[dexterq20]

Does it matter how I mount my shock on my bike? According to the Cannondale website and the owner's manual, it's supposed to look like this (which is also how I have mine mounted):

However, every other Gemini I've ever seen has the shock mounted like this:

Any advantages/disadvantages to either mounting position (besides access to adjustments)?

 

[Dhmann]

Changing the shock position does not change the feel/performance of the shock. I would just recommend that you put it in the position where you can get access to most of the adjustments.

 

[kidwoo]

If I can avoid it, I try to mount shocks so that the reservoir stays in one place. That way there are no suprises when it compresses. Just me though. It shouldn't matter.

 

[dexterq20]

If I can avoid it, I try to mount shocks so that the reservoir stays in one place. That way there are no suprises when it compresses. Just me though. It shouldn't matter.

The reservoir's definitely not gonna hit the frame in either of the positions. I've bottomed mine in the 1st mounting position with no issues, and Cedric has his mounted in the 2nd position, so it's gotta be good.

 

[zedro]

the second way with the reservoir on the frame side makes more theoretical sense as far as reducing 'unsprung weight', not that anyone could really tell the difference...just one of those things that some snarky engineer-type will undoubtedly bring up on the trail

 

[binary visions]

the second way with the reservoir on the frame side makes more theoretical sense as far as reducing 'unsprung weight', not that anyone could really tell the difference...just one of those things that some snarky engineer-type will undoubtedly bring up on the trail

I.. err.. mounted my Fox that way, for that reason. :

 

[kidwoo]

the second way with the reservoir on the frame side makes more theoretical sense as far as reducing 'unsprung weight', not that anyone could really tell the difference...just one of those things that some snarky engineer-type will undoubtedly bring up on the trail

If the swingarm is unsprung, wouldn't there be less sprung weight with the reservoir on that side? Or is the swingarm sprung because that's what will be moving and the mainframe is taken to be stationary?

So I guess it depends on what defines the sprung side.........the system at sag or the suspension movement at impacts.

Yeah I'm bored.

 

[zedro]

If the swingarm is unsprung, wouldn't there be less sprung weight with the reservoir on that side? Or is the swingarm sprung because that's what will be moving and the mainframe is taken to be stationary?

So I guess it depends on what defines the sprung side.........the system at sag or the suspension movement at impacts.

Yeah I'm bored.

if you clamp the frame to your bench, anything at moves because your rear axle is, is unsprung mass; so anything mounted on the swingarm basically. Even with the reservoir on the frame side, that slight rotation would be technically considered as unsprung mass, but of lower influence since theres no translational motion. The spring is usually considered as indeterminant, although physically there is a component associated to it.

the sprung side is always the system that you want to be suspended, so by definintion the chassis and rider is sprung....cus with the other way around, the ground would be considered as being sprung

 

[kidwoo]

if you clamp the frame to your bench, anything at moves because your rear axle is, is unsprung mass; so anything mounted on the swingarm basically. Even with the reservoir on the frame side, that slight rotation would be technically considered as unsprung mass, but of lower influence since theres no translational motion. The spring is usually considered as indeterminant, although physically there is a component associated to it.

the sprung side is always the system that you want to be suspended, so by definintion the chassis and rider is sprung....cus with the other way around, the ground would be considered as being sprung

Gotcha. So my other statement would be correct then? By putting the "heavier" side of the shock on the swingarm, you're reducing sprung weight........... neglecting, like you said, the slight raising of the shock that occurs on compression. If that's the case, then what you said originally about mounting the resivoir foward recducing sprung weight would be incorrect?


Pay attention here dexter, this is really important stuff regarding the minute performance details of your bike here.

 

[zedro]

Gotcha. So my other statement would be correct then? By putting the "heavier" side of the shock on the swingarm, you're reducing sprung weight........... neglecting, like you said, the slight raising of the shock that occurs on compression. If that's the case, then what you said originally about mounting the resivoir foward recducing sprung weight would be incorrect?

i never said that, i said mounting the reservoir foward reduces unsprung weight, which is what you ideally want to do. The lower the ratio between the unsprung vs. sprung weight is (ie. difference in natural freqencies), the more effective your suspension will be.

 

[kidwoo]

i never said that, i said mounting the reservoir foward reduces unsprung weight, which is what you ideally want to do. The lower the ratio between the unsprung vs. sprung weight is (ie. difference in natural freqencies), the more effective your suspension will be.

Oops. I was thinking you said reduce sprung weight.........which of course I could have verified by actually going back and reading your first post again, but you know, it's like all the way up at the top, and I'm reading the bottom and well.......you understand.