Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 293
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,977

    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
    11,977

    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
    11,977

    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
    11,977
    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
    72
    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
    11,977
    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
    2,616
    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
    11,977
    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
    481
    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
    1,508
    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
    11,977
    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
    2,616
    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
    481
    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
    11,977
    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
    11,977
    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
    94

    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
    11,977
    ^ 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
    11,977
    Hey Tobiwan,
    How much sag are you using?

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    481
    Sweet. Thanks for the info!

  26. #26
    rollin
    Reputation: sriracha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,616
    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
    94
    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
    2,616
    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
    11,977
    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
    2,616
    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
    11,977
    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 06:48 PM.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    481
    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
    94
    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
    2,616
    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
    11,977
    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
    2,616
    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
    11,977
    ^Thanks

  40. #40
    rollin
    Reputation: sriracha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,616
    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
    11,977
    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
    11,977
    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
    11,977
    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
    11,977
    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!

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... 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
  •