SCCAForums.com

the real solution is to address a new rules set.  Instead of the mismash approach, SM and XP need to merge with SP;  which needs to be re-addressed with popular mods allowed in the drivetrain.  Forced induction, added displacement, beefed up drivetrains should all be allowed and basically unlimited.  As should brakes and just about any 'bolt on' type suspension mod.

Unstreetable mods need to be limited however;  for instance, there is no need for triple disc race clutches in autocross cars. 

In other words, create rules that allow cars people like to own and race to be competetive, other than 'traditional' SCCA types.  Car enthusiasts like horsepower mods above all else, and want cars that can serve more than one purpose.

Horsepower mods are a non issue in today's world, as some SP cars can already hit 500 rwhp as is... and ALL SM cars at any displacement limit can hit 600, 700 800, 1200 horsepower;  just spend the money.  Therefore, there is no competetive difference in allowing open engines, and the only thing displacement regulations do is vary the cost and reliability of your desired engine in ways that discourage participation. 

 People want cars they can take to an open track, a sonic on saturday, a drag strip every now and then, and a car show from time to time.  None of these goals are incompatible with nationally competetive autocrossing if the rules are correctly written. 

You also need to emphasize popular cars;  corvettes, boxsters and old 911's, mustangs/GTO's/camaros, M3's, Civics, Turbo supras, etc., should have places to compete.   Go to SEMA and look at the product selection for these cars.  Look at the magazine subscription rate.  We offer the number one most attractive outlet for auto enthusiasts anywhere in teh world, yet we attract less than 1% of the country's auto enthusiasts:  it is in part because our rules have always been a laughing stock to people who like racing cars. 

(sure, I know, the other part is the ego factor that many cant take getting whipped by people in 'lesser' equipment) 

Only die hard SCCA types really get into older RSB's, etc...  

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 ran SM2 at the Finale but moved to BP for Nationals to help save the class. NOTE: my car did take up 2 spots in SM2, so my participaton in BP didn't hurt SM2 :)

2. I think the current ruleset is pretty good especially with the weight fomula. I still think that the multiplier for FI should be 2.0 instead of 1.5

3. Keeping the rules the same, allows people who are financially challenged to prep thier car at a slow rate.

4. I am back in SM2 for several reasons. The main one was my health, LJ and Bill beat me senseless in Topeka last year for not running. I can't go through that again ! :)

 Look out Rx7s, this year will be the rise of the Corvette again! :)

 Michael

cbramey:

the real solution is to address a new rules set.  Instead of the mismash approach, SM and XP need to merge with SP;  which needs to be re-addressed with popular mods allowed in the drivetrain.  Forced induction, added displacement, beefed up drivetrains should all be allowed and basically unlimited.  As should brakes and just about any 'bolt on' type suspension mod.

Unstreetable mods need to be limited however;  for instance, there is no need for triple disc race clutches in autocross cars. 

 

In other words, create rules that allow cars people like to own and race to be competetive, other than 'traditional' SCCA types.  Car enthusiasts like horsepower mods above all else, and want cars that can serve more than one purpose.

Horsepower mods are a non issue in today's world, as some SP cars can already hit 500 rwhp as is... and ALL SM cars at any displacement limit can hit 600, 700 800, 1200 horsepower;  just spend the money.  Therefore, there is no competetive difference in allowing open engines, and the only thing displacement regulations do is vary the cost and reliability of your desired engine in ways that discourage participation. 

 People want cars they can take to an open track, a sonic on saturday, a drag strip every now and then, and a car show from time to time.  None of these goals are incompatible with nationally competetive autocrossing if the rules are correctly written. 

You also need to emphasize popular cars;  corvettes, boxsters and old 911's, mustangs/GTO's/camaros, M3's, Civics, Turbo supras, etc., should have places to compete.   Go to SEMA and look at the product selection for these cars.  Look at the magazine subscription rate.  We offer the number one most attractive outlet for auto enthusiasts anywhere in teh world, yet we attract less than 1% of the country's auto enthusiasts:  it is in part because our rules have always been a laughing stock to people who like racing cars. 

(sure, I know, the other part is the ego factor that many cant take getting whipped by people in 'lesser' equipment) 

Only die hard SCCA types really get into older RSB's, etc... 

Very valid points. Your piece on SEMA and "die hard SCCA types" makes me think. I almost wonder if a step back might help. A fresh look at the class from a business standpoint. The questions might be:

-What is our mission statement? What do we want to accomplish with the class, other than sustain it's existence?
-How does our mission statement help the Solo2 mission statement?
-Who is our target audience? This has always been touted as a "highly marketable" class. Should we be trying to attract "SCCA die hards" or new kids at SEMA? How do we bridge the gap between the two?
-How do we define success, what metrics do we use, and what does each metric represent?
-How do we manage expectations with our clients? Who are our clients? I'd say both the membership and the SEB.
-How does the SMAC/SEB build confidence within the membership that the membership's best interest is top priority?
--As a subset, how does the SMAC better guide people's efforts to ensure any future rules changes cause minimal loss of investment?

Another way to split the class might be SM and SM "lite". SM would just be SM + SM2, SM lite would be somewhere between SP and SM. Probably closer to what some folks are suggesting: SP with engine swaps and suspension bolt ons. SM might eventually move to P, and SM lite might be the new XSP.

Some mods you could take away from SM with minimal damage, I'm sure there are others:
-Aero
-Force stock knuckles/spindles but allow any bolt on susp arms
-Install back seats
-Somehow force same make transmissions while allowing gear/shaft changes

These are all things that really wouldn't slow the class much, if any (some will argue big for aero), but I think they'd go a long way to solving the PERCEPTION that you need uber-equipment to be competitive. Again, this stuff probably won't have much effect on the top third of the class, most folks are running same make trannies and stock spindles, but it limits how crazy you COULD go, and makes the written rules much closer to what the existing top cars look like. To really take advantage of SM rules, you have to really engineer. That's the big jump from SP to SM or P. SP is shocks and springs and engine mods, all of which are pretty mainstream, OTS equipment. SM is suspension geometry, high boost/compression, etc. You have to know what you're doing or you can pop an engine or seriously jack up suspension geometry. To Chris's point, I think most folks want SP with more power! For every suspension geek there are 5000 horsepower junkies.

I drove what should have been an SM2 car in XP last year because of the minimum weight situation.  Add 400 lbs to an Elise, or put slicks on it?

Hmmm, let me think...

That's why XP is going to make SM light a non-starter.

Randy also suggested something along the lines of XSP.  This may not be what he intended by that suggestion, but I'm seeing something more along the lines of SP with aftermarket superchargers and turbos.  No engine swaps.

Let the open drivetrain swap guys go to XP.

Create XST for the fwd same-make motor swap crowd.

And to make the pony car guys happy, just allow sub-frame connectors in ESP.  ;)

The key idea here is that there isn't any place to play with power without being serious about it. Maybe an XSP where you can swap (easy swaps only - strict rules on what can be changed) without engine mods, and/or basic FI. Where to draw the line is very hard in either case, though. I think you'd have to prohibit engine internals from being touched in either case. But then reliability becomes an issue for nat'l competitors pushing the bounds of FI power on stock motors...

Hmm, maybe that's why you can't play with power without getting serious - because someone will get serious.
 

Locally, SM was a place where people who chipped their cars to run more boost ended up.  That is no longer the case so you are not getting a "feeder" group to start preping a car.  I know that during my build, I looked and said that if I was going to run major boost I wanted a turbo that could handle it.  But with the current SP rules allowing higher boost with a stock turbo, I would have went that way.  I think a lot of other people would too.

Engine internals are already allowed to be "touched" in SP (balanced, bored, blueprinted, port matched, shaved, etc.).  It's a lot of money but it does yield rewards.  Different pistons are even allowed with restrictions. 

I was planning on building a SM car next year, RWD@ 2200 lbs Before  Removing  rear seats,  CF hood,Fenders, Lighter aluminum N/A 2.0 Engine that has 200RWHP stock. I still may but right now I've decided to take a large step back, The rules change way too much year to year, even month to month for me to feel comfortable putting 25K into a car.

I like a few suggestions put forth so far, but I can find major flaws in a all of them. I laughed at the thought of a total Revamp of All the rules, Starting over would be alot of work and 90% of the members will most likely scream bloody murder. but it would allow the rules to be updated for the times, Maybe Cole can get enough people to agree with him that stock should use street tires (a la ST classes), I happen to agree btw.

I sort of envision 5 major classes with subclasses within(not counting specialty stuff like carts), Stock with minimal mods and street tires, Street Touring with street tires and similar to its current rule set but a few subclasses, street prepared with a bit more suspension and more engine stuff and DOT race tires, prepared with pretty much unlimited engine/suspension on the origial chassis with DOT race tires, and Modified with full blown tube frame chassis, Slicks, ect.. Each with its own sub classes like stock to keep similar cars together. 99% of the current cars would fit into one of those classes with very little change.

Of course this would never happen for alot of reasons, and when you think to yourself that it's a horrible idea, ask yourself why do I feel this way? how much is fear of change? I'm not wanting anyone to hate me, or spend more money but the current rules just seem to be more and more alienating to me every year. I've never been to a national event, altho I would like to,  so I'm not one of the  Ole boy club. Just a Local Autocrosser.

We're already way off Andy's original topic. Sorry Andy :)

I think the SMAC only really has influence within SM. Unfortunately it seems that a lot of folks feel that decisions for SM need to be made within the context of decisions for SP and P, and vice versa.

Quick question: What would happen if the SEB led a full revamp of all the rules? Aside from a message board meltdown and a whole lot of bitching, I don't think anything bad would happen. Where are folks gonna go? You might get 10% attempting to boycott, only to get the shakes sometime around June and come back just in time to set a new attendance record at nationals, again.

More business stuff. Companies buy other companies. When this happens they usually make a decision to integrate the new company or leave it as a completely separate operation. Integration is hard, but usually eventually leads to synergies and economies of scale (which is usually why the purchase was made in the first place). When you don't integrate, you can run a high risk of redundancy and, at worst, competing products and self-cannibalization. I think the SEB bought (into) SM. The SEB has allowed class categories some freedom over the last few years, nothing wrong with that. But now it seems they're starting to cannibalize eachother. If they aren't already, maybe it's time for the "parent company" (SEB) to establish and declare a vision for each class category going forward. There's a lot of changes going on right now in SP, SM, and P, but at least from where I'm standing, it doesn't look like the changes are being closely and strategically guided from above. I don't see inside the ACs and SEB, so maybe I'm completely off-base. Thoughts?

DILYSI Dave:

The other half says "fix X".

What are some of the Xs?

SpyderVenom:

DILYSI Dave:

The other half says "fix X".

What are some of the Xs?

Weights
Tires tied to weights
Reign in Aero
Allow more Aero
FWD class
Heavy class
Light class
More chassis mods
Less chassis mods
More body panels allowed (trunk lids, hatches, doors)
More ballast allowed
Less ballast allowed
No ballast allowed
Remove airbags
Takebacks on drivetrain (no hewland or quaife trannies for example)
Takebacks on suspension (no titanium control arms or custom uprights for example)
Takebacks on electronic aids (no traction control / anti-lag)
Etc.
Etc.
Etc....

 Everyone has an agenda.  I personally believe that we need to stop messing with a good thing.  On the other hand, not a month goes by that someone isn't requesting a rules change.  Add in the fact that the participation numbers now have the SEB breathing down our necks to change something (anything - they aren't buying rules stability as the solution), and we're between a rock and a hard place. 

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) N/A...  this will be my first year in SM2.  I never had the cashflow to even attempt a local SM2 car, but was given the opportunity to drive a SM2 car Nationally this year.  I'm really excited, and thanks Jim! :)

2) I like the majority of SM allowances.  There's a few I don't like, but nothing's perfect.  Look at #4.

3) Important once I build a car myself :)  I would like to eventually build a car to SM/SM2, but I don't know how long it will be before I'll be in a financial position to do so, being that the goal is to be competitive Nationally.  Not sure how long I can bum rides either...especially with a location move probably on the horizon within the year. 

4) Biggest pet peeves:

    i) "Ballast" with so many other allowances.  You can add pretty much weight anywhere with legal modifications.  Stereo, seats, suspension braces, rollbars, batteries, etc.  We've had to add over 150 lbs to the SM2 car before the Dixie National Tour, and it's not in weight plates.  That isn't to mean that I don't agree with the weight formula change, it's more just an annoyance to the idea of the ballast rules.

   ii) I'm not a fan of the idea of the allowance of single or 2 gear, race only transmissions.  Not for how the class is marketed.  Changing the actual gear, final drives, etc are allow within the spririt and are relatively easily done.  Buying an X-trac full sequential gearbox isn't, IMO.  Has anyone actually used that allowance?  If not, if you're thinking of reigning in the rules, there might be a good one that doesn't hurt anyone in the wallet.  And this coming from someone who LIKES the oddball "RCM" type cars, at least in theory.

    iii) The inner fender rule.  If I can change where my hubs go, and you have a SP based rule about how far I can hack into the fenders, does that mean with the oem upright?  The new custom upright?  I don't know how much that would even help our car, but just seems silly.  Also, I dont recall it being clarified about the hub plane being straight when your imaginary plane is drawn.  I believe the intention of the rules are so that the wheels are straight and regular ride height, but if I put 800 lbs of engine into a car, compress the suspension completely to the bumpstops, can I draw my imaginary plane then?  How about if I go full lock to the left?

DILYSI Dave:

SpyderVenom:

DILYSI Dave:

The other half says "fix X".

What are some of the Xs?

X could be...

Weights
Tires tied to weights
Reign in Aero
Allow more Aero
FWD class
Heavy class
Light class
More chassis mods
Less chassis mods
More body panels allowed (trunk lids, hatches, doors)
More ballast allowed
Less ballast allowed
No ballast allowed
Remove airbags
Takebacks on drivetrain (no hewland or quaife trannies for example)
Takebacks on suspension (no titanium control arms or custom uprights for example)
Takebacks on electronic aids (no traction control / anti-lag)
Etc.
Etc.
Etc....

 Everyone has an agenda.  I personally believe that we need to stop messing with a good thing.  On the other hand, not a month goes by that someone isn't requesting a rules change.  Add in the fact that the participation numbers now have the SEB breathing down our necks to change something (anything - they aren't buying rules stability as the solution), and we're between a rock and a hard place. 

OK.  What you posted are allowances and takebacks - proposed solutions to problems.  I asked what are the problems that need to be fixed.  In my mind, you need to know and understand the problem before you can start to fix it.

Problems are: "Cost of entry precludes novices entering class.", "Class participation is low.", "FWD cars are not competitive.", "A properly built EVO can not be beat.", "Rule X doesn't follow the mission statement", etc.  "Lack of downforce" was not a problem that needed to be addressed and was not part of the "streetable sport sedans" purpose part of the class.  Someone had an idea that went something like "Wouldn't it be fun if..."

From there, you need to priortize the real problems and then propose solutions.  SP with open boost took competitors and XP with the engine swaps took your entry level competitors.  IMO, ST is taking competitors from SP since those rules still basically allow street driven cars to participate.  If you want a healthy system of classes at this point, like Mark said, you need to relook at every category and class where the rules are different and standardize things (prepared) and make sure that the categories offer enough variety from each other.  STR failed because it was way too close to STS. 

DILYSI Dave:

Everyone has an agenda.

But that's why we have an SMAC and SEB, isn't it? We take the wisest, most objective, level-headed, agenda-less folks in our membership and appoint them to these positions, no? Then the rest of us can run around screaming bloody murder when a rules change doesn't give our car an advantage and you folks can filter out the BS from the legitimate gripes. Right now everyone's agenda should be participation growth--without that we may not have anything to *** about in a year or two.

What if the rulesmakers said the following, both directly and via rules changes, "We're going to stop Andy, Erik, Vic, and Bob right where they are. We're going to reel in the rules so they can't develop further, and possibly take a few "minor" things away. We're going to stick with the current weight vs. displ. formula for at least the next 2 years. Our goal is to make the following "target cars", and those that are similar, competitive: [list 10 or so cars for each class]. If one of these cars (not drivers) proves to be substantially faster than the others, we will work to determine why, and make minor adjustments to the rules in attempt to keep all of the above target cars competitive." Essentially, communicate the spirit and intent of the rules, commit to the membership that it will be maintained, and see what happens. If nobody shows up, maybe the class isn't viable.

RCMs belong in P. 1500# 1969 vintage cars with production runs of 2,000, no factory documentation, V8-size engine bays, and toothpick stock drivetrains also belong in P. SM should be won via development and driving, not by stumbling across the rare car that nobody thought of when they wrote the rules. Let everyone run, but I think it's fair to say, "If your old, rare, s**tbox beats the field by 2 seconds, it's a viable P car, and we're going to somehow write it out of the rules."

SM needs to differentiate itself from P. I'm starting to agree with some folks and think SM should be "SEMA builds an autoxer". Cars should be wild and sexy without F1 technology. You should be able to trophy at nationals with a good driver, a swap or turbo kit, bolt on suspension, fender flares, and a season or two of development. I think if this was the general perception, participation would grow. I think the membership needs to better understand the class, and what will get them where.

Adding to my list of potential take backs:
-Aero (except limited rear wings)
-Require stock knuckles
-Require rear seats
-Require same make production tranny cases and the lesser of 5 fwd gears or stock#
-Allow replacement non-glass holding trunk lids
-Disallow non-stock traction control and active driving aids
-Disallow/restrict steering racks
-Disallow non-stock CVTs (ie, a new Audi can run it's stock CVT, but an old Audi can't run a CVT)

Take all the expensive exotic things away and leave us with the expensive mainstream things. We can still spend plenty of money :)

I can't write a short post. :p

RandyN

Take backs:

Aero - this is crazy everywhere except A-mod.  If it didn't come from the factory, don't allow it.

Make entire drivetrain use same-make parts.  No custom gear sets.

Require stock uprights & steering racks.

Howdy,

If we're going to talk about reigning in the rules, I'd start with:

* Require stock uprights (but allow any wheel bearing assemblies).  Continue to allow live axle cars to modify the axle side pickup points.

* Require that replacement transmissions be at least four forward and one reverse, no CVT, no sequential shifting. (Randy, there are plenty of good four speed trannys that fit the intent).  Yes this includes automatic trans