RE:RE: Alignment

[QSHIPQ@aol.com]

Jim Dupree writes:
>...
>Many of us upgrade our engines, suspension and other parts of our cars from
>stock to fit our own personal use, why should alignment be any different
>than these? Well other than the skill, time and equipment required to
>develop specs that work for you. If the "spider bite" is alignment induced
>or enhanced then it needs to be included in the development of the
>specifications or maybe it is a part of the compromise involved.
>I was taught the vehicle should be aligned in the state that it is most used
>in. Our completion alignments were all done "as raced", no spare, no tools
>with driver. A street alignment would be with spare and tools if that is how
>the owner drove normally. We also do them n the ground and if we have to
>lift the car it is driven before we proceed again with the alignment, it
>makes for a drawn out process but the results are consistent.Jim Dupree

Excellent post Jim.  I can't imagine any audi driver accepting a 2.5neg 
camber spec, no matter how many track events he may attend.  One has to 
wonder, if proper alignment is so key to "the bite" as proposed, couldn't one 
dial it out for racing  (audis history would say no, regardless of chassis)?  
The 'other' compromise is *all* those cars with lowered and/or coil over 
spring conversions.  That would also "supposedly" be as important, maybe more 
so, than your basic alignment settings.  Been in a lot of tweeked quattros 
with torsens, Dave's paper reference indicates, the torsen operation is more 
basic than the best alignment "compromise"

Thanks for the great post.  Good read.

Scott Justusson