# HELP: Saber owners (QR seatpost clamp bottoming on rocker plate)



## PiroChu (Apr 8, 2004)

I have '04 Azonic Saber (17") and I use Salsa Flip-Lock QR seatpost clamp (34.9mm). I've been noticing the occasional bottom-out 'clunk' feel here & there, yet I strangely find that the rubber-ring indicator on the shock (5th Air) is always at 2mm short of spec'ed 2" stroke.

Today, I finally found that it's not the shock that's bottoming out, but instead it's the QR seatpost clamp bottoming out against the rocker plate!! 

I really like Salsa Flip-Lock for its lever shape & feel. I have it mounted so that the closed-lever tip points to the front, in order to match the "slit" on the QR clamp over the "slit" on Saber's seat-tube (which faces the rear).

QUESTION: It it necessary to match the QR clamp's "slit" over the seat-tube's "slit"?

If matching the "slit" isn't necessary, I can certainly mount the clamp so that the closed lever points to the rear. However, while testing that (with the shock dismounted), I found that the tip of the QR lever would now hit the top arch of the seatstays upon bottoming. *Agh!*

So, other Saber owners out there, could you please recommend which QR seatpost clamp you're using that does not cause this problem (& which way you mount it)? I'm thinking that the trick might be to get a QR clamp that has a pretty short lever and mount it with lever pointing to the rear...?

Thanks for your feedback in advance,
- PiroChu


----------



## juice (Feb 8, 2004)

Wow - thanks for posting this. I recently cracked my seat tube right at the bottom of the slit on my '03 large Saber (my fault, not a frame defect). The slit was originally on the front, but after I cut off 1.5", the new slit is now in the back and looks a lot like yours. Yesterday I was riding my bike in a parking lot and noticed it clunked pretty just by jumping off a 2' set of stairs. I'd never even felt the Romic bottom before, so I assumed my shock finally blew after almost 2 years of use. Well, after reading your post I go and look at my frame, which has the shock removed, and I can see that my seat post binder has been hitting my swing arms just like yours. I won't be sending the Romic in for service, I bet there's nothing wrong with it.

On mine it makes sense because I bastardized the frame to "solve" the crack. I'm not sure why yours is doing it. I've got 2 other friends on Sabers, but they're all on Large frames with the slit in the front, so there's no issue.

And to answer your other question - the slit in the binder needs to line up with the slit in the frame otherwise you won't be able to get any torque on the seat post and it'll slide around. My frame came with an Azonic binder.


----------



## juice (Feb 8, 2004)

juice said:


> - the slit in the binder needs to line up with the slit in the frame otherwise you won't be able to get any torque on the seat post and it'll slide around.


Never mind, that was turd-worthy advice. Headed down the the basement and I just spun my seat post clamp around and it seems to work. Holds the seat just fine, and the swing arm now clears the binder. I'm going to grease the binder and seat tube real well to minimize friction.

Justin


----------



## PiroChu (Apr 8, 2004)

*short-lever QR clamps*

Juice,

Thanks for your feedback. I didn't know that the '03 had a slit in the front. I'm not sure why the '04 has a slit in the back, not knowing myself as to which design is more prone (or less) to cracking. I think I also personally prefer to have the slit in the front, so to nicely match the slit of clamp (although you noted it doesn't really matter) and have the lever pointing rear.

Yours came with an Azonic clamp? I bought mine at Wheel World, and it didn't come with one. Just in case, I should give them a call and see if they forgot it (though it's been a while since the purchase already). (EDIT: Wheel World told me that it doesn't come with a collar - at least not the '04 frames they have hanging in their store.)

I searched online for some short-lever QR clamps (to be mounted with lever pointing rear), and I found these three so far. Any other recommendations?

Thanks again,
- PiroChu

Azonic









Supergo









Hope


----------



## juice (Feb 8, 2004)

Mine is the Azonic clamp that you have pictured. The lever, when in the closed position, points backwards and the shock swingarm just clears it due to its shape. The SuperHo might also work, but I'm sure the Hope wouldn't.


----------



## PiroChu (Apr 8, 2004)

*QR clamp with 5" vs 6" travel*

I just picked up a Weyless (Supergo) QR clamp (34.9mm, 44g) on closed-out. (Can't beat $3!)

I tried it with my shock dismounted, and it's all clear now at 5" travel with QR lever pointing rear. But, at 6" travel mode (though I don't use it myself), even the much-shorter QR lever (pointing rear) seems to hit the extra shaft/bolt that's holding the rocker plates upon bottoming. (see pic below)

(NOTE: 7.5" extended eye-to-eye minus 2" stroke equals 5.5" bottomed eye-to-eye)

I wonder how other Saber riders set up with 6" rear travel with QR clamp are dealing with this issue. If the clamp is not a QR, this is no prob, whether at 5" or 6". But I assume most Saber riders are using QR clamps (unless using a non-QR seatpost clamp that's bolted at a lowered-seat position at all times for those who only do shuttle runs?)...

Cheers,
- PiroChu


----------



## maxbacon (Apr 14, 2005)

I have a 2004 17" Saber with Salsa QR, and so far I've not had any problems in 5" mode (although about 4' is the biggest drop I've done so far). I just ordered a spring from Romic so I can start operating in 6" mode. Once I get it setup, I will go do some drops and report back.

I wonder if you can just turn the Salsa QR 90 degrees counter-clockwise to clear the rocker arm and still get good clamp?


----------



## NorKal (Jan 13, 2005)

I guess it doesn't matter now but here's my 2 cents: I just bought the Hope QR collar for my XC bike and I love it. Very well made (like all Hope stuff), they use a brass bushing instead of the typical nylon that always wears out.


----------



## PiroChu (Apr 8, 2004)

*good idea!*

Hi 14TripleD,



14TripleD said:


> I wonder if you can just turn the Salsa QR 90 degrees counter-clockwise to clear the rocker arm and still get good clamp?


That's a great idea! Except..., I'm afraid that the long QR lever of Salsa clamp might stab me in the left thigh. But it's certainly worth a try with my new shorter QR-lever clamp that I just picked up, as long as the rocker plate still doesn't hit it in the bolt-receptor side. I'll check it out, thanks...



14TripleD said:


> I have a 2004 17" Saber with Salsa QR, and so far I've not had any problems in 5" mode (although about 4' is the biggest drop I've done so far). I just ordered a spring from Romic so I can start operating in 6" mode. Once I get it setup, I will go do some drops and report back.


Hummm... that's the same frame size/year (& even the QR clamp) as I have. Which way do you have your Salsa QR clamp currently mounted, lever pointing to front or rear? I wonder if there's something strange with mine.

Yes, I'd love to hear your report later on when you get your new spring for 6" mode.

Also, if/when you get a chance, could you check out yours with your shock disconnected & giving it an imaginary bottom-out eye-to-eye (7.5" - 2.0" = 5.5") to see if anything gets hit? I mean, it's all _very very_ close. Looking at the rubber-ring indicator on my shock shaft, I see that my problem is happening at 96% of the 2" stroke. (49mm / 51mm = 96%)

Anyway, I'll go out for a ride with the new shorter-lever QR clamp after work today to see if I can finally bottom out the "shock" (not the "collar/rocker"!!) actually this time.

Thanks, 
- PiroChu


----------



## juice (Feb 8, 2004)

I don't know if this helps, but here's a pic of my bastard 19" cut down to a 17.5" Saber at full compression. In this pic the crossbar on the rocker arm is touching the seat tube.










And just for kicks, a shot of my beat-to-hell Saber. It actually looks pretty nice in this pic, but if you look close there's a lot of abuse/modifications on every part of this bike.


----------



## PiroChu (Apr 8, 2004)

*Problem solved, with shorter-lever QR clamp (at 5" mode, at least)*

The cheapo $3 Weyless/Supergo QR clamp with a shorter lever (mounted with lever pointing to rear) solved my problem!

I went out yesterday and I finally - for the first time - used up the full stroke out of my shock (51mm or 2"). And, boy, now without the metal-to-metal 'clunk' interrupting the last bit of travel, it felt so smooth & "bottomless" all the way thru the full cycling. While indeed using up the full stroke, I didn't even feel the bottoming shock hitting its internal stopper/bumper, either. I can finally appreciate/enjoy the truly "bottomless" feel that I'm entitled to. (I ended up having too much fun yesterday!)

Last remaining note...
If/when I'd need to use the 6" mode (not that I would yet, 'cause my max drop is only 4 feet), the only way to avoid this problem seems to be to install a non-QR clamp (& use a small hex wrench each time during the ride). Or, take out the 'crossbar' shaft out of the rocker plates (bad idea!). Or, have the shock set up so that I don't achieve the 100% of stroke (defeating the purpose). Though kinda pain, I think the 1st choice would be my best bet out of the three ideas.

Cheers,
- PiroChu

PS. 
Juice, thanks for your pic's. Hey, nice looking bike!


----------



## RED5 (Jan 4, 2004)

*If you want to keep the 6" mode...*



PiroChu said:


> The cheapo $3 Weyless/Supergo QR clamp with a shorter lever (mounted with lever pointing to rear) solved my problem!
> 
> I went out yesterday and I finally - for the first time - used up the full stroke out of my shock (51mm or 2"). And, boy, now without the metal-to-metal 'clunk' interrupting the last bit of travel, it felt so smooth & "bottomless" all the way thru the full cycling. While indeed using up the full stroke, I didn't even feel the bottoming shock hitting its internal stopper/bumper, either. I can finally appreciate/enjoy the truly "bottomless" feel that I'm entitled to. (I ended up having too much fun yesterday!)
> 
> ...


 buy the Hope and do this...


----------



## maxbacon (Apr 14, 2005)

*PiroChu,*

Mine does indeed touch the QR at 5.5 i to i (+ or - 1mm).










I got my new spring last night and am now operating in 6" mode.
I'm going to play on it today and will keep the clanking in mind.


----------



## PiroChu (Apr 8, 2004)

*For 6" travel...*

red5,
Thanks for the idea & pic's. The Hope's 360-degree clamping option may very well be my best bet for running the 6" travel setup. (Much better than my previously mentioned use of non-QR clamp & a hex wrench.) So, I just placed an order for one myself now - will post a pic when I receive the package.
Only, with mine, I probably should run the lever pointing towards the front (kinda horizontal/parallel to the toptube/seattube gusset), rather than pointing down the ground or up the sky.

14TripleD,
Thanks for your confirmation - relieved to know that it wasn't just me/mine. 
Do you think you'll get a Hope to do as red5 posted above, too? Please let me know what solution you'd come up with to run the 6" travel setup on your Saber.

By the way, maybe this problem is rather common among other bikes equipped with long rocker plates, too...

Thanks again,
- PiroChu


----------



## JBsoxB (May 18, 2004)

get a binder that uses a wrench... or do what red said...


----------



## PiroChu (Apr 8, 2004)

*Paging Juice... (5" vs 6" option?)*

Hi Juice,

I've seen other pic of your Saber before...

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?postid=747268

... and you noted that you swap between Super-T and 5" Sherman Firefly.

Do you reset your Romic down to 5" travel option when using with Sherman, or do you always keep your Romic at 6" for both with Super-T & Sherman?

If you've used the "5"/front + 6"/rear" combo, could you comment on its "balance" aboard Saber? I've not yet used that combo, and was just curious/wondering...

Thanks,
- PiroChu


----------



## maxbacon (Apr 14, 2005)

*In 6" mode.....*

CLANK! CLANK! CLANK! CLANK! CLANK!

This was with the sag set to 6.9" i to i. Although it is a new spring, so maybe it was breaking in on the ride and now I have more sag... will have to re-measure.

PiroChu, Let me know how the Hope QR works out. If it solves the problem, I will order one for sure! Or I may have to resort to carrying around an allen wrench in my pocket.

Oh, and the 6" travel mode feels so much nicer than 5! But I was trying to keep up with my friend on his demo9 all day, so it still didn't feel like enough..


----------



## juice (Feb 8, 2004)

I really like how the bike feels with the 5" Sherman and 6" in the back. Very balanced in both the small chattery stuff and the bigger hits. I ride this thing pretty hard and use all my travel basically every ride. 

Since switching between 5" and 6" doesn't change this bike's geometry at all, I don't see any reason to switch back and forth, and I don't have the right spring for running 5" anyway. Just get the proper spring with the right amount of sag.

I weigh in at 180, and have a problem bottoming most forks/bikes. I also like things plush, so balancing that with bottom out resistance is always tricky - but easy with my current setup. With a 600lb spring in 6" mode it feels bottomless, even though I know I'm using all my travel most of the time. My fork is the '03 5" Sherman Firefly with TPC+. One of the best compression damping cartridges ever made in my opinion, and mates up real nice with this setup.

I don't run the SuperT on there anymore since I bought a VP Free for my downhill duty. But the Saber wasn't holding me back any, its a really good 6" of travel. I had to put a LOT of oil and stiff springs in the SuperT to keep it from bottoming - but eventually got it just right. I was on the ragged edge of hydraulic lockout, but didn't want to go any stiffer since I like that plush ride.

Lots of rambling on by me to just say that 6" is great on my xc/trailbike setup.


----------



## PiroChu (Apr 8, 2004)

*Thanks, I'll try 6"...*

14TripleD & juice,

Thanks for you both for your comments on 6" mode. I'll definitely want to give it a try now.



juice said:


> I really like how the bike feels with the 5" Sherman and 6" in the back. Very balanced in both the small chattery stuff and the bigger hits. I ride this thing pretty hard and use all my travel basically every ride. Since switching between 5" and 6" doesn't change this bike's geometry at all, I don't see any reason to switch back and forth, and I don't have the right spring for running 5" anyway. Just get the proper spring with the right amount of sag.


That makes sense - no geometry change is certainly nice.



14TripleD said:


> Oh, and the 6" travel mode feels so much nicer than 5!


Just curious, 14TripleD, what size fork do you use with your Saber at 6"? Also, what's your ride+gear weight & your spring weight, if I may ask?



juice said:


> I weigh in at 180, and have a problem bottoming most forks/bikes. I also like things plush, so balancing that with bottom out resistance is always tricky - but easy with my current setup. With a 600lb spring in 6" mode it feels bottomless, even though I know I'm using all my travel most of the time.


At 6", what sag are you aiming at, 25% or 30%? Looking at mrdy's "Mountain Bike Spring Rate Calculator V4.0" (URL below) for your 180lbs ride weight (while not changing its default "Rear Weight Bias" of 60%), it looks like you chose 25% sag with 600lbs Romic spring. (Did I calculate it correctly?) I'm just curious, because I'm trying to see if I'd want 25% sag (w/ 550lbs Romic spring) or 30% sag (w/ 450lbs Romic spring) at 6". I'm 150lbs + 10~15lbs/gear.

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=8200

Yes, I'll post a pic of Hope QR clamp tonight, as I'm supposed to take in the delivery for it today.

Thanks again,
- PiroChu


----------



## juice (Feb 8, 2004)

My sag ranges from about 25% - 30% depending on how much I preload it. Including gear and my HUGE pack, I'm probably 190 lbs.


----------



## PiroChu (Apr 8, 2004)

*Hope Tech QR clamp: no problem in 6" or 5" mode*

Per red5's recommendation (thanks!), I picked up a Hope Tech QR clamp (34.9mm, 52g), and tested the bottomed-out scenarios. With Hope's flexible 360-degree lever option, there was no clearance issue with it, even in the 6" travel mode. Also, I like the nice "knob" (on the other side of the lever), because this knob is much easier to turn with my fingers than the commonly-seen small allen-bolt head. At the bottomed-out 5.5" stroke in 6" travel mode, nothing is touching anything (see the last pic). 
(NOTE: If anything, the tire will hit the front-drlr cable behind the seattube before anything hits the QR clamp. But that only happens if it's _passed_ the 5.5" stroke bottomed-out situation, which is not applicable in actuality.)

Just as a side note... I clamped the QR lever parallel between the cable and the slope of the seattube/toptube gusset. The cable is just gently resting/touching on the slope of the lever. I may play with it a bit more, but this seems to be good for now. I also tried it pointing down the ground as seen in red5's pic, but the lever tip seemed to bottom out on the frame surface before a sufficient clamping tension was attained, and it was a bit tricky to get my fingers in to unhook the lever. I also tried it pointing up the sky along the seatpost, but I'm afraid that it may hit me in the leg in a crash, although the cables or leg didn't seem to get in its way, per se. Anyway, you can just play around & see.

Cheers,
- PiroChu


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

I always had to run my QR lever straight up on my saber. Looked kooky as hell, but it's what I had to do so the linkage would clear.


----------



## jp3d (Oct 9, 2004)

I just bent and filed down a pretty short and thin QR lever until it cleared everything, like azonic's lever probably does.


----------



## PiroChu (Apr 8, 2004)

*No 'real' 2-inch stroke for Saber (6" mode) !?*

Sorry to keep reviving this thread, but it seems that unfortunately I have not solve this issue completely yet.

I just went out on a test ride with my 5th Air mounted in the 6"-travel mode this time. As I started to hit some bigger stuff that I expected bottoming, I heard the terrible metal-on-metal "clunk" again, at about 48mm out of 51mm stroke (94%). Checking it out closely, I now see a ding on my new Hope QR-clamp collar, hitting against the crossbar of the rocker plates. (pic below) I guess I previously didn't measure the 6"-mode bottom-out scenario correctly, so there still is an issue with this after all. In which case, no collar (QR or bolt-on) will really work on Saber. 

On that note, I closely re-examined my barely-used Romic that came stock on Saber, and I noticed that there's a rubber-ring bumper along the shaft. For the 7.5"x2.0" size, the shaft indeed measures to be 2.0", but the rubber-ring bumper is 3/8" thick. So, the _actual_ stroke I'd get out of this Romic is 1-5/8", not 2.0", meaning that the bumper will bottom out at about 81% of spec'ed 2-inch stroke. Is that right!? 

If that's correct, when mounting Romic at 5" mode on Saber, the actual travel is only 4.05" (81% of 5"). And, when mounting Romic at 6" mode on Saber, the actual travel is only 4.86" (81% of 6"). Is that right!? 

An air shock that's 7.5"x2.0" actually yields a full 2.0" stroke upon bottoming. So, if above is correct, then my 5th Air set at the 5" mode yields more travel than Romic set at the 6" mode. And as for a 7.5"x2.0" air shock set at the 6" mode, I guess Saber wasn't really designed to take a true 2.0" stroke at the 6" mode after all. Is that right!? 

Anyway, I had to re-mount my 5th Air back down to the 5" mode half way thru the ride today. And I think I'm going to keep it that way.

Thanks again for reading,
- PiroChu


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

PiroChu said:


> On that note, I closely re-examined my barely-used Romic that came stock on Saber, and I noticed that there's a rubber-ring bumper along the shaft. For the 7.5"x2.0" size, the shaft indeed measures to be 2.0", but the rubber-ring bumper is 3/8" thick. So, the _actual_ stroke I'd get out of this Romic is 1-5/8", not 2.0", meaning that the bumper will bottom out at about 81% of spec'ed 2-inch stroke. Is that right!?


No, that's not right. The rubber bumper compresses to the size of maybe about 1mm or less when you hit something very large, or do a large drop. It keeps the metal face of the shock body from slamming against the end of the shaft, and while you won't be able to make it compress by just sitting on it, rest assured it compresses. I've blown one out when I had too light of a spring rate, and I can tell you first hand that it compresses down to almost nothing.

What is right though is that there's a problem with the seatpost collar/QR on the saber.


----------



## PiroChu (Apr 8, 2004)

*17" Saber 6"-mode design, not collar or shock*

Jm,
Thanks for the info, as that would make more sense about the Romic rubber-ring bumper. (Romic is my 1st coil shock, and I still don't know much about it, not having used it much at all, hahah...) 

So, coil or air, it's not the shock. And, QR or bolt-on, it's not the seatpost collar, either. It's the Saber design in 6" mode (the way rocker plates swing, the location of crossbar, etc) that's rather at fault in this case (at least for '04 size 17"). Since I observed the collar hitting the crossbar at about 94% of the full stroke in the 6" mode, realistically the _actual_ attainable travel is only about < 5.64". (Right?)

With that, I think I'm going to safely keep mine in the 5" mode for an _honest_ 5" travel, rather than aiming for the extra half an inch (not even a full inch) more travel in the 6" mode with the potential risk of metal-to-metal "clunk". (No sure way of diligently setting up the shock to attain only 94% of its travel.) On that note, I think I'm even going to sell my new Hope QR (though it's certainly a very nice clamp), because my new $3 Supergo QR clamp (compact) simply clears the crossbar in the 5" mode. 

Thanks again,
- PiroChu


----------



## maxbacon (Apr 14, 2005)

PiroChu, thanks for all of your research.
I am running an '04 Z1 FR on the front and it feels like its meant for this bike. 
It feels nicely balanced on the Saber in 6 (but as you revealed its not really 6, so maybe thats why it feels nicely balanced?). 
I'm running a 650# spring and I weigh probably ~175 with gear. 
I have one full turn of compression and I'm getting ~6.8" of i to i sag. 
It feels great, but that salsa/rocker arm clank is annoying so I went ahead and ordered a hope from JensonUSA. 
Hopefully I can get full travel with the romic coil / hope QR combo. 
I imagine the metal hitting metal interference sends unwanted energy throughout the frame which will eventually lead to failure, 
so me want to get ride of this problem ASAP. 
One thing I do like about the Saber is at $799 for the frame, 
I can beat the h3ll out of it and not worry about destroying a $2000 frame.


----------



## Merrimack Dave (Jan 31, 2004)

*Thanks for the heads up Pirochu.*

It's rare to find such a load of Saber information in one place.

I just checked my 04 frame, with one of those cheap but very stealthy, Supergo seat clamps. It's a 19" that I generally run in the 5" mode with my Romic, and there are no rub marks or dings.

Last week I bought a used "Itch Switch" equipped Fox Float R on Ebay that was originally on an Enduro, with the intention of getting it Pushed. The shock is actually 7.650" rather than the advertised 7.5" and the travel is actually 1.875 in long travel, and 1.375" in short. Which I believe would create roughly 5.625 (itch switch long travel) and 4.250 (itch switch short travel) in the 6" setting. This setup will slightly elevate the suspension path and possibly prevent the bottoming on clamp problem.

I tried it for the first time last Saturday on a grueling 30 mile mud slog in New Hampshire's Mink Hills, and was blown away! In the 6" mode I added 45 pounds to my weight when filling the shock and it remained very active, soaking up everything. When the hills were fairly smooth, I flipped the switch and the rear end dramatically firmed right up, without even a slight geometry change, amazing.

I wanted to get a solid feel for the shock before I invested in the Push mod, so that I could determine if this was a suitable shock for it, and also, so that I could have an honest and more knowledgeable opinion of it's performance afterwards. I'll let you how it is, When Pushed in a couple of weeks. 

Dave


----------



## Merrimack Dave (Jan 31, 2004)

I also wanted to mention that I run a 5" fork and 6" in the rear, and it seems perfect for the fast trail riding that I use it for. No big drops for me.  

What a great bike!


----------



## Severum (Sep 9, 2003)

This is totally a 17" frame issue. My 19" 2004 doesn't even come close at full travel. Tried the RP3 and the Romic, same end result.


----------



## Robot Chicken (Jun 3, 2005)

How do you guys like the Azonic Saber frame?

I've heard people complain of the rear end being flexy, is this true?

What frames can you compare it too?


----------



## Merrimack Dave (Jan 31, 2004)

Hey R.C., my only other full suspension bikes were a 97 Diamondback V- Link and a 2001 Diamondback XTS-3. They both had bushings, rather than bearings, and both quickly developed side to side play.

The Saber is SOLID as a rock, and the suspension is very smooth.


----------



## Robot Chicken (Jun 3, 2005)

Merrimack Dave said:


> Hey R.C., my only other full suspension bikes were a 97 Diamondback V- Link and a 2001 Diamondback XTS-3. They both had bushings, rather than bearings, and both quickly developed side to side play.
> 
> The Saber is SOLID as a rock, and the suspension is very smooth.


Cool. Thanks for the feedback.

Side note:

Ohh crap. I just noticed my name is RC!! I don't like being associated with that idiot.


----------



## juice (Feb 8, 2004)

Severum said:


> This is totally a 17" frame issue. My 19" 2004 doesn't even come close at full travel. Tried the RP3 and the Romic, same end result.


True, the 19's work just fine without any clearance issues - but all of them seem to work ok in 5" mode like what you have pictured.

Hey Chicken - they're great bikes _if_ you get a 19" inch and if you don't mind fiddling with the shock spacers to prevent clunking. In my mind its a fantastic design and a nice burly trailbike build, but Azonic's testing and quality control leaves a little bit to be desired as you can read here in this thread. But for the $800 that they're going for its hard to beat since the competition costs $1800+ (5spot or 6pack).

I read someone had flex issues, but my bike is solid as a rock. Any flex I have comes more from the wheels than from the frame. (I need to re-tension my spokes before I blow my rims apart).


----------



## Severum (Sep 9, 2003)

I agree, the Saber is top notch. I had to fiddle with spacing for the shock as well. I could care less though. As long as I get it working and I know how it works, I am happy happy happy. 

Btw, the 19" will not hit in the 6" mode. No flex in mine either.


----------



## jp3d (Oct 9, 2004)

To fix the issues with the 17" all you need to do is Sand/File/Grind/Cut/Bend your QR and clamp until it clears the frame competely when the cross-bolt hits the seat-tube. It takes like half an hour, just start with a thin, short lever. Nothing like knowing you have a one-of-a-kind custom machined QR lever


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Robot Chicken said:


> How do you guys like the Azonic Saber frame?
> 
> I've heard people complain of the rear end being flexy, is this true?
> 
> What frames can you compare it too?


Yes, the rear end is pretty flexy, especially compared to my turner 6 pack. The bearings don't do anything to prevent sideways (tortional) flex, while bushings can take huge tortional loads. Take the rear end of a saber and try to move it back and forth, it moves quite a bit. I still have the frame, but I don't use it anymore. It's ok for the money, but it's not the stiffest bike.


----------



## Severum (Sep 9, 2003)

Jm. said:


> Yes, the rear end is pretty flexy, especially compared to my turner 6 pack. The bearings don't do anything to prevent sideways (tortional) flex, while bushings can take huge tortional loads. Take the rear end of a saber and try to move it back and forth, it moves quite a bit. I still have the frame, but I don't use it anymore. It's ok for the money, but it's not the stiffest bike.


Let's look at this another way. What bikes with similar abilities and frame weight flex less or more? I wonder how much a heckler will flex.

I'm guessing the 6 pack is stiffer torsionally due to the bushings? Do you think that the Saber would be equally stiff if it were designed with bushings?


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Severum said:


> Do you think that the Saber would be equally stiff if it were designed with bushings?


No, the turner has the 3d link, the one piece CNCed BB shell, pivot, and shock mount, RAD tubing, bulged seat tube, etc...

But the bushings make the biggest difference, FSR designs are hard to make "stiff", the saber is no exception. The saber was about as stiff as my iron horse, but my turner is in another league. I rode a foes for a while after I got off the saber, that really made the "flex" issue clear to me, I could feel the saber deflecting off all sorts of stuff where the foes would just track straight.


----------



## PiroChu (Apr 8, 2004)

*misc: filing off seatpost clamp, $799 deal, chainstay wrap, etc*

While it's still a bummer to find out that the 17" frame has this 6" mode problem, at least now we know what the issue is with what, etc, thanks to all your feedbacks. 
(On that note, wasn't there some 90's rap song that went like, "_I wish I was a little bit taller..., I wish I was a..., so that I could ride a 19" Saber in 6" mode!!_" - hahah - sigh  )

A few miscellaneous thoughts...

*filing off seatpost clamp*


jp3d said:


> To fix the issues with the 17" all you need to do is Sand/File/Grind/Cut/Bend your QR and clamp until it clears the frame competely when the cross-bolt hits the seat-tube.


jp3d, do you also have a 17" frame to have to do this? If so, could you post a pic to show how much you had to file down yours? (Hope Tech QR or not, I think that the "collar" portion that hits the crossbar is pretty much the same size/thickness with any clamps.) Since I have an already ding'ed Hope QR and an AA-battery-operated light-duty mini-Dremel with a grind attachment), I may attempt this. But, looking at my ding at 94% travel, I'm afraid that I'll really have to file down quite a bit. Of course, first I'll have to very carefully re-measure the 100% bottom-out scenario in 6" mode on my 17" frame again. I'm thinking that, if it turns out that the crossbar hits the seattube itself (without the collar mounted) before reaching 100% travel, then no amount of clamp filing will really work for my 17" Saber. If not, I'm still happy with my 5"/5" setup. Anyway, I'll check it out later...









*$799 deal*
Since I saw some folks showing an interest in Saber, I see that the $799 deal is still going on, which is how I got mine, too. They must be getting rid of their stock before the new Saber-replacement "Samurai" comes out. (Of course I'd wonder how the 17" Samurai in 6" mode handles its 100% travel.)

*chainstay wrap*
Since I saw some folks showing an interest in Saber, here's a small note on "cosmetics", when wrapping an old tube around the drive-side chainstay as a chain-slap protector. Be sure to run it a bit longer than I initially had!  
With my bike up-side-down, I was re-tightening my crank arms yesterday, and noticed that the underside area of my drive-side chainstay that's near the chainrings was all ding'ed up from chain-slapping. (pic below) I should've known better, but bummer that I'd missed covering/wrapping that area (for ~ 500 miles by now).
Anyway, I re-did my wrap a bit longer this time, and I was also glad to see that the extra wrap near the chainrings still cleared fine with my 2.35 Kenda BG tire (non-UST). I'm not certain whether or not it'll have enough clearance with bigger tires, though, as I've not run anything bigger myself.

Cheers,
- PiroChu


----------



## jp3d (Oct 9, 2004)

Take the shock off, bust out the dremmel and cut away the back of the collar until you can bottom the frame on itself and not the clamp, them you should be fine. Cutting away the seatpost coller probably isn't going to make any difference at all as far as seat-clamping strength - I don't think a moddifed seat collar is ever going to fail.


----------



## maxbacon (Apr 14, 2005)

PiroChu said:


> *$799 deal*
> Since I saw some folks showing an interest in Saber, I see that the $799 deal is still going on, which is how I got mine, too. They must be getting rid of their stock before the new Saber-replacement "Samurai" comes out. (Of course I'd wonder how the 17" Samurai in 6" mode handles its 100% travel.)


The poopy scoop is that Azonic is not gonna offer the Samurai to the US market.. So 'dis be it for the cheapo true 4-bar.


----------



## PiroChu (Apr 8, 2004)

*no more 'cheapo true 4-bar'*



14TripleD said:


> So 'dis be it for the cheapo true 4-bar.


Oh, no..., no more "cheapo true 4-bar" ...!









I love my "_cheapo_ true 4-bar" - the best kind of "true 4-bar" for me & my wallet.


----------



## PiroChu (Apr 8, 2004)

*Solution for 6" mode with 17" Saber frame*

I don't mean to revive this thread yet once again, but while I was lurking around in the "Let's Talk About Shocks" forum, FM from the "Turner" forum gave me a great idea to solve this problem that doesn't require any filing down of seatpost collar, etc. Anyway, I wanted to share this with other unlucky 17"-frame owners like myself here. (I take no credit for this, but I'm certainly thankful for his great idea.)

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?postid=947656









As described in his post (URL above), he cleverly stacked some thin hard-rubber washers in order to prevent the trouble-causing last bit of ending-stroke range. Per his advice, I went to a local ACE Hardware's plumbing aisle to look for some of those that are of an appropriate size. I picked up a few different ones to try, but ended up using a 4mm-thick hard-rubber washer. Just cut the washer to give it an opening/slit so that you can slide/wrap it around the shock shaft. Also, when cutting a slit, be sure to slice it diagnolly (not straight) so that the cut ends can meet/sit better together. I contemplated as to where to place the washer along the shock shaft, but I ended up putting it at the bottom of the shaft, securely pushed/kept down by the Romic rubber bumper. Upon many hits, the washer stayed on and didn't fall out even once so far (though I'd still carry a few extra's in my pack, just in case).

As you recall from my previous post above, in 6" mode on 17" frame, the crossbar-to-collar bottoming happens at 48mm out of 51mm stroke (94% of 2.0" stroke = 5.6" rear travel). So, with 4mm-thick washwer, the the shock's stroke conveniently stops at 47mm of 51mm stroke (92% of 2.0" stroke = 5.5" rear travel), just before the metal-to-metal bottoming of crossbar and collar. Unlike the Romic rubber bumper, this hard-rubber washer doesn't seem to "squish to nothing" upon bottoming, holding much of its original thickness. Also, I am still using the Hope Tech QR clamp (with lever pointing front) with this setup.

Anyway, I went out on a couple of test rides over the weekend to try to bottom it out, and I didn't hear any metal "clunks" thru the bigger stuff that I knew I'd always bottom out the shock. Luckily the shock stroke feels smooth all the way, and it doesn't feel like it's suddenly being stopped short by the washer or anything, either. So, I think this problem is _finally_ resolved for sure! 

It's still true that, with 17" frame, 6" mode can only provide 5.5" rear travel. But that's actually quite sufficient for me, because I was more interested in the feel of 6"-mode leverage ratio and spring curve, not in the extra half an inch of travel, per se. (I couldn't stand how the 5" mode felt with Romic even with a lighter 450lbs spring, while interestingly on the other hand 5th Air felt better in 5" mode than in 6" mode to me personally.) By the way, if you also happen to like the leverage ratio and spring curve of 6" mode but only want to have 5" rear travel for some reason, technically you can just stack 2 of those 4mm washers so that it'll stop at 43mm out of 51mm stroke (84% of 2.0" stroke in 6" mode = 5" rear wheel travel).

Anyway, if you have a 17"-frame Saber, check it out.

Once again, many thanks to FM for sharing his great idea,
- PiroChu


----------



## FM (Apr 30, 2003)

Glad it worked out for you!

I can't take credit for the idea though- Tscheezy originally suggested it to me. So any props go to him. Sure is a nice cheap fix though, huh?





PiroChu said:


> I don't mean to revive this thread yet once again, but while I was lurking around in the "Let's Talk About Shocks" forum, FM from the "Turner" forum gave me a great idea to solve this problem that doesn't require any filing down of seatpost collar, etc. Anyway, I wanted to share this with other unlucky 17"-frame owners like myself here. (I take no credit for this, but I'm certainly thankful for his great idea.)- PiroChu


----------

