[torsen] Re: [urq] UrQ handling/Autox

Jeffrey Goggin audidudi at mindspring.com
Thu Apr 18 10:10:03 EDT 2002


> I don't run either of my urq's at more than -.5 neg Jeff, so maybe
> I don't see the problem.

I was able to get ~1.8 degrees of negative camber up front -- still not
enough, unfortunately -- and as I said, varied the rear camber setting to
make the back end loose or really loose, depending upon the course.  These
settings were on the car most of the time and didn't work particularly well
on the street as it made the car squirrely above 70mph.

> Not sure what tires you are using either, but my bouts with the very low
tread RE930's I run for
> track/autox don't have this problem.  But then again, I'm not running
stock class, and I don't' see
> this problem with the 16's in either 205/55 or 225/50 (sp8000 I ran last
time).

The problem originally surfaced with my FWD '81 4k on Yokohama A008Rs and
A008RSs, and the suggestion to increase rear tire pressure instead of
lowering it came from the Yokohama tire engineers.  After the '89
Nationals, I managed to get "contract driver" status for the rest of the
season and following year (i.e., free tires and advice) and I found their
suggestion really worked ... at least on my car and with my driving style.
As many will recall, I'm not a fan of rear a/r bars on these cars, either,
since they don't contribute anything but weight when the inside rear tire's
lifted off the ground (and this happened a LOT with my car) and the
two-stage handling characteristic always bothered me (i.e., I seem to be
running against the current with my ideas about suspension setup so perhaps
my driving style is quite a bit different than that of most people).

Oh, yeah ... tires.  I ran both '97 vintage BFGs and Hoosier bias-plies.
The car was never setup properly for Hoosier but I think they had the
potential to be quicker ... the lower profile (225/45-15) was handy for
tighter courses, too, as it moved the powerband down a bit.

> Exactly my point.  You will also find that those paint schemes audi
> uses on springs might give some possible "unfair advantage" if you
> were to put them in your urq.

The problem is that the Protest Committee is made up of human beings, not
automations who simply read the rulebook.  I found several loopholes in the
rulebook that would have given me an "unfair advantage" (intake free,
exhaust free, oil cooler & lines free all seemed to me to suggest I could
add a turbo -- er, a spectacularly ineffective oil cooler) but based upon
my experience in dealing with Protest Committees and serving on them
myself, I realized that probably would not work or if it did, it would be a
one-shot deal and the rules would be changed immediately afterward.

That said, the only cars that are allowed to run the 8x15 wheels are the
'84 and '85 models, and they already have the shorter, stiffer springs.  Or
are you thinking of something else?  ;^)

> Thanks Jeff, I might try this rear up routine, but when I tried that
> with the fwd cars over the years it nettted slower not faster times. 
> Given the handling tendencies of the urq, I just applied the same
> logic.  I'll give it a try again tho.  You have to promise to try
> center and rear locked, and LFB, stand that car on the nose and
> twist.  I gained a full 2-4sec on a 1minute course that way.

As you know, Scott, car setup is a very personal thing and what works for
me might not work for you.  I shared my cars with co-drivers, though, and
they always agreed with my setups so who knows?

As for the locked center and rear diffs, I was being diplomatic in my
previous response: I've tried it and didn't like it at all.  Of course, I
trailbrake into corners and the style you describe above sounds like the
complete opposite so perhaps it's just a driving style thing?


Jeff Goggin
Scottsdale, AZ



More information about the Torsen mailing list