[bpatterson6]

Yeah because horrifically overdamped rearends are just what DH bikes need, and who needs the right spring rate anyway?

Seriously, this is a moronic trend - current day shocks had enough trouble having low enough damping for bikes like the sunday (8" out of 3" shock), how do you think a 3.5" stroke shock is going to fare in a bike with the same travel?

What about springrate choice for the majority of fast guys that will rides these things? (nb: most fast guys aren't fat). What about the lack of intermediate spring rates, and the issues caused by claimed rate inaccuracies at this end of the range... the list goes on and on.

I agree with you 100%. I ride an M6 and I just want more choices of Shocks to fit my frame.
That's the only reason I feel that way. The more frames that take that shock, the better chance I'll be able to get something other than a Revox and a CCDB. They are the only two companies right now making a shock to fit my frame. Right now I can barely get a Spring that fits muchless a broad choice in rear shocks. Just to Clarify.

 

[jonKranked]

whats wrong with having a CCDB?

 

[bpatterson6]

whats wrong with having a CCDB?

Nothing. They are awesome! I just can't afford it. It's just not in my budget.
I can get deals on other makes of shocks just not a CCDB to fit my frame.
EDIT: a CCDB with a Ti Spring is alot more than I can afford when I can get others for half the price.

 

[iRider]

Nothing. They are awesome! I just can't afford it. It's just not in my budget.
I can get deals on other makes of shocks just not a CCDB to fit my frame.
EDIT: a CCDB with a Ti Spring is alot more than I can afford when I can get others for half the price.

Wait a second, you got an M6 and then say you can't afford the CCDB????

 

[-C-]

I must admit, I find that a little strange too. People spank a fortune on a new frame, and forks and various other bits, but seem happy to run an 'off the shelf' rear shock that more often than not, isn't even set up for them...

 

[bpatterson6]

Wait a second, you got an M6 and then say you can't afford the CCDB????

I know it seems rediculous, but Long story short. Humor me here. I gotta an unbelievable deal on the frame. I didn't get to choose the color. I got what I could get. It came with a Revox. Everything else I bought severly discounted. I didnt get all the exact parts I wanted because I ran out of money. A CCDB w/ a Ti spring is one of the things I couldn't get. Things happen. '09 upgrades are in the works for the bike.

 

[big-ted]

Whilst I'm not going to come out for or against a longer stroke shock, one would hope that manufacturers would realise that the longer shocks are only going to be used on bikes with low leverage ratios, and valve the shock accordingly. Now tell me this. Why do people make so much fuss about the Sunday leverage ratio? 8" travel from a 3" stroke shock is the same as 90% of other DH bikes out there (DHR, M1, 22x, Shocker, Demo etc etc). Based on leverage ratio alone, the Sunday should require exactly the same valving as any of these bikes.

 

[jonKranked]

I know it seems rediculous, but Long story short. Humor me here. I gotta an unbelievable deal on the frame. I didn't get to choose the color. I got what I could get. It came with a Revox. Everything else I bought severly discounted. I didnt get all the exact parts I wanted because I ran out of money. A CCDB w/ a Ti spring is one of the things I couldn't get. Things happen. '09 upgrades are in the works for the bike.

smoke 'em if ya got 'em

 

[big cal]

Whilst I'm not going to come out for or against a longer stroke shock, one would hope that manufacturers would realise that the longer shocks are only going to be used on bikes with low leverage ratios, and valve the shock accordingly. Now tell me this. Why do people make so much fuss about the Sunday leverage ratio? 8" travel from a 3" stroke shock is the same as 90% of other DH bikes out there (DHR, M1, 22x, Shocker, Demo etc etc). Based on leverage ratio alone, the Sunday should require exactly the same valving as any of these bikes.

I think with the Sunday it is the low leverage ratio at certain points in the travel that have caused issues with shock valving.

 

[Uncle Cliffy]

I agree with you 100%. I ride an M6 and I just want more choices of Shocks to fit my frame.
That's the only reason I feel that way. The more frames that take that shock, the better chance I'll be able to get something other than a Revox and a CCDB. They are the only two companies right now making a shock to fit my frame. Right now I can barely get a Spring that fits muchless a broad choice in rear shocks. Just to Clarify.

There's actually 3 companys. You forgot Avalanche... I know, expensive again...lthumbsdown:

 

[Udi]

Now tell me this. Why do people make so much fuss about the Sunday leverage ratio? 8" travel from a 3" stroke shock is the same as 90% of other DH bikes out there (DHR, M1, 22x, Shocker, Demo etc etc).

Because you're pretty much wrong.

224 = 8.5" out of 3" (2.83:1)
DHR = 8.5" out of 3" (2.83:1)
Demo8 = 8" out of 2.75" (2.90:1)
222 = 8" out of 2.75" (2.90:1)
Shocker = 8.75" out of 3" (2.92:1)
Demo9 = 9" out of 3" (3.00:1)
223 = 9" out of 3.00" (3.00:1)

Sunday is 2.66:1
Hope you like the taste of words.

There were reasons other than leverage too though, dw-link bikes run a much higher degree of anti-squat than most other designs and therefore require less compression damping. I'm sure the man himself can elaborate more if needed.

Whilst I'm not going to come out for or against a longer stroke shock, one would hope that manufacturers would realise that the longer shocks are only going to be used on bikes with low leverage ratios, and valve the shock accordingly.

One would hope... but that's not reality. Valving shocks light enough for lighter riders on these low leverage frames would (ideally) require larger ports rather than merely lighter valving - especially for low speed rebound, and most shock manufacturers (personally I'm inclined to throw a lot of boutique suspension companies in this boat) don't cater. Up until now the only shock I know of that offers different porting configurations is the Vivid - A/B/C tune have different shaft part numbers which lines up with that. Even then, how hard is it to get your hands on an A-tune? Reasonably. The CCDB proved (by not working correctly in the sunday - IH's word not mine) that their stock valving was insufficiently light. Personally I don't have any more faith in the BOS, but I'll reserve judgement until I ride a sunday tuned one.

Anyway you have to understand, that's only covering damping. What you missed is the spring rate issue and it's a pretty big one to go ignored. Heading into 2.5:1 leverage ratios, you start needing 225/275/325 springs (if not even smaller increments than 25 really). The accuracy of labeled rates is generally at or below that 25lb variation, let alone the difficulty of obtaining those rates (let alone in titanium...).

See why you might make a fuss?

 

[Transcend]

Just an FYI, 224 is just under 8" now. (At least our race bikes are).

 

[Udi]

That's the evo I'm presuming? The original 224 was 215mm I think.
I was just going by bikes he listed, there have been other low leverage bikes out there for a while now (Gemini DH is 2.33:1)... and it's only becoming more common. Just makes the whole damping/spring issue a bigger one, and it makes me wonder why people are praising bike companies throwing 3.5" stroke shocks in 8" travel bikes.

 

[Transcend]

That's the evo I'm presuming? The original 224 was 215mm I think.
I was just going by bikes he listed, there have been other low leverage bikes out there for a while now (Gemini DH is 2.33:1)... and it's only becoming more common. Just makes the whole damping/spring issue a bigger one, and it makes me wonder why people are praising bike companies throwing 3.5" stroke shocks in 8" travel bikes.

Ya, the Evo (2008 frame). I believe the 224 was right around 8" as well if i remember right. We requested that for 2 years, as the 223 was overboard at almost 9" of travel.

 

[sirknumskullgt]

IIRC it helps take some of the stress off of the front triangle of the bike by having the shock push against the linkage on both ends, instead of pushing one end against the linkage and the other against the front triangle. It allows for a slightly lighter tubeset I believe. Cannondale is also using this design on their new Moto bike (there's another bike using it from c'dale, can't remember the name at the moment).

Thats so untrue. The forces are still going into the frame through the bearings in the pivots either way. They force is still there its just going through at a different point. The reason you have a floating shock is so that you can tune the leverage ratio curve better because you have two inputs to change cause the shock is being activated at both ends. The moto is a pos by the way they have a floating shock but they did it all ass backwards and the result is a wacky falling rate curve that is very prone to bottom out.

 

[big-ted]

Because you're pretty much wrong.

224 = 8.5" out of 3" (2.83:1)
DHR = 8.5" out of 3" (2.83:1)
Demo8 = 8" out of 2.75" (2.90:1)
222 = 8" out of 2.75" (2.90:1)
Shocker = 8.75" out of 3" (2.92:1)
Demo9 = 9" out of 3" (3.00:1)
223 = 9" out of 3.00" (3.00:1)

Sunday is 2.66:1
Hope you like the taste of words.

There were reasons other than leverage too though, dw-link bikes run a much higher degree of anti-squat than most other designs and therefore require less compression damping. I'm sure the man himself can elaborate more if needed.



One would hope... but that's not reality. Valving shocks light enough for lighter riders on these low leverage frames would (ideally) require larger ports rather than merely lighter valving - especially for low speed rebound, and most shock manufacturers (personally I'm inclined to throw a lot of boutique suspension companies in this boat) don't cater. Up until now the only shock I know of that offers different porting configurations is the Vivid - A/B/C tune have different shaft part numbers which lines up with that. Even then, how hard is it to get your hands on an A-tune? Reasonably. The CCDB proved (by not working correctly in the sunday - IH's word not mine) that their stock valving was insufficiently light. Personally I don't have any more faith in the BOS, but I'll reserve judgement until I ride a sunday tuned one.

Anyway you have to understand, that's only covering damping. What you missed is the spring rate issue and it's a pretty big one to go ignored. Heading into 2.5:1 leverage ratios, you start needing 225/275/325 springs (if not even smaller increments than 25 really). The accuracy of labeled rates is generally at or below that 25lb variation, let alone the difficulty of obtaining those rates (let alone in titanium...).

See why you might make a fuss?

Whoa. I wasn't criticising anyone for complaining, merely posing the question. I guess I wasn't being entirely precise with my ratios of comparable bikes but still, I'm surprised the difference in leverage ratio from the 2.83:1 of my dhr to the 2.66:1 of the Sunday prevents proper setup being achieved. I run all the adjustments pretty much in the middle on my CCDB and it feels spot on. Still, if, as you say, there's other things at work who am I to argue? I have, after-all, not ridden a DB equipped Sunday.

 

[Huck Banzai]

GO OUTSIDE NOW




(do it!)

 

[djamgils]

Because you're pretty much wrong.


Sunday is 2.66:1

There were reasons other than leverage too though, dw-link bikes run a much higher degree of anti-squat than most other designs and therefore require less compression damping. I'm sure the man himself can elaborate more if needed.

Personally I don't have any more faith in the BOS, but I'll reserve judgement until I ride a sunday tuned one.

Anyway you have to understand, that's only covering damping. What you missed is the spring rate issue and it's a pretty big one to go ignored. Heading into 2.5:1 leverage ratios, you start needing 225/275/325 springs (if not even smaller increments than 25 really). The accuracy of labeled rates is generally at or below that 25lb variation, let alone the difficulty of obtaining those rates (let alone in titanium...).

See why you might make a fuss?

I have a Bos in my socom. It is a 8" travel bike with 3" stroke shock. Bos has different tunes for different bikes/riders. I suppose it is not only done with different shim stacks but also with different porting.
I weigh 70kg~155LBS and use a 275LBS spring with the Bos. I presume that bos has tighter tolerances on their springrates, but atleast they have 25LBS increments.
I am roughly mid way in the settings so I have a lot of tuning range left.
I also had a ccdb on it and with that I was at the end of the range and it still didn't work the way I wanted.
For me the bos is way better then the vivid and ccdb. It has more LSC then the vivid and has lighter valving then the ccdb.

 

[sbabuser]

So, nevermind if they find a way to do something better - companies should never introduce bikes that don't follow historic standards? Brilliant!
How do we make that into a law?

 

[sirknumskullgt]

A spring is infinitely adjustable all you do is add preload to it by tightening down the collar on it.

 

[Transcend]

A spring is infinitely adjustable all you do is add preload to it by tightening down the collar on it.

Infinitely means without end. If you preload a spring too far you will coil bind it in short order (especially a steel spring). Therefore, it is not infinitely adjustable.

 

[P.T.W]

So, nevermind if they find a way to do something better - companies should never introduce bikes that don't follow historic standards? Brilliant!
How do we make that into a law?

Yup an as well as sticking to (pre)historic standards we should never devlop bikes that even resemble any thing that dw or e13 have made

 

[Udi]

So, nevermind if they find a way to do something better - companies should never introduce bikes that don't follow historic standards? Brilliant!
How do we make that into a law?

Pray tell how it is "doing something better". I just gave a multitude of reasons why it is indeed WORSE, and could give many more.

A spring is infinitely adjustable all you do is add preload to it by tightening down the collar on it.

No it's not, preload only affects the initial force needed to start compressing the spring (and therefore will affect sag), however it does not affect the spring rate.

I run all the adjustments pretty much in the middle on my CCDB and it feels spot on.

I wasn't having a go at you or anything, just saying that you made a few incorrect generalisations. The reason you wouldn't have any issues with the lower leverage is because (I'm guessing by the username anyway) you aren't a featherweight. The issues with excess damping only becomes apparent if you're having to use a spring rate around 250-275lb, and that is the correct rate for a lot of lighter riders on ~2.5:1 leverage bikes.

 

[P.T.W]

Pray tell how it is "doing something better". I just gave a multitude of reasons why it is indeed WORSE, and could give many more.



No it's not, preload only affects the initial force needed to start compressing the spring (and therefore will affect sag), however it does not affect the spring rate.



I wasn't having a go at you or anything, just saying that you made a few incorrect generalisations. The reason you wouldn't have any issues with the lower leverage is because (I'm guessing by the username anyway) you aren't a featherweight. The issues with excess damping only becomes apparent if you're having to use a spring rate around 250-275lb, and that is the correct rate for a lot of lighter riders on ~2.5:1 leverage bikes.

So what do you think of the Mondraker proto??????

 

[Udi]

You can't much anything from looking at a pic really - my first thought was a sunday that got beaten with the ugly stick.

But yeah you'd want to see some actual geometry figures (I say actual because most manufacturer claims are pretty far off what you get when you put tape measure to bike) before you made much judgement.

 

[dhkid]

i definately agree with udi about the spring rates. spring rate should really be done in percentage increments. basically with the lower rates being closer together.

the commencal has an even lower ratio then the sunday.

2.55:1

which has been a bitch for a light rider like me.

 

[WBC]

The moto is a pos by the way they have a floating shock but they did it all ass backwards and the result is a wacky falling rate curve that is very prone to bottom out.

Off Topic:
Any real, personal experience? I beat the piss out of our demo, real big hits, everything from tech XC to wide open DH. The suspension is the very best I've felt from anything air sprung, ever. No stiction off the top(which is why it uses the floating shock mount), tracks well at high speed, solid big hit performance. It blows through the mid-stroke, but so does every DHX air equipped bike.

There's a lot of reasons not to buy one, for a light FR bike the BB needs to be dropped over an inch, the standover isn't great, the head angle is bat**** crazy steep, really skittish, and it makes terrible noises when you chuck it.

However, the suspension is tits.

 

[buckoW]

i definately agree with udi about the spring rates. spring rate should really be done in percentage increments. basically with the lower rates being closer together.

the commencal has an even lower ratio then the sunday.

2.55:1

which has been a bitch for a light rider like me.

The Scott Gambler has a 2.49 to 1 leverage ratio if run at 190mm rear travel.

edit: I haven't had any problems but I am not too small.

 

[iRider]

You can't much anything from looking at a pic really ....

Not? This is the internet, everything is possible! From a low-res picture taken at night people on here can tell you how the bike will ride, where it will crack, that it is flexy, if or if not it is in conflict with one of DWs patents and, not to forget, if Sam Hill will or won't be riding it next year. :biggrin:

 

[primo661]

i definately agree with udi about the spring rates. spring rate should really be done in percentage increments. basically with the lower rates being closer together.

the commencal has an even lower ratio then the sunday.

2.55:1

which has been a bitch for a light rider like me.

morewood makulu??? 2.3:1

 

[primo661]

i definately agree with udi about the spring rates. spring rate should really be done in percentage increments. basically with the lower rates being closer together.

the commencal has an even lower ratio then the sunday.

2.55:1

which has been a bitch for a light rider like me.

morewood makulu??? 2.3:1

 

[frango]

I am having illusion, or it's really some kind of new Fox air shock?

 

[ciszewski]

illusion. Coil is visible, and I believe it's the RC4.

 

[Santa Maria]

yes I see a RC4 too.

And Fabien is running the Formul R1 Brake for downhill?

 

[ronan]

That's the one caliper

could be an r1 lever however

 

[frango]

I can see it now, too
You're right, it looks like RC4

 

[Santa Maria]

and R1 discs

 

[CBJ]

The Sunday lives!

 

[karpi]

It looks a lot sexier now, although a direct side picture would help a bit more... I they start producing it soon

 

[cesar_rojo]

He is on the RC4 coil, nothing to do with air, also brakes are the new 2010 the one way lighter than actual One's. This frame still in prototype stage, so nothing to do with final stetics that we expect show on the bike presentation around summer this year.

Also can say we finally decided for a 9.5" shock instead of the 10.5" as using 8" of stroke with a 10.5" lead to lots of friction due to DU bushings on shocks, we add some weight with the 9.5" but it's the only dissadvantage of shorter shock, because reducing friction means increasing suspension response to small bumps and basically on breaking bumps, that is probably where this bike really feels good due to lower link more in vertical position compared to other similar systems that use more horizontal one.