[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by JusticePete

DSSV can be incredibly comfortable or handle incredibly well. The Z/28 not only had much higher rate springs, it also had lower profile tires. 305/30/19s to the 1LE 285/35R20 to the SS Front: 245/45-20 and Rear: 275/40-20 to the V6 P245/55R18. Tire size and profile have dramatic impact on ride quality. Consider the sidewalls to be part of the spring rate. The DSSV tuning range allows the Z/28 to ride as well as it does. Sway bars are part of the spring rate. Small changes in bar diameter are barely noticeable. Large diameter changes are noticeable.

MRC can be tuned for excellent ride comfort and handling. They are excellent. Should TEAM Camaro opt for MRC in a performance variant of the 6th Gen it will perform exceptionally well. The HUGE advantage MRC has over DSSV is on the fly programming: Comfort - Sport - Race. If the Camaro TEAM chooses, they can setup up a program for the MRC dampers to be full drag shocks (90/10). How about Road America and Gingerman MRC programs? Literally dialed in for high speed long straight RA or short straight tight turn GM. MRC is an amazing technology.

The DSSV valve stack is pretty incredible technology, but it is just part of the Multimatic technology used in F1. The valve stack is like a shot gun shell. It can be changed in the without recharging or rebleeding. This allows the damper to be tuned for a specific track, spring, sway bar and tire setup. This is far more control than adjusting the damping on a coilover with the knobs. It is a complete change of the force velocity curve plus the knobs. The advantage continue as the DSSV setup doesn't suffer from degradation of the shims or temperature as normal hydraulic dampers do.

Each system has advantages. MRC technology continues to advance. Multimatic isn't standing still. Which is better? It depends on the application. MRC is hands down magic in a street car for ride quality when you want it and handling when you want it. When light weight, precision, repeat-ability and predictability are mission critical DSSV has the advantage. In terms of pure cool. Look at these and try not to drool.

Originally Posted by ST1LE

So let's look at this from a different angle. Let's assume GM leaves the MRC unchanged, but makes it standard or something like that. Is there enough left on the table for the engineers to do enough to the SS, to make it a 1LE?

Hell yes! Some of the genius behind the 5th gen 1LE was the attention to the suspension linkages (among other things): like solid endlink bushings, stiffer rear cradle bushings, and poly control arm bushing inserts. Do this, throw some lighter wheels with stickier rubber, adjust the springs/dampers/stabilizer bars, put some functional aero pieces on it...and you've got a track star for less than the price of "the other one".

Originally Posted by Waiting46

Is DSSV really 80% as comfortable as MRC? Ive never been in a vehicle with it

As Pete said - it's capable of providing a comfortable ride...but it was designed for track usage - and very few projects involving DSSV are going to be concerned with comfort...so it rarely does.

I've owned a Camaro with both systems....and DSSV is about 25% as comfortable as Mag Ride.

Originally Posted by Waiting46

I was under the impression that MRC was based on relative position of the shocks (in its current iteration, at least) meaning that adjusting the spring rates at any corner of the system would have minimal impact on the MRC system (however changing the length of the springs in the system will throw it off e.g. lowering...or lifting...if thats your thing....)

That's one variable. But the computer also has static data for things like coefficients of friction for the tires, spring rates (not just size), and others...Honestly, one of the drawbacks of MR (if you're into modifying cars) is that if you change anything about the suspension on the car (including the tires), you risk reducing the system's overall effectiveness.

Originally Posted by crankaholic

I get that. I wouldn't want to mess with the dynamic maps, nor should anyone without all the equipment and understanding of professional chassis engineers. What I might have failed to describe, or maybe MRC is actually not capable of this (I think it is), is a separate mode that holds fixed stiffness that a user can control. MRC works by putting a current through the shock fluid - no current = soft while all the current (whatever that may be) = stiff. Give users a "Track+" mode that allows fixed settings for low/high speed compression/rebound at each corner... going from full soft to the maximum stiffness that particular setup can achieve. Any reason I'm not aware of that may prohibit MRC from holding those settings?

That's a good question, and one I'm not certain of the answer to. There is an "average" stiffness that you can figure...Tour vs Sport each have their ranges...but both settings are very different.

Originally Posted by crankaholic

I know the Z/28 was much more hardcore and expensive. But it seems the 1LE is a possible only serious track offering - since there isn't a higher output N/A LT engine out there at the moment.

Isn't a vehicle larger than the sum of it's parts? My personal opinion is that an engine doesn't NEED to be naturally-aspirated to deliver a good on-track performance. But it sure is nice...

Originally Posted by SUMMIT WHITE SS

You forgot a big one with lots of flexibility, coilovers...

I thought about those. But....ultimately I left them off because they're (basically) equivalent to adjustable-valve monotube dampers. And most are manually-adjustable at that...The conversation has been getting progressively more technical as we go on - I didn't think it was necessary to throw a new subject in there.




EDIT: I just went back and checked my emails - We will be able to share what we see at the 1LE preview at 12:01 in the morning of Wednesday the 10th.