[V8] track F/R and fun stuff.....:-)

[QSHIPQ at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/18/2007 8:25:51 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
J123fs at aol.com writes:

...

>I emailed my buddy who might be selling his scirocco Mk1  to me  that I'm 
>hoping to turn into a GT4-5 car (deciding on  motor as we speak) and we  
talked on 
>just this same thing and the  last thread here on the V8 list, and  about 
>relocating the a-arm  mounts/ axle changes......fun stuff (Also considering  
a 
>F-Vee,  but big $$ to run). If you want we can go off list with it I might 
pick   
>your brain some more. 
 
Always happy to help keep sciroccos in the spotlight.  Jack, make  sure you 
go all caps with private emails so I catch them on quick  parusing....

>And yes, you are correct with Ackermann  terminology- I just didn't want to  
>muddy the water anymore:-)  Funny though-and a good example of what to do, 
and  
>why the front  geometry of the 44 is a compromise for packaging and   
>comfort-....  is look at any formula car and you can see the  steering  rack 
mounted very 
>close indeed to the plane of the  front suspension for exactly  that reason 
of 
>helping eliminate  bumpsteer issues. 


Just  haven't seen one that uses the swaybar like audi did.  I always figrred 
 some audi engineer was going to blow a cork and put up his story on how the  
rear of a type 44 is such a marvel, and the front kills the drooling over the 
 rear.  

>As far as type 85 vs. 44- my thoughts go to the shocks  almost  
>immediately....... at least in the context of the  washboard road and the  
Audi being 
>schooled by a Ford  Ranger.....I had a 5000 tq I did a rallycross and  tsd 
rally with  
>and found the newish Boge's I had in the car not able to  deal  with any 
speed 
>effectively, what do you think? I think the breakup  of  traction could be 
the 
>wheels are just not on the ground = no  traction. 
 
Hmmm, I like Boges myself (esp turbo gas), don't forget the group B cars  
used a standard issue boge strut.  I do believe you are correct that the  wheels 
on the ground beat wheels in the air.  That's a wheel travel and  control arm 
issue.  A type 44 'control arm' will resist uneven wheel  travel because there 
is spring rate built into the control arm itself  (swaybar).  For rallycross 
that can be solved with wheel travel  IME.  

>I also think the type 85 fundamentally sits lower than  the comfort biased  
>type 44 suspension. I know a few folks that  have them (Mark Besso are you 
out  
>there?) who might confirm or  deny it.I admit to not really knowing about 
85's,  
>as I never got  excited over them being a little portly for my tastes. 
 
Hmm, the urq type 85 has more room in it than the type 44 IME.  I've  had 
both type 44 and type 85 urq in my stable concurrently for almost 12years  now.  
I believe it's not ride height, it's suspension geometry of the  type 85 that 
gives the advantage.  A lot more accurate front steering  arcs, when the 
swaybar isn't changing caster angles.  A lot less slop in  the geometry.  Add in a 
less flexing chassis in the type 85, it will  inherently have the handling 
advantage.  That said, one of the main  reasons I like stock ride height on my 
quattros (all) is that wheel travel and  quattro IS the advantage.  Especially 
in less than ideal conditions  (rallycross, midwest roads, Steamboat Ice 
track), wheel travel is the key to  speed.  Wheel not on the ground has no traction. 
 

>I  think the 44 can handle pretty  well, just depends what your end need is- 
 
>track car- family hauler, ect. Sadly, I do not think it can  do  BOTH very 
>effectively, as you compromise comfort or the ability  to  absorb pothole 
impacts 
>when you really lower it, not to  mention the other  issues we already 
covered, 
>and ergo a good  comfortable street setup sorely lacks  front end traction 
so  
>badly due to the weight bias it will just grind the front  tires  right off 
on 
>the track!  They DO brake nicely though with  all  that weight up there!
 
My experience is different Jack, when I put together my 87 5ktqavant, I  
specifically wanted it to do daily grocery/kid hauling, then be good at the  track 
as well.  Were there faster cars at the track?  Sure, but at a  private 
session at Gingermann, I had a tweeked E36 M3 driver that spent a lot  of time 
trying to catch that wagon, and couldn't in 35minutes of track  time.  After 
insisting that I lift the hood (revealing a dirty and leaf  strewn 10vt engine as I 
borrowed from the wife that day), a lot of discussion  ensued on how a type 
44 could do that.
 
Rorhl, Stuck, and directly to me - Pobst, are all on record saying that  the 
type 44 race car is one of the easiest cars to drive fast.  Long  wheelbase 
and proper setup can overcome that crappy front swaybar.  I  just go on record 
that lowering it has never been my answer, save all out race  car (even then, 
we run the 5ktq race car at almost stock ride height).
 
I will share this story... I built a 91 200tq sedan to be my vision of a  
Steamboat Ice track car for an ex-rally champion for this past feb  Gruppe-q 
event (shameless plug _www.gruppe-q.com_ (http://www.gruppe-q.com) ).  30mm 
swaybar and  ~1in over stock, Boge turbo gas (+ some other tweeks).  Without 
question,  one of the fastest (if not the) at that venue.  Even in the worst ice  
track conditions, it would never bottom out, and the tires stuck to the ice  
always.  I got to take it for some hot laps for almost a solid  hour.  I laughed 
at the ease of which that big pig sucked up just about  every other quattro 
there.
 
There's a lot that can be learned from Audis own efforts in  race/rally.  I'm 
convinced the first is, lowering a quattro should be the  very last item on 
the list for *performance* on a street/occasional  track car.  I won't argue 
the looks part of it, but miss piggy isn't  bad looking in heels, heck look at a 
tiberon.
 
cheers
Scott J








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