If body roll was my only concern, I wouldn't address it with the shocks.
Bilstein 3 softer riding shocks part numbers?
- Thread starter aidanm
- Start date
If body roll was my only concern, I wouldn't address it with the shocks.
Last edited by a moderator:
If you are happy with everything and body roll is your only concern, why would you chase it with shock valving?
Not saying you can't. But you will have to sacrifice something to get it.
Okay.
Choose any other factor of ride quality that you believe can ONLY be changed via shock valving. Which numbers need to change to affect it?
I’m not asking how much, just point out the numbers. It can’t get clearer than this.
I genuinely would like to learn.
To respond to OP's original question: I do know that Bilstein makes some of their shocks with different valving (though I can't give any specifics re the actual shim stacks). For example, there are 2 variants of the 5100 for the front of a TJ that should be compatible with a 3.5" spring lift: They are Bilstein 24-188180 which has 9.65” of travel and is 24.63” at full extension and is 14.98” at max compression. The other shock with the same measurements is the 24-185429. The difference, apparently, is the 5429 has stiffer valving and is supposed to be for TJs with long arms. I have some pics and more details in my build thread page 9, post 177.
No. You don't. If you understood shock valving better than you do, you would not be saying this.
We both know it's just too complicated for anyone here to understand.
I just want to add something sort of related. I always focus more on selecting the correct length shock and not bolting something on that is supposed to work. Once someone does the simple math and selects a shock with the correct length then the ride quality will either be good or bad and we can go from there.
I understand the basic priciples, based on playing around with mnt bike suspension, but those are air shocks, so I know what the adjustment knobs do, but actually changing shims and what-not? I imagine you'd have to just buy a nitrogen charging set-up, and start playing with them...and keep a VERY detailed notebook around when you made changes so you could start to relate the change to your seat of the pants feel.
Yes. I think we have discussed the MTB thing before. I've had a bunch of both coil and air sprung bikes. Regardless, the fork and shock tuning options (both external and internal) are far more involved than most of the automotive stuff discussed here (spring rate, pre-load, air volume in both main and bottom out chambers, high and low speed rebound and compression damping...) It can be tough to dial them all in and it takes time and a very methodical approach. Even then, what works well on one trail may not on another. Have you ever tried electronic data acquisition like Shockwiz? Pretty interesting, if you really want geek out on all of that.
No, I ride hard tail and beyond setting my static compression and twiddling the knobs for high/low speed compression and rebound, I’ve not really delved into the subject. Hell, I don’t even know how many tokens are in my front fork. I do have a new cartridge for it though, to increase the travel by 20 mm (to140) and the stuff for a rebuild. I have three bikes and only one has amy type of suspension. The other two are both rigid (SS X/C, and a fat bike).
I love hardtails. I have an old single speed with a 100mm fork that weighs 21# which is awesome for XC, a trail bike forked up from 120 to 140mm which I just rebuilt with a bunch of fancy parts (the blue one here with 2 friends bikes during a recent Mt. Ashland ride)
and a "hard core hardtail" which is a steel framed Honzo ESD w/ 160mm fox 36. That one is pretty specific for steep/techy natural terrain downhill riding but is an absolute blast in that environment. Here out west, there are also lots of rowdy downhill/enduro type trails that you just have to have a full squishy for so I keep one of those as well.
Edit: relevant to this discussion, it was sub 30 degrees on this ride and I ran the high and low speed compression damping and rebound damping all at full open and that usually well behaved Pike was still too firm.
Last edited:
I said i wouldn't address sway issues with shocks and questioned why someone would in two different replies
I did the same for my "all mountain Hard Tail" Took and older frame (Niner ROS9) and built it up with new parts. Its a riot...that is the one I'm upsizing the fork on as well (also a Pike!) Running that one 27.5+ and SRAM eagle...there is barely enough room in the chainstays for all that...but it works! My ss is kinda ratty, built up with leftover parts. I did buy a carver carbon fork for it though...That one is pretty light...around 21 lbs, IIRC. Fun bike, but the frame is really old (Van Dessel Buzz Bomb) and the front tire doesn't hold corners like modern geo. That's OK...cuz I'm old and slow anyway.
I said i wouldn't address sway issues with shocks and questioned why someone would in two different replies
Your claim, word for word:
You’ve yet to provide an iota of explanation for how valving numbers can tell “why what is good or bad”.
Tell us how that’s possible, instead of facepalming and providing red herrings.
Take no offense, I legitimately want to learn what you claim to know. I’m just breaking this down as simply as I can.
I'm a fan of modern MTB geo of the last 5-6 years (long reach, slack headtube and steep seat tube). BUT, my ss is a 2011 Ventana (HT about 70 deg). Despite the old school numbers, its really fun on trails you would ride a ss on. No dropper either so occasional tech and DH make you remember your skills...
I'm a fan of modern MTB geo of the last 5-6 years (long reach, slack headtube and steep seat tube). BUT, my ss is a 2011 Ventana (HT about 70 deg). Despite the old school numbers, its really fun on trails you would ride a ss on. No dropper either so occasional tech and DH make you remember your skills...
Yeah, that is one thing that SS makes you remember...Line choice and weight management!
Dont know how King does it, but Fox and Bilstein have numbering systems for for standard shim stacks. And you can tune with the piston also. One end of the shim chart is the lightest and on the other end the heaviest. The higher the number the stiffer it is.
I just thought it would be cool if non rebuildable shock manufacturers would list valving. That way you could figure out why the same off the shelf shocks dont suck for every one. Like a 170/60 valved Bilstein might be sweet on a 3500lb rig, but garbage for someone 6k lbs. For the 6k rig its just way too soft valving.
There are a lot of variables and different expectations, but if you know the valving you could choose something based on your weight and what you want ride wise.
Buying an unknown off the shelf non rebuildable shock you don't like only to guess and hope for the best on the next one could be avoided.
Okay, gotcha. So you're referencing the valve rating (e.g. 170/60) where the first number represents the rebound force (1/10 Newtons) and the second represents compression force (also 1/10 Newtons).
And knowing the valve ratings for off the shelf non-rebuildable shocks, would help you make a semi-educated buying decision?
Similar threads
