Looking at getting some dual position lyriks or pikes – I’ve got a bit of an idea in my head about switching out a 200×57 shock to a 200×50 for a lighter, firmer rear suspension setup for those long days out when the bike doesn’t have to be ‘full enduro!’ (Never go full enduro!!!)

That aside… to make it work without screwing up the geometry, the forks would also have to be suitably lowered, so I was considering something like a dual position Lyrik and running it between the 160 and 130 position (trail / day depending).

My question is – is it safe to run a fork in it’s lower-travel position or can it cause issues? I’m not entirely sure how the new travel adjust system works on the new rockshox stuff… pixies I assume?

I ran my slants 95% of the time in 130mm position with out any problems. When I asked Freeborn they even said it be fine.

,

. m v

I run a DP 130/150 pike in 130 setting 95% of the time and its been fine. It does need ‘burping’ each ride but apart from that it feels as good in either setting.

Well I can type in OK now.

Never had any problems, what do you think will go wrong?

Not entirely sure! I wasn’t sure how the systems work and if there was more risk of bottoming out?

They tend to be well designed, not like sticking a cork in or whatever

Correct me if I’m wrong but putting a 200×50 in place of a 200×57 would just give you shorter travel. Static geometry would stay the same and loaded geometry would actually be steeper. So you would need a fork with the original a2c to not mess the angles up too much.

???

Correct me if I’m wrong but putting a 200×50 in place of a 200×57 would just give you shorter travel. Static geometry would stay the same and loaded geometry would actually be steeper. So you would need a fork with the original a2c to not mess the angles up too much.

From reading around, the unsagged bike is the same, but once sagged the rear end sits lower when running the same sag.
If my somewhat suspect maths is correct, running the 200×50 shock in place of the 200×57, with the fork set at 130 rather than 160 would mean the head angle steepening of about a degree with a lower bottom bracket and shorter wheelbase – hopefully a bit better suited than an out and out ‘enduro’ machine at trail centres etc

The only affect of running a shorter stroke shock is that it’d bottom out sooner. You may alleviate this by running higher pressure, in which case the bb would be higher and the angles (marginally) steeper than currently, when sagged. No point buying a new rear shock if you want this, just pump your current one up more

5lab has it. @mbqwerty I suspect your suspect maths is indeed somewhat suspect. What you need is a custom shock with say 195 x 45. That way the end of stroke would be the same but starting lower. Would give 10% fewer travels but you are going 19% ish lower at the front anyhoo.

I posted on here a year or so ago about using dual position Pikes mainly in their lower position and the consensus seemed to be that you lose some of the performance advantages the fork offers; i.e. the lower setting is really designed for climbing. I didn’t end up trying it.

The only affect of running a shorter stroke shock is that it’d bottom out sooner.

I may be missing something here – I’m full of cold so my brain may not be firing on all cylinders.

Isn’t it bottoming out sooner reducing travel though? Obviously the shorter-stroke shock would be running enough air pressure that it wouldn’t bottom out. Essentially when it’s almost fully compressed, it’d be at 125mm travel.

Whereas running a different eye-to-eye length shock would reduce the travel from the initial resting position resulting in the bike sitting slacker in the HA….

You’d need to run a shorter shock with shorter travel – i.e. a 193×50 in place of a 200×50 to get a lower bike (and match the front end).

I don’t know how this would work with BB height etc.

It might be that for what you describe, a steeper angled bike with a less upright riding position would be more suitable though. (except of course you could just run more pressure on the rear shock rather than swapping it out and get a similar effect)

by running same eye to eye but less stroke you lose travel at the end of the stroke only.

the rear wheel vertical position will be the same with both shocks when unsagged. if running 30% sag the position will vary between the 2 shocks a bit.

head angle will be marginally steeper with the shorter stroke shock but only when sagged at 30% (as 30% of 50 is less than 30% of 57)

you could run the same forks but add a bit compression if you are not doing tech.