Re: Weight a minute

[QSHIPQ <QSHIPQ@aol.com>]

In a message dated 98-04-08 16:44:36 EDT, you write:

<< 
 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).
>>>>
Yup, you read correctly in regards to the 911.  HOWEVER, the BMW is closer to
that 50/50 than the Audi is at 60/40.  My point is, there is no surprises
here.  Basics to chassis design.  Weight on the rears also has some
compromises, as is just as evident from the 911 as well.  A reason the 951's
beat the 911 in overall performance at the track.  So, you give rear weight
more than I.  Balanced is balanced, and there the 951 shows the 911 tail, and
the 740 shows tail to the A8.  And a major reason the "tire" comments arose.
If you look further into that reference and plug in the numbers of weight
shift, you can see that the 300lb weight differential to the aluminum A8 is a
gain to the 740 in terms of weight shift in braking and accelerating
 
>...
> 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.
I'm just a goofball with a watch.  Audi engineers should look at the quattro
advantage where they compete.  Where they compete you can look at the
advantage as moot.  The quattro is good, and blizzacks and traction control
have equalized that good in a big way.  Add in a good weight balance the
advantage of quattro has more than a tire problem.  You give quattro more
credence than I Mike.  I'd give up quattro for a set of M3 brakes in a
heartbeat.  At least, how bout both.
 

 
> 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.
I like it too.  The price we pay for the quattro system?  Well that's getting
lofty with spider bites (with a focus on traction only), subpar performance,
subpar handling, and weight in the wrong places.  Add that all up, you get
objective and objective feel and numbers.  Both come up short, all advantages
so noted.  So, do we build a better quattro, or do we build a better chassis.
Both?  Sure, where is it?
 
 >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?! >>
To fwd maybe, this is a reference book to awd.  Most of the pix are of
prorally cars and the history of awd, and great basic understanding of what it
is.  Superior?  Where?  In prorally sure.  On the street?  Well, not proven,
only extrapolated.  Too many time slips shows that's just not objective
thinking.  Have things changed?  You betcha they have.  Blizzacks all but
killed quattro as a advantage, traction control killed it in objective
numbers, so documented.  So yes, things have changed.  So has the torsen
center split.  Is it enough?  Well, when the S4 hits here, let's find out.
Sure would like to see audi make quattro rule, cuz it doesn't now.

Scott