Like you said there's just not enough oil there do to real work.Ģ: Fox CTD shocks in particular really really really suck at damping. I'm only going on your quoted bit (and based on that, I know for a fact I'm not going to read any more) but I think what you're reading is a few things not quite spelled out.ġ: Itty bitty air shocks suck at damping, always have always will. So my qusetion is: How does the Remote Resivoir/increased oil volume of the Float CTD X make it more plush than a Float CTD? Does the damping circuit on the Float X remote resivoir shock contributes more to the spring curve, than the damping circuit on the Float? This did make a difference, adding more rubber between the bike and the trail to soak up some of the chatter, but we were never able to completely erase the impression that the rear shock choice could have been improved, maybe with a reservoir style shock like Fox's Float X" We thought part of this may have been due to the tires, since the 2.25” Ardents are on the narrow side, so we swapped them out for a set of Schwalbe Hans Dampfs we had on hand. "The one issue we ran into was that at times the rear suspension felt harsh, especially at the top of the stroke, and it lacked the plush, bottomless feeling that encourages letting off the brakes and firing the afterburners through the rough stuff. The reason I ask is because of the recent review of the Norco Sight on Pinbike where they state: When comparing a Float CTD and a Float CTD X the spring air chambers are pretty much the same, so I would think the only noticeable difference would be on longer downhill runs where the shock gets worked really hard. The increased volume decreases fading under high cyclic loads, due to heat and cavitation, and therefore provides more consistent dampening. I am no suspension guru, but I thought the main benefit of a remote resivoir on a shock was to provide a higher oil volume.
0 kommentar(er)
