[Shenan]

Are there any plans to update the Group 2 (M2 in NASA?) displacement limits? I ask because if I recall correctly, there are few if any four-cylinder cars currently on the market that fit in. It seems everyone is moving to 2.3/2.4/2.5 liters or in the case of honda/acura, 2 liter w/ vtec, which would still make it ineligible because of multipliers.

I know the idea is far-fetched, but wouldn't this immediately be an obstacle to any manufacturer trying to support a Group 2 team? I did find out that Suzuki has a new 2 liter model that seems like it could work for rally (see picture below), but one unproven car doesn't make a class.

http://carsmedia.ign.com/cars/image/article/594/594672/suzuki-reno-20050309045255641.jpg

 

[Walter Clark]

>..... It seems everyone is moving to 2.3/2.4/2.5
>liters or in the case of honda/acura, 2 liter w/ vtec, which
>would still make it ineligible because of multipliers.
>

Neither NASA nor RA have a multiplier for variable cam timing in the open/modified classes. Thus 2 liter 4+ valve NA engines are legal for G2/M2 whether using fixed or variable cam timing.

I oppose a change to permit larger displacement engines into G2/M2. This would render existing G2/M2 cars at a significant power disadvantage and many suddenly obsolete with no legal options to catch up. Personally I would withdraw completely from rally with such a change.

 

[jake himes]

>>..... It seems everyone is moving to 2.3/2.4/2.5
>>liters or in the case of honda/acura, 2 liter w/ vtec, which
>>would still make it ineligible because of multipliers.
>>
>
>Neither NASA nor RA have a multiplier for variable cam timing
>in the open/modified classes. Thus 2 liter 4+ valve NA engines
>are legal for G2/M2 whether using fixed or variable cam
>timing.
>
>I oppose a change to permit larger displacement engines into
>G2/M2. This would render existing G2/M2 cars at a significant
>power disadvantage and many suddenly obsolete with no legal
>options to catch up. Personally I would withdraw completely
>from rally with such a change.

Man it sounds like there isn't much keeping you in it if that's all it would take. I'm sure there are many folks out there who are frustrated as well.

That's why Group F is the way to maximize satisfaction among rally folk in the NA 2wd classes. Lots of cars, lots of good driving, lots of competition. Tight battles are a blast!!! They are fun. Isn't fun why we all got started to begin with?

 

[jandreini]

Yeah; let's be like SCCA. Then we can have a slew of HP Spridgets that haven't been sold in 40 years filling our fields. That's a saleable commodity.

 

[Jens]

>Yeah; let's be like SCCA. Then we can have a slew of HP
>Spridgets that haven't been sold in 40 years filling our
>fields. That's a saleable commodity.


At least people (with normal wallets) can afford to race them.

"saleable commodity"? Huh? Oh, you mean like Subaru, Mitsubishi, Mazda, GM, Porsche, MB, BMW, and Ford are falling all over themselves trying to pound down RA's and NASA's doors to become national rally sponsors, eh?

Okay.... and I'm the Easter Bunny.

 

[Walter Clark]

>Man it sounds like there isn't much keeping you in it if
>that's all it would take. I'm sure there are many folks out
>there who are frustrated as well.

Moves like this are at the expense of existing small budget competitors. Just like that max age thing the SCCA tried to impose under heir Kurt. And for the same reasons - old isnt cool.

Small budget...that describes me. I am having a hard enough time with multiple sanctioning bodies, escallating entry fees, crazy fuel costs, and the price of new tires. I will not bring a car that is hopelessly outclassed and I will not spend thousands and thousands on my present car or to build another just for the sake of others.

If for some reason someone wants to run a larger displacement 2WD car in an open class, there is already G5/M1. If such a car cant compete in G5/M1 (well, now you know how I would feel), petition for a new class somewhere between the G2/M2 and G5/M1.

Group F? I somehow missed that class in either the RA or NASA rule books. Not that I havent heard it discussed. But that is also the case for Group 222. Discussions.

Right now I do many more hillclimbs than rallies with my car because of the cost issues (not to mention the loss of small regional events) so moving to hillclimbs only would actually simplify things for me.

 

[Eric Burmeister]

He's right. 1800cc used to be the small car defacto displacement. Then in the 90's everyone went to 2000. Now many of the same cars are at 2300-2400.

I also agree, however, that even if you adjust the rules, you would have far less competitors building new cars than keeping old (2000cc) cars.

The only way to make it all work together is a Group F type weight/displacement class. I hope it does become officially recognized for NA cars in the near future, but until then, a group of competitors can make the class work for them. And they are.

 

[AlanPerry]

"saleable commodity"

>"saleable commodity"? Huh? Oh, you mean like Subaru,
>Mitsubishi, Mazda, GM, Porsche, MB, BMW, and Ford are falling
>all over themselves trying to pound down RA's and NASA's doors
>to become national rally sponsors, eh?

I think having a vehicle manufacturer as a title sponsor for a rally series (or any racing series) is not a good thing. It tends to limit involvement from other manufacturers.

I see Subaru support at rallies out here (paying for things that would either be passed to competitors through higher entry fees or through more stress on organizers looking for event sponsorship) and I see Imprezas in WRC paint schemes at Subaru dealerships whose sales staff don't have a clue about rally.

If there is no saleable commodity, explain the Lancer OZ Rally Edition. Or the 1/10 scale Higgins ProRally Evo RC cars sold at Toys R Us. Or Lurch's car being put on display at tuner shows.

The fact that rally hasn't really taken off here yet may indicate that it will never be a NASCAR-sized phenomenon, but it does attract a niche now.

alan

 

[MDBodnar]

This is a very tough issue.

1) The rules have to keep up with what is available in the market today. This is primarily because today becomes yesterday and at some point yesterday becomes a really long time ago and eventually history is forgotten. That is a strange way to say old cars don't last forever so you have to make accomidations for new cars.

2)I am in the camp of don't obselete my old car! but I know the reality of the situation. My car of choice, while not group 2, has been obsolesced by both the rules and newer better cars.

The rules for my car are simply unreasonable. But while my car might be more fun to drive without the rules imposed it would not be more competitive than the newer cars.

3) In Group 2 the rules allow significant modifications including powerplant changes. Thus if the rules were changed to allow larger engines you would have many options including a brand new bigger engine. I know that is not a small expense, but the Group 2 rules allow the cars to evolve with time.

4) Given the flexibility of the rules it may take you a year or two bring your car back up to snuff, but at least you have the option. There is a lot to be said for a well built race/rally car even if the powerplant is not optimized (as long as it has the potential).

5)I would not change the rules without some investigation: How many new cars are still 2.0 and under? How many are above 2.0? when comparing the list what models are currently competing in G2, which are not? If the majority of the current models competing have gone above 2.0 then you have a strong arguement for a rules change. If there are just a lot of above 2.0 cars but they do not coincide with the cars of choice, then I think the arguement falls flat.

Good Luck!
Mike

 

[mattjohnston]

RE: "saleable commodity"

Bring em on.

.4 liters isnt gonna change the world. Just drive faster than them.

Gp2 is a snoooozer anyway (In the nationals, where any dooder who had Suzuki funding would be driving)

 

[Eric Burmeister]

RE: "saleable commodity"

Focus was 2.0, now 2.3.

Cavalier was, well, junk. Is now Cobalt and is 2.4L

Protege was 2.0, now Mazda3 is 2.3

Neon was 2.0, now (next year) Caliber is 2.4

Elantra is still 2.0

Civic was 1.6 is now 1.8

Golf is still 2.0, but GTI is only avail with either turbo or 2.8 V6

Suzuki Aerio is now 2.3, yet Chevy version is only 1.6 (small car with 155 hp!)

Sentra was 2.0 is now 2.5

Integra was 1.8 is now RSX at 2.0

Lancer was 2.0 , Ralliart is 2.4

Subaru...doesn't sell a 2wd car here.

Even if the rule was changed to allow the current "small car formula," how many would be built? Near zero. Why? Because it takes a lot of money to develop and undeveloped car (ask me how I know) and competitors can build fun, reliable, quick cars from older cars for a fraction of the money.

Moreover, anyone with the kind of money that can afford to build one of these things (from scratch...rally parts don't exist) probably has enough to build a nice Subaru. Why would they build this instead?

The downside of not making a place for the new cars to play is that you won't see manufacturer involvement helping teams out for any of those brands.

Group F allows both, the new and the old and makes an attempt to make them competitive with each other. Not sure how successful they will be with that part, but its a start.

 

[jake himes]

RE: "saleable commodity"

>Focus was 2.0, now 2.3.
>
>Cavalier was, well, junk. Is now Cobalt and is 2.4L
>
>Protege was 2.0, now Mazda3 is 2.3
>
>Neon was 2.0, now (next year) Caliber is 2.4
>
>Elantra is still 2.0
>
>Civic was 1.6 is now 1.8
>
>Golf is still 2.0, but GTI is only avail with either turbo or
>2.8 V6
>
>Suzuki Aerio is now 2.3, yet Chevy version is only 1.6 (small
>car with 155 hp!)
>
>Sentra was 2.0 is now 2.5
>
>Integra was 1.8 is now RSX at 2.0
>
>Lancer was 2.0 , Ralliart is 2.4
>
>Subaru...doesn't sell a 2wd car here.

man all those numbers go right along with the Group F rules...it's perfect!!!

>
>Even if the rule was changed to allow the current "small car
>formula," how many would be built? Near zero. Why? Because
>it takes a lot of money to develop and undeveloped car (ask me
>how I know) and competitors can build fun, reliable, quick
>cars from older cars for a fraction of the money.
>
>Moreover, anyone with the kind of money that can afford to
>build one of these things (from scratch...rally parts don't
>exist) probably has enough to build a nice Subaru.

Orrrrrrrr....they could build a radical Group F car at a fraction of the cost and have a ton of competition from teams with guts and Sisu

Why would
>they build this instead?
>
>The downside of not making a place for the new cars to play is
>that you won't see manufacturer involvement helping teams out
>for any of those brands.
>
>Group F allows both, the new and the old and makes an
>attempt to make them competitive with each other. Not
>sure how successful they will be with that part, but its a
>start.

At this point I think that the money needed to develop a rippin' fast RX-7, Mustang, or a Xratti is way way less than it would cost to develop fast Group F newish car. Geez, maybe gas prices will bring back the little econobox.

 

[jandreini]

RE: "saleable commodity"

>man all those numbers go right along with the Group F
>rules...it's perfect!!!
>

GpF is a much more attractive package than Gp2. More flexibility to accomodate cars one can actually buy while leaving room for older cars to compete (I'm not against old cars, Jens; I am against excluding current cars).

 

[darkknight9]

RE: "saleable commodity"

>Focus was 2.0, now 2.3.
>Cavalier was, well, junk. Is now Cobalt and is 2.4L
>Protege was 2.0, now Mazda3 is 2.3
>Neon was 2.0, now (next year) Caliber is 2.4
>Elantra is still 2.0
>Civic was 1.6 is now 1.8
>Golf is still 2.0, but GTI is only avail with either turbo or
>2.8 V6
>Suzuki Aerio is now 2.3, yet Chevy version is only 1.6 (small
>car with 155 hp!)
>Sentra was 2.0 is now 2.5
>Integra was 1.8 is now RSX at 2.0
>Lancer was 2.0 , Ralliart is 2.4
>Subaru...doesn't sell a 2wd car here.

Escort was 1.6 then 1.8 and 1.9 then 2.0
Focus is still available in 2.0 trim
Geo metros havent gone big yet.....

Rules, schmules. I just don't have the green for a new vehicle.

 

[Wink Timber]

Jake adds: >>My driveway will now include the following: low water bridge, waterbar, tree to hit, HOT yooper chicks coming over to lite the sauna (sow-nuh)<<

My driveway already HAS a low water bridge, a couple of curves, trees to hit, and a drop-off on one side. And any GOOD mojakka-eatin' Finn poika would know that "sauna" has three syllables.

TW
Six miles west of Twig
Out PAST The Sticks

 

[Flyboy]

Classes evolve as technology evolves. Look at the steady reduction of restrictor sizes in open/N/GT over the years. Every change screwed the current competitors, and made it more costly for the privateer to compete. But long term the changes were deemed necessary for the continuation of the class. I don't see how G2 is any different. I doesn't make sense to exclude these cars in the long term, so we might as well make plans to accomodate them now.

BTW, my airplane roots have left with a personal bias against weight. Therefore even though a GrF type sliding weight scale is an elegant solution, I can't bring myself to mandate the adding of weight to a perfectly good car. If that's how it turns to be solved, so be it, but I really, really hate weight.

Dennis Martin
[email protected]
920-432-4845

 

[Adrian Wintle]

RE: "saleable commodity"

>>Suzuki Aerio is now 2.3, yet Chevy version is only 1.6
>(small
>>car with 155 hp!)

I'm pretty sure the Chevy version is the Swift+, not the Aerio. For how fast a Swift+ can go, just look at Frank Sprongl's or Bill Bacon's results in Canada.

Adrian

 

[derek]

I think it is intresting how people currently bringing underpowered and wofuly under-prepered cars to Gp2 events are worried about being uncompetive in the future if the rule change...


Derek

 

[GB]

>.....Therefore even though a GrF type sliding weight scale
>is an elegant solution, I can't bring myself to mandate the
>adding of weight to a perfectly good car. If that's how it
>turns to be solved, so be it, but I really, really hate
>weight.
>
>Dennis Martin
>[email protected]
>920-432-4845

You wouldn't have to add weight as most G2 and current G5 cars are overweight. Only the Mustang with the V8 may need adding of weight and I am not sure of that either. If you look at the weights to cc displacement on the Gr.F forum you will see that the most North American rally cars are not close to the min. weight...

 

[NCWrencher]

RE: "saleable commodity"

And sadly the Swift+ and Chevy Aveo are nothing but rebadged Daewoos.

The REAL swift is running pretty decently in the JWRC, with tons of parts and lots of potential, only Suzuki won't bring it to NA.

:-(


>I'm pretty sure the Chevy version is the Swift+, not the
>Aerio. For how fast a Swift+ can go, just look at Frank
>Sprongl's or Bill Bacon's results in Canada.