im guessing the miata hardtop rule is still not being considered. would likely bring a decent amount of people.
im guessing the miata hardtop rule is still not being considered. would likely bring a decent amount of people.
MrChaos said:im guessing the miata hardtop rule is still not being considered. would likely bring a decent amount of people.
Which one is that?
IIRC the rule was passed that you are now allowed to run a non-OEM hardtop in Mod if you have a roll bar or roll cage meeting certain specs, a year or two ago.
Knurled. said:MrChaos said:im guessing the miata hardtop rule is still not being considered. would likely bring a decent amount of people.
Which one is that?
IIRC the rule was passed that you are now allowed to run a non-OEM hardtop in Mod if you have a roll bar or roll cage meeting certain specs, a year or two ago.
the rule is still oem equivalent in weight and construction is it not, which is 1 hardtop that is similar in price to oem? And a roll bar/cage that there is maybe only 1 bolt in that qualifies?
I meant roll bar with no hardtop in stock
MrChaos said:Knurled. said:MrChaos said:im guessing the miata hardtop rule is still not being considered. would likely bring a decent amount of people.
Which one is that?
IIRC the rule was passed that you are now allowed to run a non-OEM hardtop in Mod if you have a roll bar or roll cage meeting certain specs, a year or two ago.
the rule is still oem equivalent in weight and construction is it not, which is 1 hardtop that is similar in price to oem? And a roll bar/cage that there is maybe only 1 bolt in that qualifies?
I meant roll bar with no hardtop in stock
I didn't see anything about weight or price, just that non OEM is only allowed in Mod and you have to have a TT rollbar or IT rollcage to run it. (And dammit this is another one of those things that should be in the Safety section of the rules not the vehicle prep section)
Soft tops will never be allowed in the foreseeable future even with a cage. Cabin intrusion.
In reply to Knurled. :
Rules say.
A non‐OEM hardtop of a type substantially similar to the shape, design, construction, and weight of the OEM hardtop may be used if the vehicle is equipped with a roll bar built to current SCCA Time Trials specifications or better or a roll cage built to current SCCA Improved Touring specifications or better.
What mrchaos is saying i think is that the only hard top that is close to the oem weight costs about as much as the oe hard top.
In reply to moxnix :
"Substantially similar" is the key wording here. You can't make a top out of Reynolds Wrap, or spray adhesive and an old bedsheet, and call it a hardtop. Or ziptie a coffee can lid to the roll cage tubing and claim that is your hardtop.
Ahem.
(*sigh* yes, this has been tested before... been there seen that)
Knurled. said: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.
So when 5 guys in UTVs tow 3 hours and show up at our event, and the safety steward tells them they can't run "even though we have a UTV class," I'm sure that will do wonders for the program.
No reason to re-invent the wheel. They gonna let UTVs do Solo (and I mean real UTVs, not karts)? Gonna let them out for trackdays (some of them are probably faster than a Miata, after all).
Most people at rallycross (including the safety stewards and tech people) probably know little to nothing about UTVs, which ones would be ok, which ones wouldn't be ok, etc. Unless they make it strictly "meet the same height vs. width ratio as cars do" I don't see that making a bunch of gray areas is the winning solution here.
--
I don't have a "tire concern." I'm fine with any tires, provided they're not on a UTV.
In reply to irish44j :
Indeed, there is no simple solution, which is why I'm soliciting feedback 
Guys towing 3 hours to be told they can't run a tall UTV is no different than guys driving 3 hours and being told they can't run their car because they have loose wheel bearings, or the battery isn't held down, or half their car is missing. (All things I've seen) Or people coming out with a truck like a Pathfinder and being told they can run but the instant they look tippy, the vehicle is done. The competitor is free to drive something else but not the vehicle that the event chair/safety steward deems unsafe on course.
Mine is wider than it is tall. It has a few mods and is just over 190hp now.
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.
I misread the line in the rulebook. I thought the rule covered all tires that "are not designed to withstand cornering side loads", not just ATV/UTV tires. Thanks for the clarification. I am working on a project that could run 10" wheels so I am curious how far this rule goes.
Knurled. said:In reply to irish44j :
Indeed, there is no simple solution, which is why I'm soliciting feedback
Guys towing 3 hours to be told they can't run a tall UTV is no different than guys driving 3 hours and being told they can't run their car because they have loose wheel bearings, or the battery isn't held down, or half their car is missing. (All things I've seen) Or people coming out with a truck like a Pathfinder and being told they can run but the instant they look tippy, the vehicle is done. The competitor is free to drive something else but not the vehicle that the event chair/safety steward deems unsafe on course.
Right, but the rules are already clear about things like height vs. width and the condition cars must be in to pass tech. So if you drive all that way and you fail for those things, that's YOUR fault, not tech's fault.
If we have a UTV class that has no specific restrictions other than "at discretion of the local organizer" even if the UTV is in mint condition with "the right tires," that's when major issues come up.
Regions have always had some freedom to allow certain vehicles to run that may not be legal nationally. If regions want to have a "local" UTV class, that should be up to them and their own insurance/sanction, and with their own rules. Making it a national class essentially tells regions they have to have the class, even if they don't want to.
IDK, The thread is "what do YOU want?"
What I want personally is no UTVs, no crosskarts, etc. So there's my vote. Why I don't want them is "because my personal opinions both from a practical and preferential standpoint" and yes - the presence of things like UTVs or crosskarts would definitely reduce my own interest in participation mostly because I just don't want to run with them and don't want to hear them all day. So, that's my opinion, whether or not others agree with it. YMMV.
but yea removing the no non-car based engine and removing the 4cyl only/no turbo rule will help the class
In reply to irish44j :
I get that.
However, I don't think it's going to not happen. The question is, what are the things that people believe are roadblocks to getting in the classes. "I'd build a car, but the restriction on (blank) is difficult so I won't." I have a feeling at this time that the only way it won't happen is if there is a conflict of interest between what the competitors want and what is safe.
--
Y'all have given me a lot of valid points to bring to the table for discussion.
I have a strong opinion that the constructors class should simply be removed. While it worked on hard surface (Solo2/autox) is mainly due to little else of the event being affected by their presense. Rallycross has grown on the concept of running OEM street stock cars so that people could get a taste of loose surface racing. Adding in the constructors class may work but the impact on the surface of the course would have to be clearly understood.
I could see allowing Baja SAE rules to copied for this constructors class. But not sure how much fun they have on the same course as needed to allow a Mazda Miata ND and a GT86 to run the same course. I ran a Chrysler Crossfire once or twice.
All in all it seems like this is trying to force the Lucas Off Road series into scca rallycross for production cars. I just don't like it at all.
If SCCA wants to match the Lucas oil off road series Production 1000 UTV class in rallycross format then go ahead and do that separately to allow them to have jumps and stuff.
Imagine having an event where rallycross is on the loose area of a venue and this constructors/UTV class uses the same venue as frequented by the motorcross/off road truck racing guys. It could allow for more efficient organization of both separate series.
Idk just thinking positive after my negative post above...
Knurled. said:In reply to irish44j :
However, I don't think it's going to not happen.
So you essentially just said "I'm just asking this so we can pretend that we talked about it, but the truth is SCCA doesn't care what current/active rallycrossers think because they've already decided to chase the money." Got it.
If rallycross put more effort into assisting in finding new/better venues, marketing itself to more of "Big SCCA" (apart from hyping Nationals, which is all the national office really does), rallycross would grow. But "Big" SCCA does a garbage job of promoting rallycross or trying to find competitors, sorry. And promotes it as a place that you need either a Miata or an Evo/Subaru to do it. Almost all the rallycross interest comes from local/regional recruiting.
And again, so far nobody has answered questions about how this will affect insurance/entry fees.
irish44j said:Knurled. said:In reply to irish44j :
However, I don't think it's going to not happen.
So you essentially just said "I'm just asking this so we can pretend that we talked about it, but the truth is SCCA doesn't care what current/active rallycrossers think because they've already decided to chase the money." Got it.
Not at all. I'm asking people of my own initiative what they see to be roadblocks. The number of people who want to enter an "open wheel" class is simply not small enough to ignore, which is why it is being pursued.
Edited: I'm not asking do people want this or not. That is not something I am concerned about because it is not my area of concern, that is for people elsewhere in the club. I'm asking what was keeping people from building Constructors class vehicles, so that the rules can possibly be adjusted to suit that. What about the rules was too constrictive in other words.
In case there is a misconception, is is nowhere near my decision to make, I'm just gathering information from people.
Your concerns with adding more vehicles to regions that are already seeing site stress is a valid one (Detroit usually hits their event cap in under 24 hours, for instance) and something I will bring up. So relax
I'll just throw this out there because it feels sightly relevant. Down here in FL, we have the FIRM rally school. Every now and then the firm hosts a rallyx of their own. The courses are 3-5 minutes in length, the number of runs are usually 8-10. The cost of entry is about $100. These events are 100x more awesome than the SCCA events mostly because of the amount of seat time. (24-50 minutes of seat/rally time) If the firm would host these regularly, I'd completely abandon the SCCA events.
At an SCCA event, we're lucky to get 5-6 runs of about 1-2 minutes each (5-12 minutes of seat time). I think the SCCA events would benefit more from trying to figure out how to use my/our time more efficiently than trying to figure out how to get MORE vehicles out there.
In reply to Lof8 - Andy :
Some of that may be regionally specific. OVR used to have 12 runs of around 2-2.5 minutes each.
I've been to events where everyone's on the ball and other events where first car out on course was like 11am.
If you want your local region to work better and you can help do it, then volunteer. Things don't just "happen", it takes the efforts of everyone involved, and I'm sure they would appreciate the extra help. It doesn't even need to be adminsitrative, simple things like cone humping for the course setup works wonders.
Knurled. said:irish44j said:Knurled. said:In reply to irish44j :
However, I don't think it's going to not happen.
So you essentially just said "I'm just asking this so we can pretend that we talked about it, but the truth is SCCA doesn't care what current/active rallycrossers think because they've already decided to chase the money." Got it.
Not at all. I'm asking people of my own initiative what they see to be roadblocks. The number of people who want to enter an "open wheel" class is simply not small enough to ignore, which is why it is being pursued.
I would guess there's an even larger number of Miata people who want to run without a hardtop, but they've been ignored for years.
Just sayin.
In reply to Knurled. :
Has the utv crowd been showing interest, or is the scca hoping if they make it available the will come?
If I owned a utv I would rather go to an offroad park and pay $20 for all day seat time than pay $50 for 15 minutes of seat time.
One thing I enjoy about rallyx is spending time with like minded car people. I would like it less if I had to spend the day chasing cones with a flat biller named Cody or something.
In reply to gearheadmb :
The interest is definitely significant in some areas of the country.
irish44j said:I would guess there's an even larger number of Miata people who want to run without a hardtop, but they've been ignored for years.
Just sayin.
Personally, I would always want a hardtop, but that could just be me. I think the rollover concern with a Miata is quite low, but if it did, I'd want more than a rollbar over my head.
You'll need to log in to post.
