All I would like is an electronically controlled lock out for my shock that I can run from the handlebar that way you don't need so many extra batteries, sensors and weight. I think most people would be really happy with that setup.
Regarding changes to the Lyrik and Pike, yes, the chassis is completely new, including the crown. If you look at the service manual, the air spring...
Regarding changes to the Lyrik and Pike, yes, the chassis is completely new, including the crown. If you look at the service manual, the air spring is new too. And there is more oil in the lowers, Sram Butter AND oil in the spring, etc.
We haven't ridden it yet, so it's hard to judge, but yeah, I doubt this will be a be all, end all solution to enduro racing. Bruni's supposed lockout is taking it to the extreme, as DH is soooooo much more squeezed when it comes to timing, they take out everything they can even with line choice. Enduro, being raced half blind, is a bit more sloppy so there are likely more mistakes and the variation in riding can be higher. So finding the marginal gains is less important if you ask me.
Why are riders running bikes that are, for all intents and purposes, too small in Enduro? My theory (thought up today) is that they are more nimble that way and can adapt to line changes and do things 'on the fly' more easily than with a bigger bike. On the other hand, as the line choice is not as defined as it is with DH, high speed stability might not be as useful as it is with DH. Lockouts go hand in hand with that if you ask me.
As for switches and them being banned in XC... yeah, it's electronic, it's adaptive, it has sensors, but where does Spec's Brain come in? Mercedes had something similar in F1 (FRIC - supposedly adaptive suspension done with moveable weights), but it was banned. And using spec components in series like F1 is mostly done to lower costs, not because they wouldn't want them the best. And with that it's not the parts themselves that are the issue, making them is cheap. It's the development and optimisation that costs time and money, as a lot of very big foreheaded people spend a lot of time making it work juuuuuust right. Data acquisition in DH would fall in this category in general, but like I mentioned, there isn't enough money in MTB for that. That and most riders in the top 80 also aren't at a level, where they would need that - just having a factory ride would do wonders for a lot, let alone everything else before we get to data acquisition.
You explanation about frame size is exactly what Jack explained in his VLogs when he decided to race 2021 with the Strive rather than the Spectral and the smaller frame rather than the bigger frame.
I think it's the same as before, Lyrik and Pike share instructions in the service manual, so I think it's a safe bet they stayed 35 mm. There would be little reason to increase the diameter when they also have the Zeb above them anyway.
Mtbman99 what do you gain compared to cable actuated remote lockouts (except at least one battery that you have to charge...)? And what do you gain compared to normal levers on longer travel bikes where you flip the switches less often than in xc?
all this flightattendant and liveValve electronic suspension talk, and I just want the e-Storia shock ; ). .. has anyone asked EXT if they plan to release a version without the "e" with the LOK switch and the adjustable HBC ?.. I guess I could get one and scratch the "e" from the stickers ...
Regarding changes to the Lyrik and Pike, yes, the chassis is completely new, including the crown. If you look at the service manual, the air spring...
Regarding changes to the Lyrik and Pike, yes, the chassis is completely new, including the crown. If you look at the service manual, the air spring is new too. And there is more oil in the lowers, Sram Butter AND oil in the spring, etc.
We haven't ridden it yet, so it's hard to judge, but yeah, I doubt this will be a be all, end all solution to enduro racing. Bruni's supposed lockout is taking it to the extreme, as DH is soooooo much more squeezed when it comes to timing, they take out everything they can even with line choice. Enduro, being raced half blind, is a bit more sloppy so there are likely more mistakes and the variation in riding can be higher. So finding the marginal gains is less important if you ask me.
Why are riders running bikes that are, for all intents and purposes, too small in Enduro? My theory (thought up today) is that they are more nimble that way and can adapt to line changes and do things 'on the fly' more easily than with a bigger bike. On the other hand, as the line choice is not as defined as it is with DH, high speed stability might not be as useful as it is with DH. Lockouts go hand in hand with that if you ask me.
As for switches and them being banned in XC... yeah, it's electronic, it's adaptive, it has sensors, but where does Spec's Brain come in? Mercedes had something similar in F1 (FRIC - supposedly adaptive suspension done with moveable weights), but it was banned. And using spec components in series like F1 is mostly done to lower costs, not because they wouldn't want them the best. And with that it's not the parts themselves that are the issue, making them is cheap. It's the development and optimisation that costs time and money, as a lot of very big foreheaded people spend a lot of time making it work juuuuuust right. Data acquisition in DH would fall in this category in general, but like I mentioned, there isn't enough money in MTB for that. That and most riders in the top 80 also aren't at a level, where they would need that - just having a factory ride would do wonders for a lot, let alone everything else before we get to data acquisition.
Can you share a link to the service manual? I don't see anything beyond the 2021 Lyrik service manual on the Sram website.
Any ideas what this is ?
[img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2021/10/07/11510/s1200_p5pb21442411.jpg[/img]
[img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2021/10/07/11508/s1200_p5pb21442410.jpg[/img]
[img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2021/10/07/11509/s1200_p5pb21442409.jpg[/img]
Regarding changes to the Lyrik and Pike, yes, the chassis is completely new, including the crown. If you look at the service manual, the air spring...
Regarding changes to the Lyrik and Pike, yes, the chassis is completely new, including the crown. If you look at the service manual, the air spring is new too. And there is more oil in the lowers, Sram Butter AND oil in the spring, etc.
We haven't ridden it yet, so it's hard to judge, but yeah, I doubt this will be a be all, end all solution to enduro racing. Bruni's supposed lockout is taking it to the extreme, as DH is soooooo much more squeezed when it comes to timing, they take out everything they can even with line choice. Enduro, being raced half blind, is a bit more sloppy so there are likely more mistakes and the variation in riding can be higher. So finding the marginal gains is less important if you ask me.
Why are riders running bikes that are, for all intents and purposes, too small in Enduro? My theory (thought up today) is that they are more nimble that way and can adapt to line changes and do things 'on the fly' more easily than with a bigger bike. On the other hand, as the line choice is not as defined as it is with DH, high speed stability might not be as useful as it is with DH. Lockouts go hand in hand with that if you ask me.
As for switches and them being banned in XC... yeah, it's electronic, it's adaptive, it has sensors, but where does Spec's Brain come in? Mercedes had something similar in F1 (FRIC - supposedly adaptive suspension done with moveable weights), but it was banned. And using spec components in series like F1 is mostly done to lower costs, not because they wouldn't want them the best. And with that it's not the parts themselves that are the issue, making them is cheap. It's the development and optimisation that costs time and money, as a lot of very big foreheaded people spend a lot of time making it work juuuuuust right. Data acquisition in DH would fall in this category in general, but like I mentioned, there isn't enough money in MTB for that. That and most riders in the top 80 also aren't at a level, where they would need that - just having a factory ride would do wonders for a lot, let alone everything else before we get to data acquisition.
The new Zeb air piston is a spit for Vorsprung's Luftkappe. New pistons for the Lyrik and Pike too.
Edit, nope just realised the air shaft is threaded internally on these vs externally on the previous/current gen air springs
-Looks like the buttercups are a similar size to the C1 footnut so highly likely they'll be retrofittable to C1 air springs-
https://www.sram.com/globalassets/document-hierarchy/service-manuals/rockshox/front-suspension/2022-zeb-lyrik-pike-ultimate-flight-attendant-service-manual-english.pdf
The new Zeb air piston is a spit for Vorsprung's Luftkappe. New pistons for the Lyrik and Pike too.
Edit, nope just realised the air...
The new Zeb air piston is a spit for Vorsprung's Luftkappe. New pistons for the Lyrik and Pike too.
Edit, nope just realised the air shaft is threaded internally on these vs externally on the previous/current gen air springs
-Looks like the buttercups are a similar size to the C1 footnut so highly likely they'll be retrofittable to C1 air springs-
For the Zeb, I suspect the larger negative spring will have a greater impact than the buttercup.
Be nice if the lyrik finally gave us our rated travel number, im always using a 10mm longer airshaft to compensate for lost travel/lower front end, and yes my 3 lyriks have been serviced and dont "suck down" they sit down more so.
same bike, with fox 36 vs serviced lyrik and the lyrik sits down in the front and when i measured front end height was as expected - lower. Up the travel 10mm and it sits where it should, i got a DVO to make sure i wasnt losing my mind and it to was sitting higher than the lyrik - this is quite noticable out on the trail an annoys the cr@p out of me
I realise they updated the air springs and i bought 2 air springs for my older ones and my new 2021 already had it...
but why is this?
There is no sag on the new spring (tried and tested). The old spring, while suppler, had a too wrong ratio between the negative and positive chambers and the pressure in the negative chamber got too high at zero travel, so the fork was pulled into the travel a bit.
Just placed a preorder at my local shop, they told me it entered their ordering system on Tuesday and they have quite a few frames ordered and coming in. They’re not sure when they will be in stock, but I’d imagine the alloy Stumpy Evo will be announced this weekend at SeaOtter.
Yeah because who gives a sh** about unsprung mass after all ?
Run aluminium nipples, thinner spokes, a lighter rim, a lighter casing front tyre, a lightweight rotor adapter, aluminium carrier rotors, run a stealth axle instead of the toolless Maxle, etc. Or clean your bike if it's dirty.
Any one of these points will about make up (or more than make up) for the weight of the buttercups. If you're shaving grams so far, that you're worried about the buttercups, remove the paint from the lowers or go for the Pike instead of the Lyrik. Or the Sid instead of the Pike.
Those buttercups are, weight wise, a non-issue. They are not zero weight or a net negative, but are also not an issue.
Interesting nobody's talking about the fact the flight attendant lyrik and pike have entirely new chassis [img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2021/10/05/11495/s1200_p4pb21429095.jpg[/img]
[img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2021/10/05/11496/s1200_SmartSelect_20211006_004542_Instagram.jpg[/img]
Interesting nobody's talking about the fact the flight attendant lyrik and pike have entirely new chassis
Rockshox seems to be more clearly differentiating its forks through travel brackets. No longer will somebody wanting to run a 170 fork on their enduro bike be able to choose between a Lyrik and a Zeb (unless more air spring travel options than shown are offered aftermarket).
Run aluminium nipples, thinner spokes, a lighter rim, a lighter casing front tyre, a lightweight rotor adapter, aluminium carrier rotors, run a stealth axle instead of...
Run aluminium nipples, thinner spokes, a lighter rim, a lighter casing front tyre, a lightweight rotor adapter, aluminium carrier rotors, run a stealth axle instead of the toolless Maxle, etc. Or clean your bike if it's dirty.
Any one of these points will about make up (or more than make up) for the weight of the buttercups. If you're shaving grams so far, that you're worried about the buttercups, remove the paint from the lowers or go for the Pike instead of the Lyrik. Or the Sid instead of the Pike.
Those buttercups are, weight wise, a non-issue. They are not zero weight or a net negative, but are also not an issue.
Yes all of this, bar the casing since paper thin casing for what I ride isn't suitable performance and durability vise, add Ti disc and caliper bolts which help and have not cons.
And I not counting grams, only where it matters so unsprung and/or rotational mass. As for thin casings, going anything flimsier than a Lyrik/36 isn't an option for me, it is also pretty fallacious to come up with such arguments when unsprung mass benefit is well documented. Should MX or DH riders put some Sids on their bikes then ? Obviously reduction of unsprung mass is only secondary to rigidity, lack of binding and so on.
Now let's discuss the pros and cons of this buttercup. Those are basically a secondary spring using some oldschool urethan kinda spring. What does it do ? Well since it is a mechanical spring it has low breakaway force, this is basically a bandaid for the poor sensitivity of air springs. Because it is a mechanical spring it is not adjustable so it the rubber puck in there is designed for a rider of 70kg, most likely ligther riders will not benefit from it due to its stiffness and heavy rider will probably neither because they will always be at the bottom of it. So to be really useful you would need different rubber pucks to accommodate rider weight. And you would need to open your lowers to do so. So that let us with:
- low brake away force like a spring
- end of stroke ramp up thanks to air spring
- added complexity so more stuff to give troubles
- adequate for a narrow range of rider weight
- added unsprung mass
Now I now it may sound crazy but to get this low brake away force, company could use this ground brake technology called coil ! It would be interesting to know the added weight of those buttercups and compare it to a Ti spring for instance. Considering that manufacturing of stanchions wouldn't have to be a neat as for air, less precise parts to machine since they don't have to be air tight and less parts all together since no valve, no buttercup and such it might even be cheaper. Rockshox cheap 35 use springs, not air for instance. And since you would need to have the appropriate buttercup insert for your weight for these to make any sense, the fact that you would need to get the right spring isn't a valid argument really.
Yes all of this, bar the casing since paper thin casing for what I ride isn't suitable performance and durability vise, add Ti disc and caliper...
Yes all of this, bar the casing since paper thin casing for what I ride isn't suitable performance and durability vise, add Ti disc and caliper bolts which help and have not cons.
And I not counting grams, only where it matters so unsprung and/or rotational mass. As for thin casings, going anything flimsier than a Lyrik/36 isn't an option for me, it is also pretty fallacious to come up with such arguments when unsprung mass benefit is well documented. Should MX or DH riders put some Sids on their bikes then ? Obviously reduction of unsprung mass is only secondary to rigidity, lack of binding and so on.
Now let's discuss the pros and cons of this buttercup. Those are basically a secondary spring using some oldschool urethan kinda spring. What does it do ? Well since it is a mechanical spring it has low breakaway force, this is basically a bandaid for the poor sensitivity of air springs. Because it is a mechanical spring it is not adjustable so it the rubber puck in there is designed for a rider of 70kg, most likely ligther riders will not benefit from it due to its stiffness and heavy rider will probably neither because they will always be at the bottom of it. So to be really useful you would need different rubber pucks to accommodate rider weight. And you would need to open your lowers to do so. So that let us with:
- low brake away force like a spring
- end of stroke ramp up thanks to air spring
- added complexity so more stuff to give troubles
- adequate for a narrow range of rider weight
- added unsprung mass
Now I now it may sound crazy but to get this low brake away force, company could use this ground brake technology called coil ! It would be interesting to know the added weight of those buttercups and compare it to a Ti spring for instance. Considering that manufacturing of stanchions wouldn't have to be a neat as for air, less precise parts to machine since they don't have to be air tight and less parts all together since no valve, no buttercup and such it might even be cheaper. Rockshox cheap 35 use springs, not air for instance. And since you would need to have the appropriate buttercup insert for your weight for these to make any sense, the fact that you would need to get the right spring isn't a valid argument really.
This is the most retarded thing I’ve read today. But the day is still young.
The buttercup is likely a response to the EXT and DVO small coil springs that improve initial sensitivity.
I do agree with you though that in both cases, small coil or buttercup, it will have to be targeted at a specific rider weight zone that will not provide equal performance across the full rider weight spectrum.
You can easily provide some kind of preload to the system but as we know, that is not the ideal way to increase the spring rate for best performance.
The small coil does not need to be specific for a riders weight it just needs to be heavy enough that the force of static friction in the air spring is overcome before it is fully compressed. That's it.
Um... Erwan... Airsprings have a lower unsprung weight than coil springs do...
I know this sounds facetious (I do see the irony and 'poking' in what I wrote, which was part of the reason for writing it, but I am also very serious, as it is true), so to maybe go through the longer of your posts:
-the weight penalty of the buttercups will be... 5 grams per side? Maybe 10? If you can feel unsprung weight difference in grams:
+I really hope you cover your fork lowers, caliper, wheelset and tyre (tread included) with silicone spray to prevent ANY dirt from sticking to any part of the unsprung mass
+I hope your local bike shop is not sick of you weighing tyres before buying them (as there is quite a bit of variation within the same model, as in two tyres of the same model, rubber and casing have different weights)
+I'm really interested in which of the rear suspension layouts you run
+do you run specified oil values in the lowers or do you use less oil? How liberal are you with grease application when servicing the fork?
-the intention of the buttercups is to dampen higher frequency vibrations (chatter). As mentioned in the PR stuff, this is a normal thing to do with road cars - everything in the suspension is mounted using rubber bushings (suspension arms and the tops of shock absorbers/springs) to lower NVH (noise/vibration/harshness). There are very few cars on the road that are 'solid mounted', meaning they don't have any (or very little) rubber (or any other flexible material) in the joints. This improves responsiveness and gives a sharper feeling, but also gives a lot of noise, chatter and the like. There's a reason so few cars do this, as they are mostly trackday specials - think GT cars (Cayman GT4, 911 GT3, GT3 RS, GT2, etc.): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9-Sr8RPty4
The relevant bit is at 9:47 (he says ball bearings, but I'm fairly sure rosejoints/rod end bearings/spherical bearings were meant).
-The buttercups are likely VERY stiff. Look at the spring side one, it's a cone. That means an even more progressive force-stroke characteristic, than on the damper side. And even that is a thick puck of rubber, which will be, compressed the way it's mounted, fairly stiff. Depending on the durometer of course, but if they want any reasonable durability, this stuff will be hard (therefore the 'likely very' at the beginning of this point). That way the weight will not be much of an issue. Plus, different weights of riders won't detract from the fact it will be damping the chatter. Rubber (or polymers in general, therefore carbon when done right) also has good damping characteristics.
-There was a mention of stiction in the spring, what about stiction in the bushings?
-As an additional point of contention weight wise, how much do you think the weight penalty (regardless of the weight that I mentioned above) is versus having a longer shaft without the buttercups?
In any case, I'm hoping my next bike will be running the upcoming analogue Lyrik including these buttercups. And it would be interesting to replace them with a solid part to do some A/B comparisons. Luckily I have a lathe and a person who knows how to use it handy. It quite possibly might not be a drastic difference at the end of the day, it's possible that the benefits of the buttercups are more in the marketing than in reality (as in 'look at what we have that the others don't' with little actual benefit in having it), but we do not know that. Very few people outside RockShox rode the new forks and fewer still (zero?) have te luxury of doing an A/B comparison of this feature. And looking at this with proper telemetry (with a high resolution on the travel and a high sampling frequency) might also be useful. Maybe it would be possible to see the fork 'chattering' away with the buttercups installed while remaining 'stiff' without them.
Mtbman99 what do you gain compared to cable actuated remote lockouts (except at least one battery that you have to charge...)? And what do you gain compared to normal levers on longer travel bikes where you flip the switches less often than in xc?
https://www.incycle.com/products/specialized-stumpjumper-evo-alloy-frm?…
The new Zeb air piston is a spit for Vorsprung's Luftkappe. New pistons for the Lyrik and Pike too.
Edit, nope just realised the air shaft is threaded internally on these vs externally on the previous/current gen air springs
-Looks like the buttercups are a similar size to the C1 footnut so highly likely they'll be retrofittable to C1 air springs-
same bike, with fox 36 vs serviced lyrik and the lyrik sits down in the front and when i measured front end height was as expected - lower. Up the travel 10mm and it sits where it should, i got a DVO to make sure i wasnt losing my mind and it to was sitting higher than the lyrik - this is quite noticable out on the trail an annoys the cr@p out of me
I realise they updated the air springs and i bought 2 air springs for my older ones and my new 2021 already had it...
but why is this?
There is no sag on the new spring (tried and tested). The old spring, while suppler, had a too wrong ratio between the negative and positive chambers and the pressure in the negative chamber got too high at zero travel, so the fork was pulled into the travel a bit.
Any one of these points will about make up (or more than make up) for the weight of the buttercups. If you're shaving grams so far, that you're worried about the buttercups, remove the paint from the lowers or go for the Pike instead of the Lyrik. Or the Sid instead of the Pike.
Those buttercups are, weight wise, a non-issue. They are not zero weight or a net negative, but are also not an issue.
Zeb 150-190
Lyrik 140-160
Pike 120-140
And I not counting grams, only where it matters so unsprung and/or rotational mass. As for thin casings, going anything flimsier than a Lyrik/36 isn't an option for me, it is also pretty fallacious to come up with such arguments when unsprung mass benefit is well documented. Should MX or DH riders put some Sids on their bikes then ? Obviously reduction of unsprung mass is only secondary to rigidity, lack of binding and so on.
Now let's discuss the pros and cons of this buttercup. Those are basically a secondary spring using some oldschool urethan kinda spring. What does it do ? Well since it is a mechanical spring it has low breakaway force, this is basically a bandaid for the poor sensitivity of air springs. Because it is a mechanical spring it is not adjustable so it the rubber puck in there is designed for a rider of 70kg, most likely ligther riders will not benefit from it due to its stiffness and heavy rider will probably neither because they will always be at the bottom of it. So to be really useful you would need different rubber pucks to accommodate rider weight. And you would need to open your lowers to do so. So that let us with:
- low brake away force like a spring
- end of stroke ramp up thanks to air spring
- added complexity so more stuff to give troubles
- adequate for a narrow range of rider weight
- added unsprung mass
Now I now it may sound crazy but to get this low brake away force, company could use this ground brake technology called coil ! It would be interesting to know the added weight of those buttercups and compare it to a Ti spring for instance. Considering that manufacturing of stanchions wouldn't have to be a neat as for air, less precise parts to machine since they don't have to be air tight and less parts all together since no valve, no buttercup and such it might even be cheaper. Rockshox cheap 35 use springs, not air for instance. And since you would need to have the appropriate buttercup insert for your weight for these to make any sense, the fact that you would need to get the right spring isn't a valid argument really.
I do agree with you though that in both cases, small coil or buttercup, it will have to be targeted at a specific rider weight zone that will not provide equal performance across the full rider weight spectrum.
You can easily provide some kind of preload to the system but as we know, that is not the ideal way to increase the spring rate for best performance.
I know this sounds facetious (I do see the irony and 'poking' in what I wrote, which was part of the reason for writing it, but I am also very serious, as it is true), so to maybe go through the longer of your posts:
-the weight penalty of the buttercups will be... 5 grams per side? Maybe 10? If you can feel unsprung weight difference in grams:
+I really hope you cover your fork lowers, caliper, wheelset and tyre (tread included) with silicone spray to prevent ANY dirt from sticking to any part of the unsprung mass
+I hope your local bike shop is not sick of you weighing tyres before buying them (as there is quite a bit of variation within the same model, as in two tyres of the same model, rubber and casing have different weights)
+I'm really interested in which of the rear suspension layouts you run
+do you run specified oil values in the lowers or do you use less oil? How liberal are you with grease application when servicing the fork?
-the intention of the buttercups is to dampen higher frequency vibrations (chatter). As mentioned in the PR stuff, this is a normal thing to do with road cars - everything in the suspension is mounted using rubber bushings (suspension arms and the tops of shock absorbers/springs) to lower NVH (noise/vibration/harshness). There are very few cars on the road that are 'solid mounted', meaning they don't have any (or very little) rubber (or any other flexible material) in the joints. This improves responsiveness and gives a sharper feeling, but also gives a lot of noise, chatter and the like. There's a reason so few cars do this, as they are mostly trackday specials - think GT cars (Cayman GT4, 911 GT3, GT3 RS, GT2, etc.): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9-Sr8RPty4
The relevant bit is at 9:47 (he says ball bearings, but I'm fairly sure rosejoints/rod end bearings/spherical bearings were meant).
-The buttercups are likely VERY stiff. Look at the spring side one, it's a cone. That means an even more progressive force-stroke characteristic, than on the damper side. And even that is a thick puck of rubber, which will be, compressed the way it's mounted, fairly stiff. Depending on the durometer of course, but if they want any reasonable durability, this stuff will be hard (therefore the 'likely very' at the beginning of this point). That way the weight will not be much of an issue. Plus, different weights of riders won't detract from the fact it will be damping the chatter. Rubber (or polymers in general, therefore carbon when done right) also has good damping characteristics.
-There was a mention of stiction in the spring, what about stiction in the bushings?
-As an additional point of contention weight wise, how much do you think the weight penalty (regardless of the weight that I mentioned above) is versus having a longer shaft without the buttercups?
In any case, I'm hoping my next bike will be running the upcoming analogue Lyrik including these buttercups. And it would be interesting to replace them with a solid part to do some A/B comparisons. Luckily I have a lathe and a person who knows how to use it handy. It quite possibly might not be a drastic difference at the end of the day, it's possible that the benefits of the buttercups are more in the marketing than in reality (as in 'look at what we have that the others don't' with little actual benefit in having it), but we do not know that. Very few people outside RockShox rode the new forks and fewer still (zero?) have te luxury of doing an A/B comparison of this feature. And looking at this with proper telemetry (with a high resolution on the travel and a high sampling frequency) might also be useful. Maybe it would be possible to see the fork 'chattering' away with the buttercups installed while remaining 'stiff' without them.
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation