Quantcast

The REALLY best rear shock in the world!

dropmachine

Turbo Monkey
Sep 7, 2001
2,923
10
Your face.
Rapid recovery : Isn't that called rebound control?

Counter Measure: Unless Im missing something, its a negative spring no?


Always like RockShox because they seemed a little more direct with their marketing, but this round...very silly.
 

frango

Turbo Monkey
Jun 13, 2007
1,456
5
And how would it compare to internally simple (as I've been told) CC coil or air?
 
Last edited:

tuumbaq

Monkey
Jul 5, 2006
726
0
Squamish BC
lol...Rock Shox really stinks...most rider wouldnt be able to tell the difference, yet this things is 60 times better than its predecessor... 60 times???!!! So, you're saying the old Vivid was absolute garbage? I mean 60 times is like A LOT !

lol, epic fail, the product and NOW the marketing
 
Last edited:

norbar

Turbo Monkey
Jun 7, 2007
9,663
385
Warsaw :/
lol...Rock Shox really stinks...most rider wouldnt be able to tell the difference, yet this things is 60 times better than its predecessor... 60 times???!!! So, you're saying the old Vivid was absolute garbage? I mean 60 times is like A LOT !

lol, epic fail, the product and NOW the marketing
Fail marketing? I rather say fail maths since they say in their pb article that the force needed to activate a shock sans spring is 60in/lb and now it's 0. Last time I checked you are not supposed to divide by zero ;)
 
Last edited:

Sandwich

Pig my fish!
Staff member
May 23, 2002
16,256
1,157
01776
I thought coil springs didn't need negative springs as they couldn't over extend like an air spring? Adding a negative spring seems like compensation for a ****ty leverage curve.

Regardless, I DARE them to release it on market with no recalls. Double dare. I'm guessing teething issues with the negative spring rubbing the shaft and causing oil leaks.
 

Udi

RM Chief Ornithologist: “I Brake for Birds”
Mar 14, 2005
4,773
925
I thought coil springs didn't need negative springs as they couldn't over extend like an air spring? Adding a negative spring seems like compensation for a ****ty leverage curve.
The chamber pressure acts on the cross sectional area of the shaft and produces spring forces additional to the spring itself. Some details and rough calculations here if you're interested.
 

Udi

RM Chief Ornithologist: “I Brake for Birds”
Mar 14, 2005
4,773
925
With that said, a lot of modern DH bikes these days have a fairly strong progression component at the beginning of stroke (i.e. high initial leverage ratio) which more than sufficiently compensates for this extra resistance in most cases - to the point where swapping out something like an RC4 to something quite free moving (like a CCDB/Stoy) will actually result in the bike using its initial travel excessively easily.

I'd argue that in many current cases it's possibly detrimental in terms of wallowing / wasting travel and complicates tuning. Unfortunately the MTB world will probably always be a back and forth battle between suspension and frames trying to compensate for each other.
 

davet

Monkey
Jun 24, 2004
552
3
I think it's a great idea for Rockshox. It allows them to use a smaller percentage of consumers to pay to do their product testing for them, as opposed to say that Totem 2-step that they just let anyone with $1k find the failures.
 

boylagz

Monkey
Jul 12, 2011
470
2
SF bay area
With that said, a lot of modern DH bikes these days have a fairly strong progression component at the beginning of stroke (i.e. high initial leverage ratio) which more than sufficiently compensates for this extra resistance in most cases - to the point where swapping out something like an RC4 to something quite free moving (like a CCDB/Stoy) will actually result in the bike using its initial travel excessively easily.

I'd argue that in many current cases it's possibly detrimental in terms of wallowing / wasting travel and complicates tuning. Unfortunately the MTB world will probably always be a back and forth battle between suspension and frames trying to compensate for each other.
Im really curious about this. Is it because of the smaller dia. shaft of the ccdb? I have a ccdb atm in my V10, and upon setting up sag, BO bumper is right at the 1/3ish mark (just swapped out to a 50 lbs softer Ti spring today, hence the remeasuring of sag, previously about 28-30%). Would upping LSC help with wallow at the initial, better pedaling?

Just wanted to hear your thoughts on it; will ride this Sun, if this feels too soft Ill go back to my firmer setup...
 
Last edited:

csermonet

Monkey
Mar 5, 2010
940
122
With that said, a lot of modern DH bikes these days have a fairly strong progression component at the beginning of stroke (i.e. high initial leverage ratio) which more than sufficiently compensates for this extra resistance in most cases - to the point where swapping out something like an RC4 to something quite free moving (like a CCDB/Stoy) will actually result in the bike using its initial travel excessively easily.

I'd argue that in many current cases it's possibly detrimental in terms of wallowing / wasting travel and complicates tuning. Unfortunately the MTB world will probably always be a back and forth battle between suspension and frames trying to compensate for each other.

When you speak of how frames and dampers will always be a constant battle compensating for each other, is this due to all the gimmicky linkage/leverage curves/different frame designs? Are you speaking in terms that other "machines" that use dampers don't have to struggle with the variety applications? I've wondered about that before while my mind wanders at "work". lol For instance, in regards to motocross bikes would a KTM 450 SX-F have a different linkage and leverage ratio than a Honda CRF 450R? Requiring a tune favorable to the platform, much how rear shock manufacturers optimize the OEM shock to work better with certain frames.
 
Last edited:

kgm

Chimp
Nov 11, 2012
34
0
co
Butter waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggooooonnnnn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THIS POPCORN IS SOOOO BUUUUTTTERRY
 
Last edited:

Steve M

Turbo Monkey
Mar 3, 2007
1,995
23
Whistler
Im really curious about this. Is it because of the smaller dia. shaft of the ccdb? I have a ccdb atm in my V10, and upon setting up sag, BO bumper is right at the 1/3ish mark (just swapped out to a 50 lbs softer Ti spring today, hence the remeasuring of sag, previously about 28-30%). Would upping LSC help with wallow at the initial, better pedaling?

Just wanted to hear your thoughts on it; will ride this Sun, if this feels too soft Ill go back to my firmer setup...
Pretty much, yes. The CCDB has a tiny shaft diameter which means very low gas charge force. The RC4 is at the opposite end of the spectrum, with quite a large shaft (close to double the diameter, meaning about four times the gas charge force). LSC will help reduce wallowing, but the V10 when run at high sag is an especially soft frame.

When you speak of how frames and dampers will always be a constant battle compensating for each other, is this due to all the gimmicky linkage/leverage curves/different frame designs? Are you speaking in terms that other "machines" that use dampers don't have to struggle with the variety applications? I've wondered about that before while my mind wanders at "work". lol For instance, in regards to motocross bikes would a KTM 450 SX-F have a different linkage and leverage ratio than a Honda CRF 450R? Requiring a tune favorable to the platform, much how rear shock manufacturers optimize the OEM shock to work better with certain frames.
It basically goes as follows:
1. DH frame pedals badly
2. Someone invents platform shock to fix this, which brings along progressive/position sensitive damping, which is intended to help bikes with insufficient progression so that we're no longer riding singlepivots with stupid stiff spring rates.
3. Frame designers go "ah, now we don't need such progressive frames because otherwise frame + shock progression will end up being too much!"
3. Some suspension manufacturer says "no, platform shock bad, speed sensitive shock good" and goes back to the standard purely speed sensitive damper to reduce the stickiness that came with the first progressively damped shocks.
4. Frame designer goes "ok we've designed this frame with a progressive shock in mind", product manager at same company goes "hmm this non-progressive shock is cheaper/more in vogue/got more colours, let's spec that"


And it continues. The best way to develop suspension properly is to match the SPRING, DAMPER and LEVERAGE RATE simultaneously during development. A few guys are trying - Foes were the first, way back in the day, now Trek and Specialized are pretty big on it, in my opinion on the right track but so far with mixed results. Weagle has been quietly sneaking in some excellent leverage/shock combinations here and there, but here is the thing that makes everyone's life really hard (and fortunately, keeps people like me in a job):
1. Everyone wants to be able to swap parts out (me included)
2. Because people might run a Vivid coil, a CCDB Air, a Van RC, a Vivid Air, a BOS Stoy or an RC4 (ad infinitum) in any given frame, frame manufacturers are constantly trying to make their frame work well with everything. This means overly generic leverage rates that are progressive enough for a coil, not too progressive for an air shock, enough support in the mid stroke for an air shock without being overly dead/harsh with a coil, etc etc. Even air shock characteristics vary wildly from one manufacturer/shock/sleeve to another.

Unfortunately, the primary spring/damper characteristics between the variety of shocks on the market simply vary too much for that frame design ethos to actually work as well as it could, and as a result we see bikes with all manner of whack leverage rates being fixed by shocks with characteristics that would be considered extremely weird outside the MTB world, which then in turn cause frame designers to design their frames around these rather odd shock characteristics, and so on and so forth. With each generation there's another mutation, but so far there has been little if any convergence.

By contrast, the MX world hasn't really played with progressive springs or dampers to any great degree, and because bikes are sold as completes (not buy frame, byo motor etc) each OEM shock is developed in conjunction with the leverage rate curve it is to be sold with. By taking two variables out of the equation (spring progression and damper progression) and instead manipulating them both simultaneously and proportionally with the leverage rate, the development cycle has been substantially more thorough and refined (it's the equivalent of solving an N by N matrix, where N is the number of variables you're playing with in your suspension - double the number and you've got four times as much problem solving to do). As a result, most people probably couldn't feel the difference between equivalent models offered by most of the big moto brands in terms of suspension performance even to the degree that they could identify the bike they're actually on. However, anyone can feel the difference between a 951 and a 224.
 

boylagz

Monkey
Jul 12, 2011
470
2
SF bay area
@Steve, thanks. I can see your description the V10 being 'soft'. Like I mentioned earlier, setting sag standing/attack position the shock bumper is right around 33%, but when I do the push-down-on-the-saddle thing I can easily use up 75% of the travel. I wanna hear thoughts on if upping too much LSC (16 clicks out of 24/25 clicks) on the V10c will take away the ccdb's ability to eat up the chatter, or is that only the HSC circuits job? I wanna play with HSC when I hit the trails, right now its at 1 turn, as suggested by CC's baseline guide for the V10c...
 

Steve M

Turbo Monkey
Mar 3, 2007
1,995
23
Whistler
@Steve, thanks. I can see your description the V10 being 'soft'. Like I mentioned earlier, setting sag standing/attack position the shock bumper is right around 33%, but when I do the push-down-on-the-saddle thing I can easily use up 75% of the travel. I wanna hear thoughts on if upping too much LSC (16 clicks out of 24/25 clicks) on the V10c will take away the ccdb's ability to eat up the chatter, or is that only the HSC circuits job? I wanna play with HSC when I hit the trails, right now its at 1 turn, as suggested by CC's baseline guide for the V10c...
33% sag (at the shock) on a V10 really is a lot - think of it this way, it's about 3.5" of wheel motion. Compare that to the recommended 25-30% sag on an 8" Demo, which gives you 2.0-2.4" of wheel motion, and you begin to see that it is WAY softer off the bat (not that the Demo should necessarily be used as a benchmark, it's just at the other end of the scale). I would say ride it and see what you like, but I suspect you'll find the spring rate is a bit too soft, and that trying to compensate for it too much with either LSC or HSC (both of which will help wallow, both of which will deaden and harshen the ride somewhat) won't net you the ride characteristic you want.

To answer your question more directly though, the LSC on the CCDB requires support from the HSC, because that wallowing happens right around the threshold velocities, meaning that without the HSC wound in far enough, you can keep cranking the LSC further and further and all that will happen is that it gets less supple but doesn't offer more support. As it stands I think you may find that it's a good move to increase the HSC and LSC simultaneously if you feel the need for more support, as it will increase the "mid speed" damping (ie resistance right around that threshold between the LS and HS curves) without ending up going overboard on either high or low speed damping.
 

Owennn

Monkey
Mar 10, 2009
128
1
It basically goes as follows:
1. DH frame pedals badly
2. Someone invents platform shock to fix this, which brings along progressive/position sensitive damping, which is intended to help bikes with insufficient progression so that we're no longer riding singlepivots with stupid stiff spring rates.
3. Frame designers go "ah, now we don't need such progressive frames because otherwise frame + shock progression will end up being too much!"
3. Some suspension manufacturer says "no, platform shock bad, speed sensitive shock good" and goes back to the standard purely speed sensitive damper to reduce the stickiness that came with the first progressively damped shocks.
4. Frame designer goes "ok we've designed this frame with a progressive shock in mind", product manager at same company goes "hmm this non-progressive shock is cheaper/more in vogue/got more colours, let's spec that"


And it continues. The best way to develop suspension properly is to match the SPRING, DAMPER and LEVERAGE RATE simultaneously during development.
So is step 3 the best way to go? Rising rate frame design with a standard shimmed damper? (Avalanche for a fancy one, Vanilla RC a more basic)
Or does a fancy shimmed damper like the Fox RC4 have more merit once matched to a frame?
 

Steve M

Turbo Monkey
Mar 3, 2007
1,995
23
Whistler
So is step 3 the best way to go? Rising rate frame design with a standard shimmed damper? (Avalanche for a fancy one, Vanilla RC a more basic)
Or does a fancy shimmed damper like the Fox RC4 have more merit once matched to a frame?
In my opinion, the ideal setup is a leverage rate designed around a non-progressive shock. My reasoning here is not that progressive shocks are bad, or that they can't match/exceed the performance of a linear one, but that the progression (whether that be spring curve or damping) is always adjustable, which means another variable that needs to be tuned by the end user. Usually more tunability is a good thing (I'm not one of those people who thinks riders shouldn't be messing with their own suspension) but the rate of progression is one of the few things that doesn't need to change substantially between one rider or another.

It also has the benefit of keeping the spring and damper running in proportion to each other, whereas air springs increase the late stroke spring rate without the damping to match, and progressively damped shocks increase the compression damping without a proportional increase in spring rate. I believe this is important because it means that the ratios of "energy stored/returned by the spring", to "energy dissipated by the damper", are kept more in proportion, which keeps the bike predictable rather than being prone to kicking off lips, or being overly dead.
 
Last edited:

ritche

Monkey
Dec 3, 2011
311
19
FOX vanilla RC - the easiest to adjust rear shock in the world!
 
Last edited:
But isnt comparing a v10 vs demo kinda like apples to oranges? I was under impression that v10s curve was regressive to the sag point (around 30-33%). Isnt this what gives its "stick to the ground" chatter soaking quality? I thought like the parking lot test just because you can statically compress up to 75% of the travel, it doesnt mean thats whats happening while in motion.

Ive used both a rc4 and vivid air on the v10c and didnt really notice much difference between the two. Maybe alittle more ramp up in the vivid if really nitpicking.

I wished i had the time, and access to a well-rounded (offering different types of terrain) trails to properly dial in my suspension. I feel like if i could just spend a month in whistler, id have a pretty dialed setup at the end of that trip.
 
Last edited:

Udi

RM Chief Ornithologist: “I Brake for Birds”
Mar 14, 2005
4,773
925
V10 isn't regressive to the sag point, it's actually a very progressive frame virtually all of the way through the travel according to most graphs I've seen. The leverage ratio at beginning of travel is very high.
 

iRider

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2008
2,027
386
By contrast, the MX world hasn't really played with progressive springs or dampers to any great degree, and because bikes are sold as completes (not buy frame, byo motor etc) each OEM shock is developed in conjunction with the leverage rate curve it is to be sold with. By taking two variables out of the equation (spring progression and damper progression) and instead manipulating them both simultaneously and proportionally with the leverage rate, the development cycle has been substantially more thorough and refined (it's the equivalent of solving an N by N matrix, where N is the number of variables you're playing with in your suspension - double the number and you've got four times as much problem solving to do). As a result, most people probably couldn't feel the difference between equivalent models offered by most of the big moto brands in terms of suspension performance even to the degree that they could identify the bike they're actually on. However, anyone can feel the difference between a 951 and a 224.
Great explanation. However, I have a small problem with the MX comparison. A MTB is way lighter than a dirt bike, so the percentage that a rider adds to the 'system weight' (bike + rider + gear) is significant higher. While a a dirt bike can be set up for a wider variety of riders from the factory, MTBs are a tougher call. Also you have to consider that because of more % of the weight being in the rider (and therefore creating a higher COG), dynamic weight shifts are harder to predict because the companies don't know the weight of the rider. I have ridden frames that I thought were OK, but heavier friends did feel they lacked mid-stroke compression support (with spring rates adjusted). Not defending the bike industry's lack of co-developed suspension, just pointing out that they might have a more difficult job to do.
 

Jeremy R

<b>x</b>
Nov 15, 2001
9,509
526
behind you with a snap pop
To answer your question more directly though, the LSC on the CCDB requires support from the HSC, because that wallowing happens right around the threshold velocities, meaning that without the HSC wound in far enough, you can keep cranking the LSC further and further and all that will happen is that it gets less supple but doesn't offer more support. As it stands I think you may find that it's a good move to increase the HSC and LSC simultaneously if you feel the need for more support, as it will increase the "mid speed" damping (ie resistance right around that threshold between the LS and HS curves) without ending up going overboard on either high or low speed damping.
Good advice, and I dealt with this exact same thing today at a Super d race. I had been riding a bunch of slow tight rooty and bumpy trails lately, and I have my CCDB air on my 66 set up really light compression wise. I get to this race today, and it was fast hard packed big berms with g-outs and rollers everywhere. I had to make drastic changes from what I was running. I actually ended up running twice as much LSC, and I put a full turn more of HSC on it as well. Then it worked great. I love having the ability to make adjustments that work without having any negatives that go along with it.
 

Steve M

Turbo Monkey
Mar 3, 2007
1,995
23
Whistler
Great explanation. However, I have a small problem with the MX comparison. A MTB is way lighter than a dirt bike, so the percentage that a rider adds to the 'system weight' (bike + rider + gear) is significant higher. While a a dirt bike can be set up for a wider variety of riders from the factory, MTBs are a tougher call. Also you have to consider that because of more % of the weight being in the rider (and therefore creating a higher COG), dynamic weight shifts are harder to predict because the companies don't know the weight of the rider. I have ridden frames that I thought were OK, but heavier friends did feel they lacked mid-stroke compression support (with spring rates adjusted). Not defending the bike industry's lack of co-developed suspension, just pointing out that they might have a more difficult job to do.
While this is true, it's not specifically relevant to what I was saying regarding progression. Rider weight is a variable that, with mountain bikes, basically scales up/down linearly, and can be relatively easily catered for by scaling the spring and damping in proportion. The external range of adjustment of most high end DH shocks that feature separate LSC/HSC are capable of covering ~75% of riders in terms of weight variations alone (say from 70kg to 90kg, if riding abilities/aggression are equivalent, on given terrain) if properly valved for a competently developed frame (which they usually aren't anyway, going back to that whole progression thing). Obviously, things differ with less adjustable or lower quality dampers too.

The CoM height of bikes does vary more than MX bikes for sure because of rider height differences, but taller riders (higher CoM) also typically ride longer frames, which reduces the effect of that in terms of rotational (pitching) accelerations. Rider position alone also has an enormous effect on the actual CoM position at any given moment, much moreso than MX bikes, which is a large part of the reason why a good rider on a poorly setup bike is at less of a disadvantage in mountain biking than he is in any kind of motorsports.
 
Last edited: