Mountain Biking - Trek Y11 - Upgrade Suspension

I have a 1997 Trek Y11 and wondered if anyone had any opinions on whether it was worth upgrading the front or rear shocks and if so, what products do you recommend? Currently, the rear shock is working fine, but the front needs to either be rebuilt or replaced.

According to some quick research, the Y11 came with a RockShox JudyXC. Is that correct? There are some rebuild kits out there for the Judy shocks. You may even want to consider the TotalAir kit which will upgrade the fork to an air fork for $100 but I'm not sure I'd bother. A new Judy XC is around $180 to $200. For that price, I would suggest a Marzocchi EXR Pro ($200) instead. If you're looking to upgrade but stay in the $300 pricerange, I might suggest something like a Fox Vanilla R (~$350). You can also find last year's RockShox Psylo SLs for around the $300 mark. A new Psylo XC is around $350. A Manitou Black Elite 100 is also $350. If you really want to go cheap, I see that JensonUSA has a 2003 Manitou Axel 80 for $79. It's comparable to the Judy.

My 1997 Trek Y11 currently has the following on it:

Front - Rock Shox Judy X-C, 80 mm travel
Rear - Fox Air Vanilla

To be completely and painfully honest I'd get a new bike as just don't belive that yours is worth upgrading. The Y frame wasn't that good of a design to begin with and has been FAR surpassed by everybody. In fact the main manufacturer still using the "Y" design are the lovely folks that supply the local Wal-Mart - Pacific.

Truthfully by the time you've upgrade the shocks you are well into half of the cost of a new bike (figuring in labor and all). I agree that it may be time to bid her farewell, clean it up sell it for a couple hundred and take the $400 you would have spent on suspension and apply it towards a newer bike! I think you'll be amazed at how much suspension has improved since the Y frame days.

Yeah, I know, I should replace it. It's just that it is such nice light frame and has been a great bike all along. I probably will replace it at the end of this season, besides good shocks are expensive as heck.

I've never been a big fan of URT bikes, especially the Trek Y-frames, although the Maverick ML7 has managed to bring URT a long way to being acceptable. However, if someone is happy riding them then who's to say what's right or wrong for them? Many people also bag on my single-pivot bike too but I'm quite happy with it and the shock does a good job at preventing pedal-induced bobbing.

No bob, no traction. Gotta have some bob on the uphill dirt.

No bob, no traction. Gotta have some bob on the uphill dirt.

This is untrue. If it were, then hardtails would not be able to climb better than full-suspension rigs.

No bob, no traction. Gotta have some bob on the uphill dirt.
Wow who told you that load of crap?

You guys got it wrong. Ask any professional racer that uses rear suspension, and they will tell you that you need some little amount of bob. When climbing up a hill, if you hit a bump and you are on a hard tail, the bike bumps too and you lose traction, if there is a shock that responds, you maintain traction. The reason hardtails climb better is that most rear suspension, or at least the older versions, had too much bob and a susbsequent loss of power. I am not saying you want a lot of bob, I am saying you want just a little bit to maintain contact with the ground. A well built FS bike, with a minimal amount off bob in the back (just a little) will out climb a hardtail anyday.

BTW, I recently had this conversation with one of the most accomplished racers and bike builders in the nation and he is in my camp.

Wouldnt a fully active FS bike with no bob when it hits a bump absorb the bump and keep on going. Not losing any traction?

You guys got it wrong. Ask any professional racer that uses rear suspension, and they will tell you that you need some little amount of bob. When climbing up a hill, if you hit a bump and you are on a hard tail, the bike bumps too and you lose traction, if there is a shock that responds, you maintain traction. The reason hardtails climb better is that most rear suspension, or at least the older versions, had too much bob and a susbsequent loss of power. I am not saying you want a lot of bob, I am saying you want just a little bit to maintain contact with the ground. A well built FS bike, with a minimal amount off bob in the back (just a little) will out climb a hardtail anyday.
Then explain why the bike industry spends millions of dollars each year on ways to PREVENT bob?
http://www.specialized.com/sbc4Bar.jsp?a=b
http://www.giant-bicycles.com/uk/050.000.000/050.030.500.asp
http://www.foxracingshox.com/website/ProductList.asp?Market=MBike&SubCategoryId=10
etc etc
It probably also explains why the current World Cup Champion Filip Meirhaeghe
rides a Specialized Epic S-Works (http://www.specialized.com/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=6789&JServSessionIdroot=zub5igd5yx.j27005)

You don't have a clue of what your talking about at all.

BTW, I recently had this conversation with one of the most accomplished racers and bike builders in the nation and he is in my camp.
Just who might than be? Paul Teutle Sr?

This is from page 4 of the Moots history:

"These days, everyone is anti-bob, but I don't get it: If you have zero bob, you've also got zero traction on climbs. Having some bob is a good thing. I think people are just starting to realize that."

See http://www.moots.com/history.php

Im still fairly new to the sport so im not going to pretend like i know what im talking about but i do understand why bob is less efficeint pedaling wise but your argument about a hardtail hitting a bump doesnt make sense. Any active full suspension w/ bob or not, will as you say "if there is a shock that responds, you maintain traction."

this debate can go on forever... in actuality different riders climb with different styles. some may benefit from a miniscule amount of bob, whereas some may prefer the rigidity of a hardtail. many factors can contribute to this including how the bike is set up, what terrain, what tires... it's no question, though, that having too much bob will rob the rider of pedaling energy.

Any time chain torque causes the suspension to move, part of your energy is going into the suspension and not into forward momentum. As an example:


Fully Active.
Because FSR suspension is free to compress & rebound in an uninhibited manner, it delivers maximum comfort, control, and efficiency. Therefore, it is always working for you. To provide the maximum performance advantage, suspension must be free to compress and rebound any time there are bump or dip forces. Through the independent nature of the design, FSR suspension yields travel without restriction from chain or brake forces. Responsive enough for the small bumps, robust enough to suck up the big impacts. Whether you’re pedaling or not, braking or not, seated or standing, FSR 4-bar linkage is fully active any time the terrain is bumpy.

Fully Independent.
The suspension works all by itself in bumpy conditions. This means two things. First, chain loads have virtually no effect on suspension. Even under heavy pedal load, the suspension is virtually unaffected by chain force. Second, rear suspension motion has virtually no effect on pedal stroke. This means that there is no suspension-induced pedal “kick back” or “drop away” as the suspension absorbs bumps. The linkage works with you, not against you. By dialing-in the pivot placement within the FSR system, the FSR design is almost completely neutral.

The idea is for your suspension to reamain active so that it can absorb bumps while not sucking your pedalling effort into the working of the suspension. I don't know what the hell they've been smoking over at Moots but they have the terms "bobbing" and "Active suspension" confused