[mgpsmith]

For those interested in Historic Class rallying, here is a summary of where things stand now. I was invited to present the proposal to PRB last night, and did so. And participated in the resulting discussion. What follows first is is a rehash of my post in the previous topic, then the results of last night's discussion. For those of you looking for the formal proposal, since it is a formal proposal, it will be going through official channels. Please check the next FasTrack, and if you are interested in contributing to the discussion, read it carefully and respond.

***rehash....***

The underlying idea of Historic Class is one in which a car such as an Escort TwinCam or twostroke SAAB can be competitive. There is no way to give an uncontroversial one year for a cutoff because of the way different cars evolved. The alternative, a list of eligible cars, regardless of year, would be at this point way to cumbersome (maybe somebody else wants to pursue that).
The obvious answer seemed twofold, first eliminate non-atmospheric induction and AWD, since both represented quantum leaps in speed technology. Second, look to established and successful vintage rally classes....for example, the FIA (via Appy K) and MSA (formerly RAC) in the UK. Appy K is a long and complex document, and too complicated for a class being built. MSA's section K paragraphs 36-28 are simpler. And they divide their vintage rally cars into two groups, Historic (pre'68) and PostHistoric (68-74). Manifold comments regarding cars like 510s and 911s and Escorts here convinced me that too many appropriate cars are excluded by the '71 cutoff. A successful precedent exists for '74, so that's what I proposed....So underlying eligibility was proposed as 2wd carb'ed cars of 1974 and earlier model year. The question of mechanical fuel injection has been raised and I don't have a good answer for that.

Second, prep rules. There is no way an SCCA class cannot abide by Articles 5 and 6 of the rulebook (safety-related
specs). Regarding mods, again looking to successful programs, it seems ludicrous to not make Appy K and MSA - compliant cars eligible. But while either or both of those might make nice long-term goals, both will probably be regarded as too restrictive to get the H Class going. So I proposed Article 10 (g2/5) but restricted to materials, methods and technology contemporary to the car.

Third, enforcement - really, only people actually rallying these things should have any say in what's considered legal for the class at any rally, since they put their money and time into supporting the class; it's a supplemental class anyway. So tech lines should enforce basic Art 5,6,10 compliance and let H Class competitors at each event figure it out among themselves whether or not some modification is OK for H Class. Arbitrary, sure. But unless there are some hard restriction points as made by FIA and MSA, there will always be judgement calls. And that shouldn't be just one person's job.

Finally, long term goals. Vintage rallying is hugely popular in some parts of the world. To not have our Historic Class at least potentially compliant with those venues is to self-fulfill the prophecy of the same kind of SCCA/WRC mismatch we now have for nonvintage cars. Our national vintage class should be one that encourages international use of the car, not something that gets in the way of it...really, another argument for FIA or MSA compliance.


***

Comments/corrections from last night: The only substantive change to the above is eligibility is open to 2wd normally aspirated cars.

Defining the age limits/cars allowed remains perhaps as the major point of contention.

I would ask you to consider, how much more lenient can the rules be regarding preparations than to allow g2/g5 type modifications using period materials and methods? My argument to PRB was that allowing modernizations (with few exceptions) defeats the purpose of an Historic Class.

Interested parties are encouraged to respond to the formal proposal as it will appear in FasTrack.

 

[team blitz]

Phil, I'm glad there is a possible migration path for olde historic rally cars. I have 2 such Capris in the shop, meaning originally rallied cars that have survived.

Our intent with one car was to prepare it for roadrace use and go HSRA, VARA, SVRA, etc. This is the 1972 Tour de France Grp 2 winning 1972 Capri RS2600, Ford France werkes car, Kugel mech injected, ally Weslake headed, ZF, etc. There are loose plans to re-unite the car with Jean Vinatier in France for a run in the "fun" Tour de France redeaux event. However, a historic rally event/eligibility would be excellent. I hope the mech injection wouldn't leave the car out in the cold with the PRB. That's the way the car is and always was, right from the assembly line in Cologne, and all the way through the werkes race modifications. So I *can't* carb it. That would ruin the whole thing.

The other Capri is Loyal Jodar's Pro Rally, as originally raced in SCCA. It was originally manufactured by FF Developments in the UK with the 4WD, and it was raced legally in SCCA Pro Rally as such. The car was run with triple downdrafts and remains so. It has a C4 box, which we are changing to a 4-spd. Surely a way can be found to let a piece of SCCA's own Pro Rally heritage come back for a few swan songs. It's really a single-purpose rally machine. It can't be roadraced in SVRA, etc. It sits too high and is designed throughout for Pro Rally. (The Tour de France was run on regular roads, some with snow and gravel, but mainly closed off highways and streets. So the Vinatier car is more roadracing oriented. But not the Jodar car.) I hope the 4WD doesn't scotch the Jodar car from PRB's rules. Gotta be some way to fit it in.

Thank you for taking on this subject. It may seem thankless. I served for a while on the IT Ad Hoc Committee. What a political education that was! See if I can fit these two neat old Capris into your rules, please. We are shooting for a 2004 debut with one or both.

Norm

 

[Glenn Wallace]

> So I *can't* carb it. That would ruin the whole thing.

The SCCA rules say you can't change fuel system type (e.g. carbs to injection or vice versa). If you can prove it was homologated or had a history of running injection at the time you are probably fine.

Glenn

 

[mgpsmith]

My perception of the intent behind Historic Class, and I tried to reflect this in the proposal, was absolutely to include rally cars as they were actually rallied. The only limitations are the age debate (which will be endless in my opinion) and 2wd normally aspirated. And of course safety equipment must be modern. Whether that preparation standard is UK, European/FIA or USA, they should be eligible.

The Capris sound great, and I look forward to seeing them on the stages!

 

[team blitz]

That would be do-able, Glenn, assuming it would be enough to satisfy SCCA. The RS2600's, like the Vinatier T. de F. Capri, were run in FIA Grp.2, which had homologation requirements. Ford met those homologation requirements on the assembly line with the mech injection, etc, or else the Capris would not have been legal at FIA evets such as LeMans, Spa, and Tour de France. The whole point of the RS2600 street model was to homologate racing stuff. Norm

 

[team blitz]

Phil, Thanks for the reply.

The Jodar 4WD Capri title is from FF4, the official Ferguson Formula importer. It has Ferguson badging and VIN tags to match. It was documented in magazines and newsletters concurrent with its manufacture. If I am not mistaken, a lot of people have told me the Jodar Capri is the first 4WD car (as opposed to jeep/truck) to compete in SCCA Pro Rally. It is a 1973 model.

If the intent is to allow 1974 and earlier cars to compete in H Rally, we fit that criteria. If it is to allow any *actual* historic SCCA car which once did battle, we fit that criteria.

But if you disallow 4WD, then we're left out. Why can't you allow 4WD if the car is an actual historic car, as raced in that configuration, and was manufactured as a 1974 model or earlier?

The Jodar Capri was profiled in "Autoweek" a few years ago, and the author (Keith Martin?) mentioned that the FF 4WD presaged all the Audi Quattro and modern 4WD rally cars. The car is quite the relic, the hubs and CVs are chancy technology given modern standards. So it will be an animal to rally and maintain at any rate. Why not write in an exception for 4WD cars which have an actual competition history, as long as meeting your manufacturing cut-off?

Norm

 

[John Vanlandingham]

Thanks for taking the time to post this although I am still a bit confused by the *****rehash***** thing. Why is it so impossible to post the actual proposals if they are in the hand of SCCA PRB?


>For those interested in Historic Class rallying, here is a
>summary of where things stand now. I was invited to present
>the proposal to PRB last night, and did so. And
>participated in the resulting discussion. What follows
>first is is a rehash of my post in the previous topic, then
>the results of last night's discussion. For those of you
>looking for the formal proposal, since it is a formal
>proposal, it will be going through official channels.
>Please check the next FasTrack, and if you are interested in
>contributing to the discussion, read it carefully and
>respond.
>
>***rehash....***
>
> The underlying idea of Historic Class is one in which a car
>such as an Escort TwinCam or twostroke SAAB can be
>competitive.

What, with each other? don't be silly.
What no V4??????!!!!!



There is no way to give an uncontroversial one
>year for a cutoff because of the way different cars evolved.
>The alternative, a list of eligible cars, regardless of
>year, would be at this point way to cumbersome (maybe
>somebody else wants to pursue that).
> The obvious answer seemed twofold, first eliminate
>non-atmospheric induction

You may feel this to be nitpicking Phil and you certainly have shown that you take questioning of your proposed ideas as personal affronts and are very rigid in your views which we have seen in the other thread are regarded by many as too narrow and restrictive, but as somebody whose job has been to build cars of the period 1967-1980 for the last 19 years, I get confused at unclear things like this:

What non-atmosperic cars are there out there? Are there some potential H class cars that have induction of things other than the atmoshere? Oceananic induction allowed, stellar matter, fish?

When the word "obvious" is used and then follwed by a non-exsistant term, at least in current idiomatic NorthAmerican or Brithish English,
I worry about clarity of thinking or knowledge of the writer or speaker.
Sorry.

Do you mean to say non-forced induction?





and AWD, since both represented
>quantum leaps in speed technology.

Not neccasarily. I have photos of Swedish Championship 1500 V4 from 1968-69 with supercharger, and we all know about 77 Saabs 99 turbo but neither was anything more than a different way to make torque, and an answer that a small company to Ford, GM and Fiat/Lancias homologation specials. Different method for same results. Asd a gynocologist you may not understand this, as an engine builder I know this, also I know and stay with the guys building both normal aspirated motors and those two mention motors from that time period and I know what they were attempting to accomplish.

So on this point you are wrong.



Second, look to
>established and successful vintage rally classes....for
>example, the FIA (via Appy K) and MSA (formerly RAC) in the
>UK. Appy K is a long and complex document, and too
>complicated for a class being built. MSA's section K
>paragraphs 36-28 are simpler. And they divide their vintage
>rally cars into two groups, Historic (pre'68) and
>PostHistoric (68-74). Manifold comments regarding cars like
>510s and 911s and Escorts here convinced me that too many
>appropriate cars are excluded by the '71 cutoff. A
>successful precedent exists for '74, so that's what I
>proposed....

This is the kernal of your suggestion and exactly where the errors in logic lies and it's this:

Any single reference to the FIA or MSA is meaningless especially with regards to your stated goals detailed below if desiring encouragement of possible future International Competition if the rules are NOT adopted in their entirety.
The pool of cars is different and the budgets of many many of the cars in H and post H there is well in excess of most Pro-rally crews here in the states.
Additionaly as you may be aware, FIA wants the particular shell to have some proven competition pedigree assuring astronomical costs.

I am all for International competition and International travel and for looking for elements of programmes elsewhere which can be incorporated into our programmes here. Indeed International competition was my occupational goal when younger, and to this day I am hatching plots to find ways to do exchange program to allow clubbies to do events elswhere, and not just idle rich hobbyists.
But sometimes conditions are different.

We did not have lots of foriegn cars in this country in the time frame you suggest, even the marginally widen '74 date. This alone assures a poor field.
We DID not have awareness THEN of what rally is, so there is not the hordes of older affluent guys or Nostalgia guys as a base to build a narrowly defined class.



So underlying eligibility was proposed as 2wd
>carb'ed cars of 1974 and earlier model year. The question of
>mechanical fuel injection has been raised and I don't have a
>good answer for that.

No the question was injection in general, nobody said anything about mechanical, in fact the different sorts of injection likely to occur in the proposed time frame were detailed by name. If you were unaware that VW, Volvo, and SAAB 71-74 Bosch D-Jet is electronic injection, ask, don't assume.

In any case it was detailed that first the presence or absence of Injection o the Production cars we are starting with is neither a performance advantage or a pertinant point, the important point being the common Rally preparation methods, and that was the same well into the 80s for 97% of the cars in the woods.
>
> Second, prep rules. There is no way an SCCA class cannot
>abide by Articles 5 and 6 of the rulebook (safety-related
>specs). Regarding mods, again looking to successful
>programs, it seems ludicrous to not make Appy K and MSA -
>compliant cars eligible.

Nobody has or would suggest that somebody desiring to build their car to those rules should not be allowed into some class here in the US, the ludirous part is suggestion to limit the rest of all the cars potenially ale to be in the class so that a select few can entertain their particularly narrow view of what they imagine rally was.




But while either or both of those
>might make nice long-term goals, both will probably be
>regarded as too restrictive to get the H Class going. So I
>proposed Article 10 (g2/5) but restricted to materials,
>methods and technology contemporary to the car.

What has been proposed about wheels and headlights?
>
> Third, enforcement - really, only people actually rallying
>these things should have any say in what's considered legal
>for the class at any rally, since they put their money and
>time into supporting the class; it's a supplemental class
>anyway. So tech lines should enforce basic Art 5,6,10
>compliance and let H Class competitors at each event figure
>it out among themselves whether or not some modification is
>OK for H Class. Arbitrary, sure. But unless there are some
>hard restriction points as made by FIA and MSA, there will
>always be judgement calls. And that shouldn't be just one
>person's job.

Sure, no problem.
>
> Finally, long term goals. Vintage rallying is hugely
>popular in some parts of the world.

In those parts of the world where those cars and the retro events were even more popular waaaaay back then they wer current, and in emerging markets where all motorsport in a novelty.




To not have our Historic
>Class at least potentially compliant with those venues is to
>self-fulfill the prophecy of the same kind of SCCA/WRC
>mismatch we now have for nonvintage cars. Our national
>vintage class should be one that encourages international
>use of the car, not something that gets in the way of
>it...really, another argument for FIA or MSA compliance.

Then build your car to be FIA legal and fly it there, you can afford it.
The low level of popularity of rally, the popularity TV and video games notwithstanding means that marginal areas in a marginal sport, as much as you or I might have a liking for them, will remain marginal IF the rules remain obstinately narrow in terms of time limits.
>
>
>***
>
>Comments/corrections from last night: The only substantive
>change to the above is eligibility is open to 2wd normally
>aspirated cars.
>
>Defining the age limits/cars allowed remains perhaps as the
>major point of contention.
>
>I would ask you to consider, how much more lenient can the
>rules be regarding preparations than to allow g2/g5 type
>modifications using period materials and methods? My
>argument to PRB was that allowing modernizations (with few
>exceptions) defeats the purpose of an Historic Class.

There doesn't seem to be big problems from anybody on the prep suggestions, it is all down to your and maybe one other's idea of the desirability of pre 74 cars on spurious grounds.
>
>Interested parties are encouraged to respond to the formal
>proposal as it will appear in FasTrack.

Phil, your ideas are what is being discussed, you give all the indications that you don't like your opinions questioned even when the opinions you are expressed is in an area which is a passtime or hobby to you. The disdain vitually drips off your words. That is not condusive to dialog.
You may not like me or the way I express things and that's neither here or there to me, but insisting that there is no validity in anything I suggest because recently other things have had higher priority in my life than continuing to rally my old 69 Saab, is arrogant and insulting, so I make this offer to you here in public:

Since it seems that my not having been in an event recently irritates you so greatly,and 19 years of building and help build 1968 to 1973 street cars and to 1980 rally cars means nothing and constitutes no support to the class: SUPPORT THE CLASS AND PAY MY ENTRY to the next event and I'll drag it out and rally it. Then everything i say will be better, right?

Phil, certainly you must realise that the pool of people willing to do what Glen Wallace has done with his Cortina has and remains nearly nonexsistant,)only reason he's done it is he's Australian and the sun down there cooks thier brains and the place only works by constant non-stop beer infusions!!) and every other respondent has suggested 1980 as the cut off date and all have been realistic in suggesting that when there are sufficient entries bothering to check off both Gp2 and H, then at that point the class can be split.

I suggest that this be the date and that you concede this point,and support 1980 as the cut off date. Note this doesn't mean YOU must do anything different with your car.


And I am aware of the unspoken private PRB desired goal of having "pretty" cars filling the class.
So far that hasn't worked.
And nobody has suggested ugly beaters.



John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

 

[mgpsmith]

I don't know whether I like you personally or not, we've never met.

I know I don't care for the fact that you seem to made many unwarranted assumptions about me, my experience, my background, and my intentions, and foremost amongst these is the notion that I am rigid about Historic Class. Considering we've never met, I fail to understand how you seem to know me so well. More and more your posts make me think you must be like the local mechanic I went to a few years ago to see about having a speedo cable made up. I walked in and simply asked to have a cable made since I didn't have the tool to form the end...after telling me he couldn't do that, then telling me he wouldn't do it anyway for a non-regular customer, he proceeded to chew me out for doing my own work on my own car, and now my need for a cable was my just desserts for thinking I might be able to do this kind of thing when this is how he makes his living. I just wanted a cable end formed.

Actually, I was thinking that since you're the one with the business building vintage cars that perhaps you'd sponsor me, Dan Cook, Glenn Wallace, Richard Byford, and Keith Wheeler for a season or so. Makes no sense for me to pay for you to show up at a rally...potential patients would only say, John Van who??? On the other hand, think of the prestige your business would achieve by sponsoring some of the early players in H Class. Why, you would stand to become the god of vintage rallycar preparation. Legitimately.

Of course, in the case of Glenn, Keith and myself, you'd have to learn to like British iron, unless you'd even provide us fine Swedish cars.
How is "normally aspirated" any more sensical than "atmospheric induction"? Like there's an "abnormally aspirated" engine? Maybe that's when you pull on the choke.... At least my term implies what it is that is pushing air/fuel into the cylinder. Perhaps I should have written "non-supercharged, non-turbocharged induction," as that is really what was intended, I'll concede that point.

* * *

The formal proposal accepted by the PRB will be in the next FasTrack, my suggestion is write the PRB with your suggestions at that time.

 

[Doug Woods]

I have read the various posts concerning proposals for Historic class rules. I have some observations. I do not own a potential car for this class and I currently have no plans to compete, so hopefully my observations are not biased (other than by my experience of having been there when all of this historic rallying was actually taking place).

1) Clearly, a number of people have put a lot of effort into preparing and presenting these proposals and they should be commended for their efforts. Writing rules and regulations is a very difficult task and it usually comes with little reward (but a lot of flak).

2) The posts to date have had a theme along the lines of "the underlying idea of Historic class is one in which a car such as an Escort TwinCam or two stroke SAAB can be competitive". I would recommend that "being competitive" should not be the basis for any rules. Surely, the purposes of an Historic class are to rally in old cars, have fun, meet new rallying friends and drink as much beer as possible (while not actually competing). I think it would be a bad idea if people were to choose to get into Historic rallying in order to obtain meaningless class wins in fields with minimal entries. Remember, from an historical perspective, very few drivers were ever competitive. In any era in North American rallying, a small number of drivers always won everything.

3) The approach to formulating the rules seems to be to copy or use the European rules/approach, as the basis for North American historic rallying. One result of this is that the issue of the cut-off date for an Historic class raises its head. I would recommend that we develop rules which are unique to North America and reflect what rallying actually was like in the 1960s and 1970s. Perhaps, the entry lists for rallies in these decades should be reviewed to determine what cars were actually competing. For example, why not allow 4wd cars (the FF Capri, Wagoneers, Scott Harvey's vehicles, etc.) to compete, if they were doing so then. I like the concept of all pre 1980 cars being eligible, in the configurations that they actually competed. If there is concern about a wide range of performance, then the idea of a 1960s class and a 1970s class might address this concern.

4) Finally, if we must have classes in historic rallying, why not have them based on the age of the drivers, instead of the age of the cars? This might encourage old timers (farts) like myself to become involved again. Imagine, if all of the rallying newcomers in their newly prepared historic cars could have the opportunity to compete with the likes of Scott Harvey, Gene Henderson, Tom Samida, Jim Walker, Bob Hourihan, Eric Jones, John Smiskol, Walter Boyce, Taisto Heinonen, Randy Black, Jean-Paul Perusse, Rod Millen, John Buffum, etc. The age classes could be along the lines of under 50, 50 to 60, 60 to 70, and over 70 years of age. The pre and post rally story telling would probably be more fun than the actual events!

Just some thoughts for people to consider.

Doug Woods

 

[Topi]

- Doug Woods' proposal to have "1960s" and "1970s" classes is the most sensible rule so far. Easy to understand, easy to get in. And it reflexes cars that were actually rallied that time.

- First, start with a combined classes and when/if there's 5 or more cars per class, split it

- What does it take to get this started? CASH prices? How much cash? Would $ 500/300/100 create enough interest for Historic Series (combined '60s & '70s classes first)?

- I think that's doable if someone takes care of paperwork

- I don't think we can count on SCCA nor current rules tinkerer. Too much narrow mindness and self serving hair cutting.

- I've nothing against Brittish cars. I've own Lotus Elan, Europa, Cortinas, Escorts, Corsair V4, Wauxhall Cresta, Zephur V6, Triumph Spritfire, MINI, and so on. I also had bumper sticker: "All Parts Falling Off This Car Are The Finest British Workmaship"

- Rules should include ALL cars that were rallied, even a rare Capri FF 4x4. It was a failure then and will be a failure now - nothing to be afraid of...BUT if it wins, good for them!

- I rather run last among 40+ Historic cars than win in a thin field of 4 or so

PS. Starting order: In order to keep dust down all British cars should start first. Nothing keeps dust down like engine oil...

 

[Rich Smith]

RE: Historic Class Rules Proposal

Doug,

I agree with you entirely on a 1980 cutoff; and points 1, 2 and 3. Thanks for posting such a concise rationale. I think you've captured the SPIRIT of what most folks want in North America. Historic Rules don't need say very much.

Point 4.......HA! What a Hoot!!

Rich Smith

Vive le "Pro-le-Ralliat"

 

[Bill Rhodes]

I support the proposal to limit the cut-off to pre-1974 cars and I strongly support Phil Smith's hard work. If John V. and others feel so strongly about more modern cars (and I know they will find some support from others), then complaining to Phil isn't the way to go about it. As Doug Woods mentioned in another thread, they should make their own proposal to add a "post-historic class" to the PRB and let the PRB decide if they want to support it.

I don't see anything particularly "historic" about a 1980 VW Golf/Rabbit or a late 1970s Colt. Sure, they were rallied, they have a nice rally pedigree, and it would be fun to see then out on the stages, but some (the Golf) aren't all that different from many cars currently being rallied just within the 20 year cut-off.

Given the 20-year cutoff is now 1983, JV's suggestion to move the H-class cut-off to 1980 essentially renders the 20-year rule meaningless. That may be JV's intention and, frankly, I never saw much reason to have the 20-year cut-off at all. If JV's or others' goal is simply to do away with the 20-year rule, then don't be disengenuous about it and waste the H-class mavens' time and bandwidth. Fight that one yourselves.

If you really do feel that there should be some sort of "Late-Historic" class, then pull together like-minded enthusiasts, work up a proposal and submit it to the PRB. I would think you could find plenty of support and potential car projects. I just don't see an obvious "Historical" aspect to the cars.

Keep in mind that the PRB wants this class to be attractive to spectators. That attractiveness is, unfortunately, often derived from appearance rather than what's underneath the hood. So, to some extent, efforts to convince SS readers that some 1980 cars are just like 1974 cars may actually sway the PRB to keep the current 12/31/71 cut-off date.

The MSA provides a convenient guide for a 1974 cut-off date. The authors of that rule set found some rationale for selecting their cut-off. Were they all clueless too? Perhaps. But Brits who prepared their cars to that rule set may be interested in coming over here to compete. The PRB has stated to Phil and others a goal of attracting some foreign competitors in H Class. The consensus among all current H-class competitors and a few others, including at least one who has built to FIA standards, was to make FIA Appx K compliance a long term goal with a short term goal of building a viable class per the MSA rule to achieve a modicum of initial consistency with some international rules.

If you have helpful comments about the proposal currently in front of the PRB (e.g., JV's suggestion of changing the word "atmospheric" to "non-forced"), then please continue to speak up constructively. More input from a wide variety of sources is good.

But, I think the tenor of JV's posts to Phil have been unnecessarily testy and rude. Please limit the sarcasm and pointed commentary of a personal nature. Phil isn't getting paid for his hard work. He has invested considerable time over the past couple of years to try to work with the current H-class competitors to come up with a rule set that will induce people to build old cars and will be embraced by the PRB. That has not been an easy process.

Phil is trying to build a class that will be enjoyed by competitors and spectators. He doesn't deserve personal abuse from JV or anyone else, no matter how eloquently stated the snide comments may be. Phil could easily drop the whole effort and continue to campaign his H-class car. He's elected to help improve the class. Comments should reflect at least occasional gratiude for the effort he's put forth.


Bill Rhodes

 

[team blitz]

Topi said:
>- Rules should include ALL cars that were rallied, even a
>rare Capri FF 4x4. It was a failure then and will be a
>failure now - nothing to be afraid of...BUT if it wins, good
>for them!

Hey! I resemble that. Hahaha. Just remember what annihilation Roger Clark did with a FF Capri 4WD in the BBC Rally series. (See his "Sideways" biography.) It was weekly devastation, courtesy of the Wizards of Weslake and Ford Boreham Competitions Department. I think the Jodar effort suffered from trans-Atlantic parts sourcing and engineering assistance. Nonetheless, it was revolutionary in Pro Rally, and had much potential. But you're right, Topi. We propbably won't even make it off the trailer without breaking a CV. Sigh.... <g> Norm

 

[Rich Smith]

Bill,

I disagree with this 1971 or 1974 cutoff thinking. Nobody I know gives a rat what the Brit's or the FIA is doing. This is North America and we have our own history.

I admire Phil's pluck and can appreciate his hard work, but you guys should give it up already. Your defend-it-at-all-costs approach is stiffling development of the Historic Class.

I favor a 1980 cutoff, or a sliding 25 year age limit, and think you guys should get on board and support with a program that will grow.

Rich Smith

Vive le "Pro-le-Ralliat"

 

[Rodmon]

I'd give you a rat if I could catch one. I dislike the disparity between SCCA and FIA rules. I prefer consistency to make it easy for competitors to play in either venue with the same car. Thus, I like the reasons put forth for making H-class consistent with established international rules.

-Rod Van Koughnet
Tulsa, OK

 

[Rich Smith]

RE: Historic Class Rules Proposal

Rod,

If you dislike the disparity between SCCA and FIA rules, then go lobby the FIA. Their rules are far more restrictive and protectionist than ours. Any FIA spec car can fit into an SCCA Class, somewhere.

In North America, our own traditions are our greatest strengths. To be successful, our Historic Rules should cultivate these traditions. To do otherwise is an injustice to our own experience. Even the "Rally-Beater" is a part of the American Rally experience. The FIA Historic tradition has nothing to do with inclusion and openness......let's not try to copy-cat something that promotes arrogance and stifles our own history.

The mainstay of our own Rally experience in the 60's, 70 and early 80's was inclusion, openness and innovation. SCCA should open the Historic Rally door as wide as possible to reflect this heritage.

Rich Smith

Vive le "Pro-le-Ralliat"

 

[gravelgeezer]

RE: Historic Class Rules Proposal

Thanks to Phil Smith (and others) for their continuing work on behalf of historic rallying.

Regarding the discussion on the cut-off date: At this early stage in the life of the historic rally movement in the US, it makes the most sense to me to try to include the largest number of potential competitors possible.


Here's a news item to add to the mix. It is from the web site of the Historic Rally Car Register, http://www.hrcr.co.uk , a long-established organization in the UK which has organized an historic stage rally series for some time.
A new class for 1975 to 1981 cars--called Classic--will join the HRCR's current Historic(pre-1968) and Post-Historic('68-74) classes--but not at the same events, as I read it. This new class and series are of course sanctioned by the UK's motorsport governing body, the MSA.

Here's the text:
"A new Championship series - pushing forward the date boundaries of Historic Stage Rallying - has been announced by HRCR. The HRCR Classic Challenge 2003 will be open to all cars built between 1 January 1975 and 31 December 1981, the only exception being 4WD and turbo charged vehicles. There will be six qualifying rounds, some tarmac, some gravel, with each event being shared with a modern stage event run on the same day. The best four rounds in any entrant¹s score will count towards their championship tally. HRCR Competition Secretary Paul Loveridge explains: 'There has been a big increase in interest in historic stage rallying in the past few years. Some entrants in modern stage rallying are finding their older cars less competitive than they would like against quicker more modern entries, and many more people are keen to get started. Twenty years ago, when HRCR was founded, the latest historic car that was eligible for our events was only 16 years old. By stretching the boundaries to 1981, the youngest eligible car will be more than 21 years old this year - this seems the moment to correct the passage of time.'"


If you have an opinion on the Historic Class rules proposal(s), especially the cut-off date, please remember to send it to the PRB so your voice can be heard officially.

George Beckerman
(Gravelwheezer and sneezer this week)

 

[Bill Rhodes]

RE: Historic Class Rules Proposal

Rich - Rather than argue that the current competitors should lobby the FIA (Ha!) to change their system, why don't YOU try to lobby the PRB's thinking on international consistency. If you don't think you can get anywhere with the PRB, just try the FIA. Sheesh!

The PRB has made it clear to the current H-class competitors that they strongly favor revised H-class rules which will ultimately lead to FIA (or MSA) compliance in order to induce foreign participation in a developed H-class that eventually could be run in conjunction with PRO events. We tried to propose rules which permitted FIA compliance as an alternative (or companion) to a SCCA-specific rule set (which was the set of rules posted on vintagerally.com last Summer). The PRB showed no interest.

And your comment "Your defend-it-at-all-costs approach is stiffling development of the Historic Class." is such BS that it makes me laugh. If we wanted to stifle growth in H-Class, we would not have bothered to work on any revisions to current rules. What exactly have you done to help grow this class? Why don't you follow George Beckerman's suggestion and propose a 1964-1980 "Classic Car" class with a rule set and vision for participation?

Bill Rhodes

 

[spoier]

RE: Historic Class Rules Proposal

> The PRB has made it clear to the current H-class competitors
> that they strongly favor revised H-class rules which will
> ultimately lead to FIA (or MSA) compliance in order to
> induce foreign participation in a developed H-class that
> eventually could be run in conjunction with PRO events.

I strongly disagree with this approach. Local competitors should be served first, who gives a rat's a$$ what competitors in Europe want? As has been repeated again and again the "scene" is much different over here.

But of course the PRB knows better than I what is best for growing the sport..

And by "growing" I mean of course "more pretty, ridiculously expensive cars that we can put SCCA stickers in big letters on, in the most valuable advertising spaces on the car (that could be used to attract a real RALLY sponsor to reduce costs for the unwashed Club masses) so we can take some nice pictures in Parc Expose and write more PR drivel around". Let's just be 100% clear what the goal is here. PR drivel. The illusion of a healthy sport.

Skye Poier
Seattle, WA

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

 

[Bill Rhodes]

RE: Historic Class Rules Proposal

The reference to George Beckerman's suggestion should have read "1974-1980" rather than "1964-1980". Please excuse the typo. Sorry for any confusion.

Bill Rhodes