[Turbodad]

I've noticed that SCCA has a minimum 2700lb weight limit in Open class now. As I see it, there's generally only 2 ways to make a car faster, (not counting handling)add power or reduce weight. Horsepower is difficult to obtain cheaply, but shedding pounds can be done quickly and usually cheaply.
I'm just wondering where they came up with this number, as 2700 lbs seems pretty hefty to me (a Mitsu EVO weighs about 2500)
The Rule book say's Innovation is encouraged, but if they only leave one path to going fast, that's not terribly innovative.:'(

 

[Jon Bogert]

Innovation is encouraged!?!

Go ahead, I dare you: try something innovative that meets the letter of the current rules and makes you competitive with the folks who pay the bills. The PRB will make your innovation illegal faster than you can say "NASCAR!"

The minimum weight is a pre-emptive strike against a 2200 lb old-style Impreza or something similar.

I also happen to know of a rally hybrid being built right now that puts about 350HP in barely more than 2000 lbs.

 

[John Vanlandingham]

Turbodad.

the FIA has minimum weight rules based on corrected engine displacemnt. 2 liter turbo cars have currently a min of 1250kg.
SCCA probably chose the 2700lb from this. Are you sure that the Mistsu weights that little?

With turbocharged cars it seems as though more power is THE easiest thing, and lightening things has always seemed to me the most difficult and expensive way to go faster. The fastest way I know is to keep the foot on the gas for a bit longer, and THEN use the brakes harder.

I'm sure there are experts who will only be too happy to diagree.

Lighten away if you have the budget. Then ballast where you need it and make some strong components.

 

[Jerry Brownell]

True, an EVO may be 2500 lbs., but an EVO with a full roll cage and full rally prep will weigh quite a bit more without doing some serious lightening. This is where innovation comes in. If you can get that EVO back down to 2500 lbs., then you can ballast the car and put the weight where you WANT it to serve more as a handling benefit than a horsepower detrement.

Of course, I will never have that problem...

 

[John Vanos]

One thing that hasn't beeen mentioned about the rule is keeping costs down. If this rule wasn't there there would be carbon fibre everywhere! I think one intention of this rule was to keep it cheaper. Not every open class car can afford carbon fiber body panels right? That sound reasonable?

 

[Jon Bogert]

Think outside the box...

As I see it, this isn't about adding kevlar fenders to EVOs, it's more about truly innovative cars like the Fox and Impreza from Sakis' shop, and clever backyard hybrids using the ubiquitous and cheap DSM drivetrain. The orginal Libra Elantras were basically Mitsu/Hyundai hybrids.

This rule also makes a turbo four pretty much mandatory, since you'll need the power to pull the weight in Open. I'd love to see a tuned NA Subaru 2.5 in an ultra-lightened Impreza body. With a skinny team, I bet that car could run pretty high--certainly faster than the pseudo-Group N WRXs.

But that's not good marketing for the manufacturers, is it?

 

[Turbodad]

RE: Innovation is encouraged!?!

>Go ahead, I dare you: try something innovative that meets
>the letter of the current rules and makes you competitive
>with the folks who pay the bills. The PRB will make your
>innovation illegal faster than you can say "NASCAR!"
>
>The minimum weight is a pre-emptive strike against a 2200 lb
>old-style Impreza or something similar.
>
>I also happen to know of a rally hybrid being built right
>now that puts about 350HP in barely more than 2000 lbs.
Exactly my point, where do you put 700 lbs of lead;-)
By the way, this hybrid isn't in the Northwest is it?

 

[platypus]

RE: Think outside the box...

Purely from a technical standpoint, the 2700 pound rule is kinda mystifying. However, with almost everything involved with racing, there are the technical considerations, and then the overriding "agenda" type considerations. I have a wrx, but do I want the SCCA artificially hobbling the rest of the field so I can place high and feel real good about myself, and have all my buddies go out and buy Subarus or Evos? No way! But I sure can't think of a reason to have this sort of a weight limit unless the SCCA is trying to ensure that all Open class cars (that want to be competitive) are (basically) 2 liter turbo engines (and if they just happen to be in brand new Subaru or Mitsubishi cars, well great).

If the Evo and WRX are heavy cars, fine, then deal with the fact that you're driving a heavy, turbocharged car. Does everyone have to drive a heavy, turbocharged car? Sheesh, I didn't think this was NASCAR, where we have to have mechanical "parity" across the board.

- Neil

 

[joeg]

RE: Think outside the box...

Neil--It is not mystifying; it is math. As John V stated above, WRC cars run at that weight, albeit expressed in Kilos.

You really can't have light weight open class cars beating WRC machinery (which may come back to revisit us), even though that is what happened in the WRC when Peugeot and Citroen were running FWD Kit cars.

Cheers.

 

[Jon Bogert]

Why not?

"You really can't have light weight open class cars beating WRC machinery"

See, this is the myopic viewpoint that permeates the SCCA these days. Why can't AMERICAN open class cars be much faster, nastier and more fun to watch than the million dollar WRC cars? Why must we make our rules conform to their bureaucratic standards? The WRC rules were made by mega-bucks manufacturer teams and their lawyers. Given that the PRB has specifically expressed the opinion that computerized, active-everything WRC cars is NOT where we want to go, we shouldn't need pansy-assed horsepower limits and minimum weights either.

It's rumored that Rupert Murdoch actually commented that ProRally is boring compared to WRC driving. We can import a bunch or European drivers and cars and pretend that makes ProRally world class, but I think it makes much more sense to go the other way. You want sensational? How about Rod Millen driving up Pikes Peak in an 800HP AWD pickup truck?

We can allow FIA classes to run here, but we don't need to rig the rules to let them win!

 

[John Vanlandingham]

RE: Think outside the box...

>
>You really can't have light weight open class cars beating
>WRC machinery (which may come back to revisit us), even
>though that is what happened in the WRC when Peugeot and
>Citroen were running FWD Kit cars.
275bhp 2000cc 16v with 6 speed sequential (French being the innovators that they always have been), big ZF diff, nearly 500 lbs difference, and huge 14 inch discs, this was possible __only_ in the dry asphalt.

If we don't think too hard about the 1996 or '97 RAC with Stig 'Mästern' Blomqvist 3rd OA in a Skoda whose engine is none other than a VW 1600 8v. 'ÄÄÄÄh, de' var inget...' was the answer when I asked him what he thought about the result (Awwww, it weren't nuthin')


The wieght rule in and of itself can't control costs, the Oafishal Teams and rich playboys can do just what the WRC cars have done substituting exotic materials in some places to save weight, and putting it back in in truly massive drive line parts. Anybody ever bother to look at the size of the uprights, and CVs and rear diff on the baddest Sub-rats? Massive stuff letting them bang into stuff with complete impunity, stuff which would break off major parts of the normal crap that's OEM.
Perhaps if the rule could maybe be adjusted so as to read TURBO _4wd_ Open Class Cars shall weigh min. 2750lbs.
This might be accomplished if the rules making process allowed membership review and approval, which of course it doesn't.

Wonder why?

(Anything preventing a car with 2wd to enter as an OPEN class car?)


BTW, the Metro 6R4 was concieved to take advantage of the corrected displacement/min weight rule. It was _3.0_ liter so it was lighter than all the other GpB cars which were in the NEXT higher min weight catagory because of their turbo coeff. factor.
As we all know who watch them they looked wicked, and sounded like real nasty race cars, wicked!
But turbos make TORQUE, and they were kicked and stomped with steel boots.
If the idea flopped as a factory effort, why would a 2.5RS be viable against 2.0 turbos, only 500cc difference?





>
>Cheers.

John Vanlandingham

 

[Jon Bogert]

RE: Think outside the box...

John, I'm not saying a car like that would win, but it might be top-10 or top-5 competitive. Look at Jon Nichols Golf: <2200lbs + strong NA motor (+ great driver, of course) and he's running near the top overall. Add AWD to that formula and you'd get a good result.

But we'll never know, will we?

For me, half the fun of motorsport is seeing different cars go head to head. Jon Nichols Golf vs Frank Sprongls Audi vs Hybrid Hyundais vs Eclipses running so much boost the hood is glowing! You get driver vs driver and car vs car. Not EVO vs WRX vs EVO vs WRX. I can't even tell who's driving what anymore--everything is the same. :-(

 

[Kartwheel]

RE: Think outside the box...

>(Anything preventing a car with 2wd to enter as an OPEN
>class car?)

I dont see anything in the rules that expressly prohibits 2WD cars in open.

 

[Dave Kean]

RE: Think outside the box... and mostly OT

>(Anything preventing a car with 2wd to enter as an OPEN
>class car?)
>
>
>BTW, the Metro 6R4 was concieved ... Blah blah blah

>If the idea flopped as a factory effort, why would a 2.5RS
>be viable against 2.0 turbos, only 500cc difference?
>

John mate,
while the 6R4 failed to really make an impression on the international circuit, there was (and still are) dozens in the club fields and they made a heck of an impression there. They were fun to watch and (so I'm told) brutal to drive.

There were two things against Rover and the 6R4, never had the budget and they started a year behind Ford RS200 and Peugot 205.

I was running at the very back of a pack in the UK (as was usual when I was driving) in a 1.3 Vauxhall Nova with two blown front shocks and very dodgy brakes and out of my dust behind me comes a throaty roar, of course I pull over and a 6R4 comes roaring through, about 90 seconds later another one. They had given me a 5 minute headstart and then started the second running of the stage.

Absolutly nothing stopping a 2WD open class car going for the Woodner cup. Something like an E-xtrac escort perhaps?

The only real restriciton in G2 and G5 is that the engine has to stay in the same place and you can't change the driven wheels. Also it has to be based on a production car, no Davrians...

Dave

 

[Jon Bogert]

Perhaps something like this:

Ford KA. Group A Escort Cosworth engine. Mitsu EVO 6 gearbox and diffs. Open class legal and weighing somewhat less than 2700lbs. All for about the same price as a high-end Group N car, and MUCH more interesting.

http://www.djm-motorsport.co.uk/images/0067.jpg

 

[Kartwheel]

RE: Perhaps something like this:

WOW! How about a spec class of those, that would be fun eh?

 

[Timmerman_Paul]

RE: Perhaps something like this:

Lancer at 2500# ? Show me just one! Typical is over 3000.
We do have scales at events these days - mostly.

The lightest EVO in this country is probably Kulig's,
with a few more trick ones coming in behind. Oh, yah.
Those ProDrive Subes are pretty low too I'll bet. And
the new Hyundias with Titanium WRC Sube parts in back are
not heavey.

Lightening is something the US is far behind the Euros on.
They work very hard to get the Group N cars down to the
minimum weight limits.

I understand the differences in Open and FIA classes, but
they have pushed HARD on the group N cars to lighten up,
and open would be hard to get that much below.

Weight savings is incredibly expensive. But all this talk
about small chassis is off the mark I believe. The place to
take off the weight is the rotating weight, and most of those
replacement items of alternative materials are pricey.
One pound off the frame...

I am a fan of open class - long live open class.
Weight limits are good. If you can get there cheaper
using a weird combination - go for it. It still has
has to meet safety standards however, and some of the
home built's have been a bit sketchy. If you can build
an open car down to the limit with your wits and not $$$
you are money ahead to put into tires, gas, seat time,
rally school, etc.

Paul Timmerman

 

[Turbodad]

RE: Perhaps something like this:

Lancer at 2500# ? Show me just one! Typical is over 3000.
We do have scales at events these days - mostly.

I hate it when I quote something I read, then can't remember where I saw it.
Http://www.rallyracingnews.com/teams/lancer.html
Now, I don't know if Henry actually weighed his car, or if this was written by someone else and guesstimated.
The book "Rally Cars" (2000) by Reinhard Klein gives the weight specs for the Lancer RS, II + III at 1200 KG (about 2640lbs) with the IV , V + VI at 1230KG (2704).
My point is not to argue about the actual weight of a Lancer or any other car, I don't own one and probably never will. You see I'm a ClubRally guy who loves this sport but can't afford a WRX or anything even close, so I'm looking for an alternative.
But as I said before, horsepower ain't cheap.
I did build one of those "backyard specials", and was nearing completion when the new rule was published. It weighs 2414 Lbs sans cage(weighed it just last week with a real racecar scale).
Now I have to fatten it up and find more horsepower.
Or go back to our 3300 LB PGT car.