[rosenamedpoop]

Wow, semantics showdown. Lay off the hateraid syadasti. It is not only unlikely that the v10 was designed with a 2.75 to save money, it's just totally unrealisic. When the v10 was introduced it was the only bike they made that used that shock. Also, while SC has become a very good seller among large boutique brands, when the v10 was first introduced they had much less buying power than now, nullifying the claim that the 2.75" was used to acheave a volume discount.

 

[Tootrikky]

Remember that Dirt interview with the Mojo guy. I recall him saying that most moto's run at the same leverage ratio as the V-10 (3.7:1 I think), which in his opinion was the optimum leverage ratio. Interesting as 3:1 seems to be what most of the respected manufactures are using. Anyways suspension bicycles are still young... I find it hilarious when some internet dork thinks anything is definite at this point, cause it most likely is not, this aint formula one, and a fair amount of guesswork is still involved in designing bikes at this point.

 

[syadasti]

SC wasn't that small in terms of sales the first few years(02/03) the v10 was around - the V10, Bullit, Superlight, and Blur were all very popular bikes back then in their respective categories - you saw them everywhere. Also that doesn't address the fact the first gen. v10 had issues with its crappy hardware setup (as did many other first gen SC VPP bikes) - you could buy better aftermarket hardware for the v10 but why should you have to do this on an expensive DH bike and they could have used better bearings in their other VPP bikes but I guess those marginally higher prices were too much to bear

In 2004, the VP Free was introduced with the same shock size and the year after that, in 2005, the redesigned V10 with the same shock size again. This wasn't the first time SC bike was sharing shock sizes between bikes - ie the Bullit and Super 8 for example.

I recall him saying that most moto's run at the same leverage ratio as the V-10 (3.7:1 I think), which in his opinion was the optimum leverage ratio.

I guess you've never compared a bicycle shock to MX or even Avalanche shock. They are much larger, heavier (ie not suited to bicycles where weight is a concern), and stronger and their damping capacity is far greater.

When bicycle suspension was in its infancy - ie when Super 8 were popular and people were blowing vanillas and/or swingarms left and right on the Super 8 - people bought MX style shocks (Avalanche) as bandaids to bad suspension design.

Avalanche's MX style shocks have larger shock body and pistons, double the oil volume, larger/stronger shaft, and a large remote res for much greater damping ability and durability vs. the Fox RC back then. The v10 was one of the early adopters of the better next generation of mtb shocks which started with the 5th element.

Guesswork is why a lot of early first generation full suspension bikes were a POS. Often you had bicycle designers instead of engineers designing bikes. Modern bikes are much more reliable than those from the early 90s. The only dork is someone who bases their ideas from an interview they read in a magazine. I've seen the sport evolve on the trails and on the bike since the late 80s and on the mtn. since the mid 90s.

Now that SC has put some work into improving their pivot design on various model they've offered lifetime bearing replacement - a response to the notorious rep of the poorly designed earlier generation bikes.

Sorry to be picking on SC (all brands have their issues), but after having and seeing so many problems with bikes over the years you get cynical. Its frustrating for users to pay a premium to be an early adopter but have the norm rather than exception of a beta quality product. Things change and today SC and most modern brands have a much better product - the progress is definitely there.

 

[Tootrikky]

First of all I am playing devils advocate no need to get personal. I would rather ride a bike w/ a 3" stroke shock as well, being 210 lbs.


I guess you've never compared a bicycle shock to MX or even Avalanche shock. They are much larger, heavier (ie not suited to bicycles where weight is a concern), and stronger and their damping capacity is far greater.

Weird so are Moto's, They are much larger, heavier, and stronger.


When bicycle suspension was in its infancy - ie when Super 8 were popular and people were blowing vanillas and/or swingarms left and right on the Super 8 - people bought MX style shocks (Avalanche) as bandaids to bad suspension design.

Yeah and possibly this squewed the trend towards lower leverage ratios to far.

Avalanche's MX style shocks have larger shock body and pistons, double the oil volume, larger/stronger shaft, and a large remote res for much greater damping ability and durability vs. the Fox RC back then. The v10 was one of the early adopters of the better next generation of mtb shocks which started with the 5th element.

Thanks for the history lesson, and yeah I think this is a good argument that Santa Cruz had a clue before they went to the current shorter stroke design.

Guesswork is why a lot of early first generation full suspension bikes were a POS. Often you had bicycle designers instead of engineers designing bikes. Modern bikes are much more reliable than those from the early 90s. The only dork is someone who bases their ideas from an interview they read in a magazine. I've seen the sport evolve on the trails and on the bike since the late 80s and on the mtn. since the mid 90s.

I was calling all of us dorks BTW, and yeah compared motorsports that rely heavily on damping performance and suspension design..... MTB's,,,,IMO.... still have quite a bit more guesswork going on design wise.

 

[Superdeft]

Respectfully, (almost) nobody here knows enough about suspension to be making any judgement on frame design, myself included. The challenge becomes far more complex as you look deeper into the details of a design, and a single number like the wheel travel/shock stroke says almost nothing about the bike.

What some people might be curious to know is that the higher spring-rate used to achieve sag stores and releases energy differently than a different spring rate, even though they achieving the same sag.

This difference effects the feel a great deal, and depending on the wheel frequency there is an optimum spring rate to minimize the need for a damper to do work. DH tends to have a specific wheel frequency associated with most terrain/speeds we see, so calculations can be done to find a good spring rate for the application.

With this sort of idea in mind, SC can choose a spring and damper combination that relies more heavily on the spring than damper. It ends up working so well that some people have a hard time getting used to the feeling of being stuck to the ground.

Taking what most frame designs have in terms of overall leverage ratio, assuming this must be somewhere near the optimum, and then concluding that a design detracting from that average must be flawed is a pretty silly way to form an opinion based on design. Just because the v10 uses a higher-rate spring doesn't mean it's 'bad,' just different, because it's just being compared to an average.

We might want to instead consider the qualitative feel of a frame, how easy it is to set up, or take a look at some footage of the bikes in action and looking at how much body english is being used by most riders between bikes. The v10 is a bike that doesn't require a great deal of body english to work effectively, whereas something like commençal's supreme DH might require more, but both are good bikes. I guess what I want to say is that if we want to compare bikes quantitatively, there needs to be a great deal more data and understanding to say anything meaningful, which is more involved that most of us are ready to discuss on the internet, so we settle for blanket statistics that actually say very little and then try to interpret in detail what they mean to our own disadvantage.

 

[syadasti]

How do you explain the Intense M3 or Socom with the same VPP design licensed from SC only with racier geometry and lower leverage ratios in either case?

The Socom is Intense's latest race bike - that shoots the idea that high leverage is more desirable with VPP DH bikes - they've had years to analyze the M3 performance and lowered the leverage ratio, weight, and travel and kept its geometry the same.

Actually now that I think about it...oh wait...there a rumor for one of the big reasons behind the Socom was the lower leverage ratio - Intense wanted the M3 to have an even longer shock/lower leverage ratio, but couldn’t fit it

The other interesting technical innovation on the Socom is the shock technology. It has a long shock stroke giving a smoother suspension ratio. The shock is mounted high up in the frame however, unlike the M3 which was tucked away low-down next to the BB. In theory, the shock should be as low as possible (for centre of gravity), but rumour has it that Intense wanted the M3 to have a longer shock, but couldn’t fit it in the monocoque frame, and hence the Socom was born?! With such a long spring slung high up in the frame, a titanium upgrade makes sense – although you’d also have to consider buying an ship anchor to stop this bike from flying away in a breeze!

Anyhow, a higher spring rate will influence the damper performance - the damper will have to work harder and you'll have a more limited range of adjustment. Shock life and performance will be lower.

 

[Superdeft]

....Anyhow, a higher spring rate will influence the damper performance - the damper will have to work harder and you'll have a more limited range of adjustment. Shock life and performance will be lower.

Actually you can't say so one way or the other, because we don't know the unsprung weight or wheel frequency assumed when the frame was designed. The point is that there is an optimal rate to minimize the need for a damper. Furthermore, assuming that shock life/performance would somehow be compromised merely because the damper body is shorter is a foolish generalization: we don't know how the v10 shocks are valved nor whether there are any significant differences between the internals across sizes; purely e-speculation. Valving could make a much shorter and scrappier shock, but we just don't know what the case is.

 

[syadasti]

You never addressed the important fact that the same VPP technology licensed by Intense for the same specific cycling application (DH Racing) pretty much negates the idea that started this sub-thread about a higher than average leverage ratio being a positive attribute due to the VPP design.

Are you honestly saying the shock life and performance won't be better on the Intense bikes which are available with the same brand damper models - the difference in the parameters you mention won't be that significant. I can see the valving and linkage geometry differing slightly because Intense thinks the bike should ride different based on their own program, but I still don't see how you could claim high leverage ratio is a positive attribute regardless of the fact we don't know the nitty gitty details.

 

[Mudpuppy]

You never addressed the important fact that the same VPP technology licensed by Intense for the same specific cycling application (DH Racing) pretty much negates the idea that started this sub-thread about a higher than average leverage ratio being a positive attribute due to the VPP design.

You do realize that different people designed the Intense and SC bikes? And those people came up with different designs... And if there was one right answer every bike would be exactly the same, just with a different paintjob...

 

[rosenamedpoop]

SC wasn't that small in terms of sales the first few years(02/03)


I guess you've never compared a bicycle shock to MX or even Avalanche shock. They are much larger, heavier (ie not suited to bicycles where weight is a concern), and stronger and their damping capacity is far greater.



Sorry to be picking on SC (all brands have their issues), but after having and seeing so many problems with bikes over the years you get cynical.

A. Yes SC was much smaller relatively in '02/'03

B.Originally Posted by sayndesyn
"There is a reason that shocks on race trucks are several feet long... I don't think it is possible to think of a legit advantage of higher leverage ratios." So...it's not ok to compare moto to bikes because they're too big, but race trucks are ok?

C. Yeah, all brands have their issues. SC has had a much lower percentage of repeat problems than most companies that come to my mind.

 

[bizutch]

I believe the RM9 was even higher than the RM6, and the RM9 was the finest downhill race frame ever constructed. ...

you have no idea the rage that just filled me before I read that you were kidding.
God, I thought I really sucked on that bike...until my buddy told me he could watch my rear wheel wiggle on off camber from the flex of the swingarm....

 

[xy9ine]

ahhh, the rm9. i thought it was so radical when it first came out. 9" travel was huge at the time. i rode one like this for a couple days, and at the time it seemed pretty cool; super plush (but really tall - i think the bb was hovering around 16"). i'm sure by todays standards it'd feel pretty freakish.

 

[noskcaj]

The shop I work at back home has a new metallic red RM9 frame for sale. The owner wants $1000 for it, i've told him many times its worth less than half of that. If I remember right, I think there is some play in the linkage which is "normal" for a new frame. I was thinking of machining new linkages for it to allow for a larger shock and less leverage, but its not really worth the time since the rest of the frame still sucks.

 

[vitox]

guys, from my not so hot memory banks, i would be inclined to think that the reasoning behind the shock size on the SC V10 is that when it was designed, around 2001, the 222mm (8,75/2,75") shock was the biggest size.
plus, you guys have to remember they were designed around the 5th element, and actually using the CV/T (SPV) chamber with a decent amount of pressure, this is important because now, with a DHX for a shock, you end up using heavy springs but that wasnt the case back then with the 5th, remember with the agressive platform they came with, that made you drop around 100lbs of spring weight, in fact i think stock was around 350 lbs/in.
of course, now rider education has caught up with marketing BS and short sighted speccing so people dont really want that "pedals like a hardtail" if it means a heavy platform any more.