emarquar

The real fail there was the downward crotch cam.

@k2theg: As long as it's not unsupported mush

I mean, they captured the initial and mid stroke, which is more intrinsict to the the spring itself, rather than pressure and volume spacers. And then tied that chart into feeling on the trail. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Calling it unsupported mush is an interesting take. What value do you find in firm support in in the pre-sag section of travel? Vorsprung would argue that just results in harshness and an inability for the fork to extend over rough terrain, which speaks directly to Seb's feeling of the trail of the Zeb feeling like it's losing connection with the ground. Looking at the chart suggest to me that you have an active fork over chatter and more midstroke support. This unsupported mush take is exactly what caused Rockshox to reduce their negative spring and make their forks feel worse - but at least customers stopped whining about 10mm of "missing" travel. The goal of a fork is to reduce harshness and improve traction, which one spring curve hear clearly does better.

I disagree with this review, therefore it's corrupt! Calm tf down dude. Who shat in your cheerios this morning?

@Whataboutism: that's what West Taiwan wants you to think. Go shill for the ccp somewhere else.

I don't really see the point of this. I already get tons of ads for hot lonely single-track in my area.

Or deal with Dale's to do a "Matt's Beer"

@ashmtb85: I don't buy that at all. Why wouldn't you want the same kinematics, offset by a different spring rate to account for rider weight? If anything, as you decrease the progression here, you move to a lower leverage ratio, which makes the suspension more impacted by damping tune, so a lighter rider with a lighter spring would be even more impacted by the tune - meaning the more progressive setting would potentially feel better for the lighter rider, holding the tune constant.

In reading the description of the suspension feel and looking at the leverage curves, it seems to me that they've designed kinematics that are optimized for air shocks, but spec a coil shock, especially for the lower progression settings. The regressive leverage ratio at the beginning of the travel is a classic idea for overcoming the lack of small bump sensitivity in air shocks due to seal friction, with rapid progression in the middle to keep the air shock from feeling wallowy, and the regressive end stroke nets a more linear feel as the air pressure ramps up. @mattbeer, did you get the chance to try this with an air shock? It seems to me that moving to the 30% progression setting would make the coil feel better, rather than the 17%...

Once the advent calendar results are announced.