<<snip>>>
> Simply logic tells you tubes are better. Armstrongs have a 'dead zone'
> ..that small motion that must transpire before the valve reverses and
> create any resistance in the opposite direction to the new direction of
>motion.
>
> Tubes don't.
<<<snip>>>
You mean to tell me that the piston in a tube shock never stops and reverses
direction? Then the piston must travel always in the same direction such as in
a circle? How do they do that?
<<<snip>>>
> The farther the tube is compressed, usually results in greater damping
> forces.
<<<snip>>>
No way. In order for that to happen the valving would have to change
progressively, i.e. increase in resistance, as it approaches the outer limits
of the shock's range.
Its the RATE OF CHANGE in piston movement which changes the dampening forces.
The FASTER the shock is moved, the greater the resistance. The valving may
change in resistance based on the RATE OF MOVEMENTt, but the DISTANCE it is
compressed has no bearing on shock performance.
The main difference between tube and levers are the cost of production, the
distance the piston travels inside the shock, and the fact that a lever shock
changes a linear motion to an angular motion, and back to a linear motion. It
is this changing of motion that introduces some "play" into the system and thus
makes the shock less reactive under very small changes. Of course you don't
really need shocking for small changes, it's the big ones that need controlling.
Blake
|