K2 / Proflex Riders Group

General => Tech Forum => Topic started by: Oz-SUB on March 30, 2003, 06:32:48 pm

Title: Foz Van RC Travel - Not whats on the Tin, spring C
Post by: Oz-SUB on March 30, 2003, 06:32:48 pm

As with the XLink fork (stated travel 3", actual travel 2.716"), my SUB fork (stated travel 4", actual travel 3"), and now my recently Supergo purchsed Foz Van RC (stated stroke 2½", actual travel 2.25" including compressing the bumper 1/8th").  Does any mtb suspension product actually travel the claimed printed amount?

This leads me onto spring choice for the Van RC.  The springs I'm looking at come in 2.36" and 3.0" travel.  As the real stroke is only 2.25" (giving 5" rear travel on an Oz) should I go for the 2.36" travel spring or the 3.0" unit?

If the actual travel was 2½" then I would go for the 3.0" unit.

Title: Re: Foz Van RC Travel - Not whats on the Tin, spri
Post by: GET on March 30, 2003, 08:48:11 pm

The spring travel should significantly exceed the shock travel.  As a spring approaches its limits, the strain/stress in the spring goes non-linear and will degrade the lifetime performance of the spring.  3" sounds a little excessive, but 2.36" is marginal.  As an engineer, I would go with the longer travel.

Title: Re: Foz Van RC Travel - Not whats on the Tin, spri
Post by: dmc on March 31, 2003, 09:08:58 am

Why can't you get a 2-1/2 inch travel spring? If you run a 3inch spring you would want to make sure you had enough clearance for the longer spring and that it fits without having to be preloaded as you wouldn't want a spring with more travel than your shock stroke trying to pull your shock apart every time it rebounds. I've got a 2-1/4 stroke RC in my EVO and I've measured 150mm/6inches of travel from it not 125mm/5inches. dmc