RS5 at Geneva

[adc]

Originally Posted by Radiation Joe

In 2003 the Audis were not quite as unrestricted. It was fun to watch them as they just smoked everyone early in the races, but as all that weight took it's toll late in the race, they'd start going backwards through the field as their brakes and tires went away. In 2004, the SCCA relaxed the restrictions on the RS6 and it cleaned up. In racing it really comes down to who gets the breaks when the rulebook comes out. As stated, Audi beat BMW in both 2003 and 2004 in Speed GT.

So why haven't any teams continued to run the RS6? Why aren't any teams currently running Audis? I see plenty of BMW's though - 2 generations M3's, 330/325/328, Z4 etc.

Why would someone prefer a FWD Acura or Civic, when the A4 should be able to clean up in theory (turbocharged, relatively fuel efficient and AWD).

[adc]

Originally Posted by footie

I think BTCC in the best example of where in theory of where the rwd chassis should have an advantage over fwd (no awd allowed) but doesn't. Can recall the last time is did. So when all things a even fwd is better on the track, must be very interesting to you guys is it not.

Since you selectively picked just one example which showed your argument in the best light, I'll ask again
- what about other unlimited classes?

24hr Nurburgring, venues like the Pikes Peak, LeMans etc.

Why doesn't someone race the 911 Turbo instead of the GT3?

[footie]

Originally Posted by adc

Since you selectively picked just one example which showed your argument in the best light, I'll ask again
- what about other unlimited classes?

24hr Nurburgring, venues like the Pikes Peak, LeMans etc.

Why doesn't someone race the 911 Turbo instead of the GT3?

You must have missed the point of this example,

ALL THESE CAR HAVE SAME WEIGHT, SAME POWER

surely that is the best example of proof that driven wheels or weight displacement has little or no bearing on the outcome, as has always been my point right at the very start when I highlighted the TT-RS vs M3.

I also mention countless times that preferring a certain driving experience is equally important but it's not necessarily the optimum for lap time or grip.

The 24hr N-ring is about reliability as much as anything, Porsche is a proven formula and ultimately will have a better chance of finishing the race excluding track mishaps.

The Quattro name is part of Pike peak history so enough said.

LeMans is a different amnimal where downforce cancels any real benefits that AWD will bring, the same is true for any form of motorsport that relays heavily on aerodynamics above all other.

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by footie

I think BTCC in the best example of where in theory of where the rwd chassis should have an advantage over fwd (no awd allowed) but doesn't. Can recall the last time is did. So when all things a even fwd is better on the track, must be very interesting to you guys is it not.

I thought the BTCC was won last year by a BMW 320(Colin Turkingdon?).The BMW's were usually much faster at the end of the race as they still had tires left and not to mention that they would smoke all the FWD cars at the start.

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

I thought the BTCC was won last year by a BMW 320(Colin Turkingdon?).The BMW's were usually much faster at the end of the race as they still had tires left and not to mention that they would smoke all the FWD cars at the start.

Why use BTCC for an example when WTCC exists? Seat (FWD turbo diesel) has had the upper hand of late, especially in higher altitudes. Rules do tend to favor one over the other, which is why they continuously evolve.

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by footie

LeMans is a different amnimal (animal) where downforce cancels any real benefits that AWD will bring, the same is true for any form of motorsport that relays heavily on aerodynamics above all other.

As for Le Mans, reliability is most important and economy has proven a greater benefit than quicker lap times, as it enables fewer time-killing stops. It goes without saying the car must work well, be kind to tires, and drivers must be worthy of the seat.

[MrHarris]

This thread has gone way OT. The new RS5's interior looks amazing, I think the seats are what really bring it out.

The fender flares don't seem nearly as aggressive as the RS4 or even the E9X M3, but I'm sure if you were to measure it, the track is wide.

I'm eager to see how much ahead in performance this car is, 0-60, 1/4 mile, N-Ring, and slalom.

The exterior I'm not that big of a fan of. It looks beautiful yes, but so does the S5. This RS5 doesn't look as big of a visual difference as the RS4 was to the S4, or even our M3's to the 335 (which I thought was already somewhat of a small visual difference compared to the E46).

It reminds me a lot of a Camaro on the outside (stance and all, not actual styling). I do wish BMW would make seats that rival the C63 AMG, and now this RS5.


About the RWD & AWD.

I feel RWD is hard to learn, easy to master and AWD other way around.


Taking corners hard in a AWD car almost feels like cheating to me sometimes. Just steer and keep the foot on the throttle and 99% of the time it works out. That 1% is going to feel like nothing you've felt and just like that video, it seems almost uncorrectable (almost).

RWD has the rear end coming out a lot, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot and you do get used to this feeling. At first, yes it is scary but little by little with the appropriate environment practice does make perfect.

I find both are fun to drive, but overall I'd say RWD is more fun. You tend to oversteer much more, which is rewarding when you correct it correctly. Just my 2 cents.

[footie]

Originally Posted by MrHarris

This thread has gone way OT. The new RS5's interior looks amazing, I think the seats are what really bring it out.

The fender flares don't seem nearly as aggressive as the RS4 or even the E9X M3, but I'm sure if you were to measure it, the track is wide.

I'm eager to see how much ahead in performance this car is, 0-60, 1/4 mile, N-Ring, and slalom.

The exterior I'm not that big of a fan of. It looks beautiful yes, but so does the S5. This RS5 doesn't look as big of a visual difference as the RS4 was to the S4, or even our M3's to the 335 (which I thought was already somewhat of a small visual difference compared to the E46).

It reminds me a lot of a Camaro on the outside (stance and all, not actual styling). I do wish BMW would make seats that rival the C63 AMG, and now this RS5.

When you do eventually see the RS5 next to the S5 you will instantly see how much more aggressive it looks in comparison. It's similar to comparing a 335i to the M3 side by side, only in the case of the RS5 the bits that make all the difference are impossible to miss. I do agree that this time it's not as dramatic a change as the S4 to RS4 was but this is in part down to the switch from tradition spats to the RS6 varieties.

Seats are stock S5 unless you spec the racing Recaro ones, but the noticeable changes inside are the different gear selector and steering wheel which includes the flat bottom variety as optional in some countries.

[Radiation Joe]

Originally Posted by footie

When you do eventually see the RS5 next to the S5 you will instantly see how much more aggressive it looks in comparison. It's similar to comparing a 335i to the M3 side by side, only in the case of the RS5 the bits that make all the difference are impossible to miss. I do agree that this time it's not as dramatic a change as the S4 to RS4 was but this is in part down to the switch from tradition spats to the RS6 varieties.

Can't say I buy into the boy racer intakes in the front unless they are ducted to inter-coolers. But we all know this car is N/A, right?

[footie]

Originally Posted by Radiation Joe

Can't say I buy into the boy racer intakes in the front unless they are ducted to inter-coolers. But we all know this car is N/A, right?

The ducts do serve a purpose, just not the one which you are suggesting in a somewhat longing manner.