RE: Audi TT S: Review
Discussion
NelsonR32 said:
Probably already been pointed out but the R8 is not Haldex.
My mistake I just thought it was and the R8 is revered for its rear biased set up so that should have told me that it wasn't Haldex in the first place! makes me lust after a R8 even more now I know it hasn't got the same system as our TTS and has a system that doesn't constantly feel front wheel driven. cerb4.5lee said:
My mistake I just thought it was and the R8 is revered for its rear biased set up so that should have told me that it wasn't Haldex in the first place! makes me lust after a R8 even more now I know it hasn't got the same system as our TTS and has a system that doesn't constantly feel front wheel driven.
Haldex itself is fine - see current AWD 911s - it's the application and, more importantly, configuration which are the problem.T0MMY said:
Erm...didn't the TTRS set the slowest lap time on that video, apart from the 370Z?
In the time attack, and the difference is marginal. It leads the pack in the actual video -- all of this of course backing the point that the claims about underperformance are silly. I'm happy to post lap times from Sport Auto, C&D, and others for the TTS, if you like. They won't do you any favors.
scherzkeks said:
In the time attack, and the difference is marginal. It leads the pack in the actual video -- all of this of course backing the point that the claims about underperformance are silly.
Quite frankly, with a lighter coupé body, modern AWD system, turbo motor and (if fitted) a double clutch gearbox, the others shouldn't see which way it went. Clivey said:
Quite frankly, with a lighter coupé body, modern AWD system, turbo motor and (if fitted) a double clutch gearbox, the others shouldn't see which way it went.
Oh come on now. The cars from that period all weighed about 33-3400 lbs, had turbo motors and modern AWD systems. The TTS also put out less horsepower than both the rally wannabes, and the standard STI doesn't see which way it went on most tracks. The EVO is a better match, finishing about 2 seconds behind the TTS at C&D's VIR run, and the STI about 5. Things are closer for the EVO on tighter tracks. Edited by scherzkeks on Thursday 11th September 12:09
scherzkeks said:
Oh come on now. The cars from that period all weighed about 32-3300 lbs,
I think you misunderstood my point. The TT should have the advantages of a lighter body/chassis, modern AWD system, modern turbo engine and gearbox etc. yet it still weighs 14-1500 KGs despite not carrying the "baggage" of a traditional saloon / hatch body & full-size rear seats and is trading lap times with what should be slower cars.In the video you linked to, did you actually see the start grid, or indeed the start of that little race? The Imprezas were on the back foot to start with yet were all over the back of and were visibly more agile than the TT RS in the corners. The main problem was that they didn't have enough power to pass. If the defending driver positions their car correctly, they can effectively hold-up a faster car for quite a while. I know; I've done it (in karts. - I don't claim to be a professional racing driver etc.)! In fact, if you pause the video at 8:55 and look at the times, the Spec C's fastest lap in the race was faster than the TT RS too.
Let's cut to the chase though: Do you disagree that Audi could have made a faster and more involving performance or "driver's" car if it wasn't compromised by being based on the Golf platform, with a transverse engine over the front axle and FWD-based AWD?
I believe they could. The new car does appear to be a big improvement (just as the Mk2 is compared to the Mk1) but it appears the setup is unfortunately (and unnecessarily IMO) on the "safe" side.
nickfrog said:
T0MMY said:
scherzkeks said:
That you've merely read about, and in an article that would appear to be written by a child. I'd say this fits with the standard PH definition quite well. 
I just remembered having a discussion with you before scherzkeks. You were the guy who thought it was faster on a racetrack to drive a car slow enough to not encounter its on limit behaviour weren't you? If you never encounter how a car feels when you're pushing it hard, I'm not surprised you don't understand the criticism.
ks...
Clivey said:
I think you misunderstood my point. The TT should have the advantages of a lighter body/chassis, modern AWD system, modern turbo engine and gearbox etc. yet it still weighs 14-1500 KGs despite not carrying the "baggage" of a traditional saloon / hatch body & full-size rear seats and is trading lap times with what should be slower cars.
How about other coupés in the class, are they subject to your theoretical chassis requirements (1M at 3400 for example). And, let's be honest, the curb weight is likely a product of extra luxury the TT offers over the rally wannabes, which in standard form have no performance advantage, the same "dull" drive, and even manage to be less comfortable to top it off.Clivey said:
In the video you linked to, did you actually see the start grid, or indeed the start of that little race? The Imprezas were on the back foot to start with yet were all over the back of and were visibly more agile than the TT RS in the corners. The main problem was that they didn't have enough power to pass. If the defending driver positions their car correctly, they can effectively hold-up a faster car for quite a while. I know; I've done it (in karts. - I don't claim to be a professional racing driver etc.)! In fact, if you pause the video at 8:55 and look at the times, the Spec C's fastest lap in the race was faster than the TT RS too.
The times at the end speak for themselves. The TTRS was a match for the lighter-weight special versions of the WRX and EVO. And if we compare S and RS times to std rivals, we actually see greater disparity in favor of the former. Again, the point is that the vehicle is not compromised to the degree some would claim, and matches or outdoes its rivals.Clivey said:
Let's cut to the chase though: Do you disagree that Audi could have made a faster and more involving performance or "driver's" car if it wasn't compromised by being based on the Golf platform, with a transverse engine over the front axle and FWD-based AWD?
I don't see this as relevant other than for posturing (and this is not in short supply around here), for the reasons outlined earlier. Match it against competitors' products and it performs as advertised. I don't put much stock in your premise it isn't good enough because its origins are "too humble"; we see that it is objectively good enough, and often better. The origins of the cars you compare it to here are just as humble. Whether the car meets your subjective criteria for driver involvement is not the point.Edited by scherzkeks on Thursday 11th September 14:05
scherzkeks said:
In the time attack, and the difference is marginal. It leads the pack in the actual video -- all of this of course backing the point that the claims about underperformance are silly.
I'm happy to post lap times from Sport Auto, C&D, and others for the TTS, if you like. They won't do you any favors.
Yes, in the time attack where the cars could set their fastest times, rather than in the race in which the TT could hold the others up as it started first and had good straight line speed. And the Evo was nearly 3 seconds quicker than the TTRS over a 1.06 lap. That is a huge difference.I'm happy to post lap times from Sport Auto, C&D, and others for the TTS, if you like. They won't do you any favors.
Of course the other much more salient point is that I don't really care how fast a lap time a TT can set...trackdays are about driving enjoyment so an understeery mess is a rubbish trackday car, however fast it goes. I do wonder why you think Dale Lomas and countless other reviewers always pick up on that trait if it's not true. Some kind of conspiracy perhaps?
EDIT: Just read the "Catch it while you can" bit on the TT...another conspirator by the looks of it, pretending it was rubbish on track. This plot goes deep...
Edited by T0MMY on Thursday 11th September 17:35
scherzkeks said:
How about other coupés in the class, are they subject to your theoretical chassis requirements (1M at 3400 for example). And, let's be honest, the curb weight is likely a product of extra luxury the TT offers over the rally wannabes, which in standard form have no performance advantage, the same "dull" drive, and even manage to be less comfortable to top it off.
The problem with quoting weights though is that often, they don't state which method has been used. Evo's "real world" figure for the TT RS manual (so without the weight of the DSG 'box) was 1,494KG. The 1M is indeed similarly heavy...but then again you can actually get adults in the back.scherzkeks said:
The times at the end speak for themselves. The TTRS was a match for the lighter-weight special versions of the WRX and EVO. And if we compare standard S and RS times to rivals, we actually see greater disparity in favor of the former. Again, the point is that the vehicle is not compromised to the degree some would claim, and matches or outdoes its rivals.
No it wasn't. The times say different. It should have been faster.scherzkeks said:
I don't see this as relevant other than for posturing (and this is not in short supply around here), for the reasons outlined earlier. Match it against competitors' products and it performs as advertised. I don't put much stock in your premise it isn't good enough because its origins are "too humble"; we see that it is objectively good enough, and often better. The origins of the cars you compare it to here are just as humble. Whether the car meets your subjective criteria for driver involvement is not the point.
As predicted, you're once again incapable of giving a straight answer. That you can't tell the difference or appreciate a balanced chassis doesn't mean that no-one else can.Of course, we're all just "posturing".
Clivey said:
No it wasn't. The times say different. It should have been faster.
VIR: TTRS: 3:04.8; 1M:3:06.6; WRX STI: 3:13.5; EVO: 3:10.6Hockenheim: TTRS: 1:13.7; 1M: 1:14.1; WRX STI:1:18.3; EVO: 1:17,8
Nordschleife: TTRS: 8:09: 1M: 1:14.1; no SA times for the rally wannabes except a prev. gen STi time of 8:24, and an 8:25 for the EVO
scherzkeks said:
VIR: TTRS: 3:04.8; 1M:3:06.6; WRX STI: 3:13.5; EVO: 3:10.6
Hockenheim: TTRS: 1:13.7; 1M: 1:14.1; WRX STI:1:18.3; EVO: 1:17,8
Nordschleife: TTRS: 8:09: 1M: 1:14.1; no SA times for the rally wannabes except a prev. gen STi time of 8:24, and an 8:25 for the EVO
Where are you finding these laptimes? A quick google has thrown up several lower times for evos and stis on these tracks. 8.06 on the nurburgring by an Sti spec C is a highlight.Hockenheim: TTRS: 1:13.7; 1M: 1:14.1; WRX STI:1:18.3; EVO: 1:17,8
Nordschleife: TTRS: 8:09: 1M: 1:14.1; no SA times for the rally wannabes except a prev. gen STi time of 8:24, and an 8:25 for the EVO
In fact, interestingly, when I google laptimes I find Evos ahead of TTRSs in most cases so you must be doing some real cherry picking.
Anyway, as I said before, I couldn't really care less about laptimes, we're talking about trackday suitability so driver involvement is key.
T0MMY said:
Where are you finding these laptimes? A quick google has thrown up several lower times for evos and stis on these tracks. 8.06 on the nurburgring by an Sti spec C is a highlight.
In fact, interestingly, when I google laptimes I find Evos ahead of TTRSs in most cases so you must be doing some real cherry picking.
Anyway, as I said before, I couldn't really care less about laptimes, we're talking about trackday suitability so driver involvement is key.
Sport Auto and C&D for those times. In fact, interestingly, when I google laptimes I find Evos ahead of TTRSs in most cases so you must be doing some real cherry picking.
Anyway, as I said before, I couldn't really care less about laptimes, we're talking about trackday suitability so driver involvement is key.
scherzkeks said:
Sport Auto and C&D for those times.
Just googled Sport Auto and they had the TTRS at 1.15...slower than the BMW. Maybe I should check the Evo and Sti times.Car and Driver mentioned the understeer on the limit and lack of steering feel too, and that was just on the road. That amused me slightly as I'd assumed you'd at least cherry pick glowing reviews to link us to. Maybe it's not so easy to find a review that doesn't criticise the handling?
They did say it went fast in a straight line and looked nice though so that's the main thing.
Edited by T0MMY on Thursday 11th September 22:03
T0MMY said:
Just googled Sport Auto and they had the TTRS at 1.15...slower than the BMW. Maybe I should check the Evo and Sti times.
http://www.sportauto.de/video/audi-tt-rs-hockenheim-7889090.htmlEdited by T0MMY on Thursday 11th September 22:03
1:13.7
T0MMY said:
Car and Driver mentioned the understeer on the limit and lack of steering feel too, and that was just on the road. That amused me slightly as I'd assumed you'd at least cherry pick glowing reviews to link us to. Maybe it's not so easy to find a review that doesn't criticise the handling?
They did say it went fast in a straight line and looked nice though so that's the main thing.
The lap video should really amuse you then. You will notice the commentator mention how little understeer the car displays on one of the tracks toughest corners; he even mentions the fact that most cars they test require more steering lock to get through than what the TT did. The key here, of course, is driving it properly.They did say it went fast in a straight line and looked nice though so that's the main thing.
Edited by scherzkeks on Friday 12th September 09:44
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff