For those that have tried similar bikes with different CS lengths, or preferably the same bike in various settings, which numerical setting do you prefer and why? I'll leave a template as a guide if you need ideas:
CS length:
Wheelbase: (preferably self-measured)
Rear traction: (poor/good/excellent)
Ease of initiating drift: (poor/good/excellent)
Ease of controlling/predicting drift behaviour: (poor/good/excellent)
Riding style/position: (rear-heavy/centered/front-heavy)
Some caveats:
- The longer setting (on a multi-setting bike) will result in more wheel travel and more sag, thus better feeling suspension unless you correct spring/damper rate - obviously the travel change remains but bump performance will be similar. Chances are not many do this, so I prefer if bump absorption is factored out of comparisons, as well as the obvious change in wheelbase.
- High pivot bikes have a huge amount of dynamic variance in CS length (thus rear wheel weighting, thus rear traction) so I'm not largely interested in anything with more than 15-20mm of CS extension. Before someone gets offended, it's not that these designs have no merit, it's just that I can't learn anything from subjective data when you have a 16" CS that could be anywhere between 16" and 19" depending on corner type and corner/other loading. Even 20mm blurs the results a bit but that should cover a decent selection of bikes.
- I have my own take on this but am curious to hear what others have experienced, will chime in after some replies.
CS length:
Wheelbase: (preferably self-measured)
Rear traction: (poor/good/excellent)
Ease of initiating drift: (poor/good/excellent)
Ease of controlling/predicting drift behaviour: (poor/good/excellent)
Riding style/position: (rear-heavy/centered/front-heavy)
Some caveats:
- The longer setting (on a multi-setting bike) will result in more wheel travel and more sag, thus better feeling suspension unless you correct spring/damper rate - obviously the travel change remains but bump performance will be similar. Chances are not many do this, so I prefer if bump absorption is factored out of comparisons, as well as the obvious change in wheelbase.
- High pivot bikes have a huge amount of dynamic variance in CS length (thus rear wheel weighting, thus rear traction) so I'm not largely interested in anything with more than 15-20mm of CS extension. Before someone gets offended, it's not that these designs have no merit, it's just that I can't learn anything from subjective data when you have a 16" CS that could be anywhere between 16" and 19" depending on corner type and corner/other loading. Even 20mm blurs the results a bit but that should cover a decent selection of bikes.
- I have my own take on this but am curious to hear what others have experienced, will chime in after some replies.
Last edited: