Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic
The problem I had is the consistent insistence that a live axle is just as good as an IRS to make a car perform well at a track. And then when that couldn't be argued, the insistence it doesn't matter. Of course it matters. That is why car manufactures spend time and money to develop these systems. That's why the cars in most track racing have it. But the live axle guys have dug their feet in because they can't deal with the fact that their cars are using inferior tech. The Mustang, one of the most recognizable marques around the world, has made forays into IRS (bad or otherwise) just for this very reason. And I'm the one that should let it go? Ford sure isn't, their next gen will offer IRS.
If you start putting other factors in there like good/bad setups, other applications, of course it muddies the whole argument, and avoids the original point.
|
You're still missing the point. All this discussion has ever been about is to dispel the notion that the Mustang CAN'T handle because it is equipped with a live axle, when time and time again it has proved it CAN.
No one is trying to argue that the live axle is just as good or better than the IRS. All we're doing is shooting down the uninformed that assume that just because a car has an SRA means it can't handle, and that just because a car has IRS it can (and doesn't need brakes, apparently.)
We have in fact AGREED with you that IRS is a superior design (when done correctly, of course), but for whatever reason you choose to ignore this.
"IRS is the superior design."
"I know."
"How dare you say SRA is better! IRS is superior!"
"I know."
"WHAT?!?!! How dare you disagree with me!!!"
