Miss-time aprils fools or genuine?

Suspension Industry unites to introduce metric sizing for all rear shocks

It’s on pinkbike as well.

“It definitely allows for the designers to do more stuff with the shocks internally,” adds John Pelino, DVO’s general manager. “For a size like a 200×57, there’s zero room left over when that shock is at full compression, so you’re very limited as to what you can do with the damping. So switching to something like a 230×60 or 210×55 gives the engineers more room to develop the damping in the shock. The kinematics of the bike are where it’s really going to affect things the most, but it’s going to have to get bigger to work with the new crop of shocks under these updated standards.

Pretty sure that’s what piggybacks or remote reservoirs are for.

Miss-time aprils fools or genuine?

Doesn’t actually seem like a completely insane concept, slighty larger shocks… What’s the problem?

makes sense to me

Doesn’t actually seem like a completely insane concept, slighty larger shocks… What’s the problem?

If it’s indeed true, I guess it would be mean old standards being dropped. So another way of prodding riders towards a new frame.

My frame doesn’t have a shock.

(Someone’s gonna say it, might as well get it out the way).

25.4 mm in an inch, surely that’s all you need to know.

1lb of feathers is a pound of feathers.

Hows is a standard change going to improve this shock? We should be doing away with inline shocks as opposed to lengthening the bloody things so we can carry on using them. Inline shocks should be relegated to lycra clad weirdos that need a lockout and a tiny bit of poorly controlled bounce to keep their bums from becoming sore.

Okay, so it may improve bushing overlap and the stiffness of the shock. But again, this is a cop out because a well designed frame shouldn’t need increased shock stiffness in the first place. Spherical bearings are also a good way of getting rid of binding.

Notice how Fox aren’t in on this? If it is true, then it’s simply another way Sram is trying corner the market through new standards despite their somewhat dated de-carbon damper designs. Not sure they’d have this issue if they went down the Fox, Ohlins, Cane Creek route. The same people who gave us unwinding 15mm maxles and then lengthened them to stiffen the fork and called it “boost”, whilst Fox just gave us a proper 20mm pinch bolt axle that doesn’t unwind itself!

Also, my Lyriks, Totem and Pike have given me nothing but grief – my Pike has gone back under warranty twice in the 6 months I’ve had it. So I am loathe to see Sram trying to corner the market like this.

If you want to make a longer shock….then make a longer shock. What has metric got to do with it?…or do inches only go up to 8.5?

Does metric make the numbers come alive?

If you want to make a longer shock….then make a longer shock. What has metric got to do with it?…or do inches only go up to 8.5?

Your guess is as good as mine. It appears that the switch to metric measurement is also a guise/marketing speak for changing the shock sizes though.

It makes alot of sense if you’re trying to offer more options and more space in the shock. Im not saying it will yield any performance benefits – thats to be seen, but its easiest to see the change in terms of shock sizing visually to appreciate why the new sizing makes more sense:

Thats single shock model, new vs. old from one of the metric party. Fewer i2i sizes, more choice in strokes. I guess if thats what you wanted to achieve its better to start again than fudge in some more sizes.

Why the inline hate?

I like my Cane Creek Inline shock – it is great for the riding I do in the UK.

When I go somewhere where heat build up could be an issue, I switch it for a DB Air. I could use the DB Air all the time, but it weighs 200g more.

I think there’s a time and a place for both, even if you’re not a lycra clad weirdo.

WTF?

Whether it’s for real or an April Fool, it doesn’t make any sense either way.

It makes alot of sense if you’re trying to offer more options and more space in the shock.

Still failing to see the space argument for all but inline shocks. Which again should have died along time ago as they need more length to have more room for the oil to move. Hence negating the weight savings if you lengthen the bloody things enough to have decent damping!

Sram can shove it, won’t be buying any of their products again. Between Rock Shox toy like build quality and this then it’s Hope, Fox and Shimano only from now on.

Damn, we even have graphs with no scale or units.
Definitely a new standard on the way then!

I always thought length was continuous but it seems its split into discrete chunks like photons. Therefor moving to mm increases the number of possibly lengths.

fascinating

I assumed it was some kind of April Fools thing, but a day early – maybe it’s just lost on us Brits as we’re used to having to suffer both imperial and metric measurements, sometimes at the same time – but I still don’t get it?

My Shock is 200mm x 57mm or 7.875″ x 2.25″. Would making it 200mm x 60mm make it more metric?

I’d laugh and write it off as a joke if it didnt come from an industry that loves to make tint changes that supposedly change the world in exchange for making last years obsolete.

“200x60mm” would make the “problem” worse. Apparently. It’d likely be a 230mmx60mm shock.

Ah, so they want a longer shock relative to the stroke to cram more “stuff” in it, why didn’t they just say that rather than dropping a Red Herrin in the mix in terms of making it metric.

OK got it now.

Worst press release ever?

Ah, so they want a longer shock relative to the stroke to cram more “stuff” in it, why didn’t they just say that rather than dropping a Red Herrin in the mix in terms of making it metric.

Probably to obfuscate the issue due to the abuse they got over boost and the Eagle drivetrain. “We’re changing to metric, *cough* oh btw we’re introducing fairly pointless engineering/standards at the same time *cough*”.

seriously? people are questioning if its an April fools? lol

Well, it was released on the wrong date.

If it was a mistake and they released it a day early, then consider this the day that the bike industry put itself beyond the ability of satire to take the piss out of it.

No, its not an April fools. I have some metric shocks on my desk right now.

Good to clear that up Ben.

Could you just pop and tell the rest of the bike industry that the “metric” bit has confused everyone?

😉

Ah, the mountain bike industry and it’s obsession with standards…this has to be the most poorly worded press release ever.

If they’d simply said:

“after the runaway success of 15mm vs 20mm axles, tapered vs 1.5″ steerers, 135mm,142mm, *cough* 148mm rear hub spacing vs 150mm, 100mm,110mm x 20mm,100mm x 15mm, 110mm x 15mm front axles, the industrywide abandonment of hugely popular 26″ wheels the industrywide move to 27.5″ wheels which are less responsive than 26ers and not as fast as 29ers, we’ve got together to invent another standard that we think will separate you from your hard earned cash because you’re too daft to organise a boycott of our products until we stop it, which has in no way been conjured up by bored marketing types with not enough work to do instead of making engineering sense.“

Then we’d have understood 🙂

Good to clear that up Ben.

Could you just pop and tell the rest of the bike industry that the “metric” bit has confused everyone?

Yeah its a bit daft, but you know the people who come up with this stuff are yanks, so they still run 8″ shocks.

To be fair this is one “new standard” that actually isn’t gonna cause any problems that I can see.

this has to be the most poorly worded press release ever.

we’re making a longer shock because <insert bum fluff marketing bollocks drivel here>

imperial or metric are ways of measuring the same thing
If they still use 12.7mm eyelets then someone needs a punch for this.

To be fair this is one “new standard” that actually isn’t gonna cause any problems that I can see.

Errr, apart from making it harder to fit new shocks into old frames – or carry your nice 216mm coil shock over to your next bike that is fitted with a crappy sram shock that likes to leak oil/air.

It’s basically a dick move by Sram to get market dominance and companies like DVO are hopping on the bandwagon as despite their “high-end” marketing, they can’t compete with FOX, BOS or Ohlins on actual performance and build quality.

^ seriously? It’s an April fool.

Tom_W1987 – Member

Hows is a standard change going to improve this shock? We should be doing away with inline shocks as opposed to lengthening the bloody things so we can carry on using them.

or “Grr im an angry freerider and my piggyback makes me think im rad so everything else must be rubbish”.

Those of us who have not smashed our heads repeatedly off a 10ft huck will realise that extending the shock to include all the gubbins and oil currently in a piggy back will either be lighter or contain a larger volume of oil for the same weight. The larger mass of oil in the main body will reduce heat build up in the moving damper and removing the need to push oil along small ports into a remote chamber will increase the sensitivity of the shock.

chakaping – Member

To be fair this is one “new standard” that actually isn’t gonna cause any problems that I can see.

Yep, just like taper forks have no downsides over 1-1/8″ (unless you have an older bike and can now only get bottom of the range products to fit it)

Those of us who have not smashed our heads repeatedly of a 10ft huck will realise that extending the shock to include all the gubbins and oil currently in a piggy back will either be lighter or contain a larger volume of oil for the same weight. The larger mass of oil in the main body will reduce heat build up in the moving damper and removing the need to push oil along small ports into a remote chamber will increase the sensitivity of the shock.

So how much length is needed to give an inline the equivalent oil volume of a DHX2?

Are you sure reducing the surface area of the shock and keeping the oil close to the moving parts of the air spring will reduce heat build up? As opposed to cycling it away to a cooler part of the shock body.

Why would you want to increase the length of the shock making fitment harder and potentially decrease mass centralisation of the frame?

Why do all high end motocross – and motogp bikes for that matter, use external reservoirs?

Don’t worry TomW the chance of Fox, BOS and Ohlins not going to the new sizing is basically zero. You’ll be able to get your favourite odd sized Ohlins shock in a less odd size soon enough.

Well, actually I’m not quite so worried about coils as it would be fairly easy to get your shock modified to suit the new eye to eye lengths.

Don’t forget our Murican friends believe that the Metric system is a weird conspiracy created by the French to take over the world.

I was talking to a chap from NY last year who just couldn’t grasp how multiples of 1,10,100 made more sense than the simple Imperial system of 12 umphs make up 1 chumfs, but 16 chumfs make up 1 Queerbit and the 14 queer it’s makes up 1 dongle of length. But it 18 mimos of weight to each wadjit.

Whether this is an April Fool or not switching to metric measurements makes sense (if not for all the crap they mentioned).

Also does anyone else find all these Bike Industry April Fool things not funny? Maybe a few years agonwhen the first ones arrived but last year and this year just seems a bit too much “trying to be cool”

Tom KP

Yep, just like taper forks have no downsides over 1-1/8″ (unless you have an older bike and can now only get bottom of the range products to fit it)

Has this actually happened to you though, or is it just theoretical?

Genuine question as I can’t think of any frames with 1 1/8 headtube that I’d still want to ride now, geometry has moved on so much.

Maybe if you’d got an expensive custom frame built, but then are there so many secondhand 26in fork bargains out there anyway…

Errr, apart from making it harder to fit new shocks into old frames – or carry your nice 216mm coil shock over to your next bike that is fitted with a crappy sram shock that likes to leak oil/air.

It’s basically a dick move by Sram to get market dominance and companies like DVO are hopping on the bandwagon as despite their “high-end” marketing, they can’t compete with FOX, BOS or Ohlins on actual performance and build quality.

Tom, you are clearly quite angry and opinionated on this subject so I’m not sure you’ll be reading this with an open mind – but there’s really no need to worry.

The suspension companies want your money so will continue to supply very nice shocks in the size you need for at least as long as you keep your current bike.

Genuine question as I can’t think of any frames with 1 1/8 headtube that I’d still want to ride now, geometry has moved on so much.

I’m expecting to keep my 2010 Alpine 160 and it’s Marz RC3Tis going for a while longer yet…

This has come up on BikeRumor;

http://www.bikerumor.com/2016/04/01/ride-maintain-less-ruckus-composites-ict-suspension-conversion-system/

“Inanimate Carbon Tube”

it’s Marz RC3Tis

If only they made these in 650b and 29er format!

I think the old bikes have got it alright really.

The suspension companies want your money

I don’t think they do, they’ve already had my money, its all about generating new cutomers and new money.