[ST1LE]

Originally Posted by Nicul15

do you guys think they will include a MRC tune for the lowering springs?

I hope so, that means they can also tune the MRC for the 1LE.

[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.

[Waiting46]

Originally Posted by Nicul15

do you guys think they will include a MRC tune for the lowering springs?

Currently, no. GMPP lowered springs are for standard suspension only. They may change that up for future years.

[JusticePete]

Originally Posted by ST1LE

I hope so, that means they can also tune the MRC for the 1LE.

The GM lowering springs are within the range of the MRC system design parameters and do not require a 'tune'.

[Waiting46]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

Two items come to mind. I'm thinking in terms of percent critical damping, which cannot be optimized simultaneously for best ride and best grip.

1) If you leave the rest of the suspension and the wheel/tire package alone, you're stuck with whatever transient handling was dialed into the calibration. Not that the average HPDE driver has much chance of improving it even if GM granted access to the programming or mapping.

2) If you modify anything else in the suspension or move up to a more serious wheel/tire package, would the OE MRC tuning have enough self-adjusting capability built into it to accommodate such changes?


The chart below is just for illustration. Chances are that the two minimum points for a 6th gen Camaro will be somewhat different, but the general idea that best ride needs the damping to be less than that for best grip should still hold true.





Norm

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....)

[crankaholic]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

1) Of course Ford will tout it. It's good! Chevy did the same thing with the ZL1. And they also put MRC in the Z06...But it is possible that they were unwilling to go so far as to sacrifice a degree of ride quality in the pursuit of track performance...The DSSV decision was part experimental, and part using the best track damper on the market...But at no point were they truly worried about the car's ride comfort on the street...because the car had one purpose...and they dedicated themselves to that purpose.

If they really went all out for track performance...truly: no compromises - I don't think they'd be using MRC.

2) They have offered the performance parts off of their variants in the past - I think they will, again.

1) I agree... a truly track-only setup doesn't need MRC. But I still think there's a way of getting it working perfectly with MRC... unless there's a serious limitation on how long it can hold the setup in full stiffness mode.

2) Cool stuff, I'd cherry pick what I like for my SS.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

MRC is a closed system utilizing preset and professionally-developed calibration maps. You cannot (and should not be able to) individually control the damper settings. MRC is great at everything - but it is not perfection if a person is attempting to go for ultimate track performance. It's not accurate enough in the mechanical fashion that it allows (or doesn't allow) fluid to flow. Has nothing to do with the accuracy of the software.

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?

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

The 1LE will not replace the Z/28. Not capable...too expensive.

Funny you brought that up, though..."proper"...I wonder how folks reacted when they put the LT4 into the new Z06...I really don't follow Corvette forums, so I'd be interested to know if the purists were disgusted, or welcoming. Chevy will probably not produce a N/A engine like the LS7, again.....

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.

I don't have an issue with the current Z06... I just think it should have been called the ZR1. It seems like a direct replacement for that car - extremely high output S/C engine, lots of creature comforts, and a bit heavier than the standard Vette. The Z06 is supposed to be lighter, noisier and much more track focused.

Also, the best handling Z06s (with the best lap times) from the previous generation were on MRC shocks!

[90503]

The only drawback I can see to a 1LE with a unique MRC combined with other track features would be the expense. The more you guys delve into it, the more expensive it's looking....

If it potentially could be a great feature, but would probably be too expensive to fit into a "low cost/affordable" 1LE track package, I doubt they will offer MRC and non-MRC.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by Nicul15

do you guys think they will include a MRC tune for the lowering springs?

The Chevy performance parts list shows springs and dampers for non-MRC .8 lower. I would assume they are working on springs for the MRC as well.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by 90503

The only drawback I can see to a 1LE with a unique MRC combined with other track features would be the expense. The more you guys delve into it, the more expensive it's looking....

If it potentially could be a great feature, but would probably be too expensive to fit into a "low cost/affordable" 1LE track package, I doubt they will offer MRC and non-MRC.

ain't that the truth

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

Maybe a visual will help explain it to some?

Attachment 771764

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

[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.

[vtirocz]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

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.

That's great news! I can't wait.

[Bhobbs]

I got all excited then I remembered tomorrow is Wednesday the 3rd.

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

I got all excited then I remembered tomorrow is Wednesday the 3rd.

Haha, one more week bud.