Four Class Structure - CARS Bulletin 2012-05 now online

Quote
zerodegreec
Like you just said, Half the cars are pushed into open for very poor reasons. Thus they are all tuned and running 34mm. Why not let them run for another year with 34mm.

They can, in open class. No effect whatsoever on the teams with 34mm restrictors already operating in open class. No money spent.

Quote
JVL
You have no idea in your smug little fucking Albertan fanatsy land how many people I have pushed hard to go up and do Canadian---that is BC events. Gone in one silly, thoughtless rule change.

As I replied in my earlier post I just made, if I have any say (which I do), it will not affect Alberta events. I can't say anything about RPM, but I am sure Nicki would be agreeable.

Quote

What is the point of G2 and G5 then?

The other issue I would be concerned with is Sanction insurance for regional events/competitors. If CARS is the sanctioning body, and the events run under a CARS supplied insurance program, then whats to stop the insurance company from denying to insure a regional unless their classes are in line with what CARS recomends.

What the claim of these new rules, and what they actually accomplish seem to me to be different.

In essence, there was no point, a failed expirement. That's why G2 and G5 is gone.

I'm pretttttty sure we are ok on the insurance front. It's not quite like in the US. Keith can comment on that.

You should understand, this isn't the end of the rule changes, just the beginning methinks. Hard to phase in everything at once.

Quote
john vanlandingham
You're poking fun at the obsoleting piles of cars which more and more guys are realising are a fine way to have lots of fun for lowest outlay AND not be forced to build specific motors.

Um, no.
I was poking fun at the fact that you asked the same questions a second time at the same time I was actively trying to answer the first set.
That there are a bunch of people who feel they are being orphaned by the rule change concerns me a lot and I would never poke fun at them.

Quote
john vanlandingham
You have no idea in your smug little fucking Albertan fanatsy land how many people I have pushed hard to go up and do Canadian---that is BC events. Gone in one silly, thoughtless rule change.

You still haven't answered my question of what would you do to reduce the potential performance gap between G2 and G5 cars. (the cars, leave the drivers out of it)

What would you want to see in a single open 2ws class where the vast majority of 2wd competitors are running G2 cars?

---

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.

Quote
HiTempguy
(as a small dig, I thought this was all about fun anyways, so as long as you can run, why does it matter Bryan? )

LOL How am I going to stir the pot if you keep ruining my fun? Its my job as a Navi to poke and find the rule loop holes and determine who falls through. Maybe we do and maybe some other cars we know of in a class its not eligible for (cough cough local) It is fun to run with a group of cars similar to the one your racing. Thus running an essentially PSport or PGT car in a class above sucks. Kind of like what I ran last year and this year. But it is still fun.

---

Intercom and electronics dude. www.zerodegreec.ca



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/07/2012 12:38AM by zerodegreec.

Quote
zerodegreec
Thus running an essentially PSport or PGT car in a class above sucks.

When I co-drove for Norm Leblanc we would always enter PGT nationally and Open regionally at combined events. First time we did it they actually had to change some code in the scoring program. (A PGT car is legal in open class, but at a theoretical disadvantage)

---

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.

Quote
zerodegreec
It is fun to run with a group of cars similar to the one your racing. Thus running an essentially PSport or PGT car in a class above sucks.

I agree in a sense, but Hardy and I always relished the challenge. As Keith pointed out, so did he and Norm.

However, take the long road view for a second Bryan; as I said, this is NOT the first and only changes coming down the pipe. If you don't think I've expressed my displeasure multiple times this year over how things are changing (too fast), well I have. BUT, I also understand from a NATIONAL, LONGTERM viewpoint that CARS is doing what needs to be done.

Adam, I believe I said I wouldn't likely make it up to Big White THIS year. Please be assured it is/was my intention to race Big White soon. And looks like it NEEDS to be this year as it may be my last opportunity...

Quote
Slowwpoke
Adam, I believe I said I wouldn't likely make it up to Big White THIS year. Please be assured it is/was my intention to race Big White soon. And looks like it NEEDS to be this year as it may be my last opportunity...

Which I am saying this year will hopefully NOT be your last opportunity. As I also said, I don't speak for RPM, but I am pretty sure that they consider the PNW to be an important part of their rally scene. As such, I'd hope they'd consider a strong competitor base to the south as an important entity to listen to. Nicki got this information at the same time I did, and I'm sure in the coming time a discussion will be had between RallyWest and RPM in regards to the WCRC. If I have any say, it's for EVERYONE to be included regionally. I don't want to tell someone "no, you can't compete here because your car doesn't fit into any of our classes".

I'm poor too, and I completely understand! It took 5 years and a ridiculous game plan (every cent and all of my time, schooling that would get me into a career that worked well with racing) to start rallying. I unequivocally refuse to hamper people from doing it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/07/2012 01:00AM by HiTempguy.

Quote
HiTempguy
Tom specifically stated that part of the impetus behind these rule changes was to entice more manufacturers to potentially compete in the CRC.

That's more of a byproduct than it is a goal. In the end, I don't see the class change impacting manufacturer involvement in any way. As far as it went was looking at what engines are being offered and what engines are expected to be offered. This likely led to the increased NA displacement to 2500 in 2wd Open from the G2 limit of 2400. There was no marketing presence on the class change committee. (although Jorge understands the importance of marketing)

Quote
HiTempguy
The rules are set as far as I can tell with the way previous rules have gone with CARS. A LARGE majority of competitors making enough noise unanimously could/would change this.

Quote
HiTempguy
I'd wager that your opinion is worth the equivalent of a vote Keith. To say that the people on the board are not aware of your opinion is (in my opinion ) a stretch.

You'd be surprised how quiet I stay on the board calls. The region is very well represented by Eric on the calls and the board discussions are usually fairly well rounded and points I tend to want to make are usually brought up by others first. If not, and if I think it is an important point, I certainly do speak my mind. (in this case, pushing to keep open class 34mm so everyone isn't screwed crossing the border.)
I'd also say you're grossly overestimating the value of my opinion.

Quote
HiTempguy
It is a done deal, the rules are now officially the rules. The discussing/questions were already had. As I pointed out earlier, a vast majority of competitors would basically have to strike to change things.

Constructive feedback, that offers a solution, would likely be eagerly listened to. CARS is much more open to feedback and stakeholder feedback that many might think it is.

---

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.

Quote
Morison

I'd also say you're grossly overestimating the value of my opinion.

Constructive feedback, that offers a solution, would likely be eagerly listened to. CARS is much more open to feedback and stakeholder feedback that many might think it is.

Considering the positions you've held and the work you've done for Canadian rallying, I disagree. Obviously, it is not like you have a vote as stated, and I am SURE (as I also know the folks on the board somewhat) some would disagree depending on what opinion you voiced.

I already have given my constructive feedback Keith, and to the proper people, 8 months ago. I wanted the rules to be implemented for 2014. Nobody listened. The competitors were there and shared their viewpoints in person. And VIRTUALLY nothing changed of any substance from the original documents from then to the new bulletin we see now. I argued for an SP class, as it made sense (unless the whole series was going to 32mm, which it undoubtedly will, as that is one of the main reasons to not go to SP in the first place) and was shot down. I argued against pump gas, which Tom still wrote down as being considered at the AGM. I put down limiting competitors in a series that wasn't oversubscribed, as lax rules encourage the current competitors to come out. Nope.

And I wasn't the only one. Lets be clear, CARS has a habit of doing what it thinks is right. And it has no ill intentions in doing so. But that doesn't mean that they truly listen to competitors, as this bulletin directly contradicts what the majority of competitors argued for/against at the AGM, at the very least timeline-wise, if not the general overall opinion of the rules.

so am i gonna have to run a restrictor for regionals?

---

what could go wrong?

Quote
phlat65
What is the reasoning for getting the G2 and G5 cars closer in performance? What is the point of G2 and G5 then?

The classes being chnaged the most by these rules are G5 (combinining with G2) and PGT (being relaxed for up/back date and a few other things.) Both classes were significantly under subscribed nationally and regionally. (moreso nationally)

Quote
phlat65
The other issue I would be concerned with is Sanction insurance for regional events/competitors.

Non-issue until CARS tells the regions they have to pull their classes in line. I don't see that happening unless the regional cars are consistantly running quicker than the top national cars on the same stage.

Quote
phlat65
Bullshit that "station to station fuel is to inconsistent."

All I know is the information given to the board - which included talking with fuel distributors and engine tuners - was that on a national scale you should expect there to be enough of a varience from one station to another (and from one month to the next at the same station) for it to be a concern.

---

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.

... personal axe to grind here. Not that it matters. But when I emailed Mike Hurst regarding the RA G2 rotary rules, he said that the justification for no porting was keeping the things to a power level proven in SCCA Improved Touring - about 190hp at the flywheel. Which, I guess, fine, if that's the targeted HP level in the class. Except RA allows 3L engines in the class with unlimited engine modifications. And now CARS puts them in the same class as 2L turbo engines, albeit with 32mm restrictors, but with unlimited engine mods... or 2.5L NA engines with unlimited engine mods. Gr.N gets something like 250-300hp out of a 32mm restrictor with big stonking toarks, doesn't it? Some mad scientist could go throw the high compression tricks from WRC at the problem and do even better (worse)... and is E85 allowed? And then let's not dwell on what cubic dollars could do with 2.5L NA; I can think of a couple 4-500hp engine options that fit within the letter of the rules off the shelf for under $25k.

Okay, what's my point? I mean nobody's bothered shell out to built this crap, right?

Either horsepower matters in 2wd, or it doesn't, and either the rules are written with the intent of controlling costs or they aren't. If horsepower matters, then leaving big open ended engine prep rules is dumb, and if it doesn't, then why bother with displacement limits and turbo restrictors that outlaw nice cheap low-revving stuff that exists? And if costs matter at all, restrictors but otherwise unregulated for turbo engines and open rule small displacement NA engines is a pretty silly way to control costs. Just because nobody's built it is kind of a silly reason to leave the rules open to it - there's always someone out there with money to burn.

I just don't get it. It seems like the most potentially expensive and exclusionary way to control what I've heard over and over is a nonexistent problem.

Overall, i think these changes are good...and i'll voice my few opinions to the correct people.

The only sticks in the mud that i really see are this:

1. ProdAWD will become a very expensive class to run in competitively, and these cars could well be monsters....having said that...it doesn't really matter until someone does.

2. And this is probably the most important, is we've classed out a bunch of current north american 2wd competitors. I don't think it would take a big tweak..IMHO Open 2wd should be n/a 3.0L, and turbo 2.5L. The restrictor is also pretty big for these guys, there is alot of $$ that goes into tuning properly for a restrictor.

---

Chris

Quote
Do It Sidewayz
2. And this is probably the most important, is we've classed out a bunch of current north american 2wd competitors. I don't think it would take a big tweak..IMHO Open 2wd should be n/a 3.0L, and turbo 2.5L. The restrictor is also pretty big for these guys, there is alot of $$ that goes into tuning properly for a restrictor.

You say North American, once again, the amount of US competitors is very small in the cars that are classed out.

List of Western Competitors (and then onto others I can think of in Canada)
Houston with his volvo (hasn't been out in forever, now in Ontario)
The turbo porsche 944 (hasn't been out in forever)
May or may not affect zebe (his car is 2.0l or 2.4? I forget, but now in Ontario)
Srt4's (at least one out east)
Thought there was a late 80's/early 90's gm v6 auto running around out east, along with a truck of some sort
No mazdaspeed 3

So really, we see 3-4 cars total that are essentially "banned" because of this. And it's only nationally. Sounds like Martin Walter is ok nationally? So who does this really affect?

We still really shouldn't be limiting competitors, especially in under subscribed classes.

VanWay came up to run Tall Pines in 2011, with his Turbo Fiesta. Do you think he'd do that if he had to first bolt on a 32mm restrictor and tune for it? Doubt it.

Tim O'neil / Wyatt Knox ran the Mazdaspeed up there a few times. They wouldn't be able to run.

There are a gaggle of ex-works SRT4's kicking around, none of them would be able to compete.

There is an SRT4 that runs in Quebec fairly regularly.

There is a Starion that runs in Ontario once or twice a year.

All the Merkur guys who have expressed interest in going to PFR, Rocky, etc...

Really for 0.5L we shouldn't be shrinking our possible competitor pool. Why not just up the limit to 3.0L and 2.5L and call it a day. Atleast we can then TRY to attract those competitors with higher displacement cars. Especially when out right HP really does not generally win races in 2wd.

I know it's ONLY 3-4 cars we'd be counting out....but we should be trying to get those 3-4 cars to our events, so the events and series can grow.

---

Chris