Thoughts on suspension for an expedition bicycle

[Scott Brady]

As I begin to assemble the specifications for my first expedition bicycle, I am working through the pros and cons of a front suspension and possibly full suspension.

I have my own thoughts at the moment, but look forward to others opinions.

For my needs, the goal is to ride long distances on the dirt, like the White Rim, Kokopelli trail, etc. with limited pavement riding (ie. 80% dirt, 20% pavement)

Here is a little inspiration: Tout Terrain Panamericana

[Scott Brady]

While the Panamericana seems to be a "Land Cruiser" class ExPo bike, I am fascinated by the idea of something like the Moots YBB soft tail. Fit an upside-down fork on the front and some lightweight luggage solutions.

[ntsqd]

Disclaimer: I'm a curmudgeon (thanks, Dave!) when it comes to rear suspension on a bicycle. I can see the benefit in the right use, but I've also passed equally capable riders on full suspension bikes who were bent on being there first with my hardtail.

I don't think anything beyond a soft tail, like the Moots, or a suspension seat post is called for. The idea is to take the sharp edge off the bumps for long distance comfort, not go 86 miles an hour through a field of Maytags (rocks that you may or may not tag).

[sinuhexavier]

I've ridden both the white rim trail, the Kokopelli trail as well as 270 miles from Telluride to Moab and most of the Colorado trail.

I did these all on a my Santa Cruz Blur and couldn't be happier, the trick for me was getting as much weight, which was very little on the bike. Carrying the light stuff in a slim pack on my back. I had a small pack that connected to my seat post and a bag that went in the triangle of the frame.

As anyone who knows me or has traveled with me knows I subscribe to the light and fast philosophy. My biggest luxury was a pair of flip flops I strapped to my pack.





Edit: actually I lied, I rode from Telluride to Moab on a Schwinn 4 Banger...

[Cackalak Han]

IMO, you should just go hard tail or even fully rigid. It's amazing how much lowing the PSI in the tires will plush up the ride. I'd hate to have a part go south (front/rear suspension components) on an expedition.

[trailsurfer]

For your intended purposes I would go with a Titanium hard tail 29er and buy both a front suspension fork and a rigid fork and switch them out depending on the type of trail/road you will be riding on each excursion.

The big wheel will be perfect for your type of riding. You can get that big wheel rolling and make some time, it will make it more like a road bike in that regard.

The titanium will absorb the bumps and vibrations and reduce the wear and tear on your hands, back, and shoulders.

You could go with either a cyclocross or a mountain bike geometry.

[DaveInDenver]

Fit an upside-down fork on the front

Why the fixation with inverted forks? Maverick forks have a custom thru-axle hub, which I'm not sure can accept an Old Man Mountain rack. Those work with a regular 9mm traditional skewer, pretty sure. Same with BOB trailers, they use an old fashioned traditional skewer.

[Scott Brady]

Why the fixation with inverted forks? .

I am a noob on these things, but to me, the logic is that the bottom of the shock is what moves, which allows attached panniers to be sprung weight at opposed to unsprung weight.

Here are a few images to demonstrate.

[RusM]

http://www.salsacycles.com/fargoComp09.html

I went to the big bike show in Seattle and a couple of custom builders had some expedition/touring bikes and none of them had suspension.

[DaveInDenver]

I am a noob on these things, but to me, the logic is that the bottom of the shock is what moves, which allows attached panniers to be sprung weight at opposed to unsprung weight.

I've only used OMM racks, which mount to the skewer. So it's my misunderstanding of these racks. If they mount to the upper of the fork and not the axle, then that does make perfect sense.