the travel adjustable forks also made the bike feels weird
I have always found with travel adjust forks, the bike feels sluggish in the low setting. Not sure why. Especially when climbing something like mountain highway.
Ride, don't slide.
Thank Goodness - Trek/Fox/Penske/Jesus is going to save us all with their new shock
I have always found with travel adjust forks, the bike feels sluggish in the low setting. Not sure why. Especially when climbing something like mountain highway.
You're not alone in that. I think it's all in our minds though in the same way we feel that too much suspension kills climbing.
Debate? Bikes are made for riding not pushing.
This is an interesting thread.
F1
Suspension curves
A NEW AXLE STANDARD!!?? WTF
Travel adjust
In response to the OP, I leave my Fox Float CTD in climb mode for both climbing and descending because I feel the shock performs best in that setting. Maybe Trek and Penske is on to something that a few of us already know.
"If everything seems in control, you're not going fast enough."
-Mario Andretti-
I have always found with travel adjust forks, the bike feels sluggish in the low setting. Not sure why. Especially when climbing something like mountain highway.
Specialized? I've been on a few different bikes with TA, and Spec always seem to feel the worst, almost like you are ploughing the ground with your front wheel.
I've always been of the opinion that TA forks are a crutch for either overforking a bike, or bad/sloppy frame design/geo. I've been on a lot of bikes that work really well with relatively big forks.
^ exactly. IMO a bike doesn't need a TA fork if everything else is balanced out, and, the fork is properly sprung and damped. I've said for many years that TA was brought on by the marketing departments to sell more product - to respond to a need that wasn't there. Now you don't really see many external TA forks anymore. Internally adjustable is fine because you are setting up a fork permanently to fit a style of bike. My XF Metric comes set at 180mm but I internally set it to 163mm to suit my bike.
With respect to the wider hub with slightly wider flange spacing. The logic makes sense but is the current crop of "standard" 135 or 142 rear hubed 29ers seeing a shit load of failures? Didn't think so. Next.
Debate? Bikes are made for riding not pushing.
Specialized? I've been on a few different bikes with TA, and Spec always seem to feel the worst, almost like you are ploughing the ground with your front wheel.
I've always been of the opinion that TA forks are a crutch for either overforking a bike, or bad/sloppy frame design/geo. I've been on a lot of bikes that work really well with relatively big forks.
End of thread.
With respect to the wider hub with slightly wider flange spacing. The logic makes sense but is the current crop of "standard" 135 or 142 rear hubed 29ers seeing a shit load of failures? Didn't think so. Next.
Since when has the bike industry allowed logic like this to stop them from creating new proprietary products?
With respect to the wider hub with slightly wider flange spacing. The logic makes sense but is the current crop of "standard" 135 or 142 rear hubed 29ers seeing a shit load of failures? Didn't think so. Next.
I don't think it's about failure as much as it is about deflection. With wider flanges, the spokes are angled more in the lateral direction, which transfers more lateral force into the rigid hubs. Lateral loads put the spokes more in tension and less in bending. So there is less flex laterally.
Whether the additional width is discernible on the trail is a different story.
Forum jump:
