Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 73
  1. #1
    Bunny Hoppin Gators
    Reputation: drivengsxr1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    177

    drcv worth the trouble?

    I got a 2011 ex7 and of course they change the rear shock the next year, on the site they are pushing the drcv rear shock hard, is it worth the upgrade?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    25
    Yes it is! I have a 2011 with the drcv rear and love it, bottomless feel when u need it and Xcode feel when in smaller bumps. Now I'm drooling over the drcv forks on the 2012's.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    111
    The DRVC shock and fork are really good. Good wIth small bumps and big hits. Love the fact I could comfortable ride over dirt tracks with dried out 4x4 tire tracks and do a 2 foot jump right after. The rippling effect from the uneven tire tracks use to bothers me, DRVC suspension smoother it out slightly.

  4. #4
    N/A
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    234

    I'm going to say "no"

    I recently picked up a 2012 EX9 - first experience with DRCV. I'm not impressed, but I will add the caveat that I like to run my suspension pretty plush.

    The DRCV fork is great but to be honest I don't think it works any better than a non-DRCV fork that is tuned properly and has fresh seals & damper oil. (I say that because people always compare their old worn suspension to a new model - of course the new one feels better than your tired old kit.)

    But I really don't like the DRCV rear. I also have a 2008 Remedy 9 - back when the Remedy came with a Fox 36. With a shimmed HV or LV air can (or the DHX5 that I was running for awhile), I run the Remedy at ~30% sag, which I think is a good match for the 36 fork (which I find plusher than the 32-series forks). If I run 30% sag on the DRCV shock, it blows through the travel really quickly once the DRCV chamber opens. In order to not blow through the travel in the bottom 50% "DRCV open" part of the travel, I have to run the shock at a much higher PSI, which results in a harsher ride for the top 50% "DRCV closed" travel.

    Now many people like that "more efficient" pedaling and stiffer top end. I think that's the reason that many like DRCV. It feels like an efficient XC pedaler, but opens up on bigger hits and doesn't feel harsh. But for me, I ride a lot of rocky terrain and prefer a slightly plusher initial feel feel to soak up the choppy terrain, at the expense of less efficient pedalling on smoother terrain.

    So at the end of the day, I'll say that I think the DRCV shocks fit some riding styles well, but don't fit all riding styles. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't make riding suck or anything - and it makes a greater difference between my Scratch-like Remedy (DH bar/stem, Hadley/823 wheels, etc., 2.5 tires). But I really would prefer a slightly plusher feel on the EX also.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    289
    My area tends to be pretty rocky (Northern Cali) and the DRCV is sweet for soaking up the small and large stuff...

    Mtnbkaz makes a very solid point about worn shocks vs new DRCVs so it may be worth borrowing a demo Trek 2012 EX 5 and EX 8 so you can feel the difference (EX5s have reg shocks, EX8 are DRCV front and rear)

  6. #6
    N/A
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by GoingOffRoading View Post
    My area tends to be pretty rocky (Northern Cali) and the DRCV is sweet for soaking up the small and large stuff...
    DRCV can't "soak up" small and large stuff with the same tune - unless your definition of soak up is significantly different from mine - which was my point that DRCV is a good match for some riding styles/preferences but not for others.

    Think about it - no matter what pressure you're running, the volume of DRCV increases at 50% travel. So the spring rate will always be lower for the 2nd half of the shock stroke than the 1st half of the stroke. So if you set it up for a plush initial feel (what I would consider to "soak up" the rocks), once you hit 50% travel the shock rate drops and you will blow through the rest of your travel.

    If you increase the pressure so that you don't bottom out on bigger hits, by definition the first half of the travel will be harsher than a non-DRCV shock. Now from an individual rider's perspective, it may still be plush enough for your needs, but it is impossible for the first half of the travel of a DRCV shock to be as plush as the bottom half.

    I think DRCV works best for people who predominantly like a XC feel (for lack of a better term) with efficient pedaling but with the higher volume bottom end to soak up bigger bumps. If you prefer a plusher ride, you'll probably not be happy with DRCV.

    What would be interesting is seeing if Push can optimize this system for a better balance. I might look into that once my shock needs an overhaul.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    132
    I agree with mtnbkaz. I just got a 2012 Rumblefish with DRCV fork and shock. I set it up
    with 30% sag rear and 25% front. In normal riding conditions it works amazingly well but
    when you try to ride more aggressively (steep rollers, small drops or fast and rocky) the
    fork just blows through it's travel and bottoms hard. I don't notice the bottoming on the rear as much.

    Bumped up the fork pressure to 15% sag and the fork is harsh and STILL BOTTOMS sometimes.

    Called up Fox and the tech said "yup that's the way Trek designed it"
    He did tell me that I could put a regular Float air cartridge in there and throw the DRCV in the trash.

    I think I will go back to the 25% sag and see if I can get use to the different feel. If not I will deffinetly be swapping for a Float cartridge in.

    Maybe Trek designed the DRCV for riders where the trails are less steep and rocky?

    JP

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    963
    Interesting discussion. I'm no engineer, but here's my amateur take. The volume does increase when the shock gets through 50% of its travel, but the pressure in the second chamber is going to be significantly higher. This is where Fox's engineers came in. I'm sure they did some math (to determine air chamber size, etc) to insure that the at 55% of shock stroke, the rate isn't significantly higher or lower than 45% of shock stroke. That was their objective anyway.... if the functional size of the air chamber changes, at the right moment, the whole shock will feel more linear and less progressive (than a single air chamber shock).

    If you are doing a bunch of jumping and big drops (6 foot plus? I mean real feet, not mtbr feet) then maybe you want more progressive feel.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Steamer19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    342
    I also agree with mtnbkaz. I have a 2010 Remedy (first year with DRCV rear) and find that in order to have a nice, plush ride on rougher terrain, I have to run more like 30% sag but I find that at the end of rides, my O-ring has slipped off the bottom of the shock. I don't feel harsh bottom outs but it would seem clear that I'm using all of my travel.

    I've been riding this bike for two full seasons now and love it but am always curious how it would compare to a non-DRCV set up.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by rfxc View Post
    Interesting discussion. I'm no engineer, but here's my amateur take. The volume does increase when the shock gets through 50% of its travel, but the pressure in the second chamber is going to be significantly higher. This is where Fox's engineers came in. I'm sure they did some math (to determine air chamber size, etc) to insure that the at 55% of shock stroke, the rate isn't significantly higher or lower than 45% of shock stroke. That was their objective anyway.... if the functional size of the air chamber changes, at the right moment, the whole shock will feel more linear and less progressive (than a single air chamber shock).

    If you are doing a bunch of jumping and big drops (6 foot plus? I mean real feet, not mtbr feet) then maybe you want more progressive feel.
    I am bottoming the fork on 3-4 foot drops(real feet) and I'm bottoming HARD. Also on steep rollers I'm hitting bottom. Trust me this fork bottoms WAY too easy at 25% sag. Bump it up to 15% and it bottoms a little less but it's way too harsh on everything else.
    This fork has ZERO Progression. It is a great fork for XC rides though when you start pushing harder that's when the lack of any progression shows. I really wish there was a way to add a little bottom out progression. The concept is good but I believe the execution is a little flawed.

    JP

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fesch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    222
    I have a 2011 Rumblefish One. I have had the DRCV rear shock replaced (on warranty) once already and just took my bike back to the LBS because the shock propedal stopped working. The LBS says, the shock will likely go back to Fox.

    I like the feel of DRCV when it's working, but I have not had good luck with it's reliability.
    fesch
    Riding in snow is for the desperate.

  12. #12
    N/A
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by rfxc View Post
    Interesting discussion. I'm no engineer, but here's my amateur take. The volume does increase when the shock gets through 50% of its travel, but the pressure in the second chamber is going to be significantly higher. This is where Fox's engineers came in. I'm sure they did some math (to determine air chamber size, etc) to insure that the at 55% of shock stroke, the rate isn't significantly higher or lower than 45% of shock stroke. That was their objective anyway.... if the functional size of the air chamber changes, at the right moment, the whole shock will feel more linear and less progressive (than a single air chamber shock).

    If you are doing a bunch of jumping and big drops (6 foot plus? I mean real feet, not mtbr feet) then maybe you want more progressive feel.
    Maybe I'm misunderstanding the DRCV marketing, but I believe the DRCV chamber is connected to the main chamber. That means that as soon as the chamber opens, the air pressure is equalized between the chambers. So there is no magic voodoo for Fox engineers to work here. They just manufacture to Trek's design specs.

    My guess is that Trek designed the suspension with a focus on pedaling efficiency, realizing that 90% of their customers don't push the limits of suspension. For the 10% that do, DRCV isn't optimal.

    Edited to add:
    Don't take the DRCV criticism the wrong way - I love my EX. I think Trek nailed the designs on pretty much everything since adding ABP. And the slightly slacker angles and thru-axle front & rear on the 2012 are awesome. I just think I'd prefer a non-DRCV suspension to match my riding style & terrain.
    Last edited by mtnbkaz; 11-20-2011 at 06:44 PM.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyPedals View Post
    I am bottoming the fork on 3-4 foot drops(real feet) and I'm bottoming HARD. Also on steep rollers I'm hitting bottom. Trust me this fork bottoms WAY too easy at 25% sag. Bump it up to 15% and it bottoms a little less but it's way too harsh on everything else.
    This fork has ZERO Progression. It is a great fork for XC rides though when you start pushing harder that's when the lack of any progression shows. I really wish there was a way to add a little bottom out progression. The concept is good but I believe the execution is a little flawed.

    JP
    It's possible to make a fork ramp up faster by adding fork oil to the air and damper chambers, effectively creating a smaller air chamber. I've never taken a fox fit/drcv fork apart though, so I wouldn't be sure where to add it. Normally Fox says to add 5cc to the air chamber to keep it lubed IIRC, so you could increase by 5cc until you get the progression you want.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    132
    Fox tech actually said that adding oil wouldn't work.I don't know why. I was told the only "fix" is to replace the DRCV cartridge with a standard Float air cartridge.

    JP

  15. #15
    Bunny Hoppin Gators
    Reputation: drivengsxr1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyPedals View Post
    I am bottoming the fork on 3-4 foot drops(real feet) and I'm bottoming HARD. Also on steep rollers I'm hitting bottom. Trust me this fork bottoms WAY too easy at 25% sag. Bump it up to 15% and it bottoms a little less but it's way too harsh on everything else.
    This fork has ZERO Progression. It is a great fork for XC rides though when you start pushing harder that's when the lack of any progression shows. I really wish there was a way to add a little bottom out progression. The concept is good but I believe the execution is a little flawed.

    JP
    how does the rear feel on the 3-4 foot drops? i would say that's the max air im comfortable with on my current set up. im not too woried about the fork for now if i upgrade i will be upgrading to a tallas

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    132
    The rear actually feels pretty good to me. I am definitely using all the travel but I never feel it bottoming.

    JP

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    5
    I have a 2012 Remedy 9 and agree with JP and mtnbkaz. When riding slowly the suspension willingly uses its travel and feels plush. When you start going fast or it starts getting rough it feels too harsh and will skip around instead of maintaining traction. It does pedal and climb amazingly well but I bought this bike to get aggro on the descents.
    I'm disappointed because I demo'd the 2011 Remedy 9 and absolutely loved it. It felt perfect from the moment I jumped on. So plush and so much control. Didn't have to fiddle with a thing. On my 2012 no matter how much I fiddle I can't find the sweet spot.
    The 2011 had a DRCV rear shock and regular Fox Float fork ( with a custom trek tune).
    The 2011 rear shock felt so plush and bottomless so it can be done with DRCV and I assume it's a tuning issue with the new one.
    I have my new bike in the shop now and and they are checking oil levels etc. ( it is not leaking or losing pressure). I believe it is a tuning issue though.
    I am considering changing the fork cartridge to a regular float.
    Has anyone thought about removing the pin that activates the DRCV on the rear shock and just turning it into a virtual HV air canister? I talked to a suspension guy who said it is easily do-able but would it solve the problem?
    I do love everything else about the the bike though so hope I can get it sorted.

  18. #18
    N/A
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    234
    [QUOTE=Linkdog8;8802883
    Has anyone thought about removing the pin that activates the DRCV on the rear shock and just turning it into a virtual HV air canister? I talked to a suspension guy who said it is easily do-able but would it solve the problem?
    [/QUOTE]

    I'm thinking about doing that once the new bike smell has worn off. No data yet to prove this, but eye-balling it, I'm guessing that the volume of a fully open DRCV is somewhere between a standard and HV air can. A fixed volume should provide a consistent spring rate and be more tunable.

    Another option would be to fill in the DRCV chamber (not sure if this is possible yet), similar to how people add shims to the HV can to reduce the volume and tune the spring rate.

    Yet another possibility would be to cut the DRCV valve rod/pin to prevent it from opening, effectively eliminating it and treating the shock as a standard air can.

    For now, I'm just keeping my bike tuned more for XC and I take out the Remedy when I want a plusher ride (although my Remedy is setup more like a Scratch Air).

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    5
    I think you described it best when you said " a fixed volume should provide a consistent spring rate."

    I took out a 2012 ex9 from my lbs for a blast this afternoon.
    It is nearly identical in spec to my remedy 9 except for tires and travel.
    I wanted to see if it suffered the same suspension issues.

    It did.
    The head mechanic has been riding it and he described the feel as " inconsistent" and that really does sum it up well.

    I am really tempted to swap the fork cartridge and remove the drcv bits from the rear shock but it is going to cost around $500 I'm guessing as once they pull them apart they have to replace all the fluids and seals anyway.

    Hopefully someone else does it first!
    I'll probably just keep riding it for now as it is still so fun to ride and it doesn't seem to slow me down anyway.

  20. #20
    N/A
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by Linkdog8 View Post
    I am really tempted to swap the fork cartridge and remove the drcv bits from the rear shock but it is going to cost around $500
    $500?? I don't think it should be that much. No idea what the Fox air cartridges are going for these days, but last time I had to replace one, it was in the ~$120 range. If your seals are still good, you don't even have to rebuild the whole fork for that. It's a 5 minute job to pull the air spring, top off the fluids (they're just for lubrication on the air side - no damper to mess with), pressurize the chamber, and go.

    You could probably even sell the DRCV internals to someone who bought an EX8 to cover the entire cost. For that matter, peel off the DRCV sticker from the fork to go with the cartridge if someone wants it.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mark747's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    85
    @mtnbkaz - How do you "tune” a rear shock? Can my LBS do it? As @Linkdog8 said the 2011 he demoed had a properly tuned shock. @cowboypilot says the same thing about a 2011 and others have said that it works great.

    I have posted more about my issues on the DRCV problems as well. My bike is a 2012 Remedy 9.8.

    Mark

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    63
    I had the same problems with my DRCV shock on my '10 Remedy.
    Had to ride at +30% sag to be plush but then it blew through travel to easily.
    Since I installed RWC needle bearing kit instead of DU bushings on lower mount, the shock is more plusher and I ride now with 15 psi more pressure, which helps with bottoming.
    Stock DU bushings were so tight that it was causing huge amount of restriction ...

  23. #23
    N/A
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by mark747 View Post
    @mtnbkaz - How do you "tune” a rear shock? Can my LBS do it? As @Linkdog8 said the 2011 he demoed had a properly tuned shock. @cowboypilot says the same thing about a 2011 and others have said that it works great.

    I have posted more about my issues on the DRCV problems as well. My bike is a 2012 Remedy 9.8.

    Mark
    Tuning can mean multiple things. In this thread, "setup" is probably a better term for what I've been talking about rather than "tune" since we're mostly referring to properly setting up air pressure for a shock. (And the challenges of doing that when the spring rate changes 50% into your shock stroke.) Setup is also subjective, which is why some people have no issues with the way DRCV works and others do. A firm suspension setup to me, may feel too plush to you.

    True "tuning" usually refers to the internal valving of the compression & rebound circuits in the shock. In general, all rear shocks are factory tuned to try to match the characteristics of the suspension design (rising rate, falling rate, compression ratio, etc.). Most bike companies market this as "custom-tuned suspension" but it's really just matching an out-of-the box tune from Fox to match the design characteristics of the frame. If you look on a Fox shock, there is a sticker indicating the stock tune for the compression and rebound circuits. (E.g., on my 2012 EX, the compression sticker indicates "L" for low compression, rebound indicates "M" for medium rebound damping. A different bike might use a stock Fox shock with a "M" compression and "H" rebound tune.)

    Companies like Push can modify the internals to customize the compression damping to match your riding style/preferences, but local shops generally can't do this. (Many local shops don't even change shock seals in house.)

  24. #24
    D4L
    D4L is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1
    Hi, I came across your post about possibly removing the DRCV plunger on your fox shock to basically create a HV canister that would be more tunable than the DRCV. I have a Gary Fisher Rumblefish and my riding is leaning more toward AM and light DH for which the DRCV shock is really no good. If I had been a little more knowledgable about the design of this shock and the lack of upgrade options due to the side mount design I never would have purchased the bike but too late now.
    So have you tried this yet? I have had my bike for 3 years now and am willing to be a guinea pig on this one but would like some extra input before I possibly render my shock a paper weight haha. I do all my own work and am pretty familiar with the workings of this shock so let me know what you think, thanks.

  25. #25
    N/A
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    234
    I did pull the DRCV valve from my shock. It's really easy to do - it's just a plunger rod held captive by a spring and c-clip.

    The DRCV chamber is much higher volume than I would have guessed. Running in HV mode makes a more consistent spring curve but you still need to run the same high pressure for bottom-out resistance (that didn't change from the original shock of course). In HV mode, I get a lot of pedal bob with pro-pedal wide open but running it in the middle pro-pedal setting works well.

    What I want to do (kind of haven't thought of this for awhile so thanks for the reminder) is find something like a block of hard rubber that I can shape to fill up the DRCV chamber, effectively reducing the air volume. That should allow running a lower air pressure which I think will work better for my riding style.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbkaz View Post
    Maybe I'm misunderstanding the DRCV marketing, but I believe the DRCV chamber is connected to the main chamber. That means that as soon as the chamber opens, the air pressure is equalized between the chambers. So there is no magic voodoo for Fox engineers to work here.
    .
    They are connected, but at full shock extension they are two separate/disconnected air chambers. They "connect" only once the shock is pushed down, probably somewhere around 40-60% travel. At that point, the air in the first chamber has been compressed to a pretty high psi, then "equalizes" with the second chamber.

    This is why Trek/Fox instructs you to cycle the shock after you add air, and you can feel this phenomenon the first shock cycle after adding air.

    So, at full extension, the air in the secondary chamber is much higher psi then in the first chamber.

    Now, there's no way to measure JUST the pressure in the secondary chamber at full extension. And my observations here aren't really relevant to your riding experience.

  27. #27
    N/A
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by rfxc View Post
    They are connected, but at full shock extension they are two separate/disconnected air chambers. They "connect" only once the shock is pushed down, probably somewhere around 40-60% travel. At that point, the air in the first chamber has been compressed to a pretty high psi, then "equalizes" with the second chamber.
    Since my original comment months ago, I've disassembled the shock. The chambers are only disconnected by the DRCV valve, which is a simple rod with an o-ring that seals the hole between the 2 chambers. There is a metal ring attached to the shaft that pushes up on the rod to open the valve at 50% shock travel.

    So when Fox/Trek tells you to cycle the shock when pressurizing it, that's so that the air in both chambers equalizes. Otherwise, when you initially air it up, you might have aired the main chamber to 200psi but the DRCV chamber is lower. Once you cycle the shock, the 2 chambers are equal but lower pressure.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbkaz View Post
    Since my original comment months ago, I've disassembled the shock. The chambers are only disconnected by the DRCV valve, which is a simple rod with an o-ring that seals the hole between the 2 chambers. There is a metal ring attached to the shaft that pushes up on the rod to open the valve at 50% shock travel.

    So when Fox/Trek tells you to cycle the shock when pressurizing it, that's so that the air in both chambers equalizes. Otherwise, when you initially air it up, you might have aired the main chamber to 200psi but the DRCV chamber is lower. Once you cycle the shock, the 2 chambers are equal but lower pressure.
    I think we may both know how the shock works but are explaining it with different semantics. Numbers below are hypothetical.

    I'm sure there is a rod and o-ring that seals the hole between the two chambers-- and until that rod is pushed (shock at 50% travel/compression) then the chambers are "disconnected".

    If I put 200psi into the shock (200psi reading on the pump guage), remove shock pump, then cycle the shock, here's what happens. the 200psi of air compresses in the first chamber, maybe loses half of its volume before that rod/0-ring is pushed. If it loses half its volume, then, the pressure at that point in the first chamber is now 400psi. The o-ring opens (for the first time since since removing shock pump) and now that 400psi volume of air THEN equalizes with the secondary chamber, maybe back down to 280psi, and continues to compress (ramp up) from 50-100% of compression, (maybe up to 600psi or more at bottom out position). Then lets say I get my fat arse off the bike and the shock extends from bottom out position. when the o-ring closes at 50% travel the 280ish psi remains in the (now closed/static) second chamber, and the reduced molecules of air in first chamber expand as the shock returns to full extension, leaving maybe 180ish psi in the first chamber. Hence, after the shock is cycled, and at full extension, the rod and o-ring closed, the second chamber has higher psi than the first.

  29. #29
    N/A
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    234
    Yeah, we're saying the same thing here. I was just clarifying since earlier comments from some people speculated that the 2 air chambers were completely separate.

    You're right, the pressure would equalize when the main chamber is compressed to 50%. I don't know what the actual size of the air chambers is and I haven't used Boyle's law in almost 20 years so I'm not going to speculate about what the static pressure in the DRCV chamber would be. But regardless of actual numbers, the end effect is the same - at the point the DRCV valve opens, the volume of the system increases, which causes some people to blow through the 2nd half of their travel.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TwoHeadsBrewing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,867
    I'm interested in the Remedy 9, but am a little leery of the DRCV fork based on what I've been reading in this and other threads. Would it be worth it to have a shop swap/upgrade to a RockShox Revelation? I actually have a Sektor Coil RL 150mm right now that would work, but it's almost .5-.75# heavier than the Rev or Float 32.
    "Got everything you need?"

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoHeadsBrewing View Post
    I'm interested in the Remedy 9, but am a little leery of the DRCV fork based on what I've been reading in this and other threads. Would it be worth it to have a shop swap/upgrade to a RockShox Revelation? I actually have a Sektor Coil RL 150mm right now that would work, but it's almost .5-.75# heavier than the Rev or Float 32.
    Try the DRCV fork out and see if you like it. If not, switch, since you have nothing to lose. I have the DRCV fork on my Fuel and I have no gripes about it.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TwoHeadsBrewing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,867
    I'll give it a test ride and see how I like it. I may even opt for the Remedy 7 and upgrade the drive train components. The 7 has the Evolution Series Float RL, but still has the RP-2 DRCV in the rear, but that's been around for a few years now.

    My current bike has full X9, Crosstrail UST wheelset, and XT brakes, so I may just swap all those components over and save a few hundred bucks.
    "Got everything you need?"

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    40
    For the physicists in the forum (all 2 of you . Is there any way to tune this shock? Could the pushrod be slightly shortened so that the second air chamber opens under higher pressure, or are the two chambers specifically sized in relation to each other? I like the DRCV, but have the same issues as other posters on big hits (it always bottoms out). It seems that, not without some irony, the DRCV has succeeded in being so like a coil that it also has the coil's primary weakness which is everyone needs a different coil depending on their weight etc but there is no way to change that with the current DRCV. Am I right here?

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Britishnate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    415
    I am really surprised to hear how many people are having "issues" with their DRCV. I run mine at a bit less air pressure on both the front and back of my bike and it seems to run well. I don't do any major drops but any jumps I have taken it performs well.

    I am curious if these shocks are being pressurized properly. If you watch the how to videos, you have to make sure to fully cycle both the fork and shock once you fill it up and double check the pressure. Otherwise the second chamber won't properly fill and you can have issues with the performance of the suspension.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Britishnate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by hungrytiger View Post
    For the physicists in the forum (all 2 of you . Is there any way to tune this shock? Could the pushrod be slightly shortened so that the second air chamber opens under higher pressure, or are the two chambers specifically sized in relation to each other? I like the DRCV, but have the same issues as other posters on big hits (it always bottoms out). It seems that, not without some irony, the DRCV has succeeded in being so like a coil that it also has the coil's primary weakness which is everyone needs a different coil depending on their weight etc but there is no way to change that with the current DRCV. Am I right here?
    Dude if you are interested in the bike, buy it and ride it before you make any judgments of it not working well. Trek knows what they are doing and you might not have the issues these other people are having. The bike is not exactly cheap and you would more than likely have to pay on top of the price of the bike to get another fork. Also note that the Fox Forks have the E2 Tapered steerers and I am not sure if you can get the Rock shox with that as that affects the handling of the bike.

    Good luck with your purchase and I hope you enjoy the bike!

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Britishnate View Post
    Dude if you are interested in the bike, buy it and ride it before you make any judgments of it not working well. Trek knows what they are doing and you might not have the issues these other people are having. The bike is not exactly cheap and you would more than likely have to pay on top of the price of the bike to get another fork. Also note that the Fox Forks have the E2 Tapered steerers and I am not sure if you can get the Rock shox with that as that affects the handling of the bike.

    Good luck with your purchase and I hope you enjoy the bike!
    I think you meant to reply to someone else here?

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Britishnate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by hungrytiger View Post
    I think you meant to reply to someone else here?
    You are right, I hit quote on the wrong post. I meant to post it on this one

    Quote Originally Posted by TwoHeadsBrewing View Post
    I'm interested in the Remedy 9, but am a little leery of the DRCV fork based on what I've been reading in this and other threads. Would it be worth it to have a shop swap/upgrade to a RockShox Revelation? I actually have a Sektor Coil RL 150mm right now that would work, but it's almost .5-.75# heavier than the Rev or Float 32.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TwoHeadsBrewing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Britishnate View Post
    Dude if you are interested in the bike, buy it and ride it before you make any judgments of it not working well. Trek knows what they are doing and you might not have the issues these other people are having. The bike is not exactly cheap and you would more than likely have to pay on top of the price of the bike to get another fork. Also note that the Fox Forks have the E2 Tapered steerers and I am not sure if you can get the Rock shox with that as that affects the handling of the bike.

    Good luck with your purchase and I hope you enjoy the bike!
    Yeah...not going to drop 3K+ on a bike with a proprietary fork that reportedly has some problems just to "see" if it works for me. The E2 geometry is also something that turns me off, as I don't care for proprietary equipment. If I don't like a part, I want to be able to swap it out without voiding a warranty or messing with the geometry of the bike to ill effect.

    But this is all a moot point now. I ordered a 2012 Santa Cruz Blur LT on Monday. Non-proprietary equipment, and a little more geared to climbing than descending which fits my riding style. I appreciate everyone's input as it's helped me make what I feel is the right decision in my purchase. Cheers!
    "Got everything you need?"

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    963
    E2 is not proprietary. It's just Trek's fancy way of saying "tapered 1.125 to 1.5"

    E2 says nothing about the geometry of the frame.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TwoHeadsBrewing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,867
    Aha, I was just a bit thrown off as someone suggested that since the bike had an E2 fox fork, I may not be able to get a compatible Rockshox fork. However, if it's just a normal tapered headtube there's no reason why another fork wouldn't work.
    "Got everything you need?"

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Britishnate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoHeadsBrewing View Post
    Yeah...not going to drop 3K+ on a bike with a proprietary fork that reportedly has some problems just to "see" if it works for me. The E2 geometry is also something that turns me off, as I don't care for proprietary equipment. If I don't like a part, I want to be able to swap it out without voiding a warranty or messing with the geometry of the bike to ill effect.

    But this is all a moot point now. I ordered a 2012 Santa Cruz Blur LT on Monday. Non-proprietary equipment, and a little more geared to climbing than descending which fits my riding style. I appreciate everyone's input as it's helped me make what I feel is the right decision in my purchase. Cheers!
    Congrats on picking out your new bike. I hope you enjoy it.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4
    I don't know what mtnbkaz is talking about, my DRCV shock on my 2011 Remedy is awsome. I can run it really plush through harsh DH and techy stuff and it feels amazing, and then I'll take it of like an 8 foot drop with the same air pressure, and the shock still takes the hit very well.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SycoCell121's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by 2012bikerguy View Post
    I don't know what mtnbkaz is talking about, my DRCV shock on my 2011 Remedy is awsome. I can run it really plush through harsh DH and techy stuff and it feels amazing, and then I'll take it of like an 8 foot drop with the same air pressure, and the shock still takes the hit very well.
    Seeing as he said it a year ago, I don't think he remembers what he said. Since this has been brought back to light, I like my DRCV rear shox on my Fuel. I don't have DRCV on the fork however.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PUSHIND's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,858

    DRCV tuning you say?

    A little interesting tidbit for DRCV owners coming VERY soon......

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater


    drcv worth the trouble?-trek-pro-2.jpg

    Darren

  45. #45
    cycle dad
    Reputation: taletotell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    310
    drcv shock on my 2014 trek remedy is broken and on its way to fox. The can cracked. I don't know that you can say this is fox's fault. it isn't like a systemic problem, where the company has been negligent. Still, after 2 float rp23 with bad dampers and a dhx air with a bad propedal, I am begining to get pretty sick of fox. I am looking hard at the monarch rt3 debonair

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by taletotell View Post
    drcv shock on my 2014 trek remedy is broken and on its way to fox. The can cracked. I don't know that you can say this is fox's fault. it isn't like a systemic problem, where the company has been negligent. Still, after 2 float rp23 with bad dampers and a dhx air with a bad propedal, I am begining to get pretty sick of fox. I am looking hard at the monarch rt3 debonair
    Would the Monarch rt3 debonair be a direct bolt in replacement for the FOX Float DRCV rear shock on a 2015 Fuel EX8 27.5. The bike is only one ride old (30min ride on tame cross country trails) and the rear shock is leaking fluid like a pensioner and losing 50 psi in a ride. How do these shocks hold up to spirited riding. I'm 43 and don't even ride hard and it has failed.

  47. #47
    cycle dad
    Reputation: taletotell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    310
    RS made a specific debonair for the trek bikes that bolts right on. Rock Shox Monarch RT3 Trek(med) air shock*, 1.9x7.25", Frame Shocks

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by taletotell View Post
    RS made a specific debonair for the trek bikes that bolts right on. Rock Shox Monarch RT3 Trek(med) air shock*, 1.9x7.25", Frame Shocks
    Thanks that's good to know if I have more Fox Float problems.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    4
    Best thing you can do with a DRCV...
    Throw it away and get a Cane Creek Double Barrel

  50. #50
    cycle dad
    Reputation: taletotell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    310
    Except the ccdb doesn't mount to a trek without a bund of ghetto rigging. The monarch debonair does.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Worth the trouble??
    By yetidhrider in forum Alaska
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-17-2009, 11:42 AM
  2. Worth the trouble?
    By Asbury in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-08-2008, 05:35 PM
  3. 1.5 steerer on the br, worth the trouble?
    By euroford in forum Transition Bikes
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-04-2008, 02:10 PM
  4. DH Tubeless worth the trouble???
    By milhouse in forum Downhill - Freeride
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 02-23-2005, 11:57 AM
  5. Tazer fs worth the trouble?
    By j6105 in forum Downhill - Freeride
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-11-2005, 05:41 PM

Posting Permissions

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