Special Stage Forums banner

641 - 660 of 671 Posts

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Bump from the dead...A few years later and all the syrupy sweet talk of why they needed at add lots of weight AND a 2mm smaller restrictor to 2 wheel drive cars,

all the "we MAY be possibly thinking about perhaps some day maybe adding possibly a 32mm restrictor to Open Class cars"..

Reading the rule book half way thru 2015, whaddya see?

As of a few hours ago Open AWD is at 34mm, 2900 lbs min weight

and "Open" 2wd is at 2900 lbs and 32mm.
Is that right..

Whatever the case it shows that all the ranting from all the people in the CARS "leadership" on this issue was just so much hhhoooey.

Ranting... a nice attempt at avoiding calling it what we know it to be back then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
As of a few hours ago Open AWD is at 34mm, 2900 lbs min weight

and "Open" 2wd is at 2900 lbs and 32mm.
Is that right..
Nope, wrong.
Open 2WD, if forced induction, is unrestricted and 2900lb min weight, or 32mm and no minimum weight.
Open 2WD also allows up to 4 liter NA with no minimum weight, if memory serves me correctly, which I personally disagree with... but WTF

-Martin.
Nissan 240SX CARS Open 2WD, heavy and unrestricted.
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Nope, wrong.
Open 2WD, if forced induction, is unrestricted and 2900lb min weight, or 32mm and no minimum weight.
Open 2WD also allows up to 4 liter NA with no minimum weight, if memory serves me correctly, which I personally disagree with... but WTF

-Martin.

Nissan 240SX CARS Open 2WD, heavy and unrestricted.

Oh OK I wasn't paying too much attention to that part...just the fact that Open is 34mm AWD and 2wd is 32mm but don't worry, they may be one day maybe thinking of reducing Open AWD to 32..maybe..One day..

Didya know it was all your fault?

Your car scared away all the Manufacturers from fielding all those new little 1.4 super and turbocharged giant killers like they were dreaming of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,063 Posts
It is an interesting way to make 4 classes to try and solve the self imposed max average speed rule. Considering their max average speed rule its probably their only real course of action.

Though limiting the fuel would help, because oxygenated fuels get more O2 to burn into the combustion chamber despite the air inlet restrictor since they have a secondary source for O2 .

That's one advantage of limiting the fuel to pump / a certain Octane rating.

Big White Winter rally looks fun enough to play no matter how silly the rules get. (silly from my point of view, i'm a big fan of Nasa Rally sports rules for speed limits (none) and new competitor restrictions (none) )

Can't they increase the max average speed limit, For cars that pass a higher safety standard? NHRA drag race style ? If a competitor ever exceeds X kmph , they have to meet the following : and make a list of what will help the most (hans device no older than1 year, helmet no older than 2 years, seats no older than 4 years, ETC. ) its probably only the absolute fastest drivers, who are probably in the best equipment so this shouldn't be too hard of a model to figure out.

should be enough to appease the lawyers to keep your rates reasonable ? i dunno , just an idea. cause eventually you'll be challenged to do even more because some competitor in some class beats the speed limit, despite the changes.
 

·
Just did it
Joined
·
137 Posts
oxygenated fuels get more O2 to burn into the combustion chamber despite the air inlet restrictor since they have a secondary source for O2 .
That's interesting. I thought there used to be a rule that all air entering the engine must pass through the restrictor, though I can't find that anymore, it's probably been reworded or I just imagined it.
I found this rule, but it only applies to production not to open:
All air entering the engine must pass through the air filter.
So the question becomes: Does O2 in the fuel count as "air" that's not passing through the air filter?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,063 Posts
In a purely technical (and i'm a programmer / geek) Yes it is Oxygen, it can burn in the combustion change and does not pass through the air filter.

HodRodMagazine said:
Oxygenated Fuel
The theory is the more fuel you can pass through an engine and completely burn, the more power you can make. The fuel has to be matched with air to create a burnable mixture. Without a power adder such as a blower or a turbo, air is hard to add. That is where oxygenated fuel is helpful. It contains a higher percent of oxygen, creating a quicker, more efficient burn. In the state of California, 91-coctane pump fuel is oxygenated, so the gains between the two fuels due to oxygenation wouldn't be notable.

Read more: http://www.hotrod.com/features/shop-tours/0901phr-difference-between-pump-race-gas/#ixzz3cUKVDBR3
Follow us: @HotRodMagazine on Twitter | HotRodMag on Facebook
I'm not sure if any pump gas in Canada is Oxygenated ,


Their C11 description is quite intersting .. : http://www.vpracingfuels.com/vp-drag-racing

http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/ctrp-1212-oxygenated-racing-fuels-new-fuel/

. the Big question i would be wondering is , is any standard pump gas in canada Oxygenated, if so to what degree / what percent. I'd make that the cap so that the turbo restrictors (and size limits) are actually a hard stop .

*shrugs*
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,258 Posts
Can't they increase the max average speed limit, For cars that pass a higher safety standard? NHRA drag race style ? If a competitor ever exceeds X kmph , they have to meet the following : and make a list of what will help the most (hans device no older than1 year, helmet no older than 2 years, seats no older than 4 years, ETC. ) its probably only the absolute fastest drivers, who are probably in the best equipment so this shouldn't be too hard of a model to figure out.

.
Not sure why you'd be concerned about the age of the HANS device, unless that was just an example you're using.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Whatever the case it shows that all the ranting from all the people in the CARS "leadership" on this issue was just so much hhhoooey.
Ranting... a nice attempt at avoiding calling it what we know it to be back then.
Actually most of the ranting came from people who don’t compete in the Canadian 2wd classes.
Since the change there has been more focus on the 2wd championship from the media, organizers and competitors.
No the entry numbers haven’t grown much, but it hasn’t gone down either. And we have more competitors in a single class rather than spread out over several smaller classes. And I think the competition is quite close.
At our last regional event in Ontario we had three US 2wd teams enter. And the western events quite regularly get US entries.
Definitely not the end of 2wd in Canada that some people predicted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,063 Posts
Not sure why you'd be concerned about the age of the HANS device, unless that was just an example you're using.
Yes Just an example. In that rally could follow what Drag Racing does. (higher safety for faster cars) I'm also making an assumption that competitors Want no speed limit or higher average speed limits, but its the underwriting insurance company, Or the sanctioning body that has a problem with the higher speeds.

the thinking would be , by having some use an even Higher standard for safety, due diligence was performed, and thus you can allow, a higher speed cap, you know, like drag racing.

so how come drag racing can continue to function (Yes in canada) with out the constant need to try and rein in the speeds? every year people with no experience and faster and faster production cars can enter, and they hit faster speeds, than those of 5, 10, 20 years ago.

the NHRA does have more brackets (speed related) and stated gear needed , at some point you need a higher level license, along with higher level safety. they seem to make you do some Test passes , but for rally the test could be different and or include many other things. Like getting out of your car in X amount of time , having rallySafe and demonstrating how to use it, GPS locator, etc,


There's been crashes with bad outcomes in Canadian drag racing, And drag racing is still allowed, and speed is unrestricted, as long as you have the appropriate level of safety. Lower classes are allowed more safety than is required.

I've taken my rally car to a drag strip. I run the quarter mile in 16.1 Seconds with a speed of about 86 mph.. I wasn't required any roll bars (had a full cage) a hans (wore one cause i had it with me) . and i'm not sure if shorts were allowed (didn't cause i didn't think it was a good idea)

But its a proven model. it keeps the track owners / event organizers Safe from financial liability .

cars are just gonna keep getting faster, i don't want rally to go away (anywhere) . :D not that anyone does
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Actually most of the ranting came from people who don’t compete in the Canadian 2wd classes.
Since the change there has been more focus on the 2wd championship from the media, organizers and competitors.
No the entry numbers haven’t grown much, but it hasn’t gone down either. And we have more competitors in a single class rather than spread out over several smaller classes. And I think the competition is quite close.
At our last regional event in Ontario we had three US 2wd teams enter. And the western events quite regularly get US entries.
Definitely not the end of 2wd in Canada that some people predicted.
Actually the intentional use of the word ranting was "returning the favor" to somebody using it as the last refuge of a scoundrel: to invariably paint any opposing voices as "ranting"...It is used by people who are confident of their authority to distract attention from their tissue-thing slanted logic..

Nobody predicted the end of 2wd rally in Canada----a cheap exaggeration---people rightfully questioned the motivations to "fix" a problem that did not exist and which mainly simple cost people money...

But what do you car if people need to spend money just to be in the exact same place as before, its only money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,258 Posts
so how come drag racing can continue to function (Yes in canada) with out the constant need to try and rein in the speeds? every year people with no experience and faster and faster production cars can enter, and they hit faster speeds, than those of 5, 10, 20 years ago.
Think about the difference between potential spectator injury with the 2 sports. I imagine that's a big difference with the insurance companies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,063 Posts
Well other motor sports have way more fans , packed closely together often at the side of the track. which is really good, and bad .

you can charge them money , use said money to build permanent structures to help shield them from any on track incidents. but when something Does makes it over your barriers , someone will definitely get hurt.

still chairs = tickets = money , and you can buy more insurance / lawyers.

Still though spectator safety is way different than Driver and Navie safety. some measures can address both, but i would focus on each one by itself.

what's gonna keep the spectators "safer" : further away from the road, not picking bad spots, more marshals, using natural terrain for safety lighter cars, slower cars, (Watching from home) .

.. though behind the hands of a fast driver awd, rwd, fwd all corner at about the same speed (So says Guy Light) but i also agree. Tires have so much grip to the road, and that translates to how much momentum they can change directions. So making cars heavier won't decrease the momentum a car has mid turn. when it slides off the road it will still travel X feet out, though at a slower speed, so spectators will have a little bit more time to run out of the way.

which isn't to say maybe you don't want to make the cars heavier , but don't say that one particular measure is for spectator safety. i mean hell, heavier cars, will be harder on their brakes, more brake wear, and brake fade... really doesn't sound good for anyone's safety.

Not that i like restrictors - but they seem like a better solution for both driver and spectator.

don't allow Oxygenated fuels (beyond what is in pump gas)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
685 Posts
I believe the primary objective of changing the 2WD regulations was to eliminate the G5 class as it was frequently under-subscribed, instead combining G2 and G5 into a single Open 2WD class. I don't think anyone ever objected to that in principle as typically everyone was happy to compete against everyone else in the 2WD category, like in the hugely popular MaxAttack! series.

But there was a misguided perception that "underpowered" G2 cars couldn't possibly hope to compete against more powerful G5 cars, and thus simply lumping them together would somehow be unfair. Hence the need for those complicated weight, displacement, turbo restrictor limitations.

Really the only way around all of that would be to impose a "spec" series where everyone is forced to drive the exact same model of car. Let Fiat work some deal to provide a Fiat 500 Abarth at half price to all current 2WD competitors, and then we'll have at it to determine who actually is the best 2WD pilot. Car assignments will be determined by random draw just before the start of each event, to ensure nobody benefits from having a "special" car.

The chances of that ever happening are pretty slim.

I think one of the major attractions in rallying is the fact that there are so many different types of cars entered. How boring would it be if everyone drove a blue Subaru? Diversity makes it more interesting.

But, horses for courses...

Some cars are just more naturally suited to some events or some particular stages. A small light-weight "underpowered" FWD might be more adept at threading its way through tight twisty stuff, compared to a heavy overpowered RWD gravel-spitter that might be a pig [and fun] in the twisty bits but really enjoys stretching its legs on long open straightaways. Small light-weight cars might get pounded to pieces on rocky rough stages, whereas heavily armoured big cars might be perfectly happy soaking up that rough stuff. Some cars might be great on gravel, but evil on ice. Even in the fastest Open Class AWD category, you often see in-car video where the car is maxed out stuck on the rev-limiter in 6th gear on some long straightaway, unable to go any faster, because they've chosen instead to gear the car for max torque on the slower twistier stages where they can really make up time.

It still seems the Fiesta R2, no matter who drives it, is the quickest 2WD car at most of the events we've been to. Put someone like Will Hudson behind the wheel and look out! And then there's Simon Dubé with no budget driving his ancient "underpowered" VW Golf and kicking butt every time out. I think it's waaaay cool that he does that! If he was winning driving an overpowered turbo car everyone would simply credit the car for his performance, because people would think "anyone could win in that car". But Simon's skills are doubly impressive due to the fact that he regularly wins with only half the horsepower of many of his competitors, proving over and over again that engine power alone ain't gonna guarantee you any race wins. Certainly not in 2WD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,063 Posts
I think there are solid reasons for the perception of G5 being faster than G2 .
there reason is, The cars are faster.

You're just showing us numerous examples of
"Great driving Beats Horse power, when horse power doesn't drive great."

(though its really acceleration that matters, which is obtained when HP is Geared correctly)

instead of trying to say that G2 Cars are really on equal footing as G5 cars (they are not)

maybe a better statement would be to say "it doesn't really matter" , why? Because G5 numbers have gotten so low they don't consistently show up and a fast G2 driver is still gonna be on the podium.

:) if a class isn't a Spec class, there's gonna be the "fast" car to have in that class. always will be the case if the rules allow you to modify / have selection. so knowing no matter What the rules are, that there will be Cars (that on paper) are faster than other cars.. so then rules change, that list shuffles around a bit. what evers...

*shrugs*
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
685 Posts
I think there are solid reasons for the perception of G5 being faster than G2 .
there reason is, The cars are faster.
(though its really acceleration that matters, which is obtained when HP is Geared correctly)
I won't deny that a G5 car is capable of making more power than a G2. But that doesn't necessarily make them faster unless there's enough available traction to use that power and you have straightaways long enough with the acceleration to reach greater top speeds. If all rallies were run on dry tarmac, yes then I'd expect G5 cars to consistently beat G2. But in all the rallies that we've ever attended those high traction opportunities come up only very rarely.

When those 2 driven wheels do hook up properly, then yippee more power is certainly great! But on loose gravel all that extra power is only useful for firing rocks deeper into the forest without significantly translating into useful forward speed. In mud and on ice more power is actually a handicap.
 

·
Just did it
Joined
·
137 Posts
A small light-weight "underpowered" FWD might be more adept at threading its way through tight twisty stuff, compared to a heavy overpowered RWD gravel-spitter that might be a pig [and fun] in the twisty bits but really enjoys stretching its legs on long open straightaways.
I say it's the other way around.
I got my best results in the underpowered Paseo at GCFR, where it's all wide and fast and flowing with no slow turns. I pulled off 4th overall multiple times at Galway. But at Tall Pines and Black Bear, against mostly the same competitors, we're lucky to get into the top 15. Whenever there's any turn tight enough that we have to slow down for, we sacrifice our momentum, and then it takes FOREVER to get back up to speed again.
A more powerful car can slow down for a turn, then step on the gas and instantly get their momentum back before the next turn. For the underpowered cars it takes a loooong straight, or several fast turns to do the same thing.
I say its the faster roads that give the underpowered cars an advantage.
 

·
Just did it
Joined
·
137 Posts
I won't deny that a G5 car is capable of making more power than a G2. But that doesn't necessarily make them faster unless there's enough available traction to use that power and you have straightaways long enough with the acceleration to reach greater top speeds. If all rallies were run on dry tarmac, yes then I'd expect G5 cars to consistently beat G2. But in all the rallies that we've ever attended those high traction opportunities come up only very rarely.

When those 2 driven wheels do hook up properly, then yippee more power is certainly great! But on loose gravel all that extra power is only useful for firing rocks deeper into the forest without significantly translating into useful forward speed. In mud and on ice more power is actually a handicap.
I've heard it said from several trustworthy sources, that 200hp is the maximum that any 2wd car can put down on gravel before they just start wasting tires and gas. The simple fact that they're all 2wd is enough of a restrictor, without the need for actual restrictors.
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
I say it's the other way around.
I got my best results in the underpowered Paseo at GCFR, where it's all wide and fast and flowing with no slow turns. I pulled off 4th overall multiple times at Galway. But at Tall Pines and Black Bear, against mostly the same competitors, we're lucky to get into the top 15. Whenever there's any turn tight enough that we have to slow down for, we sacrifice our momentum, and then it takes FOREVER to get back up to speed again.
A more powerful car can slow down for a turn, then step on the gas and instantly get their momentum back before the next turn. For the underpowered cars it takes a loooong straight, or several fast turns to do the same thing.
I say its the faster roads that give the underpowered cars an advantage.
Oooooh (sigh) god.

Let me ask:
How do you suppose Bredon Reeves came over with a little n.a. 1600 making realistically maybe 165 hp and anihilated, massacrated to death every turbo 4wd car except the million dollah plus budget guys Higgins, Block, Lestage?
Not just once but several times---no fluke..


Do you think he would have been able to do the same result with a stock Econo MPG box?

Engine power is just the start.....follow the money.
Follow the money
Hint:


If you had chosen to put the right parts in your car then things would be as Herr Ferd says..
 

·
Just did it
Joined
·
137 Posts
Oooooh (sigh) god.
If you had chosen to put the right parts in your car then things would be as Herr Ferd says..
Not saying yer wrong. But that's an illegal mod in production class. So it don't help me.


Also, 165hp hardly qualifies as underpowered.
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Not saying yer wrong. But that's an illegal mod in production class. So it don't help me.


Also, 165hp hardly qualifies as underpowered.

Production class? People still did that?

And 165hp----who knows, maybe 120 ft/lbs compared to the 2,0 and 2,2liter turbo charged cars making double the HP and tripple the torque, it is still quite modest....many local clubbies up here had more power 20 years ago.....

Point is in a car that weight, with a little n.a motor, he beat 'em on fast, beat them on twisty, beat them on sandy...

Engine output is just the start.
 
641 - 660 of 671 Posts
Top