Powered by Outside

Suspension Manufacturers Introduce Metric Shock Sizing

Mar 31, 2016
by Pinkbike Staff  
From SRAM: With the attached PR six of the bicycle industry’s main suspension manufacturers, including RockShox, are making an important announcement concerning the future of rear shocks and bicycle frame design. Each of the brands involved in this announcement will announce its specific plans separately and according to its product release timing schedule. We’re excited to be part of this announcement and for the improvements, it will bring to suspension products and bicycles in the near future, which have been broadly recognized throughout our industry.

Suspension goes metric

Whistler SRAM tuning camp

Stay tuned to Pinkbike for more on the story soon.


MENTIONS: @SramMedia / @ManitouSF / @CaneCreekCyclingComponents / @ManitouSF / @DVOSuspension



Posted In:
Press Releases


Author Info:
pinkbikeaudience avatar

Member since Jul 22, 2013
3,486 articles

216 Comments
  • 280 6
 It's a day early you dummies
  • 47 9
 Don't worry, it will probably cost $1,000,000 CAD anyway.
  • 113 11
 also fox 40's will now be called fox 1.5748's heard it here first ;D
  • 122 2
 Does this mean i can get my 200x57mm shock converted to metric?
  • 12 2
 @shakeyakey: I lol'ed, hard.
  • 8 0
 @moefosho:

CAD = Metric money, so you're just keepin' it real.
  • 53 17
 @shakeyakey: 40mm is metric. Inches would be imperial.
  • 6 1
 @sweet-bike:
link>http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/483/894/463.jpg/link>
  • 15 0
 More travel out of nowhere, how did they do that?
  • 9 1
 fuck me, that didn't work well
  • 31 1
 I would like my fork travel to be measured in lightyears. That would be a great success for light an what not...
  • 9 5
 I wish this was April Fools but unfortunately it's not. This was a SRAM born idea, the other company are only doing it so they can continue with the little spec/aftermarket. This was all SRAM to try and catch FOX out and grab more spec. To bad for the consumer.
  • 3 0
 @sweet-bike: that's why Fox aren't mentioned in the above article ;D
  • 9 1
 Damn! I just noticed that we can reply to each comment, and not just the main comment!
  • 3 1
 @sweet-bike: That was the joke
  • 4 2
 Not an April fools tho.. and makes sense..
  • 1 0
 @bluumax: mm are already metric dude
  • 2 0
 @abzillah: I noticed that earlier today too. Is this a metric thing too?
  • 2 0
 @sweet-bike: I think you missed the joke
  • 5 0
 Wait what?!? Apparently this is real. f*ck you bike industry. f*ck you with a massive spikey pole. I am pretty sure my 200mm, 222mm, and 240mm shocks can already be measured using the metric system. I am also now pretty sure in 2 years they will be considered obsolete.

Why is it that I am almost certain this was a Sram idea? It's as if Sram actually hate mountainbikers, and this new bullshit stinks of them...I'm pretty pissed off right now.
  • 3 1
 @gabriel-mission9: I don't think the sizes will change much honestly. It will probably be 200, 220, 240, 260. Close enough that offset bushings could get you to the new sizes. A lot of frames can be used with slightly different length shocks anyway, which is why offset bushings are available. It seems like much less of an issue than Boost. I bet people like TF and Push will be able to alter the length of existing shocks too.
  • 1 0
 Then why change them at all eh? It is no simpler to make a shock 220mm long than 222mm. In fact it will probably require quite a significant change of tooling. Certainly an issue for some of the smaller brands that are just starting to make inroads into the stranglehold the larger brands have on this part of the market. I'd love to see an explanation by Sram of the imagined "performance benefits" of a shock that is 260mm instead of 267, or 220 instead of 222... Given that they struggle to make a straight lower leg casting as it is, I would imagine they have bigger fish to fry...
  • 2 0
 @gabriel-mission9: as someone mentioned above, the motive is probably to steal market share from Fox
  • 1 0
 @jaame: yeah. I guess simply making their shocks better than fox's sounded too much like hard work.
  • 1 0
 @gabriel-mission9: I guess so. They are a lot cheaper though and I'm not good enough to tell the difference. Except the monarch. What a piece of shit and it's the most frequently specced shock in history. That's down to cost I'm sure
  • 1 0
 @gabriel-mission9: I think that's exactly why the big brands are moving forward quick with this sort of "innovation": to asphyxiate and if possible kill the small ones.
  • 124 10
 Great news! we all know that metric components perform better, are lighter, stronger and cheaper than imperial components... about time the bike industry work up!
  • 229 7
 Apparently aluminium is lighter, stronger and cheaper than aluminum
  • 33 1
 @WAKIdesigns: Maybe Lighter and stronger but never cheaper
  • 10 5
 @WAKIdesigns: Nearly fell of my chair laughing at that one..
  • 30 0
 I take all measurements using lightyears for consistency, but the advantage there is that lightyears are waaaaaay lighter.
  • 11 0
 @Andy-ap: your imperialist days are over! You can have bermuda. No one wants it.
  • 8 0
 Still not sure which tyres or tires I need yet!
  • 16 2
 Modern metalurgy in Crisis. Since the discovery of aluminum, up to this day nucular scientists and engineers still struggle to synthesize palladum, titanum and magnesum. The issue feels extremely pecular
  • 6 23
flag ilovebike (Mar 31, 2016 at 11:29) (Below Threshold)
 Da FU*K you smoking? A standardizedmeasurement of size has no effect on strength.....
  • 2 3
 @WAKIdesigns:
Lighter. Stronger. Cheaper. Never.
  • 8 0
 I just hope my 66.04 cm wheels don't become irrelevent.
  • 2 0
 Parsecs man, parsecs.
  • 1 3
 Wait what?!? Apparently this is real. f*ck you bike industry. f*ck you with a massive spikey pole. I am pretty sure my 200mm, 222mm, and 240mm shocks can already be measured using the metric system. I am also now pretty sure in 2 years they will be considered obsolete.

Why is it that I am almost certain this was a Sram idea? It's as if Sram actually hate mountainbikers, and this new bullshit stinks of them...I'm pretty pissed off right now.
  • 83 6
 Imperial measurenents are archaic and should be abolished.
  • 17 54
flag jomacba (Mar 31, 2016 at 8:13) (Below Threshold)
 I disagree. It's simply what you know and are comfortable with. I've been using imperial for 15 years because the construction industry is standardized by this system. If your talking about the ease in converting metric to imperial it's just like remembering the capitals of all the provinces.... it's just like grade school. I agree metric is much more simple, but why fix what ain't broke??
  • 58 3
 @jomacba: Humans can get used to anything, like prison, that doesn't mean it's good.
  • 54 79
flag Keith-Sweat (Mar 31, 2016 at 8:55) (Below Threshold)
 I will just lay this out easy for you:
Countries That use the imperial system and have landed a man on the moon: 1
Countries That use the metric system and have landed a man on the moon: 0
  • 5 23
flag jomacba (Mar 31, 2016 at 9:02) (Below Threshold)
 @kanasasa: you literally just compared a units of measurement, to incarceration against ones will... metaphically speaking in a way that we can all understand, that's like doing a head to head with a beach cruiser from walmart, and the new Carbon Wilson 650b... not only are they not even in the same class, but not even in the same category.
  • 106 3
 @Keith-Sweat: NASA uses the metric system. The entire US military uses the metric system. The metric system is dead symple. 10mm=1cm, 100cm=1m, 1000m=1km, 1kg=1L and so on. How many feet in a mile? Retarded.
  • 6 38
flag kleinblake (Mar 31, 2016 at 9:13) (Below Threshold)
 @Golden-G: metric is definitely the way to go. I will stand by Fahrenheit though
  • 15 3
 @jomacba: Seeing how many ham-fisted construction workers, or their offspring, come into the bike shop with stripped shit all the time because they refuse to accept the "European size" and stock their toolboxes with the right size, I'd say that argument is invalid. It's not a matter of it's been in place a long time, and why change it if it's broken? It is broken! Have you seen people try fractions. Monkey fvckin a footballl. It's a refusal to change to something that is different. Thus why so many people from the only major country to use imperial, USA, also wants to change the country "back to the way it was"
  • 18 1
 @Golden-G: actually 95.5% of the human race uses metric. just to keep it in perspective. And yes to Nasa and US military.
  • 31 1
 Disassembling a fork or damper already requires metric tools, the oil volumes are given in ml etc. Maybe this way we can get dampers that are slightly different length than their counterparts to do some angle tuning.
Fun fact: Nasa lost a mars orbiter in 1998 because they screwed up metric and imperial.
  • 8 13
flag jomacba (Mar 31, 2016 at 9:43) (Below Threshold)
 @mtnbykr05: lol again I reiterate the metric system is mUchiha more simple. My point more or less is that for the majority of applications it's used, it's more than fine. Now your just bashing a generalized idea of what is your typical American construction worker. Most machine shops use imperial. I'm the kind of individual that makes these beautiful piece of equipment we all love here come to life. Though I agree that there are lazy people who can't tell an Allen key from a coat hanger, generalizing and profiling really has nothing to do with the system of measure. I'm not arguing for it, I'm simply saying that the argument against it is invalid from the application side of things. If your against it, it's simply subjective, and ultimately not relevant.
  • 20 3
 It's almost like some countries still refuse to recognize women as equal humans. Just accept it, its called evolution. Cars don't have carburetors, mobile phones lost their buttons and yes metric does make more sense than imperial.
  • 15 4
 @Keith-Sweat: if you really believe they ever landed on the moon? Not sure they did
  • 1 9
flag jamielikesbikes (Mar 31, 2016 at 10:04) (Below Threshold)
 @Golden-G: 5280ft
And it turns out that you're partially wrong about NASA, yes they use it now, but when they landed a man on the moon they were using the Imperial units.
  • 3 0
 @SickEdit: Actually it was because they were using metric and the supplier used imperial but DID NOT note it on their correspondences.
  • 6 7
 @Golden-G: WTF? Kg = unit of mass, L = unit of volume, were you outside on a "4-20 break when they got to mass & volume in school?"
  • 2 0
 @TTTT: If JFK couldn't keep a lid on his side chick... I suspect they'd have been much more hard pressed to keep a lid on not landing on the moon.
  • 10 1
 @OldManJimmy: nasa has used metric since 1990. Whether or not any one landed on the moon is a whole other story. I am a caroenter so I use both imperial and metric. Imperial SUCKS! 1/32 of an inch? 12'-7-3/8" ? Dumb as shit. Try explaining imperial measurements to a european trades person, incredulous!
  • 10 1
 @GT-CORRADO: sorry.
1L of water = 1kg.
As a carpenter I deal with both systems daily. 1 is vastly superior to the other. Amazing how aggro people are behind a keyboard... Laughable actually.
  • 2 10
flag ski-or-die (Mar 31, 2016 at 10:50) (Below Threshold)
 Nautical miles per hour, feet of altitude, inches of mercury. Aviation worldwide (NASA included) continues to use imperial measurements in flight ops at least. Good luck changing THAT industry... I'm pretty sure it was the USA who originally proposed standardizing the metric system worldwide. We just got cold feet after everybody else jumped on board. Razz
  • 4 26
flag mnorris122 (Mar 31, 2016 at 10:51) (Below Threshold)
 So many people think the imperial system is stupid and makes no sense. I disagree. The metric system is the system for people who are so stupid that they can only think in multiples of 10
  • 6 1
 @Golden-G: it is laughable, but I will say that it is nice when building a home that you can be confident designing in base units of 4 that things will fit together ad work out over longer distances. Otherwise imperial is about as antiauted as using stones to measure weight...
  • 3 0
 @jomacba: yeah I do machining for a living as well, mostly prototype race car stuff, I have to work in metric and imperial all day every day, you do actually get used to it but the worst things in imperial are threads especially all the English versions that's where metric makes more sense
  • 2 2
 @mark3: you basically just proved my point. Nothing is perfect. Period. I agree for fasteners, metric threading is far superior. I don't mind imperial fine thread, but I do find course thread to be at the very least, just unrefined and rather ugly. I'm a fabricator welder as well. Also done ironwork for quite some time. My company is divulged in all aspects of metal.
  • 2 2
 @Keith-Sweat: Just to let you know NASA uses the metric system...
  • 4 1
 Haha whenever I say I like Fahrenheit people shit all over me
  • 2 1
 @robwhynot: we are forced to use imperial because construction materials are manufactured for the US market.
  • 2 1
 @Golden-G: Oh, I totally agree with you. Honestly I'm not saying that imperial is better, it's NOT, we all know it's not, we all know it's goofy as F... but when Keith-Sweat made his first incendiary comment about who's been to the moon... I read your comment as a misunderstanding about when they switched to the metric system, and I was commenting only to prevent an anachronism with respect to NASA and the metric system.
  • 2 0
 @Golden-G: When they first started the spaceflight program it was considered an offshoot of the aviation industry, and still to this day most flight traffic control is done in standard. The Apollo 11 control computer displayed and accepted standard units, and the astronauts received their burn information in standard units. It wasn't until the 80's and 90's when NASA started making the changes, and they only recently made the official switch in 2007 to better co-operate with the ESA joint effort to return to the moon.

Yes, it does make better sense to use the metric system, and I deal with it every day. But to say that standard units of measure are incapable of any good is kinda silly. Besides, the US and Canada can thank our previous British overlords for developing the standard system of measure and spreading it around.

Edit: and if you want to see where I got my information, or just want to read up on how the Lunar control computer was built and work feel free to read this:
www.doneyles.com/LM/Tales.html
  • 5 1
 Take Ginger roots, peel them' cut in thin slices put them in water bring to a boil then simmer for 30 min, take one coffee cup of the brew add a touch of mint and brown sugar then enjoy ... all of this won't matter anymore.
  • 5 2
 @mtnbykr05: Now you have done it. Now Donald Drumpf is going to start campaigning how the rest of the world is trying to force us to use metric and we need tp push back. To help, he will pass a law requiring all imported goods be to the imperial standard.
  • 3 1
 I like Fahrenheit too. But most stuff about the imperial system is confusing. In chemistry, physics, algebra, we use metric it just makes things sooo much simpler.
  • 1 3
 @kanasasa: I'd like to see you get use to a lack of Oxygen.
  • 1 1
 @SickEdit: The Ghibli glider did an emergency landing because it ran out fuel because someone cocked up the lbs to KG conversion.
  • 2 2
 @Golden-G & @GT-CORRADO: Not a universal conversion as was implied - however, 1 litre of pure water at 4 degrees C does happen to weigh exactly 1 kg, so it is a thing...
  • 2 1
 @dropoffsticks: Actually we don't use metric in algebra... Algebra is math, there are no units. Also, if you take an engineering course in the US, many will use standard measurements.
  • 2 2
 @trialsracer: well the times we do use units they're metric. Like triangles, combined rates dumb little things that require units
  • 2 1
 @dropoffsticks: Perhaps it seems like a technicality, but since algebra is math there are no units. I can make you a word problem with entirely made up units, and it stays the same. Any "units" that someone introduces to algebra are entirely arbitrary, and then it becomes a very basic physics problem or finance problem or engineering problem or whatever, because by definition, mathematics has no units. The triangle is the same exact problem whether its in feet, micrometers or parsecs. This is not the case for anything else, where units change everything and you must convert between them because there is an actual size that we are measuring and quantifying.

This is purely for education purposes; the more you know. If you want sources just do some googling.
  • 1 1
 @trialsracer: I completely agree, and we actually don't use units that often. Just listed algebra to make a point that sometimes conversions are easier with metric system. Thanks for the explanation though, that definitely makes sense
  • 1 1
 my uncle was an engineer in the uk and he used imperial units all the time. He would write dimensions down in decimal, but inches. I found it very strange. 1.45632 inches? No fractions? Why not just use metric? Does it make any difference?
  • 4 0
 @freerabbit: What kind of backward ass unit of measurement is "one coffee cup"? Now you're only making this worse.
  • 1 0
 This is all so funny, I just don't buy anything that's not metric if I can avoid it, bikes, cars, anything really. I do have a set of imp tools tho, its all the stuff I get from purchases I cant avoid it with, tool kits with both sizes etc. I dump it all in a box and sometimes I find a need of it, it just rusts otherwise.... I don't like it when it mixes with my real tools.
  • 1 1
 @GT-CORRADO: I think he is just talking about how one Litre of water weighs a kilogram?
  • 36 1
 In metric, one milliliter of water occupies one cubic centimeter, weighs one gram, and requires one calorie of energy to heat up by one degree centigrade—which is 1 percent of the difference between its freezing point and its boiling point. An amount of hydrogen weighing the same amount has exactly one mole of atoms in it.

Whereas in the American system, the answer to “How much energy does it take to boil a room-temperature gallon of water?” is “Go f*ck yourself,” because you can’t directly relate any of those quantities.

from Wild Thing: A Novel by Josh Bazell
  • 4 2
 Way to less props!
Tell that every American and most of them blink confused due to the clear logic or just shout: F**k off, because 'Merica!
  • 30 0
 Imperial Storm Troopers are behind this. I can sense a grave disturbance...
  • 11 1
 Metric Storm Troopers, I guess.
  • 16 1
 All your inches are belong to us.
  • 4 0
 These are not the measurements you are looking for.
  • 28 2
 Awesome! This is finally a new standard which bicycle riders really benefit from!.......Said no bicycle rider ever.
  • 19 2
 So all the shock sizes are gonna be reworked to completely arbitrary new ones or are the current ones being rounded to the nearest metric size? As a cheapskate, I don't like the last sentence about old sizes being supported as long as there's a *relevant* demand. Also, what about Fox?
I hate the imperial system, but if this means a few years down the line I won't be able to get a shock for my otherwise perfectly fine bikes, then that doesn't sound too great.
Or is this just an early April fools? It's already April 1st somewhere. I'll be pissed I wrote all this if that turns out to be the case.
  • 4 1
 At first i thought that they were just changing measurements from imperial to metric so people don't have to search in both mm and inches, but it sounds like some sizes are going to be discontinued if they aren't selling enough. Sucks if you have an old bike with some strange i2i and stroke measurements. Might be a good time to buy a back-up.
  • 4 0
 I wouldn't bother worrying as it's the bushes that get affected anyway assuming the shocks are rounded to the nearest whole Mill.
  • 10 1
 April fools came early. They've always been listed in metric and standard imperial.
  • 3 0
 @makripper: we might have a winner, I was thinking the same.
  • 2 1
 @makripper: They've been listed in metric, but they get rounded differently (215/216 or 69/70), which can be a little confusing, and for example the Vivid shaft has a half inch diameter. I could see some advantages of all manufacturers fully converting and commiting to metric only, mainly along the lines of simplicity.
  • 2 1
 well, as long as they don't change the mounting hardware it really shouldn't affect anything. a small change in i2i or shock travel will be negligible and might even be beneficial to your bike's geometry, like how a lot of riders 'short shock' their bikes for a slacker HA.
  • 4 0
 I must admit, I never bought a shock with imperial sizing! The revolution must have started before I bought my first replacement shock about 12 years ago (no way to get an imperial-sized shock in Germany...)
  • 3 0
 Shocks are already measured in metric, have been as long as I have ridden. Derp.
  • 15 1
 No, it's not 1st of April yet
  • 12 0
 Depends on where you are in the world
  • 11 2
 Vote Trump, he'll bring Imperial system to the rest of the world.
  • 15 3
 About time. Welcome to the modern world.
  • 11 0
 Looks like Sram and co finally watched this...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7x-RGfd0Yk
  • 9 0
 So my 215 x 63 mil shock is converting to metric?, what about my 240 x 76? ,what will i do!!!, guess i'll just HAVE to buy new ones.
  • 14 0
 So confused... weren't shocks already spec'd in metric?
  • 2 0
 I think the point is they're going to change things so they use more even metric numbers. 220x70 instead of a 215x63, as a guess.
  • 11 0
 I hope that's not it. Engineering and design aren't optimized by making numbers end in zero.
  • 2 0
 @dfiler: no, but the bike rumor piece on it has some quotes from a DVO engineer, who says that it allows them to put their foot down on some shock sizes that make fitting the damping into the shock very hard: www.bikerumor.com/2016/03/31/suspension-industry-unites-introduce-metric-sizing-rear-shocks/#comments

That's worthwhile, because, in order to reduce parts stock counts, the compromises needed to have a 200x57 in your lineup probably affect every other length in that lineup.

to be fair, they could do the same thing with SAE measurements, but this is a convenient excuse.
  • 2 1
 @dfiler: that's called zero filling and it's used all the time in maths but can produce artifacts like sync wiggles in Fourier transformed spectra lol
  • 10 0
 That time Pinkbike forgot there were 31 days in March...
  • 2 0
 Its April 1st...Just not here. Wink
  • 2 1
 @BrightBulbPhoto:

That time pinkbike forgot its not April 1st in every part of the world... That better? Haha
  • 10 1
 How about American metric? It's metric, but better than everyone else's, because it's AmericanSmile
  • 5 0
 OK, so what does it really mean? Well, basically shocks are getting re-sized in terms of their stroke to i2i ratios. What will actually happen is shocks are going to be getting longer overall - this allows for more room inside a shock to improve the performance of both the air spring and damping platform. Alongside that, the new metric sizing allows for a more evenly spaced stroke/length ratio, ironing out some of the oddities in current shock sizing that affect leverage ratios unnecessarily, or put another way, it allows the frame designer to design around a specific stroke with less compromise on shock fit, as the metric sizing will be more 'stepped' in a sane way. How you might have done it if you started from scratch. The latter is a convenience for frame designers, while the longer shock hopefully yielding actual performance benefits that make it worth having.
  • 2 0
 I've heard that 200x57 is a particularly tough example, and I understand how tough it can be to fit shocks to a frame, but I'm not convinced that a 216x57 wouldn't accomplish nearly exactly the same thing. Maybe there's a particular stroke:i2i ratio that is optimal, but given the diversity in LR of frames and air can sizes, I kind of doubt it.
  • 2 0
 @b26-4-Life: Its not quite that you cant get close, its that you cant get what you want. Theres about (AFAIK) 30 or so new metric sizes going into production as standard sizes across the manufacturers, compared to about 10 today. Thats spread over fewer i2i lengths though (each i2i supporting a range of sizes). I think its a case of manufacturers deciding that shocks needed to get longer and more logical, and saying to themselves we can either back fill the current range by lengthening shocks in 1/2 inch increments and 1/8 stroke increments until the range is complete.... or, start again on a sensible sizing regime that makes sense. I know which I would have done.
  • 1 0
 @benpinnick: Yeah, it's probably much better in the long run. Even without Fox, it's nice to see that many manufacturers behind it, and I do feel like it's less sheisty when it's the suspension manufacturers are pushing it, as I can only imagine it's in their best interest to have as many shared lengths as possible among the bike brands.
  • 5 0
 Wait. Metric or Imperial.... Aren't they all just measurements?

I can see it now:

"U runnin a 216 MM rear shock, or an 8.5inch ? "

"216 MM it's way more enduro than 8.5inch. "

216mm is 8.5" .......... scratches head.
  • 7 0
 So the new "standard" is simply multiplying a number by 25.4? THIS IS REVOLUTIONARY!
  • 1 1
 No, this is already done. The new standard will remove the unneeded decimal points and give us normal, orunded numbers for shock sizes. Think 200x50, 200x60, 225 x 70, etc. Not some arbitrary numbers like 216.something x 63.something.
  • 8 0
 If you give them an inch they will take 1.6 kilometres
  • 6 1
 How to make obsolete ALL the products of the market without bringing any technical feature. So fun (and sad) to read their silly argumentation.
Marketing experts, go and burn in Hell.
  • 8 2
 My frame sports 200x57, hopefully it will change to 200x60 and eye size will increase, so I'll be able to use older bolts.
  • 1 0
 that would be totally awesome ! that 3 mm would probably add extra 6-7 mm of travel
  • 5 0
 Looks like my 190x51 will become 190x50 so I will finally have a good excuse for my wife to get new frame. I predict offset bushing sales skyrocket.
  • 2 0
 My guess is that the shock eyelet sizes are going to change. No more 1/2 inch x 1/2" eyelets... they will all probably switch to 15mm or something like that.
  • 3 0
 Wasn't it metric already. My rearshock is 200x50mm. Never measured whether it is actually 203.2x50.8mm (which would then be exactly 8"x2") . Would be hard to measure as well. The more I inflate it, the longer it gets (compressing the top out elastomer). And the harder you bottom out, the more extra travel you get out of that top out elastomer (or at least 0.8mm should be doable). So err, it doesn't matter one bit. It would obviously matter for the mounting hardware. But you riders in the US and UK aren't using imperial mounting hardware on your bike, are you? Unless they are really planning to change the steerer tube diameters again, that would be disastrous!

Then this could be April Fools for the Japanese market (considering the timing, interesting to see US and Canadian riders have a different view on that). But it isn't funny, just confusing. And confusing with bicycle component sizing isn't funny anymore.
  • 1 0
 Your shock is actually 200 x 51 mm (the other 200 mm size has a stroke of 57 mm). This equates to 7.875" x 2" (200.025 x 50.8 mm) or 7.875" x 2.25" (200.025 x 57.15 mm).

7.875 inches is 7 7/8", 2.25 is obviously 2 1/4".

Not a huge difference going 'metric', but i see no reason to be still using the stupid imperial units, that have no sensible connection between themselves, in 2016.

cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/imperial_vs__metric_by_nekit1234007-d5p0ou5.png
  • 1 0
 @Primoz: Thanks for clearing that up. Even though I live and studied in The Netherlands (where SI is standard) I learned that we should be able to work with the imperial system as well. As long as you stay within a certain system, you'll be (more or less) fine. The funny thing is that it got mixed up with mountainbiking. I don't see the steerer tube diameters change real soon (or at least I don't hope so). Even though most if not all bicycle pump manometers show both bar as well as psi and the recommendations on the tire sidewall are also in both systems, it still seems common on PB at least to mention pressures in psi (pounds per square inch). Same goes for the pressures in air spring suspension systems and the coil springs (in lbs). If you're going to mention pressures in psi, it would actually make most sense to mention piston diameters in inch, not mm.

There is some consistence in the imperial system, just not as much as in the SI system. Twelve inch in a foot, three foot in a yard, stuff like that. It is hard to argue for me SI is "better" than imperial as I grew up with SI so I'm biased.
  • 7 0
 This is METRIC news!
  • 1 0
 it sure is shocking that it took them this long to standardize to metric
  • 6 0
 Cool to see something about suspension and not boost hubs and wheelsize
  • 5 2
 April Fools or not, I find it hi-larious that SRAM is the one who's apparently delivering this PSA only a week after the whole Eagle bit about how the masses "don't want another standard." f*ckin wankers.
  • 7 0
 TIL that Pinkbike automatically censors swear words with asterisks
  • 2 0
 @sevensharpnine: I learned that as well!
  • 6 0
 I love that.
  • 8 4
 so, the size won't actually change, but the unit of measurement will? this release is filled with zero actual information.
  • 3 0
 It explains it in the article, if you read, "With no less than six established suspension manufacturers about to introduce a new shock standard utilising metric sizing, it certainly looks like 2017 is already shaping up to be another year of intrigue and change." So to answer your question- both.
  • 4 3
 it IS dumb that we use imperial measurements for shocks... but jesus, know your market guys, everybody is already pissed at you for obsoleting their old shit, this obsoletes frames, FFS this could have waited, or y'know, just make the shocks for brands that want to switch & don't make a big deal about it.

SUUUPER tone deaf to go this route.
  • 15 0
 It's dumb that anyone uses imperial mesuremens at all.
  • 5 0
 @LukeBurgie: eh, at least they're real measurements, instead of "this is what the board measured before we planed it down," aka, a 2"x4" is not a 2"x4"
  • 7 2
 Noooo! I really hope they don't force me to ride in km/h too!
  • 2 0
 I don't think I've seen a shock advertised in inches in the UK for well over a decade!! If it is real and not a mis-timed April fool then all I read is that the US is finally having to conform with the civilised world Smile
  • 1 0
 "The group of suspension manufacturers says that metric sizing allows suspension manufacturers and frame designers to significantly simplify rear shock sizing and fitment"

I agree with that and its a completely valid reason. All the other stuff about performance benefits and advantages of metric sizing just seems like BS though. Even under the old system there were shocks of almost any increment of stroke and length already. I don't see how changing to the metric system is going to change that significantly.
  • 1 0
 Exactly my thoughts. I know and undertand that metric is simpler and makes more sense but both are measurements, not laws of physics. I feel like they're trying to say that there's limitations to what is measurable in Imperial units which is absolutely bonkers. Whatever unit you use, you can make anything, measure anything and count anything, it's only about the numbers that you'll end up with. I mean are they saying that 32F is not 0C, or that metric is more "true" than imperial? This is just going to make designers life simpler and all our bikes obsolete.
  • 1 0
 How do they figure there is a performance benefit from switching the measurement system. All this is actually going to amount to is frames that cannot take any old shock and eventually will make all old shocks useless on the used market unless you are looking to fit one on an old frame. Im sure that there will be a marginal size incompatibility going forward. It is yet to be seen but this can only be a cash grab. I used to support the bike industry progression with new wheel sizes and basic adjustments tha t made sense but now its just going too far to eliminate all old equipment.
  • 1 0
 I think the elephant in the room is that shocks were largely metric already: 12mm bushing. Somehow I don't think they'll be going back to that, though I wouldn't mind a larger bushing if it cut down on wear (though might increase friction, idk)
  • 2 1
 I actually wouldnt dislike it if shocks for example came standard as 200x50, instead of also 190x50, 200x51, 200x57. As long as you can easily add more travel to them or lower them, to your likings (Meaning that a 200x50 shock is also a 190x40, 207x57 etc).

Then for example all enduro / trail frames could be based on one shock size, meaning you can transfer your newly bought €700 shock to your new frame if you break or upgrade your current frame, instead of having to throw it away.

All it would need then to become perfect is a u-turn option on the shock. According to the latest Pinkbike articles one do it all bike doesn't work anymore, and you'll need at least 5 different bikes: 100mm for xc, 120mm for light trail, 150mm do it all, 170mm enduro and 200mm downhill. If you could set your shock from 120mm to 170mm just by turning the u-turn knob, you'd really get a great do it all bike, if combined with a u-turn fork.
  • 1 0
 I've never liked to mix of imperial and metric on bikes. Wheel sizes are imperial, but geometry is metric. Crank lengths are metric, but the pedals that screw into them are imperial. Seatposts and handlebar diameters are converted to metric from old imperieral measurements and fork steerers for the most part are measured in imperial.

Whether this is an April 1st joke or not, I'm happy with is. No more listing shock lengths like "200x57mm (7.875 x 2.25)"
  • 2 1
 How much more metric can they get?
My Enduro shock is already 216mmx57.2mm, the bike has 160mm fork travel/155mm rear, and the forks on my 951 are Fox 40's-as in 40mm stanchions, and have 200mm of travel.
And my brakes consist of 203mm front and rear rotors.
Am I missing something here?
  • 1 0
 According to other sources the change to metric is only part of the picture, It looks like the main goal is to totally redesign the rear shock to allow a bigger space for better preforming dampers. Sounds like it could be a great thing, but do we really need new standards for our rear suspension? www.bikerumor.com/2016/03/31/suspension-industry-unites-introduce-metric-sizing-rear-shocks
  • 1 0
 Wait what?!? Apparently this is real. f*ck you bike industry. f*ck you with a massive spikey pole. I am pretty sure my 200mm, 222mm, and 240mm shocks can already be measured using the metric system. I am also now pretty sure in 2 years they will be considered obsolete.

Why is it that I am almost certain this was a Sram idea? It's as if Sram actually hate mountainbikers, and this new bullshit stinks of them...I'm pretty pissed off right now.
  • 5 2
 I'm thinking of leaving this stupid sport, what is the advantage of this new standard?
  • 1 0
 Qué envidia me da el mundo del BMX y su sencillez...
  • 3 0
 Just wait until someone comes out with Metric "Plus" sizing....then we're all screwed!
  • 5 5
 Call this what it really is... Boost for shocks in a clever marketing package to keep all our knives sheathed.

Here's what is really going on here:

1. This allows Sram and frame manufactures to create proprietary parts under the illusion of performance benefits (here's the new Pivot Hightower HD LS, with a 204.8x 56.7 monarch. Feel free to upgrade to a Fox, DVO, etc. Oh wait, they don't make that size....)

2. Which brings me to number two, a way to drive the smaller guys who can't absorb tooling costs for 800 different shock sizes out of the market.

I really wish the other 5 companies here would have joined the missing White Elephant, Fox, with a counter coalition to NOT mess with shock sizes and let Sram and Specialized continue to bang each other without giving us, the consumer, the common courtesy of a reach around.

"SRAM! You're nothing but unorganized grab-asstic pieces of amphibian shit!"

Gunnery sergeant Hartman, out!
  • 1 0
 President:We've ran out of new ideas for the industry, how can we make money with "progression"
Enployee1: "Uhhhh"
Employe 2: "Lets justmake everything SAE from here on in."

Woops gues I should avoid givinh them ideas-_-
  • 3 0
 Can't wait for Boost suspension.
  • 1 0
 You have obviously missed Boost Valve on Fox shocks...
  • 2 0
 Shame it's an early April 1st article... I was hoping to see an end to 27.5" components next...
  • 2 7
flag jflb (Mar 31, 2016 at 9:38) (Below Threshold)
 Bud. Riding bikes is funner with 27.5 wheels than it is with 26 wheels. Time to move on.
  • 1 0
 @jflb: nt rly
  • 2 0
 Popcorn ? Check
Battery ? Check
Cellphone off ? Check
Now let's look at all these comments...
  • 1 0
 Rick Mercer nailed it when he was talking to American's on Canada switching to the 24-hour clock to be in sync with the US.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydw4kj9P90w
  • 1 0
 April fools - look to see a funny Rock Shox release tomorrow about some 'New Metric Shock' that is the exact same measurements of their current ones.
  • 2 0
 you know what they call a quarterpound in europe? - royal with cheese. You know why?
  • 1 0
 cause kids unable to buy a proper part?
who do really cares?

next step is tire pressure labeling?
  • 2 1
 next, wheel size going to metric, just think about the possibilities..... x2.5 more wheel size changes then in inches .....
  • 4 1
 Oh fuck this.
  • 1 0
 While everyone on this side of the world goes WTH?!
The Auzzie's and Kiwi's will wake up to HAHAHA, April Fools. Wink
  • 2 0
 Finally I can use my metric adjustable spanner!
  • 1 0
 Hopefully wheel builders will get on board! I could really used some 6985mm wheels.
  • 2 0
 Fox wants nothing to do with this shit Fox is no fool Buy Fox
  • 2 0
 This better be a messed up attempt at an april fools joke...
  • 1 0
 Wait what?!? Apparently this is real. f*ck you bike industry. f*ck you with a massive spikey pole. I am pretty sure my 200mm, 222mm, and 240mm shocks can already be measured using the metric system. I am also now pretty sure in 2 years they will be considered obsolete.

Why is it that I am almost certain this was a Sram idea? It's as if Sram actually hate mountainbikers, and this new bullshit stinks of them...I'm pretty pissed off right now.
  • 1 0
 Ist of April here. The April fools joke was funny, even funnier reading the retarded comments.
  • 1 0
 Yep changing from standard to metric is so "revolutionary" sram good on ya for that statement f*cken morons!!!
  • 1 0
 Too much internet. Can't tell if SRAM trolling or just stupid. Yes I know that April Fool's is tomorrow as well
  • 1 0
 if only us merican's can get on board with the metric system this it might come true.
  • 1 0
 Can someone help me with this?? Arent shocks already metric? Ex. My old giant reign had 120mm of travel. Whats new?
  • 1 0
 Wow that was a trip reading these posts. I almost second-guessed myself...... Some of you must be paid shills. Well done.
  • 1 0
 So when will they change wheel sizes to metric? Could do with a 7000mmer
  • 1 0
 ETRTO sizes are already metric. Take a look on your tyres and you will probably find 559/584/622 (26"/27.5"/29") stamped on them somewhere.
  • 1 0
 Maybe that will let you use bike yoke one stumpy 29er Eek
  • 2 1
 Still, nothing will fit my '07 Turner DHR. :'(
  • 1 0
 Was Fox too busy to agree with the other six?
  • 1 0
 And Ohlins . . . . ?
  • 2 0
 @MX298: And BOS
  • 1 0
 April fools... shock lengths are already metric...
  • 1 0
 It's April 1st in Japan!!!
  • 1 0
 This is trolling at it's finest!
  • 1 0
 I guess fox didn't want to play nicely with the rest of the kiddies
  • 1 0
 It took this long to recognize that metric is so much easier ?
  • 2 0
 pb: got ya bitch!
  • 1 0
 "Inconceivable"
- Vizzini, The Princess Bride
  • 1 0
 I love me some new standards!!!
  • 1 0
 wait the metric system is better?
  • 1 0
 Can this happen to tyres an tyre manufacturers please?
  • 1 0
 "as long as market demand is relevant" exactly what i expect from sram
  • 1 0
 Haha the (Canadian) band Metric is playing tonight in Vancouver!
  • 1 0
 Just another reason to stay on a 26" hardtail
  • 1 0
 mmm ... and there was me thinking they already were metric
  • 2 1
 YES A NEW STANDARD!
  • 1 0
 Halleluja!!!
  • 1 0
 Wtf? Me cago en la puta
  • 1 0
 Weltherrschaft
  • 1 1
 they already are metric :boggle:
  • 1 0
 Marzocchi lives!
  • 1 0
 April Fools!
  • 1 1
 Xfusion allready uses metric.
  • 1 1
 What about FOX??
  • 1 2
 That must come as a shock to some!
  • 2 2
 'Imperial ain't dead!
  • 2 3
 Date FAIL! LMAO
  • 1 3
 Anyone else find this shocking!!







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.079789
Mobile Version of Website