Re: Weight a minute...here we go!

[QSHIPQ <QSHIPQ@aol.com>]

In a message dated 98-04-09 15:42:54 EDT, you write:

<< 

 
> So you're saying that the 740 with rear drive...coming out of a corner,
> will have the weight advantage accelerating?  Very true.  But in this case,
> the weight issue won' t matter because the AWD advantage (which you accept
 >and deny?) takes over.  Torsen issues aside (you know my feeling here), the
 >A8 has "4 wheels" to put its power to the ground.  So the A8 can be at full
 >throttle sooner.  Plus, if both cars were accelerating from 30-70 out of
> the corner onto the straight-away, the hp/weight of the A8 would put it
> even further ahead.  Of course, the A8 would have to be on the brakes
> earlier because of reasons already mentioned (weight bias disadvantage).
> Seems, though, that the 740 advantage isn't so huge after all.
Seems that way, until you test em.  Josh, there is a reason why 50/50 weight
is an advantage.  If you run thru some calculations on weight transfer on
braking AND accelerating, quattro with 60/40 f/r may just equal the weight
savings of it's aluminum body.  I calculate at least 200lbs more is needed to
the rear of the q.  Right now given the 60/40 and 49.8/50.2 the advantage is
huge, awd aside.
  
 
> Dropping the Audi flag, let me pick up my AWD flag.  Here I go...waving
 >away, but maybe I'm not.  Hmm.  Take one low cf situation (prorally) and
 >say that AWD rules.  But in another low cf situation, it doesn't.  Traction
 >is traction.  Right?  I havn't been to Steamboat with you.  And I probably
 >will never go.  But if we talk apples to apples, it seems really clear that
> AWD will outperform FWD or RWD.  Blizzaks on an AWD car vs. Blizzaks on a
> RWD car...AWD car can outaccelerate the RWD car any time.  Drag strip?  RWD
> loss.  In a corner?  RWD loss.  Is that a tasty apple?  Definitely sweet
 >apples for AWD.
NO, it's not that clear, take a look at the 5/88 test of the 90fwd, 90q and
325IX.  The apple is NOT sweet to the quattro, in fact, the 90fwd beat it
significantly in almost every test at steamboat.  I also argue that the
problem is awd is not defined.  A look at the torsen centers vs the fwd and
rwd cars doesn't show sweetness either.  Before you "outaccelerate" your AWD
vs the others, you may want to do some research in the apples world Josh.  IN
theory it sounds good, in practice just wrong.  A 90q and a 90fwd can't get
any closer to apples to apples could it?  AWD is a compromise.  Sometimes more
than 'waving' might concede.  ProRally, specifically didn't use the torsens we
use on the street (if any), and had the HP advantage, few on this list, or in
ANY audi can claim.  A long time ago, I posted that to give the awd advantage,
you better have a bunch of ponies to knock the rest of the field.  300 ain't
enough in a street car.
 
 ><picking up my Audi flag>  I don't have all the reviews handy, but I
 >remember reading countless articles of commentary about how quattro
 >equipped cars feel so surefooted, silent and stabile.  I would never use
 >those descriptors for traction control...whoever makes it (even Audi).  I
> would describe them as jerky, noisy, and obtrusive.  For low cf street use,
> I'll take quattro, thank you.
 Well, get traction control to engage in the wet in a 540 and give me the
adjectives again.  Subjective feel can't defeat objective numbers.  For low cf
street use, I'll take quattro, or a whole bunch of other cars rwd and fwd with
good tires for low cf.  

Come to Steamboat, I can introduce you to spiders and lap times sir.  I assure
you, a torsen center car takes second to lockers every time.  Why?  Darn
turns.  Damn watch.

Scott Justusson