17Oaks... that's the spirit! I'm mentally mulling over some counterpoints to advocate cellular foam over the gas... but the case is weak, so I had better be careful!
Lot's of people like the monotube (Bilstien) design. Rancho even has a monotube design called the 7000MT series.
Monotubes have two pistons in one tube. One piston is attached to the rod, the other piston floats. The piston that floats divides the nitrogen gas precharge from the oil.
Monotubes expose the working cylinder to the outside, and thus dissipates heat in that regard. Some worry that since the pressure tube is exposed to the rocks and road flung debris, that a monotube shock is more vulnerable than a twin or tri tube shock like the Rancho 9000xl series.
However, the mil thickness of material is usually greater in a monotube shock for that reason, to render it less susceptible to denting. But if it does get dented, you will need a new shock, as either the floating piston or the rod mounted piston's movement will be impeded by the dent.
One issue that comes up with monotube shocks is called dead length. This is a function of how the floating piston can limit travel of the shock eyelet to eyelet. To get around this, remote reservoir shocks were invented. Bilstein has a lot of models of remote reservoir shocks... 7500, 5100 etc. They aren't yellow and blue. They are usually bright metal.
Some people believe that the remote reservoir holds extra fluid. Or extra nitrogen. It actually holds the floating piston, between the charge of air and some oil. This gets around the dead length issue, since the floating piston is now in the remote reservoir.
It would be interesting to hear about more user experiences with shock absorbers from the perspective of truck campers who maximize the payload capacities of your trucks. Pull up a log, grab a brew, and talk about them!
BigToe wrote: 17Oaks... that's the spirit! I'm mentally mulling over some counterpoints to advocate cellular foam over the gas... but the case is weak, so I had better be careful!
Lot's of people like the monotube (Bilstien) design. Rancho even has a monotube design called the 7000MT series.
Monotubes have two pistons in one tube. One piston is attached to the rod, the other piston floats. The piston that floats divides the nitrogen gas precharge from the oil.
Monotubes expose the working cylinder to the outside, and thus dissipates heat in that regard. Some worry that since the pressure tube is exposed to the rocks and road flung debris, that a monotube shock is more vulnerable than a twin or tri tube shock like the Rancho 9000xl series.
However, the mil thickness of material is usually greater in a monotube shock for that reason, to render it less susceptible to denting. But if it does get dented, you will need a new shock, as either the floating piston or the rod mounted piston's movement will be impeded by the dent.
One issue that comes up with monotube shocks is called dead length. This is a function of how the floating piston can limit travel of the shock eyelet to eyelet. To get around this, remote reservoir shocks were invented. Bilstein has a lot of models of remote reservoir shocks... 7500, 5100 etc. They aren't yellow and blue. They are usually bright metal.
Some people believe that the remote reservoir holds extra fluid. Or extra nitrogen. It actually holds the floating piston, between the charge of air and some oil. This gets around the dead length issue, since the floating piston is now in the remote reservoir.
It would be interesting to hear about more user experiences with shock absorbers from the perspective of truck campers who maximize the payload capacities of your trucks. Pull up a log, grab a brew, and talk about them!
LOL, cell foam, N or fart gas, long as they work for me I don't care.
I did side track on Rancho's one time and installed the Eldebrock IAS. Used them once took them off and sold them. Compliant shock until you hit a bump and then they jar your teeth out of you head.
As for Rancho and TC. Our AF ll50 is a full 4000+ lbs wet, then m wife loads it and wow does it zoom from there and it will along with 4 dogs and our gear will add a 5000+ lbs to the truck.
There are 2 schools of thought on tying down a TC. 1) crank it down and crank it hard or 2) firm only. I am of the firm camp and my TC sets on a rubber mat that is about 3/4+ thick. This gives some cushioning, holds the TC firmly in place and keeps a quiet ride. But the mat will let my TC rock a bit and this along with the sway of truck with often is the opposite of the TC gives a lateral - boat like ride on some roads. But crank the Ranchos up to 8 or 9 and all that goes away and the TC rides with/follows the truck movements. Really makes a difference on uneven roads and cornering. I crank the shocks back down to a 3 setting when I run empty.
Don
17 Oaks Ranch, Texas
US Army (RET)
'11 F350 4x4, CC, LWB, DRW, Lariat
AF 1150, solar, satellite
Vietnam Combat Veteran
On the Ranchos I had, the first 2 setting positions were completely useless so I used only settings 3 through 9. Used 3-5 for empty or very lightly loaded and 7-9 for heavier loaded. Toward the end of the time I had them, I quit adjusting them and just left them either 7 or 9, forget which.
Reddog1 wrote: I am curious Raften, do you have the original receipt? Did they give a reason for not replacing the shock?
Wayne
Yeh, me to. Rancho has replace 4 of my 9000's when the adjuster knobs locked up. They also replace four more practically brand new and working 9000's with the new XL versions when I told a Rancho rep that they wern't stiff enough on the highest setting.
If you are the original owner and have the reciept, they should replace them under warranty. Raften I think I still have the rep's card if you want to give him a call. LMK.
Brad
Internet forums only exist to serve their members; never the other way around.
1996 Lance 500 and 2006 F-350 PSD 4X4 DRW Our Truck Camper Photos
The only differences I noticed on our 2006 F350 DRW:
1) Silver vs white (big improvement; I hate white shocks)
2) XL shock shaft diameter increased slightly (no improvement)
3) 9 settings vs 5 (no improvement)
4) 9000 XL shock was much stiffer on the highest setting than the 9000 on the highest setting (big improvement when hauling the camper). The straight 9000 on the highest setting did not seem to be any stiffer than the OEM shock.
5) Didn't notice any difference in the "in between" settings
I have 9000s up front and 9000XLs on the back.
When I got the replacement/upgrade on the rear I noticed improved stability while loaded and dial set at 9.
I don't run loaded in the winter often, other than my original 9000's knobs locking up (salt?), I haven't had any problems winter or summer with them.
Offline
