This overdamped/undersprung shock theory is not for me.
- Thread starter Pslide
- Start date
I don't have much to add because I don't really think about how my shock works this much but I mean hey, speculation is awesome right
I have a CCDB on my M6 and after coming off riding DHX 5's for a while all I can say is they don't have **** on the Dub Beezy.
I'm also pretty set it and forget it status so I rode for a day, set it up and have been riding it like ever since.
Over-dampened? I don't know man... Maybe you prefer pogo-stick suspension but I sure as hell like mah traction.
I have a CCDB on my M6 and after coming off riding DHX 5's for a while all I can say is they don't have **** on the Dub Beezy.
I'm also pretty set it and forget it status so I rode for a day, set it up and have been riding it like ever since.
Over-dampened? I don't know man... Maybe you prefer pogo-stick suspension but I sure as hell like mah traction.
Overdamped is a subjective term in this case. Some dampers work better with certain frames than others, some setups work better for certain terrain than others, some setups work better for certain people than others. One shock isn't necessarily flat out better than another across the board, at the end of the day a damper curve is a damper curve and it doesn't matter what the logo on the shock is. I think Pslide's post is entirely valid, running a soft spring rate and heavy damping just wasn't working for him and the terrain he rides - fair call IMO. There are tracks I've ridden where I'd agree 100% that a stiffer, lighter damped setup works better than my usual setup too.
If you look at dirt bikes, they use a very different valving set-up for MX tracks then they do for off-road/enduro. We're essentially trying to get our little bicycle shocks to do both - that's asking quite a lot out of a damper. It shouldn't be any surprise that one setup won't work well everywhere.
I wish more manufacturers integrated a progressive design into their suspension... My brooklyn had an entirely different feel (read: progressive, and, better) than my Sunday does (read: linear/regressive, and, "dead" feeling). I understand the Sunday was designed around a specific shock, but it seems silly to me to rewrite the playbook to accommodate one design. The brooklyn had more pop, trail feel, and liveliness and bottom out resistance with too little spring and probably too much damping. I pray that the superbro integrates some of the same features. Hopefully a firmer spring and maybe a pro-tune on the DHX I have fill breathe some life into the Sunday...but we'll see which happens first.
interesting thread...
From my limited experience with my frame (canfield lucky) I like very little compression damping, (so DHX5 is propedal at min, bottom out all the way out and min pressure in the chamber) and for everything but drops rebound one or two clicks from fastest, this way the rear end feels super active and tracks the ground perfectly... However, while it feels awesome railing chundery trails, it scares teh bejesus out of me when I hit drops that come up on the trails... So for that obviously the slower rebound is what is needed, if I leave teh rebound slow enough not to turf me over the bars the bike feels harsh (packs up I guess).
Short of stopping before/after decent hits to change rebound I can't seem to find a sweet spot...
I wonder if something like the vivid with the beginning/end stroke rebound would be the ticket???
I saw the CCDB, but I'm not sure if a high/low speed rebound would also solve the problem, ie quick on small bumps, but slower returning from a large hit?
From my limited experience with my frame (canfield lucky) I like very little compression damping, (so DHX5 is propedal at min, bottom out all the way out and min pressure in the chamber) and for everything but drops rebound one or two clicks from fastest, this way the rear end feels super active and tracks the ground perfectly... However, while it feels awesome railing chundery trails, it scares teh bejesus out of me when I hit drops that come up on the trails... So for that obviously the slower rebound is what is needed, if I leave teh rebound slow enough not to turf me over the bars the bike feels harsh (packs up I guess).
Short of stopping before/after decent hits to change rebound I can't seem to find a sweet spot...
I wonder if something like the vivid with the beginning/end stroke rebound would be the ticket???
I saw the CCDB, but I'm not sure if a high/low speed rebound would also solve the problem, ie quick on small bumps, but slower returning from a large hit?
Sandwich, you are saying this like the brooklyn was a 'better' design regardless of the shock on the bike.... but in fact both the brooklyn and the sunday were designed around the (essentially singular) shock choices of the day. There were litterally no other shock choices at the time of either of these frame design, and the designers (correctly) built a frame with/around the de-jour shocks.
The sunday was a linear (never regressive IIRC) design with a progressive shock. The brooklyn was a progressive design with a linear shock.
Mix any of these parameters the wrong way (linear frame with linear shock (sunday/dhx) or progressive frame with progressive shock (brooklyn/5th)), and you end up with a pretty poor set-up that would need serious tuning/modification to function well.
It has only been the last year or two that you could truely go out and find a selection of off the shelf shocks that ran the gammut from linear to progressive (damping as well as internal spring rate/pressure...as well as vastly different ideas of 'correct damping levels, AND functional low speed control). this is VERY new to the MTB world. Go back more than two or three years, and any given season, there was really only a single damper design that ALL mfg needed to work around (if they were sophisticated enough to even take damper design as a valid parameter).....
I would agree that it would be easier for consumers if all frame mfg decided to stick with a single type of design (like moto has done) and then force damper mfg to accomidate that.... BUT it will never happen in the bike biz with so many, small frame mfg and so few, large shock mfg....but it does not make much difference if the frame is linear with a progressive shock, or if the frame is progressive with a linear shock...as long as the rate curves are somewhat 'normal' (ie no wildly swinging rate changes, no regressive curves..just a smooth curve).
And just for good measure, I will mention again (this will be probabaly the sixth time someone has told you how to address you sunday issues) that the issues that you seem to be learning/developing with your sunday could be EASILY fixed. Changing spring rate will not change the characteristic of you shock. A proper tune, designed around what YOU want out of your bike can.
The sunday was a linear (never regressive IIRC) design with a progressive shock. The brooklyn was a progressive design with a linear shock.
Mix any of these parameters the wrong way (linear frame with linear shock (sunday/dhx) or progressive frame with progressive shock (brooklyn/5th)), and you end up with a pretty poor set-up that would need serious tuning/modification to function well.
It has only been the last year or two that you could truely go out and find a selection of off the shelf shocks that ran the gammut from linear to progressive (damping as well as internal spring rate/pressure...as well as vastly different ideas of 'correct damping levels, AND functional low speed control). this is VERY new to the MTB world. Go back more than two or three years, and any given season, there was really only a single damper design that ALL mfg needed to work around (if they were sophisticated enough to even take damper design as a valid parameter).....
I would agree that it would be easier for consumers if all frame mfg decided to stick with a single type of design (like moto has done) and then force damper mfg to accomidate that.... BUT it will never happen in the bike biz with so many, small frame mfg and so few, large shock mfg....but it does not make much difference if the frame is linear with a progressive shock, or if the frame is progressive with a linear shock...as long as the rate curves are somewhat 'normal' (ie no wildly swinging rate changes, no regressive curves..just a smooth curve).
And just for good measure, I will mention again (this will be probabaly the sixth time someone has told you how to address you sunday issues) that the issues that you seem to be learning/developing with your sunday could be EASILY fixed. Changing spring rate will not change the characteristic of you shock. A proper tune, designed around what YOU want out of your bike can.
Ending/begining and low/high speed are the EXACT same adjustments when refering to rebound. Sram has choosen to use that (incorrect IMO) terminology because the VAST majority of MTBers have no idea what any of this means or how it might work.
BTW, you might want to play with the compression adjustments a bit (up the pressure in small amounts...granted it is not very intuitive on the DHX). The rebound energy is directly related to how much travel is compressed (this is the reason for the above statement BTW). If you can control excess travel on larger landings, there will be less energy in the system to rebound and through you.
High leverage rates (cannot find this info for the Lucky), high rider weight, large landings, 'not smooth' would all suggest even more compression damping.
Of course, spring rate, and technique might also have a large impact on what you are experiencing....
The way I understood the sram description it talks about physical shaft position, which is why I thought it was actually quite a good idea, ie deep in the travel slower rebound as that has to have been from a big impact, and faster near the end stroke where the small bumps hang out. But that could be because they have a speed sensitive valve instead of a position sensitive valve (as RS implies) like you said, due to the larger forces involved the further you compress the spring.
The more I think about it, on the CCDB, you would have the high speed rebound set up to be, err, slow since the high speed would be active when there are a lot of return forces involved, ie when the shock is heavily compressed.
What throws me is since the valves are essentially pressure sensitive (ie the dial is changing the preload on some springs which hold the valves), and since oil is flowing, pressure is related to how fast you are pushing the oil... So, with out causing mental explosion, is this right:
Since at the beginning of stroke you have say 1500lbs (600lb spring compressed say 2.5") of force you're trying to slow down so you would need a smaller oil passage at this point (high force lower desired shaft speed), than at say the last 1/2" of stroke where you have only 300lb of force that you want to rebound quickly (low force higher desired shaft speed) where you need a large oil passage...
The only way that makes sense in my head is if the "high speed" rebound is a dial that determines how much force is needed to CLOSE a valve, rather than open it, and the slow rebound is the combined OPEN area...
Am I way off there?
Which means, for the DHX, assuming its a simple fixed area valve, would have a rebound that is faster the further compressed the shock is... Which would explain why I set it super fast to be supple on small bumps and feel like Im about to get thrown when I land a 5ft drop...
Last edited:
essenmeinstuff, I have the same bike as you, and at the risk of turning this into a "bike specific tuning advice thread" I'm going to offer up some advice on tuning/setup.
davep, the leverage rate is very progressive, but the overall curve is about 3:1 (its 203mm of travel with an 8.75x2.75 shock)
I had a ccdb on mine, it never felt good because the rebound was always too slow. If I upped the comp adjusters enough to deal with it, it felt really harsh and spiky. If I'd been able to run the rebound a bit faster, I'm certain it could have felt really really good. I was running a pretty low springweight (400-450, before I finally just said ****it, backed off the comp/rebound as much as I could, and ran a 500 lb spring - obviously not ideal with such potential as the CCDB has). I think running a 500lb springweight it could feel really good - linear shock with that bike is pretty bees knees, the rebound range just didn't work out for me/what I wanted to do.
If you're looking for the quick pumping feeling that the OP is suggesting, I actually think that the DHX5 is a really good shock for the bike. As you noted though, the end stroke rebound is just a bit too fast for you on the big drops.
So far, the best shock I've run on the bike for getting that pillowy ridiculously soft squishy comfortable landing without bottoming out on the big drops, and still feeling like that for the high speed stuff is with an elka and using the "high damping low springweight" that the OP was posting about. This is bike specific. On a bike like a glory that requires very low amounts of compression, I think I would hate my current setup.
On the lucky, running lots of compression, a lower springweight and reasonably slow rebound works really really well. I don't think I'd like it for every bike though. The Elka's rebound circuits would also work wonders for what you're complaining about, you can run it fast enough to not have it feel sh1tty and pack up on the trail, and not get that bucking feeling on hard landings. It does kind of un balance my bike because my boxxers rebound circuits don't do the same and so the front end is a bit bucky, but whatever, at least the back end is behaving itself.
No bucking feeling
Feels smooth and controlled and tracks perfectly
davep, the leverage rate is very progressive, but the overall curve is about 3:1 (its 203mm of travel with an 8.75x2.75 shock)
I had a ccdb on mine, it never felt good because the rebound was always too slow. If I upped the comp adjusters enough to deal with it, it felt really harsh and spiky. If I'd been able to run the rebound a bit faster, I'm certain it could have felt really really good. I was running a pretty low springweight (400-450, before I finally just said ****it, backed off the comp/rebound as much as I could, and ran a 500 lb spring - obviously not ideal with such potential as the CCDB has). I think running a 500lb springweight it could feel really good - linear shock with that bike is pretty bees knees, the rebound range just didn't work out for me/what I wanted to do.
If you're looking for the quick pumping feeling that the OP is suggesting, I actually think that the DHX5 is a really good shock for the bike. As you noted though, the end stroke rebound is just a bit too fast for you on the big drops.
So far, the best shock I've run on the bike for getting that pillowy ridiculously soft squishy comfortable landing without bottoming out on the big drops, and still feeling like that for the high speed stuff is with an elka and using the "high damping low springweight" that the OP was posting about. This is bike specific. On a bike like a glory that requires very low amounts of compression, I think I would hate my current setup.
On the lucky, running lots of compression, a lower springweight and reasonably slow rebound works really really well. I don't think I'd like it for every bike though. The Elka's rebound circuits would also work wonders for what you're complaining about, you can run it fast enough to not have it feel sh1tty and pack up on the trail, and not get that bucking feeling on hard landings. It does kind of un balance my bike because my boxxers rebound circuits don't do the same and so the front end is a bit bucky, but whatever, at least the back end is behaving itself.
No bucking feeling
Feels smooth and controlled and tracks perfectly
Deep stroke rebound is ALWAYS going to be faster than top-end rebound, all else being equal. It's pretty simple - higher spring force means it can push harder. The DHX, like all shocks for the past 13+ years, has shimmed rebound, it's not simply a ported damper (the "fixed area valve" you refer to).
I think what you're getting confused with though, is damping RATE and damping FORCE. The damping force is a particular amount of force that corresponds to a particular rebound speed (no matter where the shock is in its stroke, unless it has a position sensitive damper - no shocks have position-sensitive rebound dampers). For example, the rebound damping force at 2in/s might be say 100lbs (completely arbitrary number, not real world figure). This force opposes the extensive force of the spring. Say you had a 400lbs/in spring, and it was rebounding at 2in/s at a particular point in time, and at that point, the shock was 1" from fully extended. 400lbs/in x 1in = 400lbs force from the spring, minus the 100lbs of damping force, would give you 300lbs net force at the shock that is acting to accelerate the mass of the bike and rider away from the wheel (and possibly ground if the wheel is touching). Now consider the suspension rebounding at the same speed (2in/s) but 2" from fully extended. 400lbs/in x 2in = 800lbs spring force, minus 100lbs damping force gives you 700lbs net force at the shock. Obviously the net force available at this speed is higher, further into the stroke, and chances are that at this speed and point in the stoke, you are being accelerated much harder than at 1" into the stroke (in fact, if the wheel is on the ground, at 1" into the stroke you might be decelerating as the gravitational force on your body is higher than the net extensive force).
The damping RATE is basically what determines the relationship between speed and damping force. This can be linear (double the speed = double the damping force), progressive (double the speed = more than double the damping force), or digressive (double the speed = less than double the damping force).
All currently available mtb dampers use speed sensitive rebound...none use (significantly) position sensitive damping. SRAM is like I said, using technically incorrect terminology as it is easier for most people to understand (even though it is not really correct).
Begining stroke is at ZERO spring frorce...fully extended shock. End stroke is at max spring force and fully compressed shock.
In the rebound stroke, the ONLY rebound force is due to the spring....and since shock springs are linear, then the rebound force is linearly related to the depth of shock stroke. You simply cannot have a high force rebound event in the begining stroke.
You are also overlooking the fuction of a fixed bleed port (low speed adjustment). At low shaft speed, the shim stack is closed and the damping is controlled by the bleed port size. A fixed size port has a very different functionality than that of a variable (shimed) port....
At a certain velocity, the fluid force is such that the shim stack starts to open (overcomes the stack preload), and most shim stack configurations are regressive....thus as the shafts speed increases (within HSC), the damping curve is concave down..damping increases less and less as the shaft speeds increase.
Take a look at this: http://www.mxboards.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23
Begining stroke is at ZERO spring frorce...fully extended shock. End stroke is at max spring force and fully compressed shock.
In the rebound stroke, the ONLY rebound force is due to the spring....and since shock springs are linear, then the rebound force is linearly related to the depth of shock stroke. You simply cannot have a high force rebound event in the begining stroke.
You are also overlooking the fuction of a fixed bleed port (low speed adjustment). At low shaft speed, the shim stack is closed and the damping is controlled by the bleed port size. A fixed size port has a very different functionality than that of a variable (shimed) port....
At a certain velocity, the fluid force is such that the shim stack starts to open (overcomes the stack preload), and most shim stack configurations are regressive....thus as the shafts speed increases (within HSC), the damping curve is concave down..damping increases less and less as the shaft speeds increase.
Take a look at this: http://www.mxboards.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23
Cool, I've seen that thread before and it has good info, that's where I learned how a shim stack works 
.
I guess my question doesn't come from "how" shocks work so much, but more so the dynamics on the bike/rider in different conditions.
(consider I'm still a bit of a noob when it comes to vehicle dynamics)
Operating condition 1:
Rider in a relatively consistent position on the bike, lets say seated for arguments sake, riding at high speed over small bumps, using say 30% of the available travel (vehicle is almost stationary vertically and the wheels adapt to the ground moving). In this situation I imagine you want the wheel as best as possible following the ground contour with minimal force on the rider. To me this means minimal compression/rebound damping.
If the compression damping in this case is too high more bump force is transmitted through the damper to the vehicle making the ride harsh or "spiky".
If the rebound is too slow the wheel does not return to the ground resulting in lost traction, and at the worst case packing up suspension, where the shock sits deeper in its travel, and effectively increasing the "preload" on spring before the next bump, resulting in a similar "spiky" or harsh feeling.
This behavior I guess is the "under damped correctly sprung" arrangement I quite like the feeling of, the bike feels very active and lively, tracks well, gobbles up baby heads like an afternoon snack etc.
If all I did was charge rough tracks and never jump or leave the ground, then this is perfect.
However, condition 2 turns up occasionally...
Condition 2:
Vehicle leaves the ground (jump/drop etc), gets accelerated vertically back to ground by gravity and now has kinetic energy in the y axis (ie up and down). With minimal damping this kinetic energy is momentarily stored in the shock's spring as its compressed, only to be released a little while after you land and throw you into the dentists chair.
So in this condition you want more damping, to burn off that energy before it gets stored (compression damping) and when its released again (rebound), ideally in a nice critically damped 2nd order sort of way.
The problem is these are conflicting requirements...
Which makes me wonder position sensitive damping is not more widely used?
The control valve type arrangement (propedal/SPV etc) could do it in compression, and surely in rebound too, minimal damping at beginning stroke, ramp up rebound/compression as you go deeper -> end stroke...
Or am I nuts?
.I guess my question doesn't come from "how" shocks work so much, but more so the dynamics on the bike/rider in different conditions.
(consider I'm still a bit of a noob when it comes to vehicle dynamics)
Operating condition 1:
Rider in a relatively consistent position on the bike, lets say seated for arguments sake, riding at high speed over small bumps, using say 30% of the available travel (vehicle is almost stationary vertically and the wheels adapt to the ground moving). In this situation I imagine you want the wheel as best as possible following the ground contour with minimal force on the rider. To me this means minimal compression/rebound damping.
If the compression damping in this case is too high more bump force is transmitted through the damper to the vehicle making the ride harsh or "spiky".
If the rebound is too slow the wheel does not return to the ground resulting in lost traction, and at the worst case packing up suspension, where the shock sits deeper in its travel, and effectively increasing the "preload" on spring before the next bump, resulting in a similar "spiky" or harsh feeling.
This behavior I guess is the "under damped correctly sprung" arrangement I quite like the feeling of, the bike feels very active and lively, tracks well, gobbles up baby heads like an afternoon snack etc.
If all I did was charge rough tracks and never jump or leave the ground, then this is perfect.
However, condition 2 turns up occasionally...
Condition 2:
Vehicle leaves the ground (jump/drop etc), gets accelerated vertically back to ground by gravity and now has kinetic energy in the y axis (ie up and down). With minimal damping this kinetic energy is momentarily stored in the shock's spring as its compressed, only to be released a little while after you land and throw you into the dentists chair.
So in this condition you want more damping, to burn off that energy before it gets stored (compression damping) and when its released again (rebound), ideally in a nice critically damped 2nd order sort of way.
The problem is these are conflicting requirements...
Which makes me wonder position sensitive damping is not more widely used?
The control valve type arrangement (propedal/SPV etc) could do it in compression, and surely in rebound too, minimal damping at beginning stroke, ramp up rebound/compression as you go deeper -> end stroke...
Or am I nuts?
Oh man, we're getting deep now!
I like how you're trying to understand this Essen. But until we have true position sensitive dampers (is this something for the future?) you probably need to start thinking in terms of shaft speed like these guys are saying rather than position.
Shocks are designed to give different damping rates to the two conditions you listed, but not due to position, but rather shaft speed:
Condition 1:
Compression: high shaft speeds, handled by maybe shimstack, maybe valve/port
Rebound: low shaft speeds, handled by valve/port
Condition 2:
Compression: depends on the jump or drop, but probably medium to low shaft speeds, so handled by the valve/port.
Rebound: high shaft speed (due to greater spring force), handled by the shim stack.
So the shock is responding with different damping rates for each condition (if it's setup correctly).
In response to your original post about a DHX vs. CCDB, I think the CCDB would benefit you with is fantastic damping and high and low speed rebound. But if you prefer to run little compression damping and have a lively feeling bike, you will have to run the compression almost all the way open to get this feeling, and thus you won't be using the shock like CC intend you to. Not that there is anything wrong with that - a few posters on here (including me) are doing exactly that.
Also, if you do get a CCDB, make sure you get a new one, because the old ones didn't have as large a damping range, and it wasn't even possible to run an underdamped setup.
Keep in mind that you'll be spending a lot of money to get a very nice shock, and then basically setting it up very similar to a DHX - so maybe not worth it!
I like how you're trying to understand this Essen. But until we have true position sensitive dampers (is this something for the future?) you probably need to start thinking in terms of shaft speed like these guys are saying rather than position.
Shocks are designed to give different damping rates to the two conditions you listed, but not due to position, but rather shaft speed:
Condition 1:
Compression: high shaft speeds, handled by maybe shimstack, maybe valve/port
Rebound: low shaft speeds, handled by valve/port
Condition 2:
Compression: depends on the jump or drop, but probably medium to low shaft speeds, so handled by the valve/port.
Rebound: high shaft speed (due to greater spring force), handled by the shim stack.
So the shock is responding with different damping rates for each condition (if it's setup correctly).
In response to your original post about a DHX vs. CCDB, I think the CCDB would benefit you with is fantastic damping and high and low speed rebound. But if you prefer to run little compression damping and have a lively feeling bike, you will have to run the compression almost all the way open to get this feeling, and thus you won't be using the shock like CC intend you to. Not that there is anything wrong with that - a few posters on here (including me) are doing exactly that.
Also, if you do get a CCDB, make sure you get a new one, because the old ones didn't have as large a damping range, and it wasn't even possible to run an underdamped setup.
Keep in mind that you'll be spending a lot of money to get a very nice shock, and then basically setting it up very similar to a DHX - so maybe not worth it!
A progressive linkage with a purely speed sensitive damper does that anyway. Interesting, IMO, that progression and leverage rate are rarely considered with regards to rebound damping.
Progressive linkage + high pressure progressive damper = sh!tton of built up deep travel springrate => BOING => yikes!
That's the big reason I love my CCDB right there. Well, one of them. It turns an otherwise almost overly progressive frame into one with MUCH more control and potential without having to compensate for that buildup in other ways.
Edit: Also a big reason I'm not too hot on the Roco's as much these days. Awesome compression and progression characteristics, but with 200psi in the reservoir and it's "whatthefvck" rebound circuit, it wasn't too balanced. Super nice shock otherwise though, and I wish someone would find a good user modification to get the rebound range a bit more sane.
Last edited:
Does "BOING" = bucking ?!?
I could see how the CCDB would really compliment a leverage ratio that ramps up in the end stroke. Then again, I've heard people quite like the CCDB with Orange single pivots as well. Guess it all depends on what you like.
I guess I was assuming that the shaft speeds would be fairly similar for lots of small bumps at high vehicle speed and for big hits.
If the shaft speed is the same the shock really has no way of "knowing" what caused the motion, big hit or little bump, the main difference would be a big hit would result in a deeper shock excursion, but not necessarily faster shaft speed. Which is why I was thinking position sensitive would be good...
If this is not the case then disregard my previous posts lol
If the shaft speed is the same the shock really has no way of "knowing" what caused the motion, big hit or little bump, the main difference would be a big hit would result in a deeper shock excursion, but not necessarily faster shaft speed. Which is why I was thinking position sensitive would be good...
If this is not the case then disregard my previous posts lol
You can't "build up springrate" (assuming you actually meant spring force) with a damper of any kind. More damping = LESS energy stored by the spring. Air pressure in the reservoir is a relatively small concern IMO. Rocos aren't progressive either, unless you'd also consider a Vanilla RC progressive.
I would disagree. In my experience they've been EXTREMELY progressive. Maybe not as much as an RC4 or something with a larger shaft, but still enough where it's very difficult to bottom it out even if riding undersprung.
And yes, I meant spring force...so sue me.
Keep this in mind. I had one of the older CCDB's and it did NOT work setting it up either over damped or underdamped because the rebound was so absurdly slow. I can do both with the elka I have on it now (more damping less sprung, and more spring less damping), and the underdamped with a DHX5 (We have the same bike)
Good thread this. Just to change tack slightly, I was wondering about the relationship between compression damping on the shock and fork? I seem to remember reading somewhere that the key to a stable bike is to have the compression matched as closely as possible front and back. Would most people agree with this?
I recently got a Sunday with Vivid 5.1 and 06 Boxxer Teams built up and I've been working on my suspension set-up. So far I have wound all compression off front and back, and have been focusing on getting the rebound dialled in first of all. I think I have that pretty much sorted now. The bike feels really good, nice and lively and absoloutely eats bumps, but doesn't buck on jumps and rollers. However, on steep stuff the front end does tend to dive a bit and sometimes when hitting berms or ruts hard it feels like the front end is falling away from me a bit. This means I have started to consider getting some LSC on the go, but if I wind some on on the front, does that mean I should automatically wind some on on the back? I haven't noticed any detrimental effects (so far) of not having LSC on the back, plus the bike pedals well naturally and I want to minimize any loss in small bump response. If I were to wind on LSC on the forks only, how do you think the bike would start to behave if you took it too far?
I recently got a Sunday with Vivid 5.1 and 06 Boxxer Teams built up and I've been working on my suspension set-up. So far I have wound all compression off front and back, and have been focusing on getting the rebound dialled in first of all. I think I have that pretty much sorted now. The bike feels really good, nice and lively and absoloutely eats bumps, but doesn't buck on jumps and rollers. However, on steep stuff the front end does tend to dive a bit and sometimes when hitting berms or ruts hard it feels like the front end is falling away from me a bit. This means I have started to consider getting some LSC on the go, but if I wind some on on the front, does that mean I should automatically wind some on on the back? I haven't noticed any detrimental effects (so far) of not having LSC on the back, plus the bike pedals well naturally and I want to minimize any loss in small bump response. If I were to wind on LSC on the forks only, how do you think the bike would start to behave if you took it too far?
In my experience, the biggest danger with running excessive compression on the front with too little on the back is getting a bike that kicks you forwards off jumps. If the rear end is very lightly damped compared to the front, every time the bike compresses, disproportionately more energy will be stored by the spring, and you'll have a higher peak spring load - so even slowing down the rebound won't necessarily help.