@newbie69 So Audi is not a reference point for Skoda in terms of handling, so why don't they make Superb handle like a sportscar, as I mentioned above? If it only takes a thicker torsion spring between rear control arms, why don't they make it thicker?

2 minutes ago, eurotripwagen said:

@newbie69 So Audi is not a reference point for Skoda in terms of handling, so why don't they make Superb handle like a sportscar, as I mentioned above? If it only takes a thicker torsion spring between rear control arms, why don't they make it thicker?

You don't follow. A thicker arb does not turn any car into a sports car, but in the case of the car I mentioned, this was enough to provide a more satisfying drive, one not really worse than the one in a S3. And if the Superb was fitted with stiffer springs from factory, there would be yet even less space between them in this department. This just shows how much of a "handling reference" a typical Audi is if a thicker arb and stiffer springs on any semi-performance MQB car (not just a Skoda) is all it takes to provide similar results and feel. And it is because apart from the ride firmness, they both suffer from vague steering and in my experience the S3 was even a worse understeer-er so...

As to why Skoda don't make it handle like a sports car from factory isn't it obvious it's a deliberate decision? Their target group would simply not be interested and most models are set up to maximise comfort, practicality and keep maintenance to the minimum needed. But by sharing the same underpinnings with the entire group, building a more focused, driver's car would be a pretty easy task if management and marketing ever gave the green light for such a thing. If anything, their IRC winning car is just a proof of their engineering skills.  Thankfully, their VAG involvement means we can get a solid car for very reasonable money and bring it to the level we'd like quite easily.

As far as I’m aware, the cutting of the power with left foot breaking has nothing to do with what gearbox the car has, it has to do with drive by wire. If pressure is applied to both throttle and break simultaneously, the car Is programmed to react as if the throttle is stuck on ie cut the power.

A real fail on the moose test was the Suzuki 4x4  a few years ago, they had to fit narrower tyres so it would slide rather than roll.

 

and for those who think 4x4 helps handling . . . .

 

Many many years ago (I'm showing my age) Motor magazine tried a number of tests including driving circles on a skidpan in a 2wd Escort and a similar 4wd escort on the same tyres.  There was no difference.  What 4wd gives you is better traction, not better handling. 

On 01/06/2020 at 15:46, newbie69 said:

As to why Skoda don't make it handle like a sports car from factory isn't it obvious it's a deliberate decision? Their target group would simply not be interested and most models are set up to maximise comfort, practicality and keep maintenance to the minimum needed.

Isn't this exactly what I was trying to explain in the first place? Sportiness was never a priority for Skoda. Even MQB siblings like Seat that are clearly intended to be sportier with their stiffer suspensions, suffer the same problems. Yes, with thicker anti-roll bars and stiffer springs/shocks you will eventually get a lift-off oversteer even on a full wheel drive car. But is that what you are looking for when you are improving handling? Transverse engine arrangement saves some room for passenger compartment and is cheaper to assemble, but it can ruin weight distribution and cause torque steer. Did your Audi S3 also have transverse engine? A4 and A6, which are more comparable to Superb in terms of size, have longitudinal configuration and their handling is more neutral. Yes, you can still make them understeer badly. You can also make your car oversteer or stick to the corner with all four wheels if you know what you're doing. The truth is, most normal drivers don't know where their feet are in emergency situations, and marketing people know that. They also know that an average Skoda is a fleet vehicle or owned by a man over 50. Taxi drivers don't use threshold braking. Typical Skoda owners don't track their Superbs. And failing a moose test at 77km/h does not make a family car unsafe. 

@eurotripwagen

I guess you do not know much about Glasgow Drug Gang wars and some with Skoda Taxis.

Amazing how quick a Skoda Rapid can go when being chased by a Golf R and a Audi S3 with people that intend killing you.

 

 

@IJWS15

The Original Jimny was a fail, 

then the next generation was a fail and it came from 1998- 2017 on ditch finder Bridgestone Dueler 205/75 R 15's.

I never rolled one but then i fitted wider tyres and lower suspension & tuned engine for road use or drifting in RWD.

The newest Jimny is on narrower 195/80 R 15 Bridgestone Dualer disasters for on or offroad use.

 

 

 

Edited 3 June, 20206 yr by Roottootemblowinootsoot

52 minutes ago, Roottootemblowinootsoot said:

I guess you do not know much about Glasgow Drug Gang wars and some with Skoda Taxis.

Amazing how quick a Skoda Rapid can go when being chased by a Golf R and a Audi S3 with people that intend killing you.

Of course in every region it is a slightly different demographic. Skoda Rapid is a poplar taxi fleet vehicle in Russia, where they are now offering a saloon version of what we know as Scala. Germany, the second most important market for Skoda, is full of Octavias, seems like half of which are Octavia RS with old people behind the wheel. I am pretty sure these go faster on a daily basis than any Glaswegian taxi in the most ferocious chase.

Octavia RS / vRS and old people behind the wheel pretty much sums up the demographic of them and the Superbs.

Airport transport.

Edited 3 June, 20206 yr by Roottootemblowinootsoot

On 28/05/2020 at 16:49, Roottootemblowinootsoot said:

That will be some of the the ones, crap tyres they buy in bulk.

Pathetic 'All Season' rubbish like Bridgestone Dualer tyres on Skoda's and SEAT / VW SUV's as Suzuki have used for years / decades as well.

Continental Premium Contact 2 'ContiSeals' on some MPV's

First thing that many want to get rid of.

 

I know this thread below might be about snow, but some Karoq / Ateca i drove when they first came out had the Dualers fitted and they were useless in the wet, and that was with the tyre pressures reset and not as the cars were handed over.

Then there are Pirelli Zero Nero's.  Well no matter the price, there are some rubbish ones.

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/445908-karoq-4x4-in-the-snow

 

Not Skoda related by our 14 year old d5 volvo xc70 came with Pirelli scorpion tyres it even says in the hand book to only fit these, had two sets fitted then the last set two years ago were Michelin cross climate, load quieter and definitely better in snow and standing water.

Never come across a moose tho even in winter.

Martin

On 28/05/2020 at 07:18, Swirly182 said:

Youtube link to Teknikens Varld. The iV didn't do too well. 

 

 

Saw this my self this week, pendulum effect but still shocking to see how poor it was for a new car.

In winter steering around a Red Deer would be quite exciting, best just try to get it to go right over the roof.

Venison for the Festive season is quite nice.

4 minutes ago, Roottootemblowinootsoot said:

In winter steering around a Red Deer would be quite exciting, best just try to get it to go right over the roof.

Venison for the Festive season is quite nice.

Yes I imagine it would be, have lots of driving experience in winter, the recent one the two periods of the beast from the east with 6 inch blanket of dry snow  in central Cumbria.

Lots of deer in our rural area but never hit one myself, but many close calls over the years, not fun when one jumps over walls or fences seemingly to see if your reaction times are up to speed!

I know the widow of a garage owner from Hungary.

They were out in their open top car on a lovely day and the deer that vaulted across the road was hit and its leg speared her husband through the chest.

 

7 hours ago, eurotripwagen said:

Isn't this exactly what I was trying to explain in the first place? Sportiness was never a priority for Skoda. Even MQB siblings like Seat that are clearly intended to be sportier with their stiffer suspensions, suffer the same problems. Yes, with thicker anti-roll bars and stiffer springs/shocks you will eventually get a lift-off oversteer even on a full wheel drive car. But is that what you are looking for when you are improving handling? Transverse engine arrangement saves some room for passenger compartment and is cheaper to assemble, but it can ruin weight distribution and cause torque steer. Did your Audi S3 also have transverse engine? A4 and A6, which are more comparable to Superb in terms of size, have longitudinal configuration and their handling is more neutral. Yes, you can still make them understeer badly. You can also make your car oversteer or stick to the corner with all four wheels if you know what you're doing. The truth is, most normal drivers don't know where their feet are in emergency situations, and marketing people know that. They also know that an average Skoda is a fleet vehicle or owned by a man over 50. Taxi drivers don't use threshold braking. Typical Skoda owners don't track their Superbs. And failing a moose test at 77km/h does not make a family car unsafe. 

Sorry you jump from one topic to the other with no real connection. I never argued Skoda make sporty cars, or that transverse engines are better for handling, or that failing the moose test is a ticking time bomb, we would agree on all of that. What I did say was very very specific and concerned the relation you drew in your post about Audi's price being that higher than Skoda's because of the better handling, reminder below:

 

On 01/06/2020 at 12:53, eurotripwagen said:

@Roottootemblowinootsoot If Skoda handled like an Audi, it would be priced like an Audi. Who in their mind spends Audi money on a Skoda?

And explained that the handling of the average Audi definitely does not justify such a price difference compared to its Skoda equivalent, hardly at all. In some cases it only takes a few upgraded components to bring them really close in driving feel and behavior (this doesn't happen nowhere as easily against a BMW for example) while in others, some Skodas are driving better even as stock compared to their Audi siblings (the humble vRS 245 is funnily a more involving drive than a S3) if you can judge without looking at badges. In fact this is the only department where Audi consistently loses out to their rivals as everything else is usually very well judged.

 

Edited 3 June, 20206 yr by newbie69

@newbie69 I'm sorry for your negative experience with Audi, my assumption is that if Audi made a Superb, it would look something like an A6 or other MLB-based car = longitudinally mounted engine, better weight distribution, better handling, even better handling with better optional AWD drivetrain, but costlier production due to a different layout, less room in passenger compartment and in the boot, or maybe same amount of room but longer wheelbase. I also assume that it would involve using a different approach to engineering the body structure to achieve stiffness. 

 

If you insist on BMW being a reference for handling, let's take any CLAR-based model, not a UKL. Longitudinal engine, rear wheel drive, multilink in the rear with pneumatic struts as standard. Probably even more hybrid structures for stiffer body construction. Do I have to explain in detail how it will affect the cost of final product? 

 

You can put a thicker anti-roll bar (unsprung mass alert!) on every vehicle you own if you believe it has no negative aspects to it.  

 

36 minutes ago, eurotripwagen said:

@newbie69 I'm sorry for your negative experience with Audi, my assumption is that if Audi made a Superb, it would look something like an A6 or other MLB-based car = longitudinally mounted engine, better weight distribution, better handling, even better handling with better optional AWD drivetrain, but costlier production due to a different layout, less room in passenger compartment and in the boot, or maybe same amount of room but longer wheelbase. I also assume that it would involve using a different approach to engineering the body structure to achieve stiffness. 

 

If you insist on BMW being a reference for handling, let's take any CLAR-based model, not a UKL. Longitudinal engine, rear wheel drive, multilink in the rear with pneumatic struts as standard. Probably even more hybrid structures for stiffer body construction. Do I have to explain in detail how it will affect the cost of final product? 

 

You can put a thicker anti-roll bar (unsprung mass alert!) on every vehicle you own if you believe it has no negative aspects to it.  

 

Well i doubt my findings about the disappointing handling (compared to their main rivals) are just mine, instead they seem to be everywhere  All those architectural advantages don't seem to be bearing enough fruit in reality as Audi is still trailing BMW and Merc in this department, it's the same story with every class comparison (A4 - 3 series - C Class,   A6 - 5 series - E Class). Most people don't care or even know the orientation of their engine unfortunately, instead they look at dimensions, boot space and bhp. From that aspect an A6 S-line is the closest Audi rival to a Superb Sportline. I've only been in a colleague's A6 C7 3.0 TDI (very popular car around here) and the last thing I'd envy from it, would be the handling, seriously. In fact the 2.0 TSI Superb Sportline is more agile than that car. So clearly it's nearly double price can't be down to any "handling sophistication" because there just isn't any to be found.

Your BMW reference though paints an even worse picture for the Audi. So BMW has implemented all these costly design choices (quoting your own point here) that probably all of us agree result in a far better car handling wise. How come then an A4 cost the same as a 3-series of equivalent motor? Or an A6 to a 5 series?   Surely BMW can't be selling cars on a loss? Hmm... unless Audi is selling cars on excessively high profit... Ok we all know the 4 rings are made from that very rare and expensive material but still...

As for the ARB it's a bold YES on this car, sorry. Unsprung mass alert?   Have you actually driven one with a thicker rear ARB and were able to tell any adverse effects from it? Because otherwise, suggesting a rear ARB's extra 3-4kg of unsprung mass (on a 1650kg car) is a counter-argument on the huge reduction of body-roll and cornering improvement it brings on this car lacks any order of magnitude and connection to driving realities.

18 minutes ago, newbie69 said:

As for the ARB it's a bold YES on this car, sorry. Unsprung mass alert?   Have you actually driven one with a thicker rear ARB and were able to tell any adverse effects from it? Because otherwise, suggesting a rear ARB's extra 3-4kg of unsprung mass (on a 1650kg car) is a counter-argument on the huge reduction of body-roll and cornering improvement it brings on this car lacks any order of magnitude and connection to driving realities.

I have experimented with anti-roll bars before, and must admit that it does help reduce body roll. Many aftermarket torsion stabilisers have multiple points where they attach to stabiliser links, so you can adjust stiffness a little bit with just one wrench while at the track. Up to certain point less body roll means better handling, after that it goes in the opposite direction and eventually gives you a snap-oversteer. You can definitely equip every single vehicle you own with a stiffer piece of metal, but there is a reason why manufacturers go with less Nm/deg values. More metal means more unsprung mass, which puts more load on springs and shocks trying to keep the wheels on the ground. Even Stiffer front and rear anti-roll bars will eventually put more twisting load on vehicle's body while driving on uneven road, and stiffening the body is not something you want to do to your daily-driven Skoda. I'm not a 100% theoretician here, I've been there and that is exactly why I believe Skoda as a manufacturer should not sacrifice practicality just to make a car pass the moose test at 77km/h.

 

I hope our discussion here is somewhat educational. 

5 minutes ago, eurotripwagen said:

I have experimented with anti-roll bars before, and must admit that it does help reduce body roll. Many aftermarket torsion stabilisers have multiple points where they attach to stabiliser links, so you can adjust stiffness a little bit with just one wrench while at the track. Up to certain point less body roll means better handling, after that it goes in the opposite direction and eventually gives you a snap-oversteer. You can definitely equip every single vehicle you own with a stiffer piece of metal, but there is a reason why manufacturers go with less Nm/deg values. More metal means more unsprung mass, which puts more load on springs and shocks trying to keep the wheels on the ground. Even Stiffer front and rear anti-roll bars will eventually put more twisting load on vehicle's body while driving on uneven road, and stiffening the body is not something you want to do to your daily-driven Skoda. I'm not a 100% theoretician here, I've been there and that is exactly why I believe Skoda as a manufacturer should not sacrifice practicality just to make a car pass the moose test at 77km/h.

 

I hope our discussion here is somewhat educational. 

Near my home on a 50mph limit road with no houses on it is my favourite corner which can easily be taken at 70mph (113km) in my standard 272 hatch with ordinary dampers, steel springs and stock ARB's. I'm not sure I need to take it any flatter or faster TBH.

1 minute ago, eurotripwagen said:

I have experimented with anti-roll bars before, and must admit that it does help reduce body roll. Many aftermarket torsion stabilisers have multiple points where they attach to stabiliser links, so you can adjust stiffness a little bit with just one wrench while at the track. Up to certain point less body roll means better handling, after that it goes in the opposite direction and eventually gives you a snap-oversteer. You can definitely equip every single vehicle you own with a stiffer piece of metal, but there is a reason why manufacturers go with less Nm/deg values. More metal means more unsprung mass, which puts more load on springs and shocks trying to keep the wheels on the ground. Even Stiffer front and rear anti-roll bars will eventually put more twisting load on vehicle's body while driving on uneven road, and stiffening the body is not something you want to do to your daily-driven Skoda. I'm not a 100% theoretician here, I've been there and that is exactly why I believe Skoda as a manufacturer should not sacrifice practicality just to make a car pass the moose test at 77km/h.

 

I hope our discussion here is somewhat educational. 

That's great. I have done my fair share of experimenting with the arb stiffness on the road and the track so we should probably arrive at the same conclusions. But, as you haven't played around with the Superb's options in particular, you seem to be wrongly assuming some extremes (overly stiff arb upgrade?) and actions that I never quoted or even consider beneficial (upgrade both ARB's on the Superb is pointless)  to make a point that is simply not true about this car and the regular off the shelf options from Eibach, H&R and the like.

To elaborate, while you can certainly ruin a car by an overly stiff bar/bars (theory) the H&R 25mm rear arb I'm running on the Superb (reality) is by no means such a case that will catch the driver out by causing snap-oversteer. I've tried to induce this in a controlled environment to get to know the new limit of the car but it is almost impossible on any public road. In fact there is still some useful body roll left on the car, just not the ridiculous amount of the stock bar. So we can assume that the bar is designed to work well for road use and with the stock suspension in mind, rather than a super hard option destined for racing. This is again not an individual opinion but shared by everyone I know that has gone to a similar upgrade. There's a difference between mild modifications that reduce negative aspects to an extent, and more radical ones that aim to completely eliminate them causing adverse effects at the same time. No need to scare people away for no reason, this is one of the very few win-win upgrades, again: on this car, with the items in question.

Truth is that similar to how they have detuned the 310ps engine to 272ps, not because of less potent hardware in their own car but for brand segregation and target group reasons, they have followed the same approach on other aspects too. A thinner arb will create a more "amateur friendly" car that understeers more easily and warns the driver to back-off sooner, and it probably is a bit cheaper, perfect choice for building an economical commuter. Still entirely possible to correct such choices and bring the car closer to one's own driving needs and tastes if they know what they're doing, MQB platform benefits...

I find it easy to dial in snap oversteer when turning right on a roundabout if you have the space and no car in the vicinity to spoil your fun. You don't need a thicker rear ARB to induce it.

1 hour ago, newbie69 said:

perfect choice for building an economical commuter. Still entirely possible to correct such choices and bring the car closer to one's own driving needs and tastes if they know what they're doing, MQB platform benefits...

Fully with you on that. MQB is as economical as it is versatile.

 

If we sort all MQB-based models according to their sportiness, Audi TT would definitely be on one end of the list, and Skoda Superb somewhere close to the other end. 

1 hour ago, shyVRS245 said:

I find it easy to dial in snap oversteer when turning right on a roundabout if you have the space and no car in the vicinity to spoil your fun. You don't need a thicker rear ARB to induce it.

Same, but turning left. Just lift the foot off the throttle and rear end goes loose. Stock everything, not even a sportline, DCC in comfort, stock 235-wide Conti SportContact 5 with 2.7 bar of pressure, space saver in the boot, windows up, A/C on, no passengers, no groceries.

1 hour ago, eurotripwagen said:

Fully with you on that. MQB is as economical as it is versatile.

 

If we sort all MQB-based models according to their sportiness, Audi TT would definitely be on one end of the list, and Skoda Superb somewhere close to the other end. 

I have to disagree with that, on both ends! On top I would place something like the Cupra Performance Pack and the Clubsport S, no haldex, lsd-less TT could come close to how aggressively these cars can attach corners (heck even the standard Clubsport was amazing on track), but then again what is a Skoda Superb? 

A L&K non-DCC estate is a different car handling wise to a Sportline DCC hatch so what applies to one is not necessarily true to the other. My Sportline DCC hatch surprised me with both the grip and the damping it provided when in Sport DCC mode even as stock (for what I thought it would be). In fact i think the DCC damping algorithm on the Sportline is very well judged when in Sport mode, but is let down from the springs which are still chosen with comfort in mind. You can tell how decisively the shocks work in Sport mode: no second rebound over bumps, car remains very calm during cornering, but the springs seem to always be on step behind the dampers. A bit too much initial dive, squat and roll during accelerating, braking and cornering after which the car more or less settles and dynamics don't change that much.

Maybe the fact that I have been running aftermarket alloys that removed a whooping 18kg of unsprung mass (4.5kg of per wheel) since the first week is making me complement it more than I should (definitely the steering and turn-in "woke up" a lot after that change) and of-course the arb upgrade later on just made everything feel tighter and more efficient ( someone who didn't know what I changed could have easily assumed it was dampers rather than arb) but I mean, a lightweight alloy wheel set and a rear arb that you fit within 1hr at your garage are hardly "serious" suspension mods, so the potential is there.

3 hours ago, newbie69 said:

Cupra Performance Pack and the Clubsport S

What about TT RS? 

 

Am I right that optional DCC-equipped suspension on Sportline still includes lower and stiffer springs? Because my basic DCC in Sport does not make the car corner like anything special.

26 minutes ago, eurotripwagen said:

What about TT RS? 

 

Am I right that optional DCC-equipped suspension on Sportline still includes lower and stiffer springs? Because my basic DCC in Sport does not make the car corner like anything special.

Didn't think of the TT-RS and I haven't driven one but up until the current model it was reportedly just another straight line hero which suffered from even worse understeer than the TT-S due to the heavier front. However, they seem to have corrected  a lot on the latest model and even though still trailing BMW's finest (according to road tests and reviews) it's probably a very good car. Hard to say if it's a sportier car or more driver focused than a Clubsport S or not, this would depend on many factors and even then it could be somewhat subjective i think. Then again it has that special engine and nearly 100extra bhp so probably an unfair comparison.

You're correct on the Sportline springs. I also have a suspicion the DCC could be coded differently on the Sportline (especially S mode) but haven't been able to confirm this with hard data, simply going by reviews of owners from the different variants has led to me believe it could be more than just the springs. Also, the Sportline non-DCC, seems to handle worse than the DCC  on Sport,  which kind of makes sense since they wouldn't tune the fixed dampers for all-round use at the DCC's hardest setting. So you have 4 different setups really (L&K DCC/non-DCC, Sportline DCC/non-DCC). Add the two different body types and things vary even more.

Edited 4 June, 20205 yr by newbie69