Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: honkeystyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    45

    So which pivot point are you using on your EG and why?

    Was looking at all the pictures and most of them show that the lower pivot point is the one most utilized. Just curious as to why and if someone has used both and can give a brief comparison of how the bike rode.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by honkeystyle View Post
    Was looking at all the pictures and most of them show that the lower pivot point is the one most utilized. Just curious as to why and if someone has used both and can give a brief comparison of how the bike rode.
    I am using the upper pivot point. Just for the more progressive style. But I want to use the lower point just to compare.
    "Do not go where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail" Ralph Waldo Emerson

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    341
    I think most people would have it on the lower pivot mount because that's how the bike came, the bike rode well, so they didn't bother changing it. the upper pivot more makes the rear suspension more progressive, so is more suited to coil shocks, and most people use air shocks. however, given that the large can air shocks are a lot more (coil-like) linear than they were 5+ years ago, I suppose that many would find the higher pivot mount would suit them with such high volume air shocks, if they had wanted a cushy ride that ramped up for big hits. for those just doing all round trail bike type riding (without the big hucks), the more linear suspension from the lower mount would probably suit better, as they could achieve reduced sag & squat for climbing (in theory), and use all the travel on smaller hits.

    I put a CCBD (coil) on my old EG, and went straight to the upper pivot mount when i put the shock on - so didn't actually do a like-for-like comparison of the mounting points. when i got my new EG with the push'd monarch on it, the rear suspension was great (in the lower mount), so I didn't bother moving it. I haven't really ridden that bike that much, as I got injured not that long after getting it, so I never got around to tinkering with the pivot position. In any case, since I broke my arm (another injury), I sure slowed down a bit, so the big hits were much less often, so the linear lower position probably now suits my riding style better anyway.

    do some tinkering to work out what works for you. if doesn't take long at all to switch the position, so it is entirely feasible that you could session the same section of trail multiple times, to see which one works best. I'm not sure if you'd have to touch air pressure, as I think that the overall average leverage ratio is unchanged, though you might have to up the pressure slightly if you wanted to maintain the exact same sag (more progressive = higher leverage at top out, and lower leverage at bottom out).

    also be aware that using the higher pivot location will raise the rear of the bike slightly - that's unsagged. with unchanged air pressure, you'd probably end up with the same sagged height though.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: anvil_den's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    917
    There is no right or wrong-- I see the 2 points as just another area to fine tune together with the shock in use.

    On a coil shock I do swap around 2 different springs and the pivot point depending on body weight...

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Deerhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,018
    Put it in the "other hole" and ride it..

    Agree shocks are different now with control over high speed and low speed, biggest diff I find is in rebound

    w/ same shock settings and trying both holes-

    top= bike feels like it gains a good dose of boost off the lip.. or you can slow the rebound on shock and make end stroke more progressive

    basically a bigger difference when you go through the travel, kind of separates things more for the shock to work. Like anvil said, more option to tune for different trails ie make travel more active "off the top" or give it more bottom out control.. takes a bit of time to test

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BillT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    864
    Mine came in the lower hole and rode it for a while like that and I recently changed it to the upper/more progressive hole....I honestly can't tell a difference between the two.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: honkeystyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    45
    I feel like I wont be able to as well and then I will feel slightly inferior because my bike senses aren't as sharp as others supposedly are I run the front hole at the moment and am working on getting the suspension sorted. It if will ever stop raining I may actually have the chance to achieve my goal.

  8. #8
    Dont Rep me
    Reputation: Strafer.2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    131
    Anyone measure the BB height before/after changing the mounting hole?

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: honkeystyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    45
    I may do just that. Im out of the country for a few days but when I return I may take some measurements and see if there is any change. I have heard reports of pedal strike problems but I have yet to encounter those. Would be curious to see if it was localized to those who use the lower mount.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,795
    Would be curious to see if it was localized to those who use the lower mount.
    Trust me, it's not. I use the progressive hole on my v3 with a coil and the linear hole on my v1 with a rp23. I smack my toes like crazy with the v3.

    I'll get some measurments later.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by terrible View Post
    Trust me, it's not. I use the progressive hole on my v3 with a coil and the linear hole on my v1 with a rp23. I smack my toes like crazy with the v3.

    I'll get some measurments later.
    that isn't exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. the v3 started out with a lower BB height than the v1.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,795
    that isn't exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. the v3 started out with a lower BB height than the v1.
    Well aware of that. But anything that can help the BB hight on v3 I'm all for. Things like a more progressive rate would keep the bike higher in it's travel more often.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by terrible View Post
    Well aware of that. But anything that can help the BB hight on v3 I'm all for. Things like a more progressive rate would keep the bike higher in it's travel more often.
    I'm no expert on it, but wouldn't a more progressive rate, everything else being equal, make the bike sink into its initial travel easier?

    when i say "everything else being equal", I mean that:
    - the overall average leverage is the same between the linear and progressive curve (so the total travel is the same), and
    - you use the same air pressure/spring, so you are setting the spring rate for bottom out, and are not that worried about exact sag.

    The higher leverage of the progressive curve (vs the linear setup) in the first (top) half of the travel would allow the bike to sink more easily into its travel. Given that the first half of the travel is where you do most of your pedaling, a more progressive curve would have you hitting pedals more often.

    However, all this is offset by the fact that the progressive mounting hole on the EG supposedly raises the BB slightly at top out, which is still to be confirmed/measured. I'd do the measurement/comparison, but my EG is at a friend's house - he is building a new v3 and wanted some cable routing ideas. It'd be also interesting to measure if/how much the sag changes between the two pivot mounts (given the same air pressure/spring), but it'd probably be so close that it would be hard to measure it (hard to get your weight consistently in the same spot).

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,795
    Yeah it's way to early to answer that.

    I've got to go cut some trees off the trails this morning but when I get back I'll try to get the "real life" bottom bracket hight measured.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: anvil_den's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    917
    Quote Originally Posted by sclyde2 View Post
    I'm no expert on it, but wouldn't a more progressive rate, everything else being equal, make the bike sink into its initial travel easier?

    Hope Im not wrong here..

    in the "progressive" position ---rocker is more horizontal relative to the bottom hole
    -- physics would dictate that a larger force is needed to overcome and make things move upward as shock compress.

    I think this is the diff between this 2 mounting points giving rise to the description "more progressive in the upper hole"..

    What you describe I think would be referring more to how a shock works throughout its travel range.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by sclyde2 View Post
    I'm no expert on it, but wouldn't a more progressive rate, everything else being equal, make the bike sink into its initial travel easier?

    when i say "everything else being equal", I mean that:
    - the overall average leverage is the same between the linear and progressive curve (so the total travel is the same), and
    - you use the same air pressure/spring, so you are setting the spring rate for bottom out, and are not that worried about exact sag.

    The higher leverage of the progressive curve (vs the linear setup) in the first (top) half of the travel would allow the bike to sink more easily into its travel. Given that the first half of the travel is where you do most of your pedaling, a more progressive curve would have you hitting pedals more often.

    However, all this is offset by the fact that the progressive mounting hole on the EG supposedly raises the BB slightly at top out, which is still to be confirmed/measured. I'd do the measurement/comparison, but my EG is at a friend's house - he is building a new v3 and wanted some cable routing ideas. It'd be also interesting to measure if/how much the sag changes between the two pivot mounts (given the same air pressure/spring), but it'd probably be so close that it would be hard to measure it (hard to get your weight consistently in the same spot).
    So in a few words the upper hole lifts the BB a bit but at the end it makes the shock compresses more easily so it is more "soft" that's why I have pedal strikes?I haven't tried the lower hole yet to compare.
    Forgive me for the non technical terms...
    "Do not go where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail" Ralph Waldo Emerson

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,301
    I used to ride the V1 with the RP23 in the upper hole and felt it was much better then the lower hole but I had the air can shimmed on that shock and it was a bit too firm in the lower hole. I tried my V2 with a PUSHED Monarch in the upper hole yesterday, I wasnt blown away by the difference but it did fell a tiny bit more progressive.

  18. #18
    Outcast
    Reputation: Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,379
    According to Craig at Avalanche Downhill Racing, who just built a Woodie for my EG, there is not much difference at all between the rates provided by the two mounting holes. He showed me a graph depicting the difference, which is not much difference at all. Not enough to sway him to mount my shock in either or the other.
    If you feel strongly opposed to what I just posted, please fell free to post your facts.
    ****

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Deerhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,018
    I could feel a difference with the float on v1, definitely was a change in harshness/ more spiking.. Is that a fact?

    Maybe just the bike sitting a little higher in back puts more weight in 160 fork? I don't know.. what version eg was tested?

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Deerhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,018
    Oh, and how do you like the woodie compared to the rockshox you had?

  21. #21
    Outcast
    Reputation: Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,379
    Quote Originally Posted by DeerhillJ View Post
    I could feel a difference with the float on v1, definitely was a change in harshness/ more spiking.. Is that a fact?

    Maybe just the bike sitting a little higher in back puts more weight in 160 fork? I don't know.. what version eg was tested?
    Fact? I don't think do. Sounds like your cheap float shock was not up to the task. Maybe you should replace it with a real shock.
    ****

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Deerhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,018

    I know, had a bad day..

    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    Fact? I don't think do. Sounds like your cheap float shock was not up to the task. Maybe you should replace it with a real shock.
    was just being a dickhead sorry.. tried packing that shock full of shims and nothing about it was up to the task, not even the du or reducer, those started to fail within couple months of building the bike. Went to bearings and coil and since, have not needed to put it in the other hole.. Only thing the RP poopee had going for it was the low weight. Well, and the sticker, I did get little over two bills for it on ebay

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,795
    Only thing the RP poopee had going for it was the low weight. Well, and the sticker, I did get little over two bills for it on ebay
    isn't it funny the stuff we talk about on here that we consider junk still goes for good money on 'the 'bay? cobalt wheels, rp23 shocks etc etc.....
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  24. #24
    Outcast
    Reputation: Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,379
    Quote Originally Posted by DeerhillJ View Post
    was just being a dickhead sorry.. tried packing that shock full of shims and nothing about it was up to the task, not even the du or reducer, those started to fail within couple months of building the bike. Went to bearings and coil and since, have not needed to put it in the other hole.. Only thing the RP poopee had going for it was the low weight. Well, and the sticker, I did get little over two bills for it on ebay
    Dererhill, no worries; it's not like I have never been a d i c k head before

    I have two rides in on the Avy Woodie; I made major changes to the tuning between the two rides, and now will make minor ones from here out. It's going to be great. About 6 weeks ago I got an Avy Chubbie for my '04 turner 5 spot, and it transformed the bike. Based on my experience dialing in that shock, getting the EG/Woodie dialed in should be quick. It feels fabulous. I was using a Vivid R2c air on the bike, and it was the best air shock I've ever ridden [never rode a CCDB air, but I've ridden the coil, and didn't like it, so it is and was never on my list of shocks to try] and I've got time on every other air shock there is. The Vivid was very good, but it doesn't come close to the Avy. As a DH'er at heart, I am allways willing to pay the weight penalty for the performance pay-off.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails So which pivot point are you using on your EG and why?-woodie-004.1.jpg  

    So which pivot point are you using on your EG and why?-woodie-002.1.jpg  

    Last edited by Renegade; 10-10-2012 at 06:55 PM.
    ****

  25. #25
    Dont Rep me
    Reputation: Strafer.2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    131
    Changed the mount to the upper holes and gained about 1/4" in BB height.
    Haven't gone for a ride yet, but warning for those who change:

    -clean out any dirt from the upper mount and lightly grease.
    -just barely thread one bolt, then do the same on the other side. If you screw in the first bolt more than that, the second bolt won't line up.
    -initially screw the bolts in one turn at a time until you meet resistance about half way in.
    -at this point it feels like you're going to strip the threads, so say a prayer to your favorite MTB deity and apply more torque on that allen wrench!

    This could've been unique to my frame, maybe your frame will be easier to change the mounting hole.

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
  •