kipper said:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
but green 99 you cant compare those with each other his shock moved far forward and at a slight forward tilt is ok strictly from a correct geometry perspective,the path of movement is inline with the shock
but it is a terribly extreme leverage ratio ,what is it 5 to 1 ? thats insane and is going to give 15+ of rear wheel travel, with a 3" stroke shock,more than an mx bike ,and it puts a huge load into the swingarm and pivot and the tubes running up to the backbone,they were never designed for even a small fraction of the loads it would be getting right there,it is compltetely unworkable ,sorry
ok then well it needs to have the shock moved back on the swingarm to lesson the leverage ratio but the tire is there
the only way would be the shock off to one side of the swinger back to a workable ratio like 2 to 1
] the honda you give as an example with the monoshock ,is another way to do a mono it is totally different geometry to a shock that is mounted down low close to the horizontal plane of the pivot and rear axle thjey are a different animal apples and oranges
and it looks a like it misses the sweet spot as well, i could be wrong i would need to model it,but i am going to say the shock needs to be layed down more .reason is with the high bottom mount(in relation to the pivot)and the closer it, the bottom mount gets to the vertical plane of the pivot ,the more the actual path of movement of the bottom shock mount is happening in the horizontal plane
if the bottom shock mount is straight up from the pivot all of the motion is horizontal ,not flat of course the path is always an arc no matter where the mount is but hopefully the concept is graspable
and generally speaking there is a sweet spot that the shock angle needs to occupy to give any kind of practical rate of progression, if any ...the rate can be flat that is acceptable not optimal at all it is better if it is a rising rate even a small amount which is all you can really get without linkage,rising rate means that the swingarm is loosing leverage as travel progesses,as travel progressis the rate of shock movement RISES the leverage ratio is decreasing numerically like from 3 to 1 to 3 to 1.5 a simple example wheel to shock travel ratio this allows for a spring that works soft enough for small bumps but the rate change allows it to take big hits as well
a falling rate is bad, that is gaining leverage on the shock thru travel progression, shock travel FALLING as wheel travel progreses ...falling rate you need a stiff as fuck spring rate to handle the big bumps but then it rides harsh as fuck on small bumps, 3 to 1 to 3.5 to 1 a simple example
all this stuff needs to be planned out and modeled ,that is the way the mfg's do it some of the geometries used are still a poor design to this day,but its not that hard to plan out ,but it seems aint nobody got time fo dat
you may not approve of this message, but i didnt make any off this shit up neither ,nor did i school learn it,no matter ,its all indisputable fact