Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Has anybody fitted a 7.785/ 2.25" shock to a Mojo?
This would give about 6.25" of rear travel...my idea would be to create a bike in the vein of an Intense SS / GT Sanction.
Strength would not be an issue as the Mojo seems very tough, and I am not big on getting a lot of air.

There seems to be enough clearance for the extra rear triangle movement, and also lots of tire clearance....

Combine a longer frame with a 160mm fork this geometry would be very much ballpark with the Intense 6.6/GT Sanction .

Reading DW's comments on the sag having little effect on the anti squat etc had me thinking about this.

Of course rotating the frame two degrees has some effects, as would using something like a fox DHX air, but I think those would be very secondary compared to spring rate changes and weight distribution etc.

This means I could get another Mojo frame (but an XL rather than a medium)


:thumbsup:
 

·
It's the axle
Joined
·
1,765 Posts
I don't think it's possible, unless I'm missing something. I did just get back from 21 miles and 2500 feet, so things are a tad blurry.

The shock attaches in front of the seat tube. Stock, it's got a half inch clearance. On the other end, the wheel hits the back of the seat tube.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
It is possible, the 2.25 travel shock is the same free length as the standard one, 3.875". So the extra travel is on the compression side. This is the area I checked for linkage and tire clearance...
Thats stuff you see on the DT shock thread shows a failure from too short a collpased length, and that length would be way WAY shorter than my Fox shock running 0.25 " more compression travel.

In this scheme I would run a fox DHX air, with adjustable bottom out, so it would be far less likely to actually bottom out. In my normal riding I typically only use 75-80 % of the travel in any case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
Elvis posts

robbieracer said:
It is possible, the 2.25 travel shock is the same free length as the standard one, 3.875". So the extra travel is on the compression side. This is the area I checked for linkage and tire clearance...
Thats stuff you see on the DT shock thread shows a failure from too short a collpased length, and that length would be way WAY shorter than my Fox shock running 0.25 " more compression travel.

In this scheme I would run a fox DHX air, with adjustable bottom out, so it would be far less likely to actually bottom out. In my normal riding I typically only use 75-80 % of the travel in any case.
I wasn't worried about the failure. Look at Elvis's posts. He mounted a 200 X 55 dt shock and said that he got scuff marks on the back of his seat tube from the tire. He then modded the internals to make it into a 200 X 50.

He may have been running a larger tire. If you are after more travel a larger tire is a good compromise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
It would be easy to fit an internal stopper to limit the shocks minimum length. This might reduce the rear wheel vertical travel my only a few mm.

Looking at the frame I suspect that a bigger problem would be the angularity of the shock, and the way this would put an undesigned bending force on the rear triangle, exactly when the forces on that part of the sytem are multipying ..
 

·
antipodean
Joined
·
32 Posts
robbieracer said:
It would be easy to fit an internal stopper to limit the shocks minimum length. This might reduce the rear wheel vertical travel my only a few mm.

Looking at the frame I suspect that a bigger problem would be the angularity of the shock, and the way this would put an undesigned bending force on the rear triangle, exactly when the forces on that part of the sytem are multipying ..
about .25 of internal stopper would do it ;)

Seriously i have buzzed the frame with a 2.3 in the back on a big g force bottom out with the spec fox shock. There is usually a good reason an eye to eye and stroke length is chosen. The big problem will be the "undesigned bending force" of your wheel impacting the frame and multiplying the angularity of your trajectory over the bars when your wheel locks up on landing.

Frankly if you only use 75-80% of your travel you...

a) could run more sag
b) don't need more travel
c) need to go harder:thumbsup:
 

·
www.derbyrims.com
Joined
·
6,766 Posts
2.0 x 7.785 is max stroke that will not interfere with the seat tube. I have a 2.25 stroke Vanilla RC and it needs a 1/4 inch shim to limit travel, and the tire still buzzes the der cable when bottomed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,444 Posts
No, Bad, No.

Hello Forum,
Hope you all had an excellent weekend...
About that extendo travel idea....Please do not try to increase the travel of your Mojo. Even the stock set up comes so close to the seat tube that ANY increase would almost certainly crash the seat tube.
We've used up pretty much all the available room.
Brian Lopes has lowered some of his bikes with a shorter eye to eye, but also reduced the travel to compensate and make the compressed eye to eye the same as stock.
Hans
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
d3toid said:
I wasn't worried about the failure. Look at Elvis's posts. He mounted a 200 X 55 dt shock and said that he got scuff marks on the back of his seat tube from the tire. He then modded the internals to make it into a 200 X 50.

He may have been running a larger tire. If you are after more travel a larger tire is a good compromise.
I was running a 26 x 2.35" Syncros Point 'n Chute. (I'm heavy and like the bigger tyres)

Once I modified the shock all was happy.

I'm now on a Mojo SL with the factory 200 x 50 XR carbon shock and it feels just as plush as my custom XM180 shock was.

Elvis.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top