Hydraulic bump-stops..

[BlueSVT]

Hahaha... sorry ICON!!!!

 

[ICONRep]

2" or 2.5" bumps icon?

I personally feel 2.5" is the only way to go on these heavy trucks.

I know this has been talked about so I am interested to know why you feel that way?


Our engineering department feels that the 2.0 bump stop we have developed is an efficient solution for the requirements of the Raptor and how it is being used. We will definitely get into further details about this with the release coming up.

 

[Raptizzle]

I know this has been talked about so I am interested to know why you feel that way?


Our engineering department feels that the 2.0 bump stop we have developed is an efficient solution for the requirements of the Raptor and how it is being used. We will definitely get into further details about this with the release coming up.

I'm quite certain your engineering department has a bigger brain than me so I'll resort to common sense logic (to me at least). We've obviously seen the benefits of upgrading to larger shocks so why wouldn't the same theory hold true with bumpstops? The bump is the last resort we have before metal to metal contact so why wouldn't we need all we can get? The heavy race trucks mostly use a 2.5 bump so why wouldn't we? Yes, I'm fully aware that Raptors aren't race trucks but they are north of 6K lbs and people are certainly pushing them way past their limitations. These are just my observations and I'm all ears to hear the explanation behind why a 2.0 is superior...

 

[Kanakry]

The Fox bumps are probably similar to the Fox shocks. Claiming they are 3.0's when really they are 2.25's.

So the fox bumps are probably more like 1.75's

 

[Raptizzle]

The Fox bumps are probably similar to the Fox shocks. Claiming they are 3.0's when really they are 2.25's.

So the fox bumps are probably more like 1.75's

Kanakry,

Just note you brought certain Vendors names into this as I was directing the discussion at purely bump diameter.

This is not directed at Icon as much as the discussion between a 2" versus a 2.5" bumpstop.

From my understanding you are 100% correct. The Fox Internal Bypass Shock runs about a 2.3" piston vs. a 2.8" piston and as Big J's dyno charts showed, the Fox 3.0's piston generated more force than the King's larger piston, and only about 100-150 pounds less than the Icon 3.0" piston when adjuster was fully closed, moral of the story, either one is more than capable of ripping off your mounts. Shock size is measured by O.D and I think it's been proved that all 3 shocks displace the same amount of fluid regardless of piston size so your point is irrelevant

Just remember the so called smaller piston's run by Robby Gordon, Mark Post, Roger Norman Rob MacCachren and the legendary Ivan Stewart was more than adequate only because of Internal ByPass Technology. But let's get back to why I went with a 2.5" vs a 2.0" when I first built my truck.

With the 2.5" bump you don't need to run a longer shaft like you do on a 2.0" bump to get the desired affect, nor do you have to max out the valving stack and psi levels to control the mass of a 6000lbs truck (and we all know guys on here aren't lightening their trucks, but the exact opposite, they are adding weight, and thus needing more ability to control compression). Also keep in mind you want the shock controlling the ride, not the bump. The more you are off the bump, the better. It's a last line of deffense for extreme bottoming out. Trust me when I tell you my previous setup was so out of whack, it lived on the bumps, and I'm certain that if I was running the Fox 2.0" bump, my ass would have been rebuilding them time and time again but with the 2.5" I never had to.

Remember heat is the enemy in the world of shocks. If you have the opportunity to run a larger bump that displaces more fluid like a 2.5" does compared to a 2.0", you in-turn generate less heat, run shorter shaft travel and are capable of over double the psi levels for other uses. Don't look past the fact that prices will most likely be comparable, plus the added bonus that 2.5" bumps are proven on virtually every $500,000 racetruck which is almost identical to our trucks in weight. Now why you settle for less????


Who knows, I may be way off base once we see these new kits getting some actual offroad miles on them...

 

[Raptizzle]

Since I'm a visual learner, here you go...

 

[BlueSVT]

May I suggest???

http://www.fordraptorforum.com/showthread.php?t=23429

 

[bstoner59]

 

[Kanakry]

Kanakry,

Just note you brought certain Vendors names into this as I was directing the discussion at purely bump diameter.

This is not directed at Icon as much as the discussion between a 2" versus a 2.5" bumpstop.

From my understanding you are 100% correct. The Fox Internal Bypass Shock runs about a 2.3" piston vs. a 2.8" piston and as Big J's dyno charts showed, the Fox 3.0's piston generated more force than the King's larger piston, and only about 100-150 pounds less than the Icon 3.0" piston when adjuster was fully closed, moral of the story, either one is more than capable of ripping off your mounts. Shock size is measured by O.D and I think it's been proved that all 3 shocks displace the same amount of fluid regardless of piston size so your point is irrelevant

Just remember the so called smaller piston's run by Robby Gordon, Mark Post, Roger Norman Rob MacCachren and the legendary Ivan Stewart was more than adequate only because of Internal ByPass Technology. But let's get back to why I went with a 2.5" vs a 2.0" when I first built my truck.

With the 2.5" bump you don't need to run a longer shaft like you do on a 2.0" bump to get the desired affect, nor do you have to max out the valving stack and psi levels to control the mass of a 6000lbs truck (and we all know guys on here aren't lightening their trucks, but the exact opposite, they are adding weight, and thus needing more ability to control compression). Also keep in mind you want the shock controlling the ride, not the bump. The more you are off the bump, the better. It's a last line of deffense for extreme bottoming out. Trust me when I tell you my previous setup was so out of whack, it lived on the bumps, and I'm certain that if I was running the Fox 2.0" bump, my ass would have been rebuilding them time and time again but with the 2.5" I never had to.

Remember heat is the enemy in the world of shocks. If you have the opportunity to run a larger bump that displaces more fluid like a 2.5" does compared to a 2.0", you in-turn generate less heat, run shorter shaft travel and are capable of over double the psi levels for other uses. Don't look past the fact that prices will most likely be comparable, plus the added bonus that 2.5" bumps are proven on virtually every $500,000 racetruck which is almost identical to our trucks in weight. Now why you settle for less????


Who knows, I may be way off base once we see these new kits getting some actual offroad miles on them...

I 100% understand your thought process behind the 2.5 vs the 2.0 bump. The 2.5 bump quite possibly is major overkill for this application. Not that it is a bad thing but I would imagine that if ICON is putting out a kit with 2.0's it probably does the job just as well as the 2.5 for this application.

I look at it this way. The 2.0 or 2.5 bumpstop is an emergency item. If your shocks are tuned correctly 99% of the time they are doing 100% of the work. So the difference between the 2.0 and the 2.5 doesn't really matter in this application. Remember while these trucks might weigh the same as a trophy truck what we are doing with this is vastly different.

I'm not saying that using a 2.0 is superior to the 2.5. I just wouldn't discount the 2.0 so quickly. Just because one company is offering a 2.5 bumpstop doesn't mean that 2.0's are inferior to this application.

 

[Squatting Dog]

Bumpstops HAVE TO be balanced (size and pressure) with the shocks. Too big of bump stop with poorly tuned or to small of shocks will cause the rear to rebound uncontrollably.

-Greg (aka squatting dog)