wesley_r Posted September 12, 2011 Author Posted September 12, 2011 Flowta - some research has revealed that length - stroke does not = travel - the linkage system plays a role as well. Commencal themselves confirmed for me that I need a 200x50 Buycycle has the Monarch RT3 high volume in that length for a good price, so I'm going to go for it...
Flowta Posted September 12, 2011 Posted September 12, 2011 Flowta - some research has revealed that length - stroke does not = travel - the linkage system plays a role as well. Commencal themselves confirmed for me that I need a 200x50 Buycycle has the Monarch RT3 high volume in that length for a good price, so I'm going to go for it... I never said it did.
wesley_r Posted September 12, 2011 Author Posted September 12, 2011 I never said it did. aaah, I misunderstood your post I am convinced it's making a difference though. Even CptMayhem, who rode my bike, commented that he was clipping the pedals - this with the shock set at 20% sag (not Commencal's recommended 25%) and with him weighing 10kg less than me.
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted September 12, 2011 Posted September 12, 2011 To confirm Wes's statements... While i was riding his bike, the pedals were clipping the starting ramp's ramp at the top, on s bike with the same size cranks as mine, the same size pedals as mine and with a helluva high air setting for my weight. I would be surprised to see if I had even made it sag to 15%, let alone 20%. The bike itself has a much higher bb than mine (floor to bb measurement) and yet my pedals were clear of the starting gate even at 6 o clock. I would imagine that the extra 10mm on shock length would make a huge difference in not only performance, but clearance as well.
Flowta Posted September 12, 2011 Posted September 12, 2011 To confirm Wes's statements... While i was riding his bike, the pedals were clipping the starting ramp's ramp at the top, on s bike with the same size cranks as mine, the same size pedals as mine and with a helluva high air setting for my weight. I would be surprised to see if I had even made it sag to 15%, let alone 20%. The bike itself has a much higher bb than mine (floor to bb measurement) and yet my pedals were clear of the starting gate even at 6 o clock. I would imagine that the extra 10mm on shock length would make a huge difference in not only performance, but clearance as well. If he is just sitting on the bike then the problem is the maximum length of the shock (ie 190 vs 200) The scenario I asked about was whether he had problems with things(ie moving bits on the bike hitting each other).He had a 190 x 50 and was pointed in the direction of the 200 x 63 this would have a compressed length with a difference of 3mm.
Flowta Posted September 12, 2011 Posted September 12, 2011 BTW, glad you got a shock sorted. Obviously the shock with the spec that the bike was designed for was best.Was just trying to help out.
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted September 12, 2011 Posted September 12, 2011 If he is just sitting on the bike then the problem is the maximum length of the shock (ie 190 vs 200) The scenario I asked about was whether he had problems with things(ie moving bits on the bike hitting each other).He had a 190 x 50 and was pointed in the direction of the 200 x 63 this would have a compressed length with a difference of 3mm.Absolutely... The only thing that would have been wrong with having a shock with a shorter stroke is that the total travel of the bike itself would have been less than intended, nothing else (unless the max size was diff to that which was specified, which is the case here)
Flowta Posted September 12, 2011 Posted September 12, 2011 Absolutely... The only thing that would have been wrong with having a shock with a shorter stroke is that the total travel of the bike itself would have been less than intended, nothing else (unless the max size was diff to that which was specified, which is the case here) That is what I was saying, the bike is specced for a 200 x 50. The 200 x 63 was going for R600 which would have given him more travel but at a risk of interference within the suspension design, hence the comparison between the 190 x 50 that is on now. I think we are kinda on the same page here
wesley_r Posted September 12, 2011 Author Posted September 12, 2011 sorry man, kinda missed what you were saying
Flowta Posted September 12, 2011 Posted September 12, 2011 sorry man, kinda missed what you were saying No worries man, catch you on the trails.
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted September 13, 2011 Posted September 13, 2011 That is what I was saying, the bike is specced for a 200 x 50. The 200 x 63 was going for R600 which would have given him more travel but at a risk of interference within the suspension design, hence the comparison between the 190 x 50 that is on now. I think we are kinda on the same page here yes indeedy, we are...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 ihateyou ihateyou ihateyou i hate you!
wesley_r Posted October 3, 2011 Author Posted October 3, 2011 by the way, with the new shock in the BB is now roughly 1.8cm higher (rough measurements) and it's o so plushy
.thumb.jpg.f7359a62a1f4f4199fdd069d76f07b79.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now