Re: 88,89 imsa cars

[Eliot Lim <eliot@u.washington.edu>]

On Sat, 16 Dec 1995 STEADIRIC@aol.com wrote:

> >the 88 car did not race in imsa; it raced in trans am and it was a
> >straight, off the showroom floor 5000TQ monocoque with the racing bits
> >added.  same 10V 2.2 liter 5 banger too, though with much more boost.
> >the 4wd was altered to give more rear drive bias and that was

> Bzzzztttttt.... Good try Eliot, But, It was a 5KTQ Chassis "Tub" with a 
> Kevlar front clip, Aluminum Cage, 10 Valve All Aluminium Engine,  

where's the contradiction?  perhaps you don't realize that "tub" means
"monocoque" or "unibody" in more formal terms.  that was significant
because it was the only monocoque car racing, while everyone else
had tube frame cars.

the roll cage is standard "racing bits" is it not?  ditto the usual
racing brakes, fat tires/wheels, sponsor stickers etc.

i don't know whether they used an alloy or iron block, but it was
nothing radically different from their usual 2.2 turbo 5.

>Torque split 
> was unchanged,

i quote from jay lamm's "all-wheel-drive performance handbook"

"the choice was made to go with a 44% front 56% rear torque split"

there is a quote of audi group 44 race engineer brian berthold:

"if we gave it a little more rear, the cars had a tendency to be loose -
to break the back tires too easily, because we were running the same size
tires front and rear.  if you go to 50-50, the danger is just that you'll
have too much power understeer, which in a race car is absolutely the
wrong thing to have.  if you're going to have a powerslide condition,
you've got to have that slight rear bias to make it controllable to the
driver, so he can steer it with the throttle."

looks like your buzzer or its operator is defective, eric... :)


eliot