Originally Posted by
fredswain
It certainly has far less leverage down there and would absolutely require a stronger spring as a result. The point wasn't to set up a car like that but rather to look at the attitude change of the shock in relation to the arms. I think having a shock that is perpendicular is fine but it is meaningless without a reference. What is it in reference to, the ground? If so, how does that have any bearing on things without knowing what attitude the arms are at in relation to the ground? The one thing that is quite obvious is that a shock that is mounted more perpendicular to the arm travel is going to be more progressive than one that is leaned over farther. When evidence calls a belief into question, I don't automatically doubt the evidence but rather the rationale behind the belief. I need to know why. It certainly warrants further study but I will not proclaim it an error on the sole belief that a setup guide says otherwise. They get so many other things wrong!
Hideeho
I'm not arguing the point, I don't know enough about it to do that, but is it possible you are looking at the wrong angle to determine progressiveness? In particular, could it be the angle that is defined by the difference in possition of the shock that determines progressiveness? I'm at work & don't have access to drawing tools, so description is the best I can do currently.
The expanded shock makes the hypotenuse (C), the compressed shock makes 1 side (B), the distance the shock end moves makes the other side (A). The angle I an refering to is opposite the shock end side (a). This angle increases as the shock is laid down.