Lotus cars=no adaptive dampers.

[kratedisease]

I pointed this out months ago and have not had much support from this forum about it...good luck...

Because should you (or I) mention any short comings, we are called TROLLS and are blocked by the others or even banned from the forum.

 

[Pegasi]

Because should you (or I) mention any short comings, we are called TROLLS and are blocked by the others or even banned from the forum.

I have taken a stance for ADMs, I have said I don't believe Lotus needs to communicate any better than they are, and I have argued for EVs without getting into any back and forth personal attacks. I think it's just the hyperbole or not respecting other people or repeated bashing that gets people fired up. I think anything can be debated if you stick to facts or make it's known that it's your opinion.

But in general you are correct, nobody wants to hear Lotus sucks in an Emira forum but it would be very boring if everyone agreed on everything.

 

[Eagle7]

It isn't just what you say, but how you say it.

 

[TomE]

Maybe the use of "fan boi" and "koolaid" turns people off from participating in the discussion too. Just a thought.

Plenty of Emira and Lotus enthusiasts here (that's part of the point of an Emira forum right?) but also lots of people who are petrolheads with wide experience of other marques. I'd hope we're not all blind to Lotus shortcomings (of which there are many) and that everyone is open to a well-reasoned discussion on those topics. We seem to have plenty of threads about poor comms, lack of ADAS and auto-blip, speed limiters, US buying process etc.

Back to the topic. So why is it that many others use adaptive dampers and Lotus don't? They seem to get numerous great reviews about ride and handling, plus they get called in by other companies to do consultancy on it.

I don't know the official Lotus answer on this and don't think I've read anything that answers it directly. There's plenty of stuff published on the Lotus approach to R&H but nothing I've seen that says "why Lotus don't do it that way". It's a good question and it would be interesting to hear what Lotus say.

 

[Eagle7]

Maybe the use of "fan boi" and "koolaid" turns people off from participating in the discussion too. Just a thought.

Plenty of Emira and Lotus enthusiasts here (that's part of the point of an Emira forum right?) but also lots of people who are petrolheads with wide experience of other marques. I'd hope we're not all blind to Lotus shortcomings (of which there are many) and that everyone is open to a well-reasoned discussion on those topics. We seem to have plenty of threads about poor comms, lack of ADAS and auto-blip, speed limiters, US buying process etc.

Back to the topic. So why is it that many others use adaptive dampers and Lotus don't? They seem to get numerous great reviews about ride and handling, plus they get called in by other companies to do consultancy on it.

I don't know the official Lotus answer on this and don't think I've read anything that answers it directly. There's plenty of stuff published on the Lotus approach to R&H but nothing I've seen that says "why Lotus don't do it that way". It's a good question and it would be interesting to hear what Lotus say.

I think it goes back to Chapman's original philosophy of start simple and add lightness, instead of looking for a 'let's solve the problem by adding another system' approach. Being loathe to add weight forces you to try and find a solution that doesn't do that. That's the more difficult approach, but in the long run saves weight and cost.

 

[xen]

I agree with everything that's been said

I think it goes back to Chapman's original philosophy of start simple and add lightness, instead of looking for a 'let's solve the problem by adding another system' approach. Being loathe to add weight forces you to try and find a solution that doesn't do that. That's the more difficult approach, but in the long run saves weight and cost.

I don't think it's about this anymore. There are many instances in Emira v Evora that go firmly against the simplify and add lightness doctrine. I don't believe modern safety regulations and constraints even let you do that anymore without spending a large amount of money.

The Emira is as mainstream as lotus has ever gone and for that reason will likely be one of their most successful models. If you ask me it's simply down to spending their budget where it's best served. There are fairly light cars being made with adaptive suspensions that handle very well.

 

[Porter]

Personally I love that the dampers are conventional... makes it way easier to maintain/repair, and opens up a world of upgrades that would be difficult or annoying to implement if a car's electronics throw a code whenever the original (or equivalent) active dampers aren't present. German cars are notorious for this.

Putting something like Öhlins or MCS 2-ways on the car beats the pants off an expensive factory adaptive "upgrade" to a quality factory conventional shock, even when compared to something something OEM-plus in the aftermarket like the Bilstein Damptronic. In the end, the handling magic is in the particular design and execution of the valving itself, whether conventional or adaptive.

Great damper valving isn't cheap, and if you're spending money on shocks the money should generally go toward the valving rather than electronics. If Lotus offered a factory upgrade to adaptive suspension for $5k I'd much rather spend that money directly on these, which are $4870 for the Evora fitment.

 

[Pegasi]

Maybe the use of "fan boi" and "koolaid" turns people off from participating in the discussion too. Just a thought.

Plenty of Emira and Lotus enthusiasts here (that's part of the point of an Emira forum right?) but also lots of people who are petrolheads with wide experience of other marques. I'd hope we're not all blind to Lotus shortcomings (of which there are many) and that everyone is open to a well-reasoned discussion on those topics. We seem to have plenty of threads about poor comms, lack of ADAS and auto-blip, speed limiters, US buying process etc.

Back to the topic. So why is it that many others use adaptive dampers and Lotus don't? They seem to get numerous great reviews about ride and handling, plus they get called in by other companies to do consultancy on it.

I don't know the official Lotus answer on this and don't think I've read anything that answers it directly. There's plenty of stuff published on the Lotus approach to R&H but nothing I've seen that says "why Lotus don't do it that way". It's a good question and it would be interesting to hear what Lotus say.

Ok, I wasn't going to say anything because I thought TomE may know this. There is a video out there where somebody from Lotus talks about this directly and why they don't do it. It's related to Eagle7s post and my chassis post. I will try and find the video and post it.

 

[Porter]

FYI on the new Ferrari 296 GTB the car comes with standard adaptive suspension, specifically SMC-FRS magnetorheological dampers, unless you opt for the extra $40,000 Assetto Fiorano package which *upgrades* the car to Multimatic passive dampers.

 

[~el~jefe~]

A car should be stiff in its construction, and the suspension loose. stiff ='s poor design = cheap

 

[Climber]

Great insight, thanks for sharing

Makes me want the Emira even more

 

[Racer X]

FYI on the new Ferrari 296 GTB the car comes with standard adaptive suspension, specifically SMC-FRS magnetorheological dampers, unless you opt for the extra $40,000 Assetto Fiorano package which *upgrades* the car to Multimatic passive dampers.

Wow- an “upgrade” to passive dampers, that’s great! Score 1 for Lotus then.

 

[Climber]

Maybe the use of "fan boi" and "koolaid" turns people off from participating in the discussion too. Just a thought.

Plenty of Emira and Lotus enthusiasts here (that's part of the point of an Emira forum right?) but also lots of people who are petrolheads with wide experience of other marques. I'd hope we're not all blind to Lotus shortcomings (of which there are many) and that everyone is open to a well-reasoned discussion on those topics. We seem to have plenty of threads about poor comms, lack of ADAS and auto-blip, speed limiters, US buying process etc.

Back to the topic. So why is it that many others use adaptive dampers and Lotus don't? They seem to get numerous great reviews about ride and handling, plus they get called in by other companies to do consultancy on it.

I don't know the official Lotus answer on this and don't think I've read anything that answers it directly. There's plenty of stuff published on the Lotus approach to R&H but nothing I've seen that says "why Lotus don't do it that way". It's a good question and it would be interesting to hear what Lotus say.

I have the opportunity to purchase a Porsche GTS with adaptive dampers or one with a fixed sport suspension. I chose the one with a fixed sport suspension because of all the smiles of the people reviewing the car on YouTube maybe not the most scientific method but I’m really happy I’ve driven the ones with adaptive dampers and they do loosen feel. Looking forward to big smiles. I believe in lotus’s philosophy.
This is an individual choice made to please this individual only. We all get to choose. There is not right or wrong. Some like legs some like boobs some like it all. Life is wonderful you get to pick, for yourself.
Love this forum

 

[Pegasi]

I can answer this pretty bluntly. Adaptive dampers are a gimmick unless they are tied into a fully active suspension dynamics control system, which most cars with "adaptive dampers" are not.

Ok, I am still looking for the official reason for why no active damping, I have seen in it or read it. But your post is right on with the Lotus philosophy is seems.

Gavan Quote:

"Lotus pioneered true active suspension many years ago, but the production costs were prohibitive at the time, plus we needed a desktop PC to power the system! But now electronics and systems are smaller, quicker and cheaper, so production of true active systems – rather than active damping or active roll control – is realistic."

Ask the experts: what makes a great handling car? Gavan Kershaw | Evo

Gavan Kershaw - Attributes director, Lotus

www.evo.co.uk

 

[r1lee]

I have driven a few cars with adaptive dampers and most currently own The LC500. I can barely tell from comfort to sport +, and this is going across all the cars i have owned and driven. The fact that the Emira has no active dampers doesn't bother me so much, but still wanting to feel how the Touring edition feels vs Sport/Track.

Magnetic ride, now that is a totally different beast and that you can definitely feel and would recommend.

 

[Porter]

I have driven a few cars with adaptive dampers and most currently own The LC500. I can barely tell from comfort to sport +, and this is going across all the cars i have owned and driven. The fact that the Emira has no active dampers doesn't bother me so much, but still wanting to feel how the Touring edition feels vs Sport/Track.

Magnetic ride, now that is a totally different beast and that you can definitely feel and would recommend.

Don't be over-sold by the marketing. Magnetic ride or "MagneRide" is just one of several methods for changing damping rates on the fly. MagneRide is the (former) GM/Delphi brand name for magnetorheological damper technology. The business was sold as part of the Delphi bankruptcy to BWI Group in 2009. That's BeijingWest, so they're Chinese-owned now, not that it matters though, because the chassis tech and suspension company is still in Ohio.

But let's talk in specifics about the damper technology. Magnetorheological systems apply a magnetic charge to the fluid which changes viscosity as magnetic charge aligns the ferrous particles suspended in the fluid. Instead of a traditional shim stack valve system they have several static-orifice fluid channels in the piston head and an on-piston electromagnet array that applies magnetic charge to the zone around it, so the area of the fluid passing through the channels changes viscosity when/where it counts. Most of these systems are simply High/Low viscosity based on the fluid makeup, but there are a few that have 3 states. One challenge with magnetorheological dampers for ultra-high-performance applications is that the viscosity change isn't totally instantaneous, it can sometimes take 0.25 seconds or more for the change to occur, depending the particular damper tech and design generation, and also the age/condition of the fluid. That's just fast enough to be effective in most street driving conditions but not always enough for truly instantaneous changes of damping on the fly in response to active inputs. It can also sometimes be forced through the channels on large suspension impacts faster than the magnet can change the fluid state... and in fact this is used intentionally to generate high-speed and low-speed compression damping rates as the fluid velocity exceeds the viscosity rate-of-change. MagneRide is pretty neat technology overall and has huge potential for street driven applications where sporty adaptive suspension tech is desirable, because the fundamental design is inexpensive to build compared to the most advanced/capable alternatives.

The other major technology used for electronically-variable dampers is valve-actuated, or sometimes solenoid-actuated. The former is just what you'd expect, a valve that opens when current is applied, and changes the path of the fluid. The solenoid type actually has a valve duty cycle and can be opened and closed rapidly to vary the percentage of fluid that moves through a set of channels rather than just a single on/off fluid diversion. Both do essentially the same job.

The valve-actuated type typically has the same general design of traditional shim stack damper technologies underlying them as a passive damper, except with multiple hydraulic fluid paths through the system. Generally this type has a lot more quality variability than MagneRide. Valve-controlled dampers can be either quite inexpensive (as in lots of OEM adaptive suspensions) or can be very advanced, depending on the fundamental design of the control valve system and the design of the shim stack valving that controls the actual suspension motion. At the end of the day the quality of the handling outcome is largely dependent on the engineering of the main valving itself, just like in a passive damper. Cheap valve-actuated suspensions typically have cheap outcomes. Expensive ones can exceed the raw performance capabilities of something like MagneRide, particularly where instantaneous on-the-fly changes are needed repeatedly in a fully-active control scenario. But even without the fully active controls, a high quality valve-actuated damper in a simple adaptive system gets a high quality result if matched appropriately to the spring, and can deliver outcomes equivalent to the best passive dampers in the world if the valving is equivalent. It's all down to the valving in the end.

The solenoid type can merge the best of both worlds... instantaneous variability of fluid pressures in different channels (by programmably variable percentage!) combined with either static-orifice fluid resistance or shim-stack damping, or both, sometimes in creative ways. FYI the biggest R&D and tech outfit for the solenoid type is Moog, which was started by the cousin of the guy that founded Moog Music which pioneered the audio synthesizer. Moog Valves are used in Formula 1 suspensions, so these solenoid-driven variable damper designs underpin the most advanced active suspension technologies in the world. They're also used in a ton of different industrial and scientific and military equipment for this sort of purpose, and work in roughly the same way as a solenoid in a boost control system, or any other type of pulsed hydraulic fluid or pneumatic control. It's fun to me that electronic oscillation is an engineering discipline in common between music production and industrial controls, even though technically they aren't the same company. Clearly they shared some head space, which I think is pretty cool.

As always with dampers, real-world results for all of these systems often depend on the condition and quality of the hydraulic fluid and the age/condition of the parts. Any shim-stack valving based system tends to age a bit less gracefully than the MagneRide or other static-orifice designs, because the wear tends to be physical and also heat cycling naturally degrades the hydraulic fluid over time so the engineered viscosity of the fluid reduces. But all damper technologies are dependent in significant measure on the health of the fluid for performance and effective operation.


-pause for coffee-


Beyond the damper tech itself there are big differences in control technologies between adaptive and active suspensions. Adaptive (semi-active) tech tends to operate in high/low modes (comfort/sport settings) and has relatively minimal feedback from the chassis dynamics... you see this as the most common type of electronically variable suspension systems from most major OEMs. Fully active systems use continuous chassis dynamics sensors in an active feedback loop to the suspension controller, and adjust the suspension on the fly to either maximize comfort (sky-hook model) or maximize grip and handling at the expense of comfort (ground-hook model), or some combination of both. These systems (of any damper type) can exceed the real-world results possible with the highest quality passive dampers only if the damper itself is of high quality and the control technology enables meaningful variation at the right times based on dynamic conditions. Without both of those things being true, a good passive damper typically gets a higher quality outcome for the engineering dollar spent.

Fully active suspension technology with live dynamic feedback is relatively uncommon in passenger vehicles because it's both expensive to implement and also has a lot of different potential failure modes, including ones that can endanger the occupants if things go poorly. That being said, we are now seeing it more often in high end luxury vehicles and in the most extreme performance models, as the sophistication of onboard networked systems continues to increase and the marginal costs for real-time-processing computer control systems continues to drop. Most OEMs are continuing to hedge their bets around safety even in the most extreme applications though, and don't typically implement the kind of extreme performance-focused logic programming in active systems sold to the public that the systems are theoretically capable of. That stuff is still almost exclusively the domain of motorsport-specific development programs that provide engineering support to factory-backed and privateer motorsport efforts.

The aftermarket provides a few notable exceptions to that wall between motorsport development and vehicles sold for use on public roads... one example is DSC Sport out of Maryland, who I mentioned once previously. I understand they assisted GM with some tuning consultancy for their IMSA Corvette factory race team's MagneRide system on the C7R, and provided some input to the C8 production active suspension tuning as well after the initial real-world results for the factory system were not as predictable or finely balanced as GM had hoped. Despite the explosion of capable damper hardware from so many OEMs, the practical tuning expertise in this particular niche seems to still be quite limited. It's comparable to the early days of fully programmatic engine management systems, where factory development programs had all the newest technology but it took them a decade to build (or in-source) best-of-breed tuning expertise in-house.

I know this was long, but hopefully it helps provide some context on these technologies and where we currently stand with them, particularly as enthusiasts who depend on a complex automotive industry to provide integrated and tuned products to the marketplace so that we can enjoy them and/or criticize/deconstruct them.

 

[kratedisease]

Don't be over-sold by the marketing. Magnetic ride or "MagneRide" is just one of several methods for changing damping rates on the fly. MagneRide is the (former) GM/Delphi brand name for magnetorheological damper technology. The business was sold as part of the Delphi bankruptcy to BWI Group in 2009. That's BeijingWest, so they're Chinese-owned now, not that it matters though, because the chassis tech and suspension company is still in Ohio.

But let's talk in specifics about the damper technology. Magnetorheological systems apply a magnetic charge to the fluid which changes viscosity as magnetic charge aligns the ferrous particles suspended in the fluid. Instead of a traditional shim stack valve system they have several static-orifice fluid channels in the piston head and an on-piston electromagnet array that applies magnetic charge to the zone around it, so the area of the fluid passing through the channels changes viscosity when/where it counts. Most of these systems are simply High/Low viscosity based on the fluid makeup, but there are a few that have 3 states. One challenge with magnetorheological dampers for ultra-high-performance applications is that the viscosity change isn't totally instantaneous, it can sometimes take 0.25 seconds or more for the change to occur, depending the particular damper tech and design generation, and also the age/condition of the fluid. That's just fast enough to be effective in most street driving conditions but not always enough for truly instantaneous changes of damping on the fly in response to active inputs. It can also sometimes be forced through the channels on large suspension impacts faster than the magnet can change the fluid state... and in fact this is used intentionally to generate high-speed and low-speed compression damping rates as the fluid velocity exceeds the viscosity rate-of-change. MagneRide is pretty neat technology overall and has huge potential for street driven applications where sporty adaptive suspension tech is desirable, because the fundamental design is inexpensive to build compared to the most advanced/capable alternatives.

The other major technology used for electronically-variable dampers is valve-actuated, or sometimes solenoid-actuated. The former is just what you'd expect, a valve that opens when current is applied, and changes the path of the fluid. The solenoid type actually has a valve duty cycle and can be opened and closed rapidly to vary the percentage of fluid that moves through a set of channels rather than just a single on/off fluid diversion. Both do essentially the same job.

The valve-actuated type typically has the same general design of traditional shim stack damper technologies underlying them as a passive damper, except with multiple hydraulic fluid paths through the system. Generally this type has a lot more quality variability than MagneRide. Valve-controlled dampers can be either quite inexpensive (as in lots of OEM adaptive suspensions) or can be very advanced, depending on the fundamental design of the control valve system and the design of the shim stack valving that controls the actual suspension motion. At the end of the day the quality of the handling outcome is largely dependent on the engineering of the main valving itself, just like in a passive damper. Cheap valve-actuated suspensions typically have cheap outcomes. Expensive ones can exceed the raw performance capabilities of something like MagneRide, particularly where instantaneous on-the-fly changes are needed repeatedly in a fully-active control scenario. But even without the fully active controls, a high quality valve-actuated damper in a simple adaptive system gets a high quality result if matched appropriately to the spring, and can deliver outcomes equivalent to the best passive dampers in the world if the valving is equivalent. It's all down to the valving in the end.

The solenoid type can merge the best of both worlds... instantaneous variability of fluid pressures in different channels (by programmably variable percentage!) combined with either static-orifice fluid resistance or shim-stack damping, or both, sometimes in creative ways. FYI the biggest R&D and tech outfit for the solenoid type is Moog, which was started by the cousin of the guy that founded Moog Music which pioneered the audio synthesizer. Moog Valves are used in Formula 1 suspensions, so these solenoid-driven variable damper designs underpin the most advanced active suspension technologies in the world. They're also used in a ton of different industrial and scientific and military equipment for this sort of purpose, and work in roughly the same way as a solenoid in a boost control system, or any other type of pulsed hydraulic fluid or pneumatic control. It's fun to me that electronic oscillation is an engineering discipline in common between music production and industrial controls, even though technically they aren't the same company. Clearly they shared some head space, which I think is pretty cool.

As always with dampers, real-world results for all of these systems often depend on the condition and quality of the hydraulic fluid and the age/condition of the parts. Any shim-stack valving based system tends to age a bit less gracefully than the MagneRide or other static-orifice designs, because the wear tends to be physical and also heat cycling naturally degrades the hydraulic fluid over time so the engineered viscosity of the fluid reduces. But all damper technologies are dependent in significant measure on the health of the fluid for performance and effective operation.


-pause for coffee-


Beyond the damper tech itself there are big differences in control technologies between adaptive and active suspensions. Adaptive (semi-active) tech tends to operate in high/low modes (comfort/sport settings) and has relatively minimal feedback from the chassis dynamics... you see this as the most common type of electronically variable suspension systems from most major OEMs. Fully active systems use continuous chassis dynamics sensors in an active feedback loop to the suspension controller, and adjust the suspension on the fly to either maximize comfort (sky-hook model) or maximize grip and handling at the expense of comfort (ground-hook model), or some combination of both. These systems (of any damper type) can exceed the real-world results possible with the highest quality passive dampers only if the damper itself is of high quality and the control technology enables meaningful variation at the right times based on dynamic conditions. Without both of those things being true, a good passive damper typically gets a higher quality outcome for the engineering dollar spent.

Fully active suspension technology with live dynamic feedback is relatively uncommon in passenger vehicles because it's both expensive to implement and also has a lot of different potential failure modes, including ones that can endanger the occupants if things go poorly. That being said, we are now seeing it more often in high end luxury vehicles and in the most extreme performance models, as the sophistication of onboard networked systems continues to increase and the marginal costs for real-time-processing computer control systems continues to drop. Most OEMs are continuing to hedge their bets around safety even in the most extreme applications though, and don't typically implement the kind of extreme performance-focused logic programming in active systems sold to the public that the systems are theoretically capable of. That stuff is still almost exclusively the domain of motorsport-specific development programs that provide engineering support to factory-backed and privateer motorsport efforts.

The aftermarket provides a few notable exceptions to that wall between motorsport development and vehicles sold for use on public roads... one example is DSC Sport out of Maryland, who I mentioned once previously. I understand they assisted GM with some tuning consultancy for their IMSA Corvette factory race team's MagneRide system on the C7R, and provided some input to the C8 production active suspension tuning as well after the initial real-world results for the factory system were not as predictable or finely balanced as GM had hoped. Despite the explosion of capable damper hardware from so many OEMs, the practical tuning expertise in this particular niche seems to still be quite limited. It's comparable to the early days of fully programmatic engine management systems, where factory development programs had all the newest technology but it took them a decade to build (or in-source) best-of-breed tuning expertise in-house.

I know this was long, but hopefully it helps provide some context on these technologies and where we currently stand with them, particularly as enthusiasts who depend on a complex automotive industry to provide integrated and tuned products to the marketplace so that we can enjoy them and/or criticize/deconstruct them.

I need a mid term paper on physical property theory written for my physics class,..... can I just pay you to write it for me ? LMK

 

[r1lee]

yeah, i'm just going be experience. The magnetic ride on my R8 was fantastic when it was activated. I could tell a difference immediately vs active dampers.

 

[Porter]

yeah, i'm just going be experience. The magnetic ride on my R8 was fantastic when it was activated. I could tell a difference immediately vs active dampers.

This is sort of the point I was making earlier... the OEMs tune these things so you "feel a difference" as opposed to tuning them for ideal handling. The objective is to sell the upgrade package on a test drive.

 

[roundincircles]

I can answer this pretty bluntly. Adaptive dampers are a gimmick unless they are tied into a fully active suspension dynamics control system, which most cars with "adaptive dampers" are not.

For example, my BMW has M Adaptive suspension. The Comfort mode basically drives like a Camry. Weirdly under-damped, poor body control, and no road feel. The Sport mode is firmer, and handles more like it should, but is wooden and crashy over bumps due to too much compression damping and not enough rebound damping. They did this intentionally as a feedback difference to the driver, it makes it feel dramatically different when you press the button so there is "test drive gratification" but it sacrifices actual handling dynamics in order to give that sudden experiential difference that the button-mashers are looking for.

It's dumb. You can make a car handle spectacularly well with high quality conventional dampers without making it excessively uncomfortable, except in the most extreme track-focused engineering scenarios. You just need to choose the spring rates and valving appropriately, particularly around high speed and low speed compression damping.

Adaptive dampers add a huge amount of cost and usually don't pay off in handling improvement by themselves, because only one (or possibly none) of the modes will actually be correct for the spring. I think Lotus is absolutely right to avoid the adaptive trap for that reason. Save the money, engineer the suspension dynamics around the target wheel rate they want to achieve for handling, and then tune the sharp edges off the damping to make it livable, and maybe even outright comfortable. It's a solid formula with many decades of iterative refinement, so why mess it up with electronics and complexity.

All that being said, there is a place for adaptive suspension, and when done right it doesn't involve magic button changes between "Squishy" and "Rough AF". With proper valve-actuated or magnetorheological dampers, and tuned active dynamics control that constantly adjusts the dampers based on sensor-detected weight transfer, yaw, accel, decel, steering and throttle inputs, etc... that can truly be magic and can measurably increase the handling limits of a vehicle. But that doesn't come cheap, and except in the most extreme examples it doesn't come at all in factory form even if the dampers themselves support that type of tech. It's possible to upgrade to the real deal in the aftermarket though, like this: https://www.dscsport.com/

Hope this helps.

I agree. Adaptive dampers seem to be a gimmick that give two compromised choices. Lotus have focused suspensions…….one with comfortable ride quality combined with good handling and one with stiff body control and responsive at speed handling. Bravo.