Foes 2:1 Mono . . . not for the faint of heart.

[sedicpa]

From ridemonkey.com

.


The 2006 2:1 DHS Mono
So the new FXR wasn't the only new picture I got from Foes this morning

http://www.go-ride.com/forumpics/06mono2.jpg

Foes says:
Includes custom chainguide, 160mm custom Hadley hub, post-mount floating brake assembly. 4 oversize sealed cartridges in the main pivot. 10" of wheel travel via 5" stroke Curnutt shock. Head angle adjustable +/- 2 degrees via rod-end shock eyelet. Steel, ti, and dual-rate ti spring options available. 83mm BB shell. MSRP starts at $2949 with a steel spring, $3166 with ti spring, $3385 with dual-rate ti. Weight is estimated to be about the same as the existing DHS Mono; the front end is bit heavier but the swingarm lost some weight. The current Mono is still going to be available.



__________________
DH: Azonic Eliminator 2 / Marzocchi Super T
Moto: '03 WR250F (the Blue Crush)

www.go-ride.com

Don't forget about the Go-Ride NCS Bounty! Have you donated yet?

[lotec]

there are no words to describe that thing... holy mcfucking shitsticks batman doesnt even come close :eek: 2:1 on a 10" bike!!!!! thats NUTS! i waaaaaaaanttt oooooooonnnneeeeee :'(

[luke.b]

any one wanna buy my moto, dh bike, dj bike, bed, guitar, and little brother so i can buy one?

[SDA]

MORNING!!!! :)

Oh no... major damage to the credit card awaits!

[miko]

5 inch stroke Curnutt?!?!?!?!

*jaw hits the floor*

[RaID]

built up pics of it, for those who havent seen them yet
http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/401/foes200667db.jpg

http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/6582/foes200610cs.jpg

http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/4789/foes200604at.jpg

http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/6836/foes200636us.jpg

[daddyrat]

goota love the looks of this one

[sedicpa]

can anyone explain to me what is the 2:1 ratio, is it that the bike delivers 20" of travel????
cheers

[floody]

Moto F#ckin Cross, biatch!

So am I up on my theory here- big shock means slower shaft speeds, less heat buildup, more tunable possibly?

[RaID]

can anyone explain to me what is the 2:1 ratio, is it that the bike delivers 20" of travel????
cheers

the rear wheel moves 10"
the shock has a stroke of 5"
hence the compression ratio is 2:1

ie for every 2" the rear wheel moves up the shock compresses 1".


Normal shocks dont have strokes over 3"
eg V10 has shock with a 2.8" stroke yet still has 10" of wheel travel
hence the ratio is 3.57:1

most DH bike have compression ratios around the 3:1 mark

[Registered Nutcase]

can anyone explain to me what is the 2:1 ratio, is it that the bike delivers 20" of travel????
cheers

the 2:1 ratio means that for ever unit of movment that the shock dose the rear wheel dose twice. ie. if the shock was compressed 2 inches the rear wheel will infact moved 4inches.

blake

[Tomas]

Leverage ratio. For example; my Banshee Chaparral has a 2.0" stroke on the Vanilla RC. The frame puts out 6" of travel, thus:3:1 leverage ratio. Most DH bikes run 3:1 (3" stroke, 9" travel ~~~ ISH, most bikes are different). The theory is that this places less strain on the linkages of the bike and more on the shock. But a larger stroke can accomidate this.

Im sure there are plenty of reasons, but i just gave blood and couldnt be assed thinking.

Thats a fucking nuts bike.

[RaID]

So am I up on my theory here- big shock means slower shaft speeds, less heat buildup, more tunable possibly?

yes to all 3, the shock will be in theory be more consistant and it will have lighter damping hence less heat build up leading to better performance.

[Squidly Didly]

Give me the old skool Fly anyday.
The adjustable rod end on these new Curnutt shocks though is one damn fine feature.

[sedicpa]

cheers!!! thanx

[DH_DEVIL]

i so want 1 of these frames

[j5ive]

Frame alone looks so mint. Build up- its just looks bright. Hehe. Maybe some more stickers are needed. :o

[Derek Yates]

Leverage ratio. For example; my Banshee Chaparral has a 2.0" stroke on the Vanilla RC. The frame puts out 6" of travel, thus:2:1 leverage ratio. Most DH bikes run 3:1 (3" stroke, 9" travel ~~~ ISH, most bikes are different). .

Does your maths teacher know your on the internet instead of doing your homework?

:)

Derek

[Alec McJo]

the rear wheel moves 10"
the shock has a stroke of 5"
hence the compression ratio is 2:1

ie for every 2" the rear wheel moves up the shock compresses 1".


Normal shocks dont have strokes over 3"
eg V10 has shock with a 2.8" stroke yet still has 10" of wheel travel
hence the ratio is 3.57:1

most DH bike have compression ratios around the 3:1 mark

WHOAW! :eek: ..i duno if i understood what you said correctly, but...wouldnt that mean that, in turn, you actually get 20" rear wheel travel?? which is 20" of travel?!

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[plutly]

no u dont. u get 10" of travel but the shock only moves 5"

any way
im getting one
HAHA
i can't wait

cool chainguide, is it attached to the pivot?

[plutly]

anyone got the link to the 06 foes line?

[lotec]

built up pics of it, for those who havent seen them yet

is it jsut me or do those forks no longer have the 30mm axle? either way, thats such a hot bike its not funny, although it would leave most in serious serious debt for many years :(

[S.]

Let me just say WTF... who runs a highroller front minion rear?

[Rik]

who runs a highroller front minion rear?Mr Diddly (http://forums.farkin.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=14909), although I think he's running a Larsen on the rear for weenie value.

[Anthonaut]

I know a few people who run High Roller front and Minion rears.... so what?

Whoops, off topic

[S.]

Sorry, my failed attempt at a joke. Still, not as bad as Foes' one... badum tsh. I should be shot.

[Daver]

If foes had customer service, it could be half decent.

[tu plang]

Leverage ratio. For example; my Banshee Chaparral has a 2.0" stroke on the Vanilla RC. The frame puts out 6" of travel, thus:3:1 leverage ratio. Most DH bikes run 3:1 (3" stroke, 9" travel ~~~ ISH, most bikes are different). The theory is that this places less strain on the linkages of the bike and more on the shock. But a larger stroke can accomidate this.

Im sure there are plenty of reasons, but i just gave blood and couldnt be assed thinking.

Thats a fucking nuts bike.

i think you'll find it actually places less strain on the shock. velocity ratios, mechanical advantage and all that jazz.

[cooper]

Am i the only one who thinks that the top tube looks very very short in the built up pics?


I realise that this is compensated by a slack seat angle but still, looks weird

[S.]

If foes had customer service, it could be half decent.

G'day Ian. Or do you have experiences of your own to back that up?

[lotec]

G'day Ian. Or do you have experiences of your own to back that up?
yea he does, like waiting 2 months (and still counting i think?) for a curnutt spring etc

[Daver]

G'day Ian. Or do you have experiences of your own to back that up?

Sure do Steve. 5 months to get a spring for a curnutt, or how about 6 months to get stickers?

[S.]

Wow, that is pretty impressive. And by impressive, I mean terrible.

[Daver]

Wow, that is pretty impressive. And by impressive, I mean terrible.

Sadly, thats not much better than half the other companies on the market. But fucked if i'm putting down a shitload of cash to have a company not kiss my arse.

[Tomas]

i think you'll find it actually places less strain on the shock. velocity ratios, mechanical advantage and all that jazz.

Meh. Wouldnt it be exactly the same? VR = different, but all in all, the same work is being done throughout the whole stroke. I guess longer stroke = less 'pressure' inside the shock as each unit of travel used requires less dampening.

Please, correct me if im wrong.
A hardtail is not dampened by a shock, frame takes all strain. A one inch stroke is heavily dampened, thus, pivots take a large slice of the force put on the back wheel. With a 5 inch stroke, more of the force placed on the back wheel is disipated by the rear shock, and less stress on the pivots. I may be 100% wrong though.

[tu plang]

Meh. Wouldnt it be exactly the same? VR = different, but all in all, the same work is being done throughout the whole stroke. I guess longer stroke = less 'pressure' inside the shock as each unit of travel used requires less dampening.

Please, correct me if im wrong.
A hardtail is not dampened by a shock, frame takes all strain. A one inch stroke is heavily dampened, thus, pivots take a large slice of the force put on the back wheel. With a 5 inch stroke, more of the force placed on the back wheel is disipated by the rear shock, and less stress on the pivots. I may be 100% wrong though.

theoretically, the ratio doesnt effect the forces on the pivot. -> i dont really know if it does or doesnt, but i dont think its entirely relavent.

ok so velocity ratio = distance moved by effort (we'll let that be rear wheel travel) / distance moved by load (we'll let that be shock stroke)

and VR = mechanical advantage x efficiency -> for now fuck efficiency.

so basically a bigger shock stroke means a lower VR and a lower MA. therefore less force is being transferred to the shock. -> i cant really explain it because it seems simple to me.

[OH64]

Sadly, thats not much better than half the other companies on the market. But fucked if i'm putting down a shitload of cash to have a company not kiss my arse.

Mmmm all the bad customer service stories are the only thing stopping me buying anotehr foes. My last one never required me to have any dealings with them, and my last bike rode like a dream so I really really want another foes.

But then I know of other people who have waited no more than a week or two wait for parts.

[Daver]

Mmmm all the bad customer service stories are the only thing stopping me buying anotehr foes. My last one never required me to have any dealings with them, and my last bike rode like a dream so I really really want another foes.

But then I know of other people who have waited no more than a week or two wait for parts.

True, but it only takes a few bad deals and they can have a bad reputation. Is it possible that if the item is stocked then it comes faster?

[S.]

theoretically, the ratio doesnt effect the forces on the pivot. -> i dont really know if it does or doesnt, but i dont think its entirely relavent.

Correct, by which I mean totally wrong. Think about it dude... the leverage over the shock AND the pivot is what GIVES the mechanical advantage.

BTW, using mechanical advantage and "velocity ratio" is pretty redundant when you're talking about the overall effect on the shock, they are the same thing.

[Squidly Didly]

Mmmm all the bad customer service stories are the only thing stopping me buying anotehr foes. My last one never required me to have any dealings with them, and my last bike rode like a dream so I really really want another foes.

But then I know of other people who have waited no more than a week or two wait for parts.
Is that because their LBS stocked the spare parts, or did the supplier maggot them from another LBS... I ask because the current distributor carries SFA in spare parts.

[S.]

Meh. Wouldnt it be exactly the same? VR = different, but all in all, the same work is being done throughout the whole stroke. I guess longer stroke = less 'pressure' inside the shock as each unit of travel used requires less dampening.

Please, correct me if im wrong.
A hardtail is not dampened by a shock, frame takes all strain. A one inch stroke is heavily dampened, thus, pivots take a large slice of the force put on the back wheel. With a 5 inch stroke, more of the force placed on the back wheel is disipated by the rear shock, and less stress on the pivots. I may be 100% wrong though.

If it was a straight singlepivot (no shock linkage) then yes you would be correct in that the shock now has a higher mech advantage (or lower disadvantage, whatever you want to call it) over the axle and this means that the lower forces and relative moments are placing less (bending) stress on the swingarm and thus less force through the pivot. However, this bike does have a shock linkage, and the pivot for that (I believe) is in roughly the same place as where it was when the bike had a ~3:1 ratio (as the old DHS Mono... it may have had a slightly lower ratio than that but I really can't remember). The internal forces in the frame are not directly related to how much work the shock does (which is what I think you mean when you say more "force" is dissipated by the rear shock), as for any given amount of travel that is always constant (work = force x distance, as you can see if you increase the stroke [for that given travel], you decrease the force proportionally, so the work is the same), but the internal forces do depend on the leverage ratios in each part of the frame (swingarm, push link and shock link independent leverages, all of which eventually determine the overall shock ratio).

In this case, where they've used a linkage placed in (roughly) the same position as where their old shock used to be directly mounted, the resultant force (assuming it's in the same direction, and that the main pivot is in the same position) from the shock linkage has to be the same as it would have been previously. That means that the leverage directly over the swingarm (not the suspension as a whole) is much the same, and thus the forces on the main pivot and swingarm-push link pivot would not be changed as compared to the old bike. Where you would gain, however, would be at the shock mount - the lower force there would mean it could be built lighter, or stronger (in terms of relative/specific strength that is), or both. As well, obviously, as the fact that the shock is now loaded with lower forces than before (but has higher shaft speeds, yet to work out whether this is good or bad).

It's a tricky game..

[tu plang]

BTW, using mechanical advantage and "velocity ratio" is pretty redundant when you're talking about the overall effect on the shock, they are the same thing.

i know they are, i felt it was a simpler way to explain it.

[tu plang]

Correct, by which I mean totally wrong. Think about it dude... the leverage over the shock AND the pivot is what GIVES the mechanical advantage.

are we talking about the same pivot? how does the leverage effect any loading on the pivot - im talking main pivot.

what i was reffering to is that the leverage wont effect any forces that are acting directly towards the pivot, and is there for irrelavent. obviously any other forces are creating a moment.

[S.]

are we talking about the same pivot? how does the leverage effect any loading on the pivot - im talking main pivot.

what i was reffering to is that the leverage wont effect any forces that are acting directly towards the pivot, and is there for irrelavent. obviously any other forces are creating a moment.

That's all well and good. Now note that the pivot and the axle are relatively close to each other vertically, and a long way apart horizontally. Now think about gravity and which way it acts, then about bumps acting on the axle and their main force component (hint: it's upwards).

Biaxial forces directly between the main pivot and the axle are much smaller than those generated by the moment arm of the swingarm and the vertical (or, at least, tangential) forces at the axle, and if you're worrying about load on pivots (which I might add, you should be calculating as a resultant [total] loading, ie incorporating both vertical AND horizontal components, unless you just like wasting time) then leverages internal to the swingarm are THE dominant factor in determining what loads the pivots are put under. On a non-shock-linkage bike (which this bike does actually have, as I explained above), this is DIRECTLY related to the shock ratio/mechanical advantage.

[S.]

i know they are, i felt it was a simpler way to explain it.

Fair enough, I think you'll find most people just get confused by you using two different terms for the same thing though...

[OH64]

Is that because their LBS stocked the spare parts, or did the supplier maggot them from another LBS... I ask because the current distributor carries SFA in spare parts.

All dealings were direct with foes never with the aussie distributor...

Thinking about it now the people I hear complain about foes terrible customer service are the people who go throught their local distributor, and those who go direct to foes get good/prompt service.

[dhd]

Another aspect of having a lower leverage ratio that people tend not to think about is the larger range of shock setting ability.

eg: when you turn the rebound adjust knob on a shock in a bike with a 3.5:1 ratio every click you move it is magnified 3.5:1.

The lower the leverage ratio the finer the adjustments will be

[bradh]

Another aspect of having a lower leverage ratio that people tend not to think about is the larger range of shock setting ability.

eg: when you turn the rebound adjust knob on a shock in a bike with a 3.5:1 ratio every click you move it is magnified 3.5:1.

The lower the leverage ratio the finer the adjustments will be
According to that logic, you'd actually have finer adjustments over a smaller range.

[dhd]

I guess so.....Upon re reading I didn't really explain that very well did I.
I'm basing it on my experiences with old Avanti Moto frames that ran a 4:1 leverage ratio (can you say "blown shock"?) where one click of the rebound dial made a huge difference. ie magnified 4X.
Other frames I've had that ran the same shock in a longer stroke (2.5:1) were much more subtle in the amount of change "per click" allowing a finer adjustment in a more "usable" range.
If this sounds like complete drivel ignore it..........I should be asleep now!

[lotec]

youd have a broader range of compression adjustment because theres less leverage on the shock so every click makes a bigger difference, rebound would be as good as unaffected because theres no force pulling the back wheel down to be affected by leverage ratios, except maybe the weight of the back wheelwhen its off teh ground, which im betting would be pretty hard on this monster :D also because of the lower leverage ratios you run alighter spring so the damping has a lot more noticable affect

[tu plang]

youd have a broader range of compression adjustment because theres less leverage on the shock so every click makes a bigger difference, rebound would be as good as unaffected because theres no force pulling the back wheel down to be affected by leverage ratios, except maybe the weight of the back wheelwhen its off teh ground, which im betting would be pretty hard on this monster :D also because of the lower leverage ratios you run alighter spring so the damping has a lot more noticable affect

rebound would be effected. on this bike, the shock has less mechanical disadvantage (than say 3:1 bike) over the axel. so when its (the spring) applying a force to the swingarm to return it to its median position it will be creating a much greater moment compared to say a 3:1 bike. greater unbalanced force/moment - its going to accelerate more quickly to its original position.

basically i think you'll need less compression damping and more rebound damping than a conventional setup. obviously the curnutt would have been built to suit.

[sedicpa]

also from ridemonkey.
We just got a postcard with an image of the all-new '06 Foes FXR. The bike features a 2:1 leverage ratio for lower spring rates (read: lighter springs), a full-length seat tube, and generally totally re-designed numbers across the board. I don't have a lot of specific information yet, such as geometry, weight, etc, but I thought getting a picture up wouldn't hurt any feelings.

http://www.go-ride.com/images/fxr06.jpg

[plutly]

where can i get 1 of these post cards? :)

[bradh]

also from ridemonkey.
old news.

http://forums.farkin.net/showthread.php?t=38026&highlight=foes

[S.]

rebound would be effected. on this bike, the shock has less mechanical disadvantage (than say 3:1 bike) over the axel. so when its (the spring) applying a force to the swingarm to return it to its median position it will be creating a much greater moment compared to say a 3:1 bike. greater unbalanced force/moment - its going to accelerate more quickly to its original position.

basically i think you'll need less compression damping and more rebound damping than a conventional setup. obviously the curnutt would have been built to suit.

You're forgetting that you also have to have a much more lightly sprung shock (by a factor of 2/3, ie instead of a 450lb/in spring you would run a 300lb/in), and that because of that (as well as the fact that you want a shaft speed that is 3/2 times what you would have with a 3:1 ratio at any given point), it will need less rebound damping at any time than a conventional shock.

Basic rule of thumb is lower leverage ratio = less spring weight, less damping all round. Ride an 05 Sunday with the stock (not re-tuned) shock and you'll see what I mean.

[tu plang]

touché.....

[bolzy]

thats huge i think it will snap

[Cletus]

i know the shock is supposed to work better with less effort but do they have to make it so huge?? would'nt this shock reall weigh the bike down? or do the pro's of this shock outweigh the cons?? parden the pun ;) . it does look like an awsome frame though. i might buy one in about 5 years when someone from farkin is sick of theres :D

[Squidly Didly]

i know the shock is supposed to work better with less effort but do they have to make it so huge?? would'nt this shock reall weigh the bike down? or do the pro's of this shock outweigh the cons?? parden the pun ;) . it does look like an awsome frame though. i might buy one in about 5 years when someone from farkin is sick of theres :D
Curnutt shocks are actually lighter then most coil shocks in production.
The huge shock body houses the air chamber which controls the SPV and bottoming, while most shocks have this featured in an external reservoir.