I did a search, but couldn't find anything that I was looking for. As far as the rear shock setup goes, I am going with deaver springs, and a single 2.5 shock through the bed. I can figure out in autocad and figure what angle the 14" shocks would need to be at in order to get 18" of travel, along with 16" shocks to get 18", and even 18" shocks. Is there a problem with angling the shocks forward? It seems to me the same principle as using a 16" shock in a 3 or 4 link setup to obtain 25+ inches of travel. The valving in the shock has to be veryfirm, because of all the leverage that is being placed on the shock. I understand that many people don't like to angle the shock because they feel that it is most efficient when it is being used straight up and down. But couldn't I do the same thing and valve the 14" shock to get the travel?
-
Forum membership has its advantages....
Shocks
- Thread starter Motorider
- Start date
JasonHutter
Well-Known Member
We are cycling 18"s with 16" travel shocks. It took us a little while to get it adjusted right but it works great. The truck is not level in the picture, but if you look at the tube that goes straight up off the frame directly behind the tire, that is where the axle is. You can compare it to where the shock is.
Jason
Jason
FABRICATOR
Well-Known Member
It's only leverage. Two things to consider are the basic leverage ratio and any rate of change of that ratio. Generally, for simpler systems, any change in the ratio should be set up to cause an increase in shock absorber shaft speed as the wheel goes up. This means, for maximum leverage, the shock absorber should approach perpendicular (90*) as it approaches full bottoming. This is usually good for damping and springing (coil). A decreasing rate should be avoided. Unless you can really see the rate increase, the movement should be calculated. It is very possible for the shock to appear to be compressing just fine while cycling the suspension, but actually having a decreasing rate. This offers an inferior ride and poor resistance to bottoming.
<font color=orange>The best ideas are the ones that look obvious to the casual observer.</font color=orange>
<font color=orange>The best ideas are the ones that look obvious to the casual observer.</font color=orange>
In_the_works
Well-Known Member
Anyone have any input on lower shock mounting locations for the rear of a leaf sprung vehicle? It seems to make the most sense to me to mount them to the u-bolt plate, to keep them cycling at as close to leaf pack as possible, but I have also seen them (like in most stock rears) mounted to the axle housing. Advantages/Disadvantages?
'96 F-150 4x4 ex cab
'02 Maico 250
'96 F-150 4x4 ex cab
'02 Maico 250
In_the_works
Well-Known Member
And on the topic of shocks... anyone ever use Doetsch tech's prerunner series? I know they wouldn't compare to even a 2.0 bilstein/SAW, but I guess I'm just looking for the best of the cheapies. Something stiff enough to handle a full-size doing 35 on a dirt road.
thanks
'96 F-150 4x4 ex cab
'02 Maico 250
thanks
'96 F-150 4x4 ex cab
'02 Maico 250
FABRICATOR
Well-Known Member
Re: "if you go with a bypass shock instead of a non-bypass, then can you absorb the decreasing rate that tha spring is forcing the shock into? It would seem that this is the easiest way to solve the problem."
For all practical purposes, yes, a by-pass shock is capable of working around the decreasing rate of movement. In a racing situation, proper valving could be a bit more complex than usual.
<font color=orange>The best ideas are the ones that look obvious to the casual observer.</font color=orange>
For all practical purposes, yes, a by-pass shock is capable of working around the decreasing rate of movement. In a racing situation, proper valving could be a bit more complex than usual.
<font color=orange>The best ideas are the ones that look obvious to the casual observer.</font color=orange>