Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 22:06:43 +0000 From: Grunff <grunffnopsam.com> Subject: Re: It's official - Saab on a deroute.....
pablo wrote: > Someone ought to tell that to Porsche, since their 911 -which most seem to > claim handles alright- uses McPherson struts. The early 911s were indeed a steaming pile of poo - but that was largely due to the ludicrous engine location (behind the rear axle). It took a *hell of a lot* of engineering to make it a decent car. > The fact is, even a multilink (and doublke wishbone) set up can be made to > be garbage. And all set-ups can result in very well handling cars when good > engineering is applied. It's myopic to just take a look at the very > fundamental approach and immediately assume it works better because of that. Absolutely - no one is saying that you can't have crappy double wishbone setups. But there is no doubt whatsoever that double wishbones are a far more elegant design than McP struts. The latter are chosen purely for cost purposes. The higher unsprung weight you get with McP struts, combined with the awful camber change characteristics makes them a compromise - they can't be anything more than that. While it isn't valid to directly compare track cars with road cars, it's worth bearing in mind that virtually all classes of racing cars (where cost is of much less importance) use double wishbones, not McP struts. This is down to their superior performance and lower weight (and also that they're easier to tune). Defending McP struts on the basis that it's what most road cars use is like saying that three point seat belts are superior to five point harnesses. -- Grunff
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
