A vertical shock is better...

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Yeah? And? Shock orientation is not an indication of a bike's performance. 

Shock positioning relative to the pivots, though, does. 

[Skott5]

Shock positioning relative to the pivots, though, does. 

 

Relative to the pivots, yes of course, but simply stating that a horizontal shock is inferior to a vertical shock position seems to be the train of thought amongst some. 

[Serious Panda]

Yo I stand by what I said, a vertical shock is better in that forces are sent to an area on the frame that is already re-enforced for pedaling, where-as a horizontal shock requires unnecessary re-enforcement of the top-tube - in my subjective perfectionist mtb-nerd opinion.

[Iwan Kemp]

Yo I stand by what I said, a vertical shock is better in that forces are sent to an area on the frame that is already re-enforced for pedaling, where-as a horizontal shock requires unnecessary re-enforcement of the top-tube - in my subjective perfectionist mtb-nerd opinion.

 

1. What's really cool though is that you keep saying it everywhere all the time

 

2. If by "better" you mean it saves weight then possibly yes. If you mean anything else then you are on your own.

 

Just how much weight we will never really know as there are knock on effects by committing to a design and everything that goes with it. Light as better is also relative as there are quite a few people who will happily live with the 50 - 150g weight penalty to have a second water bottle in the main frame. I don't do that type of riding so it does not really affect me, but I get it as for the AM type of riding I do do some say ANY water bottle mounts in the front tri is not necessary. Unfortunately for me its a deal breaker as I do rides where I would like to just grab a bottle and not have a pack strapped to my back.

[Serious Panda]

1. What's really cool though is that you keep saying it everywhere all the time

 

2. If by "better" you mean it saves weight then possibly yes. If you mean anything else then you are on your own.

 

Just how much weight we will never really know as there are knock on effects by committing to a design and everything that goes with it. Light as better is also relative as there are quite a few people who will happily live with the 50 - 150g weight penalty to have a second water bottle in the main frame. I don't that type of riding so it does not really affect me, but I get it as for the AM type of riding I do do some say ANY water bottle mounts in the front tri is not necessary. Unfortunately for me its a deal breaker as I do rides where I would like to just grab a bottle and not have a pack strapped to my back.

 

Of course its about the weight saving, and I`m looking strictly at frame-design not weird mtb-roadie requirements like 2 bottles on the frame. There might also be a cost saving in terms of a simple top tube vs a re-enforced top-tube, not that the end user will necessarily benefit from this saving.

 

Edit: I hear what you say about your water bottles preference, but surely you can mount another bottle behind the ass?

[Christofison]

Of course its about the weight saving, and I`m looking strictly at frame-design not weird mtb-roadie requirements like 2 bottles on the frame. There might also be a cost saving in terms of a simple top tube vs a re-enforced top-tube, not that the end user will necessarily benefit from this saving.

 

Edit: I hear what you say about your water bottles preference, but surely you can mount another bottle behind the ass?

Stop ruining every thread.

 

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Of course its about the weight saving, and I`m looking strictly at frame-design not weird mtb-roadie requirements like 2 bottles on the frame. There might also be a cost saving in terms of a simple top tube vs a re-enforced top-tube, not that the end user will necessarily benefit from this saving.

 

Edit: I hear what you say about your water bottles preference, but surely you can mount another bottle behind the ass?

Nope. Still not demonstrably better.

 

2nd point. Dropper.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

.

[Nick]

Created this topic in order to clean up other threads.

 

Existing comments will be moved shortly.

[Serious Panda]

Stop ruining every thread.

 

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

 

Ok sorry but I was mentioned here as well as the frame design debate so I thought I should say something I apologize if you fail to see the humour in my comments I`m laughing my arse off for my own comments being so silly yet technically correct.

[Christofison]

Nope. Still not demonstrably better.

 

2nd point. Dropper.

Don't engage with him. Just let him think he's right so we don't all have to read this fruitless debate.

 

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

[Serious Panda]

Nope. Still not demonstrably better.

 

2nd point. Dropper.

 

Yo lets not get into this on this thread but I do appreciate your input.

 

The bike is super-awesome and good luck to Alan, have a great race!

[Serious Panda]

Thanks for creating this thread its a bit incoherent now but so is my thought-patterns so its fine, thank you.

[Serious Panda]

Nope. Still not demonstrably better.

 

2nd point. Dropper.

 

We are talking about x-country racing bike frames where every gram counts not trail bikes.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

We are talking about x-country racing bike frames where every gram counts not trail bikes.

In case you haven't noticed, more and more people on the XCO and marathon racing circuits are using droppers. So no. It applies. Plus, you can't just ignore a whole segment of riders who run droppers no matter the bike, due to your pre-conceived ideas.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Ok sorry but I was mentioned here as well as the frame design debate so I thought I should say something I apologize if you fail to see the humour in my comments I`m laughing my arse off for my own comments being so silly yet technically baseless and incoherent.

Fixed