Side by Sides and Rally?

Toyman01 wrote:

FooBag wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: The SCCA specifically doesn't allow them in rallycross. They also don't allow a bunch of other really cool stuff I'd love to see.

The SCCA is working on adding a class for them. It's supposed to be trialed this year in a certain region and then introduced for 2018.

So, I asked some questions of some rallycross guys. What I'm hearing is they (the old farts) don't want it to happen. In typical SCCA fashion, anything to attract the younger crowd is bad.

I know in Canada, there are insurance issues. The carrier that provides insurance to our national sanctioning body, reportedly won't touch S X S with a 10 foot pole.

^Tarheel doesn't use SCCA classing by any stretch of the imagination, or SCCA rules.

BTW, one ran the last event, and I have to eat my own words. The driver did beat me. I was carrying 7 cones though

I still maintain that they, A) aren't that fast (at least the small/narrow ones) and B) are a huge rollover hazard. Even a lot of the other guys that run will also say things like "I can't believe they let those things run", and "hell no, I won't go for a ride in that car".

They are a big rollover risk compared to a sports car or sedan. They have a tipover angle similar to a slightly lifted Samurai - which would never be allowed into rallycross. So at least they're consistent.

ProDarwin wrote: ^Tarheel doesn't use SCCA classing by any stretch of the imagination, or SCCA rules. BTW, one ran the last event, and I have to eat my own words. The driver did beat me. I was carrying **7 cones** though I still maintain that they, A) aren't that fast (at least the small/narrow ones) and B) are a huge rollover hazard. Even a lot of the other guys that run will also say things like "I can't believe they let those things run", and "hell no, I won't go for a ride in that car".

Yeah he was running a very small one if its the same guy

Wider than it is tall is the SCCA qualification right? And thats at stock height I bet you would adjust preload to get it a bit lower if you wanted.

The above model btw comes stock with 172hp and a dry weight of 1598 lbs but maybe you are right, totally unsafe and slow

Jaynen wrote: Wider than it is tall is the SCCA qualification right? And thats at stock height I bet you would adjust preload to get it a bit lower if you wanted.

For autocross, yes. And it's based on track width, not total width. For rallycross, it's a bit more subjective. There's not as strict a set of guidelines for what is / isn't a rollover risk (because it can vary widely depending on the terrain each region runs on). There may be some courses where something even slightly tippy is easy to roll if you screw up and there are others where it takes a massive screw-up to get just about anything to roll.

I can't see the image (work block). Wider track width (center of contact patch) than it is tall is the SCCA qualification.

I don't think ALL of them are unsafe. I'm sure there are many that would/could qualify. I just think the rules need to be written to allow those and not to allow the tall narrow tippy things, as well as all of the other safety rules as well (I haven't seen wrist restraints on those running locally).

A lot are designed to fit in pickup beds and thus have a very narrow track width. I recall in the other thread a lot of them being something like 50" track, 70" high, which is a huge disparity. I'm sure SCCA will come up with decent rules regarding them, but I don't see a blanket "side by side" allowance like THSCC has happening.

Ah very few modern sport ones are 50" you have to buy the most trail width ones are 60" with normal eastern sales stock ones on average being 64". The days of the old throw it in the truck bed Rhinos are mostly over (except that guys little RZR 570 at the tarheel events).

In fact GNCC/Mideast harescramble etc maxes you out at 64-65" width as a rule.

They do tend to be around 70" inches tall or thereabouts with those however the height comes from the roll bar and there is usually a fair amount of clearance above the helmet in terms of cg.

The one I linked is 67" tall and 74" wide which is how wide a lot of aftermarket long travel kits would make them but tendsto be more prevalent out west or in areas with wide open riding.

If I somehow manage to convince SWMBO that I can get one I am sure I will try Rallycross in it and you can come out and see or watch me find out how tippy it is :P

Most aftermarket wheels increase the width also so its pretty easy to widen them a bit

Jaynen wrote: Most aftermarket wheels increase the width also so its pretty easy to widen them a bit

Yeah, I wouldn't be nearly as worried about a 74" track width, although that's going to prove very problematic for you in slaloms

Aftermarket wheels increase wheel width, but the center is in the same spot... you need to change offset to impact track width.

FooBag wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: The SCCA specifically doesn't allow them in rallycross. They also don't allow a bunch of other really cool stuff I'd love to see.

The SCCA is working on adding a class for them. It's supposed to be trialed this year in a certain region and then introduced for 2018.

From what I had heard, SCCA is trialing a "spec" series that uses a specific tube-chassis vehicle which will be the only thing allowed in that class, not commercially available SXS's....i.e. something like the Ford Spec Racer series where you have to buy the kit/vehicle from SCCA enterprises. You may know better than I do - my source would not be specific but seemed to be indicating that was the case..

ProDarwin wrote: ^Tarheel doesn't use SCCA classing by any stretch of the imagination, or SCCA rules. BTW, one ran the last event, and I have to eat my own words. The driver did beat me. I was carrying **7 cones** though I still maintain that they, A) aren't that fast (at least the small/narrow ones) and B) are a huge rollover hazard. Even a lot of the other guys that run will also say things like "I can't believe they let those things run", and "hell no, I won't go for a ride in that car".

From the guys with WDCR who have run with THSCC, the general word is that THSCC doesn't really give two E36 M3s about safety in general (though some of them still enjoy running down there at VIR with THSCC). While I haven't been to any of their events myself, I've heard some pretty strong opinions on the matter - and not from "old guys" but from many of the younger DC crew who have done events down there. YMMV. It certainly doesn't surprise me that they would let anything at all run.

For SCCA, it's all about insurance I would imagine. If the carrier won't allow SXS's and UTVs without a huge bump in premiums, I'm not in favor of paying higher entries just so they can run, personally.

Toyman01 wrote:

FooBag wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: The SCCA specifically doesn't allow them in rallycross. They also don't allow a bunch of other really cool stuff I'd love to see.

The SCCA is working on adding a class for them. It's supposed to be trialed this year in a certain region and then introduced for 2018.

So, I asked some questions of some rallycross guys. What I'm hearing is they (the old farts) don't want it to happen. In typical SCCA fashion, anything to attract the younger crowd is bad.

I have many problems with SCCA, but this really isn't one of them for rallycross. Our very large local group (50+ cars per event in some cases) is disproportionately under 30 years old I'd guess (at 40, I'm one of the "old guys"). Most of the younger crowd are coming in CL cars they bought for $2k, driving to and from events.

IDK where you live, but in this area most of the "young crowd" doesn't have the scratch to have a tow rig, trailer, and a UTV that in most cases costs far more than a cheap Volvo or e30 or Subaru.....

There are 2 or 3 guys who have expressed that they'd like to do UTVs at our events, but those people area already running in cars, so it's not like we're losing "that crowd" from not having UTVs and such. We get maybe 1 or 2 new people a year asking about it around here, and most of them end up comign out in cars anyhow. Granted, we are near major metro areas where most people dont' have UTVs anyhow. Perhaps programs out in the midwest and boondocks would have more entries with UTV classes....

irish44j wrote:

ProDarwin wrote: ^Tarheel doesn't use SCCA classing by any stretch of the imagination, or SCCA rules. BTW, one ran the last event, and I have to eat my own words. The driver did beat me. I was carrying **7 cones** though I still maintain that they, A) aren't that fast (at least the small/narrow ones) and B) are a huge rollover hazard. Even a lot of the other guys that run will also say things like "I can't believe they let those things run", and "hell no, I won't go for a ride in that car".

From the guys with WDCR who have run with THSCC, the general word is that THSCC doesn't really give two E36 M3s about safety in general (though some of them still enjoy running down there at VIR with THSCC). While I haven't been to any of their events myself, I've heard some pretty strong opinions on the matter - and not from "old guys" but from many of the younger DC crew who have done events down there. YMMV. It certainly doesn't surprise me that they would let anything at all run. For SCCA, it's all about insurance I would imagine. If the carrier won't allow SXS's and UTVs without a huge bump in premiums, I'm not in favor of paying higher entries just so they can run, personally.

Yes, THSCC is a unique club in many ways. And VIR is where safety is most questionable. I'll probably see some of the WDCR guys on Sat at VIR I imagine. I'm sure they will have some stories, but hopefully nothing too bad.

I did bring up my safety concerns again to the organizers at the last 2 events. They shrugged them off though. I kind of get the feeling that I'm the only one saying something so I'm just a whiner. If you see any guys from your region that run down here, please tell them to say something.

Last time there were 2 guys in an E30 that were pretty quick. I hope they come back. Competition is fun :)

ProDarwin wrote:

irish44j wrote:

ProDarwin wrote: ^Tarheel doesn't use SCCA classing by any stretch of the imagination, or SCCA rules. BTW, one ran the last event, and I have to eat my own words. The driver did beat me. I was carrying **7 cones** though I still maintain that they, A) aren't that fast (at least the small/narrow ones) and B) are a huge rollover hazard. Even a lot of the other guys that run will also say things like "I can't believe they let those things run", and "hell no, I won't go for a ride in that car".

From the guys with WDCR who have run with THSCC, the general word is that THSCC doesn't really give two E36 M3s about safety in general (though some of them still enjoy running down there at VIR with THSCC). While I haven't been to any of their events myself, I've heard some pretty strong opinions on the matter - and not from "old guys" but from many of the younger DC crew who have done events down there. YMMV. It certainly doesn't surprise me that they would let anything at all run. For SCCA, it's all about insurance I would imagine. If the carrier won't allow SXS's and UTVs without a huge bump in premiums, I'm not in favor of paying higher entries just so they can run, personally.

Yes, THSCC is a unique club in many ways. And VIR is where safety is most questionable. I'll probably see some of the WDCR guys on Sat at VIR I imagine. I'm sure they will have some stories, but hopefully nothing too bad. I did bring up my safety concerns again to the organizers at the last 2 events. They shrugged them off though. I kind of get the feeling that I'm the only one saying something so I'm just a whiner. If you see any guys from your region that run down here, please tell them to say something. Last time there were 2 guys in an E30 that were pretty quick. I hope they come back. Competition is fun :)

That's usually Eric Eisele and Neil Cox, who are consistent podium-dwellers here in DC in ModRWD (Eric finished 4th behind me at the SCCA East Coast Championships last weekend and Neil was 2nd in points behind me last season, I think). Neil lives in NC and Eric is in Richmond, so they're closer to VIR than most of the DC crew.

I know they have some safety issues (and Eric just shut down a facebook post talking about them, I think) with THSCC but they do it anyhow. I think they've said something to THSCC organizers before, but not sure.

In reply to irish44j:

We are just trying to get our program started. I've talked to 3 guys that would come play if we had a class for them. They go to the outdoor parks instead.

I think automatically excluding them from rallycross is short sighted. They can be raced safely. I'd certainly rather flip one of those than any $2k car. They are designed for it. Someone is going to class them and race them. I'm betting it won't be the SCCA.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/uWxrQ26et_0

Chadeux wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: The following types of vehicles are currently not eligible to compete: ATVs, UTVs, side-by-sides, Trophy Trucks, Cross karts, Formula Cross, Legend cars and tube‐frame vehicles.

I'd like to drive all of those things on a rallycross course. SCCA is no fun at all apparently.

Flipping an ATV doesn't sound very fun.

I've seen sand rails run at rallycrosses and they didn't look very fun either. One person in particular put it back on the trailer after three runs because there is just no way to keep them going in the direction you want them to go. I saw him in particular spin three times... in parts of the course that were straight. Hit a bump, car goes around.

Toyman01 wrote: In reply to irish44j: We are just trying to get our program started. I've talked to 3 guys that would come play if we had a class for them. They go to the outdoor parks instead. I think automatically excluding them from rallycross is short sighted. They can be raced safely. I'd certainly rather flip one of those than any $2k car. They are designed for it. Someone is going to class them and race them. I'm betting it won't be the SCCA. https://www.youtube.com/embed/uWxrQ26et_0

Well, there are always series for things. I'm not allowed to race my stage car against the bro-lite truck series (which is close to me and would be fun), nor are the bro-lite trucks (which are caged) allowed to rallycross in their standard form (no windshields, no windows, etc). We don't let lifted jeeps and pickups do it either, because of the rollover risk. I don't see there being a shortage of motorsports for UTVs and ATVs to race in, in areas where they're popular. I doubt the ATV series would let my stage rally car compete in their racing, or that I can take my car on UTV paths in state parks ;)

I think SCCA is trying to bridge that with a "spec" UTV-like series (which would have an SCCA logbook) which eliminates the other issues with UTVs (who determines which are safe, or are home-builts ok, or sand rails, etc?). And it probably mitigates the insurance issue (I assume the spec thing will be wide and low-ish, not like most UTVs). IDK.

I started rallycrossing 6-7 years ago and typical turnout was 20ish cars at an event. We used the forums, facebook, etc and recruited, cajoled, and convinced people and now we get double or triple that at events (no thanks to SCCA corporate, who is more interested in road racing and autocross). Building a program is all about the hard work and grassroots talking to people. Adding a UTV class is far from a silver bullet, and may actually drive some car drivers away from doing it. Same with adding motocross classes or tube-frame things like the Ariel Nomad or Silvercar. Rallycross could use some tweaking, but overall it's doing better than ever (East Coast championships just had one of the largest turnouts ever).

There are ways to build your program as-is with a bit of internet work. Susquehanna's program just a couple years ago would have tiny fields of participants. This weekend's event already has 51 registered (max 60). Rally is trendy now. All you have to do is recruit on your local subaru forums and you'll easily get a quick dozen lol...

Also think about course design. UTVs will like courses that are far different from cars, especially to design things to reduce UTV rollover risk. So what happens when a UTV guy designs a course that's fun for UTVs and sucks for cars (we rotate course designers around here). The Subaru guys already complain enough when a FWD or Miata guy designs the course, haha....

I don't think there is a one size fits all answer, which since SCCA is a national organization might be a good reason for them to not pursue it.

I am curious to see what the future holds, I agree you can get 2k beater cars much cheaper, and to that end as wheel to wheel racing is easier to find with the side by sides and so less people might be interested in truly competing in a side by side at rallycross anyway

But wheeltime is wheeltime, and I often participated in autocross just to go hang out with the people.

I will be at VIR on Saturday again with the 2015 white stock subaru wrx on all seasons

irish44j wrote: Also think about course design. UTVs will like courses that are far different from cars, especially to design things to reduce UTV rollover risk. So what happens when a UTV guy designs a course that's fun for UTVs and sucks for cars (we rotate course designers around here). The Subaru guys already complain enough when a FWD or Miata guy designs the course, haha....

This. We can always tell when the FWD guys had a bit too much design input in a course. It ends up with tons of tight spots where the short wheelbase FWD guys can just flick the tail out and put the hammer down while the rest of us are going slower trying not to plow any cones with either end of the car.

And when the turbo Subaru guys get a lot of input, you get spots where you come out of a slow section and really dump the power on for a couple seconds through a slalom before getting on the brakes for a hard turn. And then the 2wd guys with no traction and the low powered AWD guys are left wishing for more hp being applied to the ground.

Adding another very different type of vehicle only adds to the issue of courses that favor a specific type.

How is that any different than autox and courses that favor power, vs short wheelbase, vs momentum etc

Don't all courses favor momentum?

Jaynen wrote: How is that any different than autox and courses that favor power, vs short wheelbase, vs momentum etc

It's not really. Although I think the amount of sliding through tight spots in rallycross amplifies the effect a bit as a FWD will generally maintain a more precise line while hanging the tail out than AWD will, even if the cars are identical in size, weight, etc.

Autocross also has a lot more classes as well as PAX to mitigate those differences. Rallycross doesn't work to mitigate that nearly as much.

In reply to irish44j:

It's not necessarily about numbers. It's about keeping an open mind to the changing trends in motorsports. Something the SCCA has always had a problem with. Nothing on earth is more resistant to change. It's a conversation I've had over and over for 10 years. My wife fights it constantly. This horse is long past dead, and I'm done beating it.

irish44j wrote: I know they have some safety issues (and Eric just shut down a facebook post talking about them, I think) with THSCC but they do it anyhow. I think they've said something to THSCC organizers before, but not sure.

PM incoming.

I may have mentioned some concerns with side by sides. I get the impression that if there was an actual insurance issue, there would be more concern.

Having to keep track of stuff like this is one of the reasons that I don't want any sort of officer position in the THSCC. The other is time- I'm going to have to miss VIR this time around due to another obligation.