[ad_1]
The most notable feature of the Sight’s design is the length of the base. At 462mm, it’s a bit longer than most e-bikes these days. This means it’s really balanced and composed in fast, flat, or camber-less turns because it’s easy to keep a lot of weight on the front contact zone. The fork is always loaded and pushes the tire into the ground, generating consistent grip with a neutral or even slightly backward riding position. The long rear end puts more load on the fork, which is part of the reason I had to set it up firmly enough to hold it in and keep it from hitting bottom.
The downside to this whole room in the back is that the bike is a piece of manual and bunnyhop, even by e-bike standards. I like a longer chainstay on a pedal bike, but combined with the hefty battery that stretches out in front of the bottom bracket shell, it makes the front wheel’s job very difficult. Sure, I can jump this bike and I can bring it to the balance point in a manual, but it’s a lot more effort, takes more planning, and I can’t get over some obstacles than I could with a shorter rear center. I consider myself pretty good at bunnyhops, and being 190cm is a clear advantage here too, so for smaller or less experienced riders the long center back could be even more limiting when it comes to cycling so dynamic.
Also, on steep terrain with rocky steps or small drops in the turns, I don’t always feel completely centered on the bike, like my weight is too much far to the front sometimes. Could be improved with a higher hanger, but I think the base is a bit longer than ideal for steep terrain. There’s always a backhand, and in this case, that’s superb high-speed stability and calm cornering on flatter or less technical terrain. The Sight likes to go fast and does very well on berm trails, jumps and flat turns, but it’s more difficult work on tough rocky sections where you want to lift the front wheel and on trail specs. .
The shock comes with no volume spacers installed which in my opinion resulted in a bit too easy bottoming out of the bike and at the same time the smoothness on small bumps was not too impressive by standards. electric bikes. I’ve tried easing the compression at low speeds to improve sensitivity to small bumps and increasing the compression at high speeds to remove energy from big hits, but what worked best was to add a volume spacer and reduce the pressure slightly. It’s not the most plow type, but it does offer good flexibility without hitting bottom too often when so set up.
Overall, the front and rear suspensions work well together, providing a good balance of sensitivity and support. The Fox 36 e-MTB fork has a more robust crown and thicker post walls than the regular 36 (this results in a smaller piston area, which means higher spring pressures); it never feels flexible or overwhelmed by large holes or square-edged impacts. However, I can’t help but think that the bike would perform better with a little more travel, especially since the actual travel is a little less than 150mm from my measurements.
The rigid mass of the electric bike frame greatly facilitates the use of all trips on big hits compared to a pedal bike; as a result you have to run the suspension a bit stiffer so the dive and brake vulture are less of a problem and the pedal bob doesn’t really matter at all. Norco’s Range VLT, which has 20mm more travel at each end, would be a better bet in my eyes, as the extra travel has very little downside on an electric bike. If anything, more rear travel also makes the manual easier, as the rear suspension squats into its travel when you manual it, which helps the bike tip back. Try manual with your shock locked if you are not convinced. But it’s the long length of the Sight’s base that is the main issue for me. Combined with the weight, this dulls responsiveness in some situations and, in my opinion, dampens the fun a bit too.
[ad_2]
Source link