Re: Setting a few "facts" straight

["George S Achorn III" <coolidge@nicom.com>]

 ScharfR@aol.com wrote:

> 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).
> 
	Good point you are probably right. What puzzles me though is why the Avus
and the Spyder. It doesn't seem to make sense. Two cars are a little much
for that theory I would think. Possibly not, and I know the Avus gets the
Wow factor, where the Spyder looks realistic, but still, I thought the car
was being considered. It's fairly well known that show cars are not close
to production. The Avus is a perfect example, where others use alot of
partsbin pieces, making likelihood of manufacture much better. Still your
point on the frame style is very good at making the point of the
unlikliness of a production Spyder.

> 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.
	
	I never read anything about the Spyder as to engine layout. Keep in mind
that in '94 all audi's being produced in the states (my experience) were
capable of housing bothe I-5 anc V6 engines. The A4 is the first one not
able to house the 5. For that reason I surmised that the 5 would fit.
However in dreaming today, I could consider a 30V twin turbo 6, which'll
probably have more power than the 20V turbo 5. Again, I was theorizing
here, so I apologize for any technical mistakes.

> 
> 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?

	Fine, using your facts TVR is where Porsche was sometime in the 70s or
80s. Today's Porsches are, IMO on a totally different technological level
than TVR. TVR may build good cars, but while the Viper is a good car too,
it is not a Porsche. There's a different drivability to the three, but the
porsche is superior in engineering to the others, and Porsche is larger in
sales quantity than TVR by a large margin are they not?
Later-G