On Jan 17, 10:11 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> ACAR wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 6:57�pm, cf...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (M.A. Stewart) wrote:
> >> But MacFarty's wonky struts are inherently wonky. Look at what Honda did with
> >> the Civic when they went to "MacFarty struts"...
>
> > yeah, they built a TypeR that can outhandle a S2000.
>
> > we can debate betamax vs VHS next; same theory/practice argument.
>
> drifting is not handling big guy

the link at Edmunds is to a 3-lap race at a road course in Japan.
some drifting by the S2000, not entirely intentional
try it, you'll rice it.
[there's more to the story as there were other "heats" taken by a
lightly modified S2000]

- there's limited tire adhesion, so the
> problems of geometry are lost in the overall slippage. that's why you
> have macpherson on rally cars and wishbone on [successful] circuit cars
> - one slides, the other doesn't.

I'm not disputing the theoretical superiority of double A-arm
suspensions for the pavement. (As you know, part of the beauty of this
design is the flexibility to engineer in (or out) the handling/
response desired.)
I'm disputing the blanket assertion that all double A-arm suspensions
are better than all MacPherson struts suspensions. The last Accord we
bought is a competent handling car but nothing more.