Coilover Rear On A Pug/citroen Torsion Bar Rally Car.

[Cameron 16]

I see your points. The Ford argument seems to stack up. Ok, my opinion has changed then - seems like it's ok to me, or otherwise there are a hell of a load of competitors out there with illegal cars and blind scrutineers !!

 

I'd still advise anyone considering it to check with a scrute first though!

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

Well, I would go straight to the MSA technical department with a letter or an email. By all means phone them and discuss, but get any final decision in writing . I was tempted to ring them up now and discuss the matter, but didn't want to be a time waster really....

 

Scrutineers all tend to have differing opinions and interpretation-of-rules skills, in my experience (not on this matter).

Edited November 19, 2012 by brumster

[Mad Scientist 106]

Be easier to just get some Proflex 3 way remotes. Job jobbed!

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

Sod it, I've emailed them. Reading the rules a little more, if the design was homologated in any way then it would be covered under category 1 rules - maybe the Escort gets away with it because of this?

 

Seems like it would be fine on a Pug 205 under category 2 rules... but I think trying to get away with it under a category 1 log book is not doable.

 

I'll share what response I get back.

Edited November 19, 2012 by brumster

[Cameron 16]

Nice one sir.

 

Yeah that's what I mean, phone MSA Technical for a definitive answer, it's what I've done with all my space-frame questions.

[welshpug 1,621]

I know there are likely to be many escort not running any leaf springs at all though the majority do use one purely for location of the axle, there are some using a 6 link system and a live axle, some even running fully independent and a suspended diff, like a BMW.

 

Just pushing the regs to the Max with the old homologation window, though most aren't running as Homologated cars these days, a very long way from it, so technically they should not be doing all this...

[Mad Scientist 106]

That's the least of the 'Scort boys worries. Just had the latest rules update though. ONLY standard h patten gearboxes allowed from 2014, and only the gear lever to shift them. Bye bye sequential boxes, flat shifting and paddle shift!

[welshpug 1,621]

that's for road rallying only, lol

[Mad Scientist 106]

Balls. Your right. Was just scanning through whilst cooking a rissotto!

 

I'm going to need, like, 270bhp plus to compete then..............umhahahahahaha!

[welshpug 1,621]

cage the porker, make the engine smaller, job done

[Sandy 189]

Mk2 Escorts were certainly homologated with coilovers, but whether most of the ones out there are true to the homologated designs, both in that and re-panelling of the floor/tunnel and link boxes, is very debatable. Personally I think it's great that a well built and driven Escort can compete on level terms with a full WRC spec car and for my money they provide much more entertaining rallying at about a fifth of the cost (~80k for a competitive spec Escort, ~400-500k for a top spec WRC). I don't think the real potential of high spec FWD cars has yet been seen in rallying yet either; although there are some powerful ones out there, well driven, most are hamstrung but compromised suspension design or excessive weight. Escorts have enjoyed a historic dispensation of sorts because they are so popular and widely used; but any dramatically good FWD cars are likely to be coshed in the way F2 was when the 306s were beating the WRC cars on Internationals.

 

We're working on a solution for the rear of 106/205 etc that won't require any debatable bodywork modifications, which will allow 1:1 or even overstroke damper to wheel movement, but it'll be a while yet. There are Peugeots out there already log-booked with coilover rears, perfectly legally rallying.

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

The wording of the regs changed in 2009, so yes, it's highly likely there are cars out there with coil-overs (and much more!). Agree with you, competitive FWD cars are completely feasible but rare - most of them F2-style cars like the 306's of Dave West and Guy Wigley jump to mind. But the expense on them - ouch. I suspect in rallying, provided you aren't blatantly flaunting the rules and building something with tubular chassis/spaceframing, massively chopped bodywork and completely different suspension (ie. drop torsion bar setup for a wishbone arrangement) then the interpretation of the rules is so loose/inconsistent that you'd be able to argue your case for it. And certainly as a category 2 car it should be fine.

 

Since I'm already invested in 3-ways it will be a while before I contemplate a back-end change on mine, unless someone convinces me it warrants it be interesting to see what you guys come up with!

[calvinhorse 870]

306s were beating the WRC cars on Internationals.

 

 

My favourite bit of Pub Ammo!

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

Ok, so got an answer from MSA technical.

 

®48.4.1 states that the “The suspension must retain the operating principle and utilise the mounting points as provided by the manufacturer”. The modification you are proposing to effectively “turret” the rear suspension on your 205 would not comply with the this regulation and thus to be accepted the vehicle would require authorisation under Category 2. Consequently any modifications to the structure of the vehicle would need to comply with the dimensional limits specified in FIA Article 279 drawing 279-1.

 

So it seems I was right in that it wouldn't be acceptable under category 1 rules, but it's doable under cat 2 provided you follow the FIA guidelines (which present no problem in this sense, as they dictate the turrets pretty clearly). Interestingly, category 2 also mandates that a 2-litre car would need to be minimum weight of 1000Kg, which quite frankly would negate any benefit of the turretted rear in my case by adding 150Kg of weight to the car!!

 

I also queried whether the mount point or turret top could be tied in to the safety cage structure to provide some additional strength, and there is no problem with this :-

 

There is no regulation to prohibit you from attaching the ROPS to the rear suspension turrets providing the correct size counterplates are used.

 

The hassle of putting my car through a Cat 2 log booking session, and the weight limits, mean I think I'll just stick with decent 3-way damping for now and take the financial hit on the shockers having to be a little 'special'

 

Besides, it wouldn't be a 205 if you didn't have it pogo'ing down the road after a yump, would it ;)

[Cameron 16]

Nice work getting that cleared up, I guess I stand corrected!

[welshpug 1,621]

Impressive that your stage car is that Light Dan

 

For a fresh build it might be worth it, for an existing build?

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

Well, in all fairness, it was weighed without the sump guard, so a little more than that

 

Aye, for a fresh build maybe it's worth it for the better damper ratio and the flexibility on the springing side (and maybe more travel/droop? Dunno if there are advantages to be had there?). I know a chap gravel rallying who went to a Corsa from a Pug partly because the back end was so more configurable and controllable.