Ramp Analysis

FMX Ramp Findings from Rider Experience, Video Review, and FEA Simulation

Introduction

I dug deeper into our ramp analysis to confirm whether the numbers match what I’ve felt riding both designs, and they do. I modeled both ramps and ran the same load case to compare deformation (primary focus) and stress. Both structures are strong enough for FMX; the meaningful differences show up in how much they flex.

Load case: 220 kg combined (≈120 kg bike + 100 kg rider) at 65 km/h for a 75 ft jump. That speed is an estimate derived from KTM 250 SX wheel-speed calculations done while sizing gear ratios for the electric bike. It may not be perfect, but it’s applied equally to both ramps, so the comparison highlights the true differences in design.

Shogun Ramps vs US Ramps — Simulation learnings

Quick takeaways

• US ramps load then unload the suspension, scrubbing speed and “pop.”
• Structural layout (rail orientation + cross-bar direction) drives far higher flex and long-term cracking risk.
• Shogun ramps keep the suspension working through the whole arc and are dramatically stiffer and more scalable to fabricate.

US ramp — issues observed

• Reference geometry: 8’3″ Destruction “Comp” ramp, straight entry (~7°), ~7 m effective radius between straights, and a straight exit at 41.5°.
• Suspension timing: By ~⅔ of the way up, the suspension is fully loaded, then starts to unload over the final ⅓. That unloading creates a scrub effect and reduces pop off the lip.
• Rail & cross-bar orientation: The “radius” rail and cross members are oriented the wrong way, causing roughly 10× the flex of Shogun’s layout. In practice this concentrates stress in the top third of the rail, leading to fatigue/stress fractures over time.
• Ambiguity in plans: The plan invites fabricator interpretation, so two builders can produce ramps that ride differently. It’s not scalable and is unnecessarily complex.
• Outdated geometry: Designed for upright tricks and 75–80 ft gaps from an earlier era; not aligned with modern FMX demands.
• Entry angle limitations: A 7° straight entry can’t be propped (which it needs) without creating a harsh initial hit and an initial blow-through of the suspension.
• Tight effective radius: Between the straight entry and straight exit, the curve works out to about 7 m radius, closer to a super-kicker (≈6 m) than a Shogun 75 / Next Gen / classic 9 m profile. The tighter arc blows through the stroke and kills pop at takeoff.
• Measured deformation: Max deflection ≈ 3.059 mm at the critical zone. Every jump wastes energy into flex, which soaks speed and pop, and tends to increase over time as the structure fatigues.

Shogun ramps, design principles & results

• Built for modern FMX: Profiles tuned for today’s tricks and distances; consistent with 75 ft use without over-tightening the arc.
• Rider-engineer designed: Developed by a rider/engineer with 25 years in FMX, including designing and producing FMX-specific bikes.
• Stiff, efficient structure: Optimized rail orientation and bracing deliver far lower flex (see numbers below) and better energy return.
• Suspension works the whole way: The arc loads smoothly and consistently, so the suspension stays engaged, amplifying pop instead of scrubbing it.
• Repeatable takeoffs: Lower ramp flex = more consistent take off.
• Simulated & optimized: All designs are simulated and iterated to verify stress, deflection, and rider feel.
• Global buildability: Metric-based design, specified with globally available imperial sized tubing, so fabricators worldwide can source materials easily and build to spec.

Deflection comparison (same load case)

• US ramp: ~3.059 mm max deflection.
• Shogun 75: ~0.308 mm max deflection.
• That’s ≈10× less deflection for the Shogun 75 under the same conditions, directly tied to the smoother, less aggressive radius and structural layout.

Surface deformation range (same load case)

• US ramp: 0.343 mm → 3.059 mm across the surface. This wide range drives inconsistency in takeoffs and effectively deletes “pop.”
• Shogun 75: 0.030 mm → 0.308 mm across the surface. This much tighter range produces a smoother feel and more consistent takeoff, giving the rider more “pop.”
• A tighter range = smoother takeoff, less energy loss, less blow-through of the suspension, more “pop,” and greater consistency at the lip.

Why it matters

• More pop, less scrub: A consistent load profile through the arc lets the suspension give energy back at the lip.
• Predictable feel: Less flex means the lip rides the same every jump, and from one ramp to another.
• Scalable fabrication: Clear, simple plans minimize interpretation so different builders produce ramps that ride identically.
• Future-proof: Geometry and structure suited to modern tricks, modern speeds, and modern gaps, not the upright-only, 75–80 ft era.

Feel comparison (analogy)

In my opinion, a tighter deformation range feels like riding a freshly groomed, hard-pack dirt jump. A larger range feels more like riding the same jump after it’s rutted with small kicks, a more drastic comparison, but it helps explain the difference in feel.

Conclusion

Modern FMX needs modern geometry. Shogun ramps load the suspension smoothly, return more energy at the lip, and run with ~10× less deflection than legacy designs. The result is more pop, more predictability, and plans simple enough that any qualified fabricator can build a ramp that rides exactly as intended, every time.