Intense m1 shock mount positions.
- Thread starter stinger
- Start date
i've had good luck leaving the top one in the midle. i've broken some of the bolts on the bottom from trying other settings. the ride isn't really any differant changing things. older m-1 were more adjustable then newer (2000) models.good luck.
Head angle settings. The bottom one will make it more stable at higher speeds and not turn as well, the top will make it real nimble and turn faster.
What about the two mounting holes that position the front of the linkage plates, what effect do those have on the geometry.
I had all these questions a while back and didn't get great answers then, even after talking to someone at Intense.
The two possible mounts for the front pivot of the linkage, I believe, adjust the 'rate' of the shock movement to rear wheel movement. The bottom one is linear and the top one gives a slight rising rate.
You then have the option of two postions for the rear end giving you a wheel-base adjustment of about 1/2", I run mine in the shortest position.
Then there's the three positions on the linkage for the shock mount... as mentioned above that changes the BB height and head angle. It's a significant change and on the steepest setting the bike feels much taller. It's great for twisty tech singletrack type stuff but the centre of gravity feels much higher and I prefered running the bike in the middle postion. I also prefer the slightly slacker head angle for the steep stuff.
The two possible mounts for the front pivot of the linkage, I believe, adjust the 'rate' of the shock movement to rear wheel movement. The bottom one is linear and the top one gives a slight rising rate.
You then have the option of two postions for the rear end giving you a wheel-base adjustment of about 1/2", I run mine in the shortest position.
Then there's the three positions on the linkage for the shock mount... as mentioned above that changes the BB height and head angle. It's a significant change and on the steepest setting the bike feels much taller. It's great for twisty tech singletrack type stuff but the centre of gravity feels much higher and I prefered running the bike in the middle postion. I also prefer the slightly slacker head angle for the steep stuff.
The funny thing is that when I actually spoke to Intense about the settings I had right now he couldn't believe I'd be running the shorter wheel base. He'd never seen one set up in that position.
Yup, I rode mine in the short wheelbase setting as well. Made bunny-hopping the bike cake.
The swing-ling to frame mount: lower position more linear; upper more progressive. On my 2000 frame with a Fox, I tried the more progressive setting to help with the bottoming... well it did that, but but the shock didn't have enough rebound valving to keep the rear tire planted... and I got pitched OTB a couple of times... all was fixed when I mounted an Avalanche on the frame and went back to the linear position.
I also ran the shock in the lowest/slackest position on the link. It takes gettign used to, but I loved how it rode. I did hit pedals a lot on the trail and would occasionally bottom out the chain guide...
I miss that frame sometimes...
The swing-ling to frame mount: lower position more linear; upper more progressive. On my 2000 frame with a Fox, I tried the more progressive setting to help with the bottoming... well it did that, but but the shock didn't have enough rebound valving to keep the rear tire planted... and I got pitched OTB a couple of times... all was fixed when I mounted an Avalanche on the frame and went back to the linear position.
I also ran the shock in the lowest/slackest position on the link. It takes gettign used to, but I loved how it rode. I did hit pedals a lot on the trail and would occasionally bottom out the chain guide...
I miss that frame sometimes...
I wonder why they did that...Zark said:
I'd probably tap it if I bought another one... I never liked the steeper settings... Definitely had to run 165mm cranks... and even then clipping rocks was just something I got used to... Damn, I miss that bike... :heart:
Ian F said:I wonder why they did that...
Damn, I miss that bike... :heart:
I never thought of tapping it. Of course the only thing I'm usually thinking of tapping is Natalie Portman.
Scraping the bashguard and clipping the pedals is the only way to go. If your bike doesn't do this, its a freeride bike
Low and slack rocks.
LOL! Low and slack plus long(ish) stem and short stays! Plus, riding way up on that stem to make the sucker turn!Zark said:I never thought of tapping it. Of course the only thing I'm usually thinking of tapping is Natalie Portman.
Scraping the bashguard and clipping the pedals is the only way to go. If your bike doesn't do this, its a freeride bike
dcamp, Yeah I think that's right to some extent.
That's interesting that the Fox didn't work too well on the progressive setting. I was thinking of trying it, but didn't want to mess around too much. I thought it might help the shock out.
Oh well I'll see how it works when I get my shock Push'd.
I've never had a answer to this question: I have a pre-5th element frame with the mods to have that shock fitted. If I fit a 9x3" shock to my frame will I get the 9" of travel? I've seen a few 9"x3" stroke shocks for sale (more that 8.75x2.75) and wondered if it was cool to fit the longer shock or not.
That's interesting that the Fox didn't work too well on the progressive setting. I was thinking of trying it, but didn't want to mess around too much. I thought it might help the shock out.
Oh well I'll see how it works when I get my shock Push'd.
I've never had a answer to this question: I have a pre-5th element frame with the mods to have that shock fitted. If I fit a 9x3" shock to my frame will I get the 9" of travel? I've seen a few 9"x3" stroke shocks for sale (more that 8.75x2.75) and wondered if it was cool to fit the longer shock or not.
Yeah, I know it will jack the bike up by 1/4", but that's like 6-7mm. If I'm running the bike in the middle shock position or lower at the linkage I should be okay again. I know on the later M1 frames you shouldn't run the shock in the highest hole. (I believe that's the case).
Anyway, 8" or so is good for me right now. I'll look around at shocks.. I'm liking the new piggyback avy.
Anyway, 8" or so is good for me right now. I'll look around at shocks.. I'm liking the new piggyback avy.
No you got that the other way around. New M1's can't use the lowest hole in the swing link, it isn't even threaded. Putting it in the lowest hole with the longer shock might cause serious contact issues with the rear wheel at the bottom of its travel.jon-boy said:
It's not worth the geomtry changes for an inch of travel IMO.
Yeah I know. I'll just get the shock worked over and make the rear end work the way it should.
Call Darren at the downhillzone in Seattle (206)523-3337. He has an '01 or '02(? - pre-5th frame) and is running an Avy 9" shock. I believe he runs it in the lowest hole on the link and it makes the geometry just fine. When I offered to sell him my '03 M1 to get the 9" frame he said he was happy with the set-up he had.jon-boy said:
I had a 2001 M1. There are a few options to fit a 5th el on older M1.AlberTop said:
Either you cut the last bit off the seat tube and position it normally.
Or you put the shock upside down. But then you can only use the top hole in the link.Otherwise the link will knock out the adjustment screws on the shock. See pic
I did this lat option, had the front link mount in the lower position and short wheelbase. I then adjusted my forks for a not-too-steep head angle.
To accomodate for the falling rate in the link setup i screwed the chamber volume dial halfway in and put 110psi pressure on the shock.
Worked like a dream.
Nice. So that 5th is a 9x3"?
I'm thinking of having the full Push works done on my fox and there's a concern that I'll have to reposition that to stop the air valve from hitting the frame at full travel.
I'm thinking of having the full Push works done on my fox and there's a concern that I'll have to reposition that to stop the air valve from hitting the frame at full travel.
No, it's an 8.75*2.75jon-boy said:
reduces the travel a bit but it's still a heaps faster bike this way than with any fox i've tried.
A mate has a nearly identical bike, (a 2002 M1 with boxxers and hayes, apart from that identical) and we're usually on a par, racing wheel on wheel down the tracks in france and Switzerland.
One day there was a problem with the 5th and I fitted the fox back.
My mate took 5 to 10 meters out of every turn, kicking me back about 30 seconds at the finish. The day before -with my 5th still working- we were wheel on wheel from start to finish...... No bigger proof of the revolution that platform damping brought to pedalling efficiency.