Ive changed springs on them and had help setting them up from a couple competitive teams. They never felt "magic". Maybe my skills are lacking, but the Motons weren't very versatile handle different types of surfaces. As you stated, you can get them tuned for a very specific condition, but then they arent any good at another. They were completely different in cold track conditions and hot.

Simply looking at it from an engineering view, what Moton claims is a design advantage is actually a flaw. They claim running gas pressure in the shock reduces the need for higher spring rates. That, maybe true but its still a spring and its going to have different spring rate than coil springs, so now you have a compound spring that you have adjust for when tuning your set-up.

Why is having an extra spring in the damper set up a plus? Why do you want a spring in the damper? A damper should simply be a damper. The high gas pressure actually takes a way the Motons ability to dampen. Your damper system should be separate from the spring system. They have 2 different functions, introducing a large spring with in the damping system isnt a good thing. IMO, it is a design flaw.

That is the issue I had with the Motons, they felt great under compression but their rebound wasnt up to par and I went through all the rebound settings. The high gas pressure actually reduces its rebound ability. The car got unsettled in a wide variety of conditions. So much that I started see an imperfection and new I had to adjust for it vs simply pushing through it and not have to worry about it if I had a better damper. The less you have to think, the more confidence you have.

Again, just my opinion. So lets keep it focused on actual driving experience and not hint at peoples driving skills. We dont know everyone's level of driving experience, but you can tell from their comments if they dont know what they are talking about.

Questioning the norm creates good discussion.

 

True, but how many people are going to post something negative about a $5k purchase they made? To be clear, I think the Motons are a good damper, simply not a great damper. I dont think they are in the same league as other $4k or $5k shocks. A simple fact I can tell you is one of the dampers was leaking out of the box. Something that is disheartening you talked yourself into such a purchase. Having done some manufacturing consulting, you wonder how someone could charge so much and not have better manufacturing or at least some QA? I can tell you my suspicion was confirmed talking to an experience shock builder. The inside of a Moton doesnt compare to other high end shocks.

Moton ruled Lemans/GT racing for a few years in the early 2000's, but they were quickly surpassed by other manufactures. Could be they were a small shop, could be they got out sponsored? Ive personally read that better damping technology came along. The Motons were designed using the same philosophy as the JRZ. Hell, the guy left JRZ and simply tweaked the same design. The same basic design was carried over to AST and now MCS. Essentially the same core guys were all at JRZ, left and started new companies. All 4 shocks are essentially the same design with small differences.

Penskes magic is in the valving. They spent a lot of time there. Ohlins, went in a different direction and designed different type of valving for monotubes and even a completely different design all together with the TTX.

Back to the DFVs, there arent many negative comments about them either. Google "Ohlins DFV Reveiw" and you can find many positive reviews, from all skill levels on all types of cars. I agree with everyone's comments, may not be for the top 1% of national champions, but they are a versatile damper that works well on the street, track, hot, cold. You dont have to be a dynamics scientist to set them up.

 

Honestly I have heard lots of negative criticism about Moton/JRZ/etc. Everything from the lead times to get them, to damper variability and quality control issues, to old school technology in the rebound (It's a straight linear curve), to a lack of resolution (they don't have many settings so there's a big jump between settings), to a lack of revalvability beyond just extending the same curve into higher or lower force ranges, high gas pressure leading to weirdness, etc.

AST has fixed some of these issues, but time will tell if they have introduced any new problems. But regardless, they tend to work well. I don't think they are the best but no one can question that they are able to achieve good lap times, especially for autocross where low speed compression is king.

I think the DFV is not a bad choice at all, as I said for someone looking for a compromise at a little cheaper price point. Really the main problem is to be competitive with the best shocks (on an S2000 specifically) I'm pretty sure they need a revalve, which at that price you should just get something else (even Ohlins's own TTX). The Penske would be the closest - $3500 plus if you pick up some springs that's another $200 so you're looking at $3700 (everyone keeps mentioning top hats but you don't need top hats with the penske, you can just use the stock ones, which the ohlins top hats offer no advantage over - actually a disadvantage since the top hat is used as the upper spring perch in the ohlins so you lose spring articulation independent of the body). Or there are other choices like the Penske 7500 or AST 4150 that are in the same price range as the DFV and would be able to compete with the top shocks and are double adjustable.

So bottom line, they're worth talking about here but at the same time there are good reasons why the nationally competitive guys go with something else.

 

 

you wont find another environment or racing situation where you can actually drive PAST the limit of the cars capabilities. On a race track very few people can do that and even then, if you go 11/10ths your most likely endangering yourself or your fellow competitors/racers on track. Autox is a perfect CONTROLLED environment that is timed. IMO its the perfect way to test racing equipment as the times will reflect in tenths of a second amounts of change rather than 1-2 second variations. Just look at the Bridgestone RE-11A test done by Tunerplayground. Only one of those guys knew how to properly autocross, every one else improved in seconds on a much larger than typical autox course. IMO that is a poor test. At least with National SCCA competitors driving S2000's you are able to generate a more controlled environment as most drivers can drive very consistently and will blatantly tell you what is considered fast and what is not by driving the piss out of the equipment.

Now, I understand that this "Coilover kit that is SA" is targeted more for the tuner crowd and is ways a step ahead of the other "tuner coilovers" (Tein, Ksport, Fortune auto...etc) as it was done right for the affordable market and for those with less experience. We are explaining that the price seems rather high in the bang for buck region for us who are looking for top quality racing equipment. Im sure the same technology exists in the TTX version of Ohlins, so we go that route or (Penske, Koni 2012, Koni 3011, Motons, MCS... etc).

Now i'd be happy to test a set and tell you straight up whether or not its fast enough to be SCCA competitive, but im not sure that's what you are looking for. I understand you are trying to support the products that you sell, but try not to make it sound better than what it actually is. An introductory, well sort-out, tuner coilover kit.

 

Yes, you can drive in a controlled environment for a few minutes.

I do appreciate the information but I don't think there is any point in comparing how any part performs in Autocross to how it might perform in other forms of motor sport. It is in no way the gold standard test environment for anything other than autocross, simple as that.

I really pity people that thing autocross national championships are a reasonable way of determining the quality of a damper.. as it is the only type done in that controlled of an environment, not to mention no real high speed corners, elevation change, the list could go on. That is another discussion though, I don't mean to be confrontational I just don't think autocross should be held to the standard that it is.

So anyone have something other than autocross impressions?

 

I included impressions about the Ohlins DFV's on the street, autocross, and track in my review thread. One of the most impressive things about them on the track was that I just had to make a small damper adjustment after the first session of the day, then didn't have to touch them at all for the rest of the day (5 sessions). There seemed to be zero change in damping as the temperature went from a bit cool to friggin' hot, nor did it seem to change from lap to lap.

 

No one's saying that if a shock wasn't part of the list that trophied at the autocross national championships that it's crap, or vice versa that because it's on there it's awesome. All it really says is that it's not crap if it's capable of performing at that level. Sure there could be better options out there, that driver might just have been that good to make up for not great shocks. Plus it reflects what the people at the top of their game prefer to use, which is good info.

Your opinion that you don't care about autocross testing since you're not going to autocross is valid and I can understand it, but it's not one shared by most people, and it's one I personally disagree with. Autocross is probably the most strenuous test of a shock since you have bumpier sites, and lots more going on - inputs are changing so fast, the shock never gets a rest. There are elevation changes - sure you could argue that the national championships isn't a great test of that since it only has moderate elevation changes, but sites like the DC prosolo I guarantee there is no track in the world with elevation changes like that. And, as oinojo made a very good point about, top level autocrossers drive at 100%, nothing left out there. You'd have to be insane or filthy rich or both to do that on a track.

Track testing is much less strenuous - the shock honestly doesn't even do all that much other than a basic function of damping the springs without upsetting the car if you run over a curb or something. There's much more steady state operation where the shock does next to nothing. You mention a lack of high speed corners in autocross being a reason it's not useful testing, but from the shock's point of view if you're cornering at 1.3 g's at 60 mph that's no different in any way than if you're cornering at 1.3 g's at 120 mph.

I actually would bet the DFV would be better in a track environment - some of the things it has to do in an autocross environment that it doesn't don't really apply to track, so that part of your point makes sense. But it still won't be on the level of the top tier stuff.

 

 

Thanks Gernby

Yeah you make some good points for sure. Looking at the DC prosolo event, to be, a parking lot is a parking lot whether it is on the side of a hill or not, I would say every major circuit around the world has more elevation change than that. I am talking ear popping elevation change, mid corner bumps/curbs that can upset the car at high or low speed, also weather, which I am sure plays a big part in autocross as well.

Cornering at 1.3 g's at 60 and 1.3 at 120 mph is dramatically different if you are going over even a small bump mid corner, so yes I would say it is useful testing, but again it wouldn't be useful information for people exclusively doing autocross. So while a shock definitely gets some serious use and abuse in autocross, the track can definitely throw entirely different things in the mix.

I really do appreciate the info. My replies should definitely be taken with a grain of salt as I come from this mindset: Winding road>Track>Autocross, but I do always try to take them all into consideration, as I think there is a great deal to learn from all of them.