Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack - Page 2- Mtbr.com
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 201 to 400 of 631
  1. #201
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,465
    Hey, can you guys weigh in on this? I had heard that the 7.875x2.0 and 7.875x2.25 Monarch shocks are the same, but the 2" stroke version has some sort of internal spacer to limit the stroke. Can anyone confirm?

  2. #202
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,918
    Quote Originally Posted by FM View Post
    Hey, can you guys weigh in on this? I had heard that the 7.875x2.0 and 7.875x2.25 Monarch shocks are the same, but the 2" stroke version has some sort of internal spacer to limit the stroke. Can anyone confirm?
    It might have at some point, but that's not what's showing in SRAM's parts list. The 200x51 is a 190x51 shock with a longer damper body. The air can/damper body/damper rods are all specific to the 200x57.

  3. #203
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,465
    Quote Originally Posted by car_nut View Post
    It might have at some point, but that's not what's showing in SRAM's parts list.
    Thanks for doing the research!

  4. #204
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    I'm leaning towards measurement error. There are differences on the rebound side as well and they should be identical. I'd still be surprised if they are using the check plate for anything more than a check valve. Still curious to know if there are differences between the piston port area.
    I did some measurements on my Monarch RT3 2013 shim stack as well and I confirm the values for ML tune listed by project in this post ...but my tune is ML3! so, the "3" definitely does not mean tapered stack. It might have been prior 2013, but now it is straight stack as the "ordinary" tunes. Since the L and L3 tune look exactly the same in terms of shim diameter, thickness and arrangement could the only difference be in the piston (ports diameter, shape) and/or the check valve plates ports shape/size?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack-dsc01286.jpg  

    Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack-dsc01287.jpg  


  5. #205
    mtbr member
    Reputation: two-one's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by imbecile View Post
    I did some measurements on my Monarch RT3 2013 shim stack as well and I confirm the values for ML tune listed by project in this post ...but my tune is ML3! so, the "3" definitely does not mean tapered stack. It might have been prior 2013, but now it is straight stack as the "ordinary" tunes. Since the L and L3 tune look exactly the same in terms of shim diameter, thickness and arrangement could the only difference be in the piston (ports diameter, shape) and/or the check valve plates ports shape/size?
    Maybe it's the thickness of the preload ring shim?

  6. #206
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    40
    Nope, measurements are the same, I used 0,01mm. accuracy micrometer. There are a few differences of course on some of the shims, but the result is within 0,02mm, so I doubt that would make huge difference (like 0.12 instead of 0.10 or 0.13 instead of 0.15). Specifically the ring shims are spot on.
    Unless....on second observation there is a small difference in the comp check valve. I didn't pay much attention to it being just check valve (on/off).
    In my stack it is:

    shaft
    check valve plate
    9 x 22 x 0,12 (more likely designed around 0.10)
    9 x 18 x 0,15

    Given the difference it had in BOAs MM tune this really might not be just check valve...I'm trying to wrap my head around oil flow in the compression stage, but could that "check valve" be more like mid-valve in the meaning Avalanche have for their cartridges - where they add additional shims to the comp check valve at the back of the rebound piston thus resisting fork dive in the low speed comp oil flow...?

  7. #207
    mtbr member
    Reputation: two-one's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    677
    A 0.2 shim will be about 4,7x as stiff as a 0.12 shim, so that would really stiffen up the low speed behaviour

  8. #208
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    40
    Right, again IF projekt's and BOA's measurements where fairly accurate.
    Are you aware of the exact oil flow during comp stage?

  9. #209
    mtbr member
    Reputation: two-one's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    677
    Nope, I haven't had a monarch in my hands to measure, but I'm guessing the LS circuit has about 1/4th of the total max oil flow, but will probably be the only active circuit for more than 95% of the average ride.

  10. #210
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    This thread is about RT3. How much does all this apply to R, RL and RT models? I looked at the service manuals and part lists in Rock Shox site and it seems that older Monarchs (...-2012) have same internal construction. So I suppose it is possible to tune same way?

    But what about recent models? Another question: are the new models better in some way than old ones?

  11. #211
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by arnea View Post
    This thread is about RT3. How much does all this apply to R, RL and RT models? I looked at the service manuals and part lists in Rock Shox site and it seems that older Monarchs (...-2012) have same internal construction. So I suppose it is possible to tune same way?

    But what about recent models? Another question: are the new models better in some way than old ones?
    As you noted, pre '12 were all very similar in design and the R/RT/RT3 were identical except for the external adjuster. The R/XX are a little different. I just recently picked up a '13 R off ebay, converted it to a RT, and revalved. It has a '12 piston in it without any comp dish and similar reb dish to the '12 RT3 piston I have. I have yet to test a '13+ RT3. The R doesn't have a comp check plate in it. All of the comp free bleed flows through the reb shutter. In stock trim, small bump was slightly harsh. I swapped in a check plate from an RT3 and it woke that shock up. My goal with this shock was to build something similar to Push's RT-AM.

    To answer your question, yes tuning the different shocks are similar depending on which generation it is.


    Quote Originally Posted by imbecile View Post
    I did some measurements on my Monarch RT3 2013 shim stack as well and I confirm the values for ML tune listed by project in this post ...but my tune is ML3! so, the "3" definitely does not mean tapered stack. It might have been prior 2013, but now it is straight stack as the "ordinary" tunes. Since the L and L3 tune look exactly the same in terms of shim diameter, thickness and arrangement could the only difference be in the piston (ports diameter, shape) and/or the check valve plates ports shape/size?
    Brings up a good point that I meant to make previously. The comp flow area of the '13+ piston is considerably smaller than the '12-. I've also compared the '12 pistons to a Fox bv piston and a non bv piston. The bv area is smaller and the non bv is larger. Although, I've had good luck removing the bv and replacing with shims in a '13 CTD, which suggests the bv piston flow area is sufficient.

    If you one of you all could measure the diameter of the comp ports on a '13 rt3 piston, that would be much appreciated.

  12. #212
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Marmoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    64
    Time to contribute after learning a lot here.

    My FOX Float CTD shock started leaking air so it was the right time to give a try to my new Monarch RT3 2013.

    Being a light biker (140 lbs) and considering the linkage of my frame I was quite sure I needed a LL tune instead of the stock MM. I ordered a Tune Kit RT3 2013 LL S 219 to Gabelprofi and after installing it I'm very happy with the results. IMO substantially better than the original FOX CTD. Plush, controlled, the 3 LSC positions are almost perfect

    Here is the shim stacks measurements I've taken with a digital caliper:
    Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack-measured-shim-stacks-rt3-2013.png

    ...the stock MM shim stack...
    Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack-shim-stack-monarch-rt3-2013-mm-small.jpg

    ...the Tune Kit LL S 219 shim stack...
    Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack-shim-stack-monarch-rt3-2013-tune-kit-ll-s-219-small.jpg

    ...and the LSC precharge
    Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack-rt3-2013-lsc-precharge-comp-small.jpg

  13. #213
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Marmoto, thanks for sharing man. Very good info. Interesting that the L reb stack has more preload and only one less preloaded shim. Also note that the comp check plate stack is stiffer on the M by quite a bit.

    Where do the shims go shown above the poppet valve? Did you measure their thickness? Although the check valve springs are different colors, they appear to be very close on height and wire diameter.

  14. #214
    mtbr member
    Reputation: saruti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    312
    hi guys
    where can I buy the valve to inflat the shock IFP?

    thanks

  15. #215
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Marmoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    64
    ktm520, the poppet valve shims are mounted in the order shown in the picture. Unfortunately I didn't measured them, but look identical between tunes. The spring in the LL kit looks a bit thinner than the stock MM.

    Interesting thoughts about the stack preload. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it looks like the preload is achieved by the whole stack (reb+comp), due to the fact that the piston and valve plates are "floating" in the shaft (doesn't have any seat other than the base plate and the nut). If you add up the thickness of all the shims except the shims inside the shim rings (thinner than their paired shim rings), the MM shim stack measures 5.35mm and the LL shim stack 5.15mm. This makes me think that the LL stack has less preload... but I'm not an expert at all.

  16. #216
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    No, the preload is determine by thickness delta between the ring and nest shim. These are the two shims you have highlighted on either side of the piston. For comp, M has .3mm and L has .2mm of preload. For reb, M has .15mm and L has .2mm of preload. This delta causes all of the comp/reb shims on top of the ring shim to bend when the stack is tightened down, aka preload.

  17. #217
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Marmoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    64

    Re: Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack

    Understood. Very interesting. Now I see your point about reb preload. Tnx

    Enviado desde mi GT-I8190 mediante Tapatalk

  18. #218
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    ...
    If you one of you all could measure the diameter of the comp ports on a '13 rt3 piston, that would be much appreciated.
    Compression ports - 4 x 2.35mm
    Rebound ports - 4 x 1.85mm.

    My caliper is 0.05mm. accurate, so have that in mind.
    Last edited by imbecile; 03-31-2014 at 01:32 PM.

  19. #219
    Formerly PaintPeelinPbody
    Reputation: PHeller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,631
    Any ideas on how to determine what shock we need for a bike that isn't common or custom?

    Can you use something like BikeCad to determine necessary shock tunes?
    Work - Utility GIS Analyst
    Party - 2019 Guerrilla Gravity Revved Trail Pistol Sz 3

  20. #220
    mtbr member
    Reputation: absoluteczech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    432
    cliff notes* (want to get a monarch plus rc3 for bronson. would m/m tune be fine or do i need to change tune assembly?)

    Hi,

    Hoping some suspension experts can help me. I'm a total newb with this stuff. I'm gonna be ordering a new bronson and instead of having the fox ctd im thinking of going monarch plus rc3. speaking to santa cruz they tech said the following

    The Monarch is a great shock and there is no reason you couldn't use on on your Bronson. Though if you go with piggyback style shock like the Debonair you will forgo the use of a bottle cage. I can give you the shock tune information for the CTD on the Bronson, but you should contact Rockshox to find out what tune they would recommend on the Monarch.

    It's medium compression and light rebound for the CTD
    Does that mean i should get a light rebound and medium compression for the monarch? It seems it only comes with medium/medium. Looking at a parts diagram i see 11.4118.023.053 monarch lus reb-low/comp-mid (cf-97lbs) lf-320, b1

    then im confused with hv and standard air cans. my heads just spinning from this lol.

    im 180 lbs with gear and ride in socal rocky hard pack and 2-3x a year go to a bike park where i take smaller size jumps (i suck at jumping).

  21. #221
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Let me look at leverage curve for that frame. Probably safe with same tune as ctd, but may be advantages to getting something different.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

  22. #222
    mtbr member
    Reputation: absoluteczech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    432
    not sure if you were responding to me or not, but if you were, thank you!

  23. #223
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590

    Re: Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack

    Quote Originally Posted by absoluteczech View Post
    not sure if you were responding to me or not, but if you were, thank you!
    Yes, you will also get more feedback if you start a new thread.

  24. #224
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by absoluteczech View Post
    cliff notes* (want to get a monarch plus rc3 for bronson. would m/m tune be fine or do i need to change tune assembly?)

    Hi,

    Hoping some suspension experts can help me. I'm a total newb with this stuff. I'm gonna be ordering a new bronson and instead of having the fox ctd im thinking of going monarch plus rc3. speaking to santa cruz they tech said the following



    Does that mean i should get a light rebound and medium compression for the monarch? It seems it only comes with medium/medium. Looking at a parts diagram i see 11.4118.023.053 monarch lus reb-low/comp-mid (cf-97lbs) lf-320, b1

    then im confused with hv and standard air cans. my heads just spinning from this lol.

    im 180 lbs with gear and ride in socal rocky hard pack and 2-3x a year go to a bike park where i take smaller size jumps (i suck at jumping).
    Looks like the Bronson is a typical VPP digressive-progressive leverage curve, 2.65-2.4, but only mildly progressive. At your weight, you could go with either a low or med comp tune. If you think you might try you hand at a revalve, go with the med and you can always soften it up. I would definitely go with a med reb tune. The few CTD's I've played with had a crazy stiff reb stack for what was labeled a med tune. I'm guessing this is why SC went with a low reb tune. The other thing you need to consider is air spring volume. You will probably be in between a low and high volume can. Do some research and see why other Bronsons are using. The CTD's that are now called LV have a bigger head that puts the volume very close to the old high volume cans with sleeve. Looks like it comes with LV CTD shock, so you probably want the hv monarch.

  25. #225
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,918
    Not a Bronson, but I have a 2014 RC3 med/med on a Satori (~2.5 leverage ratio). I'm 200lbs on the bike and run the rebound ~2/3rds shut. There is no perceptible rebound damping at my air pressures with the rebound 1/3rd shut. It is a literal pogo stick with the rebound full open. I'd imagine you'll be fine with the stock med/med tune.

    Part of the reason SRAM only sells the med/med tune now is because they claim the rebound side flows enough oil and has enough adjustment to not warrant all the various tunes. I'm not 100% sure I agree with that, but in your case I'd be surprised if it didn't work.

    For the air can, I believe your shock size only comes in the high volume configuration. Order a set of the SRAM "Tuning Bands" and you should be all set.

  26. #226
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by car_nut View Post
    Part of the reason SRAM only sells the med/med tune now is because they claim the rebound side flows enough oil and has enough adjustment to not warrant all the various tunes. I'm not 100% sure I agree with that, but in your case I'd be surprised if it didn't work.
    I agree. Just an excuse for them to stock less configurations. I think this is also why Fox valves the ctd reb so stiff and added more adjustment range to the lsr shutter. Technically, it's a broader tune, but not the best for optimal reb action.

  27. #227
    mtbr member
    Reputation: absoluteczech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    432
    thanks guys i appreciate all your help. I guess i'll start off with a HV can med/med monarch plus rc3

  28. #228
    mtbr member
    Reputation: saruti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    312
    just bought an 2013 RT3 shock.
    but it has a regular air can.
    where can I buy a 2013 high volume air can online?

    thanks

  29. #229
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,918
    I've never seen one for sale online. Any dealer can order it for you.

  30. #230
    mtbr member
    Reputation: saruti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    312
    any idea what can be the price?
    thanks

  31. #231
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mullen119's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,693
    Quote Originally Posted by saruti View Post
    just bought an 2013 RT3 shock.
    but it has a regular air can.
    where can I buy a 2013 high volume air can online?

    thanks
    What size shock? If its 200x57, I will trade you. I have a HV, but want a standard can

  32. #232
    mtbr member
    Reputation: saruti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    312
    yes its 200X57

    2013

  33. #233
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    Sorry for asking my question twice, but I hope I can get quicker answer here.

    Is low/low tune Monarch good for 230 lbs rider on XC bike with average leverage ration 2.0? Bike has virtual pivot point type of linkage and pedal bob is not big concernc. I like plusher ride.

  34. #234
    mtbr member
    Reputation: saruti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    312
    hi again guys

    so now I have a onarch RT3 HV rear shock. M\M.
    my frame needs a L\L tune.
    Q: does the M\L\H is for low speed? or does it represent also the high speed?

    I like how the rear shock act with a bit of low speed compression.
    but I want the high speed to be full open
    Q: will playing with the shims impact the low & high speed too?
    Q: mayb replacing the oil to higher velocity, with less shims bring me to the desired feel of the shock?

    thanks

  35. #235
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Marmoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    64

    Monarch RT3 (2013) tuned to “LL Soft 219” Ride Report

    In post #212 I explained and documented the tuning I did to my stock MM Monarch. Now, for you to be able to extract conclusions to this report I have to add this info:

    - Rider weight with kit: 66 kg (145 lbs)
    - Riding style: Trail – AM (not too aggressive, I’m 56…)
    - Shock: Monarch RT3 2013 HV 216x63 mm tuned from “MM” to “LL Soft 219”
    - HV air can tune: 33% filled with electric tape
    - Air spring pressure: 103 psi
    - Rebound knob: just in the middle
    - Frame Leverage Ratio: 2.56 flat (CUBE Stereo SHPC 650B 160mm)
    - Fork: RS PIKE SA 27.5 160mm
    With this setup, I get a SAG of 22%

    Climbing
    My frame linkage has a good anti-squat design. The rear suspension has no noticeable bob climbing on fire roads in “pedal” LSC position and very small movement in the open position. Most of the times I leave it open unless I pedal standing up.
    In technical rocks&roots climbs I very often use the open position and I feel my rear Hans Dampf glued to the ground. The rear eats up all the bumps even at low speeds. A noticeable improvement compared with MM.
    The low sag / linear spring somehow compensated my low BB height and had limited pedal strikes.
    I use the “Lock” position only climbing in paved roads. It’s not a “full lock” but gives enough platform to hammer on the pedals.

    Flats
    Outstanding small bump compliance in the open position and not that much but very good in “pedal” . The LSC damping is bit low in “open” and the bike uses lots of travel riding fast over deep bumps. The feeling is very good and plush, but the bike is a bit more controlled in “pedal”.

    Descending.
    Bottomless, plush, superb feeling. It’s perfect for me. I can go very fast with an incredible feeling of control (I also use the 40mm wide carbon Derby rims, which is a +). But please consider that my setup IS NOT for jumps bigger than 2-3 feet. It would be too soft.

    Conclusion:
    My tuned shock outperforms my previous stock MM Monarch and also the OEM Fox Float CTB. Big improvement in bump compliance, technical climbing and fast descending. The shock rides high in the travel and I haven’t noticed any packing up. Could it be even better with a bit more air pressure o bit more LSC? I will try it.

  36. #236
    mtbr member
    Reputation: saruti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    312
    thanks Marmoto
    did you notice that the oil in the 2013 is 7wt?

    https://www.sram.com/sites/default/f...e_manual_0.pdf

    is it 7wt in the older models too?
    what oil did you use?

    thanks

  37. #237
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Marmoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    64
    Yes, I used original 7wt suspension fluid. I haven't read the service manual of older models so I don't know if their suspension fluid has the same wt.

    Enviado desde mi GT-I8190 mediante Tapatalk
    Last edited by Marmoto; 04-09-2014 at 02:59 AM.

  38. #238
    mtbr member
    Reputation: saruti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    312
    Name:  shims.jpg
Views: 9395
Size:  22.5 KB

    hi guys
    I've started messing with the shims in mt RT3
    made a diagram of the shims in a M\M and in a L\L tunes.
    it makes it easy to understand how oil flows through the sims in comp and rebound.

    it looks like the L\L tune has more preload on the rebound shims.
    and one less shim in the comp.

    what I didn't understand is, when does the oil flow through the little holes in the shaft?
    and how is it Influence On the work of the shock? or the shims?

    thanks

  39. #239
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by arnea View Post
    Sorry for asking my question twice, but I hope I can get quicker answer here.

    Is low/low tune Monarch good for 230 lbs rider on XC bike with average leverage ration 2.0? Bike has virtual pivot point type of linkage and pedal bob is not big concernc. I like plusher ride.
    Any opinions?

  40. #240
    mtbr member
    Reputation: saruti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    312
    Arnea
    it depends on the leverage ratio of the bike and more.
    if that is the shock you've got, try it
    if there are problems, tell us here. and I'm sure you will get help.

  41. #241
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by saruti View Post
    Arnea
    it depends on the leverage ratio of the bike and more.
    if that is the shock you've got, try it
    if there are problems, tell us here. and I'm sure you will get help.
    Thanks. I do not have the shock. I would like to buy one. The question is what tune would most likely work well with my bike and weight out of the box. It is possible to retune, but I would like to make good initial selection.

  42. #242
    mtbr member
    Reputation: saruti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    312
    I dont think you can buy RT3 other then a MM tune.

  43. #243
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Marmoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    64
    Arnea,
    Two main considerations to start:

    1.- Lower Leverage Ratio (2.0 is low) --> Lower compression damping tune in general. But then the optimum depends on the leverage ratio curve (LR vs. wheel travel) and rider weight.

    2.- Higher rider weight --> higher compression and rebound damping tune.

    As you can see, 1 & 2 are not pointing to the same direction regarding compression damping. Also there are some other factors in the equation so you will have to try or find a smart suspension guru to help. Anyway, if you are thinking in buying an RS Monarch RT3 there is only one choice off the shelf: MM (at least in Europe)

    I also started with an MM Monarch. My final tune (very happy with it) is Low/Low but for a different bike, riding style and rider weight. See post# 235 for more details

  44. #244
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by arnea View Post
    Sorry for asking my question twice, but I hope I can get quicker answer here.

    Is low/low tune Monarch good for 230 lbs rider on XC bike with average leverage ration 2.0? Bike has virtual pivot point type of linkage and pedal bob is not big concernc. I like plusher ride.
    That's a tough call due to your weight. I think you will be closer to a med tune or maybe in between the two. The spring curve is driven more by the leverage curve. The only way you will get a good answer on this is if you find someone at the same weight with similar bike. If you truly like a super plush ride, which means sacrificing chassis stability and midstroke, go with the low comp. On the reb side, I think you definitely need a med, maybe even a high. Reb tune is purely driven by spring rate, which is driven by sprung mass. I'm only 170 and every monarch I've ridden has been a med reb tune, and I've never touched the reb stack.

  45. #245
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2
    Hello
    I've just fitted an rt3 M/M rear sock. I would. Like to have an even firmer feeling at the locked position. If I change the tune piston with a firm threshold will I have any change? I'm 80kg riding a Canyon Nerve xc with 2.4 leverage ratio. Should I opt something else than M/M? The tune piston will ccome to my hands assembled?

  46. #246
    Dirty minded
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    564
    subscribed
    I have been having problems with my RT3 after getting a complete service at LBS, hopefully this thread will help sort it out.
    Good info, thanks to all.

  47. #247
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    22

    Monarch RT3 Got Black in 2015!

    It looks like Monarch RT3 got black as PIKE and a brand new BoXXer 2015.

    Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack-monarch-rt3_0206_0.jpg
    Monarch RT3 | SRAM


    I'm currently running 2011 RT3 165x38 M/M with 250[PSI] IFP Pressure.
    My bike's average leverage ratio is 2.95 so I'm considering some updates.
    My plan is...

    1.Replace Damper body to a brand new black anodized one.
    Since mine gets some damage, like some hair line scratches, I need to replace it.
    I hope it will improve shock performance, visuals as well.
    Although a Spare Parts Catalog for 2015 is not available now, I couldn’t know the exact part number.

    2.Replace seals to a brand new 2015 ones.
    According to the new black treatment on damper body, seals, like dust seals on PIKE, can be modified to achieve great performance.
    The chassis of 2015 Monarch looks the same, they will be compatible with older Monarchs.

    3.Bring "Rapid Recovery" technology to my shock.
    I'm not sure the Rapid Recovery technology was performed by assist return spring, like on Vivid shocks, or shim stacks.
    But if it is achieved via shim stacks, I would like to try them on my shock.

    4.Revalve from M/M to H/M tunes.
    Since my Leverage Ratio 2.95 is too high for Mid Tune, I will change the thickness of shims which is 4th from above on compression side.
    But there is no information on shim’s Inner Diameter, I’m wondering what shims to buy.

    ID : ?? [mm]
    OD : 22 [mm]
    Thickness : 0.2[mm]

    Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack-monarch-rt3-l_m_h-shim-stack-chart.jpg
    (Sadly, Big Mountain Cycles pages gone...)


    Any thoughts or opinions, ideas on my plan?
    Or are there anyone have already been planned like this?

  48. #248
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,918
    The 2015 spare parts catalog is out now. My general understanding is that the black anodize was a cosmetic change only. The rapid recovery is a higher flowing piston I believe. Don't know if it is compatible with older shocks or not.

  49. #249
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    _Supra_shin, I'm also under the impression that the black anodizing is purely cosmetic. I think I actually read that from an interview with a RS tech. I also believe that "rapid recovery" is mostly slick marketing. It's basically just a digressive damping curve. In the 11-12 and 13 RT3, it's just a preloaded reb shim stack. The 11-12 has a dished piston on the reb (and comp) face. The 13 uses a ring/nest shim for preload. I'm not aware of what's in the Vivid, but in the RT3 there just isn't enough room to use any type of a spring to get the digressive damping curve.

    Looking at the '15 spare parts catalog, it doesn't appear that they change the piston in the RT3, but they did upgrade the R/RL/RT/xx to the most current design.

    I've been playing with a '13 RT and a '13 CTD back to back on my SB95. The CTD reb is revalved and the stock reb med tune on the RT. The reb action on the RT (preloaded stack, .15mm piston dish) is slightly different than the CTD. I can't decide which one I like better. It's not mind blowing on a 125 travel frame.

    For your 11 RT3, the shim ID is 6mm.

  50. #250
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    22
    car_nut,

    Thanks for your info on 2015 spare parts catalog.
    I've got it from here.
    https://www.sram.com/sites/default/f..._spc_rev_a.pdf

    ktm520,

    Whether Fast Black treatment is only a cosmetic reason or not, I hope it is compatible with older monarchs.
    Both of the Damper body assy ("11.4118.037.014(2014-2015)" and "11.4115.112.020(2011-2012") including a IFP piston.
    So the point is both IFP pistons have the same outer diameter, right?

    I'm gonna get the shims(ID : 6 [mm], OD : 22 [mm], Thickness : 0.2[mm]) for my 2011 RT3 to get High tune comp.

    But on rebound side, I need to study more about digressive damping to improve my shock performance.
    Taking a look at RT3 valving on 2015 spare parts catalog, it looks having straight stack with crossover stack.
    Can I achieve digressive rebound damping on RT3's dished piston face in that way?

    In shock rebuilding process, what kind of vise do you recommend when holding the damper shaft and the IFP piston in place ?

  51. #251
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    I don't know for sure if the damper boddies between 12, 13 and 15 are the same OD/ID but I would assume they are because the air cans are interchangeable, meaning the OD is the same. I can't see them changing the ID.

    Pay no attention to the shim stack figure in the SPC. The RT3 stack doesn't look anything like that, and it's the same way in the 14 SPC. I've noticed in previous years that they actually have a correct number/size of shims but they aren't ordered correctly. Your shock already has a preloaded reb and comp stack, only difference between it and a newer 13+ is that the preload is provided by the piston dish versus using a ring/nest shim. The hole idea behind rapid recovery (digressive) is to get more lsr and less hsr. The theory is to provided better chassis stability while at the same time allowing the shock to quickly rebound from mid/deep stroke. Whether or not this is advantage to you personally depends on how fast of a rider you are and how rough of trails you ride. Faster and rougher the trail, the more noticeable the benefits.

    I just use a drill press style vice sitting on the bench top to hold the damper body eyelet. You should be able to break the piston nut loose without having damper shaft clamp blocks. I have a set but have only use them to change a damper shaft.

  52. #252
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    22
    Thanks ktm520,

    I'm going to try to replace with 2015 Fast Black Damper body when it gets available.

    You told digressive damping achieves more Low Speed Rebound while less High Speed Rebound.
    In following article, Rapid Recovery has adjustable beginning stroke and fixed rate ending stroke rebound damping circuits. And "Rapid Recovery offers a faster rate ending stroke rebound and a slower-than-usual beginning stroke rebound rate".
    RockShox Pike suspension fork - first look - BikeRadar

    So it means...
    Beginning stroke rebound = Low Speed Rebound
    Ending stroke rebound = High Speed Rebound
    right? (I'm just confused...)

    According to this, I think we need preloaded shim stack to get digressive damping.
    http://www.bsamarketing.com/online_c...s/page0023.pdf
    Then my 2011 RT3 has preloaded rebound stack as you told, does it already have shim stacks for digressive rebound damping?
    Is it as much digressive as currently available Rapid Recovery shocks?

    I have a nice vise and thanks for your info so it seems like I don't have to buy any clamp blocks.
    But no special tool required to hold IFP pistons in place while bleeding shocks?
    (The process is Page 27 in following document.)
    http://cdn.sram.com/cdn/farfuture/V3...h_rt3_r_sm.pdf

  53. #253
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Yes,
    Beginning stroke rebound = Low Speed Rebound (lsr)
    Ending stroke rebound = High Speed Rebound (hsr)

    This is RS's attempt to make the concepts easier to understand. The "speed" in lsr/hsr/lsc/hsc refers to piston speed, not bike forward velocity.

    Yes, anytime you add preload to a shim stack, whether its comp or reb, it makes the curve more digressive.

    No tools required to hold ifp in place when assembling damper. The tool in that picture is just a caliper used to measure/set the depth. The ifp valve has to be vented when you set the depth.

  54. #254
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    22
    ktm520,

    OK. I understood, Digressive damping can be controlled via Preload on shim stack.

    Sorry I would like you to see Page 28 (lettered 27 bottom left), "Shock Assembly and Bleed" process "1".
    It says clamp a damper body by using RS Vise Block.
    Is this tool necessary to complete bleeding shocks?

  55. #255
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    No, it's just a fancy plastic block to hold the damper body in a vice. I either leave the spacer in the eyelet bushing and clamp on it, or use a rag and clamp directly on flats on the damper body eyelet. DO NOT clamp on the round part of the damper body.

  56. #256
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    ktm520, thank you for the information about vice blocks. It is good to know that you can service the piston without them. But about the black plastic blocks - I understood from the manul that the idea is to pinch the damper body very slightly using those block and immobilize the IFP piston inside so that it can not accidently move during the assembly and bleeding process. If the piston stays at the correct position without those blocks then this is also good news.

  57. #257
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    I missed the part in the manual about the clamp blocks locking the ifp in place. Nice, but still not necessary. I don't actually use a stroking type bleed on these inline shocks anymore. I found it works better to flush the bypass circuit with a squeeze bottle until no bubbles exit the lsr port in the shaft, flood the piston assembly while over a small cup of oil, immediately drop it in the cup after flooding, agitate quickly in cup, and finally quickly transfer from cup to damper body.

    In my opinion, when bleeding by stroking, the shims will never deflect enough to clear air out of the piston ports, so you are really just bleeding air out of the bypass and lsr circuit.

  58. #258
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    I've most recently been playing with a '14 R that I stole off ebay. I knew this shock had the new 10mm shaft in it, but was surprised to find that it still uses a 6mm piston arbor and has no bypass through shaft center. It also uses two check plates on the rebound side and has four holes in the shaft for lsr vice the 9mm with only one. The piston design is similar to the '13 RT3 but uses a tapered shim stack with no preload on comp side and reb is preloaded it doesn't use a ring/nest shim for preload. Was slightly disappointed to find this out (lack of bypass mostly), but the shock performed very well with the stock MM tune on both my Spark 7 and SB95, which have similar leverage curves but the linkages are very different in design. In fact, I liked this shock better than the '13 RT that I revalved despite the lack of comp adjustment. The lack of comp adjuster turns out not to be a big deal because I ended up running the RT open all the time to get the best square edge performance.

    Last week, I got a Debonair can to test. Unfortunately, it will only fit on the '14 R. This thing works as advertised. I've only got 1 ride on it so far but is was a noticeable improvement in compliance, small bump, and better mid support, which they don't advertise but can be seen in the published spring curves. More to come on the Debonair. I'm trying really hard to resist buying a '15 RT3 or RC3.

  59. #259
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,151
    ktm520

    Do you think a Monarch RT3 Debonair would be an upgrade to a Fox Performance CTD DRCV?

    Seems like similar means to the same end?

    That being:
    DRCV twin chamber for small bump compliance and linear response to big hits
    vs
    Debonair negative spring for small bump and main chamber for big hit?
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  60. #260
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by hokiebrett View Post
    ktm520

    Do you think a Monarch RT3 Debonair would be an upgrade to a Fox Performance CTD DRCV?
    Yes, especially if the CTD isn't a boost valve shock. The debonair spring is very similar to DRCV in the mid/end stroke, but the initial is slightly softer. The RT3 damper is also and improvement over the CTD. Beware though, that you will only be able to purchase the RT3 with a MM tune, so depending on leverage curve and rider weight, it may need a revalve.
    Trek Slash Rear Shock Spring Curves - Mtbr.com

    The more I ride the R with Debonair, the more I like it. This shock has the best rebound damping curve of any Monarch I've ridden, and it's not digressive.

  61. #261
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,151
    Thanks for your response

    Now this is interesting... Craig at Avy removes the Boost Valve from the CTD shocks during his tunes. And cites several reasons for why he does so. You're suggesting the Boost Valve is helpful (maybe more so for a linear DRCV?)

    Thought the new Trek shocks were tuned specifically for each bike/leverage curve?

    I'm 182-190# out of the shower (variability due to Coors Banquet and breakfast burritos), so a touch on the heavy side. Currently run a PUSH air can spacer in the top of the DRCV to add a touch more progressiveness and mid-stroke/end-stroke support, while still allowing me to run 25-30% sag in primary chamber.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  62. #262
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by hokiebrett View Post
    Thanks for your response

    Now this is interesting... Craig at Avy removes the Boost Valve from the CTD shocks during his tunes. And cites several reasons for why he does so. You're suggesting the Boost Valve is helpful (maybe more so for a linear DRCV?)
    No, no, no, I am not a boost valve fan. I've actually played around with replacing the bv in a CTD with a shim stack using the stock piston. Had decent success, but quickly realized how much better/easier Monarchs are to work with and have a better spring curve even with the SV can.

    The MM tune should be pretty close for you. With Debonair, you can easily reduce the positive chamber volume in the sleeve to tune progression.

  63. #263
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,151
    My only hang up is that RS doesn't have a Monarch + RC3 for my Trek Remedy, I'm stuck with the RT3. I'm not convinced that the RT3 is enough of an upgrade over a Performance Series DRCV... For aggressive AM riding that is. I'm posting here b/c this I where I'm finding the information and b/c my Remedy is 1/2 Slash with a 160mm Pike, 2.35 tires on 35mm rims and a 55mm stem/780mm bar.

    A 200x57 RC3 and a 2mm offset lower shock bushing should get me pretty darn close to my stock 197x57 DRCV... but it won't have the Trek specific tune.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  64. #264
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    I have M/M tune RT3 Debonair and I might want to lighten the compression tune somewhat. I have bunch of questions:

    Is the height of the shimstack critical and I need to buy lower tune shimstack that is sold separately or can I just remove some shims from the current mid-tune shimstack to make it softer?

    Has somebody tried to remove the preloaded ring shims? What would be the result of that? I would expect better small bump compliance. Are there any negative effects?

    Can I combine compression and rebound sides from different shimstacks? E.g. if I get low/low shimstack can I combine it with existing mid/mid stack to build low/mid stack?

  65. #265
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,825
    Quote Originally Posted by arnea View Post
    ...Is the height of the shimstack critical...
    It may be:

    - if the total height in insufficient then the clamp bolt will not be able to hold all the shims together properly.
    - also, the positions of the check valves in relation to the bleed port holes in the piston rod is also critical. If they don't line up properly then damping fluid will flow in unintended ways.

    Removing only one or two shims will probably not affect the above.

  66. #266
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    arnea,

    The height of the stack is only critical if is gets to large as it can push the reb side check plate out far enough that it won't flow any oil. There are no holes to line up. Just as long as the check plates are within the square cross section area of the piston arbor, all is good.

    Completely removing the ring/nest shim will significantly soften the entire comp damping curve and will change it from digressive to linear. Small bump will be better but you will also loose mid/bottom support. I would start by moving it up the stack (away from piston face) as others here have documented. Also, when you get it apart, measure all the shims and document the configuration.

  67. #267
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    I tried to open the shock today, but encountered problem when I tried to unscrew the piston nut without clamping the shaft using the vice blocks.

    I clamped the eyelet as was suggested previously, but on my shock the piston nut was much tighter than the shaft, so the shaft started to unscrew from the eyelet.

    I will put the shock back together now and try to find the shaft clamp blocks.

  68. #268
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    I made vice blokcs from soft wood. I had to clamp the shaft really hard. It took are sharp turn with wrench in order to crack the bolt open. It made a snapping sound when it opened, but there were no signs of the thread glue.

    I measured the shim stack with my not very accurate calipers. 0,05mm is the maximum resolution that I can get. I tried to match the shimstack to the 2013 RT3 MM shimstack that was posted here by Marmoto and it seemed to be exactly same. Shims had 9mm internal diameter. Only differences were location of some spacers.

    I've included some pictures as well. Look of the shimstack and end of the damping rod. There seems to be small spring clip at the end of the rod that keeps in place some red anodized piece. I haven't seen this on the pictures before. Rockshox service manual does not mention it either. Perhaps it is now possible to swap the poppet valve without unthreading the shaft?

    I'm planning to make following modifications (also visible in the picture):

    1. replace the 22x9x0.2 shim in the low speed compression stack with one of the 22x9x0.15 shims from the high speed compression stack. So there will be one less shim in high speed compression stack.

    2. rise the ring shim on the high speed compression stack by one shim.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack-rodend2.jpg  

    Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack-smallshims.jpg  

    Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack-myshims.png  


  69. #269
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    19
    arnea, Wondering how the shim changes worked for you. I appreciate you posting the shim sizes and their locations. I have a 2015 184X44 Debonair. Mine was an MM and I felt I needed a little less compression also. On the low stack, I used a 22X9x1.5 and a 19X9X1.0.I tried to keep the stack height close by using 2 11X9X.2 instesd of 1 11X9X.3. On the high stack, I moved the ring nest 2 shims away from the piston. I didn't have the recommended damper fluid so I used RS 2.5. All this is working well so far. I don't think the lighter weight fluid made much difference. My rebound settings hardly changed.

  70. #270
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    I just had 4 hour group ride yesterday and can share some feelings. We have already winter here, so I cannot ride as hard as usual, also my test track is covered with snow that hides the roots and bumps, so the ride is smoother.

    I liked the changes. Previously it was the shock that I noticed, now I felt the fork more - shock was smoother. I think that I noticed increased pedal bob. I need more time to test it in different modes (I used only open mode yesterday), but this must wait for spring.

  71. #271
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mullen119's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,693
    Quote Originally Posted by arnea View Post
    I made vice blokcs from soft wood. I had to clamp the shaft really hard. It took are sharp turn with wrench in order to crack the bolt open. It made a snapping sound when it opened, but there were no signs of the thread glue.

    I measured the shim stack with my not very accurate calipers. 0,05mm is the maximum resolution that I can get. I tried to match the shimstack to the 2013 RT3 MM shimstack that was posted here by Marmoto and it seemed to be exactly same. Shims had 9mm internal diameter. Only differences were location of some spacers.

    I've included some pictures as well. Look of the shimstack and end of the damping rod. There seems to be small spring clip at the end of the rod that keeps in place some red anodized piece. I haven't seen this on the pictures before. Rockshox service manual does not mention it either. Perhaps it is now possible to swap the poppet valve without unthreading the shaft?

    I'm planning to make following modifications (also visible in the picture):

    1. replace the 22x9x0.2 shim in the low speed compression stack with one of the 22x9x0.15 shims from the high speed compression stack. So there will be one less shim in high speed compression stack.

    2. rise the ring shim on the high speed compression stack by one shim.
    I have the same shock and did my initial tune a few days ago. I dont use a lock out and The stock MM tune is close to what need. My first tune is stock with the ring shims removed to get rid of all stack preload and a .1mm shim from the rebound stack as well. Initial test is promising, but not sure when I will get a chance to put a real ride on it due to winter weather.

    Even with no stack preload, there is a noticeable difference in all 3 compression settings, but the firmest setting is more like the middle setting with the stock tune. Exactly what I was looking for.

  72. #272
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    22
    Deleted
    Last edited by _Supra_Shin; 12-15-2014 at 12:29 AM. Reason: Delete to redefine reply to

  73. #273
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    22

    Reshim my 2011 RT3

    I'm running Monarch RT3 2011 on GT Distortion (2.99 leverage ratio) and modified shim stacks to H tune in August.
    After tons of DH riding, I didn't even notice any improvement on compression tune.
    My complaint was harsh bottoming outs when landing after a-feet-tall drops in high speed.
    I inflated positive air up to 160[PSI] to resist bottoming out right now.
    Then I'm confused and wondering if my modify was not working correctly.

    The modify is shown below.
    https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hpho...03257154_o.jpg


    I replaced a 0.1 shim with a 0.2mm shim. This will make shim stack in High tune that is offered by ROCKSHOX.
    
If this High tune will match 2.99 high leverage ratio, that is fine.
    But why do I feel harsh bottoming out?
    Don't I need further HSC? Then where should I put a smaller and thicker shim into the shim stack?

  74. #274
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2
    Hello
    I'd like to know how can i make my rt3 feel as solid as possible when in locked mode? It's M/M 2013. Also i'd like to ask how the pressure in the ifp chamber affects the shock.

  75. #275
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by _Supra_Shin View Post

    The modify is shown below.
    https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hpho...03257154_o.jpg


    I replaced a 0.1 shim with a 0.2mm shim. This will make shim stack in High tune that is offered by ROCKSHOX.
    
If this High tune will match 2.99 high leverage ratio, that is fine.
    But why do I feel harsh bottoming out?
    Don't I need further HSC? Then where should I put a smaller and thicker shim into the shim stack?
    The link is not working. Paste the actual URL of the picture, not the abbreviated one.

    Do you have HV aircan or normal? If HV, then you can fill it - it makes the spring more progressive.

  76. #276
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by harrism3 View Post
    Hello
    I'd like to know how can i make my rt3 feel as solid as possible when in locked mode? It's M/M 2013. Also i'd like to ask how the pressure in the ifp chamber affects the shock.
    If you look at the Rockshox spare parts catalogue then all the piston assemblies for RT3 have listed with LF 320. I assume it means lockout force 320 lbs, except the last one:

    tune assy, Monarch Rt3 Reb-High/Comp-High (CF-110lbs) soft threshold, LF-430, C1

    XX/RL pistons all have LF 430. I'm not sure what part is different and affects this, but it probably can done.

  77. #277
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by arnea View Post
    I'm planning to make following modifications (also visible in the picture):

    1. replace the 22x9x0.2 shim in the low speed compression stack with one of the 22x9x0.15 shims from the high speed compression stack. So there will be one less shim in high speed compression stack.

    2. rise the ring shim on the high speed compression stack by one shim.
    I was riding today on the pump track created by motocross bikes and encountered heavy bottom outs. I think it is called G-out when you are riding on the smooth parabolical trajectory.

    I softened the M/M stack as described above. The pressure was 160psi, and I filled the positive chamber with red bands to make the shock as progressive as possible. The bike is BMC Fourstroke (BMC Fourstroke 29'' 2013 - Linkage Design) with progressive-regressive type leverage curve - but it is quite linear (2.2-1.9-2.2). Most of the weight is on the rear wheel (65%-70%).

    I tried all three settings - open, threshold and locked. Almost no difference in first two settings. When I rode faster I encountered the bottom outs also on locked mode.

    Do you think I should add more pressure? Or make the compression stack firmer again? I think that both low and high speed stack play their role here.

  78. #278
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    G-out loads are controlled by the spring. Its ok if big g's bottom the shock.

  79. #279
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    Ok, thanks. I will see what little bit higher pressure will do.

  80. #280
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    297
    I just picked up a new 2013 RT3 along with a HH F 320 tune, which I determined I needed based on the leverage ratio of my frame.

    After installing the tune I've got two problems, which may be related.

    1. I'm 90% positive that I'm losing all of my IFP pressure when I'm removing the IFP adapter along with the shock pump. The IFP pressure on this shock is listed at 350psi in the RS manual. I pump the IFP chamber to that amount but as I'm unscrewing the adapter and pump together, a large amount of air is leaking out. It's not like when you pull the pump off of the fork or shock when setting air pressure though, it's a long hiss.

    2. After setting the IFP pressure (maybe), I set the shock pressure to 200psi, open the gate all the way, set the rebound to full "rabbit" and when I compress the suspension the shock will only rebound VERY slowly. Slow enough that I can count in seconds before it's returned fully.

    Am I right in thinking a super low IFP might cause an extremely slow rebound? Or am I WAY off?

  81. #281
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    22
    I think air leakage when removing IFP adapter is the worst problem on designing Monarchs.
    We all experienced leakage and there is no way to exactly know how much pressure in there.
    All we can do is to remove or twist IFP adapter(Red one with air pump screwed in) as fast as possible, with like "Poosh" sounds not like "Pashhhhh".
    Although this method is suggested on all air valves like forks, tubes and shocks, etc...

    Modifying shape of IFP adapter or valve core's head may solve this problem.
    Or putting another valve that can fit air pump directly on IFP port is another solution.
    But I do not know how do that.
    And I can tell you that the default valve core in Monarch is not designed for over 100psi condition, I guess.
    If you hear the sound when removing IFP cap with valve core tool, there seems leakage in there.
    So you should check the IFP pressure constantly.
    I think we need to replace it for that severe condition to avoid such works.



    And for too-slow-reboud problem, you can try to turn the rebound dial all the way up or down.
    Then find out you can feel any change in rebound speed or not.
    If there is no changes, there may be problems on rebound circuit, like needle sticking.

    In addition, 110psi is not enough for my setting(140psi) so you get less rebound if you pump up more.
    Last edited by _Supra_Shin; 02-11-2015 at 09:15 PM. Reason: Failure of quote

  82. #282
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by _Supra_Shin View Post
    I think air leakage when removing IFP adapter is the worst problem on designing Monarchs.
    We all experienced leakage and there is no way to exactly know how much pressure in there.
    All we can do is to remove or twist IFP adapter(Red one with air pump screwed in) as fast as possible, with like "Poosh" sounds not like "Pashhhhh".
    Although this method is suggested on all air valves like forks, tubes and shocks, etc...

    Modifying shape of IFP adapter or valve core's head may solve this problem but I don't know how to do that.
    You read my mind!
    I ended up grabbing my trusty drill bits and found one that was the exact ID of the adapter where it pressed on the valve and drilled it out. It didn't take much, but I drilled enough on the first try to prevent the air leakage!

    But, it didn't fix my ultra slow rebound problem.

    Now that I know I can actually pressurize the IFP correctly, I guess I can pull it back apart and triple check the shim stack.

  83. #283
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by hidperf View Post
    You read my mind!
    I ended up grabbing my trusty drill bits and found one that was the exact ID of the adapter where it pressed on the valve and drilled it out. It didn't take much, but I drilled enough on the first try to prevent the air leakage!

    Would you tell me how much is the exact ID or what size of drill bit you use?
    That information is so valuable for this forum.
    How did you modified the IFP adapter with pics is helpful.



    And for rebound problem, I edited my previous post.
    You can read and try that before digging in Monarch.

  84. #284
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by _Supra_Shin View Post
    Would you tell me how much is the exact ID or what size of drill bit you use?
    That information is so valuable for this forum.
    How did you modified the IFP adapter with pics is helpful.





    And for rebound problem, I edited my previous post.
    You can read and try that before digging in Monarch.
    Drill bit was .093" measure with my caliper.

    Before:
    Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack-image-1-.jpg

    After:
    Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack-image.jpg



    I have no idea how to post images from my google+ photos. I've never gotten it working on any forums so far. HATE that service.

    Edit: Uploaded pictures.
    Last edited by hidperf; 02-12-2015 at 08:31 AM.

  85. #285
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    22
    Thanks for measuring.

    If you can copy the pic's url from right-click menu on Google+, or if you have .jpg on your PC, it can be posted here via insert picture menu.

  86. #286
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by _Supra_Shin View Post
    Thanks for measuring.

    If you can copy the pic's url from right-click menu on Google+, or if you have .jpg on your PC, it can be posted here via insert picture menu.
    I added pictures.
    Google+ links didn't work so uploaded them from work.

  87. #287
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    You guys are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. The same things happens here as when you remove the pump from a shock/fork air spring. Pressure is escaping from the pump hose, not the ifp chamber. Notice when you attach the pump/adapter to a pressurized shock that the adapter oring is fully seated, and then it takes another turn or two before the valve core is engaged and pressure rises in the pump. I've used my adapter well over 100 times without a single issue. IF there was an issue with the core opening too soon and venting pressure to the atmosphere, this drill mod does nothing to alleviate.

    hidperf, I wouldn't be too concerned about your perceived slow rebound without the air can installed. It could be that the rebound shutter is stuck partially closed and they will usually free up once on the bike and cycled a few times under load. Always remember to open the rebound before tearing down a shock as ifp pressure is the only that forcing the shutter open. The only way you will know for sure is to put it on the bike. If you are only running 200psi, when you re-attach the pump, I would guess the gauge would read less than 100psi. The ifp chamber volume is sooo small that there is a huge pressure drop when attaching the pump because the hose volume is much larger relatively compared to a fork/shock spring volume.

  88. #288
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Edit that: If you use a big enough drill that it effectively counter bores the step deeper, then it will engage the valve core later. Be careful though, because if it goes too deep the adapter won't work at all. Again, there is nothing wrong with the design to begin with.

  89. #289
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    You guys are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. The same things happens here as when you remove the pump from a shock/fork air spring. Pressure is escaping from the pump hose, not the ifp chamber. Notice when you attach the pump/adapter to a pressurized shock that the adapter oring is fully seated, and then it takes another turn or two before the valve core is engaged and pressure rises in the pump. I've used my adapter well over 100 times without a single issue. IF there was an issue with the core opening too soon and venting pressure to the atmosphere, this drill mod does nothing to alleviate.

    Incorrect, but I appreciate your input. The drill mod DID in fact fix the problem. By altering the point in which the Schrader valve is depressed, it now waits until the o-ting is seated before depressing and releasing the valve. Before, it would make contact with the valve before the o-ring sealed the orifice, releasing any pressure already in the IFP. Once I had it pumped to 350psi and began removing the IFP adapter, the valve was still depressed after the seal of the o-ring was broken which let all of the air escape from the IFP and the pump hose.
    I fully understand and am aware of what happens when filling the shock and fork. That was NOT what was happening with the IFP adapter though. It's entirely possible that the Schrader valve height is different in my shock than others, but this did fix my problem and I can now fill and keep pressure in the IFP.

    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    hidperf, I wouldn't be too concerned about your perceived slow rebound without the air can installed. It could be that the rebound shutter is stuck partially closed and they will usually free up once on the bike and cycled a few times under load. Always remember to open the rebound before tearing down a shock as ifp pressure is the only that forcing the shutter open. The only way you will know for sure is to put it on the bike. If you are only running 200psi, when you re-attach the pump, I would guess the gauge would read less than 100psi. The ifp chamber volume is sooo small that there is a huge pressure drop when attaching the pump because the hose volume is much larger relatively compared to a fork/shock spring volume.
    The slow rebound is WITH the air can installed and pressurized to 200-250psi, mounted on the bike, and cycled quite a few times. Although I haven't ridden it yet due to weather and medical restrictions.
    I did open the rebound all the way and the lever was on unlock when I pulled it apart and put it back together, but this is my first shock rebuild so I'm not confident in how it went.
    One thing that was mentioned in a private message: am I sure I put the shim stack in the right way?
    I honestly have no idea, I don't remember any details about that part, which is the most important part, but that makes total sense with how it's acting.
    So I'm going to pull it apart and check that.

  90. #290
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Well, that makes a little more sense now that you've provided more details. I'd agree that either the install height of your core is off or you got a faulty adapter. Just don't point the finger at the adapter and send a bunch of readers off on a wild goose chase. Devil is in the details.

    Sorry I missed that you had the can installed. In that case, it's definitely not ifp pressure. The ifp pressure contributes a very small part to the overall spring rate.

  91. #291
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    Well, that makes a little more sense now that you've provided more details. I'd agree that either the install height of your core is off or you got a faulty adapter. Just don't point the finger at the adapter and send a bunch of readers off on a wild goose chase. Devil is in the details.

    Sorry I missed that you had the can installed. In that case, it's definitely not ifp pressure. The ifp pressure contributes a very small part to the overall spring rate.
    Sorry, I thought the before and after pictures would make it a little more obvious.

    Edit:
    I've created another post HERE since this has now turned into something less related to tuning and more related to diagnostics.
    Last edited by hidperf; 02-15-2015 at 07:58 PM.

  92. #292
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DH_WP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,057

    Monarch Tune symbols?

    Can someone please explain the tune setup for this Monarch ?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack-imageuploadedbytapatalk1426094982.390878.jpg  


  93. #293
    mtbr member
    Reputation: two-one's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by DH_WP View Post
    Can someone please explain the tune setup for this Monarch ?
    I'm pretty sure its this:
    Low rebound, Medium compression, soft threshold, Lockout-force 320... so that's compression assembly 11.4118.023.037.
    I'm guessing the lockout-force means the strength/preload of the poppet-spring.
    Soft threshold probably means the compression shimstack preload, and the medium compression tune the stiffness of the stack.
    Looks like a nice tune for a DW-Link frame.

  94. #294
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DH_WP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,057
    So should work well for my Ibis HDR ?

  95. #295
    mtbr member
    Reputation: armourbl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    286
    For the shock pressure escaping, I'm so surprised that no one that makes a shock pump has come up with a solution to this.

    I use one of the items pictured below when I fill the nitrogen chamber on my motocross bike shock. It has a plunger that allows you to equalized the pressure in chamber by depressing and holding the shrader valve open. You then turn it to allow the valve to close, which prevents any pressure from escaping, then you remove the tool.

    Name:  ats-556.jpg
Views: 5647
Size:  15.9 KB

    ben

  96. #296
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,825
    I use a SKS UFP shock pump which has a "low loss connector" - basically you unscrew it before you remove the shock pump and it withdraws the plunger so the valve closes. To be fully effective, you need to drill out the centre of your charge adapter(s) and use a suitable length small rod in them to activate the valve.

  97. #297
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863

    Preloaded rebound

    What is the purpose of the preload on the rebound side? Is it just another (and perhaps better) way how to add platform to shock?

  98. #298
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by arnea View Post
    What is the purpose of the preload on the rebound side? Is it just another (and perhaps better) way how to add platform to shock?
    The reb stack has no effect whatsoever on the "platform" compression damping of the shock. This has been discussed previously, but it basically gives a more digressive damping curve, which is typicall of any stack with a decent amount of preload. I do not like it and don't understand why they do it. I've been changing my monarch's to straight nonpreloaded reb stack that yields a more linear damping curve.

  99. #299
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    Maybe my understanding is wrong, but I thought that preloaded shims add some hysteresis to damper. Without preload the shims will open and let the oil flow when slightest force is applied to the piston.

    When the shims are preloaded and the force to the piston is less than the force that is required to open the shims, the oil cannot flow and the piston does not move.

    When the preload is on the compresion stack side you cannot compress the shock when you apply slight force (e.g. during pedaling) - so you get platform effect.

    When the compression stack is not preloaded the shock will compress, but the preloaded rebound stack will not allow it to extend when it was compressed by very small amount and the extra force created by spring is smaller than the force that is required to open the rebound stack.

    When you periodically apply small force (e.g. pedal) the shock does not shrink and extend, but rather stays in compressed position.

    Does this make any sense?

  100. #300
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,825
    What's the current state of play with the 2015 rapid recovery shim stacks. I've got an MM tune arriving for my Anthem, so probably need to change the tune to a LM tune. Anyone have any ideas on the difference between the L and M rebound tunes on the 2015 shocks? From the parts catalogue it looks like all of the piston assemblies / tunes are now the same across the RT/RL/RT3 shocks.

  101. #301
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    I would assume the tunes havent changed from 13. I dont recall the Rt/RL tunes being the same. They share the piston design of the XX with the plate style lockout similar to Fox RPL/triad/CTD Evo.

  102. #302
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    I've been changing my monarch's to straight nonpreloaded reb stack that yields a more linear damping curve.
    Do you just replace the ring shim with ordinary shim to keep the overall tune? Or only remove the ring shim? I thought to try how the non-preloaded rebound feels.

    I've running the rebound fairly slow (3 clicks from closed). Should I try to make the rebound shim stack stiffer during the rebuild? And if yes, should I make the both high and low speed rebound stack stiffer?

  103. #303
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863

  104. #304
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    I was playing with Shim Restackor and came up with the following changes to stock MM stack:

    1) make the HSC softer by moving the ring shim up in stack and removing one 0.15 shim.

    2) try out the linear rebound stacks and make HSR stiffer

    According to Restackor LSR should be almost same stiffness than current stack is and HSR should be little stiffer.

    Right now I need to slow down the rebound when I'm riding big bumps - otherwise the bike will kick up the rear wheel. But when I'm riding over small stuff I must open the rebound more. I think that in order to have LSR open enough to have small bump compliance I must close the HSR in order to reduce the total oil flow for bigger bumps.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack-newstack.png  


  105. #305
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by arnea View Post
    Do you just replace the ring shim with ordinary shim to keep the overall tune? Or only remove the ring shim? I thought to try how the non-preloaded rebound feels.

    I've running the rebound fairly slow (3 clicks from closed). Should I try to make the rebound shim stack stiffer during the rebuild? And if yes, should I make the both high and low speed rebound stack stiffer?
    Yes, to switch to more linear stack you want to remove all preload, which means both the ring and nest shim. Typically, the overall stack stiffness will have to be increased when you remove the preload.

    I wouldn't mess with the reb check plate stack (assume that's what you mean by "lsr stack").

    What are you using for the "d.bleed" parameter in your restackor models for the reb?

  106. #306
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by arnea View Post
    These changes are of little concern to me. The current piston must flow enough oil, otherwise Avalanche would be replacing them with a new piston. There isn't enough detail for me to figure out what they are going for with the poppet mods, but anything with a stiffer lockout is of no use for me. I see that as them trying to keep up with Fox. The piston changes could be purely for balance with the poppet mods.

  107. #307
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    Yes, to switch to more linear stack you want to remove all preload, which means both the ring and nest shim. Typically, the overall stack stiffness will have to be increased when you remove the preload.
    This makes sense. I was just surprised that I need to insert two extra 0.20mm shims to get similar stack stiffness.

    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    I wouldn't mess with the reb check plate stack (assume that's what you mean by "lsr stack").
    Yes, that's what I ment. Ok, I will not touch it then.

    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    What are you using for the "d.bleed" parameter in your restackor models for the reb?
    I put some very small value there - basically closed the bleed hole and looked only at shim stack. I'm still learning to understand the Restackor and tried to eliminate unknown variables.

  108. #308
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,825
    Quote Originally Posted by arnea View Post
    ...I put some very small value there...
    I think you want try a more accurate value for the rebound free bleed. At very slow LSR events it handles all of the flow, but will still flow oil in HSR events (just not a huge amount). For example, if the free bleed on the Monarch allowed lots of flow, then all of the shim related calculations would be out based on a "closed" bleed. Size of the free bleed and amount of preload on the rebound shims will dictate where the cross-over between those circuits occur.

  109. #309
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    These changes are of little concern to me. The current piston must flow enough oil, otherwise Avalanche would be replacing them with a new piston. There isn't enough detail for me to figure out what they are going for with the poppet mods, but anything with a stiffer lockout is of no use for me. I see that as them trying to keep up with Fox. The piston changes could be purely for balance with the poppet mods.
    I just sent in my rt3 to avalanche and they did say that they were putting a new piston in. But then again it is a 2011 model so it's likely different

  110. #310
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by arnea View Post
    I put some very small value there - basically closed the bleed hole and looked only at shim stack. I'm still learning to understand the Restackor and tried to eliminate unknown variables.
    That's a good approach. TigWorld makes a good point, but unless your piston model and bleed are accurate, the results won't be very useful down at that level of details. I've got some good use from the software, but I haven't figured out how to correctly model the type of pistons I am working with. I have played with it alot and can't get it to behave correctly. Good for relative changes, but haven't had any luck comparing different pistons.

    Quote Originally Posted by cajer View Post
    I just sent in my rt3 to avalanche and they did say that they were putting a new piston in. But then again it is a 2011 model so it's likely different
    Yes, he does change the 11-12 pistons (not sure why), but not the 13+.

  111. #311
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    73
    Does anyone know where you can get a 2011-12 air can? As I bought an additional damper very cheaply and just need an air can to screw into it

  112. #312
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863

    Monarch XX photos

    I was doing some searching and found an interesting thread in Russian bike forum about RockShox products. Among other things there was a link to photo album that shows internals of Monarch XX:

    https://fotki.yandex.ru/users/olegn/album/148101?p=1

    The guy is fixing all kind of shocks and forks and there are more interesting pictures in his album.

    Another interesting find was link to Sram XX patent:

    Patent EP2500249A1 - Control assembly for a bicycle shock absorber - Google Patents

  113. #313
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    I revalved the shock. Starting from the rebound side:

    Nut

    11x0.3
    19x0.1
    19x0.15 + 16x0.1 ring shim
    19x0.1

    Rebound plate

    11x0.3
    11x0.3
    11x0.3
    19x0.15
    19x0.2
    19x0.2
    19x0.2

    Piston

    22x0.15
    22x0.15
    22x0.15
    22x0.4+19x0.1 ring shim
    22x0.15

    11x0.2
    11x0.2
    11x0.3
    11x0.3
    11x0.3
    19x0.15
    22x0.2

    Compression plate

    Compared to the stock MM stack, the compression is lighter and end-stroke rebound is completely redone without preload, as ktm520 suggested.

    I did an one hour testride on some familiar tracks. There are some differences, but nothing dramatical. Fast rooty singletracks were good, with the rebound knob in the middle setting. Better than with previous setup.

    But the rebound was too fast for bigger movements. Rear end wallowed several times after bigger impacts. With previous setup this was not so bad.

    I had to turn rebound three clicks to the slower side, to control the big movements - exactly like old setup. But then the fast and rooty stuff was not good anymore.

    So I need to change something on the rebound side, but I don't know what it is. I have some theories. The rebound knob has very big effect on the rebound speed - on one end it is very fast, on the other end it is very slow. What if I make the beginning stroke stack stiffer and end stroke stack lighter?

    Some background about the bike:

    I'm 220lbs, most of the weight is on the rear wheel (35% front, 65% rear), pressure is 170psi, sag 35%, Debonair can with positive camber that is fully filled with bands and negative camber empty - so most progressive spring curve. Leverage ratio is low - between 1.9 and 2.2


  114. #314
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    BTW, does anybody have data about the stock high rebound stack? I can only find information about older shocks, but not about the latest RT3 that uses non-dished piston.

  115. #315
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by arnea View Post
    So I need to change something on the rebound side, but I don't know what it is. I have some theories. The rebound knob has very big effect on the rebound speed - on one end it is very fast, on the other end it is very slow. What if I make the beginning stroke stack stiffer and end stroke stack lighter?
    You need to stiffen the reb stack.

    Quote Originally Posted by arnea View Post
    I'm 220lbs, most of the weight is on the rear wheel (35% front, 65% rear), pressure is 170psi, sag 35%, Debonair can with positive camber that is fully filled with bands and negative camber empty - so most progressive spring curve. Leverage ratio is low - between 1.9 and 2.2

    Have you tried running running the can at full volume with less sag? Your frame is low leverage and just slightly regressive. I don't see you needing that progressive of a spring or that much sag.

  116. #316
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    You need to stiffen the reb stack.
    Only the main stack or also the small one that is controlled by rebound knob?

    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    Have you tried running running the can at full volume with less sag? Your frame is low leverage and just slightly regressive. I don't see you needing that progressive of a spring or that much sag.
    No. I thought that progressive spring would give me the plushest ride. I tried your suggestion, removed all bands from positive camber and increased the pressure by 10 psi. It was not bad. I had only short ride but it seemed that it was also easier to find better rebound position.

  117. #317
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Yes, the main reb stack. I can't see adding stiffness to the check plate stack helping but it could be more fine tuning after the main stack is dialed. I'd be more inclined to remove the preload from the check plate.

    If the comp is under damped, it will require more reb damping and throw things out of balance. More spring mid can help also as you noticed.

  118. #318
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    Ok, thanks. I'll try those suggestions.

  119. #319
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    94
    How about trying something like this? Nut
    1ea] 9x16x0.15
    3ea] 9x19x0.10
    Valve Plate

    3ea] 9x10x0.30

    1ea] 9x19x0.20
    1ea] 9x19x0.15
    1ea] 9x16x0.10
    2ea] 9x19x0.15


    Piston


    2ea] 9x22x0.15
    1ea] 9x19x0.10
    1ea] 9x22x0.15
    1ea] 9x22x0.20

    4ea] 9x10x0.30

    1ea] 9x19x0.15
    2ea] 9x22x0.10
    Valve Plate

  120. #320
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    Thank you. Have you tried this stack yourself? It looks like you removed the rings from all ring shims but kept the smaller diameter center shims. How would such "stepped" stack behave? I did quick comparison, and you suggested stacks are softer than I'm currently using.

  121. #321
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    I revalved the shock once again and made both rebound and compression stiffer. Added two 19x0.15 shims to rebound stack and moved the ring shim in compression stack closer to piston:

    Nut

    11x0.3
    19x0.1
    19x0.15 + 16x0.1 ring shim
    19x0.1

    Rebound plate

    11x0.3
    11x0.3
    11x0.3
    19x0.15
    19x0.15
    19x0.15
    19x0.2
    19x0.2
    19x0.2

    Piston

    22x0.15
    22x0.15
    22x0.4+19x0.1 ring shim
    22x0.15
    22x0.15

    11x0.2
    11x0.2
    11x0.3
    11x0.3
    11x0.3
    19x0.15
    22x0.2

    Compression plate

    Things are little bit better now, but not perfect.

    If I add pressure (205 psi) to get suggested 30% sag, then the bike feels really harsh over roots. I tried several times, but I don't like how the bike feels when sag is less than 40%. 165psi feels best. I added three bands (six is maximum for my can) to positive camber to control the bottom-out.

    With rebound open 4 clicks from fully closed, bike feels good on roots. But on track with lots of small smooth bumps, I must close rebound one click more.

    Looks like I should stiffen the main rebound stack little bit more.

  122. #322
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    38
    Very interesting thread! I've had couple Trek Slashes, my latest one with Monarch Plus R Debonair. I am overall pretty happy with the shocks performance, however my current set up has some limitations..

    Trek Slash 17.5 2015, MM tune (two spacers)
    69kg with gear,
    175PSI main chamber 32% sag
    Rebound 7clicks form closed

    I found it took me a while to balance the rebound with air pressure etc

    small/meduim bump absorbtion and control are good at this air pressure, but i feel I am blowing through the travel to much on bigger hits (although harsh bottom out is not a problem)

    I could certainly do with heavier compression tune for g-outs, aggressive pumping and high speed berms.

    A firmer (but keeping sensetivity) start to the stroke would be great too. Has anyone played around with charge pressure in the IFP? The sort of change I am looking for was achieved on an old bike on a old fox RC4 by increasing the IFP chamber size (backing off bottom out) with 160psi. I know its different system etc.

    I think a firmer high speed stack tune might achieve the ride characteristics I am looking for....


    Any thoughts?


    I'm considering getting my shock tuned professionally.

  123. #323
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Caol View Post
    ... g-outs, aggressive pumping and high speed berms...
    These are low speed compression events (even though you may be riding fast at the time). You're running a fair amount of sag but you're not harshly bottoming out, so the high speed comp tune is probably OK. Try upping LSC.

  124. #324
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Caol View Post
    I could certainly do with heavier compression tune for g-outs, aggressive pumping and high speed berms.

    A firmer (but keeping sensetivity) start to the stroke would be great too. Has anyone played around with charge pressure in the IFP? The sort of change I am looking for was achieved on an old bike on a old fox RC4 by increasing the IFP chamber size (backing off bottom out) with 160psi. I know its different system etc.
    Like Tigworld mentioned, these are low/mid speed events. You can use either lsc or spring force. I usually use spring, assuming there aren't other issues with the damping and it doesn't throw the shock out of balance with the fork.

    With the Plus R, you don't have the lsc adjuster so you will either have to firm up the mid valve or basevalve stack. Not sure what is possible with the basevalve in the R. Keep in mind, when you change the mid valve stack, it shift the entire damping range, not just hsc. There is a dedicated Plus thread here:
    http://forums.mtbr.com/shocks-suspen...ck-826666.html

  125. #325
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    94
    Try upping the progressness of the main air chamber

  126. #326
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    57

    New question here.

    It is really a headache to understand all this nomenclature.

    I want upgrade my shock , I have a Monarch RT 200/51 - 7.875"x2.0" and want to buy a Monarch RT3 Debonair 200/51 - 7.875"x2.0".

    My problem is, what factory setting do i have to choose?

    Currently in my Giant Trance Advanced 2 Small 2015, I have the following. (Rider Height 6,7 and weight 160lbs , normal Trail abilities).

    Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack-img_1362.jpg

    M for Medium Rebound
    L for Low Compression

    The rest of the label i do not understand the dash and the locked 380.

    Wish factory setting do i have to choose with Monarch RT3 Debonair.?
    Medium Rebound / Low Compression?
    Medium Rebound / Medium Compression?
    What else do I need look for?

    Thank you very much for your help.

  127. #327
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Mderosas,

    You only have one tune option with an aftermarket RT3.
    M reb
    M comp
    S soft threshold
    320 lockout firmness

  128. #328
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    57
    Thank you very much ktm520, but what do you think? It will be a good upgrade for me or not? I worry about the medium compression, I do not know what is the current threshold i have in the RT and how will it affect me the change of lockout force between 380 and 320...

    Best regards

  129. #329
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    mderosas,

    I think it would be an upgrade, how huge of an updgrade depends alot on your personal preferences and riding style. Although I've never ridden the RT, I'm familiar with the damper design and it's not very high on my list of favorites because it lacks a shimmed rebound circuit. It is similar to the XX (which I have ridden) but with a softer lockout tune, and I didn't not like that shock at all for agressive trail riding. XC type riding it was decent. I am a big fan of the debonair spring curve. I believe the threshold tune is for the middle compression setting on the RT3, which is why your shock doesn't have that listed. Unless you ride on the road alot, I wouldn't be too worried about the lock tune. Even at 320, I would never use the lockout on my RT3. Even the the mid setting is too firm for only but the smoothest of jump lines.

    I actually just recently got my first latest generation ('13-'15 model years) RT3 shock with debonair can. It's a MM tune and I was pretty impressed how well it worked in stock tune. Outperforms my older generation Monarchs that I have revalved. I was also surprised the med comp tune actually worked for me at 165lb on a SB95. In the past they were overdamped. So, it might be pretty close for your weight and frame leverage ratio.

  130. #330
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    57
    Sweet!!!
    Buying it

  131. #331
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    9
    Hi folks,

    I'm in a bit of dilemma, I cant figure out the year of my RT3 with MM tune. Purchased it in 2013 but it could be a 2012. Does anyone know how to tell the year?

    I want to change the tune to ML3, but tune assemblies are only available for 2013 models. Are these tune assemblies compatible with 2012 or older models?

  132. #332
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    You can tell by compression lever color, shape, and function. 11-12 are solid blue and only swing a 90deg arc. 13-15 are black with a blue stripe and swing 360 deg. The 13-15 tunes won't work in the first gen shocks.
    Quote Originally Posted by zxpwr350 View Post
    Hi folks,

    I'm in a bit of dilemma, I cant figure out the year of my RT3 with MM tune. Purchased it in 2013 but it could be a 2012. Does anyone know how to tell the year?

    I want to change the tune to ML3, but tune assemblies are only available for 2013 models. Are these tune assemblies compatible with 2012 or older models?

  133. #333
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    You can tell by compression lever color, shape, and function. 11-12 are solid blue and only swing a 90deg arc. 13-15 are black with a blue stripe and swing 360 deg. The 13-15 tunes won't work in the first gen shocks.

    Thanks! However, mine has a solid blue lever but swings 360 deg. The lockout on 12 oclock, pedal and open on 8 and 4 oclock.

    Googled images of 2013 RT3s and found the image below. Looks like you confirmed that this is a 2013 from another thread.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack-imageuploadedbytapatalk1424810630_888200.jpg  


  134. #334
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    My bad. Ya, the lever function confirms its the 13-15 design.

  135. #335
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    I opened MY16 RT3 today. It was M/M tune and the shimstack was unchanged compared to MY15. Piston was different with many tiny holes on the compression side. Shaft was different - there were four rebound holes instead of one.

  136. #336
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by arnea View Post
    I opened MY16 RT3 today. It was M/M tune and the shimstack was unchanged compared to MY15. Piston was different with many tiny holes on the compression side. Shaft was different - there were four rebound holes instead of one.
    Come on man, where are the pictures? I didn't even know the 16's were on the streets yet. Let us know how it rides.

    I've only got 8 rides on my RT3 and 8 different tunes. I will say that the check plate stacks are definitely a good tool for shaping the damping. I'll post my stacks once I've got it dialed but I've switched to straight stacks on both comp stacks and the reb stack, but I'm currently running the stock preloaded reb cp stack. With a linear comp stack, it's ideal to increase the poppet spring stiffness. I'm currently running a stiffer spring but it's a little too stiff.

    This shock is really, really good. Can't believe I waited this long to bone up and buy one.

  137. #337
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    Took only two of them: shaft and piston. The holes in the piston are large than 1mm but smaller than 1.5mm. Probably around 1.2mm.

    Also the popet valve seems to seal the shaft much better as promised by RockShox. I used to be able to push oil into the shaft using syringe, but not anymore.

    The shock is not for me. I modified it for fellow rider who has same bike as I do - made the compression softer and added spacer washer to limit the travel. The extra 1mm travel compared to stock Fox shock causes the tyre to hit the seatpost.

    Please post your stacks when you have finished the testing. I have a small pause currently while I'm waiting for the replacment frame.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack-newshaft.jpg  

    Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack-newpiston.jpg  


  138. #338
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vlekov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    13
    Hello guys, long time lurker here! I've got a question about a Monarch shock I wanted to buy today. I have a Nicolai Nonius CC frame which I think has a leverage ratio of 2,55 and I've read on here that it has a rising rate suspension curve. Also, it's a single pivot design where the pivot is low, about an inch above the bottom bracket and behind it. My question is will the tune which is shown in the picture work well with a frame with these characteristics? I'm also a very lightweight rider - only 56kg/123lbs too. My concern is the "Firm" threshold and the fairly heavy 380 lock tune. Thanks in advance!
    PS: The shock is a plain RT3 (non-debonair).

    Name:  p5pb12451475s.jpg
Views: 5722
Size:  51.1 KB

  139. #339
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    vlekov,

    From a quick look at what pictures I could find, I would be most worried about your weight and the main comp tune which is med. If the leverage curve is progressive, I doubt it's very much. It's probably closer to linear-slightly progressive (rising).

    The pivot location is mostly likely optimized for good anit-squat in the small ring, much like most frames that are 5+ years old. All that being said, if the price is right, go for it. You can always pull a few shims to reduce the comp damping. The "F" (firm threshold) and "380" (lockout force) refer to mid and locked comp setting respectively. I've yet to comfirm exactly how RS tunes those parameters, but I speculate it is the poppet spring rate and comp checkplate stack. That kind of stuff is personal preference, you may or may not like it, depending on what kind of riding you do.

  140. #340
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vlekov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    13
    Thank you for your quick reply! I actually was attracted to the newer Monarchs by the "Rapid Recovery" thing that they promise a bit more supple small bump performance, which was always lacking with my current shock (a 2011 RT3). My current shock is also an M-L tune which I found inadequate fairly late in the process. I've always wanted a bit more supportive pedalling platform and on my current shock there is almost no difference between wide open and the two other settings, which led me to believe that I actually needed the firmer tune (M-M). About the price, I can get the shock for about 110 british pounds delivered, which I think is a good price for this 3 month old shock.

  141. #341
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by vlekov View Post
    My current shock is also an M-L tune which I found inadequate fairly late in the process. I've always wanted a bit more supportive pedalling platform and on my current shock there is almost no difference between wide open and the two other settings, which led me to believe that I actually needed the firmer tune (M-M).
    Based on that, you might be spot on with that MM/F/380 tune. The newer RT3 are much improved over your '11. Rapid recovery is just marketing hype.

  142. #342
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vlekov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    13
    Great, thanks! I'll purchase the shock tomorrow then. Cheers

  143. #343
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vlekov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    13
    Just a follow-up from me. I've installed the new Monarch today and it feels great. Platform's just right, lockout's really, really stiff which is great and exactly what I wanted. Unlocked the shock feels a bit more responsive than the old one and on top of that with the retorqued mounting hardware lol. Really happy with my purchase. Thanks a lot, ktm520!

  144. #344
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    57
    Hi, if i have this:

    Rock Shox - Monarch - RT3 (200x51/7.875"x2.0") DebonAir Tune-MidReb/MidComp, Soft Pedal, 320 Lockout Force, Fast Black Body - MY15

    Rock Shox - Monarch - RT3 (200x51/7.875"x2.0") DebonAir Tune-MidReb/MidComp, Soft Pedal, 320 Lockout Force, Fast Black Body - MY15: Amazon.co.uk: Sports & Outdoors


    And i want to change the factory Tune to match the original shock tune in my bike.
    MidReb/LowComp (Giant Trance Advanced 2015)

    Wihich of this i have to buy?

    This???
    RockShox Monarch Low Tune Piston R / RT / RT3
    RockShox Monarch Low Tune Piston R / RT / RT3 | Worldwide Cyclery | Mountain Bike Components

    Or
    RockShox 2013 Monarch RT3 Tune Assembly ML3 F 320
    Search Results | Worldwide Cyclery | Mountain Bike Components

    Thanks

  145. #345
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vlekov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    13

  146. #346
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    mderosas,

    That tune could work but keep in mind it is the "firm threshold". If you want something closer to your stock tune, you need this:

    p/n 11.4118.023.039 Tune Assy, Monarch RT3 Reb-Mid/Comp-Low (CF-80lbs) soft threshold, LF-320, C1

  147. #347
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    mderosas,

    That tune could work but keep in mind it is the "firm threshold". If you want something closer to your stock tune, you need this:

    p/n 11.4118.023.039 Tune Assy, Monarch RT3 Reb-Mid/Comp-Low (CF-80lbs) soft threshold, LF-320, C1
    Im lost, can you explain a little more please, and the tune difference???

    I can't i found it

  148. #348
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    mderosas,

    That tune could work but keep in mind it is the "firm threshold". If you want something closer to your stock tune, you need this:

    p/n 11.4118.023.039 Tune Assy, Monarch RT3 Reb-Mid/Comp-Low (CF-80lbs) soft threshold, LF-320, C1
    Any guru suspension who can explain this please.

    (What is the difference between C and D, tune that I bought did not working well?)

    Best Regards.
    Last edited by mderosas; 08-17-2015 at 06:05 PM.

  149. #349
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    mderosas,

    If I understand the broken translation, I believe you are asking the difference between the tune I recommended and the one vlekov posted. Correct?

    There are two differences. The base compression tune I recommend is Low versus Low3. I haven't seen the Low3 tune stack but in the past they have been an even lower damping than the standard Low tune. You mentioned you want to match the oem shock on your frame, so the Low tune would a closer match.

    The second difference is the "threshold" tune. This refers to how stiff the damping is when the compression lever is the middle position. I recommended the soft tune because that matches your oem shock. The firmer tune will have more damping in the mid compression setting. How much, well that's anybody's guess. Again, I haven't seen the differences between these two tunes on paper and I don't believe anyone has posted them here.

    Hope this helps. Let me know if you have more detailed questions.

    You should be able to take the part number I recommended and take it to the lbs so they can order it for you. You might not be able to find it online.

  150. #350
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    57
    Thanks ktm520, so i have to search for the p/n you recomended... 100% positive is the factory tune for my bike? Giant Trance adv 2015... Original shock RT non debonair... Upgraded shock RT3 debonair.

    You are the best,
    Regards

  151. #351
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    NO, I have no idea what the oem tune is for your bike. All I have to go on is the tune of the RT, which is a completely different shock inside. But, the magnitude of the tunes should be similar.

    The compression tune scales with rider weight and aggressiveness. If you are a heavier rider, 200lb+, or super agressive, you might consider a M tune.

    The threshold is more rider preference. I ride with my shocks open 99% of the time.

  152. #352
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    57
    Great crystal clear

    Regards

  153. #353
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    57
    Hahaha Sorry, now the last question!!! XD

    I do not understand what this means "(CF-80lbs)" and "C1" and what difference does it make.

    Best regards

  154. #354
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    CF-80 is the tune firmness for the compression shim stack. I don't know what the 80lbs actually means. Note that as the base compression tune rises, those numbers increase.

    C1 is the model revision.

  155. #355
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    105
    Any other Trance owners in this thread? I didn't want to pay $150 plus shipping to service my Fox RP2 damper, so I got the Monarch for the self service / tuning.
    Sorry for the long post, but the shims in this shock apparently change constantly and I'm a bit weary of experimenting.

    This is what I got: 2009 Trance X (I believe this is 2.86 leverage ratio)
    2015 Rockshox Monarch RT3 (Med Rebount, Med Compression, Soft platform, 320 IFP.
    M M S 320 - this seems to be the only aftermarket tune without buying OEM.
    I noticed the Monarch is stiffer (and sags more / requires more pressure) than the M-M tuned Fox RP2 that came on the bike. The Fox would blow through travel on any hit...not really a bad thing at all on the Trance tho.
    A few things I'm noticing -\

    -I have to put 190 in the shock just to keep it from going over 35% sag (I weight 190). Any less sag requires more pressure and the ride is a bit harsh. I can come 'somewhat' close to using full travel, which still leaves a good portion of the stanchion untouched (tested this by bottoming with no air), but I don't like that I'm wasting 35% on sag...I thought 25 was normal.

    -The platform switch doesn't make any noticeable difference for me. Just riding down the curb at my house it uses almost as much travel as full open. Not sure if this is normal for the soft platform, or if I should gone with Firm plastform. (Or go toward a softer Compression - I don't know if this would soften the plastform as well, or leave it's stiffness intact).

    -The negative air spring seems a bit strong. As I approach 190PSI, it gets to full extension. If I were to pump it to 150psi it has over 10% sag with no weight on the bike. Is this normal?

    -Rebound seems OK I think. It has 10 clicks. I fully close it, then back it out 3 clicks to avoid any pogo on the bigger roots. 4 clicks is better on the small stuff but if I keep my butt on the seat over roots it can lift me off a bit. My fox would pogo too so perhaps the M turned rebound is right?

    -I'm wondering if a Low compression or Debonair would suit this bike better? With a 2.86 Leverage, on paper a Low compression tune looks wrong. But I'm thinking maybe it would help me run a little less sag (25-30%) without making the ride harsh, and still be able to use the full shock. (and possibly speed the shock on the initial hit). I don't quite understand if the Debonair only helps with the intial stroke, or if it would help / hurt the further portion of the stroke. $100 seems like a lot to gamble on for an air can...as well as $50 for another tune kit.
    I might back the IFP from 350 to 320, but I've read this doesn't really do much.
    I was thinking of tearing the shock down and removing a shim from the compression stack to convert to low compression, but I can't really find any info on the 2014/2015 model for anybody attempting this. I've never modified a shim stack and probably wouldn't be the right person to experiment. Does removing one shim all together pose any risk to the shock? I was going to try this with my X-Fusion Velvet 140 fork as well to get rid of some firmness (tho there is a complete thread of people modifying the fork).

  156. #356
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    ztbishop,

    Let's start with the basics. Both the spring curve and compression damping need to be matched to your weight and the frames leverage curve in order to get full use of the travel. Also, with that being a longer travel frame, you will have to ride it fairly aggressively to use all of the travel unless you set it up really soft. How much do you weight? The Trance X is fairly high leverage and it's also progressive. Don't let the RP2 tune skew your frame of reference. Chance are, it was a poor fit from the oem.

    Sounds like you have the standard volume air can. Something is wrong as it shouldn't take that much pressure for full extension.

    Where did you get 350psi for the ifp setting? It should be closer to 250, especially if with that tune.

  157. #357
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    105
    I weigh 190. The 2015 models apparently run higher IFP pressure (over 300) - mine is marked at 350. It looks like this is the only way the Aftermarket non-OEM comes for MY15. I do have a RS IFP adapter and grabbed a 600PSI shock pump in case I need to mess with it.
    I do have the standard air can. The MM tune seems to be on-par with the leverage ratio according to the charts I've seen, so maybe I could give it time - tho I am curious if it's possibly to (DYI) a low comp mod without buying a new stack. This might not be necessary in the long run - like you said the RP2 OEM tune was probably off.

    I did read a thread last night regarding monarch "stuck down". I let the air out of my shock last night, held the back wheel down and pulled up on my saddle as hard as I could. I guess there is a dimple toward the top of the stroke that does some sort of equalization voodoo magic.
    The bike now sags at 30% rather than 35% at 190psi, and by the time I pumped it back up, it looked to be fully extended when I glanced at 150psi.
    Should one normally do this after re-assembling the canister? (Tho it is new, first thing I did was open it and put a dab of shock oil in the air canister as it just had a smidge of grease from the factory). Could be a leak, or I just needed to equalize the negative spring after re-assembly. Anyway, maybe the ride will be a bit different now. I'd love to try the Debonair but don't feel like a $100 experiment. The wonder of ebay sellers, they grab random images off the net. The auction was pictured with the larger air can, tho it wasn't technically in the description.

  158. #358
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    ztbishop,

    Your own testing/setup will tell you more about the shock tune/setup than any chart you will find. Those charts are way to general to do anything but get you in the ball park . . . maybe.

    Good news is that I think the M comp tune will be close for your weight.

    It should only take ~60psi to get the shock to extend after the can is removed. See how it rides now that you have fixed that issue and report back. I always open the air can and relube the seals on a new shock.

    I wouldn't be surprised if you don't get full travel with the sv can, short of a big hit, but it's hard to say. You might be ok if running 30% sag doesn't result in to weak of a mid stroke for your preference. That's the main problem with the old sv/hv cans, they have a really soft mid stroke. An hv or debonair would be better suited to the leverage curve.

  159. #359
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    474
    Does anybody have any feedback on the new 2016 RT3 damper? It sounds like a lot has changed:

    RockShox Releases 2016 Product Updates - Pinkbike

    I'm thinking about giving one of these a shot. I've got a 2015 Monarch Plus RC3 that I'm happy with, but it never really gets very warm on my bike. I'm thinking I could probably get away with an RT3 to save almost a quarter pound of weight. I'd probably have to crack it open and revalve the compression stack.

  160. #360
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    40
    The tune assembly part numbers are the same for 2016 so I don't think those bits have changed anyway. I've gone from a 2015 RT3 to a 2016 but with a different tune so can't give a comparison.

  161. #361
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    2
    Got a question to someone who has access to a Monarch full service kit. Does the kit include the spring which goes in the rebound piston? Long story short after a muddy ride i wound up with my Monarch stuck down. Opened the air can to find the piston was unscrewed from the top of the shock. Some parts came out along with oil and it seems i lost the mentioned resort. Also if someone knows the lenght of the resort that is of help too as i may find such at a watch repair shop... Any information is appreciated
    Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack-monarch-resort.jpg
    Last edited by ktudore; 09-17-2015 at 06:20 AM.

  162. #362
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    This spring comes with piston kit. Piston kit is called "Tune assembly". You can download a parts list from Rockshox site and look up the correct number for your shock. It's quite expensive though.

  163. #363
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    2
    Allright, thanks for the information! Am i right on the placement of the parts? I mean the spring comes btw the pin and the rod inside that "pipe"?
    Last edited by ktudore; 09-17-2015 at 06:20 AM.

  164. #364
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    I've been tuning on my 13 RT3 with debonair can for a few months and have tried several different setups. Mullen and I have been working together and sharing notes, and although our setups are different, we have made some of the same discoveries.

    Looking at the spec's for LL soft, MM soft, and HH firm tunes, RS uses the same compression stack for all those tunes and only varies the comp check plate (cp) stack. I have measured both a soft (MM tune) and firm (HH tune) poppet spring and they are the same. Speculation, but it appears they use the same spring across all the tunes.

    The rebound side is more straight forward and there is a single preloaded 19x.15 shim difference between the three levels.

    Currently I'm bouncing back and forth between a straight/tapered and preloaded comp stack. I've got the straight fairly dialed but it requires a stiffer poppet spring or the lsc is too soft. I'm currently using a Fox 65lb/in poppet spring but would like to get even stiffer springs to test. The stock spring is somewhere around 25lb/in.

    A preloaded stack seems to work fairly well with the stock poppet spring, but I'm only running 2-3 preloaded shims and 8 shims under ring/nest shim. I haven't worked with the preloaded stack enough to get it dialed. It really depends on how much hsc you want. The straight stack will give you more and the preloaded stack will have less, given equal lsc.

    I have played with the cp stacks a little but not enough to get a good feel for how much or how little control they have. I believe there is potential there but would consider it fine tuning. If your main stack aren't dialed, the effects of cp tuning seem to be unnoticeable. The bypass circuit in these shock flows a lot of oil compared to the previous generation and Fox Floats, so the poppet spring and cp stack can have a greater range of control over the damping curve.

    On the reb side, I tried really hard to get a straight stack to work, but it just doesn't have enough mid speed reb to control the stiffer mid stroke of the debonair. It kicked really bad in chop unless it was valved so heavily that hsr was too slow. Ultimately, I went back to the stock M preloaded tune on both the main and cp stack. It's working pretty well with the stk tune, but not perfect. Once I get the comp dialed I'll play with the reb more.

    Here are the two tunes that are currently working the best for me. Keep in mind that rider weight, linkage design, and spring curve greatly play into the tune. I mostly trail ride and prefer active setups with traction and support being king. I put very little value on perceived "efficiency" or pedal bob.

    linear tune:
    cp
    22x.2
    19x.2

    main comp
    17x.2
    19x.2 x2
    22x.15 x4

    piston

    19x.15
    ring/nest
    19x.15 x2

    cp
    19x.1
    ring/nest
    19x.1

    Fox 65lb/in poppet spring

    digressive tune:
    cp
    22x.2
    19x.2

    main comp
    22x.15 x2
    ring/nest
    22x.15 x8

    piston
    (same as linear)
    stock poppet spring

  165. #365
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    Thank you both very much for sharing this info. When you are riding then in which position is the compression lever - open, pedal or closed? With the stiff Fox spring and compression lever in closed positions - I suppose the main stack is doing all the work?

  166. #366
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    arnea,

    I'm actually using the old RT comp adjuster which has 11clicks, but the range of preload on the poppet is the same as open and mid on the RT3 adjuster. I forgot to note that when the RT3 is in the firm setting, the poppet spring is fully compressed and the poppet seat actually floats against a second spring that you can see in the end of the shaft. This coupled with a highly preloaded main stack is how they get it extra firm.

    With the RT adjuster, I'm pretty much running an equivalent open setting all of the time unless I'm riding the pump track or the dj's. I've experimented with slight float in the poppet and slightly preload, and the best setup so far has been a firmer stack with slight float in the poppet with the firmer spring. We're talking 0.1mm or less float, and on the preloaded side .1-.3mm. With the RT adjuster fully closed and the Pike set on firm, it is just barely firm enough for a decent setup on the pump track or dj's. Anything more than slight preload on the poppet, and the ride gets harsh on the trail.

    I noted before that I really like the stock MM tune, but that is all relative. When you are incrementally making changes, it is really easy to loose perspective of how the baseline setup felt. I didn't realize how good the linear tunes were until I recently switched back to the stock tune. The stk tune was fairly over damped, both lsc and hsc.

  167. #367
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,785
    I'm ~150lb on a 2015 Trance Adv 1, which came with a Monarch RT. I'm currently running 110psi in the shock, which is borderline too soft at lower speeds, but it sometimes feels a bit harsh over faster chatter bumps.

    I wasn't able to find the answer yet in this thread - does the RT have shimmed compression and/or rebound, or just poppets? Is it tuneable or not worth opening up?

  168. #368
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    fsrxc,

    The RT has comp shims, no reb shims, and no poppet. The harshness in chop can be related to poor reb performance which is common with orifice only damping.

  169. #369
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,785
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    fsrxc,

    The RT has comp shims, no reb shims, and no poppet. The harshness in chop can be related to poor reb performance which is common with orifice only damping.
    so is the lack of rebound shims due to the piston design, or could they be installed? Is the option only to buy a different shock?

    The 2016 Monarch RT3 sounds pretty good, would be cool if the internals fit my shock...

  170. #370
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by fsrxc View Post
    so is the lack of rebound shims due to the piston design, or could they be installed? Is the option only to buy a different shock?

    The 2016 Monarch RT3 sounds pretty good, would be cool if the internals fit my shock...
    Its a different piston design. RT3 piston won't drop in, without updating shaft, metering rods, and adjuster assy.

  171. #371
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    I had a long pause in my riding because I broke the frame. Now it is replaced and I had chance to do couple of longer rides on more demanding and varying terrain.

    One problem I had was related to rebound. I did not find setting that was good both for smaller/faster pumps and larger/slower pumps. I had to reduce rebound damping for faster pumps to avoid packing and increase for larger pumps. Recommendation was to make the main rebound stack stiffer. I increased the thickness of the shim that was closest to the piston (right under the ring shim) from 0.15 to 0.2 mm. Right now I think that the rebound is good. I have rebound knob one click away from the centered position towards the closed setting.

    I also changed the compression stack. I need low(er) tune. I made following changes:

    1) I decreased the thickness of the 19mm check plate shim from 0.2 to 0.15

    2) I moved the ring shim up by one shim (so there are two 0.15 shims under it) and increased the thickness of center shims from 0.1 to 0.2mm so there is less preload.

    3) I removed one 22x0.15 from the top of the ring shim.

    So lots of changes and the main compression stack seems much softer than those described by ktm520.

    The result was that in the open position shock is too soft - both lsc and hsc.

    On the trail position it is actually quite good for larger hits and slower mid-sized movements. But it is too harsh when going over smaller stuff.

    It seems that too much oil flows through the compression check plate in open position. I thought to put back the 19x0.2mm shim to the compression plate and 22x0.15mm shim on top of main compression stack.

    So basically only change compared to the stock M tune would be moving the ring shim up by one shim and reducing the preload by taller center shim.

    I would like to check out the digressive stack described by ktm520 but I do not have enough 9mm shims at the moment. Also if I want something comparable to L tune I should probably reduce the number of shims. By how much?

  172. #372
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by arnea View Post
    I also changed the compression stack. I need low(er) tune. I made following changes:

    1) I decreased the thickness of the 19mm check plate shim from 0.2 to 0.15

    2) I moved the ring shim up by one shim (so there are two 0.15 shims under it) and increased the thickness of center shims from 0.1 to 0.2mm so there is less preload.

    3) I removed one 22x0.15 from the top of the ring shim.

    So lots of changes and the main compression stack seems much softer than those described by ktm520.

    The result was that in the open position shock is too soft - both lsc and hsc.

    On the trail position it is actually quite good for larger hits and slower mid-sized movements. But it is too harsh when going over smaller stuff.

    It seems that too much oil flows through the compression check plate in open position. I thought to put back the 19x0.2mm shim to the compression plate and 22x0.15mm shim on top of main compression stack.
    I think you just went way to soft with the changes you made. Your stack is considerably softer than both the stacks I posted. I would put the cp back to stock and get the main stack dialed first. The problem with making so many changes at once is you have no idea what was the driving variable. Changing the preload nest shim is what made the most significant decrease in stack stiffness. Nothing wrong with reducing preload, but you will have to substantially stiffen the non preloaded section or add more preloaded shims to compensate. The cp stack change is not the problem.

    Keep in mind that anytime you have a big jump in poppet preload, ie going from open to the mid setting, small bump is going to get harsher. You're basically adding a bunch of lsc when that lever is flipped.

    As I noted above, I still feel like the cp stacks are more for fine tuning. The more of a digressive (preloaded) stack you run, the more influence they will have on the tune.

    Rockshox's tunes are structured around having that firm "lockout" mode. In order to get that, it has to have a heavily preloaded main stack. For the trail rider who seeks maximum traction and support, that philosophy fails on more than one level.

  173. #373
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    94
    This is still a work in progress for me as well. I have a little bit of a different approach though. I have the LSC and LSR run softer. I then run the HSC and HSR as two stage straight stacks. It seems to work well. I was not happy with the preloaded shim stacks at all. I found them to be too harsh in compression and to slow in rebound. I used parts from the stock MM F 320 tune kit that the shock came with and parts from a LL S 219 tune kit that I bought. The only other shims I had to buy where some 9x22x.10 that I use in the LSC circuit. This might still be to soft for some people, but it is working well for me and as always it is still a work in progress.

    Nut LSR 1ea] 9x16x0.15
    3ea] 9x19x0.10
    Valve Plate

    3ea] 9x10x0.30

    HSR
    1ea] 9x19x0.20
    1ea] 9x16x0.10
    4ea] 9x19x0.15


    Main Piston

    HSC
    5ea] 9x22x0.15
    1ea] 9x19x0.10
    1ea] 9x22x0.20


    4ea] 9x10x0.30
    LSC
    1ea] 9x19x0.15
    2ea] 9x22x0.10
    Valve Plate

  174. #374
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    863
    Hsal - what bike and trails are you riding? What year is the shock and do you have Debonair can? And what is the riding weight?

  175. #375
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by arnea View Post
    Hsal - what bike and trails are you riding? What year is the shock and do you have Debonair can? And what is the riding weight?
    The bike is a 2007 Stumpjumper FSR. I ride cross country not to many mountains here in Louisiana. The shock is a 2013 RT3, and I do not have Debonair. I don't think the Debonair air can will fit my bike. I am running the older HV can with two volume reducers. My weight is a thin 200lbs and have 163 psi in the shock that gives me 30% sag. IFP is set at stock depth but I only run 205 PSI. I adjust the IFP pressure just to just stop bottom out. I have not had trouble running lower that recommended IFP, I believe has long as the IFP pressure is greater that the main air can pressure it seems to work fine. When I first got the shock with 350 psi In the IFP and the preloaded shim stack I could not get more that 30mm of travel out of a 51mm stroke shock unless I ran way to much sag. That is when to whole retuning began.

  176. #376
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18
    I have recently replaced the shock on my bike with a RT3 2015. As you all know it comes M/M tuned out of the box. Problem is that the Monarch on my frame comes factory tuned as:

    High rebound
    Low compression
    Threshold 320 (I will soon know if its hard or soft)

    I was hoping to buy a complete tune kit but, but there does not seem to exist one with my settings.

    I have read this thread a couple of times and this might have been posted, please forgive me if so. But does anybody know what the shim setup is for the tuning above?

    I might ad that I have been riding it a bit and the factory tuning does make sense. My bike is a 2012 Devinchi Atlas btw.

  177. #377
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Hsal View Post
    This is still a work in progress for me as well. I have a little bit of a different approach though. I have the LSC and LSR run softer. I then run the HSC and HSR as two stage straight stacks. It seems to work well. I was not happy with the preloaded shim stacks at all. I found them to be too harsh in compression and to slow in rebound. I used parts from the stock MM F 320 tune kit that the shock came with and parts from a LL S 219 tune kit that I bought. The only other shims I had to buy where some 9x22x.10 that I use in the LSC circuit. This might still be to soft for some people, but it is working well for me and as always it is still a work in progress.

    Nut LSR 1ea] 9x16x0.15
    3ea] 9x19x0.10
    Valve Plate

    3ea] 9x10x0.30

    HSR
    1ea] 9x19x0.20
    1ea] 9x16x0.10
    4ea] 9x19x0.15


    Main Piston

    HSC
    5ea] 9x22x0.15
    1ea] 9x19x0.10
    1ea] 9x22x0.20


    4ea] 9x10x0.30
    LSC
    1ea] 9x19x0.15
    2ea] 9x22x0.10
    Valve Plate
    Thanks for sharing. The main comp/reb stacks you are running aren't really two stage stacks. You are basically running really soft linear stacks and cp stacks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hsal View Post
    IFP is set at stock depth but I only run 205 PSI. I adjust the IFP pressure just to just stop bottom out. I have not had trouble running lower that recommended IFP, I believe has long as the IFP pressure is greater that the main air can pressure it seems to work fine. When I first got the shock with 350 psi In the IFP and the preloaded shim stack I could not get more that 30mm of travel out of a 51mm stroke shock unless I ran way to much sag. That is when to whole retuning began.
    There are advantages to running less ifp, but reducing bottom support is not one of them. The reason you are using more travel is due to the overall drop of compression damping going from the stock tune to the the one you posted. You have considerably less comp damping. Running high ifp causes seal drag in both the ifp and shaft seal. This has a noticeable effect on the sensitivity of the shock. I'm currently running 220, but have run as low as 180.

    Also, there is no correlation or relationship between the air spring pressure and ifp pressure. The ifp is there to counter cavitation and keep the oil from aerating or collapsing. The least amount of ifp required to prevent cavitation will result in the best performance, and how much that is depends on how stiff of valving . . . and how much you run the shock locked.

  178. #378
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by AjonG View Post
    I have recently replaced the shock on my bike with a RT3 2015. As you all know it comes M/M tuned out of the box. Problem is that the Monarch on my frame comes factory tuned as:

    High rebound
    Low compression
    Threshold 320 (I will soon know if its hard or soft)

    I was hoping to buy a complete tune kit but, but there does not seem to exist one with my settings.

    I have read this thread a couple of times and this might have been posted, please forgive me if so. But does anybody know what the shim setup is for the tuning above?

    I might ad that I have been riding it a bit and the factory tuning does make sense. My bike is a 2012 Devinchi Atlas btw.
    I would almost guarantee that the stock tune is a soft. All you need to do to get a HL soft tune is to add one 19x.15 shim to the top of the reb stack and change the comp cp stack to:

    22x.15
    19x.15

    You can either order these shims aftermarket or order any stock tune assy with a L comp and soft threshold.

  179. #379
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    Thanks for sharing. The main comp/reb stacks you are running aren't really two stage stacks. You are basically running really soft linear stacks and cp stacks.


    There are advantages to running less ifp, but reducing bottom support is not one of them. The reason you are using more travel is due to the overall drop of compression damping going from the stock tune to the the one you posted. You have considerably less comp damping. Running high ifp causes seal drag in both the ifp and shaft seal. This has a noticeable effect on the sensitivity of the shock. I'm currently running 220, but have run as low as 180.

    Also, there is no correlation or relationship between the air spring pressure and ifp pressure. The ifp is there to counter cavitation and keep the oil from aerating or collapsing. The least amount of ifp required to prevent cavitation will result in the best performance, and how much that is depends on how stiff of valving . . . and how much you run the shock locked.
    I am calling it a two stage stack in HSC and HSR because in comp I have 5ea 9x22x.15, 1ea 9x19x.10 as a spacer and 1ea 9x22x.20. In HSR I have 4ea 9x19x.15, 1ea 9x16x.10 as a spacer and 1ea 9x19x.20. In both HSC and HSR the last shim is a .20 that adds to the stiffness of the shock after the stack of .15 shims flex across the gap profited by the .10 spacer shims. The LSC cp stack is a little liter than the stock LSC low tune. I am running 2ea 9x22x.10 and 1ea 9x19x.15, stock LSC low tune has 1ea 9x22x.15 and 1ea 9x19x.15. The LSR cp stack is also a little liter than stock but with no re-load.I could not get full travel with the stock MM tune or a stock ML tune even with very low IFP pressure. I tried many combinations with the pre-loaded stacks from removing shims to moving the centering and ring shim further away from the main piston. That is when I decided to dump the pre-loaded stacks all together.
    While I do agree that the main job of the IFP is to prevent cavitation in the oil chamber. I believe that the very high progressiveness of the IFP chamber does add to the over all stiffness of the shock toward the end of the travel. I believe that at that point it is a combination of Main Air Camber, HSC and IFP. With out making and other changes in the shock I have controlled bottom out by adding 5 to 10 psi in the IFP. I do agree this is and knowing me will always be a work in progress. I can't afford a therapist so this is my therapy.

  180. #380
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    I would almost guarantee that the stock tune is a soft. All you need to do to get a HL soft tune is to add one 19x.15 shim to the top of the reb stack and change the comp cp stack to:

    22x.15
    19x.15

    You can either order these shims aftermarket or order any stock tune assy with a L comp and soft threshold.
    The low tune HSC and med tune HSC also differ in that the low tune HSC, unless they changed it, has one fewer 9x22x.15 shim and it uses a different ring shim in the pre-load stack. If you look back on page 9 there is a whole chart of the MM and LL tunes. The M tune HSC used a 19.4x22x.40 ring shim while the L tune HSC used a 19.4x22x.30 ring shim. Both tunes use the same centering shim. They do the same thing in HSR between the Low and Med tunes. I have never seen a chart for High tune, and this is a chart for a 2013 RT3, they may be doing it differently now. I would like to see a chart for all tunes High Med Low, L3,L4. I do know that the spring in the 2013 is different between the 219 and 320 threshold tunes.

  181. #381
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Hsal,

    I see what you are going for, but what you are calling a cross-over shim isn't sized correctly to get a true "two stage" type damping curve. The whole stack will deflect together the same as a straight stack.

    Two stage stack are very, very tricky to design without either a ton of experience or a shock dyno. Even with restackor, I've had very little luck designing a 2 stage stack that I think would actually work. Plus that type of damping curve doesn't even fit with what I want out of my shock.

    That's awesome that you are working with the shock and figuring out what works . . . for you. Keep up the good work. That's what suspension tuning is all about. I don't mean to sound like I'm saying what you are doing is wrong, just explaining things better for all the readers. Its so easy to get lost in this stuff. Your setup is pretty far from the norm, and wouldn't even been close to working for me at 160lb on the same bike, but that's ok.

    Fundamentally, I still stand behind my statement that ifp is not a good tool for adjusting bottom resistance in itself. When you made a 5psi change to ifp, this added a small amount of spring force to the whole curve. You cut your damping curve in half switching from even the L tune down to the stacks you posted. That is the majority of why you used more travel. Here are some numbers to give perspective:

    51 stroke debonair shock:
    180 main / 220 ifp = 896lb of spring force at end of stroke
    180 main / 225 ifp = 898lb
    185 main/ 220 ifp = 916lb

    2lb of force at the end of the stroke is almost negligible.

  182. #382
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Hsal View Post
    The low tune HSC and med tune HSC also differ in that the low tune HSC, unless they changed it, has one fewer 9x22x.15 shim and it uses a different ring shim in the pre-load stack. If you look back on page 9 there is a whole chart of the MM and LL tunes. The M tune HSC used a 19.4x22x.40 ring shim while the L tune HSC used a 19.4x22x.30 ring shim. Both tunes use the same centering shim. They do the same thing in HSR between the Low and Med tunes. I have never seen a chart for High tune, and this is a chart for a 2013 RT3, they may be doing it differently now. I would like to see a chart for all tunes High Med Low, L3,L4. I do know that the spring in the 2013 is different between the 219 and 320 threshold tunes.
    That differs from what I have in my notes, but I could be wrong.

    I would avoid calling the two stacks hsc and lsc. It's not really accurate, and can cause confusion. To be clearer, the main stack controls the entire curve, both lsc and hsc. The cp stack have the most influence over the ls range, but there is still some transition into the ms range. If you think of the two totally separate, you will chase your tail.

  183. #383
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    That differs from what I have in my notes, but I could be wrong.

    I would avoid calling the two stacks hsc and lsc. It's not really accurate, and can cause confusion. To be clearer, the main stack controls the entire curve, both lsc and hsc. The cp stack have the most influence over the ls range, but there is still some transition into the ms range. If you think of the two totally separate, you will chase your tail.
    I agree completely, that is one of the reasons I have dumped the pre-loaded shim stack. I thought the LSC cp was still harsh even with the low tune and I did not like the transition to the main piston. With all of the threshold you have to get past to open the pre-loaded shim stack the transition was to on and off like. I found the main rebound shim stack would feel like it would pause before opening even after only one bump, unless the external rebound adjuster was farther open then I liked. Right now I run it 3 to 4 clicks open from all the way closed. I find that with ether the pre-loaded stack or the stack I am running now, if I open the external knob to much LSR felt jittery with out enough control. I find that if the main rebound stack is to stiff and you set the external knob where if gives you more control and less jitter the shock or fork feels to dead. I tend to run my main rebound stack a little softer and close the external knob to 3 or 4 clicks from closed. It seems to handle big hits well, if you don't go to soft, and stay nice and lively on small high speed hits with out the lack of control or jitter. The stack I am running my still be to soft, when i went to this I had to completely start over from scratch and it is a work in progress.

  184. #384
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Hsal View Post
    I agree completely, that is one of the reasons I have dumped the pre-loaded shim stack. I thought the LSC cp was still harsh even with the low tune and I did not like the transition to the main piston. With all of the threshold you have to get past to open the pre-loaded shim stack the transition was to on and off like. I found the main rebound shim stack would feel like it would pause before opening even after only one bump, unless the external rebound adjuster was farther open then I liked. Right now I run it 3 to 4 clicks open from all the way closed. I find that with ether the pre-loaded stack or the stack I am running now, if I open the external knob to much LSR felt jittery with out enough control. I find that if the main rebound stack is to stiff and you set the external knob where if gives you more control and less jitter the shock or fork feels to dead. I tend to run my main rebound stack a little softer and close the external knob to 3 or 4 clicks from closed. It seems to handle big hits well, if you don't go to soft, and stay nice and lively on small high speed hits with out the lack of control or jitter. The stack I am running my still be to soft, when i went to this I had to completely start over from scratch and it is a work in progress.
    My next change would probably be to add one more 9x22x.15 to the comp side, up against the piston as well as one more 9x19x.15 to the rebound side also against the piston, right now I am playing with the progressiveness of the main air spring a little, by one or two volume reducer bands just to add a little more med stroke support. My last ride felt good, did not bottom out, was running 220 psi in the IFP but no bands in the main air can. It did not bottom, but the second half of the travel needed a little firming up. With two bands in, I was able to then keep the main air can pressure that gives me good sag, and good small bump feel and have the second half feel firmer. I then returned the IFP back to 205 psi. I am now in the testing stage of that and still have to do a trail ride. I still may need one more volume reducer before I decide to change the shims. I find if you make the main air can to progressive the second half of the travel will then get a little dead feeling.

  185. #385
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    94
    I disagrees I feel the tips of the inner 9x22x.15 comp shims will flex a little in the gap left there by the 9x19x.10 and allow the start of the oil flowing before the whole stack then starts moving together. I tried a single little small 9x10x.20 or .30 spacers and that was way to soft and this arrangement was all I could do with the shims I have and still be able to do it to both Comp and Reb. A 9x18x.10 or a 9x17x10 mite also work but than I feel I would have to run more 9x22x.15. If the 9x19x.10 was not there I would probably be running 7 or 8 9x22x.15 or some combination of .15 and .20 to equal that. The problem with that is in order to get the stiffer over all stack you have to sacrifice the better transition between CP shim stack and main piston stack. If you stiffen the main piston stack to much the LSC port by the poppet valve and spring may starts to become saturated in a high speed event before the main shim stack can start to open, this is way more evident in the stock pre-loaded stack because of the preload on the main piston.This setup will not work for people still looking to have lockout. I never use lockout and now just have lockout as just a firmer secondary pro pedal witch I don't need. My real pro pedal with the softer 219 spring the lite CP stack and the lower IFP pressure just takes the bob out with out making LSC feel harsh over small hits.

  186. #386
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    Hsal,

    I see what you are going for, but what you are calling a cross-over shim isn't sized correctly to get a true "two stage" type damping curve. The whole stack will deflect together the same as a straight stack.

    Two stage stack are very, very tricky to design without either a ton of experience or a shock dyno. Even with restackor, I've had very little luck designing a 2 stage stack that I think would actually work. Plus that type of damping curve doesn't even fit with what I want out of my shock.

    That's awesome that you are working with the shock and figuring out what works . . . for you. Keep up the good work. That's what suspension tuning is all about. I don't mean to sound like I'm saying what you are doing is wrong, just explaining things better for all the readers. Its so easy to get lost in this stuff. Your setup is pretty far from the norm, and wouldn't even been close to working for me at 160lb on the same bike, but that's ok.

    Fundamentally, I still stand behind my statement that ifp is not a good tool for adjusting bottom resistance in itself. When you made a 5psi change to ifp, this added a small amount of spring force to the whole curve. You cut your damping curve in half switching from even the L tune down to the stacks you posted. That is the majority of why you used more travel. Here are some numbers to give perspective:

    51 stroke debonair shock:
    180 main / 220 ifp = 896lb of spring force at end of stroke
    180 main / 225 ifp = 898lb
    185 main/ 220 ifp = 916lb

    2lb of force at the end of the stroke is almost negligible.
    I'm cures to know how you came about these numbers. Not saying they are wrong I can only try to reference my experiences.
    I can tell you if you mistakenly set the IFP depth a few mm to low making the IFP air chamber a little smaller, not to the point that it hydro locks, but just a little smaller you have to run lower IFP pressure because of the increased progressiveness of the IFP to then get the same travel as you got with the depth set correctly and 205 ish psi. I have found that, within reason regardless of the shim stack type, just making small changes in the progressiveness or the pressure in the IFP can have a big influence in the last 5 or 6 mm of shock stroke even if all other perimeters are unchanged. I have made mistakes in reassembly and had to run as low as 125psi. At that time I realized that contrary to the Sram's video on servicing the shock just setting the depth and putting the schrader valve core back in is not good enough to stop the ifp piston from moving. They sell a vice block, but it is hard to find and not shown on all Sram service video, so I just made a small wooded vice to clamp the assy in after setting the depth and installing the valve core. After that the needed IFP pressure remained very consistent at 205 ish depending on how progressive or linear the main air chamber was set at.

  187. #387
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Hsal View Post
    I'm cures to know how you came about these numbers. Not saying they are wrong I can only try to reference my experiences.
    I created a spreadsheet model of the spring curve for a debonair and sv can, including the contribution of the ifp. The butt dyno isn't the most accurate instrument of measure.

    What types of trail features are you using for a travel usage baseline?

    What is your understanding of a 2 stage stack damping curve and it's benefits?

  188. #388
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18
    Thanks guys! I'm not sure that I am less confused though

    One idea I have is to buy the "Tune Kit 2013 Monarch RT3HL S 219" and shift over the S 320 shim/s from my current stack. Could you please point me to exactly which shim/s I should move over?

  189. #389
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    AjonG, it doesn't work like that. If you can get that 13 HL tune, its exactly what you need.

  190. #390
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    I created a spreadsheet model of the spring curve for a debonair and sv can, including the contribution of the ifp. The butt dyno isn't the most accurate instrument of measure.

    What types of trail features are you using for a travel usage baseline?

    What is your understanding of a 2 stage stack damping curve and it's benefits?
    Unfortunately I only have a butt dyno. I like to ride the Comite River Trail in north Baton Rouge. Its not a black diamond trail but it has some technical sections and a lot of large roots, I am 53 so I don't get to crazy. I can only use the butt dyno method, I ride I evaluate then I change what I don't like.

  191. #391
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    I've been tuning on my 13 RT3 with debonair can for a few months and have tried several different setups. Mullen and I have been working together and sharing notes, and although our setups are different, we have made some of the same discoveries.

    Looking at the spec's for LL soft, MM soft, and HH firm tunes, RS uses the same compression stack for all those tunes and only varies the comp check plate (cp) stack. I have measured both a soft (MM tune) and firm (HH tune) poppet spring and they are the same. Speculation, but it appears they use the same spring across all the tunes.

    The rebound side is more straight forward and there is a single preloaded 19x.15 shim difference between the three levels.

    Currently I'm bouncing back and forth between a straight/tapered and preloaded comp stack. I've got the straight fairly dialed but it requires a stiffer poppet spring or the lsc is too soft. I'm currently using a Fox 65lb/in poppet spring but would like to get even stiffer springs to test. The stock spring is somewhere around 25lb/in.

    A preloaded stack seems to work fairly well with the stock poppet spring, but I'm only running 2-3 preloaded shims and 8 shims under ring/nest shim. I haven't worked with the preloaded stack enough to get it dialed. It really depends on how much hsc you want. The straight stack will give you more and the preloaded stack will have less, given equal lsc.

    I have played with the cp stacks a little but not enough to get a good feel for how much or how little control they have. I believe there is potential there but would consider it fine tuning. If your main stack aren't dialed, the effects of cp tuning seem to be unnoticeable. The bypass circuit in these shock flows a lot of oil compared to the previous generation and Fox Floats, so the poppet spring and cp stack can have a greater range of control over the damping curve.

    On the reb side, I tried really hard to get a straight stack to work, but it just doesn't have enough mid speed reb to control the stiffer mid stroke of the debonair. It kicked really bad in chop unless it was valved so heavily that hsr was too slow. Ultimately, I went back to the stock M preloaded tune on both the main and cp stack. It's working pretty well with the stk tune, but not perfect. Once I get the comp dialed I'll play with the reb more.

    Here are the two tunes that are currently working the best for me. Keep in mind that rider weight, linkage design, and spring curve greatly play into the tune. I mostly trail ride and prefer active setups with traction and support being king. I put very little value on perceived "efficiency" or pedal bob.

    linear tune:
    cp
    22x.2
    19x.2

    main comp
    17x.2
    19x.2 x2
    22x.15 x4

    piston

    19x.15
    ring/nest
    19x.15 x2

    cp
    19x.1
    ring/nest
    19x.1

    Fox 65lb/in poppet spring

    digressive tune:
    cp
    22x.2
    19x.2

    main comp
    22x.15 x2
    ring/nest
    22x.15 x8

    piston
    (same as linear)
    stock poppet spring
    I think I see what you are doing with your pre-loaded stack. I to noticed that as you move the ring/nest shims farther away from the piston in the stack that the threshold to open the stack drops but then the stack just feels to soft. Adding more shims between the piston and ring/nest shims stiffens the stack with out jacking up the pre-load. I did some work with that with the HSC low tune but never toke it to that extreme. With your tapered stack would you say that the initial feel, LSC differences aside, of the main stack curve alone would actually be softer then what I am presently running. Trying to use a tapered stack in a comp or rebound circuit that as a dedicated low speed section can led to too soft low/mid speed support do to the crossover of the two circuit over lapping each other. This my be why you had to use the stiffer poppet spring or the LSC felt to soft. With the stiffer spring you are making the LSC circuit stiffer to compensate for to much LSC coming from the main stack with it being tapered. Good discussion always looking to pick on other peoples experiences and opinions.

  192. #392
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Hsal View Post
    I think I see what you are doing with your pre-loaded stack. I to noticed that as you move the ring/nest shims farther away from the piston in the stack that the threshold to open the stack drops but then the stack just feels to soft. Adding more shims between the piston and ring/nest shims stiffens the stack with out jacking up the pre-load. I did some work with that with the HSC low tune but never toke it to that extreme.
    That's pretty much it. Preload raises the entire curve and gives that blunt nose at the start of the curve. Adding stiffness to the linear section of the stack raises the slope of the curve after the nose/knee. There is nothing wrong with preloaded stacks in general and they can be usefull to gain lsc but not add to much hsc. I'm planning to do more testing with that preloaded stack . . . sometime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hsal View Post
    With your tapered stack would you say that the initial feel, LSC differences aside, of the main stack curve alone would actually be softer then what I am presently running.
    Nope. Your stack is considerably softer than the linear/tapered stack I posted. Tapered stacks aren't really that different than a straight stack. They can have a little more hsc, but the main advantage is that they reduce shim fatigue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hsal View Post
    Trying to use a tapered stack in a comp or rebound circuit that as a dedicated low speed section can led to too soft low/mid speed support do to the crossover of the two circuit over lapping each other. This my be why you had to use the stiffer poppet spring or the LSC felt to soft. With the stiffer spring you are making the LSC circuit stiffer to compensate for to much LSC coming from the main stack with it being tapered. Good discussion always looking to pick on other peoples experiences and opinions.
    Nope. This shock doesn't really have a dedicated lsc circuit. It's just a bypass that houses a poppet and shim stack in series. The shim stack has to be there to act as a check plate to stop crossflow during reb. The bypass in these shock flows a large amount of oil compared to the 11-12 Monarch and Fox floats.

    Your statements about lsc contradict each other. Maybe a typo? I've already explained why I went to the stiffer poppet spring with the linear stack. It's pretty straight forward. Reread that post.

  193. #393
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,218
    Is there a simple way that I can get a little less hsc damping on the RT3 Debonair I bought for my 2015 Remedy?

    RS says this is the main (only?) change for the 2016 shocks, and is the only thing I need.

    Thanks!
    Whining is not a strategy.

  194. #394
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    linear tune:
    cp
    22x.2
    19x.2

    main comp
    17x.2
    19x.2 x2
    22x.15 x4

    piston

    19x.15
    ring/nest
    19x.15 x2

    cp
    19x.1
    ring/nest
    19x.1

    Fox 65lb/in poppet spring
    Quick update on this tune:

    I've been bouncing back and forth between this comp stack and one with that is a single .1 shim softer. The former has better lsc but hsc is a little firm. The softer stack lacks a little lsc but is really good on hsc. This is were some testing with the cp stack might optimize the softer stack but I need to move over to the reb and work on it.

    The stock M reb tune has still been working well with the debonair can, but the lsr is too fast. I'm currently playing with the cp stack and I have replaced the preloaded stack with 5x .1 shims. This was an improvement but the lsr is still inbetween clicks.

    After I get the reb more dialed, I'll revisited the preloaded comp stack, if nothing else, for the challenge of it. I'm really curious to see if I can get the lsc support were I want it and still have decent small bump/square edge.

    Note on debonair can:

    I've found it to be very sensitive, and critical, to volume reduction. It will hold 6 rings total in positive sleeve and there is a rather noticeable difference in the mid stroke adding rings. This is with a flat leverage curve. If your are running a debonair can, don't ignore optimizing the spring setup. This is true for any can really, but it seems to be more critical than most others I've tuned.

  195. #395
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    Is there a simple way that I can get a little less hsc damping on the RT3 Debonair I bought for my 2015 Remedy?

    RS says this is the main (only?) change for the 2016 shocks, and is the only thing I need.

    Thanks!
    I like the design changes on the 2016 piston on paper. You can order a '16 tune assy, if they are available yet. But, you can also reduce the hsc in your '15. Pulling a .15 shim is going to be a more coarse adjustment. A .15 shim is equal to 3x .1 shims. Idealling you would pull a .15 and replace it with one or two .1's. Try pulling a .15 first, it's free and you might like it.

    Have you reduce the positive volume in the can? Too stiff of a midstroke can make the shock feel like it has too much hsc on square edge hits.

  196. #396
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    That's pretty much it. Preload raises the entire curve and gives that blunt nose at the start of the curve. Adding stiffness to the linear section of the stack raises the slope of the curve after the nose/knee. There is nothing wrong with preloaded stacks in general and they can be usefull to gain lsc but not add to much hsc. I'm planning to do more testing with that preloaded stack . . . sometime.


    Nope. Your stack is considerably softer than the linear/tapered stack I posted. Tapered stacks aren't really that different than a straight stack. They can have a little more hsc, but the main advantage is that they reduce shim fatigue.


    Nope. This shock doesn't really have a dedicated lsc circuit. It's just a bypass that houses a poppet and shim stack in series. The shim stack has to be there to act as a check plate to stop crossflow during reb. The bypass in these shock flows a large amount of oil compared to the 11-12 Monarch and Fox float.
    Your statements about lsc contradict each other. Maybe a typo? I've already explained why I went to the stiffer poppet spring with the linear stack. It's pretty straight forward. Reread that post.
    I agree that my HSC stack is over all softer than your tapered stack no doubt. My thought was at the initial start of oil flow though the main piston my stack which as 5ea 9x22x.15 shims is actually initially stiffer than the tapered stack that has 4ea 9x22x.15. I believe that a tapered stack actually as much softer LSC because there is nothing out at the outer tip of the face shim or shims to add stiffness. After that initial flex of the face shim or shims at the tips, in this case the 4ea 9x22x.15 as a group act as the face shim then the smaller in diameter and thicker section of tapered shims kick in to stiffen HSC and reduce shim fatigue. A straight stack is going to have stiffer LS and a tapered stack is going to have softer LS and that is the main difference between a straight and tapered stack.. I agree that from there your tapered stack, because of the greater number of thicker shim, will have stiffer HS. Actually the bypass and CP shim stack are the LSC, but they also serve other purposes. In the open mode the poppet valve, depending on the spring used, will have less effect on LC. When you flip the switch to pro-pedal greater preload is put on the spring and poppet valve stiffening up LS. When you go to lockout the max preload is put on the spring closing off the bypass, and if you have a stiff main piston stack, giving you lockout. In the open mode the CP stack can be fine tuned to control the feel of LS. The CP stack acts as LSC during Comp and stop oil back flowing during reb. The poppet valve is there to increase LSC during pro-pedal and further increase it during lockout. The whole body of the poppet valve also serves to stop oil from flowing through the rebound free bleed during comp by closing off the Comp free bleed and forcing the oil that is coming from the rebound free bleed to go to the rebound CP and shim stack.

  197. #397
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    I've been tuning on my 13 RT3 with debonair can for a few months and have tried several different setups. Mullen and I have been working together and sharing notes, and although our setups are different, we have made some of the same discoveries.

    Looking at the spec's for LL soft, MM soft, and HH firm tunes, RS uses the same compression stack for all those tunes and only varies the comp check plate (cp) stack. I have measured both a soft (MM tune) and firm (HH tune) poppet spring and they are the same. Speculation, but it appears they use the same spring across all the tunes.

    The rebound side is more straight forward and there is a single preloaded 19x.15 shim difference between the three levels.

    Currently I'm bouncing back and forth between a straight/tapered and preloaded comp stack. I've got the straight fairly dialed but it requires a stiffer poppet spring or the lsc is too soft. I'm currently using a Fox 65lb/in poppet spring but would like to get even stiffer springs to test. The stock spring is somewhere around 25lb/in.

    A preloaded stack seems to work fairly well with the stock poppet spring, but I'm only running 2-3 preloaded shims and 8 shims under ring/nest shim. I haven't worked with the preloaded stack enough to get it dialed. It really depends on how much hsc you want. The straight stack will give you more and the preloaded stack will have less, given equal lsc.

    I have played with the cp stacks a little but not enough to get a good feel for how much or how little control they have. I believe there is potential there but would consider it fine tuning. If your main stack aren't dialed, the effects of cp tuning seem to be unnoticeable. The bypass circuit in these shock flows a lot of oil compared to the previous generation and Fox Floats, so the poppet spring and cp stack can have a greater range of control over the damping curve.

    On the reb side, I tried really hard to get a straight stack to work, but it just doesn't have enough mid speed reb to control the stiffer mid stroke of the debonair. It kicked really bad in chop unless it was valved so heavily that hsr was too slow. Ultimately, I went back to the stock M preloaded tune on both the main and cp stack. It's working pretty well with the stk tune, but not perfect. Once I get the comp dialed I'll play with the reb more.

    Here are the two tunes that are currently working the best for me. Keep in mind that rider weight, linkage design, and spring curve greatly play into the tune. I mostly trail ride and prefer active setups with traction and support being king. I put very little value on perceived "efficiency" or pedal bob.

    linear tune:
    cp
    22x.2
    19x.2

    main comp
    17x.2
    19x.2 x2
    22x.15 x4

    piston

    19x.15
    ring/nest
    19x.15 x2

    cp
    19x.1
    ring/nest
    19x.1

    Fox 65lb/in poppet spring

    digressive tune:
    cp
    22x.2
    19x.2

    main comp
    22x.15 x2
    ring/nest
    22x.15 x8

    piston
    (same as linear)
    stock poppet spring
    What you were doing with the stiffer spring was effectively closing off the LSC poppet valve and allowing it to flow very little oil while the tapered main piston stack still had way soft LSC and flowing a lot of oil. my guess is the it did not stiffen up the LSC as much as you thought it would. If you where to use that stiffer spring with a stiff straight stack or pre-loaded stack the shock would be ridiculously to stiff because now nether circuit would be flowing much oil.

  198. #398
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    AjonG, it doesn't work like that. If you can get that 13 HL tune, its exactly what you need.
    Thank you for the clarification! But I must admit that I don't really understand what the last number in the shock specifikation means? Factory trim is 320, the tune kit is 219. All I know is that the number has nothing to do with IPS preassure.

  199. #399
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,218
    Quote Originally Posted by ktm520 View Post
    I like the design changes on the 2016 piston on paper. You can order a '16 tune assy, if they are available yet. But, you can also reduce the hsc in your '15. Pulling a .15 shim is going to be a more coarse adjustment. A .15 shim is equal to 3x .1 shims. Idealling you would pull a .15 and replace it with one or two .1's. Try pulling a .15 first, it's free and you might like it.

    Have you reduce the positive volume in the can? Too stiff of a midstroke can make the shock feel like it has too much hsc on square edge hits.
    I've removed the rubber bands from the Debonair can (3 bands, stock) and am getting nearly full travel on rough trails at 35% sag, so I think I'm about right in that regard. With all 3 bands it was ridiculous, taking a soggy 45% sag to use full travel.

    I'll have to try removing a shim this winter (crazy work time for me now).

    Clarification: Did you really mean that one .15 shim is equal to three 0.1 shims? That doesn't seem to add up (but I know nothing about shim stacks).
    Whining is not a strategy.

  200. #400
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    AjonG,

    I haven't found a good answer on exactly what the number means, but I do know that it is just a resultant of the combination of main and cp stack.

    kosmo,

    Yes, that is how .1 and .15 shims compare. The stiffness of a shim, given equal id/od, is proportional to the cube of the thickness.
    .15 = 3.3x .1
    .2 = 8x .1

    Hsal,

    Your understanding of how straight, tapered, and 2-stage stacks work is still flawed. I can recommend a few text books if you would like to do some reading. Restackor's website has a really good reference section as well.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.