Review: BYB Tech Telemetry 2.0 - Using Data Acquisition to Improve Suspension Set Up

There are brake-lever sensors that help massage riders into using better on-off braking habits, rather than using their brakes too often, yet not hard enough. There is also the option of a wheel speed sensor for high accuracy. In my time with the kit, I focussed on the suspension sensor and GPS. Within the head unit, there is also a built-in 3-axis accelerometer and 3-axis gyro sensor.

Truthfully, this review will be about how I fared, what I liked, and what I didn't when using the BYB system. The software offers so much analysis that it's something I really feel I'm only scratching the surface of. That said, if a technophobe like me can make sense of it then I think most riders should get along well. Plus, if you are more technically minded with a mind for interpreting data then the sky is the limit.


Is There Such a Thing As "The Perfect Setup"?

I've tried this system with friends and colleagues of varying levels - from weekend warriors to all-out shredders. Something I picked up quite early on is the more experience the rider had in regards to testing the more likely they were to challenge the ideals that the system suggests. It's of course a very good question. Can an objective perfect setup exist? Or is that data-derived setup just a way to fall in line with somebody else's subjective outlook?

BYB takes the approach that fastest is best. They have made a piece of software that makes starting on the system very easy, as well as helping guide the user to a central setup. In that part of the app, you put in your ability level and the software will make suggestions. When asking Enrico from BYB how they got to these settings, he explained that they were derived from crowd-sourced real-world data. They tested with riders of differing levels (the system denotes beginner, intermediate, and advanced). After testing, their fastest setup was analyzed and then fed into the app.


The Inherent Limitation of Any Data-Acquisition System

The problem with data acquisition is already in the name. It can't make a suggestion or give you data for what you haven't ridden. This means that you either want to use it on a track that you're racing on or a track that represents what you typically enjoy riding. However, even then, you will need to be cognizant of what that "bit-of-everything" track doesn't have, as much as you are aware of what it does.

The beauty of a system like this is how much it lets you maximize setup. However, that hyperfocus can mean that you end up riding close to the limit in terms of travel used. This might not be the best case if you go and find yourself riding something very different in the future. I found setups that worked exceptionally well on almost all tracks but, for instance, I love riding fast trails that are more classic racetracks than creeping-steep slabs. Where my bike would handle the repetitive hits incredibly well, it would also often be flying quite close to the sun in regards to bottom-out and would be somewhat unsuited to slower trails with single, very large compressions.

That said, no setup is perfect. If you wanted a halfway house between the two you would just have to find a test track that offered it, or hedge your bets and stray away from the data-led approach slightly. I have tended to prioritise getting bikes feeling absolutely-unbelievably-good on 95% of the trails I ride, and slightly too soft for the trails I hardly venture onto, rather than very good for everything. It's a personal approach though.


Is the Setup Derived from BYB's Data Different From a Typical One?

The setup I have ended up on is incredibly fast, and a lot softer than anything I've ever gone to previously. It quite simply required me to see in the data that this wasn't just going to eject me at the slightest hint of trouble for me to test it.

Typically, bike setup can go one of two ways - geometry preservation or chassis stability. Let's begin with talking about the fork.

A harder fork will be less likely to go into its stroke. This will keep the geometry more consistent by preventing the head angle from steepening as much as a softer setup would. Higher spring rates tend to then lead to more rebound damping being required because the spring has more force to return, meaning we need to run more damping to slow down and control the fork when it returns from big hits.

A fork with a softer spring rate will require less rebound damping to offer a similar level of control. It will also mean that the same hit will send the unit deeper into its stroke, meaning that it can make do with a lower amount of rebound damping as its return stroke is longer and will cycle more oil through the damper, giving the damper more of an opportunity to slow shaft speed. The softer, faster fork will extend into bumps and holes more easily because it has more extension available. It will also be happier to go into its stroke. Both of these factors mean that although the head angle might change dynamically, the head tube height will change less.

I would summarise the BYB-derived setup as having enough spring rate that you can get to around 80% of travel with ease in the carpark, and if you go deep off a large drop and land evenly you will use around 90% of your travel. It suggests incredibly fast rebound tunes to then return to full extension before the next hit arrives. This means your fork is far more active, but it is a trade-off, and it's not universally better.

Jumps with steep lips can be somewhat intimidating, and I found that the rebound was so fast it was better to pop less and have a more muted approach. It also meant that some bikes had rebound-induced pedal bob. That said, the climbing grip tended to be very, very good because the bike is simply so happy to go into its stroke and offered tracking on the back side of bumps, holes and obstacles that a slower rebound settings would normally inhibit.

To give you an idea of the soft settings I ended up on, I have included my settings of some common enduro forks below. In italics, I have included the recommended settings from the manufacturer for my 80 kg weight. RockShox and Ohlins suggest using the damping settings in the middle before experimentation. These aren't wrong or incorrect, but rather I just want to highlight how soft and fast I ended up running my fork. Note - all settings from fully closed.

Ohlins RXF38 M2 170mm - 100 psi main chamber / 190 psi ramp up - 104/145 psi - open rebound, 8/16LSC, 2/3HSC
Fox 38 Factory 170mm - 91 psi with 2 volume spacers - 6LSR, 5HSR, 10LSC, 5HSC - 76 psi, 2 volume spacers, 16/16 LSR, 8/8HSR, 10/16LSC, 0/8 HSC
Fox 36 Factory 160mm - 86 psi with 1 volume spacers - 6LSR, 5HSR, 10LSC, 5HSC - 78 psi, 1 volume spacer, 16/16 LSR, 6/8HSR, 8/16 LSC, 0/8 HSC
RockShox Zeb Ultimate 170mm - 60 psi with 1 volume spacer - 8LSR - 55 psi, 1 volume spacer, 16/18LSR, 14/15 LSC, 0/5 HSC
RockShox Lyrik Select+ 150mm - 78 psi with 1 volume spacer - 10LSR - 77 psi, 1 volume spacer, open rebound, 8/15 LSC, 0/5 HSC

These settings were derived from my favored test track in the Whistler Bike Park. Delayed Fuse, Shomer Shabbos, Insomnia. It's a mix of flat-out tech, both flat and steeper turns and medium to large jumps. I think it's got a bit of everything. I would describe the setup that I landed on as almost tuning the spring rate to the rebound, as opposed to the other way around. You can see that my high-speed compression settings are almost always fully closed. That's often how I setup bikes on the rear too, and then just use the low-speed adjustment to set the threshold of high-speed damping. I find this to be effective and intuitive and I can get bikes setup very well without the telemetry at this point, although it often helps.


How to Interpret the Data

The best thing about the Tune Guide isn't that it does it all for you, but rather you soon learn to interpret the data very intuitively because of what you know from the app. For instance, below is a first run on a test bike using a guestimate baseline on both shock and fork.


From the image on the left, I can see an overview of all the data. For me, this is useful but I don't care too much for speed or knowing where I've been. I've been focusing solely on how much travel I'm using, as well as how my bike is using it.

In the second image, I can immediately see that the bike is using more sag at the shock than the fork at 33% compared to 28% when measured as a dynamic value. But, interestingly, the fork is using a larger amount of travel on bigger hits. In my experience, I want my dynamic sag to be around 30% on the rear, maybe 32% max, and around 23-25% on a long-travel enduro fork. I've seen some people advocate for equal sag front and rear. I'm not against this but rather this is where I am on my journey with it.

So, why is the shock both sitting deeper, as well as not using as much travel when I really need it to? It's here I should emphasize how important a long, varied test track is, and how consistent inputs are highly valuable.

You can see to the left of the graph various boxes. Let's focus on the Velocity section. Here, we can quickly see that the average compression speeds are similar, but there is an outlier of the max speed. This can easily be addressed with high-speed compression damping. Because our average sag is a product of the entire run, reducing how a fork or shock goes deep into its stroke by altering the rate of oil flow can have a marked difference in that. I would also look at the rebound rate with keen interest. Again, the bike feels balanced, and that shows in both the average travel used as well as the average rebound, but the max rebound sees a large discrepancy between the front and rear of the bike.


My instinct, having spent 20 seconds looking at the numbers, would be to remove probably two clicks of both high-speed rebound to try and get that max speed similar to the fork (the values will be subjective but typically 3000 - 3500 m/s felt quite good to me). I would also add high-speed compression damping on the shock and go for a run. It might well be that by doing so the shock sits slightly higher in its travel because of the added compression, which could negate the need to alter the spring rate. I would also remove a click or two of Hydraulic Bottom Out (this shock had that feature) to see if I can also get more travel on big hits, all while having slowed the shaft speed down in extreme situations. Then I would go for a run and check the data again.

Much like truing a wheel, it's best to only work on the worst part at the time. Small changes that hone your sights can often be more time efficient too, and save you from bouncing around between extremes. Using the BYB system, you can get your bike feeling so well balanced within a few hours of tinkering, maybe even less if you have a track both short and varied enough. But what did the app suggest?


Something quite similar. It can be tempting to try and fix all of these issues at once but I found a methodical approach to work best. The Tune suggestions can't differentiate between high and low-speed compressions all that effectively, and don't tell you which to add. I also found that while the dynamic sag suggestion was normally very good, the bottom-out resistance could leave you vulnerable when taking the bike on bigger, rougher trails.

The Mobile App




Installation, Upkeep and Hardware

While the data outputs can make you feel like a pro racer, putting the kit on can sometimes feel a little more amateur. The fork-fitments are fantastic, both on downhill and single-crown forks. The air valve that combines with a strut to provide the upper clamp is fantastic. However, the 3D-printed parts aren't so great for shock placement. The issue is not that they can't hold onto the shock, but rather ensure that there aren't any twisting or bending forces going through the rod as the bike is compressed.

I found that the solution for me was using a housing ferrule that I tapped with an M3 thread and cut to size. This ensured good alignment and spacing. I simply filed a small amount of material off and tapped them into the 5mm Allen fixed that is commonplace on most shocks. It's simple, clean, and effective, even if you do have to use a new ferrule with each fitting.


I did crash and bend the rod on the shock, but carefully bent it back and it still works well. You don't service these small units. Instead, just give them a quick wipe after use. That said, I never liked riding in the muck with them too much. It should be said the new version comes with very tidy-looking guards that should help prevent debris and dirt ingestion or crash damage.

The eyelets of the sensors do have small ball joints in a bid to offset any alignment issues but I still always felt it was worth the extra care to get the alignment bag on. From start to finish, it would take around 20 minutes to set up the bike.

The GPS sensor is a little annoying, and I would often just tape it to the head unit when running it on my bars. On my trail bike, though, I chose to run it in the cargo strap on the underside of my downtube and the GPS sensor on the top tube.

When you have your data you can then overlay it on GoPro footage to get a complete sense of the when, where, and how your bike is working. For me, I was more concerned with overall balance than I was shaving tenths. To that end, my bike has never felt so good.

---

---

Pinkbike's Take

Posted In:
Reviews and Tech Reviews Byb