autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [evolution-disc.]Stock costs hype

To: solo2inseattle@hotmail.com, evolution-discussions@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [evolution-disc.]Stock costs hype
From: TeamZ06@aol.com
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:55:49 EST
In a message dated 1/14/02 10:55:20 PM Central Standard Time, 
solo2inseattle@hotmail.com writes:


> I do not believe that the high dollar shocks will make as much of an impact
> in the non-stock classes.  One of the larger benefits of the high pressure
> monotube shocks comes from the ability to use their nitrogen preload to
> supplement spring rate and the ability to use their stiffness to reduce the
> reliance upon springs.  In STS and SP you can already have the high spring
> rates.  Just my $.02.

Actually, most people in  Stock are doing the opposite; they are running 
lower pressure.  Pressure is just one factor, you also have to consider shaft 
diameter.  Simply put:

gas pressure extension force = gas pressure x shaft area

The pressure is always trying to escape the body, this why the shaft on 
pressurized shocks always trys to fully extend, the pressure working on the 
shaft diameter creates the net extension force.  On a double tube shock, 
converting from gas to hydraulic eliminates this force, though due to most of 
them being low pressure the net effect is small.  Most aftermarket shocks 
utilize a larger diameter shaft to both accomodate the valving adjuster 
running down the center and have sufficient strength as a result.  If you did 
not reduce gas pressure to account for the change in shaft diameter, the 
extension force would be greater than OE at the same pressure.  However, the 
extension force is not like a spring, whose load force increases in magnitude 
with distance traveled.  The extension gas force is for the most part a 
constant preload, nothing more, and the overall magnitude is not really that 
great in general.  Again it just depends, some of the custom shocks have 
considerably larger shaft diameters than OE and the effect becomes more 
pronounced.

As for running extremely low gas pressure forces, if you talk to the tech 
people at Koni they will disagree heavily with this.  In fact, KONI NA 
seriously frowns on running less than their minimum recommended monotube 
pressure of 320 psig, though some other manufacturers tout it.  Koni also 
does not believe in using remote reservoirs for technical performance 
reasons.  In short, they believe a remote reservoir shock is inferior to a 
non-reservoir shock, but please don't try to drag me into that argument, I 
have no idea, it just conflicts with some other opinions and perceptions.  
They also refuse to install schraeder valves, siting them as a major leak 
source.  I have managed to try some different pressures on my Z06 28's and 
frankly I cannot tell any real differences, though my shaft sizes are not 
that much larger than OE and this may negate those factors.  Since their 
seals are designed to use the pressure as a sealing force, they also have 
internal seal leakage concerns when using lower pressures.  If the gas 
pressure escapes into the oil, the dampner will pretty much fail.  Some 
people have run monotube shocks with no gas pressure, basically it will jack 
down onto the bumpstops under a variety of conditions and more or less not 
function as a dampner, less than ideal IMO.

Mark Sipe

///  unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net  or try
///  http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
///  Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [evolution-disc.]Stock costs hype, TeamZ06 <=