Hot news! First pics in the World of the new Audi RS4 B7

[rks838]

I'm trying not to drag this on, but the source with incredibly accomplished drivers who spend their lives racing the Nurburgring says 8:13 for the M5. I really don't believe 7:52...a Murcielago with the same weight (OK, 100lbs lighter) lapped in 7:50 with 70 more horsepower and I-don't-know how much more torque, but the M5 only has 384. It's hard to imagine a 4000+ pound, 192-inch sedan lapping the Ring in 7:52 with only 384 lb-ft. of torque...Maybe 8:08, but seeing how that source said the 997 Carrera laps in 8:16, I don't exactly trust them. The old Carrera lapped in 8:17, and I've seen times of 8:11, 8:12, and another 8:12 for the 997. You can't trust anyone without a proof of their time anymore - one of the 4 U.S. magazines just said that the STS-V - ha! - lapped the Nurburgring in under 8:00, and that is clearly BS. They're a lotta claims out there, but you have to have a trusty source like track-challenge.com or Sport Auto. But I'd be glad to see some proof...no arguing with that.

I have a lotta trouble thinking the RS4 will lap in under 8:00, but tailpipe, you seem pretty confident about your claims, like you have a brother or a best friend who lapped the Ring in an RS4 himself. Well, I hope...

[5000S old skool]

are there any shots of the back seats??

[jstahmann]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik
[B]This thread is under constant update...


FYI, I took the above pictures and RS6.com has put their logo on them, in effect taking credit for them.

I'd appreciate it if you'd give me the proper credit for the pictures, and remove your logo from them.

Also, I took down my video due to too many linking to it. I'm working getting a couple of mirrors for the video.

Thanks.

John Stahmann
Audiworld.com

( EDIT. Thanks John, see my reply below / Erik )

[R8isGreat]

Ummmmmm????/

Anyway

Thanks for posting them AGAIN on RS6.COM

Sorry we altered you pictures for our own use.

[M&M]

Originally posted by R8isGreat

Traction and handeling are Very related, because without traction comes understear and overstear. (refuse to say push) Handeling absolutly presupposed that you have traction. Quattro means you have more traction at speed.

I am not a hater, If you read my posts you will see that I am just disappointed that Audi didn't use this opportunity to gain a significant advantage that no upcoming competitors will supercede in a years time.

But back to your point on traction. Have you ever done any circuit racing? I will keep the didcussion brand-independant so that no-one can accuse me of being derogatory to any brand.

Handling is a black art. It involves a lot more than traction. Such as:

- Weight
- Weight distribution
- Suspension geometry & set-up
- Camber
- Tyres & grip

There's a lot more than those I got off the top of my head. Now a 4WD car's only advantage over RWD is traction. Now let me ask you this. Have you driven a powerful stock RWD car on a track? Have you ever had traction problems in a straight line?

Most tracks you never use 1st gear. In fact one would hardly use 2nd gear as well. Maybe a tight turn or a hairpin, you woud go down to 2nd gear. Now drive a stock RWD car & go into 2nd slowly. Then stomp the pedal. On a smooth racetrack, you aren't going to wheelspin unless you have 1000hp.

Traction problems are if you have to launch from standtill & on the shift from 1st to 2nd gear. But on a track you never launch & you are already in 2nd gear at the slowest point. Therefore, the traction will not ever be a problem in a straight line.

So, let's move onto the corners. A lot of people believe that 4WD gives you more grip. That is absolutely not true. Grip is a function of your tyres, tyre width, & suspension set-up, etc.

I'm sure you are aware of the vector of forces acting on a tyre during cornering. The forces are cumulative. So cornering & accelerative forces add up. 4WD does distribute the tractive load amongst 4 wheels instead of 2. So the rear wheels will have a bit more lateral G's available for cornering on a 4WD car. Reason being some of the tractive forces are gone to the front wheels.

However, most OEM's put a staggered set-up on RWD's for this reason. The rear tyres are wider on RWD cars because they have to accept all the power & corner. SO the contact patc is larger & it can offer more grip before it gives up. But now let's look at this fact. All OEM's design a car to understeer on the limit for safety reasons.

That means the suspension on all cars are designed so that the front wheels lose grip before the rears. So the front wheels on a car are more important that the rears when it comes to corner entry. I ask you this. Does it matter how much grip is available on the rears once the fronts start to slide? Hell no. You will have to lift to get the nose in, & then apple throttle. You could have bagloads of grip available at the rear (because of 4WD splitting the loas), but it won't help if the front is sliding.

So remember there's no such thing as a free meal. If you want 4WD means that the front wheels will accept power. So that means there is less grip available for cornering. Ever stop to think why 4WD's understeer like they do. Because the front wheels are trying to corner & put power down. On a RWD all the front wheels do are corner. They have 100% of their lateral grip available for cornering.

And as we've seen the front wheels are very important when you are setting up the car for the corner. Once you've turned in, then the 4WD car will have better traction coming out of a tight 2nd gear turn. But this advantage is only for a metre or 2. 4WD will not help for 99% of the track. And if the track does not have any hairpins or tight bends, then 4WD is just extra weight to carry. You guys do realise that when you aren't on the throttle your car is a no wheel drive car. So in every braking zone, every corner & after the 1st few metres of every straight 4WD is no different to RWD.

The advantages of 4WD are traction, especially under indifferent conditions, & the fact that its easier to go fast in.

[Erik]

FYI, I took the above pictures and RS6.com has put their logo on them, in effect taking credit for them.

I'd appreciate it if you'd give me the proper credit for the pictures, and remove your logo from them.

Thanks.

John Stahmann
Audiworld.com

John, I updated the first page and included your name twice.
The RS6.com logo is an automatic feature from the Gallery.
Just let me know if you like me to remove them, just pm me and they are gone.
I take a lot of photos myself so I know how it can be, don't want to take
your credit for taking them. Sorry for any inconvenience.

:asian:

[tailpipe]

Originally posted by rks838
[I have a lotta trouble thinking the RS4 will lap in under 8:00, but tailpipe, you seem pretty confident about your claims, like you have a brother or a best friend who lapped the Ring in an RS4 himself. Well, I hope... [/B]

The production version may not lap the Ring in under 8, but I know for a fact that several test versions have. I believe they've tested the engine beyond 500bhp. They know that at 420 bhp the thing is bullet-proof. Audi spent a lot of time at the Ring testing when BMW was having problems with the new V-10. The Audi boys do not rate the BMW V-10 at all.

Actually, the most incredible thing about the new RS4 is the times around the Ring that relative novices have been able to achieve. In skilled hands nothing can touch it. They have changed something in the steeering that makes it much more direct.

[clam]

M&M, if AWD is inferior to RWD, can you explain why quattro is banned/restriced from/in every major circuit championship?

What you say is true, AWD is prone to understeer. BUT, in motorsport they apply tricks to balance the car. Like a relatively soft rear suspension set-up (causing more rear slip), and a big wing to hold it down. The drivers themselves also have a number of techniques to navigate corners with AWD. At the end of the day, AWD will be faster than RWD in most situations. Hence the restrictions, or outright ban, in motorsport.

Now it's hard to apply these tricks to road car, but this RS4 has an asymetric AWD (40:60), which should balance the forces on the tryes, eliminating the unwanted understeer.
Lamborghini and Porsche have a similer 30:70 set up.

RWD is more "pure" to drive, b/c you have independent control of the rear slip angle. I'll give you that. But AWD has proven its worth over and over again.

[M&M]

Yeah, but race cars have massive negative camber, slicks & trick suspensions. One can make a racecar corner how you like. I believe the quttro domination was due to the superior suspension of those cars, & everyone wrongly gave quattro the as the reason for their domination.

Why does a 911 C2 lap so much faster than a C4. What about a GT2 vs 911 turbo?

[clam]

I'm glad you brought up the Porsche.

Porsche is 4WD, not AWD. It's a similar system to Haldex (Golf, TT), only in reverse. Instead of a differential, they use a clutch. There are several problems with this:

* The clutch works with oil pressure, and this has enormous drivetrain losses.
* The clutch has no differential function. It can only shift power one-way.
* The system reacts to grip loss. It performs a function similar to that of ESP, but uses acceleration instead of deceleration. This is especially true for the Haldex clutch, which is inactive most of the time at 95:5.
The obvious problem with these 'speed-sensitive' systems is that undesirable wheel spin has already occured well in advance of its detection. A real AWD system like quattro delays the loss of traction, while these clutch systems only "catch it".

These VC clutch system do have two advantages:
- They are cheap
- You can put the clutch just about anywhere (while a real AWD differential has to be near, or integrated in the gearbox). So it's easier to install, and can be used to improve weight balance. I suspect, this is their primairy function in the TT/Golf.

Basically, the VC systems are safety systems, and do not improve traction much. That's why they will be slower than their 2WD counterparts.
Quattro drastically improves traction.

[quattro]

Porsche and Volvo used a similar system.

Porsche is still using the old system, but Volvo switched to Haldex.



Porsche 996 C2 vs. C4

http://www.track-challenge.com/main_...1=19%26Car2=35

Considering the C4 is much heavier I don't think it is that much slower than the C2. Also we don't know the conditions when the C2 drove, C4 was less than ideal.

The 996 Turbo vs. the GT2, not comparing apples to apples any longer.

On the other hand, the specs of the 420 hp 996 Turbo and the new RS4 are very similar...

[quattro]

Originally posted by M&M
I believe the quttro domination was due to the superior suspension of those cars, & everyone wrongly gave quattro the as the reason for their domination.

Yeah right.

It's not like Audi is the only one in the world using Ohlins and that the world of racing didn't discover this.

Like someone said. If you don't like it don't buy it...

[M&M]

I didn't say I don't like it. I love the looks and the engine. Seems like a gem. I may still buy one if the price is right. But I personally am disappointed with the performance. That's all. I'm sure a few of you also expected more.

And when it comes to race teams, be it FWD, RWD or 4WD, a good team will make the race car handle.

[7:53 RS6]

Originally posted by quattro

On the other hand, the specs of the 420 hp 996 Turbo and the new RS4 are very similar...

Tru, but if i remember right the Porsche turbo on track-challenge have r-tiers, or maybee i remember wrong. Dident bother to check before i wright this.

[quattro]

Originally posted by M&M
But I personally am disappointed with the performance.

Everybody needs and expects more. But development can't go to 1000 hp, that's just nonsense. Most of the buyers are more interested in comfort, and somebody has got to draw the line.

The last year's development has been going at warp speed, and most of these family sedans are as fast or faster than many Porsches!
We can't expect them to be Carrera GTs or Zondas, there's got to be room for every car and for marketing reasons you can't expect a car to be totally out of its segment.

When most of us were young cars were measured in 0 - 80 km/h, now it's 0-200 or 0-250 km/h. Huge difference!

I say it again. Name a couple of modern family or affordable sports cars
that will do 0-200 km/h in sub 17 seconds.

[quattro]

Originally posted by 8:29 RS6
Tru, but if i remember right the Porsche turbo on track-challenge have r-tiers, or maybee i remember wrong.

It's on Pirelli P Zero. The only standard car I know with r-compound is the M3 CSL.

[Amar3lio]

I don´t believe that the RS4 will have any advantage by using AWD at least in terms of pure performance.

I´m a great audi fan but even a bigger one of BMW and I don´t seem to remeber one audi that could beat a BMW of the same kind. I still don´t believe that a new RS4 can beat a E46 CSL anywhere. On the rain? maybe you have more control but in joy of ride.... no way José ! but this without the racing compound the bimmer uses.... put it on zero´s....

The RS6 is not better than the M5 by any means, nor is it quicker, neither in the wet it will take advantage...

And if you take central diffs and haldex´s to take an advantage on a BMW why don´t you consider the M5´s lunch control... I put my money on the bimmer any time baby.

And take the times of the CSL and the new RS4 and compare... the CSL doesn´t have traction control.... the time on the ring? it´s a wild guess but not even close...

Now that the audi will be easier to be quick in the wet no doubt, but you don´t wan´t to wait that it rains to beat your oponent... it´s a every day life not a rainy one.

The marginal advantage the audi has compared with the CSL in some chapters is not good enough... E90 M3 is arriving. and when it does...... bye bye RS !

and traction isn´t everything.... consider weight, power balance (almost 50:50 on the bimmer.... ideal? you bet), suspension, gearbox, Nm and engine behaviour.....

But that´s just me.... I say let´s compare it for real and not talk bull=#$% before watching it for real.

Nevertheless the new RS4 rocks, good looks, good engine beautifful interiors

[tailpipe]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amar3lio
[B]I don´t believe that the RS4 will have any advantage by using AWD at least in terms of pure performance.

I think you seriously underestimate Audi's commitment in terms of human and financial resources to being the leading premium car brand.

The RS4 is the first of a new breed of Audis. Though the B7 platform lacks the mechanical purity in terms of weight distribution and balance of a BMW M3, it more than compensates for this with the technical quality of its 4WD and other systems as well as with engine performance. The revised Torsen system will give it a degree of traction into and out of corners that the M3 CSL cannot match. FSI in V8 form is probably the best V-8 in series production. That's for now.

In terms of future everday saloon car performance, Audi will totally eclipse BMW with the new B8 platform. It combines an optimal weight distribution with the many advantages of front wheel drive. The result is a car with dynamics that imake its engine power more usable, more of the time, all year round, on all roads. In Quattro form, it will completely match the balance and handling dynamics of a traditional BMW layout. In FWD form, it will be be totally predictable and safe on the limit. The thing to remember here is that BMW's technical solutions are just a point of view, not the gospel of handling dynamics.

The Le Mans, Nuvolari and next RS6 models, which will all appear during the next 3 years, will also push Audi's technical credentials forward. In the meantime, the extent to which the new A6 is leaping ahead of the 5-Series needs to be seen to be believed. It has forced BMW to add 4WD systems to its 5-Series line-up, but compared to Quattro, X-drive is prehistoric. Perhaps the the best way to describe the real difference between Audi and BMW at this time is that BMW is a quality manufacturer going for increased volumes while Audi is a volume manufacturer going for increased quality.

Like you, I too am a big BMW fan. I drive an M3. Sadly, the quality on this car in my expereince has been terrible. My engine failed after a long European trip. BMW has since recalled all M3s to fit new engine parts. I have expereinced four other fairly major component failures. The death of BMW quality is a big shock. It is only equalled by my surpise at the efforts Audi is making with its cars to improve them. Luckily, I spotted this trend some months ago and I am pretty near the front of the line for a new RS4.

Let's hope BMW can raise its game.