All wheel drive, revisited...

[RSTPerformance]

Many have expressed an interest in allowing AWD into IT... but the fear from what I have read is the advantage gained in a rain race...

I was thinking "out of the box" today and thought... Why not allow AWD cars but have an equalizer that is conditional on when it rains:

All AWD must run Xlbs of weight when using rain tires.

initial issues with the idea:

- What weight would make things equal in the rain?
- What defines a "rain tire"

Raymond

[JimLill]

- What defines a "rain tire"
[/b]

How about any tire that has grooves that are at any angle other than in the direction of rotation.

[ddewhurst]

Gee, how about doing the same with front wheel drive cars because of the advantage gained in the rain. :o

[lateapex911]

Gee, how about doing the same with front wheel drive cars because of the advantage gained in the rain. :o [/b]


Except that, at Lime Rock yesterday, A front wheel drive car lead ITB, until a rear wheel drive car passed him.
ANd in ITS, the front wheelers faded, and it was all RWD in the top 6. ITA saw a couple FWDers up front, but the RWD cars finished MUCH higher than their norm.

Point being that in our game, setup and tires have a ton to do with it.

I loved the suggestion of what a rain tire "is". If thats the definition, I'll run out and buy sets of Dirt Stockers, which, to me at least, are the best rain time made.

But I have bigger issues with the idea:

WHAT is a rain race?
WHAT happens if it's dry at the start, but then pours buckets?
WHAT happens if it's the opposite? (wet-ish, but a dry line develops?)

And then....if you are going to require people to bolt weight into their cars, you have to give them time to do it, which means the "rain call" needs to be made 20 minutes or so before race time, And that makes the first three "whats" even more important.

Even the pro series, which is much more equipped to do this sort of thing, doesn't. The logistics are just too difficult.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Except that, at Lime Rock yesterday, A front wheel drive car lead ITB, until a rear wheel drive car passed him.[/b]

Because the RWD car had better tires...



ANd in ITS, the front wheelers faded, and it was all RWD in the top 6. [/b]

How many FWD cars were there in ITS? One?



There are tons of questions on this idea but it sure is interesting!

[itracer]

I loved the suggestion of what a rain tire "is". If thats the definition, I'll run out and buy sets of Dirt Stockers, which, to me at least, are the best rain time made.
[/b]

Yeah. I questioned him on that. My initial response is that I would run dirt stockers because they are dirt tires, not rain tires :P

Jake's point about a race that goes from dry to wet is a very valid question.

[ddewhurst]

***Except that, at Lime Rock yesterday, A front wheel drive car lead ITB, until a rear wheel drive car passed him.
ANd in ITS, the front wheelers faded, and it was all RWD in the top 6. ITA saw a couple FWDers up front, but the RWD cars finished MUCH higher than their norm.***

So Jake are YOU looking for an arguement or are YOU of the belief that FWD cars DO NOT have an advantage in the rain all setup being equal ?

[RSTPerformance]

With all due respect, this thread has nothing to do with FWD vs. RWD. I am thinking out of the box on an idea to impliment AWD.

I don't want to be rude, so please forgive and continue to offer up opinions. The AWD croud is big and if we can get the cars into IT then we would see even larger fields especially in ITS/ITR I think.

As for Jakes point... My experience with AWD and racing in general is that if you have "dry" tires when it rains I don't think any setup is going to work. Winners will be determined on the drivers ability to handle the changing and very difficult conditions. The Audi's that I have driven act much more like RWD cars than FWD cars on slippery surfaces without the right equipment (such as snowy roads and summer tires).

I am still really stuck on the fact that Speed Touring and GT cars have AWD, and it works (At least from my point of view). If they can make it work, I think that we should also be able to do the same.

Raymond "Thanks for keeping on track in this important topic." Blethen

[Greg Amy]

I had a somewhat-related discussion with Mr. Blethan yesterday. As some point during the day he commented something like, 'I really like rain; I wish it would rain all the time." I kinda wrinkled my nose and said something like 'rain is not fair'.

And it's true: rain is NOT fair, because we classify our cars based on the typical, most common scenario, that being dry conditions. If, for example, we lived in climates where it rained all the time, then we'd classify our cars differently, and FWD might actually have an "adder" instead of RWD, and because we don't have near as much weight transfer McPherson struts wouldn't be the massive disadvantage it is versus nice-geometry, multi-link suspensions (and brake size isn't as important, nor is massive power, ad nausea).

If we are to consider AWD in Improved Touring, it must be considered in the most common, typical scenario, just as we do now when considering FWD versus RWD, McPh versus multi-link, etc. We KNOW that some cars will have advantages in different conditions, but it is completely IMPOSSIBLE to classify for anything but the 95th-percentile.

Not offering an opinion either way on whether we should allow AWD, just offering a basis for discussion. - GA

[Jeremy Billiel]

Because the RWD car had better tires...
How many FWD cars were there in ITS? One?



There are tons of questions on this idea but it sure is interesting!
[/b]

Yup just one ITS FWD car and that was me in my first race in the wet on borrowed dirt stockers. If you want to see the video go to the July 4th results discussion

[lateapex911]

With all due respect, this thread has nothing to do with FWD vs. RWD. I am thinking out of the box on an idea to impliment AWD........................I am still really stuck on the fact that Speed Touring and GT cars have AWD, and it works (At least from my point of view). If they can make it work, I think that we should also be able to do the same.

Raymond "Thanks for keeping on track in this important topic." Blethen

[/b]

Well, Gregs point is the conclusion of my FWD, AWD references...

"Pro makes it work" you say, and to your eye, they do. But how do they do it?? They class them for dry weather. And if it rains during a Pro race, guess what? Kiss them goodbye.You won't see the Audis after the first lap unless they wet their electrics of drive off the course because the forgot to hook up a defroster.

And the same thing would happen in IT.

I love the rain, because of the "wrench" it throws into the normal scenario. Talent often rises up and grabs a win, because equipment is less important. Rain isn't called "The great equilizer" for nothing.

But class AWD for dry conditions, and watch equipment decide rain races. I don't like races that I don't have to watch to know who or what is going to win.

IF the ITAC could determine that AWD was worth XX% in the rain, instituting optional "rain ballast" still has a myriad of application issues, many that I didn't mention in my first post.

To me, there are 5 options:

1- Class AWD for the dry. let them rip everyone apart in the wet...the "kiss them goodby" option, LOL.
2- Class them for the wet (a big guess that one would be, LOL), and tell them to live with it in the dry. (The "tough nuggies" option)
3- Class them somewhere in the middle and get the best, and worst, of both worlds.
4- Don't class them
5- Create IT AWD

We've been down this discussion road before, but discuss. Keep in mind the real world limits of a volunteer staff, the changing conditions of rainy days, the resultant incentive to the class your choice would have, the variable weather patterns in the big old US of A and the current rules IT has on the books..

[Z3_GoCar]

The other issue that Jake's not talking about is that most of the cars you're refering to aren't naturally asperated. Sure I know that there's an exception or two, but by in large if you get a sporty AWD you get a turbo in the package too.

One more word..... Prepared :P

James

[Knestis]

So the proposal is that different cars run at different weights under different conditions? Sounds cool.

** Put more weight on cars with lots of horsepower on any track with an average speed over XXmph.

** Put more weight on cars that handle well on tracks with less than XXX feet of straight.

** Put more weight on cars with bigger-than-average brakes if the difference between the top speed on the fastest straight and the speed at the apex is more than XXmph.

** Put more weight on cars being driven by drivers who have more than 30 races at the course in question.

** Put more weight on cars running new tires (see Appendixes, L, M, P, and subsection IX.B.1.2.c for definitions of "new tires."

K

[JLawton]

Class them in ITE following IT rules. Not the ITE I see know............ Fiberglass, wings, big brakes, etc

[shwah]

The other issue that Jake's not talking about is that most of the cars you're refering to aren't naturally asperated. Sure I know that there's an exception or two, but by in large if you get a sporty AWD you get a turbo in the package too.

One more word..... Prepared :P

James
[/b]
There are a lot of Audi and Subaru cars that are awd with no turbo, and a smattering of others.

[lateapex911]

Good points on the model availability...I guess Raymond's basic premise is, "If you class it, they will come"

But will they? I'm not saying yes, or no, but if we're going to jump through hoops to do it, I'd want a good feeling that the cars are out there, and they want to race..

The AWD cars I see at track days, etc, are either Porsche Carrera 4s, or blown Subies or blown Audis....and they often sprout lots of mods and are street driven. Do these guys really want to race?? And if so, do they really want to race those cars???

Once we answer that, then we can determine the solution.

[shwah]

I think the most likely candidate is the non-turbo impreza. Not terribly expensive. Has a fan base of sorts. Not as rare as the Coupe Quattros so not as much stigma towards 'ruining' them to make a racecar.

There was a thread here last year asking about this issue, and I think the OP was a subi guy.

[Rud]

The normally aspirated Audi 4000s would be a good candidate, too, sort of Volvo 240-esque. Attractive to someone like me that has an Audi shop nearby with free family labor. ;)

[shwah]

Agreed, just not nearly as pentiful as the Subi. I expect we would see a few built if the classing could be worked out...

[Rud]

Potential cars: Non-turbo Subaru Imprezas (couple different engine sizes), Legacy (ditto), XT; non-turbo Audi quattros (coupe, 4000/5000, 80/90, 100/200); VW Synchro cars (Passat and ?); E30 BMW 325ix.

Any other obvious ones? Can you lower an Eagle to 5"? haha.

Could they all go in one class? The BMW's got a fair amount of power, but the comments I've read about its AWD system make me think that it would be more of a liability than a benefit.

[Bill Miller]

I remember not too long ago someone raising the issue that if AWD cars were allowed in IT, people would build 'wet' AWD cars and bring them to the track along w/ their 'dry' cars. Can't believe no one has thrown that one back up.

Damn, ran out of popcorn again! :026:

[Ron Earp]

Put'em in R, give it a try. It isn't like we're writing the Constitution for a country or anything. Put them in there, make adjustments as needed so they don't run all over the field. Somehow professional and other amateur race organizations manage to make it work, the best of the best, the SCCA cannot? I'm sure it can be done. Pick one popular car, start there, see how it goes. Subaru RS, the naturally aspirated 4 pot AWD?

R

[shwah]

I remember not too long ago someone raising the issue that if AWD cars were allowed in IT, people would build 'wet' AWD cars and bring them to the track along w/ their 'dry' cars. Can't believe no one has thrown that one back up.

Damn, ran out of popcorn again! :026:
[/b]
Well. Who cares? That guy will out spend us no matter the rules, and will beat a lot of us along the way. His cousin will outspend us also, but can't drive and will still be beat by spec miatas in the rain.

I know the danger is in unintended consequences, but seriously, people can build 'wet' cars now. Why not have a rwd A car for dry and a CRX for wet? I myself built a wet car for ITB, but I race it in the dry all the time. :P

[Knestis]

... Put them in there, make adjustments as needed so they don't run all over the field. ...[/b]
What are you going to use to make adjustments? Race results? Fast laps? From what track? In what weather conditions? With whom driving? What tires? Budget?

Seriously.

Jake was right on earlier when he pointed out that the math has to be done in the most common conditions and let the cards fall where they will on any given race weekend. Either that or don't classify them.

K

[Ron Earp]

What are you going to use to make adjustments? Race results? Fast laps? From what track? In what weather conditions? With whom driving? What tires? Budget?

Jake was right on earlier when he pointed out that the math has to be done in the most common conditions and let the cards fall where they will on any given race weekend. Either that or don't classify them.

K
[/b]

Agreed, I figured it'd draw that response and rightly so.

I agree with the latter statement. Class them, conservatively and in common conditions, and see how it works out. I'm sure that something could be worked out here to get some AWD cars in the SCCA grassroots IT classes.

R