The idea of this tread is to constructivly, inteligently talk about the possibility of Making Group N and N prototype the top class in SCCA Pro Rally. Please try and stick to the topic. I encourage you to look at it in terms of the future of the sport.
Here is a link to the Australian web site that outlines the N prototype class designed to allow cars that are not N to compete with similar specification. Think Tim?s Focus or Libra?s Tiberons with original doors, hatches, glass, dash, console, heater core and a 32 mm restrictor. Basically the original car plus a rally suitable drive train and suspension that doesn?t exceed the N capabilities.
http://www.cams.com.au/bulletins/B02-70%20Rally%20-%20Group%20N(P)%20Regulations.pdf
Bear in mind also that Ford almost certainly will have a new N car in 2005.
Other manufacturers are undoubtedly thinking about it given what is happening in Aus. the Production Car World Championship, and the car market in general.
Here is what I and others have said in the other thread and elswhere thus far.
Glen wallace wrote:
I'd love to see ProRally go to a production formula (e.g. Grp N) where the playing field in terms of $ spend is somewhat more level between factory and private teams - it would be interesting to see something that isn't effectively a 2 or 3 team competition.
(yes, I know you can still spend a bunch of money on a Grp N car...)
Greg Pachman Responded:
Glenn
You and I think alike. A couple of months ago I floated a balloon out to Subaru and Mitsubishi asking what they would think if Group N became the top class of rallying in the US instead of Open. It kind of died on the vine. I honestly don't know what the rank and file, SCCA, or PRB would think because it never got past a private conversation between the three of us. I won't speak for them but here are some pros and cons.
1. It would screw the AFR rally team because there is no Group N 4wd Focus yet. Andy said to be competitive we would have to run a Mitsubishi or Subaru and that would dilute some of the drama of the third type of car. It didn't stop me from proposing it however.
2. While Group N parts are cheaper they are not always cheaper to maintain because they tend to break quicker than the stronger parts Open regulations allow.
3. A lot of our costs are fixed (travel/entry fees) and it doesn't matter what kind of car is entered.
4. I think policing Group N will be tougher.
5. Some sponsors and factories like the word "Open" better for marketing purposes.
That said the benefits would be more competitive cars out there and I think it would be slightly cheaper.
Greg
Glen wallace Responded:
I think Grp N might have more traction with the manufacturer teams than you might think. "Someone" needs to parcel the idea up in a digestible format.
Rather than the word "open" the focus should be on the word "championship" in whatever form it is.
Understood on the "drama" of 3rd manufacturer issue, but personally it isn't like AFR is a Ford factory team, so I think whatever car you run would be ok providing it is outright competitive.
I think if the championship was Grp N, you might see even more privateers coming out of the woodwork.
Glenn
I wrote
>But the SCCA
>can make car rules that limit the effect that money has. I
>really think that doing something like in Aus. with N and I
>think they now have N prototype for manufacturers that don't
>have N cars. It makes it so privateers can keep up and bring
>other sponsors in and it reduces the barriers to entry for
>other manufacturers.
Eric Burmister Responed
Not so sure doing away with Open class entirely is a good idea...the formula does allow for some pretty cool and exciting hardware...
The above example sounds good for parity, alot like our P and PGT classes...Group N, but not really. Just not as exciting as the Open cars, though, huh? I just don't have a good answer.
I responded:
I don't know if the N cars are that much less exciting. The last time I watched was MFR 2001 when Tim ran his N car and he was every bit as exciting as the Open guys. With the switch from 40 down to 34 the difference is going to be even smaller except for teams running sequential gear boxes which I happen to think is ridiculous from a cost perspective and the WRC Motors required by the 34 is also ridiculous especially considering the current situation. I personally would value a competitive situation with more than one manufacturer and privateers being able to take the fight to them much more than I would like seeing 2 cars fly by at warp speed and everyone else getting blown away. Yes the ideal situation would be to have Subaru, AFR, Mitsu, Ford and Hyundai all running almost WRC cars and dicing it up. (Now I am going to be called the devil) But since that is not happening and we seam to be sliding in the opposite direction with 1 of 5 maybe a change of approach is in order.
The other end of the stick is that there are so many open cars out there now that there will be a lot of upset people if this goes through it wouldn?t be very good to say privateers can run open cars and make factories run N. So now we have come full circle back to there is no good answer just the lesser of two evils.
Here is a link to the Australian web site that outlines the N prototype class designed to allow cars that are not N to compete with similar specification. Think Tim?s Focus or Libra?s Tiberons with original doors, hatches, glass, dash, console, heater core and a 32 mm restrictor. Basically the original car plus a rally suitable drive train and suspension that doesn?t exceed the N capabilities.
http://www.cams.com.au/bulletins/B02-70%20Rally%20-%20Group%20N(P)%20Regulations.pdf
Bear in mind also that Ford almost certainly will have a new N car in 2005.
Other manufacturers are undoubtedly thinking about it given what is happening in Aus. the Production Car World Championship, and the car market in general.
Here is what I and others have said in the other thread and elswhere thus far.
Glen wallace wrote:
I'd love to see ProRally go to a production formula (e.g. Grp N) where the playing field in terms of $ spend is somewhat more level between factory and private teams - it would be interesting to see something that isn't effectively a 2 or 3 team competition.
(yes, I know you can still spend a bunch of money on a Grp N car...)
Greg Pachman Responded:
Glenn
You and I think alike. A couple of months ago I floated a balloon out to Subaru and Mitsubishi asking what they would think if Group N became the top class of rallying in the US instead of Open. It kind of died on the vine. I honestly don't know what the rank and file, SCCA, or PRB would think because it never got past a private conversation between the three of us. I won't speak for them but here are some pros and cons.
1. It would screw the AFR rally team because there is no Group N 4wd Focus yet. Andy said to be competitive we would have to run a Mitsubishi or Subaru and that would dilute some of the drama of the third type of car. It didn't stop me from proposing it however.
2. While Group N parts are cheaper they are not always cheaper to maintain because they tend to break quicker than the stronger parts Open regulations allow.
3. A lot of our costs are fixed (travel/entry fees) and it doesn't matter what kind of car is entered.
4. I think policing Group N will be tougher.
5. Some sponsors and factories like the word "Open" better for marketing purposes.
That said the benefits would be more competitive cars out there and I think it would be slightly cheaper.
Greg
Glen wallace Responded:
I think Grp N might have more traction with the manufacturer teams than you might think. "Someone" needs to parcel the idea up in a digestible format.
Rather than the word "open" the focus should be on the word "championship" in whatever form it is.
Understood on the "drama" of 3rd manufacturer issue, but personally it isn't like AFR is a Ford factory team, so I think whatever car you run would be ok providing it is outright competitive.
I think if the championship was Grp N, you might see even more privateers coming out of the woodwork.
Glenn
I wrote
>But the SCCA
>can make car rules that limit the effect that money has. I
>really think that doing something like in Aus. with N and I
>think they now have N prototype for manufacturers that don't
>have N cars. It makes it so privateers can keep up and bring
>other sponsors in and it reduces the barriers to entry for
>other manufacturers.
Eric Burmister Responed
Not so sure doing away with Open class entirely is a good idea...the formula does allow for some pretty cool and exciting hardware...
The above example sounds good for parity, alot like our P and PGT classes...Group N, but not really. Just not as exciting as the Open cars, though, huh? I just don't have a good answer.
I responded:
I don't know if the N cars are that much less exciting. The last time I watched was MFR 2001 when Tim ran his N car and he was every bit as exciting as the Open guys. With the switch from 40 down to 34 the difference is going to be even smaller except for teams running sequential gear boxes which I happen to think is ridiculous from a cost perspective and the WRC Motors required by the 34 is also ridiculous especially considering the current situation. I personally would value a competitive situation with more than one manufacturer and privateers being able to take the fight to them much more than I would like seeing 2 cars fly by at warp speed and everyone else getting blown away. Yes the ideal situation would be to have Subaru, AFR, Mitsu, Ford and Hyundai all running almost WRC cars and dicing it up. (Now I am going to be called the devil) But since that is not happening and we seam to be sliding in the opposite direction with 1 of 5 maybe a change of approach is in order.
The other end of the stick is that there are so many open cars out there now that there will be a lot of upset people if this goes through it wouldn?t be very good to say privateers can run open cars and make factories run N. So now we have come full circle back to there is no good answer just the lesser of two evils.