AWD in IT...

AWD is only a dramatic advantage - in terms of speed - if the car in question has enough power to spin two wheels. In the rain, this is pretty much any of the cars being discussed here but in the dry, an ITB 4000 Quattro isn't going to have much, if anything over the 2wd version.

The IMSA GTO or TA Quattros had power to burn so they had a HUGE advantage. That same situation translates to dirt - until you talk about really low HP cars. I'll bet that a 4wd Subaru Justy wouldn't be any faster on a rally stage than a 2wd model with the same (pitiful) power.

K
 
In an AWD you can recover from mistakes easier, or mistakes of greater magnitude. So there is an advantage there. However, this doesn't result in more speed, simply a car that is more recoverable. The guy/gal that doesn't make the mistake in the first place still wins.

If the tires were narrower, harder compound and/or the races were longer then there would be a larger advantage to the AWD.

Standing starts would be another story...
 
I,personally, like the AWD as a confidence builder. You can be a litle less smooth and get away with it. If your extremely unsmooth at least you can pull yourself back out of the mud with the Audi's standard diff locks
smile.gif


------------------
Nico
KCRaceware (816) 257-7305
[email protected]
 
Talk about increasing the price of IT. Any AWD car would have a huge advantage over the 2 wheel dirve version. It would be hard on tires but would have a definite advantage on acceleration through and out of a corner. So, classify AWD and everyone will be complaining about the unfair advantage of your Audi 90 and my E36 325ixt.

Ed Tisdale
 
With our relatively low HP IT cars, I don't think AWD will be a huge advantage. Yes, it is more forgiving and easier to drive near 10/10ths, but AWD won't make a car take less time through a corner. An AWD car might have more exit speed, but will usually lose to RWD when timing through a corner.
If you're applying power to all four tires, than all four tires have less grip for lateral G's.
I'd love to see them out on track. One of the things about sports car racing I have loved since I was a kid was the fact that there were different types of cars on the track, and each one had its niche. The AWD cars are able to get back on power earlier and are monsters out of slow corners, but usually get passed back at the end of the straight. Also, they are a little harder on tires and a little slower on corner entry.
Bring em on
wink.gif
 
While thinking about it, I bet SCCA would classify the 4000 Quattro's in ITA for fear of an "unfair advantage." I don't think that it would have much advantage over the FWD Audi's although I do think it would generate a lot more Audi's in the field due to a much higher interest in the Quattro (we would definitely be trading ours in).

In ITA the Quattro would get killed, as the ITA FWD Audi Coupe has a 2.3L motor that was never offered in the Quattro, thus that would be a better option. I am not even sure if the coupe stands a chance in ITA although we have pondered the idea.

Raymond Blethen
RST Performance Racing
 
According to my Bentley manual, late '87 4000 quattro's came with the 2.3L. With the additional weight of the AWD sysyem (200#s ?) I think all 5cyl. 10V Audi quattro's should be just fine in ITB.

------------------
Nico
KCRaceware (816) 257-7305
[email protected]
 
This debate has been based on a dry racing surface. What about the 30% of the time that the surface isn't dry? Every NASA and SCCA event held at Beaverun this season had at least one wet day. We watched the Audi mentioned above turn laps 8 seconds quicker than everyone else during the wet laps of an enduro at Nelson Ledges. On the dry laps, the car was 2 -3 seconds slower than the cars he ran away from in the wet. You can just base you views on dry conditions, some of us deal with wet conditions upto 50% of the time.
 
raymond,
the answer is easy, if approved build both cars and checj the weater channel each weekend to decide which car to bring.(g)
dick
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
The CB has accepted this in principle by classifying AWD cars in Touring.

K
Click to expand...

I don't agree that that's really the case... There just aren't that many Touring cars that would fit into any of the existing IT classes... Firebirds, 350Zs, etc... Just too much displacement...
 
I didn't mean that the Board had taken ANY position re: AWD in IT. It has however clearly accepted that the issue of AWD having an advantage in lousy weather isn't great enough to not list cars so equipped in club racing.

k
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
It has however clearly accepted that the issue of AWD having an advantage in lousy weather isn't great enough to not list cars so equipped in club racing.

k
Click to expand...


Oh... OK...
wink.gif
 
I am a huge audi lover and enthusiest but I have to agree with others that in a straight line the car will be slower in the dry however the cornering will be night and day. I know that anyone can put a quaffe in there car but if you ahven't you are missing a few seconds a lap at some tracks. Imagine the same improvement in the wet and some of that improvement in the dry! I drove my AWD 90 quattro in the dry at LRP and it handled better than my racecar with stock suspension. no I'm sure my cornering speed was a bit slower and the car did have more roll but you could feel a huge difference between the AWD and 2WD. Power down much sooner and you get all the advantages of RWD with some of the FWD advantages as well. In the Rain it would ruin any race.

It simply would be unfair to classify any AWD car in IT becasue of the rain situations in my opinion.

Know the other side of me has to jump in becasue I am confused! How the heck do other cars beat the Audi AWD in the rain in Speedvision. This series almost proves that everything I think is completly wrong, afterall a RWD BMW won at lime rock in the rain!

Stephen
 
It's entirely possible that AWD provides huge gains on street cars, which have suspension geometries and rates that are horrible compromises.

In a racing situation - even varying the weather conditions - cars like those in SWC Touring are so optimized for what they do, four wheels of tractive force might not be such an advantage.

IT would fall somewhere between the two, probably.

K
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...would be unfair to classify any AWD car in IT becasue of the rain situations...</font>
Click to expand...

An illogical argument.

Let's say it rains 30% of the races. This would give the AWD car an advantage in 30% of the races. However, doesn't that give the other cars an advantage in 70% of the races? So, to follow that argument, we should not classify the other cars because they would have an advantage 70% of the time?

What about front-wheel-drive? Wouldn't the Acura GSR have an advantage against the BMW in the rain? Should we therefore de-classify the GSR because of its advantage in the rain?

Uh-oh: the BMW has an advantage 70% of the time in the dry! We should declassify the BMW because of that!!!

OK, so who do we have left? What we have left, friends, is a massive proliferation of single-marque classes instead of well-thought-out healthy competition among disparate designs. The one consistent theme of IT...
 
Stephen-

You are not my brother anymore...

I want AWD cars classified...

Stephen just doesn't want AWD classified because he knows that I can drive an AWD car better and will woop his @$$.

JK
wink.gif


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