AWD (no flaming please), and no mention of the Audi

[StealthTT]

So what if we're talking about 2 cars or 50. Just because only a few cars are affected doesn't make the rule wrong. People with these cars see this rule and figure they're getting screwed over, so they don't compete. I can copy/paste a handfull of emails I've received on the matter. I've tried to expand this series by telling anyone that'll listen that this a good club to race with; that TT strives to be fair. I've found that's just not true after seeing the results of the 2-door AWD penalty.

 

I like SOP's challenge. Quit arguing from the other side of the fence and prove us wrong. Take one of these cars and make it competitive in TTA, S, or U. They're loads of fun to drive. I can even get you in touch with the people for custom high dollar suspension upgrades, aero, and engine mods.

 

Hell, I'll even build it. You buy the car & parts, pay a shop for the dyno tune, and drive it.

[hagakure]

I've got to weigh in here. I drove an Evo in TTA in the competitive norcal district for the past two years, did fairly well, got 3 wins, a bunch of second places (to another Evo usually). I sold the car, and now have avery well-prepared 214 WHP CRX with Koni 3011's, cage, etc. Very good race car. Well, to put a long story short, I have discovered that the Evo was so freaking easy to drive in comparison that if you can't drive one fairly fast, you cant drive. The CRX seems like a HUGE handful to me after the Evo, and my evo was not particularly well set-up. AWD is an advantage. Especially a powerful AWD car. They have so much grip they seem like they comparitively drive themselves. Very hard to screw up massively with an Evo or STI. I used to be one of the people talking about how unfair it was to penalize the AWD cars, and now that I am on the other side of the fence I say the penalty is too light! I have no idea if I am a good driver or not the Evo was so easy and cossetting!

[slowoldpoop]

What bumped you from TTA (that's were you were in the early season, right?) to TTS?

 

Last year, I was in TTB (and won one!), but they changed the rules. They put me in TTR because I did not have a dyno sheet. I ran the first six events in TTR while we were trying to get the car reliable enough to be dynoed. (Strangely enough, I am the current points leader in TTR in the Midwest, mainly because the AMS Evo stopped running NASA).

 

When we got it dynoed, the hp/wt put me into TTS where--at the time--I thought I had a chance, based on my performance when my car was running right. We are currently counting points and checking the rules to see if I can squeeze back into TTA on points alone, not hp/wt.

[StealthTT]

What bumped you from TTA (that's were you were in the early season, right?) to TTS?

 

He was TTR until he got a dynotune and weight for reclassification since he has an aftermarket turbo.

[cosm3os]

I like SOP's challenge. Quit arguing from the other side of the fence and prove us wrong. Take one of these cars and make it competitive in TTA, S, or U. They're loads of fun to drive. I can even get you in touch with the people for custom high dollar suspension upgrades, aero, and engine mods.

 

Hell, I'll even build it. You buy the car & parts, pay a shop for the dyno tune, and drive it.

 

Let me turn that around:

 

Quit arguing about the current rules until you maximize your car acoording to the current rules (and do so reliably), and prove us wrong. What's so hard about this concept? I took a look at my car, took a look a the rules, determined that my 19 pts would be better spent on X v Y, put all 19 points into it and walla--I gave myself the best chance to win. This is how racing has been done for billions of years.

[1LapSRT]

This is how racing has been done for billions of years.

 

Maybe only millions of year....don't exaggerate things!

[cosm3os]

This is the internet--and internet bench racing to boot. Exaggeration is a way of life here!

[Varkwso]

Hp/Wt is the same for TTA and TTS 8.7 to 1. If you bust out of TTA you go straight to TTU. I do believe TTS should not have the same HP/WT at TTA - you can see from the national times the effect it has. I would like to see TTS have a 7.5 to 1 or so ratio to even the gap from TTA to TTU a little better. But I am sure that will be bad for some competitors.

 

Being one of those dirty low life C5 Vette drivers - they are currently TTA, TTA* or TTB* - depending on which one you have and how you chose to class it. A C5 ZO6 (TTA* - no TTB option) only has 12 points before TTS. A non-ZO6 coming up from TTB has to be careful - the points legal mods can put you into TTU if it is all motor mods. I know for a fact mine has better time in it then we are currently running. But since this was about AWD and not those godless Huns in Vettes....

 

I have run with AWDs at lots of tracks - they do have an advantage coming out of the corners over my C5s - at every track I have been to - and the TTS/TTU ones I cannot chase down in my C5. If I do not have fresh tires I am not able to hang with them in my class unless it is a track where my inherent aero lets me chase them down and brake deeper. But any car, set up well with the points and with fresh tires pretty often, will be hard to beat if well driven. We were outrun by ZO6s, 911s (I even converted to one for one event!), Camaros, Mustangs , RX8s and STis in 2007. TTA and TTS do look like Spec C5Z - but there are other contenders out there. I have seriously considered jumping to an STi since they are very forgiving to drive and are fast as heck...I may depending on the final rule set in '08..

[IGZOSTD]

Hey Percy,

We've all missed you , Sears Point this weekend .

[GooRoo]

Hp/Wt is the same for TTA and TTS 8.7 to 1. If you bust out of TTA you go straight to TTU. I do believe TTS should not have the same HP/WT at TTA - you can see from the national times the effect it has. I would like to see TTS have a 7.5 to 1 or so ratio to even the gap from TTA to TTU a little better. But I am sure that will be bad for some competitors.

 

Being one of those dirty low life C5 Vette drivers - they are currently TTA, TTA* or TTB* - depending on which one you have and how you chose to class it. A C5 ZO6 (TTA* - no TTB option) only has 12 points before TTS. A non-ZO6 coming up from TTB has to be careful - the points legal mods can put you into TTU if it is all motor mods. I know for a fact mine has better time in it then we are currently running. But since this was about AWD and not those godless Huns in Vettes....

 

I have run with AWDs at lots of tracks - they do have an advantage coming out of the corners over my C5s - at every track I have been to - and the TTS/TTU ones I cannot chase down in my C5. If I do not have fresh tires I am not able to hang with them in my class unless it is a track where my inherent aero lets me chase them down and brake deeper. But any car, set up well with the points and with fresh tires pretty often, will be hard to beat if well driven. We were outrun by ZO6s, 911s (I even converted to one for one event!), Camaros, Mustangs , RX8s and STis in 2007. TTA and TTS do look like Spec C5Z - but there are other contenders out there. I have seriously considered jumping to an STi since they are very forgiving to drive and are fast as heck...I may depending on the final rule set in '08..

 

There's definitely nothing wrong with choosing a vette. I believe the TTA/S classes are ruled by the vettes currently because it is relatively easy to maximize the car to the rules and run in those classes. Driven well they have proven to be very fast TTA/S/U cars.

 

In general I think there's very little difference between the TTA and TTS classes right now. If you start with a good car that is low enough, you can do all mods needed for the car to get TTS times and stay with TTB/TTA points and within the 8.7 limit.

 

I was able to get relatively close to most of the regional TTA guys in a TTS car that is really only a few small mods from TTB, and that's using one set of $400 Hankooks for the whole year, so I do think there are other cars that can compete.

 

Back on topic... AWD is an advantage, just because the cars that have it that fit into the TTA/S mold easily doesn't make it any less so. Even at 8.7:1 it's pretty easy for any RWD car to spin the tires coming out of a corner, so with more of that going to the front they'd be faster.

 

By the way isn't there some 2 door AWD BMW's? I bet those could be made into very fast TTA/TTS cars. <> of course has TT's. I think there's a Mercedes too. All expensive of course, but they do exist.

[StealthTT]

Hp/Wt is the same for TTA and TTS 8.7 to 1. If you bust out of TTA you go straight to TTU. I do believe TTS should not have the same HP/WT at TTA - you can see from the national times the effect it has. I would like to see TTS have a 7.5 to 1 or so ratio to even the gap from TTA to TTU a little better.

 

Yes!

 

Being one of those dirty low life C5 Vette drivers - they are currently TTA, TTA* or TTB* - depending on which one you have and how you chose to class it. A C5 ZO6 (TTA* - no TTB option) only has 12 points before TTS. A non-ZO6 coming up from TTB has to be careful - the points legal mods can put you into TTU if it is all motor mods. I know for a fact mine has better time in it then we are currently running. But since this was about AWD and not those godless Huns in Vettes....

 

I don't dislike the Vette drivers. This is no witch hunt. I am actually quite impressed that so many are willing to race such a pretty and expensive car. It makes seeing the normal boulevard cruiser, show-n-shiner vette so mundane and normal.

 

I have run with AWDs at lots of tracks - they do have an advantage coming out of the corners over my C5s - at every track I have been to - and the TTS/TTU ones I cannot chase down in my C5....

 

Once again, the EVO and STI get the 4-door give-back that almost negates the AWD penalty. While there may be an advantage at corner exit transients, the extra mass located in front of the wheels has to brake and corner. I have found that only massive brakes can remove some of this disadvantage. I have found that while corner exit is faster, mid-corner speeds are lower. You know how painful it is to see all your competitors pull 5-10 carlengths on you through a carousel? I wish there were more 2-door AWD cars out there running so you guys could see the accordian effect through the corners (especially carousels) between 2-door-AWD and RWD cars.

 

Anyway, I think each side has come to the point where we keep repeating ourselves and lacking concrete evidence neither side's willing to concede. I'll step out and head back to recruiting new racers for next year.

 

You might want to start a new topic about the TTS weight to hp limit if you want to see that rule changed. I think many will agree with you and there is concrete evidence in the nationals times between the spec vettes.

 

p.s. Guys, keep posting those race weekend vids. I find it really helps in recruiting people to come out and try NASA. I just don't show the wreck videos to the squeamish show-n-shiners.

Edited October 26, 2007 by Guest

[hagakure]

Hey Percy,

We've all missed you , Sears Point this weekend .

 

Hey Steve...

 

I'll be at thunderhll this weekend with NCRC...I need an easier track to get a lot of seat time in with this CRX...I'm struggling with it a bit. I'm looking forward to getting back out there with you guys though.

[Slowwrx]

Hmmm.

 

I posted half hearted earlier about removing the penalty but I was more of less joking. As Varskow said he and I have run together at a lot of tracks and coming off the corners I have an advantage especially on slick tracks. I think the system is pretty fair the way it is now. I can't say I really have any complaints.

 

Jeff I've told you before and the offer stands if you would like to drive my STI you are more than welcome to.

 

Matt

[Varkwso]

Hmmm.

 

I posted half hearted earlier about removing the penalty but I was more of less joking. As Varskow said he and I have run together at a lot of tracks and coming off the corners I have an advantage especially on slick tracks. I think the system is pretty fair the way it is now. I can't say I really have any complaints.

 

Jeff I've told you before and the offer stands if you would like to drive my STI you are more than welcome to.

 

Matt

 

Matt - what we really need is for our cars to be "unbroke" and on the track again! I instructed at Roebling on Friday, CMP yesterday and today with no car - there is something wrong with me...

 

Since there was standing water (good bit of it) on the track at Roebling AWD was a good bit of an advantage. But the brand new GT3 RS was kicking it pretty good there also!

[StealthTT]

Hmmm.

I think the system is pretty fair the way it is now. I can't say I really have any complaints.

 

For 15th time, the 4 door cars get a bonus of 0.4 almost negating the 0.5 penalty for AWD.

 

To put it another way:

 

2-door RWD - 3550lbs = 8.7 - 0.35 weight reward = 8.35 adj ratio

4-door AWD - 3566lbs = 8.7 + 0.5 AWD penalty - 0.4 4-door reward - 0.35 weight reward = 8.45 adj ratio

2-door AWD - 3693lbs = 8.7 + 0.5 AWD penalty - 0.45 weight reward = 8.75 adj ratio

 

2-door RWD - 8.35:1 - 3550lbs : 422hp

4-door AWD - 8.45:1 - 3566lbs : 422hp + 16lb handicap

2-door AWD - 8.75:1 - 3693lbs : 422hp +143lb handicap

 

Of course you think it's fair. You and other 4-door AWD's would carry only a 16lb handicap. A 2-door, AWD car would carry a 143lb handicap. You have to compare apples to apples.

[1LapSRT]

Hmmm.

I think the system is pretty fair the way it is now. I can't say I really have any complaints.

 

For 15th time, the 4 door cars get a bonus of 0.4 almost negating the 0.5 penalty for AWD.

 

To put it another way:

 

2-door RWD - 3550lbs = 8.7 - 0.35 weight reward = 8.35 adj ratio

4-door AWD - 3566lbs = 8.7 + 0.5 AWD penalty - 0.4 4-door reward - 0.35 weight reward = 8.45 adj ratio

2-door AWD - 3693lbs = 8.7 + 0.5 AWD penalty - 0.45 weight reward = 8.75 adj ratio

 

2-door RWD - 8.35:1 - 3550lbs : 422hp

4-door AWD - 8.45:1 - 3566lbs : 422hp + 16lb handicap

2-door AWD - 8.75:1 - 3693lbs : 422hp +143lb handicap

 

Of course you think it's fair. You and other 4-door AWD's would carry only a 16lb handicap. A 2-door, AWD car would carry a 143lb handicap. You have to compare apples to apples.

 

Ahem......How do I say this nicely? Oh, I've got it!

 

Quit bitching because you own the wrong car!

 

Not every 4-door car that gets the "award" is AWD either. I run against higher HP AWD and RWD cars all the time.

 

I don't complain, because I have FWD! I make the most of it and sometimes it works out...sometimes it doesn't!

 

Have a nice day.

[StealthTT]

 

Ahem......How do I say this nicely? Oh, I've got it!

 

Quit bitching because you own the wrong car!

 

Not every 4-door car that gets the "award" is AWD either. I run against higher HP AWD and RWD cars all the time.

 

I don't complain, because I have FWD! I make the most of it and sometimes it works out...sometimes it doesn't!

 

Have a nice day.

 

Wow...um...where to start.

 

First off I thought I made it clear that I was showing the Subaru owner why he was inaccurate in comparing his 4-door AWD to all AWD cars. The same thing I've repeated about 15 times now.

 

Secondly, and once again I'll repeat myself

 

From the ruleset section 3 "Intent"

The intent of these rules is to provide mandates to ensure that all vehicles are modified within clearly established limits, to strive for an even platform, in which a contest of driving skill may provide the most talented drivers with great rewards.

 

But, hey, thanks for the well thought out and intelligent comments.

[BlackStripes]

For 15th time, the 4 door cars get a bonus of 0.4 almost negating the 0.5 penalty for AWD.

 

Do we kinda agree now that AWD is an advantage? maybe your complaint should be directed towards the 4-door points. Honestly my STi was 100 times stiffer and has better aero than my 2000 Mustang

[StealthTT]

For 15th time, the 4 door cars get a bonus of 0.4 almost negating the 0.5 penalty for AWD.

 

Do we kinda agree now that AWD is an advantage? maybe your complaint should be directed towards the 4-door points. Honestly my STi was 100 times stiffer and has better aero than my 2000 Mustang

 

It can be an advantage on corner exit (depending on traction), however it's not a golden goose. There are definite disadvantages. As I stated before:

 

1) Most AWD cars have the engine and transmission in front of the front wheels. This drastically increases the polar moment of inertia. The push (understeer) is only counteracted by reducing rear grip.

 

2) Because of the front axles you are unable to lower or move this weight. A longitudinally mounted motor can be lowered and moved back up to 10 inches per the rules.

 

3) This is just peak hp, this doesn't take into account the massive torque that can be made with a V8 powerplant. I think we can kill two birds with one stone. Most AWD cars use an Inline 4 or small V6. A lower AWD penalty would make up for the lack of torque these cars produce compared to the majority of RWD cars that have a V8 or large V6 motors. The FWD cars can keep their point give-back to make up for their lack of torque. It would benefit the majority of the cars that are raced.

 

4) The four door reward is too generous since most of these cars are being built with light materials on top. Most have very thin metal or even carbon fiber roofskins. The pillars have been optimized for lightness and strength as well. No one's racing a '75 Ford LTD 4-door.

[StealthTT]

Look at what the next AWD supercar did to counteract some of these things.

 

The Nissan GTR has a longitudinally mounted motor with rear mounted transaxle. There is then a second driveshaft that runs forward to a gear box that then drives the front wheels. It puts the weight low and as close to center as possible. They saw a need to fix a flawed system. It would've been much, much cheaper to go with a conventional layout. They would probably have priced the car at about the same amount since they're competing with other great cars at that price point. So why do it? The current system is flawed.

[BlackStripes]

Don't get me wrong, but i think you are generalizing. NASA needs to take individual factors and put them in a rule book.

 

For example:

 

1) Engine + Transmission in the front is not related with AWD. The car that have engine + transmission in the front probably have that taken care of when they were classified. I am sure that the weight distribution in a Mustang is not that far off an AWD car.

 

2) This is the same as 1) not related with AWD. For example, in my Mustang, if i move my engine 5 inches back, i will have 2 cylinders inside the cabin

 

3) Same as 1 not related with AWD. The car i track is a V8, but its a 4.6 and the heads cant flow air for crap...

 

Seems like you are saying that the Corvette is the perfect car to go to TT and the Mustang is the worst ever... I bought my car because i always liked Mustangs... now, that i know all the flaws in my car, i see it as a challlenge

[StealthTT]

I'm told "they" used to sit down and think about every car and class them. They then simplified the classification based on just a few factors. I don't recall what they were, but it was very basic. It was posted on the forums, so a search would probably yield the results.

 

I'm not whining or crying so that they'll make my car more competitive. I don't have the money to compete against those with large bankrolls. I will be happy working towards bettering my times and growing as a driver. I joined this thread to help show how AWD is not as big of an advantage as the rules pretend they are. In TT, we're talking about well prepared cars with R-comps. The benefit of AWD is drastically reduced when you have a prepped course, prepped car, and sticky tires. It's completely different on the street. However, the disadvantages on track are exaggerated because of the larger g-forces.

 

I honestly have not seen anyone able to show why there shouldn't be a reduction in the AWD penalty and reduction of the 4-door reward.

[1LapSRT]

I honestly have not seen anyone able to show why there shouldn't be a reduction in the AWD penalty and reduction of the 4-door reward.

 

Probably because most people think they are fair!

[StealthTT]

I honestly have not seen anyone able to show why there shouldn't be a reduction in the AWD penalty and reduction of the 4-door reward.

 

Probably because most people think they are fair!

 

Another brilliant and well thought out contribution to this thread. Thank you.

[1LapSRT]

I honestly have not seen anyone able to show why there shouldn't be a reduction in the AWD penalty and reduction of the 4-door reward.

 

Probably because most people think they are fair!

 

Another brilliant and well thought out contribution to this thread. Thank you.

 

Just because I don't try to make the same useless point 14 different ways, does not make it less of a contribution. I could easily drone on and on about my point, but there is no need to waste that much time.