Difference between thick vs thin front suspension?
I visited a bicycle shop a few days ago. I noticed two different types of bikes. One with thick front suspension and the other with thin front suspension. Bike with the thick suspension was more expensive.
Does thick suspension provide benefits or just add weight?
Is thin suspension more better than thick one?
Thick Suspension:
Thin Suspension:
Full Images:
mountain-bike suspension full-suspension front
asked Mar 1 at 18:18
Black ThunderBlack Thunder
1065
|
show 10 more comments
I visited a bicycle shop a few days ago. I noticed two different types of bikes. One with thick front suspension and the other with thin front suspension. Bike with the thick suspension was more expensive.
Does thick suspension provide benefits or just add weight?
Is thin suspension more better than thick one?
Thick Suspension:
Thin Suspension:
Full Images:
mountain-bike suspension full-suspension front
asked Mar 1 at 18:18
Black ThunderBlack Thunder
1065
2
OMG those 'mudguards'!
– Argenti Apparatus
Mar 1 at 19:35
2
And the first one is "dual-crown"!
– Grigory Rechistov
Mar 1 at 20:11
2
@BlackThunder I'd say both are equally crappy. Get whatever looks better for you and don't expect much from it.
– Klaster_1
Mar 2 at 4:34
4
@BlackThunder Cheap does not always mean crappy, but in this case, it unfortunately is. For mountain biking, both of these bikes are equally incapable and, let me be honest, dangerous. It might not be seen at the front suspension, but look at the rear "shock": it's just a spring in both cases! no oil camera, no nothing. It will bounce uncontrollably trying to throw a rider forward. You'd be better off with a hardtail. For road riding (e.g. commuting), both of these bikes weigh excessively and have too many components to maintain. Again, a full rigid bike at the same price will be better.
– Grigory Rechistov
Mar 2 at 6:32
2
The first one has radially laced wheels and disk brakes. If the brakes work at all, the wheels will self destruct when you use them.
– ojs
Mar 2 at 9:15
|
show 10 more comments
I visited a bicycle shop a few days ago. I noticed two different types of bikes. One with thick front suspension and the other with thin front suspension. Bike with the thick suspension was more expensive.
Does thick suspension provide benefits or just add weight?
Is thin suspension more better than thick one?
Thick Suspension:
Thin Suspension:
Full Images:
mountain-bike suspension full-suspension front
asked Mar 1 at 18:18
Black ThunderBlack Thunder
1065
I visited a bicycle shop a few days ago. I noticed two different types of bikes. One with thick front suspension and the other with thin front suspension. Bike with the thick suspension was more expensive.
Does thick suspension provide benefits or just add weight?
Is thin suspension more better than thick one?
Thick Suspension:
Thin Suspension:
Full Images:
mountain-bike suspension full-suspension front
mountain-bike suspension full-suspension front
asked Mar 1 at 18:18
Black ThunderBlack Thunder
1065
asked Mar 1 at 18:18
Black ThunderBlack Thunder
1065
edited Mar 2 at 4:04
Black Thunder
asked Mar 1 at 18:18
Black ThunderBlack Thunder
1065
asked Mar 1 at 18:18
Black ThunderBlack Thunder
1065
asked Mar 1 at 18:18
Black ThunderBlack Thunder
1065
1065
2
OMG those 'mudguards'!
– Argenti Apparatus
Mar 1 at 19:35
2
And the first one is "dual-crown"!
– Grigory Rechistov
Mar 1 at 20:11
2
@BlackThunder I'd say both are equally crappy. Get whatever looks better for you and don't expect much from it.
– Klaster_1
Mar 2 at 4:34
4
@BlackThunder Cheap does not always mean crappy, but in this case, it unfortunately is. For mountain biking, both of these bikes are equally incapable and, let me be honest, dangerous. It might not be seen at the front suspension, but look at the rear "shock": it's just a spring in both cases! no oil camera, no nothing. It will bounce uncontrollably trying to throw a rider forward. You'd be better off with a hardtail. For road riding (e.g. commuting), both of these bikes weigh excessively and have too many components to maintain. Again, a full rigid bike at the same price will be better.
– Grigory Rechistov
Mar 2 at 6:32
2
The first one has radially laced wheels and disk brakes. If the brakes work at all, the wheels will self destruct when you use them.
– ojs
Mar 2 at 9:15
|
show 10 more comments
2
OMG those 'mudguards'!
– Argenti Apparatus
Mar 1 at 19:35
2
And the first one is "dual-crown"!
– Grigory Rechistov
Mar 1 at 20:11
2
@BlackThunder I'd say both are equally crappy. Get whatever looks better for you and don't expect much from it.
– Klaster_1
Mar 2 at 4:34
4
@BlackThunder Cheap does not always mean crappy, but in this case, it unfortunately is. For mountain biking, both of these bikes are equally incapable and, let me be honest, dangerous. It might not be seen at the front suspension, but look at the rear "shock": it's just a spring in both cases! no oil camera, no nothing. It will bounce uncontrollably trying to throw a rider forward. You'd be better off with a hardtail. For road riding (e.g. commuting), both of these bikes weigh excessively and have too many components to maintain. Again, a full rigid bike at the same price will be better.
– Grigory Rechistov
Mar 2 at 6:32
2
The first one has radially laced wheels and disk brakes. If the brakes work at all, the wheels will self destruct when you use them.
– ojs
Mar 2 at 9:15
2
2
OMG those 'mudguards'!
– Argenti Apparatus
Mar 1 at 19:35
OMG those 'mudguards'!
– Argenti Apparatus
Mar 1 at 19:35
2
2
And the first one is "dual-crown"!
– Grigory Rechistov
Mar 1 at 20:11
And the first one is "dual-crown"!
– Grigory Rechistov
Mar 1 at 20:11
2
2
@BlackThunder I'd say both are equally crappy. Get whatever looks better for you and don't expect much from it.
– Klaster_1
Mar 2 at 4:34
@BlackThunder I'd say both are equally crappy. Get whatever looks better for you and don't expect much from it.
– Klaster_1
Mar 2 at 4:34
4
4
@BlackThunder Cheap does not always mean crappy, but in this case, it unfortunately is. For mountain biking, both of these bikes are equally incapable and, let me be honest, dangerous. It might not be seen at the front suspension, but look at the rear "shock": it's just a spring in both cases! no oil camera, no nothing. It will bounce uncontrollably trying to throw a rider forward. You'd be better off with a hardtail. For road riding (e.g. commuting), both of these bikes weigh excessively and have too many components to maintain. Again, a full rigid bike at the same price will be better.
– Grigory Rechistov
Mar 2 at 6:32
@BlackThunder Cheap does not always mean crappy, but in this case, it unfortunately is. For mountain biking, both of these bikes are equally incapable and, let me be honest, dangerous. It might not be seen at the front suspension, but look at the rear "shock": it's just a spring in both cases! no oil camera, no nothing. It will bounce uncontrollably trying to throw a rider forward. You'd be better off with a hardtail. For road riding (e.g. commuting), both of these bikes weigh excessively and have too many components to maintain. Again, a full rigid bike at the same price will be better.
– Grigory Rechistov
Mar 2 at 6:32
2
2
The first one has radially laced wheels and disk brakes. If the brakes work at all, the wheels will self destruct when you use them.
– ojs
Mar 2 at 9:15
The first one has radially laced wheels and disk brakes. If the brakes work at all, the wheels will self destruct when you use them.
– ojs
Mar 2 at 9:15
|
show 10 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Fork-leg diameter is not really how you would classify suspension forks. Or more exactly, it is a way, but not really the most relevant.
Suspension forks could be classified by how much travel they provide (different travel for different specific uses), the suspension mechanism (springs, fluid, elastomers, air, hybrid), the damping mechanism, etc.
I suspect that both those bikes were pretty cheap, both probably use spring suspension, and neither is really intended for hard off-road use. A bigger-diameter tube isn't necessarily heavier, as it can be made with thinner walls.
answered Mar 1 at 19:12
Adam RiceAdam Rice
5,8671534
Fox forks are literally named and classified after stanchion diameter.
– Klaster_1
Mar 2 at 4:33
add a comment |
Well they do are a little bit sturdier. Bigger diametre is harder to bend than a thin one and should requiere less material. Other thing is that the one on the red bike is a double crown, which has the benefit of being sturdier on force loads from the front of the bike.
But the most important aspect is the quality of the materials used. For example in my early days(circa 2000) I bought this "ZOOM 110 Inverted fork 20mm axle suspension with 40mm bars" which was a double crown and made out of aluminium. Thing was massive I felt like Josh Bender.
After a couple drops(like 4) the thing bent forwards and was stuck, dad wanted to kill me. My old RST sigma xl on the other hand, was WAY better with 28mm steel bars, 14mm axle and was a standard fork, thing was bomb proof for the time. This one lasted a long time.
So the most important aspect is the design and materials used. In this case both are about the same, probably the double crown is a little bit sturdier, but both are just an entry level fork and for lesiure rides you will be better of with the single crown fork. It should have the same ride quality with less weight.
answered Mar 1 at 19:12
dmbdmb
57828
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "126"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbicycles.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f59606%2fdifference-between-thick-vs-thin-front-suspension%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Fork-leg diameter is not really how you would classify suspension forks. Or more exactly, it is a way, but not really the most relevant.
Suspension forks could be classified by how much travel they provide (different travel for different specific uses), the suspension mechanism (springs, fluid, elastomers, air, hybrid), the damping mechanism, etc.
I suspect that both those bikes were pretty cheap, both probably use spring suspension, and neither is really intended for hard off-road use. A bigger-diameter tube isn't necessarily heavier, as it can be made with thinner walls.
answered Mar 1 at 19:12
Adam RiceAdam Rice
5,8671534
Fox forks are literally named and classified after stanchion diameter.
– Klaster_1
Mar 2 at 4:33
add a comment |
Fork-leg diameter is not really how you would classify suspension forks. Or more exactly, it is a way, but not really the most relevant.
Suspension forks could be classified by how much travel they provide (different travel for different specific uses), the suspension mechanism (springs, fluid, elastomers, air, hybrid), the damping mechanism, etc.
I suspect that both those bikes were pretty cheap, both probably use spring suspension, and neither is really intended for hard off-road use. A bigger-diameter tube isn't necessarily heavier, as it can be made with thinner walls.
answered Mar 1 at 19:12
Adam RiceAdam Rice
5,8671534
Fox forks are literally named and classified after stanchion diameter.
– Klaster_1
Mar 2 at 4:33
add a comment |
Fork-leg diameter is not really how you would classify suspension forks. Or more exactly, it is a way, but not really the most relevant.
Suspension forks could be classified by how much travel they provide (different travel for different specific uses), the suspension mechanism (springs, fluid, elastomers, air, hybrid), the damping mechanism, etc.
I suspect that both those bikes were pretty cheap, both probably use spring suspension, and neither is really intended for hard off-road use. A bigger-diameter tube isn't necessarily heavier, as it can be made with thinner walls.
answered Mar 1 at 19:12
Adam RiceAdam Rice
5,8671534
Fork-leg diameter is not really how you would classify suspension forks. Or more exactly, it is a way, but not really the most relevant.
Suspension forks could be classified by how much travel they provide (different travel for different specific uses), the suspension mechanism (springs, fluid, elastomers, air, hybrid), the damping mechanism, etc.
I suspect that both those bikes were pretty cheap, both probably use spring suspension, and neither is really intended for hard off-road use. A bigger-diameter tube isn't necessarily heavier, as it can be made with thinner walls.
answered Mar 1 at 19:12
Adam RiceAdam Rice
5,8671534
answered Mar 1 at 19:12
Adam RiceAdam Rice
5,8671534
answered Mar 1 at 19:12
Adam RiceAdam Rice
5,8671534
answered Mar 1 at 19:12
Adam RiceAdam Rice
5,8671534
5,8671534
Fox forks are literally named and classified after stanchion diameter.
– Klaster_1
Mar 2 at 4:33
add a comment |
Fox forks are literally named and classified after stanchion diameter.
– Klaster_1
Mar 2 at 4:33
Fox forks are literally named and classified after stanchion diameter.
– Klaster_1
Mar 2 at 4:33
Fox forks are literally named and classified after stanchion diameter.
– Klaster_1
Mar 2 at 4:33
add a comment |
Well they do are a little bit sturdier. Bigger diametre is harder to bend than a thin one and should requiere less material. Other thing is that the one on the red bike is a double crown, which has the benefit of being sturdier on force loads from the front of the bike.
But the most important aspect is the quality of the materials used. For example in my early days(circa 2000) I bought this "ZOOM 110 Inverted fork 20mm axle suspension with 40mm bars" which was a double crown and made out of aluminium. Thing was massive I felt like Josh Bender.
After a couple drops(like 4) the thing bent forwards and was stuck, dad wanted to kill me. My old RST sigma xl on the other hand, was WAY better with 28mm steel bars, 14mm axle and was a standard fork, thing was bomb proof for the time. This one lasted a long time.
So the most important aspect is the design and materials used. In this case both are about the same, probably the double crown is a little bit sturdier, but both are just an entry level fork and for lesiure rides you will be better of with the single crown fork. It should have the same ride quality with less weight.
answered Mar 1 at 19:12
dmbdmb
57828
add a comment |
Well they do are a little bit sturdier. Bigger diametre is harder to bend than a thin one and should requiere less material. Other thing is that the one on the red bike is a double crown, which has the benefit of being sturdier on force loads from the front of the bike.
But the most important aspect is the quality of the materials used. For example in my early days(circa 2000) I bought this "ZOOM 110 Inverted fork 20mm axle suspension with 40mm bars" which was a double crown and made out of aluminium. Thing was massive I felt like Josh Bender.
After a couple drops(like 4) the thing bent forwards and was stuck, dad wanted to kill me. My old RST sigma xl on the other hand, was WAY better with 28mm steel bars, 14mm axle and was a standard fork, thing was bomb proof for the time. This one lasted a long time.
So the most important aspect is the design and materials used. In this case both are about the same, probably the double crown is a little bit sturdier, but both are just an entry level fork and for lesiure rides you will be better of with the single crown fork. It should have the same ride quality with less weight.
answered Mar 1 at 19:12
dmbdmb
57828
add a comment |
Well they do are a little bit sturdier. Bigger diametre is harder to bend than a thin one and should requiere less material. Other thing is that the one on the red bike is a double crown, which has the benefit of being sturdier on force loads from the front of the bike.
But the most important aspect is the quality of the materials used. For example in my early days(circa 2000) I bought this "ZOOM 110 Inverted fork 20mm axle suspension with 40mm bars" which was a double crown and made out of aluminium. Thing was massive I felt like Josh Bender.
After a couple drops(like 4) the thing bent forwards and was stuck, dad wanted to kill me. My old RST sigma xl on the other hand, was WAY better with 28mm steel bars, 14mm axle and was a standard fork, thing was bomb proof for the time. This one lasted a long time.
So the most important aspect is the design and materials used. In this case both are about the same, probably the double crown is a little bit sturdier, but both are just an entry level fork and for lesiure rides you will be better of with the single crown fork. It should have the same ride quality with less weight.
answered Mar 1 at 19:12
dmbdmb
57828
Well they do are a little bit sturdier. Bigger diametre is harder to bend than a thin one and should requiere less material. Other thing is that the one on the red bike is a double crown, which has the benefit of being sturdier on force loads from the front of the bike.
But the most important aspect is the quality of the materials used. For example in my early days(circa 2000) I bought this "ZOOM 110 Inverted fork 20mm axle suspension with 40mm bars" which was a double crown and made out of aluminium. Thing was massive I felt like Josh Bender.
After a couple drops(like 4) the thing bent forwards and was stuck, dad wanted to kill me. My old RST sigma xl on the other hand, was WAY better with 28mm steel bars, 14mm axle and was a standard fork, thing was bomb proof for the time. This one lasted a long time.
So the most important aspect is the design and materials used. In this case both are about the same, probably the double crown is a little bit sturdier, but both are just an entry level fork and for lesiure rides you will be better of with the single crown fork. It should have the same ride quality with less weight.
answered Mar 1 at 19:12
dmbdmb
57828
answered Mar 1 at 19:12
dmbdmb
57828
answered Mar 1 at 19:12
dmbdmb
57828
answered Mar 1 at 19:12
dmbdmb
57828
57828
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Bicycles Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbicycles.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f59606%2fdifference-between-thick-vs-thin-front-suspension%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
OMG those 'mudguards'!
– Argenti Apparatus
Mar 1 at 19:35
2
And the first one is "dual-crown"!
– Grigory Rechistov
Mar 1 at 20:11
2
@BlackThunder I'd say both are equally crappy. Get whatever looks better for you and don't expect much from it.
– Klaster_1
Mar 2 at 4:34
4
@BlackThunder Cheap does not always mean crappy, but in this case, it unfortunately is. For mountain biking, both of these bikes are equally incapable and, let me be honest, dangerous. It might not be seen at the front suspension, but look at the rear "shock": it's just a spring in both cases! no oil camera, no nothing. It will bounce uncontrollably trying to throw a rider forward. You'd be better off with a hardtail. For road riding (e.g. commuting), both of these bikes weigh excessively and have too many components to maintain. Again, a full rigid bike at the same price will be better.
– Grigory Rechistov
Mar 2 at 6:32
2
The first one has radially laced wheels and disk brakes. If the brakes work at all, the wheels will self destruct when you use them.
– ojs
Mar 2 at 9:15