MLRC Forum - CARS Class Changes

tommcgeer

YaBB Newbies

Offline

Posts: 4

Re: CARS Class Changes
Reply #15 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

DaveM YaBB Newbies Offline '83 Volvo 244 GLT Turbo Posts: 34 Pefferlaw	Re: CARS Class Changes Reply #16 - 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

RyanHuber God Member Offline Posts: 709 Ontario	Re: CARS Class Changes Reply #17 - 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
Back to top	Ryan Huber VA3AWD IP Logged

Wedge1

Full Member

Offline

Posts: 209
Ontario

Re: CARS Class Changes
Reply #18 - 09/13/12 at 20:21:08

tommcgeer wrote on 09/13/12 at 09:52:29:

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.

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.

Back to top

Right now, someone somewhere is practicing, and when you face him, he will beat you.

IP Logged

tommcgeer

YaBB Newbies

Offline

Posts: 4

Re: CARS Class Changes
Reply #19 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Nuno

YaBB Newbies

Offline

Posts: 14

Re: CARS Class Changes
Reply #20 - 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?

Back to top

IP Logged

rosswood

God Member

Offline

I love YaBB 1G -
SP1!

Posts: 697

Re: CARS Class Changes
Reply #21 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Wedge1

Full Member

Offline

Posts: 209
Ontario

Re: CARS Class Changes
Reply #22 - 09/15/12 at 20:35:04

tommcgeer wrote on 09/13/12 at 23:46:24:

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.

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.

Back to top

Right now, someone somewhere is practicing, and when you face him, he will beat you.

IP Logged

Nuno YaBB Newbies Offline Posts: 14	Re: CARS Class Changes Reply #23 - 09/17/12 at 18:22:10 Thanks Ross! Nuno
Back to top	IP Logged

Dave Cotie

God Member

Offline

Posts: 838
North Bay, Ontario

Re: CARS Class Changes
Reply #24 - 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!)

Back to top

Dave Cotie
VA3 COT

IP Logged

DaveM

YaBB Newbies

Offline

'83 Volvo 244 GLT
Turbo

Posts: 34
Pefferlaw

Re: CARS Class Changes
Reply #25 - 10/19/12 at 10:02:23

New changes posted at http://www.carsrally.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=90%3Abullet...

Quote:

As a result of competitor feedback, the CARS Board of Directors has approved several revisions to the recent vehicle class rule changes. The revised wording will follow shortly in a separate bulletin, however a summary of the changes are as follows;

Open 2WD
- Normally aspirated engine maximum displacement increased to 3000cc, however engines are limited to 5 cylinders or less.
- Possible changes to restrictor requirements for turbocharged engines with displacements less than 1600cc are under review. Changes, if any, will be published shortly.

Production 4WD
- Exceptions to the minimum weight limit may be granted by the technical director for smaller and/or lower powered 4WD vehicles. This exemption is not intended to be applied broadly, but only to vehicles significantly disadvantaged by the normal weight limit. Examples would include a normally aspirated 4WD vehicle (ie Subaru 2.5RS) or those with smaller displacement forced induction motors (ie Subaru XT turbo). The minimum weight for exempted vehicles will be the listed curb weight for the model.
- Intercoolers must remain to OEM or OEM equivalent specification and original mounting locations.

Production 2WD
- Forced induction is permitted for engines with displacements up to 1600cc. Restrictor requirements, if any, are under review and will be published shortly.
- Intercoolers must remain to OEM or OEM equivalent specification and original mounting location
- Clarification to the transmission rule (12.8.5.1), to remove any confusion. (Updating and backdating of transmissions is not permitted.)

The Board is currently looking closely at options for implementing the 2WD regulations so as to allow a phase in period for current Group 5 cars. Additionally, as noted above, the issue of restrictor sizing for 1600cc or smaller forced induction 2WD vehicles is also under review. These items will be discussed at an upcoming meeting of the Board of Directors and the results published in a bulletin to follow shortly after.

The Board feels the changes announced in this bulletin address many of the concerns expressed by competitors. With any major changes, there will be a period of transition as the sport gets used to the new structure and tweaks to the regulations may be required. An example of this is a review of the forced induction restrictor sizing. This is currently taking place for smaller engine 2WD vehicles, and will be again reviewed for all classes prior to the 2014 season.

Finally, the potential for a Historic class beginning in 2014 will be discussed at the meetings to be held during the AGM/ Awards weekend in January. The Board feels there may be potential for a division such as this, however is unsure of the viability for a national championship.

As President of the Association, I would like to thank all those who took the time to provide suggestions and comments to the Board. Please feel free to contact either myself, your Regional Rally Director, the Technical Director, or your appropriate Board Representative if you have any further questions or comments.

Tom McGeer
President, Canadian Association of Rallysport.

Looks like I am still out Angry

Back to top

IP Logged

Dave Cotie God Member Offline Posts: 838 North Bay, Ontario	Re: CARS Class Changes Reply #26 - 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.
Back to top	Dave Cotie VA3 COT IP Logged

Donnie Full Member Offline Posts: 169	Re: CARS Class Changes Reply #27 - 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.
Back to top	1989 Isuzu I-Mark 1993 Plymouth Laser RS Turbo/AWD IP Logged

	Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register