Re: Myths or truths (long)

[QSHIPQ@aol.com]

In a message dated 98-08-25 18:00:50 EDT, you write:

 
 >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..

I believe that "fully-fledged" is a vague term.  Audi "farmed" out the racing
effort to these affiliates from the get-go, so per your above definition Dave,
Audi NEVER had a "fully-fledged" factory team in  TCC.  With Factory support,
and factory dollars.   Audi never 'ran' the race teams per say.  The
affiliates did.  Bintcliff and Biela didn't work for Ingolstat, they worked
for Audi Sport UK, one of the "affiliates".  Not sure your point, sir.

>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.

I doubt you will see Audi giving up the TCC in any venue without a concerted
effort.  If audi is forced to run fwd chassis-based cars, the question is,
will they go for broke, and change the engine layout?  According to King, they
may need to, his point.  Since the awd and the fwd cars are essentially the
same chassis, the accomodation of the build rules will hardly be
insurmountable.  It certainly will demand that audi be more creative with the
weight issues.  Running with the rules until they change is Audi's forte.
King, btw, has an extensive fwd engineering history, I believe he was hired
for a reason.
 
 >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.

No disagreement, however, that is not magical in terms of the 'wins' you put
forth.  That is working with the rules as they are set, # 1 in the Bible of
racing.  They change, and the 'wins' will be harder to get.  Why?  Because,
most TCC cars that run fwd have a 55/45 f/r weight dist.  The audi (admitted
by King, no number) runs more than this because of the engine and drivetrain
layout.  The rear suspension is just the beginning.
 
> 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.....

Lesson?  Well, you are running with a scutinized quattro chassis, that most
likely will fall to the rules.  You have bought the best drivers (I remember a
quote about Biela could win driving a Yugo), you have the commitment of Dunlop
for tyre development.  Make no mistake, if audi is forced to run fwd chassis,
the challenge will reside in that engine bay.  King already addressed that.
Was audi comfortably beating the fords because of the quattro layout chassis
with better drivers?  Quite possibly.  King himself points out that the high
and forward engine puts them at a distinct disadvantage when racing fwd.  Take
the awd chassis out of the equation.  Problem gets more obvious.  A look to
the Accord vs the Civic in TCC shows the importance of engine and drivetrain
layout.  Don't forget either, that King's background is with the FORD team you
reference, Dave.  Audi has big expectations for the boy I'd say.
 
> 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 :-)

Audi is in the business to win, it sells cars.  Interesting to think, "At what
cost"?  The A4 chassis has one of the BEST front suspensions in the production
or race car world.  Is that enough to overcome a rule change to fwd, AND the
N/S engine orientation?  Time will tell.  Given the commitment to TCC, and a
gander at the production priority of quattro, my bet is that King will need to
do EVERYTHING else first, before audi would consider the E/W engine
drivetrain.  Here's to hoping that Audi continues to win.  The thought of
challenging Accords seems rather depressing.  Especially if those challenges
are lost.   

 > ummmm, the *layout* as opposed to the technology????
Not sure the point.  The layout is inherently at a disadvantage, that's
physics.  The front (and rear for now) suspensions are at a techno advantage.
Can going to a fwd chassis and keep the wins.  I hope so.  Audi also has a lot
of data on VC's and VCP data with the fwd driveline and chassis they run.  And
they have the data on the awd cars track to track.  A great comparo, when
trying to overcome a basic compromised engine layout.  Still the laws of
physics are tough to beat.  But so is Audi when they are committed.
 
> 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...

I believe the "or " article your referenced months ago accomodates Phil's
experience.  "Torque splits ranging from 70:30 to 50:50 are available.  After
pre-season testing front:rear split options of 64:36 and 61:39 were selected
for the BTCC."  If there was no diff at all, Phil's experience, wouldn't that
be a 50:50 torque split?  Phil was also shown a spool that was claimed to be
for a center diff. What other published sources Dave?  I have the Racecar
article you referenced months ago, and we know that audi publishes the "or".
What other documentation is there?  Please do share.  We see a lot of "or"
quotes, but no one speaks of it in terms other than "or".  We know what torque
splits the VC's ran, where, why, and at what venues the spool rear with those
VCs.  Now we just need the "or".  Hard to find if Audi never used it, but
claimed it.  It's not a lie either, "or" can mean never.

I found this quote to be interesting too:
"Possibly unique to the Audi A4 is the measurement of wheel speed on each
driven wheel and the rear axle, and central differential presssure and
temperature measurements."  If I was optimizing a "smooth" and "progressive"
VC unit, I'd sure want that information.  If I was using a Torsen, why would I
want differential pressure and temperature?  Aren't those exclusive variables
to the locking characteristics of VC? 

>> 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".

Problem.  Audi races a VC "quattro", not available anywhere else.   The ads
are in the US about "the unfair advantage was so good they outlawed quattro in
BTCC" - showing A4 race, and A4 street.  Well, not exactly, the quattro that
was outlawed was a VC awd A4.  Not a T*rsen A4 we get, not quite the same
"difference" argument you tout.  Audi is claiming awd, all awd they use, as
quattro.  That's a stretch, even with the "or".  The U and O B&B and King
speak of makes you wonder if Audi ran the T*rsen, whether awd would be banned.
I would bet not.  When I speak of U-O and U, I now have some documentation
that driver error is hardly what is at stake.  Heck, B&B have problems in
55/45 and 60/40 cars.  You are going off on a major tangent Dave.  I'm looking
at the driveline and chassis dynamics.  The differences between the race and
the street are well documented, I accept them.  If then, they are optimized
for the track, what do all those differences say in terms of chassis dynamics
while turning on the street?  A whole lot when you consider their quotes on
the track. 
 
>much easier to focus on what *is* the same, rather than what is
> different.
That would exclude "quattro" as we know it.  It would only include awd.  
 
> 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....

I got your argument.  So, if a race optimized narrow BR VC quattro has O and U
concerns, that won't happen in a street car with a wide BR T*rsen (your
claim)?  Given the differences, I'd say a focus would be better.  Chassis
Dynamics of quattro vs awd should be the focus.  It transcends the differences
of which you speak. My point exactly is there is little correlation between
Quatto and awd, tho Audi claims it.  IF all you use is VC center diffs,
claiming a quattro advantage takes a rather different meaning.  If B&B and
King have identified U and O while racing with narrower BR center diffs
(regardless of application) with race "optimized" weights, chassis, and tyres,
what does that exactly say about our T*rsen equipped non optimized chassis?  A
lot more than you give credit.  
 
> 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. >>
Per your definition of "fully-fledged".  I'm still a bit fuzzy on your
definitions, Dave.  Given the commitment to King (a fwd guy) and no plans to
"pull" A4'
s in terms of backing or racing, your comments seem centered around that
definition.  Speculation is fine Dave, time will tell.  My prediction is that
if Audi gets nixed on the awd rear, audi won't have the wins you have been
quoting.  Then, either audi pulls out, or puts up with the transverse motor.
I predict the former myself.  But there is no doubt in my mind that the N/S
motor, chassis and tyre will be the best possible when the decision is made.
Is it a winner?  Time will tell.

Me, I'd like to focus on the U and O.  I know why you can't, I understand that
may be a private thread.  Happy to entertain it Dave.

My .02

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