Have we talked about this? SCCA rallycross adding an open class for railbuggy craziness

ProDarwin wrote: It wouldn't meet the rollover requirements. They went very aggressive with those. I don't know that I've ever seen anything rallycross that would meet them. If you did a NA-based exocet at stock height, the top of the rollbar would need to be <42" off the ground. So 6" less than a stock NA Edit: Doh. 90%. So roughly 50.25" to the top of the rollbar. A stock height exocet should pass. A 3" lift would likely not. One with tall tires like that picture would almost definitely not pass.

The lifted Exo in the pictures also has a 13.5" wider track. FYI.

IMO, rollover risk of a SxS would have to fall under the discretion of the safety steward, much like SUVs and trucks do today. On some sites / courses they'd be plenty safe, on others they'd be a definite rollover risk.

Much like how of the 2 regions closest to me, one had quite a few rollovers over course of a few years while the other (which is much more lenient towards SUVs and trucks running) has only had 1 that I know of in recent history (and it was an Impreza, not anything tall).

Different sites make it easier / harder to produce a course that makes it hard to roll a car (especially if you screw up and end up off course at speed).

fidelity101 wrote:

eastsidemav wrote: I suspect I'd roll a SxS on some of the rallycross courses I've competed on.

we probably roll a car at least once a year here in the Detroit region, so what difference does it make?

It'd happen a lot more than once per year, if I tried to go as fast in the corners as I do in my current rallycross car.

I don't know about other regions, but It seems in the 10+ years I've been rallycrossing, course design has evolved (devolved?) into courses with much higher speeds, and more chances to upset a vehicle. I'm not really a fan of that, but I also don't feel strongly enough to fight to make the courses slower, as I think the turbo Subaru contingent would push back pretty hard.

typical SCCA clueless rulemakers. I swear to get on there rule committee all you have to do is send in a picture of your lobotomy scar.

eastsidemav wrote: I suspect I'd roll a SxS on some of the rallycross courses I've competed on.

Most racing organizations for side by sides require aftermarket cages, even if you did the same for Rallycross I'd rather roll in one of those than a car.

You could also likely lower most side by sides considerably since you don't really need 12-13" inches of ground clearance on a Rallycross course

Maybe a safety steward could chime in, but wouldn't every rollover generate an incident report? So, even if a SxS has a better than stock cage and no one gets hurt and there's no damage, it's still going to generate paperwork, and slow an event down.

I think the new class rules are a bit too strict, especially since they rule out running a vettecart , but I can understand and accept the ones that cover stability (and fender coverage, I don't want to be pelted with rocks when working corners).

This class looks like it would allow in a number of existing sand rails and Manx like dune buggies as long as they had fenders and mudflaps added, and possibly a bit of extra sheet metal for the more rail-type creations. So there does seem to be a ready made pool of entries, even if UTVs and ATVs are a separate issue.

Totally stock, not adjusting preload etc or using a custom lower profile cage.

Yamaha YXZ-1000 64" width 72.2" height 90% is 64.8"

Polaris RZR XP -1000 64" width 73.3" height 90% 65.97"

Canam Maverick X3 64" width 66" height 90 59.4"

These are the "narrow" versions of most of these also. All of them have aftermarket long travel kits that widen them considerably. Polaris does make a narrower version for trails but all manufacturers have a 64" model. The X3 is actually available factory 72" model. And these heights are with 15" of ground clearance. The X3 also has 172 hp, the72" model has 22 and 24" of travel and it weighs 1500lbs

An aftermarket cage or even simply adjusting the preload on the shocks would easily let any of these be less than the SCCA's roll over risk measurements. And this is not also counting for the fact that the weight is usually centrally located behind and below the occupants. (Actually I forgot most manufacturers are putting 27-29" tires on stock while for short course racing etc people often run 25" tires that would easily lower the vehicle also)

For comparison a Ford Fiesta Hatchback has a 57" track width so is narrower than any of these. Height on the Fiesta is 58.1"

icaneat50eggs wrote: typical SCCA clueless rulemakers. I swear to get on there rule committee all you have to do is send in a picture of your lobotomy scar.

I don't remember that part of the process.

FWIW, the rules committee isn't involved with writing or creating rules. I was asked a lot of questions this weekend by competitors and stewards alike, and my response is, it's just as much news to me as anyone.

Also FWIW: Any comments I make regarding RallyCross here, on the SCCA forum, or anywhere else, are strictly as Pete-the-competitor-guy. I keep a bicameral view. But if you want my quasi-hemi-demi-semi-"official" gut feeling, it is that people have been making noises about allowing tubeframe vehicles for years, and this is what the board members have been able to get the insurance companies to approve of. Thus the height/width restriction, the requirement for the wheels to be completely covered in plan view, the requirement for a closed cockpit, etc.

Insurance is why there are no drones allowed onsite during an event, for example.

Also bear in mind: ATV tires are not allowed in any class.

fidelity101 wrote:

eastsidemav wrote: I suspect I'd roll a SxS on some of the rallycross courses I've competed on.

we probably roll a car at least once a year here in the Detroit region, so what difference does it make?

How?

Seriously, how? One of the reason I like coming up to you guys' events is that the courses tend to be really smooth, so I have a much higher chance of driving home.

Jaynen wrote: Totally stock, not adjusting preload etc or using a custom lower profile cage. Yamaha YXZ-1000 64" width 72.2" height 90% is 64.8" Polaris RZR XP -1000 64" width 73.3" height 90% 65.97" Canam Maverick X3 64" width 66" height 90 59.4" For comparison a Ford Fiesta Hatchback has a 57" track width so is narrower than any of these. Height on the Fiesta is 58.1"

Those are width, not track width. Track width is tire contact center to center. Also, height needs to be <90% of average track, not vice versa.

Random example, this is a 60" width RZR, the track is only 51.3"

Polaris RZR XP -1000 64" width 73.3" height. The track width is more like 56", so it would need to be 50.4" tall, so its 23" too htall.

ProDarwin wrote:

Jaynen wrote: Totally stock, not adjusting preload etc or using a custom lower profile cage. Yamaha YXZ-1000 64" width 72.2" height 90% is 64.8" Polaris RZR XP -1000 64" width 73.3" height 90% 65.97" Canam Maverick X3 64" width 66" height 90 59.4" For comparison a Ford Fiesta Hatchback has a 57" track width so is narrower than any of these. Height on the Fiesta is 58.1"

Those are width, not track width. Track width is tire contact center to center. Random example, this is a 60" width RZR, the track is only 51.3"

And a Fiesta on non aggressive tires rolled in Iowa last year on one of the smoothest, least grippy Nationals courses I've seen.

It was painful to watch him drive out with all the bags blown and the roof peaked.

Knurled wrote: And a Fiesta on non aggressive tires rolled in Iowa last year on one of the smoothest, least grippy Nationals courses I've seen. It was painful to watch him drive out with all the bags blown and the roof peaked.

Yeah, there is a reason they are banned from Autox.

Well the only local RallyX to me lets them run anyway so I guess if I ever get the chance to try it Ill just do it :P

In reply to Knurled:

The SCCA seems to blame a lot on insurance. I have to wonder how all these other sanctioning bodies handle insurance. They don't seem to have near the problems the SCCA does. Or does the SCCA just blame the insurance companies for things they don't want to do anyways?

The proposed rules are so convoluted that no one will build a car meet them. Then they can sit back, pat themselves on the back and proclaim they were right in the first place, no one wants to race a tube chassis in the dirt. The fact that there are ready built vehicles, they purposely excluded, won't even occur to them.

I sent a query up to national about side by sides and rallycross, the answer that came back was an emphatic no, they aren't even considering it, not going to happen. They aren't interested.

Whatever. Like I said in the other thread...

There are ways out there to race utv's. If not, start one. You could probably get an offroad park to let you use their venue. At badlands offroad park in attica IN they used to race them there in an endurance race quite often. I dont know if they still do. But if there is that much demand with no supply it should be easy. If the scca doesnt want to mess with it, so be it. Maybe they just arent interested into branching into other forms of transportation. They are the SPORTS CAR club of America. Not the sports car, motorcycle, utv, school bus, and hovercraft club of america.

Toyman01 wrote: In reply to Knurled: The SCCA seems to blame a lot on insurance. I have to wonder how all these other sanctioning bodies handle insurance. They don't seem to have near the problems the SCCA does. Or does the SCCA just blame the insurance companies for things they don't want to do anyways? The proposed rules are so convoluted that no one will build a car meet them. Then they can sit back, pat themselves on the back and proclaim they were right in the first place, no one wants to race a tube chassis in the dirt. The fact that there are ready built vehicles, they purposely excluded, won't even occur to them. I sent a query up to national about side by sides and rallycross, the answer that came back was an emphatic no, they aren't even considering it, not going to happen. They aren't interested. Whatever. Like I said in the other thread...

Keep in mind that the SCCA event insurance is really quite cheap at $4 per entry. The private groups that I have seen allow side by sides typically have a much greater entry fee, a large portion of which is covering their insurance. So it isn't necessarily that the insurance company is forbidding it, it could be a scenario of them wanting such a price premium to cover their risk that it is non-viable under current SCCA pricing.

I do agree with you that this rule set is certainly non-optimal. However, I'd rather be optimistic and call it a step in the right direction. The Open class has now been created which is the very large first hurdle to overcome. Future years can get the rules changed to be more inclusive and allow for more options.

In the interest of moving this one forward towards ideas, I wonder if starting with an ACVW floorpan would be a good way to get a quick start on an open class build. Should be low enough. Easy to use VW or Subaru engines.

There are some pretty competitive beetles running in modified class right now.

Gutted interior, fiberglass body, minimal roll bar, etc. There are rotary engines too. I am not sure if losing all the body work will save the weight of a full cage.

Front and rear wheel drive are combined in this class. I am curious if it makes sense to start out with the front half of a crx and a back half made out of air and suspension mount points. This truck is modified legal but uses the same idea.

Sorry for the photobucket link: http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/technogon/media/cGF0aDovQ2FnZSBmYWIgQiAwMDIgbWluaS5qcGc=/?ref=

In the open class, you could remove the bed sides and save another 100 lbs. It already has most of a cage in it.

Knurled wrote:

fidelity101 wrote:

eastsidemav wrote: I suspect I'd roll a SxS on some of the rallycross courses I've competed on.

we probably roll a car at least once a year here in the Detroit region, so what difference does it make?

How? Seriously, how? One of the reason I like coming up to you guys' events is that the courses tend to be really smooth, so I have a much higher chance of driving home.

I can't think of having seen a car roll in competition in 6 years of doing this in DC/Susquehanna/some other regions. And we've run some pretty rutty courses over the years. Closest I saw was Mike Julian's Justy go up about 45 degrees on two wheels and then put it back down.....

In reply to Knurled:

So who makes up the rules? I want to be cursing the correct people.

ojannen wrote: Front and rear wheel drive are combined in this class. I am curious if it makes sense to start out with the front half of a crx and a back half made out of air and suspension mount points.

Like Leon's car? Which was Mod legal...

Robbie wrote: The scca autox does not allow non-car combustion engines either (except in A-mod). I think they are too light and too powerful compared to automotive engines. If you allow them, pretty soon everyone needs them. I'm not really a fan of their stance, but I think that is why it is.

Non-Automotive engines are MANDATORY in F-Mod, and are allowed (and realistically required) in B-Mod.

In reply to Knurled:

That is the car I was thinking of. If photobucket wasn't so dumb there would have been a picture in my response. All the ideas I can think of that are class legal but not super narrow are essentially mod cars where you don't put the bodywork back on.