>>> other than that the AWD is no advantage.
Stephen do you run an LSD ?
Printable View
>>> other than that the AWD is no advantage.
Stephen do you run an LSD ?
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.Quote:
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.
[snapback]62388[/snapback]
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?
:happy204:Quote:
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?
[snapback]62453[/snapback]
AB
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#.
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
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?
Ray writes:Quote:
Originally posted by turboICE@Oct 13 2005, 08:21 AM
And I am still trying to figure out who said there was no advantage?
[snapback]62516[/snapback]
And YOU write:Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Sure seems like you are arguing that AWD isn't a factor to me. You do however say later:Quote:
Where is the competitive history and evidence that AWD would somehow in a large way reshape condition competitiveness?
See my post above. To me, the issue isn't dry competitivness, it's wet dominance at DC weights.Quote:
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.
AB
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.Quote:
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?
[snapback]62520[/snapback]
AB
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:
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.Quote:
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.
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+#.
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
What is the current process?Quote:
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
[snapback]62539[/snapback]
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
Bildon....
Yes we do run a quaffe in our cars. good for 1.5 to 2 seconds a lap.
Stephen
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.Quote:
Originally posted by turboICE@Oct 13 2005, 08:35 AM
...the only way they would have won in T1 was if it snowed...[snapback]62520[/snapback]
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.Quote:
Has the SCCA ever left their Touring and SS cars hanging out in the wind after their fifth year?
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
I think OEM for 98-00 was 165 HP and 166 torque. (and think it was through possibly 2005 even, 2006 is 173 HP)Quote:
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
[snapback]62539[/snapback]
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.
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.Quote:
Originally posted by RSTPerformance+Oct 13 2005, 12:16 PM-->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.Quote:
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.[snapback]62547[/snapback][/b]
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'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
[snapback]62549[/snapback]
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'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'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'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.
1-2 seconds...So you don't think adding more diffs to an AWD car is worth 3 to 4 seconds? I'm just kidding :PQuote:
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.
[snapback]62547[/snapback][/b]
I think we're all getting into the std I'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's going to steal my trophy :unsure: ...why don'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're going to be as bad as the Spridget whiners are in Prod ! :bash_1_: And NASA will keep growing and growing.
We're a generally smart bunch of folks, and we all like cars. ALL CARS.... so shouldn't we be talking about HOW instead of IF ????
"Instead of speculate about whether RWD is better in the dry and FWD, AWD is better in the rain and who's going to steal my trophy ...why don'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're going to be as bad as the Spridget whiners are in Prod ! And NASA will keep growing and growing.
We're a generally smart bunch of folks, and we all like cars. ALL CARS.... so shouldn'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
So let's do it...let's hear from those who want AWD in...how should they be classed?Quote:
Originally posted by Bildon@Oct 13 2005, 01:06 PM
We're a generally smart bunch of folks, and we all like cars. ALL CARS.... so shouldn't we be talking about HOW instead of IF ????
[snapback]62559[/snapback]
AB