Old and new - a few things about suspension …

2manyoranges

Old School Grand Master
Feedback
View
The thread this week about overforking (eg 100mm travel on a bike designed for 60mmm) got mE considering this thread.

I had a bit of a problem in the 90s, since people would get very upset with the way I had my suspension set up … basically 30% sag, so softer than anyone else. This was the same on all my bikes, Proflex, bikes with Judy’s etc. This simply came from my experience in MX, where sag was an important parameter. Why? Because when your bike is sitting in the 70/30 (middle-ish) range of the suspension it allows a wheel to track the ground, dropping into holes as well as compressing over the bumps. If you set the bike up with the mass sitting at the top of the travel it will top out on return, most likely be too bouncy because oversprung, and not track the ground.

So….that’s the first thing…SAG.

But those old elastomer or spring forks had no way of changing the SPRING RATE other than changing out the elastomers or spring. It was perfectly common to have forks which eat through the travel and then bottomed out, or were too hard and bouncy. That’s where air forks began to help with management of SPRING RATE, particularly those with both an upper chamber and a lower chamber (eg Rockshox Dual Air SIDs) Now it was possible to adjust easily the small bump compliance and RETURN RATE.

Compression (compression and return rates) were uncontrolled on early forks, and then things like the cartridge in Judys appreared. An improvement, but with a fixed performance - no way of adjusting COMPRESSION RATE. So the forks would pack down after repeated hits or be too compliant on bit hits, again blowing through the travel.

This is where modern forks have finally used the insights from the F1 and MX world. Hurrah.

Want a fork where the SPRING RATE ramps up so that at the beginning of the travel the forks can cope with small hits (low SPRING RATE) while they also can handle big hits (high SPRING RATE) - then use an air fork into which you put tokens if you are heavy and fewer if you are light. This changes the RATE CURVE to suit your weight, style of riding and terrain. Set up therefore needs a shock pump (to vary pressure to suit) and tokens (to fit in fork). If you have COIL rather than AIR forks, then you will tend to want longer travel forks (eg if a bike says 120-140mm forks then I would go 140-150mm and over fork slightly) and do very careful work on which WEIGHT spring is needed. Some coils have variable coils to allow different RATE characteristics. Getting the right weight spring can be fiddly, experimental process - and you may need to buy three or four springs to really tune things. With growing groms we use air shocks which avoid this problem.

Air shocks are non linear, since the spring rate increases with compression. Coils are more or less linear. Air weighs less than spring steel or ti - but a well set-up long travel coil can be a magic carpet ride with amazing small bump compliance. Air shocks need heavy duty seals, and this introduces friction - and thus initiation forces have to be higher, which reduces small bump compliance. We run both, and with careful set-up the problems of each can be mitigated.

So far so good. That sorts SPRING RATE But then the compression control/damping needs sorting. And all this shows that the early generations of forks were very limited in their adjustment, which seriously limited performance.

Now COMPRESSION. The adjustment is usually expressed in the form of CLICKS. Dials on the tops or bottoms of fork legs (depending on make and model) allows the RATE OF OIL FLOW in the forks to be adjusted, thus tuning COMPRESSION RATES. This was not available in early forks and really is as crucial as SPRING RATE. Modern forks have up to forty clicks, and often two circuits - HIGH SPEED COMPRESSION and LOW SPEED COMPRESSION. Modern valving (compared to the couple-of-holes-in-a-washer in the early cartridges) is sophisticated. The idea is to give good small hit compliance, good RECOVERY RATES to the suspension (to avoid packing down over multiple hits) and HIGHER RESISTANCE during big hits - allowing big hits to be handled as a smooth curve of force rather than a big spike. We tune a fork for compression by starting in the middle of the CLICK RANGE and turn up or down as successive rides indicate we should. It’s a very empirical process. Repetitions on a known ride really helps. Once right, you write them down.

ANTI-SQUAT is a big thing for FS, and that’s to do with the way in which the physical path of the rear suspension interacts with the SPRING RATE and COMPRESSION DAMPING of the rear shock - good ANTI-SQUAT is designed into well-designed rear suspension.

On a hardtail, compression of the forks radically changes the geometry and centre of mass of the bike, shifting the wheelbase measurement. In an old bike with a long stem and small- or mid- travel (50-100mm) blowing through the travel on a steep drop gave a terrifying shift of CoG and reduction of wheelbase - with over-the-bar accident a very real risk. For modern hardtails such as the BfEMAX, having such a slack HEAD ANGLE (62deg static) and short stem (eg 35mm) means that this huge shift in handling dynamics as the forks compress is reduced massively. Bikes work as COMPLEX SYSTEMS and that’s one of the reason why slapping a longer fork (eg 100mm) on a bike for a short travel fork (eg 60mm) gives a horribly handling bike. I had an Orange O2 Evo with a 60mm fork - rode well, nicely balanced. I stuck a 90mm fork on and it gave weird steering, an incredibly slack seat angle that couldn’t be mitigated by moving the saddle forward, and an unhelpfully raised bottom bracket. Awful. Was just an experiment but a complete waste of time.

This adjustment of SPRING RATE and LOW SPEED and HIGH SPEED COMPRESSION RATE is crucial to the astonishing performance of modern forks (just look at a RED BULL slo-mo of DH bikes) and the absence explains why early forks were an advance, but offered very little true performance - whilst modern forks are astonishing (and expensive).

I have capitalised key things to bear in mind when setting up modern forks, and I hope that this has been helpful. Really useful ideas to help with fork setup:

SAG
SPRING RATE
RETURN RATE
COMPRESSION RATE (low speed and high speed)

(thanks WOZ…and then there are fiddly additions such as LOCKOUT (including remote lockout - as if your handlebars were not busy enough already, with shifters, dropper remote, levers and Garmin gubbins) - a feature which people say is helpful for climbing and ‘road work’ (what this thing called ‘road?) but which never gets used and messes up climbing anyway - use lockout, climb, climb, hit root, fall over - while the rider next to you has lockout off and just absorbs the bump from the root and carries on. And some forks have additional fiddly tuning bits (eg DVO’s OTT which notionally allows tuning of small bump compliance but seems to actually affect things differently on different people‘s forks of the same year and model….so it’s an enigma).

Very nice write up below by Novocaine of the design of open bath Marzocchi forks,…
 
Last edited:
So that's why my Manitou comp performs better when using wood blocks instead of elastomeres? :D

No, seriously. Very good explanation.

It doesn't explain why a fork with "too much" travel messes up the ride in a frame that was made for less. Because I think that you can in fact make a bike work better with " too long" of a fork.
My example would be a Klein Mantra. Those had a steering angle that was too steep to begin with. All the tests at the time confirmed that the bikes would try to leverage the rider over the bars basically every time the brakes were used. The frame was designed with a rigid fork but later sold with suspension forks. 60-80mm iirc. Because no one would have wanted to buy such an expensive bike with rear suspension but rigid front. This all resulted in a very weird ride. (The URT rear end didn't help here, too)
But if you take a 100 to 120mm fork, use the power of sag and the then considerably slackened head angle, the bike becomes actually ridable.
 
And that is why MAG21 are the best.

Adjustable progressive spring rate, no need for blocks of plastic, just change the oil height. Make it LT or extra LT for improved tweaking and improved sag distance, alter shims and 'clicks*' and modify porting, bypass parts to get the damping you wish. Negative spring you could tweak etc.

(we are in the retro section so none of this 100mm+ travel would be common, also Mag21 have that unique early 90s suspension ability of a rigid fork and twist and flex to dampen the ride too.)

*what a bloody shite term.
 
And that is why MAG21 and the Specialized FutureShock are the best.
Just added a little bit there. And I'll agree about the term "clicks", but I remember counting the little index indents to get it set just right when it got rugged. And wasn't there a "long travel" modification, bringing it from 60mm to 80 mm? tumblr_inline_q2eyrzO8L91qzvl62_500.jpg
Beautiful shock, I need another one
 
The metal shim altered the travel, so just cut it down (or buy the ~43 to ~60mm one).
iirc max was ~70mm travel, but I never went there. I think due to bushing overlap, mainly you have two sticks connected at the end, no idea if you had to lose the negatives spring for it, be silly if you did, especially given some manufactures claim that as travel as well.


Ah no the FS* was not as good, it didn't use a lot of the newer 'tech' of the 21 but used the older MAG20 tech. Not sure if they ever had the improved porting and negative springs etc.
Pull them apart and check ;-)


*That's the FSX isn't it?

Marzocchi XC are much simpler irrc, at least the ones I have seen, none of that thin plastic spring loaded shim valving. Just simple click and make a bigger hole for oil to flow through and some nice large holes in the forks to bolt things too.
 
Last edited:
The Marzocchi XC series are not exactly portly looking, they even drilled holes in the legs.... ;-) They made Mag21's look over built.

Unless you're thinking of them not quite retro, really and generally belonging in the 98+ era bomber things.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top