Re: Tribune review

[Sargent Schutt <sargent@novagate.com>]

Matt wrote:
>Again I love my quattro, but a
>well-balanced rear wheel drive car handles better on anything
approaching
>dry pavement.

>To those using BTCC, etc. as an analogy, I think you are way off.  My =

>point on handling was meant in reference to other cars which Audi =
>competes against in the marketplace not in all-out racing.

Bzzzzzt. sorry, Matt. The correct answer is quattro does 'handle' better
than a
rear driver. On everything up to and including dry pavement. But first
you need a
lesson in fruit differentiation, I think. Cause you's comparin your
apples with
somethin' that ain't quite apples.

So: Apples to Apples. BTCC is as Apples to Apples as you can get with
respect to
the quattro vs. rwd argument, as the rules are designed to keep
competition very
close. Nowhere else will you see such a close comparison. Hence the
weight penalties and ultimate banishment of the quattros. And all the
while the Bimmer contestants were *whining*, not *winning*. Even mit
quattro weight penalties, as noted.

Your weight distribution argument deserves some credence; your quattro
vs.
rear wheel drive is bass-ackwards. Having four wheels and mucho HP vs
two
wheels and the same power allows you to accelerate out of a turn faster
due to
increased grip and a commensurate increase in directional control.
Weight
transfer under hard acceleration shifts to the rear wheels, so if you
have
quattro with 60F/40R you're still not so bad-off. Slower corners + high
HP bring
a decided advantage to the quattro driver (no aero-induced downforce
from rear
wings to help the rear wheel driver with rear down-force at lower
speeds).

You've also overlooked the weight ratio *between the cars* you are
comparing.
How much does an M3 weigh vs. a 5ktq/S4/6? Talk about a BAD comparison.
Jeepers! Compare the M5 to the M3. You are essentially doing just that,
whilst
confusing the issue by adding the quattro vs. RWD variable. The
weight/size of
the vehicle makes a huge diffence in lateral as well as straight-line
acceleration. Yet you completely ignore this issue.

The closest 'real-world' production-car comparison to be made is
between the small 'tuned' Audi (the NEW S4) and the Euro M3. From what
I've heard so
far the S4 is the favorite of the two over there, though the 317 HP Euro
M3 has a
decided power advantage over the 265 HP Audi (and superior rwd!)  But
you've decided to compare the 5ktq/old S4/6 with an M3, running on what
is not a very high-speed track (Grattan, correct?) where smaller and
lighter is an advantage.  An S6 quattro
will not beat a little M3 there any more than an M5 will beat an M3
there. It's
a size/weight issue more than an HP issue (brakes too). If you could put

an M3 with awd against a rwd M3 the rwd driver would soon come to the
conclusion that he must be out there for time trials, not car to car
racing. Particularly with two Euro M3s (317 vs 240 HP).

However, using your M3/328is vs 5ktq/S4/6 in real-world conditions
(public
roads), the advantage still goes to quattro, owing to the confidence it
inspires
and the neutral demeanor at the limit. Public safety is (or certainly
should be)
your foremost consideration in how far to take the game.  A 200q/5ktq
can be
safely driven faster and closer to the limit than a rear-drive
M5/3/328is.  Fast
lift throttle/hard braking mid turn can bring wishes for a quicker
steering gear
(BTDT) but recovery is only a squeeze of the throttle away in the
quattro.  Not so
the WMB. Overall the quattro handling is much more predictable and safe.
In
every road condition I know right where my car is going. Again, not so
the rwd
328is/M3 etc.

Furthermore, 50/50 weight distribution doesn't do much good when the
back 50
has all the power and only 10% of the traction (both a result and
proponent of a
slide).

As far as the P-car goes, having the engine back there is both the
benefit and the
bain of that wild tail-out handling characteristic. But in that case you
stay on
the juice to keep the car on the road as there is enough weight over the
drive
wheels to keep some adhesion to them; letting off the gas/hitting brakes
allows
the weight to transfer to the front, allowing the momentum of the rear
to swing
her right around and swap ends (though this issue has been marvelously
addressed
of late). In a front engine, rwd car there isn't enough adhesion for the
rear
wheels when powering out of a turn. Yet it won't swap ends as fast b/c
there
isn't a big heavy motor in the trunk. The solution is relatively wider
rear tires
for the rwd front engine car. The quattro addresses these issues by
putting
power to all the wheels, minimizing the effects of braking/accelerating
during
cornering and subsequently allowing a faster exit speed, with a more
balanced
attitude.

So, in the end, I see no physics to explain your conclusion that quattro
is an
inferior set-up to rwd. What is the basis of that contention, logically?
I'm not saying the WMB is a bad car. Indeed, it is magnificent. But it
is not a case in point that, apples to apples, quattro is inferior to
rwd for handling purposes. Such an assertion is ludicrous.

Please correct me where I'm wrong on any of the above. I have relatively
little
experience in my on-track racing log. Most of the physics that explain
the how and why of the various set-ups is what interests me here. I
think I've got a good handle on
it, but confirmation/denial from the experts would be appreciated
(whatever
form that *explanation* might take) Please explain these issues further
if you
understand them better. I will likely not be on line again until the
27th, but I
will anxiously await any well-thought out corrections to the above. I'm
interested in furthering my understanding here, not burning through
another
Nomex suit.  That said, y'all can proceed to roast my chestnuts on the
fire now...

Happy Holidays, sorry for the usual excessive wordy BW.

Sarge

91 200q TAP, Bilstein/Eibach, etc.
86 5ktq IA, etc