Is the orbea Rise suspension progressive?

[ebsocalmtb]

So for 216mm shocks...there's 2 way of doing this:

1) Stay 29er - in this case utilizing 2 offset will reduce it the shock to 210x63mm preserving the same geo while giving more travel.

2) Go Mullet - in this case, using 27.5 will drop BB. Using 216mm shock will then push the whole rear triangle and wheel down further than stock (yes this can happen). This will essentially raise the BB back up, but more than drop of changing to 27.5. Also without any offset bushings, there's been reports saying that 216 is too long causing the seat stay and linkage to touch. This is where the one 3mm offset will solve the problem for the linkage and bottom bracket height preservation. Yes you will end up with a 213x63mm shock.

not to be nit picky... but since other people will be reading this and trying to get info from it... the hardware on the rise is m8 and thus, the most aggressive offset bushing you can get for it is 2mm. Meaning, the shortest possible eye to eye configuration you can get an 8.5x2.5 (216x63) is down to 212x63, that is, provided you can fit two offset bushings without clearance issues of the shock/spring making contact with the frame.

Offset Bushing

The finest quality Offset shock bushings, made for your bike. Compatible with Fox, RockShox, Cane Creek & many more. Includes DU bushes. Worldwide shipping. Transform your bike's handling!

www.offsetbushings.com

 

[iJak]

@ebsocalmtb Thank you for the correction. I've updated my previous post.


As for BB calculations for my own sake with a 160mm front, 160 back, mulleted...
according this article - 29/27.5" – Should I mullet my mountain bike?

Stock BB height @ 150 fork = 339 (336+3 < differences in bb drop between 140 and 150 fork)
Let's say every 10mm axle to crown you add = is about 3.5mm bb addition according to article which is close enough to blue paper #s.

As for rear long stroking bb calculation - please let me know if my assumption is incorrect:
Method 1 (216x63): 8mm stroke increase over (210x55) and 21mm of additional rear wheel. 21/8 = 2.6mm of bb height increase per each mm of eye to eye increase.
Method 2: 161mm travel over 63 stroke = 2.5mm of bb height.
Since the wheel wont actually go down further than the ground, it would naturally push the bottom bracket area up.

Caluations:

160 Mullet:
Stock 150 BB = 339mm
160 Fork = +3.5mm
Mullet rear wheel = -12.7mm according to article.
Long shock + 1offset (4mm increase) = +10.2mm < (roughly - 161mm travel over 63mm stroke * 4mm)
Final BB = 340mm (close to stock)
Final HA = 65.5 (close to stock)
Final STA = 76.5 (close to stock)

170 Mullet:
Stock 150 BB = 339mm
170 Fork = +7mm
Mullet rear wheel = -12.7mm according to article.
Long shock + 1offset (4mm increase) = +10.2mm < (roughly - 161mm travel over 63mm stroke * 4mm)
Final BB = 343mm
Final HA = 64.5~65
Final STA = 75.5~76

160 29er:
Stock 150 BB = 339mm
160 Fork = +3.5mm
Long shock + 2offset (2mm increase) = +5mm < (roughly - 161mm travel over 63mm stroke * 2mm)
Final BB = 348mm (acceptable)
Final HA = ~66 < since we are lifting the rear end more so than front, this would put it back to 140 fork numbers.
Final STA = ~77 < since we are lifting the rear end more so than front, this would put it back to 140 fork numbers.

170 29er:
Stock 150 BB = 339mm
170 Fork = +7mm
Long shock + 2offset (2mm increase) = +5mm < (roughly - 161mm travel over 63mm stroke * 2mm)
Final BB = 351mm
Final HA = ~65.5 < since we are lifting the front end more so than rear, this would put it back to 150 fork numbers.
Final STA = ~76.5 < since we are lifting the front end more so than rear, this would put it back to 150 fork numbers.

 

[ebsocalmtb]

I don't have much to add other then the fact that I use this website when I'm considering making changes or considering mulleting one of my bikes. Bike Geometry Calculator - MAD SCIENTIST MTB - Bike Geometry Calculators

One interesting bit on this, is that orbea does not change their geometry chart for the m20/h30 with the fox 34/marz z2 vs the m10/h15 with the 36. They list all of the geo the same on both save the head angle (including the fork axle to crown) and then state that the geo is based on a 547mm axle to crown which is the fox 34 A2C.

I digress, I wouldn't put much stock in the ultimate numbers, but rather I'd focus on the delta from the original starting point geometry. I've gotten the chance to chew the ear of a few bike designers from some large brands, and the truth is the geo charts are really approximations and less accurate then the marketing departments and us consumers believe. Whether that orbea issued geo chart is accurate or not (I would take that thing with a grain of salt tbh because there are a few numbers that don't totally make sense) becomes a bit moot. I guess what I'm getting at is I would caution some one from using these numbers to determine if they want to mullet the bike BEFORE they've figured out how the bike rides with the stock setup. That way you have a frame of reference that isn't based on a questionable geo chart as a starting point and rather a position of how the bike rides out of the box and what sort of changes the owner is looking for.

My guess, is that in saying this to you @iJak I am preaching to the choir... but for those that following along, if your head is spinning, focus on the delta and not the absolute numbers.

I do however feel that the bb height is a bit low on the m20 models with the 140mm fox 34 and the head angle becomes a bit steep once you're loading the front end and you have weight in your hands under a braking situation. In contrast, the bike starts to develop noticeable (but not game breaking amounts) wheel flop with a 160mm fork. I think for most people, the geo numbers of this bike are in the goldilocks range with the stock shock and the 150mm fork. For those of us looking for something more niche/specific, I think there are a lot of trade-offs to weigh with the mullet setup, long shocked 29r setup etc.

I think for example, I would not run this bike with a 170mm fork in either mullet or in long shocked 29r setup. I think the front center/rear center ratio and the added stack height make it hard to weight the front end of the bike particularly for the large and extra large sizes. I also think that the bottom bracket height is not optimum with a 170mm fork and long shocked 29r setup as that makes for an interesting combination with the raised COG, fc/rc ratio and the reduction in mechanical trail.

So for me, it would boil down to one of two optimum setups.
1) 160 fork, 210x55 rear shock: I personally find this to be the best setup for my riding, my XL frame size, and my 6'3" height.
2) 160 fork, 216x63 with one or two offset bushings and 27.5 x 2.6 rear tire

 

[DanMcDan]

I don't have much to add other then the fact that I use this website when I'm considering making changes or considering mulleting one of my bikes. Bike Geometry Calculator - MAD SCIENTIST MTB - Bike Geometry Calculators

One interesting bit on this, is that orbea does not change their geometry chart for the m20/h30 with the fox 34/marz z2 vs the m10/h15 with the 36. They list all of the geo the same on both save the head angle (including the fork axle to crown) and then state that the geo is based on a 547mm axle to crown which is the fox 34 A2C.

I digress, I wouldn't put much stock in the ultimate numbers, but rather I'd focus on the delta from the original starting point geometry. I've gotten the chance to chew the ear of a few bike designers from some large brands, and the truth is the geo charts are really approximations and less accurate then the marketing departments and us consumers believe. Whether that orbea issued geo chart is accurate or not (I would take that thing with a grain of salt tbh because there are a few numbers that don't totally make sense) becomes a bit moot. I guess what I'm getting at is I would caution some one from using these numbers to determine if they want to mullet the bike BEFORE they've figured out how the bike rides with the stock setup. That way you have a frame of reference that isn't based on a questionable geo chart as a starting point and rather a position of how the bike rides out of the box and what sort of changes the owner is looking for.

My guess, is that in saying this to you @iJak I am preaching to the choir... but for those that following along, if your head is spinning, focus on the delta and not the absolute numbers.

I do however feel that the bb height is a bit low on the m20 models with the 140mm fox 34 and the head angle becomes a bit steep once you're loading the front end and you have weight in your hands under a braking situation. In contrast, the bike starts to develop noticeable (but not game breaking amounts) wheel flop with a 160mm fork. I think for most people, the geo numbers of this bike are in the goldilocks range with the stock shock and the 150mm fork. For those of us looking for something more niche/specific, I think there are a lot of trade-offs to weigh with the mullet setup, long shocked 29r setup etc.

I think for example, I would not run this bike with a 170mm fork in either mullet or in long shocked 29r setup. I think the front center/rear center ratio and the added stack height make it hard to weight the front end of the bike particularly for the large and extra large sizes. I also think that the bottom bracket height is not optimum with a 170mm fork and long shocked 29r setup as that makes for an interesting combination with the raised COG, fc/rc ratio and the reduction in mechanical trail.

So for me, it would boil down to one of two optimum setups.
1) 160 fork, 210x55 rear shock: I personally find this to be the best setup for my riding, my XL frame size, and my 6'3" height.
2) 160 fork, 216x63 with one or two offset bushings and 27.5 x 2.6 rear tire

I was considering a lot of the info when deciding what fork to put on my m20, one of the reasons I stuck with the 150mm Zeb was the extra 10mm a2c vs the 36.

 

[iJak]

I completely agree with you @ebsocalmtb. Im literally just theorizing while I wait for my bike to arrive. I know exactly what feel I want to achieve in my bike, so I'll definitely be tinkering. But purely based on numbers, 160 mullet achieves that.

@DanMcDan unless you didnt want the extra travel, wouldnt one take 10mm of extra travel from the 160mm fox 36?

 

[scarl]

Such a wealth of information - It's good to have options. I have a Medium - M-team. Been riding it for 3 months and like to get after it. I'm 5'7" and buss my butt often on steep and or drops. I want run mullet - bump up fork to 160mm AND keep stock shock (210x55) Mostly because of the expense of a 216x63 - Is this possible and still keep close to stock geo?

 

[ebsocalmtb]

Such a wealth of information - It's good to have options. I have a Medium - M-team. Been riding it for 3 months and like to get after it. I'm 5'7" and buss my butt often on steep and or drops. I want run mullet - bump up fork to 160mm AND keep stock shock (210x55) Mostly because of the expense of a 216x63 - Is this possible and still keep close to stock geo?

Not quite. You would have to run an offset bushing backwards so that it increases the eye to eye instead of decreasing it. Technically, you're going to get people telling you (including the people from offsetbushings.com) that you should not do this as the bushings rotate. In practice, I can tell you that does not happen as much as people say it does. I'm actually running an offset bushing turned around backwards on one side in order to mullet my megatower and I haven't had it turn on me... yet.

But I think you're going to run into issues with the yoke for the shock, contacting the seat tube at a certain point. I'd have to check my wife's bike at home to see how much clearance the medium has in this location, but at full extension, I think it may be too close for comfort if you were to run 2 @ 4mm total eye to eye changes with the 210x55 shock.

 

[DanMcDan]

I completely agree with you @ebsocalmtb. Im literally just theorizing while I wait for my bike to arrive. I know exactly what feel I want to achieve in my bike, so I'll definitely be tinkering. But purely based on numbers, 160 mullet achieves that.

@DanMcDan unless you didnt want the extra travel, wouldnt one take 10mm of extra travel from the 160mm fox 36?

No, personally I don’t like the Fox36 or 38, I have found that the Rockshox air spring/damper to be much more consistent, probably why fox find the need to put a bleed port/equalisation channel in the newer forks.

 

[DanMcDan]

Such a wealth of information - It's good to have options. I have a Medium - M-team. Been riding it for 3 months and like to get after it. I'm 5'7" and buss my butt often on steep and or drops. I want run mullet - bump up fork to 160mm AND keep stock shock (210x55) Mostly because of the expense of a 216x63 - Is this possible and still keep close to stock geo?

Have you tried changing your bars/stem? As I’m 5’6” on a med and have zero issues with my butt (apart from the farts according to the wife)

 

[scarl]

Have you tried changing your bars/stem? As I’m 5’6” on a med and have zero issues with my butt (apart from the farts according to the wife)

LOL - DanMcDan
Coming from a 27.5 bike - Making it a mullet is a little more than buzz butt. I'm curious to see how much more playful the bike can be in turns etc. - like my 27.5 . - Kinda wish the rise came in 27.5. Also hoping to make the bike lean towards more all-mountain / enduro focused - like the rising on been doing since getting the rise. I know I know - but it's a trail bike
I'm going to start with increasing the fork - to 160mm and it appears that if I go mullet I'll need to go with 216x63 rear shock. My LBS says the air spring is backordered until the end of the month.

 

[ebsocalmtb]

Not sure how I missed this, or if it has been posted in this thread to date... but Antonio from the linkeage design blogspot posted his analysis of the rise. It answers the question on the progressiveness of the rise overall.

Orbea Rise Carbon 2022

En esta entrada voy a analizar a uno de los modelos mas polémicos de los últimos años y aquí la polémica no está en el diseño, en la geometr...

linkagedesign.blogspot.com

 

[jene]

So for 216mm shocks...there's 2 way of doing this:

1) Stay 29er - in this case utilizing 2 offset will reduce it the shock to 210x63mm preserving the same geo while giving more travel.

2) Go Mullet - in this case, using 27.5 will drop BB. Using 216mm shock will then push the whole rear triangle and wheel down further than stock (yes this can happen). This will essentially raise the BB back up, but more than drop of changing to 27.5. Also without any offset bushings, there's been reports saying that 216 is too long causing the seat stay and linkage to touch. This is where the one 3mm 2mm offset will solve the problem for the linkage and bottom bracket height preservation. Yes you will end up with a 213x63mm 214x64mm shock.

This is 216x53 without bushings. I guess it's enough clearance but anyway I'll put two offset bushings to keep even more trying to keep the stock geo.

Reading the comments and data here, it appears that the 160 fork is the right travel. Perhaps using 170mm it loses some pedaling and cornering capabilities so I'll choose also the 160 shaft size for the fork.

The true is that my feelings on 150/140 has been pretty good with this bike and I don't want to lose the great riding behavior of this bike. The only weak point is that on more technical steps the rear travel is a bit short.

Perhaps 150/150 could be enough most of the time... But right now I've bought the 216x63 coil shock and there's no chance to test 150

 

[DanMcDan]

This is 216x53 without bushings. I guess it's enough clearance but anyway I'll put two offset bushings to keep even more trying to keep the stock geo.

Reading the comments and data here, it appears that the 160 fork is the right travel. Perhaps using 170mm it loses some pedaling and cornering capabilities so I'll choose also the 160 shaft size for the fork.

The true is that my feelings on 150/140 has been pretty good with this bike and I don't want to lose the great riding behavior of this bike. The only weak point is that on more technical steps the rear travel is a bit short.

Perhaps 150/150 could be enough most of the time... But right now I've bought the 216x63 coil shock and there's no chance to test 150

View attachment 83638 View attachment 83639

I would just like to make sure that everyone is aware that different forks have different A2C heights, so just saying “160mm is ok” doesn’t include the A2C , make sure to check before deciding on what size fork travel.

 

[iJak]

@jene what's the size of your hydro?

 

[jene]

I would just like to make sure that everyone is aware that different forks have different A2C heights, so just saying “160mm is ok” doesn’t include the A2C , make sure to check before deciding on what size fork travel.

Mine is 910-26-225 2022, 36, A, FLOAT, 29in, P-S, 150, Grip, 3Pos, Matte Blk, No Logo, 15QRx110, 1.5 T, 44mm Rake, OE


Perhaps is 561mm https://www.ridefox.com/fox17/img/help/page1090-TDOX/2021_Fox_36_29in_USER_SPEC_RevB.jpg but not sure what does the a2c affect on choosing between 160 or 170 shaft for the same fork...

 

[Chicane]

Mine is 910-26-225 2022, 36, A, FLOAT, 29in, P-S, 150, Grip, 3Pos, Matte Blk, No Logo, 15QRx110, 1.5 T, 44mm Rake, OE

Not sure if include the A2C

Perhaps is 561mm https://www.ridefox.com/fox17/img/help/page1090-TDOX/2021_Fox_36_29in_USER_SPEC_RevB.jpg but not sure what does the a2c affect on choosing between 160 or 170 shaft for the same fork...

For warranty purposes. Every bike manufacturer has a max allowing A2C that they recommend you don't go above. As the frame angles change it can stress different areas and cause a failure. Not to mention that the geo of this bike was not meant to be run at 170. 160 might be pushing it, but 170 is well past what Orbea recommends. Orbea Team riders ride at 160, so you'll be fine there.

 

[jene]

For warranty purposes. Every bike manufacturer has a max allowing A2C that they recommend you don't go above. As the frame angles change it can stress different areas and cause a failure. Not to mention that the geo of this bike was not meant to be run at 170. 160 might be pushing it, but 170 is well past what Orbea recommends. Orbea Team riders ride at 160, so you'll be fine there.

Thank You, I completely didn't know that info... Quite important! More reasons to go only to 160

 

[DanMcDan]

For reference purposes, the 160mm fox 36 exceeds the specified max a2c height of the rise.

 

[jene]

 

[fitek]

Marzocchi Z1's A2C seems to be shorter than Fox 36. 160mm Fox 36 has the same A2C as 150mm Z1. I was thinking of switching my 150mm 36 to a 160mm Z1. But the rear travel really needs to increase...

 

[jene]

This is a bit annoying... But I know at least 3 guys that are running 170 on their m rise with same weight and even beatting quite more the bike than me and They didn't have any issue. Of course I won't place the 170 shaft but I'll take the risk with 160mm...

 

[iJak]

TBH it's not something you really need to worry about if you aren't hucking to flat constantly from 2m / 10 ft jumps etc - unfortunately this is obviously something they need to specify on paper.
You can also argue that a fox 38 or ZEB/Domain shouldnt be installed as it's too stiff causes much more stress than the spec'd 36 or let alone 34 / Bomber z2.

 

[shredjim]

I’ve tried quite a few springs and the fox metric sls ones are the only ones that clear my Med frame.

Dan - Did you try a Fox steel or a Marzocchi steel spring? Will you please tell us what springs you tried and found they didn't clear the shock channel? I'm about to get a coil shock and want to test a few in-expensive springs of different tensions before I throw down for a SLS spring. I would really prefer to get a Cane Creek progressive spring, but those require a collar to make them work on a Fox or Marzocchi shock, so even larger coil diameter - so chances of fitting my medium Rise are slim?

 

[DanMcDan]

Dan - Did you try a Fox steel or a Marzocchi steel spring? Will you please tell us what springs you tried and found they didn't clear the shock channel? I'm about to get a coil shock and want to test a few in-expensive springs of different tensions before I throw down for a SLS spring. I would really prefer to get a Cane Creek progressive spring, but those require a collar to make them work on a Fox or Marzocchi shock, so even larger coil diameter - so chances of fitting my medium Rise are slim?

Yes I tried quite a few springs, the one I wanted to use was the Cane creek progressive coils 450-550 but it rubbed the coating on the spring on the underside of the frame. Not massively I could have rubbed all the coating off and it would have been ok but I wanted the white spring to match the bike.

However that did allow me to put it on my Nomad, so silver linings

also I didn’t need a collar to run that cane creek on the dhx Rc4 and my rise is a medium

 

[shredjim]

Yes I tried quite a few springs, the one I wanted to use was the Cane creek progressive coils 450-550 but it rubbed the coating on the spring on the underside of the frame. Not massively I could have rubbed all the coating off and it would have been ok but I wanted the white spring to match the bike.

View attachment 84028
However that did allow me to put it on my Nomad, so silver linings

also I didn’t need a collar to run that cane creek on the dhx Rc4 and my rise is a medium

Ok Dan - but it appears that several Fox standard steel and SLS spring lengths will work - ie 61 mm, 65mm and 67 mm spring lengths work within the Fox specs for their 210x55 shocks (DHX, DHX2 & Bomber CR), and I'm assuming that if the spring is shorter and still fits the shock it might have less of a chance of rubbing the frame on a Rise medium frame? Dan - did you use the shortest Fox standard springs, ie 65 mm and you say they didn't fit? Fox's chart says the standard spring (65mm, smallest) 500 lbs is 4.733 TLG, and the SLS spring (61 mm, smallest) 500 lbs is 4.67 TLG so only .063 of an inch difference, and you say the standard springs won't fit but the SLS does?.... I'm trying to make a purchase here so please be very specific about the various model springs and sizes you tried? .... Thanks!

 

[DanMcDan]

Ok Dan - but it appears that several Fox standard steel and SLS spring lengths will work - ie 61 mm, 65mm and 67 mm spring lengths work within the Fox specs for their 210x55 shocks (DHX, DHX2 & Bomber CR), and I'm assuming that if the spring is shorter and still fits the shock it might have less of a chance of rubbing the frame on a Rise medium frame? Dan - did you use the shortest Fox standard springs, ie 65 mm and you say they didn't fit? Fox's chart says the standard spring (65mm, smallest) 500 lbs is 4.733 TLG, and the SLS spring (61 mm, smallest) 500 lbs is 4.67 TLG so only .063 of an inch difference, and you say the standard springs won't fit but the SLS does?.... I'm trying to make a purchase here so please be very specific about the various model springs and sizes you tried? .... Thanks!

It’s the diameter of the spring that rubs, the sls is 2mm smaller in diameter

 

[iJak]

Ok Dan - but it appears that several Fox standard steel and SLS spring lengths will work - ie 61 mm, 65mm and 67 mm spring lengths work within the Fox specs for their 210x55 shocks (DHX, DHX2 & Bomber CR), and I'm assuming that if the spring is shorter and still fits the shock it might have less of a chance of rubbing the frame on a Rise medium frame? Dan - did you use the shortest Fox standard springs, ie 65 mm and you say they didn't fit? Fox's chart says the standard spring (65mm, smallest) 500 lbs is 4.733 TLG, and the SLS spring (61 mm, smallest) 500 lbs is 4.67 TLG so only .063 of an inch difference, and you say the standard springs won't fit but the SLS does?.... I'm trying to make a purchase here so please be very specific about the various model springs and sizes you tried? .... Thanks!

for your 210x55 shock, you want to run the 61mm SLS or the shortest TLG (total length spring) for steel.
SLS springs achieves it's light weight with less coils and thinner gauge aka. overall shorter and narrower diameter so clears frame.
Steel springs on the other hand is completely opposite. Longer (deeper into the underside of the frame), more coils (more surface areas to potentially rub), slightly wider diameter (more chance of rubbing).


So if you needed to jump on a purchase asap, your safest bet is the SLS below:

 

[jene]

Hey guys, I'm a bit confused about using the coil.

I'm happy with coil butter feelings but not sure if I've choosed the right spring rate...

Got the right spring rate for my weight as ohlins calculator says (90kg- 548lbs). Got the right sag (1.9cms=28-30%) but when I tried to push hard the pedals and compressing the shock, it gets high compression (3.7cms= 60%).

After that, I made a route with easy downhills without any jump or steps, and the bump post goes to the end (Not sure if I made bottom out).

I expected that rise would be more progressive because I feel that until about 85% of the travel is a bit lineal taking into account that sag and spring rate appear to be right.

The shock 216x63 is mounted without offset bushings in the frame, not sure if it could affects progressiveness.

Not sure if should I install the next heavier spring or a progressive one?

 

[DanMcDan]

I would expect you to be on a 600-650 as I use a 500 and I’m 76kgs

 

[jene]

I would expect you to be on a 600-650 as I use a 500 and I’m 76kgs

Thanks Dan, more or less is what I tought...Or the valt progressive 550-670... Not sure which one would work better...And if Valt is too much wide and touch the frame..