Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicLabMonkey
What the hell are you even talking about? If you think the suspension geometry/kinematics are responsible for fatigue failures under off road racing conditions you clearly don't know the first thing about suspension design in particular or machine design in general. Stop whining out of your ass about a vehicle that does exactly what it was designed to do, namely cart people around public roads in a fun, safe and 'sporty' manner.
If previous gens happened to hold up better on rally stages that is because their parts were overdesigned for the intended (street) usage, which by the way carries a cost & weight penalty along with it. Welcome to engineering - where products are gradually optimized over time to meet design targets (which rally stages are not part of), and have gradually less safety margin as real world loadings during intended usage are better understood.
|
Alex is using the apparent weakness of the dual A arm setup as compared to the previous macpherson strut setup as an example of the direction he doesn't want to see these cars going. And he clearly tells you why. You get it, but you genuinely enjoy being dick on the internet...and we get that.
There is no gradual optimization/safety reduction occurring. They simply chose to replace one technology for another to save space and improve road handling.
I've learned some cool things from your posts throughout the years, since you have a background in some very interesting automotive technologies, but I'm kind of sick of weeding through your douchery to get to that part. Carry on as you will.