This a good thread and is at the core of future off-road suspensions.
I concur and have mentioned here before that you will see a lot of things happening with not only
the by-pass tubes but also with the fluid displaced by the shaft or “reservoir oil”. Depending on
mounting methods, the shock can have total control of wheel movement. I believe it is Ryerson who has an ingenious coil over/bypass shock. It uses a longer body (or shorter spring) and has a single by-
pass tube mounted upon the top 4 to 5 inches of the body, above the spring. This is the most important section of piston travel in any off-road shock as it can absorb the energy of the hardest bumps before
bottoming and/or keep it from bouncing back out when the spring is compressed all the way. As
mentioned, this particular shock is longer than a typical coil-over counterpart. This could be done more efficiently with an internal by-pass arrangement.
What Bob is saying is also promising with regards to electronically controlled shocks. This would likely involve “pulse width modulated” valves. This is a high tech label for a variable flow valve which is computer controlled. Actually these are inside of all electronic transmissions and most electronic fuel injections. The electronic part would be relatively easy to setup. These valves can take a lot of heat and are very reliable, but the problem is flow. None of these valves flow anywhere near enough fluid for off-road racing. However, they could be used to control a modulating or relay valve to do the heavy work. I see no reason why they could not be an integral part of the shock piston itself. This would eliminate bypass tubes. With a little homework, and duplicating existing position and flow parameters, the starting point of performance of this arrangement would be about equal to that of the best by-pass shock. It’s not that far away.
What pattern to modify is also a good question. That's why I mention starting off with existing parameters of a good working system. The programming and speed of the computer could enhance and improve performance to be sure. However to go much farther it may take input from the driver. At the present time, the people inside the car are the only possible input as to what is coming up with the terrain and turns. For the computer to calculate on-the-spot for all possible conditions and speeds without driver input is imaginable. But, like all other enhanced electronics, would require more comprehensive programming, more sophisticated sensors, and higher operating speeds. With enough sophistication it could control roll, sway, dive, squat, and everything else except good old driver error.
<font color=orange>The best ideas are the ones that look obvious to the casual observer.</font color=orange>
