weight limit for suspensions?

Quoted message said:

in general, is there an upper weight limit for suspensions - front,
front and rear, or rear only?

Sure is. When the suspension bottoms out and starts breaking things, or if
the damping can be turned up so high that a really big guy or gal can break
the damping valves or cartridges while riding, then the limit has been
reached.

Quoted message said:

for example, the avalon from wal - when does the avalon bottom out
from weight rendering the suspensions useless?

I've found Walmart bikes to have stiff suspension forks. No damping, of
course, but functional. The rear is usually way too soft, but it depends
from bike to bike. The Avalon is probably no exception.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in general, is there an upper weight limit for suspensions - front,
front and rear, or rear only?
for example, the avalon from wal - when does the avalon bottom out from
weight rendering the suspensions useless?

Huh?

Are you talking about spring rate? Simple concept:

http://www.google.com/search?q=spring+rate&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Greg

Quoted message said:

in general, is there an upper weight limit for suspensions - front,
front and rear, or rear only?
for example, the avalon from wal - when does the avalon bottom out from
weight rendering the suspensions useless?

The "suspension" on the rear of the Avalon is more of an appearance
item than a functional one; the travel is very small and quite stiff.
The front fork looks like one of the typical units used on Wal-Mart's
mid-level bikes; without testing it, I'd expect it to be
soft-bottomable on major bumps for a 200 lb rider, with hard bottoming
at 225+ on a bump that took more than the suspension travel available.
That's better than the POS forks used on the bottem-end Roadmasters,
to be sure. One rule of thumb I've heard is that if you can bottom
the fork by pushing forward on the bars while seated on the bike with
the front brake locked, the fork's too soft. I don't know how useful
that "test" really is, though.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

so it can be said (and repeated) of susp[ension bikes - most are
designed to carry the normal run of people up the normal fat guy.
I've suffered several normal fat guys asking about buying a bike and
wasn't sure if a suspension bike carries more than a kid or in shape
adult at 185 on down.
I run thru the boutique offerings without getting a gleam
but when i say the magic words $100...

Werehatrack said:

Quoted message said:

in general, is there an upper weight limit for suspensions - front,
front and rear, or rear only?
for example, the avalon from wal - when does the avalon bottom out
from weight rendering the suspensions useless?

The "suspension" on the rear of the Avalon is more of an appearance
item than a functional one; the travel is very small and quite stiff.
The front fork looks like one of the typical units used on Wal-Mart's
mid-level bikes; without testing it, I'd expect it to be
soft-bottomable on major bumps for a 200 lb rider, with hard bottoming
at 225+ on a bump that took more than the suspension travel available.
That's better than the POS forks used on the bottem-end Roadmasters,
to be sure. One rule of thumb I've heard is that if you can bottom
the fork by pushing forward on the bars while seated on the bike with
the front brake locked, the fork's too soft. I don't know how useful
that "test" really is, though.

That's way too soft. If you're MTBing and enter a dip in the trail at
speed, that can bottom out the suspension and leave you flying.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Squid-in-Training said:

Werehatrack said:

...One rule of thumb I've heard is that if you can bottom
the fork by pushing forward on the bars while seated on the bike with
the front brake locked, the fork's too soft. I don't know how useful
that "test" really is, though.

That's way too soft. If you're MTBing and enter a dip in the trail at
speed, that can bottom out the suspension and leave you flying.

That's my impression as well, but then, the stuff sold at WallyWorld
isn't really up to being serious trailbashing gear. OTOH, for the
glued-to-the-saddle types who go bouncing over the tree-root-lifted
sidewalks around here, that degree of softness is probably about
right. I suspect Wal-Mart's marketing people aren't always as dumb as
they may look from this distance. (OTOH, there have been some choices
in the mix that defied explanation.)
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack said:

Squid-in-Training said:

Werehatrack said:

...One rule of thumb I've heard is that if you can bottom
the fork by pushing forward on the bars while seated on the bike
with the front brake locked, the fork's too soft. I don't know how
useful that "test" really is, though.

That's way too soft. If you're MTBing and enter a dip in the trail
at speed, that can bottom out the suspension and leave you flying.

That's my impression as well, but then, the stuff sold at WallyWorld
isn't really up to being serious trailbashing gear. OTOH, for the
glued-to-the-saddle types who go bouncing over the tree-root-lifted
sidewalks around here, that degree of softness is probably about
right. I suspect Wal-Mart's marketing people aren't always as dumb as
they may look from this distance. (OTOH, there have been some choices
in the mix that defied explanation.)

It's weird though because the forks are stiff and the rear shocks really
soft. If they'd make them stiff all around, it works well because the
people riding them are usually overweight or just plain large, large men.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Squid-in-Training said:

Werehatrack said:

Squid-in-Training said:

Werehatrack wrote:
> ...One rule of thumb I've heard is that if you can bottom
> the fork by pushing forward on the bars while seated on the bike
> with the front brake locked, the fork's too soft. I don't know how
> useful that "test" really is, though.

That's way too soft. If you're MTBing and enter a dip in the trail
at speed, that can bottom out the suspension and leave you flying.

That's my impression as well, but then, the stuff sold at WallyWorld
isn't really up to being serious trailbashing gear. OTOH, for the
glued-to-the-saddle types who go bouncing over the tree-root-lifted
sidewalks around here, that degree of softness is probably about
right. I suspect Wal-Mart's marketing people aren't always as dumb as
they may look from this distance. (OTOH, there have been some choices
in the mix that defied explanation.)

It's weird though because the forks are stiff and the rear shocks really
soft. If they'd make them stiff all around, it works well because the
people riding them are usually overweight or just plain large, large men.

Maybe they've been fiddling with them, then; the last time I checked,
the rears tended to be stiff and the fronts overly cushy. I know what
you mean about who rides them; there's something of a parade of day
labor workers who show up on bikes at several of the pickup points
near here every day. I'd call 175 light in that crowd.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.