Forum

just been reading the 4x4challenges proposed rules for the super modified class that may be coming in..

10.2 -wheel or four-wheel steering is permitted. When was this rule talked about and when was it allowed in the rules?
12.2 - Individual wheel braking systems are allowed. When was this rule talked about and when was it allowed in the rules?

And have been reading the 2007 rules for cpmpetition, there is a rule in there about not allowing tube front ends, it seems to have dissappeared in the 2009 rules, where has it gone? Dont rememeber it being voted on for its removal?

As I understand, they are not a '4x4 Challenges proposal', just someone's suggestions.

Not only do they allow 4wheel steering and fiddle brakes, but also portal axles, space frame chassis fore and aft of the cab and 37" tyres. It's really not so much a 'modified' class but an 'almost-anything-goes' class. And that's all very well and good, but will creating such a class be a good thing for the sport and promote growth? I don't think so. Instead it's a class where budget becomes more of a factor, and certainly doesn't provide a way into challenge class for those currently outgrowing club class with non road-legal vehicles.

The whole 'classes' problem doesn't have any easy answer, and I think there really isn't room in our sport at present for 3 classes when event organisers are struggling to get the numbers they are after for only 2 classes.

Another option I've come up with... is to create a 3rd class (on a test basis) which mirrors challenge class, but without the road legal requirement. This would mean writing a whole lot of new rules to constrain the vehicle design to the same level that we get with LVVTA certs and so we effectively have the same level of vehicle in each class. Of-course that wouldn't be easy, and would take a lot of fine tuning to get right. But if it worked out, even if its a few years down the track, we could then look at combining the current challenge class, with the challenge class look-alike. And in the mean time, at events the two classes could run together as one - same tracks, combined scoring, one winner. What do you think?

Chris, what is the rule number you are referring too in the 07 rules? I can't find any mention of tube front ends.

At that time we were approached by a competitor who wanted to replace their inner guards and most of the front inner bonnet body structure with a tube frame, and hence rule 5.4 was created.

07 was the first year that we created a 'rule changes' document to be released with the new version of the rules which outlined all the changes to the existing rules, and any new rules that were added. And we've done the same for every version since - all of which can be downloaded in the rules downloads section of this web site.

ok, i thought that was the rules proposal that we recieved would form the basis of the super modified class if it was to come to fruition. Super modified class if it was to come to play sounds to me as if it will definately be cheque book racing if 'anything goes' vehicles are built. I personally dont think there are enough vehicles currently competing in the winch challenge series to warrant having 3 classes. There was a rule i read in one of the rule books this mornng that stated no tube frames allowed, i think it was 07, but i could be wrong. Will have to go back and find it again.

The proposed rules that were sent out is a discussion document. It is not a draft rule or anything like that. It was sent out with questions as to what people think.

Will everyone stop going on about what it use to be etc etc. Let's look at what WE want the sport to be. If you want this new class to be the same as Challenge but without WOF's then what is the point of it as all it will do is replace Challenge and we will have a whole lot of trucks racing some of which are road legal and some that aren't.

I believe that we need to have more of a difference between the new class and the existing. It needs to be different, so that there is a clear reason for the class. The specs need to be different otherwise we may as well just drop the WOF rule from Challenge and move on!

The reason for the new class is to allow somewhere for people to go that don't want to comply with Challenge class rules but still want to do Winch challenges. There are quite a few people who fit into that category already racing in Club and there are people wanting rule changes in Challenge that will be able to do these things as well.

So if we say right now that we allow, rear mounted radiators, tube inner guards, modified chassis (to a point), no WOF's and 37" tyres then we have provided for all the rule changes to Challenge that people want to try without compromising Challenge Class. Bar the WOF the other 4 things keep coming up as things people want changed so now is the chance and it will either work which will have a new class or Challenge Class will see the benefits and adopt some of the changes which will lead to the new class adopting other rules.
Here is a basic rule I'd like to see but with the WOF removed and the MC type rule as per Challenge added instead of OEM.
(N) CLASS 6 – ROAD LEGAL 4x4 VEHICLES
(a) SPECIFICATION – Restricted to volume production commercial or
recreational vehicles. Must be certified road legal, registered and
warranted to qualify.
(b) ENGINE and TRANSMISSIONS – Replacement engines and
transmissions from any automotive manufacturer are permitted. Any
conversion must be certified. The engines may run turbos or super-
chargers.
(c) BODY – The body shall be of the same OEM (original equipment
manufacturer) as the chassis and remain readily recognizable as such
original forward of the “B” pillar. Maximum body lift is 75mm. Flat deck
tray style vehicles must have no sharp protruding corners front or rear
that could endanger other competitors. Intrusion bars to be fitted, if
necessary, to prevent other vehicles being caught under the tray both
rear and sides.
(d) SUSPENSION – Open, providing they conform to LVVTA and WOF
standards.
(e) ROLL CAGES – Roll cages must conform to ORANZ specifications.
General safety requirements to follow the class requirements as
Section Three – Rules pertaining to all classes.

So should we start with the above rule and clarify things rather than start with Challenge class rules and simplify?

What makes F class so good? So what do they do there that we should allow for?

Lets keep things simple how about Club class A,Club class B

Using the KLEM SYSTEM

And adding

changing front diff housing from oem 50 points
changing rear diff housing from oem 50 points

250 points or less = A
500 points or less = B

All other rules are same as challenge except for :
only off the shelf pto or electric winches can only be used.
No wof required.
Max tyre size of 35”

Reason for this is it won’t poach cars from challenge class and undermine the premier competition.
No club trucks would have more than 500 points at present so everyone gets a class.
Any trucks being built now can be built to these limits .
If you want hydraulic winches etc build your truck to challenge specs.

At the end of the day these rules were meant to be designed for club class not try and undermine challenge class.

What do you think ?

Scott

Quote Jeremy Walker:

As I understand, they are not a '4x4 Challenges proposal', just someone's suggestions.

Not only do they allow 4wheel steering and fiddle brakes, but also portal axles, space frame chassis fore and aft of the cab and 37" tyres. It's really not so much a 'modified' class but an 'almost-anything-goes' class. And that's all very well and good, but will creating such a class be a good thing for the sport and promote growth? I don't think so. Instead it's a class where budget becomes more of a factor, and certainly doesn't provide a way into challenge class for those currently outgrowing club class with non road-legal vehicles.

The whole 'classes' problem doesn't have any easy answer, and I think there really isn't room in our sport at present for 3 classes when event organisers are struggling to get the numbers they are after for only 2 classes.

Another option I've come up with... is to create a 3rd class (on a test basis) which mirrors challenge class, but without the road legal requirement. This would mean writing a whole lot of new rules to constrain the vehicle design to the same level that we get with LVVTA certs and so we effectively have the same level of vehicle in each class. Of-course that wouldn't be easy, and would take a lot of fine tuning to get right. But if it worked out, even if its a few years down the track, we could then look at combining the current challenge class, with the challenge class look-alike. And in the mean time, at events the two classes could run together as one - same tracks, combined scoring, one winner. What do you think?

Was pretty much what i was thinking about

You simply won't get "F" class trucks, or any other thype of Trials truck crossing over.

Hell, I have tried it with a " A" class truck, (A class is basically a standard truck in Trials) and have had fairly big job to bring it inline with the 4x4 challenge's rules.

F class trucks are even further removed from the 4x4 challenge's rules than mine was, so its fairly unlikely!!!!!

The rules that come to mind of the top off my head that are a hindrance are:

Windscreen
Lights
Isolator
Doors
Roof
Cargo barrier
Wof/Lvvta standards
Radiator placement
Inner gaurds
Independant brakes/no other traction controls/hydraulic lockers

What I'm saying is don't make the rules around what you think you might attract, make them around the vehicles you currently have and change things as needed to allow competitors in as the interest arises.

Quote Peter Hall:

What I'm saying is don't make the rules around what you think you might attract, make them around the vehicles you currently have and change things as needed to allow competitors in as the interest arises.

Ok that is a good idea.
So currently we have a Suzuki that is basically a buggy that has had enough body etc put on it to ensure it complied with the rules. It has a chassis and body from the same vehicle.
We have a Lancruiser with a safari Chassis that isn't road legal.
We have a Jeep that has simple coil overs but isn't road legal.
We have a 40 LC that has had section of the chassis cut to allow for a coil spring conversion.
We have guys wanting rear mounted radiators.
We have guys wanting greater chassis mods allowed and no inner guards restriction.
We have guys wanting 37" tyres allowed.

So to cater for those that are actually currently involved in the sport as opposed to attracting new people, we need to have a class that is less restrictive than anything we currently have.
Or we need to loose some of the restrcition on Challenge Class.
This is not just about half a dozen guys racing in Club class needing somewhere to go to make the class fair, it is more than that.

Quote Scott Brassey:

Lets keep things simple how about Club class A,Club class B
No club trucks would have more than 500 points at present so everyone gets a class.
Scott

Ahh I get to 650 with no lockers

I say three classes. Challenge as it is, restriced mods version of current club class and a more open class. As for the level/restrictions of these classes??????

I have to side with the the Klem system up to 500 points for Club (it really looks at where the class was originally aimed).

The third class, I am a fan of almost anything goes. Keep them looking like a vehicle from the outside B pillar foward, some base of OEM chassis, a tyre size restriction (more about looking after tracks for the other classes) and what ever else you feel you want / can justify to the minister of finance.

Going to be bold here and say that it is looking far more like we should just drop a few rules from challenge class.

Heaps of good idea's, but they all lead to hard work and a discussions thats just going to go round in circles.

Simplest and easiest could well be to just drop some rules out of challenge class????

I just can't get it into my head how dropping the road legal requirement from challenge class will be detrimental to the class the way it currently is??

Anyways, back to rules for the modified class...........................

Quote Peter Hall:

I just can't get it into my head how dropping the road legal requirement from challenge class will be detrimental to the class the way it currently is??

Possibly because that was one of the founding principals of the sport.

Doing the events/stages/competitions in a vechicle that you could drive to work the next day.

Every one that wants to drop the rego/wof requirement due to cost, please answer how much it costs for a braked tandem trail like most use?
And where do you store the trailer when its not being used?
All extra cost.

Is there some hidden agenda to these proposed rule changes?, if you guys cant build your trucks to the challenge class specs that have been around for the last 5-6 years you cant expect the rules to be changed to suit yourselves.

Or look at it this way - Did you enjoy racing club class?

Do you want to race challenge class trucks on challenge class tracks?

Answer: Sell your trailer queens and Build/buy a challenge spec truck

No new rules, no more arguments, just racing.

I've been following the numerous threads with interest to see how people seem intent on fixing something that isn't broken (i.e. changing rules that don't need changing).....and finally we have someone talking common sense! Tim, your comments are echoed by many down my way!

Quote Tim Fensom:

Quote Peter Hall:

I just can't get it into my head how dropping the road legal requirement from challenge class will be detrimental to the class the way it currently is??

Possibly because that was one of the founding principals of the sport.

Doing the events/stages/competitions in a vechicle that you could drive to work the next day.

Every one that wants to drop the rego/wof requirement due to cost, please answer how much it costs for a braked tandem trail like most use?
And where do you store the trailer when its not being used?
All extra cost.

Is there some hidden agenda to these proposed rule changes?, if you guys cant build your trucks to the challenge class specs that have been around for the last 5-6 years you cant expect the rules to be changed to suit yourselves.

Or look at it this way - Did you enjoy racing club class?

Do you want to race challenge class trucks on challenge class tracks?

Answer: Sell your trailer queens and Build/buy a challenge spec truck

No new rules, no more arguments, just racing.

Quote Tim Fensom:

Because that was one of the founding principals of the sport.

Doing the events/stages/competitions in a vechicle that you could drive to work the next day.

Don't get me wrong i'm trying to winde anyone up, least of all you, but these day's the trucks competing are so far removed from the daily driver that whether it was a founding principle or not is irrelevant!!!!

99% of the challenge class trucks get trailered to and from events and sit in the work shop between events. WOF and reg is just to meet the rules.

My point is that i don't see why you guy's are all so determined to donate to the Govt?

You want to gift the lvvta $600 odd for a cert

$600 a year to the Govt in rego, ACC etc

Donate $80 a year to a local garage for WOF's

Think about owning that truck for 3 years, thats $3840 (with out allowing for re0certing as the truck progresses)

Compare that to a trailer queen owning for three years:

Trailer rego $180

You can't factor the trailer cost in, as it's an asset that barely depreciates, so if you choose to liquidate, you reclaim you outlay.

Why donate all this to the government for road use when our comp trucks are used off road and therefore non of the stuff we are paying for in our rego and cert counts for dick???

Driving down the street in your comp truck so kid's can go "oooh look daddy....." is not a relevant arguement

Anyways, this is the wrong thread for this discussion, and I have dragged it of topic, we are talking about rules for the 3rd class.

To make it easy, why not just mirror the current challenge class rule's, and drop the WOF reg requirements???

Then we can change:

Rear mounted radiator

No windscreen

GOD winch

Its all tongue in cheek remember, we're just chatting here, its ok to have different opinions

[Modified by: Peter Hall on December 04, 2009 08:42 AM]

By removing the WoF and Rego requirement, you're changing the original intent of the vehice class (Challenge).

Also, your repeated juvenille comments {Driving down the street in your comp truck so kid's can go "oooh look daddy....." is not a relevant arguement } are adding nothing to this discussion. I've built (and been invloved in other builds) a vehicle that meets Challenge class specs because its easier to maintain and use.....when I get a call to go haul some half-arsed piece of trailer-trash (wouldn't even qualify as trailer-queen) out of the Aka's or other such place, I ring up my brother, fire the ute up and rumble out the farm-gate all in 5mins. After removing afore-mentioned trailer-trash from its impending doom, I turn the old girl around and head for home.....no frigging about with trailers and tow vehicles, hoping its still going to be there when I get back etc. As far as Govt donations go, its the same vehicle I drop my kid of to day-care in, collect firewood with, and we take up the Coast each summer, so I'm getting my money's worth easily!

Quote Peter Hall:

My point is that i don't see why you guy's are all so determined to donate to the Govt?

You want to gift the lvvta $600 odd for a cert

$600 a year to the Govt in rego, ACC etc

Donate $80 a year to a local garage for WOF's

Think about owning that truck for 3 years, thats $3840 (with out allowing for re0certing as the truck progresses)

Compare that to a trailer queen owning for three years:

Trailer rego $180

You can't factor the trailer cost in, as it's an asset that barely depreciates, so if you choose to liquidate, you reclaim you outlay.

Why donate all this to the government for road use when our comp trucks are used off road and therefore non of the stuff we are paying for in our rego and cert counts for dick???

Driving down the street in your comp truck so kid's can go "oooh look daddy....." is not a relevant arguement

Anyways, this is the wrong thread for this discussion, and I have dragged it of topic, we are talking about rules for the 3rd class.

To make it easy, why not just mirror the current challenge class rule's, and drop the WOF reg requirements???

Then we can change:

Rear mounted radiator

No windscreen

GOD winch

Its all tongue in cheek remember, we're just chatting here, its ok to have different opinions

[Modified by: Peter Hall on December 04, 2009 08:27 AM]

Quote J Evans:

.....when I get a call to go haul some half-arsed piece of trailer-trash (wouldn't even qualify as trailer-queen) out of the Aka's or other such place, I ring up my brother, fire the ute up and rumble out the farm-gate all in 5mins. After removing afore-mentioned trailer-trash from its impending doom, I turn the old girl around and head for home.....no frigging about with trailers and tow vehicles, hoping its still going to be there when I get back etc. As far as Govt donations go, its the same vehicle I drop my kid of to day-care in, collect firewood with, and we take up the Coast each summer, so I'm getting my money's worth easily!

Mate, that is no way a relevant reason for dropping the WOF requirement for Challenge class

Anyways, back on topic ......................................

[Modified by: Peter Hall on December 04, 2009 08:48 AM]

Its entirely relevant! I simply would not be in a position to go recover those people as easily as I can, if it weren't for the fact my vehicle is WoF'd and Rego'd and therefore it is up to scratch and ready to go at a moments notice...its a daily driver.

I thought long and hard about even posting my thoughts on here, as I am not a current competitor. As such, I felt there was likely to be an element on here who would completely dismiss and disregard my comments as not being relevent. However, I've built my truck (and others, as mentioned) to the same specs that many many others have managed to also over the last 10years without any undue difficulty. And now it seems a vocal minority have it in their sights to modify existing rules (and original intent of the rules) to suit themselves....it was at this point I felt I needed to voice my concerns.

Quote Peter Hall:

Quote J Evans:

.....when I get a call to go haul some half-arsed piece of trailer-trash (wouldn't even qualify as trailer-queen) out of the Aka's or other such place, I ring up my brother, fire the ute up and rumble out the farm-gate all in 5mins. After removing afore-mentioned trailer-trash from its impending doom, I turn the old girl around and head for home.....no frigging about with trailers and tow vehicles, hoping its still going to be there when I get back etc. As far as Govt donations go, its the same vehicle I drop my kid of to day-care in, collect firewood with, and we take up the Coast each summer, so I'm getting my money's worth easily!

Mate, that is no way a relevant reason for dropping the WOF requirement for Challenge class

Anyways, back on topic ......................................

[Modified by: Peter Hall on December 04, 2009 08:48 AM]

Quote Darin Neeley:

The proposed rules that were sent out is a discussion document. It is not a draft rule or anything like that. It was sent out with questions as to what people think.

Will everyone stop going on about what it use to be etc etc. Let's look at what WE want the sport to be. If you want this new class to be the same as Challenge but without WOF's then what is the point of it as all it will do is replace Challenge and we will have a whole lot of trucks racing some of which are road legal and some that aren't.

I believe that we need to have more of a difference between the new class and the existing. It needs to be different, so that there is a clear reason for the class. The specs need to be different otherwise we may as well just drop the WOF rule from Challenge and move on!

The reason for the new class is to allow somewhere for people to go that don't want to comply with Challenge class rules but still want to do Winch challenges. There are quite a few people who fit into that category already racing in Club and there are people wanting rule changes in Challenge that will be able to do these things as well.

So if we say right now that we allow, rear mounted radiators, tube inner guards, modified chassis (to a point), no WOF's and 37" tyres then we have provided for all the rule changes to Challenge that people want to try without compromising Challenge Class. Bar the WOF the other 4 things keep coming up as things people want changed so now is the chance and it will either work which will have a new class or Challenge Class will see the benefits and adopt some of the changes which will lead to the new class adopting other rules.
Here is a basic rule I'd like to see but with the WOF removed and the MC type rule as per Challenge added instead of OEM.
(N) CLASS 6 – ROAD LEGAL 4x4 VEHICLES
(a) SPECIFICATION – Restricted to volume production commercial or
recreational vehicles. Must be certified road legal, registered and
warranted to qualify.
(b) ENGINE and TRANSMISSIONS – Replacement engines and
transmissions from any automotive manufacturer are permitted. Any
conversion must be certified. The engines may run turbos or super-
chargers.
(c) BODY – The body shall be of the same OEM (original equipment
manufacturer) as the chassis and remain readily recognizable as such
original forward of the “B” pillar. Maximum body lift is 75mm. Flat deck
tray style vehicles must have no sharp protruding corners front or rear
that could endanger other competitors. Intrusion bars to be fitted, if
necessary, to prevent other vehicles being caught under the tray both
rear and sides.
(d) SUSPENSION – Open, providing they conform to LVVTA and WOF
standards.
(e) ROLL CAGES – Roll cages must conform to ORANZ specifications.
General safety requirements to follow the class requirements as
Section Three – Rules pertaining to all classes.

So should we start with the above rule and clarify things rather than start with Challenge class rules and simplify?

On thinking about it, your post Darin is pretty much on the money at this point in time.

We make this class everything Challenge Class currently is, but include rear mounted radiators, tube inner guards, modified chassis (to a point), no WOF's and 37" tyres, optional road legal requirements etc etc, then that is actually the next progression up from challenge class, which is what we really want in the first place.

It wouldn't exclude any current competitors, it would lead to the building of much more capable trucks and harder tracks, and would provide enough difference from the road legal class (current challenge class), and would keep the rule writing nightmare debate to a minimum

ive been reading here which Tim and J_Evans has written, and they are spot on the money with what they are saying. Rules are by the looks of it being put up for change because they dont suit trucks that are in the pipeline or currently being built. the rules have worked for the past 7-8 years of racing, and have worked for 30+ trucks that have been built in the past .. why fix something that isnt broken? The cost of WOF's and REGO's arent expensive and is the cheapest part of the sport.

On another topic relating - All thse people that want to put 37" tyres on their trucks, have you actually priced out what a set of 37" tyres would cost you to get them in NZ and put them on your truck? A current winch challenge competitior has gone to the trouble and priced all of this out including the exchange rate as of 2 weeks ago, and the cost of the tyres (MAXXIS trepadors), and beadlocked rims alone were going to cost in excess of 5 and a half grand, thats not including 17 inch tubes and re-certing your truck to run 37" tyres and beadlocked rims. So all up you would be looking at possibly 6-6500$ or thereabouts.

How is making a rule of allowing 37" tyres to compete in challenge class keeping the "chequebook racing" out of it? How many current competitiors are going to fork out that sort of money to gain half and inch in wheel height (going by tyre numbers) when the current rule is 36.5 and hardly anyone currently runs 36.5's?? Guess that puts suzukis out of the competition placings picture since you cant fit a 37 on one without major engineering. That would be the start of current competitiors starting to stop competing i would imagine.

Do people think that by doing that it will do more damage to the sport with track and land damage?

Christopher, I think you've highlighted the single-most important reason why the tyre size should not be increased beyond current limit. Public perception of the sport is luke-warm at best, so unnecessary track damage due to larger tyres should be avoided at all costs.

Quote Christopher smith:

Do people think that by doing that it will do more damage to the sport with track and land damage?