Most “hits” are coming from an angle that is not straight 90°, so the suspension travel in an angle is a “happy accident” that just works out perfectly.
Keeping this in mind, measuring the fork travel just makes sense.
Moreso when you think of the historical context. Suspension forks came to markets before rear suspension, so forks adopted the simplest possible measure, while rear suspension required some calculations to figure out sensible measure
Whichever convention you measure it is fine, but I think you’d have to do the same system on both wheels. Stroke, wheel path or vertical travel, just pick any one system and use it consistently.
Currently what’s going on is that each wheel is measured from different systems.
The RESULT is that FOR NO REASON bikes are specced with significantly less REAL travel on the front wheel than the rear wheel. You can absolutely feel this just riding. My issue isn’t with which number we use, it’s the actual bike spec is crazy.
Like, ignoring the numbers/naming, the actual motion isn’t close to correctly matched.
The ONLY thing that matches are the reference numbers from two dissimilar naming systems, which is where the insight comes from that the product development is very, very poor. Who is actually thinking? Who tests this gear?
(I think somehow they decided they can get away with this through marketing. Presumably a LOT of customers are over-biking and don’t even notice or ride at a level where this is relevant.)
You might think this is splitting hairs? So why then does a mid travel bike have 150/130 or 140/125?
An enduro bike has 160/160? A downhill bike has 200/200? These bikes are even more slack! Come on, this is just so stupid. There is literally no reason not to just run a longer fork.
Well… Ok, there is a reason, but it is embarrassing for consumers.
Most “hits” are coming from an angle that is not straight 90°, so the suspension travel in an angle is a “happy accident” that just works out perfectly.
Keeping this in mind, measuring the fork travel just makes sense.
Moreso when you think of the historical context. Suspension forks came to markets before rear suspension, so forks adopted the simplest possible measure, while rear suspension required some calculations to figure out sensible measure
Sure.
Whichever convention you measure it is fine, but I think you’d have to do the same system on both wheels. Stroke, wheel path or vertical travel, just pick any one system and use it consistently.
Currently what’s going on is that each wheel is measured from different systems.
The RESULT is that FOR NO REASON bikes are specced with significantly less REAL travel on the front wheel than the rear wheel. You can absolutely feel this just riding. My issue isn’t with which number we use, it’s the actual bike spec is crazy.
Like, ignoring the numbers/naming, the actual motion isn’t close to correctly matched.
The ONLY thing that matches are the reference numbers from two dissimilar naming systems, which is where the insight comes from that the product development is very, very poor. Who is actually thinking? Who tests this gear?
(I think somehow they decided they can get away with this through marketing. Presumably a LOT of customers are over-biking and don’t even notice or ride at a level where this is relevant.)
You might think this is splitting hairs? So why then does a mid travel bike have 150/130 or 140/125?
An enduro bike has 160/160? A downhill bike has 200/200? These bikes are even more slack! Come on, this is just so stupid. There is literally no reason not to just run a longer fork.
Well… Ok, there is a reason, but it is embarrassing for consumers.