[Jonesi]

http://www.scca.org/news/tech/fastrack/03-05.pdf
It has the the proposed ProRally rule changes for '04.

One of interest is: If a car can't depart a STC within 20 seconds, (like it stalls) it's disqualified. As an occasional stage captain I sure don't look forward to be expected to enforce that one!

Bill Jonesi

 

[Greg K]

there were several "scary" trends put forward in this issue regarding the rules, and I have attached the text of my note to the scca.
Everyone, please post your feelings here AND forward them to the PRB in the hopes that we can prevent these rules from becomming official.

Please note: the email address that they provide for feedback is incorrect, the correct address is: [email protected] not @scca.com.

my message attached below:

Respectfully I would have to disagree with several of the proposed rule changes for next year. I object to the following:

3. In order to reduce top speeds and increase reliability, reduce the Open Class restrictor size to 34mm.

As an experienced engineer intimately familliar with fluid dynamics, compressor theory, and turbo-motorsports abroad, this rule will not have the intended effect. The top speeds in US rally are not "so high" because of the extra 6mm of inlet diameter, our speeds are "so high" because of the roads that are chosen for our useage. More creative and difficult "technical" roads would significantly decrease the car's average and peak speed. Additionally, WRC cars currently run 34mm restrictors and are considerably faster than our current open class cars. All a restrictor effectively does is limit the max rpm that the engine can effectively turn, and the top speed issue can easily be overcome by making more torque on the bottom end. This is done through spending copious amounts of money on engine components, turbos, and fuel mapping to make obsurd torque at low engine speeds. Finally you change the final drive gearing of the car and you have a car that will do 140mph at 5000rpm instead of 140mph at 7500rpm. In summation, this rule would only widen the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots"; people who can afford to spend $10k-$15k on a mountune motor will still be able to hit the peak top speeds, and the rest of the people will be mired back with the P and PGT cars. Additionally, if the primary reason for this rule was to more closely allign with the international FIA standards, then please be upfront about it, and just as a suggestion; why not just reinstate GRP A if you really want to allign with the FIA rules and leave Open class alone.

4. Allow manual mechanically selected sequential transmissions in Open class.

Here again is a problem, the first two proposed changes are supposedly written "to reduce costs". How can you reasonably limit the number of turbos and gearboxes because they're expensive, but in the same breath say it's OK to install $15K gearboxes. Seems a bit contradictory.

Please do not take these comments as personal attacks, I hold nothing directly against the PRB, but these rules do not seem to support the general feelings of the club membership and would not be beneficial to the sport of rallying in the US.

Sincerly,
Greg Knepper
Crew chief (open class Mazda GTX (club))
Competitor (Grp 5 Ford Sapphire Cosworth (2004 club))

 

[Flyboy]

For the record, I'm against 34mm restrictors and sequential trannies (and I already mailed the PRB), but just out of curiousity:

34mm effectively limits HP to about 330 hp, while 40 is good for 400. What if we allowed sequential trannie cars to run 34mm, while H-box cars can run 40mm. Would this equalize things, or would transmission trump horsepower (or vice versa)??

Like I said, justs curious.

Hmm, another thought. How many of these top open class cars that are allegedly going "too fast" have gotten into horrible nasty accidents last year that would justify attempting to slow them down? None by my count. Worst wreck I saw was Rhys at OFPR, and he was walking around just fine (but severly PO'd). Seems like we are trying to solve a problem we don't have. I hate to drum up conspiracy theories, but this one is just too easy. Looks to me like the manufacturers are pushing for this stuff so they can bring over WRC test mules and try stuff in race conditions without having to mess around with homologation. Good for them, good for WRC, bad for Joe Average SCCA guy.

PRB, if this is what's happening, fine. Just tell us! We'll create a "manufacturer" class. We'll charge them big entry fees, give em lots of airtime and magazine pics, they can run what they brung, and I still get to play competitively with my car for a reasonable amount of money.

Dennis Martin
[email protected]
920-432-4845

 

[silenuskjh]

Well said.

It's really too bad that we have to reassure them that we don't hold anything against them and grovel before them when disagreeing.

THESE PEOPLE WORK FOR US!

If they are doing something stupid, as they manifestly are, we should tell them to CUT IT OUT!

We shouldn't approach them, hat-in-hand, and beg their forgiveness. We shouldn't stoke their already inflated amour propre. We should explain to them that we are mad as hell, and we're not gonna take it anymore!

Don't just send your letters to the PRB (they posted the wrong email address, for crissake!), send them to all the members of the PRB, [...snip... see note below], the president of SCCA and anyone else who might have some influence.

... Later, my local Club Rally Steward has suggested to me that writing to him and his colleagues is probably not nearly as helpful as writing the PRB.

Ken Hawley
Silenus Motorsports
Kalamazoo, MI
http://www.silenus.com/khawley/Silenus577_48x48.jpg

 

[silenuskjh]

Sorry, Dennis, but you got me in a ranting mood.

Your ask an interesting question, but one that plays into the hands of the rulemaking weenies.

They WANT you to start thinking about little tweeks and "maybe if we just adjusted this bit it would be OK." Once you start thinking like that, you have been assimilated and they have won.

THE WHOLE RULE IS WRONG-HEADED TO BEGIN WITH.

What part of OPEN in OPEN class, don't they understand?

If they want GpN or GpA or WRC, let's do that. The FIA does it better anyway. Otherwise, stick to safety and quit screwing with performance in the mistaken belief that it helps either safety or cost.

Ken Hawley
Silenus Motorsports
Kalamazoo, MI
http://www.silenus.com/khawley/Silenus577_48x48.jpg

 

[Brian Scott]

Who changes more than two transmissions? PRODRIVE Subaru

Who has been screaming to get a 34mm restrictor to help there transmissions live? PRODRIVE Subaru

Who has unobtainium built sequential transmissions on the shelf? PRODRIVE

Who has WRC built engines made out of unobtainable components? Oh, that would be PRODRIVE, again.

Remember how slow the WRC Subaru was at RIM and STPR two years ago????? I mean it only completely destroyed everyone else there.

Seems pretty clear to me who's driving the bus.

Brian

 

[RallyGTX]

What truly makes a series successful is rules stability.

Given that, I would say that the proposed rule changes will have exactly the opposite effect desired.

Rule #3
Decreasing restrictor size from 40mm to 34mm

Smaller restrictors will slow down some, but not all. Those with bigger budgets will just be able to build engines with higher compression to make up for lost volume of air. Throw in a good programmable ECU and you're back to where we started. Group B vs.WRC is a perfect example. The cars today are faster than they have ever been (even with the restrictors) but the cost of equipment is much higher.

It's not the power, it's the ROADS !!!!

Aside from that, we just completed probably one of the 'faster' events in the country (DooWops) here in the NorthWest and I don't recall ANY incidents that were a result of excessive speed. Jamie probably had the most publicized 'off' yet once the car was extracted (basically undamaged) she was able to drive it to the banquet. We are supposedly the 'amateurs' and were able to exhibit discretion and restraint to the point that nobody got hurt, no 'problems' occured with the locals and our presence in the Gray's Harbor area was welcomed by the community.

If it's not broken, it doesn't need fixing......

I would suggest that the 'professionals' should be able to accomplish the same feat (at the very least) in the same manner or better given that they are 'professionals' and do this 'for a living'

Rule #1
cost controls

Spares:

There will always be haves and have-nots in this game. Having said that and seeing the 'vision' of ProRally being a true 'professional' series, I would suggest the following:

Since the fields of TRUE 'Pro' cars are likely to be in the single digits, I would suggest that getting ALL cars to the finish would be a good idea, if for no other reason than media exposure. Let's face it, eight cars is a small field and if you lose two to accidents and two to mechanical failure, you are now down to a four car field and I don't see this as very exciting to watch on Speedvision. Give them the parts they need to stay in the game in the 'Pro' division. If people can't afford to play, they won't.

Turbos are about $1k, but so is a complete set of Pirelli's (with spare) so where is the savings ?? Both are 'consumable' items.

Those of us who are purchasing Cosworth based equipment for use in 2004 (at least here in Seattle) are intending to use a 'communal spares' philosophy. This will limit the amount of equipment needed in the service truck and reduce the cost to each individual competitor. You use it, you bought it. Pretty simple and we are hoping effective. Obviously we will need more than one of certain items to support 3 or 4 cars, but the concept should scale reasonably well.

Rule #2:
Changing engine blocks BEFORE the event

This seems completely bizarre and unenforcable to me given that whatever is done in the shop between events is entirely uncontrolled.

Rule #4:
Use of 'manual sequential' transmissions in Open class cars

Fine with me. I can't afford one, but I'll go drool on someone else's who can. If someone really thinks that they can 'buy their way to the front' let them do that. Personally, I think that driving skill and experience can make up for a difference in equipment to a large extent. I cite Ross Foster as a perfect example. Ross gets performance out of his 13 year PGT old car (on used tires) that rivals that of much newer OPEN equipment.

Rule #5
Roof vents for P & PGT

It's about time.......these are RALLY cars and it gets hot in the sweatsuits that we wear.

Rule #6
Exclusion for not leaving a control within 20 seconds

Seems a bit harsh to me. However, I guess you can't work on a car in a control zone so if it breaks there....bad luck.

One more thing.....

CAGE RULES

I would suggest that simply requiring more quantity of tubing is not making cars any safer. Most of the 'european' cage designs are based on (or compliant with) FIA spec cages. As these have been developed by teams at the top of the sport using structural engineers and design tools such as finite element analysis, I would suggest that they are the 'pinnacle' of cage design and that requiring additional modifications and 'reinforcement' is overkill in the extreme.

I would ask for some latitude in the judgment of the tech inspectors who sign off annual inspections based on experience as well as engineering.

I am not saying that all cages currently logbooked are ideal. Certainly some are less than, but I would give some credibility to the inspectors to determine what is/is not based on 'guidelines' rather than 'absolutes.' They have every interest in seeing folks back year after year as repeat customers and if safety is suspect, I can't imagine that they would not 'do the right thing' and require an update to the cage.

On the other hand....

There are certainly cages out there that do not meet the 'letter' of the rule, but certainly meet the 'intent' and given the concern voiced for cost issues, should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Again, you have selected these inspectors based on their knowledge and experience. Use them as the valuable resource they are and give them some latitude in judgment.

One final thought....

Historic class: Do whatever it takes to get LARGE fields of historic cars out in the woods. It was FANTASTIC to see the Cortina at DooWops and I would LOVE to seem some more 'vintage' cars like MKI and MkII Escorts and old 510's etc.

Respectfully submitted,
Matt Manspeaker
Seattle, WA USA
89 323GTX - Open #291
97 Escort Cosworth - under construction

 

[JohnLane]

Love notes to my friends on the PRB.

I do consider all you folks on the PRB to be friends after all, and know that all of youse guys lurk here.
Please give a moment's thought to these....

If the GOAL of the rules is to create an FIA style arrangement, then just DO that and leave our relatively low budget 'Open' class as it is.

If the Manufacturer's cabal wants whatever, give them a place to spend their gobs of money that they want to, and be ready to make that go away when the manufacturers have 'Met their marketing goals' as we have all seen too many times. To those of us too thick to understand that last one: Once the manufacturers tire of burning lots of money on rally, they turn the switch. No more big bucks being spend by them. This has happened in the past, and will again.

What is it that we are trying to create with each of these proposed rules changes, and will they really achieve the stated goal?

I fail to see the problem we are going after with these solutions.

I do believe that each of my co-drivers whom have had the dubious distinction of riding in the seat of terror when I have wadded my car up into a little ball as well as myself can attest to the basic goodness of the rollcage in my car, yet I am required to add in more metal to fix what problem with my cage? I am rather fond of the design of my cage as is wherein it is very able to dissapate large loads (like when the dumb driver thinks it would be really cute to remove a stump--true story---with the passenger side door) and DEFORM, absorbing a LOT of energy rather then having my strapped in body have to absorb all that energy. That one happened at 85mph or so. We ended up on the roof, and the worst of any injuries was a small flesh wound on my hand. HORRORS!!! Oh--Then we got drunk.
If the goal is safety, then require that DNF-ed teams not get all sh*tty drunk on Saturday night and injure themselves on the way back up the stairs as they try in vain to make it back to the Hotel room, only to redecorate the loo. Just think....The penalty could be EXCLUSION from the event that the team just DNF-ed in. Oh--on second thought, don't do that. Those parties make for some of my fondest memories in rally. Remember....A DNF just means that we get to party sooner, and then punish the other teams by making them have to see a row of bottoms out on the stage somewhere. They never get to know where ahead of time. Whatever we do, we must not require that teams who have not yet dnf-ed not drink. Part of the fun for a lot of folks (you know who you are!!) is seeing just how fast they can drive with a hangover.
I am acutely aware of the risks involved in my favorite pasttime, and see no need to be nannied with poorly thought out rules.
This is not to say that a number of rollcages out there are not in need of a major rethink; but those rollcages which are unsafe should be called what they are and be made to be replaced with a safe design.

As for the restrictor stuff.....Why? More expense for more torque at lower revs. Torque multiplication in the engine to blow up more gearboxes rather then torque multlipication at the differentials. If it has not slowed down the WRC cars, then if that is the stated goal, why? Why do we need to be going slower? Where is the evidence that we are going sooo stink fast that we are needing to be slowed down? I built my stoopid fast car that beats all "The Stars" on the straightaways because it makes me giggle to GO FAST. I like to GO FAST on logging roads. I rally because it makes me giggle. Most all of the rest of us rally because it makes us giggle. If you guys want to make a change, make one that will make us go FASTER for LESS DOUGH. I'm not going to do the 4X4 thing in the forseeable future, but am tickled that I can beat those guys on straights with their 40mm restrictors. I want those guys to at least have a CHANCE at beating me. Heehee. But first I have to finish. Doh!!

Flame away!!

John Lane
Viva Le Pro Le Ralliat

 

[RobBohn]

RE: Love notes to my friends on the PRB.

A little sidenote regarding:

>> Rule #6 - Exclusion for not leaving a control within 20 seconds

Mike Hurst and I have had problems on snow and ice rallies - too much horsepower with too little traction; I had to get out and push us from the start one year at Sno*Drift AFTER WE HAD BEEN STARTED!

Leave it as it is; slow starts are self-penalizing anyway...

And, the start is technically still in the control-zone, so if you work on the car then you're disqualified anyway...

 

[Bjorn240]

RE: Love notes to my friends on the PRB.

>A little sidenote regarding:
>
>>> Rule #6 - Exclusion for not leaving a control within 20 seconds
>
>Leave it as it is; slow starts are self-penalizing anyway...
>
>And, the start is technically still in the control-zone, so
>if you work on the car then you're disqualified anyway...

RESPONDING AS A CO-DRIVER, NOT A PRB MEMBER!

Think about the following scenario:

Last race of the season. 15 mile stage before service. Then two stages and finish.

Car 1 has a 4 minute lead and Car 2 is his biggest rival. Car 3 is Car 1's teammate, and out of championship contention.

Car 1 has a driveline problem and cannot leave the start area under his own power. He pushes the car 10 feet out of the start area. Car 1 started at 12:00.

So, Car 2 starts on 01.

Car 3 pulls into the Start area on 02. Pulls up to Car 1, hooks on, and proceeds to tow Car 1 through the entire stage and to service, creating a hazard for himself, Car 1, and any cars behind needing to pass.

Currently, no rule prevents this from happening. So, if it does happen, the steward has little to no recourse to correct it. This is clearly a big loophole waiting to be exploited.

The above rule suggestion and eliminates the possibility of the above. If you can think of a better way to handle this, you should contact the PRB.

- Christian

Bjorn Christian Edstrom
Co-Driver

JUST MY CO-DRIVERLY THOUGHTS

 

[Bjorn240]

RESPONDING AS A COMPETITOR, NOT A PRB MEMBER.

Hi Brian,

I think you need to read the rules _suggestions_ a little more.

Let's review.

>Who changes more than two transmissions? PRODRIVE Subaru

Right. The rules suggestion would limit teams to swapping only one transmission per event. Basically, it limits all competitors to one tranny in the car, and one spare. I certainly don't think Prodrive (or any manufacturer) is in favor of this one. The current rules allow unlimited spares swapping.

>Who has been screaming to get a 34mm restrictor to help
>there transmissions live? PRODRIVE Subaru

Yup. And I believe that SCCA Risk Mgmt thinks this will slow down the cars, and increase safety. But certainly, reasonable people can disagree on whether this is a positive step.

>Who has unobtainium built sequential transmissions on the
>shelf? PRODRIVE

If you read the rule _suggestion_ carefully, you'll note that it applies only to mechanically actuated transmissions (no electro-mechanical, no hydraulic, pneumatic etc.) A current WRC gearbox could not compete under these rules.

This rule was requested by a current Gr.2 competitor who wants to build a non-Subaru, non-Mitsubishi Open Class Car, and for whom a fully mechanical sequential transmission is the cheapest option. Basically Sadev, Xtrac, and Hewland build pretty cheap off-the-rack 5 and 6sp sequential trannies. But H-pattern trannies for anything but a Sub or Mitsu is a custom build and $80,000+.

>Who has WRC built engines made out of unobtainable
>components? Oh, that would be PRODRIVE, again.

It is also my impression that the manufacturers would benefit from 34mm restrictors, as they have readily-developed engines to suit.

>Seems pretty clear to me who's driving the bus.

Ok, but who's co-driving? Of the rules suggestions you've cited, only the 34mm one seems to benefit the manufacturers. The sequential tranny suggestion would have no effect, and the spares limitation would be a detriment to manufacturer teams.

And lastly, keep in mind that these are all suggestions. Your input is being solicited by the PRB.

>Brian

- Christian

RESPONDING AS A COMPETITOR, NOT A PRB MEMBER.

Bjorn Christian Edstrom
Co-Driver

 

[daphne]

RE: Love notes to my friends on the PRB.

Christian -

Two years ago I raised a similar issue after Noel Lawler's car was pushed over the start line so he could collect his 2 starting points. (Note that the issues in that case were more widespread because there is no way Noel's car could have passed the sound check at tech, as his car would not start at all during the 24 hours prior to the start of the rally, but that's a different issue...)

The proposed rule change is, unfortunately, still swiss cheese. I remember that at that same SnoDrift, Brian Vinson was driving Ralph's old Supra. With no traction it must have taken him 30 seconds to get out of the control zone. Now, he finally got going, but by your new rule, he would have been excluded. And please don't say that there are exceptions to every rule, because that's what gets you guys into trouble all the time.

Bacl to my point...2 years ago John McArthur challenged me to come up with a rule that would prevent someone from pushing their car across the start line for points. I proposed the following...that a car had to cross enter and exit a control zone on their own power. Not pushed, pulled, airlifted or anything else. No time limit either.

Would that not suffice in addressing your concern?

 

[Adrian Wintle]

RE: Love notes to my friends on the PRB.

>Christian -

>The proposed rule change is, unfortunately, still swiss
>cheese. I remember that at that same SnoDrift, Brian Vinson
>was driving Ralph's old Supra. With no traction it must
>have taken him 30 seconds to get out of the control zone.

We also had this situation at Sno*Drift 3 years ago (in a Jetta with an open diff). All the starts were uphill (or felt like it). On one particular stage start we put a mile on the odo and had to roll back about 2 car-lengths before we got sufficient traction to cross the start line - under this rule we would have been excluded because it sure took more than 20 seconds.

I've also been in a situation where the car has died completely on the startline. We were (correctly) DNF at that point, because we couldn't push the car out of the zone (uphill to the end-of-control-zone board) and we couldn't work on it in the zone.

Adrian

 

[saywhat]

silly rules?

>
>Think about the following scenario:
>
>Last race of the season. 15 mile stage before service.
>Then two stages and finish.
>
>Car 1 has a 4 minute lead and Car 2 is his biggest rival.
>Car 3 is Car 1's teammate, and out of championship
>contention.
>
>Car 1 has a driveline problem and cannot leave the start
>area under his own power. He pushes the car 10 feet out of
>the start area. Car 1 started at 12:00.
>
>So, Car 2 starts on 01.
>
>Car 3 pulls into the Start area on 02. Pulls up to Car 1,
>hooks on, and proceeds to tow Car 1 through the entire stage
>and to service, creating a hazard for himself, Car 1, and
>any cars behind needing to pass.
>
>Currently, no rule prevents this from happening. So, if it
>does happen, the steward has little to no recourse to
>correct it. This is clearly a big loophole waiting to be
>exploited.
>
>The above rule suggestion and eliminates the possibility of
>the above. If you can think of a better way to handle this,
>you should contact the PRB.
>
>- Christian
>
>Bjorn Christian Edstrom
>Co-Driver
>
>JUST MY CO-DRIVERLY THOUGHTS

Should we make a rule that requires a stricken car to let a faster car pass? Correct me if I'm wrong but did not Noel Lawler break the drive shaft on his car at the start of the last stage in the OFPR several years ago? It seems to me that the time difference was 1 minute between 1st (Noel) and 2nd place-all 2nd had to do was pass 1st and the win would change. Problem was that dust was very heavy and the 2nd place car could not see to get close enough to pass-regardless of how slow the 1st place car was. Noel won!
I think I would have to see how the last 2 stages played out to consider such a rule.

20 seconds or DNF is not acceptable-certainly not sporting!

 

[Bjorn240]

RE: silly rules?

> 20 seconds or DNF is not acceptable-certainly not
>sporting!

Hi Sean,

Ok, what about Daphne's proposed rule:

"All cars must enter, cross, and exit ATC/Start control zone under their own power, under penalty of exclusion."

Two questions:

1. Should that apply to FTCs and MTCs, too?
2. What do you propose happens when a car has been sloshing around at the start line for 1.15, holding up the car behind.

(That's the reason for the 20 second suggestion -- 20 seconds to start, 40 seconds to remove the stricken car, and maintain the given schedule.)

- Christian

Bjorn Christian Edstrom
Co-Driver

 

[John Vanlandingham]

RE: silly rules?

Hejsan Cow-drivar'n Edstrump,

Keeping on schedule is admirable but laying the entire financial penaltiy on the crews who might be delaying things a tiny bit is a bit harsh, especially since there can be many ways delays can be caused and not all are driver related.

What happens to say organisers who may do something which causes a delay of a whole minute?

What about say.........a Pro Rally Director who may thru meddling causes a delay, say in the results for a couple of months for a Championship final? do you exclude that particular PRD?

The person who has payed an entry fee should be given every opportunity to get their result, and trashing the entry fee and the prepation work and the getting to the event and motel expenses etc really isn't a lot to the target market of independantly wealthy participants, but it's just not fair that drivers can loose their entry for the chance of a delay, but delays from all other sources and causes are, seemingly, OK. And un penalized.

In the example given about first place guy POTENTIALLY blocking the second place guy, er has there been a chage to the freebie 2 minute window for only the hired guns?
Va säger du nu då?

And the talk about cars lacking grip on glare ice taking silly time to get underway, that must have been nail baitingly exciting to watch!

Jeeeez, open the rules to allow studs within the SCCA rules, leaving the use to the state legislatures or the possibliity of dispensations from the counties for temporary use only in conjuction with the single event inplaces where it is prohibited by law.



John "jag heter Jon o ja ha int' gjort nåt!" Faaanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

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

 

[daphne]

RE: silly rules?

I have video of said traction-challenged rally car at Sno*Drift. Exciting stuff, for sure.

I'll sell it to you for...let me see.....one miillllliiiooonnnn dollars! ;-)

To Christian's points:
MTCs and ATCs are technically control zones, so the rule should still apply.

No question there needs to be some sort of time limit imposed. You certainly can't have someone sitting there trying to restart a car for 10 minutes. (Think of all the poor codrivers at the back of the pack who would be forced to jog to the control because of blockage!)

So, my question is, taking into consideration rally operations, safety, and fairness to competitors, what time limit is reasonable?

 

[Flyboy]

>
>This rule was requested by a current Gr.2 competitor who
>wants to build a non-Subaru, non-Mitsubishi Open Class Car,
>and for whom a fully mechanical sequential transmission is
>the cheapest option. Basically Sadev, Xtrac, and Hewland
>build pretty cheap off-the-rack 5 and 6sp sequential
>trannies. But H-pattern trannies for anything but a Sub or
>Mitsu is a custom build and $80,000+.
>
>
>Bjorn Christian Edstrom
>Co-Driver

Christian, do you have links or some more info on these supposedly "$3000" sequential transmissions (a $$ number I got from Doug Robinson), especially for the most popular cars, Scoobies and Mitsus? I've looked around, and can't find anything. Quite honestly, I'm VERY skepitcal, especially since a decent H-pattern dog box is in the $6-$10k range. Please prove me wrong, as I'd love nothing more than an inexpensive sequential box in the Lancer. Just think of how badly women would want us if we all had sequential trannies....

Dennis Martin
[email protected]
920-432-4845

 

[MattLovell]

Everyone is always so negitive...

Nobody has yet mentioned the fact that the "Mandatory series sponsor" decals also now come with contingency (at least from Sonoco and Valvoline, I dont know whats up with Hawk and Fram)

Hasn't this been a major gripe for a couple of years?

 

[Bjorn240]

>
>Christian, do you have links or some more info on these
>supposedly "$3000" sequential transmissions (a $$ number I
>got from Doug Robinson), especially for the most popular
>cars, Scoobies and Mitsus? I've looked around, and can't
>find anything. Quite honestly, I'm VERY skepitcal,
>especially since a decent H-pattern dog box is in the
>$6-$10k range. Please prove me wrong, as I'd love nothing
>more than an inexpensive sequential box in the Lancer. Just
>think of how badly women would want us if we all had
>sequential trannies....

This request came from a competitor who would like to build a non-Subaru, non-Mitsubishi, Open Class car, and who provided the PRB with a very detailed analysis of the prices available to him for gearboxes, both H pattern and Sequential.

I'm not planning to provide all that info here, as I'm not sure he'd want me to, but you should look at Tractive (Sweden) and Sadev (France). These sequential boxes are far cheaper than Xtrac and Hewland. But they're not $3000 (which is a number I've never heard).

I don't know if either of these boxes would work in a Lancer, but I have no reason to think they wouldn't.

BTW, before you start thinking about sequential gearboxes, you should send me a check for my flight to 100AW last year. ;-)

- Christian

Bjorn Christian Edstrom
Co-Driver