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.
|
The problem you are actually having is that you are talking about stuff no one even brought up in the manner you seem to think. Your first post into this discussion was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic
The whole live axle vs IRS is a ridiculous debate. Billy Johnson is right from a technical standpoint. But he is also speaking from a professional standpoint, which most of are not.
The main difference between a live (stick, solid, or whatever you want to call it) vs IRS is grip and consistency. When a wheel connected to a live axle hits a bump, both wheels are affected in terrible ways. It completely throws off the handling to all but the best of drivers.
IRS is a benefit when a wheel hits a bump, the opposing wheel is still settled, the handling characteristics on the opposing wheel haven't changed. This creates consistency and predictability for handling in the majority of conditions.
The point being is that when you see Mustangs closing in on M3 lap times, everyone points it out as the Mustang being as fast and as good as the M3. But the reality is these those lap times are close because professional drivers have the ability to correct for the Mustangs weaknesses.
You put weekend warrior track day drivers in those two cars, the driver in the M3 will consistently outperform the Mustang driver by a large amount. The Mustang driver will have their hands full every time they clip an apex and roll over rumble strips.
Live axle technology is good for just one thing, price. If there were little difference between live and IRS, why does every high end race car have IRS?
|
Right from the start, you immediately bring it up as a debate....which no one did.
M4a, the person who brought up Billy Johnson, even said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by m4a1mustang
Let's face it, the Mustang *shouldn't* be live axle. It should have ditched it a decade ago. But they didn't. And it didn't help that for the longest time they handled like crap, so everyone just assumed stick axles can't handle. By the time they actually put together a serious chassis and got the geometry right... that's a hard stigma to shake.
|
before you ever stepped into the conversation.
It is also crazy funny to me that you like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck33079
A properly designed IRS is better than a properly designed solid axle. The Mustang still handles very well with a solid rear. Is it ideal? No. Will it be perfectly fine for the 99.9% of us who don't make our living behind the wheel. Of course. The solid rear isn't the reason I didn't buy a 5.0. It's the interior.
|
and yet, completely ignore:
Quote:
Originally Posted by m4a1mustang
Let's face it, the Mustang *shouldn't* be live axle. It should have ditched it a decade ago. But they didn't. And it didn't help that for the longest time they handled like crap, so everyone just assumed stick axles can't handle. By the time they actually put together a serious chassis and got the geometry right... that's a hard stigma to shake.
|
because you want to argue against Billy Johnson.
