If you ask me i think that fox is still better . There is alot of reasons why you see alot of ryde fx . companies like polaris and others will go with the best bang for the buck . I think that both are a great shock but ryde fx may be sheper for polaris to put on their sleds . Fox is realy expensive . but i thinks its a superrior shockOriginally posted by RED_XCR_440
[br]What is the difference between the two? Both can be rebuilt and both are gas. Is there a major difference that makes one a better shock? I always though that Fox was the better choice but it seems now days you are seeing more of the Ryde FX on sleds.
He knows his stuff. fox isnt as great of a shock as rydefc, go wityh ryde fc. they last longer take more abuse and are easy to get parts for.Originally posted by Frosty
[br]The Rydes do not fade nearly as fast as a mono tube FOX. A Ryde is more durable and will go longer between servicing. In my book FOX/ACT are inferior to Ryde in all aspects.
As far as having to wait for a long period of time, 72 hrs is really excessive. The reason you have to wait longer is to get all the air out of the oil, because on a mono tube Ryde there are no end caps like on a Fox/ACT, therefore you have to set the piston into the bore before you add oil where as a Fox/ACT you remove the end cap the fill the oil and set the floating piston depth so you dont have to wait as long. No big deal the longest I ever had to wait was about a hour. The trick is to chill the oil and pour it slowly as to not agetate it.
One nice thing about Ryde 9200 series is it responds well to valving changes where as a Fox it's trail and error to find the sweet spot.
I see a lot less failures with Rydes than Fox.
If you want the best, then look for Ohlins.