R/C Tech Forums - View Single Post - RC Crew Chief Software
View Single Post
Old 04-03-2019 | 03:45 PM
  #761  
LzREngineering's Avatar
LzREngineering
Tech Regular
 
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 309
Default

Originally Posted by BobW
Increasing the volume of the chamber above the bladder would reduce the pressure change in the air chamber above the shock bladder. Try it and see what happens. Doubtful you will see much change though.

If I remember correctly from the shock dyno testing that the RC3 model was validated against the performance difference between a vented and unvented shock cap was negligible. That is why I didn't include it in the model. The pressure in the chamber just doesn't change that much. In full scale gas pressurized shocks the purpose of the pressurized nitrogen is to increase the operating pressure of the shock to avoid the shock oil from vaporizing on the low pressure side of the piston when moving at high speed. When that happens the oil turns into an emulsion of oil and oil/air bubbles which makes the normally incompressible oil into a compressible one. Not a good thing normally but then the offroad guys depend on that happening in their shocks to provide the volume compensation needed.
Thanks Bob, thinking about it the pressure in the membrane would mostly just affect 'rebound' which is just a pneumatic spring effect rather than damping. So the effective spring rate would be slightly higher on a shock with a sealed membrane?

Speaking of spring rates, I've been doing some multi-point spring measurements and have found that even so-called 'linear' springs have a varying rate across their travel. Would multi-rate springs be something that could work in a future version of RC3?
LzREngineering is offline