Riding FS for the first time

Obs1dian

Recently started riding a FS bike with a 68.3 degree head angle, 150mm bounce up front and 140mm out back. My previous bike was built around an On One 456 frame with a 67.5 (I think) degree head angle and 130mm suspension up front (none out back obviously). I rarely fell off the hardtail however have fallen off the new FS several times... is this likely to be a result of steeper head angle or am I perhaps putting too much faith in to the new bike?

P.S. I'm about to put wider handlebars on the new bike which came off my old one to see if that helps with my downhill control.

supersonic

How are you falling off? Slides, over the bars, looping out? Probably just have to adapt.

Thewaylander

Also are there different tyres, this is one of the things effect how i stay on my bike the most!

Gazlar

have you got your suspension set up correctly, causing it to buckeroo you off. First ride I did when I went fs was at cannock so i messed about with settings a bit but ran the front for way too soft, hit a rock garden and my suspension compressed quickly and rebounded slowly pitching me over the bars

stubs

0.8 of a degree would it make much difference ? Perhaps your just going a bit faster.

Obs1dian

Supersonic, I've managed to get thrown over the bars twice.

That's a very good point regarding the front suspension. I feel that the rear suspension is now spot on, I've set correct sag and got it to a rebound setting I'm happy with. As for the front... I've got the sag set correctly but will try more rebound damping.

I stuck on some wider bars today which made me feel more in control.

As for tyres.. I'm running Pacestar triple compound Nobby Nics. I've got a pair of Specialised Eskar 2 Control's in the cupboard and a very worn Maxxis Highroller Super Tacky. Local trails are Cannock Chase - suggestions?

cooldad

If anything you want less rebound damping on the front, so it doesn't pack down and comes up quicker.

But it really depends what you were doing at the time.

YeehaaMcgee

cooldad wrote:

If anything you want less rebound damping on the front, so it doesn't pack down and comes up quicker.

I think I agree with this, even though he/we may be making assumptions.
The vast majority of new (to full suss) riders I've ridden with "like" their rebound quite slow, when in actual fact, on off-road terrain, you're going to need a pretty fast setting. The terrain changes and bumps are always rapid and in quick succession, and you need your suspension to be quick enough to cope.

cooldad

I think part of the problem is just semantic - saying more, but meaning less. That's where RS bunny and tortoise can help. You need more bunny is simpler.

YeehaaMcgee

Not really. More damping can only really mean more damped.

Giraffoto

cooldad wrote:

I think part of the problem is just semantic - saying more, but meaning less.

No offense intended - seriously, not joking, just asking - what does that mean in the context of falling off a bike?

mrmonkfinger

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Not really. More damping can only really mean more damped.

yeah but more rebound damping is less rebound... confusing for beginners

YeehaaMcgee

mrmonkfinger wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Not really. More damping can only really mean more damped.

yeah but more rebound damping is less rebound... confusing for beginners

No, it's not "less rebound". It rebounds the same amount. But it is damped more strongly.
It's not a "beginner" issue, to confuse it, it's an inability to decipher your own language.

cooldad

Giraffoto wrote:

cooldad wrote:

I think part of the problem is just semantic - saying more, but meaning less.

No offense intended - seriously, not joking, just asking - what does that mean in the context of falling off a bike?

If you read it in the context of the rest of the thread you may understand.
More rebound means the suspension will rebound slower, like going up the gears means going to a smaller cog.

Some people see more as faster and up as toward the large cogs.

People get confused.

mrmonkfinger

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

It's not a "beginner" issue, to confuse it, it's an inability to decipher your own language.

people find it confusing, whatever way you slice it

YeehaaMcgee

Blame the education system, or the political party of your choosing, or the general state of the country, then.
You know what "damping" means, and you know what "more" and "less" means. It's not complicated to combine those terms.

Thewaylander

i blame Labour... because i can!

YeehaaMcgee

Thewaylander wrote:

i blame Labour... because i can!

I blame you, because I want to! Because I want to!

Chunkers1980

Pretty sure there's a really cheesey song in there somewhere....

YeehaaMcgee

It's the best song ever made.

Thewaylander

By one of the naughtiest little hotties of all time?

BoarderGreen

It's quite a change swapping from hardtail to full sus, and I try to avoid fiddling with stuff straight off the bat....ride it 'factory' a few times then start adjusting stuff if you need to...........only a bit a time though if change shed loads in one go it can be hard to work which changes are effecting what!.

At Cannock that shouldn't be a problem, a lap of the dog then tweak a few bits and then lap the dog again, riding it back to back like that should highlight if your changes make things better, worse or are even unnoticeable.

I'm currently using a high roller xc on the front and a fatter highroller dh on the rear but that's on a hardtail, best tyres I have used at Cannock are paneracer trailrakers especially when it gets a boggy.

Trouble with Cannock is the slippy smooth sided rocks in some of the trail surfaces, haven't found anything to grip on them in the damp, the rest is just pretty sandy and rooty :? .

How does the bike feel on werewolf falls near the end of the dog or the rocky decent before the raised boardwalk section at the start of the monkey? or have you bailed on some of the faster sections?

..........................plus you really don't need a full sus for Cannock (maybe that's just the green eyed monster talking )

paul.skibum

I have a specialized cluch sx on my big hit (might be a little bit much for an xc style bike but it grips wet roots and rocks amazingly well - I have been well impressed - my first ride on it I was dropping the bike into corners with roots and rocks unsighted in the corners and expected to go down but the tyre just gripped and threw me through.

Thinking of trying the Purgatory or Captain on my xc ride on the strength of the Clutch.

bennett_346

BoarderGreen wrote:

.........................plus you really don't need a full sus for Cannock (maybe that's just the green eyed monster talking )

You don't need a mountain bike for most things at cannock if we're being honest!

The "wolf drop" makes me cringe every time i hear it.

BoarderGreen

I have seen a guy doing the monkey trail on a cyclocross bike, which looked kind of weird.

I think a mountain bike is still a good bet for cannock...............sherwood pines on the other hand, makes cannock look like the Alps.

andy_welch

I was visiting family in Norfolk and took my FS (Trance) to Thetford. I even put on pads as the map I had showed the Lime Burner trail as black with a section ominously labelled "The Beast". Talk about feeling like a lemon ! Fun ride though, even if it was soaking.

Cheers,

Andy

Bikerguy15

BoarderGreen wrote:

I think a mountain bike is still a good bet for cannock...............sherwood pines on the other hand, makes cannock look like the Alps.

Ha, I like it

FunBus

Obs1dian wrote:

As for tyres.. I'm running Pacestar triple compound Nobby Nics. I've got a pair of Specialised Eskar 2 Control's in the cupboard and a very worn Maxxis Highroller Super Tacky. Local trails are Cannock Chase - suggestions?

I'd suggest you're on the better tyres already with the NN's. As well as the suspension debate, it might be also to do with what you touched on at the start - you've got a new full susser and have been filled with a new confidence to hit stuff faster/push your limits more. Falling off is all part of developing your skills!

Gazlar

Thewaylander wrote:

By one of the naughtiest little hotties of all time?

Want she 14 when she sang that? Thus bringing us back to your revelations last week

YeehaaMcgee

Gazlar wrote:

Thewaylander wrote:

By one of the naughtiest little hotties of all time?

Want she 14 when she sang that? Thus bringing us back to your revelations last week

Not necessarily, she was the Doctor's accomplice, so she could have been any age, or even ageless.

(And no, she was 16, apparently)