leaddog11 said:
What Blind Yak said..........
(What did Blind Yak say????)
Nerds only for the rest of this babble....
To first order, assuming a constant damping ratio, the change in damping coefficient is only sqrt(1100/900) = 10.5%.
(second order single degree of freedom differential equation approximation). That change is a pretty small change in damping coefficient. In fact for a critically damped second order system (damping ratio = 1.0) the damping coefficient (c) is c=2*sqrt(K*M). A higher mass or a higher spring stiffness requires additional damping from the shock to maintain the same damping ratio, but the increase only goes with the sqrt of the increase in spring rate and/or the increase in total load.
End of nerd babble...
He was blind, ad I will help him to see! :lol:
Hi Mr. Yak,
You are looking at "discount" and not "mark up"... :lol:
Going from 900 to 1100 pound spring is a 22% INCREASE in the NOMINAL of the spring rate. JUST the name.... that means nothing. In spring force, a 22% increase IS significant. It could barely be compensated for if you had an externally adjustable shock, which you don't.
If you compare those two springs, give each 1/2 of preload, and then compress them an inch and a half (bottom out on a GL1800), then you will have two inches of pressure; while the percentage change is the same, the resultant change in spring pressure is DOUBLE.
That means the damper is going to be severely underdamped given that much increase in pressure.
Don't know where you got all of those formulae, but the interpretation of this situation isn't correct at all.