Ask Pinkbike - Metric Shock Fitment and Rear Hub Spacing on DH Bikes
Here at Pinkbike we get inundated with all kinds of questions, ranging from the basic "Can I have stickers" to more in-depth, soul-searching types of queries like if you should pop the question or what to name your first child. Ask Pinkbike is an occasional column where we'll be hand-picking and answering questions that have been keeping readers up at night, although we'll likely steer clear of those last two and keep it more tech oriented.
Can I Fit a Metric Shock On My Bronson?
Question: krystian-szewczyk asks in the Bikes, Parts, and Gear forum: I don't quite understand the thing with metric sizing in the new Deluxe and Super Deluxe shocks. I was searching for the info, but wasn't able to find it anywhere. The question is if the shocks will fit into my Bronson v2 frame.
 | The short answer? No, your frame is not compatible with the new RockShox Deluxe and Super Deluxe shocks. The Bronson is designed to work with shocks that have an eye-to-eye measurement of 200mm and a stroke of 57mm. With metric sizing, the closest eye-to-eye measurements are 190 and 210mm, neither of which would work properly with your frame. That being said, it's worth a little more explanation to try and clean up the muddy waters around the whole 'metric' standard. I think it's the actual word 'metric' that's causing confusion more than anything. After all, the dimensions for any shock can easily be converted from imperial to metric - what's the big deal? Basically, SRAM decided to revise the current system to make shock sizing more uniform; instead of having a mishmash of eye-to-eye measurements and stroke lengths the progression between sizes will now be in even increments. For example, there are currently shocks with eye-to-eye measurements that measure 190, 197, 200, and 215mm; it doesn't take a math wiz to see that the gaps in those measurements aren't the same. Under the new metric sizing system, standard mount shocks will come in 190, 210, and 230mm eye-to-eye measurements. The simplification also means there won't be a need for as many mounting hardware options, making it that much more likely that a shop will have the part you need in stock. There's also the fact that by fixing the sizing, RockShox (and the other companies that will be adopting the new system) will be able to deliver shocks that have a consistent feel no matter the length. The air spring curve remains the same across the line, which makes it easier for frame designers to achieve their desired suspension feel. You can read more about the other design features found in the new shocks in our First Look article. For riders who aren't planning on getting a new bike any time soon but need a new rear shock, even though what you end up with won't say 'Deluxe' on it, non-metric shock options should be available for at least the next four years. - Mike Kazimer |
The current Monarch is shown on the left, and the new Deluxe is on the right. Note the increased IFP volume of the Deluxe, and the tokens at the top that allow the end stroke ramp up to be fine tuned.
Hoping to Adapt
Question: Pinkbike user matthewzink asked this question in the Downhill Forum:I just bought the Hope 650b DH wheelset in 150mm, and I want to put it on the new Santa Cruz v10 frame. I read that you can buy cups to convert the hubs to 157mm so that they can fit the v10. Can anyone link to the caps?
| Thanks to the many hub standards blessed upon us by the mountain bike industry, there's a sinking feeling that is becoming more common. That feeling when you have spent hours meticulously building your dream sled, wheels are prepped with discs, cassette and tires, and all that is left to do is pop the wheels in and ride off into the sunset; then you discover you're 7mm short (this actually happened to me recently with a front Boost fork). I couldn't find the answer to your question, Matthew, so I gave the guys at Hope a call: "It is a simple spacer change on our hubs. We use the same spacers to swap from 135 to 142 as we use to swap from 150 to 157. The part number is HUB242. It's sometimes a little confusing as we also call them an X12 conversion which was the original name for the standard when Syntace created it. There's a chart on the technical section of our website showing all the conversion part numbers." I hope that helps. - Paul Aston |
Have some unresolved tech questions? Jump in the Pinkbike Forum and we'll look to answer it for next time.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
Metric ain't nothing but a number.
And how is that possible that 200x57 have "too quick ramp up" in general ? It depends on suspension leverage ratio curve, and those are BY DESIGN different between brands, because they choose different trade-offs.
So no matter how hard RS an PB tries to justify this, this is only about money.
If I don't make it, tell mum I loved her, and that I went out keeping it real...... Keeping it 2014 till about July when new standards began
We currently own a Norco Sight (my wife's) and a Knolly Warden, both with 200x57 shocks (fox float rp23 kashima HV for her, fox float ctd for me then Float X2). Both bikes have highly progressive suspension ratio curves, and with preconised sag setting we never had any issue in reaching full travel with the two inline shocks.
So from my point it's a bit difficult to undertstand the "ramp up at the end of the stroke" thing. But yeah, maybe fox do better than rockshox on this point.
Second point, shocks with piggyback have the IFP in the reservoir, so the argument about "limited amount of room for the IFP" is not relevant for this kind of shock. So why no 200 mm super deluxe ?
What these manufacturers don't realize; there are many brilliant people in the aftermarket industry who will debunk this shitshow too.
The aftermarket industry needs to band together. Those making offset shock bushings, hub conversion adapters, 1-UP gear conversions need to market the hell out of their stuff.
I see the aftermarket slogan now: "making the old standard, the new standard" It is just a mountain bike afterall.
Back to shocks - I think you may end up with the aftermarket guys doing the opposite - ie offering more sizes which will make them more appealing. RS have cut off part of their market in this respect.
Cest la vie - summer is around the corner, the days are getting longer, time to ride more and type less.
"The Bronson is designed to work with shocks that have an eye-to-eye measurement of 200mm and a stroke of 57mm. With metric sizing, the closest eye-to-eye measurements are 190 and 210mm,'
Oh the confusion for someone only starting out with MTB ..
Mike Kazimer. Please explain to me why, with the introduction of the additional metric sizes, that my local LBS is more likely to have the mounting hardware for my perfectly servicable FOX DHX 4 from my 2011 Uzzi.
There are only fewer sizes on the production of new frame side; from the consumer side, there are now even more variations added to the mix.
We have three capable 200x57 shock using bikes, that we have no intention of ever getting rid of, so unless Rockshox will still be making imperial shocks along with the metric they could become unsustainable in the not too distant future as far as Rockshox are concerned.
And yes, all current metric companies will offer select models to fit the older dimensions based on demand for them. But that demand will honestly go down simply because people don't hold on to full suspension frames for that long.
As said above this reeks of RS trying to get a monopoly as OEM shock providers, buy a bike with this on and you can only buy a RS shock to replace in the future and all bikes in the range must have RS fitted, no mixing suspension brands for different spec levels of same bike. Twats.
This is a business.
I have the first generation Vitus Sommet from 2013, I wonder how many current components I wouldn't be able to fit onto it (and why).
Hubs (boost)
Rims (27.5)
Tyres (27.5)
Fork (27.5)
Shock (metric)
Most dropper posts (internal routing)
Most new cranks (new BB sizes)
About a thousand BB 'standards'
3 years for all of these changes, maybe in another 3 years we'll have new saddle clamps, a few different brake mounts, bar/stem diameters and perhaps a new chainguide mount and my bike will be officially, entirely obsolete. Fabulous.
Actually...I just found out that lots of Maxxis tires are now "WT," "Wide trail," designed around 35mm wide (internal) rims. So now 2016 tires don't work on my 2016 rims. I bought them anyway, fingers crossed they'll work with the air from my regular pump.
But stoked for Trunnion mount, makes a good bit of sense.
-No 1x12 drivetrain.
-No plus size wheels.
-No metric shock.
-No Boost hubs.
Dafuq Strive you just got old.
Can't wait for other standards like minus size wheels.They are just like normal wheels but you know they have "-" in their name so it's new and also have option for Enduro riders with E or "Enduro" in it's name.Dragon Grinder Cranks with special tooth that one tooth is on left side and other is on right side and so on for better chain holding and if you happen to stick leg or finger there it won't cut your skin it will just cut off whole body part so you won't suffer that much.And there wasn't any handlebar/stem standard so we will go for Hawk standard that makes your handlebars diameter larger by 1.65983123mm for more control and stiffness.Ofc you will have new stem for that.
However, it sucks for us that have bike frames that were made for the imperial system. So when rear shocks become better and better over time my bike won't be able to take advantage of the new shocks. I bought my expensive ass bike to last a LONG while, which it still will, but the suspension is the one thing that I want to be able to upgrade later on.
First world problems
www.sram.com/rockshox/technologies/metric-sizing
Nothing, basically.
First of all, both the imperial system as well as the metric system are being used on the bikes we ride and they ride just fine like that. Having both might seem confusing to the general public but an engineer should be able to deal with both. It is part of the package. I studied aerospace engineering in The Netherlands (where the metric system is common) and in our first year already we had to work with the imperial system alongside the metric system, use the point as decimal sign alongside the comma. You're not going to mess up another Mars mission because of that. There are different languages in the world, different currencies. You're going to have a hard time if you can't cope with not everything being uniform.
Back to bicycles, funny thing is that a lot of stuff is mentioned in the imperial language whereas it really is metric. Yes an 8" brake rotor is indeed 203mm for Magura and Shimano (from "metric" countries) yet funnily it is 200mm for "imperial" Hope. No issue though, just get the rotor for your brake and you'll be fine. Same with suspension travel. It is often coarsely mentioned in the imperial system whereas it often more accurate to look at the metric numbers. And it progresses as well. The Marzocchi 66 fork went from about 6" travel to about 7" travel, the 55 fork went from about 5" travel to about 6". Orange has their Five with about six inch travel, so now they released a Four with about five inch travel. Again as a rider you'll be fine. You'll hopefully educate yourself before you shell out thousands for some new gear.
In this context, rear shocks were simple enough already. My Cannondale Prophet uses a 200x50 rear shock. It was a common shock dimension back then (2007) and as well rounded as these numbers seem, they don't make the cut to the SRAM elite. Still if a number isn't round it shouldn't be much of a deal, should it? And as @mikekazimer points out, that isn't the deal. Someone at SRAM couldn't stand that the gaps between shock lengths weren't uniform (there is a name for that disorder) and decided it had to be fixed. Then they needed a marketing term for that. Uniform or linear spacing could do. But to call anything suspension related "linear" won't go well with the current trend of what we think we need in suspension. As we now want our springs and linkages progressive as opposed to linear nowadays. So they went with "metric" instead which seems to cause most of the confusion. And these millimeter measurements aren't that exact anyway. It depends on how much pressure you're running (compressing the top out bumper) and how hard you're bottoming out (compressing the bottom out bumper).
Then there is what it is supposed to fix (other than the implied disorder). Is it that big of an issue really? If a bicycle manufacturer is going to use an of the shelf shock, it is going to have to compromise anyway. The ideal length for that suspension linkage will probably not exist. Just choose what will do and compensate by drilling the frame and link mounts elsewhere. And I'd argue that having equal gaps between shock length is worse than increasing the gaps for the longer shocks as has been common until now. Compare this to your set of (metric) allen keys. You start with .5mm gaps, after 3mm you get whole mm gaps and after 6mm you get 2mm gaps. The in-between sizes may exist but make less sense in practice.
So obviously this is going to create a lot of resistance. We've had some changes in standards over the past few years and some stuck, some didn't. If you bought a Shimano Saint hub in 2004, you bought a quality hub. How long have we been able to get replacement rotors for that oversized centerlock standard? If you accepted the rapid rise rear mechs, you eventually had to go back to normal to be able to enjoy the more recent upgrades to rearmechs that came after that. You bought a Hone rear mech because you thought it was built to last. How long have we been able to get hubs to bolt that mech onto? And this was technology marketed for the consumer to benefit from. So now they're introducing a new standard that is claimed not to benefit the riders directly, just make it easier for the engineers and hardware suppliers apparently. Us riders do get to cope with the downsides of all this however. See, the bikes we get to ride now are mighty fine. If you buy a SC Heckler now, you expect it to last a while. Only upgrade a few components a few years from now and you should feel up to date again. Now that bubble got burst knowing that four years from now you might not be able to get hold of a compatible (high end) shock. It may be easier to swallow if you accept that the new standard gets you higher end gear, but this is more like the introduction of PM brake calipers. Just to get a stronger position in the OEM market as it will just be the bike manufacturers who appreciate it from a convenience point of view, not performance.
This isn't meant to be a mere rant. It is, but I also try to address the confusion SRAM introduced and the subsequent ugly way they shove their customer service onto the well-intending journos. Add to that the fact that this is probably merely aimed at increasing their OEM marketshare instead of actually increasing performance and SRAM should actually be surprised by the lack of misunderstanding and resistance it is receiving.
Yeah I know, tl;dr. Sorry for that and congrats for making it this far.
xkcd.com/927
xkcd.com/927
But they didn't reduce the number of standards and mounting configurations- they made more. It's only a reduction if every frame maker in the world jumps on board, and every person with a pre-2017 bike never needs to replace a shock. How likely do you think that scenario is?
There's even an damn XKCD comic for exactly this situation.
xkcd.com/927
Everyone calm down. We're good.
My bikes are only...4 years old...wait...whut?
"For Sale: 2012 GT Fury featuring collectible 241mm x 76mm NON-metric shock. (Collectible until at least the next shock standard cycle.)"
PS. It's not really for sale...I'll probably have this bike until it breaks or until the new suspension standard is a hoverboard.
What I don't get is that the trunnion versions could have accomplished the same thing in existing lengths and would have been adaptable to a wider range of existing bikes with spacers.
I wish I had been educated in the Metric when I was younger