ShockWiz
- Thread starter djjohnr
- Start date
Wouldn't the extra air volume of the hose cause the spring to feel different than when it's not attached?
lol it detects nearby ruxs'
re-adjusts your shimstack with a splash of rootbeer
and does your taxes
re-adjusts your shimstack with a splash of rootbeer
and does your taxes
Last edited:
Look closer, it has a port to add air, so you'd be effectively using the hose's volume too.
^That's what I mean. When you remove the device your shock changes air volume. The idea isn't to leave this on all the time is it?
I think the idea is to have a tool to understand what does every setting do to the shock/fork behavior, not to fill in for a complete telemetry system. A rider with some mileage on its back would be able to draw the same conclusions from his/her experience without this device, since it relies in a companion app to give advise on how to modify the settings or volume of the damper.
Yes.
=fail
Not necessarily. If the air volume in the instrument is sufficiently small with respect to that of the fork, effect could be negligible.
Edit: what the old-timer said.
Last edited:
Sure, but the volumes of a shock are so small that I have a hard time believing it won't make an appreciable difference there. It might be negligible on a fork, I'm willing to accept that.
Let's try some numbers.
Edit: Westy, stop following me around, you creep!
- Presume the hose is 6" long with an inner diameter of 1/32".
- Presume fork and shock leg have inner diameter of 36 mm.
- Presume fork air volume of 9.5 cubic inches, shock 4 cubic inches.
Edit: Westy, stop following me around, you creep!
I think your assumption of 1.5mm ID is pretty generous. I'm estimating an almost 20% pressure loss over the length of the hose for the kind of flow rate you'd need to get a 1ms response time.
If one were to presume that the electromechanical gubbins is without error or has reasonable error, the app's the biggest crap shoot. I would prefer to see raw data from a well characterized instrument than suggestions from an app that does who knows what under the covers. If it were well written and open source it might be a different game.
I think your assumption of 1.5mm ID is pretty generous. I'm estimating an almost 20% pressure loss over the length of the hose for the kind of flow rate you'd need to get a 1ms response time.
Do they publish any sampling rate numbers?
I have no idea why you would want a 1ms response time. Anything at that frequency would just be noise, literally sound waves bouncing around the can. The hose would act as a nice low pass filter, I would see it as a plus from that standpoint. I doubt that a mountain bike tire could transmit higher frequency vibrations at any measurable amplitude. Now if you were using it on a suspension bike with road tires I could see your point.
Last edited:
To an extent, but they'd need to have some information about the volume of the fork/shock in order to do it.
I'm also curious to know how they're handing the variable leverage ratio that you get with a rear shock.
Fair point. I pulled 1ms out of my ass without thinking about it too hard.
I too would rather see raw data, but I would have a good idea on how to crunch the numbers. The vast majority of the target audience would be scared away. Remember, we live in a country where more than half the population thinks that the sun orbits the earth.