THSCC Forums

What problem are we trying to solve here? The only problem I see with our current Rally-X program is lack of participation. I don't think the number of entries will increase because we feel the need to create enough classes so everyone gets a trophy.

I know that our group (in the General) is having a huge amount of fun. Sure we are all competative, but the FUN FACTOR is paramount in our continued participation. Trophy or not, as long as I enjoy it and can afford to do so I'll keep participating.

IMO, it ain't broke, so it doesn't need fixing. Carl and Kevin are doing a fine job with the program, so I'm sure they'll make the right decisions (classing and otherwise) to keep it alive.

_________________
Vincent Keene
'06 Ford Mustang GT (track rat)
'15 Dodge Charger R/T (yeah, it's got a HEMI!)
'07 Ford Fusion SE (205,000 miles and counting)
'98 Chevy Z-24 (retired)
'93 Acura Integra (Team SWB 24HOL Car)

ok, so how about we have the following classes next year...

AWD street tires (S4)
AWD rally tires (R4)
FWD street tires (SF)
RWD street tires (SR)
2WD rally tires (R2)

modifications are unlimited in each class, but the car must pass tech & safety inspection

What do you think, Carl? Brian, Cosby? (since you guys were also nominated for rallyx vp)

I guess I still think engine size is a bigger factor than front vs. rear wheel drive, so separating classes by displacement makes more sense to me than doing it the other way. It's hard to make a strong case since we've had a relative shortage of both large-displacement cars and RWD cars, but when Jim was running in his MR2 he was doing pretty well:
www.thscc.com/rallycross/events/2005/20 ... class.html
www.thscc.com/rallycross/events/2005/20 ... class.html
www.thscc.com/rallycross/events/2005/20 ... class.html
Eric Adams had some fast SO2 times in his turbo Saab when it was running right, but that was only like 2 runs. I feel sure that Mike W could be really fast in his Bimmer if it was making power and set up right, but it's not up to me what people choose to drive.

Kevin, I'm afraid I don't see your just-proposed classes to be much of an improvement. You've consolidated from 6 classes to 5, but our current imbalance will be the same, since we currently have no FWD SO2 cars or RWD SU2 cars.

I would be OK with consolidating the 2WD "rally tire" classes, though. IMO, it's going to be a bit odd next year supporting the rally tire classes, since my guess is that they'll be very poorly subscribed. I wouldn't be surprised if it took 2 or even 3 years before we started seeing meaningful class sizes there, but I think we should be offering them if we can.

My $0.02 (as always).

_________________
Carl Fisher

Be Cool to the Pizza Dude:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4651531

PJ & Dan = FWD SO2
Bret = RWD SU2 (and fastest RWD guy at the last event, but only 17th in SU2 - which was otherwise composed of FWD cars - well, except for the very low-riding MR2 driven by a 1st-timer )

Just thought I should point that out.

And seriously, if Jim Feinberg's MR2 was actually competitive against Rob's Sentra, he would've been winning by several seconds, not losing by an average of around 10 seconds.

But if you still really think that engine size is more important than the wheels driven, I'm fine with keeping the classes the way they are.

Like we have a chance.

As for classes, I have to say I agree with Carl. There are 2WD cars that the drivers are good, but have no chance with some of the cars and drivers they are competing against. Same thing holds true with the 4WD cars. The only thing is, how do we make it "equal" but not over complicated? I honestly can't see a way to make it so without creating so many classes that it isn't really fun. We could end up with 5 or 6 classes, but a few of them would only have a couple of drivers (take SO2 for example). Maybe we should hold off until we get a larger following. At that time we can consider changing the classes to better accomodate everyone involved.

Just my take on it.

Yea, us 'rallyX elect VPs' just came from our lunchtime fillabuster discussion on this subject. Cosby and I have slightlly varying opinions, but I have to side with Carl and Cosby on the KISS method to classing. However, I still think THSCC RallyX Rules v1.1 needs minor changes (notice -- MINOR).

Here is the thread summary:

For me these are the reasons for change:
- Imbalance of cars in their classes
- RWD cars have almost no chance
- Low displacement AWD cars have no chance (or any NON WRX/STI/RS AWD car).
- Anyone considering Nationals (Kevin ) has a non formal playground (low %age case)
- Rally Tires next year are allowed

Reasons for staying the same:
- RallyX participation does not currently fit the bill for a bazillion classes (although we are in the 40s now)
- 'Why fix what ain't broke?"
- keep classing germane so we arent changing rules every year

Overall, I think that something *close* to what we have is the best solution. I LIKE the POS class idea (although I think my car would be kicked out of it). I DONT like being in a class I have no chance of winning (SO4) for purely mechanical reasons (biased, but valid point). I would like to see something that makes the 21 car SU2 class a little more fair for the RWD guys (like a POS) + competitve for all, and a system that ushers people in for looking for a rallyX car (low displacement AWD car, POS class car (anything), rally tire carrot).

Those are my thoughts.

Keep it similar to not alienate people. Change it a little to allow for new car types and growth. Fix what ain't working for cars we already have. Prepare for the fact rally Tire cars NEED a place to play on their own.

Ultimately, I want the RallyX VPs and people actually rallyXing to make the decision as they have to live with it.

Remember -- if not everyone is happy, then a good compromise has been met

- dow

Just out of curiosity...

why do you all think that engine displacement should be the deciding factor rather than whether the car is FWD or RWD?

and do you also think that the cars OVER 2.4L should be faster or slower than the cars UNDER 2.4L? (this is for 2WD only)

I've been considering buying Whitney's BMW and putting rally tires on it, and I think with the tires it might be competitive in my "R2" class, since it does have a LSD at least. Now if we keep the current rules but add rally tires, it wouldn't be racing against the lower-displacement 2WD cars... but should it be beating them, or getting beaten? And why do you say that?

Devil's Advocate:
Have you done a complete comparison of rallyX times over the two years of displacement advantages in SO2 and SU2 to see if there is a median advantage?


For the surfaces we run on locally, I think the difference in displacement (i.e. HP/torque) is minimal.

Now, take your arguement to Oakland Acres, and I think you have more of a valid point for displacement comparison (more grip). Dont you think a HP/Torque advantage would help there?

Overall, you are correct -- grip and controllability is more of a deciding factory, IMHO. For our sites, FWD cars do a better job in our loose and sandy sites than RWD, period.

Your arguement would not be coming from the fact the Rob and Carl in SU2 cars have been dominating SO2 cars, would it? Maybe SO2 is a protection class for all the useless power and torque they have


- dow

I don't think the MR2 ever got a fair shake out there. Considering it dyno'd at a whopping 89whp & 83wtq, weighed in @~2380 in "race trim", had blown 140k+ original OEM struts and 5+ year-old no-name dry-rotted all season tires on it, I think being a little over 1 second per run off Rob's car wasn't too shabby. Heck, it beat all the other 2wd cars (and a lot of the 4wd cars too) regularly with the exception of Carl when he finally put decent tires on his Neon. I bought the car for $400 (POS class eligible, woohoo!!! ) and just put gas in it. I haven't even changed the oil in it since I've had it!



With all due respect, I think that's crap! We all know the specs on Rob's Sentra and given the way both cars looked on paper when they competed against each other, I think the little MR2 did pretty well. Why split by drive train layout when there hasn't been any proven reason to do so yet?

I was preparing it to come back out and do battle with the 2wd group (new struts, tires and some weight reduction) when a tree fell on it and crushed one of the rear strut towers. I fully expected it to gain at least 1 second per run and think it could have landed at the top of the 2wd heap. Maybe I'm reading the results incorrectly, but perhaps we should ask Carl what just a decent set of tires did to his car?

Granted, the MR2 is an unusual 2wd car being mid-engined and all but it proves that the 2wd class doesn't have to be split by drive train layout. If I manage to fix it and run it next year, it would be nice to run it with the largest 2wd group possible.

It seems to me that we are seeing the same thing we've always seen in the auto-x world. If you can't make your car fit the rules, make the rules fit your car. Everybody knew the rules going in and yet people go out and buy a car which doesn't fit their idea of competitiveness within a class.

At this point, I don't think we should segment the group much more than we already have (if at all). I can see the need of having a “low-power” and “high-power” 4wd class since they can actually put their power down. As far as the 2wd crowd, I don’t think any of us have really tried to optimize our setups to make use of what we already have. Well, with the possible exception of the Dirtmaster and General Lei crowd since they didn’t have much to work with in the first place! Assuming the 2wd guys figure out a way to optimize their power delivery, it would seem most logical to break those guys into 2 groups as well.

Similar to Kevin’s proposal on a previous page and what we already have, that would leave:

AWD “high-power” (turbo or > 2.4L seems reasonable)
AWD “low-power” (NA 2.4L and below seems reasonable as well)
AWD rally tires
2WD “high-power”
2WD “low-power”
2WD rally tires

That leaves only the 2wd power option as the dividing line that needs to be established. That’s where I think it gets sticky. If your engine is sitting over the driven wheels, you are probably going to be able to put down a lot more power than the drive train layout might suggest but is that something we really need to worry about at this point? Off the cuff, I’m tempted to suggest a power-to-weight ratio (or torque-to-weight) as a possible dividing line instead of engine displacement but I’d have to give that some thought. The heavy cars with big engines don’t seem to turn well so who knows?

If people are serious enough to run rally tires, they should be able to fend for themselves regardless of the drive train layout at this point. Just lump them into a 2wd or 4wd class and be done with it.

Anyway, before this turns into another master’s thesis, I’ll stop right there…

Jim

I haven't seen a traditional FR(wd) car do *very* well yet, hence my opinion.

Yes, the MR MR-2 does well, and with an exceptional driver in it, it is competitve. I agree with your classing comment (make the classes fit the cars), but I am more than willing to do something as compromise (I don't have to be happy ).

That is the input I like to see as someone who thinks it all should be 2WD from a 'RWD" car speaks up.

Great input, but I would like to see what, lets say, Bret Luter thinks about his cars competitiveness. Then again, looking at the SO2 results, the majority of RWD cars are there, and the HIGHEST finishing SO2 car would have been 18th in a combined 2WD class --- right behind the best RWD driven car at last event, Brett Luter.

For the majority of the RWD cars, it seems like they are well off the pace compared to the FWDers. Would you want to volunteer to get in a 'normal' RWD car and then the MR2 and see if it is a fair fight? I honestly think that even with your superior driving skills, you would be significantly slower in a FR car.

Of course, that is my opinion. Great points!

EDIT: After looking at the results, a well driven Mike Whitney car would be in contention for top honors in the '2WD' class, but I don't know if he is another 'exception' rather than the rule.

Needless to say, he coned the crap out of a lot of his runs, and with his 'finished' times, he is still WELL down on the SU2 order. Without the cones (if possible), that is a Top 5, easy.

Mike W:: Input?

- dow

I think you have your answer right there...

Mike is a very talented driver and he did well in a car that is *not* well suited to rally-x IMO. I can't speak for his recent results since I wasn't there but I know when I talked to him previously, he hadn't done much to help put the power down. With that "torquey" power band (rpm-wise), it made driving out of slippery corners an exercise in frustration. I drove the car a couple of times and you were either going nowhere or going sideways.

However, given all its handicaps, he was still able to do well with the car. Sure, not everybody is going to drive something like that up to the same level he does but what are we doing, classing cars or classing people?

The only change I ever made to the MR2 was remove the rear sway bar. I can say that made a huge difference in how it performed in the dirt and there were a few other "tricks" I never got to try. Perhaps some of the other SO2 cars would benefit from some tweaking as well?

As Kevin alluded to earlier, maybe the SO2 cars will never be as fast as the SU2 cars on street tires? Or maybe those guys haven't found the right street tires yet? They are generally heavy and can't use their power so perhaps they are the perfect candidates to go into the rally tire class? That would simplify the 2wd cars into 2 classes and you would have to just pick the one that makes the most sense for your car. Or get another POS...

Jim

So what I'm hearing from everybody now is that the SO2 cars are not any faster (and possibly slower - although I think that's just because most of them are RWD) than the SU2 cars.

So tell me again why we need to split the cars up by displacement instead of by drivetrain configuration? I hadn't even thought about it before Jim pointed out that his MR2 was mid-engined, but I do agree that mid-engine RWD cars should be included with the FWD group - I guess we could split it up by whether your engine is above (or very close to?) your drive wheels.



Yet everyone still thinks that RWD = FWD as far as how to split up the classes?

This has me very confused. Maybe I'm just crazy or something, but after attending every single THSCC rallycross and seeing the cars running in person (and driving several of them, including Mike's BMW), and looking at the past 2 years of results I have seen...

great drivers in RWD cars doing "ok" against FWD cars

not-so-great drivers (and sometimes great drivers) in RWD cars getting spanked by FWD cars

and drivers with FWD, LSD cars just cruising around the course for the win (this was from the passenger seat)

I re-emphasize that if everybody else wants the rules to not change, I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm just trying to understand why you all think the way you do.

I don't have any really strong preferences, but I have driven in and competed in several configurations at this point so I'll ante up my opinions:

AWD > 2WD by a lot
2WD (LSD) > 1WD (no LSD) by quite a bit

FF > FR by a little
MR/RR > FR by a little
FF ~= MR/RR

High HP > Low HP only on AWD cars

Based on my limited experience, if this was my call I'd do for classes:

AWD Prepped or High HP
AWD Stock Low HP
2WD Prepped
2WD Stock
1WD Prepped
1WD Stock

What defines Prepped and Stock would be up for debate. But I see no reason to split RWD / FWD, nor do I see a big reason to split by displacement in the non-AWD cars.

Edit: OK I will define what *I* would chose for prepped/stock -- "Stock" would be EXACTLY the STS ruleset, including 140TW street tires (but minus the car restrictions). So springs, shocks, strut bars, cone filters are OK but gutting is not. "Prepared" would be ANYTHING else, including rally tires.

_________________
Mike Whitney
whit32@gmail.com, 919-454-5445
V10, V8, V8t, I6, I6, V6, F4t, I4, I4, I4, I4, I2, 1, 1

I was tired and frustrated (at things unrelated to rallyx classing!) when I made my post and should have explained myself better. The main things I like about the tweaked SCCA rules that I posted (What's with the hate on the SCCA, anyway? Just because an SCCA region made the draft doesn't automatically make it bad.) are:

--a slight reduction in the number of classes

--a clear indication that the "street" category isn't open. I know I've seen several posts, both here and on places like nasioc where potential competitors claim that they "would get murdered because their car is almost stock" by all the open cars. (Yes we all know this is stupid but the two-tier set of allowed mods kills this argument)

--differentiation in the more highly modified class between displacement in 2wd where potential weight savings and power adders make added displacement more of a factor. It seems that street tires are the great leveler in our current world as low powered junkers can whup up on 300HP STi's.

I really think it's silly to differentiate between FWD and RWD unless you end up making bunches of classes and I think virtually everyone agrees that class proliferation is not a great thing. Obviously next season's rules are up to the officers but discussion is worthwhile. I think there is great value in a consistent set of rules nationwide. Autocross didn't take off until the SCCA national rules were written in the 70's. Before then it was people doing all _sorts_ of crazy things and someone who ran in LA had no chance of even being legal in SF, etc... We're in sort of the same boat with rallyx although not near as bad as most clubs have chosen simple and inclusive rulesets.

--Kevin H.

_________________
2003 WRX (again!)

Hey Jim - I have done the following:

- Stiffer front springs
- Removed rear swaybar
- Left spare in trunk
- Run w/ full gas tank
- Better rear tires than front

Those all helped. And the car *can* be driven fast. Bet even optimized, I bet dollars-to-donuts that I would be faster in a Sentra SE-R.

At the very least I would stop hitting cones. Therein lies the biggest problem, IMO, with the FR layout. I may not be able to do a good job of describing it here -- When powering around a corner in the BMW, the rear tires are often spinning in the loose dirt somewhat predictably. The front tires, which are NOT spinning, are on the "better" soil on the inside of the corner. Since they are not spinning, they are very strongly affected by varying grip on the inside of the corner. Basically, on throttle in a corner, you never *know* how much the front is going to stick. As a result, the car's attitude becomes quite unpredictable and I mow down a lot of cones with the front of the car at near-full-lock. In the FWD car the wheels "carve" their own path and become stable/predicatable (or in the RR/MR car where the lower weight on the front tires keeps the traction from being too high).

So in summary, IMO, FR cars CAN be as fast but are never as predictable. So you need to either slow down / avoid the throttle, or hit lots of cones. I chose the latter -- those are ALL cones due to me being at the limit trying to go fast and the car's pitch being unpredicatable -- not because of a "mistake".

Make any sense? It would be nice to try a couple of other FR cars but I have none at my disposal right now

_________________
Mike Whitney
whit32@gmail.com, 919-454-5445
V10, V8, V8t, I6, I6, V6, F4t, I4, I4, I4, I4, I2, 1, 1