Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'A3/S3 Forum (8L Chassis)' started by vetch, Apr 21, 2009.
BTW, if people are bored...I'll stop arguing the case of the S3!
I seem to remember they didn't like Audi using 4wd in their touring cars back in the nineties when they were winning everything. Obviously not sporty enough...
Hehe, noooo. It's my morning's entertainment!
Keep going, I'm learning alot from your responses and laughing alot from Dave's responses!
Was that in the wet or the dry Chris?
Can you recall?
All those pure racing drivers, with their RWD cars (actually, some FWD...but never mind...we'll choose to ignore them because they are compromised not-proper cars) must have been really upset to see their proper, pure, traditional driving styles monstered by louts in efficient 4WD cars using power where the 'rule book' says you shouldn't. How very dare they? Blo*dy Germans...
What was that about 2nd being the 1st looser?
Rip up 'the rule book'...it's 1st past the post that counts...
More info on the Audi A4 quattro touring car - the touring car governing body deemed the 4wd system such an advantage that the car had to carry extra weight as a handicap. Dont quote me on this but I believe it was 95kg.
Oh, found this, a very interesting read! http://www.speedarena.com/news/publish/features/printer_3883.shtml
crack on Glen..... i too am loving Dave's intelligent yet flawed replies.... kind of like the uni grad who studies theory and the guy whos practised the actual application over many years argument....
I was going to mention the turning cars but didn`t have all the info but I remember them ripping up the rule book because of the audis. Quite a few teddys got thrown out of some big cots back then lol
Am I remembering right?
Didn't they ban ABS too as the BMWs were taking chunks out of everyone using ABS in the early BTCC days?
Presumably proper cars should have RWD and no ABS. Technology and progress are overrated anyway...who needs 'em?
Dave doesnt..... apparently google says that your car is only restricted by the driver driving it, maybe i should have paid more attention to my theory test rather than fannying about on the oral
My degree from the University of Life have taught me that when reality and theory collide, reality usually comes out on top.
but did you check with Paul Roberts of Heat magazine? he disagrees with you and i think hes more qualified in life because hes 89 years of age.....
where will this end......
I'd love you to point out the flaws.
I think the basis of that statement relies mostly on your lack of knowledge than anything else.
Glen will argue ALL day regardless of how wrong he is, and so will I, and I can guarantee someone with more knowledge could come in and rip apart every post made by Glen and every post by me.
But personally, I'm not so sure you're qualified to comment.
My original staement concerned the S3 specifically, and now everyone has decided I am against 4Wd in all applications.
If we're going to get to grass roots, we should all have RWD cars with no power steering and no ABS.
Interesting that concept is massively popular, think Caterham and Westfield.
But lets summarise:
4WD is great in most applications
The S3 is a tarted up A3
4WD on the S3 is universally cack
And the things we disagree on:
Traction advantage in normal driving
Traction advantage on wet ground
Glen can quantify 4% difference on a dyno with a 5% error margin.
What have I missed?
the fact that an M3 is tarted up 3 series perhaps? because thats exactly what it is with traction control no less....
I am fully aware that most of what is above is beyond my experiance, but i do have a damn good basis of knowledge (engineering and hobby)to build my own conclusions and this can be brought into this mix... i really cannot be bothered to go scrolling through, i know that you have contradicted yourself in various posts both now and in the past and also provided **** info based upon theoretical situations based on opinions of Craig who happens to work for so and so magazine....you also tend to dwell on points in a conversation to aid your argument whilst ignoring material facts that will draw down your debate (good tactic), whether you do this conciously or not is a matter of opinion.... so Dave be under no disillusion that you are perfect.... i will say one thing though, my S3 would take a wet roundabout better than your M3 any day of any week in any country - Fact
as for your comments
4WD is great in most applications - agree
The S3 is a tarted up A3 - agree although when compared to what? your M3 is a tarted up 3 series but is 'more' tarted up than say a mondeo LX and an ST version.
4WD on the S3 is universally cack - again, when compared to what? id love to bet it would still hold its own in its class 8L and 8P
And the things we disagree on:
Traction advantage in normal driving - couldnt comment
Traction advantage on wet ground - so if your M3 breaks traction in the wet, that is a good thing?
Glen can quantify 4% difference on a dyno with a 5% error margin.- you'll have to speak to Glen about that
Glen will argue all day to make a point he has seen with his own eyes...against some text book pilot who takes his information from google or DR.
You can be really boring when you don't listen to what's been said.
I'll try to explain again to people who are hard of understanding - ie, you.
Let's say you dyno an engine at 320 lb-ft. That's a tolerance of 16 lb-ft or so...so 312-328 lb-ft.
Let's say you now swap the N75, with no other changes...and dyno it again.
You now get 332 lb-ft...a tolerance of, lets say 17 lb-ft being generous or so...so 323-340 lb-ft.
Now lets say you do the same tests again, and again and again...each time seeing 10-14 lb-ft of a gain.
This, in my book, is repeatable.
I accept that your argument holds water if you took a spot measurement with each N75...but many runs (say, 5 or more with each valve?) and the car did not move between runs.
You are seriously arguing that it's not repeatable?
Come on Dave...you are better than that.
The figures may be accurate to 5%, but the gain is very real.
Is any of that really relevant in everyday driving?
What's relevant is the point at which the S3s tyres can, or cannot transfer the torque easily to the road...in this case, they can at 320 lb-ft...and cannot at 332 lb-ft.
Where the slip becomes too great I don't know, nor care.
The figures could be 100 lb-ft /110 lb-ft...or 500 lb-ft / 540 lb-ft...it's just not relevant.
Hell it could be measured in elephants for all I care.
What IS relevant is that there is a finite point at which you can use pretty much full torque in an S3, with fairly complete control of the car, the slip angles and the revs...above that, you have little control, as the wheels spin uncontrolably and the electronics get their knickers in a knot trying to sort it out...at this point the S3 shows it's nasty side and it very unpleasant to control.
Is THAT really so hard to grasp?
The point, Dave. Again.
This threads making me want to go and by a Volvo.
Is that because they use Haldex too?
Its because they're just really a tarted up household appliance with 4 wheels and hundreds of airbags
i bet the Volvo would have done really well on that Top gear challenge where they filled that Sd1 with water and made clarkson go round the track in it