08-27-2018, 10:53 PM
Well, I assume informal nomenclature differs when you travel a few miles, so coilovers/struts/shocks/dampers are used almost at random 
However, in automotive jargon, strut is part of the structure of the chassis. A shock (or damper) is only absorbing vibration. If it has a spring mounted around it, makes no difference: a "coil-over" doesn't make a shock become a strut.
In a strut, the "damper" body is not there only holding the shock pressure: it is actually holding the wheel alignment (camber under side loads, for instance).
There is a lot of "wrong" information on the internet, but these are not bad:
https://www.shockwarehouse.com/news/diff...struts.cfm
https://www.buyautoparts.com/blog/the-di...ks-struts/
On our bikes, if you removed the rear shocks, the alignment of the rear suspension wouldn't be affected. You mount them back, and everything goes back to the same position. This proves that's not a structural part of the suspension (even if the spring -which supports the weight- is mounted onto the shock).
With a strut (example: a mcpherson), if you take it form the vehicle, you lose all the alignment. The chassis will be missing some structural component, and the wheel movement will be under-constrained (moves up and down, but also will have camber and or caster freedom).
Another way to see the difference: if you have balljoints on both ends, thay can't be struts (as they won't bear bending loads through a ball joint). If one end is a "clamp"-bracket so it can't rotate around that end, then it will bear bending loads, so that is a strut.
However, in automotive jargon, strut is part of the structure of the chassis. A shock (or damper) is only absorbing vibration. If it has a spring mounted around it, makes no difference: a "coil-over" doesn't make a shock become a strut.
In a strut, the "damper" body is not there only holding the shock pressure: it is actually holding the wheel alignment (camber under side loads, for instance).
There is a lot of "wrong" information on the internet, but these are not bad:
https://www.shockwarehouse.com/news/diff...struts.cfm
https://www.buyautoparts.com/blog/the-di...ks-struts/
On our bikes, if you removed the rear shocks, the alignment of the rear suspension wouldn't be affected. You mount them back, and everything goes back to the same position. This proves that's not a structural part of the suspension (even if the spring -which supports the weight- is mounted onto the shock).
With a strut (example: a mcpherson), if you take it form the vehicle, you lose all the alignment. The chassis will be missing some structural component, and the wheel movement will be under-constrained (moves up and down, but also will have camber and or caster freedom).
Another way to see the difference: if you have balljoints on both ends, thay can't be struts (as they won't bear bending loads through a ball joint). If one end is a "clamp"-bracket so it can't rotate around that end, then it will bear bending loads, so that is a strut.