WTB: FS MTB, I've got $2500 to spend... Heckler?

[Super Slinky]

"spademan o---[\) *" <[email protected]> said...

> Bollocks. Unless you mean that by increasing the rebound damping you force the shock to pack-down
> and transfoem your nice active full-susser into a hardtail. Or maybe you meant to type
> 'compression dampening' which whould decrease bob at the expense of plushness. Either way I don't
> see the point.
>
> Steve.

All I can tell you is to try it. It does work. It probably packs down some, but not by a huge
amount. Remember that an air shock is very progressive. Every little bit of packing down will
increase the spring rate which will resist compression. Evidently, it reaches a point of
equilibrium between the spring rate and the rebound damping, and it can't pack down completely
because there isn't enough rebound damping available to match the increasing spring rate. If it
packs down too much, you can always add more air so that it reaches the equilibrium point sooner,
but I just use the usual routines for setting sag and whatever packing down occurs isn't obvious
from looking at the shock while riding. But I'm not trying to analyze it from an engineering point
of view. I'm just passing along a kluge I use that has a positive effect in some situations. I find
it most useful for commutes and road rides where pedal bob is the most distracting. But I have used
it off-road on fast XC style trails without noticing any bottoming out. If the trail is rough and
you want all the suspension you can get, or downhill where you don't need the pedaling efficiency,
then, no, it isn't desirable. But if you don't have a lockout or a stable platform shock, it is
something to experiment with.

 

[Jon Bond]

"JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "ireman_1" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > > Jd wrote:
> > > > [email protected] (HKEK) wrote in message
> > > > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > > What are some of the better mountain bikes to consider in this price range?
> > > > When you drop that much on a bike, you may as well get a real
botique
> > > > bike that works, instead of a bike manufactured by someone else
for a
> > > > marketing and (crappy) design company like santa crud. Locomoto
> > > > http://www.titusti.com/http://www.titusti.com El Chamuco
> > > > http://www.ventanausa.com/http://www.ventanausa.com JD
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Got bored and decided to go trolling there jd? Gotta have a hobby I suppose. Ride well champ.
> > >
> > > K.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, that was totally shitty advice. Good call "K."
> >
> > There's no way I'd take advantage of Titus' special $2195 deal on a
fully
> > built Locomoto if I wanted a ~5" bike. Everyone knows it's better to
drop a
> > couple hundred more on a - comparatively - inferior bike. http://www.titusti.com/loco_flyer.pdf
> >
> > How, exactly, can suggesting better products to a new-bike-shopper be trolling?
> >
> > Chris
>
>
>
> I expect that kind of answer from a leg-humping santa crud blind brand loyalist, Chris. The Loco
> is easily a much better bike by design, maufacture and finish. Like I said, santa crud is all
> marketing and crappy design. Titus builds bikes, period.
>
> Thanks for the heads-up on the Loco special, Chris. That makes anyone who buys a santa crud XC
> single pivot FS for more money even more of a fool.
>
> JD

I'll admit I liked the Locomoto much more than the superlight (too flexy) or heckler (didn't feel as
plush). I ended up with the blur - I really liked the geometry, and it did feel more efficient than
the single pivot loco, which I did notice bobbing more than the blur. The loco is a sweet bike
though, just a bit heavier, and not quite as efficient. For that type of riding, the loco makes a
lot of sense.

Jon Bond