Regular bike vs shock fork front bike on city streets ?

Compared to a stock bike with no shocks:
Does a bike with shock fork on front only or mountain bike with
stocks - front &rear, afford any noticeable improvement for absorbing
bumps for street or side walk riding - about 15 miles one trip ?
(Poor , much uneven pavement, many smaller pot holes , many bumps)

If so, for city use, must shocks be expensive & require need to change
to narrower slick tires considering only occasional off road use ?

I assume the shocks & tire design must be effective for rough deeper
uneven off road terrain.
Are they of any significant & noticable improvements in soaking up
shock for many smaller uneven surfaces in streets & sidewalks?

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:34:10 +0000, gregdowns wrote:

Are they of any significant & noticable improvements in soaking up
shock for many smaller uneven surfaces in streets & sidewalks?

If your commute involves really rough stuff like cobbles, I suppose a
hybrid with an "urban" suspension fork could help--they're made by Rock
Shox and others and are smaller and lighter versions of the off-road
shocks.

If it's simply broken pavement, you might be better served with a hybrid,
city bike, or other type of rigid bike that has good quality tires like
Schwalbe Marathons or Continental Top Touring in an appropriate width.
You'll feel some of the bumps, but learn to stand when needed so you don't
get jolted too bad.

Full suspension mountain bikes with narrow tires are always an option--but
I don't personally find them very comfortable for long journeys on road.

An inexpensive mtb with a suspension fork and mounted with city tires will
probably be your most affordable alternative--but it wouldn't be my first
choice as far as elegance.

I ride my road bike with 28mm tires on nasty broken pavement around here
and find it perfectly comfortable--so each persons vibration threshold is
different.

wrote:
Compared to a stock bike with no shocks:
Does a bike with shock fork on front only or mountain bike with
stocks - front &rear, afford any noticeable improvement for absorbing
bumps for street or side walk riding - about 15 miles one trip ?
(Poor , much uneven pavement, many smaller pot holes , many bumps)

If so, for city use, must shocks be expensive & require need to change
to narrower slick tires considering only occasional off road use ?

I assume the shocks & tire design must be effective for rough deeper
uneven off road terrain.
Are they of any significant & noticable improvements in soaking up
shock for many smaller uneven surfaces in streets & sidewalks?

I had to make the same decision a few years back when I bought a
commuter bike (before switching to a road bike a year ago) for my
commute through the Mission and SOMA areas of San Francisco. I consider
this to be fairly neglected asphalt, with potholes and sunken manholes
on just about every block of my route. Perhaps I always knew I'd want a
road bike eventually to supplant this bike, but as a beginner I wanted
to be sure I was starting out with a well-rounded option in case I
wanted to move to more suspension. I chose to cross-grade to a regular
unshocked tubular fork on purchase because I valued pedaling efficiency
over the presumptive smooth ride of a shock fork. I think this choice
also helped in my development of bike handling skills as I sought to
avoid obstacles.

Ultimately it's a personal choice, though. Of course shocks are going to
provide a smoother ride, but a line to be drawn here is "how smooth do I
need it to be?" I found that my inclination toward speed and pedaling
efficiency was more important than comfort for me, and I found that the
streets were not really as rough as I assumed when considering keeping
the shock fork.

-eric

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:34:10 GMT, wrote:

Compared to a stock bike with no shocks:
Does a bike with shock fork on front only or mountain bike with
stocks - front &rear, afford any noticeable improvement for absorbing
bumps for street or side walk riding - about 15 miles one trip ?
(Poor , much uneven pavement, many smaller pot holes , many bumps)

If so, for city use, must shocks be expensive & require need to change
to narrower slick tires considering only occasional off road use ?

I assume the shocks & tire design must be effective for rough deeper
uneven off road terrain.
Are they of any significant & noticable improvements in soaking up
shock for many smaller uneven surfaces in streets & sidewalks?

The improvement is noticable and significant. The damage it does to your
pedaling is also significant. It is only the most expensive suspension systems
that don't bob when you pedal on pavement.

I really, really, really do not like suspension for road work. I use my old
rigid fork MTB for shopping and commuting. The tires absorb plenty of the bad
roads and gravel and it's still a smooth, strong riding bike.

Ron

The purpose of the shock is to keep the wheel on the
ground, comfort is secondary. The cost in lost effort
pedaling uphill is noticeable.

Over a fifteen mile distance the limited positions available
with a straight handlebar gets to the neck, shoulders, and arms.

I've got a steel frame road bike with drop bars and 35mm tires.
It works fine for the riding you describe. It handles grass, fire trails,
little potholes and uneven pavement. When the bumpiness gets real bad
I lift my butt off the saddle a bit to save my lower back.

I bought it after a season of biking with my mountain bike on the road.

Hank's pair of pennies


wrote in message
...
Compared to a stock bike with no shocks:
Does a bike with shock fork on front only or mountain bike with
stocks - front &rear, afford any noticeable improvement for absorbing
bumps for street or side walk riding - about 15 miles one trip ?
(Poor , much uneven pavement, many smaller pot holes , many bumps)

If so, for city use, must shocks be expensive & require need to change
to narrower slick tires considering only occasional off road use ?

I assume the shocks & tire design must be effective for rough deeper
uneven off road terrain.
Are they of any significant & noticable improvements in soaking up
shock for many smaller uneven surfaces in streets & sidewalks?

In article ,
says...

Compared to a stock bike with no shocks:
Does a bike with shock fork on front only or mountain bike with
stocks - front &rear, afford any noticeable improvement for absorbing
bumps for street or side walk riding - about 15 miles one trip ?
(Poor , much uneven pavement, many smaller pot holes , many bumps)
If so, for city use, must shocks be expensive & require need to change
to narrower slick tires considering only occasional off road use ?
I assume the shocks & tire design must be effective for rough deeper
uneven off road terrain.
Are they of any significant & noticable improvements in soaking up
shock for many smaller uneven surfaces in streets & sidewalks?

I have a Van Dessel Super Fly. It came with a very basic front suspension
set up. I am about to change it out for a rigid fork because I did not think
it's benefits outweighed it drawbacks. The fork is heavy and there is a bit of
left/right slop that is not easy to adjust out. Just make sure you don't go to
some silly skinny tire. This bike came with Rictchey Tom Slick 700X30 tires.
These are a good compromise tire and I really don't need suspension when I run
them at medium pressures, 60PSI.
------------
Alex

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
In article ,
says...

Compared to a stock bike with no shocks:
Does a bike with shock fork on front only or mountain bike with
stocks - front &rear, afford any noticeable improvement for absorbing
bumps for street or side walk riding - about 15 miles one trip ?
(Poor , much uneven pavement, many smaller pot holes , many bumps)
If so, for city use, must shocks be expensive & require need to change
to narrower slick tires considering only occasional off road use ?
I assume the shocks & tire design must be effective for rough deeper
uneven off road terrain.
Are they of any significant & noticable improvements in soaking up
shock for many smaller uneven surfaces in streets & sidewalks?

I have a Van Dessel Super Fly. It came with a very basic front suspension
set up. I am about to change it out for a rigid fork because I did not think
it's benefits outweighed it drawbacks. The fork is heavy and there is a bit of
left/right slop that is not easy to adjust out. Just make sure you don't go to
some silly skinny tire. This bike came with Rictchey Tom Slick 700X30 tires.
These are a good compromise tire and I really don't need suspension when I run
them at medium pressures, 60PSI.

I also have a Van Dessel Super Fly. Just about the first thing I did
to it was change out the fork. I put on a rigid steel fork (Surly
Cross Check). It saved weight (although it is no lightweight),
eliminated the annoying suspension, eliminated the steering slop that I
never was able to adjust out, and eliminated the cheesy mechanical disk
brake in favor of a nice cantilver brake. It is the best thing I have
done to that bike, and I have done a lot to it (switched to drop
handlebars, added fenders, switched to a caliper rear brake). I am
happy enough with the ride quality on rough roads running the tires at
around 80 psi. The suspension fork didn't really make it noticably
better, but that should be tempered by the fact that it wasn't a very
good suspension fork.

Later,
Mark Muller

Per :
The suspension fork didn't really make it noticably
better, but that should be tempered by the fact that it wasn't a very
good suspension fork.

I'd say that the followup qualification is relevant.

I'm not a very experienced road rider, but I've tried the ride to work three
ways:

- FS
- Hardtail
- Rigid (original StumpJumper...)

My experience is that the FS is overkill (the 55/55 tires don't help either...),
the hardtail with sus post and 80 psi 1.25" tires works, and the rigid beats me
to death - even with 2.1" tires.

OTOH, at least half of that ride is non-paved....
--
PeteCresswell