Why we can expect great things from new RS6

[tailpipe]

This is a quote from Audi's latest Annual Report:

"The company achieved its highest rates of growth for the first four months in the C-segment. With a total of 79,414 units delivered, the Audi A6 recorded an increase of 42 percent. This makes the Audi A6 the worldwide market leader in the premium C segment."

The A6 is a real winner for Audi. It looks good. It goes well. And is quite a bit more reliable than the Mercedes-Benz E-Class, it's nearest rival. Interestingly, both cars are ahead of the BMW 5-Series. Audi has achieved growth at the expense of these two brands. Personally, I think that BMW's dog ugly styling has begun to bite.

But with Audi, the best is yet to come, with two hot models in the future mix:

(1) RS6: They've got the new 5.2 litre FSI V-10 going well - and we know for sure that it can be tweaked well beyond the 435 bhp currently pushed out by the S6. In fact, I just don't think power will be an issue. I just hope that the next RS6 is going to handle really well. I also hope it delivers good consumption.

(2) V-12 TDI: R10 race technology looks like it will filter down into an RS-D model. It won'y have the outright pace of the RS6, but will be pretty close. Expect 25-30% better consumption.

Both will have twin-turbos.

[Benman]

I think personally the next RS 6 will be a monster. As long as it is a TTV10, it will be extrememly quick. I don't see it being light (I expect @4475lbs), so quattro has their work cut out for them.

If they can pull off the miracle of making it handle better than the RS 6 MkI while weighting @400 lbs more, than they have achieved something. Me getting it, that's another story as I doubt I'll be able to afford the $100K price tag... but it will be sweet...:heart:


Ben:addict:

[moldowan]

and when is the expected release date again???
2 years from now?
-moldy

[Benman]

Originally posted by moldowan
and when is the expected release date again???
2 years from now?
-moldy

For us in the States, probably.

Ben:addict:

[Aronis]

just put the Ohlin Overcoils in instead of the DRC and PRESTO better handling.

Mike

[MJN]

The possibility of very high bhp rates and handling is very good, but what worries me is the weight issue. If the S6 is already more than 1700 kg and they'll add some turbo's they definitely have to think of saving weight somewhere, because it will really affect the handling.

Let's wait and see what they have for us.

[Leadfoot]

On all of the tests that have been reported on the new S6 there has been no bad remarks towards the handling or anything apart from the ride which is Audi old school rock hard. Because of the 40/60 split in the quattro, all said the nose is keen to change direction even with such a heavy engine and the engine is rated as a peach.

We have seen what Audi can make of the new DRC in the RS4, it handles beautifully and the ride is better than the A8. I believe with such an important car like the RS6, Audi will be pulling out all the stops and will add magnetic ride suspension to make is at the very least a match for the M5, but with all of the great Audi qualities. We all know what I mean by this, all of the power there all of the time and with quattro the safety to use it in all weathers.

The only problem I see is the price, the S6 in my opinion is over priced at 55k, Audi normal add £15K to the RS model over the S, I reckon this time it won't be enough, £20K will be nearer the mark. A RS6 will be harder to sale at £75K no matter how quick it will be, it's not got the brand image of Mercedes to price like that.

[clam]

Weight does not effect handling. The grip of a tyre depends on how much weight is on it. That's what downforce is about. Weight is sort of a natural downforce. So a heavy car does generate a lot of lateral force in a corner, but the vertical force on the tyre also generates more grip. So it evens out.
They say the Veyron handles the twisties like a Lotus Elise, and if I'm not mistaken, it is heavier than the RS6 will be.

The price of weight is in overall economy. Everything needs to be bigger on a heavy car.


What comes first? The expensive car, or the expensive image? Perhaps Audi doesn't have an expensive image, simply b/c they don't make really expensive cars. Mercedes shows that's it not all about value/money. Mostly the image of value, through money.

Perhaps the RS6 will be able to take advantage of economy of scale. S6, S8, Gallardo, R8, RS6, RS8?, Q7, A5?, A7?. That's a lot of cars that will be, or could be, using a version of the same engine and transmission.

The Porsche Cayenne uses a VR6. It wouldn't be too far fetched if they borrow the V10 for their SUV and Panamera sedan. Both of them roll out of a VAG factory, with final assembly by Porsche.
An Audi/Lambo V10 Porsche makes more sense than the 6cyl from the Golf. Maybe daddy Porsche can hook them up with the variable Turbos from the 997.

VAG supplies about 30 percent of the parts that Porsche uses. That's the main reason why Porsche bought the max allowed amount of 20% of VWs stock. This limit is called the Volkswagen law, and will soon be overturned by the EU. They bought the stock to protect their main supplier. And now they that are on the board, the amount of work that VAG does for Porsche will increase. Porsche is interlocked with VAG. They will rise and fall together.

So Porsche will very much keep track of what the VAG brands are doing. Audi basically needs permission from Porsche to build the RS6. It is not unthinkable that a mutual benefit will be part of the bussines plan for the RS6. Seeing how similar it will be to the Panamera.

So in conclusion, the price of the RS6 might be reasonable. Economy of scale. It could be a sort of prototype of the Panamera.

[QuattroFun]

Just to remind, Audi is a very strong brand in Europe and in fact some European consumer studies show that Audi drivers are typically higher income/wealthier than corresponding MB & BMW drivers so it being lesser than MB & BMW and thus having to be cheaper than key rivals applies to the US and maybe some parts of Asia only. Of course, Porsche is something quite else in this context not to mention Bentley, Aston etc..

Weight is a real problem for everything from engine to brakes to suspension - still, I just hope they make the RS6 really good and something to be proud of without cutting cost corners even it means that it will not sell well in the very price sensitive US market. It will be small volume in any case and there will be plenty of demand for the car if it delivers elsewhere where it is considerably more expensive anyway .

[Tom C]

I highly doubt that the new RS6 will have a twin-turbo V-10. From what I have read, the new R8 sports car will have an optional 520hp version of the N/A 5.2L V-10 (standard engine is the RS4 V-8). There will be no coprorate justification to slap on the twin turbo set-up just for the RS6. Especially since they will have met their goal of topping the M5's 507hp and E/CLS63's 510hp without having to resort to forced induction. I also don't think their will be a significant weight gain from the S6. In fact, I think they may have left room for a more extensive use of light weight materials that could actually bring the weight down from the S6's 4,250lb curb weight.

Tom

[moldowan]

Tom,
I believe your right on the money! 520hp N/A a bit lighter than s6 20-30lbs maybe.
Thats my wager and i feel confident-<G>
-moldy

[SpinEcho]

Originally posted by clam
Weight does not effect handling. The grip of a tyre depends on how much weight is on it. That's what downforce is about. Weight is sort of a natural downforce. So a heavy car does generate a lot of lateral force in a corner, but the vertical force on the tyre also generates more grip. So it evens out.
They say the Veyron handles the twisties like a Lotus Elise, and if I'm not mistaken, it is heavier than the RS6 will be.

Your definition of handling sounds like my definition of grip - in fact, you use the words interchangeably. You can have all the grip in the world, but sh*t handling - and that pretty much sums up the RS6.

Handling to me means: road feel, turn-in, balance, adjustability while cornering, etc. In general, lighter cars do all these things better than heavier ones.

[clam]

Good observation. Handling = grip.

The tyres' grip are the only thing that connect the car with the road. The tyre's grip is the thing that translate all the forces into action. A car basically runs on grip. Without it, every thing else is futile.

Handling is the balance of grip.
understeer: more rear grip
neutral: equal grip
oversteer: more front grip

When you controle the distribution of grip, you controle the car. B/c grip is the thing that moves the car. Grip makes a car accelerate or stop. Grip makes a car change direction.

Have you ever seen an F1 car loose its aerodynamics aids? It becomes useless. It's has to limp back to the pits slower that a family car with a Diesel. Why? B/c it has no grip. It's too light for those fat tyres. At that point, it would help to be a little heavier.

[MJN]

Originally posted by clam
Good observation. Handling = grip.

The tyres' grip are the only thing that connect the car with the road. The tyre's grip is the thing that translate all the forces into action. A car basically runs on grip. Without it, every thing else is futile.

Handling is the balance of grip.
understeer: more rear grip
neutral: equal grip
oversteer: more front grip
I disagree with you. Handling is about so much more than just the tyres. In your point of view, a car with a neutral balance can have a good handling, but if the're isn't any grip at all, the handling is still bad, no matter how good the balance is.

Handling is the way the car handles in the corners, the time it takes to translate steerinput to an action on the road, weight balance, damper/spring ajustments etc etc. The balance of the grip is just a part of it. Handling is definitely not just grip.

And it's b*llsh*t to say that weight doesn't matter for an RS6, because we want the RS6 to become nimble and edgy, instead of heavy and numb. An comparison to the Veyron is also nut true, because that has 1001 bhp, a figure which the RS6 can't reach and therefore the RS6 has to think about it's weight.

Why would F1 cars be only 600 kg and the teams working round the clock to save 10 grams of the car?

[Leadfoot]

Originally posted by MJN
Why would F1 cars be only 600 kg and the teams working round the clock to save 10 grams of the car?

The real reason F1 team fight for every grams, is at this point light weight help the car accelerate and brake.

I do agree with most of what you say about handling. Grip is not the be all and end all, a M6 or RS4 may near enough match a 997 Carerra S around the ring, but in no way can you say they handling as well as to the Porsche. Steering feel is every bit as important as grip if not more so, without it you will never know when a car will break free (lose grip) and this is why most cars company add in understeer in to a car's set-up as a safety feature, this includes Audi. Nobel is one car which does not understeer at all, but has possibly one of the best steering feels about, but it is an extreme sportscar.

I personally would prefer a little less grip for a bit more steering feel and everytime I drive the brother's Boxster I say this. I would rate the Boxster/Cayman the best handling cars out there, they corner better than a 997 but aren't as twitchy on the road, and are one of very few rwd cars which handling just as well in the wet. If only it had the other qualities of Audi it would be the car for me, but alas it doesn't so my only hope is for Audi to add this small thing in to future cars.

I reackon the main reason to keep the weight down from a handling point of view is with less weight the springs, dampers, roll bars etc. don't have to be as heavy and this will aid ride comfort, any Lotus is proof of this. Heavy cars have more weight to keep in check and this normally means very hard suspension and poor ride comfort, eg. Audis. The RS4 is really the first to buck the trend and lets hope not the last.

[clam]

It's all about slip angle really. Which is a consequence of grip.

Slip angle is the actual direction of a wheel. A wheel does not always go the way it is pointed. In a corner, the rear wheels for instance point outside the corner. But its direction follows the corner.
There is a momentum trying to make the car go straight in the corner (Newtons 1st law of motion), and there is a force that resists it (grip). The combination of these two forces determins the slip angle of the wheel. The slip angles of the four wheels together determin the direction of the car.

So the grip effects the direction of the indiviual tyres, and the car as a whole. The grip in turn is effected by the forces on the tyre.
There is the vertical force, there is the lateral force, and there is the longitudinal force.

Vertical;
will increase grip. It's the law of friction. If you push down on something, it's resistance to motion will increase.
A car is able to accelerate b/c the contact patch is resisting motion. If it didn't resist, then the wheels would just spin, and the car would not move.

Rubber has a strong elastic property. That will increase the friction it can generate. A solid wooded wheel for instance would not be able to generate that much friction.

The vertical force is the mass of the car, or aerodynamic downforce.

Lateral;
will decrease grip. This is one of the forces that tries to move the object. So it works against the friction. How much of this force a car can handle, depends on how great the friction is.

The lateral force is centrigual force. A combination of speed, turn radius, and mass of the vehicle. In this case, the mass is working against the grip.

Longitudinal;
will decrease grip. This is again a force that works against the friction that the contact patch has with the ground. Just in a different direction.

These forces are the result of acceleration and deceleration.


To recap. Grip determins the direction of the wheel, and it is effected by mass, downforce, speed, turn radius, acceleration, and deceleration. The combination of the grip of the four wheel determin the direction of the whole car.

The total mass of the vehicle works in both ways. It offers more friction, but also increases the forces that counter that friction. The balance between the two will be determined by the choice of tyre, suspension tuning, etc... Both heavy and light cars will have to find that balance. In practice, light cars like the Lotus Elise and the McLaren F1 have had trouble finding the balance. The original F1 was only able to generate 0.86g of lateral resistance. While the Citroën Xantia of that period, with its hydrolic suspension, performed 0.94g on regular street tyres. Later on, the Mclaren F1 LM got special tyres that pulled its performance up to 1.01g.
The total mass of the vehicle does not effect its grip ability, as long as a good balance is found.

Mass distribution will effect the forces on the individual tyres. Just like the total mass, the effect will work both ways. Positive (vertical), and negative (lateral). The combination of which will effect the total direction of the vehicle.

The pivotal point also plays a role. The car turns around a certain point. The further the mass is from the point, the harder it will have to accelerate to reach a certain point. This will require more grip from the tyres. This point is toward the rear (b/c the rear wheel don't turn), so weight should be towards the rear.

RWD, FWD, AWD:
Acceleration will effect the grip in a negative way. This gives RWD a unique feature. You can change the slip angle, aka the direction, of the rear wheels independently from the slip angle of the front wheels. You can also independently effect the direction of the front wheels, with an invention called the steering wheel. This independent controle over the grip of the front and the rear is why RWD is considered the best handling car from a drivers' standpoint. RWD gives a kind of controle that is not possible with FWD or AWD.

With FWD the acceleration force effects the front, which leaves no direct controle over the direction of the rear. You only have direct controle over the front.
AWD effects all the tyres equally, so the balance of grip between the front and rear doesn't change directly with acceleration. Again, you only have direct controle over the front, with the steering wheel. And only a indirect controle of the rear.

Understeer is build in b/c it is easy to compensate. You just turn a little more. Oversteer is not easy to react to, b/c you have to countersteer. That means bring the wheels into the opposite direction. Which requires a lot more effort from the driver, than reacting to understeer.
Neutral steer is the ideal. But since so many changing factors come into play, it could change into oversteer. So it is not a safe option for the suspension tuning of a road car. It is the fastest way around a corner though, so racecars will try to achieve this balance. It will be different for every track. Hard braking corners will bring more force on the front, for instance.


The grip is the force that moves the car. Many forces act on the car, and it's the grip that combines all these forces into motion. If a car handles great, it means you have a great direct controle over the grip of the tyres. If a car has a good 'feel', it means the controle over the grip feels very natural. It means the designers have made sure you can accuratly predict how your actions will effect the grip balance of the car. Being able to predict the grip means more controle. But a lot of factors have to be dealt with.
RWD is easier to predict, b/c the rear is independent from the front. So RWD handles better.

I will restate that it all comes down to grip.

[Leadfoot]

Clam,

You lost me at slip angle. Technically you know way more than me, I only have experience in understanding put to do when grip is lost. Though I don't know any thing about most of that post, one thing I do disagree with is your way with which you would deal with understeer. Understeer is a safety net for inexperienced driver, namely joe public. When you enter a corner to fast the car is basically designed to understeer (let the driver (he/her) know when grip has be lost) the normal reaction is to lift off the throttle which in turn regains grip, not as you stated turn the wheel a bit more. In rallying you are taught to take off turn to regain grip, the more turn you add the more it understeers and I can't believe there would be any difference between gravel to road. The only real difference between rallying and racing is the line taken through the corner.

Rwd is the easiest for an experienced driver to control, but unlike fwd you have a choice on how you regain grip when understeer happens, either lift throttle to make to nose come into line or if the car has enough power add throttle to break grip at the rear which in turn returns grip to the front. Awd is different from rwd in that adding throttle bring on not oversteer but four wheel drift which is the maximum forward motion.

With oversteer rwd differs from both fwd and awd, with it you steer into the slide, unlike fwd and awd which you add throttle to control the slide. But neither oversteer or understeer is best for a quick lap, ask any racing driver.

[clam]

Slip angle is the angle between the direction the wheel is pointed in, and the direction it moves in.
The slip angle of the car as a whole is the angle between the way the car is pointed, and the actual direction of the car. With oversteer, for instance, the car is pointed towards the inside of the corner it is taking.
If the car is sliding sideways across a road, then the slip angle is 90°.
I forgot to add that in my explanation, and I can see how it can be confusing for someone not familiar with the term.

A car with dailed in understeer is understeering at any speed. The front is always sliding outside the radius. It always has a certain slip angle. Even at 5km/h.
The media uses the term only when the traction has been lost, but understeer is present an any speed. It means there is an angle between the way the car is pointing, and the direction it has. With understeer the car is pointing outside its radius. This can be as little as 1°.

I agree that in the extreme situation that the front tyres are at their limit, understeer can't be fixed by turning more. I'll just make you loose the grip completely.
But for normal driving, this isn't the case. The front is always slipping a little bit. And you compensate by turning more, b/c the tyres still have enough grip to deal with the extra slip. Only when the maximum grip has been reached, do you need to resort to tricks like lift off oversteer to pull the car straight.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v292/auform/neutral.jpg

[Leadfoot]

Yes I know but you only feel understeer when grip is lost. So the statement of adding more steering turn isn't relevent as in normal driving no one will really notice.

One thing I will say, with the introduction of ESP or which ever name you want to call it, all the above that has been posted recently doesn't really matter. It takes care of any slide that before it's addition was previously done by the driver.

[JAXRS6]

FYI here's a current article from Autoweek on the S6 that ends with predictions about the next RS6 -- "next year," "twin turbo," "520 hp." I have absolutely no idea how much of it will come true, but here 'tis:

http://autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060515/FREE/60505005&SearchID=73245249836779

[jonas21]

Unfortunatly, i think we can outrule the twin turbo option. Its for sure that the new RS6 will not come with a V8 so it will be a V10. Given the fact that the V10 from the S6 has way more potential it looks like that its going to be a high-rpm V10. I do not think that Audi will use the plain V10 from the S6 and add turbos to it as it has way more potential. Also, if they did that you could probably easily pull out some 100bhp more of the finished car lateron by tuning it. So by pure logic its probably going to be a V10 without turbo.
(Maybe Audi wants to show their top-rpm V10 compared to the BMW M5 V10....)

[clam]

You won't notice, but you will steer more. Your goal is to make your car point in a certain direction. And you'll steer untill your car is pointed that way. As you're doing that, you're compensating for understeer by pointing your front wheels inside the circle they are making. Understeering cars are always sliding their front tyres, and the driver is always compensating with more steering input. If they didn't, then the car would slide its front outside the corner.

You say you don't need to steer more, but you are doing it around every single corner, big or small. Only you don't know it, b/c you're watching the direction of the car, not the direction of the wheels.

That's why it is so safe. Compensating for understeer is so natural that people don't even know they're doing it. That's why every roadcar, even the high performance RWD ones, have natural understeer. Unless you intervene with throttle oversteer, a road going RWD will always be understeering through a corner. And you'll always be compensating.

This is not true for oversteer. You have to compensate for oversteer by countersteering. In a car with natural oversteer, the driver would constantly have to turn his steering wheel from left to right, as the radius of the corner changes. Definitly not as safe as understeer. Not even F1 cars would have this feature, but I think some rally cars do to compensate for their 4x4 systems. I'm going by the way I see them navigate corners.
Rally cars are all about sliding, while F1 cars are all about grip. So the ideal of neutralsteer doesn't apply to a rally car that is sliding through a corner as if it was sliding on ice.

But off course, understeer by its very definition is a loss of grip. It may be safe and predictable, but you're loosing speed. So a balance has to be found between safety and speed. Between understeer and the dream of neutral steer.

ESP can pull the car straight, but it does so by braking. Braking slows you down. It's better to balance the forces on the car from the start, instead of compensating for it later.
ESP also applies to the extreme situations where you are on the limit of your grip. Then compensating with steering is no longer possible (unless you are oversteering).

... But I digress, as I often seem to do. :p Suffice to say, the total mass of the next RS6 does not harm its chances of becoming a great handling car. It's about the balance between the forces, controle and predictability. Not the size of the forces.

[moldowan]

what I like about this forum is the gentelmen-like debate and discussion.
On other forums this would have degraded to a name calling P*ssing match! I guess there is someting to the class of a car and the class of the driver!
good show!
-moldy

[tailpipe]

When I said next RS6 will have a twin-turbo V-10 FSI developing 530-550 bhp I wasn't predicting, I was stating a fact.

Other important fact is that this car will weigh LESS than S6:

- Aluminium suspension components
- Aluminium bonnet/ hood
- Aluminium boot/ trunk lid
- Aluminium front wings
- Lightweight seats as per RS4 but different design

Of course, it will still be quite a heavy beast.

[MJN]

That sounds quite definitive!

Do you have any info about the weight? Would i be correct if i stated that it will do 1750-1900 kg?

[Leadfoot]

Originally posted by tailpipe
When I said next RS6 will have a twin-turbo V-10 FSI developing 530-550 bhp I wasn't predicting, I was stating a fact.

Other important fact is that this car will weigh LESS than S6:

- Aluminium suspension components
- Aluminium bonnet/ hood
- Aluminium boot/ trunk lid
- Aluminium front wings
- Lightweight seats as per RS4 but different design

Of course, it will still be quite a heavy beast.

Tailpipe,

You don't think it could use some of the technology that has produced the chassis/body of the new TT. That would help reduce the weight and aid the weight balance as well. I know the talk is that the new A4/A5 will use this, why that the RS6.

The debate as to N/A or turbo, originally I would have said turbo or with the talk of the TT-RS which will be out late 2007, it is to use a 3.6L v6 hi-rev engine and the R8 also going the same route now I am not so sure.

BMW has always went the N/A route for they performance models and now that Mercedes have dropped the superchargers for large hi-reving N/A engines, I feel Audi has no other choice but to do the same and because of the weight disadvantage of quattro, they will have to either find at least 25-30hp more than the rivals or get the weight down to at least on par with the rest.

[tailpipe]

Hi Leadfoot,

In answer to a direct question put to one of the three top Audi marketing execs in Ingolstadt about the new RS6, I was told TT V10 FSI 550 bhp. At the time, they were testing a car with 600+ bhp to see how hard they could push it. For reliabilty, I was told, it would have around 550 bhp.

Next RS6 features 3 significant technologies:

1. Audi has developed a way of bonding steel and aluminium, a new technology that you correctly point out is a key feature of the new TT. Expect core chassis to be lightened using various aluminium bits, but without compromising torsional rigidity.

2. They are also looking at how to simplify the "plumbing" required for turbos: read fewer, lighter parts. These have been tested on R8/ R10 race cars. So the extra power can be achieved without a significant weight penalty.

3. Advanced suspension technology. (Alas, I know nothing about this.)

RS4 naturally aspirated engine was to show BMW that Audi could do NA, but Audi keen to cement reputation for turbos. Note also that new BMW 3-Series 335i coupe has turbos.

In truth, in a car as powerful as the next RS6 will be, turbos is the only to deliver such performance with acceptable economy.

My only prediction re: next RS6 is that people at Audi will lose jobs if next RS6 doesn't crack 8 minutes on Ring.


(BTW Leadfoot, I love your contributions to RS6.com. You've definitely added a increased level of intelligent debate to the forum. Thanks.)

[tailpipe]

MJN,

I have no idea about exact weight. I only report facts that i'm sure of.


:argue:

[Tom C]

Tailpipe:

I didn't mean to contradict your input. However, I do remain skeptical (a doubting Thomas that I am). I totally agree that they left themselves a ton of room to lighten the RS6 in comparison to the S6.

Do you have any information as to the sharing of the V-10 TT in the R8 platform? It would not make sense for the R8 to be pounding out 30hp more than the Gallardo. The Gallardo may get a bump in the future but wouldn't seem likely any time soon given the recent jump from 500 to 520hp.

I would be the first one to applaud a V-10 TT FSI engine with 550hp. I would line up and trade in my RS6 for the new one. However, I can't help but believe that some corporate bean-counter will scale back the engineering team's grand design.


Tom

[Leadfoot]

MJN,

I would take it from what Tailpipe is saying that the RS6 will be lighter but would doubt that it would be by much. What can be reduced by using light weight alloy almost all of it will be added with by the use of Turbos. If Tailpipe is correct and Audi are indeed going to use turbos in the next RS6 the extra torque which it will have over it's rivals will more than cover what extra weight it might have. Suspension wise I reckon you all see magnetic ride taking over from where the RS6 and RS4's system left off.

An 8 minute lap of the ring, now that would be something. If possible it would rock the boat with the rest of the other german car companies and be the first family saloon to break this barrier. If you thought the performance race was hot enough, a time like that would put it to boiling point. 1000hp Merc here we come.

[tailpipe]

With an RS4 that isn't yet developing a full 414 bhp and that still manages to deliver a Ring time of 8:09, then an RS6 with well over 100 bhp more and a kerb weight significantly under that of the latest S6, then sub 8.00 should be possible (albeit 7:58)!

I don't know about R8. It could get TT V10 engine, but based on my understanding of Audi's product plans, I would say not immediately. Both Gallardo and Murcielago are due for power upgrades, so probably not until after their outputs have been pushed well up.

The A6 has been stealing a huge amount of sales from both MB and BMW. It's a real hit. Combine that with the existing RS6 fan club and you'll realise how keen Audi is to build on this success with the next RS6.

Ultimately, I think the RS6 will be a very nice alternative to a top-of-the-line Porsche Cayenne: a lot faster, a lot more capable and a lot more practical. As for the M5, it'll be toast entirely because of quattro. It's been said already that pricing will play an important part of the next RS6's success. However good it is, it cannot be signifacntly more expensive than M5, because this is still the category benchmark.

For cost reasons then, bean-counters will limit use of exotic technologies/ materials. Everyone is saying in an age of $70 barrels of oil, super-saloons have got to get smarter. Losing weight - significants amount of weight - simply by making key components out of lighter materials has to be a way to achieve this. Audi will cut as much weight as they can to deliver a sub-£70,000 car. Technology isn't the problem; it's over-zealous accountants. I imagine that ultimate bhp will be dictated by final weight of the beast.

Personally, I'd love to see longitudinal DSG in RS6 too, but I'm not sure it fits. But it is all but production ready.

[Leadfoot]

Tailpipe,

I am not so sure that the RS4 will dip below the 8 mins even with the full 414bhp. The extra power will only pull and few extra seconds between the corners, talk is it producing between 380-390bhp so the real difference in accelerate will be small. I think at best the RS4 will post a 8:05/06 time.If they keep the weight close to the RS4 then with the extra poke and with the better suspension system a 8 mins time could be on. I only hope that it's still the Autobann monster of the last model, f@#k the speed limiter or at least increase it to the 300kph.

[Erik]

I highly doubt the new RS6 will do a time under 8 minutes, I guess around 8.07-8.12
Remember the RS4 was on P Zero Corsas, I doubt that option will be available on the RS6.

From what I've heard.

V10 TT :thumb:
Below 600 hp :applause:

[Angellus]

Just came from the Audi Dealership after going to drool all over the first RS4 for the dealership. They only got delivered this week here in South Africa.

The Salesman told me they just got an update on the RS6 and he says 426kw/+-580bhp and it will be in South Africa by October next year. That seems a bit soon but if it ends up being true I wont complain.

Note saleman talk take it with a whole bag of salt.

[Leadfoot]

Originally posted by Erik
I highly doubt the new RS6 will do a time under 8 minutes, I guess around 8.07-8.12
Remember the RS4 was on P Zero Corsas, I doubt that option will be available on the RS6.

From what I've heard.

V10 TT :thumb:
Below 600 hp :applause:

I understand what you are saying about the P Zero Corsas, this would mean a change of direction for Audi. There has being a lot of debate as to how much the corsas making over standard tyres, with some saying as much as 10 seconds, but if you look at the times of the M6 and M5, if you take the weight saving of the M6 accounting for 1 seconds, the answer is about 3 seconds. I believe magnetic ride can make up this difference, so the real question is can Audi keep the weight close to the RS4. I doubt it, the two cars are a world of difference in size the only thing is the RS6 might have is a better weight balance than the RS4 and this should help the tyres working more evenly spreading the heat over all four tyres instead of just the fronts. Ceramic brakes will be an options, so the brakes won't fade. I think it might be close.

[Hy Octane]

I drove an RS4 last week with a few of the Quattro Gmbh guys in it with me.. they say the motor is putting out a reliable 420 hp in US trim..(the S6 has 435hp btw) .. Where did you hear about this 414 hp not being achieved?

[Leadfoot]

Originally posted by Hy Octane
I drove an RS4 last week with a few of the Quattro Gmbh guys in it with me.. they say the motor is putting out a reliable 420 hp in US trim..(the S6 has 435hp btw) .. Where did you hear about this 414 hp not being achieved?

Hp is the U.S. for ps the measurement now used by car companies. Bhp is what is in the old world we still use to measure how much brake horse power a engine has. Basically what I am saying is the two are not the same.

Hopefully anyone out there can explain it properly.

[Qisha]

Hopefully anyone out there can explain it properly.

1 BHP=550 foot pounds/sec. The correct measure of torque when power is stated in BHP is foot pounds.

1 PS=75 kilogram metres/sec. The correct measure of torque when power is stated in PS is kilogram metres.

1 kilowatt=1000 Newton metres/sec. The correct measure of torque when power is stated in kilowatts is Newton metres.

BHP=engine torque is measured by applying a brake to the flywheel.

HP=engine torque is measured by a torque converter or electrical motor.

1 HP (or german PS) = 0.98632 BHP



With an RS4 that isn't yet developing a full 414 bhp

@98 Oct (ROZ) the 420HP are over achieved. Less Fuel quality will lead to lower HP output.

[tailpipe]

Re: Sub-8 minute Ring time for next RS6

Erik, you may well be right about the RS6 not cracking 8 minutes; my comment about people losing their job at Audi if it doesn't simply reflects the rivarly that exists between Audi's marketing and engineering departments. That said, I wouldn't like to bet money that RS6 won't achieve a sub-8 minute Ring lap time.

I believe that Leadfoot is right about magnetic ride and ceramic breaks helping to make up the weight penalty/ tyre difference versus the RS4, but the weight balance is not much better if at all.

BTW, with full 414 bhp, RS4 should knock 2-4 seconds off Ring time. but there's talk of a revised V-8 developing 435 bhp, (RS4+). This should get v. close.

I can't remember what time the M5 did the Ring in? But surely RS4 must be very close? Anyone know?

[Erik]

Originally posted by tailpipe
Re: Sub-8 minute Ring time for next RS6
I can't remember what time the M5 did the Ring in? But surely RS4 must be very close? Anyone know?

8.13 min, Conti SportContact2.

http://www.track-challenge.com/main_e.asp?useframe=singletest3_e.asp?Car=81

[Leadfoot]

Originally posted by Erik
8.13 min, Conti SportContact2.

http://www.track-challenge.com/main_e.asp?useframe=singletest3_e.asp?Car=81

These are what is on my S4 and their are in my opinion crap. Not nearly as good as the P Zeros that came on it. For a S4 avant the time on the ring is 8:29, in a saloon I did it in 8:18 (ok it was on GT4 for the playstation).:D

[tailpipe]

:MTM: :MTM: :MTM: :MTM:

The BMW M5 laps the ring in 8:13 and the RS4 laps it in 8:09, and in the process not only beats the M3 but a car costing £10,000 more? Let me hear no one say that the RS4 is disappointing again.

:alig:

I am surprised, so little has been made of this important statistic. I completely missed it. Wow! Fantastic job, Audi!

No wonder BMW has upped the power on the M5 without telling anybody.

[TaTaPiRaTa]

But BMW M3 CSL does it in 7:50 !!

:rs6kiss:

[Erik]

Originally posted by tailpipe
The BMW M5 laps the ring in 8:13 and the RS4 laps it in 8:09

The new RS4 is as fast as the BMW M6 (on Corsas) and Ferrari 360 Modena... :deal:

And I think the weather conditions were quite poor for the RS4, but haven't verified this yet.

[Leadfoot]

Originally posted by Erik
The new RS4 is as fast as the BMW M6 (on Corsas) and Ferrari 360 Modena... :deal:

And I think the weather conditions were quite poor for the RS4, but haven't verified this yet.

Erik,

What time of the year did the RS4 post it's time on the ring.

And boys don't bring the arguement between the M3 and RS4, M&M has only just stopped on the last one.

No lets talk about the next RS6 and what it might be able to do on the ring and the road.

[chutia]

I wholeheartedly agree with an earlier writer: this board has a classy, rather objective, well-informed membership. Good stuff!

While it is an interesting and seductive exercise to (completely_ speculate upon what the "new and improved" RS6 might be like, wow, so much energy spent on something so little is known about. What passion! When they are ready, it will then become known what Audi is going to say in their public announcement regarding the new Rs6.

[IulianUM]

If Audi do the same as with the RS4 over the S4 , you´ll be very very happy regardless of the engine .:0:

I still think that Frank Stippler did it under 8min . :race:

[SpinEcho]

Originally posted by clam
Suffice to say, the total mass of the next RS6 does not harm its chances of becoming a great handling car. It's about the balance between the forces, controle and predictability. Not the size of the forces.


Sorry, I don't agree. If we take your argument that grip=handling to the extreme ...

Let's say we had a Boeing 747 that was 'tuned' to provide neutral handling or even a slight oversteer bias - or whatever you ideal "balance of forces" happens to be. Then, by your argument, we would have a great handling machine!

Even though steering 'feel', turn-in, and in-corner adjustability are dependent, as you correctly point out, by the only connection between the car and the road - the tires - they are qualities that are much easier to optimize in a lighter car, because there is less inertia.

So I think the mass of an RS6 has a whole lot to do with spoiling its handling!

[clam]

As long as the Boeing has the correct tyres, suspension, etc... there is no reason why it wouldn't change direction as fast as a Lotus Elise.

The inertia that makes a car resist taking a corner is a product of acceleration. Lateral acceleration. Centrifugal force is the expression of lateral interia. The mass wants to go straight, but you pull it back. Relative from the surroundings, the car is constantly accelerating sideways in a corner.
What do you need to accelerate? GRIP. That's it. There's nothing else that enables a car to accelerate sideways.

But like I said, everything has to be bigger on a heavy car. You can throttle steer a Lotus Elise with a 110hp K-series Rover engine. But to throttle steer your Boeing, or in fact get it going at all, you'll need a lot more power. If you have that power, and if you have the grip, nothing is stopping you from throwing it around like an Elise.

You're right that a heavy car will experience more centrifugal force = inertia. But the same mass also helps the car generate grip, in the same amount in fact. Take a tyre that is capable of 1g. And you put a weight of 500Newton on it. Then it will be capable of 500Newton of 'inertia'. If you add 100N, then it will be capable of 600N. If you put no weight at all on the tyre, then you'll be able to push it sideways yourself. It will offer almost no grip, if it is only supporting its own weight.

Grip works with the laws of friction. If you put a certain amount of weight on it, then you will create a friction that equals that weight.
It always levels out. A 2ton veyron with 1g rated tyres will be able to generate 2ton of friction. A 800kg Lotus Elise on 1g rated tyres will be able to generate 800kg. With 1g tyres, they will change direction with exactly the same acceleration (if the balance is the same over the tyres). That acceleration being 1g.

Off course, other characteristics of the tyres will have you put big fat ones on heavy cars, but that won't increase grip. It's a matter of distribution of forces on the tyre, not the friction of the tyre. The friction is a product of the rubber, the total amount of forces it can handle is a product of stiffness and size. So a Lotus Elise is able to be as fast around the corner as a Ferrari, with a much smaller contact patch.
Softer rubber will need more contact patch, b/c the tyre will deform sooner. Less weight (or downforce) will mean less contact patch. If the tyre fits the car, or the Boeing, it will be able to corner.

But that's the downside of weight. Everything has to be bigger. Bigger engine, bigger tyres, bigger brakes, heavier chassis, powersteering, etc... The Veyron has a big engine b/c it needs to be able to cut though the air at 400km/h. But the compensation for that engine mass has lead to a car that weighs almost 2tons. Still, it is able to navigate through the twisties like a Lotus Elise, b/c every part of the suspension, including the specially developed tyres, is made to compensate for that weight. As long as you balance it out, weight is not a handicap in terms of handling. It is however, in terms of overall economy.

Let me ask you this. Will a rally car based on a hatchback be slower around a rally course than a Lotus Elise? B/c it is heavier. Or will its superior ability to generate grip in these conditions (special tyres and suspension) make it faster than the lighter car? Let's say they have the same power/weight balance.
Grip versus Lightness. Who will win, do you think?

Slight oversteer bias is not good handling. B/c you have to countersteer to correct it. Understeer is better, b/c you have to steer with the corner to counter it, so it is very natural. Cars are set to always understeer (without throttle input).
Neutral steer is not achievable with current technology. Acceleration and deceleration forces on the car as a whole, plus how the speed and radius of a corner work on its mass balance, plus the individual forces on the tyres (power, brake balance) will constantly shift the balance of forces, making neutral steer an unachievable dream. And since oversteer requires too much input of the driver, every car has build in understeer. That will never change. It's not a matter of taste, it's a matter of fact. Even the Lotus will understeer without other input.

[Leadfoot]

Much as I hate to agree, Clam is correct. Weight is not a problem if you get everything right suspension etc. The only problem really with weight is cost, yes you can make it accelerate as fast as a lighter car but you need more power and yes you can make it brake as well but again you need better brakes and this cost money, but this is only part of the problem. This is the part that increases the cost of the end product, after this there is the economy, the tax band for the CO2, the list go on.

Trust me the best way to make a car is the make it lighter. And this is what Audi are going to be doing with all future model etc. TT - R8 - A5 but alas not the current A6/RS6.

[Tom C]

I think we need to answer the question of handling of future cars by looking at the context of the past. Cars weights have been on a steady increase over the past number of years. New technologies have made it down to the lowest of car lines. What used to be purely a luxury is now an amenity on most cars. These additions have added conisderable heft. However, what else has added weight to these car? Well for starters, better, larger braking systems. Then lets look at the bigger wheels and rubber. I am not that old and yet I can easily recall how 20 years ago only serious high performance cars had greater than 215mm tires. Today you see Honda's and Toyota's matching that with much bigger diameters and much evolved tire compounds. Today's cars also benefit from much more sophisticated suspension design. This is at the expense of the car's weight. Is a lighter car A car that is lighter weight is not inherently a better handling. A 1984 Porsche 911 Carrera weighed 2,800lbs. The latest 911 Carrera S weighs in at 3,150lbs. I would think that most people (even the air-cooled fanatics) would have to concede that the latest evolution is a better all around handling car.

Tom

[SpinEcho]

Originally posted by clam
As long as the Boeing has the correct tyres, suspension, etc... there is no reason why it wouldn't change direction as fast as a Lotus Elise.

Try finding a 747 with the correct tires and suspension! It may be an extreme example, but it highlights the situation perfectly:

The 'handling' technology (suspension, tires etc.) used on light cars and heavy cars really doesn't differ that much - and in general, it does a better job of making the light cars handle well than the heavier ones.

The heavier the car gets, the more difficult it gets to generate good handling from practical and economical technology. Hence my comment that, in general, it is 'easier' to get a light car to handle well, than a heavy one - manufacturers operate under constraints of practicality and cost.

[SoCal]

Very good thread and lots of thoughtful, detailed comments. :bow: :idea:

I agree that theoretically weight does not dictate handling, since one can compensate for, and also benefit to some extent from, weight to maintain grip. The braking system, suspension, tire compounds and stiffness, linkage, as well as the resistance of the drivetrain (as when downshifting into turns) all play a part in the two key aspects of handling: grip and feedback. Handling to me is not just a matter of physics, but of road feel. Confidence and fun are achieved by objective criteria (grip or more precisely, grip management) and subjective criteria (awareness, as communicated through the seat of the pants and by the steering system, which translates inputs to the wheels and lets the driver know what's going on).

Easier to achieve on a lighter car? Absolutely. Part of the reason is a key factor that should be emphasized for how it affects the tradeoff between downforce (weight an advantage) and lateral forces (weight a disadvantage) in determining grip in turns. That factor is weight distribution. Where the weight is distributed on a car matters much more than how heavy the car is.

Many lighter cars happen to be better balanced for weight front/rear and also have a lower center of gravity. Both aspects of weight distribution are critical to the handling characteristics of a car, whether on a track, street or off-road.

Just looking at two cars I drive on a daily basis, for instance, I can readily feel the difference. The RS6 is heavy, has too much weight in front, and has a high center of gravity as a four door sedan. And it's AWD. It also has great acceleration, braking and a sophisticated (and, at least in my case, reliable) suspension. On balance, an extremely fine handling fast sedan but not a sports car. In contrast, the RX7 is a small, low, lightweight, RWD car with a very respectable horsepower-to-weight ratio. Although it lacks much of the modern technology that the Audi uses to compensate for its mass, the RX7 is by far the better handling car and a heck of a lot more fun in the twisties. But it's also useless for hauling around groceries or family.

For engineers, shaving pounds off a car improves fuel economy and also tends to improve handling. Not because weight in itself is a problem, but because less mass to deal with means less weight to create lateral g's. That enables the other components (suspension, steering, etc.) to do their job with less work.

I hope that the new RS6 is lighter and more fuel efficient, but still has plenty of power and torque. Carbon fiber or aluminum body and chassis parts will certainly be a part of that, regardless of what engine is selected.

The weight savings in the new RS6 will be needed not mainly for track times but to offset the weight penalty from the powerful engine and all those luxury car creature comforts that every high-end sedan must have -- leather trim, airbags, nav system, fancy stereo and so forth -- to justify the high cost for a car that, for most drivers, will see more time cruising highways passing M5s than chasing 911s around a track.

I also really hope that the weight distribution is significantly better than on the Ur-RS6 -- lower and more centered. With a big engine and AWD on the current A6 platform, I'm not optimistic about that part of the package, though I still eagerly await its debut. :rs6kiss:

[clam]

I certainly won't deny that weight is a pain in the ass. And if you safe it in strategic places, you can drastically improve the handling. Not just acceleration.
The RS4 and TT have done it with respectively an aluminium front on a steel car, and steel rear on an aluminium car. The TT in perticular shows that Audi puts weight balance above total weight. B/c it would've been easier, and probably cheaper (steel is as expensive as aluminium these days) to make the whole thing out of aluminium.

I think it was in this thread that someone said the RS6 will benefit from the new steel-aluminium bonding technique. A good way to safe a couple of kilos in important places.
- roof (Centre of Gravity)
- Front fenders, hood
- front subframe
- front doors
- lightweight front seats (the seats in the A2 3L used a magnesium frame)
- Thinner glass (though this one could harm noise insulation, it can safe a lot, and bring the CoG down)
- structural bits here and there


They should not delete equipment on the RS6, but perhaps make it optional. Have a sport package and a luxury package. On the first Porsche GT3, and perhaps the new one too, the A/C was a free option. A choice between comfort, and 50kg less weight to drag around.
You can safe a fair bit of weight simplifying the equipment, with minimal loss in comfort. No electronic this and that, no complicated climat controle, no 16 speaker radios,...

[Leadfoot]

Clam,

It was me who said they could use the TT's technology, but this is unlikely when the model is so later in it's production cycle. It will do what was done on the RS4, put aluminium on a steel chassis and possibly plastic wings and move the battery to the rear, tricks learned for BMW to help the weight balance. Also if I am not mistaken the S4/RS4's engine is different than the old RS6 engine and is lighter and shorter, so this should help move the engine an inch or two further back. The suspension (Magnetic Ride) will be the biggest gain over the S6 and with cermic bakes and ultra lightweight alloy wheels to reduce the unsprung weight, the RS6 should handling a lot better than the RS4.

Remember the A6 started production after the A4 and is a better handling car because of this. The RS6 have a better chassis to start from than what the RS4 did, and when you look at what Audi achieved will it one can only hope for great things. Truth me boys this will be an amazing motor, more than the equal of the M5. It will beat the RS4's time and destory the M5.