WCMA Road Race Classing Review

[10cc]

Do not get into the situation where you are creating classes all over the place to fit cars that people decide they want to build. Discipline. Set classes, and people must build to those classes.

[Terence Thyr]

By my understanding if NASA's classification system were to be adopted it would result in two less classes than there are under the current WCMA system, not more. It's just that the classes would be more representative of the types of cars that are currently being run and would also easily fit many cars that would like to participate, like myself.

[10cc]

Fewer classes would be great, our goal, but how do we it so many disparate cars into a single class without there being a large gap between "top" and "bottom" of the class...

[4kruzn]

here is some highlights from what I see happening.  based on discussions,  and the voices in my head!

NASA 2 less classes is not nearly enough less to even consider major change because of 2 less classes

NASA   focus for cars changes from maximizing engine building and power, to maximizing handling.   both cost a lot of money   (racing is not cheap)
NASA   puts emphasis on ANY car regardless of engine and chassis will fit into a class some where
NASA   power to weight base for classing.

I am  truly 60/40 against NASA    here is why.

-I am not sure its smart for a Miata with a twin turbo charged 7 litre LS6 to be allowed to race in the top class with no fuel cell
-I am not sure it is smart for a Miata and a full body challenger srt to race door to door for a class win.   1800lb car vs 4000lb car in same class...
-some cars that are currently VERY competitive in WCMA will become not...   sorry guys I have to name names here.    example.  first gen rx7's   notoriously do not handle or brake great.   NASA rules favor great nimble handling cars.  because to be fast in NASA with equal power to weight ratio you must be able to out run the other cars in the corners and pass under braking.   
-I think that NASA rules will solve a few of the problems discussed, like a 5l mustang or a 6l Camaro, but it will create a whole realm of other problems that might simple not be worth the hassle.   

the big advantage of NASA imo would be
-engine swaps allowed
-mismatched chassis vs engine manufacture
-no exclusion of competitor


and the only one I really, really like, is NO EXCLUSION   

however I would think that we could solve that within  our own unique rule set without starting from scratch. 

Conroy
 

[The Radium King]

i can understand not wanting to do away with fuel cells in the fast classes, and not wanting to get too agressive with class factors. another solution might be to cap additional weight requirements; ie:

"Regardless of weight calculations, no vehicle shall be required to weigh more than 100 lbs over manufactured weight"   or

"Regardless of weight calculations, maximum required ballast will be 200 lbs"

otherwise, if you want fewer classes, make fewer classes. i don't know much about IT, and you can't have any fewer classes in ST, but what about GT? create a GT-U and a GT-O and be done with it. mirror the ST classes so racers can easily transition. that kills four classes right there. there's so few people racing in GT right now that you won't get a lot of complaints.

[Tachyon]

I'm of the opinion we're starting to see some good comments and competitors are seriously looking at the overall big picture and not the size of their ________ and _______.  We're heading in the right direction.  Please don't forget to have a look at some our other peer groups. Doug and Gary R.  suggested we all review the rules of a number of other groups: CASC-OR, ICSCC, CACC, NASA & SCCA.

Winter will soon be gone and we will be back competing and lapping at Castrol Raceway.  Castrol's owners spent a great deal of money, time and worked very hard last year for us to get a season of racing competed in 2013.  2014 will be even a better year.  We are so very fortunate to have a closed circuit paved race track in Alberta.  I know many are hoping we may have 2 to 3 tracks by 2017 & beyond. However, Castrol is here now and it is a challenging course for many competitors. Laps times will fall as the season goes on and confidence of drivers will increase and we will see some car/drivers move up the speed charts.

"If" we see another track then the competitiveness of some cars may vary from track to track. So please keep this in mind. If you look through CASC-OR they have had to address this issue. 

[Roy Wallace Racing]

I have been following comments in this thread with great interest.
I am puzzled by some comments suggesting that some GT classes waive fuel cell requirements, and would like to share a story if I may.
Last year, I saw the white Honda drag his stock tank around the track and finally stop right in front of our pit stall to have it INSTANTLY drain at least five gallons of fuel onto the ground, creating a huge cleanup. We were quite lucky there was no fire. Have any of you seen how big a fire five gallons of fuel can make, especially when it is spread over a large area?
If that car had a fuel cell, it very likely would have never fallen out of the car in the first place. If it somehow did, it would have never allowed more than a dribble of fuel to come out, as the foam prevents a large slosh of fuel, should the bladder be breached.
I feel every car that races on any track should have a fuel cell, regardless of the "speed" of the class.
That Honda was going 2 mph in the pits, but could have caused a HUGE fire, right where lots more fuel was being stored.
I always hear club members saying "safety first, we are club racers" Isn't a mandatory fuel cell the first line in safety? At the very least, these cars should have reinforced tank mounting structures.

I understand the differences between tube chassis "real" race cars and a stock street car with fuel injection. There are already enough of these stock tank classes, I do not feel we should be adding more of them.

Thanks for entertaining my opinion.

RWR

[10cc]

As many folks have pointed out, our rules seem to make it hard for drivers from other regions/sanctioning bodies to come here to compete. Well, I just finished a conversation with the ICSCC Licencing Director regarding getting my ICSCC Road Race Licence, and he pointed out that "...Technically we don't have reciprocity with WCMA"

Point is, we are not alone out there with "restrictive" rules.

( Just got another email....ICSCC just accepted my WCMA licence)

[Tachyon]

HI Brooke,

Over the years, a number of WCMA drivers and before WCMA, Prairie Region under CASC have competed in ICSCC events and vice versa.  Many of us who competed at Westwood , BC never had a issue, but then again a number of us  Albertans  had ASN Professional License or a CASC Professional Competition licenses.

ICSCC ran a lot of their Conference events at Westwood.


Good hear. They run very good events.

Gary

[JustinL]

Is there any news on the 2014 technical regulations? The season is approaching quickly. All I really want to know is the STO displacement and correction factors.

[zhao]

I have been following comments in this thread with great interest.
I am puzzled by some comments suggesting that some GT classes waive fuel cell requirements, and would like to share a story if I may.
Last year, I saw the white Honda drag his stock tank around the track and finally stop right in front of our pit stall to have it INSTANTLY drain at least five gallons of fuel onto the ground, creating a huge cleanup. We were quite lucky there was no fire. Have any of you seen how big a fire five gallons of fuel can make, especially when it is spread over a large area?
If that car had a fuel cell, it very likely would have never fallen out of the car in the first place. If it somehow did, it would have never allowed more than a dribble of fuel to come out, as the foam prevents a large slosh of fuel, should the bladder be breached.
I feel every car that races on any track should have a fuel cell, regardless of the "speed" of the class.
That Honda was going 2 mph in the pits, but could have caused a HUGE fire, right where lots more fuel was being stored.
I always hear club members saying "safety first, we are club racers" Isn't a mandatory fuel cell the first line in safety? At the very least, these cars should have reinforced tank mounting structures.

I understand the differences between tube chassis "real" race cars and a stock street car with fuel injection. There are already enough of these stock tank classes, I do not feel we should be adding more of them.

Thanks for entertaining my opinion.

RWR

Just stop right there. A fuel cell is not necessary for all classes. leave that rule for GT cars. Fuel tanks do not just magically fall out of cars, flat out no we should not change the rules requiring fuel cells because one guy dragged his tank. Even if you want to talk rear end hits, Modern cars have the tank situated in the middle of the vehicle as well; pretty safe location. Even the 80s cars we see on the track in decreasing number with the tank hanging out the back is still safe in a real end collision, safe enough that people weren't dying firey deaths on the street. What I do for a living is stare at accidents all day every day. I've seen some extremely hard hit vehicles, thousands upon thousands of vehicles. some blasted so hard in the back they are bucketed at the windshield. some pushed so far in it made it feet into the car. I have never seen a fuel tank compromised. Why would we require fuel cells for all classes based on someone's feelings of what is safe or not, regardless of the facts?

You know what would be really safe? purpose built race cars not built in your shed. Might as well ban people building their own race car if you want to go down the raod that everyone needs a fuel cell, because the real problem is not that cars are dnagerous from the factory, but that people are building cars in their shed and altering vehicles in a way that may or may compromise their safety. Your example, the tank was gettoed in place i believe with 1 strap or something like that not even held on right. It was not installed the way the factory had it installed and secured. It not being a fuel cell had absolutely nothing to do with that incident. That is like saying we should have nascar style hubs installed mandatory on every car because ocasionally someone doesn't torque thier lugs properly and a wheel comes off in a race with the oem style hub/studs. Lets put the blame where blame is due, and its not the factory tank that was the problem in that, it was the guy who put the car together.

This is amateur racing. Its try and keep costs to a minimum before things are expensive enough we might as well just skip building our own cars, and save some money and buy SCCA ford spec racers or open wheel cars, or one of the other dedicated purpose built manufacturered race cars that are proven, and ban all the home brew shed cars that are so popular.

[10cc]

ZHAO,

Nice post. Good points.

[The Radium King]

so, if the rules make it difficult for me to transition my current track car (in which I have lots of $, is safe, not too old, not rusty) and the rules favour high output, small displacement Japanese cars, and everyone tells me to build to the rules, guess what? the rules kinda encourage me to go buy a rusty Honda (or, more likely, mazda) with dated brakes, the older the better in order to keep costs down (all the money in my current car may as well be gone - you never recoup that kind of investment). can't get it safetied for street use? no problem, racing will let me run it at twice the legal speed limit 2" from a concrete wall. how many straps to hold the gas tank in? as many as the rules ask for I guess (actually, rules don't have much to say about fuel tanks, only fuel cells). and if the tank falls out? dunno. GT cars have fuel cells, but they're running on the same track at the same time as cars that don't have fuel cells, so it all seems moot to me?

nasa doesn't require fuel cells in any of their classes I don't think ...

[giantkiller]

As many folks have pointed out, our rules seem to make it hard for drivers from other regions/sanctioning bodies to come here to compete. Well, I just finished a conversation with the ICSCC Licencing Director regarding getting my ICSCC Road Race Licence, and he pointed out that "...Technically we don't have reciprocity with WCMA"

Point is, we are not alone out there with "restrictive" rules.

( Just got another email....ICSCC just accepted my WCMA licence)

He is technically correct. ICSCC is a "conference of sports cars clubs" hence the name. As a result they are made of a number of smaller WCMA type clubs such as IRDC, NWMS (spokane),  Cascade and SCCBC. In that regard we really don't have reciprocity. There is something that exists with SCCBC which allows them to recognize each other.

However in their rules they do have a provision for accepting non ICSCC licenses, much as other sanctioning bodies do, in the case of "conference" they accept SCCA, NASCC, BMWCCA, and ASN/FIA.

The only catch with racing on your WCMA member affiliate license is that you cannot run as an area racer and will not be eligible for championship points, for that you will need to join a member club and and get your area license.

Non area races all have car numbers starting with a 7XX.

I have only had minor questions racing with my WCMA license across North America.

While I don't think the licensing thing is a huge issue for us right now it is something which makes it difficult for other regions to travel here, with so many tracks and a 10+ race weekends on the schedule it is unlikely that US or even BC folks would travel here. I think we should focus our attention on building the base locally first.

[giantkiller]

We have discussed the fuel cell thing before but there are some good points made.

One of the challenges I see is the fact that with a single grid and multiple classes we have some rules which don't seem to make sense in the context of multiple classes, such as the fuel cell rule. If my GT car is on track at the same time as your IT car it seems silly to not have equivalent safety in place.

One way around this is to say something to the effect of:

"fuel cells are only required where the fuel tank sits all or in part rearward of the vertical centreline of the rear wheels. A fuel tank which is situated forward of the vertical centreline must be completely isolated from the drivers compartment."

Now it is up to the driver / builder if a fuel cell is required or presents an advantage through safety or weight distribution. But you can feel confident that the car you are racing with doesn't have 40 litres of fuel immediately on the other side of the tail lights such as on a BMW 2002.