Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,027 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The topic came up in another thread, and after last years controversey I expected the rule to be changed...

Any good reason not to allow seam welding for P cars?


OR can we agree that the chassis is an intergral part of the suspension and suspension reinforcement is allowed so the point is mute?

Thinking aloud,
Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
I would be interested in knowing as well,
I have been wondering about this for a bit now.
Since it seems to make the car a bit safer ( by making it stronger ) why cant we do it ?

Nate
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
RE: P car seam welding, why not? Why Production Class?

>The topic came up in another thread, and after last years
>controversey I expected the rule to be changed...
>
>Any good reason not to allow seam welding for P cars?
Well Mike when stacks and stacks of competitors were agitated and annoyed about the SCCA ban on studded tires for winter events you answered rather shortly or cynically or something kinda snottily "it's th rules", which was obvious, so in the same spirit.....(answering the what, not the obvious real question WHY)

Oh do you mean can we discuss CHANGING YET ANOTHER Production class rule?
sure why not. You can now add LSD to cars that didn't have them.
You can have fully adjustable suspension to cars that didn't have it.
why not allow stitch welding which all th sage expert said a while ago that it isn't really a competitive advantage.

I am all for all things which gets people into the woods and helps them stay out in the woods for longer than one season
BUT! If the motivation is cause it makes the cars more _durable_ and in the long run less expensive in running cost than the rationale can also be applied (and has already been elsewhere) to allowing alternative gearkits, better clutches, bigger driveshafts and cv joints and on and on.

the group of classes known as GpN allows the stitchwelding and indeed even the doubleskinning of the bodyshell, couldn't there be some sort of 'approchment' and slot the US Production cars into the GpN'ish' structure? GpN 1600, GpN2000, ?

But if all these changes are allowed what's the point of calling it Production? what's the point of the class anyway?





>
>
>OR can we agree that the chassis is an intergral part of the
>suspension and suspension reinforcement is allowed so the
>point is mute?
>
>Thinking aloud,
>Mike
















John Vanlandingham
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
>Since it seems to make the car a bit safer
No, it makes it stronger SO one can attack harder and not leave parts strewn all over the place, it does not make it safer. You want it to be safer, you can always slow down.

( by making it
>stronger ) why cant we do it ?

You can just ask the right people and they will give you permission, no problem. They even brag on SS forum about it so it must be OK to do it. Claim hardship. Or you didn't know.
>
>Nate
Good Luck!
















John Vanlandingham
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Thanks John,
I was assuming safer by being stronger. If the strut tower doesn?t rip to shreds on a hard landing it will be safer then if it did. :) But at the same time I don?t want to "stretch" the rules by claiming ignorance, if I do well I would like to do well on my skill rather then a car that is set up better then it should be, or hell, I am just running for fun anyway maybe I will just run Open and not care what place I finish :D

Thanks,
Nate
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
630 Posts
RE: P car seam welding, why not? Why Production Class?

OK, John covered all the good reasons why. The reason "why not?" is the same reason in the rulebook they recommend not having a permanent bar between the rear suspension. Other classes, in diciplines not related to PerformanceRally prohibit it and for some reason they think we want to spend lots of time going around narrow pavment tracks or squishing cones with our rally cars. If you seam weld it moves you out of one of the myriad of byzantine classes in those "other" diciplines up to another one that is inapropriate for a P car. Is that relevant to us? I'm not sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
RE: P car seam welding, why not? Why Production Class?

"Is that relevant to us? I'm not sure."

Why wouldn't it be relevant to us? It all involves racing cars...
And believe me the stresses encountered by a tub on a road course are just as harsh, albeit different, from those encountered on a stage.
Yes, one can tear the suspension out of a car under hard cornering as well. If one is worried about breaking the car on a yump, slow down and don't yump it. Or find one that was overbuilt in the first place. (hence my choice in cars...:D )

My only problem with allowing more and more mods for Production classes every year is that eventually it defeats the purpose of the class. 50 years ago NASCAR stockers were genuinely stock street cars too, where as now they are merely spec racers. Personally I would prefer that P cars be just that, stock versions of cars with rollcages and rally tires. Not a class for guys who really want to run open class but don't want to run against those in open class. But thats just my humble opinion for what its worth.


Nick Polimeni
'71 Volvo 142E (daily driver/RallyCross)
'71 Volvo 145S G2/historic car, when I find time and money, or failing that, someone elses money
Editor, Blue Mountain Region, SCCA
[email protected]
www.bmr-scca.org
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
630 Posts
RE: P car seam welding, why not? Why Production Class?

No, I meant the ability to race other SCCA disciplines in Showroom Stock with P cars, not seam welding, is probably not relevant to us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
RE: P car seam welding, why not? Why Production Class?

>"Is that relevant to us? I'm not sure."
>
>
>My only problem with allowing more and more mods for
>Production classes every year is that eventually it defeats
>the purpose of the class.

I have been rallying in P class since 1987, and it has always been allowed (at least it was never challenged, and was well publicized that most cars were seamwelded). It was only the official Chavez ruling last year that changed things (but then again it didn't, seeing as Chavez won the Championship in a seriously seamwelded chassis).

We are working with SCCA to get the rulebook changed as we speak.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,027 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
RE: P car seam welding, why not? Why Production Class?

John:

I didn't know I had offended you so deeply.

I also didn't think this was rally-L...

I'll try and be more careful in my choice of words in the future.

Best Regards,
Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,258 Posts
RE: P car seam welding, why not? Why Production Class?

Right on brother! (Once again, this was a reply to #6, not #8 which is immediately above it. I guess I'll never understand software packages).
 

·
Administrator Emeritus
Joined
·
1,253 Posts
RE: P car seam welding, why not? Why Production Class?

>Right on brother! (Once again, this was a reply to #6, not
>#8 which is immediately above it. I guess I'll never
>understand software packages).

Because response #7 and #8 are responses to #6 too. They responded before you so they are above you. Note the indent showing the responses. Also, it does say "In response to message #6" at the top of your post, just to help clarify the confusion.

:+ Jim :+
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
946 Posts
RE: P car seam welding, why not? Why Production Class?

>"Is that relevant to us? I'm not sure."
>
>Why wouldn't it be relevant to us? It all involves racing
>cars...
>And believe me the stresses encountered by a tub on a road
>course are just as harsh, albeit different, from those
>encountered on a stage.
>Yes, one can tear the suspension out of a car under hard
>cornering as well. If one is worried about breaking the car
>on a yump, slow down and don't yump it. Or find one that
>was overbuilt in the first place. (hence my choice in
>cars...:D )
>
>My only problem with allowing more and more mods for
>Production classes every year is that eventually it defeats
>the purpose of the class. 50 years ago NASCAR stockers were
>genuinely stock street cars too, where as now they are
>merely spec racers. Personally I would prefer that P cars
>be just that, stock versions of cars with rollcages and
>rally tires. Not a class for guys who really want to run
>open class but don't want to run against those in open
>class. But thats just my humble opinion for what its worth.
>
>
>Nick Polimeni
>'71 Volvo 142E (daily driver/RallyCross)
>'71 Volvo 145S G2/historic car, when I find time and money,
>or failing that, someone elses money
>Editor, Blue Mountain Region, SCCA
>[email protected]
>www.bmr-scca.org

Name one of us that wouldn't run a full bore WRC car on the stages if that was an option to us. So people have to choose what class their budget will allow.

2wd Production rules have evolved to make the cars stronger. But the basic point of the class remains. Very stock drivetrains with at least stock weight. If you are carefull with the interior when you build the car, it still looks very similar to those cars in the dealerships. And if you build a car to the limit of the rules, then you have an economical car to run, and a good car for someone else to use when you are ready for a different car/class. This is a bad thing?

Limited slip rule has only been in the book since? 1988. Why? Because limited slip was an option on a VW in Canada and not in the US. And 1988 was won by a Canadian VW... If some cars come from the factory with one, why not allow other cars to install one in the interest of keeping everyone competitive?

If Production class isn't for you, then don't run it. But don't mess it up for those of us that want to run it. If you think Production class cars are slow, just wait until the current crop of cars get sorted out... I predict you will need 180 horsepower or more to be competitive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
630 Posts
RE: P car seam welding, why not? Why Production Class?

>Limited slip rule has only been in the book since? 1988.
>Why? Because limited slip was an option on a VW in Canada
>and not in the US. And 1988 was won by a Canadian VW... If
>some cars come from the factory with one, why not allow
>other cars to install one in the interest of keeping
>everyone competitive?

Uh...because they dont come with them? This is supposed to be "Showroom Stock" afterall. Using that logic you can justify any mod you want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
946 Posts
RE: P car seam welding, why not? Why Production Class?

>>Limited slip rule has only been in the book since? 1988.
>>Why? Because limited slip was an option on a VW in Canada
>>and not in the US. And 1988 was won by a Canadian VW... If
>>some cars come from the factory with one, why not allow
>>other cars to install one in the interest of keeping
>>everyone competitive?
>
>Uh...because they dont come with them? This is supposed to
>be "Showroom Stock" afterall. Using that logic you can
>justify any mod you want.

So I should not be able to run a Limited slip against say a 1998 Integra Type R? or a Nissan Sentra SE-R? What kind of logic is that?

If you don't like the Production rules, then run G2,G5 or Open. Its pretty silly to complain about a rule that was in the book in 1989, or 13 years ago if my math is correct. Or complain about a class you have no intention of ever participating in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
This is a pretty hot topic and I it sure would be good to get a real feel for how the population racing in this class feels and not a skewed view of the general population.

Personally I think the restriction is just stupid. It is a cost advantage and not a performance advantage. The rules currently allow a work around in that you can build a cage that simply ties in at 30 locations. Do that and you won't need to seam weld.

The stronger is not safer argument is absolutly silly (BTW JVL you are not serious in your response #3 are you?) A sronger car is always safer, also a smarter driver is safer. Just because you have a stronger car does make you go out and drive to fast and stupidly, this is one of those guns don't kill/people kill arguments.

I really think if there is a very clear opinion on this rule we can get it changed, but if it is anywhere close to 50/50 it won't get changed.

Time for a poll?

Bradney A. Boli
Over Exposure Racing
Honda Accord #311
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
630 Posts
RE: P car seam welding, why not? Why Production Class?

>So I should not be able to run a Limited slip against say a
>1998 Integra Type R? or a Nissan Sentra SE-R? What kind of
>logic is that?

No, not unless it came that way. If you want an LSD then guy a car that comes with one. Stock car with a cage and rally tires. Simple enough.

>If you don't like the Production rules, then run G2,G5 or
>Open. Its pretty silly to complain about a rule that was in
>the book in 1989, or 13 years ago if my math is correct. Or
>complain about a class you have no intention of ever
>participating in.

Im not complaining, you are. You want yet another modification to be allowed in a class that is intended to be "Showroom Stock". I merely pointed out the fact that using that logic (RE limited slip diff) any mod could be argued as "required to be competitive".

You are right, I have no intent to participate in P, however your lack of intent to participate in G5 did not stop you from adding to the discusion on the 20 year rules effect on my car. Did I cry about that? No, I actually value your opinion even though we do not agree, although you must not think so by that comment. P does not allow seam welding, and if I may quote you:

"If you dont like the Production rules, then run G2/G5/Open".

I'll not comment further as it is apparent I have nothing to add.
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
RE: P car seam welding, why not? Why Production Class?

>>So I should not be able to run a Limited slip against say a
>>1998 Integra Type R? or a Nissan Sentra SE-R? What kind of
>>logic is that?
>
>No, not unless it came that way. If you want an LSD then guy
>a car that comes with one. Stock car with a cage and rally
>tires. Simple enough.
¤¤¤¤Brian, nothing is ever simple. That's simple enough, iddnit?
>
>>If you don't like the Production rules, then run G2,G5 or
>>Open. Its pretty silly to complain about a rule that was in
>>the book in 1989, or 13 years ago if my math is correct. Or
>>complain about a class you have no intention of ever
>>participating in.

¤¤¤¤yeah, Brian shuut up you stinky pot,or Trevvie will add you to his enemy list. Quit using logic and reasoning you you that's what you are! P class guy want to do things for what ever reason, that's good enough.
>
>Im not complaining, you are. You want yet another
>modification to be allowed in a class that is intended to be
>"Showroom Stock". I merely pointed out the fact that using
>that logic (RE limited slip diff) any mod could be argued as
>"required to be competitive".
>
>You are right, I have no intent to participate in P, however
>your lack of intent to participate in G5 did not stop you
>from adding to the discusion on the 20 year rules effect on
>my car. Did I cry about that? No, I actually value your
>opinion even though we do not agree, although you must not
>think so by that comment. P does not allow seam welding, and
>if I may quote you:
>
>"If you dont like the Production rules, then run
>G2/G5/Open".
>
>I'll not comment further as it is apparent I have nothing to
>add.

that's right! You couldn't have said it better if you said yourself.

Get thee to a nunnery.
















John Vanlandingham
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
RE: P car seam welding, why not? Why Production Class?

>John:
>
>I didn't know I had offended you so deeply.

Mike, I don't offend particularly easily, but am often annoyed at the way the idea of discourse is run over. Your answer then and a couple of subsequent times indicated that you didnt really care to even discuss the topic, only later did you indicate the your Person preferance was for non studded tires. Fine, but don't act like you don't understand the question when the question is WHY, not what.

>
>I also didn't think this was rally-L...
Thank god it isn't
>
>I'll try and be more careful in my choice of words in the
>future.
Pay attention to what the question is, bugger the wording you use, don't be so dismissive.
>
>Best Regards,
>Mike
















John Vanlandingham
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
>This is a pretty hot topic and I it sure would be good to
>get a real feel for how the population racing in this class
>feels and not a skewed view of the general population.
>
>Personally I think the restriction is just stupid. It is a
>cost advantage and not a performance advantage. The rules
>currently allow a work around in that you can build a cage
>that simply ties in at 30 locations. Do that and you won't
>need to seam weld.
>
>The stronger is not safer argument is absolutly silly (BTW
>JVL you are not serious in your response #3 are you?) A
>sronger car is always safer, also a smarter driver is safer.

¤¤¤¤A stronger car is just that, a stronger car. It only becomes a SAFER car when it doesn't fall apart. It is an incidental attribute.

An "P" car with same drivetrain as a stronger car will be just as fast or slow up to the point it starts shedding pieces, ONLY THEN does it become a less safe car, IF YOU continue to drive it fast, or whatever.
> Just because you have a stronger car does make you go out
>and drive to fast and stupidly, this is one of those guns
>don't kill/people kill arguments.
>
>I really think if there is a very clear opinion on this rule
>we can get it changed, but if it is anywhere close to 50/50
>it won't get changed.
>
>Time for a poll?

¤¤¤¤¤you're not suggesting that the rules making process should be swayed by the wishes of a few members are you?

What next Bradney? Elected PRB members?

Anarchiste! Provocateur!
>
>Bradney A. Boli
>Over Exposure Racing
>Honda Accord #311
















John Vanlandingham
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top