Evasive-SPEC Eibach Multi-Pro R2
Former Moderator
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 14,847
Likes: 10
From: Emmett
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,141
Likes: 1
From: AZ
Linear bump and some digressive rebound is the standard for this class of shock, ie, mono tube no reservoir. It's nothing to write home about, especially for the price.
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,865
Likes: 38
Originally Posted by macr88' timestamp='1311464286' post='20808887
[quote name='robinson' timestamp='1311456403' post='20808665']
FWIW, the valving on these shocks are not much different than other shocks that are less expensive.
FWIW, the valving on these shocks are not much different than other shocks that are less expensive.
[/quote]
I wasn't aware that there are double adjustable, remote canister, mono-tube shocks that cost less than these including top-hats and springs...
Former Moderator
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 14,847
Likes: 10
From: Emmett
Originally Posted by macr88' timestamp='1311464286' post='20808887
[quote name='robinson' timestamp='1311456403' post='20808665']
FWIW, the valving on these shocks are not much different than other shocks that are less expensive.
FWIW, the valving on these shocks are not much different than other shocks that are less expensive.
[/quote]
So what should they change for you to be happy? Should it be the name or the valving?
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,376
Likes: 2
Isn't the bump slightly digressive and rebound linear? Looks like the top graph is showing the compression adjustment and the lower graph is showing the rebound adjustment, based on each graph's key.
Former Moderator
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 14,847
Likes: 10
From: Emmett
Originally Posted by robinson' timestamp='1311479705' post='20809284
Linear bump and some digressive rebound is the standard for this class of shock, ie, mono tube no reservoir. It's nothing to write home about, especially for the price.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,014
Likes: 1
From: Seattle, WA
Bringing this thread back from the dead.
Are you sure these graphs are labeled correctly? If they are, then the valving's extremely unusual. Rebound forces are normally much higher than compression forces, but these graphs show compression forces that are double the rebound forces at low speeds, and half again as high as the highest I've ever seen on any other shock.
For comparison's sake, check out these dyno plots of a forum member's 3-way adjustable JRZs: https://www.s2ki.com/s2000/topic/818...t__p__20376086. Note that the rebound forces are much higher than the compression ones. Note also that compression is the top half of the chart, and rebound is the bottom half of the chart, which has been the convention on other dyno charts that I've seen.
If this is indeed deliberate (extremely high compression damping, far in excess of the rebound damping), can you share the logic behind that choice?
Are you sure these graphs are labeled correctly? If they are, then the valving's extremely unusual. Rebound forces are normally much higher than compression forces, but these graphs show compression forces that are double the rebound forces at low speeds, and half again as high as the highest I've ever seen on any other shock.
For comparison's sake, check out these dyno plots of a forum member's 3-way adjustable JRZs: https://www.s2ki.com/s2000/topic/818...t__p__20376086. Note that the rebound forces are much higher than the compression ones. Note also that compression is the top half of the chart, and rebound is the bottom half of the chart, which has been the convention on other dyno charts that I've seen.
If this is indeed deliberate (extremely high compression damping, far in excess of the rebound damping), can you share the logic behind that choice?