[offtheedge]

Not going to be a huge change though, as it's not really position sensitive like SPV is.

Yeah, I asked him,” so set it between 35 and 40mm right"...he concurred

thay also said the shoc ships with 2wt.

 

[evilbob]

I use Spectro Golden Suspension Fluid (ultra light) for my ROCO and Golden Spectro Cartridge Fork Fluid (125/150) for my 888.

 

[Nagaredama]

Here's the closeup of the rear end of the morewood when it's compressed. It's pretty easy to tell by the angle the shock makes that it's a falling rate bike. It's also not just a "slight" falling rate, it's a drastic falling rate. Like a bullit, like my foes was. It NEEDS a progressive shock of some kind.

According to Linkage the leverage ratio of the Morewood Izumu goes from 2.96 at 0mm of travel to 3.07 at maximum travel.

Is that considered drastically falling rate?

Maybe linkage is wrong or I have no clue how to interpret the data it spits out.

Can you enlighten us?

 

[Jm_]

According to Linkage the leverage ratio of the Morewood Izumu goes from 2.96 at 0mm of travel to 3.07 at maximum travel.

Is that considered drastically falling rate?

Maybe linkage is wrong or I have no clue how to interpret the data it spits out.

Can you enlighten us?

Well, once again, the red line shows the progressiveness. If it is sloping downward in the case of the morewood, that's a falling rate.

The key is the angle that the shock makes between the swingarm pivot and the fixed pivot. If it were somehow possible to compress the shock and NOT have it rotate(in other words there is no angle created because it remains stationary), it would then be possible to make it a "linear" bike. Because that angle is increasing, it's a falling rate. The bigger that angle, the higher the leverage ratio becomes and the easier it is to move the rear wheel.

 

[Nagaredama]

Well, once again, the red line shows the progressiveness. If it is sloping downward in the case of the morewood, that's a falling rate.

The key is the angle that the shock makes between the swingarm pivot and the fixed pivot. If it were somehow possible to compress the shock and NOT have it rotate(in other words there is no angle created because it remains stationary), it would then be possible to make it a "linear" bike. Because that angle is increasing, it's a falling rate. The bigger that angle, the higher the leverage ratio becomes and the easier it is to move the rear wheel.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Jm_]

Thanks for the clarification.

My foes is an even more drastic example;

Imagine the rear swingarm as a "lever arm" (well, that's exactly what it is).

As the bike goes through it's travel, you're getting a more effective "lever arm", which is of course making it easier to overcome the shock, hence a falling rate.

This is how sometimes some people can just "look" at a bike and tell if it is falling rate or not. It isn't very exacting to do it that way, and every once and a while you might end up wrong when trying to guess if something radically different is progressive, linear, or falling rate. Simple single pivots like this one and the morewood are usually pretty easy to figure out though.

The real intersting ones are the ones where shock pivot approaches a zero degree angle as it moves through the travel if you line up the rear dropout to that pivot, and then the pivot to the fix (frame) pivot. That makes a progressive curve usually, although depending on the frame of reference, you could claim that it's only approaching linear, and not really progressive.

 

[WheelieMan]

Here's the closeup of the rear end of the morewood when it's compressed. It's pretty easy to tell by the angle the shock makes that it's a falling rate bike. It's also not just a "slight" falling rate, it's a drastic falling rate. Like a bullit, like my foes was. It NEEDS a progressive shock of some kind.

I still wouldn't consider the Morewood a drastic falling rate. If all you do is look at the slope of the line on that graph, then yes it looks pretty drastic. But the actual gradient stays in the .326 to .317 range throughout the travel. Pretty darn linear if you ask me. If the gradient scale is compressed enough, then any linear design could appear to be either falling or rising rate.

 

[Jm_]

I still wouldn't consider the Morewood a drastic falling rate.

Then there is no such thing as a drastic falling rate, because the morewood is in line with bikes like the bullit and heckler as far as falling rate is concerned.

 

[WheelieMan]

Then there is no such thing as a drastic falling rate, because the morewood is in line with bikes like the bullit and heckler as far as falling rate is concerned.

Maybe in line with the Bullit, but the Heckler and Foes FXR are going to be much more drastically falling rate.

As far as downhill bikes go, the Morewood would definitely be one of the "most drastically falling rate" designs. Get any more extreme and the design would start to look like that crappy old Marin DH bike that was basically a Heckler with 11 inches of travel!

It's too bad the Roco doesn't have better progressivity adjustment; a user serviceable shock is pretty darn appealing.

 

[Jm_]

BTW, here's "my" bike.

Probably wouldn't work for a lot of reasons (would need some good bushings on that top shock mount), but it's still fun to put something on here and see if it works.

 

[Black Imperator]

So , can any one teel me can I make roco work on my bike, or i need another shock?!

 

[thaflyinfatman]

No, they are NOTHING alike. The SGS looks progressive on the program to me, but the morewood is a drastic falling rate, huge difference in rate between the two.

The red line tells you if it's progressive, linear, or falling rate.

Can you show me what you were using to compare the "progressiveness" of the two bikes?

I'm using the same program (Linkage 2.0). You were right about the SGS being more progressive (as dumb as this will sound, I was looking at the wrong model before - I had the 2002 model up instead of the 03/04), but I still maintain that it's not a particularly progressive bike (see below). However you're misinterpreting the meaning of the red line in the numerical sense (in the Morewood case at least), because the scale (on the right hand side of the graph) is what determines the rate of change of leverage ratio, and that scale is not universal between graphs. If you care to take a closer look at the Morewood model, you'll notice it varies only from 0.325 to 0.316 (these are inverses of what we traditionally call the leverage ratio, ie 3:1 being 0.333, 4:1 being 0.25 etc). This is not even a 3% variation (2.85% by my calculation). This does not qualify as a "drastic falling rate" - it's barely any change at all. I have a feeling you were probably simply looking at the gradient of that red line and neglecting the scale, which gives a false impression because the scale is arbitrarily determined for each separate model. [edit: notice someone mentioned this before]

For what it's worth, the SGS's leverage ratio changes from 0.28 to 0.38 (by my model, measured directly from my own 04 frame), which is about a 36% variation through the shock rate (which compared to say a PDC Solaris or Avanti D-8 is relatively mild). And I would like to correct myself about the falling-rate end-travel too, however according to my model, this does still apply to the Sunday frames. I would not ride my frame without a progressive shock in there, it would have to be set up with much less than 35% sag (what I currently run) to avoid hard bottoming all the time.

So in conclusion: we were both right and both wrong. I hate it when that happens. Ah well... live and learn.

 

[Jm_]

I'm using the same program (Linkage 2.0). You were right about the SGS being more progressive (as dumb as this will sound, I was looking at the wrong model before - I had the 2002 model up instead of the 03/04), but I still maintain that it's not a particularly progressive bike (see below). However you're misinterpreting the meaning of the red line in the numerical sense (in the Morewood case at least), because the scale (on the right hand side of the graph) is what determines the rate of change of leverage ratio, and that scale is not universal between graphs. If you care to take a closer look at the Morewood model, you'll notice it varies only from 0.325 to 0.316 (these are inverses of what we traditionally call the leverage ratio, ie 3:1 being 0.333, 4:1 being 0.25 etc). This is not even a 3% variation (2.85% by my calculation). This does not qualify as a "drastic falling rate" - it's barely any change at all. I have a feeling you were probably simply looking at the gradient of that red line and neglecting the scale, which gives a false impression because the scale is arbitrarily determined for each separate model. [edit: notice someone mentioned this before]

For what it's worth, the SGS's leverage ratio changes from 0.28 to 0.38 (by my model, measured directly from my own 04 frame), which is about a 36% variation through the shock rate (which compared to say a PDC Solaris or Avanti D-8 is relatively mild). And I would like to correct myself about the falling-rate end-travel too, however according to my model, this does still apply to the Sunday frames. I would not ride my frame without a progressive shock in there, it would have to be set up with much less than 35% sag (what I currently run) to avoid hard bottoming all the time.

So in conclusion: we were both right and both wrong. I hate it when that happens. Ah well... live and learn.

I can live with that, I am aware of the varying scales, but I don't always remember to check em. Makes comparissions difficult.

I get the exact same figures for the variation of the leverage ratio on the morewood and SGS. "almost linear" is still pretty far away from progressive though, but I do have to take back some of the "excessive falling rate" comments. Still falling rate though.

You don't see too many nasty traits on some of these bikes untill you go and put a non-SPV/progressive type shock on it. My foes came stock with a vanilla rl rear shock, and you could sit on it and sag it a reasonable amount (25-30%), but when you hit bumps or drops, it would bottom. A DHX made it a much nicer riding bike, even compared to the curnut.

 

[thaflyinfatman]

Linkage does have a feature (little tick-box somewhere in that panel 2nd from the left) that lets you directly overlay two different files that you have open at any one time. If you do the SGS vs the Morewood, the Morewood will look fairly flat, and if you chuck in a 3rd model that's *really* progressive (PDC for example) they both look quite flat.

Possibly a better comparison is the "forces" tab but that only works for singlepivot and linkage-driven singlepivots, not 4-bars unfortunately.