Home
Basic Dirt Bike How-To's - Video
Dirt Bike How-To's - Video
Living The Moto Life - Video
Bike Tests | Shoot-Outs - Video
Forums
What's new
Latest activity
Log-In
Join
What's new
Menu
Log-In
Join
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Close Menu
Forums
MX, SX & Off-Road Discussions
Dirt Bike Mods & Maintenance
Thinking out loud about forks
Reply to thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
[QUOTE="drehwurm, post: 69619, member: 20888"] Servus Degbert, You asked for comments, you shall get them ;) Yes I'm of the same oppinion! Only oil which is displaced by the rod will go through the base valve. Any additional oil would have to come from outside the cartrige, i.e. passing by the piston rod seal which should not happen. And yes, the differential pressure is created behind the active piston thus working AGAINST the direction of flow! Also, did you notice that the active and passive piston valve are identical in port configuration and size! The mid valve is just a 'shimmed' version of the base rebound check valve! Theoretically yes, but practically I'm a little confused. The base valve shim stack of my 2001 KTM 520 14mm rod with mid valve WP fork is very, very similar to my 12mm Gold Valve without mid valve 1998 Yamaha WR stack. I like the KTM now and I loved the Yamaha back then. I'm faster now so the KTM has to be firmer, but the stacks are compareable! So what - I honestly don't know, it is just working for me. I replaced the spring with one at least two to three times stronger and didn't feel a difference. Maybe the WP mid valve configuration in general is just too weak, leaving it almost useless. But then I've seen severely bent Yamaha mid valves, so there must be something about it. The amount of oil which passes through the mid valve is 4 times bigger then the amount which goes through the base valve; ports on the base valve are substantially smaller than on the mid valve; valving is way stiffer on the base valve => what is the formula to convert mid valve damping to base valve damping to get the same overall damping? BTW, if you remove the base valve and seal the cartrige what have you got: right, a primitive shock! So, I'm still of the oppinion that active and passive valving are basically identical - you can theoretically replace each with the other to get the same overall effect. Practically though, two valves with different flow rates probably give you more possibilities of setup - I think I can accept that fact. Hmmm, I don't know. Think of a stack #1 with 10 shims gradually rising OD from 10 to 20mm and stack #2 with 10 shims of 20mm OD. I think we agree that stack #2 is stiffer than #1 - BUT where, LSC or HSC? Does #2 has a HSC part and where would it start? Every stack has a CONTINUOUS DAMPING CURVE and not segments like LSC and HSC. My point is, that if the lSC part is not in the ballpark you can not blame such problems on HSC. It is like with jetting, if your main jet is too lean no matter how 'rich' your needle is, it won't solve your problems. Hope I could make my ideas clear somehow! Michael [/QUOTE]
Verification
Which ocean is California closest to?
Post reply
Forums
MX, SX & Off-Road Discussions
Dirt Bike Mods & Maintenance
Thinking out loud about forks
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
Bottom