Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Much has been said about starting a Group 5 class in Canada. I've seen several scattered pockets of interest across the country. The pockets have turned into rule change proposals, which have gone to the CARS board. These proposals have been repeatedly rebuffed by the board, in their pursuit of increasing class sizes by reducing the number of classes.

I would like to know if there is the possibility of setting up a unified "front" for the adoption of the Group 5 class. Although I personally am not looking to run something in this class, I can see that there is a TREMENDOUS need for this class. More and more new cars are hitting the market that are not suitable for rallying, not because of any inherent design flaws, but because there just is not a class in which they could be competitive.

For those who are in the dark, Group 5 is basically Group 2 (two wheel drive) without the Turbo/Supercharger ban, and without the 2.4 adjusted displacement limit.

I'm going to spearhead the rule change proposal for the adoption of Group 5. I'm also going to set up a petition to be signed by current competitors who also would like to see the new class. Rule changes have to be submitted by June 1st, so the petition will be available for signatures at the Rocky Mountain Rally. If anyone would like to help me write the proposal, I would appreciate any and all help. The more voices, the louder we will be heard.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
803 Posts
How about

Group 5 (open class 2WD over 2400cc)

or

P5 - A production class for over 2 litres - non-turbo - 2WD
Lots of cars for this class as well.

More food for thought ..... and discussion.


Shawn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Well, the Production Classes could use an overhaul, as well.
Personally, I think P4 should be split into 2wd and 4wd classes (both otherwise adhering to P4 rules), and leave the rest of the Production classes alone. But that's another story entirely.........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
A supercharger would be alot cheaper for me, then built high comp. engine for GRP 2. Still I would like to find out if a 1.6L would be competitive in ether class. Good idea Dave...

Michel
 

·
R6 L6 R6< 800
Joined
·
200 Posts
Since I have already been branded as a pariah by trying to effect change in the sport, I have wording that was submitted to the RSO community over a year ago that I could share. The same wording was sent both electronically and hard copy to the CARS board for consideration on May 31, 2003 as per their request for rule change consideration. The proposal was actively downplayed by officials on both boards and subsequently dropped from consideration.
I have the exact wording for that if someone wanted to see it. I'm wondering though if this discussion would be more appropriate on one of the Official CARS or RSO websites since everything that is discussed here has no official cachet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
730 Posts
>... I'm wondering though if this discussion would be more
>appropriate on one of the Official CARS or RSO websites
>since everything that is discussed here has no official
>cachet.

There is no official CARS discussion forum, and even the "official" RSO forum has no official standing - a consensus of opinion amongst whoever happened to log in this week is not a model of good governance.

I'd rather see the discussion remain in as public a forum as possible.

Things to consider: Make the rule change proposal coherent and complete. "Gimme G5" is not sufficient, and stands a good chance of landing in the circular file. A list of the specific changes to specific rules, and concrete proposed wording would be much better.

Look at the maximum displacement rule (NRR II.D.10), and consider why it's there. Virtually every branch of motorsport has maximum displacement limits, and for good reason. Sure, it might be cool to make an F1 car with a 9 liter turbo V16, but it's not allowed. The CARS limits were chosen to match FIA, so if you're going to propose a different limit, make a coherent argument for why it should be different.

As much as I think it would be cool to have a place for some of the higher output 2wd cars, I don't think we need to create a new class for ever cool car out there.
 

·
R6 L6 R6< 800
Joined
·
200 Posts
>Things to consider: Make the rule change proposal coherent
>and complete. "Gimme G5" is not sufficient, and stands a
>good chance of landing in the circular file. A list of the
>specific changes to specific rules, and concrete proposed
>wording would be much better.

That was precisely what was submitted to you last May, Paul. Since the board didn't get around to looking at rule changes in 2003, are those items that were submitted still "live" or will they need to be resubmitted.

>Look at the maximum displacement rule (NRR II.D.10), and
>consider why it's there. Virtually every branch of
>motorsport has maximum displacement limits, and for good
>reason. Sure, it might be cool to make an F1 car with a 9
>liter turbo V16, but it's not allowed. The CARS limits were
>chosen to match FIA, so if you're going to propose a
>different limit, make a coherent argument for why it should
>be different.

Again, done as requested.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
>As much as I think it would be cool to have a place for some
>of the higher output 2wd cars, I don't think we need to
>create a new class for ever cool car out there.

I agree with you, Paul, that we don't need to create a new class for every cool car out there, but in the last few years (up to 5) North American manufacturers have re-discovered performance in a big way. Displacements, on average, are creeping up. Still, however, North American manufacturers are not seeing the point of 4WD except in Bubba's pickup, and Bubba's wife's SUV.

Consequently, we're ending up with a lot of new cars that are 2wd, possibly turbo-charged and engines too big for Group 2. That's 3 strikes against a lot of new cars coming out, and the best way to alienate the North American manufacturers. There's a lot of cars who don't have a suitable class that they can be competitive in.

I'll do my homework and provide some concrete examples and numbers in the class change proposal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
665 Posts
CARS Group 5 rule recipe

I knocked this off pretty quick - so feel free to pick it apart. I see no problem with II.D.10 - if we limit CARS Group 5 to 2.5L nominal - the multipliers in this section are in addition to 2.5L and appear to be for the purpose of classification.

Recipe:

**NRR II.D.5 - add the following sentence:

All Group 5 vehicles must have a turbocharger air inlet orifice of 40mm diameter or less

**Reclassify II.I (Vehicle Log Books) as II.J

**Add a new sec II.I:


I Group 5

1. Definition
Any two-wheel-drive turbocharged vehicle which meets the definition requirements of NRR II.C, II.D & II.I.2. Limited to vehicles sold in North America in minimum total quantities of 1000 which are modified beyond what is permitted in Group N, Production or Group 2. Drive configuration must remain as originally manufactured (e.g. front engine, front drive).

2. Engines
The engine is unrestricted but must be derived from the same brand name offered by the vehicle manufacturer.

3. SCCA/NASA Vehicles
Vehicles which do not comply with NRR II.D.5 but do comply with SCCA regulations for Group 5 or NASA regulations for Modified 1 are permitted to compete in Group 5, but shall not be eligible to score points for the Canadian Rally Championship.

4. Authorised Modifications

same as II.E.3 with the following changes:

- change c)i) to: "The absolute minimum real weight of the car is set at 2500 lbs"

- remove f)

That's it. I eagerly await delivery of my pariah status card and decoder ring.

Robin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
RE: CARS Group 5 rule recipe

I agree with the fact that there is a wold of cars out there that would fit Group 5.
But I urge you to be cautious with what you are requesting,
I believe Production 5 is just as good an idea (may be better) than Group 5 but each has it's draw backs;

In my view Group 5's draw back is that you are creating another "open class" and I believe a lot of us has been doing substantial work to convince a lot of people that production classes are as much fun as any other class for a lot less effort.
Many new comers finaly have understood this (and the fact that you don't need a WRX to go rallying and have fun) and have come to the sport with a toned down car that is fun, reliable and allows them to go to more events and become a better driver because they are not buying a $1000 turbo every week.

Also from the overall "sport's point of view" if I was an organizer I would rather have my rally have 60 entries with 10 fast cars and 50 cheaper production based cars all paying $400 entry x 60 = $24,000 offering a good prize fund than 25 entries with 15 fast cars and 10 prod cars $400 x 20 = $10,000 just covering the expenses of puting on the rally.

This is an idea some of us have been working on for a while and it will work if we all look at the "long term benefits for the sport" and act in a proactive way when making decisions like these ones.

With that said you must now think that Jorge is totally sold on the Prod.5 idea.... well not realy. Although I think that if you are going to institute another class in Canada it should definately be a Prod. class I also believe "Very strongly" that P5 would have no place in SCCA rallies unless it is lobbied by both sides to make P5 a reality, if that is not done, P5 could ultimately hurt our sport.

Why this? beacuse if we compare our sport with road racing you can quickly evaluate that the reason rally has stayed alive over the past decades while different road racing series have come had gone on both sides of the border is that we have compatible rules on both sides of the border, (well, almost compatible except for some roll cage stuff.. x(
So, keep it that way, the biggest mistake we can do is no to realize our past strenghts and omit them.

Funny, ... I requested the inclussion of this exact class (Group 5) at our AGM (rally west) back about 6 years ago... and everyone knocked it down. Today I am not so certain it is the way to go, I don't opose it either! I am just asking people do their homework.

Unfortunately the "being pro-active instead of reactive" still is alive and well, and on that note I must say today; just be cautious with what you wish... you might get it.

Cheers
jorge
 

·
50 L3/CR 70 Yump 200
Joined
·
997 Posts
RE: CARS Group 5 rule recipe

I know a few group 5 cars here in Michigan that would love to run in Canada (in their own class).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
935 Posts
RE: CARS Group 5 rule recipe

I would venture that a group 5 or 2 car makes a lot more sense for beginner rallying than does a production car, but that's a whole other bag of worms. If grp 5 is on the agenda, there's certainly a whole bevvy of cars out there now in the US which would like to take advantage some more cross-border competition, both in the east and northwest.

Should we all add our names to one proposal, or send overwhelming seperate ones? :)
 

·
straight at T
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
RE: CARS Group 5 rule recipe

>I knocked this off pretty quick - so feel free to pick it
>apart. I see no problem with II.D.10 - if we limit CARS
>Group 5 to 2.5L nominal - the multipliers in this section
>are in addition to 2.5L and appear to be for the purpose of
>classification.

It is a good start, however I do (inevitably;-)) have some comments:

First of all, the "FIA" maximum displacements don't reflect the reality of the North American market, some allowance should be made for larger displacement motors (perhaps only for 2wd). I would suggest 5100cc for 2wd cars (which would allow a Mustang - except, perhaps, Mike Hurst's...). You must remember that some Group 5 cars are there because of cubic inches rather than compressors.

>Recipe:
>
>**NRR II.D.5 - add the following sentence:
>
>All Group 5 vehicles must have a turbocharger air inlet
>orifice of 40mm diameter or less


This a) is unnecessary, since 2wd cars are sufficiently traction-limited that adding a restrictor would just be adding complexity and cost without adding value and b) would probably discourage SCCA Gp5 cars from running CARS events, mainly because they currently do not require restrictors (for reason a)

>**Reclassify II.I (Vehicle Log Books) as II.J
>
>**Add a new sec II.I:
>
>
>I Group 5
>
>1. Definition
>Any two-wheel-drive turbocharged vehicle which meets the
>definition requirements of NRR II.C, II.D & II.I.2. Limited
>to vehicles sold in North America in minimum total
>quantities of 1000 which are modified beyond what is
>permitted in Group N, Production or Group 2. Drive
>configuration must remain as originally manufactured (e.g.
>front engine, front drive).


Instead:
Vehicles must be 2wd, normally aspirated, turbocharged, or supercharged models sold globally in minimum quantities of 1000. Drive configuration must remain as originally manufactured (e.g. front engine, front drive; front engine, rear drive; etc.)
(lifted directly from the SCCA rulebook, and mirroring the Gp2 wording)

>
>2. Engines
>The engine is unrestricted but must be derived from the same
>brand name offered by the vehicle manufacturer.
>
>3. SCCA/NASA Vehicles
>Vehicles which do not comply with NRR II.D.5 but do comply
>with SCCA regulations for Group 5 or NASA regulations for
>Modified 1 are permitted to compete in Group 5, but shall
>not be eligible to score points for the Canadian Rally
>Championship.
>
>4. Authorised Modifications

>same as II.E.3 with the following changes:
>
>- change c)i) to: "The absolute minimum real weight of
>the car is set at 2500 lbs"


Is this necessary? The SCCA rules have no minimum weight. They do have a maximum adjusted displacement of 5100 cc, though.

>- remove f)

also, remove d) and e) as well - there is no particular reason to restrict these and they are not restricted in SCCA Group 5. Those rules are there to mirror the SCCA technology limits that only apply to 4wd vehicles.

If we are going to introduce a class like this, we should probably make it as close as possible to what works in the US.

>That's it. I eagerly await delivery of my pariah status
>card and decoder ring.

Me too. Now for the bit about rationalizing the P/N classes to reduce us to 4 (A=P1/2/N1/2, B=P3/N3, C=P4, D=N4).

Adrian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
665 Posts
RE: CARS Group 5 rule recipe

>First of all, the "FIA" maximum displacements don't reflect
>the reality of the North American market, some allowance
>should be made for larger displacement motors (perhaps only
>for 2wd). I would suggest 5100cc for 2wd cars (which would
>allow a Mustang - except, perhaps, Mike Hurst's...). You
>must remember that some Group 5 cars are there because of
>cubic inches rather than compressors.

I overlooked big normally aspirated iron...


>
>>Recipe:
>>
>>**NRR II.D.5 - add the following sentence:
>>
>>All Group 5 vehicles must have a turbocharger air inlet
>>orifice of 40mm diameter or less

>
>This a) is unnecessary, since 2wd cars are sufficiently
>traction-limited

Yes...I remember reading something about the Ford RS Mark 1 Fiesta needing "no more than 130bhp" - because "2wd are sufficiently traction-limited" - but we wouldn't want to put it up against an F2 Golf would we? Your point is taken though. I chose 40mm because in most cases it is a marginal restriction (from OEM inlets) likely not needing any of the tuning everyone talks about (and few actually do...) but I acknowledge it's probably not necessary



>>I Group 5
>>
>>1. Definition
>>Any two-wheel-drive turbocharged vehicle which meets the
>>definition requirements of NRR II.C, II.D & II.I.2. Limited
>>to vehicles sold in North America in minimum total
>>quantities of 1000 which are modified beyond what is
>>permitted in Group N, Production or Group 2. Drive
>>configuration must remain as originally manufactured (e.g.
>>front engine, front drive). [/b]
>
>Instead:
>Vehicles must be 2wd, normally aspirated, turbocharged, or
>supercharged models sold globally in minimum quantities of
>1000. Drive configuration must remain as originally
>manufactured (e.g. front engine, front drive; front engine,
>rear drive; etc.)
>(lifted directly from the SCCA rulebook, and mirroring the
>Gp2 wording)

The proposed wording was patterned after CARS Open class wording. The North American bit was inserted on purpose. Group 5 is a distinctly North American concept and has no parallel in FIA (that I'm aware of) - The impetus seems to be that we have all of these cars that can't fit into a class... - 'sold globally' leads to "grey" (grey as in illegal...) market cars.

>
>>
>>2. Engines
>>The engine is unrestricted but must be derived from the same
>>brand name offered by the vehicle manufacturer.
>>
>>3. SCCA/NASA Vehicles
>>Vehicles which do not comply with NRR II.D.5 but do comply
>>with SCCA regulations for Group 5 or NASA regulations for
>>Modified 1 are permitted to compete in Group 5, but shall
>>not be eligible to score points for the Canadian Rally
>>Championship.
>>
>>4. Authorised Modifications

>>same as II.E.3 with the following changes:
>>
>>- change c)i) to: "The absolute minimum real weight of
>>the car is set at 2500 lbs"

>
>Is this necessary? The SCCA rules have no minimum weight.
>They do have a maximum adjusted displacement of 5100 cc,
>though.
>
>>- remove f)
>
>also, remove d) and e) as well - there is no particular
>reason to restrict these and they are not restricted in SCCA
>Group 5. Those rules are there to mirror the SCCA technology
>limits that only apply to 4wd vehicles.
>
>If we are going to introduce a class like this, we should
>probably make it as close as possible to what works in the
>US.
>
>>That's it. I eagerly await delivery of my pariah status
>>card and decoder ring.


>
>Me too. Now for the bit about rationalizing the P/N classes
>to reduce us to 4 (A=P1/2/N1/2, B=P3/N3, C=P4, D=N4).
>

OK - now you're a pariah... :p

>Adrian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
730 Posts
RE: CARS Group 5 rule recipe

>I knocked this off pretty quick - so feel free to pick it
>apart. I see no problem with II.D.10 - if we limit CARS
>Group 5 to 2.5L nominal - the multipliers in this section
>are in addition to 2.5L and appear to be for the purpose of
>classification.

That's correct. The limits in NRR II.D.10 are raw displacement (2.5L for turbos and multi-valve, 3.0L for two valve engines.) The multipliers only determine which displacement sub-class you're in for the P & N classes. G2 has its own multipliers for historical reasons.

Another thing to consider with the G5 proposal is what to do with rotaries. SCCA moved them all from G2 to G5, regardless of displacement. CARS NRR II.F.3 currently keeps them in G2, based on the 1.8 multiplier and 2400cc limit (i.e. rotaries can be up to 1333cc raw displacement - 13B is 1308cc.) I know of several US teams running normally aspirated RX7's who feel that they really belong in G2 not G5, based on their actual power output. They were really pleased to be able to run in G2 in Canada and be competitive.

If we create a CARS G5, do we leave aspirated rotaries in G2, and then still have a schism in the rules, or do we copy the SCCA rules and make the rotaries uncompetitive? If we create a CARS G5 and don't change the overal displacement limits, that lets in the Cooper S and the SRT4, but not Mustangs.

You need to look at the overall displacement limit, the intake restrictor, the open class technology restrictions, and the maximum average stage speed as a package. Nobody is building super-twisty gravel roads any more, and further moves to encourage people into higher horsepower cars, even if all their speed is straight-line, is going to make it that much harder for organizers to find suitable stage roads.

Consider your road damage fund as well. The 4wd open class cars probably cause more wear on the road than most G5 cars, but we're talking about the broad direction of the sport, and what sorts of cars we want to encourage people to build. If we allow no restrictor or even 40mm restrictor cars in G5, or 5L engines in big heavy rwd cars, and then get substantial numbers of competitors building to that spec, it's going to cost us more to repair the roads, and we will lose stages. You can't look at this in isolation and just wonder how cool it would be to rally a Mustang.

I know that we live in a different market than Europe, and creating a spec class for MCC Smarts probably wouldn't fly, but if we really wanted to embrace the north american market direction, we would be designing classes for F350's and Navigators.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
RE: CARS Group 5 rule recipe

I'm personally not looking to increase the raw displacement values. Limiting engine size to 2.5 (multivalve) and 3.0 (2 valve) makes good sense to me. Increasing that value in most cases greatly increases the size and weight of the car. That's not good for rallying.

Rallying is heavily influenced by the force of inertia. The heavier the car, the more the inertia, and the more potential for damage off the outside of a corner. I believe that's why rallying limits the engine size in the first place (or perhaps it's because rallying really started in Europe, where an engine larger than an inkjet printer is only used in transport trucks!)

I think G5 could be very successful without going all the way to Mustangs and like-sized vehicles.

I think the NA rotaries should stay put in G2, and turbo'ed rotaries go to G5.

My original and overriding plan for G5 is (in it's simplest form) turbo'ed G2 engines and engines up to 3litre in 2wd cars, nothing more than that. That will include lots of new cars, and some older ones.

If you have a new car and can keep it production, great, perhaps we'll have to look at a 2wd P4 class. But for people who want to modify their new car, or who have purchased an older car that has been modified that they don't want to spend the money to return to Production class, a G5 class will suit them very well.
 

·
straight at T
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
RE: CARS Group 5 rule recipe

>>>1. Definition
>>>Any two-wheel-drive turbocharged vehicle which meets the
>>>definition requirements of NRR II.C, II.D & II.I.2. Limited
>>>to vehicles sold in North America in minimum total
>>>quantities of 1000 which are modified beyond what is
>>>permitted in Group N, Production or Group 2. Drive
>>>configuration must remain as originally manufactured (e.g.
>>>front engine, front drive). [/b]
>>
>>Instead:
>>Vehicles must be 2wd, normally aspirated, turbocharged, or
>>supercharged models sold globally in minimum quantities of
>>1000. Drive configuration must remain as originally
>>manufactured (e.g. front engine, front drive; front engine,
>>rear drive; etc.)
>>(lifted directly from the SCCA rulebook, and mirroring the
>>Gp2 wording)
>
>The proposed wording was patterned after CARS Open class
>wording. The North American bit was inserted on purpose.
>Group 5 is a distinctly North American concept and has no
>parallel in FIA (that I'm aware of) - The impetus seems to
>be that we have all of these cars that can't fit into a
>class... - 'sold globally' leads to "grey" (grey as in
>illegal...) market cars.

However, the CARS Gp2 rules (as well as the SCCA rules) use the wording I suggested. I don't think you will see any more problem with grey-market cars than you do in Open/N already.

Adrian
 

·
straight at T
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
RE: CARS Group 5 rule recipe

>You can't look at this in isolation and just
>wonder how cool it would be to rally a Mustang.

A couple of Mid-west US teams are doing that - want to guess which cars are the spectator favourites?

I was also thinking of the newer performance cars with engines larger than 3L, like the 350Z.

Besides which, why can the maximum adjusted displacement of a turbo car be significantly higher than the maximum allowed displacement of a normally aspirated one? (2500 x 1.7 = 4250 for a turbo vs. 3000 for a 2-valve normally aspirated car).

Adrian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
935 Posts
RE: CARS Group 5 rule recipe

I personally would like to see the class align with the SCCA Grp5 scheme, insofar as displacement limits are concerned. Too big for grp2, only 2wd, put it in 5. I also don't see much sense in putting a restrictor into effect on these cars, with 2 wheels you can't sensibly put down much of a difference between 200 and 400HP (Most of the time), so why limit cross-border competitors, and impose the technical woes that come with restrictors?

If what we want is more competition, I think it (Grp 5) makes a lot of sense. What does it cost to build a top of the line Grp2 car? Hi-strung engine, close ratio box, short rear end, all to get a good amount of torque down. A decent turbo engine can help to make up for less than perfect gearing in the box, a slightly taller rear end, and thus eliminate those big costs from a person who wants to start out and have some competition, without blowing the bank. Of course, I'd also like to see a re-alignment in the production classes...
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top