|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
You are not logged in. Would you like to login?
Offline
Hi
I make the IRS FORD designed for the 1965 Shelby GT-350. You can read about an hour's worth of tech articles, patent info, and magazine stories about the IRS on my web site www.mustangirs.com
The best intro to the subject is by reading the 2 articles that appeared in RACE CAR ENGINEERING. They are listed under the MEDIA section. Just for fun, check out ALL THE KING'S MEN video in the same section. I used to own THE LAST OF THE KING COBRAS which set in my garage attic for decades. It's now being restored by the original Shelby team. Fun !!
Please feel free to write me on this forum, or at ctm913@hotmail.com.
Thanks
and thank you Daze
Last edited by Daze (6/08/2011 1:53 pm)
Offline
Thanks for the post Duane. I have read all the articles and some more than once. What a great little known story about IRS design pioneered by Ford and Klaus Arning. I'm sure it was hard to part with such a piece of history.
Ralphy 
Offline
Duane, WELCOME TO THE FORUM!!! got any pictures of the Mustang IRS that are not on your web site??? if you email them to me I can post them for you.
Offline
Duane, would you agree with this statement. Some toe/steer is better than none?
Offline
so correct me if I am wrong... as I often am but is the "rear steer" nothing more than built in bump steer??? and being built in the wheels react is a specific way given cretin suspension travel?? If that is the case I can see how that would vastly improve cornering, BUT would it not be problematic on bumpy roads when attempting to go straight?? Not trying to be critical at all, just trying to fully rap my head around it. From my point of view everything in life is a trade off and I am just trying to see the trade off in this particular situation. If I have totally missed the point pleas educate me
Offline
I think you hit on it pretty well. But the amount of toe is very minimal. Maybe about .15 degree per inch of wheel travel. Trying to read the chart on page 116. The toe in angle numbers are 0, .1,.2, .3, etc... Angle A is the camber link angle and Jounce angle would maybe be the half shaft angle. Some other features included would be elongated wheel base under jounce. Moving the rear wheel back. Also anti squat/dive with the forward link being at an upright angle. Another interesting read on the chart is that the toe motion is pretty damn equal plus or minus!
Off roaders would not be interested.
The rear mounted shock makes sense also!
Last edited by Ralphy (6/09/2011 6:50 pm)
Offline
HI
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, everything in suspension design IS a compromise. The only proof is in the driving. Porsche & Mercedes paid Ford a license to use the anti-squat / steering feature for years. They finally figured out how to add a 5th bar to get around the patent. It all really works, as Gurney said about the GT-40 at LeMans, "It's really easy to go fast in this thing."
Duane
Thread StarterOffline
I hope I didn't offend. I was just trying to see all the parts of the picture. I have no doubt that it handles and drives well. Arning was a brilliant man and I am sure that what he designed is a fantastic piece of engineering. So is unwanted steering noticeable when going over a bump or is it so minimal that you don't even feel it??
Offline
Duane does mention in one of his videos that initially it seems (feels) to oversteer. I would have thought the opposite.
Last edited by Ralphy (6/10/2011 8:09 am)
Offline
here is a picture Duane sent me of the IRS unit. man is that a slick set up!!!!!
Offline
Hi
Glad you liked it. As Cris Campbell Hot Rod editor said after back to back drives in a 66 Mustang "This is the one thing you can do that makes most difference in how these cars handle." That's probably a paraphrase, but it's been awhile. Incidently Cris was going to install a T-5 in his '67 Ranchero until he got "down sized" from HRM.
Thread StarterOffline
I saved the photo and flipped it 180.. Now it's easier on my eyes!
Offline
By the way, I have 3 or 4 Jag center sections from various years and Jag aluminum hub carriers I'd like to get out of the garage. They were part of the transition from the Dana 44 used in the original IRS back in '65...to the current Ford 9 inch. Make me an offer.
Thread StarterOffline
Ralphy wrote:
I agree, the picture is way easier to look at this way
Offline
Hi Guys
Thanks for flipping the pic. It's supposed to look that way unless you are in a ditch. By the way, a good caption for that pic is "SIMPLICITY IS THE ULTIMATE SOPHISTICATION" Da VINCI
Duane
Thread StarterOffline
Then explain this? No stereo or horn, LOL!
Today's cockpit a little simpler. 
Last edited by Ralphy (6/13/2011 7:35 pm)
Offline
No cup holders neither.
Thread StarterOffline
No cup holders neither.
I don't know Duane, whats that thing in the second picture all the way to the left and centered vertically, just to left of the yoke
Last edited by Daze (6/15/2011 7:02 am)
Offline
Looks like a LARGE ash tray to me. Remember when everyone smoked everywhere ??
Thread StarterOffline
Hi
I am looking for a copy of the suspension design software written by the late George Mitchell...titled WinGeo3. Apparently it is no longer on the market. Have a copy you'd like to sell? Duane Carling 801 725 7664 www.mustangirs.com ctm913@hotmail.com THANKS
Thread Starter
1 of 1