Hello Vital MTB Visitor,
We’re conducting a survey and would appreciate your input. Your answers will help Vital and the MTB industry better understand what riders like you want. Survey results will be used to recognize top brands. Make your voice heard!
Five lucky people will be selected at random to win a Vital MTB t-shirt.
Thanks in advance,
The Vital MTB Crew
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUCVnCM8a0o
The new YT *cough cough* trek CAPRA
looks like it finally has a water bottle mount, which is made possible by that vertical shock!
A new Capra is probably in the works as well, though for later is my guess. The current iteration isn't that old - though the geo could be optimized a bir further for full on EWS domination - if that is something they are keen to pursue.
How have you tested that not using full travel is harsh? What kind of data are you using?
Yes, using more travel on a bump (but not necassarily to the end) will sometimes feel smoother but only up to a certain point. I have found that even if your o-ring is at the end of the stanchion, it was actually a rare event and probably didn't happen in the place you wanted it to. Full travel usually comes from g-outs, not bumps as they are high in load but quite slow speed and don't generate much damping. If you adjust your suspension just to reach the end then it might be too soft, so you have less available travel to soak up the bump. I have several examples of data I recorded where I made the fork or shock firmer to to the point where they weren't getting any bottom outs but the typical compression lengths got LONGER, and the overall feel much better. In saying that I don't specifically aim to NEVER bottom out, it's just not a target shouldn't ever be harsh if you do.
I went and listened to the Canfield podcast and............well lets just say I use slightly different methods to him, that involve a bit more quantifiable testing.
If you want a good podcast on suspension, listen to Beyond the Tape with Steve from Vorsprung or the Vital Inside Line with Darren from Push Industries. Also watch Steve's tuesday tune videos. Those guys have both tested more mtb suspension than probably everyone else in the planet combined so you will learn a lot from them.
Few weeks ago there was a story on Chromag's IG showing us a great looking 3D printed BB/shock junction. I drooled on my keyboard. Now that. Guess my bank account isn't safe anymore.
So I am 100% sure the new 38s are on their way but have a look at that 36 on the right! Is that a camouflaged 38 with 36 decals on it or a a new lower leg assembly for the 36? Difficult to tell wether the stanchions are bigger by just looking at the pics!
https://www.undomestic.com/
Anywho, Pinkbike has a patent article where it's possible to see Ohlin's patent for air spring volume variation based on a bladder and air pressure around it. The story here is that it's done via a change of damping oil volume (through a worm screw and piston mechanism). I haven't gone into the depths of it in detail yet to fully understand it, but what I saw at first (with just a quick look at the pictures) is that you could do a triple chamber arrangement of the air spring in a shock similar to what Runt does by using a bladder in a dual walled aircan (similar to what we used to have with Monarch's DebonAir, what the Float X2 uses, what Fox used to do with the XV aircan, etc.
The air pressure in the piggyback will squeeze the oil less or more (depending on the pressure) and it will oppose any additional oil from getting into the piggyback. The oil will be getting into it through stroke events since more of the damper shaft will enter the damping system - that's why you need an IFP (or bladder) in your shock, that's why RS uses a bladder and Fox used to use a bladder (still does on the FiT4 IIRC) and a spring loaded IFP on the newer forks - you need to have an allowance for the change of volume in the system and oil having to go somewhere. Forks used to run on emulsion (Motion control) and air compressing in the emulsion would take care of that.
Now, to finish my long-winded point, the effective leverage ratio (the amount of oil going into the piggyback) and the resultant change in pressure and the resultant 'spring force from the damper' is very small compared to the actual force of the spring itself. You can usually squeeze the air shock with no aircan together by hand if you put some effort into it - you're squeezing the air chamber in the piggyback (or behind the IFP in the lower part of the shock). That's the amount of force it produces.
One sidenote here is the Intend Hover shock. The positive air chamber in fact IS the 'behind-the-IFP-or-in-the-piggyback' chamber with a classical negative chamber and a damper in between. But his shock is designed in such a way that it drives a lot more oil in the damper to effectively have a lower leverage ratio and thus have a big enough effect to act as a useable spring.