I hate marathon quoting sessions, but unfortunately this is the only way I can see to efficiently address multiple points, quickly.
I think real men drive RWD race cars and weight breaks for FWD is affirmative action.
Why do you hate the handicapped, Dick?
We're not a different race, Dick, we're "special".
In order for their to be a change, we need to understand why 100lbs is 'wrong', and why your 150lbs is 'right'. Until we can make an educated decision on that...The current 100lbs is subjective. Your 150lbs is subjective....but that is just my gut.
Agreed, Andy. I can't justify it mathematically, I can only give you a process to make it easier. Further, anything I offer will seem to be tainted with a selfish agenda (with the idea that it may actually require
more than 150 pounds in the long run, but sometimes you only get one bite at the apple...) But, my gut has one extra "bit" that yours doesn't, and that's more years of the experience and education you're looking for, mostly in front-wheel-drive cars but a lot in RWD as well.
I can easily understand how lack of experience with FWD, coupled to having seen FWD perform well in some classes, would increase your skepticism. But you will have to resolve among yourselves how much of my stated judgment and opinion is potentially clouded with a selfish agenda. I see the same thing when opposed by those whose experience is primarily RWD. I'd
like to think you'd understand how little of this actually is selfish, as I try to do as well for you.
after reading the differences and advantages between RWD and FWD, i feel like an idiot for racing fwd.
No need to. Understanding what you're up against is 3/4 of the battle, covered by, hopefully, reasonable breaks for the shortcomings of the platform.
also, is there any perceived straight line braking advantage to either car?
Not simply due to FWD versus RWD. Braking is a function of weight transfer, brake size, and tire patch size, not drive location. It's one of the areas where neither platform, per se, has a distinct advantage. In fact, one could argue that because of the larger distribution of weight towards the back of the car, a RWD, mid-engine, or rear-transaxle car would have a
significant weight transfer advantage (see Miata, Toyota MR-2, Porsche 911 and 944, etc).
Honestly, I've never heard, nor experienced, any braking advantages solely due to FWD. In fact, I always thought that with all that weight up front already it was a distinct
disadvantage (which is why FWD cars have such piddly rear brakes; ain't much weight back there to begin with keep the tires on the ground; imagine transferring it all forwards and making only the front brakes and tires work...)
No, I suggest any perceived advantages are due primarily to the installed equipment (e.g., brake and tire sizes, weight), not the drive platform.
I will say that what ever anal grab bag these numbers came from, its at least in the right ball park. Otherwise you'd never have anything even close.
I would agree -- to a degree. But I suggest that your statement above comes from observation of ITA, ITB, and ITC which have numerous FWD cars entering. Further note that my discussion above focuses primarily on need for change within the higher-horsepower of ITS and ITR ranks, classes that have had very few FWD entries to use for illustrative comparison. As such, what I'm offering is predictions for change based on experience, knowledge, and education.
Go get yourself some vehicle like the Mitzu Eclipse or 3000GT which was offered in pretty much same trim but w/ FWD or AWD.
Did that in Firehawk in the early 90s (which was pretty close to IT prep at the time). Once you add in all the extra equipment to make it FWD it becomes too heavy and robs too much power. Except in the rain, the FWD cars were always faster. Besides, adding AWD to a FWD car usually makes it a heavy, slow FWD car.
It's not a fair comparison. And, I'm unaware of any valid direct same-chassis FWD v RWD platforms.
Curb weight/race weight is going to have a significant impact as well, just like horsepower. A heavier FWD car 'suffers" more, right, regardless of power?
Of course. Remember, it's all about those two patches of rubber up front. You're asking those same-size two patches to do a helluva lot more work on a FWD car than a RWD car.
...why with everything mathematically pointing to the RWD as being superior, that the FWD cars are able to out brake the RWD cars?
See above. I don't know where you got that contention. If you're talking about one-on-one personal comparison to specific competititors, I suggest you let one of us drive whatever RWD car you out-braked and let's see what happens....
To make a fair comparison, compare the braking hardware, weight, and tires.
I would also need a good answer to "what's broken" and "why are we doing this" before I would support it.
Then, once again, I've wasted my time here. If I've failed to impress upon you the differences in technology, dynamics, mechanics, and driving requirements for a FWD car versus a RWD car, and you (a RWD'er and part of the voting bloc of the ITAC) don't understand the functional differences and still wonder why a FWD car needs a significant break to compete fairly (and 90 pounds doesn't cut it in ITS), then there's no point in spending further time on this discussion...
GA
