Of course I voted no, but I won't matter much. Since I had ample time to talk to DCH the other night, I posed the question. For the record, he'd rather stay with his big bad 40mm car as well, but the damage has already been done. Since the SCCA proposed it already, rescinding it would put RA in a bad position. If there were to be a large claim, the insurance company would look back and tell RA, "Well, the SCCA was proposing smaller restrictors, but you killed it at the last moment. Therefore they felt there was a problem, but you ignored it. You are in trouble." Had the SCCA never proposed the smaller restrictor, we might have had a chance, but I'm afraid the cat's out of the bag on this one. Personally I'd still like to see RA go with the 40 and try and justify it with the insurance (I think there are some valid arguments), but it ain't my money bankrolling the sport, and I'm not liable if it all goes to heck. If I were putting my money where my mouth is like DCH, I might think differently.
But don't worry, becuz in lieu of our big restrictors, JB Niday (now the official managing director of RA) has promised us all...HOOKERS! And not cheap Mopar ones either, but Prodrive quality girls. Bet you all wish you had open class cars now, eh? Woo Hoo, Hookers!
2004 ran a 40mm restrictor in Open class, 2005 is set for a 34mm restrictor in open class. The overall planned affect is to slow down the cars to make them safer. I believe it will actually make the cars more dangerous. Here is why, have you ever heard of John Buffums book, In like a Lamb out like a Lion? John said in his book it means to come into a corner slower and in control and leave the corner as fast as you can. This is a good, safe way to rally. Adding this restrictor could cause drivers to come into corners faster trying to carry speed, because they cant get there heavy underpowered AWD cars to leave the corner fast. This is a dangerous way to run an american "blind" rally. If you come into a corner too fast and it tightens with a spectator or a Horse on the outside, how safe is that? I personally tried the 34mm at Mt. Hood rally this year and it was awful. I will need to spend allot of money in tuning to try to regain an acceptable amount of power. People with stock computers will really have to spend allot of money, because they will need a $1200 or more stand alone programmable ECU. I strongly appose this 34mm and hope its not a part of 2005. Leave europe rally out of our program.
Well it HAS been detirmined that the real risk is all those novices who continually crash.
So since there is >>>ample documentary evidence<<<,
>>all official FIA certified<<< like, showing a approx 3 mph increase in the speed of 34mm restrictor cars since about 1999 in the WRC coupled with the logic of "SCCA decided Novices are the problem", then it seems clear RA could rescind the clearly purely political rule done to appease the SCCA risk Management employee or was it to appease the Boumph¨¹qu¨¦ Insurance Agency salesman, or whoever! I sometimes got Pete Lyons roles mixed up.
And the miserable poll DIDN'T COUNT MY VOTE.
By the way 40mm is already a actual reduction in the inlet of my turbo.
We are all still waiting alternate, reliable, enforceable proposals to restrictors that slow the cars down.
You think open class has it bad try PGT - the restrictor in PGT is still purely political. There is no reason for restricting stock HP, with stock gear ratios, (even in an STi -- 300 HP is acceptable World Wide.)
Eventually we will get to an alternate, reliable, enforceable way of slowing the cars down (remove the turbos completely...).
>Since the SCCA proposed it already, rescinding it would put
>RA in a bad position. If there were to be a large claim,
>the insurance company would look back and tell RA, "Well,
>the SCCA was proposing smaller restrictors, but you killed
>it at the last moment. Therefore they felt there was a
>problem, but you ignored it. You are in trouble."
well do you suppose that holds true for the newbie proposals, too? It really matters to me, cuz I'm putting money into a Grp 5 car I may not be able to run for some time, and never if it means I have to start over with a different car...
>well do you suppose that holds true for the newbie
>proposals, too? It really matters to me, cuz I'm putting
>money into a Grp 5 car I may not be able to run for some
>time, and never if it means I have to start over with a
How about this: 34mm for new competitors and 40mm for seed 5 and up. If the restrictors get much smaller, I suggest the Cummins turbo diesel spec class. 160hp, 2,300 RPM redline. Plus it's easy on gearboxes-only 1,300 ft/lbs of torque.
Basicly it was ok. But without a short ratio tranny it is hard to drive. The top rpms are just horrible, sucking air through a straw. Try revving in 2nd then bog into 3rd, not good. Restrictors work for those who have lots of money and can get around the problems. I like the weight idea as my car is allready 3200#:7
Good point. For a smaller displacement engine, the weight would less. Hey, isn't this sounding like Group F??
Ya know, those GpF guys are smart enough to figure out that there IS a less instrusive, cheaper way to slow cars down (and equalize performance too). And.....by golly the circle track guys have figured out the same thing. Why do you suppose the greater rally community is so slow to pick up on this idea????
>you guys in GrpF are all 'stoked' on your 'big fight' at
>well, with 34mm there will be big fights in open/grpn/pgt
>class too, not 1 min here, 2 min there BS
>a decently driven pgt car should beat a poorly driven open
>a well driven open class car will always beat a well driven
>n or pgt car
Pat, come on! You ever driven a Misterbitchy Eclipse?
Ask anybody who has about their lovely set of ratios, or ask Eric Eaton there about how obvious the massive hole in the ratios in his ol Maz-dog 323 was.
Those TRANSMISSIONS are huge HUGE stumbling blocks as are the high
3.53 or 3.6 axle ratios of older PGT cars.
There is only so much even an excellent driver such as Eric can do against say YOU if he is saddled with crappy box and final drive.
And Pat, you know that I have said you're the only guy with the drive and ambition to do anything even half serious in terms of driving in this sport, but your viewpoint sometimes is limited.
Strangle the motors of the already not optimised car, and the situation becomes worse.
I consider you a friend pat, so I'll say it just like you were here:
If YOU want to build a GpN car, BUILD IT!
Let others do what they want.
And here's something I suggest to you: I say you would do the same results if your car was exactly the same but not 4wd.
I posit it is the well matched TURBO motor and gearbox/final drive, and good brakes (which you can use) which are the key elements in the car which lets you drive as you do.
Come on and build a GpF car!
Think of the challenge!
Just for fun. (You can afford it, don't BS me now!)
open -> 34mm is what I am talking about
pgt -> 32mm is a different topic, but it should be done AS A CLASS EQUALIZER not as an 'overall' position thing, and thinking that only in the context of free boost and ECUs (which was only recently changed to the silly concept of 'cant change timing but we cant check it anyhow')
I have an open car. I have an N car. I have had 2 PGT cars. I've driven in ALL THREE CLASSES in the last 3 years, and won in each, and wanted to be competitive in each.
And of course John, you are my friend, so I will tell it to ya:
whose view is 'limited' here.
And I might even be driving a Grp F car before you know it. It has nothing to do with Open -> 34mm, which I will defend EACH AND EVERY TIME THE SAME THREAD IS RESURRECTED WITH THE SAME ARGUMENTS BY THE SAME PEOPLE.