Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
ups and downs
Joined
·
15,592 Posts
From page 8 in that PDF

Kilo 1.2: The basic model of the aluminium version is the air shock “AiR-force kilo”. The shock has to be mounted in the upper position (see to the picture). It’s mounted in the same position as the air shock “SLR:light.”. The length of both shocks is 195 mm.

Kilo 1.3: The basic model of the aluminium version is the steel spring damper. The shock has to be mounted in the down position (see to the picture). The shock length is 200 mm.

Kilo no.1: The basic model of the carbon version is the air shock “SLR:light.“. The shock has to be mounted in the upper position (compare with the picture). It’s the same position as for the air shock “AiR-force kilo.”. The length of both shocks is 195 mm.

4.4. Spring preload

Spring preload (sag) means how much the shock is compressed when a rider sits on the bike and is measured on level ground. The rider must be seated in a normal riding position.

Spring preload should be set between 15 - 25 % of the overall travel.

Static deflection
15% / 12 mm
20% / 16 mm
25% / 20 mm

At total deflection of 80mm max.

So it sounds like a 195mm or 200mm x 80mm stroke shock for a 90mm travel fork. But the valving will also be for a suspension with a 1:1.125 leverage ratio, it will likely be under valved on a rear suspension.

The DT Swiss X313 is only 145gms
DT Swiss - X 313 Carbon 2015
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
965 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
So it sounds like a 195mm or 200mm x 80mm stroke shock for a 90mm travel fork. But the valving will also be for a suspension with a 1:1.125 leverage ratio, it will likely be under valved on a rear suspension.
Thanks for spotting that on page 8....I totally overlooked.

I'm curious to understand a little more about the leverage ration issue. What makes 1:1.125 likely to be under valved?

I would assume that after some trial and error with less or more pressure it would eventually work after finding a sweet spot?

Comparing to the DT swiss carbon shock, this one is actually much lighter since the DT is 145g for a 165mm eye-to-eye...this one apparently is 130g for a 195mm! ...also....80mm stroke is a LOT for 195mm. Taken from DT swiss website: 165mm is 37.5 stroke / 190mm is 50mm stroke / 200 is 50mm and 55mm stroke.
 

·
ups and downs
Joined
·
15,592 Posts
It will be valved like a shock for a person who weighs about 33-50% of a typical rider weight range. So the minimum to maximum range of compression and rebound damping will be optimized for that direct actuation, not a suspension that has a lever with a 1:2 to 1:3 leverage ratio in the middle to actuate it.

It also might not have air seals that can handle a higher pressure like a typical rear shock would run.
 

·
ups and downs
Joined
·
15,592 Posts
That includes the PUSH bottom out bumper modification, so it likely is about normal from 0", but it also only goes to 1" of travel, not the 2" of maximum travel for the shock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
965 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I'm doing some math relating the shock and my frame to find some ratios, but I ran into a question.

Ok when we talk about 2:1 / 3:1....we are talking about wheel travel versus shock travel....I got that.

Using this...I found some numbers for my setup wish is a frame Scott Spark 10 L 26" with a Fox CTD 6.5 (165.1mm) eye-to-eye/1.5 stroke (38.1mm). Wheel versus ground travel is 104.1mm, so I found the Ratio of 2.73:1.

Now my question...or perhaps statement... remains: To determine if 2:1 is actually less sensitive to small bumps than for example 3:1...the air chamber volume would also need to be consider correct?

So lets say for my setup; the same shock with 6.5/1.5 but with smaller shaft and canister diameters just like this SLR:light shock...would have a different curve Force vs travel than the bigger cylinder Fox CTD.

In my understanding I would need to put much more pressure in the shock (to the small chamber one) to clear the same bumps from the FOX, if the pressure was the same from the bigger FOX it would be more saggy....but the ratio would still be the same at 2.73:1???

...then...does the added pressure would compromise sensitivity??? since the ratio is still the same...I guess not??

Intriguing relationship.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top