# Full-Suspension Pedals Hit Ground



## benm5678 (Jun 30, 2007)

Hi,

I rode mt. trails for about a year with a hard-tail (Gary Fisher HKEK).

Switched to the Gary Fisher Hifi Deluxe full-suspension bike recently.

One negative thing i'm noticing is that my pedals hit the ground/obstacles more with this new bike.... it makes sense I guess, since the rear axle is abosorbing the hit, it keeps the center of the frame low to the ground, instead of lifting up the whole bike as a hard-tail would do.

...anyone had the same experience ? I thought full-susp is the way to go with mt. biking... but this is a major disadvantage. btw, the distance from the pedal (at the lowest position) to the ground is the same in both bikes... I guess I'll play with the sag adjustment some more on the RP3 shock and see if it helps, but i set it now according to the recommendation (20-30% sag), and if i make it more firm, it helps a little, but takes away from the smoothness of the ride.

Thanks for any insights 
-Ben


----------



## jcbikeski (Nov 26, 2005)

I assume when you're not pedalling (going downhill) that you're keeping pedals close to the 3 and 9 o'clock positions. If so then I assume you're hittng just when pedalling up a rocky hill??? When climbing a rocky hill it's not uncommon to have to pay attention to pedal position and either hold a stroke for a second or even back pedal just to keep the pedals clear of an extra big rock. FS bikes might aggravate this a bit, but regardless you need to get the hang of being aware of pedal position when climbing rocky stuff.


----------



## 006_007 (Jan 12, 2004)

Hi Ben,

You mention that the distance from the pedal (at the lowest position) to the ground is the same in both bikes - I am assuming this is measured when you are not on the bike? When you sit on the bike the suspension will compress down - and your new FS bike will effectively have a lower bottom bracket. This is desireable as it lowers your centre of gravity, and it can be easier fo flick the bike around.

A modification in your riding style will be required to take advantage of this. When cornering it will be more necesary to have the cranks level, and when pedaling through technical sections you might have to employ the back pedal perodically to avoid hitting something with a crank/pedal.

You will fully appreciate the benefits on fast rough downhill sections where you can just let the bike go and not worry about pedalling as much.



benm5678 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I rode mt. trails for about a year with a hard-tail (Gary Fisher HKEK).
> 
> ...


----------



## benm5678 (Jun 30, 2007)

Yea, the distance was the same with me not on the bikes...

on downhill, no problem... I keep them at 3 & 9 and use the momentum to go over obstacles.... FSB kicks ass in this scenerio over my old hard-tail...

but the up hill technical sections are when i encounter this more... I need to pedal hard to get through them, and there's not much time to think about pedal position, especially if it's a climb over several roots and bumps in a row... I like the back-pedaling idea... I will try to employ that next time I ride and see if it helps...

One thing I learned with my short experience with biking, is that it's hard to get the perfect bike for all terrain, they all have their pros/cons.


----------



## jonny290 (May 8, 2007)

Maybe upgrade to a rear shock with lockout?
I have no personal experience with them, but supposedly they help on climbs.


----------



## hiredgun (Jun 6, 2007)

Stick with the adjustment to FS, I've been FS since 98 and still firmly believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I love the technical trails (where FS shines) as it keeps me interested as opposed to just knocking down miles on the pavement.

Full Suspension bikes are quite a bit faster in the rough than hard tails or rigids and you may not realize that you going thru bigger obstacles faster than before because now you can with confidence. 

You are correct that the suspension action lowers the BB and therefor you can hit your pedals on things that would clear if the sus where topped out. 

The common technique is to pedal between bumps and flatten out the pedals (9+3) while you coast thru the big stuff that could snag you. The more you ride any particular bike the better you will read the terrain and this will become second nature. 

When you have to pedal thru the rough, you will get in the habit of timing your pedal placement around the obstacles (this is true with any bike design). A quick little back stroke allows you to put the pedals where they need to be. 

I find this easier with clip-in pedals as opposed to platforms but the technique is the same. 

On my new bike I went with shorter crank arms to maximise my pedal to ground clearance, but I don't think that 5mm really means much when I'm running over 12' rocks and tree roots LOL. 

My bike has 6.4" travel with a tall BB with a long wheelbase. It is stable and fast at speed but isn't as nimble in the rough slow stuff, Like you said everythings a compromise. The more I ride my new bike the more I love and trust its strengths and the more adept I am at working around its weaknesses. 

I sure you will have the same experience:thumbsup:


----------



## benm5678 (Jun 30, 2007)

just wanted to say thanks for all the advice !! ...looks like i got some riding skills to work on


----------



## antonio (Jan 18, 2005)

I wouldn't discount all FS bikes because your hi-fi has a low bottom bracket height . Different frames have diff't dimensions, and depending on the types of trails you ride you may have been better off with a fs frame with a higher bb (assuming you set up the sag correctly on your hi-fi). I know I HATED my 2004 sj fsr because of the unavoidable pedal strikes due to the low bb (lots of rocks, boulders, roots here in the NE). I learned to compensate, but after a season I switched to a frame with a bb that was over an inch higher, and that problem went away. As 006_007 said, there are advantages to lower bb's, but they are not worth it to me when taking into account where I ride.

BTW - my wifes etsx has a 13.75" bb height. i think it's ridiculously tall but she likes it.

Ant


----------



## benm5678 (Jun 30, 2007)

my hifi is a 12.8" BB height according to the specs...
what's the height on the bike you liked better ? 

i'll try to stiffen up the shock... the psi according to my weight should be 110. but when I go by the sag method i have to drop to 75psi... maybe i'll start with the 110psi, and decrease slowly...


----------



## antonio (Jan 18, 2005)

13.5 (my Yeti). My wife's etsx is 13.75.

Ant


----------



## Strafer (Jun 7, 2004)

taller forks will solve your problem.


----------

