They are a compromise.

The ramp up can be quite limiting on getting into the last travel, so compensating with lower pressures tends to mean there isn’t as much support around sag.

Currently I prefer to run with maximum volume, relatively high pressure (as low as 14% sag on a 170mm fork), fast rebound and a fair bit of LSC to get some energy out of the system.

Yes.  Same front and rear.

I also experimented with matching xt levers with the cura calipers. That gave the same clamping force as saints – proper face melting.

As standard they are definitely not as powerful as a top performing 4 pot dh brake. They’re probably less powerful than a perfectly working 2 piston shimano. I’ve just had too many occasions when shimano brakes stopped working perfectly so I’ve found curas to be a very good compromise.

The lever free movement is quite low. They bite quite a long way out from the bar hence the experiment with shimano levers.

I’ve got Curas. Had The Ones years ago. Don’t think they’re as powerful. They are very consistent which is what I was after coming from m8000 xts.

I’ve done Alps trips with shimano 2 pots and I’m out here now with the Curas. I tend towards top to bottom runs lasting ten minutes or more. I weigh 80kg and they’re on an enduro full suss bike with 203 rotors front and back. Back home in Scotland I was riding enduro events on 180 rotors just fine  out here they’ve needed a little bit more.

I think they’re a very good brake.

At just under two weeks in (for two bikes/two riders)…

– one rear wheel (tensions out of whack so spare wheel fitted)

– two chains (one worn out (experiment in ultrasonic cleaning probably responsible), one bent)

– one pair brake pads

– two new rotors (larger), one more on the way out

– fork lower leg service x2 (forks fully serviced before coming out, but the lowers service made a hell of a difference inside two weeks use)

– new purchased chainguide x1 (one bike had one already)

– one new direct mount chainring (to clear chainguide)

– one gear cable (snapped)

– one pair new flat pedal shoes (Five Tens sole detached / ripped again)

– one puncture (sniper rock at speed)

– tyre mounted on the spare (fitted) rear wheel is a worn out joke that’s kinda fun to drift around and amazingly still finds some grip but it is not much longer for this world

Brought loads of spares and full toolkit so haven’t felt caught out.  Have been able to help a few friends along the way as well.

I’d be gutted to lose a day or more waiting for the bike to be fixed in a way that would have been easily preventable.  Preventable but obvious is mostly wheels, brakes, suspension, cables.

Worn drivetrains do tend to drop the chain more often (I don’t believe in narrow/wide as being sufficient prevention and definitely prefer to run a chainguide).  Have had a chain off moment trash a wheel, derailleur and hanger (and chain), but as luck would have it that was the last run of the trip two years ago.

Just releasing the pressure in the air can is sufficient to remove the air can but the main air can seal is still trapped on the main damper body so you can’t get any suspension greaseon it without going deeper into servicing the shock.

If you are intending to add/remove volume reducing bands… top tip is to:

1. fully loosen the main air can seal

2. loosen then rethread the pin spannered ring at the shock eye

3. reattach a shock pump

After a few pumps the inner sleeve will pop.  This safely removes the inner sleeve and doesn’t mangle the locator ring.

Second top tip is: “don’t use volume spacers”.  I’ve had infinitely more luck with the shock at full volume (216 x 63.5).

 was a sharp as any other bike at the time. Helped by the 51mm fork offset.

And then you get wind of the next trend being to diss the big offsets; small offsets and big trail have apparently become a thing (Chris Porter) but potentially because the target for these hoopy froods is Enduro dominance rather than “sharp” responses.

Maybe we should generally acknowledge that this “industry” is in the fashion business.

The diaphragm is an elastic element that will tend to weakly encourage the pistons to retract.  However, my expectation is that piston stickiness is at the heart of problems like this so I agree with all the above.

I’ve started experimenting with ultrasonic cleaning assembled brake calipers as the “lubricate with fluid” tends to attract further crud into the small clearances.  You have to be sensitive to the fluid medium for the cleaning being compatible with seals and (in the case of DOT) the hydrophilic nature of the fluid means water based cleaning is probably a bad plan.  I’m primarily playing around with problem Shimano calipers so non-DOT and they’re backup brakes (having finally replaced them with Formula Curas) so it is a no lose scenario to see if I can bring them back to life.

Decathlon Geonaute.  Works great.

https://www.decathlon.co.uk/ant-bluetooth-smart-hrm-id_8334795.html

I’ve had recent experience swapping between the Renthal Fatbar Carbon (not Lite) and the Burgtec 31.8 RW Carbon DH 800mm.

The Burgtec is one shape and that’s that.  The Fatbar comes in a variety of rises.  While the Burgtec claims 20mm rise, it seems to come up taller at the grips after the combination of rise and sweep has been taken into account.  Compared to the 40mm rise Fatbar shape it is only a smidgen lower; probably matches the 30mm rise Renthal.

The Fatbar shape is 7 degrees backsweep.  The Burgtec is 9 degrees.  It might be I was rolling the Burgtec a bit forward to get my most comfortable position.

Appreciating that these aren’t the exact bars you’re looking at, I’d be happy with either but have settled on the Burgtec mostly for the graphics.

Little bit of the flavour that lots of people have been covering in my list of things (not complete) that can make a bike a drag on a drag:

1. Seat angle too slack (not a known 5 problem)
2. Too short reach
3. Too slow rebound damping
4. Lockout (yep, it can make things worse if things are bumpy)
5. Sag-dependent antisquat (not usually a big 5 trait)
6. Wrong sized chainring
7. Too “hammocky” spring curve
8. Other fit issues (more on that later)
9. Overly square profile tyre (super wide rim for the tyre size)
10. Worn drivetrain

Ok so that covers pretty much everything but let’s break it down.

If your seat angle is slack, you have to spend muscle energy stabilising yourself on the bike (tense arms, torso).  When the bike is pointing upwards the seated position rotates backwards, so maybe setup a little bit forward of where you’d want to be for pedalling on the flat and it might be good.  A layback post on a bike like this is usually an error (body shape depending).  With the position rotating back, more weight shifts onto the back as well so you get more sag too.  You can really perk up a bad climber by shifting your seated position forward… as long as you don’t have ….

… a reach that is too short (because received wisdom told you to get a short stem without taking into account the whole fit of the bike).  You’ll spend muscle energy stabilising yourself on the bike.  Bent arms.  Hunched over.  It won’t take long to lose the will.

3,4,5,6,7 and 8 are all variants of the same thing and are the heart of the matter of the dynamics of the bike.  You wouldn’t be posting this if there wasn’t a problem so the problem is real.  I won’t tell you otherwise.  There is no magic perfect antisquat figure that the bike does or doesn’t have but there are multiple things that come together to create the entire picture of what is going on dynamically.  The simple single pivot responds to whatever springing and damping you support it with.  The linkage responds to chainring size (chain tension).  The linkage responds to how tall you are (how far your CoG is above the ground plane).  This is evidently a minefield for bad advice based on inadequate information.

Let’s just focus on one aspect: where does the energy go and what has that got to do with number 3 on my list.

When you pedal, lost energy can occur in two mechanisms: a) a bobbing shock can transfer heat into the damping ; b) stored energy can be delivered back into the system in a way that is biomechanically taxing.

Cause (b) is much more common.  This is same for any squidginess.  What is going on is that the resistance to effort is out of phase with the effort you are trying to supply.  When any springiness is wound up in the frame or shock during the power stroke, it unwinds when you’re in the dead spot.  Piling on the damping actually makes the time delay worse (phase shift).  The net result is that when you are biomechanically weakest (dead spot) the stored energy takes advantage by decelerating your rotating pedals, decelerating your spinning feet and spiking resistance in your overwhelmed muscles.  The linkage of importance is not your single pivot bike but the conrods of your femur and tibia.  When you have very little mechanical advantage over making the pedals do what you want them to do, then spikes and loads will end up as very fatiguing eccentric strains in your muscles.  The double whammy is that your momentum saps away and when you finally get to apply the next pedal stroke the first part of it gets squidged away again to come back to bite you come the next dead spot.

My cryptic (8) of other fit issues is to do with height of CoG.  If you’re tall, the by-the-book antisquat may not be enough and a smaller chainring may compensate; maybe.  This is also aggravated by too short reach and maybe a high stack.  If you’re shorter, the antisquat may be plentiful and too much compression damping may keep you out of phase in the opposite sense.

Lastly, (9) and (10) will take their toll and are just plain mechanical truths.  If your tyre is a beast with a DH casing, soft tread and a square profile, it will drag.  Worn bits never feel as perky as new.

So my place to start is to make sure you’re comfortable on the bike and can tolerate a reasonably forward position on the bike without being cramped.  Make sure your shock has had a decent air can service and a decent overhaul if it hasn’t had one since ever.  Make sure your rebound damping is fast and keeping you up in the travel.  Don’t rely overly on volume spacers in the shock; these can tend towards the untameable unless you drop the sag.  It is easy to make a bike feel dead (lots of LSC) so keep it relatively lively and stay away from the ‘pedalling platforms” until you have a good base setting.  Keep the platforms as an option if you need to go further and realise that they may not always do what they say on the tin.

FWIW, I ride a 165mm travel bike (single pivot) with Vivid Air shock and I get up things.

Is your name femke van den driessche?

The length increase is all in the outer tube. If the seat tube will cope with another 10mm insertion, the saddle height will be the same

I’ve taken 20mm off a carbon frame seat tube and transferred the slot from front facing to rear facing.

The old Specialized Phenom was the lowest saddle. Can’t get them now but they are stunningly expensive on ebay :wink:

The Reverb is the problem. The seal head stack is massive. I got a 160mm Bikeyoke Revive to replace a Reverb 150mm. It sits 18mm deeper into the seat tube so chopping the frame was something I did not have to do.

I’ve had an rc3 monarch plus debonair do the knocking thing. It does it on the lightest compression setting but not on mid or high.

One of these days I’ll put that rebuild kit to use and see what’s going on. Probably end up the same or worse.

Pretty much spot on, both comments. I’ve always obsessed over setup (which doesn’t mean I haven’t made mistakes) but I was pretty happy with my starting point on the most sorted bike. The tweak to add a token was to lower the front, to get an overall balance.

Because this was a secondhand bike I’d not been inside the fork and seen it was already on 2 tokens. Factory spec is 1. I’m now on 3. On the day, with Shockwiz, I started on 2 tokens, tested at 1 token then committed to 3.

The Shockwiz suggestions from noodling around Surrey Hills singletrack on my 165mm travel enduro weapon were a bit muddled, with it looking most aligned with “Efficient” tuning style but wanting more air and slower rebound. I ignored all these suggestions and hunted out the steepest gnar available (Thick and Creamy) and then the suggestions jumped in line for “balanced”.

IME, tuning style, bike style, terrain and riding style all need to match in order for Shockwiz to get its suggestions correct.

Real purpose of the purchase is to help the GF cross check what her bikes are doing. In order to engage with that conversation I need to understand how the tool can guide or misdirect. It is pretty much what I expected. If you don’t give the tool the whole picture, the suggestions won’t necessarily make sense.

When talking about Strava and Garmin I thought you’d have been mentioning the Garmin bonus seconds.

Got my Shockwiz today. 1x normal. 1x direct mount

First question: what is the plural of Shockwiz? Maybe a collective noun. A brace?

The combo of one normal and one direct wasn’t thought through.

Haven’t opened the direct one yet as I now hear it is intended for upside-down forks (info not available when I ordered) but I can see it having some value as a problem solver for (amongst other applications) the Mondraker Foxy rear which is a difficult and overcrowded location.

The box on the direct says it has hoses too, but I’ve not investigated yet. To open or not to open? Direct + impact = broken, so not sure whether to just send it back and join the queue for a second normal. It would really help to know if it had hoses.

Just going through the calibration exercise in a couple of scenarios. First impressions are that the app (Android) is high quality and connectivity is swift and robust and ready for serving multiple Shockwiz (that plural again). There are well thought out touches in the app; you can rename the Shockwiz (pl) and mark them with say a dab of paint to colour code – useful when swapping between bikes; you can also flash the LEDs on an individual Shockwiz using the app to identify it.

I’m going to get on with calibrating and test fitting to see how many scenarios I can cover with the normal. Also liking that you can analyse collected data against each target “tuning style” in turn, so you can happily start out aiming for, say, “Playful” and crosscheck rider feedback with the other tunes.

Your tyre shortlist found cheap Schwalbe options from CRC. Consider other manufacturers apart from Schwalbe and the choices open up and price points can be much more palatable for top-notch rubber.

My own choices are Specialized Butcher Grid (front) Purgatory Grid (R) at list price of £35. I ride these as aggressively as I know how and they hold up which means they might be more tyre than you describe needing, but a ruined trip to BPW with Litewall tyres might not be a good value excursion IYSWIM.

The problems go as far as…
not for the squeamish

26″ forks

I’m not sure I’d be able to utilise that much travel.

Does the recall change advice on maximum pressure and/or permitted volume adjustment? This might change applicability, particularly for heavier riders on high leverage ratio designs.

You might want to think about how your post condones injuring “motox idiots”. Or rather does not explicitly condemn it. How easily the one is conflated for the other is at the heart of the angst we have about mass sentiment settling on an us and them narrative that justifies anti-them vigilantism

I’m fond of 32x light butted spokes for my builds. The extra stretch to reach their tension means that when the wheel is coping with a load, the rim has more of a chance to spread the load across multiple spokes. Seeing as the tendency these days is for under-specified rims (Arch is 425g in 27.5) I think it is a combination that makes sense.

If you have the flimsiest of rims on widely spaced, stiff spokes…

… the stiff spoke requires the least rim deflection until the spoke is unloaded (AKA wheel integrity compromised)
… the local rim deflection at the loaded spoke doesn’t translate into much deflection at the neighbouring spokes (the load is not shared) because…

….1. the rim stiffness is feeble and the rim just deflects locally
….2. the spokes are widely spaced, so the flimsiness of the rim is exacerbated

You can mitigate in three ways (with an over-simplistic scoring method):

A. stiffer rim (weight score: +1, integrity score +1, stiffness score +1)
B. more elastic spokes (weight score: -1, integrity score +1, stiffness score -1)
C. more spokes (weight score: +1, integrity score +1, stiffness score +1)

Basically at this stage you can optimise with consideration of your load case/use case, realising that every choice is a compromise. I seem to be able to get good all round use out of 460g 27.5 rims with 32x 2.0/1.5/2.0 types spokes so that looks like a combo of choices 2 and 3 above (weight +0, integrity +2, stiffness +0).

As per STW roolz, remember this is a dumbed down justification of my own choices and my starting point is neither of your choices. If we change the starting point to Arch, DT Competition, 32x ….

Going to DT Revs and 28x is B. – C. = weight score -2, integrity score +0, stiffness score -2

lupine USB one

Instant ban, eh!

I propose an instant ban for those stifling debate on a forum in order to establish orthodoxy.

Extra homework for those that do so with a prissy flounce.

“braided gives better feel” always makes me laugh. It is knitwear. Keep it for the golf buggy.

Some of the comments on the Pike ring true to all but my most recent experience.

Harshness over braking bumps. Great until high speed. I recognise these… And then I managed to tune them out. I now have a much greater respect for the Pike and what it can do; that’s a 65kmh over other people’s brake bumps level of respect. A little bit counter intuitive to find the sweet spot, maybe. Might explain some of the marmite responses you always get on this topic.

For the OP, I’d avoid the CCDB-IL on principle for just one reason. With the bulky forging I’ve assumed it isn’t possible to do an effective air can service without special tools. Happy to be disabused if this isn’t the case.

It is a non mtb and unscientific data point (probably unrelated to the current debate) but on my commute the e-bikers seem disproportionately represented by complete knobbers.

What see is riding characterised by close passing manoeuvres, aggressive barging in the ASB and swapping from filtering outside a line of traffic to inside without observation. Basically the behaviour matches the worst that is seen of motor traffic encroaching on cycling safety and a “you can’t touch me because I’m on a bike just like you” arrogance.

Maybe my attention is just drawn to the objectionable individuals and I have concluded that objectionable individuals are drawn to e-bikes. Derestriction? “none of your business, grandpa!”

My stereotypical derestricted e-bike commuter is wearing their normal business attire in the safe knowledge that they’re not going to sweat. They won’t be there on a rainy day as that would mean protecting yourself from road spray.

The final summing up is a narcissistic fair weather dilettante brandishing a corrosive self-entitlement. The concept of personal compromise has been rejected.

Now if I encounter an e-mountain bike exhibiting similar tendencies… Not saying. Just thinking out loud.

The watts advertised as being saved by aero doodads are calculated based on being a race fit rider going fast – usually IIRC 40kmh.

The aero calculation for power is proportional to speed^3, so at lower speeds the saving disappears into the negligible. The entry qualification for an aero benefit being any benefit is to be a good rider going fast; the implication is an arms race versus your competitive peers who are doing the same within the limits of the applicable rules of the competition.

Those who ride aero bikes at moderate pace are not receiving a significant benefit. They might possess a lovely technical object but in their use case the benefit is never meaningfully apparent.

The proposition of e-bikes is not equivalent to aero.

Mountain biking is something that appeals to individuals for individual reasons. A large part of my personal motivation is that it isn’t easy; the physical challenge is part of what makes me feel rewarded on a good day and makes me determined to keep my fitness at a generally good level. It is why uplift days are occasional for me (and enjoyed) and trail riding is my normal. I also tend to ride the downhills differently if I’m warmed up from the climb up – usually I am a bunch less anxious even if I am a bit more fatigued.

His’n’hers ebikes

I’ve had shops sell me new generic outers to use with Shimano inners and had dreadful cable drag. Now I don’t mix.

I have no proof of the specifics, but i suspect the spring rate curve of the DPA differs compared to the solo air in ways that you can’t tune out with spacers.

The DPA balances the positive and negative at topout. The solo balances them when the main piston seal traverses the transfer port which is a little way into the travel. This implies the DPA will have preload that the solo air won’t have. Numbers run by someone else suggest about 5kg.

Depending on how you optimise the rest of your setup this could be a good or a bad thing. I just don’t think it is appropriate to expect 100% parity between two fundamentally different designs.

Caveats.

The interwebs will provide world views:
1.stick a coil in there; everything is better with a coil; linear innit?!
2.add bottomless tokens to get plush up top and support; progressive innit?!

FWIW,I have a DPA Pike (came with the bike) and I’ve (recently) learned how to get it to my liking: less sag; fast rebound; lots of lsc. This tamed the braking bumps in Morzine sufficiently and I was enjoying my high speed riding more than ever.

YMMV

Round my way the done thing is a Nomad with Enves in this year’s colours and a VW transporter to put it in.

I’m more bangernomics and self deception for bike purchases. Biggest new bike ticket price was my alu SB66 in 2011 (still got it). £5k and just a couple of months later I was justifying a Bos Deville upgrade.

All that kit has passed the test of time and delivered excellent value.

This beginner advises against the rs81 c50.

The braking track gives very inconsistent braking on my set that pulses strongly. Tried tuning it out with pad toe in but it doesn’t work. In any critical braking situation this is something of a liability.

Balance board

Sleep with pillow between knees

RC damper is an entirely capable Charger damper with exactly the same rebound circuits and exactly the same adjustable LSC. The compression circuit on an RC doesn’t have extra RCT3 fandangos for preset (marmite) pedal and lockout settings. Nothing to do with DPA though.

Aftermarket, everything is likely to be RCT3 so the spring layout is the only difference.

The performance compromises of DPA vs Solo springs aren’t explained well anywhere. Bottomless tokens for DPA are now available (backwards compatible to all DPA Pikes, btw) but whether you’d want to use any is moot.

Complexity vs reliability: I am immensely grateful for the timing of this thread because it has just jogged my memory that the behaviour I am currently seeing on my DPA Pike is a repeat of a glitch it had back in May. Something gets screwed up in the air spring and the fork is unable to use the last 25mm of travel in the full extension mode.

On practice day for an Enduro, I’d been using the lowered position for extended climbs (I never usually touch the feature) and the fork started not using its travel. I fixed it overnight by pulling the top cap and DPA shaft. I didn’t get to find out exactly what had glitched in it, but that experience was enough for me to not use the lowered position ever since. In the last few days out in the Alps I have lost the use of the same 25mm of travel. Hadn’t even connected the two occurrences until replying here. This time I haven’t intentionally been using the lowered position at all. The fork performance is still very good and it now turns out I’ve been hacking down DH runs on a 135mm travel fork.

My experience may be a one-off and not necessarily representative.
Solo air = simple = good
RC damper = simple = good, certainly no compromise in basic performance vs RCT3
RCT3 pedal platform? Not needed by me
Linearity of air spring DPA vs Solo? no information available
Usefulness of dual position? Not needed by me.

Following the best advice on this thread, I’ve been avoiding the worst of the bumps. Wrists are back to stable function and don’t feel beaten up at all after 3.5 hours on the bike.

Maybe, just maybe my settings on the fork are helping. I was able to hit some high speed sections into some braking bumps with everything feeling confident and comfortable. Nothing extended, but encouraging all the same.

No call made to TF yet. Might be I don’t need a FAST Lyrik after all. Shame.

Hi Tom,

I’d been thinking about going direct to tf. Not thought of the two air spring assemblies. That is very tempting.

I had a bit of an overnight think about the steep braking bumps conundrum and how my latest changes in setup might have made it worse.

I’d raised my bar height for Friday’s riding. Dropped it back by 5mm today and then the front was too low. Put back in the pressure I’d taken out and I was riding straight and level again but the fork was going to have a bit more in reserve.

Then had a rethink on the damping. Figured the main aim was to keep things from packing so took the rebound to the faster end of where I’ve been testing and then a click or so more. Wanted to prevent the new, looser rebound circuit from having to cope all the time with all my bump energy, so cranked the compression further closed than I’ve ever tried before. On the RC damper I ended up on 8 clicks out of 0-10.

I’ve been bashing out a load of test runs, tipping the rebound back and forth on a 4 click span and…

… On slow rebound I’m able to get tingling wrists from a single short run

… On fast rebound I’m aware of the mayhem but it isn’t beating me up in the same way

The compression damping setting really seems to be the key to it.

Sag looks to be 22%. Rider weight probably 95kg loaded up. This may be as good as the Pike gets for me. I’ve not thrown it up against Pleney yet but it feels like a much more realistic reflection of the performance I’d expect from the Pike.

If I still find myself looking to buy my way out of trouble a 180mm lyrik is definitely high up the list.