RE: Myths or truths (long)

[Eaton Dave <dave.eaton@minedu.govt.nz>]

> 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. 

no, a fully-fledged factory effort has the factory producing and
developing hte cars.  audi is not doing this with the a4 this year, and
has no intention of doing so.  it has delegated development (apart from
the engine "step" introduced recently) to the regional teams.  of
course, there are $'s for this from audi.  that means factory support in
my book.

the full audi sport effort is focuses on next years sports car effort.
the factory is running *no* cars this year, and has farmed out the
racing effort to german, italian and british affiliates.  *of course*
these have factory support, but the race teams are not run from the
factory as was the case last year..

> 
> >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.

well, its not as simple as that.  the fwd audi is using the quattro
chassis, not the fwd one.  this gives a number of advantages, not least
with the rear tyres.  however, if the btcc organisers enforce the fia
stipulation about build rules (interestingly not enforced for
privateers), audi will be forced to build fwd chassis-based cars.  they
wil be very reluctant to do this (see above), and this would probably
rule out a btcc effort next year.  in germany, the gtcc organisers have
already (so i've been told) waived their right to enforce this rule, so
roc will most likely continue in the gtcc next year.

> 
> >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.
> 

not correct actually, as the a4 is *not* using the fwd chassis, but the
quattro chassis, with the advantage of that nice rear suspension layout.
obvious benefits of rear tyre wear (heat) and control.

as has been audi's experience in racing, the non-optimal front engine
layout can be negated by a number of other setup/tuning measures, and
winners produced.  ford, for instance, have had a nearly upside-down v6
with the front driveshafts between the cylinder banks in their efforts
to produce an optimal front weight distribution.  the result? audi have
been comfortably beating a (better funded) ford with a "non optimal"
engine layout in the btcc this year.  lesson?  mmmmm.....

however, my point was that mullers 4th, 5th, 4th and 2nd over the last 4
races serves to illustrate that what others might construe as a
disadvantage, is often not there in reality.  too much time at the
blackboard, not enough time on the track, so to speak :-)

> >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.  

ummmm, the *layout* as opposed to the technology????

> 
> 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. 
> 

yes, you are of course, selective in your information.  you chose to
belivee that king is telling the whole truth (ignoring phil's
contradictory personal experience), and chose not to believe other
published sources.  whatever.  it's certainly not worth the bandwidth to
discuss without more information...

> 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.

this is such a foolish argument.  please identify the components in the
fwd renault (winner of the btcc last year), or the fwd peugeot (winner
in the gtcc last year) that *are* available in the machines which you
can purchase at the showroom.

engines? diff? gearboxes? half shafts? brakes? ems? seats? tyres?
wheels? steering wheel? dashboard? wing mirrors?  alternators?
radiators?

fair chance that even the door handles are not "publically available".

much easier to focus on what *is* the same, rather than what is
different.

there is very little correlation between super touring and the cars
which we can purchase.  so to "focus the discussion" is really just a
exercise in futility.  hey, don't let that stop you though....
> 
> >wrt the comment (wish) about audi and the wrc.  i very very much
doubt
> >that we will ever see audi back in rallying.  
> 
> 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."

see comments above (attributed to ullrich) about audi's doubtful future
in the btcc next year.  would the factory decide to fund a new
fwd-chassis a4 when it is focused on the sports car, just for the sake
of the btcc?  very much doubt it.  once again, this is not a
fully-fledged factory effort.

dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q