[hilmera]

John Bogart wrote in the thread "Prediction"
>You know, Keith--AWD means you have 350HP. At least that
>seems to be the way the rally classes are set up.
>
>Maybe they'll add a low powered ClubRally class for all the
><200 HP AWD cars that can't run anywhere else. But I doubt
>it.

How about a Group 442? [ul][li]four wheel drive allowed[/li] [li]four liter adjusted displacement (similar to P/PGT rules)[/li] [li]umm, 2200 lbs minimum weight -- whatever, it sounds good[/li][/ul]

[table border=1 cellspacing=0] [caption][h3]Displacement Modifiers[/h3][/caption] [tr][th width=250]feature[/th][th width=200]modifier[/th][/tr] [tr][td]4wd[/td][td align=center]1.3[/td][/tr] [tr][td]rotary[/td][td align=center]1.8[/td][/tr] [tr][td]turbo/supercharger[/td][td align=center]1.7[/td][/tr] [tr][td]4 or more valves[/td][td align=center]1.1[/td][/tr] [tr][td]variable timing[/td][td align=center]1.1[/td][/tr] [tr][td]pushrod valvetrain[/td][td align=center]0.9[/td][/tr] [tr][td]diesel[/td][td align=center]0.8[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]weight 2800 lbs[/td][td align=center]0.9[/td][/tr] [tr][td]weight 4000 lbs[/td][td align=center]0.8[/td][/tr] [/table]

[table border=1 cellspacing=0] [caption][h3]Common Vehicles[/h3][/caption] [tr][th width=250]model[/th][th width=200]modified [/th][/tr] [tr][td]Mazda 323 GTX[/td][td align=center]1600 --> 3889.6[/td][/tr] [tr][td]Subaru 2.5RS[/td][td align=center]2.5 --> 3.575 [br/](with vvt, 3.9)[/td][/tr] [tr][td]Subaru XT Turbo[/td][td align=center]1.8 --> 3.978[/td][/tr] [/table]

It would be a regional only rebel class a'la Group 222. It could encompass all the PGT cars that are no longer competitive as well as all the folks that want a spiffy new Subie but don't want to screw with a restricted turbo.

Thoughts?

andy

 

[Jon Bogert]

First--we must overcome the politics

Sounds great to me. Maybe tweak it a bit if necessary to accomodate more of those real world combinations.

But the real issue is that nobody at SCCA seems inclined to do anything for ClubRally specifically.

The rules/classes strategy is to gradually make ProRally mirror FIA as closely as possible. This has been implemented a few small steps at a time to try to minimize open revolt, but there is no doubt that's where they are heading.

And ClubRally is being dragged along with this silly trend in some areas like restrictors. In other areas, such as fostering meaningful competition among "club" level competitors, it's being ignored completely. The SCCA needs to be willing to reshape ClubRally to serve the budget and competitive needs of the participants, regardless of how it fits with their vision for ProRally. Until that happens, ideas for interesting new classes will likely be ignored.

Perhaps we need a ClubRally Board? Or a new sanctioning organization?

 

[Chris Gilligan]

Has anyone thought about the fact that trying to create all these new classes is only diluting Clubrally? I mean, really, who's going to give Club any credibility when there are 10 classes for 30 competitors in a Clubrally?

Currently in Club we have:
Open
G5
G2
PGT
P
H
G222 (out west)
The CRS classes (I'm not familar with)

Want to win a race or championship? Create your own class!!

Maybe it's time to go back to basics here, and not add complexity to an already shaky organization.

 

[Jon Bogert]

I don't think anyone's talking about MORE classes, just DIFFERENT classes that more accurately reflect the sorts of cars people are running or would like to run. The 442 class as described would allow many different cars to compete.

That said, how many entries is ideal for a class? I would say about 10. In many Pro and ClubRallies, there are fewer than 10 entries per class in P, PGT and G5. Heck you can win the PGT national championship just by showing up and finishing. The proposed class would also take some entries from Open, which is badly oversubscribed right now.

 

[Chris Gilligan]

Fair enough, but there's still a problem there. So you create this 442 class to replace another class - which one do you eliminate? You give the impression that 442 is kinda like a cross between PGT and G2, so do you eliminate G2 or PGT? What about the competetive cars in those classes now, where do they go?

I see your point, and I have kicked around ideas like that as well. But there are really only 2 potential solutions to this problem:

1. Have the SCCA afford individual concessions for each model of car within a class to maintain parity (like road racing). However, I doubt this will ever happen, or be effective.

2. Create a clear, rigid, consistent set of rules for a small number of classes, and give the responsibility to the competitor to build a car that is competitive for a given class. No matter what, it will always come down to $$, so we can forget about ever trying to eliminate that infuence.

It's that simple. Now, you can put experience limitations in there if you wish for safety (all seed 8's have to start in P or G2, for example). Instead of trying to get the sanctioning body to make rules FOR competitors, why not try to play by a solid, agreed upon set?

As for how many cars per class... the more the better! I'd love to see 30 cars fighting it out in the same class at a given rally!!

 

[mothra]

New can of worms?

Wouldn't horsepower limitations be easy to enforce?

P-all under 125hp 2wd/4wd(keep current visual/weight req.)

PGT-all under 250hp 2wd/4wd (keep current visual/weight req.)

G2-2wd under 200hp (keep current visual/weight req.)

G5-2wd/4wd unlimited to 250hp(keep current visual/weight req.)

O-unlimited to 300hp(keep current visual/weight req.)

Just an idea for arguement. Few people truely want a ban on fast, showy rally cars. Old 75hp productions cars in the woods is not racing.

 

[Jon Bogert]

RE: New can of worms?

That's a very top-down approach: make a class structure that every car in the world fits into. That's where we are today. The big problem with that sort of a rule-making strategy is that it offers no consistancy or protection for the low-budget, club level competitor.

I'm suggesting that we take a more bottom-up approach: instead of starting with broad all-inclusive strokes, we start with a list of current and likely club level rally cars. This is a system more like SCCA ClubRacing, where you've got some guy driving the same car competitively for 10 or more years. I know, I know--the minute I bring up ClubRacing everyone rolls their eyes. But all I'm saying is that the competitive priorities of ClubRalliests are very different from Pro.

I like to use the Dean Fry example, although there are a couple of dozen guys just like him in NEDiv. He built his Legacy rally car mostly himself, on a moderate budget and with lots of his own tweaks and expertise. He's going to run every rally he can and he's one of the pillars on which the whole rally system is built. Dean runs his Legacy in Open Class because that's where the current rules force him. It's a very solid car, and he drives it well, but some point and shoot dork in a new WRX who can't drive corners worth a damn is going to beat Dean every stage, every rally, every day. That's fine at the Pro level--if you can't pay, you can't win. But at the Club level the rules should include a large component of MAINTAINING COMPETITION among the club level drivers.

 

[hilmera]

>Fair enough, but there's still a problem there. So you
>create this 442 class to replace another class - which one
>do you eliminate?

To start with, it needn't "replace" any classes. It could begin as an extra checkbox on the entry form, much like Group 222 is being handled. In a typical Club Rally the four cars in PGT and the half-dozen GTXes could have a more interesting trophy to compete for. The goal is to merge PGT and lower horsepower Open cars.

Eventually, it would replace PGT and give uncompetitive Open cars a place to go. Group N folks that wake up to the costs could swap in NA motors (or tiny turbo motors) and hit more events. Group N is no loss to club rallyists in North America.

The production classes don't really work any more on a technical basis. The 32mm restrictor won't kill PGT off entirely, but it'll make it distinctly unpleasant. Group N cars are homologated parts bin specials, not "production" cars.

I don't understand the "cross between PGT and G2." I guess the name may be misleading. If you do a search of the old threads in this forum for G222, you will see discussions of a reworking of G2 to a class with 2 wheel drive, 2000cc absolute displacement non-turbo piston engines, and a minimum weight of 2000lbs. That was the seed of my idea.

Maybe the name should just be shortened to "Group 44".

andy

 

[Rallychick from Oregon]

RE: New can of worms?

CRS classes are for CRS points only and have just about nothing to do with SCCA classes. See the Gorman website for proof of this, at least for this year's event.

G222... that's still someone's pipe dream. There is no "extra checkbox" on any registration forms I've seen for the events this year I've been in; unless this is regional to the East Coast or the Midwest or other places outside of the West Coast?

The only other class I can think of is the Geo Metro class, and we all enter in Production. All two of us, although there's going to be a third soon, April said so!

This G442 class sounds like it should be a spec class like the Geo class; cars prepped exactly the same, so it's all driver skill that determines the winner.

Anyway, what do I know. I'm not out here for the money, I'm out here for the fun!

KT

 

[hilmera]

Let's fish.

My bad, I thought there had been some movement with G222.

Spec classes are a neat idea, but we are far from getting a 4wd spec class going. I'm glad you've stuck with the Monster. The Geos are cheap and fun. With zero support from the national structure, cheap and fun are the only things Spec Metro have going for it. I'd be willing to bet that you will eventually have a half-dozen folks to run against. Stick with it.

If we are going to realign club classes to our needs, we have to begin ignoring the SCCA national structures as a matter of course. If a lot of people with Audis, 323s, XTs and RSes want to run with each other rather than against Evos and WRXs, that is their perogative. If they can persuade the WSRC or other series organizations to add the class and automatically enter those eligible, the folks with those cars will pay attention to the results. If folks like it, the new structures will win out. The national organization will end up following the membership's lead.

Just to recap:

The things G44 has going for it are: [ul][li]it fixes the 323GTX problem[/li] [li]it fixes the non-turbo Subaru problem[/li] [li]with weight modifiers it can fix the big, heavy Audi problem[/li] [li]it can allow SUVs (Cherokees and the like) and let them be competitive[/li] [/ul]

The key is to make sure the specs for the class group things appropriately. In theory, a 1.6 liter turbo engine can make 1000 horsepower. Perhaps a (40mm or greater) restricter is appropriate to keep abuse down. Perhaps not. The key is to decide as a group of competitors.

The can of worms was opened years ago when the national staff focused (badly) on the national series. It's up to the folks in the rally community to impale those squirmy little bastards and work the lake for dinner.

andy

 

[SagSert]

RE: Let's fish.

I know I'll catch flak again but;

Why reinvent the wheel, why form another class? Let's get rid of the organisation that doesn't support the sport or the sportsmen and find one that will. I lost all confidence that SCCA will improve so why beat the dead horse.

M.Samli

 

[hilmera]

RE: Let's fish.

The SCCA is irrelevant. If the SCCA is willing to sanction club rallies, fine. There have been some problems with that recently, but creating or using another sanctioning body is a separate issue from figuring out how to classify competitors.

If the competitors take control of the series, the folks in the SCCA that have been causing problems for the series will no longer be able to do damage. Eventually, the SCCA series definitions will follow the competitors' lead.

andy