Very interesting thread, philosophically speaking. I can only really answer from the performance perspective.
Interesting comments, FWD and performance has and will always be a tough market. But what is the likely hood of electrical sensors failing versus mechanical things breaking? And the second order effect of those sensors being out of harmony causing more issues or the guessing game of whats possibly wrong with my car? Everyone dreads the engine light... A mechanical LSD breakage would pretty much be catastrophic but what about something simple like those electronic throttle body sensors versus a mechanical cable unit? I know its pretty much the evolution of cars, but it sounds like the laptop is replacing the wrench in the toolbox.
FWD as a performance standard only lags behind from a consumer perspective for the same reason that some insane percentage of people still think Honda is the top marque for quality/reliability. Because conventional wisdom holds on far longer than reality. FWD cars are just as capable if not moreso from a performance perspective in real-world stress. Just look at the GrandAm Continental Tire standings from any given week. And for every thing that a RWD car can do better in that series, a FWD car can do something *different* better. So it becomes a game of exploiting strengths and weaknesses. Even on the consumer level, at a track day, this is still true. The FWD as the weaker drive setup myth is exactly that. Its an historically-based myth, but still untrue.
In a race, mechanical failure/damage is much more likely than sensor failure. Almost no question. Not saying the latter doesn't occur, but not at nearly the same rates as mechanical failure.
If a sensor fails or something else is out of whack, the car is now smart enough to prevent catastrophic failure. If something mechanical breaks, you have little to no warning and catastrophic failure can lead to severe injury or death in the wrong circumstances.
Not to mention fixing an electronic sensor or recalibrating it is FAR cheaper than having to fix a car after a catastrophic mechanical failure like a LSD.
Making cars cheaper, lighter, safer, and easier to maintain is something people should be happy about. If you long for the good old days of mechanical stuff and whatever, buy an older car that contains what you want.
The answer to which one is more dangerous depends entirely on the circumstance. On the track, you may avert catastrophic failure, but you're still done. On the street, a malfunctioning electronic braking system is just as deadly as a blown tire, or can be, at least. There is no easy answer to that particular dilemma, but mechanical failures aren't inherently more dangerous than electronic ones. Again, historically speaking, that may be the case, but as we move forward, it is no longer normative.
I agree that, in general, cars are being made much, MUCH better by technology. More on that later.
I think technology is good. It's why cars are getting better not worse.
I agree.
Technology is the difference between the ST being a decent car...for a hatch...and being a driver's car. As one reviewer said, there's no way as a driver that you could apply brakes on just the inside wheel, just the right amount, to defeat the understeer inherent in FWD cars.
If I had the choice of a mechanical LSD or the system the ST has, I'd take the system the ST has. It can do 90 percent of what an LSD can, with a lot of other tricks that are dynamics dependent, a necessity for a FWD car. If the choice were between an electronic clutch mechanical LSD, I'd prefer that. But it would still need some of the tricks of the ST's current system.
I draw the line at manual shifting autos. That is a piece of technology that takes away much of the fun of manual shifting.
Take away the technology, and you're left with an MS3, which is an unwieldy terror of a car.
As far as LSD is concerned, I feel like with the exception of inclement weather, a traditional LSD isn't getting much of a workout anywhere but the track. Honestly, they are overrated as a factory option, except in the cases where competition will be the norm. My buddy with a non-LSD MX-5 could still run faster than my LSD unit at the track...because he was a much better driver. It wasn't until the upper level of performance that he started to suffer for the lack of it.
As far as the inside braking is concerned, I absolutely LOVE the idea, and think it could be WAY better than an LSD. Especially on the street. However, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I am withholding judgment on the track because I think there will be undue stress on the braking system, depending on how involved the system is. I may be proven wrong, but I'm skeptical. But I think you're being conservative on the 90% of a mechanical LSD. I think its actually way better.
I disagree with you on the manual-auto tranny (at least a true clutched or sequential system), but that's another story. It is incredibly useful and better in a performance setting, and doesn't lose you any control at all.
I agree in the case of the ST that it would not/could not be the car it is without the tech available today, and I probably wouldn't be buying it. So from that perspective, for Ford, this is a win.
On a more universal level, I fear that tech is a double-edged sword that is heavily weighted in favor of idiocy, ignorance, and irresponsibility in public-sector driving. There are a lot of passive safety techs that have been very problematic for me in the recent past. From non-defeatable nannies on some makes (or very difficult to disable - I'm looking at you Toyota/Lexus), to TC systems that will literally KILL you if you forget to turn them off and they activate with too much sensitivity when pulling out into moving traffic (Thanks, BMW/MINI for my close calls in the early 2000s), to electronic aids that make driving numb, disconnected and separated from the road. To entertainment/convenience techs that let you make breakfast while talking on the phone, checking your e-mail, streaming your music, and telling you where to go. These continue to cater to consumers that don't really know how to drive anyway, and intrude with stability management and auto slush boxes that disallow drivers that DO know how to drive to get themselves out of a situation of their own control.
But to be fair, as with any tool, this is not the fault of the tool, but of the greater flippancy and laziness of the population, and the absolute neglect and abuse of their children in not teaching them how to better learn how to use the weapon that is their automobile.
There's my soapbox. lol.