Got OWNED by an RS6 Avant

[shoei]

Originally Posted by LarThaL

If they made an RS6 sedan, I would own one for sure. I am just not a fan of the 7 body style. If they brought the RS6 Avant to the US, that would work for me also. There is actually guy on the Audi forums who is building an RS6 sedan from an S6. Ambitious and expensive project, but it is turning out well.

The problem is they don't make the RS6 in the sedan, that would be amazing however... It's really a shame, the A6 is rather bland and boring, the A7 is just sleek and gorgeous, it's just super long... In a perfect world, they would make the RS5 more potent... Audi does some good work, I especially dig the MMDI in the dash that all their cars are moving towards... Sat in a TT that had it and it's mind blowingly gorgeous, I just don't know how bright it is at night or distracting for that matter...

[imyopusha]

Ya know, it could have been Manuel Neuer racing me...

[RIP1981]

Originally Posted by LarThaL

Yes, but usually aquaplaning begins with one wheel losing traction. If there are four driven wheels, with the ability to shift traction, you have much more of a safety net.

This might be the case if you just slightly get from safe speed to dangerous speed on the wet. Here awd could prevent an initial spin momentum.

But I guess most people experience sudden aquaplaning entering a very wet area. And then it doesn't matter at all. Just slipping like on ice. You can just hope you didn't enter it while steering as you will just spin.

AWD just feels safer a lot of the time as you don't feel any spinning wheels really. But IMO it isn't really much quicker.

Perhabs with future electric engines which may accelerate the inner wheels suddenly backwards. A nice computer could then result in much better corner speeds. But this is more of fly by wire autopilot driving than driving the car yourself, as you can't control 4 different wheels with 4 gas pedals as a human being

[S4Dude]

Originally Posted by shoei

The problem is they don't make the RS6 in the sedan, that would be amazing however... It's really a shame, the A6 is rather bland and boring, the A7 is just sleek and gorgeous, it's just super long... In a perfect world, they would make the RS5 more potent... Audi does some good work, I especially dig the MMDI in the dash that all their cars are moving towards... Sat in a TT that had it and it's mind blowingly gorgeous, I just don't know how bright it is at night or distracting for that matter...

The next RS5 will be more potent. The Audi boards have already leaked some very speculative details but the NA motor is out and I'd expect to see a TTV6 at the very least in the 450+ HP range.

[shoei]

Originally Posted by S4Dude

The next RS5 will be more potent. The Audi boards have already leaked some very speculative details but the NA motor is out and I'd expect to see a TTV6 at the very least in the 450+ HP range.

They kind of have to - keep up with the jones's... I remember when the RS5 first came out here in LA - they were marked up to $115K... =/ that can't happen either...

[brava09]

Originally Posted by RIP1981

Reasonable question!




1. You will be to fast entering a corner

You enter the corner with to much speed. AWD can't help here. Contrary.

A tyre can only transfer a certain amount of force. You can use it to accelerate, decelerate (longitudinal grip) and for cornering (lateral grip).

Which tyres will help you cornering? Right, the ones in the front. And if their purpose is to hold you in corner, you shouldn't put any force to decelerate or accelerate, as every force will reduce the possible grip for lateral forces.

Quattro can help if you enter the corner with too much speed. It brakes the inner rear tire and transfer the torque to the outer rear tire, which helps rotate the car.

So it's not only the front tires that help you cornering, it's also the rear tires.

As I said many times, my former E92 M3 was understeering when entering too fast in a slow corner, while in my Quattro RS5 I couldn't experience it as yet, although I tried (within sane limits).

[S4Dude]

Originally Posted by shoei

They kind of have to - keep up with the jones's... I remember when the RS5 first came out here in LA - they were marked up to $115K... =/ that can't happen either...

Agreed. They'll be 85K and Audi will unfortunately sell every one of them at that price. I don't think over MSRP pricing will work since there are so many capable competitors in the market but I also don't think there'll be any discounts. I'm waiting to see...

[RIP1981]

Originally Posted by brava09

Quattro can help if you enter the corner with too much speed. It brakes the inner rear tire and transfer the torque to the outer rear tire, which helps rotate the car.

So it's not only the front tires that help you cornering, it's also the rear tires.

As I said many times, my former E92 M3 was understeering when entering too fast in a slow corner, while in my Quattro RS5 I couldn't experience it as yet, although I tried (within sane limits).

You don't need awd for that. Rwd is enough. Porsche does this too with P(orsche)T(orque)V(ectoring).

You can also transfer all the torque to one rw with a good differential or brake one rear wheel individually. And you still save the weight of the quattro components.

Look at the last Audi TT RS. It understeers like a swan (Chris Harris) and has quattro ;-)

[brava09]

Originally Posted by RIP1981

You don't need awd for that. Rwd is enough. Porsche does this too with P(orsche)T(orque)V(ectoring).

You can also transfer all the torque to one rw with a good differential or brake one rear wheel individually. And you still save the weight of the quattro components.

Look at the last Audi TT RS. It understeers like a swan (Chris Harris) and has quattro ;-)

There is Quattro and Quattro....

TT RS uses Haldex awd, that's the reason it understeers. The Torsen (torque sensing) awd is the real deal.

RWD is not enough, even with PTV. Having torque sent to front wheels as well will help even more rotating the car. The front will be pulled in the steering direction, while the torque sent to the outer rear wheel (combined with the brake on the inner rear) will push the car around the corner.

[RIP1981]

Originally Posted by brava09

There is Quattro and Quattro....

TT RS uses Haldex awd, that's the reason it understeers. The Torsen (torque sensing) awd is the real deal.

RWD is not enough, even with PTV. Having torque sent to front wheels as well will help even more rotating the car. The front will be pulled in the steering direction, while the torque sent to the outer rear wheel (combined with the brake on the inner rear) will push the car around the corner.

Ok then RS4 or RS5. They don't have haldex.

Still they are not famous for very neutral or oversteery behaviour. They understeer as well a lot.

This torque vectoring trick may help a bit, but it won't compensate the disadvantages.

- weight distribution (at least 55% on the front), which leads to understeer as mass is lazy to change direction and is concentrated more on the front
- overall weight, awd components add to that. Those things are fairly heavy (> 1700 kg)

On a dry track they will be slower than a good designed rwd car, going through the corner. On a wet they may have some advantages leaving the corner and accelerating as grip is missing.

In races slicks have more than enough grip with rwd. Even with fwd they are damn fast around corners.
As I said even in the wet awd never won really during 24h races on nürburgring. And there were a few awd cars. But they didn't benefit as much as you would think.

____

But we don't talk about racing. We just talk about fast cornering or going to fast into a corner, because you think you can go faster with an awd car in the rain.

What do you think torque vectoring will allow? Lets say the physical limit for a corner on this set of tyres is 60 mph for a car without torque vectoring, What do you estimate torque vectoring will allow? 61 mph? 62? So AWD drivers drive only 2 mph faster in the rain?
My experience is that they think they drive in a different league in the wet. Thats why insurances at least in my region are much more expensive for awd cars. Cause they think they can go faster but crash a lot.

Personally I would just see a different angle crashing into the woods or wall, if you go to fast with a quattro torque vectoring. As it can yaw the car a bit but can't trick physics.

What I like to learn is, how torque vectoring can increase the possible cornering speed physically?

Yes you may accelerate single wheels in the front or back. Therefore you can yaw the car a bit and you may stabilize the car like esp does with braking. You can prevent the car from spinning and make it feel more stable during cornering.

The maximum speed in mid corner can be achieved if you don't give any decelerating or accelerating forces to the tyres aka pushing the clutch e.g.

This way the front tyres can concentrate all the grip on lateral forces to prevent from leaving the road. The rear tyres have a bit more reserve and you could push a bit with the outside wheel and yaw a bit. But you won't increase the ability of the front tyres holding the car on the road.

Entering the corner to fast you will still understeer into the outside part of the corner. Torque vectoring as I said then could change the angle.

Giving any sort of power or brakes on the already overwhelmed front tyres will only increase understeer. (at least if you don't slow down reducing your cornering speed)

Giving to much power in the back will also yaw the car aka oversteer and you will also crash in a different angle.

So it may feel more stable or it is in fact more stable regarding oversteer, but the system won't allow faster maximum cornering speed. Like ESP it may rescue a bit to fast by braking (and accelerating) wheels skilfully. But usually also ESP makes you slower to rescue you.

In the wet I am certain that a light sports car still has a higher maximum cornering speed if it has comparable tyres.

We can agree on more traction and possible higher exit speeds out of corners, especially in the wet where traction plays a big role. You may put down more power leaving the corner. But the system can't disable the physical limits for maximum cornering speed! You still have to enter the corner slow enough to not overwhelm the front tyres.

You may also achieve a quicker direction change in very narrow corners, as with that torque vectoring trick the car may yaw quicker ... but thats another story than maximum cornering speed in usual corners. You won't do slalom or u turns on an autobahn or highway (where torque vectoring actually could help)

[brava09]

Wow, you're very passionate.

Explain then why GT-R is faster than most RWD cars on many race tracks? If it's not the AWD then what is it?

[PunjabiM3]

Originally Posted by brava09

Wow, you're very passionate.

Exlpain then why GT-R is faster than most RWD cars on many race tracks? If it's not the AWD then what is it?

It definitely isn't the weight because it weighs almost 4000 lbs!

[RIP1981]

Originally Posted by brava09

Wow, you're very passionate.

Explain then why GT-R is faster than most RWD cars on many race tracks? If it's not the AWD then what is it?

Well, the GT-R is indeed a very interesting car dynamicswise.

A laptime on a racetrack is a benchmark for the whole driving dynamics, not only about cornering speed.

The GT-R has a lot of power and a lot of traction with an excellent awd system. Therefore I would expect:

- fast corner exit speeds resulting in even more advantage going out on a straight
- fast acceleration in general with near 500 hp to more than 500 hp depending on the model

This accounts for a lot of parts of a racetrack if a car accelerates massively.

The negative parts of the mass should be visible entering corner and mid corner and perhabs while braking.

__

Building a fast car is more than doing a light car. There are lots and lots of factors to make a car really fast. And Nissan obviously did a lot things right compared to other cars.

I read somewhere they knew the final weight before constructing the car and balanced a lot of stuff around that weight.
You can do a lot with a good suspension and general good tuning.


It is not only the AWD system. Its the complete package of one of the first good dct, one of the first good active awd systems but generally good tuning of all components.

And this car is very easy to drive compared to a lot of other cars and therefore can be exploited much easier.

BUT the awd system is not the magical system making it faster than everything else.

What about the current BMW M4 GTS? It has less power and it has no awd system and still will kick the ass of a nissan gtr if driven by a good driver.

What about the current 911 GT3 (RS)? Also less power and also no awd. Still faster, isn't it?

There are quite a lot cars faster than the Nissan GTR and not using awd.

You will say: yeah, they are newer (partly).

I say: Nissan did a lot of things right before others did them like this. Other manufacturers had to push to recover from this deficit.

The main magic of the Nissan GTR is the low price for this kind of performance as most faster cars are much more expensive.

But I guess it is not all magic.

I am very often at the nürburgring. I watch the cars on the Nordschleife or on the GP track and I drove my Porsche a lot of laps.
I encountered some Nissan GTRs. They are quick as hell. But not mid corner, they are quick leaving the corner and accelerating. Mid corner a Golf GTI with good tyres isn't really slower, especially not entering it.

The other thing is durablity. I see lots and lots and lots of GT3s and built up tracktools like BMW M3s or Renault Megane RSes.

What I don't see that much often are Mercedes AMG, Audi RS and other heavy comfortable cars.

And I don't see a lot of Nissan GTRs lapping a lot of laps consequently.

The weight destroys tyres, it stresses all components. Brakes, Tyres, Oil temperature.

The Nissan GTR IS fast. 5 laps GP? 1 or 2 laps Nordschleife?

Compare it after 10 Laps Nordschleife to say a Lotus Elise or a 911 GT3. It will either be really slow or already left the track with worn out tyres and has to be checked. Especially the transmission oil.

I guess you may make it more durable with expensive components but then you lose the magic of the cheap car for this performance It will end up costing more than a brandnew 911 GT3. And still it won't endure as long mostly as long as it doesn't get much lighter. The race versions of the Nissan GTR have no awd and are much lighter.

Otherwise a Lotus elise will lose the first and second and perhabs third lap. But in 10 laps I guess it will get the Nissan GTR

___

Thats all not the point here. I just wanted to point it out. I don't like the Nissan GTR for it looks and for the concept.
But I admire it technically for delivering this performance with that weight for this price. Ingenious engineering. But as a whole package not just simply putting a clever awd drive system to it. Its more than that.


Coming back to the topic. A Nissan GTR will also understeer miserably if entering a corner as fast as say a Lotus Elise. The weight sets limits and the front tyres set limits even with this kind of awd.

So the Nissan GTR putting a very fast laptime on the racetrack will crash on the autobahn in rain if entering the corner to fast. It won't magically do 20 or 30 mph more in a corner than the usual family saloon. At least not without rain slicks compared to street tyres or similar tricks

And Audi quattro cars (unfortunately) never had the magic of a GTR. I was always disappointed. The current Audi TTS could be such a fast car technically. But still it is not as fast as a current Porsche Cayman GTS with all those awd tricks.

The new Audi R8 could be nice as it is the same as the new Lamborghini Huracan. But I drove the Huracan on a track in Las Vegas and it was nothing compared to the 991 GT3 handlingwise. At least for my taste. Nice show car for the straight and not to slow in the corner ... but not as controlled and nice as a 991 GT3


PS.

There is an interessting relation between grip and weight. A car that is double the weight of another car isn't THAT much slower in corners. Lets take a 900 kg car and a 1800 kg car. Both the exact same concept. Same tyresize, same drive system etc.

900 kg of mass won't pull as hard towards the outside. But 900 kg also have less pressure on the tyres. 1800 kg mass will push much harder because of their mass intertia. But they also put much more weight on the tyres pushing them to the ground increasing their grip.

But doubling the pressure on the tyres won't double their grip exactly. It is a little less than that, while doubling the mass will double the needed forces to keep it on track. Therefore light cars always have an advantage. In most corners it is only a slight advantage.

It only gets nasty on very fast direction changes. There mass inertia is very very bad. And clever AWD systems can help a bit there by these torque vectoring tricks you described ...

[Kankles]

It's rare to read and enjoy a post so lengthy

[LarThaL]

People seem to be solely focused on the car. That will be fine when we live in the world of self-driving cars. Until then, a driver is involved, and how fast a particular car can get around a particular track or stretch or road will depend on the car and the driver.

There is no doubt in my mind that most drivers, even reasonably good ones will be able to take an AWD car faster around a track than a RWD car, all other things being relatively equal. You just can't deny the advantage of AWD grip in this regard. Now, pro drivers who are comfortable with driving high performance cars on the ragged edge may be able to take a properly set-up RWD car around a track faster, but that is not most people.

[RIP1981]

@Thrillbilly: Thanks

@larthal:

Thats correct. The driver usually does more than the car. I am far from a pro driver. Nevertheless I overtook a 610 hp huracan and a > 500 hp ferrari in the 340 hp Cayman GTS in Las Vegas on the track

And I agree that usually awd is a bit easier to handle as you can just wait for the apex and then just "rock n roll"

But question: You have a Cayman GTS. It is very well balanced. But it has only RWD. Is it that much harder to drive on a dry track day then your S3 or S6? Do you think you are slower in it?
Especially with those nice ESP systems today ... the PSM in the Cayman always saved me. Never spun in the dry with it. Always fun and balance.

I drove a lot of Caymans and never thought it is that hard. In rain it may be different story ... my old cayman is very nasty in rain.

[LarThaL]

Originally Posted by RIP1981

@Thrillbilly: Thanks

@larthal:

Thats correct. The driver usually does more than the car. I am far from a pro driver. Nevertheless I overtook a 610 hp huracan and a > 500 hp ferrari in the 340 hp Cayman GTS in Las Vegas on the track

And I agree that usually awd is a bit easier to handle as you can just wait for the apex and then just "rock n roll"

But question: You have a Cayman GTS. It is very well balanced. But it has only RWD. Is it that much harder to drive on a dry track day then your S3 or S6? Do you think you are slower in it?
Especially with those nice ESP systems today ... the PSM in the Cayman always saved me. Never spun in the dry with it. Always fun and balance.

I drove a lot of Caymans and never thought it is that hard. In rain it may be different story ... my old cayman is very nasty in rain.

One of the points I made in my previous post was "all other things being equal". By that I was referring to basic design parameters, power, weight, etc. The Cayman, as you have discovered, is simply brilliant. I would take it as driving toy all day long over the S6 and S3. However, it is a light, normally aspirated mid-engine car so the dynamics are significantly different than that of a front engine turbocharged sedan.

As far as being able to outperform more powerful cars on a track, the Cayman has shown that it can be done simply because the car is so well balanced that you can extract all of its ability and still feel in control. Not sure the same can be said for some of the supercars out there, especially in the hands of most drivers.

[brava09]

@ RIP1981 Difficult to argue with such heavy posts


Explain then why the RS5 is faster than your Cayman on most of the tracks?
Source: http://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/ff60opr0zu2l

It is 700 lbs porkier than the Cayman....It must be the AWD, I see no other reason


Cayman S RS5
Ring Knutstrop (Conf 2) 1:12.70 1:12.10
Virginia Int RacewayGrandEastCourse(pre 01/14) 3:05.80 3:04.30
Hockenheim Short 1:13.90 1:14.00
Contidrom 1:36.52 1:34.39
Autozeitung test track 1:40.60 1:40.40
Nurburgring Nordschleife 8:06.00 7:59.00
Laguna Seca (post 1988) 1:43.00 1:42.97

[RIP1981]

Trying to keep it short.

1. Comparing old Cayman vs RS5. Current Cayman S is faster depending on track.
Hockenheim short e.g 1.12.8

2. RS5 has much more power. 450 hp vs 320 or 325 depending on Cayman Generation

Even considering weight: weight/power ratio still is better with RS5

So if a track has enough long straights, rs5 always will win the first few laps.
If it is a narrow handling track, cayman will win despite less power per weight.

3. RS5 won't endure very long. Give it a few laps and Audi is out while Porsche still driving

4. RS5 often was timed using semislick tyres. A lot of good times are because of better tyres.

Cayman is not allowed to use semislicks as the high cornering speeds could overwhelm oil supply.
Rs5 is to slow for that in corners and is allowed to use semis afaik.

5. Still does not make any statement about maximum cornering speed. This just states the RS5 being quick in one lap using semis perhabs.
I would have guessed that. 450 hp. The more straights the better the result ;-)

Compare it to rwd cars with similar power and concept. Bmw m4 is quicker everywhere. Similar power weight, same category. And without awd.

Still Bmw m4 has slower cornering speed than current Cayman S/GTS. Despite faster overall laptimes ;-)

Cheers
Rip

[brava09]

I compared old Cayman vs old RS5. RS5 is out of production, you can't order a new one. And it's basically a 2007 design, based on the B8 A5.

M4 is a generation ahead, the E92 M3 was slower than RS5 on most tracks, so rwd is slower than awd..generation to generation.

I take your point about the number of laps, obviously the Cayman would sustain more laps without big issues.

[ChrisK]

Originally Posted by brava09

I compared old Cayman vs old RS5. RS5 is out of production, you can't order a new one. And it's basically a 2007 design, based on the B8 A5.

M4 is a generation ahead, the E92 M3 was slower than RS5 on most tracks, so rwd is slower than awd..generation to generation.

I take your point about the number of laps, obviously the Cayman would sustain more laps without big issues.

"E92 M3 was slower than RS5 on most tracks" <-- On what track?

[RIP1981]

Cayman GTS did 1.12.x very similar to BMW M4 on Hockenheim.

BMW M4 has more power an accelerates better than Cayman GTS. Still they have about the same laptime.

=> Cayman has to have higher cornering speed to achieve this as it can't get it on straights.

BMW M4 is quicker than Audi RS5 over a lap. Where do you think it loses? Is it much slower in acceleration on the straights with its 450 hp? Or is it slower in the corners?

My guess: it doesn't accelerate very different to M4. Weight and awd need a bit more power. So the main difference fo the huge time difference on Hockenheim should be found in corners, right? Granted the BMW M4 is much newer design.

Sooo, if BMW M4 cornering speed > Audi RS5 cornering speed

and

Cayman GTS cornering speed > BMW M4 cornering speed ...

I think you get the point about cornering speed. Talking about entry and mid corner here.

Traction leaving corner should be good with awd.

Lets wait for the new RS4/5 to compare again.
I never saw a Mercedes or Audi win against BMW on track in german tests on Hockenheim and Nürburgring.

Perhabs there is a first time.

We are reaching power peaks now which generally get advantages with awd on street tyres. Traction will be a topic, especially in slow corners.