How does the product team decide on how much front and rear wheel travel a bike will have for the targeted category?

Is the bike's purpose governed by the fork travel or the frame's suspension design (travel and characteristics)?

Why might less rear-wheel travel be desired?

Rear wheel travel is typically measured perpendicular from the ground, and fork travel is measured by the length that the stanchion slides. That makes sense from a fork sales perspective since the bike's head tube angle dictates the vertical front wheel travel. Do you take geometry or the type of rear suspension design into account when pairing a fork of "x" length with the rear wheel travel? For example, some short-travel high-pivot bikes have up to 20mm less rear wheel travel than the fork, but on the trail, that can feel more equal than what the numbers state.

This balance can differ between bike categories, such as a trail bike that might have 150mm and 140mm of travel front and rear, versus downhill or freeride bikes that typically have equal numbers (200mm front and rear wheel travel). Can you comment on why longer-travel bikes are commonly found to have equal front and rear wheel travel?

How does the product team decide on how much front and rear wheel travel a bike will have for the targeted category?

Is the bike's purpose governed by the fork travel or the frame's suspension design (travel and characteristics)?

Why might less rear-wheel travel be desired?

Rear wheel travel is typically measured perpendicular from the ground, and fork travel is measured by the length that the stanchion slides. That makes sense from a fork sales perspective since the bike's head tube angle dictates the vertical front wheel travel. Do you take geometry or the type of rear suspension design into account when pairing a fork of "x" length with the rear wheel travel? For example, some short-travel high-pivot bikes have up to 20mm less rear wheel travel than the fork, but on the trail, that can feel more equal than what the numbers state.

This balance can differ between bike categories, such as a trail bike that might have 150mm and 140mm of travel front and rear, versus downhill or freeride bikes that typically have equal numbers (200mm front and rear wheel travel). Can you comment on why longer-travel bikes are commonly found to have equal front and rear wheel travel?

How does the product team decide on how much front and rear wheel travel a bike will have for the targeted category?

Is the bike's purpose governed by the fork travel or the frame's suspension design (travel and characteristics)?

Why might less rear-wheel travel be desired?

Rear wheel travel is typically measured perpendicular from the ground, and fork travel is measured by the length that the stanchion slides. That makes sense from a fork sales perspective since the bike's head tube angle dictates the vertical front wheel travel. Do you take geometry or the type of rear suspension design into account when pairing a fork of "x" length with the rear wheel travel? For example, some short-travel high-pivot bikes have up to 20mm less rear wheel travel than the fork, but on the trail, that can feel more equal than what the numbers state.

How does the product team decide on how much front and rear wheel travel a bike will have for the targeted category?

Is the bike's purpose governed by the fork travel or the frame's suspension design (travel and characteristics)?

Why might less rear-wheel travel be desired?

Rear wheel travel is typically measured perpendicular from the ground, and fork travel is measured by the length that the stanchion slides. That makes sense from a fork sales perspective since the bike's head tube angle dictates the vertical front wheel travel. Do you take geometry or the type of rear suspension design into account when pairing a fork of "x" length with the rear wheel travel? For example, some short-travel high-pivot bikes have up to 20mm less rear wheel travel than the fork, but on the trail, that can feel more equal than what the numbers state.

This balance can differ between bike categories, such as a trail bike that might have 150mm and 140mm of travel front and rear, versus downhill or freeride bikes that typically have equal numbers (200mm front and rear wheel travel). Can you comment on why longer-travel bikes are commonly found to have equal front and rear wheel travel?

How does the product team decide on how much front and rear wheel travel a bike will have for the targeted category?

Is the bike's purpose governed by the fork travel or the frame's suspension design (travel and characteristics)?

Why might less rear-wheel travel be desired?

Rear wheel travel is typically measured perpendicular from the ground, and fork travel is measured by the length that the stanchion slides. That makes sense from a fork sales perspective since the bike's head tube angle dictates the vertical front wheel travel. Do you take geometry or the type of rear suspension design into account when pairing a fork of "x" length with the rear wheel travel? For example, some short-travel high-pivot bikes have up to 20mm less rear wheel travel than the fork, but on the trail, that can feel more equal than what the numbers state.

This balance can differ between bike categories, such as a trail bike that might have 150mm and 140mm of travel front and rear, versus downhill or freeride bikes that typically have equal numbers (200mm front and rear wheel travel). Can you comment on why longer-travel bikes are commonly found to have equal front and rear wheel travel?

How does the product team decide on how much front and rear wheel travel a bike will have for the targeted category?

Is the bike's purpose governed by the fork travel or the frame's suspension design (travel and characteristics)?

Why might less rear-wheel travel be desired?

Rear wheel travel is typically measured perpendicular from the ground, and fork travel is measured by the length that the stanchion slides. That makes sense from a fork sales perspective since the bike's head tube angle dictates the vertical front wheel travel. Do you take geometry or the type of rear suspension design into account when pairing a fork of "x" length with the rear wheel travel? For example, some short-travel high-pivot bikes have up to 20mm less rear wheel travel than the fork, but on the trail, that can feel more equal than what the numbers state.

This balance can differ between bike categories, such as a trail bike that might have 150mm and 140mm of travel front and rear, versus downhill or freeride bikes that typically have equal numbers (200mm front and rear wheel travel). Can you comment on why longer-travel bikes are commonly found to have equal front and rear wheel travel?