SCCAForums.com

In light of the low turnout at Nationals, SM2 will be closely looked at for participation levels this year.   If numbers are low again come September, the SEB may ask that action be taken.  The SMAC is hoping that the recent new min. weight rules, and clarification on others will stabilize things and attract participation.   However, we always need to be considering "what if" scenarios.  With that in mind, please take a look at the following questions and give your honest feedback.  We'd like to hear it, but please try and look at the big picture and present your thoughts clearly.

1)If you were a former SM2 competitor, why did you leave and where did you go?

2)Do you think the current 2007 ruleset offers a good compromise of equitable competition and allowed modifications?  If not, why not?

3)From this point forward, how important is rules stability to you? 

4)If you are looking at the class, but the rules/allowances are not appealing, what are the issues you see?  What rules would you change and why?

Of course these questions are independent, but I think you get the gist.  If people like the way things are or if they want to see changes before jumping in, we'd like to hear both points of view.  Thanks for you time and thoughts.

 -Andy M.

boxboy:

1)If you were a former SM2 competitor, why did you leave and where did you go?

2)Do you think the current 2007 ruleset offers a good compromise of equitable competition and allowed modifications?  If not, why not?

3)From this point forward, how important is rules stability to you? 

4)If you are looking at the class, but the rules/allowances are not appealing, what are the issues you see?  What rules would you change and why?

Of course these questions are independent, but I think you get the gist.  If people like the way things are or if they want to see changes before jumping in, we'd like to hear both points of view.  Thanks for you time and thoughts.

 -Andy M.

1. If somebody wins or places second in SM or SM2, the following year that person must wear an eyepatch at Nationals to impair their depth perception.
   
2. If they win or place second again with the patch, they must use a hook in place of their right (shifting) hand at Nationals.
3. If they still manage to win or place second, the following year their right shoe shall be replaced with a wooden peg leg.
4. There shouldn't be a #4, but if there is, consider mandatory rum consumption, keel-hauling said participant on a rusty CP trailer, or plank walking off the tech building, 

I think a lot of this was talked about here:

http://sccaforums.com/forums/1/213101/ShowThread.aspx#213101 

geewiz:

c) I would also favor merging SM and SM2. The number of seats in the car just isn't much of a competitive factor. The cars that are winning the 2 classes today are very similar in weight and speed.

No dog in the fight, but  still observing closely.  Glenn is on to something with the SM and SM-lightweight idea, using this as a delineator instead of 2-seat/4-seat.  We already do it with EM/DM.  2.5L and below in the 'light' class, big bore, awd etc. in the 'heavy' class. 

The current weight rules, while enforcing the status quo, do seem to have disenfrachised the small bore sports car crowd.   The math may still show they are competitive, but its definitley killing the desire.

Thanks for responses, and yes we did look at the thread started by Dan back during Nationals.  We're certainly open to hearing any ideas, and expect them to range from the "NOOOO, don't change anything, just leave it alone for a minute!!" to "You guys are so F'd up, here what you SHOULD do if you want more people to play".

 Thanks,

 Andy M. 

I just registered for both the San Diego Tour and El Toro Pro, so I feel entitled to comment.

1) I didn't play last year because neither the car or I was ready.

2) Regulating any group of competitors is a challenge.  The current ruleset certainly doesn't favor my Miata, but I knew that coming in.  I got into SM2 by accident the first time with my son and his engine swapped CRX.  I did it on purpose this time, because I enjoy driving the car.  I don't expect to be nationally competitive.  If that were my goal, I would probably change cars and or classes.  What I expect from the rules is the chance to compete of a somewhat equitable basis with other drivers who enjoy modifying their cars beyond the other class limits.  The current rules are a bit harsh on those of us with small displacement engines.  Recent tire expectations may give us a better chance to compete, but as is often said "there is no replacement for displacement".  Sure the forced induction helps and some consideration should be given, but 14% of the cars weight?  (1600 + (1.597 * 200)) = 1919.4  verses (1600 + ((1.597 + 1.4) * 200) = 2199.4 By the way the only weight calculation I see in the .pdf version of the rules online for SM2 doesn't include the 1.4 liter penalty for forced induction.  My printed copy hasn't arrived yet.  Which weight should I be aiming for?  (I am at 2244 in competition trim)  If the rules really don't include the FI penalty they are fine the way they are.

3) Very.  I think the areo rules are a bit much, but it's still fun to play with.  What I don't want is to have to budget for rules changes every year just to maintain my current level (whatever that may be) of competitiveness.

4) I kind of covered it in 2.  Realistic/competitive weights for small displacement engines.

I expect to do three things this year in SM2.  I will list them in their order of importance to me

    HAVE A LOT OF FUN

    Learn a lot

    Get beat often

As a "rookie" on the national level my perspective may be skewed.  It may also be that my intents and purposes differ from a large number of the folks who are/were considering SM2.

See you in San Diego! 

geewiz:

As Rob pointed out, Dan's previous thread covered this territory pretty well. I think Neil summed it up the best on that thread: "I find it funny how we're enacting new rules specifically to deal with the fear of a "theoretical ringer," when the same model car has won SM five years running. We explicitly state in the rules proposal that we want to discourage older (i.e. affordable) cars, and then wonder why the numbers are going down."

My main add would be that in addition to discouraging *older* cars the new rules exclude the most popular small-and-light sportscars. Any reasonably-prepared miata or CRX will be underweight even before the penalty for adding displacement or forced induction. How can that not hurt participation?

I appreciate the effort to try to fix the issues.

Rehash:  1) old stock/SP/P rules were completely obsolete by the early 90's and estranged car enthusiasts from participating in SCCA.

 2) because SCCA could not implement the changes to SP that needed to be done due to membership investment, new class structures began to be added piecemeal to address perceived desires instead of fixing the SP rules with a grandfather implementation date as some suggested.

 3) SM2 addressed to allow for sports cars to participate in the SCCA

4) recognition of difficulties of competing and costs has members voting against SM (and SCCA solo) with their abscense.

Currently:  The problem is severe because the class, while a great concept, requires big investment, and rules stability is therefore huge.  It is also recognized by the silent nonparticipating majority that SM/SM2 require tiny light cars with expensive tiny motors, and that is not too attractive to most automotive and racing enthusiasts.

 My best practical solution is to break SM into 2 classes for now, hopefully 3 soon once participation improves, by primarily track/wheelbase/weight. 

 Weight should have no relation to displacement;  this only works in high end professional racing designed to spur engine development spending.  It should never even be remotely dreamed of as an appropriate concept for amateur racing. 

 The larger class should allow for streetable musclecars to be competetive.    The smaller class should not allow anything smaller or lighter than the popular tinimobiles like CRX, MR2 or Miata in SP trim.  Eventually there will need to be three classes. Roughly 3200 pound, roughly 2600 pound, roughly 2000 pound. 

There should be mandated rules freezes set forth.

Then people will build.

Just MO.

PS:  My Cobra is not an original, but is a kit car: it is certainly no better than an original car prepped to SM rules would be. Far from it actually.  Make kit cobras legal in SM2 and I will forever show up, competetive or not!   I'll start THIS YEAR!

 You can tune competetiveness somewhat by giving breaks for FWD/AWD/RWD.

Only a year ago there was this long thread about how an SM class should be added for FWD since they are so popular with the engine-swap crowd, yet undercompetitive vs RWD and AWD, especially on asphalt.  Can't seem to find that thread...anybody got a link?

--Andy 

Auto-X Fil:

The "Civic Thread"?

Nope.  I believe it was when Chris Shenefield was lobbying for the idea.

--Andy 

Howdy,

Right now the single reason I'm going to be running our camaro in SM vs. CP is because of the archaic wheel rules in CP that assign a 200 lb penalty to wheels > 16" diameter.

In every other way I prefer Prepared's ruleset both from a builder's perspective and from a "fun to drive" perspective.

 
I'm not sure that's a particularly good thing w/regard to SM's place in the autox puzzle.  To me, the idea of autocross cars with unlimited drivetrains doesn't mesh with requiring passenger side airbags and full interiors.  Who, outside of the fwd motor swap folks who at a minimum are perceived as wildly uncompetitive, is building those cars?  I guess the turbo folks like a place to bolt on a bigger turbo?

 
If I got to be god for a day, I'd have Prepared go to unlimited wheels, electronics, and no inlet restriction turbo chargers (yes, 14" wide wheels and traction control on CP cars), I'd allow unrestricted brake kits and aftermarket suspension control arms w/o spherical bushings in SP, and I'd blow SM and SM2 away.

 
XP would still take the 'real' motor swap candidates, regular P classes would take the other 'real' cars or folks with major motor mods.  SP would pickup the bolt on suspension crowd.
 

Glenn did a pretty good job of summarizing most of my opinions on this topic.  Here's a bit more...

1)If you were a former SM2 competitor, why did you leave and where did you go?
Poor tire choices & new weight limits that were hostile to Miatas.  Now in XP.

2)Do you think the current 2007 ruleset offers a good compromise of equitable competition and allowed modifications?  If not, why not?
No.  The rule changes seem to have done nothing except cause a number of cars in both SM & SM2 to move on.

3)From this point forward, how important is rules stability to you? 
Important - but not if the classes are failing.

4)If you are looking at the class, but the rules/allowances are not appealing, what are the issues you see?  What rules would you change and why?
As a few others have mentioned, I'd be in favor of classes defined by car weight (and possibly dimensions) - not the current division by seat count. 
High costs & extensive development time may still be significant barriers to entry - unless there are meaningful take-backs.

 Personally, I'm afraid the classes are doomed, unless a popular "spec" car emerges that's relatively easy to replicate and readily available.  The M3's & RX7's don't have enough numbers to keep the classes alive on their own, and most other cars seem to have given up and/or have been pre-emptively skewered by rule changes (see Miatas, forced-induction FWD cars, mid-engine cars). 

boxboy:

1)If you were a former SM2 competitor, why did you leave and where did you go?

2)Do you think the current 2007 ruleset offers a good compromise of equitable competition and allowed modifications?  If not, why not?

3)From this point forward, how important is rules stability to you? 

4)If you are looking at the class, but the rules/allowances are not appealing, what are the issues you see?  What rules would you change and why?

1) I was frustrated, built the car wrong, and didn't have the money to fix it. I left and now I'm back. Same car, new approach, much more success.

2) It's definitely a step in the right direction by eliminating potential killers. I agree with someone above that it's too close to "P with interiors". I'd prefer "SP with engine swaps" but, in building a car, I'm glad I can go a little bit further. It's a slippery slope once you allow unlimited power, longevity becomes an issue, so unlimited drivetrain and suspension usually have to follow. The problem with a formula is it more directly lets you know you're underbuilt if you aren't at max displacement and min weight. I think the old rule created the perception that everything under X.X liters was "equal", so people didn't stress about the fact that their 3.0 could be a 3.5 or a 4.0. Now you have to think about it more. It's funny how rules are meant to create limitations, but they often also mold perception.

3+4) Rules can change, focus is important, and communicating that focus is even more important. We need a mission statement. Something like, "To create a class where the highest number of popular recent model sports cars can compete against eachother within a ruleset that (1) results in cars that are marketable to the current "tuner" population and (2) works within #1 to allow enough modifications to compensate for inherent shortcomings in a target platform." I would also produce a list of "target" cars. This sets precedent for rules changes. I don't think there's anything wrong with picking 10-15 cars and stating that you will take action to make these, and similar, cars competitive. As someone stated above, we all know that not every car is going to be competitive. But if we know what cars the SMAC has on their mind, we know which ones are probably better to invest in.

Honestly, I think people are scared. You've got 2 of the top drivers in the country piloting the 2 most well developed cars in the class. At least in stock class a guy can easily build a competitive car and get halfway there. Anyone who thinks they have a legitimate shot at a jacket has to believe they can either outbuild or outdrive Andy and Erik, and most likely it'll have to be both. If you're counting on one guy possibly having a bad day, that's realistic. To be banking on both having a bad day is getting out there. It's so bad, people aren't even building RX7s--the "proven formula"--because unless their driving is top notch, they still won't stand a chance. The new formula is great, but it basically took the wind out of the sails of the guys who thought they could win by building some obscure class killer.

I think the miata guys can stop crying now that Hoosier will have a 275/15. A 350hp 2300# miata on 275s sounds pretty scary. A 250hp 2100# miata sounds scary as well. CSP is not that far behind SM2, and I'd expect it to get closer in the coming years if the reorg doesn't mess it up.

I've been preaching wheel/tire limitations for years. I've also been questioning the SM/SM2 split for years. I think both need to be seriously considered. Walk up to someone on the street and tell them you're going to class a corvette and a miata together, and a mustang, evo and civic together, but you are definitely separating a 240SX and an RX7. Counting seats was a neat arbitrary line that someone pulled out of their ass for marketing reasons when only SM existed. It's been obsolete for years now. As has the rule that "you can only replace body panels that were replaceable on an eagle talon."

For goodness sakes give FWD their own class. They represent a huge market. We've already pissed off/run off most of them, but I think there's still enough enthusiasts out there to field a class. I like SM_light (2000-2500), SM_heavy (2500+), and SM_fwd. I also agree that classing by displacement isn't very stong. For the most part it's a function of $.

I think it's all perception and fear. While I'd make plenty of changes, I think you could win a jacket right now in a properly prepared corvette, rx7, miata, mr2, solstice, elise, S2000, 911, 914, Z4, and others. The new 275 tire should help. I think someone needs to prove that other cars can be competitive so the bench racers will actually start building. That's really my whole motivation right now.

rnoll98:

I think the miata guys can stop crying now that Hoosier will have a 275/15. A 350hp 2300# miata on 275s sounds pretty scary. A 250hp 2100# miata sounds scary as well. CSP is not that far behind SM2, and I'd expect it to get closer in the coming years if the reorg doesn't mess it up.

Until someone actually proves that these tires can be fitted within the existing flaring rules (nothing inside of the hubface plane), its just an interesting idea ad not scary at all.  Personally, I don't think it can be done w/o jacking the car up like a 4x4, because the inner fender is a huge limitation.  The best possible target would be 99+ cars, since the fenderwells are bigger.  I'm still very skeptical, but will be happy to be proven wrong.

OTOH, if you want to build an NC Miata for SM2, now you got something.  But that doesn't need the 275/15 since it can run the more common 18's. 

As for wanting three SM classes (light, heavy, FWD), what would you pick if you only got two and why those two?  For now, the numbers don't support three. 

--Andy

PS: MarkA, watch the next FastTrack for an important announcement regarding those >16" wheels.
 

Andy Hollis:

As for wanting three SM classes (light, heavy, FWD), what would yo