So bikes were too linear and we needed to use air shocks to fix it, but now bikes are more progressive, so we need to increase...
So bikes were too linear and we needed to use air shocks to fix it, but now bikes are more progressive, so we need to increase the air volume in our shocks to make them more linear. Makes sense to me!
That's one reason for the various air cans, and in a world where you can get a Starling with 0% progression or a Privateer with 44%...
That's one reason for the various air cans, and in a world where you can get a Starling with 0% progression or a Privateer with 44% progression, big brands like Rockshox and Fox need OEM options to fit a super wide range of suspension parameters. There are other benefits to more air volume though, like more mechanical leverage to overcome seal drag. In the coil vs. air battle, more volume is a pretty powerful tool to help air chase performance. That's what they did with the new Boxxer air spring: bigger volume, smaller piston size, more PSI ===> "coil like feel." The new SDLX can doesn't offer a smaller piston size, but it does offer the same piston size and more air volume, which accomplishes the same goal.
I totally understand the need, just making fun of trends in the industry haha. It's interesting to me that there hasn't been experimentation from the more performance side of the industry to increase air volume by lengthening the shock body, at least that I am aware of. If my math is correct, that would make the spring rate more linear than increasing it through a higher diameter. Lower friction, less progressive, lower pressures. I know that there are restrictions in length since it has to fit into frame, no getting around that, and most riders wouldn't want a shock that's massively long, but bikes like the Digit Datum, Trek Super Caliber, Spesh Epic WC etc... could use most of the top tube as an air chamber to make it very linear, if that's what they're looking for anyways.
we claim Russell Crowe, Sam Neill and split enz as our own but there are some we won't take lol. I genuinely love the NZ ethos on solving problems with fk all resources. The engineering talent is insane, the motorsport development is world class, with a population the size of a suburb in America.
we claim Russell Crowe, Sam Neill and split enz as our own but there are some we won't take lol. I genuinely love the NZ ethos...
we claim Russell Crowe, Sam Neill and split enz as our own but there are some we won't take lol. I genuinely love the NZ ethos on solving problems with fk all resources. The engineering talent is insane, the motorsport development is world class, with a population the size of a suburb in America.
By the way, we are claiming Liam Lawson.
Amazing what you can do with a bit of number 8 wire.
"A low-cost, real-time tire pressure sensor made to improve the safety and performance of your bike's only two contacts with the ground. It fits securely inside of your tubeless tires and gives real-time pressure readings and alerts to your Garmin device via wireless transmissions."
I check my air pressure before every ride and I probably don’t often do long enough rides for this to make sense. This isn’t an improvement over my electric inflator for routine air filling and top up. But, it looks to be an affordable solution for people who want to know how their air pressure fluctuates throughout a ride…
Sag is a good starting point but in practise the "progressive" cans will run with more sag or else they build force too fast in the...
Sag is a good starting point but in practise the "progressive" cans will run with more sag or else they build force too fast in the middle of the travel. Likewise coil shocks will have a different sag measurement again. I guess the graph does a good job of amplifying the differences between each option, by fixing that one variable but it might help if they included what pressure produced all of those curves too.
Dougal, I know you are not a believer in sag as a primary set up tool, but I disagree with you. They did it right by normalizing...
Dougal, I know you are not a believer in sag as a primary set up tool, but I disagree with you.
They did it right by normalizing around the same base sag number, imo.
Good to see you around D.
oh wow, theres probably only 2 people who I would genuinely be offended by getting confused with so I must have phrased that post very poorly sorry....I thought the fact I still acknowledged a good reason why the plot would use sag would be the biggest giveaway?
Seen a picture of a blue Norco with the HP-VPS layout rocking a zeb and coil rear shock, didn't think much of it at the time but it doesn't lineup with any of the current builds. Conclusion leads me to think it is a longer travel Sight?
yeah i guess not, you only compress a a small portion of the tyre's total volume when slamming into a rock. Bummer.
Theoretically, could somebody get that measurement from distance-based sensors? Maybe something like a magnetometer that tracks records anytime a magnet on the inside of the tire gets within X mm of a sensor on the rim? Obviously it’d take a lot of magnets & sensors (or a really long ride) to get a large enough sample of hits across the whole circumference of a rim.
Seen a picture of a blue Norco with the HP-VPS layout rocking a zeb and coil rear shock, didn't think much of it at the time...
Seen a picture of a blue Norco with the HP-VPS layout rocking a zeb and coil rear shock, didn't think much of it at the time but it doesn't lineup with any of the current builds. Conclusion leads me to think it is a longer travel Sight?
Yeah, the Sight 170 will be replacing the Range in Norco's line up. Not sure if they are doing a dedicated new frame for it, or if they're just over forking and long stroking the shock on the existing Sight frame. Probably the same frame as the Sight 150.
Yeah, the Sight 170 will be replacing the Range in Norco's line up. Not sure if they are doing a dedicated new frame for it, or...
Yeah, the Sight 170 will be replacing the Range in Norco's line up. Not sure if they are doing a dedicated new frame for it, or if they're just over forking and long stroking the shock on the existing Sight frame. Probably the same frame as the Sight 150.
From my understanding, this is exactly what they are doing. Good friend of mine has already long-shocked his HP Sight and is loving it. He is still running a Lyric at 160mm.
So bikes were too linear and we needed to use air shocks to fix it, but now bikes are more progressive, so we need to increase...
So bikes were too linear and we needed to use air shocks to fix it, but now bikes are more progressive, so we need to increase the air volume in our shocks to make them more linear. Makes sense to me!
That's one reason for the various air cans, and in a world where you can get a Starling with 0% progression or a Privateer with 44%...
That's one reason for the various air cans, and in a world where you can get a Starling with 0% progression or a Privateer with 44% progression, big brands like Rockshox and Fox need OEM options to fit a super wide range of suspension parameters. There are other benefits to more air volume though, like more mechanical leverage to overcome seal drag. In the coil vs. air battle, more volume is a pretty powerful tool to help air chase performance. That's what they did with the new Boxxer air spring: bigger volume, smaller piston size, more PSI ===> "coil like feel." The new SDLX can doesn't offer a smaller piston size, but it does offer the same piston size and more air volume, which accomplishes the same goal.
I totally understand the need, just making fun of trends in the industry haha. It's interesting to me that there hasn't been experimentation from the more...
I totally understand the need, just making fun of trends in the industry haha. It's interesting to me that there hasn't been experimentation from the more performance side of the industry to increase air volume by lengthening the shock body, at least that I am aware of. If my math is correct, that would make the spring rate more linear than increasing it through a higher diameter. Lower friction, less progressive, lower pressures. I know that there are restrictions in length since it has to fit into frame, no getting around that, and most riders wouldn't want a shock that's massively long, but bikes like the Digit Datum, Trek Super Caliber, Spesh Epic WC etc... could use most of the top tube as an air chamber to make it very linear, if that's what they're looking for anyways.
Making the diameter bigger does nothing for the compression, it's the starting vs. ending volume that is the factor. So compression ratio.
All else being the same (lengths wise), increasing the diameter will only increase the compression ratio and thus the progressivity.
Adding length is one way to do it, adding volume at the end (a bulgy aircan or shock eyelet) is another that also fits within the constraints of current ETE and stroke lengths.
Speaking of, has anybody done any calculations (or even though about it, it just occurred to me) how understroked shocks compare at a given travel? So going from a 65 mm to a 57,5 mm stroke shock on a 160 mm frame - frame leverage ratio increases, requiring higher pressures, but removing the stroke spacer volume (RS at least compensates the volume to keep the characteristic of the shock the same with a very large stroke spacer) would decrease the compression ratio and give some more linearity? Would that be useful at all?
if @TheSuspensionLabNZ is Dougal, I'm going to eat my helmet. There is no way the same thoughtful, approachable, nice, knowledgable person that posts here is the...
if @TheSuspensionLabNZ is Dougal, I'm going to eat my helmet. There is no way the same thoughtful, approachable, nice, knowledgable person that posts here is the same knowledgable troll that posts elsewhere.
Making the diameter bigger does nothing for the compression, it's the starting vs. ending volume that is the factor. So compression ratio. All else being the same...
Making the diameter bigger does nothing for the compression, it's the starting vs. ending volume that is the factor. So compression ratio.
All else being the same (lengths wise), increasing the diameter will only increase the compression ratio and thus the progressivity.
Adding length is one way to do it, adding volume at the end (a bulgy aircan or shock eyelet) is another that also fits within the constraints of current ETE and stroke lengths.
Speaking of, has anybody done any calculations (or even though about it, it just occurred to me) how understroked shocks compare at a given travel? So going from a 65 mm to a 57,5 mm stroke shock on a 160 mm frame - frame leverage ratio increases, requiring higher pressures, but removing the stroke spacer volume (RS at least compensates the volume to keep the characteristic of the shock the same with a very large stroke spacer) would decrease the compression ratio and give some more linearity? Would that be useful at all?
To make the air shock as linear as possible is imo a good thing, as it's easy to make it progressive with simple tuning via volume reducers, but very hard or impossible the other way around. One thing that doesn't attract anywhere near as much attention as pos/neg volumes is eq port location, it makes a big difference and is often difference between meh air spring and a good one.
Making the diameter bigger does nothing for the compression, it's the starting vs. ending volume that is the factor. So compression ratio. All else being the same...
Making the diameter bigger does nothing for the compression, it's the starting vs. ending volume that is the factor. So compression ratio.
All else being the same (lengths wise), increasing the diameter will only increase the compression ratio and thus the progressivity.
Adding length is one way to do it, adding volume at the end (a bulgy aircan or shock eyelet) is another that also fits within the constraints of current ETE and stroke lengths.
Speaking of, has anybody done any calculations (or even though about it, it just occurred to me) how understroked shocks compare at a given travel? So going from a 65 mm to a 57,5 mm stroke shock on a 160 mm frame - frame leverage ratio increases, requiring higher pressures, but removing the stroke spacer volume (RS at least compensates the volume to keep the characteristic of the shock the same with a very large stroke spacer) would decrease the compression ratio and give some more linearity? Would that be useful at all?
The following example is comparing three different theoretical bikes that have the same travel and progression, but different shock strokes. I made up a function to depict the air spring. It's not perfect, but it's not far off either. More ramp that most air shocks. This is only a portion of the picture. I wouldn't say there's any benefit to designing a bike around a short shock beyond fixing clearance issues if there are any, though. The reality is there are loads of air shocks that are plenty linear out there.
Leverage curves (made them linear functions for the sake of ease):
Sag is a good starting point but in practise the "progressive" cans will run with more sag or else they build force too fast in the...
Sag is a good starting point but in practise the "progressive" cans will run with more sag or else they build force too fast in the middle of the travel. Likewise coil shocks will have a different sag measurement again. I guess the graph does a good job of amplifying the differences between each option, by fixing that one variable but it might help if they included what pressure produced all of those curves too.
oh wow, theres probably only 2 people who I would genuinely be offended by getting confused with so I must have phrased that post very poorly...
oh wow, theres probably only 2 people who I would genuinely be offended by getting confused with so I must have phrased that post very poorly sorry....I thought the fact I still acknowledged a good reason why the plot would use sag would be the biggest giveaway?
There was a discussion not too long ago about DW bikes and Dave's approach to bike development and what it looks like. I think @jeff.brines mentioned Tim Krueger on Bikes and Death podcast touching on some more details regarding business in the bike world, but Tim (being a friend of Dave apparently) also mentions this process Dave has (well, they have) regarding bike design.
it feels to me that the first product they come up with with more of their input is already "meh", the fact that the fins are on a separate plate and you need that thickness behind the pads, regardless of how beneficial, seems way too much of a PITA.
Bee Kay already modified a piece of alluminium to replace those fins and claims something needs to be there as otherwise pistons will start to become too advanced with all new.
it feels to me that the first product they come up with with more of their input is already "meh", the fact that the fins are...
it feels to me that the first product they come up with with more of their input is already "meh", the fact that the fins are on a separate plate and you need that thickness behind the pads, regardless of how beneficial, seems way too much of a PITA.
Bee Kay already modified a piece of alluminium to replace those fins and claims something needs to be there as otherwise pistons will start to become too advanced with all new.
Yeah, to me they seam to copy Shimano with the fins now. Slight alterations of the original Trickstuff's Maxim'a and the fins now added too. I'll wait for the reviews online to decide weather i'll will buy them or Hopetech V4, i can't make up my mind yet.
it feels to me that the first product they come up with with more of their input is already "meh", the fact that the fins are...
it feels to me that the first product they come up with with more of their input is already "meh", the fact that the fins are on a separate plate and you need that thickness behind the pads, regardless of how beneficial, seems way too much of a PITA.
Bee Kay already modified a piece of alluminium to replace those fins and claims something needs to be there as otherwise pistons will start to become too advanced with all new.
Yeah, to me they seam to copy Shimano with the fins now. Slight alterations of the original Trickstuff's Maxim'a and the fins now added too. I'll...
Yeah, to me they seam to copy Shimano with the fins now. Slight alterations of the original Trickstuff's Maxim'a and the fins now added too. I'll wait for the reviews online to decide weather i'll will buy them or Hopetech V4, i can't make up my mind yet.
Got an easy answer there but the brake thread might be the better place for this
Yeah, to me they seam to copy Shimano with the fins now. Slight alterations of the original Trickstuff's Maxim'a and the fins now added too. I'll...
Yeah, to me they seam to copy Shimano with the fins now. Slight alterations of the original Trickstuff's Maxim'a and the fins now added too. I'll wait for the reviews online to decide weather i'll will buy them or Hopetech V4, i can't make up my mind yet.
I have the LH4s and been running them as a pretty heavy guy (93kg) for the past 4 months (including a trip to morzine). They've been rock solid and one of the easiest I've had to bleed. Pads last a long time and are cheap as well.
it feels to me that the first product they come up with with more of their input is already "meh", the fact that the fins are...
it feels to me that the first product they come up with with more of their input is already "meh", the fact that the fins are on a separate plate and you need that thickness behind the pads, regardless of how beneficial, seems way too much of a PITA.
Bee Kay already modified a piece of alluminium to replace those fins and claims something needs to be there as otherwise pistons will start to become too advanced with all new.
It makes very little sense to have the fins integrated in the brake pads and throw them away every time you wear out a set of pads. If you still want fins, doing it the way they did is the best. Having them non removable could be a pain and I see the point BK was making regarding seeing the pistons, having them removable would make it possible to run the brakes without them and causing problems (pistons advancing). But otherwise your comments are very much what is to be expected - haters gonna hate.
it feels to me that the first product they come up with with more of their input is already "meh", the fact that the fins are...
it feels to me that the first product they come up with with more of their input is already "meh", the fact that the fins are on a separate plate and you need that thickness behind the pads, regardless of how beneficial, seems way too much of a PITA.
Bee Kay already modified a piece of alluminium to replace those fins and claims something needs to be there as otherwise pistons will start to become too advanced with all new.
It makes very little sense to have the fins integrated in the brake pads and throw them away every time you wear out a set of...
It makes very little sense to have the fins integrated in the brake pads and throw them away every time you wear out a set of pads. If you still want fins, doing it the way they did is the best. Having them non removable could be a pain and I see the point BK was making regarding seeing the pistons, having them removable would make it possible to run the brakes without them and causing problems (pistons advancing). But otherwise your comments are very much what is to be expected - haters gonna hate.
it feels to me that the first product they come up with with more of their input is already "meh", the fact that the fins are...
it feels to me that the first product they come up with with more of their input is already "meh", the fact that the fins are on a separate plate and you need that thickness behind the pads, regardless of how beneficial, seems way too much of a PITA.
Bee Kay already modified a piece of alluminium to replace those fins and claims something needs to be there as otherwise pistons will start to become too advanced with all new.
It makes very little sense to have the fins integrated in the brake pads and throw them away every time you wear out a set of...
It makes very little sense to have the fins integrated in the brake pads and throw them away every time you wear out a set of pads. If you still want fins, doing it the way they did is the best. Having them non removable could be a pain and I see the point BK was making regarding seeing the pistons, having them removable would make it possible to run the brakes without them and causing problems (pistons advancing). But otherwise your comments are very much what is to be expected - haters gonna hate.
meh, i feel the way Intend did it is the way to do it if you really want them, although it's been shown it's pretty useless. Usually, like on Shimano and here, it causes more problems that it solves. Rattling, noise and stuff.
But they only cover half the pad and minus the piston at that, plus the refrigerator is more complicated and needs to have a matching interface in the caliper (where is then the seal for the piston?).
The "best" way is dependant on a lot of factors. Manufacturability should be one of them.
How can the Sight LT change the Range in Norco’s lineup while being a 160mm bike with the Range being a 170mm one (which can go all the way up to 200+ with the help of WRP)? Something doesn’t compute….
How can the Sight LT change the Range in Norco’s lineup while being a 160mm bike with the Range being a 170mm one (which can go...
How can the Sight LT change the Range in Norco’s lineup while being a 160mm bike with the Range being a 170mm one (which can go all the way up to 200+ with the help of WRP)? Something doesn’t compute….
My guess the range is being discontinued and the new dh bike must be coming out soonish. And short stoking the new dh bike is always a possibility.
Assuming they keep the shore and shore park as more budget friendly options that’s a very full lineup.
Yeah, to me they seam to copy Shimano with the fins now. Slight alterations of the original Trickstuff's Maxim'a and the fins now added too. I'll...
Yeah, to me they seam to copy Shimano with the fins now. Slight alterations of the original Trickstuff's Maxim'a and the fins now added too. I'll wait for the reviews online to decide weather i'll will buy them or Hopetech V4, i can't make up my mind yet.
I have the LH4s and been running them as a pretty heavy guy (93kg) for the past 4 months (including a trip to morzine). They've been...
I have the LH4s and been running them as a pretty heavy guy (93kg) for the past 4 months (including a trip to morzine). They've been rock solid and one of the easiest I've had to bleed. Pads last a long time and are cheap as well.
Thx for the info. I'm exactly your weight 93kg, but with all the gear and kitted on top around 96-97kg.
I totally understand the need, just making fun of trends in the industry haha. It's interesting to me that there hasn't been experimentation from the more performance side of the industry to increase air volume by lengthening the shock body, at least that I am aware of. If my math is correct, that would make the spring rate more linear than increasing it through a higher diameter. Lower friction, less progressive, lower pressures. I know that there are restrictions in length since it has to fit into frame, no getting around that, and most riders wouldn't want a shock that's massively long, but bikes like the Digit Datum, Trek Super Caliber, Spesh Epic WC etc... could use most of the top tube as an air chamber to make it very linear, if that's what they're looking for anyways.
we claim Russell Crowe, Sam Neill and split enz as our own but there are some we won't take lol. I genuinely love the NZ ethos on solving problems with fk all resources. The engineering talent is insane, the motorsport development is world class, with a population the size of a suburb in America.
By the way, we are claiming Liam Lawson.
Amazing what you can do with a bit of number 8 wire.
You're welcome to Russel Crowe to be honest.
He's an arse, and the worst DJ I ever saw on the decks in Auckland back in the day.
I check my air pressure before every ride and I probably don’t often do long enough rides for this to make sense. This isn’t an improvement over my electric inflator for routine air filling and top up. But, it looks to be an affordable solution for people who want to know how their air pressure fluctuates throughout a ride…
oh wow, theres probably only 2 people who I would genuinely be offended by getting confused with so I must have phrased that post very poorly sorry....I thought the fact I still acknowledged a good reason why the plot would use sag would be the biggest giveaway?
@ebruner your hat is safe!
Seen a picture of a blue Norco with the HP-VPS layout rocking a zeb and coil rear shock, didn't think much of it at the time but it doesn't lineup with any of the current builds. Conclusion leads me to think it is a longer travel Sight?
Theoretically, could somebody get that measurement from distance-based sensors? Maybe something like a magnetometer that tracks records anytime a magnet on the inside of the tire gets within X mm of a sensor on the rim?
Obviously it’d take a lot of magnets & sensors (or a really long ride) to get a large enough sample of hits across the whole circumference of a rim.
this might already be out here somewhere, but the 2025 Sight LT 170/160 is out
Yeah, the Sight 170 will be replacing the Range in Norco's line up. Not sure if they are doing a dedicated new frame for it, or if they're just over forking and long stroking the shock on the existing Sight frame. Probably the same frame as the Sight 150.
From my understanding, this is exactly what they are doing. Good friend of mine has already long-shocked his HP Sight and is loving it. He is still running a Lyric at 160mm.
Making the diameter bigger does nothing for the compression, it's the starting vs. ending volume that is the factor. So compression ratio.
All else being the same (lengths wise), increasing the diameter will only increase the compression ratio and thus the progressivity.
Adding length is one way to do it, adding volume at the end (a bulgy aircan or shock eyelet) is another that also fits within the constraints of current ETE and stroke lengths.
Speaking of, has anybody done any calculations (or even though about it, it just occurred to me) how understroked shocks compare at a given travel? So going from a 65 mm to a 57,5 mm stroke shock on a 160 mm frame - frame leverage ratio increases, requiring higher pressures, but removing the stroke spacer volume (RS at least compensates the volume to keep the characteristic of the shock the same with a very large stroke spacer) would decrease the compression ratio and give some more linearity? Would that be useful at all?
Lol yeah, is this a joke? 😂
To make the air shock as linear as possible is imo a good thing, as it's easy to make it progressive with simple tuning via volume reducers, but very hard or impossible the other way around. One thing that doesn't attract anywhere near as much attention as pos/neg volumes is eq port location, it makes a big difference and is often difference between meh air spring and a good one.
The following example is comparing three different theoretical bikes that have the same travel and progression, but different shock strokes. I made up a function to depict the air spring. It's not perfect, but it's not far off either. More ramp that most air shocks. This is only a portion of the picture. I wouldn't say there's any benefit to designing a bike around a short shock beyond fixing clearance issues if there are any, though. The reality is there are loads of air shocks that are plenty linear out there.
Leverage curves (made them linear functions for the sake of ease):
Air spring used in this example when at 180 psi:
Wheel force with sag set to be equal:
Apologies!
More new Lewis brakes previews:
https://www.instagram.com/bee_kay77/reel/DB2UnFGC4fF/?hl=en
https://www.instagram.com/bee_kay77/reel/DBU5-i3i-yB/?hl=en
There was a discussion not too long ago about DW bikes and Dave's approach to bike development and what it looks like. I think @jeff.brines mentioned Tim Krueger on Bikes and Death podcast touching on some more details regarding business in the bike world, but Tim (being a friend of Dave apparently) also mentions this process Dave has (well, they have) regarding bike design.
https://bikesordeath.com/ep-193-tim-krueger-esker-cycles-ceo/
It starts at about 1:59:00 in the audio version (not sure where it is in the video version).
it feels to me that the first product they come up with with more of their input is already "meh", the fact that the fins are on a separate plate and you need that thickness behind the pads, regardless of how beneficial, seems way too much of a PITA.
Bee Kay already modified a piece of alluminium to replace those fins and claims something needs to be there as otherwise pistons will start to become too advanced with all new.
Yeah, to me they seam to copy Shimano with the fins now. Slight alterations of the original Trickstuff's Maxim'a and the fins now added too. I'll wait for the reviews online to decide weather i'll will buy them or Hopetech V4, i can't make up my mind yet.
Got an easy answer there but the brake thread might be the better place for this
I have the LH4s and been running them as a pretty heavy guy (93kg) for the past 4 months (including a trip to morzine). They've been rock solid and one of the easiest I've had to bleed. Pads last a long time and are cheap as well.
It makes very little sense to have the fins integrated in the brake pads and throw them away every time you wear out a set of pads. If you still want fins, doing it the way they did is the best. Having them non removable could be a pain and I see the point BK was making regarding seeing the pistons, having them removable would make it possible to run the brakes without them and causing problems (pistons advancing). But otherwise your comments are very much what is to be expected - haters gonna hate.
best would be like intend do it
meh, i feel the way Intend did it is the way to do it if you really want them, although it's been shown it's pretty useless. Usually, like on Shimano and here, it causes more problems that it solves. Rattling, noise and stuff.
No hate here, just an observation.
But they only cover half the pad and minus the piston at that, plus the refrigerator is more complicated and needs to have a matching interface in the caliper (where is then the seal for the piston?).
The "best" way is dependant on a lot of factors. Manufacturability should be one of them.
How can the Sight LT change the Range in Norco’s lineup while being a 160mm bike with the Range being a 170mm one (which can go all the way up to 200+ with the help of WRP)? Something doesn’t compute….
My guess the range is being discontinued and the new dh bike must be coming out soonish. And short stoking the new dh bike is always a possibility.
Assuming they keep the shore and shore park as more budget friendly options that’s a very full lineup.
Thx for the info. I'm exactly your weight 93kg, but with all the gear and kitted on top around 96-97kg.