Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
501 - 520 of 559 Posts
BTW, that German graph in incorrect. Small changes in pivot placement when trying to scan a frame's kinematics, as opposed to have the actual 3D models, can result in incorrect results. I would always caution trusting 3rd party information on the subject of kinematics. View attachment 2025422
Thank you for this!!! Using this chart I am changing from position 3 to position 2. I think I will be much happier with the shock now. Currently it doesn't match the fork enough when going through the travel. But position 3 should get it perfect for me. :D
 
Sounds like some are having pivot bolts backing out? Should i blue thread lock all my pivot bolts? Anything else to check out. Hoping its in this week but i got a c50 in green coming. Have some i27 asymmetrical nexties laced to dt 240s from my last bike for it and ill run the rekons on those.

Going to prob get some minions for the stock wheels for some gnarlier trails.

last bike had a 70deg hta. This should be interesting
Yes, if you haven't already. I had the exact bolt shown in post #492 come loose during a ride a couple weeks ago. $8 bolt + $15 freight from rocky. 🙄, no Loctite on the threads on the bolts either side of the frame. I also had a nasty creek coming from the Ride 4 system that cleaning and re-greasing solved. Other than that, it's been an amazing bike.
 
BTW, that German graph in incorrect. Small changes in pivot placement when trying to scan a frame's kinematics, as opposed to have the actual 3D models, can result in incorrect results. I would always caution trusting 3rd party information on the subject of kinematics. View attachment 2025422
Hi, any additional experiences regarding ride-4 settings.. I am looking for more XC oriented setup and climbing is as important as descending. For this I assume that Position 4 would be the best.. but what is not clear to me is what lowest Progression with 24.9% brings?

Progression, if my theory is correct, can be impacted with tokens. If suspension has low progression means that if bottoming out becomes a problem -I should add bigger tokens in rear shock and in that way suspension becomes more progressive? Currently I don't have any problems with bottoming out and I have tried small, medium and big tokens.. no problem with bottoming out. Bigger tokens allow for lower air pressure for the same sag and combined with faster rebound should give good results. But, lower pressures to me also gives a feeling of more muted rear end.. so now playing with the other way -smaller tokens and higher air pressure. Any conclusions from other owners? Thanks for comments!
 
Hi, any additional experiences regarding ride-4 settings.. I am looking for more XC oriented setup and climbing is as important as descending. For this I assume that Position 4 would be the best.. but what is not clear to me is what lowest Progression with 24.9% brings?

Progression, if my theory is correct, can be impacted with tokens. If suspension has low progression means that if bottoming out becomes a problem -I should add bigger tokens in rear shock and in that way suspension becomes more progressive? Currently I don't have any problems with bottoming out and I have tried small, medium and big tokens.. no problem with bottoming out. Bigger tokens allow for lower air pressure for the same sag and combined with faster rebound should give good results. But, lower pressures to me also gives a feeling of more muted rear end.. so now playing with the other way -smaller tokens and higher air pressure. Any conclusions from other owners? Thanks for comments!
I have been riding in position 4 for a few months now and I don't feel like the rear end needs to be more progressive. Granted the type of rides I do are more marathon/XC than trail - so a lot of climbing 30-50km rides on average with not-so-steep downhills. I also have a 120mm Fox 34 SC fork on the front and a zero stack headset cup with no spacer above the fork - so it should be a bit steeper than some 130mm with 10mm spacer setups. I rarely bottom the rear out, so I think from a progression point of view this setting is perfect. I weigh 74kgs. The other Ride-4 settings seemed unnecessary but I do plan to experiment a bit more with them - even though I don't think I need them and I am very comfortable on the rides I do here in South Africa.
 
I have been riding in position 4 for a few months now and I don't feel like the rear end needs to be more progressive. Granted the type of rides I do are more marathon/XC than trail - so a lot of climbing 30-50km rides on average with not-so-steep downhills. I also have a 120mm Fox 34 SC fork on the front and a zero stack headset cup with no spacer above the fork - so it should be a bit steeper than some 130mm with 10mm spacer setups. I rarely bottom the rear out, so I think from a progression point of view this setting is perfect. I weigh 74kgs. The other Ride-4 settings seemed unnecessary but I do plan to experiment a bit more with them - even though I don't think I need them and I am very comfortable on the rides I do here in South Africa.
Thanks for your inputs.. interesting.. I am also looking more toward XC marathon focused setup..
Part that totally confuses me is "...and a zero stack headset cup with no spacer above the fork...".. I was following this discussion about zero stack headset with spacer and if I concluded correctly, I have 10mm spacer below head tube (I can clearly see some black ring above the fork. Does this mean that I have HTA less than 65.8 as it should be in position 4?

I assume the answer is yes.. then started to thinking about aftermarket angled headset to give me steeper HTA +1deg, something like this:1.0 Degree ZS44-EC56 Angle Headset - To Suit Tapered Steerer Tube

Any ideas how it would affect other geo number besides HTA? Thanks
 
Does this mean that I have HTA less than 65.8 as it should be in position 4?
Correct, I believe it's about 0.5* slacker. it's essentially like having an Axle to crown measurement of a 140mm fork (assuming you have a 130mm installed).

Any ideas how it would affect other geo number besides HTA? Thanks
Head angle steepens (obviously)
Reach decreases
BB drop decreases
stack increases
STA slackens
Wheelbase shortens
trail decreases.

Play around with this calculator. I'm running a 120mm fork without the 10mm spacer cup like mikeg and I find it pretty lively. Definitely not as plow like as it was stock (130mm+10mm spacer).
 
Correct, I believe it's about 0.5* slacker. it's essentially like having an Axle to crown measurement of a 140mm fork (assuming you have a 130mm installed).



Head angle steepens (obviously)
Reach decreases
BB drop decreases
stack increases
STA slackens
Wheelbase shortens
trail decreases.

Play around with this calculator. I'm running a 120mm fork without the 10mm spacer cup like mikeg and I find it pretty lively. Definitely not as plow like as it was stock (130mm+10mm spacer).
Thanks!!
 
Correct, I believe it's about 0.5* slacker. it's essentially like having an Axle to crown measurement of a 140mm fork (assuming you have a 130mm installed).



Head angle steepens (obviously)
Reach decreases
BB drop decreases
stack increases
STA slackens
Wheelbase shortens
trail decreases.

Play around with this calculator. I'm running a 120mm fork without the 10mm spacer cup like mikeg and I find it pretty lively. Definitely not as plow like as it was stock (130mm+10mm spacer).
Doesn't the reach increase as the head angle steepens? In my head, it seems like the bars move away from you as the front wheel is coming toward you.
 
Doesn't the reach increase as the head angle steepens? In my head, it seems like the bars move away from you as the front wheel is coming toward you.
If you increase travel, yes:

The figures below demonstrates this effect, with the grey silhouette representing the original geometry and the red silhouette showing the revised geometry with a longer fork installed.
Image



The figure below demonstrates this effect, with the grey silhouette representing the original geometry and the red silhouette showing the revised geometry with a -2° angle adjusting headset installed.
Image


Note that reach is a frame measurement. The perceived “reach” of your arms to the handlebars may feel reduced with a slackening angle adjusting headset installed, as the steerer tube is moved slightly rearward.
The opposite effects would be encountered if installing an angle adjusting headset to steepen the head angle.
 
Okay then maybe the better question is if anyone has the four different leverage curves graphed somewhere. What's odd to me is I went from position four to three and I noticed the rear end felt less forgiving. It's not a drastic change in leverage rate but if I'm understanding correctly it could be a ~10mm difference in rear travel. Just trying to explain what I felt.
I also feel that position 4 is more plush than position 3.
 
BTW, that German graph in incorrect. Small changes in pivot placement when trying to scan a frame's kinematics, as opposed to have the actual 3D models, can result in incorrect results. I would always caution trusting 3rd party information on the subject of kinematics. View attachment 2025422
How is the anti-squat affected by the Ride-4 setting? I chatted with a RM representative about changes to make the bike "racier" (I run it in position 2 for anything outside of racing with slightly more aggressive rubber). He suggested position 4 and 20-25% sag but I'm a little thrown off by the amount of travel in position 4.
 
Hi, any additional experiences regarding ride-4 settings.. I am looking for more XC oriented setup and climbing is as important as descending. For this I assume that Position 4 would be the best.. but what is not clear to me is what lowest Progression with 24.9% brings? Progression, if my theory is correct, can be impacted with tokens. If suspension has low progression means that if bottoming out becomes a problem -I should add bigger tokens in rear shock and in that way suspension becomes more progressive? Currently I don't have any problems with bottoming out and I have tried small, medium and big tokens.. no problem with bottoming out. Bigger tokens allow for lower air pressure for the same sag and combined with faster rebound should give good results. But, lower pressures to me also gives a feeling of more muted rear end.. so now playing with the other way -smaller tokens and higher air pressure. Any conclusions from other owners? Thanks for comments!
Just to share additional insights after playing with higher pressure in rear shock. My rear shock (DPS performance) on C50 Large came with 0.4 Fox token installed, although in specification there should be 0.2 token installed for that model and size. So I tried with smaller 0.2 token and I increased pressure for 10-15psi than recommended.. and rear end behaves much better (for me) compared with stock 0.4 and even 0.6 and 0.8 tokens which I tried before with lower pressures. Also increased rebound for 1 click than recommended. I didn't manage to bottom out the shock. Rear end is more linear and has plusher feeling than before. Riding in position 4 of ride-4.

Now I will increase also front pressure as front end now feeling slower and more dead than rear end. I am not suggesting that this setup will work for everybody as I am more oriented on XC marathon and regular trails and not for bigger jumps and gnarly enduro tracks which I was riding before (coming from 170/170mm enduro bike).. I think that bottoming-out is very good indicator in which way to go further..

Just my two cents..
 
How is the anti-squat affected by the Ride-4 setting? I chatted with a RM representative about changes to make the bike "racier" (I run it in position 2 for anything outside of racing with slightly more aggressive rubber). He suggested position 4 and 20-25% sag but I'm a little thrown off by the amount of travel in position 4.
Better late than never. A-S barely changes in each position

Image
 
Does anyone happen to know the frame weight of a large alloy Element? I've been shuffling between this, the Commencal TEMPO, and the Trek Top Fuel as my second bike. I have a Stumpy Evo so looking for something a little more sprightly and lively that is still fun on the down. Anyone ridden both the carbon and allow version and noticed any differences?
 
Does anyone happen to know the frame weight of a large alloy Element? I've been shuffling between this, the Commencal TEMPO, and the Trek Top Fuel as my second bike. I have a Stumpy Evo so looking for something a little more sprightly and lively that is still fun on the down. Anyone ridden both the carbon and allow version and noticed any differences?
Literally came here to ask the same thing!
 
BTW, that German graph in incorrect. Small changes in pivot placement when trying to scan a frame's kinematics, as opposed to have the actual 3D models, can result in incorrect results. I would always caution trusting 3rd party information on the subject of kinematics. View attachment 2025422
Assuming this chart is accurate, I'm considering running pos 4 when my 140mm pike arrives. Anyone else find a sweet spot with 140 up front, focused on DH capability.
 
501 - 520 of 559 Posts