Quote:
Originally Posted by telboy
I think its wrong to run 4wd as 2wd but if others don't like it then the BRCA just need to state in the rules that there should be no gearbox parts beyond the front half of the chassis, so no driveshafts, no props, no diff. Simple.
|
This rule means you can't use FWD buggies anymore - and to be honest banning FWD from 2WD I found the most controversial rule ever stated (by the IFMAR) - 2WD means you have two driven wheels, regardless whether that's front, rear or if you can make it work, imo even two left wheels
(
And I'm not stating this just because I'm developing a FWD buggy myself, it's just ridiculous to make a class then limit it to pretty much one design).
So to state it correctly it would mean stating something like 'There may be no parts powered by the drivetrain further than 50% of the wheelbase away from the driven axles.'
Anyway, to be fair, a rotating mass in the front of the car is a mechanical solution and completely legit. The circumstances were created for that to work well, so it was a matter of time before someone either tested it with success or found that out by accident. It's clever and though a 4WD with narrow wheels doesn't look right, if it stays legal, both small and large manufacturers may look at buggy designs that are like any 2WD but have room in the front end to put a front mounted flywheel into the car. So in the end that leaves you the choice to run it as a conventional 2WD, a 2WD with a front mounted flywheel, and all of that without a car that looks like a cinder block on wheels
Plus, if you ban the use of that, then how about a Losi Hydra drive, or the X-6 flywheels? The added mass of both systems has a similar effect, but in a different position in the car. They are valid developments, and you don't see them on every car... that might mean it doesn't work better unconditionally - the same goes for keeping the front driveline in a 2WD converted 4WD.
Banning is not the right way to do this: It's childish, it removes motivation for true mechanical innovation, it only drives motivation to sneak past that big bible of rules. Before you know it you'll have the biggest discussions about whether you are allowed to add an extra tooth to your diff!
Racing is about going quicker, not about politics!
If you don't want 4WDs in the 2WD class, then don't drive on a high traction surface - take the EOS: I really enjoy these events, but the tracks are really something else. It's so different to driving on low-bite that you might just as well develop a car to work solely on such a surface - in the end such tracks are constructed more like touring car tracks with jumps added than anything else (imo)! If you'd drive on low-bite astroturf or clay (without a sugar water coating) it'd be unlikely you'd see these cars.
The summary:
A big fat BOO to banning (mechanical) innovations! If you want to keep 2WDs without a front end flywheel, then go drive on low-bite tracks.
PS: Why I mention this particularly for mechanical innovations because I think electronical aids will make budget a big factor to someone's potential pace, plus as the electronics partially take over the driving, it reduces the importance of driver skill and cloaks the room for improvement on the chassis itself. Mechanical aids instead increase the actual amount of grip the car can generate, which is something all drivers benefit from in the same way and doesn't stand in the way of the importance of driver skill.