Da müsste man jetzt mal wissen, wo die Priorität lag, auf komplette Federwegsnutzung?
Ich hab den Artikel nochmal überflogen. Es wird dort Recht genau beschrieben.
Hier ein paar Zitate, OK ist der halbe Artikel.
Something I picked up quite early on is the more experience the rider had in regards to testing the more likely they were to challenge the ideals that the system suggests. It's of course a very good question. Can an objective perfect setup exist? Or is that data-derived setup just a way to fall in line with somebody else's subjective outlook?
BYB takes the approach that fastest is best.
The beauty of a system like this is how much it lets you maximize setup. However, that hyperfocus can mean that you end up riding close to the limit in terms of travel used. This might not be the best case if you go and find yourself riding something very different in the future. I found setups that worked exceptionally well on almost all tracks but, for instance, I love riding fast trails that are more classic racetracks than creeping-steep slabs. Where my bike would handle the repetitive hits incredibly well, it would also often be flying quite close to the sun in regards to bottom-out and would be somewhat unsuited to slower trails with single, very large compressions.
That said, no setup is perfect. If you wanted a halfway house between the two you would just have to find a test track that offered it, or hedge your bets and stray away from the data-led approach slightly. I have tended to prioritise getting bikes feeling absolutely-unbelievably-good on 95% of the trails I ride, and slightly too soft for the trails I hardly venture onto, rather than very good for everything. It's a personal approach though.
The setup I have ended up on is incredibly fast, and a lot softer than anything I've ever gone to previously.
A fork with a softer spring rate will require less rebound damping to offer a similar level of control. It will also mean that the same hit will send the unit deeper into its stroke, meaning that it can make do with a lower amount of rebound damping as its return stroke is longer and will cycle more oil through the damper, giving the damper more of an opportunity to slow shaft speed. The softer, faster fork will extend into bumps and holes more easily because it has more extension available. It will also be happier to go into its stroke. Both of these factors mean that although the head angle might change dynamically, the head tube height will change less.
I would summarise the BYB-derived setup as having enough spring rate that you can get to around 80% of travel with ease in the carpark, and if you go deep off a large drop and land evenly you will use around 90% of your travel. It suggests incredibly fast rebound tunes to then return to full extension before the next hit arrives. This means your fork is far more active, but it is a trade-off, and it's not universally better.