The longer shock will actually give you a slightly higher BB. By my calculations, going to a 42.5 stroke length will give you about 106mm of rear travel, not 115mm. The BB would only be raised by maybe 3mm, less at sag. So not really significant geo changes (edit: my bad, if you’re sticking with a 165mm shock length the BB would be in the same spot, or a bit lower like you said if you choose to run more sag).
I’d stick with what you have. It’s what the frame was designed for and I don’t think the extra minimal travel will matter.
Thats Great! Thank you! This gives me some flexibility incase I ever want to change How did you find the NS RC at 100mm - how did you find the bb height in relation to pedal strikes? I always run 165mm pedals but have Rally XC pedals which are pretty hefty.
Also what shock are you running - i understand the rear triangle is different on your frame.
Loads of experience there about the FM936, including (if I remember correctly) knowledge about putting a longer shock on. Again, if I remember correctly, there are some subtle differences between the FM936 and the NS Synonym at the back end which impacts how much travel the FM936 can take without hitting the frame.
Yes - it can take up to 42.5 w/o hitting the frame. I am just debating between 40 and 42.5 but its as simple as removing a token then I don’t need to choose between the two options of shock I suppose i will witness myself the pros and cons. I’d like it to feel more firm - and because I couldn’t source a cheap remote lockout shock, i’ll likely keep it in 1 setting for the most part, maybe less travel would mean less bobbing?
It’s not exact because it depends a bit on the linkage design, but a 40mm shock that gives 100mm rear travel means you’re getting 2.5mm of travel for every mm of shock length. So if you increase the shock stroke by 2.5mm that leads to 2.5*2.5=6mm of additional travel
I think if they are genuinely Enduro descents then you’d not regret the extra rear travel. You will get to the bottom (possibly) faster, and (probably) fresher.
If it has a lockout then you won’t notice the difference. I can’t speak to the efficiency of the frame/suspension design, but I guess it probably has pretty similar leverage/anti squat either way and in my opinion will be a more confident and adaptable bike at longer travel.
If I remember rightly you just built up a new HT too didn’t you?
There’s not really such a thing as a 100mm shock or a 120mm shock. There’s just stroke length and leverage ratio of the frame. One frame might give 120mm of rear travel with a 40mm shock stroke (3:1 leverage ratio) and another might give 100mm with the same stroke (2.5:1 ratio).
Apologies if you understand this and I’m missing your point.
A fox float 3 pos whatever the newish one is. Actually I snipped a 5mm spacer - left the 2.5 in. My RC comes with a 37.5 stock, and uses a 42.5 for 120mm. I know it works as the trail model is identical frame.
I have a deviate highlander for big mountain riding, so I just ride this for racing, marathon, and easier stuff.
Pedal strikes are mostly about technique honestly, but yeah - I run 165s (because mine is bad)
I decided life’s too short so I bought a full-sus frame! The geo on the NS synonym seems perfect but I can’t justify buying the NS at this moment of time.
I ride with the enduro-bros on my Thursday spins - Its mostly natural stuff, slow, tech & steep - rather than jumps/big drops (most of it is rollable but very steep like 90 degrees). This is where the short reach of my current bike (407) and the head tube (69) really struggles. Also traction is an issue and I hear full Sus helps with this.
Well it sounds like I can take out a spacer to run either 40 or 42.5 on my 165x40 sidluxe - so I guess that solves my problem. If i bottom out a lot I will move up.