Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'd like to summarize the issues from the other threads and "take the pulse" before I/we write the PRB.

1. Allow H to be a ProRally eligible category/class.

2. Introduce a rolling 25 year age requirement for H class. This would allow the 1979 Opel Asconas, Saab 99's, Colts, 510's to still compete in 2004, but would provide some definition around the class.

3. Remove the 2WD and N/A requirements. If the car ran OE or "in period" with 4WD, turbo and/or FI, then so be it. (ie subject to the rolling age window, a 1987 Sierra Sapphire Cosworth 4x4 would be eligible, or a 1986 RS200... come 201x). Note that by saying "in period" I mean a Ferguson 4WD Capri would be OK, or a mechanical fuel injected RS1600 (Roger Clark's was for the 72 RAC) would be OK, but not a Colt with a modern Impreza drivetrain in it. This would remain competitor enforced, as in 2004 rules.

Things to NOT change:

* leave the repeal of the ProRally age limit alone (for the other classes). If people want to use older cars to compete in those classes, even though they're historic eligible, then fine. The rolling age window for H provides enough definition for the class without forcing people to move out of other classes due to age of the car

* no subdividing H class by age (historic, post historic) or adjusted engine capacity (under 2 litre, over 2 litre) until the class is more subscribed.

Should I just post a poll, or do you guys want to just discuss?

How many people are considering running H cars in Pro event in 2004 if these rule changes were passed?

I can produce a "chapter and verse" version of what exact rules to change and the wording if there is general agreement.

Glenn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
630 Posts
Glenn,

I like it, cant say that I dissagree with anything you have in there. I'd send it as is, so long as they include your provision to cut class into two age groups when participation gets high enough, and I would change the rolling limt or ProRally age limit so that they are the same, IE, both 20 or 25 years so you dont have a 5 year gap like now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
Sounds good to me.

I do have one question regarding forced induction. Lets say someone does want to turbocharge their (insert car here) because they can show it was done in (insert year here). Is it Ok for them to use a modern turbo or supercharger. I would think it should be but was wondering if this might need some clarification (limits) in the rules. Also, what about intercooling, blow-off valves, etc. ?

John B.
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
STOP MAKING SENSE!!

>1. Allow H to be a ProRally eligible category/class.
>
>2. Introduce a rolling 25 year age requirement for H class.
>This would allow the 1979 Opel Asconas, Saab 99's, Colts,
>510's to still compete in 2004, but would provide some
>definition around the class.
>
>3. Remove the 2WD and N/A requirements. If the car ran OE or
>"in period" with 4WD, turbo and/or FI, then so be it. (ie
>subject to the rolling age window, a 1987 Sierra Sapphire
>Cosworth 4x4 would be eligible, or a 1986 RS200... come
>201x). Note that by saying "in period" I mean a Ferguson 4WD
>Capri would be OK, or a mechanical fuel injected RS1600
>(Roger Clark's was for the 72 RAC) would be OK, but not a
>Colt with a modern Impreza drivetrain in it. This would
>remain competitor enforced, as in 2004 rules.
>
>Things to NOT change:
>
>* leave the repeal of the ProRally age limit alone (for the
>other classes). If people want to use older cars to compete
>in those classes, even though they're historic eligible,
>then fine. The rolling age window for H provides enough
>definition for the class without forcing people to move out
>of other classes due to age of the car
>
>* no subdividing H class by age (historic, post historic) or
>adjusted engine capacity (under 2 litre, over 2 litre) until
>the class is more subscribed.
>
>Should I just post a poll, or do you guys want to just
>discuss?
>
>How many people are considering running H cars in Pro event
>in 2004 if these rule changes were passed?
>
>I can produce a "chapter and verse" version of what exact
>rules to change and the wording if there is general
>agreement.
>
>Glenn

Rum, very rum.........entirely too reasonable, er um as I said rum.

Something must be bad, it can't be this easy, I suggest you swing wildly to some exteme, add an illogical handicar or something.
You do have a reputation to uphold, Glen. You may be an
Ozzie beeeeeestud, but you are now an defcto Northwesterner, so get with the ticket, pull up your socks and Stop Making Sense





John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

Black Rocket Rally Tires
http://www.blackrockettires.com/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
RE: STOP MAKING SENSE!!

Holy rally tires, Batman - JVB *doesn't disagree*? :)

re: the turbo - because it would fall under the competitor enforcement of the existing rules provision, you could make the same argument e.g. oh you're using Leda's.... well in the day they used Woodhead (silly, because either you can't buy them or they couldn't handle it). Rather, I think providing the spirit is met, then that's ok.

I think for such a small class, the competitor enforcement aspect of the 2004 rules is quite good. As a competitor though, if you show in a 1971 Datsun 510 with a big fat T4, I'd like to see some proof that they were RALLIED in that configuration (rather than RACED).

re: the ProRally age limit - FYI the PRB has suspended that rule for 2004. If it is reinstated in 2005, I think it should abut the H rolling age limit, whatever that is, but I think that it a 2005 discussion point.

The bit I like about this proposal is that it is forward looking to a time when the Sierra's, Escort Cosworths etc would be considered historic.

Shall we sing kumbaya?

Phil?
Rich?
ACP?
Christian?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
RE: STOP MAKING SENSE!!

That sounds good to me on policing the turbos, etc. ourselves. If somebody pushes the rules too far, they'll just end up in G5 till they fix it.

John B.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
It's a Very Good Start

Glenn,

Yes. I think you have summarized the points very well. I like the "2wd carb'd" rules, but I like a rolling cut-off much better and 25 years seems very reasonable. The "Rolling 25-Year Cut-Off" would be my first choice.

It establishes a framework where everyone get's in eventually. Even forced induction and AWD. It also allows people to plan ahead and has PLENTY of room for specialty or period subclasses as they emerge.

Thanks for taking the initiative to write things up for submittal to SCCA.

Rich Smith

Vive le "Pro-le-Ralliat"

ps: I have no personal interest in ProRally. But, I hope ClubRally and ProRally will follow the same definitions and rules for preparation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
946 Posts
>I'd like to summarize the issues from the other threads and
>"take the pulse" before I/we write the PRB.
>
>1. Allow H to be a ProRally eligible category/class.
>
>2. Introduce a rolling 25 year age requirement for H class.
>This would allow the 1979 Opel Asconas, Saab 99's, Colts,
>510's to still compete in 2004, but would provide some
>definition around the class.
>
>3. Remove the 2WD and N/A requirements. If the car ran OE or
>"in period" with 4WD, turbo and/or FI, then so be it. (ie
>subject to the rolling age window, a 1987 Sierra Sapphire
>Cosworth 4x4 would be eligible, or a 1986 RS200... come
>201x). Note that by saying "in period" I mean a Ferguson 4WD
>Capri would be OK, or a mechanical fuel injected RS1600
>(Roger Clark's was for the 72 RAC) would be OK, but not a
>Colt with a modern Impreza drivetrain in it. This would
>remain competitor enforced, as in 2004 rules.
>
>Things to NOT change:
>
>* leave the repeal of the ProRally age limit alone (for the
>other classes). If people want to use older cars to compete
>in those classes, even though they're historic eligible,
>then fine. The rolling age window for H provides enough
>definition for the class without forcing people to move out
>of other classes due to age of the car
>
>* no subdividing H class by age (historic, post historic) or
>adjusted engine capacity (under 2 litre, over 2 litre) until
>the class is more subscribed.
>
>Should I just post a poll, or do you guys want to just
>discuss?
>
>How many people are considering running H cars in Pro event
>in 2004 if these rule changes were passed?
>
>I can produce a "chapter and verse" version of what exact
>rules to change and the wording if there is general
>agreement.
>
>Glenn

Sounds good. 1979, that means Lon Peterson can fire up the Arrow and have a little H fun...
 

·
straight at T
Joined
·
647 Posts
I'm with you on all counts, Glenn. I like the 25 year rolling age limit. I don't think the age limit should be completely taken off like it seems to be at the moment. For example, I wouldn't consider a 1988 Mazda 323 GTX to be historic, or even a Dodge Omni, at least not yet. But 1971 was a bit too limiting in my opinion, especially considering modern stage rallying didn't even get going in this country until 1973.

I like the allowance for 4wd or FI as long as it's period as well. It would be silly to turn someone away with such an historically significant car as a Fergusen 4wd Capri because the rules state 2wd only. You never know, I seem to remember seeing one for sale here a while ago.

-DC
 

·
straight at T
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
> I like the allowance for 4wd or FI as long as it's period
>as well. It would be silly to turn someone away with such
>an historically significant car as a Fergusen 4wd Capri
>because the rules state 2wd only. You never know, I seem to
>remember seeing one for sale here a while ago.

I always had a problem with the concept of SCCA Historic rally rules that banned historically significant SCCA rally cars (ok 'cars') like Gene Henderson's Jeep...

Adrian
 

·
your other left, you idiot
Joined
·
3,909 Posts
>
>I always had a problem with the concept of SCCA Historic
>rally rules that banned historically significant SCCA rally
>cars (ok 'cars') like Gene Henderson's Jeep...
>
>Adrian

And Scott Harvey's (Sr.) awd NASCAR-motor Aspen?
And Loyal Jodar's awd Capri?
And Guy Light's turbo 99?
And Steve Nowicki's turbo 510?
Hmmmm.

press on,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
Glenn,

I wish you well wrassling with this ********.

The core of all this debate I think comes down to this: should H Class be a class for "historic" (i.e. cars that advanced the rally scene in the USA - "significant" cars) or "vintage" (i.e. old and technologically obsolete) rally cars? The two concepts are not mutually exclusive but they are certainly not consistent with each other

I had/have no particular dedication to either idea - my car was built and being rallied before H Class was thought of, an MG being chosen because I had a bunch of ideas and parts in my garage from previous projects, and my own guiding principle was to keep the car technologically consistent with 1968. I've had a good time learning how to engineer and build a rally car. THe project taught me how to weld, how to do machine work, and a whole bunch about what works and doesn't work in a rally car. And a crude, low-hp simple rwd car has been a great car to learn how to drive on gravel. That's all been a bag of fun. That's where I was coming from. Had the car not been crashed out of existance, it would probably still be rallied whether or not an H Class existed (although I confess a desire for an RS2000).

The message that was given to me by PRB and Kurt S. a couple of years ago (at SnoDrift) was to prepare a proposal for rules which would define a class in the latter ("vintage") sense, as a refinement of Mark Williams' original Appy K-based proposal. My error was not identifying this dichotomy of "Historic Class" philosophy at an earlier time. I thought we were just discussing rules.

No, the discussion is really about WHAT CONSTITUTES AN HISTORIC CAR?
I think once that is settled, sensible rules will come naturally.

The proposal submitted (and subsequently gutted) by PRB was crafted to keep the class as a "vintage car" class - - - I don't think that was ever a secret, even if those exact words weren't written. I think a "vintage" Historic Class requires a strict age cutoff, along with some technology restrictions.

If H Class will do better as a class of historically significant cars, a rolling cutoff makes more sense, as does a loosening of technologic constraints. If that's what more RALLYISTS want, then do that.

I don't really care either way...like I said, whatever car you see me bringing to the stages is what I want to play with, regardless of whatever category the PRB wants to slide it in to. Some sort of H Class would be fun, but it doesn't motivate me to rally... and all the rancor created over this issue is having the opposite effect for more people than just me, I am sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Right, and I totally recognize the vintage vs historic aspect (given that I have a car that was built with the vintage aspect in mind).

I do think that the class is undersubscribed and having the cars run together (under a rolling cutoff) is not a bad thing if we get enough people in to later subdivide it into historic and post historic.

Glenn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
>No, the discussion is really about WHAT CONSTITUTES AN
>HISTORIC CAR?<

Paul,

I don't think the questions you pose need to be answered. History is not written in advance and we need not be overly selective about what emerges from the passage of time. Now or in the future.

Competitors and builders should have maximum opportunity to express their own Historic interests, whatever their personal outlook may be the Historic rules should enable that expression. If enough people have the same view you have a Subclass. For some this may be an era, for others it may be a particular car or type of car. No doubt there are many different outlooks, but the rules should not limit the viewpoint.

The common outlook is simply that "Historic" is something of past significance. If it's important enough for an individual to build a RallyCar, that should be good enough. How far in the past seems well defined by the Rolling 25-Year Cut-Off. Beyond that personal interest and practicality will govern.

Rich Smith

Vive le "Pro-le-Ralliat"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Glenn - I think your points are a fair summary of the various discussions going on in the USA and Historic forums. I think your suggestions should not be controversial to anyone on the PRB. People may continue to differ on their outlook for what H-class should be. As Phil noted, that's OK and your summary is better than the current 2004 rules. I generally support your positions.

I'm not yet convinced your proposals will induce H-class vehicle prep or the long-term development of the class. Not too many people responded to my previous thread by saying they were building to compete in H-class in 2004. But I do think your proposal is an improvement over the mess in which we currently find ourselves.

And given the end of the 20-year rule, I'm not sure whether Dan Cook and I will bother to run the 510 under the H-class in national or club events in 2004 even assuming there is such a class in National events. We'll have to see how many new people who have been so passionate about the direction H class should take will actually prepare a car. We may just a run the re-built car in G2.

Glenn - submit your proposals to the PRB ASAP! Thanks for taking some initiative. I hope the PRB pays more attention than they did to the submissions of the active H-Class members in 2001-2003!!

Bill Rhodes


Bill Rhodes
 

·
www.christianedstrom.com
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
>I will do, I need to check with Christian as to when they
>meet next.

Tonight at 8.00pm EST. The next meeting where we would be able to address this topic is December 17, 8.00pm EST.

Just doing my part to reduce the size of my inbox. :)

- Christian

Bjorn Christian Edstrom
www.christianedstrom.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
(e-mailed to PRB)

December 13th, 2003

Submission to SCCA PRB:

Appendix H (Historic) Category/Class ? Suggested Revisions for 2004 Rules.

The following adjustments are proposed to increase the appeal of the Historic class to competitors and spectators, and also look to the future by setting guidelines that hopefully will still apply in the distant future when cars like the Subaru Impreza are seen as historic vehicles.

1. Allow Appendix H to be a ProRally eligible category/class.

Currently, Historic cars have to compete in Group 2/5 to enter ProRally events. While they can enter supporting ClubRally events in H class, it further dilutes the appeal of the class to spectators and competitors by not having H class eligible for ProRally. The existing rules can take care of series points/awards for undersubscribed classes if sufficient H class entries don?t show up.

Rule text change: Table in 10.1 A, in the ?Historic? row, after ?ClubRally? add ?& ProRally?

2. Introduce a rolling 25 year age requirement for H class.

This would allow Opel Asconas, Saab 99's, Colts, 510's to still compete in 2004, but would provide some definition around the class. The definition is needed to both delineate the class for entrants (vs. Group 2/5) and also make the concept easy to communicate to spectators. This change would (for now) exclude newer cars such as a 1986 Ford Mustang, or an early Rx-7, which would be eligible under the new 2004 rules.
Having a rolling age requirement, rather than a fixed date cutoff, sets in motion a structure that allows inclusion of gradually more cars over time. If participation increases, further thought can be given to subdividing the class at that time. However, for 2004, having a single class based around a 25 year minimum age requirement seems like a good first step.

Rule text change: 2004 Appendix H, 2 Eligibility, insert new text: ?Cars entering Performance Rally events in Historic Class must be at least 25 years old.?

3. Remove the 2WD, carb/mechanical FI and N/A requirements.

These restrictions serve no purpose, once an age requirement window is added and if the preparation rules and competitor enforcement is relied upon.
Historic cars, regardless of their factory or period equipped technology, should be eligible for historic class.
If the car was OE or "rallied in period" with 4WD, turbo and/or EFI, then so be it. (i.e. subject to the rolling age window, a 1987 Sierra Sapphire Cosworth 4x4 would be eligible, or a 1986 RS200.. come 201x). Note that by saying "in period" I mean a Ferguson 4WD Capri would be OK, or a mechanical fuel injected RS1600 (Roger Clark's was for the 72 RAC) would be OK, but not a Colt with a modern Impreza drivetrain in it. This would remain competitor enforced, as in 2004 rules Appendix H section 3 and 4.

Rule text change: 2004 Appendix H, 2 Eligibility. Remove the entire paragraph starting ?In all cases?.? and ending ??with currently available carburetor(s).?

4. Remove the restriction on light pods.

Again, looking forward, this would exclude light pods on such fine historic machinery as the Lancia Stratos, and future historic cars such as the Ford RS200, etc.

Rule text change: 2004 Appendix H, change section 3, item 3 to read ?Lighting is free. Light pods are allowed if they were used in period for rallying.?

Respectfully submitted,

Glenn Wallace

#267, Ford Cortina GT
 

·
1973 WRC POR
Joined
·
2,421 Posts
Glenn:

Congratulations. You have very successfully taken the comments on this forum over the past few months and consolidated them into a clear, concise and fair set of revisons for Appendix H.

Doug Woods
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top