What would you consider too much travel? 10" - 12" ?
Just curious.
Is quality better than quantity? 7" of quality travel or 10" of ok travel?
Just curious.
Is quality better than quantity? 7" of quality travel or 10" of ok travel?
i disagree i've got a switch pro it's got 6 in back and thets plenty for fr for me at least you guys are probably going bigger and faster than me but i think that 6 inches rear is plenty for 10+ drops. in my humble opinion.Kanter said:Hucks-8,9,10
DH-8,9
FR-7,8,9
TR-5,6,7
XC-3,4,5
i agree completely. i run 8" and 8" for everything (scream with 03 monster)gnurider1080 said:8" front and rear would be perfect for me.
Thats a main reason, becasue I'm small, its easier to throw around a 7" bike than a 9" because they are usualy lighter and the suspension won't take diminish all my force to the ground when doing quick bunnyhops and stuff.dhkid said:for sure quality over quantity.
but about the tavel,i think there are quite a few factors that come into play. rider weight, height, style and the terrian you ride on.
i use 7 and 7, but wish i could get away with something like 6 and 6. for me less travel means a bike that is easier to mussle around.
Sure sag is important but there can also be too much of it. You can get plenty of sag on a 7" bike.Red Bull said:Alot of you dont realize, that (IMO) somewhere around 9" of travel is best. Because sag is very important and you can only run so much on a 7" bike compared to a 9" or say a v10.
how many DH bikes have 7" of travel in 2005? about zero?sirknight6 said:7" seems to be the general consensus...
narlus said:splat, how can that bike have 23" of rear travel? and have a 5" z1 on the front?
i just threw up in my mouth alittlesplat said:How about 23 Inches in the rear ?
( I just happen to stumble onthis while surfing around )
Actually, don't know, since I was not really in the market for a bike this season......narlus said:how many DH bikes have 7" of travel in 2005? about zero?
splat, how can that bike have 23" of rear travel? and have a 5" z1 on the front?
thaflyinfatman said:Personally I think there are many advantages to less travel (or more accurately, disadvantages to longer travel). For starters, more travel generally = longer bike. Longer bike = handles slower. It also gives you clearance issues with bottoming, means that the bike's structural loading varies more because the suspension members move/rotate further (and thus the bike is more likely to be weaker or heavier), requires a higher BB (assuming you run roughly the same percentage of sag), can give enough sag that it's hard to get out of it (jumping/hopping), and means the geometry changes more with weight shift. None of these are good things. The only real advantage of running say 10" of travel as compared to 8" is in high speed bump absorption (in terms of DH/race type stuff, because big hits and that are generally one-off events that you can soak up with your body easily enough). If you ride a lot of *really* fast rough stuff it might be enough to outweigh the other negatives.
If you ride a bike like a Sunday, SGS or a Turner and compare directly with something like a V10 or an M1, you will be surprised at how much more stable the slightly-shorter-travel bikes are when hammering into corners and stuff; they don't feel like they're bogging down mid-corner. It's a huge advantage IMO. I find they also jump nicer, but I think that's more due to personal riding style and preferences than one setup being clearly better than another.