[vintagemotoguy]

can anyone tell me the differences in the new shockwave from the old

their site is confusing as I understand that they reduced the bb height and travel down to 8" and slackened the head angle however they still show the old 2005 angles and travel on their site.

has anyone run a 9.0" shock with 3" or 2.75 on a shockwave 9.5? what did it drop the bb to and was the travel still above 8"

any help with this would be appriciated

 

[buckoW]

They made new links for the bike which lessen the travel, lower the bb and slacken the head angle. "Velofelo" on MTBR is pretty high up at Mountain Cycle and a very cool guy. I bet if you pm him he will give you all the info you are looking for.

 

[Hulkamaniac]

can anyone tell me the differences in the new shockwave from the old

their site is confusing as I understand that they reduced the bb height and travel down to 8" and slackened the head angle however they still show the old 2005 angles and travel on their site.

has anyone run a 9.0" shock with 3" or 2.75 on a shockwave 9.5? what did it drop the bb to and was the travel still above 8"

any help with this would be appriciated

As buckoW said, the '09 revision is the new links. I had heard some internet chatter a long time ago that the main mono section of the frame was going to be a little different, but I don't know if that actually ever came to production frames.

With regards to the rear shock question, I assume you mean for older (pre '09) Shockwave's, right? I have ridden and raced my shockwave now for the better part of four seasons.....mainly cause my wallet won't allow me to build a new bike, nor will my fiance! Anyways, I started with the stock 9.5x3 Progressive 5th Element shock and eventually swapped it for a 9.5x3 Roco after the 5th Element crapped out on me. I rode it like that for about a year and a half until a well-respected east coast racer and close friend commented on how high the bike felt. Until that point I had just lived with it, choosing to alter my riding style instead of altering the bike.

Late in the 2007 riding/racing season I swapped the 9.5x3 Roco out for a 9x2.75 Roco that took me forever to find. I could have gone with a Double Barrel, but I didn't have the cash and I happened to stumble across the Roco almost by accident. The MC forum on mtbr.com lead me down the road of the 9x2.75 if if I can recall correctly I think it was "Twisted" actually suggested it (former MC employee).

The 9x2.75 shock dropped the bb quite nicely, I seem to remember a 14.5" bb height, but don't quote me on that at the moment (I can measure tonight if you really want to know). The head angle was the biggest improvement, as it slackened out quite nicely. I kept my 8" travel 888rc2x even though a few guys on the mtbr forum said it would be to slack, but honestly I love how the bike feels and corners now. The shock change gave the bike a more "sit in" feel as opposed to the "sit on" feel it used to have. Twisted said the travel would be reduced to around 8.25" (ish) and that the leverage ratio wouldn't be changed enough to affect anything, so I went for it and couldn't be happier honestly.

 

[dropmachine]

Actually, the BB on a 9.5 is a ludicrous 15.75 (at least mine was with an 888) but somehow it corners well. THe headangle is too steep though, and the cockpit is way too tight. Even the large is tiny.

Far as I know, all they did was drop in an 8.75x2.75 shock to slacken it out and drop the BB.

 

[vintagemotoguy]

I have seen several write ups on the internet stating that they changed the main frame head angle by one degree now the 9x2.75 shock and the 8.75 x2.75

anyone able to verify this?

or have the phone # to MC , I do not see it on their Website

 

[Sandwich]

I will comment that the one I rode felt like the angles were slacker. I think it has something to do with the pivot point, amount of travel, and the rising rate linkage, which provides a supple initial stroke. Combined, they provide a comparatively relaxed dynamic geometry. I had a similar thing happen on my racelink, but I think the higher pivot provided less BB drop and HA droop.

Anyways, I don't think they changed anything on the new frame but reduce travel, judging by the info on their website. I assume they added a shorter shock, which should relax the bike slightly.

The frame always struck as being a fun bike, but the angles on it are just so bad. I had to give my BMW to try something with more modern geometry, there's just no way around it.

 

[dropmachine]

the angles on most of thier bikes are questionable. The SIN is the worst feeling bike i have ever sat on. Same with the San An.

 

[Sandwich]

the angles on most of thier bikes are questionable. The SIN is the worst feeling bike i have ever sat on. Same with the San An.

I imagine any bike that's remained relatively unchanged since 1994 isn't going to feel so great compared to modern bikes. The SA was a rad ride in its day. I've actually read, according to a former MC employee, that the Sin was the worst bike design ever. They basically removed the linkage from the Shockwave and bolted the shock to the top of the swingarm. What they were left with was bad geometry, bad leverage ratios, and a quick fix to get 7" of travel.

 

[Hulkamaniac]

I had a Sin prior to my Shockwave and, in all honesty, I can't say anything all that bad about the bike. It had it's quirks, but I've ridden far worse frames in my many years riding dh.

I primarily used it as a fun freeride park type bike, never really dedicated to anything in particular. The geo was tight, as was the top tube, but honestly it never really mattered to me that much. The bike was so light and flickable, which is what made it fun to get into tight and tech trails with. High speed stuff sucked on the Sin, but I didn't buy it expecting it to be a dh rig so it never really mattered.

IDK, maybe I'm just not that picky with frames or not that great of a rider (would like to think that's not the case, but who knows!), but I can't really complain about the Sin ever holding me back like all the forum stories I have read in the past.

 

[JRogers]

I run an 8.75x2.75 on my Shockwave now (old links still). Obviously, it's pretty low (a bit under 14" I think) and slack (low 60s) with the 66sl I have on there. I've ridden the frame for a few seasons and have had a good time on it. It has been durable and reliable. The only issue I've had is that a bolt broke in the linkage after a few seasons. Easily fixed.

The stock geo isn't bad when you're riding, but changing the shock brings it more in line with what's on the market today. Maybe I'd get a new frame if I had the money for it, but I am happy with the bike as it is.