Larger shafts and larger bodies won’t make the shock more resilient to side loads?
Sponsored
Sponsored
The shocks should be seeing little to no side loads. Otherwise the base-model struts, and the Hoss Series Bilsteins would be folding in every mall parking lot. So anyone claiming their bigger shock is "Stronger" is oversimplifying and pandering.
Shock diameter, and shaft diameters are all parts of a Ride Quality puzzle that every manufacturer is trying to solve.
The way we think we solved it, is by running:
Shock diameter, and shaft diameters are all parts of a Ride Quality puzzle that every manufacturer is trying to solve.
The way we think we solved it, is by running:
- Larger Shock Diameter (so we can run thinner valving shims compared to a smaller diameter shock)
- This lets us be more finessed with our valving to achieve our goals
- Larger Shaft diameter (so it flows more through the shock, Hose, Adjuster, and into the reservoir)
- Larger Hose diameters (so oil flows with less restriction)
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2021
- Threads
- 3
- Messages
- 320
- Reaction score
- 218
- Location
- California
- Vehicle(s)
- Disco3
- Your Bronco Model
- Wildtrak
[/QUOTE
What you all think about the Fox Elite 2.5 for a Bronco Wildtrak
that's what I'm looking at for around almost the same price
]
What you all think about the Fox Elite 2.5 for a Bronco Wildtrak
that's what I'm looking at for around almost the same price
]
Perhaps it’s an oversimplification to suggest that the shocks will be seeing no side loads, as those of us trying to maximize articulation while still retaining stock mounting locations via a semi-triangulated/parallel setup and panhard delete absolutely put a side load on the coilovers in off-camber situations.
That also makes me curious on what’s happening with all those Toyotas that are bending their shocks. Seems weird.
That said, I don’t know of any manufacturer that claims their shock is stronger due to the shaft size. But hardness is certainly an important factor for longevity, absolutely
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2021
- Threads
- 3
- Messages
- 320
- Reaction score
- 218
- Location
- California
- Vehicle(s)
- Disco3
- Your Bronco Model
- Wildtrak
how do you compare these shocks to the Fox performance Elite 2.5
Sponsored
You will only be side-loading your shocks if the mounts on top and bottom completely bind up, and attempt to bend the shock, which should not be happening with any considerable force.
As it pertains to the Toyotas, I would want to see exactly what you are talking about, but in many cases they are bending shocks because of Spacers on Struts that make the strut now the Bumpstop, so it folds the strut instead of hitting the rub
We are using similar body and shaft construction, but with more hardness and durability. Bigger hoses with more flow means a softer ride. Better spring rates to prevent bottoming out, as well as supporting weight better. Overall better price when you consider all the upgrades necessary to make the Foxes match up to ours.
I know you didn’t mean this literally, but shaft diameter does affect stress and thus load carrying capacity, what many interpret as strength. Clearly there is a design tradeoff here, shaft size (“strength”) vs piston/damping capacity. For OEM 5 link rear suspension tradeoff may indeed favor damping capacity vs strength.
For OEM 5 link rear suspension lateral loads are dominated by Panhard bar (5th link). And indeed very little lateral loading can be transmitted to the struts. However this is not the case for a weakly triangulated 4 link rear or some other configurations.
indeed. For the long arm rear suspension you are doing perhaps shaft strength becomes a more dominant player.
I would give shaft size some consideration for a build like this. Strut is mounted directly to lower control (trailing) arm. Motion ratio in rear is 1.7 (not a typo). This is not the OEM 5 link rear suspension.Testing continues
Forums are awesome because they bring perspectives from all over the place together in one place.
That being said, I think a lot of what is being said about shaft strength is being taken from the car world and other places where MacPherson Struts put Steering Loads on the Shaft (1.00-1.50" diam shafts are common!).So having a certain Shaft OD does "affect Stress and thus load capacity" in these applications with a very high level of importance.
The load carrying capacity of these Bronco suspensions is not going to be limited by the shaft on these setups, it is going to be limited by the spring rate and the damping we can generate, which is more directly related to the Piston and Springs, at that point.
We have verified with real world, and Shock Dyno testing that our shaft diameters, hardness, and general designs meet and exceed anything these vehicles can generate with the weights we have seen installed on them.
In Vasher's setups, we have assisted him with Fox Performance Series 2.5 coilovers using 7/8" shafts, which are still not seeing any side loading, because he is doing well to prevent the shock mounts from binding throughout travel.
Sponsored
In the interest of accuracy - That’s not an off the shelf Vasher offering. It’s fully custom and he’s going with Radflo on his race build.
I agree with everything you are saying. The struts are allowed to rotate at each mount thus only axial loads should be transmitted. I am not arguing that 7/8” shafts are not sufficient. Nor that the greater design payoff is to minimize the shafts. Nor that shaft diameter is a non significant variable for the OEM control arm configurations.
Just that shaft diameter is a design variable and may need be considered under extreme conditions. Carefully reading my original post should convey this.
the vasher suspension setups you are referring to are off the shelf and allow for OEM+ struts such as the fox 2.5 coilovers. The rear suspension I am referring to is NOT that and fully custom. I am sure vashers off the shelf rear end does a good job limiting lateral loads on the struts by not allowing any rotational binding in the strut mounts.
the rear suspension I am referring to does not allow for plug and play OEM+ struts.
We are very well aware that is not a standard offering of Vasher's. We communicate with them about different projects and have assisted with Commercially Available Products, as well as personal ones.
Let's keep the Vasher Designs discussion to another thread to keep from de-railing this one.
Let's keep the Vasher Designs discussion to another thread to keep from de-railing this one.
I know what you meant with this. But this is simply not true. The shaft diameter, at a minimum, needs to carry the axial loads generated by the piston during high velocity damping. A 1 mm diameter is clearly not sufficient for the oem configuration. So there exists a minimum diameter required. Shaft diameter does correlate with shock strength, specifically axial force divided by cross-sectional area.
I know what you meant here. Struts with pinned end conditions, that carry axial loading only, need not be designed with shaft diameters that have excessive factors of safety wrt maximum piston damping forces. this is certainly true for the oem+ plug and play shocks you develop. But can not be generalized much beyond that for custom suspension configurations. This is what I believe @SierraBronco was referring to.
I was never referring to such a load case with any of my comments. A bit presumptuous to assume this.
I am sure this is true, but once again only applies to oem+ plug and play struts. You could not have tested all possible custom control arm configurations.
Relax a bit. There was no ill intent. This is a forum to discuss many perspectives. General comments about shock shaft size do not detract from what you have developed. Nothing negative about ride shocks was conveyed.
No ill-will intended, and we are relaxed, enjoying low 70s for "Winter" here in San Diego! Let us know if anyone has any questions!
Sponsored
