Bird Aeris owners thread

Author Message
Posted: May 25, 2019 at 10:35 Quote
35% is quite much. Is that what Bird recommend? It's about in the region of my old DH-bike. I thought progressive linkages liked a little bit less sag than linear ones? Guess I'll need a lot of spacers with that setup. I tried pedalling the bike with 35% on my first parking lot test, it was really soft.

My previous bike has a CCDB air. It doesn't bottom out as easy, I just cranked up the compression damping.

Posted: May 25, 2019 at 11:04 Quote
I run about 33% sag on my am9 with no spacers on a super deluxe and find it is great for everything but hucks to flat or weak transitions (I am bottoming out same as you).

This bike radar setup is pretty good (RMR feel free to chime in): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xhnKTZu2AKs

Posted: May 25, 2019 at 23:17 Quote
Thick-as-a-Brick wrote:
35% is quite much. Is that what Bird recommend? It's about in the region of my old DH-bike. I thought progressive linkages liked a little bit less sag than linear ones? Guess I'll need a lot of spacers with that setup. I tried pedalling the bike with 35% on my first parking lot test, it was really soft.

My previous bike has a CCDB air. It doesn't bottom out as easy, I just cranked up the compression damping.

DH bikes tend to be progressive.

30% is pretty typical for trail bikes. Progressive means the suspension stiffens as you get deeper into the travel. This means you can run a softer spring because the added support will come from the leverage curve.

Adding spacers is the opposite of what you want to do, as they make you spring more progressive. A progressive leverage curve multiplied by a progressive spring curve means the force curve will ramp up too steeply at the end. Remove your spacers and run however much air pressure you need to manage the bottoming out.

Posted: May 25, 2019 at 23:36 Quote
handsomedan wrote:
I run about 33% sag on my am9 with no spacers on a super deluxe and find it is great for everything but hucks to flat or weak transitions (I am bottoming out same as you).

This bike radar setup is pretty good (RMR feel free to chime in): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xhnKTZu2AKs

I almost never disagree with Seb Stott. Smartest guy in mountain bike journalism.

The only modifications I would make:

A little less than 90% rear and 80% front travel from the parking lot bounce test. I find I can still bottom out on the trail if I get maybe 80% and 70% in the parking lot.

The fork rebound test doesn't work for me. No matter how fast my rebound is set, the front wheel doesn't hop - maybe my arms are too slow! If you allow your hands to slip off the grips when the fork is compressed, the fork will rebound completely freely. This gives a clearer idea of rebound speed. Allow a fair bit of wheel hop when using this modified version.

Posted: May 29, 2019 at 16:47 Quote
Pablo16v wrote:
PETESHIPTON wrote:
Anyone running an Aeris AM9 with a 160/170mm fork?

Yes. I spent most of the past year running an Avalanche 160mm Pike and a 160mm 36 RC2, and I’m currently running a 170mm Lyrik RC2. I’d actually ordered a 160 Lyrik but received the 170 by mistake, so now trying to decide if I’m going to leave it as it is or fit a recently purchased 160mm air spring. The official word from Bird is that their warranty only covers 150mm forks, but my AM9 felt great with the 160 forks and although it’s still early days I’ve not noticed any negative handling traits with the Lyrik, so based on my experience so far I would quite happily recommend fitting a 160mm fork to an AM9. Just be mindful of the warranty situation.

Have you offset anything to combat the raised front end on your build?

I'm just finishing my build up, which definitely isn't running 160's, I didn't think of using 170's, I've installed a -1 degree headset and shorter offset forks which more or less retains the majority of the intended Geo with the only significant change being a slacker headtube angle (wheelbase brought back with the shorter offset)

Posted: May 29, 2019 at 17:03 Quote
hookso wrote:
Made this custom bottle cage today. Fits a reasonably large bottle on my large am9 with piggy shock. Not tested it in anger yet but seems pretty solid.

R-M-R wrote:
nedersotan wrote:
I wish the bottle cage mounting bottle were set lower down. There is still some space below the bottle, but the top hits the piggyback shock.

True. A spacer under the rear mount would allow it to be moved even farther.

I managed to fit a small bottle and a pump under the bottle cage under my EXT Arma, but it took fourteen modifications to the cage and pump bracket.

I feel like we should start a 'clever solutions to awkwardly placed bottle mounts when running massive shocks' thread (admittedly not the catchiest title)


Posted: May 29, 2019 at 21:50 Quote
Lfcrik wrote:
I feel like we should start a 'clever solutions to awkwardly placed bottle mounts when running massive shocks' thread (admittedly not the catchiest title)


Great placement. Does it play nicely with the dropper cable?


Lfcrik wrote:
I've installed a -1 degree headset and shorter offset forks which more or less retains the majority of the intended Geo with the only significant change being a slacker headtube angle (wheelbase brought back with the shorter offset)

You may have preserved front-centre, but a slacker head angle and reduced offset produces considerably more trail; the geometry has been affected more than you think.

... but I'm a fan of increased trail, so I'm not saying it's a bad thing!

Posted: May 29, 2019 at 23:37 Quote
The bottle clearance has always been an issue for me as well. I've stuck a spacer between the Di2 offset mount and the bottle cage to get a bit more angle, but I still can't squeeze in anything bigger than this bottle.

Posted: May 30, 2019 at 4:15 Quote
I made this bottle adapter a while ago to fit a large bottle together with a large shock and a tube on my 145 LT. Works on atleast the ML and the L frames.

Use nylon bolts instead of steel to act as a break away point incase of a crash so you dont risk damaging the frame from the extra leverage.

STL: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3478529






Posted: May 30, 2019 at 17:36 Quote
R-M-R wrote:
Lfcrik wrote:
I feel like we should start a 'clever solutions to awkwardly placed bottle mounts when running massive shocks' thread (admittedly not the catchiest title)

Great placement. Does it play nicely with the dropper cable?

You may have preserved front-centre, but a slacker head angle and reduced offset produces considerably more trail; the geometry has been affected more than you think.

... but I'm a fan of increased trail, so I'm not saying it's a bad thing!

Yeah I think it will, I've dummy fitted it and it looks good, that's a tomorrow job once I've measured up all the cables!

So some serious bike geekery has gone into this, and whilst I don't know how to calculate it exactly I've looked to the yeti SB150 and what transition have been doing with the sentinel and in this configuration it should bring the front end v close to transitions numbers, if I understand it correctly this should give me about the same trail figures.

Albeit on a frame that's lighter, pedals better, plays nicely with a coil, has little more travel, a longer back end, was cheaper to get hold of and even more importantly available in Raw! Big Grin

edvin-m wrote:
I made this bottle adapter a while ago to fit a large bottle together with a large shock and a tube on my 145 LT.

Nice work there with that!

Posted: Jun 1, 2019 at 13:22 Quote
edvin-m wrote:
I made this bottle adapter a while ago to fit a large bottle together with a large shock and a tube on my 145 LT. Works on atleast the ML and the L frames.

Use nylon bolts instead of steel to act as a break away point incase of a crash so you dont risk damaging the frame from the extra leverage.

STL: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3478529






Do you want to share the stp file?

Posted: Jun 3, 2019 at 13:21 Quote
I've drawn up this with the intention of having it cut from aluminium. I was all set to go to have it done at work, where they then told me 'it's too complicated to have it CNC'd out'. Saying 'duh, just make something work, it's a proof of concept' didn't help, i was told 'the guys want to make it look nice as well'.

I got a Fidlock 450 ml instead then...

EDIT: mine's an XL.


Posted: Jun 3, 2019 at 16:16 Quote
Primoz wrote:
I've drawn up this with the intention of having it cut from aluminium. I was all set to go to have it done at work, where they then told me 'it's too complicated to have it CNC'd out'. Saying 'duh, just make something work, it's a proof of concept' didn't help, i was told 'the guys want to make it look nice as well'.

I got a Fidlock 450 ml instead then...

EDIT: mine's an XL.


Do you find 450 enough? And how do you find Fidlok in general?

I've managed to fit a 600ml fidlock in on my M/L, it's very tight, I don't think it'll rub though. contemplating filing the mount down at the front to drop the front a few mm. Should have it out on the trails in anger this week Big Grin

Posted: Jun 4, 2019 at 0:31 Quote
L + 14 series tx22 is thankfully on the larger side of clearance for bottle. Currently rocking 660ml dirt camelback but I'd guess I could go even one liter with di2 adapter


Posted: Jun 4, 2019 at 9:58 Quote
Lfcrik wrote:
Do you find 450 enough? And how do you find Fidlok in general?

I've managed to fit a 600ml fidlock in on my M/L, it's very tight, I don't think it'll rub though. contemplating filing the mount down at the front to drop the front a few mm. Should have it out on the trails in anger this week Big Grin
I would have preferred a larger bottle. And the fidlock is a bit fiddly to engage and it's down low, hard to reach. I would prefer a standard cage to be honest.

As for clearance, i mounted my fidlock mount upside down (so the top nub is near the BB) and rotated the interface in the bottle (the magnets have opposite polarity in the interface, so it can't be mounted upside down onto the mount).


 
Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.022529
Mobile Version of Website