HC97 vs charger 2.1- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 33 of 33
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    103

    HC97 vs charger 2.1

    I've got a lyrik rc2, 180 mm fork with a coil kit and was wondering if uprading with a charger 2.1 or a hc97 would be worth it considering the high price of those upgrades ? I'm a 165 lbs agressive rider and while I've noticed the fork does sit in it's travel quite a lot, it's been very good so far, no harsness at all. Am I gonna see an improvement with one of those 2 parts ? One thing bugging me is that the hsc and lsc adjustments seem to do nothing on the fork but besides, I'm quite happy

  2. #2
    Nat
    Nat is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,064
    Hc97!

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    321
    Lots of good info in the HC97 thread (although Darren deleted most of his comments unfortunately) including some dyno plots from Darren. It looks like essentially the HC97 damper offers more precise compression adjustment with better separation between the high and low speed adjustments and a more digressive damping curve. Considering that you seem happy with your current setup, I'm not sure it would be worth the $250, but I think depends on what you're trying to get out of the damper.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bertrenolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by dlxah View Post
    Lots of good info in the HC97 thread (although Darren deleted most of his comments unfortunately) including some dyno plots from Darren. It looks like essentially the HC97 damper offers more precise compression adjustment with better separation between the high and low speed adjustments and a more digressive damping curve. Considering that you seem happy with your current setup, I'm not sure it would be worth the $250, but I think depends on what you're trying to get out of the damper.
    He deleted them because it turned it a shitshow with dougal and some of the graphs were proprietary data. Even the 2.1 damper still lacked in the rc2 when adjusting the high and low speed compression. With the hc97 you actually notice a change every click. The hc97 is nice if you can rebuild the damper yourself because you also get shims to custom tune your rebound. I know people have been happy doing a hc97 and the acs3 spring kit, that said i have the hc97 that i put in a 2.1 damper and instead of the acs3 kit im actually planning on getting a runt which is a air chamber that acts like a spring without damaging the air spring internals of your fork. If you got 250$ and can do the work yourself do it. If your gonna pay a shop you might as well sell the lyrik and buy a fox 36 grip 2.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bertrenolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by dlxah View Post
    Lots of good info in the HC97 thread (although Darren deleted most of his comments unfortunately) including some dyno plots from Darren. It looks like essentially the HC97 damper offers more precise compression adjustment with better separation between the high and low speed adjustments and a more digressive damping curve. Considering that you seem happy with your current setup, I'm not sure it would be worth the $250, but I think depends on what you're trying to get out of the damper.
    He deleted them because it turned it a shitshow with dougal and some of the graphs were proprietary data. Even the 2.1 damper still lacked in the rc2 when adjusting the high and low speed compression. With the hc97 you actually notice a change every click. The hc97 is nice if you can rebuild the damper yourself because you also get shims to custom tune your rebound. I know people have been happy doing a hc97 and the acs3 spring kit, that said i have the hc97 that i put in a 2.1 damper and instead of the acs3 kit im actually planning on getting a runt which is a air chamber that acts like a spring without damaging the air spring internals of your fork. If you got 250$ and can do the work yourself do it. If your gonna pay a shop you might as well sell the lyrik and buy a fox 36 grip 2.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    921
    There is very little noticeable difference between 2.0 and 2.1, but the HC97 does offer a lot more support than either stock damper. And the full adjustment range works and properly independent of each other.

    Those are the main differences, the biggest reason to go HC97 would be if you really feel like you are missing decent support from the charger
    www.thesuspensionlab.nz
    Servicing in Rotorua, NZ/Vorsprung Elite Tuning Centre/DVO service centre/Insta @thesuspensionlab

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,377
    Quote Originally Posted by bertrenolds View Post
    He deleted them because it turned it a shitshow with dougal and some of the graphs were proprietary data. Even the 2.1 damper still lacked in the rc2 when adjusting the high and low speed compression. With the hc97 you actually notice a change every click. The hc97 is nice if you can rebuild the damper yourself because you also get shims to custom tune your rebound. I know people have been happy doing a hc97 and the acs3 spring kit, that said i have the hc97 that i put in a 2.1 damper and instead of the acs3 kit im actually planning on getting a runt which is a air chamber that acts like a spring without damaging the air spring internals of your fork. If you got 250$ and can do the work yourself do it. If your gonna pay a shop you might as well sell the lyrik and buy a fox 36 grip 2.
    He made false claims about the HC97 eliminating the midvalve (which it does not and cannot) then tried to bury that with intentionally misleading tests.

    The deletions happened when he was called on those misleading claims.

    But anyway.

    In the Charger RC2 2.1, RS has fixed the LSC damping issue the Charger 2 had but have coupled that with an extremely soft base-valve. Which is why most riders feel the compression adjusters do nothing.

    The Charger 2.1 RC2 can work quite well with a revalve and modifications. But it needs them because stock it doesn't have enough compression damping and relies too heavily on the air spring.

    All the HC97 dyno plots stop at very low speeds. Spring and poppet dampers are very good at changing low speed compression damping feel but not good at changing damping at higher velocities for bottoming resistance.

    Just like Fox X2.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bertrenolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougal View Post
    He made false claims about the HC97 eliminating the midvalve (which it does not and cannot) then tried to bury that with intentionally misleading tests.

    The deletions happened when he was called on those misleading claims.

    But anyway.

    In the Charger RC2 2.1, RS has fixed the LSC damping issue the Charger 2 had but have coupled that with an extremely soft base-valve. Which is why most riders feel the compression adjusters do nothing.

    The Charger 2.1 RC2 can work quite well with a revalve and modifications. But it needs them because stock it doesn't have enough compression damping and relies too heavily on the air spring.

    All the HC97 dyno plots stop at very low speeds. Spring and poppet dampers are very good at changing low speed compression damping feel but not good at changing damping at higher velocities for bottoming resistance.

    Just like Fox X2.
    What do you think about adding a runt and then doing their midvalve fix using a softer spring. Guess I could ask this in the runt post. Their midvalve spring and shims with a hc97 and a runt. The runt could solve the bottoming resistance part. Sorry I tried fallowing the whole hc97 thread and best I got out of it was that push claimed it eliminated the midvalve and you thought otherwise and then it turned into a shitshow. So much so another hc97 thread was created.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,377
    Quote Originally Posted by bertrenolds View Post
    What do you think about adding a runt and then doing their midvalve fix using a softer spring. Guess I could ask this in the runt post. Their midvalve spring and shims with a hc97 and a runt. The runt could solve the bottoming resistance part. Sorry I tried fallowing the whole hc97 thread and best I got out of it was that push claimed it eliminated the midvalve and you thought otherwise and then it turned into a shitshow. So much so another hc97 thread was created.
    I don't like DSD's midvalve ideas or their rebound tuning guide. The issue with relying on the air-spring for bottom-out is that it stores and returns all that energy to try and throw you back up. So you then need more rebound damping and everything starts to work against you.

    Where the correct amount of compression damping dissipates the bump energy so you can run the right spring and the right rebound damping.

    The mid-valve claims were completely bizarre and totally wrong. The mid-valve remains totally stock with HC97 installation. I have no idea what he was trying to achieve.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  10. #10
    Nat
    Nat is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,064
    Could you guys maybe not F up the thread just this once?

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougal View Post
    In the Charger RC2 2.1, RS has fixed the LSC damping issue the Charger 2 had but have coupled that with an extremely soft base-valve. Which is why most riders feel the compression adjusters do nothing.

    All the HC97 dyno plots stop at very low speeds. Spring and poppet dampers are very good at changing low speed compression damping feel but not good at changing damping at higher velocities for bottoming resistance.

    Just like Fox X2.
    I don't want to turn this thread in to a train wreck but I need to correct you on a couple of things-

    LSC control on 2.1 is only very slightly different to 2.0. The needle & orifice is the same design but slightly smaller. They are for the most part indistinguishable

    HC97 isn't "just" a spring & poppet and behaves nothing like a float X2. It increases the compression damping in very specific areas that Push have chosen while keeping it at an acceptable level in others
    www.thesuspensionlab.nz
    Servicing in Rotorua, NZ/Vorsprung Elite Tuning Centre/DVO service centre/Insta @thesuspensionlab

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,377
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyC7 View Post
    I don't want to turn this thread in to a train wreck but I need to correct you on a couple of things-

    LSC control on 2.1 is only very slightly different to 2.0. The needle & orifice is the same design but slightly smaller. They are for the most part indistinguishable

    HC97 isn't "just" a spring & poppet and behaves nothing like a float X2. It increases the compression damping in very specific areas that Push have chosen while keeping it at an acceptable level in others
    The Charger 2.1 RC2 LSC actually closes the port. That's a huge difference. The Charger 2 version can't actually close. It is this that makes the early version useless for controlling chassis movements.
    I had to put additional port restriction into the C2 RC2 to get the low speed support needed. No need for that with the 2.1, but it does need other tuning and modification.

    That is how spring and poppets work. They're great for tuning in the low speed knee of the damping curve. This changes the feel a lot. But they don't change much past that.

    Why do you think the published dyno plots were on such a short speed range?
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  13. #13
    Bodhisattva
    Reputation: The Squeaky Wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougal View Post
    He made false claims about the HC97 eliminating the midvalve (which it does not and cannot) then tried to bury that with intentionally misleading tests.

    The deletions happened when he was called on those misleading claims.

    But anyway.

    In the Charger RC2 2.1, RS has fixed the LSC damping issue the Charger 2 had but have coupled that with an extremely soft base-valve. Which is why most riders feel the compression adjusters do nothing.

    The Charger 2.1 RC2 can work quite well with a revalve and modifications. But it needs them because stock it doesn't have enough compression damping and relies too heavily on the air spring.

    All the HC97 dyno plots stop at very low speeds. Spring and poppet dampers are very good at changing low speed compression damping feel but not good at changing damping at higher velocities for bottoming resistance.

    Just like Fox X2.
    You give yourself way too much credit Dougal

    Darren graciously stepped away, having realized that having an "e-discussion" with you wasn't worth his time and that posting proprietary data wasn't in his company's best interest.

    Feel free to enjoy your delusions of grandeur and brilliance

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    321
    I should have never mentioned that thread. Sorry, guys.

    I don't see how posting dyno plots would be bad for Push, though. I don't know about you guys, but I'm much more likely to purchase a product when a company provides objective data showing what the product is capable of instead of just the usual unsubstantiated marketing claims. One might argue that another company could see the plots and try to replicate the product and undercut the price, but any company capable of doing that surely must have a dyno and therefore could easily obtain that data themselves.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    921
    I believe in transparency and being able to back up what you do, but you do have to balance it with revealing proprietary data that you have worked hard to gain. That data is often misunderstood which then gets taken out of context

    Push still has plenty of public graphs that show the adjuster range claims, but the other graphs are not relevant anyway or would reveal something they choose not to disclose (having dynoed it myself I can confirm this)

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,377
    Quote Originally Posted by dlxah View Post
    I should have never mentioned that thread. Sorry, guys.

    I don't see how posting dyno plots would be bad for Push, though. I don't know about you guys, but I'm much more likely to purchase a product when a company provides objective data showing what the product is capable of instead of just the usual unsubstantiated marketing claims. One might argue that another company could see the plots and try to replicate the product and undercut the price, but any company capable of doing that surely must have a dyno and therefore could easily obtain that data themselves.
    There is nothing to be sorry for and there are very good reasons to read that thread. Don't let a few out-raged cheer-leaders bully you (or neg-rep you).

    You are completely correct that posting dyno plots would be a completely positive thing for a revolutionary damper product. Unless they show some performance trait that is not expected or desired............

    There is nothing proprietary in a dyno plot at all. The claim was 100% bollocks. The plots that were deleted were deleted because they didn't show what Push was claiming.

    The whole episode was really strange.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  17. #17
    Nat
    Nat is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,064
    Apparently the answer to my question is "No, you guys can't resist F-ing up a thread, not even once." The Dougal shit-show continues.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougal View Post
    There is nothing to be sorry for and there are very good reasons to read that thread. Don't let a few out-raged cheer-leaders bully you (or neg-rep you).
    Like the one below. They have nothing to add. Except "ad-hominem".

    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    Apparently the answer to my question is "No, you guys can't resist F-ing up a thread, not even once." The Dougal shit-show continues.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  19. #19
    Nat
    Nat is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,064
    Why the hell would I bully or neg-rep dlxah??? You really lack self-awareness.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    277
    For anyone who is curious for a summary of the "thread".

    Dougal and Darren disagreed on what the realistic maximum fork travel speed is. Dougal saying that at a certain speed, the midvalve/rebound piston would choke (because at speed infinite m/s anything will choke)

    Darren saying that at realistic speeds (as shown by real world data acquisition units) there is no choking at all.

    Darren has all the data/instrumentation that's currently available and uses it well. Unless you're interested in running no tires/bare rim or some other unrealistic setup which causes super high shaft speeds, I'd take what Dougal says with a heap of salt. Super helpful on the forums otherwise which makes it a shame that he wont let this go.

    Besides that, the graphs that were posted for HC97 were absolutely beautiful,really cool how they managed to completely separate low and high speed adjustment, and can tell it's supportive just looking at how quickly it starts generating damping. no doubt it's a good piece of kit from what's been shown.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fresh tracks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    308
    Quote Originally Posted by croakies View Post
    For anyone who is curious for a summary of the "thread".

    Dougal and Darren disagreed on what the realistic maximum fork travel speed is. Dougal saying that at a certain speed, the midvalve/rebound piston would choke (because at speed infinite m/s anything will choke)

    Darren saying that at realistic speeds (as shown by real world data acquisition units) there is no choking at all.

    Darren has all the data/instrumentation that's currently available and uses it well. Unless you're interested in running no tires/bare rim or some other unrealistic setup which causes super high shaft speeds, I'd take what Dougal says with a heap of salt. Super helpful on the forums otherwise which makes it a shame that he wont let this go.

    Besides that, the graphs that were posted for HC97 were absolutely beautiful,really cool how they managed to completely separate low and high speed adjustment, and can tell it's supportive just looking at how quickly it starts generating damping. no doubt it's a good piece of kit from what's been shown.
    Well summarised.

    I'm far more inclined to believe real evidence over theory alone. After all that's how scientific understanding progresses. Until Dougal provides some live data he is not winning this argument.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bertrenolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlo489 View Post
    I've got a lyrik rc2, 180 mm fork with a coil kit and was wondering if uprading with a charger 2.1 or a hc97 would be worth it considering the high price of those upgrades ? I'm a 165 lbs agressive rider and while I've noticed the fork does sit in it's travel quite a lot, it's been very good so far, no harsness at all. Am I gonna see an improvement with one of those 2 parts ? One thing bugging me is that the hsc and lsc adjustments seem to do nothing on the fork but besides, I'm quite happy
    This is going off the rails sorry. Im a little confused now that I reread. Do you currently have a damper 1 or damper 2? You need a damper 2 to install the hc97 kit on. If you do have a damper 2 get the hc97. In another thread a guy said a coiler over and a hc97 is a great mix. Im basically doing the same thing using a runt though instead of a coil. As you said a stock rc2 basically feels like it does nothing and a hc97 will def change that.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,377
    Quote Originally Posted by croakies View Post
    For anyone who is curious for a summary of the "thread".

    Dougal and Darren disagreed on what the realistic maximum fork travel speed is. Dougal saying that at a certain speed, the midvalve/rebound piston would choke (because at speed infinite m/s anything will choke)

    Darren saying that at realistic speeds (as shown by real world data acquisition units) there is no choking at all.

    Darren has all the data/instrumentation that's currently available and uses it well. Unless you're interested in running no tires/bare rim or some other unrealistic setup which causes super high shaft speeds, I'd take what Dougal says with a heap of salt. Super helpful on the forums otherwise which makes it a shame that he wont let this go.

    Besides that, the graphs that were posted for HC97 were absolutely beautiful,really cool how they managed to completely separate low and high speed adjustment, and can tell it's supportive just looking at how quickly it starts generating damping. no doubt it's a good piece of kit from what's been shown.
    That's not accurate. Here are the actual posts for everyone to read:
    (post numbers seem to bounce around a bit).

    Post #228 with Darrens Midvalve claim quoted: https://forums.mtbr.com/shocks-suspe...l#post14118371

    Post #230 quoting Darren doubling down on that bizarre claim: https://forums.mtbr.com/shocks-suspe...l#post14118503

    Post #232 quoting the triple down: https://forums.mtbr.com/shocks-suspe...l#post14118607

    Post #253 quoting Darrens doctored experiment: https://forums.mtbr.com/shocks-suspe...l#post14121007

    Post #315 quoting Darren's outrage about the midvalve still existing: https://forums.mtbr.com/shocks-suspe...l#post14126009

    Post #346 quoting Darren's doctored experiment #2 where he ran tests with the wrong shims removed and claimed "oops":
    https://forums.mtbr.com/shocks-suspe...l#post14128633

    Post from me noticing that the dyno plots Darren were posting allegedly for each experiment was actually old data just cropped to look different:
    https://forums.mtbr.com/shocks-suspe...l#post14128917

    Post quoting Darren claiming that I am modifying HC97 dampers!
    https://forums.mtbr.com/shocks-suspe...l#post14135875

    Then we get into discussions of speed:
    My post quoting Darrens about speeds: https://forums.mtbr.com/shocks-suspe...l#post14138435

    Post from Darren saying he's hit over 7 m/s compression speed himself (10x HC97 posted plots) and ~9 m/s on others:
    https://forums.mtbr.com/shocks-suspe...l#post14138989

    So yeah. What speed are you interested in?

    5m/s impact speed is from a 1.3m drop.
    1m/s is the impact speed from a 5cm drop.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    26
    I felt like I needed to chime in here. I personally have a lot of respect for a company that will not offer a service unless it provides significant benefits. This was quoted by Push for tunes for charger 2 dampers. I have read most of the posts with you attacking the character of multiple people on other forums including PUSH. You are honestly ruining mountain biking and I would never in a million years send any of my suspension to any company that acts this way and is not forthcoming about what exactly they modify on my suspension. What on earth is this unharsh mod? PUSH is not perfect, no one is, but Ive been a customer of theirs in the past and I truly believe that they are an honest company.

    Secondly, Im not a suspension expert by any means but I know a little bit. I have a Lyrik charger 2 rct3 with the debonair spring and I think its an awesome fork. Rock Shox are constantly making improvements to their products which I think is great. I remember when fox (evo line) and rock shox had port orifice rebound dampers and when marzocchi had both compression and rebound which were port orifice. My point is that the Lyrik is a great fork and I'm honestly tired of hearing companies trying to convince me that there is some inherent flaw in the design. If you can't feel the low speed compression in the parking lot, the rct3 offers a three position lever.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,377
    Quote Originally Posted by flsurflocal View Post
    I felt like I needed to chime in here.

    <snip>

    You are honestly ruining mountain biking

    <snip>

    What on earth is this unharsh mod?

    <snip>

    Secondly, Im not a suspension expert by any means but I know a little bit.

    <snip>

    My point is that the Lyrik is a great fork and I'm honestly tired of hearing companies trying to convince me that there is some inherent flaw in the design. If you can't feel the low speed compression in the parking lot, the rct3 offers a three position lever.
    Well that make no sense at all. You feeling okay?
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    118
    Just stop. I used to read this board even for products I don’t own because it was fun and interesting learn. Now, these conversations are all train wrecks. I stopped reading for some time and come back to see the same old soap opera.

    Impartial human to human, just stop and let the conversation be enjoyable again. Thanks.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gman086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougal View Post
    I don't like DSD's midvalve ideas or their rebound tuning guide. The issue with relying on the air-spring for bottom-out is that it stores and returns all that energy to try and throw you back up. So you then need more rebound damping and everything starts to work against you.
    The way I see it is that the main air spring blows off energy to the secondary air spring like the TRUE Evol chambers do in Fox's Evol shocks for sleds and motos (I have and tune). They kind of play tug of war which provides with excellent mid-stroke support without having to run high rebound. Actually I'm shocked (no pun intended) that Fox didn't think of this before Anthony did! Humor me and look more closely into the design Dougal and let me know what you think.

    Cheers,

    G

    PS - I'm running 100psi in a new Fit4 damper fork and don't have a mid-stroke problem with the stock air spring, LOL. I've never been a fan of "small bump sensitivity" tho. This fork isn't bad; better than my Lyrik C1 damper w/ std airspring. That fork IS harsh if you over-spring it like I did with the Fox.
    "There's two shuttles, one to the top and one to the hospital" I LOVE this place!!!

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    921
    Fox (well technically Trek) already used the concept for the DRCV air spring - which made it in to forks around 2012. Pretty hard to find legitimately "new" technology these days!
    www.thesuspensionlab.nz
    Servicing in Rotorua, NZ/Vorsprung Elite Tuning Centre/DVO service centre/Insta @thesuspensionlab

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Gman086 View Post
    The way I see it is that the main air spring blows off energy to the secondary air spring like the TRUE Evol chambers do in Fox's Evol shocks for sleds and motos (I have and tune). They kind of play tug of war which provides with excellent mid-stroke support without having to run high rebound. Actually I'm shocked (no pun intended) that Fox didn't think of this before Anthony did! Humor me and look more closely into the design Dougal and let me know what you think.

    Cheers,

    G

    PS - I'm running 100psi in a new Fit4 damper fork and don't have a mid-stroke problem with the stock air spring, LOL. I've never been a fan of "small bump sensitivity" tho. This fork isn't bad; better than my Lyrik C1 damper w/ std airspring. That fork IS harsh if you over-spring it like I did with the Fox.
    I'm quite familiar with the dual chamber concept. I've been running Manitou IRT for several years now, was selling the SD-DVC's before they evaporated and my Ohlines tuning package reshapes the spring curve in their fork version.

    I'm not sure what DSD are doing that's new or different TBH.

    There isn't any blow off in energy. The physics and tuning is the same as any other spring, you can just shape the curve more than a single positive chamber air-spring.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,377
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyC7 View Post
    Fox (well technically Trek) already used the concept for the DRCV air spring - which made it in to forks around 2012. Pretty hard to find legitimately "new" technology these days!
    Fox/Trek were going for a completely different method and result with the DRCV. It was there to expand the air volume as you reached end-stroke to try and make it more linear that way.
    The second chamber with additional volume being activated by a push-rod making contact.

    I don't think I've ever ridden DRCV. Just fixed the shocks.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyC7 View Post
    Fox (well technically Trek) already used the concept for the DRCV air spring - which made it in to forks around 2012. Pretty hard to find legitimately "new" technology these days!
    Yep, didn't Yamaha do triple air forks back in the 70s for a year or two?

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally Posted by mike156 View Post
    Yep, didn't Yamaha do triple air forks back in the 70s for a year or two?
    Yup they were made by kyb and pretty distinctive with big dials or chambers on the top crown so they were nicknamed “tacho” forks or something like that

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PUSHIND's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlo489 View Post
    I've got a lyrik rc2, 180 mm fork with a coil kit and was wondering if uprading with a charger 2.1 or a hc97 would be worth it considering the high price of those upgrades ? I'm a 165 lbs agressive rider and while I've noticed the fork does sit in it's travel quite a lot, it's been very good so far, no harsness at all. Am I gonna see an improvement with one of those 2 parts ? One thing bugging me is that the hsc and lsc adjustments seem to do nothing on the fork but besides, I'm quite happy
    With the Lyrik the friction in the fork is relatively similar to the compression damping generated by the damping cartridge. I'm assuming that you've installed a Smashpot coil kit as our ACS3 is limited to 170mm? With this upgrade you've removed a significant amount of friction in the system which is good, but now you're left with a damper that's under powered as it was designed by the manufacture to work alongside that air system friction.

    With the HC97 we've designed it taking into consideration both the air system and the Coil systems because of our ACS3 product line. The increased level of adjustment allows optimization of both spring platforms so you'll see an instant increase in performance as the damper will now be handling more of the suspensions workload.

    Darren

Similar Threads

  1. setup with both Push HC97 and DSD RUNT
    By jscottyk in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 19 Hours Ago, 12:10 PM
  2. Push HC97 for Charger2 - Pre/Post Sales Questions
    By digev in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: 4 Weeks Ago, 10:07 AM
  3. Push HC97 Charger Upgrade
    By Dougal in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 577
    Last Post: 07-26-2019, 02:01 PM
  4. Push HC97 CLUNK after install
    By stokerslo in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-10-2019, 04:54 PM
  5. Charger vs Charger2 vs Charger 2.1. Retune Charger 1?
    By Scottyman in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-24-2019, 05:23 PM

Members who have read this thread: 185

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.