• 8-22-22
  • We tried matching r/c ratio with changes in comp and reb force. 
  • The idea was to compare the velocity position of r/c ratio 1.00 in the 1-10ips range.
  • We were looking for another comparitive tool to determine if a setting was soft for Enduro or firmer for XC.
  • But that was too complicated. 
  • We'll save this for now and see what developes later.
The velocity position of r-zeta 1.00 in the 1-10ips range indicates the 'balance or ratio' of comp to reb.
The aver velocity where r/c ratio = 1.00 is 5ips. We'll use that as a comparative baseline.  Notice comp and reb numbers are the same.
..
aver velocity for r/c ratio 1.00
ips reb comp r/c ratio
1 -31 37 .84
2 -55 69 .80
3 -77 90 .86
4 -99 107 .93
5 -121
121
1.00
10 234 -188 1.24
Table 1
 
Given the same reb, if comp force is reduced the
r/c ratio is 1.00 at 2ips.
r/c ratio 1.00 at 2ips
ips reb comp r/c ratio
1 -31 33 .94
2 -55 55 1.00
3 -77 71 1.08
4 -99 84 1.18
5 -121
94
1.29
10 -234 145 1.61
Table 2
Comp force at 5ips is 22% softer when r-zeta 1.00 matches at 2ips. 
r-zeta 1.00 at 5ips can occur with both:
   soft comp and fast reb
     OR
   stiff comp with slower reb
     Notice they all have the matching reb and comp
     force at 5ips. The only diff is table 1 has fast reb
     with soft comp and table 3 has slow reb with stiff
     comp.  But both have r/c ratio 1.00 at 5ips.
soft comp with faster reb
ips reb comp r/c ratio
1 -28 34 .82
2 -49 62 .79
3 -68 81 .84
4 -88 96 .92
5 -108 108 1.00
10 -208 166 1.25
Table 4
 
aver comp with aver reb
ips reb comp r/c ratio
1 -31 37 .84
2 -55 69 .80
3 -77 90 .86
4 -99 107 .93
5 -121 121 1.00
10 234 -188 1.24
Table 5
 
stiff comp with slower reb
ips reb comp r/c ratio
1 -35 41 .85
2 -62 76 .82
3 -86 101 .85
4 -111 120 .93
5 -135 135 1.00
10 -262 211 1.24
Table 6
WHAT IF  THIS IS INCORRECT, CHANGE
We were to say ideal baseline r/c ratio of 1.00 should match at 2ips? 
Given the same reb force, the tables below show how the comp numbers change as r/c ratio 1.00 moves up in the velocity range.
Notice r/c ratio at 50ips increases from 2.11 to 2.78.
..
r/c ratio 1.00 at 5ips
ips reb comp r/c ratio
1 -31 37 0.84
2 -55 69 0.80
3 -77 91 0.85
4 -99 107 0.92
5 -121 121 1.00
10 -234 188 1.25
20 -472 315 1.50
30 -727 418 1.74
40 -997 513 1.95
50 -1283
607
2.11
Table 7
 
r/c ratio 1.00 at 4ips
ips reb comp r/c ratio
1 -31 35 0.90
2 -55 64 0.87
3 -77 83 0.92
4 -99 99 1.00
5 -121 111 1.09
10 -234 172 1.37
20 -472 287 1.65
30 -727 380 1.91
40 -997 466 2.14
50 -1283
552
2.33
Table 8
 
r/c ratio 1.00 at 3ips
ips reb comp r/c ratio
1 -31 33 0.96
2 -55 59 0.94
3 -77 77 1.00
4 -99 91 1.09
5 -121 102 1.18
10 -234 157 1.49
20 -472 262 1.80
30 -727 347 2.10
40 -997 425 2.35
50 -1283
503
2.55
Table 9
 
r/c ratio 1.00 at 2ips
ips reb comp r/c ratio
1 -31 31 1.01
2 -55 55 1.00
3 -77 71 1.08
4 -99 84 1.18
5 -121 94 1.29
10 -234 145 1.61
20 -472 241 1.96
30 -727 318 2.29
40 -997 390 2.56
50 -1283
462
2.78
Table 10
 
CONCLUSION
Given the same reb force, the r/c ratio 1.00 position moves with changes in comp force.
WHAT IF  THIS IS INCORRECT, CHANGE
We were to say ideal baseline r/c ratio of 1.00 should match at 5ips? 
In this case the reb force is adjusted to match comp force at 5 ips.
Notice r/c ratio at 50ips increases from 2.11 to 2.17. With reb reduced, r/c ratio at 50ips is lower than column 3.
..
r/c ratio 1.00 at 5ips
ips reb comp r/c ratio
1 -31 37 0.84
2 -55 69 0.80
3 -77 91 0.85
4 -99 107 0.92
5 -121 121 1.00
10 -234 188 1.25
20 -472 315 1.50
30 -727 418 1.74
40 -997 513 1.95
50 -1283
607
2.11
Table 11
 
r/c ratio 1.00 at 5ips
ips reb comp r/c ratio
1 -29 35 0.83
2 -51 64 0.80
3 -71 83 0.85
4 -91 99 0.92
5 -111 111 1.00
10 -215 172 1.26
20 -435 287 1.51
30 -669 380 1.76
40 -917 466 1.97
50 -1181
552
2.14
Table 12
 
r/c ratio 1.00 at 5ips
ips reb comp r/c ratio
1 -27 33 0.82
2 -47 59 0.79
3 -65 77 0.85
4 -84 91 0.92
5 -102 102 1.00
10 -198 157 1.26
20 -399 262 1.52
30 -614 347 1.77
40 -843 425 1.98
50 -1084
503
2.15
Table 13
 
r/c ratio 1.00 at 5ips
ips reb comp r/c ratio
1 -24 31 0.80
2 -43 55 0.78
3 -60 71 0.84
4 -77 84 0.92
5 -94 94 1.00
10 -183 145 1.26
20 -369 241 1.53
30 -567 318 1.78
40 -778 390 1.99
50 -1001
462
2.17
Table 14
 
CONCLUSION
This example shows the relationship between reb and comp with r/c ratio 1.00 at 5ips.  Assuming 1.00 at 5ips as reasonable baseline, this give a direct relationship between reb and comp throughout the velocity range.
4096s
We are analyzing a soft enduro setting with soft comp  and stiff reb at 50ips.

..
4096s
ips reb comp r/c ratio
1 -29 27 1.10
2 -53 37 1.40
3 -75 47 1.60
4 -94 57 1.66
5 -114 67 1.71
10 -234 114 2.05
20 -480 196 2.45
30 -747 269 2.78
40 -1055 337 3.13
50 -1348 403 3.34
Table 11