Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonRunner
@ Jetboy
thanks for this. This helps sum up some of what I've been bouncing around...
1 - travel isn't affected when talking total compression and droop for a spacer or c-clip style perch lift - provided the bump stop engages before spring bricks.
2 - however, since static or normal ride height IS affected, droop and/or compression travel IS affected when talking about the neutral point, or rather "I have less down travel after my 2" 6112 perch lift because 2" more of the shock is extended at static ride height." Total travel from droop-bump not affected, total travel from static height to bump, or from static height to shock limit is reduced
3 - this thought that (for IFS) a lift doesn't "fit" bigger tires is true in one sense: that if the tire rubs at stock height it will rub post lift too, but only when compressed to stock height again due to terrain. However in another sense it does allow bigger tires to fit than at stock height since the majority of the time that our suspension would be compressed down to stock height the wheels will be fairly neutral, where the least chance of rub/contact exists. Probably just semantics.
Couple more Qs:
-- the shock is the down travel limit, right? No bump-stop for this? Shocks are designed for this kind of abuse? Am I doing it wrong if I lift with a 6112 and because of that, hit the shock extension limit more frequently?
-- why (if true) is the ride harsher with a 6112 (or 5100, etc) raised up (c-clip/perch on say 5 or 6) if the spring isn't compressed more (just shifted up)? The shock is extended more, the control arms are shifted down a bit, the CV angles are slightly different, but a harsher ride? I believe this is true, but am unsure why (thus my earlier question above about trying to set the clip at 0 and finding a coil to do the lifting).
No JOKE about the 570s (470s too right?)! My buddy has one and its fantastic. Didn't know they could also adjust spring rate. How? |
The harshness comes mostly from the angles of the suspension. The easiest way to explain it is to imagine your control arms being perfectly level (they can't actually both be level, but ignore that). If they're set at a level starting spot - the typical road bump would transfer most of the impact to the spring/shock assembly.
Compare that scenario to the extreme where the control arms are totally vertical. (also not really possible, but helps for this explanation) In that scenario 100% of all of the impact of road bumps would transfer straight through to the frame and none would be absorbed by the shock/spring.
So what happens when you lift is a situation somewhere in between. I'd guess a 3" lift in front puts the control arm angles somewhere in the range of 15-20 degrees. The result is that some greater portion of every road imperfection gets transferred directly through the control arms to the frame and results in a harsher ride. There is also a greater lateral shift as the arm acs through it's range of motion the higher you go.
The same happens in the rear, but the arms are a bit longer so it's less noticeable. However - the rear panhard bar starts to cause poor ride quality by 3" lift also. A longer panhard bar doesn't solve the geometry problem. The adjusted bracket height is what really helps.
Anyway - that's the idea.
The LX adjusts spring rate by use of hydraulic valves that add or remove air springs from the system. It's complex, but the basic idea is that the shocks have hydraulic pressure that both is the shock fluid but also transfers the spring force to the shock. And there's about a dozen air chambers in the system with different spring rates (air volume to fluid ratio). And the system can change pressure by pump, but also add or remove various chambers depending on conditions.
Functionally I'm sure it's great. But I'd really hate to have to fix it if something goes wrong. Like KDSS x 100.
Linear Mode
