Posts by Jesse Sanders39

briskowl5 said:Physically, you aren't wrong, but you're still talking nonsense. You actually need to know how to brake properly instead of just slamming the lever like an idiot and flying over the handlebars.

Claiming suspension isn't a safety factor on a bike? Give me a break.

Now you're sticking your nose in and generalizing. Suspension is a safety factor for several reasons. One is that it absorbs part of the force when you hit the front brake—sometimes it’s negligible, sometimes it’s the only thing keeping you from eating pavement.

As for the other reasons why suspension matters for safety, I guess they'll always be a mystery to you since you clearly aren't interested in learning anything.

Casey Allen said:I never said anything about your specific argument. I just said it’s objectively better to have a fork on hilly terrain—I didn't say it was mandatory. And I wasn't even talking about stride length. Obviously, a shorter stroke means less absorption. It's just basic logic.

You’re putting words in my mouth and then acting like I’m the one who's wrong. That's just plain rude.

Look, read what you wrote first. You were being way too one-sided about the suspension and braking, so people naturally jumped down your throat. I don't see how I was being rude. There’s a massive lack of logic on this forum; you have to be surgically precise just to stop some idiots from immediately turning to insults.

Most trekking and hybrid bikes come standard with forks that have less than 100mm of travel. That's just how they're built.

Casey Allen said:I never said they’d stop it entirely; I just said the odds are lower.

I'm not partially right; I am entirely right. It’s just obvious that people aren't actually reading for comprehension.

You aren't entirely wrong, though. For instance:
Rigid bikes are perfectly fine, whether you're hitting a gravel path or a potholed backroad, provided you run wider tires at a lower pressure. Suspension is alright, sure, but it’s absolutely not a necessity. Honestly, on budget builds? It's just a waste of money.
Short-travel suspension paired with a steep fork angle isn't going to soak up much energy when you hit the brakes. If you want to actually dissipate a decent percentage of that force, you need at least 4 inches of travel.

Same here. I wouldn't dream of hitting those backroads, forest trails, or busted-up gravel paths without decent suspension.

quietskipper17 said:Exactly. And after 31 miles spending the last decade riding carbon frames and high-end air forks, I’ve concluded you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

It's a shame you slept through physics class.😁

James Davis11 said:Look, everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but what you just wrote is pure nonsense.

It’s not nonsense. He’s got a point. A better suspension setup actually gives you a clearer sense of where the braking limit is before the front brake takes over. Generally, more travel and a softer tune equals a better feel.

The suspension also absorbs a bit of that braking energy depending on the fork angle and how much travel you're running, so he isn't entirely wrong. Obviously, it won't stop you from flying over the bars if you dive into a steep descent or brake like a maniac, but it does give you that crucial feedback you need when you're practicing finding the limit.