SCCAForums.com

Howdy,

Andy Hollis:

P38overhead:

I also put forth that Mod and Prepared have additional value to the rest of the membership and to society beyond the enjoyment that Mod/Prep members themselves derive.

Please explain.

Are you saying that P & M drivers are somehow "more important" per capita?  IOW, that they provide more of this value than drivers in other classes?

I'm not Chuck and half the time I think he's being a bit daft, but the way I read what he wrote is that folks other than just the drivers often enjoy Prepared and Mod cars.

I.e. lots more people (in my experience) like to watch AM, CP, XP, and SM2 (for instance) run compared to HS, FSP, or STS or whatever.

Its almost like AM, CP, XP, and SM2 are more relevant to autocrossers than the grocery getter classes!

:-)

Mark

(btw, since we're now apparently trying to market ourselves and all, can we get some of that drifting action at our events?  Specifically I'd like to see more burn out competitions, bikini shows, and car hopping contests.)

(ps #2, did anyone else see on a recent speed redline / nopi / whatever show the corvette in the burnout competition with SM2 on the side and the woman driver who said she autoxed?  Was that someone well known?)

(ps #3, apparently if we had more burnout competitions, we might have at least one more SM2 car.)

(I'm running an ESP car this year btw.  I didn't feel relevant enough last year in SM.)

modernbeat:

129STS:

modernbeat:

You didn't mention it, but it's been brought up that the cost, and the need for a support vehicle and trailer is a major deterrent. But the cost of a SP-BMW is higher than many P cars. And most AS and SS cars cost more to run (in tires and depreciation) than many of the small bore P&M classes. The number of Stock and ST cars that show up on trailers in my region is equal to the number of P&M cars on trailers. And that's at a regional.

I can sell the 'car-d'jour' in my stock class at the end of the year for probably 80% of what I bought it for.  How much you gonna sell an uncompetitive specialty built Lotus for?
 

So if you bought a Dodge Viper SRT-10 for $83,145, your loss at the end of a year if you sold it with 20% depreciation would be $16.629. Do the same with a Porsche GT3 for $106,000, and your "price" is $21,200. That's on top of any other incidentals like shocks or wheels. I think you actually lose more than 20% on those in the real world. The Elise that sells for $43,900 new seems to be trading for $34,000 used - a loss of only $9900.

So you're comparing a DP car to a SS car?  That's kinda using the extremes, now isn't it?  What's a GOOD A-mod car go for these days on the used market?  :P
 

The P&M classes are supposedly designed so that ALL cars can be competitive with additional preparation, allowing owners to campaign their car for a longer time.

Now that's some powerful Kool-Aid you're drinking there.  All cars can be competitive?   I'm not buying that.

129STS:

modernbeat:

129STS:

modernbeat:

You didn't mention it, but it's been brought up that the cost, and the need for a support vehicle and trailer is a major deterrent. But the cost of a SP-BMW is higher than many P cars. And most AS and SS cars cost more to run (in tires and depreciation) than many of the small bore P&M classes. The number of Stock and ST cars that show up on trailers in my region is equal to the number of P&M cars on trailers. And that's at a regional.

I can sell the 'car-d'jour' in my stock class at the end of the year for probably 80% of what I bought it for.  How much you gonna sell an uncompetitive specialty built Lotus for?
 

So if you bought a Dodge Viper SRT-10 for $83,145, your loss at the end of a year if you sold it with 20% depreciation would be $16.629. Do the same with a Porsche GT3 for $106,000, and your "price" is $21,200. That's on top of any other incidentals like shocks or wheels. I think you actually lose more than 20% on those in the real world. The Elise that sells for $43,900 new seems to be trading for $34,000 used - a loss of only $9900.

So you're comparing a DP car to a SS car?  That's kinda using the extremes, now isn't it?  What's a GOOD A-mod car go for these days on the used market?  :P
 

The P&M classes are supposedly designed so that ALL cars can be competitive with additional preparation, allowing owners to campaign their car for a longer time.

Now that's some powerful Kool-Aid you're drinking there.  All cars can be competitive?   I'm not buying that.

Yes, I'm comparing a DP to an SS car. That's what I first mentioned in the price comparison. An FP car should run from $30-$60. Mod cars, all classes, are an unlimited money hole and are beyond comparison. The only way to stop the spending on a Mod car is to only spend as much money as equates to your driver's skill. 

On the Kool-Aid comment - I don't believe it either, but that's what the PAC and MAC keep saying. Of course the DM car that I think should be an over dog gets beat most years. But, since we have an "extreme" competition surface, the competitiveness of some cars may be compromised. But the theory is that P&M have enough allowances that the cars put in each class SHOULD be equal. The fact that the allowances are usually in flux (see VTEC weight penalty in in FP) mean that someone thinks they aren't quite equalized. 

marka:

Which is great and all, except that it totally ignores that SM2 has the exact same "participation problem" that the Prepared and Mod classes have.  So what happened there?  Not relevant enough?  Too relevant?  Or is relevance just not relevant to the discussion?

I u$ed to be a ¢ompetitor in $M2.  I rea££y £iked the ¢ompetition and near un£imited modifi¢ation$ you ¢ou£d do to the ¢ar.  I gave it my be$t effort.  My prob£em wa$ that I tried to do it on the ¢heap.  That'$ not what that ¢£a$$ i$ about.  When I had my $e¢ond ¢hi£d ear£ier £a$t year, I ju$t ¢ou£dn't devote the time or energy to keeping the ¢ar running in top form.  I knew that I wa$ headed to Nationa£$ and wanted to have my be$t $hot at a trophy, whi¢h meant $wit¢hing ¢ar$ and not driving again$t a ¢ertain RX7 in a $ma££ ¢£a$$.  I a£$o be¢ame di$en¢hanted with the ru£e$et - I got into $M2 ba¢k at the $tart where it wa$ SP with engine mod$.  It'$ now $omething mu¢h more than that.  $o I, and my two other driver$, went e£$ewhere. 

marka:

Which is great and all, except that it totally ignores that SM2 has the exact same "participation problem" that the Prepared and Mod classes have.  So what happened there?  Not relevant enough?  Too relevant?  Or is relevance just not relevant to the discussion?

That's being discussed in another thread, but here's my personal take:  When SM expanded, it did so the wrong way.  The category initially had a couple of really solid built-in markets when it first started.  One was the Honda & Toyota motor-swap crowd, with the other being the boost buggies.  Unfortunately, the rules were built in a way that made the former uncompetitive.  One group that was never really expected to do so well was the BMW.  So the resultant class didn't hit its existing markets so well.  Still, it has been good enough to survive due to the "relevance" of at least part of it. 

SM2 was the wrong class all along.  When you can take your rear seat of of an SM sedan, and totally redo the suspension, how are those cars now philosophically any different from an SM2 "sports car" (other than weights, which can be adjusted via rule)?   Further, the large built-in market of turbo Miata fiends was disenfranchised after realizing how the rules worked against them (tire clearance).  The class was initially popular mostly due to bottom-fishing as people took SS/ASP cars and ran them in SM2.  Once "real" SM2 cars showed up, everyone else fled.

So, SM2 lost its natural relevance due to poor rules choices.  There is not much of an existing built-in market for hi-dollar tricked out RX7's, especially 3-rotors (as cool as that car is).  Certainly not like the turbo Miata and swapped Honda markets, both of which SM&SM2 left in the dust.  IMO, relevance is exactly what went wrong there.  The better answer would have been to cater to those two crowds first and foremost.  Which is one of the "solutions" currently being bandied about (SM Lite instead of SM2).  But politics, inertia and vested interest (genie <> bottle)  will likely cause little to happen there until the issue is forced via 4.8.  And not at all if 4.8 changes.  Gee, sounds familiar. 

--Andy

So Chuck, what you are really doing is echoing Rocky's comments from the Town Hall ("Yeah, we are different"), and saying having people around who are "different" provides entertainment value to the rest.  Hmm, hard to argue with that, but maybe not for the same reasons you think! 

I guess that leaves the door open for Lehman, too.  Ouch!

 --Andy "just pushing Chuck's buttons"

marka:

(ps #2, did anyone else see on a recent speed redline / nopi / whatever show the corvette in the burnout competition with SM2 on the side and the woman driver who said she autoxed?  Was that someone well known?)

I didn't see the show but it sounds like a National champion we know well in the Northwest.

The March fastrack has a proposed rule change to the minimum participation rule.

Change the first part of Section 4.9 to read “If in three consecutive years….”

 The SEB is proposing to extend the time frame from two years to three years.
 

"" I think zero (0) is a pretty big indicator of a lack of interest. If you get three guys driving all the way to Topeka to contend for a national championship, where's the harm? They're the ones who have to live with the stigma of having only three drivers. LOTS of women win championships, by the way, with only one in the class, and somehow, the world keeps spinning.

These three drivers still pay the same entry fee. They still work just like everyone else. If they weren't in bla bla class, they'd be in another one. Or maybe they wouldn't even go at all. Or is that the aim? Is this really all about keeping numbers down?

This arbitrary number of 17, or anything, interferes with the natural ebb and flow of economics, interest and trends. That is, classes have enough problems of their own without the SCCA adding this unnatural one. This number needs to just go away, and then and only then will you seel see a class in its truest, most natural state. And only then will people be able to address the real problems, which are, really, creating what is the most fair. You can't even begin to address that with the looming threat of a class becoming obsolete, because then you have people going to nationals out of fear, or not going at all. So it doesn't help; it only acts as a threat interferes. And that makes little business sense to me. Am I totally off base wondering about that?

 -Katie Kelly""

I believe you're totally NOT off base there Katie. I am an example of your post completely. Here I am, a second year competitor, driving my daughters car at events in HS because I decided right off to BUILD a car to compete in. I originally headed for EP but when I found I couldn't do anywhere near what I wanted to do in one area of the build, I'm now going DM. I've been participating in the Yahoo group, and it scares the crap out of me sometimes. The proposals tossed around there would be serious changes to my build plans and some would completely eliminate me from any hopes of being competitive. I have to admit, the constant threat of changing rules is my largest fear here. And that leads directly to my desire to participate. If any of my family or friends read through the rules and watched what is happening concerning the constant possibility of rule changes and DM elimination, they would take me directly to a mental facility for evaluation. I don't have a clue what the participation problem could be with other classes. But how can you possibly be wanting higher numbers in a major build class like DM, and be willy nilly changing the rules on a board's whims? How many Mod class competitors are there involved in the rules changing process? I've recognized one person active in this thread that is a BUILDER. There may be more also. I'd guess there may possibly be more purchasers in DM than builders. How many with a major voice in this issue have spent much time actually building a car and not just assembling it? It's a completely different game. Along with it comes a vastly different point of view and values as to what it may take to have a healthy class. Is there even ANY thought given to not changing any class's rules unless there is an safe, above minimum arbitrary participation number history in the class? I can build to what I see in the rule book now. I wonder if I'll have to trash the car because of a flip rule change in the near future.

I also cannot understand why a club has a desire to do away with any class when competitors show up to race, legal to pertaining rules. Not spend large monies on trophies, yes. Does the club not exist for the competitors? I was, and still am, under the impression the club is there to support our competition. We all pay dues to keep playing the game, not to support the management so it can tell us we can't play. WTH? 

Yeah, I guess since I've only been a member 1 year now, my voice is small. I don't understand how things work so "what do I know?" I should just read, pay dues, and keep volunteering so in years to come I can contribute something meaningful. Well, guess what. I'm here now. I and probably others like me are very hesitant about this whole discussion. Care to ease my apprehension? Calm the class down. A moratorium on rule changes. Make the rules understandable.
When I asked about the meaning of some rules, I was responded to with basically if your competitors don't complain..."  So I spend hours, days, weeks, months, and more, building to what I THINK the rules mean, only to be blown away because I didn't interpret the rules well enough. Welcome back to "do I really want to get this deep". I better quit, as I'm getting bitter again. Loren.

Loren,

I have been in SCCA close to 20 years and campaigned a CP car for 7 or 8 of those and the DM/EM list freaks me out a bit too.   I believe that mailing list, and its constant whining about insignificant stuff, is DM's biggest "problem" for growth.

However, that list is not official.  Of all the people that regularly post on there, myself and Greg Scharnberg are the only ones currently in any type of rules making role for the club. 

In reality, there have been very, very few rules changes in DMEM lately, and no nothing major on the horizon.  On that list, like on the rest of the Internet, there is talk of major changes, but that is just like the news on TV and Radio.  A bunch of hot air by people not in the process.

Finally, your claim that rules are changed "willy nilly by members and boards" is patently false.  Rule changes are usually initiated by a member, go through a sub committee, through the SEB, are posted for member comment in Fastrack and then back through the process if any changes are made, or on the to BoD for final approval.  The process takes at least 6 months, usually closer to 9 or a 12!  Most members complain it is too long. :)

If you need clarification on rules, the DMEM list is not your best bet.  Write a letter to seb@scca.com and the MAC/SEB will look at it, officially, and privately. 

Hope this helps.  I know it is frustrating but sometimes people confuse the Internet for the process and get worried over things that aren't true.

DaveW

Dave, I don't agree that the DM rules aren't changing. The new "clarifications" regarding full width front splitters/spoilers and the allowances to front bodywork to use them is actually a huge change. It basicly allows some cars to use completely custom front bodywork. That was the straw that broke the camel's back for me and another DM builder in my region. We're both building XP cars now.

Sentra, I'd avoid DM unless you are willing to have a non-competitive car, or are willing to go whole hog on your buildup AND car choice. You might think about XP if your built car can fit in that class. I agree with Dave that the DM-Yahoo list is scary. I've called out some of the members for inciting others with thoughts that their buildups were going into grey areas of the rules, or were constantly proposing rule changes. I'm guilty too - I'd like to see motorcycle engines let back into DM with a displacement multiplier similar to rotary engines. Despite that, Dave is also correct that since the big rules revision a few years ago, the rules have been fairly static. The scary part to me are the new intrepretations based on protest decisions and Fastrack clarifications. A few competitors are determined to bring aero to the class one way or another.

modernbeat:

Dave, I don't agree that the DM rules aren't changing. The new "clarifications" regarding full width front splitters/spoilers and the allowances to front bodywork to use them is actually a huge change. It basicly allows some cars to use completely custom front bodywork.

I don't want to start an argument, but that really was a clarification of the current rules.  The reason you see it as a change is becuase you don't agree with it. If it were something you did agree with, then you'd think it was just a clarification while another person thought it a "change".  I'm not picking on you, everyone is like this. 

It is all a matter of perspective.

DaveW

Dave, I did a search of the D-E Mod list for "whining". There were only 109 out of 28,000 messages with "whining" in them.

The list was originally set up to explain what the "Rules" were. Some times the list wanders. It usually comes back to "this group or that group has an unfair advantage."

Del Long 

Dave, official or not, rule making or not, what is said there is part of the rule changing process. Just like it is everywhere else there is a discussion going on. There are and always will be people that can't leave well enough alone and need to change things to suit themselves. If enough people read or participate in the discussion and heed it's direction, rules will change. That is why I say put a stay on rule changes. And no, I don't believe the recent "clarification" was such. It was a change. When common belief is one thing and an addition to the rule book changes that belief, it's not a clarification.

"In reality, there have been very, very few rules changes in DMEM lately, and no nothing major on the horizon.  On that list, like on the rest of the Internet, there is talk of major changes, but that is just like the news on TV and Radio.  A bunch of hot air by people not in the process."

So I can take that to the bank that there is not ANY threat of DM and other classes being eliminated? Oh, yeah, that's not a rule change either I guess. Simplify my point and don't focus so tight on "rules". Changes are what I'm concerned about. Changes are what is going to limit me from attending Topeka. I can and will work with rules. I can see, understand, and prepare when rules are the subject. How do I prepare for something that might happen, when someone might suggest it, and enough others agree to it, to push hard enough to make it happen? 

My first venture into rules clarification was indeed with the proper process. I wasn't pleased with the results. Not the results of the clarification, but the results of the process. I would be literally several months ahead of where I am now if it weren't for the "official" process. It left me with a foal taste and the thought that I am pretty much on my own, or at the mercy of the sportsmanship of my competitors. yeah