April fool's update!
For the past month or two I've been putting a lot of thought into suspension setup of the car, both to gain some experience at analyzing vehicle dynamics and to try and make sure that what I'm doing has a chance of actually working when put through its paces at the track when using sticky tires. I realized last winter after spending all this money and effort getting various solid/performance pieces into the suspension that all of that precision handling is useless if the car does weird things in the middle of corners. Thankfully, drivetrain effects aside, you can't ask for a car much simpler than a B3 Audi, with McPherson struts front and rear and a lot of the geometry the same between the two. Armed with a full shop including an alignment rack and corner scales, I've made a lot of measurements and am starting to get some interesting observations.
My first move was to go to shorter front springs. This was kind of a half-baked idea, but a lot of good has come from it. When I installed my QRS front top mounts, I had to move to A1 Racing upper spring perches, which added .75" of ride height to the front of the car when my front spring perches were already basically bottomed out. I had 8" 400lb/in springs installed, and wanted to go down to 6". Noone makes 6" springs that soft because they're liable to coilbind, so I settled on 7" which turned out to be a good idea. I got all set up to install them and take a bunch of measurements. Before I started, I weighed it:

With the car still on the scales, I also raised it up until all four springs were unseated from their perches, leaving only the unsprung assembly resting on the scales. The results, including G60s in front, D2 S8 rear brakes, 17x7 cast wheels with 205/50r17 snow tires, 034 Chro-mo tie rods, forged front arms, and sold rears was 110lb/corner front weight, and 95lb/corner rear weight.
I also measured/verified motion ratio at about .98. This means that for every 1 unit the wheel moves, the suspension moves .98 units at the motion range I measured it at (basically my static ride height). This is typical for McPherson strut cars.
I started running numbers. With those springs installed, there is about 2.25" preload on each spring at ride height (averaged). The coilbind height of these springs (made by Hyperco) was 2.1", leaving me 2.65" of useable spring travel, which seemed sufficient for the rates I was running. Looking closer though indicated that would not be possible. With the A1 racing perches and the ride height I was running (about a 1-finger gap from tire to fender, or 6" from pinch weld to ground), there was about 1.5" of compression travel available between the strut cap nut and the bottom of the spring perch, where the two would hit (the stock strut nut is larger than the ID of the perch). That moment went my dreams of running a minimal bumpstop too. I was able to remove about 30% of the one I was running but it is still there, which is better than metal-on-metal. 1.5" travel isn't a whole lot, especially when if you consider an example 50% load transfer side-to-side would give a corner weight of about 1290lb, or a total spring compression of about 3.23"...leaving about .5" of travel from there to absorb bumps or for further load transfer. Basically, nowhere near enough to make this work very well. I confirmed my theory this weekend once I switched over to some 235 Michelin PS2s while driving hard over undulating roads. It works ok until you hit a bump or a dip, and then the tire skitters and car porposes due to hitting the bumpstop.
So, that problem of insufficient travel is a connundrum. The easiest option is to raise the car up. That doesn't look cool, and is really difficult right now because my coilover perches are all extremely stiff. It took me about two hours of reefing on them to make up for the difference in spring length. It's kind of a pithy point, but I am working on trying to determine if the increase in (estimate) CG height is better/worse than the other possible handling side effects (again, this is an educational project). I should also mention that I am not concerned about camber issues at my current ride height, and I am waiting to make a judgement on roll center height until I get more measurements of strut length and SAI. Not concerned about camber because this suspension won't lose camber until the control arm goes perpendicular with the strut angle (which appears to mean it would need to point up at an 11* angle). Basically, there isn't enough suspension travel from where I sit to make that an issue, any compression will cause the suspension to maintain or slightly gain camber (from the pathetic amount of -1.5*).
The next best solution is to go to shorter strut housings, giving physically more distance between the housing and the upper perch. That costs money for new shocks, though. That said, based on Timmmy's experiences, a nice set of Koni 8611s are on my list someday. I would also be very curious to know what the KW coilovers do about this as far as shorter strut bodies and travel at these ride heights. But those are also spending money.
Another option would be to raise spring rates, and decrease the amount of travel used per load. Two issues with this. One is that after measuring unsprung weight, I went back to my suspension frequency calculator, and put in much more correct data for the unsprung weight portion of the equation. With the corner weights listed above and 400lb/in springs front and rear, I'm running about 2.23hz front, and 2.58hz rear. This is typical/aggressive for a track car with no aero, and based on what I know now should be sufficient for the tires and use I'm looking to run on the track (streetable r-compounds). The rear is about 15% higher than the front, which is sufficient for level ride over bumps at speed and helps it be a bit more neutral. So, based on that I don't really want to be running higher spring rates in terms of handling balance, and I can't on the regular Koni SAs because they seem to start blowing out over 400lb/in based on Jim's experiences.
So the next solution I'm going to revisit is sway bars. I'm not running any right now, partly because of laziness and partly because of the beliefs out there that they aren't needed on these cars. Which is bogus. Based on wheelbase and CG height, suspension travel in a straight line is just fine due to the lower amount of weight transfer. But these cars are much more narrow than they have wheelbase, so more roll rate is needed than ride rate to keep load transfer in check--the same as any car. I'm working on determining the rate of the two different OEM options (sway bar or control arm mounted), and seeing what is available for the back of the car since I foolishly sent my sway bar rear subframe to the scrapyard with the 80. I can only see an improvement in handling by adding these back, but I'd like to get something that allows some adjustment as needed.
So that's that. I've got pages of notes and data and computations written down, and cannot wait to get the car ready to actually do something with it. I'm acquiring a full set of Porsche 996 Turbo brakes next weekend, and tomorrow I might just buy a bumper and a huge list of stuff to get my 30R installed. If all of my maths and textbooks and theory verify, maybe I can move on to setting up something cooler...

Sam