SCCAForums.com

I kinda like the SM light and SM Heavy idea too.  The one issue I see with it is at a local level.  Now every region has to have scales to weigh in the competitors.  Aside from that, sounds like a good alternative. 

 

streetmod22:

I kinda like the SM light and SM Heavy idea too.  The one issue I see with it is at a local level.  Now every region has to have scales to weigh in the competitors.  Aside from that, sounds like a good alternative.

Technically, every region has to weigh cars now.  If they care to enforce the current weight minimums, that is.

---

SM ~ '96 Subaru Impreza
Old Car: A Stock ~ 2000 Honda S2000

Does anyone know if the SMAC has any intention of changing anything in SM/SM2 regarding car classifications? 

It seems as if there is always a lot of talk between the competitors and little changing or even reasoning why things are not changing. 

Be it SM Light / Heavy or the SM FWD / RWD & AWD, something needs to change.

What is the proper format to getting something proposed for change in these two classes?

streetmod22:

Does anyone know if the SMAC has any intention of changing anything in SM/SM2 regarding car classifications? 

It seems as if there is always a lot of talk between the competitors and little changing or even reasoning why things are not changing. 

Be it SM Light / Heavy or the SM FWD / RWD & AWD, something needs to change.

What is the proper format to getting something proposed for change in these two classes?

 

Write a letter to the SMAC  email addresses can be found here  http://ams.scca.com/netforum/eweb/dynamicpage.aspx?site=scca&webcode=bc2&committee=SMAC

and copy the Solo Events Board  at seb@scca.com.  

 Be sure to state your desires clearly, with suggested wording for possible rule changes.  You might also want to include a line that reads

"I would like to submit for your consideration that the weight “penalty” for forced induction be changed from an “adder” of 1.4 to a multiplier of 1.4 or less. Changing to a multiplier rather than an adder will put the SM rules more in line with other classes. " 

Okay so that's my suggestion that they have seen before, but I looked up the email addresses for you.
 

---

Chris
51 SM2

The balance between "it's broken and we need to change everything" and "why do you guys keep changing it, we need stability" is a tough one to strike in SM.

The SMAC has cooked up some proposals/ideas I think are pretty neat, stay tuned for a Fastrack asking for your comments on them.  And of course we're always open to new ideas, please write in! - seb@scca.com

---

--Jason Rhoades

streetmod22:

Does anyone know if the SMAC has any intention of changing anything in SM/SM2 regarding car classifications? 

It seems as if there is always a lot of talk between the competitors and little changing or even reasoning why things are not changing. 

Be it SM Light / Heavy or the SM FWD / RWD & AWD, something needs to change.

What is the proper format to getting something proposed for change in these two classes?

Chris is right, If you have questions like this, send in a letter. I can assure you that the folks on the SMAC are thinking and talking about the majority of the discussions on these forums, and many things that aren't on these forums, even the ones we don't agree with. But, if you want to ensure that something gets considered, send us a letter. The "something needs to change" comment scares me. It probably scares everyone who has invested tens of thousands of dollars into their SM car. It's basically saying "Anything is better than what we currently have, I don't know what the right answer is, but let's change it anyways." I think the membership and the SM competitors expect more than that from the SMAC and the SEB, and I think the SMAC expects more than that from the members who are asking for change.

There is always talk of change between competitors. There always has been, and always will be, and because those wanting change are usually the most vocal, it often appears that "everyone" wants change. Rewind the tape a couple years, and you had "everyone" complaining when a change was made, and some folks left because of it. So, when a member is pushing for change, it is extremely helpful to everyone involved when that member has (1) a solid plan on how that change should occur and what the final product looks like, and (2) an understanding of the entire field and who is effected in what way by this change. I'd encourage everyone that wants something changed to draft what the ruleset would look like, in its entirety, with that change implemented and then consider all the possible cars that could be built with the new rules. That exercise alone is a good test of how viable your request is.

---

Randy Noll

I thank you all for your input.  I am beginning to understand how things work.  In your opinion(s), do you think that SM/SM2 competitors are going to favor a reclassification by weight or drive-type?  Do you think that it would cause people to leave the class?  It would be just a shift and would have nothing to do with the vehicle construction.  I hope I am not being short-sighted in this endeavor.  I also hope that I have not pi$$ed anyone off.

 Overall, I just want things to be a bit more fair so people have FUN.  That IS the reason we are all here.  (it sure isn't the money.  :P)

Raydargun:

In your opinion(s), do you think that SM/SM2 competitors are going to favor a reclassification by weight or drive-type? 

That is an unfair question. Everyone who reads that imagines some mix up where their car ends up on top. This is why discussion of abstract "reclassifications" is useless until someone comes up with the specific details around what this reclassification looks like.

Here's a perfect example. Some guys want "SM Lite". I'd be willing to bet if you polled this forum, half the guys here would say this SM Lite would be slower than the current SM2, and the other half would say it would be faster. I don't think either are wrong, they just have different images pop into their heads when they imagine that category. Until they all have the same, or very very similar, images in their heads, they can't give you an informed yes/no on the idea.

This is probably one reason why the SMAC/SEB have to submit the actual rule verbage for member comment, rather than just an idea of what we're trying to do. It lets the members see exactly what they are commenting on--an actual rule, rather than an abstract idea.

---

Randy Noll

rnoll98:

 

That is an unfair question. Everyone who reads that imagines some mix up where their car ends up on top.

 

actually, from where i stand SM light will prob still my my fwd car at a disadvantage compared a nicely prepped miata, BUT i stand a better chance of doing well compared to a miata then an evo, m3, vette, rx7...etc. if it was a perfect world, there would be FWD SM, but i am not sure that will happen compared to light/heavy SM.

 mr. noll, what verbage would you like? i think the weight break should be roughly 2300 between the proposed heavy/light SM classes. i do nto think a AWD car will make it into the mix at that weight break, but maybe a 323 may make it? as far as polling the forum, there is no way anyone thinks the "theoretically" sm light will be faster then sm2. look at previous winners from SM and SM2, none of them were remotely light. there is always the super class killing car that people dream up, but until it rears it's ugly head, we cannot structure rules around this vehicle. 

---

Hi! I'm Rodney. "Hi Rodney!" I'm addicted to Solo....

Rodney:

from where i stand SM light will prob still my my fwd car at a disadvantage compared a nicely prepped miata

as far as polling the forum, there is no way anyone thinks the "theoretically" sm light will be faster then sm2.  

Regarding the speed of "SM Light"
Did you realize that CSP was actually faster than the top FWD SM car? Are you expecting the Miatas to slow down when they add another 150+whp? There's no "probably" in there, they've already beaten the best FWD SM effort while still in normally aspirated SP trim.

There was an MR2 Spyder that ran XP on A6s, that was roughly 2000# (maybe 100# lighter than it would be in SM Light trim), that put up a scratch time on the West course 0.2 seconds off of Erik (SM2 winner) in the feared 3-rotor RX7. It was also making less than 300whp, and is still relatively early in development. The car basically needs a windshield and interior to be SM2, and I would assume SM Lite, legal. Given how well CSP did on the East course, that car may very well have been able to beat SM2 last year if SM2 ran in the dry. I expect it to this year.

You might also want to check out the Prepared forum, within the "Viper" thread (http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/278734.aspx), where folks are talking about a Lotus Europa (apparently 1250# stock) essentially being the car that is going to make XP a one-car class. Lots of veterans over there that are convinced this uber-light car is going to be way faster than anything heavier. There's a reason these cars have always been disallowed in SM. Almost every ruleset in racing makes the fundamental assumption that lighter is faster.

I think more research might make you reconsider your above statement. At minimum, it takes us back to the idea that there's no clear consensus right now.

Regarding rules verbage
I'd suggest starting by modifying existing SM/SM2 rules. Copy them into word and start editing. Would you lower the base weight? Switch to a multiplier? Put in a maximum weight? Would FWD change at all, would it be included? If lighter really is slower, do you invert the current scale and make the heavier cars run less motor, and give the 400whp cars a weight break? Do you limit tires? Take whatever ideas you have, make a ruleset. Put the whole thing on paper, draw your line in the sand. You can always reserve the right to modify it, but you need a solid starting point.

Then consider the following:
What if someone built an FD RX7 that was 2299#? Since we don't seem to be in a position to go to the SEB and ask for a new class, what happens to the current SM/SM2, if you lump them together do you lose everyone from SM, how do you equalize the "heavy" SM2 and the "heavy" SM? Off hand, the West course (only dry one in SM2) gap between SM and SM2 was about 1 sec, which was also the gap between Daddio (SM winner) and Travis (top SM FWD). So you just created essentially the same gap for someone else that you are currently trying to fix for yourself. Do you have enough cars to fill the grid in SM Light? IIRC 25 was the minimum to keep a provisional class alive. I count only 11 of the 44 SM/SM2 cars at nationals (including the two 911s in SM2) that would fit SM Lite. That doesn't even meet the minimum to keep an existing class. What happens if your fundamental theory (that SM Light is slower) is wrong? How do you fix it?

I'm not trying to be mean here, and I'm not asking you to do anything I haven't done myself. I want you guys to keep going with these ideas, but they need to be vetted before people start asking "why isn't the SMAC doing this?". These are just some of the things we all need to be considering when any of us propose any changes. Once the changes are done, you're pretty much stuck with them for two years, so if it doesn't work, you've just poisoned the class. You've got to be willing to make that gamble on behalf of the 44 guys and gals who showed up to nationals, and the hundreds of others who it would effect across the country. You're wagering their investments in hopes that the portion of them you're screwing is less than the portion you're helping with your change. And don't ever believe you're making life better for everyone in a wholesale change like this.

Draft a ruleset and attack it like you would attack the current ruleset. Then ask others to do the same--I'm sure you'll find plenty of willing individuals around here. :)

---

Randy Noll

rnoll98:

Did you realize that CSP was actually faster than the top FWD SM car? Are you expecting the Miatas to slow down when they add another 150+whp? There's no "probably" in there, they've already beaten the best FWD SM effort while still in normally aspirated SP trim.

 

still an easier hurdle then an awd rally car.... well, i beat them on one course (being the first driver, with cold tires), but the other course, they beat daddio too? i am guess they ran different days/heats, so i do not have that data.

oh, and i tried to get on the SMAC a few times, but keep getting denied :(  nobody on smac is FWD, or even east coast... sounds like a monopoly over there.... 

you said it yourself, they beat the best fwd effort, so we need our own (fwd) class.  it's ok, i will still plan on sticking around and getting beat, but once i get bumped out of the trophies by the rally cars, something will need to be done. :P

---

Hi! I'm Rodney. "Hi Rodney!" I'm addicted to Solo....

rnoll98:

You might also want to check out the Prepared forum, within the "Viper" thread (http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/278734.aspx), where folks are talking about a Lotus Europa (apparently 1250# stock) essentially being the car that is going to make XP a one-car class. Lots of veterans over there that are convinced this uber-light car is going to be way faster than anything heavier. There's a reason these cars have always been disallowed in SM. Almost every ruleset in racing makes the fundamental assumption that lighter is faster...

I'm building that car. And the downside is that to put 200hp in it takes enough displacement that the car + driver will end up weighing 1900 lbs. Still, I figure that 400+ lbs of that will be ballast!

---

Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio.

rnoll98:

 . I think SM fwd has more potential than SM light.

i didn't like you till i saw this statement, now i will have your baby...

 there are a quite few people that have shelved fwd cars in their hunt for SM gold, daddio included. some have kept their cars waiting for fwd SM, some modded to higher classes and some just up and left. i think we could field fwd SM pretty easy. 

---

Hi! I'm Rodney. "Hi Rodney!" I'm addicted to Solo....

Guys,

I am not sure I support a massive restructure of the class.  I know a lot of hard work went into getting us where we are today.  I have been an advocate for a couple of small changes to level things up withing the current SM2 class.  MY (yes, I know its SM2 not I class) suggestions were to draw more competitors by adjusting the weight rules to include a segment that I think would come play given half a chance.  There are lots of forced induction miatas that people have built for the street that weigh in less than the minimum weight for SM2.  Those guys might come out and play, but when you tell them you not only do you have to face the current crop of rx-7s and corvettes that are competeing, but that you have to add weight to do it .... well some of the interest drops off pretty fast. 

My suggestion was to change the FI penalty from an adder to a multiplier.  This would let every FI car under 3.5L get a little lighter (roughly 150lbs less at 1.6L but only 8 lbs lighter at 3.4L)  None of the 3.5L + cars would have to add more than 88 lbs because of the 2900 cap.  4.6L takes the 88 hit with it stepping down as you go up or down in discplacment from there.

 If I understand the rotary calculation correctly the proposed formula lets Andy remove 32 lbs, and Erik has to add 24lbs ( to the current minimum weights. Again according to my math his current minimum should be 2500 but listed weight on for sale thread was 2530.  Not sure what Beth's car that Erik drives weighs, but even if it was at the minimum weight, the 24lbs they would have to add, probably only amounts to the rounding error in the power to weight ratio.

 
To lessen the pain for those who might have to add weight, or even as a stand alone, I also advocate loosening the ballast rule to allow it to be bolted anywhere, instead of just in the trunk or the spare tire well. 

Who thinks, these two changes would rip up the fabric of the SM2 universe?  I don't know the SM cars well enough to predict the ramifications on them anyone car to comment from that perspective?

 

---

Chris
51 SM2

Rodney:

oh, and i tried to get on the SMAC a few times, but keep getting denied :( nobody on smac is FWD, or even east coast... sounds like a monopoly over there....

 

SMAC member Dave Hardy is both East Coast AND a FWD guy.

---

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

modernbeat:

rnoll98:

You might also want to check out the Prepared forum, within the "Viper" thread (http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/278734.aspx), where folks are talking about a Lotus Europa (apparently 1250# stock) essentially being the car that is going to make XP a one-car class. Lots of veterans over there that are convinced this uber-light car is going to be way faster than anything heavier. There's a reason these cars have always been disallowed in SM. Almost every ruleset in racing makes the fundamental assumption that lighter is faster...

I'm building that car. And the downside is that to put 200hp in it takes enough displacement that the car + driver will end up weighing 1900 lbs. Still, I figure that 400+ lbs of that will be ballast!

 

For 1900 lbs, you should easily be able to hit 300+ hp. 

---

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

modernbeat:

rnoll98:

You might also want to check out the Prepared forum, within the "Viper" thread (http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/278734.aspx), where folks are talking about a Lotus Europa (apparently 1250# stock) essentially being the car that is going to make XP a one-car class. Lots of veterans over there that are convinced this uber-light car is going to be way faster than anything heavier. There's a reason these cars have always been disallowed in SM. Almost every ruleset in racing makes the fundamental assumption that lighter is faster...

I'm building that car. And the downside is that to put 200hp in it takes enough displacement that the car + driver will end up weighing 1900 lbs. Still, I figure that 400+ lbs of that will be ballast!

Not sure how big your driver is, but you could drop in a 2ZZ Elise engine with turbo/blower and easily make 300whp and weigh 1704# w/out driver. The same engine in NA trim making probably just under 200whp only has to weigh 1560# w/o driver. Built right, it'll probably have a CG of 6-8" high, that's the real scary part.

---

Randy Noll

ChrisSwearingen:

To lessen the pain for those who might have to add weight, or even as a stand alone, I also advocate loosening the ballast rule to allow it to be bolted anywhere, instead of just in the trunk or the spare tire well. 

Who thinks, these two changes would rip up the fabric of the SM2 universe?  I don't know the SM cars well enough to predict the ramifications on them anyone car to comment from that perspective?

We talked about the multiplier in either this or another thread.

I think we need verbage on the ballast idea, but I don't think the idea would create any black holes. Has a letter been sent on that yet?. In my opinion, I can't think of a much better place to put the ballast in the Miata than the trunk. Maybe if you could somehow secure it to the bottom of the frame just forward of the rear axle. Either way you guys should be able to acheive >50% rear bias without having to take the MR penalty. Nice little loophole there for ya...

---

Randy Noll

129STS:

For 1900 lbs, you should easily be able to hit 300+ hp. 

rnoll98:

Not sure how big your driver is, but you could drop in a 2ZZ Elise engine with turbo/blower and easily make 300whp and weigh 1704# w/out driver. The same engine in NA trim making probably just under 200whp only has to weigh 1560# w/o driver. Built right, it'll probably have a CG of 6-8" high, that's the real scary part.

The driver currently weighs 230. In tip-top shape I weigh 210. I think you forgot that mid engined RWD cars have an additional 20 lbs / liter to carry compared to front engined-RD cars. XP is calculated on ACTUAL displacement. DP is calculated on unmodified block displacement.

With a 1853cc motor (which equals 200 NA HP to me) a Europa has to weigh 1608, plus my current weight brings us to 1838, plus a three gallon fuel load is 1857, plus any safety factor for screwy scales, or whatever... Add a few more lbs on for an overbore.

For 300 hp, it would require a FI 1796cc engine (that boosted 2zz or similar) which would have a minimum weight of 1754, plus the 19 lbs of fuel and 230 of driver is a grand total of 2003 lbs plus any safety weight.

I recently cornerweighed my pal's street Europa. It's got a non-stock carb and exhaust, and was sans the removable trunk bucket, spare tire and tools. With his body ballast removed the total weight was around 1250 lbs. That's with all the stock glass, electric windows, steel wheels, wiring, wood dash with steel bucketed gauges, steel gas tank, headlights, iron calipers and hubs, steel suspension arms and shocks, brass radiator, and more. Even if my iron-block drivetrain adds 150 lbs to the stock vehicle weight, I'll be adding 200 lbs of ballast. If I drove a bone stock S2 Europa with the smaller 1470cc Renault engine in XP it would have to add about 250-300 lbs to be legal! It's even worse for the car in it's native class of DP where it would have to weigh between 1617-1722 lbs depending on the motor!

I'd hardly say that those weights encourage using the allowances given in the rules.

Even the 1.6 Miata has to weigh 1758 lbs if it sticks to narrow 7 inch rims. Even ST classes allow wider wheels! A stock Miata tub minus all the unboltable parts and glass, plus the minimum required roll bar weighs more than that. So any attempt to take advantage of further weight reduction allowances is discouraged. Any attempt to further strengthen the chassis carries a weight penalty. A 1.8 Miata on 10" wheels has to weigh 2073 lbs!

2000+ lbs! For a Prepared Miata! STS2 Miatas weigh less than that with all their glass, interior and convertable top!

No wonder nobody wants to build a P car. It has to weigh more than their low prep car does.

Allowing fuel injection without a weight penalty was a step in the right direction. Finish bringing the P-classes out of the Jurassic age and allow folks to build real production based race cars. 

 

---

Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio.