SCCAForums.com

RX7 KLR:

This will also make Randy and Cole happy, spec tire size and brand.

???  Which Randy wants a spec tire size and brand? ???

---

2006 Noble M400 (E-Mod?)
http://chasecam.com/ official supplier to SCCA Pro Racing. Sponsor for SCCA ProSolo. Supplier to MazdaSpeed, V8Supercars, etc.

MrPickles:

rnoll98:

I'd probably shy away from the Vette if any because of the cost of entry, or maybe just write out the C6, as C5s are getting cheaper

Hey Randy, what are you referring to by "cost of entry" for the Vette?

No one has built a C6 for SM2. In my opinion, the C6 coupe (non-Z06) would be a better SM2 car...mainly for $$$ sake. I'm not giving specific reasons, but a generalization.

I think a target investment of somewhere between $20-50k total for a competitive car is what we're looking for. I'd want to discourage someone from putting $40k in mods on a brand new $60k chassis, because if they prove to be dominant, the vast majority of the membership won't be able to follow their model. As I stated before, if the chassis can be made competitive AND still be returned to showroom stock trim without additional investment, then more expensive chassis could fit this mold. I think that's what allows a lot of members to campaign certain cars in SP. Otherwise you're asking someone to take a $50-60k car and immediately lose $20k or so in value by cutting unibody/clam to flare. That's discouraging.

---

Randy Noll

randychase:

RX7 KLR:

This will also make Randy and Cole happy, spec tire size and brand.

???  Which Randy wants a spec tire size and brand? ???

"I've been preaching wheel/tire limitations for years." rnoll98

 

 

---

Jason Isley
2005-2006-2007 B Stock National Champion

I wonder if the initial thread questions aren't better asked in the SP/ST forums, and changed to investigate why people haven't chosen to "move up" to SM. We're philosophizing about what we think our target market wants. Why not just ask them?

And Jason, my tire limitations are a far cry from "spec size and brand". Was that your own little nudge to support your tire of choice? ;)

---

Randy Noll

rnoll98:

I wonder if the initial thread questions aren't better asked in the SP/ST forums, and changed to investigate why people haven't chosen to "move up" to SM. We're philosophizing about what we think our target market wants. Why not just ask them?

And Jason, my tire limitations are a far cry from "spec size and brand". Was that your own little nudge to support your tire of choice? ;)

No... I think spec tires suck, they would have no reason to give tires away and have a contingency program. Spec tires are good for the tire co and race series owner, sucks for the drivers. Ask the World Challenge guys what they pay for Toyos.

---

Jason Isley
2005-2006-2007 B Stock National Champion

RX7 KLR:

randychase:

RX7 KLR:

This will also make Randy and Cole happy, spec tire size and brand.

???  Which Randy wants a spec tire size and brand? ???

"I've been preaching wheel/tire limitations for years." rnoll98

 

To be honest I sort of agree with him. Seems to me like it would be easier/cheaper to limit tire size on a car like an Elise than ask you to add 400 lbs.

 

Yep, I also think this is the way to go and needs to be looked at.  There were two on the SMAC that were recently in favor of this, but they're gone now.

dp 

---

Dan Pedroza
GS 127
WikiWiki!

rnoll98:

Andy Hollis:

Too many.  Won't happen.

There is zero chance of being able to "work the rules" to make all of these cars competitive.  It doesn't even happen in DM/EM, where the allowances are even more open.  Pick four.  That's about the best we've ever done.  There is nothing so magical about the SM ruleset that will allow it to somehow even things out between that many disparite engine/suspension/drivetrain/body variations.

I think you read my list but not my long-winded text below:

Learn to be concise and use bullet points, especially if you want to be on the SMAC.   

Seriously, the reason I say pick four, is that as soon as you identify those as being the ones that the rules will favor, people can be confident in plunking down the cash to do the work to build the car.  The problem with having 25 cars that *might* work, is that you have to take the risk of plunking the cash and building the car, and possibly be wrong.  Then you have no market for your expensive mistake.  I personally believe that is the biggest hurdle right now.  The is a barrier to entry to the class at the national level and its all about risk/reward.  In the early days of SM2, for example, you could easily pop for a Z06, throw some big wheels and tires on it and be very competitive in SM2.  Or take CSP Miata, put a blower on it, and also be there.  But those days are gone.

rnoll98:

rnoll98:

Not all these cars are going to be competitive, and that's for the competitors to figure out, but the goal would be to at least have the majority of the trophies taken by cars on the list.

Maybe the communication to "protect" all target cars is bad. To do that we would need to pear down the list. Dave is right tho, we've got that right now. I think you could easily get an RX7, Vette, MR2, Miata, S2000, and M3 all on the same second. I'd take any 4 of those as target cars. I'd probably shy away from the Vette if any because of the cost of entry, or maybe just write out the C6, as C5s are getting cheaper.

So Andy H, what's your solution?

--Randy

 I have ideas.  Simple ones.  But for now I'm just stirring the pot.  SMAC and SEB members are watching to see what comes of these discussions.  BUt if we steer them too much, we gain nothing.  Send me an e-mail and I'll tell you what I think privately.

--Andy 

You want 4 cars?

Car #1 = STi & Evo

Car #2 = BMW 3 series & Lexus IS300

Car #3 = Z06, RX-7 & 911 (newer)

Car #4 = Miata, MR2, Elise & 911 (older)

 

Figure out a way to get those 4 groups close and you're in business. 

If it's via minimum weight, fine. 

If it's tire size, that's great. 

If some of them get engine swaps and others get forced induction, cool. 

If it takes two classes, that's fine too.

I don't really think it matters how you get there, people just want to have the misguided belief that they have a shot.

---

Robert Puertas
www.EvoSchool.com

Andy Hollis:

Learn to be concise and use bullet points, especially if you want to be on the SMAC. 

Yeah, Randy, like I did in my page 1 post, which I thought was a particularly inspired "A Modest Proposal"-esque advance reply to those favoring driver/car-specific penalties.  Too bad nobody knows what keelhauling is anymore.

I think many see the top SM/2 guys way up high on the side of "Street Mod" mountain, which has a peak higher than ST or SP.  Many would rather see the mountain made shorter, than attempt the climb.  I don't generally agree with this philosophy.

Unfortunately, I believe there are at best, only about 50 people with the skills and resources necessary to build and campaign a top-flight SM-category car in the entire sport of Solo.  To make the numbers, the class will forever be dependent upon the fibrous bulk of people there "just having fun" within the ruleset or bottom-feeding for a trophy with an SP car.  How much of that fiber is "just right", how much is too much?

Where to get more people into SM/2?  I see two pools: (see Randy, they're numbered)

1. People who are capable of winning and might enjoy the work that running an SM car entails.  A lot of these people may be in P or M classes, but also SP or ST.  What could be done to make SM more appealing to them?  (I sure don't know) As an example, to some people, it might be easier/more sensible to weld new pickups for a suspension pickup to fix a geometry issue, than it is to have a custom-forged/cast spindles made or adopted?
2. People who aren't capable of winning but for whom the SM ruleset fits the vision of how they'd like to mod their car - if Nationals were held in Southern California, SM would have no problem making raw numbers, as there are a ton of SM-esque cars running around down here.

I don't know how much the people in camp #2 really help things, unless they become camp #1 people.  Would it be considered success just to get a bunch of bodies in half-prepped cars at Nationals, or should it be meaured more on the quantity of serious competitors?  I believe there are plenty of classes that would not look so hot when viewed under tha magnifying glass of "% of participants with a possibility of winning" or "# of participants within X% of winner's time".  In this regard, I think SM is actually doing quite well.  SM2 has a much smaller pool of cars to select from, hasn't been around as long, and is generally faster, so it's not unreasonable to see its numbers smaller - given these disadvantages to participation, I don't think their numbers are out of line, especially since XP just opened up next door, catering to an all-too-similar market.

---

--Jason Rhoades

Well, I'll go mainly back to Andy's source post - I'm always late to the dance....

1) - I'm still a current SM2 competitor, even though I still consider myself a former SM2 competitor and a current XP competitor.  Jesse and Randy talked me into staying antoher year.  I'll do my part to try to save the class - I'm not going to win either, so it's no skin off my back.  
So why did I leave in my own mind?  Changing rules.  For me just about every rule change has hurt me.  I have a Spyder - it's only plus is light
weight.  So in 3 years time, my min weight has gone up about 500 lbs.  That's alot of weight, Virginia.  Almost 300 alone this year.  And it's not 
like these min weights were so low I could never get to them or anything - I compteded in DM as an L4 while building the car at 1903 lbs.  I competed in SM2 with the V6 at 2112 lbs - a bit more than that this year because I knew the weight rules 
were coming and stopped spending money to add "lightness".  Something as simple as the fuel cell change hit me too - triple, actually.  
2 years ago I had a custom 1 gal cell made - $300 down the tubes when the 5 gal limit came out - so I made a custom 5.1 gal cell for about 
double that.   268 lbs to be added from last year to this year.  Do you know how hard that is to add in a plastic trunk?  Now I need weight so bad, I'm back to the stock tank (or which I had to buy a new one because the original was dented pretty badly on the bottom and took up nearly a gallon - and I desperately needed the extra 6 lbs.  I'm bolting on strut 
braces, and all kinds of crap I don't need just to make weight.  And of last night I finally made min by 1 lb *WITH* the spare tire and the tank slap full.  So now a few extra ballast paltes for the trunk to compensate for fuel burned on the course and I should be set.   And slow.

2) - I still think SM is too far towards prepared.  In my mind it's Street Prepared with engine mods.  But it isn't the word Modified clearly points that out.  The current rules base equity off the engine size.  Given that basis, to get an edge, you have to build the crap out of the smallest engine you can find unless you are a heavy chassis to begin with.  Tires not a consideration, suspension not a consideration.  Your engine size, FI status, and what end your car makes black marks from.  I get the extra 25 lb/L hit for Mid engnie which is far better than the AWD hit I was subject to the previous two years - kudos for that rule change - it's far more equitable than the previous rule.  But 88 lbs is 88 lbs.  So for my chassis, which I know I can get to 1900 lbs or less, under the current rules I am limited to a 1.3L engine - N/A.  Woohoo!  So my best engien choice is the smallest engien I can get - destroke it probably build the crap out of the internals, polish it mirror smoothe, custom induction on both ends to get the highest possible flow I possibly can.. and no torque.  That's not for me, I just swap engines and go play.  With the aero allowance - now that the floodgates are open, if you don't have it, you will be fodder.  Plain and simple - without aero, you will not be competitive.  So that's now a required mod.  I never did understand the limits of the body panel replacements.  At least now with mid engine, I get to define which end the hood is.  But why just one end and not both?  I have bolt- on quarters, why should I not be able to replace any bolt-on body panel.  Not that it matters anymore - I'm not replacing any body panels for weight - I need more not less.  Not really sure why chassis stiffening is not allowed, either, but I'm green.  But the 2900 lb cap - that one burns my hiney.  If you're small to begin with - sorry, charley.  If you're kinda portly - it's free reign.

3) Rule stability is important, despite the fact that I think the current rules are now worse for me than the rules in the past.  I have 2 fuels cells and a stock fuel tank (slight dent) for sale, or which there are zero prospective customers int he SCCA right now.  Takeaways suck.  I'm spending gobs of money (gobs to my calbrated wallet, maybe not yours) on aero and complete custom suspension - please don't take those back next year.  I'm not rich, and I have very little spare time to build things - I hate building things (and paying for them) just to throw them on the shelf the following year.  I know this is not a poor man's class, but it needs to be said again - takeaways suck.

4)  Again, new formulaic weights stress engine development too much, IMO.  There's so much more to SM than just the engine, but that's the primary equalizer.  Other classes with the cafeteria style weight rules might do a better job - 25 lbs for ABS, factory or not. 15 lbs. per sq ft of wing. 5 lbs per total mm of tire tread.  Plus the modifiers for engine and drivetrain like there are now.

---

XP

I'd like to try and spur more discussion here. A couple more questions for folks (bulleted for Andy H)  ;)

5) Current competitors: If SM went away, what would you do?

6) I don't think SM could get any closer to XP without combining them. So if SM went the other way and became more or less "SP with engine swaps", would you (current competitors) stay or would you (non-SM folks) be compelled to join?

JRho, I'm into the pirate theme man, but keelhauling seems a little extreme for autox. We'd have to use tow vehicles otherwise we'd get stuck ;)

---

Randy Noll

Robert Puertas:

You want 4 cars?

Car #1 = STi & Evo

Car #2 = BMW 3 series & Lexus IS300

Car #3 = Z06, RX-7 & 911 (newer)

Car #4 = Miata, MR2, Elise & 911 (older)

 

Must be the New Math.   I count 9.

I'll give you STi and Evo as one.  Same with 3-series and IS300.  But what works for a Z06 is nothing like what works for an RX7. Likewise with the 911.  And the Miata has wheel/tire issues that the MR2 does not.  And an Elise is even farther out there on wheel/tire fitment.  Rules that work for any of these will alter the others' balance.  So you still only get to pick four.  IMO, of course.

--Andy 

Andy Hollis:

Robert Puertas:

You want 4 cars?

Car #1 = STi & Evo

Car #2 = BMW 3 series & Lexus IS300

Car #3 = Z06, RX-7 & 911 (newer)

Car #4 = Miata, MR2, Elise & 911 (older)

 

Must be the New Math.   I count 9.

I'll give you STi and Evo as one.  Same with 3-series and IS300.  But what works for a Z06 is nothing like what works for an RX7. Likewise with the 911.  And the Miata has wheel/tire issues that the MR2 does not.  And an Elise is even farther out there on wheel/tire fitment.  Rules that work for any of these will alter the others' balance.  So you still only get to pick four.  IMO, of course.

--Andy 

We already witnessed an example of the Z06 and RX7 being competitive against eachother (McKee and Thomason). Honestly, if a newer 911 doesn't become the car to have I don't think anyone will lose any sleep. The class will be dead if a GT2/3 is required equipment.

You're still looking at the Miata glass as half empty. It can at least fit the 275s on the back, and the hoosier 225 has virtually the same footprint as the 245 I run up front on my car (I've considered swapping). The front of my car probably weighs close to the front of an SM2 Miata. IIRC the biggest problem was putting power down, you can tune a car to work with a tire stagger. And I put the Elise in the same bucket as a 911. It'll be a neat car to see locally, but not a lot of folks are gonna hack clam to be competitive nationally. Once you can get one for $25-$30k it might become more popular.

I think you could get zero 911 or Elise participation nationally and just rely on the others. Let perception dictate who builds the Z06/RX7 and MR2/Miata car. I think the current rules could put all 4 of these guys on the same second.

RandyN

---

Randy Noll

rnoll98:

[

Let perception dictate who builds the Z06/RX7 and MR2/Miata car. I think the current rules could put all 4 of these guys on the same second.

RandyN

So are those your four picks to build the rules "guarantee" around? 

No FWD products?

As for the Miata, even if you can get the tire under the wheelwell, you still can't hack the upper inner fender.  So you will have to run the car at a very high ride height.

Now, a new Miata (MX5) might be a different story.  But how many people will hack up a brand new car to run SM2? 

--Andy 

Andy,

 Sure I bet alot of people will hack up a new car to run SM2.... as long as they don't own it ;) I saw Ron B's csp car this weekend, now where did I put that damn sawzall at?!

Kyle

 

 

---

Kyle Freiheit
Porsche 914 2.0ish
92 Mazda Miata STS2
2007 Season, Z0K Solstice
2008 Roadracing?

Andy Hollis:

rnoll98:

[

Let perception dictate who builds the Z06/RX7 and MR2/Miata car. I think the current rules could put all 4 of these guys on the same second.

RandyN

So are those your four picks to build the rules "guarantee" around? 

Nope, no guarantee. I moved away from that 2 pages ago ;)
My point was defending Robert's list. I think it's a solid selection of target cars that the SMAC could "target" for the class. If you want to hand select like SP, take my longer list, Robert's short list will probably be the ones that rise to the top. I think the current weight rules eliminate the class killer, and most folks will naturally gravitate toward mid to late 90s cars because of the low cost of entry, decent suspension, readily available tuner market, etc.

Andy Hollis:

No FWD products?

FWD get's it's own class. Robert's list would be one class.

Andy Hollis:

As for the Miata, even if you can get the tire under the wheelwell, you still can't hack the upper inner fender.  So you will have to run the car at a very high ride height.

More doom and gloom. Define "very high". And who says it's going to sit any further in than the 225? Don't expect to have your cake and eat it too, ya gotta go OUT to go big. And you don't need to be able to turn lock to lock to run an autox. I don't think the 22.9" tire is any taller than what comes stock on the car. With stiffer springs you should at least be able to run an inch or so lower than stock. I think the 13" shod CSP cars are warping a lot of folks' vision of "low". You don't have to scrape chassis to handle well, especially when you can play with roll centers. Either way it's going to be lower than my MR2 on 18s.

---

Randy Noll

rnoll98:

Andy Hollis:

As for the Miata, even if you can get the tire under the wheelwell, you still can't hack the upper inner fender.  So you will have to run the car at a very high ride height.

More doom and gloom. Define "very high". And who says it's going to sit any further in than the 225? Don't expect to have your cake and eat it too, ya gotta go OUT to go big. And you don't need to be able to turn lock to lock to run an autox. I don't think the 22.9" tire is any taller than what comes stock on the car. With stiffer springs you should at least be able to run an inch or so lower than stock. I think the 13" shod CSP cars are warping a lot of folks' vision of "low". You don't have to scrape chassis to handle well, especially when you can play with roll centers. Either way it's going to be lower than my MR2 on 18s.

Very high = "higher than a Corvette", since that's what its competing against.  CG height.

I'll believe it when I see it.  Until then, your half-full is no different than my half-empty.    Except that I have a bit more hands-on with the Miata than you.  I was trying like crazy to fit the 245/45-16 on there effectively (and legally) for SP and failed.  Ankeny got it to work back in the day, but that was before the "hub face" clarification.

--Andy 

 

 

 

Big difference there.

 

 

Hopefully,

-Phil 

---

-Philip Maynard

No weenies!

We've already seen miatas shod with the 225/15 in CSP and SM2. They don't look goofy, and the last time I saw someone playing with them they were pretty damn fast. The OD is not the problem. It may not be ideal, but I'm sure Andy and Vic would love to have 1" shorter tires too. I think the only thing in question is if the front tire can turn enough under a legally modified fender to make the 275 a viable option. The 245/16 is as tall as the 285/18, no doubt it was tough to fit.

---

Randy Noll