Special Stage Forums banner

621 - 640 of 671 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,373 Posts
Well obviously the McKenzie Bros are in charge up there.. :) (kidding)

So how about going to exhaust as the leveler? 10ft of 2 1/4 inch pipe is supposed to support somewhere around 200 hp. So limit forced induction or big cc motors to either 2 or 2.25 od tubing single exhaust with at least 10 feet per car. Exhaust must remain intact for that portion for the duration of the event. Not a perfect solution but won't hurt the stockish turbo cars like Merkurs or 6 cyclinders cars of moderate build. Anything extreme will suffer the back pressure and resulting loss of performance right up to the point of blowing seals or rings.

The really bad thing is the few 'innocent' competitors being harmed by the rule (akin to eye surgery with a sledge hammer) and the G2 guys who are at the back of the pack will still be there. If you're not on the podium there really is no difference in 2wd worth arguing over honestly.

Thanks to Keith and others for hanging in there and taking the heat they shouldn't have to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
731 Posts
We've seen them get close, but why is that relevant?
Because of this response to my question about whether 2wd cars had demonstrated that speeds were too high by exceeding maximum average speed rules:

Primarily safety. We have a max average speed rule on stages and we are breaking it more often, despite raising the bar.
Some will say the answer is to 'find slower roads.' I agree, but that is much easier said than done.
Industrial users are doing NOTHING bit widening and straightening roads these days and older, disused roads are regularly reclaimed or restricted for fear of causing (further) harm to the environment. (at least around here.)

Of course, nothing happens in isolation so the increased speeds we see are a combination of car, driver and tires. As a measure, however, there is a stage that hasn't significantly changed in the past 7 years and we've seen about a 5 sec/km (over 3.4 km) increase in pace in that time. No horribly long straights, but no super tight corners either. (112km/h avg in 2005 to 130km/h avg this year)
And you follow it up with this:

The restrictions on turbo 2wd cars aren't about slowing them down, they are about leveling a playing field.
The problem is that Gr5 drivers are vocally saying they are traction limited and just go the route they do to get cheap power and the Gr2 drivers don't want to come out and say they don't want their class eliminated in favour of G5.
So, it is about safety due to excessive speeds when pressed.... but then when pressed on whether 2wd cars actually exceed the current max average speeds, the answer is "No, but that isn't relevant anyway. We just want to slow people down. You see, there are a bunch of people who only complain privately about things that have been shown to be empirically false. We believe those folks. Plus, maybe it is about safety. maybe..."

Which is it? Competitiveness or safety?
 

·
Dramamine is for DramaQueens
Joined
·
4,813 Posts
Discussion Starter #623
Josh,
The problem here is that your question wasn't clearly directed to 2wd cars. In fact, my original comment that CARS was trying to contain speed was about open class cars, NOT 2wd. Note that the comment was in response to a point raised by ACP that was a global class discussion.
Which is it? Competitiveness or safety?
Why can't it be both?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
532 Posts
Are they people who have competed in both classes that would know they would be insignificantly faster themselves if they had a Gr5 car? DVW is another example of not being faster after going turbo.




I got criticized at Tall Pines by the CARS rulesmakers for my earlier comments in this thread. Yet I hadn't posted since the announcement that Gr5 would be extended 2 more years because that is acceptable to my purposes but guess they felt I was still upset. Then we shared a laugh at JVL.

Still feel for Martin & Ferd and a few others that seem will have some decision making to do. And seeing the R2 lightyears ahead early at TallPines shows they did not have an advantage to modern Gr2.

While I like the 4 class structure, I still feel putting more restrictions, cost and slowing 2wd teams will hurt 2wd in Canada because more people will opt for AWD, and perhaps rally in general as some of which will not be able to afford AWD will become single-season-wonder-where-they-are-now? competitors.
I honestly don't know who Pat talked to. I assume that it was G2 drivers and that most have not driven G5 cars.
 

·
Cheddarwagen Pilot
Joined
·
1,805 Posts
More repercussions from Canadian Class changes:


RA Rules Bulletin said:
Remove Article 10.2.B.30
Rationale: In CARS Bulletin 2012-05, changes are made to the CARS vehicle
preparation rules which allow for body structure modifications and include no
minimum weight in the new Production 2WD class. These changes are not
consistent with Rally America rules philosophy for Production Category and would
have a serious, adverse effect on the Rally America B-Spec Championship.
10.2.B.30 was the rule allowing cars prepped to Canadian Production class rules to run RA Production classes.
 

·
Uh Oh, UH OH, UHH OHHH!!!
Joined
·
1,818 Posts
More repercussions from Canadian Class changes:10.2.B.30 was the rule allowing cars prepped to Canadian Production class rules to run RA Production classes.
Not a big deal in my opinion. This may effect 1 person that I know of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,184 Posts
Not a big deal in my opinion. This may effect 1 person that I know of.
Not only that, but you should ask RA how much they consulted with CARS about the SP class (which is a pretty big deal) considering lots of Canadians go down to the US to race and a majority of folks race pseudo-open class Subarus...
 

·
I have a cat.
Joined
·
3,676 Posts
First time since I've been involved (just 18 years) in North American rallying that rules reciprocity between SCCA/RA and CARS has been revoked.

I think that's kind of a big deal.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 

·
Dramamine is for DramaQueens
Joined
·
4,813 Posts
Discussion Starter #631
First time since I've been involved (just 18 years) in North American rallying that rules reciprocity between SCCA/RA and CARS has been revoked.
I think that's kind of a big deal.
Nope.
A few years ago CARS eliminated reciprocity across the board and, in turn, simply stated that US cars would be placed in the appropriate CARS class. There were a number of class dependencies that meant this was the only direction to go. (There are a lot of Gr2 cars in the US that are Gr5 cars in Canada as one example.)
 

·
I have a cat.
Joined
·
3,676 Posts
(There are a lot of Gr2 cars in the US that are Gr5 cars in Canada as one example.)
And soon there will be Gr5 cars that are magically Open cars up there, too! :)

Sorry, couldn't resist. Thanks for the correction.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,373 Posts
And further reading indicates that P and PGT can gut pillars, back doors, rockers and other areas that aren't externally visable AND doesn't need stock firewall any more . Tube frame aluminum bodied cars are allowed?
 

·
Dramamine is for DramaQueens
Joined
·
4,813 Posts
Discussion Starter #634
Nope, again.
(f) None of the normal elements of the interior cockpit bodywork (including the dashboard and the elements contained in or part of the dashboard) and none of the accessories normally mounted by the manufacturer on the lowest price model may be removed or replaced.
A,B,C pillars and door interior structure are without question interior bodywork. Extending that to the firewall isn't a stretch either.
I think there will be a clarification coming on that but the reading that any of that would be allowed is rather optimistic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,373 Posts
Good if a clarification is coming. Removing the traditional firewall language is confusing. Allowing weight reduction for p classes and missing language leads to misunderstandings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,475 Posts
Concur w/ Gene. I can tell you that the phrase "interior bodywork" caught my eye. We have interior trim, but body is really just the body. Interior bodywork conjures up an image of a ship in the bottle to me- maybe a body within a body :)

Similarly, "door interior structure" is confusing to me. I wouldn't know if you are talking about the door, or door trim. The anti-intrusion bars are part of the door and wouldn't be treated separately. Door trim is the soft parts that attach to the door. (While the bars bolt in, they are no less a part of the door than the parts of the body that also bolt in prior to paint.)

And finally, we don't mount accessories, dealers install accessories. We install options, but not on base (lowest cost) models. Those are all standard features. You may want to enumerate which systems are optional and removeable.

I can only acknowledge the difficulty of creating usable but precise language. I'd happily read over drafts when time was available, but I'm not in Canada and am frequently without much free time. Not much skin in this game for me.
 

·
Dramamine is for DramaQueens
Joined
·
4,813 Posts
Discussion Starter #637
Concur w/ Gene. I can tell you that the phrase "interior bodywork" caught my eye. We have interior trim, but body is really just the body.
I honesty think you're stretching here. Interior trim is dealt with by a different rule. Exterior bodywork is, and has, been a reference to what can be seen from the outside of the car.
Yes, what is allowed is much different from the traditional idea of 'production,' but that's not a bad thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,373 Posts
Well if

as much thought went into writing the rules originally as has gone into finding ways to defend them, this thread wouldn't be here I'm guessing.


However you may be right Keith, it is a stretch. And racers never stretch the rules so leave them be.:rolleyes:
 
621 - 640 of 671 Posts
Top