Proposed Restructure

Azteck · In rehab

Proposed Restructure

Kick my dog · In rehab

As one of the people who inititated this, I would like to say the decision was not taken lightly and the only prerogative is that the decision is good for the whole sport, not just individuals.

If there is constructive criticism out there, you need to make yourself heard, and reply to this forum, or offroad@cams.com.au.

see you in class 2.

boss truck · Rehab Dropout...

l think it is the way to go. No one is penalised state level stays the same and all the older cars or budget minded A/arm cars get a class of choice of to run in. Well done ARCOM rationalise to move forward.

jones off road · Rehab Dropout...

excellent idea!

a great deal of thought has been put into the new structure & it shows. well done to the designers. bring it on!

Wolf · Rehab Dropout...

boss truck wrote:

l think it is the way to go. No one is penalised state level stays the same and all the older cars or budget minded A/arm cars get a class of choice of to run in. Well done ARCOM rationalise to move forward.

here here! Well done ARCOM. I definately think its the way to go.

For the sport in general I think its a great move forward, and a well thought out proposal.

KMD, bring it on! We'll see you in class 2! With all the parts for our car already purchased and most of it already installed we may run for a while as the new class 3 - and its awesome that the car we've built still slots neatly into division while we plan and organise (not to mention budget for) an elective upgrade.

Well done.

Point to note though, the wording for class 1 is all turbos - can I safely assume this means all forced induction?

Adam · Regular Poster

Why is the old class 3 only state level?

wolf 2214 · In rehab

I think it's a great idea. BUT why can't Class 1 and 4 be unlimited in engine size? Why is it still limited to 6000cc.

heyu · Rehab Dropout...

Congratulations NORC on a well thought out restructure of our sport.
I can't ,at this point see too many problems in it . What's the scorer think.
Give it a go.

delete · In rehab

From a pointscoring point of view at NSW Champoinship level the current system can be adjusted to suit with few problems. From a personal point of view I also believe that it is an excellent idea that is well overdue. My only reservation is downgrading Class 3 to State level only as Class 3 has, I believe, been well supported for many years and as I have previously stated I dont believe in Class 6, it wasnt well supported in the past and I dont believe it will be well supported in the future.

ARB TIPPING CHAMPION 2013

I think its a great idea, but i agree with mick about making class 1 & 4 unlimited to make a good space to class 2 or make class 2 up to 3000cc, with that said i would be one of the old class 2's moving up to the new class 2, it gives a good step up without the expense of racing the big boy's in class one

Kick my dog · In rehab

I'm glad to see all the positive feedback.

To answer a few questions, Yes, turbos mean all forced induction, and there needs to be some sort of limit, and 6000cc has been successful till now, but don't let capacity be your only limitation, why not all wheel drive in class 1?

As for the current class 3, there has not been the support at an AORC level to justify the class with a stand alone division, where as in a State capacity the numbers are well up there. Therefore the new class 3 has been worded as 'up to 1650cc' to cover any new class 7 to race at the AORC level.

KMD

Azteck · In rehab

Its Perfect!!
I guess that's easy for me to say, as nothing changes my position.
I do understand that Class 3 competitors would be a little disappointed.
But all classes have to be well represented at all levels to survive.

However.....What I can't understand is why anyone would ever need
or want an engine of larger capacity than 6000cc
Sure, if your engine needs a rebuild, and .010 oversize will tip you over the limit....point taken!!
But I would really like someone to explain to me why we/they would need an unlimited engine size.

Interesting that the guys suggesting this are racing 1600cc

jones off road · Rehab Dropout...

some people seem to think that power wins the race! but as has been shown in the past, preparation, reliability, & driver ability almost always succeeds.

over 6.0ltr seems pointless to me, it will mainly be a benefit for higher speeds (which most tracks are trying to reduce high speed sections)

around 2.0LTR is all you need to be a national champ! i wonder how many 6.0LTR's have won a national series?

anyway looks like i might see some of you "1600 drivers" in class 2 (with my 4ltr engine), but i suspect even with some smaller capacities, a good driver will still beat me!

-- Edited by jones off road at 10:00, 2006-03-13

dessert-people · Rehab Dropout...

i think the new class restructure is a good start, in the fact that we know there is a need for it. but i think that if we are going to change it let make it more to the point , engine size is not the best way to sort out classes by its self , in offroading wheel travel is the different that needs to be sorted so a combintion of engine and wheel travel would be a fairer way sorting out classes.

obr184 · Forum Junkie

If we were to make class 1 and 4 unlimited then we would have to get rid of turbos or at least keep them at 6litre. As imagine the porter with twin turbos on a 6 litre!!!!

Stingray 2212 · Rehab Dropout...

Well done AORCom in raising this restructure. Please reassure me that any change will only occur after ALL offroad clubs are contacted & that all competitors have the oppertunity to vote on the changes. I don't understand why the new class 2 will be N/A only. If you look at our sport overall I would suggest that the engines with the most money spent on them would be N/A. Turbocharging is a very cost effective way of getting horsepower. Perhaps make class 2 N/A or maximum of 1600cc plus turbo. I must agree with 1887, engine capacity should not be the only way of determining our classes. Why not make the new class 3 a restricted class. Just something basic like beam front end, production gearbox, maximum length rear axle. I know we have class 6 but it's not national.

heyu · Rehab Dropout...

Obviously the fellows wanting classing by chassis shape,a arm or beam or how big a trailer it is being towed in, have nothing much to do with scrutineering of cars.
again congratulations to the guys that have sorted this out to this piont,give this a go and see what wre need to do to refine it along the way.If you have some idea to put forward,make it simple and write it down,think about it for a week to see if it will fit in to the rules and the broard picture,then send it in . There is still a years worth of discussion to go

wolf 2214 · In rehab

OBR 184, what i should have said is how about we increase engine size. 7000cc or 8000cc.

phantom sorra writers · Powerhouse Poster

Were will this all end?Soon It will be A-arm buggies against beam buggies,turbos against non turbo,fuel injection against carby's,Bypass shocks and Ltd travel.Why should all the tintops be disavantaged.As for the 6 litre thing,who builds a car with 6 litres and only races at a tight ass track like colo,no wonder it is so powerful and more than enough power like you say.Why fix what is not broken?Why not have a overhaul of what is already there and keep it simple.

dessert-people · Rehab Dropout...

im not saying that we have a class for every different type of suspension that is made, what im saying is build or import what you want. but to keep it more of a even playing field for older buggies have classes that are engine and wheel travel limited ,and its not that hard to fit a limiting strap and im pretty sure most scrutineeres can read a tape measure .

Wolf · Rehab Dropout...

Firstly - wow, a serious comment from the phantom! the world is obviously spinning backwards on its axis!

Re definining classes by other than engine size and/or F/I - I disagree - but then Ive got a big travel car in the shed so my view on that is bound to be biased.

I think the proposal being put forward is simple, easy to enforce, fair, and leaves everyone with a current car with a place to race.

As for the 6ltr argument - I think Jones is right - cubic inches doesnt always win. Look at the engines for the national champs for the past 5 years... granted a throbbing v8 generates heaps more wood though. :) Now just isnt the time for that debate.

Re the Tintops - phantom, could you explain a bit more as to why you see the tintops as being disadvantaged? Because they are combined against 4wd classes now? An interesting experiment would be to grab the times for last years national events and combine 4 and 8, 5 and 7 and see who would have won. has anyone done this? Were there enough numbers at each event to even qualify to score points for those divions at all events?

Im looking forward to eventually running against the Jones's, Mowbray's etc of the sport. Cant wait!... though the upgrade might have to wait until after we've built Rick's extension... :( Oh well, for the moment we'll run what be brung!

Final comment - has anyone stopped to consider renaming divisions for '07 instead of class 1, class 2 etc.. (yawn) to something a bit more reflective of the extreme sports nature of what we do?

Pro Class
Pro Lite
???
Silouette
Tintop

Orb

Psychotic Class
Lite Psychotics (or underbudget psycotics)
Part Time Day Release Psychotic
Claustrophobic Psychotics
Clasustrophobic Psychotics with Bad Backs from highjumping stock vehicles

Azteck · In rehab

Engine capacity is by far the simplest way to determine class.
Measuring wheel travel is not quite as simple as reading a tape measure.
But I think that the Scruiteneers job is more one of safety than eligibility.
I agree with Wolf, the new proposal is simple and gives all current cars a place to race

I too would like to know what Phantom means when he says tin tops are disadvantaged

Perhaps we could arrange the classes not by engine capacity or wheel travel, but by the tracks on which we race eg-Tight arse tracks like Colo up to 1300cc only
Fast tracks like Finke/Griffith etc 20000cc, and see who lives!

dessert-people · Rehab Dropout...

engine size mite be the simplest way to do it, but not the best way, if all we achieve is to dump class 3 ,take out a passanger seat,and give class 2 bigger engines ,then its a long way from what the sport needs to even up the playing field for all competitors.

Wolf · Rehab Dropout...

Adam wrote:

Why is the old class 3 only state level?

Hey Adam, I assume the main reason is because of numbers at AORC events.

Kick my dog · In rehab

In a word, yes. Class 3 at AORC level has been averaging 1.5 vehicles per race in 2005. So as of 2007, they are not to be given their own division for AORC only. They will be included in 'Up to 1650cc' class. At up to state level where they had 9 entries at last years Milbrodale, they are fully entitled to run as class 3.

As for the classification issue, there has been little problem with using engine capacity to define classes. The main issue was the widening gap between class 2 and class 1 in performance stakes, and the fact that classes could be rationalised without asking people to have to change the configuration of their vehicles.

This change will allow up to 7 classes to contest club, multi club and State rounds (with a promoters ability to further split classes, ie. current class 7, under 1600cc and above 1600cc), and 5 classes at AORC level which increases competitor numbers in each class, allows an easier understanding by spectators and media alike, and may introduce vehicles and drivers back from hibernation.

KMD

Stingray 2212 · Rehab Dropout...

Have to agree with 1887 again. Are these changes about simplicity or what is good for our sport. There is no need to measure suspension travel, by restricting the rear axle length it will automaticly govern the rear travel. I have failed to notice the widening gap between the top class 2 cars & the top class 1 cars. The top class 2 cars are much further ahead of older class 2 cars & I fail to see how these changes will alter that.

obr184 · Forum Junkie

i understand that small turbo motors have dominated in the past. But we have yet to see a developed V8 car do the national series.... just look at Hayden Bentley in his first season in his car. I can almost gaurentee that the mojority of people at the pointy end of the chamionship ladder next year will be in V8s simply ...

I believe that this class restructure will hurt the little guys while making little or no change to the way the "big boys" go about there business.

Re: the motor limit.

I beleive that due to the fact of how much HP the turbo cars can produce i think that the possibility of keeping them at 6000(including thier multiplication obviously) and possibly bringing the naturally aspirated cars to 7000 or 8000 would not be a far fetched idea.

VICSHMICK · Regular Poster

Just a quick point about the 6000cc engine limit, I think that you will find there is quite a number of Outback Challenge - Winch Challenge 4x4s that would love to compete in our form of off road racing but many of these cars have turbo 4.2ltr engines that do not fit in to any of our classes. I can't see any problem with letting people turbo charge an engine of any capacity as I am sure that this is not what wins races. If you look at the cars that are winning races now you will find that most of them are far from the 3529.41cc limit that you may start with before forced induction.

One other thing I struggle to understand is why we need a 4ltr class in buggies. By now surely people must be able to see that it is much more cost effective to produce power from a turbo or supercharged engine than it is a naturally aspirated one. If this class was to go ahead there is nothing to stop someone with surplus money, talent, and good car prep from dominating this class. It is also important to note that it does take much more than money to win as I just pointed out it takes good prep and talent and this can and often does overcome a lack of funds.

As for the old class 3 you will have to check out my comments to CAMS as being a class 3 driver I do have a bit to say about that but I will save you guys the pain of that for the time being.

forum menace · Regular Poster

HOW MANY ENGINES WERE CHECKED LAST YEAR FOR CAPACITY.

Azteck · In rehab

Stingray said "There is no need to measure wheel travel, by restricting the rear axle length it will automaticaly govern wheel travel."

Just to throw a spanner in the works, a live rear axle can have up to 36" of travel
and use an axle that would only need to be 19" (or less)

Also if you use 934 cvs I would imagine more angle could be achieved than a kombi or 930cv, then add chromoly cages polish the outer cages, use smaller balls.....have we spent enough money yet???

It does not matter what restrictions are put on race cars....someone will always have more money than you......sux doesn't it!