Cross posted from the SCCA forum (as JB suggested in another post):
I'm considering suggesting that stating a reason/intent/spirit/vision accompany any Perforance Rally rule change proposal. I think this would be a really good thing because it would:
-provide readers much needed context that aids in understanding the rule or need for change
-deliver the PRB more useful and targeted feedback from members
-foster members acceptance of the various rules since they would now know why changes were being proposed
As a starting point, I'd like to see this information provided for some of the most controversial and significant changes in the 2005 proposal. Here's an example:
There's LOTS of talk about restrictor sizes for the various classes. I think it would help A LOT if there was language clarifing the intent of restrictors. Please state the reason(s) we have restrictors. Here some possibilities:
A) To slow cars to some certain HP/torque/speed limit for safety/insurance reasons. If so, please state the target HP/top speed/whatever.
B) To limit spending. Please state target $ cap.
C) To enhance competition within the classes by making performance of various cars similar. Such as allowing NA cars to compete against turbo cars. A statement like "we're trying to bring the STi performance down to the level of the 323GTX" would be really helpful.
D) To conform to other sanctioning bodies' rule sets. Please state which sanctioning bodies are targeted (FIA, Canada, etc.)
E) To control which classes have the fastest cars. Please state if the rules intend to control which classes win events. A complete class list in speed order would be nice, such as: GN, Open, G5, PGT, G2, P
F) Other?
G) Some combination of the above?
IMHO, this needs to be determined before anyone can have good discussion about what sizes are needed for various classes.
Another example that would be great to see clarified with a mission statement:
Are the P/PGT classes intended to be:
A) Stock vehicles with only safety gear added. This class is to find out which OEM makes the best car for rally (designed-in combination of toughness, speed and handling). If this is the case, we've had mission creep and allowed WAY to many peformance and durability additions to P/PGT IMHO.
B) Less expensive versions of the modified classes that allow lower budget teams a class to compete in. Only low cost and durability modifications intended to reduce long-term cost are allowed. If this is the case, why bother trying to look production with headliners, door panels, dashes, bodywork, etc. Also, allowing re-mapping/bigger injectors, etc. seems to stray from the low cost theme.
One more example:
Is it the intent of the rules for P/PGT to level car capability within each class in order to create a drivers class? Recent rules such as restrictor, open LSD, open gear gear ratio, etc. all seem to suggest intent to allow low-capability cars to modify to match higher-capability cars.
Last one:
Are RallyTruck rules supposed to:
1) Provid the lowest cost entry (that is competitive) into performance rally?
2) Provide a place for existing trucks built to the old RallyTruck class rules?
3) Generate variety in the field by providing enough advantages to RallyTrucks so they can compete fairly with Production cars (at most events)?
Jim Cox
#558
I'm considering suggesting that stating a reason/intent/spirit/vision accompany any Perforance Rally rule change proposal. I think this would be a really good thing because it would:
-provide readers much needed context that aids in understanding the rule or need for change
-deliver the PRB more useful and targeted feedback from members
-foster members acceptance of the various rules since they would now know why changes were being proposed
As a starting point, I'd like to see this information provided for some of the most controversial and significant changes in the 2005 proposal. Here's an example:
There's LOTS of talk about restrictor sizes for the various classes. I think it would help A LOT if there was language clarifing the intent of restrictors. Please state the reason(s) we have restrictors. Here some possibilities:
A) To slow cars to some certain HP/torque/speed limit for safety/insurance reasons. If so, please state the target HP/top speed/whatever.
B) To limit spending. Please state target $ cap.
C) To enhance competition within the classes by making performance of various cars similar. Such as allowing NA cars to compete against turbo cars. A statement like "we're trying to bring the STi performance down to the level of the 323GTX" would be really helpful.
D) To conform to other sanctioning bodies' rule sets. Please state which sanctioning bodies are targeted (FIA, Canada, etc.)
E) To control which classes have the fastest cars. Please state if the rules intend to control which classes win events. A complete class list in speed order would be nice, such as: GN, Open, G5, PGT, G2, P
F) Other?
G) Some combination of the above?
IMHO, this needs to be determined before anyone can have good discussion about what sizes are needed for various classes.
Another example that would be great to see clarified with a mission statement:
Are the P/PGT classes intended to be:
A) Stock vehicles with only safety gear added. This class is to find out which OEM makes the best car for rally (designed-in combination of toughness, speed and handling). If this is the case, we've had mission creep and allowed WAY to many peformance and durability additions to P/PGT IMHO.
B) Less expensive versions of the modified classes that allow lower budget teams a class to compete in. Only low cost and durability modifications intended to reduce long-term cost are allowed. If this is the case, why bother trying to look production with headliners, door panels, dashes, bodywork, etc. Also, allowing re-mapping/bigger injectors, etc. seems to stray from the low cost theme.
One more example:
Is it the intent of the rules for P/PGT to level car capability within each class in order to create a drivers class? Recent rules such as restrictor, open LSD, open gear gear ratio, etc. all seem to suggest intent to allow low-capability cars to modify to match higher-capability cars.
Last one:
Are RallyTruck rules supposed to:
1) Provid the lowest cost entry (that is competitive) into performance rally?
2) Provide a place for existing trucks built to the old RallyTruck class rules?
3) Generate variety in the field by providing enough advantages to RallyTrucks so they can compete fairly with Production cars (at most events)?
Jim Cox
#558