Ive noticed some companies like Edelbrock and Penske use inverted shocks, why do they do this?

 

less unsprung weight.

 

I don't see how it is less unsprung weight?



the penske looks like it would be, but only because it uses the external canister.

 

on motorcycles they made the switch to inverted shocks in the mid 90's or so because they said it made the shocks work slightly better.. but its a minimal advantage.

 

you just dont get it i guess.

 

lol

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TECH43 RACING INC. &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">you just dont get it i guess.</TD></TR></TABLE>

with an inverted shock, the "canister" portion is the stationary part, and the much lighter "shaft" portion is the part that moves


Modified by 666 at 5:19 PM 6/20/2004

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bad-T &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I don't see how it is less unsprung weight?



the penske looks like it would be, but only because it uses the external canister.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

the actual part of the shock that is connected to the suspension and has to move up and down is lightter when the shock is used upside down. the only weight that has to move with the suspension is the actual piston

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 666 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
with an inverted shock, the "canister" portion is the stationary part, and the much lighter "shaft" portion is the part that moves
</TD></TR></TABLE>

exactly!

 

oh ok, i get it now.. thanks to those who actually explained it!