Bilstein 3 softer riding shocks part numbers?
- Thread starter aidanm
- Start date
I don't know why every useful conversation always goes this way. @jjvw does get it and he is trying to tell you why .. and you aren't really listening. He is most certainly not trolling.
Valving numbers won't make much sense by themselves. It's like comparing control arm lengths without looking at anything else. By themselves they don't give you anything really meaningful.
@Mike_H's stack numbers mean nothing more than what his tuner (or he himself if he did the tuning) thought as a a good starting point for the ride quality preferences that were requested. So even if he shares them (and they will look like what @jjvw pasted above, a row of numbers), it makes very little sense other than for perhaps the tuner. Now, learning how to change the stack to give the preferred ride quality —> there is more to it than "changing the numbers". One needs to be first able to properly perceive the problems that exist and second, understand how/what needs to change in the stack to correct the problems that were identified. This goes far beyond "adjust pinion angle by 1 degree" type thing. Numbers only capture the a slice of the final end point of something and you cannot understand all the nuances by looking at numbers. If you are thinking to "trial and error" it out from a given starting point it's VERY easy to go astray if you don't understand the finer points in the system. A good example here is that darned suspension link calculator. People love to use it as an example for suspension geometry learning but that stupid thing leads more people astray than teach anything meaningful.
I am an engineer by profession and I look at numbers, a LOT of them, all day every day. I only see numbers as a concise way to communicate information to a group that understands the nuances and nothing more - even there it is fraught with misunderstanding and heavily so (which is the bane of my work).
Last edited:
I think I know the answer to that question.
The answer is because people let their biases (against people, against philosophies) blindside them instead of looking at something objectively. It is much easier to dismiss someone that they are a troll (or that they are an angry person or whatever) than try to find problems in their logic and then effectively question the said logic.
The answer is because people let their biases (against people, against philosophies) blindside them instead of looking at something objectively. It is much easier to dismiss someone that they are a troll (or that they are an angry person or whatever) than try to find problems in their logic and then effectively question the said logic.
Remember that time Bender told us that suspension design and a bunch of other stuff was too complicated for us to understand before he ran away with his super secret knowledge?
The answer is because people let their biases (against people, against philosophies) blindside them instead of looking at something objectively. It is much easier to dismiss someone that they are a troll (or that they are an angry person or whatever) than try to find problems in their logic and then effectively question the said logic.
It's possible that the messenger(s) often act like antagonizing pedants, however knowledgeable they may be. Thus leading to said biases, troll accusations, etc.
Both can be true at once.
W
Was that the Motobilt guy?
Remember that time Bender told us that suspension design and a bunch of other stuff was too complicated for us to understand before he ran away with his super secret knowledge?
Was that the Motobilt guy?
Josh doesn't act in the way you suggest here. Same goes for Blaine.
When objectivity is lost, a rhinoceros can be perceived as a unicorn. Doesn't mean it's true.
Remember that time Bender told us that suspension design and a bunch of other stuff was too complicated for us to understand before he ran away with his super secret knowledge?
I need to go re-read that thread and the DPG thread for the utter ridiculousness that was in display.
We're too far apart, we might just have to agree to disagree on some things!
Edit: I'll add that I don't hold a grudge against anyone on this forum (or online).
Last edited by a moderator:
You're right. I should have never provided an opportunity to show us what value having published valving specs could do for the consumer. Now that secret knowledge will stay secret.
You do know that all he had to do was discuss what could be changed to make that valve stack firmer or softer, progressive, maybe add a flutter. Generalities would have been fine for the purposes of education. But none of that happened. Instead it is too complicated with a bunch of hand waving.
You're right. I should have never provided an opportunity to show us what value having published valving specs could do for the consumer. Now that secret knowledge will stay secret.
You do know that all he had to do was discuss what could be changed to make that valve stack firmer or softer, progressive, maybe add a flutter. Generalities would have been fine for the purposes of education. But none of that happened.
I did say "often". This time, there was no attempt from your interlocutor to engage (it seems you too have some history there).
If there is history, then he is paying more attention to it than I am.
I never said they would be awesome. They are tuned by all tech after a couple conversations. I’m just excited to be able to change them if necessary and not be “stuck” with off the shelf performance.
Besides, I could give you the shim stack, if I knew it…but that’s still going to devolve into nonsense because my Jeep and perceptions and biases are different than yours. Something I love, someone else might hate.
Not to be stuck is awesome.
Its not really nonsense. And it does come down to preference. But If you know what is in the stacks people can do a sort of apples to apples comparison. And if a change is wanted, you can compare your stack to the Fox off the shelf stacks to see where you are at and what direction to go.
Same thing with Bilstein but they label valving differently.
Its not really nonsense. And it does come down to preference. But If you know what is in the stacks people can do a sort of apples to apples comparison. And if a change is wanted, you can compare your stack to the Fox off the shelf stacks to see where you are at and what direction to go.
Same thing with Bilstein but they label valving differently.
Yes.
I gave it in my post you quoted
Could you explain how to practically use those numbers?
Example: I don’t like the amount of body roll I’m getting. Which numbers need to change?
Ok. So, I don't know my valving or what is in my shim stack beyond knowing that it has a flutter stack. Factory Tune from Fox is 30/90 and those stacks are published. Since I haven't run that tune, I can't make any decisions based on it. Even if I open up the shocks and record what is there...I don't understand enough about how the shims play with each other to begin to have any type of idea of what might be a "big" or "little" change. There are both diameters and thicknesses to play with, plus stacking smaller shims between larger ones....and all of that will make a difference in the feel of the shock.
Similar threads
