SCORE Class 3 rules opening up

Chris_Wilson

Well-Known Member
Posts
3,277
Reaction
1,301
I just received a call from Christine at SCORE who stated that Art is working on an update to Class 3 that will relax the rules. The one thing I was told was that coilovers would be allowed in place of leafs, presume this applies to front and rear to give the Blazer guys a fighting chance. I know there were other changes being discussed and not sure the outcome of those.

I think Chris Raffo was behind the push for this. This change allows several vehicles to run Class 3 that previously had to run Class 8 including our bronco and Dave Moore's bronco plus a slew of other vehicles that have been running NORRA. I hope this draws more entries to Class 3. It's a cool class for those of us who love broncos, jeeps, blazers, and such.
 

mp_tx

Well-Known Member
Posts
54
Reaction
44
Sounds like the death sentence to Early Broncos, unless wheelbase changes are also included in the changes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Sreidmx

Well-Known Member
Posts
154
Reaction
76
Hey Chris,

I know Raffo has been working on this for a really long time! I also know that you are part of the reason Christine listened to his ideas for changes, from us here at Fortify Offroad and Raffo Racing we thank you for your support and contribution in getting this realized. It really couldn't have happened without your help.

Based on my conversations with Raffo we felt like a few areas were needing to be opened up,
Engine rules relating to chassis, basic idea here was for example, 80s bronco with 5.0 coyote engine or blazer with Ls etc etc engine and chassis year don't need to match but mfr do.

Width, we felt the width limits killed ifs entry's because IE: Toyota FJ limited by this could only be built with 11 inches of travel vs 15 with a 6 inch wider track..

Open spring type and concept so you could technically put ttb on EB's and solid axles on late broncos should you desire, also Blazer solid axles or IFS.. so that opens up some stuff.

As far as wheelbase changes I wasn't sure if they were going to change the extending limits or not, I personally felt that as long as it fit in the 108 inch long box and was 4x I didn't care..
There are some more minor modifications which I am not sure if Score will adopt or not. So we wait and see what they release for official rules.

This is a major deal because we all thought class 3 was dead!

Let's go racing!
 

Chris_Wilson

Well-Known Member
Posts
3,277
Reaction
1,301
Sounds like the death sentence to Early Broncos, unless wheelbase changes are also included in the changes.
My recommendation to SCORE on wheelbase was to let anyone modify the wheelbase as long as it does not exceed the class rule (108"). So you could stretch an EB or 2dr Wrangler to 108" or shorten a Tahoe to 108", etc.

However I do not know what they decided on this. I would say that if you have a stake in this then call SCORE ASAP and let them know your opinion.

My view is that having a short wheelbase and 4wd with two short driveshafts is what limits the class and anything else does not matter.
 

Sreidmx

Well-Known Member
Posts
154
Reaction
76
My recommendation to SCORE on wheelbase was to let anyone modify the wheelbase as long as it does not exceed the class rule (108"). So you could stretch an EB or 2dr Wrangler to 108" or shorten a Tahoe to 108", etc.

However I do not know what they decided on this. I would say that if you have a stake in this then call SCORE ASAP and let them know your opinion.

My view is that having a short wheelbase and 4wd with two short driveshafts is what limits the class and anything else does not matter.
I agree kiss method basically.
 

GATRELL

Well-Known Member
Posts
93
Reaction
11
Think that all sounds decent. To save me some time, who should I call for me to sound in? Art? Anyone have a # handy?
 

y2kbaja

Well-Known Member
Posts
2,834
Reaction
1,301
Not a dog in the fight but would like to see FJ's use 3.5" aftermarket arms like Total Chaos.
 

Sreidmx

Well-Known Member
Posts
154
Reaction
76
The FJ was one of the reasons we talked about the width rule, they got limited a few years ago because of that and let's be honest here the driveline and wheelbase is the limiter not the width..
 

scottm

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,864
Reaction
509
Ramsey wanted this for a long time too, maybe he pulled some strings!
 

Chris_Wilson

Well-Known Member
Posts
3,277
Reaction
1,301
As I understand it, an FJ can now drop in a Tundra V8 and run arms as wide as they want with coilovers all 4 corners. Should make for a competitive build. But call SCORE to confirm. Art is 702-210-7785.
 

retroblazer

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,626
Reaction
713
I met with Roger in Reno in mid December, on a business matter, but I took the opportunity to tell him that I raced in Class 3. I also told him with a couple of simple rules changes we could rebuild the class. Roger replied he was in favor of anything that cut costs and brings out more racers. For those of you who haven't met Roger, I'm happy to say he's the real deal, and our sport is in good hands.

The object of the rules change is to broaden the base of competitive cars. We will see the rules soon, but the object was to get a v-8 in a Jeep Wrangler, a working Blazer or GM platform, and a V8 FJ Toyota. There is no denying that a full size Bronco has proven itself as the dominant player with the current rules, but it made sense to review the rules given the lack of competition in the class.
 

retroblazer

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,626
Reaction
713
I just talked to Total Chaos Off Road again, after telling them about a V8 in a FJ, they reminded me that a Four Runner was the same wheel base and came stock with a V8 option.
 

retroblazer

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,626
Reaction
713
I took one for the team on this rule change. I paid my entry fee as soon as I knew that SCORE would listen to a possible rules change, even though it wouldn't give me time to swap to coil overs and links. I'm sure Wilson and Moore will spot me fifty miles.
 

Sreidmx

Well-Known Member
Posts
154
Reaction
76
Just put a call in and talked to Christine, I let her know that we appreciate the fair chance to evaluate this proposed change and that the community as a whole benefits from the advancement of the class. More people racing the more we can get others involved in a class that really hits home for a lot of guys.. me being one of those..
 

Clive Skilton

Well-Known Member
Posts
92
Reaction
104
How about all those 4 door Wranglers rock racing with 117" stock wheelbase and Chrysler Hemi and LS motors? There is a boat load out there.
 

ErikShallbetter

Well-Known Member
Posts
774
Reaction
89
I'm all in favor of rear links. No huge preference on width one way or another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

bobsson

Well-Known Member
Posts
128
Reaction
71
So if your wheelbase is under 108, they'd be fine with a later Bronco having a linked rear end?
 

retroblazer

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,626
Reaction
713
So if your wheelbase is under 108, they'd be fine with a later Bronco having a linked rear end?
Linked rears in Class 3 have been a builder's option since they started using quarter elliptic and free floating, two shackle leafs 30 years ago. The only thing that changes is springs are open, or not defined. So, coil-over, air spring, torsion bar, leaf spring, etc., it's the builder's choice.
 

retroblazer

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,626
Reaction
713
How about all those 4 door Wranglers rock racing with 117" stock wheelbase and Chrysler Hemi and LS motors? There is a boat load out there.
One of the drivers of the rules change was my frustration with the Class 3 rules that added that engine and chassis combos must remain the same. I watched with great interest as the Jeep that Billy Bunch is currently racing, was being constructed. I noted then, that it was ridiculous that a Mopar V-8 couldn't be installed, given Jeep's history of offering a V8 in earlier models. It flew in the face of the reigning class winning Bronco that was running a Windsor based engine in a chassis that only offered M series Cleveland.
I haven't seen the actual rules, so it's still a guess on exactly what changes, but there is now an opportunity to build a Wrangler at or near the wheel base limit, and to power it with an engine of choice, from the same manufacturer.

All of us that contributed to the rules change were unanimous of a couple of key points. First, and foremost, is the 108" wheel base limit., and working 4wd. We like Chevy vs. Ford vs. Jeep battles. I don't think LS motored Jeeps fit this class concept of getting the best from the factory's parts bin. I personally would be happy to have Billy show-up this year to join us, but I would like to see him be compliant for the next season.

The 4 door JK guys are a tough fit, they are too long for Cl 3, but I'm sure a plasma cutter could rectify the problem.
The truth is, there are a bunch of 4wd options now on the SCORE entry form. The JeepSpeed classes, and now the Hammer classes. The Hammer classes are new to me, but most don't specify wheel base limits, so a 4 dr JK would fit, as there is one of the Hammer classes that specifies only straight axle vehicles, with 14 inch stroke shocks that must attach directly to the axle, and must have a stock frame or equivalent in box tubing frame rails.

There are items that we didn't address, because we didn't want to get sidetracked on secondary issues, like notching a frame rail, or frenching a bumpstop can into a frame. A front wheel travel limit would have been another discussion, but by keeping the focus on the a couple of simple changes, we finally got them through.
 
Top