[V8] track F/R and fun stuff.....:-)
allanvega at adelphia.net
Wed Apr 18 12:40:14 EDT 2007
In the spirit of furthering everyons understanding of there suspension
(myself included), I am jumping back in on this thread.
Scott ,Jack and all. Say one wants to still lower the car for what ever
reason (looks, low center of gravity, already spent the money on the parts,
or whatever). And let say, one acknowledges the drastic affect this will
have on suspension components and handling, and would like to work around
that to find asolution. Can we have a discussion on this? After thinking
about this a little, and rereading previous posts on this matter, I now see
your point with the sway bar and control arm issue. I would like to submit
an idea to you and the list, and would appreciate your, as well as Jacks
feedback. The solution to me seems to be relatively simple. For how ever
much you lower the car, you drop the lower ball joint, and tie rod arm. This
would effectively keep the suspension relative to each other(i.e not change
the geometry) this would also take care of the swabar issue as well.
Dropping the steering arm would be as simple as grinding away the old weld
on the strut tube, and sliding it down, then re weld. Not sure if lowering
the ball joint mounting area is possible, but it makes the most seance to
me. Maybe weld some kind of bracket or something. Do you agree with this in
theory? I know I haven't addressed the front axle slope, but this is what I
come up with so far.Al
----- Original Message -----
From: <QSHIPQ at aol.com>
To: <J123fs at aol.com>; <v8 at audifans.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [V8] track F/R and fun stuff.....:-)
> In a message dated 4/18/2007 8:25:51 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> J123fs at aol.com writes:
>>I emailed my buddy who might be selling his scirocco Mk1 to me that I'm
>>hoping to turn into a GT4-5 car (deciding on motor as we speak) and we
> talked on
>>just this same thing and the last thread here on the V8 list, and about
>>relocating the a-arm mounts/ axle changes......fun stuff (Also
>>F-Vee, but big $$ to run). If you want we can go off list with it I might
>>your brain some more.
> Always happy to help keep sciroccos in the spotlight. Jack, make sure
> go all caps with private emails so I catch them on quick parusing....
>>And yes, you are correct with Ackermann terminology- I just didn't want
>>muddy the water anymore:-) Funny though-and a good example of what to do,
>>why the front geometry of the 44 is a compromise for packaging and
>>comfort-.... is look at any formula car and you can see the steering
> mounted very
>>close indeed to the plane of the front suspension for exactly that
>>helping eliminate bumpsteer issues.
> Just haven't seen one that uses the swaybar like audi did. I always
> some audi engineer was going to blow a cork and put up his story on how
> rear of a type 44 is such a marvel, and the front kills the drooling over
>>As far as type 85 vs. 44- my thoughts go to the shocks almost
>>immediately....... at least in the context of the washboard road and the
> Audi being
>>schooled by a Ford Ranger.....I had a 5000 tq I did a rallycross and tsd
> rally with
>>and found the newish Boge's I had in the car not able to deal with any
>>effectively, what do you think? I think the breakup of traction could be
>>wheels are just not on the ground = no traction.
> Hmmm, I like Boges myself (esp turbo gas), don't forget the group B cars
> used a standard issue boge strut. I do believe you are correct that the
> on the ground beat wheels in the air. That's a wheel travel and control
> issue. A type 44 'control arm' will resist uneven wheel travel because
> is spring rate built into the control arm itself (swaybar). For
> that can be solved with wheel travel IME.
>>I also think the type 85 fundamentally sits lower than the comfort biased
>>type 44 suspension. I know a few folks that have them (Mark Besso are you
>>there?) who might confirm or deny it.I admit to not really knowing about
>>as I never got excited over them being a little portly for my tastes.
> Hmm, the urq type 85 has more room in it than the type 44 IME. I've had
> both type 44 and type 85 urq in my stable concurrently for almost 12years
> I believe it's not ride height, it's suspension geometry of the type 85
> gives the advantage. A lot more accurate front steering arcs, when the
> swaybar isn't changing caster angles. A lot less slop in the geometry.
> Add in a
> less flexing chassis in the type 85, it will inherently have the handling
> advantage. That said, one of the main reasons I like stock ride height
> on my
> quattros (all) is that wheel travel and quattro IS the advantage.
> in less than ideal conditions (rallycross, midwest roads, Steamboat Ice
> track), wheel travel is the key to speed. Wheel not on the ground has no
>>I think the 44 can handle pretty well, just depends what your end need
>>track car- family hauler, ect. Sadly, I do not think it can do BOTH very
>>effectively, as you compromise comfort or the ability to absorb pothole
>>when you really lower it, not to mention the other issues we already
>>and ergo a good comfortable street setup sorely lacks front end traction
>>badly due to the weight bias it will just grind the front tires right
>>the track! They DO brake nicely though with all that weight up there!
> My experience is different Jack, when I put together my 87 5ktqavant, I
> specifically wanted it to do daily grocery/kid hauling, then be good at
> the track
> as well. Were there faster cars at the track? Sure, but at a private
> session at Gingermann, I had a tweeked E36 M3 driver that spent a lot of
> trying to catch that wagon, and couldn't in 35minutes of track time.
> insisting that I lift the hood (revealing a dirty and leaf strewn 10vt
> engine as I
> borrowed from the wife that day), a lot of discussion ensued on how a
> 44 could do that.
> Rorhl, Stuck, and directly to me - Pobst, are all on record saying that
> type 44 race car is one of the easiest cars to drive fast. Long
> and proper setup can overcome that crappy front swaybar. I just go on
> that lowering it has never been my answer, save all out race car (even
> we run the 5ktq race car at almost stock ride height).
> I will share this story... I built a 91 200tq sedan to be my vision of a
> Steamboat Ice track car for an ex-rally champion for this past feb
> event (shameless plug _www.gruppe-q.com_ (http://www.gruppe-q.com) ).
> swaybar and ~1in over stock, Boge turbo gas (+ some other tweeks).
> question, one of the fastest (if not the) at that venue. Even in the
> worst ice
> track conditions, it would never bottom out, and the tires stuck to the
> always. I got to take it for some hot laps for almost a solid hour. I
> at the ease of which that big pig sucked up just about every other
> There's a lot that can be learned from Audis own efforts in race/rally.
> convinced the first is, lowering a quattro should be the very last item
> the list for *performance* on a street/occasional track car. I won't
> the looks part of it, but miss piggy isn't bad looking in heels, heck
> look at a
> Scott J
> ************************************** See what's free at
> Audifans V8 mailing list
> Send posts to: mailto:V8 at audifans.com
> Manage your list connection: http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/v8
> Have an Audi V8 question? Check the Audifans Knowledgebase!
> Have a V8 answer? ... Please help others by adding to the KB ... all
> contributions welcome!
More information about the V8