View Single Post
Old 04-27-2013, 06:46 AM   #40
kaptinkaos OP
Just some nOOb
kaptinkaos's Avatar
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: Airdrie, AB
Oddometer: 900
Originally Posted by FakeName View Post
I just had to make the height decision myself, and surprised myself by choosing R height rather than S.

Even at S height, the seat is almost two inches lower than my RFS bike, so I know I can tolerate it. But this weighs a lot more, and I'm more likely to be loaded with gear and fuel, making it top heavy.

Further, according to SPS, most of the increased performance of the reworked suspension is a result of the springs and valving- the height is of far less benefit.

But here's the kicker for me- I find the seat-to-foot peg distance on this bike way too short for me. Increases the effort required to stand up- more knee pressure and more time in transition.

I want a taller seat, but a taller seat AND way tall suspension on a heavy loaded pig is too much for recreational riding. Recreational riding means I'm certainly capable of riding faster, but I strongly prefer to avoid injury and contribute to our happy home.

So. That was my choice- bike comes apart today.
That is my worry... I lose the recreational aspect. I am in no way a Dakar Rallye racer. I dream big, but alas... My pockets aren't deep enough and my skill is less than pro. I am solving my arse to peg height isue with a Renazco. Hearing you say what you have leans me toward 265mm instead of 320mm. I too need to avoid injury if I can as my career depends on my health and that has always been the main reason I don't go further with my bikes. Cheers and tyvm!!!

kaptinkaos screwed with this post 04-28-2013 at 11:26 AM
kaptinkaos is offline   Reply With Quote