Will there be protests over the Special Stage jump at Rim?

[johnfelstead]

Originally posted by patr


First of all, a 2002 PGT WRX can be *legally* almost as quick as a 2002 Grp N WRX.

Second of all, you can put any diffs you want in it.

Third of all, you can modify the electronics if you want.

Pat, there are GroupN cars and then there are groupN cars, you know what i mean by that. The US spec WRX has never been homologated for GroupN, so it's a little hard to work out what you have there with your local homologation rules. Even so, almost as fast as a US spec GroupN WRX is posible, hence why i have been saying it's a nonsense to sugest a mapped PGT car cant produce good torque which is significantly higher than stock.

You can put any diffs in you want as long as you dont modify the gearbox casing, so you are limited to using a VC centre diff, you cant use a DCCD setup.

You can modify some of the electronics, you cant alter timing control. That isnt such a handicap for producing torque/power on the WRX as an older car with less advanced ECU technology because the WRX has a very good active ignition control strategy anyway, so as long as you let it learn the boost profile and get the fueling right it will auto compensate to a large extent. It wont be as good as a groupN engine on proper management, but it will be able to run a lot more boost and produce a lot more torque than stock, legally.

* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

[Sergeant_V]

Originally posted by Patr

But it still didn't stop the guy from having our restrictor checked (true story).

We've been told "I need to see your restrictor" at every rally we've entered in the 2.5RS."

[Porsche914boxer4]

Originally posted by patr
Deal with it at the rally, or deal with it when you are trying to go to sleep on your own.

quote of the year.

[patr]

> You can put any diffs in you want as long as you dont modify
> the gearbox casing, so you are limited to using a VC centre diff,
> you cant use a DCCD setup.

You are quoting rules not part of the American ruleset, but in any case, yes you can have an ECMD in a PGT WRX with a 5spd EMCD unit. same case. I pointed out this 'loophole' to the rules guys, but since no one is doing it (yet) they seemed to not want to bother. As an aside, even if someone did do this, they would probably be slower since they would have a pretty hard time learning how to set it right (even if they set it to some 'static' value).

> You can modify some of the electronics, you cant alter timing control.

your intepretation of this statement is based on... ? As I've stated on specialstage and elsewhere, when I was running in PGT, ECUs were 'free' because it was impossible to verify if someone changed their ignition timing or not. It was of absolutely no use to a 2.5RS. But lots of 323s, Talon/Eclipses etc. are/were running aftermarket ECUs, and lots of WRXes are as well. Every top competitor in Canada (same exact rule wording) is using aftermarket ECUs. No one in the last few years, since this exact same issue was last raised, has implied it was not legal and in fact, the whole assumption that you cant alter ignition timing is based on one relatively new competitors' recent interpretation of a flimsy ruleset. I can tell you that aftermarket ECUs in PGT represented the accepted practise and intent of the rules, unless they have changed (i.e. the competitors have changed, the rules havent). I assume you are talking ignition timing here.

This is more of a case of a poorly written rule being matched with a new persons' interpretation. While I agree it isn't clear, it also matches up with the thinking of moving t0 32mm for PGT, and it also matches up with the fact that it would be impossible to police if this interpreation were true, and it also matches up with the fact that this is/was accepted practise with most turbo cars.

Even if you can or you cant, the stock ECU does this on its own anyways !

So simply put, *if* this interpretation of the rule is correct, then what stops you from using the _same_ aforementioned program to set the stock ECU to use agressive ignition timing (i.e. disable knock sensor sensitivity) ? Nothing. And doing that *is* within that interpretation of the rules. I would even go so far as to say that this is one company's take on rules in order to promote specific sales of a certain product !

Furthermore, there are essentially no restrictions on fuel in the USA, which means that the same ECU again will be agressive in its ignition advance curves.

All I am saying is, I myself have raised this ECU issue 3 years ago and it was deemed to be within the rules (despite how they are written).

[johnfelstead]

Pat, did you ever ask for or get a written statement from the SCCA saying it is legal to run an aftermarket ECU? The PGT rules seem quite explicit in that you cant change anything on the car unless it is stated as allowed, and there is no mention of changing the ECU, only altering the boost and fuelling.

I cant see how you could get the DCCD control wires out of the gearbox without modifying it from stock. Maybe you can show me.

The active ignition corection functionality of the WRX has already been mentioned a few times. The stock ECU runs a very efective active ignition strategy (if you allow it time to learn) that if you give it good fuel it will make use of it. This is especially so for the new age cars.

Some of these SCCA rules are very poorly worded, why dont people lobby the SCCA to get them cleaned up, then this type of debate would be dead and buried? It's no good saying this is how its always been, and i got away with it, because one day you could get excluded due to a new scrutineer interpreting the rule to the letter, and that does nobody any favours.

[patr]

thats not what I said john, what I said was, the last time this was queried, I am telling you what the response was (and it was ME doing the querying !), and adding some context to show that this is indeed the way the rules are interpreted

if someone thinks that there is a problem then go ahead and file a protest and get a ruling for your own sake. I am just telling you the results of the last time this was queried (the rules havent changed since), and futhermore pointing out that it doesn't matter on this particular car anyways !

[hoche]

Getting back to the Special Stage jump...


I'd have to agree that I didn't think it was the safest layout. I'm also suprised at Ray's comments, because our crew chief says he SAW the jump being rebuilt into a kicker before the second SS. After reading this thread last Friday, I asked him again if he was sure about that, because there was supposedly no change. His response? "Bull****. They were out there with a grader pulling dirt from the bottom and piling up on top." This weekend, I talked to a couple of other people who were at the event who had the same response.

At any rate, I think what happened was that a lot of drivers remembered what it was like from the night before and didn't bother to check it out before running again.



Other just random thoughts:

I thought the lane width was ok. I appreciated that they widened out in the turns. I would've liked a little more separation between lanes for the jump though.

The water crossing seemed fine. Putting it right after a turn was a good idea because cars were moving somewhat more slowly at that point.

I think the course was overwatered, but as long as it was overwatered for everyone, I don't have a problem with it. It just makes it more of a challenge. It certainly worked to keep the dust down!

I wonder how many rally drivers have rallycross/autocross experience? I was, frankly, surprised at all the lane swapping. That's just sloppy driving, no two ways about it. If you drive like that on stage, you're done.

If the divider between the two lanes is going to be dirt, then perhaps a lane-change penalty is in order, to act as a deterrent against overdriving. Concrete walls would also act as a deterrent and would be an effective safety barrier, and would cure the dirt flinging problem, but would probably be kind of spendy.

By the same token, I can't figure out how to do a lane-swap without putting in a big concrete bridge. It's a topology issue, see. And last I looked, bridges are expensive. I doubt we'll see any in SuperSpecials in the near future.


-michel

[johnfelstead]

You shouldnt have to protest someone to get a clarification of the rules Pat.

This isnt about any particular competitor and complaining about them, i personally havent anyway. I am just pointing out the technical situation with what is achieveable with a PGT car and what isnt legal acording to the regulations as they are written.

It isnt a waste of time querying things at the highest level, i have done it myself in the UK with some positive results. Someone needs to ask the questions though, otherwise how will the rule makers know there could be a problem? Generally speaking the people who make the rules are too up to their eyeballs in other work to study the regulations for anomolies, thats something competitors should persue in a positive way. Or am i missing something about the culture in US rallying and the SCCA?

Anyway, its been an interesting debate so far and quite informative with regards to the spec of Stephans car, it has a very good setup on the diffs and is not bone stock in terms of engine mapping, which was the original sugestion, so its not surprising he is doing very well. Of course he has to drive it too, and he seems to be very tallented in that respect.

[patr]

john I dont agree with what you should have to do to get clarification of the rules, I'm just saying that this is the state of USA rallying. I dont like it either, but that is the way it is being done right now. In Canada we get the rules interpreted for us so we dont have to protest :-).

All mu postings have been based on previous protest experience and experience running in this specific class in question for three years running. I'm not saying about what 'should' or 'shouldn't be' :-)

[johnfelstead]

Understood Pat. I am just used to rules being concrete and strickly enforced by scrutineers. Rules in a stock car class should be simple and aplied to the letter is my phylosophy, otherwise it doesnt make any sense to bother with a PGT class at all, you may as well just run GroupN (whatever that is in the USA. )

[bjorn240]

Originally posted by patr
john I dont agree with what you should have to do to get clarification of the rules, I'm just saying that this is the state of USA rallying. I dont like it either, but that is the way it is being done right now.

Just a personal opinion -- the best thing SCCA could do for rallying in the US is to adopt the Canadian rulebook (with the possible exception of replacing the Nerf(tm) chicanes with roundbale chicanes).

I am working to try to convince all the stakeholders that a rulebook more inline with FIA international regs and (especially) the CARS rules would be a very good thing for rallying in the US.

Help me! (Pat, want to join the rules committee???)

- Christian