JSG1901 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Type Proposal for a new rule Existing rule section (if applicable) Proposed change Eliminate AWD cars. Reason No avenue for compliance currently. Proposed new wording No AWD Cars allowed in any class other than GTSU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSCoupe Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 I couldn't be more against this, for obvious reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KTL Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 I couldn't be more against this, for obvious reasons. Me too- I was planning on fielding a Porsche 959 next season. No. Dyno compliance isn't necessarily getting the job done right now anyway. Don't potentially kick a competitor to GTSU (where typically only peeps w/out a dyno sheet roam- BTDT many 'a times) when they may indeed be legitimately compliant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPower6er Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 This has not been a big issue in the past, nor is it widely seen as an issue in the near future. Against this for this now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minibeast Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Disagree. This is about improving numbers, not removing them. Reclassification would be more acceptable. Mark Bivings Florida Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke P. Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Against, but this does need some review. If a car can't prove it's compliance, it can't be considered legal. If a car is too low for the scales, would we take the drivers word for it as well? Although extreme, the only way I can imagine AWD working is if you happen to finish in a position that is determined to dyno or protested, but you can't since your AWD - the car will somehow need to be impounded / monitored until a compliance test is possible. If one chooses to race AWD, they need to accept this. I don't like how the current rule allows retesting at a future date with no measures to stop changes from being made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
911.racer Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Against. Figure out some other way to prove compliance. Ed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvanhouten Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 For, but only in the rain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmwjoon Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 4WD should be allowed. If you have a 4WD car you think is cheating figure out a way to dyno him either at the track or offsite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILIKETODRIVE Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 For, but only in the rain. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dweymer Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 I don't think discouraging potential racers is really a good path, a lot of people build what they have and know. How accurate is TrackMate(or some other gadget) at determining HP/torque? If one was found to be accurate, GTS could just provide one and require it to be installed at each event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSG1901 Posted October 15, 2013 Author Share Posted October 15, 2013 I don't think discouraging potential racers is really a good path, a lot of people build what they have and know. How accurate is TrackMate(or some other gadget) at determining HP/torque? If one was found to be accurate, GTS could just provide one and require it to be installed at each event. The Traqmate is something that has been tried a lot but has a number of issues. Among them is it takes pretty specific training to be able to read and interpret the data properly and the analysis process is relatively slow. If we were to use Traqmates or something of the sort, the only reasonable way to do it would be to mandate that everyone put one in their car as it's not data you can gather after the fact. As far as I know, there is no reasonably-priced, accurate, and easy-enough-to-use device available anywhere, Traqmate or otherwise. If that's not the case, I'd love to hear about it. I know there's a device used in the Pirelli World Challenge series that I've heard is very good, but it's also $2K+ to buy. Each. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Waite Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 I vote no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flink Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 fyi, NASA Norcal has an AWD dyno available at Thunderhill raceway. I vote "don't care" Never seen an AWD GTS car! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvanhouten Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Joking aside, I'm against. By banning AWD, you completely eliminate one entire German marque from competition, not that we've seen many of them competing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Graber Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 I usually propose this every year just to get under Mark S's skin..... I will say, when a competitive AWD car arrives for good everyone's tune will change. Also, I don't feel it is fair to have the ability to test and tech one type of car and not another in the same class. Nationals did not have an AWD dyno. My suggestion is for NASA to create an AWD class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zach H. Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Im surprised Mark did say...."its not FWD its QUATTRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!" watch out he has the hammer award lol. back to your rule debate thingy........... oh and I am against this rule. adding a factor yes but disallowing no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSCoupe Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 I usually propose this every year just to get under Mark S's skin... ...oh and I am against this rule. adding a factor yes but disallowing no. Why add a factor? About the only time really makes a difference is in the wet. There used to be an added factor for AWD cars, and it's not like AWD cars were suddenly dominating when it was removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zach H. Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 ...oh and I am against this rule. adding a factor yes but disallowing no. Why add a factor? About the only time really makes a difference is in the wet. There used to be an added factor for AWD cars, and it's not like AWD cars were suddenly dominating when it was removed. SEE!!! Ok mark point taken.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonSLW Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Against. I'd love to see some Audis in GTS. Dyno for compliance can be arranged same-day off-site, if necessary. It would just take some forward planning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottbm3 Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Against -Scott B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ's325ITS Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 VOTE NO I would love to share the track with some AWD cars! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.