# Rear Shock Placement?



## Bullet_Bob (Sep 9, 2010)

I see there are two ways that the rear shock in mounted in bikes.

One is vertical like this







http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/SBCProduct.jsp?spid=52804&scid=1000&scname=Mountain

The other is horizontal like this







http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/SBCProduct.jsp?spid=52771&scid=1000&scname=Mountain

*Can some one tell me the difference?*


----------



## ae111black (Dec 27, 2008)

The lower one is just the newer design of basically the same set up they both have the same travel. I think the newer one is just specialized's way of making the stumpjumper more "proprietary"


----------



## Straz85 (Mar 20, 2009)

I'm not sure if you're just concerned with Specialized or if you are talking in general. Anyway, there are several different types of rear suspension: DW Link, Horst, Single Pivot, VPP (Virtual Pivot Point), APP (Actual Pivot Point), 4-bar, the beloved URT (Unified Rear Triangle), etc. Some of them have similar rear shock placement, but all perform very differently.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

The actual shock placement makes no difference.

The design of the suspension system makes the difference.


----------



## hardwarz (Jun 12, 2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_suspension


----------



## Mr. Blonde (May 18, 2008)

There is no difference in the shock itself. In general, though, frames with low, centralized mass (shock, linkage) tend to handle better because of a lower COG. DH race frames tend to put the shock as low as possible BUT also sheltered from the mud flying off the tire. It's thoughtful design but not make or break. Keep in mind this is a VERY broad statement and, by no mean, a set rule.


----------



## onemission (Aug 11, 2010)

Seems like many of the horizontal designs are a falling rate as well. Not good imo.


----------



## Mr. Blonde (May 18, 2008)

onemission said:


> Seems like many of the horizontal designs are a falling rate as well. Not good imo.


Nope. That has nothing to do with it.


----------



## onemission (Aug 11, 2010)

Sure it does - not to say a horizontal shock cant have a progressive rate, Im just saying many dont. I can see the suspension path on the bike pictured above - it has a falling rate.


----------



## Mr. Blonde (May 18, 2008)

onemission said:


> Sure it does - not to say a horizontal shock cant have a progressive rate, Im just saying many dont. I can see the suspension path on the bike pictured above - it has a falling rate.


Uhh no. And the Spec above DEFINITELY has a rising rate. The wheelpath has NOTHING to do with the leverage ratio. The ONLY part of that suspension that controls the leverage ratio is the rocker link. It doesn't become rising rate until that link is perpendicular to the shock body. Sorry dude. You don't know what you're talking about here.


----------



## onemission (Aug 11, 2010)

I understand, I didnt say wheelpath I said suspension path. But whatever not worth arguing over.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

onemission said:


> Sure it does - not to say a horizontal shock cant have a progressive rate, Im just saying many dont.


You just contradicted yourself.

Please refrain from spreading bad information in the beginner forum.


----------



## onemission (Aug 11, 2010)

bad mechanic said:


> You just contradicted yourself.
> 
> Please refrain from spreading bad information in the beginner forum.


No I didnt at all!!! :madman:

heres what I said verbatim:

"many of the horizontal designs are a falling rate"

"not to say a horizontal shock cant have a progressive rate"

I wish I could draw you all a picture to explain what Im talking about but obviously at this point its best to just say I was wrong and move on.


----------



## Mr. Blonde (May 18, 2008)

onemission said:


> No I didnt at all!!! :madman:
> 
> heres what I said verbatim:
> 
> ...


Do you have Linkage on your computer? Until you've played with suspension kinematics software extensively you can't possibly have valid opinion here. You're, no doubt, looking at some anecdotal examples. There is NO SUCH rule of thumb or consistency.


----------



## onemission (Aug 11, 2010)

Mr. Blonde said:


> Do you have Linkage on your computer? Until you've played with suspension kinematics software extensively you can't possibly have valid opinion here. You're, no doubt, looking at some anecdotal examples. There is NO SUCH rule of thumb or consistency.


Ive built several suspension system for vehicles, admittadly not bicycles but the same fundamentals apply. Real pompous of you to assume though. Software lol - how do you think suspensions were designed before CAD?

Let me try this again: for simplicties sake, I was wrong, CARRY ON.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

onemission said:


> No I didnt at all!!!


If some have a falling rate and some don't, then the shock placement is moot.


----------



## onemission (Aug 11, 2010)

bad mechanic said:


> If some have a falling rate and some don't, then the shock placement is moot.


True. I was simply trying to state I notice more falling rate on the horizontal shock designs, and its something else to look for, thats all. I apoligize for getting worked up. Please carry on.


----------



## PVR (Oct 29, 2006)

Specialized had a (near) horizontal shock mount for theStumpy for several years before 1998 so its not a new thing. 

Specialized's explanation for the change in 2010, I recall, was that there was less stiction and lower weight (because of less reinforcement needed) with the horizontal mount. Can't find the source for that opinion at the moment however but I'm sure someone can find it.


----------

