The Ultimate "Travel" Guide - Bronco Suspension Data Compilation

[Dusty at ICON]

Excellent research and writeup! And I'm sorry you ran into this when you contacted ICON for data:

Of those that I reached out to all but 1 responded with the compressed and extended lengths and total travel. ICON claimed said information was "proprietary." Whatever, I guess.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why the CS folks here are still so stingy with that information (I've told them it just makes us look bad when people ask and they give that lame answer). But I see you do have the correct numbers for our shocks in your chart. Maybe they even came from my own thread in this forum, where I posted that information back when we introduced these products in 2022. Please remember that you can always reach out to me directly here on the forum if you need information about our products.

BTW, I see you have our new CDXS coilovers listed as a separate line item below our VS series. That might be redundant, since these are also part of our VS line, with the CDXS features being contained in the remote reservoir. CDXS (with dual speed compression adjustment) is probably best thought of as an optional feature for our standard VS series remote reservoir shock, similar to the existing CDCV (single adjustable) and CDEV (electronic) variants. I haven't posted a public announcement about CDXS here yet because I'm waiting for the first production run to begin shipping.

Sponsored

 

[RobBob22]

Excellent research and writeup! And I'm sorry you ran into this when you contacted ICON for data:



For the life of me, I can't figure out why the CS folks here are still so stingy with that information (I've told them it just makes us look bad when people ask and they give that lame answer). But I see you do have the correct numbers for our shocks in your chart. Maybe they even came from my own thread in this forum, where I posted that information back when we introduced these products in 2022. Please remember that you can always reach out to me directly here on the forum if you need information about our products.

BTW, I see you have our new CDXS coilovers listed as a separate line item below our VS series. That might be redundant, since these are also part of our VS line, with the CDXS features being contained in the remote reservoir. CDXS (with dual speed compression adjustment) is probably best thought of as an optional feature for our standard VS series remote reservoir shock, similar to the existing CDCV (single adjustable) and CDEV (electronic) variants. I haven't posted a public announcement about CDXS here yet because I'm waiting for the first production run to begin shipping.

Thanks for Joining the conversation and confirming the numbers, updated my post. Appreciate your POV on that, I think most consumers want to be informed. It’s helpful to have the numbers!

Debated leaving the CDXS off as you point out but wanted to include some features, I think a few folks are interested in that suspension in our local off-roading group. Let us know a release date!

If possible can you comment on ICON features like spring rates and bump stop dimensions and lb/in.

 

[RobBob22]

Unfortunately at some point Fox decided to change their measurements and how they are displayed on their site. I've lost track of which shocks are using this measuring method vs which are using eye to eye measurements (disregarding the top hat). This also proves that shock measurements are not consistent across the board. King and Fox also have different methods of measuring stem top shocks.

We've tried to be as clear as possible with Ride Shocks setup guide to ensure customers have the ideal setup:

Fox bump stop is about 1.50", one we use is 1.70" tall

Bump stop we use is 909 LB/IN, I don't know what Fox bump stop rate is.

Agree with your method of measurement. Odd what fox is doing for sure. For our case I feel confident in the shock stroke/travel numbers by either method.

Appreciate the bump stop information.

 

[telenerd]

What a bunch of nerds.

 

[mpeugeot]

Some really good info here! Thanks to the OP.

 

[62chad]

What's going to give the best daily ride and good performance for the weekend offroader. Have upgraded uca and 37"s. High clearance kit. At 50k miles looking for an upgrade.

 

[RobBob22]

What's going to give the best daily ride and good performance for the weekend offroader. Have upgraded uca and 37"s. High clearance kit. At 50k miles looking for an upgrade.

I’m very pleased with the Teraflex Falcons so far. I use the compression adjustment for off-road and on road and it makes a dramatic difference. It’s also a well priced set, more involved install and 0 offset required. I’m running the max performance “35” version but I have 37in tires no contact in some pretty aggressive off-roading but if you wanted to go fast I would get the version for 37s or one of the other great suspension options.

Lots of good options.

 

[turbo_jimbo]

I’d love to see old man emu and Dobinsons ims numbers here if anyone has those.

 

[Sloth]

I’d love to see old man emu and Dobinsons ims numbers here if anyone has those.

I'm working under the assumption that the shock body is the same between Dobinsons IMS and Dobinsons MRR. The IMS shock body has the connection point for the remote reservoir used by the MRR system. I'd be surprised if the dimensions when used for the same application. Main difference I noted is that the heavier spring rates aren't available on the MRR.

 

[AccuTune Offroad]

What's going to give the best daily ride and good performance for the weekend offroader. Have upgraded uca and 37"s. High clearance kit. At 50k miles looking for an upgrade.

What you described is exactly what we designed our shocks for. Smooth and comfortable on the street yet capable and controlled off-road. We have 2 front & rear coilover options depending on how built up your Bronco is and come standard with high and low speed compression adjusters. Take a look here and reach out if you have any specific questions, happy to help.

 

[Soundgarden]

I did an wheel travel articulation test on my stock Badlands on 33s with two ramps, front driver and rear passenger. Here are the results:
Front Droop 4.75in
Front Compression 5.4in
(total travel front 10.15in)
Rear
droop: 7in,
compression: 5.1 in
(total travel rear 12.1in)
Hope this data can help anyone.

 

[CitrusBronco]

@RobBob22
I’m trying to make use of this fine collection of data. I am not here to dispute your data or findings, just to understand the chart and the reports from yourself and other's.
How do you reconcile the data on your spreadsheet for total travel listed against real world measurements?
For instance you noted with Blisten 6112 you had 16” front and 18.5” rear travel, while your chart said 6.18” F & 8.45” R.
The post above mine of a stock Badlands reporting F 10.15” & R 12.1” travel vs the charts F 6.2” & R 10.28”.
Thanks.

 

[RobBob22]

@RobBob22
How do you reconcile the data on your spreadsheet for total travel listed against real world measurements?
For instance you noted with Blisten 6112 you had 16” front and 18.5” rear travel, while your chart said 6.18” F & 8.45” R.
The post above mine of a stock Badlands reporting F 10.15” & R 12.1” travel vs the charts F 6.2” & R 10.28”.
Thanks.

Solid question. The difference is suspension travel, wheel travel and articulation.

The Bilsteins 6112s have 6.18” of front suspension travel (the maximum length that the rod can compress into the body of the shock) we believe for all the data included this excludes bump stops, and the spring as well.

There is no reported “wheel travel” by Bilstein, but we know the average wheel travel ratio for the front to be 1.62 based on the collective data. (6.18” * 1.62 =10.0116”) or about 10” of wheel travel. This is the wheel travel excluding bump stops, and no spring weight. The “maximum” straight up and down movement of the wheel. It’s the most hypothetical number of the measurements included, and most manufactures don’t offer a number. The front has a bigger ratio than the rear because the wheel pivots off the LCA. The rear ratio is slightly greater than 1 because the shock can pivot forward in the mount as the axle lowers.

The last result is articulation, a real world measurement that includes the ability of the vehicle to tilt off camber. One way to measure this is: how high can I lift a single front or rear tire on a particular vehicle before another one comes off the ground. Either by driving up a ramp, or by lifting a tire with a fork lift. You then measure that height.

Alternatively another version of an articulation measurement as how @Soundgarden did his, diagonally across two ramps. It’s a different measurement, one that a little better suited to determine how level a vehicle might stay off road, or how much it might tip, etc. Important consideration for lots of offroad situations. I suspect, if articulation was measured the same way a stock SAS would have probably have greater articulation then 6112s because the shock travel is nearly the same but the spring rate of the 6112s is high

You can increase articulation by changing out UCAs, rear trailing arms and rear track bar. Straight wheel travel would be mostly unaffected by these mods in my view.

We’re working to collect Springs rates and bump stop sizes to get a more complete picture.

 

[87-Z28]

There is no reported “wheel travel” by Bilstein, but we know the average wheel travel ratio for the front to be 1.62 based on the collective data. (6.18”

for those interested. Here is the exact motion ratio for the SAS bilsteins. Notice it is non-linear and drops of quickly during jounce. Biggest bang for your buck at full extension, nearly 1.7. A shock with different lengths than SAS will have a slightly different motion ratio. Most of the aftermarket shocks that maximize full extension near 24.3” will have greater motion ratios in rebound. Purely due to 3D kinematics.

 

[CitrusBronco]

Solid question. The difference is suspension travel, wheel travel and articulation.

The Bilsteins 6112s have 6.18” of front suspension travel (the maximum length that the rod can compress into the body of the shock) we believe for all the data included this excludes bump stops, and the spring as well.

There is no reported “wheel travel” by Bilstein, but we know the average wheel travel ratio for the front to be 1.62 based on the collective data. (6.18” * 1.62 =10.0116”) or about 10” of wheel travel. This is the wheel travel excluding bump stops, and no spring weight. The “maximum” straight up and down movement of the wheel. It’s the most hypothetical number of the measurements included, and most manufactures don’t offer a number. The front has a bigger ratio than the rear because the wheel pivots off the LCA. The rear ratio is slightly greater than 1 because the shock can pivot forward in the mount as the axle lowers.

The last result is articulation, a real world measurement that includes the ability of the vehicle to tilt off camber. One way to measure this is: how high can I lift a single front or rear tire on a particular vehicle before another one comes off the ground. Either by driving up a ramp, or by lifting a tire with a fork lift. You then measure that height.

Alternatively another version of an articulation measurement as how @Soundgarden did his, diagonally across two ramps. It’s a different measurement, one that a little better suited to determine how level a vehicle might stay off road, or how much it might tip, etc. Important consideration for lots of offroad situations. I suspect, if articulation was measured the same way a stock SAS would have probably have greater articulation then 6112s because the shock travel is nearly the same but the spring rate of the 6112s is high

You can increase articulation by changing out UCAs, rear trailing arms and rear track bar. Straight wheel travel would be mostly unaffected by these mods in my view.

We’re working to collect Springs rates and bump stop sizes to get a more complete picture.

Thank you for the ratio explanation and calling out the threshold of wheel travel being the straight up and down path.
I’ve always just thought of articulation as being the same as wheel travel, now the chart makes more sense. Thanks again.

Sponsored