The 1WNR is just okay. I feel like it's the equiv of buying a Porsche 944. It's high quality and well made but still is there base model. For me I had to set the rebound pretty high to be happy, over dips and lower speed damper movements. It being a Linear shock , I found that to be restrictive. They are fantastic on the track but on the street it's just okay.
I wish I had got the 2WNR, because my 1WNR don't ride that well and the digressive sounds really nice for changes at the track. Hopefully one day I'll get to try them or the 3W
"First, I have to correct a mis-statement.. The droop and compression travel for the MCS/Karcepts applications (1WNR, 2WNR, 2W, 3W) are all the same; no dimensional differences. We do not recommend bump stops in our coilover configurations no matter what MCS damper you run (as they generally create non desirable effects, and you will have more than enough spring rate to prevent any bottoming out). It is true that remotes have the ability to have more stroke per body length (this would be beneficial on say the rear of an NA/NB chassis); but on the ND application, the bodies are plenty long where no compromises have to be made for the non-remote variants.
As far as converting one damper to another, it can be done as MCS states, but there are still quite a number of differences between all the variants that the upgrade cost is often higher than selling your old dampers and buying new dampers. The very good resale value on used MCS makes this the smarter move if wishing to upgrade to a higher level.
Valving: D3lusions03 is mostly correct here. The 1WNR and 2W have conventional shim stacks so there are many valving options. The main thing to note is the 1WNR and 2W use linear pistons by default (but can also be made digressive if desired). The 2WNR is a totally different animal internally, does not have a shim stack, and is only digressive in nature. However, the 2WNR does has a very broad range of valving, and even without a shim stack, there are a couple of adjustments that can be done internally to manipulate its valving. There is an internal spring to change the overall range, and then the use of bleed plugs on the piston can be manipulated. Last year we tweaked the valving on this damper slightly with very positive results. For example, Mark Shrivastava was the Day 1 STR leader at Nats in 2019 with these changes. All 2WNR dampers sold since the middle of last year have our tweaks implemented with our Karcepts Spec setup.
All of MCS’s product line is amazing, which is the reason this is the only high end damper we desire to sell, support, and utilize in competition. In the case of MCS, you do get what you pay for. If you can swing the cost differential of the 2W over the 2WNR, I would recommend it. Likewise, between the 2WNR vs. the 1WNR. That still does not take away from the lower models. You just get a little more for your money as you progress through their product line.
To break it down, the 1WNR being linear in nature, has the trait that MCS does well, which is making higher sprung vehicles ride extremely nice. I have tested 3 nearly identically prepped chassis on the same course, same tire, and same day: 2x with Ohlins and 1x with MCS. The MCS 1WNR car had the highest spring rates, yet felt the most compliant over the bumps and turned the fastest times. That experience sold me on MCS. For a customer looking for a race capable damper, but not wanting to get confused with too many adjustments, the 1WNR will be excellent in both street and race trim.
For a little extra money, you can go with the 2WNR. Those who like to have more control over adjustments will appreciate this damper over a 1WNR. Being the 2WNR is digressive in nature, each click you make on either the rebound or compression side will be extremely noticeable in race trim. Digressive valving will typically be able to supply higher force outputs at lower shaft speeds than linear valving. When shock adjustments are made on digressive valving, the adjustments will feel extremely noticeable for a driver because that low speed shock movement is affected more significantly vs the high speed shock movements. To clarify low vs. high speed, high speed shock movements are observed when the car hits a sharp bump in the road (bridge seam, railroad tracks, etc.). Low speed shock movement are seen at the damper in response to your steering, throttle, and braking inputs. So while the 1WNR being linear valved will manipulate the compliance over bumps better, the adjuster won’t make huge effects on the roll/pitch control of the vehicle from driver inputs like the 2WNR will. For an autox car, the 2WNR really gives the racers a lot in regard to feedback and control of the chassis. These dampers are also extremely successful in NASA where guys get hit with points penalties for having remote reservoirs, so you will see a lot of track guys on the 2WNR’s as well. The only downside observed from having digressively valved dampers is if you run too high on the valving, those really fat low speed forces start influencing the ride quality where you will feel the bumps more than you would on linearly valved, which is where the 2W comes in.
The 2W damper MCS offers is really their flagship damper and worth every penny IMO (but yes, not within everyone’s budget). Being valved linear, you automatically get a very compliant ride, even with very high spring rates. The added large volume remote canister with internal blow off valve further aids in the bump compliance these dampers offer. If you are slamming into curbs on the race track or have a very bumpy autox surface, this is where these dampers shine. Other racers may complain of a bumpy section of a course affecting their car; but if on a 2W, you may not know what they are talking about. MCS is also one of the few to use very large diameter shafts. As the OP mentioned, the 2W uses 22mm diameter shafts vs. 16mm for the non-remote options. This is done to increase the response of the damper by pushing more volume of fluid through the piston for a specific increment of travel. Other brand dampers with remotes typically give 16mm or smaller shaft size, where you will have to pay another $1k+ for larger shaft options. What can be seen on the dyno graphs (and also observed behind the wheel) is this larger shaft results in more low speed damper forces (mainly on the compression side). What I feel is amazing about the 2W is you get that similar feel to having digressive valving like the 2WNR, where the damper adjustments control a lot of the pitch and roll of the vehicle that racers appreciate when trying to dial in their vehicles, but you still maintain the super compliance that linear pistons and remote reservoirs offer, keeping the tire stuck to the roughest of surfaces. "
As far as converting one damper to another, it can be done as MCS states, but there are still quite a number of differences between all the variants that the upgrade cost is often higher than selling your old dampers and buying new dampers. The very good resale value on used MCS makes this the smarter move if wishing to upgrade to a higher level.
Valving: D3lusions03 is mostly correct here. The 1WNR and 2W have conventional shim stacks so there are many valving options. The main thing to note is the 1WNR and 2W use linear pistons by default (but can also be made digressive if desired). The 2WNR is a totally different animal internally, does not have a shim stack, and is only digressive in nature. However, the 2WNR does has a very broad range of valving, and even without a shim stack, there are a couple of adjustments that can be done internally to manipulate its valving. There is an internal spring to change the overall range, and then the use of bleed plugs on the piston can be manipulated. Last year we tweaked the valving on this damper slightly with very positive results. For example, Mark Shrivastava was the Day 1 STR leader at Nats in 2019 with these changes. All 2WNR dampers sold since the middle of last year have our tweaks implemented with our Karcepts Spec setup.
All of MCS’s product line is amazing, which is the reason this is the only high end damper we desire to sell, support, and utilize in competition. In the case of MCS, you do get what you pay for. If you can swing the cost differential of the 2W over the 2WNR, I would recommend it. Likewise, between the 2WNR vs. the 1WNR. That still does not take away from the lower models. You just get a little more for your money as you progress through their product line.
To break it down, the 1WNR being linear in nature, has the trait that MCS does well, which is making higher sprung vehicles ride extremely nice. I have tested 3 nearly identically prepped chassis on the same course, same tire, and same day: 2x with Ohlins and 1x with MCS. The MCS 1WNR car had the highest spring rates, yet felt the most compliant over the bumps and turned the fastest times. That experience sold me on MCS. For a customer looking for a race capable damper, but not wanting to get confused with too many adjustments, the 1WNR will be excellent in both street and race trim.
For a little extra money, you can go with the 2WNR. Those who like to have more control over adjustments will appreciate this damper over a 1WNR. Being the 2WNR is digressive in nature, each click you make on either the rebound or compression side will be extremely noticeable in race trim. Digressive valving will typically be able to supply higher force outputs at lower shaft speeds than linear valving. When shock adjustments are made on digressive valving, the adjustments will feel extremely noticeable for a driver because that low speed shock movement is affected more significantly vs the high speed shock movements. To clarify low vs. high speed, high speed shock movements are observed when the car hits a sharp bump in the road (bridge seam, railroad tracks, etc.). Low speed shock movement are seen at the damper in response to your steering, throttle, and braking inputs. So while the 1WNR being linear valved will manipulate the compliance over bumps better, the adjuster won’t make huge effects on the roll/pitch control of the vehicle from driver inputs like the 2WNR will. For an autox car, the 2WNR really gives the racers a lot in regard to feedback and control of the chassis. These dampers are also extremely successful in NASA where guys get hit with points penalties for having remote reservoirs, so you will see a lot of track guys on the 2WNR’s as well. The only downside observed from having digressively valved dampers is if you run too high on the valving, those really fat low speed forces start influencing the ride quality where you will feel the bumps more than you would on linearly valved, which is where the 2W comes in.
The 2W damper MCS offers is really their flagship damper and worth every penny IMO (but yes, not within everyone’s budget). Being valved linear, you automatically get a very compliant ride, even with very high spring rates. The added large volume remote canister with internal blow off valve further aids in the bump compliance these dampers offer. If you are slamming into curbs on the race track or have a very bumpy autox surface, this is where these dampers shine. Other racers may complain of a bumpy section of a course affecting their car; but if on a 2W, you may not know what they are talking about. MCS is also one of the few to use very large diameter shafts. As the OP mentioned, the 2W uses 22mm diameter shafts vs. 16mm for the non-remote options. This is done to increase the response of the damper by pushing more volume of fluid through the piston for a specific increment of travel. Other brand dampers with remotes typically give 16mm or smaller shaft size, where you will have to pay another $1k+ for larger shaft options. What can be seen on the dyno graphs (and also observed behind the wheel) is this larger shaft results in more low speed damper forces (mainly on the compression side). What I feel is amazing about the 2W is you get that similar feel to having digressive valving like the 2WNR, where the damper adjustments control a lot of the pitch and roll of the vehicle that racers appreciate when trying to dial in their vehicles, but you still maintain the super compliance that linear pistons and remote reservoirs offer, keeping the tire stuck to the roughest of surfaces. "
Phil from BimmerWorld here - No, the MCS 2WNR is NOT being discontinued. I am not sure where that originated but if this information stemmed from us, then I believe there may have been a miscommunication somewhere along the way. We have been testing some different 2WNR designs with MCS for the F8X chassis that we are extremely excited about. The new designs are aimed to increase the control of the damper when used with spring rates that we would consider on the high side. The 2WNR damper in its current form is a fantastically capable damper, but just like your iPhone 11 was pretty sweet, there were some things that Apple could do to rub on it and make an iPhone 12 that is even sweeter (I know this example may not resonate with everyone but the improving technology principal remains).
The 2WNR really is a damper that was made to fit within a certain set of constraints or rules where two adjustments are allowed but no external reservoirs - what that means is that you are trying to package a lot into a little. In its crudest form, what you are doing with a damper system is moving around and displacing fluid. And MCS does this better than anyone else out there with a Non-Remote system. With the packaging constraints of a Non-Remote system you are limited on the volume/capacity available to be displaced. Move to a remote reservoir system and you more than double the volume of the fluid/gas which gains a lot of compliance and performance over a wider range of situations. If you are not trying to fit into a certain set of rules, and having two adjustments is of utmost importance to you, you will want the Remote Reservoir system due to this increased capacity. An analogy we use here often is that it's like trying to make 300 Hp out of a 2.3L S14 4-cylinder versus a 4L S65 V8 - the S65 does it with ease due to capacity.
So no - the 2WNR is not being discontinued, but we are working with MCS on an alternate version which may have led to a misunderstanding. And the current version is still being built, sold, and run on track very successfully.
The 2WNR really is a damper that was made to fit within a certain set of constraints or rules where two adjustments are allowed but no external reservoirs - what that means is that you are trying to package a lot into a little. In its crudest form, what you are doing with a damper system is moving around and displacing fluid. And MCS does this better than anyone else out there with a Non-Remote system. With the packaging constraints of a Non-Remote system you are limited on the volume/capacity available to be displaced. Move to a remote reservoir system and you more than double the volume of the fluid/gas which gains a lot of compliance and performance over a wider range of situations. If you are not trying to fit into a certain set of rules, and having two adjustments is of utmost importance to you, you will want the Remote Reservoir system due to this increased capacity. An analogy we use here often is that it's like trying to make 300 Hp out of a 2.3L S14 4-cylinder versus a 4L S65 V8 - the S65 does it with ease due to capacity.
So no - the 2WNR is not being discontinued, but we are working with MCS on an alternate version which may have led to a misunderstanding. And the current version is still being built, sold, and run on track very successfully.
I wish I had got the 2WNR, because my 1WNR don't ride that well and the digressive sounds really nice for changes at the track. Hopefully one day I'll get to try them or the 3W
Comment