Trucks classing in RallyX [Archive]

RallyTaco

12-26-2009, 07:55 PM

Nope -- straight to rally. Not totally fair or logical, but so many trucks have been involved in roll-overs (three west coast this year alone) that their participation is barely being tolerated, let alone encouraged.

If there were a number of people who wanted to run trucks in stock class, AND were using highway-treaded tires, AND could show that it's not the stock trucks causing the problem, maybe a case could be made for a rules change. All three roll-overs I referred to involved modified trucks, which are generally lifted with soft spring-rates for off-road use.

Trucks modified with rally/rallycross in mind do fine...it's generally the visitors or first timers who screw up.

I don't get why if they are so hell bent on stock trucks running in rally class because of the LT tires why the hell are they are letting lifted trucks run at all?

WAM

12-26-2009, 09:01 PM

My take is it's two different issues. LT relegates to rally class because that family of tires includes extreme traction designs even more aggressive than rally tires. And CRS classing is all about tires. Could you separate out the street treads from the mudders? I think you could, but currently we don't.

Lifted trucks are a safety issue. But we locally have properly modified rally trucks which compete competitively and safely in stage rally. No one wants to exclude them. But to most of us they look just like the unsafe desert racers, so no one has been able to draw a proper line yet.

It's one thing to say "I know an acceptable tire" or "an unsafe vehicle" when I see it. It's another thing to reduce that to a couple lines of text in a rulebook. Perfect illustration of that was all the tire gap-measurement rule changes taking place both in SCCA and CRS/FRX the last few years. Which by-the-way were finally eliminated due to being problematic.

Jaynen

12-27-2009, 09:40 AM

I thank that in general subjective rulings are always problematic when it comes to grassroots and smaller volunteer run events. It's probably best that you don't try to draw a line when it comes to truck tires.

The easiest thing I would think if it were even possible is anything listed as an "all terrain" is equivalent to a winter tire, anything all season for the most part (except if it is a winter tire) is pretty much a street tire and anything mud terrain(maybe even the all terrain etc) is definitely a rally equivalent but not all tires use those terms in their name so then what do you do?

It's sad to hear about the bad reputation trucks essentially have simply because of the inherit issues with most of the off road prepped trucks you will see in Socal that are going to be desert prerunner based. It's an easy assumption to think oh rallycross is about dirt and my truck is designed for the dirt it should be awesome!

RallyTaco

12-27-2009, 11:17 AM

Lifted trucks are a safety issue. But we locally have properly modified rally trucks which compete competitively and safely in stage rally. No one wants to exclude them. But to most of us they look just like the unsafe desert racers, so no one has been able to draw a proper line yet.

You could give trucks with a logbook and cage a pass but not let bubba and his dezzzert xxxtreme home brew run.

It's one thing to say "I know an acceptable tire" or "an unsafe vehicle" when I see it. It's another thing to reduce that to a couple lines of text in a rulebook. Perfect illustration of that was all the tire gap-measurement rule changes taking place both in SCCA and CRS/FRX the last few years. Which by-the-way were finally eliminated due to being problematic.

That is true. Very hard to condense it down to simple language. My beef is both of these are LT tires and one shouldn't be an issue and one should but both are treated the same.

http://www.mastercrafttires.com/FI_Uploads/mastercraft/products/tires/image/courser_HTR.pnghttp://www.offroaders.com/tech/AT-MT-Tires/images/Super-Swamper-TSL-Radial-b.jpg

Jaynen

12-27-2009, 12:52 PM

Yeah I think our "problem" is somewhat limited to the southwest as where else do people build the Baja/Prerunner style trucks. I suppose out east you could have problems if you had guys in mudder style lifted trucks but most of them don't assume they can turn corners fast

noisycricket

01-03-2010, 12:51 PM

It's sad to hear about the bad reputation trucks essentially have simply because of the inherit issues with most of the off road prepped trucks you will see in Socal that are going to be desert prerunner based.

So, in a nutshell, it's sad that the reputation is based in fact?

It's an easy assumption to think oh rallycross is about dirt and my
truck is designed for the dirt it should be awesome!I hear that a lot. "Oh you race that thing in dirt? Where at? My Jeep would be sweet..." No.

What people don't understand is that max speeds tend to be 50, MAYBE 60mph for a really fast course, and most high G corners end up being around 20mph. Would you try driving down a side street and turning into a driveway without slowing down, with ruts in the way? (Ruts happen.)

I've seen enough lowered Subarus get up on two wheels to REALLY get freak out about the idea of any truck let alone a lifted one.

Chris, I don't think your truck really counts, because it's a 2wd and you have lowered it by using puny miniscule rally tires. Even then, people who aren't used to seeing it get really nervous around it :)

BTW - My dream rallycross vehicle is a Sidekick or a Sportage, with heavy lowering. It would be a huge amount of work, though.

Jaynen

01-03-2010, 10:04 PM

Curious but why would that be your dream rallycross rig?

The big negative for the trucks also is the diff technology is way behind cars like the new evos and STIs when it comes to the 4wheel drive vs awd

409industries

01-03-2010, 11:18 PM

Trucks modified with rally/rallycross in mind do fine...it's generally the visitors or first timers who screw up.

Case in point:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2672/3947364919_5c6bfc4a01_b.jpg

Rally OBXT

01-03-2010, 11:58 PM

:shock:

Sometimes you learn the hard way.... :oops:

Gnome

01-04-2010, 01:10 AM

picking his nose FTW...
still sucky for the truck

WAM

01-04-2010, 08:27 AM

BTW - My dream rallycross vehicle is a Sidekick or a Sportage, with heavy lowering. It would be a huge amount of work, though.

I started this project shortly before getting into rallycrossing or I would have made it dual-purpose. Why rallyx something like a samurai? Well it's small, much lighter than the competition and can be made damn near indestructible. Those things make up for a lot.

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k151/martin_93555/SnakeBait1.jpg

MarkA

01-04-2010, 10:02 AM

trucks have been involved in roll-overs (three west coast this year alone) that their participation is barely being tolerated, let alone encouraged.

Having been involved in making the rules what they are for the CRS/FRX at the time, what Bill said is basically correct in the thinking of the organizers at the time.

If there were a number of people who wanted to run trucks in stock class, AND were using highway-treaded tires, AND could show that it's not the stock trucks causing the problem, maybe a case could be made for a rules change. All three roll-overs I referred to involved modified trucks, which are generally lifted with soft spring-rates for off-road use.

FWIW, stock truck running in a stock class rolled at the SCCA Nationals a few years back - all while setting very non-competitive times.

I hear that a lot. "Oh you race that thing in dirt? Where at? My Jeep would be sweet..." No.

What people don't understand is that max speeds tend to be 50, MAYBE 60mph for a really fast course, and most high G corners end up being around 20mph. Would you try driving down a side street and turning into a driveway without slowing down, with ruts in the way? (Ruts happen.)

I've seen enough lowered Subarus get up on two wheels to REALLY get freak out about the idea of any truck let alone a lifted one.

And that's the real summary of the issue. :eek:

LGT-FST

01-04-2010, 01:59 PM

Don't recall a truck rolling at scca nationals. What year?

WAM

01-04-2010, 03:14 PM

FWIW, stock truck running in a stock class rolled at the SCCA Nationals a fe w years back - all while setting very non-competitive times.

Yeah but to be fair, you're talking about Hastings, right? Home of rut & roll. If rolling there disqualified you from the sport, we wouldn't be able to race rallycars either, right?

Was thinking that happened before actual SCCA National Championships started. More like a challenge event or something, no?

MarkA

01-04-2010, 03:35 PM

Yeah but to be fair, you're talking about Hastings, right? Home of rut & roll. If rolling there disqualified you from the sport, we wouldn't be able to race rallycars either, right?

Was thinking that happened before actual SCCA National Championships started. More like a challenge event or something, no?

One stock truck, one rally car in 3 years.

I still call the 05-06 events in Hastings "Nationals". I'm pretty sure the '05 turnout has yet to be surpassed at any other "National" regardless of what they call it.

Jaynen

01-04-2010, 07:26 PM

rollo

01-04-2010, 10:32 PM

Active diffs don't make that much difference. The early Evos (like mine and Isamu's) don't have any and none of the RS boys have them, and we can all bring it pretty well on any given day.

SoCalBoomer

01-04-2010, 11:35 PM

Lot of information coming - sorry for it being long, but there's history and explanation. . .

There are two issues here:

1. Safety. I've seen more trucks in incidents than anything else. In SoCal, aside from the old Tombstone, we've seen one Suby center-punch a tree (after going way off-line when we found that the dirt actually had something UNDER it and he got traction), and everything else has been trucks (remind me if I've forgotten - I do that now and then! :D ) . Trucks inherently have a higher CG than cars; they tend to have a live rear axle; they have more travel than cars - all of these are factors that make trucks less stable in this type of activity. Hate to say it - I love trucks; but they're typically not made for this type of racing - just as Subies aren't made for MDR or BITD or SCORE. . .

2. The LT tire rule. This had a LOT of conversation before I took it to the CRS Board of Governors and got it passed. Close to what Bill said, CRS is all about traction (not quite tires. . .but close). The original rule was based upon deteriorated Michelin rally tires (according to Gibeault and confirmed by a couple of other BoG members), which was somewhat obscure - well, really obscure - and not applicable to today's tires or market. So I proposed we get rid of the entire measurement thing - well, first I proposed we make it bigger (it was .22") and used a sampling of street tires I could find at something like 8 tire shops (nobody else gave me measurements, even though I asked, so I went with what I could find) so we opened it up to something like .26" (can't remember off-hand and the 07 rulebook isn't coming up edit: Found my digital archive copy and it was .26") - this worked for an intermediate, and got the BoG thinking about rule changes - this was the first CRS RallyX rule change in a very long time.

But we were still measuring (which SUCKED) and the measurement was arbitrary - nobody could explain why .22 or .26" was the magic number - especially when near-slicks had HUGE sipes but they SUCKED because their blocks were so huge. . . so we actually had a short conversation about a block:sipe ratio (and you can imagine that one went nowhere quick! LOL)

So back on rallyxportal, we discussed how to get rid of the measurements, BUT not lose the spirit of Street Stock, Street Modified, and Rally - with SS being Street and Stock; SM being Street and Modified; and Rally being pretty much "run whatcha brung". We didn't want to just throw out measurement and not have something simple and clear in its place.

We wanted to give SM more traction but still less than Rally - make it true intermediate. . . so Snows in SM. . .marked with the Mtn/Snowflake which works great down here, but obviously wouldn't work in colder climates.

But what to do with the aggressive truck tires - how on earth can you separate them? And you CAN find truck tires in sizes that will fit some cars. . .so this issue had to be addressed. There are highway tires with aggressive tread; there are A/T tires with fairly mild tread. . . It differs by MFG; some of them seem to use compound to determine if it's a HWY tire. Who knows. I made some calls and did some research and found that there is no consistency with truck tires.

So, the compromise with truck tires is that they ALL go in Rally. This was, again, because we couldn't separate the "aggressive" from the "non-aggressive" in any objective sense; and because we wanted to stay away from getting back in the measurement game; and because we weren't going to even consider making a list. . .

Is the LT rule perfect? No. We knew that going in but nobody came up with any other suggestion that would stand up.

The discussion over this rule was open for several months and spanned several threads and many pages. If things have changed in the two years we've had this rule, it may be good to bring it back up... However, I don't think it has.

WAM

01-05-2010, 09:42 AM

Samurai rock buggies are awesome. But what would you do for Rallycross to help it not roll and how would you overcome the not having the active diffs cars have or would you simply run one rwd.

My opinion, anything resembling a stock samurai would be a loser. It would just be the "canvas" upon which to work. There's a formula Detroit uses to assess overturning tendency. I think its something like H/2T where H is the CG height and T is the track width. They picked a suitable number, and that led to the plastic fender flair additions to jeep & suv type vehicles. IE, they "fixed" them by widening the track beyond what the bodyshell was intended for.

Same thing with a rallycross samurai. Low CG, widen the track and pick appropriate springrates, properly damped. Also droop-limiting straps to make the vehicle slide before bad things happen. You'd want the truck to be extra low just to placate nervous tech guys 'cause weird cars aren't always welcomed.

As to diffs, start with open/open which would give you the best handling, but poorest launch. Then try open/spooled and see if you can figure out how to drive that combo. No lockers or LSD's, just one of the above, whichever worked out best. 150 bhp @ 1800 lbs and have fun.

noisycricket

01-06-2010, 06:23 PM

Curious but why would that be your dream rallycross rig?

Just to clarify, I said SIDEKICK not Samurai... there is a world of difference between the two.

The main thing I like about them is that they have very little overhang, and if lowered sufficiently, they wouldn't be any taller than a car. Besides ditching the 205/75 tires for some 185/60 rally rubber, I am thinking of what most people would consider to be extreme modification here - basically doing the exact opposite of a body lift. There's a TON of room in the front for any kind of struts you want without having to put domes in the hood, too. The same goes for the Sportage, except: the Sportage is a little larger, but has the benefit of having an engine that has beefier internals than an SR20DET. (BOOOOOST, because power is so important in rallycross...)

Would it be worth all of the effort? Probably not. It'd be far easier to spend a weekend and $500 for towing and pick up a cheap Impreza from somewhere they are cheap and relatively rust-free. That's not a redundancy - a cheap Cleveland Impreza is a lot more expensive than in other areas. ;) (Mind you, I'd have to do the same thing to find a Sidekick)

Would I ever actually do it? Again, probably not. The ruleset still hasn't solidified enough to justify a two or three year long car build. I could find a way to legally do all of those shenanigans to the 2010 rules, but then the door might get slammed in my face before the thingy is done.

And that is what it all generally boils down do - big long builds don't make sense, because not only are the rules still fluid, but the idea of what works best is still fluid.

MarkA

01-07-2010, 08:40 AM

I had to see what a Sidekick was and this about the third result on Google:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM3vOzq8fCY&feature=related

Language may not be appropriate at work so turn off your speakers if that's the case but on the plus side, he does remove the loose objects from his car and wear a helmet but on the negative side, there's the bottle of Bud in his hand before he starts off...:eek:

I can actually really agree with the build potential there (I've seen the struts go though the hood on cars doing a lot less than what the above hick did) but as mentioned, the rules are too fluid to justify the time.

WAM

01-07-2010, 08:57 AM

Darwin award material. But he's got a future in the X-Games.

RallyTaco

01-10-2010, 08:33 PM

Yeah but to be fair, you're talking about Hastings, right? Home of rut & roll.

Hastings doesn't count. That "dirt" might as well be scientifically designed to form ruts as deeply and quickly as possible. Not that it changes the fact a truck can roll more easily in certain situations but that place is nuts. When it was bad only maybe 1 car per class wasn't massively bicycling on two wheels on at least one run. I was worried about rolling the Honda I was in but luckily the crappy gearing (from way too big tires and a slushbox) and tight course took away most of that risk. I would have pulled my truck out of competition if I had driven it due to a bad fun/risk ratio.

Now maybe it should count since they held nationals there but that place is like no other surface anyone would even think of running on anywhere else so it shouldn't be considered typical by any means.

u3b3rg33k

01-11-2010, 01:17 AM

I'm amazed it worked afterwards, as well as amazed that they chose a launch angle that resulted in it landing on all 4 wheels.

Someone there must have accidentally signed up for high school physics and remembered some of it unintentionally.

SoCalBoomer

01-11-2010, 09:16 AM

Hastings doesn't count. That "dirt" might as well be scientifically designed to form ruts as deeply and quickly as possible. Not that it changes the fact a truck can roll more easily in certain situations but that place is nuts. When it was bad only maybe 1 car per class wasn't massively bicycling on two wheels on at least one run. I was worried about rolling the Honda I was in but luckily the crappy gearing (from way too big tires and a slushbox) and tight course took away most of that risk. I would have pulled my truck out of competition if I had driven it due to a bad fun/risk ratio.

Now maybe it should count since they held nationals there but that place is like no other surface anyone would even think of running on anywhere else so it shouldn't be considered typical by any means.

Hastings has to count! Or no place counts - heck, WE aren't "typical" by any means either - we're either baby-ass-powder on absolutely flat surface (dry lake bed) or rut-up-badly-sand-clay-rock mixture . . . and how are either of those typical? :D

I don't think I got my Civic on two wheels there (although I did catch air) and we didn't see a whole lot of two-wheel action.

A grader/tractor to groom out the ruts would have been good. Ruts exist (as we know around here) - the trick is how to get rid of them.

pomspeed

01-11-2010, 09:40 AM

At least in 20007 Hastings was willing to try to use equipment to deal with the farm soil. I know, because George let me play with the compactor, it helped.

Brent

SoCalBoomer

01-11-2010, 04:08 PM

George used a compactor both years I was there too - for some reason they resisted using any kind of blade to cut down the ruts (which both of us know how to do. . . :D )

snicker

01-11-2010, 04:25 PM

noisycricket

01-11-2010, 04:30 PM

Limited slips suck sometimes, I know my car gets a lot easier to drive after I burn out the diff. Slower, but a lot more controllable - the steering wheel actually does something :) And speed has very little to do with rallycross, nowhere near as important as being able to put the car where you want it to be.

The sad fact is trucks place the CG high due to being body on frame, and the frame isn't channeled into the body like in a body-on-frame car. They also tend to handle like complete crap, really slow steering and the like.

Show me a truck that doesn't fit that bill, and I'll show you a car with a bed.

snicker

01-11-2010, 06:29 PM

how's this? T4 class.
This has been around long before Rallycross.

pomspeed

01-11-2010, 08:46 PM

That'll work, only their entry fees are probably $x,xxx to $xx,xxx for a race.

More importantly what rules a vehicle out is the likelyhood to have a negative effect on the insurance that rallycross requires, the more rollovers= higher insurances rates, possibly to price the insurance out of our range, ie. NASA last year.

In the end, the truck isn't the problem, it's the person driving it. A truck won't roll over just sitting there.

SoCalBoomer

01-11-2010, 08:58 PM

I'm disappointed in this thread guys. I think you all shoud be looking for a way to make a truck effective, not rule it out. What happened to our we'll do it the quirky, not so usual way? Lets be real honest with ourselves, "rally", 'cars driving on dirt?', and now we're trying to tell trucks what they can and can't do? I love rally and have been into for years, so I'm not taking a side with the trucks but I don't like this counting a vehicle out. I say next we can only allow cars with lsd on any loose surface and 4" min ground clearance!

It's not that we're trying to rule out trucks. . . we're just looking at basic facts.

True, we could get rid of any turn that could flip over a truck. . .but that would be NASCAR or NHRA, and then what fun would THAT be?

We've had trucks run successfully - but I think that was more due to driver skill and common sense overcoming the inherent instability of the truck.

And, listen, trucks have their own thing too. something I tried to get across to a truck driver that insisted we should make the course open and straight enough so he would enjoy it (meaning no hair-pin turns, no loops, NO outside cones. . .just romp and run). He had a truck that would do GREAT at MDR (Mojave Desert Racing) or BITD (Best in the Desert) - it was pretty much a Class 8 desert truck - doing something that none of us could do in a Subie or Neon or any other car (the Cusico monster notwithstanding)

I mean, seriously, if one of us took our car to Barstow to run in the MDR race there, they'd pee themselves laughing and none of us would finish a lap. Is that them telling us we can't run? (well, aside from safety concerns, that is) No - we could build a rally car that would conform to their safety rules - and it would not hold up.

As a truck lover and owner and (helping) builder (see my thread) and as a rally lover and rallycross driver, organizer, promoter, and advocate, I realize that there are limitations to all vehicles and that some vehicles are more appropriate to some venues than to others. . .

Trying to force Rallycross into something that is friendly to ALL types of vehicles is not going to do anyone any good. Finding what Rallycross is best suited for and catering to that group and encouraging that group will benefit Rallycross - and before you say, "but you're limiting it" - we're not limiting it, we're catering to the HUGE majority of vehicles out there that are suited to Rallycross - cars.

Does that limit Rallycross to cars only? Not at all! "What?" you say, "how can it be both?"

Simple -

True, lifted and even stock height "typical" trucks will be handicapped in Rallycross (normally) because of their high CG which forces them to slow down quite a bit for turns that my little Neon or y'all's Subarus can power right through. In fact, they may not be allowed - but that's something to discuss with the organizer/steward. But a modified truck that is lower, has a good sway bar, and a smart driver can still have fun - and be safe - and that's what this whole thing is all about.

But we can't (or shouldn't) FORCE the car rules to fit truck needs - that dilutes the rules and screws up the whole shebang. :jack:

noisycricket

01-12-2010, 03:48 AM

And, listen, trucks have their own thing too. something I tried to get across to a truck driver that insisted we should make the course open and straight enough so he would enjoy it (meaning no hair-pin turns, no loops, NO outside cones. . .just romp and run).

Wow, how freakin' arrogant can you get?

That'd be like a football player showing up to a soccer match and saying "Yeah, you know, this whole no-hands thing has got to go, and we need to change that whole goal box thing into just a line and you have to carry the ball over... by the way, this ball sucks, there's a better way to do it"

Rally OBXT

01-12-2010, 09:11 AM

Lets face it. Trucks in rally are S-L-O-W and generally not competitive with cars. No matter how you cut it, a truck is a different animal than a car. All forms of rally racing are geared toward cars, so I don't really see a problem with having rules that cater to 99% of the competitors.

At the end of the day, a truck class would be the best thing IMO. The problem is (on the west coast at lest), we don't get more than one or two trucks an event. So are we gonna create a new class for one or two guys? I don't think so.

cghstang

01-12-2010, 09:26 AM

Lets face it. Trucks in rally are S-L-O-W and generally not competitive with cars...

Not that I have any stake in this argument but there are those that would argue this point and have the wins to support it (rallycross and stage rally). I'm thinking of RallyTaco on here and BajaBill over on specialstage.

This thread especially comes to mind: http://specialstage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38575

WAM

01-12-2010, 09:36 AM

Lets face it. Trucks in rally are S-L-O-W and generally not competitive with cars.

Ummm...well you might ask Mark A or Brent about a certain Jeep Comanche up in the north-west that has seldom been beaten over the course of several years. Sorry Brent, I know that still hurts. :tongue:

And I'm not sure what happened to the 09 national challenge results on the SCCA site, but I recall SA being won by a Toyota or Ranger early last year at a national event.

And then there's Bill H. About the time you call him slow, he'll get a favorable course design like Ridgecrest or JV and bury you.

But I know what you mean. The typical truck isn't competitive with the typical rally-bred sedan. Exceptions excepted.

SoCalBoomer

01-12-2010, 10:03 AM

There are a few, yes, but I'd argue that those would be down to skill overcoming the inherent weaknesses of the vehicle.

And there are likely a few trucks that have been designed "outside the box" of the typical truck design - and I wouldn't be surprised if the Jeep Comanche was one.

Bill's favorable course designs were straight-easy90-straight, with big holes that we littler cars would have to avoid but his 18+" of travel would just soak up. Remember, he's one of our roll-overs (and at less than 10mph, mind you). Also remember the amount of damage that RC course gave out - Phil still has pics on his Flickr account. . .

Also, it's hard to compare in some of these classes. Heck, I took 2nd in SM2 my first year in CRS and it wasn't because of any skill but because I noticed that there was nobody in that class but John Black so I could take a bunch of 2nds and learn the ropes and get a trophy! :D Yeah, I cherry picked - and not saying others do (or am I? muahahahaaaa) but it's something to think about.

Rally OBXT

01-12-2010, 10:33 AM

Hehehe, I knew I would get a few comments on the slow truck thing..... :mrgreen:

I know Bill Holmes (BajaBill over on SS), and his truck has about 150k into it. His truck is the equivalent to a high end PWRC rally car, no joke. So if you are going to compare Bills truck to the average local rally car, then yeah it's super bad ass. But if you compare it to a rally car with about the same amount of $$$ into it.....well, I would take the rally car seven days a week.

snicker

01-12-2010, 11:11 AM

SoCalBoomer

01-12-2010, 11:18 AM

Bill's truck is also much closer to a trophy truck than to any rally car. Complete tube chassis, long-trailing-arm four-link rear suspension, motor is pushed back behind the front suspension. . .heck, it's very comparable to the truck that my buddy is building - definitely not the unibody-with-cage/coil-over-strut suspension, etc that 95% of rally cars are. His old one (the one he rolled at less-than-10mph) was tube-on-rails chassis, long-arm-four-link . . .

But compare not just the construction - look at function. He has HUGE travel in the suspension - which is bad when you're making tight hairpins (as he found out) - body starts to roll and you can get a nice slow-roll. He has locked rear diff which means he can't turn without roasting it to slide the back end around. He has HUGE tires which spit HUGE amounts of dirt/sand/rocks which creates a hazard for . . . well anyone within a quarter mile! LOL Even if he runs flaps, that's not gonna stop a fist-sized missile. . . the list goes on. . .

I'll make a very personal comparison.

I'm 6'2" and 285 (going back down to my college weight of 250 when I played DE) - I ride road bikes as does my house-mate, Scott, who is an ex Marine, 6'0" and 180. He climbs hills, I labor up them; he time-trials quite well, I go along for the fun and conditioning; he does duathlons (run-ride-run), my knees would revolt and LEAVE my body if I tried that (working up to it! :D )

But I can put more power into a couple of big bursts. Short climb? Yeah, I can power by him for a hundred feet or so and then I'm done. WAY done! LOL.

(btw, I can pull TWO people drafting side by side behind me - Scott and my buddy Don tried. . . )

Point is, I'm not built for on-road cycling and even when I get down to where I'd like to be, I still won't - I'm a big wind-block and I know it. :D I'm built for other things - and I can do those quite well. I don't ask for a head-start in a race. . .I don't ask that the course be flat or down-hill (btw, I am GOOD at down-hill!!!) - I accept that when I ride in the Tour de Phoenix (http://www.bikely.com/maps/bike-path/EL-TOUR-DE-PHOENIX), I'll do quite well for the first 50% but the last three hills will absolutely murderize me (look at Show-elevation profile). No complaints - it's the way it is.

And that doesn't mean I won't keep riding or going to events and participating - and it doesn't mean that there are those who are in the "Clydesdale" category don't do well. . .

That make sense?

pomspeed

01-12-2010, 11:19 AM

There are a few, yes, but I'd argue that those would be down to skill overcoming the inherent weaknesses of the vehicle.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Jeep Comanche was one.

LMAO, yeah that's how it happened. I remember after our first runs being behind by 24 seconds because Tim ran 20 cars after me, not in our class. I have video taken of my first run and the person videotaping for me said it looked like I was going to get stuck "on course" due to their "watering the course. Wait 20 cars and, surprise, down by 24 seconds. Event managemnet NOT driving skill.

OT, trucks "can" be a problem, not always though. They should be allowed in any class the rules allow them in. Stock included, as the point has been made, they aren't superior.

Competitiveness shouldn't limit their participation, safety should be a factor. Where we do rallycross at Prairie City, we have huge amounts of elevation. Let a truck compete and you are asking for a rollover and that puts a negative view on the sport. Not just trucks rolling, but any vehicle.

Safety should allows come first.

Brent

SoCalBoomer

01-12-2010, 11:23 AM

I guess my point is don't rule someone out. Yes, I said someone cause that's the matter of it. It'll be some guy who, like the original rally fathers, decides to try some thing new and different and gets told "um...no, you can't rally with a truck". I understand your point of trucks in RX and insurance. I think it's sort of funny that I've honestly only seen a truck RXed three times and don't think we have much to worry about. The chances of a truck showing up and RXing are probably less than a crash/roll over at a RX!

DEFINITELY - around here we take trucks on a per-truck basis. A lifted truck. . .well. . . a stock truck? Likely. And if we could get enough trucks, we'd have a truck class! We had one for a while and it was awesome! They just need to be more careful. . . but that makes it more exciting! :D :eek:

kreitz3

01-12-2010, 11:33 AM

BTW - My dream rallycross vehicle is any car I could keep running or keep from breaking for one entire season. It would be a huge amount of work, though.

Fixed!

noisycricket

01-12-2010, 04:24 PM

Fixed!

Hey how many times did the RX-7 break last year... None!
I did frag the transmission... on a fun-run... but it got better.

Clearly I am not driving fast enough, since I am not breaking the car any more.

BTW - From the description, the "rally" truck in question isn't rallycross legal anyway. Tubeframes aren't specifically banned but you aren't allowed to modify the "roof structure", so unless it has a stock cab and not a lookalike skin like most tubeframe cars...

Locally trucks are on a "we'll see" basis. Which, generally, means no fullsizes, no lifts, and no huge tires.

I guess my point is don't rule someone out. Yes, I said someone cause that's the matter of it. It'll be some guy who, like the original rally fathers, decides to try some thing new and different and gets told "um...no, you can't rally with a truck".

In the US, trucks have been used for stage rally since stage rally's inception here.

We're not talking about rally, we're talking about rallycross, which is about as similar to rally as, well, as football and soccer.

WAM

01-12-2010, 05:46 PM

BTW - From the description, the "rally" truck in question isn't rallycross legal anyway..

Actually a "rally truck" is by definition legal in rallycross by SCCA 6.2E4. It doesn't even have to meet any rallycross rules at all.

http://www.scca.com/documents/Rally%20Rules/2010_RallyCrossRulesFinalmod20100104.pdf

rollo

01-13-2010, 08:21 AM

At the end of the day, a truck class would be the best thing IMO. The problem is (on the west coast at lest), we don't get more than one or two trucks an event. So are we gonna create a new class for one or two guys? I don't think so.

This. The question is really "where do you put the couple of trucks that show up"? Honestly I see little risk difference between a stock Ranger (for instance) and a passenger car. And we've had folks run in small trucks without issue. The big lifted trucks do fall over though.

Actually Dave you should petition for a truck class, you could bring out the Outback and dominate, since by CAFE standards it is considered to be a light truck (as is the PT Cruiser, Honda CRV etc).

Which brings up a classing point.. how do you define "truck"? (that's mostly a rhetorical question :) )

WAM

01-13-2010, 08:40 AM

Yeah, but I'd hate to see rallycross follow the autocross development of excess, undersubscribed classing. You add a truck class and then you need 2wd & 4wd & stock & non-stock and so it goes.

I'd prefer an organizer-option of separating out a truck class only when a number of them show up and request it. But if only one or two per event, they'll just have to fit in.

If they show up in numbers, long-term, then maybe they can become a points-class.

rollo

01-13-2010, 08:44 AM

Heh, that's what I was saying Bill. In an ideal world where we'd have enough truck entries for a class of their own. Until that point, we have to put them in the "fairest" class that is available.

noisycricket

01-13-2010, 10:04 AM

Actually Dave you should petition for a truck class, you could bring out the Outback and dominate, since by CAFE standards it is considered to be a light truck (as is the PT Cruiser, Honda CRV etc).

Which brings up a classing point.. how do you define "truck"? (that's mostly a rhetorical question :) )

I think by DOT/EPA standards, my VW is a "truck". It has a flat load floor.

Makes it really easy to slide an engine into the back without a hoist :)

MarkA

01-13-2010, 10:18 AM

Which brings up a classing point.. how do you define "truck"? (that's mostly a rhetorical question :) )

I'll call the Outback and raise you one of these in a "truck" class, especially a stock truck class: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMC_Syclone

WAM

01-13-2010, 11:41 AM

Hmmm, Syclone 2wd vs Outback awd. Think I'd stick with the Sube. Now how about an SRT-8 Cherokee if you feel you need to roost the entire course?

MarkA

01-13-2010, 11:45 AM

Hmmm, Syclone 2wd vs Outback awd. Think I'd stick with the Sube. Now how about an SRT-8 Cherokee if you feel you need to roost the entire course?

The Syclone is AWD.

WRR

01-13-2010, 12:51 PM

Lets face it. Trucks in rally are S-L-O-W and generally not competitive with cars.

I am not going to disagree with that statement Dave but ask Louie about John Black in his 2.3L 2wd Ranger beating us for the first stage or two at Seed 9... we had twice the hp and FWD and all he had was mad driving skills....

or maybe we just sucked at driving fast.....

WAM

01-13-2010, 01:18 PM

The Syclone is AWD.

Right you are. I got misled because the one I looked at had smaller front tires and bigger rear. But maybe they were diameter matched.

noisycricket

01-13-2010, 02:49 PM

The Syclone is AWD.

And incredibly rare. I forget if it's 100 or 500 made but the numbers are very, very low. They made many more Typhoons and those are also really rare.

Why not just buy an Impreza 22B? :lol2:

MarkA

01-13-2010, 06:19 PM

And incredibly rare. I forget if it's 100 or 500 made but the numbers are very, very low. They made many more Typhoons and those are also really rare.

Why not just buy an Impreza 22B? :lol2:

According to the article I linked to, they built 2998 in two years. I've typically seen them go for $7-8K on Ebay.

No matter though - it was a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question. We can debate if an Outback is a truck but that would be much harder to deny, IMO.

noisycricket

01-14-2010, 05:00 AM

Really? The last one I saw for sale was at $25k and it wasn't even original.

Anyway, I think the defining term of "truck" vs. "car" is having a flat loading floor. I know the Impreza wagons do not have a flat loading floor, but it's been a while since I've even seen a Legacy wagon up close so I cannot comment on them.

On the other hand, I've had people react badly when I refer to their minivan as a truck.

Don't forget the main, overriding rule: The event chairman and/or safety steward can make a decision on it, and that decision is final.

Jaynen

01-14-2010, 08:24 AM

Interesting thread on all sides of the discussion I was mostly just curious. I did not expect the thread to keep going.

* Without more trucks a truck class isn't worth it
* Trucks modified for other off road purposes go the wrong direction for rally or rally cross
* Trucks modified for the stage rally or rallycross purposes or stock trucks are generally fine but going to be slower than comparable cars in the same class

Rally OBXT

01-14-2010, 10:15 AM

* Without more trucks a truck class isn't worth it
* Trucks modified for other off road purposes go the wrong direction for rally or rally cross
* Trucks modified for the stage rally or rallycross purposes or stock trucks are generally fine but going to be slower than comparable cars in the same class

Yup, that about sums it up! :)

pomspeed

01-14-2010, 11:52 AM

I'm still pushing the idea for SCCA to add an SM class, but truthfully, a regional truck class could be done at any time. For a National ruleset, that would be not justified.

Rudukai13

01-14-2010, 11:58 AM

I've always been curious about something similar - Where would a crossover SUV fit into this mess? Or if you want to stay with the truck theme, the Honda Ridgeline?

MarkA

01-14-2010, 12:47 PM

Really? The last one I saw for sale was at $25k and it wasn't even original.

Continuing way OT but for example..
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1991-GMC-SYCLONE-NEW-PAINT-AWD-TURBO-RUNS-STRONG_W0QQitemZ370317394328QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_ Cars_Trucks?hash=item5638a30198

Even then, probably way overpriced considering it was stolen once...

pomspeed

01-14-2010, 02:38 PM

Rudukai13, do you mean crossover or SUV? To me, SUV gets easily classified as a high rollover candidate. Crossovers, like a Suzuki SX4, are more likely to be accepted for rallycross, from my point of view.

Speaking of "Crossovers", is it just me or did american manufacturers not understand the idea of a crossover? Their first crossover should have been the Vibe/Matrix.
I think of a Crossover as a short wheelbase tall 5 door wagon.

WRR

01-14-2010, 02:42 PM

Speaking of "Crossovers", is it just me or did american manufacturers not understand the idea of a crossover? Their first crossover should have been the Vibe/Matrix.
I think of a Crossover as a short wheelbase tall 5 door wagon.

speaking from the point of view of someone involved with a Domestic Manufacturer... there is a whole lot they did not and do not understand...

/

Rudukai13

01-14-2010, 03:25 PM

I say crossover SUV in terms of like the Nissan Rogue or Murano, or Volkswagen Tiguan. Smaller, unibody vehicles that are still closer to being SUVs than cars. But now that I think about it the Ridgeline is an interesting candidate here - where does it fit?

noisycricket

01-14-2010, 04:50 PM

I think we're getting into the territory of rallycrossing something because there are no other options, not because it's a good idea.

It will always have to depend on the region.

For example, there is someone who rallycrossed a GM fullsize at Detroit region. It is somewhat unsettling to see a Tahoe doing a Scandinavian flick and linking corners together. On the other hand, the only times I've seen him driving that were on their horse track courses, which are run on a horse track. No bumps, no elevation change, essentially never going to rut, no sharp tight corners.

If someone tried to run that same vehicle at a Western Ohio region rallycross, they'd wear out their shifter having to back-and-forth two or three times per run. Assuming that they could even fit it through some of the gates.