All Wheel Drive coming to IT

D

D. Ellis-Brown

New member
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
 
D. Ellis-Brown said:
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
Click to expand...

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.

I am sure the cars would be placed in the current structure.
 
Last edited:
The Subaru 2.5RS is the first to be classed, it'll be in ITS. Please watch the next Fastrack for details.
 
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.
 
Greg Amy said:
What did you guys figure for an "adder" for AWD?
Click to expand...

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.

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
 
Knestis said:
(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
Click to expand...

So the ITAC is functioning and Josh is the Chairman? I must have missed all the announcements......
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
Kolin Aspegren said:
Back when turbo's ran in SSA, the fwd mitsubishi eclipse was way faster that the awd
eclipse. To me the awd cars would [need to have] a have a weight break all else being equal.

k
Click to expand...

Equal when? And where?

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.
 
lateapex911 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Horses for courses.

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?
 
Last edited:
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.

ed325its said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top