# Best suspension system for the big lads



## TheNatureBoy (Aug 7, 2017)

I’m 6 5 245 solid

VPP v Horst link v DW v re aktiv

I have used VPP and found pedal
Striking common.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## matadorCE (Jun 26, 2013)

Leverage ratio is a much bigger player IMO


----------



## huckleberry hound (Feb 27, 2015)

Low bottom bracket is the biggest player IMO.


----------



## TheNatureBoy (Aug 7, 2017)

matadorCE said:


> Leverage ratio is a much bigger player IMO


What does that mean ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## TheNatureBoy (Aug 7, 2017)

huckleberry hound said:


> Low bottom bracket is the biggest player IMO.


I would agree with that .

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

TheNatureBoy said:


> I'm 6 5 245 solid
> 
> VPP v Horst link v DW v re aktiv
> 
> ...


Older "VPP" blew through the travel because they had wonky leverage curves that exaggerated flat-mid-stroke shock issues. Since they moved the shock to the lower position on most frames, this has eliminated the crazy leverage curve and straightened things up a lot.

In general, most bikes these days are doing around 100% anti-squat through about 1/2 of the travel. Some of the newer horst-links have flattened out their AS curve a lot, so it mimics what a DW link can do. Some like Evil and Canfield achieve a similar AS curve with totally different designs. The more or less constant is most have moved towards 110-90% AS through at least half the travel, then either linearly deceasing or progressively decreasing after about that mark or a little further.

What does this mean? Not much. It doesn't have much bearing on anything related to heavy riders. That's all leverage ratio and other design elements.

In general, you want a low leverage rate, 2:1 ideally, 2.5 or 2.6:1 probably max. Anything higher than that is generally a bad idea for heavier riders. It makes it hard to get the right spring rate or you are maxing out shock pressure. A lot of air shocks have moved to much higher volume setups that require more pressure than older ones. Luckily a few makers have upped the max pressures accordingly, but you are still stressing everything more with a higher LR. Other things you want to consider are the shock bolts, you want as short as possible. Short means less leverage on the bolt itself and less chance of bending. Beefy stout links. Some of the single-pivot bikes like the old SC heckler are a bad idea, because the rear triangle can easily flex side to side and there's nothing on the top-side of the triangle preventing this flex. The shock becomes a stressed member in the system and this leads to all around poor performance and increased shock ware. Similarly, "shock yoke" designs like Specialized loves to do are also something to avoid. This also puts increased stress on the shock and often leads to premature shock failure. Look for large sized pivot bearings.

A lot of how a bike "feels" comes down to the leverage curve and the shock type and tune. This tends to vary quite a bit, with some manufacturers not really setting up the bike properly or with questionable tunes. Some on the other hand tend to nail it. Being a heavy rider, you almost always benefit from a custom shock tune, although only certain shocks can be tuned aftermarket or are available with a specific rider tune. This is also something important to consider, you want a bike with a common shock size, not some proprietary BS or uncommon size. Metric vs. standard doesn't really matter as long as it's not something wacky.

If you don't want to go the custom route, I would highly recommend to look for something with a Fox X2, DHX2, CCDB or Ohlins type shock. These tend to be very tunable for high speed compression and high speed rebound, which is key to setting up the shock to significantly different weight riders. Performance won't be as good as a custom setup, but it's probably the next best thing. What to avoid would be things like Fox DPX2, DPS, RS Deluxe, SID-anything, Bomber CR. These either won't be reliable or they won't be tunable for higher weight.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

TheNatureBoy said:


> What does that mean ?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


That means the ratio of the wheel travel to the shock stroke is what dictates how much stress is put on the shock and frame/bearings.


----------



## TheNatureBoy (Aug 7, 2017)

Jayem said:


> Older "VPP" blew through the travel because they had wonky leverage curves that exaggerated flat-mid-stroke shock issues. Since they moved the shock to the lower position on most frames, this has eliminated the crazy leverage curve and straightened things up a lot.
> 
> In general, most bikes these days are doing around 100% anti-squat through about 1/2 of the travel. Some of the newer horst-links have flattened out their AS curve a lot, so it mimics what a DW link can do. Some like Evil and Canfield achieve a similar AS curve with totally different designs. The more or less constant is most have moved towards 110-90% AS through at least half the travel, then either linearly deceasing or progressively decreasing after about that mark or a little further.
> 
> ...


Damn that is super informative!

I'm looking @ the Stumpjumper Evo expert v Ripmo v SCHT S kit.

However all seem to have the rear shocks you advise against .

Is the leverage ratio listed anywhere ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

TheNatureBoy said:


> Damn that is super informative!
> 
> I'm looking @ the Stumpjumper Evo expert v Ripmo v SCHT S kit.
> 
> ...


Yes, you can calculate the leverage ratio by taking wheel travel and dividing it by the shock stroke, all of which will be listed on the specs for the bike.

Yes, those bikes incorporate several design features that are not conductive to heavier riders, including the yoke-linkages, shocks that are not tuned to heavier riders and/or not appropriate for heavier riders, and so on. I had a Specialized Enduro from a few years ago and while I was not a clyde, one thing that was evident was the frame really wasn't intended to last more than a couple seasons. The rear seatstay had a bearing design that couldn't be removed and it was basically just a disposable part, not good. For some some people will come and say they are riding these frames and they are "just fine", but if you want to set yourself up for success and with as much in your favor as possible, you'll keep looking.

Even a newer Santa Cruz like a hightower would avoid most of these issues. LR is 2.63, importantly the LC is decent, no strange shock mounts, comes with a RS Super Deluxe, which can be re-valved by Vorsprung Suspension in BC. Not that you should get that bike specifically, just that it would be better than the other two you mentioned from a design standpoint.


----------



## TheNatureBoy (Aug 7, 2017)

Jayem said:


> Yes, you can calculate the leverage ratio by taking wheel travel and dividing it by the shock stroke, all of which will be listed on the specs for the bike.
> 
> Yes, those bikes incorporate several design features that are not conductive to heavier riders, including the yoke-linkages, shocks that are not tuned to heavier riders and/or not appropriate for heavier riders, and so on. I had a Specialized Enduro from a few years ago and while I was not a clyde, one thing that was evident was the frame really wasn't intended to last more than a couple seasons. The rear seatstay had a bearing design that couldn't be removed and it was basically just a disposable part, not good. For some some people will come and say they are riding these frames and they are "just fine", but if you want to set yourself up for success and with as much in your favor as possible, you'll keep looking.
> 
> Even a newer Santa Cruz like a hightower would avoid most of these issues. LR is 2.63, importantly the LC is decent, no strange shock mounts, comes with a RS Super Deluxe, which can be re-valved by Vorsprung Suspension in BC. Not that you should get that bike specifically, just that it would be better than the other two you mentioned from a design standpoint.


Thanks for you feedback ! Especially on the specialized .

I mentioned the Ripmo because it has the Fox suspension you recommended + Carbon wheels.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

TheNatureBoy said:


> Thanks for you feedback ! Especially on the specialized .
> 
> I mentioned the Ripmo because it has the Fox suspension you recommended + Carbon wheels.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Yeah, but it has the yoke-mount for the rear suspension, that's not a good idea for heavier riders. They use it to "get around" the seat-tube, but these tend to side-load shocks. Pivot makes similar-travel bikes with DW link suspension without this feature, except they really like the DPX-2 style shocks...but luckily it would be easy to switch the shock on the design due to it being a common size and not proprietary.


----------



## masonmoa (Jul 11, 2011)

Avoid the Speshy. Just my 2 cents.

I'm a big dude who owns three Ibises and another bike, and they all have yoke-mount suspension design. Bigger than you anyway. I haven't had any problems. Granted all of them are fairly newish, but still, not something I'd really be concerned with at your weight. You're still well within the standard deviation as far as weight is concerned.


----------



## masonmoa (Jul 11, 2011)

Btw, just thought I'd add that the leverage ratio for the Ripmo is less than ideal for my weight, and it's taken some work to get it where I need it, but at your weight, you're perfectly fine. It's a fun bike, although way more bike than I and many others need.


----------



## TheNatureBoy (Aug 7, 2017)

masonmoa said:


> Btw, just thought I'd add that the leverage ratio for the Ripmo is less than ideal for my weight, and it's taken some work to get it where I need it, but at your weight, you're perfectly fine. It's a fun bike, although way more bike than I and many others need.


Way more bike as in ? Sluggish ? 
Wouldn't a guy your size need / want the extra suspension?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## matadorCE (Jun 26, 2013)

huckleberry hound said:


> Low bottom bracket is the biggest player IMO.


What does being a heavy rider have anything to do with the bottom bracket height?


----------



## masonmoa (Jul 11, 2011)

Bad leverage ratio with low BB height means lots of peddle strikes.

As for Rip being a lot of bike, it’s not necessarily a bad thing. Just depends on what you like. Bigger travel bikes aren’t as efficient. And I don’t need that much travel on 75% of what I regularly ride. That’s why I have other shorter travel bikes.

Also, In the past I did need a bigger travel bike b/c I needed something burly. But these days, with the low and slack geo, there’s plenty strong shorter travel bikes that’ll work. 

I don’t know, since Covid hit, I’ve seen a lot of folks who are newbs on bikes way beyond their skill level. Can create unearned confidence=getting hurt.


----------



## Brules (Jul 10, 2021)

Outside of the link/ratio discussion etc - do know the new fox float x requires 40% less psi so it’s a solid option for Clyde’s in certain situations.


----------



## Don_1138 (Apr 19, 2016)

I'm 6'4", 220-225 and I love my Canfield Lithium. The CBF suspension platform is very supportive and pedals incredibly well, especially for a long-travel 29er. Plenty of pop/support out of corners and off features. No harsh bottom outs.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Don_1138 said:


> I'm 6'4", 220-225 and I love my Canfield Lithium. The CBF suspension platform is very supportive and pedals incredibly well, especially for a long-travel 29er. Plenty of pop/support out of corners and off features. No harsh bottom outs.


I have been really interested in the Revel Ranger or Rail that uses the CBF. Thinking the rail might be better suited to big riders as the frame is more Stout, but I don't really need that much travel. 

I really care more about how the suspension handles the weight and forces exerted by our mass, especially with regards to climbing, actually more specifically out of the saddle climbing. 

I have loved hardtails or rigid bikes because they don't care as much about rider weight (rigid could care less). No worries about fork dive or hang up, just lift the front and and roll. I have been looking for that magical fs that is stout, agile, and doesn't feel numb. Have yet to really find that bike yet, and all the new stuff with 65hta just doesn't make sense for Midwest riding.


----------



## JonJones (Feb 12, 2012)

As a 193cm and 107kg rider I've found to my cost the challenge of a high leverage ratio on a bike. It just made finding the sweet spot on suspension set up very difficult. Being under or oversprung means the ride is seldom right.

I'd also check overall geometry.
Many manufacturers make the XL frame rear centre the same as the small frame size. So as the front gets bigger, it becomes less well balanced.
Look for brands that make a decent change through each size and not just a few mm.

STA is critical too, steeper can help keep your weight centred especially as we tend to have higher saddle height.

Finally stack height matters so you're not too high or low at the front end. This is more solvable with riser bars and spacers though.


----------



## LaCostaClydesdale (Aug 1, 2013)

I am 6'4" ~220lbs.
I ride a Yeti SB130 Lunch Ride and it has held up great! Has a Fox DPX2 that I had custom tuned, which helped considerably. The frame geo has long reach + steep seat tube (505 reach on XL). You fit a 200mm drop post in it as well. 

Prior to that I rode a XXL YT Capra pro race (29er) and that suspension held up well for my weight and actually climbed well for the suspension design. It was a very progressive suspension. believe the new capra has softened up a bit. My problem with that bike was that it was looooong wheel base (yeti has same reach but super short chainstays for 29er). You have to be doing 18-20mph to get that thing to turn. As long as you are pinning it, the bike is awesome. But it is a lot to move around, not so nimble.

I'd prioritize as follows: a) Geo - is the reach and seat tube angle putting you in the best spot for climbing efficiency and weighting front tire on the downs, b) dropper post insertion - can you run a 200mm dropper (you need it at 6'4" or more) c) Brakes - 200mm front and rear for you Clyde. most bikes only go 180 rear, but have your shop put a 200 on the rear) d) shock type - you likely need to custom tune whatever you buy. The bell curve ends at 200lbs so no one is designing an air shock and frame for your weight.

agree with the other posts about "yoke" designs and putting too much stress on a single area and causing flex or fatigue of the part. The yeti had some reputation about the rear triangle being flexy but I don't notice that. Only downside is the rear travel is only 137mm (Lunch Ride) which means you have to dial in your sag just right because the mid-stroke is pretty small range.

Good luck with the purchase!




TheNatureBoy said:


> I’m 6 5 245 solid
> 
> VPP v Horst link v DW v re aktiv
> 
> ...


----------



## TheNatureBoy (Aug 7, 2017)

LaCostaClydesdale said:


> I am 6'4" ~220lbs.
> I ride a Yeti SB130 Lunch Ride and it has held up great! Has a Fox DPX2 that I had custom tuned, which helped considerably. The frame geo has long reach + steep seat tube (505 reach on XL). You fit a 200mm drop post in it as well.
> 
> Prior to that I rode a XXL YT Capra pro race (29er) and that suspension held up well for my weight and actually climbed well for the suspension design. It was a very progressive suspension. believe the new capra has softened up a bit. My problem with that bike was that it was looooong wheel base (yeti has same reach but super short chainstays for 29er). You have to be doing 18-20mph to get that thing to turn. As long as you are pinning it, the bike is awesome. But it is a lot to move around, not so nimble.
> ...


Excellent information thx !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## whatshubdoc (Oct 8, 2015)

6'2" 230lb here.

Here is an article from PB describing the low leverage ratio to look for, explaining why and what bikes have the number you are seeking. 



https://www.pinkbike.com/u/PHeller/blog/low-leverage-ratio-bikes.html



Another bike that comes to mind is the RAAW Madonna, where they have a link that's designed for Clydes. 

That being said, I personally ride an EVIL and despite my pre-purchase concerns of running too high pressure with the high(er) leverage ratio (avg. 2.67, starting ~3.1), the bike is probably the best bike I've ridden. My previous bike was a Transition Smuggler (on that low leverage ratio list up top), before that a Santa Cruz Tallboy (hated it), SB 95 (too linear), and that's about it as far as full suspension bikes go. 

I see a few mentions of a Ripmo. I've ridden the Ripmo AF a few times, and helped my buddy mod it a bunch as well. No problems whatsoever at my weight. I think it climbs better than the EVIL but has less pop on the way down.

Oh, and someone mentioned "standing climbing". FWIW, EVIL bikes have more grip standing that seated. At spots where you'd expect to spin out while standing, the DELTA link digs in and drives you up - this is even more so than the Ripmo AF. So, pick your poison depending on your style. 

Hope this is helpful.


----------



## SeaHag (Jul 14, 2011)

As a fellow Clydesdale rider, I'd suggest taking a look at the Salsa line of full suspension Split Pivot bikes: The Engineering Behind Salsa Cycles’ Full-Suspension Bikes « Mountain Flyer Magazine

I had test ridden Specialized, Trek and Niner full suspension bikes in that 2015-2016 era and was disappointed in the energy wasting, bobbing performance when out of the saddle; whether it be sprinting or pumping terrain. This was without any in depth tuning beyond setting air spring pressure for proper sag. Then one day I was in our local shop [Nicollet Bike Shop] and saw a new Salsa Spearfish on the show floor. While the 100mm XC platform didn't appeal to me, the bike looked good and I was granted a short test ride. The way the Salsa Spearfish with Split Pivot suspension performed sold me. When sprinting out of the saddle it wasn't a pogo stick and feels more efficient that any others I've had the priviledge of riding. Now four years on in ownership of a 2017 Pony Rustler, I can attest to it's abilities more. I have ridden this bike all over Minnesota, three trips to Bentonville, some Wisconsin and U.P. offerings. I added the MRP ramp control to the FOX 34 fork and a Vorsprung suspension volume spacer to the FOX DPS shock to allow me to use lower air pressure for small bump sensitivity, without bottoming out on the big stuff. I've jumped 25-30' tabletops, hit 5-6' drops to slope and charged numerous rock gardens. Sometimes I crash...and the bike hasn't broken. Considering I've been riding it as such while weighing as much as 295# at times, I'm really impressed with it's durability and performance. Currently weighing in at 232#, I'm hoping the bike is enjoying less of a beat down when we hit the bike parks.


----------



## TheNatureBoy (Aug 7, 2017)

whatshubdoc said:


> 6'2" 230lb here.
> 
> Here is an article from PB describing the low leverage ratio to look for, explaining why and what bikes have the number you are seeking.
> 
> ...


Excellent stuff thank you ! 
I’ll look @ that raaw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## TheNatureBoy (Aug 7, 2017)

SeaHag said:


> As a fellow Clydesdale rider, I'd suggest taking a look at the Salsa line of full suspension Split Pivot bikes: The Engineering Behind Salsa Cycles’ Full-Suspension Bikes « Mountain Flyer Magazine
> 
> I had test ridden Specialized, Trek and Niner full suspension bikes in that 2015-2016 era and was disappointed in the energy wasting, bobbing performance when out of the saddle; whether it be sprinting or pumping terrain. This was without any in depth tuning beyond setting air spring pressure for proper sag. Then one day I was in our local shop [Nicollet Bike Shop] and saw a new Salsa Spearfish on the show floor. While the 100mm XC platform didn't appeal to me, the bike looked good and I was granted a short test ride. The way the Salsa Spearfish with Split Pivot suspension performed sold me. When sprinting out of the saddle it wasn't a pogo stick and feels more efficient that any others I've had the priviledge of riding. Now four years on in ownership of a 2017 Pony Rustler, I can attest to it's abilities more. I have ridden this bike all over Minnesota, three trips to Bentonville, some Wisconsin and U.P. offerings. I added the MRP ramp control to the FOX 34 fork and a Vorsprung suspension volume spacer to the FOX DPS shock to allow me to use lower air pressure for small bump sensitivity, without bottoming out on the big stuff. I've jumped 25-30' tabletops, hit 5-6' drops to slope and charged numerous rock gardens. Sometimes I crash...and the bike hasn't broken. Considering I've been riding it as such while weighing as much as 295# at times, I'm really impressed with it's durability and performance. Currently weighing in at 232#, I'm hoping the bike is enjoying less of a beat down when we hit the bike parks.


I like Salsa fat bikes and their Warbird gravel - I’ll take a look @ their split pivot .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## matadorCE (Jun 26, 2013)

whatshubdoc said:


> 6'2" 230lb here.
> 
> Here is an article from PB describing the low leverage ratio to look for, explaining why and what bikes have the number you are seeking.
> 
> ...


Good info but it's dated at this point. Reality is that a lot of bikes that used to be "clyde friendly" are no longer the case (e.g. Santa Cruz) since the trend is to have a high leverage ratio at the start of the travel and through the sag point for good small bump sensitivity, as well as get a good amount of progression for bottom out control. From the data I've seen over at Linkage Designs blog, Yeti and Transition are the popular brands still using relatively low leverage ratios. You can add the Kona Process line to the list, as well as the Marin Alpine Trail.


----------



## TheNatureBoy (Aug 7, 2017)

matadorCE said:


> Good info but it's dated at this point. Reality is that a lot of bikes that used to be "clyde friendly" are no longer the case (e.g. Santa Cruz) since the trend is to have a high leverage ratio at the start of the travel and through the sag point for good small bump sensitivity, as well as get a good amount of progression for bottom out control. From the data I've seen over at Linkage Designs blog, Yeti and Transition are the popular brands still using relatively low leverage ratios. You can add the Kona Process line to the list, as well as the Marin Alpine Trail.


The new VPP Santa Cruz suspension isn’t Clyde friendly? They make big xxl frames - so I would think the VPP would be burly as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## TheNatureBoy (Aug 7, 2017)

According to Transition, the leverage ratio on the new Sentinel V2 has a 23.5% total change (2.81 starting and 2.15 ending), with approximately 15% change from sag to full travel. ... Anti-squat sits slightly above 100% at sag, and then drops off as the bike goes through its travel.

Is 2.81 too high ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

matadorCE said:


> Good info but it's dated at this point. Reality is that a lot of bikes that used to be "clyde friendly" are no longer the case (e.g. Santa Cruz) since the trend is to have a high leverage ratio at the start of the travel and through the sag point for good small bump sensitivity, as well as get a good amount of progression for bottom out control. From the data I've seen over at Linkage Designs blog, Yeti and Transition are the popular brands still using relatively low leverage ratios. You can add the Kona Process line to the list, as well as the Marin Alpine Trail.


That really doesn't matter, it's the overall leverage ratio that you need to take into account, like:

If it's a 2:1 frame that is initially higher leverage for initial sensitivity or its a 3:1 frame that's initially higher leverage for initial sensitivity. The end result is the same, the lower leverage frame is still better for the clyde. You're not grasping that it's this overall ratio that determines the spring rate and suspension characteristics. It's like two curves on a chart, they are the exact same curves, just one is higher. You want the lower one, it's better for your weight.

It's the same thing above where the guy is claiming that being a clyde is worse on bikes that blow through the travel, because you'll hit your pedals more. No, it would be just as bad for a lighter rider, because the LC is the same for both, just the lighter rider uses a lighter spring. He still has the same LC effects.

Additionally, the more ideal profile for an air-shock bike is a falling rate initially, then a steep curve mid-stroke, then falling rate towards the end of the curve. This is what overcomes the initial stiction. If the LR were high initially, then the rest of the travel would be falling rate, since it would be lower. That's not how any good bike is designed. Air shocks have to overcome their seal stiction, but not by having a higher LR, that doesn't work for the rest of the travel.

The overall progression is adjusted for the air can-size and intended use of the bike (by the designer of the bike). More XC stuff is less progressive, more aggressive stuff is more.

I would argue it's MORE common now to have lower leverage frames, with metric shocks gaining popularity with makers. One exception to this is XC race frames, these sometimes use real dinky short shocks to save weight.

Honestly, this is beating a dead horse. Most people don't give a crap enough about suspension to even care and they don't do this kind of research to find what works best ahead of time.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

TheNatureBoy said:


> According to Transition, the leverage ratio on the new Sentinel V2 has a 23.5% total change (2.81 starting and 2.15 ending), with approximately 15% change from sag to full travel. ... Anti-squat sits slightly above 100% at sag, and then drops off as the bike goes through its travel.
> 
> Is 2.81 too high ?
> 
> ...


You need to look at overall LR. That's it.

Progression just tells you what the bike was designed for, XC, Enduro, DH, etc...You want the LC appropriate to the riding you'll be doing.


----------



## whatshubdoc (Oct 8, 2015)

There are also a few things you can do to prevent bottom out, from least costly to most costly:


bottom out spacers/tokens (almost all brands)
MegNeg air can (RockShox)
Aftermarket linkage (Cascade Components)
Custom tune (Vorsprung Fractive, DSD, Avalanche)
Custom tuned shock (PUSH, EXT, FAST)

I think you should redefine (refine) your objectives a little with things such as :

terrain (rocky, rooty, smooth, etc.)
actual riding style (local home trails, do you like to stand and climb or sit and climb, do you live for airs or are you a wheels on the ground kinda rider)
aspired riding style (Rampage?)
suspension feel (do you want grippy, or poppy, etc.)
what are you willing to give up to gain the things you want
what have you liked, and not liked

That way we can help by saying "ok this bike/linkage type will fit". There are so many bikes on the market these days and I think at 245lb you're really not at the tail end of the bell curve yet, so no need to panic or feel like you're painted into a corner.


----------



## TheNatureBoy (Aug 7, 2017)

Jayem said:


> You need to look at overall LR. That's it.
> 
> Progression just tells you what the bike was designed for, XC, Enduro, DH, etc...You want the LC appropriate to the riding you'll be doing.


How can I figure out the overall LR and where can I find it? And what are the parameters again what am I looking to be at generally speaking.
Thx !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

TheNatureBoy said:


> How can I figure out the overall LR and where can I find it? And what are the parameters again what am I looking to be at generally speaking.
> Thx !
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Travel divided by shock stroke.

Use google to find both. Anything around 2.5 and lower is probably decent for a clyde. There are a few bikes that approach 2:1, even better. Going significantly above 2.6:1 is not a good idea. Some bike have multiple shock mounts that can lower the LR, like on my GG, the 155mm travel setting is only 2.38:1.


----------



## mixmastamikal (Jun 14, 2010)

TheNatureBoy, It is funny that you ask about the Sentinel being too high when in reality it is probably a solid bike for heavier riders. (150mm travel) / (62.5mm Shock Stroke) = 2.4

I am not a Clyde but I do help a lot of people that are 225+ get a shock tune and spring weight that will work for them (I work with EXT). We offer spring weights up to 800lbs but Ideally we don't need to get anywhere close to that unless the rider is 300+. For example on the v2 Sentinel an 800lb spring would probably work for someone up to about 350 lbs. But on a Stumpy EVO (LR = 2.91) we are about maxed out at a rider of 250lbs. I am actually amazed that there are so many heavy riders out there that are not familiar with leverage ratios but I have to say the manufacturers are not being very helpful in creating awareness about it. I think it would be awesome if more companies offered 2 links like Raaw is doing.

Another thing I wanted to say is about whatshubdoc's post. Most of this information is really good but one thing you need to be careful about is that many of the aftermarket links like some that cascade offers will actually increase the average leverage ratio in many applications just making it worse for heavier riders. I am finding this is not understood by many of the people purchasing them.


----------



## matadorCE (Jun 26, 2013)

TheNatureBoy said:


> The new VPP Santa Cruz suspension isn’t Clyde friendly? They make big xxl frames - so I would think the VPP would be burly as well.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


We're talking suspension here, not frame stress


----------



## matadorCE (Jun 26, 2013)

Jayem said:


> That really doesn't matter, it's the overall leverage ratio that you need to take into account, like:
> 
> If it's a 2:1 frame that is initially higher leverage for initial sensitivity or its a 3:1 frame that's initially higher leverage for initial sensitivity. The end result is the same, the lower leverage frame is still better for the clyde. You're not grasping that it's this overall ratio that determines the spring rate and suspension characteristics. It's like two curves on a chart, they are the exact same curves, just one is higher. You want the lower one, it's better for your weight.
> 
> ...


If you can't hit sag because the leverage ratio at the sag range of the suspension is too high for the weight of a rider, it doesn't matter if you'll end up blowing through the travel or what the overall leverage ratio is. The shock will be maxed out and locked up, which will more than likely result in a crap ride.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

matadorCE said:


> If you can't hit sag because the leverage ratio at the sag range of the suspension is too high for the weight of a rider, it doesn't matter if you'll end up blowing through the travel or what the overall leverage ratio is. The shock will be maxed out and locked up, which will more than likely result in a crap ride.


I don't think what you are saying is reality, as in there are any or many bikes like that. Show me the LC of a bike like that.


----------



## TheNatureBoy (Aug 7, 2017)

mixmastamikal said:


> TheNatureBoy, It is funny that you ask about the Sentinel being too high when in reality it is probably a solid bike for heavier riders. (150mm travel) / (62.5mm Shock Stroke) = 2.4
> 
> I am not a Clyde but I do help a lot of people that are 225+ get a shock tune and spring weight that will work for them (I work with EXT). We offer spring weights up to 800lbs but Ideally we don't need to get anywhere close to that unless the rider is 300+. For example on the v2 Sentinel an 800lb spring would probably work for someone up to about 350 lbs. But on a Stumpy EVO (LR = 2.91) we are about maxed out at a rider of 250lbs. I am actually amazed that there are so many heavy riders out there that are not familiar with leverage ratios but I have to say the manufacturers are not being very helpful in creating awareness about it. I think it would be awesome if more companies offered 2 links like Raaw is doing.
> 
> Another thing I wanted to say is about whatshubdoc's post. Most of this information is really good but one thing you need to be careful about is that many of the aftermarket links like some that cascade offers will actually increase the average leverage ratio in many applications just making it worse for heavier riders. I am finding this is not understood by many of the people purchasing them.


Excellent post - so would that 2.4 apply to ALL bikes that are 150 mm and have the exact same RS rear suspension?

Like I believe the 20’ S build SCHT uses the exact suspension- so is that also 2.4?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Jayem said:


> I don't think what you are saying is reality, as in there are any or many bikes like that. Show me the LC of a bike like that.


I'll expand on what I'm saying, even if the suspension is like that, it wouldn't matter if it's a heavier or a lighter rider, the bike would behave exactly the same with the appropriate spring rate for the rider.

The LR can't be "too high for the weight of rider at sag" if they are using the correct spring.

If it blows through travel for a heavy rider, it also blows through travel with a lighter rider.

The more likely situation is the heavy rider doesn't have enough spring rate, either due to air shock limit or coil shock limit. That goes back to LR.


----------



## mixmastamikal (Jun 14, 2010)

TheNatureBoy said:


> Excellent post - so would that 2.4 apply to ALL bikes that are 150 mm and have the exact same RS rear suspension?
> 
> Like I believe the 20’ S build SCHT uses the exact suspension- so is that also 2.4?
> 
> ...


 Any bike that is 150mm using a 62.5mm stroke shock will be the same LR. Shocks of same eye to eye length which in this case is a 205 trunnion will have a stroke range that they can be configured in. A 205 trunnion and its equivalent standard eye to eye configuration counterpart (230mm) have a stroke range of 57.5mm to 65mm in 2.5mm increments.


----------



## matadorCE (Jun 26, 2013)

Jayem said:


> The more likely situation is the heavy rider doesn't have enough spring rate, either due to air shock limit or coil shock limit. That goes back to LR.


We're finally talking about the same thing.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

I'm 6ft and 240lb's butt-nekid...

I'm usually close to maxing out air shocks air pressures... it's certainly a good upper body workout getting the correct PSI in there :YMMV:

I do believe coil is just better for us Clydes.

Trouble is finding correct spring rate for the particular bike you're riding.

Shocks have manufacturers recommendations, but the way the bike behaves and has been designed trump's this :imho:

Case in point 

My 2020 Giant Reign Adv 27.5 has a coil shock by Sram... it's got a 600lb spring and it feels plush as.

Shock comes with remote lockout for climbs and it gets used.

Then, a recently retired steed... 160mm travel 29er - had a Marzocchi Bomber CR out back I tried two different spring rates, firstly starting at 600lb and then going down and it still felt harsh (compared to Reign).

At the end of a long run air can get a little funky... coil just keeps on trucking.

Have had nil durability issues with air though... the Reign's shock did get a rebuild under warranty when it started leaking oil.

LBS technician did say that particular shock has been known to have the issue i.e. he had the same problem.

Air is more tuneable, with running different pressures, different spacers and what ever other hocus-pocus shock tuners can do with internals.

Once you find the right spring you're set!! And it'll always feel the same (unless you change preload o/c).

Would love to try different iterations of the two made by the many great manufacturers out there... but damn!! It ain't cheap!!

Sent from my Asus Rog 3


----------

