WALKER EVANS 'NEEDLE' SHOCKS NOT AVAILABLE ON SNOWCHECKED 2019 PRO RMK'S
- Thread starter mountainhorse
- Start date
Whether it's worth it, that's your decision. As for where to send them, Gas Shock Repair in Rigby, Idaho.
http://gasshockrepair.com/
I honestly don't believe that this was intentional on the Part of Polaris... IMO, just boils down to an honest mistake.
.
I get it but if sales are as strong as what I'm being told. Sleds could be delivered late. I've been on that end with two companies already. Getting a snowcheck in January is not the reason I preorder. Hopefully Polaris will not over sell what they can build.
I don't think that will happen, even back in the hay day of sled sales, snow check sleds rarely showed up late. Plus factor in the limited snowcheck sales on the 850 and I'm not worried about a late delivery.
Let me just say
2008 dragon rmk
Did not have my snow check by 1st of January ended up not taking it got my 500 bucks back
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
That's pretty rare and unfortunate but I'll still go out on a limb and say they'll make delivery. I would hope they have learned from the past and have continued to improve in all areas including manufacturing. After all that was 10 years ago, a lot has changed !!!
Plus since my first snowcheck back in 1997 and snowchecking about every two to three years since then, the latest I've had one show up .........November.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
J
Has a lot more to do with the entire damper design, not shaft diameter. Want proof? Go look at high end mountain bike dampers. They are often 1/2" (or less) and work incredibly well, with a huge adjustment range.
Bummer to hear about this BTW. Needles would have been awesome@!
Good Conversation !
Good conversation... I hear ya... but mtn bike dampers have an overall smaller volume....proportionally the shaft size to the volume is what offers the range of control.
A 1/2" shaft on a rear MTB shock is huge in relation to the shock itself when comparing it to a typical sled shock with much higher volume. A 1/2" shaft in a MTB shock will move a lot, proportionally, when compared to the volume of oil moving through the main piston/stack.
The amount of oil that moves past the compression controller... weather its just a primitive needle valve or a more sophisticated valve stack is what allows it to be controlled... and what gives you resolution... in Proportion to the overall fluid being moved and the primary damping control of the valve-stack on the piston.
It is the proportion of the oil that moves past the secondary compression controller in comparison to the volume of oil that moves through the piston-valve-stack that will determine the overall resolution and effectiveness of the adjuster itself.
I've had good long talks on just this subject with the people at Fox, Jake at Raptor, the Zollinger boys, and Tom Dynes. The diameter of the shock-shaft, and hence the volume of oil displaced, has a large affect of how much oil is moving past the controller. The more oil you move, the more control you have over its movement. You will see some short stroke, remote reservoir, superbike shocks with even larger shafts on them than 5/8"... and the reason is not shaft durability...it is because they want to move oil past the compression controller in the remote.
It is only the amount of fluid that is displaced by the shaft that moves oil past the compression-controller.
The valving on the main piston does not affect the volume of oil moving in/out of the reservoir, hence past the compression-adjuster.
(In correct functioning shock, one that is not cavitating)
In fact, on an IFP-monotube shock... you can also control stiffness of the shock in compression by varying the pressure behind the IFP...
Definition of 'compression-controller' as I am using it here... The control device that regulates fluid flow from/to the main body of the shock. I am not referring to the control-over-compression of the main piston and valve-stack.
JJ, I know you already know most or all of this stuff...I'm putting it here for all of us to have a better grasp of the conversation at hand.
.
Good conversation... I hear ya... but mtn bike dampers have an overall smaller volume....proportionally the shaft size to the volume is what offers the range of control.
A 1/2" shaft on a rear MTB shock is huge in relation to the shock itself when comparing it to a typical sled shock with much higher volume. A 1/2" shaft in a MTB shock will move a lot, proportionally, when compared to the volume of oil moving through the main piston/stack.
The amount of oil that moves past the compression controller... weather its just a primitive needle valve or a more sophisticated valve stack is what allows it to be controlled... and what gives you resolution... in Proportion to the overall fluid being moved and the primary damping control of the valve-stack on the piston.
It is the proportion of the oil that moves past the secondary compression controller in comparison to the volume of oil that moves through the piston-valve-stack that will determine the overall resolution and effectiveness of the adjuster itself.
I've had good long talks on just this subject with the people at Fox, Jake at Raptor, the Zollinger boys, and Tom Dynes. The diameter of the shock-shaft, and hence the volume of oil displaced, has a large affect of how much oil is moving past the controller. The more oil you move, the more control you have over its movement. You will see some short stroke, remote reservoir, superbike shocks with even larger shafts on them than 5/8"... and the reason is not shaft durability...it is because they want to move oil past the compression controller in the remote.
It is only the amount of fluid that is displaced by the shaft that moves oil past the compression-controller.
The valving on the main piston does not affect the volume of oil moving in/out of the reservoir, hence past the compression-adjuster.
(In correct functioning shock, one that is not cavitating)
In fact, on an IFP-monotube shock... you can also control stiffness of the shock in compression by varying the pressure behind the IFP...
Definition of 'compression-controller' as I am using it here... The control device that regulates fluid flow from/to the main body of the shock. I am not referring to the control-over-compression of the main piston and valve-stack.
JJ, I know you already know most or all of this stuff...I'm putting it here for all of us to have a better grasp of the conversation at hand.
.
Last edited:
Also... one thing I wanted to clarify... when we use the word 'monotube' shock on the forums here... we are in a gray area... a monotube shock can also have a remote reservoir.
Mototube refers to the shock body itself. A twin tube shock actually has a tube-within-tube to allow for the displacement of the fluid without aerating the oil as with an emulsion shock. A twin-tube can have the gas separated by a membrane or IFP as well.
As a note...an emulsion shock, which has not been used on factory sleds for long time BTW, is sensitive to which end is up when mounting the shock....but that is pretty much a moot point on this forum (except in the case of the Walker Evans 'Air' shock)
Below:
The emulsion shock on the left, which does not separate the gas from the oil, and the monotube shocks on the right, both the single-chamber and remote-reservoir versions on the right that separate the oil from the gas with an IFP (Internal Floating Piston)
You will see many large-shaft long-travel off road truck/car/UTV shocks that run a remote reservoir because of the massive amount of oil displaced by the shaft... it needs to go somewhere... so to keep the overall shock length down, the IFP is moved into it's own space.
.
2008 Dragon with that 5hitty 800?? I think you won on that deal!
J
Few things...
1) Again, huge bummer we can't get the higher end Walker Evans with the new Axys. Dang! Silly decision on Polaris's part, though I'd wager 90% of Snowcheckers have zero clue this is even a thing.
2) As far as shaft diameter's impact on shock performance, I still disagree with MH. Stay with me (for those that care about this sort of thing)...
A bigger shaft diameter does displace more oil. That we agree on. It also often correlates to a larger bore (though don't think that's the case with WEs)
More oil passing through a shim stack and damping circuits does add to the overall control one has with the damper. It also can help with heat dissipation (so long as there is more overall oil in the shock).
However like most things in the suspension world, overall performance is very much a grey area with *far* more variables than just shaft diameter. There is also an upside to a smaller shaft, less friction.
The biggest advantage to the 5/8" shaft is durability. Its simply stronger. Not damping control or consistency, especially when we are in a snow cooled environment where additional volume really doesn't matter. (you'd have to be bubba stewart on the trail to notice fade between the two)
If Walker Evans did the math and setup two dampers, 1/2" and 5/8", both same damper design (needles or not needles) I'd bet money nobody here could tell the difference while riding. Not saying the overall adjust-ability will be the same (though it could be if setup right), or they'll be the same under heat (desert racing? Lol) or they'll offer the same durability, but the ride quality will not suffer with a smaller diameter shaft alone.
Want proof? Most of the high end Fox coil over dampers have a 1/2" shaft (Zero 1.5" QS3 I believe are 1/2" shafts - but I could be wrong) . They (Fox coil overs w/said shaft) feel wildly different than the 1/2" Walker Evans clickers, even when the WEs are valved correctly. To add, the QS3 shows how adjustable a 1/2" shaft can be. To add, yeah, my mountain biking analogy still stands. THE most adjustable mountain bike shock of all time also sported the smallest diameter shaft (it also broke a lot because of how small they went). Holy crap though was that thing supple!
3) As far as IFP pressure goes, yes, MH has a good point - you can increase this pressure (larger nitrogen charge) to offer more damping in general. This also can help with cavitation. However, this can make a harsher ride than one may desire. Just depends on application, as well as a slew of other variables.
1) Again, huge bummer we can't get the higher end Walker Evans with the new Axys. Dang! Silly decision on Polaris's part, though I'd wager 90% of Snowcheckers have zero clue this is even a thing.
2) As far as shaft diameter's impact on shock performance, I still disagree with MH. Stay with me (for those that care about this sort of thing)...
A bigger shaft diameter does displace more oil. That we agree on. It also often correlates to a larger bore (though don't think that's the case with WEs)
More oil passing through a shim stack and damping circuits does add to the overall control one has with the damper. It also can help with heat dissipation (so long as there is more overall oil in the shock).
However like most things in the suspension world, overall performance is very much a grey area with *far* more variables than just shaft diameter. There is also an upside to a smaller shaft, less friction.
The biggest advantage to the 5/8" shaft is durability. Its simply stronger. Not damping control or consistency, especially when we are in a snow cooled environment where additional volume really doesn't matter. (you'd have to be bubba stewart on the trail to notice fade between the two)
If Walker Evans did the math and setup two dampers, 1/2" and 5/8", both same damper design (needles or not needles) I'd bet money nobody here could tell the difference while riding. Not saying the overall adjust-ability will be the same (though it could be if setup right), or they'll be the same under heat (desert racing? Lol) or they'll offer the same durability, but the ride quality will not suffer with a smaller diameter shaft alone.
Want proof? Most of the high end Fox coil over dampers have a 1/2" shaft (Zero 1.5" QS3 I believe are 1/2" shafts - but I could be wrong) . They (Fox coil overs w/said shaft) feel wildly different than the 1/2" Walker Evans clickers, even when the WEs are valved correctly. To add, the QS3 shows how adjustable a 1/2" shaft can be. To add, yeah, my mountain biking analogy still stands. THE most adjustable mountain bike shock of all time also sported the smallest diameter shaft (it also broke a lot because of how small they went). Holy crap though was that thing supple!
3) As far as IFP pressure goes, yes, MH has a good point - you can increase this pressure (larger nitrogen charge) to offer more damping in general. This also can help with cavitation. However, this can make a harsher ride than one may desire. Just depends on application, as well as a slew of other variables.
Yes... we agree to disagree.
For me, the 5/8" shaft, which moves 50% more fluid than a 1/2" shaft (.20 vs .31 cu-in/in of travel )... is a significant factor in the control of our Sled shocks IMO.
The 5/8" shaft is moving approx 14.4% of the total volume of oil in the shock...whereas the 1/2" shaft is only moving about 9.1%. That is with the 1.5" shock bore diameter.
That is significant when you are talking about control of an oil flow IMO.
For Sled shocks, from WE, Fox, EXIT, the piston bore is the same on the shocks equipped with 1/2" shafts and those with 5/8" shafts... so that is off the table as a consideration. The larger shaft, for our purposes here, does not refer to a larger bore.
I understand that a shock works as a system... and that breaking down to one component or another gets away from that system... just like in any simultaneous equation.... but, it is possible to speak in generalities.
Stiction does play a roll, but in side by side comparisons of Sled shocks... I've not noticed the symptoms of stiction issues raising their head in any noticeable way when comparing 1/2 to 5/8 shafts. With the new coatings on shock shafts... stiction has been decreased. Heck, even with the massive relative diameter of a float RC shock with Kashima coat and the 5/8 shaft inside... I don't notice stiction as an issue to be overcome on our sleds with these shocks... It just has not raised it's head for me and a QS3 shock works very very well.
My reference is to our sled shocks that involve a remote reservoir..whether that is piggyback or hose mounted.
A 1/2"-shaft ZERO-Pro does not move oil past any compression-control adjuster...
Though I do agree that the ZERO-Pro works extremely well when the valving is done right and that large portion of mountain sled owners are not served better with adjustable shocks.
My point was that additional fluid displacement is only a "big deal" when you have a compression-control adjuster like those used in factory and aftermarket sled shocks.
You don't see many Fox/Raptor/Exit/Ohlins etc aftermarket piggyback/remote SLED shock with 1/2" shafts for a reason... according to their engineers.
In a conversation I had a couple seasons back with Randy Anderson, 'lead dog' at WE Racing, the 1/2" shafts, that Polaris chose, are to shave some grams and cost... and are counter to the feature of adjustability of the shock... but they will build whatever Polaris Specifies.
Minor increase/Decrease in IFP pressures, WITHIN REASON, can work well to tweak shock performance in terms of compression side dynamics. If you drop the pressure so much that it allows cavitation (generally only a comp-side situation in fast shaft speed events) thats a bad thing... and also, if you up the pressure to the point where you are approaching a 'hydraulically-locked' situation... then you will have an overly harsh ride.
I've helped people who wanted to up the compression side quickly... by increasing the IFP nitrogen pressure by up to 20 lbs (about 10%) without making them overly harsh. Oil volume (when setting IFP depth on assembly) can also greatly affect performance... even with the same valving and IFP pressures.
From what I've learned, when placing a secondary compression-control adjuster on a shock, with the relative proportions/bores/strokes used on our sleds... the trade off of very minor stiction is insignificant... and the 5/8" shaft, which moves 50% more fluid than a 1/2" shaft (.20 vs .31 cu-in/in of travel) ... just makes more sense from a hydraulic point of view in terms of control.
Though some of the talking points of MTB shocks apply, in theory to sleds, much of it does not in terms of the shock designs we use on our sleds...it's a bit esoteric...I'm still curious though which MTB shock you are referring to with the small shaft.
.
For me, the 5/8" shaft, which moves 50% more fluid than a 1/2" shaft (.20 vs .31 cu-in/in of travel )... is a significant factor in the control of our Sled shocks IMO.
The 5/8" shaft is moving approx 14.4% of the total volume of oil in the shock...whereas the 1/2" shaft is only moving about 9.1%. That is with the 1.5" shock bore diameter.
That is significant when you are talking about control of an oil flow IMO.
For Sled shocks, from WE, Fox, EXIT, the piston bore is the same on the shocks equipped with 1/2" shafts and those with 5/8" shafts... so that is off the table as a consideration. The larger shaft, for our purposes here, does not refer to a larger bore.
I understand that a shock works as a system... and that breaking down to one component or another gets away from that system... just like in any simultaneous equation.... but, it is possible to speak in generalities.
Stiction does play a roll, but in side by side comparisons of Sled shocks... I've not noticed the symptoms of stiction issues raising their head in any noticeable way when comparing 1/2 to 5/8 shafts. With the new coatings on shock shafts... stiction has been decreased. Heck, even with the massive relative diameter of a float RC shock with Kashima coat and the 5/8 shaft inside... I don't notice stiction as an issue to be overcome on our sleds with these shocks... It just has not raised it's head for me and a QS3 shock works very very well.
My reference is to our sled shocks that involve a remote reservoir..whether that is piggyback or hose mounted.
A 1/2"-shaft ZERO-Pro does not move oil past any compression-control adjuster...
Though I do agree that the ZERO-Pro works extremely well when the valving is done right and that large portion of mountain sled owners are not served better with adjustable shocks.
My point was that additional fluid displacement is only a "big deal" when you have a compression-control adjuster like those used in factory and aftermarket sled shocks.
You don't see many Fox/Raptor/Exit/Ohlins etc aftermarket piggyback/remote SLED shock with 1/2" shafts for a reason... according to their engineers.
In a conversation I had a couple seasons back with Randy Anderson, 'lead dog' at WE Racing, the 1/2" shafts, that Polaris chose, are to shave some grams and cost... and are counter to the feature of adjustability of the shock... but they will build whatever Polaris Specifies.
Minor increase/Decrease in IFP pressures, WITHIN REASON, can work well to tweak shock performance in terms of compression side dynamics. If you drop the pressure so much that it allows cavitation (generally only a comp-side situation in fast shaft speed events) thats a bad thing... and also, if you up the pressure to the point where you are approaching a 'hydraulically-locked' situation... then you will have an overly harsh ride.
I've helped people who wanted to up the compression side quickly... by increasing the IFP nitrogen pressure by up to 20 lbs (about 10%) without making them overly harsh. Oil volume (when setting IFP depth on assembly) can also greatly affect performance... even with the same valving and IFP pressures.
From what I've learned, when placing a secondary compression-control adjuster on a shock, with the relative proportions/bores/strokes used on our sleds... the trade off of very minor stiction is insignificant... and the 5/8" shaft, which moves 50% more fluid than a 1/2" shaft (.20 vs .31 cu-in/in of travel) ... just makes more sense from a hydraulic point of view in terms of control.
Though some of the talking points of MTB shocks apply, in theory to sleds, much of it does not in terms of the shock designs we use on our sleds...it's a bit esoteric...I'm still curious though which MTB shock you are referring to with the small shaft.
.
Last edited:
I Snowchecked a 800 Switchback that year ....... Got my $500 back also and an extra $500 towards any model on a showroom
J
All good stuff....
1) I should be clear, I do not think going to a 1/2" shock is worthwhile for stiction reasons. I'm just mentioning this has been a rationale in the past, in a different sport anyway.
2) The piston size is going to impact flow as well. Its not just a shaft displacement question. I didn't nit pick your math but you are failing to account for piston diameter/height, as well as stroke (which is going to be constant). Point is, there is still *plenty* of fluid moving through the damping circuits for consistent control. As you alluded to there are so many variables that can be tweaked, IFP pressure, shim stack configuration, fluid weight, fluid type etc etc. We haven't even discussed the leverage ratio side of the equation (EG, stroke vs actual ski/skid travel)
3) I am not just saying the low end Fox Zero 1.5s are 1/2" shaft but also the higher end QS3s. I'll measure when I go home...
4) Back to the question at hand, the 1/2" non-needle valve WEs are a tough shock due to the way they are designed. First, no needles! Second, something about the way the shock works on the rebound stroke, especially in the early part of the shock's travel, leaves a lot to be desired. Its far from active. "Clunky" is the best word I have for it. I'm not sure if this can be "valved around" as I've never found a set that rivals the overall sensitivity and control the "other stuff" has, when setup properly.
Either way, its a huge bummer on Polaris's behalf. Not sure what I'm going to run, but I won't be paying the extra for the clickers!
I'm not all that good with phone websites so maybe I'm doing something wrong but when looking at the price difference between Needles and Piggy's on Polaris parts house the Piggy's are $100+ more than the Needles and $300+ more than the mono. Has anyone priced this before? Also trying to decide if the shock upgrade at snow check is worth it or if aftermarket is the way to go. Get the upgraded shocks and sell twords aftermarket??? Thanks for the input in advance!!!
N
Rear
So where does this leave us for rear shocks?
We have options for up front, if we go with basic shocks all around will we have dogs all around?
New to Poo sorry.
So where does this leave us for rear shocks?
We have options for up front, if we go with basic shocks all around will we have dogs all around?
New to Poo sorry.
Good luck with getting those blue bodies. I ordered mine in August '17....They didn't show up until the third week of January....and they were all black. Jake said he'd make good on it once they ironed out their issues with the anodizer....time will tell.
Last edited:
G
I think I might end up going with the stock clickers and try them out for a year. Maybe a full shock setup in year two.
If you have time before the beginning of the season... Pull your new stock shocks... and send them in for a fluid change to full synthetic fluid... you can also tailor them to your size and riding style with new valving and progressive springs if desired.
The synthetic fluid will go a long way towards getting a full season out the shocks before they lose performance.
.
The synthetic fluid will go a long way towards getting a full season out the shocks before they lose performance.
.
Similar threads
