Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    212

    Idea! Sette Flite AM travel measured in mm (also leverage ratio)

    So, I drew a mockup of the Flite AM frame in a CAD program called SAM (by Artas) that is used for linkage and mechanism analysis (follow the link to download a free demo version. It's very easy to use but doesn't let you save). I wasn't satisfied with the travel specs being stated as 4"/5"/6", so I measured the actual vertical displacement at the dropout when a 190mm length 50mm stroke shock is compressed the full 50mm.

    Here are my results:
    6" setting: 144 mm = 5.67"
    5" setting: 116 mm = 4.57"
    4" setting: 100 mm = 3.94"

    Just thought I'd throw these numbers out there. I would say that these are accurate to +/-2mm since I basically overlaid the frame image in the CAD program and drew the linkage on top of that. There is a slight margin of error as I just "eyeballed" things this way. Below you see a screenshot of this along with the measurement of the shock, which is very close to 190 mm.

    Sette Flite AM travel measured in mm (also leverage ratio)-fliteam_cad.jpg
    Last edited by derailin_palin; 01-29-2010 at 06:32 PM.

  2. #2
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,996
    What I find to be curious is the slowing rate of travel increase . Is it manufacturing discrepancy or is it designed that way ?

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS
    What I find to be curious is the slowing rate of travel increase . Is it manufacturing discrepancy or is it designed that way ?
    Actually, that may be an artifact of how I drew the model. If you hold everything stationary and measure the eye to eye length of each of the rocker arm eyelets to the bottom shock mount point, the distances are not all 190mm. If you take the 5" mount hole of the rocker and call the distance to the lower mount 190mm, then the 4" setting is close to 2mm longer, and the 6" setting is 2mm shorter. Since the leverage ratio is about 3:1 for the 6" case, that translates to a -6mm error in measured wheel travel at the wheel, and about +4mm error in the 4" setting, with 0 error at the 5". So, the corrected numbers are more like

    6": 150mm
    5": 116mm
    4": 96mm

    Another way to visualize this is that when the shock is mounted in the 6" position, the rocker arm is tipped back slightly, pushing the rear dropout's 6mm lower than where it was in the 5" setting. Take these numbers with a grain of salt, but I put them up there for those who are shopping around for frames and prefer travel measured in mm instead of inches because for some reason manufacturers will distinguish 125mm from 130mm from 140mm, but these are all 5" bikes somehow.

  4. #4
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,996
    Thanks for taking the time to post this .

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    212
    FYI, I measured the BB vertical drop in the 6" setting between shock fully extended and fully compressed and it was 85mm. I'm not sure right now how to translate this into vertical wheel displacement, but there it is. Maybe someone else can do the calculation?

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    212
    More fun data
    Sette Flite AM travel measured in mm (also leverage ratio)-flite-leverage-rate.gif
    EDIT: I changed this graph. I miscalculated the leverage before. Now I calculate it as the the rate of vertical displacement of the wheel divided by the absolute compression rate of the shock. For example, I run a simulation in which I compress the shock its full 50.8mm in 1 second. The the shock compression rate is 50.8 mm/sec. At the same time I plot the derivative of the vertical displacement of the wheel, which gives wheel rate in mm/sec. Someone tell me if this is not right.

    EDIT2: Redrew the frame in Linkage 2 demo version and I get almost the same results as with the SAM software, but the leverage curve is surprisingly sensitive to small changes in pivot positions. It all comes down to how well I eyeball the linkage points when I overlay the image of the frame (which involves aligning the program and image browser windows on top of one another and switching between the two quickly to see how the pivot points line up. Annoying!)

    EDIT3: Found an awesome program for Windows XP called Glass2k which makes windows partially transparent. So I put the CAD program window over the window with the frame drawing and make the CAD window slightly transparent so I can see where to put the pivot points down.

    EDIT4 (!): Did the calculation for 5" and 4" setting. Again, these have a slight margin of error, but are very close to the real thing.
    Last edited by derailin_palin; 01-29-2010 at 05:58 PM.

  7. #7
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    17,377
    let it be.
    I'm a mericun - i can't figger those dang millie-meters out any how.
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by highdelll
    let it be.
    I'm a mericun - i can't figger those dang millie-meters out any how.
    It just seems kind of strange that ads for full suspension bikes round rear travel numbers to the nearest inch. You never see an ad claiming 5.25" or 5.7" rear travel. So, I just wanted to get a more precise measurement (doesn't matter to me if it's in imperial or metric units).

  9. #9
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    17,377
    Quote Originally Posted by derailin_palin
    It just seems kind of strange that ads for full suspension bikes round rear travel numbers to the nearest inch. You never see an ad claiming 5.25" or 5.7" rear travel. So, I just wanted to get a more precise measurement (doesn't matter to me if it's in imperial or metric units).
    I know home-skillet, just bein a goof.

    Great stuff
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dictatorsaurus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,545
    Anyone knows what tune does the Monarch 3.1 come with the Flite?

    The tunes go from A to E.

    Here's a chart for Monarch tunes for different frames but I don't know how to interpret it:

    http://www.bike-components.de/downlo...ence_chart.pdf

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by Dictatorsaurus
    Anyone knows what tune does the Monarch 3.1 come with the Flite?

    The tunes go from A to E.

    Here's a chart for Monarch tunes for different frames but I don't know how to interpret it:

    http://www.bike-components.de/downlo...ence_chart.pdf
    Wow, didn't know they provided this info, it's gold! Wish I had this when I got my RS MC3.3 shock rebuilt. I was a newb at the time so not only did I give the rebuild shop the wrong leverage ratio (3.1) but I totally ignored the fact that it was not constant with wheel travel.

    See my earlier post in this thread, I have plotted the leverage curve for 4", 5" and 6" setting.

    For the 6" setting, the leverage curve straddles right between the Monarch B or C tunes.
    For 5", the curve straddles the A and B tunes.
    For 4", the curve fits the A tune.

    As for what Pricepoint actually ships, dunno. Someone should ask and post back!

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dictatorsaurus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,545
    BTW the stock monarch size for the Flite is 7.5 / 2, right?

    Do you know what's the difference between the regular Monarch and the HV (High Volume) Monarch?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by Dictatorsaurus
    BTW the stock monarch size for the Flite is 7.5 / 2, right?

    Do you know what's the difference between the regular Monarch and the HV (High Volume) Monarch?
    Correct, 190x50mm or 7"/2". The HV can is better because you can run lower pressure which puts less stress on the air can seals. Also, as an air shock is cycled, repeated pressure spikes cause the temperature of the air in the can to go up according to PV=nRT. This can lead to the shock firming up under repeated hits. A bigger air can reduces this effect.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dictatorsaurus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,545
    I'm an Electrical Engineer, not a Mechanical. What does all your fancy calculation tell us?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by Dictatorsaurus
    I'm an Electrical Engineer, not a Mechanical. What does all your fancy calculation tell us?
    I'm also an electrical engineer The link you posted above about monarch tunes explains in a single sentence and pretty pictures what leverage ratio means and how it's used to tune shocks.

    Basically the leverage rate is how "sensitive" the shock is to force inputs at different parts of the wheel travel. It's a curve because the linkage changes the leverage ratio as the wheel moves through its travel, so that the shock has a position-sensitive response. By designing the leverage curve you can tune the shock to behave differently for small, medium and large hits and adjust bottom out behavior. Note that this has nothing to do with compression and rebound damping, which are generally speed-sensitive rather than position-sensitive.

    In the case of the Flite, you can see that it has a falling-rate curve, so as you use up more travel the shock becomes stiffer to prevent harsh bottom out.

    If you need to know more, I recommend doing a search over in the suspension forums.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dictatorsaurus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,545
    I called PP and they didn't know what the tune is. I asked another person who has the Flite and he said it comes in tune B.

  17. #17
    Cuánto pesa?
    Reputation: Jake Pay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    7,880
    Quote Originally Posted by highdelll
    let it be.
    I'm a mericun - i can't figger those dang millie-meters out any how.
    You gotta admit 200mm sounds bigger than 8 inches

  18. #18
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    17,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Jake Pay
    You gotta admit 200mm sounds bigger than 8 inches
    hmmm...
    "Hey babe, check out my 200mm johnson!"

    I may have to try that
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dictatorsaurus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,545
    The replacement Monarch 3.1 shock I received has a label on it showing "Tune A".

    With my gear on I'm probably around 200lb. I'm guessing the B tune is a better option for me.

    Thoughts?

  20. #20
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Dictatorsaurus
    The replacement Monarch 3.1 shock I received has a label on it showing "Tune A".

    With my gear on I'm probably around 200lb. I'm guessing the B tune is a better option for me.

    Thoughts?


    Base you tune selection on the travel option that you are going to use the majority of the time . Example : 6" travel , you might want to opt for the c tune . 5 " option , prob. go with the b tune .

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dictatorsaurus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,545
    I will be experimenting mostly with 5" and 6" setting. Not so much with the 4".

  22. #22
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Dictatorsaurus
    I will be experimenting mostly with 5" and 6" setting. Not so much with the 4".

    B or C tune , You say your around 200 lbs. geared up , if you think your going to stay at that weight the C tune might be the ticket . The shock tech should be able to get it sorted out though .

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dictatorsaurus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,545
    Quote Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS
    if you think your going to stay at that weight the C tune might be the ticket
    That's the million dollar question

    I'm losing fat for biking but I'm also doing weights which I guess is keeping my weight balanced. I'll have to experiment more to know exactly what tune I will be more comfortable with.

  24. #24
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Dictatorsaurus
    That's the million dollar question

    I'm losing fat for biking but I'm also doing weights which I guess is keeping my weight balanced. I'll have to experiment more to know exactly what tune I will be more comfortable with.

    Exactly , how it feels and works for you is the key . Good luck .

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    212
    Until you lose all that weight, using Tune A in the 6" setting will probably not be that great and you will find that you blow through the travel in the mid stroke too quickly, with increased air can pressure being the only way to compensate for that.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 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
  •