Special Stage Forums banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
After reading the proposed new rules it looks like what was
once 2 of the more popular classes may go away.
I can remember in 85-89 seeing 15 production cars at a pro event
almost all were factory teams or at least running for factory money.
what are the chances of ever getting the factories involved in the sport again if only Sub-Mitu make cars that are competive in a national class?

Mark Brown
former production now Group 2 competitor
and PPIHC group 2 WINNER :)
 

·
eating dust taking photos
Joined
·
3,740 Posts
I don't get it either Mark.


Less classes, especially when affecting the more entry level classes makes no sense.

To attract a 2wd manufacturer they are going to need big dispalcement or forced induction to be competitive now. How's that supposed to offer an attractive option?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,443 Posts
You'd probably not like the proposal I made to Doug & Dan at STPR, i.e. two classes - 4wd/awd and 2wd. Get rid of everything else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
151 Posts
Two years ago or so I was told that Group 5 was doomed - not enough interest or participants - might as well not build a G5 car, the SCCA's going to dead-end the class. Then the SRT-4 comes along, a few more Club guys build G5 cars, and it's a whole different ballgame. Now G5 is a popular class, and has factory involvement with Dodge.

Things can change in a hurry with every model year. I don't think you can base the decisions on a two year window.
 

·
Flat over crest
Joined
·
303 Posts
>You'd probably not like the proposal I made to Doug & Dan at
>STPR, i.e. two classes - 4wd/awd and 2wd. Get rid of
>everything else.

Works for me - as long as the restrictor rule is sorted properly (i.e. none). If not - forget it!

Better yet: 4 classes.
1) Open 4wd (O4)
2) Open 2wd (O2)
3) Production 4wd (P4)
4) Production 2wd (P2)

Scott
www.teamharco.com
Team Harco Motorsports
"Win on Sunday, Sleep on Monday"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,407 Posts
>You'd probably not like the proposal I made to Doug & Dan at
>STPR, i.e. two classes - 4wd/awd and 2wd. Get rid of
>everything else.

I think you'd find less folks getting involved. A lot of people pick the class they run in for financial reasons. If you have to have a car that is competitive with the very fastest of expensive equipment in order to have a championship battle, it furthers the sport into doctor/lawyerdom not unlike a spec Lambo Challenge or some other fluff roadracing spectacle highlighting no-talent/fat-pocket racing.

People gradually step up the ranks through our system of classes and VALUE the battles they have in their respective classes. I wonder if Matt Johnson would be building a WRX right now if he didn't have a competitive start in a cheap VW. I wonder if Jon Hamilton would have moved on to a more professional effort in a modern production car if he couldn't have started with some competitive runs in his Rabbit. Or Chris Whiteman with his Golf. Or Billy Bacon jumping in with both feet in a new Vt. Subaru if he hadn't honed his skill in a competitve G2 Integra. Or (gasp) Pat Richard. I wonder if I would have ever gotten involved. Probably not.

Say nothing of offering a playground for a manufacturer. Not all manufacturers are created equal, either. Some may come along with 50,000, some with 200,000 and some with 3 million. Should you base your championship around your most generous manufacturer? I don't think so. Eliminate choices and that's what you do, though.

Sorry Joe. I agree it ain't perfect and it requires a lot more discussion, but solely 2wd and 4wd ain't the answer.

...in my opinion.

Eric
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,407 Posts
>Things can change in a hurry with every model year. I don't
>think you can base the decisions on a two year window.

Agreed.

By the proposed rule, we almost lost Group5 in 2003 (5 avg. entries-2003, 4 avg. entries-2002). Now it is likely to flourish with all the car companies moving to bigger engines (than 2-liter) in their base economy cars. And G2 is likely to hurt for it. Things like this need to have some influence by the small car market in the US.

(edit)Expanding on this...

Performance-minded small car models in 2005:

Nissan Sentra/ SE-r: 2.5L (G5)
Dodge SRT-4: 2.4L turbo (G5)
Ford Focus ZX4 ST: 2.3L Duratec (G5)
Chevy Cobalt: either 2.2L or 2.0L Supercharged (G5)
Mazda3: 2.0L (G2) or 2.3L (G5)
Hyundai Tiburon: either 2.0L (G2) or 2.7L V6 in GT (G5)
Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart: 2.4L (G5)
Honda Civic Si: 2.0L (G2)
Acura RSX: 2.0L (G2)
VW GTI: 1.8L turbo or 2.8L V6 (either: G5)
BMW 3-series: all 2.5 or 3.0L (G5)

If G5 would have died, it would have closed the door for a lot of future cars, eh?

Who knows what the future holds? With the kneejerk reaction to today's gas prices, engine sizes may fall. I have seen several industry articles come across my desk about the projected expanding use of turbochargers.

Classes, particularly in ProRally, may benefit from being somewhat flexible to change to the current market offerings...especially if newer cars are desired. I think the 2.0 limit (excepting the multiplier nonsense) for G2 makes tons of sense for Clubrally as there are lots of older, competitive cars out there. Does it make sense for Pro? Yes, I think so, but we should keep our eyes on industry trends.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
Haven't seen the rules, but when a lot of (somewhat unpopular) effort is going into reducing the speed of the top classes, what sense is there in dropping the two entry level slow classes? I don't mind racing my NA 2liter car against 2WD turbo cars, but most people care about winning their class more than I. It seems conterproductive to have new drivers in faster cars if risk managment an insurance interests are forcing restrictors to be put in place on other classes to slow the field for saftey reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,998 Posts
One thing to remember is that nobody is suggesting that any classes be dropped for CLUBRALLY. If any classes go away, it will be NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP classes. Thus the "no classes for the beginning driver" argument doesn't really apply.

Bruce
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Perhaps, then, they're just trying to limit who run nationals? But for what reason?

Off the top of my head, I'd say they want just the prettiest/newest cars in the national spotlight, so as to highlight what Rally is all about. Then, when you get people hooked with nice looking rides, and they start asking questions about how to get involved, they get pointed to the ClubRally classes, and lo and behold, they can get started for cheap.

Basically, it looks to me like they're creating a channel, a definite path, for rallyists. You start at Club in a cheap ride, get some experience. Then when you have enough experience to qualify, and an appropriate car, you move up to Nationals. Get some experience/speed there, and then move up to FIA level competition. By that time, I'm betting that SCCA is looking to have an FIA level event on US soil.

It seems to me they want to set it up like a career path, rather than a hobby. And that's cool, to a certain degree.

I can certainly see the alure of axing the lower classes -- many compact cars in the US have engines larger than 2.0 litres. Large 4 cylinders or small V6s seem to be where things are going.

But I know one brother of mine (not to mention the team owner, aka Dad) who will be quite ticked if this comes to fruition. I don't think he wants to bolt a turbo onto the RSX-S just yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Bruce-- read the rules changes again-- same provision for club rally.

Not that there are not enough group 2 cars at club events.
 

·
Big Jump 800
Joined
·
716 Posts
Bruce,
I disagree with your statement. Nobody ever said eliminating classes was a ProRally only deal... and if they did say it, then they were mistaken... the question applies to both.

Everyone,
Here's the real question, IF classes are to be eliminated or phased out, then what shall the criteria be for doing so? It has been suggested that Performance Rally conform to the GCRs or whatever the ClubRacing rules are called.

So, either tell the PRB to leave it all alone or tell us a formula that makes sense to you... and remember; e-mail your suggestion/feedback to Sue Robinson at SCCA dot com and she'll forward to all PRB members.

ps - What do I like personally??? I like the O4/02/P4/P2 suggestion where:
O4 = Open
02 = G5 and G2 (ok, maybe add U2 like the old days)
P4 = GN (AWD), PGT and 4WD RallyTruck
P2 = GN (2WD), P, and 2WD RallyTruck
But I'm here to listen to the members, not impose my opinion.

J.B. Niday
www.nidayrallysport.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
151 Posts
Are there many homologated Group N 2wd cars sold in the US? What are they? It seems that there would have to be all kinds of one-off "special" homologations, if there is such a thing. Does anyone even know what the process is, how time-consuming it is, and how expensive it is?

Seems that the P category is a lot simpler and cheaper. It also supports the diversity of cars that make US rally entertaining, in my opinion, anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
401 Posts
What is wrong with the classes we have now? Am I missing something? What isn't working? It works for me, and if it didn't I would change not the classes.
 

·
Big Jump 800
Joined
·
716 Posts
Jay and Bob and the rest of you, too:

Write it up and send it to Sue. The question is out there and without input from members decisions will be made and you won't like them.

If I summarize what I've read so far, I read a) do nothing and b) change the format... but NO ONE has addressed the question which was raised, which is IF classes are to be phased out, then what should the criteria be?

J.B. Niday
www.nidayrallysport.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
946 Posts
>Jay and Bob and the rest of you, too:
>
>Write it up and send it to Sue. The question is out there
>and without input from members decisions will be made and
>you won't like them.
>
>If I summarize what I've read so far, I read a) do nothing
>and b) change the format... but NO ONE has addressed the
>question which was raised, which is IF classes are to be
>phased out, then what should the criteria be?
>
>J.B. Niday
>www.nidayrallysport.com

How about... how long a class has existed... Keep the oldest two classes and eliminate the rest... At least at the National Level.

And bring back the 5 minute gap between the Pro and Club competitors.

If you have Open class, and 2wd Production only at National Level, then you would have two well subscribed classes. I imagine the Dodge boys wouldn't mind running naturally aspirated, if they were running against 20 other cars that were the same. Or we'd get ourself a 4wd Neon.
 

·
CR>R5 into L3- 100 Finish
Joined
·
626 Posts
I agree with Lurch.
All that this will boil down to is less interest in the sport and more expensive events.

Whiplash RallyeSport
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
Just to poke my nose in...
Why doesn't the US just adopt the Canadian format (gasp!). That would bring the US closer to the FIA regs and the rest of the world. Funny that there is talk of dumping group 5 in the US as Canada has had some discussions about adding it.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top