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

There is going to be a meeting fairly soon regarding Modified and Constructors' classes, and a proposed UTV class.

A lot of people agree that the current Constructors' class sucks because it is fairly impossible to build a car for it.  I'm opening my ears up to you, the general motorsports community, to ask:  What do YOU want to see in a Constructors or UTV class?  What do you see as roadblocks in the current ruleset, and what would you like to see that would make it encouraging to build a car and compete?

We have had exactly zero interest in this classing locally, so I cannot add any firsthand input other than having run with people competing in buggies before they were banned.  However, if this is something you would like to see, this is your opportunity to make your opinion known.

The idea was sound, let "those people" come play, but it seldom happened and like you say, nobody wanted to actually build for it. 

As to UTVs. I'm mixed. On one hand, it would be great, there are a billion of them out there and many of the owners seem eager to spend cubic dollars playing with them. On the other hand, they're hard on the dirt (do we need more ruts?) and they roll easily. Neither of those things make RX better for cars. 

I think UTV/sxs's would bring more people since if you can only have 1 toy a sxs makes a lot of sense.  I know some non scca affiliated clubs that run rallycross let utv's run(also miatas with rollbars instead of hardtop..) make the utv's run DOT tires, there are many utv's that are running dot tires.

In reply to mazdeuce - Seth :

Without letting on too much (it's all up in the air anyway, and may end up not being adopted anyway, so there's no point in being specific) the proposed issues for UTVs do address highly aggressive tires, in a refreshingly wait-and-see approach.  Although IMO the wording is redundant as it is explicit elsewhere in the ruleset and has been for at least 10-12 years.

Rollovers is an issue, and one that I can't see as being easy to mitigate.  Every UTV that I've seen was higher than it was wide.

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.

In reply to Knurled. :

It's worse than the high/wide thing. It has a lot to do with geometry. At stock height they're very much a slow turn hammer the throttle type of thing. It can be fixed, but they have a ton of inherent body roll in corners. They drive them at Rally Ready in Austin and the differences are eye opening. 

I think they have a place, they're awesome, but I'm not sure sure where that place is. 

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.

it was aimed at everyone asking for utv's/buggies/miata carts/crosscarts

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?

MrChaos said:

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.

it was aimed at everyone asking for utv's/buggies/miata carts/crosscarts

All those except the miata carts were excluded by the passenger car or light truck-based engine requirement.

Also looking at facebook, we actually have 1 car that is going to compete in constructors class this season here in ETR.  It is the offroad version of the DF Goblin kit car.  

Also I believe these 2 rules are the main reasons for lack of constructors class participation, with the second being more of an extra annoyance compared to the 1st.

3. Engines must be naturally aspirated, 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.

11. Each wheel/tire must have a fender/mud flap assembly that covers ½ of the tire’s circumference. When viewed from above, the fender must cover the entire width and diameter of the tire. The fender/mud flap assembly must cover the width of the tire when viewed from behind and extend to the rear of the tire with the bottom edge of the assembly no more than 4 inches from the ground (measured on a level surface without the driver or passenger)

bluej said:

Would things like the Sierra single seaters be welcome?

 

you mean a crosskart? that is what those are.

those are specifically allowed in constructors but not with the stock engines so it is a moot point

from the rules

Trophy Trucks, Crosskarts, Formula Cross, Legend cars, and tube‐frame vehicles are eligible to compete in the Constructors category subject to applicable preparation allowances

MrChaos said:

bluej said:

Would things like the Sierra single seaters be welcome?

 

you mean a crosskart? that is what those are.

those are specifically allowed in constructors but not with the stock engines so it is a moot point

from the rules

Trophy Trucks, Crosskarts, Formula Cross, Legend cars, and tube‐frame vehicles are eligible to compete in the Constructors category subject to applicable preparation allowances

Ah, that's cool. Honestly, after I first read through the constructors class rules and saw no motorcycle/other engines, Iost interest immediately and almost completely. I'm sure it was discussed, so can anyone share that reasoning?

I think allowing UTVs would be popular, but it's probably not a good move. At least for stock UTVs with tall ride height and flimsy rollover protection. They're definitely tippy in stock form, and there are a distressing number of pictures online of stock UTV cages absolutely squashed flat after a flop.

The major issues I have with the current ruleset:

-Disallowing non-automotive engines. Naturally-aspirated 4 cylinder or smaller motorcycle, snowmobile, ATV/UTV engines should be acceptable and are what people choose for small lightweight buggies. It was a good first step to remove the ban on Crosskarts, Legends, etc, but the drivetrain these use is still illegal.

-The 90% height to track width rule is too restrictive. That's an awfully low overall height for a vehicle designed to be used exclusively off road, and doesn't leave a lot of room for both adequate ground clearance and adequate helmet-to-cage clearance without an uncomfortable layback seating position. Why is the rule for autocross 1:1 width to height, but 90% here?

-The roll cage requirements feel a bit ambiguous. Pointing to an appendix in the GCR for 2007 and older roll cage requirements seems odd. What would be nice is a document similiar to the one 24 Hours of Lemons uses to supplement their rules, the infamous "How to Not Fail Lemons Tech Inspection" pdf. 

Slightly smaller annoyances in the rules:

-The full coverage fender requirement, as mentioned above. Requiring mudflaps is one thing, and is reasonably easy to retrofit to an existing build, but full coverage fenders on an open wheel buggy is a tall ask. Locost builders often have a hard time getting fenders to stay attached to the front of their cars, and they're not bouncing around a gravel field.

-Only tires designed for four-wheeled road-going passenger cars allowed. Even the smallest, hard to find rally tire is going to be wrong for a sub-1000lb buggy. There are lots of UTV tires available these days that are DOT rated, have a reasonable not-too-agressive AT/MT tread pattern, and are designed for the weight and side loading of 4 wheeled side by sides. There are some good DOT options designed for golf carts too. I think as long as the tire is DOT rated and the load rating on the sidewall is adequate for the vehicle, the Constructors class should have more freedom of tire choice. 

In reply to bluej :

The RXRC had no input for the Constructor's current ruleset, so I cannot do anything but speculate, which means I might also be wrong.  My assumption is that it was to permit cars that are not production based (kit cars, tube frame cars, etc) a place to play, since they would otherwise be excluded from competition because they are not based on a production car.  The "automotive engine" requirement seems to have been specifically worded so as to make the exclusion of crosskarts/side-by-sides unambiguous.

Rollover risk mitigation is always going to be a high priority, both in prevention and in protection.  That will be tricky to handle for vehicles that are as tall and narrow as a side by side, and is complicated by how they do not have windows.  I expect something like mandatory window nets and/or arm restraints to be discussed.

For a data point, my relatively slow RX-7 on five year old rally tires can corner at .8g on dirt, and I have recorded spikes to 2.5+g when hitting bumps mid corner.  Keeping a tall narrow vehicle from tipping over and risking injury to driver, passenger, and corner workers is going to be a large issue.

In reply to newrider3 :

Thank you for your input!  Some of the points you brought up are already being addressed in the provisional proposal so that's good to hear.

I will admit to not knowing where to begin to look for ATV/UTV tires that are DOT rated.  Google searching seems to be broken when looking for consumer items.  Could you provide some links or directions in which to look?

Another situation regarding tires is that non-automotive tires are banned for S/P/M because of side loading concerns.  I'm not sure if that can of worms wants to be opened, but the constructive discussion is good to have.

Knurled. said:

I will admit to not knowing where to begin to look for ATV/UTV tires that are DOT rated.  Google searching seems to be broken when looking for consumer items.  Could you provide some links or directions in which to look?

https://www.pureoffroad.com/dot_highway_atv_tires.htm

https://www.sidebysidestuff.com/tires.html

https://www.superatv.com/at-warrior-tires

issue is sizing, sub 28" tires are for 14" wheels and smaller.

since many states allow sxs' and utvs to be street legal, it is gaining a bigger market since light truck mud tires for 2ton vehicles arnt suited for sub ton sxs'

In reply to MrChaos :

Thank you!

Also:  OMG they still make 27x9.5x14 Super Swampers!

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.  Heck, might be fun to hack up a 90’s Buick with a 3800SC to run in the class, too.  Hell, let’s go the other way - a single seat kart with a hopped up predator 212 engine could be a lot of fun, and turn slaloms into straights, the way my old CRX did.  But it would probably need UTV or some other sort of non-DOT tires.

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

Im still leery of UTVs running in rallycross as I think the risk of rollovers is too high with current course design.

Edit - just reread the rules, and had a thought - with the two current limitations above that I’d like to get rid of, most Constructor’s class vehicles are going to be big enough to require a car trailer to haul them to an event.  Get rid of the engine and tire limits, and it would be easier to build something that could fit on a 5x8 utility trailer, thus making it easier to transport.  Still not sure it would increase interest in the class, but it might.

Knurled. said:

In reply to MrChaos :

Thank you!

 

Also:  OMG they still make 27x9.5x14 Super Swampers!

my samurai had 31x9.50x15 swampers on it. also yea those baby swampers get put on samurais, trackers, etc all the time. also the easy way to break stock components. heavy tires plus sudden gaining of traction = broken stock axles.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 believe it was to specifically make sure there was no good loophole for UTV's to compete. 

MrChaos said:

Knurled. said:

I will admit to not knowing where to begin to look for ATV/UTV tires that are DOT rated.  Google searching seems to be broken when looking for consumer items.  Could you provide some links or directions in which to look?

issue is sizing, sub 28" tires are for 14" wheels and smaller.

Here is a popular DOT UTV tire, in 25" to 32" diameters.
https://www.rockymountainatvmc.com/tires-and-wheels/tusk-terrabite%C2%AE-radial-tire-p

I actually feel like smaller wheel options are good for this application. Even 14" wheels are huge for a small light buggy, 10" or 12" would be perfect and allow for smaller overall diameter tires. Which is also why I bring up DOT golf cart tires, they're available in even smaller overall diameters. 
https://www.buggiesunlimited.com/golf-cart/22x1100-12-sahara-classic-a-t-tire-dot-(lift-required)/40270