Rear shok in 601 ..222 or 240 mm???

[raymon]

Sorry, in English.
A quick question about rear shocks in 601 frame ,
.... 240 or 222 Fox DXH air in all mountai use ????

Dank.

 

[p00nage]

TIPP: Gleich in die Vollen gehen und die 190 mm Federweg wählen!
Denn in Sachen Wippen oder Vortrieb steht die 190 mm Variante der 165 mm Variante in Sachen Vortrieb kaum nach. Aber bergab legt die 190 mm Variante noch mal eins drauf.

Steht auf der Liteville Hp,

war gerade zu faul zum Übersetzen, Google passt zwar nicht immer ganz:
TIP: go to the full and equal choose the 190 mm ​​travel!
Because when it comes to driving rockers or is the 190 mm ​​version of the 165 mm version in terms of driving not far behind. But lays down the 190 mm ​​version on it one more time.

 

[scylla]

Depends on your preferences and on how you want to set up the bike.
What's your understanding of "all mountain"? Do you want to have a "plush"-feeling bike or should it rather be as agile as possible?
With the 222mm shock you will have 165mm travel, the 241mm shock will provide 190mm travel.

For an all mountain I would personally choose the small shock and a 160mm fork.
Are you aware of the 160mm rear-travel option for the 301?

 

[raymon]

I have a coil damper .... CCDB in 240 mm for Parck bike use ... ...
But , for use in single trails and small jump´s with curves and search of flow...... is preferable : 222 or 240 mm ???
.

 

[gab-star]

TIPP: Gleich in die Vollen gehen und die 190 mm Federweg wählen!
Denn in Sachen Wippen oder Vortrieb steht die 190 mm Variante der 165 mm Variante in Sachen Vortrieb kaum nach. Aber bergab legt die 190 mm Variante noch mal eins drauf.

Steht auf der Liteville Hp,

war gerade zu faul zum Übersetzen, Google passt zwar nicht immer ganz:
TIP: go to the full and equal choose the 190 mm ​​travel!
Because when it comes to driving rockers or is the 190 mm ​​version of the 165 mm version in terms of driving not far behind. But lays down the 190 mm ​​version on it one more time.

not completely my experience;
The 160mm versions is enough for all mountain riding up to some stronger descending. It efficiently pedals up with the advantage that you will have less bob than the 190mm version. I really do not come short on 'compensation' in the 160mm version. Testing the 190 it indeed felt more plush on your way down, but you will be dancing a bit more on your way up...

Bottom line: when you want a bike that is more 'one bike for all' I would go for a 160 setup; when you focus is on the descents/bike parks - go big...

 

[raymon]

my experience;
The 160mm versions is enough for all mountain riding up to some stronger descending. It efficiently pedals up with the advantage that you will have less bob than the 190mm version. I really do not come short on 'compensation' in the 160mm version. Testing the 190 it indeed felt more plush on your way down, but you will be dancing a bit more on your way up...

Bottom line: when you want a bike that is more 'one bike for all' I would go for a 160 setup; when you focus is on the descents/bike parks - go big...

Ok.Thanx

 

[scylla]

I have a coil damper .... CCDB in 240 mm for Parck bike use ... ...
But , for use in single trails and small jump´s with curves and search of flow...... is preferable : 222 or 240 mm ???
.

No one will be able to give you the one and only answer for that question
You will probably get the same number of different oppinions as the number of people you ask.

The long damper will make the bike more plush, more adapted to bike park use or for really heavy terrain. The short damper will make the bike more agile and quicker in handling.

Liteville proposes to go for the 241mm version. I personally would rather choose the 222mm version

Both options will give you a very fine ride for the purpose you described. Which one you prefer...? You will have to decide yourself!

 

[raymon]

No one will be able to give you the one and only answer for that question
You will probably get the same number of different oppinions as the number of people you ask.

The long damper will make the bike more plush, more adapted to bike park use or for really heavy terrain. The short damper will make the bike more agile and quicker in handling.

Liteville proposes to go for the 241mm version. I personally would rather choose the 222mm version

Both options will give you a very fine ride for the purpose you described. Which one you prefer...? You will have to decide yourself!

Dank.

 

[robertg202]

The Liteville homepage suggests to order it with the 241mm shock.
But to be honest: with the 222mm DHX Air, as my bike is set up now, it feels really great for some nice all-mountain. This means: some nice tricky trails, some nice up hill, some nice Cross Country.
If you anyway have a 241mm Coil Shock at home: order it with the 222mm air.
And then try it with the 241mm Coil - and you will have two different bikes just by changing the shock...
I think : for All Mountain the 222mm DHX Air does a great job (the 241mm has some major weaknesses for uphill), and for real Freeride you are anyway better off with a 241mm Coil...

 

[LukeBikewalker]

There could be a third option too: going with 222 mm shock with 70 mm stroke (DHX Air has 63,5 mm). Excellent options are RS Vivid Air or Manitou ISX-6 (Swinger).

That would bump the travel to 180 mm, especially the Vivid Air is supposed to offer near coil-like performance. I'd say both options also produce less sagging/bobbing on uphills compared to DHX Air with it's mediocre mid travel support.