[V8] Track F/R discussion

[QSHIPQ at aol.com]

Audi spent a lot of time trying to get a understeering chassis to  oversteer. 
 Stasis tries to do it with the wide TBR center torsen.   Tough to do when 
the majority of the weight is over the front wheels.  When  dancing with miss 
piggy on a type 44 (a street v8), I say work towards  getting the front right 
*first*.  You can do a lot to the rear of that car  and it has very little 
effect on overall handling.  Track width is a very  effective tuning tool Dave.  
IME, the type 44 chassis needs as much as you  can do with the front, and the 
gains are rewarding.  You can do a lot to  the back, and the gains are minimal.  
That's because in terms of suspension  geometry, the front design sucks, and 
carries the weight.  
 
Audi has this a bit backwards IMO.  And the biggest issue with  the type 44 
chassis tuning is the lack of front swaybar options.   Rear track, rear bars, 
rear spring rates before front tends to cause more front  problems than it 
solves at the back.
 
Scott J
 
 
In a message dated 4/17/2007 8:53:40 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
David.Coleman at blackrock.com writes:

Oh, and to focus on  alleged "inaccuracies" in the track widening -- 
sometimes it helps  me to think in extremes, as if you had 20-foot spacers on the 
front  wheels and tubbed the rear.   TONS of front cornering grip, but (a)  it's 
be nearly impossible to rotate the back end around, and (b) the effective  
lower CG and weight displacement as a result would definitely affect the  
suspenstion geometry -- I mean, would shorter springs  really have as  much effect 
with this (obviously hypothetical and absurd) track  setup?   This is part of the 
thinking that makes me doubt the  benefit of spacing front track without 
spacing the rear the same amount on an  AWD or RWD car if you want to kill 
understeer and make NO other  adjustments.
 
whatever,
DaveC.



 



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.