PGT Restrictor?
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Also keep in mind that there are also 2.2 cars that can run with the WRX's, DSMs and RSs...
We are switching to a Turbo this season and not looking forward to the restrictor, but there are ways to overcome that , like boost controllers...
If we get tired of all the restrictions in PGT than we'll move to Open next year.
We are switching to a Turbo this season and not looking forward to the restrictor, but there are ways to overcome that , like boost controllers...
If we get tired of all the restrictions in PGT than we'll move to Open next year.
PGT has never had rules for equalization of the class.
The concern with the restrictor is the driveability of the cars.
A DSM is a miserable car to drive with the restrictor.
In stock form it does not have too much HP. Simply there are better rules changes we can make within PGT to 'restrict' the power (if needed).
I think its important to acknowledge there are new cars on the market eligible to run in PGT. Even the most powerful of these, the Sti 'only' has 300 hp. 300 hp worldwide is an acceptable, insurable amount of power.
My opinion is that if we need to change rules in PGT, we are better off reducing the number of changes allowed -- keeping the cars closer to stock.
I have nothing against a class that equalizes the cars, I think we have that in Group N. Importantly, even if we decided that PGT should have rules to equalize the cars we would be better off starting with the cars stock and working with weight to set an equalization. You could even use factory acceleration and lateral grip numbers to set handicaps.
The important point is that because PGT is a stock class it is the only class that you cannot and should not be allowed to make additional modifications to overcome the driveability problems caused by the restrictor.
I want to be clear -- I have nothing against an equalized class, my opinion is that this would be better done as a spec class and the 2.5 would be the best choice for a US spec class (already planned for Australia).
I understand the cry to keep the 2.5 competitive, but in reality it is a misplaced cry. All I have to do is show up with and Evo or STi and the 2.5 should not be competitive against it.
The restrictor cry in PGT, as PGT is defined is very reasonable. The cry to 'keep' or 'make' the 2.5 RS competitive is unreasonable with the crop of eligible cars today.
Lastly -- the 2.5 rs was competitive before the restrictor rule as proven by Pat R and to a great extent Randy Zimmer.
Hope this help clarify the issue.
Mike
The concern with the restrictor is the driveability of the cars.
A DSM is a miserable car to drive with the restrictor.
In stock form it does not have too much HP. Simply there are better rules changes we can make within PGT to 'restrict' the power (if needed).
I think its important to acknowledge there are new cars on the market eligible to run in PGT. Even the most powerful of these, the Sti 'only' has 300 hp. 300 hp worldwide is an acceptable, insurable amount of power.
My opinion is that if we need to change rules in PGT, we are better off reducing the number of changes allowed -- keeping the cars closer to stock.
I have nothing against a class that equalizes the cars, I think we have that in Group N. Importantly, even if we decided that PGT should have rules to equalize the cars we would be better off starting with the cars stock and working with weight to set an equalization. You could even use factory acceleration and lateral grip numbers to set handicaps.
The important point is that because PGT is a stock class it is the only class that you cannot and should not be allowed to make additional modifications to overcome the driveability problems caused by the restrictor.
I want to be clear -- I have nothing against an equalized class, my opinion is that this would be better done as a spec class and the 2.5 would be the best choice for a US spec class (already planned for Australia).
I understand the cry to keep the 2.5 competitive, but in reality it is a misplaced cry. All I have to do is show up with and Evo or STi and the 2.5 should not be competitive against it.
The restrictor cry in PGT, as PGT is defined is very reasonable. The cry to 'keep' or 'make' the 2.5 RS competitive is unreasonable with the crop of eligible cars today.
Lastly -- the 2.5 rs was competitive before the restrictor rule as proven by Pat R and to a great extent Randy Zimmer.
Hope this help clarify the issue.
Mike
Restrictors are the answer to the question no one asked. I would think all GT competitors would be literally spamming the h**l out of the PRB, BOD, Performance Rally Dept., and anyone else associated with this silly rule. Sorry for the tactful and diplomatic wording of this post, but then, I've never been able to call a spade a spade}>
>
>If you want to run with out a restrictor ....Open is a good class
>
Umm ... sorry, but this madness exists in OPEN as well !!!
(Or maybe you know this, and this was a sarcastic remark knowing how popular the planned restrictor rules are in Open x( )
- 40 mm restrictor for 2003 & 2004
- 34 mm restrictor planned for 2005
"restricted" and "Open" seems to me to be a contradiction in terms !!
If they go ahead with the 34mm restrictor rule for Open Class in 2005, it's gonna make things ultra-expensive for the grass roots, budget, open class competitor (major engine development / re-engineering required), but less so for the deep pocketed and now likely vaporware manufacturers.
As far as I understand it, some members of the BoG tried to veto the 34 mm restrictor rule planned for 2005, but the rule was pushed through anyway, despite the lack of any plausible, verifiable need for this rule !!
Unless the 34mm restrictor rule, can be _proven_ to fix some verifiable, existing problem within the class, the rule is without merit and will negatively effect the class.
Again, "restricted" and "Open" seems to me to be a contradiction in terms !!
P.S. Just to clarfiy, and prevent any skim readers from getting confused, all restrictor sizes and arguments above are related to "Open Class", not PGT (though some of the arguments may also be applicable to PGT).
>If you want to run with out a restrictor ....Open is a good class
>
Umm ... sorry, but this madness exists in OPEN as well !!!
(Or maybe you know this, and this was a sarcastic remark knowing how popular the planned restrictor rules are in Open x( )
- 40 mm restrictor for 2003 & 2004
- 34 mm restrictor planned for 2005
"restricted" and "Open" seems to me to be a contradiction in terms !!
If they go ahead with the 34mm restrictor rule for Open Class in 2005, it's gonna make things ultra-expensive for the grass roots, budget, open class competitor (major engine development / re-engineering required), but less so for the deep pocketed and now likely vaporware manufacturers.
As far as I understand it, some members of the BoG tried to veto the 34 mm restrictor rule planned for 2005, but the rule was pushed through anyway, despite the lack of any plausible, verifiable need for this rule !!
Unless the 34mm restrictor rule, can be _proven_ to fix some verifiable, existing problem within the class, the rule is without merit and will negatively effect the class.
Again, "restricted" and "Open" seems to me to be a contradiction in terms !!
P.S. Just to clarfiy, and prevent any skim readers from getting confused, all restrictor sizes and arguments above are related to "Open Class", not PGT (though some of the arguments may also be applicable to PGT).
Mike
I agree with every thing you said.
But your are wrong about the STI running in PGT. that car as a 2.5 liter engine and if you add the coef for turbo and 16 valves, the engine is too big for that class therefore not legal.
About the rest you're right.
Anyway the resons for this post is not to argue the good or bad of the restrictor, all the turbo people agree that we don't want it, but is there anything been done about it with the SCCA.
There is no point arguing for days if they are not changing the rule.
If nobody's doing anything what should we do?
How do we talk with the SCCA about this?
I agree with every thing you said.
But your are wrong about the STI running in PGT. that car as a 2.5 liter engine and if you add the coef for turbo and 16 valves, the engine is too big for that class therefore not legal.
About the rest you're right.
Anyway the resons for this post is not to argue the good or bad of the restrictor, all the turbo people agree that we don't want it, but is there anything been done about it with the SCCA.
There is no point arguing for days if they are not changing the rule.
If nobody's doing anything what should we do?
How do we talk with the SCCA about this?
Joined
·
374 Posts
I think the Restrictor is there for either Insurance reasons or because someone in the Loss Prevention wants it.
Philip J. Boer
grinner323(at)sbcglobal(dot)ne
Philip J. Boer
grinner323(at)sbcglobal(dot)ne
EACH of you should write the PRB. Link is at
http://www.scca.org/interactive/boards.html#PRB
It worked for getting rid of the n year rule. Try it for restrictors. Individual letters do more good than ditto-head petitions. Bitching here does no good (other than venting).
press on,
>If nobody's doing anything what should we do?
>How do we talk with the SCCA about this?
http://www.scca.org/interactive/boards.html#PRB
It worked for getting rid of the n year rule. Try it for restrictors. Individual letters do more good than ditto-head petitions. Bitching here does no good (other than venting).
press on,
>If nobody's doing anything what should we do?
>How do we talk with the SCCA about this?
Joined
·
264 Posts
Where did you find the rule about maximum adjusted engine size in Production GT?
My copy of the 2003 rules (10.2.C.6) only says that adjusted engine sizes of greater than 2650 cc must run in the Production GT class, not the production class.
The 5100 cc adjusted value only applies to Open and Group 5 (10.2.B.3).
My copy of the 2003 rules (10.2.C.6) only says that adjusted engine sizes of greater than 2650 cc must run in the Production GT class, not the production class.
The 5100 cc adjusted value only applies to Open and Group 5 (10.2.B.3).
Page 95 of the 2003 SCCA rule book: Production Class must have engines with an adjusted displacement no greater than 2650cc.
page 97: Use the little Graph
2500cc (sti engine)x 1.7(turbo)x1.3(4wd)x1.2(4valves)=6630 cc
That is the way I read it. Am I wrong?
Stephan
page 97: Use the little Graph
2500cc (sti engine)x 1.7(turbo)x1.3(4wd)x1.2(4valves)=6630 cc
That is the way I read it. Am I wrong?
Stephan
Joined
·
1,368 Posts
>I went through this when the Sti was first dreamed of --
>
>There is no upper displacement in PGT...
>
>Buy It, Cage It, Run It, Win with It...
But where to find 17" gravel tires? 15" wheels won't fit, and alternate brakes are not allowed in PGT.
Another interesting point...a 2wd PGT car with forced induction is also required to have a 32mm restrictor (p.97), but forced induction 2wd open class cars are not (p.91) required to have a restrictor (2wd open, not G5 if drive config. has been altered).
So, a viper (8+ liters and 500hp stock) is legal in PGT and runs without a restrictor? Sure would be an overdog on a tarmac rally.
>
>There is no upper displacement in PGT...
>
>Buy It, Cage It, Run It, Win with It...
But where to find 17" gravel tires? 15" wheels won't fit, and alternate brakes are not allowed in PGT.
Another interesting point...a 2wd PGT car with forced induction is also required to have a 32mm restrictor (p.97), but forced induction 2wd open class cars are not (p.91) required to have a restrictor (2wd open, not G5 if drive config. has been altered).
So, a viper (8+ liters and 500hp stock) is legal in PGT and runs without a restrictor? Sure would be an overdog on a tarmac rally.
Joined
·
264 Posts
The 17" "real" rally tires are a problem. Somebody could probably get some 16" wheels custom made that would fit, but that would be pricey.
You can get Cooper WeatherMasters in a 225/55-17, and for winter rallies both Blizzak's and Hakkapeliitta's are available in a 225/45-17.
You can get Cooper WeatherMasters in a 225/55-17, and for winter rallies both Blizzak's and Hakkapeliitta's are available in a 225/45-17.
Mike,
I also agree with what you are saying about PGT. It should be a stock AWD class. It seems odd that you could add more boost to a (restricted) turbo AWD car but not do anything to "boost" the performance of an N/A car .. Getting a base line of performance and adding/subtracting weight would work to get a similar HP/weight ratio in all PGT cars which would keep things on a level field. I wholeheartedly agree with Derek Bottles Editorial on competitors setting the standards/rules for each class. That really makes the most sense since the grassroots people are footing the bill for most of the sport.
As far as the restrictor in OPEN, that's really unneccesary. Why even call it OPEN? SEMI-OPEN perhaps. How can you make a jump from PGT to OPEN (HP) if they are both restricted classes? It seems like it's long overdue that the rules get a major overhaul if the SCCA wants to have any rallying going on. Maybe that's the point. Hopefully not though...
I also agree with what you are saying about PGT. It should be a stock AWD class. It seems odd that you could add more boost to a (restricted) turbo AWD car but not do anything to "boost" the performance of an N/A car .. Getting a base line of performance and adding/subtracting weight would work to get a similar HP/weight ratio in all PGT cars which would keep things on a level field. I wholeheartedly agree with Derek Bottles Editorial on competitors setting the standards/rules for each class. That really makes the most sense since the grassroots people are footing the bill for most of the sport.
As far as the restrictor in OPEN, that's really unneccesary. Why even call it OPEN? SEMI-OPEN perhaps. How can you make a jump from PGT to OPEN (HP) if they are both restricted classes? It seems like it's long overdue that the rules get a major overhaul if the SCCA wants to have any rallying going on. Maybe that's the point. Hopefully not though...
Joined
·
1,368 Posts
Open class speeds, restrictors, etc....
This has been discussed in a previous thread.
http://www.specialstage.com/forum/cgi-bin/DCForumID2/2066.html#17
This has been discussed in a previous thread.
http://www.specialstage.com/forum/cgi-bin/DCForumID2/2066.html#17
Joined
·
303 Posts
>EACH of you should write the PRB. Link is at
>http://www.scca.org/interactive/boards.html#PRB
>It worked for getting rid of the n year rule. Try it for
>restrictors. Individual letters do more good than
>ditto-head petitions. Bitching here does no good (other
>than venting).
Jimmy is right. I am the one with the petition to get the rule repealed. But as pointed out - a bunch of "me too's" are no where as effective as swamping the PRB with complete and individual letters describing the lunacy that must be stopped.
I have sent my notes in three times already. I will continue to send them in until this is fixed. I urge all of you (who see the stupidity in this rule) to do the same.
Scott
www.teamharco.com
Team Harco Motorsports
"Win on Sunday, Sleep on Monday"
>http://www.scca.org/interactive/boards.html#PRB
>It worked for getting rid of the n year rule. Try it for
>restrictors. Individual letters do more good than
>ditto-head petitions. Bitching here does no good (other
>than venting).
Jimmy is right. I am the one with the petition to get the rule repealed. But as pointed out - a bunch of "me too's" are no where as effective as swamping the PRB with complete and individual letters describing the lunacy that must be stopped.
I have sent my notes in three times already. I will continue to send them in until this is fixed. I urge all of you (who see the stupidity in this rule) to do the same.
Scott
www.teamharco.com
Team Harco Motorsports
"Win on Sunday, Sleep on Monday"
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Join the discussion
