Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
784 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just got the Sin from Eric at a good deal. It came with the relaxed geometry shock cleat and the Progressive 5th Element 7.875 x 2.25. I was just wondering if the shock cleat decreased the travel of the bike? If it did how much travel did I lose by having this as compared to the normal - steeper cleat? Also, how much slacker did it do the HA as compared to the normal one?

Kindly post your reply Twisted.

Thanks in advance.

Nick
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,485 Posts
nickgto said:
Just got the Sin from Eric at a good deal. It came with the relaxed geometry shock cleat and the Progressive 5th Element 7.875 x 2.25. I was just wondering if the shock cleat decreased the travel of the bike? If it did how much travel did I lose by having this as compared to the normal - steeper cleat? Also, how much slacker did it do the HA as compared to the normal one?

Kindly post your reply Twisted.

Thanks in advance.

Nick
The relaxed cleat makes the bike ride much better. Us guys who rode the bikes hard and tested them when they came out found the head angle too steep for aggressive riding and also the BB too tall. We began using shorter 7.5" x 2" shocks to get back better geometry. The new shock cleat changes the leverage ratio by moving the shock mount upward. You end up with slighter less travel per shock stroke, but much better geometry.

Ideally the frames would have been re-worked before the next batch went into production, but the head office type guys had other plans. :madman: :nono: :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
784 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Thank you Tim. I sent you a PM with further questions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Guys,

So when did the new shock cleat first appear? Did it come standard with all late model run frames, or only available as the spare part listed on the MC website?

Could you tell me, Tim, what fork (A2C length) the frame was designed around? I have seen in a previous post that you advised nothing shorter than 170mm travel, but also another advising against big DH forks. That leaves Marz 66's as the only common option right? Geometry-wise, the bikes sound short but high, with a steep head angle. What setup options negate some of these traits?

I was hoping to get a Sin frame and fit some long travel forks, drop the BB slightly to slacken the head angle a bit, in order to get a small, light, but nimble bike for riding steep & technical descents - no big jumps/drops, and still be able to pedal. Why the Sin? Because although it wasn't the most successful MC bike, it still has the design hallmarks and exclusivity of an iconic, pioneering MTB brand.

Regards

Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,485 Posts
Middo said:
Guys,

So when did the new shock cleat first appear? Did it come standard with all late model run frames, or only available as the spare part listed on the MC website?

Could you tell me, Tim, what fork (A2C length) the frame was designed around? I have seen in a previous post that you advised nothing shorter than 170mm travel, but also another advising against big DH forks. That leaves Marz 66's as the only common option right? Geometry-wise, the bikes sound short but high, with a steep head angle. What setup options negate some of these traits?

I was hoping to get a Sin frame and fit some long travel forks, drop the BB slightly to slacken the head angle a bit, in order to get a small, light, but nimble bike for riding steep & technical descents - no big jumps/drops, and still be able to pedal. Why the Sin? Because although it wasn't the most successful MC bike, it still has the design hallmarks and exclusivity of an iconic, pioneering MTB brand.

Regards

Scott
The Sin was released in 2004. The 2005 and later models came with the updated shock cleat.

I suggest a long travel singlecrown fork because the Sin should have had a slacker head angle. Some steep DH sections with corners, etc that were easy on my 9.5 had me going over the bars on my Sin. Some reverse arch Manitou forks will hit the fork stop mount when they bottom out so be selective in your fork choice.

I say to not run dual crown DH forks because the Sin should have either been made from thicker skins or there should have been a gusset added because dozens of these frames have had the front end break off. A singlecrown puts less stress on the headtube area.

Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Thanks for that. I now have more of an understanding of where some of the problem areas are. I suspected that the either the headtube/frame or the subframe/mainframe joins might not have held up to heavy abuse, and that using heavy duty components would only exacerbate this. Much the same with modern motorcycles - run into something with conventional forks and you bend the sliders, with USD forks you bend the frame.

So, a 180mm fork like a 66, with the new cleat, will give the most relaxed geometry for this frame, without compromising the suspension (ie shorter shock). I prefer marzocchi, so the reverse arch clearance problems with the manitou arch won't be an issue, and if I have to use a spacer under the headset (so the adjusters don't foul the frame) this will only help the head angle.

Keep in mind the sort of riding I envisage for this would be all mountain, but with a more relaxed setup with the emphasis on the descending part, for a very tame rider ie no air or drops.

Regards

Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,485 Posts
Middo said:
Thanks for that. I now have more of an understanding of where some of the problem areas are. I suspected that the either the headtube/frame or the subframe/mainframe joins might not have held up to heavy abuse, and that using heavy duty components would only exacerbate this. Much the same with modern motorcycles - run into something with conventional forks and you bend the sliders, with USD forks you bend the frame.

So, a 180mm fork like a 66, with the new cleat, will give the most relaxed geometry for this frame, without compromising the suspension (ie shorter shock). I prefer marzocchi, so the reverse arch clearance problems with the manitou arch won't be an issue, and if I have to use a spacer under the headset (so the adjusters don't foul the frame) this will only help the head angle.

Keep in mind the sort of riding I envisage for this would be all mountain, but with a more relaxed setup with the emphasis on the descending part, for a very tame rider ie no air or drops.

Regards

Scott
Sounds good.

Theres a guy on here with a white Sin and a 66rc who said he really didn't have clearance problems with the fork caps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
784 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
TWISTED said:
Sounds good.

Theres a guy on here with a white Sin and a 66rc who said he really didn't have clearance problems with the fork caps.
I'm not sure if I'm that guy since I have a white Sin but my fork is a 66 rc2x and my top caps dont hit the down tube / fork stop tab. It does however hit the stainless brake lines which are rather thick.

So Tim, how much travel did the shock cleat take away from the original 7.5 inches? Also how much slacker in terms of degrees did it affect the head angle?

My friend has a Giant Reign X1 medium with a DHX 3.0 with a 550 lbs spring. Since the owner shares the same weight and height as I do, I figured to compare the sag and feel of my bike to his cuz he told me that the Sin does not feel like 7.5 inches. BTW, mine also came with the same 550 lbs spring weight and both shocks have the same stroke and eye to eye lenght.

When both tried to set up the sag on both bikes, it seemed that the reign required more preload than the sin. It perplexed me because the leverage ratio of the Reign is 3:1 and the Sin should be around 3.3:1. When I applied 70 psi on the CVT, I even lessened the preload by a 1 turn to achieve the same 38% sag.

This test actually plus my friends comments about the plushness of the rear end made me suspect that the cleat somehow decreased the travel. I guestimate that the Sin has around 6 inches of travel with a leverage ratio of about 2.7:1.

Tim, kindly answer my questions as I'd really like to know the details.

Thanks in advance.

Nick
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,485 Posts
nickgto said:
I'm not sure if I'm that guy since I have a white Sin but my fork is a 66 rc2x and my top caps dont hit the down tube / fork stop tab. It does however hit the stainless brake lines which are rather thick.

So Tim, how much travel did the shock cleat take away from the original 7.5 inches? Also how much slacker in terms of degrees did it affect the head angle?

My friend has a Giant Reign X1 medium with a DHX 3.0 with a 550 lbs spring. Since the owner shares the same weight and height as I do, I figured to compare the sag and feel of my bike to his cuz he told me that the Sin does not feel like 7.5 inches. BTW, mine also came with the same 550 lbs spring weight and both shocks have the same stroke and eye to eye lenght.

When both tried to set up the sag on both bikes, it seemed that the reign required more preload than the sin. It perplexed me because the leverage ratio of the Reign is 3:1 and the Sin should be around 3.3:1. When I applied 70 psi on the CVT, I even lessened the preload by a 1 turn to achieve the same 38% sag.

This test actually plus my friends comments about the plushness of the rear end made me suspect that the cleat somehow decreased the travel. I guestimate that the Sin has around 6 inches of travel with a leverage ratio of about 2.7:1.

Tim, kindly answer my questions as I'd really like to know the details.

Thanks in advance.

Nick
Yes, that's you with the white Sin and new Marzocchi 66.

Your bike has around 170mm of rear travel. You could put the standard style shock cleat on there to get the 7.5" rear travel, but the bike would ride like crap.

I'm not a fan of the idea "more travel is better". On this bike it simply rides better like this.

hope this helps,

Tim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
784 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
TWISTED said:
Yes, that's you with the white Sin and new Marzocchi 66.

Your bike has around 170mm of rear travel. You could put the standard style shock cleat on there to get the 7.5" rear travel, but the bike would ride like crap.

I'm not a fan of the idea "more travel is better". On this bike it simply rides better like this.

hope this helps,

Tim
Many thanks Tim! The information helped alot as I don't have to guess if I do have the right spring weight. I used this http://www.tftunedshox.com/springcalc.htm to approximately compute the right spring for my 225lbs geared mass and it seems that the 550 spring is just right to provide me an approximate 30% sag.

So just to sum things up, the shock cleat decreases the leverage ratio from 3.3:1 to 3:1 . effectively reducing travel by .8 of an inch or 20mm. Which makes me wonder if I used my extra Manitou Swinger 6 way and put a 675 lbs spring at the same time utilize the standard 3.3:1 leverage ratio cleat, I would effectively have the same amount of travel of 167mm or 6.6 inches.

I wonder if the standard 3.3:1 cleat with the shorter 7.5 x 2.0 shock would provide the same head angle as the relaxed 3.0:1 cleat with 7.875 x 2.25 shock?

Another concern that I have is regarding whether the leverage ratio of the sin across it's travel is a rising / linear / or falling rate? This information would be of great value for shock tuning purposes; specifically the volume (ramp up) adjuster of the 5th element shock.

Thanks in advance again Tim. Your knowledge and experience is one of the reasons why there are Mountaincyle fans such as myself.

Nick
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,485 Posts
nickgto said:
Many thanks Tim! The information helped alot as I don't have to guess if I do have the right spring weight. I used this http://www.tftunedshox.com/springcalc.htm to approximately compute the right spring for my 225lbs geared mass and it seems that the 550 spring is just right to provide me an approximate 30% sag.

So just to sum things up, the shock cleat decreases the leverage ratio from 3.3:1 to 3:1 . effectively reducing travel by .8 of an inch or 20mm. Which makes me wonder if I used my extra Manitou Swinger 6 way and put a 675 lbs spring at the same time utilize the standard 3.3:1 leverage ratio cleat, I would effectively have the same amount of travel of 167mm or 6.6 inches.

I wonder if the standard 3.3:1 cleat with the shorter 7.5 x 2.0 shock would provide the same head angle as the relaxed 3.0:1 cleat with 7.875 x 2.25 shock?

Another concern that I have is regarding whether the leverage ratio of the sin across it's travel is a rising / linear / or falling rate? This information would be of great value for shock tuning purposes; specifically the volume (ramp up) adjuster of the 5th element shock.

Thanks in advance again Tim. Your knowledge and experience is one of the reasons why there are Mountaincyle fans such as myself.

Nick
Nick, I
t looks like you have it figured out. That site looks very informative and those guys are far more knowledgeable than me. Take note that not all shocks are listed on that site and shocks with more compression damping with use a lighter spring rate than a lesser damped shock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
784 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Thanks Tim. Almost there. Just figuring out the right settings for the 5th Element. I was just wondering if the Sin has a rising / linear / falling rate leverage ratio? My Shockwave has a rising rate design as it starts at 3.3:1 then ramps up to around 2.7:1 towards the end of the travel. Is it safe to assume that the Sin also has the same rising rate design?

I need to know more so I can tune the ramp up as well as the low and high speeds easier.

The site that I linked earlier also has a setup chart for different bikes / sizes / rider weight.
http://www.tftunedshox.com/progressive/pdfs/5th-SC-Quickstart-03.pdf

I was just wondering if there is a similar chart for Mountain Cyle or is the Sin identical to a Bullit since those are both Single Pivots with Similar travel and Pivot placement?

Kindly shed more information regarding this matter.

Thanks in advance.

Nick
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,485 Posts
nickgto said:
Thanks Tim. Almost there. Just figuring out the right settings for the 5th Element. I was just wondering if the Sin has a rising / linear / falling rate leverage ratio? My Shockwave has a rising rate design as it starts at 3.3:1 then ramps up to around 2.7:1 towards the end of the travel. Is it safe to assume that the Sin also has the same rising rate design?

I need to know more so I can tune the ramp up as well as the low and high speeds easier.

The site that I linked earlier also has a setup chart for different bikes / sizes / rider weight.
http://www.tftunedshox.com/progressive/pdfs/5th-SC-Quickstart-03.pdf

I was just wondering if there is a similar chart for Mountain Cyle or is the Sin identical to a Bullit since those are both Single Pivots with Similar travel and Pivot placement?

Kindly shed more information regarding this matter. Thanks in advance.

Nick

Nick, ...man, you just need to go ride your bike. There are no charts or sites, or books that will know what size drops, or how rough the trails you will be riding are.


The Shockwave has a linkage to give it a progressive rate, the Sin does not, so has a fairly linear rate.

Set up your Progressive shock for the type of ride and performance you want out of it (all info is on the shock body and manual). Or just run the minimum CVT pressure with the volume backed full out and the compression knobs all the way backed off. If you want to tune in better pedalling and anti-bob, add air pressure till you are happy. If you want more resistance to bottoming, then turn in the chamber volume. The two small compresion adjust knobs are for fine tuning, but don't do as much as the air pressure or chamber volume.

Now GO RIDE!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
784 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Thanks Tim! I'm gonna ride and tune it this weekend. I'm gonna keep tabs of my setting for each trail that I go to so I can have the specific settings for each and every trail.

I appreciate your help!

Nick
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top