BREW Nitro ShoxIf you're thinking that the BREW Nitro Shox looks homemade, that's because it is. However, this is the only Nitro Shox in the world at this point in time, and you shouldn't let its unfinished appearance put you off: there's some tricky things going on inside that its designer, Joe Hunter, is saying puts it head and shoulders above what we're all used to riding. It might also look a bit familiar because it's the latest incarnation of the fabled Millyard damper that, while showing great promise, seemed to fade into obscurity for reasons apparently unrelated to its performance. Hunter has been re-working the design with big intentions in mind, and even taking it as far as the MotoGP paddock where a different iteration of the design has been put to use, although he can't legally divulge by what team or riders.
Moving back to the mountain bike world, Hunter went on to say that back-to-back timed runs comparing the Nitro Shox with an unnamed production shock showed that their test rider was consistently ten percent faster with the BREW damper on his bike. Claims aside, while the internal bits of the Nitro Shox sound like they're actually less complicated than what's used by suspension companies these days, it still takes a bit to grasp how the very different layout of the BREW shock works.
Here's the basicsThe first thing to understand is that the BREW shock uses a completely different layout than a traditional design that we're used to seeing from FOX, RockShox or anyone else, with it being based on the same principles as the oleo struts that were first employed on tanks and the landing gear of airplanes for many, many years. Ol-what, you ask? An oleo damper is relatively simple compared to a complicated mountain bike or motorbike shock: on one end there's a pressurized chamber (
filled with nitrogen in the case of the Nitro Shox, hence its name) that's separated from the damping oil by a piston that we'd usually refer to as an IFP (
short for Internal Floating Piston). An important thing to note is that the nitrogen charge in the BREW shock actually acts as the spring, whereas the pressurized chamber on the opposite side of the IFP is only used to provide back-pressure and room for oil displacement on a traditional shock.
Now let's pretend we're riding the Nitro Shox: when your rear wheel hits a bump and the shock is compressed, the damping oil pushes on the the IFP and the nitrogen charge is compressed - this gives you your spring rate. On the opposite end of the shock is a tapered metering pin that aligns with a bleed hole on the metering / damping orifice, and this is what determines the amount of pressure that's applied to the IFP and the nitrogen charge. This means that it's able to supply as much spring force as required when there's a massive impact, but then also bleed off that pressure as needed. In short, it provides both a non-linear spring rate and damping force that allows it to react in a way that a standard shock would never be able to, and, according to Hunter, in a way that gives the rider more control.
So that's the gist of an oleo damper, but BREW have made a few vital changes to get the system working well for mountain bikes. ''
The BREW shock absorber differs from the conventional oleo suspension unit by incorporating two patented designs,'' explains Hunter. The first is where he's located the damper assembly, moving it from the damper rod to the end of the shock in order to integrate an adjustment dial or two. The second patent involves a way of changing the pressure of the nitrogen charge in order to adjust the shock's spring rate - the prototype shown here doesn't allow a rider to do that.
Less AdjustmentsThe current Nitro Shox damper doesn't allow the rider to fiddle with much in the way of adjustments, and while Hunter believes that this is for the better, he is looking at more user-tuneable models for down the road. The anodized blue prototype pictured here, the model that BREW is looking to put into production first, doesn't even allow the rider to adjust the spring rate, with it being set at the factory to your weight, riding style and bike model. That is going to sound insane to a lot of us - it did to me, to be honest - but the design and function of this first shock doesn't permit that. He is working on a future model that sports a piggyback, not for oil displacement, though, but to serve as home for a type of volume adjustment that would allow for spring rate tuning.
The single red dial on this shock is going to leave some riders with idle hands, with it being using to adjust both compression and rebound damping. This is an entirely different sort of thing to what we're used to, though, with the somewhat limited range being accented by the shock being able to "auto adjust" the amount of damping that's applied by roughly ten to twenty percent in each direction (
Hunter didn't want to supply exact figures on this). Hunter does have plans to offer a shock with separate rebound and compression dials as well, although he sounded a bit skeptical as to if the design really called for allowing riders to tinker with these settings in that way.
I've left Eurobike without a Nitro Shox damper in my bag, but Hunter is aiming to have a finished test unit shipped out to Pinkbike within the next few months. Right now, after reading all of the above, I can understand the skepticism that might be present about the design. Not being able to adjust the shock's spring rate? A single dial to tune both compression and rebound? It all sounds a bit out there to me, but sometimes it takes a wholesale change in what we know to be able to take the next step (
or leap) forward. We'll see.
Then you get it on a trail and it just eats everything in its path. Without a single stutter or wheeze.
Why they never took off is the 64 million dollar question as the concept behind it is simple engineering at its best.
Do they make your bike 10% faster? In the right hands, probably.
Absolutely. Ever feel invincible on a downhill and get smoked by one of your buddies? Helmet already off waiting for you at the bottom? Happens to us all.
I wasn't talking about the objective speed of the rider .
They don't necessarily need to strong arm the guy like some playground bully, but they could easily purchase the fledgling company to either 1) use the tech themselves, or 2) bury the design. It's also possible for them to play the bully through backhand means. For example a large company could use its production connections to make it difficult for the small innovative person to get the parts or production support they need. Large company could take a litigious route by claiming patent issues (if any exist). They could even be minor claims they don't have any intention of winning; all you need to do is get the person tied up in court spending all their cash, wasting time, and draining their motivation to fight the giant. This DOES happen, in the bike industry, and it's a reason there's a certain brand I don't support.
On the other hand, a large brand could be an angel. They could offer support for certain licensing arrangements, offer to hire the innovator, or simply purchase the designs outright and bring joy to the masses.
...more likely than not, the big guys will do nothing. They only need to sit back, watch and wait. Fox and RS are doing fine in their market. It would take a very long time for someone else to come up with something truly novel. When/if it does appear it's likely to be incredibly expensive. Such niche products, amazing as they might be, rarely reach a wide audience. c.f. the Push Eleven.six shock, which by all accounts is the shiznitz. The $1100 USD price tag keeps this miracle out of the hands and off the bikes of 99% of us. Is it better, probably. Is it so much better that we're willing to fork out the cash? Mostly no. Only the chosen few will experience it. (No I don't have one - I'm still wandering in the desert)
Really all this suspension junk is a moot point as soon as they figure out how to apply the hover pads from the Back to the Future skateboard to bikes.
As for a big player buying the design, I don't think they could.
Bae systems challenger 2 fv4034 features oleo damper struts. Still in use today. That's just one.
That good enough?
A perfect example is Mr Dyson, who designed a vacuum cleaner far more efficient than anything else on the market. When he tried to sell his design to the major manufacturers, they laughed at him.
Then an investor helped him out and within a couple of years virtually all of those who refused to buy his design were begging for the license to use it. So he charged them twice as much. And they paid it.
When a game changer is given a chance, big things can happen. Just my
These are people that are not afraid to try things differently.
I look forward to seeing how this develops and what PB has to say about their test model when received.
dirtmountainbike.com/features/railroad-millyard-invention.html#8YgD1pLHx6osMZZU.97
Fork Damper article from this year:
dirtmountainbike.com/news/mag-invention-millyards-new-front-damper.html#gTWJAktIMRdPjGXh.97
video referencing 160mm travel:
vimeo.com/11030606
^^thats why I have absolutely no interest in boost etc as it will all be irrelevant once we're riding gearbox bikes. Hub flanges will be wide and wheels stronger
For clarification, the Millyard from Dirt #69 (200mm travel) doesn't have a single sided swing arm. After seeing the one from the link above, I remember the mono-arm from back in the day as well.There was likely a few iterations with different travel numbers.
didnt Joe Hunter design the Millyard Shock for you?
Joe approached us in 2006 with designs for the challenger tank suspension which was then scaled down to fit a downhill bike. My dad and I did a lot of further development work in getting it race ready and to the point its at now. we were unaware that Joe had been working on a downhill shock so without seeing the design or test riding the shock I cant comment on the performance. Who knows, the Brew might work better! Would love to do some back to back runs and see how they compare.
Mtb damper: cdn.mos.bikeradar.imdserve.com/images/bikes-and-gear/components/forks-suspension/1290525006961-1c10ib67xbhw2-960-540.jpg
Main difference is that in the oleo damper, the air chamber is compressed by the flowing oil, while in the mtb damper the air (spring) and oil (damping) circuits are separate.
Oleo pros: simple, fewer parts, cheaper to manufacture. Great for industrial applications (tanks, planes)
Mtb pros: separate circuits allow for more tunability. Great for sports applications (mtb, auto racing)
Which is exactly where we see these designs being used.
A highly tunable shock probably isn't the best use of money for most of us. After all, once you find the right tune you usually only adjust by a click or two based on conditions. The money saved on manufacturing an oleo damper could be used to implement the logistics and customer support necessary to customize the shock based on rider weight and bike model. I'd say that's Mr. Hunter's business plan, and it could be a good one.
Isn't that basically just a simple position sensitive damper design? I still don't understand how it would "automatically adjust" the damping as needed or why this design would perform dramatically better than any of the currently available shocks.
Second, how would you put a negative air spring on the Oleo?
What this sounds like it has going for it is cost through simplicity. Itss like ordering an Avalanche tuned Fox for the price of a Fox. Build it cheaper and throw the extra money into custom tunes. Sounds good to me. You don't need all the useless adjusters if it works right out of the box.
I like that he plans to use volume adjustment for spring rate, come on people, argue with me again that spring rate is not affected by volume but by pressure...
So as the shock gets further into stroke, the air spring is mostly used to control ride height and provide rebound force, with the oil almost entirely providing the resistance to compression?
Basically more of a position sensitive damper rather than speed sensitive?
After reading about their use in landing gear, it seems like the rebound damping curve is almost opposite of a modern shock. Where a typical mtb shock would open up the rebound further into the stroke (digressive) to get back into the useable part of the travel quickly, this would reserve heavy rebound damping for big hits only and still be quite supple over the little stuff. I guess it would be super hard to tune a normal shock to have that rebound characteristic. Would have to be the rebound circuit equivalent of a hydraulic compression bottom out control.
Would these avoid packing up (as their possibly heavy ending stroke rebound damping might indicate) because the compression damping is equally heavy at a given point in the stroke and so you only reserve the super slow rebound for big hits, when you want it to very stable?
The needle system sounds more like a position sensitive device that adjusts bypass. The further in the stroke, the less bypass, so more damping. Likely meant to affect only compression and not rebound. Rebound you want opposite to keep you higher in the travel so you have more travel to utilize, and thus can make it softer without bottoming.
Digressive is NOT the same as position sensitive. Digressive damping has to do with shaft speeds, not position. Also, shape of the bump is what changes suspension feel, not the size. Damping is speed sensitive.
So there you go, if you change the volume, you're also changing the pressure.
The unfortunate thing is no one builds a shock that separates spring ramp up from spring rate which leads to setup issues.
I've already argued the benefits of nitrogen, so you don't need to tell me.
Now as you said, race trucks don't change weight throughout a race, so why would you want your spring rate to change throughout the race? Same on a bike. Your weight from top to bottom of mountain doesn't change, so why should your spring rate (and preload) change as you ride? It's not good, that's why Nitrogen is beneficial. The spring rate and preload stay more consistent with what you set it at at the start of the ride.
ep1.pinkbike.org/p4pb3018376/p4pb3018376.jpg
For the record, I loved the Lefty SuperMax I rode for a season in 2014. I would also be very interested to try a nitrogen charged shock.
"the spring rate, with it being set at the factory to your weight, riding style and bike model."
Surely this makes total sense, if it can be accurately set up from the factory most people will be more than happy for this setup with some details given(weight,frame etc). Furthermore the 10-20% shock "damping that's applied by roughly ten to twenty percent in each direction" will cater for any small changes like track or bag weight...
Good idea, will be good to read more on this. Hopefully its reliable and could come with a lockout lever/remote for the modern enduro bikes
Avalanche Suspension
www.pinkbike.com/photo/12633442
instagram.com/p/zfCRLxwbsi
make sure your facts are correct before making statements please!
They also, uh, kinda suck for performance applications. If they were good for it, motorsport would be using them. They aren't (although I'm sure someone, somewhere is, but not mainstream).
I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I'm not going to hold my breath on this.
Let me try again...
The time difference between 70th (more or less last place) and first place at the last round of the W.C. Val de Sole was 8.7%
Its a shame this shock was not available to the last place rider as he could have nudged Gwin into 2nd place.
I will do it for so cheap..... Just to not see that font on a finished product!!!
Actually if you gave me one of these bad boys (when they make it into production) and I will do it for free!!
The DHX 5 shock had a rotating plug on the end that increased or decreased the volume of the DHX chamber.
I don't think this shock is remarkably different from a DHX shock.
BTW Fox DHX shock is crap. They could never get the pro pedal circuit to work with the DHX circuit.
From what I've read on oleo dampers, the main thing is in the tapered pin (or alternatively - tube) - essentially varying the size of the orifice at different stages of the travel (thinner -> thicker -> thinner... any way you want it). Probably uses some blowoff valves/stiff shims/etc to counter the orifice's exponential damping force (the "spiky/lockout" feeling on hard impacts - think forks with orifice dampers in fast, rocky sections).
There's probably still quite a bit more to it though - still have to read on the citroen system with its reservoir and etc... I bet the piggyback on the original Millyard might have something to do with it
Thanks for a great writeup!
Some interesting comments to read and take on board!
Another problem with nitrogen is unless it's serviced properly in a closed circuit, you'll gradually end up with nothing more than atmospheric air anyway, which is why inflating (road) car tires with nitrogen is just silly.
Btw, one of the "secrets" allegedly stolen from Ferrari F1 team a few years ago was that they inflated tires with CO2, instead of nitrogen.
I'm highly sceptical of such statements.
The 10% time difference is also nothing short of B.S.
I have designed a new running shoe with a magical type of rubber sole, I took it to the Olympics and gave it to a top athlete who ran a race but I cant tell you which athlete it was. His time was 10% faster as a result though.
Also (I may have misread the article) but can you adjust spring rate? It looks like you can not which clearly will not cater for different rider preferences.