tommcgeer
YaBB Newbies
Offline
Posts: 4
|
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.
|