Hey Pat, see you this week?
BOS S**toy review
- Thread starter Steve M
- Start date
- Status
I agree that the CCDB layout (which is based on the TTX40) is an excellent idea as there is simply no way to cause cavitation, there is always a positive pressure gradient that can never exceed the resistance force. However what many people overlook with standard piggyback/twin tube/De Carbon/whatever you want to call em shocks is that the only time the reservoir pressure gets brought into the equation is if the pressure drop over the main piston is higher than the pressure drop over whatever damping mechanism (usually the adjustable bits) you have in the neck of the piggyback. You could run a system at atmospheric pressure if you could be sure that there was always a bigger pressure drop over the neck/reservoir ports/shims than over the main piston assembly.
For this reason, I think that a properly made shock with a conventional setup can work just fine, be it BOS, Fox, Avalanche, whatever.
hahahaha, you are:
a) a broken record
b) talking out your arse.
For starters, you make it very evident that you don't understand why "flowing more oil" on high speed hits is actually necessary. It doesn't mean DISPLACING more oil through your valving is a good thing, it means ALLOWING ENOUGH OIL THROUGH EASILY ENOUGH. You continually confuse the two. If you force MORE oil through a given valve, you get a higher mass flow rate and as a result a higher flow velocity, and therefore a greater pressure difference, which is what creates damping force. In other words, you'd actually INCREASE your high speed damping, which is exactly where the harshness you bag the DHX for comes from. If you have a bigger main piston for any given shaft size, you have just as much more oil that needs to flow through it, except now you have a bigger area for the oil pressures to act on, and therefore need lighter valving, which gives you fewer, less precise tuning options. Fact. The DHX main piston sure as hell isn't having trouble getting oil through it, have you actually looked at one of those things? (Rhetorical question, you clearly haven't).
In addition to that, if the DHX was characteristically unable to physically accomodate high enough flow rates through its boost valve as you make out,
a) using the bigger shaft that you tout as an advantage on the Avalanche would make things worse, and
b) it would be harsh even with the air pressure and propedal backed right off to minimum, which it isn't, and
c) the shaft on an Avalanche, according to their website, is 12.5mm. Fox is 12.7mm. You fail.
Nobody is arguing that the DHX is perfect, we're simply pointing out that your reasoning for whatever issues you may have with it is completely flawed, and that the performance increase of other high-end shocks is somewhat exaggerated.
So please go and get half a clue, stop trolling my thread because of one passing comment made in a review about a completely different product.
Hey JM, I have the perfect shock for you. Flows more oil then you can beleive!
Sarah Palin would be proud.Hey JM, I have the perfect shock for you. Flows more oil then you can beleive!
You're right that race results are skewed, but Vouilloz chose BOS, not the other way around.Did the author of the article directly compare the same frame, on the same course with properly tuned Avys and CCDBs? Until he does, it's a bold statement.
Maybe it would have been, if I'd said the BOS was worlds apart, but unlike a few people in this thread, I've gone to great lengths not to exaggerate differences in performance.
Plus saying that Ohlins twin tube is a small improvement shows he didn't do his home work. The functionality of how the energy absorbed during impact is dissipated is vastly different than a traditional shock.
I am more than familiar with the Ohlins technology, and have read every single article I could find on both it and the CCDB (most of which were the same article that CC put out in a few dozen different places). In theory, the Ohlins TTX40 technology is great. In reality, all it does is prevent cavitation, which means no net advantage from that layout at all unless its competitors are cavitating, which does not appear to be the case. "How the energy absorbed during impact is dissipated" is conceptually identical to a traditional shock, it creates a pressure difference over a piston (and against a shaft) by forcing fluid through variable-size apertures, using hydrodynamic friction to convert kinetic energy into thermal energy. As always, the devil is in the details - more adjustability, lower friction, better tuned, whatever it is you're after. I'm not questioning that the CCDB is a quality piece of kit, nor have I ever claimed it didn't offer advantages over a DHX or whatever other mass-market shock. I simply said it doesn't blow them out of the water by a factor of ten billion, and with a CCDB currently on my bike, I'll stand by that until and unless it shows otherwise.
Race results are skewed.
1. Talent wins over equipment almost everytime.
2. Teams select equipment based on financial support. Fox and SRAM is in the position to give product and money to teams. Cane Creek and Avalance are not.
The BOS is the latest thing. I get it. Its the greatest ever.
If you'd actually READ THE F**KING REVIEW you might notice that I haven't gone OMG OMG OMG THIS THE BEST THING EVER IT'S SO MUCH BETTER THAN ANYTHING ELSE. Just like the CCDB and Avalanche, I feel it's made a number of relatively minor improvements over the mainstream alternatives, yet I went out of my way to state time and time again that the difference, at the end of the day, is just not that huge. How you can possibly interpret that as me saying it's the "latest and greatest", I have no idea, but I will say that it's the best shock I've ridden thus far, and it was like that out of the box.
Oh and why does the HSC adjuster on my CCDB noticeably affect LSC? Appears those adjustments weren't so independent after all...
JM can see russia from his house.
And after all that, I'm going to say: read the review. Assess the BOS on its own merits as best you can, and if it sounds like it fits the bill for you, maybe look into buying one. If it doesn't sound like your thing, don't consider buying one. If you think my assessment of the shock is unrealistic or even just wrong, that's fine, I'll live with it. If you're going to take exception to some other passing comment that unrelated to the review of the BOS shock itself (NO WAY MAN, MY MOTION CONTROL COMPRESSION ADJUSTER IS THE BEST THING EVER), then kindly go and post your whinges on the corkboard where you work, and let your colleagues know of your outrage that somebody on the internet inadvertently disagreed with you.
Hey JM and other doubters.
Ask yourself why S. would be biased?? Was he paid?
Also might be worth thinking which one of you have a mech eng degree majoring in suspension
Far out, what pisses me off the most with you guys is here is a guy who spent his free time writing a review and you bunch of senseless arses go and not only rag the review with no evidence, but more to the point attack a fellow mountain biker personally for making an effort above and beyond what you guys seem to be even capable of.
Go back to your freakin rocking chairs on the porch, wittle some wood and talk about the good ol days and the economic crisis FFS.
Ask yourself why S. would be biased?? Was he paid?
Also might be worth thinking which one of you have a mech eng degree majoring in suspension
Far out, what pisses me off the most with you guys is here is a guy who spent his free time writing a review and you bunch of senseless arses go and not only rag the review with no evidence, but more to the point attack a fellow mountain biker personally for making an effort above and beyond what you guys seem to be even capable of.
Go back to your freakin rocking chairs on the porch, wittle some wood and talk about the good ol days and the economic crisis FFS.
I am blown away by how much bull**** there is in this thread. Steve's (S.) review was the BEST REVIEW I HAVE READ, it was realistic, honest, unbiased and detailed. I was thinking as i read it how carefully it was written, and that he was holding back from getting excited about the shiny new toy. I read it and thought there is no way someone could criticize that at all, well the forum jockeys stepped up and proved me wrong.
nailed it
i thought it was a great review....i would buy one of those shocks in a heartbeat if i could afford it/if it was available in the states.....i don't think the banter was really all about the review per se......at least the banter between lee and i wasn't...
Listen you dolt - there isn't enough oil cross flow in a DHX to prevent it from making my Avalanche worth spending twice as much on! And Steve's review? Well it's complete trash. Anyone who has spent 48 hours with their eyelids propped open reading Avalanche marketing guff whilst listening to Beethoven will tell you the Avalanche is clearly the best there is. At nearly 200% better than a DHX, it's clearly possible that fitting not one - but two - Avalanches to a dual shock Corsair will leave you with a bike nearly 400% better than anything out there. You'd know this if the evil conspirators of Marz, Fox and Rockshox hadn't pressured the UCI into persecuting anyone who dared harness the power (over 200% more of it) that an Avy has.
The sheer ignorance of you sheep amazes me.
Bela Lugosi rides for Avalanche so they have to be great. Unless bos hires Christopher Lee they are out of the box outperformed.
Threads gone bad.
- Status