I'm certainly going to argue with that one! :biggrin:as air is compressed it expands...
Agreed. I was under the impression that damping problems stemmed from the fact that, whereas with the coil the heat generated in the damping circuit is more or less free to conduct/radiate out to the surroundings, the damping circuit in comon configurations of air shocks is surrounded by the big, insulating air spring, which is why air shocks are more prone to "damping fade" over long runs. But yeah, no practical experience to base this on. Just e-rumours, and a sound knowledge of physics.The damper in the DHX Air works the same as it does in the DHX coil, and the only thing that will really affect the damping is the heat generated by the damping itself in the damping oil (so as transcend pointed out, damping characteristics should be very similar to the coil shock). Air sleeve heat isn't going to make a considerable difference here, and keep in mind that shock oil has a very high viscosity index meaning it will hold its viscosity fairly well over a temp range.
I hope you have never run a ti spring before....I don't see the whole point of an air DH shock....so you can save 250 grams...lol...D
Sorry to call you out on this, but take a look at a Sunday lev rate curve next to a Turner for example. The curve is for all intents and purposes, linear. Leverage rates aside, when you look at actual wheel rate curves for the DHX air on the Sunday there is a big "dip" in wheel rate through the middle of the travel. If I were to change to a leverage rate that would overcome this dip in spring rate you would make the bike completely unusable in the mid travel. Shaft speeds would be very high mid stroke. This causes a cascade of issues, but ultimately you would end up with a bike that has very little cornering traction and a huge bottom out issue.This thread is a total rumour mill!
4. The sunday (mapped in linkage) has a progressive to regressive rate. I know dw likes to call it progressive to linear, but he's yet to post a graph to disprove the one that came from linkage. In any case the progressive to regressive curve gives a lower leverage ratio in the middle of the travel, which should give more damping and a higher springrate in that portion of the travel. So even if the air spring itself did have some falloff in the middle (due to the crossover between pos/neg air springrate), the sunday should cancel that out fairly effectively with its leverage ratio curve. Finally the fairly low leverage ratio of the frame (2.6:1) is an obvious plus for air shocks, especially if you are a smaller guy.
Ahahaha PWND.Skewing results? whoa slow down there buddy
I just posted a graph that was created by someone else (I said it may be inaccurate) and asked if a more accurate one could be posted by dw to match what he claims.
As for the title - have you tried using your eyes? There's 7 tabs directly below the graph, and the one titled Lev. Ratio is clearly selected. The y axis (it really should be obvious if you have any clue as to what's been discussed here) is the leverage ratio at any given point in the travel.
YesSo effectively we just have to take your word for it that the curve is progressive to linear, and you won't actually show us the curve.
Not sure how you're coming up with the idea that a linear rate would make the bike overly progressive, but I can assure assure you of two things.If it's not (noticeably) regressive at the end, then why recommend cranking the bottom out adjuster all the way in by default? Surely on a frame that ended with a linear rate that would make it overly progressive, (ie wouldn't be neccessary) especially with today's progressively damped shocks.
I say go for it. This might not be as easy as it sounds to do, but if you have access to a CMM and the time to do it, then by all means go for it! I am pretty sure that you have an idea what I am all about, so you can bet that there is no way in heck I would tell you that the lev rate was one thing when it's another.On a different note - if someone buys the frame, surely the leverage curve can be worked out precisely (unlike mapping points in linkage), hence the patents to stop it being replicated. I can't see why you can't show us the curve - unless it was something other than you claimed it was.
Thats the idea!As always, dw wins by default here.
Dude, the Rp3 and the DHX air have the SAME volume of air
Well, the characteristics are not similer to the coil shock. The DHX Air blows through the mid stroke travel, uses more travel than it should on impacts, and leaves very little travel for the next impact when you start picking up a lot of speed in rough terrain. The damper in the DHX Air is different from the one in the DHX coil. I feel the DHX Air can actually give a more "plush" ride at certain speeds in certain terrain, but it's very limited due to that mid stroke wallow, and if you want a much better all around ride that is much better controlled, go with the coil.3. Damping can't drop off mid stroke! The damper in the DHX Air works the same as it does in the DHX coil, and the only thing that will really affect the damping is the heat generated by the damping itself in the damping oil (so as transcend pointed out, damping characteristics should be very similar to the coil shock).
Ya, the parking lot when the air pressure is too low.I think the DHX Air is popular due to that "very plush" feeling in certain terrain, unfortunately it is not indicitive of the shock in other situations.
the RP3 worked ok for a couple months on mineYeah, but there's no bottom out on the RP3. I had one on my 5" bike and it ruled, but on a V10?
It is true that data taken from a photo is not going to be very accurate, but it's certainly better than no data. Every file in the program has a quality rating; so it should be quite obvious which files can be trusted, and which files are simply to be viewed as a visual for how a linkage operates, and nothing more.Here's what linkage spits out - the drawing was done by a guy called spencer williams who seems to have done a lot of the bikes in the linkage library, but ultimately it'd only be as accurate as whatever photo he used.
I'd like to see your version and maybe a dead side on CAD pic of the production frame that anyone could use to get the correct data from.
yes, we do.So, does anybody actually ride bikes anymore, or do they just exist to argue about on the internet?
so you are saying that fox make a 2.75x8.75 rp23? where did you get it from?the RP3 worked ok for a couple months on mine
Actually, in many instances, it is NOT better than no data. Introducing completely inaccurate and/or baseless data into an argument to try and prove a point is worse than leaving it out entirely. Unless data was introduced into the mapping program that was taken with accurate measurements, bringing it up is useless.It is true that data taken from a photo is not going to be very accurate, but it's certainly better than no data.
Thats not what im saying, it was a 2.5/8.5so you are saying that fox make a 2.75x8.75 rp23? where did you get it from?
I was just curious, can't you pull most of the info that you're after from (#5 Show Animation):So effectively we just have to take your word for it that the curve is progressive to linear, and you won't actually show us the curve.
If it's not (noticeably) regressive at the end, then why recommend cranking the bottom out adjuster all the way in by default?
Exactly, if you don't understand where the data comes from or how accurate it is, why in the world would you make concrete conclusions about a bike's performance with it?Actually, in many instances, it is NOT better than no data. Introducing completely inaccurate and/or baseless data into an argument to try and prove a point is worse than leaving it out entirely. Unless data was introduced into the mapping program that was taken with accurate measurements, bringing it up is useless.
When you write a paper, do you cite an anecdote that your brother heard once as a reference? No? So why would you do it here? If I eyeballed a photo of a Sunday for some measurements and hand-drew some pictures in MS Paint, would you take it seriously or dismiss me entirely? What's the difference here? The CAD program is no more accurate if not supplied with good data - garbage in, garbage out.
I think it's also a little silly to be requesting that DW post proprietary information about his shock rates and such. Just because the guy is here and tries to be helpful doesn't mean he's going to share thousands of hours worth of self-generated data that he makes a living from. Tell you what, shoot Santa Cruz an email and ask for all the output from whatever recent FEA they've done on the V-10, see what they say. After all, if you bought the frame and did precise measurements and analyzed the types of metals used, you could do the FEA yourself, so why would they not just post it on their website?
i was asking coz i want one, oh well.Thats not what im saying, it was a 2.5/8.5
But santa cruz don't come on here saying their linkage does this, does that and is the best thing since sliced bread and everything else is crap.I think it's also a little silly to be requesting that DW post proprietary information about his shock rates and such. Just because the guy is here and tries to be helpful doesn't mean he's going to share thousands of hours worth of self-generated data that he makes a living from. Tell you what, shoot Santa Cruz an email and ask for all the output from whatever recent FEA they've done on the V-10, see what they say. After all, if you bought the frame and did precise measurements and analyzed the types of metals used, you could do the FEA yourself, so why would they not just post it on their website?
Cheers dude.It is seriously like a religion, you guys just accept what is told to you and regurgitate it without questioning why, and when someone does ask why and to provide evidence of said claims they get smacked down. Lame.
Yes, they do. They buy advertising space. Just because DW happens to have an account on here doesn't make it any different. All the companies have information they are unwilling to divulge to the masses.But santa cruz don't come on here saying their linkage does this, does that and is the best thing since sliced bread and everything else is crap.
Requesting is fine, but the response was "Sorry, it's proprietary" and that's perfectly reasonable. It doesn't automatically disprove the claims, it just means you need to find another way to disprove or prove them.I think its completely fair to request this information due to the claims made and the way this forum is used to promote the design.
No, what's lame is that you are trying to call me out when you have no clue what you're talking about . I am the last person to accept things at face value. Just because I can recognize the uselessness of a CAD drawing that was produced from crap data, or see why not sharing proprietary information is reasonable doesn't mean I'm accepting all claims made at face value.It is seriously like a religion, you guys just accept what is told to you and regurgitate it without questioning why, and when someone does ask why and to provide evidence of said claims they get smacked down. Lame.
Gee, that might provide a little bit of useful data! Imagine that, and without DW providing his proprietary data or without guessing via estimates based on a poor quality JPG of the frame.Udi, it wouldn't be that hard to measure everything up exactly with a tape measure and verniers for the critical dimensions, and then punch the co-ordinates into matlab and preform a vector analysis.