seb-stott

@rcrocha: I think big bike would make less money if people looked after their suspension as recommended.

Good catch - it's 5 feet and 5.3 inches.

Great wee film.

Correct. But if the suspension is cycling while the cranks remain level, the bottom bracket bearings are involved, which is unusual.

@VorsprungSuspension: "strong asymmetry in the damping and/or particularly high cadence and/or particularly high/low anti-squat can shift the average ride height marginally" The Neo shock demonstrates this effect. With the closed mode set to firm, you can feel the bike jerk downward every time the shock opens (then ratchets back up again when it closes). It's probably only a few millimetres at the saddle, perhaps 0.1 degrees, but when you go from one state to the other suddenly, you notice the change. It feels a bit like a loose bushing. As I mentioned in the last sentence, there are times when I'm giving it my all on a steep climb and I'm glad of any marginal benefit, but in most cases, I'd be just as happy with a manual lockout.

You can ride much faster than 20 mph or 25 kph on any bicycle. It's not uncommon to go double that speed on a descent, with or without a motor. More powerful e-bikes don't go faster; they just go less slowly up steep hills. For example, 750 W is enough to get an 85 kg e-biker up a 15% grade at 14 kph, while 1300 W would be able to go 24 kph. On a 10% grade, 750 W would get you 21 kph, while the 1300 W would be limited to 25 kph. At 5%, both would be at the 25 kph limit. I'm not sure if those are safety-relevant differences. Put another way, a 60 kg rider on a 20 kg e-bike with 750 W has the same power-to-weight ratio as a 110 kg rider on a 26 kg bike with 1,300 W. So both would climb at the same pace. If you're riding on the road, more power could have a safety benefit for riders who would otherwise be unable to keep up with traffic. While I agree that 750 Watts is plenty for e-MTB, I'm not convinced there's a strong case that more power is less safe so long as the speed limit is enforced.

Perhaps it will be awarded a Turner prize.

I've been in touch with Propain directly, and it turns out the Trail version is 210*50 mm, and the enduro version is 210*55. Both have an average leverage ratio of about 2.9, so I'm not sure why you don't just stick a travel spacer in the shock and call it good.

I mostly agree. It plays into the idea that 160 mm + is "too much" for everyday riding, and you should make do with less because that's all that you need 90% of the time. While there is some logic to that "buy a bike for what you usually ride, not what you want to ride" narrative, my findings have been that you can ride gentler trails and climbs just as well on a longer travel bike, but it's not so easy to ride gnarly terrain on a shorter travel bike. A 160-170 mm bike with faster tires for easy trails is a great all-rounder in my opinion. It's not as if the 145 mm version is inherently lighter.