Re: Weight a minute

[MSV96 <MSV96@aol.com>]

In a message dated 4/8/98 QSHIPQ@aol.com writes:

<< (quoted from) Advanced Race Car Suspension Development, by Steve Smith
rev1988

"A car is able to accelerate faster coming off a corner with weight bias at
the rear.  For a given amount of acceleration, the cornering force available
on the inside tire increases when there is a heavier rear weight bias (rwd
specifically to the 740 advantage, "linear and vernier").  Braking ability is
also enhanced with a rear weight bias The more weight moved to the rear
wheels, the more weight that remains there under heavy braking.  And the best
braking is achieved when the cars weight distribution, under maximum braking
forces is as close to 50/50 as possible." >>

Okay, I'll "bite" on this one...(with all due respect Scott). I think the key
is re-reading this sentance: "under maximum braking forces is as close to
50/50 as possible." Agreed that the front weight bias is not good in the cars
we behold here (quattros). But, what you cite also implies that "perfect
50/50" wmb strives for ain't the best for braking either. Seeing as how if the
static bias is 50/50, "under maximum braking forces" said wmb is not at 50/50
anymore. Something that is more like 40/60 f/r bias comes to mind (yes, I am a
two time 911 owner and a big p-car fan so I am as biased that was as I am
towards quattros).

I am not bashing wmb, I won't. My perceptions (as an owner of MANY older
ones...all 2002's except for one 2800CS) are that the new ones are not all
that well made for the money, and that the majority in my area are bought as a
fashion statement more than they are for enjoying driving them. For me,
something was lost (in the allure of the marque). As I have said before, I do
get to play with an M3 (95) and enjoy it. *If* I could afford such a beast, I
would not buy one...but my reasons may differ from others, and it isn't
because they are "bad cars". You are right to say that wmb's chassis engineers
did a great job in achieving the design goal of 50/50 weight distribution. So
have Porsche's (lowly 914 from way back when comes to mind as well as the
944), and Alfa's, among others. Audi engineers can't cuz of the quattro awd
design. Thing is, quattro is too good to ditch in favor of that "perfect
weight bias" IMO. But then I'm no expert with "credentials" so to speak. Just
an end user who has owned more than 30 vehicles in the past 20 years and has
driven countless more.

Mike Veglia
87 5kcstq (with the reverse of that crappy weight bias of a 911)

Since this discussion seems to be shifting to that of "perfect weight bias" I
am curious what the weight bias is for say...a Mercedes CLK-SLR, Ferrari
333sp, a McLaren F1 car. I have my doubts any of these are anywhere near 50/50
(not sure though...just kinda curious now) yet they are each the fastest
around a track today (1998) in their given venues. Agreed that quattros are
front heavy, but as Pat Martin already said...that is the price we pay for the
quattro system. I wouldn't give that up either...and I for one don't much care
for fwd cars, never have (nomex donned...;-)...), but I love awd.

On the subject of quoting books...it has been a while since I read the "awd
performance handbook" cover to cover. But, I do recall that there are many
ares in this book that describe the superiority of awd to fwd or rwd. Have
things really changed that much since the early 90's?!