edrach Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 This was published in the January 2004 issue of the Loud Pedal (ORG's monthly magazine) in Matt Tabor's Rally Column: "The Oregon Rally Group, Rally Division of the Oregon Region SCCA, are proud to welcome our new RallyCross Manager for 2004, Scott Kovalik. Scott has participated in RallyCross for a number of years and we are thrilled and excited that he has decided to help us out on the organizational side of things. One of Scott's first duties was to bring to a resolution the discussions that were taking place regarding some rules tweaking being considered by the ORG. Scott lead a discussion of some of these at our December meeting. Some of the things that came out of that meeting were: A clarification stating that wagons are not to be run in the Truck/SUV class. A mandate to explore splitting the Truck/SUV class into two classes with Upper and Lower horsepower split. An increase in non-member (SCCA) entry fee to $30. And a new system for randomizing the grid rows which run first. For a more detailed explanations of these and all the RallyCross rules, please point your favorite browser to http://www.oregonrally.com or click the rally link from http://www.oregonscca.com." Note: More detailed explanations are not yet posted as of 1/3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hondasucks Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 Great. Just what I wanted to hear. Durango Boy in charge of the rally crosses... I knew that was going to be the first thing that he would do was oust us from the Truck/SUV class. Maybe we should all lobby for a 5000cc adjusted displacement limit on the Truck/SUV class, like there is in Open class. I'm really starting to dislike this guy...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edrach Posted January 4, 2004 Author Share Posted January 4, 2004 Andrew, like it or not, get used to it since it won't change for at least a year. Frankly, I agree with him on that point; I really don't feel that our wagons belonged in Truck/SUV. I'm just waiting for the updates so that I can figure out what class I'll be running in this year. If you want to change it, join ORG and make your voice heard. If he's wrong, it'll become apparent in short order. Who knows, this might even improve things and make it better. Right now, wait and see. For those who want to see the entire discussion that occurred before the Dec. 17th meeting, look for: http://pub35.ezboard.com/foregonregionsccafrm17.showMessage?topicID=7.topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. RX Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 So, Ed you are saying that the Forester shouldn't be in that class? Subaru is advertising it as an SUV, but it sure doesn't look and a full size Chevy Blazer/Tahoe or Dodge Darango, it looks more like a station wagon. The turbo version (XT) is said to out perform that WRX in certain situations. What about the Legacy SUS (Sports Utility Sedan)? No, if the rules state SUV/MPV, and the vehicle has factory identification of that status, then it should be legal in that class. If they split that class by engine size, then that Dodges will win one class and the Subarus that other. What I think is crazy is that regardless of class, the fastest times last year were turned in by a 3 cylinder Subaru. Maybe there shouldn't be any classes, just the best time wins. But then all these guys who put out the big bucks of STis and Evos will start bitching when guys show up with cars that they bought for less then the cost of their tires and take the best time of the event. It's too bad that there have to be people who are sore losers and ruin that fun of the sport for others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edrach Posted January 4, 2004 Author Share Posted January 4, 2004 Corky, the classes were originally conceived to put like-performing cars into the same class so there would be some semblance of order and to increase competition. My preference to not having wagons in Truck/SUV referred to the Loyale series; my personal feeling is that they are more appropriate in Production class. Actually, my real argument is with SCCA in not defining a class list for ralllycross. If you look at Article 10 of the SCCA regs regarding classes, it is the most amazing, confusing, contradictory set of rules I've ever seen. I think ORG did a pretty decent job of re-defining classes for rallycross. Their only mistake occurred last year when they didn't allow Jason to run in Production with his '76 wagon because he didn't have a stock air cleaner. Production--by the ORG rules--"allows minor modifications" and a non-stock air cleaner on a 1400 cc motor doesn't seem to justify kicking the car into Open or Truck/SUV class. Actually, I think Jason just wanted to run (but not in Open) and pointed out the MPV classification on the door pillar of his wagon. Once he was in, every GL wagon, Hatch, etc. could put aggressive snow tires and any modifications into their car and run Truck/SUV and basically take over the class. ORG was hoisted by their own petard as it were. Frankly, I don't make the rules; I'd just like to run the events and have fun (and be a little competitive when I have a good day). Lots of interesting reading in the discussion link I posted as well as Article 10. ORG was only trying to come to grips with a "perceived" problem of loss of competitors being due to Brats and other low power Subarus. Statistically, the problem of loss of returning competitors in Truck/SUV had less to do with other marques being outclassed but with the fact that for two years in a row, 75% of the entry in that class did not return to compete in the following year. Since the Brats always returned it didn't take long for the "perception" of Brat superiority to be blamed for that fact. As a matter of fact, only Subarus made up the significant majority of the first two events of the series in 2003 and in a three car series for year-end points allowed them to take 5 out of 6 trophies for the 2003 series. It'll be interesting to see what 2004 brings in terms of rules and results. I just wish that the "final" rules would be posted soon so I can get the Brat ready in time for the RallyCross school in March. Oh, forgot to respond to your comment about the Forrester. It was and should be in Truck/SUV. As a matter of fact, one Forrester ran the series in 2002 (might have been 2001) and took 2nd for the year I believe. He didn't return to run in 2003; I don't know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. RX Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 Well, if it is equality among competitors that you want, that lets create classes like I ran in when I ran SCCA Road Racing. There were many production classes, I ran F Production, if I remember correctly the classes were A through G, in production, the class grouping were mainly based upon engine size. Having a class were you can run just about anything as long as it is considered a SUV is crazy. Like I said, there may as well be not class at all. I'll bet if a XT Forrester ran in the SUV class, they would find some way to eliminate it from that class. What I'm saying is that the rules now allow the running of anything that is a SUV in that class, the wagons and sedan are classified as SUV/MPV, so they have every right to run in that class. I don't see how having a class like the SUV class is putting like performance cars in the same class, especially when a Durango is running with BRATS. I agree that there needs to be some changes, but if this Durango head gets his way, the BRATs will be running in a class were they are not competitive. A RallyCross Manager needs to be impartial, I don't think that Scott has that ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edrach Posted January 4, 2004 Author Share Posted January 4, 2004 Corky, you're preaching to the choir. And you're right. However, the idea is not to add classes like in autocross when you almost have a separate class for every make of car. Six basic classes is about right ffor rallycross and I can understand ORG's need to not add classes if that can be avoided. The equalizer in all this is the road conditions which allow a Brat to be quite competitive with the Durango. Slippery conditions and the Brats will usually win every time; dry conditions and a wide open course and the Durango has a considerable advantage. But it's really the driver and not the car that makes a difference in this event. You should come out and run; you'd love it! The cars that really lose in Truck/SUV are the full size trucks, especially the 2WD variety. Just an afterthought; I think a Brat, properly modified (not extremely), with the right driver could be quite competitive in almost any class, including Open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bajavwnsoobnut Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 yeah Corky you would love it and yes Ed I just wanted to run in a class other than Open and not time only oh well the roster will get it first taste of the brown and green stuff this year lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hondasucks Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 I'm all for splitting the class myself, and I agree with Corky on his statement that the manager should be impartial. Methinkie it is time for me to join the SCCA.... IMHO he can now make the rules bend around him if he wants to, not saying that he would, but he has the ability to, and whether I was competing or not, this is not fair in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edrach Posted January 6, 2004 Author Share Posted January 6, 2004 I have my own feelings about Scott needing to be impartial. Hopefully, the responsibility of the job will force him to see other viewpoints. We'll have to wait and see on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperRallyRoo Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 An increase in non-member (SCCA) entry fee to $30. Thats ridiculous! The price of $25 is already too much! So is it gonna be $20 or $25 for scca members now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edrach Posted January 7, 2004 Author Share Posted January 7, 2004 I don't know; I'm still waiting for them to post results/minutes of the December meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowmastered87GL Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 I am still cool with $30 as long as we can get more than 3 runs in Ever hear what they pay out in Maine? My friend Otis runs his Maxima out there and its like $40-50 I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edrach Posted January 7, 2004 Author Share Posted January 7, 2004 The $30/person is not cheap, but I think it's justified. It costs money to rent the water truck, the field, and the insurance. I'd say there are other costs there too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hondasucks Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 yeah, but wasn't it $18 for non-members at the RallyX @ WCSS3? I find it kinda odd that in two years costs have gone up THAT much but I guess things aren't getting any cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qman Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 I believe the cost at WCSS3 was lower because we had already retained the venue. It was just covering insurance, ORG and SCCA costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDisorder Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 Lets find someone with a big yard, and run our own rally - screw this silly class setup. Cars should be grouped based on engine size, and suspension type/hieght. It is simply not logical to make any type of class designations based on the sheet metal of the vehicle. An EA81 wagon has exactly the same drivetrain as a Brat - can I chop the back off my wagon and call it a truck then? It would even look like a brat then..... same goes for a hatch. We don't need the SCCA's money - you can sign a release form before you race. I bet we can do it for a lot less than $30 per person too. GD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qman Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 Going strictly by engine and suspension set up would be boring. This why they call it racing. You take the set up you feel comfortable with and go from there. I enjoy seeing how I stand up against other vehicles and drivers. Besides, most of us that run do compare our times against eachother for bragging rights so to speak. Sometimes depending and track conditions the times vary alot but that's OK too. It is mostly for fun ayway. The option to higher fees is to join the SCCA. The first year is rather expensive but the following years is just a renewal fee. You will enjoy lower entry fees and possibly an extra run for SCCA members. I believe there are discounts set up for members at different places as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. RX Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 UUMMM, boring, how about two cars that are 4WD and have a 1.8 liter turbo engine, one car an EA82 series sedan, and the other an Audi A4. Same engine size, same 4WD suspension, two totally different cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carfreak85 Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Ed, shoot me an email about that rallycross school... Corky, Im pretty sure the A4 doesnt have a trailing arm rear suspension... :moon: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperRallyRoo Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 I thought Ea-82's had coils in the rear? So how much is it to get an SCCA membership? And will it still be $20 instead of $30 or will it be $25? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edrach Posted January 9, 2004 Author Share Posted January 9, 2004 Galen, here's the link: http://usmb.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7917&highlight=March+RallyCross New search engine is so cool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. RX Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Gee Freak, you think so???? Maybe I should have used GD's words and said, "suspension type/height". I would think the GD was not talking about how the suspension is hung, but that fact that it is AWD/4WD versus FWD/2WD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyruss Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 I would think that californians would have more trouble with details like this but I guess not. ours is verry simple. stock 2wd, open 2wd, stock 4wd and open 4wd. it seems to work well for us. most people that I have met doing this are just out to have fun. Its too bad you guys have so much friction with an event like this. hope you guys can just enjoy it and have a good time. I might be going up to purchase a club rally car in oregon soon. mabey I could get a rally X in as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now