CARS Rule change feedback wanted...

Sorry Keith, that just sounds like more dodging to me. I could care less about 4wd rules for a number of reasons so don't bother trying to link the 2wd rule changes to 4wd excuses --- 2wd and 4wd are VERY different animals in terms of marginal benefit of hp & tq multiplication vs performance potential on traction limited surfaces at fairly modest power levels.

It really is impossible to talk meaningfully about the change to 2wd production class rules without talking about the other 2wd open-class consolidation & exclusion nonsense.



Hoche --- I don't think that CRS's weird production rules are interesting to anyone outside of CA and a very few old-timers that will never build a rally car again anyway. And furthermore, I don't think the rules making and enforcement process for CRS's world is any better than the CARS debacle ---- and the process is important. It should be transparent, non-arbitrary, evidence based, and non-exclusionary neither CRS p-stock or any of the CARS 2wd rules & processes pass more than two of those four criteria at a time. In addition, the CRS p-stock rules were supposed to control costs but allowed free engine internals and I know at least one competitor that spent more on his motor than I did building my entire Golf. At least CARS production rules have somewhat better cost controls (stock engine and trans with LSD upgrade only) ---- not that I think either of these does much to control costs -- rather it limits the number of vehicle models that are likely to be viable rally builds due to stock gearing designed to run like 2200 rpm at 80mph on the highway in an ultra-lean burn modern fuel sipper. So, you just end up with a 3-spd with enormous gaps....

---

____________________________________________________________-

One. Class -- 2WD

www.quantumrallysport.com

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/Quantum-Rally-Sport/281129179600?ref=nf

I've forwarded my commenst to the competitor rep.

It has struck me as odd too that CARS is changing all 2WD classes for no good reason.
production is now almost what G2 used to be (except for motor). G2 is now open 2WD, except the cc limit have been increased, G5 is now open 2wd too except you nee dto run a restrictor and/or reduce you cc.

So for old g2 cars to run in production all they have to do is change teh engine/trans (maybe).
For old g2 cars to run in open 2wd, they can change nothing, or they go to a bigger motor.
for old G5 cars they need to run either a smaller motor (if they were over 3liter, and can find a 4 or 5 cyl), or run a smaller motor (if over 2liter) and restrictor.

It seems to me that CARS has though this economic stimulous package out very well... everyone needs to change stuff :-) (only half joking).

I'm with Josh, one 2WD class for any car that has 2 driven wheels.

-Martin.

Quote
NoCoast

b) Ya'll know that the crash that had the movement of the bar to close enough to get to the competitors head was a GRANDFATHERED cage and if built currently would not be legal...
There was no a-pillar reinforcements or roof bars, either of which would have likely prevented the a-pillar from deflecting so much.
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.306035679486301.70214.157239364365934&type=3

That was an fia cage, Grant. Iwas there in 2003when that car got logbook. Same style as the one that had the harness bar fail when rockrors crashed at lspr a couple years ago. I think it was one of the first homologated designs for the 2002 wrx.

Quote
Josh Wimpey
Sorry Keith, that just sounds like more dodging to me. I could care less about 4wd rules for a number of reasons so don't bother trying to link the 2wd rule changes to 4wd excuses --- 2wd and 4wd are VERY different animals in terms of marginal benefit of hp & tq multiplication vs performance potential on traction limited surfaces at fairly modest power levels.

It really is impossible to talk meaningfully about the change to 2wd production class rules without talking about the other 2wd open-class consolidation & exclusion nonsense.



Hoche --- I don't think that CRS's weird production rules are interesting to anyone outside of CA and a very few old-timers that will never build a rally car again anyway. And furthermore, I don't think the rules making and enforcement process for CRS's world is any better than the CARS debacle ---- and the process is important. It should be transparent, non-arbitrary, evidence based, and non-exclusionary neither CRS p-stock or any of the CARS 2wd rules & processes pass more than two of those four criteria at a time. In addition, the CRS p-stock rules were supposed to control costs but allowed free engine internals and I know at least one competitor that spent more on his motor than I did building my entire Golf. At least CARS production rules have somewhat better cost controls (stock engine and trans with LSD upgrade only) ---- not that I think either of these does much to control costs -- rather it limits the number of vehicle models that are likely to be viable rally builds due to stock gearing designed to run like 2200 rpm at 80mph on the highway in an ultra-lean burn modern fuel sipper. So, you just end up with a 3-spd with enormous gaps....

couldn't agree more.

---

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.

Quote
MRWmotorsports
I've forwarded my commenst to the competitor rep.

It has struck me as odd too that CARS is changing all 2WD classes for no good reason.
production is now almost what G2 used to be (except for motor). G2 is now open 2WD, except the cc limit have been increased, G5 is now open 2wd too except you nee dto run a restrictor and/or reduce you cc.

So for old g2 cars to run in production all they have to do is change teh engine/trans (maybe).
For old g2 cars to run in open 2wd, they can change nothing, or they go to a bigger motor.
for old G5 cars they need to run either a smaller motor (if they were over 3liter, and can find a 4 or 5 cyl), or run a smaller motor (if over 2liter) and restrictor.

It seems to me that CARS has though this economic stimulous package out very well... everyone needs to change stuff :-) (only half joking).

I'm with Josh, one 2WD class for any car that has 2 driven wheels.

One Big Class, just like:


-Martin.

---

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.

Quote
Josh Wimpey
Sorry Keith, that just sounds like more dodging to me.

I can't for the life of me think of what it is I'm supposed to be dodging.

I may have been a bit unclear as I didn't intend to suggest that what was happening in 4wd classes was the reason for changes in 2wd, I had only intended to say the same thing was happening there as is happening in 2wd. The 'open' reference was actually meant to the the 'open' 2wd classes of Gr2 and Gr5. (None of the classes are truly open.)

All I was trying to say was there is a significant number of Gr2 cars that are running fully stock drivelines already, maybe cherry picking transmissions and final drives, that are in Gr2 for completely non-performance reasons.

When Fuller ran his kit car and, to a degree, when we see cars like the Fiesta R2 coming in to play, then there really are two different playing fields out there.

---

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
Carl S
That was an fia cage, Grant. Iwas there in 2003when that car got logbook. Same style as the one that had the harness bar fail when rockrors crashed at lspr a couple years ago. I think it was one of the first homologated designs for the 2002 wrx.

Makes even more sense. The thin-ness of FIA homo cages amazes me.

---

Grant Hughes

Quote
Josh Wimpey
Hoche --- I don't think that CRS's weird production rules are interesting to anyone outside of CA and a very few old-timers that will never build a rally car again anyway. And furthermore, I don't think the rules making and enforcement process for CRS's world is any better than the CARS debacle ---- and the process is important. It should be transparent, non-arbitrary, evidence based, and non-exclusionary neither CRS p-stock or any of the CARS 2wd rules & processes pass more than two of those four criteria at a time. In addition, the CRS p-stock rules were supposed to control costs but allowed free engine internals and I know at least one competitor that spent more on his motor than I did building my entire Golf.

Yeah, I've certainly noticed that the CRS's stock class rules (they're not production) aren't interesting to anyone outside the area, and there's a variety of reasons for that, most of which can be traced back to frictions from 40 years ago. I'm certainly not advocating that CARS or anyone take them as-is, but they are a working ruleset that has been in use and enforceable and enforced for a very long time.

I'd be curious to know who spent more on their motor than you did on your car, and whether you think that helped them. I have a pretty good idea of what you have on your car and how much it cost (or would have cost if it hadn't been done for you for free), and I have a really good idea of who's running what in P-Stock. You can PM me or email me if you don't want to say in public.

Generally, the idea behind P-Stock is that you can spend all you want on internals but it's probably not going to do you much good if you're still sucking air through the stock throttle and manifold and blowing it out through the stock exhaust, and using the stock gears/final drives. In other words, you're not restricted from spending money on the car; there's just no point in doing so. So you get to do just enough mods to make the thing a little more fun to drive.

---

Self-righteous douche canoe



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2013 10:53PM by hoche.

Quote
NoCoast

Quote
Carl S
That was an fia cage, Grant. Iwas there in 2003when that car got logbook. Same style as the one that had the harness bar fail when rockrors crashed at lspr a couple years ago. I think it was one of the first homologated designs for the 2002 wrx.

Makes even more sense. The thin-ness of FIA homo cages amazes me.

Yeah, those are things are scary thin.

Quote
Carl S

Quote
NoCoast

Quote
Carl S
That was an fia cage, Grant. Iwas there in 2003when that car got logbook. Same style as the one that had the harness bar fail when rockrors crashed at lspr a couple years ago. I think it was one of the first homologated designs for the 2002 wrx.

Makes even more sense. The thin-ness of FIA homo cages amazes me.

Yeah, those are things are scary thin.

Someone from O'Neil's camp told me the dude who crashed the brand new R2 at that Charlevoix broke the X in the main hoop.

But the better solution is to require expensive foam everywhere in the cage... Face-five!

---

Grant Hughes

Oh, a new CARS rules thread? Awesome!

---

Grassroots rally. It's what I think about.

Quote
Anders Green
Oh, a new CARS rules thread? Awesome!

CARS gets shit on for not getting feedback on rule proposals
CARS gets shit on for asking for feedback on rule proposals

And people wonder why web forums aren't taken seriously.

---

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.

CARS isn't getting shit for aking for input on rules proposals.
CARS is getting input on proposing shit rules..there is a difference.

FFS Gene, THIS thread is about getting feedback on several specific rule changes.

"1. Hydraulic handbrake in production classes."
Is that a shit rule change?

"2. Pedal box in production classes."
Probably a bad idea, but came to the committee from an outside source as asking for clarification of the 'new' class structure.

"3. Light weighting in production class."
Again, a clarification of what was intended - not actually a 'new rule' but looking for feedback on 'how far' it should go. Again, this came from an inquiry about the extent of the rule (and, honestly, a really optimistic reading of what was allowed)

"4. First Aid kit must be visible from outside the vehicle and clearly marked."
Won't cost much, if anything and making a first aid kit easier to find can't be a bad thing can it? At Big White we were handing out fire extinguisher and first aid locator decals like candy to the PNW crews.

"5. Tow rope must be contained within the vehicle.
"There have been instances with a competitor attaching the tow rope to the outside of the vehicle and then running the rest inside the trunk. And in a few of the cases the rope has came loose of flung around outside the vehicle. This is a danger to spectators and volunteers."

nuff said...

Quote

The following rules were discussed but require some further research.

"A. Allow DOT helmets in Rally Cross events."
I actually suggested they disallow auto/motorcycle helmets all together and go to mountain bike helmets. What is a helmet designed to protect against in a grass-o-cross event anyway?

"B. Model range."
Again, clarification of an already adopted rule.

"C. Adopt a version of the new RA roll bar padding rule"
RA did it, means CARS has to look at it.

"D. Request to change wording for seat expiry date.
"The CARS board felt that we should investigate further why FIA has set an expiry of five years."
Doesn't it make sense to try an understand WHY the standard has a 5 year expiry before you decide to ignore it?
If John actually delivers on his long list of other federations not enforcing the age limit on seats it would be a great addition to the information.

---

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.