REVIEWS DEALS BIKESHOPS TRAILS

Spot: Pre-DW Link or DW Link?

2121 Views 29 Replies 15 Participants Last post by Mr Pink, Jun 25, 2009

IvanMTB

Discussion Starter · Jun 19, 2009

Hi All,

Just considering to join Turner Riders Familly start looking for Spot frames to make All Mountain/Enduro build up.
My general question is which Spot would be better suited for AM/EN riding with 140-150mm forks: 2007-2008 pre DW Link or 2009 DW Link?

Cheers!
I.

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

Mtn. Biker123

· #2 · Jun 19, 2009

I think most serious AM/EN riders are pretty set with adjustable travel 160mm forks on their DW's.

SSINGA

· #3 · Jun 19, 2009

If you have the budget go DW, otherwise there is nothing wrong with the TNT/Horst bikes.

IvanMTB

Discussion Starter · #4 · Jun 19, 2009

Mtn. Biker123 said:
I think most serious AM/EN riders are pretty set with adjustable travel 160mm forks on their DW's.

...so I think that I'm not so serious 'cause I think 140-150mm would be more than enough

Budget is stil under construction so we shall see.
Cheers!

I.

Mtn. Biker123

· #5 · Jun 19, 2009

IanMTB said:
...so I think that I'm not so serious 'cause I think 140-150mm would be more than enough

Budget is stil under construction so we shall see.
Cheers!

I.

Ok, then:thumbsup:

Personally, I think the stiffness/longer AtoC of a big fork would complement the DW much better than the noodly Fox 140 that I test rode. It truly felt unbalanced. If you are building a bike around the fork, then you are already going in the wrong direction...IMO.

That said, I think that the older generation 5spot would be better suited for 140-150mm of travel. My reasoning is that I like a slacker HA and the DW ride much higher than other designs.

IvanMTB

Discussion Starter · #6 · Jun 19, 2009

Hi,
It is not exactly like you think...
I'm not building bike around particular fork. I'm just not strong, skilled and brave enough to make a good use of 160mm of travel and slack head angle. And from the other hand 120mm and 70 (ish) deg. is to short and to steep for me.

Cheers!
I.

Mtn. Biker123

· #7 · Jun 19, 2009

IanMTB said:
Hi,
It is not exactly like you think...
I'm not building bike around particular fork. I'm just not strong, skilled and brave enough to make a good use of 160mm of travel and slack head angle. And from the other hand 120mm and 70 (ish) deg. is to short and to steep for me.

Cheers!
I.

Strength, skill, and bravery are relative to the individual as are most opinions.

I don't think you would be "over" forking yourself by going with something along the lines of a Lyric and it would give you that much more confidence if you decide to go agro AM.

moosehead

· #8 · Jun 19, 2009

IanMTB, if you can find a TNT or Horst Spot in good shape, they generally are no brainers from a cost/benefit perspective and match to a 140/150 fork really well. See recent thread from Cutthroat.

If you are leaning towards an older version, say 04/05 Horst link Spot, then plan on upgrading rockers to 5.5 or Push, which again complement a 140/150 fork.

As others indicate above:.

If you got the dough,
then by all means go,
with the DWL,
which doesn't blow.

IvanMTB

Discussion Starter · #9 · Jun 19, 2009

Many thanks gentlemen!

I'll check this thread.
Cheers!
I.

miles e

· #10 · Jun 19, 2009

The '09 Spot is designed to handle a longer fork than earlier models were- it is now approved for up to a 160mm fork. Additionally, the DW link does a superb job of keeping the rear end from squatting/the front end from lifting up on climbs, which makes the new bikes all the more cut out for a longer fork. This is to say nothing of the DW Link's effect on the performance of the rear suspension, where it is a marked improvement according to most who have ridden it. I know I'm very pleased with my DW Sultan.

Add it all up and the '09 Spot is hard to beat for what you're looking for.

rippling over canyons

· #11 · Jun 19, 2009

For comparison to the other posters, I have a 140 mm Pike on a DW Spot and do not feel "underforked."

Cannonball

· #12 · Jun 20, 2009

I have an 08 Spot with a 32 Vanilla R (140) QR. I have a set of QR15 lowers just waiting for the King conversion. I hope the QR15 conversion stiffens it up.

I think in retrospect, a 36 reduced to 150 or the 32 TALAS QR15 (150) might have been a better option for me.

LncNuvue

· #13 · Jun 20, 2009

Mtn. Biker123 said:
I think most serious AM/EN riders are pretty set with adjustable travel 160mm forks on their DW's.

Dude, I'm so serious that I'm serious about being serious

. I ride ugly terrain weekly and have hit some ugly shite you can relate to with my 140 Pike on the deedub spot... think goat camp:thumbsup:. A bigger fork would have been better on that terrain but I made due, had a blast and would ride it again with the same setup. However, now a days I'm thinking about going to the Marz 55ATA micro, Lyrik solo air or 36 Float fixed at 150 so my seriousness is ready to step it up. Lots of people may say they will be riding AM but never touch true AM trails. Your idea of AM is really AM so recommending a bigger fork makes sense. But if they're skilled they'll be fine with 140 in most situations. If not so skilled it's more likely, but not certain, that they are also not that fit. So they'll probably enjoy the lighter fork so they can pedal faster on their buffed AM trails

, IMO just steer clear of the Fox 32QR (do they even make that QR BS anymore

)

BTW - the DW rides low in the travel if you set it up with enough sag. I found the bike to feel noticably lower at the bb than my ciclon did.

See less See more

wheatgerm

· #14 · Jun 20, 2009

Well, here's the way I look at it - the Turner build kits spec a 140mm fork and not a 160mm Fox 36. If the Spot was better suited to a 160mm fork, I think DT would have specced it with a 160! Last time I checked, DT knows what he is doing.

If you need 160 mm, you need an RFX.

DW vs non-DW, I think this is mostly a money question. You WILL be happy with either though.

Mtn. Biker123

· #15 · Jun 20, 2009

Seriously?

LncNuvue said:
Dude, I'm so serious that I'm serious about being serious. I ride ugly terrain weekly and have hit some ugly shite you can relate to with my 140 Pike on the deedub spot... think goat camp:thumbsup:. A bigger fork would have been better on that terrain but I made due, had a blast and would ride it again with the same setup. However, now a days I'm thinking about going to the Marz 55ATA micro, Lyrik solo air or 36 Float fixed at 150 so my seriousness is ready to step it up. Lots of people may say they will be riding AM but never touch true AM trails. Your idea of AM is really AM so recommending a bigger fork makes sense. But if they're skilled they'll be fine with 140 in most situations. If not so skilled it's more likely, but not certain, that they are also not that fit. So they'll probably enjoy the lighter fork so they can pedal faster on their buffed AM trails, IMO just steer clear of the Fox 32QR (do they even make that QR BS anymore)

BTW - the DW rides low in the travel if you set it up with enough sag. I found the bike to feel noticably lower at the bb than my ciclon did.

I had no idea you were running a 140. Just wait until you get "over" forked

You might as well just go ahead and put yourself on the waiting list for the RFX

SSINGA

· #16 · Jun 20, 2009

wheatgerm said:
Well, here's the way I look at it - the Turner build kits spec a 140mm fork and not a 160mm Fox 36. If the Spot was better suited to a 160mm fork, I think DT would have specced it with a 160! Last time I checked, DT knows what he is doing.

If you need 160 mm, you need an RFX.

DW vs non-DW, I think this is mostly a money question. You WILL be happy with either though.

Don't knock it until you try it. A Fox 36 doesn't automatically make you a freerider who needs a RFX type of bike.

LncNuvue

· #17 · Jun 20, 2009

Mtn. Biker123 said:
I had no idea you were running a 140. Just wait until you get "over" forked You might as well just go ahead and put yourself on the waiting list for the RFX

I can handle getting "over" forked... but getting forked over is not so bueno

.

Mtn. Biker123

· #18 · Jun 20, 2009

LncNuvue said:
I can handle getting "over" forked... but getting forked over is not so bueno.

I guess that would depend on who's doing the forking:lol: :drumroll:

LncNuvue

· #19 · Jun 20, 2009

Mtn. Biker123 said:
I guess that would depend on who's doing the forking:lol: :drumroll:

No way - Priceless :thumbsup:

miles e

· #20 · Jun 20, 2009

wheatgerm said:
Last time I checked, DT knows what he is doing.

If you need 160 mm, you need an RFX.

Last time I talked to DT he was experimenting with a Lyric U-Turn on his Spot so he could find his personal sweet spot in terms of front travel (i.e. something more than 140mm travel, 515mm A2C).

He does know what he is doing, which is why he recognizes that a wide range of riders will find themselves on a given model (especially one as "middle of the road" as the Spot), and designs the bikes accordingly. This typically means designing them around the shortest fork that might be used, otherwise its use would result in the HTA becoming uncomfortably steep/the BB height unridably low.

The real beauty of this is that each bike in the lineup is practically "two bikes for the price of one", depending on what fork is used, and in turn component and wheelset choice. For example, the Spot could be built up as a 27 lb. XC machine, or a 31 lb. AM weapon. The choice is yours. :thumbsup:

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.