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

irish44j said:

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. 

 

I have to agree with this. As neat as it would be to allow UTVs, there is simply too much gray area for them to be universally allowed even with width/height restrictions.  Michigan area events are also fully booked in short order, adding UTVs to the mix potentially is going to push out car registration which clearly do meet the ruleset and dont require heavy scrutineering or safety observation once on course.    

Course design would have to be drastically changed in order to accommodate UTVS as well. Throwing super high power UTVs on courses designed for cars without major adjustments doesn't seem like a good idea.

Like others have mentioned you would almost have to have separate running courses for the UTVs, and at that point you might as well have totally separate events; one for cars and one for UTVs.

At least in MI it sure seems like most UTV owners are lifted truck bros or guys who moved on from motocross  or snowmobiling so they can haul their wife and kids down ORV trails after getting plowed at the local bars.   There are hundreds of miles of ORV trails and multiple ORV parks in Michigan, it would be a very hard sell to UTV owners to switch over to rallycross unless they were already competing in rallycross and changed from a car to UTV. So the argument here, at least regionally, for opening up to UTVs to increase membership and attendence is a moot point.

In reply to engiekev :

I kind of agree, although the UTV videos I have seen suggest that even the 1000cc models are kinda slow to accelerate.

I also recall talking about what I do with a former co-worker, and he seemed appalled at the idea that you have to pay money to work for 8 hours and drive for 5 minutes, after driving 3-4 hours to get there.  I don't mean to paint everyone with the same brush but as pointed out, a lot of people with UTVs might be disappointed with the cost:reward factor.

One of the things I think is interesting about this thread is that it draws attention to the fact that cars are only as safe as they are because they largely aren't designed for car enthusiasts. Seems a lot like 'we can just let normal cars in good shape go out there without nitpicking every little thing because they are built to a reasonable safety standard in the first place, but if we try to allow what driving enthusiasts concoct in their own little fantasy realms of risk assessment, we would have to write novels of rulebooks to keep people from killing themselves and tanking the whole sport'. 

I guess the safety of motorsport has always tracked more closely with the safety of normal vehicles than it has with the opinions of race organizers. The first 50+ years of car racing was worse than any UTV by a mile, and it wasn't until normal cars for normal people stopped sucking that racers inherited a pretty good chance of not dying.

Tip o' the hat to the 'plebs' and all their 'safety tech' we grouch so much about. 

In reply to StreetRider89 :

UTVs are legal now, with restrictions.  UTV tires must be load rated for the weight of the vehicle, although tread aggressiveness acceptability is down to individual regions or sites.

In reply to StreetRider89 :

4 ply tires probably do not have enough load rating according to rallycross rules.  They Yamaha YZX weighs about 1500lbs before you add a rallycross legal cage.  You are going to need a 400-500lb load rating or load index of 50 at minimum.  I am not sure if the driver is counted in the weight of the vehicle for rules purposes.

The big problem is ATV tires are regulated to run really low air pressures and the load rating/index suffers.  You can find 8 ply or 12 ply tires that hold 500lbs at 8 psi but I am not sure that is a good idea from a cost or weight standpoint.

For a little more money, you could pick up a 13" gravel rally tire that is ~22" tall.  It should be faster than the golf cart tires on an average rallycross surface but will be slower in more serious mud.  Since they are car tires, you are exempt from load rating rules.

ojannen said:

In reply to StreetRider89 :

4 ply tires probably do not have enough load rating according to rallycross rules.  They Yamaha YZX weighs about 1500lbs before you add a rallycross legal cage.  You are going to need a 400-500lb load rating or load index of 50 at minimum.  I am not sure if the driver is counted in the weight of the vehicle for rules purposes.

The big problem is ATV tires are regulated to run really low air pressures and the load rating/index suffers.  You can find 8 ply or 12 ply tires that hold 500lbs at 8 psi but I am not sure that is a good idea from a cost or weight standpoint.

For a little more money, you could pick up a 13" gravel rally tire that is ~22" tall.  It should be faster than the golf cart tires on an average rallycross surface but will be slower in more serious mud.  Since they are car tires, you are exempt from load rating rules.

Is the 13" wheel swap a common mod in the SXS world?

Does anyone make an "off the shelf" rallycross legal cage for any SXS yet?  

Thinking of what you would need to get a SXS rallycross legal at minimum, I don't ever plan to, but it sure sounds like fun. Detroit Region is not allowing them as a rule.

In reply to engiekev :

The rules are fairly clear about that: 

2. The OEM upper tubular passenger compartment structure or roll cage shall 
be retained, or may be replaced with a roll cage designed specifically for 
racing. All replacement roll cages must be built to the specification of a stage 
rally, short course, or desert racing sanctioning body. In all cases, the top of 
the roll structure may not be below the top of the driver’s helmet when in the 
normal driving position.

I do not think there will ever be a "rallycross spec", it is far simpler to piggyback off of known best practices, and access pre-existing markets.

In reply to engiekev :

I picked 13" because the tire height was similar to what you are looking for.  14" or 15" work just fine too.  You just need to watch the height:width ratio of the vehicle due to the extra tire height.

I wouldn't trust the stock cage from a personal safety perspective.  They crumple when you roll.  Our local guy used one of these: https://www.cagewrx.com/YXZ-Cages-s/1888.htm.  With a few extra bars, he was able to run a NASA Rallysprint this year.

There is not much stopping side by sides from running in constructors class on the new ruleset.  You need to swap out some plastic body panels for metal and maybe add some fenders.  I am curious if that would make them more approachable for your region.

In reply to ojannen :

Iirc there's also a metal firewall requirement, which is a bit more than a simple body panel swap. Also I think there's some kill switch requirements which means doing some wiring.

Fwiw we talked to the Detroit guys about it, they don't inject to SxSs, but as long as they continue to have no issue filling events with only the normal classes, have no motivation to add more classes.

In reply to ojannen :

Wow, I hadn't seen the '21 Constructors ruleset.  It's a lot less constrictive and ridiculous, now!

In reply to dps214 :

That is what I was think ingof.  You also have to replace parts of the floor.   It is doable but sort of pointless except to meet scca rules. 

The Florida contingent is taking a serious look at nationals this year because it is a 25 hour tow instead of a 45 hour tow.  Updating a SxS to be contructed legal lets the SxS guys attend.  Otherwise, we wouldn't have even considered it.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to ojannen :

Wow, I hadn't seen the '21 Constructors ruleset.  It's a lot less constrictive and ridiculous, now!

In DC, with one of the highest attendance numbers in the country, we had precisely ZERO constructors entries last season, as far as I know (with typical 70-80 entries per event, sometimes more). I mean, technically my stage rally car was legal for it back when it had a 4-cylinder engine, but who wants to run against nobody? I stayed in MR where the competition is. 

If you win a class that nobody else enters, you also finished last. Lame.  As of 2020, you could show up to nationals with basically any 4-cylinder POS with a roll cage and be crowned national champion. yay. 

If they open constructors to SxS, I would hope our region would also do away with constructors class (though again, nobody would notice).  But again, what's the point when SxS class already isn't used in most regions as it is...

In reply to irish44j (Forum Supporter) :

The '20 ruleset was also hideously constrictive.  I don't have it in front of me, but essentially, stock cars would not have been legal.  You needed something crazy like 1/8" steel plate for the floor and the roof, you needed 180 degrees minimum of cover for the tires, which many stock vehicles do not have, etc.

Which... is where this thread was geared towards.  "People have been begging for a constructors class.  Here it is, nobody is building or running cars.  What are the perceived roadblocks?"

The new ruleset is much more open and inviting.  Now any internal combustion engine is allowed, no limit to naturally aspirated automotive four-cylinders or rotaries.  (I'd like to think that I helped when the push for that was not wanting a 250hp buggy.  I pointed out that it is not hard to make a 300-350hp naturally aspirated Honda K-series or Ford Duratec, and my naturally aspirated rotary from 2012-2018 made about 270hp, all legal under that rule) You don't need a full body or moon-buggy fenders on the wheels.  Roof can be 18 gauge and floor can be 16 gauge.  No more height restriction other than being 100% or less of track width.  Etc.  I'm picturing a motorcycle engined buggy thing right now, and it might be fun.

The hard no for the class, personally, is the clothing requirement.  I never wear shorts, but long sleeves in the summer is a hard no.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Ooh, does this mean a Vettekart would potentially be legal in constructor's class this year?

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to irish44j (Forum Supporter) :

The '20 ruleset was also hideously constrictive.  I don't have it in front of me, but essentially, stock cars would not have been legal.  You needed something crazy like 1/8" steel plate for the floor and the roof, you needed 180 degrees minimum of cover for the tires, which many stock vehicles do not have, etc.

 

Which... is where this thread was geared towards.  "People have been begging for a constructors class.  Here it is, nobody is building or running cars.  What are the perceived roadblocks?"

The new ruleset is much more open and inviting.  Now any internal combustion engine is allowed, no limit to naturally aspirated automotive four-cylinders or rotaries.  (I'd like to think that I helped when the push for that was not wanting a 250hp buggy.  I pointed out that it is not hard to make a 300-350hp naturally aspirated Honda K-series or Ford Duratec, and my naturally aspirated rotary from 2012-2018 made about 270hp, all legal under that rule) You don't need a full body or moon-buggy fenders on the wheels.  Roof can be 18 gauge and floor can be 16 gauge.  No more height restriction other than being 100% or less of track width.  Etc.  I'm picturing a motorcycle engined buggy thing right now, and it might be fun.

 

The hard no for the class, personally, is the clothing requirement.  I never wear shorts, but long sleeves in the summer is a hard no.

So basically you're saying my stage rally car is now legal with a six cylinder. Noted. Expect to see me on the podium in Ohio lol.

More likely expect to see me in like 10th place in MR instead. 

In reply to eastsideTim :

Possibly, but it would require doors and a roll cage as well as some other things.

It'd be a heckuva way to actually get headroom in a 'vette, though!

In reply to irish44j (Forum Supporter) :

Your stage rally car would not be legal.  The floor and roof are too thin.  The car MAY be too tall, as well.

External kill switches are required, and must be in one of three specific locations.

You will have to add padding to all roll cage tubes in your vicinity.

You will have to install a scattershield on the transmission.

My 2 pennies: Autocross has practically died in my eyes because all the local venues shut down (unless you drive a Porsche). I've been considering rallycross because even though the venues are also somewhat far away, they offer more seat time than autocross did (With the customary fields of 150 plus participants). If SCCA opens their doors to a bunch of additional vehicles, the track time will diminish and with it, my interest. 

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to irish44j (Forum Supporter) :

Your stage rally car would not be legal.  The floor and roof are too thin.  The car MAY be too tall, as well.

 

External kill switches are required, and must be in one of three specific locations.

 

You will have to add padding to all roll cage tubes in your vicinity.

 

You will have to install a scattershield on the transmission.

 

 

Obviously I was being facetious. That said, my floorpan is far more armored than any SxS out there short of competition rock crawlers, perhaps. Roof is 80s German steel, so probably twice as thick as the stuff on japanese E36 M3boxes, comparing it to Japanese cars I own. Adding external kill is probably a 20-minute job. Obviously this is a stage car, so it has more padding on the roll cage than could ever be contacted, since that's a big pet peeve of tech guys. And it's FIA stuff, not the cheap soft crap that is probably what the rules require. How would the car be too tall? It's almost certainly shorter than most SxS's...

The scatter shield thing is kind of funny, though I haven't actually read the rules so no idea what that is supposed to mean in practice. .I imagine the scatter shield rule applies to "constructed" vehicles that have no organic protection around the bellhousing. OEM transmission tunnel is, for all intents and purposes, a scatter shield. If it was a danger not to have additional protection, why would that only apply to a constructor class car and not any other class, which are doing the same courses at the same speeds? Then again, woudln't be the first time SCCA rules made no practical sense. 

ALl academic, of course,, since I still think the entire class concept is pointless and arbitrary and I want nothing to do with it whatsoever. But it's a boring Friday night, so might as well argue about it. 

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

My 2 pennies: Autocross has practically died in my eyes because all the local venues shut down (unless you drive a Porsche). I've been considering rallycross because even though the venues are also somewhat far away, they offer more seat time than autocross did (With the customary fields of 150 plus participants). If SCCA opens their doors to a bunch of additional vehicles, the track time will diminish and with it, my interest. 

This is a serious issue with large-turnout programs like ours. 5 years ago when we had 30-40 cars per event everyone got 10-15 runs per day. These days with double that amount it's more like 7-9 runs per day, and you definitely hear some grousing here and there, for sure. Nobody wants this to turn into "autocross in the dirt" (except maybe SCCA, since they make more money with more attendees, regardless of runs). 

If rallycross turned into autocross with 3-5 runs per day, I'd probably stop going too. 

irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:

The scatter shield thing is kind of funny, though I haven't actually read the rules so no idea what that is supposed to mean in practice. .I imagine the scatter shield rule applies to "constructed" vehicles that have no organic protection around the bellhousing. OEM transmission tunnel is, for all intents and purposes, a scatter shield.

It most certainly is not.  A clutch or flywheel explosion will rip right through the floor and anything else in a remarkably large radius.  Many people lost their feet/legs to clutch explosions, or suffered severe burns after fuel lines got severed, before they were mandated in drag racing.

Even in a safety rated scattershield (which is usually made out of 3/16-1/4" thick high strength steel) will be deformed after an explosion.  I just did the math, a 240mm clutch at 5000rpm has a 138 feet/second linear speed.  Which doesn't sound like much compared to , say, a rifle bullet, but the chunks of pressure plate that fly out weigh POUNDS, not grains.  Wouldn't take much speed for a 10,000 grain "bullet" to ruin your day

I suspect the reason for the rule is for weirdos like me who want to do a side-by-side mid mounted engine, but by the letter of the rules,  if ANY part of the occupants are in the clutch or flywheel's plane, a scattershield is required.

I know I am playing with fire with the RX-7 because it is technically quick enough that even the NHRA would mandate one (13.49 for rotaries) but the plane of the clutch is slightly ahead of the firewall.  All the same, I've had recurring dreams of the clutch exploding on the back field at Bitzer's Farm, and having to get someone to pull me out of my car before it burns down, because I'm no longer attached to my still-occupied shoes...

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

My 2 pennies: Autocross has practically died in my eyes because all the local venues shut down (unless you drive a Porsche). I've been considering rallycross because even though the venues are also somewhat far away, they offer more seat time than autocross did (With the customary fields of 150 plus participants). If SCCA opens their doors to a bunch of additional vehicles, the track time will diminish and with it, my interest. 

People from California wanted to make it a national rule that rally tires were illegal in all classes, because some region had a site that did not permit aggressive tires, and they didn't have the balls to put in the supps "no aggressive tires allowed".  (Which is something any region can do)

I was just now checking the rules, and they are vague.  In one section it says that UTVs must be allowed and Constructors is optional per region.  In another section it says that Constructors must be allowed and UTV is optional per region.  I smell an e-mail imminent....

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:

The scatter shield thing is kind of funny, though I haven't actually read the rules so no idea what that is supposed to mean in practice. .I imagine the scatter shield rule applies to "constructed" vehicles that have no organic protection around the bellhousing. OEM transmission tunnel is, for all intents and purposes, a scatter shield.

It most certainly is not.  A clutch or flywheel explosion will rip right through the floor and anything else in a remarkably large radius.  Many people lost their feet/legs to clutch explosions, or suffered severe burns after fuel lines got severed, before they were mandated in drag racing.

Even in a safety rated scattershield (which is usually made out of 3/16-1/4" thick high strength steel) will be deformed after an explosion.  I just did the math, a 240mm clutch at 5000rpm has a 138 feet/second linear speed.  Which doesn't sound like much compared to , say, a rifle bullet, but the chunks of pressure plate that fly out weigh POUNDS, not grains.  Wouldn't take much speed for a 10,000 grain "bullet" to ruin your day

 

I suspect the reason for the rule is for weirdos like me who want to do a side-by-side mid mounted engine, but by the letter of the rules,  if ANY part of the occupants are in the clutch or flywheel's plane, a scattershield is required.

 

I know I am playing with fire with the RX-7 because it is technically quick enough that even the NHRA would mandate one (13.49 for rotaries) but the plane of the clutch is slightly ahead of the firewall.  All the same, I've had recurring dreams of the clutch exploding on the back field at Bitzer's Farm, and having to get someone to pull me out of my car before it burns down, because I'm no longer attached to my still-occupied shoes...

I'm just saying that such things are not required for any other cars that rally cross, So why would they be required for a car using an OEM drivetrain and body running at that same autocross in a different class. again I think the intent is just to make sure that people building crazy ass things for the constructors class actually put some protection around the bellhousing, 

I've been racing for 20 years and can honestly say I have never met anybody or ever heard of it at an event that I've been to where somebody's flywheel came apart and and caused bodily injury. Not saying it never happens but it certainly is far more rare than injuries from other things in motorsports...

But again I'm not asking about what a scatter shield is in practice, I was just curious as to what the rally cross rules say in terms of what it actually is. What does it specify a thickness or anything like that.

Again this is all academic, I'm just curious and I don't feel like wasting time reading the constructor's rules

In reply to irish44j (Forum Supporter) :

15.Installation of a scattershield, chain guard or explosion‐proof bell housing is required on any vehicle where the failure of the clutch, flywheel, or torque converter could create a hazard to the driver or passenger. Chain drive cars shall be fitted with a protective case/shield to retain the chain in case of failure. The following material requirements apply to scattershields/explosion‐proof bell housings:

a.⅛ inch (0.125”; 3.18mm) SAE 4130 alloy steel.

b.¼ inch (0.250”; 6.35mm) mild steel plate.

c.¼ inch (0.250”; 6.35mm) aluminum alloy.

d.SFI or NHRA approved flexible shields.