I wasn't sure where everything was coming from but a bit of Googling shows there was a suspension guru with the handle Dougal on mtbr that...
I wasn't sure where everything was coming from but a bit of Googling shows there was a suspension guru with the handle Dougal on mtbr that got banned for... Let's say unkind posts. I think @DServy assumes @Dougal - SC is the same person behind the mote or less the same handle and doesn't want Vital MTB to turn to the shitshow that was MTBR before the ban.
"it appears that DServy was banned from MTBR following some controversial or unkind posts. [1]"The plot thickens lol, havent seen anything dickish from Dougal...
"it appears that DServy was banned from MTBR following some controversial or unkind posts. [1]"
The plot thickens lol, havent seen anything dickish from Dougal here, just helpful advice (dont know the past).
I've never been banned from MTBR, Don't even have an account, so don't know where you got that from.As far as what what Friedrichsaid, I...
I've never been banned from MTBR, Don't even have an account, so don't know where you got that from.
As far as what what Friedrichsaid, I actually agree 100%. There is, and traditionally has been, some crap product out there with thing that don't do what they say or will never work for a given scenario. I think one of my favorite examples is the mythical HSC knob on the first generation GripX2 that was basically a placebo.
You specified it quite well where sometimes things are just up to the job, but I feel an equally valid opinion is asking whether something is the right tool for the job to begin with. Why are you expecting a damper designed for application A to preform equally as good as application B? The fact of the matter is that the products made for the masses of bike riders are trying to provide windows of functionality for an incredible range of rider weight and styles, and that's incredibly difficult. That is fundamentally why I am hesitant to make the outright claims people desperately want to make, and I think people should be wary about the claims of random strangers on the internet.
Take for example your GripX comment and its bemoaned RF tune. As a heavier rider in a 120mm fork it works great. Simply put, the lack of travel makes slowing down shafts speeds and dissipating energy in the return stoke a much more difficult task than it is with my DH fork with 200mm of travel and a heavy front wheel with a DH tire on it. Does that intrinsically mean that damper is bad? Maybe? It certainly is noisy. Would I recommend said damper for 130 lb riders in long travel applications? Probably not, do I think it odd that Fox shoved them in their long travel applications? Probably. Do I think it's even odder than a company like Ibis (who is notorious for fast rebound tunes with their "tractive tuned" rears) put them on ripmos? Yep. Is it a better damper for me in my 34 then the previous one? I think so.
Having spent some time, although not nearly enough, actually recording and looking at suspension data I can firmly say that suspension dynamics is a gordian knot. I've seen tuning sessions where every change we've made to the fork only changed the meaningful data in the shock (due to the rider shifting their center of mass), I've been in sessions where literally nothing meaningful changed in the data but the rider ended up 8% faster on an 4 minute track. These systems are complex and dynamic, so should the discussion around them be as well.
Look, my intent wasn't to derail this thread into the nature of engineering good and evil: suspension edition. It was an attempt to ward off the evils of "guru"fication of the vital suspension forms.
That was a great article - I'm surprised I hadn't seen it before! Sadly there are certain people who focus too heavily on why they think products "suck" and telling everyone their set up is wrong instead of giving them useful advice. Unfortunately because the arguments descend in to bickering over mythical problems it distracts from the things that would genuinely help people or improve the industry. Often these "interesting insights" are just straight up disinformation or so disingenuous that the person making them has to either be lying or stupid. They are using the fact that most people don't have a deep understanding of the subject to overwhelm you with big words so you assume they know what they're talking about.
For sure, people can make up their own minds about things, just be wary of anyone who insists on saying you are wrong in what you are feeling on the bike, or that the brands don't know what they are doing - they do (some more than others)
That certainly is an interesting start into a post about tone policing. Out of curiosity, did you for example bother checking the Fox part list? The...
That certainly is an interesting start into a post about tone policing. Out of curiosity, did you for example bother checking the Fox part list? The only listed rebound tune for Grip X is called RF (Rebound firm). Like, it's not even a secret.
You do have a point here or there of course, but the way you posted is not the way you'd want the interaction coming your way I'm sure.
I wasn't sure where everything was coming from but a bit of Googling shows there was a suspension guru with the handle Dougal on mtbr that...
I wasn't sure where everything was coming from but a bit of Googling shows there was a suspension guru with the handle Dougal on mtbr that got banned for... Let's say unkind posts. I think @DServy assumes @Dougal - SC is the same person behind the mote or less the same handle and doesn't want Vital MTB to turn to the shitshow that was MTBR before the ban.
Or something along those lines?
I won't sugarcoat it, He single handedly ruined MTBR suspension forum. There were so many knowledgable industry insiders, inventors, owners and passionate puzzlers on that forum and according to him they were all wrong, non-sensical ranting and bickering meant most of those incredible posters left the forum and didn't contribute anymore.
Don't let history repeat itself is all I'm saying, this forum is the exact same, nerds, industry insiders and company owners all stoked on bikes. Let's keep it that way!
Dear Dougal,I know your favorite past time is to shit on the hard engineering work of people and then yell at them when they try to...
Dear Dougal,
I know your favorite past time is to shit on the hard engineering work of people and then yell at them when they try to engage you in good faith arguments. I get that you are also trying to be helpful, and probably mean less malice than it comes across over the internet because, frankly, the internet is a shithole of everyone yelling at each other. But Vital has been a space that seems to have remained a refuge of reasonability despite everything else falling to click and rage bate. I am glad Vital is not the pinkbike comment section, nor is it mtbr, and I (as well as other people) would love to keep it that way.
So with that being said, can we please avoid the shit talking and mater of fact statements because that's the quickest way to turn vital into the internet hellscape I so desperately want to avoid. I also do not want, nor have the ability to, prevent your opinions and discussion on this platform.
So with that being said, I implore you to try a different tact when expressing your opinions to make it clear that they are, in fact, solely your opinions.
statements like "I believe, or I think or I feel" are great in letting a reader know you are speaking from a place of discussion and help foster people being receptive to listening.
For example, lets take the following:
"The GRIPX2 released at the same time went firm and harsh, the GRIPX went with really soft compression and slow rebound."
Having owned both dampers I can honestly say that my experience with both, for their given applications and intent, have been extremely positive, and that I believe your matter of fact statement is horseshit. You could potentially alleviated my raged induced reaction by more fully expressing the fact that it is coming from your own experiance, which 100% differs from my own. That would look something like the following:
"I believe the gripx2 released at the same time is both firm and harsh, however my experiences with the gripx are the exact opposite where I feel it is both soft in compression and over-damped (slow) in rebound."
Your opinions are the same, but it comes off less dickish and more engaging for discussion. Please remember that words (or the absence of them) matter. And with some careful reframing you can express your opinions and keep vital a pleasant place to engage other mountain bikers from around the world.
Hi, that's a lot of words. Nice to meet you.I don't know why you take my words so seriously, I'm just a guy who likes to...
Hi, that's a lot of words. Nice to meet you.
I don't know why you take my words so seriously, I'm just a guy who likes to tinker with this stuff and share what I've found. I've also found the owners of some stuff get quite aggressive when I mention it might be less than perfect for every rider everywhere! This makes for some bizarre discussions.
The GRIPX2 for example is firmer than every other GRIP and every other recent Fox damper. The square edge harshness was a known problem and that's why Fox redesigned the midvalve in their latest update. The one where they clipped the sides off the shims to help the oil flow.
Likewise the GRIPX. It's got a lot of rebound damping and if you're 80+kg that's fine. But if you're 80+ kg you really want more compression damping. The compression damping is nice for 50-60kg riders but for them the rebound is too slow. If Fox had released 2-3 different compression and rebound options it would make perfect sense.......
I've got dyno charts showing all this if you want to see them. It's fine if you don't.
@Primoz I got (temp) banned from MTBR for arguing with a moderator. He kept claiming I'd broken rules but couldn't show where and pulled the "I am the authority and you will get banned for arguing with me" card. It's a known problem.
Always want dyno charts. More dyno charts!
Would love to see charger 3.2 or 3.1 vs grip x2. Very curious how much the HSC really differs between these two dampers. The forks ride different, yeah, but there's a lot of differences in there beyond just HSC so....
That certainly is an interesting start into a post about tone policing. Out of curiosity, did you for example bother checking the Fox part list? The...
That certainly is an interesting start into a post about tone policing. Out of curiosity, did you for example bother checking the Fox part list? The only listed rebound tune for Grip X is called RF (Rebound firm). Like, it's not even a secret.
You do have a point here or there of course, but the way you posted is not the way you'd want the interaction coming your way I'm sure.
I wasn't sure where everything was coming from but a bit of Googling shows there was a suspension guru with the handle Dougal on mtbr that...
I wasn't sure where everything was coming from but a bit of Googling shows there was a suspension guru with the handle Dougal on mtbr that got banned for... Let's say unkind posts. I think @DServy assumes @Dougal - SC is the same person behind the mote or less the same handle and doesn't want Vital MTB to turn to the shitshow that was MTBR before the ban.
I won't sugarcoat it, He single handedly ruined MTBR suspension forum. There were so many knowledgable industry insiders, inventors, owners and passionate puzzlers on that forum...
I won't sugarcoat it, He single handedly ruined MTBR suspension forum. There were so many knowledgable industry insiders, inventors, owners and passionate puzzlers on that forum and according to him they were all wrong, non-sensical ranting and bickering meant most of those incredible posters left the forum and didn't contribute anymore.
Don't let history repeat itself is all I'm saying, this forum is the exact same, nerds, industry insiders and company owners all stoked on bikes. Let's keep it that way!
I hate to break it to you, but both can be true. There can both be utter fanboys of anything (big suspension, tuners, products, what have...
I hate to break it to you, but both can be true. There can both be utter fanboys of anything (big suspension, tuners, products, what have you) and designs that are objectively really poor. Designs where you have to wonder how they passed any testing.
Before getting into such issues, suspension setups of less experienced riders tend to have a lot of room for improvement. I think that's due to mostly two reasons:
- A heap of "tutorials" are put out by people that are at least bad at explaining and maybe even bad at understanding the concepts behind suspension setup. - The concept of how the internal valving will only work for a certain spring rate range is extremely undercommunicated.
If you are not aware it's a realistic scenario that your rear shock (rarely fork damper) is never going to perform well with the spring rate you want/have to run, that is a problem. This is not helped by AI guides that provide you "precise clicker positions" for shock models without having any resources about the internals.
The next issue then is more of a design thing, e.g. clickers on your suspension which do not do what they say on them, pistons with ports that are too small for their job, oil that is too thick to be temperature stable, ... It is absolutely fair to point these out, especially to people who have not yet bought their next suspension product. And it is absolutely possible to recommend models from big suspension that require the least amount of work to get into a happy place.
The real problems start, however, if people feel like their favourite toy is being attacked. That is where the conversation always goes sideways. This also usually is the point where people start flexing their riding skills to prove points that just can't be proven that way. I am not sure how one should go about this, though.
The rebound tune question about Grip X is a perfect example. It is objectively true the rebound tune is going to be too firm (i.e. slow) for a good portion of riders, however large that may be. It is also true that for spring rates that the rebound tune works well for, the fork will lack compression damping. Yet you call that "shitting on hard engineering work".
This has to be up there on the list of most polite way of saying that big suspension typically has to be tuned to work well...
This has to be up there on the list of most polite way of saying that big suspension typically has to be tuned to work well regardless of how many dials you can play with. The base tunes are all over the place, one generation is almost slope style level firm, next gen of the same fork comes with basically no compression damping at all. Why? No one cares to explain, feel free to guess. Or maybe that's how it came to be? They are guessing?
[edit: quoted, but this is not meant in response to any previous post or user in particular]
As someone who designs and manufactures aftermarket components to upgrade 'big suspension' put me on the record in their defense. I think they actually do a remarkable job at what is really an impossible task.
Imagine designing something within the small confines of an MTB fork and the accepted dimensional standards. Make it light enough and cheap enough for what the market demands at retail and OEM. Manufacture and assemble it at massive scale to acceptably high QC standards, align dozens of critical tolerances to fractions of a millimeter during forging, machining, finishing, and assembly with minimal scrap or rejection rates. Reduce friction to an absolute minimum but make it durable and low maintenance (assume most riders are not going to follow the service intervals) without a massive loss in performance. Make it both easy to understand and operate for an absolute novice and adjustable enough for experienced tuners. Design the damper and air spring to work everywhere from the jankiest jank, to slippery hard pack, from Bellingham to Finale to Tahoe, to Bentonville. Optimize for all types or dirt, terrain, and topography. Now make it perform for riders with poor technique and body position and also physically fit and dynamic riders who actively load their suspension and aren't just along for the ride, and everyone in between. Provide a tuning range that covers riders of all abilities weighing under 50kg to well over 100kg. Make it work in a broad temperature range. Make it work with all bike geometries and weight distributions. Optimize the damper and air spring for a 40mm difference in max travel. Make it plush but also supportive, and instantly responsive at all shaft speeds but also stable when the constantly moving rider weighs on average 5 to 7 times more than the bike. Make it work on all the different types of impacts and loads found on every type of MTB trail. Make it last for several seasons. Make one stock option that brands can spec on every bike in their lineup. Please all the product managers. Please all the customers. Make everyone happy.
It's not difficult for other creative and intelligent aftermarket and boutique manufacturers to identify the compromises that have to be made and address them, though I'd argue there is no magic bullet that eliminates all of them. It's a lot easier to hop on the back of a big brand's R&D, engineering, and manufacturing capability and then redesign or optimize any one or a small number of the internal components with the same focus they needed to give to the entire fork or shock, and to do it at a fraction of the volume, and target a small segment of the market or narrow use case.
But to promote those products and services with the narrative that 'big suspension' is a scam or the brands are all just cutting corners and don't have riders best interest and experience in mind is just disingenuous. Of course it's a lot harder to communicate what benefit custom tuning and aftermarket components can add to a well designed system rather than pointing to a shortcoming and calling the engineers inept or lazy and claiming to have solved the problem they were too ignorant to understand.
That isn't to say large brands are immune from bringing problematic designs to market or have been slow to respond to QC issues, they certainly have. But the vast majority of what you can buy works really well for a huge range of riders, is easy to service, and is incredibly durable from the mid-tier to the top end.
Why we would let Dougal, a shock tuner and distributor of Manitou in NZ, stand on a soap box here and shit all over every single other brand of suspension and most every other tuner, i have no idea.
Most of my local stores dislike dealing with him and one actively refuses to order anything from him, if that tells you anything.
[edit: quoted, but this is not meant in response to any previous post or user in particular]As someone who designs and manufactures aftermarket components to upgrade...
[edit: quoted, but this is not meant in response to any previous post or user in particular]
As someone who designs and manufactures aftermarket components to upgrade 'big suspension' put me on the record in their defense. I think they actually do a remarkable job at what is really an impossible task.
Imagine designing something within the small confines of an MTB fork and the accepted dimensional standards. Make it light enough and cheap enough for what the market demands at retail and OEM. Manufacture and assemble it at massive scale to acceptably high QC standards, align dozens of critical tolerances to fractions of a millimeter during forging, machining, finishing, and assembly with minimal scrap or rejection rates. Reduce friction to an absolute minimum but make it durable and low maintenance (assume most riders are not going to follow the service intervals) without a massive loss in performance. Make it both easy to understand and operate for an absolute novice and adjustable enough for experienced tuners. Design the damper and air spring to work everywhere from the jankiest jank, to slippery hard pack, from Bellingham to Finale to Tahoe, to Bentonville. Optimize for all types or dirt, terrain, and topography. Now make it perform for riders with poor technique and body position and also physically fit and dynamic riders who actively load their suspension and aren't just along for the ride, and everyone in between. Provide a tuning range that covers riders of all abilities weighing under 50kg to well over 100kg. Make it work in a broad temperature range. Make it work with all bike geometries and weight distributions. Optimize the damper and air spring for a 40mm difference in max travel. Make it plush but also supportive, and instantly responsive at all shaft speeds but also stable when the constantly moving rider weighs on average 5 to 7 times more than the bike. Make it work on all the different types of impacts and loads found on every type of MTB trail. Make it last for several seasons. Make one stock option that brands can spec on every bike in their lineup. Please all the product managers. Please all the customers. Make everyone happy.
It's not difficult for other creative and intelligent aftermarket and boutique manufacturers to identify the compromises that have to be made and address them, though I'd argue there is no magic bullet that eliminates all of them. It's a lot easier to hop on the back of a big brand's R&D, engineering, and manufacturing capability and then redesign or optimize any one or a small number of the internal components with the same focus they needed to give to the entire fork or shock, and to do it at a fraction of the volume, and target a small segment of the market or narrow use case.
But to promote those products and services with the narrative that 'big suspension' is a scam or the brands are all just cutting corners and don't have riders best interest and experience in mind is just disingenuous. Of course it's a lot harder to communicate what benefit custom tuning and aftermarket components can add to a well designed system rather than pointing to a shortcoming and calling the engineers inept or lazy and claiming to have solved the problem they were too ignorant to understand.
That isn't to say large brands are immune from bringing problematic designs to market or have been slow to respond to QC issues, they certainly have. But the vast majority of what you can buy works really well for a huge range of riders, is easy to service, and is incredibly durable from the mid-tier to the top end.
Hey there, I didn't really mean to say big suspension was a scam. There are some really good products out there for everyone. The current and last gen Float X and DHX would be examples in my mind (MY25-26, MY27). Lots of granular tunes for mid and base valve available and listed on the parts list. I would love if there were something comparable for forks. After a bit of tinkering, MY22-24 also can work quite well. Modest work is required I'd argue.
I think a lot of the issues on that end come down to what's good for the individual customer and what is good for the manufacturer (read parts stock etc.).
I don't know if this is the right thread to ask this but here it goes:I have a BoXXer Ultimate D2, ridden for 10hrs in the...
I don't know if this is the right thread to ask this but here it goes:
I have a BoXXer Ultimate D2, ridden for 10hrs in the bikepark. After that it has started to creak, or more like click. The sound is pretty much like a CSU creak. What I've done:
-Disassembled the crowns
-Cleaned the crown bolts
-Greased the underside of the bolt heads and applied threadlocker to the threads
-Used 1500 grit sandpaper to remove any stuck on grime from the crown bores (found on butter suspension IG)
After doing so, the creaking goes away for about 2hrs of riding. After that it starts to creak again. I think it's just the lower crown as when I loosen them, there are the same clicking sounds. I've always used a torque wrench on them and tightened them, aligned the upper tubes and preloaded the headset per the manual.
I mainly ride in dry conditions but nothing out of the ordinary level of dusty. I suspect dust is getting in between the lower crown and upper tubes but surely the fork can't be so shit in that it would start to creak so quickly.
My friends ride 40's and don't experience any creaking. I'm seriously considering replacing it with a 40 if the issue can't be resolved. I can't make a warranty claim on it due to my country (and neighboring countries) Sram distributor being bankrupt and I'm not keen on sending my fork 3000 km away at my expense for Sram to look at it and say that it's fine.
Nothing productive to add here but wanted to chime in and say that I have the same fork and have been dealing with the same issue. Tried all of the same things with no success haha
Why we would let Dougal, a shock tuner and distributor of Manitou in NZ, stand on a soap box here and shit all over every single...
Why we would let Dougal, a shock tuner and distributor of Manitou in NZ, stand on a soap box here and shit all over every single other brand of suspension and most every other tuner, i have no idea.
Most of my local stores dislike dealing with him and one actively refuses to order anything from him, if that tells you anything.
Might be the one we blacklisted because they couldn't reinstall a fork, didn't own a torque wrench and tried to blame us...... It's a brutal world...
Might be the one we blacklisted because they couldn't reinstall a fork, didn't own a torque wrench and tried to blame us...... It's a brutal world out there. All of the shops we deal with moan about all their suppliers.
When people talk about a fork being supportive, what are they talking about? Most of the support comes from the spring, obviously, but I think people often leap to talking about the damper. One thing I hear a lot is that "rockshox forks are more sensitive and comfortable, whereas fox forks are more supportive". However when you look at your chart, one thing is clear: the charger 3.1 has more support available except perhaps when you get above 2000mm/sec. Sooo.... whats up with all that? Fox fork just has a ton of friction? Spring is really springy? Or am I missing something with these charts?
So, I think I finally have enough time on it to develop an opinion.Is it a better fork than the 38 gripx2? Yes. Does it have a...
So, I think I finally have enough time on it to develop an opinion.
Is it a better fork than the 38 gripx2? Yes.
Does it have a much narrower sweet spot than the old fork. Very much so.
So, I've kinda thrown everything at the fork in trying to make it feel good. Tokens in, tokens out, less sag, more sag, tons of HSC, no HSC, so on and so forth. If you did this with the old fork you could still get something that was more or less rideable. Not so with this fork. I think, in large part to the different ratios between the positive and negative air chambers this fork is incredibly sag sensitive. If you run a ton of sag the fork just has no suppleness, and if you try to run it with very little sag it just ends up way too progressive. The rebound on the new gripx2 damper suffers from the same problem, a fairly narrow sweet spot between HSR and LSR. I find in both of my forks running the new gripx2 damper that I'm running 2 clicks of LSR for ever click of HSR. The fork also seems very sensitive to service intervals due to losing 10 cc of 20 wt in the air chamber.
With that out of the way, I can now say the following:
The fork is incredible. Easily the best iteration of a single crown fork I've ridden (for reference my previous benchmark was the glidecore 36). As a heavier rider the lack of binding in the air spring is very noticeable, and between the damper improvements and the spring improvements the fork feels more responsive and controlled. It may seem odd but you can tell that the resistance in the fork to movement is coming from the spring and the damper and NOT the interplay between static friction moving to dynamic friction. Damper wise, everything feels useable and actually can provide the damping characteristics I want.
That being said, due to its narrower sweet spot its even more of a pain to setup. My recommendation is do not go above 20% sag (probably use one less token than what comes in your fork), 2:1 LSR to HSR, minimal LSC and actually don't be afraid of the HSC dial (its quite good).
Thanks a lot!
I am very much a fan of a linear spring rate - in fact I am running two of my bikes with coil forks. However: I feel the itch to try again an air sprung fork. It comes installed on a Mondraker Zendit, size XL.
Weighing 90-93kg depending on riding gear + 22kg of bike I will very much start without tokens, right? On the rear I will use a CCDB Kitsuma coil right from the start.
to get back on track here, what are the thoughts on the new Super deluxe ultimate?
to get back on track here, what are the thoughts on the new Super deluxe ultimate?
I am frustrated Rockshox keep riding the same dead horse since 2022. Using a pyramid valve for high speed compression adjustment has clear downsides, likewise running the thick oil they do. I'd say out of their current lineup the Super Deluxe D1 is probably the shock that causes the least amount of headache, but I am not sure I'd get or keep one.
Historically, Rockshox have almost always been using preloaded stacks. Especially for rebound. For the late Monarch shocks the preload was so severe, the preloaded shim would never open (see e.g. here, 6m30). More recently, they stepped away from preload via ring shims to preload via piston dish, so it is harder to remove the preload. I think preload on a shock made for descending is not ideal. You will always have pressure buildup before the preloaded shims open up, and on top of that, in my opinion, digressive rebound tunes are just downright scary on jumps. (Would apply for the R85 rebound tune on the D1.)
to get back on track here, what are the thoughts on the new Super deluxe ultimate?
to get back on track here, what are the thoughts on the new Super deluxe ultimate?
My thoughts, strictly as a rider and not a suspension tuner: It's a bit more normal feeling than the last gen one with a Linear XL can fitted in terms of breakaway and midstroke. That one was super easy to get moving into its stroke and I felt like it lacked midstroke a bit, but on the other hand it was super active for a normal sized (i.e. non-X2 or Vivid) shock and was quite poppy. This one still retains that feeling of high starting LR but it's a bit less extreme. The rubber band volume tuning is novel but I don't know if it's any easier to do than normal. Bottom out feel is pretty good for a shock of it's type between the HBO and bumper, but you can still get a firm bottom out (but not hard clack). That said, and it's a minor detail, but the last ~1mm of stroke is unusable (at least according to the marks on the side) due to the bottom out bumper. In terms of best use, it's basically in between a Float X and a big can shock like X2 or Vivid. I'd hands down rather use it over a Float X, but if the bike fits and I'm not trying for a mid-travel poppy feel, I'd rather run a Vivid or coil for real bottomless landings feel and more midstroke support.
to get back on track here, what are the thoughts on the new Super deluxe ultimate?
to get back on track here, what are the thoughts on the new Super deluxe ultimate?
It looks like a decent refinement over the old one - not exactly a revolution but they improved a few things on paper which allow for things like lower IFP pressure which is good.
I haven't tried it yet but what @Friedrich said is so wildly wrong it needs to be corrected
- the piston isn't dished, its a plain flat piston(no change from C1 here). The tunes are all very stiff and one uses a preload ring so they range form quite progressive to extremely progressive
-The 7wt oil used is fine, it mostly improves lubricate and reduces wear over a lighter oil. It adds low speed damping too so it's part of a trade off with creating force at the base valve instead of using less bleed. And shocks dont typically get hot enough for the viscosity change to be a problem (unless you have a scott.....)
-i agree the HSC adjuster is kinda dumb IMO though
I was talking about preload in general and how they tend to realise it. Charger 3 base valve is dished. If I recall correctly, both Super Deluxe Coil and Vivid have stepped base valves, too. Also the R85 rebound tune is preloaded via ring shim. What was wildly wrong here?
Here's a dumb question, but when we talk about dyno charts for suspension components, what does the actual dyno machine look like, and what does the typical dyno test look like?
Is a dyno test always necessarily an automated machine process, or can it be reliably performed manually in a hand dyno?
Are there different types of dyno machines, or is every suspension brand and independent tuner pretty much using the same machine? How much do dyno test protocols vary between suspension brands and tuning shops? And if there are different machines, is data from one machine or test protocol comparable to data from another?
What kinds of information does a dyno test actually meaningfully provide, and what kinds of info can that test data never tell you? It seems like there isn't a 1:1 correlation between what the machine says about a fork or shock vs. what riders experience on the trail, meaning that real on-trail testing is still essential and you can't truly product test damper tunes from start to finish in a lab.
I'm betting this has already been answered somewhere in our vast internet, so if you links to share, that's great too.
My thoughts, strictly as a rider and not a suspension tuner: It's a bit more normal feeling than the last gen one with a Linear XL...
My thoughts, strictly as a rider and not a suspension tuner: It's a bit more normal feeling than the last gen one with a Linear XL can fitted in terms of breakaway and midstroke. That one was super easy to get moving into its stroke and I felt like it lacked midstroke a bit, but on the other hand it was super active for a normal sized (i.e. non-X2 or Vivid) shock and was quite poppy. This one still retains that feeling of high starting LR but it's a bit less extreme. The rubber band volume tuning is novel but I don't know if it's any easier to do than normal. Bottom out feel is pretty good for a shock of it's type between the HBO and bumper, but you can still get a firm bottom out (but not hard clack). That said, and it's a minor detail, but the last ~1mm of stroke is unusable (at least according to the marks on the side) due to the bottom out bumper. In terms of best use, it's basically in between a Float X and a big can shock like X2 or Vivid. I'd hands down rather use it over a Float X, but if the bike fits and I'm not trying for a mid-travel poppy feel, I'd rather run a Vivid or coil for real bottomless landings feel and more midstroke support.
My new bike came with the new Super Deluxe and while I primarily run my Telum I tried it out for a few rides and was overall impressed. Your experience pretty much mirrors mine. It feels closer to a Vivid than a Float X but the Vivid has better composure overall, especially in rough terrain. Not bad for an “all arounder” shock.
Hand dynos are more or less intended for testing the bleed on a shock after reassembly.
When talking about the machines, there are different kinds of dynos for sure. Cheaper ones (~10k USD) tend to go to shaft speeds of ~2.5m/s. If you want really high shaft speeds of about 7m/s, those things get expensive fast. Like ~80k USD expensive and upwards.
to get back on track here, what are the thoughts on the new Super deluxe ultimate?
to get back on track here, what are the thoughts on the new Super deluxe ultimate?
I ordered the new superdeluxe ultimate for a new bike. SRAM sent the old one on accident and I rode it 4 times before putting the new one on. I also had the old superdeluxe ultimate on my previous bike.
First impressions of the new shock, even without getting it dialed yet: the friction reduction is noticeable, which surprised me. Rear end just feels freer. Like it changed direction more readily. Other than that, not much to say. The o-ring thing is cool, I kept mine at 5/6 which is how it came. LSC seems well matched to charger 3.2 LSC (bike feels balanced when settings front and rear are the same). Overall happy.
Hand dynos are more or less intended for testing the bleed on a shock after reassembly. When talking about the machines, there are different kinds of dynos...
Hand dynos are more or less intended for testing the bleed on a shock after reassembly.
When talking about the machines, there are different kinds of dynos for sure. Cheaper ones (~10k USD) tend to go to shaft speeds of ~2.5m/s. If you want really high shaft speeds of about 7m/s, those things get expensive fast. Like ~80k USD expensive and upwards.
Thanks for the info!
That raises another question, which is how fast shaft velocities can be while mountain biking? Greater than 2.5 meters/second? Greater than 7.5?
That raises another question, which is how fast shaft velocities can be while mountain biking? Greater than 2.5 meters/second? Greater than 7.5?
Forks frequently see shaft speeds of 4m/s and in general up to about 8m/s (see this video by Vorsprung). Rear shocks see quite a lot slower shaft speeds in general due to two reasons: Leverage ratio and often not being the first in line for the hit.
Here's a dumb question, but when we talk about dyno charts for suspension components, what does the actual dyno machine look like, and what does the...
Here's a dumb question, but when we talk about dyno charts for suspension components, what does the actual dyno machine look like, and what does the typical dyno test look like?
Is a dyno test always necessarily an automated machine process, or can it be reliably performed manually in a hand dyno?
Are there different types of dyno machines, or is every suspension brand and independent tuner pretty much using the same machine? How much do dyno test protocols vary between suspension brands and tuning shops? And if there are different machines, is data from one machine or test protocol comparable to data from another?
What kinds of information does a dyno test actually meaningfully provide, and what kinds of info can that test data never tell you? It seems like there isn't a 1:1 correlation between what the machine says about a fork or shock vs. what riders experience on the trail, meaning that real on-trail testing is still essential and you can't truly product test damper tunes from start to finish in a lab.
I'm betting this has already been answered somewhere in our vast internet, so if you links to share, that's great too.
Hand dyno is basically just jerking off a shock. Need a load cell and velocity sensor to be able to generate graphs.
The big flaw of the shock/damper dyno is it only tells you what it tells you, it's isolating things. So like in a real suspension system you have the chassis and the spring and those things interact in complex ways. If you watch video tours of fox R&D they seem to maybe dyno whole forks, but looks to be purely vertically which eliminates a lot of the side loading that happens in real life (actually loading the bushings etc).
All damping is, from a physics perspective, is an energy bleed. It's bleeding off energy from the system (which could be bike+rider on single bump event). Friction does the same thing, so quantifying what your damper is doing is great, but it's only one part of the picture of damping happening in the system, and depending on the scenario, the main source of damping isn't even the damper. Which is not a good thing as the damper provides the most controllable form of damping.
Additionally in something like a fork, you have an imperfect lubricaton system, where the fork is trying to pump oil up to the foam rings and bushings, and then the action of the fork is also pushing oil out of the bushings, where it's needed most. This is something that I think fox and rockshox have made a lot of progress with over the last 6 years or so. It used to be that turning your fork upside down before a ride made a massive difference. That seemed to kind of go away for me when fox introduced the cast oil channels into the lower legs. Remember when WC mechanics would talk about doing a fork rebuild for practically every run? Well if your fork lubrication system is awful, it makes a lot of sense...
But all the complex chassis stuff isn't really tunable, and it's real easy to turn knobs or swap shims. So we end up talking about knobs and shims and PSIs.
More sophisticated test setups/machines can probably go a long way to evaluating something like fork performance more holistically, but tiny bicycle industry is tiny and this stuff is actually expensive. This is why, in my opinion, we get things like fox releasing a new fork and being able to honestly say that it fixed the old fork "not using its travel" aka not being a fork (first gen 34 sc anyone?). They've also had to boil the frog (us) into accepting weight penalties for performance. In the past you wanted the light fork cause.. well it didn't work anyway. Then you get into the whole question of: looking at all these charts, what's better? Now some of the chat at my LBS is: the forks are so good now, what does this mean for riding if these trails aren't gnarly anymore?
Hand dynos are more or less intended for testing the bleed on a shock after reassembly. When talking about the machines, there are different kinds of dynos...
Hand dynos are more or less intended for testing the bleed on a shock after reassembly.
When talking about the machines, there are different kinds of dynos for sure. Cheaper ones (~10k USD) tend to go to shaft speeds of ~2.5m/s. If you want really high shaft speeds of about 7m/s, those things get expensive fast. Like ~80k USD expensive and upwards.
That raises another question, which is how fast shaft velocities can be while mountain biking? Greater than 2.5 meters/second? Greater than 7.5?
A 5 foot huck to flat could probably get you to an inital shaft speed of around 5m/s or 5000mm/s. Simple equation: time to drop = (2*height/g)^(1/2) so sqrt of 2*5/32 = .56s Speed at impact -> speed = time * acceleration or .56 g aka .56*32=17.92ft/s. You can do some more math to figure out how landing slope angle and head angle affect shaft speed, but it's not that important.
If a huck to flat gets you to 5m/s i bet you can find bumps that do more.
Another limitation of dyno charts: spiking occurs where exactly? Oh, off the chart? Cool. 😂
Here's a dumb question, but when we talk about dyno charts for suspension components, what does the actual dyno machine look like, and what does the...
Here's a dumb question, but when we talk about dyno charts for suspension components, what does the actual dyno machine look like, and what does the typical dyno test look like?
Is a dyno test always necessarily an automated machine process, or can it be reliably performed manually in a hand dyno?
Are there different types of dyno machines, or is every suspension brand and independent tuner pretty much using the same machine? How much do dyno test protocols vary between suspension brands and tuning shops? And if there are different machines, is data from one machine or test protocol comparable to data from another?
What kinds of information does a dyno test actually meaningfully provide, and what kinds of info can that test data never tell you? It seems like there isn't a 1:1 correlation between what the machine says about a fork or shock vs. what riders experience on the trail, meaning that real on-trail testing is still essential and you can't truly product test damper tunes from start to finish in a lab.
I'm betting this has already been answered somewhere in our vast internet, so if you links to share, that's great too.
The machine is basically a motor that turns a shaft, which is turned in to linear up and down motion. The software runs the machine faster and faster, and measures how much force the damper is producing at every point and speed in the stroke. My machine is a CTW "rotary" type dyno with 2 HP and one of the more basic, lower power machines on the market (I think about $15,000 USD today). CTW was born out of a company called Roehrig who pioneered workshop damper testing in the early 90's - many of the older racecar and motorcycle tuners still use Roehrig Dynos today, along with mtb companies like Push and Vorsprung. They are the most experienced and knowledgeable when it comes to building damper dynos but there are other brands out there, Laba 7 is a recent one pushing hard, mechatronics labs is smaller but seem to make very nice machines. There are 2 main types-
Rotary Dynos like mine use a motor to drive either a crankshaft or a scotch yoke. Crankshafts are not very common anymore because like a piston in a car, the damper is accelerating faster at the bottom half of the stroke compared to the top. A scotch yoke has constant acceleration which smoothly turns the rotation into linear motion in a sinusoidal wave. The limits of these are they can only input up to about 7Hz with a fixed stroke, whereas trail inputs could be up to 20-30Hz. Trail inputs are often much more sudden and faster accelerating than that though, so it can't measure more extreme events. It's also tough to create high speeds and forces with these, so while my 2HP machine goes just over 1m/s no problem, a 20HP "only" reaches 3m/s in most cases. It depends on the stroke and force involved, an mtb damper with very light damping can get over 2m/s with much lower power but most machines are built with cars or motorbikes in mind. But since 90% of impacts are under 1/ms and the more noticeable damping is more like 0.25m/s, most tuners use a dyno around 3-5 HP for normal tuning and revalving work.
The other types of dyno are linear actuators which have an electromagnetic or hydraulic actuator - these are way more powerful (and 100's of thousands of dollars) but can not only go 5-10 m/s but have square or triangle wave inputs which are basically instant acceleration and direction changes if needed. They can create inputs up to 100Hz, drive the damper at different compression and rebound speeds and have infinitely variable stroke which means they can also replay track data collected on the bike. These are crucial for developing dampers as they truly test the limits of the valving for things like cavitation so manufacturers like Push, Vorsprung, Fox etc use them but they are extremely rare in a tuners workshop. fluid Focus use one for developing their pistons though.
A typical test is run at a fixed stroke on a rotary dyno (this can be changed though, my dyno does 0.5, 1 and 2") and looks like -
-Running a warm up to operating temperature (about 25-30 degrees)
-Then the dyno does a Rod force test which compresses the damper and stops to measure the internal force from the IFP and removes it from the test. This can be in the middle for an average force or taken at several points for a curve. How its done is important - if the adjusters are set very stiff and the the machine moves quickly, there can be residual pressure inside which throws out the reading so you need to tune you rod force test for allowing a "settle" time. By inputting the shaft diameter you can fairly accurately measure how much pressure is in the shock as well.
-Then you might do a seal drag test - just a very slow cycle that doesn't generate much damping but tells you how much friction is in the system which is useful in certain cases.
-Then the actual test begins - starting slowly (usually about 1in/s) the software is logging the whole time, but it will wait until the machine is settled at the speed and record a full "lap" then accelerate to the next speed. Again it will wait to reach the correct speed and take each recording, something like 1, 3, 5, 10 and 20 in/s.
-These are recorded as individiual constant velocity plots (CVP) (these are the plots which have a loop where the force is slightly different speeding up to slowing down), but the peak speed from each is turned in to a peak velocity plot (PVP) which are the nice straight line versions which normally get posted as they are a little clearer to read the basic function.
Those results can then be used to compare to calculated "target" damping rates, looks for problems or inconsistencies, or test for the effectiveness of damper adjusters.
And each person will have their own protocols - not many companies publish their own tests and each damper behave differently. If you have a perfectly linear damper you could do 2 speeds and draw a line between them - it would represent the damper fine, but there is normally some kind of change in rate a long the way so you will pick the speeds which work for you case. If time is important you will do as few speeds as possible, but if you need more detail across a range of speeds then you will do much more. 2 PVP plots of the same damper could look wildly different if you pick different speeds to test at. You do have to be careful comparing tests from different people, let alone other brands of machine - its tough to put all the context in to one post (which is why I'm careful about what I post) so different calibrations and test protocols can create different results. Tiny things like how the rod force test is performed can make the damper look wildly different and not everyone understands those effects.
As far as what it provides - the key thing is it gives very consistent and known results with controlled variables, even if it is a little different to how it responds on the trail. Basically you can measure 2 dampers - one that the rider likes and one they don't and look at how each is different. Do that a few thousand times and you can build up a model of what works well and what doesn't, then use that to predict what might work in the future. Just using trail data only goes so far because you can't always account for different conditions, rider ability, fatigue etc between each run. Its actually quite an indirect measurement because the input (ie ground) has to go through the tyre, wheel and flexing the frame and overcoming friction before it reaches the damper. How much of the impact went in to the suspension and how much went in to the parts or in to the rider - if you don't know that, you can't conclusively know what needs to change. Or once you attempted to make a change in the damper if it actually did anything. Trail data is super important but not the only tools to use. If I had to pick one or the other I would have a damper dyno. At the end ofd the day, what the riders feel is the most important - if I measure something that I think should work and they don't like it, I adjust model based on that feedback and try again.
Typical peak speeds are about 6-8m/s on downhill bike forks, and shocks will be up to around 2.5-3m/s. Most dampers "should" be fairly linear up to those max speeds - some aren't by design, but its rare for the ports to "choke" and start generating excessively high rates at those speeds (despite what some people think). It's more likely that high acceleration causes issues (so very high frequency but relatively low speed) which is why the linear actuator dynos exist.
Oh and the data card at the back of the machine - Typical peak speeds are about 6-8m/s on downhill bike forks, and shocks will be up...
Oh and the data card at the back of the machine -
Typical peak speeds are about 6-8m/s on downhill bike forks, and shocks will be up to around 2.5-3m/s. Most dampers "should" be fairly linear up to those max speeds - some aren't by design, but its rare for the ports to "choke" and start generating excessively high rates at those speeds (despite what some people think). It's more likely that high acceleration causes issues (so very high frequency but relatively low speed) which is why the linear actuator dynos exist.
This is all great info, and thanks to everyone who answered my question. We're really spoiled here in the Vital forums.
Another analogy - trail data or rider feedback is like going to the doctor - they will ask you questions, measure heart rate and blood pressure - thats like data acquisition and finding the symptoms, but getting more answers needs something like blood tests or an x-ray. They might not tell you the actual cause but they give much more information about whats going on
I was talking about preload in general and how they tend to realise it. Charger 3 base valve is dished. If I recall correctly, both Super...
I was talking about preload in general and how they tend to realise it. Charger 3 base valve is dished. If I recall correctly, both Super Deluxe Coil and Vivid have stepped base valves, too. Also the R85 rebound tune is preloaded via ring shim. What was wildly wrong here?
"You will always have pressure buildup before the preloaded shims open up, and on top of that, in my opinion, digressive rebound tunes are just downright scary on jumps. (Would apply for the R85 rebound tune on the D1.)"
The R85 is the most progressive rebound tune you will see in a mainstream damper. Yes it is preloaded with a ring shim but that doesn't automatically mean its digressive. Most of the preloaded rebound stack Rockshox have made are so stiff they don't open, as you mentioned - which makes them progressive.
They have always used dished pistons or ring shims in the shock base valve- it's not inherently bad and its normally the safest way to quickly build pressure in the damper. Whether or not it "suddenly" releases can be controlled by the rest of the valve geometry.
Here's a dumb question, but when we talk about dyno charts for suspension components, what does the actual dyno machine look like, and what does the...
Here's a dumb question, but when we talk about dyno charts for suspension components, what does the actual dyno machine look like, and what does the typical dyno test look like?
Is a dyno test always necessarily an automated machine process, or can it be reliably performed manually in a hand dyno?
Are there different types of dyno machines, or is every suspension brand and independent tuner pretty much using the same machine? How much do dyno test protocols vary between suspension brands and tuning shops? And if there are different machines, is data from one machine or test protocol comparable to data from another?
What kinds of information does a dyno test actually meaningfully provide, and what kinds of info can that test data never tell you? It seems like there isn't a 1:1 correlation between what the machine says about a fork or shock vs. what riders experience on the trail, meaning that real on-trail testing is still essential and you can't truly product test damper tunes from start to finish in a lab.
I'm betting this has already been answered somewhere in our vast internet, so if you links to share, that's great too.
The machine is basically a motor that turns a shaft, which is turned in to linear up and down motion. The software runs the machine faster...
The machine is basically a motor that turns a shaft, which is turned in to linear up and down motion. The software runs the machine faster and faster, and measures how much force the damper is producing at every point and speed in the stroke. My machine is a CTW "rotary" type dyno with 2 HP and one of the more basic, lower power machines on the market (I think about $15,000 USD today). CTW was born out of a company called Roehrig who pioneered workshop damper testing in the early 90's - many of the older racecar and motorcycle tuners still use Roehrig Dynos today, along with mtb companies like Push and Vorsprung. They are the most experienced and knowledgeable when it comes to building damper dynos but there are other brands out there, Laba 7 is a recent one pushing hard, mechatronics labs is smaller but seem to make very nice machines. There are 2 main types-
Rotary Dynos like mine use a motor to drive either a crankshaft or a scotch yoke. Crankshafts are not very common anymore because like a piston in a car, the damper is accelerating faster at the bottom half of the stroke compared to the top. A scotch yoke has constant acceleration which smoothly turns the rotation into linear motion in a sinusoidal wave. The limits of these are they can only input up to about 7Hz with a fixed stroke, whereas trail inputs could be up to 20-30Hz. Trail inputs are often much more sudden and faster accelerating than that though, so it can't measure more extreme events. It's also tough to create high speeds and forces with these, so while my 2HP machine goes just over 1m/s no problem, a 20HP "only" reaches 3m/s in most cases. It depends on the stroke and force involved, an mtb damper with very light damping can get over 2m/s with much lower power but most machines are built with cars or motorbikes in mind. But since 90% of impacts are under 1/ms and the more noticeable damping is more like 0.25m/s, most tuners use a dyno around 3-5 HP for normal tuning and revalving work.
The other types of dyno are linear actuators which have an electromagnetic or hydraulic actuator - these are way more powerful (and 100's of thousands of dollars) but can not only go 5-10 m/s but have square or triangle wave inputs which are basically instant acceleration and direction changes if needed. They can create inputs up to 100Hz, drive the damper at different compression and rebound speeds and have infinitely variable stroke which means they can also replay track data collected on the bike. These are crucial for developing dampers as they truly test the limits of the valving for things like cavitation so manufacturers like Push, Vorsprung, Fox etc use them but they are extremely rare in a tuners workshop. fluid Focus use one for developing their pistons though.
A typical test is run at a fixed stroke on a rotary dyno (this can be changed though, my dyno does 0.5, 1 and 2") and looks like -
-Running a warm up to operating temperature (about 25-30 degrees)
-Then the dyno does a Rod force test which compresses the damper and stops to measure the internal force from the IFP and removes it from the test. This can be in the middle for an average force or taken at several points for a curve. How its done is important - if the adjusters are set very stiff and the the machine moves quickly, there can be residual pressure inside which throws out the reading so you need to tune you rod force test for allowing a "settle" time. By inputting the shaft diameter you can fairly accurately measure how much pressure is in the shock as well.
-Then you might do a seal drag test - just a very slow cycle that doesn't generate much damping but tells you how much friction is in the system which is useful in certain cases.
-Then the actual test begins - starting slowly (usually about 1in/s) the software is logging the whole time, but it will wait until the machine is settled at the speed and record a full "lap" then accelerate to the next speed. Again it will wait to reach the correct speed and take each recording, something like 1, 3, 5, 10 and 20 in/s.
-These are recorded as individiual constant velocity plots (CVP) (these are the plots which have a loop where the force is slightly different speeding up to slowing down), but the peak speed from each is turned in to a peak velocity plot (PVP) which are the nice straight line versions which normally get posted as they are a little clearer to read the basic function.
Those results can then be used to compare to calculated "target" damping rates, looks for problems or inconsistencies, or test for the effectiveness of damper adjusters.
And each person will have their own protocols - not many companies publish their own tests and each damper behave differently. If you have a perfectly linear damper you could do 2 speeds and draw a line between them - it would represent the damper fine, but there is normally some kind of change in rate a long the way so you will pick the speeds which work for you case. If time is important you will do as few speeds as possible, but if you need more detail across a range of speeds then you will do much more. 2 PVP plots of the same damper could look wildly different if you pick different speeds to test at. You do have to be careful comparing tests from different people, let alone other brands of machine - its tough to put all the context in to one post (which is why I'm careful about what I post) so different calibrations and test protocols can create different results. Tiny things like how the rod force test is performed can make the damper look wildly different and not everyone understands those effects.
As far as what it provides - the key thing is it gives very consistent and known results with controlled variables, even if it is a little different to how it responds on the trail. Basically you can measure 2 dampers - one that the rider likes and one they don't and look at how each is different. Do that a few thousand times and you can build up a model of what works well and what doesn't, then use that to predict what might work in the future. Just using trail data only goes so far because you can't always account for different conditions, rider ability, fatigue etc between each run. Its actually quite an indirect measurement because the input (ie ground) has to go through the tyre, wheel and flexing the frame and overcoming friction before it reaches the damper. How much of the impact went in to the suspension and how much went in to the parts or in to the rider - if you don't know that, you can't conclusively know what needs to change. Or once you attempted to make a change in the damper if it actually did anything. Trail data is super important but not the only tools to use. If I had to pick one or the other I would have a damper dyno. At the end ofd the day, what the riders feel is the most important - if I measure something that I think should work and they don't like it, I adjust model based on that feedback and try again.
That was a great article - I'm surprised I hadn't seen it before! Sadly there are certain people who focus too heavily on why they think products "suck" and telling everyone their set up is wrong instead of giving them useful advice. Unfortunately because the arguments descend in to bickering over mythical problems it distracts from the things that would genuinely help people or improve the industry. Often these "interesting insights" are just straight up disinformation or so disingenuous that the person making them has to either be lying or stupid. They are using the fact that most people don't have a deep understanding of the subject to overwhelm you with big words so you assume they know what they're talking about.
For sure, people can make up their own minds about things, just be wary of anyone who insists on saying you are wrong in what you are feeling on the bike, or that the brands don't know what they are doing - they do (some more than others)
I won't sugarcoat it, He single handedly ruined MTBR suspension forum. There were so many knowledgable industry insiders, inventors, owners and passionate puzzlers on that forum and according to him they were all wrong, non-sensical ranting and bickering meant most of those incredible posters left the forum and didn't contribute anymore.
Don't let history repeat itself is all I'm saying, this forum is the exact same, nerds, industry insiders and company owners all stoked on bikes. Let's keep it that way!
Always want dyno charts. More dyno charts!
Would love to see charger 3.2 or 3.1 vs grip x2. Very curious how much the HSC really differs between these two dampers. The forks ride different, yeah, but there's a lot of differences in there beyond just HSC so....
From this description I'm getting PVD vibes...
[edit: quoted, but this is not meant in response to any previous post or user in particular]
As someone who designs and manufactures aftermarket components to upgrade 'big suspension' put me on the record in their defense. I think they actually do a remarkable job at what is really an impossible task.
Imagine designing something within the small confines of an MTB fork and the accepted dimensional standards. Make it light enough and cheap enough for what the market demands at retail and OEM. Manufacture and assemble it at massive scale to acceptably high QC standards, align dozens of critical tolerances to fractions of a millimeter during forging, machining, finishing, and assembly with minimal scrap or rejection rates. Reduce friction to an absolute minimum but make it durable and low maintenance (assume most riders are not going to follow the service intervals) without a massive loss in performance. Make it both easy to understand and operate for an absolute novice and adjustable enough for experienced tuners. Design the damper and air spring to work everywhere from the jankiest jank, to slippery hard pack, from Bellingham to Finale to Tahoe, to Bentonville. Optimize for all types or dirt, terrain, and topography. Now make it perform for riders with poor technique and body position and also physically fit and dynamic riders who actively load their suspension and aren't just along for the ride, and everyone in between. Provide a tuning range that covers riders of all abilities weighing under 50kg to well over 100kg. Make it work in a broad temperature range. Make it work with all bike geometries and weight distributions. Optimize the damper and air spring for a 40mm difference in max travel. Make it plush but also supportive, and instantly responsive at all shaft speeds but also stable when the constantly moving rider weighs on average 5 to 7 times more than the bike. Make it work on all the different types of impacts and loads found on every type of MTB trail. Make it last for several seasons. Make one stock option that brands can spec on every bike in their lineup. Please all the product managers. Please all the customers. Make everyone happy.
It's not difficult for other creative and intelligent aftermarket and boutique manufacturers to identify the compromises that have to be made and address them, though I'd argue there is no magic bullet that eliminates all of them. It's a lot easier to hop on the back of a big brand's R&D, engineering, and manufacturing capability and then redesign or optimize any one or a small number of the internal components with the same focus they needed to give to the entire fork or shock, and to do it at a fraction of the volume, and target a small segment of the market or narrow use case.
But to promote those products and services with the narrative that 'big suspension' is a scam or the brands are all just cutting corners and don't have riders best interest and experience in mind is just disingenuous. Of course it's a lot harder to communicate what benefit custom tuning and aftermarket components can add to a well designed system rather than pointing to a shortcoming and calling the engineers inept or lazy and claiming to have solved the problem they were too ignorant to understand.
That isn't to say large brands are immune from bringing problematic designs to market or have been slow to respond to QC issues, they certainly have. But the vast majority of what you can buy works really well for a huge range of riders, is easy to service, and is incredibly durable from the mid-tier to the top end.
Why we would let Dougal, a shock tuner and distributor of Manitou in NZ, stand on a soap box here and shit all over every single other brand of suspension and most every other tuner, i have no idea.
Most of my local stores dislike dealing with him and one actively refuses to order anything from him, if that tells you anything.
Hey there, I didn't really mean to say big suspension was a scam. There are some really good products out there for everyone. The current and last gen Float X and DHX would be examples in my mind (MY25-26, MY27). Lots of granular tunes for mid and base valve available and listed on the parts list. I would love if there were something comparable for forks. After a bit of tinkering, MY22-24 also can work quite well. Modest work is required I'd argue.
I think a lot of the issues on that end come down to what's good for the individual customer and what is good for the manufacturer (read parts stock etc.).
Nothing productive to add here but wanted to chime in and say that I have the same fork and have been dealing with the same issue. Tried all of the same things with no success haha
Thanks for the charts!
When people talk about a fork being supportive, what are they talking about? Most of the support comes from the spring, obviously, but I think people often leap to talking about the damper. One thing I hear a lot is that "rockshox forks are more sensitive and comfortable, whereas fox forks are more supportive". However when you look at your chart, one thing is clear: the charger 3.1 has more support available except perhaps when you get above 2000mm/sec. Sooo.... whats up with all that? Fox fork just has a ton of friction? Spring is really springy? Or am I missing something with these charts?
to get back on track here, what are the thoughts on the new Super deluxe ultimate?![]()
Thanks a lot!
I am very much a fan of a linear spring rate - in fact I am running two of my bikes with coil forks. However: I feel the itch to try again an air sprung fork.
It comes installed on a Mondraker Zendit, size XL.
Weighing 90-93kg depending on riding gear + 22kg of bike I will very much start without tokens, right?
On the rear I will use a CCDB Kitsuma coil right from the start.
I am frustrated Rockshox keep riding the same dead horse since 2022. Using a pyramid valve for high speed compression adjustment has clear downsides, likewise running the thick oil they do. I'd say out of their current lineup the Super Deluxe D1 is probably the shock that causes the least amount of headache, but I am not sure I'd get or keep one.
Historically, Rockshox have almost always been using preloaded stacks. Especially for rebound. For the late Monarch shocks the preload was so severe, the preloaded shim would never open (see e.g. here, 6m30). More recently, they stepped away from preload via ring shims to preload via piston dish, so it is harder to remove the preload. I think preload on a shock made for descending is not ideal. You will always have pressure buildup before the preloaded shims open up, and on top of that, in my opinion, digressive rebound tunes are just downright scary on jumps. (Would apply for the R85 rebound tune on the D1.)
My thoughts, strictly as a rider and not a suspension tuner: It's a bit more normal feeling than the last gen one with a Linear XL can fitted in terms of breakaway and midstroke. That one was super easy to get moving into its stroke and I felt like it lacked midstroke a bit, but on the other hand it was super active for a normal sized (i.e. non-X2 or Vivid) shock and was quite poppy. This one still retains that feeling of high starting LR but it's a bit less extreme. The rubber band volume tuning is novel but I don't know if it's any easier to do than normal. Bottom out feel is pretty good for a shock of it's type between the HBO and bumper, but you can still get a firm bottom out (but not hard clack). That said, and it's a minor detail, but the last ~1mm of stroke is unusable (at least according to the marks on the side) due to the bottom out bumper. In terms of best use, it's basically in between a Float X and a big can shock like X2 or Vivid. I'd hands down rather use it over a Float X, but if the bike fits and I'm not trying for a mid-travel poppy feel, I'd rather run a Vivid or coil for real bottomless landings feel and more midstroke support.
It looks like a decent refinement over the old one - not exactly a revolution but they improved a few things on paper which allow for things like lower IFP pressure which is good.
I haven't tried it yet but what @Friedrich said is so wildly wrong it needs to be corrected
- the piston isn't dished, its a plain flat piston(no change from C1 here). The tunes are all very stiff and one uses a preload ring so they range form quite progressive to extremely progressive
-The 7wt oil used is fine, it mostly improves lubricate and reduces wear over a lighter oil. It adds low speed damping too so it's part of a trade off with creating force at the base valve instead of using less bleed. And shocks dont typically get hot enough for the viscosity change to be a problem (unless you have a scott.....)
-i agree the HSC adjuster is kinda dumb IMO though
I was talking about preload in general and how they tend to realise it. Charger 3 base valve is dished. If I recall correctly, both Super Deluxe Coil and Vivid have stepped base valves, too. Also the R85 rebound tune is preloaded via ring shim. What was wildly wrong here?
Here's a dumb question, but when we talk about dyno charts for suspension components, what does the actual dyno machine look like, and what does the typical dyno test look like?
I'm betting this has already been answered somewhere in our vast internet, so if you links to share, that's great too.
My new bike came with the new Super Deluxe and while I primarily run my Telum I tried it out for a few rides and was overall impressed. Your experience pretty much mirrors mine. It feels closer to a Vivid than a Float X but the Vivid has better composure overall, especially in rough terrain. Not bad for an “all arounder” shock.
Hand dynos are more or less intended for testing the bleed on a shock after reassembly.
When talking about the machines, there are different kinds of dynos for sure. Cheaper ones (~10k USD) tend to go to shaft speeds of ~2.5m/s. If you want really high shaft speeds of about 7m/s, those things get expensive fast. Like ~80k USD expensive and upwards.
I ordered the new superdeluxe ultimate for a new bike. SRAM sent the old one on accident and I rode it 4 times before putting the new one on. I also had the old superdeluxe ultimate on my previous bike.
First impressions of the new shock, even without getting it dialed yet: the friction reduction is noticeable, which surprised me. Rear end just feels freer. Like it changed direction more readily. Other than that, not much to say. The o-ring thing is cool, I kept mine at 5/6 which is how it came. LSC seems well matched to charger 3.2 LSC (bike feels balanced when settings front and rear are the same). Overall happy.
Thanks for the info!
That raises another question, which is how fast shaft velocities can be while mountain biking? Greater than 2.5 meters/second? Greater than 7.5?
Forks frequently see shaft speeds of 4m/s and in general up to about 8m/s (see this video by Vorsprung). Rear shocks see quite a lot slower shaft speeds in general due to two reasons: Leverage ratio and often not being the first in line for the hit.
Hand dyno is basically just jerking off a shock. Need a load cell and velocity sensor to be able to generate graphs.
The big flaw of the shock/damper dyno is it only tells you what it tells you, it's isolating things. So like in a real suspension system you have the chassis and the spring and those things interact in complex ways. If you watch video tours of fox R&D they seem to maybe dyno whole forks, but looks to be purely vertically which eliminates a lot of the side loading that happens in real life (actually loading the bushings etc).
All damping is, from a physics perspective, is an energy bleed. It's bleeding off energy from the system (which could be bike+rider on single bump event). Friction does the same thing, so quantifying what your damper is doing is great, but it's only one part of the picture of damping happening in the system, and depending on the scenario, the main source of damping isn't even the damper. Which is not a good thing as the damper provides the most controllable form of damping.
Additionally in something like a fork, you have an imperfect lubricaton system, where the fork is trying to pump oil up to the foam rings and bushings, and then the action of the fork is also pushing oil out of the bushings, where it's needed most. This is something that I think fox and rockshox have made a lot of progress with over the last 6 years or so. It used to be that turning your fork upside down before a ride made a massive difference. That seemed to kind of go away for me when fox introduced the cast oil channels into the lower legs. Remember when WC mechanics would talk about doing a fork rebuild for practically every run? Well if your fork lubrication system is awful, it makes a lot of sense...
But all the complex chassis stuff isn't really tunable, and it's real easy to turn knobs or swap shims. So we end up talking about knobs and shims and PSIs.
More sophisticated test setups/machines can probably go a long way to evaluating something like fork performance more holistically, but tiny bicycle industry is tiny and this stuff is actually expensive. This is why, in my opinion, we get things like fox releasing a new fork and being able to honestly say that it fixed the old fork "not using its travel" aka not being a fork (first gen 34 sc anyone?). They've also had to boil the frog (us) into accepting weight penalties for performance. In the past you wanted the light fork cause.. well it didn't work anyway. Then you get into the whole question of: looking at all these charts, what's better? Now some of the chat at my LBS is: the forks are so good now, what does this mean for riding if these trails aren't gnarly anymore?
A 5 foot huck to flat could probably get you to an inital shaft speed of around 5m/s or 5000mm/s. Simple equation: time to drop = (2*height/g)^(1/2) so sqrt of 2*5/32 = .56s Speed at impact -> speed = time * acceleration or .56 g aka .56*32=17.92ft/s. You can do some more math to figure out how landing slope angle and head angle affect shaft speed, but it's not that important.
If a huck to flat gets you to 5m/s i bet you can find bumps that do more.
Another limitation of dyno charts: spiking occurs where exactly? Oh, off the chart? Cool. 😂
The machine is basically a motor that turns a shaft, which is turned in to linear up and down motion. The software runs the machine faster and faster, and measures how much force the damper is producing at every point and speed in the stroke. My machine is a CTW "rotary" type dyno with 2 HP and one of the more basic, lower power machines on the market (I think about $15,000 USD today). CTW was born out of a company called Roehrig who pioneered workshop damper testing in the early 90's - many of the older racecar and motorcycle tuners still use Roehrig Dynos today, along with mtb companies like Push and Vorsprung. They are the most experienced and knowledgeable when it comes to building damper dynos but there are other brands out there, Laba 7 is a recent one pushing hard, mechatronics labs is smaller but seem to make very nice machines. There are 2 main types-
Rotary Dynos like mine use a motor to drive either a crankshaft or a scotch yoke. Crankshafts are not very common anymore because like a piston in a car, the damper is accelerating faster at the bottom half of the stroke compared to the top. A scotch yoke has constant acceleration which smoothly turns the rotation into linear motion in a sinusoidal wave. The limits of these are they can only input up to about 7Hz with a fixed stroke, whereas trail inputs could be up to 20-30Hz. Trail inputs are often much more sudden and faster accelerating than that though, so it can't measure more extreme events. It's also tough to create high speeds and forces with these, so while my 2HP machine goes just over 1m/s no problem, a 20HP "only" reaches 3m/s in most cases. It depends on the stroke and force involved, an mtb damper with very light damping can get over 2m/s with much lower power but most machines are built with cars or motorbikes in mind. But since 90% of impacts are under 1/ms and the more noticeable damping is more like 0.25m/s, most tuners use a dyno around 3-5 HP for normal tuning and revalving work.
The other types of dyno are linear actuators which have an electromagnetic or hydraulic actuator - these are way more powerful (and 100's of thousands of dollars) but can not only go 5-10 m/s but have square or triangle wave inputs which are basically instant acceleration and direction changes if needed. They can create inputs up to 100Hz, drive the damper at different compression and rebound speeds and have infinitely variable stroke which means they can also replay track data collected on the bike. These are crucial for developing dampers as they truly test the limits of the valving for things like cavitation so manufacturers like Push, Vorsprung, Fox etc use them but they are extremely rare in a tuners workshop. fluid Focus use one for developing their pistons though.
A typical test is run at a fixed stroke on a rotary dyno (this can be changed though, my dyno does 0.5, 1 and 2") and looks like -
-Running a warm up to operating temperature (about 25-30 degrees)
-Then the dyno does a Rod force test which compresses the damper and stops to measure the internal force from the IFP and removes it from the test. This can be in the middle for an average force or taken at several points for a curve. How its done is important - if the adjusters are set very stiff and the the machine moves quickly, there can be residual pressure inside which throws out the reading so you need to tune you rod force test for allowing a "settle" time. By inputting the shaft diameter you can fairly accurately measure how much pressure is in the shock as well.
-Then you might do a seal drag test - just a very slow cycle that doesn't generate much damping but tells you how much friction is in the system which is useful in certain cases.
-Then the actual test begins - starting slowly (usually about 1in/s) the software is logging the whole time, but it will wait until the machine is settled at the speed and record a full "lap" then accelerate to the next speed. Again it will wait to reach the correct speed and take each recording, something like 1, 3, 5, 10 and 20 in/s.
-These are recorded as individiual constant velocity plots (CVP) (these are the plots which have a loop where the force is slightly different speeding up to slowing down), but the peak speed from each is turned in to a peak velocity plot (PVP) which are the nice straight line versions which normally get posted as they are a little clearer to read the basic function.
Those results can then be used to compare to calculated "target" damping rates, looks for problems or inconsistencies, or test for the effectiveness of damper adjusters.
And each person will have their own protocols - not many companies publish their own tests and each damper behave differently. If you have a perfectly linear damper you could do 2 speeds and draw a line between them - it would represent the damper fine, but there is normally some kind of change in rate a long the way so you will pick the speeds which work for you case. If time is important you will do as few speeds as possible, but if you need more detail across a range of speeds then you will do much more. 2 PVP plots of the same damper could look wildly different if you pick different speeds to test at. You do have to be careful comparing tests from different people, let alone other brands of machine - its tough to put all the context in to one post (which is why I'm careful about what I post) so different calibrations and test protocols can create different results. Tiny things like how the rod force test is performed can make the damper look wildly different and not everyone understands those effects.
As far as what it provides - the key thing is it gives very consistent and known results with controlled variables, even if it is a little different to how it responds on the trail. Basically you can measure 2 dampers - one that the rider likes and one they don't and look at how each is different. Do that a few thousand times and you can build up a model of what works well and what doesn't, then use that to predict what might work in the future. Just using trail data only goes so far because you can't always account for different conditions, rider ability, fatigue etc between each run. Its actually quite an indirect measurement because the input (ie ground) has to go through the tyre, wheel and flexing the frame and overcoming friction before it reaches the damper. How much of the impact went in to the suspension and how much went in to the parts or in to the rider - if you don't know that, you can't conclusively know what needs to change. Or once you attempted to make a change in the damper if it actually did anything. Trail data is super important but not the only tools to use. If I had to pick one or the other I would have a damper dyno. At the end ofd the day, what the riders feel is the most important - if I measure something that I think should work and they don't like it, I adjust model based on that feedback and try again.
For more info, I highly recommend CTW's youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/@ctwautomation330/videos
Oh and the data card at the back of the machine -
Typical peak speeds are about 6-8m/s on downhill bike forks, and shocks will be up to around 2.5-3m/s. Most dampers "should" be fairly linear up to those max speeds - some aren't by design, but its rare for the ports to "choke" and start generating excessively high rates at those speeds (despite what some people think). It's more likely that high acceleration causes issues (so very high frequency but relatively low speed) which is why the linear actuator dynos exist.
This is all great info, and thanks to everyone who answered my question. We're really spoiled here in the Vital forums.
Another analogy - trail data or rider feedback is like going to the doctor - they will ask you questions, measure heart rate and blood pressure - thats like data acquisition and finding the symptoms, but getting more answers needs something like blood tests or an x-ray. They might not tell you the actual cause but they give much more information about whats going on
"You will always have pressure buildup before the preloaded shims open up, and on top of that, in my opinion, digressive rebound tunes are just downright scary on jumps. (Would apply for the R85 rebound tune on the D1.)"
The R85 is the most progressive rebound tune you will see in a mainstream damper. Yes it is preloaded with a ring shim but that doesn't automatically mean its digressive. Most of the preloaded rebound stack Rockshox have made are so stiff they don't open, as you mentioned - which makes them progressive.
They have always used dished pistons or ring shims in the shock base valve- it's not inherently bad and its normally the safest way to quickly build pressure in the damper. Whether or not it "suddenly" releases can be controlled by the rest of the valve geometry.
Not going to lie, you had me at googly eyes.
I need to get some bigger ones and maybe 3d print a mouth that goes on the bearing to make it look like its screaming
I do honestly do work, I pormise
Post a reply to: Suspension Component Technology/Functionality Discussion