[rideit]

Assuming there is adequate frame clearance, are there obvious downsides to running a shock that is 5mm longer in stroke (60mm to 65)?
I would assume that it might behave a little differently from stock, but is there any way to know from kinematics if the ride quality would be compromised?
Considering a new x2 air that has hsc/lsc/lsr/hsr, and I can get one that has 5mm more stroke.
talk me out of this lunacy.

 

[Jm_]

Yes, this is my opinion:

 

[Westy]

Meh. Much more of an over-forker. Am I the only person who would be happy with a 120/160mm bike?

 

[Jm_]

Meh. Much more of an over-forker. Am I the only person who would be happy with a 120/160mm bike?

 

[Jm_]

I doubt 5mm more length is going to significantly affect the kinematics on any bike. If it's only stroke and not a longer eye to eye, you just need to make sure there is no interference at bottom-out and that you account for the shocks bottom-out bumper. AS usually falls way off for any bike except the most screwed up designs that deep in the travel, so that's not a concern. LR could be more affected, it's likely to continue the trend shown in linkage blog or a kinematic program, again, you are probably only going to have a problem with some of the more funky bikes out there. If something is intended for an air shock and goes regressive at the end of travel, it's going to go even more regressive with more stroke. It's not like the curve is going to suddenly turn 90 degrees or anything crazy, so if the bike has a LC plot, you should be able to eyeball the effects based on the trend just fine, or buy the software and plug it in yourself.

In probably 99% of the examples that you'd run across, if it's not suitable for coil at 60mm stroke, it's not going to be suitable at 65. If it is suitable at 60, it'll probably work just fine at 65, except in a couple rare cases where the bike was already marginal as-F**k for a coil shock.

Like with this Foes, it's already pretty marginal for a coil shock, very little progression and the curve goes regressive towards the end, the added 5mm of stroke will add roughly 10mm or slightly more travel, which would cause that LC to keep going in the indicated direction, resulting in the LR and overall progression being pretty damn close to what it was in the beginning, which would be pretty fucked up for a coil shock. Most bikes aren't all screwed up like this and this is completely intended for an air shock, the falling initial rate and strong progressive mid-stroke are dead give-aways.

Foes Trail Mixer 2016

En esta entrada voy a analizar a la nueva Foes Trail Mixer 2016, un modelo realizado en colaboración con el distribuidor Timberline Cycles,...

linkagedesign.blogspot.com

 

[englertracing]

5mm @ 3-1 is going to add 15mm travel
Gonna raise the rear a bit

 

[Mo(n)arch]

On which bike do you want to do that?
Also, Fox uses a spacer to get from 65 to 60mm stroke. So basically the same shock and no problem to try both.
Lots of people do it for example on the Reign29 going from 146mm to almost 160mm rear wheel travel.

 

[Inclag]

Assuming there is adequate frame clearance, are there obvious downsides to running a shock that is 5mm longer in stroke (60mm to 65)?
I would assume that it might behave a little differently from stock, but is there any way to know from kinematics if the ride quality would be compromised?
Considering a new x2 air that has hsc/lsc/lsr/hsr, and I can get one that has 5mm more stroke.
talk me out of this lunacy.

So same eye to eye?

 

[canadmos]

Meh. Much more of an over-forker. Am I the only person who would be happy with a 120/160mm bike?

Yes please.

Mach 5.5 Carbon

Are you looking to build Ultra light, strong and capable mountain bike? Check our Mach 5.5 Carbon Pivot bikes. Build your dream bike with Pivot Cycles.

store.pivotcycles.com

The first gen Banshee Spitfire I had was kinda of similar with 130mm in the back and 160mm up front. Super fun bike.

 

[Westy]

View attachment 151760

No


Maybe?

 

[rideit]

On which bike do you want to do that?
Also, Fox uses a spacer to get from 65 to 60mm stroke. So basically the same shock and no problem to try both.
Lots of people do it for example on the Reign29 going from 146mm to almost 160mm rear wheel travel.

‘21 Altitude.

 

[rideit]

So same eye to eye?

Yes.

 

[englertracing]

oh,
i read it as 5mm longer eye to eye.

so,
Fox's dhx2 7.875 x 2.25, and 7.875 x 2.0 are the same shock but the 2.0 has a hockey puck on the end of the shaft.
I have cut one down, as the bike was delivered with 2.8" tires and the first thing that happens is the tire hits the seat tube. With tires that normal people run you have a lot more clearance and can gain 1/4" of travel but whacking that spacer down.

I say go for it, and if you have binding or tire clearance issues, make turn spacerz on lathez

 

[buckoW]

I did that with a 205x65 on my Raaw. If the tire or brace doesn’t contact the seat tube at bottom out then go for it. You can always clip a spacer under the bottom out bumper if you want to go back and forth.

It would give you more or less 10mm more travel assuming the end stroke ratio is around 2:1.

 

[rideit]

It actually says in BOLD RED not to exceed 60mm stroke in the tech manual. Linkage will hit the frame.

 

[6thElement]

It actually says in BOLD RED not to exceed 60mm stroke in the tech manual. Linkage will hit the frame.

Treat that as a challenge. If @Adventurous can do it with his Yeti, you can with your RM

 

[rideit]

yeah, those 'engineers', what do they know, anyway? I should listen to Pinkbikers instead.

 

[Westy]

It actually says in BOLD RED not to exceed 60mm stroke in the tech manual. Linkage will hit the frame.

 

[rideit]

You need a carbon blade, silly, that doesn’t have one.

 

[6thElement]

Electrical tape around the seat tube as bottom out protection from the linkage.

 

[rideit]

“What’s the worst that could happen?“

 

[djjohnr]

yeah, those 'engineers', what do they know, anyway? I should listen to Pinkbikers instead.

Based on my experience with how well aligned Rocky linkages are, you have about a 50/50 chance.

 

[Adventurous]

Treat that as a challenge. If @Adventurous can do it with his Yeti, you can with your RM

In fairness, I did compression testing and the rear tire will hit the frame well before the linkage bottoms out, and the shock bottoms before the tire hits the frame.

So I'm in the clear to donkey kong some drops.

 

[rideit]

Based on my experience with how well aligned Rocky linkages are, you have about a 50/50 chance.

TBF, I was a rocky dealer for ten years, and outside of a few etsx’s, I really had no Rocky warranties that I can think of. They were WAY better than my other lines. I think you just got a dud/ Monday/Friday job.

 

[djjohnr]

TBF, I was a rocky dealer for ten years, and outside of a few etsx’s, I really had no Rocky warranties that I can think of. They were WAY better than my other lines. I think you just got a dud/ Monday/Friday job.

I worked for the largest Rocky dealer in the US in the early 2000s, and always found their warranty rate to be low and their customer service to be really good. However, I've talked to several people who had similar experiences to me with the 2018 bikes - shitty QC and a really long warranty process.

 

[FarkinRyan]

So...all the new metric shocks can be run at the maximum stroke length quoted for a given eye-to-eye length in that size regardless of the stroke configuration that yours came in.

If we take for example a Rock Shox Super Deluxe air in; 230x57.5, 230x60, 230x62.5 and 230x65mm. The 230x65 is a shock with no travel spacer the the 230x57.5 is an identical shock with 7.5mm of travel spacers and both can be run at any of the listed configurations or any made up stroke within that range you want really just by adding or deleting or making your own travel spacers.

The limiting factor is likely your frame, especially in this hypothetical instance if you have a 57.5mm stroked shock and try to long stroke it for more travel you obviously need to check bottom out clearance with no spring before you go ride it or bad things will probably happen.

Edit: Just to be clear if you are just removing travel spacers on a metric shock with the goal of increasing travel you 100% need to check for both frame to frame and rear wheel to frame contact or bad things will likely happen.

 

[rideit]

well, yeah...

 

[FarkinRyan]

If it clears...great! There are no obvious dowsides, your shock can definitely handle it.

 

[rideit]

I’m gonna take Rocky’s word for it.

 

[canadmos]

You didn't try it now, though.

 

[buckoW]

I’m gonna take Rocky’s word for it.

How much room do you have at bottom out? Tolerances usually let you do things like this.

 

[englertracing]

I’m gonna take Rocky’s word for it.

That's boring as shit.
Go take your shock off bottom that bastard bike out.
Use your calipers to find out the eye to eye at the limit.
Maybe what you need is a 62.5mm shock

 

[Jm_]

That's boring as shit.
Go take your shock off bottom that bastard bike out.
Use your calipers to find out the eye to eye at the limit.
Maybe what you need is a 62.5mm shock

Run some tape and build it up so you can detect early bottom out on the frame.

 

[rideit]

Now I’m paralyzed...
The only Lizard Approved thing to do is buy 3 or 4 Factory shocks in order to experiment.

 

[jstuhlman]

he could probably just wrap some electrical tape and foam around his seat tube as a dope-ass bump stop for his rear whee;l. i'm sure it will be fine. paging @Sandwich to a different ghetto fix thread . . .

 

[Westy]

he could probably just wrap some electrical tape and foam around his seat tube as a dope-ass bump stop for his rear whee;l. i'm sure it will be fine. paging @Sandwich to a different ghetto fix thread . . .

You don't want the wheel to stop rotating when it bottoms out so better off using a roller blade wheel.

 

[sethimus]

I did that with a 205x65 on my Raaw.

how much space left inbetween tire and seat tube on full bottom out?

 

[toodles]

We were discussing this recently and one thing that came up from one industry dude is that they want the bikes to have the same travel in all sizes. So they limit the shock stroke not because thats the optimal solution, but because in the XS or S frame size the bike will contact itself at bottom out. The M, L and XL end up short shocked for less headache and to stop accidents occurring if the shops swap parts or the dealers fuck shit up. Apparently that is the rationale behind some weird travel numbers we see on bikes from some very large, giant-like manufacturers these days.

 

[Jm_]

We were discussing this recently and one thing that came up from one industry dude is that they want the bikes to have the same travel in all sizes. So they limit the shock stroke not because thats the optimal solution, but because in the XS or S frame size the bike will contact itself at bottom out. The M, L and XL end up short shocked for less headache and to stop accidents occurring if the shops swap parts or the dealers fuck shit up. Apparently that is the rationale behind some weird travel numbers we see on bikes from some very large, giant-like manufacturers these days.

I've heard that before too, seems to have at least some validity.

 

[SkaredShtles]

We were discussing this recently and one thing that came up from one industry dude is that they want the bikes to have the same travel in all sizes. So they limit the shock stroke not because thats the optimal solution, but because in the XS or S frame size the bike will contact itself at bottom out. The M, L and XL end up short shocked for less headache and to stop accidents occurring if the shops swap parts or the dealers fuck shit up. Apparently that is the rationale behind some weird travel numbers we see on bikes from some very large, giant-like manufacturers these days.

Makes sense... I long-shocked my old '10 Reign (size L) with no issues. But I bet smaller frame sizes may have run into issues...