Audi A4 2.8L Quattro NA - ITS car?

[benspeed]

Going through the GCR and thinking about what might be a cool car to run in ITS. I got to thinking about an Audi A4 2.8 Quattro. Stock this car makes 172 HP and weighs 3228 lbs. Normally aspirated.

This might be a very fun car to run in ITS and I'm curious to hear what others would think. I've been able to find decent examples for about $5K - not unlike the cost of an E36 tub.

This would make for some very cool replays of World Challenge from a few years ago. Give that Audi for any rain race B)


looking at years 1996-1999 B5 model.

So whaddyall think?

Cheers,

Ben

[JamesB]

Well after looking at the current GCR, I don't see the Audi A4 classed in ITS. I know in the WDCR region the two A4's I know of that are built to IT spec are both running in ITE but they are not quattro.

You might want to consider a different car if you want to run in ITS.

[benspeed]

Originally posted by JamesB@Oct 6 2005, 02:02 PM
Well after looking at the current GCR, I don't see the Audi A4 classed in ITS. I know in the WDCR region the two A4's I know of that are built to IT spec are both running in ITE but they are not quattro.

You might want to consider a different car if you want to run in ITS.

61928


I should have been more clear. There is no listing for this car in anything but SSB today. I'd like to see what people think about trying to add the car to the ITS class.

Also, what do people thing about classing FWD and AWD. Would they have different weights?

Thanks,

Ben

[jamsilvia]

Originally posted by JamesB@Oct 6 2005, 09:02 AM
Well after looking at the current GCR, I don't see the Audi A4 classed in ITS. I know in the WDCR region the two A4's I know of that are built to IT spec are both running in ITE but they are not quattro.


At least one of those, IIRC, is the 1.8T motor. I don't know if the other is the 6 cyl or not....

joe

[benspeed]

Originally posted by jamsilvia@Oct 6 2005, 02:13 PM
At least one of those, IIRC, is the 1.8T motor. I don't know if the other is the 6 cyl or not....

joe

61932



There's a 1.8 turbo and a 2.8 NA

I don't think the turbo would be permitted - too easy to tweak the hp and the class seems to avoid turbos in general.

[JamesB]

Ahh Andy posted in your other thread and overlooked it. Currently IT does not allow AWD vehicals. So you could get a FWD 2.8 classed.

[Bildon]

Originally posted by JamesB@Oct 6 2005, 11:07 AM
So you could get a FWD 2.8 classed.

61939

Yup we looked at this car. But at only 172hp we thought it would be too heavy.
So we went with another FWD 2.8L VW/Audi product weighing in at 2860.

If you can get the car classed at a similar weight then it would be worth it. But the BMWs are still going to kick our butts :blink:

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

I thought it was the 2.8 VR6 that made 172, and that the 2.8 V6 from the B5 A4/Passat make 185 or 190 (have to look it up). And to the folks that want the Audi classified, ask for the Passat. Same motor, and plenty more FWD cars out there.

[Bildon]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 6 2005, 08:44 PM
Bill,

I thought it was the 2.8 VR6 that made 172, and that the 2.8 V6 from the B5 A4/Passat make 185 or 190 (have to look it up). And to the folks that want the Audi classified, ask for the Passat. Same motor, and plenty more FWD cars out there.

61990

Shhhhhh B)
Yah the Audi made ~190 not 172. I was just copying what he'd written. But the Corrado Storm (2.9L) which is what we run (+.040) made the same 190hp. Point is...the Audi was too heavy.

Passat ITS car :blink: hmmmmmm :D

[benspeed]

Well, I've got the fomal request before the comp committee. We'll see what they say.

I'll post the result of the request. Any bets on the outcome???

Thanks,

[prodogdriver]

The A4 1.8T Quattro can run in ITE?

[benspeed]

Yes, pretty much anything can run in ITE.

[turboICE]

I think what is needed (and I havent' gotten aroud to it myself yet) is to request the CRB to lift the AWD ban outside of Touring and SS. I don't think the ITAC can do it since the ban isn't technically in the ITCS it is in 11.2.1.Y.

Essentially the request needs to be made that in consideration of the Touring (and SS) cars that are currently AWD that existing AWD cars too old for those classes be classed in order to make the path for aging Touring cars clearer.

Once the AWD ban in general is lifted then send the ITAC the forms for requesting the vehicle be classed in IT.

If there is any view at all to the future the time to be thinking about how to work AWD into classing is now not in three years when the 03 Evo's, 04 STi's, 04 WRX's and 04 RS's start looking for new homes after Touring.

[dickita15]

the problem is that while they could lift the ban, certainly the first few cars classified would be done very carefully. in other words heavy. that is just being cautious as I would expect the boards to be. if the cars are on the heavy side no one will build them. that may be interpreted as lack of interest so no more new cars will be classified.

[Knestis]

It's even more dynamic than that: There's the belief - probably justified - that an AWD car will be THE tool in the wet, even if it's heavy in dry conditions. Most everyone will be very anxious about setting up a situation where a particular chassis has a demonstrable advantage in a particular set of conditions.

Someone in a past conversation said, "Now I need rain tires and dry tires. Will I need a rain car and a dry car?" Or words to that effect.

Personally, I think it's like ABS. Let it happen and understand that it's just another example of "different horses for different courses." This is the way it is now, just not to the degree that it might be with new technologies.

K

[RSTPerformance]

This AWD vs RWD/FWD cars issue has been debated several times on this site for "wet" and "dry" tracks, but I think that if you look up some of the results from the this past season with the T2 Subaru's or any other series including the Speed Touring GT cars that a "good driver" can drive any configured car to a victory in the dry or the wet. Whenever Audi has dominated with the AWD it has been on both wet and dry surfaces, and I don't think it is fair to say that AWD would give an advantage... especially with the HP that these cars have... we are not talking 700+ HP wich still wouldn't event represent ice, snow or dirt where traction is limited even with good tires wich is the only place that I see the cars clearly having an advantage.

Any car with the HP that IT cars have wouldn't get an advantage with AWD IMO. Same goes with the debate of FWD and RWD. RWD cars school FWD cars all the time with good drivers and good tires, as do FWD cars school RWD cars provided they have good drivers and good tires.

Raymond "another vote here to lift the ban, without penalty" Blethen

PS: I think that an AWD car is more forgiving and easier to drive, however matching good driver and good tires vs good driver and good tires I think you will still have a good race.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 7 2005, 04:27 PM
Most everyone will be very anxious about setting up a situation where a particular chassis has a demonstrable advantage in a particular set of conditions.
62058

That is the thing the situation already exists and was accepted when they decided to mix FWD cars in with RWD cars.

Also everyone jumps on the supposedly abundantly clear wet advantage - but conveniently neglect the inherent drive train penalty. The cars would 1) be rated on brake hp and toque as if their drive train loss were equivelant and 2) then be awarded a 100# weight penalty on top of the wt/power determination. Every formula used by everyone that allows AWD already penalizes both sides of the equation - they add more weight than they would for RWD or FWD on top of a weight that was calculated incorrectly on power output if you were to consider power that actually reaches the ground.

[Eric Parham]

Actually, the 96-97 A4 12V did make 172, while the 98-up A4 30V made the 190. The 98-99 Passat had the same engine as the A4 (longitudinal) :) I tried to pick up a $1500 FWD 98 Passat, which is basically the same animal, and thought it might make a decent ITS steed. Unfortunately, someone beat me to the car so maybe we'll never know (unless it was another IT guy?). As for FWD vs AWD, the AWD cars are significantly heavier, so I don't think they'd ever do well in ITS ('cept in the rain).


Originally posted by Bildon@Oct 7 2005, 04:02 AM
Shhhhhh B)
Yah the Audi made ~190 not 172. I was just copying what he'd written. But the Corrado Storm (2.9L) which is what we run (+.040) made the same 190hp. Point is...the Audi was too heavy.

Passat ITS car :blink: hmmmmmm :D

62003

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by turboICE@Oct 7 2005, 05:46 PM
........- but conveniently neglect the inherent drive train penalty. The cars would 1) be rated on brake hp and toque as if their drive train loss were equivelant and 2) then be awarded a 100# weight penalty on top of the wt/power determination.
62069


How do you know that? Do you have the process and additional factors used by the ITAC?

And, just curious, your first line about embracing different configurations already, which is superior on a wet course, FWD or RWD?

[turboICE]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Oct 8 2005, 12:22 AM
How do you know that? Do you have the process and additional factors used by the ITAC?

And, just curious, your first line about embracing different configurations already, which is superior on a wet course, FWD or RWD?

62084

ITAC doesn't evaluate AWD so it would only be hypothetical. But members have posted here the manner of their thinking in classing recently and they have only talked about brake hp and maybe another consideration or two but never has consideration for efficiency of one drivetrain vs another been mentioned. And those that actually have classed AWD in other organizations consistently have maintained the same brake power/wieght goals without considering the heavy drivetrain loss of AWD - no reason to think a hypothetical ITAC future decision would. There is such an unsupported perceived AWD advantage that those who think AWD should even be considered have said sure but only as long as their is a huge weight penalty. It is already evident in last year's classing of the STi in T1 - I have never seen a car so blatently overclassed by the SCCA before. Sure they corrected it - but the initial response illustrates the absolute fear of the unknown with which new things are brought into the process.

If I am wrong - I am always open to being corrected. But it is much more effective to do so with an example of a different result than I have put forth rather than just being told that I am wrong and don't understand. Help us understand.

FWD would generally be superior on a wet course - and if you are going to point out some situation with an exceptionally well prepared and well driven RWD car that is fine and the same condition would exist against an AWD car. Where is the competitive history and evidence that AWD would somehow in a large way reshape condition competitiveness?

This place is worse than social politics - one side is widely accpeted to loudly voice their view but if the other side espouses their own watch out, that isn't appropriate.

[16v]

Originally posted by Bildon@Oct 7 2005, 12:02 AM
But the Corrado Storm (2.9L) which is what we run (+.040) made the same 190hp. Point is...the Audi was too heavy.

when did the we get the 2.9? ;)

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Bildon@Oct 7 2005, 12:02 AM
Shhhhhh B)
Yah the Audi made ~190 not 172. I was just copying what he'd written. But the Corrado Storm (2.9L) which is what we run (+.040) made the same 190hp. Point is...the Audi was too heavy.

Passat ITS car :blink: hmmmmmm :D

62003


Bill,

Wasn't the Corrado Storm a UK-only model? I haven't been able to find anything about them being sold in the US, nor have I found any US cars w/ a 2.9.

[Greg Amy]

Do a 1mm overbore on the Corrado engine (2.792L - "2.8L") and you get 2.861L ("2.9L"). - GA

[Eric Parham]

I believe that Bill (Bildon) was simply referring to the 0.040 pistons, which are allowed in IT and make the overbored engine into a "2.9". It's just nice that the 0.040 pistons are readily available for this application due to the fact that VW actually built the UK Storm models with those pistons. Otherwise, one would have to search for identical aftermarket 0.040 pistons, which isn't always as easy or inexpensive.

[Bill Miller]

Yep, wasn't sure if that's what he meant, or that they were running the 2.9 AND +.040. And yep, it's handy to have the +.040 pistons be stock ones for another motor.

[Bildon]

Glad you guys figured that all out on your own :P

[Spinnetti]

Originally posted by benspeed@Oct 6 2005, 01:55 PM
Going through the GCR and thinking about what might be a cool car to run in ITS. I got to thinking about an Audi A4 2.8 Quattro. Stock this car makes 172 HP and weighs 3228 lbs. Normally aspirated.

This might be a very fun car to run in ITS and I'm curious to hear what others would think. I've been able to find decent examples for about $5K - not unlike the cost of an E36 tub.

This would make for some very cool replays of World Challenge from a few years ago. Give that Audi for any rain race B)
looking at years 1996-1999 B5 model.

So whaddyall think?

Cheers,

Ben

61925


It would have to be the 'front track' car.. awd is not allowed...

I think it would be mighty tough on both front tires and brakes, and the motor is not Audi's best...

I had the B5 and currently drive the B6 (modded of course), but I wouldn't take it on the track! - you'd get killed by the 325

[Andy Bettencourt]

So much to comment on here:

The Audi RS6 is classed at 3200lbs and the Z06 is at 2950 IIRC for Speed WC. Think there is a difference between AWD and others?



but I think that if you look up some of the results from the this past season with the T2 Subaru's or any other series including the Speed Touring GT cars that a "good driver" can drive any configured car to a victory in the dry or the wet.


I just don't think this could be true. Apples to apples across the board, I just don't buy it.



Any car with the HP that IT cars have wouldn't get an advantage with AWD IMO. Same goes with the debate of FWD and RWD. RWD cars school FWD cars all the time with good drivers and good tires, as do FWD cars school RWD cars provided they have good drivers and good tires.


This thread was started about an car that would fit into ITS...Over 200 hp at the crank is MORE than enough to spin the tires. Crips, you can spin the tires in an ITS RX-7 in tight stuff with a Torsen and 128 ft/lbs of torque.

I have a hard time beleiving that those proponents of AWD don't think, even a little, that there is an advantage. This is all just for the good of the class right?


Raymond "another vote here to lift the ban, without penalty" Blethen


So you think that an AWD car, everthing else being equal should weight the same as a FWD or a RWD car?


Also everyone jumps on the supposedly abundantly clear wet advantage - but conveniently neglect the inherent drive train penalty. The cars would 1) be rated on brake hp and toque as if their drive train loss were equivelant and 2) then be awarded a 100# weight penalty on top of the wt/power determination. Every formula used by everyone that allows AWD already penalizes both sides of the equation - they add more weight than they would for RWD or FWD on top of a weight that was calculated incorrectly on power output if you were to consider power that actually reaches the ground.


Ed, this is your incorrect assumption. Who neglected anything? We haven't even done the excersize of classing one yet. I refer to my first statement. Why is Speed GT is the Audi so much heavier than the Z06? Traction. The same traction that might be equivilant to IT cars in the rain? Drizzle? Insert your track condition here.


But members have posted here the manner of their thinking in classing recently and they have only talked about brake hp and maybe another consideration or two but never has consideration for efficiency of one drivetrain vs another been mentioned.


You don't read enough of the BB. We most CERTAINLY take into account WHP when we have it. In the case of new classifications, we estimate crank HP. In the case of developed cars, we compare known dyno numbers to our crank estimates to see if they fall into the same ballpark. Heck, we even talk to engine builder whose crank numbers we know and THEN see dyno results for the same motors...we take into account all those factors.


It is already evident in last year's classing of the STi in T1 - I have never seen a car so blatently overclassed by the SCCA before. Sure they corrected it - but the initial response illustrates the absolute fear of the unknown with which new things are brought into the process.


And what is so wrong with this? Don't we owe it to our membership to enter into the unknown cautiously without wrecking established classes? They FIXED IT? Oh the horror!!! This isn't an issue with dry racing. I think that AWD is an advantage in the dry, but not so much so that it shouldn't be anything more than just another 'adder' we take into account like RWD, double wishbones, aero, etc. It's an issue of creating a class killer in the wet.

Submit to us your data that shows that AWD ISN'T superior to FWD or RWD in the wet. To me it's OBVIOUS it is. How can we reasonable assume it isn't? How come the fastest Rally cars aren't FWD or RWD?



This place is worse than social politics - one side is widely accpeted to loudly voice their view but if the other side espouses their own watch out, that isn't appropriate.


Plllease. Disagreeing is way different that it not being appropriate to voice your opinion. My only beef that you critisize the 'traditional thinking' - without providing any data to prove otherwise.

Let's turn this thing around. Where can we find data that sheds some light on this. I will contact SCCA and ask them what the current thoughts are on AWD - and the 'penalties' for running such a configuration.

Let's start with those 'other organizations'...

USTCC:

A4 AWD 1.8T: 2680
Subaru RS: 2600lbs
GTI VR6: 2450
Acura RSX: 2380
2006 Civic Si: 2380

No penalty for AWD? The RS Subaru is 165HP. It has to weigh just 50lbs less than an E36 325 Bimmer (2650) with 24 less stock HP? Do I see a trend?

Lets hear from the 'it's no advantage' crowd. FWIW, the engine allowances for the above class are a LITTLE more restrictive than IT so power levels can be compared generally IMHO.

Seriously, educate us. If we are wrong, it could only add cars to IT, and that is never a bad thing - as long as they don't upset the balance of a class.

AB

[turboICE]

I would say that an expectation that one side provide more support than the other side is expected to show is a fair enough indication that my feeling is not unwarranted.

I never said there was NO advantage. I said that the advantage is usually overrated with only its advantages listed as the reason for penalty and no one who ever classes it brings up its inherent disadvantages of weight and drive train loss. And I have not seen WHP mentioned in any classing discussions that have been made public. My concerns are the awarding of high weight penalties solely based on the benefits of AWD without anyone ever having mentioned that they understood the costs of it.

Rally isn't comparable as it is dealing with loose surfaces which is not the same as a wet tarmac.

Not directly comparable due to USTCC REWARDS weight system, but OK we can discuss an existing program where there is AWD history. USTCC uses an exact brake HP, torque ratio to come up with weight and a bonus weight of 50# for AWD. They do not explicitly consider the costs of AWD traction (or any drivetrain power efficiency of any car) though I believe by settling on 50# they actually have considered it. 50# is significantly less weight penalty than has been discussed on other threads on this topic and definitely couldn't have been the adjustment to the power/weight when the STi got tossed into T1. All indications to me was that the impression was the benefit had to be much more than 50#. Because I actually doubt that the STi was put there with an expectation that it had no hope of competing just to see how it did. Of course they adjusted it, did they have any choice? But at a cost and frustration to attracting those who are or could be new members. Despite the frustrations with many of the processes and more the results, I believe the SCCA tries to act in good faith so the classing wouldn't have been a lets put it in way over its head. I think it is more likely that AWD was considered as being some sort of far superior advantage - one that is more than it actually is.

If the ban is lifted and if the ITAC awards 50# for AWD over other considerations normally given, rather than the 100+ discussed frequently before I would think that was a pretty fair consideration. The tone has been that I suspect there would be a desire to add a lot more than 50#.

If membership participation and size is a goal, then fairness to all members should be the mantra - not preferential defense of entrenched ones. A lot of talk about classing can't harm existing cars by the creation of class killers on AWD, but the consideration given is more than the benefit that would be brought to the track IMO. And by all appearance a completely different tack was taken with the Miata where its advantages were recently glossed over IMO rather than penalized in weight and the most telling indication to me was one of the listed reasons for the recent decision - "why not give it a place to run." Why not give all member's desires the same consideration?

Has anyone followed up to see how many of those free memberships given to Subaru purchasers for a few years actually renewed? Has anyone asked why? I don't know the numbers but I do know the Subaru boards are full of people who said no way am I paying to be in the SCCA based on how they felt they were treated at regional autocross and how inaccessible getting on track was to them relative to other organizations.

Yeah I know that if AWD is ever classed in IT that the ITAC will eventually get to the right answer (if I didn't think that the SCCA can't ever get to the right answer I wouldn't be here) but I also don't want to see the right answer arrived at from a way far off initial answer. If the approach and attitude taken to class AWD was close to the public answers given for the recent Miata classing I think that would actually be more than I would hope for - but something closer to that than what has been espoused in AWD threads would be comforting.

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

I hear what you're saying, and I think the concerns are very valid. As an excercise, where would the FWD versions of the B5-platform Audi A4/VW Passat w/ the 2.8 V6 fall, weight wise, in ITS? Stock hp is 190, IIRC.

[Andy Bettencourt]

190hp is at the very upper end of ITS. Remember, the E36 325 has 189 and the 944S has 188. Both respond very differently to IT prep however...

3150ish? Too heavy for anyone to build one really...but the power is just outside the envelope...

The early car at 172...could/should be right around the VR6 cars at 2700 (maybe a little light but...)

AB

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by turboICE@Oct 10 2005, 06:33 AM
If the ban is lifted and if the ITAC awards 50# for AWD over other considerations normally given, rather than the 100+ discussed frequently before I would think that was a pretty fair consideration. The tone has been that I suspect there would be a desire to add a lot more than 50#.

Maybe we are talking about two differnt things. I think that classing AWD for dry-only is something could happen in a second and the 'penalty' would be nominal. The issue is wet weather racing. Is it the RIGHT thing for club racing to create Regional classes that are weather dependent? The STi and the Evo are immensly popular in Solo 2, and especially Pro Solo. When it rains at the Solo 2 Nationals, the game is over. So much so in fact that there has been controversy in the recent past over drivers switching cars due to weather conditions - a "mecahnical"? You make the call.


If membership participation and size is a goal, then fairness to all members should be the mantra - not preferential defense of entrenched ones. A lot of talk about classing can't harm existing cars by the creation of class killers on AWD, but the consideration given is more than the benefit that would be brought to the track IMO. And by all appearance a completely different tack was taken with the Miata where its advantages were recently glossed over IMO rather than penalized in weight and the most telling indication to me was one of the listed reasons for the recent decision - "why not give it a place to run." Why not give all member's desires the same consideration?

I disagree. First off, we don't know how many MEMBERS want AWD in IT. Maybe we should put it out for member comment. My sense is that the CURRENT membership sees no need for a potential headache. If you class the car so it can run faily in the dry, and it is a class killer in the wet, have you searved the membership in that class? No. I say you have just created 'the car to have'...and that is a bad this. Having said that, I DO NOT know the true effects of AWD vs FWD vs RWD in the wet, but my experience has shown it to be substantial. I would like to see data to the contrary.

Second, The Miata fits the process. We received some letters quoting 133hp. That was for the 96-97 car not on the list yet. 128hp was the peak for the 94-95 cars. The same consideration has been made in the past for other cars that have significant current logbooks that were not classed competitively and have been finding other homes. It's not SPECIAL consideration mind you, just focused consideration with a goal. Member retention and development. What sepcific 'glossing' over do you speak of? It should be a very viable choice in ITA but the fact remains you will have to do 100% prep in order to run with well developed 240SX's, Integras and CRX's.


Has anyone followed up to see how many of those free memberships given to Subaru purchasers for a few years actually renewed? Has anyone asked why? I don't know the numbers but I do know the Subaru boards are full of people who said no way am I paying to be in the SCCA based on how they felt they were treated at regional autocross and how inaccessible getting on track was to them relative to other organizations.

As a matter of fact, I have PERSONALLY. Last year, I had a AWD driver in our Region put a poll out on the Subaru site. It was part of the SCCA's 'Retention Program'. Very limited amounts - and I say VERY limited amounts of owners were renewing. Why? The VALUE wasn't there for them at the time. Solo 2 didn't provide enough track time for that demographic, Road Racing was way to much of a step for a brand new car, Rally was going to mess up the condition, etc. You do see however, that with the new prorams SCCA has launched over the past year - the time trialing, etc - is targeted at this PDA-type crowd. How they were treated? Is that from a philisphical classing persepctive or on a personal level? Autocross has GREAT places for AWD to run...but if it's truely HOW they were treated, it's a REGIONAL problem, not an SCCA problem.


Yeah I know that if AWD is ever classed in IT that the ITAC will eventually get to the right answer (if I didn't think that the SCCA can't ever get to the right answer I wouldn't be here) but I also don't want to see the right answer arrived at from a way far off initial answer. If the approach and attitude taken to class AWD was close to the public answers given for the recent Miata classing I think that would actually be more than I would hope for - but something closer to that than what has been espoused in AWD threads would be comforting.

62180


While I agree with you in principle, the Miata has no unknowns. It will either be classed right or wrong, same as the myriad of other changes we have made in the past 2 years (using the same PROCESS that has corrected many a misclassed car, creating no instant overdogs) If wrong, the CRB can add restrictions to slow it down. AWD is a whole different animal IMHO because the issues are weather related.

Botom line? Let's find out what the membership wants - and if they want it, we will make it work - and the membership that asked for it will live with the unintended conciquenses, should there be any.

AB

[benspeed]

Well, after we put the car into IT trim with exhaust, intake and a full tune we were able to get the car to dyno at 225 HP.









(only messing with ya...) ;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by benspeed@Oct 10 2005, 11:42 AM
Well, after we put the car into IT trim with exhaust, intake and a full tune we were able to get the car to dyno at 225 HP.
(only messing with ya...) ;)

62204

...and the next time your car comes into our shop...maybe it won't leave faster than it came in!!!

:P :P :P :P :P

[benspeed]

Uh Oh! That flatout power reduction equals cash diminishment. :D

More power = more cash = more power = :smilie_pokal:

(And I want my Audi in the trailer just in case it rains!)

[Bildon]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 10 2005, 02:59 AM
Let's start with those 'other organizations'...
USTCC:
A4 AWD 1.8T: 2680
Subaru RS: 2600lbs
GTI VR6: 2450
Acura RSX: 2380
2006 Civic Si: 2380

62179


Careful. The USTCC allows these cars MANY different ways to equalize and that means these weights are not close to the whole picture. I know what Erickson's USTCC GTI is allowed to have in it..and it's a lot more than in WC for example.

http://www.bildon.com/pub/erickson_brett_car.jpg

[Bill Miller]

Yep, those don't look like stock front brakes!! :P

[turboICE]

I think his point was that from a power base perspective they are limited absent a car specific allowance. There is a lot more nonpower mods permitted in various forms. They also allow turbos and use restrictors to avoid for instance requiring Evo's to have to carry 3,800# and STi's 4,100#.

I do think as a basis for discussion about how others currently deal with AWD was fair enough.

But the thing is with the REWARDS weight they run that changes thing somewhat because if a mistake is made in classing or if a condition advantage is experienced the specific car carries additional weight into the next race - so the effect is immediate. That is the part that makes a big difference they don't have to get as close to right initially as we all expect the ITAC to (fairly or not).

[RSTPerformance]

My ITB 1984 Audi Coupe (Basically a 4000) will be faster than a 1984 4000 quattro in the dry if they weigh the same amount.

Why because the loss of power to power all 4 wheels! That is the difference that makes up for having the equal weight. There is no way that if they weigh the same that the AWD version will be as fast. with 120HP the extra drive train will definetly make you slower.

As far as the A4's I'm not sure??

I do think the AWD does help when you have poor conditions... downpoor/standing water. other than that the AWD is no advantage.


Stephen Blethen

[Bildon]

Originally posted by turboICE@Oct 10 2005, 10:22 PM
I think his point was that from a power base perspective they are limited absent a car specific allowance. There is a lot more nonpower mods permitted in various forms.

62254

USTCC allows extensive engine mods for some cars. The Golf for example has extensive changes that I probably shouldn't post here without the owners permission.
USTCC is all about the show. Rules creep and cheating are not as much of a concern with them. You are correct that weight is used a lot to control 'breakaway' cars that become obviously superior.

[Bildon]

>>> other than that the AWD is no advantage.

Stephen do you run an LSD ?

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance@Oct 12 2005, 08:21 AM
I do think the AWD does help when you have poor conditions... downpoor/standing water. other than that the AWD is no advantage.

62388


Having seen some miraculous saves made without even a loss of momentum and some rather aggressive passes made with two wheels in the dirt while accelerating around turns I wouldn't say it doesn't offer any other advantages. The fact is water isn't only condition that causes poor traction. And while overly agressive moves through the grass aren't common, they get to be more so when 4 wheels are putting power down. If you don't believe me watch the T2 Subaru's.

I'm all for careful consideration of this, but if it really wasn't an advantage then why do people want to run them when there are 2wd models available?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Oct 12 2005, 04:40 PM


I'm all for careful consideration of this, but if it really wasn't an advantage then why do people want to run them when there are 2wd models available?

62453


:happy204:

AB

[turboICE]

There are no viable 2wd Subarus. All models have been AWD for years. And the early 90's FWD models aren't good candidates for racing (They were merely de-AWD trans and a bad choice to lower the sales price) and have no developed competition parts.

I like Subaru, I drive Subaru - if it wasn't for Subaru I wouldn't be here. The WRX brought me back to autocrossing and going to track days.

And I am still trying to figure out who said there was no advantage?

As being discussed in Nov Fastrack thread - weight does matter and the difference between a 50# and 100+# weight to consider that advantage is a big deal. And the suggested advantage when translating a weight penalty into HP is not there when talking about adding over 50#.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The issue for me still remains that we aren't adressing. If the 50lbs is added for AWD as some AWD advocates have suggested, that may prove to be a good 'adder' for the technology but what about the fact that they would dominate in the rain?

So again, if you make them competitive in the dry and dominant in the wet, then they become the car to have. No?

AB

[turboICE]

Where have they dominated in the rain? Rains didn't help them in T1 - it was said that the only way they would have won in T1 was if it snowed - where was the "killer" advantage? How was this concern addressed in classing AWD in Touring and SS?

Is there a belief that AWD will not be coming to IT? Has the SCCA ever left their Touring and SS cars hanging out in the wind after their fifth year?

They will be coming IMO and there is no reason not to start thinking how to deal with it now rather than then. Can't those that deal with T/SS classing help the ITAC consider the effects?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by turboICE@Oct 13 2005, 08:21 AM


And I am still trying to figure out who said there was no advantage?



62516


Ray writes:


Whenever Audi has dominated with the AWD it has been on both wet and dry surfaces, and I don't think it is fair to say that AWD would give an advantage... Any car with the HP that IT cars have wouldn't get an advantage with AWD IMO. Same goes with the debate of FWD and RWD. RWD cars school FWD cars all the time with good drivers and good tires, as do FWD cars school RWD cars provided they have good drivers and good tires.

Raymond "another vote here to lift the ban, without penalty" Blethen


And YOU write:


Also everyone jumps on the supposedly abundantly clear wet advantage - but conveniently neglect the inherent drive train penalty. The cars would 1) be rated on brake hp and toque as if their drive train loss were equivelant and 2) then be awarded a 100# weight penalty on top of the wt/power determination. Every formula used by everyone that allows AWD already penalizes both sides of the equation - they add more weight than they would for RWD or FWD on top of a weight that was calculated incorrectly on power output if you were to consider power that actually reaches the ground.


There is such an unsupported perceived AWD advantage that those who think AWD should even be considered have said sure but only as long as their is a huge weight penalty.


Where is the competitive history and evidence that AWD would somehow in a large way reshape condition competitiveness?

Sure seems like you are arguing that AWD isn't a factor to me. You do however say later:


I never said there was NO advantage. I said that the advantage is usually overrated with only its advantages listed as the reason for penalty and no one who ever classes it brings up its inherent disadvantages of weight and drive train loss.

See my post above. To me, the issue isn't dry competitivness, it's wet dominance at DC weights.

AB

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by turboICE@Oct 13 2005, 08:35 AM
Where have they dominated in the rain? Rains didn't help them in T1 - it was said that the only way they would have won in T1 was if it snowed - where was the "killer" advantage? How was this concern addressed in classing AWD in Touring and SS?

Is there a belief that AWD will not be coming to IT? Has the SCCA ever left their Touring and SS cars hanging out in the wind after their fifth year?

They will be coming IMO and there is no reason not to start thinking how to deal with it now rather than then. Can't those that deal with T/SS classing help the ITAC consider the effects?

62520


The T1 and T2 cars right now you speak of have 2 MAJOR issues in coming to IT. They are TURBO and AWD - both not allowed in IT - oh ya, and they are WAY TO FAST for IT.

AB

[turboICE]

Note the several qualifications as to where was the larger advantage that was being suggested - none of those were to suggest no advantage only that it was not as large as perceived.

When I say what wet advantage I mean what wet advantage in excess of 50# competitive adjustment weight. That somehow the 50# hasn't addressed the balance of all its advantages and costs? I don't think 50# is a dry competitiveness adjustment. 50# is the balance of all conditions adjustment.

Due to drive train loss a dry only adjustment would likely be to reduce weight not add it.

My point is I think your concern has already been met by those who have classed these cars ahead of the IT process. And the determination in general (not knowing the weight considered in T2 classing) has been 50# adjust competitiveness through all conditions. No where has the adjustment made been qualified as a dry adjustment.

Are we to somehow believe that the competiveness of existing cars don't have condition advantages? That somehow all the cars out their now perform the same realtive to each other when they change tracks, when they change temperature, when they change weather conditions? There are cars that do relatively better in differing track conditions now and those that do relatively worse. The situation exists already. I assume that the process used in classing is an all condition process - I wan't aware that the ITAC process only considered dry conditions in classing and adjusting.

I was speaking of Touring and SS. No none of the current Touring cars would fit within the IT performance profile and it is not AWD that is keeping them out - they equally don't fit the profile.

SSB in February:


2. Classify 04-05 Subaru Impreza (Non-Turbo)
Add new spec line to SSS p. 45. Subaru Impreza (Non-Turbo), 04-05. Bore(mm) x
Stroke(mm) / Displ.(cc): 99.5 x 79 / 2457, Comp Ratio: 10.0, Wheelbase(mm): 2524.8, Track F & R(mm): 1485.9(F) 1480.8®, Wheel size(in.): 16 x 6.5(F) 16 x 6.5®, Tire size: 205/55(F) 205/55®, Gear ratios: 3.45, 2.06, 1.45, 1.09, .78, Final Drive: 4.11 Brakes(mm): 274.3 vented disc(F) 261.6 solid disc®, Weight (lbs.): 3090.

That is the current generation of the same Impreza that I want classed in IT for the 98-00 MY's - Will that car that is classed in SSB now not be welcome here? I think anyone looking at that SSB car should have some expectation of where they will be welcome in 2009 or at least it should be made abundantly clear to them where they won't be welcome.

[turboICE]

And come to think of it whatever the Touring weight adjustments the SS level ones should be less, because the more powerful engines lose less absolute power to the ground than the less powerful engines. So I think you would find that starting with the weight adjustment being given the turbo engines of 50# would be a conservative starting point. I think experience with the NA motors after that point will show that they suffer more from the drive train loss than they gain in traction. In a balance of conditions adjustment 50# may still end up heavy but that is a much more reasonable starting point than 100+#.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So if I read you right, and you were King for a day, you would run the Impreza RS through the current process WITHOUT ANY additional weight. This is primarily due to additional parasitic losses in power that you submit make up for the small advantage AWD would provide.

164hp stock, correct?

AB

[robits325is]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 13 2005, 11:21 AM
So if I read you right, and you were King for a day, you would run the Impreza RS through the current process WITHOUT ANY additional weight. This is primarily due to additional parasitic losses in power that you submit make up for the small advantage AWD would provide.

164hp stock, correct?

AB

62539


What is the current process?

[RSTPerformance]

Andy-

Does the ITAC penalize FWD cars in ITA and ITS just for being FWD and having a "wet" advantage over the RWD cars??? Is that the reason they are so overweight and uncompeditive???

Ok that statement is exadurated, but on purpose... When it rains everyone with FWD gets excited cause just about EVERYONE feels that FWD has an advantage in the rain. I personally have never herd of cars getting a penalty for having an advantage in a certain condition of the track.

While I don't disagree with the concern, I do think that it is something that you and many others worry to much about. This is Regional Racing, we are here to have fun... Ther are many many Automobile enthusiests whome prefer AWD (or are only interested in AWD simply because of the slight chance of a "rain" advantage"). I personally think for the value of increasing membership and opening the sport (or class) up to yet another facinating group of cars that the ITAC should make an effort at classing AWD cars such as The Subaru's and the Audi's.

Remember:

1) How many rain races might someone that never wins get a chance at winning???

2) Lap records wont be broken in the rain because of the advantage... wort case senario someone else wins a race...

Raymond "its so not "cool" to have a FWD Audi, trust me we get the look everytime we tell someone at the gas station, Nope they are FWD" Blethen

[RSTPerformance]

Bildon....
Yes we do run a quaffe in our cars. good for 1.5 to 2 seconds a lap.

Stephen

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by turboICE@Oct 13 2005, 08:35 AM
...the only way they would have won in T1 was if it snowed...
62520


Which, if one were to review history, is no guarantee. John Heinricy lapped the entire field a few years ago in the rain on his way to winning the Runoffs - in a Corvette. The point is, saying that AWD is no advantage while pointing to T1 as an example is a red herring.


Has the SCCA ever left their Touring and SS cars hanging out in the wind after their fifth year?

Absolutely, and consistently. Lots of cars were removed from Showroom Stock GT over the years (e.g., Corvette, Porsche 951) for being too fast; a direct result was the Corvette Challenge. SSGT cars never had a place to play in SCCA after SS eligibility; the result was a Regional-only class, American Sedan.

Starting some time in the late 80's turbocharged cars were allowed in SSA, and were never classified in IT afterwards. None (that I can think of) of the SSGT and a lot of the SSA cars were ever classfied in IT after their useful lives in Showroom Stock. The general rule of thumb back then was SSA->ITS, SSB->ITA, SSC->ITB, and the older and slower SSC cars-> ITC. So, there is certainly no precedence within SCCA that vehicles are guaranteed a place to play after SS/T racing.

That said, I have personal direct experience with FWD versus AWD: the IMSA Firehwak series of the late 80's/early 90's. The FWD Talon was much preferred over the AWD car simply because of the weight disparity. I don't recall exactly what the weights were, but I seem to recall that the AWD car weighed about 300# more, primarily due to the extra hardware. The only time anyone ever used the AWD car was during the rain (Team Rossi had one around), but most didn't bother. - GA

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 13 2005, 11:21 AM
So if I read you right, and you were King for a day, you would run the Impreza RS through the current process WITHOUT ANY additional weight. This is primarily due to additional parasitic losses in power that you submit make up for the small advantage AWD would provide.

164hp stock, correct?

AB

62539

I think OEM for 98-00 was 165 HP and 166 torque. (and think it was through possibly 2005 even, 2006 is 173 HP)

Not exactly since I believe the club should be ran fairly and with some tendency towards consensus (majority if consensus can't be reached) so no I would not want my thoughts put into action without agreement.

You aren't reading me right - I would like to see the RS classed and believe a 50# weight over other considerations be the initial starting point as there is basis elsewhere for it. I suspect that at the lower power levels of the NA motors that the drive train loss impact will be greater and that in a few years the amount may turn out lower as an overall competitive adjustment. The at the ground impact of the drivetrain from a 300 torque STi compared to the relative loss at 166 torque is going to be different - but would want direct experience for the ITAC to consider that. The ability to deliver the STi torque to all four wheels is definitely an advantage but it is one that has been thus far considered to be worth 50#. Should the ability to deliver 166 torque at a higher percentage or torque loss be penalized more? Again this is not knowing what penalty actually was applied by the SCCA in T/SS since it is not as publicized as the other classing we have to work with and reference. But I assume that it would be available to the ITAC.

The 2.5 RS coupe is a great handling fun to drive car that I would like to take W2W at some point. I have no expectations to stand on any podiums in it primarily because of my own driver skill and I don't want to see the car classed to make up for that lack or to allow someone else an unfair advantage. But at the same time I don't want what I desire to be a fun experience racing with others mid-pack to be frustrated by getting run over by my own class. With my butt in the driver seat it may not even with IT permitted modifcation be able to come down to the weight I think is fair - but I would like to know that at least there is a target to shoot for.

My first desire is to see it classed, my second desire is that it not be ran over, my third desire would be that someone who put in the time and effort to fully develop it be given the same opportunity to compete on a level playing field with others that has been discussed in other threads.

For me this isn't solely an AWD issue - for me it is a Subaru issue, which just so happens to only be available in AWD. I don't want more or less consideration than any other member - but to the extent it is feasible to give the same consideration I would find that desirable. If there is some sort of consensus that the membership would be hurt or detrimented by the desire, then that is the conclusion and I will keep campaigning the 240SX until it isn't fun anymore, then I will find something else. As it is, everyone I came up through HPDEs with (in Subarus) is racing Hondas with the same group that allowed us to gain track experience in those Subarus and they won't come to SCCA events with me. They would fit the Subarus in a class somewhere for us - but it would be in classes with not much to race with at the IT level of preparation. I have the same frustration elsewhere. The only clear place that I could definitely run the RS with in good competition is with EMRA because it is classed there instead of "fit" in. I like them and their events - but I want to run in the SCCA as well. The nice thing is if it is classed in SCCA then I can still go to NASA events and it will automatically be classed in PS the way I do currently with my 240SX. The idea of being "fit" in isn't appeling to me either and neither is the option of ITE which if I asked I suspect most regions would let the RS run in.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance+Oct 13 2005, 12:16 PM-->
Most Subaru and Audi enthusiast that would like to start racing cannot because they want to run AWD. I would argue that there are far more Audi and Subaru enthusiests than Miata enthusiests. I've never seen numbers for the Audi Club, miata club or the Subaru Club but as seen by the miatas, tapping into cars that people like helps SCCA and our club to bring in new drivers.
62547
[/b]

I am in no position to guarantee the year classed a bunch of people would show up primarily because a lot felt excluded and gave up so they are not in a development position or because they have done as I have and invested in other cars to campaign.

And by no means would Subaru ever be a Miata type of contribution to the club - though I suspect that most that race Miatas do so for reasons other than enthusiasm for that particular car - their attractiveness is to a lot of people who want to race a certain way with certain known variables - this isn't a bunch of Miata fans I don't think. They like the series.

The production numbers for Subarus aren't huge - but those who do buy them are much more likely to be brand enthusiasts. And among those brand enthusiasts are people who love motorsports in high percentages. I take my STi out to watch the Pikes Peak International Hill Climb and get swamped with people who own other Subarus - they love their brand. So I think overall even with low production numbers the percentage of owners who would be attractive to the SCCA as members is larger and I am sure that is no small part for whatever the source of the free member ships to the SSCA were (not sure if it was a Subaru or SCCA initiative).

Current membership in the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club (NASIOC) is 88,818 - and that is just one site.

<!--QuoteBegin-GregAmy@Oct 13 2005, 12:21 PM
Which, if one were to review history, is no guarantee. John Heinricy lapped the entire field a few years ago in the rain on his way to winning the Runoffs - in a Corvette. The point is, saying that AWD is no advantage while pointing to T1 as an example is a red herring.
Absolutely, and consistently. Lots of cars were removed from Showroom Stock GT over the years (e.g., Corvette, Porsche 951) for being too fast; a direct result was the Corvette Challenge. SSGT cars never had a place to play in SCCA after SS eligibility; the result was a Regional-only class, American Sedan.

Starting some time in the late 80&#39;s turbocharged cars were allowed in SSA, and were never classified in IT afterwards. None (that I can think of) of the SSGT and a lot of the SSA cars were ever classfied in IT after their useful lives in Showroom Stock. The general rule of thumb back then was SSA->ITS, SSB->ITA, SSC->ITB, and the older and slower SSC cars-> ITC. So, there is certainly no precedence within SCCA that vehicles are guaranteed a place to play after SS/T racing.

That said, I have personal direct experience with FWD versus AWD: the IMSA Firehwak series of the late 80&#39;s/early 90&#39;s. The FWD Talon was much preferred over the AWD car simply because of the weight disparity. I don&#39;t recall exactly what the weights were, but I seem to recall that the AWD car weighed about 300# more, primarily due to the extra hardware. The only time anyone ever used the AWD car was during the rain (Team Rossi had one around), but most didn&#39;t bother. - GA

62549


Again I go back to the inverse relationship between membership number (assuming SCCA membership numbers are issued in series) and member knowledge! Thanks for the insight Greg. Being made aware of history helps me appreciate the current conditions more.

Though again I am not trying to get my current daily driven STi or my prior track day abused STi classed in IT. My assumption is that the SCCA doesn&#39;t have any intent to step up a piece of IT to that level (and I have no opinion on if they should or not other than I like the price point of ITA racing), rather I assume that T1/2/3 cars are more likely to have to turn to new Production classes when the time comes. I don&#39;t think the STi and Evo are going to fall out of club racing when they reach 5 years old, but IT for any of the cars over the ITS max isn&#39;t what I am after.

And he raises another item to consider - there is no guarantee in IT trim an AWD model could even get down to its weight. AWD cars are HEAVY, heavier than their 2WD equivalents (when they exist) by a large margin over 50#. And that is not an ITAC issue as I see it - that is a car choice and development issue that is a simple fact for some cars and if it turned out to be the case for me as well then I would live with that. But I would want the target to be fair.

[Bildon]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance@Oct 13 2005, 12:16 PM
Bildon....
Yes we do run a quaffe in our cars. good for 1.5 to 2 seconds a lap.

62547
[/b]

1-2 seconds...So you don&#39;t think adding more diffs to an AWD car is worth 3 to 4 seconds? I&#39;m just kidding :P

I think we&#39;re all getting into the std I&#39;m worried about my future argument here. The guys who are currently racing and especially those who are competitive get all worried that some car is going to come along and blow everyone away. Well that can happen no matter what the drivetrain layout is. a la E36 BMW 325is ...

Instead of speculate about whether RWD is better in the dry and FWD, AWD is better in the rain and who&#39;s going to steal my trophy :unsure: ...why don&#39;t we just go about trying to be as INCLUSIVE as we can as a club and then deal with the differences. This club has to stop chasing away newer and different cars or we&#39;re going to be as bad as the Spridget whiners are in Prod ! :bash_1_: And NASA will keep growing and growing.

We&#39;re a generally smart bunch of folks, and we all like cars. ALL CARS.... so shouldn&#39;t we be talking about HOW instead of IF ????

[RSTPerformance]

"Instead of speculate about whether RWD is better in the dry and FWD, AWD is better in the rain and who&#39;s going to steal my trophy ...why don&#39;t we just go about trying to be as INCLUSIVE as we can as a club and then deal with the differences. This club has to stop chasing away newer and different cars or we&#39;re going to be as bad as the Spridget whiners are in Prod ! And NASA will keep growing and growing.

We&#39;re a generally smart bunch of folks, and we all like cars. ALL CARS.... so shouldn&#39;t we be talking about HOW instead of IF ????"



Well said Bill!!!

Andy- Tell us how to get you all to feel the same as Bill...


Raymond "nothing further to say :happy204: " Blethen

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bildon@Oct 13 2005, 01:06 PM


We&#39;re a generally smart bunch of folks, and we all like cars. ALL CARS.... so shouldn&#39;t we be talking about HOW instead of IF ????

62559


So let&#39;s do it...let&#39;s hear from those who want AWD in...how should they be classed?

AB

[RSTPerformance]

I think that they should be treated the same as a FWD or RWD cars are treated when making the classifications... If the powers that be feel thier is an advantage, change weights accordingly... Its no different than any other car.

If people don&#39;t race them cause they don&#39;t think they can win... well then those people might be racing for the wrong reasons anyhow and/or I think the car needs to be looked at to see if it was classed wrong or not, but any start would be a good start IMO

Raymond

[benspeed]

Well - this was an awesome thread, but I sold the friggin car. Figured the A4 was not going to be classed competitively...

Looks like 2007 will be a T2 STi :happy204: (or put the Boxster in T3 and then I&#39;m sold for that deal).

And anybody who doesn&#39;t think AWD would be a killer advantage in the wet or dry is on crack or never drove one hard. You can save the most bonehead moves, power around corners and just have beautiful traction everywhere. Four wheel drift to your hearts content and then step on it, point and shoot.

Why would I consider turining in my RX7 for an A4 - killer advantage - Andy knows me too well and called it throughout the thread.

BUT - I bet this discussion will continue because the A4 is a good fit for ITS and might shake things up. I still have the request in to Kansas so we&#39;ll see what they say.

I also wonder about the speculation of moving SSB/C to T4/T5 or some variant. It would be nice to see that once those cars are ready for IT that some logical progression was thought of.

Greg Amy pointed out that in the past that hasn&#39;t been the case - we might want to see what we can do to change that.


So - who thinks I shoulda kept the A4???

Cheers,

[robits325is]

I&#39;m all for the 96-7 Audi A4 2.8Q at 2,900lbs - it would be a great car for Ben to keep in his trailer next to his mini quad.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by benspeed@Oct 13 2005, 03:03 PM
And anybody who doesn&#39;t think AWD would be a killer advantage in the wet or dry is on crack or never drove one hard. You can save the most bonehead moves, power around corners and just have beautiful traction everywhere. Four wheel drift to your hearts content and then step on it, point and shoot.
62573

Well I don&#39;t do drugs but killer advantage with proper consideration in classing I doubt.

Good drivers save bonehead moves all the time in all types of cars, there are also ways to lose it with AWD if you get on it wrong in a bad situation.

They also have a tendency to be murder on brakes and the OEM brakes are usually not up to hauling down the car nearly as fast as its 2WD brethren. Using OEM calipers you are going to lose braking contests all day long to many others, especially when you start throwing in weight. Besides part of the point and shoot also comes from they turn in terribly which means you are going in the turn slower. So point and shoot works great with 300 ft.lbs. of torque even after having slown more than a 2wd to turn in - but with 166 ft. lbs. the shoot isn&#39;t nearly as effective going to four wheels. Yeah you are pulling the trigger but you haven&#39;t been shot out. And you lose a lot of the ability to throttle steer at those NA torque numbers as well. My 240SX turns in better, throttle steers better and is only slightly later on the throttle.

At IT power levels sure there is an advantage in certain conditions and at certain points on the track but under all conditions and for all considerations it isn&#39;t a killer one. It is about 50# worth. :P

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 13 2005, 02:44 PM
So let&#39;s do it...let&#39;s hear from those who want AWD in...how should they be classed?

AB

62571

We should also actually hear from a broader population than the IT forum since many of "those who want AWD" haven&#39;t had a reason to be here.

First the ban on AWD from the board has to be lifted.

Then input on the process of how AWD was considered in Touring would be helpful to those who are going to be doing the classing.

Then input from the broader SCCA membership where the interest in AWD lies.

[lateapex911]

Ok, Ed, et al, lets get TWO numbers here. Actually, lets make it 3.

1- What hp (at the flywheel, and at the wheels) can a 165 stock motor acheive in IT trim?? Absolute MAX effort, of course.

2- Now, what weight would you set to make the car competitive in the dry.

3- Finally, what weight would you set to make the car competitive in the wet?

And just to get you in the ballpark, lets use the ITS RX-7 as a bogey. generally the 180 number is the accepted hp level.

And, an intersesting aside here, at least in the NE ITA world, most of the top drawer FWD guys get a little queasy when it rains, and the RWD guys grin ear to ear. the FWD guys have VERY stiff springs and dampers, and the set up needs a BIG change for the rain. The last really wet rain race was won by a RWD RX-7, IIRC. Now if the FWD guys could change the setup, who knows, but conditions are so changeable that usually there isn&#39;t adequate time.

[benspeed]

Originally posted by turboICE@Oct 13 2005, 07:17 PM

They also have a tendency to be murder on brakes and the OEM brakes are usually not up to hauling down the car nearly as fast as its 2WD brethren. Using OEM calipers you are going to lose braking contests all day long to many others, especially when you start throwing in weight.
62575



I&#39;ll give you the point on braking - but handling recovery is superior, traction is superior and if you can get the power down early - very competitive.

Not saying this is a class beater by any stretch, but the car will run!

[benspeed]

Originally posted by robits325is@Oct 13 2005, 07:04 PM
I&#39;m all for the 96-7 Audi A4 2.8Q at 2,900lbs - it would be a great car for Ben to keep in his trailer next to his mini quad.

62574

Only problem is my "kid-quad" doesn&#39;t have AWD :lol:

But I would pull that A4 out for a rain race if she was 2,900 lbs.

I also bet the motor could be made to produce 190 in IT trim. Maybe more with a full program from a top Audi shop.


Like Ice said - brakes do suck on this car. I put a whole new brake package in and forgot how lousy the stock setup was.

[JeffYoung]

Andy, I would say at some point as IT matures it is going to have to deal with AWD. So let&#39;s do it know.

Pick a popular AWD car, probably Audi or Sube, class it in S with some weight penalty and watch it run for a year or two. That will give you more experience with teh AWD advantage, if any, in classing additional cars at a later date.

[turboICE]

I don&#39;t know exact numbers numbers but flywheel would probably be 190 max effort unless you could are going to count a stand alone hacked into the ECU case because EcuTek reflash is only for originally turbo&#39;d engines... If you want to count squeezing a Motec in I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if max effort build and tune could get 200 at the crank. If anyone ever came up with a reflash or EcuTek would modify to work on NA then 200 probably could be achieved in a two to three year development window.

Not having seen a NA on a chasis dyno, but I would say a 30% drivetrain loss could be expected, so say 140 at the wheels.

I don&#39;t know ITS power to weight expectations but I would use those numbers and fill in 50# as the all condition modifier.

Consider the RS a balanced car with good suspension geometry and available parts. Not a 325 but still probably a 75 percentile or above suspension as ITS goes.

Brakes are probably OK considering speeds that the NA and gearing can take it to, but closer to 50 percentile among ITS cars if weight can be gotten down.

I think that might give it a start that those desiring to run the 2.5 RS would think would be worth developing.

[Geo]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Oct 14 2005, 01:02 AM
Andy, I would say at some point as IT matures it is going to have to deal with AWD.


Why? It&#39;s still very much a niche market.

[JeffYoung]

George, I think that is changing. More and more manufactures are going to AWD of some sort. For the street, it probably is the way to go to cover "all" situations. For the track, I&#39;ll take rear drive.

Used to just be Subes. Now, we&#39;ve got Subes, Audis, BMW has the X models, etc. I think we will see more of AWD and I think that at some point it would be wrong to continue to exclude the cars from IT.

I think excluding turbo cars is wrong, but I don&#39;t have the horror story experiences that Kirk and Greg Amy have. I understand it is pretty easy to fiddle with boost, etc.

I guess my point is that IT should be inclusive, not exclusive, of technology and car lines. If got the WRX in ITX or R -- I imagine we would have a lot of new race cars being built.

[lateapex911]

OK, 140 at the wheels???

Hmmmm, thats not going to stack up against an RX-7 with 180 at the wheels ....maybe ITA is a better place.

So, if the 240 SX has 150 at the wheels, what weights would you set for the dry and the wet..?

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Geo@Oct 14 2005, 12:05 AM
Why? It&#39;s still very much a niche market.

62622



George,

If it&#39;s such a &#39;niche&#39; market, why do we have AWD cars in SS and T now? To not see the writing on the wall, and to not see this comming in IT, is really having your head in the sand.

I think the "We can allow AWD cars, because they&#39;ll have such an advantage, that people will build &#39;wet and &#39;dry&#39; cars." is a red herring. Honestly, what&#39;s the probability of this happening? Just how many people out there do you think would do this? You&#39;re not just going to be able to throw something together, and have it be competitive, purely by virtue of the AWD. The car will need to be developed, and that costs money. Not to mention the added cost of transporting two cars to the track, etc. You&#39;re going to either have to pick which car to run for the weekend, or pay two registrations, and qualify two cars.

If you pick which car, before the weekend, and only take one car, you run the risk of a situation similar to the one at the last MARRS race at Summit Point. Weather reports showed possible rain for the whole weekend, and Sat. was pretty damn wet. However, things dried out on Sun. The AWD may have been an advantage on Sat., during qualifying, but that would have gone away on Sun., being as it dried out. Now reverse the situation, bring the &#39;dry&#39; car, and have it rain for Sun., and you&#39;re in the same boat as everyone else.

Bringing both cars has its issues as well (beyond just the expense and logistics). You now only get one qualifying session per car, and if you decide to only qualify one of the cars, but decide to switch on race day, you get to start DFL. Is AWD really that much of an advantage, in IT, that you&#39;re going to be able to win from DFL?

This is a case of looking at the probability that people will build two cars. To me, it&#39;s probably low enough to be insignificant, and you shouldn&#39;t exclude a whole group of cars because of it. Oh, and while AWD may be able to overcome a weight penalty in the wet, you&#39;re still going to have to slow those heavier cars down, in the wet.

[Knestis]

I don&#39;t know what it&#39;s worth but here&#39;s a data point: The "wet" vs."dry" at a VIR NASA sprint race this July made the difference between 2nd and "way the hell back" on the grid for Pablo and me. Different cars and drivers are just better in different conditions.

To be clear, I was NOT suggesting that anyone would really have wet and dry cars - just relating the hyperbole. I think the angst is overstated and just another case of people trying to use the rules-making process to protect their relative competitive advantages.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill,

We already had at least one BMW guy say that he would build up his 325ix if it were allowed...and have them both available.

All you really need is for one team in a few areas to do this, and it hurts the racing. If everyone did it, then there would be no net effect.

BTW: How do we start calculating drivetrain losses for this new breed when you have adjustable torque splits? Bet it isn&#39;t a linear deal...

So if we class conservatively, nobody builds. If we class correctly, you have a weather dependent overdog...who wins?

AB

[benspeed]

That&#39;s why I bailed on the idea of building my A4. It would be classed too conservatively on weight. And some good points were made on this thread identifying some real weaknesses in the car.

I still think AWD should have a place in IT - but you&#39;re right Andy - class the car copetitively in the dry and you will have a wet race overdog.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 14 2005, 08:47 AM
Bill,

We already had at least one BMW guy say that he would build up his 325ix if it were allowed...and have them both available.

All you really need is for one team in a few areas to do this, and it hurts the racing. If everyone did it, then there would be no net effect.

BTW: How do we start calculating drivetrain losses for this new breed when you have adjustable torque splits? Bet it isn&#39;t a linear deal...

So if we class conservatively, nobody builds. If we class correctly, you have a weather dependent overdog...who wins?

AB

62643


Andy,

I understand that there will be some people that will do this. It&#39;s the same story, you can&#39;t control how much money people will spend to win a $20 trophy. The point I was trying to make, was that the times where this would be an advantage, are not that often. Also, if T and SS can manage it, I think IT can as well. And let&#39;s look at T and SS, does anyone know of a case, where anybody running in either of those categories, has a &#39;wet&#39; car and a &#39;dry&#39; car? If AWD would be such an advantage in IT (so that someone would build &#39;wet&#39; and &#39;dry&#39; cars), I would expect it to be an advantage in T and SS as well.

Maybe the approach should be similar to the one taken w/ the NB in ITC, class it and see how it does. BTW, has anybody seen a NB out there yet?

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 14 2005, 08:47 AM
BTW: How do we start calculating drivetrain losses for this new breed when you have adjustable torque splits? Bet it isn&#39;t a linear deal...

62643

I don&#39;t think there are any cars within IT performance envelopes that offer adjustable split.

Even the STi despite Subaru Marketing&#39;s complete misunderstanding is not an adjustable split. The Driver Controlled Center Diff (DCCD) is not a torque adjustment - it adjusts the degree to which the center diff locks. The torque split is continuous.

If there is an AWD system available with adjustable split in the IT profile then I agree that would be an issue. That might require much like traction control for the ability to be disabled. Also the efficiency of different brands is quite different, even different models. The small population that has experience with E30 iX (I have an &#39;89 - all my vehicles except my race car are AWD...) strongly believes the newer Xi system is not nearly as efficient or effective. But the front shaft and drive spline on the iX system wouldn&#39;t last long in IT stresses based on the number on the roard that break this part. And BTW I doubt there is anyway an E30 iX could be prepared to anywhere close to 50# of the iS weight.

Most everyone that has tracked the 2.5 RS in near stock terms does think it is more comparable to ITA classed cars - primarily because the brake HP numbers don&#39;t tell the full story with drive train loss. They run very similar laps to ITA tegs. No it isn&#39;t as controlled a situation as an actual IT comparison (no T&S, differing levels of preparation, etc) but that is the general feeling from track days.

But I didn&#39;t want to go there since the mindset is that its brake HP is in the ITS range. Just to get it classed and to give ITAC direct experience with results i&#39;d run a decently prepared one in ITS just to give direct experience - I just would want the weight to leave me mid pack at least. I don&#39;t want to get ran over. I know if ITS is the wrong place that it would be identified and corrected. The main reason would be that the weight can only come down so much, the RS is going to be heavy in IT trim no matter what - I know it couldn&#39;t come down to an ITA 240SX weight.

If the CRB allows AWD in IT, I would be sure to include a chasis dyno report in a request for classing to the ITAC.

I have a classing methodology question - is there any presumed weight level reduction that is attainable in IT trim? My assumption has been weight is determined and there isn&#39;t a consideration in classing if the car can get there or not that it is up to the developer to figure out how to get there if it can be achieved. But as with my other process assumptions this could be dead wrong.

[Knestis]

I&#39;ll let the ITCS members speak specifically about philosophies but evidence suggests that, if estimates require that a car be spec&#39;d at an impossibly low weight, it is moved downward a class and weight upward to get to the point where the numbers make sense - a la New Beetle in ITC.

K

[Bildon]

:023: Cool you guys hit the topic that was of concern to me which is the adjustable diffs. I was interested in Ben&#39;s insistance that All AWD cars are better in all conditions. I know that my 240hp A4TQ which I have driven hard plows like a pig due to the inability to move the torque split rearward. My buddy&#39;s 425hp STi however has the ability to adjust the center diff which has an electronically adjustable clutch type LSD in it. 65r/35f

That little gizmo buy itself makes a HUGE difference over his other std WRX which has a fixed 50/50 split. So since we don&#39;t allow adjustable sway bars, shocks and other things from the cockpit I&#39;d like to see only fixed diff AWD cars allowed and also would like to see unmodified gears (all drivetrain gears) at first.

Being inclusive doesn&#39;t mean we have to go overboard. :D In fact it would be doing to AWD guys a favor if we slowly ALLOWED more mods overtime than if we gave them something and then took it away later $$$$. The point is to at first just let them play. And when it rains...so be it!

hmmm 4wd VWs .....

http://www.vw-cup.co.uk/images/images03/r32.jpg

You think this isn&#39;t heavy? Think again. :rolleyes:

http://www.germancarfans.com/news/2040831.....001.Mini4L.jpg (http://www.germancarfans.com/news/2040831.001/2040831.001.Mini4L.jpg)

I&#39;d prefer not to see these in IT just yet...

http://www.eiptuning.com/ecomm/proddetail.php?prod=HEX-HPP

[benspeed]

Bill - you got me pegged! Cat is out of the bag - one of those Haltex units is exactly what I had in mind for tuning the car for optimal performance. It would be a blast testing with that - I bet you could make the handling characteristics very different and as a driver, know just how to dial in the car depending on race conditions.

I was concerned about how the rules would address a device like the Haldex which is another reason why I sold my car. Figured I&#39;d see how things sort out.

An AWD VW - now that&#39;s something to noodle on :D

[lateapex911]

Just for giggles, lets come up with a list of cars that could be included. Has to be 5 yrs old, and it&#39;s IT, so AWD Audi A8s or RS4s aren&#39;t a good idea....

But, lets look back as many years as there are AWD cars still available and desirable, and forward a few years.

Lets list curb weight, yrs covered, stock hp, as well as make and model.

[turboICE]

1998-2001 Subaru Impreza 2.5 RS (coupe & sedan)

2.5L horizontally opposed (boxer) 4 cylinder engine
165 HP @ 5,600 rpm
166 TQ @ 4,000 rpm
multi-port FI
distributorless ignition

99.2" wheelbase
2,825 lb curb weight (not sure if this is the coupe or sedan - probably coupe)
16" wheels
10.7" vented front rotors dual piston floating caliper
10.5" solid rear rotors single piston floating caliper

front suspension is McPherson
rear suspension trying to find a picture - there are a few links involved

There weren&#39;t many 1998&#39;s made in the US (1,695) and there were year to year changes in cams, including single or dual. If a clear cut was wanted maybe just the 2000 & 2001 as they had the same set up throughout production and have the widest available donor population - our allow update/backdate of the whole engine as it came in any given year.

I forget which diffs are open and which are LS (think rear is definitely open though) - none have adjustable torque distribution or adjustable locking.

And AWD has higher drivetrain loss than front or rear WD.