Leverage ratio on the SB95(c)?
Can someone illuminate leverage ratios and the roll the shock tuning plays with a given ratio? Specifically the SB95 switch geometry.
Doesn't have to be precise, I'm just wanting a ballpark like low, med, or high ratio and I would assume that the shock tune would need to match up with that as well , ie low, med, high tune.
Last edited by White Bear; 11-14-2013 at 09:19 PM.
If you were to have a high compression tune shock that did not have alot of clicker adjustment you would have a harsh small bump and square edge hit feel , ( the bike is already a little stiff as it is , Im 145 lbs what do I know )
If I remember correctly, my shock has a low rebound and low compression tune , I ended up running 11 clicks in on my rebound so I am 4 clicks from being closed completely off , I could use a medium rebound tune for me and get me back in the middle or more open range which I would like more ( and I would like more clicks , each click is way to far ........I can't get it where I want it )
The CTD compression tune needs to have 20 or so clicks instead of three , and it would be really nice to have 20 High speed and 20 Low speed clicks of adjustment .
Three low speed clicks is just not enough .
I think the CCDBA is what I would like , I just wish is was not as heavy as it is .
Re: Leverage ratio on the SB95(c)?
The leverage curve is damn near flat. Unless you are a big guy, you will be best off with low comp/reb tune and a standard volume air can.
Kelstr, that's interesting that you run that much damping. I'm 165lb and considerably softened the reb stack and run the lsr at 14 out, 1 click from fast. That's a '13 ctd with 150 psi. And, I agree, not impressed with the ctd.
Interesting stuff here.
I agree how the Pike can show up how bad the CTD feels in comparison. I'd like to get a Monarch + on mine soon...
Re: Leverage ratio on the SB95(c)?
Ditto on the monarch plus. Hell, I'd take an RT3 over the CTD. I don't understand why folks get so excited about boost valve shocks. I'm running a Tower Pro fork. Love the damper.
I know , it is way to much LS rebound .......I generally run 5 in from all the way out for normal trail riding and its good, but I really like riding several goofy AM trails we have here and they are slow ,twisty, techy and have lots of short but 70 degree steep rock ledges and sections that you have to hit kinda hard and really mash to get up, and the dam CTD does not have any working HS rebound and the dam shock will just bounce me off the obstacle and some times that cam be 7 or 8' to the hacky nasty ground backwards ,
Originally Posted by ktm520
so I run it that slow just for that kinda riding .
it just sucks Fox really missed the mark in many areas on this shock.
I did a Specialized Demo last weekend and road the 14 29er S-Works Enduro and actually really liked the dam thing , ( I had Enduros before and the chassis feel like home to me )
But you had to flip the climb switch constantly on to get up anything and then you had to flip it off to go down anything , it really showed me how bad the bike pedaled and climbed compared to the 95, and if you left the climb switch on and went down anything you beat youself to death on every little bump.
I will say that if you did flip the switch off and rip down jacky crap the CCDBA would reward you with smooth controlled sailing.
Then I road the stumpy EVO , and I actually liked this bike because it felt way lighter , like the 95 and pedaled better than the Enduro ( Not much but livable ) .......It had the CTD shock and it was not good either.
All the Specialized bikes had "Pike forks", and all had XX1 transmissions , it made for good comparison testing.
This week end is the Pivot and Trek Demo .
I was shocked when I put the Pike on ,.......my CTD was really killing me more than I thought .
Originally Posted by Just J
You and ktm520 are correct , that M shock is actually really good , I had one on my last Enduro and the thing worked really well on the bad working HL linkage , it made the HL rideable for me
I will say that I was amazed on how the CCDBA felt on the HL bike , I really want to know how it would feel on a short dual link bike like the 95 .
You'll have to let me know how you get on with the Trek and Pivot test rides Kel, I am a fan of the Trek suspension, really loved the Fuel EX 29 I tried before buying my SB95c...
Here's a graph of the 'curve' from LinkageDesign's review of the bike ( Yeti SB-95 29'' 2012 - Linkage Design )
I have a DBAir on mine and it's tons better than the rp23 mine came with in all ways except weight, which for the difference I just don't care.
My DBAir settings (me being about 210-215 set to ride) are 130 psi - or 27-ish-% sag and damper tune 0.5 HSC, 4 LSC, 2 HSR, 4 LSR. I keep thinking of backing off on the LSx settings a little bit too. I'm just not riding enough right now that NE PA is getting close enough to winter to really take the time. The bike rides light and "tight" - accelerates well as I can - almost as well as my hard-tail - and feels like magic at speed. It just truly eats up rough stuff at any speed, but doesn't feel like a down pillow either. I don't feel like I'm disconnected, like when I rode my FR bike with 7+ " travel around as a trail bike for a while and could literally sit down and ride through anything less than 6" chunk.
I could not find anyone else' DBAir setup when I got mine so I started with one that I found for the SB66 that I modified based upon what I understood of the difference of leverage of the bikes (which isn't tremendous) and the wheel size difference. Then I played around a lot. I don't think I've touched the setting in four months though.
Thanks for the graph bear, that is really cool when they have several bikes in the mix so you can get an idea of what each maker is going for, every time I see a vpp bike curv it just amazes me that they are completely backwards of just about everybody else's link function.
And to make matters worse , some of the shock tunes on the vpp bikes are really poorly matched to the crazy ramped up and falling rate curv ( of course the Fox shock on the 95 aint nothing to hang your hat on either )
I am glade you tried and liked the CCDB on the 95, one of the things I really liked about the 95 was the flat low leverage curv the linkage has , It should be easy to get a shock dialed in with a curv like that , .......why Fox missed so badly with the CTD for the bike just kills me
Thats the bike I want to ride also , the full floater suspension does work very nice, Trek and Fox have really matched a nice rear shock that does work dam good right out the box , it took acoupple years to really get it dialed , I can't wait to rid the 14,........should I pick you up at 0430 tomorrow morning so we can get there first !!!
Originally Posted by Just J
Sounds good to me!
Originally Posted by kelstr
I'm hankering after a Slash 9!
I Got to test The Mach 6 , Mach 5.7 , 429C , and the Fuel EX 9.8 and I ran a loop first thing before anybody got there on my SB to get a baseline feel for the trail.
Originally Posted by Just J
The Mach 6 was a disappointment for me because of how harsh the rear suspension was on hack , rocks and square edges , add that with smaller 27" wheels and it felt bad for me , the shock was in descend mode and it did not pedal well there . ( you had to flip the lever from climb to descend 25 times to do a loop .
The chassis turned slow for a smaller wheeled bike also, I did not expect this from the new mach 6.
The 5.7 actually worked really good , the rear was almost as plush as the SB and it climbed good and you could leave the lever in trail mode.
The 26" wheels rolled slow and you could not keep momentum at all but if your into 26" wheels this bike steered great and was an absolute blast to ride .
The 429C was my favorite Pivot bike , it was not as plush as the SB but it felt good and pedaled good , in fact it had more mid stroke support than the SB when hitting G-outs or drops which is nice , they screwed it up with a Fox 32 fork and it steered alittle loose and the fork was harsh , and it had a 2x system with no clutch derailleur and the chain was banging and slapping , ........( those could be fixed with a 51 mm offset Pike and an XX1 system ).
Then I got the Fuel EX 9.8 , I fit the Trek XL chassis perfectly , the bike steered twitchy and was hard to hold your line and did not like to turn into corners at all ...( tires ) ( it had a 90mm stem and 720 mm bars )
The bike climbed ok , but you had to have it in climb mode and it was stiff and that makes it hard to climb ledges and rocky dry crap we have here, then you had to flip it back into descend mode to go down and it was still harsh and would deflect and you could here the DRCV blowing off when activated .( the blow off sounded kinda cool to me )
In all fairness this bike also had a Fox 32 which did not help the bike any and the bontrager tires were really sketchy.
All these bikes were XL chassis and I am 145 lbs and the trail system is a typical dry AZ rock, rut, infested with drops ( acoupple of 8' drops that all the rear suspensions bottomed out on and my SB was the only fork that didn not bottom out on ) lots of tight fast corners , switchbacks that really tax a 100 mm bike .
So yes I liked my SB better and road it way faster , but the 150 mm Pike is really cheating , add in the Ardent tires and its not a fair comparison.
Glad you still liked the Yeti more!
Interesting what you say about the other bikes, I've always been quite intrigued about the Pivots but have never swung my leg over one or any other Weagle designed suspension system, but I had heard that they don't hold a candle to the Switch Technology on the Yetis. I'm pretty surprised what you say about the Trek though, I borrowed a Fuel EX 9 a few months back and up until then (before I bought my Yeti!) I swore it was the finest full suspension bike I'd ever ridden. I wonder how I'd feel about it now having rode my Yeti for 5 months?...
I've only had a short sampler on the 429 but I found the same characteristics, traded a bit of compliance in the suspension for other factors. Great trade for some people, just not me. But then it's *not* a "trail bike" by intent so that probably more aligns for "XC" usage.
I'm surprised at the Mach 6 impressions though. I would have expected more.
I've good demo time on a Firebird 26er and it was pretty great, if I'd needed a new bike in '09 that would have been it hands down, I just didn't.
I have tested the "Remedy" before in 26" and really liked the rear suspension , I should have ridden the 27" they had there but my legs were just about smoked , I wanted to ride the 29er Remedy but they did not have one there.
Originally Posted by Just J
I had high hopes that the Fuel would be to my liking , but it was a little off for me ( also this trail system we were at is really brutal and will bring out any shortcomings real quick ).......And you are correct , I am spoiled to on how good the "Switch" really is .
The Mach 6 really disappointed me , I too really liked the Firebird and thought it would be its little brother with 27" wheels, but it is not .
Originally Posted by bear
Ive gotta say they have kept changing and improving that 429 to now the 429C is really a nice bike ( there again that area is harsh and that 429C did fine )
I wished they had a 27" 5.7C , that dam little 5.7 was really a great bike.
I ride right where Pivot's plant is and I have seen test mule's 5.7's with 27" wheels and most all the employes I ride with ride the 5.7 , oh well.
By dans160 in forum Intense
Last Post: 04-22-2012, 01:15 PM
By griffinsurfboard in forum Downhill - Freeride
Last Post: 10-11-2011, 10:53 AM
By Jet Fuel in forum Transition Bikes
Last Post: 10-03-2011, 06:11 PM
By matt_brodie in forum Specialized
Last Post: 05-09-2011, 11:34 AM
By snovvman in forum Giant
Last Post: 04-11-2011, 12:55 AM