We hear a lot now, people... wanting bikes that are more rearward, but there's also maybe more feedback now from riders about how your geometry is changing as you go through things, which is not always a good thing.

I think we ended up in a middle point of where a lot of our competitors kind of came and went.

That makes sense, right? Like we understood just what we wanted to get out of it in terms of the off the top bump eating, uh, gooiness we wanted out of the bike without sacrificing the rider feedback at their feet with the caveat that we didn't want an ultra sluggish bike or something that really impacted dynamic geo.

We don't want something that all of a sudden pushes the rider on the front of the bike if it goes negative 40, something like that, 40 mils back.

The bike has 200 millimeters of travel.

Did you try going to more than that at all? There's certain leverage rates that, yeah, went to longer travel lengths.

We ended up on something that's, quote unquote, traditional in sense of travel.

Was this something that you guys had always been thinking about wanting to have part of the new demo? Or was it more something that came into the equation as you started to develop like the kinematic and suspension design that would become production?