| ANZAC_1915 | 10-27-2004 01:32 PM |
New Novice Rally Driver Restrictions for 2005
�
�
P and G2 eligible (2WD) cars only for novices. They are talking about an exception for "2.2/2.5 Imprezas with stock engines", presumably PGT AWD cars, but not WRXs. I also assume they don't mean the STi. :devil:
read on
[url]http://www.specialstage.com/forum/cgi-bin/DCForumID2/3044.html[/url]
read on
[url]http://www.specialstage.com/forum/cgi-bin/DCForumID2/3044.html[/url]
| dwx | 10-27-2004 01:38 PM |
Yeah we kind of started a discussion about that in BofSlime's thread since I was at the LSPR novice school. I was really surprised at how long it took someone who was there to "leak" the info to the more rabid SS crew. :)
I think we'll see a rule published that states people are limited to P or G2 for Seed 8 drivers, then it will get changed. If Mike Hurst is on the side of allowing the NA Imprezas, then that's a good thing.
I would restrict cars to Production or PGT, not P or G2. And specifically put a 30mm? restrictor on turbo cars. Don't make the cars run FWD, make them run stock engines. Even then I think closer scrutiny of the driver is going to make a lot more difference than the car they are driving.
I think we'll see a rule published that states people are limited to P or G2 for Seed 8 drivers, then it will get changed. If Mike Hurst is on the side of allowing the NA Imprezas, then that's a good thing.
I would restrict cars to Production or PGT, not P or G2. And specifically put a 30mm? restrictor on turbo cars. Don't make the cars run FWD, make them run stock engines. Even then I think closer scrutiny of the driver is going to make a lot more difference than the car they are driving.
| ANZAC_1915 | 10-27-2004 02:47 PM |
[quote]the more rabid SS crew[/quote]
:devil:
I agree the focus should be on the driver, not the car they are driving.
:devil:
I agree the focus should be on the driver, not the car they are driving.
| 10th Warrior | 10-27-2004 03:33 PM |
[quote]I would restrict cars to Production or PGT, not P or G2.[/quote]
except its a whole lot cheaper to build an entry level G2 car then a P car. P is the most pointless class, hence the fact almost nobody runs it.
Jeff <-- firm believer that if you have to take out the dash to put in the rollcage, its retarded to have to put it back in. race cars shouldn't have interiors.
ps-don't know if its mentioned on ss since i wouldn't go there with a sharp, pointy stick, but this is in the lastest and greatest FasTrack as well.
except its a whole lot cheaper to build an entry level G2 car then a P car. P is the most pointless class, hence the fact almost nobody runs it.
Jeff <-- firm believer that if you have to take out the dash to put in the rollcage, its retarded to have to put it back in. race cars shouldn't have interiors.
ps-don't know if its mentioned on ss since i wouldn't go there with a sharp, pointy stick, but this is in the lastest and greatest FasTrack as well.
| mike270 | 10-27-2004 07:36 PM |
[QUOTE=Glenn Wallace]They are talking about an exception for "2.2/2.5 Imprezas with stock engines", presumably PGT AWD cars, but not WRXs. [/QUOTE]
I really hope this is the case because when I graduate in 2 years I plan to buy a new daily driver and turn my 02RS into my rally car. Since I already have the car, just not the funds to outfit it, it would make it possible for me to get into rallying for a descent price.
I really hope this is the case because when I graduate in 2 years I plan to buy a new daily driver and turn my 02RS into my rally car. Since I already have the car, just not the funds to outfit it, it would make it possible for me to get into rallying for a descent price.
| Recce01 | 10-27-2004 08:25 PM |
what???
�
�
[QUOTE=Glenn Wallace]P and G2 eligible (2WD) cars only for novices. They are talking about an exception for "2.2/2.5 Imprezas with stock engines", presumably PGT AWD cars, but not WRXs. I also assume they don't mean the STi. :devil:
read on
[url]http://www.specialstage.com/forum/cgi-bin/DCForumID2/3044.html[/url][/QUOTE]
ok, i have a ?...what makes you a novice? what if you've competed in desert racing for instance, and want to trade the trophy truck for the WRX rally car, no can do? :huh: :confused:
read on
[url]http://www.specialstage.com/forum/cgi-bin/DCForumID2/3044.html[/url][/QUOTE]
ok, i have a ?...what makes you a novice? what if you've competed in desert racing for instance, and want to trade the trophy truck for the WRX rally car, no can do? :huh: :confused:
| Recce01 | 10-27-2004 08:26 PM |
......
�
�
[QUOTE=Glenn Wallace]:devil:
I agree the focus should be on the driver, not the car they are driving.[/QUOTE]
what he said..... I am building a wrx for a guy who has never raced rally...grr
I agree the focus should be on the driver, not the car they are driving.[/QUOTE]
what he said..... I am building a wrx for a guy who has never raced rally...grr
| speedyHAM | 10-27-2004 09:02 PM |
This seems like it would make it more expensive inthe long run for someone who wants to run say- and open class WRX. They would have to buy a starter car, run a few events to get to be a 7 seed, then buy the WRX and outfit it. I agree completely with Glenn Wallace- the focus should be on the driver, not the car.
While we are on the subject- why not make all prospective rally drivers go to a rally specific driving school before being allowed to compete? This would probably actually save the driver (owner of the car) some money through not having to replace as many parts from the first off (might not be as severe if they know how to handle a rally car).
While we are on the subject- why not make all prospective rally drivers go to a rally specific driving school before being allowed to compete? This would probably actually save the driver (owner of the car) some money through not having to replace as many parts from the first off (might not be as severe if they know how to handle a rally car).
| thechickencow | 10-27-2004 09:45 PM |
Here's my thoughts as posted on rallycabal.com ( [url]http://www.rallycabal.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1136[/url] ):
After hearing what Bruce had conveyed at the seed 8 meeting at LSPR via Phil, and reading discussion on specialstage, I figured I'd throw in my 2 cents. Here's my take on the limitation of classes and schtuff.
I feel like limiting new drivers to 'slower' cars like P or G2 is a decent idea. I also think not allowing a person to build a car that they want is kinda bad. Points can be made that a fast G2 car is faster/scarier than a PGT car, or a slower G5 car is less (stockish rotary).
I'm just starting, but I'm in a G5 car that I think could compete with Shephard's SRT-4 with an equal driver. I've turned down the boost a bit on my own accord for both reliability and educational purposes, and feel that my car is no scarier than a G2 car could be, other than the fact that if I keep it floored on a long straight its probably as fast as most cars in a rally provided I've got traction.
What we want and need to limit is people who just go crazy on the stages before they've developed skills to control the car. Personally I've been autocrossing for a few years, rallycrossing for a couple, done a few TSD's, a couple track days, etc. I know my limitation of speed is my skill driving fast on gravel, and I know that it won't come overnight. Its took me about a year to feel like given equal cars I can beat most at an autocross. I figure it will take me about that long, possibly longer to get to a competitive level in rally since the events are further between.
The tough part is finding a objective way of being subjective. I think a mentoring system would work well at this in a way, but has its drawbacks (require structured mentoring for seeding advancement?). Driver logbooks are a good idea as well, provided they don't stop people from pushing to compete. Mandatory schooling would be fine if there were more schools and uniform instructors. Its a tough question. I don't like the idea of one person controlling whether I rally or not, so its not an easy call.
What do you guys think?
After hearing what Bruce had conveyed at the seed 8 meeting at LSPR via Phil, and reading discussion on specialstage, I figured I'd throw in my 2 cents. Here's my take on the limitation of classes and schtuff.
I feel like limiting new drivers to 'slower' cars like P or G2 is a decent idea. I also think not allowing a person to build a car that they want is kinda bad. Points can be made that a fast G2 car is faster/scarier than a PGT car, or a slower G5 car is less (stockish rotary).
I'm just starting, but I'm in a G5 car that I think could compete with Shephard's SRT-4 with an equal driver. I've turned down the boost a bit on my own accord for both reliability and educational purposes, and feel that my car is no scarier than a G2 car could be, other than the fact that if I keep it floored on a long straight its probably as fast as most cars in a rally provided I've got traction.
What we want and need to limit is people who just go crazy on the stages before they've developed skills to control the car. Personally I've been autocrossing for a few years, rallycrossing for a couple, done a few TSD's, a couple track days, etc. I know my limitation of speed is my skill driving fast on gravel, and I know that it won't come overnight. Its took me about a year to feel like given equal cars I can beat most at an autocross. I figure it will take me about that long, possibly longer to get to a competitive level in rally since the events are further between.
The tough part is finding a objective way of being subjective. I think a mentoring system would work well at this in a way, but has its drawbacks (require structured mentoring for seeding advancement?). Driver logbooks are a good idea as well, provided they don't stop people from pushing to compete. Mandatory schooling would be fine if there were more schools and uniform instructors. Its a tough question. I don't like the idea of one person controlling whether I rally or not, so its not an easy call.
What do you guys think?
| mike270 | 10-27-2004 09:53 PM |
Very well said.
| Chromer | 10-27-2004 11:33 PM |
[QUOTE=dwx]I would restrict cars to Production or PGT, not P or G2. And specifically put a 30mm? restrictor on turbo cars. Don't make the cars run FWD, make them run stock engines. Even then I think closer scrutiny of the driver is going to make a lot more difference than the car they are driving.[/QUOTE]
My thought is that we should be restricting power output, not drivetrain layout like the P/G2 rules does. If all seed 8 drivers could "run what they brung" but had to run a soda-straw restrictor, it would be a solid number they could go to the insurers with saying "we're restricting novice drivers to xx hp."
30mm will still flow a lot of air. Enough for ~300hp, anyway. A rough calculation I did earlier seemed to point to a 20mm restrictor supporting enough airflow for 125-150hp. That ought to be plenty to learn the ropes with and a nice number to go to insurers with (about 1/3rd the power of the top-level cars). After you get your seed points you fall under the normal rules for your class, and you don't have to rent a Golf for a year before you can drive your STi.
My thought is that we should be restricting power output, not drivetrain layout like the P/G2 rules does. If all seed 8 drivers could "run what they brung" but had to run a soda-straw restrictor, it would be a solid number they could go to the insurers with saying "we're restricting novice drivers to xx hp."
30mm will still flow a lot of air. Enough for ~300hp, anyway. A rough calculation I did earlier seemed to point to a 20mm restrictor supporting enough airflow for 125-150hp. That ought to be plenty to learn the ropes with and a nice number to go to insurers with (about 1/3rd the power of the top-level cars). After you get your seed points you fall under the normal rules for your class, and you don't have to rent a Golf for a year before you can drive your STi.
| ChrisW | 10-28-2004 12:14 AM |
I am kind of on the fence on this. I would like to get in to rally, but I am kind of turned off by the concept of downgrading to a FWD just to get started. I have been driving AWD vehicles for over 10 years now, I just don't feel comfortable in a FWD car on the street, why would that be any different on a stage?
I agree 110% that new drivers need to be restricted to some degree, I think limiting them to the stock engine is a good step in the right direction.
I hope they allow us "future" rookies to at least use an old 2.2/2.5 impreza. If/when I get started, I am certainly not going to be inclined to swap cars after my rookie season is over, that will just add to the overall cost of entry into the sport.
I agree 110% that new drivers need to be restricted to some degree, I think limiting them to the stock engine is a good step in the right direction.
I hope they allow us "future" rookies to at least use an old 2.2/2.5 impreza. If/when I get started, I am certainly not going to be inclined to swap cars after my rookie season is over, that will just add to the overall cost of entry into the sport.
| ANZAC_1915 | 10-28-2004 02:44 AM |
Well I started with (and still have) a 138 HP RWD car --- I self regulated.
| RoundtheBend | 10-28-2004 03:39 AM |
[QUOTE=Glenn Wallace]Well I started with (and still have) a 138 HP RWD car --- I self regulated.[/QUOTE]That was your [b]CHOICE[/b] Glenn. If we don't get that choice then I think that's unfair.
The car I started building this year before this whole thing started is required to be an Open class car because it's a hybrid. I'm building it because it's the car I CHOSE to race.
My concern is that simply because I'm a novice 'rally driver' I have to be subjected to some silly idea of regulation? Yes, I've done the "rally school", I've done my share of forest road driving, I've rallycrossed, autocrossed and even done a little track time. Am I the best driver out there? Hell no! I readily admit that. I fully expect to be one of the slowest Open class cars (save for DNFs) out there when I start. It's going to be a new car to me and I'm out there to have fun for my first year. If I place well in a local event or two then all the better. But I, for one, would like to make my own choices NOT have someone else make them for me.
The car I started building this year before this whole thing started is required to be an Open class car because it's a hybrid. I'm building it because it's the car I CHOSE to race.
My concern is that simply because I'm a novice 'rally driver' I have to be subjected to some silly idea of regulation? Yes, I've done the "rally school", I've done my share of forest road driving, I've rallycrossed, autocrossed and even done a little track time. Am I the best driver out there? Hell no! I readily admit that. I fully expect to be one of the slowest Open class cars (save for DNFs) out there when I start. It's going to be a new car to me and I'm out there to have fun for my first year. If I place well in a local event or two then all the better. But I, for one, would like to make my own choices NOT have someone else make them for me.
| Fred | 10-28-2004 10:00 AM |
Rules can't increase a person's common sense or level of self-preservation. If somebody wants to promote natural selection, he can do it in just about anything that has wheels. We had a kid at one of our rallyx SCHOOLS roll an 89 Toyota Corolla that has around 50 hp. Trust me, it wasn't the car's fault. :lol:
I agree that a rally school would be a better option for novices than regulating what kind of car you're allowed to drive - but education is not a perfect substitute for common sense, either.
Back to the regulated car "choice" - what if when you started autoxing, somebody told you that you had to drive a fully stock Yugo for a year and learn how to go fast in it before you could drive your own car with your own choice of modifications? How many people would stick around for that? :confused: I hope to be driving a rally car at some point in the future, and if I do, it sure would be nice to be able to decide what kind of car I want to drive...
I agree that a rally school would be a better option for novices than regulating what kind of car you're allowed to drive - but education is not a perfect substitute for common sense, either.
Back to the regulated car "choice" - what if when you started autoxing, somebody told you that you had to drive a fully stock Yugo for a year and learn how to go fast in it before you could drive your own car with your own choice of modifications? How many people would stick around for that? :confused: I hope to be driving a rally car at some point in the future, and if I do, it sure would be nice to be able to decide what kind of car I want to drive...
| Subie Gal | 10-28-2004 10:22 AM |
As usual I disagree with most of you and I agree 150% with this "new rule"
I started in a 1.8 FWD Subaru Impreza
*best move I ever made*
I did this just for this reason. I didnt want to get hurt, or worse. And I didnt want to be responsible for hurting anyone else.... This seemed the most logical step for me as a rookie driver with lots of Rallycross, Autocross and Gravel TSD experience even!
In that put-put car I could not hurt myself, and as a rookie, I did make mistakes - but they were never major thanks to the car's inability to go over 95mph.
In that put-put car I learned to carry speed through the corners, learned the dynamics of the car and how to read the road.
In that put-put car I never had a single DNF, finished every rally and moved from seed 9 to seed 4
In that put-put car I was 2nd in 2 championships, including National and won my regional driver class championship
I sincerely belive if you can learn to drive a slow car fast... carry speed, you will be hell on wheels when you get into a faster ride.
Flip side of that :)
Locally we had a novice driver come out of the box in an Open Class Turbo Subaru.
1st rally - head on into a tree
2nd rally - crashed so hard they had to jaws of life the co-driver out of the car
I belive some experience would have assisted without a doubt.
Rally is not autocross. There is no 'walking the course' - there are no test runs.. this is blind racing and you're trying to GO FAST....
And ... to whomever suggested restrictors to slow the cars down :lol:
Restrictors can be "got around"
This is going to be a heated debate I think.
But I am personally all for this rule. It will, without a doubt save cars, insurance costs and most importantly, lives.
Jamie
[url]www.subiegal.com[/url]
I started in a 1.8 FWD Subaru Impreza
*best move I ever made*
I did this just for this reason. I didnt want to get hurt, or worse. And I didnt want to be responsible for hurting anyone else.... This seemed the most logical step for me as a rookie driver with lots of Rallycross, Autocross and Gravel TSD experience even!
In that put-put car I could not hurt myself, and as a rookie, I did make mistakes - but they were never major thanks to the car's inability to go over 95mph.
In that put-put car I learned to carry speed through the corners, learned the dynamics of the car and how to read the road.
In that put-put car I never had a single DNF, finished every rally and moved from seed 9 to seed 4
In that put-put car I was 2nd in 2 championships, including National and won my regional driver class championship
I sincerely belive if you can learn to drive a slow car fast... carry speed, you will be hell on wheels when you get into a faster ride.
Flip side of that :)
Locally we had a novice driver come out of the box in an Open Class Turbo Subaru.
1st rally - head on into a tree
2nd rally - crashed so hard they had to jaws of life the co-driver out of the car
I belive some experience would have assisted without a doubt.
Rally is not autocross. There is no 'walking the course' - there are no test runs.. this is blind racing and you're trying to GO FAST....
And ... to whomever suggested restrictors to slow the cars down :lol:
Restrictors can be "got around"
This is going to be a heated debate I think.
But I am personally all for this rule. It will, without a doubt save cars, insurance costs and most importantly, lives.
Jamie
[url]www.subiegal.com[/url]
| RB5 Clone | 10-28-2004 10:23 AM |
Some sort of licensing/seeding/car class hurdle for entry-level rally drivers is entirely reasonable. Virtually every form of motorsport has similar hoops thru which you must jump successfully before you move up.
You have to do lower-powered cars in circle track or open-wheel racing before you get the Big Motor Monster. You have to do lower-powered bikes, ATVs, off-road trucks, offshore powerboats, etc etc.
It's also entirely reasonable to have an NA AWD class as part of that hurdle...and I say so not just 'cause of the 2.5 RS that lives in my barn! If AWD driving is wht you aspire to, it's OK to start there, give some controls on car prep/power/speed.
I think the idea here is not to make life difficult for up and coming driver-owners, it's just to make sure ppl have some experience on low-grip surfaces--AND in running rallies (def not the same thing!) before being let loose on a hot stage with 24 pounds of boost.
Tim O'Neil says the same thing over and over to his students--"I can teach you all sorts of driving techniques, but CANNOT teach you good judgement." The entry-level restriction is an attempt to give an opportunity to develop some of that judgement at lower, less committing and less life-threatening speeds.
Dave G
You have to do lower-powered cars in circle track or open-wheel racing before you get the Big Motor Monster. You have to do lower-powered bikes, ATVs, off-road trucks, offshore powerboats, etc etc.
It's also entirely reasonable to have an NA AWD class as part of that hurdle...and I say so not just 'cause of the 2.5 RS that lives in my barn! If AWD driving is wht you aspire to, it's OK to start there, give some controls on car prep/power/speed.
I think the idea here is not to make life difficult for up and coming driver-owners, it's just to make sure ppl have some experience on low-grip surfaces--AND in running rallies (def not the same thing!) before being let loose on a hot stage with 24 pounds of boost.
Tim O'Neil says the same thing over and over to his students--"I can teach you all sorts of driving techniques, but CANNOT teach you good judgement." The entry-level restriction is an attempt to give an opportunity to develop some of that judgement at lower, less committing and less life-threatening speeds.
Dave G
| 10th Warrior | 10-28-2004 10:51 AM |
[quote]why not make all prospective rally drivers go to a rally specific driving school before being allowed to compete?[/quote]
this would work if, and only if, they were held all over the country and were cheap, like the ClubRacing schools. having to travel to NH and then spend a minimum of $2k on fees is just not an option for some of us.
anyway, overall, if this is done smart, i think it will be a good thing. i just hate P class and have a G2 Golf that's 80% done ;) if they did P, G2, Spec Scoobie NA, that could work out very nicely.
this would work if, and only if, they were held all over the country and were cheap, like the ClubRacing schools. having to travel to NH and then spend a minimum of $2k on fees is just not an option for some of us.
anyway, overall, if this is done smart, i think it will be a good thing. i just hate P class and have a G2 Golf that's 80% done ;) if they did P, G2, Spec Scoobie NA, that could work out very nicely.
| Fred | 10-28-2004 11:04 AM |
I guarantee you that if I wanted to kill myself in a FWD 1.8L Impreza, I could find a way to do it.
I also guarantee you that if I wanted to finish a rally (barring mechanical problems) in a 400hp STi, I could do that, too. It might not be pretty the first time & people might make fun of me, but I bet after a while I'd get pretty good at it.
:)
I also guarantee you that if I wanted to finish a rally (barring mechanical problems) in a 400hp STi, I could do that, too. It might not be pretty the first time & people might make fun of me, but I bet after a while I'd get pretty good at it.
:)
| dwx | 10-28-2004 11:07 AM |
I would run the club rally schools like an evolution autocross school. Recruit some drivers and co-drivers to do it the day before the rally. Make them pay $250 or so to take it. So you need another day off work and have to spend another night in a hotel room, racing isn't cheap. There are lots of road racing schools you can pay $2k for but you can get a license by going to an SCCA club racing school which doesn't cost anywhere near that. I don't see why rally should be any different.
| ChrisW | 10-28-2004 11:19 AM |
Jamie, I agree with everything you say, I can't really argue against it....
But I don't think I should be restricted to a 2WD car. A 2.2L impreza with AWD is not going to be much faster than your 1.8L considering the weight difference found between the 2 different drivetrains...
But I don't think I should be restricted to a 2WD car. A 2.2L impreza with AWD is not going to be much faster than your 1.8L considering the weight difference found between the 2 different drivetrains...
| Chromer | 10-28-2004 11:44 AM |
[QUOTE=Subie Gal]
And ... to whomever suggested restrictors to slow the cars down :lol:
Restrictors can be "got around"[/QUOTE]
<cough>Toyota<cough>
So... What's the point of restricting open class cars then?
If the penalty for non-conformance were a one-year suspension(stick), and you were only scored against other novice drivers(carrot), there's be no incentive to "get around" it and plenty of incentive to work within the program.
Is it hard to spot a car that is much quicker than any 150hp (to pull a number out of the air) car has any right to be? I dunno...
And ... to whomever suggested restrictors to slow the cars down :lol:
Restrictors can be "got around"[/QUOTE]
<cough>Toyota<cough>
So... What's the point of restricting open class cars then?
If the penalty for non-conformance were a one-year suspension(stick), and you were only scored against other novice drivers(carrot), there's be no incentive to "get around" it and plenty of incentive to work within the program.
Is it hard to spot a car that is much quicker than any 150hp (to pull a number out of the air) car has any right to be? I dunno...
| thechickencow | 10-28-2004 11:47 AM |
Restrictors just will take more money to develop the same power, I think thats what she's saying. The Open class guys are going from 40mm to 34mm, but will probably not lose a ton of power since they'll just work around them.
I'm glad I started this year in my G5 car, turned down the boost myself, and am just shooting for finishing rallies for now. I don't wanna be stuck running a restrictor on my car thats already traction limited.
Jay
I'm glad I started this year in my G5 car, turned down the boost myself, and am just shooting for finishing rallies for now. I don't wanna be stuck running a restrictor on my car thats already traction limited.
Jay
| ANZAC_1915 | 10-28-2004 12:13 PM |
[QUOTE=RoundtheBend]That was your [b]CHOICE[/b] Glenn. If we don't get that choice then I think that's unfair.
The car I started building this year before this whole thing started is required to be an Open class car because it's a hybrid. I'm building it because it's the car I CHOSE to race.
My concern is that simply because I'm a novice 'rally driver' I have to be subjected to some silly idea of regulation? Yes, I've done the "rally school", I've done my share of forest road driving, I've rallycrossed, autocrossed and even done a little track time. Am I the best driver out there? Hell no! I readily admit that. I fully expect to be one of the slowest Open class cars (save for DNFs) out there when I start. It's going to be a new car to me and I'm out there to have fun for my first year. If I place well in a local event or two then all the better. But I, for one, would like to make my own choices NOT have someone else make them for me.[/QUOTE]
I totally agree. I was just making the point that a lot of drivers are capable of making good decisions of either what they drive and how they drive and that the regulating body shouldn't choose the car, but instead come of with a graduated licensing plan that helps produce safer rally drivers.
Glenn
The car I started building this year before this whole thing started is required to be an Open class car because it's a hybrid. I'm building it because it's the car I CHOSE to race.
My concern is that simply because I'm a novice 'rally driver' I have to be subjected to some silly idea of regulation? Yes, I've done the "rally school", I've done my share of forest road driving, I've rallycrossed, autocrossed and even done a little track time. Am I the best driver out there? Hell no! I readily admit that. I fully expect to be one of the slowest Open class cars (save for DNFs) out there when I start. It's going to be a new car to me and I'm out there to have fun for my first year. If I place well in a local event or two then all the better. But I, for one, would like to make my own choices NOT have someone else make them for me.[/QUOTE]
I totally agree. I was just making the point that a lot of drivers are capable of making good decisions of either what they drive and how they drive and that the regulating body shouldn't choose the car, but instead come of with a graduated licensing plan that helps produce safer rally drivers.
Glenn
| RoundtheBend | 10-28-2004 12:59 PM |
[quote=Subie Gal][b]As usual I disagree with most of you and I agree 150% with this "new rule"[/b]
I started in a 1.8 FWD Subaru Impreza
*best move I ever made*
I did this just for this reason. I didnt want to get hurt, or worse. And I didnt want to be responsible for hurting anyone else.... This seemed the most logical step for me as a rookie driver with lots of Rallycross, Autocross and Gravel TSD experience even!
[/quote]
*smartass*Of course you agree with this new rule, it doesn't affect you! ;) */smartass*
Like I said to Glenn, [b]YOU CHOSE[/b] to start out in a slow car, it wasn't determined FOR YOU.
I honestly wouldn't really mind a structured licensing program as Glenn suggested. It seems like a good plan if instituted correctly. However, I refuse to pay $2k for a school that teaches me exactly what more SEAT TIME will teach me. Experience is the best teacher and I really doubt that a one or two-day rally school will teach ANYONE good judgement.
-Erik
I started in a 1.8 FWD Subaru Impreza
*best move I ever made*
I did this just for this reason. I didnt want to get hurt, or worse. And I didnt want to be responsible for hurting anyone else.... This seemed the most logical step for me as a rookie driver with lots of Rallycross, Autocross and Gravel TSD experience even!
[/quote]
*smartass*Of course you agree with this new rule, it doesn't affect you! ;) */smartass*
Like I said to Glenn, [b]YOU CHOSE[/b] to start out in a slow car, it wasn't determined FOR YOU.
I honestly wouldn't really mind a structured licensing program as Glenn suggested. It seems like a good plan if instituted correctly. However, I refuse to pay $2k for a school that teaches me exactly what more SEAT TIME will teach me. Experience is the best teacher and I really doubt that a one or two-day rally school will teach ANYONE good judgement.
-Erik
| M. Hurst | 10-28-2004 01:19 PM |
[QUOTE=10th Warrior] if they did P, G2, Spec Scoobie NA, that could work out very nicely.[/QUOTE]
I am 100% for the 4wd non-turbo Subaru (stock engine) being a permanantly legal car for novice drivers.
My influence may not, however, extend beyond Dec 31.
Mike Hurst
SCCA CRSM
I am 100% for the 4wd non-turbo Subaru (stock engine) being a permanantly legal car for novice drivers.
My influence may not, however, extend beyond Dec 31.
Mike Hurst
SCCA CRSM
| 10th Warrior | 10-28-2004 02:18 PM |
Mike, while you're offical title will be gone, I, for one, won't lose any respect for you or your opinions.
[quote]There are lots of road racing schools you can pay $2k for but you can get a license by going to an SCCA club racing school which doesn't cost anywhere near that. I don't see why rally should be any different.[/quote]
exactly what i was trying to get at, Phil. I think what you described would be perfectly reasonable.
[quote]There are lots of road racing schools you can pay $2k for but you can get a license by going to an SCCA club racing school which doesn't cost anywhere near that. I don't see why rally should be any different.[/quote]
exactly what i was trying to get at, Phil. I think what you described would be perfectly reasonable.
| Jon Bogert | 10-28-2004 02:29 PM |
Having read the threads on SS as well as here, I think there's a key point you guys are all missing. Doug and Rally America are salesmen. They're introducing a new "product" which they hope the various rally drivers and wannabe rally drivers will buy. There is a competing product (NASA) that has significant momentum in the marketplace.
If you're a driver, and Doug pisses you off, you have an alternative.
If you're an organizer, and you see Doug pissing off all your potential entrants, you have an alternative.
If Rally America pursues a strategy of "it's our way or the highway" they will get nowhere.
Doug's a successful businessman and I'm confident he understands this. Don't sweat it--you'll get to run your new Rolls-Royce Merlin powered Yugo. :lol:
If you're a driver, and Doug pisses you off, you have an alternative.
If you're an organizer, and you see Doug pissing off all your potential entrants, you have an alternative.
If Rally America pursues a strategy of "it's our way or the highway" they will get nowhere.
Doug's a successful businessman and I'm confident he understands this. Don't sweat it--you'll get to run your new Rolls-Royce Merlin powered Yugo. :lol:
| VVVV | 10-28-2004 03:07 PM |
There is a point everyone is missing. The purpose for the regulations, albeit noble to think they are concerned for your health, is that the insurance company is getting to be too expensive to keep the series running. That is why SCCA dropped it, and that is why we have these rules coming down. The problem is risk. People get powerful cars and run head on to the trees, yet insurance companies have to foot the bill for the risk of these idiots.
SO instead of penalizing us all for the stupidity of the few, why can't the risk be legally placed on each individual driver. I don't care if I have to sign a contract in blood saying that anything that happens during the rally to me or my car is wholly my responsibility. Even if it means I have to pay a farmer to replace one of his trees, I'd rather foot the risk than the bill for the stupidity of others. Perhaps that would cut down on the recklessness.
And if you just can't get around having insurance, making each driver carry an individual policy would make if more fair for everyone, penalizing those who make the most mistakes, and rewarding those who are safest. I'm not a lawyer, so I know this common sense may be completely contrary to the precedence of the law. I am just tired of paying to protect people from themselves.
SO instead of penalizing us all for the stupidity of the few, why can't the risk be legally placed on each individual driver. I don't care if I have to sign a contract in blood saying that anything that happens during the rally to me or my car is wholly my responsibility. Even if it means I have to pay a farmer to replace one of his trees, I'd rather foot the risk than the bill for the stupidity of others. Perhaps that would cut down on the recklessness.
And if you just can't get around having insurance, making each driver carry an individual policy would make if more fair for everyone, penalizing those who make the most mistakes, and rewarding those who are safest. I'm not a lawyer, so I know this common sense may be completely contrary to the precedence of the law. I am just tired of paying to protect people from themselves.
| Chromer | 10-28-2004 03:15 PM |
[QUOTE=VVVV]SO instead of penalizing us all for the stupidity of the few, why can't the risk be legally placed on each individual driver. I don't care if I have to sign a contract in blood saying that anything that happens during the rally to me or my car is wholly my responsibility. Even if it means I have to pay a farmer to replace one of his trees, I'd rather foot the risk than the bill for the stupidity of others. Perhaps that would cut down on the recklessness.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that signed waivers are barely worth the paper they're printed on in the hands of a decent lawyer. RA has to be able to show to their insurance company that they meaningfully restrict the liability novices can generate against RA.
Of course, if someone finally is deemed "safe" by RA, granted an unrestricted license and promptly kills him(her)self in his very next rally, then Doug is in for a world of hurt too because "the defendant declared that the recently deceased husband of my client was safe when clearly he was not adequately prepared babble babble lawyerspeak..." Catch 22...
The problem is that signed waivers are barely worth the paper they're printed on in the hands of a decent lawyer. RA has to be able to show to their insurance company that they meaningfully restrict the liability novices can generate against RA.
Of course, if someone finally is deemed "safe" by RA, granted an unrestricted license and promptly kills him(her)self in his very next rally, then Doug is in for a world of hurt too because "the defendant declared that the recently deceased husband of my client was safe when clearly he was not adequately prepared babble babble lawyerspeak..." Catch 22...
| Innovative Tuning | 10-28-2004 03:29 PM |
Boy am I glad I noticed this thread. We were about the rip into the engine bay on our new rally car and install a bunch of goodies, but I'm driving and have never done a sanctioned stage rally. I guess I'll rock our Legacy Turbo out in PGT for a bit.
BIG THANKS for the update. Building the car only to put it back to stock would have been a nightmare. I'm guessing some people are stuck in that boat and I feel for you.
-Mike
BIG THANKS for the update. Building the car only to put it back to stock would have been a nightmare. I'm guessing some people are stuck in that boat and I feel for you.
-Mike
| M. Hurst | 10-28-2004 03:48 PM |
[QUOTE=Chromer]The problem is that signed waivers are barely worth the paper they're printed on in the hands of a decent lawyer. .[/QUOTE]
Actually, from what I've seen, the waivers do hold up pretty well. The problem is that the waivers don't preclude someone from bringing suit, and the very high cost of even successfully defending the suit.
The new driver regulations are just one part (the worst part) of several changes you'll see aimed at risk reduction, others might /will include 34 mm restrictors on open cars, driver logbook / moitoring, and maximum average speeds for stages like Canada has now.
It's not my intention to turn anyone away, there will be adjustments available for those with cars under constrction (time frame within reason), that didn't see this coming. In the future, (possibly 1/1/06) those adjustments are going to go away, and the new driver limitations will be more objective.
Actually, from what I've seen, the waivers do hold up pretty well. The problem is that the waivers don't preclude someone from bringing suit, and the very high cost of even successfully defending the suit.
The new driver regulations are just one part (the worst part) of several changes you'll see aimed at risk reduction, others might /will include 34 mm restrictors on open cars, driver logbook / moitoring, and maximum average speeds for stages like Canada has now.
It's not my intention to turn anyone away, there will be adjustments available for those with cars under constrction (time frame within reason), that didn't see this coming. In the future, (possibly 1/1/06) those adjustments are going to go away, and the new driver limitations will be more objective.
| WRXMaster | 10-29-2004 01:20 AM |
I think its a really dumb rule! Group 2 cars if built correctly can beat a pgt car............ Most people dont wreck on the straights .......... 40mph into a tree is still going to be 40mph into a tree....... This would be an easy solution ---
1. Road course racing school
2. Rally school
3. Rallycross
4. Frist 3 rallies*mandatory experienced co driver
If the codriver feels hes competent ----- he can move on ...ect
I wish we could recce the stages before an event "with the stage notes" I think that would lower some of the accidents
1. Road course racing school
2. Rally school
3. Rallycross
4. Frist 3 rallies*mandatory experienced co driver
If the codriver feels hes competent ----- he can move on ...ect
I wish we could recce the stages before an event "with the stage notes" I think that would lower some of the accidents
| thechickencow | 10-29-2004 02:06 AM |
I like the experienced codriver thing, it would make a difference.
Not being eligible for any points/championships for the first 3-4 rallies would be interesting as well - takes away the initial "I've gotta win" thing.
I'm glad I started this year. :)
Not being eligible for any points/championships for the first 3-4 rallies would be interesting as well - takes away the initial "I've gotta win" thing.
I'm glad I started this year. :)
| johnfelstead | 10-29-2004 10:37 AM |
In the UK we have no limits on what car you can drive, we do have a staged licence system and events do have variations in average speed with you starting out in the lower speed events until you can upgrade your licence. Even the highest speed events of the BRC still have average speed limits, which is why you will see the ocasional straw bail false chicane on the stage.
All turbo cars follow the FIA restrictor limits, so the most you will see is a 34mm restrictor, it amazes me you guys still run 40mm. Any smaller than a 32mm restrictor would be a mistake IMHO, thats enough to limit usable power on car classes like PGT, you dont want lots of restrictor classes as that will up the costs of the sport, the two tear 32mm and 34mm works well.
To obtain a licence here you have to attend a rally school that is aproved by the sports governing body. The day consists of a written and practical test, if you dont pass these you dont get a licence. The Bill Gwynne school website gives you a bit of info on it [url]http://www.billgwynne.com/res_web_directory.asp?supplierCode=BGW100&activityId=9[/url] the cost of the course/test is �180 ($330)
The problem with the USA compared to UK is there arnt anything like as many events running, so it's harder to implement a rally speed and associated licence based structure. We also dont have the same insurance problems you have and there are many times more licence holders to help spread that insurance cost.
My own advice to anyone starting is do a full year in a slow car, this will be reliable getting you lots of stage mileage under your belt. Of course you can still kill yourself, but the accidents will be lower speed on average. Making that a rule is more dificult, so the minimum spec allowed has to be atractive to competitors, otherwise they wont invest in the sport.
It's a very dificult time for the sport over there, any solution isnt going to be universally popular because it will affect people and their plans already in place, so i wish Doug and the team the best of luck in finding a good solution to how to protect the sport and make it grow.
All turbo cars follow the FIA restrictor limits, so the most you will see is a 34mm restrictor, it amazes me you guys still run 40mm. Any smaller than a 32mm restrictor would be a mistake IMHO, thats enough to limit usable power on car classes like PGT, you dont want lots of restrictor classes as that will up the costs of the sport, the two tear 32mm and 34mm works well.
To obtain a licence here you have to attend a rally school that is aproved by the sports governing body. The day consists of a written and practical test, if you dont pass these you dont get a licence. The Bill Gwynne school website gives you a bit of info on it [url]http://www.billgwynne.com/res_web_directory.asp?supplierCode=BGW100&activityId=9[/url] the cost of the course/test is �180 ($330)
The problem with the USA compared to UK is there arnt anything like as many events running, so it's harder to implement a rally speed and associated licence based structure. We also dont have the same insurance problems you have and there are many times more licence holders to help spread that insurance cost.
My own advice to anyone starting is do a full year in a slow car, this will be reliable getting you lots of stage mileage under your belt. Of course you can still kill yourself, but the accidents will be lower speed on average. Making that a rule is more dificult, so the minimum spec allowed has to be atractive to competitors, otherwise they wont invest in the sport.
It's a very dificult time for the sport over there, any solution isnt going to be universally popular because it will affect people and their plans already in place, so i wish Doug and the team the best of luck in finding a good solution to how to protect the sport and make it grow.
| RB5 Clone | 10-29-2004 10:39 AM |
recce w/notes
�
�
quote: I wish we could recce the stages before an event "with the stage notes" I think that would lower some of the accidents
That is already happening in NASA events--for instance Rally New York USA, which recces next Friday. Recce is optional, but totally well worth the extra time off from work and effort involved.
Recce on prepared stage notes might sound like it's designed by the Department of Redundancy Department, but it's far and away the best solution for newbie drivers and codrivers alike to learn the language of notes. Most importantly, it shows how those notes are reflective of real roads with bumps dips ruts rocks crests and those nassty nassty trees and other immovable objects.
ciao for now,
Dave G
Recce Fan
LDR
That is already happening in NASA events--for instance Rally New York USA, which recces next Friday. Recce is optional, but totally well worth the extra time off from work and effort involved.
Recce on prepared stage notes might sound like it's designed by the Department of Redundancy Department, but it's far and away the best solution for newbie drivers and codrivers alike to learn the language of notes. Most importantly, it shows how those notes are reflective of real roads with bumps dips ruts rocks crests and those nassty nassty trees and other immovable objects.
ciao for now,
Dave G
Recce Fan
LDR
| RoundtheBend | 10-29-2004 11:38 AM |
[QUOTE=thechickencow]I like the experienced codriver thing, it would make a difference.
Not being eligible for any points/championships for the first 3-4 rallies would be interesting as well - takes away the initial "I've gotta win" thing.
I'm glad I started this year. :)[/QUOTE]
I agree with the experienced co-driver idea but many of the new drivers (myself included possibly) can't afford to pay for an experienced co-driver. A lot of times at the lower levels, the co-driver pays part of the entry and/or hotel, etc. An experienced co-driver typically expects to pay for NOTHING. That could put a damper on the ability of the new driver to enter events.
As for not being eligible for points/championships for the first few rallies... That's ridiculous. How would you feel if you were a new driver and ended up doing well, having a shot at a podium finish at the end of the year and just because you couldn't get points for your first 3 rallies (which you did well in), you don't get on the podium? Doesn't seem like such a good idea now does it?
I agree with being able to recce stages beforehand, possibly with supplied stage notes. The difficulty with recce (as I learned at Mt. Trials) is coming up with a system that works for both driver and co-driver. It's harder than it looks. :) At every event that we haven't had stage notes this year we have missed them. I think it's both safer and faster because as a driver you're not guessing about the next corner. You already know what it's going to be (provided your co-driver isn't lost). :lol:
-Erik
Not being eligible for any points/championships for the first 3-4 rallies would be interesting as well - takes away the initial "I've gotta win" thing.
I'm glad I started this year. :)[/QUOTE]
I agree with the experienced co-driver idea but many of the new drivers (myself included possibly) can't afford to pay for an experienced co-driver. A lot of times at the lower levels, the co-driver pays part of the entry and/or hotel, etc. An experienced co-driver typically expects to pay for NOTHING. That could put a damper on the ability of the new driver to enter events.
As for not being eligible for points/championships for the first few rallies... That's ridiculous. How would you feel if you were a new driver and ended up doing well, having a shot at a podium finish at the end of the year and just because you couldn't get points for your first 3 rallies (which you did well in), you don't get on the podium? Doesn't seem like such a good idea now does it?
I agree with being able to recce stages beforehand, possibly with supplied stage notes. The difficulty with recce (as I learned at Mt. Trials) is coming up with a system that works for both driver and co-driver. It's harder than it looks. :) At every event that we haven't had stage notes this year we have missed them. I think it's both safer and faster because as a driver you're not guessing about the next corner. You already know what it's going to be (provided your co-driver isn't lost). :lol:
-Erik
| rallynutdon | 10-29-2004 01:48 PM |
[QUOTE=RB5 Clone]quote: I wish we could recce the stages before an event "with the stage notes" I think that would lower some of the accidents
Let's ask johnfelstead or some across the pond where recee is more common if this would make a difference. IMHO, I think not a significant difference.
Let's ask johnfelstead or some across the pond where recee is more common if this would make a difference. IMHO, I think not a significant difference.
| kwh29 | 10-29-2004 02:37 PM |
[QUOTE=Subie Gal]Flip side of that :)
Locally we had a novice driver come out of the box in an Open Class Turbo Subaru.
1st rally - head on into a tree
2nd rally - crashed so hard they had to jaws of life the co-driver out of the car
I belive some experience would have assisted without a doubt.
Jamie
[url]www.subiegal.com[/url][/QUOTE]
Hope you don't mind the snip, but the above quote is _exactly_ why the [B]driver[/B] needs to be regulated not the car. I guarantee that yahoo would have crashed out in a Yugo with a 10mm restrictor as well. When I got started (just last year, as navvie, with NASA here in the SE) I was amazed that any idiot could sit through a marginal 1-hour talk about timecards and red crosses and go drive [U]anything[/U] at a rally. I feel it's borderline negligent to allow anyone to compete without at least a solid driving school and some sort of other experience.
My example: My driver has several years of autocross experience, significant track experience, and several TSD's under his belt. Even at that he was [I]way[/I] down in time compared to the leaders. His general conservative approach kept us safe but the red mist types could have been in huge trouble. With a school required he would likely have had competitive times (after rally#4 he is turning good times now) from the start and we would _definitely_ have avoided the silly beginner mistakes we made.
--Kevin H.
Locally we had a novice driver come out of the box in an Open Class Turbo Subaru.
1st rally - head on into a tree
2nd rally - crashed so hard they had to jaws of life the co-driver out of the car
I belive some experience would have assisted without a doubt.
Jamie
[url]www.subiegal.com[/url][/QUOTE]
Hope you don't mind the snip, but the above quote is _exactly_ why the [B]driver[/B] needs to be regulated not the car. I guarantee that yahoo would have crashed out in a Yugo with a 10mm restrictor as well. When I got started (just last year, as navvie, with NASA here in the SE) I was amazed that any idiot could sit through a marginal 1-hour talk about timecards and red crosses and go drive [U]anything[/U] at a rally. I feel it's borderline negligent to allow anyone to compete without at least a solid driving school and some sort of other experience.
My example: My driver has several years of autocross experience, significant track experience, and several TSD's under his belt. Even at that he was [I]way[/I] down in time compared to the leaders. His general conservative approach kept us safe but the red mist types could have been in huge trouble. With a school required he would likely have had competitive times (after rally#4 he is turning good times now) from the start and we would _definitely_ have avoided the silly beginner mistakes we made.
--Kevin H.
| Kha0S | 10-29-2004 03:09 PM |
[QUOTE=WRXMaster]
4. Frist 3 rallies*mandatory experienced co driver
If the codriver feels hes competent ----- he can move on ...ect
I wish we could recce the stages before an event "with the stage notes" I think that would lower some of the accidents[/QUOTE]
How do you propose that co-drivers get started? Experienced drivers rarely want to work with a brand new co-driver, which leaves new navvies to finding a new driver to team up with to gain experience together. Under an idea like yours, new navvies will have nowhere to go to get into the sport.
/Andrew
4. Frist 3 rallies*mandatory experienced co driver
If the codriver feels hes competent ----- he can move on ...ect
I wish we could recce the stages before an event "with the stage notes" I think that would lower some of the accidents[/QUOTE]
How do you propose that co-drivers get started? Experienced drivers rarely want to work with a brand new co-driver, which leaves new navvies to finding a new driver to team up with to gain experience together. Under an idea like yours, new navvies will have nowhere to go to get into the sport.
/Andrew
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét