AWD in IT...

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Becareful what you ask for cause you just may get it. We ran against an EVO at the TH national in the rain. The T2 car was 2.5 seconds faster than anything else on the grid. AWD and Turbo is clearly an advantage. Don't let anyone convince you that it is not. If a car can get doen to minimum weight then a car at weight with AWD is gonna be fast. Then Add a turbo(which the club never learned how to police) and you got a recipe for a catagory killer. I am all for AWD and Boost but lets make a class for those cars to race agianst each other. Call it ITAWDTB and I think you have it covered.

Joe,

The flaw in that logic, is your assumption that the spec weight won't take into account the performance advantage of AWD. It also doesn't say much for your condidence in your friend and his fellow ITAC members, to set the weight where it should be, or adjust it if it's off.

The turbo thing is a whole other kettle of fish. I don't know how they'll make that one work.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Knestis]

It's possible that the ideal weight for, say, an Audi 4000 Quattro is just enough greater than the Coupe, that it is as much slower in the dry as it is faster in the wet.

So in addition to "rain tires," we can have "rain cars."

K

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Joe,

The flaw in that logic, is your assumption that the spec weight won't take into account the performance advantage of AWD. It also doesn't say much for your condidence in your friend and his fellow ITAC members, to set the weight where it should be, or adjust it if it's off.

The turbo thing is a whole other kettle of fish. I don't know how they'll make that one work.

You'll take any chance you can to take a shot at the adhoc won't Bill. I recommend professional help for that.

The real deal is knowing how much to ad for AWD and how much to add or restrict a Turbo. The best fix for that is to race them against eaxh other. There sometimes is a need for a different class when cars different enough that they stand out. Trying to mix them more downside than upside.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Joe,

The flaw in that logic, is your assumption that the spec weight won't take into account the performance advantage of AWD. It also doesn't say much for your condidence in your friend and his fellow ITAC members, to set the weight where it should be, or adjust it if it's off.

The turbo thing is a whole other kettle of fish. I don't know how they'll make that one work.

You'll take any chance you can to take a shot at the adhoc won't Bill. I recommend professional help for that.

The real deal is knowing how much to ad for AWD and how much to add or restrict a Turbo. The best fix for that is to race them against eaxh other. There sometimes is a need for a different class when cars different enough that they stand out. Trying to mix them more downside than upside.

Shot at the ITAC? I don't think so Joe, but nice try anyway. Personally, I'd say add the AWD cars to the IT ranks. Should be just another 'adder', similar (not in the amount of performance) to IRS, double wishbone suspension, VVT, etc. being 'adders'. Develop a factor for AWD, and throw it into the process. So, when someone wants to have and AWD Starquest classified in IT, the AWD factor just gets added in w/ the other ones, and the proejcted spec weight comes out.

That's actually one of the real benefits to having a defined process, you should be able to address things that you can reasonably quantify the performance parameters of. Problem w/ turbos, is that the performance envelope is so wide.


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Matt Rowe]

I don't think the concept of an adder is nearly as easy as say, VVT or double wishbone. Do you factor the adder for wet or dry track conditions? Make the car reasonably competitive in dry and it's likely to be a class killer when the rain comes. Make it reasonable in the rain and almost no one will build the cars because they are to slow on a dry track.

I know, let's change the minimum weight based on the weather conditions?

Seriously though, it MIGHT be possible to make it work but it's going to take quite a bit of experimentation to get the formula right. We can't balance performance on all of the current 2WD cars and now we are going to try mixing in AWD?

Finally, how many people out there want to run these cars in IT? There are only a couple of car models out there, and many of them are borderline in fitting our current performance envelope. So is there enough demand to justify the effort to sort out the classification and if so why aren't these guys already running ITE, SPO or SPU? I don't see any AWD cars at the track even in the essentially unlimited classes so is there really enough serious interest?

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[Ron Earp]

Class it and they will come....

Class one for an initial trial. I bet one or more will be running by year's end if a car gets classed. Just don't class something nobody wants for a trial though, that would kill the thing before it got started.

Class something popular, maybe the 2.5L RS Subaru (this is a non turbo car) or one of the Audi cars and I'm sure they'll pop up. Just because you can't get all the classes straightened out does not mean we shouldn't class new types of cars - I've been here long enough to know that classes will NEVER all be staightened out to everyone's satisfaction.

Ron

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS

[turboICE]

Someone who wants to race say a 2000 Subaru Impreza RS next year is not going to try and bring the SCCA around by running in ITE. How many people use getting run over running with dangerous closing speeds as a means to get a desired car classed?

Not sure why turbos keep coming up in any non-ITE discussion. Most forced induction cars that would be suited for IT are outside the performance range of ITS-ITC. Seeking the IT classing of AWD cars does not mean seeking the classing of AWD turbo charged cars.

Normally aspirated AWD cars are already penalized with a higher weight and a higher friction drag of the drive train. For some cars (E30 325iX for instance) you can't even get any decent aftermarket performance parts for the suspension to begin with. So start it out with a weight penalty from the equivalent RWD or FWD - and let competitive adjustments sort it out. But first they have to be classed before the performance potential can truly be identified.

An normally aspirated AWD car is not such a huge advantage to a similarly clased FWD car in the rain. They don't have the enough torque applied to the tires to achieve the results you would see with forced induction AWD cars.

The future of the current Touring class cars are an issue that has to be dealt with in general as to where they are going to go after 5 years anyway. But it probably will not be IT (at least not in its current form), more likely new production classes.

[This message has been edited by turboICE (edited April 14, 2005).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by rlearp:
Class something popular, maybe the 2.5L RS Subaru (this is a non turbo car) or one of the Audi cars and I'm sure they'll pop up.

Based on conversations we've had concerning classing more modern, higher HP cars, etc... in IT, I think that something like this would be better suited to the new class that the CRB and "B/D-Prod" committee are working on... Same goes for the 300Z, Supras, or anything else that makes 200+ stock HP... At some point, they just end up having to weigh too much to fit into ITS...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[Matt Rowe]

Working the higher powered versions of these cars into the B/D production concept makes sense. I'll have to check with a committee member to see if they are including allowances for those. I don't see any likely way for the turbo versions to fit into ITS-ITC classes without radically moving cars or creating a lot of obsolete cars.

As for the non-turbo versions, I have to admit I don't know a lot of people involved with them. In fact that's kind of the point that there aren't many people interested in racing them. Whenever I hear of someone that wants to race their AWD car it's a turbocharged version. And when you start to weed out the people who genuinely are willing to put the time and money into building and developing a race car the list for non-turbo AWD gets real short, real fast. If there is genuine interest then maybe an ITAC member can let us know how many requests to classify AWD have been made in the last year? Two years or even an approximate guess.

A month ago people were talking about declassifying old cars or cars no one has raced in awhile. Now we want to add cars with almost no interest in? And try and come up with a fair means to classify them? That seems like a lot to bite off for a small group. But if there is a lot of interest then yes we should try and make it work. Can anyone put together a list of possible non-turbo AWD candidates? Preferably with production numbers, weights and hp to see how large a group we might be talking about?

Next question. Can we attract the AWD crowd with rules like stock brakes, stock rotors, stock flywheel, no aftermarket aerodynamics, and washer bottle required (I couldn't resist) And all of this on a non-turbo car? I don't think we would be likely to draw in that many younger market with the current IT rules? Again, maybe B/D production is a better fit, if they get it approved.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[Ron Earp]

I think that is rated at 165hp stock.

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by rlearp:
I think that is rated at 165hp stock.

BUT... it's AWD... Is that really something that needs to be part of the current equations... You know, the equation that already has people bitching and complaining about how unfair it is... ???

I have nothing against these cars, but I see them as a pain in the... well, you know... to classify on any kind of parity level... Just look at all the trouble that Trans-Am had with them... and every other class, for that matter...

I'm not sure that IT has the mechanisms in place to truely classify them competitively, though we might be able to do something with the use of weights and restrictors...

Again, I'm not against the idea, but I do see it as a pretty big risk...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[turboICE]

How much interest are we talking about? Enough that there are 3 or 4 cars running in each division's regional races? Or would they want to see enough interest that it would result in 50% AWD fields? I mean getting enough that almost every regional race would have 1 or 2 AWD entrants would be pretty easy. That should be easy to observe just from AWD make/model forums and the people that show up to track days.

As far as youth and the desire to race their turbo-charged cars or wanting modifications permitted beyond IT specs - that comes from ignorance of what that would involve regarding the budgets that they would be racing against to race those specs. That is easy to resolve through eductaion. The only people with the turbo AWD that really think they should be classed in a way that they could race them the way they want have never been to a track day less likely considered what getting into racing really involves. Usually the car in question is the only one they own and is daily driven. I agree it is difficult to take their desires seriously.

Everyone I know from any age group that has been to more than 10 track days realizes the large budget needed just to race to Touring preparation and while they may track their daily driven STi's and Evo's when it comes down to racing - they would gladly settle for an IT prepped RS.

I know at least one person who used my car for licensing that has given up on the SCCA. He sold his STi for a tow vehicle so that he could prep his Subaru RS for racing with EMRA, where it is classed. But he isn't going to get run over in ITE just to show interest to the SCCA. (Though I do need him at least write in... amazing how hard it is to get someone who expresses interest to just write a note.)

Ed.

[This message has been edited by turboICE (edited April 14, 2005).]

[Ron Earp]

Darin,

I think your points are valid and logical. But, I think one of the fastest ways to resolve the issue is class one. Class one in S and spec if very conservatively with the intention to monitor it carefully and pull weight etc. as needed to set it up more competitively. With some hard data on a representative of the type then decisions can be made to class more of them.

Ron

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by turboICE:
How much interest are we talking about? Enough that there are 3 or 4 cars running in each division's regional races?

I would say that to enter into the mine field that this could become more than 1 or 2 cars would be neccesary. Also, I'm not so sure that many would show up. Looking at production numbers and performance potential would give a better idea than guessing.

Originally posted by turboICE:
That should be easy to observe just from AWD make/model forums and the people that show up to track days.

Lots on discussion forums participation doesn't necessarily translate to cars being built for the track. And my experience with track day events is a large percentage are not interested or ready for the committment to prep a car for club racing.

Originally posted by turboICE:
As far as youth and the desire to race their turbo-charged cars or wanting modifications permitted beyond IT specs - that comes from ignorance of what that would involve regarding the budgets that they would be racing against to race those specs. That is easy to resolve through eductaion.

We still have arguments here between people that have built and raced cars that still can't agree on what is reasonable. Education doesn't seem to help.

Originally posted by turboICE:
Everyone I know from any age group that has been to more than 10 track days realizes the large budget needed just to race to Touring preparation and while they may track their daily driven STi's and Evo's when it comes down to racing - they would gladly settle for an IT prepped RS.

Great, get them to write letters. The only people I hear from are the turbo crowd that lose interest once they hear about the preparation requirements and limitations.

Originally posted by turboICE:
(Though I do need him at least write in... amazing how hard it is to get someone who expresses interest to just write a note.)

That is kind of the point, if you can't get people to write a letter, how much faith can you have that they are willing to build the cars?

As for getting run over in ITE, his STi would have faired no worse than a lot of other cars that run in that group.

As others have said, I don't have anything against the concept other than it WILL be difficult to setup properly. One group is going to come out with a perceived advantage and the other group is going to whine about it. Before we start down another slippery slope let's see how much interest there really is. If you know someone that is interested, or better yet if you know someone already running a car in another series, get them to write in.


------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
BUT... it's AWD... Is that really something that needs to be part of the current equations... You know, the equation that already has people bitching and complaining about how unfair it is... ???

I have nothing against these cars, but I see them as a pain in the... well, you know... to classify on any kind of parity level... Just look at all the trouble that Trans-Am had with them... and every other class, for that matter...

I'm not sure that IT has the mechanisms in place to truely classify them competitively, though we might be able to do something with the use of weights and restrictors...

Again, I'm not against the idea, but I do see it as a pretty big risk...

Equation? Is that like a formula?

Darin,

There's no guarantee of competitivness in IT, so what's if matter if they can truly be classified competitively? And no mechanism? Seems like it would be a poster child for testing the PCA system.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Here's a car that someone wants classified. We're not sure how close we can get to predicting how AWD will play out, but we can adjust things after a year or two."</font>

Here's an opportunity to put the system, errr 'process', to the test!


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
We still have arguments here between people that have built and raced cars that still can't agree on what is reasonable. Education doesn't seem to help.

The difference is a bit greater than that - I mean the people here do understand what the ramifications of placing no restrictions on brake or suspension components in terms of the cost to compete. The uninformed figure that using their OTS aftermarket parts that they could afford would be the limit of what they would compete against in an unlimited modification environment.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As for getting run over in ITE, his STi would have faired no worse than a lot of other cars that run in that group.</font>

Since I believe there isn't much point on this forum of discussing adding cars to the overall SCCA list - I wasn't talking about his STi. The STi was traded for a tow vehicle - his interest and mine as well would be in classing the Impreza RS (2.5L NA motor) in IT - that is the car that would get ran over if he were to try to show interest by running it in ITE. His choice was to go ahead and build the RS and race with EMRA, mine was to buy an existing ITA car to get to the racing part and then work to bring in the car I would rather have - in this case the Impreza RS. What I am trying to say here is that if they were classed there would be a minimum of two Impreza RS's in MARRS as well as attendence at some other regional races around the NJ area. And that is just from the small number of people that I interact with.

While actually both of us liked tracking our STi's and were glad to see it added to T1 and moved to T2 - neither of us had any intentions of starting racing at that performance level or preparing a base car that had that much cost in advance of preparation. In three years if I convince myself I have any competence at wheel to wheel then I will think on building an STi, though my current one would be pretty close to 5 by then, I could get another.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As others have said, I don't have anything against the concept other than it WILL be difficult to setup properly. One group is going to come out with a perceived advantage and the other group is going to whine about it. Before we start down another slippery slope let's see how much interest there really is. If you know someone that is interested, or better yet if you know someone already running a car in another series, get them to write in.</font>

I agree that is where my efforts will be focused. The most difficulty I find is that over time there are some who have felt alienated by SCCA and feel that the SCCA are set in a way such that they wouldn't listen to anything outside entrenched ideals. I am not saying that the feeling is right, wrong, justified or not - that fact that the feeling exists among prior and current members is sufficient for it to matter.

Either way I think there is enough interest in the area between VIR and Watkins Glen that within 2 years of classing there would be a minimum of 4 AWD cars running.

It has gotten to the point where we almost have enough interest to run them in an AWD series within current classing of other sanctioning bodies. 6 of us met to lay out the ground work for that just three weeks ago with 4 of us licensed and with built cars (albeit not all are are using AWD at this point). I personally feel that advancing an AWD racing community would be better served developing within SCCA IT classing and prep rather than trying to start a small series with an initial group that combined has less than 20 years experience and almost none of it on the administrative side of running motorsports.

[This message has been edited by turboICE (edited April 15, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by turboICE (edited April 15, 2005).]

[turboICE]

BTW - I do appreciate the responses to my posts and the insight. I now have on my to do lists looking into production and potential numbers.

[ed325its]

Let's class a couple of cars. I'll start measuring a roll cage for my E36 325xit for ITS. With all the added weight it shouldn't need a restrictor.

------------------
Ed Tisdale
#22 ITS '95 325is
Racing BMW's since 1984

[TurboCGT]

Ill also be putting together my Audi 4000q this summer... I guess Ill keep it stock just in case it gets classed. Would be a good starting point for an awd comparison... as the audi coupe is "almost" the same.

[Knestis]

Point of order, here...

You are in fact NOT simply asking for a car to be listed in the ITCS - a process that requires a request to the Club Racing Board and submission of Vehicle Specification Sheets.

You are asking for a change to the GCR, which specifically prohibits 4wd in all categories except Touring and Showroom Stock.

Any request that the Quattro or a Subaru be listed in IT won't even be considered because of that, so make your request specific - that GCR 11.2.1.Y be amended to include Improved Touring in the categories in which 4wd/AWD be allowed.

And good luck with that!

K