Results 1 to 47 of 47
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    61

    The difference between suspension

    I was looking at the Norco Sight A9.2 which has 140mm front, 130mm in the rear with a 67 degree head angle. Several people have suggested I go with the Range which has 160mm in the front, 150mm in the rear and head angle of 65.5. I'm riding the Northshore in BC, but I'm not that aggressive(and recently got back into MTBing after 10 year break). I'm guessing the Range would be less jarring on the body? Does the Sight have enough suspension to provide a smooth ride? Obviously the Sight will climb better, but how much better over the Range?

    Sorry for all the questions on this forum, but it is slowly helping me make the right decision. Thanks

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,699
    Riding a shorter travel bike on steep rough trails takes more skill and has smaller margin for error. Unless you are up for that challenge and the potential risk of getting hurt I'd go for the Range. If you are not racing it's not going to get you to the top slow enough to really matter and a bad crash will slow you down way more than riding the bigger bike would.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  3. #3
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,731
    130mm is a great all around travel amount. Unless you are wanting to do DH Parks occasionally or big drops and jumps, itíll be fine and thereís no reason to lug around extra poor-pedaling weight. Itís alluring sometimes to go with more travel, but usually these riders know who they are and know pretty decisively how much they need. I do occasional park days, like to go down DH runs in Washington and other states, my bike is a little heavier and over gunned on many xc rides, but I ride it hard in these other situations and it sees plenty of air time and abuse, so 160 is a good number for me. Even still, if I could only have one bike, it would probably be around 130mm. I have a xc race bike too at 100mm, but itís not enough bike for the rougher stuff.

    When you are only 20mm different in travel, itís not going to make a huge difference and quality will beat quantity, so a custom tune with slightly less travel will be better slightly more with an OEM shock. No reason to log around extra weight you arenít going to need/use.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    61
    Thanks for the feedback guys.

    I have a XC bike as well as a Honzo. So I was starting to think a Range would be more forgiving on the down, which probably the most important factor right now. I'm in no rush to get to the top. I've heard that there's a Ĺ pound difference between the Sight and Range, don't know for sure if this I true though.

  5. #5
    Pos rep makes me sad
    Reputation: dv8zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    293
    I'd trust those several people, if they're locals and know you and the terrain better, over random people on the internet. Things aren't so intuitive or obvious as you expect.

    Long travel bikes don't have the penalties that are typically associated with them nowadays, and short travel bikes have almost the same spec as bigger bikes. Long travel bikes can demand that you ride faster, to feel a sufficient challenge, and higher speeds carry a higher penalty for failure. Short travel bikes feel challenging going significantly slower, capitalizing on the fact that you have the most fun when you're facing a challenge that matches your capability. You probably already know that from your Honzo. If you want to share the experience of hanging as a group with your buddies, you're going to need to level the playing field a bit.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by dv8zen View Post
    I'd trust those several people, if they're locals and know you and the terrain better, over random people on the internet. Things aren't so intuitive or obvious as you expect.

    Long travel bikes don't have the penalties that are typically associated with them nowadays, and short travel bikes have almost the same spec as bigger bikes. Long travel bikes can demand that you ride faster, to feel a sufficient challenge, and higher speeds carry a higher penalty for failure. Short travel bikes feel challenging going significantly slower, capitalizing on the fact that you have the most fun when you're facing a challenge that matches your capability. You probably already know that from your Honzo. If you want to share the experience of hanging as a group with your buddies, you're going to need to level the playing field a bit.
    The recs from the locals seems to be 50-50! I'm approaching 50, and I looking for the right suspension thats going to reduce the jarring the most. I can't ride the Honzo very fast, because if I hit too hard my ankles and back feel it! I'm sure 130mm would be enough, but if 150mm is way smoother...
    I'm never going to be a speed demon, do huge drops or air higher than 4ft, but want a bike that I'm not going to feel beaten after 1 run. Is 130mm adequate?

  7. #7
    Pos rep makes me sad
    Reputation: dv8zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    293
    I bet you won't find that there's any significant downside to the 20mm extra travel. One of the biggest differences is that it comes with a longer wheelbase, which favors stability over playfulness. You can regain snappiness through speedier wheel and tire choice. Can be as simple as swapping out a DHF for a DHR2, to split some of that difference.

    Ride 'em and you'll see. Your Honzo can serve as your short wheelbase playful bike. xD

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    154
    20 mm is less than an inch, so it isn't a huge difference like some people act. At least not in squishiness. If you were talking 130mm to 180 or 200, that would be more obvious of a difference.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fairbanks007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    When you are only 20mm different in travel, itís not going to make a huge difference and quality will beat quantity, so a custom tune with slightly less travel will be better slightly more with an OEM shock. No reason to log around extra weight you arenít going to need/use.
    Agreed. On a properly set up suspension, 20 mm (~3/4") difference in travel isn't going to make that big of a difference. Go for the smaller travel bike and set it up so you bottom it out on only on your biggest hits.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Fairbanks007 View Post
    Agreed. On a properly set up suspension, 20 mm (~3/4") difference in travel isn't going to make that big of a difference. Go for the smaller travel bike and set it up so you bottom it out on only on your biggest hits.
    It's not just the travel out back it's also the extra travel up front and slacker geo that will make a difference for a less aggressive rider tackling NS trails.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fairbanks007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    It's not just the travel out back it's also the extra travel up front and slacker geo that will make a difference for a less aggressive rider tackling NS trails.
    I'm not sure I'm following you. I get that it's not all about the travel out back, and agree about the slacker geometry. Where I'm legitimately mildly confused is how more travel up front benefits a less aggressive rider. Can you elaborate?

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Fairbanks007 View Post
    Where I'm legitimately mildly confused is how more travel up front benefits a less aggressive rider. Can you elaborate?
    Same reason more travel out back helps folks on steep rough terrain who are not as aggro...it gives them more room for error before the fork bottoms out. The reach on the Range is a bit longer also putting more bike out in front of the rider.

    Add that all up: longer, slacker, more travel at both ends makes for a more forgiving bike for NS trails. Based on the OP that sounds like the right way to go.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fairbanks007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Same reason more travel out back helps folks on steep rough terrain who are not as aggro...it gives them more room for error before the fork bottoms out.
    Thanks for the explanation. In my mind, I equated "less aggressive" with being less likely to need as much travel.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Fairbanks007 View Post
    Thanks for the explanation. In my mind, I equated "less aggressive" with being less likely to need as much travel.
    Understood. If the OP wasn't riding the NS I'd probably look at things the same way. Living in Coastal BC myself since mellow trails are scarce riding a bigger bike is the way to be less aggressive on steep techy rough trails.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  15. #15
    Pos rep makes me sad
    Reputation: dv8zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Same reason more travel out back helps folks on steep rough terrain who are not as aggro...it gives them more room for error before the fork bottoms out. The reach on the Range is a bit longer also putting more bike out in front of the rider.

    Add that all up: longer, slacker, more travel at both ends makes for a more forgiving bike for NS trails. Based on the OP that sounds like the right way to go.
    It's not the travel that gives them room for error, it's the chassis that does. If you simply converted a fork from 140 to 160, and tuned it to use full travel on the biggest hit on the trail (before and after travel change), it uses the same % of travel for everything they encounter--where's the extra room for error in this case? Though, if you go from a Fox 34 to a Fox 36, things that were once minor challenges become well within the rider's comfort zone, and they might seek something else to be the biggest hit to tune their suspension to, even with no change in travel. This is the reason why modern enduro bikes rival what old school DH bikes did.

    The biggest reasons to go short travel are for the compact geo and for the sporty feedback. It's when you actually want to feel more of the ground come through the chassis. The compact geo is for the playfulness, which includes the increased likeliness of bouncing off of obstacles. When you're riding a bike at the limit at which you can control it, it makes you feel good due to the chemicals (ex. endorphins) your body releases in response, and it's easier to attain that feeling on a bike that gives more feedback and reaches its limits at a lower speed. People associate that feeling with going fast and with thrills. Riding a bike that mutes the ground might feel boring to some, as there's less challenge.

    IMO, it's better to first expose the OP to bigger challenges safely, then suggest them to cut back in travel later if they feel like they tune those challenges to his new skill level, without needing the fitness to go the higher speeds that the more capable bike demands to achieve the higher challenge level that suits them.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    181
    I have a 130/130 trail bike and 160/150 enduro bike. They definitely do exhibit different characteristics.

    The trail bike with its 67ish degree head angle and short wheelbase and chainstays is a lot more spritely and playful. It's quick to turn and picks up speed real fast. It's lighter by about 4 pounds compared to my enduro bike so that makes a huge difference in climbing. It's a really fun bike to ride and you get a sensation of speed even at lower speeds. Descending is decent. In certain sections of trail, line selection plays a larger role. The bike likes kicking the rear out due to the shorter chainstays.

    The enduro bike is slacker and longer. 66 degree head angle and the wheelbase is damn near 2 inches longer than the trail bike. It takes more effort to turn and is not nearly as spritely and playful as the trail bike. It's slower to pick up speed and it climbs well, but the plusher suspension and extra weight is something you feel when climbing. It's significantly more stable and planted than the trail bike. Cruising, it doesn't really feel all the remarkable. Honestly, it's pretty tame. But point it downhill and it's like a rocket. The longer travel suspension and long wheelbase soaks up bumps and I never really feel like I'm out of my league unless it's super gnarly stuff. Some days, I get lazy and just plow through roots and rocks and it stays in line. Can't do that without puckering on the trail bike.

    In my local trails, I'm faster overall in the trail bike because there's a mixture of climbs and downhills all in loops. But not by much. Taking the enduro to my local trails, I'm overall a bit slower, but a whole lot faster in the downhill portions. So there are tradeoffs in the 2 types of bikes. The trail bike is definitely an all rounder. The enduro is a gravity oriented bike that you can climb with.

    I suggest you think hard about the trails you'll be riding in. If you're climbing up a mountain for miles for that sweet, sweet downhill, I'd get the enduro. If your terrain is a whole bunch of loops with rolling hills and is fairly smooth, the trail bike might be a better choice. But to be honest, having a both trail and enduro bike is having the way to go. But obviously, that's not something people can just do.
    I no longer like to party. But I like the idea of it.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by almazing View Post

    I suggest you think hard about the trails you'll be riding in. If you're climbing up a mountain for miles for that sweet, sweet downhill, I'd get the enduro. If your terrain is a whole bunch of loops with rolling hills and is fairly smooth, the trail bike might be a better choice.
    It's climbing up for downhill. Not much rolling hills that's smooth. Thanks for highlighting the benefits of the each bike.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    61
    Just found out that the Range is a whole pound heavier than the Sight. So weight between the two, isn't a big deal.

  19. #19
    Pos rep makes me sad
    Reputation: dv8zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    293
    Was weight ever a big deal? Rolling resistance and rotational weight differences will play a bigger role in climbing. As I suggested earlier, splitting the difference by swapping the DHF with a DHR2 will make a very noticeable difference in improving the Range's pedaling responsiveness. The DHR2 is not only a rear tire.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by dv8zen View Post
    Was weight ever a big deal? Rolling resistance and rotational weight differences will play a bigger role in climbing. As I suggested earlier, splitting the difference by swapping the DHF with a DHR2 will make a very noticeable difference in improving the Range's pedaling responsiveness. The DHR2 is not only a rear tire.
    The weight was in response to "almazing", he stated his Enduro weight 4 lbs more. So 1 lb difference between the Sight and Range is insignificant.

    How does switch the tire have a positive effect?
    Last edited by Graveltattoo; 12-04-2017 at 10:46 PM.

  21. #21
    Pos rep makes me sad
    Reputation: dv8zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    293
    Coefficient of rolling resistance drops from 45-50W to 25-30W. You might only put out 175W average, and this one change saves you 20W of power loss, which is pretty close to 10% of your total power.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by dv8zen View Post
    Coefficient of rolling resistance drops from 45-50W to 25-30W. You might only put out 175W average, and this one change saves you 20W of power loss, which is pretty close to 10% of your total power.
    Not familiar with this, can you explain the "W"?

  23. #23
    Pos rep makes me sad
    Reputation: dv8zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    293
    Watts. A unit to measure power.

    Here's a video that sort of illustrates it. If you use any sort of electronics that track your workout, such as GPS, they might have offered you an estimate of how much power you put out, except it doesn't take factors like wind and rolling resistance into precise consideration.

    My point was that the Range has these inefficiencies that differentiate it from the Sight. I suggested a compromise that addressed the biggest one.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by dv8zen View Post
    Watts. A unit to measure power.

    Here's a video that sort of illustrates it. If you use any sort of electronics that track your workout, such as GPS, they might have offered you an estimate of how much power you put out, except it doesn't take factors like wind and rolling resistance into precise consideration.

    My point was that the Range has these inefficiencies that differentiate it from the Sight. I suggested a compromise that addressed the biggest one.
    So why does the DHR2 use less W than the DHF?

  25. #25
    Pos rep makes me sad
    Reputation: dv8zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    293
    Hysteresis. Essentially, energy absorption.

    Everything about the tire is a factor, including the geometry of the tread pattern, the rubber compound formulation, the carcass construction, and the differing quantities of elements making up the tire itself. The DHF has 100g of extra mass. While the obvious difference is the geometry of the tread pattern, you can't assume it's the only difference. Start with what you can observe: the DHF has taller knobs with less support, that appear to be more flexible. If it's made from a slow rebound rubber, vs shorter and massive blocks that aren't as flexible, that by itself could be making the knobs return energy in a not so useful manner, from simply returning to its original shape after load is removed, to turning into heat or creating a loud tire buzz.

    That's only a start. Think of how some rubber balls don't bounce as high as a super ball (rubber compound). Think of how a wad of paper towel bounces off the wall, but if you wet it, it doesn't bounce (coating/saturation of carcass). What if it were a wad of toilet paper or blue shop towel instead of a paper towel (different TPI or ply-count)? You can put a slow rebound rubber around a stiffer core or put a hard rubber around a more supple core, or put a hard rubber over a softer rubber on either type of core, and come out with all sorts of combinations that affect hysteresis without even considering the tread pattern.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by dv8zen View Post
    Hysteresis. Essentially, energy absorption.

    Everything about the tire is a factor, including the geometry of the tread pattern, the rubber compound formulation, the carcass construction, and the differing quantities of elements making up the tire itself. The DHF has 100g of extra mass. While the obvious difference is the geometry of the tread pattern, you can't assume it's the only difference. Start with what you can observe: the DHF has taller knobs with less support, that appear to be more flexible. If it's made from a slow rebound rubber, vs shorter and massive blocks that aren't as flexible, that by itself could be making the knobs return energy in a not so useful manner, from simply returning to its original shape after load is removed, to turning into heat or creating a loud tire buzz.

    That's only a start. Think of how some rubber balls don't bounce as high as a super ball (rubber compound). Think of how a wad of paper towel bounces off the wall, but if you wet it, it doesn't bounce (coating/saturation of carcass). What if it were a wad of toilet paper or blue shop towel instead of a paper towel (different TPI or ply-count)? You can put a slow rebound rubber around a stiffer core or put a hard rubber around a more supple core, or put a hard rubber over a softer rubber on either type of core, and come out with all sorts of combinations that affect hysteresis without even considering the tread pattern.
    Thanks for the explanation!

    So, in short you recommend the Range(with DHR2 in front) the over the Sight? Or just another option?

  27. #27
    Pos rep makes me sad
    Reputation: dv8zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    293
    I've just tried to answer your questions in an objective manner, and took note of what you said was the most important factor, to allow you to have confidence in your own decision, based on your values and circumstances. Of course there's other options, but I don't want you to burden you with more indecision nor have you betray those you built a rapport with.

    I have more confidence in the Range being the better option for you than the Sight in the big picture. There will be a time when/where you have to draw a line regarding just how hard or big you go, but you will have valued these new experiences that you otherwise wouldn't have dared to experience without capable equipment aiding you. I consider this exposure to be of greater value than slightly higher ride-to-ride pleasure from faster acceleration, playfulness, etc. It tears down mental blocks and expands your comfort zone, milestones which aren't as fitness dependent as the milestones you reach on the Sight; fitness is very temporary, as you may well know, which might even become overshadowed by motor-assist. Don't want to base my recommendation on assumptions or excessive bias, so this is as much as I'd really like to say.

    Regarding "other options", I believe you it would help to know the people standing behind the product to see if their values match yours. Learn more about the guys behind Norco:
    - https://dirtmountainbike.com/feature...ons-norco.html
    - An Interview With Norco‚Äôs Engineering Manager, P.J. Hunton. ‚Äď Flow Mountain Bike
    - Interview: PJ Hunton ‚Äď Norco‚Äôs Head Engineer ‚Äď Flow Mountain Bike
    - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IONz5OZ1P5g

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by Graveltattoo View Post
    I can't ride the Honzo very fast, because if I hit too hard my ankles and back feel it! I'm sure 130mm would be enough, but if 150mm is way smoother...
    I'm never going to be a speed demon, do huge drops or air higher than 4ft, but want a bike that I'm not going to feel beaten after 1 run. Is 130mm adequate?
    Yeah probably. It's going to feel worlds better than a hard tail. Personally I went with 150mm because I wanted to take the bike to bike parks and we have some pretty rough and gnarly trails where I live. But in reality I think I would have been perfectly fine with a 130mm travel bike.

    Best advice is to demo and choose the bike that you think rides the best on your trails, and not based on geometry numbers on a diagram. I demo'd the 150mm I ride now and thought it was the best bike I'd ever ridden, which is why I bought it.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    61
    Well, I did a little demo on the Sight 29 and 27.5, the Range 29 & 27.5. and the Rocky Mountain Altitude. Really hard to tell on the flats with roots. Not the best testing environment.

    Next step is to take them on a ride, climbing and descending to get a better feel. The Sight 29 and Range 27.5 felt the best. The Range 29 seemed like a bit more bike than the rest. But I'll be demoing both in a 29. Any comments on the 29 vs 27.5 in the Range?

  30. #30
    Pos rep makes me sad
    Reputation: dv8zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    293
    Beware that "felt the best" is a purely subjective feeling that serves your bias and expectations. If you want to make a wise rational decision, you have to take that into account. Sometimes good long term decisions are unintuitive. Classic bikes have always been all-rounders, and perhaps you are feeling some nostalgia-like feeling that gravitates you to those models. Think of the subconscious instinctual side of you being the devil on your shoulder, and your self-control and scientific reasoning being the angel on the other shoulder. Short term tests based purely on emotion are very heavily criticized for good reason--people get attracted to super-model traits, and get disappointed by the lack of homely traits that they actually want to keep around for a while.

    What are the symptoms of a "bit more bike" compared to the rest?

    - Ground feedback much less
    - Less sensitive to input. Needed more power to control it, slower to accelerate
    - Less intuitive to handle

    Something along those lines? More than that? These listed points are ones I expect, due to longer wheelbase and slow tires*. e13 TRS Race tires have trustworthy grip but are among the slowest rolling tires on the market xD. There's definitely a place for them though, and you might even keep them on when you find out how well they work on wet slimy stuff.

    The kind of path I was trying to send you down was sort of like a missile's course correction. A missile would aim to sharply overshoot its path, then sharply correct itself, as it gets onto its ideal trajectory path quicker this way than steadily steering without overshooting (as much), which might still have some unwanted transverse velocity. Maybe a poor application of rocket science, but it seemed rational in my head. Essentially, expose you to bigger things, then expect you to get a 120-130 29er later on once you feel extra comfortable riding such, rather than starting you off on a 130 29er and expecting you to have confidence opening yourself up to new bigger things as your own capability improved.

    Demo again, but open yourself up some more. The demo serves takes you past all this hypothetical stuff and onto scientific observation. Perhaps prepare some points that you'd like tested. Be sure to bring along something that can sort of act as a standard of measurement. A buddy, GPS, heart rate monitor or whatever. Remember, your senses and emotions tend to serve your expectations and bias. Don't forget your objective goals which led you to seek a new bike.

    I noticed you fit another bike brand into the mix. Any harm in trying a Kona Process?

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    61
    I'm keeping a very open mind! When I went into test the bike I was wanting the Range 29 to the obvious choice. I should mention, that I'll be a couple years shy of 50 in a couple weeks. So me getting very aggressive with mountain biking isn't realistic, especially with kids. I will push it within reason.
    I'm looking forward to riding them in a real environment, I'll have a much better idea of what will suit my riding currently, and with some growth in the future.
    Obviously the 29 Range is going to feel like a bit more bike, because......well it is!
    The Range 27.5 felt very comfortable, I'd like to compare it to the 29, but leaning towards the 29 because it rolls over things. I tried the RM Altitude because I can get a discount on RM as well, not as much as Norco. The store that had the Altitude didn't carry any 29er's because they believe they're not the best wheel size for the Shore?

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    581
    the Ranges are burly bikes in general, the 29er is very much a pure bred race bike in every respect. how it was designed, it's frame weight and stiffness, how it handles, etc. i loved the demo weekend i had with it but it begs to go hard and fast. the Sight 29 will handle better at more moderate speeds. with a 150 fork, it would be great for general shore riding. and go with monster tires, rolling resistance be damned. you know what it's like on the shore, rough as hell, slippery and treacherous. e13 tires are great there, 2.5 minions, magic mary's etc. for sure, big heavy wide and low pressure. have a blast!

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by cunningstunts View Post
    the Ranges are burly bikes in general, the 29er is very much a pure bred race bike in every respect. how it was designed, it's frame weight and stiffness, how it handles, etc. i loved the demo weekend i had with it but it begs to go hard and fast. the Sight 29 will handle better at more moderate speeds. with a 150 fork, it would be great for general shore riding. and go with monster tires, rolling resistance be damned. you know what it's like on the shore, rough as hell, slippery and treacherous. e13 tires are great there, 2.5 minions, magic mary's etc. for sure, big heavy wide and low pressure. have a blast!
    Thanks for the feedback. I was just wondering what the Sight would be like with the fork boosted to 150mm. Moderate speeds sound right up my alley. I'm not a speed demon, I like to be in control and crashing hard and fast is not an option! Realistically I think the Sight will be more than enough bike for me. But I'm still going to demo both and see.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    581
    absolutely, if you have the chance to ride both, you should. i know the designer of those bikes (he moved from Vancouver to the Island) and he's always good for bike design chat. he fully endorses 'upforking' the Sight to give it that something extra for steep terrain, but still more pedal friendly than the R29. i'd love to demo a Sight now that i've been on the R, maybe next spring Norco will come round again.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    61
    I finally demo the Sight and Range, both are very nice bikes. Wow is full suspension way way easier on the body!
    I rode the Sight first, climbed quite well and descended extremely well, felt natural riding it. Didn't bottom out the suspension. The Range definitely doesn't climb as well and took alot more effort. I could notice it being softer/plush on the descent. If my line was of a bit I could maintain my speed and bounce through the rough stuff, with the Sight I had to slow down a bit which wasn't a big deal.
    I had a inch of suspension left in the shock and the fork had 1ĺ-2 inches left.

    As it stands right now I'm definitely thinking the Sight will be the best option due to climbing, nibbliness, descends very well and keeps my speed in check. You can carry alot more speed with the Range, which is fun but is going to hurt alot more if/when I crash.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    626
    I would get the sight for all day rides and for myself because I am completely biased and ride very short travel bikes. My weekend rides ideally would be 3-4 hours of pedaling time and not much chatting and I like to ride the lightest bike that I can throw around.

    With that being said, I think you should get the Range and Party. If you accidentally hit something you other wise wouldn't you will have more margin for error. It be more fun to stay on the bike than walk it because you don't "feel" you have enough bike. I've ridden the north shore "enough" to make that comment.

    It will be a good contrast to your other bikes.

  37. #37
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,731
    Quote Originally Posted by Graveltattoo View Post
    I had a inch of suspension left in the shock and the fork had 1ĺ-2 inches left.
    That means the set up was way way off. You should be getting at least close to half an inch of travel on the fork and maybe .5 or so on the rear shock (or less).
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    That means the set up was way way off. You should be getting at least close to half an inch of travel on the fork and maybe .5 or so on the rear shock (or less).
    Even with that much travel? I did some small jumps and rocky descents, if I was using up all the suspension on that, what would it be like on a double black?

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by FJSnoozer View Post
    I would get the sight for all day rides and for myself because I am completely biased and ride very short travel bikes. My weekend rides ideally would be 3-4 hours of pedaling time and not much chatting and I like to ride the lightest bike that I can throw around.

    With that being said, I think you should get the Range and Party. If you accidentally hit something you other wise wouldn't you will have more margin for error. It be more fun to stay on the bike than walk it because you don't "feel" you have enough bike. I've ridden the north shore "enough" to make that comment.

    It will be a good contrast to your other bikes.
    I'll be selling the Honzo once I purchase a full suspension. I'll probably keep the xc hardtail for puttering around will the family.

    I've been told the Range 29er was designed for Enduro racing and unless I was going to the bike park on a regular basis the Sight would be the best choice. I was talking to a guy that rides everything on the North Shore and Whistler bike park on his Sight.

    The Range is alot more bike to pedal up, so I'd need more convincing on why the Range over the Sight other than increased margin of error. If you favour shorter travel bikes, you wouldn't ride one on the Shore?

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    626
    Correct, I would ride everything on a site. Most people would choose the range. The trend and preference of the masses is the enduro minded rigs these days. We don't know you or your skills. There is big stuff to hit in the north shore and just because you don't ride it now doesn't mean you wont in the future.

    Just because someone can ride whistler and hit the A line on a small bike doesnt mean you should. Or does it? I think you have already made your choice and you are looking for someone to tell you to ignore the EndurBros and get the sight.

    So, get the sight! You will love it.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by FJSnoozer View Post
    Correct, I would ride everything on a site. Most people would choose the range. The trend and preference of the masses is the enduro minded rigs these days. We don't know you or your skills. There is big stuff to hit in the north shore and just because you don't ride it now doesn't mean you wont in the future.

    Just because someone can ride whistler and hit the A line on a small bike doesnt mean you should. Or does it? I think you have already made your choice and you are looking for someone to tell you to ignore the EndurBros and get the sight.

    So, get the sight! You will love it.
    Not looking for someone to tell me to ignore the EndurBros. Sorry if came across that way, I'm trying to be open minded and pick the best bike for me. I really like the idea of more suspension, who doesn't! But my logic is leaning towards the Sight. I'm just looking for more Pro's for the Range over the Sight.

    It's hard to say we're biking will take me, at least the Sight would keep me on a leash! Sight seems like plenty of bike, I could be wrong?

  42. #42
    Pos rep makes me sad
    Reputation: dv8zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    293
    The amount of travel doesn't matter when it you tune your suspension to use 100% of it on the biggest compression/hit/obstacle you come across on a ride. It's a fallacy to think that a 120mm fork will bottom out easier than a 150mm fork when tuned this way, merely because of the travel difference. They will use the same % of travel for each hit when tuned this way. They will both sag to the same % with your weight resting on it too, as long as rider position and weight bias (frame geo) is kept about the same. There's no reserve; more travel just uses more travel per hit than shorter travel on the same hit, resulting in less feedback. The damping tune is more of the difference, between one made for competition vs one made for trail/marathon.

    Beware that you've stated a few biases that are making you closed minded. Being a few years shy of 50, having kids, and increased chance of getting hurt going fast are all preconceptions that's subconsciously affecting your judgment. Speed tends to result in more of a slide and roll--look at the crashes that cause injuries and they all tend to be from coming to an immediate stop. XC and Enduro racers get injured at no less of a rate as DH and Rampage athletes. They had far more injuries, but there's a great # of them. The biggest reason for injury is competition (pushing limits), exhaustion level, and losing control on a gravity-fueled section. It's those low speed ones that can be kind of nasty, since they catch you off guard. Sounds unintuitive, but speed is your friend in many mtb scenarios, making things easier. Falling is a skill in itself--learn to twist and use your entire body to disperse energy. Easy to just turn the hips and swing your feet and legs into a roll to take some energy off your upper body, especially if you got some forward inertia (think parkour).

    Looks like you are looking to buy more based on subconscious. Feel, instinct, intuition, emotion. You then try to find reasons to support them, since you don't want to be wrong. A good reason to choose the Sight over the Range is the fact that you don't have to change as many parts out, to be well tuned to you. A lighter faster rolling bike is naturally more "fun", since it has a more lively response and goes faster with the same effort on flat ground and climbs, reducing the need for fitness for the same experience. As you have heard, the Sight can be a bike park bike, just like the Range. The Range was designed for Enduro, but what exactly does that mean to you? Can you not go weight weenie on the Range and swap out for similar fast rolling wheels and what not, and enjoy the expanded comfort zone?

    Think about what your true reasons for buying a new bike are. Thinking more practically, perhaps you can even talk yourself into a RM Altitude PowerPlay, considering you have that hook-up. It's pretty rare to find anyone still keeping a perpetual fitness goal past 45 years. Fitness is merely rented. A Powerplay will allow you to get out everyday, no recovery needed, and that by itself can give you more experience and more fitness. All you've told us is that you see more comfort, but you just didn't know how much was enough until you demo'd, and the Sight was good enough, without feeling like a pig. In an objective sense, you should not be letting yourself get carried away by such feelings and think about which is the best *tool* to achieve your goals. The goal might not be immediately obtainable, and the path to it might be short, yet steep and challenging; another path could also be long leisurely and winding. If you think age is an issue, perhaps think about getting the goals that might require a bit more youthful traits done sooner, before you lose the opportunity and more years pass. Bucket list? Don't keep Whistler off of it due to your age. Ride within your limits, and if you limits are enhanced by your bike, that's a plus. Don't be caged in by pointless judgment. Sight is plenty bike for some trails, but there's many trails in this huge world that make it insufficient. Think bigger, the outside world is huge. Adventure and explore. Wonder about things such as what the govt has protected by declaring it a protected enviro zone, or whatever. Give your kids an inspirational story. Don't be a me-too who stayed within their own little bubble, conforming with the other masses.
    Tell me when I'm wrong. Neg rep me. I will appreciate it, even if you don't explain why I'm wrong.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by dv8zen View Post
    The amount of travel doesn't matter when it you tune your suspension to use 100% of it on the biggest compression/hit/obstacle you come across on a ride. It's a fallacy to think that a 120mm fork will bottom out easier than a 150mm fork when tuned this way, merely because of the travel difference. They will use the same % of travel for each hit when tuned this way. They will both sag to the same % with your weight resting on it too, as long as rider position and weight bias (frame geo) is kept about the same. There's no reserve; more travel just uses more travel per hit than shorter travel on the same hit, resulting in less feedback. The damping tune is more of the difference, between one made for competition vs one made for trail/marathon.

    Beware that you've stated a few biases that are making you closed minded. Being a few years shy of 50, having kids, and increased chance of getting hurt going fast are all preconceptions that's subconsciously affecting your judgment. Speed tends to result in more of a slide and roll--look at the crashes that cause injuries and they all tend to be from coming to an immediate stop. XC and Enduro racers get injured at no less of a rate as DH and Rampage athletes. They had far more injuries, but there's a great # of them. The biggest reason for injury is competition (pushing limits), exhaustion level, and losing control on a gravity-fueled section. It's those low speed ones that can be kind of nasty, since they catch you off guard. Sounds unintuitive, but speed is your friend in many mtb scenarios, making things easier. Falling is a skill in itself--learn to twist and use your entire body to disperse energy. Easy to just turn the hips and swing your feet and legs into a roll to take some energy off your upper body, especially if you got some forward inertia (think parkour).

    Looks like you are looking to buy more based on subconscious. Feel, instinct, intuition, emotion. You then try to find reasons to support them, since you don't want to be wrong. A good reason to choose the Sight over the Range is the fact that you don't have to change as many parts out, to be well tuned to you. A lighter faster rolling bike is naturally more "fun", since it has a more lively response and goes faster with the same effort on flat ground and climbs, reducing the need for fitness for the same experience. As you have heard, the Sight can be a bike park bike, just like the Range. The Range was designed for Enduro, but what exactly does that mean to you? Can you not go weight weenie on the Range and swap out for similar fast rolling wheels and what not, and enjoy the expanded comfort zone?

    Think about what your true reasons for buying a new bike are. Thinking more practically, perhaps you can even talk yourself into a RM Altitude PowerPlay, considering you have that hook-up. It's pretty rare to find anyone still keeping a perpetual fitness goal past 45 years. Fitness is merely rented. A Powerplay will allow you to get out everyday, no recovery needed, and that by itself can give you more experience and more fitness. All you've told us is that you see more comfort, but you just didn't know how much was enough until you demo'd, and the Sight was good enough, without feeling like a pig. In an objective sense, you should not be letting yourself get carried away by such feelings and think about which is the best *tool* to achieve your goals. The goal might not be immediately obtainable, and the path to it might be short, yet steep and challenging; another path could also be long leisurely and winding. If you think age is an issue, perhaps think about getting the goals that might require a bit more youthful traits done sooner, before you lose the opportunity and more years pass. Bucket list? Don't keep Whistler off of it due to your age. Ride within your limits, and if you limits are enhanced by your bike, that's a plus. Don't be caged in by pointless judgment. Sight is plenty bike for some trails, but there's many trails in this huge world that make it insufficient. Think bigger, the outside world is huge. Adventure and explore. Wonder about things such as what the govt has protected by declaring it a protected enviro zone, or whatever. Give your kids an inspirational story. Don't be a me-too who stayed within their own little bubble, conforming with the other masses.

    What the RM Altitude "Powerplay"?
    Last edited by Graveltattoo; 4 Weeks Ago at 01:50 PM.

  44. #44
    Pos rep makes me sad
    Reputation: dv8zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    293
    Powerplay is essentially their implementation of pedal assist, AKA ebike.

    I was trying to get you to create a more defined answer, a purpose, to the question, why do you want a new bike? I was reacting to your self-defeating bias, and also reacting to your impressions of the demos. There's a psychology behind shopping and decision making, and marketing is the art of profiting off of such knowledge to promote impulse buying. You have a future goal you'd like to reach in mtb, right? Your son will mature fast and will likely hear of whistler. If there were a way to continue riding with him then that was within an acceptable level of challenge, would you take it?

    Quickly exposing you to new challenges with lower risk is the key. How do you suggest an experienced mtn biker who's unexperienced in whitewater kayaking, who's 45+ years old and wants to do big drops and waterfalls ASAP, go about things? There's ways to safely expose them to harder and harder challenges, with higher comfort level (less fear), right? They can brush up on their technique, and reaction speed, putting the technique into subconscious memory. Would you have them go through the many years of progression you went through, as if there's value behind the baby steps and suffering with gear that could be better? Or is there some technology that helps reduce the fear and risk factor? There exists some legendary trails around you. Why wouldn't you go try and enjoy it to your fullest? Think about it, before you self-defeat yourself again. If fitness is a problem, I suggested an option (Powerplay). Don't let fear affect you so much, especially when it could just be fear of the unknown.

    Those that ride the Sight at bike park most likely have already experienced and exposed themselves to similar challenges while on safer bikes. The Sight is for those that actually want *more risk*, as without a certain amount of risk, the experience would be boring to them. Risk also affects comfort level. You want comfort; you want risk low enough to manage. Would you rather consider doing something new to you which is technical demanding, and actually do it thanks to the can-do attitude that your equipment gave you, or would you rather have something that might still allow you to say that your skill/equipment is not up to par to even challenge something, allowing a mental barrier to form in your head.

    I am trying to introduce a concept of self-control and clear mind, which can be applied to more than just bikes. Don't let the devil on your shoulder dictate your path, using feel, instinct, intuition, emotion (including fear, and superstition). The angel on your other shoulder is your self-control and is the essence of being a decent person. Clear your mind and then picture a path that you'd like to take, then aim for it. This will make decision making far far easier, compared to relying on something ambiguous like feelings. The deeper you can picture that path, the wiser the decision will turn out to be.
    Tell me when I'm wrong. Neg rep me. I will appreciate it, even if you don't explain why I'm wrong.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    581
    i can't be bothered to read the full postings, but it's interesting what nutters will post on a bicycle thread, my goodness! the id runs wild eh?

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by cunningstunts View Post
    i can't be bothered to read the full postings, but it's interesting what nutters will post on a bicycle thread, my goodness! the id runs wild eh?
    Hahaha!

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by dv8zen View Post
    Powerplay is essentially their implementation of pedal assist, AKA ebike.

    I was trying to get you to create a more defined answer, a purpose, to the question, why do you want a new bike? I was reacting to your self-defeating bias, and also reacting to your impressions of the demos. There's a psychology behind shopping and decision making, and marketing is the art of profiting off of such knowledge to promote impulse buying. You have a future goal you'd like to reach in mtb, right? Your son will mature fast and will likely hear of whistler. If there were a way to continue riding with him then that was within an acceptable level of challenge, would you take it?

    Quickly exposing you to new challenges with lower risk is the key. How do you suggest an experienced mtn biker who's unexperienced in whitewater kayaking, who's 45+ years old and wants to do big drops and waterfalls ASAP, go about things? There's ways to safely expose them to harder and harder challenges, with higher comfort level (less fear), right? They can brush up on their technique, and reaction speed, putting the technique into subconscious memory. Would you have them go through the many years of progression you went through, as if there's value behind the baby steps and suffering with gear that could be better? Or is there some technology that helps reduce the fear and risk factor? There exists some legendary trails around you. Why wouldn't you go try and enjoy it to your fullest? Think about it, before you self-defeat yourself again. If fitness is a problem, I suggested an option (Powerplay). Don't let fear affect you so much, especially when it could just be fear of the unknown.

    Those that ride the Sight at bike park most likely have already experienced and exposed themselves to similar challenges while on safer bikes. The Sight is for those that actually want *more risk*, as without a certain amount of risk, the experience would be boring to them. Risk also affects comfort level. You want comfort; you want risk low enough to manage. Would you rather consider doing something new to you which is technical demanding, and actually do it thanks to the can-do attitude that your equipment gave you, or would you rather have something that might still allow you to say that your skill/equipment is not up to par to even challenge something, allowing a mental barrier to form in your head.

    I am trying to introduce a concept of self-control and clear mind, which can be applied to more than just bikes. Don't let the devil on your shoulder dictate your path, using feel, instinct, intuition, emotion (including fear, and superstition). The angel on your other shoulder is your self-control and is the essence of being a decent person. Clear your mind and then picture a path that you'd like to take, then aim for it. This will make decision making far far easier, compared to relying on something ambiguous like feelings. The deeper you can picture that path, the wiser the decision will turn out to be.
    Thanks for your input, but you lost me at pedal assist.....Powerplay. I like to earn my rides! That's very weak to use an ebike......why not just get a motorbike?!?
    Last edited by Graveltattoo; 4 Weeks Ago at 05:48 PM. Reason: auto correct error

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-15-2016, 12:16 PM
  2. Difference between superfly and fuel suspension..besides BETTER.
    By doctacosmos in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10-04-2013, 10:46 AM
  3. difference between these two types of rear suspension?
    By jbourne84 in forum Downhill - Freeride
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-21-2012, 08:47 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-09-2011, 01:24 AM
  5. Difference between 2010 and 2011 Speed Dial 7 levers?
    By justcramit in forum Brake Time
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-11-2011, 05:39 PM

Members who have read this thread: 280

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •