Jump to content

REstackor


mog

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, matte89thebest said:

¿Necesita medidas de válvula, porta, aguja, dimensión, varilla, ecc y está seguro de Reb y mid comp? 7Las calzas faciales para un rebote también parecen un poco, pero puedo estar equivocado, así que simplemente verifique dos  veces 😉

Are these pieces or are there any more missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, matte89thebest said:

Esta es una pierna, y parece estar bien, tienes 1 Reb y 1 ajustador de compensación en wp, ¿verdad? Por lo tanto, debe medir ambas agujas si son diferentes. 

In the Restackor software you can enter data from the XPlor piston?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/25/2021 at 3:08 PM, matte89thebest said:

Hi everyone, now that I have been using restackor for some time, I would like to share some thoughts on the "response" function of the software.

To do this I will share 4 configurations:

Ori) It is the original configuration of the Beta 300 RR 2021 Kayaba, its main problem is that the forks work "low" in the race and suffer the blows at high speeds (rocks, for example), also it has a lot of movement under braking when holding the fork at a slightly softer click setting (greater than 13)

M1.2) This is a slight modification on the original configuration which reduces damping at high speeds while increasing damping at low and very low speeds.
This M1.2 configuration also tries to make the result of the "response" sheet more correct. The fork does not have any annoying movements during braking and despite its damping curve being lighter than the original it keeps the suspension higher during the ride. This configuration suffers from excessive sinking in case of jumps therefore it is not suitable for MX use with jumps greater than 1.5m landing on the plate.

M2) It is the "final" setup I am planning to do on the bike, it has a harder damping curve than the M1.2 and uses a softer spring

Response Fit) is a configuration that I created to make the "response" sheet as regular as possible and from this derive my considerations

 

So lets start:

 

Ori)

I almost hope that the calculation of the cavitation pressures of the software is not correct, because this configuration of beta is really crap. The BV is practically non-existent compared to the MV, the software indicates a cavitation point at 1.5m / s 

image.png.10d38421e5689385003213e76a47fe94.png

image.png.6a0f199197c626cefde091847b6a342e.png

 

M1.2)

In purple the original configuration.
The basline e is the M1 configuration that I have optimized to achieve a better response in the sheet.

As you can see some small changes have drastically changed the response of the software. The suspension is softer than the original but the BV / MV balance is much more correct, the response sheet has improved a lot and what is even more useful, the bike rides 10 times better.

In this setup I introduced a LSV on the BV click adjuster (as on the 4t) and increased the BV resistance at low speeds. I have decreased the free float of the MV and decreased the load of the leaft spring always on the MV.

Some problems remain in the response sheet:
Bottom speed of the chassis about 5 mt / s, Wrong balance of the wheel force (spring too high, return to high speed too low, wheel compression too low), 2,5m/s range compression damping ratio too low vs rebound.

image.png.7e64d485113724ea8d4cd1045a20f80c.pngimage.png.93e7c98985ef9addf9350fdde54d007b.png

image.png.a1d2987a32cb1e9fd52dd8e66c3ce349.png

image.png.07651dd7cc60c180c718ef1b5a2bfef5.png

 

M2)

Now the M2! You can see here we start to increase damping curve both LS and HS. In red Original setup, In light Blue M1.

Response is not yet good based on assumption and guideline provided by clicker

image.png.c50b499e9425b71a0f86d1a2277bbfcb.png

image.png.274653f792044f7b51380e98fb0c3e18.png


Response Fit)

Here start my problem: The only way to have a response "fit" is to increase about 60% the damping curve, and there is no way to have the rebound curve as high as spring force. If i increase any more damping HS , the zeta stroke ave for zetaC goes to the moon in the right part of the graph!

image.png.9e8a73820df65ce87a6b86cca2751e9c.pngimage.png.07dfda46c415869a50158597c38620b5.png

So, maybe i'm wrong to try flatten the zeta stroke ave "zetaC"? Can i ignore it and only focus on "Chassis rspn"?

Obviously I should try this "response fit" configuration, but I'm pretty sure a 60% increase in the damping curve would give the fork a "hard" feel, any consideration?

It seems MUCH easier to have a perfect response tab setting up MX suspension than Enduro!

image.png.c532630ed1d9459779a0f36f9aad5c63.png

image.thumb.png.f7ca133e4935b14270cbfc4d21d96cc8.png

 

image.png

@Clicked we need your help here 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the small internal hole of the needle holder is ø2.6 and the next one is ø4.45.  The way to mount the Intermediate Piston is: Nut, Reb valve.  Piston, Compression valve.  The compression leg does not use the same piston as the Rebound leg (right).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Clicked Another view of v0.93.3e HSC spring weird things versus v0.93.3d

In orange the "e" version without HSC spring, just 0.35 float on the stack.

In red i added a soft HSC spring (0.02kg/mm, to reach the 0.8:1 ratio on verylow speed) which stiffened a bit low speed, but (don't know why) it softened a lot the whole graph >0.3 m/s

In green the same config as the red one, but running "d" version, which outputs a curve that makes sense (stiffened only <0.3 m/s)

Is there a bug in "e" version or this version need HSC spring to be set up in different way?

From changelog, "e" version has HSC fix, but to me it looks like the "d" version has a better handling of HSC!?!?!?

version_e_problem.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2021 at 3:38 PM, Clicked said:

LSV damping force inputs
For response calculations the combined LSV +base valve +mid-valve compression damping force can be directly entered in columns A and L of the Mid_Valve_Calc tab. Response calculations read those two columns to get the compression damping force and echo the data read on the Resp_Dat output tab as a damping coefficient so you can check the correct data was read.

Obviously, you need to put in more then seven points to get a good description of the curve shape.

4-lsv-input.png.5b3e2bf3b0fb71ff6712bdf0847fdf96.png

I found 2 problem adopting this solution:

1) For wich speed range we need to add the LSV computation? 1to10 in/s for example? Because the LSV force calculated obviously has no limit in speed range, but this has no sense for me. At "LSV high speed range" (when the dhtr limit the valve flow), restackor has just the force calculated from the clicker, so if we add here the LSV calculation we double the force! Also in low speed range if we sum LSV + MID + BV we sum the BV bleed circuit force + LSV circuit force , this not result in a double force calculated? Bleed circuit generate damping from clicker setting, if we add to this the LSV output without subtract the bleed force, we have a wrong data here ..

 

In my example d.thr is 1.2788 at 13 click, the force calculated is 0,0074561387227, is this the right value i need to subtract from LSV result?

 

image.png.6c4d8a8c1819c6b8be8f92c4b430b7f1.png

This is my LSV calculation:

 

image.thumb.png.32ab508b12779c3061ac9a2a3ee1a89b.png

 

So for sure we need to 

A) remove the original bleeding force from the calculation to avoid sum it to LSV force

B-) Set a limit in shaft speed for sum LSV to BV value, because here we don't have a valve with shim that can open, this will result in hig damping force at high value due to flow limit imposed by the needle area ..

Example if we force the calculation of LSV to 350 in/s

image.thumb.png.2f6b29499b42a8074c49c32ad3e78ed1.png

So for example at 176 in/s we have a 2.73 damping force in kg/m, from this value we need to subtract the original bleed with no LSV equivalent value? Or we need to simply sum this to the whole calculation?

2) If we run LSV for example in the range 0-10 in/s , we need to add only the output force calculated and is impossibile to match with Mid_Valve_Calc that use different speed range. So need to manually add for every point in the table the amount of LSV damping force , and do it again the next calculation because Mid_Valve_Calc is a sheet populated from the script so we have no way to use formula here to read for example from other file the LSV value. So definitely we need a LSV calculator integrated ^^


 

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Low speed valve clicker bleed stack

  • Run the base valve across the shaft velocity range to find the pressure drop across the base valve
  • Run the low speed valve across the shaft velocity range to find the pressure drop across the clicker bleed shim stack

 

  • Combine the two calculations
    • Pick a valve pressure drop
    • Lookup how much flow (U.clsd) goes through the base valve at that pressure drop
    • Lookup how much flow goes through the clicker bleed stack (U.clk) at that pressure drop
    • The total flow through the valve is U.clsd +U.clk
    • The damping force at the selected pressure drop is given by the base valve calculation Fb.shaft

2-lsv.png.1ba250ae60627813d9bb5de7fd6d59f7.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Clicked said:

Low speed valve clicker bleed stack

  • Run the base valve across the shaft velocity range to find the pressure drop across the base valve
  • Run the low speed valve across the shaft velocity range to find the pressure drop across the clicker bleed shim stack

 

  • Combine the two calculations
    • Pick a valve pressure drop
    • Lookup how much flow (U.clsd) goes through the base valve at that pressure drop
    • Lookup how much flow goes through the clicker bleed stack (U.clk) at that pressure drop
    • The total flow through the valve is U.clsd +U.clk
    • The damping force at the selected pressure drop is given by the base valve calculation Fb.shaft

2-lsv.png.1ba250ae60627813d9bb5de7fd6d59f7.png

This is a lot of work to do for every test run, maybe next release will compute this in a user friendly way. THanks for now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/10/2021 at 12:52, matte89thebest said:

Necesita el diámetro del orificio de ajuste de la aguja, y verifique dos veces que ambas piernas tengan la misma aguja y también la pila de Reb y comp en MV (asegúrese de que el rebote sea el que está por encima del pistón)

Hello.  Is there any data missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...