SCCAForums.com

129STS:

 

So when a Miata took 2nd place in SM2 with a non-ideal alignment, on 245s mounted on 16x8.5s, and the wrong tires (S04s instead of V710s), that was... magic?

The development in the class has moved way beyond that.  And participation has dropped almost lockstep.

And its not for want of trying.  The very popular forced induction Miata crowd were some of the earliest stalwarts of SM2.  But they've met their match.

Seen any Miatas up there lately on the national scene?  Not a single one at Nats in 2006.  Most have fled to XP or other cars.  Poof!  Gone like magic. 

Look, I hope y'all are right and the new Hoosier is magical enough to bring all of these Miatas back.  But I'm also a realist and will believe it when I see it.  Right now, no one knows for sure. 

--Andy 

Development has come a long way.  I for one will have a forced induction Miata at Nationals whether the 275s turn out to be magic or illusion.

---

Chris
51 SM2

Andy Hollis:

129STS:

 

So when a Miata took 2nd place in SM2 with a non-ideal alignment, on 245s mounted on 16x8.5s, and the wrong tires (S04s instead of V710s), that was... magic?

The development in the class has moved way beyond that.  And participation has dropped almost lockstep.

And its not for want of trying.  The very popular forced induction Miata crowd were some of the earliest stalwarts of SM2.  But they've met their match.

Seen any Miatas up there lately on the national scene?  Not a single one at Nats in 2006.  Most have fled to XP or other cars.  Poof!  Gone like magic. 

Look, I hope y'all are right and the new Hoosier is magical enough to bring all of these Miatas back.  But I'm also a realist and will believe it when I see it.  Right now, no one knows for sure. 

--Andy 

 

Well, I think SM2 lost 2 more drivers for this year.  Jim and I are probably going to move the car to XP and take out the 300 lbs of crap we had to add for 2007.  It's simply not cost effective to throw 10 grand into the 2GR to get another 100+ hp to get it to a competative power to weight ratio.  The weight formula simply put the car out of contention for our budget.  I understand the SMAC's "fear" of the smaller cars, but in doing so, you've also decreased your target market.

I really don't think the Miata was completely out of the question throughout this time.  Looking at the results Ian had against other classes like SS and ASP throughout that year, there's no reason IMO that the Miatas couldn't be competative in the current SM2.


 

---

Jesse
-2002-2006 E-stock 93 MR2 (sold)
-2007-2008 XP Spyder

Andy Hollis:

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

...

--Andy 

Oh come on Andy, everything is going to be higher than a Corvette.  The Miata is a TON narrower, a ton shorter in length/wheelbase, and with this new 275 will carry a ton more tire per lb. than a Vette -how much more do you need to make up for that?  With a dry sump'd V6 and some depleted uranium subframe connectors on a Miata, I bet the CG's wouldn't be that far different anyway.

---

--Jason Rhoades

jzr:

Andy Hollis:

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

...

--Andy

Oh come on Andy, everything is going to be higher than a Corvette. The Miata is a TON narrower, a ton shorter in length/wheelbase, and with this new 275 will carry a ton more tire per lb. than a Vette -how much more do you need to make up for that?

Assuming  it fits.  We aren't there yet.  My comment is based on it not fitting reasonably well, which is based on my experience with the car (early Miata, not 99+).  If it does fit well, then I agree with your statement.  Until the tire arrives and someone does the hack job, we are both just pissing in the wind.

On a related issue, I just went back over the member comment for the weight proposal last year.  A grand total of two letters.  One of which proposed a completely different scheme involving wheel widths, and one of which wanted to add even more weight to small cars.  If weight chased people away, why did they not write in when the proposal was floated for feedback? 

--Andy 

Andy Hollis:

On a related issue, I just went back over the member comment for the weight proposal last year.  A grand total of two letters.

 I wrote in on the previous weight adjustment and it had no effect.  Why should I have expected anything different this time?

---

Rob Leone

'07 Solstice GXP in AS
'87 Toyota Corolla in EP
ex - '91 MR2 Turbo in SM2 <- If you can't set a good example, serve as a horrible warning.

SpyderVenom:

Andy Hollis:

On a related issue, I just went back over the member comment for the weight proposal last year.  A grand total of two letters.

 I wrote in on the previous weight adjustment and it had no effect.  Why should I have expected anything different this time?

"I didn't vote in the Presidential election because my guy lost last time.  Why should I vote this time?"

If you don't voice your opinion, you don't get to complain when the rules change.  Not saying *you* are, but others are.

--Andy

 

Andy Hollis:

"I didn't vote in the Presidential election because my guy lost last time.  Why should I vote this time?"

If you don't voice your opinion, you don't get to complain when the rules change.  Not saying *you* are, but others are.

Three words:  "Cole" "Street Tires"

I'm not going to continue to till at windmills when the direction of the class has already been determined by the SMAC and that my car will be continue to be rendered less competitive as more rules are introduced (it may have been uncompetitive anyway but it's what I had invested my money in).  I opted to vote with my money and changed classes - and I was bringing at least 3 people to the class (me, my wife, and a codriver).  Others have also voted and moved out of the class and still more are continueing to "vote".  At this point it seems like the only action that the SMAC is willing to take is akin to rearrangeing the deck chairs on the Titantic. 

---

Rob Leone

'07 Solstice GXP in AS
'87 Toyota Corolla in EP
ex - '91 MR2 Turbo in SM2 <- If you can't set a good example, serve as a horrible warning.

Andy Hollis:

[

On a related issue, I just went back over the member comment for the weight proposal last year.  A grand total of two letters.  One of which proposed a completely different scheme involving wheel widths, and one of which wanted to add even more weight to small cars.  If weight chased people away, why did they not write in when the proposal was floated for feedback? 

--Andy 

Ok, due to the earlier complaints of stuff being too long... here are the main points.  You can read the rest of the post if you want more. :P

 1) I wasn't in the class when the proposal went through... nor was I expecting to be there.

2) The car owner and I decided the car's not competative without 10k in engine development.

3) Even small cars get wide when you put lots of tire under them.
 

 

Two of the three SM2 trophy winners in SM2 at Dixie didn't even know there had been a rule change...  they were lucky to be overweight when they showed up.

Everyone was scared of the 914 and Elise.  Maybe they should have been.  I just happened to get offered a ride in a car that's shown upto Nationals 3 years in a row... but was subjected to the largest weight penelty of any other car (that was actually showing up) with the new rules.  I wasn't in the class at the time of the weight rule proposal, and from talking to many people, I was on the opposite side of these people who wanted Vettes and other lead sleds to win.

Either way, after driving the car for the first time at Dixie, it became quite apparent to me that without a bunch more power, the car wasn't going to be competative in SM2.  I know it's still not going to be dominant in XP, especially against something like Stan's Vette, but at least we get the benefit of dropping over 300 lbs out of it...and that's just taking crap out, not even making anything new, so it's "free", and that puts us within ~50 lbs of the weight minimum.

I remember asking Andy or Erik how wide their cars are, but I forgot.  Anyone happen to know how wide the top SM2 cars are?  Both Vettes and RX7's.  I wonder how much narrower the Spyder can actually get over those guys.  I talked to Chris Travis at the event, and I was amazed at how wide his SM Civic was even with the 225s upfront.

---

Jesse
-2002-2006 E-stock 93 MR2 (sold)
-2007-2008 XP Spyder

I forget exact widths. I think vettes are high 70s (78"?), RX7s are probably mid 70s (74"?), my MR2 with 245/285s is 69" wide. With the 335 rears it was about 74". I think Jim's Spyder is very close to mine. I'd expect a Miata on 275s to be in the same ballpark. I'm sure Andy H can provide better insight there.

---

Randy Noll

rnoll98:

I forget exact widths. I think vettes are high 70s (78"?), RX7s are probably mid 70s (74"?), my MR2 with 245/285s is 69" wide. With the 335 rears it was about 74". I think Jim's Spyder is very close to mine. I'd expect a Miata on 275s to be in the same ballpark. I'm sure Andy H can provide better insight there.

 

The Spyder is 71" wide front and rear with the 245/285.  We can narrow the front an inch(also 71"), but not the rears.

---

Jesse
-2002-2006 E-stock 93 MR2 (sold)
-2007-2008 XP Spyder

Let me see if I can summarize some trends I've seen in this thread.....

 1)Many folks (mostly owners of small/light cars) think the new weight rules place too harsh of a weight penalty on small displacement and FI

2)Almost everyone wants rules stability (of course that is assuming the rules are satisfactory to begin with)

3)Many people have suggested restructuring the SM category differently based on drivetrain and/or simple weight categories (SM Light, SM Heavy, etc.)

4)Alot of concerns on cost and level of preparation allowed.   Should be closer to SP than Prepared. 

 

-Andy M. 

boxboy:

Let me see if I can summarize some trends I've seen in this thread.....

 1)Many folks (mostly owners of small/light cars) think the new weight rules place too harsh of a weight penalty on small displacement and FI

2)Almost everyone wants rules stability (of course that is assuming the rules are satisfactory to begin with)

3)Many people have suggested restructuring the SM category differently based on drivetrain and/or simple weight categories (SM Light, SM Heavy, etc.)

4)Alot of concerns on cost and level of preparation allowed.   Should be closer to SP than Prepared. 

 

-Andy M. 

 

1) Correct.  My car owner's situation is that we have a small car with a "relatively" large displacement engine.  It was a darn good engine choice IMO for the old rules, but the displacement formula kinda kicked us...  right now, I'd rather have a 2.0L with a twin screw than the NA 3.5L engine.  We'd have at least as much power, have even more easily, and we'd get to weigh less.

2) Obviously.  Is there a case in ANY class that people WANT the rules to change year to year?  If you're going to change the rules, do it swiftly and all at once if possible.  Slowing reeling in the rules will cause headaches I think.  See also Blitzo's experience with having to build 2 different fuel cells, and this year, we ended up putting the oem fuel tank back in to gain weight.

3) I heard a lot of comments at the Dixie Tour that SM and SM2 have kinda become classes for bigger cars.  My favorite is SM being a class for high powered lead-sleds.  This came from 3 guys who have each run Nationals in either SM or SM2 for the last 3 years.  I myself have followed the class, but this is my first experience running it.  We did discuss the fact that it's a marketable class, but not if it's filled with 1970's RCM's.

4) With the introduction of XP, I would say yes.  With allowances for brakes, different control arms, some aero...  some of the allowances you see in the ST* classes.  Right now, you basically HAVE to build an engine pretty heavily when you're running relatively small displacement.  It's a Catch 22, I see that...  but it's just frustrating.  If we want to run with you Andy, we have to get at another 30% more power without going to forced induction to your power to weight.  Doing that in a NA 3.5L isn't cheap.

---

Jesse
-2002-2006 E-stock 93 MR2 (sold)
-2007-2008 XP Spyder

Andy Hollis:

On a related issue, I just went back over the member comment for the weight proposal last year.  A grand total of two letters.  One of which proposed a completely different scheme involving wheel widths, and one of which wanted to add even more weight to small cars.  If weight chased people away, why did they not write in when the proposal was floated for feedback? 

--Andy 

I can tell you why I didn't send comment.  Because Fasttrack isn't published anymore - you have to use brain power and think to go read them, which I rarely do.  I go back and read them about once a year - usually just before nats ;-) .  I was also not on this board at the time and signed up after someone (probably Randy) pointed me to the popstings here, but I got to the dance pretty late.  But really, would my input have mattered that much - one voice complaining about something that hit me straight between the eyes when at the time, Vettes represented 50% of the class?  
I wouldn't be speaking for the class, I'd be speaking for me and me alone.  When making rules for a wide range of people, the outliers are gonna get nailed.  That's me.  I'll deal with it and move on.  You can never satisfy the entire community.  I know I'm not offering much to solve the problem, but I don't really have a magic solution to the problem that would please everyone.

---

XP

boxboy:

Let me see if I can summarize some trends I've seen in this thread.....

 1)Many folks (mostly owners of small/light cars) think the new weight rules place too harsh of a weight penalty on small displacement and FI

I own a small/almost light car.  The problem I had with the forced induction penalty was the 1.4 became an adder not a multiplier.  The early version of the proposal had it as 1600 +((1.4 * actual displacement) *200)  The way it is now whether you are using forced induction on my 1.6 or a 6.7 liter big block everyone adds 280 lbs.  It seems more realistic that the 1.6 liter adds 128 lbs and the 6.7 adds 536.  That would seem to hold with the weight being based on displacement. The potential for forced induction to produce more horsepower is directly related to displacement.

boxboy:

2)Almost everyone wants rules stability (of course that is assuming the rules are satisfactory to begin with)

3)Many people have suggested restructuring the SM category differently based on drivetrain and/or simple weight categories (SM Light, SM Heavy, etc.)

4)Alot of concerns on cost and level of preparation allowed.   Should be closer to SP than Prepared. 

 

-Andy M. 

2,3, and 4 are pretty concise.  I think if 2 and 3 are resolved, 4 will take care of itself.  If the ruleset is too expensive then maybe the class shouldn't exist anyway. 

---

Chris
51 SM2

boxboy:

Let me see if I can summarize some trends I've seen in this thread.....

 1)Many folks (mostly owners of small/light cars) think the new weight rules place too harsh of a weight penalty on small displacement and FI

2)Almost everyone wants rules stability (of course that is assuming the rules are satisfactory to begin with)

3)Many people have suggested restructuring the SM category differently based on drivetrain and/or simple weight categories (SM Light, SM Heavy, etc.)

4)Alot of concerns on cost and level of preparation allowed.   Should be closer to SP than Prepared. 

1) I think the light guys get killed because of available engines. To stay at their "SP weight" they have to build a wicked NA engine because there isn't a production sub-1.0L that they can drop in and boost. That said, if you add 50hp and 2000 revs to a CSP car, gear it down, and tire it up (IF the 275 fits--it definitely fits a spyder), I think the formula works well. A big problem for them is they can't just slap on a blower or turbo without adding ballast, and fair or not, as a lot of folks have said, ballast is no fun. FI is an easy way to add power without permanently altering an engine and keeping it streetable.

2) Again, I'd say consistent vision is more important. People want protected investments, rules stability is one way to do that, but minor tweaks are fine as long as they don't make someone add 300# or force them to swap engines. BTW, I was rendered illegal as well by the weight change and am changing engines because of it. I do feel for Jim (Blitzo) on this one, as the timing for him was especially bad.

3) I think there was as much if not more push for all RWD/AWD combined and FWD broken out, but maybe that was just the majority when we voted in my living room. Light didn't seem to make a lot of sense with XP around.

4) Yes.

---

Randy Noll

ChrisSwearingen:

I own a small/almost light car.  The problem I had with the forced induction penalty was the 1.4 became an adder not a multiplier.  The early version of the proposal had it as 1600 +((1.4 * actual displacement) *200)  The way it is now whether you are using forced induction on my 1.6 or a 6.7 liter big block everyone adds 280 lbs.  It seems more realistic that the 1.6 liter adds 128 lbs and the 6.7 adds 536.  That would seem to hold with the weight being based on displacement. The potential for forced induction to produce more horsepower is directly related to displacement.

Keep in mind, that no matter what, the highest min weight is 2900 lbs. So a 6.7 litre motor has a min weight of 2900#s, throw a blower on it (add FI), the min weight is still 2900#s.

---

Michael "MrPickles" Feldpusch
#144 SM2
Broomfield, CO
rmsolo.org
lefthandracing.com

MrPickles:

ChrisSwearingen:

I own a small/almost light car.  The problem I had with the forced induction penalty was the 1.4 became an adder not a multiplier.  The early version of the proposal had it as 1600 +((1.4 * actual displacement) *200)  The way it is now whether you are using forced induction on my 1.6 or a 6.7 liter big block everyone adds 280 lbs.  It seems more realistic that the 1.6 liter adds 128 lbs and the 6.7 adds 536.  That would seem to hold with the weight being based on displacement. The potential for forced induction to produce more horsepower is directly related to displacement.

Keep in mind, that no matter what, the highest min weight is 2900 lbs. So a 6.7 litre motor has a min weight of 2900#s, throw a blower on it (add FI), the min weight is still 2900#s.

Thats true, but a 2050lb forced induction 1.6 is a lot more competitive than a 2200lb one.  None of the weights are unobtainable, heck I got to the 2200 number with a stereo and working A/C as well as keeping the soft top.  Not too surprising since the ever accurate wikipedia lists my stock curb weight as 2070.

---

Chris
51 SM2

rnoll98:

I forget exact widths. I think vettes are high 70s (78"?), RX7s are probably mid 70s (74"?), my MR2 with 245/285s is 69" wide. With the 335 rears it was about 74". I think Jim's Spyder is very close to mine. I'd expect a Miata on 275s to be in the same ballpark. I'm sure Andy H can provide better insight there.

A '99 Miata with the new 275's is going to be just under 72" wide with SM-legal fender mods at the lowest possible ride height (and there will be a bit of rubbing).

-Steve

 p.s.  My XP car should end up approx. 69" wide with the same tires.

---

Steve Garnjobst
#75 XP
'99 Mazda Mutant