CARS Production class Brake rule change!

Quote
john vanlandingham
The amount of times and ways i suggested that all new rules proposals should have a "explanatory clause stating the problem being addressed--and theoretically "solved" is beyond counting.

The chances of any rule getting through the rules committee, let alone being passed by the board, without a clear rationale are fairly slim. Just because it isn't posted here doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The fact of the matter is this proposal has come to the rules committee repeatedly for the last four or five years and has been discussed in 'round table' forums with competitors over several years.

Quote
john vanlandingham
The amount of times it was derided, ridiculed dismissed with the Party Line of "We need a benevolent _____________dictator......" is 10 times beyond counting.

You haven't been around CARS much lately have you? The current board is committed to transparency and openness about how business is done. While there may still be a few hold-overs who are slow to change, CARS as a whole is very much aware that they need to be accountable to ALL of their stakeholders.

As much as I hate the analogy, this is similar to how a trade union's job is to look out for the best interests of all of its members, which is different that looking out for the best interests or each of its members. (admittedly theoretical)

Quote

That No2 is maybe why things always seem capacious, there's rarely any discussion of what the problem is---or honest discussion, so how is anybody but a few supposed to understand what this or that new rule, requirement or whatever is supposed to be accomplishing/mitigating/fixing?

If we look specifically at this brake change proposal, CARS has previously distributed rule change surveys to competitors including this change and received strong support for allowing free brakes from the responses. The rule didn't change from the perspective of 'production should be production'
CARS has a long history of distributing rule change proposals to license holders to solicit feedback. The low number of responses to these mailings only serves to buoy the unilateral approach to rule changes as, for the most part, getting feedback is like pulling teeth.

To answer the question on 'guiding principles' of CARS:

In practice I would say that CARS' goal is foster a National Championship that is broadcast on TV and attracts Sponsor support of events, competitors in general and allows individual teams to attract sponsors. I can tell you that CARS does carefully consider the impact on event organizers and competitors with every decision. (which is why there are organizer and competitor representatives sitting in on all of the board calls)

Regional championships and Navigational Rallies are left to the regions to manage with the exception of the overall guidance of the GCRs and NNRs. (as examples, Western Canada allows street legal (aggressively) studded tires in stand-alone regional events and has Group D(inosaur) for 20+yo 'period correct' cars.)

There is little question that TV coverage of the national championship is important to the CARS board. That is why the championship has been televised for all but one year for nearly two decades. Is this right? That is hard to say, but without that coverage there wouldn't likely be the contingency programs from Subaru or Mitsubishi that put cash in the hands of competitors in those brands or the support truck from Yokohama at all of the national events.

OK, ya, I know... "if you rallied an xratty or Volvo 240 you could have more fun for less money even after the contingency money from the manufacturers." So what. That doesn't really matter because people were running evos and subies even when there wasn't manufacturer support. The fact is there are a lot of people in the sport for whom a $40-60,000 annual rally budget is sustainable out of their discretionary spending.

Keith,
I agree with you about the direction of class rules regarding P cars or PGT cars for that matter. While it is nice to 'protect' the people already running, motorsport has never been able to freeze advancements, especially from manufactures. Even the purest racing class in the world, FV, has seen pressure to advance and decline in interest from not doing so.

Production classes need to adequately reflect what is being sold today that may be on stage now or even a year or two when used. Not everyone wants to race an old Volvo or VW. Not many business' are real interested in sponsoring and old anything either. Much of the P clas has turned to a budget class for people not wanting to spend any money on their car.

I think we're missing the forest for the trees. As everyone has said, this (brake downsizing) has come up over and over again. I think it's the wrong point. It’s not about brakes. it's not about classes.

It's about tires. Right? The shout from the masses is that there are all these fantastic new cars, just waiting to be rallied in production trim, but can't fit 15" wheels? Sounds like a fantastic opportunity for some entrepreneurially minded individual(s) to start making and selling 16" rally tires. Really, how hard could it be? Supposedly there are dozens if not hundreds of 16" shod cars (and all future rally cars) just begging for rally rubber.
Barring that: If you want to run a car you can’t get proper tires for, Tough cookies. “But I want to rally a Humvee!!! But it’s got 16.5 inch wheels and I can’t buy cheap tires!!! Change the rules!!!”

We know it's about the tires. The problem is if you don't allow a way for newer produced cars to compete you end up with a bunch of old beater cars some day. You also lose any chance of manufacter support and in general advertisor and sponsor interest.

I doubt if all the rally tire sales in the world would be an economic boon to a tire manufacturer. 16s would certainly be a good answer though. In the car world it has replaced the old 15 as a standard size.

While you can easily say ..if they can't buy tires don't race, 'we' have already made so many allowances to increase reliability or competition it isn't even funny. I still (dimly)remember the old no seam welding days. No coilovers.

The 'if you can't' premise can be made for many of the mods we take for granted these days. It's tough figuring what to allow or not, while trying to maintain fairness and interest and keeping participation at beneficial levels.

PGT was started partially because of the old Plymouth Firearrow. 2.6 liters of carbed fury. Totally unfair to the other production cars . At least I think that is the story. Over the years every new flavor of the day has taken the podium and the fallen from grace. GTX, Talon, WRX all have seen controversy over being allowed. People want nothing to change yet are quite willing if they benefit. Human nature. Fist, stick, pointy stick, bow and arrow, cross bow, musket......nuke, laser satelites, it never stops.

If we draw a line in the sand right now today, then PGT will end up being like FV or FF in road racing. Very expensive and dwindling.

But the thing is that it isn't like 16" gravel tires haven't been made. I am virtually certain - but don't have the time or desire to dig for supporting documentation - that Pirelli offered a 16" gravel tire that got no 'traction' in terms of sales.

Thinking that global tire manufacturers will build a limited application product around a North American rulesets is rather optimistic. The rest of the world generally runs FIA classes which already allow for downsizing (or Variant Options for different brake packages)

I too think I've heard of 16s for gravel, but maybe the cost was quite high or limited availability or some such. Whatever the case it sounds like they went the way of the old beta max....

Many of the new cars run such a big wheel with a ultra low profile tire that finding a similar rally tire would be impossible. In fact trying to find someone willing to spend an hour or two sweating over a tire machine just to ruin the bead on one tire would be an accomplishment....

How did the average consumer get so duped with this new wheel and tire scam with cars all coming with big wheels and low profile tires. As far as I can tell there is no benefit to consumers (other than TV and magazines making it 'look' cool.) The wheels are more expensive, with less sidewall the wheel is easier to damage, and the tires and wheels are more expensive to replace. I can understand cars like the STI, Evo, Mazdaspeed 3, etc, but the average driver car? 15" wheels and brakes are enough for 99% of passenger cars and everything is cheaper.

There's a reason why 16" or bigger gravel tires aren't made. Because they would suck. I guarantee that the manufacturer teams have tested them (with the goal of having larger brakes probably) and likely found that the decreased reliability from the extra damage to wheel/tire offset any benefit from added brake cooling or torque.

AMS makes a Wilwood 15" brake kit for the Evos. Dave Kern's Evo has it.

So put the 15" rally tires on the 17" wheel. It's all in how you mount them, right?

Grant, you forgot about the shitty ride and constantly chasing the pavement grooves benefit.

My truck has 20s from the factory with Goodyear Eagles, looks neat, can't wait to replace them...I'll have to take out another loan.

Yeah, that too. And since the tire/sidewall acts as a damper of sorts, you also have a lot more wear and tear on all the suspension components too I would assume. Combine that with how absurdly heavy most cars are since everyone wants luxury and quite for their 48 mile commute...

I think a lot of it is the increased weight of the cars causing mfrs to put bigger brake packages on, which require larger wheels, which just increases the weight of the car even more.

If they weren't putting bigger brakes on from the factory, then it wouldn't be a problem to run 15s.


And 16s have definitely been made, and I believe back when TT Supras were being rallied, they were even imported to the US. Question is, do 16" rally wheels even fit over stock STi/EVO brakes?

man, blah blah, its simple: stop with the charade of "production'.

Problem solved.

Dont forget that tire companies get to charge more for 17" tires and there is actual less cost in material. Ball joints, wheel bearings,all these companies benefit from this.

From a new to rally old oval track guy. I would make the classes more along the oval track thought. The more you can do to the car the higher the class. Pure stock, Modified, latemodel and super latemodel. A pure stock has only saftey mods. Modifieds can run what ever they want as long as its OEM. Latmodels have after market drive trane but must still resemble a stock car. Most have engine rules break rules and shock rules to help control cost. X amount of money spent on each part. And superlate model is the run what you brung hope you brung enough.

For rally production class cars in oval. Teams would have to find a stock brake caliper that fits under a 15" wheel. The head light would not have to match the year it would just need to work. Same for motors and rear ends. Pretty much open class rules but with stock OEM parts. no high dollar dog box or super light carbon fiber door cards.

Easier fix. No rally tires in production class, haha.

Rally tires are NOT standard on show room floor cars. Why allow them? No brake issue, and hopefully, slower speeds.

Problems solved! hah

Quote
Dazed_Driver
Easier fix. No rally tires in production class, haha.

Rally tires are NOT standard on show room floor cars. Why allow them? No brake issue, and hopefully, slower speeds.

Problems solved! hah

Here, let me be the first today...you're an idiot...

Roll cages are not standard on show room floor cars either. Maybe you should actually finish your garage queen car and buy a tire or two before solving all the worlds problems???