I think the key is the word efficiency in the graph - and I'd posit another alternate, effectiveness. A shock cannot be designed and engineered at an angle other than vertical (it could but, since all shock mounting situations are different what angle would they pick) Most OEMs and shock manufacturers thus assuming the shock was designed to be most effective at vertical and so everyone works around those assumptions. However this rational only exists in my mind to justify the above graph and understanding - shocks are best installed as close to vertical as possible.
Plus there are other factors to the shocks performance besides it cycling velocity. As it moves farther from vertical it takes less force to compress it.
The angle, velocity, travel amount, force and spring rate are all variables a particular shock has to contend with in addition to similar size shocks (length and diameter) with different valving characteristics. You could mount a shock at 45 degrees and have it perform acceptably as long as it is sized and valved accordingly.
Note the suspension travel vs. shock travel in the chart. If the suspension compresses x amount but the shock only compress a portion of that, then only a portion of the potential amount of fluid is flowing through the valving to dampen the motion (regardless of the velocity with which it does it).
In this specific instance, the amount of travel is already determined by the springs and bump stops. You would want to mount the shock at a "reasonable" angle so that the shock is essentially nearly fully extended when at full droop and nearly completely compressed when on the bump stops. I would recommend somewhere close to factory, unless you want to do a bunch of trial and error with different mounting angles, shock sizes and valve characteristics.
Last edited by asilverblazer; 01/05/2022 11:07 PM.
