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

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".

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.