|   Question about full suspensions... | Cabin Fever
Nov 10, 2002 7:36 PM | | i've been riding hardtails for the past 8 years. it's basically all i've ever ridden. i've tested a couple models, but that is about it. however, i am starting to really drool over having one. maybe i am just getting kinda tired of the same old bike, or maybe i'd like to have a bike with new parts.
either way, i don't know much about what to look for in a full suspension. i don't need more than 4 inches of travel, in fact, closer to 3. however, i'd like maybe a little more up front. a LITTLE more. i'm a 220 lb rider, so i need something sturdy and strong. basically, i want an EFFICIENT XC design that handles like a hardtail, and something reliable. none of this super-upright (cramped) "all-mountain" business. no gimmicks. and i'm thinking a soft price limit of maybe $2500. i really drool over having a Titus Racer X with a Marzocchi Marathon, but i can't afford that. well, maybe on an installment plan. Is the Giant NRS frame available with just the frame/shock? i know what parts i want.
i won't be buying anything till summer. but i want to ask around a lot of people to see if i can get a general impression that i am looking for.
thanks for any help. keep ridin'! |
| efficiancy is over-rated | Jm
Nov 10, 2002 7:55 PM | | because all bikes bob, even FSR-horst-link bikes, don't think so? I spent 4+ hours on saturday watching machperson strut, and swing-linkage type horst link bikes bobbing up and down. Are they pretty darn efficiant? of course. Here is the big catch though, a fully active bike(fsr type, or low-pivot chainstay-dropout bike) will pedal through rough stuff extremely well, with little feedback. When you start messing around with higher pivot suspension bikes, the suspension stiffens up and chain torque interfears with your pedal stroke, making rocky sections hard to pedal right through. So while I am not trying to indicate that all bikes that are not linkage bikes are bad, I am saying that "bobbing" and sheer pedal-to-rear wheel-power is not the most important thing on a trail. The most important thing is what makes you ride better and easier, and to that effect something that is very active can be gripping up on a rocky climb long after something stiffer(like a hardtail) has let go. Most bikes these days ARE very efficiant though, and most have pretty low pivots, even the monopivots like the Superlight have been refined over the years and are not excessive "high pivot" bikes like old pro-flexes were. The point of this is that a FS bike should be very active, the "most efficiant" one is useless if it can't do what it was designed for, that is absorb bumps, so the end to this is to choose the bike with the best suspension system, not the most efficiant, the suspension that works the best will pay off more in the long run.
The giant is an ok bike, i will be "like a hardtail", pedaling wise, but the suspension doesnt work very well. You must run enough pressure in the giants shock so that there is no sag, no sag means no top out, and as you pedal, the shock tries to top itself out, because physically cannot "top out" that is where you get the pedaling efficiancy from. The problem is when you put enough pressure in there so there is "no sag" you loose a LOT of the suspension effect. Its the same as running a coil spring with many hundred pounds more of force, which will make for a very harsh ride. Conversly, if you try and up with some sag, it will now top out with every pedal stroke, and bob very badly.
The Titus racer X would definitly be a great choice, I personally would feel a lot more comfortable on a Switchblade, but as Scott(I think) said it yesterday, "its probably the fastest bike for this ride", which was a huge 35 mile or so 6000 vert foot or so ride. It may not be the most "comfortable" bike, as I am used to a lot more travel and I would go with something more durable(for freeriding), but I would be hard pressed to argue his point. |
| efficiancy is over-rated | GiantMan
Nov 10, 2002 8:09 PM | | what full suspension bike do you ride Jm? |
| chainstay link, motolink, rocker link, single pivot, and | Jm
Nov 10, 2002 8:53 PM | | hardtail, at least to name the ones that I've owned, but ive ridden far more. Right now ride a motolink(like it) and a single pivot(not a huge fan of its suspension). |
| oops, meant chainstay pivot. | Jm
Nov 10, 2002 8:54 PM | | nm |
| I resemble that remark | pedalAZ
Nov 11, 2002 7:37 AM | | Hah! Jm led the way on the first part of that ride, as we lost most of the vertical in the first 10 miles. I made the mistake of trying to follow on Jm's rear wheel for part of the descent, pretending my RacerX could hold the same smooth lines that Jm's long travel Stratos fork and K2 rear end could handle with style and grace. I soon realized that I was more likely to survive the ride setting my own pace, as the RacerX felt pretty light and skittish at 37 mph on a rocky fireroad with surprise drops every now and then to keep us honest. However, leaving Jm behind on the climbs and in the flats was cake while he pedaled 38 lbs of bike from a low seat position and I was spinning along, stretched out on 23 lbs of bike.
On balance, for that ride, it did made me wonder out loud if a Switchblade with TALAS instantly adjustable suspension and some big tires would have been more fun for that outing, allowing me to chase Jm a little harder on the downhill, yet still dial in some reasonable climbing on the rest of it. |
| Until you mentioned price... | sdbelt
Nov 11, 2002 8:01 AM | | I thought you were perfectly describing my bike. Titus Racer-X, titanium model, with 4" Marathon. It rides faster than my hardtail in nearly every situation. And I'm fresher at the finish to boot. For me the selling point was how well it climbed. I was astounded on my first demo ride how easily I cleaned super steep climbs. Pointed down super steep stuff, it's not a Switchblade, but pointed up super steep stuff, it's not a Switchblade either, if you get my drift.
The only difficulty you'll have with your desired setup, is that to allow a 4" Marathon, you either need to go custom, or get a Hammerhead 100X, which significantly reduces your chances of getting a used RX frame, to get you down to the price point you want.
Anyway, I love my Racer-X. And if needed, I would have saved for a long time to get one.
--sdb |
| The best tool for the job | Paul B
Nov 11, 2002 10:14 AM | | I know I mentioned on Saturday that the ideal ride for the CK epic would be a nice, lightweight Racer X, Switchblade, Superlight, or something of that ilk. Take the stress off the descents (my hands, arms and shoulders STIll hurt from the rigid bike), don't take too big a hit on the climbs.
It really depends on the ride and what you're willing to put yourself through. For general purpose "mountain biking" (whatever that is), a good do-everything bike would probably have moderate travel and build out to about 25 lbs.
Stick to the game long enough and you'll end up with multiple bikes. Then you can pick the best tool for the job -- or pick a tool you think you'd like to try, just to challenge yourself.
p. |
| yeah | Jm
Nov 11, 2002 11:31 AM | | what he said. I've done stuff like that on my old hardtail, and done the descents pretty well still. I know one thing for sure, you will NEVER be faster overall on a ride that has descents and climbs on a bike that is built for descending, it never works out, the lighter, better-climbing bike will always win, and you will never end up faster just because you can go faster downhill. I know that and do not doubt it ever. One thing though, after you start riding downhill bikes and long travel bikes, you will try to ride every bike like that. When I switched back to a hardtail last year I was still pretty fast on the descents, and I'd take a lot nastier lines than I'd ever consider before on a hardtail. It all goes both ways, but if I could have had a short travel fully active lightweight bike, I probably would have been as fast as possible for myself. It wouldn't be as comfortable as a switchblade, nor as durable for the speeds and stunts that I like to do(if I am talking about a Racer-X type), but as I said originally, I'd be hard pressed to prove that it wouldn't be the fastest way to do the ride.
Short travel fully active or long travel fully active, none of that funny NRS stuff or lock-out, get a design that works and it will make riding much better and will not sacrifice anything. |
| efficiency nm | sp
Nov 11, 2002 1:36 PM | | |
| thanx | OldSchool
Nov 11, 2002 2:19 PM | | . |
| ehficciancy (nm) | Jm
Nov 11, 2002 3:23 PM | | |
| efficacy [nm] | OldSchool
Nov 11, 2002 4:05 PM | | . |
| effluent [nm] | narlus
Nov 11, 2002 7:39 PM | | |
| 'effen [nm] | OldSchool
Nov 12, 2002 9:51 AM | | . |
| FU [nm] | fut
Nov 12, 2002 5:59 PM | | |
| yes to your NRS frame only. The best... | Duckman
Nov 10, 2002 9:40 PM | | ...way to get a bargain is Ebay. Retail is around $850 i think, but that might be the 02 price. most sell with shock for $5-600. I'm building up a 03 NRS1 frame right now that was still new in box with all the warranty even. It was from Ebay. Paid abit more, but it was still a bargain. My other NRS doesn't bob much at all unless its during a standing sprint. I have another nrs frame build with all the good stuff as well.
Its even been labeled as the best ride for a diehard hardtail rider to move too first if and when he decides to give FS a try.
i
http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?MfcISAPICommand=GetResult&query=giant+nrs&cgiurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2F&ht=1&from=R10&currdisp=2&itemtimedisp=1&st=2&SortProperty=MetaEndSort&BasicSearch= |
| From a NRS's former owner- | Doc
Nov 11, 2002 5:31 AM | | The NRS suspension works wonders on the trail. It really does act like a hardtail when you want it to, and takes the edge off of big hits nicely.
However- and this is why I'm a FORMER owner- the design of the NRS's suspension (as noted earlier) is very unforgiving. You have to force the suspension into compliance- and the heavier you are, the worse the suspension responds. Here's the biggest problem as I see it:
In order to make the suspension work properly you have to put your body weight + 20 lbs (in psi) into the negative chamber, OK great- no problem right? Wrong. The more negative pressure you put in the chamber, the more force is required to overcome the "topping out" and make the suspesion work. So, for you- you'll need at least 250 lbs of neagative pressure in your shock- that's a lot of force to over come on a very light weight XC bike. Those shocks are notorious for leaking, and blowing out- that much pressure won't help matters much.
For a 220 lb guy I think you should be looking at a more "beefy" bike. Hell- I'm only 185 and I recently bought a full on DH bike for a "trail" bike. There are plenty of better built bikes with 4" of travel. And remember- just because you have 6" of rear travel doesn't mean you have to use it all. (but once you get used to it, it's a wonderful thing).
Good luck on your search- sometimes it's a pain, but the right bike will be worth it. |
| Id consider a Fuel/Sugar... | Mossy
Nov 11, 2002 9:02 AM | | Excellent for former hardtail users, but a bit more compliant on small stuff than the NRS -- which is a great bike but very specific-purpose. |
| re: Question about full suspensions... | Capt Nemo
Nov 11, 2002 9:26 AM | | I ride a Bullit right now, but I got to ride an Epic a few weeeks back. It was nice. Climbed really well and was very active in the rough stuff. I just didn't like the fact that it had so little travel. This maybe something you want to look into. Base model bikes go for about 2 grand. |
| What I didn't like about the epic.... | TrailBurner
Nov 11, 2002 10:07 AM | | I just tried an epic at my LBS and I noticed 2 major things:
1) The top tube is sloped so steep that I was able to ride a large size frame comfortably. Normally I ride a small or medium. This is a good thing as far as stand over height but makes choosing a top tube length a bit more critical.
2) The suspenion has no residual cushion after the initial absorption. It takes the hit or the bump and then locks out. This is very efficient but way less plush then the coil over that I'm used to. Actually, after riding one, I would say this thing might be a racers dream, but it isn't in the category of a "Fun bike". |
| I agree with TrailBurner...... | j. kammerer
Nov 11, 2002 10:49 AM | | .....I test rode one at the Chequamegon Fat Tire Fest. His observations were the same as mine, for an active, but not overly active rear susp., look into a Specialized StumpJumper fsr or, if you have a little more money, an S-Works fsr. I have a '02 S-works, and it is a FUN bike, very light!! It has a very adjustable ride, though it took me most of the summer to find the "ideal" fork and shock settings. Now, it rides like a wet dream, too bad the season is almost over here in No. Ill.!!!!:( |
| I was in your boat last spring. | OldSchool
Nov 11, 2002 10:33 AM | | I Love my HT, and for years I thumbed my nose at FS. However, last January I started thinking like you are now.
Are you going to keep your hardtail? I was planning on keeping mine around. So, I went with a FS rig that doesn't have HT tendencies. For me, this crossed off the NRS, Sugar, Fuel, and many of those more race oriented FS bikes.
Further I wanted a FS bike that didn't change action when pedaling, breaking, standing, etc. Many makers claim their bikes are fully active. But you can only tell yourself. For example, the Jamis Dakar is a Horst-Link bike. To me, however, the Dakar seemed to bob a lot, and I couldn't tune it out.
When you do demo, make sure the suspension is properly tuned. Lot's of times the shop sends you out to the parking lot on a bike that may feel horrible -- when it really is a nice bike. Have them set the sag for you. Have them explain the damping controls. Ask them their preference and then go out and test. Futs with everything. One bike I tested bobbed like crazy, but then smoothed out as I changed the rebound damping on the rear shock. Also, look for a good steep hill that can only be done in the granny, and look for a very harsh bumpy area to pedal/coast through. For me, I chose a grass bank at a local school and some train-tracks.
Go for the suspension. I mean that's what you want, right? For me, that meant sacrificing disk brakes for better shocks to stay within my budget. (I'll upgrade to disks next year after I've worn down the rims on this current wheelset.). I recommend shocks that have damping controls and bikes with bearings at ALL pivots.
Take it on the trail. You are spending a lot of money. Find a shop that has your rig (or a similar rig) available on demo. It takes over an hour in the saddle to notice all that you may not like about a bike. I did a 20 miler on my rig before I bought it, and I had a long list of tweaks and changes before I'd pay.
Good luck,
Tim |
| Conventional wisdom sez... | Paul B
Nov 11, 2002 4:09 PM | | ... single pivot is good for big guys like us (I'm 215#). Fewer pivots to get sloppy, less maintenance, more lateral stiffness -- something I have definitely felt on old FSR-type frames in the past.
However, that may have all gone out the window in the past few years. It seems logical that a multi-pivot design will inevitably be more complicated and wear faster than one big honking pivot. I'm getting my first multipivot (hopefully tomorrow!) so I have absolutely no personal experience to speak from.
If I were shopping for a lightweight do-everything FS bike at around $2500, I'd be looking at a Superlight, possibly one of Supergo's Weyless Superlight knockoffs, a midrange Enduro, a Kona Dawg or similar, or a Fuel.
p. |
| I am going to say that | Jm
Nov 11, 2002 5:36 PM | | you just might change your mind down the road. Even my K2 is a fairly high monopivot bike, and I can definitly feel the chain/suspension intefearing with the pedaling on rough surfaces. Monopivot bikes pedal well, but the suspension isn't nearly as plush as most linkage bikes. You get a HUGE advantage with a linkage bike when you get into a rock garden, uphill or level, because with the lower pivot you can just mash your brains out and the suspension keeps the wheel planted and the gears a turning. With my monopivot its quite a bit harder because the rear is kicking back a lot more. I've always felt on the same-travel bike, when comparing linkage to monopivot, the linkage always feels like it has more travel, that it uses it much better. If money was no factor(but it always is in my case) I'd go for a short-travel fully active linkage bike for XC to XC-racing every time over a monopivot design.
I think you will be pleasently surprised by some aspects of the stinkys ride, obviously its going to bob, and its going to be heavy, but in some nasty rock gardens you will be able to moto up and keep your momentum just because of the suspension, and this is mirrored in linkage bikes with even less travel, but if say you had a San Andreas or bullit instead of the stinky, you'd probably notice more of the "kickback", you might be used to it, but I can say that it would feel quite different from the stinky.
Anyway thats just my 2 cents....here's a picture of my REAL bike :) |
| Superlight or Blur | bugzapper
Nov 12, 2002 10:03 AM | | I'd second that on the merits of single pivots. I find the superlighht all the bike I'll ever need. After riding NRS, FSR, and a few others, I still think it's the best bike I've ridden. I absolutely hated the NRS and it's herky jerky suspension. I'm happy to trade a little efficiency for a smoother more predictable ride. The FSR was ok, but was very twitchy and seemed to suffer from a too short cockpit, and wandering rear-end. The Epic seems like a total gimmick, and heavy to boot. I want a little sag. Otherwise I'd ride a hardtail. And as for earlier Fuels and other short travel FS/XC bikes, what't the point? The suspension's not enough to justify the added weight. If you're going FS, at least go with 4 inches of travel. Otherwise just stick with a steel hardtail. |
| |
