Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrenalineJunky
So you´r saying I should leave the BV alone for now and experiment with the checkplate/Midvalve instead? After I´ve figured out a rebound stack that works ofcourse.
Midvalve isnt that easy to understand but I´m getting there. I had planed to leave it alone for now and focus on rebound and BV. Maybe thats the wrong approach?
Theres not a midvalve in it right now, only the stock Checkplate
11*0,2(remove)
22*0,3
15*0,3
15*0,3
15*0,3
going to remove the bleed shim. Not sure exactly how that effects the rebound and checkplate action though... I guess rebound gets firmer. I think it dont do much on the comp stroke as theres already alot of lift and the CV spring is only a return spring right?
Have to read up more on the exact differencies between a simple CP and a MV.
Oilheight: 100mm was 125. Clickers are full tight on both rebound and comp. Gets harsh with comp full tight though. But I wont survive the jumps otherwise..  |
The BV is certainly part of the equation and to meet your goal you'll have to change the stack.
You want a certain amount of lightly restricted lift off the BV piston face to give a plusher ride on the trail, but at some point the stack needs to get progressively stiffer for MX.
The MV comes into play to limit high speed forces, it acts as a parachute to slow the fork's action down, set up as a check valve, the valve has too much free bleed allowing the fork to blow thru the stroke.
By limiting or controlling the flow thru the MV the fork will become more compliant.
So, you could try a light face shim on the BV, followed by a cross over shim then stiffen up the stack from there....testing will tell you if you making progress.
On the MV you could use a light face shim with 1mm to .5mm of lift, just build a small stack behind the face shim.
The other option would be to add sub-tanks, which may help to increase and decrease the air gap.