Quote:
Originally Posted by Aki
(Post 26937)
I mixed up the acronyms, but it's no myth. The JTC became the JGTC after FIA changed its rules/regulations for Group A. With the debut of the R32 in 1990, it dominated, with all six cars taking the top six positions. It dominated to the point where they became a one-make race. Toyota tried firing back with a Supra, then three Corollas before giving up. Diversity only came into the picture after FIA changed the regulations and banned AWD. Don't think it's coincidence.
Think you're overstating the significance of weight. In Group A back in the day they packed 200 lbs+ more weight of ballasts, still didn't bridge the gap between AWD and RWD. If weight were such an insurmountable obstacle, why would they need to ban AWD?
Oh and KERS only goes to the rear wheels. It's part of the reason why teams were ambivalent about it, because that weight was at expense of ballasts to the front to even out the weight distribution.
I'm not a fanboy of AWD, just want to counter the notion that it's only good for handling in the snow and wet.
|
You don't have the whole picture. AWD wasn't the only factor in the GT-R's dominance. It saddens me to admit that the R32 GT-R is a VASTLY superior car to the MA70 Supra that was its competition in the day. Plus there were assorted other homologation rules.
Without knowing the whole rules, someone could make the ridiculous assumption that diesel makes for the best sports cars because Audi's won LeMans about a billion times in a row with diesel cars...
There are many race series that penalize winning teams with ballast to create parity. But even with it stacking up, the best teams will still win. It's quite possible that in addition to being a better starting platform, the Nissan team was better and more organized, with better drivers, pit crew, etc... And AWD was a good excuse for the other teams to complain about, instead of spending more money or working harder.
Weight isn't the only thing. It's also about how a tire generates grip laterally. Or how that is distributed through all four wheels when cornering. Maximum theoretical lateral grip overall is generated with something like less than 5% of torque going to the fronts, which are also steering the car. If AWD were allowed next year in F1, it would not be competitive. These guys aren't just hammering on the brakes, changing direction, and feathering the throttle to prevent wheelspin on exit. They are maintaining the momentum of their cars through the corners with the tires. AWD is great for going when traction is limited, but it negatively affects turning and lateral grip, which is more important for overall speed.
The KERS example is interesting. It applies to AWD as well. In the KERS example, teams opted to not use it even though it gave a power/passing advantage due to the weight/balance penalty. The same would be true of an AWD system in F1. The minor potential increase in cornering ability from the extra front wheel torque would be much more offset by the weight/balance penalty, potential aero complications, power losses, etc...
I will post up some quotes from a Racecar Engineering magazine article if I can find it...
The absolute fact is that MR drivetrains are the best for all-out on track performance. So long as there is sufficient traction. (as of modern times, demonstrated by trying to slow the cars down by messing with the tires, that is not a problem)
Anyways, I was an early proponent of the fact that the Subaru wouldn't be AWD, not for any other reason than that they stated they wanted to put then engine a bit more towards the center of the car, which precluded Subaru's standard AWD system. Plus, while possible, it was extremely unlikely that they would engineer a completely different AWD system just for one supposedly inexpensive (through shared development) car.
Enjoy the RWD with its centralized engine and sharp turn-in everybody!
