All

Ah, easy. So after that you put a seal cap over it and pressurize the bladder? And i suppose the bladder itself is then not that stretchy, only deformable?

I know what it takes to define the IFP settings. I was asking how you do that with a bladder. Is it completely deflated when assembling or what? I haven't ever even seen a bladder assembly from a reservoir shock.

Interesting. Would it be possible to put those claims into numbers, i.e. how much cooler does the shock run? Was there any 'forced cooling' (a fan over the body), simulating riding speeds? Etc.

Didn't actually think about this before, but how do you ensure the proper oil/air volume when using a bladder then? Measure out the oil volume in a cup, just pour it in and bleed the circuit after inserting the bladder?

bryson i don't doubt that they work, the question i'm asking is if they have a noticable effect on the daming after a while, because they are not in the prime heat generating area and i suspect (quite possibly wrongly) that the oil itself doesn't really mix around the shock much. Did you test any of your shocks with a finned and a smooth reservoir on a dyno and compare the performance? The Jade would ofcourse also run cooler than a Topaz, since it doesn't have an insulating air chamber around a good part of the damper.

kc358 well you kinda need a bleeding procedure to assemble the shock at all, don't you? I won't go into the actual design, but i can't see why both options wouldn't be possible. The bladder doesn't scratch the inside of the reservoir, so it wouldn't affect the IFP performance, you'd just need to design the end bolt assembly, that either seals the end off int he case of an IFP or houses the bladder. The question is if it's worth it for a few people to try it out (granted, DVO's products aren't really aimed that much at set it...

I know what happens when cycling a shock heat wise. And isn't keeping performance over time consistent in fact raising it? It performs better since it doesn't fade. I'm slightly in doubt that it has a huge effect on the performance, since a whole lot of friction and therefore heat generation happens inside the damper tube, not in the reservoir. There is the compression circuit situated on the bridge, but unless proper twin tube dampers are made, that have a solid piston and cycle 100 % of the oil over the bridge, containing the damping circuit (CCDB comes close, but...

Fox actually increased the chamber around the eyelet, which enabled them to have a normal can while still having a larger volume. With only one wall between the outside the heat transfer compared to the xv can is better. Propedal is back? Could it be just a cheaper shock?

Using the term chainstay is a bit arbitrary maybe. Look at the Wilson, it's a single pivot, yet the chainstay, as is otherwise the norm, is not actually the swingarm. But yeah, i get the point. It's actually an interesting design, albeit a complicated one tat has way too many pivots to be practical.

I was under the impression that a defining feature of the VPP is the counter-rotating links. If it's just a virtual pivot point, VPP is not the only 'VPP' system out there. After all, FSR does also have a virtual pivot point

Is that even a VPP since all of the links, if i get the design correctly, rotate in the same direction? Bearing play isn't noticable on any bike, as long as the bearings are okay. And to be exact, the pivot on a FSR by the axle is spaced ~150 mm apart. The problem is that the two sides aren't connected as tightly as they are down by the BB.

A VPP that doesn't have a one piece triangle is just impossible. I'd say a double short link (VPP, maestro, DW link, etc.) would be less stiff than an FSR setup, since it has a pair of bearing/pivots closely together. If you have a tolerance in the order of hundreths of a mm, you get a small angle change, when loaded sideways. Even a small angle will give a lot more deflection over a long distance. And that's the thing, short link setups have a long lever from the bearing to the axle, while FSR has one of the bearings...

As far as i can tell, the Zesty and Spicy models still use a 4-bar. Also, a 'triangulated 3-link' is jut that, a triangle. It doesn't move. Personally i prefer to have a bit more eficiency in the hour+part of the ride compared to something a bit better in the 10 minute part. I'm riding around on a flexy 2008 Meta 5.5 with a completely outdated geometry (68° HA i think), but riding is still fun like hell and i'm still quite a lot faster than a lot of the guys on much newer machinery. The bikes are in most...

Yet look at how many previously single pivots have gone the FSR route now that the patent has expired. Also, i read your comment, there is no possible way for me to have a straight face and all i can say to you is 'do you want to ride my banana swingarm Commencal Meta 5.5 from 2008'? It's a linkage driven single pivot and has, like you said, 'as many contact points as an FSR'. Yet the thing flexes like it's made of bubblegum. The pivot in itself doesn't flex that much, since thick walls are used in the part...