2020 MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation

Create New Tag

3/24/2020 10:04 AM

Avalanche has used hydraulic bottom out on their cartridges for ages. I actually had to take it out of my girlfriend's Boxxer, as she could not use the travel with the softest coil.

|

3/24/2020 10:07 AM

Push does have the hydraulic damper, but only on their latest 2020 shock release. I think their coil fork mod has one too or at least something similar...

|

3/24/2020 10:09 AM

They use an additional air spring inside the coil that only comes into effect after 65 % of travel. And they suggest running 5 to 50 psi of pressure to minimize the ramp up. if needed.

|

3/24/2020 10:14 AM

Sonofbovril2 wrote:

Push does have the hydraulic damper, but only on their latest 2020 shock release. I think their coil fork mod has one too or at least something similar...

The ACS-3 has an air bumper, no hydraulics. This is one of the main differences to the Smashpot. I had the ACS-3, and it was good, but I barely used the bottom out bumper (next to no pressure in it). I see the point in getting more pop out of a progressive setup, as a non progressive setup with hydraulic bump stop will not bounce back with the same force from a deep dive into the travel. Using hydraulic bump stop, it will need faster HSR to get the same pop.

|

3/24/2020 1:44 PM

From Ben Arnotts Instagram, he’s YT Mob mechanic and an engineer at Chromag. New Chromag?

.

|

3/24/2020 1:50 PM

Some stars have been checking out our forum thread and are getting in on the act.

|

3/24/2020 2:07 PM



The new YT *cough cough* trek CAPRA
looks like it finally has a water bottle mount, which is made possible by that vertical shock!
|

3/24/2020 2:10 PM

Or a Jeffsy? The fork doesn't look that long like it should be on a Capra...

|

3/24/2020 2:37 PM

it is probably a new trail bike - not a new Capra (in spite of YT trying to make us go that way). As the both the Jeffsy and Capra have grown more potent with increased travel and slacker angles, something that slots into the segment the original Jeffsy occupied makes a ton of sense. They would probably also sell a gazillion of them

A new Capra is probably in the works as well, though for later is my guess. The current iteration isn't that old - though the geo could be optimized a bir further for full on EWS domination - if that is something they are keen to pursue.

|

3/24/2020 2:43 PM

Who knows! Not that I really care, YT has lost me as a customer when they took 11 months to replace my frame only for it to then get lost in the post. Even if they had the best bikes in the world they are still light years away from the competition when it comes to customer care IMHO!!

|

3/24/2020 3:39 PM

Definitely not a YT. Tubing points more toward Chromag for sure and I feel like I saw something about a FS frame from them somewhere.

|

3/24/2020 6:45 PM

&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1VwZPgcsAceoNiDeaPXfy6z-yGStLRz5zWJV87Nthf4HvG1FycZDD93s0
|

3/24/2020 7:29 PM

Their both running plus tires. Relax.

|

3/24/2020 8:01 PM


|

3/24/2020 9:42 PM

Primoz wrote:

Just add spacers and you're half way there...

There's a lot of work being done on making air springs more linear. This would directly negate that. The thing is, you want full travel as often as possible. A "third spring" would just make it harsh at the end. What you want is a speed sensitive bottom out resistance module. A hydraulic bottom out stop. The faster you hit it, the more resistance it gives you.

TheSuspensionLabNZ wrote:

No, the third spring concept makes it even more linear than before. You effectively start with a low pressure, small volume air spring that is very sensitive but starts ramping up quickly (a typical air spring starts of firm but tapers off/reduces rate around 1/3rd stroke). Once that first chamber reaches the pressure of the second chamber, you start compressing both so its magically turned in to a large volume fork and you can reach the end of the stroke

You also don't need to reach full travel as often as possible, there is no good reason to do that. The best result is whatever travel the fork needs to absorb and dissipate the bump. If you are using full travel for the sake of it you won't actually be absorbing the bump properly and its more harsh than it needs to be.

Primoz wrote:

What you're describing is DRCV. It's been done and has already been forgotten as well.

As for the third spring, Big Bird mentioned bottom out control. So the third spring is exactly what he was talking about and speaking about what he was talking about, it would make it harsh at the end of the stroke. I was specifically NOT talking about the DRCV or opening up the positive spring with an additional volume.

As fro full stroke, listen to Cannfields podcast if you don't believe me. He said that you should bottom out (clunk it!) the suspension every ride, a few times maybe even. It kinda makes sense, why ride around with unused travel that you only use 'for extreme cases when you need it', a few times a year, when you can just handle those extreme cases or slow down a bit.

And why would using full travel be harsh? NOT using full travel is harsh because you get a lot more chatter as feedback. Force and equal but positive reaction and all. Riding over a bump and using more travel will dissipate the same energy over a longer stroke, which means lower force values. Less harsh. But maybe you're talking about the harshness coming from the fork being stuck in it's travel? That's not necessarily a spring's fault, but something damping should take care of. A harsh ride (fork being stuck down) is, for example, often caused by a rebound that's too slow.

Yup DRCV is the same concept, except it isn't adjustable. The adjustable second chamber means you can make it as progressive or linear as you like. Same as what DSD, SD components are doing as add ons, Manitou and Ohlins are doing, X-Fusion has used it and Marzocchi introduced it as PAR about 15 years ago.The KYB fork shown up there is the same and came out in the 70's! It's a good concept and can work well but personally I don't like having any more than 1 air valve on a fork or shock.

How have you tested that not using full travel is harsh? What kind of data are you using?

Yes, using more travel on a bump (but not necassarily to the end) will sometimes feel smoother but only up to a certain point. I have found that even if your o-ring is at the end of the stanchion, it was actually a rare event and probably didn't happen in the place you wanted it to. Full travel usually comes from g-outs, not bumps as they are high in load but quite slow speed and don't generate much damping. If you adjust your suspension just to reach the end then it might be too soft, so you have less available travel to soak up the bump. I have several examples of data I recorded where I made the fork or shock firmer to to the point where they weren't getting any bottom outs but the typical compression lengths got LONGER, and the overall feel much better. In saying that I don't specifically aim to NEVER bottom out, it's just not a target shouldn't ever be harsh if you do.


I went and listened to the Canfield podcast and............well lets just say I use slightly different methods to him, that involve a bit more quantifiable testing.

If you want a good podcast on suspension, listen to Beyond the Tape with Steve from Vorsprung or the Vital Inside Line with Darren from Push Industries. Also watch Steve's tuesday tune videos. Those guys have both tested more mtb suspension than probably everyone else in the planet combined so you will learn a lot from them.

|

3/25/2020 12:59 AM

TyranT21 wrote:

From Ben Arnotts Instagram, he’s YT Mob mechanic and an engineer at Chromag. New Chromag?

.

So the circle is complete now.
Few weeks ago there was a story on Chromag's IG showing us a great looking 3D printed BB/shock junction. I drooled on my keyboard. Now that. Guess my bank account isn't safe anymore.

|

3/25/2020 1:05 PM

vweb wrote:

So the circle is complete now.
Few weeks ago there was a story on Chromag's IG showing us a great looking 3D printed BB/shock junction. I drooled on my keyboard. Now that. Guess my bank account isn't safe anymore.

Same, i'll wait on specs but if its a 150+ 29 steel enduro bike i'm in. I've been waiting for something to drop that i didnt have to import from the UK or europe that was 4900 a frame once it got to canada.

|

3/25/2020 3:25 PM

mitch160 wrote: https://www.pinkbike.com/photo/18408330/
Another photo of the fork

The Zeb,had finally arrived.

|

"The trail building is a dirty job, but someone has to do it"

3/25/2020 5:36 PM



So I am 100% sure the new 38s are on their way but have a look at that 36 on the right! Is that a camouflaged 38 with 36 decals on it or a a new lower leg assembly for the 36? Difficult to tell wether the stanchions are bigger by just looking at the pics!
|

3/25/2020 6:10 PM

Philip_Rossetti wrote:

So I am 100% sure the new 38s are on their way but have a look at that 36 on the right! Is that a camouflaged 38 with 36 decals on it or a a new lower leg assembly for the 36? Difficult to tell wether the stanchions are bigger by just looking at the pics!

The one on the right looks like a camouflaged 38 as the crown is the exact same as the non kashima 38.

|

3/26/2020 7:50 AM

mitch160 wrote:

The one on the right looks like a camouflaged 38 as the crown is the exact same as the non kashima 38.

Check the arches too: the two on the right are the new style, the one on the left is the current style

|

3/27/2020 5:19 AM

Fox have a lot of new product coming.

|

3/27/2020 9:14 AM

randomly found this extended fork something-or-other in my files from pit bits september 2016. i don't remember anything about it and didn't find it on the site.


|

3/27/2020 9:55 AM

Someone posted a comment about Undomestics new bike and the picture on their website having a great view of the new Fox arch.
https://www.undomestic.com/

|

3/27/2020 9:58 AM

rugbyred wrote:

Someone posted a comment about Undomestics new bike and the picture on their website having a great view of the new Fox arch.
https://www.undomestic.com/

And the new 36 chassis.

|

3/27/2020 1:55 PM

@TheSuspensionLabNZ I actually did listen to Darren's podcast and now that you mention it, he did say that people complaining of harsh suspension have reported positive results by increasing the pressure, pulling them out from the deeper end of the travel into a softer part of the spring.

Anywho, Pinkbike has a patent article where it's possible to see Ohlin's patent for air spring volume variation based on a bladder and air pressure around it. The story here is that it's done via a change of damping oil volume (through a worm screw and piston mechanism). I haven't gone into the depths of it in detail yet to fully understand it, but what I saw at first (with just a quick look at the pictures) is that you could do a triple chamber arrangement of the air spring in a shock similar to what Runt does by using a bladder in a dual walled aircan (similar to what we used to have with Monarch's DebonAir, what the Float X2 uses, what Fox used to do with the XV aircan, etc.

|

3/27/2020 2:30 PM

Primoz wrote:

@TheSuspensionLabNZ I actually did listen to Darren's podcast and now that you mention it, he did say that people complaining of harsh suspension have reported positive results by increasing the pressure, pulling them out from the deeper end of the travel into a softer part of the spring.

Anywho, Pinkbike has a patent article where it's possible to see Ohlin's patent for air spring volume variation based on a bladder and air pressure around it. The story here is that it's done via a change of damping oil volume (through a worm screw and piston mechanism). I haven't gone into the depths of it in detail yet to fully understand it, but what I saw at first (with just a quick look at the pictures) is that you could do a triple chamber arrangement of the air spring in a shock similar to what Runt does by using a bladder in a dual walled aircan (similar to what we used to have with Monarch's DebonAir, what the Float X2 uses, what Fox used to do with the XV aircan, etc.

Doesn’t DVO do a similar thing with their Topaz, with a bladder in the piggyback that is countered by an adjustable Amount pressure around it, thereby changing the progression curve to allow the shock to work with both linear or progressive frame kinematics?

|

3/27/2020 2:47 PM

|

Like bikes? Hit Vital up on Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube.

3/27/2020 3:13 PM

Primoz wrote:

@TheSuspensionLabNZ I actually did listen to Darren's podcast and now that you mention it, he did say that people complaining of harsh suspension have reported positive results by increasing the pressure, pulling them out from the deeper end of the travel into a softer part of the spring.

Anywho, Pinkbike has a patent article where it's possible to see Ohlin's patent for air spring volume variation based on a bladder and air pressure around it. The story here is that it's done via a change of damping oil volume (through a worm screw and piston mechanism). I haven't gone into the depths of it in detail yet to fully understand it, but what I saw at first (with just a quick look at the pictures) is that you could do a triple chamber arrangement of the air spring in a shock similar to what Runt does by using a bladder in a dual walled aircan (similar to what we used to have with Monarch's DebonAir, what the Float X2 uses, what Fox used to do with the XV aircan, etc.

Sonofbovril2 wrote:

Doesn’t DVO do a similar thing with their Topaz, with a bladder in the piggyback that is countered by an adjustable Amount pressure around it, thereby changing the progression curve to allow the shock to work with both linear or progressive frame kinematics?

Possibly, but I'd hazzard a guess that the effect won't be very noticeable.

The air pressure in the piggyback will squeeze the oil less or more (depending on the pressure) and it will oppose any additional oil from getting into the piggyback. The oil will be getting into it through stroke events since more of the damper shaft will enter the damping system - that's why you need an IFP (or bladder) in your shock, that's why RS uses a bladder and Fox used to use a bladder (still does on the FiT4 IIRC) and a spring loaded IFP on the newer forks - you need to have an allowance for the change of volume in the system and oil having to go somewhere. Forks used to run on emulsion (Motion control) and air compressing in the emulsion would take care of that.

Now, to finish my long-winded point, the effective leverage ratio (the amount of oil going into the piggyback) and the resultant change in pressure and the resultant 'spring force from the damper' is very small compared to the actual force of the spring itself. You can usually squeeze the air shock with no aircan together by hand if you put some effort into it - you're squeezing the air chamber in the piggyback (or behind the IFP in the lower part of the shock). That's the amount of force it produces.

One sidenote here is the Intend Hover shock. The positive air chamber in fact IS the 'behind-the-IFP-or-in-the-piggyback' chamber with a classical negative chamber and a damper in between. But his shock is designed in such a way that it drives a lot more oil in the damper to effectively have a lower leverage ratio and thus have a big enough effect to act as a useable spring.

|

3/27/2020 4:23 PM

Bikecheck of Greg Williamson's Commencal coming on Pinkbike with all the Details of the new 40 and X2


|