DennyTuna
RIP-Logan-Dylan-Never forgotten!
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2017
- Messages
- 732
- Age
- 62
- Location
- Ohio
- Country
- USA
- Snowmobile
- 18 Winder LTX 50th
16 SR Viper RTX (red)
02 SX Viper ER (red)
97 SX Vmax 600 (red)
Levi did a video breakdown on this this new shock package, my take from him is the 3 settings are not needed as softest setting did everything the best. Rode the best on stutters, handled big bumps just as well as the firmest setting and loaded the outside shock like sport mode while cornering. So not any better than Doos smart shock package other than it has a cool display showing shock firmness.
As I understand it, the main difference between dynamix (IMU based) adaptive shocks and smartshocks are;
Smartshocks will know sooner about a change in terrain and it can react to very granular changes. The strength of smartshocks is that it can react on a shock by shock basis. Lets say you take a hit on one ski, the SS system can tell the difference between a single ski hit and a larger bump that effects the entire sled and can react accordingly by in/de-creasing damping to a single shock. Another example would be sharp sudden drops such as dropping into a creek bed. SS will see the drop as an extension of the shock length independent of the attitude of the chassis and can react quicker and it can do so on a shock by shock basis.
An IMU based system like dynamix can only react once the chassis attitude changes and because it is reacting to a change in the attitude of the chassis (pitch/roll/yaw/heave) it is hard for dynamix to separate what caused an event from what is happening to the chassis and so must react across the entire suspension system. For instance a small single ski hit that did not upset the chassis would probably be invisible to the system. A bigger hit would have dynamix applying correction on all shocks to some degree as the entire chassis is a single unit. In the small drop scenario it would be blind to that small sharp drop unless the chassis also drops, it will in fact be blind to anything that does not upset the chassis, at least thats how they talk about it. It will be slightly behind the curve in reaction compared to the SS setup because the input (bump) must travel through the shock and upset the chassis before it is taken into account. Pragmatically I don't think this makes much difference with properly tuned shocks and IMU based systems have a couple of advantages. They understand the difference between roll as induced by cornering and roll as induced by say running sideways across the face of a hill. They are also far more simple to implement as they do not require connections to the sensors on each individual shock or point of measurement. The algorithm it runs is likely much more simple. Easier to implement, less wiring, less weight. The tradeoff is less fine grained control over the shocks and a bit more delay in reacting to the terrain.
Smartshocks will know sooner about a change in terrain and it can react to very granular changes. The strength of smartshocks is that it can react on a shock by shock basis. Lets say you take a hit on one ski, the SS system can tell the difference between a single ski hit and a larger bump that effects the entire sled and can react accordingly by in/de-creasing damping to a single shock. Another example would be sharp sudden drops such as dropping into a creek bed. SS will see the drop as an extension of the shock length independent of the attitude of the chassis and can react quicker and it can do so on a shock by shock basis.
An IMU based system like dynamix can only react once the chassis attitude changes and because it is reacting to a change in the attitude of the chassis (pitch/roll/yaw/heave) it is hard for dynamix to separate what caused an event from what is happening to the chassis and so must react across the entire suspension system. For instance a small single ski hit that did not upset the chassis would probably be invisible to the system. A bigger hit would have dynamix applying correction on all shocks to some degree as the entire chassis is a single unit. In the small drop scenario it would be blind to that small sharp drop unless the chassis also drops, it will in fact be blind to anything that does not upset the chassis, at least thats how they talk about it. It will be slightly behind the curve in reaction compared to the SS setup because the input (bump) must travel through the shock and upset the chassis before it is taken into account. Pragmatically I don't think this makes much difference with properly tuned shocks and IMU based systems have a couple of advantages. They understand the difference between roll as induced by cornering and roll as induced by say running sideways across the face of a hill. They are also far more simple to implement as they do not require connections to the sensors on each individual shock or point of measurement. The algorithm it runs is likely much more simple. Easier to implement, less wiring, less weight. The tradeoff is less fine grained control over the shocks and a bit more delay in reacting to the terrain.
Last edited:
Simplespeed
Expert
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2022
- Messages
- 498
- Age
- 65
- Location
- 1191 Sauk Lane , Saginaw, Mi. 48638
- Country
- USA
- Snowmobile
- 2006 Apex , 2017 Sidewinder LTX -LE
Until they get these electronic shock systems perfected on the race tracks, in the deserts I think I will stick with what has been proven. I see more fault codes with these systems and trips to dealerships for the average consumer..
What remains to be seen is how well the electronics stand up, and by that, I primarily mean how well the harnesses stand up over time. I think most riders will be super happy with the results.
