RC000E

Yeah, what I'm curious to see is, all factors being equal, what this new setup will get you. Like I said in the other thread, looking forward to some new PDR comparisons.

descartesfool

Not really buying into Tadge's response on this. It's just too much of the corporate line. As in you have to use certain tires like the PSC2's and not the PSS's with the Z07 suspension, you have to use this suspension with this aero, etc.

I just bought an AMG GT-S. There is an optional aero package with front splitter and larger rear wing. You can just tick the box if you want it or not, independent of any other option you add. No need to get a specific package to add the aero package. Then you can get the Dynamic (made for track pack) which gives you a stiffer set of springs and dampers along with extra power from 6000 RPM up, all for faster lap times. When you tick that package, you get the option of the car's tires as Michelin PSS's or PSC2's for no charge. So the track suspension can work with either tire, with or without the aero package. Then you can get the carbon brake option, with any tire, with any suspension option, with any aero option.

So if Mercedes can do it, and let's face it they have won the Formula 1 championship 2 years running, then it can be done. So just not buying the Tadge line on this one.

Gary '09 C6

^ very likely development cost constraints and product price placement have led to the final "choices" that Tadge & Jim discussed (much appreciated detail, b-t-w).

skank

I agree. And to add confusion to Pobst comments, in the video he said he turned off the electronic stability controls on the Viper. Did he turn off the Stability controls on the ZO6 as well?? I believe Pobst typically turns off the nannies for these tests and therefore would explain the oversteer condition on the ZO6. Maybe the Porsche as well. Regardless, the Vettes numerous configurations are probably better controlled with the nannies on. Tadge has always said that even a pro driver is faster with the nannies turned on than off. I can see why they don't want to expand any more permutations to their already complex stability control package.

RC000E

I think the biggest difference is...everything.

Mercedes...look at their brand. Porsche...look at their brand. These are brands that began upon excellence and purpose. AMG is that internal group additionally, that Corvette just doesn't have. Doing something like the AMG GT-S is just another day at the office for them...the company is on a whole different level.

Corvette...is "chevy"...they make trucks and econobox's and manage to bust out a pretty cool car using stuff they have to share with trucks and grocery getters.

Corvette has really reached above Chevrolets "pay grade" if you will, and looking at the AMG GT-S or Porsche GT3, then talking about a Corvette...it's not even apples to oranges, it's Macallan 25 vs Jack Daniels, Aria vs the Golden Nugget...it's a nice warm bidet versus a Pilot truck stop.

93Rubie

One thing is for sure Tadge is right about chassis tuning being part art/part science. Honestly, in many ways it comes down to driver preference. I prefer a looser car. Some people like a car that understeers a bit more. I think the real answer here is if you want YOUR car to act like YOU want it to, you need to experiment and tweak stuff. If you don't then leave it alone as the factory delivered it.

FlamingZ06

I am not very familiar with PDR, but if it datalogs steering angle, I would think we would see your reactions to the snap oversteer problem you mentioned (or the 360 u did as a result).

Always a good idea to record and catalog sessions after making changes...

I typically think of snap oversteer as occurring when the suspension is heavily loaded, which I would have thought would be past the point when the compliance of the swaybar bushings would be in play.

Supercharged111

Doesn't it seem halfassed for GM to lean on the nannies to make the car faster? Shouldn't it be balanced without the nannies to begin with? This is what Pobst is talking about. Furthermore, my car is faster with everything off. Some corners the car just likes to hang out a little, just the way it is. Even comp modes cuts in on my fun, faster to sacrifice rubber and hammer down with everything off in my C5. And if you can't turn the nannies all the way off in the C6, it's likely a moot point in the C7.

skank

Torque management on a car where throttle tip-in is 457ft/lbs and 650 max. Everybody is doing it.
http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/chev...owerhouse.html

Supercharged111

I'd be shocked if TM was significantly different with nannies on vs off.

CPhelps

Fighter jets are designed inherently unstable such that computer assistance is required to fly them, because it grants them increased maneuverability. I think we're getting to the point where sports cars are starting to be similar to that.

mustclime

Give me anything...what did you learn from that post? ZERO data given. Spring rates? Weight change numbers with the added down force and how it effected suspension tuning? % changes in bushing hardness? Shock dyno charts between the different shocks? Differences in the unsprung weights between carbon and steel brakes and how it effects suspension tuning? Differences in weights between the 2 tires and how it effected the suspension tuning? Real numbers in how the different grip of the 2 tires effected suspension tuning....they could have really explained something here but instead chose to give us fluff....because we as a forum continue to show our selves to be a bunch of old fat guys that are more concerned on why our car looked bad in a magazine than how the cars are set up and how to improve them.

Mr. Peabody

Whose example should they be following .. with this release of engineering data that you are castigating them about?

Supercharged111

It's not always for increased maneuverability. Sometimes it's for a low radar signature. Porsche uses it to cover up its inherent instability, Mitsubishi uses it to cover up inherent understeer. Subara seems to get by with less help by use of a more balanced car to begin with. The Corvette is a front engine (front midship at that) rear drive platform that is inherently well balanced from the get go. Why they'd then configure it to be fastest with the nannies on not just with Joe Shmuckatelly behind the wheel, but also a pro driver, strikes me as odd.

RC000E

It's not odd really. Dampers working in bound and rebound work to maintain contact patch and traction in various circumstances. Surfaces have varying frequencies and when it comes to this current gen mag ride system, it simply knows more about the surface and traction parameters than ANYONE does...pro or not. There is no question a pro driver can dangle the car more on the edge of control and stability, but a system monitoring the surface and acting as that little bit extra SHOULD equal accessing a use for the tire that only electronics, in extreme circumstances are capable of accessing.

In the end, while pro drivers have very specific throttle, steering and braking control, there are times when electronics can supplement that skill set and make that person even faster. After all, we see these traction management systems in racecars...on the C7R, so they do work.

I don't think there is any dispute that the setup on the C7Z is pretty supreme, but Pobst admit he used it. When you're talking about a car at the limit, you almost bring the chassis engineer and the "drivers" into play.

Mero and team are attempting to serve all parties behind the wheel, but Mero, at the limit, may simply like the car a certain way. This is why you've seen manufacturers bring in big racing names for feedback. Had Senna not been involved in the early gen NSX, that car would've been an entirely different machine. Engineers brought it to the level they thought was a finished product and Senna instantly suggested changes.

I think there is SOME validity in saying that whoever worked on the chassis balance of the ACR did a great job. Calling a car on that level, almost EASY to go fast in....that's a hell of an achievement.

AUTO_X_AL

Did i miss the part with the explanation of when the Z06 trickle down parts like Brakes and aero were validated specifically to be thrown on a Z51???

If i'm reading this correctly, my last statement just invalidates the argument of "Specifically tuned' parts for specific cars. I may be way off and parts bin items like the brakes and aero are just so good that they are coincidentally optimized for that specific setup and validated as such. Yeah, that is probably it...

atljar

This is going back a ways, but a couple of Vettes ago I had a C5 with F45 adjustable shocks on it. Of course the shocks went bad and were like 1000 each to replace...

Long story short, you could install standard shocks into the car and take a TechII and hook it up to the car and program a C5 Z06 program into it and eliminate all the codes from the wrong shocks being in it. I dont see why you couldnt do something similar here and upload the "wrong" software into the car. This no way was endorsed by GM, but it was very do-able with their own equipment.

FlamingZ06

Hey, if identical parts (and programming, which is the really "tricky" part) can work on both the Z06 coupe and convertible, why not the Stingray (Z51 of course, we couldn't expect it to be validated for the base)?

FlamingZ06

We did the same thing for a customer when we put coilovers on his ZR1. Had to in order to avoid "reduced speed" limiter.

AUTO_X_AL

Unfortunately, all of these people hacking cars are going to force GM to increase the security protocols with ECM, TCM, BCM and etc. It's not going to be easy to get into them to do any work. I want to put the T1 Shocks on my MR car but until I can get a cal to tune out the MR, I'll stay away to avoid codes and warning messages.