Folding Bikes - Thudbuster LT vs. ST ( long travel vs. short travel )

Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.



PDA
bike8usa
04-09-06, 10:34 PM
Been looking at Thudbusters. I understand that LT has 4 in. of travel whereas ST has 1.3 in. of travel. I have been told that LT is more for trail riding and that ST is more for road. Now, I am just wondering anyone has tried both and what is your opinion. Or, why you chose one over the other?

Thanks.

Wavshrdr
04-10-06, 12:15 AM
Buy the LT. It works great and can take the edge off really big hits better. Also it is cheaper to buy the elastomers and is easier to tune.
trentschler
04-10-06, 04:44 AM
I have two STs, which I like very much. The ST is a little lighter, and my thought was that the ST would have plenty of travel for road riding. I suppose if you regularly ride on very rough roads or pave, then the LT would be more appropriate. For the occasional rough patch in NYC, the ST works fine.

Crankypants
04-10-06, 05:37 AM
How would the LT compare in comfort to a sprung Brook's saddle? Would it be overkill to use them both together?
Crankypants
04-10-06, 05:39 AM
If you use the Dahon model thudbuster to fit a Swift, will it only fit a Dahon saddle?
trentschler
04-10-06, 07:57 PM
How would the LT compare in comfort to a sprung Brook's saddle? Would it be overkill to use them both together?

It would be heavy to use them both together, and unnecessary. A Thudbuster and Brooks B.17 (steel or Ti rails) is lighter than a regular seatpost and sprung Brooks. Either combo will do the job.