[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
RE: A4 tales. non-driven vs. driven rolling resistance
> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 15:24:25 GMT
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Phil Payne)
> Subject: RE: A4 tales
> In message <34B783B0.email@example.com> Ramana Lagemann writes:
> > > BTW, isn't Christian's FWD and thus lighter than a q? Partial explanation
> > > for
> > > phenom, I guess.
> > 50% less drivetrain-induced power loss on the FWD compared to the Q,
> > too, no?
> There's another effect. The rolling resistance of a tyre on a driven wheel
> less than the rolling resistance of a tyre on a non-driven wheel. This helps
> to cancel out the additional losses in the quattro system.
I read this somewhere too, then later read somewhere else that this rolling
resistance effect varies with tire construction, i.e. the tires Audi was
testing the first quattros with (Contis?) indeed had lower rr when driven, but
some other random make of tire did not have lower rr when driven. So everybody
buy *only* "special-for-quattro tires" (documented lower rolling resistance
when driven), ok? :)
It's snowing, powerslides on the way to work, wait, why am I at work on a
1991 200 quattro, 81k, any chance Hakka-1s are lower-rr-when-driven?
1988 GTI 16v, 173k, have to buy non-quattro tires for this car