Vintage shock valving 9100's

retroblazer

retroblazer

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,626
Reaction
716
My Blazer has a pair of 14" smooth body, 9100's in the front, and in the rear, one 18" smooth body 9100, and one 18", five tube 9100. Front travel is 11", the rear is 16". Front has a pair of 56" long, spring under leaf springs from Deaver, the rear has 64" leaf springs in spring over, again Deaver. One 4" Bilstein bump stop per corner. No links of any kind.
Approx. race weight of 5,000 lbs.

I have entered the V2R race in Aug. To be good on rules, not that anybody would be cryin' about it, but
bajablazer3.jpg
I will need to ditch my rear bypass, for another smooth body. I have no idea what the valving is in the smooth body, and likewise the bypass. Ramsey, the magician, both found the used bypasses on RDC to add to the smooth bodies I already had mounted, and deposited his pixie dust valve stacks to the pair.


So the question for the shock freaks is, what would be a good base line valve setup when using two 9100's smooth bodies, in near vertical mounting, in the rear?

Since I'm already using a pair of smooth body 9100's per wheel in front, would the valving for a pair in the rear be similar?
 
B

Bro_Gill

Well-Known Member
Posts
13,500
Reaction
8,545
Valving will depend on spring rate, unsprung weight, and corner weight. If your Blazer is close to 50/50 front to back weights, you may be close with similar valving in the shocks, but usually in a front engined application like yours, the fronts are heavier in valving versus the rear. If you know the front to rear weight difference, that will be your best starting point.
 
retroblazer

retroblazer

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,626
Reaction
716
Since it appears my future will have leaf springs in it for awhile, it's time to make a leaf spring checker. I have had visions of a fixture made of train rail(solid steel ) that would hold the spring for full cycle testing. Who has one, or has made one before ?
 
M

Morris302

New Member
Posts
4
Reaction
4
retroblazer said:

  1. That's too easy. Think that will shut me up on getting your Blazer moving...... maybe
Click to expand...
I wouldn't worry about removing the bypass in the rear. We are allowed to run bypass on our bronco. You could check with Norman and verify the ruling but I sure do not see any issue with it. Just glad that a few class 3 cars are going to be there.
 
retroblazer

retroblazer

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,626
Reaction
716
Morris302 said:
I wouldn't worry about removing the bypass in the rear. We are allowed to run bypass on our bronco. You could check with Norman and verify the ruling but I sure do not see any issue with it. Just glad that a few class 3 cars are going to be there.
Click to expand...

I am fighting like hell to get into the race, as usual. I have super tight window to get my prep done. I'd love not to have to dick around changing shock configurations, for little or no effect, on the performance of my rear suspension.
I am almost embarrassed to admit, in the years since Ramsey set up the shocks, which by the way, we're purchase used off RDC's ad's, and have their own history, we have never changed the initial settings on the shocks. My understanding is, there is no use of the bypasses. Ramsey is free to comment.

That being said, I still have to service my shocks. I'd love to get it done. I'll be wearing knee pads when I head to Poway next week.
 
cosmo

cosmo

Super Moderator
Posts
1,909
Reaction
176
B60= Bilstien 60 mm. 9118= 9100 series, 18= (actually, a 17" travel). ST= Screw Top.
09010460= The date code and the Tech. that built the shocks. So, the 9th. of January, 2004. Tech. #60. Bilstein would file all the build sheets by date, so if you wanted info.they could look it up(valving etc.) I'm sure they have tossed those by now. It's been a while, hope this helps.
 
Top