|
MLRC Forum
https://www.mlrc.ca/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl General >> Rally >> CARS Class Changes https://www.mlrc.ca/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1347065582 Message started by Dave Cotie on 09/07/12 at 19:53:02 |
|
Title: CARS Class Changes Post by Dave Cotie on 09/07/12 at 19:53:02 Surprised that this hasn't shown up here yet! Beginning in January 2013, national competitions will now be based on the four classes. They are Open 4WD, Open 2WD and Production 4WD and Production 2WD. Details of the specific rule changes are attached to this bulletin, but to summarize the changes; Open 4WD - 2500cc maximum engine displacement - 34 mm turbo restrictor - 2900 pounds minimum weight - No other significant changes to the rules - Note. The Board is considering a reduction of the turbocharger restrictor to 32mm beginning in 2014. Open 2WD - 2500cc maximum displacement for normally aspirated engines - 2000cc maximum displacement for turbocharged engines - 32 mm restrictor for turbocharged engines - No other significant changes from Group 2 rules Production 4WD - 2500cc maximum displacement for normally aspirated engines and turbo charged engines - 32 mm restrictor for turbocharged engines - 3350lb minimum weight - Variant restrictions removed. Updating and backdating of parts from models sold in North America allowed. - Various other minor changes to simplify and reduce build costs Production 2WD - 2500cc maximum displacement - Turbocharged engines not allowed. - No minimum weight - No updating or backdating of parts allowed. - Various other minor changes to simplify and reduce build costs I personally don't like the change in Open 2wd. The 2.0L turbo limit excludes Turbo Volvo's, SRT-4's, older Turbo Dodges, and probably a few others. I know not a lot of these cars out there, but they are possible entries |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by KDeV on 09/08/12 at 09:32:57 Dave Cotie wrote on 09/07/12 at 19:53:02:
I can understand thinking for future builds but hopefully it doesnt eliminate any current competing cars. And can be adjusted as engine technology changes . |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by Wedge on 09/08/12 at 12:43:31 Dave Cotie wrote on 09/07/12 at 19:53:02:
Wow, that is a massive change from previous rules. In a totally not cool direction. Group 2 allows up to 5 liters normally aspirated. What happens to all those cars now? They're not allowed in any class anymore. Also limiting NA to 2.5 and turbo to 2.0 is not fair. 2.5NA is not enough to truly be competitive against a 2.0 turbo. Even with the restrictor. Speaking of which why is a restrictor now required in 2wd? The purpose of the restrictor is to slow cars down that are getting dangerously too fast. Since when have any 2wd cars fit into that category? It's been well known for a long time that 2wd cars just don't have enough forward traction to require a restrictor. If I didn't know any better I'd say these new rules are designed to be anti-2wd. To make sure no 2wd cars can compete with the 4wd's. I like the simplicity of the 4 class structure. But the open 2wd is far to restrictive. Open is supposed to be "open". |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by Dave Cotie on 09/08/12 at 14:37:49 Well looking to the future, I can understand what they may be looking at with the 2wd classes. 1. There are a significant number of sub-2.0L turbo cars coming out. The Cruze, Dart, Fiat 500, and Mini's all show up below 1.6L. 2. Lots of sub 2.5L NA cars to choose from. 3. There are very few cars that actually run above 2.5L today. I had always understood that 2wd cars were pretty well traction limited in the 250-300 Hp range so some of the limits were more loose because its no good if you can't get it to the ground. I am guessing that the restrictor is to keep the turbos from burying the NA cars. BTW, I just saw this posted on some other websites and thought we could discuss it here. |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by Wedge on 09/08/12 at 18:49:02 All of that is fine for production. It pretty much puts all 2wd cars that would be P3 or under into a single class. That's fine. But most 2wd P4 cars either go straight to open, or are not allowed to compete anymore. It's the 2wd open that's the problem. It's far too restricting for what it is. There's just too many potential cars that are either left out or disadvantaged by that class. What about all the rally trucks? There's still a few of those around, and other group 5 cars with large displacement engines. None of those can compete anymore. As for the "2wd traction limit" I've heard reliable sources that say it's as low as 200hp. But even if it's 300hp, a 32mm restrictor can still produce that much. So either way, those restrictors will make no difference, and are thus pointless except to artificially hinder those cars out of any serious competition. Anyway, CARS changes the class structure several times per decade. I'm sure this will be altered again in a few years, whether it works or not. It sure is hard to build a competitive car with such poor class stability. |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by Anthony_T on 09/08/12 at 22:10:29 It's also interesting to note that updating or backdating is permitted in production 4WD but not production 2WD. I can take a guess as what cars would specifically benefit from this in the 4WD category. For the sake of consistency though, I would expect the same to apply to 2WD. I wonder why that wasn't made to be? |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by Jeannie VE3JNE on 09/09/12 at 09:01:28 Fore more explanation, the whole 13-page document is linked on the MCO Rally forum. You can get all the details here: http://www.carsrally.ca/index.php?optio ... 14&lang=en Jeannie |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by Wedge on 09/09/12 at 12:06:11 Anthony_T wrote on 09/08/12 at 22:10:29:
That is interesting. Pretty obvious why they allowed it in 4wd. Probably because it is so commonly happening for a particular car (even today), and so difficult to police since the parts are so similar. It's the same rational why they officially allow aftermarket ecu's in production. Definitely discrimination that that didn't also allow it in 2wd... |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by Alexei S on 09/10/12 at 10:00:01 As much as I hate the fact that the Swift now competes along 2L turbo and 2.5 NA cars, I do like the fact that there's one big class for 2WD. The fragmentation between G2 and G5 didn't help IMHO. Longer term, the smaller number of classes should help. Regionals are free to make their own classes, so I think we should really try to accommodate those cars that now no longer fit. Like Dave says, it would suck to lose those entries. I guess they'd be "Big Displacement 2WD"? No backdating for P2 vs P4 allowed backdating is stupid. I guess I'd better do some light engine mods on the Swift. And grow a pair + a heavy right foot ;D |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by Dave Cotie on 09/10/12 at 11:53:21 Alexei S wrote on 09/10/12 at 10:00:01:
I think the new classing is great. Simplified,easy to explain to non-rally people and therefore I think it makes a big step forward. Clearly CARS has though about this hard and I am sure are looking to make it attractive to get the manufacturers back into the sport. The downside to making some cars only eligible for regionals, is that most regionals that run together with nationals have mileage taken out of them, unlike in the US. |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by tommcgeer on 09/12/12 at 00:24:15 Hi all, I don't normally get involved in forums, but felt (as a MLRC member) I should clear the air on some of the comments concerning the new class structure. 1. Updating and backdating in P2WD. The reason we have not allowed this is to keep the costs down and make it an entry level class. The idea here is to 'run what you brung'. In other words, get a car, put the safety equipment in, upgrade the suspension and go rallying. The problem of allowing updating and backdating in this class has to do with the increase of engine output over many model years, especially considering the age of some of the model lines. As an example, you could build a class dominating car by using a 1990 Golf and dropping in a latest spec 2.5L motor. We didn't want to get into a class where, to be competitive, you had to tear your car apart and rebuild it from the ground up. Rather, we wanted to keep things simple and inexpensive and hopefully attract entry level competitors to this class. 2. Limits on Open 2WD. There was a great deal of debate on the adoption of the current displacement limits. In the end however, the numbers were chosen for a variety of reasons. Looking to the future, manufacturers are generally going to be producing smaller displacement engines for their model lines. There are also a number of manufacturers (Ford, Volkswagen and BMW for example) currently selling vehicles in Canada and the US that have a direct rally application in 2WD. By keeping the displacement limits smaller, we are hoping these models will be attractive to competitors in 2WD. In recent years, we have seen declining entries in Group 5 cars nationally, and while it is true that there are some US competitors running larger displacement engines in 2WD, they have rarely competed at Canadian events. Moving forward, we would like to put our energies towards developing a 2WD championship in Canada with the support of manufacturers as we see this as the way to increase entries in national events. I would also point out that larger displacement 2WD vehicles will likely still be allowed in regional events, so these cars will still be able to rally. This is something each region will need to decide however, so if there is strong feelings about it, your region executive needs to hear it! 3. Turbo restrictor in Open 2WD. In terms of the 32mm restrictor in 2WD, there is need to control turbo output. It is not an issue of overall speed of the car, but to balance the power between normally aspirated and turbo engines. At some point, a turbo engine needs a limit on power against a normally aspirated engine, otherwise the differential becomes too great. With a 2.0L limit for normally aspirated engines, the class change committee felt the 32mm restrictor was the best option, and also has commonality with P4WD (and likely Open 4WD in the future). We have opted not to change the restrictor in Open 4WD at this time as we will soon be announcing another measure that will help reduce the speeds of the top cars. In the longer term however, we are also keeping the option open to impose a 32mm restrictor in that class in 2014 should we feel this is necessary. I hope this goes some way to answering many of your concerns. Feel free to send me an email if you have any other questions. I will do my best to reply as soon as possible. I can be reached at president@carsrally.ca Tom. |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by DaveM on 09/12/12 at 08:53:47 Thanks Tom, for your explanation of the thinking behind the process. I do, however, have an issue with not allowing previously logbooked 2WD cars to be 'grandfathered' to at least compete. They could be classed in a 'No Class' grouping and be only eligible for event awards and seed points for overall position. (Hell, I have already been told that I have No Class anyway). In my example, I have a turbo Volvo, based upon a previous Canadian Championship car, that I have slowly been improving over the past few years as funds allow, in the plan of running again. This new ruling has not only banned my car, but also negated my entire investment in the car. I understand looking to the future, but to eliminate entries, where, in almost all cases, they would not have any impact upon final results or awards does not seem fair, IMHO. Even if the regions allow these banned cars to compete, the drivers can never move to an entry position based upon their ability as it improves, because they can not earn seed points. |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by Donnie on 09/12/12 at 20:42:19 1. Updating and backdating in P2WD. The reason we have not allowed this is to keep the costs down and make it an entry level class. The idea here is to 'run what you brung'. In other words, get a car, put the safety equipment in, upgrade the suspension and go rallying. How or why would the powers that be not apply this same principle to Production 4WD ?, or is this not considered an entry level class anymore. Fact is, being new to Rally just 3yrs ago this is precisely what was conveyed to our team, that is.... till we got there....My co-driver put it best that, as a team we'd rather run a legit back-0- the pack open class car "IN" Open-Class !! Rather than running a legit Back-0- The pack Open-Class car "IN" Production 4WD. |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by darryl on 09/13/12 at 08:42:21 Keep in mind that CARS created this new class structure for the Canadian National Chamionship. Many, if not all of the cars that have been left behind from the new rules have not competed on a national level in a very very long time. There is nothing stopping organizers of national events to allow the "out ruled" cars from competing in the entire national event. The team just can score CRC points. I'm happy to answer any straight technical questions about the new rules. Sorry I can't answer any questions about why the changes or opinons good or bad. Send me an email with your tech questions. Cheers, Darryl Darryl Malone CARS Technical Director technical@carsrally.ca |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by tommcgeer on 09/13/12 at 09:33:36 DaveM, It's true that cars such as yours will not be eligible at national events beginning next year, but I think your comments about being banned are possibly a little strong! As I said in my post, larger displacement 2WD vehicles will more than likely still be allowed to run at regional events, and Ray has indicated RSO will likely be keeping the status quo, at least for the near future. Based on 2012 numbers competing in the OPRC, including the regional portions of Perce Neige, Defi and Tall Pines, you would lose just over 20% of the total stage kilometers available (654km out of a possible 843km). Over the course of six events, this is a still significant amount of events and stages available. (considerably more than the total stage kilometers available to those in western Canada by way of comparison). I would feel still gives you good value for your investment. That being said, the possibility of allowing 'grandfathered' cars to compete in some fashion is an option the Board can look into, if there is a reasonable number of competitors asking for it. Similarly, your point about seeding is well taken, and we can also look into alternative methods of accruing seed points for those who don't compete nationally. Please contact me, or Bruno Carre (your competitor representative on the Board, competitorrepresentative@carsrally.ca) with your ideas, and I will make sure they are brought forward for discussion. |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by tommcgeer on 09/13/12 at 09:52:29 Donnie CARS has never considered Production GT as an entry level class. In the past, entry classes were Production Sport, and before that Production 1750. In the Board's manner of thinking, entry level should be the least expensive class for someone expressing an interest in rallying to become involved. In other words, buy a car, put in the safety stuff and go have fun. We have tailored the rules in P2WD to this end so that one can be competitive right out of the box, hopefully in a variety of cars (ie Golfs, Civics, Fiestas, even Fiat 500s!). If you catch the bug, the next step would be to move up to higher performance classes, such as Open 2WD or the 4WD classes. Production GT (and now Production 4WD) has always been a higher level of competition. If you're going into this class, then you are going to be spending more money and effort to be competitive. Tires, parts and fuel are significantly larger budget items, let alone the cost of the car. In the old PGT rules, to be competitive, one needed to by the latest spec Subaru or Mitsu. The new P4WD rules, with their updating and backdating clauses, now allow more mixing and matching. This will hopefully lower some of the costs to competitors in this class and make it an attractive option to many competitors in currently in Open. |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by DaveM on 09/13/12 at 10:17:04 Thanks Tom. I am in other meetings until after the weekend but will formulate and send an email to you and Bruno. Thanks again. |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by RyanHuber on 09/13/12 at 14:32:41 Tom, speaking of updating and backdating in P-AWD, what's the reasoning for limiting it to North American drivelines? My Subaru would be very close to legal if it wasn't that my stock STi drivetrain is from a JDM vehicle. Thanks Ryan |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by Wedge on 09/13/12 at 20:21:08 tommcgeer wrote on 09/13/12 at 09:52:29:
Previously in this same thread you mentioned one of the reasons why it's NOT allowed in P2WD is to help lower costs... If allowing updating/backdating in P4WD helps to lower costs, then why does the same logic not apply to P2WD? If you want to prevent dropping a modern 2.5l into a 20 year old Golf, that is easy to do: Simply allow updating/backdating within the same model 'generation' (more complicated to enforce, I know. But still doable). That will reduce costs by greatly increasing the number of potential donor cars, at the same time it will not have any significant impact on performance. |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by tommcgeer on 09/13/12 at 23:46:24 Ryan CARS has chosen to limit parts to North American specs in order to be able to effectively police stock parts, as well as to maintain some control of performance parts. JDM parts have significant performance advantages over what is available in North America and we did not feel this was a good precedent to set. There is also the issue of event scrutineers being able to determine the legality of parts, a job made more difficult when shop manuals and catalogues are not readily available or written in English. That being said, we aren't necessarily opposed to looking at this again in the future, if we get compelling evidence that our concerns over the use of these parts can be addressed. Wedge, In P4WD there are 2 cars that define the class, and to be competitive you need the top of the line model of each. Parts are used quickly, mainly due to the increased stresses placed on them by the increased power output of the engine. Parts are regularly changed so updating and backdating make sense by allowing competitors the option of swapping higher performance parts into older shells. The weight restriction of 3350lbs means that there are no performance gains by putting a new engine in an older (meaning lighter) shell. In P2WD there are a multitude of cars that could be competitive, and they come in all sizes, from 1.3L Fiat 500's to 2.5L Golfs. Smaller cars with smaller displacement engines can still be competitive against larger engined cars based on their power to weight ratio. For this reason we did not put a weight limit on the class as it would unfairly penalize smaller cars. There is also the reality that over the years models have gained weight. A 1992 16V Golf Gti has the same power to weight ratio as a 2010 2.5L Rabbit, even though the Rabbit puts out 36 more horsepower (134 versus 170). This is because the Rabbit is also nearly 500 lbs heavier. Because of this we didn't want to turn P2WD into a 'tuner' class, where newer engines and other parts were swapped into older shells as a standard process for the class. As an entry level class, we want to keep it simple and easy to compete with a minimum of preparation. This is also one of the reasons for not allowing turbos in this class as it reduces the complexity and cost of tuning (not to mention parts replacement). I agree the solution is in allowing updating and backdating within a model generation. We did look at allowing this, but as you said, it is not an easy thing for scrutineers to police. Darryl is looking still looking into it though, and if we can find a way to do it, we will. |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by Nuno on 09/14/12 at 11:22:05 re: Group 2 changes I do not like the idea of turbo-charged being lumped in with normally aspirated, even with restrictors. Why bother to compete when you are never going to stand a fair chance? And what about all the time/money that some of us already have put into our cars? I realize there may not be many entries in G2 or even G5, but I have to agree with some of the other comments: is this designed to get rid of us (2wd) altogether? Some of us cannot afford a 4wd(for whatever reasons); is rallysport in Canada slowly becoming a rich mans' sport? |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by rosswood on 09/14/12 at 22:08:19 Keep in mind that these changes are for the CRC National events. The Region may choose to adopt them as they are, to modify them, to adopt them with some additional classes etc. The RSO Board will be discussing this at its next meeting. If you wish to have input, you should contact a member of the RSO Board or Executive; in fact if you wish, you may participate in the conference call. |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by Wedge on 09/15/12 at 20:35:04 tommcgeer wrote on 09/13/12 at 23:46:24:
The idea of not unfairly penalizing the smaller cars is nice. But I think that method of 'no minimum weight' is ultimately going to backfire. The larger more powerful cars generally have much more weight that can easily be shed, and still remain production legal. The small gutless-wonders are typically as lightweight as they're going to get already. |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by Nuno on 09/17/12 at 18:22:10 Thanks Ross! Nuno |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by Dave Cotie on 09/21/12 at 21:14:38 You know what - I decided to take get off my butt and write the CARS board. Here is what I sent: Dear CARS Board: Although I am not an active competitor, I am a long time volunteer and I have an interest in the new rules. I congratulate you for taking the brave step of going to 4 classes from the current class structure. I do however think that there may be ways to reduce costs and allow some existing vehicles to remain capable of running in the national series. Suggestion: Alter displacement limits and restrictor requirements in 2WD Open Rationale: Displacement limits that are slightly different would be more inclusive of existing cars in the class that although are not numerous, would remin capable of running in the national series. My suggestion is to alter the limits to 3.0L NA and 2.5L turbo/supercharged. This would allow cars such as Volvo turbos and Dodge SRT-4s to remain in the national series and increase the number of vehicles that are able to compete, considering that empirical evidence shows that traction is limiting factor in 2wd rallying. If a vehicle shows up that is exceptionally dominating in this class this rule could be revisited. This rule also will have a negative effect on vehicles at the regional level as most competitors build their cars more closely to a national level class than a regional. I think that adding restrictors to turbo/supercharged cars will simply reduce fields, as US competitors will simply not come, and increase the cost to former G5 competitors. Again traction limits play out here. Well driven 2wd cars rise to the top regardless of engine power (see Frank Sprongl in a Suzuki). Suggestion: Allow turbochargers on engines up to 1.6L in Production 2WD Rationale: Gives a class for the new breed of small displacement turbocharged cars. These are an emerging potential class Mini's, Fiat 500's, Chevrolet Cruze, Dodge Dart all would be allowed and if there were ANY chance of additional manufacturer involvent (other than Subaru and Misubishi), this in my opinion would be one of the most likely options. Suggestion: Alter minimum weight in production 4WD to manufacturer advertised curb weight Rationale: Production class has limitations on what is allowed and if I recall correctly already requires competitors to bring a Factory Service manual (or similar document) to registration. This would allow a larger number of vehicles a chance to compete. A Subaru 2.5RS (GC8) might have a chance against a Subaru WRX (GD chassis) if it can run at its curb weight, but not if it has to run the same weight as the turbo car. It also allows older AWD cars to remain competitive (DSM's, Toyota) and I know these are rare, but some do remain. David Cotie Tall Pines volunteer since 2000 (and a few other rallies too!) |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by DaveM on 10/19/12 at 10:02:23 New changes posted at http://www.carsrally.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=90%3Abulletin-2012-08-update-for-bulletin-5-class-changes&catid=1%3Acars-news&Itemid=14&lang=en Quote:
Looks like I am still out >:( |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by Dave Cotie on 10/19/12 at 18:45:19 Dave, let's hope they let you run in Historic, or they allow you in the transition period. Or you could run Regional Group 5. |
|
Title: Re: CARS Class Changes Post by Donnie on 10/20/12 at 21:09:56 Are these guys serious, i just get the car set up with stock mani and turbo( by the way MHI turbo's aren't cheap) and now they've excluded FMIC from Production 4WD class. We'll time attack looking is looking like where all be in 2013. I just can't keep up financially with your whimsical class changes. |
|
MLRC Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.2.3! YaBB © 2000-2008. All Rights Reserved. |