What did Auto Unions handle like?

im just wondering. all that power. no wings. shite tyres.
wat was the ride like.

I doubt anyone here has actually driven one. I'd guess they were quite evil handling.

Rosemeyer seemed to like them though.

oh im sure no one here hs driven one
just thought there would be a few people with
insight and info.

I don't think they would be evil.
I have driven Formula Vee and I have driven cars with 600hp so it would just be a combination of the two! It would just be a matter of the hands keeping pace with the right foot.

'Driving' one and 'racing' one would be two different things, of course...

(Paraphrasing John McCormack here, who 'drove' at Longford and never 'raced' there)... but there are people who've driven them in recent times in demonstrations etc. Have they ever voiced their opinions?

Originally posted by Bernd
I doubt anyone here has actually driven one.

Oh stop Bernd, don't underestimate the selected club of members here.

I think Doug did drive one or more and our member Mike Riedner drove one of the Typ D at the Nürburgring in the 90s. And I had also the chance to "drive" the Typ C of the Deutsches Museum in 1992. It was during the Kesselberg Revival.

But I only got the chance to carry it on to the stage, without the engine.

Originally posted by Holger Merten
.... And I had also the chance to "drive" the Typ C of the Deutsches Museum in 1992. It was during the Kesselberg Revival.

So, what did it handle like?

my auntie had a 1000sp for a number of years - she never seemed to get in any bother with it.

It was a little bit tricky.;)

Originally posted by Patrick Fletcher
my auntie had a 1000sp for a number of years - she never seemed to get in any bother with it.

The A-U 100 used to lift its inside rear wheel on tight corners and both inside wheels if driven really hard. The F-11 and F-12 seemed to have this under control - or perhaps the drivers I watched weren't trying so hard.

As to real Auto Unions, I have always understood that Dr Porsche's concept was that consistent 'bad' handling was preferablr to handling that changed in character as the fuel load reduced and caught out some drivers after a refuelling stop. the A-U with its rear engine and swing axles was always 'tail happy' or in other words tended to potentially unstable oversteer. An ex-motorcyclist with no preconcieved ideas like Rosemeyer or a pure genius like Varzi or Nuvolari could cope with this. This may of course be simply folklore.

Phil Hill drove a Auto Union (model D I think) for Road & Track and said that the handling was easy and that its reputation for being a difficult car to drive was just a myth.

Get raceing the silver arrows by duke it shows how the cars handlled

Originally posted by sandy
Phil Hill drove a Auto Union (model D I think) for Road & Track and said that the handling was easy and that its reputation for being a difficult car to drive was just a myth.

With all due respect to Phil Hill, I very much doubt that he drove the car at anything approaching racing speeds - only in the final ten per cent could the "tail-happiness" be fully appreciated, I'd have thought - witness the film of (I think) Rosemeyer tail-sliding one up-hill under enormous power but full control: the front wheels stay dead straight. In addition, Hill had experience of rear-engined cars - from the Ferrari 246P onwards to the Ford GTs and Chapparals - and if it was on modern tyres they'd have been better than those used in period. In period, they were still learning the basics about rear-engined cars and the only men who really could be said to have mastered the AUs on track were Rosemeyer, Nuvolari and Varzi: all experienced racing motorcyclists. The only other man who approached their control of the cars was Stuck, but he was a hill-climb specialist - IMHO a different skill set is required, especially for the long European mountain climbs.

John Surtees has vast experience of driving 30s Mercedes and has been known to get them into "tank-slapper" mode at Goodwood: I'd dearly love to see him tackle an Auto Union on a real "balls-out" hill! Or Valentino Rossi perhaps ....

Originally posted by Vitesse2


In period, they were still learning the basics about rear-engined cars and the only men who really could be said to have mastered the AUs on track were Rosemeyer, Nuvolari and Varzi: all experienced racing motorcyclists. The only other man who approached their control of the cars was Stuck, but he was a hill-climb specialist - IMHO a different skill set is required, especially for the long European mountain climbs.

Haven't you covered, in that paragraph, all of the top-line drivers of the Auto Union? The only other I can immediately think of is Fagioli and he was suffering badly from ill-health by the time he joined the team. AU employed a lot of drivers who were unlikely to win serious races in any car. How many real top-liners failed when they tried it? Perhaps they weren't so difficult to drive (by the standards of the time).

Point taken, Roger, but I think we could argue this for ever! MB could afford to be picky in their driver choices, but AU tended to develop their own, salary restraints being a deciding factor - I think they could only afford one "star" at a time. I omitted Müller of course (another biker!) and Hasse, who won one GP (and had also raced bikes).

The other true greats of the period, like Caracciola, Chiron, Seaman and von Brauchitsch, could probably have mastered them too. But of course we'll never know ....

But the key phrase is "by the standards of the time". Nothing built then would have "cornered like it was on rails", to use a well-worn cliché!

Originally posted by Vitesse2

The other true greats of the period, like Caracciola, ......

It's in his book where he talks about how he & Rosemeyer swopped cars one day during a practice at Monza. Rosemeyer was impressed with the brakes and how the MB "hugs the road". Caracciola liked the "magnificent motor" and how smooth it was.

The agreement between the two was that the ideal racing car for 1939 would have a Mercedes chassis , Mercedes brakes and an Auto Union engine BUT said Caraccolia "with the engine in the front!"

On 8W there's a report that Rosemeyer hands started bleeding from fighting the car in Budapest and he had to be lifted out afterwards. I'd say it was a little tricky.

Originally posted by Roger Clark
Perhaps they weren't so difficult to drive (by the standards of the time).

I have wondered the same thing for years. Comparing the times of the racing drivers and motorcyclists at the Auto Union tests each year shows little difference between the two disciplines.
In the following, racing drivers are in blue and motorcyclists in red; the others are either completely inexperienced (usually factory employees) or their competition backgrounds are otherwise unknown to me.

1934/35
(Sudschleife test)
Paul Pietsch 3m 05.4s
Bernd Rosemeyer 3m 07.0s
Hans Simons 3m 09.4s
Rudi Steinweg 3m 18.6s
Hans Soenius 3m 25.0s
Karl von Michel-Tüssling
Otto Ley
Hans Kahrmann
Herbert Kirchberg
F Trügner
Hahn
Krämer

(Nordschleife test)
Paul Pietsch 11m 14.6s
Hans Simons 11m 46.0s
Bernd Rosemeyer 12m 00.0s
Hans Soenius 12m 00.8s
Rudi Steinweg 12m 57.0s


1935/36
Rudolf Heydel 11m 11.3s
Ernst von Delius 11m 20.0s
Scheeff 11m 24.2s
Rudolf Hasse 11m 29.1s
Hans Simons 11m 29.3s
Ulrich Bigalke
Arthur Geiss
Ernst Loof
Hahn


1936/37
(first day)
H P Müller 11m 35.1s
Walter Bäumer 11m 48.2s
Adolf Brudes 12m 05.4s
Oskar Steinbach 12m 43.1s
Paul Schweder crashed

(second day)
H P Müller 11m 08.0s
Walter Bäumer 11 33.0s and crashed
Adolf Brudes 11m 55.0s (after snow)
Oskar Steinbach 12m 56.0s


1937/38
Edwald Kluge 11m 01.0s
Uli Bigalke 11m 04.0s
Erwin Zimmerman 11m 37.0s
Fritz von Hanstein 12m 40.0s
Bobby Kohlrausch
Walfried Winkler

Perhaps a more valid test of the “bikers are better” theory can be made by comparing the times of the various Auto Union drivers and Mercedes drivers at each race. I haven’t gone into it deeply, but I suspect the medium and slow Mercedes drivers were no slower compared to the team aces than were the medium and slow Auto Union men to theirs.

I read somewhere that their handling was so evil, that they hindered the development of other rear/mid engined single seaters for decades. When others saw them, they though that it could not be the right way...

Often innovators get tagged as crazy, but history usually proves them right...

The bike racers were also driving the Auto Unions, I take it. In other words, those times weren't set on their bikes were they...?

Originally posted by mercw125


It's in his book where he talks about how he & Rosemeyer swopped cars one day during a practice at Monza. Rosemeyer was impressed with the brakes and how the MB "hugs the road". Caracciola liked the "magnificent motor" and how smooth it was.

The agreement between the two was that the ideal racing car for 1939 would have a Mercedes chassis , Mercedes brakes and an Auto Union engine BUT said Caraccolia "with the engine in the front!"

I knew that quote was in Racing Driver's World, but I was looking for it in 1936 Rudi also says that he reckoned only Varzi and Rosemeyer truly mastered the cars, with an honourable mention for Nuvolari.

Interesting that Kluge set a very fast time but never drove one in anger.

A factor in the AU design philosophy that doesn't seem to draw much attention is that the engines were designed to give enormous torque values rather than top-end power.

How would this affect handling?

Were the AUs harder on their tyres than the Mercedes? Are there any records of tyre life or frequency of tyre changes during races?

Originally posted by David McKinney


Ernst Loof

Never knew that the Veritas chap drove an Auto Union. (Or that he was a biker.) Interesting.

I would have thought any trailing link front/swing axle rear chassis, especially one with gobs of power and torque, to be a bit of a handful near and on the limit, what with the front roll centre on the road, and the rear one high up in the air, with the attendant jacking trying to pitch the car off the road. Still, millions of road cars with this very suspension configuration were subsequently sold - yes, those Type 1 VWs were tricky near and on the limit...

Once A-U realized this and put in the deDion rear, the improvement must have been tangible, I'm sure. As did 'camber compensating devices' on 356s and Type 1s.

In a way it is remarkable that the trailing link front/swing axle rear configuration survives against the odds to this day in Formula Vee. Through application over decades by dedicated enthusiasts, these little cars of limited power have been developed and refined to the point where they actually handle very well - in spite of their archaic and, in hindsight, fundamentally flawed suspension arrangement. Rear engine combined with trailing link front/swing axle rear may have made some sense on the roads and customer budgets of the 1930s - for racing (and road), both the trailing link front and swing axle rear concepts were doomed from the beginning, yet persisted remarkably long anyway.

Originally posted by ensign14
Never knew that the Veritas chap drove an Auto Union. (Or that he was a biker.) Interesting.

Since the twenties Loof had been employed as engineer at the Imperia motorcycle factory, for which he also started as works driver. After that he spend some time at the Auto Union before he became member of the racing department at BMW.

A quick google search delivers victories for him in the 350 cc classes for solo motorcycles and sidecars at the Hamburger Stadtparkrennen in 1934:

http://www.motoreviv...e.php?jahr=1934

Originally posted by Rainer Nyberg
I read somewhere that their handling was so evil, that they hindered the development of other rear/mid engined single seaters for decades. When others saw them, they though that it could not be the right way...

Often innovators get tagged as crazy, but history usually proves them right...

This is often said, but is it supported by the facts? Certainly Alfa romeo were prepared to build a mid-engined car (the 512) as the war approached. After the war, most people wee forced to race whatever they had available. Porsche still believed in the concept, as they showed with the Type 360. Into the 1950s, Ferrari and Maserati were never noted for their radical thinking; Mercedes-Benz and Lancia would have wanted something that could be related to their road cars.

As Bonde has pointed out, the 16-cylinder AUs had serious deficiencies in their suspension design, particularly the rear. This was corrected with the 12-cylinder cars of 1938/39. Even so, the 16-cylinders cars were always competitive with Mercedes-Benz, and equally successful, particularly when the quality of the drivers is taken into account. The lap times posted by David McKinney suggest that inexperienced drivers found the AU a reasonably benign experience.

I've often wondered why exactly Porsche and von Eberhorst went for the trailing link front/swing axle rear on the AU GP cars. One could say it was Porsche's (or Hans Ledwinka's?) 'pet arrangement', but didn't it really only made engineering and economical sense on a small, low performance road car (like the VW)? I'm sure the good Herrn Doktoren were well enough versed with then-state-of-the-art vehicle dynamics and suspension design to realize that huge levels of dynamic camber change wasn't good for ultimate tyre adhesion and handling, but perhaps I overestimate the level of knowledge about vehicle dynamics of his time?

Having said that, I don't suppose that Porsche et al. arrived at the trailing link front/swing axle rear combination by accident, especially when one considers the narrow, bumpy and highly cambered roads typically used for racing in the thirties. Poor as each arrangemet is in isolation (front: Camber increase equals roll angle, all links loaded in bending, rear: Huge camber variation with bump and roll, high jacking forces), the bad side of the front tends to offset the vices of the rear somewhat: The inherent oversteer of the high-pivot swing axle is offset by the inherent understeer of the trailing link front; with the rear restricted to always negative camber, Formula Vees appear to be inherent understeerers these days, I venture to guess. The trailing link front/swing axle rear combination did and does allow for a semblance of balance (by making both ends bad), but it doesn't allow very good exploitation of tyre grip, even with skinny tyres.

Even though AU's budget was far from infinite, the relative cheapness of trailing link front/swing axle rear needn't have been an issue, or did it? They later did spend money on the DeDion on the D-type, and the trailing link front/DeDion rear did find many (mostly front engined) racing homes, but they would all have compromised potential front end grip. Of course a 'proper' double wishbone front/high-pivot swing axle rear has also been used by some, which would provide good grip from the front and limiting the compromise with the rear instead - even if forced to always run negative camber (Alpine Renaults come to mind). Mercedes improved it all with the low pivot swing axle rear, but that requires multi-jointed drive shafts anyway, so it wasn't much simpler than a de Dion or a double wishbone IRS.

Oh well, hindsight is just so convenient, isn't it?

In haste - I arranged for Phil Hill test drove the Kerry Wotsit/Colin Crabbe V12 car at Donington Park for 'Road & Track'. He was entranced by its handling because it rode so smoothly and with its centralised major masses and De Dion rear end AU's legendary wickedness seemed tamed. He persuaded me then - and I believe now - that had the war not interrupted development the rear-engined GP car layout could have become accepted by 1941-42 thanks to AU development.

What survived postwar, however, was fixation with the 'evil handling' of the V16 cars with Dr Porsche's swing axle rear end, rock-hard narrow rear tyres up-edging under pitch, roll and weight transfer. The legend outlived reality, and in essence set back the adoption of the configuration for at least 20 years - give or take a war or two along the way.

If needs be I could expand on all this later when more time's available - running for a 'plane...

DCN

If needs be...

Come on Doug. Now you've got us all anxious for your next post!

Thanks for sharing that, Doug - and have a safe flight!

It is interesting that the 'rediscovery' of the mid-engine configuration actually seems to have required the ingenuity from necessity from the humble beginnings of the British 500cc F3 movement and the growth of Coopers (although they weren't the first with a mid-engine midget), when -again with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight- the advantages of locating the lump behind the driver is so obviously 'right'. Took the 'Mericans another decade or so to figure it out - even though they did know about the low drag and low weight of the mid-engined drop tank Lakesters...

Originally posted by Doug Nye
In haste - I arranged for Phil Hill test drove the Kerry Wotsit/Colin Crabbe V12 car at Donington Park for 'Road & Track'. He was entranced by its handling because it rode so smoothly and with its centralised major masses and De Dion rear end AU's legendary wickedness seemed tamed. He persuaded me then - and I believe now - that had the war not interrupted development the rear-engined GP car layout could have become accepted by 1941-42 thanks to AU development.

What survived postwar, however, was fixation with the 'evil handling' of the V16 cars with Dr Porsche's swing axle rear end, rock-hard narrow rear tyres up-edging under pitch, roll and weight transfer. The legend outlived reality, and in essence set back the adoption of the configuration for at least 20 years - give or take a war or two along the way.

If needs be I could expand on all this later when more time's available - running for a 'plane...

DCN

Are you saying, Doug, that the reason that rear-engined GP car layouts were not adopted postwar for so long was because designers would not consider the rear-engined configuration simply because of the reputation of the pre-war AU V16 cars? This conjures up images of someone (Enzo Ferrari, Tony Vandervell etc.,) saying to designers "How about going rear engine?" to receive a reply, "No. no, it wouldn't work, remember the handling of those V16 Auto Unions?" Wouldn't it be possible that there be other reasons - too much like hard work for the designers - venturing outside their technical comfort zone, too many unknowns and so on?

Why did it take so long to go rear engined?

Don't forget there was another putative rear-engined GP car: the Alfa Romeo 512, designed as a replacement for the 158 with an eye to the 1941 GP Formula. Its existence was something of an open secret in the post-War period and the general opinion was that once someone got the better of the Alfettas, Portello would roll it out and resume their domination. Of course, it was known that one of the prototypes had killed Marinoni in 1943 during testing when it hit a truck which shouldn't have been there on an Autostrada, but it was still assumed that the car was even better than the 158.

In fact, it wasn't. And Enzo Ferrari knew it: no doubt reinforcing his philosophy that horses were designed to pull, not push ....

Emanuele Pirro, as a works Audi driver, has demonstrated these cars and some time back he told me he really enjoyed driving the car and was very impressed in particular with the way the cockpit was designed. Every control was in exactly the right place, the pedals were just right and it was very comfortable from the driver’s point of view. He seemed to find the handling quite acceptable but thought that with the original tyres it would have been easier to drive than now with “modern historic” Dunlop racing tyres which give a bit too much grip and let go too abruptly. With the original much harder compounds the car would have been sliding the whole time so it would have just been a question of controlling it with the throttle.

Originally posted by Vitesse2
Don't forget there was another putative rear-engined GP car: the Alfa Romeo 512, designed as a replacement for the 158 with an eye to the 1941 GP Formula. Its existence was something of an open secret in the post-War period and the general opinion was that once someone got the better of the Alfettas, Portello would roll it out and resume their domination. Of course, it was known that one of the prototypes had killed Marinoni in 1943 during testing when it hit a truck which shouldn't have been there on an Autostrada, but it was still assumed that the car was even better than the 158.

In fact, it wasn't. And Enzo Ferrari knew it: no doubt reinforcing his philosophy that horses were designed to pull, not push ....

I thought Marinoni was killed in a modified 158?

I thought so too Roger. From what I have been told over the years by design engineers involved in producing racing cars from 1946-1958 there was a real inborn prejudice against rear-engined cars with hefty high power engines. Cooper proved the installation worked just fine with 500-1100cc air-cooled engines - the common belief was that rear-engined GP cars would only deliver the goods in the hands of an exceptionally talented driver of Rosemeyer or Nuvolari class. They don't emerge right often...

Everybody imbued with this belief genuinely seemed to overlook the fact that the V16 cars had swing-axle rear suspension and ran gripless tyres with the contact area approximating to two credit cards end to end. They further overlooked the immensely better balanced, more stable and far more user-friendly handling demonstrated by the fully-developed 1939 V12 AUs with their de Dion rear suspension and pannier fuel tankage. The events of September 1939 effectively froze these caricatures and prejudices for many racing engineers who would return, or emerge, in those postwar years. Imprinting at an early age is immensely powerful. We all experience it in some way. From what good people have told me over the years I am confident that this was a very substantial - non-engineering - factor in delaying the re-introduction of rear-engined configuration in GP car design.

DCN

Originally posted by Vitesse2
........Of course, it was known that one of the prototypes had killed Marinoni in 1943 during testing when it hit a truck ....

1940?

It is worth noting that Daimler-Benz seriously considered building a rear-engined car before they produced the W25 but concluded that

there was no reduction in weight
there was no reduction in aerodynamic drag
the existence of the propeller shaft did not present significant problems
the smaller moment of inertia presented difficulties in road holding
the weight distribution of a rear-engined car impaired adhesion of the front wheels which was considered to be particularly important

They did, of course, have experience on a rear-engined Grand Prix car from ten years earlier. They were serious engineers and were not bound by tradition in this respect. I believe it is also true that Auto-Union considered building a front-engined car in 1938 but decided against it as the company was so strongly associated with rear-engines.

Fascinating discussion, but I think the posters take one point out of the equation: the relation between tyres and surface. For a long time, I've been thinking about interviewing a tyrexpert about the progress made in tyregrip, but ALSO in the development of tarmac. The surface of some new tracks is unbelievable grippy, and I gather that Nuvolari and Rosemeyer had a different kind of surface to work on. It would be fun (for us!) if Emmanuel Pirro or someother driver took a modern racecar to a track where there is an old fashioned surface...

Originally posted by KJJ

1940?

Indeed it was 1940, driving a 158 carrying the 512 rear suspension.

It was Sanesi who during the war reported that the car was a handful while pounding around Monza. More importantly, he claimed that the Alfetta was faster.

However, I believe having read somewhere - was it Doug who wrote that? - that Pintacuda was rather more flattering about the 512.

Very interesting, this thread.

A small note: in the last months of 1939, while working on the 1,5 litre Auto Union, the engineers felt that the mid-engined AU layout of the Typ D's - which was to be re-used in the Typ E - did have a drawback: when the car looses grip, it will spin quite easily, because all the weight is in the middle. A familiar behaviour to every mid-engined supercar of today.

To solve this, they came up with the idea of using a gyroscope in the car, countering the rotation and slowing it down. That would make it easier for the driver to regain control of the car. A layout with one or two gyroscopes was tested and was very succesful - somewhere in my pile of stuff I still have copies of AU archive documents that say this. But I never found out how they tested it - on a testbed in the workshop or by fitting a Typ D with a gyroscope.

Originally posted by Roger Clark

I thought Marinoni was killed in a modified 158?

Correct. Brain fade due to an unquestioning recent re-reading of "Motor Racing Mavericks"

Originally posted by KJJ
1940?

Ditto!

Originally posted by Racer.Demon
However, I believe having read somewhere - was it Doug who wrote that? - that Pintacuda was rather more flattering about the 512.

He was: same book!