AWD in Improved Touring

[Knestis]

If you have an opinion - any opinion, pro or con - about the idea of AWD/4WD in IT, you should share it with the Board by email - [email protected]

K

[ekim952522000]

E-mail sent supporting the idea.

[JoshS]

Please have your non-forum-reading friends also weigh in with their opinions!

[StephenB]

I don't have much input as far as classification but I sent a letter in suppport!!

S-Type idea on hold... what do you think the wife would say if I gutted my x-type

Stephen Blethen

[lateapex911]

I don't have much input as far as classification but I sent a letter in suppport!!

S-Type idea on hold... what do you think the wife would say if I gutted my x-type

Stephen Blethen

She'll say, "You better leave the heater core attached otherwise you'll freeze your ass off driving to work!!!"

[cjb25hs]

I am in favor of the idea and will send a letter. There are alot of great cars out there. The Subie 2.5rs would be an excellent car, I would think that it would have to be and S or R car though. Although is the thought process to add a new class say IT4 that all of the AWD cars could play together in?

[JoshS]

Although is the thought process to add a new class say IT4 that all of the AWD cars could play together in?

There aren't enough non-turbo AWD cars to make a class just for them. One class for just the Subaru 2.5RS and the Audi 90 Quattro? (Okay, and a couple of other Subarus and Audis). Makes no sense.

[Greg Amy]

Back in "the good ole days" SCCA used to toss all current-model cars into SSGT (Showroom Stock GT) just to give them a place to play and to see HOW they'd play, without causing a ruckus among SSA/B/C. Then, once they've had a chance to see how it worked out, they'd move them into another SS class appropriately.

Same idea could be used with AWD and ITR.

[lateapex911]

Back in "the good ole days" SCCA used to toss all current-model cars into SSGT (Showroom Stock GT) just to give them a place to play and to see HOW they'd play, without causing a ruckus among SSA/B/C. Then, once they've had a chance to see how it worked out, they'd move them into another SS class appropriately.

Same idea could be used with AWD and ITR.

And they used to do it with ITS too. The 1st gen car was an ITS car initially. But I wonder if that time hasn't passed us by. Maybe I'm cynical, but I think we are part of a "me" generation. Everyone wants a trophy. Well, not everyone, but you know what I mean. Somebody just posted that we need many more spec classes and that mixed marque racing was soon to be history. We know that we don't see a lot of porsches for a variety of reasons, but when I talk to the P car guys, I often hear, "I like racing against Porsches only, at least that way I don't have to worry about other types of cars getting a better deal". Not many of us tilt at windmills or 'fight the uphill battle" (Jeff Young: noted exception!)

Simply, if we did it that way, would anyone bother building one, knowing that the future was really uncertain? (What class, what weight, etc?)

[ekim952522000]

Greg that to me would be throwing the whole process out the window, I say class em with the process with a "as determined by the ITAC adder" and call it a day.

[Greg Amy]

Greg that to me would be throwing the whole process out the window, I say class em with the process with a "as determined by the ITAC adder" and call it a day.

I'm not opposed to this at all. I don't think AWD is an advantage - and in many ways, can be a disadvantage - except in two conditions: very high horsepower and high H20. I don't think the upper limits on ITR allow surpassing the first condition, and the whole classification process ALREADY ignores the second. - GA

On Edit: just thought of a monkey wrench: differentials are free. Ergo, it's possible to modify the center differential of an AWD car such that it "can" be more RWD in the dry with optimal balance in the wet (more toward FWD). So, I clarify my above statement with "...as long as the car is run through the process without the FWD subtractor, i.e. run thought the existing process as a RWD car." - GA

[RedMisted]

...Somebody just posted that we need many more spec classes and that mixed marque racing was soon to be history. We know that we don't see a lot of porsches for a variety of reasons, but when I talk to the P car guys, I often hear, "I like racing against Porsches only, at least that way I don't have to worry about other types of cars getting a better deal". Not many of us tilt at windmills or 'fight the uphill battle" (Jeff Young: noted exception!)

Simply, if we did it that way, would anyone bother building one, knowing that the future was really uncertain? (What class, what weight, etc?)

I love mixed marque racing, be it club racing or track trials. I get a chance every now and then to humiliate the effete P guys with my coarse knuckle-draggin' backy-spewin' beer-swillin' girl-chasin' red/white & blue-wavin' rednecked Mustang. And a V6 at that.

[ScotMac]

Greg that to me would be throwing the whole process out the window, I say class em with the process with a "as determined by the ITAC adder" and call it a day.

I agree. It doesn't make sense at all to put them in their own class, since all the other things are much more variable and indicative of their performance. ie, hp, weight, handling, aero, etc. So, figure out an adder (or subber) for awd, and put them in a class, and go racing. I would love to see an mk4 r32 get classed.

[dj10]

No advantage until it rains.

[RSTPerformance]

I fully support AWD cars in all IT classes. *I completed the Mt. Washington "Climb to the Clouds" several times with my ITB Audi Coupe and I was very competitive in rain, dirt and tarmac with the other non-turbo AWD cars including the AWD versions of my Audi.

AWD does not have a benefit (at IT HP levels) over non AWD cars and should not be excluded from competition. *This is especially true with so many AWD followers whom could build our member base.

With potential members in mind;

Raymond Blethen
SC270386*

[Knestis]

Playing devil's advocate then, Raymond - why would anyone want to run, say, a 4000 Quattro rather than a Coupe?

Seems like, if there's no perceived advantage, folks won't run one. If people don't want to run them, why list them...?

K

[dickita15]

For the same reason as most of the other oddball drivers. Devotion to the make/model.

[JeffYoung]

Dick, exactly. And we do have a request to class the Subaru 2.5RS already. SOMEONE wants to build them, at least one. Unless it wrecks the class, I don't think our reasons for saying no (may dominate in the rain) to date are justified.

[Ron Earp]

Playing devil's advocate then, Raymond - why would anyone want to run, say, a 4000 Quattro rather than a Coupe?

Some say love. I say it could be hate.

I'm a Ford guy, would like to race a Ford in IT. I think the SVT Focus looks pretty cool. But, it is FWD and I will not use my money to build a FWD race car. It is just wrong. Now, if the Focus was AWD, well then I'd consider building an AWD SVT Focus for IT.

And yes, I know all about the AWD systems that might default to FWD and so on. But hate is irrational and so might my reason for considering building an AWD version of a car but not the FWD counterpart.

I say let us some AWD cars in IT. You guys can debate relative merits on the interwebz all day long but I don't think you'll find a clear solution until you class some AWD in IT. Besides, we're talking about a handful of eligible cars here and the ITAC now has the power to correct mistakes.

How many cars are we talking about that are 1) NA, 2) aren't forced induction, 3) Have hp that fits in the IT framework? Four? Five? Three? Class em up.

Ron

[cjb25hs]

Some say love. I say it could be hate.

How many cars are we talking about that are 1) NA, 2) aren't forced induction, 3) Have hp that fits in the IT framework? Four? Five? Three? Class em up.

Ron

Probably somewhere between 20 to 30 mostly variants of Subaru, Audi/VW and a few off the wall hard to find Japanese cars like the AWD protege and ????