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
Don't know about the Ohlins coil system, but interestingly this is similar to what @PUSH Industries is doing with their "Sub Chamber" in the Nine One V2. With an on/off switch you can close off a big part of the spring-side stanchion and create more air spring ramp (like lower leg volume ramp in an air fork), or you can open the switch and have a more linear fork. Just interviewed Darren for the Nine One V2 review and it was super interesting. Apparently the mechanism to make the Sub Chamber is mega complicated.
Cool to see Ohlins is still investing in coil options for their forks. Seems like we're living in a golden age for coil suspension, as all of the downsides of coil suspension are being addressed (like bottom out and lack of ramp).
@TEAMROBOT @WalrusRider the system in the Ohlins fork is a fixed adapter attached to the damper and provides a reduced lower leg air spring volume on the right side of the fork. It could be used in both an air and coil version of their fork.
The Sub Chamber found in our NINE ONE is integrated into the spring system and, as mentioned, can be toggled on and off externally by the rider via a switch on the top of the fork leg.
Thanks for the extra detail, Darren! Sounds like the Ohlins second air chamber is a similar function in theory, with some important differences in layout, and notably lacking the on/off feature of the Push Sub Chamber.
Where did you read this? I couldn't see it mentioned anywhere and the what the sealhead is sitting in the shaft makes it look like there is no seal or bushing to trap the air. Marzocchi definitely does this in the Z1 coil, and maybe the older Ohlins forks did? - its been a while since I looked at those though
Its on the damper side. There's a part that sits at the bottom of the stanchion that has an o-ring which seals off the the lowers. Same function as the passive system in the Z1 Coil.
I will quote myself... To say that I am positively surprised, after many years dealing with forks that didn't work the way I feel they should... This Lyrik and it's 3.1 charger damper offered me enough support in step terrain plus the soft touch and sensitivity needed to deal with slippery conditions. The best part is that I am only one ride in, so there is probably some setup improvements to make still (the trailhead app recomendations worked fairly well for me, I setup SAG, by feel, first and look at it later and I land at +5psi from their recomendation) I feel that the suggested rebound setings are conservative, I speed it up 2 clicks after the first trail section.
Also, Kudos to Rock Shox (and to Airdrop Bikes) for achieving such great balance between front and rear. I bought my frame with a vivid ultimate out back, it looks like you can really add or remove the same amount of clicks front and rear and obtain similar changes in behavior
what are the first 3 things people are looking at when analysing data?
I usually go straight to dynamic sag, compression and rebound speeds and max travel used.
With their new Vecta shock, EXT shows that you can cut costs without cutting performance. We've really enjoyed our time testing it! Here's the review if you want to read more: https://www.vitalmtb.com/product/guide/rear-shocks/ext/vecta-69776#product-reviews-742511.
New compression block upgrade from Fast Suspension for the RockShox ZEB R, RC, and Select just launched: https://www.vitalmtb.com/news/press-release/fast-suspension-introduces-dc3-ultimate-drop-zeb-upgrade.
This is an awesome option for people who bought bikes with Zeb R or RC dampers. Cool to see! Hope it rides as well as the rear shock.
@TEAMROBOT goes deep with the Push Nine One vs the Podium
https://www.vitalmtb.com/features/push-nine-one-inverted-fork-review-part-1
Question for the distributed intelligence that is vital mtb forums:
I'm building up a long travel ebike on a budget, and I want to avoid a dual crown in the front for hub compatibility (MRP Bartlet is hard to find used). I've been interested in the 190mm zeb, but I'm hearing that it's basically impossible to get the last 20mm of travel out of them. Would I be better served by a 180mm 38 or Manitou? Those are also easier to find used.
MRP Noken will help use more travel on Zebs.
PM sent..The Bartlett will blow away the Zeb. And i have one cheap.
I would go the Zeb - the not reaching full travel thing is largely friction if they aren't sliding 100%, which also affects the 38 too and not a deal breaker IMO, it just gets blown out of proportion. Getting full travel isn't a metric for good forks, but if they are too progressive the MRP Noken is a good solution anyway. The current 38 with Grip X2 is good but I would probably rather wait for whatever the new version brings
Is it though? I have a zeb that has zero friction in the bushings with my hub installed, it slides to bottom very freely, bushing feel really good. When running a smashpot in it I could bottom that fork all day long but still have good support, but after swapping back to air and running it I can either get mid support or use most of the travel, not both. When I set the spring to use most of the travel it feels like crap, zero support, and when I set the spring to give mid range support it won’t use but 165mm of the 180mm of travel. I ran the charger 3.1 and the MRP lift with a modified tune that I spent a few months iterating on that used a de-dished piston, all modeled through re-stakor. Dropping in a bone stock ohlins 38m.2 made me give up on the zeb. I still want to try the noken on it but I have a hard time wanting to screw with something that just works… I prefer the zeb chassis to the ohlins for the 180mm travel but overall I feel like I’m just trying to polish a turd. And as they say the only way to polish a turd is to freeze it first, lol
I'm not going to tell you how to live your life, but the Noken is way cheaper and easier than all the modifications you've already made. I thought it made a huge difference on my 180 Zeb, and when I took it off I had all the same symptoms you described (support or full travel, but never both). I think the Noken is a lifesaver for the long travel Zeb.
I put a 190mm Zeb ultimate 3.1 on my (170mm stock) ebike, I mostly did it to raise the front/BB and came into it knowing that 190mm was hard to reach. In my experience, my go to "pretty stiff" settings result in mostly 170-180mm of travel being used (~70psi for 80kg rider on a 24kg bike). Over last summer going to bike parks I let a bit of air out (5 psi) for comfort and was getting full travel on the bigger hits.
Make sure to pump it up in stages, compressing it every 20psi, and use the little bleed screws to release trapped air every so often.
Agreed here. The Noken saved my buddy from tossing his Zeb into the trash pile. He loves it now after doing this quick/cheap 'upgrade'.
This is why the new Zeb has the LinearXL on it (their version of integrated Noken).
Based off the images, Linear XL modified lowers volume while the Noken modified the spring volume.
Can someone explain to me base valving vs mid valving and when you might change one over the other?
I have been currently messing with a DHX shock and bought some tunes off of fox initially to get a firmer compression tune and a faster rebound tune. Once you have 2 of their tunes you can basically build all of their stock tunes. I think* I get that your mid valve is doing most of the damping and your base valve is more for fine tuning what your mid valve. On the dhx it seems like the LSC knob is just adjusting how close it moves the washer/shim to the piston so its just choking off the piston ports before it get to your shim stack. Is this correct? Is there a way with this shock to build a base valve that is similar in stiffness to where I am at or is it just part of the design? Its not a dyno per-say but I have been using a BYB kit to validate some of my adjustments I've made but almost always end up close to closed.
I haven't done any real custom shim stack builds before other than buying race tech valves for my dirt bike and doing some minor swaps. I am a bit of a novice in this department but its been fun trying a few different setups.
Ill add some more tomorrow, but in basic terms -
Main piston - normally most of the damping, especially at low speeds when the volume of oil through the base valve is low. Increasing the stiffness of that stack causes a larger drop in pressure behind the piston.
Base valve - mid to high speed, as well as adding range to the adjuster. Its main job though is adding back pressure to the system to prevent cavitation. So the stiffness of the BV limits how firm the main piston can be, although that can be overcome with higher reservoir pressure (but that adds apring force and friction). Too much BV stiffness creates hysteresis and extreme pressures inside the shock.
Most of the time, you want the base valve to be stiff enough that you can safely make adjustments to the main piston without cavitating, and then the bulk of your tuning on the main piston.
With the DHX I recommend using a BV tune with no extra bleed, then you should be able to make more noticeable changes at the main piston, without needing to alter the base valve
Or to put another way, just use the main piston, and only increase the base valve if the main piston is too stiff and risking cavitation. Or vice versa
So if I still ending up pretty closed off then I should still continue to tune my mid valve until I can start opening my compression adjust open not try tuning my BV to open my compression. I did pull the bleed shim out of my BV already. Thanks for then info so far. I will be patiently waiting for your next post.
Yeah the standard base valve tune with no bleed is suitable for all of their standard main piston configurations. - just checking it is also pre-2025 DHX? They added different BV tunes after 2025
Its a 22 that I got as an old stock for the cheap but thought it would be a good base mono tube to mess around with. It came with a LMB2 tune but the tune is now closer to a LF
BV
Mid
Update, I got a Telum and my Vivid feels like a potato in comparison.
The Telum actually has damping at mid speeds, no weird ride height issues, and it’s noticeably more sensitive. I was expecting this shock to be better but I was not expecting it to be this much better. Rock gardens that would unsettle the Vivid don’t even phase the Telum.
Oh yeah with that 2-stage compression stack it will be super light.....I'm not sure how much the second stage will be doing with the 0.2mm total crossover gap and 12mm OD shim in there.
If you're lucky, it might be equivalent to their CL tune, but I would also look very closely at the compression shims once you have torqued the piston bolt - a small clamp shim and big face shims are super prone to flexing away from the piston once tightened down. There should be ZERO daylight between the face shim and piston. It's easiest to tune a single stage stack, or the the bare minimum use a 0.1mm crossover, preferably a little larger than the clamp like 14-15mm, but you add a lot more complexity when playing with that.
I grabbed some screenshots of tests showing the internal pressures in a shock when changing the base valve vs main piston, just need to add a little more explanation
Nice stuff! Love reading stuff like this. Those screenshots would be interesting to see!
Thanks for the response. I was roughly basing my tune off of this fox tune but still trying to make it a bit stiffer. Maybe I should try to pull one of the crossovers out or just go to a single stack.
Post a reply to: Suspension Component Technology/Functionality Discussion