Future of offroading in the UK

[honitonhobbit]

Exactly - hoofing gert tyres and axles don't make an a good offroader, unless you live in The Former Colonies

 

[Dave W]

16 hours ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

Your reply just proves some people are difficult for no other reason than wanting to be difficult. Either that or you completely misread it.

I don't think either applies, it's just a regulation that states that the vehicle must be manufactured entirely from Land Rover parts and I don't see how you can make that also meet MSA specs, let alone ALRC roll cage regs given that Land Rover have never supplied a vehicle with either. Badly written, unclear regulations are a PITA. It also states that the drivetrain must be "retained" from the original Land Rover which, given that the drive train would normally include all items in the drive train - gearbox, transfer box, prop shafts, diffs, half shafts, drive flanges, pretty much rules out locking diffs, Ashcroft shafts etc... Your interpretation of the regulation doesn't match what it actually says in the regulation, sorry if you think I'm being difficult by pointing this out.

Look at it this way if you can't understand what I'm getting at. A "class Q" vehicle that you have allowed to compete that isn't entirely made of Land Rover parts has a massive accident at one of your events resulting in a fatality. As a scrutineer you are called to give a police statement to the effect that the vehicle was fully compliant with the regulations and was legitimately taking part in the event. Are you, hand on heart, going to be able to say that a vehicle that has none Land Rover diffs or bodywork or even a roll cage complies with the regulation as written down or are you just going to say that you allowed it to compete because it's in the spirit of the regulations as it was intended and not in the way it's written ? Good luck with explaining that to a judge at an inquest.

It's not just the ALRC, the MSA are just as guilty, especially the cross country committee. IMV if you are going to introduce a regulation it needs to be termed in a way that makes it simple to scrutineer with a straight forward black and white meaning. Grey areas should be actively avoided not intentionally introduced. That way anyone should be able to look at the regulations and understand what they mean. A good example of that is that you "published" the regulation on this forum and were immediately asked about diffs, tyres and so on... why were you asked those questions ? Because the regulation is either badly written or you are interpreting it incorrectly. Sorry if you think that's me being difficult, I just hate badly worded regulations and people who interpret them as meaning something they don't actually say.

I just put a load of regulation changes through the MSA to try and get rid of similar badly worded and, in some cases, impossible to comply with regulations. Some of the changes went through OK, some were ignored and others were changed in such a way that they actually made less sense than the original and made them more difficult to comply with. The ALRC are not alone in having badly worded regulations and one of the reasons is that people like you seem to think that requesting regulations that say what they mean is "being difficult".

I still don't see what this has to do with the future of off roading in the UK though.

1 hour ago, honitonhobbit said:

I still reckon RTV is the highest form of off road motorsport. It's not about the vehicle. it's about the driver

 

I agree 100% and it's also the simplest, cheapest, most accessible form of motor sport apart from, perhaps, car trials. It's completely inclusive, allowing vehicles of any age and marque to compete side by side and a standard production vehicle can be as competitive as a "sorted" off road vehicle. In our club we have pretty much every marque and model competing at sometime or another with every stage of preparation from full blown challenge specials to Discovery 4s. The driver that wins most of our trials drives a very standard 300TDi 90.

Of all the forms of cross country motor sport it is, IMV, the most sustainable because it can adapt to cope with new marques, models and vehicle as well as being relatively low impact on the environment.

[honitonhobbit]

I always admired those RTV drivers that could work around the regs. Taxi steering boxes, Austin rims, Transit springs, a little grease here, a tweak there. To me it's as much a skill as building a one off vehicle.

 

Reminds me, I must finish the Auverland 

[Chicken Drumstick]

@Dave W

Sorry, but you are just being difficult by the sounds of it. If you don't know, please have a look through the ALRC rule book for some extra info on the other regulations. As you clearly haven't.

 

And no, I haven't interpreted incorrectly as I've been part of helping make this come about and I am also our local club scrutineer.

 

If you think it really is so badly written, why not stop posting nonsense on a forum and actually come and join the ALRC and see if you can either help/improve or do better.

 

For you info or anyone else interested. The ALRC has run two main types of vehicles classes in the past:

-Standard

-Modified

Modified allows some fairly lairy stuff such as 80" V8 coilers. But overall the rules have always been very biased to what Land Rover have offered in terms of components and specifications. So things like diff lockers, dislocation cones and cranked trailing arms have always been a no no. As Land Rover has never offered them.

 

But things are changing. Q class is specifically designed to allow more heavily modified Land Rover's/or Land Rover's with off the shelf modifications from 3rd party manufacturers to enter events. Meaning the 'only' restriction is:

-Must be an LR engine

-Must be an LR gearbox (i.e. drivetrain)

-Must be an LR axle

-Must look like a LR

(i.e. everything else is a free choice).

Because at the end of the day, the ALRC is still a Land Rover club. So there is a want to not have non Land Rover's as part of it (there are other clubs for that).

I honestly do not understand why you are having issues with this. It would seem to me that you simply have a chip on your shoulder about the ALRC and are venting by being somewhat unreasonable.

[Chicken Drumstick]

1 hour ago, Dave W said:

I just put a load of regulation changes through the MSA to try and get rid of similar badly worded and, in some cases, impossible to comply with regulations. Some of the changes went through OK, some were ignored and others were changed in such a way that they actually made less sense than the original and made them more difficult to comply with. The ALRC are not alone in having badly worded regulations and one of the reasons is that people like you seem to think that requesting regulations that say what they mean is "being difficult".

I still don't see what this has to do with the future of off roading in the UK though.

 

Just two address these points specifically.

1. Please feel free to submit your own wording the Q class then. I can pass it along to the ALRC council or SORC for you.

2. I think it addresses an aspect of the future of off roading in the UK for the simple fact the ALRC run a HUGE amount of events. As I posted earlier. I forget how many clubs there are in the UK that run trials events, but each month there must be 20-30 ALRC trials events happening across the country. That's over 300 a year. Plus the National and other weekend and interclub events.

Q class is designed to bolster numbers and invite new members.

But if you think an organisation that runs an annual off road event that normally attracts over 300 total competitors for a 4 day event has nothing to do with UK off roading, then I'm simply staggered and gobsmacked.

[missingsid]

Only CCV Trials is alowed top half of body removed RTV must have door tops etc. It is OK for a 90 to have the window down but a narrower S1 has to have door tops so really uncomfortable. As I never drive with door tops what ever the weather and I have non LR std wheels I could not compete in RTV.

What really got me was that you could build a coiler Series 1 or 101 which are vehicles that were never built by LR but you can't build a 100 inch coiler which was!

 

ALRC themselves announced that no more space framed S1 type vehicles would be registered only existing ones but I do not have a reference to it so it.

But this all seams a touchy subject with you.

 

Re the AWDC coments I made, I have just gone through a drawer and found the last four years of membership cards none of which have photos attached which means that I have seen no events intersting enough to validate membership to participate.

 

Big tyres are a killer for any site for me, I still have 7.50s (31 inch) on my cars but all current P&P sites are frequented by challenge vehicles with 33+ tyres so I get about 20 ft in to it before bottoming out on my axles.

This gets really boring.

[Chicken Drumstick]

13 minutes ago, missingsid said:

1.Only CCV Trials is alowed top half of body removed RTV must have door tops etc. It is OK for a 90 to have the window down but a narrower S1 has to have door tops so really uncomfortable. As I never drive with door tops what ever the weather I could not compete in RTV.

2.What really got me was that you could build a coiler Series 1 or 101 which are vehicles that were never built by LR but you can't build a 100 inch coiler which was!

 

3.ALRC themselves announced that no more space framed S1 type vehicles would be registered only existing ones but I do not have a reference to it so it.

But this all seams a touchy subject with you.

Sorry, not sure how to multi quote with the new editor, can't see way to turn off the WYSIWYG editor either. So I'll number them.

1. So now this is no longer the case. Q class vehicles could be as simple as a Series with no door tops on. Different clubs will likely run the events differently. My local club Chiltern Valve LRC, runs events with 'Coil', 'Leaf' and if enough 'LWB' (over 100"). Doesn't matter if you are modified or standard. Or now if you are Q class. You'd be welcome to come and play just the same.

2. I agree, there has always been an oddity with some of the rules. Which I think Q class is aiming to try and solve. Or at least get things moving. The rational behind the Series coiler is, originally it had to be a production based vehicle, i.e. wheelbase is a pretty good way of defining a vehicle, even more so as LR used them for the actual names too. Then some bright sparks though of using a chopped Range Rover under a Series body. So that's how that came about. If they had stopped it there and then, then a lot of the problems they have now wouldn't exist. Although neither would the current CCV circle.

The 100" was built by LR, but never as a proper production vehicle (200 for the Italian army wasn't it). So never got accepted by the ALRC rightly or wrongly (wrongly IMO...)

Q class however means you can now take a Disco1 with a rotten body and slap a Defender body on it for a D100 and happily come and compete.

Personally I'd quite like to have a go at building a 100" Series 1 on a D2 chassis. TCS, narrow body and bumper and being 100" you'd get a shunt on section too.

 

3. Sorry I just have no idea where you are getting this info from. I've been around the ALRC/ARC since the 1980's, my Uncle who is a founding member of our local club has been with them since the 1970's. I've never heard or anything about 80" coilers stopped being allowed. Indeed I know of many that have been built as recent as this year and spanning the past 10-15 years.

I do note you have said 'spaceframe'. So maybe here is the difference. But spaceframe's have never been allowed unless they are a rollcage frame mounted on an LR chassis. I guess a few might have slipped in when someone first came up with building a spaceframe sans LR chassis. But you must be talking 20-25 years ago. But as far as I can remember you have always needed a Land Rover chassis for an ARC/ALRC vehicle (unibody accepted for newer models).

[honitonhobbit]

I will admit to throwing my toys out of the pram with the ARC some years back (about 25). I simply changed clubs. I joined MORC and the AWDC, then EDORC. I tend to think, having been on the organisation side many times that if you don't like the rules, get off your backside to get them changed, or leave and join another club. I loved competing against non LR stuff - so much so I sold my LR. For me RTV was always first and foremost and when I couldn't compete is my first hybrid, throwing a tinkle was the only option for my mental health. My years with the three clubs mentioned were the best trialling I have ever done. Especially with the group I tendied to 'chum' up to.

It's worth noting that Scrutineers especially, are very rare commodities. The MSA has no proper Scrutineer programme for 4x4 events like Challenge or Ultra 4x4. In fact there was no scrutineering done at the King of Britain at all. Interesting situation if you read the rules. This forum is about being technical - may it's time for a few clever folk to step up to the plate. I would also suggest the British Motorsport Marshals Club could do with some fresh blood - again worth a punt

[Dave W]

15 minutes ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

If you think it really is so badly written, why not stop posting nonsense on a forum and actually come and join the ALRC and see if you can either help/improve or do better.

 

For you info or anyone else interested. The ALRC has run two main types of vehicles classes in the past:

-Standard

-Modified

Modified allows some fairly lairy stuff such as 80" V8 coilers. But overall the rules have always been very biased to what Land Rover have offered in terms of components and specifications. So things like diff lockers, dislocation cones and cranked trailing arms have always been a no no. As Land Rover has never offered them.

Sadly neither of my Land Rovers can take part in ALRC events under the current regulations and I'm still not sure if one of them is allowed to compete under "class Q". One of them definitely isn't but the other is under the spirit of the regulation but not in the way it is written. Sorry if that's being difficult, again, but i don't throw away money at club membership only to find that your interpretation isn't the same as the local scrutineer's interpretation. I've trialled both of them at events this year outside the ALRC without any issues and they are both Land Rover Defenders. I looked at an "inter club" event that an ALRC club was organising but they couldn't confirm what regulations they were running under and I basically would have to find out when I turned up if I could compete or not.

Your "history" of the ARC/ALRC is a bit naive as you missed out what happened before the current regulations were put in place. Relocation cones and cranked trailing arms, among many other modifications, were not only allowed but they were allowed in standard classes too. I, like many others, was forced to leave the ALRC because of the changes that made our Land Rovers no longer comply to regulations. At that time a number of clubs left the ARC over the issue and many others, including ours, were formed so we could continue to compete in our Land Rovers as they were rather than spending money and time to make them "more Land Rover". Most of those who were forced out were RTV competitors by the way, the "party line" from the ALRC being that we could continue to compete if we did CCVs but not RTVs. It was all to do with the complete rewrite of the regulations which, up to then, had focussed on what you couldn't do so, if it wasn't "not allowed" it was allowed. The regulations were all changed so that any modification not specifically allowed in the regulations was no longer allowed. CCVs and Comp. Safari competitors got away with it because of the log book system but RTV had no "grandfather rights" so vehicles were banned overnight.

At the time we (as an ALRC club) pushed for a special class that would allow the vehicles to continue to compete but it was basically as welcome as a turd in a swimming pool. One member of the ALRC committee actually said "If you don't like the rules then leave", so we did.

14 minutes ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

Just two address these points specifically.

1. Please feel free to submit your own wording the Q class then. I can pass it along to the ALRC council or SORC for you.

2. I think it addresses an aspect of the future of off roading in the UK for the simple fact the ALRC run a HUGE amount of events. As I posted earlier. I forget how many clubs there are in the UK that run trials events, but each month there must be 20-30 ALRC trials events happening across the country. That's over 300 a year. Plus the National and other weekend and interclub events.

Q class is designed to bolster numbers and invite new members.

But if you think an organisation that runs an annual off road event that normally attracts over 300 total competitors for a 4 day event has nothing to do with UK off roading, then I'm simply staggered and gobsmacked.

So, essentially you agree it's badly worded and needs rewriting, that's progress at least. It's not up to me to write regulations for a national club, that club should not need outside help if it considers itself worthy of being such a thing. I'm simply "being difficult" by pointing out the difference between what you say it means and what it actually says because I have no idea if my vehicles comply or not and I'm not sure if the local ALRC scrutineer will interpret it in the way you have.

I admire your enthusiasm in promoting the ALRC but you should learn to be less defensive and take a step back. Your sole input on "the future of UK off roading" has been to suggest that the ALRC introducing a regulation that might allow vehicles they banned 20 years ago from competing (taking your very loose interpretation of the new regulation). I don't see that as much of a step forward, just a case of trying to fix the mistakes of the past. Fair enough, with a bit of rewording it would be a step forward for the ALRC but not for the UK off road community as a whole.

There are many UK events held each month by clubs outside the ALRC, many of which have much larger entries than the ALRC events simply because they are inclusive rather than exclusive. i just don't see how an insular, inward looking, club like the ALRC could put itself forward as the future of uk off roading when the majority of off road 4x4s now and in the future don't have a Land Rover badge on them anywhere. The ALRC can claim to be the biggest Land Rover marque club by way of it's weird membership structure but realistically that's not likely to be the majority of competitors in the future, I'm not even sure it could be said that it's the majority of the competitors now. I'm not even sure that the ALRC can claim to represent the majority of Land Rover clubs in the UK. At one time "The National" was featured in the magazines and was as much a part of the annual calendar as, say, Billing. These days I couldn't even tell you where it was held because, outside the ALRC community it's pretty much a none event. So much so that we've even stopped avoiding having events on the same weekend because it actually makes no difference to our turnouts these days.

There are 5 clubs that run monthly off road trials in our area, only one of them is an ALRC club and they normally have the lowest turnout of all the clubs so only represent, at most, 20% of the competitors in this area and I'm not including in that the specialist clubs like NORC that mainly run comp. safaris with the occasional trial.

[Dave W]

6 minutes ago, honitonhobbit said:

I will admit to throwing my toys out of the pram with the ARC some years back (about 25). I simply changed clubs. I joined MORC and the AWDC, then EDORC. I tend to think, having been on the organisation side many times that if you don't like the rules, get off your backside to get them changed, or leave and join another club. I loved competing against non LR stuff - so much so I sold my LR. For me RTV was always first and foremost and when I couldn't compete is my first hybrid, throwing a tinkle was the only option for my mental health. My years with the three clubs mentioned were the best trialling I have ever done. Especially with the group I tendied to 'chum' up to.

It's worth noting that Scrutineers especially, are very rare commodities. The MSA has no proper Scrutineer programme for 4x4 events like Challenge or Ultra 4x4. In fact there was no scrutineering done at the King of Britain at all. Interesting situation if you read the rules. This forum is about being technical - may it's time for a few clever folk to step up to the plate. I would also suggest the British Motorsport Marshals Club could do with some fresh blood - again worth a punt

Sounds familiar, I've not once regretted leaving the ARC although we had to form our own club as, at the time, there wasn't a good alternative for trials, especially RTV style events.

I have spoken to the MSA about the scrutineering problem (cross country committee primarily) and I know there's been some internal discussion about either fast tracking or dropping some of the requirements to be come an MSA Scrutineer, particularly for cross country. Not sure what, if anything, will come out of it though... the MSA moves in mysterious ways ! There have been a number of suggestions that the MSA require an MSA accredited scrutineer to be used for a number of events (challenge at least) but it's always had to be shelved simply because there aren't enough to come close to covering all the events.

They've also had problems trying to get current scrutineers to agree to train new ones and that, added with the current requirement to scrutineer events outside your particular area of motor sport has been a stumbling block. We have a couple of people who would be prime candidates for MSA Scrutineers (mechanics who are qualified MOT testers with years of experience scrutineering in cross country and competing in cross country and rally) but neither of them want to put the time into attending events that they have no interest in so they can then scrutineer at cross country events.

Maybe they should ask the clubs to put forward suitably qualified candidates and put them through a testing process rather than having to go through a mini apprenticeship. Then set up a cross country scrutineer training scheme that uses this new scrutineers to train up new ones. It wouldn't fix the problem for all areas of motor sport but at least cross country would pave the way and maybe other areas could follow suit.

[Disco-Ron]

6 hours ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

Nope, not in discussion. Voted on and accepted by the ALRC clubs recently (I was at the meeting at Gaydon). Officially it's not active until January, but some clubs are already allowing Q class vehicles to compete. It will also be in the new 2017 ALRC Green book (a bit like the MSA blue book).

 

As for 40 inch tyres. I suspect that is a rarity, not the norm. And even beefed up Land Rover axles aren't really going to be turning that size of tyre.

 

And lets not forget, Forward Controls are currently allowed 37" tyres anyhow. While they might not be the most common trials vehicle. There are a number used actively across the country for such things. So 'big tyres' is not actually anything new. The only difference is allowing them on other vehicles.

 

But anyone who trials knows, that sometimes a large lifted vehicle is not the way to go anyhow. As you won't get the steering lock.

Thanks for the clarification...... turns out our club committee voted in favour of it.... I'm no longer on the committee and quizzed the chairman at lunchtime..... they haven't yet had confirmation of its acceptance.......

The way I see it it now opens up loads of potential new members.... as tubular bumpers and cranked arms are now 'legal'......

[Bowie69]

Certainly a much easier entry into off road motorsport, than say, challenge or CCV...

Think it can only be a good thing, and sure it will need tweaking along the way, but good move I reckon.

[the real muddy90]

I've read the minutes from the last meeting where the proposal was ratified, it specifically says that tray backs would not comply. I don't know if that was carried through with the vote, we'll have to wait & see what the wording is when published . 

As Ron said, we voted for. because we turn away quite a few vehicles that don't comply because of a few little things that the owners don't want to fix.

at the end of the day, each club can create it's own asr's to limit what modifications they want.

I'm looking forward to getting a few more vehicles trialing.

[Chicken Drumstick]

31 minutes ago, the real muddy90 said:

I've read the minutes from the last meeting where the proposal was ratified, it specifically says that tray backs would not comply. I don't know if that was carried through with the vote, we'll have to wait & see what the wording is when published . 

As Ron said, we voted for. because we turn away quite a few vehicles that don't comply because of a few little things that the owners don't want to fix.

at the end of the day, each club can create it's own asr's to limit what modifications they want.

I'm looking forward to getting a few more vehicles trialing.

The reg has only been ratified as far as the text I posted earlier (which is the wording that has been voted on). I disagree with it and raised it multiple times, as it is subjective; "has the appearance of a Land Rover".

IMO a tray back Disco still looks like a Land Rover. I mean, if you posted a pic up and asked what vehicle is was, you wouldn't get people saying it's a Lotus or even Shogun. They'd say Land Rover.

And arguably, many of the current CCV motors look less Land Rover like. Anyhow, there was certainly a split decision/opinion on the ALRC council when this was being discussed.

At the end of the day, if a club wants to turn members away on these grounds, it'll be their loss. CVLRC won't be and I doubt we will be alone. I'm sure some clubs will issue additional SR's for their meetings too. And in time I suspect the regs will be updated to reflect what works and doesn't for the clubs.

 

But for now it's Game On!

[sean f]

On 19 November 2016 at 5:49 PM, Chicken Drumstick said:

ALRC has never stopped S1 coilers FFS. Do wish people wouldn't make up such bollox out of thin air. And CCV motors have never needed door tops either.

 

There is also a brand new Q Class in the ALRC which allows pretty much anything, all it needs is Land Rover engine/gearbox/axles and to look like a Land Rover. So even things like tray back Disco's and the like can now enter.

 

Section L

 

L.1.1 Trials
Class Q. A vehicle manufactured from Land Rover parts in accordance with MSA Regulations. Vehicles must retain Land Rover axles, engines and drivetrain. Vehicles must retain the appearance of a Land Rover.

 

L.1.3 Competitive Safari
Class Q. A vehicle manufactured from Land Rover parts in accordance with MSA Regulations. Vehicles must retain Land Rover axles, engines and drivetrain. Vehicles must retain the appearance of a Land Rover. 

 

 

I can see what Dave W is talking about with vague regulation, from above,

Land Rover drivechain: so no diff locks or ashcoft drive shafts etc, as they are not land rover parts, to me drive chain would mean entire drive chain from engine to tyres.

Must retain the appearance of a land rover: so no Disco or Range Rover tray backs, no 100" with series body, no bob tailed vehicles as none of them look like a production land rover. Just what does "appearance of a land rover" mean?, depending on the interpretion almost anything you want, so you might be allowed something one week but not the next with a different official or club, would a tubular bumper be allowed?, they don't look like any production vehicle.

On the other hand you would be allowed: long travel air or hydraulic suspension adjustable on the move, full hydro steer, rear steer, any tyre type or size..... or would you??. Going to be difficult for the scruteneers to decide if a modification is safe or not and as Dave W said what happens after a bad accident, hydro steer leaks on a vehicle, steering is lost and spectators injured, courts will have fun with that.

At the moment it is so vague as to be effectively useless as a classification since it is totally open to interpretation, this WILL create arguments with different things allowed depending on who is looking at the vehicle and in many cases if you are in favour in the club or not. The more grey areas there are the bigger the problems.

Hopefully more detail will be released and things will be clarified as to what is and is not allowed.

I have been turned away in the past from RTV's due to parrabolic springs on my S1 and also turned away in my 90 for having a winch bumper fitted so these things DO happen.

[steve b]

Turned away for having a winch bumper ? Yet winches and capstan's have certainly been an option on 90/110/Def. from new ...?

I sat on the ARC comp committee in the mid 80's at Lode Lane so have personal experience of reg. change discussion , getting concensus and trying to stay with the developing comp scene was pretty hard .

 Sound familiar?

 

Steveb

[Chicken Drumstick]

30 minutes ago, sean f said:

I can see what Dave W is talking about with vague regulation, from above,

Land Rover drivechain: so no diff locks or ashcoft drive shafts etc, as they are not land rover parts, to me drive chain would mean entire drive chain from engine to tyres.

Must retain the appearance of a land rover: so no Disco or Range Rover tray backs, no 100" with series body, no bob tailed vehicles as none of them look like a production land rover. Just what does "appearance of a land rover" mean?, depending on the interpretion almost anything you want, so you might be allowed something one week but not the next with a different official or club, would a tubular bumper be allowed?, they don't look like any production vehicle.

On the other hand you would be allowed: long travel air or hydraulic suspension adjustable on the move, full hydro steer, rear steer, any tyre type or size..... or would you??. Going to be difficult for the scruteneers to decide if a modification is safe or not and as Dave W said what happens after a bad accident, hydro steer leaks on a vehicle, steering is lost and spectators injured, courts will have fun with that.

At the moment it is so vague as to be effectively useless as a classification since it is totally open to interpretation, this WILL create arguments with different things allowed depending on who is looking at the vehicle and in many cases if you are in favour in the club or not. The more grey areas there are the bigger the problems.

Hopefully more detail will be released and things will be clarified as to what is and is not allowed.

I have been turned away in the past from RTV's due to parrabolic springs on my S1 and also turned away in my 90 for having a winch bumper fitted so these things DO happen.

Right, not wanting to labour this too much.... but I think some clarity is needed.

1. This is important. The ALRC already have a class for modified vehicles. Q class is designed to go beyond this. You can already run ashcroft shafts and the like and people have been for years. Therefore as Q class is beyond modified, you can do this in Q class too.

The reg is really very simple and deliberately vague. This is done to allow pretty much ANYTHING with the only restrictions being what is listed. Drivetrain simply means you can't run things like Unimog or Toyota axles... but a fully modded up Rover axle is exactly what it is intending. Likewise, a GM4L80e gearbox is not a Rover item, so can't be used, but any other Rover/Land Rover box can be.

 

2. Same with appearance, this one is a little more subjective. But as I posted earlier, there was a split opinion on the SORC and ALRC committee. But importantly don't add words, you've said 'production', but that is not what the reg says. The reg says Land Rover. Are you really trying to say something like this doesn't look like a Land Rover?? It does to me, so will be welcome to any of our events. Despite never being a production model (again... this is the intention of the Q class, to allow non production spec vehicles to compete).

 

 

But seriously drop the use of 'production vehicle' as you are mixing yourself up...

 

As for being turned away for parabolic springs. You were either hugely unlucky or it was 30+ years ago... or both.

Did you read the regs yourself? Parabolics have been allowed for a long long time and are clearly stated so in the green book:

http://www.alrc.co.uk/Handbook/2015/regulations/Competition Rules & Regs 2015.pdf

B.9.3.3

Note --- this is really important. The regs I've linked to are for Standard and Modified classes. Class Q allows everything they do, plus anything else that conforms with the minimal restrictions of engine/gearbox/axles/appearance. The aim was not to try and list every conceivable mod, as you'd be there forever and still miss loads of them. Hence the short open regulation.

 

[Chicken Drumstick]

36 minutes ago, steve b said:

Turned away for having a winch bumper ? Yet winches and capstan's have certainly been an option on 90/110/Def. from new ...?

I sat on the ARC comp committee in the mid 80's at Lode Lane so have personal experience of reg. change discussion , getting concensus and trying to stay with the developing comp scene was pretty hard .

 Sound familiar?

 

Steveb

1. I think way too much emphasis goes towards comp motors. Don't get me wrong they are great, awesome and all that, but for club level and even the National they are very much the minority in terms of entrants. Trials motors are far more numerous (250 entrants vs 25-30 entrants).

2. Sadly some of the (cough cough) older folk in the ALRC have been somewhat anal in the past. People should never be turned away from events IMO, not unless they vehicle is unsafe or wildly flaunting many rules and not in the spirit of the event. But it is true that such silly things have happened in the past, hopefully those times are past us however.

As for winch bumpers, it may well depend on the style of the bumper in question. Many winch bumpers are tubular and smaller than a normal bumper, on a trials section when your bumper is something that can hit a cane and score a penalty point it can make a big deal. And sadly, far too few people bother to spend the time (20 mins say) actually reading the regs. Sometimes this may include the officials for some events.

Q class should make all this a non issue. Because all these things are allowed no questions asked. The only difference will be, if a club runs modified, standard and now Q class as separate classes on the day. As said earlier, my local club and many of the other ones local to us don't. We tend to split to coil and leaf and LWB. This generally means the Series 1, 2 & 3's compete against each other. The 90's and coiler 88's compete against each other and the Disco's and RRC's compete against each other.

 

Anyhow, if you had a bad experience before, then I implore you to maybe give it another go. Chiltern Vale are running a joint trial (tyro, RTV and CCV) on the 11th Dec at Gt Brickhill just outside Milton Keynes, Bucks.

It's a good site, me and my brother are setting up and running the RTV and I'm club scuitineer. And unless forced too, I plan to turn nobody away from a days playing.

http://cvlrc.co.uk/html/calendar.html

 

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Chicken Drumstick

[steve b]

Sorry I should clarify that , by comp. I meant general competition's . I was competition sec. for the Breckland LRC for a few year's during the 80's . Don't get me wrong , it was good fun and interesting working on it . I did several Nationals during that time and was an active trialler , both CCV and RTV , great times. If these new reg's mean more people have the chance to mix it with different drivers , then it can only be good .

cheers

 

Steve b 

[Daan]

I think this is a great idea from ALRC, hope it will be successfull.

 

Daan

[muddy]

Don't outgrow the terrain is my opinion, and as such is why we have such a varied scene.

 

I rtv`d my 90 with a predominately Ccv club that has no rules on mods, yet no one seems to run a tyre over 31" this is such a leveller retarding the whole scene yet keeping it very challenging. As such I went to one of Dave W events admittedly on a tame site and found it really rather boring so much so I got lost admiring the scenery, that doesn't make it a bad event just me a bad competitor and I still had a nice day.

 

if you are happy being blinkered to lr or to run the chance or running your motor on 205s against a 38" tyred trayback you can go ALRC otherwise you go to local clubs and pick one that runs events at a level you like and are happy with. The future is building a good moral with the minimum of contempt, surely this is where a good scrutineer and regs is crucial, all problems in my experience come from green eyes suggesting illegal mods or similar. Concise regs open enough to allow variety yet with a cap be it tyre size/lockers/4ws ect is a must surely?

 

will.

 

[Chicken Drumstick]

I would imagine in time the regs will adjust to suit what the majority want, while still remaining true to the spirit of the events.

 

Don't quote me on this, but my hunch is, many mods will find their way into the current modified class, which will probably be the bulk of most modded Disco's and 90's today. And I suspect the Q class will become a super mod style of class with more bespoke style vehicles.

But the future of LR off road competition is changing, for the simple fact that the model line up is different from LR now.

As for big tyres. I really don't know how many people really run bigger than 35" tyres. Not on Landry axles anyhow. My local P&P sites will have loads of people running 33" or 285 sized tyres. Which are pretty chunky in their own right.

 

That said, I think if people like trials, then they might run different tyres. 38's would give you no lock and make the vehicle wide and cumbersome. And probably not overly competitive.

For example, I like rolling about on some 33.11.50 Simex's, but for competition I'm more of a narrow 7.50 x 16 person, as the vehicle will turn in better and usually have a lot more lock, while keeping the track narrow.

 

As for lockers, well LR sell the D3/RRS and newer with optional rear lockers. It won't be long before someone chops one of these up to make a trialler out of it. So you can't really say no to such things moving forwards. Although locks probably won't help with turning circle.

My choice would be traction control with ATB diffs in the axles and an LSD in an LT230.

[Dave W]

Essentially the ALRC are trying to allow their clubs to do now what the none ALRC LR clubs have been doing for 20 years, just not as inclusive and still irrelevant to the future of UK off roading.

Perhaps I should point out that the Yorkshire Off Road Club are holding a trial this weekend (and once every month) and have done for just under 20 years now where any marque and model are welcome and we don't care what engine, gearbox, mods, axles or even tyre sizes you're running. As long as your vehicle can comply with MSA trials regulations and is driven to the site you can compete. You don't even need to have a winch or roll cage to compete in our challenge events. The vast majority of the vehicles competing are Land Rovers and none of us that drive them have ever felt that we can't compete on equal terms with other marques.

 

We only have 4 classes, 2 for leaf sprung and 2 for coil sprung and nobody worries about what modifications the other competitors in their class may or may not have, we just enjoy the competition and the craic regardless of who made what part or how many rivets are holding a particular body panel on. The future of UK off roading isn't just Land Rover, Land Rover themselves have put the block on that one so if we want a thriving UK off road scene we can't put on Land Rover blinkers and exclude the other marques.

 

[missingsid]

1 hour ago, Dave W said:

Essentially the ALRC are trying to allow their clubs to do now what the none ALRC LR clubs have been doing for 20 years, just not as inclusive and still irrelevant to the future of UK off roading.

We only have 4 classes, 2 for leaf sprung and 2 for coil sprung and nobody worries about what modifications the other competitors in their class may or may not have, we just enjoy the competition and the craic regardless of who made what part or how many rivets are holding a particular body panel on. The future of UK off roading isn't just Land Rover, Land Rover themselves have put the block on that one so if we want a thriving UK off road scene we can't put on Land Rover blinkers and exclude the other marques.

This is good news, when I was involved with ARC the earlier days were good and easy as no one had extreme upgrades other than a V8. As all things change it got picky. The original factory supported idea was great but not relevant any more.

It will always be difilcult to mix big tyred and standard sized vihicles in one site/event with 7.50s I don't know where to drive anymore

I was lucky twenty years ago as I am friends with a then AWDC Comp Safari Clerk of Course so we got to be roaming marshals (basicaly free range to drive anyware all day) and close courses/clear up.

As to the future of Off Roading in the UK, for competative events I think it is actually very good even beter than ever for choice of type, BUT you need to be either very clever and handy at building or rich at least for the AWDC anyway as after 20/30 yrs in it I do not see a place for me!

[Chicken Drumstick]

1 hour ago, Dave W said:

Essentially the ALRC are trying to allow their clubs to do now what the none ALRC LR clubs have been doing for 20 years, just not as inclusive and still irrelevant to the future of UK off roading.

where any marque and model are welcome

You really do have an axe to grind don't you?? The ALRC are as much a part of off roading and future off roading the UK as any other organisation. The size and number of events certainly has some bearing on that. Really do not understand why you are being so doggedly determined to be difficult about it, apart from some other ulterior motive.

If you don't want to partake, then that is your choice. But no reason to keep bashing and putting down because you have some personal beef with them.

And what is wrong with single make clubs??? There are loads, be it Triumph, MX-5, Toyota and so on. All run and hold many different types of events. And as this is a Land Rover forum, not an any make forum. Talking about a Land Rover off road club is 100% relevant.