Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="enduro250, post: 1362901, member: 109418"] Thanks for that info. So that is a pretty accurate rule then? Is it from a good source? the otherday i tryed to work out how they determine this and to see if there is any patterns and i set up a spreadsheet with all the WP reservoir data i had and all the floating piston depths and calcualted out the percetange of depth of the reservoir the piston is set up to see if they all came out around the same but they didnt, i had depths from 46%-76% so that didnt help me at all as i couldnt see any common spec or ruling there. Is there any reason why it should be 90% gas 10% oil? Why couldnt i increase oil and reduce gas if i knew that there was plenty of space for the piston to travel still? for example shock 'A' has 160mm travel and the spec for the reservoir depth is 80mm if i reduce travel to 130mm and still use the same reservoir then this becomes shock 'B' i can calulate due to the less shaft travel the floating piston would move for example lets say 5mm less due to less oil being displaced due to shorter shaft, so cant i just increase the size of the oil section by 5mm more in length ( so depth would be now 75mm for the gas side) and there would be no problems? i just need to know if there is a scientific ruling saying why the nitrogen volume has to be a certain amount in relation to the reservoir if that is the case. cheers. [/QUOTE]