New class, who's in?

Heemo276 · Regular Poster

New class, who's in?

Stingray 2212 · Rehab Dropout...

I would for sure. I think the class has real merit. To be able to buy a near turn key car from America is a huge plus. 2.5 litre would mean much less stress on a drive train compared to pro & pro lite therefore maintenance costs are lower. I wouldn't restrict it to N/A, if someone wanted to use a 1.4 litre turbo engine that would be fine. I would also allow single or twin seat.

I still see a good future for 1650 at a state level & in the ARB series but at a national level it is pretty well dead which is unfortunate. I think a 2.5 class would fill the 1650 gap at a national level.

You will no doubt get many cries of "we don't need more classes" but that's just how it is. I would see this class as what the original pro lite class was supposed to be. Im sure when it was conceived nobody imagined that a pro lite could cost as much as a pro car & would be running torque converter trannys.

I think a 2.5 class would provide good close racing & it would suit a lot of the older cars that are out there.

Lamby · In rehab

I see there being two options to make this happen.

Option 1 : sportsman buggy class is finished up and all those that remain will race in super 1650 class.
New class is formed from 1650cc to 2500? 4 cyl only, single or two seat and they take on the number 3 as their class prefix

Option 2 : if option 1 is unpopular just make a new class.

I know 3 new cars getting built and a handful of other existing cars that would be in this class straight away!
Class 10 cars from the states can fit straight in and many 1650 competitors that want to go a bit faster could easily step up without too much cost or effort.

Great idea!

-- Edited by Lamby on Monday 29th of June 2015 03:23:09 PM

Heemo276 · Regular Poster

Yep i agree with Lamby, make it so the class 10 cars from the states can fit straight in, agree to make it single or 2 seater no matter what the engine size in class (a good navigator will make you faster in my opinion). Super 1650 class is fantastic and i love it but there is a gap there that can be filled which will help some of the older cars and can help some of the newer cars that are capable of a small power upgrade, i don't think it will detract from the Super 1650 class at all. Not sure of what to call the class, maybe junior lite?

scooter · Forum Addict

Class 10 cars from the states already fit in to Prolite , As a matter of fact an ex class 10 car running as a prolite won the Milbrodale Mountian classic outright . Cheers Scooter

Pedroski · Forum Junkie

I probably wouldn't have sold my buggy if this class existed as it was a 2L and had absolutely no chance of competing against a 3.5L

I have no doubt if this class is made you will end up having to spend a fortune to be competitive at State level or above after a year it has been proven true in every motor sport class without multiple restrictions. (HQ racing and old formula Ford are great examples as they were designed to make an affordable entry into motor sport and now are 6 figures to be competitive)

Sorry to be negative but without restricting the gearbox, suspension travel or something similar you are guaranteed someone or lots will spend up big to win and you may as well have left it at Prolite.

-- Edited by Pedroski on Sunday 28th of June 2015 09:55:42 PM

SAracer · In rehab

I think this class is a great idea and would end up being one of the hottest contended class at all levels. I definitly agree with one of two seats. Im with Shane (Heemo276) on this one, I think a good navi would make you faster than minus 120kg.

One thing tho... Why is everyone going on about class 10 cars from the states. There are some high quality chassis builders in this country. And I know one for a fact would be VERY interested in building a light 2.5lt single seater for the class if it ever came along. (Hint hint haha)

Cheers
Luke

Brett Price · Powerhouse Poster

Here is a plan, why not call it Class 10 and leave the other classes as they are. Daryl you're a mechanic where they measure performance by power to weight surely you can see that in the lower HP classes the weight of the navigator has much more effect. Don't get me wrong I know where you are coming from but surely 120kg for a navi, seat, belts, intercom, blower and a narrower car producing less drag is fair, should be 150kg for not introducing some new people to the sport.

Stingray 2212 · Rehab Dropout...

I think calling it class 10 would be a great idea.

Sorry, I'm a bit unclear Brett, are you suggesting if you want to run a single seater in this class that you need to carry 150kg of weight?

I wouldn't care if that was the rule but it gets complicated. You have to find somewhere to put weights, you have to tie them down somehow & you would have to hold the car after an event to actually weigh the weights. Like I say, it gets complicated.

I think the weight of a navi would obviously have less impact in a 2.5 litre car than it would a 1.6 litre car. My view is that at the end of a 400km race there would be little difference between single or twin seat as far as weight advantage goes.

If we are worried about motorbike engine light weight cars dominating such a class then there are other ways around it. Minimum chassis specs & a minimum engine capacity would fix that.

Lamby · In rehab

I would love to do a test where somebody does some laps in a 1600 car on a short course then does the same minus a navigator, I don't think the time difference would be very noticeable, even less noticeable in a 2500 car.
I think that adding weight to a car is irrelevant.

Cheers

SAracer · In rehab

Heavier cars handle the rough better than light ones too... just another thing with the weight.

Luke

Green Machine · Newbie

Sign me up for a 2.5 ltr class, would make for some great competition. I imagine that there are quite a few cars out there that would slot straight in. Perhaps this could be floated as a 'limited' class, beam suspension, 4 speed transmission?

Stingray 2212 · Rehab Dropout...

I think a beam front end & a four speed is a great idea. I have always thought that our classes should be defined by measures other than engine capacity.

That said, any type of restriction is usually rejected by the majority.

gav24 · In rehab

Leave the classes as they are and add a new one the gap between 1650 and 3500 is to large a 2400-500 class would be great leave the sportsman class alone if we are pushed into the 1650 class we will have to spend shitloads of coin just to get our motors up to what a stock 1650 can do

Heemo276 · Regular Poster

This is basically what I have come up with for a new class, my opinion is to not limit suspension, trans etc.

Keep the current classes as is, this class can use 10 as their prefix for class ie. 1023.
If clubs have an issue with more classes coming in costing clubs more money for trophies etc. I would say for multi-club events combine this class with the pro-lites and only state or national events run as a separate class.
Use this class to put the motorbike engine buggies in (i'm not sure how to work out multiplication factors for this).

Class 10
Buggies with 4 cylinder engines up to 2500cc, naturally aspirated
A one or two seat, two wheel drive automobile, as defined in GR 1
Engine capacity shall be up to 2500cc, naturally aspirated
(as defined in GR 1, where a car runs a single seat, the drivers seat may be either centrally located or to the left or right of centre. Any such vehicle may only compete in that configuration if an unused seat and harness is removed.)

-- Edited by Heemo276 on Monday 29th of June 2015 08:19:11 PM

-- Edited by Heemo276 on Monday 29th of June 2015 08:54:27 PM

Stingray 2212 · Rehab Dropout...

Given you have made it from 1650 to 2500, the motorbike engine cars dont suit. If you had made it "up to" 2500 then they could run in it. If its your intent not to have motorbike engined cars in it, problem solved.

Heemo276 · Regular Poster

Yep understand, good point, i've edited it to suit, and that would benifit any 1650's that cant find a navi for a race they could run in this class and still be very competitive

Stingray 2212 · Rehab Dropout...

Not sure if you have contemplated this but as the class stands now a small, motorbike engined single seater would dominate. If I was building a car under those rules to win the class, that's what I would build.

If you don't want that to happen there will need to be some restrictions. The way you had the engines at the start (1650-2500) would have prevented motorbike engines as they don't make them that big. The down side is that a 1650 couldn't run in the class.

Limiting the gearbox to a four speed "H" pattern would also stop motorbike engined cars, also a minimum chassis requirement would limit a motorbike engine as it would be to heavy. A beam front end would also limit the effectiveness of a motorbike engine only because they would be very difficult to replicate on a small scale.

If you are happy to include light motorbike engined cars in this class then the rules you have outlined are fine.

SAracer · In rehab

Shane, your on the money I reckon man. Thats what I had pencilled down for my proposal.

I think we should let the motorbike buggies be included in the class for sure. They are a great way for people to get into the sport and they are great quick cars. Rod Visser, Chris Boon, Phil Sheply... they are all great cars that would be perfect in the class.

I would vote for "up to 2.5lt, 1 or 2 seat" no problems.

Cheers
Luke

Lamby · In rehab

as much as I love a beam front you have to look into the future and see how many secondhand cars will be for sale that could fit this class, sure there's plenty of beam cars now but not many new ones are getting built, same thing with gearboxes, there are a few 4 speed boxes around but as teams upgrade or change out their gearboxes you won't come across many secondhand 4 speed's.

as for the motorbike engine buggies dominating the class, I'm sure they will be competitive but so can any well built car, although the kw figure is similar to a good 2.4 engine they only have half the torque so running bigger tyres will not be a possibility and with tracks getting rougher these days it should equal them out.

Great discussion !

Scott · Regular Poster

1 seat- limited to 2 litre engine
2 seat- allowed up to 2.5 litre engine

Brett Price · Powerhouse Poster

Give this guy a star, what a great idea......

Heemo276 · Regular Poster

I'm more than happy to have the motorbike engines in this class, at certain tracks they may dominate at other tracks they won't, the more the merrier, and like any car it has to finish first to be able to dominate and they can be quite fragile, i don't want to limit the single seaters to a 2ltr, keep it simple and easy to manage, same rules for everyone.

Scott · Regular Poster

Heemo276 wrote:
i don't want to limit the single seaters to a 2ltr, keep it simple and easy to manage, same rules for everyone.

Sorry but I dont see the point of having a new class then. A two seat car is built bigger and has additional support equipment for the navigator. I guesstimate a 250kg penalty on the start line for a for a two seat car with the same engine size. (extra bar work, fuel, seat, navigator, helmet, restraints etc adds up)

The USA class 10 started out with engine size limitations then changed their minds and opened it to all like your suggestion. I was told it killed the class and they had less entries instantly. Some prefer single seat, some prefer a navigator. I personally like having a navi so wouldn't be interested in entering a two seat in the class if it was already that handicapped.

I dont think the rule would be that hard to manage. You can easily see which engine everyone is running

Stingray 2212 · Rehab Dropout...

I really couldn't care less if a single seater has to have 500 less cc's because at the end of a 400km race it will make stuff all difference. I have a single seater btw.

The estimate of 250kg is absurd, not that it matters either way.

A regular size single seater in a 2.5 litre class would have little advantage over a twin seat, a lightweight motorbike engine one would of course have a weight advantage. I am of the belief that a motorbike engine car would dominate the class but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to be part of it. It's not all about winning, it's about having fun competing in a class that suits your vehicle.

As a recent convert to single seaters I can tell you that it's not all easy, a good navigator can help you make up lots of time on a lap. Having to do everything yourself has drawbacks. It's called swings & roundabouts, some things are easier, some things are harder, at the end of a race it pretty well works out even.

Lamby · In rehab

So if your theory is correct shouldn't single seat cars be dominating pro and prolite class then?

Biggie · Newbie

biggrin

I am into this new future class based on Class 10 principles.

Currently building up a new single seater Southern Cross MK 5 A arm

Will be running Mazda 2.3 ltr engine depending on money Albins 6 speed

I have raced both twin & single seater 1650 in NZ for me personally I like single seaters as it is the ultimate challenge between you and the dirt.

Not knowing what was originally put forward to CAMS as a discussion for a new class, my view is have the limiting factor engine cc rating as per any other class.

Single or two seater and unlimited suspension.

FULLSCALE · Forum Addict

interesting that all of a sudden people start talking about this class after it has been put to Cams and aorcom in late 2013 via the SA Offroad panel. You may remember it Luke? It came from Waikerie and went through the panel to "Our Higher Order" and according to the info our club recieved "ran out of steam". Its in an ideal spot and in an area that many current car manufactures have a suitable engine. The same could be said if 1650 was lifted to 1800cc as many current models are at that size and suprisingly working on fuel efficency still only put out 100 to 120kw.

Stingray 2212 · Rehab Dropout...

The whole reason it failed last time was that it was linked to fiddling with 1650. Just like you are suggesting now.

FULLSCALE · Forum Addict

Actually it had nothing to do with 1650, it was about finding a place for a SR20 or 3SGE or even someone wanting to import a good class10. I read the proposal and was at the meeting it was drafted at. Forget i mentioned the 1650 thing. Just get on the 2500 band wagon and see if we can get the "Higher Order" to get it happening. If i could just find the State Council minutes with it in we could see if its what we need.