RE: Myths or truths (long)

[QSHIPQ@aol.com]

Dave E writes:

>wrt audi in super touring fwd, please bear in mind that, in none of
>these are we talking about a fully-fledged "factory" effort, as this
>has, as we know, been prioritised for the sports car/le mans effort due
>to debut next year.

Er, well Dave, I suppose you might need to define "fully-fledged".   Directly
funded (my interpretation of "fully-fledged") Audi Factory Teams are as
follows:  Richard Lloyd's Audi Sport UK, Fred Stalders Racing Organisation
Course (ROC), and Emilio Redaelli's Audi Sport Italia. The Australia, Belgium,
South Africa, Spain, and three entrants in the German series are all private
entries.  However, they have access to the Audi Sport Engineeers, and for
that, they must buy the chassis from Audi Sport in exchange for the "help,"
and are closely monitored.   Bottom line, they use the same, chassis,
including driveline, aerodynamics and engine.  
Racecar:  "ALL the Audi Super Touring programmes (including the privates) are
closely controlled by Audi Sport HQ in Ingolstat, where all the racecars are
produced under the direction of Ullrich, the 46 year old engineer who has
headed the department since Nov 1993.  The cars are produced by a team of some
100 designers, engineers and mechanics under Norbert Weber."  
The above includes both the A4 awd and the A4 fwd.

>it is interesting to me, and a useful point against the "purists" that
>the longitudinal engined fwd a4's can be so good.  while it is
>acknowledged that quattro was a very good compensation for the
>north-south engine layout, with fwd, it would seem to only produce a
>penalty.  clearly not.

Certainly audi "could" put forth a winner in the A4fwd, but the task is also
more daunting than the awd wins.  The Accord enjoys a lower cog, better rear
bias weight dist, which makes a formidible task for audi to overcome in terms
of Chassis Dynamics.  Can they?  Well sure.  The point is, Racecar didn't
bring up the E/W orientation disadvantage, King did.  And HE brought up the
question of whether the A4 could be up to the task in current fwd orientation
trim.  Addressing just the obvious really.

>it also serves to illustrate that come race day, there are many, many
>small advantages that can be gained in the mystical world of setup.

The "mystical" world of setup, is addressed by King himself.  The problem is
squat and dive, and weight distribution during: turning, braking and
acceleration.  All hardly mystical, but maybe addressed by more creative
thinking.  But the easiest and most obvious, is the engine layout and
location.  If that's a given, get the best drivers, the best tyres, and the
best weight dist you can, and try to win.  If you can't (King's exact point)
you may be looking to the very core of the a4 fwd platform vs the competition.

>it also serves to illustrate the old maxim about weight in race cars.
>while with equal weight the quattro would walk it over the rwd and fwd
>cars, clearly this is nullified (as it must be) with increasing weight.
>the only moot point is at what weight.  same with the rwd cars.

Well, a little oversimplified.  A fwd car vs the awd car (A4) is hardly a fair
comparo.  The layout of the awd drivetrain means that it SHOULD walk all over
the fwd car at it's fighting weight (sans penalty), because of the inherent
chassis design.  Equal weight in itself is an interesting comparo.  The awd
cars weigh more, so the advantage is there even with the increased weight, for
a whole myriad of Chassis Dynamics reasons.  The fact is, the awd car has some
other (read bite) chassis dynamics issues in street trim, that means that fwd
is hardly second prize.  I don't think I'm totally with you on this awd
conclusion Dave, not without some other inputs, the most significant being, at
what HP and weight.  And certainly, a major leap in faith when arguing a
T*rsen center diff.   No data. 

>also with all the posturing/theorising about race-day setups and
>configurations, we'll never know the full story.  the king article has
>the "ring of authenticity", but then phil can clearly testify to
>different setups than king acknowledges.  and we have other articles
>which talk about different setups again....  therefore, at least to my
>mind, it is reasonable to assume that he is withholding information as
>it is his *duty* to do so, so that he can maintain competitive
>advantage.  after all, we normal punters wouldn't know the difference,
>so that makes no difference, and his competitiors just might be mislead.

I doubt many are with you here Dave.  Even if we take the earlier articles
(when awd was legal) the "options" (including the t*rsen "option" you
reference) were mentioned that gave a torque split range of 70/30 r/f to 50/50
r/f, and later in that same paragraph, 60/40 and 65/35 "were selected for the
BTCC" (Both referenced later as VC splits, the 65/35 really dropped, the 55/45
added).  A little more evasive than the most recent reviews (post legal), but
still indicates that "torsen quattro" is hardly what the race cars run.   Awd
is dead on all "fully-fledged" racing efforts, and the article is very
consistent with B&B, King and the rest of the information presented. 

Chassis Dynamics while turning (even if the boys were lying about VC's) is
really where we can focus all the discussion.  Just from the comments about
chassis dynamics, there is no doubt that what we enjoy in our street quattros
was never in the race cars, why would it be?  More understeer and More
oversteer at a higher torque split?  "That's why we needed brave drivers!
High speed oversteer can unsettle a driver."  -  King on the spool rear with
the 60/40 center VC
Put a 78/22, 22/78 center in, and the above would seem tame, since there was
no front torque split raced above 45%.  Now highspeed *oversteer* isn't your
only problem.

And the comments about the U and O are more obvious than what you propose as
the magic.  Considering the quotes are King's himself, and he backs them up
with the reasons and specifics of the spool rear, I doubt he could be that
consistent in his deception in an interview with off the cuff specifics.  Do
we really know?  At the very least we know that what B&B were contending with
in the center differential in terms of O and U while turning was a handful.
If at 60/40 and 55/45 front rear (the context of this interview) comments are
made of too much oversteer, and controlling understeer, and high speed
oversteer being a handful, I think the bite phenomenon is very well
documented, even at *rear* torque splits half range of the T*rsen.  There can
be no claim or math or thinking otherwise in this context, the boys (King,
Beela and Bincliff) all address quattro handling in their quotations.  If high
speed oversteer is a concern in a 60/40 r/f quattro (VC, the 'smooth acting
unit' - King), what does that say about high speed oversteer concerns in a
78/22 "anticipating" (immediate) torsen street quattro?  I'd say lots,
regardless of what is in the racing cars.  VC front center and rear is hardly
quattro, it's all wheel drive.  Does the "or T*rsen" make the awd a quattro?
That's a stretch at best if you never used the "or" device.  Do you race the
street car with a T*rsen, and call them both a quattro?  Sure.  Or do you race
a VC awd car, and call the Torsen street car a quattro.  I don't go for both
myself, just a nit, we can't get the awd car.

>wrt the comment (wish) about audi and the wrc.  i very very much doubt
>that we will ever see audi back in rallying.  

Not in a "fully-fledged" factory effort.  No interest either.  But watch those
private teams.  Audi still has a bunch of cars running rallyes, in the US and
overseas.  And a bunch of really fast old rallye cars with a bunch of wins
left in them.  And a bunch of Audi Sport suppliers who are happy to continue
the rallye efforts.

Regarding Formula 1 rumors is under the direction of David Ingram, Audi
Marketing Development Manager.  His comments are as follows:
* Althought one recurring rumour has Audi contemplating an entry into Formula
1, Ingram believes that there is no substance in it.  Audis immediate
marketing aims are much better served by ST, in which its dealers can
entertain present and potential customers, who can see a direct link between
the racing and the product.  "For example, we use a six speed sequential
gearbox built by Audi using some Hewland components...  Components on
production cars often start their life on the race track."  (I might insert a
"t*rsen" exception here, tho it might have "started" it's short life there)
...  "Audi's involvement in the BTCC, therefore, is rather more complex than
trying to win races merely to show that it is ahead fo the opposition."

Scott Justusson
QSHIPQ@aol.com
'87 5ktqwRS2
'84 Urq