Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 20 of 58 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Dear Friends,

I am very encouraged by the "unofficially leaked peak" of the ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS for SCCA's Historic Class in 2004. See Appendix H on page 12 of the following link:

http://www.rallystuff.com/2004RallyRules.pdf

If I read Appendix H correctly, those who developed these 2004 rules have found an excellent way to define a very historic "Era" of stage rallying without resorting to any limitation based on year of manufacture.

I'm sure there will be many questions but this looks like a very Historic breakthrough to me.

Bravo!! Bravo!! Bravo!!

Rich Smith

Vive le "Pro-le-Ralliat"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
630 Posts
I may be completely wrong, but I read that section as a clarification that no FI/turbo/4WD are allowed, not that they have lifted an age limit/cutoff. I dont think (again I might be wrong) that they have removed the Dec '70 cutoff to allow anything from any year so long as it was 2WD and carb'd.

IF this new text is a replacement for the current Historic section of the rules, and not an addendum, then that is indeed great news.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Brian,

I don't think so. Look at page 13. In the 2004 book, Section 12 (Historic Rally) will be re-named Appendix H. There is no mention of year of manufacture in the new Appendix H. :D

Rich Smith

Vive le "Pro-le-Ralliat"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
630 Posts
If that is so then I dont think it opens a can of worms. A 1986 Mustang is 2WD and carbureted, so it will be legal? I am all for including many more years than before, but this might be a problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Brian,

Yeah! I'm pretty excited about this. It opens up a LOT of great opportunities without getting into the modern silly things like AWD, engine management, turbo's, etc. At the same time, it includes the full range of possibilities from the "2WD-Carbureted" era.

I like it!!

Rich Smith

Vive le "Pro-le-Ralliat"
 

·
straight at T
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
>So, wha hoppens when someone resurrects Moby Dick or the
>Cheetah? Historic vehicles to be sure, but they're 4wd...

Or, if somebody runs a Stratos or a Ferrari 308 (not likely, I agree) - they wouldn't be allowed to run the light pods that the works cars used. :(

If there truly is no longer a date limit, this would allow some pretty serious machinery.

Adrian
 

·
1973 WRC POR
Joined
·
2,421 Posts
>Or, if somebody runs a Stratos or a Ferrari 308 (not likely,
>I agree) - they wouldn't be allowed to run the light pods
>that the works cars used. :(
>
>If there truly is no longer a date limit, this would allow
>some pretty serious machinery.

Adrian:

But just think how incredible it would be if someone did run a Stratos.

Which car do you think would get more attention at the rally, Subaru STI, EVO 8 or a Lancia Stratos?

BTW, it is by no means certain that a Stratos would win the "new Historic" class. Could the owner/driver really drive flat out knowing what the car is worth? I would put my money on a well prepared Escort, based on the types of roads currently in use.

Doug Woods
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
Interesting reading, but...

You'd think the Historic Class Manager would have been made aware of, or even asked about, dropping any age limit. And he hasn't been.

I smell a rat.

P Smith
Historic Class Manager
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
>Interesting reading, but...
>
>You'd think the Historic Class Manager would have been made
>aware of, or even asked about, dropping any age limit. And
>he hasn't been.
>
>I smell a rat.
Well so screwy was this whole list of rules that several people drove over to gawk at them, then guffaw at the endless contradictions and confusion and new stupidly (can't posssibly say 'thought out') dreamed up rules.

You would think that those on the National Scrutineering list would have been made aware of, or even asked about, some of the brilliant things allegedly safety realated. And some haven't.

You would think that somebody with a first sememster snot nosed freshmans understanding of terminology re stresses would have been consulted on required changes on cages would have been made aware of, or even asked about, especially adding tubes which nobody I know who builds cages either here in this country or overseas understands the point of, and hence the need of. And none that I know of have been.

You would think after the long responses and strong support for a more realistic (at current US and Canadian participation levels) age limit of and accomodation of the _current_ cars some with actual history would have generated a response from, some of those writing the rules may have contacted and made those concerned aware of the changes.


>
>P Smith
>Historic Class Manager
Hey a quick question since you're here and with a shiney new title and all, Gosh golly!
The whole business about the allowed period appropriate modifications or more importantly _substitution of a no longer available part_ from one car for a part from another model from _same manufacturer, for same year_ if it was in the spirit or imaginable that such substitution was able to be done _at the time_.

You see there is a presumptiom about what a person way back when may have been capable of figuring out and swapping, and the problem _could_ be that the person making the decision _today_ may not have the experience or knowledge or skills, in short, the eye, for seeing things really rather simple and rudimentary.

So the specific question is: Any problems swapping the drums out off the back of say _my_ 1969 Saab 96, (otherwise H class legal, and with an actual Historic pedigree,) drums I haven't seen a good one in 15 years( and that was working on the cars daily from 1984 thru 2000), for a set of discs off the back of 1969 model year Saab 99?

It was so simple to do, less than 3 1/2 hours from start to finish, only about 20 minutes pondering and designing it that I posit that any half asleep mechanic could have done a similar substitute way back when if the rules in place at the time allowed it.

So what does the Historic Series Manager say? Allowed?

If I get several buddies in H class out here to say it's OK, does their vote carry over if I happened to end up at an event with you entered as a competitior with your openly expressed contempt for me?

See the potential problems?





John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

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

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
>Or, if somebody runs a Stratos or a Ferrari 308 (not likely,
>I agree) - they wouldn't be allowed to run the light pods
>that the works cars used. :(

Well that Stratos or Ferrari a slim chance but a more glaring exclusion would be any of the 1971-1974 Saab 99 and Volvo 140 E with the old Bosch D Jettronic,
1974 Opel Ascona A, and Manta A, 1975 on Manta B, for same reason, Datsun 260 Z,
These cars and others got the early _electronic_ injection in the West in 1971 model year and I would dope-slap anybody who was serious about using them if they were planning any mods, but why should they be excluded just because of the fact they originally came with electronic injection?

>
>If there truly is no longer a date limit, this would allow
>some pretty serious machinery.
>
>Adrian
Well they had plenty of time and feedback so this must represent a seriously considered decision.
Must be what they intended or what are we to think? :)




John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

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

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
I can tell you my opinion on the topic regarding swaps/mods etc... Within the bounds of current safety requirements and availability of materials, I think Historic Class cars should be modified in any way they could have been modified consistent with what's now called Open Class up to the mid-70s. I don't know SAABs, but to make up a fictitous example, if in '73 SAABs came with front disk brakes, put them on your earlier car if you want. Don't show up with Brembos on the car though. To my way of thinking it doesn't matter if somebody actually did it then. If the parts were available then, somebody COULD have done it. I think the rules proposal was pretty clear that was the idea.

How tightly any eventual rules are enforced is of course totally up to the competitors. And again, in my opinion the "tightness" of any enforcement depends upon class participation and how outrageous any modification might be. With a half dozen cars participating so far, I don't think any of us are interested in being peckerheads as long as the cars have a vintage look and character. This was the idea of having H-class competitor enforcement.

That help?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
Ummm, all this sounds great. But I still don't understand - no year cutoff? So a 1994 Lada Samara 1300 (2WD, carbureted) is legal?

And, as JV says, a 1971 Volvo 142E or a 1972 Porsche 911S or E isn't?

ACP
Flirting with the laws of physics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
630 Posts
As usual there doesnt seem to have been much thought put into these rules. I thought the old age cutoff was too restrictive, but I did understand it. Age cutoffs are never going to make folks happy because someone will allways be just outside the cutoff with a car they think should be eligible. This new rule allows all kinds of cars, the '86 Mustang I mentioned and ACP's Lada, to be eligible and they should not be.

Sitting here in 30 seconds I could write a better rule. How about this:

1980- older, n/a 2WD, all cars run carb's regardless what was OE.

There, in one line and about 60 seconds thought, I wrote a better rule than they did. I know date cutoffs are bad, but it does prevent 94 Ladas and 86 Mustangs.
 

·
Administrator Emeritus
Joined
·
1,253 Posts
Well, being "unofficial" and all that makes them *not* the rules. Plain and simple.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
366 Posts
I don't see the problem with period correct fuel injection systems. First off K&D jet systems were around and used as were Lucas mechanical systems.
Secondly removing the stock fuel injection system to install 2 DCOE Webers is going to be costly and also add torque, so cost is negative but the torque gain is a positive-but one pays for it.

If we are to have rules they should be in the spirit of the era-not the vision of the rule makers.

As always IMHO!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Jim,

I'm glad to see some new idea's in these "Unofficial" rules for 2004. Until something is formally published in Fastrack, it's worthwhile continuing the debate. That is as it should be and I'm encouraged by it.

Rich Smith

Vive le "Pro-le-Ralliat"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
I still like the "Unofficial" Eligibility for 2004

Gentlemen:

I still REALLY like the approach of defining a 2wd-carbureted ?Era? instead of setting a cut-off year. I also like keeping rules as few and as open as possible. So borrowing a phrase from Richard Nixon, ?Let me say this about that":

BRIAN:
I?d love to see ?86 Mustangs and 1st gen RX7?s competing as Historic. Both were campained here in the northwest and often beaten by older well driven RX3?s or Saab?s. They were all great fun and real crowd pleaser?s. I will probably enjoy them as ?historic? even more as time goes forward.

CHARLIE:
Good point about including obviously historic cars like Moby Dick or the Cheetah. I?d love to see one-off?s like these compete. You don?t need a rule book to recognize a truly historic car. In fact it should be encouraged. Maybe some kind of grandfather clause is needed. On the other hand if somebody just shows up once in a while to ?run it again?, it might run in a non-points Historic ?Exhibition? class.

JVL & SEAN:
You both have excellent points about fuel injection. But, would you guys kill me if it was the only sacrifice required to move the Historic Class definition far enough to include early RX7?s and Mustangs? (Okay, now my bias is really showing.)

ADRIAN:
If light pods are a problem the prohibition could be dropped. (I agree it?s probably not much of a real issue though).

ACP:
I think wanting to campain a 1994 Lada Samara 1300 in SCCA ClubRally Historic is a non-issue. (If one did show up we could always inflict them with laughter and ridicule until they ran G2.) But who would care if they insisted. Maybe it?s appropriate.

ADRIAN, DOUG, JVL & ACP:
You guy?s have touched on another point. American rally history has it?s own unique character, but Europe defined the sport and set the standards. For that reason I wouldn?t want to prohibit any historic car model like Stratos, Lada, Opel, Renault or many others just because they didn?t appear in some edition of the NADA Car Guide. Yet, the NADA has been basic requirement for eligibility in the SCCA rules for many years. It still is. That rule has directly influenced American Rally history. Should the NADA requirement be upheld? Drop the requirement? Include exemption for FIA Historic Classes? What do you think is best here? (This is a real question.)

I?m still stumping for the most INCLUSIVE historic eligibility rules possible. Defining a 2wd-carbureted ?Era? seems a very broad and legitimate approach in my view if taken to it?s practical end. But nothing ended suddenly in 1971, 1974, 1980 or when fuel infection, turbo?s or 4wd came on the scene. There was a significant overlap of years, but it may not be best to lump them all together by setting an arbitrary cut-off year. That?s why I still like the practical notion of a 2wd-carbureted ?Era?.

Rich Smith
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
RE: I still like the "Unofficial" Eligibility for 2004

>taken to it?s practical end. But nothing ended suddenly in
>1971, 1974, 1980 or when fuel infection, turbo?s or 4wd came
>on the scene. There was a significant overlap of years, but
>it may not be best to lump them all together by setting an
>arbitrary cut-off year. That?s why I still like the
>practical notion of a 2wd-carbureted ?Era?.



How is this for a very simple rule:

Any car that actually ran a Pro Rally (or MONY Series) event 25 years prior to the current year (e.g. 1979 for 2004) is eligible with the exception of 4 wheel drive. Owners are responsible for documenting that their proposed vehicle actually competed in a Pro event.

Only performance-enhancing modifications that were available at the time the car competed are allowed, but in no case would a performance mod be allowed that's inside the 25-year limit (i.e. you couldn't stuff a 1989 engine in your 1976 Yugo). All safety mods would be free.

Something to remember, the 1973-74 PORs were NOT Pro Rallies.
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
>Jim,
>
>I'm glad to see some new idea's in these "Unofficial" rules
>for 2004. Until something is formally published in Fastrack,
>it's worthwhile continuing the debate. That is as it should
>be and I'm encouraged by it.
>
>Rich Smith
Comrade Smith, your 5th Columnist Defeatist rumour mongering wildy speculating about the oafishal oafishalness of the bloody documents is completely groundless, you have seen the copy I have here and there was no word, hint or breath of anything 'provisional', there were title and printed and paragraphed exactly as SCCA stuff looks like.
You come here and denigrate the hard working hard workers who printed out the copy from the little know select group of peoiple on the "tech list" with these groudless and non-researched mere inventions, so i challenge you to a duel, no nevermind I defy you to PROVE that the stuff is not the rules for 04, as they so clearly are marked.
HA!
Double HA!
And Nya! nya! ;)
>
>Vive le "Pro-le-Ralliat"





John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

Black Rocket Rally Tires
http://www.blackrockettires.com/
 
1 - 20 of 58 Posts
Top