Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 293
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658

    200 x 57mm shock on a Nickel = 142mm of travel!

    I know Tobiwan has done it. Anyone else out there who has done it? What tire are you running? How much room is there? How is the ride! Now remember the shock length is the same, the only difference is a 7mm longer stroke. I am thinking the Nickel would be perfect with 140mm of travel from and rear. At 125mm, it's kind of a heavy bike. At 140mm, it's starting to get more acceptable, as far as weight goes.

  2. #2
    Just the tip!
    Reputation: HHMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    152
    I have. Used an RP23 Boost Valve model with low velocity tune, medium compression. I switched oils and reset IFP to 200psi. Tires are 26x2.25 Maxxis Crossmark, don't know the exact clearance but it wasn't even close to being worrisome. Works very nicely!
    "Adventure begins where good judgment ends."

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658

    From another thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by HHMTB View Post
    Doood!! MC Shawn, you're making this way more difficult and absurd than it needs to be, buddy. Take out the guesswork and do this:

    Make sure your tires are nice and pumped up. Lean your bike up against something or put it in a wheel stand so the bike is upright. Unbolt your rear shock from either end (I usually pick the side that mounts to the link). Lower the frame slowly until the rear tire contacts the seat tube. Measure eye to eye of the frame to the link. If the number is less than 5.625" (that's 7.875 - 2.25) you're good to go with the longer stroke shock.

    Also consider, 650b wheels are 27.5" diameter or .75" larger radius than standard 26" wheels. If people can put 650b wheels into the Nickel without issue, it'll take a VERY large 26" tire to induce contact with the longer stroke mod.
    Ok smarty pants, make me feel really stupid! That's a good idea, I think. I'm still trying to work that in my head. I'll try it tomorrow. And, I won't be using 650's.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658

    From another thread:

    [QUOTE=noosa2;9776171]
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost_03 View Post
    I believe that's what he is saying, yes.

    The 17mm number gets multiplied by some trigonometric function, yielding a number smaller than 17mm (although, it's probably not 7mm precisely).

    QUOTE]

    Thanks ghost.

    This is what I was really trying to figure out. What formula did MCS use to determine that at full compression a 7mm increase in stroke put the rear wheel 7mm closer to the seattube.

    I had tons of fun 4 - 5yeas ago changing my turner 6 pack to a 5 pack, 5.5 pack and 7pack. I cannot wait to add some travel to my nickel.
    I realize that the front side of the wheel is going to move more then the 7mm of increased stroke that the longer shock has, because the front side of the wheel is behind the pivot. But, I also realize that the wheel moves up and in towards the seat tube and not just towards it. So, I figure that the 2, mostly cancel themselves out.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by HHMTB View Post
    I have. Used an RP23 Boost Valve model with low velocity tune, medium compression. I switched oils and reset IFP to 200psi. Tires are 26x2.25 Maxxis Crossmark, don't know the exact clearance but it wasn't even close to being worrisome. Works very nicely!
    Right on! Thanks.

    So, how is the ride with the 57mm shock?

  6. #6
    Just the tip!
    Reputation: HHMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Ok smarty pants, make me feel really stupid! That's a good idea, I think. I'm still trying to work that in my head. I'll try it tomorrow. And, I won't be using 650's.
    It'll work. Would I lie to you?

    For those looking in, 650b + this longer stroke mod = death. Probably. I haven't tried it, but it didn't look promising when I was looking at things. Just putting that out there so no one can say "so and so said this would work" after they bust their teeth out.
    "Adventure begins where good judgment ends."

  7. #7
    Flow
    Reputation: Hermes475's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    84
    I am interested in obtaining the increased travel but not if I have to buy a new shock. I have been doing some searches and it seems like the 7.875" eye to eye float shocks are all the same initial stroke but then just modified with spacers. Does the stock float rl that comes with the nickel have a spacer in it that limits the stroke to 2.00 inches down from 2.25 inches? If so can this spacer just be removed to obtain the increased travel? Also, anyone have a good link on how to do this?

    -Brett

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes475 View Post
    I am interested in obtaining the increased travel but not if I have to buy a new shock. I have been doing some searches and it seems like the 7.875" eye to eye float shocks are all the same initial stroke but then just modified with spacers. Does the stock float rl that comes with the nickel have a spacer in it that limits the stroke to 2.00 inches down from 2.25 inches? If so can this spacer just be removed to obtain the increased travel? Also, anyone have a good link on how to do this?

    -Brett
    I don't think there is enough of the shock shaft left for an extra 7mm of compression.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post

    I realize that the front side of the wheel is going to move more then the 7mm of increased stroke that the longer shock has, because the front side of the wheel is behind the pivot. But, I also realize that the wheel moves up and in towards the seat tube and not just towards it. So, I figure that the 2, mostly cancel themselves out.
    Oh sure. I didn't mean to imply that you're wrong, I was just trying to expand on it.

    I too suspect that it should be something around 7mm. It's just I don't think it's going to be exactly 7mm, in the way that a 10mm spacer under the stem will move the bars 10mm.
    '12 Santa Cruz Superlight 29 | '12 Santa Cruz Butcher | '06 Specialized Allez Comp | '81 Schwinn Converted Fixie

  10. #10
    rollin
    Reputation: sriracha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes475 View Post
    I am interested in obtaining the increased travel but not if I have to buy a new shock. I have been doing some searches and it seems like the 7.875" eye to eye float shocks are all the same initial stroke but then just modified with spacers. Does the stock float rl that comes with the nickel have a spacer in it that limits the stroke to 2.00 inches down from 2.25 inches? If so can this spacer just be removed to obtain the increased travel? Also, anyone have a good link on how to do this?

    -Brett
    I was asking the same exact questions on the other thread. I am fairly certain it is just a spacer limiting the travel.

    We need to figure out how to remove this spacer....

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by sriracha View Post
    I was asking the same exact questions on the other thread. I am fairly certain it is just a spacer limiting the travel.

    We need to figure out how to remove this spacer....
    Bottom the shock out and see if there is 7mm left on the shaft. I don't think there is. Or just measure 57mm from the seal and down the shaft. Hold your panties, I'll go do it........Ok, I just measured 58mm, so here is enough shaft. I would think the air chamber would be a different size. But, I don't know if that is true.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    536
    FWIW, since the leverage ratio is falling deep in the travel, you likely won't get the 142.5mm of expected travel. By the time you're 130 or 140mm into the wheel travel, the leverage ratio should be considerably below 2.5.

    Still seems like a great idea though, and there'd be even less than the expected chance of tire rubbing at bottom out.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: noosa2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,608
    Quote Originally Posted by albeant View Post
    FWIW, since the leverage ratio is falling deep in the travel, you likely won't get the 142.5mm of expected travel. By the time you're 130 or 140mm into the wheel travel, the leverage ratio should be considerably below 2.5.

    Still seems like a great idea though, and there'd be even less than the expected chance of tire rubbing at bottom out.
    Does the falling rate at the end of the travel mean that the shock will blow through the last part of the travel or ramp up during the last part of the tavel or neither?

    This site shows that the butcher has the same falling rate towards the end of the travel as the nickel but then suddenly rises right at the end. I wonder if the nickel would perform the same if it gets 17mm's more travel?

    Linkage Design: Santa Cruz Nickel & Butcher
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: obfsk8r's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    10
    The falling leverage ratio would produce ramping up. Interesting that the butcher's ratio starts to climb right at the end of the travel--seems odd to me. I wonder too what the Nickel's rate curve would be doing past the 125mm mark, as I assumed it would continue falling steeply.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by obfsk8r View Post
    The falling leverage ratio would produce ramping up. Interesting that the butcher's ratio starts to climb right at the end of the travel--seems odd to me. I wonder too what the Nickel's rate curve would be doing past the 125mm mark, as I assumed it would continue falling steeply.
    Well, they both have the same basic geo. In regard to the leverage ratio, is the Butcher just a Nickel with a longer shock? I would think that a longer stroke would just keep ramping up at the end, that's what Sants Cruz told me would happen, which would give it a bottomless feel.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Well, they both have the same basic geo. In regard to the leverage ratio, is the Butcher just a Nickel with a longer shock?
    This is a good thought, but checking the geometry pages for the Nickel and Butcher shows it to not be the case.

    Aside from the general differences--HA, SA, Top Tube Length (where the Nickel is a smidge sportier), the main one of concern for this discussion is the chainstay length, which is .4" longer on the Butcher, giving room for the longer travel.

    I suspect that the Nickel will see that final turn in the leverage ratio with the longer shock, but I can tell you I don't even feel it on my Butcher--it's only a few mm out of a whole bunch.

    Thanks for this discussion everyone, I'm thinking I might try making my Butcher 160mm or so if I swap to a coil.
    '12 Santa Cruz Superlight 29 | '12 Santa Cruz Butcher | '06 Specialized Allez Comp | '81 Schwinn Converted Fixie

  17. #17
    rollin
    Reputation: sriracha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,622
    Quote Originally Posted by albeant View Post
    FWIW, since the leverage ratio is falling deep in the travel, you likely won't get the 142.5mm of expected travel. By the time you're 130 or 140mm into the wheel travel, the leverage ratio should be considerably below 2.5.

    Still seems like a great idea though, and there'd be even less than the expected chance of tire rubbing at bottom out.

    I was thinking the same thing...the leverage ratio would make the shock get progressively stronger, and potentially never bottom out. That's fine if the bike never gets the full 142mm of travel.

    Of course, you could just run less pressure, to utilize more travel. This might result in a more supple initial part of travel, as well.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by sriracha View Post
    I was thinking the same thing...the leverage ratio would make the shock get progressively stronger, and potentially never bottom out. That's fine if the bike never gets the full 142mm of travel.
    I think he's saying that with lower leverage ratio, 7mm of shock travel no longer means 7x2.5 = 17.5mm, but rather, 7x2.3 = 16.1 mm, for something like 140mm.

    You pay for the "progressively getting stronger" and not bottoming out by using up more of the shock's travel at the expense of wheel travel.
    '12 Santa Cruz Superlight 29 | '12 Santa Cruz Butcher | '06 Specialized Allez Comp | '81 Schwinn Converted Fixie

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    536
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost_03 View Post
    I think he's saying that with lower leverage ratio, 7mm of shock travel no longer means 7x2.5 = 17.5mm, but rather, 7x2.3 = 16.1 mm, for something like 140mm.
    Thanks, that's exactly what I meant. I was thinking the leverage ratio might even be dropping below 2.3, but looking at the Butcher's curve now has me wondering what would really be going on at the end of the extra 7mm of shock stroke.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by obfsk8r View Post
    The falling leverage ratio would produce ramping up. Interesting that the butcher's ratio starts to climb right at the end of the travel--seems odd to me. I wonder too what the Nickel's rate curve would be doing past the 125mm mark, as I assumed it would continue falling steeply.
    It does that because an air shock ramps up at the end of its travel.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost_03 View Post
    This is a good thought, but checking the geometry pages for the Nickel and Butcher shows it to not be the case.

    Aside from the general differences--HA, SA, Top Tube Length (where the Nickel is a smidge sportier), the main one of concern for this discussion is the chainstay length, which is .4" longer on the Butcher, giving room for the longer travel.

    I suspect that the Nickel will see that final turn in the leverage ratio with the longer shock, but I can tell you I don't even feel it on my Butcher--it's only a few mm out of a whole bunch.
    T
    Thanks for this discussion everyone, I'm thinking I might try making my Butcher 160mm or so if I swap to a coil.
    The Butcher/Nickel was designed for air shocks. I don't think the linear nature of a coil is going to work, especially if you go with a longer stroke, because of the Butchers higher leverage ratio at the end of its travel.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    98

    Cool-blue Rhythm

    Hi friends,
    so, what can I say? I am running my Nickel for 2 months now with 140 mm travel on the rear and it works perfekt.



    And I havenīt started doing this by adding a new damper. At first I used LINKAGE and modified the existing Nickel-Model by updating it with an air-shok with 200 x 57mm (metric) size and changed the wheel size to 2,5". Have a look at the enclosed picture of Linkage. It shows the bike fully compressed with 140mm and 2.5" tires - the result says that it works without any problems.



    Then I upgraded the bike with the Marzocchi Roco Air TST, which is in my opinion the best lockable air shock (sorry to Manitou, if your information would be better, I would have tried one of yours). The size is 200 x 57 mm and it fits easily in the frame. Like already mentioned the pressure is about 40% less in comparison with the Fox-Shok.



    I am using Maxxis Highroller II Tires which arenīt the smallest tires and they still have enough space to the seat stays when the damper is fully compressed.



    Overall, the bike still climbs like a goat but works even better on the downs. It is an impressive Trail-Bike (in my opinion better than a Blur TRc) and can compete with bigger bikes easily. And I think the heavy Nickel frame should last a long time, even when using it for harder actions.

    Hope these information are helpful.
    Greez form rainy Germany!

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    ^ Thanks Tobiwan for posting that! So, I see that the leverage ratio does not start to raise back up like the Butcher does, at the end of its travel with a longer stroke shock. Some one posted that chart in the Butcher/Nickel thread. It looks like this is a very good idea. My apologies to Tobiwan for saying this was a bad idea, at first. I was thinking that the shock was going to be longer. But, with the same I to I length, you are just adding travel to the end of the shock stroke. It must make it feel bottomless.


    Edit: That graph of the Butcher, I talked about is above in this thread, not the other thread.
    Last edited by Mountain Cycle Shawn; 10-14-2012 at 05:20 PM.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Hey Tobiwan,
    How much sag are you using?

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    536
    Sweet. Thanks for the info!

  26. #26
    rollin
    Reputation: sriracha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,622
    Quote Originally Posted by tobiwan View Post
    Hi friends,
    so, what can I say? I am running my Nickel for 2 months now with 140 mm travel on the rear and it works perfekt.
    Thanks Tobiwan! Nice looking Nickel! How do you like the Marzocchi RC3ti?

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    The Butcher/Nickel was designed for air shocks. I don't think the linear nature of a coil is going to work, especially if you go with a longer stroke, because of the Butchers higher leverage ratio at the end of its travel.
    Yeah it's certainly not going to work optimally. I know Push had developed another Butcher linkage for use with coil shocks (image..although that's clearly an air shock......), but I'm not sure if you can actually buy it.

    Failing that, I would probably have a custom spring wound for it that ramps up at the very end, probably by binding. There's a lot of places that will make springs to specification, I guess for hot rods and choppers and whatnot. I doubt I'd get it right the first time, and I would pay the price in weight, but playing around with these things is super fun.

    '12 Santa Cruz Superlight 29 | '12 Santa Cruz Butcher | '06 Specialized Allez Comp | '81 Schwinn Converted Fixie

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    98
    I am running with very low sag as I do Enduro-Racing - so I like it tough and hard
    Itīs not more than 20%

  29. #29
    rollin
    Reputation: sriracha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,622
    I just purchased a Marzocchi Roco Air LO 200x57...anyone want to buy a brand new Fox Float RL 200x50???

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by sriracha View Post
    I just purchased a Marzocchi Roco Air LO 200x57...anyone want to buy a brand new Fox Float RL 200x50???
    Right on! Keep us posted.

  31. #31
    rollin
    Reputation: sriracha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Right on! Keep us posted.
    I forgot to mention that I have a 2012 150mm Marzocchi 44 RC3ti tapered-steer-tube on the way, also.

    Marzocchi advertises a 521mm fork length at 150mm with the 2012 44 RC3ti fork. On the Santa Cruz website, the geometry chart is based on a fork with a 509mm axle-crown length. I don't think 12mm will throw the geometry off that much. Especially once I'm into the fork's sag and travel.

    Super excited to build up the Nickel 140!!!

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    33
    i bought a new nickel frame with a stock fox float RL last month. after reading this thread i am now looking for a 200 x 57mm shock so i can use the maximum sag of 15mm instead of the 13mm i am with right now for a better downhill feel . i noticed the stock fox float RL is kinda stiff. i am about 170 lbs with gear so based on the chart supplied by santa cruz i should be putting about 138 psi of air but i get only 9mm sag. i put in 110 psi now to get 13mm sag
    Last edited by bendik.ph; 10-15-2012 at 06:34 PM. Reason: some missing words

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by bendik.ph View Post
    i bought a new nickel frame with a stock fox float RL last month. after reading this thread i am now looking for a 200 x 57mm shock so i can use the maximum sag of 15mm instead of the 13mm i am with right now for a better downhill feel . i noticed the stock fox float RL is kinda stiff. i am about 170 lbs with gear so based on the chart supplied by santa cruz i should be putting about 138 psi of air but i get only 9mm sag. i put in 110 psi now to get 13mm sag
    Try X-Fusion. They're, in my opinion, better then Fox and they might have the '12 shocks on sale right now. This is the route I am going to take. I weigh about 165 ready to ride and have to use 120psi to get 15mm of sag. For a DH feel, you may want to experiment with even more sag, especially if you're going with the 57mm shock.

    Edit: I don't know where I got the above mentioned 15mm of sag. I've been running 25% sag with the OEM shock. Now that it's broken in, I need 135psi to get 25% sag.
    Last edited by Mountain Cycle Shawn; 11-07-2012 at 07:48 PM.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    536
    Quote Originally Posted by bendik.ph View Post
    i bought a new nickel frame with a stock fox float RL last month. after reading this thread i am now looking for a 200 x 57mm shock so i can use the maximum sag of 15mm instead of the 13mm i am with right now for a better downhill feel . i noticed the stock fox float RL is kinda stiff. i am about 170 lbs with gear so based on the chart supplied by santa cruz i should be putting about 138 psi of air but i get only 9mm sag. i put in 110 psi now to get 13mm sag
    I've had the same problem with Float RL on the Nickel. Way, way overdamped, to the point that the bike actually takes a couple of seconds to settle into its sag. A shock swap confirmed that the shock was to blame, so for now the RL is sitting on the toolbench. BTW, I have had great luck with the Manitou Evolver (non-SPV) shock. It loves to sit right in its midstroke and soak up...everything.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by sriracha View Post
    I forgot to mention that I have a 2012 150mm Marzocchi 44 RC3ti tapered-steer-tube on the way, also.

    Marzocchi advertises a 521mm fork length at 150mm with the 2012 44 RC3ti fork. On the Santa Cruz website, the geometry chart is based on a fork with a 509mm axle-crown length. I don't think 12mm will throw the geometry off that much. Especially once I'm into the fork's sag and travel.

    Super excited to build up the Nickel 140!!!
    The 150mm Marzocchi should fit perfectly as they are roughly 10mm shorter than a comparable Rock Shox Revelation for example. So it will change the Geometrie slightly slacker (-0,5 degree) and should not delimit the guarantee The fork itself is the best fork available in this categorie (as long as you are not too heavy...)

  36. #36
    rollin
    Reputation: sriracha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,622
    Quote Originally Posted by tobiwan View Post
    The 150mm Marzocchi should fit perfectly as they are roughly 10mm shorter than a comparable Rock Shox Revelation for example. So it will change the Geometrie slightly slacker (-0,5 degree) and should not delimit the guarantee The fork itself is the best fork available in this categorie (as long as you are not too heavy...)
    That's what I like to hear!

    I'm around 175-180 lbs. I'm guessing that I am within the target weight range of that fork. I almost went with the 44 air switch fork, but after reading a few raving reviews, I went with the RC3ti. Lockout and height adjust are not at the top of my priority list...butter suspension and long term durability are.

    Items are out for delivery, as I type.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by sriracha View Post
    That's what I like to hear!

    I'm around 175-180 lbs. I'm guessing that I am within the target weight range of that fork. I almost went with the 44 air switch fork, but after reading a few raving reviews, I went with the RC3ti. Lockout and height adjust are not at the top of my priority list...butter suspension and long term durability are.

    Items are out for delivery, as I type.
    Do you know how much they weigh, off the top of your head?

  38. #38
    rollin
    Reputation: sriracha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Do you know how much they weigh, off the top of your head?
    According to Marzocchi's website:

    2012 44 RC3ti, 150mm travel, 521.5mm fork height, 1940 grams (roughly 4.25 lbs).

    2012 44 Micro Switch TA, 150-130mm travel, 521.5/501.5mm height, 1880 grams.

    2012 44 LR Switch TA, 150-130mm travel, 527.5/507.5mm height, 1980 grams.


    44 LR Switch is all black with black stanchions. 44 Micro and 44 RC3ti are white with nickel plated stanchions. Nickel on the Nickel!

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    ^Thanks

  40. #40
    rollin
    Reputation: sriracha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    ^Thanks
    I considered the Marzocchi 55, but they are all at least a pound heavier and a lot taller, not to mention much more travel.

    I figured I've already built bikes like that, I want more of a trail gazelle than a freeride huck bike.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Try X-Fusion. They're, in my opinion, better then Fox and they might have the '12 shocks on sale right now. This is the route I am going to take. I weigh about 165 ready to ride and have to use 120psi to get 15mm of sag. For a DH feel, you may want to experiment with even more sag, especially if you're going with the 57mm shock.
    do you know where we can find X-Fusion shocks on sale now? 15mm sag on a 57mm shock sounds good. can't wait to see how it feels

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by bendik.ph View Post
    do you know where we can find X-Fusion shocks on sale now? 15mm sag on a 57mm shock sounds good. can't wait to see how it feels
    Call X-Fusion. Around this time of year they start dumping the previous years stuff (2012). I bought a shock that way, last year and only paid $125.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    106

    I had the same concern

    I recently purchased a Nickle, which should be arriving at my pad tomarrow. I have decided to run a Zocchi Roco LO 200x57 and a 44 RC3 to cover the squishy part of the equation. I decided to run the ROCO LO versus the TST because of the way the Nickle progresses through its travel like a smiley face. It drops off at first for small bump compliance, levels out, then ramps up. Because this frame ramps up on it own I felt a piggyback equiped shock would not be neccasary to prevent bottom out. I feel it may be over kill.

    The ROCO LO is already a super stable shock and does not need a propedal or any other gimic that other manufactures use to boost sales.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    I recently purchased a Nickle, which should be arriving at my pad tomarrow. I have decided to run a Zocchi Roco LO 200x57 and a 44 RC3 to cover the squishy part of the equation. I decided to run the ROCO LO versus the TST because of the way the Nickle progresses through its travel like a smiley face. It drops off at first for small bump compliance, levels out, then ramps up. Because this frame ramps up on it own I felt a piggyback equiped shock would not be neccasary to prevent bottom out. I feel it may be over kill.

    The ROCO LO is already a super stable shock and does not need a propedal or any other gimic that other manufactures use to boost sales.
    Hey, welcome home!

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Call X-Fusion. Around this time of year they start dumping the previous years stuff (2012). I bought a shock that way, last year and only paid $125.
    i hope they can supply the bushings too. the fox distributor in our place has excellent service. i usually buy a used fox shock and i bring it to them and they have the right bushing for it

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by albeant View Post
    I've had the same problem with Float RL on the Nickel. Way, way overdamped, to the point that the bike actually takes a couple of seconds to settle into its sag. A shock swap confirmed that the shock was to blame, so for now the RL is sitting on the toolbench. BTW, I have had great luck with the Manitou Evolver (non-SPV) shock. It loves to sit right in its midstroke and soak up...everything.
    i took some more air out and it felt better. i am 170lbs and i put in 110 psi only. i will be using this till i can find a 57mm shock.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by bendik.ph View Post
    i hope they can supply the bushings too. the fox distributor in our place has excellent service. i usually buy a used fox shock and i bring it to them and they have the right bushing for it
    Yes, they will be able to supply all bushings/reducers that you will need. And their customer service is the best there is.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Yes, they will be able to supply all bushings/reducers that you will need. And their customer service is the best there is.

    Fox, Marzocchi, Rockshox, Manitou all use the same hardware. So if you replace that Fox crap for some good old Marzocchi love the hardware is the same.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    106

    Going Big

    Because I chose to go with a longer stroke shock, I believe the happy face curve may get a slight smurk on the deep end (during the additional 20mm of travel) just like the Butcher. But I dont think it will matter too much. Since I am goin to be rolling with a 150mm fork up front, I feel it is important for the carpet to mach the drapes if you know what I mean.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by tobiwan View Post
    Hi friends,
    so, what can I say? I am running my Nickel for 2 months now with 140 mm travel on the rear and it works perfekt.



    And I havenīt started doing this by adding a new damper. At first I used LINKAGE and modified the existing Nickel-Model by updating it with an air-shok with 200 x 57mm (metric) size and changed the wheel size to 2,5". Have a look at the enclosed picture of Linkage. It shows the bike fully compressed with 140mm and 2.5" tires - the result says that it works without any problems.



    Then I upgraded the bike with the Marzocchi Roco Air TST, which is in my opinion the best lockable air shock (sorry to Manitou, if your information would be better, I would have tried one of yours). The size is 200 x 57 mm and it fits easily in the frame. Like already mentioned the pressure is about 40% less in comparison with the Fox-Shok.



    I am using Maxxis Highroller II Tires which arenīt the smallest tires and they still have enough space to the seat stays when the damper is fully compressed.



    Overall, the bike still climbs like a goat but works even better on the downs. It is an impressive Trail-Bike (in my opinion better than a Blur TRc) and can compete with bigger bikes easily. And I think the heavy Nickel frame should last a long time, even when using it for harder actions.

    Hope these information are helpful.
    Greez form rainy Germany!
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    Because I chose to go with a longer stroke shock, I believe the happy face curve may get a slight smurk on the deep end (during the additional 20mm of travel) just like the Butcher. But I dont think it will matter too much. Since I am goin to be rolling with a 150mm fork up front, I feel it is important for the carpet to mach the drapes if you know what I mean.
    Not true, I think you'll be ok!

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Sh!t, I just purchased a 2012 RS Revelation RLT, white with 15 mm axel and crown lock out. $397.34 from Merlin Cycles in the UK, free shipping and no tax! Next will be 57mm stroke shock. That price seems to good to be true, I hope I'm not getting screwed.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Not true, I think you'll be ok!
    What do you think of the Roco TST on that frame?

    I use to work factory for several bike manufactures and I know how the Roco is supposed to perform and how to set it up. There is a slight difference between your build and mine. Your using a TST rear shock which will correct the change in the suspension curve (if any) because of the added bottom out protection offered by the piggyback. Unfortunately the LO does not have a piggyback for added bottom out protection and will not correct any changes in the suspension curve like the TST does.


    There is two reasons why I chose to go with the LO over the TST. The first reason was to save weight. The second reason was I am a little concerned that the Suspension curve of the frame and the bottomout characteristics of the ROCO TST, with the minimum air pressure in the piggyback, will fight each other, which could result in the loss off full travel. Because you are running the TST sucessfully my suspicion is the travel curve does taper off a little (during that additional 20mm of travel) which prevents the TST and the suspension curve from fighting each other as hard. Which explains why you are getting full travel.

    I have been running ROCO TST R rear shocks since they were first released. This is the first time I will be running an LO on my own bike.

    I am starting to think I should use a TST while running a 200x57 rear shock instead of the LO.

    LO is perfect in at 125 but the TST R would be better at 142

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    ^ That was Tobiwan's post that I quoted. Maybe he can fill you in. I'm using the fox RL 50mm, soon to be using a 57mm X-fusion.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    106

    I cant wait

    My frame is out on the truck for delivery. I cant wait

  55. #55
    rollin
    Reputation: sriracha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,622
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    What do you think of the Roco TST on that frame?
    .....
    I am starting to think I should use a TST while running a 200x57 rear shock instead of the LO.
    LO is perfect in at 125 but the TST R would be better at 142

    After talking about the Nickel frame 200x57 rear shock options with a sales employee at Marzocchi, we concluded the LO would be sufficient for the leverage design of the Nickel. The Nickel was designed for an air shock with no piggy back, such as the Fox Float RL. With the ramp up at the end, the suspension design achieves sufficient bottom out resistance.

    The piggy back function is designed to add bottom out resistance and pedal-bob resistance to a suspension design such as the Heckler and Superlight. The sales guy and I determined that the piggy back was a bit redundant, with the Nickel frame.

    Granted, I have no actual trail experience with either at this point, the theories made sense to me.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    98
    I think that the air canisters of both dampers (TST R and LO) are the same - so also the bottom out should be the same as this is done by the physical characteristics of air. The TST R therefore has the better Platform technology. Also you are able to change the bottom out resistance due to the piggy. At first you can change the pressure in the piggy to the level you like it and, if that is necessary, you can also change the air chamber size inside the piggy (But therefore you have to open the damper)

    Just my two cents, but I am not a suspension engineer.
    Ride on - Tobi

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by tobiwan View Post
    I think that the air canisters of both dampers (TST R and LO) are the same - so also the bottom out should be the same as this is done by the physical characteristics of air. The TST R therefore has the better Platform technology. Also you are able to change the bottom out resistance due to the piggy. At first you can change the pressure in the piggy to the level you like it and, if that is necessary, you can also change the air chamber size inside the piggy (But therefore you have to open the damper)

    Just my two cents, but I am not a suspension engineer.
    Ride on - Tobi
    I am a former employee of Marzocchi. I know these shocks very well. The TST uses air in the Piggy back to manipulate the hydraulic damper to customize the way the shock ramps up. If you do not have enough air in the piggyback the shock will blow through its travel or if you have too much air in the shock it will not absorb bumbs properly and may not get full travel. The TST is better when you need a shock that can correct a suspension design that does not ramp up on its own, or drops off suddenly.

    The ROCO LO uses purely hydraulics to ramp up, preset at the factory. The only thing you can do with the LO is change the shims.

    The air canisters are the same between the two shocks but the hydraulic damper (internals) between the two shocks are different. It takes more than air in the canister to slow that bad boy down. The hydraulic damper does the majority of the work.

    If the shock is set right the air in the canister is used primarily to set sag and the hydraulic damper does the rest.

    On a different note, I took my new baby out for the first time today and the 200x57 works great. The bike was extremely stable with the ROCO LO, I did not need to lock the shock out at all, I stood up at times to mash for a while, the bike did not bob. The rear of the bike squished everything in its path.

    My original concerns about which shock to use is true. The LO is all you need. The TST may work better because of the additional options to customize it but you will have a slight weight penalty and a additional cost of over $200, which is about the difference in price between the two shocks.

    Cheers,


  58. #58
    rollin
    Reputation: sriracha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,622
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    My original concerns about which shock to use is true. The LO is all you need.
    Thanks for verifying the ROCO LO for us. Sounds like the perfect upgrade for the Nickel.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    51
    Hi and for the Nomad the best option ROCO LO or the TST?

    Thanks

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    33
    Hi guys, i won the bid by $2.01
    Fox Float RP23 High Volume | eBay

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by bendik.ph View Post
    Hi guys, i won the bid by $2.01
    Fox Float RP23 High Volume | eBay
    Right on! I'm thinking a high volumn should work good on the Nickel because of the APP ramp up at the end of the stroke. Let us know how it works.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: noosa2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,608
    I mounted up a 200 X 57 Roco TST R on my Nickel and got in a quick ride after work today. I'm running the Roco with about 35% less pressure than I had in the Float R. Even with that much less pressure the Roco rides higher in the travel. Riding higher in the travel was a plus on the tech climbs I hit as it helped reduce the number of pedal strickes. On the descents it felt much plusher than the float R. I'll post up some other thoughs as I get more ride time on the Roco.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    106

    PiggyBack

    Quote Originally Posted by noosa2 View Post
    I mounted up a 200 X 57 Roco TST R on my Nickel and got in a quick ride after work today. I'm running the Roco with about 35% less pressure than I had in the Float R. Even with that much less pressure the Roco rides higher in the travel. Riding higher in the travel was a plus on the tech climbs I hit as it helped reduce the number of pedal strickes. On the descents it felt much plusher than the float R. I'll post up some other thoughs as I get more ride time on the Roco.
    How much air are you running in the piggyback?

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    98
    @ MTBforlife: The air in the piggy is really no deal or letīs say it more positive - itīs a welcome tuning tool. The piggy allows you to tune the shock softer or faster ramping up at the end than a standard Roco. I am riding it with 10 psi over the minimum.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: noosa2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,608
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    How much air are you running in the piggyback?
    I"m running it at the minimum right now. I'll play with the settings as I get more ride time.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    106

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by tobiwan View Post
    @ MTBforlife: The air in the piggy is really no deal or letīs say it more positive - itīs a welcome tuning tool. The piggy allows you to tune the shock softer or faster ramping up at the end than a standard Roco. I am riding it with 10 psi over the minimum.
    Exactly. But at only 10 pounds over minimum in the piggy you really do not have much room to go softer. I can go on-and-on about this. There are so many different variables that come to play that the average rider has no clue about.

    For example: When I first put the bike together I was runninig a seatpost with a 20mm offset. By doing that I was putting more weight on the rear wheel. I had to run higher air pressure to run proper sag, and the ride quality sucked. I removed the seatpost and put one on with a zero setback. This allowed me to run lower air pressure in the shock to achieve the same amount of sag and the result is perfection.

    Now if I was running the TST R on the other hand then I could manipulate the curve a little so I could continue to run the setback post..

    My LO is working great with the frame/correct seatpost. Im running about 15mm of sag and the rear of the bike settles very well with the RC3 Ti up front. The bike feels balanced on the climbs and descents and now has great all around performance.

  67. #67
    rollin
    Reputation: sriracha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,622
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    My LO is working great with the frame/correct seatpost. Im running about 15mm of sag and the rear of the bike settles very well with the RC3 Ti up front. The bike feels balanced on the climbs and descents and now has great all around performance.
    I am glad to read this, as this is the same suspension setup I will be running. I laced up the wheels last night. Building the rest today.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 200 x 57mm shock on a Nickel = 142mm of travel!-nickel3.jpg  

    200 x 57mm shock on a Nickel = 142mm of travel!-nickel5.jpg  


  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    106
    [QUOTE=sriracha;9836511]I am glad to read this, as this is the same suspension setup I will be running. I laced up the wheels last night. Building the rest today.[/QUOTE

    King Hubs

    My primary wheels are EA90 wheels, which is different for me because I have been running Hadley Hubs for the last five years.

    My hadley Hubs are laced to Stans Arch EX rims.

    The suspension is dialed.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658

    Any updates......

    on this?

  70. #70
    rollin
    Reputation: sriracha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    updates on this?
    updates on my bike are in a separate thread on the Santa Cruz forum, here:

    Nickel Bike of Funk - build pics

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by sriracha View Post
    updates on my bike are in a separate thread on the Santa Cruz forum, here:

    Nickel Bike of Funk - build pics
    Yeah, I've been reading that! It's looking nice.

    I talked to X-fusion today. Their 2013 stuff is out and they don't have any '12 stuff left over. I was hoping to pick up a '12 O2 RCX at a good price, like I did last year. I also asked about the Vector air shock. But, he said that they won't fit the Nickel.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    I just sent PUSH this email:

    Hello,

    Hope you guys are doing well. I purchased a Santa Cruz Nickel with a 200x50mm Fox RL shock. A lot of people are switching to a 57mm stroke shock. See here:

    200 x 57mm shock on a Nickel = 142mm of travel!

    I would like to do this. I have been told that the 50mm stroke Fox RL shock can be converted to a 57mm stroke, by removing a spacer. Is this true? If yes, does it need to be retuned? Can you do this for me and how much would it cost? Let me know of any other options that may be available. I would like to have an adjustable platform, but I know the RL doesn't have that.

    Thanks,
    Shawn Harrington
    AKA: Mountain Cycle Shawn

  73. #73
    Flow
    Reputation: Hermes475's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    I just sent PUSH this email:

    Nice, I had been contemplating doing just that.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    743
    Definitely post back with the reply, interesting idea.

  75. #75
    rollin
    Reputation: sriracha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    doesn't posting a link to this thread, within this thread, break the space time continuum?

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    ^ I don't know. Try it! Click on the link, read the thread till you get to the link, click the link and read the thread, and repeat. Get back to us when you get back to the future.

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    106

    Bad ASS!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    ^ I don't know. Try it! Click on the link, read the thread till you get to the link, click the link and read the thread, and repeat. Get back to us when you get back to the future.

    As an update the bike with the 200x57 is working great. Everything is working very well. As of now the bike now weighs in at 28 pounds, 4 ounces. I am so close to breaking the 27 pound threshold. I am just 113.36 grams short of my goal. That is equal to a role of quarters

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    As an update the bike with the 200x57 is working great. Everything is working very well. As of now the bike now weighs in at 28 pounds, 4 ounces. I am so close to breaking the 27 pound threshold. I am just 113.36 grams short of my goal. That is equal to a role of quarters
    Stick on a Tioga Spyder saddle. It's about 140 grams, If I remember right and it's the most comfy saddle my sorry ass has sat on.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    I just sent PUSH this email:

    Hello,

    Hope you guys are doing well. I purchased a Santa Cruz Nickel with a 200x50mm Fox RL shock. A lot of people are switching to a 57mm stroke shock. See here:

    200 x 57mm shock on a Nickel = 142mm of travel!

    I would like to do this. I have been told that the 50mm stroke Fox RL shock can be converted to a 57mm stroke, by removing a spacer. Is this true? If yes, does it need to be retuned? Can you do this for me and how much would it cost? Let me know of any other options that may be available. I would like to have an adjustable platform, but I know the RL doesn't have that.

    Thanks,
    Shawn Harrington
    AKA: Mountain Cycle Shawn
    No answer from PUSH yet.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Stick on a Tioga Spyder saddle. It's about 140 grams, If I remember right and it's the most comfy saddle my sorry ass has sat on.
    The seat that is on there now is a Silverado Limited Edition Lopes 55 saddle. That saddle works great. For me, when it comes to saddles comfort trumps weight.

    I have heard really good things about the Spyder.

    I am very picky about saddles and the one on there now is the best I have used in a long time. The only saddle I have had that I liked better is a old Sella Italia Flight Prolink seat with Carbon rails, which I bought back in year 2000. That is my favorite saddle of all time. That saddle lasted me seven years and it only got better with time. To bad they discontinued that model, I would have ran that saddle forever if I could have.

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    31
    How does the Roco LO compare to the Float RL that comes on the Nickel? I have found a few still new 2011 Roco Lo's for sale on Ebay for 169 bucks and thought I would check before jumping on it.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    31
    I should say, in ride quality and adjustment. It obviously has the extra travel.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by flyingnome View Post
    How does the Roco LO compare to the Float RL that comes on the Nickel? I have found a few still new 2011 Roco Lo's for sale on Ebay for 169 bucks and thought I would check before jumping on it.
    I frame originally came with the Fox RL. I rode the bike and everything functioned OK. When I put the ROCO LO on, it took the bike to another level. The ROCO really complements the frame well.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    31
    thanks! Shock ordered

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    I got tired of PUSH effing around for the last five days and not being able to give me an answer. So, I just purchased a new RS Monarch RT3 200 x 57mm, from Suspension Experts, for my Nickel. From the initial contact, it took them about 15 minutes to get back to me and tell me that they have the shock in stock and what tune and which reducers that I need. And, the price was right! I will be sending my new RS Revelation RLT to get NUDGed, by them, once I get the shock on and broke in. It was really nice doing business with Chris at Suspension Experts!
    __________________

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: noosa2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,608
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    I frame originally came with the Fox RL. I rode the bike and everything functioned OK. When I put the ROCO LO on, it took the bike to another level. The ROCO really complements the frame well.
    I'm running the roco tst R and have to agree that it is a great match for the nickel. The roco is so plush it is making my lyrik seem a bit harsh . The lyrik felt like a great match on my knolly endo with a rp23 and my Turner rfx with a Pushed fox dhx (MX tune).

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    Fox, Marzocchi, Rockshox, Manitou all use the same hardware. So if you replace that Fox crap for some good old Marzocchi love the hardware is the same.
    Actually the Fox hardware is 22 x 8mm and the RS is 21.8 x 8mm.

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    86
    Does going to the longer stroke shock alter the geo much?

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfboy View Post
    Does going to the longer stroke shock alter the geo much?
    No, the eye to eye length of the shock is the same. Technically you could say that things will slacken out a little when you get into that last 7mm of shock stroke.
    Last edited by Mountain Cycle Shawn; 11-19-2012 at 08:08 PM.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    No, the eye to eye length of the shock is the same. Technically you could say that things will slacken out a little when you get in to that last 7mm of shock stroke.
    Thats pretty cool, would make it similar to a BLT but with better geometry. With a 150mm fork it would be nice and slack too.

    Sizing is an issue for me, i am right on the border between L and XL but typically ride smaller frames ( currently a L bandit).

    The nickel is so cheap right now i am tempted to give it a shot.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    ^ Go for it. I think it's a great bike. I think this frame with a longer stroke shock is one of the best kept secrets in mountain biking. I think I'll probably reduce my new Revelation down to 140mm. There is a lot climbing where I live, so I don't need it to be over slack.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    ^ Go for it. I think it's a great bike. I think this frame with a longer stroke shock is one of the best kept secrets in mountain biking. I think I'll probably reduce my new Revelation down to 140mm. There is a lot climbing where I live, so I don't need it to be over slack.
    I rode Chilao CG and there is a ton of climbing. With my 150mm fork the bike handled great on the climbs and handle Silver Moccasin trail with no issues.

    I hope to climb Mt Pinos soon.

    By the way my bike is down to 28 pounds 5 ounces. Im so close.

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    As of now the bike now weighs in at 28 pounds, 4 ounces.
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    By the way my bike is down to 28 pounds 5 ounces. Im so close.
    Are you corn feedin' that thing?

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by mountain cycle shawn View Post
    are you corn feedin' that thing?
    lol!!!

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    267
    How do you guys think a Nickel with the 200x57mm shock paired with a 160mm fork and angleset to slacken out the front would work for lift access DH runs? I know it wouldn't be able to handle crazy drops or huge jumps, but I got this crazy idea in my head a few hours ago and wanted to run the idea by some others.

    I'm currently building a 650b Nickel and thought a slackened out Nickel 26er with 160f/140r travel would be awesome too.

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    As long as you don't have to climb steep stuff.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ATXZJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    ^ I think this frame with a longer stroke shock is one of the best kept secrets in mountain biking. .
    X2, I'm trying to get a buddy to buy a nickel for a 650 build before they're gone. These frames are just a great platform for the do it all bike.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by DYI01 View Post
    How do you guys think a Nickel with the 200x57mm shock paired with a 160mm fork and angleset to slacken out the front would work for lift access DH runs? I know it wouldn't be able to handle crazy drops or huge jumps, but I got this crazy idea in my head a few hours ago and wanted to run the idea by some others.

    I'm currently building a 650b Nickel and thought a slackened out Nickel 26er with 160f/140r travel would be awesome too.
    I tried mine out with a 160mm travel Marzocchi 55 with a A-to-C length 546mm and I thought the bike did not corner or climb very well.

    I decided to use the 44 RC3 Ti150mm travel because I think this fork offers the best of both worlds that fit my riding style

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    As long as you don't have to climb steep stuff.
    This setup would be for lift access DH stuff only, no climbing.

    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    I tried mine out with a 160mm travel Marzocchi 55 with a A-to-C length 546mm and I thought the bike did not corner or climb very well.

    I decided to use the 44 RC3 Ti150mm travel because I think this fork offers the best of both worlds that fit my riding style
    I'm curious as to why you thought it didn't corner well, was it the BB height change? I can understand why it wouldn't climb very well though.

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by DYI01 View Post
    This setup would be for lift access DH stuff only, no climbing.



    I'm curious as to why you thought it didn't corner well, was it the BB height change? I can understand why it wouldn't climb very well though.
    I found the bike was great going straight but corning the bike felt to tight and I was not able to flick the bike the way I wanted. I also had an issue with the front wheel not hooking up the way I wanted because I had difficulty putting enough weight on the front wheel. The bike did not feel comfortable climbing too. I found I was using extra energy trying to keep the front stable on steep climbs.

    When I went to a 44 RC3 Ti I only lost 10mm of travel and lowered the front of the bike by about 20mm.

    My head angle is around 67.5 degrees now

    Now the bike climbs great and desends like a bat out of hell. I built this bike to be an all around trailbike versus others who are building it up as an All Mountain Bike.

    I did build this bike to suit my needs where I ride and riding style.

    What I learned with this build is less is more with the exception of putting on a 200x57 rear shock.

    Your riding style and location my require different geo.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 6

Posting Permissions

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