Jump to content
John K Shirley

2006 Regulations are online

Recommended Posts

John K Shirley

The 2006 NASA Rally Sport General Regulations for Rallies have been published and are available at:

 

http://www.nasarallysport.com/rules.php

 

No major changes have been made just clarifications of existing rules.

There are some cage rules and fuel cell rules that will be in effect in 2007.

 

John K Shirley

NASA Rally Sport

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Hurst

Is the 2006 US WRX to be classed in Grand Touring or Super Stock? It appears to be legal for Super Stock, but specifically listed as a Grand Touring car.

 

With regard to fuel cell installations, is the back seat of a hatchback considered part of the luggage compartment?, or does it begin behind the rearmost original equipment seat?

 

These questiuons are in the interest of consistancy, not being critical, I am somewhat envious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alex K

John,

 

What's the meaning of the new text in 3.6.2.1.3, that refers to diagram 253-4A for the "minimum configuration" of the roll cage? The diagram it refers to has two diagonal members in the main hoop, and an X in the roof.

 

That conflicts with section 3.6.2.2.1.3 which says (using the diagrams) that only one diagonal bar is required in the main hoop (the other can be in the back stays). In a way it also conflicts with 3.6.2.2.2.4.3, which says that the roof reinforcements are "permitted," not required.

 

Please don't tell me that you need two diagonals and an X in the roof! If so, those are some pretty major changes from the 2005 rules that I had planned my cage modifiations around. I don't see the need for an X in the roof.

 

Just for reference - my cage would look like 253-17, plus the extra cross memeber in the backstays in 253-17A, plus the 'rear backstay connector' pictured in 253-14. I was planning on adding ONE cross member in the main hoop as pictured in 253-4 as required by the 2005 rules. I am very happy with the cage as-is, and it has a CARS logbook.

 

Thanks,

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ivan Orisek
Is the 2006 US WRX to be classed in Grand Touring or Super Stock? It appears to be legal for Super Stock, but specifically listed as a Grand Touring car.

 

Mike,

 

Grand Touring is the USRC Class equivalent to Super Stock 1 in ESRC

 

With regard to fuel cell installations, is the back seat of a hatchback considered part of the luggage compartment?,

 

No

 

or does it begin behind the rearmost original equipment seat?

Yes

 

These questiuons are in the interest of consistancy, not being critical, I am somewhat envious.

 

Ivan Orisek

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John K Shirley
Is the 2006 US WRX to be classed in Grand Touring or Super Stock? It appears to be legal for Super Stock, but specifically listed as a Grand Touring car.

 

With regard to fuel cell installations, is the back seat of a hatchback considered part of the luggage compartment?, or does it begin behind the rearmost original equipment seat?

 

These questiuons are in the interest of consistancy, not being critical, I am somewhat envious.

 

Mike,

 

The 2006 WRX is in GT not Super Stock because of the 2.5 turbo engine and is lighter then the STi.

 

We've tried to simplify the regional and national classes. We still have the P1 & P2 regional classes under a combined O4 for the Nationals but SS1 will be called GT and SS2 is SS both across the board.

 

As Ivan has posted, the luggage compartment is behind the rear seat.

 

Thanks for the question.

 

John K Shirley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John K Shirley
John,

 

What's the meaning of the new text in 3.6.2.1.3, that refers to diagram 253-4A for the "minimum configuration" of the roll cage? The diagram it refers to has two diagonal members in the main hoop, and an X in the roof.

 

That conflicts with section 3.6.2.2.1.3 which says (using the diagrams) that only one diagonal bar is required in the main hoop (the other can be in the back stays). In a way it also conflicts with 3.6.2.2.2.4.3, which says that the roof reinforcements are "permitted," not required.

 

Please don't tell me that you need two diagonals and an X in the roof! If so, those are some pretty major changes from the 2005 rules that I had planned my cage modifiations around. I don't see the need for an X in the roof.

 

Just for reference - my cage would look like 253-17, plus the extra cross memeber in the backstays in 253-17A, plus the 'rear backstay connector' pictured in 253-14. I was planning on adding ONE cross member in the main hoop as pictured in 253-4 as required by the 2005 rules. I am very happy with the cage as-is, and it has a CARS logbook.

 

Thanks,

 

Alex

 

Alex

 

Your car is ok due to its current CARS logbook as long as it meets the current CARS Regs. I'll check on your other comments.

 

John K Shirley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Hurst

The 2006 WRX is in GT not Super Stock because of the 2.5 turbo engine and is lighter then the STi.

 

...but Super Stock has no upper dispacement limit, same as our PGT, and the 06 WRX (not STI) has brakes that fit inside 15" wheels. It's the brakes that keep the STI (and the EVO) out of Super Stock and PGT, not the 2.5 engine, right?

 

On a tangent, a Dodge Viper in Super Stock at Rally TN on the tarmac? I swear, rally TN is a big goal for me this year.

 

From 3.2.4a

....The followingvehicles are specifically placed in GT unless eligible for another class.

a) 2004-2006 US Subaru STi

b) 2006 US Subaru WRX

c) 2004-2005 Mitsubishi Evo VIII

d) 2006 Mitsubishi Evo IX

......

 

The 2006 US Subaru WRX (non STI) appears to be legal for Super Stock "eligible for another class" since there is no upper displacement limit in Super Stock, and the brakes don't need to be changed to fit 15" wheels. The 06 US WRX (non STI) brakes appear to be identical to Group N gravel brakes, it's like they were reading our rulebooks.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alex K
Alex

 

Your car is ok due to its current CARS logbook as long as it meets the current CARS Regs. I'll check on your other comments.

 

John K Shirley[/color]

 

John - Do you mean I can trade in my CARS logbook for a NASA one? Or do I enter using the CARS logbook? Ivan didn't think I could keep using the CARS book since I live here.

 

I want to comply with NASA rules, but I was worried about doing it in time (and in budget) for Rally NY. I'll make sure it's current CARS legal, it was built in 2002.

 

Thanks!

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John K Shirley
The 2006 WRX is in GT not Super Stock because of the 2.5 turbo engine and is lighter then the STi.

 

...but Super Stock has no upper dispacement limit, same as our PGT, and the 06 WRX (not STI) has brakes that fit inside 15" wheels. It's the brakes that keep the STI (and the EVO) out of Super Stock and PGT, not the 2.5 engine, right?

 

On a tangent, a Dodge Viper in Super Stock at Rally TN on the tarmac? I swear, rally TN is a big goal for me this year.

 

From 3.2.4a

....The followingvehicles are specifically placed in GT unless eligible for another class.

a) 2004-2006 US Subaru STi

b) 2006 US Subaru WRX

c) 2004-2005 Mitsubishi Evo VIII

d) 2006 Mitsubishi Evo IX

......

 

The 2006 US Subaru WRX (non STI) appears to be legal for Super Stock "eligible for another class" since there is no upper displacement limit in Super Stock, and the brakes don't need to be changed to fit 15" wheels. The 06 US WRX (non STI) brakes appear to be identical to Group N gravel brakes, it's like they were reading our rulebooks.

 

Mike,

 

I like these discussions. Yes you could argue the point but 3.2.4.5 allows homologated brakes for these cars so there are equal to the STi. A bulletin on clarifying 3.2.4.a. is most likely required. These GT cars are either near full Group N4 spec or could be under these rules. I don't beleive we could fairly mix the noted GT cars with SS.

 

I know Subaru reads your rule book.

 

As for Rally TN, We will use water filled jersey barriers this year.

At 1800 lbs each that will fix the chicane problems.

 

JKS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timo

Question 1: Rule 3.6.2.2.2.4.2 states to see drawings 253-7, 253-8, 253-12, 253-17. I do not find 253-12. On which page of the pdf is that drawing located?

 

Question 2: Rule 3.6.2.2.2.4.3 states that reinforcing the upper part of the roll cage is permitted per drawings 253-9 and 253-9A.

a.) I do not find drawing 253-9. On which page of the pdf is that drawing on?

b.) Is it permissible to reinforce the upper part of the cage per drawings 253-9B, 253-9C, 253-9D or 253-9E as is accepted by the FIA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ColinB

"As for Rally TN, We will use water filled jersey barriers this year.

At 1800 lbs each that will fix the chicane problems."

 

 

 

That ought to do the trick! At least until the locals pump a few 12g cartridges into them.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anders Green

Sure... but do you think you could tell the difference between an unmolested one and a leaky one at 80 mph? Maybe you could look for big puddles. Hmmm, would probably want to slow down for a wet road anyway.

 

Either way, it will be fun!

 

Anders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BDacres

John or Ivan,

 

My cage currently has an X brace in the back stays already, and am adding one diagonal brace in the main hoop tonight right behind the seats. One thing am not sure of is the need for a roof brace. Is it required or optional? X brace or just a bar running across the cage roof? Am same as Alex, am happy with the current cage design I have.

 

Cage currently looks like drawing 253-17a with 253-7 and 253-11 front strut brace.

 

Seems like every time I think am done welding on this thing, I have to add more bar to it.

 

Brent Dacres

77 Mitsbu Lancer G2

Pre-Evolution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timo

Question 1: Rule 3.6.2.2.2.4.2 states to see drawings 253-7, 253-8, 253-12, 253-17. I do not find 253-12. On which page of the pdf is that drawing located?

 

Question 2: Rule 3.6.2.2.2.4.3 states that reinforcing the upper part of the roll cage is permitted per drawings 253-9 and 253-9A.

a.) I do not find drawing 253-9. On which page of the pdf is that drawing on?

b.) Is it permissible to reinforce the upper part of the cage per drawings 253-9B, 253-9C, 253-9D or 253-9E as is accepted by the FIA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GRMPer

Yea, it looks like the rule on the top of page 59 requires an X or a diagonal in the roof.....but those configurations don't show any of the required gusseting either

 

bottom line: do need x bracing or diagonal in roof?

 

Per

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GRMPer

And wouldn't you know it...my fabricator is packed solid for the next month. Can we let this slide for Cherokee and it'll get done after that?

 

Per

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alex K

I was waiting to see if John would post something himself, but on the phone he told me that the new regulations requiring the X in the roof was meant to be for implementation in 2007. He urged me to get one installed in my car anyway, but implied that I could run this year without it. Don't take my word for it, but I don't think you need to worry about it yet.

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
heymagic

Bottom line ...it was meant to be an "07 implementation for new logged cars. It is not required now. It is a good idea if possible to do it now, although it would be difficult to do on an existing cage. Depends how much room is above the cage to weld. NASA is trying to give lots of lead time on changes.

 

Gene McCullough

Olympus Chief Scrutineer

NASA/RA scrutineer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeff Hagan
As for Rally TN, We will use water filled jersey barriers this year.

At 1800 lbs each that will fix the chicane problems.

You're joking, right?

 

You're not actually planning to put a (practially) immovable wall across a stage road, are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew_Frick

^^ Why not they had them at the last RallyTN. Only they were the large round haybales and it worked fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
heymagic

No different than a house or Fir tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ColinB

It's been pretty well proven that movable chicanes (cones) are not effective (see cones at Rally NY and hay bales at TN) . This ain't autocross/rallycross, you should respect chicanes as much as you respect trees/rocks/etc. And be glad they aren't going to be tractor tires, those are hard to judge at night at stage speeds....

 

-C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeff Hagan
No different than a house or Fir tree.

Except:

 

- neither of those is actually in the road

- organizers don't typically try to put in extra houses or Fir trees; they just deal with what's already there as best they can.

 

It's been pretty well proven that movable chicanes (cones) are not effective (see cones at Rally NY and hay bales at TN) . This ain't autocross/rallycross, you should respect chicanes as much as you respect trees/rocks/etc.

The chicanes at Rally New York were effective for us last year - we slowed down and went through them without hitting them. The threat of a time penalty was enough for us.

 

If there's actually a problem with people blowing through chicanes because they think they'll be able to make up the penalty by not slowing down, then increase the penalty and enforce the heck out of it.

 

If people are messing up on the chicanes because they mis-judge them, the chicanes sneak up on them, the co-driver's lost, or some other reason like that, then turning them into hazards won't solve anything.

 

It'll probably give a few teams a chance to test just how good their belts are, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
heymagic
Except:

 

- neither of those is actually in the road

- organizers don't typically try to put in extra houses or Fir trees; they just deal with what's already there as best they can.

 

 

The chicanes at Rally New York were effective for us last year - we slowed down and went through them without hitting them. The threat of a time penalty was enough for us.

 

If there's actually a problem with people blowing through chicanes because they think they'll be able to make up the penalty by not slowing down, then increase the penalty and enforce the heck out of it.

 

If people are messing up on the chicanes because they mis-judge them, the chicanes sneak up on them, the co-driver's lost, or some other reason like that, then turning them into hazards won't solve anything.

 

It'll probably give a few teams a chance to test just how good their belts are, though.[/quote

 

In reality the road goes around the tree or house...the road also goes around the chicane. Really no difference, an immovable object. You know the chicanes are there..drive accordingly. People have to accept responsibility for their actions behind the wheel...blind crest= slow down, big ruts= slow down, bigassed chicanes= really slow down. Whether a driver turns into a placed barrier or a natural barrier is not an organizers guilt trip...unless the driver wasn't warned about the chicane over the blind crest.

 

Gene McCullough

Olympus Chief Scrutineer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeff Hagan
In reality the road goes around the tree or house...the road also goes around the chicane.

Technically, the racing line (hopefully) goes around the chicane elements, the road doesn't.

You're narrowing the available road, making the car do slidy slalom turns and introducing a major potential for damage to the cars... why? Just for kicks?

 

Effectively, you're changing the penalty for messing up on a chicane to exclusion (from the DNF when a car destroys its front bumper and rad) and a hefty fine (when they have to fix the damage).

 

Chicanes aren't what rallying's about. The only reason they're there at all is for safety - their purpose is to keep speeds down. If you make them inherently unsafe, what's the point?

 

People have to accept responsibility for their actions behind the wheel...blind crest= slow down, big ruts= slow down, bigassed chicanes= really slow down.

But why put in the bigass chicane in the first place?

 

Why put something in the road that should have a triple caution unless there's absolutely no other option?

 

And why not have something that's quick and easy for a single person to re-set up if someone does blow the chicane?

 

"orange cone chicane that can knock you down a position" = really slow down too.

 

Whether a driver turns into a placed barrier or a natural barrier is not an organizers guilt trip...unless the driver wasn't warned about the chicane over the blind crest.

Which could very well be the case if an inexperienced co-driver thinks they're somewhere in the notes that they aren't. Which has been known to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...