This thread is so aggravating. So much completely off-target "scientific" analysis. Why would you even bother looking at what is clearly a software-only datapoint (the commanded duty cycle or damping %) and drawing a conclusion about the actual physics? The only way someone's readings would be different for the same situation is if they had different software, and yet it's like talking to a brick wall suggesting that we take a step back and look at the physical examples.
Mine is noticeably different. Sport is stiff, Comfort is softer/smoother, and Track mode is bone-jarringly stiff. I can tell instantly within 500 ft of driving which mode I'm on and go remember to switch it back if needed. It works exactly as designed in my opinion. So did my Raven. FAR more noticeable than all the other adaptive suspension cars I've owned - Corvettes, M3s, AMGs, etc.
Nobody doubts that Steve's and other cars may not be working as expected - it's a Tesla, it's shocking that so many of us are working. But we are. It's not a design flaw - there's just something wrong with some peoples' cars apparently. OR, maybe, just maybe, their cars are working fine and they just aren't noticing the differences. Who knows, but it's like pulling teeth getting someone to just go sit in a working car and stop posting the same drivel in these threads.
My console lights are reversed and my ARNR seems to sit on Calibrating for hours, then randomly decide to be calibrated and working, and at some point it will start generating a drone sound that reminds me to go turn it off until it decides to turn back on and calibrate again. I'm no apologist for these wonky cars, which are still the best I've owned...