Re: Setting a few "facts" straight

[ScharfR@aol.com]

In a message dated 97-01-17 16:11:19 EST, coolidge@nicom.com (George S Achorn
III) writes:

<< Let me quote from the April 1992 issue of Sports Car International
 MAgazine, which by the way has a great article on the Avus and Spyder show
 cars.
 	"...but it is the more conventional and fully roadworthy Spyder that
 stands the best chance at production. The brief given to Dr. Piech by the
 stylist Erwin Himmel specifically stated that no major changes to layout
 and overall design would be required to take the show car into production.
 Therfore the spyder looks like it belongs in your garage and not on a show
 stand." >>

That's what they always say.  You don't suppose any company would be so
honest as to say "Yeah, we just threw together a show car with a really good
looking body, but the engine is a lump of wood." (yet take a look at the
AVUS. OK they didn't "throw it together, but you get the point.)  Sports Car
International is no paragon of reliability when it comes to technical
analysis.  You need to look at how the Spyder prototype was built.  Nowhere
near a production concept.  Beyond that, Audi had long before switched to a
spaceframe structure for its aluminum car development (resulting in the A8)
and the Spyder didn't fit the mold.

One could even make the argument (and this _is_ pure conjecture) that Audi
did the Spyder as a developmental red herring to mislead other companies as
to its real intentions for an aluminum structured vehicle.  The space frame
concept, which had been decided upon well before the Spyder's showing, was
extremely confidential at that time.  Very few in the industry knew details
of the structure and its production methods, which have proven to be a
technical innovation that will take others some time to overcome.  A million
bucks for a show car to 1) lead some competitors down the wrong path,  2)
capture public attention and  3) further "legitimize" the general concept of
aluminum cars?  Sounds like strategic thinking; three birds, one stone (and
no production).

As to your conjecture about power/weight/I5 engines etc., it's all moot.  The
Spyder used the V6 architecture. The inline 5 wouldn't have fit.

You may want to check your facts on TVR.  Sure, they are smaller than
Porsche, but they _are_ privately held, growing, profitable, and producing
their own engines.  As for companies borrowing engines and tuning them for
their own applications, well, do the numbers 356 and 924 sound familiar?