Whats next???

scotty beefs

Likes Dirt
hey there everyone,
who remembers, not so long ago, when 6 inches of travel front and rear was more than enough for a DH bike and a the 10ft rock drop at the kooralbyn nationals was pretty huge!?!? Anyway i'm trying make a point.
Back then people thought that you couldn't go much bigger without dying. So when we see the stuff bender etc are doing today :shock: and think shit they can't go much bigger and that super monster t's are just overkill is it really going to stop here???
Whats the next step riders will take to get an edge???
 

Turley

Likes Bikes and Dirt
I reckon that eventually all DH bikes will go to 10+ steads like hte v10, 50foot drop well, I think 50-60foot is pritty much on the limit of human capablility, look at what happened to darren of Drop in on a 30foot drop, the more people that start to do bigger drops, the closer we get to a life being taken. oh, and super mosters will always be over kill, unless the figure out how to fix up the geometry of the bikes to suit it.
 

scotty beefs

Likes Dirt
yeah but gear being overkill is only relative to stuff that we (they i should say) are riding today...maybe they are going to start riding things that super monsters (plus a bike properly scaled/built around them) are needed for. There definitely has to be an upper limit to how big they can go tho...as you said someone is gunna get messed up pretty bad one of these days soon.
 

CHEWY

Eats Squid
how many times have i seen this posted everywere.
not ur fault scotty looks like u havnt been here long, but wasnt there one the other dy
 

S.

ex offender
I don't think bikes CAN get much more travel etc, without becoming pretty much unrideable. Sure, you could go and make a bike with 2ft of travel, but your BB would be 3ft off the ground, your head angle would slacken 10 degrees under sag (which is a helluva lot), weight would get thrown around like a mofo under braking, and the bike would be too heavy to lift. It's coming down to manageability: Look at Steve Peat, Nico Vouilloz, etc etc, who all choose what sort of bike they ride. All of them are going for lightweight stuff (for racing), because the bike is easier to throw around that way. It's becoming a travel vs weight vs geometry compromise. Freeride bikes will continue to get more and more retarted for Bender and co, but for the majority of us, I seriously doubt that any mainstream bikes will ever get a foot (12") of travel. Look what Wade Simmons does on 7 inches. I feel guilty for needing 7" of travel to go fast or even the tiniest bit "big" (which I don't do anyway - my version of big is most people's version of tiny). Virtually no pro riders of any discipline are asking for more travel.
 

zac

Likes Dirt
Sure, you could go and make a bike with 2ft of travel, but your BB would be 3ft off the ground, your head angle would slacken 10 degrees under sag (which is a helluva lot), weight would get thrown around like a mofo under braking, and the bike would be too heavy to lift.
i give you team sheep's 23" proto http://www.teamsheep.nu/research.html?page=3

i'd say the super monster Ts would work a treat on this beast, whaddya reckon?
 

josh

Likes Bikes and Dirt
It features a full 23 inches of rear wheel travel, whilst the design allows for a maximum of about 26 inches, it was decided that 26 inches was just stupid...
 

Ty

Eats Squid
the question comes down to what are you using your suspension for? do you want your wheels to stick to the ground so you can maintain maximum traction? or do you want something to save your arse from big hits and drops?
if you're some crazy hucker that doesn't need a bike to do anything else besides saving your arse when you hurl your self off a mountain then i reckon you can have all the travel you want.
If your riding DH and want traction so you can get througn a section faster i'm sure 8 or 9 inchs will be enough.
it's kind of leveled out since '98 when the 8/9 inch started to become normal.
 

Stinky

Likes Dirt
Whats really scary about that bike is that it looks like one of those Kirk magnesium frames that were around in the early ninetys. That and the fact that is has cantis on the front. I think that something else would give before you even got to use all of that travel.
 

lindsay

Likes Dirt
DH bikes wont change much from now on. There is no need for more suspenison, everone who races seems to agree on this. What we've got now does the job fine.
 

dhd

Downhill Direct
I don't think DH bikes will go much further with relation to travel. Let's face it anything above 8 inches of travel was laughed at only a few years ago. Bring along 5th element technology and VPP designs and it has become acceptable to run up to ten inches. Much over that and DH bikes will lose high speed stability and cornering prowess due to elevated ride height.....
Also I don't think 10+ foot drops should be part of a DH course. If you want to do hucks go freeriding.....If you want to go fast go DHing. Most DH race bikes aren't designed to be "huckers" .

Just my 2 bobs worth. :wink:
 

S.

ex offender
Keep in mind that everyone has said the exact same things that we're saying, for the last 5 years.

However, it will level out somewhere, and I'm willing to lodge a guess that it will be around the current levels of travel. Motos levelled out at about 12" of travel and have been that way for years, and I believe that since we don't tend to need the same 12" of travel (less inertia and lower constants of momentum etc) that motos do, DH bikes will probably cut off in travel extension pretty quick. However, travel increases are a highly visible, easily achievable marketing ploy... some people don't realise that 8" of travel isn't necessarily better than 4" for a given situation (eg me, two years ago, wanting a 7" fork for my XC bike), so if you increase the travel on your bike, they automatically think it's a better bike.

Another thing: every time we drastically change travel on our bikes, we need new standards and capabilities from our bikes. For example, if you double the travel of your fork from 6" to 12", you have to compensate for overlap, sag, the extra leverage on the headtube, etc. If you increase the travel of your frame from 6" to 12", you have to adjust the geometry HUGELY, compensate for sag, run a shock that's twice the stroke (if not twice as long), beef up all the linkages that are now going to be twice the size, accomodate for larger changes in chainstay length (which is part of the reason the V10's chainstays are so ridiculously long, and which includes different hub spacings), make room for the longer shock, etc etc. It gets to the point where the weight of the bike is more of a defining feature than the suspension action. Look at Peaty, Nico etc... they're not running Monster T's for their plushness, they're running lightweight forks (Boxxer/BOS) for their weight. They aren't using 3.0 tyres for their pinchflat protection, they're using XC tubes in 2.5" tyres (and 2.5" is as big as the pros seem to go) to save weight.

It's at the point where the amateurs (read: most of us) are the ones calling for better suspension, not the pros. Peat's and Nico's bikes are both non-linkage singlepivots, which can only have a moderately rising/falling rate, and are generally fairly linear. Which just goes to show that the suspension action isn't as important as the ability to manhandle the bike.
 

lindsay

Likes Dirt
The pros don't use 3inch tires because they're stupid. The smaller tires grip just as well as the larger ones. Sure i run comp32 michelins but thats cause i like them and i'm runnig tubeless. There's no way i'd go bigger.
 

S.

ex offender
lindsay said:
The pros don't use 3inch tires because they're stupid. The smaller tires grip just as well as the larger ones. Sure i run comp32 michelins but thats cause i like them and i'm runnig tubeless. There's no way i'd go bigger.
Exactly... you think 3.0 tyres are stupid, just like I think V10s are overkill, because you can go just as fast on a lighter bike with less travel.
 

kalem

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Most Dh forks have been at 7/8" for 4 or 5 years, I'd say they won't go much higher than that. Frames have had some more increase's though, i think 10" is getting a bit much, bikes will become less manuverable, i like feeling the bumps a little...
 

Techno Destructo

Riding In Peace
lindsay said:
The pros don't use 3inch tires because they're stupid. The smaller tires grip just as well as the larger ones. Sure i run comp32 michelins but thats cause i like them and i'm runnig tubeless. There's no way i'd go bigger.
Ah yes... some may think 3.0 tires are stupid, but I can't think of a easier, cheaper and better way to almost give suspension to the rear end of your hardtail!

If they fit in your frame, that is... :?
 
Top