Interesting that all the other twin-tube damper designs pushed the piston rod back up on on their own, and quickly. And this one just sat there, it had to be helped up. I have had this exact shock before from Sachs and they do not behave like that. No, that's called defective if the pressure cannot react to input on the piston rod. Regardless of it's design. But thanks for the input.
I agree it's normal for many twin-tube dampers to exhibit some gas pressure.
I just said it isn't required for proper function. If I'd release that pressure from
your shocks I'd bet you wouldn't notice any difference at all. If they are not
working properly they more likely lost some oil. I've never seen that with Sachs.
yes monotubes have a more direct route for pressure and that makes them react quicker to bumps. But even a twin-tube should have enough pressure to move a piston rod back instead of just sitting there, it collapsed on itself, simple as that. Junk.. not design, quality was junk now. So yes I'm staying away from Sachs. That company has problems lately..
Interesting you try elaborating on shock technology . . . .
Gas pressure itself has nothing to do with '
reacting quicker to bumps'. Nothing. Gas
pressure helps to suppress cavitation. Repeated cavitation can result in foaming
which obviously is bad but doesn't happen on street-legal driving. Rarely if not never.
Monotube also provides superior cooling but this again has nothing do to do with
'
reacting quicker to bumps'. Third point, monotube provides the possibility to use a
bigger piston, just because inner tube is outer tube, there's no second one needing
additional space. The bigger piston means more space for bigger valves which are
easier to tune for a range of piston speeds. However this possibility is rarely used in
practice. Actually this is one of the 'secrets' why B6 and B8 are superior to the vast
majority of twin-tube dampers. Same with monotube making upside-down design
possible which leds to reduced unsprung mass when designed accordingly but again
it's quite rarely used.
Don't get me wrong, it's completely ok to not know much about all of this, however
it seems ridiculous trying to explain differences with
'a more direct route for pressure'
and things like that.
.
