Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
665 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
There's enough talk that I think it's clear some modification of the class structure is in order. Please comment - but not about my mother...:*

Production

Preamble: I've never liked the idea of merging the lower N classes with the lower P classes due to the unfairness of modified cars running with showroom stock cars. No, the N1/2/3 mods are not out of this world, but the LSD and gear ratio mods are significant for low powered cars. I agree that we need to eliminate some classes. So I propose a slight change to the production rules to facilitate the merge. Specifically - all current P class cars may run any LSD and any gearbox ratios and final drive. (and half the Golfs come running home...)

New Classes:
(all displacements adjusted)

Prod'A' (was P1 & P2)
0 to 1600cc
for non-homologated cars: free gearboxes, final drive & LSD
homologated N1 & N2 cars allowed
no forced induction/rotaries
no displacement adjustments.

Prod'B' (was P3)
1601 to 2000cc
for non-homologated cars: free gearboxes, final drive & LSD
homologated N3 cars allowed
no forced induction/rotaries
no displacement adjustments.

Prod'C' (never was)
2001 to 2500cc 2WD ONLY
free gearboxes, final drive & LSD
no displacement adjustments EXCEPT: forced induction 1.25

Prod'D' (was P4)
2001 to 2500cc
no displacement adjustments EXCEPT: forced induction 1.25

Group 2

Preamble: if it's true that you can't put more than 200hp to the ground thru two wheels (I don't actually believe this - but hey) then let's lose the multipliers and up the actual displacement limit to 2500cc - all rotaries allowed. This opens the class to a myriad of interesting cars and looks to the future given that todays compacts (Focus, Neon, all the Nissans, etc etc.) are multivalve and over 2000cc.

Proposal:
2WD only
increase displacement limit to 2500cc
remove all multipliers
no forced induction

Group 5

Preamble: I don't necessarily believe this class is required. Apparently it will attract more competitors (rather than water-down the numbers we have running now). So I say why not? Let's try it.

Proposal:
Copy the SCCA regs for G5 and see who shows up.

Group N4, Open
Leave them alone.

Robin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
935 Posts
RE: Dodge? Omni-bus Class

>Production
>
>Preamble: I've never liked the idea of merging the lower N
>classes with the lower P classes due to the unfairness of
>modified cars running with showroom stock cars. No, the
>N1/2/3 mods are not out of this world, but the LSD and gear
>ratio mods are significant for low powered cars. I agree
>that we need to eliminate some classes. So I propose a
>slight change to the production rules to facilitate the
>merge. Specifically - all current P class cars may run any
>LSD and any gearbox ratios and final drive. (and half the
>Golfs come running home...)

I don't know how many people would run back, but these would certainly help to increase the competition within the P-Classes, which sounds good to me.

>Group 2
>
>Preamble: if it's true that you can't put more than 200hp
>to the ground thru two wheels (I don't actually believe this
>- but hey) then let's lose the multipliers and up the actual
>displacement limit to 2500cc - all rotaries allowed. This
>opens the class to a myriad of interesting cars and looks to
>the future given that todays compacts (Focus, Neon, all the
>Nissans, etc etc.) are multivalve and over 2000cc.

I'd say you could put more than 200hp down, some times, but on the whole the big draw of group 2 in my eyes is the free modification and strengthening of other components, since the vast majority of NA production cars are not made of showroom bits which will stand up to rocks if driven with no regard. And these suggestions only stand to increase competition, so i'd say all good. If enough people show up, almost worth forgetting about grp5.... :eek:

>Group 5
>
>Preamble: I don't necessarily believe this class is
>required. Apparently it will attract more competitors
>(rather than water-down the numbers we have running now).
>So I say why not? Let's try it.
>
>Proposal:
>Copy the SCCA regs for G5 and see who shows up.

I think there could be a draw for this one. Same good formula as grp2 (Which has been shown succcessful), just for forced induction/big motors, which is another fun trend in modern automobiles as you pointed out. Just don't expect 50 people to show up on year 1...give us a bit of a lead to build the new cars!

>Group N4, Open
>Leave them alone.

Why mess with a good thing?

They all look good to me, but I'm not one for the lawyer-ing and nice wording. WHat am i missing?
 

·
straight at T
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
>Production
>
>Preamble: I've never liked the idea of merging the lower N
>classes with the lower P classes due to the unfairness of
>modified cars running with showroom stock cars. No, the
>N1/2/3 mods are not out of this world, but the LSD and gear
>ratio mods are significant for low powered cars. I agree
>that we need to eliminate some classes. So I propose a
>slight change to the production rules to facilitate the
>merge. Specifically - all current P class cars may run any
>LSD and any gearbox ratios and final drive. (and half the
>Golfs come running home...)

Of the N3 papers I've looked at, I don't believe any of them homologated different gear ratios (these are for cars that are nominally available in NA). I don't believe that we need to open up the gearbox/final drive rules, except to allow a LSD. Perhaps N1/2/3 cars could be allowed to run in the equivalent P class, but not for points...


>New Classes:
>(all displacements adjusted)
>
>Prod'C' (never was)
>2001 to 2500cc 2WD ONLY
>free gearboxes, final drive & LSD
>no displacement adjustments EXCEPT: forced induction 1.25

So a Dodge SRT-4 is illegal for this class?

>Prod'D' (was P4)
>2001 to 2500cc
>no displacement adjustments EXCEPT: forced induction 1.25

So a Subaru Impreza STi is illegal for this class?

Adrian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
Adrian;
The problem could be fixed by saying 2000+ raw displacement (max. 3000 for 2 valves, 2500 for 3+ valves) for both Prod C and D classes, and keep the induction multiplier in effect for all Prod classes.

Robin;
You need to leave forced induction in all Prod classes. Right now, there's a P1 car with a turbo (can't think of it - a Sprint, or Justy or something). And I'm sure as soon as we say Prod B no forced induction, some manufacturer will come out with one. Cars under 2000 with forced induction have to have a class somewhere.

I think the multiplier for forced induction needs to be a little higher than 1.25. Especially in the mountains, forced induction adds a lot more than 25% increase in horsepower. Somewhere around 1.5-1.7, I would say.

I think, Robin, that your proposal is much better than my Group 5 proposal. This is far more encompassing and necessary than just adding the Group 5 class to the current mix. It fixes a lot more problems.

Mind you, I don't think CARS has caused any problems. It's just that the new cars coming out don't meet the old classes, so it's time for new ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
665 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
>Of the N3 papers I've looked at, I don't believe any of them
>homologated different gear ratios (these are for cars that
>are nominally available in NA). I don't believe that we need
>to open up the gearbox/final drive rules, except to allow a
>LSD. Perhaps N1/2/3 cars could be allowed to run in the
>equivalent P class, but not for points...

You're right (of course) about the gearbox ratios, I was mislead by the fact that VW Motorsport offers gears for sale in their Group N catalogues - but these appear to be the stock ratios - and looking at the Homologation papers confirms that only the stock ratios are allowed. There are, however, N3 cars running around with dog boxes in them...

As far as final drive - VW offers two options in the VOs to the Golf 4, TDI & TDI GT papers - I believe this is common to the Renaults, Hondas etc - therefore I propose to change the proposal:

LSD's allowed, final drive ratio free.


>
>
>>New Classes:
>>(all displacements adjusted)
>>
>>Prod'C' (never was)
>>2001 to 2500cc 2WD ONLY
>>free gearboxes, final drive & LSD
>>no displacement adjustments EXCEPT: forced induction 1.25
>
>So a Dodge SRT-4 is illegal for this class?

>
>>Prod'D' (was P4)
>>2001 to 2500cc
>>no displacement adjustments EXCEPT: forced induction 1.25
>
>So a Subaru Impreza STi is illegal for this class?

Whoops - displacement limit should be "over 2000cc" in both cases although I shudder to think of an STi in P4

Details, details - if the will is there, I say let's not bog down.
;)

Robin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Hi guys,

You guys are trying to do too many changes and that will lead to nothing, keep focused in the G5 class you where requesting.... you not only want to find a way to fit Prod. car over 2 liters in a some 2WD class , now you want to re-arange the whole class structure in Canada???.... have you thought of the negative impact it would have if we have a whole new bunch of classes here which do not match the SCCA?... Prod.A, Prod.B, etc... for those who are new around here or have a short memory, we used to have those exact names back in the 70s and 80s... and we changed them for a reason

And what is it with people wanting to make Production cars more modified anyway?, the whole Philosophy of the Production classes from day one was to keep production cars production by not allowing things that were not available from a dealer.

If VW does not offer LSDs for the Golf well, too bad, Golfs have other advantages, otherwise what is next? should we allow P3 cars over 2500lb to be stripped because they have a weight disadvantage? my Celica would certainly be a candidate for that since it tips the scales at nearly 2700lbs with NO crew in it... yes 2700lb a whole almost 500lbs more than a Golf!!!... and with an engine that has no torque.
This past weekend Steve Walkington drove the car and in his own words said " Jorge, the car is a dog!!" he thought I was short shifting it on an uphill when I was redlining it!!"

If people want to start modifiying Golfs why dont they run in G2?...
VW people like Steve Walkington has shown everyone that you don't need more equipment, you just need to learn how to drive what you have.

Golfs, and it's cousing the Scirocco, already have dominated the P3 and G2 classes for the last several years (other than 2003 when a Neon won P3 by a one second margin) that is because VWs are light, handle well and have engines that deliver good torque at lower rpms. The only draw back Golfs have if any is that VW does not offer a LSD for it.
I fail to see the reason why would you put a rule that would benefit even further a car that already dominates a class.

On the other hand, (and back to the original topick) If you want to get a class for cars with displacements larger than G2 cars the fastest and simplest way to convince CARS would be to propose the G5 class specs as it is written in the SCCA book and argue that for reasons of comapatibility we should also have that class available in Canada since so many new cars fit in it... but trying to restructure most P classes in Canada alone is short sighted and a waste of time
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Just to add food for thought, here is the grouping structure used here in Barbados.

GROUP P - PRODUCTION
CLASS 1. Less than 100 BHP/Tonne
CLASS 2. 100 BHP/Tonne to less than 120 BHP/Tonne
CLASS 3. 120 BHP/Tonne to less than 140 BHP/Tonne
CLASS 4. All 4WD cars
Pressure-charged engine factor: 1.7 with 32mm restrictor

GROUP M ? MODIFIED 2 & 3 v/cyl 4 & 4+ vlv/cyl
CLASS 5. 0 - 1400cc 750kg 840Kg
CLASS 6. 1401- 1600cc 840kg 920Kg
CLASS 7. 1601- 2000cc 920kg 1,000Kg
CLASS 8. 2000- 3500cc & 4WD 1,230kg 1,230kg
CLASS 9. 2000- 3500cc & 4WD 1,230kg 1,230kg
Pressure-charged engine factor: 1.7 with 34mm restrictor

GROUP S ? SUPER MODIFIED
- For a conventional 2 valve engine less than 3000cc - 0.85lb/cc
- For a conventional multi-valve engine less than 3000cc ? 1.0lb/cc
- For all engines over 3000cc ? 0.9lb/cc
- For a motorcycle engine ? 1.15lb/cc
- 12A rotary engine 2,292 lbs.(2072/940)
- 13B rotary engine 2,608 lbs(2248/1020)
- Minimum weight: 1,300lbs
Pressure charged engine factor: 1.5



Production class currently is only has P4 (N4) cars and P3 Cars running, P3 has a couple of turbo starlets and a new mini cooper S. However a couple of turbo charades and a starlet are supposed to be out soon in P2.

Group S is the biggest group, with some interesting cars, a Mk1 escort with a BMW engine, a Westfield, and a BMW M3 amongst the mix.
 

·
straight at T
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
Jorge;

One of the reasons that we want to rationalize the Production classes is that one of the arguments against Group 5 is that we have too many classes already. Allowing a LSD in P1/2/3 (it is already allowed in P4) would remove the major performance difference between SCCA P and CARS P classes, allowing them to copete on an even footing. I agree with your sentiments about other modifications.

What Robin's proposal does is rationalize P1 and P2 into one class (call it P1600 if you like), leave P3 alone (Production Sport) and split P4 into two to allow for the current trend of putting engines larger than 2L in sporty 2wd cars (i.e. potential rally cars). I personally don't see a problem with putting the lower N classes in with Production (N1/2/P1/2 being one class and N3/P3 being another), but other people seem to be adamantly against it, mainly for the reason Robin mentioned.

It would reduce the current 10 classes to 8 while including cars that would otherwise not be competetive in a current class.

Adrian
 

·
Four tree two remember Andrew
Joined
·
1,632 Posts
>Robin;
>You need to leave forced induction in all Prod classes.
>Right now, there's a P1 car with a turbo (can't think of it
>- a Sprint, or Justy or something). And I'm sure as soon as
>we say Prod B no forced induction, some manufacturer will
>come out with one. Cars under 2000 with forced induction
>have to have a class somewhere.

You've almost got that with the Echo Hatchback (aka Vitz/Yaris). There is a TRD available turbo or supercharger for the 1.5 liter engine, and that comes standard on some models in other countries.

Plus of course, there is a whole gamut of TRD products for the car for rallying, including suspension, diff, etc. I'm suprised no one is running one yet.

Wilson
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
665 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
>Hi guys,
>
>You guys are trying to do too many changes and that will
>lead to nothing, keep focused in the G5 class you where
>requesting.... you not only want to find a way to fit Prod.
>car over 2 liters in a some 2WD class , now you want to
>re-arange the whole class structure in Canada???....

Hi Jorge,

It would be an overstatement to say that this amounts to re-arranging the whole class structure. The P/N, P1/P2 amalgamation was already mentioned in the 2003 rule book (and either will go ahead or won't - a point I'm not actually clear on) - this discussion has been ongoing over the last two to three years.

I consider the amalgamation to be unfair given the level of modification allowed in Group N cars - to which people responded either:

1) that the modifications are marginal for GN cars or
2) that no N1/2/3 cars will ever show up anyway

Because I agree that we need fewer classes, I proposed only a slight change: allow P class cars similar modifications to those allowed for N class - then we can amalgamate them (Adrian also points out that we'd be closer to SCCA regs for Production at the same time as we are closer to FIA regs). The Prod A,B,C nomenclature was proposed by Adrian and so I used it - I don't particularly care what the classes are called - maybe we can call them N1/2/3 and draw a distinction between "nationally homologated" cars and FIA cars - whatever.

>you thought of the negative impact it would have if we have
>a whole new bunch of classes here which do not match the
>SCCA?... Prod.A, Prod.B, etc...

They don't match now.

>
>And what is it with people wanting to make Production cars
>more modified anyway?

To be clear: I don't. Others want this amalgamation and I proposed this as a compromise.


>Golfs, and it's cousing the Scirocco, already have dominated
>the P3 and G2 classes for the last several years (other than
>2003 when a Neon won P3 by a one second margin) that is
>because VWs are light, handle well and have engines that
>deliver good torque at lower rpms. The only draw back Golfs
>have if any is that VW does not offer a LSD for it.

But the Group N3 Golf (3 or 4) does have a proper plate LSD - and has a choice of two or three different final drives - The VO for either car would be very easy to implement on a current P3 Golf - then it would be an N3 Golf - which, according to the current amalgamation rule would be a P3 Golf (same easy conversion applies to the Focus, the Honda Civic Si...) - and there you go - there is no N3 Neon, there is no N3 Sentra/NX2000/Scirocco/Celica/Beetle...

>but trying to restructure most P
>classes in Canada alone is short sighted and a waste of time

As I said - apart from the addition of the 2WD P4 - or whatever you want to call it - what I wrote reflects what is already written in the 2003 rule book.

Robin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
Adrian and Robin are correct that we have wanted to rationalize the class structure for the last two years, and in some respects align more with the US.

Also I've had the personal bugaboo that we need to have classes to allow blown and high-displacement 2WD cars to be competitive, in both production (Prod C) and modified (Gp5) trim. People have said "wait until someone builds an SRT-4" but I think that's wrong as no-one in their right mind would build one if they have to run in P4 or Open and go up against WRXs at every event.

LSDs are becoming more common in better FWD cars, and cars left without them are less competitive. Also, have you ever driven a FWD low-power rally car with an open diff? It's frustrating trying to get the power down.

So, essentially, I favour

1. Robin's suggestions with Adrian's suggested edits (no max adjusted displacement in Prod C or D) and no ratio changes in Production

2. I would also favour not allowing dogboxes in any production class.

3. Also I think little blown cars should be allowed in the smaller displacement classes but pushed up with a multiplier (I'm thinking 1.25 to keep a 1.1 or 1.2 turbo in Prod A (1600), make a 1.6 turbo the upper edge of Prod B (2L), and so any turbo 1601cc and up is in Prod C (over 2L), which seems ballpark to me).

4. Lastly, I think a 12A (1146cc) rotary in production trim should be in the 1.6 (Prod A) class, so allow rotaries in production with a 1.3 multiplier (which would push the 13B (1308cc) into the 2L class, a 13B turbo into the over 2L class, but leave the 12A in the 1.6L class - remember, no bridge porting or anything). I say this as the owner and flogger of a number of RX7s of different spec and this seems right to me. Maybe a case can be made for pushing the 12A to Prod B...

The main guys I can see being upset are the cadre of Justys having to run against Corollas (and with my suggestion, Gen1 RX7s) in Prod A, but for what it's worth (and having seen J-M Alcaraz drive a Justy) I don't think that's manifestly unfair, and they've seen this coming for over a year.

Also a 1.8L non-turbo Subaru AWD runs in Prod B, right? Anyone got a problem with that? I'm ambivalent.

Can anyone see a ringer car with this classification?


Here's what I see (stars by my picks as strongest):

Prod A (to 1600cc):
Justys, Swifts/Fireflies (including the 1.0L turbo), VW Scirocco (early) and Rabbits, *AE86 Corollas*, CRX Si, any RX with the 12A (2,3, Gen 1 RX7), Ladas, 323FWD, early N/A US Escort, Cortina... looks pretty level to me.

Prod B (to 2000cc): Normally-aspirated Gen2 RX7, Neons, all Golfs and later Scirocco, *N/A non-RS Impreza AWD*, Sentra S-ER, NX2000, later US Escorts including the 1.6 turbo, Focus (including *new SVT*), Matrix, N/A Saabs... still a great class and FWD can beat the one AWD I see.

Prod C (over 2000cc 2wd): *Neon SRT-4*, Dodge Shadow ES (turbo), FWD Subaru Legacys (anyone?), turbo *Saab 99*/900, RX7 Turbo, big Amernican iron (Mustang, S10) ...this looks like FUN to me.

Prod D (over 2000cc AWD): WRX, Evo (legal for sale in North America), AWD Legacies both N/A and turbo, 2.5RS (sorry), 325ix (ditto), Galant VR4, Talons, 323GTX... the few non-turbos are at a disadvantage and we've talked about this.


So thinking about this and making this list has led me to think that the system looks good except for one thing: (donning Nomex) How about we run normally-aspirated AWD cars over 2000cc in Prod C? A Neon SRT-4 or a well-driven Saab turbo should be a match for a 2.5RS or a 325ix, don't you think? Easy enough to do: Prod C is for cars over 2000cc, and Prod D is for cars over 2000cc that are AWD and have forced induction.

Should keep the 2.5RS around a little longer, and in a class that no one is p/o'ed about yet. I can hear a few cheers in Subaru homes right now. Here's what it would look like:

Prod C (over 2000cc 2wd): *Neon SRT-4*, *2.5RS*, 325ix, N/A Legacy AWD, Dodge Shadow ES (turbo), turbo *Saab 99*/900, RX7 Turbo, big Amernican iron (Mustang, S10)...

Prod D (over 2000cc AWD): WRX, Evo (legal for sale in North America), Legacy turbo, Galant VR4, Talons, 323GTX... this makes sense now.

ACP
Flirting with the laws of physics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
the Justy guy have some reserve on this one...

the justy is seriously underpowered even compaire to Swift(specialy the Turbo one).......Mr JM Alcaraz is one of a kind crazygood driver...he would woop ass even on a vespa.

Im 100% to make new class to cars that dosent fit in the systeme we have(specialy new cars) in order to give a faire class to each team...and leave people built the car they want.

But...i dont think justy should be in the same class as 323, escort, accent, VW(exept the Lupo maybe?) or any of those HP monster cars LOL.

ad new class...Gr5, electric...what ever....its all cool...but please dont touch P1 P2 and P3...i think its just fine the way they are...it would just make more people look silly finishing after a justy LOL :+

anyway... i dont really care any more...i choose to built a new justy (for many reason its the only car i can afford to rally 100%)... i plan to have funn whit it for as long as possible and score point to a championship...thats all i ask.


Alain Lavoie
24Rallyteam
http://www.abikeonline.com/24rallyteam/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Ok, Andrew,

I know what you guys are trying to do, I don't disagree that something should be done with the N1,2,3 / P1,2,3 issue but wouldn't it be easier to just scrap the N1, N2 and N3 classes in Canada? after all is anyone running one of those cars here? if no one is, why don't we do it now while we are ahead of the game.
I know we instituted those classes some years ago when Charlevoix had some aspirations of becoming a WRC event and this was a way to help them achieve that... but lets face it, that is history, lets act acordingly and adjust things to a Canadian reality, which is no N cars (except for N4s)

What I was tryng to say earlier is that if you are going to do changes, do them within the existing classes, but if you are going to change the displacements and re-name all the classes can you pleeeeeease do it with some dialog with SCCA so that if we rename and readjust displacements we do it all together and at the same time on both sides of the border so that we don't end up with some series that look like the Road Racing series in North America where every region has different rules and it is a real nightmare to even trying to sell a car from one region to another.
 

·
R6 300 FOC!
Joined
·
1,513 Posts
Someone should really clarify to us Westerners that G2 doesn't stand for Golf (Mark) 2. }> I just picked up a Golf to start prepping, Chad is building a golf, Olsen, Machnik, Bottles, Noah Third, Penny Mellor... Group 2 is going to be a one-make series here soon! :p

W
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top