By now, most mountain bikers are probably familiar with the whole Split Pivot Vs. ABP thing. If not, they both happen to be a rear suspension pivot design which is concentric with the rear axle. This effectively isolates the braking forces form the suspension forces allowing the suspension to cycle even while under heavy braking. Trek was the first to bring this technology to market in the form of ABP, or Active Braking Pivot, though there are arguments that Dave Weagle of DW Link fame actually penned the design first.

Regardless, both parties were awarded patents on essentially the same design which has opened the door for any manufacturers who would like to buy their way into the Split Pivot market. Up to this point, Devinci seemed to be the biggest supporter building 3 new bikes around Split Pivot, with the Dexter, Dixon, and Wilson. Morewood also is in on the Split Pivot action with their Sukuma All Mountain bike.

Now BH is the latest company to boast the use of Split Pivot in their all new, all carbon Lynx 100mm XC bike.

Check out more of the Lynx after the break!

Most of the US readers of Bikerumor may not know BH at all, unless you are familiar with their line of road bikes that happen to be imported by Pivot. It is for this reason that there aren’t any BH mountain bikes on this side of the pond, and probably won’t be in the future. For now, the Lynx and the other BH mountain bikes remain Europe only.

That doesn’t mean we can’t look at them though, and the BH Lynx is definitely a looker. The front of the Lynx sports a massive tapered head tube which is sure to warrant a stiff front end. Note the internal shift cable routing as well.

Here you can see the rear Control Link which Weagle claims is a very short link for a 100mm travel bike. This is realized through the use of a floating lower shock mount, though it’s quite a bit different from Trek’s Full Floater. Instead of dropping with the suspension and prolonging the compression of the shock, the Lynx features a floating shock mount that compresses the shock from both ends. With the shock attached to an extension clevis at the bottom, the design allows for the use of a standard shock with substantially lower air pressure. Weagle states that they are running around 150psi for Lynx, when most other bikes in Europe are running around 200psi average. The low pressure aids in small bump sensitivity while still offering plenty of mid stroke corner support while still accelerating like a 100mm travel bike should.



In order to accommodate the suspension linkage, and provide the best front derailleur performance, a direct mount front derailleur is used along with a press-fit bb.



The rear end of the bike of course utilizes the Split Pivot drop outs along with the Syntace 142 x 12mm axle system. You also should notice the post mount rear dis brake mounts with replaceable barrel inserts for the threads. While you could debate the issue between Split Pivot and ABP all day, what you can certainly take from this, is that it sure looks like the 142 x 12mm standard is starting to take off.



  1. Along with the Atari Lynx and the Mercury Lynx, I expect these to be a rare sight….

    Doesn’t this kind of step on Pivot’s toes (given the shared distributorship)?

  2. a trek’s “full floater” is in front of the seat tube and in front of the seat stay linkage. lynx’s is behind seat stay linkage. totally different. also, the seat stay on trek’s ABP is outboard, completely the opposite of DW’s split pivot though the desired effect could be the same.

  3. the reason 2 patents were issed i believe was that Trek proved they began work and design independant of DW, even if this process happened at the same time at both companies.

    they both developed the design independantly.

  4. Would be a nice bike if not for the hideous graphics. Did they really have to put a cheesy sticker next to every normal feature? “Star link”, “Floated Mount”, “Tapered Head Tube”, “QR”, “Thru-axle”. You can go around showing every one you have a QR at the rear axle. LAME

  5. Independent invention of the same technology isn’t a basis for a patent nor a defense for patent infringement. There *must* be a difference between ABP and Split-Pivot that isn’t obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of suspension design in order for the PTO to grant two patents.

What do you think?