The new Ford Mustang has a drift stick | Hacker News Reader

The new Ford Mustang has a drift stick

musclecarsandtrucks.com

25 pointsgeox64 comments

I'm really struggling to work out if this article was generated by an AI, edited by a non-native speaker, or is just what trade press journalism looks like nowadays. There's clearly chunks of text lifted from a Ford press release in here, and the sentences have been spliced together strangely, with missing verbs and articles.

I'm inclined to think this is just GPT-3 processing of a press release with a prompt to 'rephrase this as a news article'. There is no way a human hit 'publish' on this paragraph, right?

> Thanks to a segment-first electronic drift brake, new technology is brought to the racetrack. In turn, we get rear-wheel-drive drifting capability of the Ford Mustang with the visual appeal and functionality of a traditional, mechanical hand brake. The new Ford Mustang Performance Electronic Parking Brake was calibrated with the help of Formula D legend Vaughn Gittin Jr himself, comes standard with the Performance Pack on all Mustang models. Engineered for novice drivers to learn and improve their drift skills while providing expert drivers with a competition-ready system. Pull up on the drift stick and have fun.

Unfortunately, this is simply the state of automotive journalism in $THE_CURRENT_YEAR.

Rush to publish first?

As a life-long Mustang fan, that dash full of touch screens is really sad to see. We don't need drifting features, we need to go back to tactile controls. After all, no one should be fiddling with that dash in an off-road/racetrack scenario. While I was thinking of upgrading to a new Stang, but not if it's going to be this smartphone on wheels.

Initially I wasn't sure if this was about the legacy Mustang or the new electric crossover that they're also calling a Mustang. Overall, bad branding job by Ford IMO. More to the point of the article though, this seems like a dangerous gimmick to put on a street legal car.

The Mach-E will always be referred to by that term. I posit that any time you hear "Mustang" without a modifier for the next 10 years will refer to the sports car body, not the crossover.

Regarding Ford branding, I feel like they've done a similar thing with the Bronco Sport, which is basically a reskinned Escape as far as I can tell.

Feels like it dilutes the Bronco brand.

This appeals to me in a way that I think I'm a pretty niche audience.

I came of age a little late in the drift era of the early 00s, and my first car that I owned was a 1992 Trueno. I knew people in the local drift scene. Not really "before it was cool," but at least before it was tired.

My sister has _always_ been a Mustang diehard. Her dream car is a 60s Mustang fastback. She's owned at least three different Mustangs, and never owned a car that isn't a Mustang.

So this gets me the whole "sibling cred" angle, and the "drift feel" angle. Plus, I will probably be able to afford it when it comes out.

The real question is... will I be willing to buy an ICE car by the time I'm ready to buy a new car? Or... will I be living in a place where a car is unnecessary by then?

This seems more expensive than a traditional cable-operated parking brake without any obvious benefit.

Typically, an electronic parking brake is advantageous because it requires less interior space - just a button instead of a big handle. Handbrake turns and drifting are not a priority for most drivers, so little utility is lost. Here, they've added the large handle back in.

The benefit over traditional electronic parking brakes is fast and accurate actuation of the brake while moving and the benefit over a cable-operated parking brake is that the electronic system can apply much more braking force (4-5x iirc) thus locking up the rear wheel more quickly with less physical effort from the driver.

With modern engine management, esc, traction control, electronic diffs, clutch (I assume, otherwise stalling in the driveline from beginners) etc I imagine that the "E" bit of the brake is almost mandatory for coordination.

In fact, I am delighted by the mental image of a driver-assist AI wondering "WTF was that?!?" if a driver could pull a cable operated handbrake mid corner...

The mustang is a sports car, though. Nothing about it is targeting the priorities of most drivers. Ford has other models for that.

> This seems more expensive than a ... without any obvious benefit.

Nice summary of the last twenty years of the automotive industry's progress.

Can’t wait for the idiots in Albuquerque to drift around even more.

Do they at least make the left turn?

But e-bikes need speed limiters. Fascinating.

No one's taking a Mustang on pedestrian paths. Insert snarky video of poor driver crashing into pedestrians here, but it's a completely different market.

Class III eBikes, which are only legal on the road rather than trails, don't have as many restrictions.

> No one's taking a Mustang on pedestrian paths.

Just in case they do, the Mustang has pedestrian detection with night vision.

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2018-ford-mustang-f-150-add-...

But people are taking (or are intended to take) e-bikes on roads. So when there's terrible bike infrastructure and then the vehicles are hobbled to boot, it's disappointing to see all the new ways race car drivers can kill people.

You can get fast two wheeled vehicles pretty much everywhere except some Chinese cities… but you have to have lights, signals, highway rated tires, insurance, and registration. Seems reasonable to me.

E Bikes are limited due to laws in the country. You’re free to lobby to change this or exceed motorized bike limits to homologate and register as a moped or motorcycle.

Examples:

http://www.motorizedbicyclehq.com/motorized-bicycle-laws-sou...

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/moped-operation-requiremen...

Cars don't have speed limiters because otherwise their drivers wouldn't be able to get up to 130 mph on LA streets: https://news.yahoo.com/nurse-reached-speeds-130mph-crash-141....

For the same reason, cars need drift sticks otherwise takeovers would be less exciting: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-08-22/street-t....

Nearly all cars for the past 25-30 years have speed limiters. This is basically a universal feature on EFI cars.

They are not usually set to the maximum speed of some arbitrary legal jurisdiction, though. They are typically set to the maximum engineered capabilities of the vehicle: often limited by the speed rating of the factory tires. In the cases of hybrids or other electrics, they may be set to the safe RPM limits of the motors.

OK. Sure would be cool if they set them to a number that reflected the fact that there are other road users.

There isn’t a single value that is appropriate for all circumstances. Drivers have to choose the appropriate speed.

Well, there is a single value. It's called the speed limit. All roads in my country have one.

I trust you will support dynamic vehicle speed limiters based on the local limit when the technology catches up in a few years.

In the meantime, how about 100 mph (which is 15 mph faster than the highest speed limit in the continent of North America)?

The speed limit is absolutely not the right single value in heavy rain / fog / snow / etc.

The speed limit is also not the single correct value in case of some freak occurrence where it's better for everyone involved to exceed the limit briefly to avoid collision.

> The speed limit is absolutely not the right single value in heavy rain / fog / snow / etc.

Obviously. The number I suggested is 1) an upper limit not a lower limit 2) a limit, not a suggestion 3) lower than the current upper limit on pretty much all cars.

> The speed limit is also not the single correct value in case of some freak occurrence where it's better for everyone involved to exceed the limit briefly to avoid collision.

Sure. That's why I suggested a number higher than the highest speed limit in North America.

>Obviously.

Apparently not, as you insist on only a single value in your own post.

> The number I suggested is 1) an upper limit not a lower limit

How is that related to anything? Did you consider going even faster in rain and snow?

Speed limits aren't a single value, they are multiple values, because there are many different speed limits. 100 mph is way too fast to be going in a school zone.

My daily driver has road sign detection... it's going to be more than a few years before it catches up.

I don't know if you're being obtuse or if I'm being unclear. I know what a legal speed limit is. I don't think people should drive at 100 mph in fog or near a school. (Did you think I was saying 100 mph should be the lower limit?!)

Apparently, vehicles are currently limited by the manufacturer to something like "whatever is safe for the engine" rather than "whatever the engine briefly capable of". Sure. Didn't know that. Thanks for telling me that. Not relevant to my point, but interesting.

I'm suggesting, in the absence of technology that allows us to limit car speeds dynamically based on local conditions and laws, that vehicles driven on public roads should be limited to min(100 mph, "whatever they are currently limited to, which is an insane speed no one has any business driving at on public roads").

I chose 100 mph because it's a bit higher than the highest legal speed limit on the continent where I live. I'd be fine with a smaller number though.

I am suggesting that this proposal will accomplish nothing. It has no utility in preventing reckless driving, because 100 MPH is already reckless in >99% of scenarios.

Your proposed limit would only ever be hit by two potential people:

* someone who has a legitimate off-highway purpose for that speed

* someone who is already operating their vehicle at 100mph on a public road and still has their foot down.

What reckless driving has been prevented? None. In fact, only legitimate users have been impacted.

At best, we're just trading edge cases for edge cases. If we discount off-highway uses as an irrelevant edge case, then we can also discount the edge case that someone driving at 130mph did a harm to society but at 100mph they would have been prevented from doing so.

Are you suggesting the e-bikes are speed-governed based on engineering limits and not due to legislation?

No. Just cars.

If it doesn't have a speed limiter, it's a motorcycle.

My bike doesn't have a speed limiter. Is it a motorcycle?

Soooo.... a handbrake?

I'm confused about the novelty here - is it the new drift mode in the car, or is that the handbrake covers for an electronic system?

The article talks about the system. It provides assisted braking and a variety of other aids.

For the record, a third of new cars are still sold with a manual handbrake.

what’s the target audience? people shouldn’t be using this on public roads.

(i own a former formula D car. it never goes on the street)

It works as a regular electronic handbrake for those people who only use it on public roads. It only works as a drift brake in "track mode". Thanks to that drift thing though we get a normal-ish handbrake interface instead of a button, so that's great.

you... drive your car to a sanctioned drift event and use it.(?)

So you're going to wreck your good street tires? The stuff you want to drive around on is not the stuff you want to drift on.

as someone who used to drive their street-car NB miata to the track , packed with track-wheels ready to swap when I got there, I don't really understand your point.

Switching wheels at the event is extraordinarily common in SoCal -- so much so that many drift/circuit events have a place to check your street wheels at so that they're not stolen in the pits. This service used to be offered routinely at Willow Springs, my local stomping grounds.

The vast majority of people buying this cars are not going to be using it for drift events. So for the 99% of people who are buying it without intentions of tracking it, why is this there? At least on the RS it was something that could be added (albeit a bit silly.)

I'm well aware of how track cars and race cars work. I thought that would be somewhat apparent from my initial comment.

> The vast majority of people buying this cars are not going to be using it for drift events. So for the 99% of people who are buying it without intentions of tracking it, why is this there?

This applies to 90% of pickup truck drivers also - most of them will never really "need" the bed. People sometimes buy cars with certain features for bragging rights or to present a certain image. This is not new or noteworthy.

You have multiple vehicles and/or multiple sets of tires.

I personally have a dedicated track car with technically street legal tires that only drives to the track and back. It is not something you’d want to drive daily. All creature comforts have been removed and it is noisy and uncomfortable.

You can go all out with not being street legal if you have a truck and trailer but I don’t quite have that much space.

They are selling a street car, though. The vast majority of people who have this will not be tracking it. So why does it need a drift bar?

I'm very aware of how track and race cars work, thanks for explaining that.

Almost all track cars are currently (or started as) street cars. Amateur track days are really pretty popular these days.

Sports cars are made for motorsports. Always have been.

Yes, some people drive sports cars to the mall, and never race. Some people drive trucks in the mall and never tow anything. I wear running shoes to the mall and walk the whole time. Just because a handbrake lever is there doesn’t mean you have to pull it while you’re driving. I’m sure even your car will break the speed limit.

The vast, vast majority of people that own sports cars do not take their cars to the track.

So what? The world would be a sad place if bare minimum utilitarianism was required for all aspects of our life.

Nice things should be allowed to exist for the people who are responsible enough to enjoy them. If people break the law, then they should be punished. If they don’t, they shouldn’t.

In Denver, it seems the people doing this typically just steal a car.

It's ridiculous the same license in the US that allows you to drive a Corolla allows you to drive a race car on the street. With Biden fawning all over sports cars at the Detroit auto show I doubt anything with regards to car regulation will change in the US.

It doesn’t really matter what Biden thinks. He has almost zero power over vehicle licensing. The US government doesn’t even license drivers or set traffic laws.

He has control of vehicle regulations though. No one should have race car on street. Race cars should not be able to be driven on the street.

The federal government can really only regulate vehicles as far as they can regulate interstate commerce. They can tell automakers what they should make and fine them if they don’t follow those rules (and they sometimes just choose to pay the fines)

There are numerous vehicles on dealers lots today that are made in violation of federal requirements. Some are sold as “off road” vehicles. Some luxury and sports cars just flaunt fuel economy requirements and their automakers wrap the fine into the price of the car.

What actually is legal to drive on the street is almost 100% up to the states. Many states will allow you to register off road vehicles that don’t meet any federal standards as long as they meet the state’s requirements for roadworthiness. The states can and do put a license plate on whatever they want.

I agree, but I also think human-driven cars shouldn't go over 85mph, so I don't pretend to speak for any majority.

Plenty of places around the US where the population density is so low you could go 100mph all day on the highways with no problems.

Though I will say, it's wild that even what were once considered budget cars like the Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla can go 85mph uphill these days. There's probably a market for a cheaper car that can barely make it to highway speeds. Maybe in three years, when oil is $200 a barrel...

The Mirage is still for sale. All 78 horsepower of it.

The Mirage's top speed is supposedly 107mph, though I personally would not drive a car more miles per hour than it has horsepower.

Shit rolls down hill, I’ve heard.

I've never needed a hand brake to drift in a rear drive vehicle with plenty of power. It's already easy to oversteer and break the rear wheels loose. Is there something special about the new Mustang so that a handbrake is necessary for drifting?

Does it also have a top gun style heads up display to lock on to the coffee and cars crowd that you are about to crash into?

It's ridiculous this is a street legal car.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com