What is your trail set up?

[JETZcorp]

So here's a question, do you guys usually use all that travel on a trail ride?  I find I've usually got an inch or two left unused (which is pretty good in my book) but that also includes some fairly hot fire road work.  Because I'm thinking, if your focus is to have control through tight trails, I can imagine that having a very tall bike would be a little annoying at times.  I remember once on the Husky I was going down a fairly hellacious slope on the side of some mountain that we'd created a trail for (yeah, we used to make trails) and the back end slid out on some soft dirt.  It started to high-side in the wrong direction, so what would normally be easy to recover from at 2mph turned into a very fearful experience with my leg hanging in outer space as the bike started to lean over down the slope.  I hope that made sense, but anyway, I saved it by dismounting really quick to get my right leg on the ground, and my left leg had to stay up on the seat, which put my angle and my face at the same altitude!  It would've been much less terrifying on a bike with a 34-inch seat height instead of the 40 or 41 I was dealing with.

What do you guys think?  Has the bike's tallness ever gotten in the way, or do you just need all 12 inches for the kind of stuff you tackle?

[Coop]

Where I ride there are some extremely tight singletrack, mixed with some open rutted & whooped out sections, with hill climbs tossed it. In the tight single track the height can be a disadvantage at times. But hitting the fast terrain and sometimes even the hill climbs at high speeds I use pretty much all the travel, even with it set up for my weight. I would either have to slow down or take a major beating if I rode a vintage bike like I ride my KX. I know because I started riding in 1979 and it wasn't until 1998 or so that I got a long travel bike, until then I always had 70's bikes.

[JETZcorp]

Well, I wasn't necessarily implying vintage.  I don't know if one can still do this, but I know my Uncle got fed up with his 430 Husky being jacked up to the moon like they come, and fortunately the shocks give you five different height settings to choose from.  His is set at the lowest, and when I looked, it appears mine is set at the second-highest (the bikes are one year apart so the frames and shocks are identical.)  He also has the forks raised up a bit in the triple-clamps, which not only reduces his travel (which he claims not to need) but also reduces his rake angle.  If you lower the shocks and kept the forks the same, the rake angle would start to look very Peter Fonda.  It has a very noticeable effect on seat height; our two bikes look very different size-wise next to each other.

And it sounds like it's someone you wouldn't necessarily want to do because you also encounter fast whoops (there are a few trails out here that have some big ones, which you haven't really seen in-video yet because the whoops are about as friendly to the 120 as AC/DC music is to the Pope.

But anyway, I'm still curious to know if peoples' shocks today have different settings for where to put the spring, or another way of directly changing the seat height.  I'm guessing the forks are still adjustable in the clamps, yes?

[TMKIWI]

Yes i need all the suspension travel ive got.
The riding we do is over pretty rough hills and forests.
When your taped out in 4th or 5th over rough ground you need all you can get.
I bottom my suspension on every ride. I couldnt imagine doing the type of riding we do with only half the travel.
I personaly find fire roads boring if they are more then a couple a k's long. But each to their own.
The riding we do is a bit like a harescramble without being timed.
We do do a bit of single track and thats where the height of the bike can be a pain.But it's just something you have to get used too.I think it improves riding skills not being able to your feet down at times. Learning to rear wheel steer down steep hills and ruts and just keeping good balance.
I will admit i have done the odd ride that was that steep and muddy that you would have been better off on a TS185 or XR200. But its not the norm.
When i finaly get a helmet cam i will post up some videos.

My trial setup is full armour,Camelback when its hot and good tyres.

[TMKIWI]

To answer your last question jetz, You can buy lowering links for most modern bikes.
Its just a longer linkage that will drop the rear of the bike.
And yes you would need to slide the forks through the clamps to keep the same rake.

[JETZcorp]

Okay, cool.  I had a feeling it would have something to do with linkage.

For what it's worth, I'm not a big fan of big gravel fire roads either, but unfortunately our area has a lot of them built in and it can be a little difficult to take a lot of trails without having a bunch of "commute time" worked in.  Dirt roads are a completely different story, though.  They do all kinds of neat things, kind of like a pair of trails going in parallel, except better-tuned for the 25-55mph speed range.  Especially if you find some power lines!  The towers need access for maintenance or upgrades or whatever, so you get these basic little dirt roads that follow under the power lines over whatever kind of terrain they decided to string 'em up over.  Sometimes they're quite nice and smooth, other times they're the gnarliest, roughest, steepest, most hair-raising bastards you've ever seen.  I recall having to turn back once because the power lines went over a small river, and that river had the audacity to carve a 2000ft chasm into the Earth, and someone was crazy enough to make the road continue down there into the pits of Hades with a slope similar to Back-to-Back.  With a 6ft deep white-water crossing at the bottom!

I know I'm getting a little off-topic on this, but I've heard that there's roads out by Mt. Jefferson at the south end of the Indian Reservation here that are like 40-mile motocross tracks (sans jumps) complete with whoops.  You need to have someone from the tribe to give you permission (and good luck with that if your ancestors came from Germany) but my dad's got permission a few times in the past and he says it was heaven, provided you've got long-travel and at least 250cc.

Okay, now we can go back to talking about set-up.

[Coop]

because the whoops are about as friendly to the 120 as AC/DC music is to the Pope.

When your taped out in 4th or 5th over rough ground you need all you can get.

That's what I was trying to say, but didn't get out quite right, lol.

[GlennC]

I use the CR500AF for most trail riding (So Cal desert and mountains) Usual mods .

Up one tooth on the rear sprocket
skid plate
3.2 gal tank
trail tech computer
suspension re-valve and sprung for my weight
gnarly pipe
v force reeds
re jetted for altitude and weather.

Jets,
as far as the long travel suspension goes, I do bottom out on most rides more than once.
I have had a lot of vintage bikes, Back when they were new though.
I can ride any black diamond trail I have been on on a Honda Trail 90, But it would take a lot longer.
I prefer the long travel, Modern brakes, and liquid cooling of the newer bikes.
I was probably faster on a fire road on my old Elsinore, but not anywhere else.

[JETZcorp]

Right.  Like I say, anywhere other than a smooth road or a tight-and-slow trail and you're going to want big travel.  That's why 90% of my dream bikes are long-travel.  But, if you can manage to construct a good-length ride that won't put you over anything too bad (and actually, you'd be amazed at what a short-travel bike can do when you get off the seat, just don't expect the shocks to last too many years) a good low bike is a fun experience.  The handling is completely different and I've heard that the combination of big power and a low center-of-gravity makes for some damn good power slides.  It's nice to take something different once or twice a year, but even I wouldn't want that as my main go-to bike.  I did that for a few years when the 120 was my main bike (back in middle school) and while trails were a breeze, there was hell to pay after 20 miles of rattling over a road made of boulders.

[ridered125]

I have a friend in Texas who rides some hare scrambles and he said there is a guy in the series on a 1977 IT 400 doing very well in the C class. I think that would be a bike with a low seat height.

It's a tradeoff. The long travel lets you get over whoops, logs and through deep ruts easier. But sometimes when you need to dab on a tall bike the foot goes down and touches nothing.

[JohnN]

Shoot.... new bikes aren't all that tall!! It's easy just put your foot down.....


.... maybe it helps that I'm 6' 4" tall?? But today's seat heights work perfectly for my 36" inseam!! 

[Coop]

I'm only 5'11" but have long legs I guess, because there have been very few situations my foot wouldn't touch. Usually I only noticed the height when I am going up very technical climb with sharp turns, roots, rocks, etc. and then the trail flattens out and turns 90 degrees at the top.

[eprovenzano]

[ford832]

do you just need all 12 inches for the kind of stuff you tackle?

I certainly need all 12 inches for what I tackle but for an Oregonian male,likely 4-5 will have to do.You need to work with what you've got.Hahahahaha.I'm astounded you Aussie/Kiwi types didn't jump on that  Oh well,just got home from work and have to go mow the lawn.I'll be back later with a serious answer-maybe.

[TMKIWI]

Quote from: JETZcorp on July 25, 2010, 02:27:14 AM
do you just need all 12 inches for the kind of stuff you tackle?
I missed that one ford  
Posted by: JETZcorp
I find I've usually got an inch or two left unused (which is pretty good in my book)

Are you showing off Jetz ?