I'm very excited to see the positive comments from the report. I really hope everyone learns from it. Like I said, I'll be using your comments to come up with further test plans that will hopefully drill down into further details that you all would like to know.

Some of your ideas will help me to develop a test (like the friction, or the long/short stroke) tests to best understand the effects. Some involve specific products, which I probably can't test specifically, but I'll try to design a test in general to cover the physics involved.

I think my next plan is to come up with a way to measure higher speed data for the Impact Testing (like your car will see on jumps). This seems to be highly desired data, so it will give the biggest benefit at this point.

The bladder test seemed to raise a lot of comments, so I'd like to go deeper into that as well. I have to say this test was a one data sample test. I only used one bladder. I was intrigued that the data looked as it did, with the collapse, but I was able to get rid of it by not venting the bladder. That told a great story. But, to be thorough, I should test several bladders, they are NOT all the same for sure. I'll be getting my hands on some soon, so I'll test and post results.

I'll also be doing a more thorough study of pistons. I think the flat pistons have shown what they do pretty consistently now (except I need to include high impact velocities still), so I'll focus on the fancy pistons. I will say I have a couple versions right now, and I did a limited single test, and yes, it did behave as the manufacturer claims, at least in the one test I did run.

I do want to say that my testing is not intended to glorify or bash any manufacturer, so I'll try to keep the results generic. But, I will likely post a photo of the test specimen, and chances are, people may figure it out due to the unique look. I just want people to be informed, and if a company makes something that should help performance the way they say, then the truth will be evident in the data. I also can't test every combination from every manufacturer there is either. I wish I could, but the money and time (mostly the time) it would take is beyond my limited resources.

I'm currently focused on Off-road shocks because that is what I own. I have some 1/10th big bore, and some 1/8th big bore shocks that I'll be doing the majority of my test work on. I don't have any experience with on-road, so that might not be for a while (sorry!), but hopefully the general trends and physics apply just the same. Maybe some day, I'll get a chance to test on-road shocks too, but I've got a lot to learn at this point still.

There was one mention about the hysteresis of the dyno itself. Valid question. I will say that I spent a couple months working through the dyno and instrumentation issues before becoming comfortable enough with the end result data. What sealed the confidence deal was the fact that I got perfect lines with the bladder design (no hysteresis), and very repeatable curves with the emulsion (definite hysteresis). I believe if the dyno itself had hysteresis issues, it would have been evident in all runs. I have tremendous confidence in the data below 250mm/s, but above that I hesitate until I become more acquainted at those higher speeds. (it really seems quite fast, and it makes me afraid I'm going to wreck my shocks!)