Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    El Borracho
    Reputation: 6 SPOT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    119

    Faux 6 Spot's???

    I've read the reviews on all the new rockers and am left wondering if anyone is running a 7.875 X 2.25 shock on their 5 Spots. Running a 7.875 X 2.25 would yield 5.73" travel and 5.96" travel with the 5.1 and 5.3 rockers while increasing tire and FD clearance. It would also increase the BB height to restore the geometry if running 140-150mm fork. I'm about to drop the coin on a new shock and was just wondering if anyone has tried this yet, and are there any negatives. It seems to be all positives on paper.
    Just because everyone says your wrong, it doesn't make you right. But it is a pretty good indication.
    - El Borracho -

  2. #2
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,480
    Would a negative be the seatstay bridge chopping the seattube in half?

  3. #3
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe maņana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,124
    Quote Originally Posted by 6 SPOT
    I've read the reviews on all the new rockers and am left wondering if anyone is running a 7.875 X 2.25 shock on their 5 Spots. Running a 7.875 X 2.25 would yield 5.73" travel and 5.96" travel with the 5.1 and 5.3 rockers while increasing tire and FD clearance. It would also increase the BB height to restore the geometry if running 140-150mm fork. I'm about to drop the coin on a new shock and was just wondering if anyone has tried this yet, and are there any negatives. It seems to be all positives on paper.
    Seems like a so so idea to me. If you want to experiment on the cheap, Blur LT shock is that size. Get one on Santa Cruz shock sale.

    _MK
    .
    "No man goes before his time -- unless the boss leaves early."
    -- Marx, Groucho

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Would a negative be the seatstay bridge chopping the seattube in half?
    ....if the I2I length increases AT LEAST as much as the stroke length does, it will never result in LESS clearance at full compression. Now, whether or not the front der. will be able to avoid interference/ contact with the chainstay & still shift effectively remains to be determined.


  5. #5
    El Borracho
    Reputation: 6 SPOT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Would a negative be the seatstay bridge chopping the seattube in half?
    i2i increases 3/8" stroke increases 1/4". There would be more clearance not less. More clearance for the FD for the same reason. Another benefit not mentioned is a lower leverage ratio vs. 5.5 and push rockers.
    Just because everyone says your wrong, it doesn't make you right. But it is a pretty good indication.
    - El Borracho -

  6. #6
    El Borracho
    Reputation: 6 SPOT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by MK_
    Seems like a so so idea to me. If you want to experiment on the cheap, Blur LT shock is that size. Get one on Santa Cruz shock sale.

    _MK
    Does increasing travel while decreasing tire clearance sound like a good idea?
    Just because everyone says your wrong, it doesn't make you right. But it is a pretty good indication.
    - El Borracho -

  7. #7
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe maņana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,124
    Quote Originally Posted by 6 SPOT
    Does increasing travel while decreasing tire clearance sound like a good idea?
    I'm sorry, I don't follow? I hope you're not thinking I'm suggesting you buy a frame, merely the shock as it is of the same size and $99 on sale.

    _MK
    .
    "No man goes before his time -- unless the boss leaves early."
    -- Marx, Groucho

  8. #8
    El Borracho
    Reputation: 6 SPOT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    119
    No, I got what you suggested and appreciate it. I was just wondering which idea is so so?
    Assuming you want to increase travel would you A: increase travel, but decrease tire clearance with a rocker or B: increase travel, and tire clearance with a shock. Thanks. BTW I want to buy a new shock anyhow. I'm thinking Avalanche Chubbie just for this purpose.
    Last edited by 6 SPOT; 11-17-2006 at 03:53 PM.
    Just because everyone says your wrong, it doesn't make you right. But it is a pretty good indication.
    - El Borracho -

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    242

    Did that

    I did that using a Fox Vanilla RC on my Spot with 5" RFX rockers. Made the handling a little quicker and it didn't seem any more in travel at least seat of the pants feel. Didn't want to push it though since the piggyback part hit the rockers. I also tested the shock at full compression without the spring and it was fine so it works. Maybe if I get some Push'd Rockers it will be fine since it is not a 3d design and the rocker will be farther away from the reservoir.

  10. #10
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe maņana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,124
    Quote Originally Posted by 6 SPOT
    No, I got what you suggested and appreciate it. I was just wondering which idea is so so?
    Assuming you want to increase travel would you A: increase travel, but decrease tire clearance or B: increase travel, and tire clearance. Thanks.
    I personally like my bottom brackets on the low side. It is my primary reason for running my RFX with 5in plates. The stock 5 Spot 13.25in BB height is pretty good. When I first got my RFX, I ran the 6in rockers which produced the lower bottom bracket, roughly 14.25in with my 66 set to 6in. I felt less stable descending. I put on the 5in plates and really welcomed the lowered BB. I am actually eagerly awaiting the availability of the 5.5in plates to have a lower riding height on my bottom bracket than with my current 5in plates and 66 at 6.5in.

    Putting a 7.875in shock on the bike will add 0.375in eye to eye, which multiplied by the rocker will jack up your BB almost an inch. Running a tall fork will raise that even more. You will be able to clear a lot of obstacles and your pedal hits will be minimized, but bombing downhill won't be as stable as it is now. Your cornering will suffer.

    _MK
    .
    "No man goes before his time -- unless the boss leaves early."
    -- Marx, Groucho

  11. #11
    El Borracho
    Reputation: 6 SPOT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    119
    Hmmmmmm.....maybe I should try the cheap option first. What are your thoughts on running more sag with a 7.75 i2i?? ( I think Avalanche makes a 7.75 2.25 )
    Just because everyone says your wrong, it doesn't make you right. But it is a pretty good indication.
    - El Borracho -

  12. #12
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe maņana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,124
    Quote Originally Posted by 6 SPOT
    Hmmmmmm.....maybe I should try the cheap option first. What are your thoughts on running more sag with a 7.75 i2i?? ( I think Avalanche makes a 7.75 2.25 )
    That could work. Especially coupled with the 5.5in rockers, which ought to run the shock a bit deeper in the stroke at sag. In the end it is an experiment, thought, and you may have different preferences as far as geometry is concerned.

    _MK
    .
    "No man goes before his time -- unless the boss leaves early."
    -- Marx, Groucho

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,233

    Bb

    The BB will go up quite a bit. these #'s are for the 5.3" rockers, although all the Spot rockers effect the geometry about the same.

    With a 7.75" shock and a Fox 36 at 21" A-C and a 26.5" tire the SA is 73, the HA is 68, the BB 14.3.


    with the 7.875" and a 21.5" A-C fork and the 26.5" diameter tires, the angles are very close but the BB jumps to 14.7.

    As the shock increases in length the bind gets worse between the top of the shock and the rocker plates so fit on some shocks may be an issue. TScheezy has mastered the long shock mutt, so it must be possible.

  14. #14
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,457
    Quote Originally Posted by 6 SPOT
    ( I think Avalanche makes a 7.75 2.25 )
    They do. Call and ask Craig at Avy about it.
    Nothing to see here.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: miles e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    The BB will go up quite a bit. these #'s are for the 5.3" rockers, although all the Spot rockers effect the geometry about the same.

    With a 7.75" shock and a Fox 36 at 21" A-C and a 26.5" tire the SA is 73, the HA is 68, the BB 14.3.
    Sounds pretty good, but I don't imagine you would endorse such a set up?

    Edit: The angles and BB height sound good, but I quickly realized that standover would increase the same as BB height (i.e. an inch), while the effective effective top tube would decrease. Not so good.
    Last edited by miles e; 11-18-2006 at 07:09 AM.
    A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

  16. #16
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,480
    Ooppppssss...misread the dimensions of the shock.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikemanla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    78

    Experience with 5.1 rocker and 7 7/8x2 shock.........

    Hey, I have done that! Dropped a 5th Element air on my Spot and as stated earlier results where: 7/8" higher BB: .5 degree steeper HA; caused more XC feel and slightly less down hill stablity--different but good.

    My next thought was to use 7 7/8 x 2.25 too. Using an air shock you could run 40% sag and have same ON THE BIKE BB height and HA as stock shock. OR, crank up the air to 30% sag and have the above numbers. Of course 35% would split the difference....

    Anybody tried this? Thoughts?

  18. #18
    El Borracho
    Reputation: 6 SPOT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by bikemanla
    Hey, I have done that! Dropped a 5th Element air on my Spot and as stated earlier results where: 7/8" higher BB: .5 degree steeper HA; caused more XC feel and slightly less down hill stablity--different but good.

    My next thought was to use 7 7/8 x 2.25 too. Using an air shock you could run 40% sag and have same ON THE BIKE BB height and HA as stock shock. OR, crank up the air to 30% sag and have the above numbers. Of course 35% would split the difference....

    Anybody tried this? Thoughts?
    What kind of fork are you using with that setup??
    Just because everyone says your wrong, it doesn't make you right. But it is a pretty good indication.
    - El Borracho -

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikemanla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    78

    I'm running a minute 3 fork.......

    As you know the axle to crown spec on the 5 Spot is 501mm. My minute 3 is taller at 510mm.

Posting Permissions

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