[wvonkessler]

Gentlepeople:

Let's say you had a chance to do the rules from the get-go. Per Glenn etc., as a COMPETITOR, what do you want? The rolling 25 year rule? Cut-offs at significant times, e.g. pre-72, 72 to the Audis (80 or so)?

NASA Rally Sport has received inquiries from folks that have cars like the Fiat 128 and 131, TR7/8, Stratos replicas, Abarth X1/9 replicas, etc. They don't think that they would be competitive with current vehicles, but would like to run in a competitive championship.

If you were to put together a classing structure to encourage rally with older vehicles, how would you do it?

Thanks in advance.

Wilson

PS: I really enjoyed Phil's editorial in Classic Motorsports

 

[J Cox]

>
>NASA Rally Sport has received inquiries from folks that have
>cars like the Fiat 128 and 131, TR7/8, Stratos replicas,
>Abarth X1/9 replicas, etc. They don't think that they would
>be competitive with current vehicles, but would like to run
>in a competitive championship.
>
>If you were to put together a classing structure to
>encourage rally with older vehicles, how would you do it?
>
I hope it's okay to try offer something here, even though I'm not driving an historic. It seems like a very difficult job to accomplish both the following ideals in one class:
-Include the "newer" old cars that have big technology advantages such as AWD and forced induction
and
-Have good intense-but-fair competition.

Seems like you'd either need:
A) Two classes ("old, no-longer competitive with current cars" and "really realy old and low tech").
or
B) A complex series of equalizers (such as balast).
or
C) To just go with one simple H class with the rolling date and abandon fair competition with the philosophy that Historic class is just for showing, and having fun with, old rally cars, and not about really determining who is the best driver. Those drivers looking for more serious competition could (and maybe should?) enter the non-historic classes.

Jim Cox
#558

 

[John Vanlandingham]

Wilson,
There is a serious misunderstanding on certain peoples part on what cars were like in terms of prep and to use the pointlessly inappropriate term technology in the period from the late 60s to the late 80s especially regarding what 98% of people in the world were rallying.

They have come into the sport recently, know what they know as enthusiasts from chit chat and books and from theier own wants and agenda.
I know people who were rallying in the late 60s, and thru the 70s and 80s, I know this:

The Technology of a reasonably prepped late 60s or early 70s clubman rally Ford, Volvo, Opel, Fiat, Toyota, Datsun, SAAB, Mitsubishi, etc, and in fact many supported cars was if you had a normal budget high comp, lumpy cam, a pair of 45s, a close ratio 4 speed, a short ring and pinion, and quick steering.

Ford had their BDA 210bhp in the Escort MkI by what 1969? But how many?
Every factory had 16v heads by 1975 even Simca spain for their 1000cc thing!!

But even at the end of the 70s 95% of club guys were still on a pairs of 45s and still using 4 speeds.

Yes Ford and everybody else used bigger ZF diffs and big ZFs and Getrag 5 speed boxes, but so what, 95% were doing the same sort of mods as 10 years earlier.
And although there were some wicked factory cars the level of prep for the ordibnary guy was not significantly different even into the late 80s.

A big pecentage in the countries where the sport has mass participatio STILL prep their cars more or less as it has been done since 1969. Maybe there are more 5 speeds, seems everybody likes Ford Typ9.

In terms of performance, regardless of how facinating people may think some of the swoopier cars like Lancia Stratos or 911, they were regularly beaten by simple crude Ford Escorts which any Clubman could put together. And those esorts could be beaten and were by such older car designs asthe SAAB 96 as late as 1976. Lots of overlap and small differences in performance in the end since the technology had not changed significantly, just the sheetmetal and how the valves on some cars were opened.

You may be surprised to know that on the Thousand Lakes the winning average miles per hour changed from 1980 when Markuu Alen won in a 131 Fiat rwd non tubo, non supercharged, crude car thru 1992 or 93 I believe, a nasty modern wicked box, 4 wd with diffs everywhere and massive brakes and a 38mm restrictor Lancia Deltona a grand total of 3.5 or 3.7 mph.

Vastly more sophisticated cars, marginal maybe 5% faster average.

A reasonable person, perhaps one that has worked in motorsport for a few years might safely venture the guess that the percentage change from crude MkI 1600BDA in 69 to crude MkII BDG in 79 was not as great.
Not significant in other word.
And that was the factory speeds.

What 98% were doing with their home built cars we can safely assume was not as extreme, and hence even smaller differences.

To anybody who has been around working on Foriegn cars in the times in question, the *big technological change' arguemnt is patently false, and not based on reality.

It may a a reflection in fact of the lack of actual working experience of those positing the theory of big changes being big differences in performance.


Why continually try and rehash and rework the question??

Glens proposal seems pretty good and pretty workable.

IF THE CLASS GETS BIG ENOUGH_THEN_ split it.

There are web site for those whodoubt the average MPH stuff, but I won't waste time just to prove them wrong. It doesn't matter.






John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

Black Rocket Rally Tires
http://www.blackrockettires.com/

 

[Kartwheel]

>If you were to put together a classing structure to
>encourage rally with older vehicles, how would you do it?

Glenn's plan is good. The only stipulation is you split the older cars after the class gets big enough.

 

[Bill Rhodes]

Wilson -

While I generally support Glenn's suggestions as an improvement over the current H-class situation, in answer your question, I would defer you to the rule proposals which the H-class competitors put forward to the PRB (at Kurt's behest) in 2002. Those rules were, I believe, posted on Tim W.'s vintagerally.com site. They represented a general consensus from the active competitors (Smith, Cook, Wheeler, Byford, Kammer) at that time. Not sure if they all still agree with that work product or not, but I would direct you to that site and the 2002 proposal to see where the actual competitors were leaning.

The age cutoff was discussed heavily but was left intact to align with an analogous British cut-off. The proposed rules were intended to liberalise car prep rules in the short term to grow the class. I know there are some who feel that the current competitors were trying to forestall growth in the class, but nothing could be more off-base, and, frankly given the amount of hard work to make the rules more user-friendly, I find the accusation insulting and inflammatory.

Glenn's suggestions, in my mind, are useful. I don't know that the rolling cut-off is the right way to go or not, but I'm willing to see if it helps the class grow.

In the meantime, the Datsun 510 will compete, but not necessarily in H-class in 2004 - we'll have to wait and see who comes out to play. Whether in G2 or H, we hope to resume our competitive times in the new shell. Even if all vintage cars are put in one class, we will not fear any vintage Quattro or other "advanced" technology out on the stages. The Datsun routinely turned faster stage times in recent events than many modern AWD and higher horsepower entries. We hope to continue to do so.

Bill Rhodes

 

[Rich Smith]

Wilson,

FIRST CHOICE:
The 25-year Rolling Cut Off is best. Everyone gets in eventually. You can add subgroups within this framework later if needed.

SECOND CHOICE:
If you have concerns about AWD or high-horsepower, Western Canada has great rules for their regional "Group D" historic class for normally-aspirated 2WD cars with a 20-year rolling cut-off. Here's a link to discussions and examples of Group D rules:

http://www.specialstage.com/forum/cgi-bin/DCForumID18/289.html

THIRD CHOICE:
For those wanting a completely level playing field for drivers you'd need a "spec" class within Historic. It wouldn't matter what spec is used as long as it's very rigid. So, what would people want? Escort Mk 2? Stratos Replica? Group 222H?

I'm glad to see NASA planning for a Historic Class. I assume you are laying the groundwork for both NASA-East and NASA-West.

Good luck,
Rich Smith

Vive le "Pro-le-Ralliat"

 

[JohnB_SPY8808053]

There are only around 6 Stratos replicas in the country so they probably shouldn't influence things too much. If you want to let them participate, all you have to do is allow use of the alternate engines (2L Fiat/Lancia I4, 3L Alfa/Lancia V6 or 3L Ferrari/Lancia V8) with carbs and maybe mech fuel injection - maybe. These engines are affordable and in moderate tune the V6 & V8 make similar power to what the works cars had. They do weigh a bit more (and sit a bit higher) but that nicely offsets the replicas slightly lighter chassis. I love all the G4 cars. I'd really like to see a few Stratos racing against Escorts, 131s and TR7/8s (etc.) here in the States - I think allowing replicas is the only way your're going to get that.

My main complaint with the NASA rules was that the minimum weight seemed to require you to run a heavy car or a small NA engine. Even a 16v 2.0L 4-banger resulted in around a 2400 lb. minimum weight. Removing weight is a cheap (and historic) way to increase performance. The minimum weight rule eliminates or signifigantly alters many of the fast and light designs/car models. This seems to force the privateers into the small displacement cars but lets the supported teams run the bigger engines because they can afford the development needed to get big performance gains that offset the minimum weight.

Forced induction, electronic injection and 4wd are the big performance items that are at the heart of most of the historic rule disputes. I think a few guidelines/restrictions and participant policing of these items will be sufficient until the class grows a bit. At some point, it may be necessary to split the historic cars based on performance but we need a lot more participating cars first.

I agree with John V. The winning cars in the 60's & 70's ran strong suspensions, performance cams, big carbs and mech LSD. The biggest difference between the works teams and the privateers was not so much the cost of the parts they used, it was that the works teams had more practice, more spares & more mechanics to install them.

If we want close competition, I think we should also limit some things that make sense and are easy to check - like tires & service vehicles (but not service crews).

Just my .02,

John B.