If you're going to be hucking 80+ foot gaps down a quarry with razor-sharp slate ready to slice you to ribbons at the slightest mistake, you probably want a bike that's designed especially for the task. Thanks to its additive manufacturing design, Gee could do exactly that with the Atherton Bikes DH he used for the Slateline edit. Using his namesake brand's custom carbon tubing, he went for a mullet set up with a 480mm reach and 450mm chainstays. Gee says the mullet design allows him to get off the back more easily on the super steep sections, which means that the bike can move around more underneath him.
The big deviation from his regular World Cup setup is the inclusion of a coil shock. This is the 12th iteration of the DW6 DH bike in the past year so Gee understands the characteristics of the setup pretty well by now. Normally he'll run an air shock for racing but he went for a softer coil shock on this freeride build to optimise small bump sensitivity. He ran it with a 525 lb/in spring but he pushed up the high-speed compression so it still held up in the bumps.
The final change came from the pressure in his prototype Continental Kaiser tires. Gee went right down to 18psi so they would have as much compliance as possible on a constantly shifting surface. Despite the low pressures, the tires held up well and he says he spent the entire 7-day shoot on the same pair.
Editor's Note: Some factual corrections have been made to this article since its initial publication. We apologize for any confusion.
Spacers in a coil shock?
“On the air side, Öhlins use a three-chamber design. The normal positive and negative chambers are present, but so too is a third ramp up chamber adjustable with air pressure, which negates the need for volume spacers.”
Technically dual-stage rather than multi-stage maybe, but still more than one.
It's 100% not 2 stage. Your just changing the volume of the air chamber. Literally all it does. And by doing this decreases space in said chamber so it ramps up earlier and uses a little less air doing so. Making it so you can fine tune when ramp up begins and use less psi so it has better small bump for your liking. Not sure why I have to explain this. There are loads of information out there on the internet about it
Understand there is a lot of information on the internet but why Google stuff when we have you? Only being halfway smart ass... you seem to actually know what you’re talking about and it’s easier than trying to read engineering jargon regarding air springs for other applications outside of mtb.
the 3 all have the same end result. adjusting volume in the main chamber. mrp changes volume by reducing or increasing space. the runt does the same thing via air instead of a mechanical method. they are both similar to a volume spacer but in theory easier to fine tune volume size for preferred characteristics.
basically all methods do the same thing. reduce volume of the main chamber. pretty simple idea but gives great results for tuning preferred characteristics.
you can add some spacers/air volume to another chamber or wind down a mechanism to reduce volume for a bunch of different reasons. for sure mid stroke support is part of it as is small bump and final ramp up at end stroke.
its kind of cool really, if you dont have enough mid support and or blowing through travel at recommended sag, but feel like your losing your small bump, add a token, reduce psi until you get your sag back. you should have a little more small bump sensitivity and better mid support/faster ramp up near end of stroke.
sorry for the book. i hope it helps make sense.
MRP ramp control is a hybrid between a high speed compression damping circuit using air as the damping medium and volume spacers on an air spring - the higher the shaft speed the lower the spring volume.
The DSD Runt works like the Ohlins dual chamber positive spring but you can't vary the volume of each chamber, only the pressures.
Yep, some (all?) Öhlins air springs are two-stage, similar to the Manitou IRT, DSD Runt, etc.
Spot-on about the MRP Ramp Control acting as both a damper and volume reducer (compared to the same spring without the Ramp Control, rather than compared to an equal volume of reducers).
@makripper, It's also incorrect that reducing volume improves mid-stroke support. This is the opposite. For the same "total support", reducers shift the balance toward more end-stroke support, while larger volume makes a more linear spring, which has more support in the middle. Have a look at this chart to help you understand it. The chart compares various springs with constant work done during compression, which is a fair approximation of how a rider would set up the suspension to maintain comparable access to the full stroke.
If you're comparing the same pressure in a fork or shock with and without reducers, then yes, the same pressure with less volume will create a little more support in the mid-stroke and a lot more support at the end stroke. But that's the wrong way to think of it because it's not comparing two good, but different, set-ups, it's comparing one that wasn't good to one that is.
When comparing two, equally viable, set-ups that use different compression ratios (via reducers), the one with a lower compression ratio (fewer reducers) has more support in the mid-stroke. As I said, look at the link I provided and let me know if you continue to struggle with it.
Comparison 1: Same pressure, with and without reducers.
In this case, the reducers add a small amount of mid-stroke support, but this comparison is invalid because one of the two is inherently inappropriate for the rider.
• If the rider has enough bottom-out support without the reducers, the rider cannot access full travel with the reducers. Obviously the wrong way to add mid-stroke support if the suspension no longer works properly.
• If the rider can access full travel with the reducers, then the set-up without reducers is incorrect because the rider will bottom out too easily. Again, not a valid comparison when one set-up doesn't work.
Clearly, this comparison is invalid, so let's move on to a valid comparison.
Comparison 2: Different pressures, with and without reducers, such that the rider is equally able to use full travel with both set-ups.
In this case, the set-up with reducers creates less mid-stroke support.
• This comparison is valid because both scenarios allow the rider to use full travel appropriately. They are different, but both actually work for the rider, unlike in Comparison 1.
• The mid-stroke support is significantly different between these options, with less support from the set-ups with reducers.
Mid-stroke support is not the main change the reducers create. The change in mid-stroke support is small, while the change in bottom-out support is large. The main effect produced by reducers is bottom-out support. When comparing set-ups with appropriate bottom-out support, the set-up with a lower compression ratio (fewer reducers) has more mid-stroke support.
Once again, refer to this chart that illustrates Comparison 2 and shows how this works.
And we weren't talking about ifp at all. That's a whole other subject.
Thats the basics.
The comparison is valid only if both set-ups are viable, which is not the case if one set-up only adds support. There has to be a trade-off: add some support in one part of the stroke and give up some support elsewhere. That's how tuning of the spring curve works.
Then here comes rmr for some reason trying to say it's not true? Then here you are knowing nothing about suspension and trying to talk down to me? Get a life.
Thank you for providing that chart from Fox. It helps me understand where your misunderstanding comes from, regarding tokens increasing mid-stroke support.
That chart shows what would happen if the pressure was held constant and reducers were installed. The chart is accurate, but it is not relevant. I'll explain why.
It does not compare appropriate set-ups for a given rider. If the yellow line actually worked for our rider, the orange and red lines would not work because our rider could no longer use full travel. Similarly, if the red line worked for our rider, the yellow line would by a clattering festival of bottom-outs. These are not equivalent set-ups.
I strongly encourage you to watch Vorsprung's video on air springs, which is where I got the chart. After that, I recommend Episodes 15, 16, 27, and 28, in that order. I've even linked them for you to make it easier. After watching all five, you'll see why the constant energy chart is a fairly good model for comparing viable options and how volume reducers reduce mid-stroke support.
You may also want to check out this thread on MTBR, dealing with essentially the same topic.
"its kind of cool really, if you dont have enough mid support and or blowing through travel at recommended sag, but feel like your losing your small bump, add a token, reduce psi until you get your sag back. you should have a little more small bump sensitivity and better mid support/faster ramp up near end of stroke."
There's certainly some truth to that, but it's not practical.
"what exactly am I wrong about"
I'll explain.
• To get "a little more small bump sensitivity", the rider has to reduce pressure.
• To get perceptibly "better mid support" from reducers while using lower base pressure, the spring has to be loaded with reducers - way too many reducers. By the time a rider has added enough tokens to significantly increase mid-stroke support, the end-stroke has become completely inaccessible. The rider will lose at least a quarter of their travel due to the extreme end-stroke ramp-up, probably closer to a third of the travel.
The correct tuning options for a rider who wants more a softer top, firmer middle, and accessible bottom is one or multiple of the following:
• Increase negative spring pressure and/or length
• Multi-stage spring
• Coil spring
Yeah you are just wrong. Sorry guy!
Have you ever ridden a bike before? You never answered my questions about back to back testing using any sort of volume reduction.
Also people please oh please stop comparing bicycles to planes and cars/F1 cars. They are completely different structures using different grades of meterials etc.
You miss understand the whole thing.
It's irrelevant what he is doing on this bike. The proof in the pudding is what these bikes can do under a competent rider over 3 years of ownership. How durable they are, whether the glue will continue to hold the bike together etc.
So stop believing everything you see in a video like this it's all for marketing and selling their products. Over 30 years in Mountain Biking I've seen it all and don't fall for it.
Get these bikes out to private owners and see how they fair over time! Then we will know how their glued together bike is!?
Also, I am not seeing them as new tech in anyway whatsoever. Carbon tubes glued into lugs was done decades ago and they fell apart!
Talk about me doing research. 50 private customers is sod all! Hardly big time are they!
Fact is they have not been in the public domain long enough or in any significant quantity to see whether their bikes will stand the test of time. That is a plain(excuse the pun) fact!!
Personally I would never buy a bike like this that has not been out there and tried and tested for a decent period of time. It's irrelevant what the Athertons do on them its when they are in the public domain we will see if they develope faults or failures. That is the real proof that these bikes are good. Not Gee launching a gap and saying "Rad", "Stoked", "Super Stoked" etc.
- Tom
- Tom
You cannot compare bicycle to planes, space ships, F1 cars, submarines, rockets or anything else ridiculous like that!!!
Time will tell!
I mean thinking about something like an airplane or submarine, a critical part failure would catastrophic. So you think the engineers developing these vehicles just build them and send them up in the air or to the bottom of the ocean and see if they fail? Of course they don't because that would be stupid. Science lets us know how much force and stress the construction needs to withstand and they can simulate that long before it something ever makes it to the point of real world testing. Same goes for bikes. They know exactly how much stress those carbon tubes, titanium lugs, and the adhesive that holds them together can withstand.
Bike checks = arguments over who is the most 'engineer'
E MTB articles = arguments about whether you like e-bikes
COVID related articles= arguments about whether COVID exists
Everything else = Arguments about BREXIT, Sexism, Racism, Politics and religion
Truth is it was great video by a great rider who is still pushing the limits. This article was about his bike build.
- Tom
Makes sense. I know that there are some companies making a 35mm bar that say they do not compromise on rode comfort. It's just really interested ng how most pros run a 31.8. Even the ones getting close to or at 800mm
MacAskill filming was better for example, and also Gee's previous video on the ridge was mind blowing.
Both redbull athletes and amazing at what the do for sure.
This one always amuses me.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCxBeoE8EXY
Gee is mind blowing
I believe Renthal even said that the only reason they even bothered making a 35mm bar was because the OEM market wanted them and not because they felt there was any performance advantage in doing it
The fit now feels perfect and although at the moment the current travel restrictions have stopped me hitting bike parks, on the local down hill trails it feels a lot more playful. On more pedally stuff, having the DW setup means it is an easy pedal, very similar to my old Ibis trail bike.
In terms of frame cost in the UK as I paid the £300 premium for a custom fit it was a little more expensive than the alternatives from Ibis, Santa cruz and Yeti. Oh and as it was made in Wales, order to delivery was about 8 weeks (including a Covid shut down at one of their paint suppliers)
- Tom
- Tom
Apparently I understand suspension even less than I feared. I was always under the impression that coils had greater small bump sensitivity?
I’m confused
Disappeared?
- Tom
- Tom
Aren't all Atherton bikes custom?
Also custom price, which is expensive?
Or even any bits that could use to build my own e bike frame?
- Tom