Oooo! The next "this will save rally" is almost here!

I'm still waiting for someone to show up with NOS.

Which I can't find any rules prohibiting in the NRS book...

Living your life one quarter mile at a time will save rally!

Anders

---

Grassroots rally. It's what I think about.

Quote
EricW

Quote
Jay
I repeat myself till I'm blue in the face: Lemme run pump gas in exchange for tossing the restrictor.
Please.

Fine, So could I. Would still rather tune around 91 and no sodastraw. having done that for my street car, it would be cheaper to do the same to the rallycar and not worry about blowing up. It may make sense, if nothing else changes, to spend big bucks at the dyno to tune round the sodastraw and on pump gas, cuz 12 buck a gallon candygas won't save rally, no matter how nice it smells.

---

Jay Woodward
Snohomish, WA
'90 Mazdog Frankenprotege
Chronologically, 46...

Quote
NoCoast

Really? Are you sure it's undivided internally.
Single reservoir, yes. Divided on every one I've ever looked at.

The focus has a remote reservoir that has a single line to a small manifold on the master. The manifold comes with the master when you buy it as a unit. I think the manifold may be divided but I have not taken one apart. If you call the manifold part of the reservoir then you may be legal. But they it read much closer to requiring competitors to have a dual master cylinder setup.

Running pump gas on a restrictor isn't bad. The race gas adds 10-15% power and torque. I say "that's it" and it's quite a bit, but even with pump gas and a 34mm restrictor, my car puts out 236HP at the wheels (boo) and 343 ft lbs of torque (yay!) on 93 octane.

All at 3500RPM.

Race gas is +10-15%.

And what does it make on 91? Do you bring 93 with you to an event?

Our crew drove a good hour into NH before they found a station with 93 when we were up in Maine. What if you get "bad gas" from a station?

edit: I think pump gas is probably the answer but I'm playing Devil's Advocate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2014 01:36PM by Jard.

Quote
Andrew_Frick

Quote
NoCoast

Really? Are you sure it's undivided internally.
Single reservoir, yes. Divided on every one I've ever looked at.

The focus has a remote reservoir that has a single line to a small manifold on the master. The manifold comes with the master when you buy it as a unit. I think the manifold may be divided but I have not taken one apart. If you call the manifold part of the reservoir then you may be legal. But they it read much closer to requiring competitors to have a dual master cylinder setup.

Being a very specific guy (and yes, I know this is my downfall) I can read the language that says that no failure due to a single part allows a complete brake failure (including the fluid reservoir). So my brain says that even a single fluid reservoir with dual chambers COULD be considered a failure point and would cause problems with the rule.

Maybe not the intent, but certainly an interpretation of the rationale statement which does conflict with the 3rd bullet.

Also, having the (arguably) only meaningful discussion on the current state of rally in a single thread will save rally!

Quote
NoCoast

Quote
Andrew_Frick

Quote
heymagic
Lots of master cylinders have a common divided reservoir, probably the vast majority actually.

Without an exclusion for OE setups this makes cars like my wimpy Ford Focus illegal under the new rules. As both the master and clutch are fed from a single undivided reservoir.

Is it even true any more that the majority of master cylinder reservoirs are divided? Most modern cars appear to have a single reservoir that feeds two inlets to the master.

Really? Are you sure it's undivided internally.
Single reservoir, yes. Divided on every one I've ever looked at.

I've only seen a separation for the clutch reservoir. it's usually one reservoir for two feeds on a master. I know my tow van only has one reservoir after it ruptured a line coming back from sandblast this year.

I thought having your license on a lanyard was saving rally?

---

-KTurner
Stomp down on the exhilarator and hold on to the wheel.

John, you're such a classic troll. Hauling out insults and bullshit to make your point.(Even if your perspectives live on a roulette wheel, spinning to what-ever is most convenient for your needs at any given moment.)

The cost of a decision on those impacted, the resulting benefits, and the practical implications on the average competitor are ALWAYS considerations in decisions on the CARS board. Because you don't understand - or disagree with - the decisions doesn't mean those things weren't considered.

FWIW:
I tell just about anyone who asks to avoid race fuel and focus on a reliable, predictable and competent car, but most importantly driving skill. (And one of the reasons I've organized, or helped organize, several test days over the past decade.

I can't tell you why most people throw money at buying power/speed... but they do. Nothing short of spec engines will quench the 'need moar power' mindset... people will spend money like it's going out of style on performance mods... but scream bloody murder if less than one tire's worth of budget is proposed for a safety initiative.

---

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.

Dividing reservoirs will unite rally!

---

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.

"any kind of single failure in the brake system, the pedal must still
control at least two wheels."

Even many dual master setups fail at this rule. I can think of a handful of "single failures" that would cause the loss of any brakes. Bearing at pivot point fails, rod connected to pedal fails, pedal bracket attaching to firewall fails, simultaneous leg amputation, sudden partial paralysis, heart attack, etc.

---

Grant Hughes

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/14-fastrack-Sept%201.pdf

Quote
Page 14
Recommended Items for 2015
The following subjects will be referred to the Board of Directors for approval. Address all comments, both for and against,
to the Club Racing Board. It is the BoD’s policy to withhold voting on a rules change until there has been input from the
membership on the presented rules. Member input is suggested and encouraged. Please send your comments via the form at
www.clubracingboard.com.

GCR
1. #14272 (Richard Patullo) Seat Belt Expiration
Change 9.3.19.G.1.: 1. Restraint systems meeting SFI 16.1 or 16.5 shall bear a dated SFI Spec label. The certification
indicated by this label shall expire on December 31st of the 5th year after the date of manufacture as indicated by the
label. If for example the manufacture date is 2014 the fifth year after the date of manufacture is 2019.

SCCA arbitrarily ignoring "expiration" dates will save rally?

To be fair, they started down this path last year when they said "We're going to require H&N devices now, but they don't have to follow the (newly-announced) SFI expiration date..."

---

KF7RWG
http://www.utahrallygroup.com

Quote
Morison
You have a tendency of minimizing any perspective that doesn't fit your own, but I can assure you that when we were looking at moving to spec fuel, those were the exact concerns brought forward by the board, the organisers, and the competitors who bothered to write to CARS about the proposed change.

Pot, meet kettle.

I had a big huge post typed up and I accidentally closed the tab.

My point of it was, CARS has a habit of cherry picking data, hiding behind (as JVL sayz) "exspurts", and their "consultations with competitors that we stand behind even though it was only an incredibly small percentage of" is all typical BS. I don't like it. We've been through this before. Its always the same argument.

For the record Keith, arguing with you is like arguing with a wall. I'll argue and debate with anyone, but you can be incredibly frustrating, especially when you are using information from other sources than yourself.

And I would argue that MOST competitors running race fuel are a tune away from being able to run pump gas. But apparently everyone has been asked already and that isn't the case. People that already blow $50k to $100k per year rallying I am sure.

At the end of the day, I've been meeting plenty of people getting turned away from this sport due to cost. People want to "go fast". Even if they are actually going slow. We limit the growth of the sport by not having reasonable allowances on such things. I bitch because Canada has a stupid monopoly/distribution system when it comes to race fuel. 205 litres of premium (91) is averaging $1.50+ in Canada, which is $300. I can get unleaded, legal 105 for not much more from the US. Running race fuel in the conditions, with the cars we have makes sense, unless the choices are taken away from us.

Spec pump fuel would be ideal IMO. Have a sponsor who makes 91 octane (no ethanol) fuel and trucks it to events. Win win for everyone.

Anyways, I'm done arguing this. I'll keep fighting the good fight and arguing against some of the stuff that comes out of CARS. At the same time, CARS has been making some very good rules that are fair and level headed. It is much better than it was before, I'll give them that.

Minimum octane rating is testable is it not? State that nothing higher than 94 octane is useable. If you're anywhere near the limit of your chosen octane rating, you'll buy fuel from one trustworthy spot. Dave mentions his 700 hp Evo on "pump" gas, E85, but he also only buys it from one place that mixes it in house so that it is ALWAYS E85 and not as variable as pump gas which can be E70 branded as E85.

The reason you won't see this rule in a series like Rally America is that one of the few sponsors in past has been VP Racing Fuel.

14 tires an event? Is that an actual "limit"? Well, I suppose for Ojibwe if you ran new tires each day and changed them at every service you could use 20 tires so 14 is a limit. Or is the "limit" that you have to declare 14 tires so now teams will be able to use that excuse when they lose a stage? "I was on the wrong tire for conditions" like Loeb always said whenever he lost a stage, which did occasionally happen. Does the WRC even do this anymore?

---

Grant Hughes

The spec fuel idea could work , if the supplier was limited to charging at max, the cost of 93 (maybe 91 at high altitude) for that area. IE Snow drift goes by the local gas prices around Michigan tech .

also what's the clear goal? slowing down National Open or cost savings?

if cost savings then don't we need to force this upon all classes? G5, G2, OL , SP , oh and P (if that still exists)


Ya i'm sure some of the cars that run Race gas , could re-tune on pump gas.
You would also probably get 1 car that dynoed safely and then would blow up a motor due running hotter on Stage than he runs on a dyno .

Funny that JVL and Morison agree that a lot of people over spend on straight line acceloration.

Quote
JVL
Obviosly there is the typical--typical amongst guys who think that the solution to going faster lies in buying equipment (that is why they are in a car with all the gee-gaws, and spend so much, isn't it?) that if somebody is doing it then they must also do it.

Quote
Morison

I can't tell you why most people throw money at buying power/speed... but they do. Nothing short of spec engines will quench the 'need moar power' mindset... people will spend money like it's going out of style on performance mods... but scream bloody murder if less than one tire's worth of budget is proposed for a safety initiative.

The Modder , tuner, bolt guy on. . . now that I've been racing for 8 years, I've had a chance to meet a lot of different types of racers. I've noticed that only a small group of racers seems to , research, change 1 part, and actually test it.

While a lot of people Love to read internet forums, Tinker with their car, and only seem to ever make it to a race after they have installed the latest set of "fast parts"

. Also what i have noticed is that , except for the absolute worst drivers, or the most extreme mods, making their cars faster results in better Times (stage, lap, cone)

Yes adding HP to a rally car, with a mid pack "american" driver will most likely result in better stage times. and that's why everyone is power obsessed.

Now keep in mind, these same drivers, are not pushing their cars to the limit, before , or after the improvement. Maybe they improved their car enough to cut 2 minutes off their total rally time, and somehow only improved by 10 seconds. and yes they would be better served NOT add HP, but doubling the events they enter per year.

humans are better off , Not drinking beer. how many of us HERE drink?
humans are better off not smoking cigarettes / cigars . how many of us HERE smoke?

if everyone started to make the best possible decisions regarding finances i think rally dies pretty quickly .

So in a way, be happy for the "more hp" crowd. its the same mentally that isn't happy driving 65 on the highway but wants to enter a rally . they want more!!!

I want more by Faithless (has nothing to do with my post)