Quantcast

woah.. NSMB just dropped a sweet Shock Rate article

TrumbullHucker

trumbullruxer
Aug 29, 2005
2,284
719
shimzbury, ct
get your cup of coffee ready...

http://nsmb.com/shock-rates-v-1-0/

"


The original subtitle to this article was Learn how your Santa Cruz Suspension Works, but we thought owners of other bike brands might like some schooling on bounce as well. This series of articles was started by Joe Graney when he was the Director of Quality and Engineering at Santa Cruz Bikes, but now that he’s the COO, he asked Nick Anderson to update this article for us (complete with new diagrams!) which was originally posted in 2012.

This piece, dealing with shock rates, is not gonna be a walk in the park but hopefully it’ll give some of you a little more insight into the how and why of suspension workings, and how Santa Cruz designs in particular behave.

Levers
We have to start with this. Levers are one of the simple machines, of which there are five (or six, depending on how nerdy you are). Levers hold company with the inclined plane, wheel and axle, wedge, pulley and screw. In a nutshell, levers operate on the principal of the Conservation of Work. Work is the amount of force exerted times the distance over which the force is exerted. If you push on one end of a long lever arm you can exert a high force on the smaller end but the small end moves over a shorter distance (work is conserved).




With suspension bikes, Wheel Travel divided by Shock Stroke = Average Leverage Rate (eg, a 5 inch travel bike with a 2.5″ travel shock has an average leverage rate of 2.0).

Shock Rate is the inverse (opposite relationship) of Leverage Rate. Shock Stroke divided by Wheel Travel = Average Shock Rate. The aforementioned bike would have an average shock rate of 0.5. Why use shock rate instead of leverage rate? The hell if we know, but it’s common for bike people to use the terms falling rate and rising rate, both of which refer to shock rate. So at some point in the past we decided to use shock rate so it fits that nomenclature. It’s easy to convert – just remember that a high leverage is a low rate, and that rising rate means falling leverage. Ready?

Bike Rate
A rising rate on a bike means that at the beginning of the travel, the rear axle has a higher mechanical advantage or leverage than at the end of the travel. This typically implies that the bike won’t “bottom out” easily. Falling rate means the opposite; the bike may bottom out easily, as the mechanical advantage increases through the travel – it ‘uses’ the travel easily. A bike with a constant leverage, or shock rate, has the same leverage throughout the entire travel. A rate of +/- 3% can be considered constant.



Rate
Spring rates are a measure of how much the spring pushes back at you as you push into it. A constant rate spring is assigned a value, typically referred to as k. The k value of a spring is in units of force per unit length, or lbs per inch. Practically speaking, if you have a 500 lb. spring, 500 is the k value, meaning 500 lbs per inch compressed. At zero inches compressed, it pushes back zero pounds, which is handy because then it just sits there on your desk holding your pencils. At one inch compressed, it pushes back 500 pounds. At two inches compressed, it pushes back 1000 lbs, and so on. Coil springs on bike shocks aren’t perfectly linear, but they are damn close. Air shocks are different, though. Air shocks work by compressing air, which doesn’t push back the same way as a metal spring does. The air’s force pushing back has to do with volume, which is tough to make a linear. So you set the air pressure (the volume is typically constant, and set by the shock manufacturer), and when the volume is cut in half, the pressure is doubled (remember PV=nRT from chemistry?). So half way through the shock stroke, the force pushing back is doubled. Then, 3/4 of the way thru the stroke, the pressure doubles again. And so on. Hence, that ‘rampy’ feeling, since the spring rate skyrockets toward the end of the stroke as the volume gets cut in half over and over and the force goes way up.




If you increase the volume a lot, the spring rate doesn’t do a linear progression like a coil, and has what is sometimes called a cavitation, or a place where the spring rate drops below a constant k value.

The beginning of the stroke on an air shock also doesn’t start at zero force, due to negative springs and all sorts of trickiness that air shock designers could write a book on. Preload doesn’t change your k value, it just makes the start point go higher since you start compressing the spring, but you haven’t compressed your bike yet.

Wheel Rate
Wheel rate could be defined as the combination of Bike Rate and Spring Rate. In practice, it’s really how your bike is going to behave since it defines the amount of force that the shock exerts on the rear wheel at any given point in travel. Damping is of course also a big factor but this will be covered later on.




VPP Rates
The VPP platform is very flexible and can allow for nearly any shock rate to be designed into the frame. A typical linkage moves in a linear fashion, and the shock can be positioned to have a falling or rising rate, but not both. The VPP system has two links that rotate in opposite directions. The top link moves counter clockwise, the bottom link clockwise (from the drive side viewpoint). This is unique to VPP bikes, and is specifically protected by US Patent 6488301.

As the suspension compresses, the two links rotate, but not at constant rates. The upper link starts rotating quickly, then slows down mid-stroke, and then speeds up again. The lower link does the opposite, starting slowly, then faster, and then slows down later in the travel. Exactly how much they speed up and slow down can be manipulated by changing pivot points, link angles and lengths. Attaching a shock to one of the links makes it compress at different rates through the travel. On a VPP bike with the shock attached to the upper link, the shock starts with a high rate, decreases through the middle of the travel, and then increases again. This gives the rider a feeling of great bump absorption on small and medium size bumps, but then ramps up so the suspension doesn’t bottom out on larger impacts.

The V10 shock rate starts very low (it means a very high leverage at the beginning). This allows the rear wheel to move very easily when it drops away into a hole, and then gets hit hard and fast by an obstacle. Instead of ‘kicking’ the bike, the wheel easily moves back to sag which is where it should be when a rider is aboard.

As always, there is a balance here. Too much ‘falling’ in the middle in the shock rate can yield a bike that feels like it wallows in the mid-stroke, or mushes down in corners, without a nice snappy feeling on the rebound stroke. Too much ‘rising’ from mid-stroke to bottom out can give a bike that doesn’t use full travel under normal circumstances. Complicating the matter is that different shocks have different spring rates and damping characteristics and can change the way a bike feels.




Damping
So far we have only talked about spring rate and shock rate. Both of these properties are position sensitive. What this means is that if you push the bike into the travel and hold the rear wheel there it will exert a force. If you continue to hold the wheel there it will continue to exert the same force. Damping is speed sensitive. The faster you move the rear wheel the more damping force the shock exerts on the wheel. So if you move the wheel quickly into the travel the shock will exert more force on the wheel than if you move it slowly into the travel. When the wheel is not moving the damping forces are zero.

A damper is a complex set of valves that allows oil to flow from one part of a shock to another.
The faster you try and force oil through these valves the harder it is to compress the shock and therefore the rear wheel.

Developing good bike suspension requires an understanding of the shock rate of the bike, the spring curve of the shock and the damping characteristics of the shock.

Check out the dozen articles on the Santa Cruz web site in Joe’s Corner

This is not sponsored content; the presence of this article isn’t the result of cash flowing in either direction between NSMB.com and Santa Cruz. So thanks to Joe and Nick for their work on this. We often brag that we have the smartest audience in mountain biking (a self-serving opinion bolstered by anecdotal evidence), and we knew a portion of you would appreciate this nerdery. So congratulations; if you made it this far you are a genuine bike geek. CM

"
 

wydopen

Turbo Monkey
Jan 16, 2005
1,229
60
805
This is not sponsored content; the presence of this article isn’t the result of cash flowing in either direction between NSMB.com and Santa Cruz. So thanks to Joe and Nick for their work on this. We often brag that we have the smartest audience in mountain biking (a self-serving opinion bolstered by anecdotal evidence), and we knew a portion of you would appreciate this nerdery. So congratulations; if you made it this far you are a genuine bike geek. CM

"
Where do you put the maple syrup eh?
 

Udi

RM Chief Ornithologist
Mar 14, 2005
4,915
1,200
This is going to be brutal, but it has to be said - Santa Cruz are one of the last companies I'd be taking leverage curve advice from. The information in the article starts off correct, and the sections titled "Levers", "Bike Rate", and "Wheel Rate" are mostly correct from my skim.

The graphs in these sections are however misleading at best, and what they claim to be the LR curves for the Nomad, v10, and Heckler are all so inaccurate that I would classify them as incorrect. You can measure and draw these curves yourself with the aid of a program like Linkage, it's not as proprietary as some companies would have you believe.

Where it falls apart (and in fact, where a lot of deficiencies in their frames other than the v10 come from) is where they describe "Rate".

1. Using PV=nRT to describe the behavior of an air shock's spring curve the way they have (positive only) is highly misleading, because while the POSITIVE spring behaves as they claim, the NEGATIVE spring (a critical part of an air spring) impacts the entire stroke as well, and you can't just simplify it the way they have and expect anyone to understand anything. These two spring curves interact and overlap in a very non-linear fashion. This is because as the shock compresses, the positive chamber volume decreases while the negative volume increases, compounded by the fact that the chamber volumes are initially different (negative usually much smaller). There is so much wrong with this section of their article that I'd advise everyone to just ignore it, and instead do your own research (ideally outside of bike industry articles).

2. The "spring rates" graph is flat out wrong, and again heavily misleading. Many suspension companies will actually publish air spring rate graphs that look like the one SCB posted, but you don't need an engineering degree to figure out that this is purely marketing. The spring force on virtually all current air shocks on the market is significantly non-linear at start of travel (unlike depicted in their graph), and significantly so - this is a CRITICAL part of LR curve design for frames used with air shocks. If people want a more accurate visual depiction of how a typical air spring behaves, please look at the graph I've posted below. Ignore the marketing, and note that there is some exaggeration in these curves for the sake of explanation, however this is closer to reality and shows the non-linear behavior in the initial stroke of an air spring. This applies to virtually all current (rear) air shocks.



3. On the "VPP" section, a) you can achieve what they claim VPP does with plenty of other designs, and b) only the V10 behaves even *remotely* in the way that they claim. When you drive the shock via the top link on VPP frames (Nomad, Bronson, 5010, Blur, TRc, etc) you get significantly inferior behavior (compared to the v10) and this is worth noting. I'd ride a v10 pretty happily, but VPP falls apart on their other designs - and it's not really a fault of the "VPP" design itself, just a poor implementation on behalf of the designer.

3a. As a sidenote, yes I realise there are plenty of fast riders on Nomads, 5010s, Blurs etc. and I'm not suggesting anyone should get rid of them - because bike performance is a function of many other things like geometry / weight / parts spec / setup so there's no reason you can't make one work pretty well. However there is a difference between "works pretty well" and "optimal".

4. Cavitation isn't used to describe air-spring non-linearities in any context I've seen before, cavitation refers to voids forming in fluids due to excessively low pressure (usually in an isolated zone). Just clarifying this since the article is already misleading at best.

5. Falling rate for "good pedalling"? This is great if you want to improve acceleration DIRECTLY at the expense of bump absorption. This is essentially the worst blanket fix possible. This shows a clear lack of understanding by the designer of what causes poor acceleration efficiency in a pushbike with suspension - which is load transfer (a very common concept in vehicle dynamics) due the vertical height differential between the point of tractive force application and the CoM of the vehicle. Solving the problem correctly involves counteracting the load transfer directly (i.e. only while accelerating by pedalling, not when coasting and/or accelerating due to gravity), not by making your suspension stiffer.
 
Last edited:

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
54,396
20,187
Sleazattle
5. Falling rate for "good pedalling"? This is great if you want to improve acceleration DIRECTLY at the expense of bump absorption. This is essentially the worst blanket fix possible. This shows a clear lack of understanding by the designer of what causes poor acceleration efficiency in a pushbike with suspension - which is load transfer (a very common concept in vehicle dynamics) due the vertical height differential between the point of tractive force application and the CoM of the vehicle. Solving the problem correctly involves counteracting the load transfer directly (i.e. only while accelerating by pedalling, not when coasting and/or accelerating due to gravity), not by making your suspension stiffer.
I am going to guess that the designer has an understanding of this but chose to dumb down the discussion. If the audience needs an explanation of what leverage means they aren't going to understand any of the more complicated concepts. People are stupid, and if you make them feel stupid they probably will not give you their money. Make stupid people feel like they know something and they will beat down your doors.
 

Udi

RM Chief Ornithologist
Mar 14, 2005
4,915
1,200
@blindboxx2334
Sorry I should have drawn my own graph, but in simple terms, what it shows is that air springs (moreso in rear shocks than forks) are significantly harder to move in the first ~10-15% of travel than a coil spring (the SCB graphs don't show this). If you push on the same frame with an air shock and a coil shock (sprung for the same rider) you'll see what I mean. It reduces bump sensitivity and traction as a result. However, if you build a frame that levers the air shock more in that ~15% (think about undoing the wheelnuts on your car with a longer wrench) it makes it easier to move through that harsh region, making it behave more like a coil shock.

I am going to guess that the designer has an understanding of this but chose to dumb down the discussion. If the audience needs an explanation of what leverage means they aren't going to understand any of the more complicated concepts. People are stupid, and if you make them feel stupid they probably will not give you their money. Make stupid people feel like they know something and they will beat down your doors.
Yeah on this particular aspect (acceleration) I'd say you're right to some extent - but that begs the question, why have a falling rate at all (i.e. lower leverage initially, which means higher wheel rate initially) - especially on a bike that uses an air shock? It's the opposite of ideal.

The article builds a straw man by painting an incorrect picture of how an air spring behaves, and compounds it with BS like the explanation for why the falling rate curve exists.

If you want to educate people you need to start by defining the actual scenario/problem correctly. Maybe they just assumed everyone would skim it and be like "wow, a graph, these guys must know what they're doing!" but I think that stopped working about a decade ago. Goddamn kids and their goddamn wikipedias!
 
Last edited:

EVIL JN

Monkey
Jul 24, 2009
491
24
All I know is that just because a person have a certain job title dosent mean the person is any good at it, so one should have a health dose of scepticism towards "professionals" in every field.

Overall though I would say fitting size/good geo>correctly tuned dampers>bike design. Mess up the two first and the third becomes quite irrelevant. But for WC I would assume the two first are spot on, so I guess the VPP on the V10 works and have worked fairly well for full on racing at speeds above weekend warriors.

Personally I suspect that a design that has some peculiarities, like the V10s really soft inital stroke might throw of the novise tuner. Even though my V10 and Scalp only differ .5 in travel a newb would most likely think he would need a much harder spring on the V10. Many that has tested mine has commented as much even though its somewhat oversprung.

So its a hard game, design something that take full advantage of theory but needs specific dampersetup or something simple that might lack finess but is hard to mess up to much.
 

jstuhlman

bagpipe wanker
Dec 3, 2009
16,676
13,021
Cackalacka du Nord
have always run a coil on my vpp trail bike. because feels good/ manned up/winning.

maybe the problem is people geek on weight over performance.
 

was?

Monkey
Mar 9, 2010
268
30
Dresden, Germany
1. Using PV=nRT[...] These two spring curves interact and overlap in a very non-linear fashion. This is because as the shock compresses, the positive chamber volume increases while the negative volume decreases, compounded by the fact that the chamber volumes are initially different (negative usually much smaller).
I'm too much of a lazy bum to do my own research, but isn't it the other way around? The positive volume decreases, while the negative volume increases, am I missing something, or did you mean pressure?
 

Udi

RM Chief Ornithologist
Mar 14, 2005
4,915
1,200
I'm too much of a lazy bum to do my own research, but isn't it the other way around? The positive volume decreases, while the negative volume increases, am I missing something, or did you mean pressure?
Yes of course you are right, typo on my part. I have corrected it now.
 

tacubaya

Monkey
Dec 19, 2009
720
89
Mexico City
Also, I didn't expect them to use the term cavitation properly, especially since 99% of the bike industry including MTB suspension engineers and technicians misuse it.
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Yeah that's a weird one. I know what he meant in terms of a phenomenon/sensation but given that cavitation has a very specific meaning that directly relates to another shock function, he should have gone with the term 'loosey goosey'.

On in santa cruz terms: "plush, bro"
 

was?

Monkey
Mar 9, 2010
268
30
Dresden, Germany
5. Falling rate for "good pedalling"? This is great if you want to improve acceleration DIRECTLY at the expense of bump absorption.
Really bump absorption? Aren't they just giving away travel for the expense of reaching a certain sag point, or leverage rate, by inferior measures?

Don't get me wrong, I'm still struggling to understand and strike a balance between a dead mid-stroke, occasional bottom-out and harsh first part of travel on my '11 tazer. The worst of all worlds, the 5/16 of travel is very good, though.
 

Udi

RM Chief Ornithologist
Mar 14, 2005
4,915
1,200
Really bump absorption? Aren't they just giving away travel for the expense of reaching a certain sag point, or leverage rate, by inferior measures?
Wheel rate in different travel portions affects bump absorption significantly, because a lower rate means the wheel can move out of the way of a bump more easily. This is why digressive frames like an Orange 22x tend to be harsh over bumps, particularly small to medium sized ones, and DH frames with this design almost no longer exist.

If the wheel rate is digressive, it is firmer (than linear) at the start of travel, so it takes greater force to actuate - and thus transmits more force to the rider + unsettles the bike more. Particularly the initial transmission of force when contacting a bump will be higher. This means that you get an impulse that starts harsh/abruptly then decays, rather than a soft/muted initial impulse that gets progressively harsher. The latter is more desirable in my experience because it unsettles the bike less (thus better traction + predictability) and is more gentle on the rider.

Digressive bikes do absorb bumps better later in the stroke, but this also tends to cause a wallowing sensation and means less geometrical stability (and predictability as a result).

Particularly on a bike with an air spring though, there are added disadvantages to a digressive initial stroke, because it means that the leverage ratio is quite low in the first ~15% of travel, and as a result is unable to combat the inherently high spring rate in that region of travel that air shocks have. This means that you a far greater force transmission to the rider (and even more inferior bump absorption) than something like - for example - an Orange 22x frame with a coil shock. This explains the harsh first part of travel on your Tazer.
 

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
18,973
9,637
AK
And during the few moments that we have left, we want to talk right down to earth in a language that everybody here can easily understand
 

iRider

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2008
5,653
3,092
Particularly on a bike with an air spring though, there are added disadvantages to a digressive initial stroke, because it means that the leverage ratio is quite low in the first ~15% of travel, and as a result is unable to combat the inherently high spring rate in that region of travel that air shocks have. This means that you a far greater force transmission to the rider (and even more inferior bump absorption) than something like - for example - an Orange 22x frame with a coil shock. This explains the harsh first part of travel on your Tazer.
Not sure if this matters, but normally your bike is not in that initial part of the travel at SAG, or? So when the suspension is over the digressive first part the bump absorption from there should be OK. Only when the suspension recovers to full travel from sag point when following the bumps I can see the problem.

And FWIW: the Tazer is a bad example. It is a 4X bike that is harsh to begin with and was sold with a shock that was not valved right on the compression side anyways.
 

Udi

RM Chief Ornithologist
Mar 14, 2005
4,915
1,200
See last point in section 3a. It's sub-optimal, there are plenty of scenarios where the rear wheel is unweighted and makes contact again, as well as scenarios where it is in the earlier part of its travel (i.e. above sag). In any of these cases there is a reduction in traction and an increase in force transmission to both chassis and rider. If suspension only mattered after sag, we would run shorter travel bikes with 0% sag - the purpose of sag is to allow some negative travel, and the design of this travel region is really no less important. As I said, there's a very good reason we don't see bikes like the 22x anymore.

FYI the Tazer is not the only bike that behaves like this, literally every top-link driven VPP bike I've looked at in Linkage follows these leverage curves to varying degrees. Also, the initial stroke digression is only part of the issue - beyond that point they have a tendency to wallow in the mid travel, and then ramp up excessively as the decrease in leverage near end of stroke combines with inherent air-shock ramp up to again.

The only exceptions I've seen are some of the DH oriented ones like the 951, and really, that is a bike best avoided for numerous other reasons. The M9 and V10 are obviously non-issues since they drive from the lower link and have more traditional progressive curves as a result.
 

Udi

RM Chief Ornithologist
Mar 14, 2005
4,915
1,200
Yeah the v10 is pretty damn good really! I did try to make a point to mention it's not the same as their other bikes.
 

Sandwich

Pig my fish!
Staff member
May 23, 2002
21,061
5,970
borcester rhymes
they suck to pedal but rail corners like nobody's business. love one as a park bike, hate one as a DH or basically anything else bike.
 

Lelandjt

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2008
2,512
826
Breckenridge, CO/Lahaina,HI
I see a concentric pivot which means zero chain growth or chain torque anti-squat. So it's gonna be a mushy pedaler.
I see an only barely acute angle at the rear shock mount so from sag point on it's gonna have a falling rate. The air shock can help that some with it's rising spring rate but that damper isn't position sensitive or progressive so it's gonna bottom out easily. This bike is to be avoided unless singlespeed is a priority.

P.S.Udi, I'm curious for your take on the Ibis HD3 shock rate. I haven't seen it but doesn't DW now shoot for a slight, single progressive rate?
 
Last edited:

Sandwich

Pig my fish!
Staff member
May 23, 2002
21,061
5,970
borcester rhymes
ibis:
http://linkagedesign.blogspot.com/search/label/Ibis
Should work very well with an air shock. Rising to get over the initial stiction of the air can, linear/falling towards the end to compensate for the natural progression.

pole bikes:
http://linkagedesign.blogspot.com/search/label/Pole Bikes
-100% antisquat. If DW is to be believed, then this bike will put twice your weight (your weight plus 1x your weight) into the suspension on every pedal stroke. I'd still ride one at highland though.