Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wannabeRacer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,107

    VT 2 2004 rear suspension question?

    Any of you's VT 2 owners have this setup of rear suspension as mine? My VT 2 suspension is facing downwards but the Giant pics and advertisements are facing upside down. I think it works in the same way but then I'm not a mechanical or designer Engineer bike expert.
    Take a look at Giant site http://www.giant-bicycles.com/au/030...kesection=8787

    or check the comparison?
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #2
    XC rider/racer
    Reputation: Andy 's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    221
    I think the reason why the Swinger is mounted "upside-down" was to allow the seatpost to be dropped without it hitting off the Swinger.

  3. #3
    Reviewer/Tester
    Reputation: Rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,205
    My VT-2 has the Swinger 3 way with the big can up top and the slider on the bottom.


    R.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WotFun's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    51
    Yep, mine's the same as yours. I wouldn't be surprised if they simply thought it looks better that way for the sake of the pics.

    Cheers.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    579

    Pictures for catalogs and websites are taken early.

    Quote Originally Posted by wannabeRacer
    Any of you's VT 2 owners have this setup of rear suspension as mine? My VT 2 suspension is facing downwards but the Giant pics and advertisements are facing upside down. I think it works in the same way but then I'm not a mechanical or designer Engineer bike expert.
    Take a look at Giant site http://www.giant-bicycles.com/au/030...kesection=8787

    or check the comparison?
    Often the production bike is not available yet and you will even find incorrect components on pics. For example, Giant shows top swing front deraileurs on their '03 NRS's in the catalog but the ones shipped all had bottom swind deraileurs.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wannabeRacer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,107
    Okie....
    But I still need to know the reason why this is so in Engineering/Physics term or answer?
    Mybe, I should e-mail ginat dirrectly....lol

    Thanks for all the replies

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DiRt DeViL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,710
    Actually how the shock is mounted doesn't change anything, it works the same way. One benefit of having the air chamber down is that you can slide your seat post further down.

    In my case I have the SPV canister (4 way)in the way and can barely slide down the post if needed.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by wannabeRacer
    Any of you's VT 2 owners have this setup of rear suspension as mine? My VT 2 suspension is facing downwards but the Giant pics and advertisements are facing upside down. I think it works in the same way but then I'm not a mechanical or designer Engineer bike expert.
    Take a look at Giant site http://www.giant-bicycles.com/au/030...kesection=8787

    or check the comparison?
    The shock in the lower picture is correct. The people who make these catalogues are photographers not bike mechanics. I've seen web sites with Manitou forks with the "reverse" arch facing forward. The printing on the shock should be right side up.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by turtle
    The shock in the lower picture is correct...The printing on the shock should be right side up.
    I have the 4-Way swinger and it is mounted with the air chamber at the top and the printing on the shock is right side up. So it seems that the shocks have been/can be mounted either way. On the 4-Way with the air chamber down the SPV chamber makes a nice "shield" for keeping crud off the the shock shaft. I don't have any seat post interferance problem since I ride the 22.5" frame- there is a good 6" between the bottom of the seat post and top of the shock.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    52
    Thanks for the feedback. I might agree with you but it is a bit early. I will say however, that on my initial parking lot and sidewalk ride, the 5.75 sure seemed to feel better. the 5" seems more harsh.

    You are very correct on the chamber settings. A very big differance indeed.

    I have read that most like riding the VT at 100 in front and 5.7 in the rear but I thought I would give it a try.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    139
    does anybody know if theres much of a difference in the 5.7 setting for the VT compared to the 5 setting in terms of climbing?

    Thanks!

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. VT
    does anybody know if theres much of a difference in the 5.7 setting for the VT compared to the 5 setting in terms of climbing?

    Thanks!
    Don't know yet. I won't do a big ride till tomorrow. I can already say that it isn't as plush at 5 then it is a 5.7

  13. #13
    Reviewer/Tester
    Reputation: Rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,205
    I much prefer mine at full travel.. I tried it at the other settings, and the full travel felt waaay better to me in terms of comfort and general ride characteristics.

    I now use the suspension at full settings both front and rear. It's so damn nice to ride, plush and comfortable.



    R.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DiRt DeViL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,710
    No real noticeable difference while climbing but really noticeable when going down. IMO the bike rides better at 5.7".

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    52

    Re:

    I just went through the trial and error myself and would agree that the bike handles and rides much better at 5.7"

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    139
    hmm, seems that most people agree that 5.7" is better for the VT, i'll give it a try the next time i go out for a ride. i remember an earlier post about the minute as well, seems that the minute is pretty darn stiff, i only weigh around 145lbs, would you guys suggest switching out the spring for a lighter spring? i'm not sure if i should do this because of the fact that someone else also said that if the swinger is set up properly, the minute is also more responsive or something? does anybody have any suggestions on a better set up to have or if i should swap the spring out or not? i'm currently running 25% sag on my swinger and 65% my body weight spv. for the minute i have the spv volume all backed out and about 48psi in the spv.

    Thanks for any help given!

Similar Threads

  1. Trade-offs in anti-squat suspension theory
    By derby in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-24-2010, 03:46 PM
  2. Another Rear Suspension Question (Hollowpoint)
    By skibud2 in forum Iron Horse
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-12-2005, 10:35 PM
  3. 03 VT 2 - slop in rear pivot
    By BrindiCruiser in forum Giant
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-21-2005, 07:09 PM
  4. If you need to know this.
    By KevinVokeyJ24 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-24-2004, 08:40 AM

Posting Permissions

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