ACT Clubman and AWD rally cars. Whether, which, why?

[Spac]

Following on from the diversion in the 2005 predictions thread...

The ACT Rally Series' rules for Clubman essentially say that the driver must: be below 0.900 on the seeding co-efficient list; must not be a previous Clubman (or outright) championship winner; and they may not drive a N4 or P5 rally car.
This means that the older AWD Turbos, such as Subaru Lecacys, Mitsubishi VR4s, Subaru RX-Turbos, Mazda Familias are eligible for Clubman.
It also rules out all Mitsubishi Lancer Evos, Subaru WRXes.

Some people have been arguing that a good VR4 (or whatever) is as fast a rally car as a medium aged EVO, and so this division is ridiculous.


Now, I personally think:

1. We'd be stupid to exclude ALL AWD-T rally cars from ACT Clubman. Vehicles like Subaru RX-Ts are ideal 'entry level' AWD rally cars, and they fit perfectly with my (and I assume, most others') idea of what CM is about. Think of people like Fat F#$k, Dave Reynolds, Gav Neale, and try to justify why their cars or budgets or results would justify kicking them out of CM.

2. If you have a rally legal WRX or Evo, you do not have a Clubman type of rally car. They are simply too expensive to buy and maintain to be called "club-anything".
Undoubtedly, this will change in the next few years, as the prices of imports goes down and as the cars in question get older. The Series Committee will certainly have to consider this issue every year until it becomes obvious that novice newbies ARE buying low-spec WRXes as their first rally cars because they're cheaper to buy/maintain than the current diet of 1600s, 180Bs, RX-7s, and RX-Turbos.

As an example, Mal Hurley's WRX is probably the lowest spec one getting around (well, it was when he first bought it) - with cheap steel seats, three-point(!) harnesses, bolt-in cages, and a near standard motor, it was cheap enough to buy/build that it could probably be called a club-level car. However, this car is very much the exception to the rule - I can literally only think of one other WRX that's even close to being as low spec (Warick's).
Mal's speed as a novice showed that even a basic spec WRX is a fast rally car and has the potential to make the rest of the CM field obsolete (and yes, I am over-looking his obvious natural ability as a driver).

3. I don't disagree with the assertion that a top spec VR4 (or Lecacy) is an outright capable car at most ACT rounds. Rob Nunn, Karl Willett, Matt Dyne and Graham Thompson have proved this point more than once.
However, these are all drivers who have considerable driving talent, and pushed themselves into GoldCup (based on driver seeding) in their previous rally cars.
There are a few other factors at work here too:
A) There are very few top-spec VR-4s around. Jack Monkhouse's car is currently for sale, The ex-Willett, ex-Nunn, now Gibbons one is apparently a good one, GT's and Cam Waller's are similar. That's FOUR cars in the whole country that spring to mind, and every single one of them is currently in the hands of a driver who is seeded too high to be ACT CM regardless of their choice of car.

B) A top spec VR-4 costs nearly as much to build/buy and maintain as a similar Evo. Therefore there's nobody out there building good VR4s anymore - why would you? The number is only going to decline in the future - sure, there may be more built into rally cars, but I'll assert that none of them will be built to a specification that will make then true Evo/STi hunters. Ergo, they're acceptable as Clubman level cars.

4. Well what about the top 2WDs, especially the Turbo ones? Why are they allowed in Clubman, when they cost as much to build and run as a good AWD?
I don't have a good answer here, particularly as I realise how easy it is for me to come out sounding defensive...
Largely, it comes down to the same concepts as mentioned in my point #3 - once you get to the point where you can afford/justify and drive a really good 2WD to its potential, you're already Clubman ineligible. And remember that for any given speed from one end of a rally stage to another, a 2WD will be more difficult to drive than a similar spec AWD.

Significantly, it's also nearly impossible to make rules that exclude only the cars you wish to exclude - if you say "No Turbo 2WDs in CM", you kick out RX-7 turbos (I assume this is the sort of vehicle you'd want to exclude by making this rule), but you also kick out RayBak in his Charade, Umby in his Interbird... How would this be good for the series, when you stop people who are clearly Clubman competitors from having a series that's worth chasing?
Similarly, you'd exclude Umby, while still allowing Michael South's FJ24 Silvia, Dave King's 240B, and others...


Look, I'm not claiming that the current rules are perfect by any means, but I am saying that they are working quite well due a number of factors that may not be immediately obvious.

I also feel that any of the alternative suggestions (exclude all AWD turbos from CM) will create additional real problems in an attempt to solve a problem that is currently only an academic one.

The only "hole" I can see is that it pushes people like Ferret and Cathy D into a 'no-man's land' in Gold-Cup*, where they've got virtually no hope of winning, but are ineligible for any other category. I have no real answer of this. It has been suggested that we could create "Gold Cup Lite", which has some merit, but I am reluctant to endorse because I feel it will create an "every child wins a prize" scenario.

Not every car/driver combination has to be capable of winning any series - there will always be under-performing drivers and poorly thought out rally cars.
What the series needs is a competition divided in such a way that it gives the maximum degree of worthwhile competition to the maximum number of competitors.
So far, the current rules are acheiving this admirably, and altering them to solve an academic problem will certainly weaken the worthwhile competition aspect, which is the ACT Series' greatest strength.


*SilverCup was largely created to save the top-2WD competitors from this No-Man's-Land, and keep them active and involved with the series, as the number of top level AWDs increased (which obviously diminished their already remote chances of a GC podium).

[TKM]

Sounds fair to me. I would hate to see the Subaru RX-T excluded from clubman, as it is basically a Dato with a couple of extra driving wheels. Even Marc's Camira has 20 kw's at the wheels more than my Sube.

While I may have had a reasonable run in the Mini Nat Cap the other weekend (thanks to a few DNF's ahead), I was still nearly 4 seconds a km off the Barret's, so you could hardly call that a Goldcup effort.

Spac's right (for a change ), I'd regard a Liberty, RX-T, VR4, and Familia all club level cars (although a RX-T is hardly in the same class as the others). You can purchase examples of all of them ready to rally for under $15,000 and run them on a reasonable clubman budget.

[fro]

I'm going to state up front that I think the ACT Series Regulations have done the best job that they can to determine the Clubman cut-off.

The problem that bring this issue to the fore is the variety of cars in the P6 category.

I can understand that there is a need for a seperate category for older specification turbo 4WDs, and other cars that may not fit into the general 2WD/4WD split.

But as has been pointed out, there's a big disparity. Things like Subaru RX Turbos are old-tech, and the Mazda Familias and related cars are just one step better.

But things like Libertys and VR4s really can be wolf in sheeps clothing. The ability to put the mechanicals from much newer vehicles into an older body shell provides the capability to make the equivalent of a good P5 car, if your pockets are deep enough.

Just look at the massive variety that actually exists in the range of cars in P6...

Originally Posted by 2003 CAMS Manual

Class P6 - PRC four wheel drive over
2000cc, models first manufactured
prior to 1 January, 1991 and the
following 4WD cars, regardless of
the date of manufacture:
Audi 80 quattro;
Ford Laser TX3;
Ford Sierra
(including Cosworth RS);
Holden Jackeroo – late model;
Holden Rodeo;
Jeep (all models and derivatives);
Lancia HF Delta Integrale 8 valve;
Land Rover;
Land Rover Discovery;
Mitsubishi 3000 GT;
Mitsubishi Galant VR4;
Mitsubishi Pajero;
Nissan Patrol (all models);
Nissan Pulsar GTi-R;
Nissan Skyline (all models);
Opel/Holden Calibra;
Porsche (all models);
Range Rover;
Subaru Leone RX Turbo;
Subaru Liberty/Legacy;
Toyota 4 Runner;
Toyota Celica ST165, ST185;
Toyota Land Cruiser
(all models and derivatives).

[fro]

Originally Posted by TKM

Subaru RX-T excluded from clubman, as it is basically a Dato with a couple of extra driving wheels.

And a Turbo. So its a PRC legal Bluebird, with two extra driving wheels.

[Bogan]

Range Rover;

Who'd really rally a Range Rover...



T.

[fro]

Originally Posted by Bogantastic

Who'd really rally a Range Rover...

Boges, your fingers working today. Where you meant to type "own", you typed "rally".

[Spac]

The stupid bit (on CAMS' behalf) is that all of the off-road type 4WDs in the P6 list aren't eligible for PRC because they're not proven to be "touring cars". I'm sure the approval would be a formality, but they've specifically listed cars that are not eligible...

Wow, that's really good - I started this thread to stop the diversion in the other one, and after two replies it's already diverted, and I'm contributing to said diversion...

[tortfeaser]

I think we're having the wrong discussion here. I think we need to answer the question of why clubman exists at all. If we can make an argument that clubman should include only certain classes (P1-P4, N1-N3), then why not abolish the clubman category and reinvigorate the class competition. The P6 winner, by Spac's arguments above, will be the effective clubman champ.

I think there should be one ACT championship, with classes under it supported (group them if there's not enough entrants - P1/2, P3/4, N1-3). No arguments about who is eligible for what, and with recognition for speed in individual areas - small and large 2WD, old AWD, newer AWD.

[Bogan]

Thoughts:

It would be great if Cath's co-efficient was based on her times in the Lancer, then she could be allowed to drive P5 in CM because she's "CM Speed". If your co-efficient is clearly below 0.9 and you're driving an EVO-REX^TM then you should maybe be allowed to play in CM, because you're not as fast as the big boys (this is what's good and right about the co-efficient cutoff method).

If you had a co-efficient that was based on times set in a Sprinter or an LA Lancer and you've just bought an EVO-REX^TM then (this is going to get complicated) you might have to be put in GC until you can have a co-efficient built from your EVO-REX^TM stage times. Something like that. If I bought an EVO3 and still ran at 0.82 co-efficient speed why should I be forced into GC? Sure if I rapidly improved and won CM (or even got up to over 0.9) then put me in GC but why do it when I'm still slow?

I still think P5 turbo (and maybe P6 turbo as well) should not be allowed in Novice because as has been seen Mal has blitzed us all when he was clearly "Novice Eligible" based on being new. So no Novice for him.

But how would he have gone if he was in CM in the WRX as a beginner?

Lots of holes but some food for thought.

T.

[Daveee]

I agree with Spac. I think the regs have done a pretty good job of creating good competition within the different classes, which in my mind is the basis of a succesful series.

I also agree that the problem of "super" VR4's and Libertys is relatively non-existant and not worth the effort of rewording the rules. If someone wants to do build a car to win ACT Clubman, then great for them. But what are they going to do the year after when then end up in Gold Cup?

It's like someone wanting to run a Proflexed, aftermarket EFI, blah blah blah, 4WD in Clubman. If you've got the money for that (or a super VR4/Liberty) then stop being a sissy and go play in Gold Cup.

[fro]

I don't think it's a digression/diversion at all. The nature of P6, and what a P6 car is is at heart of this discussion.

Yes, RX Turbos, Mazda Familia derivatives, VR4s and Liberty/Legacys are all now available as "entry level" cars.

So are early WRXs and Evos (as evidenced by Hurley/Warwick point earlier).

I'm pretty sure that if I bought the ex-Monkhouse VR4 (and I'm still eligible for ACT Clubman) that I'd be a far sight quicker than if I was in Hurley's WRX. Or Dave's RX Turbo. Or Smee's Familia.

Whether you do split ACT Clubman by seeding only, but then you leave it open to the above scenario, where people could "buy" their ACT Clubman win. But that's not to say you couldn't do that already (see paragraph above).

[Spac]

Valid points, Bogster.

The one thing I'd like to add, is that if you bought a Evorex and drove around at a 0.82 speed, then:
a) You're gonna get hosed in CM just like you'd get hosed in GC; and
b) You've bought the wrong car, and the series should not be changing the rules to suit your lack of talent.

To look at (b) from a different angle, why would you spend $20k++++ on a car that doesn't allow you to go any faster than a $5k Lancer does? If you've been stupid enough to do so, why should anything change?

The other point here is the transition period when people buy new cars... It's not a sure-fire thing, but most people with some rally experience who then buy Evorexes are at GC speed within a couple of events (and I fully expect Cathy to be one of them). Seeing as this is a highly predictable progression, why not avoid the gnashing of teeth and the pain of allowing them to dominate CM?
People who buy "better" 2WDs do not have the same obvious, automatic leap to stardom (think Bede, Jem, RedBull, me...) so there's no impetus to do anything about the 2WD guys.

[Spac]

Originally Posted by fro

Whether you do split ACT Clubman by seeding only, but then you leave it open to the above scenario, where people could "buy" their ACT Clubman win. But that's not to say you couldn't do that already (see paragraph above).

Yes, totally true. But the way the rules are currently working, it takes too much 'effort' to buy the win.
If you wanted to buy the CM win by getting a really good VR4 you could. But as I already mentioned, most people with the skill, expericence, and budget to do so, either don't have the inclination and/or aren't CM eligible anyhow.

[Spac]

I'd love it if we could get a good strong class competition happening.

Remember that the whole point of the ACT Series is competition. It's about giving people a chance to compete with people who are a similar speed, not about who has the fastest P2 car.

If we ditched the CM idea (and novice for that matter), and instead offered awards for classes, tell me why Daveee would bother registering, when he's never going to beat Pete, Russ W, etc etc in P4.
Then look at Fro in P3 against Geoff, Dick, and co...
P2 is an interesting one - with BossHair out of the Trueno, there's no ACT rego'd people who (I can think of who) are particularly quick in P2... So what does the P2 win mean? Nothing, really.
Say Kagan wants to win our proposed ACT P2 championship - at the end of the year, Kagan will probably win fairly easily, and Bog will probably be second placed*... Is that anything worth chasing? Will Kagan's chest fill with pride telling his family that he beat Bog in Bog's 33 year old Lancer, and that nobody else bothered to chase the series?
Same goes for P1, and P6...



*Sorry Bog.


Edit: Karl, one one hand you're argueing that the P5/P6 division is stupid and pointless, but your last post suggests that you'd be happy to see someone win a prize for P6?

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Spac

The other point here is the transition period when people buy new cars... It's not a sure-fire thing, but most people with some rally experience who then buy Evorexes are at GC speed within a couple of events (and I fully expect Cathy to be one of them). Seeing as this is a highly predictable progression, why not avoid the gnashing of teeth and the pain of allowing them to dominate CM?

Exactly the reason it was proposed in the first place (you where there weren't you?).