Special Stage Forums banner

What do you think of the following 2WD proposal?

1 - 20 of 93 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,368 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I believe the performance potential of very large engined, rotary, and forced induction cars is so high, that it can't be balanced by weight to a 2L NA car.

"Group F" as a weight adjusted 2WD class for NA cars under 3L, and NA rotaries with stock induction. This would replace current P, G2, and G5 classes.

Incorporate the fastest G5 cars into current Open class. 2WD in open can have alternate drive config., unlimited power, no restrictor, no minimum weight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
926 Posts
I think I am missing something. Is all the text there?

Ah-ha. The missing text was edited in when I was posting this. I will be back to comment...

I would be happy to run under "Group F" rules instead of Group 2. GF can fairly address some issues that exist today with G2 in respect to newer larger engined cars, or if G2 displacement were opened up - older cars.

Since I am not an open or G5 competitor I will leave that part for others except to say I dont have a problem with the idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,368 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
>Leave fast current Gr5 cars out of Open. They are at a
>serious traction disadvantage to AWD cars.

..so your response would be to keep 2WD open a seperate class? (#3) on the poll.
 

·
Need ride. Please send money.
Joined
·
1,278 Posts
darnit MIke- did someone tell you what I am working on? I was going to email you next, I swear...

1) I dont want extra ballast. Its just extra momentum/inertia. I would rather run Open with no weight than GF/modified G5 with weight.

2) I like the current G5. I think the only class that needs the weight mods is curent G2, due to the variance in hardware in the class. Leave the heavy hitters in 2wd in G5 with no weight restrictions.

Just my opinion now that this seems to be where we're gonna play...

:)
JC
#595
www.gnimotorsports.com
 

·
Faster Mabricator
Joined
·
3,611 Posts
>>Leave fast current Gr5 cars out of Open. They are at a
>>serious traction disadvantage to AWD cars.
>
>..so your response would be to keep 2WD open a seperate class?
>(#3) on the poll.

Probably leave as is (#1).Combining Gr2 and Gr5 as 1 class wouldn't be fair to guys who have competitive Gr2 cars now against the Mopars, Mustangs and Eric's Mazda. Don't know what its going to take to get a healthy Gr2 and Gr5 class turnout though. Would like to see 2WD added for NARC awards. Don't have OLN so don't know how coverage the drives that Doug Shepard had got, but some airtime should be designated for 2WD. Never been so sideways as with AHavas, Nichols and Lurch. Loads of fun. Can't wait to see Utecht's Mustang. The drivers who started w/ AWD don't know what they missed.

The Quebec regional championship only scores 2wd cars. Maybe thats your answer to keeping national teams outta the regional championships and increasing 2WD entries.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,368 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
>The Quebec regional championship only scores 2wd cars. Maybe
>thats your answer to keeping national teams outta the regional
>championships and increasing 2WD entries.

!!!That should have been one of the poll options.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,368 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
>
>Probably leave as is (#1).Combining Gr2 and Gr5 as 1 class
>wouldn't be fair to guys who have competitive Gr2 cars now
>against the Mopars, Mustangs and Eric's Mazda.

Maybe I should have been more clear, but option #3 would have the 2WD NA class cut off at 3Liters, the cars you mentioned would be in Open (option #2), or 2WD Open (option #3).

None of the above choices propose running the current fast G5 cars against current G2 cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
I think that replacing group 2 and production with group F makes sence, but I think that group f should remain a NA class. This would leave the 2WD world with group F and Group 5. This is the way I think it should be. I am not entiarly sure what you would do about the large displacement cars, but I think that giving them the choice between the two classes (provided they are NA) and meeting the rules for the given class.

But I think that this country is ready for Rally Cross, and I am not talking about killing cones in a field. I want to see a dirt road course (maybe mixxed surface) with "bad" off camber down hill turns and jumps all coupled with door to door racing. I think America is ready for this, hell it is more exciting than drifting cuz the cars are actualy RACING each other rather than going for style points. But yea that how I see it going down :).

Well any ways sorry that was kinda off topic, but not that sorry

Otis
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
Even though there is really no way for my Production car to meet the minimum weight requirements of Group F, or even come within a couple hundred pounds, I'd be okay with it because I think it'd be a lot more fun.

We have been considering switching to Group 2, but my main complaint (other then its a more competitive P car than G2) is the lack of competitors in G2 this last year in the PNW.

If P and G2 and part of G5 where combined that would alleviate the lack of competitors issue, and I think I'd be all for it.

I'm a bit torn on weather to put the high displacement / turbo / supercharged cards into the Open class or to have their own Open 2WD. Part of me thinks its tough to put them into Open because they just don't stand much of a chance. But G5 (including the 2.4 to 3L cars) is already so undersubscribed, there is only a couple cars anyway so it would almost certainly be very undersubscribed.

That being said there *are* a few cars that this problem would apply to. Specifically, I'd feel bad for Rick Schmelling (FC RX7 Turbo) locally, because he's the one that would bear the brunt of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
Forgot to ask: Is this something that is being considered for 2006? We're getting ready to do the winter "adjustments" on the car, so the sooner we know if this is going to happen, the better.
 

·
don't cut
Joined
·
2,252 Posts
Instead of beating around the bush like our politicians, I'll come right and say that I absolutely have litmus test regarding rule changes. I won't support any rule the involves even the possibility of adding weight to a car. Conversely, I'll support any rule that does away with weight restrictions (such as chucking Production).

Weight is the devil!

Dennis Martin
[email protected]
920-432-4845
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
868 Posts
My guess is that any normally aspirated two rotor car that weighs at least 2500 lbs would be reasonable to include in Group F. The potential of the large 4 cylinder piston motors is substantial.

Dave
Car # 207
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
>Instead of beating around the bush like our politicians, I'll
>come right and say that I absolutely have litmus test
>regarding rule changes. I won't support any rule the involves
>even the possibility of adding weight to a car. Conversely,
>I'll support any rule that does away with weight restrictions
>(such as chucking Production).
>
>Weight is the devil!
>
>Dennis Martin
>[email protected]
>920-432-4845
Dennis, the beauty of the GpF weights is that they are low enough that there should be virtually no chance of many people appoaching them, and hence the need for _checking_ them is virtually removed.

Further, in a traction limited class, a car can be light, and even light AND powerful, and that is STILL not a garantee of sucess, since there is still and maybe even MORE a need for the driver to LOOK FOR GRIP, in other words JUDGEMENT counts more when grip isn't assured by 3 differentials.










John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

janvanvurpa (at) f4 (dot) ca

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat!
Vive Le Groupe F!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,373 Posts
Combining all the 2wd classes would kill the P class as such. There are some quick P cars out now but a lot of older ones that aren't. It would likely kill any reason for a manufacturer to support a 2wd car. (Not that they currently do...) You would be upping the costs to compete for the P class.

Currently Bottles, Tennis, Stow can beat all the NW gp5, most of PGT and many of the Open cars with Gp2 cars. Gets to a point that big power 2wd can't really hook it up until they get to the higher speeds.

GpF seems doable, limit the tire sizes if weight bias isn't working. I don't like adding weight either, although it's possible to add weight , balance the car and handle better. Combine 2 and 5 , leave P and PGT, combine N and Open. 4 classes would cover pretty good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
> Combining all the 2wd classes would kill the P class as
>such. There are some quick P cars out now but a lot of older
>ones that aren't. It would likely kill any reason for a
>manufacturer to support a 2wd car. (Not that they currently
>do...) You would be upping the costs to compete for the P
>class.

I am in P class and I don't mind if it dies. I'm in the class because that is where my car is best suited. I'd be just as happy if we didn't have P class.

It means larger '2wd' fields and that is more fun.

As far as costs, Production, in my mind is actually more expensive then G2, because you have to spend a lot more (usually) on the base car in order to be competitive. Can't take a $200 car, replace all the crappy stuff with beefed up aftermarket and sourced parts. Have to buy a car that is, from the factory, already pretty quick.

Also I don't see how it would make it any less attractive for a manufacturer to support.
 
1 - 20 of 93 Posts
Top