Re: dry performance q's

[Andrew Fletcher <FLETCHA@citec.qld.gov.au>]

>>> <QSHIPQ@aol.com> 13/January/1997 03:46pm >>>
In a message dated 97-01-12 23:46:45 EST, you write:
 
> Ok, but one the most tweeked of Urq's here in the states didn't 
> catch the M3 at the track here, rain or dry.....  M3 is not a 323 or a 
> 328.....

I find that difficult to believe. Not that I don't believe you. It's just I'm very
surprised. BTW what are we really comparing here. If you want a real
comparison of the quattro advantage surely you have to compare 
basically identical vehicles one with quattro and one without. Just as
Audi did when it was first developing the urQ. I will post the article about
this tomorrow.

>1) q's, all of them, are LATE brake, turn hard (aim before apex)
>accelerate out, by defintion an UNDERSTEER advantage, totally 
> contradicting your "early" turn in argument.....  That statement is just
> plain incorrect when performance driving a q, btdt, and it's
> documented, read the q racer books, Buffums would help you, given
> the year of your car (non torsen)...  

Yes, thats true however I didn't actually say that I turn in early, instead I
said I could apply more power earlier in the corner, cause the AWD
provides more traction under the side loading.

> and you can brake later with those awesome, and they are, brakes in
> the M3....  Power oversteer is WHAT YOU WANT, btw, every q
> tweeker here is trying to get what he doen't have, power oversteer, lift
> throttle oversteer, and neutral throttle understeer,  and that is next to
> impossible (archives, ck the archives) on a torsen car.....  The unfair
> advantage needs some thought, cuz
> the above ain't it.....  I'm at the track with them all year long......
> comon over, I'll show ya....  :)
Delighted to next time I'm in the US.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying that on a race track
with a nice smooth, grippy, dry surface and comparitively low HP cars
(<250HP) then AWD is not an advantage. Yes, thats prob true. Where a
well setup RWD car doesn't have enough hp to loose traction severly
under cornering conditions (particularly on a race track) the AWD system
prob doesn't add much to the equation. ie If the car out handles it's
power capabilities then AWD is just unnecessary.

However I think this is a fairly isolated environment. I still believe the
advantage and rewards that the quattro system provides on the average
road surface for street vehicles is pretty significant. And this is where
most stock quattros live is it not?

I refer to your original post .........
> there's that torsen again....  I will continue my quest, and report most of
> my findings, but I will stop short of exclusively waving the audi flag for
> the sake of it's rings.....  Cuz there are a lot of sweet bells raising the
> standard to which q's are compared.....  The latest 540i 6 speed raised

I speak only from my experience, particularly with my urQ. I paid
$23,000AUS and for that money there is nothing that comes near it. 

regards
Fletch
'81 urQ 95K miles