[MPORA Editor]

Dirt Magazine's Steve Jones takes the new Trek Session 9.9 for a spin on the old 1:04.

Check Dirt issue #116 for the full review.

http://video.mpora.com/watch/UCQ8CMzRW/

 

[davec113]

Interesting... I did not know they changed the leverage curve on the new Sessions. Steve said it's fast everywhere now.... I have a Session 88 and the only time I feel it is out of it's element is in flat rock gardens. The Session loses a lot more momentum vs. some other sus designs, like the v10. I could see if it were a little less progressive in the midstroke that it wouldn't get hung up on square edge hits as much and would track better through the rocks. Still not buying it, I don't have the cash

 

[Pslide]

Wow, that was a well put together video...good stuff Dirt!

Makes me miss razzing around the Forest of Dean...

 

[norbar]

I doubt the leverage ratio was the thing that made it a bit crappy in the rough. It is almost not rearward at all and it stayed the same. Why?

 

[davec113]

I doubt the leverage ratio was the thing that made it a bit crappy in the rough. It is almost not rearward at all and it stayed the same. Why?

I agree a rearward axlepath would also help, but the Session 88 is very progressive and the sus ramps up too much for plowing rock gardens. I think that is as much to blame as the axlepath for the 88 losing speed in flat rockgardens.

It's kind of a minor nit-picking point, and isn't an issue very often, but it is the only weakness in the 88s performance IMO.

As far as the axlepath staying the same, it is a single pivot, so changing the axlepath rearward would require a higher pivot location, which would create more issues than it would solve IMO.

 

[norbar]

I agree a rearward axlepath would also help, but the Session 88 is very progressive and the sus ramps up too much for plowing rock gardens. I think that is as much to blame as the axlepath for the 88 losing speed in flat rockgardens.

It's kind of a minor nit-picking point, and isn't an issue very often, but it is the only weakness in the 88s performance IMO.

As far as the axlepath staying the same, it is a single pivot, so changing the axlepath rearward would require a higher pivot location, which would create more issues than it would solve IMO.

Why would it? Most of the single pivots on the market use a higher pivot than the session and they work fine.

 

[Pslide]

Hey Norbar, did you ride both the Mk1 and Mk2 Legends? They reduced the rearward axle path on the Mk2. Could you tell any difference in rock gardens and those pesky square edge hits? I couldn't... A few clicks of damping makes more difference IMO.

 

[norbar]

Hey Norbar, did you ride both the Mk1 and Mk2 Legends? They reduced the rearward axle path on the Mk2. Could you tell any difference in rock gardens and those pesky square edge hits? I couldn't... A few clicks of damping makes more difference IMO.

They also changed the ratio so the susp should be quite different. You didnt feel that? Strange. Maybe Im a bit anal about suspension but I always felt a diferance between less rearward bikes and the ones that backed the axle quite a bit (didnt ride the mk1 though).

 

[Vrock]

The Old Session 88 wasn't too progresive, it had an average ratio, and it was probably designed around de DHX5. The RC4 on the new Session is going to work fine, maybe they need to close the Bottom out a bit, but that's what it is for.

 

[Pslide]

They also changed the ratio so the susp should be quite different. You didnt feel that? Strange. Maybe Im a bit anal about suspension but I always felt a diferance between less rearward bikes and the ones that backed the axle quite a bit (didnt ride the mk1 though).

I did feel the difference in leverage ratio, but not any effects from the different axle paths. I didn't really do a side to side comparison though. I definitely prefer the new leverage ratio though!

 

[norbar]

I did feel the difference in leverage ratio, but not any effects from the different axle paths. I didn't really do a side to side comparison though. I definitely prefer the new leverage ratio though!

Switch with a friend mid run - preferably for bikes that differ quite a bit in the axle path part and it is noticable. especialy if you jump back in the same run.

 

[davec113]

The Old Session 88 wasn't too progresive...

Apparently Trek and Steve Jones disagree with you... and since (I assume) you haven't been able to compare the 88 with the 9.9, that doesn't give your opinion too much credibility.

 

[davec113]

Why would it? Most of the single pivots on the market use a higher pivot than the session and they work fine.

Because sus design is full of compromises, and Trek decided that pivot placement works best, for many factors I don't want to get into. I don't disagree... but if you prefer another design, buy that one.

 

[norbar]

Because sus design is full of compromises, and Trek decided that pivot placement works best, for many factors I don't want to get into. I don't disagree... but if you prefer another design, buy that one.

That is the main reason why im not buying it. I really like the looks and the carbonz but the almost no rearward at all kills the bike for me. I really wish for a carbon session 10. I think many companies go for less rearward designs because they feel more comfortable vs better for flowing through the rough. But Im a bit biased.