KW Clubsport on Track

[bipp]

Originally Posted by M3SQRD

I doubt there’s a problem procuring TTX in Europe; however, it would not be the 3DM TTX version. Are you positive 3DM developed their own TTX setup for the f8x? I believe Ohlins has an OTS TTX setup for the f8x.

I'm not sure about what specific modifications 3DM has for the TTX. I haven't seen them too much. It is possible that they just offer custom speccing and help you select the right spec with their knowledge. This is the only 3DM TTX review I've seen on the forums: https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1920244

I also haven't looked into TTX for F8x platforms - I only have my E92 unlike your assortment of M3s :P

[M3SQRD]

Originally Posted by bipp

I'm not sure about what specific modifications 3DM has for the TTX. I haven't seen them too much. It is possible that they just offer custom speccing and help you select the right spec with their knowledge. This is the only 3DM TTX review I've seen on the forums: https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1920244

I also haven't looked into TTX for F8x platforms - I only have my E92 unlike your assortment of M3s :P

Oops. My bad! The good thing is what’s available for the f8x is pretty much available for the e92 M3.

An OTS TTX doesn’t make sense because it requires details specific for your use case to assemble a damper package so I hope OTS means they have everything required to completely assemble custom-built ready-to-install front and rear dampers. A fixed set of spring rates for the R&T hasn’t worked well so it would be a complete disaster if they tried something similar with a high-end race damper!

[M1500Z]

Originally Posted by bipp

I'm not sure about what specific modifications 3DM has for the TTX. I haven't seen them too much. It is possible that they just offer custom speccing and help you select the right spec with their knowledge. This is the only 3DM TTX review I've seen on the forums: https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1920244

I also haven't looked into TTX for F8x platforms - I only have my E92 unlike your assortment of M3s :P

Member ///Mobbin has (had?) a super-spec set of TTX from 3DM on his E92. They're certainly less common and is partly why I wrote that post, but people are out there running them. Before I bought mine, I reached out to a number of those people and sought dissenting or negative feedback but got none. I'm still on that same setup—still in love with them and very happy with 3DM's support.

[M3SQRD]

Originally Posted by M1500Z

Member ///Mobbin has (had?) a super-spec set of TTX from 3DM on his E92. They're certainly less common and is partly why I wrote that post, but people are out there running them. Before I bought mine, I reached out to a number of those people and sought dissenting or negative feedback but got none. I'm still on that same setup—still in love with them and very happy with 3DM's support.

Do you know what TTX setup did you go with - Pro or Motorsport? Did you go for the through rod shaft versions? 3DM is the best option for Ohlins products.

[M1500Z]

Originally Posted by M3SQRD

Do you know what TTX setup did you go with - Pro or Motorsport? Did you go for the through rod shaft versions? 3DM is the best option for Ohlins products.

I believe the TTX Pro are kits offered by Öhlins for certain platforms, whereas the motorsport line is built to spec. I do not have a TTX Pro kit.

My setup was put together by 3DM after a lengthy discussion of usage, options, and pricing. It's a TTX 46 strut (through-rod) with cast valve body and 2-way valving, paired with a TTX 36 ILX (non-through-rod). I would've liked to have done a through-rod TTX 40 rear but the cost was prohibitive. Valving was chosen by Barry after we decided on spring rates. Springs are from Swift and camber plates are Vorshlag. And of course, I got dyno plots (not just PVP) to show damper matching and clicker sweeps.

To me, one of the neatest things about TTX is they are like Lego. I could upgrade them to 3 or 4 way valving, or upgrade the valve bodies to have adjustable blow-offs. They can easily change to an end-eye to work with an offset camber plate like the BW GT-More or M2 CS R. Not long ago I added shock pots—I have yet to wire them up because of how oppressive the summer heat has been. If I move to a different platform, I could have these same dampers reconfigured to work for it (if it's a strut car).

[bipp]

Originally Posted by M1500Z

I believe the TTX Pro are kits offered by Öhlins for certain platforms, whereas the motorsport line is built to spec. I do not have a TTX Pro kit.

My setup was put together by 3DM after a lengthy discussion of usage, options, and pricing. It's a TTX 46 strut (through-rod) with cast valve body and 2-way valving, paired with a TTX 36 ILX (non-through-rod). I would've liked to have done a through-rod TTX 40 rear but the cost was prohibitive. Valving was chosen by Barry after we decided on spring rates. Springs are from Swift and camber plates are Vorshlag. And of course, I got dyno plots (not just PVP) to show damper matching and clicker sweeps.

To me, one of the neatest things about TTX is they are like Lego. I could upgrade them to 3 or 4 way valving, or upgrade the valve bodies to have adjustable blow-offs. They can easily change to an end-eye to work with an offset camber plate like the BW GT-More or M2 CS R. Not long ago I added shock pots—I have yet to wire them up because of how oppressive the summer heat has been. If I move to a different platform, I could have these same dampers reconfigured to work for it (if it's a strut car).

hey! glad you came across this post - really enjoyed reading your review (and your track journal, lol) even though I'm not a F87 owner... although we can never foresee the future. the TTX setup is very interesting and I'm glad you put all that effort into describing your configuration experience with 3DM, as well as your experiences streeting and tracking with that setup. it's always hard to find good write-ups and I'm hoping to be able to do similarly, once I get enough track time to feel confident that I'm providing good information on the parts I've picked up.

I'm not sure if Mobbin still has the car, but I do know tlrid3r (and now 1FastSicilian who bought his setup, iirc) and slicer had PSI TTX setups rather than 3DM. definitely seems like you can't go wrong with it.

just wondering though - if you could go again, is there anything you've learned over time that would point you towards another one of the "high end" damper setups (R3, MCS 3W)? any shortcomings with having 2way adjusters or piggyback vs external reservoir?

[M3SQRD]

Originally Posted by bipp

just wondering though - if you could go again, is there anything you've learned over time that would point you towards another one of the "high end" damper setups (R3, MCS 3W)? any shortcomings with having 2way adjusters or piggyback vs external reservoir?

I can address your non-TTX related questions.

A 2-way setup can match the performance of a 3-way by ~90% (track and driver dependent). I went with three MCS 2WR setups instead of two 3WR setups. The 3-way remote is less constraining than s 2-way remote when it comes down to finding the best compromised track setup. The addition of independent LSC and HSC allows you to better isolate and control roll, pitch and heave motion of the chassis (sprung mass, movement of chassis relative to the track) without having to run too much, or too little, tire-wheel-knuckle/hub assembly (unsprung mass, movement of tire-wheel-knuckle/hub assembly motion wrt the chassis) damping/control. In terms of lap times, you’re probably talking about a max of ~0.25-0.50 sec delta between a 2-way and a 3-way (track and driver dependent). Other advantage of a 3-way is a small improvement in street ride quality. You typically want chassis sprung mass damping between ~0.6-0.9 of critical damping (1.0 = critically damped) in the 0-3 in/sec velocity range and wheel assembly unsprung mass damping to be in the range of ~0.2-0.5 of critical damping (the lower you go, the larger the bumps it can absorb without losing tire to track contact) with > 0.3 in/sec velocities. For cars with functional aero, you’ll want to see LSC damping in the range of ~0.8-1.2. Separating LSC and HSC allows you to be able to run more appropriate % of critical damping in the 0-3 in/sec range and the > 3 in/sec range. 2-ways may end up running more low or high speed damping than what’s needed. Damper dyno continuous velocity plots (CVP) and peak velocity plots (PVP) allows you to see the damping force vs. displacement and velocity (it’s the slope of PVP curve, cdot, that provides the damping coefficient, damping force = cdot x velocity). Now you can model a single DOF spring-mass-damper (SMD) to determine how many “clicks” corresponds to what % of critical damping for low and high speed velocities for specified spring rates. The change in damping required for change in stiffness, with no change in mass, is c_new / c_old = sqrt ( k_new / k_old). So, as an example, if you double the spring rate (k_new = 2 x k_old), you need to increase damping by a factor of 1.41:

c_new / c_old = sqrt ( k_new / k_old) =
sqrt (2 x k_old / k_old) = sqrt(2)

c_new / c_old = sqrt(2) = 1.41

There’s no real measurable difference in performance of piggyback reservoirs or remote reservoirs. Advantage of piggyback is it’s easier to install whereas the advantage of a remote is slightly more damper fluid and better temperature control (i.e., no thermal conductance from the damper body to the reservoir). As an example, if you drove back2back a R3 piggyback and a R3 remote, with the same damper settings and spring rates, there’d by no detectable difference in feel and performance (unless you’re a F1 driver )

[M3SQRD]

Originally Posted by medphysdave

Higher gas pressure in Nitrons due to lower spring rates?

The more I think about the difference in rear spring rates used on the R3, I think it might be the use of a high N2 gas pressure in the rear piggyback/remote reservoir to help support rear weight and, therefore, run lower rear main spring rates. The R1 spring rates fall inline with other 1-way adjustable high-end dampers so the large rate difference is limited to the R3. I do not know the min-max range of N2 gas pressure used by the R3. The only downside would be related to how the R3 absorbs small-med sized bumps (i.e., bumps that don’t open the high-speed compressive blow-off valve) with a high N2 gas pressure.

[bipp]

Originally Posted by M3SQRD

I can address your non-TTX related questions.

A 2-way setup can match the performance of a 3-way by ~90% (track and driver dependent). I went with three MCS 2WR setups instead of two 3WR setups. The 3-way remote is less constraining than s 2-way remote when it comes down to finding the best compromised track setup. The addition of independent LSC and HSC allows you to better isolate and control roll, pitch and heave motion of the chassis (sprung mass, movement of chassis relative to the track) without having to run too much, or too little, tire-wheel-knuckle/hub assembly (unsprung mass, movement of tire-wheel-knuckle/hub assembly motion wrt the chassis) damping/control. In terms of lap times, you’re probably talking about a max of ~0.25-0.50 sec delta between a 2-way and a 3-way (track and driver dependent). Other advantage of a 3-way is a small improvement in street ride quality. You typically want chassis sprung mass damping between ~0.6-0.9 of critical damping (1.0 = critically damped) in the 0-3 in/sec velocity range and wheel assembly unsprung mass damping to be in the range of ~0.2-0.5 of critical damping (the lower you go, the larger the bumps it can absorb without losing tire to track contact) with > 0.3 in/sec velocities. For cars with functional aero, you’ll want to see LSC damping in the range of ~0.8-1.2. Separating LSC and HSC allows you to be able to run more appropriate % of critical damping in the 0-3 in/sec range and the > 3 in/sec range. 2-ways may end up running more low or high speed damping than what’s needed. Damper dyno continuous velocity plots (CVP) and peak velocity plots (PVP) allows you to see the damping force vs. displacement and velocity (it’s the slope of PVP curve, cdot, that provides the damping coefficient, damping force = cdot x velocity). Now you can model a single DOF spring-mass-damper (SMD) to determine how many “clicks” corresponds to what % of critical damping for low and high speed velocities for specified spring rates. The change in damping required for change in stiffness, with no change in mass, is c_new / c_old = sqrt ( k_new / k_old). So, as an example, if you double the spring rate (k_new = 2 x k_old), you need to increase damping by a factor of 1.41:

c_new / c_old = sqrt ( k_new / k_old) =
sqrt (2 x k_old / k_old) = sqrt(2)

c_new / c_old = sqrt(2) = 1.41

There’s no real measurable difference in performance of piggyback reservoirs or remote reservoirs. Advantage of piggyback is it’s easier to install whereas the advantage of a remote is slightly more damper fluid and better temperature control (i.e., no thermal conductance from the damper body to the reservoir). As an example, if you drove back2back a R3 piggyback and a R3 remote, with the same damper settings and spring rates, there’d by no detectable difference in feel and performance (unless you’re a F1 driver )

thanks for the explanation! the spring vs damping calculation was never something I've really thought about but that's an easy enough rule that I can just keep that in mind. I still have a lot to learn about the theory of all of this... but I'll pick it up over time (hopefully the next few decades of this hobby lol), but that definitely makes sense as far as low/high speed split at 0-3 vs above.

[M1500Z]

Originally Posted by bipp

hey! glad you came across this post - really enjoyed reading your review (and your track journal, lol) even though I'm not a F87 owner... although we can never foresee the future. the TTX setup is very interesting and I'm glad you put all that effort into describing your configuration experience with 3DM, as well as your experiences streeting and tracking with that setup. it's always hard to find good write-ups and I'm hoping to be able to do similarly, once I get enough track time to feel confident that I'm providing good information on the parts I've picked up.

I'm not sure if Mobbin still has the car, but I do know tlrid3r (and now 1FastSicilian who bought his setup, iirc) and slicer had PSI TTX setups rather than 3DM. definitely seems like you can't go wrong with it.

just wondering though - if you could go again, is there anything you've learned over time that would point you towards another one of the "high end" damper setups (R3, MCS 3W)? any shortcomings with having 2way adjusters or piggyback vs external reservoir?

Glad to hear you've enjoyed reading through the threads and found them helpful.

Simple answer to your question: no. The longer answer is this—I have not spent any time in a scenario to compare easily and directly other high-end or race-level dampers and I don't know what I don't know. My current line of thinking is really that 2 ways are likely more than competent for my use and driving ability, I don't have access to a dedicated engineer, and the TTX is very good. My opinion has been reinforced by people from the damper industry who have said as much when I spoke to them—usually their eyes get wide when I mention the car has TTX.

The only things I'd say that I've truly learned are these:

• Support is important—3DM has done well by me. I also understand Barry is not MCS in terms of employee count so my expectations of response time are adjusted as such. When I've needed support or had questions, Barry has been generous with his time and very helpful.
• Clicker locations—TTX have the clickers on the damper body because of their design. Would I love for the clickers to be more accessible, sure. Is it a problem for me, no. I don't make a lot of adjustments and it's quick and easy to do front and rear.
• Remote reservoirs—related to the above, I think I prefer no remotes. It's very fast and easy to remove a damper for cleaning, or service, or a spring change without the hassles of QDs or having to worry about a remote coming out as well.
• Shock pots—definitely not something the general population cares about, but the TTX strut being hollow allows a really elegant way to have pots with a strut.

There may be a few things I'm forgetting, but the only other brand I'd be curious about currently is Penske—they offer through-rod dampers as well and are of course well regarded in motorsport. There's some interesting tech out there that could make things pretty interesting if it ever trickles down into the realm of "affordability"—Öhlins TTR and Multimatic DSSV are pretty damn neat.

[bipp]

Originally Posted by M1500Z

Glad to hear you've enjoyed reading through the threads and found them helpful.

Simple answer to your question: no. The longer answer is this—I have not spent any time in a scenario to compare easily and directly other high-end or race-level dampers and I don't know what I don't know. My current line of thinking is really that 2 ways are likely more than competent for my use and driving ability, I don't have access to a dedicated engineer, and the TTX is very good. My opinion has been reinforced by people from the damper industry who have said as much when I spoke to them—usually their eyes get wide when I mention the car has TTX.

The only things I'd say that I've truly learned are these:

• Support is important—3DM has done well by me. I also understand Barry is not MCS in terms of employee count so my expectations of response time are adjusted as such. When I've needed support or had questions, Barry has been generous with his time and very helpful.
• Clicker locations—TTX have the clickers on the damper body because of their design. Would I love for the clickers to be more accessible, sure. Is it a problem for me, no. I don't make a lot of adjustments and it's quick and easy to do front and rear.
• Remote reservoirs—related to the above, I think I prefer no remotes. It's very fast and easy to remove a damper for cleaning, or service, or a spring change without the hassles of QDs or having to worry about a remote coming out as well.
• Shock pots—definitely not something the general population cares about, but the TTX strut being hollow allows a really elegant way to have pots with a strut.

There may be a few things I'm forgetting, but the only other brand I'd be curious about currently is Penske—they offer through-rod dampers as well and are of course well regarded in motorsport. There's some interesting tech out there that could make things pretty interesting if it ever trickles down into the realm of "affordability"—Öhlins TTR and Multimatic DSSV are pretty damn neat.

good to know, and thanks again for the response! yeah, I feel that with support - my coilovers were from OG Shark and one definitely has to acknowledge that responses are kind of based on his availability rather than an established company with dedicated support channels. however, you really have to appreciate that it's the same guy speccing the kit as the guy helping you with setup.

I did notice that about the clickers on the Ohlins. is it still possible to access with the wheel still on, or do you have to take the wheel off for easier access? do you run the same settings on street as you do on track? (or is your car not street-driven)

if you do ever go for Penskes down the road, please write up a review again :P I'd love to read about them on a BMW platform!

[M1500Z]

Originally Posted by bipp

good to know, and thanks again for the response! yeah, I feel that with support - my coilovers were from OG Shark and one definitely has to acknowledge that responses are kind of based on his availability rather than an established company with dedicated support channels. however, you really have to appreciate that it's the same guy speccing the kit as the guy helping you with setup.

I did notice that about the clickers on the Ohlins. is it still possible to access with the wheel still on, or do you have to take the wheel off for easier access? do you run the same settings on street as you do on track? (or is your car not street-driven)

if you do ever go for Penskes down the road, please write up a review again :P I'd love to read about them on a BMW platform!

Another thing to consider, and this is with dampers across the board, is there is not one theory to rule them all. Different builders have different philosophies and I think it's important to seek out the thoughts and biases that go into that. Some may prefer rebound bias, others compression bias. If you were to reach out to Doug Brenner in California about a TTX setup, he would undoubtedly want you to use a linear piston and not digressive.

The clickers on the TTX are very easy to access with the car on the ground—the fronts just require turning the wheel all the way to one side so you can reach in and adjust them. They are both easy to turn and also noticeable so you can do it essentially blind. The rears are also easily accessible just by lying on the ground. I do run a specific street setting with overall reduced damping force and a bias toward rebound.

I honestly do not see myself moving away from Öhlins so don't hold your breath on a review of Penskes .

[M3SQRD]

Originally Posted by bipp

thanks for the explanation! the spring vs damping calculation was never something I've really thought about but that's an easy enough rule that I can just keep that in mind. I still have a lot to learn about the theory of all of this... but I'll pick it up over time (hopefully the next few decades of this hobby lol), but that definitely makes sense as far as low/high speed split at 0-3 vs above.

The actual relationship is Ccrit = 2 x square root (m x k). If the change in mass is negligible then

Ccrit_new / Ccrit_old = square root (k_new / k_old)

An excellent source on the theory of race car dynamics is the book “Race Car Vehicle Dynamics” by Milliken & Milliken. It’s written for engineers but a lot of material doesn’t require a degree in mechanical/aerospace/motorsport engineering to follow along. The book is ~$99 and its companion workbook with problems, answers and experiments is ~$80. There are other books out there on this topic but, IMO, this is the best one. An inexpensive short paperback book (~$7) introducing the topic is “Vehicle Dynamics - Race Car Set-Up & Suspension” by Andrew Greaney.

[M3SQRD]

Originally Posted by M1500Z

Another thing to consider, and this is with dampers across the board, is there is not one theory to rule them all. Different builders have different philosophies and I think it's important to seek out the thoughts and biases that go into that. Some may prefer rebound bias, others compression bias. If you were to reach out to Doug Brenner in California about a TTX setup, he would undoubtedly want you to use a linear piston and not digressive.

The clickers on the TTX are very easy to access with the car on the ground—the fronts just require turning the wheel all the way to one side so you can reach in and adjust them. They are both easy to turn and also noticeable so you can do it essentially blind. The rears are also easily accessible just by lying on the ground. I do run a specific street setting with overall reduced damping force and a bias toward rebound.

I honestly do not see myself moving away from Öhlins so don't hold your breath on a review of Penskes .

Linear valving is recommended by shops that work with MCS, Moton, JRZ, Penske, etc. as well as TTX. AST is the only manufacturer I’ve talked to, a little over a decade ago, that had recommended using digressive valving. A major downside to digressive valving is it has a small window of variation in spring rates before needing to be revalved.

Almost universally, high-end dampers tend to use rebound-biased damping force vs. velocity. The amount of bias varies from manufacturer to manufacturer and it’s typically in the ~2-3x mid-high speed range.

[bipp]

Originally Posted by M3SQRD

The actual relationship is Ccrit = 2 x square root (m x k). If the change in mass is negligible then

Ccrit_new / Ccrit_old = square root (k_new / k_old)

An excellent source on the theory of race car dynamics is the book “Race Car Vehicle Dynamics” by Milliken & Milliken. It’s written for engineers but a lot of material doesn’t require a degree in mechanical/aerospace/motorsport engineering to follow along. The book is ~$99 and its companion workbook with problems, answers and experiments is ~$80. There are other books out there on this topic but, IMO, this is the best one. An inexpensive short paperback book (~$7) introducing the topic is “Vehicle Dynamics - Race Car Set-Up & Suspension” by Andrew Greaney.

thanks for the suggestions! while I'm currently pursuing a graduate degree in an applied math field, definitely by no means an engineer in that conventional sense - I'll definitely pick up those books to get a better understanding that'll hopefully benefit me as I head further down this hobby's rabbit hole.

[M3SQRD]

Originally Posted by bipp

thanks for the suggestions! while I'm currently pursuing a graduate degree in an applied math field, definitely by no means an engineer in that conventional sense - I'll definitely pick up those books to get a better understanding that'll hopefully benefit me as I head further down this hobby's rabbit hole.

When I was working on my advanced aerospace engineering degrees, specializing in Composite Structures, Structural Engineering and Numerical Methods (FEM but developing my own hybrid linear-nonlinear stress-strain and strain-displacement formulation FE codes with advanced elements to analyze the energy absorption capability of composite structure, I absolutely enjoyed all of the graduate level applied mathematics classes I had to take but not a huge fan of advanced theoretical math courses!

With an advanced applied math degree, you should be able to follow along with the majority of the vehicle dynamics topics. The book “Race Car Vehicle Dynamics” by Milliken & Milliken has been the definitive source on the topic of race car dynamics since its introduction in 1995. Although it was written for engineers, it also was written for race car enthusiasts so it’s a great source for anyone looking to gain a better understanding of vehicle dynamics and car setup.

[Track/S]

Today I did about 300km with the m3 e92 on different roads and I can say with total certainty that mcs absorbs the bumps better than Nitron R3.


M3SQRD 3.85 final drive in action:

[M3SQRD]

Originally Posted by Track/S

Today I did about 300km with the m3 e92 on different roads and I can say with total certainty that mcs absorbs the bumps better than Nitron R3.


M3SQRD 3.85 final drive in action:

I didn’t get your notification. I wonder how many other ones I’m not getting?

The answers to the questions we don’t know are whether the Schirmer R3 uses its own custom valving and have they modified the high-speed blow-off valve to improve street ride quality relative to the Nitron OTS R3. OTS R1 is extremely harsh compared to 3WR.

Nice! The 3.85 FD paired with the DCT must pull hard! I know what a 3.62 FD feels like. Theoretical speed based on a 7th gear of 1:1 and FD of 3.85 it’s 276.5 kph vs. your indicated speed of 285 kph. I did not include any change in the tire radius due to load and angular velocity. Your speed % difference is only off by 3.1%! I wish the digital speed was displayed because it’s supposed to be more accurate than the speed dial.

[Track/S]

Originally Posted by M3SQRD

I didn’t get your notification. I wonder how many other ones I’m not getting?

The answers to the questions we don’t know are whether the Schirmer R3 uses its own custom valving and have they modified the high-speed blow-off valve to improve street ride quality relative to the Nitron OTS R3. OTS R1 is extremely harsh compared to 3WR.

Nice! The 3.85 FD paired with the DCT must pull hard! I know what a 3.62 FD feels like. Theoretical speed based on a 7th gear of 1:1 and FD of 3.85 it’s 276.5 kph vs. your indicated speed of 285 kph. I did not include any change in the tire radius due to load and angular velocity. Your speed % difference is only off by 3.1%! I wish the digital speed was displayed because it’s supposed to be more accurate than the speed dial.

I don't get notifications many times either...

I don't think Schirmer has their r3 versions custom valved, they are simply revalved for springs of 140nm in front and 150nm on rear.


276kph It is real speed (GPS), which is precisely the error of the cluster of about 9kph.

[M3SQRD]

Originally Posted by Track/S

I don't get notifications many times either...

I don't think Schirmer has their r3 versions custom valved, they are simply revalved for springs of 140nm in front and 150nm on rear.


276kph It is real speed (GPS), which is precisely the error of the cluster of about 9kph.

I wonder how many people are pissed at me for not responding to their post

Wow! I wasn’t expecting the speed calculation from the drivetrain gearing to perfectly match the GPS speed! The tire diameter is the unknown especially when loaded at high rpm. We’re talking 233 rad/sec or 37.2 rotations/sec at 276 kph! I redid my 3.62 FD top speed calculation and it’s 294 kph. Much higher than the ~160 mph I have stuck in my head. What’s your RPM at 100 kph?

[F80 M3 LTW]

Well I’ve only done a few hundred street miles and one track event but the Nitron R1s are simply fantastic. Smooth on the road as the oem passive dampers

On track I’m just beginning to dial them in. I started with the settings very soft and have only just added a few clicks of stiffness (4f / 3r out of 20). It was way more settled over all curbing (although slightly bouncy bc of soft
Rebound I assume), much less Understeer on entry and mid corner and I could get way better traction on the exits. My exits speeds initially screwed up all my braking zone lol.

Anyways. Another win to the “high end dampers are worth the price” crowd.

[M3SQRD]

Originally Posted by F80 M3 LTW

Well I’ve only done a few hundred street miles and one track event but the Nitron R1s are simply fantastic. Smooth on the road as the oem passive dampers

On track I’m just beginning to dial them in. I started with the settings very soft and have only just added a few clicks of stiffness (4f / 3r out of 20). It was way more settled over all curbing (although slightly bouncy bc of soft
Rebound I assume), much less Understeer on entry and mid corner and I could get way better traction on the exits. My exits speeds initially screwed up all my braking zone lol.

Anyways. Another win to the “high end dampers are worth the price” crowd.

I couldn’t get the passive dampers off of my car soon enough. Poor low speed compression and rebound damping, and extremely harsh over expansion joints and large bumps. I had MCS dampers installed in < 2 weeks of ownership.

It’s the high-speed compressive blow-off valve that absorbs curbs and large bumps. The lack of damping (low and high speed rebound are adjusted at the same time as is the compression damping which is coupled to the rebound adjustments by a fixed percentage) could potentially create an odd feeling when transitioning back to rebound. However, dampers are rebound-biased which means for the same piston velocity, the magnitude of the rebound damping force is 2-3x higher than the magnitude of the compression damping force. What are the front and rear main spring rates?

Are these Nitron ogsm custom-valved R1 or Nitron OTS R1? OGSM track recommendations are F/R 4/4 clicks from fully closed and street driven are F/R 4/4 clicks from fully open. F/R 4/3 (from fully open?) would be far too few clicks to adequately damp the motions of the sprung and unsprung masses.