Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    52

    San Andreas classic with VPS shock mounting position question

    I have a 04 San Andreas classic with a VPS mount. How do you guys mount the shock for all mountain riding. I normally mount mine so that the bottom 3 of the six mounting holes are exposed. And I mount the seat tower in the forward position. Can any one explain to me what the different mounting positions do? Any input is appreciated. I am an aggressive all mountain rider.

  2. #2
    G..
    G.. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    189
    Hoadley, did you also ask on Get Satisfaction?

    Basically the settings are for two shock lengths which will alter the travel between 4 and 6". The lower holes are for the shorter and the upper are for the longer. The various holes for the two lengths then alter the head angle/bottom bracket - the higher the position the more lax the head lower the bottom bracket.

    Hope that helps.
    ---
    Design Guy [SanAndreas 2.0, Zen II]

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    15
    If you run the short shock (165 x 38mm) you can also use it in the upper two holes, run like this it will give you a nice low bottom bracket (13" in the top hole) and a nice slack head angle.

    Personally I would rather have 4 1/2" of travel a proper bb height and head angle than 6" of travel and a mega high b/b a scary handling.

    The seat tower mount gives you two top tube lengths.

    cheers

    Dan

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    52

    thanks

    Thanks for all the advice. I guess I will have to experiment to figure out my own preference. To start, I will move the seat tower to the afterward position. I have a 2" stroke shock so I guess I am stuck with the 6" travel mode. I don't want to increase the BB height any higher than now. The real test will be in mid July when I take the bike to Mammoth, CA for some lift assisted runs. No big jumps for me though. I think the bike will do very well there.

    G.: yes I am the same guy who posted on the getsatisfaction site. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. You are the first bike company I know that does this. My other bike is an Intense. Intense doesn't even answer my emails.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skellz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    247
    i agree.. MC staff do there Best and are very Helpfull

  6. #6
    G..
    G.. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by DanJones34
    Personally I would rather have 4 1/2" of travel a proper bb height and head angle than 6" of travel and a mega high b/b a scary handling.

    Dan
    LOL. That's been the internal discussion about the San An. Agreed that at 6" the BB is high, at 6' 3" I think it's high but I am lucky enough to be able to live with it. It's still problematic at times though but for the most part I don't notice it any more. It is one reason though we are not resurrecting the old girl in her current form.

    In regards to the scary handling I have to disagree with you on that. Bikes have become slacker over the years and while I have my theories about that trend we'll not go into it. What you term 'scary' I term as 'ideal'. Short and sharp. I realise it totally depends where you ride, but for me and the types of trails I ride, 6" with snap handling is just the thing, and I consider slacker and longer scarier as the bike is slow to react and make turn.... I love having a 6" travel BMX but it's something you have to learn to ride and understandably for many riders, getting on a short steep bike freaks them out in much the same way I got freaked out when I climbed on board the Cagiva GP bike back in the 90's and realised that it was not a bike for the unaquainted (and I didn't even start the beast up!!!).

    Not saying it's for everyone but you should at least try the short and sharp set up on the San An for at least a month and see what you think
    ---
    Design Guy [SanAndreas 2.0, Zen II]

  7. #7
    Hmmmmm
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,835
    The high BB is actually useful in certain situations, but I agree with the redesign idea.
    My bike doesn't seem scary and I can pedal over all kinds of things with a 15" BB, but I'd like something that is adjustable down to 14 - 14.5" (355 - 367mm).
    I think of my bike as a small two wheeled Jeep, with a little lift kit.
    I should add, that a 130mm fork with at least a 511mm axle to crown height is recommended with the 190 X 51mm shock setup.
    "I thought of that while riding my bike."
    Albert Einstein, on the theory of relativity.

    Peace and Long Rides...

  8. #8
    G..
    G.. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    I should add, that a 130mm fork with at least a 511mm axle to crown height is recommended with the 190 X 51mm shock setup.
    Where'd you see that ?

    With that, I'm running Marzocchi AM1SL's set to 5" and the bike rides a treat.
    ---
    Design Guy [SanAndreas 2.0, Zen II]

  9. #9
    Hmmmmm
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,835
    Quote Originally Posted by G..
    Where'd you see that ?

    With that, I'm running Marzocchi AM1SL's set to 5" and the bike rides a treat.
    In my experience and others that I've talked to, we came to that conclusion. The bike seems too steep in the HA with a shorter fork.
    Aren't Zokes kinda tall for a given travel? It makes me wonder if that's how you are getting away with only 5" up front and six out back.
    I could be wrong, but I thought I might have decided against a Zoke, because I wanted a lower axle to crown height with 140mm travel.
    I must admit, I'm too lazy to look up all the specs right now.
    It seems to me, that my Fox Vanilla R has a 518mm axle to crown.
    With my Manitou Swinger 190mm shock, and a 2.4 Advantage up front, that gives me a 68.5 deg. head angle.
    I'd like to try a 6.5" (165mm) shock with my fork and a smaller front tire like a 2.2 Advantage.
    Or if I had the money, change it to a 6.5" shock and a 120mm fork.
    I'm just looking to lower the BB some, but keep the head angle that I like.
    "I thought of that while riding my bike."
    Albert Einstein, on the theory of relativity.

    Peace and Long Rides...

  10. #10
    G..
    G.. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    189
    Not sure about the exact dims right off hand but the Zokes have very little sag while the back end should be set to have somewhere around .75-1" of sag, so that makes the front and back pretty even.

    Lemme do some measurements and I'll whack 'em up here for all to see.
    ---
    Design Guy [SanAndreas 2.0, Zen II]

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    15
    I have the 165mm shock set on the second hole (from top) with a 140mm 44 on it, it gives a 14" b/b (to the centre) and roughly a 67.5 head angle.

    I also now use a Roco LO shock and it has transformed the bike, I have gone from 220 psi in the Fox to 160psi and it makes the back end much more compliant.

    Seriously, I have ridden and owned many bikes but this old girl is as good as anything as a XC/ trail bike.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    52
    It seems like running a 6.5" eye to eye length shock is the way to go for me as well. I've had bikes with high bb, my intense uzzi slx which is know for its high bb blows through rock gardens. But, san andreas beats it by an inch! It's a little hard getting used to.

    I guess one way to lower the bb without having to buy a new 6.5" shock is to sag the shock with a lighter weight spring. The unloaded bike will still be high though.

  13. #13
    Hmmmmm
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,835
    I set my sag to 25% out back, which translates to about 1, 3/8". That is a little less than the average DHS, but I'm using the prototype spacer.
    I use 20mm sag up front, which is about .75". That is the correct sag according to Fox, but that is with the stock spring, which is supposedly too soft for my geared up weight of 200lbs. I'm only using 1 turn of preload.
    The initial travel feels right, but it needs to ramp up a bit more, so I think I'm going to raise the oil volume to 165 - 170 ml.
    It's the old problem of being in between spring rates.

    To the other poster that said something about running more sag and a softer spring. That doesn't work too well. You lose your positive travel, making it pointless to run six inches in the first place.
    Also, the San An and other bikes, start to "stink bug" when going over the lip's of steep descents when too much sag is used in the back.
    It's better to run no more than .15 - .25% sag most of the time and the correct shock length for what you are doing.
    We have a few of those steep descents around my riding area. That's why I'd like to run a shorter shock, but less sag, maybe around .20%.
    It would be a bit slower through rock gardens with that set up though.
    I've actually been thinking of looking for a 7" (178mm) shock. I've heard they are easier to find now. That would be a great compromise for me, if the rumors are true.
    "I thought of that while riding my bike."
    Albert Einstein, on the theory of relativity.

    Peace and Long Rides...

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    52
    Do you guys think it's necessary to run a stable platform shock with San Andreas? Would it behave like a pogo stick without one? I am seriously considering getting rid of the 7.5" eyelet to eyelet Manitous 3 way coil shock currently on the bike and get a 6.5" shock to lower the BB. I am eyeing a 6.5" stable platform shock but I can get a non stable platform one for about $100 cheaper. What do you think? Stable platform or no stable platform?

  15. #15
    G..
    G.. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    189
    Putting a platform in if you use the bike for 'everything' is the single best thing you'll ever do. Period.
    ---
    Design Guy [SanAndreas 2.0, Zen II]

  16. #16
    Hmmmmm
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,835
    Quote Originally Posted by G..
    Putting a platform in if you use the bike for 'everything' is the single best thing you'll ever do. Period.
    I second that opinion.
    I run a fully active Fox Vanilla 140 R on the front right now, but it doesn't sprint forth like the Minute 2 it replaced. (a platform fork.)
    It does descend a little better with a fully active fork though.
    For "everything" you want platform front and rear.
    "I thought of that while riding my bike."
    Albert Einstein, on the theory of relativity.

    Peace and Long Rides...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •