[Rich Smith]

Cheers Everyone,

Should SCCA reorganize Performance Rally objectives and operations following the Canadian(CARS) model? Especially their procedures for developing or revising competition and class rules. I hear nothing but praise for it. Particularly from the competitor's. Sounds good to me.

Rich Smith

Vive le "Pro-le-Ralliat"

(The above question was slightly reworded for clarification. It was primarily intended to discuss Processes and Procedures. However, a number of the ensuing posts include discussion of the Class Rules themselves and are a little off-topic bonus.)

 

[Lancia037Rally]

Both need to change some to meet in common ground.
As far as the SCCA following CARS I believe SCCA would benefit by

1. The elimination of driver's #s and car #s being issued at event by start order (easier for spectators to understand who is ranked where and the position changes as the rally progresses)(Also competitors running a 900 series NEDiv # in western events appear to be novice teams).

2. Elimination of ProRally/ClubRally ID packages and allow for event or series sponsorship on winsheild and doorbackers. Why promote SCCA when what we need are sponsors to help with our cost?

3. CARS requires competitors have first aid training. Don't know if SCCA should mandate it also. It could save a life, maybe your's.

4. Proposed rule changes are mailed to each license holder annually with a form to reply on with your comments and views to be returned and compiled before rulechanges are made. last year we also voted on adding a couple new events to the calander and were asked about scheduling of these events.

5. Would be nice to have SCCA results and standings mailed following each event as was the case a couple years ago. CARS still does it. Keep my SportCar, send me rallystuff.


Both SCCA and CARS need to agree on some class rules to make the North American Rally Cup and any other international NARC type championship even for compeiors on both sides. The biggest difference now is that CARS Open class turbo restrictor size is 34 mm and SCCA is 40 mm. Big power advantange. Other smaller things are like rear seats and interior trim in Production and PGT (P1,P2,P3,P4 classes in Canada. Maybe come to agreement on some sort of G2/G5 modified 2wheeldrive classes as Canada does not have Gr5 and those cars must enter as Open.

And both the SCCA and CARS should have a better aligned driver seeding system. Currently both recognize FIA seed but SCCA has seeds 0-8 and CARS has 1-6 including many drivers who a either 5A or 5B.

The North American Rally Cup standings should really be posted somewhere online. CARS competitors get the standings after each CARS event with their results and standings but it would add to the Cup's existance if the standings were online again.

 

[Rich Smith]

RE: Why not?

>2. Elimination of ProRally/ClubRally ID packages and allow
>for event or series sponsorship on winsheild and
>doorbackers. Why promote SCCA when what we need are sponsors
>to help with our cost?

>3. CARS requires competitors have first aid training. Don't
>know if SCCA should mandate it also. It could save a life,
>maybe your's.

>4. Proposed rule changes are mailed to each license holder
>annually with a form to reply on with your comments and
>views to be returned and compiled before rulechanges are
>made.

CAN ANYONE GIVE REASONS WHY SCCA CAN'T OR SHOULDN'T DO SUCH THINGS? They seem pretty basic and simple to me, especially #4. A little more democracy in the process wouldn't hurt. Rules alignment would be great too, but requires agreement. Still, the above 3 items are stand alone examples of issues that span Pro and ClubRally interests. They definately affect who gets the gold and who gets the glory. But in concept, they are National matters of organizational process, responsibility and reward.

Rich Smith

Vive le "Pro-le-Ralliat"

 

[robin]

Three Tiers (long)

OK, I was going to make this a separate post, but I'll put it here instead:

I suppose you could say there are three tiers of rally competition in N. America, but with all of them marching to the beat of their own drummers, it seems to me there's a lot of wasted effort.

Why not a true three-tier system - but not crammed into the U.S. as has been proposed. If you want a truly professional rally series in North America which is compatible and can work with the grassroots, you have to make it continent wide. What the heck are the manufacturers doing running separate factory efforts in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico for? (Although it's true that Mexico gets a different breed of automobile...)

One sanctioning body for North America. One rally-only organization with rules, organizer assistance, insurance etc.that supports the entire system from the bottom up as a development ladder. The top (actual professional) level would be a North American FIA championship (Grp A & N cars only) The second level would be National Championships for each of the U.S., Canada & Mexico. The third level would be regional championships within the respective countries (North-west Region, Rally Sport Ontario etc.)

It's like a geographically defined collegiate system. You work your way up (if you want to) or you stay in your region (or nation) and have fun. All progression handled by a common North America-wide seeding system arising from one pool of results.

Classes

North America = Grp A, Grp N
National = Open, Grp N, G2, P4, P3, P2, P1
Regional = G2, P4, P3, P2, P1

Sufficient class overlap between levels to allow advancement. No expensive Open or Group N cars at the regional level. (The national guys can run a regional if there's room - but no scoring in regional class championships) Regional championships occur within given regions. As I said, the whole thing would run from one sanctioning body and one rule book. Maybe a governing council with elected membership - equal representation from each of the three nations "The Three Nations Council"

"The FIA North American Rally Championship"

"The U.S. National Rally Championship"

"The Canadian National Rally Championship"

"Whatever the Spanish translation of 'Mexican National Rally Championship' would be"


Robin

Whoops, I forgot the Caribbean

"The Caribbean Rally Championship"

 

[John Vanlandingham]

RE: Three Tiers (long) No, just well reasoned.

Robin, good general outline, but too reasonable. It would needs be require some accomodation from all sides and accomodations of others view point is a very nearly Un-American thing. And it is especially difficult when the person who has to do the accomodation really knows very little about rally per se, and is concerned mainly in avoiding scrutiny. In other words, the SCCA PR director has no mandate from the membership, and shows no indications he is truly concerned with competition in the US or otherwise, he has shown by word and deed to be primarily concerned with accomodating the demands of a few teams with big budgets.

Be that as it is, the person could be fired if we are lucky and then the way might be open to examine some cross border cooperation and competition.

So, here's a comment on your proposal.
The emphisis on P classes at the regional level seems a bit misplaced, already there is too much confusion over classes.
What's your envisioned age limit on all these P cars?
Why P? Why discourge cross referencing parts from one model to another?

As others continulally point out to me, this isn't Europe. There aren't many worthwhile small displacement cars here, and by that I mean something that was intended to be a rally car like the Suzuki Sprint 1300 16v. Geo Metros, and Substandard Sub-a-rat
Just(not trust)y are not really worth forcing the timing people tyo stand in the cold longer. Else where 1300 and 1400 is the normal size motor for most people, here in NA it is an anomoly. Can it.

what are you going to do with old expired GpN and GpA cars like the soon outlawed Misterbitchy Evo 6s and Sub-a-rat Impretzels old shape models which will be outdated in a couple of months?

Where do you envision the cars I am helping get started for the beginners Brian "Kartwheel" Xratty 2.3t Gp5
"BC Boy" Skye Poier Xratty 2.3t Gp5
"Seattle Scott" Koch Xratty 2.3t Gp5
"Spokane Scott" Manly Xratty 2.3t Gp5
Erik Heimke Xratty 2.3t Gp5
Matthew "mothra" Xratty 2.3t Gp5 ?
Kevin "the Chin" Håkansson Volvo 2.3t Gp5
John "Sicko" Lane Volvo 3.V6t Gp5
Andrew "Fiasco" Steere Xratty 2.3t Gp5 one day maybe.


And where would my Cossie 4x4 powered Xratty go?
And Matt Manspeakers projected Escort Cossie club car?

See? Yopu have a 1.3 class AND a 1.6 class but these guys don't belong in Open and you have no place for them.

I suggest any restructuring of the system should have the people making the decisions be elected and recallable if the decisions they reach are to have any credibility.

The recent experience in the US with Spitzner as PR guru and the inaction and disembling of the PRB culminating in the TWO MONTH SILENCE after the Wild West Scandle are ample lessons of the problems of any ol volonteer being given powerful administrative decision making powers.

And as yet the addition of the vague and ill defined "quasi-semi- half offical" Investor group called Rally America has done nothing to ease the worries of the membership here. Since nobody really knows where the lines of demarcation of responsibility will be drawn and where power will reside. It appears to muddle the picture here rather than clarify.

Hope you have a chance to answer this a bit cause i like the idea. Just open the lines of participation a bit.






John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

 

[Kartwheel]

RE: Three Tiers (long) No, just well reasoned.

Yeah, dont make beginners race P cars. I think, and this is only my opinion, Production is a joke and want no part of it. A well built G2/G5 car will be cheaper as a result of better/stronger spec parts that dont break or wear out as fast, and much more fun to drive. Again, this is just my opinion, those that like P/PGT should be allowed to chose that class by all means, but dont force it on me.

I have realized, after quite a bit of convincing, that G5 can be the absolute cheapest class. Turbo engines are capable of good power levels while being relatively low stressed. G2/G5 allows you to build or buy durable parts where P/PGT doesnt.

 

[Ray]

RE: Three Tiers (long) No, just well reasoned.

Where do you get your info?
What do you think Group N is? It's Production class!
The FIA knows the importance of the production classes. That's why there are Group N1/N2/N3/N4. There are no Group 5 in FIA or anywhere else in the world. Group 2 is close to F2 in the FIA, but not well recognized. Group A has several sub-classes, most are 2wd vehicles.
G2/G5 are not cheaper. That is a fact!
Besides the fact that PGT and G5 are probably going to be dropped.
The only thing is,.. a bad driver always thinks he needs more power.
A good excuse for not able to perform.

Whiplash RallyeSport

 

[RallyGTX]

RE: Three Tiers (long) No, just well reasoned.

I would have to ask the same question regarding PGT and G5. Where do you get your information??

With the head office doing so much sucking up to manufacturers, don't you think that they will at least have a place to play for the new Neon, Focus, etc??

I suspect that G5 is going to BOOM rather than bust. I have seen many cars under construction right now and with the intro of the 2 new ones as well, I suspect that it will only grow in popularity.

Personally, I prefer open because the only rule to really be concerned with is the restrictor size. Otherwise, most mods (within reason) are acceptable and you don't have to spend $100+ for a sheet of paper to prove it.

I'll never be World Champion, so I will build a fun, reasonably competitive Club car and take John Lane's approach and just have fun standing on the loud pedal now and then and go back to work monday after the events.

It's not the kill, it's the thrill of the chase.

Matt Manspeaker
Seattle, WA USA
89 323GTX - Open

 

[robin]

RE: Three Tiers (long) No, just well reasoned.

The classes I put together were more or less off the top of my head and secondary to the discussion. My thinking was allowing sufficient overlap for progression.

The main point (for me) was one overall North American sanctioning body, common rule book, a common seeding list and a well defined (three) tier system providing a development ladder for drivers, co-drivers, teams, service people, organizers, workers... Put the manufacturers right at the top and don't step in until you've got what it take$. Make the top tier FIA classes because the next step would be WRC. (I know - that sounds crazy)

I realized about 2 seconds after posting, that my proposal was far too reasonable - that someone would narrow in on... say the class structure, for instance. I am naive.

Hokay - back to class

I missed Group 5 because we don't have it up here and I forgot that it existed - don't want to get into an argument over whether it should exist or not.

I personally believe that beginners should not run Open or Group N class cars - but hey

I never really liked the multiple production sub-classes either. Maybe a return to P, PSport & PGT - I don't know.

I run a production car - an NX2000. 2500 lbs, big brakes (same as the Pulsar GTiR AWD turbo), VLSD, 4.18 to 1 final drive, a great motor (SR20DE - 140 hp, 130 ft.lb), available gravel suspension (DMS, Bilstein, Hot Bits, Morriss), easy/reliable/relatively inexpensive upgrade to Group 2 (SR20VE, cheap & available dog engagement gear set at any ratios T/W R&P, existing Group A suspension & driveline pieces from NME's F2 Pulsar GTi - BRC championship: Mark Higgins). You get the picture. It'll be a while before I'm driving faster than this car, even in production trim - I think you could say the same about a lot of drivers.

To absolutely prove to you that Production is a useful training ground for beginners - exhibit 1 = ACP. From pokey Lada to ex-Tuthill Open EVO - and not tripping over himself (understatement there)

I've had the pleasure of taking a 'clubman A' Escort Cosworth RS for a spin. Fast car, but a serious learning curve. Even if I had the money, I would be inclined to stick with the P car for now.

These are just my opinions, I would be very flexible about changing them if the main point (North American sanctioning) were achievable.

Robin

 

[Kartwheel]

RE: Three Tiers (long) No, just well reasoned.

I am well aware that GrpN is "Production" but it is a FAR cry from SCCA Production. How many SCCA P/PGT cars have dogbox transmissions? Alternate lower final drive ratios? Bigger brakes? Stronger suspension A-arms? Saying GrpN and SCCA P/PGT have anything whatsoever in common is misleading to say the least.

As for power, my comment about turbo cars was not to say I *NEED* lots of it, rather that my turbo car will make more than enough and will be LOWLY stressed since it will be marginally more than it has stock, and therefore more reliable than a G2 car with the same HP level which is significantly more than stock. I still think G5 will be cheaper to operate than a P/PGT car for the reason I stated, my stronger uprated parts (brakes, suspension hardware) that can NOT be upgraded will cost less over a season since they will be more durable. Is that not correct?

 

[Kartwheel]

RE: Three Tiers (long) No, just well reasoned.

Oh yeah, I never said get rid of P/PGT, I just said dont force ME to run it.

 

[John Vanlandingham]

RE: Three Tiers (long) No, just well reasoned.

Brian , this Ray guy seems to have some odd ideas and seemingly only superficial knowledge of the issues around building cars, and the cost involved. I suspect he has not built one himself and most of his knowledge may possibly been gleaned reading magazines and Inter.net.

Remember he's the guy who was saying Cosworth had problems with crank reliability or some such nonsense.

Perhaps this will help him understand the relative merits better:

Tell him what you payed for the car you are prepping and for your spare shell.


Ray, the first consideration when thinking about actually starting to compete is the initial choice of car, followed by the availability of information and parts to make it a competition car, in our case here in North America: Gravel Rally

If you choose a car like all the guys I listed above then your intiial expenditure for the car will be approx $200 to $350.

I think you can see that starting with an expentiture of only a few hundred dollars allows one to devote subsequent expenditures toward preparing the car, the mandatory and needed parts being pretty similar in price, therefore the biggest saving is realised in the initial choice of car.
Even PGT suitable cars are still costing $2000-10,000.

In the turbo cars, as Brian has pointed out, the engine develops enough torque that he needs not think about any performance mods or buying a close ratio gearbox or even really worrying about alternate ring and pinion ratios, although there are easy solutions for that as well.

All this points to Gp5 as being an ideal beginner car class and should be preserved.

Gp2 has become, with the arrival of F2 cars with 6 speed sequential gearboxes from overseas, very very expensive to enter _competitively_.

And as to people should or shouldn't be driving this or that because cars are too powerful, well they'll learn to moderate power in the woods in the same way they learned to moderate power on the road.

But this is not the thread for this discussion.



John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

 

[Lancia037Rally]

RE: Three Tiers (long) No, just well reasoned.

>But this is not the thread for this discussion.

So why post it here. There is a car construction forum.

Back to the topic cause its a good one.

As far as the SCCA following CARS I believe SCCA would benefit by
1. The elimination of driver's #s and car #s being issued at event by start order (easier for spectators to understand who is ranked where and the position changes as the rally progresses)(Also competitors running a 900 series NEDiv # in western events appear to be novice teams).

2. Elimination of ProRally/ClubRally ID packages and allow for event or series sponsorship on winsheild and doorbackers. Why promote SCCA when what we need are sponsors to help with our cost?

3. CARS requires competitors have first aid training. Don't know if SCCA should mandate it also. It could save a life, maybe your's.

4. Proposed rule changes are mailed to each license holder annually with a form to reply on with your comments and views to be returned and compiled before rulechanges are made. last year we also voted on adding a couple new events to the calander and were asked about scheduling of these events.

5. Would be nice to have SCCA results and standings mailed following each event as was the case a couple years ago. CARS still does it. Keep my SportCar, send me rallystuff.

 

[Foghorn]

RE: Three Tiers (long) No, just well reasoned.

Dave,

Does posting your points twice increase their validity?

Kent Gardam

 

[Lancia037Rally]

RE: Three Tiers (long) No, just well reasoned.

>Does posting your points twice increase their validity?

Of course not. Just trying to get back to the topic. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned car classes but would like to see them uniform between CARS and SCCA to allow for G2 and G5 North American Rally Cup classes. I would like to see Gr5 added to Canada to accomplish this but it is not the topic.

Many of the people who have run both CARS and SCCA will be at Tall Pines in a couple weeks. Bruce Perry, Adrian Wintle, Randy Zimmer, Christian Edstrom, Jeff Secor, Pat Richard, Mark Williams, hopefully the Mendhams. I will try to ask most for what CARS procedures they think SCCA will benefit from and formally submit to the RRB on behalf of those who contribute. My list was just off top of my head. Sorry for making you read it twice (or three times).

 

[Foghorn]

RE: Three Tiers (long) No, just well reasoned.

Well, maybe I'll see you there. I am trying to work out freeing up the time to get to Tall Pines to at least spectate, or maybe work, or if someone is desparate for a club rally licensed co-driver... I haven't been to Tall Pines since '74 when it was still in Orillia.

Kent Gardam

 

[Rich Smith]

RE: CARS & SCCA Procedures

"Many of the people who have run both CARS and SCCA will be at Tall Pines in a couple weeks. Bruce Perry, Adrian Wintle, Randy Zimmer, Christian Edstrom, Jeff Secor, Pat Richard, Mark Williams, hopefully the Mendhams. I will try to ask most for what CARS procedures they think SCCA will benefit from and formally submit to the RRB on behalf of those who contribute."

Lancia037Rally,

Thanks Dave (Lancia037Rally), this is really a great idea and very timely. CARS appears to have procedures in place that not only work well, but that it's members respect and appreciate. SCCA Performance Rally (National) needs to treat it's members better and think outside it's own box.

I'll wager that discussion of things like rules alignment and a common class structure for rally in North America would become a lot easier if SCCA was more civilized in dealing with it's own membership.

Separately, would you also please post your findings or the summary letter you submit to the PRB? Should be very interesting.

Thanks,
Rich Smith

 

[saywhat]

RE: Three Tiers (long) No, just well reasoned.

>Where do you get your info?
>What do you think Group N is? It's Production class!

Actually it's a modified production class, or should I say not show room.

>The FIA knows the importance of the production classes.

Yes for the manufacturers-but certainly not for the competitor!!

>That's why there are Group N1/N2/N3/N4. There are no Group
>5 in FIA or anywhere else in the world. Group 2 is close to
>F2 in the FIA, but not well recognized. Group A has several
>sub-classes, most are 2wd vehicles.

>G2/G5 are not cheaper. That is a fact!

What fact? G2 & G5 are the entry level to rally!! Production and PGT by age limit make these exspensive classes.
Can you explain how G2/G5 are exspensive?

>Besides the fact that PGT and G5 are probably going to be
>dropped.
>The only thing is,.. a bad driver always thinks he needs
>more power.
>A good excuse for not able to perform.

So we should toss open?
>
>Whiplash RallyeSport

 

[robin]

RE: CARS & SCCA Procedures

>"Many of the people who have run both CARS and SCCA will be
>at Tall Pines in a couple weeks. Bruce Perry, Adrian Wintle,
>Randy Zimmer, Christian Edstrom, Jeff Secor, Pat Richard,
>Mark Williams, hopefully the Mendhams. I will try to ask
>most for what CARS procedures they think SCCA will benefit
>from and formally submit to the RRB on behalf of those who
>contribute."

Make sure you talk to Peter Watt as well: driver, co-driver, CARS, SCCA

Robin

 

[John Vanlandingham]

RE: Three Tiers (long) No, just well reasoned.

>>But this is not the thread for this discussion.
>
>So why post it here. There is a car construction forum.

Why?
Because it was a response to the fellow Ray who seemed to be dismissive of the concerns of the people I listed who have certain cars which have a class here in the US but don't have a class in Canada, and the thread here is generally, in case in your zeal to be snippy you overlooked it, about possible desireability of co-mingling and aligning the rules and classes in North America.

You may have noted, did you not, that Robin mentioned he forgot to include Gp5 because it doesn't exsist in Canada so it would seem if there were to be discussions beginning about alignment of rules and classes the this glaring anomoly should be brought up.

That is what is called dialog and discussion, and it ebbs and flows.

And there's left hanging the question of where and what to do with expired GpA and GpN cars.

You have a vast 3 years expeience, maybe you could suggest what we should do with the classes to facilitate alignment in the context of Continent wide solidarity?
>




John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat