JSG1901 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Proposed change The +1.0 rule for FWD cars that currently exists for PT & ST race series and TT. Reason I was told that you couldn't build a national pace FWD car in GTS. That just made me more determined to try it, but after a year of racing and starting the development of the car I am coming to the conclusion "they" may be right. Especially after seeing there were zero FWD cars at the Eastern Nationals. +1.0 means a FWD car in GTS2 is a 13.5lb/HP car instead of a 14.5lb/HP car. Proposed wording Same as in ST 7.4.2 Modification Factors: FWD = +1.0 or Appendix A—“Adjusted Weight/Power Ratio” Calculation for PTB-PTF FWD= +1.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Graber Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 fwiw if you ask many of the RWD and AWD competitors in the TT, PT and ST series they'll say that 1.0 credit is too large, esp at lower whp levels. No issue with letting FWD claw back some of its disadvantage, just an arguement as to how much help they need / don't need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSCoupe Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 No Example: the Audi TTRS VLN is front wheel drive, and has absolutely no disadvantage to RWD or AWD race cars. One won the 25Hours of Thunderhill last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_Wolfe Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 fwiw if you ask many of the RWD and AWD competitors in the TT, PT and ST series they'll say that 1.0 credit is too large, esp at lower whp levels. No issue with letting FWD claw back some of its disadvantage, just an arguement as to how much help they need / don't need. Yes, with above discussion of credit value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Eric W. Posted November 20, 2014 Members Share Posted November 20, 2014 What happens when it rains, does it go the other way? and my vote is no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_Wolfe Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 What happens when it rains, does it go the other way? and my vote is no. No problem, just make sure half the races are wet races.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Waite Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 I vote NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
78 Rocco Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Yes, but 0.5-0.75... Not 1.0.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evice Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 let them in and see how they do within the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvanhouten Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Against. And I agree the 1.0 is way too big if there was an adjustment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottbm3 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 No ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolution Mini Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 yes and I will still be running a RWD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmwjoon Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 No. 1 is too big. In addition the advantage would have to be different by class although it would be cool to see a GTS5 FWD car. I'm thinking enormous wing on the hood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimax Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 One of the best battles I've ever had in my racing career was with a FWD Jetta GLI driven by a pro driver. FWD doesn't need any more advantages. I vote no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zach H. Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 voting no on this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Smith Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter*g Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPower6er Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Vote "No" on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loftygoals Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Allow modification to ratio, but I agree that it should be a per class modification and not just a blanket +1. -bj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7VO-VOM Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 I have been thinking about this one. As people have pointed out, front wheel drive has performance disadvantages in the dry and advantages in the wet. How much is the advantage? Is it fairly even across cars. I was trying to think of ways to measure it and get a fair comparison. Saying a GTI is slower than an M3 just leads to "well, duh!". How does Honda Challenge handle it? They have FWD Civics and Integras against RWD S2000s. Same maker, similar weights, similar power, fairly large fields of each. I haven't looked at their rule set, but if the GTS directors decide this is something worth considering as a change, HC would be a good reference point. Unless there is some sort of known, repeatable reference on which to base the adjustment amount, I would vote no to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke P. Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 I am for. Maybe just at .5... When a FWD group arrives and shakes it up, we can discuss removing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts