Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 292
  1. #226
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    635
    Shame Fox discontinues the Van 32 series. At least it's not on their 2011 site. If they'd make it a 150mm, together with the Van RC that would make a reasonably light coil setup for bikes like the AC.

  2. #227
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,962
    I had the old van 32r and didnt like it.
    The old Van rc shock was a good unit,had one on my Gemini.
    Was thinking if i dont like the Revelation/coil combination i might try a Marzocchi.

  3. #228
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    635
    Quote Originally Posted by norcosam
    Dont appear to be able to get X0 in orange anymore
    Medium/Long cage ? 9 speed, right ?


    Short:
    http://bikeparts-online.de/bpo_new/s...=art&id=147726

    Medium:
    http://www.bike-components.de/produc...dell-2010.html

    http://bikeparts-online.de/bpo_new/s...=art&id=147725

    Long:
    http://bikeparts-online.de/bpo_new/s...=art&id=147722

  4. #229
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,962
    Thanks.Dosent appear to be in the 2011 catalogue.

  5. #230
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    635
    The changes for the AC I posted were wrong, there has been a mistake in that tech-sheet. It's correct now.

    - shock dimensions stay the same: 200x51mm
    - travel options: 141 / 129 / 119 / 111 mm

    All 4 lever holes can be used.

  6. #231
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Testmaen
    The changes for the AC I posted were wrong, there has been a mistake in that tech-sheet. It's correct now.

    - shock dimensions stay the same: 200x51mm
    - travel options: 141 / 129 / 119 / 111 mm

    All 4 lever holes can be used.

    Awesome new spec... The 2011 is 0.3 degrees slacker in HA, while keeping the same seat angle which makes the bike even more stable and better descender. It doesn't sound like much, but that change alone makes the wheelbase 9mm longer.

    Also, the leverage is lower on the 2011. Being the max leverage 2.78:1 while the old was 2.87:1. The lowest is 2.19:1 and the 2010 was 2.36:1. Nice!!! Kind of a nightmare for installing a coil over, but the lower leverages will serve well for a wider array of riders.

    I was happy with the old one... but I'm like only 10 stones. I can live with higher leverages.
    Check my Site

  7. #232
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,962
    Warp- Why would this be a nightmare for a coil-over?

  8. #233
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,690
    Quote Originally Posted by norcosam
    Warp- Why would this be a nightmare for a coil-over?
    Finding the right spring rate for the right hole you want.

    Sorry, I should have elaborated more as it reads as if the new leverages may be a problem, which it ain't the case. Sorry.

    Of course, if you don't mind much the travel but the feel, then it may be actually easier.
    Check my Site

  9. #234
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,962
    Ok,Thats what confused me,I think a CCDB would be nice.

  10. #235
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,690
    Quote Originally Posted by norcosam
    Ok,Thats what confused me,I think a CCDB would be nice.
    Sure... now that I have a couple rides on the Monarch, I still prefer the feel of a coil. It bobs a little, but the suspension action is simply unbelievable.

    Not that the Monarch is a dud. I did not noticed any significant bob on tarmac with it but over rough stuff it felt like... uh... an air shock. But it's well behaved at any rate.
    Check my Site

  11. #236
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,962
    Warp- Is your Monarch running the "E" tune?

    Whats the problem with it on the rough stuff and how much sag do you run,What size Air can

  12. #237
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,690
    Quote Originally Posted by norcosam
    Warp- Is your Monarch running the "E" tune?

    Whats the problem with it on the rough stuff and how much sag do you run,What size Air can
    No, Sam... Mine is a "B" Tune. The E-Tune is not available in 2" (50.8mm) stroke which is the size I went with.

    I use it on the top hole which is the highest leverage available on my '10 AC. The B Tune is recommended for leverage ratios of about 2.5 to 2.8 on rising rate bikes like the AC. I run it in the 2.87 leverage hole (upper, longest travel).

    Not really any problem. It's just not a coil-over being less sensitive. I weigh 140pounds give or take according to amount of breakfast and water in camelbak, run 30% sag because I hate running less than 25% on ANY bike and I'm running the high volume air can.

    FG is set to a couple clicks from full open and I forgot about rebound.

    Don't get me wrong... I like the racey feel it has and in all honesty I have only a couple rides and it may still need some break in. The bikes pedals solidly even without any sort of lockout and I just noticed I had used quite some travel on tame trails because of the o-ring.

    I still have to run it in more aggro trails, though.
    Check my Site

  13. #238
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,962
    When i spoke to Karl Nicolai about a monarch rear shock he was very specific about "E" tune and standard size air can.
    If its using a lot of travel this could be because of the High volume can,You can reduce the volume on a monarch very easily with thin plastic by removing the oversize can and filling the space and then replacing oversize can ,I have seen genuine Rockshox rubber bands that do this.

  14. #239
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,690
    Quote Originally Posted by norcosam
    When i spoke to Karl Nicolai about a monarch rear shock he was very specific about "E" tune and standard size air can.
    If its using a lot of travel this could be because of the High volume can,You can reduce the volume on a monarch very easily with thin plastic by removing the oversize can and filling the space and then replacing oversize can ,I have seen genuine Rockshox rubber bands that do this.
    Not calling the man wrong, but the info from RS and their 2010 parts manual only have the D and E Tunes in 2.25 and 2.5 stroke. The 2" and smaller get the A, B and C tunes.

    I like how the bike it's using the travel. It doesn't wallow or squat. Maybe if I start riding harder, I'll reduce the air can to prevent bottom out. Karl also recommended a standard air can and I agree that it's much better for this bike and its intended use.

    Next step is breaking into the damper and touch the IFP pressure and shimming, but I ride so little as of late that I have not wanted to touch the shock for the moment.
    Check my Site

  15. #240
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,962
    Its the same in the Uk with the different tunes.Only available here with abc with larger can.
    I know what your saying about riding ,my Ion has been sat in the shed for 4 weeks and now its getting darker in the evenings and the weather is changing.

    I think the shim stack could be changed to provide the correct tune if you could buy the parts

  16. #241
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    635
    To make confusion somewhat bigger, my re-posted changes were wrong again and the first changes "seem" to be right all along. For now.

    We had some interesting discussions an our German Nicolai the last days.

    Karl Nicolai personally cleared things up. The tech-sheet is correct now.

    There is a comprehensive pdf-document about the different alterations over the (short) life-span of the AC, eg. different levers etc. For now it's only in German. Link pdf. I hope you guys can open it, even if you aren't a forums-member.

  17. #242
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,962
    Seems the new link is a "C" 146mm max travel using a 57mm shock.


    Cant open the link Testmaen.

  18. #243
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    294
    @testmaen - unfortunately document link is not possible to open for not_members : (
    Would have been interesting to see that.

    In up-dated specs there is mentioned this new C-type umlenkhebel, but if those travels are really calculated using 57mm stroke, there`s really big change compared to older AC shock levers.
    Just wondering are these AC-frames compatible with older AC- levers or are there any other changes in levers structure than shaping and placement of holes?

  19. #244
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,690
    Quote Originally Posted by pergamonx
    @testmaen - unfortunately document link is not possible to open for not_members : (
    Would have been interesting to see that.

    In up-dated specs there is mentioned this new C-type umlenkhebel, but if those travels are really calculated using 57mm stroke, there`s really big change compared to older AC shock levers.
    Just wondering are these AC-frames compatible with older AC- levers or are there any other changes in levers structure than shaping and placement of holes?
    Please find attached said document. I had to downgrade quality in order to upload it to mtbr.

    Indeed, there's a big change compared to our (older) AC's. Leverages are dropped quite significantly and the bike will be better suited for average to heavier riders. Also, the interference issue with the top hole is eliminated. The head angle is a little slacker making the bike more stable.

    All good news, changes in the right direction. I wish I had waited to get all these changes into my bike, but I can't blame Nicolai for that and I'm happy about the continous evolution philosophy they have.

    I think the document does not cover all other changes on the bike, which should be nice to have... like the elimination of the second hole in the chainstays, the addition of zip-tie guides for the brake lines on the chainstays close to the bottom bracket, etc.

    Same question here? Are the new levers retrofittable to older AC's? I don't see any blockers not to.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Check my Site

  20. #245
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    294
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp
    Please find attached said document. I had to downgrade quality in order to upload it to mtbr....
    ---------------
    Same question here? Are the new levers retrofittable to older AC's? I don't see any blockers not to.
    Thanks Warp! Really interesting document, my Deutsch is rotten, but not so much...

    Generally those changes are the right movement from Nicolai, when AC goes slightly lighter and AM goes bigger. One year ago, when AC was still newborn, AC with A-levers and 57mm shock mounted in top hole (and fork with AC ~530mm) offered approx similar geo compared to AM with 51mm shock and 160mm fork...

    And that question I made are those new levers compatible with older frames was (in my case) only theorethical - Im not going to "downgrade" mine. If something is going to change, it will be the frame. And if it would be N-bike, then definately new AM...

    BTW - there are still at least one frame existing which is not fully A either full B - Ill suppose that my levers are labeled A (...have to check that ...) but top hole is not blocked

  21. #246
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    635
    Thanks Warp for uploading the pdf-doc. I thought you guys could see that, like the pics I host at that forum. Well, I thought wrong.

    I haven't read the document completely, so I can't comment on the upgrade possibility yet. But I guess it's possible, since it's kind of a Nicolai policy, e.g. 216-levers for the AM.

    I report back, when I've read it.

  22. #247
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    635
    The new "C"-lever can be retrofitted.

    The margin between getting 146mm of travel and not hitting the seattube with tire is slim, though. A rear-wheel diameter of 685mm, 690mm is not. Depends on the tire-rim-combo. I don't know what tires have high flanks and which not.

    It's written like that in the pdf-sheet. It's also written that tire-marks on the rear of the seattube are no reason for reclamation, since the owner is responsible for choosing the right tire-rim-combo and testing it with a collision test explained in tech-sheet-section.

  23. #248
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,962
    What would happen if you ran a 200x57 on a "B" link in the second hole down,Would be pretty close to a "C" link in the upper hole

  24. #249
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    635
    144mm, if I calculated correctly.

  25. #250
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,962
    Quote Originally Posted by Testmaen
    144mm, if I calculated correctly.

    So people that have the "B" type link could run a 57mm shock in the 2nd hole.

    Did i see an AC running a 200x57 in the top hole,that must give you well over 150mm of travel.

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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