Revalved Marzocchi Shiver 45 for plushness.

[bergerhag]

forgot to mention, it is deflecting too.

[Nick]

It could be rebounding too quick making it feel as if its deflecting.

[bergerhag]

I don't think my setup problems are rebound related. Forks did not show this behaviour when I was running my super slim base valve in combination with 120 mm oil level.

[GMP]

I don't think my setup problems are rebound related.

Don't be so sure about that, especially with stiffer springs. Its tough to properly analyze a problem in a race, you have to do it in more controlled conditions. Stock rebound stack is too light even for stock springs.

Exactly what do you have in the bike now (springs/valving/oil/oil height) that works (or doesn't work) as you describe?

Dave had some very good points. Les valved my bike and it worked great but tweaked like Dave's it worked even better. I ran one of the nastiest, most rocky enduros last Sunday. Big technical rocks in 1st/2nd, faster rocks in 3rd/4th, and everything in between. The bike worked fantastic, I didn't feel beat up at all at the finnish. The fork did not deflect at all, and the only time the bike went off line is when a loose rock was hit and moved. By comparison, my KTM300 riding buddy was totally wasted. My 250 is a lot lighter and the valving stiffer, and its the best suspended bike I've ever had for the rocks. Even stock it was good and did not deflect badly as you describe.

That 450 should eat rocks, and feel even more planted than my 250 due to its weight, thats the advantage of a big 4-stroke you get for the other trade offs. Even your stock valving should not perform that bad. You have a problem, but I doubt its the base valving thats extremely far off.

How tight do you torque your lower triple clamps? DO NOT go by the manual. MUCH less, about 10 - 12 Nm with the bolts anti-seized.

[bergerhag]

If it was a rebound problem it wouldn't have gone away with softer base valving, would it? Softer base valve should rather exaggurate an already too soft rebound, wouldnt it? Please enlighten me

I have not yet dismantled my rebound stack, so I don't know if it's the same as the 2-strokes.

The base valve om my FSE '05 is NOT the same as the 2-strokes, as read in pobits thread on valve specs.
The FSE forks has 22x0.10 shims closest to the base valve, as compared to the EC 21x10. Thus there is no extra bleed in the valve as it is in the EC.

I was almost happy with my previous soft base valve, only problem was that forks bottomed when going slow on steep rocky downhills.
Springs: 4,2 N+4,6N
base valve:
22x.1
19x.1
17x.1
15x.1

Oil: 120mm 7.5wt
Clickers: rebound -9, comp -9
The above setup totally removed the harshness over medium/small rocks at high speed.

With the below setup pobit suggested, the clicker settings, either rebound or compression had any noticable effect on my high(motorcycle) speed deflection/harshness.
Springs: 4,6N
basevalve: stock
22x.1
22x.1
11x.1
19x.1
11x.1
17x.1
15x.1
13x.2

Oil: 140mm 7.5 wt
Bike handling was good, no problems going slow, low speed damping in landings and whoops felt really good. But harshness still there.


Today I'm going to try again with the soft base valve setup, but I have now two 4,6N springs, 140mm of 7.5 wt oil. Starting off with rebound at -9 and comp at -5.


triple clamp torque: 14Nm upper, 11Nm lower

[GMP]

Does the base valve body have a free bleed hole drilled in one of the ports?

What shock spring are you running?

Its possible you created an imbalance by going to stiffer fork springs and retaining a soft shock spring. I would think at your weight you would need at least a size up from stock, I'd guess 5.6Nm - 5.8Nm if 5.4Nm is stock. You want the correct rate spring, and then run less preload. Too soft a spring thats cranked down to meet sag specs feels nasty and screws up the fork. It does nothing to hold the bike up properly in the travel, and kicks the rear up when its near full extension. This may also be why your smashing the hell out of your skid plate and frame.

[bergerhag]

I am running a 62Nm rear spring, sag at 40 mm, race sag at 105.

Free bleed hole, hmm, where would that be? Any pics on one? Do yo mean one of these?


I don't think so. I'll have to check it out next time i have the base valve out.

[GMP]

A 6.2Nm, really? What was stock, 5.4Nm?

If stock was 5.4Nm, you may need the shock revalved (rebound) for a 6.2, thats a huge jump.

105mm is too little sag. As Dave pointed out, and works very well, you want no more than 10mm preload on the shock spring (8mm is good). The race sag will be around 115mm+ but don't sweat that number as long as the bike steers good. Work with shock spring preload in half turn increments of the ring for best feel. Thats how you want to select your rear spring, so you need less than 10mm preload to get the bike to balance and feel good.

Yes, that is what I mean by a bleed hole.

[bergerhag]

No you mean rear stock spring is 54 N/mm. Now i run 62 N/mm, ~6.0 kg/mm

But still, how can my soft base valve compensate for a too stiff rear spring in choppy terrain?

I'm off to the trails now, I'll let you know how it turns out.

Thanks for the efforts.

[bergerhag]

Well, it felt better now, however now I started to feel it somewhat harsh in the rear end.

So, do I want 115 mm race sag? Then I definately need a spring change on the rear.

Tried 15 clicks on comp on rear end, that held up the 1-1.5 m drop landings. 19 out made it bottom. High speed comp fully open, still felt a little harsh on smaller square edges. Maybe spring is too stiff then.

I got to ride a clubmate's EC300 '04 tonight, stock suspension. Now THAT'S a completely different animal than the FSE. It felt light as a bicycle compared to my bike. Stock suspension, with too light springs for me, was way better than my FSE. Only a little "spiky" on the small stuff.

Perhaps I just got the wrong bike