PDA

View Full Version : AWD in IT...



theenico
11-11-2003, 12:35 PM
The WRX STi and Lancer EVO are being classed in Touring next year. That should open the door for, at least naturally aspirated, AWD cars in IT.
For example:
Audi 4000 quattro '84-'86 = ITB (@ 100# heavier than front drive)
Audi 80/90 quattro 10V = ITB/ITA (depends on weight)
Audi 90 quattro 20V '90-'91 = ITS (if you can find one)
Audi coupe quattro 20V '90-'91 = ITS
Subaru Impreza L 2.2L = ITB
Subaru Impreza 2.5 RS = ITS (We have one here in the MIDIV that currently runs ITE but he generally hangs with the ITS cars. I built the cage and suspension with the idea that one day it would be in ITS. The engine was also built to IT specs.)

I'm sure I left out a bunch of other cars but I'm just putting this out there to see what anyone thinks about it. SO let 'er rip http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


------------------
Nico
KCRaceware (816) 257-7305
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by theenico (edited November 11, 2003).]

joeg
11-11-2003, 01:31 PM
Turbos will be in IT someday too.

As for "naturally aspirated", you forgot a domestic candidate, the Ford Tempo AWD!

Mitsubishi sold a non-turbo Galant AWD and Mazda had the AWD Protge in 1990.

Banzai240
11-11-2003, 02:01 PM
Hmmm... Boy, that would certainly throw a wrench into any "classification formula", were one to exist for IT... I wonder how you'd factor THAT (AWD) variable in there??? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

racer_tim
11-11-2003, 03:24 PM
So how much money do you think Subaru and Mitsubishi threw @ SCCA to get these cars classified?

Or is Mazda getting upstaged?


------------------
Tim Linerud
San Francisco Region SCCA
#95 GP Wabbit (Bent)
http://linerud.myvnc.com/racing/index.html

[This message has been edited by racer_tim (edited November 11, 2003).]

Greg Amy
11-11-2003, 03:41 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...how you'd factor THAT (AWD) variable...</font>

AWD is not really the killer mod that most people think it is, Audi and Subaru marketing notwithstanding. Pound for pound, AWD is an advantage only in situations of low grip and/or high horsepower. All it does for you is give you the ability to accelerate using all the available horsepower and torque; it doesn't make the car handle any differently than a comparable non-AWD car.

In reality, no AWD car weighs the same as its comparable RWD or FWD version. In fact, most of the AWD versions will weigh 300-400 pounds or more than the other version, effectively negating the AWD advantage in any situation other than rain. Further, the existence of AWD increases drivetrain losses, reducing torque that is actually put to the ground.

For example, I was a driver on an endurance team that had both the AWD and FWD Eagle Talons. In almost every case the FWD Talon was faster than the AWD Talon simply because the FWD version weighed 300 pounds less and didn't have to send power all the way to the drivetrain in the back. It was only in cases of rain that the AWD version had the advantage but given that rain was not the norm the FWD car beat the AWD car in both season points and in the win column.

The simple answer to your question, Darin, is that the very existence of AWD will automatically come with a weight and power penalty sufficient to negate its advantage in most racing situations.

Greg

Quickshoe
11-11-2003, 04:36 PM
Greg,

You said it much better than I could have. I agree 100%.

I had the pleasure of racing a WRX at Laguna in the rain. I had raced the same WRX at Buttonwillow. While the car was competitve at both events, it wasn't even close at Laguna. While others had their lap times fall upto 15 seconds a lap, I fell from 1.46's in the dry to a 1.52's in the rain.....sweet magic!!

Why penalize a car that only has an advantage 10% of the time?

Now, if I lived in Darin's area....

Knestis
11-11-2003, 04:54 PM
I don't have worries about AWD but puh-leeze let's not ever have turbos in IT. My crystal ball tells me that the turbos in Touring are going to be a re-run of the same problems that were experienced 20 years ago, unless they are classified only where cheated up electronics will put them at a par with other options.

K

theenico
11-11-2003, 11:49 PM
I forgot a car also. How about the BMW 325ix.
I also believe that the only inherent advantage would be in the wet, especially because AWD cars are typically heavier than their 2WD counterparts.
My next question is does anyone have any "84-'86 Audi 4000 quattro's laying around. I figure it will take at least 2 years worth of letter writing to get one classified. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

------------------
Nico
KCRaceware (816) 257-7305
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by theenico (edited November 11, 2003).]

TBreu007
11-12-2003, 01:46 AM
Toyota All-Track...AWD and turbo http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
I hope to see cars like the 2.5RS and the Audis in IT.
I drove a heavily modded WRX at 15+ HPDE's over the last few years, and although that car had an amazing advantage out of slow to medium corners, its tendency to understeer heavily with any gas applied to the throttle made it kind of boring to drive. In any AWD car I've driven, no matter how stiff you set up the rear it will push on exit...then with the rear super stiff if I lifted at all any where in the corner, it would snap oversteer like crazy.
I agree completely AWD will be more of a crutch with low HP IT cars...except in the rain.

Geo
11-12-2003, 04:03 AM
Originally posted by theenico:
The WRX STi and Lancer EVO are being classed in Touring next year. That should open the door for, at least naturally aspirated, AWD cars in IT.


Why?


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
11-12-2003, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by joeg:
Turbos will be in IT someday too.

They will??


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

theenico
11-12-2003, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Why?




Why not?

------------------
Nico
KCRaceware (816) 257-7305
[email protected]

Geo
11-13-2003, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by theenico:
Why not?



Because. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

RSTPerformance
11-13-2003, 12:49 AM
I am all for classifying AWD Audi's!!! I am all over that, and yes we have plenty of Quattro's around for anyone who wants to build one!!!

Best benifit, I might be able to move it in the driveway to get it ready for the first race of the season http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Raymond
RST Performance Racing

RSTPerformance
11-13-2003, 12:58 AM
Audi coupe quattro 20V '90-'91 = ITS

I have one sitting in the driveway, no wait I have access to a couple and I think that this would make the most fun IT car!!! i would sell all the other stuff to be able to rae that in ITS... I think that my brother and I are going to go through a huge list of Audi's and request classification. maybe we will get 1 in 20 or so??? We will post the data we get so others can also write letters if interested. Also Nico, I think you are right on with your classifications.

Raymond "Audi nuts" Blethen
RST Performance Racing

theenico
11-13-2003, 11:56 AM
Raymond,
Thanks for the compliment on my class suggestions. I would love to participate and/or help in any way possible to get our cars classified. I'm also going to get my Subaru buddies involved (why should just us Audi guys have all the fun) http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


------------------
Nico
KCRaceware (816) 257-7305
[email protected]

zracer22
11-13-2003, 08:18 PM
Don't under estimate the advantage of AWD in the dry. This year in GTS Challenge we had a 1.8T A4 AWD Audi. The car didn't have exceptional power, in fact it was equal on the straights to a 944 or 325i, but the corners were a whole different story. The car could could drive around cars on the inside, the outside or the grass. It would also be full throttle long before anyone else. Here's a photo of it in action http://www.gtschallenge.com/pics/0830/3%20...ar%20battle.JPG (http://www.gtschallenge.com/pics/0830/3%20car%20battle.JPG)
If they ever allow them in IT, expect a huge out cry from the masses after seeing these things on track.

shwah
11-14-2003, 02:57 AM
I like the idea of awd getting classed, mainly because it is making up an increasing percentage of cars on the road, and thus cars available to race down the road.

OTOH these guys sure seemed to demonstrate how much of an 'unfair advantage' it can be - no matter how much weight was thrown at them...
http://www.audi.com/rich_media/com/en/experience/motorsport/background/history/history/102239462054411794.jpg


[This message has been edited by shwah (edited November 16, 2003).]

GRMPer
11-14-2003, 03:55 PM
Hmm...a buddy of mine has a 4000Q for sale. 1k...good start for ITR (Improved Touring Rain)

Per

gsbaker
11-14-2003, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by zracer22:
Don't under estimate the advantage of AWD in the dry...The car could could drive around cars on the inside, the outside or the grass. It would also be full throttle long before anyone else...If they ever allow them in IT, expect a huge out cry from the masses after seeing these things on track.

I tend to agree. There is a weight disadvantage to AWD, but the cornering is impressive.

I had two very interesting rides with an instructor at a PCA event. The first was in a stock 911 C2. Then we jumped into a stock C4. A couple of times I thought we were going to hit the weeds in the C4, but he just put down power and drove through.

I know, there are other differences between the two models than just the drive layout, but it was obvious that the front wheels were pulling the nose around the corner.

------------------
Gregg Baker
Isaac, LLC
[email protected]

Knestis
11-14-2003, 09:08 PM
AWD is only a dramatic advantage - in terms of speed - if the car in question has enough power to spin two wheels. In the rain, this is pretty much any of the cars being discussed here but in the dry, an ITB 4000 Quattro isn't going to have much, if anything over the 2wd version.

The IMSA GTO or TA Quattros had power to burn so they had a HUGE advantage. That same situation translates to dirt - until you talk about really low HP cars. I'll bet that a 4wd Subaru Justy wouldn't be any faster on a rally stage than a 2wd model with the same (pitiful) power.

K

Quickshoe
11-14-2003, 09:50 PM
In an AWD you can recover from mistakes easier, or mistakes of greater magnitude. So there is an advantage there. However, this doesn't result in more speed, simply a car that is more recoverable. The guy/gal that doesn't make the mistake in the first place still wins.

If the tires were narrower, harder compound and/or the races were longer then there would be a larger advantage to the AWD.

Standing starts would be another story...

Quickshoe
11-14-2003, 09:54 PM
Doesn't the STi have a cockpit adjustable center differential?

That could be a cool tool for various track conditions!!

theenico
11-15-2003, 02:56 AM
I,personally, like the AWD as a confidence builder. You can be a litle less smooth and get away with it. If your extremely unsmooth at least you can pull yourself back out of the mud with the Audi's standard diff locks http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

------------------
Nico
KCRaceware (816) 257-7305
[email protected]

Prince Makaha
11-15-2003, 10:30 AM
Subaru XT-6 anybody?

ed325its
11-15-2003, 04:29 PM
Talk about increasing the price of IT. Any AWD car would have a huge advantage over the 2 wheel dirve version. It would be hard on tires but would have a definite advantage on acceleration through and out of a corner. So, classify AWD and everyone will be complaining about the unfair advantage of your Audi 90 and my E36 325ixt.

Ed Tisdale

TBreu007
11-16-2003, 01:45 AM
With our relatively low HP IT cars, I don't think AWD will be a huge advantage. Yes, it is more forgiving and easier to drive near 10/10ths, but AWD won't make a car take less time through a corner. An AWD car might have more exit speed, but will usually lose to RWD when timing through a corner.
If you're applying power to all four tires, than all four tires have less grip for lateral G's.
I'd love to see them out on track. One of the things about sports car racing I have loved since I was a kid was the fact that there were different types of cars on the track, and each one had its niche. The AWD cars are able to get back on power earlier and are monsters out of slow corners, but usually get passed back at the end of the straight. Also, they are a little harder on tires and a little slower on corner entry.
Bring em on http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

RSTPerformance
11-17-2003, 10:03 AM
While thinking about it, I bet SCCA would classify the 4000 Quattro's in ITA for fear of an "unfair advantage." I don't think that it would have much advantage over the FWD Audi's although I do think it would generate a lot more Audi's in the field due to a much higher interest in the Quattro (we would definitely be trading ours in).

In ITA the Quattro would get killed, as the ITA FWD Audi Coupe has a 2.3L motor that was never offered in the Quattro, thus that would be a better option. I am not even sure if the coupe stands a chance in ITA although we have pondered the idea.

Raymond Blethen
RST Performance Racing

theenico
11-17-2003, 11:16 AM
According to my Bentley manual, late '87 4000 quattro's came with the 2.3L. With the additional weight of the AWD sysyem (200#s ?) I think all 5cyl. 10V Audi quattro's should be just fine in ITB.

------------------
Nico
KCRaceware (816) 257-7305
[email protected]

zracer22
11-17-2003, 10:19 PM
This debate has been based on a dry racing surface. What about the 30% of the time that the surface isn't dry? Every NASA and SCCA event held at Beaverun this season had at least one wet day. We watched the Audi mentioned above turn laps 8 seconds quicker than everyone else during the wet laps of an enduro at Nelson Ledges. On the dry laps, the car was 2 -3 seconds slower than the cars he ran away from in the wet. You can just base you views on dry conditions, some of us deal with wet conditions upto 50% of the time.

Knestis
11-17-2003, 10:50 PM
The CB has accepted this in principle by classifying AWD cars in Touring.

K

dickita15
11-18-2003, 09:40 AM
raymond,
the answer is easy, if approved build both cars and checj the weater channel each weekend to decide which car to bring.(g)
dick

RSTPerformance
11-18-2003, 01:47 PM
I think I need to hire you as a team manager... that is a great idea!!!

Raymond

Banzai240
11-18-2003, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
The CB has accepted this in principle by classifying AWD cars in Touring.

K

I don't agree that that's really the case... There just aren't that many Touring cars that would fit into any of the existing IT classes... Firebirds, 350Zs, etc... Just too much displacement...

Knestis
11-18-2003, 05:25 PM
I didn't mean that the Board had taken ANY position re: AWD in IT. It has however clearly accepted that the issue of AWD having an advantage in lousy weather isn't great enough to not list cars so equipped in club racing.

k

Banzai240
11-18-2003, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
It has however clearly accepted that the issue of AWD having an advantage in lousy weather isn't great enough to not list cars so equipped in club racing.

k


Oh... OK... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

RSTPerformance
11-19-2003, 02:26 AM
I am a huge audi lover and enthusiest but I have to agree with others that in a straight line the car will be slower in the dry however the cornering will be night and day. I know that anyone can put a quaffe in there car but if you ahven't you are missing a few seconds a lap at some tracks. Imagine the same improvement in the wet and some of that improvement in the dry! I drove my AWD 90 quattro in the dry at LRP and it handled better than my racecar with stock suspension. no I'm sure my cornering speed was a bit slower and the car did have more roll but you could feel a huge difference between the AWD and 2WD. Power down much sooner and you get all the advantages of RWD with some of the FWD advantages as well. In the Rain it would ruin any race.

It simply would be unfair to classify any AWD car in IT becasue of the rain situations in my opinion.

Know the other side of me has to jump in becasue I am confused! How the heck do other cars beat the Audi AWD in the rain in Speedvision. This series almost proves that everything I think is completly wrong, afterall a RWD BMW won at lime rock in the rain!

Stephen

Knestis
11-19-2003, 09:37 AM
It's entirely possible that AWD provides huge gains on street cars, which have suspension geometries and rates that are horrible compromises.

In a racing situation - even varying the weather conditions - cars like those in SWC Touring are so optimized for what they do, four wheels of tractive force might not be such an advantage.

IT would fall somewhere between the two, probably.

K

Greg Amy
11-19-2003, 10:24 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...would be unfair to classify any AWD car in IT becasue of the rain situations...</font>

An illogical argument.

Let's say it rains 30% of the races. This would give the AWD car an advantage in 30% of the races. However, doesn't that give the other cars an advantage in 70% of the races? So, to follow that argument, we should not classify the other cars because they would have an advantage 70% of the time?

What about front-wheel-drive? Wouldn't the Acura GSR have an advantage against the BMW in the rain? Should we therefore de-classify the GSR because of its advantage in the rain?

Uh-oh: the BMW has an advantage 70% of the time in the dry! We should declassify the BMW because of that!!!

OK, so who do we have left? What we have left, friends, is a massive proliferation of single-marque classes instead of well-thought-out healthy competition among disparate designs. The one consistent theme of IT...

RSTPerformance
11-19-2003, 03:20 PM
Stephen-

You are not my brother anymore...

I want AWD cars classified...

Stephen just doesn't want AWD classified because he knows that I can drive an AWD car better and will woop his @$$.

JK http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Raymond

Bildon
11-19-2003, 09:30 PM
I've yet to see a LOGICAL argument for banning AWD. Having driven Quattros for some time now I can tell you they hopelessly understeer (worse than FWD) and would not "always" beat an equally powered RWD car or many FWD cars.

The sky is not falling.....



------------------
Bill Sulouff - Bildon Motorsport (http://www.bildon.com)
Volkswagen Racing Equipment
## 2003 ITB NYSRRC Champs ##

Geo
11-19-2003, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by grega:
What about front-wheel-drive? Wouldn't the Acura GSR have an advantage against the BMW in the rain? Should we therefore de-classify the GSR because of its advantage in the rain?

Oh Greg. You silly. The GSR should carry 75 lbs of additional ballast in the rain. Of course. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

JohnRW
11-20-2003, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by Bildon:
I've yet to see a LOGICAL argument for banning AWD. Having driven Quattros for some time now I can tell you they hopelessly understeer (worse than FWD) and would not "always" beat an equally powered RWD car or many FWD cars.

The sky is not falling.....




Amen again. My everyday street-beater is a Germanic AWD car..seen the track one or twice, when everything else is broken. Big, waddling, pushing, fat scrubmobile.

Sounds like there is a fracture in the Blethen fraternity. This should be fun to watch !!!!!

RSTPerformance
11-20-2003, 01:35 AM
for all those interested in the Blethen debate:
My brother called me this afternoon, I didn't listen to a word as to why he called, but instantly started yelling at him!!!

I do think that the quattro's have an advantage in the rain, but then again everything has an advantage some time or another.

This past season we did not have 1 rain race in the NERRC or NARRC championship so their would have been a 0% rain advantage. Its all part of the gamble.

Do you really think that we couldn't stay up with other quattro's??? I bet if you pushed your street car at Lime Rock it would have been impossible to get into the 1:07's. You kept your street car in a safe zone 108:'s-1:09's (higher?). Remember at one time we had the exact same suspension that is on your street car in our Audi Coupes... Try and think back (first year we raced). how would the cars compare now???

I think you are way off base to say that your street car handles better than your race car. I will put $$$ on it and we can race a time trial next year.

Also don't forget you have/had way oversized tires on your car and you have probably the best aftermarket lowering kit that was available for that car. Your quattro handles unlike any other quattro I have ever been in. Also you need to remember your quattro is no slug, it used to stay up with my 20V coupe that came stock with 171hp. Your car is gifted not to mention it would probably be an ITA car or would have weight penalties compared to a 4000Q. Compair the quattro thing with one of any of the 4000Q's you have ridden in.

I still think that the Audi 4000 quattro's would make a great fit into the ITB field.

Raymond

RSTPerformance
11-20-2003, 01:36 AM
delete, this is a double post

[This message has been edited by RSTPerformance (edited November 20, 2003).]

RSTPerformance
11-20-2003, 07:35 PM
[This message has been edited by RSTPerformance (edited November 20, 2003).]

RSTPerformance
11-20-2003, 07:51 PM
I think if we all look at the situation and be honest with yourself you'll realize this is foolish. It is completly unfair to have a car classified knowing that it has an unreasonable advantage over other cars under any circumstances no matter what the chances of rain. A FWD to RWD is not nearly as much of an advantage as haveing AWD is over either type of car.

The only 2 reasonable things would be to add weight to the AWD in the rain (which I have not nearly enough knowledge to know how much) or the other reasonable thing would be to classify the cars according to there rain capability. This is the only way to be fair to everyone. This would make it fair to current drivers and any drivers that want to race them. (It's fair because then it gives the new driver a choice to make. If you just classify it according to the dry compeditiveness then you are not giving anyone a choice that already is racing instead you are just screwing them in the rain.)

We have made cars make modifications in the past so that they do not have a compeditive advantage...... ex. Antilock brakes


Now to Raymond...


Originally posted by RSTPerformance:

Stephen just doesn't want AWD classified because he knows that I can drive an AWD car better and will woop his @$$.

Also you need to remember your quattro is no slug, it used to stay up with my 20V coupe that came stock with 171hp. Your car is gifted

Raymond

The only gift it had was that you never touched it which makes your first sentence very far fetched.

When I make the long treck back home this winter we shall go to a rally cross. Me in a AWD and you in a FWD then come back here and say it should be classified together. Better yet if you don't like that lets set up a wet skid pad and a dry skid pad and see what happens. Anyone have a parking lot to do this in?


Stephen


PS: to all we do have a class for AWD...... ITE, SPU, SPO. These classed where made for these situations

eh_tony!!!
11-27-2003, 08:27 AM
I'd love to see the 4wd cars run. We as the IT community have to realize that there needs to be some new life into the series. (SCCA sure doesn't relize it or IT2 would be a reality). So, why not start with 4wd??

Hell, my car is so bad in the rain that I couldn't win a Yugo race. (solid axle, welded rear end)

I don't really consider 4wd an advantage (except in the rain) in IT. Someone mentioned the high horsepower/limited traction situation. I agree there (aka Trans-Am Audis). An interesting side bar.. I had an opportunity to speak with Scott Pruett this year. He mentioned that his turbo Merkur was putting down 930 hp. (that isn't a typo). So, if the Audi's were probably close. Definately high power/limited traction.

SubieSethie
01-07-2004, 07:05 PM
Bump for a good topic! Just for comparision, I have driven my street car at LRP several times. I am not the greatest driver or anything. I was in the 1:10-1:09 range with some speed left to spare in the up-hill and a little in the down-hill. Here are the specs on the car.
-1998 Impreza Wagon
-2.2L
-3.90 gears
-205/55/16 Azenis tires
-STi suspension
-140 crank hp, and 93 whp with nothing happening over 5500rpms
-2750lbs w/o driver
-Top speed before braking into big bend, 100mph

What are the compeditive ITB cars getting?

Later,
Seth E.

RSTPerformance
01-09-2004, 12:48 AM
It's very tough to compaire different cars unless your at the track the same day. I drove my 90 quattro with 130HP (2.3L) in stock form... lowering springs and summer tires. I also had the middle grade porterfeilds in it. I was turning 1:10's with it. With the coupes we turned the same times with the same types of improvments to the cars. the coupes only have 115HP (2.2L) and they are 2WD. I think that in dry conditions the cars would be very very similar if the 2WD had a quaffe, however it's simply not fair to completly outclassify other cars in rain conditions. Hands down the AWD is better in the rain.

Stephen

SubieSethie
01-09-2004, 02:08 AM
I have seen your car several times, what kinds of times are your two Audi's getting?

Later,
Seth E.

RSTPerformance
01-09-2004, 11:16 AM
With the Front wheel drive Audi Coupes we are into the low 1:05's (with a quaiffe). We are planning on getting into the 104's this season especially if they do the rumored re-paving. The leading Scott Carlson and Eric Curran Volvo's allong with Jim McMhann's Opel GT are in the Low 104's on a good day. I would expect though on any given weekend the agerage top times are around a low 1:05 and/or high 1:04's in an ITB car...

zracre
02-12-2004, 01:26 PM
I believe awd is only an advantage in the last half of the corner...if your car is set up right, you will have less mass to slow down into the corner and get set up for the exit. the advantage comes when the power is applied and there are still cornering forces. the awd car may have a better exit speed, but unless its a rally, there are usually long straights after the corner and the advantage is gone with the weight and driveline losses...not to mention the brake and tire wear used to try to use all of the awd advantages in the dry...i guess if you live near rain atlanta...i mean road atlanta, its not the best choice in it...just my opinion.

TurboCGT
04-13-2005, 10:07 AM
Any news on the possibility of Audi 4000 quattros in ITB? I have a quattro shell all caged up I was going to set up for time trials with a turbo motor.... but I would definatly build it up differently if it could be legal for Improved Touring...

Greg Amy
04-13-2005, 10:29 AM
There's no "news" because AFAIK no one has requested a change in the rules. SCCA typically doesn't take initiatives like that on its own, it's driven by membership request.

I recommend that you write a request to the CompBoard.

Ron Earp
04-13-2005, 10:46 AM
Classify those things! We need more cars in IT - pickings are not that plentiful for those of us who abhor FWD but would consider AWD. Like turning a battleship....

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS

Joe Harlan
04-13-2005, 11:21 AM
Becareful what you ask for cause you just may get it. We ran against an EVO at the TH national in the rain. The T2 car was 2.5 seconds faster than anything else on the grid. AWD and Turbo is clearly an advantage. Don't let anyone convince you that it is not. If a car can get doen to minimum weight then a car at weight with AWD is gonna be fast. Then Add a turbo(which the club never learned how to police) and you got a recipe for a catagory killer. I am all for AWD and Boost but lets make a class for those cars to race agianst each other. Call it ITAWDTB and I think you have it covered.

apr67
04-13-2005, 12:02 PM
I know this is a bit of apples and oranges but.

How do AWD's fair in Solo2 vs RWD/FWD's?

RacerBill
04-13-2005, 01:06 PM
Hey, if you're concerned about advantage in the wet, make 'em run one class up in the rain (dry = ITA, wet = ITS )!!!!!!!
http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif

What I read between the lines from those who would not classify AWD is that we should not classify any cars that might be competitive.

1) Cars are not all equal. They all have different strengths and weaknesses, not to mention the strengths and weaknesses of the drivers. Bring 'em on!!!!

2) If we were all that committed to winning everytime we went out, we would all be driving the killer cars. We drive different cars for different reasons, even if it is 'just to be different'. Bring 'em on!!!

3) If we can beef up car counts by introducing more current models, I say bring 'em on!!!!! (please remember that I recently stated that the number of classified cars should be decreased for administrative reasons!!!).

'What I say three times is true'
Lewis Carroll - The Hunting of the Snark


------------------
Bill Stevens
Mbr 103106
BnS Racing
83 ITA Shelby Dodge Charger

JohnRW
04-13-2005, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
...I am all for AWD and Boost but lets make a class for those cars to race agianst each other...

At least in NEDiv and CENDiv, it already exists - 'ITE'.

Bill Miller
04-14-2005, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Becareful what you ask for cause you just may get it. We ran against an EVO at the TH national in the rain. The T2 car was 2.5 seconds faster than anything else on the grid. AWD and Turbo is clearly an advantage. Don't let anyone convince you that it is not. If a car can get doen to minimum weight then a car at weight with AWD is gonna be fast. Then Add a turbo(which the club never learned how to police) and you got a recipe for a catagory killer. I am all for AWD and Boost but lets make a class for those cars to race agianst each other. Call it ITAWDTB and I think you have it covered.


Joe,

The flaw in that logic, is your assumption that the spec weight won't take into account the performance advantage of AWD. It also doesn't say much for your condidence in your friend and his fellow ITAC members, to set the weight where it should be, or adjust it if it's off.

The turbo thing is a whole other kettle of fish. I don't know how they'll make that one work.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Knestis
04-14-2005, 07:32 AM
It's possible that the ideal weight for, say, an Audi 4000 Quattro is just enough greater than the Coupe, that it is as much slower in the dry as it is faster in the wet.

So in addition to "rain tires," we can have "rain cars."

K

Joe Harlan
04-14-2005, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Joe,

The flaw in that logic, is your assumption that the spec weight won't take into account the performance advantage of AWD. It also doesn't say much for your condidence in your friend and his fellow ITAC members, to set the weight where it should be, or adjust it if it's off.

The turbo thing is a whole other kettle of fish. I don't know how they'll make that one work.


You'll take any chance you can to take a shot at the adhoc won't Bill. I recommend professional help for that.

The real deal is knowing how much to ad for AWD and how much to add or restrict a Turbo. The best fix for that is to race them against eaxh other. There sometimes is a need for a different class when cars different enough that they stand out. Trying to mix them more downside than upside.

Bill Miller
04-14-2005, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Joe,

The flaw in that logic, is your assumption that the spec weight won't take into account the performance advantage of AWD. It also doesn't say much for your condidence in your friend and his fellow ITAC members, to set the weight where it should be, or adjust it if it's off.

The turbo thing is a whole other kettle of fish. I don't know how they'll make that one work.


You'll take any chance you can to take a shot at the adhoc won't Bill. I recommend professional help for that.

The real deal is knowing how much to ad for AWD and how much to add or restrict a Turbo. The best fix for that is to race them against eaxh other. There sometimes is a need for a different class when cars different enough that they stand out. Trying to mix them more downside than upside.




Shot at the ITAC? I don't think so Joe, but nice try anyway. Personally, I'd say add the AWD cars to the IT ranks. Should be just another 'adder', similar (not in the amount of performance) to IRS, double wishbone suspension, VVT, etc. being 'adders'. Develop a factor for AWD, and throw it into the process. So, when someone wants to have and AWD Starquest classified in IT, the AWD factor just gets added in w/ the other ones, and the proejcted spec weight comes out.

That's actually one of the real benefits to having a defined process, you should be able to address things that you can reasonably quantify the performance parameters of. Problem w/ turbos, is that the performance envelope is so wide.


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Matt Rowe
04-14-2005, 01:43 PM
I don't think the concept of an adder is nearly as easy as say, VVT or double wishbone. Do you factor the adder for wet or dry track conditions? Make the car reasonably competitive in dry and it's likely to be a class killer when the rain comes. Make it reasonable in the rain and almost no one will build the cars because they are to slow on a dry track.

I know, let's change the minimum weight based on the weather conditions? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif

Seriously though, it MIGHT be possible to make it work but it's going to take quite a bit of experimentation to get the formula right. We can't balance performance on all of the current 2WD cars and now we are going to try mixing in AWD?

Finally, how many people out there want to run these cars in IT? There are only a couple of car models out there, and many of them are borderline in fitting our current performance envelope. So is there enough demand to justify the effort to sort out the classification and if so why aren't these guys already running ITE, SPO or SPU? I don't see any AWD cars at the track even in the essentially unlimited classes so is there really enough serious interest?

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Ron Earp
04-14-2005, 02:05 PM
Class it and they will come....

Class one for an initial trial. I bet one or more will be running by year's end if a car gets classed. Just don't class something nobody wants for a trial though, that would kill the thing before it got started.

Class something popular, maybe the 2.5L RS Subaru (this is a non turbo car) or one of the Audi cars and I'm sure they'll pop up. Just because you can't get all the classes straightened out does not mean we shouldn't class new types of cars - I've been here long enough to know that classes will NEVER all be staightened out to everyone's satisfaction.

Ron

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS

turboICE
04-14-2005, 02:42 PM
Someone who wants to race say a 2000 Subaru Impreza RS next year is not going to try and bring the SCCA around by running in ITE. How many people use getting run over running with dangerous closing speeds as a means to get a desired car classed?

Not sure why turbos keep coming up in any non-ITE discussion. Most forced induction cars that would be suited for IT are outside the performance range of ITS-ITC. Seeking the IT classing of AWD cars does not mean seeking the classing of AWD turbo charged cars.

Normally aspirated AWD cars are already penalized with a higher weight and a higher friction drag of the drive train. For some cars (E30 325iX for instance) you can't even get any decent aftermarket performance parts for the suspension to begin with. So start it out with a weight penalty from the equivalent RWD or FWD - and let competitive adjustments sort it out. But first they have to be classed before the performance potential can truly be identified.

An normally aspirated AWD car is not such a huge advantage to a similarly clased FWD car in the rain. They don't have the enough torque applied to the tires to achieve the results you would see with forced induction AWD cars.

The future of the current Touring class cars are an issue that has to be dealt with in general as to where they are going to go after 5 years anyway. But it probably will not be IT (at least not in its current form), more likely new production classes.

[This message has been edited by turboICE (edited April 14, 2005).]

Banzai240
04-14-2005, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
Class something popular, maybe the 2.5L RS Subaru (this is a non turbo car) or one of the Audi cars and I'm sure they'll pop up.


Based on conversations we've had concerning classing more modern, higher HP cars, etc... in IT, I think that something like this would be better suited to the new class that the CRB and "B/D-Prod" committee are working on... Same goes for the 300Z, Supras, or anything else that makes 200+ stock HP... At some point, they just end up having to weigh too much to fit into ITS...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Matt Rowe
04-14-2005, 03:47 PM
Working the higher powered versions of these cars into the B/D production concept makes sense. I'll have to check with a committee member to see if they are including allowances for those. I don't see any likely way for the turbo versions to fit into ITS-ITC classes without radically moving cars or creating a lot of obsolete cars.

As for the non-turbo versions, I have to admit I don't know a lot of people involved with them. In fact that's kind of the point that there aren't many people interested in racing them. Whenever I hear of someone that wants to race their AWD car it's a turbocharged version. And when you start to weed out the people who genuinely are willing to put the time and money into building and developing a race car the list for non-turbo AWD gets real short, real fast. If there is genuine interest then maybe an ITAC member can let us know how many requests to classify AWD have been made in the last year? Two years or even an approximate guess.

A month ago people were talking about declassifying old cars or cars no one has raced in awhile. Now we want to add cars with almost no interest in? And try and come up with a fair means to classify them? That seems like a lot to bite off for a small group. But if there is a lot of interest then yes we should try and make it work. Can anyone put together a list of possible non-turbo AWD candidates? Preferably with production numbers, weights and hp to see how large a group we might be talking about?

Next question. Can we attract the AWD crowd with rules like stock brakes, stock rotors, stock flywheel, no aftermarket aerodynamics, and washer bottle required (I couldn't resist) And all of this on a non-turbo car? I don't think we would be likely to draw in that many younger market with the current IT rules? Again, maybe B/D production is a better fit, if they get it approved.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Ron Earp
04-14-2005, 03:49 PM
I think that is rated at 165hp stock.

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS

Banzai240
04-14-2005, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
I think that is rated at 165hp stock.



BUT... it's AWD... Is that really something that needs to be part of the current equations... You know, the equation that already has people bitching and complaining about how unfair it is... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/rolleyes.gif ???

I have nothing against these cars, but I see them as a pain in the... well, you know... to classify on any kind of parity level... Just look at all the trouble that Trans-Am had with them... and every other class, for that matter...

I'm not sure that IT has the mechanisms in place to truely classify them competitively, though we might be able to do something with the use of weights and restrictors...

Again, I'm not against the idea, but I do see it as a pretty big risk...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

turboICE
04-14-2005, 04:47 PM
How much interest are we talking about? Enough that there are 3 or 4 cars running in each division's regional races? Or would they want to see enough interest that it would result in 50% AWD fields? I mean getting enough that almost every regional race would have 1 or 2 AWD entrants would be pretty easy. That should be easy to observe just from AWD make/model forums and the people that show up to track days.

As far as youth and the desire to race their turbo-charged cars or wanting modifications permitted beyond IT specs - that comes from ignorance of what that would involve regarding the budgets that they would be racing against to race those specs. That is easy to resolve through eductaion. The only people with the turbo AWD that really think they should be classed in a way that they could race them the way they want have never been to a track day less likely considered what getting into racing really involves. Usually the car in question is the only one they own and is daily driven. I agree it is difficult to take their desires seriously.

Everyone I know from any age group that has been to more than 10 track days realizes the large budget needed just to race to Touring preparation and while they may track their daily driven STi's and Evo's when it comes down to racing - they would gladly settle for an IT prepped RS.

I know at least one person who used my car for licensing that has given up on the SCCA. He sold his STi for a tow vehicle so that he could prep his Subaru RS for racing with EMRA, where it is classed. But he isn't going to get run over in ITE just to show interest to the SCCA. (Though I do need him at least write in... amazing how hard it is to get someone who expresses interest to just write a note.)

Ed.

[This message has been edited by turboICE (edited April 14, 2005).]

Ron Earp
04-14-2005, 05:06 PM
Darin,

I think your points are valid and logical. But, I think one of the fastest ways to resolve the issue is class one. Class one in S and spec if very conservatively with the intention to monitor it carefully and pull weight etc. as needed to set it up more competitively. With some hard data on a representative of the type then decisions can be made to class more of them.

Ron

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS

Matt Rowe
04-14-2005, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by turboICE:
How much interest are we talking about? Enough that there are 3 or 4 cars running in each division's regional races?

I would say that to enter into the mine field that this could become more than 1 or 2 cars would be neccesary. Also, I'm not so sure that many would show up. Looking at production numbers and performance potential would give a better idea than guessing.


Originally posted by turboICE:
That should be easy to observe just from AWD make/model forums and the people that show up to track days.

Lots on discussion forums participation doesn't necessarily translate to cars being built for the track. And my experience with track day events is a large percentage are not interested or ready for the committment to prep a car for club racing.


Originally posted by turboICE:
As far as youth and the desire to race their turbo-charged cars or wanting modifications permitted beyond IT specs - that comes from ignorance of what that would involve regarding the budgets that they would be racing against to race those specs. That is easy to resolve through eductaion.

We still have arguments here between people that have built and raced cars that still can't agree on what is reasonable. Education doesn't seem to help.


Originally posted by turboICE:
Everyone I know from any age group that has been to more than 10 track days realizes the large budget needed just to race to Touring preparation and while they may track their daily driven STi's and Evo's when it comes down to racing - they would gladly settle for an IT prepped RS.

Great, get them to write letters. The only people I hear from are the turbo crowd that lose interest once they hear about the preparation requirements and limitations.


Originally posted by turboICE:
(Though I do need him at least write in... amazing how hard it is to get someone who expresses interest to just write a note.)


That is kind of the point, if you can't get people to write a letter, how much faith can you have that they are willing to build the cars?

As for getting run over in ITE, his STi would have faired no worse than a lot of other cars that run in that group.

As others have said, I don't have anything against the concept other than it WILL be difficult to setup properly. One group is going to come out with a perceived advantage and the other group is going to whine about it. Before we start down another slippery slope let's see how much interest there really is. If you know someone that is interested, or better yet if you know someone already running a car in another series, get them to write in.


------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Bill Miller
04-14-2005, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
BUT... it's AWD... Is that really something that needs to be part of the current equations... You know, the equation that already has people bitching and complaining about how unfair it is... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/rolleyes.gif ???

I have nothing against these cars, but I see them as a pain in the... well, you know... to classify on any kind of parity level... Just look at all the trouble that Trans-Am had with them... and every other class, for that matter...

I'm not sure that IT has the mechanisms in place to truely classify them competitively, though we might be able to do something with the use of weights and restrictors...

Again, I'm not against the idea, but I do see it as a pretty big risk...




Equation? Is that like a formula? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif

Darin,

There's no guarantee of competitivness in IT, so what's if matter if they can truly be classified competitively? And no mechanism? Seems like it would be a poster child for testing the PCA system.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Here's a car that someone wants classified. We're not sure how close we can get to predicting how AWD will play out, but we can adjust things after a year or two."</font>

Here's an opportunity to put the system, errr 'process', to the test!


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

turboICE
04-15-2005, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
We still have arguments here between people that have built and raced cars that still can't agree on what is reasonable. Education doesn't seem to help.

The difference is a bit greater than that - I mean the people here do understand what the ramifications of placing no restrictions on brake or suspension components in terms of the cost to compete. The uninformed figure that using their OTS aftermarket parts that they could afford would be the limit of what they would compete against in an unlimited modification environment.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As for getting run over in ITE, his STi would have faired no worse than a lot of other cars that run in that group.</font>

Since I believe there isn't much point on this forum of discussing adding cars to the overall SCCA list - I wasn't talking about his STi. The STi was traded for a tow vehicle - his interest and mine as well would be in classing the Impreza RS (2.5L NA motor) in IT - that is the car that would get ran over if he were to try to show interest by running it in ITE. His choice was to go ahead and build the RS and race with EMRA, mine was to buy an existing ITA car to get to the racing part and then work to bring in the car I would rather have - in this case the Impreza RS. What I am trying to say here is that if they were classed there would be a minimum of two Impreza RS's in MARRS as well as attendence at some other regional races around the NJ area. And that is just from the small number of people that I interact with.

While actually both of us liked tracking our STi's and were glad to see it added to T1 and moved to T2 - neither of us had any intentions of starting racing at that performance level or preparing a base car that had that much cost in advance of preparation. In three years if I convince myself I have any competence at wheel to wheel then I will think on building an STi, though my current one would be pretty close to 5 by then, I could get another.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As others have said, I don't have anything against the concept other than it WILL be difficult to setup properly. One group is going to come out with a perceived advantage and the other group is going to whine about it. Before we start down another slippery slope let's see how much interest there really is. If you know someone that is interested, or better yet if you know someone already running a car in another series, get them to write in.</font>

I agree that is where my efforts will be focused. The most difficulty I find is that over time there are some who have felt alienated by SCCA and feel that the SCCA are set in a way such that they wouldn't listen to anything outside entrenched ideals. I am not saying that the feeling is right, wrong, justified or not - that fact that the feeling exists among prior and current members is sufficient for it to matter.

Either way I think there is enough interest in the area between VIR and Watkins Glen that within 2 years of classing there would be a minimum of 4 AWD cars running.

It has gotten to the point where we almost have enough interest to run them in an AWD series within current classing of other sanctioning bodies. 6 of us met to lay out the ground work for that just three weeks ago with 4 of us licensed and with built cars (albeit not all are are using AWD at this point). I personally feel that advancing an AWD racing community would be better served developing within SCCA IT classing and prep rather than trying to start a small series with an initial group that combined has less than 20 years experience and almost none of it on the administrative side of running motorsports.

[This message has been edited by turboICE (edited April 15, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by turboICE (edited April 15, 2005).]

turboICE
04-15-2005, 01:13 PM
BTW - I do appreciate the responses to my posts and the insight. I now have on my to do lists looking into production and potential numbers.

ed325its
04-15-2005, 07:22 PM
Let's class a couple of cars. I'll start measuring a roll cage for my E36 325xit for ITS. With all the added weight it shouldn't need a restrictor.

------------------
Ed Tisdale
#22 ITS '95 325is
Racing BMW's since 1984

TurboCGT
04-16-2005, 10:02 AM
Ill also be putting together my Audi 4000q this summer... I guess Ill keep it stock just in case it gets classed. Would be a good starting point for an awd comparison... as the audi coupe is "almost" the same.

Knestis
04-16-2005, 12:39 PM
Point of order, here...

You are in fact NOT simply asking for a car to be listed in the ITCS - a process that requires a request to the Club Racing Board and submission of Vehicle Specification Sheets.

You are asking for a change to the GCR, which specifically prohibits 4wd in all categories except Touring and Showroom Stock.

Any request that the Quattro or a Subaru be listed in IT won't even be considered because of that, so make your request specific - that GCR 11.2.1.Y be amended to include Improved Touring in the categories in which 4wd/AWD be allowed.

And good luck with that!

K

TurboCGT
04-16-2005, 03:06 PM
hmm... I take it that won't be too easy... guess Ill keep doing HPDE's for a while instead.

Jared

Ron Earp
04-16-2005, 03:56 PM
Kirk,

What makes you say that is any harder than dealing with the IT board only? I mean, the net effect is the same, just to class a AWD car in IT. all they need to do is change one sentence, is that all that difficult to get done? Once that is done a conservative classification on an AWD cars needs to be done and we've got a new dimension to IT.

Who would really object to it and why would they object? Just because AWD cars have never been allowed before? Just trying to learn about the process but with comments that I see about the process I'm beginning to think I don't want to know.

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS

Knestis
04-16-2005, 05:45 PM
The culture of the club makes it hard to change, that's all. There is a mechanism for adding cars to IT within the established norms, and that is relatively easy. (Easier and far more equitable now than it has been, thanks to the work of the current ITAC.)

Asking the rules makers to think about a complex question like AWD cars in IT is going to require enough of a paradigm shift that I EXPECT it won't even be considered very carefully.

Understand that most of the rule changes in classes other than IT move forward from the proposition that any request comes from someone trying to gain a relative competitive advantage - a result of decades under the "no guarantee of competitiveness" clause.

There is no system in place, prepared proactively to deal with decisions of a strategic nature, grounded in questions like, "How do we position Club Racing classes in an evolving auto enthusiast market?"

People used to (a) most questions being "I want less lead," or (B) IT not even ASKING questions like that, are going to seize up on something like this.

"Too hard."

"Somone's gonna be pissed."

"I get nothing for owning this issue."

"Screw it."

"Not consistent with the category philosophy."

(I'll be you a beer on that response, so SOMEONE needs to actually submit the request!)

K

lateapex911
04-16-2005, 08:12 PM
It's like anything Ron....just getting a variance for new garage bay of a foot can be a huge deal in some towns.

I think something of this nature might work like this:
If the concept is submitted, the ITAC would discuss it, and in this case perhaps discuss it with the CRB to see if it "fits" with the "big picture" of classing...if so, it could be put up for member comment, which could result in a general consensus, or maybe not!

If the members are strongly for it, the ITAC would then rediscuss it with the CRB, who could then modify, or agree or deny it, and then the CRB could make a recommnedation, and put it up to the BoD to decide. At that level, you'll run into more big picture strategies, hopefully, as well as personal biases that may have been formed by hopeful input from guys like you, and me discussing it with our Bod members directly of via correspondence..

It's the obvious goal of the system to prevent unintended consequences, and to serve the membership at large. And sometimes that means protecting us from ourselves...unfortunetly, "mission statements" and overall strategies either don't exist, or are not communicated to members effectively, so issues of this level are dealt with on a semi random basis. That could be good for this item, or bad.

Of course, no system is perfect, and this one has tripped on itself on occasions. No sanctioning body has done as well with such a large contingent of cars and members though, so it's not all bad. And I think it's made HUGE strides forward, especially in the areas of the sub commitees and communications via them and the membership at large.

A few issues that may come up would be...

Is now a good time to add AWD while the "reorg" is ongoing in IT?

Can we identify the affects of AWD in it's various guises effectively to class them fairly?

Will it serve to attract new drivers while not marginilizing existing drivers?

(IF it is done well, and it doesn't affect more pressing matters currently ongoing in IT, I would be all for it)

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 16, 2005).]

lateapex911
04-16-2005, 08:12 PM
I'll use my double post to add a comment...

Before you joined the IT ranks Ron, the very concept of any post classification adjustments (PCAs) was laughed into quick oblivion with the "no guarantee of competiveness" clause on page 1 chapter 1 of the ITCS. It was a total dead end. But people (like me ) kept asking...so who cares what the line says...! Change the paragraph! I campaigned heavily on this board, and in many private conversations and correspondences with our clubs leaders, esp. those on the ITAC, the CRB and the BoD.

It wasn't easy, but gradually, guys like ITAC member George Roffe (Geo) for example, who were hugely against it, came around when specific proposals were made. Bit by bit, the tide turned, and now it exists...the single greatest rules and philosophy shift in the history of the IT category in about 20 years.

(I think it represented more than just a rules change...it was indicative of a shift in the clubs philosophy towards the 'regional driver' and the basic '2 class system', but thats another story)

So, things like this can happen, but it takes time and effort.

Big ships turn slowly.....

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 16, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 16, 2005).]

Bill Miller
04-17-2005, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
The culture of the club makes it hard to change, that's all. There is a mechanism for adding cars to IT within the established norms, and that is relatively easy. (Easier and far more equitable now than it has been, thanks to the work of the current ITAC.)

Asking the rules makers to think about a complex question like AWD cars in IT is going to require enough of a paradigm shift that I EXPECT it won't even be considered very carefully.

Understand that most of the rule changes in classes other than IT move forward from the proposition that any request comes from someone trying to gain a relative competitive advantage - a result of decades under the "no guarantee of competitiveness" clause.

There is no system in place, prepared proactively to deal with decisions of a strategic nature, grounded in questions like, "How do we position Club Racing classes in an evolving auto enthusiast market?"

People used to (a) most questions being "I want less lead," or (B) IT not even ASKING questions like that, are going to seize up on something like this.

"Too hard."

"Somone's gonna be pissed."

"I get nothing for owning this issue."

"Screw it."

"Not consistent with the category philosophy."

(I'll be you a beer on that response, so SOMEONE needs to actually submit the request!)

K


Kirk,

I would think that a lot of the performance estimates and evaluation (or at least "How do we balance this against 2WD cars?") was done when they allowed these cars in SS and T. And while not every SS car makes it to IT, it certainly wouldn't bode well for the resale value of an AWD SS car, once it is no longer allowed to compete in SS.

I'd say, class some cars. The ITAC went out on a limb when they put the New Beetle in ITC, why not do the same w/ some AWD cars.

I don't buy the 'better in the wet' arguement either. There are plenty of cars out there that have advantages under specific conditions. Some are better on short tracks vs. long tracks (and vice-versa). Some are better on more technical tracks vs. ones that are more 'wide-open'. That's just the way cars are, some are better in certain conditions than others. If someone doesn't want that, race a spec series.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Ron Earp
04-17-2005, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
I'll use my double post to add a comment...It wasn't easy, but gradually, guys like ITAC member George Roffe (Geo) for example, who were hugely against it,

Well, George, well, he seems to be against anything that wasn't already done before. Just kidding of course.

So, if PCA's exist and are used then classing an AWD car should be that much easier. If it turns out to be a bad decision and they romp all over the class (not gonna happen) then you can PCA them back to some sort of competitive classification. In this fashion it is a safety net and can be used to "step out of the box" - if that line of thought can be used in SCCAdom.

Bill, you mentioned the Bettle in C as a big jump. What was the big deal? (Car classed already when I considered IT). I don't know much about C so maybe it was a stretch for C, but doesn't that thing only have like 115hp and a weight over 3000lbs on the street? And, if it ran all over C couldn't it be adjusted?

Seems with PCAs the road should be much smoother for trying new things. New things are good - they attract new people, new thoughts, and offer all of us new things to talk about and debate. And, new cars to race against which we could definitely use lest we look like the "The Parade of Jalopies". Of course, I ain't helping that vision with a 31 year old car.....




------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS

Bill Miller
04-17-2005, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
Well, George, well, he seems to be against anything that wasn't already done before. Just kidding of course.

So, if PCA's exist and are used then classing an AWD car should be that much easier. If it turns out to be a bad decision and they romp all over the class (not gonna happen) then you can PCA them back to some sort of competitive classification. In this fashion it is a safety net and can be used to "step out of the box" - if that line of thought can be used in SCCAdom.

Bill, you mentioned the Bettle in C as a big jump. What was the big deal? (Car classed already when I considered IT). I don't know much about C so maybe it was a stretch for C, but doesn't that thing only have like 115hp and a weight over 3000lbs on the street? And, if it ran all over C couldn't it be adjusted?

Seems with PCAs the road should be much smoother for trying new things. New things are good - they attract new people, new thoughts, and offer all of us new things to talk about and debate. And, new cars to race against which we could definitely use lest we look like the "The Parade of Jalopies". Of course, I ain't helping that vision with a 31 year old car.....




Ron,

I'm not going to go into all the details, but there was a pretty big flap over the NB in ITC. Made more stock hp than pretty much anything else in the class, and weighed a lot more than most anything else in the class. It uses the same engine/drive train as the A3 Golf in ITB, and the A4 Golf/Jetta (which I sent in a request to have classified).

BRW, has anybody seen an ITC NB on the track this year?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Geo
04-17-2005, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
Well, George, well, he seems to be against anything that wasn't already done before. Just kidding of course.

Right. I was the one who championed changing the wheel rule despite the fact it does not affect me in the least.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

lateapex911
04-17-2005, 04:36 PM
My take on George is this-

He has watched the category for a while, and he sees the need for change in certain areas. But he also sees the need for stability, and the desire to keep what has made IT a popular club racing destination.

He also knows that changes can cause inintended consequenses, and is aware of the atual work required to institute change.

My take is that he is one of the more liberal ITAC members...certainly not the most conservative. He has the moxie to post here as well. I think the guys who are less public are those who are more opposed to changes.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Ron Earp
04-17-2005, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:

He has the moxie to post here as well. I think the guys who are less public are those who are more opposed to changes.


Jake, this is seems to definitely be true - I like the fact that George posts here and I think that helps the entire community. I have no proof, and I am very new, but my feeling is I'd agree with you that if you're not posting then there might be a tendancy to be extremely conservative - the whole "internet bad, change bad" sort of thing. Obviously tonque in cheek.

George, obviously I'm too new to pick on anyone here and was just poking fun so please don't take my comments seriously. ;-) Not that any of you guys would anyhow!!!



------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS

Geo
04-17-2005, 11:04 PM
Hey no sweat Ron. Nobody here has chased me with pitchforks and torches. Yet. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

I would never have accepted this role if I wasn't prepared for commentary and criticism. It goes with the territory since we absolutely cannot please everyone.

I think for my part I tend to be very careful of the downsides of possible decisions because I think it would be easier to screw up IT than improve it, but improvements certainly can be made.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

OTLimit
04-18-2005, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
He has the moxie to post here as well. I think the guys who are less public are those who are more opposed to changes.



No slam, but maybe they just spend a ton of time working on their race cars and less time talking about it on the internet.



------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

lateapex911
04-18-2005, 09:03 AM
Good point Leslie! But then Chris HAS been known to post here, and my take on him is that he makes himself very accessible as well.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Andy Bettencourt
04-18-2005, 09:46 AM
I immediatly think of Greg A. when the term 'unintended consiquences' comes to mind. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

I don't think AWD in IT is a great idea. If you read between the lines in Ed Tisdales post where he says he will start mocking up a cage for his ix...he might have two cars at the track in a weekend that threatened bad weather. Is THAT good for costs in IT? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/eek.gif

I don't think you could set a weight to make it right. In the rain it would run away, in the dry it would, what? Be heavy and uncompetitive or be set properly so it was a viable choice for the class...

Too many variables and too much left up to chance. Is there that much demand to even start chasing our tails? I don't think so. Now if enough support was out there for an all AWD class, then GO FOR IT in your own Region. Maybe it will catch fire ala SM.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)



[This message has been edited by Andy Bettencourt (edited April 18, 2005).]

Ron Earp
04-18-2005, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
I don't think AWD in IT is a great idea. If you read between the lines in Ed Tisdales post where he says he will start mocking up a cage for his ix...he might have two cars at the track in a weekend that threatened bad weather. Is THAT good for costs in IT? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/eek.gif


Costs in IT? Well, the latest issue of Sportscar has a well known BMW 325 that was owned by a well known driver. Price? $37.5k asking. And this is IT?????????????? I imagine the car was $60k new since it was (as I understand it) bought from a company and not built by the owner. And the car did a lot of winning too, with a rookie driver, seems to suggest money can buy wins.

I don't want to digress on that subject since there is a lot there, but price for IT, well, it is not cheap, at least in S and pretending such doesn't make it so.

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited April 18, 2005).]

Bill Miller
04-18-2005, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
I immediatly think of Greg A. when the term 'unintended consiquences' comes to mind. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

I don't think AWD in IT is a great idea. If you read between the lines in Ed Tisdales post where he says he will start mocking up a cage for his ix...he might have two cars at the track in a weekend that threatened bad weather. Is THAT good for costs in IT? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/eek.gif

<snip>
AB




Come on Andy, you know you can't control how much the folks that have the $$$ will spend. If someone wants to build a wet and a dry car, they're going to do it. And I'm sorry, but the ECU rule was a clear indication that the powers that be don't give a hang about controlling costs in IT, yet it gets trotted out when it's convenient.


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Andy Bettencourt
04-18-2005, 10:33 AM
Think whatever you guys want to think. Cost IS a factor when the ITAC discusses issues. The ECU issue was done before *I* was involved and I would love to put it back in the bottle.

You can spend $25K - $50K building ANYTHING. It's not so much the speed of the car, it's the level of prep, the QUALITY of the parts, the attention to detail etc etc etc.

You want a class that some people bring two cars to the race depending on weather conditions? GO FOR IT. It WILL happen.

Then we all lose...except THAT guy.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Bill Miller
04-18-2005, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Think whatever you guys want to think. Cost IS a factor when the ITAC discusses issues. The ECU issue was done before *I* was involved and I would love to put it back in the bottle.

You can spend $25K - $50K building ANYTHING. It's not so much the speed of the car, it's the level of prep, the QUALITY of the parts, the attention to detail etc etc etc.

You want a class that some people bring two cars to the race depending on weather conditions? GO FOR IT. It WILL happen.

Then we all lose...except THAT guy.

AB



I'm sure it already does Andy

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Geo
04-18-2005, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
I don't think AWD in IT is a great idea.

<snip>

I don't think you could set a weight to make it right. In the rain it would run away, in the dry it would, what? Be heavy and uncompetitive or be set properly so it was a viable choice for the class...

I agree with Andy. Some of y'all might think we're just being sticks in the mud, but I look at this as there being nothing but heartache. No matter what we did, nobody would end up happy. And I doubt there is really that much demand. There are over 300 lines in the ITCS so there is no issue with too few cars classified IMHO.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
04-18-2005, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
Costs in IT? Well, the latest issue of Sportscar has a well known BMW 325 that was owned by a well known driver. Price? $37.5k asking. And this is IT?????????????? I imagine the car was $60k new since it was (as I understand it) bought from a company and not built by the owner. And the car did a lot of winning too, with a rookie driver, seems to suggest money can buy wins.

I don't want to digress on that subject since there is a lot there, but price for IT, well, it is not cheap, at least in S and pretending such doesn't make it so.



You are indeed correct Ron that costs are climbing (although they seem to have stopped a bit lately) and we have no control over what someone spends.

However, if someone will spend $60 for a car, do we want to double that to $120k for a wet and dry car?

Bill, I know you are correct. There probably already are people who bring two cars to the track with different set-ups. But the only advantage of that is time to switch over from dry to wet (which is virtually impossible at the track with a 944 due to rear torsion bars in my case), but at least those wet set-up cars don't have an inherent advantage like an AWD car does.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Daryl DeArman
04-19-2005, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
There are over 300 lines in the ITCS so there is no issue with too few cars classified IMHO.


I'd agree. It is not an issue of how many choices we have...it is what those choices are.

Ron Earp
04-19-2005, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
You are indeed correct Ron that costs are climbing (although they seem to have stopped a bit lately) and we have no control over what someone spends.

However, if someone will spend $60 for a car, do we want to double that to $120k for a wet and dry car?

Well, I'm not actually complaining about costs, just merely pointing out that they are not low now and they will never be low to win. It costs money to run up front and that won't change.

Heck, I stopped counting at $15k on the JH and we don't even know if it'll be worth a damn. Or if the driver is either! ;-)

Seriously, I don't see how having AWD cars or even multiple wet/dry cars as some (I doubt there would be many) changes anything for those that "are just out for fun". If you are just out for fun and some racing then it doesn't matter what the Jones do - you're just out to run and have a good time. Doesn't matter if they spent $60k on a car and you spent $3k, if you are REALLY out there just for fun, club racing, a good time, etc. - then it won't matter to you.

I really don't care if someone has $120k in two cars - bring'em on! I'm still racing and having fun and so are you. Plus, every now and again, the high dollar racer gets trumped by a backyard bomber and that has to be fun to see.


------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 260Z ITS

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited April 19, 2005).]

turboICE
04-20-2005, 10:18 AM
I am by no means innocent of the same behavoir but there are a lot of assumptions here:

There is no interest. (On the part of whom, potential participants or SCCA committees?)

AWD would be so dominant in the rain, that it would have to be weight penalized in the dry to the point of uselessness. (If AWD has not been raced within IT how was this determined? How were the STi and Evo able to be classed in T2 then and still have competitive enjoyable races with 2WD cars?)

I think there is a lot of fear of the unknown and new in many of these responses.

If there is something inherently non-IT about AWD I certainly am not able to discern it from the GCR. How was the club able to handle the inherent differences in how FWD performs when it was added to IT?

Yeah there are a lot of cars listed, but if someone is going to run for fun - why not allow them to do so in the car they would want to? Many of the listed cars no one wants to run, but they are listed while cars that people do want to run are not.

RSTPerformance
04-20-2005, 10:59 AM
I agree with andy on this entire thing.... He has made it very simple for everyone and already told you to run your AWD in IT. Listen to him......

Make your own class. ITAWD It's that simple. you can even go to the comp meetings and ask for the class to be run wiht the other IT cars. You get 1 year freebie for your participation numbers to reach 7 once they do that you jsut have to sustane that average. then your home free. Improved Touring AWD

I think it is a great idea to have them run. they should not run in the ITS,A,B,C classes because they have abvious advantages and it like others said people may build two cars ect. ect. Cost does matter and should always matter for an entry level class like IT. Yes you will always have people that dedicate there life or have tons of money to spend 20+ on an IT car but we don't want to automatically double that buy haveing those with that kind of money buy 2 cars.

Good luck and I hope somebody goes to there local comp board meeting and asks for them to class ITAWD so we can all see what happens in the next year!!

Stephen
ITB 2WD Audi


PS in the dry a 2WD Audi (with a quaffe)will beat the 4WD audi strictly because of the weight and the loss of power in the power train. Been there, tested it and done it. In the rain it's a hole different story.

Ron Earp
04-20-2005, 12:58 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">PS in the dry a 2WD Audi (with a quaffe)will beat the 4WD audi strictly because of the weight and the loss of power in the power train. Been there, tested it and done it. In the rain it's a hole different story.[/B]</font>

This is exactly what I thought - power loss of AWD is going to hurt them and not make them the class overdog in ITS.

I accept the fact I'll get my ass handed to me by FWD cars in the rain. But, I see no reason RWD/FWD/AWD cannot be competitive with each other in the dry. Are FWD car folks afraid of AWD now due to rain advantages? I have to accept that I've got a big disadvantage as a RWD driver in the rain.

ITAWD won't go anywhere, not enough of them. Enough to add to current classes and have a nice time, I think, but don't see the formation of a entire class as the way to go.



------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS

turboICE
04-20-2005, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
Are FWD car folks afraid of AWD now due to rain advantages? I have to accept that I've got a big disadvantage as a RWD driver in the rain.Exactly, the potential for wet/dry cars exist within the current listing! That is a poor argument, there are already cars with condition advantages over others and not just weather conditions. Some cars are better on technical, some better on open, some better on long. Some people change rear end ratios, springs, entire set ups for different tracks - but I still haven't seen anyone bring a wet/dry car combination despite there being cars that are already inherently better in the wet than others.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ITAWD won't go anywhere, not enough of them. Enough to add to current classes and have a nice time, I think, but don't see the formation of a entire class as the way to go.</font>At least not initially, no one builds cars before they are classed and has a place to race. People can point to the success of SM - but the fact is they had a place to race first and then broke off. Why would anyone build a car that can not be raced? And I am sorry no one should have to race a 2.5L NA AWD with under 200hp in ITE to show interest. Class the cars, they will be built.

turboICE
04-20-2005, 03:34 PM
Double Post.

[This message has been edited by turboICE (edited April 20, 2005).]

Knestis
04-20-2005, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
... Are FWD car folks afraid of AWD now due to rain advantages? ...

Heck, yeah. The difference is huge - far greater than between RWD and FWD in the rain (in FWD's favor), or RWD and FWD in the dry (advantage rear-drivers).

K

Edit - the Quattro is not in the weeds in the dry, in SWTC this season. If they run a rain race, there is NO question what will happen.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited April 20, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited April 20, 2005).]

Ron Earp
04-20-2005, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Heck, yeah. The difference is huge - far greater than between RWD and FWD in the rain (in FWD's favor), or RWD and FWD in the dry (advantage rear-drivers).
]

Afraid? Why? If everyone is truely here to have fun then it doesn't matter who wins or what car has an advantage. Advantages exist already, big advantages, this is just another aspect of advantages and I, along with some others, appear to welcome it. They've got good traction, but, they are going to have high weight and more drivetrain loss plus more complexity to deal with than the rest of us.

Class that later model Subaru 2.5L RS car, class it up at 3000 lbs and see what happens. It makes 165hp stock and that should not scare anyone in ITS given what is running out there now.

Scared of a modern AWD cars? Class one of those old XT6 cars from the mid to late 80s. I think the best ones had 145hp, class it up about 2900lbs and let it have a go.

If they run away with the field (which they won't at that weight) then PCA them as was done with the BMWs (ooops, not as the BMWs, they should have gotten a "real" weight not a restrictor).

Talking about it will only result a lot of chatter and not much happening. Get the cars considered, get one classed, and then see how it goes. I don't want to build one at all, just want to see IT become more diverse and maybe attract some new folks, ideas, competitors, and prove that it is adaptable.

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS

Daryl DeArman
04-20-2005, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
If everyone is truely here to have fun then it doesn't matter who wins or what car has an advantage.

Everyone isn't here to have fun, some of us are very competitive and see the competition and success in that environment as the fun.

lateapex911
04-20-2005, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:

I accept the fact I'll get my ass handed to me by FWD cars in the rain. But, I see no reason RWD/FWD/AWD cannot be competitive with each other in the dry. Are FWD car folks afraid of AWD now due to rain advantages? I have to accept that I've got a big disadvantage as a RWD driver in the rain.



Ron, that's an interesitng statement. And on the surface, it makes sense. Here's a quick example of how you might be wrong.

At NHIS this summer I was 9th on grid in a fiels of about 25 ITA cars. As I sat on grid, it suddenly monsooned, and we were all given 10 minutes to change to rains.

At the start of the race, 2 guys near the front decided it was not to their liking and bailed, but I was able to make inroads. By the 3rd lap I had moved up to 2nd, and going into the heavy braking area, I went as deep as I thought prudent, and was impressed by the leaders capability to go deeper. Then he hit the wall. After that I was able to pull away from guys who are normally much faster...guys who run top 10 at the ARRCs, guys in FWD cars on Hoosier Dirt Stockers, and was lucky enough to wreck three times a lap without hitting anything, and take the win.

Skill?? I wish! No, I think that the fast FWD guys set their cars up with HUGE springs....and we are talikng in the thousands of inch rates, and the shocks are dialed to accomodate. In the rain, they were just not set up right. Now, of course, if they had the time, they COULD be set up better, but....and this is the key to the concept, track conditions are constantly changing in wet situations.

But dry situations are much less variable.

In most parts of the country, rain races are very rare, and even when it DOES rain, sometimes it's not really wet for much of the race.

Yes, AWD WOULD be a nice thing in the slippery conditions, but we just don't see enough of those to make me worry about a few AWD cars in IT.

I need to give this some more thought, but while there ARE a lot of choices of cars to race, many just don't count. (AMC products????)

It might be cool to throw some current AWD cars in.... especially if they show up!

(I have always wanted the classing "ideal" to be that on any given day, any given car MIGHT have a chance at a win if driven brilliantly...and I have no problem if the AWD guys "given day" requires weather intervention)



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Ron Earp
04-20-2005, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Ron, that's an interesitng statement. And on the surface, it makes sense. Here's a quick example of how you might be wrong.
After that I was able to pull away from guys who are normally much faster...guys who run top 10 at the ARRCs, guys in FWD cars on Hoosier Dirt Stockers, and was lucky enough to wreck three times a lap without hitting anything, and take the win.


And this very thing happened at CMP a month ago too in that RWD cars did reasonably well in the rain against the FWD cars. I really didn't think that my analysis was 100% all the time, but it is the general impression by most, including me, that a FWD car has the advantage most times in the rain, when in reality it might not be true.

And, along the same line of though, AWD might not run away with the race in the rain either. It'll damn sure help though!

No matter, every dog has his day and I would like to think that is true in IT - that On Any Sunday a given IT car can take the class if the stars are in alignment.

Having no IT AWD cars classed will for sure keep away anyone who wants to run an AWD car. Hell, class one. If nobody shows up I'll build the damn thing, I promise. But I'm certain I won't have to do it, every region will have at least on inside of a year I think.

I'm a non-front wheel drive liking fellow, I like RWD cars. I think you fellows who drive those puller cars are crazy. But I'm certain there are those out there that think we're all nuts and AWD is the only way to go.

I just don't see a big risk to class one conservatively as a trial. Takes a little discussion on the board, few hours to research power potential, more discussion, then class it up with whatever formula is in vogue with some extra weight. Always take it off later if the damn things can't get out of the way, or, if you don't feel like doing that you can use the old line "no guarentee of competitiveness" as an out.

There are a bunch of cars that would be popular in IT I think:

Subarus for the import crowd - 2 I mentioned above
BMW for the BMW folks - 325xi
Audis for the Audi folk - lots here, but I don't know how many non-turbo cars

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited April 20, 2005).]

Joe Harlan
04-20-2005, 08:33 PM
Ron I give a slight advantage to FWD in the wet mostly because the average driver can go fast in them. I would put my self up against a FWD car any day in the wet given a full wet setup on my RWD car.

I will not say the same about AWD. I have seen it first hand to many times. I like the way you tink about racing for fun and I wish at times that were true. Most of us say that's why we race but it's not exactly the truth. I race to win and I race hard everytime I get in the car. Again sad but true. I think there are a lot more like than just here getting laps and hangin out. The only issue I have about classing these cars and relying on PCA's to fix them is that the process takes way to long. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

Ron Earp
04-20-2005, 09:47 PM
I hear you Joe, ask Jeff what happens everytime I get into the car and say "I'm taking it easy this time, I got good times last session and I'll just drive around."

Read carefully - I said "If everyone is here to have fun" - I didn't state my intentions. I'm out there to win, don't get me wrong. I'm highly competitive and it shows in the things I do, racing is just one of them. I say I'm here for fun, but I want to win and will do what it takes to get to that point - I'm a newbie so it'll be a long while. I just don't think a couple of heavy AWD cars are going to prevent me from winning if I am able, and, that is not my first thought when considering their classification.

I also want to see new things happen to the SCCA and some new folks, new thinking, new ideas, concepts, and competition get into the game. I don't think you'll be down to any AWD cars with your level of skill, so you shouldn't be worried. As a newbie, I'm not worried, I have faith if they are classed it'll be conservatively and there will be plently of chances to increase their performance if needed.

Of course, I don't know how the system works and it might be as you say, way too long - but I am young and gullible and have faith it'll be done right.

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS


[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited April 20, 2005).]

Joe Harlan
04-20-2005, 09:59 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I don't think you'll be down to any AWD cars with your level of skill, so you shouldn't be worried.</font>

Ah but I am worried. Being competitive is not always a matter of driving the car. The rules have to work out to allow equally prepared and driven car be competitive. Now this is not just theory for me it is real world. The T2 350z that I built will be running against EVO and STI's all year. From what I have seen so far there is no disadvantage in the dry to AWD and there is a huge benefit to AWD in the wet. I think we need to see how the CRB handles the T classes before we even think about heading down that path. That being said if it were to happen this ADHOC would be the best to do it but I fear if anything were to change the current dynamic we would be in trouble again.

Andy Bettencourt
04-20-2005, 10:09 PM
Ron,

How would YOU class the cars? I see a couple of options:

1. Class them "dry". Make the best effort to have them competitive. Result? They are a viable option but have a HUGE advantage in the rain.

2. Class them heavy in dry form to limit their wet prowess. Result? Nobody builds them because they would be handicapped more than 50% of the time - so they would be a statistical underdog.

There is so little demand that it is a lose-lose IMHO. I do think IT-AWD could work because it takes this advantage/handicap out of the equation.

What would ya'll do?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Geo
04-20-2005, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Ron,

How would YOU class the cars? I see a couple of options:

1. Class them "dry". Make the best effort to have them competitive. Result? They are a viable option but have a HUGE advantage in the rain.

2. Class them heavy in dry form to limit their wet prowess. Result? Nobody builds them because they would be handicapped more than 50% of the time - so they would be a statistical underdog.

There is so little demand that it is a lose-lose IMHO. I do think IT-AWD could work because it takes this advantage/handicap out of the equation.

What would ya'll do?

AB



Andy, I'm with you 100% in what you said above. In the end NOBODY would be happy.

Another way I look at this...

A lot of professional organizations with full-time technical staffs with people far smarter than any of us on the ITAC have tried to balance AWD cars in classifications have all have thrown in the towel in frustration. I don't think the ITAC can do any better than the FIA, SCCA Pro, and IMSA have done.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
04-20-2005, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
I also want to see new things happen to the SCCA and some new folks, new thinking, new ideas, concepts, and competition get into the game.

Actually Ron, what you have seen happening is new blood and new thinking in IT. The current ITAC has really made some very important changes in this category. I don't think there are many people who wouldn't agree with that.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Joe Harlan
04-20-2005, 11:14 PM
Andy I am all in on the ITAWD and T

I would be happy to help you write the rule set for it. When are you gonna be in town again BTW....There are some dancin girls that are requesting you stop by and visit.;0)

lateapex911
04-20-2005, 11:33 PM
I'll go out on a limb (because MY only chance at another win needs another monsoon!) and choose option A.

Class them so they fit the class, not overdogs or a car that can win on any track if the right car and driver combination shows up, but so that they can win on certain tracks if the right combo shows up. And when it rains? Oh well! See ya!

Look at it another way....you say demand is nil. If classed, then the repercusions will be nil as well, right?? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

On the other hand, maybe there is latent demand that needs to be developed?

Why not throw it in Fastrack to get a tiny bit of feedback? Say, "The ITAC has requested the CRB to classify AWD vehicles in IT. The CRB requests member feedback on the issue.", and see what comes back.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

turboICE
04-20-2005, 11:43 PM
I would prefer an ITAWD format - but then the participation rules would have to be more lenient than normal for the first two years. I mean there are few AWD cars set up for road racing today and if there won't be anybody to race against building a class would be slow.

I would rather see them conservatively classed in full IT first and then the participants would build faster. They can then be broken out into ITAWD in the third year.

A Subaru RS would be dead last in ITS in the dry against experienced drivers. My friend building his RS for NASA and EMRA runs close to me in my ITA 240SX. So class it in ITS - if there is standing water on the track OK the one or two cars that are entered may win that race - but they aren't going to be hurting any of your season points in ITS unless we get a really wet year. Better yet class them to run without series points. Just get them racing - if the cars get classed in three years there will be enough to break them out.

------------------
Ed.
240SX ITA

[This message has been edited by turboICE (edited April 20, 2005).]

Geo
04-20-2005, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by turboICE:
I would prefer an ITAWD format - but then the participation rules would have to be more lenient than normal for the first two years. I mean there are few AWD cars set up for road racing today and if there won't be anybody to race against building a class would be slow.

That would not encourage the ITAC or CRB to create a class then. The SCCA already has too many classes and too many poorly subscribed classes.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Joe Harlan
04-21-2005, 12:26 AM
The best way to handle it Geo is to write a set of rules for the class allow the cars to run in ITE but under the ITAWD rules until the concept catches on. If it doesn't then no harm done.

Geo
04-21-2005, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
The best way to handle it Geo is to write a set of rules for the class allow the cars to run in ITE but under the ITAWD rules until the concept catches on. If it doesn't then no harm done.

I would agree with that Joe. I think though that the competitors would need to develop the rules and run their own deal within ITE. If it caught on, the SCCA would likely write a unified set of rules. If not, well, then no big deal.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Ron Earp
04-21-2005, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Ron,
How would YOU class the cars?

Simply without a lot of fanfare and rules changes.

I'd pick two AWD cars that have a large following. One of them would definitely be the Subaru RS 2.5L car. Good number built, good following.

I'd research the potential of the car by sampling as much data as I could find. I'd troll boards, talk to owners, separate the wheat from the chaff, and make a decision with respect to weight/hp. I'd be VERY conservative.

With the Impreza as an example you already have some real-world experience provided by Ed above. Taking that into account, and other info I'd class the car.

My personal guess, for this car, is that I'd peg it about 2890 lbs (Wait! That is over its listed curb weight - yeah, well my Jensen is over its curb weight too, so what?) or so, maybe even a tad more.

Just a cursory look around shows this little motor is probably good for 185-190hp with moderate to strong effort in the engine department, torque being similar. I don't see that it is going to be a killer in S since the power to weight ratio is still putting it in the lower quarter on the stock specs of wt/hp.

Nobody would build it because it isn't in the 10 ten on RacerJakes IT Class List? I don't agree. They'll build it.

We've covered this ground in other threads. People build cars for many reasons and having an affinity for a car is a very strong motivator. Do I really think I'll win the championship with a Jensen Healey? No, but I like the car, felt I could live with some shortcomings, capitalize on some strengths, and be competitive. I'm sure folks would look at the newly classed RS the same way - sure it weighs a lot, but has good brakes, AWD, and is a car they like and want to race.

RS too much? Class the XT, it'll be built by the same people with less risk to the class. I just don't see a huge risk. If there is, then take one of the other suggestions use parts of it. But I don't think IT AWD is the way to go - there aren't enough to have their own class. Be like saying we'll have ITOT (Open Top) - there just aren't enough open top cars to have their own class, and no need to either, they'll fit fine in the current framework.

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited April 21, 2005).]

Andy Bettencourt
04-21-2005, 08:36 AM
And if there was more than ONE letter written over the past 3 years requesting that a certian (or ANY) AWD car be classified, it might be a good idea, I still say no.

"Class it and they will come" doesn't hold water. "Come and they will class it" is the way it will be successful. Spec Miata was built this way...prove you have the numbers - and the SCCA will accommodate you - and be happy to.

And the letters that come in, should be from people who are willing to invest some skin in the game.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Andy Bettencourt
04-21-2005, 08:48 AM
Ron,

Thanks. I appreciate the well thought out response. Let's agree to disagree.

If you class it heavy, top examples by top drivers will never be built - and a following will never develop because it "can't" win.

If you class it well, it will become the car to have in wet-weather areas and/or a second car for those who can at top events.

With no demand, it just doesn't make sense to POTENTIALLY wreck class structures. If I am wrong, and there are a pile of AWD freaks out there just waiting for the green light, then speak up - IT-AWD can run with ITE until you make the numbers.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Bill Miller
04-21-2005, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Geo:

A lot of professional organizations with full-time technical staffs with people far smarter than any of us on the ITAC have tried to balance AWD cars in classifications have all have thrown in the towel in frustration. I don't think the ITAC can do any better than the FIA, SCCA Pro, and IMSA have done.



Yeah George, I guess that includes the current SCCA Club Racing CRB, BoD, and the TAC (Touring Advisory Committee). And I'm sorry, but you can't really compare Regional Club Racing to any number of pro series with paid drivers, factory involvement, and significant sponsorship money. I'm pretty sure that the pressure to change things, where AWD cars were dominant, came from external forces (i.e. teams not driving those cars), rather than from w/in the sanctioning body.



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

turboICE
04-21-2005, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
And if there was more than ONE letter written over the past 3 years requesting that a certian (or ANY) AWD car be classified, it might be a good idea, I still say no.I agree whole heartedly, if members won't be active enough to generate correspondence then their silence doesn't deserve action. But then again I know every WRX and STi owner got a free SCCA membership and they don't renew because they don't feel as if the SCCA is inclusive to their interests. Yet they show up in droves to NASA events.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">"Class it and they will come" doesn't hold water. "Come and they will class it" is the way it will be successful. Spec Miata was built this way...prove you have the numbers - and the SCCA will accommodate you - and be happy to.</font>I don't think that is a fair comparison or logical. There was a place for Miatas to race before SM was developed. Outside of the high end of Touring there is no place reasonable to race these cars. If there is no class for them to race in then what do they build them to?


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And the letters that come in, should be from people who are willing to invest some skin in the game.</font>From me it is. I didn't want to start club racing in T1 (at the time), so it made no sense for me to build my STi that I have tracked extensively. I would have liked to have built an RS in a regional class instead. I could have done that with NASA and EMRA and just be done with it. My decision instead was to get to the racing first and so I bought an ITA car so I could run at basically any race by any group in the area that fit my schedule. I chose to race first and hope for preferred cars later, there are those who want to race in the only cars that they have ever had on track.

And there are those in the SCCA that know there is AWD interest. Track days are filled with AWD vehicles. The tri-region is on the largest Subaru board advertising their PDE because they know Subaru people will come out to track days. What do they tell them when the people get hooked at the PDE and time trials and they ask about racing their RS?

I know I am being a hard case about this. There are several reasons. I know there is interest. However much as myself, none of us really know how to pursue that interest because we do not have enough experience with the SCCA to even know how to proceed. Most of us haven't been active beyond Solo or just getting into club racing. Some see their car not classed and figure there is no point in pursuing it, that the SCCA doesn't care (I disagree). Some aren't willing to put their skin in the game with a classed car in the hopes that the car they want is classed later. I decided to, but I also had the means to do so. At the same time by going with my current ITA car - the budget for another car even if AWD gets classed was knocked back at least a year. Unfortunately I am not one of the ones that can have 2 IT cars that there are apparently so many of.

If I knew how to go about running an unofficial ITAWD within an ITE run group I would even consider pursuing that. Though I have to say I am not sure how good that would be for ITE to have a 3-5 cars with half the potential running as moving chicanes around a track - especially one like lime rock.



------------------
Ed.
240SX ITA

Andy Bettencourt
04-21-2005, 10:05 AM
Ed,

I don't consider you being a hard case. Your insight is valuable.

I think the SCCA is just catching up with its new on-track programs. Solo has great places to play for the Sti and WRX right now - in PRO SOLO, they are consider top tier cars.

Unfortunatly, Turbo + AWD is REALLY outside the box in IT. That is why you can develop an external set of rules that NA cars and turbo cars can compete together with handicaps.

The 2.5 RS WOULD bring new people in...but at what cost? I still submit the balance of IT can't handle it.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Andy Bettencourt
04-21-2005, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by turboICE:
I don't think that is a fair comparison or logical. There was a place for Miatas to race before SM was developed. Outside of the high end of Touring there is no place reasonable to race these cars. If there is no class for them to race in then what do they build them to?


I think it is more fair than you think. IT Miata's were not perceived to be competitive. SM was created, not using IT parts, but an entirely engineered kit that must be used in whole. IT cars CAN NOT cross over. SM cars can cross to IT however - and frequently do for additional seat time. So they didn't build them to IT sepcs, they created their OWN.

Then a couple of guys developed the class, promoted the hell out of it and helped Regions get it approved for competition. 1000 cars later, it's not only it's own class, it's going National in 2006 as we all know.

If the demand is there for AWD, it can happen.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Joe Harlan
04-21-2005, 11:01 AM
I will add that if being competitive is not an issue then AWD and Turbo cars already fit into ITE in most regions.

Ron, in reading all of your posts the last couple of years I will say this. Right now you say you are doing the JH for fun and because you are a JH lover. Most start out this way. I contend that if you JH is not competitive in ITS you will not be satisfied in the end just to make laps. You will either A: try to get the car adjusted or B: try to get the car moved. This is not a slam in any way. You posts indicate that you are a driver in the true spirit of the word and I take from that that second is not much of an option for you. I think the idea if class it out of spec and adjust is what kills most of the new cars in IT. Looking at the new found interest in the NEON, SER, NX2000's should be an indicator of that. Once they were classed proper there is now cars being built.

turboICE
04-21-2005, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Unfortunatly, Turbo + AWD is REALLY outside the box in IT. That is why you can develop an external set of rules that NA cars and turbo cars can compete together with handicaps.

The 2.5 RS WOULD bring new people in...but at what cost? I still submit the balance of IT can't handle it.On the first I absolutely agree outside of ITE, IT is not setup for turbos. On the second I should at least acknowledge to myself that I don't really have enough experience in competition to fully appreciate the impact on balance and should defer to the experienced on that.

IT is the right level for me and I really would have liked to have run an RS now and then do an STi in T2 or a new production class in 4 or 5 years. But I wasn't going to be so stubborn as to stay away due to classing. Racing the 240sx has been fun since I started competing wheel to wheel in it last year with NASA and EMRA and with my second SCCA school coming in May, I look forward to the real education that the ITA drivers on the east coast are sure to give me. It isn't going to hurt me any to be racing the RWD rather than doing nothing because the car I want isn't classed. But I still would like to pursue a way to get them classed to race. And I do equate the potential to be competitive as part of the fun.

I know miatas struggled as classed, but they were classed close to the realm of feasibility. At least close enough that cars were being built and raced. It is just easier to get people building cars when they are classed. Also the miata is perfect for spec building with their production numbers, used cost and ease of maintenance. Spec classing an RS or other NA AWD would be tough. Heck just getting a bone stock RS that is straight and just caging and other "race ready" requirements would likely run in the $17,000-$19,000 range. And that would be using the 75k-150k mile motor that came with it. ECU tools only exist for the turbo versions of the Subaru, so tune would pretty much have to remain stock until someone figured out that aspect (currently all tuning on the RS is accomplished by means that would not be IT legal like piggy backs or full replacement without stock harness). I can see a few coming out regularly but a far way from being able to get 10 RS's to come out regularly to each event.



------------------
Ed.
240SX ITA

Ron Earp
04-21-2005, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Ron, in reading all of your posts the last couple of years I will say this. Right now you say you are doing the JH for fun and because you are a JH lover. Most start out this way. I contend that if you JH is not competitive in ITS you will not be satisfied in the end just to make laps. You will either A: try to get the car adjusted or B: try to get the car moved. This is not a slam in any way. You posts indicate that you are a driver in the true spirit of the word and I take from that that second is not much of an option for you. I think the idea if class it out of spec and adjust is what kills most of the new cars in IT. Looking at the new found interest in the NEON, SER, NX2000's should be an indicator of that. Once they were classed proper there is now cars being built.[/B]

Well, I haven't been around here that long....Only since last August. But, you are correct. I like the JH, I like doing things that are hard, I like the challenge, and I enjoy having something that isn't seen everyday. And yes, I won't think it too cool to lap the the track at the end of the pack if the JH won't hunt.

But, I'd like to think that I did my research and picked something that can win although that wasn't my primary concern back then (now if I selected I might choose differently). It is the lightest car in ITS, it has reasonable power, but it is delicate and the Lotus engine puts off many a builder I'm sure. It has been hard and had I decided on something like I might pick today, a 240sx, 240z, or ITS Miata 1.8 then I'd been driving that joker back in December!

I think if the JH is a poor S car then it has options for adjustment (it races higher than curb weight) or moving (power puts it solidly in A, but I like S). A mis-classed AWD car has the same possibilities. But, I'd probably drive the thing to death and pour more development into it before I'd admit I made a poor choice - I'm stubborn sometimes. I'd hate to see the car moved to A - I just like S and trying to make a little seen car run with serious contenders like BMW 3s and the like is a big challenge.

Still, I think it possible to carefully class an AWD car in IT and not have disasterous effect. Might not bring people in droves, but it might bring more than a few. And I'm sure some folks would pick up the AWD torch to push for wins in S, regardless of if they start with a disadvantage or not. There are a lot of cars that were not front runners that became so with a lot of work.

The arguments I've seen for and against the AWD cars on this thread have been civil and insightful - more so than on some threads we get into. In the end, I'm just a guy who would like to see them race but I'm not the one who is going to build one (unless you guys class one and nobody else builds one, then I'm sticking to my promise). It appears it'll take a few interested parties to write some letters and get the ball in motion if it is ever to happen.

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
260Z ITS

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited April 21, 2005).]

lateapex911
04-21-2005, 08:05 PM
Ahhhh,,,and there lies the problem...

Who is the AWD audience? Mostly younger gen guys....who don't write ...what did you call it??? ..a "letter"????

Is is possible to IM the ITAC???

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

RSTPerformance
04-23-2005, 04:21 PM
I don't have time to actually read all the posts in the section and I have been trying to find the time as I would love to see AWD cars classed into our current IT classes. I know many here don't like that idea because of "rain" races, however in the few rain races that the speed GT cars had the past few years did the Audi's dominate anymore than they did in the rain??? NO, I think RWD BMW's actually even won at Lime Rock, and I don't think you can say that is driving skill or prep as Audi has/had plenty of $$$ to get all the right stuff... For other examples look at the European touring series... I have seen a few rain races with Audi's on TV and they don't seem to dominate their in the rain anymore than they do in the dry. (Sorry to keep mentioning Audi but Audi seems to be the only manufacturer dumping boat loads of $$$ into road racing with AWD).

Raymond “I want my 1990 20V Audi Coupe in ITS, but I am an IM guy http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/frown.gif” Blethen

PS: Jake, where have you been we all miss you http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/frown.gif

Joe Harlan
04-24-2005, 12:20 AM
haha, Ron I meant couple of months....I haven't really been hanging here for all that long. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

eclip5e
08-25-2006, 06:17 PM
I&#39;m just poping in to say that i&#39;m building an 2004 WRX for ITE and its planned to be racing by either mid/late season 2007 or in 2008.

It should be fun.