Results 1 to 39 of 39
  1. #1
    Waiting to exhale.
    Reputation: SMOKEY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,032

    My head is spinn'n and the wheels are a turn'n !

    What up homers?

    As some of you may know, I sold my spot long ago and took a journey into the world of bikes with only one speed and no squish. I am loving my choice, but I have been creeping around to watch the homer love fests and now I am intrigued...

    This mythical creature called the "5-pack" has caught my eye. Supposedly it has the same pedaling characteristics as a spot but the slack HA and ability to run a 6" fork in the front, and of course the extra beef of the pack front triangle.

    So, does anyone know what the angles [Ireally are[/I] ?

    Competitive cyclist says:

    HA: 68.5 BB: 13.5 CS: 16.9

    Is this right? If so, why do I read some peeps saying that the BB is something like 14.5" and the HA is more like 69.5?

    Then there's the leverage ratio. (important for big' uns like me) is it really lowered? Also how does the Push 5.5 mod work into all this?

    Its alot of questions and YES I used the search and all it did was confuse me and make me want to vomit. Can anyone clear this up into one clear answer?
    Quite possibly the slowest single speeder on earth.
    Now skating 'cause its cheaper.

  2. #2
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe mañana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,161
    Hey Smokey, good to "see you", man.

    I think most everyone is a little confused about the 5 Pack. The rear triangle and rocker are from the 5 Spot, so the leverage ratio is the same as the stock Spot. It is a little higher than your old Spot, because Turner increased the travel from 5.1 to 5.3in. The front triangle is indeed beefier.

    PUSH mod will affect the geometry of a regular 5 Spot by increasing the BB height, to compensate for additional axle to crown height of a PIKE or Z1 so that the tall fork doesn't change the head angle. The travel is 5.7in, I believe. The leverage ratio goes up to almost that of a 6 Pack.

    The head angle of the 5 Pack, I thought, was half a degree steeper. Competitive cyclist might give values with a 6in fork mounted, I am not sure. Others will hopefully fill in the blanks.

    _MK
    .
    "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
    -- Einstein, Albert

  3. #3
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEY
    This mythical creature called the "5-pack" has caught my eye.

    So, does anyone know what the angles [Ireally are[/I] ?

    Competitive cyclist says:

    HA: 68.5 BB: 13.5 CS: 16.9

    Is this right?
    I've been looking into the 5 pack as well. I emailed Turner about it a little while back and asked specifically about the geo listed on Competitive Cyclists website. In his reply Jarett from Turner said that CC's Geometry "looks correct."


    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEY
    If so, why do I read some peeps saying that the BB is something like 14.5" and the HA is more like 69.5?
    There is one poster who put a RFX Front Tri and Swingarm with Spot rockers, which probably creates different angles than the RFX front with Spot swingarm and rockers. I asked Jarett about this as well but it wasn't addressed in his reply, and I just haven't gotten around to asking about it again. Personally, I don't think I want that steep of a HA.


    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEY
    Then there's the leverage ratio. (important for big' uns like me) is it really lowered?
    It is lower, Jarett stated that this would be an excellent bike for a bigger guy because of that. My assumption is that it's the same as the Spot, but I don't know for sure.


    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEY
    Its alot of questions and YES I used the search and all it did was confuse me and make me want to vomit.
    That's interesting, I got confused also, and was frustrated ...but didn't feel like vomiting.


    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEY
    Can anyone clear this up into one clear answer?
    I'm sure DT can. If I find out any more info I'll post it here.

    Patrick
    Last edited by PCinSC; 05-09-2006 at 04:34 PM.

  4. #4
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,363
    Smokey, I thought you had fallen into your bong and drowned. Welcome home!

    I get confused on the 5-Pack too. Given the SAME fork (say, 6") as on a stock 6-Pack, a 5-Pack SHOULD have a shallower head angle. The Spot seat stay is shorter by about 1/2" and so settles the bike back a little (I know because this is what I have). The shorter rocker off the Spot should contribute to this effect. I think the Comp Cyclist numbers assume you are also running a 5" fork, not 6". If you put a Van 36 or 150mm Z1 on there, it will be shallower than a stock 5-Spot or stock 6-Pack.

    PS, whatever you do, if you get a new Turner, DON'T WEIGH IT AGAIN!!!
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  5. #5
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEY
    Can anyone clear this up into one clear answer?
    OK, I called Turner and spoke with Jarett. Topics of conversation in no particular order:

    Differences between 5 Pack with RFX rear and Spot rear:
    • Geometry overall should be similar/same. Competitive Cyclists numbers are accurate (my assumption is that they are done with a 5" travel fork). He didn't state for sure whether they at Turner have actually done complete measurements of both varieties, but I would guess they have at some point.
    • Chainstay length of RFX is longer, so wheelbase will be longer than with Spot stay. This will likely result in differences in handling of each configuration.
    • Seatstay length of RFX rear is longer, which will alter the BB height "a hair" (Increase it, maybe? I forget what he said. ). Probably not enought to make a significant difference in handling.
    • RFX rear can accommodate a 2.5" tire. Spot rear can handle a ~2.3" tire, depending on manufacturer. Others on this forum I'm sure have first-hand knowledge of what works and what doesn't.


    Draw your own conclusions regarding how all these factors effect the actual ride.

    Other stuff:
    • Greg at Turner was really the first do put a 5 Pack together.
    • He runs (or ran) a 130mm fork up front. This may have changed. Jarett suggested that I speak with Greg if I wanted more detailed info about his set-up. I'm good for now, but if you're looking for more info...
    • Jarett also mentioned "some people" on this forum were pushing the Spot beyond its capabilites, which let to the release of the 5 Pack commercially. I think I know who he was referring to.
    • The RFX Front can handle a DC fork, the HT is plenty strong. I mentioned that I would like to run an adjustable fork (4" for climbing, 5" for trail riding, 6" for descending) and he said it would be fine.


    I hope this provides some clarity. It did for me. Although, to truly get an idea of how this bike rides I want to actually ride it. And given that it's a pretty obscure configuration I don't think that's going to happen.

    My apologies to Jarett if I misquoted or misinterpreted anything he said.

    Patrick
    Last edited by PCinSC; 05-09-2006 at 06:28 PM.

  6. #6
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,480
    Patrick - you were in the ATL where my version of a 5 Pack lives.
    Nothing to see here.

  7. #7
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Welcome back Broham!
    Yeah the combination of options are dizzying. It's pretty cool you can custom tweak the geometry with a litle mix and match. The tough part is deciding which to choose. Probably the best thing is to get a very clear decisive idea what you want out of the change and then find/ask for the component combination that achieves it.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  8. #8
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,363
    Quote Originally Posted by PCinSC
    [LIST[*]Seatstay length of RFX rear is longer, which will alter the BB height "a hair" (Increase it, maybe? I forget what he said. ). Probably not enought to make a significant difference in handling.[*]RFX rear can accommodate a 2.5" tire. Spot rear can handle a ~2.3" tire, depending on manufacturer. Others on this forum I'm sure have first-hand knowledge of what works and what doesn't.[/LIST]
    The RFX seat stay is a full 1/2" longer. That means the rear end rides by that much higher with the RFX seat stay verses the Spot's. That equals about 0.3" in bb height. I actually run a Spot stay on my 6-Pack precisely for that reason: to lower the bb.

    The RFX stays clear a full 3.0 tire on a 65mm wide rim. I've done it. The Spot will easily clear a 2.6 with room to spare for mud. One thing Turners aren't hurting for it's tire clearance.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,795
    Smokes! Welcome back bro-

    I know this isn't much help tonite, but my RFX Stays (TNT) & rockers should be back from Olympic in a week or so & I can get measurements/ angles of all the different configurations then. Until then, just stare into the eyes of a ninja


  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,795
    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    The RFX seat stay is a full 1/2" longer. That means the rear end rides by that much higher with the RFX seat stay verses the Spot's. That equals about 0.3" in bb height. I actually run a Spot stay on my 6-Pack precisely for that reason: to lower the bb.

    The RFX stays clear a full 3.0 tire on a 65mm wide rim. I've done it. The Spot will easily clear a 2.6 with room to spare for mud. One thing Turners aren't hurting for it's tire clearance.
    ...interestingly enough, when I put the 6" rockers on with the Spot stays in my earlier investigations (couple months back), it actually lowered the BB a bit...I know, it's shocking. I had to double check to be sure I was seeing it right. I don't have the rockers right now to verify this, but try throwing the 6" rockers on your Spot & measure it up....


  11. #11
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,363
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter
    ...interestingly enough, when I put the 6" rockers on with the Spot stays in my earlier investigations (couple months back), it actually lowered the BB a bit...I know, it's shocking. I had to double check to be sure I was seeing it right. I don't have the rockers right now to verify this, but try throwing the 6" rockers on your Spot & measure it up....
    The rockers do add a more complicated element since there are so many out there. I think the RFX type "A" rockers and the current Pack rockers are near clones. The type "B" RFX rockers definitely jacked the back of the bike up. The Spot rockers seem to occupy some middle ground. Combine the Pack rockers with a short stay like off the Spot and you have a pleasantly slouchy rig.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  12. #12
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    The RFX seat stay is a full 1/2" longer. That means the rear end rides by that much higher with the RFX seat stay verses the Spot's. That equals about 0.3" in bb height.
    That would explain why the 5 Pack's HA is steeper with the RFX rear than with the Spot rear, given the same fork length. Unless one used a longer fork (6" instead of 5"). But with differing front and rear travel then the bike may feel unbalanced. Anyone running 6" up front and 5" in the rear, or have an opinion on doing so?

    So, this is what I've got.

    RFX front with Spot rear and rockers.
    68.5* HA, 13.5" BB, 16.9" chainstay.
    This version looks like it would be in between the standard Spot and RFX in handling, with the ability to take more abuse and would be a better descender than the Spot, but with a shoter chainstay it climb better than the RFX. This is the standard 5 Pack configuration

    RFX front with RFX rear and Spot rockers.
    69.5* HA, 14.25" BB (measured), 17.1" chainstay. IMO, these #'s are definitely different enough to make significant differnence in handling.
    In this configuration the frame could handle even more aggressive riding, but the steeper HA seems to push this bike further away from the desired geometry for freeriding. Any thoughts on this? This is the only 5 Pack in this configuration that I've read about.


    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    The RFX stays clear a full 3.0 tire on a 65mm wide rim. I've done it. The Spot will easily clear a 2.6 with room to spare for mud. One thing Turners aren't hurting for it's tire clearance.
    Jarett was probably being conservative with the numbers he quoted to me. It's good to hear this won't be an issue. Not that I'm planning on running 3.0's on my trail bike.

    Patrick
    Last edited by PCinSC; 05-10-2006 at 01:59 AM.

  13. #13
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by SSINGA
    Patrick - you were in the ATL where my version of a 5 Pack lives.
    I know, I know . Although I'm pretty sure I need a large and IIRC yours is smaller (smurf-sized?). I don't know that I'd get a good feel for the ride if the size isn't right (or at least close). Next time, though, I'll be sure to get in touch.

    Patrick
    Last edited by PCinSC; 05-10-2006 at 12:52 AM.

  14. #14
    My cup runneth over
    Reputation: rmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,231
    Good to hear from you again Smokes! Your posts (and humor) have been missed.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Bling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,586
    good to hear from you, man.
    Former Homer...Ventana convert: extreme poseur!

  16. #16
    Roy
    Roy is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,013
    After reading the title, I thought for sure Smokey found his long awaited EBM.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,572

    Wtf!

    Wow, I thought you had left the bike world and started riding mini bikes or somthin! Looking forward to the humor.

    If you tell me exactly what fork and rear end you want to run I will "build" it up and give you the #'s. BB height is harder to nail unless I have the exact diameter of the tires you will run.

    Greg was running the 36 Talus on his 5pack and tweaked the geometry with the talus adjuster to get the steering where he wanted depending on terrain. He sold it last week and is back on his single speed Nitrous. He likes being in the wrong gear all the time.

    DT

  18. #18
    Baked Alaskan
    Reputation: AK Chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,812

    The Return of Smokey.

    Yo Smokey!!!!!!!!!!! Welcome back from the land of Uno. Glad to hear you're looking at getting another Turner. Just when you think you're out -- they pull you back in...
    The red couch has moved from Alaska to Florida...

  19. #19
    Waiting to exhale.
    Reputation: SMOKEY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,032
    Thanks for the warm welcome back! If you guys are this cool on a forum, imagine how dope it would be to meet up with you guys at one of your annual Turner love fests and ride!

    Anyways, Thanks to DT who was nice enough to offer such a nice offer... By the way I saw one of the new 6-pack adds in some bike magazine and it said something about not having time to fool around with patents and gimmicks, DT would rather ride (or something like that). I imagined a certain other bike "maker" reading it... I laughed out loud in the book store! sweetness! ! !

    I dunno guys, do I smell a pack in the future... or is it called the RFX?... Fock !? Thats what I get for staying away for so long... Next thing you guys will tell me is Push industries and Turner bikes teamed together and produced the worlds first TNT designed EBM! ! ! .... and zilla is gonna plate it in gold! ! !
    Quite possibly the slowest single speeder on earth.
    Now skating 'cause its cheaper.

  20. #20
    Outcast
    Reputation: Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,560
    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEY
    .. Next thing you guys will tell me is Push industries and Turner bikes teamed together and produced the worlds first TNT designed EBM! ! ! .... and zilla is gonna plate it in gold! ! !
    Damn Smokey, you are clairvoyant! The cat is out of the bag.
    Allthough, like most push products, the release date has been pushed back a few months...
    pun intended.
    ****

  21. #21
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEY
    This mythical creature called the "5-pack" has caught my eye. Supposedly it has the same pedaling characteristics as a spot but the slack HA and ability to run a 6" fork in the front, and of course the extra beef of the pack front triangle.

    So, does anyone know what the angles [Ireally are[/I] ?

    Competitive cyclist says:

    HA: 68.5 BB: 13.5 CS: 16.9

    Is this right?
    I'm not trying to clutter up the board by resurrecting this old thread, but I found out some new info that may be useful to others that are interested and (in the future) happen to do a search for "5 Pack" in the Turner forum.

    CC used a RS Pike to determine the geometry they have on their website. So with a fork with an A-C length of ~518mm the HA of the 5 Pack will be 68.5* with a 13.5" BB height (obviously depending on tire height). It seems that using a 150mm travel fork (~535mm A-C length) will slacken it to about RFX angles, to just under 68* (I think). It should also increase the BB height a little.

    Patrick

  22. #22
    banned
    Reputation: gonzostrike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,258
    other than uniqueness, what is the practical reason for wanting to have 5" of rear travel on a 6-Pack/RFX?

  23. #23
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzostrike
    other than uniqueness, what is the practical reason for wanting to have 5" of rear travel on a 6-Pack/RFX?
    I can't necessarily speak for others, but being a "larger" guy I'm interested in it for the reduced average leverage ratio of the rear shock: 2.5:1 for the 5 Pack versus 3:1 for the RFX. For the vast majority of my riding the full RFX would most likely be overkill anyway, so with the 5 Pack I'd be getting, in essence, a beefed-up Spot. If I weighed under 200lbs and wasn't planning on dropping off of anything I'd probably just get the Spot.

    Patrick

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,795
    Quote Originally Posted by PCinSC
    I can't necessarily speak for others, but being a "larger" guy I'm interested in it for the reduced average leverage ratio of the rear shock: 2.5:1 for the 5 Pack versus 3:1 for the RFX. For the vast majority of my riding the full RFX would most likely be overkill anyway, so with the 5 Pack I'd be getting, in essence, a beefed-up Spot. If I weighed under 200lbs and wasn't planning on dropping off of anything I'd probably just get the Spot.

    Patrick
    ...pretty much same here. 5" is more than enough travel for the majority of riding we have around here. The Spot was a great ride, but I found myself having to refrain from riding the smattering of 4-6' drops on the local trails. The weight difference was basically nill between the Spot & RFx5 (RFX front & Spot rockers/ rear). I also have DT's blessing for flogging the bike therefore giving me a much more versatile do-all ride.

    PS. I don't think DT would have thought too kindly of me running the 66SL on the Spot either


  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Clyde S Dale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter
    ...pretty much same here. 5" is more than enough travel for the majority of riding we have around here. The Spot was a great ride, but I found myself having to refrain from riding the smattering of 4-6' drops on the local trails. The weight difference was basically nill between the Spot & RFx5 (RFX front & Spot rockers/ rear). I also have DT's blessing for flogging the bike therefore giving me a much more versatile do-all ride.
    I've been watching this thread with interest and I have the same concerns. Five inches of travel suits me well, but a properly built RFX would be overkill for me (unless I could have a Flux, too). At my weight I'd love to jump my 'Spot more, but when I blow it I tend to screw it up well and good. A little extra beef at the front triangle would be nice.


  26. #26
    banned
    Reputation: gonzostrike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,258
    Quote Originally Posted by PCinSC
    I can't necessarily speak for others, but being a "larger" guy I'm interested in it for the reduced average leverage ratio of the rear shock: 2.5:1 for the 5 Pack versus 3:1 for the RFX. For the vast majority of my riding the full RFX would most likely be overkill anyway, so with the 5 Pack I'd be getting, in essence, a beefed-up Spot. If I weighed under 200lbs and wasn't planning on dropping off of anything I'd probably just get the Spot.

    Patrick
    what unwanted stuff happens when you leave the travel at 6" and therefore the ratio at 3:1?

    I can see the point of wanting a burlier frame if you plan on doing more abusive things. It's the 1" travel reduction that makes no sense to me.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,795
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzostrike
    what unwanted stuff happens when you leave the travel at 6" and therefore the ratio at 3:1?

    I can see the point of wanting a burlier frame if you plan on doing more abusive things. It's the 1" travel reduction that makes no sense to me.
    ...surely you understand the difference a higher leverage ratio makes when tuning the rear suspension...particularly with the progressive rate of the Pack/ RFX.

    RE: travel - not everyone (myself included) needs/ wants gobs of travel. I spent plenty of time on DH rigs with ooey-gooey travel & while they are fun to mow stuff over on...I found that as my skills progressed over the years, I liked having less suspension to overcome/ manipulate for the more trialsy/ tech riding we have on the east coast. Now, I'm not saying that the RFX (6") is too much for everything...it would be perfect for the lift assisted riding we have at Snowshoe Mt resort in WV. That's why I personally also purchased the RFX rockers & stays. I found that I was riding my full on DH bike less & less & decided to sell the Spot & DH bike/s & consolidate to the RFX 5" & 6". With the 66SL it is just that much easier

    ...that's my story & I'm sticking to it


  28. #28
    banned
    Reputation: gonzostrike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,258
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter
    ...surely you understand the difference a higher leverage ratio makes when tuning the rear suspension...particularly with the progressive rate of the Pack/ RFX.
    actually, no. I don't get into the slide-rule stuff. I care more about how it works as I ride down the trail. and since I weigh only 155 lbs I don't think that any of the clydesdale-oriented reasons make any intuitive sense. my 6-Pack works just fine for me at its 3:1 ratio, and doesn't really feel all that different from my 5-Spot in the realm of trail feel and suspension action.

    what happens when the lever ratio goes from 3:1 to 2.5:1, practically speaking? what does it change?

  29. #29
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzostrike
    what happens when the lever ratio goes from 3:1 to 2.5:1, practically speaking? what does it change?
    There are others here that have a much better understanding and can probably explain it better, but I'll try. If the leverage ratio is high, a higher rated coil spring (or air pressure if an air shock) is needed for several reasons:

    • To attain the required sag. If the spring is too "light" the rear will sag too much.
    • Preventing the shock from bottoming out too easily.
    • To allow the shock to perform as it's needed to at each portion of the shock strok; IOW progressiveness and/or linearity when it's needed.


    If the rider weighs as much as I do (260lbs + gear) then there are multiple problems. First, the coil spring weight must be very high, and there in fact may not be a coil rated high enough for the given shock length. In the case or an air shock, the air pressure must be run very high, and in fact the shock may not be able to go that high. In the case of both the coil and air shocks, they will be run at the extreme of their capability pretty much all of the time, which will probably affect the rate at which they wear and ultimately their performance.

    The fact is (as I've learned) guys my size are really outside the 2 standard deviations or whatever specifications manufacturers use when designing equipment. I would be easier to shop (and easier on the equipment) if I was lighter, but such is life. At least they make surfboards that support me.

    I hope that's was clear (and at least partially factual).

    Patrick

    Edit: This thread I started a while back had some good replies arguing for and against the need for a lower leverage ratio for a heavier rider and/or the need for a custom tuned shock a la Pushed DHX or Avalanche.
    Last edited by PCinSC; 06-05-2006 at 03:56 PM.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,795
    .................................................. nm................................................ .............


  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,795
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzostrike
    actually, no. I don't get into the slide-rule stuff. I care more about how it works as I ride down the trail. and since I weigh only 155 lbs I don't think that any of the clydesdale-oriented reasons make any intuitive sense. my 6-Pack works just fine for me at its 3:1 ratio, and doesn't really feel all that different from my 5-Spot in the realm of trail feel and suspension action.

    what happens when the lever ratio goes from 3:1 to 2.5:1, practically speaking? what does it change?
    ...Patrick has mapped it out in essence. A lower rate isn't just an issue for "clydes" per say. However, the negative traits are certainly exaggerated when a heavier rider is forced to contend with the much higher spring rates required for a suitable ride. The pressure required for an air shock may approach the manufacturer's limit...while in either case, the high spring rate will nearly overwhelm a stock damping circuit trying to control the recoil. Often times, a heavier rider will tend to blow through travel as well.

    A lower rate will actually create a much broader "range" for adjustments (springweight, compression, rebound). While a lighter rider like yourself may not "need" a lower leverage rate, the same benefits apply. In some cases, a lighter rider can actually benefit from a higher rate. It can help give a progressive feeling air shock more of a linear feel...or help the rider to use all of the travel. A 3:1 is far from an anomaly in the industry & while it isn't exactly ghastly in regards to suspension tuning, a lower rate is certainly welcomed by a heavier rider.


  32. #32
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,272
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzostrike
    other than uniqueness, what is the practical reason for wanting to have 5" of rear travel on a 6-Pack/RFX?
    More XC-friendly geometry with a lower BB and snappier, firmer feel- just like a 5-spot.

    Yet, with the added durability of the RFX and ability to run adjustable, longer travel forks.

    I run 5" rockers on my RFX during the off-season and it's amazing- just like a 5-spot, but no worries about dirt jumping it or ditching it off skinnies. With a 6" fork, angles are pretty slack but fun for some of our winter trails. A lot of this is local and specific to my '02 RFX, but I found the lower BB to be a lot more fun & faster on the local flat, ultra-twisty trails. I don't think the newer RFX's offer as much contrast with the geometry- another reason I'm hanging on to my '02.

  33. #33
    banned
    Reputation: gonzostrike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,258
    Quote Originally Posted by PCinSC
    I hope that's was clear (and at least partially factual).

    Patrick
    yup, sure was. thanks.

    260 lbs, man that explains a lot. I see how you'd want the 6-Pack/RFX frame even if you wanted only 5" rear travel.

    I can see also how at 3:1 you're out of the range for a DHX Air but maybe at 2.5:1 you might be able to use one.

    now I have to reconsider my reflexive slam on those underbuilt XC oriented RFX/6-Pack bikes. someone your size would just about need that kind of beef even to ride XC, I'd bet.

  34. #34
    banned
    Reputation: gonzostrike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,258
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter
    ...Patrick has mapped it out in essence. A lower rate isn't just an issue for "clydes" per say. However, the negative traits are certainly exaggerated when a heavier rider is forced to contend with the much higher spring rates required for a suitable ride. The pressure required for an air shock may approach the manufacturer's limit...while in either case, the high spring rate will nearly overwhelm a stock damping circuit trying to control the recoil. Often times, a heavier rider will tend to blow through travel as well.

    A lower rate will actually create a much broader "range" for adjustments (springweight, compression, rebound). While a lighter rider like yourself may not "need" a lower leverage rate, the same benefits apply. In some cases, a lighter rider can actually benefit from a higher rate. It can help give a progressive feeling air shock more of a linear feel...or help the rider to use all of the travel. A 3:1 is far from an anomaly in the industry & while it isn't exactly ghastly in regards to suspension tuning, a lower rate is certainly welcomed by a heavier rider.
    thanks.

    would this explain how the progressive DHX Air on the 5-Spot feels so much like the linear DHX coil on the 6-Pack even though the lever ratios are different?

  35. #35
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzostrike
    now I have to reconsider my reflexive slam on those underbuilt XC oriented RFX/6-Pack bikes. someone your size would just about need that kind of beef even to ride XC, I'd bet.
    I don't know, I'd bet that many of those (under)builds are done trying to satisfy the inner weight-weenie. I say in that case, slam on.

    I'm planning on doing a mostly freeride-level component build, within reason (and within my budget). Even though most of my riding is your typical technical trail riding. The action shots I've seen of El Chingon here on this forum show the type of riding I'd like to evolve towards. And he's a pretty big guy, and actually doing just fine on a stock 6 Pack with DHX coil, of course properly built up with heavy-duty parts. But I've got about 30-40lbs on El C, and I think that changes the game significantly in terms of component stress, durability and performance. It should be interesting to see how this whole bike comes together (when I actually decide what to get), and how it holds up.

    Patrick

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,795
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzostrike
    thanks.

    would this explain how the progressive DHX Air on the 5-Spot feels so much like the linear DHX coil on the 6-Pack even though the lever ratios are different?
    ...well, truly the DHXa is a fairly linear feeling air shock. The larger volume can in addition to the air sleeve create a very linear feel to the compression stroke. All this comes at a price tho as it also tends to wallow a bit with little mid-stroke support. This does create the effect of a very plush feeling ride. A perfect example is I can use the DHXa with the 5" rockers @ my 230 lb weight....when I put the 6" rockers on, if I want to keep the air shock I have to swap out the DHX can for the RP3 can which essentially is a smaller volume air can. This creates a bit more of a ramp up & the shock can handle the higher rate better with the smaller can. Ideally tho, I will run the Avalanche Chubie w/ the 6" rockers, as the Avy has a much more burly shim stack & can easily accomodate the higher leverage rates.
    Last edited by jncarpenter; 06-06-2006 at 07:25 AM.


  37. #37
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132

    Great info info in this thread

    Jnc if you mention that Avy one more time, without a review and a pic, you're gonna get a triple poopie head award.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    Jnc if you mention that Avy one more time, without a review and a pic, you're gonna get a triple poopie head award.
    ...patience giant grasshopper


  39. #39
    banned
    Reputation: gonzostrike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,258
    thanks again jncarpenter and PCinSC.

Posting Permissions

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