so much win.
Fail marketing? I rather say fail maths since they say in their pb article that the force needed to activate a shock sans spring is 60in/lb and now it's 0. Last time I checked you are not supposed to divide by zerolol...Rock Shox really stinks...most rider wouldnt be able to tell the difference, yet this things is 60 times better than its predecessor... 60 times???!!! So, you're saying the old Vivid was absolute garbage? I mean 60 times is like A LOT !
lol, epic fail, the product and NOW the marketing
The chamber pressure acts on the cross sectional area of the shaft and produces spring forces additional to the spring itself. Some details and rough calculations here if you're interested.I thought coil springs didn't need negative springs as they couldn't over extend like an air spring? Adding a negative spring seems like compensation for a ****ty leverage curve.
Im really curious about this. Is it because of the smaller dia. shaft of the ccdb? I have a ccdb atm in my V10, and upon setting up sag, BO bumper is right at the 1/3ish mark (just swapped out to a 50 lbs softer Ti spring today, hence the remeasuring of sag, previously about 28-30%). Would upping LSC help with wallow at the initial, better pedaling?With that said, a lot of modern DH bikes these days have a fairly strong progression component at the beginning of stroke (i.e. high initial leverage ratio) which more than sufficiently compensates for this extra resistance in most cases - to the point where swapping out something like an RC4 to something quite free moving (like a CCDB/Stoy) will actually result in the bike using its initial travel excessively easily.
I'd argue that in many current cases it's possibly detrimental in terms of wallowing / wasting travel and complicates tuning. Unfortunately the MTB world will probably always be a back and forth battle between suspension and frames trying to compensate for each other.
With that said, a lot of modern DH bikes these days have a fairly strong progression component at the beginning of stroke (i.e. high initial leverage ratio) which more than sufficiently compensates for this extra resistance in most cases - to the point where swapping out something like an RC4 to something quite free moving (like a CCDB/Stoy) will actually result in the bike using its initial travel excessively easily.
I'd argue that in many current cases it's possibly detrimental in terms of wallowing / wasting travel and complicates tuning. Unfortunately the MTB world will probably always be a back and forth battle between suspension and frames trying to compensate for each other.
Pretty much, yes. The CCDB has a tiny shaft diameter which means very low gas charge force. The RC4 is at the opposite end of the spectrum, with quite a large shaft (close to double the diameter, meaning about four times the gas charge force). LSC will help reduce wallowing, but the V10 when run at high sag is an especially soft frame.Im really curious about this. Is it because of the smaller dia. shaft of the ccdb? I have a ccdb atm in my V10, and upon setting up sag, BO bumper is right at the 1/3ish mark (just swapped out to a 50 lbs softer Ti spring today, hence the remeasuring of sag, previously about 28-30%). Would upping LSC help with wallow at the initial, better pedaling?
Just wanted to hear your thoughts on it; will ride this Sun, if this feels too soft Ill go back to my firmer setup...
It basically goes as follows:When you speak of how frames and dampers will always be a constant battle compensating for each other, is this due to all the gimmicky linkage/leverage curves/different frame designs? Are you speaking in terms that other "machines" that use dampers don't have to struggle with the variety applications? I've wondered about that before while my mind wanders at "work". lol For instance, in regards to motocross bikes would a KTM 450 SX-F have a different linkage and leverage ratio than a Honda CRF 450R? Requiring a tune favorable to the platform, much how rear shock manufacturers optimize the OEM shock to work better with certain frames.
33% sag (at the shock) on a V10 really is a lot - think of it this way, it's about 3.5" of wheel motion. Compare that to the recommended 25-30% sag on an 8" Demo, which gives you 2.0-2.4" of wheel motion, and you begin to see that it is WAY softer off the bat (not that the Demo should necessarily be used as a benchmark, it's just at the other end of the scale). I would say ride it and see what you like, but I suspect you'll find the spring rate is a bit too soft, and that trying to compensate for it too much with either LSC or HSC (both of which will help wallow, both of which will deaden and harshen the ride somewhat) won't net you the ride characteristic you want.@Steve, thanks. I can see your description the V10 being 'soft'. Like I mentioned earlier, setting sag standing/attack position the shock bumper is right around 33%, but when I do the push-down-on-the-saddle thing I can easily use up 75% of the travel. I wanna hear thoughts on if upping too much LSC (16 clicks out of 24/25 clicks) on the V10c will take away the ccdb's ability to eat up the chatter, or is that only the HSC circuits job? I wanna play with HSC when I hit the trails, right now its at 1 turn, as suggested by CC's baseline guide for the V10c...
So is step 3 the best way to go? Rising rate frame design with a standard shimmed damper? (Avalanche for a fancy one, Vanilla RC a more basic)It basically goes as follows:
1. DH frame pedals badly
2. Someone invents platform shock to fix this, which brings along progressive/position sensitive damping, which is intended to help bikes with insufficient progression so that we're no longer riding singlepivots with stupid stiff spring rates.
3. Frame designers go "ah, now we don't need such progressive frames because otherwise frame + shock progression will end up being too much!"
3. Some suspension manufacturer says "no, platform shock bad, speed sensitive shock good" and goes back to the standard purely speed sensitive damper to reduce the stickiness that came with the first progressively damped shocks.
4. Frame designer goes "ok we've designed this frame with a progressive shock in mind", product manager at same company goes "hmm this non-progressive shock is cheaper/more in vogue/got more colours, let's spec that"
And it continues. The best way to develop suspension properly is to match the SPRING, DAMPER and LEVERAGE RATE simultaneously during development.
In my opinion, the ideal setup is a leverage rate designed around a non-progressive shock. My reasoning here is not that progressive shocks are bad, or that they can't match/exceed the performance of a linear one, but that the progression (whether that be spring curve or damping) is always adjustable, which means another variable that needs to be tuned by the end user. Usually more tunability is a good thing (I'm not one of those people who thinks riders shouldn't be messing with their own suspension) but the rate of progression is one of the few things that doesn't need to change substantially between one rider or another.So is step 3 the best way to go? Rising rate frame design with a standard shimmed damper? (Avalanche for a fancy one, Vanilla RC a more basic)
Or does a fancy shimmed damper like the Fox RC4 have more merit once matched to a frame?
We need to buy it. Unless we do it is poor marketing.we are all talking about their product... poor marketing indeed... #sheep
Great explanation. However, I have a small problem with the MX comparison. A MTB is way lighter than a dirt bike, so the percentage that a rider adds to the 'system weight' (bike + rider + gear) is significant higher. While a a dirt bike can be set up for a wider variety of riders from the factory, MTBs are a tougher call. Also you have to consider that because of more % of the weight being in the rider (and therefore creating a higher COG), dynamic weight shifts are harder to predict because the companies don't know the weight of the rider. I have ridden frames that I thought were OK, but heavier friends did feel they lacked mid-stroke compression support (with spring rates adjusted). Not defending the bike industry's lack of co-developed suspension, just pointing out that they might have a more difficult job to do.By contrast, the MX world hasn't really played with progressive springs or dampers to any great degree, and because bikes are sold as completes (not buy frame, byo motor etc) each OEM shock is developed in conjunction with the leverage rate curve it is to be sold with. By taking two variables out of the equation (spring progression and damper progression) and instead manipulating them both simultaneously and proportionally with the leverage rate, the development cycle has been substantially more thorough and refined (it's the equivalent of solving an N by N matrix, where N is the number of variables you're playing with in your suspension - double the number and you've got four times as much problem solving to do). As a result, most people probably couldn't feel the difference between equivalent models offered by most of the big moto brands in terms of suspension performance even to the degree that they could identify the bike they're actually on. However, anyone can feel the difference between a 951 and a 224.
Good advice, and I dealt with this exact same thing today at a Super d race. I had been riding a bunch of slow tight rooty and bumpy trails lately, and I have my CCDB air on my 66 set up really light compression wise. I get to this race today, and it was fast hard packed big berms with g-outs and rollers everywhere. I had to make drastic changes from what I was running. I actually ended up running twice as much LSC, and I put a full turn more of HSC on it as well. Then it worked great. I love having the ability to make adjustments that work without having any negatives that go along with it.To answer your question more directly though, the LSC on the CCDB requires support from the HSC, because that wallowing happens right around the threshold velocities, meaning that without the HSC wound in far enough, you can keep cranking the LSC further and further and all that will happen is that it gets less supple but doesn't offer more support. As it stands I think you may find that it's a good move to increase the HSC and LSC simultaneously if you feel the need for more support, as it will increase the "mid speed" damping (ie resistance right around that threshold between the LS and HS curves) without ending up going overboard on either high or low speed damping.
While this is true, it's not specifically relevant to what I was saying regarding progression. Rider weight is a variable that, with mountain bikes, basically scales up/down linearly, and can be relatively easily catered for by scaling the spring and damping in proportion. The external range of adjustment of most high end DH shocks that feature separate LSC/HSC are capable of covering ~75% of riders in terms of weight variations alone (say from 70kg to 90kg, if riding abilities/aggression are equivalent, on given terrain) if properly valved for a competently developed frame (which they usually aren't anyway, going back to that whole progression thing). Obviously, things differ with less adjustable or lower quality dampers too.Great explanation. However, I have a small problem with the MX comparison. A MTB is way lighter than a dirt bike, so the percentage that a rider adds to the 'system weight' (bike + rider + gear) is significant higher. While a a dirt bike can be set up for a wider variety of riders from the factory, MTBs are a tougher call. Also you have to consider that because of more % of the weight being in the rider (and therefore creating a higher COG), dynamic weight shifts are harder to predict because the companies don't know the weight of the rider. I have ridden frames that I thought were OK, but heavier friends did feel they lacked mid-stroke compression support (with spring rates adjusted). Not defending the bike industry's lack of co-developed suspension, just pointing out that they might have a more difficult job to do.