear wheel doesn’t squat the rear noticeably except in a sudden high speed lock of the rear . Compressing the suspension during wheel lock may have been more of a problem with old bikes having less travel, or a complaint to support some designs.
I like the design, and the shock location. It is very latterly stiff, and the brick is lower on the bike.
The patent for the design also covers a variant with the shock inside the lower frame. Most people comment of the shocks location so if a newer version was ever built by Waterford, that might ease customers minds.
Tim says
So you’d end up with a shock in the same location as the Giant Glory?
john says
I looked at a picture of a giant glory dh which would not fit the design of the patent. Marc Muller and Eric Buell patented this design for use on either a bicycle or motorcycle. …”A tubular shock absorber assembly is supported on the down tube and has a spring urging a coupler portion thereof in a forward and upward direction. A double-pivoted link is pivotally connected between the forward ends of the chain stays and a bell crank assembly which is pivotally connected to the underside of the frame, and in turn, connects the double-pivoted link to the coupler portion of the shock absorber assembly”… …”In one embodiment, the shock absorber assembly is supported on the forward side of the down tube; in another embodiment, the shock absorber assembly is inside an open-rear-ended down tube.”
This is probably easier to do on a motorcycle. The frame would need to be redesigned so that the bottom bracket would not get in the way.
john Again says
Since I like finding things to read:
MTBs have come a long way since 1992. The biggest improvement is front fork travel. I wasnt aware of 4″ of travel until I called for a Crosstrac brochure in 1994. They had 4″ front and rear, and the brochure mentioned that they had tried 6″ and 8″ prototypes but that 4″ was the max for efficient pedaling. I thought that 4″ was going to remain the limit and that eventually other bikes might be adjustable beyond 4″ or have progressive or 2 stage travel that would pedal like 4″ until a big hit.
When long travel bikes came out the bottom brackets were high and many were even more heavy than the S.A.S.S.
I ran a Judy DH until adjustable travel allowed me to try 130mm and still be able to use 90mm.
This has been a major improvement; 90mm doesnt bob; 130mm does but is plush.
The other big change is that 30lb range is more acceptable. Unfortunately the S.A.S.S. was too heavy (I think the frame is about 8 lb; I weighed it years ago) Waterford discontinued it because they couldn’t bring the weight down without sacrificing durrability.
Today the S.A.S.S. is no longer too heavy, and wouldn’t change the weight much to increase travel with a different shaped pivoting linkage.
Disk brakes have become more common and are an improvement for most situations. Didn’t the ’91 gold or silver go to a bike w/ disc (and road drop bars)? I think disc have improved since then but I didn’t use them back then. Maguras work well they can hold mud, change with puddles, and throw you easier. The mud colecting is the only problem on the rear as it is easy to lock.
I went from canti’s to Maguras so I never tried V brakes. I’ve been suprised when people believe that a rim break can’t control speed or lock a wheel especially the rear. (i’m not accusing anyone hear). I’d prefer a disk or drum especialy in the front (I don’t think the drum is worth the weight unless your going to use it for long drags.
I’d love to see the ’91 downhill video but ’92 is as far back as I could find.