SCCAForums.com

Autoxmike:

And add 680 lbs (minus drivetrain weight difference) to bring it up to 2330 lbs.....

Or 2480 if you build the 2 seat convertible version...

SM entries for Finger Lakes Pro:

8 FWD

3 AWD

2 RWD

this weekend is gonna rule! 

SMF vs. SM (FWD) Weight

The new minimum weights definitely appeal to someone like myself, who's car currently sits at almost 2700#.  I have a ton of weight savings mods I could do (haven't really done any yet) to get me closer to the 2330 minimum.  1975# is just out of the question.  Who knows... maybe I won't give up on this car just yet

mleach:

You should add a column for the 250 lb weight break you get for using 275s or less, if you stay in SM.

How about some sort of weight break for FSM based on tire size?  Perhaps that could help to equalise the bigger modern FWD cars that can take better advantage of the newer tires with the smaller/lighter cars that can't as easily.  Anything using a 245mm or less gets 200-250 pound break.  

That would let the little guys like CRX/Civic/Swift GT etc run at more realistic weights, and run typical 215/225-13 race rubber a lot of smaller cars do.

Chris H.

How about referring to class with the letters that everyone else is, including the fast track.

unless of course you are talking about a Factory Service Manual based tire size....  Also, there is nothing to prevent an older car from running big tires: The rules let you cut fenders.

how many geo metros or (insert oddball small 80's and 90's cars) have you seen at events? exactly. how many people with later model tuner cars have you seen complaining about not being competitive? there are a few posts her regarding that. this class isn't aiming toward the little cars, it is more aimed toward the current and next gen cars.

Rodney:

how many geo metros or (insert oddball small 80's and 90's cars) have you seen at events? exactly. how many people with later model tuner cars have you seen complaining about not being competitive? there are a few posts her regarding that. this class isn't aiming toward the little cars, it is more aimed toward the current and next gen cars.

I totally understand that.  What I don't understand is the arbitrary 150 lb penalty on two seaters.  What happens when Honda produces a version of the CR-Z concept?  What if higher gas prices lead to more 'oddball small' cars similar to what we used to see, including 2 seaters?

Does a Mini GP run at 150lbs heavier than a Mini Cooper S? Why is the number of seats worthy of a weight penalty?

Rodney:

how many geo metros or (insert oddball small 80's and 90's cars) have you seen at events? exactly. how many people with later model tuner cars have you seen complaining about not being competitive? there are a few posts her regarding that. this class isn't aiming toward the little cars, it is more aimed toward the current and next gen cars.

Doesn't matter. If there is a class, and a ruleset that has an explicit advantage for any chassis or motor configuration, someone will find a way to exploit it, and then the lemmings will follow. It may not be THE car, but if it is successful, it will create lemmings. At the national level, people want to win, not build cars just for the heck of it. The cars that are driven by joe casual may be more similar in concept to what you are running, or what anyone is running at the front, but that doesn't make being at the front, or real competition any more accessible than it is when someone with the right car, but not the right bits on it, shows up in any other class.

I am not sold on the concept. I think that it is weak, and the formula is too specific to offer/allow for anything interesting to happen. 

Also, I think that the wheel base/2 seater thing is plain wrong, and it's stupid. There have been several tours where STS is as fast as STS2. As HP goes up, and the suspension allowances also go up, there are advantages to a longer wheel base, especially at the speeds an SM car *should* be at.

mleach:

Rodney:

how many geo metros or (insert oddball small 80's and 90's cars) have you seen at events? exactly. how many people with later model tuner cars have you seen complaining about not being competitive? there are a few posts her regarding that. this class isn't aiming toward the little cars, it is more aimed toward the current and next gen cars.

 

Doesn't matter. If there is a class, and a ruleset that has an explicit advantage for any chassis or motor configuration, someone will find a way to exploit it, and then the lemmings will follow. It may not be THE car, but if it is successful, it will create lemmings. At the national level, people want to win, not build cars just for the heck of it.

Sounds logical, but I don't think experience has necessarily shown this.

JRho won STS in a 240SX. Why isn't everyone ditching the civics and building one of those?

Where are all the ballasted 914s and Elises in SM2, hell, even the Miatas?

Where are the 510s and 323 GTX's in SM?

I encourage you to write a letter with constructive feedback. Besides calling the proposal weak, wrong, stupid, and uninteresting, what would YOU do if given the mandate to design a FWD SM class, or would you determine it's a bad idea? Are there minor tweaks that would make the class more successful? Are there cars/weights that should be targeted? How much less specific can you make the formula? How can you make it more interesting?

Rodney:

another data point for crx ballast: a csp crx with the 1.6 naturally aspirated will have to weigh 1970 (100+ over csp weights), before the added 150 lbs. i hate to use jose's car reference again, but would you rather be in a 2400lb rsx or a built 1.6 csp crx with 200whp that weighs 1970? again, easy choice. okie, add 150 and the 2120. still very competitive imho, but clearly not the overdog it would be at csp weight of ~1840.

First off, I agree with the ballasting of the CRX up to the 2200lbs range, this does equalize the field and makes it much more attractive to the newer cars. Now, the major issue here is that I can be just as fast in a civic as I can with the CRX and yet the civic will weigh 150lbs less than the CRX. In STS/STS2 and CSP the reason the CRX's are faster is because they can get down to a lower min weight. Since SMF will be have to add ballast the theoretical min weight for each chassis goes out the window. As such, all that has happened here is that people will run the EF Civic rather than the CRX, and still have a built 1.6 making 200whp and weigh 1970.

So, what needs to happen??? make the displacement multiplier lower (take it back to 125) and raise the min weight up to 2000lbs. Using this:

1. 1.6NA - 2200lbs (early stuff)
2. 1.6FI - 2375lbs (most FI civics, etc)
3. 2.0FI - 2425lbs (your supercharged RSX, SRT4, Cobalt SS, etc)

Thoughts?

Ian

--edit: on second thought, maybe a multiplier of 150 is a better compromise. The extra torque obtained by FI (especially on small motors) is a big benefit and I'm not sure 225lbs is enough of a spread from 1.6NA to 2.0FI, especially since most of the 2.0FI ars can run huge tires...
 

you've got to be kidding me...

there is no hope