Proposed Changes to Classic Rally Car Regs

[wbell]

ACRA has submitted the following Proposal to the CAMS / ARCOM in an effort to rectify some anomalies in the current Classic Rally Car Regulations. Prior to submission, this proposal was publically aired on classicrallycars.com and open for feedback and comment from any interested party, however it is felt that wider consultation is required and to that end it is now posted here on bmsc.com.au.

The idea behind these changes is to free up the Regs in order to allow more cars to be eligible to compete under the Classic Regs. Please study the changes and understand them before you post comment. Feel free to ask any question

Thank you
Wayne Bell
Australian Classic Rally Association

CLASSIC RALLY CAR REGULATIONS
Proposal for 2007
Draft 3 – 30 March 2007

Attached are three proposals for changes to the Classic Rally Car regulations set down at in the CAMS Manual of Motor Sport:

Proposal 1: Change to Article 3.3 – Guards/Wings
Proposal 2: Change to Article 3.9 – Engines
Proposal 3: Change to Eligibility & Technical Requirements

The proposals reflect the need to correct some oversights in the original regulations.

Proposal 1
This proposal is purely to ‘tidy up’ the regulation, and to remove the uncertainty that exists in the rally community about classic cars.

Proposal 2
There is a serious flaw in the engine requirements in that if the car is an original car, it can run the engine it was homologated with, but if the car is a replica, then it is required to run a PRC engine. In particular, the Group 4 Ford Escort, with it’s Bda engine would be restricted to running the original Group 1 Pinto motor.

Clearly, this does not appear to be the intention, and given that there are several cars already built and running, that have not been criticised over this as yet, and that at least one or two more are about to appear, it is perhaps best rectified before it does become an issue – especially given the time and money that is put into these cars.

Proposal 3

We do not see any reason for the two categories being separated and believe this just confuses the matter unnecessarily. Category really is about PRC cars for which there is already a category. The Classic Category was surely developed to provide for classic cars that would not be eligible as PRC cars – not another type of class for PRC cars which already have there own category

PROPOSED CHANGE
ARTICLE 3.3 – GUARDS/WINGS

Note: ‘integral’ means ‘connected’; other interpretations are:
 essential
 vital
 basic
 primary
 fundamental
 central


Article currently reads:
“3.3 Non-integral guards/wings (ie: held in place by bolts and screws only) and/or wheel arch flares may be made of fibreglass in place of original material. All other panels must be of the original material.”


Change article to read:
“3.3 Non-integral panels (where not homologated), guards/wings/bonnet/bumper bars and boot lids (all of which are held in place by bolts or screws only), and/or wheel arch flares, may be made of fibreglass or aluminium, in place of the original material. In the case of fibreglass a minimum thickness of 3mm, and with aluminium a minimum thickness of 1.25mm is to be used. Integral (ie: welded or fixed – not bolted) panel materials must remain as original for that model. Doors are to be considered ‘integral’ and therefore cannot be replaced under this article.


Rationale:
This change is about an interpretation issue and clarification is required that Article 3.3 means that a front guard that is bolted onto the chassis may be replaced by a fibreglass replica. However, an integral (eg: welded to chassis, front guard) may not be so replaced.

MY Comments. This is straight forward, the regs allow for the use of Fibreglass on some panels. This simply states while not homologated in G 1 -4 these Fibreglass panels can be used. WB

PROPOSED CHANGE
ARTICLE 3.9 - ENGINES


Article currently reads:
“3.9 Engines must be as permitted under the PRC rules, unless a replacement cylinder block or cylinder head has been permitted for the equivalent 5th Category Group N Historic Touring Car or Group S car by the CAMS Historic Commission, in which case that replacement cylinder block or cylinder head may be used.”


Change article to read:
“3.9 Engines shall be of a type and configuration as listed in a vehicles relevant homologation papers, including brand, family and type, or be as permitted under PRC rules for the relevant vehicles. If a replacement (PRC) engine is to be fitted, it must first comply with all relevant PRC replacement engine criteria, as well as being relevant to the classic vehicle concerned, including, same make/family, number of cylinders, capacity, number of camshafts, and method of camshaft actuation, and will have been first produced prior to 1 January 1986.”


Rationale:
There is a serious flaw in the engine regulations in that the regulations allow an original car to be fitted with the engine it was homologated with, but if the car is a replica it is required to only run with a PRC engine. An example is the Group 4 Ford Escort which was homologated with the BDA engine, but any replica can only run with the Pinto motor. Clearly, this was not the intention of the regulation.

Note 1: by allowing engines to 1 January 1986 this will permit the Cosworth YB engine to be available, in place of the BDG engine which is extremely more expensive to built and (importantly) to maintain.

Note 2: The reference to 1986 is based on PRC regulations which, at article 3.3 (xxix) states:
“For normally aspirated two-wheel drive vehicles, the model of which was manufactured prior to 1 January 1986, freedom will be granted in relation to:
(a) carburettors And injections systems (however the addition of forced induction is not permitted)
(b) inlet manifold(s)
(c.) exhaust manifolds(s)
(d) engine capacity, within the limits of the homologated or recognised engine block
(e) modification of the original cylinder head save that the original number of valves and camshaft(s) be preserved.”

(f) and (g) reference is to rotary engines and not relevant to this issue.

MY Comments. Again straight forward a car should not have to be an original vehicle to run homologated engines. WB

ARTICLE 3 - ELIGIBILITY & TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

CHANGE 1
Change 3.0 article to read:
Category 4 - Cars manufactured between 1 January 1970 and 31 December 1981, being PRC eligible and/or homologated by the FIA in Groups 1 to 4.


Deleted from article:
“Category 4A – Cars manufactured up to 31 December 1977, being PRC eligible and/or homologated by the FIA in Groups 1 to 4.
Category 4B – Cars manufactured between 1 January 1978 and 31 December 1982 and homologated by the FIA in Groups 1 to 4.”


Rationale for change:
 amalgamate Categories 4A and 4B, as it is unnecessary to have both.
 change the dates of manufacture to reflect the correct period of the vehicles involved in classic car rallying.

MY Comments. Simply combine both categories. WB

CHANGE 2
Category 5 – Pre-1986 Classic Rally Cars
Delete the following:
‘Must be manufactured prior to 31 December 1985 and comply with PRC regulations in their entirety, save for weight which shall be outlined in Article 1.4 of these regulations.”


Rationale for change:
Category 5 should be dropped from the Classic Car designation because:
 there were no vehicles from that period (1982 to 1985) that could be reasonably termed ‘Classic’, unless (as is the case in Europe) Group B cars from 1982 to 1986 be included;
 the issue remains that PRC vehicles have intake allowances that Classics do not;
 individual organisers can allow PRC vehicles to run with the classics if they wish;
 for the preservation of the category – ‘Classic’ – a clear distinction needs to be drawn between PRC vehicles and Classics. At the moment, the distinction is very unclear in many competitors minds;
 some PRC vehicles already fit into what is called Cat 4, FIA Groups 1 to 4, given that Groups 1 and 3 were the original basis of PRC. An alternate idea would be to allow PRC vehicles dated pre-1982, or model ‘run-on’ as per normal practice. However this does not set a very clear distinct ruling.

MY Comments: This is the one that may cause the main controversy. The basis for a classic Rally Car is that is has to have been homologated in one form or another. Many current PRC cars fall under this requirement however those that don’t, should not be eligible under the classic regs. Classic Rally Car is not run a what you like class. It is the representation of an eara in Rallying. There are classes for these unique PRC and Group G already established separate from the Classic Rally Car Class
The whole idea for these changes is to allow more cars to compete in Classic Class with greater freedoms however still remaining within the spirit of the wording Classic Rally Car. WB

[Ben Wilson]

Originally Posted by wbell

Change article to read:
“3.3 Non-integral panels (where not homologated), guards/wings/bonnet/bumper bars and boot lids (all of which are held in place by bolts or screws only), and/or wheel arch flares, may be made of fibreglass or aluminium, in place of the original material. In the case of fibreglass a minimum thickness of 3mm, and with aluminium a minimum thickness of 1.25mm is to be used. Integral (ie: welded or fixed – not bolted) panel materials must remain as original for that model. Doors are to be considered ‘integral’ and therefore cannot be replaced under this article.

So, no fiberglass guards on Escorts then?

[tortfeaser]

Aye, MkII at least have welded on front guards.

This lot of changes has bill dunn all over it. Creating a class of cars limited in scope (only homologated models, not all older cars) and then allowing them to be plastic fantastics with switcho chango motors.

Your rationales conflict. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you exclude non-homologated PRC cars to get back to your definition of a pure classic, then you shouldn't be able to swap motors a la PRC just because its convenient for cost reasons. Either go pure classics, with homologated models only, with the homologated motor, or open it up.

[Kaptainballistik]

I can understand the Escort argument ( If you class dealer fitted options with factory parts) You could buy "New" escort with the arches fitted.

With whatever motor you wanted.

Even the RX2 was homoligated with flares! ( And a nice rear spoiler too...)

[rallyit]

Wayne,

The committee of ACRA have argued viemently that no allowances be made for vehicles to use alternate similar engines, in fact that went as far as saying that these vehicles are ' hybrids " now all of a sudden things have changed ?.

I for one support the changes and have for quite sometime and I have the scars to prove it!

Hope it gets up

Cheers

Matt

[Darryn Snooks]

These changes were put foward a long time ago as some of you are well aware. With all the firefighting the 2007 ARCom did they were not addressed.

These proposals are to:

Bring clarity to the fibreglass ruling that applies as equally to PRC cars as it does classics - read your manual people.

The classic rules currently enable the most amazing engineering (ie you can 5 link, turrent and arch a rear end) but you are unable to then run the engine that the manufacturer homologated to go with those mods. The homologated engine rule brings legality to those that want to run a BGD/BGA powered escort, a V8 TR7 (as these were only homologated directly into group 4 and not group 1 or 3, an LZ powered Stanza or 710SSS etc etc etc.

And finally, the seperation of classics into different groups seems an unneccessary complication. Either it is classic (as defined at the moment by the CAMS manual - which is what we are asking them to change) or it is historic or it is PRC

[wbell]

Originally Posted by tortfeaser

Aye, MkII at least have welded on front guards.

This lot of changes has bill dunn all over it. Creating a class of cars limited in scope (only homologated models, not all older cars) and then allowing them to be plastic fantastics with switcho chango motors.

Your rationales conflict. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you exclude non-homologated PRC cars to get back to your definition of a pure classic, then you shouldn't be able to swap motors a la PRC just because its convenient for cost reasons. Either go pure classics, with homologated models only, with the homologated motor, or open it up.

There has to be a point when a classic is no longer a classic. Previous Homolgation is the only documentation that a particular Rally Car ever existed. It is not feasable to say these cars must run the exact specification and factory parts that they were homolagated with. The cost would be prohibative and availability almost non existant. Why must you have the origional Factory BDA Escort to run the BDA Engine. Under the current rules you cant build a MK2 Escort and use the BDA Engine you are forced to use the Pinto Single Cam engine. The proposed engine rule changes will allow you to build your Escort Replica BDAs etc.
Cheers
Wayne

[tortfeaser]

You also want a MkII to be able to use a YB. If you're going to build a Grp4 Escort, BDA/BDG fine, YB notsomuch. Your argument on the Pinto is sound, but that is based around using the homologated motor in the right shell. You want to go further than that and allow engine swaps 'cos the homologated part costs too much. Too bad, so sad.

[Warps]

So, where does that place a 13BPP RX2?

Apart from wrapped around the nearest tree

[Ausrally]

These changes effect very few cars. They are designed mainly to legalize what is already in place.

[Spac]

Huh?

Surely the real solution is to essentially make 'classics' an extension of historics: Kill off the wild engineering, and make it about cars competing in a spec that they did/realistically could have, back in the day.

IE:
a) Allow cars that are homologated as G2 and 4.
b) Allow mixing and matching of Gps 1, 2, 3, and 4 homologations (ie: Flares and Pinto together are OK) (Kinda like the WRX homologation vs the Evo homologation).
c) Kill off the modern 'improvements' like cannister shocks and late model brake calipers, and 15" wheels (probably limit wheel size to original/homologated +1").
d) Allow cars that are honest, accurate replicas of specific GpG cars if that's what's desired ("This car has the same specification as Geoff Portman's car from 1980 and here's the proof" but not "They used to do this all the time for sure!").


I occasionally venture over to the Classic forums and I inevitably leave with a greater than normal sense of confusion.
I won't pretend to know the politics or many of the personalities behind it all, but it seems to me that in the eyes of many, the word "Classic" has become a politically correct way of saying "More modified than I'm allowed in PRC and I have no interest in the history of it all".
If the category is going to have a name that so clearly suggests a form of historic vehicle, then they should be historic vehicles.

I mean, if you want to run a classic Escort, then you should run it with an engine that was available in the day - Kent, Pinto, Lotus or BDA/BDG/Holbay.
So what if a YB is superficially similar - nobody was running YBs in 1980, so the argument to allow them in replicas of 1980s cars is weak.

[Matthew Ferguson]

Me a BIG YES .... I would like to see these changes.

MY car has a pinto and is P3 compliant and log booked and will be more than fast enough. (Cause the pinto is a rocket, you better have rear view mirrors)

BUT That means 13" wheels.

I Think the real push here for guys to go to bigger rims is the orphaning of the smaller tyre sizes. (Does any one have NEW 13" rally tyres for sales at an economical, read self sponsored clubman, price?)

Second hand 15" and even new 15" tyres are a better option.

Sure I would love to be able to buy a written off focus or fiestia, and pirate the parts, but at the end of the day the real costs are much more mundane

I hope sanity prevails Or at least that anyone that shoots it down the changes must use 13" Rally tyres

[Marcus]

d) Allow cars that are honest, accurate replicas of specific GpG cars if that's what's desired ("This car has the same specification as Geoff Portman's car from 1980 and here's the proof" but not "They used to do this all the time for sure!").

Well how about "This car WAS full blown Group G, so if this is about historic or classics, why cant it run in full Group G trim that it WAS in?"

Specifically OZY-865 (http://www.bmsc.com.au/forums/bmsc-m...2-project.html) , which can be completely verified and proven to be an actual Group G car with 13B and Lord knows what else?

[Spac]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ferguson

I Think the real push here for guys to go to bigger rims is the orphaning of the smaller tyre sizes. (Does any one have NEW 13" rally tyres for sales at an economical, read self sponsored clubman, price?)

Second hand 15" and even new 15" tyres are a better option.

You can still buy new 13s from Messers Dunlop, and Silverstone at least. Mr Yokohama was selling them last time I bothered to look (a couple of years ago).

I'm not sure if I follow your post, but I have no issue with PRC cars running whatever size wheel they want.
I'm arguing that the classic category should be limited to 'in the day' tyre sizes, rather than picking and choosing the best modern and ye olde days rules to build a car that's neither historically relevant or PRC legal.

IMO...
Want to modify the car: Go PRC.
Want to recreate a golden era of rallying and accept the limitations: Go Classic.

[Ben Wilson]

To my understanding classics were all about having fun, has this changed?

If they want to run a later motor, why not? If it's still loud and sideways, doesn't that meet the most important criteria?