[SuziBlu]

[royce]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem

start with measurements that suit your extended suspension height and record b and c

make b say 25mm shorter and re calculate to get the new c

keep going till be is your compressed length

work out for each change in b the percentage of change in c (this will change the closer you get to compressed, so the amount of damping will lessen

you should end up with a chart telling you what % decrease in damping effect you get, which really means nothing unless you know the damping values of what you need in teh stock location vs what youll need to compensate the new location

[SuziBlu]

[Crunched]

Otherwise, compress your chosen shock, measure. Then extend your chosen shock, measure. Then measure the distance between bumpstop and axle at full droop. Hold your tongue just right and stare at the standard shock towers for a while. Have a beer if you're that way inclined. Stare some more. Grab your grinder and welder and go nuts, then hope for the best.

[SuziBlu]

Crunched wrote:

Otherwise, compress your chosen shock, measure. Then extend your chosen shock, measure. Then measure the distance between bumpstop and axle at full droop. Hold your tongue just right and stare at the standard shock towers for a while. Have a beer if you're that way inclined. Stare some more. Grab your grinder and welder and go nuts, then hope for the best.

A beer, er, helllloooo, one beer, an just what is that going to do lol.

Yea I am thinking that this may well be the answer.

[SuziBlu]

The whole reason for my thinking, is, with stock, as you lift your vehicles corner, because the shock lays over, its strength is diminished on the downstroke.

When airborne, the axles are at the greatest droop, or when at nasty angles, and so coming down, the dampening effect is lessened.

IF, its a calculable subject, then, IF you have the shockies correct, when airborne, and at full droop, you land, then the dampening effect is at its greatest, diminishing as to compress, giving a softer ride.

Am i right or all wrong.

[royce]

[SuziBlu]

Royce, so its effect is linear ?

If its that simple, yehaa, no drama, angular measurements is a no boner for a celestial navigator.

[SuziBlu]

[royce]

no its not, thats jsut at one point

using the same scenario, but at 17.5 and 15cm for B (so 2.5cm travel) there is only 1.75cm travel on the laid over shock or say 70%

so they have got 10% softer in my fantasy world (which is pretty short in teh shocks) but gives an idea

I think if you got an idea at ride height and an idea at each end of the travel youll have something to start with, but I think the whole thing is more complex than jsut this

[Dale]

[CairnsZook]

SuziBlu wrote:

Royce, so its effect is linear ?

If its that simple, yehaa, no drama, angular measurements is a no boner for a celestial navigator.

I think this may be closer related to stability calculations, than celestial.
Something like righting levers, bending moments, a G-Z curve???
It's been a while since I've looked at any of this stuff...

[SuziBlu]

[SuziBlu]

CairnsZook wrote:

SuziBlu wrote:

Royce, so its effect is linear ?

If its that simple, yehaa, no drama, angular measurements is a no boner for a celestial navigator.

I think this may be closer related to stability calculations, than celestial.
Something like righting levers, bending moments, a G-Z curve???
It's been a while since I've looked at any of this stuff...

Mathematics is the only pure science known to mankind, it is beautiful simply because its perfect, unless of course you go quantum.

Be it celestial or stability, one plus one equals two, this is what makes maths so good.

Trigonometry is what is being spoken about here, and that is very pure, but, it does not take into account the man made physical indescrepincies.

In my life, maths is the answer to a whole range of subjects, I feel that the answer above, is my answer. But, without doing some calculations, and then doing physical tests, its all mute.

CairnsZook, GZ curve, there is a very distinct probability that you have hit the nail on the head.

Ok, so how on earth do we work out this equation, so as to come up with a working, easily understood figure.

[SuziBlu]

Dale, sorry, I did not mention you, nor quote you.

You have a very good grasp on what I am trying to solve.

[Dale]

[want33s]

Stop doing yourself brain damage and just put GQ rear shocks in it layed over so the top mounts are 200mm apart.

[appsie]

best idea yet

who wants to think?

[SuziBlu]

want33s wrote:

Stop doing yourself brain damage and just put GQ rear shocks in it layed over so the top mounts are 200mm apart.

Need to understand but.

[Teracis]

200mm apart from each other at the top is the go eh?

So that would be layed over quite a bit yes? Or did you mean 200mm from where they normally mount?

Also, stock gq shocks? or will any shocks to suit a gq do?

[want33s]

Teracis wrote:

200mm apart from each other at the top is the go eh?

So that would be layed over quite a bit yes? Or did you mean 200mm from where they normally mount?

Also, stock gq shocks? or will any shocks to suit a gq do?

I run:
2" raised OME rear leaves.
1" bumpstops.
GQ standard rear shocks on a custom crossmember with the top shock mounts 200mm apart (100mm each from centreline of crossmember)....... Farkin awesome....

[Crunched]

I run something similar - 2" raised OME rears, standard bumpstops, hiace rear shocks on a custom crossmember but about 500mm apart. At full flex (riding on bumpstop one side and full droop the other), shock is about perpendicular with axle (on compressed side).

Formula I used to set it up:

(X amount of thinking (where x is quite a low value) + 2 beers) * Y amount of staring (where Y is slightly more than X) = new shock mounts