Shock boots or no boots?

Do you prefer to run shocks with or without boots? Let's gather actual evidence here.

The white shock on the right here is about 1 year old, installed with a boot (boot removed for clarity). No maintenance (i.e.- I didn't drain water or otherwise touch the shocks during the time they were installed).



Shaft is clean. No signs on leakage from the seal. Functionally, seems 100%.

It all comes down to preference,, but i will say that my kx250 came with boots on the fork tubes for a reason and the jeep and bike do kinda run in the same environment .

Nice looking shock Rob, is that a built in bump stop i see there on the new shock ?

I run boots because the shocks came with them and saw no need to take them off.

No boot. I'd only run a boot in the desert or similar terrain

Boot in new england just traps water/salt/mud which leads to corrosion. Never seen a problem with shocks or steering stabalizers running bootless but have seem plenty of corrosion from guys that keep boots and run muddy trails

^^^ This

If Fox didn't provide boots, which they don't, there is no need to waste the time or effort.

Found this article about shock boots
http://www.moabjeeper.com/articles/general/listing.cfm?articleID=582

Still being new to maintenance and all, how long would corrosion take to set in and diminish the shocks performance to the point of replacement, and how long would you expect to get out of shocks in either years or miles?

my rancho rs9000xl front i left the boots off and after 2 years i see no issue in the piston, the rears came with a open ended cover (not really a boot since its not stiff and not moldable like a normal boot) i haven't seen any leaks but the one side effect is that the cover has rubbed up on the shock body and now it has surface rust.