Originally Posted by Luke
Bill and I are still hashing over the numbers, but the first stab looks like the
linkage has way more progression than the recommended spring. As in, comperable to a 50 to 100% increase in rate. By comparison, the 70-90 spring has a 28% increase.
The progressive springs are designed for shocks with progressive damping- ie PDS.
Luke, I assume that the linkage that you're talking about here is the linkage that is on the bike, and not an add on part? In that case it confirms my suspicions that a progressive spring would probably work out too stiff if used with the linkage, not to mention any sizing issues that I'd have. Really appreciate that info!
I'm trying to do this trip on a bit of a budget, so rebuild/revalves of shocks, and full setups of forks are luxuries that I'd prefer to try to avoid. This may well be something that I regret later, but these bikes are meant to be built for this stuff right? At least that's what the salesman in the shop told me at the time!
This is probably totally flawed thinking, but I wasn't going to touch the front. The vast majority of the weight being carried is on the back wheel, meaning rear wheel sag is going to be pretty high, and so the soft spring on the front would balance it out. Right? If it's diving too much under braking, then I'll just add a bit of compression damping. (I also have a steering damper fitted along with Loaded's submount)
My thoughts now then are that I run an 80N/mm linear spring on the rear with the stock fork setup at the front. Anyone think this is a really really bad idea? It's got to be an improvement on the standard spring...
Zerodog does this stuff professionally right? I didn't want to bug him, as I can source the springs and work here in England, and asking him what I should be buying from someone else might be stretching his altruism too far!