Forum

Rule 5.1

I like the idea of being able to put whatever body onto whatever chassis is a good one. What is the difference between taking Nissan suspension and putting it onto a Hilux chassis or just putting a Hilux body onto a Nissan chassis?
Also I believe you should be able to shorten the chassis however you want but not lengthen. Taking a LWB and making it a MWB by cutting the chassis is much quicker easier and cheaper than shifting all the supsension etc on a SWB. The end result is the same.

Darin, while it makes it relatively easy for a person to cobble up a competitive machine, the 'open mixing' philosophy means that the competing vehicles lose their identity. We might as well just build 4WD stock cars! The 'brand' battle will go and the Nissan vs Toyota etc factor will vanish and there will be no reason for manufacturer support. (Not that much exists right now, but we should not take away the opportunity for the future).

I can't see any real reason not to allow this.

The rules committee are not only looking for your views on the idea of mixing manufacturers, but also (and maybe more importantly) what you think about the extent of mods to a chassis that we should or shouldn't allow. Like Darin mentions cutting a lwb makes life easier, but there's also mods like joining the back of a late model surf to your hilux chassis to gain a coil sprung rear. How far should we go?

Quote Peter Vahry:

Not that much exists right now, but we should not take away the opportunity for the future.

There's plenty of cars now with a mix of parts underneath them and it doesn't stop them from being recognisable as their particular make and model. As long as the body is standard and the bits underneath the body look like standard 4wd bits, we're all good from a sponsorship/promotion point of view.

My truck currently has bits from Nissan, Toyota, Holden (HQ and Commodore), LR, and Jeep.
Now take Jeremy's truck. It is a Hilux and yet most of us know there is no Hilux in the chassis, so do we call it a Prado because of the chassis? The Mistress is a Hilux chassis with complete custum suspension and an FJ body. We don't call it a Hilux and we don't say it is a scratch built either. I think keeping the body rules the same is important as that keeps the road car looks.
If we stick to all these hard and fast rules then we will have this small elitist sport that doesn't include the average person. Making the sport achievable to the average 4WDer is vital to it's continual growth and success and the proposed rule change (s) are about changing the sport to include more people.
Part and parcel of this is having clear and definded classes and I'll start a new discussion about this. I will alsi put something into ORE to get more discussion on this topic.

I personally think this rule is silly if you want to mix and match chassis and bodies of differnent manufaturers you should be in some sort of outlaw class otherwise we are all probably going to end up running GQ chassis with a suzuki body on top !

At the moment if you are a nissan fan you have to comprimise with the weight of the vehicle, toyota's strength and so on it goes which creates and interesting range of trucks each which have certain advantages/disadvantages.

We have to have some limits on the overall modification and the more manufacturer orintated they are, the easier it is to control and inforce.

Cheers

As Glen has said, if you want to mix and match then go race Outlaw Class.

The moment you start compromising on certain fundamental criteria we have all previously worked around and dealt with, you might as well throw all of the vehicle rules away and let people build whatever the hell they want.

The decision to discuss this rule is due to trying grow the sport so it is about changing things. But they should be changes for the better. We can keep everything the same and perpetuate the problems that are restricting the sport ie cost samll numbers etc, or we can be progressive and see how we can make it more accessable.

At present it is about 50:50 as to whether this rule will be changed so more feedback is needed.

If this the rule is going to be changed or confirmed then we need to have specific reasons for or against.
At present the reasons for not doing it are, motor company sponsorship, each brand has it's own strengths and it wasn't like that for us. (and for follows)

Motor company sponsorship. Has happened to one person and the results from that haven't been great for it happening to others.

Brand strengths etc. If you want to push for this then we need to tighen the rules and make diffs, motors, gearboxes etc covered by the rules as well. Otherwise all you are talking about is a chassis and a body and they can be strengthened or lightened anyway so what are you achieving?

It wasn't like that before. So changing what was is a bad thing? If the current rules are so great how come the sport is so stagnant?

The reasons for the change are it is basically happening anyway, what does it really change and it will make things cheaper.

Basically happening. If you take the entire drive train and suspension from a Nissan and fit it to a Toyoa chassis, what is the difference to just putting a Toyota body onto a Nissan chassis?

What will really change. Is a Hilux body any different to a Navara body? How can fitting an FJ body to a Hilux chassis be any better?

Cheaper. You have a Hilux or old LC and you want coil springs. Buy a complete cheap SWB GQ chassis and chuck you body onto it! Cheaper and alot easier than swapping over the suspension etc.

What it changes, is that it pisses off all the people that have spent time and money to build trucks under the present rules!
And if there were that many potential competiors that have trucks that under this description - you wouldnt have had any problems running the outlaw classes in the past.
Leave the rule as it stands.

As Tim says, there are a large number of people who have gone to considerable time and expense of building trucks that comply with the current rules. They’ve built trucks that suit their particular driving style, their budget and their abilities. They’ve weighed up the pro’s and con’s of higher strength versus lower weight knowing that they’ve had to compromise, but they accept those compromises.

Now everyone accepts that it should be as cheap and as easy as possible for new competitors to get involved. But at the same time, the existing competitors, or competitors who have built new trucks under the current rules but not yet raced, should also be considered. I know of a couple of purpose built trucks that will be racing their first full season next year and they would have built something quite different had they known this rule was as close as 50:50 on being changed.

So how about something like this…..

Club or Introductory Class – based on driver experience, maybe a few restrictions on the vehicle like tyre size etc, but basically it gives someone (who hasn’t competed before) a class in which to race his club truck against other club trucks without spending big dollars. Once they’ve (the driver) done 1 season, they have to go up a class. Tracks are set such that roll-overs are avoided, but there must be a minimum level of roll-over protection (4 point cage whatever)

Challenge Class – As it current stands.

Outlaw Class – Anything (driver experience or vehicle modifications) that doesn’t fit into either of the first two classes. It might be a trials truck with a winch, it could be a play / bush truck like Johno’s Hilux that has a GQ chassis. If it is racing on the same tracks as Challenge class, then it must have same roll-over protection. Tyre sizes restricted to same as Challenge class.

No-one is excluded, no truck is excluded, everyone has an opportunity to race.

If you are adamant that the chassis restrictions should be relaxed, then just remove them altogether. That would really let creativity come to the front.

The only thing I'm adamant about is that the rules should reflect what we as competitors want to race!
Mitch, you made some good points that will be taken into account. I like a lot have built a truck to the current rules but saying they can't change because it doesn't suit me isn't the right way to look at it. I also would have done things differently if the rules were different, and it would have saved me a lot of time and money.
So the question is, is making it easier for someone else to build a truck and race against me at the same level a bad thing?
I think for me it is a bad thing but FOR THE SPORT it is a good thing.
This is a rule change that will disadvantage me as an existing competitor but I think it is still a good idea.
I also like the Outlaw class idea but it needs support of organisers to be useful.
Things change and they effect people, WE just have to decide whether the benefits out wiegh the disadvantages.

Rule changes such as this should be based on solid evidence that it would benefit the majority. So the basis for my comments is not because I would be disadvantaged by a rule change, but rather because I am not convinced that the current ruling excludes alot of people. i.e. how many trucks are currently prevented from competing in winch challenges? Running an Outlaw class for a few seasons for all those who dont comply under the current rules would be a valid way of gauging GENUINE interest.

Did anyone ask ORANZ to change the requirements of Production Class to allow winch challenge trucks (which are based on production vehicles) with modified suspension to enter? No, they said to race Thunder Trucks class and then created a seperate class for winch challenge trucks based on that level of interest.

Remember, this is a fundamental change to vehicle requirements and not a decision that should be taken lightly. It is of the same significance as the vehicle being readily recognisable as OEM from B-pillar forward.

My thoughts are one of 2 things.
Either same body and chassis ie Hilux/Hilux, GQ/GQ, or no restraint of body chassis combinations.
The whole same manufacturer rule came about because of the Range Rover / Disco scenario but has been stretched to extreme limits. The RR/Disco is where the RR chassis was used in the Disco but the RR stopped using it in to late 80's and the Disco used it into the mid 90's. The difference is that the chassis was the same.
This has then been used to allow the current Toyota hybrid trucks that are running. The intention of the rule has been lost!

Hey if we are really serious about this then make it one manufacturer for engines as well! They've done it in drag racing!

Yes I am playing the devil advocate because this needs this level of discussion!

I think Mitchs last comments should be taken onboard, what is the massive hurry to change this rule ? I still think if you really want mix bodies and chassis just run outlaw.

My reason i still think we should preserve something of the orginal manufacturer instead of creating a mixed mess.

As mentioned by Mitch just put these trucks in outlaw ? They do the same tracks etc so its not going make the comp any harder to run.

Cheers Glen

Mitch makes a lot of sense when he says no hurry.
Darin makes a lot of sense when he says its basically happening allready.

Change the rule to "same body same chassis"? so then John/Jeremys "hilux prado" is out but klems "hilux hilux" which runs nissan diffs is in? I like what you were trying to achieve there Darin but that paticular way will not work.

Leave the rule the way it is. So then Klems Hilux body hilux chassis truck with nissan diffs is in, but a very similar looking truck with a hilux body, the same diffs, engine, etc as tims, but on a gq chassis would be excluded? That makes no sense to me.

Make us all run the same brand diffs, motor, body and chassis, (irrelivant of model) that is going to exclude half the current compeditors. Good luck with that.

So it would seem that the option that makes the most sense (and probably the most angry people) would be to allow the mixing of bodies and chassis, even though I dont really like it myself.

I know it would upset a number of people. I will be a bit upset if the radiator rule changes, as I will feel compelled to move my radiator. But I feel it makes sense, so long as the vehicles remain "readily rocognisable as a production model"

I do realise that while what I suggest will potentialy make our sport cheaper to start, it also is one step closer to million dollar space frame vehicles. Interesting discussion here, good work everybody.
[Modified by: Arron Eades on November 14, 2008 07:39 PM]

Just as a bit of background, this rule change was suggested to bring our rules closer to the Mainland rules which has no such requirement. The rule originally came from CCDA and when it was first adopted here in NZ for the 2003 Denny's it was done so not only to allow the rangie/disco combination and many others (hilux/surf, hilux/prado, navara/patrol etc.) but also to prevent a zuk body on a gq chassis. And it seems that the possibility of this zuk/gq combination is what is putting most people of this rule change.

Compatition is good let in the Mixed body and chassis. The manufactures will not put up the big bucks when we are still using old 4wds and we will not be runing any of the new trucks with out changing all of the hard work they have put in to making them nice and soft. My hilux is 20 years old along with most of the OME parts i use. The only way we get backing is from friends /mates/pannel beaters/ painters and after market 4wd suppliers.Out law class is for trials trucks ( no WOF and no REG and Tube frame )..... Let them in is my vote . Cheers Klembo

I fail to see why mixed chassis/cab combinations aren't allowed. Nobody looks at the chassis to identify a vehicle, they all check out the front section (ok some look at the rear). Mixed suspension and drive train is already allowed, this is only about a bit of metal in between the body and suspension. What happens when someone wants to build a monoque (another spanner in the works)? Safari/Patrol owners already know the chassis isn't that heavy and strong, maybe they would like something a bit stronger. Allowing this adds options. Lots of competitiors currently choose Nissan GQ/GU running gear, but why? Sure its strong (not as strong as other options) its also heavy as hell (heavier than stronger options), there is lots of other potentially better options which no one has even tried. The rules already allow non OEM suspension and allowing different OEM chassis and body is exactly the same.

Once again this proposed rule change is moving away from the concept that this type of event was created for and also away from the first rule in the rule book,

"This event is open to vehicles that represent OEM (original equipment manufacturer) production based 4WD vehicles. They must be certified road legal, registered and warranted and have third party insurance cover."

the more you are changing the rules the further away from this first rule we are getting!
im with mitch and glenn on this one, the other thing is that what happens when a club class competitor cannot enter club class anymore with his "club truck" because of the "youve entered too many times and are now too good for this class" rule? to be competitive in the challenge class he looks at the other trucks and goes fark! $$$$$ there needs to be a line drawn in the sand when you say enoughs enough, should we say that all the current competitiors with hybrid trucks and parts are in "outlaw class" where anything and any budget goes, and go back to the drawing board and base the trucks on OEM specs, look at justins truck for example, apart from the trayback its a typical "Club Truck" still. its had a few mods for reliabliity which are needed and done on any club truck but without spending the big $$ he still wins events.
this is a good discussion keep those thoughts coming.

I think that big potential cost saving can be made by allowing mixing of chassis and body. What is cheaper and safer, Klems current truck with Nissan axles etc under a Hilux chassis and body or a Nissan chassis with a Hilux body put on it? The end result is the same and to most people they couldn't tell the difference.
Sponsorship from motor companies is not happening and I don't think it will ever benefit the average competitor so that is an irrelevant arguement from my point of view.
The average club guy is more likely to just put their favorite body onto the chassis that has the suspension they want than do a coil swap etc due to what is easier. Take Wayne Mackenzie's LC that he has doen a couple of club class events in. It is a LC body on a GQ chassis with a 350 in it. Cheap strong and pretty competitive. He wants to step up next year but has to fork out for a Nissan body to be able to. Why? The truck will be the same but the rules will have made it dearer which is what we are trying to stop happening.

If keeping costs down is an issue then stopping coil over suspension is far far more relavent! Twin shocks, coil conversions etc are all very cheap to do but look at fitting a complete coil over and bypass shock setup and it will cost as much as my engine, computer, turbo, transmission, twin motor winch put together. ie every other major mod I have done!

Rob I like your thinking with the outlaw class ,Maybe we should get back to basics in that if you mix and match different diffs/bodys change susp to coilovers /fit V8s ,Hyd winches etc then your in outlaw class with unlimited mods as long as it can be certed and road legal ,then have a basic challenge class as the existing rules are written ,then a club class limiting mods (susp winches/ /tyres etc making it more affordable for the adverage club truck to try winch challenges then if and when their hooked its not such a big step up to the next level ,Surely we are trying to INCLUDE people not Exclude them and by making it more affordable to have a go should be our No1 aim ."any thoughts"?

And before i get flamed to much let me add that this would also put Me in Outlaw class ..
[Modified by: stephen reed on November 22, 2008 11:56 AM]