Comp Coupe or Modified Sports?

[Dynoroom]

Gee, sounds like it's time to merge the CC / MS classes.............   

[manta22]

Dynoroom;

As far as I'm concerned -- and I have a vested interest in this-- a "modified sports" should be a sports car that can be put on a road race track, go fast in a straight line, around corners, and stop fast. The class is already pretty far afield from that definition. I'm trying to adhere to the spirit of that definition; maybe I won't be as fast.... but it will be a sports car by any definition of the term.

Regards,

Neil  Tucson, AZ   B/GMS

[trimmers]

I spoke with Lee Kennedy about this earlier today, so I guess it's time to let the cat out of the bag.  The vehicle in question is the Triumph GT-6.  In my mind, they're definitely sports cars which should run in either GT (Production category) or Modified Sports (Modified category).

But the way the rules read, one could certainly be led to believe that such vehicles - if they have a tiny back seat - should be considered as coupes/sedans, rather than sports cars.

Lee advised me that when the Black Salt GT-6 ran initially a year or two ago, it was protested over this very issue.  However, the protest was denied.  So, that car (as well as the similar Team McLeish Bros. I/BFMS GT-6) are in the MS classes where they belong.

However, certain other vehicles which also have rear "jump seats" or "Occasional rear seats" must run as coupes or sedans.  So, where do you draw the line on what constitutes a GT/MS versus a coupe/sedan?

Kennedy pretty much agreed that the rules need to be better defined.  He told me that he's forwarded my information along to the applicable committees, which are working on the problem.   The hope is that the rules will be better defined so as to eliminate any confusion.

I'm building a Bonneville vehicle that also has tiny rear jump seats - a Subaru XT Turbo Coupe.  Some versions of this car had no jump seats.  I'd be better off if it ran as a coupe/sedan (as the record speeds are lower).   So, I do have a vested interest in this topic.  I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we'll get new rules that put this controversy to rest once and for all.

If I get any updates, I'll pass them along.

Jeff in Boise

[javajoe79]

Personally I think it would be unfair to put a car that small up into a coupe or sedan class

. When you want to push it to it's limits like for example the Black Salt team, my bet is they chose it for how small of a frontal area it has. Take the same car and put it in Comp coupe and it has everyone else beat on frontal area. Maybe frontal area is not as important as it seems but....

 

[Stan Back]

. . . I'm guessing the rear configuration had something to do with it, too.

[Tman]

I was looking at late 70s Toyota celicas last night (don't ask) and wondering where they would fit? The fastback would be as slippery as the Triumphs

[LittleLiner]

Personally I think it would be unfair to put a car that small up into a coupe or sedan class

. When you want to push it to it's limits like for example the Black Salt team, my bet is they chose it for how small of a frontal area it has. Take the same car and put it in Comp coupe and it has everyone else beat on frontal area. Maybe frontal area is not as important as it seems but....

Are you suggesting a need for a minimum allowable frontal area for any car to be legal in the Modified Category Gas Coupe, Altered, Comp Coupe classes?   Consider what already runs in those classes like Honda N600, Crosley, Fiat 500, Fiat Topolino, Subaru 360, Geo Metro, etc. . . . . . Is it unfair to put cars that small in a coupe and sedan class?  Where would the line be drawn?

[dw230]

If I had to list all the modifications the Black Salt team has done to their GT 6 in order of importance I would list the enlarged frontal area to house the front wheel drive and the design of same as #1.

DW

[Tman]

If I had to list all the modifications the Black Salt team has done to their GT 6 in order of importance I would list the enlarged frontal area to house the front wheel drive and the design of same as #1.

DW

I always wondered about the huge nose until I recently realized the car was front wheel drive...............aha! No wonder the nose is so big, the stock front end is dinky in comparison. That car just blows me away, awesome.

[trimmers]

I see a change was made in the new 2013 rules that would prohibit adding non-OEM seats (presumably to a 2-seat car) to keep it out of the Modified Coupe/Sedan classes.   That makes sense, but there was no clarification as to why some cars (such as the Triumph GT-6), for which OEM rear seats were also originally available, should run in Modified Sports, either.

The changes also don't address whether I'll have to run FWD or RWD in BGC with my AWD Subaru.

So, I guess I'll have to submit an official requests for clarification - before September 1, 2013.

[javajoe79]

I see a change was made in the new 2013 rules that would prohibit adding non-OEM seats (presumably to a 2-seat car) to keep it out of the Modified Coupe/Sedan classes.   That makes sense, but there was no clarification as to why some cars (such as the Triumph GT-6), for which OEM rear seats were also originally available, should run in Modified Sports, either.

 That new rule makes a little more sense to me. Seems to ATTEMPT to prevent little cars with rear seats that really aren't suitable seats from running in comp coupe. Cars like the GT6, 2+2 Z etc...  to me are most definitely sports cars and in no way should they be allowed to be in Comp Coupe because of these rear seats that some of them had.

 But then you have really small cars like Mini's, Saabs,  and such like Little Liner mentioned that have usable back seats but are more sports car then coupe or sedan even though they have usable back seats.

 

Personally I think it would be unfair to put a car that small up into a coupe or sedan class

. When you want to push it to it's limits like for example the Black Salt team, my bet is they chose it for how small of a frontal area it has. Take the same car and put it in Comp coupe and it has everyone else beat on frontal area. Maybe frontal area is not as important as it seems but....

Are you suggesting a need for a minimum allowable frontal area for any car to be legal in the Modified Category Gas Coupe, Altered, Comp Coupe classes?   Consider what already runs in those classes like Honda N600, Crosley, Fiat 500, Fiat Topolino, Subaru 360, Geo Metro, etc. . . . . . Is it unfair to put cars that small in a coupe and sedan class?  Where would the line be drawn?

I do think it's a bit unfair yes but it is how it has been for a long time. With the evolution of the sport and more and more of those cars being built with very creative rules interpretations, maybe it's time for an evolution in the rules?  I really think that from the get go the cars that were in the grey area should have been classed on a case by case basis rather then a vague rule about back seats.

. . . I'm guessing the rear configuration had something to do with it, too.

  Do you mean the shape? I agree.

If I had to list all the modifications the Black Salt team has done to their GT 6 in order of importance I would list the enlarged frontal area to house the front wheel drive and the design of same as #1.

DW

This I also agree on.

[javajoe79]

Does that make much sense to anyone but me?         

[trimmers]

The problem lies in the way the rules are written. 

They now read:  If the car was produced and sold with 2 seats on some models and 4 seats (including jump seats) on other models, the car will be classified as a Coupe and Sedan.  Examples include Honda CRX, Ford Mustang GT 350's, Porsche, Nissan Z 2+2's, etc.

So, if we go by the rules as written, then the Triumph GT6's (as rear "occasional" seats were available) should be classified as a Coupe and Sedan. 

But that's not really the way it should be.  I think everybody believes that the GT6's should be considered sports cars, and as such, should run in Modified Sports (and/or Grand Touring Sport), rather than a Coupe/Sedan (or Production Coupe/Sedan).

The 2013 change that was made (to prevent addition of non-OEM rear seats), presumably to keep sports cars out of the Coupe/Sedan classes, is fine.  But was anybody actually doing that?  Not that I know of, so that doesn't seem to really resolve or address anything.

I'm still in limbo with my Subaru XT.  Some models had little rear jump seats, and others didn't.  As the rules read now, that means Coupe/Sedan.   So, why should the GT6's (with or without their little occasional seats) get to run as Modified Sports or Grand Touring Sports, when my Subaru can't?  The XT was Subaru's first attempt (admittedly not a very good one!) at a GT/Sports car.   

Aren't Porsche's (at least 2-door models) and Datsun/Nissan 2+2 Z's considered sports cars, too?  Not the way the rules read now. 

The rules need to be changed to specify what actually differentiates between a Coupe/Sedan and Modified Sports/Grand Touring Sports.   Although I wouldn't want to see it, perhaps the decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis by the committees involved, with a list maintained for all to see.

As for the final decision on classing of my Subaru, I don't really care which way it goes.  The car can be built for either.  I just want to see clear rules that can be easily understood, so I can build it without fear of having the rules interpreted differently somewhere down the line.

[12go3az]

I agree section 5.D is confusing, but a COMP-COUPE after 1949 body needed to seat 4 AVERAGE SIZE ADULTS.
   

[trimmers]

I agree section 5.D is confusing, but a COMP-COUPE after 1949 body needed to seat 4 AVERAGE SIZE ADULTS.
   

You must be looking at an old rule book.  5.D in the 2012 rule book states "...seating for 4 or more people, i.e adults or children."   There's no reference to "4 average size adults" in 5.D.  Coupe/Sedan examples given there include the Honda CRX, Porsche, and Nissan Z 2+2, none of which actually provide seating for 4 average size adults.

However, the note at the end of 5.D.1 (Comp Coupe) does mention that use of a pre-1949 body precludes the seating requirement for 4 average size adults.   The problem is that there seems to be no requirement for seating of 4 average size adults in the modified category - just "...4 or more people, i.e. adults and children."   

So, we have even more justification for requesting clarification.