Waterford

[QSHIPQ@aol.com]

Geoff writes:
>So why, of the two M3's at Waterford Hills during this summer's QCUSA
>meeting, was one competitive but by no means dominant, and the other (given
>the car's spec sheet) uncompetitive? Why did the lesser car do so badly when
>it rained?
Driver.  I was there too Geoff...  The competency of the car has nothing to do
with how it's driven.  You hit the nail later in your post.  Quattros are
great cars at inspiring confidence.  Up to a point.  IMO, that point is
obviously low in a torsen quattro, btdt.  Obviously high in the M3, rain, or
shine, btdt too.  I believe if you timed the faster M3 four door (even in the
rain), you would find that your stopwatch didn't lie.   All other quattro
times so noted.  So what happens when we give Claudfelter the reigns of a
quattro, instead of the POS M3.  I would expect good things, wouldn't you?

My own personal opinion, after instructing at many q club events in the past
years, and driving the Steamboat School the last 4, is although the confidence
is high in the quattros, few ever drive them to their full potential.  Not a
big deal to me, never argued that point.  I just find claims of quattro
prowess to be at a different level than where I compare cars.  In the .7 world
quattros are fine, it's that .3 that I usually compare.  And there, quattros
come up a little short.  Kudos to BMW for dragging the quattro manufacturer
into the performance arena in which they must compete.

Nice dashes, leather and toys are not rocket science exercises.

Scott