SCCAForums.com

I see issues with a few of these ideas.

-Require rear seats
Will SM continue to extend SP rules? If so how would this impact cars with SP legal rear seat delete options?

-Disallow non-stock traction control and active driving aids
I just see this as a penalty on older cars that don't have traction control.

-Require same make production tranny cases and the lesser of 5 fwd gears or stock#
I think this one really has problems since most car makers haven't made there own transmissions in years. Would it be a production tranny case that was available in my car or from the same producer as some tranny in any car from the same car maker. 
The stock trans in my car was made by Borg-Warner and they have merged with Tremec, so can I put a TKO in my car? On would it be legal to install a Muncie M-22 "Rock Crusher" in a C4 Vette since the M-22 was in 60's area GM muscle cars?

---

Bill
Ohio Valley Region SCCA
92 Camaro

Just spoke with Joe offline a few hours ago and got to thinking. I'm not SM, so I have no dog in this particular fight (I'm one of the "cult" CP guys). But, my suggestion is for all classes. And, it's from the perspective of the business. I'm not writing this for National competitors or to make all cars equal. I'm writing this to encourage the strongest attendance numbers. Trust me, no matter what the rules are, most people on here (who are consistent winners) will eventually go with them and win.

 I think a rewrite may be in order. No necessarily a complete rewrite, but some kind of major overhaul. The reason being is that cars are fundamentally different now than when the rules were written. Basically, a car is supposed to go from Stock to SP to SM to P. That's the natural progression when you take a car and drive it with tires, then add bolt on suspension and intake/exhaust, then rebuild the engine or add FI, then finally gut it and add aero. However, this is not what a lot of people are doing nowadays. You've got 2 camps of cars, old and new. Here's the difference:

 Old cars are going to have lots of crap done to them. You'll not find a 30 year old Stock car. By nature, we want to go fast. To do that, we need parts. Those parts kick you out of stock. Usually, these people follow the progression of modification that I outlined above. They should - the rules were written for them.

 But, new cars are different. They come with darn good suspension and brakes from the factory. There's no need to custom fabricate a suspension on an S2000 like you may do on a 70's Camaro. These new cars (especially small imports and such) go for HP and aero about 3 weeks after purchase. That forces them into some crazy class for which they are not prepared. This discourages them. They need a progression that allows for what they view as "fun mods".

 So, here's my proposal. Devise some kind of "old" and "new" classes. Put older cars (which are usually, big, heavy, more HP, less suspension) in a few classes and then some of the newer cars (lighter, smaller, less HP, better suspension) in spearate classes. The older cars can have very similiar rules to what we have now. The newer cars should have rules based upon what the market decides. Basically, for these classes, look at the aftermarket. If most people put huge wings on the backs of their car first, then make that an allowable "stock class" modification. If most of them wait until their car is gutted before uprading the shocks, make it a "prepared" modification. Basically, whatever the market is doing, let the classes reflect that.

 This "old" and "new" classing also holds another advantage. It cannot be outdated. Basically, new cars go into the new classes. Then, when another paradigm shift occurs (electric cars, hover cars, etc.), then make a 3rd class with new rules. This is all much easier than continually changing the rules in a class and having people jump around to make the required changes to their cars.

---

2000 Trans Am
Delta Region #14 CP

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?

Lots of ideas, and most are sane to really good.  Since participation is the big goal, do something to make it appealling to the popular small bore cars, and the category could be fixed.  There is great fear that the properly executed small car will dominate, and it is very well founded.  But if a large contingent of souped up miata's and lotus's and franken civics will bring the numbers to sustainable levels, then make it attractive for them to play.  Looks like the wieght formula is the 800lb gorilla here.

Andy, Eric, Vic, Bob, Navid etc, will likely still drive the wheels off and stay in the hunt, even against slightly uphill competition.  But the field will be filled with many more hopefuls, and perhaps a few new winners as well. 

+1 on Stan's Comments.

 

 

Andy Hollis:

rnoll98:

I like Mark's ideas. This brings my thoughts back to XSP. If you can get SP to use Mark's suggestions above, then give maybe two classes engine and limited drivetrain swaps (XSP, YSP) you might be in business. You'd probably get 75% of current SM guys back in SP, giving them 219 drivers, enough to support 8 healthy classes. Maybe pear down the current SP to 5 classes and add X and Y and you'd have an average of 31 drivers across 7 classes. I think you could get a lot of feed into X and Y from the other SP classes, like SM once did, and even from ST. How you split X and Y is the same issue we're faced with today, and not everyone is going to be competitive, but it sure does look a lot easier to make the jump, or at least experiement a little.

Talking theory is great, but now take the next step.  Here's a suggestion on how to evaluate your proposal. 

As we all know, generally only a small handful of cars gravitate to the of any given class.  Those are the ones that fit the allowances the best, whether by design or accident.  When those cars are also ones that people find interesting and exciting to own/build/drive, you get good participation.  Add to that reasonable resources (time/money/knowledge) to own/build/drive and you have the complete picture.  So take your suggested New World Order and see what car you believe float to the top, and compare to the markers just mentioned.  That should give a good idea of how appealing it will be.

--Andy 

Andy,

I think the problem is, with as many allowances as SM has, it's really hard to determine what car will float to the top. That's why one of my comments was to let the membership know what the "target" cars were. Then you're basically saying, "Your investment will be somewhat protected by the SEB/SMAC if you choose one of these cars." Maybe we have to go as far as SP and write inclusion lists. I think you can influence what cars float to the top. Why not just hand pick cars that fit your formula above rather than design some arbitrary rules that encompasses every production car ever built and cross your fingers?

-Randy

---

Randy Noll

Bill,

Anything legal in SP should be legal in SM, rear seat delete options are either option package swaps or UD/BD. The only reason I can see that SP should't be legal in SM is if some sort of wheel/tire restrictions were implemented.

Traction control is a valid concern, but I haven't heard of a stock system that is actually an aid on the race track. Most just get in the way. In the future it might be a problem.

Yamaha makes Toyota engines. Toyota makes Elise engines. Don't think 3-steps deep in the supply chain for transmissions. Toyota runs Toyota, Chevy runs Chevy. Same as engines. If your tranny case wasn't available on a production car by your manufacturer, it's not legal.

Stan,

I think the weight formula is ok, it's perception that is screwy. But say we do allow a 300whp 1900# Elise or Miata to run. *If* one dominates, how do we slow them back down while keeping them onboard? I think the two easiest ways are add weight or limit tire. Either way we might be creating a temporary vaccuum just to lure them in.

 

Randy

---

Randy Noll

rnoll98:

I think the two easiest ways are add weight or limit tire. Either way we might be creating a temporary vaccuum just to lure them in.

 

Randy

 

Just a point... adding weight rules out the local competitor in the case of the Elise... but limited tire does not. The local guy is not showing up with 200+ pounds of ballast... and he is not showing up with massive tires.  I guess this is obvious... but I think there should be some consideration of the impact of these rules at the local level also. 

---

2006 Noble M400 (E-Mod?)
CHASECAM the global leader in motorsport video acqusition. We innovate, not copy or import. Official supplier to SCCA Pro Racing. Sponsor for SCCA ProSolo. Supplier to MazdaSpeed, V8Supercars, etc.

rnoll98:

Andy,

I think the problem is, with as many allowances as SM has, it's really hard to determine what car will float to the top. That's why one of my comments was to let the membership know what the "target" cars were. Then you're basically saying, "Your investment will be somewhat protected by the SEB/SMAC if you choose one of these cars." Maybe we have to go as far as SP and write inclusion lists. I think you can influence what cars float to the top. Why not just hand pick cars that fit your formula above rather than design some arbitrary rules that encompasses every production car ever built and cross your fingers?

-Randy

Ok, so what are they then?

--Andy 

Andy Hollis:

rnoll98:

Andy,

I think the problem is, with as many allowances as SM has, it's really hard to determine what car will float to the top. That's why one of my comments was to let the membership know what the "target" cars were. Then you're basically saying, "Your investment will be somewhat protected by the SEB/SMAC if you choose one of these cars." Maybe we have to go as far as SP and write inclusion lists. I think you can influence what cars float to the top. Why not just hand pick cars that fit your formula above rather than design some arbitrary rules that encompasses every production car ever built and cross your fingers?

-Randy

Ok, so what are they then?

--Andy 

Technically, we don't even know what cars float to the top of the CURRENT SM/SM2 ruleset.  I think a lot of people have their favorite, "If I had $30,000-50,000 in cash laying around..." ideas.  There's no way to benchrace classes like SM and SM2.  It needs to be an iterative process, ESPECIALLY if they go about changing major items.  What we have no is cars that we all knew were darn good SP cars taken a couple of steps further, usually in terms of drivetrain and this year... aero.

 

---

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

Andy Hollis:

Ok, so what are they then?

--Andy 

Ok buddy, I'll take a stab :) We'll let best of breed work out the details between generations.

RWD
RX7/8
Corvette
S2000
BMW 3-Series
BMW Z3/4
MR2 (all)
Miata (all)
Solstice/Sky
240SX
300/350ZX
IS300
Porsche (all)
Supra
Elise

AWD
WRX (all)
Evo (all)
R32
Eclipse/Talon
Audi A4, S4, TT

I'll leave FWD to someone who knows them better.

I basically scrolled down nationals entry list looking for cars (because our folks will come from within), then scrolled through the index in my R&T to fill gaps. 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. This makes me think about possibly putting in a date cutoff, like 1990-ish, but the weight formula might take care of that. I don't think an '85 MR2 should be consistently at the top of the heap.

Looking at it, I don't think this list is all that different in spirit than what the guys envisioned 6 or so years ago when the class was created. Only difference is they were looking only at 4-seaters. I think we're shooting for mid to late 90s cars, that are cheap enough that you can hack up fenders and not immediately lose $30k. I'm still not convinced more than 1-2 folks will flare an Elise. To the same point, I'm not sure C5 Z06s would be popular in ASP if you had to flare. I do think Miatas will come if they think they can be competitive and we reel the rules in a little. I would pass on targeting ESP-type cars to be competitive this round.

I think your happy racer sees a $5-20k chassis investment and a $15-30k mod investment. Rather than build an SP motor, they sink an extra $10k in and do a swap or a turbo kit. Chassis investments will be higher if the car can fit 285+ tires without irreversibly modifying the chassis. What do we think the maximum loss is our target market is willing to take on a race car? Meaning, what is Purchase $ + Mod $ - Sale $. I'd say it's less than $20k, probably closer to $10k. It's much easier to invest if you can actually get something back if you have to unwind. Thoughts?

---

Randy Noll

rnoll98:

RWD
RX7/8
Corvette
S2000
BMW 3-Series
BMW Z3/4
MR2 (all)
Miata (all)
Solstice/Sky
240SX
300/350ZX
IS300
Porsche (all)
Supra
Elise

AWD
WRX (all)
Evo (all)
R32
Eclipse/Talon
Audi A4, S4, TT

 

Don't forget that not all Porsches are in the first list. There are a couple AWD variants that I think have a leg up on everything else - except in development cost. If you think an SM/2 BMW, Mitsubishi or Mazda is expensive...

---

-Philip Maynard

No weenies!

rnoll98:

Ok buddy, I'll take a stab :) We'll let best of breed work out the details between generations.

RWD
RX7/8
Corvette
S2000
BMW 3-Series
BMW Z3/4
MR2 (all)
Miata (all)
Solstice/Sky
240SX
300/350ZX
IS300
Porsche (all)
Supra
Elise

AWD
WRX (all)
Evo (all)
R32
Eclipse/Talon
Audi A4, S4, TT

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'm not trying to be a hardhead, just a realist.  If you put out a huge list like that as "target cars", you will constantly be bombarded with allowance requests to fix parity problems.  And the solutions will not play out the way you expect, even if you grant them.  And you'll still end up with 3-4 car types in the top spots at Nats.  The latter thing is what is hurting the participation right now, especially when building one of those handful of cars is very resource-heavy.  Not just money resource, but development knowledge and testing time.

So, what four cars would you be happy with as targets to win?

--Andy 

Don't forget - you won't ever be able to make "all" cars equal. No one wants to run in a class where a Yugo is competitive with a Viper. In any class, some cars will be preferred and some will not. The restrictions are there to ensure that "one single" car does not become an overdog. But, if a few become the preferred cars to have, then I'd consider the job done.

---

2000 Trans Am
Delta Region #14 CP

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'm not trying to be a hardhead, just a realist.  If you put out a huge list like that as "target cars", you will constantly be bombarded with allowance requests to fix parity problems.  And the solutions will not play out the way you expect, even if you grant them.  And you'll still end up with 3-4 car types in the top spots at Nats.  The latter thing is what is hurting the participation right now, especially when building one of those handful of cars is very resource-heavy.  Not just money resource, but development knowledge and testing time.

So, what four cars would you be happy with as targets to win?

--Andy 

Not true it is easy.... We just use the spec sheets from Pro racing. SM2=WC GT and SM=WC TC. Gut those cars. This will also make Randy and Cole happy, spec tire size and brand.

---

Jason Isley
2005-2006-2007 B Stock National Champion

00 Trans Ram:

But, if a few become the preferred cars to have, then I'd consider the job done.

And that is what we have, but the competitors are not happy, which makes the SEB not happy.  In SM, the M3 has proven the early leader, but the FWD's are always in the game and nobody is counting out the StEvos.  In SM2 the RWD's are the preffered pick for now, but the RX7 and Corvette are good competition for each other, and with the introduction of the 275/15 Hoosier, nobody is counting out a dedicated Miata. 

Not to point out the obvious, but having the right prepared car does not always mean that you will win. I believe the driver is a key factor on who wins.

Lets see:

SM:

2004 & 2005 ...Vic Sias

2006 Bob Tunnell

SM2:

2004  Andy McKee

2005  Gary Thomason

2006  Andy McKee

I'm not sure what everyone else thinks, but the above list is probably a collection of the best drivers in solo.

Michael

 

 

---

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

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:

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

---

Randy Noll

rnoll98:

I'm still not convinced more than 1-2 folks will flare an Elise.

 

I'm confused on if you'd actually NEED to flare the Elise.  The 275/15 Hoosier sounds like a nice rear tire for an Elise with a 225/45/15 upfront.  Both are IIRC shorter than OEM... 

---

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

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.

---

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