AWD in IT...

T

theenico

New member
The WRX STi and Lancer EVO are being classed in Touring next year. That should open the door for, at least naturally aspirated, AWD cars in IT.
For example:
Audi 4000 quattro '84-'86 = ITB (@ 100# heavier than front drive)
Audi 80/90 quattro 10V = ITB/ITA (depends on weight)
Audi 90 quattro 20V '90-'91 = ITS (if you can find one)
Audi coupe quattro 20V '90-'91 = ITS
Subaru Impreza L 2.2L = ITB
Subaru Impreza 2.5 RS = ITS (We have one here in the MIDIV that currently runs ITE but he generally hangs with the ITS cars. I built the cage and suspension with the idea that one day it would be in ITS. The engine was also built to IT specs.)

I'm sure I left out a bunch of other cars but I'm just putting this out there to see what anyone thinks about it. SO let 'er rip
smile.gif



------------------
Nico
KCRaceware (816) 257-7305
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by theenico (edited November 11, 2003).]
 
Turbos will be in IT someday too.

As for "naturally aspirated", you forgot a domestic candidate, the Ford Tempo AWD!

Mitsubishi sold a non-turbo Galant AWD and Mazda had the AWD Protge in 1990.
 
Hmmm... Boy, that would certainly throw a wrench into any "classification formula", were one to exist for IT... I wonder how you'd factor THAT (AWD) variable in there???
confused.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg
 
So how much money do you think Subaru and Mitsubishi threw @ SCCA to get these cars classified?

Or is Mazda getting upstaged?


------------------
Tim Linerud
San Francisco Region SCCA
#95 GP Wabbit (Bent)
http://linerud.myvnc.com/racing/index.html

[This message has been edited by racer_tim (edited November 11, 2003).]
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...how you'd factor THAT (AWD) variable...</font>
Click to expand...

AWD is not really the killer mod that most people think it is, Audi and Subaru marketing notwithstanding. Pound for pound, AWD is an advantage only in situations of low grip and/or high horsepower. All it does for you is give you the ability to accelerate using all the available horsepower and torque; it doesn't make the car handle any differently than a comparable non-AWD car.

In reality, no AWD car weighs the same as its comparable RWD or FWD version. In fact, most of the AWD versions will weigh 300-400 pounds or more than the other version, effectively negating the AWD advantage in any situation other than rain. Further, the existence of AWD increases drivetrain losses, reducing torque that is actually put to the ground.

For example, I was a driver on an endurance team that had both the AWD and FWD Eagle Talons. In almost every case the FWD Talon was faster than the AWD Talon simply because the FWD version weighed 300 pounds less and didn't have to send power all the way to the drivetrain in the back. It was only in cases of rain that the AWD version had the advantage but given that rain was not the norm the FWD car beat the AWD car in both season points and in the win column.

The simple answer to your question, Darin, is that the very existence of AWD will automatically come with a weight and power penalty sufficient to negate its advantage in most racing situations.

Greg
 
Greg,

You said it much better than I could have. I agree 100%.

I had the pleasure of racing a WRX at Laguna in the rain. I had raced the same WRX at Buttonwillow. While the car was competitve at both events, it wasn't even close at Laguna. While others had their lap times fall upto 15 seconds a lap, I fell from 1.46's in the dry to a 1.52's in the rain.....sweet magic!!

Why penalize a car that only has an advantage 10% of the time?

Now, if I lived in Darin's area....
 
I don't have worries about AWD but puh-leeze let's not ever have turbos in IT. My crystal ball tells me that the turbos in Touring are going to be a re-run of the same problems that were experienced 20 years ago, unless they are classified only where cheated up electronics will put them at a par with other options.

K
 
I forgot a car also. How about the BMW 325ix.
I also believe that the only inherent advantage would be in the wet, especially because AWD cars are typically heavier than their 2WD counterparts.
My next question is does anyone have any "84-'86 Audi 4000 quattro's laying around. I figure it will take at least 2 years worth of letter writing to get one classified.
smile.gif


------------------
Nico
KCRaceware (816) 257-7305
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by theenico (edited November 11, 2003).]
 
Toyota All-Track...AWD and turbo
smile.gif

I hope to see cars like the 2.5RS and the Audis in IT.
I drove a heavily modded WRX at 15+ HPDE's over the last few years, and although that car had an amazing advantage out of slow to medium corners, its tendency to understeer heavily with any gas applied to the throttle made it kind of boring to drive. In any AWD car I've driven, no matter how stiff you set up the rear it will push on exit...then with the rear super stiff if I lifted at all any where in the corner, it would snap oversteer like crazy.
I agree completely AWD will be more of a crutch with low HP IT cars...except in the rain.
 
Originally posted by theenico:
The WRX STi and Lancer EVO are being classed in Touring next year. That should open the door for, at least naturally aspirated, AWD cars in IT.
Click to expand...

Why?


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
I am all for classifying AWD Audi's!!! I am all over that, and yes we have plenty of Quattro's around for anyone who wants to build one!!!

Best benifit, I might be able to move it in the driveway to get it ready for the first race of the season
wink.gif


Raymond
RST Performance Racing
 
Audi coupe quattro 20V '90-'91 = ITS

I have one sitting in the driveway, no wait I have access to a couple and I think that this would make the most fun IT car!!! i would sell all the other stuff to be able to rae that in ITS... I think that my brother and I are going to go through a huge list of Audi's and request classification. maybe we will get 1 in 20 or so??? We will post the data we get so others can also write letters if interested. Also Nico, I think you are right on with your classifications.

Raymond "Audi nuts" Blethen
RST Performance Racing
 
Raymond,
Thanks for the compliment on my class suggestions. I would love to participate and/or help in any way possible to get our cars classified. I'm also going to get my Subaru buddies involved (why should just us Audi guys have all the fun)
smile.gif



------------------
Nico
KCRaceware (816) 257-7305
[email protected]
 
Don't under estimate the advantage of AWD in the dry. This year in GTS Challenge we had a 1.8T A4 AWD Audi. The car didn't have exceptional power, in fact it was equal on the straights to a 944 or 325i, but the corners were a whole different story. The car could could drive around cars on the inside, the outside or the grass. It would also be full throttle long before anyone else. Here's a photo of it in action http://www.gtschallenge.com/pics/0830/3%20...ar%20battle.JPG
If they ever allow them in IT, expect a huge out cry from the masses after seeing these things on track.
 
I like the idea of awd getting classed, mainly because it is making up an increasing percentage of cars on the road, and thus cars available to race down the road.

OTOH these guys sure seemed to demonstrate how much of an 'unfair advantage' it can be - no matter how much weight was thrown at them...
102239462054411794.jpg



[This message has been edited by shwah (edited November 16, 2003).]
 
Originally posted by zracer22:
Don't under estimate the advantage of AWD in the dry...The car could could drive around cars on the inside, the outside or the grass. It would also be full throttle long before anyone else...If they ever allow them in IT, expect a huge out cry from the masses after seeing these things on track.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. There is a weight disadvantage to AWD, but the cornering is impressive.

I had two very interesting rides with an instructor at a PCA event. The first was in a stock 911 C2. Then we jumped into a stock C4. A couple of times I thought we were going to hit the weeds in the C4, but he just put down power and drove through.

I know, there are other differences between the two models than just the drive layout, but it was obvious that the front wheels were pulling the nose around the corner.

------------------
Gregg Baker
Isaac, LLC
[email protected]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top