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]
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]
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]
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
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.
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.
Where is the competitive history and evidence that AWD would somehow in a large way reshape condition competitiveness?
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.
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]
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.
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]
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]
Has the SCCA ever left their Touring and SS cars hanging out in the wind after their fifth year?
I think OEM for 98-00 was 165 HP and 166 torque. (and think it was through possibly 2005 even, 2006 is 173 HP)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]
Originally posted by RSTPerformance+Oct 13 2005, 12:16 PM-->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]
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.
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]
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]
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]