Yeah, I second "why 170?", I think around 6" is a must to really shred at the resort and for DH racing, a 29er with 6" is going to be pretty damn capable if the geometry is right, but 150, 160, 170mm doesn't really make much of a difference IME, what makes a difference is a good coil shock tune if you are looking at travel within 10mm of that approximately 6 inch bike, so I'd take a 150mm with a good leverage rate for coil and a custom tuned coil every day and sunday before 160mm of some air-shock setup. I think that the only way for a 29er to stay somewhat competitive is to keep the travel and weight reasonable to leverage the ability of the 29er wheels to maintain speed and roll over stuff, adding too much weight and travel makes it bog down more when pedaling and accelerating IME. Note, I'm not saying you need a 130 or 140mm 29er, I think that gets kind of ridiculous riding at a resort or DH, but I think "around 6 inches" makes more sense.
Talk Me Out of a Capra 29?
- Thread starter Lelandjt
- Start date
The old model Capra (the one I have) used a 222x66 on the 170mm frames and 222x66 on the 165mm frames.
222x70 coil shocks are pretty easily sourced (new or S/H) and it's a pretty common upgrade* on older Capras.
The new 29 Capras use Metric bullshit. so you're looking at 230x60 vs 230x65
If you go for a Lyrik suspended full build. ie. 29CF or 29AL. The 29 Lyrik can go to 170 or 180mm. with a simple air shaft swap. it's a good fork.
*not necessarily an upgrade but you know what I mean
Last edited:
Reading between the lines after the Capra embargo was lifted was I the only person that read all the 'First Impressions' and took away that Capra 27.5 = Awesome and Capra 29 = Meh....????
Enduro-mtb.com being the one exception, but they don't count because lots of reasons that need no explanation.
Enduro-mtb.com being the one exception, but they don't count because lots of reasons that need no explanation.
A lanky 6'2".
Yeah, 170mm might be overkill but without being a little overkill why even get this bike when my Nomad is still perfectly good? The Hightower at 150 felt a little short on travel but the fork could have been bumped to 160 and the rear shock could have had some more tuning (or replacing). My Nomad has always felt like plenty of bike except when we get thrown onto a full on DH course. I'm thinking this 170mm 29er will basically feel like my 26" V10 on those courses (but maybe faster). I'm hoping for basically a DH bike that I can also pedal to the top of some wild back country descents in my area.
As for what races it will get used at? I always bring the Bronson & Nomad to every race and decide during practice days which is faster. Now the Capra will be added to the mix. I'm guessing it'll be used at Keystone and maybe the other resort races.
Last edited:
Buddy of mine has an alloy 29 Capra on order (expecting June delivery). Can't wait to check it out in the flesh and see how he does on it (coming off of a noodly Trek Fuel EX). I think it's a cool idea and has potential for straight line smashing. Personally I cannot imagine having three manduro bikes and choosing one for a race given the track. I'd spend the whole weekend learning how to ride bike A, B, or C again...but that's just me dawg. Good luck - if I remember (this summer, lol), I'll post up initial impressions once I can fondle my buddy's new bike and ride it a bit.
No bottle cage is the main reason not to buy that I can see, its a deal breaker for me but might not be for you. 170 29er 36 is possible, I have one, but I don't think you can get them new in that configuration. I have a reduced offset 170mm 36 on my Slash.
Haha, that's my favorite feature, on an idiological level. I don't ever want a bottle cage on an MTB so I hate that most frames are compromised to fit one.
Fair enough, scratch that one from the list then!
I don't get that whole water bottle thing. Maybe I'm just old, cranky and intolerant.
I think if I like the looks of a bike, the geometry is what I want, and the suspension is designed the way I want, I couldn't give two shits if it has a place for a water bottle or not. It's the dumbest argument for walking away from a potential awesome bike.
I think if I like the looks of a bike, the geometry is what I want, and the suspension is designed the way I want, I couldn't give two shits if it has a place for a water bottle or not. It's the dumbest argument for walking away from a potential awesome bike.
I do lots of shorter rides (1-1 1/2 hr) rides fairly close to home, so don't need a pack but want something to drink. Also most mountain streams are safe to drink from here in NZ so you can top up. I had a bike without a bottle mount a few years ago and i hated it, I ended up tucking a bottle into the back of my shorts most of the time which is a dumb solution. I think to state that everyone who prioritises a bottle mount as dumb is pretty short sighted, just as it would be to write off a bike completely for not having it as some people don't care.
Trigger has been pulled on a Capra 29 Pro, size L (same reach as XL Santa Cruzs), white/black. I'll get it June 7 and do a bunch of parts swapping, then lots of timed runs against the Nomad 3. Right now I can do a sighting run on a trail and know if I'd be faster on my Nomad or Bronson. I need to get that way with the Capra too. I'm sure all three bikes will have their fortes and weaknesses.
All my bikes since 2014 have Sram XX1 (34t on 27", 32t on 29") but this bike will have XTR on an E13 cassette with 32t. I may like the greater gear range or I may find it unnecessary. I'm curious if the larger jumps will bother me. I think I'll like the adjustable clutch cuz Srams have seemed chain slappy.
All my bikes since 2014 have Sram XX1 (34t on 27", 32t on 29") but this bike will have XTR on an E13 cassette with 32t. I may like the greater gear range or I may find it unnecessary. I'm curious if the larger jumps will bother me. I think I'll like the adjustable clutch cuz Srams have seemed chain slappy.
would be interesting to to see how this bike handles with a dual crown fork and 29" DH tires. it even looks like 650b's would work with the flip chip in the high setting and lower travel shox.
Has somebody experience with what difference having 30% of progressivity vs 60 to 70% makes? The Capras are really progressive even compared to some DH bikes.
As I understand, the higher progressivity will increase the effect of the damping through the stroke: low damping for good sensitivity early in the stroke because of the high leverage switching gradually to higher damping later in the stroke since the leverage gets smaller. The higher progressivity should imply a lower spring rate (for a given bottoming out force at the rear wheel) and should also imply a softer early wheel rate progressively increasing to a higher one toward the end of stroke (more ramp up even with a lower spring rate).
All that sounds good but could too much of goodness spoils everything? Allegedly?
It might be so that the bike goes through the first part of the travel too easily maybe even having too much SAG. Compensating with a higher spring rate might result in not being able to use full travel?
Maybe @hmcleay has some insight to share since his design is quite progressive too.
As I understand, the higher progressivity will increase the effect of the damping through the stroke: low damping for good sensitivity early in the stroke because of the high leverage switching gradually to higher damping later in the stroke since the leverage gets smaller. The higher progressivity should imply a lower spring rate (for a given bottoming out force at the rear wheel) and should also imply a softer early wheel rate progressively increasing to a higher one toward the end of stroke (more ramp up even with a lower spring rate).
All that sounds good but could too much of goodness spoils everything? Allegedly?
It might be so that the bike goes through the first part of the travel too easily maybe even having too much SAG. Compensating with a higher spring rate might result in not being able to use full travel?
Maybe @hmcleay has some insight to share since his design is quite progressive too.
Doesn't that apply to almost every topic on RM?
Yup.
Yes, maybe l am but I don't mind. It goes well with my analytical personality and it's also what I do as a living... but I am not bothered by this kind of questions while riding, it's more after riding or during sleepless nights. So I come here as a therapy, write my thoughts / theories / ideas down and let them live their own live in the monkey mayhem. It is quite liberating!
I really don't think so, wheel rate (vertical trail feel) is depends on MANY factors including frame progressivity and this is very important in most situations on a bike, even a bike travel that is so often discussed is really just a mean to alter wheel rates for a given amount of energy you want to handle.
Yeah as you said, leverage ratio impact the wheel rate by modifying both spring forces and damper forces, in contrast playing with the spring characteristics does also impact wheel rate but not in regards to damping forces. So you could basically have 2 bikes with different leverage curves but match their wheel "spring curve" by manipulating the air spring parameters, however if you have the same damper in both shock, you will have different "trail feel" in regards to damping. I feel it is ideal to not have to alter spring parameter too much too keep some kind of damping-spring proportionality to some extent.
Also, as you mentioned, having too much progressivity for your needs (I like to see it as system energy capacity rather than peak force as energy takes into account force evolution rather than just peak) has many downsides just like too little progression.
If we take the simple case of a linearly decreasing leverage ratio and we neglect damping and other suspension parameters, as you increase progressivity and keep the same sag wheel rate AND geometry (sag), you keep getting lower wheel rate below sag ang higher wheel rate above sag.
Lower wheel rate below sag means that the suspension will feel more supple as you initially land on chopped stuff or when the wheel compress after "falling" into a hole. but that does also mean that the potential energy stored in the spring below sag is lower and the bike will feel more dead in that part of the travel (noticed how the infamous SC bikes feel lively in certain situations?).
Higher wheel rate above sag means that the bike wheel rate you support you more as you pump and go into bumps faster, and will also handle the added energy of a more agressive ride. But if you do not need the bike to handle that much energy, you might feel unnecessarily harsh wheel rate later in the travel. Some will then decrease spring pressure leading to altered geometry AND decreased sag wheel rate which could give you a "mushy" or "wallowing" ride.
WC riders do take larger hits than everyone but they still need to have their wheel move out of the way in a much more mortal way when they fly their unweighted bike over a rockgarden or when they go through some braking bumps. They have to deal a larger range of force hence they need more progression than my light/intermediate/non jumping girlfriend.
I think we have the products we deserve and by educating ourselves about what we need and voting with our dollars, that's how we push manufacturer to make better products. If we only talk and ask about nice paintjobs, don't expect manufacturers to develop better performing products!
That's just my view on this very interesting topic, feel free to correct me/add your thoughts
Last edited:
^Interesting thoughts. I usually like a mildly progressive feel. I want big hit absorbtion but not too much sag/wallow/pedal mush in early travel. Since the frame is very progressive I'll start out with no volume spacers in the DHX2 and higher air pressure to limit sag.
Thanks @vincent , very interesting indeed!
So what you mean, if I summarise, is that the more aggressive and physically fit the rider, the more the need for progressivity?
So what you mean, if I summarise, is that the more aggressive and physically fit the rider, the more the need for progressivity?
The DHX2 is a coil shock so no spacers in this case. And if you go the air way with an X2, you can keep the one coming with your bike and remove a spacer inside to extend the stroke.
Last edited:
[Longer response]
I also know that I really get on well with mine.
Apparently YTs reasoning for changing the leverage curve/ratio was to give a little more mid stroke support and to address criticism from some riders of the first gen being a bit harsh through fast chop.
I personally have never felt this to be a problem. One friend who also had a Capra did complain about this a lot but he primarily rode/raced DH on high end coil suspension. Fairly quick but not a playful/flamboyant rider at all infact hecan't even bunnyhop without SPDs so I completely see why he didn't 'get' the playful/poppiness I like so much about the bike... Getting rid of that characteristic in order to let it smooth out the rough like a DH bike can for me would defeat the purpose of owning a Capra entirely.
I already have 2 DH bikes for that.
I have no idea what this actually means. I do know that the new Capra's are slightly less progresive than the 2017 one I have.
I also know that I really get on well with mine.
Apparently YTs reasoning for changing the leverage curve/ratio was to give a little more mid stroke support and to address criticism from some riders of the first gen being a bit harsh through fast chop.
I personally have never felt this to be a problem. One friend who also had a Capra did complain about this a lot but he primarily rode/raced DH on high end coil suspension. Fairly quick but not a playful/flamboyant rider at all infact hecan't even bunnyhop without SPDs so I completely see why he didn't 'get' the playful/poppiness I like so much about the bike... Getting rid of that characteristic in order to let it smooth out the rough like a DH bike can for me would defeat the purpose of owning a Capra entirely.
I already have 2 DH bikes for that.
Sorry, too many similar names from Fox. The model I'm getting has a DPX2 that's listed as 60mm stroke. So you're saying it has a 5mm bottom out spacer in it and it's really a 65mm stroke shock? I'm gonna get a X2 with the same specs that comes on the Pro Race model, 65mm stroke. Since you're telling me this is a very progressive frame I'll try it first with the spring as linear as possible (remove all volume spacers) and enough air for 27-30% sag.
I'm really enjoying the progressive curve of my 27.5 alu Capra. It takes some extra effort to get the sag right and get all the nobs turned to the correct spots but I love the way it rides. I feel like the sag setting has more impact on progressive bikes. I tend to set sag by feel more than %. Start with not enough air and increase until it feels too harsh then back off a bit. I also spent the first few rides adding more and more rebound clicks (slower) till it finally felt good.
Over all I like the aggressive feeling that progressive bikes have. I'm glad there seem to be more and more of them.
Yes.
Last edited:
Yeah for sure, it does not mean that slower riders can't like more progressive bikes but fast, and agressive riders need more progression because they put more energy in the bike, the trail does too because they ride faster and do bigger gaps. They do need more damping too and that is taken care of in some way when you have more progression from the frame.
I think we made some progress in the bike industry with size specific components and sometime chainstay length and shock tune but when you think about it, it is absurd to think that with the large spectrum of size, weight and ability of the riders, manufacturer put out that a bike can be perfect for a given a discipline and our buying decision is based on a geometry (which I think is really not as relevant as most think) and spec tables. Progression, desired wheel rate and stiffness for that matter should all be something serious rider look at but such information is just hidden from consumer.
So true! people stress sag % way too much IMO, I know it's the easiest measurable metric but realistically, you can play around a couple psi which significantly alter wheel rate without being able to measure a difference on sag. Let's say it, who can repeatedly measure a difference of 2% on sag (1,3mm on a 65mm stroke shock)? Not me!. Also, most frame wont have their geometry or kinematics thrown off dramatically by running ±3-5% from recommended sag, maybe it could suit you even better!
Last edited:
The TALAS cart only goes up to 160mm so I'll be sticking with a Float spring and doing the poor man's TALAS, a toe strap around the crown and arch. Lighter and better feeling spring anyway.
On the super-progressive frames I've owned, there was quite a bit of harshness deeper in the travel as you went through the rocky stuff at speed. I think an overall more aggressive rider needs a higher spring rate, not necessarily a whole bunch more progression. It seems like everyone (industry) tries to get "more mid-stroke-support" with everything but more low-speed compression damping (assuming circuits can handle it without working the shock working like crap overall).
Last edited:
^As a self professed "fast rider" I've always liked firm spring rates and compression damping paired with a mildly progressive frame so I can still use full travel. The V10 is the most progressive bike I've ever owned. We'll see how I get on with the Capra.
Well, I never had one in my hands so check that with more knowledgeable person. I have read from trustworthy people that RS metric shock have spacer to limit the stroke for a given e2e length and I suppose that Fox is doing the same which, by the way, makes plenty of sense from a production point of view. I know that Fox do it at least on its non metric X2, mine is 200x51 with a spacer and 200x57 without (sorry for giving you the length in millimetre...)
The X2 is a large volume/diameter shock and will therefore theoretically fit the capra better than the dpx2 since its spring curve will show less ramp up.
I also find sad that this type of info is not available but on the other hand the demand for such information is pretty low from most riders which, as I see it, is a comfortable situation for the industry since the less educated the consumers the more marketing BS can be thrown at them!
On the bright side, Vital has started to publish some numbers about the bikes they review.
I find it kinda sad anyone thinks they NEED this sort of information to have fun playing on bicycles in the woods.
it's helpful for sure. But in no way essential unless you're at the absolute top end of your game and your living depends on it.