Alignment: Impossible with H&R springs?

[QSHIPQ at aol.com]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Steve:
Bernie cracked me up with his response so much, I'm not sure I can be of
help...

Audi shares that under full braking, weight shift of quattros is 80f/20r
pretty much across the lineup.  On a 3600lb 200q20vt that would be a 3000lb nose
stand.  We also can easily calculate that beyond .5in drop, bumpsteer is a
problem (as bernie says, it's not a number one pulls from the ass dyno, it's a
number you can calculate - get any of the "tune to win" series).  Is the
compromise "worth it"?  Well, it depends.

I look at my G-analyst and my Gtech and argue that lowering a 200 isn't
necessary.  A better formula for the 200 would be to leave(increase!) the ride
height, and increase spring rate to reduce that nose stand.  For cornering, wheels
and tires with a properly stock ride height suspension will leave fewer
compromises than what happens when you lower the car.

Without giving away my store, one could argue that massive increases in
cornering can come from wheels and tires of plus 1, even better for this list
(read: flared fenders!): plus 2.  You can get slight increases in cornering by
lowering the center of gravity, but it's offset by the bumpsteer problem under
load.  Back to wheels and tires.

What doesn't do well is lowering WITH big wheels and tires.  Why?  Well,
bumpsteer and camber effects (tramlining) start rearing up.  Bernie is right, a
4in pipe is better (I liked that one!)

Sooo....  The front end of a 200 sucks in terms of lowering = better (it
doesn't).  The rear is one of the best engineered suspension geometry's that
exists on a street car.  As such, it can take a linear rate spring of a high
magnitude without compromising ride quality at all, btdt.

Eibachs and H&R are easy packages to install.  I don't at all equate that to
mean that quattros will automatically handle better than one at stock ride
height.  The math isn't with that conclusion, nor is your alignment shop.  Really
wanna see your bumsteer...  Stand on the front bumper of your car the next
time it's on the rack...

HTH

Scott Justusson
QSHIPQ Performance Tuning
4 quattros at stock ride height or more....

In a message dated 6/11/2003 11:56:13 AM Central Daylight Time,
hauptmanns at llr.sc.gov writes:

Scott,

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I feel your take on springs
which lower the car is overly bleak.

<<"Lower" is the easy way to get better "perceived" handling because of a
lower COG.>>

Are you saying that center of gravity does not affect the way a car handles
anymore than a perception?


<<"Down" in any audi chassis causes bumpsteer problems pretty quickly,
that's just plain math...>>

I have the H&R's, which lowered the car, but I'm aware of no bumpsteer
problem.


<<After 10 years of driving and tweeking audi suspensions, I'm convinced
that lowering creates more compromises than it solves.>>

You may be right, but I never thought lowering my car would solve
compromise.

By switching to H&R's and Bilsteins, I had hoped to stiffen the ole girl up
a bit, lose the boat feeling, improve the handling, and get a more
direct/connected to the road feeling. That's exactly what happened.

Is there compromise? Sure, I need to correct the negative camber.
I simply shifted the compromise from a ride and handling that I was unhappy
with but was paid for, to a ride and handling that I am very happy with but
at the cost of the springs and camber plates.

I'm not aware of another set-up which would provide the improvements I was
seeking with zero compromises.  If there is one, I would wish I knew about
it.

Steve Hauptmann
South Carolina