Dover.
I pretty much agree with everything you say. Where we diverge is in the sublties. It is easy to add too much mass in the horizontal plane. I went there in my tests. The trick is finding a compromise point.
Dynavector put the reason for high horizontal mass far better than I could. I agree with their conclusions.
Sarcher30 Dynavector's quote covers their views on this.
Further, from memory, the ET in standard form has a horizontal to vertical effective mass ratio of around 6:1. So it is already a differential mass arm. It is just that in my view this ratio is not enough. As per before I don't care what people think about this, they are free to give it a go, or not.
Also as before, I like what Mag dampening does right, I just cannot put up with what it does wrong.
I pretty much agree with everything you say. Where we diverge is in the sublties. It is easy to add too much mass in the horizontal plane. I went there in my tests. The trick is finding a compromise point.
Dynavector put the reason for high horizontal mass far better than I could. I agree with their conclusions.
Sarcher30 Dynavector's quote covers their views on this.
Further, from memory, the ET in standard form has a horizontal to vertical effective mass ratio of around 6:1. So it is already a differential mass arm. It is just that in my view this ratio is not enough. As per before I don't care what people think about this, they are free to give it a go, or not.
Also as before, I like what Mag dampening does right, I just cannot put up with what it does wrong.