2008 Stumpy or 2006 Stumpy?

captncolorado said:

Sure, I'll elaborate.... The new design is exactly the same as the 04-07 that you say "suck". The only difference is the use what Specialized calls a horse shoe, to go around the seat post instead of through it. Otherwise the linkage is identical. Compare pics side by side and you will see..

Click to expand...

The linkage is not identical at all. Comparing the frames side by side doesn't give you a good idea of what's at work. For one, the new SJs are 140mm travel which throws a wrench into the whole argument. The overall leverage ratio is close, but there's no way to compare the wheel path or leverage curve.

I say this as my friend works for Specialized and tole me that that is the reason they stopped the vertical orientation on the shorter travel stumpjumper. The epic, and Pitch have a longer shock travel, not requiring the efficiency or small bump sensitivity that a more xc or trail oriented bike needs.. the later two bikes having more of a big bump factor in mind with how they are designed and anticipated to be ridden.

Click to expand...

I don't understand your logic here. The Pitch has 150mm of travel and the Epic has 100mm. One uses a 7.875 x 2.25 shock (longer than the SJ) and the other uses a 7.36 x 1.85 shock (shorter than the SJ). The Epic absolutely needs to be efficient - it's a World Cup race bike. Maybe it doesn't need the best small bump compliance (you give that up in favor of efficiency) but the Stumpjumper and the Pitch certainly do - they are trail/AM bikes aimed at trail riding in general.

And, on those earlier years, you CAN put on a larger shock, check the older threads on this. You CAN do a 7.87x2.0... thus increasing travel by an effective 17mm. AND you can extend the 120 Float to 140. It even shows how in the owners manual from FOX.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but it will jack up the geometry and combined with a longer fork raise the BB height. If you want a bike with 140mm F&R and a 70* head angle, it works. Personally, it's a bit steep for my tastes. YMMV.

In short (and this argument has taken place on these forums before) the vertical/horizontal shock position doesn't make much difference. If it did, you can bet everyone would position it the same way. More frequently, the shock position is dictated by frame design, and desired ride characteristics which are dependent on the type of suspension design. The same geometry numbers can be achieved with the shock in either position.

If the newer bike is in better condition, it's a great opportunity to upgrade to newer, less worn components. I imagine it's probably lighter too.

First off, let me note that it's not the end of the world. It's not my favorite design, but I'm not saying they're **** bikes either.

The interrupted seat tube gave me issues at times in terms of extension and dropping the post down low enough to tackle steep stuff. On top of that I always had some sort of cable rub as a result of the way you have to route the rear brake cable.

It was also difficult to check sag, as a result of not having easy access to the shock shaft. I swapped out the stock Triad for an RP23 shortly after I cracked the rocker link right at the weld (not pleased when that happened). The welded link design was a weak point and on hard bottom outs, forces are directly along an axis along the length of the shock and right into the weld. The Triad was a cool idea, but with the 04s and 05s you had to pick small bump compliance or bottom out resistance (maybe they've improved since then). You really couldn't have both. The RP23 did transform the ride though, and was a great improvement.

The 08 design seems like a much more hassle free layout. Full length seat tube and easy to get at the shock shaft (both to check sag as well as clean it). Trek uses the same shock position on their bikes as well and it works quite nicely.

That stuff doesn't matter to everyone, but it gave me trouble.