Requesting input: SCCA redoing RallyCross Constructors' class, considering UTVs. What do YOU want?

eastsideTim said:

MrChaos said:

eastsideTim said:

Come to think of it, I would love to know what the logic behind only allowing automotive engines was.  It can’t be noise limits if they allow rotaries.

i mean have you heard knurled's rx7?

Yup, and I own the VW that in a prior iteration was even louder.

The Mazda is a lot quieter now than it used to be, too

Personally, as a competitor, I like the idea of a small single-seater that could fit on a small trailer.  Realistically, I don't see how to engineer one that would work safely.

OTOH, I've been watching in car racing footage to see what it's all about, and seeing videos like this with G-bubbles and speedometers is enlightening.

MrChaos said:

eastsideTim said:

I agree the engine limitations are a big factor.  NA four cylinders, but no motorcycle engines is messed up.  Also, I’d love to see more automotive engines allowed, specifically turbo Subaru flat fours, and V8s.  The former, because it seems like they’d be an awesome option for a rail buggy or VW-based build, and the latter because I think it’d be hilarious to see C4 Vette karts at a rallycross. 

TL:DR - open up the engine options, and let non-DOT tires run.  

 

there are a ton of vw based rail buddies for sale around sping and fall here, and turbo subaru swapping them would be easy.

Having watched rails try to run at rallycrosses before they were banned, the last thing they need is more power - they looked like a complete handful to keep going in a straight line with a dual port 1600.  No stability on a rough low-grip surface at low speeds.  One time a guy made one or two runs and just loaded it back on the trailer in disgust.  I wouldn't sweat the lack of power.

Knurled. said:

MrChaos said:

eastsideTim said:

I agree the engine limitations are a big factor.  NA four cylinders, but no motorcycle engines is messed up.  Also, I’d love to see more automotive engines allowed, specifically turbo Subaru flat fours, and V8s.  The former, because it seems like they’d be an awesome option for a rail buggy or VW-based build, and the latter because I think it’d be hilarious to see C4 Vette karts at a rallycross. 

TL:DR - open up the engine options, and let non-DOT tires run.  

 

there are a ton of vw based rail buddies for sale around sping and fall here, and turbo subaru swapping them would be easy.

Having watched rails try to run at rallycrosses, the last thing they need is more power - they looked like a complete handful to keep going in a straight line with a dual port 1600.  I wouldn't sweat the lack of power.

i mean i think that is the whole no weight over the front end issue. 

In reply to MrChaos :

They were very.... bouncy.  The back tires were big and heavy and looked like they were manhandling the chassis.   And the wheelhop that would ensue would make the engines bounce up and down like they were itchin' to jump out, and this probably led to breakage after a while.

The fun thing about the Bug is that it had a decklid, so you couldn't see the engine hopping around   And more body and less tire meant it probably drove a lot smoother, although I also remember it popping out of gear a lot.  He ran it on 60 or 62cm Silverstone tires, that probably never even wore the edges off in the five or so years that I competed against him.  And he flat towed the car to events on the rally tires too.

Maybe you could make it work with some really, really lightweight narrow tires.  It's an interesting problem to think about, for sure.

didnt a 71 "beetle" win nationals in 17?

just looked it was 17 and a 71 super beetle won mod rear.

In reply to MrChaos :

2016...  I believe a Miata won that year.  I forget if it was the guy from Florida, or a guy local to us, who incidentally is selling his Miata because he's switching to something in a lower class and front wheel drive.

But I think I do know who you're talking about, and that car would qualify as a well sorted piece of equipment.

Knurled. said:

In reply to MrChaos :

2016...  I believe a Miata won that year.

just looked and it was 17 and a 71 super beetle

Knurled. said:

 

Personally, as a competitor, I like the idea of a small single-seater that could fit on a small trailer.  Realistically, I don't see how to engineer one that would work safely.

 

 

This would not meet the letter of the rules,but I'm betting it'd be a relatively safe vehicle to compete in a rallycross:

750cc motorcycle engine.  Custom front suspension, modified Miata rear suspension.  Not completely sure if it'll fit on a utility trailer, but it is pretty small.

Oh, and additionally, I am all for fenders on rallycross cars.  I don't want to get roosted when I'm chasing cones.

In reply to eastsideTim :

That's kind of my vision but with larger diameter tires.  I can see it being able to be balanced and bolted down to a 40x48 HF trailer.

That's neither here nor there, though.

I like the idea of tire protection to prevent flinging stones around.  I find it interesting that Constructors requires 180 degree tire covering, but the general rules have not required mud flaps since 2005.

Right now, where does mod class end for rallycross?  Suspension is free, you can put the motor anywhere, and you can do anything you want with chassis reinforcement.  If you hang a car body off of a cross kart's roll cage, you have a good possibility of being mod legal.  I think the goal should be to capture existing vehicles.  If you are build ing a buggy today, why not just run it in mod as a Honda n600?

Assuming the constructors class gets rewritten to allow cross kart's and similar vehicles, how does rule 3.2.F limit tires? If I build a 700lb buggy, can I run cross kart tires?  They are designed for that weight and are designed to go sideways in dirt.  It is not clear what documentation I would need to bring if I was protested.  What if my buggy weighs 900lbs (200lbs more than a cross kart)? On a somewhat related note, if Leon's tractor tires got protested at nationals for 3.2.F, what would he have had to provide to show the tires were safe?

ojannen said:

Right now, where does mod class end for rallycross?  Suspension is free, you can put the motor anywhere, and you can do anything you want with chassis reinforcement.  If you hang a car body off of a cross kart's roll cage, you have a good possibility of being mod legal.  I think the goal should be to capture existing vehicles.  If you are build ing a buggy today, why not just run it in mod as a Honda n600?

There ARE limits to Mod.  You're not really allowed to modify the structure of the car beyond what is necessary to accommodate allowable modifications.  A tubeframe chassis with a car skin on top would be far in excess of that.  Likewise, there are some safety rules that really should not be in the Mod preparation allowances and should be in the general safety rule, and I feel a personal failing at not recognizing that at the National Tour event that I was chief of tech - there were a couple cars that should have been excluded, and I didn't recognize that.  Sucks for the people who towed hundreds of miles to be there, but the safety rules are non-negotiable.

The questions people pose to the RXRC are sometimes pretty interesting, in that there is no clear cut answer.  Is converting a LHD car to RHD or vice-versa acceptable in Mod?  By some interpretations it's not.  By other interpretations it is legal in Stock.  Just to give an example.  Engine relocation is one of those things that we haven't had to touch because nobody's really done it yet and made a test case.

Assuming the constructors class gets rewritten to allow cross kart's and similar vehicles, how does rule 3.2.F limit tires? If I build a 700lb buggy, can I run cross kart tires?  They are designed for that weight and are designed to go sideways in dirt.  It is not clear what documentation I would need to bring if I was protested.  What if my buggy weighs 900lbs (200lbs more than a cross kart)? On a somewhat related note, if Leon's tractor tires got protested at nationals for 3.2.F, what would he have had to provide to show the tires were safe?

If crosskarts are allowed, they will probably be in a completely separate class outside of the S/P/M hierarchy.  (No upclassing from S/P/M to stagger different drivers in the same car, the way some people run a Stock car in Prep or a Stock/Prep car in Mod)  But those ARE valid questions, and something that we're going to have to hammer out in order to make a consistent ruleset that isn't broken.  Knowing the right questions is often as important as having the answer, and I do thank you for bringing it up.

As far as Leon's tractor tires go, the current ruleset is not ambiguous.  They aren't ATV/UTV tires and they don't have homemade bolts/studs so they'd be legal at the time.

Down here in FL, I think rallyx would quickly be taken over by UTVs if they were allowed.  They are everywhere. 

i wish crosskarts weren't $50k either

Lof8 - Andy said:

Down here in FL, I think rallyx would quickly be taken over by UTVs if they were allowed.  They are everywhere. 

That's good, I think.  The ultimate goal is to give new people a place to join us and grow the motorsport.

moxnix said:

I agree with mazdeuce on UTVs.

 

The constructors class I never figured out who it was aimed at and have not had any interest locally in it.  At this time I would rather just see it go away.

I can think of about 3 people it was aimed at, a couple of whom are on this forum. Hey, my car was legal for it until this year (when I engine swapped)! Keep it, get rid of it, I don't much care.

I have zero interest in seeing UTVs out there. If we had a bunch of them start showing up, chances are I'd do less rallycross.  I think they'd kill courses, cause safety issues and course design issues, and of course jack up entry numbers even higher, which might be good for some clubs, but would just mean less runs for groups like DC.

I say let the UTV thing be a regional/local class that clubs can do if they want to, but aren't required to. My help some of the smaller/rural groups out there, perhaps. I don't want to see them here.

bluej said:

If UTV's can run, I want to be able to build my own version with a motorcycle or SxS motor. Would things like the Sierra single seaters be welcome? They seem a better fit than the more all-terrain UTV's. I know some new england or upstate NY rally folks have been playing with them on ice this winter.

Is this a case where the rules are defined in a way so that UTV's have to be modified some to be safe (geometry/suspension adjustments designed to work against roll overs), but others could just build to those rules if they preferred?

Also, has a single class or a 2wd/awd split been discussed?

just remember, things with motorcylcle engines (like crosskarts) are one of the things that led to the demise of one of our former venues, the way I hear it. The incessant buzz/noise from them is sure to piss off neighbors. 

Knurled. said:

Lof8 - Andy said:

Down here in FL, I think rallyx would quickly be taken over by UTVs if they were allowed.  They are everywhere. 

That's good, I think.  The ultimate goal is to give new people a place to join us and grow the motorsport.

I always hear talk about "growing the sport". I'm not really in agreement. I'm already at the threshold of how little seat time I'm willing to accept to sacrifice an entire weekend day. Add 40 UTVs to the mix and I'll likely be looking for a new venue to play with my dirt toys. But I get it, not everyone is like me. 

In reply to irish44j :

Concerns noted and considered.  I am curious, could you expand on your feelings on killing the courses?  Is it strictly a tire issue or are you concerned that course design may be altered to accomodate them?

Lof8 - Andy said:

Knurled. said:

Lof8 - Andy said:

Down here in FL, I think rallyx would quickly be taken over by UTVs if they were allowed.  They are everywhere. 

That's good, I think.  The ultimate goal is to give new people a place to join us and grow the motorsport.

I always hear talk about "growing the sport". I'm not really in agreement. I'm already at the threshold of how little seat time I'm willing to accept to sacrifice an entire weekend day. Add 40 UTVs to the mix and I'll likely be looking for a new venue to play with my dirt toys. But I get it, not everyone is like me. 

If 40 vehicles (assuming 50-60 drivers) could be added per regional event, I'm sure the SCCA would approve of any UTV ruleset yesterday!  That would pretty much double overall participation and add probably as many SCCA members as back when Subaru offered a free year's membership when you bought a WRX.

Lof8 - Andy said:

Knurled. said:

Lof8 - Andy said:

Down here in FL, I think rallyx would quickly be taken over by UTVs if they were allowed.  They are everywhere. 

That's good, I think.  The ultimate goal is to give new people a place to join us and grow the motorsport.

I always hear talk about "growing the sport". I'm not really in agreement. I'm already at the threshold of how little seat time I'm willing to accept to sacrifice an entire weekend day. Add 40 UTVs to the mix and I'll likely be looking for a new venue to play with my dirt toys. But I get it, not everyone is like me. 

This, exactly. Up here we have 50-60+ cars at most events these days. We hit the cap seems like at least several events per year. So if UTVs start coming out they either start raising entry caps (less runs for everyone) or the UTVs start bumping out cars from entering. I agree, if we started getting even less entries, rallycross would not be worth it for me, and I'd likely go less often. 

Again, make it a local thing to allow clubs that have super-low turnout a way to survive. Don't make it a national or divisional class, since that would mean all regions would HAVE to use it. 

looking at sxs' and height to width and it doesnt look good... Honda Talon, Wheelbase 87.6", height 75.3", width 64"    Polaris RZR RS1(the single seat one) 83", 73.75" and 64"  RZR XP1000 is 90", 73.75" and 64"  the new Pro XP RZR is 96", 71.7" and 64"   the big boy XP Turbo S is the sane-ist at 90", 75" and 72" 

Knurled. said:

In reply to irish44j :

Concerns noted and considered.  I am curious, could you expand on your feelings on killing the courses?  Is it strictly a tire issue or are you concerned that course design may be altered to accomodate them?

I suspect both. And courses needing to be altered to accommodate UTV handling to make them safe (which may make them less safe or less fun for cars). We run a hilly venue and have to be careful about course design/rollovers, since rollovers could end up down a hill. UTVs roll more easily, there are features we use that we almost certainly could NOT use for UTVs (IMO). 

I also have to wonder how it would affect insurance costs. Having entry fees go up to cover higher insurance would NOT be a way to grow rallycross. 

UTVs have plenty of places to play in this world. Let them play there. I'm convinced rallycross suffers from bad marketing. We market it pretty hard in this area and have for a number of years, and our turnout has more than doubled per event since I started doing it about 9 years ago (because we've proactively tried to get more people interested in it). I suspect many regions just suck at getting the word out, explaining what rallycross is, or running good programs. 

MrChaos said:

looking at sxs' and height to width and it doesnt look good... Honda Talon, Wheelbase 87.6", height 75.3", width 64"    Polaris RZR RS1(the single seat one) 83", 73.75" and 64"  RZR XP1000 is 90", 73.75" and 64"  the new Pro XP RZR is 96", 71.7" and 64"   the big boy XP Turbo S is the sane-ist at 90", 75" and 72" 

 

FWIW, a Miata is a 90" wheelbase, an RX-7 is a 95" wheelbase, and both have a 55" track width.  Many other rallycross-common small cars are similar in dimension.

It's all a lot of food for thought, and some actual numbers to consider.

Knurled. said:

MrChaos said:

looking at sxs' and height to width and it doesnt look good... Honda Talon, Wheelbase 87.6", height 75.3", width 64"    Polaris RZR RS1(the single seat one) 83", 73.75" and 64"  RZR XP1000 is 90", 73.75" and 64"  the new Pro XP RZR is 96", 71.7" and 64"   the big boy XP Turbo S is the sane-ist at 90", 75" and 72" 

 

FWIW, a Miata is a 90" wheelbase, an RX-7 is a 95" wheelbase, and both have a 55" track width.  Many other rallycross-common small cars are similar in dimension.

 

It's all a lot of food for thought, and some actual numbers to consider.

im talking the height to track width ratios. And iirc some non scca orgs have a cut off of like 70" as max vehicle height to rallycross

irish44j said:

Knurled. said:

In reply to irish44j :

Concerns noted and considered.  I am curious, could you expand on your feelings on killing the courses?  Is it strictly a tire issue or are you concerned that course design may be altered to accomodate them?

I suspect both. And courses needing to be altered to accommodate UTV handling to make them safe (which may make them less safe or less fun for cars). We run a hilly venue and have to be careful about course design/rollovers, since rollovers could end up down a hill. UTVs roll more easily, there are features we use that we almost certainly could NOT use for UTVs (IMO). 

UTVs have plenty of places to play in this world. Let them play there. 

I keep bringing this one rule up, because people keep forgetting that it exists.

3.1.  (...)  If the Event Chairman after consultation with the Event Safety Steward determines at his discretion that a vehicle cannot safely negotiate the course, it may be excluded. (...)

This is the rule that is (or should be) used to prevent vehicles like tippy lifted trucks, or VW Rabbits and Ford Fiestas, or vehicles that have broken during the course of the event, from getting out on course in the first place.  Some sites are conducive to allowing vehicles like that and some are not, and this catchall clause is there so that the people who are actually on the ground can make that decision, rather than rely on something written years ago by people who aren't there.

As far as your tire concerns, the proposals are way ahead of you.