Audi A4 2.8L Quattro NA - ITS car?

I think that they should be treated the same as a FWD or RWD cars are treated when making the classifications... If the powers that be feel thier is an advantage, change weights accordingly... Its no different than any other car.

If people don't race them cause they don't think they can win... well then those people might be racing for the wrong reasons anyhow and/or I think the car needs to be looked at to see if it was classed wrong or not, but any start would be a good start IMO

Raymond
 
Well - this was an awesome thread, but I sold the friggin car. Figured the A4 was not going to be classed competitively...

Looks like 2007 will be a T2 STi :happy204: (or put the Boxster in T3 and then I'm sold for that deal).

And anybody who doesn't think AWD would be a killer advantage in the wet or dry is on crack or never drove one hard. You can save the most bonehead moves, power around corners and just have beautiful traction everywhere. Four wheel drift to your hearts content and then step on it, point and shoot.

Why would I consider turining in my RX7 for an A4 - killer advantage - Andy knows me too well and called it throughout the thread.

BUT - I bet this discussion will continue because the A4 is a good fit for ITS and might shake things up. I still have the request in to Kansas so we'll see what they say.

I also wonder about the speculation of moving SSB/C to T4/T5 or some variant. It would be nice to see that once those cars are ready for IT that some logical progression was thought of.

Greg Amy pointed out that in the past that hasn't been the case - we might want to see what we can do to change that.


So - who thinks I shoulda kept the A4???

Cheers,
 
I'm all for the 96-7 Audi A4 2.8Q at 2,900lbs - it would be a great car for Ben to keep in his trailer next to his mini quad.
 
Originally posted by benspeed@Oct 13 2005, 03:03 PM
And anybody who doesn't think AWD would be a killer advantage in the wet or dry is on crack or never drove one hard. You can save the most bonehead moves, power around corners and just have beautiful traction everywhere. Four wheel drift to your hearts content and then step on it, point and shoot.
[snapback]62573[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
Well I don't do drugs but killer advantage with proper consideration in classing I doubt.

Good drivers save bonehead moves all the time in all types of cars, there are also ways to lose it with AWD if you get on it wrong in a bad situation.

They also have a tendency to be murder on brakes and the OEM brakes are usually not up to hauling down the car nearly as fast as its 2WD brethren. Using OEM calipers you are going to lose braking contests all day long to many others, especially when you start throwing in weight. Besides part of the point and shoot also comes from they turn in terribly which means you are going in the turn slower. So point and shoot works great with 300 ft.lbs. of torque even after having slown more than a 2wd to turn in - but with 166 ft. lbs. the shoot isn't nearly as effective going to four wheels. Yeah you are pulling the trigger but you haven't been shot out. And you lose a lot of the ability to throttle steer at those NA torque numbers as well. My 240SX turns in better, throttle steers better and is only slightly later on the throttle.

At IT power levels sure there is an advantage in certain conditions and at certain points on the track but under all conditions and for all considerations it isn't a killer one. It is about 50# worth. :P
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 13 2005, 02:44 PM
So let's do it...let's hear from those who want AWD in...how should they be classed?

AB
[snapback]62571[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
We should also actually hear from a broader population than the IT forum since many of "those who want AWD" haven't had a reason to be here.

First the ban on AWD from the board has to be lifted.

Then input on the process of how AWD was considered in Touring would be helpful to those who are going to be doing the classing.

Then input from the broader SCCA membership where the interest in AWD lies.
 
Ok, Ed, et al, lets get TWO numbers here. Actually, lets make it 3.

1- What hp (at the flywheel, and at the wheels) can a 165 stock motor acheive in IT trim?? Absolute MAX effort, of course.

2- Now, what weight would you set to make the car competitive in the dry.

3- Finally, what weight would you set to make the car competitive in the wet?

And just to get you in the ballpark, lets use the ITS RX-7 as a bogey. generally the 180 number is the accepted hp level.

And, an intersesting aside here, at least in the NE ITA world, most of the top drawer FWD guys get a little queasy when it rains, and the RWD guys grin ear to ear. the FWD guys have VERY stiff springs and dampers, and the set up needs a BIG change for the rain. The last really wet rain race was won by a RWD RX-7, IIRC. Now if the FWD guys could change the setup, who knows, but conditions are so changeable that usually there isn't adequate time.
 
Originally posted by turboICE@Oct 13 2005, 07:17 PM

They also have a tendency to be murder on brakes and the OEM brakes are usually not up to hauling down the car nearly as fast as its 2WD brethren. Using OEM calipers you are going to lose braking contests all day long to many others, especially when you start throwing in weight.
[snapback]62575[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


I'll give you the point on braking - but handling recovery is superior, traction is superior and if you can get the power down early - very competitive.

Not saying this is a class beater by any stretch, but the car will run!
 
Originally posted by robits325is@Oct 13 2005, 07:04 PM
I'm all for the 96-7 Audi A4 2.8Q at 2,900lbs - it would be a great car for Ben to keep in his trailer next to his mini quad.
[snapback]62574[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
Only problem is my "kid-quad" doesn't have AWD :lol:

But I would pull that A4 out for a rain race if she was 2,900 lbs.

I also bet the motor could be made to produce 190 in IT trim. Maybe more with a full program from a top Audi shop.


Like Ice said - brakes do suck on this car. I put a whole new brake package in and forgot how lousy the stock setup was.
 
Andy, I would say at some point as IT matures it is going to have to deal with AWD. So let's do it know.

Pick a popular AWD car, probably Audi or Sube, class it in S with some weight penalty and watch it run for a year or two. That will give you more experience with teh AWD advantage, if any, in classing additional cars at a later date.
 
I don't know exact numbers numbers but flywheel would probably be 190 max effort unless you could are going to count a stand alone hacked into the ECU case because EcuTek reflash is only for originally turbo'd engines... If you want to count squeezing a Motec in I wouldn't be surprised if max effort build and tune could get 200 at the crank. If anyone ever came up with a reflash or EcuTek would modify to work on NA then 200 probably could be achieved in a two to three year development window.

Not having seen a NA on a chasis dyno, but I would say a 30% drivetrain loss could be expected, so say 140 at the wheels.

I don't know ITS power to weight expectations but I would use those numbers and fill in 50# as the all condition modifier.

Consider the RS a balanced car with good suspension geometry and available parts. Not a 325 but still probably a 75 percentile or above suspension as ITS goes.

Brakes are probably OK considering speeds that the NA and gearing can take it to, but closer to 50 percentile among ITS cars if weight can be gotten down.

I think that might give it a start that those desiring to run the 2.5 RS would think would be worth developing.
 
Originally posted by JeffYoung@Oct 14 2005, 01:02 AM
Andy, I would say at some point as IT matures it is going to have to deal with AWD.
Click to expand...

Why? It's still very much a niche market.
 
George, I think that is changing. More and more manufactures are going to AWD of some sort. For the street, it probably is the way to go to cover "all" situations. For the track, I'll take rear drive.

Used to just be Subes. Now, we've got Subes, Audis, BMW has the X models, etc. I think we will see more of AWD and I think that at some point it would be wrong to continue to exclude the cars from IT.

I think excluding turbo cars is wrong, but I don't have the horror story experiences that Kirk and Greg Amy have. I understand it is pretty easy to fiddle with boost, etc.

I guess my point is that IT should be inclusive, not exclusive, of technology and car lines. If got the WRX in ITX or R -- I imagine we would have a lot of new race cars being built.
 
OK, 140 at the wheels???

Hmmmm, thats not going to stack up against an RX-7 with 180 at the wheels ....maybe ITA is a better place.

So, if the 240 SX has 150 at the wheels, what weights would you set for the dry and the wet..?
 
Originally posted by Geo@Oct 14 2005, 12:05 AM
Why?  It's still very much a niche market.
[snapback]62622[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


George,

If it's such a 'niche' market, why do we have AWD cars in SS and T now? To not see the writing on the wall, and to not see this comming in IT, is really having your head in the sand.

I think the "We can allow AWD cars, because they'll have such an advantage, that people will build 'wet and 'dry' cars." is a red herring. Honestly, what's the probability of this happening? Just how many people out there do you think would do this? You're not just going to be able to throw something together, and have it be competitive, purely by virtue of the AWD. The car will need to be developed, and that costs money. Not to mention the added cost of transporting two cars to the track, etc. You're going to either have to pick which car to run for the weekend, or pay two registrations, and qualify two cars.

If you pick which car, before the weekend, and only take one car, you run the risk of a situation similar to the one at the last MARRS race at Summit Point. Weather reports showed possible rain for the whole weekend, and Sat. was pretty damn wet. However, things dried out on Sun. The AWD may have been an advantage on Sat., during qualifying, but that would have gone away on Sun., being as it dried out. Now reverse the situation, bring the 'dry' car, and have it rain for Sun., and you're in the same boat as everyone else.

Bringing both cars has its issues as well (beyond just the expense and logistics). You now only get one qualifying session per car, and if you decide to only qualify one of the cars, but decide to switch on race day, you get to start DFL. Is AWD really that much of an advantage, in IT, that you're going to be able to win from DFL?

This is a case of looking at the probability that people will build two cars. To me, it's probably low enough to be insignificant, and you shouldn't exclude a whole group of cars because of it. Oh, and while AWD may be able to overcome a weight penalty in the wet, you're still going to have to slow those heavier cars down, in the wet.
 
I don't know what it's worth but here's a data point: The "wet" vs."dry" at a VIR NASA sprint race this July made the difference between 2nd and "way the hell back" on the grid for Pablo and me. Different cars and drivers are just better in different conditions.

To be clear, I was NOT suggesting that anyone would really have wet and dry cars - just relating the hyperbole. I think the angst is overstated and just another case of people trying to use the rules-making process to protect their relative competitive advantages.

K
 
Bill,

We already had at least one BMW guy say that he would build up his 325ix if it were allowed...and have them both available.

All you really need is for one team in a few areas to do this, and it hurts the racing. If everyone did it, then there would be no net effect.

BTW: How do we start calculating drivetrain losses for this new breed when you have adjustable torque splits? Bet it isn't a linear deal...

So if we class conservatively, nobody builds. If we class correctly, you have a weather dependent overdog...who wins?

AB
 
That's why I bailed on the idea of building my A4. It would be classed too conservatively on weight. And some good points were made on this thread identifying some real weaknesses in the car.

I still think AWD should have a place in IT - but you're right Andy - class the car copetitively in the dry and you will have a wet race overdog.
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 14 2005, 08:47 AM
Bill,

We already had at least one BMW guy say that he would build up his 325ix if it were allowed...and have them both available.

All you really need is for one team in a few areas to do this, and it hurts the racing.  If everyone did it, then there would be no net effect.

BTW: How do we start calculating drivetrain losses for this new breed when you have adjustable torque splits?  Bet it isn't a linear deal...

So if we class conservatively, nobody builds.  If we class correctly, you have a weather dependent overdog...who wins?

AB
[snapback]62643[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Andy,

I understand that there will be some people that will do this. It's the same story, you can't control how much money people will spend to win a $20 trophy. The point I was trying to make, was that the times where this would be an advantage, are not that often. Also, if T and SS can manage it, I think IT can as well. And let's look at T and SS, does anyone know of a case, where anybody running in either of those categories, has a 'wet' car and a 'dry' car? If AWD would be such an advantage in IT (so that someone would build 'wet' and 'dry' cars), I would expect it to be an advantage in T and SS as well.

Maybe the approach should be similar to the one taken w/ the NB in ITC, class it and see how it does. BTW, has anybody seen a NB out there yet?
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 14 2005, 08:47 AM
BTW: How do we start calculating drivetrain losses for this new breed when you have adjustable torque splits?  Bet it isn't a linear deal...
[snapback]62643[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
I don't think there are any cars within IT performance envelopes that offer adjustable split.

Even the STi despite Subaru Marketing's complete misunderstanding is not an adjustable split. The Driver Controlled Center Diff (DCCD) is not a torque adjustment - it adjusts the degree to which the center diff locks. The torque split is continuous.

If there is an AWD system available with adjustable split in the IT profile then I agree that would be an issue. That might require much like traction control for the ability to be disabled. Also the efficiency of different brands is quite different, even different models. The small population that has experience with E30 iX (I have an '89 - all my vehicles except my race car are AWD...) strongly believes the newer Xi system is not nearly as efficient or effective. But the front shaft and drive spline on the iX system wouldn't last long in IT stresses based on the number on the roard that break this part. And BTW I doubt there is anyway an E30 iX could be prepared to anywhere close to 50# of the iS weight.

Most everyone that has tracked the 2.5 RS in near stock terms does think it is more comparable to ITA classed cars - primarily because the brake HP numbers don't tell the full story with drive train loss. They run very similar laps to ITA tegs. No it isn't as controlled a situation as an actual IT comparison (no T&S, differing levels of preparation, etc) but that is the general feeling from track days.

But I didn't want to go there since the mindset is that its brake HP is in the ITS range. Just to get it classed and to give ITAC direct experience with results i'd run a decently prepared one in ITS just to give direct experience - I just would want the weight to leave me mid pack at least. I don't want to get ran over. I know if ITS is the wrong place that it would be identified and corrected. The main reason would be that the weight can only come down so much, the RS is going to be heavy in IT trim no matter what - I know it couldn't come down to an ITA 240SX weight.

If the CRB allows AWD in IT, I would be sure to include a chasis dyno report in a request for classing to the ITAC.

I have a classing methodology question - is there any presumed weight level reduction that is attainable in IT trim? My assumption has been weight is determined and there isn't a consideration in classing if the car can get there or not that it is up to the developer to figure out how to get there if it can be achieved. But as with my other process assumptions this could be dead wrong.
 
I'll let the ITCS members speak specifically about philosophies but evidence suggests that, if estimates require that a car be spec'd at an impossibly low weight, it is moved downward a class and weight upward to get to the point where the numbers make sense - a la New Beetle in ITC.

K
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top