Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Class?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    I'll have to check, but I thought at some point regions were denied the allowance to combine or create classes as they saw fit,

    I do remember people running sandrails. I also remember them being horribly slow and in some cases so uncontrollably unstable that they didn't bother to finish runs, or come back.

    I also remember when there were five classes: under 2l 2wd, over 2l 2wd, under 2l AWD, over 2l AWD, and 4X4. Turbos and 4v/cyl engines had a displacement adjustment.

    '84 RX-7 #9 Mod Rear
    '81 RX-7 #74 Prepared Rear
    '06 S60R #588
    '86 Quantum Syncro #34 Mod AWD

    Comment


    • #47
      My region has been running a modified class structure for years: 2wd, under 2.5L NA awd (U4), 2.5L+ NA awd (O4), and Open (all turbo cars, logbooked cars, anything huge displacement, etc). If someone wants to be scored as their corresponding national class, the results will denote their win in that class. We generally only get 15 entrants per event, so having 9 classes doesn't make for good competition, and U4 has been our most subscribed class in general. That might start to change as we get more of the GD body Imprezas showing, so we might have to adjust the cutoff for U4/O4 a little.
      Jim Perrin
      WNY Region
      NEDIV RX Steward

      Comment


      • #48
        Rumor has it that this is a specialty class amongst other divisions of SCCA for the Toyota GT86 / Scion FR-S / Subaru BRZ.
        It is a four-cylinder and does meet multiple specific safety standards and could become its own class / division.

        Comment


        • #49
          There have been some very thoughtful posts in this discussion and I'd like to offer my input both as someone who has been in and out of rallycross over the past several years and as someone who has a vehicle that ALMOST fits the new open class.

          My background is mainly in off-road racing and I drive one of these bro-lites that many have heard about... it's stock 2wd Ford Ranger stripped down and caged with big shocks and a welded rear axle, no drivetrain mods allowed. We race them door to door on off-road short course race tracks but with the addition of a lexan windshield and a few other minor changes from bro-lite racing, I have managed to enter it in mod rear at both regional (new england) and eastern national RX events over the past 2 years. I've had some good fast days and some not so fast days but in the end, I have never taken RX very seriously as a form of competition. I know some people do so I try to respect that. To me, it's just fun to have a go at that style of driving and it's good seat time. From that point of view, this new class makes no difference to the bro-lites because we can still make our trucks MR class eligible if we really want to.

          What I am more interested in is the prospect of rallycrossing my other race car which is a dune buggy/sand rail/hard to classify tube chassis vehicle and it sounds like the intention of this new class is to attract new people with vehicles like mine to help grow or at least maintain interest in the sport. The challenge is that the way the rules are written, as many have pointed out, limits entry in this class to extremely few existing vehicles. As such, I expect that it will be difficult to get many, if any, entrants in this class in 2018. Other than adding a set of fenders, the only thing preventing my car from being eligible for this new open class is the fact that it is powered by a motorcycle engine. Height might be an issue where it sits at the moment although I have the ability to drop it by quite a bit and already plan to for other types of racing that I intend to do with it.

          I can understand the desire of the SCCA to exclude production UTV's. However, if the intention of this new class is to draw in more competitors with different styles of vehicles, then I feel like the motorcycle engine exclusion will leave out a lot of vehicles that could be a good potential match for this type of event and would fit the rules otherwise, including not just dune buggies but also legend/dwarf cars, Silver-cars, locosts, etc.

          Including motorcycle engine powered vehicles would also still exclude UTV's. Would my buggy be fighting for FTD? Not at all, but I bet it would be a ton of fun and attract some attention. So my selfish opinion based on the vehicle that I already have is to allow motorcycle powered tube chassis vehicles.

          Buggy specs for reference:
          Professionally built custom tube chassis, 1300cc inline 4cyl Hayabusa motor, chain driven forward-neutral-reverse gearbox, 30" tires, 72" overall width (64" tire center-center track width), 64" ground to rooftop (not including lights) with plenty of room to go down, manual rack and pinion steering, passed Best In The Desert tech earlier this year when I ran it in the Mint 400

          Click image for larger version

Name:	16797738_1254577564623674_1363422979339719669_o.jpg
Views:	250
Size:	133.4 KB
ID:	1662
          Attached Files

          Comment


          • #50
            There was a lot of discussion on the class at the RXB Meeting last week. I tried to bring up all of your questions for discussion.

            So, if you have more than one crack in the windshield, just run in the open class? If you have a windshield it will need to meet the windshield rules.
            - Why only 4 cylinder? Why only car engines? As a starting class the concept was to limit the amount of power. It is true that a 4 cylinder can make 500+ HP but a V8 can make significantly more. As the class develops and people start to build or bring cars this rules can be reviewed and potentially adjusted.
            - Roll cages needs to meet standards, but a logbook isn't required? So, who's going to train tech to spot the difference between DOM and fence post? Good welds vs bad welds? Some very good points. We are looking at this more closely. To meet the roll cage requirements it will need to go through some sort of scrutineer or by approved for which ever set or rules it is constructed to either SCCA, FIA, etc that is deemed acceptable. It will take some more work to figure out how they will be inspected at an event. My understanding of a log book would be it needs to be updated every time there is damage to the vehicle. I am not aware of cars going through a full scrutineer at every event once they have a log book but I could be wrong. Look for more guidance on this.
            - Even if it has a logbook, it should still be inspected before events. All rally cars at stage events get a thorough inspection. A logbook on says that the design conformed to standards at the time of issue, not that it's currently safe to run.
            - They'll need guidance on proper seat and harness mounting. Currently under review.
            - No requirement for padding on the cage where it could come in contact with helmets? Seems strange.... Role Cage Rules include padding requirements.
            - We could not figure out what cars would readily fit into this new class. Former road race cars and stage rally Open Light cars were mentioned, but those cars are already legal for other classes. Exocet and Locost builds were mentioned. Crosskarts and side by sides are prohibited, which seems strange, since that's what sounds like this class would be perfect for, and those are readily available for purchase, whereas anything else seems like it needs to be hand built from the ground up. Cars like an Exocet, some buggies with VW motors, tube chassis race cars in some classes, Spec miata with a cover over the cage, legends cars with an engine swap. For years parts of the community have asked for a next level class allowing a builder element and tube chassis cars. This is the first version of that class. If there are comments about the class I encourage everyone to get involved and make suggestions.


            If you did ask us, we'd ask you right back, "What probably are you trying to solve?" Let's start the discussion there and see where it goes.

            I am not sure it is as much of what problem needs to be solved as creating a new level of modification or people to explore the boundaries of the sport without having a manufactured car as a base.
            Last edited by gsxnut; 09-09-2017, 10:09 PM.
            Mark Macoubrie
            RXB
            Kansas City Region
            2005 STI 41 PA

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by gsxnut View Post
              There was a lot of discussion on the class at the RXB Meeting last week. I tried to bring up all of your questions for discussion.

              So, if you have more than one crack in the windshield, just run in the open class? If you have a windshield it will need to meet the windshield rules.
              - Why only 4 cylinder? Why only car engines? As a starting class the concept was to limit the amount of power. It is true that a 4 cylinder can make 500+ HP but a V8 can make significantly more. As the class develops and people start to build or bring cars this rules can be reviewed and potentially adjusted.
              - Roll cages needs to meet standards, but a logbook isn't required? So, who's going to train tech to spot the difference between DOM and fence post? Good welds vs bad welds? Some very good points. We are looking at this more closely. To meet the roll cage requirements it will need to go through some sort of scrutineer or by approved for which ever set or rules it is constructed to either SCCA, FIA, etc that is deemed acceptable. It will take some more work to figure out how they will be inspected at an event. My understanding of a log book would be it needs to be updated every time there is damage to the vehicle. I am not aware of cars going through a full scrutineer at every event once they have a log book but I could be wrong. Look for more guidance on this.
              - Even if it has a logbook, it should still be inspected before events. All rally cars at stage events get a thorough inspection. A logbook on says that the design conformed to standards at the time of issue, not that it's currently safe to run.
              - They'll need guidance on proper seat and harness mounting. Currently under review.
              - No requirement for padding on the cage where it could come in contact with helmets? Seems strange.... Role Cage Rules include padding requirements.
              - We could not figure out what cars would readily fit into this new class. Former road race cars and stage rally Open Light cars were mentioned, but those cars are already legal for other classes. Exocet and Locost builds were mentioned. Crosskarts and side by sides are prohibited, which seems strange, since that's what sounds like this class would be perfect for, and those are readily available for purchase, whereas anything else seems like it needs to be hand built from the ground up. Cars like an Exocet, some buggies with VW motors, tube chassis race cars in some classes, Spec miata with a cover over the cage, legends cars with an engine swap. For years parts of the community have asked for a next level class allowing a builder element and tube chassis cars. This is the first version of that class. If there are comments about the class I encourage everyone to get involved and make suggestions.


              If you did ask us, we'd ask you right back, "What probably are you trying to solve?" Let's start the discussion there and see where it goes.

              I am not sure it is as much of what problem needs to be solved as creating a new level of modification or people to explore the boundaries of the sport without having a manufactured car as a base.
              Spec Miata is the only thing I see trying to come to events in my area. You could make them legal as is without adding classes.

              I couldn't imagine a Legends or Dwarf cars at one of our sites - it's not remotely smooth enough and they would probably tear themselves in half. And you are really expecting people to take a purpose built track car, where shells are still worth thousands, then convert them to "rallyx" spec, so that they are no longer legal for any other racing? I'm sure there are a couple people out there, but I recently looked into what a used Legends chassis costs, and I could buy a solid and competitive car chassis.

              4cly vs V8 - usable power is limited by traction. I can make too much power with a 4cyl turbo setup. Allowing more cylinders won't make it faster, only more reliable, which is what people want in a race car.

              I get it - a handful of people have contacted the board requesting to be allowed to run certain non-car vehicles. They make a good argument that if you allow them, people will show up with cool stuff. What's missing from the equation? The fact that no one will suddenly build a car specifically for this class unless they already have something that is pretty close to legal. I think for simplicity and safety's sake, it would be far more beneficial to allow anything that is street legal and passed DMV certification (Exocet, AC Cobra, other kit cars), anything with a *current* road race logbook (Spec Miata, Improved Touring, etc) or anything with a logbook from another specifically listed and recognized sanctioning body (SCORE, Chump, etc). The car would have had to have a logbook entry in the past 12 months, meaning it has been scrutineered in the past year by someone with specific technical expertise to make sure it's safe. The competitor would also have to have a copy of the rulebook that the car is built to, in order for safety to verify anything that might be questionable about construction.

              What that does is gives people safety rulesets to adhere to, and ways to prove that it actually conforms. This allows all current construction cars a place to complete. This, however, limits the trashcans that might show up to events. Or cars that haven't been raced in decades have rotted away inside. Don't restrict engines. If these cars come out next year, and don't cause any issues (ie more rollovers per capita than normal cars), then consider expanding it. But, here again, you need data to back up decisions. So, gather as much input from regions regarding number of entries and types of vehicles.

              I'm not against the idea of new classes, or letting non-cars run at events. I'm just extremely safety minded (as anyone that is involved at an organizer level should be), and I know some of the things people have already tried to show up with. Without better rules to govern a safety inspection of these things, there is major potential for incident. Considering some of the incidents I've seen in the past 10 years with cars, this class could allow someone to run in something considerably more dangerous. You have to consider a tiny region with an RXSS that might not know better, allowing something that should not be allowed, simply because the rules don't specifically reject it. Think about the risk of a rollover with a vehicle that does not have windows, nets, arm restraints. Or a custom seat that isn't mounted properly, but there is enough space for the entire seat to eject from the car. You might think that this is a 1 in a million type accident, and you might be right, but if we have something like this happen just once, that might be enough to put our insurance at risk, and that region's program might be over for good.

              It would be nice if I didn't have to go to Las Vegas in order to have a face-to-face discussion at a town hall about stuff like this too. But that's another gripe for another time.

              For the record - a log book contains an entry for every single event a car is entered in. It will contain additional information if the car failed tech and/or needs equipment updates prior to the next event entered.
              Jim Perrin
              WNY Region
              NEDIV RX Steward

              Comment


              • #52
                So any new news about this class? I just read the latest issue of Sportscar and saw the small article referencing the new class for 2018. As luck would have it, I have been offered a sweet deal on something that will fit this concept. What interests me most of all is where the actual proposal/person originates. If I show up with the toy I know of people would think I started the proposal. This happened when I suggested the Street mod class structure a bunch of years ago, the "you only proposed this so you can play in that class." Anyone who really knows me, understands my position for RallyCross. So, do tell, because I would like to say thanks for getting someone to convince the RXB that if we can grow, it will be because we have added classes that make sense. Although this class does beg the question "Does it make sense?" Like I said, it makes sense to me, because I know of a toy that would be perfect for this class, but I didn't ask for this class/prep level.

                Comment


                • #53
                  I like the idea that the RXB is trying to give the creative types another venu to participate in. I think this class may have stemmed from a certain car that was denied entry at the NC event in Nebraska in 2014 and Leon Drake's truck in 2015+

                  I see the points made by Jim about data, member comment, and growth/expansion from the Regions up instead of top down.

                  For me this new class does two things:
                  1 it gives those in Mod a way to keep tinkering with their project
                  2 it fosters enthusiasm by enabling so many "what if ..." ideas

                  I agree with those that pointed out the short comings of the minimum track width to vehicle height ratio. I understand the point is to reduce rollover potential. However, the specs are not fair to an average height adult male. Rallycross cars need ground clearance and the minimum car dimensions seem to be cribbed from something like Solo's SAE class.... Realistic minimum track width using the 90% height ratio is something closer to 54". That puts height at roughly 48.8" and leaves roughly 37-39" of space for the occupant after ground clearance and helmet to cage clearance have been allotted. This makes course design safety singularities less of a factor as well. The cars won't make such unusual ruts, and won't be as likely to be able to take straight shot approaches to course elements designed to break momentum.

                  The recently released 2018 rules also state engines can only be naturally aspirated, which I have no issues with. I see no issue with banning engines larger than 4 cylinders, and feel that the NA 4 cylinder is just as reliable as any V8. These vehicles won't need monstrous horsepower. We are a grip limited sport, and a production specification modern engine should be all that is required to be successful. A small and light package is what I think will work for this new breed of car. I feel this new class could be very intriguing, and spark an increase in attendance in regards to both spectators and competitors. I have wanted to build a car very much along these lines for longer than the nine years I've been a participant of the SCCA RX program. This class proposal has stirred me to action.
                  Last edited by So Close; 01-25-2018, 12:06 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Mark, maybe what may help put this new class into perspective would be if the RXB took on the task of creating a RallyCross timeline of our history/evolution. By doing this and including how class structure has changed over time, it will be able to shed light on how we've gotten to where we are today and what has led to this new class and why it was the "next step" in the evolution in our sport. Since, compared to the SCCA family, we are relatively young, this shouldn't be too time consuming. Also, since I have found out a little about the new class, reading speculation about this being for x or y is amusing. Any stock legal car is allowed to race in prepared or mod. Having seen the vehicle, in person, mentioned above at I-80 that year, I had to laugh out loud. The only example that car should be regarded as, is what isn't acceptable in our sport. Leon Drakes vehicle has always been mod legal and he went to lengths to make sure of it, even doing more than was necessary.

                    So if the RXB doesn't have the time to contact all the people necessary to get as true a record of our rx history, I could probably give it a go, but having served on the RXB, you all have much easier access to the data needed.

                    Brent

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      So the question comes down to, is it a car looking for a class? OR a Class looking for a car?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Could we get a clarification on rule #8

                        8. The driver’s seat shall be securely mounted to the structure of the vehicle and be installed per the manufacturer’s recommendations. A passenger seat is not required but must also be securely mounted if installed. Seats must be intended by their manufacturer for competition use.
                        The rule mentions a seat manufacturer several times. Does that mean that the seat must not be custom made?
                        Are stock seats allowed if starting with a car?
                        If a seat has an FIA expiration date, is it still eligible for this class?

                        I had a small life change and I am debating towing a car to events instead of driving. I found an old ITA CRX locally for a reasonable price. It is legal for modified front and I am trying to figure out what other changes I would need to make this legal in the new class. Right now, I am looking into getting an old cage grandfathered in as well as expired seats and belts.

                        If this is a trophy class at nationals this year, it seems like a jump from MF to the new class is the way to win. Everything I have seen for the new class is RWD based and I don't think the small dimensions are enough to get around the advantages of FWD.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          If a logbook is required, a rally logbook doesn't care about the expiration of seats.
                          Jim Perrin
                          WNY Region
                          NEDIV RX Steward

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            I have a buggy and its very close to being eligible with the new rules. Its not a sand rail, more of a trail buggy but does have a mid engine, windshield good suspension and full brakes. I do however worry that the rules will be a moving target and require expensive modifications every year. For now it looks like I can just lower it a bit, add safety nets and a few odd things. I am installing a non turbo Subaru now to replace the motorcycle engine which actually made more power than the car engine.

                            I think the rule is good and will bring in some interesting cars. Im the type of guy where building is just as fun and important as driving.

                            The proposed rules can encourage people to develop a simple light tube chassis that can accept stock drivetrain parts for a really fun and affordable combination. I like limiting the engine size and induction type so you have to focus more on weight and handling and it keeps the costs down.
                            Attached Files

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              That's a good looking buggy. I'm looking forward to seeing how these perform at a RallyCross.

                              One of the big hurdles is the roll cage requirement. I can't quite tell but is the main hoop behind the driver one piece and does it have a diagonal brace? Is the tubing sized according to the weight? Looks like you still need to add fenders and a roof skin.
                              Charles
                              RXB
                              RX Rule Committee chairman
                              MR 1986 Mazda RX-7
                              SA 2000 Subaru Impreza 2.5RS

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                The two rear roll bars are one piece and 1.5 OD x .095 DOM tubing. I could add a diagonal or two if needed. I was going to add a roof skin and safety nets anyway. The fenders are one part of the rules I wish would go away. Its not like there's anyone behind you to get roosted. I should be able to mount the rears to the chassis but the front fenders would have to be mounted off the knuckles. Unsprung weight, ugly and very prone to fatigue and damage that way

                                The weight is under 1200 lbs and it has a pretty wide track. When lowered, and with the wide stance and low CG flat four mid engine, it should be very hard to flip. This car isn't too far off what I would build for these rules if I started with a clean sheet.

                                Some of the buggy builders in Silver Lake Michigan should take note of these rules and tweak one of their standard chassis kits to fit. I'll try to spread the word. This buggy is like a dual sport bike on four wheels because its street legal. Add in rally cross and its Fun,..Fun,.. Fun!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X