Ask Pinkbike - Metric Shock Fitment and Rear Hub Spacing on DH Bikes

May 18, 2016
by Pinkbike Staff  
Ask Pinkbike Header

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.

bigquotesThe 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?

bigquotesThanks 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

Hope rear hub spacers

Have some unresolved tech questions? Jump in the Pinkbike Forum and we'll look to answer it for next time.


  • 253 4
 I'm still trying to figure out if Metric Shocks are an April Fools joke or not...
  • 63 0
 Same here. This is the longest running April Fool's gag in the history of long running April Fool's gags
  • 45 1
 Curious how they left out 200 mm eye to eye from the new sizing, a pretty common size on current AM bikes.
  • 15 11
 @DMal: That was one of the shock sizes that spurred the new sizing. According to RockShox, the spring curve of a 200x57 shock isn't ideal due to the limited amount of room for the internal floating piston (IFP), which leads to a too-quick ramp up at the end of the stroke. The new sizing is said to help correct that.
  • 82 3
 @DMal: just another way to make your new bike obsolete..
  • 4 0
 @mikekazimer: so then what happens to 240x76?
  • 45 2
 Just purchased a new DBcoilCS for my SB66 FUCK THE SYSTEM !
  • 15 2
 @Waldon83: Fight the power.
  • 84 3
 Rolling on 26", normal shock sizing..... yeah, I'm thinking of going back to V-Brakes too
  • 13 26
flag nouser (May 18, 2016 at 22:10) (Below Threshold)
 I can't see how so many riders are baffled by the idea of new shock sizes. are people sarcastically pretending to be dumb or are they really dumb?
Metric ain't nothing but a number.
  • 38 2
 the whole plan is simple. RS new fox wouldnt buy in so by changing their sizes, the frame makers have to commit to full RS metric shocks from their entry level all the way to the high end where we usually found all the fox stuff. they're just trying to put a stangle hold on the OE market. i hope fox sticks with what already works cuz that's all i run anyway.
  • 16 0
 @mikekazimer: then why is 190 mm better?
  • 38 2
 This argument about consistent feel ... You want DH bike to feel differently from FR bike, which in turn should feel differently from enduro bike, which in turn ... you get the idea Smile
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.
  • 22 1
 @Waldon83: my god, 26 inch wheels? f*ckn hell you better be careful
  • 1 7
flag jaame (May 19, 2016 at 0:10) (Below Threshold)
 it's pretty obvious that a shorter stroke for any given length will provide better consistency. In my opinion, air shocks themselves are the conspiracy, and now they are here to stay at least the suspension companies are trying to do something to make them work better. Fox reps have also said, we will make whatever oir customers want.
  • 37 0
 @csermonet: I'm even going external cable routing.....

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
  • 18 1
 @Waldon83: i'll be right there with you, running my non-dropper post and innertubes in my 26" tires and 9 speed cassette.
  • 14 0
 @Waldon83: This ain't the time to joke around, 2016 has been an unforgiving year. Better get yourself some enduro specific stem bolts to balance it out.
  • 4 0
 @Waldon83: It's canti's or nothing dammit!
  • 20 0
 @mikekazimer: The bike industry aren't making metrically sized shocks to benefit us, they are doing it purely in order to make current frames and shocks obsolete, thereby making unbelievable amounts of money in a few years when there are no imperially measured shocks and/or servicing supplies.
  • 7 0
 I ll stick with 26inch, 9*135mm rear and my 3x9 drivetrain.
  • 2 1
 @mikekazimer : Will a bike's rear end "top out" badly if I use a 210mm eye-to-eye shock on a frame designed for 200mm? As in deflate, mount and then inflate? Thanks!
  • 7 0
 @santoman: you could run 3mm offset bushings at both ends of the shock. Then it's only 4mm longer and you get more travel assuming there's no frame conflicts.
  • 3 0
 @lkubica: Perfectly put.
  • 2 0
 @Waldon83: same here, i really really, really, would like a new ride, but can't decide -like our bellowed bicycle conglomerates, what i want!!!!
  • 16 0
 Market is trying to do everything to make my IH Sunday obsolete..but market doesn't know that it still rocks..
  • 2 0
 @vic690: My prefered bike. running now a summum but sunday is the shit
  • 1 0
 @Tristanssid: thanks for the info. It is not that I have that issue but only that I am curious about what could go wrong with such a setup.
  • 3 2
 @keystonebikes: choose your suspension maker and be a dick about it.
  • 25 1
 Exactly what problem is Rockshox trying to solve? They can't make it work right with 200, but 190 or 210 is the magic fix? Doesn't seem like Fox or Cane Creek have any problems. Maybe you should hire the guy from Cane Creek back again to "fix" your dampers? I call a great, big, steaming pile of bullshit on this. I will NEVER buy any SRAM product out of principle alone.
  • 6 1
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 ?
  • 6 3
 @SlodownU: Exactly my point. RS are trying to force Fox out of the OEM market by making frame builders choose a size. I bet Fox and the rest will also start making "metric" shocks plus all their old "non metric" ones with the only loser being RS. Anyway I don't really care as I am enjoying my hardtail too much.
  • 13 3
 @fartymarty: It's all marketing…. they're trying to sell more product, and the only thing "ramping up" or "increasing it's curve" is hype. Often, with hype comes sales. By hyping something up, and creating a "new standard" they're attempting to force more sales.

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.
  • 2 0
 I wonder if Fox called up Xfusion and Cane Creek and threw a big party after SRAM announced their "Metric Sizing"?
  • 2 0
 @ChampionP: It ain't nuthin but a number. Sure, a number, but in different increments and lengths...
  • 3 0
 @cstishenko: agreed... as PE said "Don't believe the hype".
  • 1 0
 @Tristanssid: the eye sizes are going to differ from the current ones, too. It is not going to be that simple, as I understand.
  • 4 0
 @keystonebikes: Hopefully for the years to come you will have one of the shock companies like Fox, making / repairing shocks the standard sizes to accomodate the tens of thousands of bikes that will still be ridden years from now. It seems like all these incremental changes that come out one after the other is turning out to be a $$$ thing for the big companies. Why not just collaberate and bring the chages all at once?
  • 8 0
 Just bought me a Fox DPS Evol Factory and Fox 36 Factory for my Spider 275. Was considering a Monarch and Lyrik until RS dumped this load of garbage on us.
  • 4 0
 Clearly metric shocks are a joke, Rockshox/SRAM just doesn't get it.
  • 3 0
 @GeorgeHayduke: changing the standard sizes and calling it metric is just a way for them to try and get the public to buy into their bullsh!t.
  • 3 3
 Uniform ifp volume, better mounting system, bigger rebound knob. All improvements. The only bs part is the part about the mounting hardware which could be implemented with current sizes. If you don't like it, don't get one. You'll still be able to get your existing stuff serviced for the life of the part. I don't see what the problem is myself. This is much less annoying than the switch from 20 to 15mm axles.
  • 3 0
 so fox rear shocks are not ideal according to SRAM. (SCAM)
  • 5 0
 @jaame: They could have done all those improvements without changing the standards.
  • 3 0
 @jaame: f*ck don't get me started on the axle thing. I'll put my 20mm Lyrik up against a 15mm Lyrik… I almost guarantee it's stiffer. I don't like the way the 15mm operates, tightens up, anything about it. Junk.
  • 1 0
 @cstishenko: I can live with 15mm as long as its 110mm not 100mm. At least I can sleeve my 20mm hubs.
  • 1 0
 I remember this exact same reaction to 27.5. Time will tell.
  • 4 0
 Came here to say this. I cant actually believe it's an actual thing.
  • 4 0
 @Clarkeh: (I apologise in advance for restarting the wheel size debate) I still think 27.5 is more marketing than performance. For the vast majority of us we will never be able to ride 26 to their full potential as such the marginal gains in performance of 27.5 over 26 make as good as no difference. 29 is a different beast altogether - there are definite benefits of 29 over 26 and some negitives as well. However we are now stuck with 27.5 and I have come to accept that.

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.
  • 1 0
 @fartymarty: I wasn't trying to advocate 27.5, it was more the outrage - indifference - demand chain of thought that happened with it.
  • 1 0
 @Clarkeh: I get ya. I guess you get that reacction when things are "forced" upon you.
  • 1 0
 Plus this isnt a real deal breaker unless you are a RS fan.
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer: bollocks.
  • 1 0
 @keystonebikes: I doubt Sram will take over OEM now that Fox owns Marzocchi too. I hope Fox-occhi strangles Sram even though I'm not a marz fan.
  • 1 0
 @davemud: I wish someone would strangle Sram.
  • 27 0
 Does my bike fit a metric shock
"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 ..
  • 32 0
 Don't tell them about bottom brackets.
  • 4 0
 Starting mtb, feel the need to change shock. Don't think so
  • 1 0
 Run a 210mm with offset bushings, and a little extra sag.
  • 24 0
 So for that first look review or whatever it was that was posted on pinkbike back in April...i believe the article said a special machined adapter was used to make the shock fit on the test bike, as the shocks will only be available on 2017 frames. I would assume a component company somewhere will produce these mystery magical adapters, no?
  • 5 1
 @gbeaks33 My thoughts exactly.
  • 3 0
 It wasn't an adapter. SRAM manufactured an entirely new linkage to convert the Transition in the article. That said, I do think that some brands will offer new linkages for metric. Ibis already does a couple linkage options for other reasons, for instance.
  • 21 1
 "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."

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.
  • 8 5
 You're correct - for the next few years there's definitely the potential for things to get confusing. In the long run I do think it's a good move... but short term, it's likely to cause some serious head scratching.
  • 6 1
 @mikekazimer: The long term is all current frames, and a lot of full sus ever built before them, will become obsolete as far as buying a Rockshox shock. Rockshox say they spoke to frame manufacturers whilst developing the new metric shocks to 'get them on board'. I bet they fxxxxxg did. Hopefully Fox, Canecreek etc. Won't follow suit so people won't be forced to scrap old frames because new metric shocks won't fit.
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.
  • 8 4
 @dglobulator: The reality is that so so so few people are riding 10 year old full suspension frames still. And this is the time gap it will probably take to fully transition over. This is the long run being talked about. In 10 years there will be no one complaining about not finding the right shock size because it honestly won't even matter at that point.

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.
  • 13 2
 The width of your mounting hardware is not dependant on the length of the shock i2i. Unless every frame manufacturer who is going to jump in bed with RS on this new 'standard' is going to redesign their shock mounting points to all use, for example, 22.0 x 8mm hardware. That would require complete re-design of frame/rockers, linkages etc. for a lot of bikes

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.
  • 9 1
 @ka-brap: The boundries of geometry and other performance factors of mountain bikes have been pushed to such an extent that in ten years time I don't think they'll be massively different from what they are now. What that means, to me, is that unless you want to change your bike for reasons other than aesthetics a frame of today will still be a very valid weapon in a decades time. We still use a Specialized Pitch from 10 years ago and unless you race and care about extra seconds there is absolutely nothing wrong with it if you put it up against current bikes, and I expect it to be still decent in another 10 years time. I fully expect to be seeing plenty of today's bikes still rolling around in 10 years, unless Rockshox's evil plan works and people can't get shocks for them.
  • 5 2
 How many people ever change the shock in the life of the frame anyway? I would speculate that it is hardly any, and aftermarket shock sales are a tiny part of their business.
  • 7 2
 @jaame: We personally have 5 full-suss bikes between us, 3 no longer have the original shock (for various reasons) and we have 3 spares that cover all the bikes due to the same eye to eye. I'm not saying this is the norm but I think a lot of people change their shock out from the original.
  • 3 0
 @ka-brap: yeah its a prick trying to find elastomers for my rst mozo pros.and I'm probably the only person looking. Same in 10 years with metric
  • 2 1
 @dglobulator: I've had four different shocks in five years on one of my frames, but I don't know anyone who isn't sponsored that has ever changed a shock on their bike. I love changing shocks, but I know I'm in a tiny minority.
  • 5 0
 @jaame: You speculate wrong. The idea that you should buy a bike, and then when either the wheels, or fork, or shock start offering poor performance you should buy a whole new bike, has not been bought into by everyone. Upgrading or replacing an item as important as a rear shock is, and should remain, a very normal and valid choice. It's becoming harder and harder though.
  • 3 0
 I am not saying one shouldn't change shocks or have the option to change. I'm saying most people don't. Let's say Sram sells a million shocks a year to OEM customers, and a thousand in the aftermarket... who do you think they care about?

This is a business.
  • 2 0
 @ka-brap: too bad they said they'd only support old frames for four years (about)
  • 1 0
 @skelldify: In which case, there is going to be a shit ton of heavily discounted shocks in legacy sizes in 2020. Just like 26 stuff now, you'll be able to buy them for next to nothing. I see that as a bonus. Stock up on a few different shocks, try them out, see which you like. One set up for trail, bikepark, cross country. Definitely a bonus for anyone planning to keep their current bike forever.
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer: it wasn't clear above, but is Sean still making their new shocks in standard sizes. The photos appear like it.
  • 1 0
 @jaame: I wish that was true buddy, but I'm not seeing any noticable reduction in anything new that's 26 related. More used options on Ebay etc but the new stuff is still what it was so I'm not expecting to have the pick of a whole lot of cheap shocks, ever!
  • 1 0
 @dglobulator: I was thinking about eBay actually you're right. I don't know about new 26 because hey, I'm not buying it so I don't even check. I just heard it's heavily discounted.
  • 14 1
 My eldest monkey is learning Imperial. Why? Although I do like being bi-lingual, speaking Imperial at Home Despot and Mertic whilst out with the riding crew. Still...we just need to make the change as a country.
  • 3 0
 But what will I do with my 'merica sized wrenches?
  • 2 0
 @DARKSTAR63: you can get a set of metric conversion shims for them. Shoot me a pm. I have custom fits so far for Craftsman and Snap-On, and I'm working on SK and have a poll on what to do next. Precision CNC'd to within 10 micrometer, 14 different anodized colors available.
  • 14 2
 We went from bike gen changing every 4 years to 2 years. I wonder when will we hace complete mash up every year, making your bike virtually non-sellable
  • 3 0
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.
  • 3 0
 @AlexRob: the only cross compatible bikes after 2010 are 29ers. If you bought a 29er in 2010 and then meticulously upgraded it then if you just bought a 2016 frame like Following, then you have a chance of fitting everything in. Other than that Good fook-hing Luck!
  • 2 0
 @WAKIdesigns: The Following is a 2015 frame really. Anything coming out this year has boost, so even 29er owners can't reuse their wheels in a straight forward way.
  • 2 0
 Probably the seatpost has changed from 30.9 to 31.6 but at least you can get a sign for less than a tenner
  • 2 0
 @Spittingcat - that makes you buy a new hub and a maybe set of spokes. A cheap way out considering that if your 2012, 26" frame fails, the warranty replacement comes 650B and then you need new fork and rims with spokes, gaining virtually nothing
  • 2 0
 @WAKIdesigns --I have a model year 2014 26" frame. Purchased hardly 20 months ago in 2014. TWENTY MONTHS!!! People talk about these things like they talk about high wheel bicycles and dodo birds.

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.
  • 3 0
 @ecologist: Sorry, the 2017 models are nitrogen only.
  • 8 0
 Rockshox didn't do themselves a favor in naming it "metric"

But stoked for Trunnion mount, makes a good bit of sense.
  • 2 0
 Never heard of a trunnion mount before...enlighten me please
  • 6 0
 @somismtb: trunnion is a non piercing mid body mount were the shock actually has 3 mounts, one normal on one end and two mounts on the shock body sides aligned to a command axis. This saves space and gives frame designers more options on possible pivot locations.
  • 6 1
 So i bought last year Canyon Strive and it's old:

-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.
  • 9 2
 Fractions are hard. But pancakes, sausage and maple syrup is so good. Make it come in those sizes.
  • 4 0
 I'm all for the new metric system. I think it's better for the mountain bike industry for the long run.

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 Frown
  • 3 0
 there were previously shocks with eye-to-eye measurements that measure 190, 197, 200, and 215mm. To simplify things, rockshox has introduced a new standard and there are now shocks that measure 190, 210, 197, 200, 215, and 230mm.
  • 6 0
 Seems like you have to hold out buying a bike every year because something new is being introduced...
  • 2 1
 This is exactly why LBS should offer season long demo programs.
  • 3 0
 No, way SRAM handles this metric thing is inadequate to the point of disgusting. They create confusion (I'll get into that later) and leave it to the poor journalists (@mikekazimer in this case) to catch the rotten tomatoes and try and explain what's going on. SRAM just gets you this page:
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.
  • 7 2
 They changed it from 4 standard sizes to 3 standard sizes?!?!?! I blame my confusion on trump vs Hillary
  • 8 4
 There's more to it than that - I just used those figures as examples to demonstrate the even steps in eye-to-eye length that accompany metric sizing. This graphic should help to illustrate it further: Metric also reduces the number of possible shock mounting hardware configurations from 82 to 18.
  • 16 0
 @mikekazimer: Well. At least for the next 4 years they've increased the possibilities from 82 to 100. Well have to wait and see what happens after that.
  • 11 0
 @pcmxa: SRAM in a nut she'll
  • 9 0
 @mikekazimer: I'm sorry but reducing the number of hardware configurations is a poor excuse at best. They could have done the exact same with current sizing "we are only going to offer x and y spacers and reducers". And on that note, why even have 18 possibilities? just standardize it down to 2 or 3 and have frame builders design and build around standard shock hardware widths
  • 1 0
 @ronufoh: Whether you agree with it or not at least be honest about what they're doing. They didn't just reduce the hardware configs on current sizing shocks because (as Mike clearly stated upthread) they felt that current shock sizes weren't good enough.
  • 7 0
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.
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer: thanks for pointing me in the right direction. It's about time I read up.
  • 1 0
 @wingguy: weren't good enough, for them. It's hard to be honest about what they're doing, when other shock manufacturers appear to be doing ok with current shock lengths and strokes? The 'reduction' in available shock hardware options has absolutely nothing to do with the justification claimed with metric shock sizing.
  • 1 0
 @ronufoh: Bikes have always done OK with whatever tech was around at the time. Now they're better.
  • 2 1
 @wingguy: they could also be better without a new standard (yet another) that will eventually make all older frames obsolete irregardless of all the other new standards that have tried to do the same, IF metric catches on. Fox and Cane Creek for example, even Rock Shox, seem to have no problems making quality shocks in the current sizing scheme.
  • 3 1
 Mike, I have a question. Ive wanted to get a new Giant Reign frame. But Id plan on selling after a little while. Knowing the market, this metric stuff will royally f*ck the resale value. But what companies are doibg this change? And what do companies like Fox Suspension sell to sense they arent doing the metric sizing. (Atleast not yet that is.)
  • 1 1
 I mean "what companies" as in bike companies. Sorry If my comment is confusing. Its 10:00 and the final stretch of High School finals...
  • 2 0
 Metric is about two things, making shocks longer and making fewer shocks (or more shocks from fewer parts). While I don't doubt the benefits that longer shocks might provide, I suspect the later is the bigger half of the story. Existing shocks are pretty individualized, with lots of size-specific parts. Metric uses just three different dampers. Every other variable is controlled by volume and stroke are adjusted with plastic spacers. My question, and one that nobody in the bike blog world seems willing to ask, is whether a three sizes fits all strategy is really better than six individually tuned shocks?
  • 2 0
 "...non-metric shock options should be available for at least the next four years."

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.
  • 1 0
 Does anybody know the standpoint of Fox on metric sizing? They were not included in the first press release as far as I know. If they wont adapt to metric, there never will be a reduction of shock sizing's, specially because fox is probably the biggest OEM shock producer.
  • 9 0
 "We will make whatever our customers want."
  • 5 5
 Aren't current shocks just measured in inches? How is changing it to millimeters anything but planned obsolescence? And I believe most current xc to enduro bikes come in just a few different sizes so I'm not sure I buy the argument that there are too many sizes, unless you look at older bikes. Anyone care to comment?
  • 3 1
 'Planned obsolescence', brilliant description!!!
  • 4 0
 @dglobulator: I'm pretty sure Henry Ford came up with that term, but thanks. Haha.
  • 2 0
 @chamberlink: No worries buddy, describes it perfectly whomever came up with it.
  • 3 0
 ...and has no one noticed that they have put a picture up of Hope 15mm FRONT adaptors, not the + 7mm rear in question Big Grin
  • 4 0
 Thank you Hope, your end caps are a brilliant solution.
  • 5 0
 I love Hope -- I've got an old 26" wheel with a pro2 that's been qr, 20mm and 15mm. It's almost like they're not actually trying to screw you over. Makes them kind of an outlier in the industry...
  • 4 0
 @geephlow: True that. Hope hubs have options for forward and backward compatability, and that is a major selling point for me.
  • 2 0
 w o r d Hope customer for the forseeable right here.
  • 3 0
 Their end caps sold it for me. No matter what bike I end up with in the future I can take my new wheelset (or at least hubs) along with me. And they are simple to swap out. Just pop out the old caps with pliers and stick the new ones in place. Done. #hopelove
  • 2 0
 I understand that the biggest advantage of the "metric" sizing is the increase of the eye to eye length to stroke ratio which allows for a better internal shock design.
  • 1 0
 Right. In one interview, they mentioned how 200x57 is a pain in the ass, because it has so little internal volume. But since they design shocks to use the same parts, that means EVERY shock suffers from the compromises they had to make on the 200x57 model. The other advantage is consistency, in that, if a frame designer makes frames with the same leverages, but two models with 2 different length metric shocks, they should both ride the same, just one will have more travel. Now, however, they have to completely redesign the linkage because the next shock size up may behave completely differently.
  • 2 0
 @groghunter: This is only partly true. Shocks with lower stroke to eye to eye ratios should have more space below the IFP, and therefore wouldn't suffer from the same limitations as the 200 x 57. That said, no standard shock has as low a ratio as metric, so this is probably an improvement.

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.
  • 1 0
 @cjeder: The whole second part of my reply is why. So that frame designers can work around consistent shock characteristics. That isn't accomplished by still having a bunch of disparate shock lengths, that now support a trunion mount.
  • 1 0
 SRAM's metric calipers are offset by a quarter inch increments in the first inch and then half inch increments there after. Hence, 190mm, 210mm, and 230mm. Good work SRAM! Math is so much clear with that slide ruler!
  • 1 0
 The bike industry needs to make up it's mind what system they want to go with. I'm told it's 27.5 not 650B and my 44mm x 56mm head tube requires a 1-1/8" x 1-1/2" headset. Now shocks, WTH
  • 2 0
 Metric sizing is a prime example of marketing bullshit. If you actually think this brings product improvements, you are sadly a poor sucker for consumer goods.
  • 4 1
 metric shocks=offset bushings
  • 19 0
 pizza=ice cream
  • 2 0
 baby fish mouth= don't fu@k with Mr. Zero
  • 4 0
 metric sizing = I couldn't care less
  • 3 0
 Only two questions?! Want more!!
  • 1 2
 Obviously Mr. Szewzshit didn't look very hard. Right here in the PB article on the subject it stated point-blank that not won't they fit CURRENT bikes, but as of right now at least, they'll only fit the bikes they come on, i.e. they won't be offered as aftermarket 'upgrades'.
  • 2 0
 So in other words...... everyone will be buying new bikes in 4 years........ Awesome. Said no one ever.
  • 2 0
 Right, because 19 and 21 make so much more sense than a round 20....
  • 1 0
 Those are not the right Hope adapters in the pic.... those are 15mm for front hubs.
  • 1 0
 Won't the brake disc be too far inboard if you use wheel spacers with a boosted fork?
  • 2 1
 Let the controversy begin...
  • 2 2
 Rear spacing is getting crazy. one day there will be standards like 148mm, 149mm, 150mm, 151mm and so on....
  • 1 0
 i should really upgrade my norco VPS 3 then
  • 1 0
 Standard sizes will be available for awhile.
  • 2 0
 Fuck SRAM.
  • 1 0
 Not many questions being asked this week
  • 1 0
 25.4 tho amirite
  • 1 3
 Glad to own a Transition Bike, new rocker for metric shocks should be available, no need to change the frame !
  • 17 19
  • 64 3
  • 6 1
 Classic. Imperial originated in the UK (yes, you've made some minor tweaks), but hey, whatever makes you happy... Wink
  • 12 3
 Ey I'm American and I find imperial very confusing. Conversions are a bitch. Go ahead and call me a commie but it's too damn confusing
  • 3 1
 @dropoffsticks: They are teaching Spanish to kids in the 1st grade but they aren't teaching them Metric.....
I wish I had been educated in the Metric when I was younger
  • 5 0
 @somismtb: there's nothing to be educated about with metric, as long as you're familiar with the number ten. It's pretty simple - a number that sounds twice as big is actually twice as big. When you want to really scale things up, you can just multiply by ten again. And again. And again. Instead of having thousandths of an inch, 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, 1760 yards in a mile...
  • 4 5
 im an American. and here in America we dont call it "imperial". we simply call it Standard.
  • 3 0
 @keystonebikes: We call it "correct, right." Lol
  • 3 0
 I'm a machinist working for the government, probably be the absolute last industry to switch over to metric, and I'll say that it can't happen fast enough. It simplifies the trades so much. Half my measuring tools are in metric in the hope that we'll switch over (or a company like Hope will randomly call and offer me a job.)
  • 2 1
 @powderturns: Imperial originated with the anunnaki, they have 12 digits, not 10 like humanoids.
  • 4 1
 I find it embarrassing, being "american" and all, that we never adopted the metric system. Standard/Imperial... whatever you choose to call it, is nothing to be proud of. These ever changing, never ending "standards" aren't either. Why we still refer to them as a standard is beyond me.
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment

Copyright © 2000 - 2019. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.056885
Mobile Version of Website