Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
706 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi All,

I'm building a SCCA Group 5 car down here in Seattle (2wd, turbo, no restrictor) but I want to run a bunch of events up in BC for the next couple of years until I move back to Canada, at which point I'll be running almost exclusively Canadian events.

I'm not sure what my fellow Grp5'ers do currently. I guess the only option would be to run in Open - but setting up the car to run with a 34mm restrictor would be a HUGE amount of work.

What are the chances of running in a pseudo-Grp5 class up there for no points? Are there any other options?

I know there are several other guys in the same boat as me on this.

Skye Poier
Seattle, WA

Vive le Prole-le-Ralliat!
http://www.rallyrace.net/

Black Rocket Rally Tires
http://www.blackrockettires.com/
 

·
straight at T
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
>Hi All,
>
>I'm building a SCCA Group 5 car down here in Seattle (2wd,
>turbo, no restrictor) but I want to run a bunch of events up
>in BC for the next couple of years until I move back to
>Canada, at which point I'll be running almost exclusively
>Canadian events.
>
>I'm not sure what my fellow Grp5'ers do currently. I guess
>the only option would be to run in Open - but setting up the
>car to run with a 34mm restrictor would be a HUGE amount of
>work.

They run in open, (unless they have RX-7s, which fit in Gp2 in Canada), but the way the rules are currently written, 2wd cars don't need restrictors. This is probably because they are traction-limited by the drivetrain so that, after a point, adding horsepower has very little effect on performance.

NRR II D 5:

All open-class turbo-charged, 4WD vehicles must have... (this is the same wording that it has had since we've had restrictors)

>What are the chances of running in a pseudo-Grp5 class up
>there for no points? Are there any other options?

There has been a push for a Gp5 up here, it might even be possible now that the class structure is being rationalized a bit.

Adrian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
In the east...in Quebec the federation showed the door to the 4wd car...to make a 2wd only championship(to help lower budget)... they plan on making the gr2 restricted...for lower $$$ investment...i dont think they would be interested in Gr5 ?

but ....thats in quebec...maybe Cars would like the GR5 ? you never know ?

Alain Lavoie
24Rallyteam
http://www.abikeonline.com/24rallyteam/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
665 Posts
I probably wasn't paying enough attention, but didn't the recent RSO (Ontario) proposed rule changes say something about a regional G5 championship starting in 2004?

Robin
 

·
straight at T
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
>I probably wasn't paying enough attention, but didn't the
>recent RSO (Ontario) proposed rule changes say something
>about a regional G5 championship starting in 2004?

You weren't paying enough attention ;-). That was in Peter Watt's proposed change document that he later withdrew. As written, it was hopelessly complicated anyway.

A more serious issue is the absolute displacement rule NRR II D 10 which limits maximum displacement to 3000cc (2500cc for more than 2 valves per cyl). This needs to be revised to make Gp5 happen in Canada. SCCA logbooked cars should be ok.

Adrian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
Alright!!! looks like I'll get to have some fun north of the border too.

Greg,
Crew Chief
1989 GTX #291
1990 Ford Sapphire Cosworth #TBD (Grp 5)

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat!!!
 

·
R6 L6 R6< 800
Joined
·
200 Posts
Actually, Adrian, it was not complicated at all. It was extremely simple. So simple in fact that it confounded most who read it. The beauty was in its symplicity. It included both the old and new vehicles that could be prepared at minimal (for rally) cost. By being a regional only class, there was no need to get into the spirially costs of a National program. That, and the other changes I proposed in trying to bring the Ontario rule book up to date was not deemed a priority in Ontario, so we are still stuck with the 2001 version of the rules. Not only that, we are still stuck scoring non recognized classes.
I pulled the proposal due to the negativity involved. There were no counter proposals, no suggestions, just complaints. As is often the case, no one else wanted to work on it, only bitch.
Don't be surprised if the Galway Cavendish Forest Rally has a class for group 5 cars this year.
Can you imagine a sanctioning body that has three classes for vehicles where the closest example is several thousand miles and continents away, and not recognise one where there are dozens of cars several hundred miles away?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
665 Posts
I seem to recall that it was fairly straightforward - I wish I had been able to make it to the RSO meeting. It seemed like a fairly good idea to me - unlike the absolutely (I'm sorry...) stupid idea of amalgamating Group N with production classes.

Robin
 

·
straight at T
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
>I seem to recall that it was fairly straightforward -

Except that, rather than taking the simple SCCA eligibility rules, it used multipliers up the wazoo to achieve the same thing.

>I wish
>I had been able to make it to the RSO meeting.

It was withdrawn before ever making it to a RSO meeting, I believe.

>It seemed
>like a fairly good idea to me - unlike the absolutely (I'm
>sorry...) stupid idea of amalgamating Group N with
>production classes.

I beg to differ with you here. Allowing the occasional N3 car to run in P3 or the occasional N1/N2 car to run in P1/P2 makes sense. The 2wd N classes are not a whole lot different than the 2wd production classes. Judicious car choice is more important than whether a car is built to N or P specs. N4 and P4 should be kept separate since that is where the differences really show up, and where the real performance modifications are homologated. Yes, you could build a dog-box for an N2 car, but who would bother - you are still stuck with the stock ratios. This initiative simplifies the class structure without introducing gross inequities - certainly no more than allowing SCCA P cars to run in P3 does. Incidentally, it leaves open the chance of adding Gp5 without too much whining about the number of classes. Now all we need to do is get rid of the maximum displacement rule so that one could actually build a non-turbo Gp5 car.

Adrian
 

·
R6 L6 R6< 800
Joined
·
200 Posts
That was entirely my point, although there isn't, to my knowledge, an N1, N2, or N3 car on the continent. Why we would have a national class for those is beyond me, other than the dilusionary belief that we will attract an international event that would support them.
I admit my original proposal had some multipliers that could and likely should be tweaked, but what it provided was a class where some of the following cars could run: New Mini, Mustangs, Pontiac Grand-Am, Shelby Chargers, older Porsche's, and a whole host of other vehicles that could be a whack of fun, but don't fit the gentrified and monied "image" competitors.
We saw how much fun a Mustang could be on the Targa Newfoundland. Could even become a mulit-purpose vehicle thereby boosting the potential entry of the T.N.
I'm still the one viewed as the "bad guy" for placing an N4 car into Open Class even though there was no written rule allowing highly modified cars to run in P4.
Oh well, the time is past for that till 2005 at the earliest, and since there is no procedure for modifying RSO rules, 2005 would be most optimistic.
 

·
straight at T
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
>That was entirely my point, although there isn't, to my
>knowledge, an N1, N2, or N3 car on the continent. Why we
>would have a national class for those is beyond me, other
>than the dilusionary belief that we will attract an
>international event that would support them.

We adopted the GpN rules as an additional set of classes to help us align with the rest of the world (whether that is important is a different question, but we now have teams with the knowledge base to run cars in other parts of the world). Based on the participation levels it became blatantly obvious that a) N1/N2/N3 were not being used and b) P1 and P2 participation levels were a bit on the low side. To address a) without removing the ability for someone to build/purchase a homologated car we are combinig the N1/N2/N3 classes with the appropriate P class. To address b), we are amalgamating P1/P2.

>I admit my original proposal had some multipliers that could
>and likely should be tweaked, but what it provided was a
>class where some of the following cars could run: New Mini,
>Mustangs, Pontiac Grand-Am, Shelby Chargers, older
>Porsche's, and a whole host of other vehicles that could be
>a whack of fun, but don't fit the gentrified and monied
>"image" competitors.

The SCCA achieves the same result with a lot less complication. You still need to kill the maximum displacement rule to allow some of those vehicles.

>We saw how much fun a Mustang could be on the Targa
>Newfoundland. Could even become a mulit-purpose vehicle
>thereby boosting the potential entry of the T.N.

Currently illegal for CARS rallying unless already logbooked.

>I'm still the one viewed as the "bad guy" for placing an N4
>car into Open Class even though there was no written rule
>allowing highly modified cars to run in P4.

That was the correct choice. It boggled my mind that N4 cars were allowed to run in P4 in Ontario.

Adrian
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top