[Bill Rhodes]

Tim Winker has been kind enough to post the proposed revisions to the existing SCCA Historic Performance Rally Class Regulations (Article 12 of the Rule Book) on his www.vintagerally.com website. This draft is the second version to be submitted to the PRB this year (first draft went in January) and addresses a couple of initial concerns from the PRB. The revised proposal was re-submitted on Friday, July 12, 2002 by e-mail.

The proposal was a collaborative effort by all current H class competitors and received input from various other enthusiasts. Please feel free to read them and comment on them (here or elsewhere), but I would suggest you send any written comments or concerns to the PRB (Tim has a link for such submissions) rather than to me or any other competitor as the proposal is "out of our hands" for now.

Our goal was to try to liberalize the existing rules so that it might be easier for people to build cars which can qualify under the new rules and so that the class can begin to flourish. Please note that the proposed regulations continue to limit the class to normally-aspirated, 2WD cars manufactured before January 1, 1972.

We know there are some passionate enthusiasts who wanted to see the January 1, 1972 cut-off date moved forward and the class to be broadened to include more modern cars and/or drivetrain configurations. While we didn't try to tackle those issues with this proposal, I think most of us felt that at some point there could be additional classes for such cars.

Those of us H-class types who occasionally monitor this site will undoubtedly be happy to discuss the proposal on this site or you can catch up to us in person (Dan Cook, Phil Smith and I will be at Maine Forest Rally).

My silly suit is zipped up, so flame away.

Bill Rhodes

 

[Rich Smith]

Bill,

Thank you for your upfront post and commentary on Special Stage.

I disagree with the Pre-1972 cut-off and the concept of aligning with FIA rules, but I do understand the recommended approach. I simply disagree with it and don't think will be successful in America.

In addition, the magnitude and nature of special enforcement and appeals rules / processes will make program administation difficult if not expensive.

I hope your committee will extend it's work to develop definitions for the "other", less restrictive, classifications mentioned in your post as soon as possible.

Best regards,
Rich Smith

 

[Bill Rhodes]

Let me be upfront on one thing. I don't think I am a member of the Historic Rally Committee. That entity began its existence before (during) the drafting of the original rules. I believe Mark Williams headed it but he has stepped aside from most rally administration (including the PRB) since 9/11. The HRC sort of fizzled out after release of the original rules, though its other original members (Tim Winker and Walt Kammer) did contribute invaluable opinions and guidance during the drafting of the new proposal last winter.

A new Historic Rally Committee was to be created by the PRB this Spring (after our initial submission) and I have heard some rumors as to who may be on it, but I am not sure if anyone has been formally appointed by the PRB. Keep in mind that the new proposal provides for the HRC's ultimate composition, so even if it has been re-constituted this Spring, it could change some.

Thanks for reading the proposal and I am sure the new HRC (whoever may be on it) will give very careful consideration to the ultimate creation of additional age and configuration classes as demand warrants.

Bill Rhodes

 

[mmclaughlin]

I have a clarification question (asked here for lack of a better place).

Section 12.4.D discusses the engine and head(s).

Does the term "configuration" include "composition"? That is to say, if your car came with a cast iron head and a cast aluminum head became availabe at a much later date (but still has the same number of valves, actuation type, port location, etc.), can you use it?

Just curious

Matthew

 

[RallyRat]

I don't get all the stuff in the shock absorber section...
What does system of operation mean?

What's up with the additional gas chamber sentance? Does original mean the same as what came on the car or what came on the shock?

Does adjustable really mean externally adjustable?

Will MacDonald
1968 Volvo 144

 

[gravelgeezer]

All of us interested in the Historic Class appreciate the hard work done on these rules revisions by several people. The liberalization of the rules is quite welcome.

Earlier this year, in an effort to provide input to the PRB on this subject I wrote a suggested word- for-word edit and revision of these proposals after they were first submitted. It was one of the things I lost in a laptop hard drive crash---yeh, I know...back up, back up. (I still haven't reconstructed it.)

I see by questions being asked, this latest revision still may need some clarification and editing. I have a couple questions of my own. For example: Section 12.4.G "The anti-roll bar must be adjustable..." Shouldn't it read, "...must NOT be adjustable"?

Are suspension components required to be from the same model or just the same manufacturer, as per the engine, transmission and differential section?

Also, change 12.4.E (B) to read: "different models of the same manufacturer AS the entered vehicle." Isn't that what was meant?

I have more, but that's enough for now.


GB the GG

 

[Dan Cook]

Matthew - my take on this is that yes, you could use an aluminum head because it is the same configuration, just different materials.
Dan

>
>Does the term "configuration" include "composition"? That
>is to say, if your car came with a cast iron head and a cast
>aluminum head became availabe at a much later date (but
>still has the same number of valves, actuation type, port
>location, etc.), can you use it?
>
>Just curious
>
>Matthew

 

[Dan Cook]

Will, my take on your questions are below:

I don't get all the stuff in the shock absorber section...
>What does system of operation mean?
In other words, you can't change from a lever type to a coilover, unless the coilover was offered within 5 years of the end of the model year of the car you are competing with.


>What's up with the additional gas chamber sentance? Does
>original mean the same as what came on the car or what came
>on the shock?
You can use a different shock as long is it doesn't have an external gas chamber like the Ohlns or Prodrive ones with external resevoirs.


>Does adjustable really mean externally adjustable?
If it is a Koni with a screw adjuster or other adjustable ones, yes. Allowed.

Again, I'm not on the HRC (as far as I know) so in the end their interpretation would be final word. Basically, the gist of these rules is that you can modify your car to accept current technologies, as long as they are in the Historic spirit....for now. If and when any kind of movement comes around to make us all comply with FIA Apndx K, we'll have to do some modifications to change our cars to comply.
Dan

>Will MacDonald
>1968 Volvo 144

 

[Dan Cook]

GB- yup, should read NOT adjustable. Missed that one. Thanks.

Re: Suspension components must be in same configuration as was available from that manufacturer as a factory order or w/in 5 years from the end of the model year. We did it this way in order to keep the handling of the car near to the original flavour of how it handles historically. Without the same configuration, well...the car wouldn't be the car it once was!

And as far as 12.4.E - agreed. Hey, if you have other editing/suggestions, why don't you p-mail me or Bill Rhodes? I know we weren't able to catch everything and you (others too!) have some good suggestions.
Thanks,
Dan

>All of us interested in the Historic Class appreciate the
>hard work done on these rules revisions by several people.
>The liberalization of the rules is quite welcome.
>
>Earlier this year, in an effort to provide input to the PRB
>on this subject I wrote a suggested word- for-word edit and
>revision of these proposals after they were first submitted.
>It was one of the things I lost in a laptop hard drive
>crash---yeh, I know...back up, back up. (I still haven't
>reconstructed it.)
>
>I see by questions being asked, this latest revision still
>may need some clarification and editing. I have a couple
>questions of my own. For example: Section 12.4.G "The
>anti-roll bar must be adjustable..." Shouldn't it read,
>"...must NOT be adjustable"?
>
>Are suspension components required to be from the same model
>or just the same manufacturer, as per the engine,
>transmission and differential section?
>
>Also, change 12.4.E (B) to read: "different models of the
>same manufacturer AS the entered vehicle." Isn't that what
>was meant?
>
>I have more, but that's enough for now.
>
>
>GB the GG

 

[rightseat]

3 cheers for proposed new H class regs favoring period rally spec--as opposed to old regs that favored period taxi spec! If these regs go onto the books as written, it'll really jump-start what should be a fantastic class.

I'm aiming to build a Volvo Amazon because they're tough, built for gravel, and have lots of period go-fast goodies available. Not to mention that I think the crowds will go nutz watching funny little old rear-drivers sliding by sideways.

The old H-class regs were a major party pooper...let's see, I'd-a hadda keep my 122's original Granny-geared trans, dum-dum rear drums and two-ton iron fenders. Umm, no thanks, guess I'll just get in line to build another boring G2 Golf.

OK, so now that Historic prospects look MUCH brighter, next question is, when do these regs get firmed up so people can commission serious work on the cars? Am reluctant to spend months sourcing $peedy $wede goodies from UK or Scanda-hoovia, then have scrutineers inform me I have to tear them off because the regs got "edited" again.

Only complaint I see between the lines of proposed regs is that my dream of an "affordable" rally car just got much less so...so what else is new!? At least it'll go faster and be less likely to break (he said hopefully). Kudos to the dedicated old-car freaks who figured this stuff out.

Cheers,

Dave G.
Amazon Rally Team
Maine

Embrace loose gravel, beware big trees....

 

[mgpsmith]

Good questions. And I am glad, as I'm sure everybody currently running an H car is, that there is renewed interest in the class by potential builders, based on our proposed liberalizations.

Granted that there are some typo issues to clean up and some verbage to clarify, I would ask that interested H Class competitors/builders now write the PRB in support of these rules we've submitted. The exact details of the rules could be debated ad infinitum (and nauseum), of course. We've worked for months on coming up with a ruleset that seems to preserve the vintage flavor of H Class without being too restrictive (I like the reference to vintage rally standard vs. vintage taxi standards...!). While we can continue detail debates here, it's time to stand behind a firm proposal, and we think this is the one. There are (and have been many) differences of opinion on the exact nature of allowed modifications, and what Bill has presented seems a reasonable compromise. A flood of support to the PRB for these rules can only help speed the day when they appear in the Rule Book.

Let's go with it, support this proposal, and get the class built to the point where we are a visible and viable long-term class.

Thanks to all who are interested. See you in Maine.
Phil Smith
Team Paradox / RallyRhybuddRacing
#137 MGBGT

 

[bolson]

Have we had any feedback from the PRB on this?
It sounds like we're close - it would be nice
to get it finally resolved. I think it will be
a great category! (Ya never know - these 30+
year old cars might surprise a few folks...

Thanks.
Bob Olson

 

[mgpsmith]

No foolin'....look at the list of cars that Dan C. beat up on in Maine with his 510!