seems like ohlins are getting into the mtb world with shocks and a possible fork ???
any one has more info ? interesting to see what will happen to cane creek's DB.
http://happymtb.org/2012/10/26/ohlins-satsar-pa-mtb/
Last edited:
start saving - the swedes are coming ...
- Thread starter ilfreerider
- Start date
seems like ohlins are getting into the mtb world with shocks and a possible fork ???
any one has more info ? interesting to see what will happen to cane creek's DB.
http://happymtb.org/2012/10/26/ohlins-satsar-pa-mtb/
Well maybe that's because the DB is made by Olhins ?
This is very interesting , the DB maybe a great shock but it hasn't been updated for a while now and would be super curious to see what/how/if they could make an even better shock !
Interesting. One thing that turned me off CCDB is no matching fork. BOS has that. Makes sense if Ohlins does the same.
the article says there are rumours of prototypes out already around in sweden.
Also that Öhlins already had classified ads in job sections for MTB minded tecs.
And the last rumour they said are in the works is a fork to match.
If this is true, hells bells, theres a big player in town with the rep from the DB already under their belt.
im sure they will be able to make something high end and expensive happen that works great
Also that Öhlins already had classified ads in job sections for MTB minded tecs.
And the last rumour they said are in the works is a fork to match.
If this is true, hells bells, theres a big player in town with the rep from the DB already under their belt.
im sure they will be able to make something high end and expensive happen that works great
What on earth could you be referring to?
By snap do you mean perform very well while having a wide range of adjustments without any known issues?
cork (Oct 17, 2012 at 7:59)
Do you guys plan to ever produce a fork or fork cartridge based off of the Double Barrel damper? And could that technology even be applied to a fork?
CaneCreekCyclingComponents (Oct 17, 2012 at 8:06)
Yes. Our long-term strategy is to fill out our product line to include forks. It is our intent to incorporate Double Barrel technology in all of our suspension products.
moar...http://www.pinkbike.com/news/Cane-Creek-Ask-Us-Anything.html
Do you guys plan to ever produce a fork or fork cartridge based off of the Double Barrel damper? And could that technology even be applied to a fork?
CaneCreekCyclingComponents (Oct 17, 2012 at 8:06)
Yes. Our long-term strategy is to fill out our product line to include forks. It is our intent to incorporate Double Barrel technology in all of our suspension products.
moar...http://www.pinkbike.com/news/Cane-Creek-Ask-Us-Anything.html
Last edited:
Wasn't there issues on last years Demo with the CCDB shafts snapping?
The issue was with the Demo, not the CCDB. That little swing link that attaches to the shock puts tremendous load on the shock shaft. Issues were not limited to CCDB, but also all other brands.
To be a bit fairer, the issues really only popped up on frames with worn, notchy, sticky bearings in that link, increasing the friction and limiting movement on the link under compression. I haven't heard of issues on new or maintained frames.
Last edited:
It's obvious it's easier to snap a smaller shaft so on a frame that puts too much stress on it a shock line ccdb will snap more often than one with a wide shaft like an rc4.
That's most likely the version of the DB made for Formula SAE, which is a collegiate competition for engineering schools where they build & race small open cockpit cars. Due to the size of those cars, DH mtb dampers end up working well and running revalved versions have been the hot setup since about 2002 or so.
FSAE was very successful at taking 100% of my free time when I was in school. This is an FSAE car (from my alma mater):
FSAE was very successful at taking 100% of my free time when I was in school. This is an FSAE car (from my alma mater):
Last edited:
Yeah, as I understand it, here's how it developed:
Ohlins had the TTX series of twin tube dampers for Indy cars, LeMans, etc. CC worked with Ohlins to use the TTX technology on a mtb shock, and came out with the DB. The FSAE crowd got excited about it as the best option at the time was either Fox Vanillas or revalved DHX's. (I talked to Malcolm a couple times about using the DB for FSAE back in '04 or so when I was still in school) Eventually, the FSAE crowd wanted their own specific tunes as they tend to run lower spring rates than DH bikes and the CCDB was usually over damped. Eventually, it went back to an Ohlins damper for FSAE, made by Cane Creek. Part of that could be because one of my former teammates/FSAE alumni from Missouri S&T started working at Ohlins, knew the application very well and was revalving some DB's for a bit.
That may not be 100% correct since I've been out of FSAE for awhile, but I think it's pretty much the explanation for the cross breeding.
Ohlins had the TTX series of twin tube dampers for Indy cars, LeMans, etc. CC worked with Ohlins to use the TTX technology on a mtb shock, and came out with the DB. The FSAE crowd got excited about it as the best option at the time was either Fox Vanillas or revalved DHX's. (I talked to Malcolm a couple times about using the DB for FSAE back in '04 or so when I was still in school) Eventually, the FSAE crowd wanted their own specific tunes as they tend to run lower spring rates than DH bikes and the CCDB was usually over damped. Eventually, it went back to an Ohlins damper for FSAE, made by Cane Creek. Part of that could be because one of my former teammates/FSAE alumni from Missouri S&T started working at Ohlins, knew the application very well and was revalving some DB's for a bit.
That may not be 100% correct since I've been out of FSAE for awhile, but I think it's pretty much the explanation for the cross breeding.
Whoa. Lots wrong with this post.
1) The rc4 shaft is hollow aluminium, as it has to accommadate the rebound needle valve adjuster. In contrast, the DB shaft is solid steel, and hence far stronger for given external thickness.
2) That said, there WERE issues with DB shafts snapping. Hence, the latest version has a slightly thicker shaft, as pictured on the "Ohlins" shock above.
meh. maybe. mix a little mechanics, materials science, and math and you will see that a hollow tube can actually be designed to be stiffer than solid.
also, if that link is free to pivot, (ideally) all stresses on the shock would be normal. sounds like a lazy owner that doesnt maintain their bike could cause some irregularities in the links motion. obviously the shock is designed to be applied in a normal loading mode. albeit, maybe spec could have done a better job engineering the link to run smoother for longer.
back on track:
im betting that ohlins licensed their tech to cane creek, and reserved the right to produce their own stuff, too. ill wager these shocks are the same thing as the DB
Last edited:
That article must be OLD.
Those were the very first generation Double Barrel shocks. They were used in a lot of FSAE programs. There are a stockpile of those things sitting around the CNC lab at my school with 200# springs on them. That version of them is definitely not made anymore.
They also have a solid piston in those. Not solid in the sense that the shims never blow off - I mean a solid piston.
For road applications they worked real well, which is basically what Ohlins stuff is made for.
After using their stuff extensively both on MTB's and dirt bikes, I'm convinced they're really not made for off-road use. A big part of it has to do with their shaft durability, at least on MTB's. They do snap, and not just on Demos (although most of those fail in that manner). They also bend. A lot. Their moto fork cartridges also rely on a very small diameter rod, which is also steel I believe. They have to be replaced frequently and recommend checking runout against spec on every rebuild. Better hope you have a damn stiff chassis to put those cartridges into.
As for hollow 5/8" aluminum round stock vs 8mm solid steel stock - put them through a deflection/bending test and see which one sees permanent deformation/failure first.
Those were the very first generation Double Barrel shocks. They were used in a lot of FSAE programs. There are a stockpile of those things sitting around the CNC lab at my school with 200# springs on them. That version of them is definitely not made anymore.
They also have a solid piston in those. Not solid in the sense that the shims never blow off - I mean a solid piston.
For road applications they worked real well, which is basically what Ohlins stuff is made for.
After using their stuff extensively both on MTB's and dirt bikes, I'm convinced they're really not made for off-road use. A big part of it has to do with their shaft durability, at least on MTB's. They do snap, and not just on Demos (although most of those fail in that manner). They also bend. A lot. Their moto fork cartridges also rely on a very small diameter rod, which is also steel I believe. They have to be replaced frequently and recommend checking runout against spec on every rebuild. Better hope you have a damn stiff chassis to put those cartridges into.
As for hollow 5/8" aluminum round stock vs 8mm solid steel stock - put them through a deflection/bending test and see which one sees permanent deformation/failure first.
12345
I never had any problems with my Ohlins moto forks and neither I nor my bike was lacking mass. Any bending moments created by poorly maintained or designed/built pivots and frames will definitely cause problems though.
Assuming there's a 1/8th hole in the Fox shaft for the rebound rod, the flexural rigidity of the aluminium shaft would be 4.3e8 Nmm^3 and the steel shaft would be 8.04e7 Nmm^3, so an order of magnitude higher. Also less mass at 1.43e-5 g/mm and 1.55e-4 g/mm aluminium steel respectively.
You do have a much higher surface area however and that usually means more stiction. You can also run a cubic boron nitride coating on a steel shaft and you can't on aluminium.
*my calculations are frequently ****ing awefull and I didn't check those at all....so..
Last edited:
Had no idea but I assume a wider yet hollow shaft of the rc4 is still stiffer so it handles some forces better. Also no one claims their saints are weaker because they are hollow, quite the opposite
Mike Alessi and the MotoConcepts team are currently testing Ohlins rear shock and front fork for SX.
Making it hollow doesn't make it stiffer. Removing material ALWAYS makes it less rigid. A hollow structure can simply supply more stiffness for the same mass.Had no idea but I assume a wider yet hollow shaft of the rc4 is still stiffer so it handles some forces better. Also no one claims their saints are weaker because they are hollow, quite the opposite
The article specifically says they have new prototypes out that do NOT look like the ones in the pictures.
Good going those of you who keep posting up its "just a CCDB".
if in doubt, try not to base everything of pictures alone, maybe try google translate on top.
"HAY im pretty sure its NOT just a CCDB"..
Good going those of you who keep posting up its "just a CCDB".
if in doubt, try not to base everything of pictures alone, maybe try google translate on top.
"HAY im pretty sure its NOT just a CCDB"..
Yeah he did switch to Ohlins this year. They've got some work to do! Anytime he landed a jump it looked like that bike wanted to buck him right off.
You know, I was thinking about this in the context of Easton's larger diameter handlebars the other day. They claim that increasing the bar diameter from 31.8 to 35 makes it stronger and lighter. This just sounds bizarre to me. If anything, smaller diameter would allow for more strength and lighter weight. What's with that?
Not entirely true. You have to make sure that given your manufactured shaft runout and the highest compressive load it's going to experience that it doesn't buckle, though of course the stiffness required to stop buckling is usually reached long before a practical shaft diameter for a shock is reached.
I think that we can agree that it should be a "given" design parameter that the rod be able to support the spring and damping forces generated. Unless the shock is a specific strut design, it shouldn't be taking much. if any, load from the frame.
My point was simply such that the reason an RC4 has such a large diameter rod, and the CCDB considerably smaller has nothing to do with strength and stiffness and everything to do with displacement based on the damping design.
The CCDB only uses the slightly larger shafts for bikes like the Demo, or other ones that may have a similar type connection. All other ones still use the same size shafts as they did before.
-Brett
-Brett
Yeah of course, I was just being a bit pedantic.
Anyone have any word on forks? I think DVO might fall flat on its face if Ohlins comes to the party.
That is exactly what those shocks pictured are for. FSAE.That's most likely the version of the DB made for Formula SAE, which is a collegiate competition for engineering schools where they build & race small open cockpit cars. Due to the size of those cars, DH mtb dampers end up working well and running revalved versions have been the hot setup since about 2002 or so.
FSAE was very successful at taking 100% of my free time when I was in school. This is an FSAE car (from my alma mater):
If all you care about is rigidity and stiffness for the "strength" of the bar then a larger diameter, thinner wall is almost always better. However since you need some minimum wall thickness for any tubing on bike parts for impact resistance you have more constraints you have to optimize within, so larger diameter doesn't always yield better strength/weight.
Also, stiffer bars are not always stronger, and are often much weaker because they cannot be strained as much before failure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toughness
