Side by Sides and Rally?

Toyman01 wrote: 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.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I've been pushing SCCA rallycross to try new ideas (like "pro-solo" type rallycross events, for instace). I think we do need to give SOME credit, as SCCA has gotten back into the rally trials and rallysprint game (the latter basically being short stage rallies), which gives more options for moving up from rallycross for those who want to. I know some regions do more creative things - night rallycrosses, endurance rallycrosses, different formats, etc.

But at the heart of it, it is the Sports CAR club of America. SCCA at its core is about cars and pretty much all SCCA events reflect that. Yeah, you have karts in autocross, but that's always seemed to me to be a stepping stone primarily for kids to get into racing. UTVs in rallycross woudln't really be a gateway to cars - it would just be a totally different class/scene.

Sure but the National Auto Sport Association has no problem with adding motorcycles and UTVs to rally/rallysprint.

If someone wants to bring an Exocet with the Paco lift to rallycross, I would let them.

If someone wants to bring an Ariel Nomad I would let them.

Look at the cars that run in the mod classes especially like Amod, or the Formula SAE stuff etc. Once you get to allowing custom built machines like that to participate anyway then something that might not be being used for its intended original purpose should be fine IMO if its deemed safe enough for motorsport which is inherently dangerous

It seems a little odd when discussing a motorsport that at least from my outsides perspective seems very much about taking normal street cars and turning them into dirt machines in ways they were never intended, subjecting them to stresses they were never intended and in general seems very rough around the edges and much more loose than autocross. That actually seems like its part of the appeal and why the attitudes at least at the event I went to seemed to be one of camaraderie over competition. Rallycross from an outsiders view is like the Chumpcar/Lemons version of autocross

I mean yes they are not cars, yes at one point they were like hopped up golfcarts but we are way past that. They are made by large companies and regulated by governments to be safe, these are companies who's livelihood and liability is on the line, vs we let a guy showup who built his own car in his garage or modified his car maybe in ways we would find questionable

I think a ProSolo rallycross would be awesome, X games style even where the course switches over or something

Kind of a catch 22, but IMO the biggest issue with attracting competitors is that there aren't enough competitors. Not enough events. Not close enough. Etc.

With autox where I am you could probably run 35 events a year that are <3 hours away. You can run 8 rallyx events. Unless one gets rained out or cancelled. And those rallyx events might have 30-35 drivers (so not exactly a deep talent pool), where autox will be 50-250.

I like the idea of other event types at rallyx, but I don't really see them as attracting more people. ProSolo sounds fun, but I imagine its extremely difficult to layout on a typical rallyx lot.

Most the Autocross events are at least 1-1.5 hours from me and honestly 3hrs of driving for 5 runs is not worth it imo

Aren't you going to drive 3 hours to/from VIR for 5 runs at rallyx tomorrow?

I am yes. But I have never done a Rallycross points event only the one practice so I want to try one.

Honestly the two day events and camping would probably be more appealing

Saw this today from those guys discussing running at a kart track monthly. Said all they did was lower the preload on the shocks all the way and use some suspension limiter straps so keep from getting too much travel. Wheels are cheap utv wheels from summit racing with some take off 15" slicks

Interesting stuff in here. A SxS is on my short list for future toys.

For those of you wanting a side by side or crosskart class in the SCCA, it doesn't look good. The proposed rules for the "Open" class can be found on page 3 of the latest Fastrack. Link

wow, I think that section pretty much doubles the length of the current rallycross rulebook...

With all those requirements, I cannot see how they can possibly expect any significant increase in participation, frankly. Most of the requirements will require substantial modifications of any dune buggy, sand rail, etc. Who is going to do that for rallycross?

Interesting - it's a class where lower class vehicles aren't necessarily legal. Roll cage is a must in the proposed Open class.

Still seems to be a little short sighted to me, but that's what I expect from the SCCA.

This makes no sense to me. An open class limited to 4 cylinders?

3. Engines must be internal combustion, passenger car or light truck-based, and with no more than four (4) cylinders or two (2) rotors. Motorcycle, ATV, UTV and similar engines are not allowed.

No motorcycle engines but allowing chain drives?

That's OK, NASA is figuring it out, so the SCCA won't have to. RallySxS Rules.

In reply to Toyman01:

It's okay, motorcycle engines are legal in Modified. You just have to start with a car instead of a tube frame.

In reply to Knurled:

Knurled wrote: Interesting - it's a class where lower class vehicles aren't necessarily legal. Roll cage is a must in the proposed Open class.

Assuming few to no people spend the big bucks to build a legal tube-chassis car for this class, it does sound an awful lot like a "stage rally car" class.........Unless I'm missing something, my car meets all of the requirements, I think....as would every stage-legal GC Impreza with N/A engine....and possibly road-racing-caged Miatas?

I am confused looking at the 42" minimum track and 38" maximum height for that track width. Assuming a 15" wheel/tire package with the wheel hubs at floor level (7.5" of clearance between floor and ground), 2" of top rollbar, 2" of free space and 2" of helmet, that leaves about 2 feet for your seat, sliders, butt, torso, and head. Even at a 45 degree incline, I don't know if I could fit in that space. What am I missing here?

In reply to ojannen:

You're missing a lot. Refactor your plans to have 4" of ground clearance like a lot of modern cars have, and remember that the GT40 got the "40" in its name for a reason.

That said, I think a 42" track width is ridiculous. It would be hopping from rut to rut and would never be stable on course. An event that doesn't develop two-track in any significant part of the course is called an autocross...

Dan Gurney needed a 2" roof extension to fit in the Gt 40. And I don't think there was a requirement for a roll bar on top of the bubble. He is 2" shorter than me.

So? Make a car where you drive Superman-style. Figuring out how to make a minimum 4 point harness would be a little weird.

On the other hand, I'm thinking that a $600 bolt-in rollcage would mean I could finally lop the front 18 inches of useless nose off of teh RX-7. I wonder how hard it'd be to find a Lancia grille on eBay, to complete the 037 look.

irish44j wrote: Assuming few to no people spend the big bucks to build a legal tube-chassis car for this class,

People buy clean STIs and Evos just to run in Stock. I doubt you'd have $25k in a tubeframe car for an undersubscribed class...

I can't even find a seat that is 30" tall. That is the max that would let you have 4" ground clearance, and 4" of structure above/below the seat.

ojannen wrote: I can't even find a seat that is 30" tall. That is the max that would let you have 4" ground clearance, and 4" of structure above/below the seat.

That's just the example they are supplying. There's a ratio involved that I think you overlooked.

Minimum track is 42 inches measured from the center of the wheels. Maximum height is 90% of the average track width measured at the highest point of the roll cage. Minimum wheelbase is 72 inches measured from the center of the wheels.

So if you built to the minimum track, you'd be capped at 38", but as you go wider you're height will go up too.

For comparison, a 2017 miata has a track with of 59" and would have an allowed height of 53"

In reply to RevRico:

Higher, actually, since the measuring point is apparently the top of the roll cage, not the top of the roof.

Knurled wrote:

irish44j wrote: Assuming few to no people spend the big bucks to build a legal tube-chassis car for this class,

People buy clean STIs and Evos just to run in Stock. I doubt you'd have $25k in a tubeframe car for an undersubscribed class...

Pretty sure the great majority of those people also use the same STIs and Evos to commute to work, go on road trips, and drive to the events.......so it's not $25k for a rallycross car, it's $25k for a car that you can also use for rallycross.

Not really the same case for a purpose-built tube chassis car that in many cases isn't street legal (and in any case would not be a "regular driver." Plus you need a trailer and tow rig to get it to events....

also, your area must be a bunch of ballers. Our stock classes here are largely rusty GC 2.5s, old Volvos, and Ford Focuses.........

Narrowness wins in autocross so I assumed it would win in rallycross. Building to the limit of the class puts you in a weird place where you have to be really short to fit in the car. Looking at existing cross karts and formulacross vehicles with a 42" track width, none of them are short enough to fit in the max height restrictions for this new class. It feels weird that the board picked that specific track width but made it impossible to run the only vehicles that are that narrow.