Toymods Car Club Inc: General Car Talk => sport compact classes

Toymods Car Club
www.toymods.org.au

F.A.Q.

Home

Members

Toymods » General Car Talk » sport compact classes Show: Today's Posts :: Show Polls Email to friend

Author

Topic

Chris Davey
Forums Junkie

Location:
sunny coast, qld
Registered:
October 2002

Re: sport compact classes	Tue, 31 May 2005 01:39

Just got this email: Hi Chris, Thanks for the email concerning the weight parity in the 6 cylinder classification of Pro RWD. As you know we have earmarked the Pro RWD class as the headlining category with minimum rule restrictions. This has been done to develop the class as the fastest and quickest of all ANDRA Sport Compact classes. The way we will achieve this is to place minimum restrictions on those competitors who wish to push the envelope in a Sport Compact orientated vehicle. Minimum engine restrictions, zero turbo restrictions, minimum weight restrictions..the list goes on. I am extremely happy with the continual evolution of the Pro RWD field and its racers, and feel that in the next twelve months we will see many more cars joining the ranks. Unfortunately in the search of performance and class development, there will be those racers who will be eventually left behind. This is a natural progression in any discipline of drag racing, and quite simply the strong will survive. Looking at Top Fuel for instance, the natural progression over the last 30 years has been towards big bore V8 engines that thump out over 4000Hp. No one uses small block Chevys or Mopars any more as they simply are not competitive enough. In Sport Compact, the Pro RWD field is the considered by many as the Top Fuelers. These are the guys with the budgets and cars to compete at the very highest level. They apply monstrous HP to equally incredible machines in the search of low 7 sec/ high 6 second times. Here at ANDRA we are acutely aware of the different levels of commitment people are prepared to make in the sport, and feel our current classes offer a very broad selection to choose from when it comes to racing. We have a class to pretty well cater for all racing needs. Our formats are simple, Head up for the Pro cars and DYO for the classes where performance is more widely varied. Your request to have engines like the RB20 handicapped against the class capacity maximum 4.1L is not practical. I make reference to the fact the Pro RWD field is encouraged to go fast, and encouraged to develop packages that push the limit. The RB20 has never been an engine of choice in the Pro RWD field as it is simply not competitive enough. The capacity of the engine essentially becomes irrelevant when compared to the SR20 4 cylinder, which are renowned for producing similar if not more power, and enjoy a lower weight break. The RB20 is essentially your engine of choice, and whilst it is catered for in the Pro RWD field, it is done so against engines like the RB30/26 hybrid and 20B rotary that are known 1400hp performers. On the basis that the RB20 is your choice, I cannot alter or suggest the rules be altered to accommodate an engine that is not known for a competitive HP output, and is being used at your discretion. I realise this will upset you, but please remember the Pro RWD field is the pointy end of the ANDRA Sport Compact classes, where the best of the Sport compete in the very fastest way. Thank you for your email. Jason O'Halloran This is what I wrote: Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing in regards to the Sport Compact Sport RWD class weight brackets. I previously had emailed Jason O'Halloran with my concerns regarding the possible segmentation of the 6 cylinder class. The reasoning for this is that the most common engines used in this class will be 1JZ-2JZ, Rb20-30, VG20-30, 6G72-74 and the Ford Barra240 engine. Therefore, the minimum engine capacity would probably be around 2L. At present the weight bracket for 6 cylinder cars in Sport RWD are 6 Cylinder RWD - 3100 pounds/ 1409kg, 6 Cylinder 4WD - 3200 pounds/ 1454kg. To me, this rule states that a car with a 2L 6 cylinder has to weigh the same amount as a car with a 4.1L 6 cylinder. It is obvious that the car with the 4.1L engine is going to have an advantage. Also, the 2 rotor 13b powered cars have a minimum weight of 2300lbs. As the 13B is classed as a 2.6L I cannot see how it can have a possible advantage of 800lbs over a car that could be using a 2L 6 cylinder like an RB20. I am requesting that the 6 cylinder weight class be split up as there is a much wider variety of engine that can be used in this class compared to the 4 cylinder class. I would suggest that a good segmenting point would be 2.9L. This would see cars using engines like 2jz-gte, Rb30et, VQ35 and Barra240's racing under the same weight break. Then cars using engines like 1g-gte, 1jz-gte, vg20det, rb20det, rb25det and rb26dett would race under the same weight break. I would suggest that 6 cylinder RWD cars under 2.9L have a minimum weight of 2700lbs. This is half way between 4 cylinder RWD cars and the current 6 cylinder RWD cars. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Chris Davey [Report message to a moderator]

[Message index]

-=] Back to Top [=-

Current Time: Tue Mar 4 20:53:06 UTC 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.0065021514892578 seconds

.:: Contact :: Home ::.