Originally Posted by rockville,Aug 29 2010, 05:47 PM

Nunco,

I'm a big believer in the idea that the devil is in the details. Far to often people claim some design trait is always better than some other trait without really knowing what they are talking about. The Corvette's mono-leaf is certainly a great example but in that case it has NO inherent mechanical disadvantage (it does lose out on cost). A live axle is in most ways inherently inferior to a good IRS setup.

However, there are two big caveats that I would mention. First is that just because something is IRS doesn't make it better. The swing axle designs used on many German cars had many issues that hurt handling. Second the devil is in the details.

Right now we have been told the Mustang out handles both the Camaro and Charger. Of course we don't really know why. We can use that as proof that IRS doesn't guaranty better handling but we also can't take that to mean IRS isn't better. Of course I think this is your point.

However, I would disagree that similar track times equals similar handling. I'll use the example of the Star Formula Mazda vs the Formula Continental/F2000. Both are SCCA formula cars. The Mazda really is a lousy car that's relatively speaking low tech, over weight and generally gets decent lap times due to good power to weight. Having a big motor they can also run a good bit of wing to get the downforce needed for cornering. The FC/F2000 cars have similar lap times but have a lot less power. They have to use their power efficiently since they can't simply run big wings to get good cornering speeds. While these two cars turn nearly identical lap times the way they do it is much different. The FC is about conservation of momentum and fast cornering speeds. The FM is about acceleration and fast speed on the straights. We have the same results and the unsophisticated car turns a similar lap but the way we get there is much different. Also the way the cars drive is much different. Again the FC is very precise in it's handling and can be tuned to a very high degree. The FM is crude in comparison and the inherent limits of the chassis and allowed suspension options prevent the car from reaching the level of precision achieved by the FC.

My point to all that is we can't assume the more subjective aspects of handling just by looking at the numbers. BTW, this shouldn't be taken as a slight against the Ford. I think it's great that Ford has a car that compares so favorably to the BMW. Of course it could also be that BMW is slipping
Either way great job on Ford's part.

Originally Posted by NuncoStr8,Aug 29 2010, 07:24 PM

I cited the 3-link and panhard bar because that's what's there. Most people's conception of a Mustang rear suspension is a Hotchkiss design, where the axle is bolted to leaf springs. Interestingly enough, that's also the uninformed picture of a Corvette suspension when its leaf springs are mentioned.

If the results show that Car A with suspension design X is just a fast around a road course as Car B with suspension design Y, how is it logical to assert design X is superior and design Y is inferior but accidentally works as well? Wouldn't the rational response be to suggest that in their current implementation, they are equally capable?

Review after review declares the Mustang solid axle a non-issue. As much as one can insist the solid axle is a detriment to performance driving, the reality says it's not. Is it the last word in suspension design? Certainly not. Nor are A-arms or multi-links or any other design. They each have benefits and drawbacks. But when a particular design works well in a particular application, it makes no sense to say "It's still inferior." If it works well, it works well. Why not just leave it at that?

There's plenty of examples in the automotive world of design solutions that are not theoretically ideal but still deliver results good enough to render the point moot. Might as well slag GM for using pushrods, BMW for using straight sixes, or Porsche for rear engines. "Ideal" is fine and all, but in the real world, ideal is rarely realized and so the difference between ideal and less than ideal is often nil.

Originally Posted by rockville,Aug 30 2010, 12:11 AM

tarheel91, equal tires isn't really fair either. What do we define as equal. Two cars may not be tuned for the same tires. The F2000 guys who run SCCA and F2000 pro series have to use different set ups when they switch from the open tire rules of SCCA to the spec tire of the pro series. If they don't change setups for the different tires the cars won't work correctly. This would get even harder if we are talking about cars with dissimilar tire sizes. So the "same tire" idea has a fundamental issue above and beyond the difficulty of implementation.

The other issue with a same tire race is do we consider fastest better? I'm sure you agree that just because car X is faster than an S2000 doesn't mean it handles better or is more enjoyable to drive. Heck, in my view a 240hp 3L Honda V6 would make the S2000 a better car (assuming minimal weight gain) than the 2L or 2.2L stock motor. So assuming my theoretical 3L S3000 was no faster would it be a "better car"? Well that depends on what you want out of your motor.

Again, I suspect you already agree with me on that point... the same speed != just as good... you may hate my 3L S3000 idea

Originally Posted by rockville,Aug 29 2010, 08:47 PM

However, I would disagree that similar track times equals similar handling. I'll use the example of the Star Formula Mazda vs the Formula Continental/F2000. Both are SCCA formula cars. The Mazda really is a lousy car that's relatively speaking low tech, over weight and generally gets decent lap times due to good power to weight. Having a big motor they can also run a good bit of wing to get the downforce needed for cornering. The FC/F2000 cars have similar lap times but have a lot less power. They have to use their power efficiently since they can't simply run big wings to get good cornering speeds. While these two cars turn nearly identical lap times the way they do it is much different. The FC is about conservation of momentum and fast cornering speeds. The FM is about acceleration and fast speed on the straights. We have the same results and the unsophisticated car turns a similar lap but the way we get there is much different. Also the way the cars drive is much different. Again the FC is very precise in it's handling and can be tuned to a very high degree. The FM is crude in comparison and the inherent limits of the chassis and allowed suspension options prevent the car from reaching the level of precision achieved by the FC.

Originally Posted by tarheel91,Aug 29 2010, 06:31 PM

Are you seriously going to cite this review as proof of the solid rear axle's abilitities after I just tore it to pieces? It's a piece of bullshit through and through. From statistics to engineering, it fails on every front in terms of performing a good comparison. This review isn't the exception, either. As I said earlier, these people are journalists who like cars and not engineers who can write.

Unless we have a completely stock racing series that puts equal tires on all the cars (hint: how good the tires are is a lot more important than the suspension set up), we really won't know which is truly faster.

To be clear, I'm not saying the M3 is faster because this review is wrong, I'm saying this review doesn't mean a thing either way.