Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The PRB is likely to move on these rules for 2005 or as a competitor bulletin during 2005, but I need *YOUR* support.

If you are an active historic competitor (or prospective, ie building a H car) or have run a historic eligible car in the recent past (even in G2/G5), please send me email at [email protected] with a brief note in support of these rules, which I will pass on to the PRB.

Glenn



Submission to SCCA PRB:

Appendix H (Historic) Category/Class ? Suggested Revisions for 2004 Rules.

The following adjustments are proposed to increase the appeal of the Historic class to competitors and spectators, and also look to the future by setting guidelines that hopefully will still apply in the distant future when cars like the Subaru Impreza are seen as historic vehicles.

1. Allow Appendix H to be a ProRally eligible category/class.
Currently, Historic cars have to compete in Group 2/5 to enter ProRally events. While they can enter supporting ClubRally events in H class, it further dilutes the appeal of the class to spectators and competitors by not having H class eligible for ProRally. The existing rules can take care of series points/awards for undersubscribed classes if sufficient H class entries don?t show up.

Rule text change: Table in 10.1 A, in the ?Historic? row, after ?ClubRally? add ?& ProRally?

2. Introduce a rolling 25 year age requirement for H class.
This would allow Opel Asconas, Saab 99's, Colts, 510's to still compete in 2004, but would provide some definition around the class. The definition is needed to both delineate the class for entrants (vs. Group 2/5) and also make the concept easy to communicate to spectators. This change would (for now) exclude newer cars such as a 1986 Ford Mustang, or an early Rx-7, which would be eligible under the new 2004 rules.
Having a rolling age requirement, rather than a fixed date cutoff, sets in motion a structure that allows inclusion of gradually more cars over time. If participation increases, further thought can be given to subdividing the class at that time. However, for 2004, having a single class based around a 25 year minimum age requirement seems like a good first step.

Rule text change: 2004 Appendix H, 2 Eligibility, insert new text: ?Cars entering Performance Rally events in Historic Class must be at least 25 years old.?

3. Remove the 2WD, carb/mechanical FI and N/A requirements.
These restrictions serve no purpose, once an age requirement window is added and if the preparation rules and competitor enforcement is relied upon.
Historic cars, regardless of their factory or period equipped technology, should be eligible for historic class.
If the car was OE or "rallied in period" with 4WD, turbo and/or EFI, then so be it. (i.e. subject to the rolling age window, a 1987 Sierra Sapphire Cosworth 4x4 would be eligible, or a 1986 RS200.. come 201x). Note that by saying "in period" I mean a Ferguson 4WD Capri would be OK, or a mechanical fuel injected RS1600 (Roger Clark's was for the 72 RAC) would be OK, but not a Colt with a modern Impreza drivetrain in it. This would remain competitor enforced, as in 2004 rules Appendix H section 3 and 4.

Rule text change: 2004 Appendix H, 2 Eligibility. Remove the entire paragraph starting ?In all cases?.? and ending ??with currently available carburetor(s).?

4. Remove the restriction on light pods.
Again, looking forward, this would exclude light pods on such fine historic machinery as the Lancia Stratos, and future historic cars such as the Ford RS200, etc.

Rule text change: 2004 Appendix H, change section 3, item 3 to read ?Lighting is free. Light pods are allowed if they were used in period for rallying.?

Respectfully submitted,

Glenn Wallace
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Thank you all for your feedback so far. I have four solid statements of support and one requiring some further clarification. I am going to forward what I have so far to Christian.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
Not to be too much of a wet towel at this stage of the discussion....but looking over the Group F rules, what about simply adopting Group F rules with a rolling 25 year cutoff for Group H? Keeps it all real simple.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
One problem I can see initially is that it requires homologation documents to prove/disprove some of the mods allow, e.g. was the head homologated as multi-valve, was the clutch etc. It also doesn't allow for later turbocharged or 4WD cars.

H class has not had enough participants to worry about such things, which is why the rules were changed in 2004. Before adding more controls like Group F, I'd like to see some more cars get out there, then subdivide the class if/when numbers grow etc.

I need to keep reading through the Group F rules though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
253 Posts
RE: SCCA Historic Rules

?Cars entering Performance Rally events in Historic Class must be at least 25 years old.?

You might want to clarify this a little more: Is it 25 years by model year, by year of production stamped on vehicle, or by year & month of production stamped on vehicle?
Example a car make during 5/80 and sold as an early '81 model. Would this car be eligible at the start of '05, eligible at Rim, of not eligible until '06?

Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
RE: SCCA Historic Rules

The concept of model year is uniquely American.

It would be based on year of manufacture.

The point with these rules is they are more guidance than anything. A bunch of items are competitor policed. Right now we need more cars in the class and some guidance about what is ok.

On any other class I'd say it was too vague, but for now we just need to get the numbers up.

Glenn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
253 Posts
RE: SCCA Historic Rules

>The concept of model year is uniquely American.
>It would be based on year of manufacture.
>Glenn

It may be uniquely American, but isn't that what's on the vehicle title & state registration?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
RE: SCCA Historic Rules

I'm not sure. I thought in WA state at least it was year of mfr, not model year. I really think the build plate on the vehicle should be the determining factor (or whatever the log book says), but as I said I don't think we should make the rules too granular until we get more cars out there.

The granular rules <=2003 were what kept a lot of people away "I thought my car wasn't eligible". I ignored what I thought were the silly rules (e.g. must have stock suspension strut housing and perch) and went with what I thought was a good reliability/originality compromise.

ie I have vented, slotted rotors, but they're the same diameter as stock and have stock calipers.

Glenn
 

·
Shifting and drifting
Joined
·
502 Posts
RE: SCCA Historic Rules

Well, not me. I am just starting the cage in the Arrow to meet CARS and whatever US rules there are. Won't be until a few years from now that it is up and running, and to what spec, whether Production or Hendrik-Blok type Open class rules I don't know. For that matter all the bickering has forced me to NOT read the rule book, and if the thing doesn't fit because it was an American and Canadian only car, then so be it, I will request inclusion at that time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
RE: SCCA Historic Rules

Which bickering do you mean?

I think historic is pretty clear now, bring your old car and have fun!
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
RE: SCCA Historic Rules

>I'm not sure. I thought in WA state at least it was year of
>mfr, not model year. I really think the build plate on the
>vehicle should be the determining factor (or whatever the
>log book says), but as I said I don't think we should make
>the rules too granular until we get more cars out there.

Hey Glenn, sometimes in the mid 70s WA state went from putting on the TITLE the year the car was SOLD as the model year, to the system of going off the VIN number.
I have seen both Saabs and Husqvarna moto-cross and enduro bikes WA state titled as say '1974' when the VIN or in the case of the Huskies the initials MH or whatever showed them to be 1971 or 72 models, often enough that I asked owners if the bought old left over models and yep that was the case often.
So I checked with the state. Yep they USED to do that.

Problem with going off the VIN is that then you might exclude a 1988 Volvo 240 which hain't no discernable diff from a 1976 240.
or a 93 SLAAB 900 (chassi!!! I presume the boys would back date the bumpers and lights) out but an identical 1979 would be in.

Lets be as inclusive as possible.

Also the US GropeF rules should have no references to Homologation at all.
If they do that is an error.
>
>The granular rules <=2003 were what kept a lot of people
>away "I thought my car wasn't eligible". I ignored what I
>thought were the silly rules (e.g. must have stock
>suspension strut housing and perch) and went with what I
>thought was a good reliability/originality compromise.
>
>ie I have vented, slotted rotors, but they're the same
>diameter as stock and have stock calipers.
>
>Glenn





John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

janvanvurpa (at) f4 (dot) ca

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat!
Vive Le Groupe F!
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top