Printable View
I am hearing that there is discussion about permiting "All Wheel Drive" cars to be included in IT. This is coming from the National Convention. Are these cars going to be grouped into the current classes, or is there going to be a new group?...... I thought most AWD cars were also turbo!..... What 2005 and back cars could be included ? Thoughts? Latest news? Thank you. David Ellis-Brown
This went out for member comment months ago. The feedback was overwhelmingly for it. Not a whole lot to choose from but there are some Subie's and some Audi's that people will find fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by D. Ellis-Brown
I am sure the cars would be placed in the current structure.
The Subaru 2.5RS is the first to be classed, it'll be in ITS. Please watch the next Fastrack for details.
How about turbos? Almost all AWD cars are turbocharged.
Forced induction not allowed in IT.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthony1k
You could also run an old Corolla All-Trac (if you can find one).
Truth be told, I'm not sure AWD would be that much of an advantage. AWD cars push by nature, especially if they're lowered. Plus, it adds a lot of weight.
What did you guys figure for an "adder" for AWD?
Whatever the decision was, it will be "wrong" for SOMEONE, depending on how and when they are looking at it. AWD can't help but be different from 2WD and will either be better or worse depending on the weather.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
This is going to be an interesting policy-making study: A perfect case warranting (1) a clear statement of intent/philosophy, (2) a sound theoretical basis for a decision for how the math will be done, and (3) blind-faith adherence to that decision, even in the face of "proof" - from anecdotal on-track performance - that "they got it wrong!"
The direction we're collectively headed in right now is 180* from there, with (1) waffling and different-answers-depending-who-you-ask philosophy, (2) something reasonable in terms of theory (I'm putting faith in Josh's nature here, as he steers the ITAC), but (3) no assurance that we won't see all kinds of intervention and flailing about by the CRB, in reaction to all kinds of motivations.
K
So the ITAC is functioning and Josh is the Chairman? I must have missed all the announcements......Quote:
Originally Posted by Knestis
ooooh maybe we could get a class for 4wd trucks. I'd be down to do something like that. Might be interesting to watch.
No adder Greg. We figured the weight penalty cancelled it out.
May be wrong, but the perception was that AWD would be no advantage/disadvantage in the dry, but admittedly tough to beat in the wet.
So if there is no adder (to calculate weight) how is there a weight penalty?
Would like to understand as there is a 325xit in my garage that might be an interesting project.
FWIW, I have a '96 Subaru Outback sport for sale..............
Or maybe I should just cage it and race :) :shrug:
One of the things tossed around was using 'standard' process power multipliers knowing that there are more driveline losses thereby giving it less power (or more weight for its power). The bottom line is that I don;t think anyone has any clue what to give it for an adder. And since there are no comp adjustments in IT, you won't have a chance to get it right if they run away in the rain. Some areas won't have an issue, some it will be huge IMHO.
Having at least 3 races in the rain every year, I wasn't for AWD in IT. I hate events decided by weather. The introduction of AWD really seperates some cars. The process is not ready for this...
Even though I personaly didn;t want AWD, we all voted for it based on the overwhelming feedback from members...(except it was all from guys who wanted to run AWD...LOL)
Back when turbo's ran in SSA, the fwd mitsubishi eclipse was way faster that the awd
eclipse. To me the awd cars would have a weight break all else being equal.
k
Equal when? And where?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolin Aspegren
That's teh question. I think if they get classed "as is" with the current Process structure, they'll be slow in the dry, for reasons mentioned above, mainly driveline loss. But, in the slime of rain, it's a car that goes from underdog to overdog status. I'm OK with that.
Horses for courses.Quote:
Originally Posted by lateapex911
Not much different than the wet FWD vs RWD action that takes place in S,A,& B occasionally. In any of the classes the FWD car typically has an advantage although it diminishes with increasing horsepower.
Why not? AWD cars are available to anyone looking at entry level racing. IT should support them.
So what is the ITAC up to these days?
Polishing their random number generators prolly! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ron Earp
I am dying to know the weight of the ITS 2.5RS. I have always liked those cars.
Via the higher than RWD (or FWD) driveline loss. At 25% expected IT gain the car should put down less whp than a RWD car, and make less hp/weight.
So, probably more of a "hp" penalty -- sorry to be confusing on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed325its
Those are pretty cool. Be interesting to see some of them out and about in ITS.Quote:
Originally Posted by SPiFF
Looks like I need to start searching for an R32 Golf, or get the parts to convert the bug to an RSi. Both of which should do pretty well with the VR6 and vw's all wheel drive system. Come to think of it, my neighbor's got an STS4, anybody want to build a caddy?
I submit that comparing SS lap times from yesteryear is totally invalid. IT suspension mods would allow you to dial out the issues at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolin Aspegren
The FWD Eclipses were faster in Firehawk trim, too...except when it rained. Rossi used to bring one AWD Talon in the trailer along with his three FWD ones; if rained threatened he'd swap one prior to qualifying. - GA
And therin lies my issue. In areas where you can count on rain for 1/4 of your season, I don't think the inclusion of a few cars is worth the imbalance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
'04 R32 FTW!!! :smilie_pokal:Quote:
Originally Posted by rx7chris
That would be an increadibly fun car!!!
236 stock hp would probably realistically knock it out of the running for ITR. The highest classes hp for ITR is 238, and that car does not have AWD.Quote:
Originally Posted by ewchance
I concur that an ITR R32 would rock. Of course if you do that you need to include the TT3.2 as well. The A4 v6 may be able to fit. They did make a handful of Passat v6 4motion stick shift cars, but I cannot imagine them getting remotely close to the weight required to be competitive. Maybe the W8 could, but 270 is above the hp level of anything else in the class. Heck the 240 of the R32 and 250 of the TT are as well, but they are probably 3400# cars stock...
That's OK it could probably only get close to weight if it were dinged for awd anyhow.:happy204:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Earp
What do those various VW/Audi 3.2L AWD cars weigh stock?
There's no specific cap on the horsepower in ITR guys. What would make a car too fast for the class would be if they would need to carry unreasonable amounts of ballast to make the target power-to-weight. I doubt that's the case, they probably start life pretty heavy, but that's why I'm asking.
3400# or more for the VW
The outie was only available with the dsg auto trans
You forgot the S2000 @ 240. There was a car classed at 238...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Earp
So whats the latest on this?
I really wanted to build a BMW, but I'd love to put a quick and dirty 2.5rs together.
Woot!
Now if I can just have a good chassis show up in my driveway, I'll start the build! :)
VTS isnt' that tough to fill out and send in. Most of the info you need can be found on the web somewhere. I encourage anyone who has an interest to fill out a form - BMW, Audi, etc.....
FWD/AWD parity in the rain... could be pretty similar. AWD vs RWD... that's a different story. Although talent should minimize the difference.
it is not allowed in IT.
:shrug:
The prohibition rule was changed in the 10/09 Fastrack (effective 1/1/10) and the first AWD car was classed in IT in the 3/10 Fastrack, the Subaru 2.5RS. You can expect more to be added.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomylee1