Quantcast

Dual Damper forks.

Patan-DH

Monkey
Jun 9, 2007
458
0
Patagonia
I was thinking why or how none of the big brands came with this design.

When i mean dual damper i mean a isolated damper for compression and other independent for rebound.

This way you are able to use a different oil for the compression and rebound, allowing infinite more tunning options. And you wont affect the other part of the stroke when you made changes in one.

to make the idea more clear i'm talking about two separated chambers for the rebound and compression pistons, maybe in one single cartridge with a division in middle or one cartridge in each leg.
Well the old boxxer was like this but it was ported ans sucked really bad.

what do you think?
 

JohnnyC

Monkey
Feb 10, 2006
400
1
Rotorua, New Zealand
No the double barrel has compression and rebound in the same damper, I don't see the point in seperating them, if you have a seperate shim stack for each you can tune them independently anyway?

Marzocchi used to have seperate cartridges for both but now stick to 1 damper cartridge, rebound at the top and compression at the bottom, same as fox.
 

Steve M

Turbo Monkey
Mar 3, 2007
1,995
23
Whistler
As JohnnyC said, it doesn't really provide any actual advantages - you can get pretty well any damper curve you want with a standard shimmed piston setup anyway, with a given viscosity oil.
 

Patan-DH

Monkey
Jun 9, 2007
458
0
Patagonia
The Aussie's got it right. I don't know what the hell i was thinking when i made this thread.

please moderator delete this thing.

cheers
 

Jm_

Turbo Monkey
Jan 14, 2002
9,639
2,000
AK
The Aussie's got it right. I don't know what the hell i was thinking when i made this thread.

please moderator delete this thing.

cheers
Naw, that's not the MTB-industry spirit. They should still invent it, just for the heck of it and because it doesn't do anything new, then advertise it as being totally different than everything else, then PROFIT!
 

saruti

Turbo Monkey
Oct 29, 2006
1,145
67
Israel
the older boxxers had comp in one side and rebound on the other side
I had the 2004 team boxxer. it was great.
2.5 wt oil on the rebound side
10wt oil in the comp side
wow.. it was really good... :D
 

Steve M

Turbo Monkey
Mar 3, 2007
1,995
23
Whistler
Cane Creek and Ohlins need to bring out a fork with twin tube technology,would that be a great thing for the DH fork market?
There are two main inherent advantages to the twin tube design that CC/Ohlins use - first one is that you can push all the oil through the adjusters, and second one is that cavitation is pretty well impossible. This doesn't necessarily mean that the damper curve you get is better (or in any way different) than what you could get out of any other damper, just that you can provide more external adjustment, and the cavitation situation is only an improvement if the other damper suffers from cavitation in the first place. The twin tube design also requires a sealed and bled damper, which is fine in a rear shock but can make life more complicated in a fork.

So basically you have to ask the following questions in order to determine whether it'd actually be beneficial to use such a twin tube setup in a fork:
1. Does the damper suffer from cavitation? Chances are the answer is no; aeration possibly but Boxxers, Foxes and Manitous all run on positive pressure gradients in both rebound and compression so cavitation will not occur.
2. Do I need a bigger range of external adjustment in order to avoid having to make internal adjustments?

The reason #2 there is important with shocks is because the frame's leverage rate and ratio can vary significantly from bike to bike, and then you have to account for varying rider weights and preferences on top of that. With a fork, only the rider's weight and preferences make any difference, since there is no leverage ratio to worry about.

Basically, in short there is no reason why the Cane Creek damper is INHERENTLY better than any other damper in terms of actual real world performance (the closest thing would be the lower reservoir pressure and air spring effect due to the small diameter shaft). The fact that it works very well is down to the fine details (low stiction, precise adjustments, tight tolerances etc) far moreso than the fact that it uses the twin tube design. IMO there are so many more things that could be improved in forks that would make a bigger difference than using the twin-tube design.
 
Last edited:

iRider

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2008
2,030
388
Ohlins seems to disagree with you:

http://www.ohlinsusa.com/us/

scroll down to the MX cartridges..... ;)


There are two main inherent advantages to the twin tube design that CC/Ohlins use - first one is that you can push all the oil through the adjusters, and second one is that cavitation is pretty well impossible. This doesn't necessarily mean that the damper curve you get is better (or in any way different) than what you could get out of any other damper, just that you can provide more external adjustment, and the cavitation situation is only an improvement if the other damper suffers from cavitation in the first place. The twin tube design also requires a sealed and bled damper, which is fine in a rear shock but can make life more complicated in a fork.

So basically you have to ask the following questions in order to determine whether it'd actually be beneficial to use such a twin tube setup in a fork:
1. Does the damper suffer from cavitation? Chances are the answer is no; aeration possibly but Boxxers, Foxes and Manitous all run on positive pressure gradients in both rebound and compression so cavitation will not occur.
2. Do I need a bigger range of external adjustment in order to avoid having to make internal adjustments?

The reason #2 there is important with shocks is because the frame's leverage rate and ratio can vary significantly from bike to bike, and then you have to account for varying rider weights and preferences on top of that. With a fork, only the rider's weight and preferences make any difference, since there is no leverage ratio to worry about.

Basically, in short there is no reason why the Cane Creek damper is INHERENTLY better than any other damper in terms of actual real world performance (the closest thing would be the lower reservoir pressure and air spring effect due to the small diameter shaft). The fact that it works very well is down to the fine details (low stiction, precise adjustments, tight tolerances etc) far moreso than the fact that it uses the twin tube design. IMO there are so many more things that could be improved in forks that would make a bigger difference than using the twin-tube design.
 

JohnnyC

Monkey
Feb 10, 2006
400
1
Rotorua, New Zealand
Ohlins seems to disagree with you:

http://www.ohlinsusa.com/us/

scroll down to the MX cartridges..... ;)
Again though, the only reason you would run those cartridges is because you are too lazy/don't have the ability to revalve the fork and would rather adjust it externally. It doesn't mean it would perform any better. All the TTX/double barrel design achieves is a wider range of external adjustment but I still don't think it can work as well as a shim stack design
 

iRider

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2008
2,030
388
Again though, the only reason you would run those cartridges is because you are too lazy/don't have the ability to revalve the fork and would rather adjust it externally. It doesn't mean it would perform any better. All the TTX/double barrel design achieves is a wider range of external adjustment but I still don't think it can work as well as a shim stack design
So please remind me again why you want to revalve your fork when there is a way to do this externally? I don't think it has anything to do with lazy, more with finding the perfect setup for each and every track. I think it is a neat idea and it would make a lot of sense for them to offer a fork to go along with their shock. Balanced suspension is nice and it should be easier to get this balance out of stuff from the same brand.
 

JohnnyC

Monkey
Feb 10, 2006
400
1
Rotorua, New Zealand
So please remind me again why you want to revalve your fork when there is a way to do this externally? I don't think it has anything to do with lazy, more with finding the perfect setup for each and every track. I think it is a neat idea and it would make a lot of sense for them to offer a fork to go along with their shock. Balanced suspension is nice and it should be easier to get this balance out of stuff from the same brand.

External adjuster knobs either do A) open and close a port (low speed) or

B)add preload to a spring which allows greater oil flow on high speed impacts. This effects the point at which this valve opens but the rate of the spring will always be constant.

This does give an OK range of useable adjustment but really all both adjusters are really doing is shifting the point at which the high-speed valve can open. This means that external high and low speed adjustmnet is never truly independent.

If you wind the low speed closed and back the high speed right off (the sort of set up I like, ie should prevent brake dive but can blow off when hitting rocks etc) all that happens is that you oil can now just take the easy way through the valve with no preload on it and the affect is very little Low Speed damping, even though the low speed adjuster is at its max?!

With a shim stack, even though you have to pull the damper apart, you can create a valve which actually is firm at low speeds but can blow open easily on high-speed impacts. Or you can go the other way, less low speed and more high speed, or whatever. You can truly adjust everything independently.

The Double barrell/TTX design works OK for most people, but even then you will only be using a narrow range of the adjusters, now matter what track you are on since it is a "one size fits all" design. Most shim stack dampers can be tuned externally to give you the same amount of useable adjustment as a twin tube damper would.
 

Steve M

Turbo Monkey
Mar 3, 2007
1,995
23
Whistler
Ohlins seems to disagree with you:

http://www.ohlinsusa.com/us/

scroll down to the MX cartridges..... ;)
Nothing they say there contradicts what I've said. There is no actual problem with using the twin tube design in a fork, I just said that there isn't necessarily a real-world benefit. Preventing cavitation isn't an advantage if the existing design doesn't cavitate anyway.
 

iRider

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2008
2,030
388
This does give an OK range of useable adjustment but really all both adjusters are really doing is shifting the point at which the high-speed valve can open. This means that external high and low speed adjustmnet is never truly independent.
I was under the impression that this is not the case for the CCDB. They say that the shimmed valve on the piston only opens for an extrem hard hit to avoid damaging the shock. In normal riding situations the valves are doing the work.
 

Steve M

Turbo Monkey
Mar 3, 2007
1,995
23
Whistler
I was under the impression that this is not the case for the CCDB. They say that the shimmed valve on the piston only opens for an extrem hard hit to avoid damaging the shock. In normal riding situations the valves are doing the work.
He's talking about the high speed adjusters, not the shim stack on the piston. What he said is basically correct, though you can significantly affect the gradient of the LS curve; the HS curve is a bit more difficult to actually change the gradient of though.
 

Udi

RM Chief Ornithologist: “I Brake for Birds”
Mar 14, 2005
4,775
927
All the TTX/double barrel design achieves is a wider range of external adjustment but I still don't think it can work as well as a shim stack design
I hate to state the obvious, but you do realise that virtually all externally LSC/HSC adjustable products out there simply use a spring preload adjustment (of some description) to increase/decrease HSC? i.e. the actual damping adjuster component works on the same concept as the TTX/CCDB anyway, which makes your argument somewhat flawed in the majority of cases.

If you wind the low speed closed and back the high speed right off (the sort of set up I like, ie should prevent brake dive but can blow off when hitting rocks etc) all that happens is that you oil can now just take the easy way through the valve with no preload on it and the affect is very little Low Speed damping, even though the low speed adjuster is at its max?!
I think you're just failing to realise that different dampers need to be tuned differently. This has been brought up in previous discussions about avalanche lo/hi adjusters - you need to run some amount of preload on the high speed valve for the low speed to work as intended. Surely the answer to your question involves an ignorant user rather than a fault of the product itself.

The "sort of setup you like" as you described it will yield completely different results on different dampers too, so I think it's a little irrelevant. In general though, I think it's beneficial to have the low speed valve open a little, otherwise you get a setup that is quite firm at very low speeds (which leads to a somewhat dead feel, with possible harshness), and with the high speed "right off", there is a tendency for there to be a lack of mid speed damping in more aggressive dive situations (hard cornering, g-outs, etc).

The Double barrell/TTX design works OK for most people, but even then you will only be using a narrow range of the adjusters, now matter what track you are on since it is a "one size fits all" design. Most shim stack dampers can be tuned externally to give you the same amount of useable adjustment as a twin tube damper would.
I feel that with the TTX/CCDB design you have more control over the damping curves externally than you do in conventional de-carbon shocks, and you don't have the annoying compression damping overlap between main piston and piggyback valving to consider when tuning.

I ran a BOS for a little while, and the biggest annoyance was that the main shimstack (less than perfect config for my application unfortunately) was providing more MS / HS compression damping than I would have liked, and there was nothing I could do externally to correct that. Sure you can pull the shock apart (and likely void warranty), but if you've valved any dampers yourself, you'll know that it usually takes a few goes to get the result you want. Pretty time consuming on a shock.

My personal experience was that with the CCDB, I could get the curves exactly how I wanted them, using nothing but the dials. I think the poppet springrate issue is a far bigger one in theory than it is in practise, and the benefits of a design as a whole (for a rear shock, at least) outweigh whatever tiny imperfections in curves you might theoretically be able to find. Furthermore, you can't actually get any other DH shock that offers LSC/HSC/LSR/HSR adjustments, so if anything it's more likely to keep us nerds happy than the competition anyway.

As for using the design in a fork, I'd agree with Socket that it's a bit pointless, purely because there's no huge variation in damping needs like shocks (because the leverage ratio issue is cut out of the equation). But for the shock, I think it's a cool idea.
 

JohnnyC

Monkey
Feb 10, 2006
400
1
Rotorua, New Zealand
I hate to state the obvious, but you do realise that virtually all externally LSC/HSC adjustable products out there simply use a spring preload adjustment (of some description) to increase/decrease HSC? i.e. the actual damping adjuster component works on the same concept as the TTX/CCDB anyway, which makes your argument somewhat flawed in the majority of cases.

That is just what I said isn't it?



I think you're just failing to realise that different dampers need to be tuned differently. This has been brought up in previous discussions about avalanche lo/hi adjusters - you need to run some amount of preload on the high speed valve for the low speed to work as intended. Surely the answer to your question involves an ignorant user rather than a fault of the product itself.
Again that is what I was getting at about needing to run some amount of preload on the high speed to make the low speed work properly. I used to ride a fox 40 and I had it set up pretty good but it really was a case of finding the best compromise between having enough low speed damping to stop the fork diving (my local tracks at that point were mmostly steep with lots of rocks) and not be harsh over big impacts since you can't adjust one without affecting the other.

Your comment about ignorant users is mostly what my problem is with shocks like the Double barrel is, if you gives users 4 knobs to adjust, how many are going to know how to use them properly? If you are that fussy about setting up your suspension then surely you would be willing to spend a bit of time either re-valving it yourself or paying a professional to do it?

My personal experience was that with the CCDB, I could get the curves exactly how I wanted them, using nothing but the dials. I think the poppet springrate issue is a far bigger one in theory than it is in practise, and the benefits of a design as a whole (for a rear shock, at least) outweigh whatever tiny imperfections in curves you might theoretically be able to find. Furthermore, you can't actually get any other DH shock that offers LSC/HSC/LSR/HSR adjustments, so if anything it's more likely to keep us nerds happy than the competition anyway.

As for using the design in a fork, I'd agree with Socket that it's a bit pointless, purely because there's no huge variation in damping needs like shocks (because the leverage ratio issue is cut out of the equation). But for the shock, I think it's a cool idea.
I do agree with what you've said here, obviously you know how to use the double barrel and it can be made to perform very well in the right hands and most people wouldn't be able to notice any difference between a double barrel and say, a Roco that was set up properly once you actually hit the trails.

For me if someone came to me asking for a shock and they had no clue how to set up suspension, I would put them on a Roco and work with them to valve it properly so they can just leave it and not worry about where the adjusters are at. If they just went and bought a double barrel they wouldn't even know where to start and just screw it up.

Both the TTX and DeCarbon shocks work very well, but either way it really just comes down to whoever sets it up.
 

Udi

RM Chief Ornithologist: “I Brake for Birds”
Mar 14, 2005
4,775
927
Well technically, it wasn't what you said - you said "I still don't think it can work as well as a shim stack design" and I pointed out that most conventional damper products use the same mechanism (in terms of what you were discussing) anyway.

Same deal with the preload, the drift I got from your post was that you were suggesting the range of preload adjustment was somehow a negative, when really, it's just a range of tuning that you may or may not use depending on your application.

I agree with what you're saying about setting things up properly (and how things can go wrong if you don't know what you're doing) , but I think the CCDB actually offers benefits in the right hands, and you seemed to be disqualifying that based on a couple of incorrect points.

In short though, my point was that the CCDB offers (at least in current guise, I wouldn't say this about past versions of it that had less adjustment range) more tunability out of the box than the competition, and in many cases it's a benefit purely because you can actually use it.

Apart from the time and hassle involved in revalving de-carbon shocks, there are limitations on it. BOS for example has its warranty voided if you pull it apart. Vivid requires special tools and fittings. Roco and DHX are fine, but there's benefits to be had in the way of lower stiction and smoother direction changes with the higher-end products (BOS/CC). So while in theory, anything can be made to work great, there are practical limitations that result in more external adjustability being an advantage.

Anyway, that's just my take on it. If you are in the business of helping people tune their shocks (and you would for example revalve a roco anyway, like you said) then a TTX shock would only make your life easier! :)
 

Steve M

Turbo Monkey
Mar 3, 2007
1,995
23
Whistler
I feel that with the TTX/CCDB design you have more control over the damping curves externally than you do in conventional de-carbon shocks, and you don't have the annoying compression damping overlap between main piston and piggyback valving to consider when tuning.

I ran a BOS for a little while, and the biggest annoyance was that the main shimstack (less than perfect config for my application unfortunately) was providing more MS / HS compression damping than I would have liked, and there was nothing I could do externally to correct that. Sure you can pull the shock apart (and likely void warranty), but if you've valved any dampers yourself, you'll know that it usually takes a few goes to get the result you want. Pretty time consuming on a shock.

My personal experience was that with the CCDB, I could get the curves exactly how I wanted them, using nothing but the dials. I think the poppet springrate issue is a far bigger one in theory than it is in practise, and the benefits of a design as a whole (for a rear shock, at least) outweigh whatever tiny imperfections in curves you might theoretically be able to find. Furthermore, you can't actually get any other DH shock that offers LSC/HSC/LSR/HSR adjustments, so if anything it's more likely to keep us nerds happy than the competition anyway.

As for using the design in a fork, I'd agree with Socket that it's a bit pointless, purely because there's no huge variation in damping needs like shocks (because the leverage ratio issue is cut out of the equation). But for the shock, I think it's a cool idea.
I agree that you get more EXTERNAL control over the damping curves, and fair enough if you don't want to revalve your shock, however it's worth mentioning that the BOS tune you got on the Sunday seemed very whack compared to every other one I've ever ridden (and you seemed to agree with that). What shim valving allows you to do - potentially, providing it's actually tuned by someone who knows what they're doing - is control EVERY facet of the damping curve, specifically a few key points:
- Low speed overall gradient (also externally adjustable with a TTX)
- High speed overall gradient (also externally adjustable with a TTX)
- High speed threshold and the resultant mid-speed compression (indirectly adjustable with a TTX, but there is no way to adjust this separately from the high speed gradient)
- Low speed progression/digression (not adjustable in any way with a TTX)
- High speed progression/digression (not adjustable in any way with a TTX)

To put it simply, there are more than 2 things to consider with your damping curve in each direction, and while the TTX/CCDB gives you more external adjustment than most shocks (which is definitely a good thing), it isn't the be-all end-all of tuning. The number of times I've revalved/modded the compression assembly in my fork alone, looking to improve some specific factor (first of all, more LSC, then less HSC, then more mid-speed support without so much very-low speed compression, then a higher blow-off threshold without more high speed compression, etc etc ad infinitum, it's ongoing) definitely exceeds what I could have done to the compression circuit with any external high/low speed adjusters and no revalving.

Having both the adjustments and the shim stack tunability would be great too, and IMO that's where the new Boxxer stands to have a lot of potential, without needing the TTX technology.
 

Udi

RM Chief Ornithologist: “I Brake for Birds”
Mar 14, 2005
4,775
927
Obviously I agree (my fork is similar to yours, and I've probably reconfigured it almost as many times), and it's cool being able to tune on a shim by shim basis... but on a rear shock (specifically) I think it's a bit harder to practically milk benefits out of doing the same thing for a myriad of reasons.

The rebound setup you can shim to your heart's content, however the compression is where it gets hairy. The only compression stack on most shocks out there (to my knowledge) is the one on the main piston (I think the roco may be an exception). But that's usually valved fairly lightly because the piggyback end takes care of the important stuff.

If you decide to valve the main piston heavily enough to provide a significant amount of compression damping, then in my eyes you're slowly reducing the negative range of adjustment available through the adjusters, because the main piston will spike/dampen before the piggyback valving does. Am I picturing that correctly? I've never heard anyone talk about it so I could be wrong.

As for the BOS, well it went back to factory and they said it was perfect, so I can't really say otherwise can I? So in the end, you've got a shock that isn't valved perfectly for the application, and can't really be fixed without a) voiding warranty and b) doing the job that you paid someone else a premium to do.

After that whole ordeal I just feel more comfortable having the range available to me, preferably externally.
 

JohnnyC

Monkey
Feb 10, 2006
400
1
Rotorua, New Zealand
Well technically, it wasn't what you said - you said "I still don't think it can work as well as a shim stack design" and I pointed out that most conventional damper products use the same mechanism (in terms of what you were discussing) anyway.
I do realise that most dampers use the poppet valve design, doesn't mean I think any of them are quite right IMO. The new 888 RC3 evo, BOS RaRe, and the new open bath R cartridges in the fox 36 pretty close to what I think a "consumer" suspension fork design should be. A shimmed compression piston with the ability to "tweak" the damping externally

I kind of strayed from my point with that second post, what I was getting at is while a poppet valve design works fine most of the time, it will always have a limit to its adjustment and once you reach that its game over while a shim stack can go as far to either extreme as you want. From what I understand, owners of the "old" CCDB riding sundays have discovered this limit but I see cane creek have managed to at extend its adjustment range which is cool. I think what Avalanche/Push do with different spring rates in the HSC adjuster is a pretty good way around the problem but it still involves the shock being built valved specifically for the rider.

Apart from the time and hassle involved in revalving de-carbon shocks, there are limitations on it. BOS for example has its warranty voided if you pull it apart. Vivid requires special tools and fittings. Roco and DHX are fine, but there's benefits to be had in the way of lower stiction and smoother direction changes with the higher-end products (BOS/CC). So while in theory, anything can be made to work great, there are practical limitations that result in more external adjustability being an advantage.
Yeah I see what you mean but I think that ignoring all other factors, a shimmed valve on its own has a far bigger range of tuning possibilities than a poppet valve, I just don't think it has quite been implemented properly yet. I guess in my head I imagine the "perfect" fork or shock to be one that is shimmed for a rider with 1 or 2 adjuster knobs with a very limited range but then that comes back to your issue with BOS where their idea of "perfect" seems to be quite different to yours. I guess that is where the bike industry is different to Moto (where riders seem to be able to get there suspension valved once and away they go) and that there is such a huge variation in riding styles and the terrain that mountain bikes are used on, that finding the ideal suspension set-up becomes either a game of trial and error sending a shock back and forth with a tuner or learning to set the damn thing up yourself.
 
Last edited:

Kanye West

220# bag of hacktastic
Aug 31, 2006
3,460
173
more mid-speed support without so much very-low speed compression, then a higher blow-off threshold without more high speed compression, etc etc
That sounds to me like a 2-stage stack with a quick initial taper and a slow upper taper if I've ever heard a description of one.

My one problem with the CCDB's damping on the new setup is the inability to dial in the mid-speed support that you could do with a 2-stage stack while keeping the low end super light. The guys at CC tell me they can tune the adjusters on the CCDB to match the damping curve of any shock, at which point I glanced at my Roco with the 2-stage setup and thought "physically impossible".

The compression tuning options on the Roco are pretty damn amazing, and a little bit of clever work can be done to make the compression adjuster truly effective. I haven't cracked open one of the brand new ones yet (hopefully soon), but their rebound circuit has been their biggest drawback. Too "jumpy" of a shock in stock form.
 

Steve M

Turbo Monkey
Mar 3, 2007
1,995
23
Whistler
That sounds to me like a 2-stage stack with a quick initial taper and a slow upper taper if I've ever heard a description of one.

My one problem with the CCDB's damping on the new setup is the inability to dial in the mid-speed support that you could do with a 2-stage stack while keeping the low end super light. The guys at CC tell me they can tune the adjusters on the CCDB to match the damping curve of any shock, at which point I glanced at my Roco with the 2-stage setup and thought "physically impossible".

The compression tuning options on the Roco are pretty damn amazing, and a little bit of clever work can be done to make the compression adjuster truly effective. I haven't cracked open one of the brand new ones yet (hopefully soon), but their rebound circuit has been their biggest drawback. Too "jumpy" of a shock in stock form.
Not really - 2 stage stacks only work with seriously large levels of oil displacement. I only ever use single stage stacks in my own gear. All the damper curves I've ever wanted have been achievable with a single stage stack and I've never really wanted for that much progression in the hsc that I've needed a 2nd stage. In fact so far, it's worked far better using a highly preloaded, relatively lightly shimmed stack (I have a fairly trick concave piston) with a comparatively open LS adjuster than doing anything wacky with the shim stack, which means you can run a fairly progressive LS curve. The difficult part so far is finding the OD and thickness shim/s that will give you a sufficiently high threshold without giving too much HSC.

Personally I believe that the term "low speed" is too broad for accurate suspension tuning. The lower speed region of the damper curve is very important but given that "low speed" can encompass everything between zero and whatever your high speed threshold is, I think there are considerable gains to be made in taking care of the exact shape of the LS curve. More/less stops being all that useful if you have too much damping at super low speeds, or too little at the HS threshold. Maybe at this point it's just wankery, but I'm not that great a rider and I personally notice those kind of points, I can only imagine that really fast guys are super picky about it.

edit: be interesting to put a CCDB, BOS and an Elka on a shock dyno. Review coming soon, but the Elka was a really interesting and impressive shock.
 
Last edited: