IBP's versus Bypasses

[kmcminn]

You are *kinda* worried about flow.
The shaft displaces oil and it has to shove exactly that amount of oil through the hose and into the reservoir, compressing the gas charge.
Not enough flow = Pressure spike/almost hydrolock situation in the shock.

That said, a 16" 7/8 dia shaft only displaces 5.3 oz of fluid... SO it's gonna take a very fast/hard hit to generate enough shock shaft speed to see any significant effect.

For $100, I'd do it just to take it out of the equation. Because I'd always have it in my head that it's there.

Thats what I am thinking. If Fox thought they could make more profit and have the same results by putting a smaller diameter hose and shorter reservior they would have done it years ago.

Something else, I have enough Frankenstein **** on the buggy without adding that.

 

[wizzo]

You are *kinda* worried about flow.
The shaft displaces oil and it has to shove exactly that amount of oil through the hose and into the reservoir, compressing the gas charge.
Not enough flow = Pressure spike/almost hydrolock situation in the shock.

That said, a 16" 7/8 dia shaft only displaces 5.3 oz of fluid... SO it's gonna take a very fast/hard hit to generate enough shock shaft speed to see any significant effect.

For $100, I'd do it just to take it out of the equation. Because I'd always have it in my head that it's there.

If McMinn was racing in the desert, hitting woops, generating heat and high shaft speeds, etc. Then I'd agree with the idea. But then again, if that was the situation, he wouldn't be on emulsion shocks to start with.

If I'm not mistaken, he's trail riding. So, I don't think a ever so slightly larger hose and fitting is going to be a game changer for him. But I'm all for it if you want to spend the money but it seemed like McMinn is trying to do this economically. From the posts, it sounds like McMinn is wanting to do this with minimal cost. So an additional $100 expense didn't seem like it would be in the cards.