Wait, SRAM couldn't even come up with original model names for these? They just regurgitated old model names from shocks that sucked ass when they were around. Another SRAM disappointment and counting...
Yeah exactly. I feel like people aren't understanding that this change actually can make a huge difference in shock performance and durability. Good change IMO.
It probably is a question of part that they do not manufacture, like bushing and stuff. Probably that the offering in metric solve some problems. Or (more probably), most engineer were really pist with imperial unit and they went on strike until most provider accept to use proper unit :p
@ethan991: I know I don't. How does changing the unit of measurement affect performance?
I'm all for using units that are easier to work with, but when 1 inch = 2.54 cm, how does having a 12.7mm shaft increase performance over a 0.5 inch shaft?
@ethan991: I did before writing my comment. Still fail to see how units of measurement can affect performance or durability. They might have done other things while also changing units, but the change in units didn't cause them to make "increased bushing overlap, bearing-equipped eyelets, and new seals."
@Neechy: they changed the sizing as a whole. It's called metric because it's nice and even metric measurements, instead of nice and even imperial measurements. The name metric sizing is confusing but the main thing is that they changed the size of the shock completely
correct, you can still make "increased bushing overlap, bearing-equipped eyelets, and new seals" without changing the unit of measure. adding tech features is mutually exclusive from changing the unit of measure.
I would have way more respect for them if they introduced the new shocks and didn't mention the f*cking measurements. When asked about the measurements they could simply say "it makes sense from a manufacturing perspective for us as an international company" and that's it. All this "it allows us to do bigger overlaps" and shit like that. It makes them sound like a bunch of salesmen not engineers
The fact these shocks are measured in metric vs imperial measurements really has nothing at all to do with what has changed.
What has changed is the design philosophy. Previously, shocks were built to fit into existing frame designs, with sizes haphazardly created based on existing frame designs. Now, shocks are built in a more standardized way such that the shock is designed as a single system first, and then bike manufacturers will design their frames based on these new shocks, which have consistent differences in sizing. This allows the shocks to be optimized for performance first, instead of being restricted by what can be done within existing frame design constraints. Yes, frame designs will have to be changed, but, to put it bluntly, suck it up. Things change. That's how humans/nature/technology evolves, instead of just stagnating.
TL;DR: Frames will be designed around shocks, instead of shocks being designed around frames. This allows for less restrictions on the shock research/design/build procedure, and thus better overall shock design.
I have trouble believing there were ever any real constraints on shock research/design that came from the sizing being an ideal size (by a few mm's?) for shock performance
@bikesandfun: Well, since companies don't generally share their R&D notes and I don't work close enough to any of these companies to hear any juicy tidbits, I'm mostly forced to make hypotheses from press data. Given that Rockshox built a shock with longer bushing overlap and replaced DU with bearing eyelets when given the chance to build a shock from the ground up, I would guess that design constraints from building around existing frames might include such things as limited bushing overlap and mount points with restricted clearance. But that's just my guess.
Short answer: No. This is just the conclusion I drew from SRAM's marketing material.
Does anyone know how they decide what bikes to display during these ads? Transition and Trek were displayed here. Is it highest bidding company gets the honor, or is it just a random pick of whatever bike happened to be in the shop that day?
@transitionbikecompany what i want to know is if i can get that custom link and new shock for my current patrol, my current monarch plus has a horrible clunk 25% of the way through the travel that the nz rockshox importer says is normal.
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere they won't be available for aftermarket sale.. Not that I think rockshox is the greatest option anyway. I don't know how many monarch I blew up haha they were two thirds shite to say the least
can someone explain how changing the unit of measurement allows for all this fancy new technology in the shock? I'm having a difficult time grasping this. april fools... ?
It seems that most people who are angry about this are living in an imperial country. It's time UK and USA to let the past go and use the metric system. You'll see, it is much much better.
We do use the metric system. Only miles on the road are still imperial and that is just because it would cost a fortune to change all the signs in the country and having some in one and some in another would be dangerous.
Yes, yes the sky is falling and it's all SRAM's fault. I do find the usage of the term "Metric" being so confusing to so many people quite laughable though.
Taking a leaf out of apple's book and shafting existing customers. I thought they had outdone themselves with boost and 12 speed, but this takes it to a whole other level.
Go F*ck yourselves SRAM, you ain't getting any more of my money ever again.
I've been hating on SRAM for years but I just keep coming back to Rock Shox, they beat everything else on performance, price, reliability, serviceability. I wish it weren't so but it is.
It's not like their current offerings suck and they are discontinuing them. This makes sense. When you have companies like Giant putting a 63mm stroke on a 160mm rear travel bike, that shock is going to feel like a pogo stick for heavier, medium-fast riders without custom tuning magic. Longer stroke shocks can help alleviate these issues in bikes out of the box. By the time you're on a bike that's compatible with these standards, the bike will come with them....
If riders generally like new stuff and can have an appreciation for innovation, then changes like this needs to be taken in stride. Improvement sometimes can't be done in the same form factor. Yeah, it sucks when something new and shiny comes out that you can't use because of incompatibility. It's not like it hasn't happened before.
I can't put a Pike on my 2000 Rocky Mountain Element because it doesn't have a tapered head tube. Should I be mad? Well, tapered steerer tubes were introduced to improve rigidity. My bike got left behind in the name of progress.Outside of 29" wheels, the "progress" of Boost is debatable, but if you don't like it, don't buy it. Same with Eagle. Look at the evolution of MTBs and tell me new standards haven't ever been introduced before Boost and 27.5 and metric shock sizing.
Your bike is still as good as it was before this came out. If you can't handle changes like this, then I don't know...go buy a fixie and harrumph to your heart's content.
Gwin with a metric shock = hella fast.
See the difference there?
I'm all for using units that are easier to work with, but when 1 inch = 2.54 cm, how does having a 12.7mm shaft increase performance over a 0.5 inch shaft?
That's what she said!
All this "it allows us to do bigger overlaps" and shit like that. It makes them sound like a bunch of salesmen not engineers
The fact these shocks are measured in metric vs imperial measurements really has nothing at all to do with what has changed.
What has changed is the design philosophy. Previously, shocks were built to fit into existing frame designs, with sizes haphazardly created based on existing frame designs. Now, shocks are built in a more standardized way such that the shock is designed as a single system first, and then bike manufacturers will design their frames based on these new shocks, which have consistent differences in sizing. This allows the shocks to be optimized for performance first, instead of being restricted by what can be done within existing frame design constraints. Yes, frame designs will have to be changed, but, to put it bluntly, suck it up. Things change. That's how humans/nature/technology evolves, instead of just stagnating.
TL;DR: Frames will be designed around shocks, instead of shocks being designed around frames. This allows for less restrictions on the shock research/design/build procedure, and thus better overall shock design.
Short answer: No. This is just the conclusion I drew from SRAM's marketing material.
Should've used this for the soundtrack.
1 inch = 2.54 cm
There now it should make sense to you.
Go F*ck yourselves SRAM, you ain't getting any more of my money ever again.
I can't put a Pike on my 2000 Rocky Mountain Element because it doesn't have a tapered head tube. Should I be mad? Well, tapered steerer tubes were introduced to improve rigidity. My bike got left behind in the name of progress.Outside of 29" wheels, the "progress" of Boost is debatable, but if you don't like it, don't buy it. Same with Eagle. Look at the evolution of MTBs and tell me new standards haven't ever been introduced before Boost and 27.5 and metric shock sizing.
Your bike is still as good as it was before this came out. If you can't handle changes like this, then I don't know...go buy a fixie and harrumph to your heart's content.