I really dont understand all too much of whats going on in the other big thread. but i'm picking up some thought that ppl seem to have problems with the allowance for the semi pro cars in the rules. well, just like H1 cars are allowed different engine rules, why not extend (or maybe isolate) the extra chassis rules (that NASA has implemented in the west) to H1 ONLY, and not to the lower, "low buck" classes.

some of you may know, i know ryan and karl know, that i had a big issue with these extra allowances in the Westcoast (national) rules. this seems like a much more reasonable compromise that allows both sides to be happy. no one is ever going to build a stock engine CRX chassis to USTCC spec anyway. so it just seems to make sense now that the issue is brought up again.

anyway, just my own thoughts i guess. please bicker elsewhere.

 

Not trying to "bicker"... that's been done.

I understand that this seems like a good solution to the wc people since they all fall into this category. There's no compromise - just a simple change that makes everyone legal and happy.

The flipside of that is that my H1 hybrid costs MUCH less to build, even fully prepared, than an H2 ITR. For that matter, I've seen H3 cars sell for more money that I'll have in mine. Part of the appeal was the ability to build a lower cost car with higher performance. For myself, and for some of the existing H1 drivers, the idea of using our/their class as a sort of catch-all is not appealing because it's not what we set out to join.

Again... I'm not trying to continue an argument in this thread - just clarify why some of the EC people might be resisitant to a "little" change.

 

Just got back from being offline for a couple of days and tried to wade through that other mess. Pretty impressive how a good idea can get co-opted so quickly. The new rules make the HC thing far less attractive to me personally but there are a lot of individual agenda issues and red herrings that need sorting out out there: For example, if someone is running a car modified beyond the rules, either (a) someone else will step up to address the issue through channels or (b) by definition, it isn't a problem...

I would agree with what I think is Tyson's premise - that the revised rules are philosophically mismatched to common practice in the sub-H1 classes. I LIKE the idea of not being allowed to spend more money than is minimally required to make a safe, predictable racing car. I expected the rules to be tweaked a little (like allowing the IT overbore) but NEVER expected the changes that came out.

Kirk

 

WCHC should just adhere to the rules, its really not that hard...

 

Personally, I liked the idea of a series where I could run my car in another series and dip into this as well from time to time without an additional investment. Hell, there are some good folks that show up to this and I enjoy their company. I have been trying to say for a long time (and never have gotten a good idea of the level of receptivity to it) that I think safety is/should be a foremost concern.

I mentioned a while ago that the level of current prep for H1 cars - to ME - seems entirely along the lines of potential in SPU. I personally dig the idea of an H1 class but we must all recognize that these cars are "capable" of excpetional speeds in comparison to thier tub's construction - is it off-base to ask people to think (rules-wise) of SPU-like safety req's for these cars? For anyone building a cheap near-200 hp Civic HB on the cheap - where did they skimp on costs?

The reality of the series is that there could very well be (by hook or by crook) the most inexperienced drivers (on the East Coast I am speaking) in the cars with most potential. And here you have a class that has no minimum weight requirements ... well a 6 point bolt-in will be lighter than an 8-pt. tube'd like nuts cage. Is this making sense? Then there is this idea of running these cars out there with 70-90 whp H5 cars ... again, is this making sense?

So alas, there was a qualifying rule implemented last year - 120% of the fastest H2 car. Well, I personally don't care for that H2 provision (would have preferred 115 or 120 of P2 or something like the goal was to keep it from being skewed by one car). The potential for the H1 field entries to enter into the double digits is pretty good and with that and a qualifying rule that exempts their times AND low hp H4/5 cars out there, well, you see what I am saying?

So then the rules from national adopted a unlimited cage attachement points and seam welded chassis option with the proviso they have to run more weight. So I am seeing in my mind's eye a handful of H1 type cars with minimal safety reqirements and a couple of absolute rigid as **** bricks all with the same speed potential out there with cars incapable of over-caging/seam welding because of rules native to other series and more cars w/ minimal cages that could potentially be moving 30+ seconds slower around a course than the fastest H1 cars. What I am saying is that any combination of these things meet, it could unfortunately be disasterous.

I am sure, per usual, that I have made no succint point here. What I am concerned about for myself and others is that there seems to be a very distinct goal to be inclusive and put on a good show. Inclusive is good. Putting on a good show is good. Doing both has me taking pause. I figure that in the end, sacrificing safety for participation will, in the end, sacrifice both. If I am not making sense or if my statements are totally off-base with the consensus, I will reluctantly be OK with that. It doesn't hurt for me to try make this point however.

 

I was paying a lot of attention to the echc last year, but have since grown more distant from it. But because all the discussions are taking place, why not throw out for what they're worth some radical views off the top of my head. If *change was really needed* and I were president, I would:

Set a goal to have one day two separate Honda based race groups under the same Honda Challenge name. One group would be for the conventional "Factory Honda model" classes H2/H3/H4/H5 all sharing the same rule book, while the other group would be for the Hybrid/Super prepared Hondas consisting of the existing H1 class with the addition of an HO, HU, whatever sounds more tacky, to address the apparent popular WC demand for such an unlimited class. For starters, leave the ECHC as it is right now and just create on the WC just the H1/H0 Honda race group. The rulebook for H1 would read as they do now in the ECHC, while the H0 rules can be re-written to suit people's needs, but with a strong emphasis on safety (min 8 pt cage, etc.). (If desired/needed and imo, the same H0 safety rules should be adopted for H1, too.) While this group is growing on the WC, the current ECHC would be growing as well in it's untouched state on the EC. When sufficient interest exists, introduce the H0/H1 hybrid group on the EC and the factory honda classes H2/H3/H4/H5 group on the WC. This will however shake up the echc, as H1 will no longer be runnig in the same run group as it did prior to the introduction of the H1/H0 on the EC. I am not aware of the current NASA race groups and how this could be fitted in, but the idea would be to have the H0/H1 cars separate from the H2/H3/H4/H5 in different sessions on the track. In other words, two separate Honda Challenge races.

The bottom line (if/whenever this day would come) is to have two separate Honda race groups with sufficient entries to self sustain their own run groups on the track. Benefits in no particular order: a) the "spirit" of each group will be preserved – the “hybrid hondas” spirit of the H1/H0 group and the spirit of conventional models racing under the same rule book in the H2/H3/H4/H5 classes; b) no rules creep for any of the current h-c classes and nobody will complain - H1 will remain as is, while H0, a newly created super class, can start with a clean sheet of paper; c) safety issues will be directly addressed - appropriate safety rules for the construction of H0/H1 cars, and no excessive speed differential between classes at the same time on the track since how fast the fastest H0 car is compared to how slow the slowest H5 car is will be irrelevant; d) national recognition of the Honda Challenge series with a national runoffs event - a two race runoffs of course.

Another problem that I see currently existing in the H-C will also be addressed. Since the allure that most are after for building an H1 car (to potentially lead the entire field) will be gone, people wont be as desperate to build these cars anymore for so "cheap" and might instead direct their interests/investments in other classes where they are probably better suited (mainly financially) in the first place. Those who do have, or will build H0 cars, will have a strict safety rules set to follow to make sure that going cheap is not an option in this area.

I do not have any more time at the moment to write up of all the cons/problems (but I am thinking of a few major ones) associated with such an idea/fantasy, so I would gladly leave that up to you all.

 

thanks for your thoughts and replies. reading from the other thread, i think someone mentioned the issue would be having a mixed field of cars of different levels of speed. to that i simply cannot give any credit of defense. if its just a worry about having to deal with traffic, or newbie drivers being uninitiated to being lapped, then youre really are just asking for a glorified HPDE program for wannabe racers. dealing with traffic (fast and slow) is part of racing. newbies being lapped by the fast boys is going to be part of every club racing. just gotta deal with it. each racer should have a proper racing license, in which they should have been trained to deal with traffic. to think just because you have a speed differential, its asking for problems, i counter saying its asking for more exciting racing quite frankly, but not necessarily anything any more dangerous than one competitor wanting to overtake another for a real position.

my suggestion is simply a solution to deal with the problem of "rules", and how they affect at different levels of each class. im not sure separating the classes in different run groups as alex pointed out is particularly good for the series, especially since i see no problem with the fast cars dealing with slower traffic and vice versa. but thats just my own opinion. and there simply isnt enough participation, even in the east and especially in the west where they already share the group with others, to make it necessary.

 

The reason that H0 does not exist is because there was a reliability issue. We didn't want to have to spend half of our track time under full course yellow because somebody blew their motor and dumped oil everywhere. Say what you want about forced induction cars lasting a while on the track, under race conditions, there would be too much temptation to crank up the boost to advance that one extra position. By eliminating them, we increase our green flag time.

For clarification, the rule put into place last year was to qualify you had to be within 15% of the fastest H2 car, not 20%. This year that was changed to 25%. Personally, I thought 15% of the fastest H2 car was perfectly fair. The reason why H2 was used was because it didn't seem logical to compare any production based car to a hybrid with a hundred times more potential. Seeing how the pace of the H2 cars compared to the H1 cars, we didn't feel like we would be losing much in terms of lap times. As the H1 fields grow though, it becomes more of a concern. I know at BeaveRun we had at least one car go off (and ruin his race) because his closing speed on a lapped car was just too high, and he had to bail. Not a good situation...

Matt

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">there simply isnt enough participation</TD></TR></TABLE>

bingo. That's one major problem at the moment for such an idea to work. Therefore, just go ahead and implement the H1/H0 group of the H-C on the WC (where there is demand) and let it grow, while leave the ECHC as is on the EC and let that grow.

The problem is that people seem to be thinking ahead of themselves by trying so hard to merge the WC with the EC. Why is it so critical to do that now? IMO the time has not come to that. Why? Because no matter how you write the rules, that still won't solve the real problem - the cars on the WC (H0) are *not* compatible with the ones on the EC at this point. So then how could you ever hold any kind of a national championship event in the first place?

You simply need more entries/interest before anything is done/changed. Anyone know the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?".

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Hracer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The problem is that people seem to be thinking ahead of themselves by trying so hard to merge the WC with the EC. Why is it so critical to do that now? IMO the time has not come to that. Why? Because no matter how you write the rules, that still won't solve the real problem - the cars on the WC (H0) are *not* compatible with the ones on the EC at this point.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yup. My post lost in that ``other'' thread:

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SPiFF &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">HippoSleek Keep observation. While the EC vs WC thing has escalated to name calling and whatnot, the root of the problem is trying to hack World Challenge level prep cars into a series that was never designed to accommodate them. We actually had a kind of test run for this last year with Tom Stewart's Civic and even tried an HU class. Take a look at 2002 Race 1 and 2002 Race 3 results.

World Challenge cars (and to some degree USTCC) cars are very different then what *most* people in the US are racing. Since the west coast has more of these cars then elsewhere, we are running into this issue now with the WCHC guys. MWHC doesn't have this issue and I don't think it will be an issue in other regions either. Forcing these cars into the series structure to me is bad and is like a merger between inherently incompatible companies which ends up killing them both.

If the "national success" of the series is seriously weight against a handful of World Challenge like cars in the west, I hope the choice is made for the greater good.</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Hracer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

You simply need more entries/interest before anything is done/changed. Anyone know the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?".</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

alex, i think you and i are on the same page here. i didnt see a need to change the original EC rules to what the national/WestC rules are at now, but it seems the new organizers do. perhaps to bump up participation to accomodate current regionally licensed cars and drivers. but i dont see how that should affect the lower classes of HC, since none of them as stated race in anything other than H1 as it is. oh well, whatever.

 

Spiff, sorry I missed that, but the reason why I didn't post in that "other" thread is cause I got no time to keep up to date with it!

Tyson, I hope you're not getting the impression I'm concerned with H4 or any class at all. (I have a place(s) to race now and I'm quite happy.) I was just trying to address the concerns and possible solutions to those who are involved in the H-C in any way.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Hracer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Tyson, I hope you're not getting the impression I'm concerned with H4 or any class at all. (I have a place(s) to race now and I'm quite happy.) I was just trying to address the concerns and possible solutions to those who are involved in the H-C in any way.</TD></TR></TABLE>

ditto

 

If H0 cars are allowed, then whoever has the most money will win the event. Look at H1 now. Each year everyone is stepping up the performance. I have in my shop a Teg FI that has a that dyno at 785 at the wheels. Do you really want me going 230 mph at Charlotte? What fun would it be for the rest of you all? The guy in my shop spent well over 45k to get the car this way. For those who want H0, maybe you should start a Turbo series to include Nissan, WRX and EVO's. That would fit in with the HyperFest theme. Just my 2 cents.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by wspr22 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I have in my shop a Teg FI that has a that dyno at 785 at the wheels. Do you really want me going 230 mph at Charlotte? </TD></TR></TABLE>

weaksauce

 

No one thinks USTCC can be saved? Here's my question in the USTCC thread:

Going back to the beginning of this thread, I kind of wonder why everyone's giving up on the USTCC so easily? Is there some major problem that can't be resolved by working on the rules and classification?
Looks like you have some more cars coming up:
Quote, originally posted by KIWI »

I am building 3 Brand New ITR's right now!

I'd also guess that in a couple of years you'd find that H1 thru H3 guys who want to go farther than HC rules allow would be stepping up. If the BMW Challenge thing makes a go of it, that might be a good feeder series too. Maybe you just have to rethink how to grow the series.

Wouldn't it be more fun, and more appealing to sponsors, to have close racing with a field of relatively equal cars, rather than watching the fast cars spending all their time dodging H4 and H5?

With both USTCC and HC in place, you'd have a place for both the semi-pro teams who are interested in sponsorship and moving up to WC or other series(the stated purpose of USTCC), and for the guy who just wants to get out and race in an inexpensive and safe environment (the stated purpose of HC). You'd also have a place for the HC guys to go if they want to move up.

So, is there any way us "old-style" East Coast HC guys can support USTCC? Write letters, make calls, etc? That way we can keep our low-buck buckets happy in HC, and you can have your carbon-fiber and sponsors in USTCC. Everybody wins.
_______

 

Geezer, I'm thinking along the same lines as you. If ustcc is failing (or so that's what people are saying), why would then the same ustcc eligible cars want to run in another class? Same cars must mean the same rules. Isn't this one of the reasons why the ustcc is not as successful as hoped in the first place? Wouldn't this new class be made up of ex-ustcc cars minus one wrx? If that's the case, I would just stick with the current ustcc then.

(It's always so nice and easy to be discussing other people’s issues/problems that don’t have an impact on our own well being!)

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Geezer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">... Wouldn't it be more fun, and more appealing to sponsors, to have close racing with a field of relatively equal cars, rather than watching the fast cars spending all their time dodging H4 and H5? ...</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yes.

 

actually, having more cars on the track at the same time, and especially extra attention paid to even the slower cars when they are being passed, would probably be more appealing as they would get more attention and thus more exposure.

having a field of 2 or more different level of cars is not a new concept in racing (lemans comes to mind). and it makes for more exciting racing.

if ppl really think passing=danger, then you guys should stay in HPDE. its called "racing". any condescension (to my remarks) should be regarded in the eye of the beholder.

 

Dude, what ARE you talking about? Exposure from being lapped in a sprint race? Someone here is saying 2 or more classes in a run group is bad says whom? "Passing=danger" is the eqivalent of ITE and ITB cars in the same run group? ITS and ITC in the same rungroup - don't know about there but here, that 115% qualifying rule (of the pole) is definately availble to the stewards if they choose (and I have seen them choose it).

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">actually, having more cars on the track at the same time, and especially extra attention paid to even the slower cars when they are being passed, would probably be more appealing as they would get more attention and thus more exposure.</TD></TR></TABLE>

What exposure are you referring to?

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
having a field of 2 or more different level of cars is not a new concept in racing (lemans comes to mind). and it makes for more exciting racing. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Very true, and it's not a new concept in the echc either as it has 5 of those already. You can have 10 different classes racing together, that's not the issue that bothers people. It's the speed differential between the slowest and the fastest cars. Personally, I wouldn't really mind it that is up until I am racing with others in my class and the much faster guys come up on us and expect to just have a magical hole open up for them. It ain't going to happen. And a big speed differential (20+ seconds per lap) could just make that quite problematic for everyone involved.... Another thing to consider, h-c, IT, or most amateur drivers are not ALMS drivers. You can't have the same expectations apply to both.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">if ppl really think passing=danger, then you guys should stay in HPDE. its called "racing". </TD></TR></TABLE>

Yep, agreed.

edit: saw phat's post. You beat me to it!

 

Quote, originally posted by Geezer »
Going back to the beginning of this thread, I kind of wonder why everyone's giving up on the USTCC so easily? Is there some major problem that can't be resolved by working on the rules and classification?

If you go back to the beginning of this thread, You'll see what the problem is. And No ones giving up on USTCC! The point is that about (99%) Of the competitors the present series are running Non Turbo 2wd cars. And another 98 % of those are in Honda's! For some reason no one seems to see why the series is self destructing?
It it still consists of the same (7)? guys that have been in it since day 1 (Me included!) You tell me why it's not growing as it should?

[/QUOTE]Wouldn't it be more fun, and more appealing to sponsors, to have close racing with a field of relatively equal cars, rather than watching the fast cars spending all their time dodging H4 and H5?[/QUOTE]

Perhaps on the East coast? But Obviously Not over here!

[/QUOTE]So, is there any way us "old-style" East Coast HC guys can support USTCC? Write letters, make calls, etc? That way we can keep our low-buck buckets happy in HC, and you can have your carbon-fiber and sponsors in USTCC. Everybody wins. [/QUOTE]

Make all the calls and Write all you want! ... You might get some interesting personal attacks for your trouble! I've been doing it for three years! Don't seem to be doing much good!

Kiwi

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Hracer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">What exposure are you referring to?</TD></TR></TABLE>
i dunno, what exposure is everyone else referring to about whats good for sponsors? im interested in whats good for racing, geezer mentioned not having to deal with traffic would be more appealing to sponsors and kirk agreed. its him i was replying to. as minor of a point it may be, i would disagree for reasons stated and if theres action going on, ppl will look.


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by hracer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Very true, and it's not a new concept in the echc either as it has 5 of those already. It's the speed differential between the slowest and the fastest cars. </TD></TR></TABLE>
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by phat-s &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Someone here is saying 2 or more classes in a run group is bad says whom? </TD></TR></TABLE>

well, yeah, i said 2 or more different levels (speed differentials), not classes. speedracer and geezer seem to be the ones who think club racers cant handle speed differentials. ive seen and flagged in my region ITX groups where I see ITE/SPU cars pass ITB cars fine. It doesnt upset the racing at all. If they are that much faster, theyll pass on the straights or the slow car just backs off before the turn. if theres a battle of slow cars, then thats the faster cars problem, again, thats racing. but theres no extra danger. we can have differing opinions on this. obviously we all arent ALMS drivers, but i dont see how its a problem even in club racing.

the only point of this thread and this thread alone is that i think its a totally acceptable solution to separate the rules for different classes that suit the goals of the participating racers, and i dont think having to separate the classes simply by speed differential is necessary, especially since the run groups arent that big. if HC miraculously gets so big that the run group is too large, then sure, cut the group by speed differential.

that's what im talking about, dude.

 

Personally....i can deal with speed differentials.....tell me you honda boys in HPDE 4 didn't have to watch out for that gt3 porshe or viper barelling down on you at speeds over 150....if you can do it a RACER better freaking be able to do it.
Remember when you were in HPDE1 and faster than everyone in the group....what did you do then.....you had to be patient.....the same must be done in racing!! if you want your race handed to you on a silver platter then you're gonna be racing by yourself!

we do need to see the speed diffs actually get to before we get our panties in a wad!

i'm pretty sure with proper gearing and hps that some H1 cars will hit 155 this year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!