# Rockshox Monarch RT3 Shim Stack



## ruirocha (Jan 20, 2010)

Hi, i would like to tune my monarch RT3 shock, it´s a MM3 tune and i want a lighter tune.
Anyone knows what are the shims that control the Floodgate?
This shock even in the open floodgate position has a lot of compression.

Here is an example of the compression and rebound shims


----------



## rlouder (Jun 26, 2007)

...


----------



## ruirocha (Jan 20, 2010)

I think think they are all the same, only the shims thickness and their size change. 
I already removed two shims, I have a chart with all the shims size for the different tunes and the difference between medium tune and low are the two shims removed. 
The next steep will be the floodgate, increase the difference between the open position and the max position.


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

You have the high speed shim stack which sits directly against the main piston body. Then, you have the low speed shim stack which sits above it and is built on the manifold with the 3 lobe cut outs in it. 

The damper fluid makes its way to the low speed stack by traveling through the center of the damper rod and then into the 3-lobe manifold. In the center of the damper rod is the poppet valve and spring shown in the top of your photo. When you turn the flood gate on, a cam compresses the spring which closes the poppet valve. When the pressure on the valve becomes greater than the spring pressure, the poppet valve opens and allows fluid flow into the low speed shim stack. 

So, if you'd like to increase the difference between the on/off settings, you'll need to source a stiffer spring in a length that still leaves the poppet valve open when turned off. Also, you need to be aware of the interaction with the high speed shim stack. There will be a point at which the high speed shim stack will start to bypass oil as well. Since you have a medium tune you hopefully won't reach that point, but it is possible that increasing the spring force won't give you much difference in platform.

Also, any chance you could post that shim stack diagram? I'd certainly like to take a look at it.


----------



## ruirocha (Jan 20, 2010)

Thanks car_nut for the info  So the low speed shims are the bigger ones and the high speed the smaller, correct? I removed the last two bigger shims.

You can see the chart for the different tunes here Big Mountain Cycles - Rock Shox - Monarch RT3/RC3 Hauptkolben mit Shimstack Rock Shox - Monarch RT3/RC3 Plus Hauptkolben mit Shimstack 100010369


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

I'm not sure I'd say everything of one size is high/low. Mine is a low tune which may be different than yours, but it has a stack of progressively smaller diameter washers for each(which is typical in shim stacks).

In your picture, the damper piston body is the large round object at the top of the "rebound" column. Washers stacked directly against this are the high speed stack. On the "compression" column, the sixth piece up from the bottom is the low speed manifold. One side of this manifold is installed facing the high speed stack. The other side has the three lobed recess. The washers stacked against the three lobed recess are the low speed stack.

I would be careful about just removing washers. There are ports in the damper shaft which line up with the low speed manifolds. I believe the shim stacks need to be maintained at roughly the same stack height to line up correctly. The adjustments are made by varying the diameters of the washers or the order in which they are stacked, not by removing them. The smallest diameter washers at the end of the stack don't affect the damping. They're just there as spacers.

As I mentioned though, the shim stacks aren't what control the platform damping. The exception to this being that the high speed stack damping limits the total amount of platform you can develop after modifying the poppet spring.


----------



## ruirocha (Jan 20, 2010)

The difference between low and medium tune are the last five shims, low tune only has 3 and mine as shown has 5. I noticed on the chart that the thickness on the low tune are a little bit different about 0,1mm between the first 3 shim from low to medium tune. 
Do you think that is a problem?


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

Sorry, I just reread your posts and realized I was misinterpreting what you were trying to do. Everything I wrote above was about tweaking the flood gate control. For adjusting the overall tune of the shock, you are correct about removing the shims in the high speed stack.

The thickness of the shims definitely matter. If you now have 3 of the 0.1mm shims you will definitely have a lower tune than the 2x 0.15mm/1x 0.10mm. I'd suggest you try leaving the .20mm in place with either 2 or 3 of the 0.10mm shims.

Also, what exactly is it that you're trying to improve? Are you not getting full travel on big hits?


----------



## ruirocha (Jan 20, 2010)

I'm trying to improve the low speed compression or the overall compression. 
My shock even in the open position has a lot of compression, my main goal is to improve sensitivity to improve small bump. My frame has a 2.4 progressive leverage ratio and for my weight, about 70kg, the shock tune is not correct. It is a MM3 tune and I want a low tune. 
BTW im not changing anything in the rebound stack.


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

Well, give it a try, but it may not give you the results you're looking for. Low speed compression also has a lot to do with small bump compliance as well as the rebound speed if you want to prevent the shock from packing. Being that you're on the lighter end of what the frame is likely designed for, you might also want to consider going for a lower weight damping oil. That's the easiest way to reduce the damping overall. 

Also, consider charging the IFP to ~25psi less than what SRAM spec's. That tends to take the edge off of sharp hits without affecting travel on big hits.


----------



## ruirocha (Jan 20, 2010)

I´ll try that too


----------



## ruirocha (Jan 20, 2010)

Changed damper oil to motorex suspension 2,5w and removed 2 shims. Compression feels better but there is one problem, the rebound. This shock has a medium rebound tune and even with the dialer all way to the fastest still thinking it is a little bit slow.

Gurus out there, what should i do with shim stack to give me a fast rebound???

Is it normal that the monarch rt3 make noise, like sucking the oil? It is well bleeded and this noise is from the first day i had it.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

ruirocha said:


> Changed damper oil to motorex suspension 2,5w and removed 2 shims.


Which 2 shims did you remove? I'm currently in the planning stages of revalving my RT3. Also, can you measure the inner diameter of the shims? They appear to be 6mm, but I'd like to confirm before I order shims.


----------



## ruirocha (Jan 20, 2010)

These are my RT3 shims, with the 2 removed shims on the red arrow.


----------



## ruirocha (Jan 20, 2010)

The shims are 6mm ID. Please share what are you going to do with the shock


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

Out of curiosity, does your rebound dial give you an obvious difference in rebound speed? The reason I originally opened mine up is because the rebound control needle was machined too long and jammed shut.

It looks like there's a 14mm x .2mm washer at the number 2 position in the rebound stack. You could swap this with the 10mm x .2mm spacer at the bottom of the compression stack. You'll have to make sure the 14mm won't interfere with anything in that position, though I can't think of anything that should be in the way.

Another option is to put one or two of the shims back into the compression stack and go for a lighter oil weight. The Motorex 2.5 is listed as ~15 cst, as compared to the Golden Spectro Golden (Ultralight) which is listed at 10.4 (see here: Suspension Fluid - Pvdwiki)


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

My plan is to start by adding a little lsc. I don't really see any good options for this by shuffling shims, so I'm going to order some shims shortly. After that, I might play with the hsr. This is on a Spearfish with a low tune, which is working pretty damn good in stock trim.


----------



## ruirocha (Jan 20, 2010)

car_nut said:


> Out of curiosity, does your rebound dial give you an obvious difference in rebound speed? The reason I originally opened mine up is because the rebound control needle was machined too long and jammed shut.
> 
> It looks like there's a 14mm x .2mm washer at the number 2 position in the rebound stack. You could swap this with the 10mm x .2mm spacer at the bottom of the compression stack. You'll have to make sure the 14mm won't interfere with anything in that position, though I can't think of anything that should be in the way.
> 
> Another option is to put one or two of the shims back into the compression stack and go for a lighter oil weight. The Motorex 2.5 is listed as ~15 cst, as compared to the Golden Spectro Golden (Ultralight) which is listed at 10.4 (see here: Suspension Fluid - Pvdwiki)


The rebound has a lot of difference between full open and full close. From slow in my case to extremely slow. I don't feel any difference on the floodgate dial.

I'll try to change that washer and see what happens.

Is it normal this shock being soo noisy?


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

Hard to say about the noise. Mine was silent when I got it, but was stuck at 10-15% travel because the rebound was closed off. After reassembling it, I have noise in the 0-15% travel which I assume is because of air. I haven't bothered dissassembling it for another shot at bleeding since I've been having too much fun riding  

The low speed manifolds are all air bound when you assemble it per SRAM's instructions. To do it right, I've since come to the conclusion that you need to assemble it and cycle the shock to purge the manifolds/shimstack and then refill the body.


----------



## ruirocha (Jan 20, 2010)

car_nut said:


> It looks like there's a 14mm x .2mm washer at the number 2 position in the rebound stack. You could swap this with the 10mm x .2mm spacer at the bottom of the compression stack. You'll have to make sure the 14mm won't interfere with anything in that position, though I can't think of anything that should be in the way.


@car_nut the washer you said to change, is to control the initial rebound or the end stroke rebound?

Were you taking the washer on the blue arrow??










Thank you for your cooperation :thumbsup:


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

I'm looking to firm up lsc so that the shock doesn't use as much travel on g-outs/rollers. I'd also like to shift the adjustment range of the platform (threshold) so that full soft is closer to the mid setting.

Initially, I was looking at stiffening up the lsc stack that sits on the lsc manifold. However, yesterday while trail riding, I think the lsc poppet valve stuck open because the shock lost platform damping and a lot of lsc. I flipped the lever and it came back. It sensation was similar to a tire going down. This leads me to believe that the spring pre load on the poppet has the majority of control over lsc and the shim stack is more of a check valve.

Entertain me here. This is what I was thinking about try first. which stack would be stiffer, v1 or v2?
stock:
20x.1
13x.1
10x.2
10x.25

v1:
20x.1
20x.1
13x.1
10x.1
10x.25

v2:
20x.1
15x.1
10x.2
10x.25


----------



## ruirocha (Jan 20, 2010)

It is better for you to try out those combinations, they are very similar. 
We need anyone from the tech rockshox, to guide us tuning these shocks.


----------



## nybike1971 (Oct 6, 2005)

A few thoughts:

1) Oil viscosity changes damping properties dramatically for ported valves (damping proportional to v^2) but not so much for shimmed valves (damping proportional to v): in one case the opening is limited and how smoothly oil flows matters a lot, in the other the opening can change and viscosity has much less of an impact on the damping coefficient.

2) From the looks of that compression valve, the high-speed stack against the face of the piston looks like it is basically a blow-off valve, especially if the floodgate is open. In the open position, oil will flow through the soft low-speed stack (unless it has a limited float which I don't see from the picture). The high-speed stack will only be engaged when the poppet valve is closed. If you feel that you need less low-speed compression (hard to imagine with such a soft LS stack) you may need to modify the floodgate manifold (it's a very shallow stack and you won't be able to do much tuning to it but you could try replacing the 13x.1 shim with an 11x.1 and see if that gives you what you need or if you can find 20x0.05 shims you can try replacing the 20x.1 with two 20x.05 shims). 

3) Changing IFP pressure affects the spring curve of the shock, not the damping. when the shock shaft displaces oil in the shock body the IFP piston moves to compress the gas on the opposite side and make room for the volume of the shock shaft. the gas pressure changes the effective spring rate of the shock in a position dependent way because the harder you compress gas, the harder it is to compress it further. 

You can mimic this effect by changing the air pressure in the main body of the shock to see how it feels deep in the travel. Of course, changing the IFP pressure instead of the main pressure has the advantage that you don't affect the small bump compliance of the shock. 

Lowering the IFP pressure excessively runs the risk of pushing oil through the IFP piston seals into the gas chamber. If that happens, you will need to rebuild the shock. 

4) I am a bit confused about the rebound valve. Is the valve plate only acting as a float limiter for the rebound stack? The 15mm shim on the face of the valve plate can only open during compression if the center port in the piston is blocked on the rebound side (kind of like a mid-valve). Is there an orifice on the rebound side?


----------



## nybike1971 (Oct 6, 2005)

ktm520 said:


> I'm looking to firm up lsc so that the shock doesn't use as much travel on g-outs/rollers. I'd also like to shift the adjustment range of the platform (threshold) so that full soft is closer to the mid setting.
> 
> Initially, I was looking at stiffening up the lsc stack that sits on the lsc manifold. However, yesterday while trail riding, I think the lsc poppet valve stuck open because the shock lost platform damping and a lot of lsc. I flipped the lever and it came back. It sensation was similar to a tire going down. This leads me to believe that the spring pre load on the poppet has the majority of control over lsc and the shim stack is more of a check valve.
> 
> ...


v1 is a good bit stiffer throughout the damping range. v2 is very close to stock (I doubt you would be able to tell the difference).


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

nybike1971 said:


> A few thoughts:
> 2) From the looks of that compression valve, the high-speed stack against the face of the piston looks like it is basically a blow-off valve, especially if the floodgate is open. In the open position, oil will flow through the soft low-speed stack (unless it has a limited float which I don't see from the picture). The high-speed stack will only be engaged when the poppet valve is closed. If you feel that you need less low-speed compression (hard to imagine with such a soft LS stack) you may need to modify the floodgate manifold (it's a very shallow stack and you won't be able to do much tuning to it but you could try replacing the 13x.1 shim with an 11x.1 and see if that gives you what you need or if you can find 20x0.05 shims you can try replacing the 20x.1 with two 20x.05 shims).
> 
> 4) I am a bit confused about the rebound valve. Is the valve plate only acting as a float limiter for the rebound stack? The 15mm shim on the face of the valve plate can only open during compression if the center port in the piston is blocked on the rebound side (kind of like a mid-valve). Is there an orifice on the rebound side?


There is a link in post #5 that shows an IPB of the monarch shock. There is an orifice in the center of the shaft that is controlled by a spring loaded poppet. The spring loaded valve controls platform damping.

I'm not sure I agree with you on the comp side. The main shims against the piston (I'm not going to call them hsc stack because they control both lsc and hsc) aren't fully engaged until the orifice (poppet) is open and at choked flow. It does appear that the design of the stack is going to have very little hsc and blow off at high shaft speeds.

On the rebound side, there is an orifice which is controlled by a metering rod connected to the lsr clicker. However, I can't get my head around the oil flow path. You'll notice the the poppet valve has a long skinny shaft between the head and spring seat which I assume is to allow flow during rebound. But, I can't figure out how oil enters the orifice. It almost has to enter through the lsc manifold plate.

The more I think about, the lsc stack changes I proposed above will probably have very little effect on overall lsc and more affect on the transition from orifice to the main shims. If I want more support on g-outs/slow rollers, I think I'm going to have to add a 22x0.1 shim or two to the main stack.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

nybike1971 said:


> v1 is a good bit stiffer throughout the damping range. v2 is very close to stock (I doubt you would be able to tell the difference).


Thanks for the feedback. I kind of had a "duh" moment after I posted that.


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

nybike1971 said:


> 3) Changing IFP pressure affects the spring curve of the shock, not the damping. when the shock shaft displaces oil in the shock body the IFP piston moves to compress the gas on the opposite side and make room for the volume of the shock shaft. the gas pressure changes the effective spring rate of the shock in a position dependent way because the harder you compress gas, the harder it is to compress it further.
> 
> You can mimic this effect by changing the air pressure in the main body of the shock to see how it feels deep in the travel. Of course, changing the IFP pressure instead of the main pressure has the advantage that you don't affect the small bump compliance of the shock.
> 
> Lowering the IFP pressure excessively runs the risk of pushing oil through the IFP piston seals into the gas chamber. If that happens, you will need to rebuild the shock.


That's not quite right. The damper shaft diameter is too small to offer any significant spring force(you can compress the damper shaft by hand if the main sleeve is removed).

If the shock is subjected to a hard hit, the oil pressure on the compression side of the piston can actually exceed the air pressure in the IFP chamber. When that happens, the IFP moves which allows the oil volume on the compression side of the piston to move with it. This gives you some amount of additional undamped travel for a given hit as compared to what would happen if the oil pressure remained below that of the IFP chamber. Generally this is used to tune the response to short, sharp impacts at the beginning of the shock travel.


----------



## mullen119 (Aug 30, 2009)

There is a few things I would like to point out.

First is that as KTM520 pointed out in a previous post, There is no LSC shim stack. Well, there is, but its not a conributing factor to overall damping, its a check valve. The reason it has more then one shim is to keep the first shim from over extending, causing early shim fatigue.

The other thing to keep in mind is that shim thickness has variable deflection amounts. This means that 2 .1mm shims does not give the same amount of damping as a .2mm shim. The general rule of thumb is:

A .15mm shim is the equivalent to 3.4 .1mm shims of the same size.
A .2mm shim is the equivalent to 8 .1mm shims of the same size.


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

mullen119 said:


> First is that as KTM520 pointed out in a previous post, There is no LSC shim stack. Well, there is, but its not a conributing factor to overall damping, its a check valve.


Could you elaborate on this please? I'm not sure I follow. Thanks!


----------



## mullen119 (Aug 30, 2009)

car_nut said:


> Could you elaborate on this please? I'm not sure I follow. Thanks!


Sure. If you have only one shim being used as the check valve, The shim would flex a lot when the oil passes under it. The more the shim flexes, the quicker the shim looses its spring like properties. This is called shim fatigue. When shims become fatigued, they dont close as quickly, and eventually stop making a complete seal, allowing oil to back flow. This causes a loss in damping since oil can pass through the damper in an unintended way.

To help extend shim life, smaller shims are added to the top to keep the big shims from over extending. In this case, one smaller shim is added to the top to keep the check valve shim from over extending. the two smallest shims are clamp shims that have no effect and are there to take up space to keep everything spaced out properly.

Im not saying that the check valve has no effect on LSC, but generally speaking, its not meant to be much of a tuning point. If you add other shims to this stack, the shock would likely become very harsh.


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

Thanks!


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

*Re: IFP*

Guys, the IFP is there to allow the oil displaced by the movement of the damper rod to go somewhere, ie. it moves the IFP. The pressure in the IFP needs to be high enough to prevent cavitation across the piston. IFP pressure (as well as depth eg. volume) will have an effect on the end of stroke travel on the shock. Ramp up the IFP or reduce its volume and you will have a greater ramp up in spring rate at the end of the stroke. Reduce volume enough and you will get a hydraulic lock at the end of stroke.


----------



## nybike1971 (Oct 6, 2005)

TigWorld said:


> Guys, the IFP is there to allow the oil displaced by the movement of the damper rod to go somewhere, ie. it moves the IFP. The pressure in the IFP needs to be high enough to prevent cavitation across the piston. IFP pressure (as well as depth eg. volume) will have an effect on the end of stroke travel on the shock. Ramp up the IFP or reduce its volume and you will have a greater ramp up in spring rate at the end of the stroke. Reduce volume enough and you will get a hydraulic lock at the end of stroke.


Yep, very well said.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

What do you all think would the max IFP pressure for this shock? I've played with lowering it, went all the way down to 190, but haven't tried going higher than 250. Would going higher give more support on g-outs?


----------



## mullen119 (Aug 30, 2009)

Adding IFP pressure only has a major effect on the end of stroke progression. In other designs(like manitou's SPV), it is actually used to change the amount of compression damping. The Monarchs damper is different though, and it only has a small effect on spring rate through most of the stroke.

If your looking for more midstroke support, a low volume air can may be what you are looking for(assuming you dont have it already)


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

ktm520 said:


> Would going higher give more support on g-outs?


A g-out is pretty much a LSC event. Higher IFP will not give you more LSC.

Is the piston face dished on the comp stack side? If it is, the the amount of dishing will provide the preload on the HSC shims to keep them closed (or at least restricting flow) for LSC events. Stiffening the HSC stack will make the cross-over between LSC and HSC stacks higher. To up LSC/platform you will probably need to stiffen both the LSC and HSC stacks. Just doing the LSC stack by itself will just result in the crossover point to the HSC stack being earlier and you won't get the LSC increase you want.


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

IMHO, the IFP pressure should not be used to tune bottom out resistance on shocks with small shaft diameters. If the damper shaft diameter is 3/8" (for example), then you need 10 psi of ifp pressure for 1 pound of force. For lots of pounds of force, that's a lot of psi. You would be better off reducing the volume of the air can if you want more ramp up near the end, or install a bumper.


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

beanbag said:


> IMHO, the IFP pressure should not be used to tune bottom out resistance on shocks with small shaft diameters. If the damper shaft diameter is 3/8" (for example), then you need 10 psi of ifp pressure for 1 pound of force. For lots of pounds of force, that's a lot of psi.


:thumbsup: That's what I was trying to explain. The spring force effect of the IFP pressure is negligible on the Monarch.


----------



## mullen119 (Aug 30, 2009)

IMO, using the IFP as a tuning point on a monarch or fox shock is pointless in general because of the damper design. The effect is to small. As I said before, other damper designs have huge advantages on IFP tuning, the monarch just isn't one of them.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

I picked up a new takeoff Monarch RT3 low tune on ebay. Tore it apart and the shim stack jives with the linked chart in post #5. The piston is dished on both the comp and reb sides. I would post some pics of the piston but my wide angle lens is broke.

comp - .6mm of dish measured over 9.4mm (rise over run)
reb - .25mm of dish over 6.8mm

I'm still trying to figure out what I'm going to try first before I order shims. I know I want to stiffen the comp stack with a 22x.1 or two. I really only have one complaint with the rebound action. Say you are seated climbing an incline at slow speed and you hit a root ~5-6" tall. The rear end wants to buck me up off the seat. Is this one of those situations where you just should be standing or is this something that can be tuned without upsetting the overall rebound tune? Is this an hsr or lsr event?


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

Rebound when seated will be a low speed rebound event. At the opposite end, an unweighted wheel dropping into a hole or stutter bump will be a high speed rebound event.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

I finally ordered shims and oil to start playing with this shock. I tried ordering the nylon balls used to seal the bleed port from SRAM but they weren't available. I found 1/8" nylon balls on Amazon, 100 for 7$.

I had a few ideas of what I wanted to accomplish, but I'm really just playing around with different stack configurations to learn and hopefully come up with a better tune. This is my first shot at revalving, so I have a lot to learn.

The first change I tried was adding two 22x.1 shims to the comp stack. This made it ride much harsher than expected and provided no other benefits that I could tell. Not sure what I'm going to try next. Leaning toward removing stack preload. Curious to see how much less digressive the stack can be without killing the platform damping.

The stock stack seems to be extremely digressive (straight stack, highly preloaded). I'm assuming this is all in the name of pedaling efficiency. 

Note: the bleed procedure (or lack there of) in the service manual does not get all of the air out of the damper. I ended up threading in the bleed screw until it just barely seated. Then I kept oil sitting on top of the screw and would slowly stroke the damper ~10mm until it stopped puking bubbles on extension. It would slowly pull oil into the damper under compression and push it back out during extension. I had the IFP valve installed during bleeding.


----------



## jimbvrly (Jan 3, 2007)

Rebuilt my RT3 last night. Now my rebound doesn't work. Where could I have gone wrong. The shim stack is in the same order as the pic on page one shows. Can I move a shim around to help slow it down, just seems fast no matter where I move it. This constant removing from the bike and tearing down is getting to me. Don't want to order a new shim stack, rather figure it out but total noob to this shim ****.
thx. jim.


----------



## semo (Sep 3, 2012)

Hello everyone,
I had the same problem as ruirocha. While riding over small obstacles, say roots, the damper would not react and I had the sensation of riding a hardtail. This way, riding my new bike was not as much fun as I was hoping for. But I soon realized that I am too light weighted for the setup of my bike. I have a mid-tune damper and on smaller hits the compression damper just wouldn't open, what hinders the piston and the wheel to move.
I was searching the web for quite a while until I discovered this thread. Thank you very much guys! Without the information gathered here, I just would not have known what to do.
So last weekend I disassembled my monarch. I was surprised how hard it was to unscrew the air can and the oil piston. Is this normal? I had to use all my strength. Anyway, finally I could remove a shim. I decided to remove the thick 0.2mm first to the piston of the compression stack. According to my calculations this should make the damping half as hard as it was.
I could not yet test the new setup, because I have to wait for the adapter to fill the IFP air chamber. But its already shipped and I will tell you about my experience in the next days!


----------



## semo (Sep 3, 2012)

The performance of my shock is now almost perfect. The effect was exactly as expected. Everyone should tune his shim stack!


----------



## ruirocha (Jan 20, 2010)

And the rebound, do you think the rebound tune is ok? I feel mine kind slow even in the faster position.


----------



## leszazas (May 16, 2007)

Hello riders,
I have the Monarch Plus RC3 M/L tune on my Nomad. And like you I feel the rebound is on the slow side.
And I have the same noise as you have, even when the shock was new.
Here is a little amateur video of the shock travel:
RockShox Monarch Plus RC3 - YouTube

BUT I'd like to point out that even if the rebound is slow on the parking lot I can't say that when riding, it feels perfect in fact

2 questions: 
-On your RT3 the standard oil is 7W whereas in the PLUS version it's 3W, if someone could confirm ?
-I'm not sure I fully understood the way the tune letters (L/M/H) work: if from your M/M shock you want a faster reboud shock you need a L/M or a H/M ?

Have a good weekend
Laurent


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

leszazas said:


> -I'm not sure I fully understood the way the tune letters (L/M/H) work: if from your M/M shock you want a faster reboud shock you need a L/M or a H/M ?


As far as I know, all of the newer shocks are only available with one rebound tune, that being M.


----------



## leszazas (May 16, 2007)

ktm520 said:


> As far as I know, all of the newer shocks are only available with one rebound tune, that being M.


And for compression, L tune means a fast shock or a slow-highly damped-shock ?


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

L = Low damping = fast shock


----------



## madtrix (Aug 23, 2006)

Hi guys,

I also took my RT3 (M/H3 Tune) apart the last day. Initially I only wanted to change the compression to M3 tune, but I also tried to understand the remaining functionality.

Now after I think I understand everything, I'm mostly curious about the low speed rebound. I'mt not sure if it's working correctly. And rebound speed was always quite slow on my shock, even though I felt a difference between open and closed.

The shaft with the rebound piston looks like this:








Everything together looks like this:









If I now set the the rebound adjuster on the top part to fastest rebound and screw the unit (together with the 1mm spacer) in, I see that the rebound port gets nearly closed. Is this supposed to be so, because the rebound rod is tapered, or is my rebound rod too long and the rebound port should be fully open in this position?

The rebound rod (middle thing) in the first picture is 79.1mm long in my 200x57 Monarch, maybe someone else can measure his?

And a question to the low speed rebound stack. Here I'm curious why there is first the check shim next to the piston and then comes the low speed manifold. So the shim opens towards the piston in case of rebound. Why isn't it the other way around like the low speed compression assembly?


----------



## madtrix (Aug 23, 2006)

And one other thing:

After reassembly, my shock makes now some sound on the first few mm of travel. Especially during extension / top-out. Is this somehow caused by the solo-air mechanism (never heard it before) or a sign of trapped air in the shock? However I can't feel a lack of damping.

How did you bleed your shocks? And did you get the white compression ball out of the bleed hole and replaced it with a new one? Mine is stuck there, most likely fully deformed by the set-screw. But I still see air bubbles getting up through the bleed hole during assembly and after inserting the screw it seems to tight.


----------



## leszazas (May 16, 2007)

car_nut said:


> L = Low damping = fast shock


Thanks a lot, it was so annoying me not to be sure of the meaning !


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

madtrix said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> If I now set the the rebound adjuster on the top part to fastest rebound and screw the unit (together with the 1mm spacer) in, I see that the rebound port gets nearly closed. Is this supposed to be so, because the rebound rod is tapered, or is my rebound rod too long and the rebound port should be fully open in this position?


The rebound control rod on my Monarch jammed shut the first time I tried adjusting the rebound speed. With the rebound dial set at half it suddenly became rather tight and the shaft became stuck within the taper such that it wouldn't move open even after adjusting the knob. I disassembled it and determined that the control rod was too long. I slowly machined it shorter in 0.01" increments until the knob had full travel without it jamming shut. I now have full rebound speed and usually run it with the knob around 1/2.

Unfortunately, I didn't pay attention to the shaft position in the port. So, I can't say if your control rod is too long. I can say it has happened before though. Out of curiosity, where you able to turn the rebound knob all the way to slow?


----------



## madtrix (Aug 23, 2006)

car_nut said:


> Out of curiosity, where you able to turn the rebound knob all the way to slow?


yup, I was able to turn the knob all the way to slow and fast. 
But a look at the rebound port shows a nearly closed port also in the open position.
If I leave out the 1mm spacer then it the rebound port is about half-way covered by the rod. Maybe both is enough, because the the rod is tapered and the other rebound ports aren't large either, but it would be interesting how it looks in other shocks.

So if anybody is taking his shock apart, please tell me what your rebound port looks like in fully open position - and if you run 200x57 what the length of your rebound rod is


----------



## drummercat (Jul 10, 2011)

Interesting thread!!
I found a table of L/M/H shims arragement in a german site.
Big Mountain Cycles - Rock Shox - Monarch RT3 Hauptkolben mit Shimstack Rock Shox - Monarch RT3 Hauptkolben mit Shimstack 100010369

my frame is single pivotdesign with 1:2.35 leverage ratio, the stock shock comes with it is MM tune, it`s way too harsh for me. so Itook the shock apart and did some mod to it. by comparing the M and L tune, the only difference is the HSC shims.....the L has 0.15---0.10----0.15, and the M tune has 0.10--0.10--0.10--0.10--0.20, I removed 1 of the 0.10 shim, and my shock is now way much plusher.

Hope that table will help.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

madtrix said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I also took my RT3 (M/H3 Tune) apart the last day. Initially I only wanted to change the compression to M3 tune, but I also tried to understand the remaining functionality.
> 
> ...


The spare rebound shaft I have for 165x38 RT3 shock is 60.45mm, fwiw.

Yes, the lsr port in the piston shaft looks like it is completely choked even with the adjuster opened up. Keep in mind how small the shaft diameter is. The lsc and lsr circuits don't flow very much oil.

I'm not sure why they have the lsr manifold facing toward the piston. My guess is that they did that to open up the space between the piston and manifold without having to make the shaft longer.

Like you said, the shims on the lsr manifold are purely check shims (both lsc and lsr). I tried stiffening the lsc manifold stack slightly and it caused bad things to happen.



madtrix said:


> And one other thing:
> 
> After reassembly, my shock makes now some sound on the first few mm of travel. Especially during extension / top-out. Is this somehow caused by the solo-air mechanism (never heard it before) or a sign of trapped air in the shock? However I can't feel a lack of damping.
> 
> How did you bleed your shocks? And did you get the white compression ball out of the bleed hole and replaced it with a new one? Mine is stuck there, most likely fully deformed by the set-screw. But I still see air bubbles getting up through the bleed hole during assembly and after inserting the screw it seems to tight.


Sounds like you didn't get a good bleed. I've found that doing the bleed per the manual does not even come close to purging trapped air. You probably won't notice a difference in damping, but it will shorten the life of the oil. I gave a few details on how I've been bleeding my shock a few posts back.

You have to knock the bleed ball out with a small. I have gotten away with reusing the ball if doing a lot of revalving, i.e. very short term. I bought a package of 100 nylon 1/8" balls off Amazon and they appear to be nearly identical to the sram part. Sram lists a p/n for a 20pack of the balls but it wasn't available according to my dealer.


----------



## half_man_half_scab (Mar 7, 2006)

To madtrix, 

You can push the ball out from the bottom of the main seal head with a small allen key. After three bleeds, mine are usually toast. 

When doing the bleed, I tilt the damper at various angles during the process and tap the shock body with the plastic end of a screw driver. Patience is key.


----------



## leszazas (May 16, 2007)

*Oil viscosity*

I read the manual for both the RT3 and the PLUS RC3 versions of the Monarch and it seems that it's not the same oil viscosity:
3W on the PLUS RC3
7W on the RT3
I thought both shocks had the same shim stack, aren't they ?

Have a goog week end !


----------



## madtrix (Aug 23, 2006)

@ktm250:
Thanks for the great Information!
If your shaft length was 60.45 then I think my 79.1 was quite normal, because the I have 19mm more travel. Was, because out of curiosity I shortend the rod by 1mm.
Effect: Not really. Rebound speed is now about the same in all positions and still quite slow, so the low speed rebound doesn't have a big influence. I think I'll try to adjust the high speed rebound to the L-Tune in the next step.

Did a test drive yesterday evening with the new setup (M3-Tune) and was absolutely blown away. Huge difference to the H3-Tune, much improved small bump sensivity but still doesn't feel wallowy. Did not expect that, because it's only changing the face shim from 22x0.15 to 22x0.1 and of course the platform is still there.



ktm520 said:


> I bought a package of 100 nylon 1/8" balls off Amazon and they appear to be nearly identical to the sram part. Sram lists a p/n for a 20pack of the balls but it wasn't available according to my dealer.


I also tried to get the original spare part, but it isn't available here either 
1/8" is the correct size? I'll try to get some, but since I'm located in germany amazon.com is no option 



half_man_half_scab said:


> You can push the ball out from the bottom of the main seal head with a small allen key. After three bleeds, mine are usually toast.


Yeah, that's what I tried. And also with a small screwdriver. But the old ball is really really stuck there. Guess I have to tap it out somehow. But first I should get a replacement.


----------



## madtrix (Aug 23, 2006)

drummercat said:


> Interesting thread!!
> I found a table of L/M/H shims arragement in a german site.
> Big Mountain Cycles - Rock Shox - Monarch RT3 Hauptkolben mit Shimstack Rock Shox - Monarch RT3 Hauptkolben mit Shimstack 100010369


There even exist 3 more default shim stacks, called L3, M3 and H3. They use a pyramid form and I think they are focused on providing less LSC than the L/M/H stacks. Maybe worth to try one of them.

Here are the tunes, which replace the first 3 to 5 high speed compression shims from your link:

*L3 Tune:*
Piston
22x.1
22x.1
20x.1
18x.1
16x.1

*M3 Tune:*
Piston
22x.1
22x.15
20x.15
18x.15
16x.15

*H3 Tune:*
Piston
22x.15
22x.15
20x.15
18x.15
16x.15

I also read about other tunes like L7 in magazines, but have no further information about them.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

madtrix said:


> @ktm250:
> Thanks for the great Information!
> If your shaft length was 60.45 then I think my 79.1 was quite normal, because the I have 19mm more travel. Was, because out of curiosity I shortend the rod by 1mm.
> Effect: Not really. Rebound speed is now about the same in all positions and still quite slow, so the low speed rebound doesn't have a big influence. I think I'll try to adjust the high speed rebound to the L-Tune in the next step.
> ...


Glad to help. For reference, a .15 shim is approx. equal to 3x .1 shims, so considering the stiffness of the whole stack that is a decent change. Yes, 1/8" is the size of the balls I ordered (see link). I use a 1.5mm allen key to push out the ball and they can get lodged in there pretty soon. Drop me a pm if you have troubles sourcing the balls. I can snail mail you a few.

The next time you have your shock open, can you snap a picture of the piston from both sides? I'm curious to see if it is different than the RT3 pistons. Also, where did you find the shim stack list for the RC3? I'd like to take a look at the rebound stacks.


----------



## madtrix (Aug 23, 2006)

Thanks for the offer! I try a little further to get some in germany but might came back to your offer.

My shock and the piston is also an RT3, so no different piston. The listed shim stacks are also for the RT3, not the RC3. You can find preassembled L3/M3/H3 stacks in the RT3s spare part list, but I received the configurations from another board.

I'm also curious how the RC3 and the new 2013 RT3 look like and how big the difference is.
Here is an article about a RC3 tuning with some pictures of the internals as well as the shim stack. To mee the piston looks similar to the RT3 piston, but the shim stack quite different.


----------



## leszazas (May 16, 2007)

*nylon balls*

I'm in France and I get the nylon balls here:
eBay | 100 1/8"" nylon precision bearing balls
Postage fees are cheap.


----------



## madtrix (Aug 23, 2006)

Thanks, that's the cheapest option so far. Amazon takes 9Eur for shipping.
How long did the shipping take?


----------



## leszazas (May 16, 2007)

I just ordered tonight !!! Usually in a small enveloppe from the US it takes round about a week...


----------



## drummercat (Jul 10, 2011)

I cant find any nylon balls availiable when I took it apart.
I cut a small section from a 2.5mm o-ring and put it into the bleed hole, seems it seal fine and re-useable.


----------



## semo (Sep 3, 2012)

ruirocha said:


> And the rebound, do you think the rebound tune is ok? I feel mine kind slow even in the faster position.





leszazas said:


> I have the Monarch Plus RC3 M/L tune on my Nomad. And like you I feel the rebound is on the slow side.
> BUT I'd like to point out that even if the rebound is slow on the parking lot I can't say that when riding, it feels perfect in fact


My first impression was as well that the rebound is not fast enough. When I push down the bike and release it, it looks very much damped. But Im not having that impression while riding. My normal setting for the rebound damping is two clicks. This works fine most of the time.
Another issue is a series of little bumps or roots. While riding over this kind of terrain, the shock feels harder indeed. In theory the reason is a lack of rebound, because the shock is frequently compressed and has no time to release. But I don't see much shock travel consumed, so I guess the reason for this might not be the lack of rebound but a different one. Maybe the hole in the air can, that connects the inner air can and the 'extension' air can on the outside, is too small. That way, only the air in the inner cylinder is compressed and the shock feels harder at high speed compression. But that's only a guess.
For me, the ride is 90% perfect. I see the lack of perfection as a characteristic of the shock itself. Maybe, next time I'll go for a Fox.


----------



## leszazas (May 16, 2007)

semo said:


> ...next time I'll go for a Fox.


I had the RP23 om my Tracer and the DHX Air 5 on my Nomad. I can tell you there's a difference, even when trying to tweak the volume of the air canister. On the Tracer I changed for an Answer ISX6 and on the Nomad for the Plus RC3.

But it's difficult "on the parking lot" to see a difference. I don't have the science enough. That's why I say it's funny how the rebound seems slow and how the real ride is better. The Intrinsic ISX6 was the same: you could NOT set it just pushing the bike up and down. You need to ride with speed.
But I'd like to know why it's like that, or may be like I said I don't have the science, the golden touch enough !!!


----------



## Placek (Jun 9, 2009)

Gyus
I see many experts from RS dampers here. I know that topic is about shims but there is no better place to ask. Does anyone of You have comparsion between for RP23 and RS RT3 ? I'm just standing on front of difficult choice which of them suits better XC riding (would be used with Anthem29). Anyone?


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

I suggest you ask in the Giant forum, as you might find someone that has tried both on an Anthem. I'd say the RP23 & RT3 are close enough in performance that it comes down to which one is tuned better for your bike/riding style.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

semo said:


> Another issue is a series of little bumps or roots. While riding over this kind of terrain, the shock feels harder indeed. In theory the reason is a lack of rebound, because the shock is frequently compressed and has no time to release. But I don't see much shock travel consumed, so I guess the reason for this might not be the lack of rebound but a different one. Maybe the hole in the air can, that connects the inner air can and the 'extension' air can on the outside, is too small. That way, only the air in the inner cylinder is compressed and the shock feels harder at high speed compression. But that's only a guess.


This harshness you describe can just as easy be caused by compression damping. The "hole in the air can" has nothing to do with this.


----------



## leszazas (May 16, 2007)

*1/8" balls*



madtrix said:


> Thanks, that's the cheapest option so far. Amazon takes 9Eur for shipping.
> How long did the shipping take?


...and I received them this saturday morning, so just one week for shipment to France. That's good !


----------



## madtrix (Aug 23, 2006)

Nice. Ordererd mine in the night you told me about them, but have not received them yet. We'll see how long it takes to germany. If it goes through customs, it might be some weeks ...


----------



## leszazas (May 16, 2007)

It was in an enveloppe not in a packet so no custom for me ! 

As you live in germany may I tell you "off topic", I'm really looking forward wityh this new 160mm travel 650B wheeled carbon CUBE bike. It may be my 2013 bike. Riding a Nomad carbon with the Monarch Plus RC3 right now which is a great bike, I would just like to try this new one !


----------



## madtrix (Aug 23, 2006)

Hi,

I've read about it, but I'm a little sceptic, because it's even way lighter than an a Specialized Enduro Carbon. Hope that it's still reliable.
Apart from that the Seat Tube is too long for my taste and I would be somewhere between size S and M. For All Mountain I'm still very happy with my Nukeproof Mega. A little on the heavy side, but the fit is perfect. For 650b at the moment the new Norco and Banshee offerings would be my favorites.


----------



## madtrix (Aug 23, 2006)

Ok, mine also arrived today. Didn't went to customs, because the price (9$) was stated on the envelope.
Now I have to see how I get the old one out


----------



## cubb (Aug 20, 2008)

ktm520 said:


> I finally ordered shims and oil to start playing with this shock. I tried ordering the nylon balls used to seal the bleed port from SRAM but they weren't available. I found 1/8" nylon balls on Amazon, 100 for 7$.
> 
> I had a few ideas of what I wanted to accomplish, but I'm really just playing around with different stack configurations to learn and hopefully come up with a better tune. This is my first shot at revalving, so I have a lot to learn.
> 
> ...


Hey KTM 520, in the bleed procedure did you install the IFP fill adapter from sram or did you install the shrader valve core? I'm having trouble with a knock before and after the rebuild. The rebuild consisted of just the basic air can seals and the main piston seal. After the rebuild the shock seem to be fairly silent but after a ride the knock was back. Any thoughts?


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

valve core

Is it knocking during the initial stroke or when bottoming? I tried stiffening the shim stack on the lsc manifold and this caused the poppet to slam open before the stack deflected and allowed oil to flow. This made a pretty noticeable "knock" but it was in the initial range of stroke. It was also more pronounced in the second and third threshold setting. If the poppet spring has fatigued or is soft, I could see this same thing happening.

If your IFP piston is set too shallow, you wouldn't hear the piston hit it until right before bottoming.


----------



## cubb (Aug 20, 2008)

ktm520 said:


> valve core
> 
> Is it knocking during the initial stroke or when bottoming? I tried stiffening the shim stack on the lsc manifold and this caused the poppet to slam open before the stack deflected and allowed oil to flow. This made a pretty noticeable "knock" but it was in the initial range of stroke. It was also more pronounced in the second and third threshold setting. If the poppet spring has fatigued or is soft, I could see this same thing happening.
> 
> If your IFP piston is set too shallow, you wouldn't hear the piston hit it until right before bottoming.


This knock is heard at initial stroke and it's almost always on square edges hits like roots and such. The shock is supper smooth on large hits and is not noisy at all. I have a 8.5x2.5" shock so my IFP piston depth is 72.8mm which i got from the manual.


----------



## cubb (Aug 20, 2008)

I was wondering what oil you guys are using? I'm using Maxima 5wt.


----------



## half_man_half_scab (Mar 7, 2006)

I weigh 180 geared, my shock is a pushed RC3, and Eric at push told me they used the 3wt Maxima.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

BelRay HVI 5wt. When you guys say Maxima, I assuming you are talking shock fluid.


----------



## half_man_half_scab (Mar 7, 2006)

Yeah, 3wt RSF


----------



## painless (Mar 10, 2008)

hey guys,

I'm planing to buy new monarch rt3 from the private seller. that shock has M rebound tune and H1 compression tune. What does H1 means? Is it High or smth? I tried to find some info in www, but no reasonable results...


----------



## rlouder (Jun 26, 2007)

painless said:


> hey guys,
> 
> I'm planing to buy new monarch rt3 from the private seller. that shock has M rebound tune and H1 compression tune. What does H1 means? Is it High or smth? I tried to find some info in www, but no reasonable results...


You're right. H = high tune.


----------



## rlouder (Jun 26, 2007)

Need some shim stack help....

I understand that one .15mm shim is equivalent to 3.4 .1 shims of the same diameter. How many 22mm .1 shims does one 18mm .15 shim equal?

I'm changing a M tune to go on a 2.0 : 1 bike. Since the L stack is probably ideal for a 2.2 : 1 (middle of 2 to 2.4), should I try 18 x .15, 22 x .1, 22 x .15 instead of the stack in the chart?


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

rlouder said:


> Need some shim stack help....
> 
> I understand that one .15mm shim is equivalent to 3.4 .1 shims of the same diameter. How many 22mm .1 shims does one 18mm .15 shim equal?
> 
> I'm changing a M tune to go on a 2.0 : 1 bike. Since the L stack is probably ideal for a 2.2 : 1 (middle of 2 to 2.4), should I try 18 x .15, 22 x .1, 22 x .15 instead of the stack in the chart?


I would definitely try it before I ordered new shims. It will probably be pretty close. Make sure and put the 18 furthest away from the piston.


----------



## painless (Mar 10, 2008)

rlouder said:


> You're right. H = high tune.


but you can find H1, H2 and H3. what about that?


----------



## Steve VS (Oct 11, 2012)

rlouder said:


> Need some shim stack help....
> 
> I understand that one .15mm shim is equivalent to 3.4 .1 shims of the same diameter. How many 22mm .1 shims does one 18mm .15 shim equal?
> 
> I'm changing a M tune to go on a 2.0 : 1 bike. Since the L stack is probably ideal for a 2.2 : 1 (middle of 2 to 2.4), should I try 18 x .15, 22 x .1, 22 x .15 instead of the stack in the chart?


Formula you want to use to calculate the stiffness ratio is:

Stiffness ratio = (T1/T2)^3

Where T1 = thickness of thicker shim, and T2 is the thickness of the thinner shim, both of the same diameter. For further information, google "2nd moment of area".

Please note however, that stack stiffness is NOT directly proportional to damping forces - there are some seriously complex CFD calculations involved in even approximating that stuff. The only good practical use for this number is keeping stack heights within reasonable bounds.


----------



## cubb (Aug 20, 2008)

half_man_half_scab said:


> Yeah, 3wt RSF


I'm using Maxima 5wt fork fluid. Will not using specific shock fluid have adverse affects? I didn't think there would be much difference in the shock and fork fluid?


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

cubb said:


> I'm using Maxima 5wt fork fluid. Will not using specific shock fluid have adverse affects? I didn't think there would be much difference in the shock and fork fluid?


Ya, there is a pretty significant difference, the biggest generally being viscocity index. For example, Maxima fork fluid vs shock fluid VI is 150 and 350 respectively. Shock fluid lives a much harsher life than fork fluid. You can probably get away with it, but it will break down faster, higher damping varience as the oil heats, and soften the lsc.

From what I could find, the RS recommended fluid (their branded 7wt) is 21cst @ 40C. Not suprisingly, this is the same as Maxima 7wt shock fluid. Maxima 5wt fork fluid is 16cst, so you are on the thin side.

Suspension Fluid - Pvdwiki
http://forums.mtbr.com/shocks-suspension/rockshox-monarch-oil-weight-755670.html


----------



## cubb (Aug 20, 2008)

ktm520 said:


> Ya, there is a pretty significant difference, the biggest generally being viscocity index. For example, Maxima fork fluid vs shock fluid VI is 150 and 350 respectively. Shock fluid lives a much harsher life than fork fluid. You can probably get away with it, but it will break down faster, higher damping varience as the oil heats, and soften the lsc.
> 
> From what I could find, the RS recommended fluid (their branded 7wt) is 21cst @ 40C. Not suprisingly, this is the same as Maxima 7wt shock fluid. Maxima 5wt fork fluid is 16cst, so you are on the thin side.
> 
> ...


Ok, I didn't realize that there was that much difference in the VI between the shock and the fork oils. Next time I have my rear shock apart i will probably use belray 5wt shock oil, thats what the motorcycle dealer stocks.

KTM, how far did you install the bleed vavle ball and the the bleed set screw when you were going through your bleed procedure? I found it hard to keep enough oil on top of the screw so as not to take in air on the down stroke. I still have a knock, what a PIA


----------



## drummercat (Jul 10, 2011)

btw, where can we order shims?


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

MX-Tech Suspensions


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

cubb said:


> KTM, how far did you install the bleed vavle ball and the the bleed set screw when you were going through your bleed procedure? I found it hard to keep enough oil on top of the screw so as not to take in air on the down stroke. I still have a knock, what a PIA


I do the bleed with the set screw only, no ball, not tight, just to where it barely bottoms out. I've never actually tried it with a ball in place, but it should still work. If you move the piston too much, it will pump oil out of the shock and displace the IFP. Double check that you don't have any interference after you tighten down the ball. I've had this shock apart a bunch of times here lately trying different tunes, and the IFP always seems to move a mm or two. I've chalking it up to the bleed process.


----------



## cubb (Aug 20, 2008)

ktm520 said:


> I do the bleed with the set screw only, no ball, not tight, just to where it barely bottoms out. I've never actually tried it with a ball in place, but it should still work. If you move the piston too much, it will pump oil out of the shock and displace the IFP. Double check that you don't have any interference after you tighten down the ball. I've had this shock apart a bunch of times here lately trying different tunes, and the IFP always seems to move a mm or two. I've chalking it up to the bleed process.


I figured it would work with the ball in or out as long as there was a way for the air to escape.
I think I was moving the piston very small amounts less than 10mm because it would suck in too much fluid then air could be introduced to the system again. I just had the basic service kit because the full kit was not available. But i have ordered the full kit to see if doing a full service will take away the knock. But i'm still not convinced that i have a good bleed. I would also like to source the poppet valve spring to change that out as well. I ordered some Maxima shock fluid as well, should make a difference.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

cubb said:


> But i'm still not convinced that i have a good bleed. I would also like to source the poppet valve spring to change that out as well.


It pretty easy to tell if there is still air in the shock. It most noticeble at the top of the stroke with no pressure in the IFP. You can feel the loss of damping when air passes through the rebound circuit and it will make a slight turbulent noise.

Another trick I found is to inject oil with a syringe/18ga needle into the gap between the lsc manifold and the piston. I fill the shock a few mm below the top, insert the piston with the seal head slid up the shaft, and before the piston is fully submerged, inject oil in the gap previously described.


----------



## cubb (Aug 20, 2008)

ktm520 said:


> It pretty easy to tell if there is still air in the shock. It most noticeble at the top of the stroke with no pressure in the IFP. You can feel the loss of damping when air passes through the rebound circuit and it will make a slight turbulent noise.
> 
> Another trick I found is to inject oil with a syringe/18ga needle into the gap between the lsc manifold and the piston. I fill the shock a few mm below the top, insert the piston with the seal head slid up the shaft, and before the piston is fully submerged, inject oil in the gap previously described.


Great, thanks for the info. I was thinking that it might not be a bad idea to submerge the damper assembly and piston into a jar of oil and move the piston up and down a minimal amount this way there would be no chance of air getting into the system on the downstroke.

When bleeding do you have to move the piston with some speed to get the poppet valve to open and allow oil to move through the shaft to get the air out of the shaft?

Thanks for the info KTM


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

cubb said:


> When bleeding do you have to move the piston with some speed to get the poppet valve to open and allow oil to move through the shaft to get the air out of the shaft?


no, slower the better. I open the rebound/comp clicker all the way.


----------



## cubb (Aug 20, 2008)

ktm520 said:


> no, slower the better. I open the rebound/comp clicker all the way.


Ok, I'll give that a go and see what happens. Thanks for the help. I really don't want to send it to rockshox just because there is a knock, hopefully i can figure out what it is.


----------



## _Supra_Shin (Jun 25, 2010)

*Shim Stack Tech*

I think the article on the DVO suspension website will be helpfull to understand Shim Stack Tech clearly. (Sorry I could not attach the exact link because of my limitation.)

By the way, I need HH or MH tuned Monarch for my 2.94:1 Leverage Ratio Frame but hard to get one.
So I am planning to buy MM one but is there much difference between Monarch RT and RT3?
I think RT can do more fine external tune on Low Speed Compression but what is the pros of RT3 beside it can handle 3-step LSC on the fly?
If RT3 makes things difficult to tune, I would like to have RT one.

I am struggling to get valving shims to tune Shim Stacks, because the former link might not ship them worldwide...


----------



## rlouder (Jun 26, 2007)

*2013 rt3*

After ordering the six mm shims to change my medium 2013 rt3 to a low tune, I opened it up to find that the new ones are totally different. Notice six shims in the stack. One is an inner shim with another one around it. Anyone have any shim stack info on these new ones? I couldn't get accurate thickness measurements with my plastic caliper, but they are 9mm ID.

The stack starts at the nut, up the right column, then up the left column.


----------



## _Supra_Shin (Jun 25, 2010)

*2013 RT3 is quite different*

I heard that Monarch RT3 had big modify in 2013 from Rockshox or other articles online.
And the brand-new look shims are the exact ones that makes difference, I think.

According to the spare parts list from Rockshox, the main piston options on RT3(2011-2012) are shown like below.

Main Piston, Tune Rebound-High/Compression-High3 - Monarch RT3/RT/R

But only the ones of RT3 2013 shown individually as

Tune Assembly 2013 Monarch RT3 MH F 320
(mid rebound, high compression, firm threshold)

This may reveal that only the RT3 has got "threshold" feature instead of using Platform Damping Shim Stack, like L3/M3/H3, since 2013.
I am thinking "F 320" means FIRM and it has the breaking point when the pressure is 320[PSI].
It looks like Rockshox has applied the new feature which is similar to Boost Valve settings on FOX Float.

Rockshox claims that Monarch RT3 2013 has got greatly refined the damper to provide independent tuning in the three adjustment positions.
It means that the open is more open, the lock has more lock, is desired by Europe style riding scene.

For sure the brand-new numbers of shims, orders and accurate thickness information are helpful but could not find online right now.
Will be excited if we can see the measurement results here.


----------



## kuokka (Mar 23, 2007)

I'll tell a little tuning story for you. 

A friend of mine bought a Commencal Super 4 and a Monarch RT3 shock for it.
Well it turned out that the shock was horrible in that bike. So he bought a Fox Float RP23
and had it Pushed. It worked well and he was happy. I told him that the Monarch can not be
that bad, or at least it can be tuned to work much better than it had. He told me what he
wanted to be changed in the shock; way less compression damping and more rebound damping.
I made some changes and he tried them out. Compression damping was now better, but the
shock blew too easily through its middle stroke. Rebound damping was better but clicker had
to be too close to the minimum setting.

So, what to do with the middle stroke dive. I came with an idea that I tried with my RP23 Boostvalve shock.
Since there are shims in the compression side of things only in the LSC, which some in
my opinion falsely have said to be only check valves, it was only place to tamper with them.
I added an crossover there and it seemed to work.

So it was my plan to try that with the Monarch also. I also fine tuned the rebound.
And it worked. My friend was very pleased. He said that the Monarch was now very close
in performance to the Pushed RP23.

The compression tune was about the low tune of Rock Shox.
And the low speed compression shims were:
20 x 0,1
13 x 0,1
10 x 0,2
18 x 0,15
16 x 0,15

I also made the same changes to a Nuke Proof Megas Monarch but that has only seen
parking lot testing so far but it feels quite promising.

Oh and the original tunes were M/M on the Super 4 and M/H3 on the Mega.


----------



## cesper (Jul 8, 2008)

Wow, the DVO site is pretty informative on this topic. I actually have a customer's RC3+ in for some tuning right now. He has a Blur LT and the shock has the MM tune. The problem he is having is the rebound speed is too slow, even in the fastest setting. The service dept. is fairly slow right now, so I told him I would happily try to improve the performance. 

Even though most of you are working with the RT shock, I've found this thread to be super helpful. I actually have a small stash of shims at home, but for now I might just remove one to see how much of a difference it makes. 

I have a question for you guys who are doing this on a more regular basis.....are there any good books out there that I can learn from? I know it's a lot of trial and error if you don't have an engineering degree and a dyno, but those two things aren't gonna happen for me anytime soon, so I was hoping for a "working-man's" approach to this. Years ago, in my brief moto-mechanic career I found a lot of good reading on the moto side, but nothing purely on suspension. 

Thanks in advance


----------



## _Supra_Shin (Jun 25, 2010)

*Second Moment of Area*

Yes, DVO is the best site to understand on shim stack technology.
They don't show actual numbers on those shims right now but they will in the near future.
Wait until they sell their shocks or study a little bit on "Second Moment of Area" might help you.

If you could tell me the shim dimensions, like Inner Diameter and Outer Diameter on shims, someone could calculate the actual value of Second Moment of Area on each shims.

I hope DVO makes smaller sized shocks...


----------



## cesper (Jul 8, 2008)

*Rebound needle may be stuck...*

Ok, so I just removed a shim from the rebound stack for a quick test and started to reassemble it. when bleeding the air out, the rebound is almost totally locked, and I can barely pull the shock to full extension. I saw that it was KTM520 I believe that had a rebound needle that was too long. Possibly mine is jammed now.

Has anyone removed the needle on the Monarch RC3 Plus? I saw some were doing it on the RT model, but this appears to be pretty different.


----------



## Pau11y (Oct 15, 2004)

drummercat said:


> btw, where can we order shims?


More selection then MX-Tech: The moto side of Avalanche DH Racing


----------



## two-one (Aug 7, 2008)

Has anybody been able to measure the compressionshims on the 2013 monarch?


----------



## BOA (Mar 4, 2013)

I was planning to remove a .1 shim out of my MM tune RT3 to improve small bump performance on the compression side. But then the shim stack has changed. 

Any info about different shim setup for M and L compression on the 2013 RT3?

And how to improve the 2013 model?


----------



## trailbildr (Dec 8, 2004)

I posted this on another thread but thought you would be interested as well.

Shim ReStackor, Finally software to tune a shim stack

These are the 2012 Monarch details. I don't think there was a change for '13 but don't quote me.

l tune comp: LS valve - 22x.15, 22x.10, 22x.15
m tune comp: LS valve - 22x.20 then 4 22x.10
m tune reb: 15x.10 then 14x.20

mk


----------



## leszazas (May 16, 2007)

I have a 2013 RT3 also and many things have changed on it compare to the 2012 one, not only the shim but even the casing.I have a 2013 RT3 also and many things have changed on it compare to the 2012 one, not only the shim but even the casing.


----------



## BOA (Mar 4, 2013)

Anyone knows the different between a M / L compression tune on a 2013 RT3?

Or has experience with tuning the 2013 RT3 shim stack?

I am looking for better small bump performance / more plush ride. I have lowered the IFP pressure according to this great thread.


----------



## _Supra_Shin (Jun 25, 2010)

Why don't you try Crossover Stack?


----------



## leszazas (May 16, 2007)

UPDATE to my problem of slow rebound and air-oil mix noise on my RC3 Plus: I FOUND THE PROBLEM !!! It's the IFP (internal floating piston) reservoir that was not presurize at the recommanded 250PSI. Go to the RockShox site to dowload the maintenance manual. You will need a schrader removal tool and a air adaptator to inflate the IFP reservoir. Now no more noise and a really faster rebound !!!
It's not the RT3 but the +RC3 but anyway has I had already complained in this thread I thought I should let you know.
On my RT3 no problem from now but there is also an IFP, not in a piggyback indeed but in the main core.
Laurent


----------



## 294037 (Jun 30, 2006)

cesper said:


> Wow, the DVO site is pretty informative on this topic. I actually have a customer's RC3+ in for some tuning right now. He has a Blur LT and the shock has the MM tune. The problem he is having is the rebound speed is too slow, even in the fastest setting. The service dept. is fairly slow right now, so I told him I would happily try to improve the performance.
> 
> Even though most of you are working with the RT shock, I've found this thread to be super helpful. I actually have a small stash of shims at home, but for now I might just remove one to see how much of a difference it makes.
> 
> ...


This book is excellent - Suspension Bible


----------



## maettu (Oct 10, 2005)

Hi,

I have a Monarch RT3 2014 shock with M/M default tune. But I need more end progression.

Has one of you guys tuned the Monarch with a L3, M3 or H3 tune and can explain the difference to the standard L, M and H tunes?

Thanks and regards
mat


----------



## _Supra_Shin (Jun 25, 2010)

Hi,

Rockshox says that "L, M,and H are platform tunes, while L3, M3, and H3 are progressive compression tunes" in their Compression Tune Reference Chart.

So if you need platform tunes, tune your Monarch into M3 tune.
But now, you want more end progression, so tune your IFP pressure.
You can get the adaptor sold by RS then increase the pressure.

I've tuned my monarch's IFP from 110[PSI] to 200[PSI].
Now it feels good while riding, especially in doing manual.


----------



## leszazas (May 16, 2007)

I think it's regarding a kit with which you could reduce the air volume of the HV (High Volume) canister: less air volume, more end progression. I have bought this kit on ebay but I'm not at home so can't give you the reference. You will find it on the sram.com site in the exploded view of the RT3 2013 with parts number.
I didn't use mine for now because on my Tallboy LTC with standard M/M I won't reach the bottom out with a 30% sag. It really depends of the bike cinematic
Have a good ride in Switzerland
Laurent


----------



## RoboS (Aug 16, 2008)

L3, M3 and H3 tunes use pyramidal shimstack
L, M, and H uses shims of the same diameter

BTW: as far as I know, the X3 tunes are not "platform". Regular tunes are more "platform"

Each is good for something, and bad in something else. A good experts can give a good advice, but it starts to be a little complicated.
You can tune spring progressiveness by adding a spacer to air canister, but it has nothing to do with damping tune.


----------



## leszazas (May 16, 2007)

Didn't know that, thanks for the explanation !!!


----------



## guildur (Jun 23, 2008)

*Made the mod on the 2013 shim stack*

edit


----------



## guildur (Jun 23, 2008)

BOA said:


> Anyone knows the different between a M / L compression tune on a 2013 RT3?
> 
> Or has experience with tuning the 2013 RT3 shim stack?
> 
> I am looking for better small bump performance / more plush ride. I have lowered the IFP pressure according to this great thread.


So, I got a Monarch RT3 shock with MM tune 2 weeks ago, to replace the Manitou Radium RL I had until now, and which seriously lacked of a platform mode.

I ride a MSC Koncept frame, with 80mm of rear travel, hence a 2,1 ratio.

Of course, just like most of the guys here, I needed a ML tune, but these are impossible to find here in France at a decent price. Since I found this great thread (thanks a lot for all the infos), I thought I'd try to modify it by myself.

I first mounted the shock on the bike when it was still a MM tune, and right from the parking lot, with a 25% sag, I knew it wasn't the right tune at all. Very stiff. I increased the sag to 30%, and had about a 50 miles with the shock. No change.

The rebound was fine, but shock was very stiff (despite I was using all the travel) and seriously lacked of small bumps compliance, and I had almost no "traction" when going over roots of chattery rocks in platform mode. Also, I couldn't feel any real world difference between between platform and locked.

So I bought all the tools and went for the mod, instead of buying a new tune assembly from ebay. My shock is a 2013 model with the new shim stack.
*I noticed ruirocha had removed 2 of the 4 big compression shims of the prevous models' tune assemblies to get a low tune. Since these 4 big compression shims were here again on the 2013 shims stack, I thought they'd be once again what differentiate a low tune from a mid tune.
So I removed them...
Also, since my frame has a small ratio even for a low tune shock (and since that's what I had on hand), I refilled the shock whith 5w Ipone fork oil (cst @40 = 18) instead of the 7wt RS recommends.*

I don't know for sure if this is the way RS lowers the tune, but it seems to work!

I know have:
- a sensitive shock when opened :thumbsup:
- a still very present platform. :thumbsup: The big difference is that traction is now very good, and comfort very descent. That it only eliminates pedal bob (even on short burst or when standing on the pedals), and still filters the LSC medium bumps.
- However, I'd like to be able to stiffen up the locked mode a bit, even though it doesn't seem to bob, or maybe 2-3mm when sprinting standing of the pedals.

I attached a picture of the mod, so those who want to get a lower tune can give it a try.
I removed the 2 shims on the right of the arrows.









1) I'm now planning to try 3w and 7w for oil to see if it makes any change.
2) I'll try another IFP pressure, to see if I can get the shock better again, and use a little more travel.

3) *Also, does anyone have a clue about what/which part locks the shock? How I could make the full locked mode stiffer. I had a lockout on the Radium RL that was "hardtail-stiff", and I'd like to achieve the same thing* :madman:


----------



## Berkley (May 21, 2007)

I bought a 2012 RT3 with a MM3 tune. I want something like a LL tune (maybe even lighter since I only weight 150lbs) so my plan is to remove the first two compression shims like ruirocha did. I'll be using Redline 5wt which is marginally thinner than the SRAM 5wt. 

I also want a lighter rebound tune. Has anyone played with the rebound to make it lighter? I saw one post where someone recommended swapping the 14x.2 and replacing with with a 10x.2. Any advantage to this as opposed to replacing it with a 14x.15 or 14x.1? 

The shock is going on a Blur LT if it makes a difference. I know VPP likes fast rebound and low compression.


----------



## guildur (Jun 23, 2008)

Sorry, I have no experience with MM3 but tunned a MM 2013 shock.
What I can say is the 2013 shim stack is different from the previous years' versions. You can look at my post above to get an idea about how I "guessed" which shim to remove on a MM 2013 RT3.

About the oil weight, my personal experience is a lighter weight gives you a slightly more linear shock.
I did change my oil for 5wt and reduced the IFP chamber volume, but because my frame design is FSR-like, and was too progressive for the shock.
You might not want to change any of that unless you wouldn't use all your travel?

Also, I suggest you try to modify the settings one by one. Just change the oil first, ride the shock to feel the change (might not be noticeable if the difference in the oil's CST numbers is less that 2 points), then change the compression stack, ride the shock again, etc. This way you get to feel each change you made one by one.

I'm no expert but I wouldn't bother trying shims of different sizes, at least before having tried to simply remove some of the big compression shims.

Maybe you can post a pic of your shim stack?

Good luck tuning your shock, I worth the hassle a 100 times! :thumbsup:


----------



## madridi (Dec 1, 2009)

Couple of weeks ago I bought 2013 monarch rt3 with ML tune and high volume air can. I added more spacers in air sleeve and currently air sleeve is full of spacers, but still I'm not satisfied how the shock handles bigger bumps. If I set sag anywhere near 25%, in small bumps bike feels like hardtail, but still in bigger bumps bike bottoms out quite easily. If I set sag around 35-40%, I like how the bike handles in small bumps, but clearly this isn't appropriate because it will bottom out in almost every bump.

It's obvious that compression stack needs smaller/looser shims in low speed compression, but in mid and high speeds some bigger/stiffer shims are needed. How critical the shim stack height is? Is it okay to add 2-3 shims to overall shim stack height, or should I pay closer attention in stack height? My plan is to tune low speed compression at first, and move gradually to the mid and high speed compressions, in my view that's the best way to get familiar with shim stack changes. This is my first time trying to shim any damper, so any advices are appreciated.


----------



## trailbildr (Dec 8, 2004)

Sounds like you need a different air can. Either that or H compression tune. What's the leverage ratio on the bike?

mk


----------



## madridi (Dec 1, 2009)

trailbildr said:


> Sounds like you need a different air can. Either that or H compression tune. What's the leverage ratio on the bike?
> 
> mk


Correct me if I'm wrong, but high volume air can with air sleeve full of spacers has the same air volume than normal air can. Yesterday I went for a ride and spent some time trying out different air pressures and found out that using the lockout in pedal position, helps quite a bit with bottom out issues in low speed comprenssion situations, so my next step is to try out stiffer compression tune. Bikes leverage ratio is 2,8.


----------



## trailbildr (Dec 8, 2004)

Yup. High volume with volume reduction equals standard can.

Yeah, I run my Monarch Plus is the middle compression setting 95% of the time. If it gets steep, I'll open it up so I can squat the rear end a bit for more traction.

mk


----------



## ultimate99 (Nov 4, 2013)

HELP! I began to rebuild my 2011 RT3 and I accidently dropped the main piston assembly. Splat! I think I have all the pieces. I have searched on line for hours and I can't find a complete exploded view of al the shims and pieced. I don't know what "tune" I had but I just want to get it back together. All the pics on the thread are nice but I don't see the complete assembly. Even the Rock Shox manuals don't show.
Anybody?


----------



## guildur (Jun 23, 2008)

ultimate99 said:


> HELP! I began to rebuild my 2011 RT3 and I accidently dropped the main piston assembly. Splat! I think I have all the pieces. I have searched on line for hours and I can't find a complete exploded view of al the shims and pieced. I don't know what "tune" I had but I just want to get it back together. All the pics on the thread are nice but I don't see the complete assembly. Even the Rock Shox manuals don't show.
> Anybody?


Well, for obvious reasons, you first need to figure out what's your tune. If your shock has never been customized, you can figure it out by looking for a sticker with two letters, one blue, one red, on the outside of the air can.
Looks like this:








This will give you the shock's original tune. Otherwise, you might guess it from your frame's suspension ratio.

So what's your tune?


----------



## ultimate99 (Nov 4, 2013)

I found it guilder; "HM", I assume this means medium?
Here's a pic of all the pieces (I hope) in no particular order. I printed the parts sheet but it is different. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. BTW this is on a carbon Santa Cruze Tall Boy 29er with 2nd gen VPP and I am 210 lb and ride a lot of rocks.


----------



## leszazas (May 16, 2007)

Hi, the red is rebound setting and the blue is compression. What I don't know is what's the difference between compression with or without the number 3. Let say what's the difference between a M/L shock and a M/L3 shock ? If someone could explain it to me it will make me "the guy who knows things" at my mountain biker club !
Laurent


----------



## RoboS (Aug 16, 2008)

Hi,
For H compression tune the shimstack is (here is only the thickness of shims, as they are all 22mm diameter in H/M/L tune)
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.20
---Piston--- and Medium rebound tune continues
0.10
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.10

then 4pc of small spacers (0.2 x 8mm)

On floodgate piston are these shims (EDIT: shim diameters added)
0.10 x 20mm
0.10 x 13mm
0.20 x 10mm (spacer)
0.25 x 10mm (spacer)


Difference between L/M/H and L3/M3/H3 is that the X3 tune has pyramidal shimstack (less low speed compression) = diameter of shims is decreasing. Regular tunes have all shims of same diameter, has more low speed compression.


----------



## leszazas (May 16, 2007)

Thanks a lot for these precious elements !!!
Laurent


----------



## ultimate99 (Nov 4, 2013)

RoboS thanks for this great info.
Being a newbee, I am still pretty confused.
I count 19 washer type shims here and that's what I have also, great.
I assume the first shims in your list get placed onto the rod first in that order
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.20 ......
The missing info for me now is where the other three components go.
The blue main piston, the large tri ported thing and the small tri ported thing.
What order within the shims and which way goes onto the rod first? 
sorry for being a bit thick about this.


----------



## RoboS (Aug 16, 2008)

Maybe I'm wrong, but as long as the shim diameter is the same in shimstack, it doesn't matter in what order they are stacked. They act as one shim (much thicker one)

Best pictures that I found are these
Rock Shox Monarch RT3/RC3 Plus Hauptkolben mit Shimstack Tune A Main Piston low | eBay

Here are pictures of my piston, note that I have H3 tune, so pyramidal shimstack is visible there














And on this german forum is very detailed info
RockShox Monarch RT3 im Detail - MTB-News.de - IBC

Good luck


----------



## ultimate99 (Nov 4, 2013)

pretty nice pic there RoboS
I'm sure you are correct about the shims being reversible. I can't tell the actual parts order and direction form this though.

So I called SRam today and they guy said "I don't have any documentation on the shim stack / main piston. It's like an iPhone , very complex."
He offered to get me a new assembly if I have a dealer call and ask for me. ...geeezzz...
My question was about the 3) special pieces.
"The blue main piston, the large tri ported thing and the small tri ported thing.
What order within the shims and which way they go onto the rod first?" 
Seems very simple to me if you have the exploded diagram or photo. But it this appears to be non existent.


----------



## RoboS (Aug 16, 2008)

Hey Ultimate99, the new damper piston (2013 and later) is complex, but older ones are very very simple. Just put the sims on the shaft in this order
0.25 x 10mm 
0.20 x 10mm 
0.10 x 13mm
0.10 x 20mm
--- Floodgate piston ---
0.10 x 22mm
0.10 x 22mm
0.10 x 22mm
0.20 x 22mm
0.20 x 22mm
--- Main pistoin ---
0.10 x 15mm
0.20 x 14mm
0.15 x 8mm
0.15 x 8mm
0.15 x 8mm
0.10 x 15mm
0.20 x 8mm
0.20 x 8mm
0.20 x 8mm
0.20 x 8mm
--- Piston holding nut ---


I found out thet I was not very accurate in my previous post. The rebound side of piston has tapered shimstack (pyramidal), so here it is corrected.

If its not gonna work, then buy new piston assembly, there is everything you need in correct order. It just costs about 40-50€


----------



## ultimate99 (Nov 4, 2013)

Perfect I get the shims and their order. Looks simple.
Now I have to figure out the direction and placment of the other 3 parts.
like what is a flood gate and how does IT go together?
and how does the main piston go on?

0.25 x 10mm 
0.20 x 10mm 
0.10 x 13mm
0.10 x 20mm
--- Floodgate piston ---
0.10 x 22mm
0.10 x 22mm
0.10 x 22mm
0.20 x 22mm
0.20 x 22mm
--- Main pistoin ---
0.10 x 15mm
0.20 x 14mm
0.15 x 8mm
0.15 x 8mm
0.15 x 8mm
0.10 x 15mm
0.20 x 8mm
0.20 x 8mm
0.20 x 8mm
0.20 x 8mm
--- Piston holding nut ---


----------



## RoboS (Aug 16, 2008)

You can see orientation of main piston on one of my pistures. But I really don't know how the "tri plates" are stacked.


----------



## mt.nebo.mtb (Feb 12, 2011)

Does anyone here know if a 2013 RT3 tune assembly will fit a 2012 RT3?. Thanks to everyone that has posted on this thread. I have a ML now but need less low speed compression. That ML3 piston looks like the one for me.


----------



## RoboS (Aug 16, 2008)

Yeah, I heard that 2013 tunes are much better (and more complex), than the older ones. I'd like to use them too in my 2012 monarch.


----------



## mt.nebo.mtb (Feb 12, 2011)

Guess I'll call SRAM and see what they say. Just need less low speed compression. Might just buy the 2013 piston and see how the shims compare. Rather not get into changing shims but.........


----------



## ultimate99 (Nov 4, 2013)

Yes please let us know. If the newer (2013) pistons are superior then I wouldn't mind spending more money to finally finish my rebuild and have an improved shock.


----------



## ultimate99 (Nov 4, 2013)

mt.nebo.mtb said:


> Does anyone here know if a 2013 RT3 tune assembly will fit a 2012 RT3?. Thanks to everyone that has posted on this thread. I have a ML now but need less low speed compression. That ML3 piston looks like the one for me. Guess I'll call SRAM and see what they say. Just need less low speed compression. Might just buy the 2013 piston and see how the shims compare. Rather not get into changing shims but.........


Any news mt.nebo ?????? I have a 2011 RT3 and want to install a 2013 piston set.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

RoboS said:


> You can see orientation of main piston on one of my pistures. But I really don't know how the "tri plates" are stacked.


The larger check plate (tri plates, floodgate piston) goes on the comp side and faces away from the piston and the smaller goes on the reb side facing towards the piston. Look at the pictures in post #1. Your shock should match that along with the shim stack spec's in post #5 for your tune. Insert the reb check plate between the 15x0.1 and the 8x0.2 shims, with the 15 cover the face of the plate. The comp check plate goes where you have labeled "floodgate piston", with the 20 shim cover the face of the plate. As the name suggests, these check plates simply minimize cross-flow through the free bleed.



RoboS said:


> Yeah, I heard that 2013 tunes are much better (and more complex), than the older ones. I'd like to use them too in my 2012 monarch.


From the pictures I've seen, I don't think the '13 piston will work in a '12 schock. It looks like the id of the piston is larger. I don't know if the '13 piston is dished, but they do use ring shims to preload both the comp and reb stacks. I've never tried to source ring shims, but I'm guessing they aren't easy to get nor cheap. The concept of preloading the reb stack is intriguing. I believe this is what RS refers to as "rapid recovery". Gives a more digressive reb damping curve.


----------



## mt.nebo.mtb (Feb 12, 2011)

I ordered a '13 piston. We'll see what happens next week when it arrives.


----------



## two-one (Aug 7, 2008)

I don't think the '13 piston is "better" than the <2013 version. I assume that the older pistons had a dished surface, causing the shims to be preloaded a fixed amount. 
But I imagine some manufacturers would like a different preload value, so they probably replaced the dished-piston approach to implementation of a "ring-shim" which is a very good way of varying the amount of preload. 
I used a similar method when I installed a shim stack in my marzocchi 55 TST2. Place the ring closer to the piston to increase preload... or further to decrease.


----------



## ultimate99 (Nov 4, 2013)

Thanks for al your help, am I getting close?
Does this look right? I'm still not sure of the directions. 
as pictured here would the nut go on the far left?
Is the piston in the correct place?
I show the deeper side of the piston facing the left (nut?) end, right?


----------



## RoboS (Aug 16, 2008)

I'm afraid that the compression side (right from piston) should be turned around (as one block). With large shims facing the piston.


----------



## mt.nebo.mtb (Feb 12, 2011)

Right you are ktm520. The i.d. of the 2013 piston is much larger than the 2012 piston.


----------



## mt.nebo.mtb (Feb 12, 2011)

After discovering that the '13 piston wouldn't fit, I used shims from another '12 piston to come up with this setup for less compression than a ML piston. I replaced one of the 22X.15 shims with a 22X.10. I replaced the 13X.10 with 2 10X.25. It seems much better on my SC BLT 650. BTW I only weigh 150 with water and gear and ride rocky and rooty North Georgia trails. Thanks for all the help from everyone on here.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

mt.nebo.mtb said:


> I replaced the 13X.10 with 2 10X.25.


Be careful changing the shims on the checkplate. They don't really monitor flow, open or closed, purely there as a check valve. The change you made may cause the 20mm shim to fatigue prematurely and probably did very little to reduce lsc, assuming that was your goal. If you go back a few pages you will find where I posted my results from my attempt to lighten the checkplate stack.


----------



## mt.nebo.mtb (Feb 12, 2011)

Yep, I think I see what you are saying. Shim fatigue is gonna be an issue. The changes I felt probably came from changing the 22X.15 to a .10 and not so much from the LSC stack changes. Maybe a little progression on the 22mm stack would help. I'm already using RockShox 2.5 wt fluid and 200psi.in the IFP chamber.


----------



## OldMTBfreak (Apr 8, 2006)

I have been following this thread and working on my two RT shocks. I needed a slower rebound than the stocker gives. I bought shims and have tweaked the shock most perfect. The problem I'm having is the miserable andodizing on the air can. Scraches after one ride. The scraches grab the seal and give you a stuck down shock. I hope RS will fix this problem.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

mt.nebo.mtb said:


> Right you are ktm520. The i.d. of the 2013 piston is much larger than the 2012 piston.


Bummer. Which piston tune did you buy? If you still have the piston assy you bought, can you document the stack spec's? I'm most interested in the hoop (ring) and nesting shim dimensions used for preloading the comp and reb stacks. The hoop shim is the large inner diameter shim that has a "nesting" shim od that matches the id of the hoop to center it. The hoop shim is thicker than the nesting shim and this preloads the shims on top of it. The 11-12 pistons had a dished face to preload the stack.


----------



## OldMTBfreak (Apr 8, 2006)

The 2013 shock had 2 ring shims; one on the main piston and one on the floodgate (3 lobes).The ring shims were located in the #2 position: normal shim, ring shim, normal shim(s).


----------



## projekt (Dec 9, 2009)

OldMTBfreak said:


> The 2013 shock had 2 ring shims ....


Hi,

actually 3 ring shims.

2013 ML setup :

- shaft -
- valve plate -
9 x 22 x 0,15
9 x 19 x 0,15
9 x 11 x 0,20
9 x 11 x 0,30
9 x 11 x 0,30
9 x 11 x 0,30
9 x 22 x 0,15
9 x 22 x 0,15
9 x 22 x 0,15
9 x 22 x 0,15
19,4 x 22 x 0,40
9 x 19 x 0,10
9 x 22 x 0,15
*- piston -*
9 x 19 x 0,15
16,4 x 19 x 0,30
9 x 16 x 0,10
9 x 19 x 0,15
9 x 19 x 0,15
9 x 11 x 0,30
9 x 11 x 0,30
9 x 11 x 0,30
9 x 11 x 0,20
- valve plate -
9 x 19 x 0,10
16,4 x 19 x 0,15
9 x 16 x 0,10
9 x 19 x 0,10
9 x 11 x 0,30
9 x 11 x 0,30
11,5 x 1,30
- jam nut -

- projekt


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Thanks projekt. Anyone have the spec's on a M or H comp tune?


----------



## Placek (Jun 9, 2009)

Guys

Maybe the question was already asked but couldn't find similar. Is there any way to convert the Monarch RT3 to monarch XX?

The target is to mount the XLock Full sprint to my Sid XX 120 29" . Curently i have RT3 165x38 and was wondering if there is a way to first convert it to XX and later buy XL full sprint?


----------



## BOA (Mar 4, 2013)

*MM Tune 2013 RT3 with two Compression shims removed*


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

BOA, can you measure all the shims and provide a list like projekt did? From your pic, it appears to have the same comp stack as the low tune projekt posted based on the number of shims. Really need to know the thickness.


----------



## BOA (Mar 4, 2013)

I have already assembled everything and it seems to work fine. So it looks like the size list is going to have to wait  but as it turned out to be so easy to service it could be soon...

I was looking for a better small bump performance and to get a better linear use of the whole travel. So I removed two shims as pointed out here on this great forum.

I tried earlier to lower the IFP pressure below 100 psi but without any noticeable difference. 

The problem was I had to ride with as much as a 45% sag to get an acceptable level of ride smoothness and despite that I hardly bottomed out the damper doing 2 feet drops (60cm) and overall rough riding.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

No worries man. In the past, RS has used varied shim thickness in the comp stack so you really need to measure them to know what you have/removed. How much do you weigh and what frame is this on? The best way to reduce harshness is by lowering stack preload, but at the sacrifice of more pedal bob if the frame has poor anti-squat. IFP has very little effect on the spring rate of these shocks and 100psi is dangerously low.


----------



## two-one (Aug 7, 2008)

ktm520 said:


> No worries man. In the past, RS has used varied shim thickness in the comp stack so you really need to measure them to know what you have/removed. How much do you weigh and what frame is this on? The best way to reduce harshness is by lowering stack preload, but at the sacrifice of more pedal bob if the frame has poor anti-squat. IFP has very little effect on the spring rate of these shocks and 100psi is dangerously low.


Yup, you can lower stack preload by moving the "ring shim" further away from the main piston within the stack, so that fewer shims are pre-bent.


----------



## BOA (Mar 4, 2013)

Ok. Lowering preload by moving the ring shim. Interesting have to study that one. 
Would you rather go that way than removing shims like I did or would you do both?

I am 80 kg / 176 lbs geard up and I am using a Giant Anthem 2013 with the RT3

The Rockshox Reba 2012 dual air up front is doing such a fantastic job in every situation I must try to make the rear better. 

The problem is harsh ride and not using all the travel unless with about 50% sag and even then the shock will hardly bottom out. 

Thanks for the comments 
BOA


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

BOA said:


> I am 80 kg / 176 lbs geard up and I am using a Giant Anthem 2013 with the RT3
> 
> The problem is harsh ride and not using all the travel unless with about 50% sag and even then the shock will hardly bottom out.


I'm kinda of surprised the tune is that far off for your weight/frame. That frame should still pedal well without a ton of platform damping (stack preload). The best thing you can do is try a hand full of different stack configurations and then decide which you like best.

I'd start by removing the hoop shim, putting back all of the shims, and move the nest shim (inside of hoop shim) to the top of the stack. Before you do this, document the size/thickness and order of all the shims before making any changes. This will give you the best small bump, reduce spiking, but may increase bob. When you remove stack preload, it will also narrow the range of lsc adjustment you have with the adjuster. If you still want a super firm setting like stock, you will have to run some level of stack preload. Set sag at 25% and make note of travel usage on jump/drops and sharp g-outs, and most importantly how it balances with the fork. I wouldn't be too concerned with the overall travel usage if you are happy with the overall action and balance/bias of the shock. Travel usage is more dependent of the type of trails you ride and how aggressively you ride. Bottoming could be a spring issue, but it can also be a damping problem if it is way over damped.

This will give you an idea of the two extremes (bracketing) and then you can adjust from there. Still too harsh, start removing shims. Too soft but still pedals well, add stiffness (not preload) to the stack by adding more shims. Too soft and poor pedaling, starting putting preload back in.

The rebound tune should be fairly close, but you won't be able to get a good handle on that until the comp side is close.


----------



## mullen119 (Aug 30, 2009)

BOA said:


> Ok. Lowering preload by moving the ring shim. Interesting have to study that one.
> Would you rather go that way than removing shims like I did or would you do both?
> 
> I am 80 kg / 176 lbs geard up and I am using a Giant Anthem 2013 with the RT3
> ...


What volume aircan are you using? It sounds like the spring curve is the bulk of your problem. The shim stack is likely part of the issue as well, but a proper spring curve needs to be set before all else.


----------



## two-one (Aug 7, 2008)

BOA said:


> Ok. Lowering preload by moving the ring shim. Interesting have to study that one.
> Would you rather go that way than removing shims like I did or would you do both?
> 
> I am 80 kg / 176 lbs geard up and I am using a Giant Anthem 2013 with the RT3
> ...


It's a tough call, i havent experimenten enough to be sure, but I always figured that a preloaded stack with bleed port is a preferred configuration for pedally and trail riding, while a straight stack would feel nicer for Freeride and Downhill.


----------



## BOA (Mar 4, 2013)

For the air can it is standard volume. What are the characteristics of a high volume one?

When you point that out ktm520. Removing preload will give better small bump performance. The oil will have lower initial threshold for flowing. That makes sense.

Ok. Stack preload will affect the LSC (low speed control) overall effect. I don't understand how that works...

"I always figured that a preloaded stack with bleed port is a preferred configuration for pedally and trail riding"

two-one could you explain in more detail how bleed port works?









There are two bleed ports on the rod. Is this to bypass the main piston?

The smaller one seems to match with the compression plate and shims. Is this one used for full open damping? Everything is open?

And the other one used for Platform or Pedal damping. The smaller one closed?

Could this be the reason for less lockout and pedal damping after two shims from the main piston are removed. Because I should have modified the Plate stack at the end of the compression stack for less compress damping in all open position?


----------



## mullen119 (Aug 30, 2009)

BOA said:


> For the air can it is standard volume. What are the characteristics of a high volume one?


A high volume air can will have a more linear spring rate. They are usually used when a bike has a progressive linkage ratio, or a rider is having trouble using full travel when the shock is set at correct sag. Sounds like it may be the best place to start.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

BOA said:


> When you point that out ktm520. Removing preload will give better small bump performance. The oil will have lower initial threshold for flowing. That makes sense.
> 
> Ok. Stack preload will affect the LSC (low speed control) overall effect. I don't understand how that works...


Short version, the free bleed can only control low speed oil flow up to the point that the stack opens. It's a little more complicated than that though.



BOA said:


> "I always figured that a preloaded stack with bleed port is a preferred configuration for pedally and trail riding"
> 
> two-one could you explain in more detail how bleed port works?
> 
> ...


The free bleed is in the center of the shaft. There is a spring loaded check valve that closes a port at the end of the shaft. During comp, oil enters that port, flows past the check valve once enough pressure builds to open it, and then it flows out the comp side check plate. When you turn the lsc lever, it increases preload on the check valve spring. The check plates are merely open or closed, no damping. This has already been covered at the beginning of this thread.


----------



## two-one (Aug 7, 2008)

ktm520 is (as usual) right on the money.

So my theory is based on the (guessed) force/velocity graph:







if a simple shock without compression adjusters contained a simple shim stack covering some ports, the resulting damping graph would be pretty linear.
But when you want to add some kind of pedaling platform, then you will have to preload the stack, so that the shock won't bob while riding. Fox called this "propedal", which helped a lot with old frames that didn't have any anti-squat built in their linkage, but this lost a lot of small-bump compliance and caused washboard-spiking.

So the adjustable propedal was introduced which is the mechanism KTM520 explained. This adjustable bleed path (around the shim stack) alters the way you perceive low-mid speed actions, like pedaling, body movement, brake dive, but also landing drops. At a certain speed (the "knee" of the damping curve), the shimstacks preload is finally completely countered with oil pressure, and it will start to behave as a similar stack without the preload (bending the same number of shims). But at that point a bit more force had to be added to obtain the same oilflow-speed.

What I was inferring is the concept that the preloaded shim stack, with an "open" bleed port (propedal in setting 1, or "descent mode") creates a plush initial stroke feeling like a straight stack, but has more damping (support) for mid speed events, like trail-riding where a corner could need a lot of body English. Something that's pretty useful with current day air-springs that tend to blow through the midstroke all too easily.

So when people have the tendency to call a shock "harsh", I think it could be because of a high preload setting, with a high/sharp "knee" in the curve.
So the question is... less preload (move ring shim), or less shims (which can also reduce preload, depending where in the stack you remove the shims from)


----------



## BOA (Mar 4, 2013)

So when you buy a piston tune you will get a shorter / softer spring for the free bleed and a new check valve as shown in the picture?

If yes is there a change to modify this yourself to improve the homemade tune further?

Could this explain why the LSC lever has lost almost all of its effect after the Compression stack has been made much weaker?

The oil is leaking through the stack before or at the same time when the free bleed overcomes the spring loaded pressure valve.


----------



## two-one (Aug 7, 2008)

BOA said:


> So when you buy a piston tune you will get a shorter / softer spring for the free bleed and a new check valve as shown in the picture?


I don't know...


BOA said:


> If yes is there a change to modify this yourself to improve the homemade tune further?


Maybe.. if you know WHAT you want to change/improve


BOA said:


> Could this explain why the LSC lever has lost almost all of its effect after the Compression stack has been made much weaker?


yup, a stack that easily blows off will let the oil flow at the same time as the freebleed/Lowspeed circuit, therefore the adjustments will have less effect in the initial stroke


BOA said:


> The oil is leaking through the stack before or at the same time when the free bleed overcomes the spring loaded pressure valve.


The preloaded face shim will stop any oil from flowing past the shimstack untill enough pressure has been built up to lift the face shim...


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

BOA said:


> So when you buy a piston tune you will get a shorter / softer spring for the free bleed and a new check valve as shown in the picture?
> 
> If yes is there a change to modify this yourself to improve the homemade tune further?


I haven't fully decrypted the new piston tunes, specifically the middle letter and 3 digit number, but I'm guessing is has something to do with the check valve spring rate. The check valve and spring is captured inside the end of the shaft. You have to remove the shaft from the eyelet to get it out. Requires a good set of shaft clamps and a little heat.


----------



## BOA (Mar 4, 2013)

2013 RS RT3 MM Tune
Shock Rod - Compression Stack First
Valve Plate Facing Piston
9x22x0.2mm
9x19x0.2
9x11x0.25 spacers
9x11x0.25
9x11x0.25
9x11x0.25
9x22x0.15
9x22x0.15
9x22x0.15
9x22x0.15
9x19x0.15
19.3x22x0.4 Ring Shim
9x22x0.15
Main Piston flat surface facing towards compression stack
Rebound stack goes into the cup side of the main piston
9x19x0.15
9x16x0.15
16.3x19x0.3 Ring Shim
9x19x0.15
9x19x0.15
9x11x0.3 spacers
9x11x0.3
9x11x0.3
9x11x0.3
Valve Plate Facing away from piston
9x19x0.15
9x16.4x0.1
16.4x19x0.15 Ring Shim
9x19x0.15
9x11x0.3 Spacers
9x11x0.3
End Nut

I did not have access to a Micrometer so I used fairly accurate Calipers. BOA


----------



## BOA (Mar 4, 2013)

First I removed 2 shims from the pressure stack trying to improve the smoothness of the shock. I went to far. 

My main compression stack got so weak that Platform damping (LSC Low Speed Control) Pedal and also called Lockout was lost. The shock was much softer in compression but I did not bother to really ride the bike like that because it was way off. 

After studying KTM520 suggestions I did move the ring shim that preloads the compression stack 2 shims away from the main piston. To keep the platform characteristics of the shock and to take smaller steps in general. 

Then on the rebound side I have only been using 3 clicks from fully open rebound and decided to move the ring shim one shim away from the main piston. 

I have not taken the bike out yet but the platform is there and the shock moves through its travel with less effort than before and the rebound is close to mid range now. So this seems to be not that far off... but we will see how its on the trail... 

I would like to try a High Volume air can as well

This has been a steep learning curve thanks to KTM520, two-one and many more that has contributed to this threat so that we can do things like that to our bikes and get more out of this great sport. Thank you guys. 

BOA


----------



## projekt (Dec 9, 2009)

Hi BOA,

thanks for posting the MM stack :thumbsup:

- projekt


----------



## BOA (Mar 4, 2013)

Welcome 

The final step towards smoothness would probably by replacing the first two shims towards -projekt 's stack ML Tune. I wish I had them...

Those are the key difference between L and M tune. The low speed stack.

BOA


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

BOA said:


> After studying KTM520 suggestions I did move the ring shim that preloads the compression stack 2 shims away from the main piston. To keep the platform characteristics of the shock and to take smaller steps in general.


Good work man. Nothing wrong with small steps, but I've found when you are first starting out bigger steps make it easier to feel the changes and get a feel for the extremes. Sounds like you already got a feel for too soft.

Am I missing something, or does projekt's L and BOA's M comp stack look exactly the same? Did you all get your reb and comp letters switched around? The first letter is reb and the second is comp. The reb hoop/nest shim is different between the two.

Maybe the piston ports are different. If you all get a chance, measure the size of the comp piston ports.


----------



## two-one (Aug 7, 2008)

ktm520 said:


> Am I missing something, or does projekt's L and BOA's M comp stack look exactly the same? Did you all get your reb and comp letters switched around? The first letter is reb and the second is comp. The reb hoop/nest shim is different between the two.


It looks like the Lowspeed check valve is twice as stiff for BOA's MM tune. (0.2 vs 0.15 shims). That would probably change the compression curve quite a bit, especially in the initial stroke when the main compression stack hasn't blown off yet.

I guess I wouldn't call the LS stack a check-valve anymore, as it can be pretty stiff, and it doesn't seem to be preloaded.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

I'm leaning towards measurement error. There are differences on the rebound side as well and they should be identical. I'd still be surprised if they are using the check plate for anything more than a check valve. Still curious to know if there are differences between the piston port area.


----------



## imbecile (Mar 14, 2007)

Hi guys, 
I see you've done some serious tuning with the Monarch, so may be you could help a bit with my problem. Here are some tech details on the frame:
1. Frame leverage ratio 2.3
2. Lev. ratio escalation 2.75 - 1.95
3. Shock is 2013 RS Monarch RT3 216x63 High volume L/L3 tune

So, as seen by the specs the frame is progressive with a low (ish) leverage ratio. The shock is chosen accordingly and you'd expect to achieve adequate travel with this setup. That's not the case though, I've set it up at around 30% sag and still can't get past ~ 45-50mm. stroke. I don't do drops, but the occasional high speed square bump hit/drop should get me at least near bottom-out, I'm nearly 90kg. with gear. I've had a few occasions when you'd expect to bottom-out and the fork (RS Revelation) pretty much did, which can't be said for the rear end.
I've serviced the shock according to SRAM's service manual and the IFP depth and pressure were and after the service are spot on - depth 70.9mm/350PSI
In short, I feel the end stroke ramps up too much and feels harsh. I even tried to reduce the IFP pressure to 250, but can't say there's noticeable difference...as some of you've already stated earlier in this thread, this is expected with shocks like the Monarch. To add to the confusion, the rebound seems quite fast. When fully closed I get an average return speed, when fully open its lightning fast.
I don't really want to play with the shim stack, but if that's the only option I might try. Any ideas where to look?


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

imbecile, what frame do you have? How much pressure are you running in the fork and shock? Bottoming is mostly controlled by spring. Sounds like you need more air volume, but you already have a hv can, so not much you can do there. Not surprised the reb tune is too soft/fast for your weight. You really need a tune closer to mid/high.

I don't know if anyone has tried this on a mtb shock, but you could add volume to the spring by plumbing up a remote resevoir, maybe even a short length of hose/tubing. Just guessing you may only need somewhere in the range of 8-15cc of extra volume. Hell, you could even leave the pump attached and use the plunger to vary the volume.

About the only other thing you can do is try softening the comp stack stiffness, which is really easy to do if you already know how to tear down the shock. I'd start by reducing preload. Reducing lsc will use more stroke but you may get into the situation were you loose chassis stability.


----------



## imbecile (Mar 14, 2007)

@ktm520
I'm running 95 PSI in the fork and 160 PSI in the shock, which gives around 25-30% sag. The frame is pretty "exotic":
Vendor site: Horské kolo 27,5" IQ 575 TEAM | RB Bike
Some Linkage analysis: RB Bikes IQ 575 2013 - Linkage Design
The leverage ratio gets quite low in the end of the stroke, so I might not get adequate results if I mess with the comp stack as long as it is an air sprung damper...I might think a bit over the idea to extend the volume with a short hose or something similar, just for the sake of testing.
As the shock attachment to the rear triangle is for air shocks only (and w/o reservoir at the shaft end ones, Vivid/DB Air are no-go) I'm limited to RS/Fox/X-fusion air shocks, otherwise I'd consider a more linear air spring damper like the Vivid or DB.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

imbecile said:


> The leverage ratio gets quite low in the end of the stroke, so I might not get adequate results if I mess with the comp stack as long as it is an air sprung damper


Partially true, but you never know until you try. It's so easy to do, I'd start there short of adding a reservoir to the spring.

Besides the bottoming issue, how does it ride on small bump, midstroke, and square edge? You are still using 80% of travel, so I wouldn't be too worried about it if the overall ride is satisfactory. Options are pretty limited. Maybe you just need to go bigger.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

This would get you pointed in the right direction, and then you should be able to find all kinds of extension option at a truck supply shop.
Topeak® Cycling Accessories ? Products - Pressure-Rite


----------



## imbecile (Mar 14, 2007)

ktm520 said:


> Partially true, but you never know until you try. It's so easy to do, I'd start there short of adding a reservoir to the spring.
> 
> Besides the bottoming issue, how does it ride on small bump, midstroke, and square edge? You are still using 80% of travel, so I wouldn't be too worried about it if the overall ride is satisfactory. Options are pretty limited. Maybe you just need to go bigger.


Well, i't's a trail bike, so any bigger would be out of its league  I'd say the overall ride is fine, I guess I'm more worried about the fact that I hardly get even near those 80%, like that's the actual bottom-out point. 
Thanks for the hint with the 90° extension, I'll try this setup just to see how the damper performs when spring is more linear.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Quit looking at that travel oring, problem solved


----------



## paulrb02 (Aug 3, 2009)

Is there any difference between the 2013 and 2014 monarch RT3? 

I looking to buy a monarch, but only see the 2014 shocks, but I'm looking at getting a LLS tune. Will a 2013 tune kit fit into a 2014 body is the real question.


----------



## brentos (May 19, 2006)

So I have a MM tune with soft threshold my Scott Genius 900. The low speed and threshold are REALLY good on this bike, but I'd like to back off high-speed compression damping a bit for the fast, square edge stuff. 160 lb aggressive rider. 2.6:1, slightly regressive suspension ratio.

Given the shim stack below, can anyone recommended changes to the shim stack to achieve a bit lighter high speed compression damping while leaving the threshold and low speed unchanged? A very slight decrease in low speed compression damping would be acceptable.



BOA said:


> 2013 RS RT3 MM Tune
> Shock Rod - Compression Stack First
> Valve Plate Facing Piston
> 9x22x0.2mm
> ...


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

First. Any stack changes to reduce hsc will also reduce lsc. I'd start with reducing stiffness by pulling a shim or 2. At your weight, you can easily run closer to a low tune.


----------



## brentos (May 19, 2006)

ktm520 said:


> First. Any stack changes to reduce hsc will also reduce lsc. I'd start with reducing stiffness by pulling a shim or 2. At your weight, you can easily run closer to a low tune.


Any recommendation on which shim to start with, consider me a newb when it comes to shim stacks. Will pulling a shim also reduce the platform effectiveness, or just LSC?

I'm also tempted to just purchase and try the Rockshox ML Firm Thresh. stock tune kit as well.

Thanks.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Any of the 22x.15 shims above the ring/nest shim. Platform damping is just ultra low speed compression. I don't know what the differences are in the piston assy's between a firm and soft threshold. I'm guessing it's the spring that controls the check valve in the center of the piston arbor, and if that is true, a firmer spring will just change the range of adjustment with the lever and make square edge slightly worst. I would work with what you have before dropping 50$ on another piston assy. You should be able to get where you want to be. Plus it good to get a feel for how specific stack changes effect the ride. I wouldn't be surprised if you find that you really don't need as much "platform" as what you think.


----------



## brentos (May 19, 2006)

Thanks ktm520. 

So I ended up happy with the stock tune again. And the problem was not what I expected.

I noticed that the rebound on my Pike had been turned all the way slow, whether my mechanic (3 yr old son) turned it, or I just kept dialing it up over time I do not know. The slow rebound made the front sink over the rough terrain, as a result, the rear got a a bit light and bouncy.

One other change that also made the suspension feel more responsive was installing a rim/tire package that was 2 lb lighter than I had been riding.

Thanks for the feedback though, I may still tear into to mess around and learn the affect changing the shims has on performance.


----------



## DeanFBM (May 8, 2011)

I've a monarch RT3 2013, ML tune.

1. Shim stacks were posted up for both ML and MM tunes, they however appeared to be the same, what is the difference between the stacks.

2. I'd like to give some tuning a go this is prompted by the fact i've already rebult it due to ifp pressure loss and the ifp crashing into the schrader valve pin and bending it. Then i can't quite get it feeling quite right.

HV air can, packed out the HV section to reduce volume, mega tr frame, 130mm, regressive then progressive leverage curve.

The issue that im running into is that im having to run less than 20% sag and im still having bottom out issues, it's using the travel too easily, not quite "blowing through" but certainly doesn't have the support im after. Or is this simply the limitation of a 130mm frame, coming from a 150mm frame (with a vivid air) and doing silly gaps and drops people do on DH bikes?

Thinking of adding a shim at the beginning of the HS stack, not sure what size to start with.

Just to make sure i've got the shock sussed, low speed lever adjust preload on a spring loading a check needle, low speed, the needle monitors flow, out of a port (which bypasses HS stack), then through a separate low speed stack. When enough oil flows, low speed is overwhelmed, HS stack is forced open.

Also, how hard is the piston to get off? Do you need to heat to soften thread lock? What did you use to clamp the shaft, or are there some flats?


----------



## Marmoto (Sep 10, 2007)

How do you block the IFP before refilling the suspension fluid and mounting the piston?
I was wandering if there's a method other tan using the Monarch specific vise blocks recommended by RS


----------



## FM (Apr 30, 2003)

Hey, can you guys weigh in on this? I had heard that the 7.875x2.0 and 7.875x2.25 Monarch shocks are the same, but the 2" stroke version has some sort of internal spacer to limit the stroke. Can anyone confirm?


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

FM said:


> Hey, can you guys weigh in on this? I had heard that the 7.875x2.0 and 7.875x2.25 Monarch shocks are the same, but the 2" stroke version has some sort of internal spacer to limit the stroke. Can anyone confirm?


It might have at some point, but that's not what's showing in SRAM's parts list. The 200x51 is a 190x51 shock with a longer damper body. The air can/damper body/damper rods are all specific to the 200x57.


----------



## FM (Apr 30, 2003)

car_nut said:


> It might have at some point, but that's not what's showing in SRAM's parts list.


Thanks for doing the research!


----------



## imbecile (Mar 14, 2007)

ktm520 said:


> I'm leaning towards measurement error. There are differences on the rebound side as well and they should be identical. I'd still be surprised if they are using the check plate for anything more than a check valve. Still curious to know if there are differences between the piston port area.


I did some measurements on my Monarch RT3 2013 shim stack as well and I confirm the values for ML tune listed by project in this post ...but my tune is ML3! so, the "3" definitely does not mean tapered stack. It might have been prior 2013, but now it is straight stack as the "ordinary" tunes. Since the L and L3 tune look exactly the same in terms of shim diameter, thickness and arrangement could the only difference be in the piston (ports diameter, shape) and/or the check valve plates ports shape/size?


----------



## two-one (Aug 7, 2008)

imbecile said:


> I did some measurements on my Monarch RT3 2013 shim stack as well and I confirm the values for ML tune listed by project in this post ...but my tune is ML3! so, the "3" definitely does not mean tapered stack. It might have been prior 2013, but now it is straight stack as the "ordinary" tunes. Since the L and L3 tune look exactly the same in terms of shim diameter, thickness and arrangement could the only difference be in the piston (ports diameter, shape) and/or the check valve plates ports shape/size?


Maybe it's the thickness of the preload ring shim?


----------



## imbecile (Mar 14, 2007)

Nope, measurements are the same, I used 0,01mm. accuracy micrometer. There are a few differences of course on some of the shims, but the result is within 0,02mm, so I doubt that would make huge difference (like 0.12 instead of 0.10 or 0.13 instead of 0.15). Specifically the ring shims are spot on.
Unless....on second observation there is a small difference in the comp check valve. I didn't pay much attention to it being just check valve (on/off).
In my stack it is:

shaft
check valve plate
9 x 22 x 0,12 (more likely designed around 0.10)
9 x 18 x 0,15

Given the difference it had in BOAs MM tune this really might not be just check valve...I'm trying to wrap my head around oil flow in the compression stage, but could that "check valve" be more like mid-valve in the meaning Avalanche have for their cartridges - where they add additional shims to the comp check valve at the back of the rebound piston thus resisting fork dive in the low speed comp oil flow...?


----------



## two-one (Aug 7, 2008)

A 0.2 shim will be about 4,7x as stiff as a 0.12 shim, so that would really stiffen up the low speed behaviour


----------



## imbecile (Mar 14, 2007)

Right, again IF projekt's and BOA's measurements where fairly accurate. 
Are you aware of the exact oil flow during comp stage?


----------



## two-one (Aug 7, 2008)

Nope, I haven't had a monarch in my hands to measure, but I'm guessing the LS circuit has about 1/4th of the total max oil flow, but will probably be the only active circuit for more than 95% of the average ride.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

This thread is about RT3. How much does all this apply to R, RL and RT models? I looked at the service manuals and part lists in Rock Shox site and it seems that older Monarchs (...-2012) have same internal construction. So I suppose it is possible to tune same way? 

But what about recent models? Another question: are the new models better in some way than old ones?


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

arnea said:


> This thread is about RT3. How much does all this apply to R, RL and RT models? I looked at the service manuals and part lists in Rock Shox site and it seems that older Monarchs (...-2012) have same internal construction. So I suppose it is possible to tune same way?
> 
> But what about recent models? Another question: are the new models better in some way than old ones?


As you noted, pre '12 were all very similar in design and the R/RT/RT3 were identical except for the external adjuster. The R/XX are a little different. I just recently picked up a '13 R off ebay, converted it to a RT, and revalved. It has a '12 piston in it without any comp dish and similar reb dish to the '12 RT3 piston I have. I have yet to test a '13+ RT3. The R doesn't have a comp check plate in it. All of the comp free bleed flows through the reb shutter. In stock trim, small bump was slightly harsh. I swapped in a check plate from an RT3 and it woke that shock up. My goal with this shock was to build something similar to Push's RT-AM.

To answer your question, yes tuning the different shocks are similar depending on which generation it is.



imbecile said:


> I did some measurements on my Monarch RT3 2013 shim stack as well and I confirm the values for ML tune listed by project in this post ...but my tune is ML3! so, the "3" definitely does not mean tapered stack. It might have been prior 2013, but now it is straight stack as the "ordinary" tunes. Since the L and L3 tune look exactly the same in terms of shim diameter, thickness and arrangement could the only difference be in the piston (ports diameter, shape) and/or the check valve plates ports shape/size?


Brings up a good point that I meant to make previously. The comp flow area of the '13+ piston is considerably smaller than the '12-. I've also compared the '12 pistons to a Fox bv piston and a non bv piston. The bv area is smaller and the non bv is larger. Although, I've had good luck removing the bv and replacing with shims in a '13 CTD, which suggests the bv piston flow area is sufficient.

If you one of you all could measure the diameter of the comp ports on a '13 rt3 piston, that would be much appreciated.


----------



## Marmoto (Sep 10, 2007)

Time to contribute after learning a lot here.

My FOX Float CTD shock started leaking air so it was the right time to give a try to my new Monarch RT3 2013.

Being a light biker (140 lbs) and considering the linkage of my frame I was quite sure I needed a LL tune instead of the stock MM. I ordered a Tune Kit RT3 2013 LL S 219 to Gabelprofi and after installing it I'm very happy with the results. IMO substantially better than the original FOX CTD. Plush, controlled, the 3 LSC positions are almost perfect :thumbsup:

Here is the shim stacks measurements I've taken with a digital caliper:








...the stock MM shim stack...








...the Tune Kit LL S 219 shim stack...








...and the LSC precharge


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Marmoto, thanks for sharing man. Very good info. Interesting that the L reb stack has more preload and only one less preloaded shim. Also note that the comp check plate stack is stiffer on the M by quite a bit.

Where do the shims go shown above the poppet valve? Did you measure their thickness? Although the check valve springs are different colors, they appear to be very close on height and wire diameter.


----------



## saruti (Aug 9, 2008)

hi guys
where can I buy the valve to inflat the shock IFP?

thanks


----------



## Marmoto (Sep 10, 2007)

ktm520, the poppet valve shims are mounted in the order shown in the picture. Unfortunately I didn't measured them, but look identical between tunes. The spring in the LL kit looks a bit thinner than the stock MM.

Interesting thoughts about the stack preload. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it looks like the preload is achieved by the whole stack (reb+comp), due to the fact that the piston and valve plates are "floating" in the shaft (doesn't have any seat other than the base plate and the nut). If you add up the thickness of all the shims except the shims inside the shim rings (thinner than their paired shim rings), the MM shim stack measures 5.35mm and the LL shim stack 5.15mm. This makes me think that the LL stack has less preload... but I'm not an expert at all.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

No, the preload is determine by thickness delta between the ring and nest shim. These are the two shims you have highlighted on either side of the piston. For comp, M has .3mm and L has .2mm of preload. For reb, M has .15mm and L has .2mm of preload. This delta causes all of the comp/reb shims on top of the ring shim to bend when the stack is tightened down, aka preload.


----------



## Marmoto (Sep 10, 2007)

Understood. Very interesting. Now I see your point about reb preload. Tnx

Enviado desde mi GT-I8190 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## imbecile (Mar 14, 2007)

ktm520 said:


> ...
> If you one of you all could measure the diameter of the comp ports on a '13 rt3 piston, that would be much appreciated.


Compression ports - 4 x 2.35mm
Rebound ports - 4 x 1.85mm.

My caliper is 0.05mm. accurate, so have that in mind.


----------



## PHeller (Dec 28, 2012)

Any ideas on how to determine what shock we need for a bike that isn't common or custom? 

Can you use something like BikeCad to determine necessary shock tunes?


----------



## absoluteczech (Sep 22, 2009)

*cliff notes* (want to get a monarch plus rc3 for bronson. would m/m tune be fine or do i need to change tune assembly?)*

Hi,

Hoping some suspension experts can help me. I'm a total newb with this stuff. I'm gonna be ordering a new bronson and instead of having the fox ctd im thinking of going monarch plus rc3. speaking to santa cruz they tech said the following



> The Monarch is a great shock and there is no reason you couldn't use on on your Bronson. Though if you go with piggyback style shock like the Debonair you will forgo the use of a bottle cage. I can give you the shock tune information for the CTD on the Bronson, but you should contact Rockshox to find out what tune they would recommend on the Monarch.
> 
> It's medium compression and light rebound for the CTD


Does that mean i should get a light rebound and medium compression for the monarch? It seems it only comes with medium/medium. Looking at a parts diagram i see 11.4118.023.053 monarch lus reb-low/comp-mid (cf-97lbs) lf-320, b1

then im confused with hv and standard air cans. my heads just spinning from this lol.

im 180 lbs with gear and ride in socal rocky hard pack and 2-3x a year go to a bike park where i take smaller size jumps (i suck at jumping).


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Let me look at leverage curve for that frame. Probably safe with same tune as ctd, but may be advantages to getting something different.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## absoluteczech (Sep 22, 2009)

not sure if you were responding to me or not, but if you were, thank you!


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

absoluteczech said:


> not sure if you were responding to me or not, but if you were, thank you!


Yes, you will also get more feedback if you start a new thread.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

absoluteczech said:


> *cliff notes* (want to get a monarch plus rc3 for bronson. would m/m tune be fine or do i need to change tune assembly?)*
> 
> Hi,
> 
> ...


Looks like the Bronson is a typical VPP digressive-progressive leverage curve, 2.65-2.4, but only mildly progressive. At your weight, you could go with either a low or med comp tune. If you think you might try you hand at a revalve, go with the med and you can always soften it up. I would definitely go with a med reb tune. The few CTD's I've played with had a crazy stiff reb stack for what was labeled a med tune. I'm guessing this is why SC went with a low reb tune. The other thing you need to consider is air spring volume. You will probably be in between a low and high volume can. Do some research and see why other Bronsons are using. The CTD's that are now called LV have a bigger head that puts the volume very close to the old high volume cans with sleeve. Looks like it comes with LV CTD shock, so you probably want the hv monarch.


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

Not a Bronson, but I have a 2014 RC3 med/med on a Satori (~2.5 leverage ratio). I'm 200lbs on the bike and run the rebound ~2/3rds shut. There is no perceptible rebound damping at my air pressures with the rebound 1/3rd shut. It is a literal pogo stick with the rebound full open. I'd imagine you'll be fine with the stock med/med tune. 

Part of the reason SRAM only sells the med/med tune now is because they claim the rebound side flows enough oil and has enough adjustment to not warrant all the various tunes. I'm not 100% sure I agree with that, but in your case I'd be surprised if it didn't work.

For the air can, I believe your shock size only comes in the high volume configuration. Order a set of the SRAM "Tuning Bands" and you should be all set.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

car_nut said:


> Part of the reason SRAM only sells the med/med tune now is because they claim the rebound side flows enough oil and has enough adjustment to not warrant all the various tunes. I'm not 100% sure I agree with that, but in your case I'd be surprised if it didn't work.


I agree. Just an excuse for them to stock less configurations. I think this is also why Fox valves the ctd reb so stiff and added more adjustment range to the lsr shutter. Technically, it's a broader tune, but not the best for optimal reb action.


----------



## absoluteczech (Sep 22, 2009)

thanks guys i appreciate all your help. I guess i'll start off with a HV can med/med monarch plus rc3


----------



## saruti (Aug 9, 2008)

just bought an 2013 RT3 shock.
but it has a regular air can.
where can I buy a 2013 high volume air can online?

thanks


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

I've never seen one for sale online. Any dealer can order it for you.


----------



## saruti (Aug 9, 2008)

any idea what can be the price?
thanks


----------



## mullen119 (Aug 30, 2009)

saruti said:


> just bought an 2013 RT3 shock.
> but it has a regular air can.
> where can I buy a 2013 high volume air can online?
> 
> thanks


What size shock? If its 200x57, I will trade you. I have a HV, but want a standard can


----------



## saruti (Aug 9, 2008)

yes its 200X57

2013


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

Sorry for asking my question twice, but I hope I can get quicker answer here.

Is low/low tune Monarch good for 230 lbs rider on XC bike with average leverage ration 2.0? Bike has virtual pivot point type of linkage and pedal bob is not big concernc. I like plusher ride.


----------



## saruti (Aug 9, 2008)

hi again guys

so now I have a onarch RT3 HV rear shock. M\M.
my frame needs a L\L tune. 
Q: does the M\L\H is for low speed? or does it represent also the high speed?

I like how the rear shock act with a bit of low speed compression.
but I want the high speed to be full open
Q: will playing with the shims impact the low & high speed too?
Q: mayb replacing the oil to higher velocity, with less shims bring me to the desired feel of the shock?

thanks


----------



## Marmoto (Sep 10, 2007)

*Monarch RT3 (2013) tuned to "LL Soft 219" Ride Report*

In post #212 I explained and documented the tuning I did to my stock MM Monarch. Now, for you to be able to extract conclusions to this report I have to add this info:

-	Rider weight with kit: 66 kg (145 lbs)
-	Riding style: Trail - AM (not too aggressive, I'm 56&#8230
-	Shock: Monarch RT3 2013 HV 216x63 mm tuned from "MM" to "LL Soft 219"
-	HV air can tune: 33% filled with electric tape
-	Air spring pressure: 103 psi
-	Rebound knob: just in the middle
-	Frame Leverage Ratio: 2.56 flat (CUBE Stereo SHPC 650B 160mm)
-	Fork: RS PIKE SA 27.5 160mm
With this setup, I get a SAG of 22%

Climbing
My frame linkage has a good anti-squat design. The rear suspension has no noticeable bob climbing on fire roads in "pedal" LSC position and very small movement in the open position. Most of the times I leave it open unless I pedal standing up. 
In technical rocks&roots climbs I very often use the open position and I feel my rear Hans Dampf glued to the ground. The rear eats up all the bumps even at low speeds. A noticeable improvement compared with MM. 
The low sag / linear spring somehow compensated my low BB height and had limited pedal strikes.
I use the "Lock" position only climbing in paved roads. It's not a "full lock" but gives enough platform to hammer on the pedals.

Flats
Outstanding small bump compliance in the open position and not that much but very good in "pedal" . The LSC damping is bit low in "open" and the bike uses lots of travel riding fast over deep bumps. The feeling is very good and plush, but the bike is a bit more controlled in "pedal".

Descending.
Bottomless, plush, superb feeling. It's perfect for me. I can go very fast with an incredible feeling of control (I also use the 40mm wide carbon Derby rims, which is a +). But please consider that my setup IS NOT for jumps bigger than 2-3 feet. It would be too soft.

Conclusion:
My tuned shock outperforms my previous stock MM Monarch and also the OEM Fox Float CTB. Big improvement in bump compliance, technical climbing and fast descending. The shock rides high in the travel and I haven't noticed any packing up. Could it be even better with a bit more air pressure o bit more LSC? I will try it.


----------



## saruti (Aug 9, 2008)

thanks Marmoto
did you notice that the oil in the 2013 is 7wt?

https://www.sram.com/sites/default/...9_rev_a_2013_monarch_rt3_service_manual_0.pdf

is it 7wt in the older models too?
what oil did you use?

thanks


----------



## Marmoto (Sep 10, 2007)

Yes, I used original 7wt suspension fluid. I haven't read the service manual of older models so I don't know if their suspension fluid has the same wt.

Enviado desde mi GT-I8190 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## saruti (Aug 9, 2008)

hi guys
I've started messing with the shims in mt RT3
made a diagram of the shims in a M\M and in a L\L tunes.
it makes it easy to understand how oil flows through the sims in comp and rebound.

it looks like the L\L tune has more preload on the rebound shims. 
and one less shim in the comp.

what I didn't understand is, when does the oil flow through the little holes in the shaft?
and how is it Influence On the work of the shock? or the shims?

thanks


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

arnea said:


> Sorry for asking my question twice, but I hope I can get quicker answer here.
> 
> Is low/low tune Monarch good for 230 lbs rider on XC bike with average leverage ration 2.0? Bike has virtual pivot point type of linkage and pedal bob is not big concernc. I like plusher ride.


Any opinions?


----------



## saruti (Aug 9, 2008)

Arnea
it depends on the leverage ratio of the bike and more.
if that is the shock you've got, try it
if there are problems, tell us here. and I'm sure you will get help.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

saruti said:


> Arnea
> it depends on the leverage ratio of the bike and more.
> if that is the shock you've got, try it
> if there are problems, tell us here. and I'm sure you will get help.


Thanks. I do not have the shock. I would like to buy one. The question is what tune would most likely work well with my bike and weight out of the box. It is possible to retune, but I would like to make good initial selection.


----------



## saruti (Aug 9, 2008)

I dont think you can buy RT3 other then a MM tune.


----------



## Marmoto (Sep 10, 2007)

Arnea,
Two main considerations to start:

1.- Lower Leverage Ratio (2.0 is low) --> Lower compression damping tune in general. But then the optimum depends on the leverage ratio curve (LR vs. wheel travel) and rider weight.

2.- Higher rider weight --> higher compression and rebound damping tune.

As you can see, 1 & 2 are not pointing to the same direction regarding compression damping. Also there are some other factors in the equation so you will have to try or find a smart suspension guru to help. Anyway, if you are thinking in buying an RS Monarch RT3 there is only one choice off the shelf: MM (at least in Europe) 

I also started with an MM Monarch. My final tune (very happy with it) is Low/Low but for a different bike, riding style and rider weight. See post# 235 for more details


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

arnea said:


> Sorry for asking my question twice, but I hope I can get quicker answer here.
> 
> Is low/low tune Monarch good for 230 lbs rider on XC bike with average leverage ration 2.0? Bike has virtual pivot point type of linkage and pedal bob is not big concernc. I like plusher ride.


That's a tough call due to your weight. I think you will be closer to a med tune or maybe in between the two. The spring curve is driven more by the leverage curve. The only way you will get a good answer on this is if you find someone at the same weight with similar bike. If you truly like a super plush ride, which means sacrificing chassis stability and midstroke, go with the low comp. On the reb side, I think you definitely need a med, maybe even a high. Reb tune is purely driven by spring rate, which is driven by sprung mass. I'm only 170 and every monarch I've ridden has been a med reb tune, and I've never touched the reb stack.


----------



## harrism3 (Apr 10, 2014)

Hello
I've just fitted an rt3 M/M rear sock. I would. Like to have an even firmer feeling at the locked position. If I change the tune piston with a firm threshold will I have any change? I'm 80kg riding a Canyon Nerve xc with 2.4 leverage ratio. Should I opt something else than M/M? The tune piston will ccome to my hands assembled?


----------



## dimitrin (Nov 23, 2008)

subscribed
I have been having problems with my RT3 after getting a complete service at LBS, hopefully this thread will help sort it out.
Good info, thanks to all.


----------



## _Supra_Shin (Jun 25, 2010)

*Monarch RT3 Got Black in 2015!*

It looks like Monarch RT3 got black as PIKE and a brand new BoXXer 2015.








Monarch RT3 | SRAM

I'm currently running 2011 RT3 165x38 M/M with 250[PSI] IFP Pressure.
My bike's average leverage ratio is 2.95 so I'm considering some updates.
My plan is...

1.Replace Damper body to a brand new black anodized one.
Since mine gets some damage, like some hair line scratches, I need to replace it.
I hope it will improve shock performance, visuals as well.
Although a Spare Parts Catalog for 2015 is not available now, I couldn't know the exact part number.

2.Replace seals to a brand new 2015 ones.
According to the new black treatment on damper body, seals, like dust seals on PIKE, can be modified to achieve great performance.
The chassis of 2015 Monarch looks the same, they will be compatible with older Monarchs.

3.Bring "Rapid Recovery" technology to my shock.
I'm not sure the Rapid Recovery technology was performed by assist return spring, like on Vivid shocks, or shim stacks.
But if it is achieved via shim stacks, I would like to try them on my shock.

4.Revalve from M/M to H/M tunes.
Since my Leverage Ratio 2.95 is too high for Mid Tune, I will change the thickness of shims which is 4th from above on compression side.
But there is no information on shim's Inner Diameter, I'm wondering what shims to buy.

ID : ?? [mm]
OD : 22 [mm]
Thickness	: 0.2[mm]








(Sadly, Big Mountain Cycles pages gone...)

Any thoughts or opinions, ideas on my plan?
Or are there anyone have already been planned like this?


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

The 2015 spare parts catalog is out now. My general understanding is that the black anodize was a cosmetic change only. The rapid recovery is a higher flowing piston I believe. Don't know if it is compatible with older shocks or not.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

_Supra_shin, I'm also under the impression that the black anodizing is purely cosmetic. I think I actually read that from an interview with a RS tech. I also believe that "rapid recovery" is mostly slick marketing. It's basically just a digressive damping curve. In the 11-12 and 13 RT3, it's just a preloaded reb shim stack. The 11-12 has a dished piston on the reb (and comp) face. The 13 uses a ring/nest shim for preload. I'm not aware of what's in the Vivid, but in the RT3 there just isn't enough room to use any type of a spring to get the digressive damping curve.

Looking at the '15 spare parts catalog, it doesn't appear that they change the piston in the RT3, but they did upgrade the R/RL/RT/xx to the most current design.

I've been playing with a '13 RT and a '13 CTD back to back on my SB95. The CTD reb is revalved and the stock reb med tune on the RT. The reb action on the RT (preloaded stack, .15mm piston dish) is slightly different than the CTD. I can't decide which one I like better. It's not mind blowing on a 125 travel frame.

For your 11 RT3, the shim ID is 6mm.


----------



## _Supra_Shin (Jun 25, 2010)

car_nut,

Thanks for your info on 2015 spare parts catalog.
I've got it from here.
https://www.sram.com/sites/default/files/techdocs/2015_rockshox_spc_rev_a.pdf

ktm520,

Whether Fast Black treatment is only a cosmetic reason or not, I hope it is compatible with older monarchs.
Both of the Damper body assy ("11.4118.037.014(2014-2015)" and "11.4115.112.020(2011-2012") including a IFP piston.
So the point is both IFP pistons have the same outer diameter, right?

I'm gonna get the shims(ID : 6 [mm], OD : 22 [mm], Thickness : 0.2[mm]) for my 2011 RT3 to get High tune comp.

But on rebound side, I need to study more about digressive damping to improve my shock performance.
Taking a look at RT3 valving on 2015 spare parts catalog, it looks having straight stack with crossover stack.
Can I achieve digressive rebound damping on RT3's dished piston face in that way?

In shock rebuilding process, what kind of vise do you recommend when holding the damper shaft and the IFP piston in place ?


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

I don't know for sure if the damper boddies between 12, 13 and 15 are the same OD/ID but I would assume they are because the air cans are interchangeable, meaning the OD is the same. I can't see them changing the ID.

Pay no attention to the shim stack figure in the SPC. The RT3 stack doesn't look anything like that, and it's the same way in the 14 SPC. I've noticed in previous years that they actually have a correct number/size of shims but they aren't ordered correctly. Your shock already has a preloaded reb and comp stack, only difference between it and a newer 13+ is that the preload is provided by the piston dish versus using a ring/nest shim. The hole idea behind rapid recovery (digressive) is to get more lsr and less hsr. The theory is to provided better chassis stability while at the same time allowing the shock to quickly rebound from mid/deep stroke. Whether or not this is advantage to you personally depends on how fast of a rider you are and how rough of trails you ride. Faster and rougher the trail, the more noticeable the benefits.

I just use a drill press style vice sitting on the bench top to hold the damper body eyelet. You should be able to break the piston nut loose without having damper shaft clamp blocks. I have a set but have only use them to change a damper shaft.


----------



## _Supra_Shin (Jun 25, 2010)

Thanks ktm520,

I'm going to try to replace with 2015 Fast Black Damper body when it gets available.

You told digressive damping achieves more Low Speed Rebound while less High Speed Rebound.
In following article, Rapid Recovery has adjustable beginning stroke and fixed rate ending stroke rebound damping circuits. And "Rapid Recovery offers a faster rate ending stroke rebound and a slower-than-usual beginning stroke rebound rate".
RockShox Pike suspension fork - first look - BikeRadar

So it means...
Beginning stroke rebound = Low Speed Rebound
Ending stroke rebound = High Speed Rebound
right? (I'm just confused...)

According to this, I think we need preloaded shim stack to get digressive damping.
http://www.bsamarketing.com/online_...al_Manual/files/assets/downloads/page0023.pdf
Then my 2011 RT3 has preloaded rebound stack as you told, does it already have shim stacks for digressive rebound damping?
Is it as much digressive as currently available Rapid Recovery shocks?

I have a nice vise and thanks for your info so it seems like I don't have to buy any clamp blocks.
But no special tool required to hold IFP pistons in place while bleeding shocks?
(The process is Page 27 in following document.)
http://cdn.sram.com/cdn/farfuture/V...0000000004415_rev_a_2014_monarch_rt3_r_sm.pdf


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Yes,
Beginning stroke rebound = Low Speed Rebound (lsr)
Ending stroke rebound = High Speed Rebound (hsr)

This is RS's attempt to make the concepts easier to understand. The "speed" in lsr/hsr/lsc/hsc refers to piston speed, not bike forward velocity.

Yes, anytime you add preload to a shim stack, whether its comp or reb, it makes the curve more digressive.

No tools required to hold ifp in place when assembling damper. The tool in that picture is just a caliper used to measure/set the depth. The ifp valve has to be vented when you set the depth.


----------



## _Supra_Shin (Jun 25, 2010)

ktm520,

OK. I understood, Digressive damping can be controlled via Preload on shim stack.

Sorry I would like you to see Page 28 (lettered 27 bottom left), "Shock Assembly and Bleed" process "1".
It says clamp a damper body by using RS Vise Block.
Is this tool necessary to complete bleeding shocks?


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

No, it's just a fancy plastic block to hold the damper body in a vice. I either leave the spacer in the eyelet bushing and clamp on it, or use a rag and clamp directly on flats on the damper body eyelet. DO NOT clamp on the round part of the damper body.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

ktm520, thank you for the information about vice blocks. It is good to know that you can service the piston without them. But about the black plastic blocks - I understood from the manul that the idea is to pinch the damper body very slightly using those block and immobilize the IFP piston inside so that it can not accidently move during the assembly and bleeding process. If the piston stays at the correct position without those blocks then this is also good news.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

I missed the part in the manual about the clamp blocks locking the ifp in place. Nice, but still not necessary. I don't actually use a stroking type bleed on these inline shocks anymore. I found it works better to flush the bypass circuit with a squeeze bottle until no bubbles exit the lsr port in the shaft, flood the piston assembly while over a small cup of oil, immediately drop it in the cup after flooding, agitate quickly in cup, and finally quickly transfer from cup to damper body.

In my opinion, when bleeding by stroking, the shims will never deflect enough to clear air out of the piston ports, so you are really just bleeding air out of the bypass and lsr circuit.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

I've most recently been playing with a '14 R that I stole off ebay. I knew this shock had the new 10mm shaft in it, but was surprised to find that it still uses a 6mm piston arbor and has no bypass through shaft center. It also uses two check plates on the rebound side and has four holes in the shaft for lsr vice the 9mm with only one. The piston design is similar to the '13 RT3 but uses a tapered shim stack with no preload on comp side and reb is preloaded it doesn't use a ring/nest shim for preload. Was slightly disappointed to find this out (lack of bypass mostly), but the shock performed very well with the stock MM tune on both my Spark 7 and SB95, which have similar leverage curves but the linkages are very different in design. In fact, I liked this shock better than the '13 RT that I revalved despite the lack of comp adjustment. The lack of comp adjuster turns out not to be a big deal because I ended up running the RT open all the time to get the best square edge performance.

Last week, I got a Debonair can to test. Unfortunately, it will only fit on the '14 R. This thing works as advertised. I've only got 1 ride on it so far but is was a noticeable improvement in compliance, small bump, and better mid support, which they don't advertise but can be seen in the published spring curves. More to come on the Debonair. I'm trying really hard to resist buying a '15 RT3 or RC3.


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

ktm520

Do you think a Monarch RT3 Debonair would be an upgrade to a Fox Performance CTD DRCV?

Seems like similar means to the same end? 

That being:
DRCV twin chamber for small bump compliance and linear response to big hits
vs
Debonair negative spring for small bump and main chamber for big hit?


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

hokiebrett said:


> ktm520
> 
> Do you think a Monarch RT3 Debonair would be an upgrade to a Fox Performance CTD DRCV?


Yes, especially if the CTD isn't a boost valve shock. The debonair spring is very similar to DRCV in the mid/end stroke, but the initial is slightly softer. The RT3 damper is also and improvement over the CTD. Beware though, that you will only be able to purchase the RT3 with a MM tune, so depending on leverage curve and rider weight, it may need a revalve.
Trek Slash Rear Shock Spring Curves - Mtbr.com

The more I ride the R with Debonair, the more I like it. This shock has the best rebound damping curve of any Monarch I've ridden, and it's not digressive.


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

Thanks for your response

Now this is interesting... Craig at Avy removes the Boost Valve from the CTD shocks during his tunes. And cites several reasons for why he does so. You're suggesting the Boost Valve is helpful (maybe more so for a linear DRCV?)

Thought the new Trek shocks were tuned specifically for each bike/leverage curve?

I'm 182-190# out of the shower (variability due to Coors Banquet and breakfast burritos), so a touch on the heavy side. Currently run a PUSH air can spacer in the top of the DRCV to add a touch more progressiveness and mid-stroke/end-stroke support, while still allowing me to run 25-30% sag in primary chamber.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

hokiebrett said:


> Thanks for your response
> 
> Now this is interesting... Craig at Avy removes the Boost Valve from the CTD shocks during his tunes. And cites several reasons for why he does so. You're suggesting the Boost Valve is helpful (maybe more so for a linear DRCV?)


No, no, no, I am not a boost valve fan. I've actually played around with replacing the bv in a CTD with a shim stack using the stock piston. Had decent success, but quickly realized how much better/easier Monarchs are to work with and have a better spring curve even with the SV can.

The MM tune should be pretty close for you. With Debonair, you can easily reduce the positive chamber volume in the sleeve to tune progression.


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

My only hang up is that RS doesn't have a Monarch + RC3 for my Trek Remedy, I'm stuck with the RT3. I'm not convinced that the RT3 is enough of an upgrade over a Performance Series DRCV... For aggressive AM riding that is. I'm posting here b/c this I where I'm finding the information and b/c my Remedy is 1/2 Slash with a 160mm Pike, 2.35 tires on 35mm rims and a 55mm stem/780mm bar.

A 200x57 RC3 and a 2mm offset lower shock bushing should get me pretty darn close to my stock 197x57 DRCV... but it won't have the Trek specific tune.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

I have M/M tune RT3 Debonair and I might want to lighten the compression tune somewhat. I have bunch of questions:

Is the height of the shimstack critical and I need to buy lower tune shimstack that is sold separately or can I just remove some shims from the current mid-tune shimstack to make it softer?

Has somebody tried to remove the preloaded ring shims? What would be the result of that? I would expect better small bump compliance. Are there any negative effects?

Can I combine compression and rebound sides from different shimstacks? E.g. if I get low/low shimstack can I combine it with existing mid/mid stack to build low/mid stack?


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

arnea said:


> ...Is the height of the shimstack critical...


It may be:

- if the total height in insufficient then the clamp bolt will not be able to hold all the shims together properly.
- also, the positions of the check valves in relation to the bleed port holes in the piston rod is also critical. If they don't line up properly then damping fluid will flow in unintended ways.

Removing only one or two shims will probably not affect the above.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

arnea, 

The height of the stack is only critical if is gets to large as it can push the reb side check plate out far enough that it won't flow any oil. There are no holes to line up. Just as long as the check plates are within the square cross section area of the piston arbor, all is good.

Completely removing the ring/nest shim will significantly soften the entire comp damping curve and will change it from digressive to linear. Small bump will be better but you will also loose mid/bottom support. I would start by moving it up the stack (away from piston face) as others here have documented. Also, when you get it apart, measure all the shims and document the configuration.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

I tried to open the shock today, but encountered problem when I tried to unscrew the piston nut without clamping the shaft using the vice blocks. 

I clamped the eyelet as was suggested previously, but on my shock the piston nut was much tighter than the shaft, so the shaft started to unscrew from the eyelet. 

I will put the shock back together now and try to find the shaft clamp blocks.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

I made vice blokcs from soft wood. I had to clamp the shaft really hard. It took are sharp turn with wrench in order to crack the bolt open. It made a snapping sound when it opened, but there were no signs of the thread glue. 

I measured the shim stack with my not very accurate calipers. 0,05mm is the maximum resolution that I can get. I tried to match the shimstack to the 2013 RT3 MM shimstack that was posted here by Marmoto and it seemed to be exactly same. Shims had 9mm internal diameter. Only differences were location of some spacers.

I've included some pictures as well. Look of the shimstack and end of the damping rod. There seems to be small spring clip at the end of the rod that keeps in place some red anodized piece. I haven't seen this on the pictures before. Rockshox service manual does not mention it either. Perhaps it is now possible to swap the poppet valve without unthreading the shaft? 

I'm planning to make following modifications (also visible in the picture):

1. replace the 22x9x0.2 shim in the low speed compression stack with one of the 22x9x0.15 shims from the high speed compression stack. So there will be one less shim in high speed compression stack.

2. rise the ring shim on the high speed compression stack by one shim.


----------



## mt.nebo.mtb (Feb 12, 2011)

arnea, Wondering how the shim changes worked for you. I appreciate you posting the shim sizes and their locations. I have a 2015 184X44 Debonair. Mine was an MM and I felt I needed a little less compression also. On the low stack, I used a 22X9x1.5 and a 19X9X1.0.I tried to keep the stack height close by using 2 11X9X.2 instesd of 1 11X9X.3. On the high stack, I moved the ring nest 2 shims away from the piston. I didn't have the recommended damper fluid so I used RS 2.5. All this is working well so far. I don't think the lighter weight fluid made much difference. My rebound settings hardly changed.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

I just had 4 hour group ride yesterday and can share some feelings. We have already winter here, so I cannot ride as hard as usual, also my test track is covered with snow that hides the roots and bumps, so the ride is smoother.

I liked the changes. Previously it was the shock that I noticed, now I felt the fork more - shock was smoother. I think that I noticed increased pedal bob. I need more time to test it in different modes (I used only open mode yesterday), but this must wait for spring.


----------



## mullen119 (Aug 30, 2009)

arnea said:


> I made vice blokcs from soft wood. I had to clamp the shaft really hard. It took are sharp turn with wrench in order to crack the bolt open. It made a snapping sound when it opened, but there were no signs of the thread glue.
> 
> I measured the shim stack with my not very accurate calipers. 0,05mm is the maximum resolution that I can get. I tried to match the shimstack to the 2013 RT3 MM shimstack that was posted here by Marmoto and it seemed to be exactly same. Shims had 9mm internal diameter. Only differences were location of some spacers.
> 
> ...


I have the same shock and did my initial tune a few days ago. I dont use a lock out and The stock MM tune is close to what need. My first tune is stock with the ring shims removed to get rid of all stack preload and a .1mm shim from the rebound stack as well. Initial test is promising, but not sure when I will get a chance to put a real ride on it due to winter weather.

Even with no stack preload, there is a noticeable difference in all 3 compression settings, but the firmest setting is more like the middle setting with the stock tune. Exactly what I was looking for.


----------



## _Supra_Shin (Jun 25, 2010)

Deleted


----------



## _Supra_Shin (Jun 25, 2010)

*Reshim my 2011 RT3*

I'm running Monarch RT3 2011 on GT Distortion (2.99 leverage ratio) and modified shim stacks to H tune in August.
After tons of DH riding, I didn't even notice any improvement on compression tune.
My complaint was harsh bottoming outs when landing after a-feet-tall drops in high speed.
I inflated positive air up to 160[PSI] to resist bottoming out right now.
Then I'm confused and wondering if my modify was not working correctly.

The modify is shown below.
https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hpho...03257154_o.jpg 

I replaced a 0.1 shim with a 0.2mm shim. This will make shim stack in High tune that is offered by ROCKSHOX.
 If this High tune will match 2.99 high leverage ratio, that is fine.
But why do I feel harsh bottoming out?
Don't I need further HSC? Then where should I put a smaller and thicker shim into the shim stack?


----------



## harrism3 (Apr 10, 2014)

Hello
I'd like to know how can i make my rt3 feel as solid as possible when in locked mode? It's M/M 2013. Also i'd like to ask how the pressure in the ifp chamber affects the shock.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

_Supra_Shin said:


> The modify is shown below.
> https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hpho...03257154_o.jpg
> 
> I replaced a 0.1 shim with a 0.2mm shim. This will make shim stack in High tune that is offered by ROCKSHOX.
> ...


The link is not working. Paste the actual URL of the picture, not the abbreviated one.

Do you have HV aircan or normal? If HV, then you can fill it - it makes the spring more progressive.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

harrism3 said:


> Hello
> I'd like to know how can i make my rt3 feel as solid as possible when in locked mode? It's M/M 2013. Also i'd like to ask how the pressure in the ifp chamber affects the shock.


If you look at the Rockshox spare parts catalogue then all the piston assemblies for RT3 have listed with LF 320. I assume it means lockout force 320 lbs, except the last one:

tune assy, Monarch Rt3 Reb-High/Comp-High (CF-110lbs) soft threshold, LF-430, C1

XX/RL pistons all have LF 430. I'm not sure what part is different and affects this, but it probably can done.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

arnea said:


> I'm planning to make following modifications (also visible in the picture):
> 
> 1. replace the 22x9x0.2 shim in the low speed compression stack with one of the 22x9x0.15 shims from the high speed compression stack. So there will be one less shim in high speed compression stack.
> 
> 2. rise the ring shim on the high speed compression stack by one shim.


I was riding today on the pump track created by motocross bikes and encountered heavy bottom outs. I think it is called G-out when you are riding on the smooth parabolical trajectory.

I softened the M/M stack as described above. The pressure was 160psi, and I filled the positive chamber with red bands to make the shock as progressive as possible. The bike is BMC Fourstroke (BMC Fourstroke 29'' 2013 - Linkage Design) with progressive-regressive type leverage curve - but it is quite linear (2.2-1.9-2.2). Most of the weight is on the rear wheel (65%-70%).

I tried all three settings - open, threshold and locked. Almost no difference in first two settings. When I rode faster I encountered the bottom outs also on locked mode.

Do you think I should add more pressure? Or make the compression stack firmer again? I think that both low and high speed stack play their role here.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

G-out loads are controlled by the spring. Its ok if big g's bottom the shock.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

Ok, thanks. I will see what little bit higher pressure will do.


----------



## hidperf (Jul 14, 2011)

I just picked up a new 2013 RT3 along with a HH F 320 tune, which I determined I needed based on the leverage ratio of my frame. 

After installing the tune I've got two problems, which may be related. 

1. I'm 90% positive that I'm losing all of my IFP pressure when I'm removing the IFP adapter along with the shock pump. The IFP pressure on this shock is listed at 350psi in the RS manual. I pump the IFP chamber to that amount but as I'm unscrewing the adapter and pump together, a large amount of air is leaking out. It's not like when you pull the pump off of the fork or shock when setting air pressure though, it's a long hiss. 

2. After setting the IFP pressure (maybe), I set the shock pressure to 200psi, open the gate all the way, set the rebound to full "rabbit" and when I compress the suspension the shock will only rebound VERY slowly. Slow enough that I can count in seconds before it's returned fully. 

Am I right in thinking a super low IFP might cause an extremely slow rebound? Or am I WAY off?


----------



## _Supra_Shin (Jun 25, 2010)

I think air leakage when removing IFP adapter is the worst problem on designing Monarchs.
We all experienced leakage and there is no way to exactly know how much pressure in there.
All we can do is to remove or twist IFP adapter(Red one with air pump screwed in) as fast as possible, with like "Poosh" sounds not like "Pashhhhh".
Although this method is suggested on all air valves like forks, tubes and shocks, etc...

Modifying shape of IFP adapter or valve core's head may solve this problem.
Or putting another valve that can fit air pump directly on IFP port is another solution.
But I do not know how do that.
And I can tell you that the default valve core in Monarch is not designed for over 100psi condition, I guess.
If you hear the sound when removing IFP cap with valve core tool, there seems leakage in there.
So you should check the IFP pressure constantly.
I think we need to replace it for that severe condition to avoid such works.



And for too-slow-reboud problem, you can try to turn the rebound dial all the way up or down.
Then find out you can feel any change in rebound speed or not.
If there is no changes, there may be problems on rebound circuit, like needle sticking.

In addition, 110psi is not enough for my setting(140psi) so you get less rebound if you pump up more.


----------



## hidperf (Jul 14, 2011)

_Supra_Shin said:


> I think air leakage when removing IFP adapter is the worst problem on designing Monarchs.
> We all experienced leakage and there is no way to exactly know how much pressure in there.
> All we can do is to remove or twist IFP adapter(Red one with air pump screwed in) as fast as possible, with like "Poosh" sounds not like "Pashhhhh".
> Although this method is suggested on all air valves like forks, tubes and shocks, etc...
> ...


You read my mind! 
I ended up grabbing my trusty drill bits and found one that was the exact ID of the adapter where it pressed on the valve and drilled it out. It didn't take much, but I drilled enough on the first try to prevent the air leakage!

But, it didn't fix my ultra slow rebound problem.

Now that I know I can actually pressurize the IFP correctly, I guess I can pull it back apart and triple check the shim stack.


----------



## _Supra_Shin (Jun 25, 2010)

hidperf said:


> You read my mind!
> I ended up grabbing my trusty drill bits and found one that was the exact ID of the adapter where it pressed on the valve and drilled it out. It didn't take much, but I drilled enough on the first try to prevent the air leakage!


Would you tell me how much is the exact ID or what size of drill bit you use?
That information is so valuable for this forum.
How did you modified the IFP adapter with pics is helpful.

And for rebound problem, I edited my previous post.
You can read and try that before digging in Monarch.


----------



## hidperf (Jul 14, 2011)

_Supra_Shin said:


> Would you tell me how much is the exact ID or what size of drill bit you use?
> That information is so valuable for this forum.
> How did you modified the IFP adapter with pics is helpful.
> 
> ...


Drill bit was .093" measure with my caliper.

Before:








After:








I have no idea how to post images from my google+ photos. I've never gotten it working on any forums so far. HATE that service. :madmax:

Edit: Uploaded pictures.


----------



## _Supra_Shin (Jun 25, 2010)

Thanks for measuring.

If you can copy the pic's url from right-click menu on Google+, or if you have .jpg on your PC, it can be posted here via insert picture menu.


----------



## hidperf (Jul 14, 2011)

_Supra_Shin said:


> Thanks for measuring.
> 
> If you can copy the pic's url from right-click menu on Google+, or if you have .jpg on your PC, it can be posted here via insert picture menu.


I added pictures. 
Google+ links didn't work so uploaded them from work.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

You guys are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. The same things happens here as when you remove the pump from a shock/fork air spring. Pressure is escaping from the pump hose, not the ifp chamber. Notice when you attach the pump/adapter to a pressurized shock that the adapter oring is fully seated, and then it takes another turn or two before the valve core is engaged and pressure rises in the pump. I've used my adapter well over 100 times without a single issue. IF there was an issue with the core opening too soon and venting pressure to the atmosphere, this drill mod does nothing to alleviate.

hidperf, I wouldn't be too concerned about your perceived slow rebound without the air can installed. It could be that the rebound shutter is stuck partially closed and they will usually free up once on the bike and cycled a few times under load. Always remember to open the rebound before tearing down a shock as ifp pressure is the only that forcing the shutter open. The only way you will know for sure is to put it on the bike. If you are only running 200psi, when you re-attach the pump, I would guess the gauge would read less than 100psi. The ifp chamber volume is sooo small that there is a huge pressure drop when attaching the pump because the hose volume is much larger relatively compared to a fork/shock spring volume.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Edit that: If you use a big enough drill that it effectively counter bores the step deeper, then it will engage the valve core later. Be careful though, because if it goes too deep the adapter won't work at all. Again, there is nothing wrong with the design to begin with.


----------



## hidperf (Jul 14, 2011)

ktm520 said:


> You guys are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. The same things happens here as when you remove the pump from a shock/fork air spring. Pressure is escaping from the pump hose, not the ifp chamber. Notice when you attach the pump/adapter to a pressurized shock that the adapter oring is fully seated, and then it takes another turn or two before the valve core is engaged and pressure rises in the pump. I've used my adapter well over 100 times without a single issue. IF there was an issue with the core opening too soon and venting pressure to the atmosphere, this drill mod does nothing to alleviate.


Incorrect, but I appreciate your input. The drill mod DID in fact fix the problem. By altering the point in which the Schrader valve is depressed, it now waits until the o-ting is seated before depressing and releasing the valve. Before, it would make contact with the valve before the o-ring sealed the orifice, releasing any pressure already in the IFP. Once I had it pumped to 350psi and began removing the IFP adapter, the valve was still depressed after the seal of the o-ring was broken which let all of the air escape from the IFP and the pump hose. 
I fully understand and am aware of what happens when filling the shock and fork. That was NOT what was happening with the IFP adapter though. It's entirely possible that the Schrader valve height is different in my shock than others, but this did fix my problem and I can now fill and keep pressure in the IFP.



ktm520 said:


> hidperf, I wouldn't be too concerned about your perceived slow rebound without the air can installed. It could be that the rebound shutter is stuck partially closed and they will usually free up once on the bike and cycled a few times under load. Always remember to open the rebound before tearing down a shock as ifp pressure is the only that forcing the shutter open. The only way you will know for sure is to put it on the bike. If you are only running 200psi, when you re-attach the pump, I would guess the gauge would read less than 100psi. The ifp chamber volume is sooo small that there is a huge pressure drop when attaching the pump because the hose volume is much larger relatively compared to a fork/shock spring volume.


The slow rebound is WITH the air can installed and pressurized to 200-250psi, mounted on the bike, and cycled quite a few times. Although I haven't ridden it yet due to weather and medical restrictions. 
I did open the rebound all the way and the lever was on unlock when I pulled it apart and put it back together, but this is my first shock rebuild so I'm not confident in how it went. 
One thing that was mentioned in a private message: am I sure I put the shim stack in the right way? 
I honestly have no idea:eekster:, I don't remember any details about that part, which is the most important part, but that makes total sense with how it's acting. 
So I'm going to pull it apart and check that.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Well, that makes a little more sense now that you've provided more details. I'd agree that either the install height of your core is off or you got a faulty adapter. Just don't point the finger at the adapter and send a bunch of readers off on a wild goose chase. Devil is in the details.

Sorry I missed that you had the can installed. In that case, it's definitely not ifp pressure. The ifp pressure contributes a very small part to the overall spring rate.


----------



## hidperf (Jul 14, 2011)

ktm520 said:


> Well, that makes a little more sense now that you've provided more details. I'd agree that either the install height of your core is off or you got a faulty adapter. Just don't point the finger at the adapter and send a bunch of readers off on a wild goose chase. Devil is in the details.
> 
> Sorry I missed that you had the can installed. In that case, it's definitely not ifp pressure. The ifp pressure contributes a very small part to the overall spring rate.


Sorry, I thought the before and after pictures would make it a little more obvious.

Edit:
I've created another post HERE since this has now turned into something less related to tuning and more related to diagnostics.


----------



## DH_WP (Feb 5, 2004)

*Monarch Tune symbols?*

Can someone please explain the tune setup for this Monarch ?


----------



## two-one (Aug 7, 2008)

DH_WP said:


> Can someone please explain the tune setup for this Monarch ?


I'm pretty sure its this:
Low rebound, Medium compression, soft threshold, Lockout-force 320... so that's compression assembly 11.4118.023.037.
I'm guessing the lockout-force means the strength/preload of the poppet-spring. 
Soft threshold probably means the compression shimstack preload, and the medium compression tune the stiffness of the stack.
Looks like a nice tune for a DW-Link frame.


----------



## DH_WP (Feb 5, 2004)

So should work well for my Ibis HDR ?


----------



## armourbl (May 5, 2012)

For the shock pressure escaping, I'm so surprised that no one that makes a shock pump has come up with a solution to this.

I use one of the items pictured below when I fill the nitrogen chamber on my motocross bike shock. It has a plunger that allows you to equalized the pressure in chamber by depressing and holding the shrader valve open. You then turn it to allow the valve to close, which prevents any pressure from escaping, then you remove the tool.









ben


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

I use a SKS UFP shock pump which has a "low loss connector" - basically you unscrew it before you remove the shock pump and it withdraws the plunger so the valve closes. To be fully effective, you need to drill out the centre of your charge adapter(s) and use a suitable length small rod in them to activate the valve.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

*Preloaded rebound*

What is the purpose of the preload on the rebound side? Is it just another (and perhaps better) way how to add platform to shock?


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

arnea said:


> What is the purpose of the preload on the rebound side? Is it just another (and perhaps better) way how to add platform to shock?


The reb stack has no effect whatsoever on the "platform" compression damping of the shock. This has been discussed previously, but it basically gives a more digressive damping curve, which is typicall of any stack with a decent amount of preload. I do not like it and don't understand why they do it. I've been changing my monarch's to straight nonpreloaded reb stack that yields a more linear damping curve.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

Maybe my understanding is wrong, but I thought that preloaded shims add some hysteresis to damper. Without preload the shims will open and let the oil flow when slightest force is applied to the piston. 

When the shims are preloaded and the force to the piston is less than the force that is required to open the shims, the oil cannot flow and the piston does not move. 

When the preload is on the compresion stack side you cannot compress the shock when you apply slight force (e.g. during pedaling) - so you get platform effect. 

When the compression stack is not preloaded the shock will compress, but the preloaded rebound stack will not allow it to extend when it was compressed by very small amount and the extra force created by spring is smaller than the force that is required to open the rebound stack. 

When you periodically apply small force (e.g. pedal) the shock does not shrink and extend, but rather stays in compressed position. 

Does this make any sense?


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

What's the current state of play with the 2015 rapid recovery shim stacks. I've got an MM tune arriving for my Anthem, so probably need to change the tune to a LM tune. Anyone have any ideas on the difference between the L and M rebound tunes on the 2015 shocks? From the parts catalogue it looks like all of the piston assemblies / tunes are now the same across the RT/RL/RT3 shocks.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

I would assume the tunes havent changed from 13. I dont recall the Rt/RL tunes being the same. They share the piston design of the XX with the plate style lockout similar to Fox RPL/triad/CTD Evo.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

ktm520 said:


> I've been changing my monarch's to straight nonpreloaded reb stack that yields a more linear damping curve.


Do you just replace the ring shim with ordinary shim to keep the overall tune? Or only remove the ring shim? I thought to try how the non-preloaded rebound feels.

I've running the rebound fairly slow (3 clicks from closed). Should I try to make the rebound shim stack stiffer during the rebuild? And if yes, should I make the both high and low speed rebound stack stiffer?


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

*2016 model*

Here are some pictures of the changes in 2016 model.

Neu von Rock Shox: RS-1 27.5", neuer Monarch RT3 Dämpfer und Maxle Stealth Steckachse - MTB-News.de


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

I was playing with Shim Restackor and came up with the following changes to stock MM stack:

1) make the HSC softer by moving the ring shim up in stack and removing one 0.15 shim.

2) try out the linear rebound stacks and make HSR stiffer

According to Restackor LSR should be almost same stiffness than current stack is and HSR should be little stiffer. 

Right now I need to slow down the rebound when I'm riding big bumps - otherwise the bike will kick up the rear wheel. But when I'm riding over small stuff I must open the rebound more. I think that in order to have LSR open enough to have small bump compliance I must close the HSR in order to reduce the total oil flow for bigger bumps.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

arnea said:


> Do you just replace the ring shim with ordinary shim to keep the overall tune? Or only remove the ring shim? I thought to try how the non-preloaded rebound feels.
> 
> I've running the rebound fairly slow (3 clicks from closed). Should I try to make the rebound shim stack stiffer during the rebuild? And if yes, should I make the both high and low speed rebound stack stiffer?


Yes, to switch to more linear stack you want to remove all preload, which means both the ring and nest shim. Typically, the overall stack stiffness will have to be increased when you remove the preload.

I wouldn't mess with the reb check plate stack (assume that's what you mean by "lsr stack").

What are you using for the "d.bleed" parameter in your restackor models for the reb?


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

arnea said:


> Here are some pictures of the changes in 2016 model.
> 
> Neu von Rock Shox: RS-1 27.5", neuer Monarch RT3 Dämpfer und Maxle Stealth Steckachse - MTB-News.de


These changes are of little concern to me. The current piston must flow enough oil, otherwise Avalanche would be replacing them with a new piston. There isn't enough detail for me to figure out what they are going for with the poppet mods, but anything with a stiffer lockout is of no use for me. I see that as them trying to keep up with Fox. The piston changes could be purely for balance with the poppet mods.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

ktm520 said:


> Yes, to switch to more linear stack you want to remove all preload, which means both the ring and nest shim. Typically, the overall stack stiffness will have to be increased when you remove the preload.


This makes sense. I was just surprised that I need to insert two extra 0.20mm shims to get similar stack stiffness.



ktm520 said:


> I wouldn't mess with the reb check plate stack (assume that's what you mean by "lsr stack").


Yes, that's what I ment. Ok, I will not touch it then.



ktm520 said:


> What are you using for the "d.bleed" parameter in your restackor models for the reb?


I put some very small value there - basically closed the bleed hole and looked only at shim stack. I'm still learning to understand the Restackor and tried to eliminate unknown variables.


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

arnea said:


> ...I put some very small value there...


I think you want try a more accurate value for the rebound free bleed. At very slow LSR events it handles all of the flow, but will still flow oil in HSR events (just not a huge amount). For example, if the free bleed on the Monarch allowed lots of flow, then all of the shim related calculations would be out based on a "closed" bleed. Size of the free bleed and amount of preload on the rebound shims will dictate where the cross-over between those circuits occur.


----------



## cajer (Sep 5, 2010)

ktm520 said:


> These changes are of little concern to me. The current piston must flow enough oil, otherwise Avalanche would be replacing them with a new piston. There isn't enough detail for me to figure out what they are going for with the poppet mods, but anything with a stiffer lockout is of no use for me. I see that as them trying to keep up with Fox. The piston changes could be purely for balance with the poppet mods.


I just sent in my rt3 to avalanche and they did say that they were putting a new piston in. But then again it is a 2011 model so it's likely different


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

arnea said:


> I put some very small value there - basically closed the bleed hole and looked only at shim stack. I'm still learning to understand the Restackor and tried to eliminate unknown variables.


That's a good approach. TigWorld makes a good point, but unless your piston model and bleed are accurate, the results won't be very useful down at that level of details. I've got some good use from the software, but I haven't figured out how to correctly model the type of pistons I am working with. I have played with it alot and can't get it to behave correctly. Good for relative changes, but haven't had any luck comparing different pistons.



cajer said:


> I just sent in my rt3 to avalanche and they did say that they were putting a new piston in. But then again it is a 2011 model so it's likely different


Yes, he does change the 11-12 pistons (not sure why), but not the 13+.


----------



## cajer (Sep 5, 2010)

Does anyone know where you can get a 2011-12 air can? As I bought an additional damper very cheaply and just need an air can to screw into it


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

*Monarch XX photos*

I was doing some searching and found an interesting thread in Russian bike forum about RockShox products. Among other things there was a link to photo album that shows internals of Monarch XX:

https://fotki.yandex.ru/users/olegn/album/148101?p=1

The guy is fixing all kind of shocks and forks and there are more interesting pictures in his album.

Another interesting find was link to Sram XX patent:

Patent EP2500249A1 - Control assembly for a bicycle shock absorber - Google Patents


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

I revalved the shock. Starting from the rebound side:

Nut

11x0.3
19x0.1
19x0.15 + 16x0.1 ring shim
19x0.1

Rebound plate

11x0.3
11x0.3
11x0.3
19x0.15
19x0.2
19x0.2
19x0.2

Piston

22x0.15
22x0.15
22x0.15
22x0.4+19x0.1 ring shim
22x0.15

11x0.2
11x0.2
11x0.3
11x0.3
11x0.3
19x0.15
22x0.2

Compression plate

Compared to the stock MM stack, the compression is lighter and end-stroke rebound is completely redone without preload, as ktm520 suggested.

I did an one hour testride on some familiar tracks. There are some differences, but nothing dramatical. Fast rooty singletracks were good, with the rebound knob in the middle setting. Better than with previous setup.

But the rebound was too fast for bigger movements. Rear end wallowed several times after bigger impacts. With previous setup this was not so bad.

I had to turn rebound three clicks to the slower side, to control the big movements - exactly like old setup. But then the fast and rooty stuff was not good anymore.

So I need to change something on the rebound side, but I don't know what it is. I have some theories. The rebound knob has very big effect on the rebound speed - on one end it is very fast, on the other end it is very slow. What if I make the beginning stroke stack stiffer and end stroke stack lighter?

Some background about the bike:

I'm 220lbs, most of the weight is on the rear wheel (35% front, 65% rear), pressure is 170psi, sag 35%, Debonair can with positive camber that is fully filled with bands and negative camber empty - so most progressive spring curve. Leverage ratio is low - between 1.9 and 2.2


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

BTW, does anybody have data about the stock high rebound stack? I can only find information about older shocks, but not about the latest RT3 that uses non-dished piston.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

arnea said:


> So I need to change something on the rebound side, but I don't know what it is. I have some theories. The rebound knob has very big effect on the rebound speed - on one end it is very fast, on the other end it is very slow. What if I make the beginning stroke stack stiffer and end stroke stack lighter?


You need to stiffen the reb stack.



arnea said:


> I'm 220lbs, most of the weight is on the rear wheel (35% front, 65% rear), pressure is 170psi, sag 35%, Debonair can with positive camber that is fully filled with bands and negative camber empty - so most progressive spring curve. Leverage ratio is low - between 1.9 and 2.2


Have you tried running running the can at full volume with less sag? Your frame is low leverage and just slightly regressive. I don't see you needing that progressive of a spring or that much sag.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

ktm520 said:


> You need to stiffen the reb stack.


Only the main stack or also the small one that is controlled by rebound knob?



ktm520 said:


> Have you tried running running the can at full volume with less sag? Your frame is low leverage and just slightly regressive. I don't see you needing that progressive of a spring or that much sag.


No. I thought that progressive spring would give me the plushest ride. I tried your suggestion, removed all bands from positive camber and increased the pressure by 10 psi. It was not bad. I had only short ride but it seemed that it was also easier to find better rebound position.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Yes, the main reb stack. I can't see adding stiffness to the check plate stack helping but it could be more fine tuning after the main stack is dialed. I'd be more inclined to remove the preload from the check plate.

If the comp is under damped, it will require more reb damping and throw things out of balance. More spring mid can help also as you noticed.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

Ok, thanks. I'll try those suggestions.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

How about trying something like this? Nut
1ea] 9x16x0.15
3ea] 9x19x0.10
Valve Plate

3ea] 9x10x0.30

1ea] 9x19x0.20
1ea] 9x19x0.15
1ea] 9x16x0.10
2ea] 9x19x0.15


Piston


2ea] 9x22x0.15
1ea] 9x19x0.10
1ea] 9x22x0.15
1ea] 9x22x0.20

4ea] 9x10x0.30

1ea] 9x19x0.15
2ea] 9x22x0.10
Valve Plate


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

Thank you. Have you tried this stack yourself? It looks like you removed the rings from all ring shims but kept the smaller diameter center shims. How would such "stepped" stack behave? I did quick comparison, and you suggested stacks are softer than I'm currently using.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

I revalved the shock once again and made both rebound and compression stiffer. Added two 19x0.15 shims to rebound stack and moved the ring shim in compression stack closer to piston:

Nut

11x0.3
19x0.1
19x0.15 + 16x0.1 ring shim
19x0.1

Rebound plate

11x0.3
11x0.3
11x0.3
19x0.15
19x0.15
19x0.15
19x0.2
19x0.2
19x0.2

Piston

22x0.15
22x0.15
22x0.4+19x0.1 ring shim
22x0.15
22x0.15

11x0.2
11x0.2
11x0.3
11x0.3
11x0.3
19x0.15
22x0.2

Compression plate

Things are little bit better now, but not perfect.

If I add pressure (205 psi) to get suggested 30% sag, then the bike feels really harsh over roots. I tried several times, but I don't like how the bike feels when sag is less than 40%. 165psi feels best. I added three bands (six is maximum for my can) to positive camber to control the bottom-out.

With rebound open 4 clicks from fully closed, bike feels good on roots. But on track with lots of small smooth bumps, I must close rebound one click more. 

Looks like I should stiffen the main rebound stack little bit more.


----------



## Caol (Mar 18, 2014)

Very interesting thread! I've had couple Trek Slashes, my latest one with Monarch Plus R Debonair. I am overall pretty happy with the shocks performance, however my current set up has some limitations..

Trek Slash 17.5 2015, MM tune (two spacers)
69kg with gear,
175PSI main chamber 32% sag
Rebound 7clicks form closed

I found it took me a while to balance the rebound with air pressure etc

small/meduim bump absorbtion and control are good at this air pressure, but i feel I am blowing through the travel to much on bigger hits (although harsh bottom out is not a problem) 

I could certainly do with heavier compression tune for g-outs, aggressive pumping and high speed berms.

A firmer (but keeping sensetivity) start to the stroke would be great too. Has anyone played around with charge pressure in the IFP? The sort of change I am looking for was achieved on an old bike on a old fox RC4 by increasing the IFP chamber size (backing off bottom out) with 160psi. I know its different system etc.

I think a firmer high speed stack tune might achieve the ride characteristics I am looking for....


Any thoughts?


I'm considering getting my shock tuned professionally.


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

Caol said:


> ... g-outs, aggressive pumping and high speed berms...


These are low speed compression events (even though you may be riding fast at the time). You're running a fair amount of sag but you're not harshly bottoming out, so the high speed comp tune is probably OK. Try upping LSC.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Caol said:


> I could certainly do with heavier compression tune for g-outs, aggressive pumping and high speed berms.
> 
> A firmer (but keeping sensetivity) start to the stroke would be great too. Has anyone played around with charge pressure in the IFP? The sort of change I am looking for was achieved on an old bike on a old fox RC4 by increasing the IFP chamber size (backing off bottom out) with 160psi. I know its different system etc.


Like Tigworld mentioned, these are low/mid speed events. You can use either lsc or spring force. I usually use spring, assuming there aren't other issues with the damping and it doesn't throw the shock out of balance with the fork.

With the Plus R, you don't have the lsc adjuster so you will either have to firm up the mid valve or basevalve stack. Not sure what is possible with the basevalve in the R. Keep in mind, when you change the mid valve stack, it shift the entire damping range, not just hsc. There is a dedicated Plus thread here:
http://forums.mtbr.com/shocks-suspension/monarch-rc3-plus-shim-stack-826666.html


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Try upping the progressness of the main air chamber


----------



## mderosas (May 28, 2015)

It is really a headache to understand all this nomenclature.

I want upgrade my shock , I have a Monarch RT 200/51 - 7.875"x2.0" and want to buy a Monarch RT3 Debonair 200/51 - 7.875"x2.0".

My problem is, what factory setting do i have to choose?

Currently in my Giant Trance Advanced 2 Small 2015, I have the following. (Rider Height 6,7 and weight 160lbs , normal Trail abilities).









M for Medium Rebound
L for Low Compression

The rest of the label i do not understand the dash and the locked 380.

Wish factory setting do i have to choose with Monarch RT3 Debonair.?
Medium Rebound / Low Compression?
Medium Rebound / Medium Compression? 
What else do I need look for?

Thank you very much for your help.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Mderosas, 

You only have one tune option with an aftermarket RT3. 
M reb
M comp
S soft threshold
320 lockout firmness


----------



## mderosas (May 28, 2015)

Thank you very much ktm520, but what do you think? It will be a good upgrade for me or not? I worry about the medium compression, I do not know what is the current threshold i have in the RT and how will it affect me the change of lockout force between 380 and 320...

Best regards


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

mderosas,

I think it would be an upgrade, how huge of an updgrade depends alot on your personal preferences and riding style. Although I've never ridden the RT, I'm familiar with the damper design and it's not very high on my list of favorites because it lacks a shimmed rebound circuit. It is similar to the XX (which I have ridden) but with a softer lockout tune, and I didn't not like that shock at all for agressive trail riding. XC type riding it was decent. I am a big fan of the debonair spring curve. I believe the threshold tune is for the middle compression setting on the RT3, which is why your shock doesn't have that listed. Unless you ride on the road alot, I wouldn't be too worried about the lock tune. Even at 320, I would never use the lockout on my RT3. Even the the mid setting is too firm for only but the smoothest of jump lines.

I actually just recently got my first latest generation ('13-'15 model years) RT3 shock with debonair can. It's a MM tune and I was pretty impressed how well it worked in stock tune. Outperforms my older generation Monarchs that I have revalved. I was also surprised the med comp tune actually worked for me at 165lb on a SB95. In the past they were overdamped. So, it might be pretty close for your weight and frame leverage ratio.


----------



## mderosas (May 28, 2015)

Sweet!!! 
Buying it


----------



## zxpwr350 (Apr 5, 2013)

Hi folks,

I'm in a bit of dilemma, I cant figure out the year of my RT3 with MM tune. Purchased it in 2013 but it could be a 2012. Does anyone know how to tell the year?

I want to change the tune to ML3, but tune assemblies are only available for 2013 models. Are these tune assemblies compatible with 2012 or older models?


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

You can tell by compression lever color, shape, and function. 11-12 are solid blue and only swing a 90deg arc. 13-15 are black with a blue stripe and swing 360 deg. The 13-15 tunes won't work in the first gen shocks.


zxpwr350 said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> I'm in a bit of dilemma, I cant figure out the year of my RT3 with MM tune. Purchased it in 2013 but it could be a 2012. Does anyone know how to tell the year?
> 
> I want to change the tune to ML3, but tune assemblies are only available for 2013 models. Are these tune assemblies compatible with 2012 or older models?


----------



## zxpwr350 (Apr 5, 2013)

ktm520 said:


> You can tell by compression lever color, shape, and function. 11-12 are solid blue and only swing a 90deg arc. 13-15 are black with a blue stripe and swing 360 deg. The 13-15 tunes won't work in the first gen shocks.


Thanks! However, mine has a solid blue lever but swings 360 deg. The lockout on 12 oclock, pedal and open on 8 and 4 oclock.

Googled images of 2013 RT3s and found the image below. Looks like you confirmed that this is a 2013 from another thread.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

My bad. Ya, the lever function confirms its the 13-15 design.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

I opened MY16 RT3 today. It was M/M tune and the shimstack was unchanged compared to MY15. Piston was different with many tiny holes on the compression side. Shaft was different - there were four rebound holes instead of one.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

arnea said:


> I opened MY16 RT3 today. It was M/M tune and the shimstack was unchanged compared to MY15. Piston was different with many tiny holes on the compression side. Shaft was different - there were four rebound holes instead of one.


Come on man, where are the pictures? I didn't even know the 16's were on the streets yet. Let us know how it rides.

I've only got 8 rides on my RT3 and 8 different tunes. I will say that the check plate stacks are definitely a good tool for shaping the damping. I'll post my stacks once I've got it dialed but I've switched to straight stacks on both comp stacks and the reb stack, but I'm currently running the stock preloaded reb cp stack. With a linear comp stack, it's ideal to increase the poppet spring stiffness. I'm currently running a stiffer spring but it's a little too stiff.

This shock is really, really good. Can't believe I waited this long to bone up and buy one.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

Took only two of them: shaft and piston. The holes in the piston are large than 1mm but smaller than 1.5mm. Probably around 1.2mm. 

Also the popet valve seems to seal the shaft much better as promised by RockShox. I used to be able to push oil into the shaft using syringe, but not anymore. 

The shock is not for me. I modified it for fellow rider who has same bike as I do - made the compression softer and added spacer washer to limit the travel. The extra 1mm travel compared to stock Fox shock causes the tyre to hit the seatpost.

Please post your stacks when you have finished the testing. I have a small pause currently while I'm waiting for the replacment frame.


----------



## vlekov (Feb 25, 2013)

Hello guys, long time lurker here! I've got a question about a Monarch shock I wanted to buy today. I have a Nicolai Nonius CC frame which I think has a leverage ratio of 2,55 and I've read on here that it has a rising rate suspension curve. Also, it's a single pivot design where the pivot is low, about an inch above the bottom bracket and behind it. My question is will the tune which is shown in the picture work well with a frame with these characteristics? I'm also a very lightweight rider - only 56kg/123lbs too. My concern is the "Firm" threshold and the fairly heavy 380 lock tune. Thanks in advance!
PS: The shock is a plain RT3 (non-debonair).


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

vlekov,

From a quick look at what pictures I could find, I would be most worried about your weight and the main comp tune which is med. If the leverage curve is progressive, I doubt it's very much. It's probably closer to linear-slightly progressive (rising). 

The pivot location is mostly likely optimized for good anit-squat in the small ring, much like most frames that are 5+ years old. All that being said, if the price is right, go for it. You can always pull a few shims to reduce the comp damping. The "F" (firm threshold) and "380" (lockout force) refer to mid and locked comp setting respectively. I've yet to comfirm exactly how RS tunes those parameters, but I speculate it is the poppet spring rate and comp checkplate stack. That kind of stuff is personal preference, you may or may not like it, depending on what kind of riding you do.


----------



## vlekov (Feb 25, 2013)

Thank you for your quick reply! I actually was attracted to the newer Monarchs by the "Rapid Recovery" thing that they promise a bit more supple small bump performance, which was always lacking with my current shock (a 2011 RT3). My current shock is also an M-L tune which I found inadequate fairly late in the process. I've always wanted a bit more supportive pedalling platform and on my current shock there is almost no difference between wide open and the two other settings, which led me to believe that I actually needed the firmer tune (M-M). About the price, I can get the shock for about 110 british pounds delivered, which I think is a good price for this 3 month old shock.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

vlekov said:


> My current shock is also an M-L tune which I found inadequate fairly late in the process. I've always wanted a bit more supportive pedalling platform and on my current shock there is almost no difference between wide open and the two other settings, which led me to believe that I actually needed the firmer tune (M-M).


Based on that, you might be spot on with that MM/F/380 tune. The newer RT3 are much improved over your '11. Rapid recovery is just marketing hype.


----------



## vlekov (Feb 25, 2013)

Great, thanks! I'll purchase the shock tomorrow then. Cheers


----------



## vlekov (Feb 25, 2013)

Just a follow-up from me. I've installed the new Monarch today and it feels great. Platform's just right, lockout's really, really stiff which is great and exactly what I wanted. Unlocked the shock feels a bit more responsive than the old one and on top of that with the retorqued mounting hardware lol. Really happy with my purchase. Thanks a lot, ktm520!


----------



## mderosas (May 28, 2015)

Hi, if i have this:

Rock Shox - Monarch - RT3 (200x51/7.875"x2.0") DebonAir Tune-MidReb/MidComp, Soft Pedal, 320 Lockout Force, Fast Black Body - MY15

Rock Shox - Monarch - RT3 (200x51/7.875"x2.0") DebonAir Tune-MidReb/MidComp, Soft Pedal, 320 Lockout Force, Fast Black Body - MY15: Amazon.co.uk: Sports & Outdoors

And i want to change the factory Tune to match the original shock tune in my bike.
MidReb/LowComp (Giant Trance Advanced 2015)

Wihich of this i have to buy?:thumbsup:

This??? 
RockShox Monarch Low Tune Piston R / RT / RT3
RockShox Monarch Low Tune Piston R / RT / RT3 | Worldwide Cyclery | Mountain Bike Components

Or 
RockShox 2013 Monarch RT3 Tune Assembly ML3 F 320
Search Results | Worldwide Cyclery | Mountain Bike Components

Thanks


----------



## vlekov (Feb 25, 2013)

mderosas said:


> RockShox 2013 Monarch RT3 Tune Assembly ML3 F 320 | Worldwide Cyclery | Mountain Bike Components


This one


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

mderosas,

That tune could work but keep in mind it is the "firm threshold". If you want something closer to your stock tune, you need this:

p/n 11.4118.023.039 Tune Assy, Monarch RT3 Reb-Mid/Comp-Low (CF-80lbs) soft threshold, LF-320, C1


----------



## mderosas (May 28, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> mderosas,
> 
> That tune could work but keep in mind it is the "firm threshold". If you want something closer to your stock tune, you need this:
> 
> p/n 11.4118.023.039 Tune Assy, Monarch RT3 Reb-Mid/Comp-Low (CF-80lbs) soft threshold, LF-320, C1


Im lost, can you explain a little more please, and the tune difference???

I can't i found it


----------



## mderosas (May 28, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> mderosas,
> 
> That tune could work but keep in mind it is the "firm threshold". If you want something closer to your stock tune, you need this:
> 
> p/n 11.4118.023.039 Tune Assy, Monarch RT3 Reb-Mid/Comp-Low (CF-80lbs) soft threshold, LF-320, C1


Any guru suspension who can explain this please.

(What is the difference between C and D, tune that I bought did not working well?)

Best Regards.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

mderosas,

If I understand the broken translation, I believe you are asking the difference between the tune I recommended and the one vlekov posted. Correct?

There are two differences. The base compression tune I recommend is Low versus Low3. I haven't seen the Low3 tune stack but in the past they have been an even lower damping than the standard Low tune. You mentioned you want to match the oem shock on your frame, so the Low tune would a closer match.

The second difference is the "threshold" tune. This refers to how stiff the damping is when the compression lever is the middle position. I recommended the soft tune because that matches your oem shock. The firmer tune will have more damping in the mid compression setting. How much, well that's anybody's guess. Again, I haven't seen the differences between these two tunes on paper and I don't believe anyone has posted them here.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have more detailed questions.

You should be able to take the part number I recommended and take it to the lbs so they can order it for you. You might not be able to find it online.


----------



## mderosas (May 28, 2015)

Thanks ktm520, so i have to search for the p/n you recomended... 100% positive is the factory tune for my bike? Giant Trance adv 2015... Original shock RT non debonair... Upgraded shock RT3 debonair.

You are the best,
Regards


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

NO, I have no idea what the oem tune is for your bike. All I have to go on is the tune of the RT, which is a completely different shock inside. But, the magnitude of the tunes should be similar.

The compression tune scales with rider weight and aggressiveness. If you are a heavier rider, 200lb+, or super agressive, you might consider a M tune.

The threshold is more rider preference. I ride with my shocks open 99% of the time.


----------



## mderosas (May 28, 2015)

Great crystal clear

Regards


----------



## mderosas (May 28, 2015)

Hahaha Sorry, now the last question!!! XD

I do not understand what this means "(CF-80lbs)" and "C1" and what difference does it make.

Best regards


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

CF-80 is the tune firmness for the compression shim stack. I don't know what the 80lbs actually means. Note that as the base compression tune rises, those numbers increase.

C1 is the model revision.


----------



## ztbishop (May 11, 2009)

Any other Trance owners in this thread? I didn't want to pay $150 plus shipping to service my Fox RP2 damper, so I got the Monarch for the self service / tuning. 
Sorry for the long post, but the shims in this shock apparently change constantly and I'm a bit weary of experimenting.

This is what I got: 2009 Trance X (I believe this is 2.86 leverage ratio)
2015 Rockshox Monarch RT3 (Med Rebount, Med Compression, Soft platform, 320 IFP.
M M S 320 - this seems to be the only aftermarket tune without buying OEM.
I noticed the Monarch is stiffer (and sags more / requires more pressure) than the M-M tuned Fox RP2 that came on the bike. The Fox would blow through travel on any hit...not really a bad thing at all on the Trance tho.
A few things I'm noticing -\

-I have to put 190 in the shock just to keep it from going over 35% sag (I weight 190). Any less sag requires more pressure and the ride is a bit harsh. I can come 'somewhat' close to using full travel, which still leaves a good portion of the stanchion untouched (tested this by bottoming with no air), but I don't like that I'm wasting 35% on sag...I thought 25 was normal.

-The platform switch doesn't make any noticeable difference for me. Just riding down the curb at my house it uses almost as much travel as full open. Not sure if this is normal for the soft platform, or if I should gone with Firm plastform. (Or go toward a softer Compression - I don't know if this would soften the plastform as well, or leave it's stiffness intact).

-The negative air spring seems a bit strong. As I approach 190PSI, it gets to full extension. If I were to pump it to 150psi it has over 10% sag with no weight on the bike. Is this normal? 

-Rebound seems OK I think. It has 10 clicks. I fully close it, then back it out 3 clicks to avoid any pogo on the bigger roots. 4 clicks is better on the small stuff but if I keep my butt on the seat over roots it can lift me off a bit. My fox would pogo too so perhaps the M turned rebound is right?

-I'm wondering if a Low compression or Debonair would suit this bike better? With a 2.86 Leverage, on paper a Low compression tune looks wrong. But I'm thinking maybe it would help me run a little less sag (25-30%) without making the ride harsh, and still be able to use the full shock. (and possibly speed the shock on the initial hit). I don't quite understand if the Debonair only helps with the intial stroke, or if it would help / hurt the further portion of the stroke. $100 seems like a lot to gamble on for an air can...as well as $50 for another tune kit. 
I might back the IFP from 350 to 320, but I've read this doesn't really do much.
I was thinking of tearing the shock down and removing a shim from the compression stack to convert to low compression, but I can't really find any info on the 2014/2015 model for anybody attempting this. I've never modified a shim stack and probably wouldn't be the right person to experiment. Does removing one shim all together pose any risk to the shock? I was going to try this with my X-Fusion Velvet 140 fork as well to get rid of some firmness (tho there is a complete thread of people modifying the fork).


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

ztbishop,

Let's start with the basics. Both the spring curve and compression damping need to be matched to your weight and the frames leverage curve in order to get full use of the travel. Also, with that being a longer travel frame, you will have to ride it fairly aggressively to use all of the travel unless you set it up really soft. How much do you weight? The Trance X is fairly high leverage and it's also progressive. Don't let the RP2 tune skew your frame of reference. Chance are, it was a poor fit from the oem.

Sounds like you have the standard volume air can. Something is wrong as it shouldn't take that much pressure for full extension.

Where did you get 350psi for the ifp setting? It should be closer to 250, especially if with that tune.


----------



## ztbishop (May 11, 2009)

I weigh 190. The 2015 models apparently run higher IFP pressure (over 300) - mine is marked at 350. It looks like this is the only way the Aftermarket non-OEM comes for MY15. I do have a RS IFP adapter and grabbed a 600PSI shock pump in case I need to mess with it. 
I do have the standard air can. The MM tune seems to be on-par with the leverage ratio according to the charts I've seen, so maybe I could give it time - tho I am curious if it's possibly to (DYI) a low comp mod without buying a new stack. This might not be necessary in the long run - like you said the RP2 OEM tune was probably off.

I did read a thread last night regarding monarch "stuck down". I let the air out of my shock last night, held the back wheel down and pulled up on my saddle as hard as I could. I guess there is a dimple toward the top of the stroke that does some sort of equalization voodoo magic.
The bike now sags at 30% rather than 35% at 190psi, and by the time I pumped it back up, it looked to be fully extended when I glanced at 150psi.
Should one normally do this after re-assembling the canister? (Tho it is new, first thing I did was open it and put a dab of shock oil in the air canister as it just had a smidge of grease from the factory). Could be a leak, or I just needed to equalize the negative spring after re-assembly. Anyway, maybe the ride will be a bit different now. I'd love to try the Debonair but don't feel like a $100 experiment.  The wonder of ebay sellers, they grab random images off the net. The auction was pictured with the larger air can, tho it wasn't technically in the description.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

ztbishop,

Your own testing/setup will tell you more about the shock tune/setup than any chart you will find. Those charts are way to general to do anything but get you in the ball park . . . maybe.

Good news is that I think the M comp tune will be close for your weight.

It should only take ~60psi to get the shock to extend after the can is removed. See how it rides now that you have fixed that issue and report back. I always open the air can and relube the seals on a new shock.

I wouldn't be surprised if you don't get full travel with the sv can, short of a big hit, but it's hard to say. You might be ok if running 30% sag doesn't result in to weak of a mid stroke for your preference. That's the main problem with the old sv/hv cans, they have a really soft mid stroke. An hv or debonair would be better suited to the leverage curve.


----------



## dlxah (Nov 5, 2014)

Does anybody have any feedback on the new 2016 RT3 damper? It sounds like a lot has changed:

RockShox Releases 2016 Product Updates - Pinkbike

I'm thinking about giving one of these a shot. I've got a 2015 Monarch Plus RC3 that I'm happy with, but it never really gets very warm on my bike. I'm thinking I could probably get away with an RT3 to save almost a quarter pound of weight. I'd probably have to crack it open and revalve the compression stack.


----------



## biggusjimmus (Sep 23, 2010)

The tune assembly part numbers are the same for 2016 so I don't think those bits have changed anyway. I've gone from a 2015 RT3 to a 2016 but with a different tune so can't give a comparison.


----------



## ktudore (Sep 17, 2015)

Got a question to someone who has access to a Monarch full service kit. Does the kit include the spring which goes in the rebound piston? Long story short after a muddy ride i wound up with my Monarch stuck down. Opened the air can to find the piston was unscrewed from the top of the shock. Some parts came out along with oil and it seems i lost the mentioned resort. Also if someone knows the lenght of the resort that is of help too as i may find such at a watch repair shop... Any information is appreciated


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

This spring comes with piston kit. Piston kit is called "Tune assembly". You can download a parts list from Rockshox site and look up the correct number for your shock. It's quite expensive though.


----------



## ktudore (Sep 17, 2015)

Allright, thanks for the information! Am i right on the placement of the parts? I mean the spring comes btw the pin and the rod inside that "pipe"?


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

I've been tuning on my 13 RT3 with debonair can for a few months and have tried several different setups. Mullen and I have been working together and sharing notes, and although our setups are different, we have made some of the same discoveries.

Looking at the spec's for LL soft, MM soft, and HH firm tunes, RS uses the same compression stack for all those tunes and only varies the comp check plate (cp) stack. I have measured both a soft (MM tune) and firm (HH tune) poppet spring and they are the same. Speculation, but it appears they use the same spring across all the tunes.

The rebound side is more straight forward and there is a single preloaded 19x.15 shim difference between the three levels.

Currently I'm bouncing back and forth between a straight/tapered and preloaded comp stack. I've got the straight fairly dialed but it requires a stiffer poppet spring or the lsc is too soft. I'm currently using a Fox 65lb/in poppet spring but would like to get even stiffer springs to test. The stock spring is somewhere around 25lb/in. 

A preloaded stack seems to work fairly well with the stock poppet spring, but I'm only running 2-3 preloaded shims and 8 shims under ring/nest shim. I haven't worked with the preloaded stack enough to get it dialed. It really depends on how much hsc you want. The straight stack will give you more and the preloaded stack will have less, given equal lsc.

I have played with the cp stacks a little but not enough to get a good feel for how much or how little control they have. I believe there is potential there but would consider it fine tuning. If your main stack aren't dialed, the effects of cp tuning seem to be unnoticeable. The bypass circuit in these shock flows a lot of oil compared to the previous generation and Fox Floats, so the poppet spring and cp stack can have a greater range of control over the damping curve.

On the reb side, I tried really hard to get a straight stack to work, but it just doesn't have enough mid speed reb to control the stiffer mid stroke of the debonair. It kicked really bad in chop unless it was valved so heavily that hsr was too slow. Ultimately, I went back to the stock M preloaded tune on both the main and cp stack. It's working pretty well with the stk tune, but not perfect. Once I get the comp dialed I'll play with the reb more.

Here are the two tunes that are currently working the best for me. Keep in mind that rider weight, linkage design, and spring curve greatly play into the tune. I mostly trail ride and prefer active setups with traction and support being king. I put very little value on perceived "efficiency" or pedal bob.

linear tune:
cp
22x.2
19x.2

main comp
17x.2
19x.2 x2
22x.15 x4

piston

19x.15
ring/nest
19x.15 x2

cp
19x.1
ring/nest
19x.1

Fox 65lb/in poppet spring

digressive tune:
cp
22x.2
19x.2

main comp
22x.15 x2
ring/nest
22x.15 x8

piston
(same as linear)
stock poppet spring


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

Thank you both very much for sharing this info. When you are riding then in which position is the compression lever - open, pedal or closed? With the stiff Fox spring and compression lever in closed positions - I suppose the main stack is doing all the work?


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

arnea,

I'm actually using the old RT comp adjuster which has 11clicks, but the range of preload on the poppet is the same as open and mid on the RT3 adjuster. I forgot to note that when the RT3 is in the firm setting, the poppet spring is fully compressed and the poppet seat actually floats against a second spring that you can see in the end of the shaft. This coupled with a highly preloaded main stack is how they get it extra firm.

With the RT adjuster, I'm pretty much running an equivalent open setting all of the time unless I'm riding the pump track or the dj's. I've experimented with slight float in the poppet and slightly preload, and the best setup so far has been a firmer stack with slight float in the poppet with the firmer spring. We're talking 0.1mm or less float, and on the preloaded side .1-.3mm. With the RT adjuster fully closed and the Pike set on firm, it is just barely firm enough for a decent setup on the pump track or dj's. Anything more than slight preload on the poppet, and the ride gets harsh on the trail.

I noted before that I really like the stock MM tune, but that is all relative. When you are incrementally making changes, it is really easy to loose perspective of how the baseline setup felt. I didn't realize how good the linear tunes were until I recently switched back to the stock tune. The stk tune was fairly over damped, both lsc and hsc.


----------



## fsrxc (Jan 31, 2004)

I'm ~150lb on a 2015 Trance Adv 1, which came with a Monarch RT. I'm currently running 110psi in the shock, which is borderline too soft at lower speeds, but it sometimes feels a bit harsh over faster chatter bumps.

I wasn't able to find the answer yet in this thread - does the RT have shimmed compression and/or rebound, or just poppets? Is it tuneable or not worth opening up?


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

fsrxc,

The RT has comp shims, no reb shims, and no poppet. The harshness in chop can be related to poor reb performance which is common with orifice only damping.


----------



## fsrxc (Jan 31, 2004)

ktm520 said:


> fsrxc,
> 
> The RT has comp shims, no reb shims, and no poppet. The harshness in chop can be related to poor reb performance which is common with orifice only damping.


so is the lack of rebound shims due to the piston design, or could they be installed? Is the option only to buy a different shock?

The 2016 Monarch RT3 sounds pretty good, would be cool if the internals fit my shock...


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

fsrxc said:


> so is the lack of rebound shims due to the piston design, or could they be installed? Is the option only to buy a different shock?
> 
> The 2016 Monarch RT3 sounds pretty good, would be cool if the internals fit my shock...


Its a different piston design. RT3 piston won't drop in, without updating shaft, metering rods, and adjuster assy.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

I had a long pause in my riding because I broke the frame. Now it is replaced and I had chance to do couple of longer rides on more demanding and varying terrain.

One problem I had was related to rebound. I did not find setting that was good both for smaller/faster pumps and larger/slower pumps. I had to reduce rebound damping for faster pumps to avoid packing and increase for larger pumps. Recommendation was to make the main rebound stack stiffer. I increased the thickness of the shim that was closest to the piston (right under the ring shim) from 0.15 to 0.2 mm. Right now I think that the rebound is good. I have rebound knob one click away from the centered position towards the closed setting.

I also changed the compression stack. I need low(er) tune. I made following changes:

1) I decreased the thickness of the 19mm check plate shim from 0.2 to 0.15

2) I moved the ring shim up by one shim (so there are two 0.15 shims under it) and increased the thickness of center shims from 0.1 to 0.2mm so there is less preload. 

3) I removed one 22x0.15 from the top of the ring shim.

So lots of changes and the main compression stack seems much softer than those described by ktm520. 

The result was that in the open position shock is too soft - both lsc and hsc. 

On the trail position it is actually quite good for larger hits and slower mid-sized movements. But it is too harsh when going over smaller stuff.

It seems that too much oil flows through the compression check plate in open position. I thought to put back the 19x0.2mm shim to the compression plate and 22x0.15mm shim on top of main compression stack. 

So basically only change compared to the stock M tune would be moving the ring shim up by one shim and reducing the preload by taller center shim.

I would like to check out the digressive stack described by ktm520 but I do not have enough 9mm shims at the moment. Also if I want something comparable to L tune I should probably reduce the number of shims. By how much?


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

arnea said:


> I also changed the compression stack. I need low(er) tune. I made following changes:
> 
> 1) I decreased the thickness of the 19mm check plate shim from 0.2 to 0.15
> 
> ...


I think you just went way to soft with the changes you made. Your stack is considerably softer than both the stacks I posted. I would put the cp back to stock and get the main stack dialed first. The problem with making so many changes at once is you have no idea what was the driving variable. Changing the preload nest shim is what made the most significant decrease in stack stiffness. Nothing wrong with reducing preload, but you will have to substantially stiffen the non preloaded section or add more preloaded shims to compensate. The cp stack change is not the problem.

Keep in mind that anytime you have a big jump in poppet preload, ie going from open to the mid setting, small bump is going to get harsher. You're basically adding a bunch of lsc when that lever is flipped.

As I noted above, I still feel like the cp stacks are more for fine tuning. The more of a digressive (preloaded) stack you run, the more influence they will have on the tune.

Rockshox's tunes are structured around having that firm "lockout" mode. In order to get that, it has to have a heavily preloaded main stack. For the trail rider who seeks maximum traction and support, that philosophy fails on more than one level.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

This is still a work in progress for me as well. I have a little bit of a different approach though. I have the LSC and LSR run softer. I then run the HSC and HSR as two stage straight stacks. It seems to work well. I was not happy with the preloaded shim stacks at all. I found them to be too harsh in compression and to slow in rebound. I used parts from the stock MM F 320 tune kit that the shock came with and parts from a LL S 219 tune kit that I bought. The only other shims I had to buy where some 9x22x.10 that I use in the LSC circuit. This might still be to soft for some people, but it is working well for me and as always it is still a work in progress.

Nut LSR 1ea] 9x16x0.15
3ea] 9x19x0.10
Valve Plate

3ea] 9x10x0.30

HSR
1ea] 9x19x0.20
1ea] 9x16x0.10
4ea] 9x19x0.15


Main Piston

HSC
5ea] 9x22x0.15
1ea] 9x19x0.10
1ea] 9x22x0.20


4ea] 9x10x0.30
LSC
1ea] 9x19x0.15
2ea] 9x22x0.10
Valve Plate


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

Hsal - what bike and trails are you riding? What year is the shock and do you have Debonair can? And what is the riding weight?


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

arnea said:


> Hsal - what bike and trails are you riding? What year is the shock and do you have Debonair can? And what is the riding weight?


 The bike is a 2007 Stumpjumper FSR. I ride cross country not to many mountains here in Louisiana. The shock is a 2013 RT3, and I do not have Debonair. I don't think the Debonair air can will fit my bike. I am running the older HV can with two volume reducers. My weight is a thin 200lbs and have 163 psi in the shock that gives me 30% sag. IFP is set at stock depth but I only run 205 PSI. I adjust the IFP pressure just to just stop bottom out. I have not had trouble running lower that recommended IFP, I believe has long as the IFP pressure is greater that the main air can pressure it seems to work fine. When I first got the shock with 350 psi In the IFP and the preloaded shim stack I could not get more that 30mm of travel out of a 51mm stroke shock unless I ran way to much sag. That is when to whole retuning began.


----------



## AjonG (Nov 25, 2005)

I have recently replaced the shock on my bike with a RT3 2015. As you all know it comes M/M tuned out of the box. Problem is that the Monarch on my frame comes factory tuned as:

High rebound 
Low compression 
Threshold 320 (I will soon know if its hard or soft)

I was hoping to buy a complete tune kit but, but there does not seem to exist one with my settings. 

I have read this thread a couple of times and this might have been posted, please forgive me if so. But does anybody know what the shim setup is for the tuning above?

I might ad that I have been riding it a bit and the factory tuning does make sense. My bike is a 2012 Devinchi Atlas btw.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Hsal said:


> This is still a work in progress for me as well. I have a little bit of a different approach though. I have the LSC and LSR run softer. I then run the HSC and HSR as two stage straight stacks. It seems to work well. I was not happy with the preloaded shim stacks at all. I found them to be too harsh in compression and to slow in rebound. I used parts from the stock MM F 320 tune kit that the shock came with and parts from a LL S 219 tune kit that I bought. The only other shims I had to buy where some 9x22x.10 that I use in the LSC circuit. This might still be to soft for some people, but it is working well for me and as always it is still a work in progress.
> 
> Nut LSR 1ea] 9x16x0.15
> 3ea] 9x19x0.10
> ...


Thanks for sharing. The main comp/reb stacks you are running aren't really two stage stacks. You are basically running really soft linear stacks and cp stacks.



Hsal said:


> IFP is set at stock depth but I only run 205 PSI. I adjust the IFP pressure just to just stop bottom out. I have not had trouble running lower that recommended IFP, I believe has long as the IFP pressure is greater that the main air can pressure it seems to work fine. When I first got the shock with 350 psi In the IFP and the preloaded shim stack I could not get more that 30mm of travel out of a 51mm stroke shock unless I ran way to much sag. That is when to whole retuning began.


There are advantages to running less ifp, but reducing bottom support is not one of them. The reason you are using more travel is due to the overall drop of compression damping going from the stock tune to the the one you posted. You have considerably less comp damping. Running high ifp causes seal drag in both the ifp and shaft seal. This has a noticeable effect on the sensitivity of the shock. I'm currently running 220, but have run as low as 180.

Also, there is no correlation or relationship between the air spring pressure and ifp pressure. The ifp is there to counter cavitation and keep the oil from aerating or collapsing. The least amount of ifp required to prevent cavitation will result in the best performance, and how much that is depends on how stiff of valving . . . and how much you run the shock locked.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

AjonG said:


> I have recently replaced the shock on my bike with a RT3 2015. As you all know it comes M/M tuned out of the box. Problem is that the Monarch on my frame comes factory tuned as:
> 
> High rebound
> Low compression
> ...


I would almost guarantee that the stock tune is a soft. All you need to do to get a HL soft tune is to add one 19x.15 shim to the top of the reb stack and change the comp cp stack to:

22x.15
19x.15

You can either order these shims aftermarket or order any stock tune assy with a L comp and soft threshold.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> Thanks for sharing. The main comp/reb stacks you are running aren't really two stage stacks. You are basically running really soft linear stacks and cp stacks.
> 
> There are advantages to running less ifp, but reducing bottom support is not one of them. The reason you are using more travel is due to the overall drop of compression damping going from the stock tune to the the one you posted. You have considerably less comp damping. Running high ifp causes seal drag in both the ifp and shaft seal. This has a noticeable effect on the sensitivity of the shock. I'm currently running 220, but have run as low as 180.
> 
> Also, there is no correlation or relationship between the air spring pressure and ifp pressure. The ifp is there to counter cavitation and keep the oil from aerating or collapsing. The least amount of ifp required to prevent cavitation will result in the best performance, and how much that is depends on how stiff of valving . . . and how much you run the shock locked.


I am calling it a two stage stack in HSC and HSR because in comp I have 5ea 9x22x.15, 1ea 9x19x.10 as a spacer and 1ea 9x22x.20. In HSR I have 4ea 9x19x.15, 1ea 9x16x.10 as a spacer and 1ea 9x19x.20. In both HSC and HSR the last shim is a .20 that adds to the stiffness of the shock after the stack of .15 shims flex across the gap profited by the .10 spacer shims. The LSC cp stack is a little liter than the stock LSC low tune. I am running 2ea 9x22x.10 and 1ea 9x19x.15, stock LSC low tune has 1ea 9x22x.15 and 1ea 9x19x.15. The LSR cp stack is also a little liter than stock but with no re-load.I could not get full travel with the stock MM tune or a stock ML tune even with very low IFP pressure. I tried many combinations with the pre-loaded stacks from removing shims to moving the centering and ring shim further away from the main piston. That is when I decided to dump the pre-loaded stacks all together.
While I do agree that the main job of the IFP is to prevent cavitation in the oil chamber. I believe that the very high progressiveness of the IFP chamber does add to the over all stiffness of the shock toward the end of the travel. I believe that at that point it is a combination of Main Air Camber, HSC and IFP. With out making and other changes in the shock I have controlled bottom out by adding 5 to 10 psi in the IFP. I do agree this is and knowing me will always be a work in progress. I can't afford a therapist so this is my therapy.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> I would almost guarantee that the stock tune is a soft. All you need to do to get a HL soft tune is to add one 19x.15 shim to the top of the reb stack and change the comp cp stack to:
> 
> 22x.15
> 19x.15
> ...


The low tune HSC and med tune HSC also differ in that the low tune HSC, unless they changed it, has one fewer 9x22x.15 shim and it uses a different ring shim in the pre-load stack. If you look back on page 9 there is a whole chart of the MM and LL tunes. The M tune HSC used a 19.4x22x.40 ring shim while the L tune HSC used a 19.4x22x.30 ring shim. Both tunes use the same centering shim. They do the same thing in HSR between the Low and Med tunes. I have never seen a chart for High tune, and this is a chart for a 2013 RT3, they may be doing it differently now. I would like to see a chart for all tunes High Med Low, L3,L4. I do know that the spring in the 2013 is different between the 219 and 320 threshold tunes.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Hsal,

I see what you are going for, but what you are calling a cross-over shim isn't sized correctly to get a true "two stage" type damping curve. The whole stack will deflect together the same as a straight stack.

Two stage stack are very, very tricky to design without either a ton of experience or a shock dyno. Even with restackor, I've had very little luck designing a 2 stage stack that I think would actually work. Plus that type of damping curve doesn't even fit with what I want out of my shock.

That's awesome that you are working with the shock and figuring out what works . . . for you. Keep up the good work. That's what suspension tuning is all about. I don't mean to sound like I'm saying what you are doing is wrong, just explaining things better for all the readers. Its so easy to get lost in this stuff. Your setup is pretty far from the norm, and wouldn't even been close to working for me at 160lb on the same bike, but that's ok.

Fundamentally, I still stand behind my statement that ifp is not a good tool for adjusting bottom resistance in itself. When you made a 5psi change to ifp, this added a small amount of spring force to the whole curve. You cut your damping curve in half switching from even the L tune down to the stacks you posted. That is the majority of why you used more travel. Here are some numbers to give perspective:

51 stroke debonair shock:
180 main / 220 ifp = 896lb of spring force at end of stroke
180 main / 225 ifp = 898lb
185 main/ 220 ifp = 916lb

2lb of force at the end of the stroke is almost negligible.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Hsal said:


> The low tune HSC and med tune HSC also differ in that the low tune HSC, unless they changed it, has one fewer 9x22x.15 shim and it uses a different ring shim in the pre-load stack. If you look back on page 9 there is a whole chart of the MM and LL tunes. The M tune HSC used a 19.4x22x.40 ring shim while the L tune HSC used a 19.4x22x.30 ring shim. Both tunes use the same centering shim. They do the same thing in HSR between the Low and Med tunes. I have never seen a chart for High tune, and this is a chart for a 2013 RT3, they may be doing it differently now. I would like to see a chart for all tunes High Med Low, L3,L4. I do know that the spring in the 2013 is different between the 219 and 320 threshold tunes.


That differs from what I have in my notes, but I could be wrong.

I would avoid calling the two stacks hsc and lsc. It's not really accurate, and can cause confusion. To be clearer, the main stack controls the entire curve, both lsc and hsc. The cp stack have the most influence over the ls range, but there is still some transition into the ms range. If you think of the two totally separate, you will chase your tail.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> That differs from what I have in my notes, but I could be wrong.
> 
> I would avoid calling the two stacks hsc and lsc. It's not really accurate, and can cause confusion. To be clearer, the main stack controls the entire curve, both lsc and hsc. The cp stack have the most influence over the ls range, but there is still some transition into the ms range. If you think of the two totally separate, you will chase your tail.


I agree completely, that is one of the reasons I have dumped the pre-loaded shim stack. I thought the LSC cp was still harsh even with the low tune and I did not like the transition to the main piston. With all of the threshold you have to get past to open the pre-loaded shim stack the transition was to on and off like. I found the main rebound shim stack would feel like it would pause before opening even after only one bump, unless the external rebound adjuster was farther open then I liked. Right now I run it 3 to 4 clicks open from all the way closed. I find that with ether the pre-loaded stack or the stack I am running now, if I open the external knob to much LSR felt jittery with out enough control. I find that if the main rebound stack is to stiff and you set the external knob where if gives you more control and less jitter the shock or fork feels to dead. I tend to run my main rebound stack a little softer and close the external knob to 3 or 4 clicks from closed. It seems to handle big hits well, if you don't go to soft, and stay nice and lively on small high speed hits with out the lack of control or jitter. The stack I am running my still be to soft, when i went to this I had to completely start over from scratch and it is a work in progress.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Hsal said:


> I agree completely, that is one of the reasons I have dumped the pre-loaded shim stack. I thought the LSC cp was still harsh even with the low tune and I did not like the transition to the main piston. With all of the threshold you have to get past to open the pre-loaded shim stack the transition was to on and off like. I found the main rebound shim stack would feel like it would pause before opening even after only one bump, unless the external rebound adjuster was farther open then I liked. Right now I run it 3 to 4 clicks open from all the way closed. I find that with ether the pre-loaded stack or the stack I am running now, if I open the external knob to much LSR felt jittery with out enough control. I find that if the main rebound stack is to stiff and you set the external knob where if gives you more control and less jitter the shock or fork feels to dead. I tend to run my main rebound stack a little softer and close the external knob to 3 or 4 clicks from closed. It seems to handle big hits well, if you don't go to soft, and stay nice and lively on small high speed hits with out the lack of control or jitter. The stack I am running my still be to soft, when i went to this I had to completely start over from scratch and it is a work in progress.


My next change would probably be to add one more 9x22x.15 to the comp side, up against the piston as well as one more 9x19x.15 to the rebound side also against the piston, right now I am playing with the progressiveness of the main air spring a little, by one or two volume reducer bands just to add a little more med stroke support. My last ride felt good, did not bottom out, was running 220 psi in the IFP but no bands in the main air can. It did not bottom, but the second half of the travel needed a little firming up. With two bands in, I was able to then keep the main air can pressure that gives me good sag, and good small bump feel and have the second half feel firmer. I then returned the IFP back to 205 psi. I am now in the testing stage of that and still have to do a trail ride. I still may need one more volume reducer before I decide to change the shims. I find if you make the main air can to progressive the second half of the travel will then get a little dead feeling.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

I disagrees I feel the tips of the inner 9x22x.15 comp shims will flex a little in the gap left there by the 9x19x.10 and allow the start of the oil flowing before the whole stack then starts moving together. I tried a single little small 9x10x.20 or .30 spacers and that was way to soft and this arrangement was all I could do with the shims I have and still be able to do it to both Comp and Reb. A 9x18x.10 or a 9x17x10 mite also work but than I feel I would have to run more 9x22x.15. If the 9x19x.10 was not there I would probably be running 7 or 8 9x22x.15 or some combination of .15 and .20 to equal that. The problem with that is in order to get the stiffer over all stack you have to sacrifice the better transition between CP shim stack and main piston stack. If you stiffen the main piston stack to much the LSC port by the poppet valve and spring may starts to become saturated in a high speed event before the main shim stack can start to open, this is way more evident in the stock pre-loaded stack because of the preload on the main piston.This setup will not work for people still looking to have lockout. I never use lockout and now just have lockout as just a firmer secondary pro pedal witch I don't need. My real pro pedal with the softer 219 spring the lite CP stack and the lower IFP pressure just takes the bob out with out making LSC feel harsh over small hits.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> Hsal,
> 
> I see what you are going for, but what you are calling a cross-over shim isn't sized correctly to get a true "two stage" type damping curve. The whole stack will deflect together the same as a straight stack.
> 
> ...


I'm cures to know how you came about these numbers. Not saying they are wrong I can only try to reference my experiences. 
I can tell you if you mistakenly set the IFP depth a few mm to low making the IFP air chamber a little smaller, not to the point that it hydro locks, but just a little smaller you have to run lower IFP pressure because of the increased progressiveness of the IFP to then get the same travel as you got with the depth set correctly and 205 ish psi. I have found that, within reason regardless of the shim stack type, just making small changes in the progressiveness or the pressure in the IFP can have a big influence in the last 5 or 6 mm of shock stroke even if all other perimeters are unchanged. I have made mistakes in reassembly and had to run as low as 125psi. At that time I realized that contrary to the Sram's video on servicing the shock just setting the depth and putting the schrader valve core back in is not good enough to stop the ifp piston from moving. They sell a vice block, but it is hard to find and not shown on all Sram service video, so I just made a small wooded vice to clamp the assy in after setting the depth and installing the valve core. After that the needed IFP pressure remained very consistent at 205 ish depending on how progressive or linear the main air chamber was set at.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Hsal said:


> I'm cures to know how you came about these numbers. Not saying they are wrong I can only try to reference my experiences.


I created a spreadsheet model of the spring curve for a debonair and sv can, including the contribution of the ifp. The butt dyno isn't the most accurate instrument of measure.

What types of trail features are you using for a travel usage baseline?

What is your understanding of a 2 stage stack damping curve and it's benefits?


----------



## AjonG (Nov 25, 2005)

Thanks guys! I'm not sure that I am less confused though 

One idea I have is to buy the "Tune Kit 2013 Monarch RT3HL S 219" and shift over the S 320 shim/s from my current stack. Could you please point me to exactly which shim/s I should move over?


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

AjonG, it doesn't work like that. If you can get that 13 HL tune, its exactly what you need.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> I created a spreadsheet model of the spring curve for a debonair and sv can, including the contribution of the ifp. The butt dyno isn't the most accurate instrument of measure.
> 
> What types of trail features are you using for a travel usage baseline?
> 
> What is your understanding of a 2 stage stack damping curve and it's benefits?


Unfortunately I only have a butt dyno. I like to ride the Comite River Trail in north Baton Rouge. Its not a black diamond trail but it has some technical sections and a lot of large roots, I am 53 so I don't get to crazy. I can only use the butt dyno method, I ride I evaluate then I change what I don't like.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> I've been tuning on my 13 RT3 with debonair can for a few months and have tried several different setups. Mullen and I have been working together and sharing notes, and although our setups are different, we have made some of the same discoveries.
> 
> Looking at the spec's for LL soft, MM soft, and HH firm tunes, RS uses the same compression stack for all those tunes and only varies the comp check plate (cp) stack. I have measured both a soft (MM tune) and firm (HH tune) poppet spring and they are the same. Speculation, but it appears they use the same spring across all the tunes.
> 
> ...


I think I see what you are doing with your pre-loaded stack. I to noticed that as you move the ring/nest shims farther away from the piston in the stack that the threshold to open the stack drops but then the stack just feels to soft. Adding more shims between the piston and ring/nest shims stiffens the stack with out jacking up the pre-load. I did some work with that with the HSC low tune but never toke it to that extreme. With your tapered stack would you say that the initial feel, LSC differences aside, of the main stack curve alone would actually be softer then what I am presently running. Trying to use a tapered stack in a comp or rebound circuit that as a dedicated low speed section can led to too soft low/mid speed support do to the crossover of the two circuit over lapping each other. This my be why you had to use the stiffer poppet spring or the LSC felt to soft. With the stiffer spring you are making the LSC circuit stiffer to compensate for to much LSC coming from the main stack with it being tapered. Good discussion always looking to pick on other peoples experiences and opinions.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Hsal said:


> I think I see what you are doing with your pre-loaded stack. I to noticed that as you move the ring/nest shims farther away from the piston in the stack that the threshold to open the stack drops but then the stack just feels to soft. Adding more shims between the piston and ring/nest shims stiffens the stack with out jacking up the pre-load. I did some work with that with the HSC low tune but never toke it to that extreme.


That's pretty much it. Preload raises the entire curve and gives that blunt nose at the start of the curve. Adding stiffness to the linear section of the stack raises the slope of the curve after the nose/knee. There is nothing wrong with preloaded stacks in general and they can be usefull to gain lsc but not add to much hsc. I'm planning to do more testing with that preloaded stack . . . sometime.



Hsal said:


> With your tapered stack would you say that the initial feel, LSC differences aside, of the main stack curve alone would actually be softer then what I am presently running.


Nope. Your stack is considerably softer than the linear/tapered stack I posted. Tapered stacks aren't really that different than a straight stack. They can have a little more hsc, but the main advantage is that they reduce shim fatigue.



Hsal said:


> Trying to use a tapered stack in a comp or rebound circuit that as a dedicated low speed section can led to too soft low/mid speed support do to the crossover of the two circuit over lapping each other. This my be why you had to use the stiffer poppet spring or the LSC felt to soft. With the stiffer spring you are making the LSC circuit stiffer to compensate for to much LSC coming from the main stack with it being tapered. Good discussion always looking to pick on other peoples experiences and opinions.


Nope. This shock doesn't really have a dedicated lsc circuit. It's just a bypass that houses a poppet and shim stack in series. The shim stack has to be there to act as a check plate to stop crossflow during reb. The bypass in these shock flows a large amount of oil compared to the 11-12 Monarch and Fox floats.

Your statements about lsc contradict each other. Maybe a typo? I've already explained why I went to the stiffer poppet spring with the linear stack. It's pretty straight forward. Reread that post.


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

Is there a simple way that I can get a little less hsc damping on the RT3 Debonair I bought for my 2015 Remedy?

RS says this is the main (only?) change for the 2016 shocks, and is the only thing I need.

Thanks!


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

ktm520 said:


> linear tune:
> cp
> 22x.2
> 19x.2
> ...


Quick update on this tune:

I've been bouncing back and forth between this comp stack and one with that is a single .1 shim softer. The former has better lsc but hsc is a little firm. The softer stack lacks a little lsc but is really good on hsc. This is were some testing with the cp stack might optimize the softer stack but I need to move over to the reb and work on it.

The stock M reb tune has still been working well with the debonair can, but the lsr is too fast. I'm currently playing with the cp stack and I have replaced the preloaded stack with 5x .1 shims. This was an improvement but the lsr is still inbetween clicks.

After I get the reb more dialed, I'll revisited the preloaded comp stack, if nothing else, for the challenge of it. I'm really curious to see if I can get the lsc support were I want it and still have decent small bump/square edge.

Note on debonair can:

I've found it to be very sensitive, and critical, to volume reduction. It will hold 6 rings total in positive sleeve and there is a rather noticeable difference in the mid stroke adding rings. This is with a flat leverage curve. If your are running a debonair can, don't ignore optimizing the spring setup. This is true for any can really, but it seems to be more critical than most others I've tuned.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

kosmo said:


> Is there a simple way that I can get a little less hsc damping on the RT3 Debonair I bought for my 2015 Remedy?
> 
> RS says this is the main (only?) change for the 2016 shocks, and is the only thing I need.
> 
> Thanks!


I like the design changes on the 2016 piston on paper. You can order a '16 tune assy, if they are available yet. But, you can also reduce the hsc in your '15. Pulling a .15 shim is going to be a more coarse adjustment. A .15 shim is equal to 3x .1 shims. Idealling you would pull a .15 and replace it with one or two .1's. Try pulling a .15 first, it's free and you might like it.

Have you reduce the positive volume in the can? Too stiff of a midstroke can make the shock feel like it has too much hsc on square edge hits.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> That's pretty much it. Preload raises the entire curve and gives that blunt nose at the start of the curve. Adding stiffness to the linear section of the stack raises the slope of the curve after the nose/knee. There is nothing wrong with preloaded stacks in general and they can be usefull to gain lsc but not add to much hsc. I'm planning to do more testing with that preloaded stack . . . sometime.
> 
> Nope. Your stack is considerably softer than the linear/tapered stack I posted. Tapered stacks aren't really that different than a straight stack. They can have a little more hsc, but the main advantage is that they reduce shim fatigue.
> 
> ...


I agree that my HSC stack is over all softer than your tapered stack no doubt. My thought was at the initial start of oil flow though the main piston my stack which as 5ea 9x22x.15 shims is actually initially stiffer than the tapered stack that has 4ea 9x22x.15. I believe that a tapered stack actually as much softer LSC because there is nothing out at the outer tip of the face shim or shims to add stiffness. After that initial flex of the face shim or shims at the tips, in this case the 4ea 9x22x.15 as a group act as the face shim then the smaller in diameter and thicker section of tapered shims kick in to stiffen HSC and reduce shim fatigue. A straight stack is going to have stiffer LS and a tapered stack is going to have softer LS and that is the main difference between a straight and tapered stack.. I agree that from there your tapered stack, because of the greater number of thicker shim, will have stiffer HS. Actually the bypass and CP shim stack are the LSC, but they also serve other purposes. In the open mode the poppet valve, depending on the spring used, will have less effect on LC. When you flip the switch to pro-pedal greater preload is put on the spring and poppet valve stiffening up LS. When you go to lockout the max preload is put on the spring closing off the bypass, and if you have a stiff main piston stack, giving you lockout. In the open mode the CP stack can be fine tuned to control the feel of LS. The CP stack acts as LSC during Comp and stop oil back flowing during reb. The poppet valve is there to increase LSC during pro-pedal and further increase it during lockout. The whole body of the poppet valve also serves to stop oil from flowing through the rebound free bleed during comp by closing off the Comp free bleed and forcing the oil that is coming from the rebound free bleed to go to the rebound CP and shim stack.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> I've been tuning on my 13 RT3 with debonair can for a few months and have tried several different setups. Mullen and I have been working together and sharing notes, and although our setups are different, we have made some of the same discoveries.
> 
> Looking at the spec's for LL soft, MM soft, and HH firm tunes, RS uses the same compression stack for all those tunes and only varies the comp check plate (cp) stack. I have measured both a soft (MM tune) and firm (HH tune) poppet spring and they are the same. Speculation, but it appears they use the same spring across all the tunes.
> 
> ...


What you were doing with the stiffer spring was effectively closing off the LSC poppet valve and allowing it to flow very little oil while the tapered main piston stack still had way soft LSC and flowing a lot of oil. my guess is the it did not stiffen up the LSC as much as you thought it would. If you where to use that stiffer spring with a stiff straight stack or pre-loaded stack the shock would be ridiculously to stiff because now nether circuit would be flowing much oil.


----------



## AjonG (Nov 25, 2005)

ktm520 said:


> AjonG, it doesn't work like that. If you can get that 13 HL tune, its exactly what you need.


Thank you for the clarification! But I must admit that I don't really understand what the last number in the shock specifikation means? Factory trim is 320, the tune kit is 219. All I know is that the number has nothing to do with IPS preassure.


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

ktm520 said:


> I like the design changes on the 2016 piston on paper. You can order a '16 tune assy, if they are available yet. But, you can also reduce the hsc in your '15. Pulling a .15 shim is going to be a more coarse adjustment. A .15 shim is equal to 3x .1 shims. Idealling you would pull a .15 and replace it with one or two .1's. Try pulling a .15 first, it's free and you might like it.
> 
> Have you reduce the positive volume in the can? Too stiff of a midstroke can make the shock feel like it has too much hsc on square edge hits.


I've removed the rubber bands from the Debonair can (3 bands, stock) and am getting nearly full travel on rough trails at 35% sag, so I think I'm about right in that regard. With all 3 bands it was ridiculous, taking a soggy 45% sag to use full travel.

I'll have to try removing a shim this winter (crazy work time for me now).

Clarification: Did you really mean that one .15 shim is equal to three 0.1 shims? That doesn't seem to add up (but I know nothing about shim stacks).


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

AjonG,

I haven't found a good answer on exactly what the number means, but I do know that it is just a resultant of the combination of main and cp stack.

kosmo,

Yes, that is how .1 and .15 shims compare. The stiffness of a shim, given equal id/od, is proportional to the cube of the thickness.
.15 = 3.3x .1
.2 = 8x .1 

Hsal,

Your understanding of how straight, tapered, and 2-stage stacks work is still flawed. I can recommend a few text books if you would like to do some reading. Restackor's website has a really good reference section as well.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

AjonG said:


> Thank you for the clarification! But I must admit that I don't really understand what the last number in the shock specifikation means? Factory trim is 320, the tune kit is 219. All I know is that the number has nothing to do with IPS preassure.


The last number I believe is the stiffness of the poppet spring. My shock came as a MM S 320 stock. The tune kit I bought was LL S 219 and it had a softer spring for the poppet valve. I can not tell you the stiffness of the spring but I do know that I could physically feel and see the difference in the two springs. What is unknown to me the difference between say a MM S 320 listed as a soft threshold, and a MM F 320 listed as a firm threshold. I was wondering, and this is pure speculation, if there is a difference in the two very small shims, washers, that sit right against the top of the poppet valve. I have never had a kit that had a F in it's listing to compare the differences. The table below was taken from page 9. It is accurate as I own both an MM and a LL tune and have compared the shims to the table. I have never owned or seen a list for the FF or any of the L3,L4 tunes, nor been able to compare the differences between a S soft threshold and a F firm threshold. If anyone has that info I would appreciate seeing it.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> That's pretty much it. Preload raises the entire curve and gives that blunt nose at the start of the curve. Adding stiffness to the linear section of the stack raises the slope of the curve after the nose/knee. There is nothing wrong with preloaded stacks in general and they can be usefull to gain lsc but not add to much hsc. I'm planning to do more testing with that preloaded stack . . . sometime.
> 
> Nope. Your stack is considerably softer than the linear/tapered stack I posted. Tapered stacks aren't really that different than a straight stack. They can have a little more hsc, but the main advantage is that they reduce shim fatigue.
> 
> ...


Don't mean to be argumentative about the CP shim stacks but if they where only used to control back flow then why would the med tune use 9x22x.2 and 9x19x.2 while the low tune uses 9x22x.15 and 9x19x.15. This is obviously a tapered stack. If you have med tune and want to lighten the LSC try replacing the face shim the[9x22x.2] with ether a 9x22x.15 or 3ea 9x22x.1 before changing the second shim the 9x19x.2. The second shim is there to bolster up the face shim and prevent fatigue. With the three clover design of the CP assy only the very outer tip of the CP face shim has to flex in order to flow a lot of oil.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Hsal said:


> The last number I believe is the stiffness of the poppet spring. My shock came as a MM S 320 stock. The tune kit I bought was LL S 219 and it had a softer spring for the poppet valve.


I'm 99% positive that it isn't the stiffness of the poppet spring. The HH F tune confirms this as it has the same spring as the MM S tune. I did not know the LL S has a soft spring, good to know. If you are really worried about it, you could call RS and ask.



Hsal said:


> Don't mean to be argumentative about the CP shim stacks but if they where only used to control back flow then why would the med tune use 9x22x.2 and 9x19x.2 while the low tune uses 9x22x.15 and 9x19x.15. This is obviously a tapered stack. If you have med tune and want to lighten the LSC try replacing the face shim the[9x22x.2] with ether a 9x22x.15 or 3ea 9x22x.1 before changing the second shim the 9x19x.2. The second shim is there to bolster up the face shim and prevent fatigue. With the three clover design of the CP assy only the very outer tip of the CP face shim has to flex in order to flow a lot of oil.


I never said the cp stack is only there to prevent crossflow. And, I've already compared/explained what level of influence the cp stack has on the tune with a prelaoded stack vs a linear stack.

Yes, that's technically a tapered stack by definition, but the tips of the face shim do not bend about the edge of the back up shim. You'd be surprised by how little those shims actually lift off the face of the plate. Calculate the flow area of the bypass and then calculate the required lift at the circumference of the shim to match.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> I'm 99% positive that it isn't the stiffness of the poppet spring. The HH F tune confirms this as it has the same spring as the MM S tune. I did not know the LL S has a soft spring, good to know. If you are really worried about it, you could call RS and ask.
> 
> I never said the cp stack is only there to prevent crossflow. And, I've already compared/explained what level of influence the cp stack has on the tune with a prelaoded stack vs a linear stack.
> 
> Yes, that's technically a tapered stack by definition, but the tips of the face shim do not bend about the edge of the back up shim. You'd be surprised by how little those shims actually lift off the face of the plate. Calculate the flow area of the bypass and then calculate the required lift at the circumference of the shim to match.


I admit, I'm not sure what the difference between the F and S threshold is. If you reread my post both of my tunes where S, but one was a 320 and the other was a 219. I believe that is the spring difference. They also have a 377 listed in the parts catalog, so they seem to actually have three springs. The MM S 320 and the HH F 320 would have the same spring. The difference between the F and S threshold my be some other factor. Sense I have never owned a F threshold I can't say, maybe the poppet valve is a little longer or maybe the little shims, washers, that sit right on top of the poppet valve are different. I do agree that the CP shim don't have to lift off the face of the plate much to flow a large amount of oil.


----------



## Rick Draper (Dec 1, 2009)

The figure could be the recommended IFP pressure for the tune?.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Rick Draper said:


> The figure could be the recommended IFP pressure for the tune?.


It could be, I don't know that's why I'm asking. Both tunes where designated as S threshold, but the LL S 219 has a softer spring than the MM S 320. I kind of thought that the F threshold might have a little thicker spacer washer on top of the poppet valve that would put a little preload on the poppet valve and spring. That would increase the threshold on the poppet in the open position. The S would have less preload on the poppet and less threshold in the open position. The stiffness of the spring, 320 or 219,would then have more of an affect over how stiff or soft the pro-pedal felt, as long as the main stack had not been altered to much to allow to much oil to flow during low speed events.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

You would really need to see an F threshold tone to be able to compare it to a S threshold tune.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Rick Draper said:


> The figure could be the recommended IFP pressure for the tune?.


Rick, the ifp pressure is spec'd in the service manual and is the same for all tunes.


----------



## Rick Draper (Dec 1, 2009)

ktm520 said:


> Rick, the ifp pressure is spec'd in the service manual and is the same for all tunes.


Ahh not like Fox then. I know fox recommends higher IFP pressures with different rates of poppet spring and valving.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Rick Draper said:


> Ahh not like Fox then. I know fox recommends higher IFP pressures with different rates of poppet spring and valving.


After looking at the parts list for the 2014/15 rt3 the low3 tune has a CF of 60lbs, the low tune has a CF of 80lbs, Med tune has a CF of 97lbs and the High tune has a CF of 110lbs. The CF I would conclude stands for Compression Force. In the 2 tunes listed below they both have Reb-H and Comp-H and CF-110lbs, one has firm threshold with an LF of 320 the other has soft threshold with an LF of 430.The last three numbers could indicate a stiffer spring and the LF could stand for Lockout Force. All other factors being the same in a tune, a stiffer spring would give you a stiffer pro-pedal and stiffer lock out.
Monarch RT3 Reb-High/Comp-High (CF-110lbs) firm threshold, LF-320 Monarch RT3 Reb-High/Comp-High (CF-110lbs) soft threshold, LF-430


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Hsal said:


> You would really need to see an F threshold tone to be able to compare it to a S threshold tune.


While I do agree that the IFP pressure does not change for different tunes. According to Rockshox's service manuals, and I do not run my shock at these PSI pressures, the 2012 shocks should be set at 500psi. I don't believe it but that is what it says. 2013 R is 250, RL is 500,RT 350 and RT3 350. The 2016 manual states RL at 500psi, RT at 350psi, XX430 at 500psi, XX 380 at350, XX 320 at 350 and XX 219 at 350. For 2016 they say it should be 350 for RT3 and 250 for R. It can get a bit confusing.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

arnea said:


> I was playing with Shim Restackor and came up with the following changes to stock MM stack:
> 
> 1) make the HSC softer by moving the ring shim up in stack and removing one 0.15 shim.
> 
> ...


I finally got the restackor software to work on my computer. I've been looking at what I have been doing and have made some changes. In the process I was looking at what other people where doing as well and noticed that the stock reb CP stack and the modified reb CP stack you used here, 1ea 19x.15, have the same damping curve. They both are very soft and flow oil very easily. Have you considered trying 3ea 19x .1 and 1ea 16x .15.In the stock set up the only thing controlling the flow of oil is the external adjuster reducing the size of the orifice. With the, 3ea 19x.1, 1ea 16x.15 stack, the curve is a more gradual rise allowing the stack to have a little control on the flow along with the external adjuster. You might want to try that and then tune your HSR.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

As I stated above,I finely got the restackor software working on my computer. After looking at what I have been doing, I realized that the stack I was using was soft and the crossover shim was not really doing anything, just as KTM520 had stated. I went back in and made a munch of comparisons of what I was doing compared to the MM stock and LL stock tunes, and using my past experience on how they felt to me to ride, I took some ques from what KTM520 is doing with his pre-loaded stack. Thanks. I came up with this, will try and get a ride in later this evening to see how it feels.

Nut
LSR
3ea] 9x16x0.10 [This is for a lack of another 9x16x.15]
3ea] 9x19x0.10
Valve Plate

3ea] 9x10x0.30

HSR
1ea] 9x19x0.15
1ea] 16.4x19x0.30
1ea] 9x16x0.15
4ea] 9x19x0.15

Main Piston

HSC
5ea] 9x22x0.15
1ea] 9x19x0.20
1ea] 19.4x22x0.40
1ea] 9x22 .15

4ea] 9x10x0.30
LSC
1ea] 9x19x0.15
3ea] 9x22x0.10
Valve Plate


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

This was quite some time ago. After that I restored the original rebound side stacks and added one 19x.2 shim against the piston face to stiffen up the HSR. This seemed to solve my problem with rebound. Right now the shock feels quite good. I'm intrigued to try out those stacks that are posted in this thread recently, but will probably postpone it to next summer. Right now I'm trying to enjoy the riding as much as possible before the snow goes down and current setup is good enough for that.

BTW, can somebody confirm what is the correct procedure for tuning the air can volume?

I think that volume reducers do not affect the beginning stroke too much. Sag and small bump feeling is controlled by pressure. After you have found good pressure for beginning stroke you should adjust number of volume reducing bands to get full travel and no harsh bottom out. 

Is this the correct procedure?


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

arnea said:


> This was quite some time ago. After that I restored the original rebound side stacks and added one 19x.2 shim against the piston face to stiffen up the HSR. This seemed to solve my problem with rebound. Right now the shock feels quite good. I'm intrigued to try out those stacks that are posted in this thread recently, but will probably postpone it to next summer. Right now I'm trying to enjoy the riding as much as possible before the snow goes down and current setup is good enough for that.
> 
> BTW, can somebody confirm what is the correct procedure for tuning the air can volume?
> 
> ...


I would think that sound correct. You are upping the progressiveness of the air spring which should effect how the shock feels at the end of the travel.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Hsal said:


> As I stated above,I finely got the restackor software working on my computer. After looking at what I have been doing, I realized that the stack I was using was soft and the crossover shim was not really doing anything, just as KTM520 had stated. I went back in and made a munch of comparisons of what I was doing compared to the MM stock and LL stock tunes, and using my past experience on how they felt to me to ride, I took some ques from what KTM520 is doing with his pre-loaded stack. Thanks. I came up with this, will try and get a ride in later this evening to see how it feels.
> 
> Nut
> LSR
> ...


I've only had a chance to do one urban ride. The shock felt good, LSC was a little firmer. Air pressure and IFP were kept the same. Beside the main piston stack changes, I also changed my LSC CP stack from 2ea 9x22x.10 to 3ea 9x22x.10, may change that back haven't decided yet. Did notice a little change in the amount of travel that I got so after the ride I removed the 2ea volume reducer bands in the air chamber, haven't ridden that yet. What I did notice was now my fork was a little soft to match up with the rear. I had to up the oil in the air chamber a little to increase the progressiveness and up the air pressure 1 psi to get them to feel balanced. I've also highly modified the old fox float RL that came on the bike because it spiked in compression and packed down in Reb badly. I may have to do a slight adjustment to it, but will try to get some more ride time in first.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

I was running following setup for some time (bold indicates changes from stock MM setup):

cp
22x.2
19x.2

main comp
22x.15 x3
ring/nest - *but nest shim is 0.2 instead of 0.1mm*
22x.15 x2

piston

19x.2 - *stock stack had 19x.15 here*
ring/nest
19x.15 x2

cp
19x.1
ring/nest
19x.1

Pressure was ~173psi, I had three red bands in the air chamber. The adjuster was in open position.

Shock felt overall bit soft - it was moving all the time, not too much, but I had uncomfortable feeling that it might bottom out.

Yesterday I made following modification (changes compared to previous version in bold):

cp
22x.2
19x.2
*19x.1*

main comp
22x.15 x3
ring/nest
22x.15 *x3 - added one shim here*

piston

19x.2
ring/nest
19x.15 x2

cp
19x.1
ring/nest
19x.1

I added two shims - one to cp stack and another under the ring/nest shim.

I did my standard trail today. Pressure was lower at ~155psi. Shock felt overall stiffer, even with lower pressure. It was more like riding the hardtail, it did not move all the time. My trail is quite flat without long descents, but I think that the faster I went, the better it felt. When I was going slowly on the rooty sections it seemed to be too dull or stiff - with old setup I was kind of rolling through the roots, with the new setup I was more rising on top of roots.

Edit: also the traction seemed to be little bit worse. I rear end was skidding more on the roots.

What change do you suggest me to try?

My first idea was to remove the extra shim from cp. That should reduce the overall compression damping and bring back some softness to slower movements. Or perhaps move one 22x.15 shim from top of ring/nest shim under it so it is not preloaded.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

arnea said:


> I was running following setup for some time (bold indicates changes from stock MM setup):
> 
> cp
> 22x.2
> ...


The 19x.1 that you added to the CP really didn't make much of a change, I would remove it and change the CP shims to min. 22x.15 and 19x.2. On the main stack you might try. Piston 
3ea 22x.15
1ea22x.2
1ea19cx.2
1ea22rx.4
2ea22x.15


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

Hmm. So you suggest to remove one preloaded .15mm shim from top of ring shim and add one .2mm shim (that should be equivalent to two .15mm shims, right?) under the ring shim. And that would still be softer than the current stack?

Another question to ktm520.



ktm520 said:


> I'm actually using the old RT comp adjuster which has 11clicks, but the range of preload on the poppet is the same as open and mid on the RT3 adjuster. I forgot to note that when the RT3 is in the firm setting, the poppet spring is fully compressed and the poppet seat actually floats against a second spring that you can see in the end of the shaft. This coupled with a highly preloaded main stack is how they get it extra firm.


Do you know if the old RT comp adjuster is compatible with the 2014-2015 RT3 shocks? I found the picture of the knob kit for 2014 RT3 (BTI | Rock Shox rebound adjuster knob kit, 2014 Monarch RT3) and it looks very similar to 2011-2012 knob kits.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

Hsal said:


> The 19x.1 that you added to the CP really didn't make much of a change


I was thinking about this today when I was comparing different main stack options.

I think that actually this was an important change. When you set the adjuster to closed (aka climb) position it's effect is very noticeable. In the pedal position when the oil flow is reduced you will also notice it. And the things that I did not like about the setup were very similar to running the adjuster in trail position. I will start by removing the 19x.1 shim from cp and then try the bike again.

Seems that this RT adjuster would be really useful for me.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

arnea said:


> I was thinking about this today when I was comparing different main stack options.
> 
> I think that actually this was an important change. When you set the adjuster to closed (aka climb) position it's effect is very noticeable. In the pedal position when the oil flow is reduced you will also notice it. And the things that I did not like about the setup were very similar to running the adjuster in trail position. I will start by removing the 19x.1 shim from cp and then try the bike again.
> 
> Seems that this RT adjuster would be really useful for me.


Make a change that is going to be noticeable, and change the CP shims to 22x.15 and 19x.15. If the shock then feels to soft, leave the CP shims alone and stiffen up the main stack. I don't like more that 1 or 2 pre-loaded shims in the stack because of the high threshold knee it creates. Ballpark, for every pre-loaded shim you remove, you have to add 2 face shims to keep the over all stiffness the same.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Maybe in line with something like this. The main stack might be to stiff, you would have to try and adjust.


CP	
1ea 22x.15
1ea 19x.15

Spacers

1ea 22x.15
1ea 22rx.4
1ea 19cx.2
2ea 22x.2
3ea 22x.15

Piston


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

arnea said:


> Do you know if the old RT comp adjuster is compatible with the 2014-2015 RT3 shocks? I found the picture of the knob kit for 2014 RT3 (BTI | Rock Shox rebound adjuster knob kit, 2014 Monarch RT3) and it looks very similar to 2011-2012 knob kits.


It will physically fit in the eyelet and work, but it's not a drop in replacement. I've got one in '13, which is the same as the 14-15. The difference is that the adjuster cam that actuates the comp metering rod has a slightly different height than the RT3 adjuster cam. What this means is you have to shim the poppet spring to get the preload/float where you want it in the open position, if you want to keep the full range of 11 clicks of adjustment. Otherwise, you can just close it a couple clicks to make up the difference.

In regards to your valving questions, the cp stack change is not what you should be looking at. Adding that .1 shim was much smaller change than that what you did to the main stack stiffness. Get the main stack dialed first and then work on the cp stack. Sounds like you had both too much lsc and hsc, so dial back the main stack 1 or 2 .1 shims and go from there.

Keep in the mind, the less preload you run on the main stack, the less influence the cp stack has on the tune.

And again, do yourself a huge favor and only make one change at a time. This is the only way to get a feel for yourself on how each variable affects the tune.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

ktm520 said:


> It will physically fit in the eyelet and work, but it's not a drop in replacement. I've got one in '13, which is the same as the 14-15. The difference is that the adjuster cam that actuates the comp metering rod has a slightly different height than the RT3 adjuster cam. What this means is you have to shim the poppet spring to get the preload/float where you want it in the open position, if you want to keep the full range of 11 clicks of adjustment. Otherwise, you can just close it a couple clicks to make up the difference.


Ok, thanks.



ktm520 said:


> In regards to your valving questions, the cp stack change is not what you should be looking at. Adding that .1 shim was much smaller change than that what you did to the main stack stiffness. Get the main stack dialed first and then work on the cp stack. Sounds like you had both too much lsc and hsc, so dial back the main stack 1 or 2 .1 shims and go from there.
> 
> Keep in the mind, the less preload you run on the main stack, the less influence the cp stack has on the tune.
> 
> And again, do yourself a huge favor and only make one change at a time. This is the only way to get a feel for yourself on how each variable affects the tune.


I already managed to pull the .1 shim out from the cp stack and do another test run. Now I have tested three setups that differ from each other by one shim.

The difference between the last two setups was quite similar to difference between open and pedal positions of the adjuster - it was quite noticeable. .1 shim increases the stack stiffness only by 6%, but you can feel it.

Might be the nature of our trails and my riding, why the smoothness of the very low speed movements is so important. E.g. today I had 23km run with 148 meters of total ascent. Lots of long flat singles with slippery roots where you are pedalling at 11-13 km/h.

I've tried three cp stacks - 22x.2 + 19x.15; 22x.2 + 19x.2 + 19x.1 and stock 22x.2 + 19x.2. First one was too soft - I had to put the adjuster to pedal position. Second one was too harsh - even with reduced pressure. Stock cp stack feels best. Which is basically what you said in the very beginning 

I will try some different trails and see if I want to make the main stack stiffer than it is.

And thanks for all the help and advice.


----------



## Ramjm_2000 (Jan 29, 2005)

I know this was mentioned way back in the thread but has anyone verifed that the new damper body (black) will fit a 2013-2014 rt3?


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

arnea said:


> Ok, thanks.
> 
> I already managed to pull the .1 shim out from the cp stack and do another test run. Now I have tested three setups that differ from each other by one shim.
> 
> ...


Just curious, when you had the 22x.2 and 19x.15 CP shims in the shock, which main comp stack of yours did you try with that.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

I tried two stacks:

piston
22x.15x3
ring/nest - nest shim was .1mm
22x.15x1

and

piston
22x.15x2
ring/nest - nest shim was .2mm
22x.15x2

Both softer than the current one.

But looks like most of my observations are not worth much, because the IFP was not set correctly. I had same problem as described here:

http://forums.mtbr.com/shocks-suspe...e-2013-monarch-rt3-how-do-you-set-948980.html

Every time I removed the adapter I lost some air. I was running low random IFP pressures. Drilled the adapter so that it disconnects without loss of pressure. I will try it tomorrow.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

arnea said:


> I tried two stacks:
> 
> piston
> 22x.15x3
> ...


I was just wandering if your impression of the lighter CP stack could have been affected by the fact that both of your main stacks where softer then the stock med tune HSC stack. Just think it would be a good test to try the lighter CP stack with your present main stack or maybe even something a little stiffer. Right now my main stack is just a hair lighter then your present stack. I'm running it with a way lighter CP stack, which is probable to light for you. I'm in the process of upping the stiffness of my main stack, but leaving my CP stack alone. 
Last night I was playing around with IFP pressure, I have been running mine at 205 psi. I upped it to 250 just to feel the difference. I made no other changes and noticed that with the higher IFP pressure the shock felt harsher and rebound felt faster. I slowly worked my way back down to 205 psi. I'm not saying that pressure would be right for you, just passing on the observation.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Right now I have 2 main stack changes I'm considering. One would be a stiff straight stack.
Piston 
8ea 22x.15
1ea 22x.2

The second would be a light threshold stiff pre-loaded stack.
Piston 
5ea 22 x.15
1ea 22 x.2
1ea 19c x.2
1ea 22r x.4
1ea 22 x.15

Both stacks are about the same in overall stiffness, just the second has a small threshold.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> Quick update on this tune:
> 
> I've been bouncing back and forth between this comp stack and one with that is a single .1 shim softer. The former has better lsc but hsc is a little firm. The softer stack lacks a little lsc but is really good on hsc. This is were some testing with the cp stack might optimize the softer stack but I need to move over to the reb and work on it.
> 
> ...


Curious to hear about your observations on the changes you made to the reb CP. I to felt the stock reb CP pre-loaded stack was to fast. I am presently running this with good results. It has less threshold, but is ultimately stiffer than the stock med tune HSR stack.

3ea 16x.1

3ea 19x.1 
CP 
Spacers

1ea 19x.15

1ea 16cx.15
1ea 19rx.3
4ea 19x.15
Piston


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

arnea said:


> I tried two stacks:
> 
> piston
> 22x.15x3
> ...


Are you using the stock shredder valve,valve core. The stock one from rock shox has a little shorter needle then most of the replacement ones I found locally. If the needle is taller the adapter will still be holding it open after the o-ring unseats.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

Hsal said:


> Are you using the stock shredder valve,valve core. The stock one from rock shox has a little shorter needle then most of the replacement ones I found locally. If the needle is taller the adapter will still be holding it open after the o-ring unseats.


It is the stock schrader valve, but the needle was too long for the stock adapter. I tried the 300 psi IFP pressure and the shock felt harsher. I will try lower pressures next and then decide what to do.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

arnea said:


> It is the stock schrader valve, but the needle was too long for the stock adapter. I tried the 300 psi IFP pressure and the shock felt harsher. I will try lower pressures next and then decide what to do.


Factory calls for 350psi, that feels horrible. The other night I noticed a harshness difference going from my preferred psi of 205 back up to 250. 
I then stepped back down about 10 psi at a time back to 205 and noticed how the harshness went away.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

What was unexpected was how it affected the rebound. I had to lower the exterior reb knob a click or two to get reb to feel the same as it had with the lower IFP. As I got back to 205 I was able to return to its previous setting.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

I was curious to see if anyone had an idea of how many, under F-Max in the restackor program, kilograms of force one could expect to be applied to the shims by the force of the fluid. The reason I'm asking is after making the main stack stiffer with more shims I had to remove some of the spacers. After installing the stock main and CP stacks, along with the stock spacers in to restackor program. I noticed how at a 19.75 kgf the main stack starts to interact with the CP and CP shims. My real concern is whether are not I should order some thicker shim to keep the stack stiffness the same, but lower the stack height. By doing that I could return the spacers between CP stack and Main stack back to stock. If the force never gets that high then it should be fine, but if it does then the main and CP stack could collide causing the upper part of the curve to resemble an orifice damper that as gone into saturation. Just seeing the affect on restackor and not sure if I should be worried about it. Thanks.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Hsal said:


> I was curious to see if anyone had an idea of how many, under F-Max in the restackor program, kilograms of force one could expect to be applied to the shims by the force of the fluid. The reason I'm asking is after making the main stack stiffer with more shims I had to remove some of the spacers. After installing the stock main and CP stacks, along with the stock spacers in to restackor program. I noticed how at a 19.75 kgf the main stack starts to interact with the CP and CP shims. My real concern is whether are not I should order some thicker shim to keep the stack stiffness the same, but lower the stack height. By doing that I could return the spacers between CP stack and Main stack back to stock. If the force never gets that high then it should be fine, but if it does then the main and CP stack could collide causing the upper part of the curve to resemble an orifice damper that as gone into saturation. Just seeing the affect on restackor and not sure if I should be worried about it. Thanks.


Would it be correct, are am I way off, to think of the spacers as gapper shims and that they are using the CP as a backer shim for the main stack? Are does the force not get that high to deflect the shims that much.


----------



## Slapbassmunky (May 7, 2005)

Guy's, awesome thread with some incredibly valuable information. I'm trying to mod my 13 RT3 at the moment. I need more HSC and HSR for the bigger hits and drops, maybe a bit less LSC throughout. Platform settings are fine if a little firm, I never use the locked setting and rarely use the pedal position as there's hardly any pedal bob with it off. I'm Running a vitus escarpe, ML tune LV can, 2.8LR 170lbs.

Im considering running a 0.2 Compression face shim instead of the 0.15 and moving the ring shim up so it's sat with only one 0.15 shim on top of it.

Also considering doing the same for the rebound stack.

Could anyone tell me if I'm looking in the right area or way off?

In the pic I've highlighted areas 1 & 2, could someone briefly explain to me what areas these stacks/tri plates affect. Apologies if this has already been asked.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Slapbassmunky said:


> Guy's, awesome thread with some incredibly valuable information. I'm trying to mod my 13 RT3 at the moment. I need more HSC and HSR for the bigger hits and drops, maybe a bit less LSC throughout. Platform settings are fine if a little firm, I never use the locked setting and rarely use the pedal position as there's hardly any pedal bob with it off. I'm Running a vitus escarpe, ML tune LV can, 2.8LR 170lbs.
> 
> Im considering running a 0.2 Compression face shim instead of the 0.15 and moving the ring shim up so it's sat with only one 0.15 shim on top of it.
> 
> ...


The areas you have marked as #1 and #2 are your low speed check plate shim stacks. They provide adjustment for your lsc and lsr. Its interesting because the comp stack you have listed for the RT3 looks like a low tune lsc check plate stack but a mid tune hsc main stack. In rebound the lsr check plate stack is the standard one that they use for all tunes I think, but the hsr is using the centering shim out of the low tune hsr stack. The centering shim I had in my med tune hsr was a 16x.15. Are you sure you measured the center shim of the hsr stack correct.


----------



## Slapbassmunky (May 7, 2005)

Hsal said:


> Are you sure you measured the center shim of the hsr stack correct.


Thanks for the input Hsal. After LOTS of digging I've come to exactly the same conclusions as you regarding the stack layout. I've just been back out to the workshop and can confirm all my given measurements. What surprised me on initial opening was just how much preload is on the HSC stack. I'm not overly keen on the feel myself, it tends to have a lot of support but then smash through the travel when you need the most control off gas to flats etc.

Rebound seems slightly too fast everywhere, but most noticeable in the HSR area, I run the clicker +1 past the middle so I presume LSR shims are OK.

My initial thoughts are:- 
Swap the 19x0.15 LSC backing shim with the 0.10 LSR face shim and try. Too subtle maybe? Second thought as per my previous post. Swap the 0.15 face shims with 0.20 on both HS stacks and move the ring shims up one or two places for less preload. Any thoughts greatly appreciated.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Slapbassmunky said:


> Thanks for the input Hsal. After LOTS of digging I've come to exactly the same conclusions as you regarding the stack layout. I've just been back out to the workshop and can confirm all my given measurements. What surprised me on initial opening was just how much preload is on the HSC stack. I'm not overly keen on the feel myself, it tends to have a lot of support but then smash through the travel when you need the most control off gas to flats etc.
> 
> Rebound seems slightly too fast everywhere, but most noticeable in the HSR area, I run the clicker +1 past the middle so I presume LSR shims are OK.
> 
> ...


For LSC I run 2ea 22x.1 and 1ea 19x .15. For LSR at present I'm running 3ea 19x.1 and 3ea 16x.1, I need to get one more 16x.15 to replace the 3ea 16x.1. My HSC, and HSR main stacks I'm still working on. I've stiffened up the stacks and lowered the preload. I don't like all the preload, it feels to stiff at first but then goes through the travel to fast. My main stacks are.
Piston
3ea] 22x.15
1ea] 22x.20
19cx.20
22rx.40
2ea] 22x.15

Piston
1ea] 19x.1
3ea] 19x.15
16cx.15
19rx.30
1ea] 19x.15
Did your shock come stock with your bike? If so the tune may be different from stock.


----------



## Slapbassmunky (May 7, 2005)

Yes the shock came with the bike, which would explain for the differences. As you said it seems to be valved as per a MM tune but with the L tunes LSC stack. 

What I'm struggling with is working out how much you have to compensate in shim thickness for moving the ring shims up the stack. For example, if you move the HSC ring shim up to the top (so it only has one 0.15 on top preloading it) to you have to then swap one of the 0.15 face shims out for a 0.2? or do you have to go firmer than that, in order to maintain a similar level of overall dampening? I understand there is a lot of crossover and interaction and so using the HSC LSC acronyms are a little blurry but it helps me keep a handle on what part of the shock to modify. 

Your main stacks look remarkably similar to what I was thinking of trying. What frame/weight/LR combo are you?

Also worth noting is I always ran the IFP pressure to the book, 350Psi. Sounds like reducing this might help.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Slapbassmunky said:


> Yes the shock came with the bike, which would explain for the differences. As you said it seems to be valved as per a MM tune but with the L tunes LSC stack.
> 
> What I'm struggling with is working out how much you have to compensate in shim thickness for moving the ring shims up the stack. For example, if you move the HSC ring shim up to the top (so it only has one 0.15 on top preloading it) to you have to then swap one of the 0.15 face shims out for a 0.2? or do you have to go firmer than that, in order to maintain a similar level of overall dampening? I understand there is a lot of crossover and interaction and so using the HSC LSC acronyms are a little blurry but it helps me keep a handle on what part of the shock to modify.
> 
> ...


 I have the shock on a 2007 FSR stumpjumper. I weight 195 and have the older HV air can. I'm currently running the IFP at 210 psi.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

Slapbassmunky said:


> What I'm struggling with is working out how much you have to compensate in shim thickness for moving the ring shims up the stack. For example, if you move the HSC ring shim up to the top (so it only has one 0.15 on top preloading it) to you have to then swap one of the 0.15 face shims out for a 0.2? or do you have to go firmer than that, in order to maintain a similar level of overall dampening?


Moving the ring shims up by one is big change. Moving it to the top is very big change. Shim Restackor allows you to compare setups with each other.

I hope that people with more experience correct me, but I would say that if you move ring shim up by one you must replace both shims under it with 0.2 shims. Then you will end up with little less LSC and little bit more HSC.

Regarding HSR - I needed also little bit more and swapped the piston face shim with 0.2mm shim. It was sufficient change for me. I suggest you to try this change first.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

arnea,

You could probably develop a relationship for how to compensate the straight stack section stiffness when moving the ring/nest up, but it's not going to be a linear relationship. Like you said, it makes a huge jump (reduces) damping when you start moving it up. The problem is that is reshapes the curve so it's really not as simple as that.

Slapbassmunky,

Did you not say you are looking for increased damping on both comp and reb? Ifso, all of the changes you mention are going in the wrong direction, and in a big way. Make sure you aren't soft on spring support before you start assuming that damping is the problem with it blowing through the stroke. Read my posts from the last few months, all your questions are answered in detail. You sound like you could benefit from going to a straight stack on the comp side. The tunes I posted would be a good start for you.

Hsal,

It still boggles my mind that you are running such a soft tune across the board on both sides. I recently switched the reb cp stack to one very similar to yours from the stock preloaded and it ruined the small bump in chatter and I had to add 3 clicks of lsr to get things remotely back in check. Reb seems to be very sensitive to the cp stack. I'm going to try doubling the stiffness, but don't have very high hopes. I've said it many times before, but the stock reb tunes work pretty darn well once you shift it to match spring rate.


----------



## Slapbassmunky (May 7, 2005)

ktm520 said:


> Slapbassmunky,
> 
> Did you not say you are looking for increased damping on both comp and reb? Ifso, all of the changes you mention are going in the wrong direction, and in a big way. Make sure you aren't soft on spring support before you start assuming that damping is the problem with it blowing through the stroke. Read my posts from the last few months, all your questions are answered in detail. You sound like you could benefit from going to a straight stack on the comp side. The tunes I posted would be a good start for you.


Yes I did ktm250, i've been following the thread with intrest for a long time now and the finer details are still a mystery.

all of the changes you mention are going in the wrong direction, and in a big way.

could you please explain where i'm going wrong? it'll help me understand whats going on in the long run. i've assumed spring curve isn't a problem as general riding isnt a problem and i'm on a LV can, it's only an issue on really big hits/drops and the resulting compression/rebound events. As far as i know i was trying to stiffen the stack, not go in the opposite direction?


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Slapbassmunky said:


> Thanks for the input Hsal. After LOTS of digging I've come to exactly the same conclusions as you regarding the stack layout. I've just been back out to the workshop and can confirm all my given measurements. What surprised me on initial opening was just how much preload is on the HSC stack. I'm not overly keen on the feel myself, it tends to have a lot of support but then smash through the travel when you need the most control off gas to flats etc.
> 
> Rebound seems slightly too fast everywhere, but most noticeable in the HSR area, I run the clicker +1 past the middle so I presume LSR shims are OK.
> 
> ...


For now I would not change your LSC, you are already running the low tune LSC. If you wanted a little less LSC try swapping the 22x.15 for 2 or 3ea 22x.1. I would first try taking some of the preload off the main stacks my moving the ring/center shims. Also don't swap a face shim just add the .2.
Piston

3x220.15 
220.219c0.122r0.42x220.15

This should give you an overall stiffer stack, but lower preload. Its a place to start.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Slapbassmunky said:


> Guy's, awesome thread with some incredibly valuable information. I'm trying to mod my 13 RT3 at the moment. I need more HSC and HSR for the bigger hits and drops, maybe a bit less LSC throughout. Platform settings are fine if a little firm, I never use the locked setting and rarely use the pedal position as there's hardly any pedal bob with it off. I'm Running a vitus escarpe, ML tune LV can, 2.8LR 170lbs.
> 
> Im considering running a 0.2 Compression face shim instead of the 0.15 and moving the ring shim up so it's sat with only one 0.15 shim on top of it.
> 
> ...


Also, your present HSR main stack has a little more preload on it then a standard med tune HSR. The standard med HSR uses a centering shim that is .15 and a ring that is .3. Your HSR stack uses a centering shim that is a .1 and a ring that is .3. Try moving 1 preload shim towards the piston and adding a .2.
2x19	0.15
19	0.2
16c	0.1
19r	0.3
19	0.15


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> arnea,
> 
> You could probably develop a relationship for how to compensate the straight stack section stiffness when moving the ring/nest up, but it's not going to be a linear relationship. Like you said, it makes a huge jump (reduces) damping when you start moving it up. The problem is that is reshapes the curve so it's really not as simple as that.
> 
> ...


I would appreciate you pointing out how I am running such a soft tune across the board on both sides. I admit my LSC stack is a little softer then the stock low tune LSC. But my main HSC stack while having lower preload looks ultimately stiffer than the stock high tune HSC. My LSR is stiffer that the stock LSR pre-loaded stack, and my HSR also has lower pre-load but is stiffer than the stock high tune HSR main stack.
I believe you are the only one on here to have taken apart a HH tune. It would be helpful if you could post the exact list of shims in that tune along with all the center/ring sizes as well as the exact spacer shim layout for both comp and reb.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Restackor is a good tool for checking relative changes to similar stacks on the same piston. It is very sensitive to how the piston is modeled, and from my experience doesn't handle the pistons in these small shocks with asymmetrical ports and complicated bypasses very well. When modeling straight and preloaded stacks, the results don't match up with my testing. Be careful using restackor to compare straight and preloaded stacks.

Slappbass,

You have alot of options. If you are happy with current tune, start with adding stiffness to the straight section of both main stacks. I would not recommend removing any preload from the reb stack.

The LV can has a soft mid stroke and that's probably part of the problem.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> Restackor is a good tool for checking relative changes to similar stacks on the same piston. It is very sensitive to how the piston is modeled, and from my experience doesn't handle the pistons in these small shocks with asymmetrical ports and complicated bypasses very well. When modeling straight and preloaded stacks, the results don't match up with my testing. Be careful using restackor to compare straight and preloaded stacks.
> 
> Slappbass,
> 
> ...


Its a bit confusing, in one post you are suggesting that Slappbass's HSC would benefit from a straight stack which had no pre-load. In the next you are recommending that he stiffens up the straight section of the pre-loaded stack and not reduce pre-load. He clearly says that he is not a fan of that much preload. Didn't you do just that a few pages back, where you had an extremely stiff straight section [8ea 22x.15's] and only [2ea 22x.15's] as pre-load shims. As far as the changes I have made to LSR, your 5ea 19x.1 is close but a little different than my 3ea 19x.1, 1ea 16x.15. My LSR change seems to work better when run with the reduced HSR pre-load. I have run a stock low tune Reb, and while the stack was way to soft, I liked the lower pre-load. You obviously are not a fan of this changes, and they may not work for you. I do know that when I first installed this shock as a stock M/M S 320, if I had the correct air pressure for proper sag, I would only get 30mm of stroke out of a 51mm stroke shock. It was way over dampened in compression and had way to much IFP pressure. At first the M Reb felt fine to me too, it was only after getting the comp softer, and I admit at times to soft sometimes you have to go the extremes, that I noticed things about Reb that I didn't like. I still don't get how you feel I am running a way soft stack across the board. If it is what I have done with my LSC, it seems to work for me. Slappbass's OEM RT3 shock came stock with a low tune LSC and a Mid tune HSC stock. Other than the small further reduction that I made to my LSC, and the fact that my main stack is stiffer but with less pre-load, I really don't see the problem. It is all still a work in progress, I my slightly stiffen up my pre-load in the future, but it would only be slight and mainly to shift some shims around so that I don't have to buy more right now. I'm looking to free up the single 16x.15 that I have to get it back in to my LSR. By putting a 16x.1 back as the center shim of the HSR and only using 1ea 19x.15 I whine up with the exact same pre-load as the stock low tune but with the increased face shims and over all stiffer stack. Its all good what my work for one may not work for another.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

My recommendations for slappbass are based on the fact that he is a complete newb to this stuff. Gotta crawl before you run. Going to a straight stack will kill lsc unless you change to a stiffer poppet spring.

I never said he shouldn't reduce preload on the comp side, only the reb.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> My recommendations for slappbass are based on the fact that he is a complete newb to this stuff. Gotta crawl before you run. Going to a straight stack will kill lsc unless you change to a stiffer poppet spring.
> 
> I never said he shouldn't reduce preload on the comp side, only the reb.


I do agree that you have to crawl before you can run. He seemed pretty sure he didn't like the stock level of pre-load. That is why I made the recommendation I made regarding his comp stack. As your knowledge of frame design is much greater than mine, can you make some comparisons between my Stumpjumper FSR and Slappbass's Vitus Escarpe. He said his leverage ratio was 2.8. I think my frame's LV is 2.69/2.7 but not sure. If the two frames have similar characteristics, and his came stock with a low tune LSC, that could explain my affinity for my modified low tune LSC. I don't know enough about different frame designs.


----------



## Slapbassmunky (May 7, 2005)

ktm520 said:


> My recommendations for slappbass are based on the fact that he is a complete newb to this stuff. Gotta crawl before you run.


Absolutely agree 100%. I've been fiddling with general suspension stuff for years, but have never delved into the finer points of fiddling with shim stacks. But I know what suspension feel i'm after, and that helps. Part of the problem is knowing how far to go with shims to make an effective change, or too much of a change, and after all, it's not like any of this is permanent, things can be put back to status quo in about 20 minutes (if I hadn't dropped my last bleed ball!) I'm also acutely aware that ONE change at a time is the way forward, otherwise tails get chased.

Due to time and crap weather the only change I made today was to the rebound side of things, as this was where I'm having the biggest problem. I've placed two 0.2 shims against the piston face, then ring and center shims, then one 0.15 as preload.

piston
0.2
0.2
0.15 + 0.1
0.15

My butt dyno seems to like it. But if setting up a CCDB on DH's bikes has taught me anything, that doesn't mean squat until you hit the trail. Either way thanks to this thread and the willingness to waste a ton of time I'm learning a LOT of stuff!

Can I ask you guys where you get your shims from? I'm having a hell of a time trying to find them in the UK.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Slapbassmunky said:


> Absolutely agree 100%. I've been fiddling with general suspension stuff for years, but have never delved into the finer points of fiddling with shim stacks. But I know what suspension feel i'm after, and that helps. Part of the problem is knowing how far to go with shims to make an effective change, or too much of a change, and after all, it's not like any of this is permanent, things can be put back to status quo in about 20 minutes (if I hadn't dropped my last bleed ball!) I'm also acutely aware that ONE change at a time is the way forward, otherwise tails get chased.
> 
> Due to time and crap weather the only change I made today was to the rebound side of things, as this was where I'm having the biggest problem. I've placed two 0.2 shims against the piston face, then ring and center shims, then one 0.15 as preload.
> 
> ...


That sounds like a good start and if you went to stiff you can always soften it up a little. It helps to sometimes make big noticeable changes, one at a time, ether to soft or to firm and then adjust back from there. Like you said nothings permanent. As far as shims in the states I go to racingsuspensionproducts.com. I don't think they have the spacer shims or the ring shims, but the rest of the sizes they should have.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Hsal said:


> That sounds like a good start and if you went to stiff you can always soften it up a little. It helps to sometimes make big noticeable changes, one at a time, ether to soft or to firm and then adjust back from there. Like you said nothings permanent. As far as shims in the states I go to racingsuspensionproducts.com. I don't think they have the spacer shims or the ring shims, but the rest of the sizes they should have.


Another option is to go on ebay and find a tune set that has the shims you are looking for, then you can cannibalize it for parts and have spares. If you can find one with free shipping that may be a way to go. All depends on which shims you are looking for. My shock was a MM tune, I bought an LL tune and used parts from it. The only shims I've had to buy were some 22x.1, I don't think any of the tune I've seen use 22x.1. Something else to consider is the LL tune I bought was a LL S 219 which came with a lighter LSC poppet spring. I like the way it feels when I go to pro-pedal its there, but just subtle. The original tune was a MM S 320, it had a stiffer spring and made the pro-pedal feel to firm. Just more confusion to throw at you.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Slapbassmunky said:


> piston
> 0.2
> 0.2
> 0.15 + 0.1
> ...


I'm afraid that will be really soft, definitely softer than your stock tune, but let the trail be the judge of that. I can definitely tell you it would be too soft for my liking and I weigh less than you. Guessing, as I haven't put much time into testing preloaded comp stacks, but you probably need closer to 3-4x .2 face shims. You really aren't that far from a straight stack with only 1x preloaded shim. And, you are getting to that point where the stock poppet will be to soft for decent lsc. Just keep that in mind.

I don't know of any places over there to get shims. Your best bet might be to buy a HH piston assy. Probably wouldn't be much more than buying shims from the US and you should have enough to get you just about any combination you want to test.

Post your results as you test your changes. Its easier to give advice based on testing than to speculate a stack from scratch. Another important suggestion is to only work on the comp until you get something you are happy with, then start on the reb. After that, it's a back and forth thing. Also, only make one change at a time, ie. don't make a change to both the main and cp stack.

Do yourself a favor and go ahead and buy a big bag of bleed balls. I reuse them, but only a couple times. I tried using a steel ball, but it didn't seal.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> I'm afraid that will be really soft, definitely softer than your stock tune, but let the trail be the judge of that. I can definitely tell you it would be too soft for my liking and I weigh less than you. Guessing, as I haven't put much time into testing preloaded comp stacks, but you probably need closer to 3-4x .2 face shims. You really aren't that far from a straight stack with only 1x preloaded shim. And, you are getting to that point where the stock poppet will be to soft for decent lsc. Just keep that in mind.
> 
> I don't know of any places over there to get shims. Your best bet might be to buy a HH piston assy. Probably wouldn't be much more than buying shims from the US and you should have enough to get you just about any combination you want to test.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but you my want to reread his full post. The changes he made were to the HSR stack. Just saying.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

Hsal said:


> As far as shims in the states I go to racingsuspensionproducts.com. I don't think they have the spacer shims or the ring shims, but the rest of the sizes they should have.


I did also get my shims from racingsuspensionproducts.com. I tried to find something from Europe, to avoid customs fees and expensive shipping, but did not find anything.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Hsal said:


> Sorry, but you my want to reread his full post. The changes he made were to the HSR stack. Just saying.


 By the way I do agree with your assessment of how many .2 would be needed for the comp stack. Right now I am running this.
Piston

4x22 0.15
22 0.2
19c 0.1
22r 0.4
2x22 0.15
11 0.2
3x11 0.3
19 0.15
2x22 0.1
Check Plate
In order to go much stiffer than this I would probable have to order some 22x.2, I think if you try and squeeze much more into the shock, with out going to thicker and stiffer shims, you can run into problems with not being able to maintain proper spacing between the main stacks and the check plates. For Comp the two stacks start to interact at any ware from .6/.9 mm of shim edge lift, not sure if they even open that much. Because of fewer shims and a thinner ring shim the low tune comp has to deflects a little more about[.9mm]before this interaction accrues. For the high tune with more shims and a thicker ring shim this interaction can happen about [.6mm]. This is just bast on my observations with restackor, I'm not claiming it is right on the money, just pointing out the problem with having to remove spacer shims in an effort to keep everything fitting on the shaft properly and not allowing the nut to hang off the end of the shaft. Thought the nut not being threaded on the shaft up flush with the end of the shaft may lead to the nut and IFP hitting. Not really sure what the wiggle room is there.


----------



## Slapbassmunky (May 7, 2005)

OK, as said it would seem the best way to get hold of donor shims is to buy a piston kit. Regarding the tune codes... I notice there are several tunes with 'soft' threshold yet 219 320 or 377 after this. What does the number quantify? All 'firm' thresholds appear to be 320, yet the 'soft' thresholds go through the full range. Just trying to make sure I get the best kit with the most usable donor parts.

I wont have time for a proper ride until the weekend. I'll keep everyone posted on my findings.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Slapbassmunky said:


> OK, as said it would seem the best way to get hold of donor shims is to buy a piston kit. Regarding the tune codes... I notice there are several tunes with 'soft' threshold yet 219 320 or 377 after this. What does the number quantify? All 'firm' thresholds appear to be 320, yet the 'soft' thresholds go through the full range. Just trying to make sure I get the best kit with the most usable donor parts.
> 
> I wont have time for a proper ride until the weekend. I'll keep everyone posted on my findings.


There has been some disagreement on this point. I don't know what parts the soft, firm threshold refer to, I've never owned a tune with firm threshold. I think the numbers refer to the spring on the LSC poppet. KTM 520 seems to disagree, he refers to an HH F tune and a MM S tune that he owns and says they both have the same spring. He never posted the numbers at the end of the tunes. If one is a HH F 320, and the other is a MM S 320, they would have the same spring. It would be nice to see the complete lay out of the HH F tune. Somewhere in that tune, I suspect the two small shims that set the pre-load on the poppet it's self, are the answers to the differences between the firm and soft tunes. *He still hasn't posted that info*. The two tunes I bought[ MM S 320, and LL S 219] both had the same two small pre-load shims that sit on top of the poppet spring, if that is there function. From what I could see, despite the obvious differences in the two stacks one being a MM and the other an LL, the 320 had a stiffer spring than the 219. On your shock is there any more info on weather it is a S or F or any number reference. I would assume not sense you haven't mentioned it. I would like to share more info on this matter myself. I may be wrong about the poppet pre-load shims, but I am sure about the two spring being different. I have to assume the numbers refer to the spring as the numbers where different, the springs where different and both tunes where soft threshold.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Hsal said:


> There has been some disagreement on this point. I don't know what parts the soft, firm threshold refer to, I've never owned a tune with firm threshold. I think the numbers refer to the spring on the LSC poppet. KTM 520 seems to disagree, he refers to an HH F tune and a MM S tune that he owns and says they both have the same spring. He never posted the numbers at the end of the tunes. If one is a HH F 320, and the other is a MM S 320, they would have the same spring. It would be nice to see the complete lay out of the HH F tune. Somewhere in that tune, I suspect the two small shims that set the pre-load on the poppet it's self, are the answers to the differences between the firm and soft tunes. *He still hasn't posted that info*. The two tunes I bought[ MM S 320, and LL S 219] both had the same two small pre-load shims that sit on top of the poppet spring, if that is there function. From what I could see, despite the obvious differences in the two stacks one being a MM and the other an LL, the 320 had a stiffer spring than the 219. On your shock is there any more info on weather it is a S or F or any number reference. I would assume not sense you haven't mentioned it. I would like to share more info on this matter myself. I may be wrong about the poppet pre-load shims, but I am sure about the two spring being different. I have to assume the numbers refer to the spring as the numbers where different, the springs where different and both tunes where soft threshold.


If you think your OEM tune is a Soft threshold, you may get more useful parts ordering a HH F 219. If they use a similar Comp CP stack in the HH tune as they do in the MM tune you will at least get 1ea 22x.2 and 1ea 19x.2. I don't know exactly what shims are in the HH tune, and I don't think you will get more then 1ea 22x.2 and 1ea 19x.2, unless they use .25 for the HH tune comp CP stack. If your OEM is a S threshold, you would then have a chance to figure out what is determining the difference between S and F threshold. If the numbers are representing the spring stiffness you would presumable have a softer spring to try and lighten up the pro-pedal feel. I know there are a lot of if here, I wise I had all the info, and there are still unknowns about your OEM tune, S or F threshold and the actual spring being used with the poppet now.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Slappbass, my bad I miss read your post. Watch out for kicking in chatter/square edge when running a reb main like that. It will work decently on everything else.

Hsal, take a deep breath buddy. I already posted the details on the HH F 320 tune stacks. The poppet spring and shims are the same as the MM S 320. The poppet shims are not the place to tune threshold. The 320 and 219 tunes having different springs seems to suggest the number is associated with the poppet spring.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> Slappbass, my bad I miss read your post. Watch out for kicking in chatter/square edge when running a reb main like that. It will work decently on everything else.
> 
> Hsal, take a deep breath buddy. I already posted the details on the HH F 320 tune stacks. The poppet spring and shims are the same as the MM S 320. The poppet shims are not the place to tune threshold. The 320 and 219 tunes having different springs seems to suggest the number is associated with the poppet spring.


Sorry if I missed that, about how far back was that. I would really like to take a look a the specs.


----------



## Slapbassmunky (May 7, 2005)

Hsal said:


> On your shock is there any more info on weather it is a S or F or any number reference. I would assume not sense you haven't mentioned it.


I'm afraid not, I would take it apart and post a pic of the spring & poppet assembly for reference but I'm out of usable nylon bleed balls. Judging by the effect of the lever, i'd hazard a guess at F 320. But this is all speculation at the moment.

ktm520, What makes you think it could kick like that? It feels generally slower through the range. Do you mean it could pack down and progressively harden up, or simply that true HSR events will be faster than the stock preloaded rebound tune?


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Slapbassmunky said:


> I'm afraid not, I would take it apart and post a pic of the spring & poppet assembly for reference but I'm out of usable nylon bleed balls. Judging by the effect of the lever, i'd hazard a guess at F 320. But this is all speculation at the moment.
> 
> ktm520, What makes you think it could kick like that? It feels generally slower through the range. Do you mean it could pack down and progressively harden up, or simply that true HSR events will be faster than the stock pre-loaded rebound tune?


Take a look a few pages back, a pic was posted and I believe it shows the 320 spring as painted yellow. Mine is out side I will have to take a look.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> Slappbass, my bad I miss read your post. Watch out for kicking in chatter/square edge when running a reb main like that. It will work decently on everything else.
> 
> Hsal, take a deep breath buddy. I already posted the details on the HH F 320 tune stacks. The poppet spring and shims are the same as the MM S 320. The poppet shims are not the place to tune threshold. The 320 and 219 tunes having different springs seems to suggest the number is associated with the poppet spring.


Then I would guess we are talking pre-load on the main stack. We would have to see a MM F and a MM S to determine if the ring shims are the same. My comparison of a MM S and a LL S really means nothing sense they are off different tunes. Even a comparison of an HH F and a MM S would not be accurate.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Slapbassmunky said:


> ktm520, What makes you think it could kick like that? It feels generally slower through the range. Do you mean it could pack down and progressively harden up, or simply that true HSR events will be faster than the stock preloaded rebound tune?


Lots of testing. I was waiting for that question. Kicking is the opposite of packing and it can hard to differentiate from over damped comp because it feels exactly the same. The wheel rebounds too quicly and slams into the next bump, or even flat ground. The rebound speeds are in the ls/ms range when going through chatter or coming off the back side of a smaller square edge hits. This shock has a rather large reb bypass and that is where the preload on both the main and cp stack comes into play.  Keep in mind, preloaded stacks aren't necessarily evil. You have to consider the resulting shape of the damping curve when you combine a specific piston/stack and bypass circuit. Combine a preloaded stack with a large bypass and the result can be a very linear damping curve. This is a very important point that needs to be realized here.

There is a very specific hole in the damping range where this kicking I described occurs. The only way I found to tune it out was to go back to the stock preloaded tune on both main and cp.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Hsal said:


> Then I would guess we are talking pre-load on the main stack. We would have to see a MM F and a MM S to determine if the ring shims are the same. My comparison of a MM S and a LL S really means nothing sense they are off different tunes. Even a comparison of an HH F and a MM S would not be accurate.


Actually the HH F and MM S is a good comparison. They both have the same main stack and the only difference is the cp stack.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> Lots of testing. I was waiting for that question. Kicking is the opposite of packing and it can hard to differentiate from over damped comp because it feels exactly the same. The wheel rebounds too quicly and slams into the next bump, or even flat ground. The rebound speeds are in the ls/ms range when going through chatter or coming off the back side of a smaller square edge hits. This shock has a rather large reb bypass and that is where the preload on both the main and cp stack comes into play. Keep in mind, preloaded stacks aren't necessarily evil. You have to consider the resulting shape of the damping curve when you combine a specific piston/stack and bypass circuit. Combine a preloaded stack with a large bypass and the result can be a very linear damping curve. This is a very important point that needs to be realized here.
> 
> There is a very specific hole in the damping range where this kicking I described occurs. The only way I found to tune it out was to go back to the stock preloaded tune on both main and cp.


Is this rebound 
hole taking place in the lsr/ hsr crossover area. If so could running the lighter pre-load on the main stack and a little stiffer, slower more controlled CP stack also help smooth-en that crossover area. I just feel that the fast, soft LSR stack only levees you the external adjuster and size of the orifice to control LSR. If the adjuster is closed enough for the orifice to be saturated, then the CP shims can't really do anything else. If it is more open, then the stack is to fast or soft to have enough control over the flow of oil. Hence one feels that it is between clicks on the control, one to fast not saturating the orifice and little control from the CP stack. The other to slow and on the verge of saturating the orifice. With a little slower CP stack, you can open up the orifice a click or two, allow a little more oil flow so you are farther from orifice saturation and allow the CP stack to have more control over the flow of oil. I think this set up as to be used with less pre-load on the mains because if the CP is flowing a little slower you would need the mains to open a little sooner. If not instead of a kick back hole you could have a small dead spot, making you feel as if you need to open the external adjuster a few click. The only real advantage in this is you get to have the cp stack play a greater roll in stabilizing LSR instead of just the flow of oil through the port and very little down stream control from the cp stack.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> Actually the HH F and MM S is a good comparison. They both have the same main stack and the only difference is the cp stack.


Same # of shim and the same ring and center shim. What is the difference in the cp stack, I've not been able to find your post on the HH tune. That's odd because the main stacks differ between the MM and LL tunes both in number of pre-load shims and the thickness of the ring shims, and this was comparing two soft threshold stacks.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Hsal said:


> Same # of shim and the same ring and center shim. What is the difference in the cp stack, I've not been able to find your post on the HH tune. That's odd because the main stacks differ between the MM and LL tunes both in number of pre-load shims and the thickness of the ring shims, and this was comparing two soft threshold stacks.


Yes, I said the main stacks are the same. Off the top of my head, the HH F comp cp stack was 3x .2thk shims, something like a 22, 19, and 18.



Hsal said:


> Is this rebound
> hole taking place in the lsr/ hsr crossover area.


Yes.

What exactly did you not like about the stock reb tune and what do you think you gained by removing preload from main and cp stack?


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> Yes, I said the main stacks are the same. Off the top of my head, the HH F comp cp stack was 3x .2thk shims, something like a 22, 19, and 18.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> What exactly did you not like about the stock reb tune and what do you think you gained by removing preload from main and cp stack?


So the presents of the 3rd shim in the CP stack is the difference between a firm and soft threshold. Could it also be possible that a firm threshold cp automatically gets a step down in main stack. Hence the HH F having three shims in its cp, firm threshold, Main stack a med tune, one step down. Having a HH S I guess would answer both questions. Is the 3rd cp shim the indication of a firm threshold, makes perfect sense, and is there actually a true hsc high tune or as you have observed is the hsc high tune just a mid tune. My two stack, both being soft threshold, only had 2 shims in the cp stack. But the hsc stacks where different between mid and low tunes. Not enough information. 
Well first the pre-load on the cp stack is so light that you should really just think of it as a 3ea 19x.1 straight stack. The pre-loaded CP stack has a curve that looks pretty much like a single 19x.15. The very light control provided by the cp stack left lsr feeling a little out of control. If you then closed the external adjuster one clicks lsr felt dead. The feeling is like the correct setting is between clicks. With a very soft fast cp shim stack you only have the size of the orifice to control the flow of oil in the lsr range. With the tapered stack I'm running, the orifice is still ultimately controlling the flow of oil, but you can run the orifice one click more open and let the down stream cp shims temper the flow of oil a little bit more. It seems to provide lsr just a little bit more control.
The feeling from the main stack was opposite of a kick back, more of a slight pack down right at the crossover point. I would hit a bump the shock would comp, and instead of the rebound extending and following the ground on the backside of the bump. The shock would pause, the back of the bike would have the feeling that it was falling but before the tire hit the ground the oil pressure in the shock would over come the pre-load and the tire would slam into the ground. You could help that by opening the lsr up a little, but then lsr would feel more out of control. Doing both adjustments h and l speed seems to work well. By lowering the pre-load on the main stack you don't have to try and fix a main stack problem, the little dead or packing down spot right by readjusting lsr, and then putting lsr out of adjustment. It has been a long time sense I've even had the stock reb stack in the shock, I may in the future need to reinstall it just to see if I still feel the same problems.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Hsal said:


> Well first the pre-load on the cp stack is so light that you should really just think of it as a 3ea 19x.1 straight stack. The pre-loaded CP stack has a curve that looks pretty much like a single 19x.15.


See, this is why I posed those question to you. This is not accurate at all. I'm curious to know how you are constructing the curve for the cp stack?? You are stilling missing how preloaded and straight stacks differ in their damping curve. I wish I had time pick apart your posts.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> See, this is why I posed those question to you. This is not accurate at all. I'm curious to know how you are constructing the curve for the cp stack?? You are stilling missing how preloaded and straight stacks differ in their damping curve. I wish I had time pick apart your posts.


No I'm not, But its all good.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> See, this is why I posed those question to you. This is not accurate at all. I'm curious to know how you are constructing the curve for the cp stack?? You are stilling missing how preloaded and straight stacks differ in their damping curve. I wish I had time pick apart your posts.


Well if we are going to go that route. So what do you think you've gained by keeping this nano spec of pre-load in the lsr anyway.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Hsal said:


> Well if we are going to go that route. So what do you think you've gained by keeping this nano spec of pre-load in the lsr anyway.


I just did . . . in great detail. I've also posted my testing results with a straight main and cp reb stack. Mullen and I shared notes on this stuff and came to the same results.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> I just did . . . in great detail. I've also posted my testing results with a straight main and cp reb stack. Mullen and I shared notes on this stuff and came to the same results.


 Well once again I must have misted that. I saw your info and observations on a straight tapered main comp stack, and I read your observations on the changes you made to the low speed reb cp stack. I never saw, and I may have missed it, any observations on a straight main and straight cp rebound stack compo.


----------



## bogeydog (Apr 13, 2015)

I have a 2015 with avy tune off my Evil Following if anyone is interested.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> See, this is why I posed those question to you. This is not accurate at all. I'm curious to know how you are constructing the curve for the cp stack?? You are stilling missing how preloaded and straight stacks differ in their damping curve. I wish I had time pick apart your posts.


 Well lets see a straight stack is pretty much going to start to flow some oil right away as soon as oil pressure is applied to the shims. A pre-loaded stack is not going to flow vertically any oil until the oil pressure has reached a point that it exceeds the positive pressure being applied back against the piston face by the pre-loaded shim stack. My modeling may not be perfectly accurate, but I'm showing for a med tune comp main stack little to no oil flows until the oil pressure on the shim reaches around 14 lbs of force. For the stock lsr pre-loaded stack the oil starts to flow around .5 lbs. My numbers may be off but I believe that I do under stand the difference between a straight stack and a pre-loaded stack. If I left any thing out please let me know.


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

Hsal said:


> ...If I left any thing out please let me know.


What's the free-bleed? Unless your rebound adjuster is fully closed, its orifice will allow a certain amount of oil flow before any is seen by the shims (pre-loaded or not).


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

TigWorld said:


> What's the free-bleed? Unless your rebound adjuster is fully closed, its orifice will allow a certain amount of oil flow before any is seen by the shims (pre-loaded or not).


 Yes this is true of the shims of the main rebound stack. The preloaded low speed rebound check plate shim stack will have to open before oil is allowed to flow through the free bleed. Oil flows through the free bleed orifice through the center shaft, up through the cp and out past the cp shims. For that brief moment before the CP shims open, little to no oil flows throw the free bleed circuit. A true free bleed, externally adjustable or not, would be just that a free bleed, no down stream CP shim stack that has any effect on the flow of the oil.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

bogeydog said:


> I have a 2015 with avy tune off my Evil Following if anyone is interested.


 Have you opened the shock up, measured the shims and documented the stack arrangement.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ktm520 said:


> See, this is why I posed those question to you. This is not accurate at all. I'm curious to know how you are constructing the curve for the cp stack?? You are stilling missing how preloaded and straight stacks differ in their damping curve. I wish I had time pick apart your posts.


 If you are still insistent on having this tiny amount of pre-load on the lsr cp, with the main two advantages of having would be to prevent shim fatigue on such a soft stack and provide a small amount of positive pressure back against the cp to insure a good seal and prevent back flow, you could try something like this. It keeps the same pre-load as the original stack, but just stiffens it up a little.


   Piston 

3or4x19x
0.1 16cx
0.1 19rx
0.15 19x
0.1


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Hsal said:


> Yes this is true of the shims of the main rebound stack. The preloaded low speed rebound check plate shim stack will have to open before oil is allowed to flow through the free bleed. Oil flows through the free bleed orifice through the center shaft, up through the cp and out past the cp shims. For that brief moment before the CP shims open, little to no oil flows throw the free bleed circuit. A true free bleed, externally adjustable or not, would be just that a free bleed, no down stream CP shim stack that has any effect on the flow of the oil.


 Before I get comments about this statement, I do realize that this kind of true free bleed can not exist in this shock. You have to have the cp to prevent back flow. Having that cp stack allows you the opportunity to use that stack to contour the shape of the flow through the [free bleed]. A true free bleed would be something that exist in say a fox open bath front fork. The external rebound adjustment is simple opening and closing an orifice, to put it in electronic terms, there is no series shim stack in line with it. There is only the main piston and shims that are operating in parallel with the orifice. In the monarch you have a free bleed with a stack in series with it [the check plate] that acts as a series stack in rebound, and a check plate in comp. All of this, depending on the actual impact that is being encountered at that moment in time, is then operating in parallel with the main stack. Pretty much the same thing is happening in comp but obviously in the opposite direction. Obviously there are differences, lsc has the spring loaded poppet valve, reb does not. It's the same basic process, and afforded you the same opportunity to fine tune and couture the shape of the oil flow in lsc. We can see evidence of this in the fact that the low tune lsc has 22x.15 and 19x.15, the mid tune lsc has 22x.2 and 19x.2. The firm threshold, and I'm not saying that this is 100% confirmed as we need to see a HH S to compare to the HH F tune, has additional major changes in the addition of a third shim all together.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Hsal said:


> If you think your OEM tune is a Soft threshold, you may get more useful parts ordering a HH F 219. If they use a similar Comp CP stack in the HH tune as they do in the MM tune you will at least get 1ea 22x.2 and 1ea 19x.2. I don't know exactly what shims are in the HH tune, and I don't think you will get more then 1ea 22x.2 and 1ea 19x.2, unless they use .25 for the HH tune comp CP stack. If your OEM is a S threshold, you would then have a chance to figure out what is determining the difference between S and F threshold. If the numbers are representing the spring stiffness you would presumable have a softer spring to try and lighten up the pro-pedal feel. I know there are a lot of if here, I wise I had all the info, and there are still unknowns about your OEM tune, S or F threshold and the actual spring being used with the poppet now.


 Sorry, Slapbassmunk, I reread you previous post and see that there apparently is no such animal as a HH F 219's. If, and I repeat, if the 3rd shim in the Comp CP is the indication of a firm threshold. Then based on the stack info you posted you probable have a soft threshold and probable a 320 spring, not positive.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

Quick status report  

I was using three volume spacers during all my previous tests. Now I tried also 4, 5 and 6 spacers and changed the pressure. 5 and 6 spacers made the shock too progressive. 4 spacers at 160psi was best. And spacers really have a big effect. 

There is only one element where shock does not handle too well - fast rooty descent. It will pack up then and feel harsh. When I reduce the rebound damping by one click it is much better, but then the back end moves too much on smoother and larger bumps. 

Making the main rebound stack stiffer helped to reduce this problem last time. Now I'm planning to add one more shim (probably .1 or .15) under the rebound ring shim. 

Or alternatively I might try to make the compression stack stiffer. This is based on the ktm520: "If the comp is under damped, it will require more reb damping and throw things out of balance."


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

arnea,

If you are happy with the comp support as is, I would make the reb changes first. Good work!

Do you have Debonair can?


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

ktm520 said:


> If you are happy with the comp support as is, I would make the reb changes first. Good work!
> 
> Do you have Debonair can?


Yes, the compression support seems good. Yes, I have Debonair can.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

arnea said:


> Yes, the compression support seems good. Yes, I have Debonair can.


Just passing this on, because I only changed it last night and have not had but a small ride in the neighborhood. I got to thinking about not having preload on the LSR CP, and possibly having a small amount of back flow during comp. So I changed that stack back to the stock pre-loaded stack, but I added 1ea 19x.1 as a face shim. I'm looking to slow down LSR a little with out having to close the free bleed one click.

Check Plate

 2x19​  0.1​  16c​  0.1​  19r​  0.15​  19​  0.1​ 
 Nut
This may be to small of a change, if so I will add one more 19x.1 close to the check plate.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

For my last ride I had removed all volume reducers in the air can and noticed with then gone, how weak the comp actually was. I think the progressiveness of the air can was masking the weak mid support. The recent changes that I made to the main stack didn't seem to be doing it so I decided to change direction some. In the past I've changed my CP stack by adding a single 22x.1 to my 2ea 22x.1 and 1ea 19x.15, it always made the initial comp feel a little harsher, so I would always remove it. I don't know how effective this will be I wanted to keep the initial feel of LSC, but at the same time slow down the upper part of LSC. I added a 1ea 16x.15 under my previous CP stack. My present Comp Stack is this.

Piston
2x22	0.15
2x22	0.2
19c	0.1
22r	0.4
2x22	0.15
11	0.9
16	0.15
19	0.15
2x22	0.1
Check Plate
My present Rebound Stack is this.

Piston
19	0.15
19	0.2
16c	0.1
19r	0.3
19	0.15
11	1
Check Plate
2x19	0.1
16c	0.1
19r	0.15
19	0.1
Nut
Will try and get a ride in this weekend Weather permitting.


----------



## ztbishop (May 11, 2009)

I had initially got this shock in a Med-Med tune to go on my 2009 Trance X, as that was the tune on the Fox RP2, and it's also the tune that matches the leverage ratios on the trance (according to some charts I've looked up).
I have not yet got into the damper, but wanted to figure out if it's worth it at this point. 
I had initially had to lower the sag to about 35% to come close to full travel, and to not feel very stiff. This is obviously too much sag. 30% wasn't too bad.
-So, I went ahead and picked up the Debonair canister. However, at 185lbs bodyweight I find myself putting around 320lbs into this shock to get 30% sag. I also gave the bike a nice beating and used maybe 80% travel.

Has anybody else experienced this on a Trance? Given that the shock was nearly 300, and the Debonair was nearly 100...I'd hate to toss these aside and throw the 2009 Fox RP2 back on. The reason I initially got this was because it can be self serviced, and the Fox likely needs a damper rebuild by now. Nobody in Indy will do this service and I'm not sending it into fox because they decided not to make their shock self serviceable. By the time you pay them the fee plus shipping you might as well get a new shock.

-Also, for the Debonair. Is this canister worth using at 30% sag? It seems like it has a range between 20-30% that is easy to move then it gets stiff again.

-Ever since I put the Debonair on the shock, there is no longer a lockout. It used to fully lock, and now the lock position is just a firmer mode. Is that normal?


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

ztbishop said:


> I had initially got this shock in a Med-Med tune to go on my 2009 Trance X, as that was the tune on the Fox RP2, and it's also the tune that matches the leverage ratios on the trance (according to some charts I've looked up).
> I have not yet got into the damper, but wanted to figure out if it's worth it at this point.
> I had initially had to lower the sag to about 35% to come close to full travel, and to not feel very stiff. This is obviously too much sag. 30% wasn't too bad.
> -So, I went ahead and picked up the Debonair canister. However, at 185lbs bodyweight I find myself putting around 320lbs into this shock to get 30% sag. I also gave the bike a nice beating and used maybe 80% travel.
> ...


I don't have experience with the Debonair can, but having to run that high of air pressure doesn't seem right. Could the positive and negative air chambers not be equalizing correctly.


----------



## fsrxc (Jan 31, 2004)

ztbishop said:


> I had initially got this shock in a Med-Med tune to go on my 2009 Trance X, as that was the tune on the Fox RP2, and it's also the tune that matches the leverage ratios on the trance (according to some charts I've looked up).
> I have not yet got into the damper, but wanted to figure out if it's worth it at this point.
> I had initially had to lower the sag to about 35% to come close to full travel, and to not feel very stiff. This is obviously too much sag. 30% wasn't too bad.
> -So, I went ahead and picked up the Debonair canister. However, at 185lbs bodyweight I find myself putting around 320lbs into this shock to get 30% sag. I also gave the bike a nice beating and used maybe 80% travel.
> ...


It must depend on the suspension curve to a point, but the Debonair can seems to sag more (not surprising since it has a larger negative spring) even at higher pressures. I'm experimenting right now with no bands in the positive chamber, but one band in the negative chamber, to reduce sag and let me run low pressures (I'm 150lb on a 2015 Trance with Monarch RT at 125psi and I still don't use full travel).

If you lower the pressure until you *just* use all travel, does it sag way too much or around 35%?


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

ztbishop said:


> -So, I went ahead and picked up the Debonair canister. However, at 185lbs bodyweight I find myself putting around 320lbs into this shock to get 30% sag. I also gave the bike a nice beating and used maybe 80% travel.
> 
> Has anybody else experienced this on a Trance? Given that the shock was nearly 300, and the Debonair was nearly 100...I'd hate to toss these aside and throw the 2009 Fox RP2 back on. The reason I initially got this was because it can be self serviced, and the Fox likely needs a damper rebuild by now. Nobody in Indy will do this service and I'm not sending it into fox because they decided not to make their shock self serviceable. By the time you pay them the fee plus shipping you might as well get a new shock.
> 
> -Ever since I put the Debonair on the shock, there is no longer a lockout. It used to fully lock, and now the lock position is just a firmer mode. Is that normal?


I don't see any reason the debonair won't work on your Trance. Judging by your weight and the fact that the lockout is now soft, I would bet you have a seal leaking in the outer sleeve between the positive and negative chambers. 320psi is too much pressure. Pull the outer sleeve and makes sure that middle oring isn't pinched or damaged. I've done this before installing the sleeve and I scratched my head for minute after I installed the shock. Also, keep in mind that the db can equalizes right at the 15% travel mark. Anytime you set the pressure you need to compress to equalize and then recheck the pressure reading.

Here's an easy test to check for leakage at that seal. Vent all the air out the can. Pump it up to 100psi. The shock should be hard to compress until it hits that equalization spot and then compress easier after the neg chamber fills. If it doesn't do that, the seal is leaking.

More than likely, the lack of travel usage and firmness with the sv can is due to having too much comp damping. But, make sure you are using the right type of trail features to judge full travel. Quality of travel over quantity. Depending on the trail, you might not use all the available travel, but that doesn't necessarily mean you need less spring or damping. Usually when you have to throw a bunch of sag at a shock to get decent compliance, it is over damped.


----------



## two-one (Aug 7, 2008)

I can't seem to find the HH tune information in this thread. Does anyone have it?


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

I believe KTM520 has a HH F 320 tune. He stated that the main comp stack is the same as the med tune main comp stack, and that the comp CP stack consisted of a 22x.2, 19x.2, and a 18x.2. The Reb main stack I believe has three preload shims [3ea 19x.15], as opposed to the med reb main stack only having two preload shims. The reb CP stack I believe is the same across the board. I don't know how the HH F 320 stacks differ from a HH S 320.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Hsal said:


> For my last ride I had removed all volume reducers in the air can and noticed with then gone, how weak the comp actually was. I think the progressiveness of the air can was masking the weak mid support. The recent changes that I made to the main stack didn't seem to be doing it so I decided to change direction some. In the past I've changed my CP stack by adding a single 22x.1 to my 2ea 22x.1 and 1ea 19x.15, it always made the initial comp feel a little harsher, so I would always remove it. I don't know how effective this will be I wanted to keep the initial feel of LSC, but at the same time slow down the upper part of LSC. I added a 1ea 16x.15 under my previous CP stack. My present Comp Stack is this.
> 
> Piston
> 2x22 0.15
> ...


For anyone still following this, do to weather and life, I still haven't had a chance to get a trail ride in only a couple of urban rides. I've changed the comp a little, both LS and HSC. My new Comp stack consist of this.

Piston

 22
 0.15
 2x22
 0.2
 19c
 0.1
 22r
 0.4
 3x22
 0.15
 11
 0.7
 16
 0.15
 2x16
 0.1
 19
 0.15
 2x22
 0.1


 Check Plate
I added 2 vol reducers to the HV air can. The Comp feels pretty good, plush on the small stuff and firm on the bigger hits.

I haven't changed anything in Reb, it feels real good but I will need some trail time to really test it. My Reb stack consist of this.

Piston

 19​  0.15​  19​  0.2​  16c​  0.1​  19r​  0.3​  19​  0.15​  11​  1.1​ 
 Check Plate

 2x19​  0.1​  16c​  0.1​  19r​  0.15​  19​  0.1​ 
 Nut

The changes I made to the LSR CP stack feel good. I can run the external adj at 4 clicks open from all the way closed, and LSR doesn't feel to fast, or to slow.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

First of all - happy new year to all Monarch-tuners!



arnea said:


> There is only one element where shock does not handle too well - fast rooty descent. It will pack up then and feel harsh. When I reduce the rebound damping by one click it is much better, but then the back end moves too much on smoother and larger bumps.
> 
> Making the main rebound stack stiffer helped to reduce this problem last time. Now I'm planning to add one more shim (probably .1 or .15) under the rebound ring shim.


I managed do discipline myself and did this single change - added 19x0.15 shim under rebound ring shim. So, compared to original medium rebound stack, I have one extra 19x0.2 shim next to the piston.

I had two hour ride on my hometrails and it felt good all-around. The temperature was low - -7C and damping oil was probably bit thicker than normal.

Met a guy with Enduro-bike who showed me some of his trails - bike was still fine. Only thing that I regret now is that I got 100mm Tower Pro instead of 120mm one.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

arnea said:


> First of all - happy new year to all Monarch-tuners!
> 
> I managed do discipline myself and did this single change - added 19x0.15 shim under rebound ring shim. So, compared to original medium rebound stack, I have one extra 19x0.2 shim next to the piston.
> 
> ...


Just out of curiosity how many clicks from all the way closed do you run your external reb adjuster.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

It's five clicks - right in the middle.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

arnea said:


> It's five clicks - right in the middle.


Thanks, just curious. With my present setup I've been running mine at 4 clicks open from closed. The weather still as kept me off the trails.


----------



## two-one (Aug 7, 2008)

arnea said:


> I managed do discipline myself and did this single change - added 19x0.15 shim under rebound ring shim. So, compared to original medium rebound stack, I have one extra 19x0.2 shim next to the piston.


I did the same because I had a similar problem. With a falling rate suspension linkage that starts at 2.7 and ends at 3.1, I needed the progressivity of the small air can, but the rebound from deeper hits would cause kickback. When I damped this with full rebound, the small bump compliance was gone.
So I added an extra 19 x 0.15 shim next to the rebound piston (HH Tune) and now I can ride with the rebound adjuster 4 clicks from fully closed.

I'm pretty sure that this is an inherent problem of combining rapid recovery with a small air can and fallingrate suspension, so maybe a linear stack would be best... I might try that someday


----------



## mullen119 (Aug 30, 2009)

two-one said:


> I did the same because I had a similar problem. With a falling rate suspension linkage that starts at 2.7 and ends at 3.1, I needed the progressivity of the small air can, but the rebound from deeper hits would cause kickback. When I damped this with full rebound, the small bump compliance was gone.
> So I added an extra 19 x 0.15 shim next to the rebound piston (HH Tune) and now I can ride with the rebound adjuster 4 clicks from fully closed.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that this is an inherent problem of combining rapid recovery with a small air can and fallingrate suspension, so maybe a linear stack would be best... I might try that someday


I have tried many linear rebound stacks and they just don't seem to work properly. You can get the high speed rebound to feel great, but they seem to always lack on the low speed rebound. Keep some preload to get a good lsr feel and add shims to the piston face like you have been to dial in the high speed.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

mullen119 said:


> I have tried many linear rebound stacks and they just don't seem to work properly. You can get the high speed rebound to feel great, but they seem to always lack on the low speed rebound. Keep some preload to get a good lsr feel and add shims to the piston face like you have been to dial in the high speed.


When you say it lacks on the low speed, do you mean the LSR is to fast? I would think that the resulting faster [greater flow] low speed from the main non pre-loaded stack would combine with the light CP stack to create very fast lsr. I would think if you wanted to use a linear main stack, you would also have to slow down the CP stack to compensate. Closing the external orifice adjuster doesn't seem to really slow the flow down as much as it just limits the amount of oil that flows. If you alter the low speed oil flow from the main stack by going to a linear main stack or increasing or decreasing the pre-load of the main stack, the CP stack may have to be altered to compensate.


----------



## mullen119 (Aug 30, 2009)

Been there, Tried that. Used many variations of preloaded and non preloaded cp stacks and it made very little difference. Plain and simple, it's easier and works better to have some preload on the main stack, at least with linear or regressive leverage ratio bikes like mine. I believe Ktm520 came to the same conclusion as well from private conversations we have had.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

mullen119 said:


> Been there, Tried that. Used many variations of preloaded and non preloaded cp stacks and it made very little difference. Plain and simple, it's easier and works better to have some preload on the main stack, at least with linear or regressive leverage ratio bikes like mine. I believe Ktm520 came to the same conclusion as well from private conversations we have had.


I agree having some pre-load is best. Can you give some examples of the reb CP stacks you tried. Just curious to see what has been tried.


----------



## mullen119 (Aug 30, 2009)

Tried straight stacks with over all stiffness of 8, 11, 12, 15, and 18 and preloaded stacks with a preload value(not including the face, ring, or nest shim) of 2, 3, 6, 7 and 9 

I calculate the overall values with the simplified version of stiffness conversion: .1 shim = 1, .15 = 3, .2 =8 

Im writing it this way rather then giving my exact stacks simply because it's easier and you can get the relative stack stiffness different ways.

I have also found that it's best the add a small amount of preload to compress stacks for the same reason. You can get around this by having a stiffer poppet spring, but it's a little more difficult for an average end user to source various poppet springs then to just preload the stack slightly. You generally end up with similar results.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

mullen119 said:


> Tried straight stacks with over all stiffness of 8, 11, 12, 15, and 18 and preloaded stacks with a preload value(not including the face, ring, or nest shim) of 2, 3, 6, 7 and 9
> 
> I calculate the overall values with the simplified version of stiffness conversion: .1 shim = 1, .15 = 3, .2 =8
> 
> ...


I see what you mean with the comp CP. I had thought that the reason they used a tapered stack and not a pre-loaded stack in the comp CP was because the pre-load already existed in the LSC circuit from the spring and poppet. 
In reb with a pre-loaded main stack have you tried slowing down the LSR a little by adding one or two more face shims to the stock pre-loaded CP stack. I'm presently trying this, it feels good but I haven't had a chance to try it out on a trail yet.

Piston

 19​  0.15​  19​  0.2​  16c​  0.1​  19r​  0.3​  19​  0.15​  11​  1.1​ 
 Check Plate

 2x19​  0.1​  16c​  0.1​  19r​  0.15​  19​  0.1​ 
 Nut


----------



## mullen119 (Aug 30, 2009)

Hsal said:


> I see what you mean with the comp CP. I had thought that the reason they used a tapered stack and not a pre-loaded stack in the comp CP was because the pre-load already existed in the LSC circuit from the spring and poppet.
> In reb with a pre-loaded main stack have you tried slowing down the LSR a little by adding one or two more face shims to the stock pre-loaded CP stack. I'm presently trying this, it feels good but I haven't had a chance to try it out on a trail yet.
> 
> Piston
> ...


I had not tried that, but to be honest, I noticed very little difference when changing the cp stack at all. The damping curve would shift, but it would be very minor changes that generally would be countered by the need to open or close the adjuster. I can see it being usefully for fine tuning when you in-between clicks, but that's about as far as I would take it at this point. I will be interested to see what others who go down this route come up with, but I have found it to be mostly a dead end.

I have actually decided to turn my Rt3 into my back up shock after spending the summer with a new tune almost every ride. Made some huge gains compared to stock, but I picked up a cheap Manitou McLeod and it in stock for is only slightly behind the custom tuned rt3. Next summer I'm going to spend some time tuning it mostly with the occasional switch back to the RT3 as a comparison. I feel like the McLeod has more potential, but we will see.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

mullen119 said:


> I had not tried that, but to be honest, I noticed very little difference when changing the cp stack at all. The damping curve would shift, but it would be very minor changes that generally would be countered by the need to open or close the adjuster. I can see it being usefully for fine tuning when you in-between clicks, but that's about as far as I would take it at this point. I will be interested to see what others who go down this route come up with, but I have found it to be mostly a dead end.
> 
> I have actually decided to turn my Rt3 into my back up shock after spending the summer with a new tune almost every ride. Made some huge gains compared to stock, but I picked up a cheap Manitou McLeod and it in stock for is only slightly behind the custom tuned rt3. Next summer I'm going to spend some time tuning it mostly with the occasional switch back to the RT3 as a comparison. I feel like the McLeod has more potential, but we will see.


 The between click fine tuning was what I was after with the change I made to the CP stack. I found that at three clicks open it felt slow almost dull, and at four clicks it felt a little to fast. With the small change that I've made to LSR, I feel that now it works well with four clicks, it can still flow as much oil as before with four click but the oil is just slowed down a small amount. For some reason to me, the stock mid tune reb made the three click slow dull feeling even worse. I attributed it to the fact that a three click open the orifice was starting to saturate and could not pass enough oil, and the main stack being pre-loaded to much could not flow enough oil yet to assist the LSR and the slow dull feeling turns into almost a slight pause in the response. At four clicks open LSR can flow enough oil to start to work better with the main med stack, but with the stock CP stack it feels to fast. The back tire starts to get a little jitter in it from LSR being a little under dampened. Some of the changes I've tried to make where to try and make the transition between just LSR flowing oil and both low and HSR flowing oil more seamless. At least that was the goal.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

mullen119 said:


> Tried straight stacks with over all stiffness of 8, 11, 12, 15, and 18 and preloaded stacks with a preload value(not including the face, ring, or nest shim) of 2, 3, 6, 7 and 9
> 
> I calculate the overall values with the simplified version of stiffness conversion: .1 shim = 1, .15 = 3, .2 =8
> 
> ...


I apologize for staying on this, but I was curious if the changes you posted above where only tried on linear stacks or if you had made changes to the CP stack of any sort while using some form of pre-loaded main stack as well. I'm not suggesting using stacks of this stiffness with a pre-loaded stack. I could see that changes made to the CP stack would be more noticeable if run with a pre-loaded main stack of some sort. With a linear stack flowing so much oil right off the bat, the CP would really only be a small % of the oil flow. Once the CP stack gets stiff to a certain point the oil that it is flowing is so small of a % of the total, that any further changes go completely unnoticed. I would guess that on the really stiff setups you where just running the external adj all the way open.
I would agree that the best way to go is to run some level of pre-load on the main stack. With a pre-loaded stack flowing little to nothing at low oil pressures, the only circuit flowing oil would be the CP-bypass circuit, and changes should be more noticeable.


----------



## mullen119 (Aug 30, 2009)

Hsal said:


> I apologize for staying on this, but I was curious if the changes you posted above where only tried on linear stacks or if you had made changes to the CP stack of any sort while using some form of pre-loaded main stack as well. I'm not suggesting using stacks of this stiffness with a pre-loaded stack. I could see that changes made to the CP stack would be more noticeable if run with a pre-loaded main stack of some sort. With a linear stack flowing so much oil right off the bat, the CP would really only be a small % of the oil flow. Once the CP stack gets stiff to a certain point the oil that it is flowing is so small of a % of the total, that any further changes go completely unnoticed. I would guess that on the really stiff setups you where just running the external adj all the way open.


Most of them where tested with linear stacks only. I only recently went back to preloaded stacks because I couldn't get the low speed where it needed to be with a linear stack without the high speed being over damped. This was true for both rebound and compression. Compression can be fixed with a stiffer poppet spring if you can source one.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

mullen119 said:


> Most of them where tested with linear stacks only. I only recently went back to preloaded stacks because I couldn't get the low speed where it needed to be with a linear stack without the high speed being over damped. This was true for both rebound and compression. Compression can be fixed with a stiffer poppet spring if you can source one.


I can see how you would have to over dampen high speed to try and compensate for to much oil flow in low speed coming from an un-pre-loaded main stack. Fixing the problem in compression with a different spring could work, but it may effect the way pro pedal feels, how much I'm not sure.
I've come to beleave that the shock works best with the stacks left just as they are designed, meaning pre-loaded stacks where they have them and the linear LSC CP where it is and then fine tune from there. The pre-load on LSR CP and the pre-load that exist on the LSC poppet valve by the poppet spring in the open position I believe is there to prevent back flow of oil. As you move the lever to pro pedal the additional pre-load on the poppet provides your platform. By the time you get to lock-out very little oil is going to flow thought the CP-bypass and what you are feeling is the pre-load on the main stack.
I've also noticed that as you make changes to the main comp and CP stacks you have to watch how many or how few spacer shims and their over all thickness, if you put to small of a gape the oil pressure will ramp up to soon limiting comp travel. If the gape is to large you could have a bottom out problem. I don't know if that gape is different between shock of different stroke or not. I've tried to notice where that oil pressure ramp up happens on the stock setup that came on the shock and try and keep it occurring at close to the same level on the mods that I've made. When I first started making changes' I mistakenly put in to small of a gape and could not get more then 45mm stroke out of a 51mm shock on matter how soft I made the stack. At first I believed it was from setting the IFP depth wrong, but now I think that the gape was to blame. I believe in comp they are using the CP and CP shims as a backer to limit oil flow. In rebound it only happens in the main stack between the main stack and the back of the LSR CP. Just something to watch if you make, in comp, big changes to the preload shims and thickness of the ring shim in the main stack, as well as how you make changes to the CP stack. 
I've noticed the same oil pressure ramp up in comp in an old risse shock that I have on one of my old bikes. It has a fixed clamp size and thickness that works with a straight stack, but if you try and put a tapered or two stage stack in it the oil pressure ramp up happens farther in the stroke and you run the risk of bottoming out more.
Sorry I kind of rambled on, good discussion thou.


----------



## b2xtreme (Dec 28, 2015)

Can any of the experts in here advise me on the Monarch Plus Debonair Tune for a Nomad 2? At Santa Cruz they have no actual experience with this shock and they told me M/M might be the best option to start with... On the forum I see people using either M/M (problems with obtaining full stroke) and M/L tunes.... I am about 210 lbs including gear, riding all mountain, no drop offs or big jumps...


----------



## two-one (Aug 7, 2008)

b2xtreme said:


> Can any of the experts in here advise me on the Monarch Plus Debonair Tune for a Nomad 2? At Santa Cruz they have no actual experience with this shock and they told me M/M might be the best option to start with... On the forum I see people using either M/M (problems with obtaining full stroke) and M/L tunes.... I am about 210 lbs including gear, riding all mountain, no drop offs or big jumps...


It looks like M/M should be just fine, the Nomad2 has a pretty linear leverage curve from Sag to Endstroke, with an average ratio of 2.5


----------



## b2xtreme (Dec 28, 2015)

I was thinking the same... for the Nomad 1 and 3, the M/L is probably a better choice, according to the leverage ratio as showed in the attached graph.









I am new to this thread/stack tuning, but it seems that based on the information in this thread I should be able to perform some tweaking if necessary...


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

mullen119 said:


> Most of them where tested with linear stacks only. I only recently went back to preloaded stacks because I couldn't get the low speed where it needed to be with a linear stack without the high speed being over damped. This was true for both rebound and compression. Compression can be fixed with a stiffer poppet spring if you can source one.


Sorry Mullen, one more question. The linear stack that you tried, where they straight, tapered, or a combination straight-tapered configuration. Thanks.


----------



## mullen119 (Aug 30, 2009)

Hsal said:


> Sorry Mullen, one more question. The linear stack that you tried, where they straight, tapered, or a combination straight-tapered configuration. Thanks.


Tapered, though it makes very little difference in overall damping curves. A tapered stack and a straight stack will look almost identical on a dyno if they have the same overall stack stiffness. I didn't realize this initially, what was shown dyno information that proved it a while back. The benefit to tapered is it reduces shim fatigue giving shims a longer shelf life.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

mullen119 said:


> Tapered, though it makes very little difference in overall damping curves. A tapered stack and a straight stack will look almost identical on a dyno if they have the same overall stack stiffness. I didn't realize this initially, what was shown dyno information that proved it a while back. The benefit to tapered is it reduces shim fatigue giving shims a longer shelf life.


While I do agree that a tapered stack will reduce fatigue, and I've never seen dyno info comparing the two stacks. I resonantly read some info from an off-road shock manufacturer [ King off-road racing shocks] that refereed to a tapered stack as being progressive. *Off-Road Shock Tuning Guide | How To Tune and Valve Off-Road Racing Shocks*
Quote:" The standard pyramid style shim stack is the most common configuration for a reason - it works very well. It gives the shock progressive damping which allows it to be relatively soft during slow speed movement like rock crawling or driving around town and stiffer at higher speeds like blasting through the desert or hitting a pothole on the highway." I was more under the impression that a tapered stack as well as a two stage stack [one with a crossover or flutter shim as they call it] would provide a progressive curve. A straight stack would be linear, and a pre-loaded stack would be digressive. That is the way I understand it, and their info would seem to support that. Not trying to argue with the dyno info you where shown, but it just seems to make sense that the unsupported sections of the face shims of a tapered stack would bend a little easier providing a little softer low speed. How much softer, in low speed, would vary depending on how stiff the face shim or shims, in the case of a straight tapered stack, are. As well as the location of the port in the piston in relation to the O.D. of the first tapered shim in the stack. 
On the web site I listed above they have a whole list of pyramid stacks for their shocks under [Off-Road Racing Shocks Shim Stack Examples] that give examples of extra soft to extra firm. Just thinking that the tapered stacks where actually making the curve a little progressive, which when run with a low speed circuit that can flow as much as the monarch would give way to soft low speed.
On the old Risse terminator on my old bike, I've had to setup a progressive two stage stack. I was never happy with the low speed. Even thought it has an externally adjustable comp free bleed, I would move it to it's softest setting [5] I would be looking for 6,7,and 8. The two stage stack allows softer low speed from the main stack to work with the free bleed which can not flow enough volume even when on full soft. Not sure if this makes any sense or not, just the way I under stand it.


----------



## mullen119 (Aug 30, 2009)

Hsal said:


> While I do agree that a tapered stack will reduce fatigue, and I've never seen dyno info comparing the two stacks. I resonantly read some info from an off-road shock manufacturer [ King off-road racing shocks] that refereed to a tapered stack as being progressive. *Off-Road Shock Tuning Guide | How To Tune and Valve Off-Road Racing Shocks*
> Quote:" The standard pyramid style shim stack is the most common configuration for a reason - it works very well. It gives the shock progressive damping which allows it to be relatively soft during slow speed movement like rock crawling or driving around town and stiffer at higher speeds like blasting through the desert or hitting a pothole on the highway." I was more under the impression that a tapered stack as well as a two stage stack [one with a crossover or flutter shim as they call it] would provide a progressive curve. A straight stack would be linear, and a pre-loaded stack would be digressive. That is the way I understand it, and their info would seem to support that. Not trying to argue with the dyno info you where shown, but it just seems to make sense that the unsupported sections of the face shims of a tapered stack would bend a little easier providing a little softer low speed. How much softer, in low speed, would vary depending on how stiff the face shim or shims, in the case of a straight tapered stack, are. As well as the location of the port in the piston in relation to the O.D. of the first tapered shim in the stack.
> On the web site I listed above they have a whole list of pyramid stacks for their shocks under [Off-Road Racing Shocks Shim Stack Examples] that give examples of extra soft to extra firm. Just thinking that the tapered stacks where actually making the curve a little progressive, which when run with a low speed circuit that can flow as much as the monarch would give way to soft low speed.
> On the old Risse terminator on my old bike, I've had to setup a progressive two stage stack. I was never happy with the low speed. Even thought it has an externally adjustable comp free bleed, I would move it to it's softest setting [5] I would be looking for 6,7,and 8. The two stage stack allows softer low speed from the main stack to work with the free bleed which can not flow enough volume even when on full soft. Not sure if this makes any sense or not, just the way I under stand it.


You understand incorrectly. Both tapered and straight stacks are linear.

Why are Shim Stacks Tapered? | DVO Suspension Tech Website

The only way to get a progressive stack is to have multiple stages. Just because a stack is preloaded does not make it digressive. A true digressive damper needs a way to quickly dump oil and get the damping curve to drop, ie trek/fox reaktiv shock. Most mtb shocks can't dump enough oil to be digressive

Article on the reaktiv shock and digressive damping if you're interested 
Trek News 2015: RE:aktiv shock technology & Fuel EX 27.5? | ENDURO Mountainbike Magazine


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

mullen119 said:


> You understand incorrectly. Both tapered and straight stacks are linear.
> 
> Why are Shim Stacks Tapered? | DVO Suspension Tech Website
> 
> ...


I guess we could keep throwing web site back and forth. I still believe that if a tapered stack is set up to where the first tapered shim in from the face shim has a smaller O.D. than the position of the port on the piston, then the initial oil pressure will be concentrated on the face shim only until the pressure goes up enough to cause the rest of the shims to flex.
*" When the shims on a tapered stack flex, they all bend at multiple points spreading out the stress"*. I do agree that a multi stage stack will provide more progressiveness, but a tapered stack if setup correctly can have a small amount of progressiveness. I'm not being argumentative about it, I just think a true linear stack would be straight, and a tapered stack as the potential to have some degree of progressiveness to it depending on how the stack is setup.

As far as a digressive stack goes this is taken from DVO web site as well. While they don't say the digressive curve is from a pre-loaded stack, that is the same basic curve you get on restacker from the pre-loaded stack in the monarch shock. Granted the graph as the force on the X axis and not the Y. I'm not familiar with the Fox shock, it just looks like they have taken the digressiveness of the curve to a more exaggerated state. 
Suspension Lesson: | DVO Suspension
I really can't say who is actually correct[ King or DVO]. King calls their tapered stack progressive, DVO says a tapered stack is linear. Agree to disagree just as the two web-sites do. The real test would be to try a straight stack and see if it feels different.


----------



## mullen119 (Aug 30, 2009)

Hsal said:


> I guess we could keep throwing web site back and forth. I still believe that if a tapered stack is set up to where the first tapered shim in from the face shim has a smaller O.D. than the position of the port on the piston, then the initial oil pressure will be concentrated on the face shim only until the pressure goes up enough to cause the rest of the shims to flex.
> *" When the shims on a tapered stack flex, they all bend at multiple points spreading out the stress"*. I do agree that a multi stage stack will provide more progressiveness, but a tapered stack if setup correctly can have a small amount of progressiveness. I'm not being argumentative about it, I just think a true linear stack would be straight, and a tapered stack as the potential to have some degree of progressiveness to it depending on how the stack is setup.
> 
> As far as a digressive stack goes this is taken from DVO web site as well. While they don't say the digressive curve is from a pre-loaded stack, that is the same basic curve you get on restacker from the pre-loaded stack in the monarch shock. Granted the graph as the force on the X axis and not the Y. I'm not familiar with the Fox shock, it just looks like they have taken the digressiveness of the curve to a more exaggerated state.
> ...


If you have restackor, put in stacks that are identical except one being tapered. Dynos don't lie, tapered stacks are linear. I used to think what you are saying is true as well, but have learned over the years that it's not true. Not arguing, just telling you what is true. Use tapered stacks unless you preloading shims.

As for digressive curves, people use the term differently. A true digressive damper drops the curve like the reaktiv damper. A preload stack is digressive as in the curve flattens after the main stack opens, but that is not a true digressive damper. A true digressive curve actually moves down the curve when the dump valve opens and then starts to rise again as shaft speeds build. You can't achieve this in most shocks without modifying them. In this case, we are just using the term differently. I'm using it in its true sense and you are using it the way marketing people tend to use it which is not technically wrong, just fudging the numbers a little.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

mullen119 said:


> If you have restackor, put in stacks that are identical except one being tapered. Dynos don't lie, tapered stacks are linear. I used to think what you are saying is true as well, but have learned over the years that it's not true. Not arguing, just telling you what is true. Use tapered stacks unless you preloading shims.
> 
> As for digressive curves, people use the term differently. A true digressive damper drops the curve like the reaktiv damper. A preload stack is digressive as in the curve flattens after the main stack opens, but that is not a true digressive damper. A true digressive curve actually moves down the curve when the dump valve opens and then starts to rise again as shaft speeds build. You can't achieve this in most shocks without modifying them. In this case, we are just using the term differently. I'm using it in its true sense and you are using it the way marketing people tend to use it which is not technically wrong, just fudging the numbers a little.


I don't mean to contradict dyno info, and I'm sure it's not lying. I to do not see much difference in the curves on restackor. I guess the real problem I have with it is even DVO is contradicting them selves. In one section of their website they say a tapered and straight stack are both linear. In another section on their website they talk about straight stacks as having no distinct transition between low, med, and high speed compression as the shims lift and bend and low speed will be harsh. Then they talk about tapered stacks as having a stable low speed feel and progressively getting stiffer and more supportive through the med stroke. On this page they seem to be agreeing with me when they say a straight stack will have a harsher low speed which is really what I am getting at. A straight stack will flow oil slower in low speed causing it to feel harsher. A tapered stack as a distinct low, med and high speed section. If you go to the link I have below and scroll down you will see where they talk about straight, crossover, and tapered stacks. I just don't see how a straight and tapered stack could both be linear and be the same, but at the same time they describe them as being so different. If you reread the first link you sent me and then read what they say on this page you should see my confusion.

Piston & Shim Technology | DVO Suspension


----------



## mullen119 (Aug 30, 2009)

Hsal said:


> I don't mean to contradict dyno info, and I'm sure it's not lying. I to do not see much difference in the curves on restackor. I guess the real problem I have with it is even DVO is contradicting them selves. In one section of their website they say a tapered and straight stack are both linear. In another section on their website they talk about straight stacks as having no distinct transition between low, med, and high speed compression as the shims lift and bend and low speed will be harsh. Then they talk about tapered stacks as having a stable low speed feel and progressively getting stiffer and more supportive through the med stroke. On this page they seem to be agreeing with me when they say a straight stack will have a harsher low speed which is really what I am getting at. A straight stack will flow oil slower in low speed causing it to feel harsher. A tapered stack as a distinct low, med and high speed section. If you go to the link I have below and scroll down you will see where they talk about straight, crossover, and tapered stacks. I just don't see how a straight and tapered stack could both be linear and be the same, but at the same time they describe them as being so different. If you reread the first link you sent me and then read what they say on this page you should see my confusion.
> 
> Piston & Shim Technology | DVO Suspension


I think what you are missing is what exactly linear means. It's nothing more than damping increasing at a consistent rate across the damping curve. Straight and tapered stacks both achieve this because the is nothing to add extra damping as they open up(like a second stage). Regardless of bending points, the stack opens at a consistent rate throughout the curve. This is why the two stacks look almost identical when ran on a dyno. There are tiny variations, usually at the extremes of shaft speeds, but both are considered linear and both will perform the same.


----------



## Sersus (Sep 2, 2014)

Hi guys!
Can anyone help me with the standart shim stack? I've got a RS Monatch RT3 2015 with the M-M tune and need to retune it to the M-L (Mid rebound but LOW compression).
I just need to make the "11.4118.023.039 Tune assy, Monarch RT3 Reb-Mid/Comp-Low (CF-80lbs) soft threshold, LF-320, C1/D1" shimmed piston.
So what the shim stack for that kind of compression tune for Monarch RT3?
Thanks in advance!

PS Also the tune "11.4118.023.038 Tune assy, Monarch RT3 Reb-Mid/Comp-Low 3 (CF-60 lbs) soft threshold, LF-320, C1/D1" is possible.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

mullen119 said:


> I think what you are missing is what exactly linear means. It's nothing more than damping increasing at a consistent rate across the damping curve. Straight and tapered stacks both achieve this because the is nothing to add extra damping as they open up(like a second stage). Regardless of bending points, the stack opens at a consistent rate throughout the curve. This is why the two stacks look almost identical when ran on a dyno. There are tiny variations, usually at the extremes of shaft speeds, but both are considered linear and both will perform the same.


Yes, I see your point. I was wondering if I was just using the terminology wrong.


----------



## mullen119 (Aug 30, 2009)

Hsal said:


> Yes, I see your point. I was wondering if I was just using the terminology wrong.


Don't feel bad, we are all still learning. Not to mention there is a lot of missinformation out there. Your thinking and concepts are generally sound.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

mullen119 said:


> Don't feel bad, we are all still learning. Not to mention there is a lot of missinformation out there. Your thinking and concepts are generally sound.


Thanks, really the only reason I'm bringing these questions up is to learn more. I really don't intend on going back to ether a straight or tapered main stacks in the monarch. Earlier today, just out of curiosity, I saw playing around with restackor a little more and noticed if you compare two stacks like this, you would get a more significant difference. How much of a difference depended on the O.D. of the second and third set of shims in the tapered stack or the placement of the port on the piston. If all of the shims where the same thickness the difference was much much smaller. Was any of the dyno info using different thickness shims. I know this is going to the extremes, but that was just to see what would happen, and for me to see what kind of differences I could get.

Tapered Stack
Piston

 
220.12x190.153x160.2111132

Straight Stack
Piston

220.12x220.153x220.2111132


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Sersus said:


> Hi guys!
> Can anyone help me with the standart shim stack? I've got a RS Monatch RT3 2015 with the M-M tune and need to retune it to the M-L (Mid rebound but LOW compression).
> I just need to make the "11.4118.023.039 Tune assy, Monarch RT3 Reb-Mid/Comp-Low (CF-80lbs) soft threshold, LF-320, C1/D1" shimmed piston.
> So what the shim stack for that kind of compression tune for Monarch RT3?
> ...


Here is a chart that shows the differences between the MM and LL tunes. The C1/D1 are revisions and I'm not sure what was changed. I've never seen info on a Low 3 stack so I can't help with details there. Have you taken the shock apart? When you do take notes and post findings of how the present stack differs from what is shown in the chart.










Hope this was of some help.


----------



## Sersus (Sep 2, 2014)

Hsal said:


> Here is a chart that shows the differences between the MM and LL tunes. The C1/D1 are revisions and I'm not sure what was changed.
> Hope this was of some help.


As far as I know the pistons of '13, '14-15 & '16 models of RT3 are different.
C1 & D1 are have the difference in the pistons either.
So the shim stack from '13 RT3 is not compatible with '14-16.

Unfortunately I cant find item "11.4118.023.039 Tune assy, Monarch RT3 Reb-Mid/Comp-Low (CF-80lbs) soft threshold, LF-320, C1 or D1" in stock anywhere with possibility to ship it to my country.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Sersus said:


> As far as I know the pistons of '13, '14-15 & '16 models of RT3 are different.
> C1 & D1 are have the difference in the pistons either.
> So the shim stack from '13 RT3 is not compatible with '14-16.
> 
> Unfortunately I cant find item "11.4118.023.039 Tune assy, Monarch RT3 Reb-Mid/Comp-Low (CF-80lbs) soft threshold, LF-320, C1 or D1" in stock anywhere with possibility to ship it to my country.


I was under the impression that the 13, 14, and 15 where the same, and the 16 used a different piston.I've only worked on mine and it is a 13. When you open the shock you should be able to tell, the 16 has 4 holes in the shaft for reb , and 24 small holes in the piston for comp. If you look back on page 14 you will see pic of a 2016.


----------



## Sersus (Sep 2, 2014)

Hsal said:


> I was under the impression that the 13, 14, and 15 where the same, and the 16 used a different piston.I've only worked on mine and it is a 13. When you open the shock you should be able to tell, the 16 has 4 holes in the shaft for reb , and 24 small holes in the piston for comp. If you look back on page 14 you will see pic of a 2016.


Of course I saw the photo of '16 piston!
Also the tunes for '13 and '14-16 are have the different part numbers in the RockShox spare parts catalogue. So I suppose that shim stack must have the notable difference either.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

I've seen '16 and '15 (or '14 - not sure). Piston is different, but shims were same between '16 and '14 shocks. Both were M/M tune shocks.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Sersus said:


> Of course I saw the photo of '16 piston!
> Also the tunes for '13 and '14-16 are have the different part numbers in the RockShox spare parts catalogue. So I suppose that shim stack must have the notable difference either.


Once again I believe the 13, 14, and 15 use the same piston and shaft. The P/N differences would represent the differences in the stack changes they have made. The 2016 actually uses a different piston and shaft, and that would differently have a different P/N.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

arnea said:


> I've seen '16 and '15 (or '14 - not sure). Piston is different, but shims were same between '16 and '14 shocks. Both were M/M tune shocks.


That's interesting, because when you leave the Med Tune Main Comp stack as is and alter the valve geometry to reflect the new piston [ 1.2x24 ports instead of 2.5x4 ports], or do I have these figures wrong, the flow of the shock drastically changes. Are they still using the same weight oil ?


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Hsal said:


> That's interesting, because when you leave the Med Tune Main Comp stack as is and alter the valve geometry to reflect the new piston [ 1.2x24 ports instead of 2.5x4 ports], or do I have these figures wrong, the flow of the shock drastically changes. Are they still using the same weight oil ?


Sorry never mind. I see you have to change, and I had not, the W-Port to bring things back into to focus. My Bad.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

mullen119 said:


> Don't feel bad, we are all still learning. Not to mention there is a lot of missinformation out there. Your thinking and concepts are generally sound.


One more thing, just food for thought. If you start out with a shock that is setup to use a straight stack and as a fixed clamp thickness and a backer of some sort, you will get a limiting effect on the oil flow that accrues towards the end of the stroke of the shock. If you change that to a tapered stack or a crossover stack and don't or can't change the thickness of the clamp [ reduce it] the limiting effect will occur later in the stroke. The reverse is true, if you go to a preloaded stack the effect will occur earlier in the stroke because of the added stack height cause by the ring shim that only occurs at the outer edge of the stack. Something to thinks about if you are making minor changes to an existing style stack, mainly a pre-loaded stack[ring shim thickness, number of pre-load shims], or changing over to a completely different style of stack. On DVO's website in the link you first sent me, they mention this as a good think " Tapered stacks allow more clearance before they come in contact with the base plate". It is if the shock and stack are designed to have that much gap, if they where not and you did not address it in the redesign of the stack you could run into problems with to much travel, bottoming out even throw the stack is stiff or not getting enough travel even throw the stack is soft.


----------



## Hsal (May 23, 2015)

Earlier today I got to thinking about the feel of the shock as it relates to the IFP pressure. In the past I had noticed that if I increased the IFP pressure the shock felt harsher. I figured that the IFP pressure was just adding to the pressure of the main air can, and maybe ramping up more do to it's smaller volume. I still believe that happens to a small extent, but there is another effect I had not considered. As you rebuild a shock, the oil chamber gets completely filled with oil with the piston in the fully extended position. After the air can is filled and cycled, filling the neg air chamber, the shock actually ends up about 1.5mm shorter do to pressurizing the neg chamber. That pushes the piston in the oil 1.5mm, so after cycling the main air can you should recheck the IFP pressure. That being said. Consider the effect of the IFP pressure trying to push the piston and shaft out of the oil, and it's effect on the neg air chamber. Any change in air pressure you make to the main air can is automatically equalized with the neg air chamber. But changes to the IFP will not equalize, well add to the positive force , and will counter the neg force of the neg air chamber a small amount. This is all speculation, but make sense. How much of an effect I don't know, and whether that was what I was noticing while changing the IFP I really don't know. Just more food for thought.


----------



## POAH (Apr 29, 2009)

with the current shocks, is there much difference between the RL, RT and RT3 damper? I'm going to get a shock to replace the monarch R on my son's ripcord and get it tuned. I thought about getting the R tuned but was under the impression the damping system is not as tunable as the higher models. If the internal shim stack between the RT,RL and RT3 is similar I can buy a cheaper model


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

There are three different designs in use at the moment - R, RT/RL/XX and RT3. RT3 is best and most tuneable. I think that R is next because it has dual rebound circuits. RL/XX have strong lockout that is achieved using so called "hat" that closes main compression circuit. It is similar to Fox Evolution series and its main problem is single rebound circuit. RT has same construction but the lockout is much weaker, so it functions as platform.

If you don't want to use platform or lockout settings then I think that R is ok.

Edit: information above is apparently incorrect. RT/RL/XX also have dual flow rebound circuit.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

19mm shim between 22mm shims - is it a problem? 

I wanted to make the main compression stack little bit stiffer. It was good for smaller hits but suspension was moving too much during larger hits. I had three .15mm 22mm diameter shims under the ring shim and I added one more .15mm shim. Now it is bit too stiff. I think that .1 mm shim might be good, but unfortunately only .1mm shim I have is 19mm. 

Can I put the .1mm 19mm shim between 22mm shims? Like: piston, 2x22mm shim, 19mm shim, 22mm shim, ring shim and preload shims. 

Or will it cause problems?


----------



## ck328 (Apr 14, 2016)

Hi everyone,
I have a very basic knowledge of shock tuning but just downloaded ReStackor to have a play around. I want to model my MM monarch rt3 2015 but I don't know the piston dimensions and things like that. Would anyone mind posting a picture of their spreadsheet, or a the figures I need to set up the spreadsheet in restackor?
Thanks in advance!


----------



## croakies (Mar 4, 2011)

arnea said:


> There are three different designs in use at the moment - R, RT/RL/XX and RT3. RT3 is best and most tuneable. I think that R is next because it has dual rebound circuits. RL/XX have strong lockout that is achieved using so called "hat" that closes main compression circuit. It is similar to Fox Evolution series and its main problem is single rebound circuit. RT has same construction but the lockout is much weaker, so it functions as platform.
> 
> If you don't want to use platform or lockout settings then I think that R is ok.


My 2014 RT indeed has the hat as you said but also has "dual" shimmed rebound.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

I haven't seen RT/RL myself and was repeating what I read from this forum. Turns out to be stupid thing to do.


----------



## mullen119 (Aug 30, 2009)

arnea said:


> I haven't seen RT/RL myself and was repeating what I read from this forum. Turns out to be stupid thing to do.


AFAIK, the addition of a hsr circuit to the xx/rt/rl shocks is fairly recent. That's why it was originally posted as being without hsr. Ktm520 recently told me in a private conversation about the newest version having a form of hsr, but never really got into specifics about it other than saying it existed.


----------



## rlouder (Jun 26, 2007)

2013 rt3 M/M
2.0 leverage ratio, linear
rider weight: 195 lbs

Any ideas which might be better for my frame, the LL S 219 comp stack (shown above in chart) or the M/L comp stack on p. 7.


Update:

Unlike what I previously posted, I had simply pulled one of the 22 x 0.15 shims when installing the shock. Tune kits were not available then. I did a complete service today and changed it to the standard L stack on p. 7. Even with the low leverage ratio, I went with that one because of my weight. All I can say is wow. Pulling a shim may be better than nothing, but having the correct shims works much better. In hindsight I should have got one of the LL kits when they became availsble. Live and learn.


----------



## eric24v (Oct 26, 2008)

Can someone enlighten me about the *ride characteristics* of the various rebound/compression tunes (low, mid, high)?

Is the change from low to mid compression tune (all else being equal) the equivalent of adding a few clicks of high speed compression (if such a knob existed on the monarch)?

For rebound, it seems rider weight (and therefore spring rate) would be the driver of determining which tune you need. Does the change from mid to high (or mid to low) just simply shift the spectrum of rebound speed your shock has.

Lastly, for rebound, does sram take "low" to mean less rebound (i.e. fast rebound) or vice versa?


----------



## dberndt (Apr 17, 2010)

Here is an image of a Medium rebound, Medium compression, S, 320 (standard aftermarket MM tune I believe (2014 or 2015?, no black damper body)) and a Medium rebound, Soft Compression, S 320 that came stock on a 2015 Giant Trance.

Apologies for the nut that got bumped/misplaced in the upper left of the picture. It should be on the top left of the page. Read top to bottom, left to right. Shims measured with a reasonable accuracy micrometer









Possibly better quality image: https://goo.gl/photos/L9NV2r6i6dt8UqMg7


----------



## croakies (Mar 4, 2011)

Great reference. Thanks for sharing 

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


----------



## ztbishop (May 11, 2009)

dberndt, 

Thanks for uploading that! I have a 2009 Trance X that came with Fox. I put an OEM Monarch RT3 MM tuned on it, and at 30-35% sag, I get about 80% travel. I've even put the debonair canister on (no spacers) which did not help. 
Do you get close to full travel on the newer trance with this shock? I was thinking of purchasing a lighter tuned shim-stack from SRAM and installing it, as I wouldn't really know how to start swapping spacers around. I was also considering a newer trance, but I wonder how much difference I'd really notice from a 26".


----------



## dberndt (Apr 17, 2010)

ztbishop said:


> dberndt,
> 
> Thanks for uploading that! I have a 2009 Trance X that came with Fox. I put an OEM Monarch RT3 MM tuned on it, and at 30-35% sag, I get about 80% travel. I've even put the debonair canister on (no spacers) which did not help.
> Do you get close to full travel on the newer trance with this shock? I was thinking of purchasing a lighter tuned shim-stack from SRAM and installing it, as I wouldn't really know how to start swapping spacers around. I was also considering a newer trance, but I wonder how much difference I'd really notice from a 26".


Yes, With the standard air can I have no trouble bottoming the shock. I didn't actually run a Monarch on the Trance for that long as I fairly quickly moved to a DB Inline, which imo is just better, smoother, more adjustable (but less reliable...). So I'm not super experienced with the Monarch.

I was however using the MM tune monarch on a GT Sensor and despite the lack of volume spacers or lower PSI I couldn't really bottom the shock. Which is why I tore both shocks apart, so I could steal the shim stack from the Trance's ML shock and put it onto the GT Sensor. One test ride so far and it seems ok, but the ride was a bit slow and tame, so more testing is definitely required. O-ring shows that more travel was used vs MM tune at same air can pressure.

As to the newer trance, it's not really the wheel size you'd notice (sure some what better roll-over) but mostly the updated geometry, better suspension pivots and design, stiffer frame, etc. That is the stuff that will really shape the ride of the bike.


----------



## fsrxc (Jan 31, 2004)

ztbishop said:


> dberndt,
> 
> Thanks for uploading that! I have a 2009 Trance X that came with Fox. I put an OEM Monarch RT3 MM tuned on it, and at 30-35% sag, I get about 80% travel. I've even put the debonair canister on (no spacers) which did not help.
> Do you get close to full travel on the newer trance with this shock? I was thinking of purchasing a lighter tuned shim-stack from SRAM and installing it, as I wouldn't really know how to start swapping spacers around. I was also considering a newer trance, but I wonder how much difference I'd really notice from a 26".


I'm surprised the Debonair was no better, since it's higher volume than the stock can.

I added the Debonair to my 2015 Monarch RT and was able to *just* get full travel, but wasn't happy with the performance of the shock, apparently the RT damper is not full shimstack like the RT3.

Try dropping psi until you can just get full travel, say hitting a large compression while sitting down, then see how it rides like that in the midstroke.


----------



## niles25 (Mar 3, 2012)

Hi All,

I've read most of the pages on this thread and there is a ton of great info, a lot of it being over my head. I have a question that I hope someone can answer. I picked up a MM monarch plus RC3 for my Hightower for a great price. It's a bit harsh off the top and would like to make it a bit more supple. I understand that I can buy a different tune for it (11.4118.023.056) or I can play with the shim stack. I'd rather rearrange the shim stack if possible, can someone make a few suggestions of how to do that/what to change?


----------



## fsrxc (Jan 31, 2004)

niles25 said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I've read most of the pages on this thread and there is a ton of great info, a lot of it being over my head. I have a question that I hope someone can answer. I picked up a MM monarch plus RC3 for my Hightower for a great price. It's a bit harsh off the top and would like to make it a bit more supple. I understand that I can buy a different tune for it (11.4118.023.056) or I can play with the shim stack. I'd rather rearrange the shim stack if possible, can someone make a few suggestions of how to do that/what to change?


which air can does it have?


----------



## niles25 (Mar 3, 2012)

fsrxc said:


> which air can does it have?


DebonAir


----------



## fsrxc (Jan 31, 2004)

niles25 said:


> DebonAir


you didn't mention your setup.
Because it has a larger negative chamber, Debonair tends to sag quite a lot, so some riders run the pressure quite high to get ~30% sag, but that might make it too firm in the midstroke.
Have you tried a range of psi, down to bottoming it out as I posted above? I found I was getting ~40% sag over a large pressure range (130-165psi), so setting for sag is only a starting point with the Debonair.

Don't forget to adjust the rebound after changing pressure, if the rebound is too slow the shock can feel harsh, a bit like too much compression, but from packing down, not spiking.


----------



## niles25 (Mar 3, 2012)

fsrxc said:


> you didn't mention your setup.
> Because it has a larger negative chamber, Debonair tends to sag quite a lot, so some riders run the pressure quite high to get ~30% sag, but that might make it too firm in the midstroke.
> Have you tried a range of psi, down to bottoming it out as I posted above? I found I was getting ~40% sag over a large pressure range (130-165psi), so setting for sag is only a starting point with the Debonair.
> 
> Don't forget to adjust the rebound after changing pressure, if the rebound is too slow the shock can feel harsh, a bit like too much compression, but from packing down, not spiking.


Thanks for the suggestion and information. I'll continue to mess with air pressure and see how that goes. Good to know about sag not being affected a ton by air pressure with the DebonAir.

My current setup: Santa Cruz Hightower, 170 lbs riding weight, psi at 178-180, 35% sag, 2 volume reducing bands, just about the middle of adjustment range for rebound.


----------



## Joel Fitzgerald (Feb 4, 2014)

Hey all, I am trying to determine what the suitable tune would be to use on a Ibis Mojo HD3? Someone has mentioned it should be L/L. But want to try and confirm before buying a shock..
Many thanks


----------



## harig (Nov 9, 2016)

Some good info of the the LSC compression assembly in the shaft with pictures and info how to increase firmness of the lockout:
Rockshox Monarch RT3 Firm Lockout Upgrade | Blue Liquid Labs


----------



## Deerhill (Dec 21, 2009)

Have a bit of a new question/ 's, especially for those that have also tried the 2015-2017 stock debonair plus setup's (L, M and H). 

Re: Debonair plus spring...on the inner can, has anyone tried to move the positive/negative equalizing dimple...or the port's to a different position? (to change sag point/ tune end stroke spring rate)

Also, has anyone tried thicker/ higher viscosity shock fluid's? (to change/control free bleed on the rebound)


----------



## mmanuel09 (Nov 26, 2008)

I'm interested in this too. I recently got a HT and I weigh about 180lbs. The stock shock has 4 volume bands and I have to pump psi up 210 to get 30% sag. It does feel harsh off the top and I noticed that on tight tech switchbacks the bike wanted to buck me off the outside. I also am not getting full travel. I'm coming off a stumpy evo 29 with monarch plus. My set up was 6 volume bands and 195 psi and almost 40% sag. I really like that set up a lot. So I'm going to try 5 volume bands and 195 to 200 psi on the Hightower to see if it helps. I'm ok with running more sag on the high tower correct?


----------



## Deerhill (Dec 21, 2009)

I would take volume reducers out for the best rebound response...max main spring goes up to 350psi...250psi get's me 35% seated, 30% in attack


Can't remember max res psi?


----------



## Rey Recinto (Mar 15, 2005)

Can anybody tell me what is the difference in the "soft" and "firm" threshold and CF60 and CF80 lbs in the RT3 Tune assembly?

I already know the L/L Tune Assembly I need but RS provides 3 types of threshold levels and I would like to know the significance and difference between the "soft" and "firm" threshold. 

I ride a 2013 DW Link Turner 5 Spot ver4.2 with a Pike 160 Solo Air. I am about 150lbs with camelbak...


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

It appears that people have stopped folowing this thread, but can anybody tell me if the RT shock has similar shim compression stacks as the RT3 discussed in this thread? Will the same charts work? Thanks in advance.

Oh, and would changing to a heavier oil have an effect? I'm looking for more compression overall, and an oil change would be the easiest...


----------



## mullen119 (Aug 30, 2009)

The newer RT (2014 and later) are completely different than the RT3. They are more similar in design to the Fox Evolution series of shocka. The older RT with 9 position gold adjuster share the same design as the RT3s from the same time period (very similar to the current generation)

Changing oil will have a small effect, but will have a greater effect on rebound then compression because of the slower velocities the rebound damper sees on a normal basis


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

That's quite unfortunate. So how can I change from a L tune to a M? I believe I have a 2015 RT..


----------



## mullen119 (Aug 30, 2009)

mountainbiker24 said:


> That's quite unfortunate. So how can I change from a L tune to a M? I believe I have a 2015 RT..


There is still a compression shim stack, so you can still tune it. The rt3 info is just not relevant. Probably not a lot of info on stacks, so you may need to start from scratch. Should only take a few tries to get something good


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

I'll have to tear it apart and see what I can find. I wish SRAM would be a bit more clear on their website, where the only listed differences between the R, RT, RL, and RT3 is the adjustment knob. I purchased the RT because I thought it had the sane internals as the RT3 without the 3-position lever.


----------



## croakies (Mar 4, 2011)

It has the same function as the XX with the top out lockout. I stiffened my light compression tune by moving one of the lockout circuit shims onto the main stack. I also went to a slightly thicker oil, red line lightweight. Came out exactly how I wanted. I also tried speeding up hsr (medium tune stock) by removing one of the shims but ended up being to fast so put it back. 

I might have pictures of the stock light stack but would have to look. Mine is a 2015 rt

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

croakies said:


> It has the same function as the XX with the top out lockout. I stiffened my light compression tune by moving one of the lockout circuit shims onto the main stack. I also went to a slightly thicker oil, red line lightweight. Came out exactly how I wanted. I also tried speeding up hsr (medium tune stock) by removing one of the shims but ended up being to fast so put it back.
> 
> I might have pictures of the stock light stack but would have to look. Mine is a 2015 rt
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


Pics would be fantastic! I'd love to have a plan and shims before taking my shock out of commission.


----------



## croakies (Mar 4, 2011)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Pics would be fantastic! I'd love to have a plan and shims before taking my shock out of commission.


Couldn't find any pictures sorry!. But I'd say go for it. There are two compression shim stacks, main stack which is the one on top and then the lockout circuit which is in between the main and rebound stack.

Main stack is a pyramid stack. Just take one of the shims from lockout stick and just place it in the right spot in pyramid. Lmk if you have a question

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Aresab (Mar 27, 2007)

Here is a post earlier this year that shows a current Monarch RT disassembled.

http://forums.mtbr.com/shocks-suspe...w-disassemble-lockout-order-tune-1017655.html

Based on the photos, aren't there shims on the rebound and compression circuits? There are definitely differences to the RT3 though (top hat).


----------



## croakies (Mar 4, 2011)

Yes it's shimmed compression and rebound 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Perfect! Thanks guys!


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

croakies said:


> Yes it's shimmed compression and rebound
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


The rebound is technically shimmed, but it's a weird configuration. There aren't any rebound ports in the piston. The only oil the rebound shims see flows between the shaft and the piston. The gives a rather small flow area. Having never ridden one of these shocks, I can only speculate on the rebound damping curve, but I would not expect it be nearly as ideal as the RT3, and even the RT3 rebound action isn't great.


----------



## croakies (Mar 4, 2011)

ktm520 said:


> The rebound is technically shimmed, but it's a weird configuration. There aren't any rebound ports in the piston. The only oil the rebound shims see flows between the shaft and the piston. The gives a rather small flow area. Having never ridden one of these shocks, I can only speculate on the rebound damping curve, but I would not expect it be nearly as ideal as the RT3, and even the RT3 rebound action isn't great.


Yeah you're right I do remember seeing that.

It seems like it flows enough oil though considering I removed just one shim and felt too fast.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

Recent RT3 from Transition Smuggler.

BTW, there was no top out bumper in this shock. I had one left over when I changed to seals on my old bike, so I used this.


----------



## griffsterb (May 10, 2014)

Wondering if anyone can help out. I have a Monarch+ RT3 with the Debonair can on my Yeti SB5. It's the MM tune with NO volume spacers and I can't get full travel at 30% sag. I weigh 190 geared up. Seems pretty odd to me. 


I'm not the most aggressive rider in the world but even with small drops, jumps and harsh technical terrain I figure I should get near full travel. I usually have 1/2in to 3/4in unused. 

I'll start combing through the rest of the thread to see what I can find on altering the shim stack... long ass thread though.

Edit: learned some things reading the thread.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

This is 200x51mm shock, right? Do you measure used or unused travel? 200x51 Monarch is actually 190x51 Monarch with 10mm longer body. So if you measure unused travel subtract 10mm - it will never be used.


----------



## griffsterb (May 10, 2014)

arnea said:


> This is 200x51mm shock, right? Do you measure used or unused travel? 200x51 Monarch is actually 190x51 Monarch with 10mm longer body. So if you measure unused travel subtract 10mm - it will never be used.


Yes there is a quarter inch stanchion left after full compression. I do not get near quarter inch after a hard day's ride. Maybe 3/4 inch up to an inch. It's too progressive somehow; even with no volume reducers and 190lb rider weight.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fsrxc (Jan 31, 2004)

griffsterb said:


> Yes there is a quarter inch stanchion left after full compression. I do not get near quarter inch after a hard day's ride. Maybe 3/4 inch up to an inch. It's too progressive somehow; even with no volume reducers and 190lb rider weight.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


the larger negative chamber of the Debonair can often cause increased sag even at higher pressures.
Have you tried lowering the pressure until you can get full travel into big compressions?
Then see how it rides in the midstroke. If it's too wallowy, then yeah you may need a different damper tune.


----------



## griffsterb (May 10, 2014)

fsrxc said:


> the larger negative chamber of the Debonair can often cause increased sag even at higher pressures.
> Have you tried lowering the pressure until you can get full travel into big compressions?
> Then see how it rides in the midstroke. If it's too wallowy, then yeah you may need a different damper tune.


Yeah I can try that. Doesn't seem right to be running 40% sag but I'll see how the mid stroke rides like you said.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

Debonair can has negative camber equalization dimple higher in the can than normal cans have. It means that you must use more sag. Try around 35% sag. BTW, what pressure you are using to get 30% sag?


----------



## griffsterb (May 10, 2014)

arnea said:


> Debonair can has negative camber equalization dimple higher in the can than normal cans have. It means that you must use more sag. Try around 35% sag. BTW, what pressure you are using to get 30% sag?


I'll have to check later but something like 220psi iirc


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

Hmm. I'm 225lb, bike has leverage ration ~2.3 and I run 190psi + 3 tokens. Sag is more than 35%, but I get the plushness that I want and use almost all the travel. Rebound tune is H and compression tune is modified M (less preload on main stack).


----------



## griffsterb (May 10, 2014)

arnea said:


> Hmm. I'm 225lb, bike has leverage ration ~2.3 and I run 190psi + 3 tokens. Sag is more than 35%, but I get the plushness that I want and use almost all the travel. Rebound tune is H and compression tune is modified M (less preload on main stack).


Alright, mine might actually be lower. I'll check tonight and shoot you a PM. If I have trouble maybe you can help me adjust things a bit, if you don't mind


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

Yeah, glad if I can help.


----------



## redrhino (Dec 2, 2015)

I'm new to shim stack tuning and have a few questions for you guys if you don't mind helping out. I'm getting ready to do a full service on my Monarch Plus RC3 (B1-B3/2014-2017) and am contemplating whether I should change the tune.

I'm on an Evil Wreckoning which has 161mm of travel and a 2.5" shock stroke. I weight 210lbs. The shock currently has a M/L tune and I'm wondering if I should try a M/M or a L/M.

I have a few questions and have attached an image to illustrate.

1. Which are the compression shims in the attached image?

2. Over certain types of trail the shock can feel harsh, mainly at higher speed over successive bumps that fall away below the trail (lots of cows tearing up my local trails this winter). I illustrated this in the attached image. I'm wondering if faster high speed rebound might help with this, so that the shock can extend quicker as the rear wheel falls away into these pot-hole type bumps? Or would a low rebound tune be bad considering my weight and how high I have to pump up the shock?

3. Should I just try to order the full tune assembly from the spare parts catalog (Tune Assy, Monarch Plus Reb-Low/Comp-Mid (CF-97lbs), LF-320,B1)? It seems really hard to find these in stock anywhere. But, I also can't find any diagrams showing what shims you need for various tunes specific to the Monarch+. Does such a diagram exist, that would allow me to figure out what shims I need for a specific tune?

4. For the Monarch+ is there any tuning that should be done to the compression assembly in the piggyback reservoir?

This thread has a lot of great info in it, but it can also be a bit confusing since it mainly talks about the RT3 and there also seem to be variations to the shims between years.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

redrhino said:


> I'm new to shim stack tuning and have a few questions for you guys if you don't mind helping out. I'm getting ready to do a full service on my Monarch Plus RC3 (B1-B3/2014-2017) and am contemplating whether I should change the tune.
> 
> I'm on an Evil Wreckoning which has 161mm of travel and a 2.5" shock stroke. I weight 210lbs. The shock currently has a M/L tune and I'm wondering if I should try a M/M or a L/M.
> 
> ...


B is the rebound stack.



redrhino said:


> 2. Over certain types of trail the shock can feel harsh, mainly at higher speed over successive bumps that fall away below the trail (lots of cows tearing up my local trails this winter). I illustrated this in the attached image. I'm wondering if faster high speed rebound might help with this, so that the shock can extend quicker as the rear wheel falls away into these pot-hole type bumps? Or would a low rebound tune be bad considering my weight and how high I have to pump up the shock?


I think that you need stiffer HSR stack not weaker. I do not have Monarch Plus, but just Monarch, but I think that the reason why you feel harshness is the same. The shock is packing down. You have closed LSR adjuster so much that shock can not extend fast enough over small bumps. When you open up the LSR so that it feels good over small consequtive bumps then there is too few rebound damping for large hits - the rear end will wallow or kick back. Because you are heavier rider you must run higher pressure. This more energy stored in airspring when it is compressed and you need more HSR. I'm also heavy rider and was unable to find good rebound setting for M/M tuned Monarch. High rebound tune solved my problem - I can open up the LSR adjuster more without causing kickback over larger bumps, but still the rebound is fast enough over consequtive small bumps.

You can test it. Run over the track that is causing the problems and change the rebound setting faster and slower and see which one feels better. You will probably find that faster rebound feels good. Now go and ride over larger bumps that will compress the shock more, you will probably find that rear end is moving too much.



redrhino said:


> 3. Should I just try to order the full tune assembly from the spare parts catalog (Tune Assy, Monarch Plus Reb-Low/Comp-Mid (CF-97lbs), LF-320,B1)? It seems really hard to find these in stock anywhere. But, I also can't find any diagrams showing what shims you need for various tunes specific to the Monarch+. Does such a diagram exist, that would allow me to figure out what shims I need for a specific tune?


There is separate thread for Monarch Plus shimstack tuning. Perhaps there are explanations how various stacks look like and you can order individual shims e.g. from Revalving Shims



redrhino said:


> 4. For the Monarch+ is there any tuning that should be done to the compression assembly in the piggyback reservoir?
> 
> This thread has a lot of great info in it, but it can also be a bit confusing since it mainly talks about the RT3 and there also seem to be variations to the shims between years.


Check the RC3 tuning thread.


----------



## redrhino (Dec 2, 2015)

Arnea, thank you for the input, really helpful.

I wasn't aware that the rebound knob actually affected the high speed compression, I thought it was just the low speed and the shim stack tune affected the high speed. I though maybe my high speed was too slow and it was packing up at high speed.

But what you are describing makes sense, I'll have to play with the rebound a bit and see if that is what is going on.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

No, the rebound adjuster affects the low speed rebound and high speed rebound damping is determined by shimstack.

In suspension tech terms low speed and high speed always reffer speed of the shaft and not the speed of the bike or anything else. 

Also compression and rebound behave differently. 

In case of compression the speed of the shaft is defined by external forces - relatively small square edge bump causes fast but short movement of the shaft. 

In case of rebound the force is coming inside the shock - the spring is expanding and is giving back the stored energy. When the shock is compressed only little, the force is small and so is the velocity of the shaft.

When the shock is fully compressed, there is lots of stored energy, so force is large and so is the speed of the shaft.

So in case of rebound the low speed rebound circuit affects rebound damping of the small compressions and high speed rebound circuit contributes in case of big compressions.

Rockshox has different terminology - beginning stroke rebound damping and ending stroke rebound damping. I think it is more understandable.


----------



## pmes (Apr 25, 2008)

Thanks everybody for all your hard work experimenting with this shock and more importantly for sharing the results!


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

*H+ tune for rebound?*

I'm running the H tune for rebound, but would like to try something even stiffer, so I could open up the low speed rebound more (currently running 6 clicks from open). L, M and H tune differ by number of .15mm preload shims - one, two or three.

If I want something stiffer should I just add one more preload shim or perhaps one shim under the preload shim instead?

On another topic I made my compression stack more linear:

22 x .25 - 3 pcs
22 x .4 + 19 x .1 ring shim
22 x .15 - 1 pcs
11 x .2 - 2 pcs
11 x .3 - 3 pcs
22 x .2 - 2 pcs

This is for Transition Smuggler and 100+ kg rider. Feels really good.


----------



## reinim (Jun 3, 2017)

Can someone tell me if im right or wrong: I want to change the rebound tune on my 2015 monarch rt3 from L to M or H. All I would need to do is adding 1 or 2 19x0.15 shims. Is this correct? Which spacers would i have to remove?(I mean the 11x.2 and 11x.3 ?shims?)
Also if i want to order the shims i need which inner diameter do i need?


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

Yes, you need 1 or 2 19x0.15 shims. I haven't removed any spacers, even when the stack has grown by 0.5-0.6mm. ID of the shims is 9mm.


----------



## link1896 (Jul 13, 2007)

Has anyone simulated in shim restackor? A mate has mounted a Monarch onto a Specialized Epic and we need to play with tunes.


----------



## redbruce (Jun 13, 2017)

Specifically, 2016-17 Monarch RT3 debonair M/M/S320 tune on 2012 Epic.

Gut feels says too much LSC, confirmed by shockwiz session.

HSC OK by me and most sessions but last session shockwiz has changed its mind and suggests that too needs softening.


----------



## reinim (Jun 3, 2017)

do you think 20mm OD would also work instead of the 19? Can´t find the 19mm anywhere in stock.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

No idea. I wanted to suggest Revalving Shims but they are also out of stock.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

reinim said:


> do you think 20mm OD would also work instead of the 19? Can´t find the 19mm anywhere in stock.


No, 20's will shroud the comp ports. Bad idea. 18 or 17 will work just as long as there at least one 19 on top of the ring shim.


----------



## dINGLE485 (Oct 6, 2013)

Hi everyone

I've been reading this thread for a while, and it has inspired me to open up my Monarch RT and have a fiddle, but first I have a couple of questions that I hope someone can help with:

- what affect will it have on my shock if I reduce the IFP pressure from the stock 350psi to 300psi or lower?

- how much of a difference will it make if I use 2.5w Rockshox oil instead of the standard 3w?


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

I reduced the IFP pressure and I think it made shock little bit more supple when going over small roots, etc. You cannot go too low, because of the danger of cavitation. However, when I rebuilt my shock last time I went back to higher IFP. I made the decision based on the discussion in Manitou McLeod thread. Yes it is different shock, but it is not too different. If you want suppler shock you need to revalve it. I went with fully linear stack last time (no preload, no pedalling support) and I like it very much. 

Regarding the oil - I have RT3 that requires 7w oil and I have used only original Rockshox oil (because I can get it easily from my LBS).


----------



## dral (Jan 10, 2018)

Hi fellows 
Please I need some help with the shim stack of Monarch RL with Rebound tune Medium Compression Tune low CF 80 lbs LF 430. 
Turning is sram part number 11.4118.023.031. 
Shock share same tuning with Monarch XX.
Unfortunately I lost the order of the shims and I don't know how to put them back in place. A picture would help


----------



## razorjack (May 28, 2006)

Can anyone tell me the meaning of Monarch RT3 tune letters ?
these are on one strip, M on orange background, the rest on blue.
M, L (unlock icon), F, 380 (lock icon)

is it close to M/M tune? i look for a damper for Giant Reign (>2015), air can looks like 'small'


----------



## dral (Jan 10, 2018)

Yes it is Rebound tune Medium, Compression Tune Low, and lock force 380 lbs. 
The M/M tune is Medium Rebound Tune Medium Compression Tune. 
I would not recommend a change, unless you are sure what are you doing, compression is strongly related with your bike leverage ratio. 
Probably if you explain more somebody else might help you. 


razorjack said:


> View attachment 1223193
> 
> Can anyone tell me the meaning of Monarch RT3 tune letters ?
> these are on one strip, M on orange background, the rest on blue.
> ...


----------



## razorjack (May 28, 2006)

Hi.
i undestand compression, rebound tunes etc. (and i know i need M/M)
however i can't decipher settings from that picture.
so *L* means Low compression in unlocked position.
and *F* ? is it firm setting in 'pedal/trail' (middle) mode ?

also air can looks like a low volume? and monarchs in Reign looks bigger ('std' volume?)
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=r...ybPeAhVvMewKHcz1DXwQ_AUIDigB&biw=1920&bih=955

so i'll look for a different damper


----------



## dariusf (Oct 8, 2012)

So it was a rainy weekend and I decided to service my suspension. While undoing the air can oil started foaming up through the adjustment lever. Turned out that the piston shaft somehow unthreaded from the top assembly and slipped out (should there be thread lock out of factory?). Not knowing the mechanics inside and specifically the spring and poppet I tried to thread it back on and while doing that the spring got wedged in between the poppet. Eventually I was able to get the pieces out but in the process they got mangled. So now I need a replacement spring and poppet, I know this normally comes as part of the Tune Assembly kit which can be quite expensive.

As I'm not changing the tune I was hoping that there was a way just to get the spring and puppet by itself or maybe someone here has extra they are willing to sell? This is for RT3 that came on 2015 Salsa Bucksaw and based on diagrams it looks like 2014 or 2015 model of the shock.

Also is there a difference between the springs / puppet depending on the tune used?









Looking at the tune I think I need this kit:

11.4118.023.035 - Tune Assy, Monarch RT3 Reb-Low/Comp-Low 3 (CF-60lbs ) soft threshold, LF-320, C1/D1









Greatly appreciate help with this!


----------



## Rocknobbler (Dec 8, 2018)

I've just re-established the rebound shim order for the rebound shim stack on a monarch rt3 off a 2017 orange four. It wasn't actually labelled on the can as to which tune the shock has but I presume its a D1 MM Soft 320.
In among my hamfistedness I lost the very final shim which was an 11mm spacer located between the final 19x0.1 shim and the nut. I am presuming that this has no effect as it's smaller than the actual nut and was only effectively acting as a washer for the nut. 
The nut itself has a raised 11mm bezel where it contacts the shim so presumably the stack will function without the final 11mm spacer shim as long as I can tighten the stack down adequately, which I seem to be able to. Presumably this final 11mm shim is only there to maintain the overall stack height. Any wiseness appreciated though!


----------



## stultus (May 8, 2019)

Which side of this diagram is the compression and which is the rebound? Seems to me the left side would be the rebound and the right the compression.



arnea said:


> Recent RT3 from Transition Smuggler.
> 
> BTW, there was no top out bumper in this shock. I had one left over when I changed to seals on my old bike, so I used this.


----------



## Rocknobbler (Dec 8, 2018)

Correct, you can see the nut at the top left so that is the rebound stack.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

stultus said:


> Which side of this diagram is the compression and which is the rebound? Seems to me the left side would be the rebound and the right the compression.


Yes, this is correct. If you are looking for differences between different tunes then on the rebound side you will increase the number of 0,15 shims on top of ring shim. I.e. left column fourth row from bottom right above the 0,3 + 0,15 you will add extra shim. 2 shims is M, 3 shims is H. I'm running my own H+ which is 4 shims. I'm 100kg and running ~2.3 leverage ratio bike. Calms down the rebound, but keeps it nice and fast on small stuff. You don't want to change anything else on the rebound side.

Compression side the differences are on the bypass valve tune - i.e. right column rows 2 and 3 from the bottom. Instead of 0,15 and 0,15 I will have 0,2 and 0,2 on medium tune. I don't know how H tune looks like. I personally don't care about the lockout so I changed the compression side shims completely and went with linear stack. Really happy with the result. Big hits are absorbed nicely and I still have very good sensitivity on small stuff.

But I do not think that changing the shims will help you to get more travel. Definitely the stock L tune will not help you because the bypass valve will not flow enough oil. You could try to remove one of the 0,15 preloaded shims from the main compression stack and see if it changes anything. I.e. remove 0,15 shim from the top on right column. And do small changes. Especially the preloaded shims have really large effect on damping.


----------



## marvinthesheep (May 21, 2019)

Hi guys im hoping with your combined knowlage you can help me out.

Serviceing a monarch plus rc3 on a rose uncle jimbo and i dropped the shim stack but after a great deal of googling an a couple of failed tests i think i have it back in the right order but now the rebound adjuster is crazy hard to turn. it works if grip it with pliers but no strong clicks. 

What did I do wrong? how do i fix it?


----------



## nikon255 (Dec 27, 2015)

whats your shocks tune? I'd reassemble it again.

heres monarch plus rc3 db air ML tune. Base is lever shimstack


pistonbase comp (L)reb (M)comp22x0,1519x0,1515x0,1522x0,1519x0,4 ring15x0,1520x0,1516x0,115x0,1520x0,119x0,158x0,420x0,119x0,158x0,411x0,319x0,158x0,411x0,311x0,28x0,411x0,28x0,48x0,4


----------



## marvinthesheep (May 21, 2019)

this was very close to what i found and used! only diffrence was 3 11m spacers on the rebound side and only 1 on the compression side. what effect will that have?

The rebuond adjuster being stiff is the main problem i have stripped and re serviced the rebound asembly and it turns fine without any pressure in the IFP but stiffens up when i pump up to 250 psi it is now better than it was but i still think its too stiff.


----------



## PHeller (Dec 28, 2012)

Nvm, I read some of Mullen's older posts in here and from some his feedback in the McLeod tuning post, I'm not even going to bother touching my Deluxe.


----------



## PHeller (Dec 28, 2012)

Ok ok, I've come around to looking into this a bit more. 

Could someone explain two terms I've read in this thread: 

Progressive Shim Stack or Progressive Compression Tuning

and

Pyramid Stacks

Is there some way of making a shock behave so that it feels like it has no compression damping at the initial stroke, but immediately starts ramping up with lots of compression damping in the mid stroke?


----------



## nikon255 (Dec 27, 2015)

PHeller said:


> Ok ok, I've come around to looking into this a bit more.
> 
> Could someone explain two terms I've read in this thread:
> 
> ...


Read about speed sensitive and position sensitive. For example overfilled motioncontrol/ifp become position sensitive haha


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

PHeller said:


> Is there some way of making a shock behave so that it feels like it has no compression damping at the initial stroke, but immediately starts ramping up with lots of compression damping in the mid stroke?


If you are ready to get rid of pedalling support and lockout then yes - go with linear stack where the main compression stack is not preloaded. It is really smooth on small stuff like roots and rocks but also offers good support on bigger hits. If you are not ready to give up lockout then go with McLeod - it has better way of achieving the lockout.


----------



## PHeller (Dec 28, 2012)

I'm 100% ok with losing lockout - I never use it. I would be cool to have the lever add a bit of platform, but if the ramp up in compression is pretty good it wouldn't be necessary. 

Any examples of changing a Deluxe's ML3 tune into a Linear-style stack? 

I'm curious how much the additional or new shims would cost, and if it would be more cost effective to send the shock for a tune vs doing it myself.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

I have done it on Monarch RT3. I do not know how different is the Deluxe.

I'm 100kg, my bike has 115mm rear travel and relatively flat ~2.3 leveraga ratio curve.

I changed main compression stack and main rebound stack. I did not touch the small compression and rebound stacks.

Main compression stack is four 22x0.25 shims and one 19x0.15 shim. The last one has probably very little influence.

You must match the rebound stack to your weight. This is done by adding 19x0.15 mm shims to rebound stack.

You can get shims from here Revalving Shims

I recommend to do the tuning by yourself - then you can later easily do some modifications when you don't get it perfect on the first attempt. You need bench vise, IFP adapter, shock pump that can go to 350psi, shaft clamps (you can make your own from some wood), oil and compression balls for bleed hole.


----------



## PHeller (Dec 28, 2012)

Does Racing Suspension Products sell compression balls? 

How do you know where to even start with new shim selection? Can "Shim ReStackor" help a newbie with selecting new shims? It seems like a lot of people just throw in a few more of the thickest/biggest shims. 

Has Rockshox improved their IFP adapter yet or is the go-to still to drill a hole in it and use a spoke to open the valve? 

What shock oil is everyone using during these excursions?


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

PHeller said:


> Does Racing Suspension Products sell compression balls?
> 
> How do you know where to even start with new shim selection? Can "Shim ReStackor" help a newbie with selecting new shims? It seems like a lot of people just throw in a few more of the thickest/biggest shims.
> 
> ...


For compression balls - find out the Rockshox part number (they have spare parts catalogue in their web under support) and google for it. Not hard to find.

I started doing small changes. I used Shim Restackor to compare the different stacks. It is very useful. I used the demo version that is limited to 10mm diameter shims and scaled everything down. I.e. 22mm shim to 10mm shim, same with thickness. It was enough for comparison - to see which stack is stiffer, how much preload there is, etc.

Regarding the adapter - you should just try it and find out. I did not use the spoke method, but I made the hole at the end of adapter tiny bit deeper so the valve is closed earlier. In my case it was sufficient.

I'm using Rockshox 7wt oil as suggested in the service manual.


----------



## Naman787 (Aug 19, 2015)

Does anyone know shimstack for H rebound tune on Monarch RT3 2014?
I want to change the Rebound Adjuster Knob range on my Monarch RT3 M/L3 from "medium-fast" to "slow-medium".


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

The difference between different rebound tunes is the number of 19x0.15 shims - L is one, M is two, H is three. On your picture it is fourth row from the bottom on the left side. You have measured it to be 0.2mm, but I'm sure that those are actually 0.15mm shims. So you should add one shim there. 

I'm 100kg and run bike with 2.3 leverage ration and found four shims to be best for me.


----------



## Naman787 (Aug 19, 2015)

arnea said:


> <...>


Thank you very much.


----------



## mapomac (Aug 21, 2017)

I'm asking here some help about a Monarch XX; I've already read the dedicate topic but here it seems the most complete thread.

This Monarch is fitted on a Scalpel Si, 100 mm travel.
Since ever I found the shock too stiff and slow. I'm 80 Kg and running the suggested 20-30% sag I can get just 50-60% of travel, almost impossible to go further even loading hard on the bike...overall for my kind of riding and course, it's almost seems like riding an hard tail.

The fabric tune should be MidReb/LowComp, 430 Lockout Force.

I took apart the shock for the annual service and this time I'd like to play with the shim stack. I measured as best as I could the shim configuration.

Any suggestion ?


----------



## Bosbefok (Oct 23, 2018)

Hi Guys, 
I see there hasn't been much action on this thread but I cant find anything resourceful on the Deluxe RT3. I know this has been dedicated to the Monarch and If anyone can point me to a thread dedicated to the Deluxe Id be great full.

However Im going to ask my question anyway. Do any of you know If its possible to add more platform to the "pedal" mode without affecting the open mode to much? 

Reason is I can hardly tell the difference at the moment (Tune LMS320) I'd prefer to have a bit more LSC or pedal platform in the trail mode that would hopefully make it ride slightly higher(sag less) for steep or out the saddle climbing. At the moment I have to resort to the Lock to get that, but Its way to stiff. 

Thanks 
Bos


----------



## 294037 (Jun 30, 2006)

Bosbefok said:


> Hi Guys,
> I see there hasn't been much action on this thread but I cant find anything resourceful on the Deluxe RT3. I know this has been dedicated to the Monarch and If anyone can point me to a thread dedicated to the Deluxe Id be great full.
> 
> However Im going to ask my question anyway. Do any of you know If its possible to add more platform to the "pedal" mode without affecting the open mode to much?
> ...


The Deluxe RT3 is very similar to the monarch, so in open mode most of the oil is going through the shaft and a poppet inside, rather than the shims. Therefore modifying the shims doesn't affect open mode much at all. You can add some extra shims to it and will get a firmer trail mode


----------



## Bosbefok (Oct 23, 2018)

Hey John, so glad someone picked up on this. 

I will work my way through the thread, since you're saying the Morarch and Deluxe shocks are not very different? Just for the purpose of applying what I will pick up in the Monarch thread, what are the main differences then? Stuff like rapid recovery etc, its just the rebound shim stack? 

Can you suggest where to modify the shimstack to alter the the climb setting? 

Also, what the Tune LMS320 means? Guessing..Low compression, Medium rebound, soft platform with 320psi IFP? Just not sure in what order they spec it.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

The easiest way to just plainly get more damping is to add another shim to the compression stack on the piston. Add one shim of the largest diameter in there already. On a monarch its the 22x0.15 shim. You just add in another. This leaves the platform and increases damping. I changed my monarch to a liner tune with no platform, and it takes quite a few rebuilds to get a whole new stack dialed in! Simply adding a shim avoids all that and just increases comp damping.

Its possible that your poppet spring is weak and just pops open too easy. If thats the case, adding shims in trail mode isnt really going to help since the poppet just opens up and blows off anyway. You may have to dig in and stiffen the poppet spring. 

The debonair can is a saggy nightmare. On my monarch I put a band on the bottom half of the can to help reduce sag and keep it riding higher. It works alright, but it still rides low, still sags to 35% basically no matter.


----------



## Kaedenmtb (Mar 21, 2017)

Hey guys, I know this forum is about shim stack but my monarch has started knocking. I’ve done a full Damper body rebuild and is still making a knocking noise and feel. It happens in the beginning of the stroke, around the 20% to 30% Markings. I also have done the ifp, I just bled the system as the oil seemed pretty clean. I can’t find anyone who has resolved this issue other then sending it to there lbs and then getting it sent to RockShox, but I want to save some money and this shock is used..


----------



## dariusf (Oct 8, 2012)

Bosbefok;14647029
Also said:


> The number is the lockout force, how much force it will take to blow past lockout setting. L would be low rebound, M medium compression, S soft threshold/pedaling.


----------



## dral (Jan 10, 2018)

Kaedenmtb said:


> Hey guys, I know this forum is about shim stack but my monarch has started knocking. I've done a full Damper body rebuild and is still making a knocking noise and feel. It happens in the beginning of the stroke, around the 20% to 30% Markings. I also have done the ifp, I just bled the system as the oil seemed pretty clean. I can't find anyone who has resolved this issue other then sending it to there lbs and then getting it sent to RockShox, but I want to save some money and this shock is used..


The knocking sound might derives from worn shock bushings and probably has nothing to do with the IFP. in the past i have experienced such a knocking sound and it was a worn the bushing. Changing the bushing solved the issue.


----------

