I want help on a new NASA Rally Sport class: Spec WRX

randyzimmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Where were you when Doug Havir got his first rally
> car?

or Ken Block, or Travis Pastrana, or Norm Leblanc, or ...

None of whom saw adding a restrictor as a 'barrier.' (at least nothing more than a barrier of sorts for the intake)

---

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.

Yeah, but the restrictor robs the car of it's initial benefit.
We drive rally cars half the year here in Colorado without a restrictor and get to see first hand how it robs power, especially on the top end. There's a few cars here that run high compression, race fuel, stand alones, and other such things to combat the restrictor and end up with just over 200 whp. A stock 2.0L WRX with exhaust, reflash, more boost, and good air filter should be able to get you there without all the expense that comes with stand alone engine management, built engines, antilag, cool turbos, and all that shit.
I think physical inspection of the ECU internals could suffice Anders. Just make ECU reflashes open, but has to have all the original electronics controlling it. No perfect power or other such piggybacks, but reflashing the ECU is allowed.
Subarus are very forgiving and thus can be decent starter cars. Better than a VW that you'll spend most of your time fixing and trying to get reliable.

---

Grant Hughes

What Grant said. Differences beetween re-flashes will be so negligible that there wouldn't be a need for policing other than looking at the ecu box. Since were talking stock 5 speeds and stock brakes, what's 10-20 hp difference beetween cars?

---

Gone fishing

Hey, I'm not a suby guy. Obviously there a couple of workable problems, but the basic idea is GREAT. It's not the physical restrictor that is so expensive, it's the tuning, and gas etc that it takes to run at the same level as a stockish car could've. No, you can't do that in an afternoon on the dyno. I hope some suby guys help Anders out on this... He's the man!

Morison Wrote:
or Ken Block, or Travis Pastrana, or Norm Leblanc,
> or ...
>
> None of whom saw adding a restrictor as a
> 'barrier.'...
>


None of those guys answered, lack of time and MONEY on the "obstacles to rally thread"

Exactly - so why did you bring Havir up in the first place??

If the premis is that the restrictor in a WRX is a time/money barrier to building the car, then I am saying that the wrx is the wrong car in the first place.

Rally Idaho offered a venue to run unrestricted cars in a national event and virtually no-one took them up on it!

In the discussion we're having, pump gas was an afterthought, and race gas was thought to be silly in a 'stock' engine. The car I competed the most in ran 103/4 race fuel and was torquey as all hell - and the engine never failed in 4 years the car was run (and run HARD) (and that was on a stock, flashed ecu)

If you make reflashes 'free' (which you kinda have to because they are near impossible to police) then you kinda hafta move to spec fuel. Then, if you pump bad fuel into a car (or supply a pooched ecu/standard bov) then you're facing unwanted pushback from the unlucky stakeholder.

Sure, the formula can work... but you need a shitload of infrastructure to support it.

---

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.

>
> Sure, the formula can work... but you need a
> shitload of infrastructure to support it.
>

I don't think you need much infrastructure. Make the cars pull into the closest 7-11 and fill up on whatever's in that pump!

---

Andrew Steere
Lyndeborough, NH
KB1PJY

Morison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exactly - so why did you bring Havir up in the
> first place??
>
Because he predated those others by many years (2001),
no one knew he had money when he was figuring out what to do,
(we wrote a lot back and forth)
He quit competing and now has a rule
in his club against starting like he did.
Maybe if you had talked him out of that car,
the rally world would be different.
Does that explain it?
> >
> Sure, the formula can work... but you need a
> shitload of infrastructure to support it.

Not with a 3 rally max on the formula,
or not with arrive and drive cars,
or not with stock boxes and exhaust.

explain pushback?
you cheat, you blow up.

God Keith, you are such a dick on Anarchy.

randyzimmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Morison Wrote:

> God Keith, you are such a dick on Anarchy.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you Randy :-)

> Because he predated those others by many years
> (2001),
> no one knew he had money when he was figuring out
> what to do, He quit competing and now has a rule
> in his club against starting like he did.

Which has nothing to do with this discussion Randy.

> Maybe if you had talked him out of that car,
> the rally world would be different.
> Does that explain it?

Not really, if Havir had started out in an Xratty, the ban on newbies in open cars would probably still exist. A lot of people think it is a good idea and makes sense. CARS recently added TSDs, Rallycrosses or Rally shools as a prerequesite for a competition license ... could a similar open ban be in the future? Damned if I know.

but, Whatever ... I don't pretend to have all the answers or even that there is some 'magic bullet' to stardom and success in rally. All I know is what I have experienced and done first hand. (IE beating WRXs with an RS, on the right stages)

> > Sure, the formula can work... but you need a
> > shitload of infrastructure to support it.
>
> Not with a 3 rally max on the formula,
> or not with arrive and drive cars,
> or not with stock boxes and exhaust.
>
> explain pushback?
I show up at an event with a car that has been dead reliable, a 'control' ecu is put in the car and the engine melts down... (or bad fuel is supplied by the organiser and everyone's engines melt down) Do you think the competitor is just going to sit back and chalk that up to the luck of the draw?

> you cheat, you blow up.
What happens when you don't cheat and you blow up.

I guess my point is that every time you make a rule you need to understand how you will police it and what comes with that. If you mandate pump gas then you have to be prepared to test the gas being used. (can you run pump gas but still add octane boost or toluene?)

In the end, I was just trying to get a feel for the reason behind the idea in the first place. As it stands, I still don't see it.

---

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.

> To be more clear: I have a five week old baby, a
> real job,

pics or it did not happen. and i'm speaking in referance to your baby, everyone knows your job is not a "real job" =)

congratulations to you and Amy. tell her i said hello!

-Brian

When i was talking to Anders a couple of days ago I mentioned that I had read a report, preliminary as it was- from a test the Aussie Federation CAMS had done since like all series where's the homologated car problems, the sport was suffering from skyrocketing costs, dwindling entries and a few ultra-rich teams outspending everybody else by huge multiples. To address this common problem, they surveyed N4 drivers and found as everybody without the benefit of Kieth Morrison's brilliant analysis and wisdom was faced with huge costs in overcoming the 32mm restrictors.

Now they had the bright idea of trying prepped Subies, one with stock motor, no restrictor and pump gas--no idea what pump gas is like in OZ, vs fully optimised N4 car and the required spec gas, mapping and odf course, the 32mm plug.

THEIR tests showed there was virtually no difference in stage times and were going to study it a bit more with the intention of advising their rules committee.

Now I must stress that CAMS didn't call Morison and ask him to fix all of their cost/dimisnishing entry problem so they doubless overlooked all sorts of obvious problems that only a photographer from Canada could fix in a snap,

but it did beg the question: what's the point of all the involved effort if with suffcient cubic dollars, one can re-arrange the powerband, optimise everything all to go only as fast as an unmodded car?

www.rallyforum.com is where i saw the discussion for somebody who wants to disprove everything
But, this is not opinion it is a straight report of what OTHERS did and concluded, so if you're a troll-asshole who wants to argue the point contact CAMS:
851 Dandenong Road, Malvern East Vic 3145
PO Box 147, Caulfield East Vic 3145
Telephone:
Facsimile:
Office hours:

website:
E-mail:
1300 883 959
+61 3 9593 7700
8.45-5.15
Monday to Friday
www.cams.com.au
info@cams.com.au

I'm sure they're eager to be set on the right track....

---

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:
-------------------------------------------------------
...only a photographer from Canada could fix in a snap.

Ok, you get credit for being funny for that one.

I heard about the CAMS study (likely from you) many times but haven't made the effort to hunt it down cause, frankly, I can't be bothered. (although at quick glance CAMS appears to still requires restrictors on Turbo AWD cars)

Like I said in my response to Randy, I never pretend to have all the answers, even if you want to portray me as if I think I do - that's your jumping to conclusion.

Beyond the above, I was saying that if you don't go with pump gas, the bone stock engines are quite capable of taking an aggressive ecu map and making a lot of power very safely. If you want to restrict fuel and ecu maps ... you create logistical and administrative hassles that a relatively large organization like CAMS (10 on the board and a staff of 42) can manage much easier than most American or Canadian sanctioning bodies can.

All I am saying is that when you create restrictions, you have to know how you will police them.

---

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.

Here's where Keith's distance from the event is clouding his judgment.
NASA in the East is not a super competitive deal.
The biggest reason to finish first is to try to get to the beer before its sucked dry.
I can't remember an inquiry or protest, its just fun.
Anders is the organization of 1 with a staff of 2.
If someone suddenly goes faster than he should, it would be obvious.
In other words, a life-and-death struggle, it ain't.

Seems doable! Would it be possible to cheat? Probably. But there's no pot of cash for winning. Subies are good rally cars. Parts everywhere. This has gotta make starting in one perhaps a good idea. Randy likes the NA subies for newbs and he's got a good argument. With this formula perhaps the only difference is the initial purchase price... a drop in the bucket.

frumby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...Randy likes the NA subies for newbs ...

Actually, I hate turbos and wish they were all banned.
but that is just me and I realize there are other opinions.
If Anders wants to do something he thinks is worthwhile, that's OK.