Right, but if you control for one variable (force required to bottom out fully), then a progressive linkage will use more travel on smaller-than-full-bottom-out impacts vs...
Right, but if you control for one variable (force required to bottom out fully), then a progressive linkage will use more travel on smaller-than-full-bottom-out impacts vs a more linear design.
I think progressive linkage designs are great for janky terrain (higher typical shaft speed), whereas more linear designs are better suited to riding in areas like bike parks or smoother terrain where the forces are more spread out over time/space (lower typical shaft speed).
Running the same dynamic ride height between setups makes the most sense because you get the geo between the two to be consistent. Conversely you could...
Running the same dynamic ride height between setups makes the most sense because you get the geo between the two to be consistent. Conversely you could tune them to have similar sensitivity off the top and the progressive bike would be massively hard to bottom.
I definitely agree that more linear bikes are better suited to smooth terrain.
Agreed.The thing I am confused about is, it seems like there is an ideal overall progression rate sweet spot (taking into account the progression of the...
Agreed.
The thing I am confused about is, it seems like there is an ideal overall progression rate sweet spot (taking into account the progression of the linkage plus the progression of the shock).
Some designs use a more linear linkage with an air shock (which adds progression above the linkage's rate).
Others use a more progressive linkage paired with a coil shock (which adds ~0 progression above the linkage's rate).
So why all this debate over progressivity of linkage? Seems like whichever you pick, you can then get a shock that compliments it. Most of the issues are when bikes are specced with a shock that doesn't mesh well with the linkage's progression rate, either due to the shock's progressivity (or lack thereof) or its damping is not appropriate.
I think it's awesome that bikes are coming out with a wide range of progressivity, given the constraints of shock choice. You can pick the bike + shock combo that best suits your terrain.
The availability of choice would work if shocks were easy to get and people were willing to swap out shocks. It's mostly a nope on both fronts - other than a custom valved boutique shock or a medium/medium tune from the big ones it's really hard to get a shock to fit your frame. Regardless of the air vs. coil conversation complicating things even more.
The availability of choice would work if shocks were easy to get and people were willing to swap out shocks. It's mostly a nope on both...
The availability of choice would work if shocks were easy to get and people were willing to swap out shocks. It's mostly a nope on both fronts - other than a custom valved boutique shock or a medium/medium tune from the big ones it's really hard to get a shock to fit your frame. Regardless of the air vs. coil conversation complicating things even more.
Not to mention the lack of information on shocks, shock tunes, suspension kinematics, etc. Hard to make a change if you don't know where you are, where you're going, or how to get there.
The availability of choice would work if shocks were easy to get and people were willing to swap out shocks. It's mostly a nope on both...
The availability of choice would work if shocks were easy to get and people were willing to swap out shocks. It's mostly a nope on both fronts - other than a custom valved boutique shock or a medium/medium tune from the big ones it's really hard to get a shock to fit your frame. Regardless of the air vs. coil conversation complicating things even more.
Not to mention the lack of information on shocks, shock tunes, suspension kinematics, etc. Hard to make a change if you don't know where you are...
Not to mention the lack of information on shocks, shock tunes, suspension kinematics, etc. Hard to make a change if you don't know where you are, where you're going, or how to get there.
This. A middle range stock tune from a manufacturer for those that don't care as much as the vital crowd does. Then provide all kinematics info so those that do care can get an appropriate aftermarket tune.
If you met someone at the trailhead, asked them what % progressive kinematic their frame had and what is the leverage ratio they would look at you like you were an alien holding a rectal probe.
"I bought it because it was blue" would be their response. Normal people don't care about this stuff lol.
I've tried them all over the years, from literally Regressive designs, through to 45% DH monsters. I keep coming back to 25% been my sweet spot on a coil for an enduro/long travel bike. It's my goldilocks number.
What is more important, is the Ratio from beginning to end is a linear line, this makes tuning the shock so much easier and effective IMO.
I wish I was that dude who bought his bike because it looked sick (in blue) but we are nerds, we obsess over the details that no one cares about. I love it lol
I'm just another idiot, but the very next image in the Formula teardown story you linked looks like a shim arrangement on the backside of the CTS valve. I think of an "orifice damper" as something that uses a cone or needle to marginally adjust how open or closed an orifice is at all shaft speeds, not a shim that opens or closes the valve at different shaft speeds.
"Ben shows the shim against the bottom of the blue valve. The rounded edge of the nut beneath allows the shim to flex when oil is forced through the circuit."
If you met someone at the trailhead, asked them what % progressive kinematic their frame had and what is the leverage ratio they would look at...
If you met someone at the trailhead, asked them what % progressive kinematic their frame had and what is the leverage ratio they would look at you like you were an alien holding a rectal probe.
"I bought it because it was blue" would be their response. Normal people don't care about this stuff lol.
I've tried them all over the years, from literally Regressive designs, through to 45% DH monsters. I keep coming back to 25% been my sweet spot on a coil for an enduro/long travel bike. It's my goldilocks number.
What is more important, is the Ratio from beginning to end is a linear line, this makes tuning the shock so much easier and effective IMO.
I wish I was that dude who bought his bike because it looked sick (in blue) but we are nerds, we obsess over the details that no one cares about. I love it lol
I'm not sure anyone has ever described me as normal
I'm just another idiot, but the very next image in the Formula teardown story you linked looks like a shim arrangement on the backside of the...
I'm just another idiot, but the very next image in the Formula teardown story you linked looks like a shim arrangement on the backside of the CTS valve. I think of an "orifice damper" as something that uses a cone or needle to marginally adjust how open or closed an orifice is at all shaft speeds, not a shim that opens or closes the valve at different shaft speeds.
"Ben shows the shim against the bottom of the blue valve. The rounded edge of the nut beneath allows the shim to flex when oil is forced through the circuit."
Most dampers (very broad generalization here) use an orifice and needle for low speed damping and then a shim stack of some sort for high speed. This is usually similar on both compression and rebound.
If you met someone at the trailhead, asked them what % progressive kinematic their frame had and what is the leverage ratio they would look at...
If you met someone at the trailhead, asked them what % progressive kinematic their frame had and what is the leverage ratio they would look at you like you were an alien holding a rectal probe.
"I bought it because it was blue" would be their response. Normal people don't care about this stuff lol.
I've tried them all over the years, from literally Regressive designs, through to 45% DH monsters. I keep coming back to 25% been my sweet spot on a coil for an enduro/long travel bike. It's my goldilocks number.
What is more important, is the Ratio from beginning to end is a linear line, this makes tuning the shock so much easier and effective IMO.
I wish I was that dude who bought his bike because it looked sick (in blue) but we are nerds, we obsess over the details that no one cares about. I love it lol
This is why I don't talk to people at trailheads... they would think I'm part of some strange cult.
Interestingly, as far as the response with the most consistent change in damping as felt at the wheel over travel, a slightly concave leverage curve is closer to a line. This is because damping as felt at the wheel is inversely proportional to leverage ratio squared. Example below
If you met someone at the trailhead, asked them what % progressive kinematic their frame had and what is the leverage ratio they would look at...
If you met someone at the trailhead, asked them what % progressive kinematic their frame had and what is the leverage ratio they would look at you like you were an alien holding a rectal probe.
"I bought it because it was blue" would be their response. Normal people don't care about this stuff lol.
I've tried them all over the years, from literally Regressive designs, through to 45% DH monsters. I keep coming back to 25% been my sweet spot on a coil for an enduro/long travel bike. It's my goldilocks number.
What is more important, is the Ratio from beginning to end is a linear line, this makes tuning the shock so much easier and effective IMO.
I wish I was that dude who bought his bike because it looked sick (in blue) but we are nerds, we obsess over the details that no one cares about. I love it lol
I'm just another idiot, but the very next image in the Formula teardown story you linked looks like a shim arrangement on the backside of the...
I'm just another idiot, but the very next image in the Formula teardown story you linked looks like a shim arrangement on the backside of the CTS valve. I think of an "orifice damper" as something that uses a cone or needle to marginally adjust how open or closed an orifice is at all shaft speeds, not a shim that opens or closes the valve at different shaft speeds.
"Ben shows the shim against the bottom of the blue valve. The rounded edge of the nut beneath allows the shim to flex when oil is forced through the circuit."
I did see that, I guess they could be using a single shim for high speed compression. I know a single shim is often used as a check valve for oil flow though.
I’d love to get my hands on a couple of the valves to see how they work.
I was trying to find pictures of the other valves to see of maybe they had different arrangements, but there doesn’t seem to be much info out there. All I’ve definitively seen is that they all have different port machining. Some cutaways would be very useful. The Formula tech doc is pretty useless and full of marketing fluff.
This is why I don't talk to people at trailheads... they would think I'm part of some strange cult.Interestingly, as far as the response with the...
This is why I don't talk to people at trailheads... they would think I'm part of some strange cult.
Interestingly, as far as the response with the most consistent change in damping as felt at the wheel over travel, a slightly concave leverage curve is closer to a line. This is because damping as felt at the wheel is inversely proportional to leverage ratio squared. Example below
A shock tune guide would definitely be nice from the mfgs. I mean how they compare to each other in a graph or something. I bought a Vivid C1 back in January because it was a real good price, relatively speaking. It was marked down, I guess because it was "for" a SB160 which meant it had mounting hardware for that bike and the tune. Hardware didn't matter as I had that for my bike, and the tune wasn't that different. Only thing was the Compression was C37, and after contacting Fezzari (Ari) they informed me the tune they ship the La Sal Vivid with is C34. From the shim stack it looks like the C37 tune is "heavier" than the C34 but not really clear beyond that how the difference in performance compares.
I run HSC full open, LSC one click less than full open. I always wonder if the C34 tune would work better but its not the easiest to change the shim stacks, and they aren't cheap either.. if they are even in stock.
Apologies for the long post on that, just saw the tune remark and totally agree I wish it was clearer.
A shock tune guide would definitely be nice from the mfgs. I mean how they compare to each other in a graph or something. I bought...
A shock tune guide would definitely be nice from the mfgs. I mean how they compare to each other in a graph or something. I bought a Vivid C1 back in January because it was a real good price, relatively speaking. It was marked down, I guess because it was "for" a SB160 which meant it had mounting hardware for that bike and the tune. Hardware didn't matter as I had that for my bike, and the tune wasn't that different. Only thing was the Compression was C37, and after contacting Fezzari (Ari) they informed me the tune they ship the La Sal Vivid with is C34. From the shim stack it looks like the C37 tune is "heavier" than the C34 but not really clear beyond that how the difference in performance compares.
I run HSC full open, LSC one click less than full open. I always wonder if the C34 tune would work better but its not the easiest to change the shim stacks, and they aren't cheap either.. if they are even in stock.
Apologies for the long post on that, just saw the tune remark and totally agree I wish it was clearer.
I'm with you. I bought an over stroked Vivid that was tuned specific for my new bike and it was a totally different tune than what came stock. I know not apples to apples, it's a Decoy 29 vs Decoy, but I can't imagine the kinematics are all that different, although the tunes (stock) R55/C26 vs R25/C34 seem as though they should be different? I really have NOOOO idea but I would like to. At the very least if I'm spending all this money I want to get the best out of it but also I care enough to know... so I sent it to Fluid Focus. All will be good now.
I'm just another idiot, but the very next image in the Formula teardown story you linked looks like a shim arrangement on the backside of the...
I'm just another idiot, but the very next image in the Formula teardown story you linked looks like a shim arrangement on the backside of the CTS valve. I think of an "orifice damper" as something that uses a cone or needle to marginally adjust how open or closed an orifice is at all shaft speeds, not a shim that opens or closes the valve at different shaft speeds.
"Ben shows the shim against the bottom of the blue valve. The rounded edge of the nut beneath allows the shim to flex when oil is forced through the circuit."
I think an orifice damper is just that, an orifice damper. The needle adds another layer of complexity. The catch is that different orifice arrangements will cause different damping characteristics - having the same overall void cross section, but in many small holes as opposed to few large holes will change the way the oil flows through them because of the viscosity of oil (compared to something like water, but water will be affected too obviously) and the resulting difference in flow regime (laminar, turbulent, etc.).
This is before the shims come into play. Putting the exact same shimstack on a piston with a different orifice arrangement will also cause differences in how the shim stack behaves as the bending mode, and thus the stiffness of the shims, will change. QED, fold a piece of paper in half (two orifices on opposite sides of the piston, an extreme case) vs. fold/bend it into a cup shape (the Formula CTS with many small holes). Things like to bend over a line, 3D bending is a PITA to achieve and will make the exact same piece of metal to behave quite differently.
Also, a single shim as a check valve is also a different thing as it's also usually spring preloaded so it can move away easily and does not impede oil flow in one direction (when it opens) but does when the orifices are closed. It should hardly add any restriction if it is used as a check valve proper.
I'm just another idiot, but the very next image in the Formula teardown story you linked looks like a shim arrangement on the backside of the...
I'm just another idiot, but the very next image in the Formula teardown story you linked looks like a shim arrangement on the backside of the CTS valve. I think of an "orifice damper" as something that uses a cone or needle to marginally adjust how open or closed an orifice is at all shaft speeds, not a shim that opens or closes the valve at different shaft speeds.
"Ben shows the shim against the bottom of the blue valve. The rounded edge of the nut beneath allows the shim to flex when oil is forced through the circuit."
I did see that, I guess they could be using a single shim for high speed compression. I know a single shim is often used as...
I did see that, I guess they could be using a single shim for high speed compression. I know a single shim is often used as a check valve for oil flow though.
I’d love to get my hands on a couple of the valves to see how they work.
I was trying to find pictures of the other valves to see of maybe they had different arrangements, but there doesn’t seem to be much info out there. All I’ve definitively seen is that they all have different port machining. Some cutaways would be very useful. The Formula tech doc is pretty useless and full of marketing fluff.
i dont care about those details, i just put in a different cst and immediately feel the difference. you put it in and then decide how much of the effect you want by adjusting the compression adjuster, way easier to setup then a fox grip2 imho.
can we please get back to rumors and stop the compression, damping and leverage ratio talk in here. pretty sure there must be a nerding out on suspension thread in here somewhere 😊
can we please get back to rumors and stop the compression, damping and leverage ratio talk in here. pretty sure there must be a nerding out...
can we please get back to rumors and stop the compression, damping and leverage ratio talk in here. pretty sure there must be a nerding out on suspension thread in here somewhere 😊
THX!!!
The constant whinging that tech rumours is getting derailed is kind of annoying and derailing in itself. In my opinion its OK to discuss the tech rumour or current happenings for at least a page or two, and then they generally dissipate or move to other threads. If a legitimate large rumour or release happens it naturally takes over the thread anyway, they're discussing damping and leverage because there isn't a lot happening right now. Plus, Primoz, Teamrobot and Cascade make up some of the best and most knowledge members and are creating a valid discussion.
For better or worse tech rumours is kinda the default thread to discuss anything new, I don't think it should become only a news feed thread that some people seem to advocate for.
Any more rumors on the new Santa Cruz bikes? Megatower/Nomad and Hightower/Bronson being turned into two platforms instead of four with flipchips for the rear wheel size?
can we please get back to rumors and stop the compression, damping and leverage ratio talk in here. pretty sure there must be a nerding out...
can we please get back to rumors and stop the compression, damping and leverage ratio talk in here. pretty sure there must be a nerding out on suspension thread in here somewhere 😊
The constant whinging that tech rumours is getting derailed is kind of annoying and derailing in itself. In my opinion its OK to discuss the tech...
The constant whinging that tech rumours is getting derailed is kind of annoying and derailing in itself. In my opinion its OK to discuss the tech rumour or current happenings for at least a page or two, and then they generally dissipate or move to other threads. If a legitimate large rumour or release happens it naturally takes over the thread anyway, they're discussing damping and leverage because there isn't a lot happening right now. Plus, Primoz, Teamrobot and Cascade make up some of the best and most knowledge members and are creating a valid discussion.
For better or worse tech rumours is kinda the default thread to discuss anything new, I don't think it should become only a news feed thread that some people seem to advocate for.
please enlighten me what‘s so hard in discussing those topics in a dedicated thread which i‘m sure will be greatly frequented? damping vs. springrate vs. leverage ratio isn‘t news at all.
i (and i guess most) come here for news and rumors about new tech and don‘t want to scroll through pages full of tech talk that isn‘t rumors!
Specific topics fly under the radar (you have to go look through the forum to find them unless someone links to them) and subsequently there isn't as many eyeballs in them, "outside" opinions, etc. That's why this topic gets derailed so often, so many people engage in it and it gets pulled into multiple directions.
The availability of choice would work if shocks were easy to get and people were willing to swap out shocks. It's mostly a nope on both...
The availability of choice would work if shocks were easy to get and people were willing to swap out shocks. It's mostly a nope on both fronts - other than a custom valved boutique shock or a medium/medium tune from the big ones it's really hard to get a shock to fit your frame. Regardless of the air vs. coil conversation complicating things even more.
Not to mention the lack of information on shocks, shock tunes, suspension kinematics, etc. Hard to make a change if you don't know where you are...
Not to mention the lack of information on shocks, shock tunes, suspension kinematics, etc. Hard to make a change if you don't know where you are, where you're going, or how to get there.
If people will forgive the golf analogy, growing up playing a lot I remember the fit stations for clubs in pro shops. The manufactures had slick displays and tools/processes for the pro shop to go through to fit you shaft length, lie angle, etc. Then your clubs showed up a few weeks later. I'm sure that now they are taking videos and looking at clubhead speed, ball trajectory, and maybe even spin rate. Maybe making recommendations on which ball as well.
As all of us nerds on this thread know, we are far too few in number to push more rider-optimized suspension into the mainstream. My guess is that the only way it happens is if a large frame manufacturer partners with a large suspension manufacturer to provide something along the lines of the soon-to-be-shipped (hopefully) Motion Instruments DAQ and dampers along the lines of the Lift, formula's cst, or whatever Vorsprung as come up with. For shocks, the Formula or Vorsprung tech would be key. You'd put it together in a slick package/process and run it through local shops, just like how I'm imagining modern club fitting works.
But I'm not in the industry, so I really have no idea and would be curious to hear more informed opinions. Apologies if this is too off topic, but if we are interested in innovations outside of things with batteries, rider-optimized suspension available from the factory seems like it could be low hanging fruit and a differentiator for brands, IF they package it and explain the value well, which I think is a lot easier said than done.
EDIT - I do not think is going to happen anytime soon. I'm just not sure how else it could happen.
Hot take... Does the average rider want better suspension compared to what he or she has now?
Does he or she know it could be better? If yes, are they willing to act upon that knowledge to actually change things? Or do they just want to ride their damn blue bike?
A shock tune guide would definitely be nice from the mfgs. I mean how they compare to each other in a graph or something. I bought...
A shock tune guide would definitely be nice from the mfgs. I mean how they compare to each other in a graph or something. I bought a Vivid C1 back in January because it was a real good price, relatively speaking. It was marked down, I guess because it was "for" a SB160 which meant it had mounting hardware for that bike and the tune. Hardware didn't matter as I had that for my bike, and the tune wasn't that different. Only thing was the Compression was C37, and after contacting Fezzari (Ari) they informed me the tune they ship the La Sal Vivid with is C34. From the shim stack it looks like the C37 tune is "heavier" than the C34 but not really clear beyond that how the difference in performance compares.
I run HSC full open, LSC one click less than full open. I always wonder if the C34 tune would work better but its not the easiest to change the shim stacks, and they aren't cheap either.. if they are even in stock.
Apologies for the long post on that, just saw the tune remark and totally agree I wish it was clearer.
I'm with you. I bought an over stroked Vivid that was tuned specific for my new bike and it was a totally different tune than what came...
I'm with you. I bought an over stroked Vivid that was tuned specific for my new bike and it was a totally different tune than what came stock. I know not apples to apples, it's a Decoy 29 vs Decoy, but I can't imagine the kinematics are all that different, although the tunes (stock) R55/C26 vs R25/C34 seem as though they should be different? I really have NOOOO idea but I would like to. At the very least if I'm spending all this money I want to get the best out of it but also I care enough to know... so I sent it to Fluid Focus. All will be good now.
The SRAM tech support is quite helpful answering questions about the different tunes. They've got some easy to process graphics showing the spectrum of the tunes. I actually really like the new Cxx/Rxx system, because the center of each jump in numbers in each direction corresponds to opening/closing that adjuster for the adjacent number. Smaller numbers is less damped / lighter. So center of C37 LSC is the same as C34 LSC fully closed, meaning there is a good amount of overlap between each tune. If the OEM tune for your bike is only 1 off from the generic retail tune, you can get cover a lot of the same range, but if it diverges more than that it's probably best to hunt down the OEM tune.
Every discussion in here is about tech and innovation. If we are discussing damper designs, rubber compounds, frame materials, etc.
How are any of those discussions a derailment? Does everything HAVE to be a rumor? I haven’t seen anybody post a movie review, a story about a riding trip, or the current weather in Iowa. It’s all relevant.
Funny thing about all those links people put up to discuss specific topics. Nobody engages with them. This thread is always active and always interesting. If rumors are sparse, what’s the harm?
The SRAM tech support is quite helpful answering questions about the different tunes. They've got some easy to process graphics showing the spectrum of the tunes...
The SRAM tech support is quite helpful answering questions about the different tunes. They've got some easy to process graphics showing the spectrum of the tunes. I actually really like the new Cxx/Rxx system, because the center of each jump in numbers in each direction corresponds to opening/closing that adjuster for the adjacent number. Smaller numbers is less damped / lighter. So center of C37 LSC is the same as C34 LSC fully closed, meaning there is a good amount of overlap between each tune. If the OEM tune for your bike is only 1 off from the generic retail tune, you can get cover a lot of the same range, but if it diverges more than that it's probably best to hunt down the OEM tune.
Are they posted anywhere, got a link? Interrested to see it. Outside of SRAM I've heard both, the tunes are all very similar and they're progressive/linear/dirgressive, which is certainly different.
This is one of the best threads in the MTB world. Awesome tech rumors and new products, but even better are the discussions that follow. People have questions about MTB products. It takes time to sort it out. We’re all still learning, always learning! And the discussions about new products and rumored products are kinda central to our progression. Maybe the discussion gets too granular for some, but in my short time here I have seen what others have mentioned, a natural ebb and flow of topics governed by the actual posting of rumors or releases.
I think that if you don’t like the discussions about the tech, maybe just stick to the front page of vital.
The SRAM tech support is quite helpful answering questions about the different tunes. They've got some easy to process graphics showing the spectrum of the tunes...
The SRAM tech support is quite helpful answering questions about the different tunes. They've got some easy to process graphics showing the spectrum of the tunes. I actually really like the new Cxx/Rxx system, because the center of each jump in numbers in each direction corresponds to opening/closing that adjuster for the adjacent number. Smaller numbers is less damped / lighter. So center of C37 LSC is the same as C34 LSC fully closed, meaning there is a good amount of overlap between each tune. If the OEM tune for your bike is only 1 off from the generic retail tune, you can get cover a lot of the same range, but if it diverges more than that it's probably best to hunt down the OEM tune.
Are they posted anywhere, got a link? Interrested to see it. Outside of SRAM I've heard both, the tunes are all very similar and they're progressive/linear/dirgressive...
Are they posted anywhere, got a link? Interrested to see it. Outside of SRAM I've heard both, the tunes are all very similar and they're progressive/linear/dirgressive, which is certainly different.
The availability of choice would work if shocks were easy to get and people were willing to swap out shocks. It's mostly a nope on both fronts - other than a custom valved boutique shock or a medium/medium tune from the big ones it's really hard to get a shock to fit your frame. Regardless of the air vs. coil conversation complicating things even more.
Not to mention the lack of information on shocks, shock tunes, suspension kinematics, etc. Hard to make a change if you don't know where you are, where you're going, or how to get there.
This. A middle range stock tune from a manufacturer for those that don't care as much as the vital crowd does. Then provide all kinematics info so those that do care can get an appropriate aftermarket tune.
Has anyone heard when the Fox wireless dropper is getting released? This has been rumored for months now.
If you met someone at the trailhead, asked them what % progressive kinematic their frame had and what is the leverage ratio they would look at you like you were an alien holding a rectal probe.
"I bought it because it was blue" would be their response. Normal people don't care about this stuff lol.
I've tried them all over the years, from literally Regressive designs, through to 45% DH monsters. I keep coming back to 25% been my sweet spot on a coil for an enduro/long travel bike. It's my goldilocks number.
What is more important, is the Ratio from beginning to end is a linear line, this makes tuning the shock so much easier and effective IMO.
I wish I was that dude who bought his bike because it looked sick (in blue) but we are nerds, we obsess over the details that no one cares about. I love it lol
I'm just another idiot, but the very next image in the Formula teardown story you linked looks like a shim arrangement on the backside of the CTS valve. I think of an "orifice damper" as something that uses a cone or needle to marginally adjust how open or closed an orifice is at all shaft speeds, not a shim that opens or closes the valve at different shaft speeds.
"Ben shows the shim against the bottom of the blue valve. The rounded edge of the nut beneath allows the shim to flex when oil is forced through the circuit."
I'm not sure anyone has ever described me as normal
Most dampers (very broad generalization here) use an orifice and needle for low speed damping and then a shim stack of some sort for high speed. This is usually similar on both compression and rebound.
This is why I don't talk to people at trailheads... they would think I'm part of some strange cult.
Interestingly, as far as the response with the most consistent change in damping as felt at the wheel over travel, a slightly concave leverage curve is closer to a line. This is because damping as felt at the wheel is inversely proportional to leverage ratio squared. Example below
I had you at "rectal probe" didn't I?
I did see that, I guess they could be using a single shim for high speed compression. I know a single shim is often used as a check valve for oil flow though.
I’d love to get my hands on a couple of the valves to see how they work.
I was trying to find pictures of the other valves to see of maybe they had different arrangements, but there doesn’t seem to be much info out there. All I’ve definitively seen is that they all have different port machining. Some cutaways would be very useful. The Formula tech doc is pretty useless and full of marketing fluff.
https://www.rideformula.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/CTS-Compression-Tuning-System.pdf
A shock tune guide would definitely be nice from the mfgs. I mean how they compare to each other in a graph or something. I bought a Vivid C1 back in January because it was a real good price, relatively speaking. It was marked down, I guess because it was "for" a SB160 which meant it had mounting hardware for that bike and the tune. Hardware didn't matter as I had that for my bike, and the tune wasn't that different. Only thing was the Compression was C37, and after contacting Fezzari (Ari) they informed me the tune they ship the La Sal Vivid with is C34. From the shim stack it looks like the C37 tune is "heavier" than the C34 but not really clear beyond that how the difference in performance compares.
I run HSC full open, LSC one click less than full open. I always wonder if the C34 tune would work better but its not the easiest to change the shim stacks, and they aren't cheap either.. if they are even in stock.
Apologies for the long post on that, just saw the tune remark and totally agree I wish it was clearer.
I'm with you. I bought an over stroked Vivid that was tuned specific for my new bike and it was a totally different tune than what came stock. I know not apples to apples, it's a Decoy 29 vs Decoy, but I can't imagine the kinematics are all that different, although the tunes (stock) R55/C26 vs R25/C34 seem as though they should be different? I really have NOOOO idea but I would like to. At the very least if I'm spending all this money I want to get the best out of it but also I care enough to know... so I sent it to Fluid Focus. All will be good now.
I think an orifice damper is just that, an orifice damper. The needle adds another layer of complexity. The catch is that different orifice arrangements will cause different damping characteristics - having the same overall void cross section, but in many small holes as opposed to few large holes will change the way the oil flows through them because of the viscosity of oil (compared to something like water, but water will be affected too obviously) and the resulting difference in flow regime (laminar, turbulent, etc.).
This is before the shims come into play. Putting the exact same shimstack on a piston with a different orifice arrangement will also cause differences in how the shim stack behaves as the bending mode, and thus the stiffness of the shims, will change. QED, fold a piece of paper in half (two orifices on opposite sides of the piston, an extreme case) vs. fold/bend it into a cup shape (the Formula CTS with many small holes). Things like to bend over a line, 3D bending is a PITA to achieve and will make the exact same piece of metal to behave quite differently.
Also, a single shim as a check valve is also a different thing as it's also usually spring preloaded so it can move away easily and does not impede oil flow in one direction (when it opens) but does when the orifices are closed. It should hardly add any restriction if it is used as a check valve proper.
If someone wants to go through some light evening reading and cover all the basics, here's a good book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2847388-the-shock-absorber-handbook
As for dampers & co, still waiting for someone to license Multimatic's spool valve patent...
i dont care about those details, i just put in a different cst and immediately feel the difference. you put it in and then decide how much of the effect you want by adjusting the compression adjuster, way easier to setup then a fox grip2 imho.
also, coil spring. so so supple <3
can we please get back to rumors and stop the compression, damping and leverage ratio talk in here. pretty sure there must be a nerding out on suspension thread in here somewhere 😊
THX!!!
The constant whinging that tech rumours is getting derailed is kind of annoying and derailing in itself. In my opinion its OK to discuss the tech rumour or current happenings for at least a page or two, and then they generally dissipate or move to other threads. If a legitimate large rumour or release happens it naturally takes over the thread anyway, they're discussing damping and leverage because there isn't a lot happening right now. Plus, Primoz, Teamrobot and Cascade make up some of the best and most knowledge members and are creating a valid discussion.
For better or worse tech rumours is kinda the default thread to discuss anything new, I don't think it should become only a news feed thread that some people seem to advocate for.
Any more rumors on the new Santa Cruz bikes? Megatower/Nomad and Hightower/Bronson being turned into two platforms instead of four with flipchips for the rear wheel size?
please enlighten me what‘s so hard in discussing those topics in a dedicated thread which i‘m sure will be greatly frequented? damping vs. springrate vs. leverage ratio isn‘t news at all.
i (and i guess most) come here for news and rumors about new tech and don‘t want to scroll through pages full of tech talk that isn‘t rumors!
Specific topics fly under the radar (you have to go look through the forum to find them unless someone links to them) and subsequently there isn't as many eyeballs in them, "outside" opinions, etc. That's why this topic gets derailed so often, so many people engage in it and it gets pulled into multiple directions.
If people will forgive the golf analogy, growing up playing a lot I remember the fit stations for clubs in pro shops. The manufactures had slick displays and tools/processes for the pro shop to go through to fit you shaft length, lie angle, etc. Then your clubs showed up a few weeks later. I'm sure that now they are taking videos and looking at clubhead speed, ball trajectory, and maybe even spin rate. Maybe making recommendations on which ball as well.
As all of us nerds on this thread know, we are far too few in number to push more rider-optimized suspension into the mainstream. My guess is that the only way it happens is if a large frame manufacturer partners with a large suspension manufacturer to provide something along the lines of the soon-to-be-shipped (hopefully) Motion Instruments DAQ and dampers along the lines of the Lift, formula's cst, or whatever Vorsprung as come up with. For shocks, the Formula or Vorsprung tech would be key. You'd put it together in a slick package/process and run it through local shops, just like how I'm imagining modern club fitting works.
But I'm not in the industry, so I really have no idea and would be curious to hear more informed opinions. Apologies if this is too off topic, but if we are interested in innovations outside of things with batteries, rider-optimized suspension available from the factory seems like it could be low hanging fruit and a differentiator for brands, IF they package it and explain the value well, which I think is a lot easier said than done.
EDIT - I do not think is going to happen anytime soon. I'm just not sure how else it could happen.
Hot take... Does the average rider want better suspension compared to what he or she has now?
Does he or she know it could be better? If yes, are they willing to act upon that knowledge to actually change things? Or do they just want to ride their damn blue bike?
The SRAM tech support is quite helpful answering questions about the different tunes. They've got some easy to process graphics showing the spectrum of the tunes. I actually really like the new Cxx/Rxx system, because the center of each jump in numbers in each direction corresponds to opening/closing that adjuster for the adjacent number. Smaller numbers is less damped / lighter. So center of C37 LSC is the same as C34 LSC fully closed, meaning there is a good amount of overlap between each tune. If the OEM tune for your bike is only 1 off from the generic retail tune, you can get cover a lot of the same range, but if it diverges more than that it's probably best to hunt down the OEM tune.
Regarding “derailments;“
Every discussion in here is about tech and innovation. If we are discussing damper designs, rubber compounds, frame materials, etc.
How are any of those discussions a derailment? Does everything HAVE to be a rumor? I haven’t seen anybody post a movie review, a story about a riding trip, or the current weather in Iowa. It’s all relevant.
Funny thing about all those links people put up to discuss specific topics. Nobody engages with them. This thread is always active and always interesting. If rumors are sparse, what’s the harm?
As long as "dampen" gets unironically typed every now and then to get us riled up, I think it's all fair game.
As above, this thread is indeed always active and always interesting.
Worse than that is this… when you see it
Are they posted anywhere, got a link? Interrested to see it. Outside of SRAM I've heard both, the tunes are all very similar and they're progressive/linear/dirgressive, which is certainly different.
This is one of the best threads in the MTB world. Awesome tech rumors and new products, but even better are the discussions that follow. People have questions about MTB products. It takes time to sort it out. We’re all still learning, always learning! And the discussions about new products and rumored products are kinda central to our progression. Maybe the discussion gets too granular for some, but in my short time here I have seen what others have mentioned, a natural ebb and flow of topics governed by the actual posting of rumors or releases.
I think that if you don’t like the discussions about the tech, maybe just stick to the front page of vital.
For RockShox, the list of available tunes is available on the shock's service page. For instance here's the Vivid Ultimate: https://www.sram.com/en/service/models/rs-vivd-ult-c1
You can find the shim layouts in the tuning guide: https://www.sram.com/globalassets/document-hierarchy/tuning-manuals/rockshox-rear-shock-piston-tuning-guide.pdf
For Fox, you can find similar info on the shock's parts & drawings page. For instance here's the Float X2: https://tech.ridefox.com/bike/parts-drawings/2863/float-x2-part-information
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation