Some history:
Sarasin 2008 100AW: 3007 lbs.
Sarasin 2008 NEFR: 2883 lbs.
Bartram 2008 NEFR: 2810 lbs. (Iorio's old car)
Le'Estage 2007 NEFR: 2897 lbs.
Le'Estage 2006 MFR: 2886 lbs.
Iorio 2006 MFR: Somewhere near 2850ish. Closed window too fast.

So a few cars will need to add some weight.
But, and here's the big thing. All the GD etc newer Subaru and Evo cars are still all near 3200 lbs so they can still make huge amounts of unsafe removal of steel to try to get closer to the 2900 lbs. The intent fails to protect the competitors that are most inclined to spend ridiculous amounts of money on titanium bolts and carbon fiber everything/anything and time with a sawzall to try to get down to that weight.
There were two GC8s here that were pretty stockish cars swapped with turbo engines that were near or below 2800 lbs. The 6 speed fancy gearbox is heavy. I just helped remove Kenny's 6 speed dogbox from the Mexico car on Saturday. They are way more than a stock 5 speed box. So this rule simply causes low level competitors to add ballast (in a safe or unsafe manner could be disputed)

What about maximum weight? That seems like it'd be more of a safety issue to me. How about all Open Class cars have to be between 2800 and 3000 lbs.

---

Grant Hughes

tipo158 Wrote:
>
> Sorry, I wasn't trying to be coy. The reason is
> in the Bulletin.
> In the rationale section, it says:
>
> "This change is being made to discourage unsafe
> lightening of rally vehicles that
> are based on newer, heavier chassis designs as
> well as discourage the expense of
> efforts to make rally vehicles very light."
>
> We were thinking about the cars that were likely
> to run in National Open class (primarily GD and
> GH/GR Imprezas and Evo IXs and Xs) and were
> concerned about what someone might do to get the
> weight down to 2700 lbs. Look at the minimum
> weights for those cars in SP and no one running
> these cars have been over the minimum weight
> AFAIK. To get those cars down to 2700 lbs, you
> either have to do something unsafe or spend a lot
> of money and we wanted to discourage that.
>
> So, as far as FIA minimum weights and following
> best practices to avoid litigation and all that,
> this is just another area where RA is different
> from FIA. It isn't the first.
>
> alan
>


i personally think this is a stupid rule.

my car, without any extravagant weight reduction my car weighed 2883 with street wheels and all rally trim and full tank. last summer i removed the rear bumper beam and modified the front one by cutting parts out of front bumper beam. now i am positive i will have to ballast my car so that all 150 hp (maybe) keeps me safe on the stages.

sounds smart. add extra weight so that i have extra momentum to slow down or work around through the corners or braking points.

are you specifying that people can't remove parts or certain parts from the car? because if not this rule does nothing to improve safety. if anything i would assume it would make cars less safe. everyone will still remove weight from their car, it will just mean that they will have to add more ballast to the bottom. in fact, if i was a lawyer or legal counsel i would say this does nothing to make the sport more safe or protect rally america from legal action. i would argue quite the opposite, instead of regulating what can or can't be removed (a nightmare for scrutineers) you have instead blindly increased the weight of many cars in a method that i think doesn't take into account safety, only makes individuals or organizations driving the newer heavier cars happier.

how exactly is this good for the sport?

---

-Mark
www.nocoastmotorsports.net

Josh Wimpey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the concern is about newer heavier cars being
> unsafe while trying to acheive the minimun weight
> then the rule should be written such that it ONLY
> APPLIES to the newer heavier cars and not the poor
> saps who already have older cars nearer the
> minimum weight...Surely Iorio's old cars &
> Schmidts car are close to 2700lbs or under without
> balast.
>

And my 4x4 Cossie powered Xratty with street car seats but otherwise ready to go is 2720. Glad I'm converting it back to 2wd.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> __________-
>
>
>
>

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Doivi Clarkinen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alan, you can't be serious. WTF?? This is the
> patently ridiculous. The lamest reasoning I have
> ever heard. (OK, being a little melodramatic, but
> still...) It is not difficult at all to get a GC
> Subaru down to 2700lbs. No having to do anything
> "unsafe." Later model Subies? Yeah, a bit more
> difficult, you're probably just not gonna get
> there. No rule needed. Is anyone actually doing
> anything "unsafe" to get their cars down to
> minimum weight? Seems like that is something that
> could be handled on a case by case basis. Isn't
> that what tech inspectors and log book inspections
> are for, to make sure the cars are built safely?
> Oh yeah, it's not really about that, the rules are
> there just to make sure RA doesn't get sued. It's
> apparent you guys sit around thinking up all the
> possible ways you might get sued and write rules
> to try to protect against it.
> People, this has nothing to do with with
> preventing one type of car or allowing one type of
> car to have a competitive advantage and has
> everything to do with what I just wrote above.

Gee, Dave, at least read all of my posts before commenting.

I implied that GC Imprezas (by reference to Iorio's car) would need to be ballasted up, but noted the lack of GCs running at the front of the national field now. This change was made thinking about cars likely to be competing in National Open next year, which, you noted, are hard to get down to the current minimum weight.

I can appreciate and understand the points of view of the people who disagree with the need for this and other rules changes. We look at a situation as we see it, consult with people, make some decisions and put out the rules. Since a decision is usually involved, some groups of people are going to disagree with the decision. Sometimes things play out as we thought and the rule change was good; sometimes it doesn't and we revisit the change.

If you disagree with a rule change, then you should engage us in a discussion.
Posting on forums that RA is run by Subaru or RA makes all of its technical and safety rules as legal defense against lawsuits is just a way to vent, not a way to get anything fixed.

alan

One of the main reasons you don't see GC nationally is due to the lack of contingency money.

They may be just as competitive, but you won't get paid (as much) if you win.

My GC subaru with a H6 3.0 swapped in, with stock tranny, all stock bumper beams front and rear, and AIR CONDITIONING for chisakes, and a full tank of gas was 2820 on the scales.

And trust me, there's not a single piece of carbon fiber involved.

Mr. Wimpey's post makes sense. I can imagine a rule that instead said "The minimum weight is 2700 or 300 pounds less than the stock weight, whichever is greater." That would address entirely the issue of an absolute minimums while preventing "excessive steel removal" from a fat pig of a car. (if that was what was needed)

Anders

---

Grassroots rally. It's what I think about.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2009 10:02PM by Anders Green.

I love how you can make anything a "safety issue" in motorsport to hide the fact that you don't want old cars beating new cars.

> "This change is being made to discourage unsafe
> lightening of rally vehicles that
> are based on newer, heavier chassis designs as
> well as discourage the expense of
> efforts to make rally vehicles very light."

Penalize the clubman. Make it easier for the factory. Bravo. This is one of the best pieces of misdirection I've seen since SCCA left.

> If the concern is about newer heavier cars being
> unsafe while trying to acheive the minimun weight
> then the rule should be written such that it ONLY
> APPLIES to the newer heavier cars and not the poor
> saps who already have older cars nearer the
> minimum weight...Surely Iorio's old cars &
> Schmidts car are close to 2700lbs or under without
> balast.

Agreed.

>And my 4x4 Cossie powered Xratty with street car seats but otherwise ready to go >is 2720. Glad I'm converting it back to 2wd.

Just please stay away from the 2WD classes with your "safety issues," no matter who or what corporate entity gets involved.

---

Lurch
Eric Burmeister
The west coast...of Michigan

Seems like Mike said something about the reasons, I honestly can't remember. Minimum weight is done to equalize competition or discourage unsafe building practices. I could see where someone could meet minimum weight of whatever spec and still be unsafe. Suppse someone had a front heavy car and was at minimum weight. They then lighten the crap out of it and add weight where they want to come back up to minimum and balance the car. POssibly unsafe construction meets minimum weight but the car likely handles much better so is safer...tough argument on this rule. If you just go by the safe/unsafe construction you open the door for scrutineer opinions. I see questionable calls on this happening too easily.

Establish a reasonable minimum weight for each specific model of car?
Regulate body material?
Stock floor pans?
Steel/stock bumper bars on all cars with only so much removed for cooling or intercoolers?
Real glass windows?

Probably no one would go the extra mile like Grumpy did with the 7/8 scale Malibu, bu I have heard of others who modified bodys and frames to get a slightly smaller car on one end or the other. I have seen a Sube Justy with a WRX engine and drivetrain installed. Probably have to add lotso ballast to bring that up to par.

Glad I'm not involved on figuring this subject out...

Lurch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love how you can make anything a "safety issue"
> in motorsport to hide the fact that you don't want
> old cars beating new cars.
>
> > "This change is being made to discourage
> unsafe
> > lightening of rally vehicles that
> > are based on newer, heavier chassis designs
> as
> > well as discourage the expense of
> > efforts to make rally vehicles very light."
>
> Penalize the clubman. Make it easier for the
> factory. Bravo. This is one of the best pieces
> of misdirection I've seen since SCCA left.
>
> > If the concern is about newer heavier cars
> being
> > unsafe while trying to acheive the minimun
> weight
> > then the rule should be written such that it
> ONLY
> > APPLIES to the newer heavier cars and not the
> poor
> > saps who already have older cars nearer the
> > minimum weight...Surely Iorio's old cars
> &
> > Schmidts car are close to 2700lbs or under
> without
> > balast.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >And my 4x4 Cossie powered Xratty with street
> car seats but otherwise ready to go >is 2720.
> Glad I'm converting it back to 2wd.
>
> Just please stay away from the 2WD classes with
> your "safety issues," no matter who or what
> corporate entity gets involved.
>
>
>
> Wait Lurchie! I think you hit on something without realising it!!
Unconcious brilliance in other words!

Come on and do what i do and always look for the good!

And ferfuckssake use logic!
So, it's now established that it is safer to ballast older cars up to weight maybe several hundred pounds more than before.
Add the PROVEN SAFENESS and proven BEST PRACTICES of the 32/34mm turbo restrictors.

Come on do I need to spell it out!???

So for people's own safety, all cars should be ballasted up to say 3600lbs and ALL cars have say a 28mm restrictor including those out of control Gp2 cars.

Then as they get experience AND results which proves thev'e mastered the wild ass power, then they will be allowed less weight and a larger restrictor once the show a copy of the Title showing a 03 or later model year car.
It would have to be progressive so if your car was only a worn out 05 model maybe you'd be allowed 29mm and 3400lbs
An 07 maybe 31mm and 3200lbs.

It's fucking brilliant and you get the credit for cracking the dilemma.

Cause nothing could possible be safer at less weight than the serious full time professionals. If they can only get their cars down to 2900lbs then that's the proof that it would be DANGEROUS for any car to be less.

Something had to be done!

So let's not squak and be Negative-Nellies.

After all, aren't the technical experts at RA the last word in expertise in Technical issues??

Remember what's good for Milo Minderbinder Enterprises is good for the Country.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

^^I love the smell of sarcasm in the morning

---

Jon Burke - KI6LSW
Blog: http://psgrallywrx.blogspot.com/

john vanlandingham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And my 4x4 Cossie powered Xratty with street car
> seats but otherwise ready to go is 2720. Glad I'm
> converting it back to 2wd.

Don't worry John, minimum weights are irrelevant unless the car actually competes in an event. (Yes, this is, in my opinion of course, meant as a light hearted joke)

---

First Rally: 2001
Driver (7), Co-Driver (44)
Drivers (16)
Clerk (10), Official (7), Volunteer (4)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Last Updated, January 4, 2015

Quote
john vanlandingham
Blame is for idiots. losers.

Jon Burke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^I love the smell of sarcasm in the morning


Oh no! This is serious stuff, mang!
Safety is never to be sneezed at.

WE CAN NEVAR make enough rules based on SAFETY!!!
>
> Jon Burke - KI6LSW
> Blog:
> 'Holy Shit!' @ 4:10

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

john vanlandingham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Josh Wimpey Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If the concern is about newer heavier cars
> being
> > unsafe while trying to acheive the minimun
> weight
> > then the rule should be written such that it
> ONLY
> > APPLIES to the newer heavier cars and not the
> poor
> > saps who already have older cars nearer the
> > minimum weight...Surely Iorio's old cars
> &
> > Schmidts car are close to 2700lbs or under
> without
> > balast.
> >
>
> And my 4x4 Cossie powered Xratty with street car
> seats but otherwise ready to go is 2720. Glad I'm
> converting it back to 2wd.

My GTX car is at 2660lb with nothing stupid done. I'm certain I can get the new car down below 2500lb without much work. Then I can make the skid plate out of thick steel to add back in the 400lb of ballast I'm gonna need. Maybe I should do tungsten sheets like they do in F1

Tim Taylor Wrote:

>
> My GTX car is at 2660lb with nothing stupid done.
> I'm certain I can get the new car down below
> 2500lb without much work. Then I can make the
> skid plate out of thick steel to add back in the
> 400lb of ballast I'm gonna need. Maybe I should
> do tungsten sheets like they do in F1
>
>


but wait, isn't a tungsten sheet like that expensive? and this rule keeps you from doing silly expensive things like that!

oh, wait, it doesn't do anything to keep costs down or increase safety.


tipo158 Wrote:

> "This change is being made to discourage unsafe
> lightening of rally vehicles that
> are based on newer, heavier chassis designs as
> well as discourage the expense of
> efforts to make rally vehicles very light."


please please tell me how people are lightening the cars in an unsafe way currently or in what ways they are feared.


tipo158 Wrote:

> I wrote the words that are in the Bulletin and, at
> the time, I had no idea Ford was contemplating
> bringing the Fiesta over.


at the time you wrote it you had no idea but i'm sure someone did. we heard about ford in colorado 2-3 weeks after the bulletin was released. travis talked about it during the post race interview at oregon trails. it's hard believe that no one at rally america knew about the fiesta's till after the press release from ford and for that matter during the conceiving of this bulletin.

i hate all this talk of "screwing over the little guy" or "it's a conspiracy" but stuff like this....

---

-Mark
www.nocoastmotorsports.net

tipo158 Wrote:
>
> Gee, Dave, at least read all of my posts before
> commenting.

I did. I think you missed my point, which was the reasoning given for increasing the minimum weight seems weak or flawed or both. I wouldn't go as far as to say disingenuous because, unlike others here, I don't believe there is a conspiricy.

>
> I implied that GC Imprezas (by reference to
> Iorio's car) would need to be ballasted up, but
> noted the lack of GCs running at the front of the
> national field now. This change was made thinking
> about cars likely to be competing in National Open
> next year, which, you noted, are hard to get down
> to the current minimum weight.

Well first of all to address this. Because there is an apparent lack of GC8 Subies running at the front of the national field (don't know, haven't checked) you are going to give them a weight penalty because RA is afraid that owners of later model, heavier Subarus will do unsafe things to make them lighter?
I still would like to see an example of what these dangerous things people are doing to lighten their cars are and why it can't be handled on a case by case basis during a logbook inspection.


>>
> If you disagree with a rule change, then you
> should engage us in a discussion.
> Posting on forums that RA is run by Subaru

When did I ever say this? Please quote me.


or RA
> makes all of its technical and safety rules as
> legal defense against lawsuits is just a way to
> vent, not a way to get anything fixed.


You said so yourself just above. OK, not ALL of its rules, that's an obvious exaggeration.

And maybe I just want to vent and not fix anything, OK?!