Suspension Component Technology/Functionality Discussion

Personally a bigger fan of just bracketing my settings on a repeatable section of trail. It gives me a better idea of what all the adjusters do and I can apply that knowledge to later rides when I want to change something. 

You can get PTFE backup rings in almost identical dimensions which work OK - sometimes the contact area looks a bit small but so does a lot of spring seats out there. I normally just hoard sprindex washers but the PTFE rings have worked fine when I tried them

I find it awkward when shockwiz comes up - I think the hardware is really cool, super well thought out and nicely packaged but the software frustrated me - too much of a black box that hides everything its working out, but then is giving quite advanced suggestions and fine tuning. I would regularly see people struggling with things (normally calibration) but theres no easy way to troubleshoot or diagnose things, ie if you could access the raw data. Even some kind of ai-style feedback loop where you could at least tell it what was going wrong would be useful but I found it very hit or miss. It also gets awkward if I'm recommending them or renting them out and it clearly gives bad data so I turn around and tell the person to ignore it......

Shockwiz is OK, you just need to remember that it does not distinguish between front and rear and it tends to suggest too much sag in the front. Otwerwise it's a good starting point, when tuning the front I always set tunning style to FIRM and it works. Definitely better than nothing because it gets you in the OK spot quickly. However it's too blackbox for me and a real telemetry would be welcome. I ordered BYB and I am curious how it will compare to shockwiz.

I've used it and "real" telemetry options on the same bike to compare. 

The benefit of Shockwiz is that it's simple to use. You attach it, set it up, then it gives you easy to read instructions (eg not raw data) on what to do. That's what it does on the surface, anyway. 

The problems often start with the calibration process. It's very sensitive and being off means your results will be way off. I usually ended up calibrating 4-5 times and taking the average of the result, eliminating the outliers, before I came to a ratio that I thought worked by taking the most common ratio. Keep in mind it's not using actual measurements of your travel usage and velocities (like other telemetry options do), it's taking this ratio and using formulas combined with pressure readings to derive that data, so it's very critical that this is done right and IMO most peoples problems stem from incorrect calibration. 

The other issue is that it will send you on a wild goose chase if you let it. I let it go wild once out of curiosity and it wanted me to have 5 tokens in my Fox 34, which was ridiculous. I added ~6 psi and made it happy on the same trail riding the same way. This is where the simplicity kinda means you need to read between the lines a bit and use some intuition with it or you'll end up chasing trying to make it happy. If you don't understand the relationship between adding air pressure/tokens and rebound speeds, then you are going to have a hard time with it. So you still need some base understanding before you proceed. Sometimes it's just wrong and you need to be able to discern when that is, along with when to discard what it is saying. Point being, it's "simple" but sometimes requires you to know more than it would indicate at a glance.

I also focus on getting it content in this order: air pressure, tokens/progression, rebound, compression. Keeping in mind outliers also, if you get sloppy on a ride and end up flubbing a drop, I would take that into consideration in the results because the device doesn't know any different.

The way I use it is to trust green or yellow as acceptable ranges, red is generally outside recommended. There is also a detections page (or was when I used mine) that will show things like pogo, keeping those in the green means you are within reasonable range. The recommendations page is helpful but more of a guideline than a steadfast rule. 

YMMV. I think it's a useful tool but IMO you can get by just as much with bracketing, it's not a replacement for real telemetry. Use the same section of trail, make massive sweeping adjustments and see how they impact the way the bike handles, then tweak from there. You can probably get just as close that way, but if you are like me, seeing it from another perspective is helpful. You might also be surprised that, contrary to 99% of what mountain bikers do, things like adding a lot of compression damping or backing off your rebound can take a badly performing linkage and improve it dramatically. Don't be afraid to try setups that may seem "wrong".

I have also done a lot of Alice in wonderland research and will machine something up next week when I'm back in the office. 

I ended up skipping out on the shockwiz and just added a ton of air (minimum recommended sag in the rear, 10 PSI over recommended up front, and things are a lot better. The back end feels soooo much more supportive, while the fork still feels a bit harsh, but I like how high in the travel it’s riding so I’m not sure I want to mess with it too much. 

Related suspension question: the common sentiment seems to be that any more than 0-1 clicks of HSC adds a lot of harshness for the Charger 3.1 damper, as well as the current RS rear shocks. Is there a similar effect to going past neutral on LSC, or am I being unnecessarily wary of adding compression there?

Anecdotal but I was able to crank the LSC and it was fine. Im sure someone can give a more technical answer though. 

You can also just try it and see what happens, its not a difficult adjustment to make. 

I run my Charger 3.1 forks (2 Zebs 1 Lyrik) with HSC in the middle, LSC -2 from middle.  My Vivid airs all have HSC set in the middle also I believe (2 of them are running C37 1 is C34).  I'm not especially heavy, and not a pro level rider, but I do find that running more HSC helps calm the bike down when going fast in the rough.  I'd also add that I run Nokens on the Zebs and 0 tokens in the Lyrik, so I don't get any harsh ramp up from the air spring.  I ran less HSC on the Zebs before I installed Nokens.  For the shocks, they all have 2 tokens and are installed on moderately progressive bikes (~25%), and I run the HBO fully closed also, as I hate having hard bottom outs.

This one is glass filled PTFE. 

Glass filled might be the death for the collar and/or spring. Glass is very abrasive. 

For what it's worth, GGB bushings, what is used in shock eyelets, is a steel backed, sintered bronze covered with PTFE. The PTFE transfers to the mating part (reducing bushing) and the teflonized surface then slides over the brass sinter balls.

Besides bushings GGB also offers this kind of material in plates/sheets for axial loads. Maybe they have something appropriate for spring support duties. 

As for why is there not as much fancy materials in bikes as there is in other industries, I'd guess cross pollination of engineers with other industries (people entering the industry later in their career) is less than in some other cases, there is less money (and time?) available for development, a lot of production happens overseas so it's hard to bring locally available products and materials into production overseas and vice versa, etc. Automotive development, engineering, design and manufacturing is still a lot more under one roof than bikes are. I guess powersports in general are closer to the automotive way of work than to the bikes way of work. 

The friction coefficient of glass filled ptfe is only slightly higher than pure ptfe, it just resists compressive forces better (than pure ptfe). 

But sooner or later you'll be sliding on the glass fibres and hoping some Teflon flakes will prevent a direct contact with the underlying metal. As soon as there will be direct contact, you'll have wear.

Plastic injection molding tools are very finite precisely because the flow of molten plastic containing glass fibres wears them out. 

I'm well aware why it's glass filled, same with bronze sinter, pure PTFE is very weak when trying to compress it. I'm just worried about wear exposing the fibres. 

Öhlins USA news:

------------------------

Öhlins USA Announces Transition to Distributor-Only Sales Model with BTI and QBP

Hendersonville, NC – September 24, 2025 – Öhlins USA today announced it will transition to a distributor-only sales model for its mountain bike division, partnering with two of the industry’s leading distributors: Bicycle Technologies Inc. (BTI) and Quality Bicycle Products (QBP).

This strategic move allows Öhlins to concentrate on its core strengths in product development, while BTI and QBP manage distribution logistics. Dealers will benefit from shorter lead times, reduced shipping costs, higher fill rates, and the convenience of consolidated ordering.

“By working with BTI and QBP, we’re ensuring that Öhlins products are easier than ever for dealers to access,” said Jake Thompson, MTB Manager at Öhlins USA. “Our team remains dedicated to innovation and rider support, while our distribution partners deliver industry-leading service and efficiency.”

Beginning September 24, 2025, all dealer orders will transition to BTI or QBP. Dealers without an existing account are encouraged to set one up immediately.

In addition to streamlining dealer operations, this transition also benefits end customers. With Öhlins products now stocked by BTI and QBP, riders can simply place orders through their local bike shop almost anywhere in the United States. This ensures easier access to Öhlins suspension products, service parts, and tools—without added complexity or long wait times.

Key elements of the transition:

End customers can order Öhlins products through most local bike shops nationwide.

BTI and QBP will carry an extensive range of the Öhlins MTB catalog, including spare parts and tools.

Warranty processing will be managed through the Öhlins service center network.

Expanded service network will include BTI’s factory fork and shock repairs and QBP’s in-house suspension service.

Öhlins USA emphasizes that the company itself is not undergoing structural changes. The same staff, warehouse, and workshop will continue to operate as before, with inventory now streamlined through distribution partners.

“With new ownership, new products, and new distribution channels, the future for Öhlins mountain bike is stronger than ever,” Thompson added.

About Öhlins USA
Öhlins USA is the U.S. subsidiary of the Öhlins Group, a global leader in suspension technology and a cornerstone of the motorsport, motorcycle, and automotive industries for more than 45 years. From the MotoGP circuit to grassroots racing, Öhlins products are trusted in over 50 countries worldwide. We supply the aftermarket, OEM partners, and professional teams with high-end suspension solutions—always striving to deliver unmatched performance, service, and support, and to exceed the expectations of riders and drivers everywhere.

Oil retention dimples by RockShox, including patent.

I'd be interested in how they make those for production. Machined? Formed like the equalization dimples then machined?

 @Dave_Camp 😉

FWIW Dave wondered that as well in the rumors thread. I think it's quite well known he left RS a while ago? 

Sorry if I'm now spamming this, but anyone reading this thread should be interested to know Tony Foales book MOTORCYCLE HANDLING AND CHASSIS DESIGN: the art and science is back in print after 20 years, and in that time I don't think I've found a better reference book on the topic!

Get it now so you don't need to wait decades like I have to buy a copy! I've got a physical copy of the original 80's book but the second edition added a TON of excellent information that is still highly relevant

 https://a.co/d/bmfsZFI

Hey there, fellow suspension nerds!

A thought struck me today while I was bracketing my suspension setup on a rowdy section of trail, about 30 seconds of fast downhill with ledges, roots, and rocks of all sizes. I was timing each run using a stopwatch mounted on the handlebar and doing multiple laps for each setting.

It got me thinking: in this kind of scenario, where you repeat the same trail section and get more confident with every lap, wouldn’t the stiffest setup almost always end up being the fastest? The logic being that as you learn the track and brake less each run, you’re riding closer to a brakeless scenario, where a stiffer setup tends to carry more speed than a softer one.

What do you all think about this? And what’s your approach when bracketing, what do you look for in the trail segment you use for testing?

If you are bracketing for speed using timing, and that is your priority, then yes that is likely where you will end up. 

However most people don’t bracket with timing for speed. They usually do it without a clock and base their decisions on subjective feel. Whether that feel is comfort or speed or agility is up to the rider’s requirements and preference 

Before I hit purchase, what's the quick sales pitch on the motorcycle chassis book and why I would want to read it as a mountain biker?

Short answer: no. Yes, you can generally ride a firmer setup on a trail that you have memorized, versus one that you're riding blind, and as you get more comfortable you can ride faster and faster and ride a firmer and firmer setup.

But no, because there's a natural limit to that approach. If "the firmest setup" was the fastest, then the fastest bike would be a rigid fork on a hardtail. Obviously that's not the case. Suspension does more than absorb mistakes, it also provides grip for turning, smoothes out chatter which increases rolling speed (i.e. reducing suspension loss), and by smoothing out chatter it also allows your body to be looser and perform more dynamic movements (like pumping to generate speed). So there's always a "too firm" setting for a given track, rider, and conditions, in addition to "too soft," which is why suspension setup is so damn fickle. 

I think softer suspension is even more useful when you're not braking, like in your test. Heavy braking, especially in chunk, is what generates some of the highest forces that your suspension will experience. For instance, I generally bump up fork pressure for steep tracks with lots of braking and run less fork pressure on flatter tracks with less braking.

I think its great because it's not just a suspension book, but a chassis book so even though thetes a sepatate chapter for each topic, he treats the whole vehicle as a system and how each part is influenced by the rest. Each part isn't just theory but there are examples and real world demonstrations of just about every topic (like fork offset and head angle/rake). He was personally modifying bikes 40-50 years ago to test the stuff mtb guys are debating these days and collecting actual data on it. The type of thing I liked is explaining the impact of tyre pressure vs suspension action, ie what happens if you have high tyre pressures and soft spring (send this to the next guy who tries to claim low pressures are bad because "the suspension should do all the work") 

So there is tyre construction, contact patch change under turning and braking, wheel flex, Frame flex, wheelbase and head angle changes, damping, spring rates, frequency domain analysis( another favourite), basically every topic there has been technical discussion about on these forums is covered in better detail and more approachable than you will find anywhere else. Still pretty technical but nowhere near as dry as some books!

spring go boing

I think every bracketing advice starts with "don't push for max speed, ride at your comfortable speed that you can reliably repeat run after run". The faster you ride, higher shaft speeds wheel hitting obstacles will generate, so typically yes, stiffer compression and faster rebound is beneficial for that. If you are not racing and even more importantly ride unknown terrain, more forgiving setup is more comfy and also most likely safer.

The setup is done with enduro racing in mind, so the goal is definitely to prioritize speed over comfort. However, I’m aware that the stiffest setup, the one that gives me good results on a short trail section I know by heart (even though it’s as rowdy as they come) might not be the best representation of a real enduro race.

In a race, the terrain changes constantly, it’s unpredictable, and most of the time it’s unfamiliar. That’s why I’m struggling to find the best strategy for determining an ideal base setup. One that I can then fine-tune slightly depending on the terrain and conditions.

Diaz just dropped the Zeb Lower Runt so now you can double Runt.  Thoughts?

https://diazsuspensiondesign.com/the-lower-runt

Just looked at the graphic on the Diaz site, and while it took me a minute to figure out exactly what I was looking at, dang that's smart.

The lower chamber ramp in a Zeb is a real bummer, and I think (if it works as advertised), the Diaz Lower Runt looks like a great idea to fix it. Bravo.

It's a clever idea, but I take a little bit of issue with the claim of it being  "the only air spring capable of duplicating a coil fork spring rate from the vary beginning to the end" when the Vorsprung Secus has been around for 5 years 

The secus needed to be outside the fork because of the limited air volume inside, so I guess the lower runt uses very low pressures and the negative coil spring is there to regain some kind of compliance after moving the piston upwards and reducing the negative spring volume. The positive chamber looks smaller, (especially with a runt installed) ie progressive so it seems a bit like robbing peter to pay paul?

Also on the subject of air springs, this popped up on the other site - have people not heard of coil springs?

I'm struggling to get what they are trying to solve when air springs already return with less energy than when they are compressed, and that kicking feeling is normally related to a lack of compression damping/bottomout absorption so this seems like an odd solution