Adaptive Dynamics

(19-05-2012 05:05pm)evoquemayne Wrote:  This should clear everything up, for those that haven't seen the video that was posted and are still confused.

That clears nothing up, its a silly chart that doesnt really represent anything

I don't agree. Especially given that this is a Land Rover chart used specifically to communicate the difference that Adaptive Dynamics makes (which is the central theme of this entire thread).

Judging from recent posts, many people remain confused about the effect that the addition of AD has on the vehicle. Whilst it is not a technical chart, it doesn't represent nothing. In fact, it shows that the key point which people seem to be concerned with (ride comfort) is improved by it's inclusion, and certainly not, as some continue to fear, compromised as a result.

I'm struggling to see how it's "silly" in the slightest.

What that graph shows is the increased range of response the AD brings to the car over a non AD car. AD does not mean stiffer, it means the ability to vary the dampers/shocks to react to the road condition. What dynamic mode on means is a change to the way it reacts, the effect of this change feels stiffer and more sporty, but when dynamic mode is off it still actively reacts but in a way that feels softer and more comfortable, either way the monitoring of the suspension and constant vary of the damping gives a better ride. Normal dampers simply have a single level of damping and will react the way the damper is configured without any active varyability whatever the road surface throws at it.

+1

(19-05-2012 07:08pm)evoquemayne Wrote:  I don't agree. Especially given that this is a Land Rover chart used specifically to communicate the difference that Adaptive Dynamics makes (which is the central theme of this entire thread).

Judging from recent posts, many people remain confused about the effect that the addition of AD has on the vehicle. Whilst it is not a technical chart, it doesn't represent nothing. In fact, it shows that the key point which people seem to be concerned with (ride comfort) is improved by it's inclusion, and certainly not, as some continue to fear, compromised as a result.

I'm struggling to see how it's "silly" in the slightest.

What i meant was, its not scientific in any way, it's just a diagram drawn by someone. It doent have a scale or anythng. How did they measure these abilities? What does it actually mean?

(20-05-2012 08:40am)ED209 Wrote:  What i meant was, its not scientific in any way, it's just a diagram drawn by someone. It doent have a scale or anythng. How did they measure these abilities? What does it actually mean?

This is how I interpret this graph. Feel free to raise the bullshit flag on me...

The blue hexagram is a normalization of standard suspension performance, the yellow shape around it is adaptive dynamics performance in function of standard suspension performance. The distance from the center point of the blue hexagram to the edge is the reference (or scale). The length of the center of the yellow hexagram to a corner divided by the length of the center of the hexagram to the corresponding edge of the yellow area gives you an idea about how much (in percentage) adaptive dynamics increases performance in a certain area.

As per the graph, ride quality is increased only by a small percentage (around 5% maybe?) whereas the biggest improvement would be in body control and dynamic breadth (around 20-25%?).

(20-05-2012 09:55am)Kimv Wrote:  This is how I interpret this graph. Feel free to raise the bullshit flag on me...

The blue hexagram is a normalization of standard suspension performance, the yellow shape around it is adaptive dynamics performance in function of standard suspension performance. The distance from the center point of the blue hexagram to the edge is the reference (or scale). The length of the center of the yellow hexagram to a corner divided by the length of the center of the hexagram to the corresponding edge of the yellow area gives you an idea about how much (in percentage) adaptive dynamics increases performance in a certain area.

As per the graph, ride quality is increased only by a small percentage (around 5% maybe?) whereas the biggest improvement would be in body control and dynamic breadth (around 20-25%?).

but how do you measure dynamic breadth??

In fact is dynamic breadth even a tangible thing?

I am sure the adaptive dynamics does make a small difference but that diagram is just marketing material

Out of curiosity how do you know if the car had AD on? If you have AD you have the dynamic "winding road" on the terrain options?

(20-05-2012 11:20am)ED209 Wrote:  but how do you measure dynamic breadth??

In fact is dynamic breadth even a tangible thing?

I am sure the adaptive dynamics does make a small difference but that diagram is just marketing material

I agree with you on this. It is all very subjective. I'm sure there are people who prefer standard suspension over what AD has to offer.

(20-05-2012 12:34pm)zambiaman Wrote:  Out of curiosity how do you know if the car had AD on? If you have AD you have the dynamic "winding road" on the terrain options?

Yes, and you either paid £1,500 more (so you would have noticed) or bought the dynamic.

I paid the extra on my Prestige, and i am glad i did. Apart from Most of the reviews saying it's a must, I think it is great. The most noticeable thing about AD for me is when you corner, the suspension stiffens to stop the car leaning too much, and also over speed bumps, it feels like it steps up and down speed bumps and curbs rather than the usual bouncy feeling.