Special Stage Forums banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
730 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
FYI, the following has been emailed out to license holders and various other interested parties. I'll try to keep an eye on this thread, but please also email any responses that you want the CARS board to consider to me at [email protected]


French version is below, in case someone wants to copy it to one of the Quebec sites.


Rules Committee Report
Request for Input from the Sport



I would like to apologize to the sport for the late appearance of this document, and the resulting short timeline for responses. This year has had more than its share of challenges, and we had fully intended to have this document ready before Charlevoix. As it stands, in order for the board to vote on the changes and still have time to prepare the books in time for the AGM, we need to have responses as soon as possible. The board?s conference call is scheduled for December 8. Please email your responses to Paul Westwick: [email protected]

The proposals to consolidate classes are for 2004 implementation. It is our assumption that competitors have already made plans for 2003 according to the class layout currently in effect. The proposal laid out below, if approved by the board, would be included in the 2003 rulebook only as a proposal for 2004. Details could be fleshed out and announced formally part way through 2003.

Proposals to take effect in 2003:

A1: Wheel sizes for Production Class

NRR II G 8(j): delete ", respecting the diameter and width listed in the shop manual, which is to be considered the maximum."

The Rules Committee feels that size of wheels and tires on production cars should be free. The original motivation for this restriction was to match Group N rules, which restrict them to the size listed in the homologation. However, this may or may not be the size listed in the shop manual. Controlling wheel size rather than style does not preserve production appearance. It is now difficult to find 13" and 14" rally tires, and increased ground clearance is normal in rally and beneficial to production cars. Small wheels with tall sidewalls are more likely to distort under heavy cornering and cause unpredictable and unsafe handling.

Agree _______ Disagree _______

Comments: _______________________________________________________

A2: Catalytic Converters

There were several proposals concerning catalytic converters, whether the rule should apply to US vehicles, whether the rule should apply only to Production class. The Rules Committee feels that the rules on catalytic converters should remain as written. Although it can be seen as an advantage to US teams competing in Canada, this advantage only applies if they are running on SCCA licenses, and therefore not eligible for CARS national or regional championship points. SCCA rules require catalysts in Production and Group N. Before adding the catalyst rule, the CARS board did consider whether to make it apply to all classes, or only to production, and felt that it was important to have it apply to all rally cars. This is especially important now in view of the approaches that CARS and RSQ are making to Transport Canada and the SAAQ, to ?normalize? the status of rally cars.

Agree _______ Disagree _______

Comments: _______________________________________________________


A3: Pace Notes / Stage Notes

The current rules require an organizer to seek the permission of the CARS board in order to allow recce, or to use organizer supplied notes. In practise, the board has agreed to every such request. In order to clarify this situation, the rules committee suggests the following changes:

NRR III C 12 (new): Events may provide organizer-supplied notes for the special stages, in addition to the standard format route instructions described above.

NRR VIII B 18 (new): If an event provides organizer-supplied notes for the special stages, this must be stated in the supplementary regulations, and the format of those notes must be described, as well as any additional fees.

NRR VI H 2 (change): Possession of pace notes made prior to the event is prohibited. Pace notes are defined as any form of additional descriptive notes or any other information depicting the rally route which is not provided by the route book or by the organizer-supplied notes. Occasional additions 

Agree _______ Disagree _______

Comments: _______________________________________________________


A4: Various minor administrative changes

NRR II G 8 q: The removal of the back seat was accidentally omitted from the French rulebook. Add "La banquette arrière peut être retiré" to match the English.

NRR IV I: Change the first sentence from: ?Competitors may only refuel in..." to "Refueling is only permitted in...? to clarify that it applies equally to service crews.

NRR II C 2 c vi: The English says that door bars must be fitted. The French book says that they may be fitted. Change ?pourront? to ?devront? to match the English.
NRR II C 2 e: Add ?If the mounting foot reinforcement plate is welded to the bodyshell, then bolts are not required.? This matches common practise in the sport, and there is no additional safety provided by bolting the mounting plate if it is already welded. Note that for FIA cages, the homologation is only valid if you follow the manufacturer?s instructions, which may specify bolting only. In that case, welding the cage directly would violate the homologation.

Agree _______ Disagree _______

Comments: _______________________________________________________


Proposals to take effect in 2004

B1: Class consolidation

It is clear that there are far too many classes. The addition of Group N was originally seen as an interim move, leading eventually to the merging of Production and Group N into one class. The current production class rules are very similar to Group N in all respects, except that certain components which are homologated for Group N do not comply with the production class definition of original equipment. In some cases, such as dog boxes, these provide substantial performance advantages, but at a substantially higher cost to the competitor. The rules committee recommends the following:

Merge P1, P2, N1 and N2 into one class. This could be called N2, or P1600, or some other name. (The availability of cars with engines smaller than 1400cc in North America doesn?t really warrant its own class these days.)

Merge P3 and N3 into one class.

There are several options for P4 & N4:
 Merge them into one class and accept that the cost of being competitive in this class will rise. Competitors looking for lower cost competition will move to other classes.
 Merge them but restrict some of the high price items, such as dog boxes, from use at the national level. If you wanted to be competitive in Group N at international events, you would have to modify the car.
 Keep P4 and N4 separate, but make P4 2wd only, to differentiate it clearly from N4. This would provide a place for cars like the new Mini S, that are currently in P4 but utterly un-competitive against WRX?s.

Agree _______ Disagree _______

Comments: _______________________________________________________




Rapport du Comité du règlement
Commentaires des membres


Je tiens à m?excuser de présenter ce document si tardivement et de vous laisser si peu de temps pour répondre. Cette année a connu son lot de défis et notre intention était de présenter ce document avant Charlevoix. Dans l?état actuel des choses, pour que les membres du conseil aient le temps de voter les changements et que nous puissions faire imprimer le règlement à temps pour l?AGA, nous devons recevoir vos réponses aussitôt que possible. L?appel conférence du conseil est prévu pour le 8 décembre. Nous vous prions de faire parvenir vos commentaires par courriel à l?adresse de Paul Westwick: [email protected]

Les propositions concernant les classes entreraient en vigueur en 2004. Nous croyons que les compétiteurs ont déjà planifié leur saison 2003 selon les classes actuellement en vigueur. Les propositions qui suivent, si elles sont approuvées par le conseil, seraient insérées dans le règlement 2003 à titre de proposition pour 2004. Nous pourrons donner plus de détails et en faire l?annonce officielle au cours de 2003.

Propositions pour 2003 :

A1 : Dimension des roues pour la classe Production

RNR II G 8(j) : enlever ?pourvu qu?ils soient conformes en diamètre et en largeur aux normes édictés dans le livre d?atelier officiel du fabricant, qui sont considérés comme le maximum.?

Le Comité est d?avis que la dimension des roues et des pneus sur les voitures de la classe Production devrait être libre. le but premier de ce règlement était de s?ajuster au règlement du Groupe N qui limite leur dimension à celle incrite à l?homologation. Toutefois, cette dimension peut ne pas être inscrite dans le livre d?atelier officiel. Légiférer sur la dimension de la roue plutôt que son style ne fait rien pour l?apparence de la classe production. Il est maintenant difficile de trouver des pneus de rallye de 13 et 14 po, il est normal d?augmenter la garde au sol en rallye, et c?est même souhaitable pour les voitures de classe production. De petites roues avvec des pneus à flanc élevé risquent plus de tordre lors de braquages intenses et entraîner ainsi une tenue de route imprévisible et dangereuse.

Accepter _______ Rejeter ________

Commentaires : _________________________________________________________

A2 : Convertisseurs catalytiques

Nous avons reçu plusieurs propositions concernant les convertisseurs catalytiques, que ce règlement s?applique aux voitures immatriculées aux États-Unis, ou qu?il ne concerne que les voitures de classe Production. Le Comité est d?avis que le règlement sur les convertisseurs catalytiques doit rester tel qu?il est écrit. Même s?il peut être considéré comme un avantage pour les compétiteurs américains courant au Canada, cet avantage n?est valable que s?ils courent avec des licences de la SCCA, auquel cas ils n?ont pas droit aux points de championnat régional ou national de CARS. Le règlement de la SCCA impose le convertisseur catalytique dans les voitures de classe Production et de Groupe N. Avant de passer ce règlement sur les convertisseurs catalytiques, le conseil de CARS a considéré le faire appliquer à toutes les classes ou seulement à la classe Production, mais le conseil est d?avis qu?il est important de le faire appliquer à toutes les voitures de rallye. Cette décision est particulièrement importante eu égard à la position que CARS et RSQ ont présentée à Transport Canada et à la SAAQ, en vue de normaliser le statut de voiture de rallye.

Accepter _______ Rejeter ________

Commentaires : _________________________________________________________


A3 : Notes de route

Le règlement actuel oblige l?organisateur à demander la permission au conseil de CARS pour permettre la reconnaissane ou utiliser des notes de route fournies par l?organisateur. Dans le passé, le conseil a accepté toutes les demandes. Afin de clarifier la situation, le Comité suggère les changements suivants :

RNR III C 12 (nouveau) : L?organisateur peut fournir des notes de route pour les spéciales, en plus du cahier de route habituel décrit ci-dessus.

RNR VIII B 18 (nouveau) : Si un organisateur fournit des notes de route pour les spéciales, il doit le mentionner dans le Règlement particulier, décrire le format utilisé, ainsi que tout ccoût additionnel.

RNR VI H 2 (modification) : La possession de notes de route prises avant l?événement est interdite. Est considérée comme note de route toute forme de notes descriptives supplémentaires ou toute autre information décrivant la route, qui ne se trouve pas au cahier de route ou dans les notes de route fournies par l?organisateur. Des ajouts occasionnels...

Accepter _______ Rejeter ________

Commentaires : _________________________________________________________


A4 : Changements mineurs, d?ordre administratif

RNR II G 8 q) : L?enlèvement de la banquette arrière a été omis du Règlement français. Ajouter : ?La banquette arrière peut être retirée.? pour correspondre à la version anglaise.

RNR IV I : Changer la première phrase : Les compétiteurs ne peuvent faire le plein que... par Le ravitaillement en essence ne peut avoir lieu que dans les zones...

RNR II C 2 c vi : La version anglaise stipule que des entretoises devront être installées. La version française dit qu?elles pourront. Changer ?pourront? par ?devront? pour correspondre à la version anglaise.

RNR II C 2 e : Ajouter : ?Si la plaque de renfort d?un pied d?ancrage est soudée à la coque, l?utilisation de boulons n?est pas nécessaire.? Cela correspond à ce qui se fait habituellement dans le sport et l?utilisation de boulons sur une plaque de renfort soudée à la coque n?ajoute pas de protection supplémentaire. Nous vous rappelons que pour les cages FIA, l?homologation n?est valide que si vous observez les instructions du fabricant, qui pourrait exiger un boulonnage seulement. Dans ce cas, souder la cage serait en violation avec l?homologation.

Accepter _______ Rejeter ________

Commentaires : _________________________________________________________


Propositions pour 2004

B1 : Consolidation des classes

Il est clair que nous avons beaucoup trop de classes. L?ajout du Groupe N était à l?origine une transition qui devait mener à la fusion des classes Production et du Groupe N. Le règlement actuel des classes Production est très similaire à celui du Groupe N à tous égards, sauf que certaines pièces homologuées pour le Groupe N ne correspondent pas à la définition de la classe Production en ce qui concerne l?équipement d?origine. Dans certains cas, comme pour la boîte de transmission , ces pièces offrent des avantages marqués en fait de performance, mais à un coût substantiellement plus élevé pour le compétiteur. Le comité du règlement recommande donc ce qui suit :

Fusionner les classes P1, P2, N1 et N2 en une seule classe. Elle pourrait s?appeler N2 ou P1600, ou autrement. La disponibilité de voitures équipées de moteurs de moins de 1400 cc en Amérique du Nord est telle que ces classes n?ont pas de raison d?être aujourd?hui.

Fusionner P3 et N3 en une seule classe.

Pour les classes P4 et N4, nous avons le choix :

? les fusionner en une seule classe et accepter que les coûts augmentent pour être compétitif dans cette classe. Les compétiteurs qui veulent restreindre leurs coûts devront se diriger vers d?autres classes.

? Les fusionner, mais interdire l?utilisation de certaines pièces très dispendieuses, comme la boîte de transmission , au championnat national. Pour être compétitif en Groupe N sur le plan international, il faudrait modifier la voiture.

? Garder les classes P4 et N4 séparées, mais faire de P4 une classe 2RM pour vraiment la différencier de la classe N4. Ainsi, il pourrait y avoir une place pour des voitures comme la nouvelle Mini S, actuellement en P4, mais totalement dépourvue contre la WRX.


Accepter _______ Rejeter ________

Commentaires : _________________________________________________________
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
409 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
I would recommend checking the rules for SCCA ProRally as I believe that catalytic converters are required for all classes, not only GrpN and Prod. On page F-234 of October 2002 FasTrack News, section H of 10.1 it states "For all classes, catalytic converters shall be fitted to all vehicles originally equipped." At the end of the section it stated that the proposed rules were passed so this rule should show up in the new rule book. If this is the case then it would seem redundant to require US cars to have catalytic converters and state that they must meet SCCA rule book.

I can't help but wonder just how much good those catalytic converters are going to do on my Volvos. Next the rules will reqire us to run all of the other emission control devices that the car was originally equipped with.

Thoughts, Opinions?

George Thompson
1982 Volvo 242 Performance Rally Toy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
I don't think that requiring cats is a big deal. The rule is symbolic and keeps the tree-huggers happy. As pointed out by Derek Bottles in his excellent editorial on this site, we rallyists must consider the environmental implications of what we do. Whether cats on rally cars make sense environmentally doesn't matter. If it makes some people feel good, let's do it. It's just environmental politics, as usual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
Re Catalytic converters

It's not so much a tree-hugger thing, it is a FEDERAL LAW thing. If it is law for every vehicle on the continent, why we should have any special rights to not use them. Get a high-flow cat, what's the big deal. Apparently fines for not having one a potentially huge, and any mechanic caught not replacing one, or removing one, faces serious fines ($20,000 I heard from one mechanic). So, this isn't one of those teeny little laws like 'signal before each turn.'

Craig

http://www3.sympatico.ca/kchamm/rally.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
409 Posts
> As it stands, in order for the board to vote on the changes and
> still have time to prepare the books in time for the AGM, we need
> to have responses as soon as possible. The board?s conference call
> is scheduled for December 8. Please email your responses to
> Paul Westwick: [email protected]

...so, how did the conference call go? Any updates?

Thanks,

Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
730 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
The summary of board minutes should be up fairly soon, but here is what was decided on the rules:

The board approved A1 to A4, for 2003 implementation, with a couple minor word changes for clarification. For the route notes, the board added a requirement that the notes author and method of preparation be approved by CARS.

On classes, the amalgamation of P1, P2, N1 and N2 into one class (for 2004) was approved, probably to be called P1600, as was the amalgamation of P3 and N3 (P2000), also for 2004.

The question of what to do with P4 and N4 was left open for further input from the sport, with a deadline for responses of March 31, 2003. In addition to the three options presented in the report, a fourth option will be added: leave P4 and N4 exactly as they are. In addition, any suggestions of additional options are most welcome.

In a few days, I'll try to summarize and collate the responses, so that everyone can see what has been said so far.

Paul Westwick
CARS Technical Director
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
665 Posts
RE: Group N - long

Hmm. I realize this is probably too late, but the following considerations only occured to me last night in my sleep ;)

Re: Class Consolidation

I agree that there are currently too many classes and that consolidation seems the right step to take. What concerns me is the Group N - Production amalgamation.

This step appears to be innocuous - at first. After all, I believe someone made the comment that we haven't seen any Group N2 or N3 cars here yet anyway (um.. this sounds familiar somehow...)

But consider the following list of cars:
Suzuki Swift, Chrysler Neon, Ford Focus, Ford Focus SVT, VW Golf GTI 16v, VW Golf 4 TDI, Honda Civic Type 'R', Acura Integra Type 'R', Daewoo Lanos, Kia Sephia.

Some of these cars are rallying in Production classes today, some of these cars are driving on North American streets today, the remainder of these cars could be 'created' from North American models with relative ease. All of them (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure Adrian will chime in if that's the case and ACP will say something about Ladas) are homologated for Group N. For some of them, it doesn't really matter - there are differing levels of homologation and manufacturer support (parts).

Perhaps the highest level of manufacturer support in terms of homologated parts, and the most frightening to me, is VW. Have you seen the parts that are available for VW Group N cars? A partial list off the top 'o me head:
- a minimum of three homologated final drive ratios
- a homolgated gear set with rally-favourable ratios and LSD
- hydraulic handbrake assy.
- homologated cams, intake plumbing and exhaust
- homologated clutch

It's funny :'( (in a sad way) how the Euro's refer to Group 'N' as 'production'. Is there anyone out there who believes that a P2 or P3 car can be competitive with a Group N2 or N3 car - 'cept maybe Charles or Steve?

This rule change could leave some of us with the lucky advantage of being able to hop-up our (newer) cars with absurdly expensive warm-up parts and the rest of us out in the cold.

So what's the solution?

Let's start by asking the following question: Since there haven't been any N1, N2, or N3 cars appear in national or regional events in Canada, and since the list of potential cars is so slim and is strongly European market in flavour - what the hell do we support these classes for?

Why consolidate, when we can cut? I agree with the P1600 and P2000 class designations - now lets cut the N classes and everything is simple. It's not like there's somebody out there with an N2 or N3 car demanding to be let in - but IT IS like there are some P competitors out there demanding not to be shut out. The couple (one?) N2 or N3 cars that have run here have done so in International events under FIA rules - fine, they can continue to do so.

When I recently asked a P3 VW competitor why he didn't run in Group N - he said he would, but there's nobody to compete with. I guess that in 2004 there will be.

Robin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
Classes

I think that we can do this fairly simply, actually. I will reveal my whole agenda:

1. No dog boxes or non-production ratios in the P classes.

2. Free computers in all classes.

3. Allow all cars conforming to P and N rules to run in the two displacement classes of P1600 and P2000 (as now approved by the Board) PLUS add a P2000+2 class for P4 and N4 cars with no AWD. Merge P4 and N4 into P2000+4 (remember, no dogboxes and free computers. I'm guessing this will be hot but fair as a single class).

4. Create a larger displacement Gp2 class (like US Gp5). This (and the P2000+) would be the production and open classes for the several cars on the market with great potential for rallying but no chance against AWD (Neon, Mini, etc.).


To put it another way, the classes would be as follows:

P1600: The current P1, P2, N1, N2 cars. Justy, Swift, LADA, 323, 8v Scirocco etc. That's fair. The Swifts actually have a little edge without the 4valve multiplier, but don't tell anyone.

P2000: The current P3 and N3 cars. Golfs, Sciroccos, NX2000 etc. No change really. Good class.

P2000+2: (remember no AWD) - over 2-litre or forced-induction 2wd production cars: Neon SRT-4, Cooper S. We have to have a class for these cars! No one will ever build one to compete against WRXs and Evos.

P2000+4: Current N4 and P4 cars (recall free computers and no dogboxes). The hot but fair turbo AWD production class. With free computers the P4 cars should be able to run with the N4 cars, and with no dogboxes the N4 cars shouldn't be able to run away.

Gp2: as is - smaller displacement 2wd open.

Gp2+: equivalent of US Gp5. C'mon - you KNOW you want to see a new Cooper S with plexi windows and some messing with the supercharger! I do. Heck, I'd build one!

Open: as is. The all-out AWD turbo class.


Still 7 classes, down from 10, but with room for the big 2wd cars in production and modified guises.

So how about that?

ACP
Flirting with the laws of physics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
RE: Classes

Where does the Impreza RS fit in to this equation? N4 also allows for turbo changes, where does this put the Talon.
Let alone any P class car running against a super N4 Evo... Do we want CARS to become the SCCA?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
RE: Classes

Speaking as a competitor who has run competitively in P4 (1999/2000/2001) and N4 (2001/2002); and won the P4 national championship and the N4 national championship:

your P4 / N4 combination plan for AWD (i.e. the 'real' P4) is fatally flawed but understandable from a 'you arent there' perspective

#1 - it was cheaper to upgrade the gearbox (n4) than to constantly rebuild it (p4). IT IS CHEAPER to run an N4 box than a P4 box if you run at the top of the class.

#2 - the number of competitors is both classes outnumbers the number of competitors in any of the other classes that are suitable for concentration. In several cases, the number of n4 and p4 cars independenty outnumbered other classes in the top 10 (i.e. open).

#3 - limiting the n4 cars means that they will not be viewed as suitable candidates for overall victory

#4 - P4 is healthy.

#5 - N4 is healthier than any of the other N1/2/3 or P1/ etc. classes

#6 - it makes much more sense to make open 32mm and merge it with N4 first, then look at merging that merged entity with P4 than the other way around

dont amalgamate for amalgamation's sake

-Pat
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
RE: Classes

I may be wrong about the prospect of merging N4 and P4 - I had actually hoped that Pat would weigh in and there he is. That's the information I wanted and that we should all consider.

But Greg - P4 is manifestly a WRX and soon Evo class, and it is not and now will never be a place for a grassroots competitor to go for the win (although congrats on your season this year - but in anything but a WRX/Evo I don't think it will be repeatable).

So I don't know what to suggest. The CARS board asked the Rules Committee to look at how to reduce the number of classes, which is how this all started. Ten is clearly absurd. I do think that the smaller-displacement class amalagamations make a lot of sense. But maybe what we really should be doing is finding a way for the grassroots AWD cars to have a class - and maybe that's a P4 without homologation specials i.e. the WRX and Evo. So how about a Production Sport revival? With P4 rules as now but no WRX/Evo and maybe no Talon, and with no restrictors for 2WD? The main problem seems to be that we have two or three production cars with nowhere to go then - should that be called P4? Anyone?

And just to be clear, Greg - this is for discussion; it's not a conclusion.

ACP
Flirting with the laws of physics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
RE: Classes

>
>#1 - it was cheaper to upgrade the gearbox (n4) than to
>constantly rebuild it (p4). IT IS CHEAPER to run an N4 box
>than a P4 box if you run at the top of the class.
>

Pat - that's only true with the Subaru. I've run a $2000 production box in the Evo for 12 rallies now with no rebuilds, only fluids.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
RE: Classes

i've never seen an evo P4 car

go through the entry lists of P4 entries in rallies and tell me what kind of car they are running

the email I sent you - you should read it and think about it without tinkering with it

what are you talking about 'cars that dont fit' ? all cars running today fit in a class.

Future cars for future potential members should be addressed when it is deemed to be your mission !

-pat
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
RE: Classes

Hey Pat - I don't think it's unreasonable to anticipate the Evo as a production car - if you read the thread in the US forum the car will arrive in the US in late Feb 2003 and so be legal for P4 this coming year, even before we potentially change the classes for 2004.

And of course the Mini and Neon SRT and a host of other great potential rally cars fit in P4 - but who's going to build one when they've got no hope against the WRX and Evos (which, as I've said, will be in the class)? This is about encouraging people to go out, get manufacturers involved, and build new exciting cars too. The MG ZR isn't in N4 on Rally GB, is it?

Rules, like government legislation, have to be proactive to a measured degree. Otherwise you're driving by looking in the rearview mirror.

And thanks for your direct email on the class proposal. I think there's a lot of sense in it, although mixing restrictor sizes for different cars is complex but perhaps tenable. Let's talk more about it.

Best, Andrew
Flirting with the laws of physics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
RE: Classes

'before ACP'

PGT employed a mixed in-class restrictor size , based on all the multipliers and all of that you would have to run x sized restrictor, not hard to figure out

so did open

it has been done before

you dont need a class before the manufacturer is invovled, that is cart before horse !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
730 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
RE: Classes

PGT and Open used to have the restrictor size based on displacement, and it had some bizarre effects. The 2.2 Legacy Turbo without an intercooler got a smaller restrictor than the 2.0 intercooled cars, even though the 2.0's were more powerful to start with. The 2.2 Audi got the large one because it was only 2 valve.

The idea of the fixed restrictor size is that it is primarily the mass of air entering the engine that determines the power, so by making that equal for everyone (remember that the restrictor is on the intake side, so you only have atmospheric pressure through a fixed size hole), you have the best chance of equalizing the potential power.

Of course you'll still get more power from a larger engine, but it becomes a question of diminishing returns, since the smaller the engine, the less it's affected by the restrictor. Also, keeping a fixed size restrictor, and keeping it at the Group N size, works towards equalizing the performance potential of all the top cars.

That begs the question why is Open at the Group A size. The idea was that if someone wanted to contest CNAR in a Group A car, they could still run CARS nationals (including the dual status events) in Open class without modification.


Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
RE: Classes

the whole suggestion was in response to the quest to make some sort of 2wd P4 car able to compete against existing P4 cars,

(commitee's idea, proposed as a reason to mangle P4/N4)

nothing else
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top