Anyone remember back in the early days of bike suspension when people used to snap shock mounting bolts [HTML_REMOVED] crack the shock mounting tabs welded to the frame?
Sag - we don't need it!
Haha when they'd tighten up their preload to add damping or spring weight?
There's nothing better than an Orangina after cheating death with Digger.
This thread started with so much fail but ended up being quite entertaining.
Things I want
- significantly higher BB
- poor traction [HTML_REMOVED] braking
Plan
- eliminate sag
Haha when they'd tighten up their preload to add damping or spring weight?
Pretty much! Yea let's not think about what happens when your spring bottoms out.
Was this the sag you want eliminated??
C. Lee's response on page one was probably where this thread should have ended. Thank you for that, btw. Blew orange juice out of my nose.
Anyone remember back in the early days of bike suspension when people used to snap shock mounting bolts [HTML_REMOVED] crack the shock mounting tabs welded to the frame?
I just cleaned out my old, old bike stuff and found a whole drawer full of broken shock mount bolts from my old Ellsworth Joker. 900# spring running with 12.9 grade bolts. I used to bring an extra on the trail with me, and usually needed it. If only I'd had enough room in my pack for spare rear triangles…and maybe a front triangle or two too.
Things I want
- significantly higher BB
- poor traction [HTML_REMOVED] brakingPlan
- eliminate sag
Why the hell didn't you mention this earlier? This is exactly what I'm after.
Are you sure, though, that sag is there to lower the bb? By that logic, you'd just build bikes with a lower bb to begin with, rather than building a bike with a higher bb just so that the rider will lower it again by using sag - no, sag can't be there for bb height!
Take braking - ignore traction for simplicity - my contention is that with normal sag, there is very little weight going through the wheel in the dips anyway, so you can't get much braking done in the dips. So why not get more use out of your suspension by tuning the fork to work through a narrower range of forces - starting AT your weight rather than below your weight?
Why don't you just try it and report back. Add as much preload as you can.
All I know is the majority on my impacts, don't run through 100% of my travel. The dampers take care of that. I also know that using all of your travel all of the time, would be a massive waste of energy. Not to mention, when you do take an impact that requires 100% of your suspension travel, your suspension rebounds just before the impact (Drops, hitting a rut, landing a jump). That means you used 100% of your travel anyway.
Why the hell didn't you mention this earlier? This is exactly what I'm after.
Are you sure, though, that sag is there to lower the bb? By that logic, you'd just build bikes with a lower bb to begin with, rather than building a bike with a higher bb just so that the rider will lower it again by using sag - no, sag can't be there for bb height!
Take braking - ignore traction for simplicity - my contention is that with normal sag, there is very little weight going through the wheel in the dips anyway, so you can't get much braking done in the dips. So why not get more use out of your suspension by tuning the fork to work through a narrower range of forces - starting AT your weight rather than below your weight?
Suspension is there to help the bike stay level and keep the wheels on the dirt as much as possible. You have to ride the bike in its travel so the wheels can extend into depressions and then compress over bumps etc Having no sag wont let it do this. Think frame staying level….wheels going up and down.
But go and tune away mang, the pros must have it wrong.
Still think this bullshit
diggin
have you gone out to try this yet? how did it go?
Take braking - ignore traction for simplicity - my contention is that with normal sag, there is very little weight going through the wheel in the dips anyway, so you can't get much braking done in the dips. So why not get more use out of your suspension by tuning the fork to work through a narrower range of forces - starting AT your weight rather than below your weight?
You get significantly less braking done when your wheel is in the air, so yes (if your contention is true) you may have only a small amount of braking available "in the dips"; however it is many times more braking than would happen if your wheel was in the air and not sagging into the dip.
Why the hell didn't you mention this earlier? This is exactly what I'm after.
Are you sure, though, that sag is there to lower the bb? By that logic, you'd just build bikes with a lower bb to begin with, rather than building a bike with a higher bb just so that the rider will lower it again by using sag - no, sag can't be there for bb height!
Take braking - ignore traction for simplicity - my contention is that with normal sag, there is very little weight going through the wheel in the dips anyway, so you can't get much braking done in the dips. So why not get more use out of your suspension by tuning the fork to work through a narrower range of forces - starting AT your weight rather than below your weight?
So now you go and build a frame with the same 6" of travel but designed around no sag (bb 2" closer to the ground). Good luck pedaling that sucker when you start hitting bumps and are near the bottom of the travel. I guess that you'll need 125mm cranks to keep from clanking them on the ground! Your logic is … well … illogical.
I just cleaned out my old, old bike stuff and found a whole drawer full of broken shock mount bolts from my old Ellsworth Joker. 900# spring running with 12.9 grade bolts. I used to bring an extra on the trail with me, and usually needed it. If only I'd had enough room in my pack for spare rear triangles…and maybe a front triangle or two too.
amazing how many joker swingarms the flow show went though when they were sponsored by ellsworth. tyler usually had a spare in his truck. i once watched with amazement cracks propagate in a brand new swingarm during a single whistler day. quality!
:fruit::fruit:
Why the hell didn't you mention this earlier? This is exactly what I'm after.
Are you sure, though, that sag is there to lower the bb? By that logic, you'd just build bikes with a lower bb to begin with, rather than building a bike with a higher bb just so that the rider will lower it again by using sag - no, sag can't be there for bb height!
Take braking - ignore traction for simplicity - my contention is that with normal sag, there is very little weight going through the wheel in the dips anyway, so you can't get much braking done in the dips. So why not get more use out of your suspension by tuning the fork to work through a narrower range of forces - starting AT your weight rather than below your weight?
Sag isn't there to lower the BB height but BB height is designed based on sag. Unless you are planning on having a custom made frame designed around your very special idea it's going to be a problem you run into. Upping your suspension preload to the point that at 0 compressions the force will hold your weight means that your going to top out with that force every time you unload your fork or shock. Expect to have your shit fail on a regular basis as it wasn't designed to regularily take that force.
Your idea that because there isn't much downforce on the wheel the traction and braking you get isn't worth having is missled. Just try it, you'll learn and won't bother us with this nonsense again.
Forum jump:
