(image shamelessly stolen from a brant twitter)

That really is very fugly, though fitting a frame around a three-mile long shock is always going to be a bit tricky.

Why is that frame needed? For Josh Bender? 😆

it's probably only got 6 to 8 inches travel hora – the shock is a a 2:1 Carnutt thingy.

'the bells, the bells!'

it's probably only got 6 to 8 inches travel hora – the shock is a a 2:1 Carnutt thingy.

It's got a little Fox sticker on the piggy back…

It'll still have a 2:1 stroke though, won't it?

Quite a startling looking bike.

At least if you were riding it you'd probably have a full-face helmet on so nobody would know it was you.

I would love to try a Foes, they have thrown a LOT of money at that in design and R&D.

Is it a development bike or production?

chapking, it certainly looks like Fox 2:1 shock on it, maybe Fox are in on the devolpment of this instead of Carnutt…

Very true, I didn't think about the length of the shock just focused on the name. If Fox are working on a 2:1 capable shock could that mean more bikes with such a leverage ratio in the near future?

If Fox are working on a 2:1 capable shock could that mean more bikes with such a leverage ratio in the near future?

And that would be a good thing why?

And that would be a good thing why?

I've not ridden one, so I'm not 100% sure it is a good thing. But my understanding is that a lower leverage ratio produces a smoother suspension action.

Because everyone tells us that low leverage ratios are better?

lower leverage ratio = higher oil volumes + lower internal pressures = better and more consistent performance.

The Santa Cruz website has some interesting articles on this subject stating that they cannot remotely tell the difference between a 2.75" stoke versus a 3.5" stroke for 10" of travel but that it did seem to make a difference going from 57mm to 63mm on the Blur (sorry to mix the units)

Because everyone tells us that low leverage ratios are better?

How does that work for light riders?

How does that work for light riders?

I was just repeating whats been beaten into me by magazines/internet articles 😉

Brant, if the correct spring rate is chosen, why would the weight of the rider have any bearing on the leverage ratio?

Edit: If 2:1 became more the norm would lighter spring weights become more common?

i like the looks of it,, who needs straight lines when a nice curve does the job

Edit: If 2:1 became more the norm would lighter spring weights become more common?

Mildred is getting warmer.

From my own fannying around with my Nicolai in the various travel settings using a variety of shocks i found that the lower the leverage ratio, the lower the spring weight or psi needed. Using a too long Dhx air shock on the lowest travel setting I achieved a 2:1 (thereabouts) ratio.

This had an interesting effect – the compression damping was incredibly slow. I wondered if this is because the Dhx air is designed to be used at higher leverage ratios? I rang Mojo to ask, but they said not, and that a standard Dhx air should work ok with 2:1. From comments above, this may be in dispute:

If Fox are working on a 2:1 capable shock could that mean more bikes with such a leverage ratio in the near future?

My own guess is that it isn't that good at flowing oil through the damping circuit, so brant, you're more than dabbling with full suspension and Linkage at the moment, can you shed any light?