SCCAForums.com

Howdy,

Steve Hoelscher:

marka:

I know Jim.  Its just annoying that I've got to have a completely useless rear seat in my car.  :-)

A completely useless rear seat.  How about that completely useless right seat, or carpet, or door panels, head liner....etc...

Yes, those annoy me too. 

 

marka:

Rod ends & adjustable control arms just make sense compared to offset bushings.  Offset bushings are stupid and the only reason they exist at all is to work around rules that don't allow alternate arms.

The problem with allowing "adjustable" control arms is that lets in complete custom fabricated control arms.  OK Mark, I will support an allowance for custom control arms but they have to weigh 20 lbs each.  That eliminates the incentrive for some ignorant jerk to make an ultra-light control arm out of coathanger wire.  He still can make an unsafe control arm out of coathanger wire but he has to bolt a hunk of balast to it so it makes weight.  After all, we can't mandate safety but we can eliminate the incentive.  We have to be fair to the guy that does it right and makes a safe, heavy control arm and can't afford the expensive materials to make a safe AND light control arm.  After all, fairness is the primary goal of our Brave New Rule Book.

Make the rule "can't weigh less than stock" and I'm right there with you.

And I will support you removing your rear seat but you have to carry balast, where the seat was located, equal to at least 150% of the weight of the seat you removed.  We have to be fair now don't ya know.

I do carry ballast right where the rear seat is located.  Its called a roll bar and it weighs significantly more than the rear seat ever thought of weighing and its higher up in the car.

marka:

 

Spherical bearings for suspension components just make too much sense.

Mark, as I said previously, the more you post on this subject, the more obvious it is you don't understand how and why the rules are what they are and what effect the proposals you make would have.

Steve, try hard not to confuse disagreeing with a rule with not "understanding" the rule or how we got it.

I know how we got to SP.  It was ST*, just twenty years ago (and probably there were lots of people just like you bitching about how the new category was stupid).  I frankly don't give a rat's ass how we got to the SP ruleset, what I care about is what the SP ruleset means to me today.

Today, instead of using a cheap, commonly available, easy to fabricate with spherical bearing, I have to custom design & machine offset bushing that don't work as well and ride just as shitty (shittier, actually) on the street.

That's dumb.  I don't care how we got here, the end result is stupid.

If it wasn't stupid, we wouldn't have had anywhere near the demand for ST* or SM* as we did/do.

You know what I'd like to do?  Ditch SP altogether, replaced with ST* on the low end and SM* on the higher prep end.  Add two classes to each category (SM gets "SM FWD" and "SM Heavy", ST* gets "STU2" and "ST Heavy not AWD").

So how about this.  You tell my why spherical bearings and/or alternate control arms shouldn't be allowed, but without using phrases like "you don't understand how we got here" and "you don't know what you're asking for".

Mark

Steve, I hate to say it, but I like the words coming out of your mouth.

Howdy,

btw:

fairness is the primary goal of our Brave New Rule Book

That's actually a good way to sum up why any rule book exists at all (from a competition perspective).

Good job!

Mark

marka:

I do carry ballast right where the rear seat is located.  Its called a roll bar and it weighs significantly more than the rear seat ever thought of weighing and its higher up in the car.

Noooooo!!!  That doesn't meet the intent of the rule.  That's a "roll bar" not "balast" how could you possibly confuse the two???   And because it occupies space beyond where the seat was, its not legal anyway.  Just like the balast on Bill's seat.

marka:

 

Steve, try hard not to confuse disagreeing with a rule with not "understanding" the rule or how we got it.

If you understood, you wouldn't have the opinions you expesss here.  I am not confusing anything. 

 

marka:

That's actually a good way to sum up why any rule book exists at all (from a competition perspective).

Good job!

For those of you that like what I said in the previous post, I assume you haven't read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

There is no substitute for education.

---

Steve Hoelscher
#27 DP - Toyota MR2
2006 DP National Champion
'98, '99, '00, '02 DSP National Champion
http://www.terriehoward.com

Howdy,

Steve Hoelscher:

marka:

I do carry ballast right where the rear seat is located.  Its called a roll bar and it weighs significantly more than the rear seat ever thought of weighing and its higher up in the car.

Noooooo!!!  That doesn't meet the intent of the rule.  That's a "roll bar" not "balast" how could you possibly confuse the two???   And because it occupies space beyond where the seat was, its not legal anyway.  Just like the balast on Bill's seat.

Unlike Bill, my rear seat is in place even though its stupid.  And unlike Bill, my rollbar is explicitly allowed.

I mean, I know you like to take cheap shots and all (who doesn't?), but what we're discussing here is a possible alteration to the rules.  Try and keep up. 

 

marka:

 

Steve, try hard not to confuse disagreeing with a rule with not "understanding" the rule or how we got it.

If you understood, you wouldn't have the opinions you expesss here.  I am not confusing anything. 

Ah yes, the arguments of an intelligent man.  Just keep saying "I'm right" louder and louder, without bothering to say anything actually in support of your arguments. 

 

 

marka:

That's actually a good way to sum up why any rule book exists at all (from a competition perspective).

Good job!

For those of you that like what I said in the previous post, I assume you haven't read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

There is no substitute for education.

Or for useless references to 70 year old books that have nothing to do with what we're talking about, apparently.

Actually, however, that seems to be a great example of someone else expressing fear of change which turns out to be unfounded.  But, stick that head deeper into the sand Steve.  If you say "LA LA LA" loudly enough you'll still be able to pretend everything in SP is the same as it was when you were a kid.

:-)

Mark

marka:

Unlike Bill, my rear seat is in place even though its stupid.  And unlike Bill, my rollbar is explicitly allowed.

 

Well Mark, ya got me there; my rear seat is DEFINITELY not in place.  However, you're wrong about my rollbar, if I had one, not being allowed - it is!

Yes, a flippant reply to your AMAZINGLY self-serving posts.  How in God's name can you keep on chastising ('chastising' being a mild word for your rants) me and others for our dislike of the seat rule and then go whining about all these other rules YOU don't like.  Your agenda is SO CLEAR.

---

Bill Schenker
CalClub & S.D.R. #14 CSP 10AE Miata

marka:

Or for useless references to 70 year old books that have nothing to do with what we're talking about, apparently.

Mark, do I really have to explain the importance of reading The Classics?  Well, maybe I have answered my own question.  If you had read them you would appeciate their value and understand that the lessons learned from Brave New World are EXACTLY on point here. 

 

---

Steve Hoelscher
#27 DP - Toyota MR2
2006 DP National Champion
'98, '99, '00, '02 DSP National Champion
http://www.terriehoward.com

Howdy,

actor:

marka:

Unlike Bill, my rear seat is in place even though its stupid.  And unlike Bill, my rollbar is explicitly allowed.

 

Well Mark, ya got me there; my rear seat is DEFINITELY not in place.  However, you're wrong about my rollbar, if I had one, not being allowed - it is!

Yeah, that's what I meant.  :-)

 

Yes, a flippant reply to your AMAZINGLY self-serving posts.  How in God's name can you keep on chastising ('chastising' being a mild word for your rants) me and others for our dislike of the seat rule and then go whining about all these other rules YOU don't like.  Your agenda is SO CLEAR.

I don't believe I've chastised you (I agree, that's not a word I'd use.  "Ranting" perhaps) for disliking the seat rule.  I've ranted about people using dumb arguments to support their dislike of the seat rule, sure.  I've ranted about how _I_ support the seat rule.  I've even ranted about how expecting the seat rule to _require_ safe seats isn't the point of the rule.  Yep, all of those.  But I don't believe I've said word one about whether or not you should "like" the rule.

Also, if my agenda is clear, could you perhaps PM it to me?  I don't have an agenda.  I'm writing what I think about some rules.  I think the seat rule is pretty good.  I think not allowing spherical bearings is stupid.  I've provided a few reasons why I think that.  This happens all over the internet on these things called "forums".

Do I expect the rules to be changed?  Not particularly, though I'd sure support a change I liked.  Why'd I bring them up in this endless thread?  Because they were examples of other rules that I've lived with and adapted my car to and not really bitched about (until this thread), even though I think they're dumb, which I thought might be a decent object lesson as to how the rulebook is always going to have stuff in it that doesn't work for any particular personal situation.

But hey, whatever.  You want to think I'm an a$$hole for not agreeing with you, it won't be the first time and I'd be damn surprised if it would be the last.

Mark

Howdy,

Steve Hoelscher:

Mark, do I really have to explain the importance of reading The Classics?  Well, maybe I have answered my own question.  If you had read them you would appeciate their value and understand that the lessons learned from Brave New World are EXACTLY on point here. 

Whatever dude.  Keeping moving the goal posts and taking the 'discussion' to new areas instead of, you know, _actually responding_ to a particular issue or point.

I'm sure Brave New World was written entirely about seat mounts in Street Prepared.  That guy was _way_ ahead of his time!

:-)

Mark

Howdy,

I think I just figured out why Steve doesn't want spherical bearings in SP.

See, the issue is that he's got this weird disorder where he can look at a ballast plate mounted to the floor of a car with a thin flexible metal strip connecting it to an OEM seat mounting bolt and think "Hey, that's a seat mount!"

Similarly, when I say "spherical suspension bearings" what he really envisions is someone bolting a turbo onto a motor (since, you know, there's a bearing in there somewhere), then using a piece of string to tie it to a suspension mounting bolt.

I have to say I agree with that.  I don't want to allow alternate spherical bearings that provide forced induction to the intake.

 

Thanks Steve!

:-)

Mark

marka:

That's dumb.  I don't care how we got here, the end result is stupid.

Preach on, brother! It's good to hear you're supporting making things right, regardless of how we got there. :)

---

Randy Noll

Andy Hollis:

Jojoo:

Hey, it fits within the rule.

Once again..."You can't legislate stupidity".

Eliminate incentive/advantage of unsafe mounting, that's the goal. 

If Bill wants to flaunt his lack of safety, let him. Darwinism will eventually take his type out of the gene pool.

--Andy

 

 

 Really? So when do we get to vote YOU off the island.  I may like you as a person, admire your running skills and think you're a good driver, but I just CAN"T put up with your righteous b*llsh*t on this, Andy.

Don't you think it's a ridiculous claim that you ran kart seats in CSP to "make a point" cough*yeah, right*cough?  No?

Then how do you explain your mounting of your STS2 seats (yes, I'm sure they're changed by now)?  To whit:

 

Come on in, Andy!  The water is just fine here in Darwin's gene pool.
 

---

Bill Schenker
CalClub & S.D.R. #14 CSP 10AE Miata

Isn't the internet awesome. You can't have any secrets.

Chris

Mark, some things to consider:

1) I agree in principle that "long established" does not automatically equal "correct". However, rules stability is one of the things members keep saying they want, so the SPAC has been steadily, if slowly, updating the rules, an effort started a few years ago and that will probably never really be done, to address certain issues where technology and/or the aftermarket have changed since the original rule in question was written. To wit, things like the cam timing adjustment allowance (electronics that are difficult/expensive to enforce begat an equivalent mechanical allowance), the famous/infamous 15.10.C induction rewrite that now has *verifiable* and *enforceable* rules (stock turbo and supercharger hardware, which can be easily measured and checked against either a print or a known-stock part), but doesn't have unenforcable rules (turbo boost levels, see: electronics), etc. We're looking at one or two things per year. Steady update, but mostly stable. The seat thing was one of last year's efforts. Reaction to that has clearly been mixed.

2) At the time the offset-bushing rule was written, the aftermarket wasn't making alternative control arms for, well, anything. One of the things we've been discussing over the last year-plus has been how to allow some alternative means of camber adjustment for SLA suspensions without allowing an undefined "camber kit" (which, as one prominent SP driver has pointed out, is open to wide interpretation, and has proposed a "camber kit" for a Honda CRX, say, that contains a Hemi engine and the appropriate adapters -- the extra weight of the engine will affect the front camber) that our fellow highly-creative SP denizens will interpret very broadly (cf. "seat ballast" rigidly mounted to vehicle floor and connected to seat via a non-structural light-gauge metal coupling. Clever, yes. Technically legal, maybe, but not what was intended).

3) There *are* aftermarket control arms with elastomeric bushings available for several vehicle types. While we're on the subject of progression, and this is strictly IMO, spherical bearings replacing elastomeric bushings in suspension arms and rear seat removal/partial interior gutting is allowed in SM. Allowing same in SP would be yet another additional blur between those two categories, which is something I personally want to avoid as much as possible. Unlike your statement in this thread, I *want* to see SP continue and thrive. I readily admit that it needs to evolve -- the aftermarket world has indeed changed. Whining (and I really do hear it as whining, Mark) that Billy's car gets to do X because Billy picked a car with the X allowance in update/backdate, while you can't because your weapon of choice doesn't present that opportunity isn't a valid reason to make a rule change (This is, again, strictly IMO and I do not represent anyone but myself here). SP has long been about using the rules allowances to make the best silk purse out of whatever sow's ear of a car you have. There is no guarantee that your chosen weapon will be competitive in its class. Every effort is made to put like with like, of course, but let's face it: the 3rd- and 4th-gen Camarobirds in ESP are not at a competitive disadvantage to the SN95 Mustangs because the Mustangs can UD/BD to Cobra R spec with a piece of carpet in place of the rear seat. IIRC, the top-finishing (a somewhat distant 2nd place to a 3rd-gen Firebird) SN95 in ESP at Nationals last year *had* the rear seat in it. The 3rd place car is a for-real '95 Cobra R that never had one in the first place.

The point is -- yes, SP needs to evolve. A large number of broad, wholesale changes, though, are not in the best interest of the category or its participants. Rules stability is very important to the competitors -- most of us have said so at one time or another, particularly in a category that encourages creativity and innovative thinking, so a reasoned, logical evolution of certain things, one or two sections at a time, provides a largely-stable rule set while still accommodating the changes in the market. 20 years ago, nobody dreamed the aftermarket would embrace the electronics or other "hard parts" like suspension control arms the way it has today. So we have to update the rules while still minimizing the unintended consequences. Sometimes we nail it. Sometimes we miss a hole or two and have to revisit to plug the holes. Hey, we're human. We're volunteers. Given that we're not getting paid for the hours invested in research and discussion, I happen to think the Club is getting pretty good value. You've been on an AC, you know the score there.

Personally, though, just once I'd like to not get called an idiot or worse, without any sort of alternative suggestion. Gotta problem? Propose an alternative solution. Word it like it should appear in the rule book. Send it to seb@scca.com. Be a help, not a pain in the backside. Don't like it and just want to vent about it? Fine, put it in a letter and send it off to the same address.

Seen on a button: "Don't yell at me. I volunteered for this s***!" Every person who has served on the SEB and/or one of the ACs should wear said button proudly.

---

AutoJim
ESP #65 '99 Mustang Cobra

actor:

[

Don't you think it's a ridiculous claim that you ran kart seats in CSP to "make a point" cough*yeah, right*cough?  No?

Then how do you explain your mounting of your STS2 seats (yes, I'm sure they're changed by now)?  To whit:

 

Come on in, Andy!  The water is just fine here in Darwin's gene pool.
 

Thanks for pointing that out, Bill.  It will serve to differentiate our response to better rules.  To wit: 

That pic was three years ago, before ST changed its rule to the current wording where min weight is raised and included in the bracketry.  After that, I reworked my seat brackets quite nicely, thank you very much.  Have a look in that same blog for the new mounts that I did for last year.  OE attachment mounts and very very strong mountings.  So, the rule worked quite well in my case.  No incentive not to do it right.

What's different in my case vs yours, is that I used the extra mandated weight to strengthen my mountings.  You used it in a block of lead.  What does that say? 

In both the kart seat example and the ST bracketry, better rules removed the incentive to take a risk for me.  Better rules worked in both cases. 

--Andy
 

Howdy,

rnoll98:

marka:

That's dumb.  I don't care how we got here, the end result is stupid.

Preach on, brother! It's good to hear you're supporting making things right, regardless of how we got there. :)

Randy, after years and years of research I can conclusively say...

Nobody likes a wiseass.

:-)

Mark

Howdy,

AutoJim:

2) At the time the offset-bushing rule was written, the aftermarket wasn't making alternative control arms for, well, anything. One of the things we've been discussing over the last year-plus has been how to allow some alternative means of camber adjustment for SLA suspensions without allowing an undefined "camber kit" (which, as one prominent SP driver has pointed out, is open to wide interpretation, and has proposed a "camber kit" for a Honda CRX, say, that contains a Hemi engine and the appropriate adapters -- the extra weight of the engine will affect the front camber) that our fellow highly-creative SP denizens will interpret very broadly (cf. "seat ballast" rigidly mounted to vehicle floor and connected to seat via a non-structural light-gauge metal coupling. Clever, yes. Technically legal, maybe, but not what was intended).

Question first, then a comment... Question is... Were offset bushings originally intended at all?  Obviously they're explicitly allowed now, but I wasn't sure if this was a "rules creep" thing from days gone by or not.

Now the comment... I think part of the problem here is that the SEB & PCs need to be a little more strict in rules interpretation.  Your example of a Hemi engine being a camber kit, even as a bit of a silly example, serves to show just how tortured interpretations get considered by the powers that be.  Bill's "seat mount' is another good example.  Nobody in their right mind (that wasn't trying to get away with something) would call that ballast plate & flimsy strap part of a seat mount.

At some point, we all need to agree to read the rules in some type of 'intelligent' manner.  Language being what it is, you can constantly change the underlying meaning by re-inventing the definitions for words and I don't think its appropriate for the rulebook to define every single word used within it.  "Intelligent" isn't really the  correct word there, but hopefully you know what I mean.  My education was neglected, since I haven't read "Brave New World."  :-)

 

3) There *are* aftermarket control arms with elastomeric bushings available for several vehicle types. While we're on the subject of progression, and this is strictly IMO, spherical bearings replacing elastomeric bushings in suspension arms and rear seat removal/partial interior gutting is allowed in SM. Allowing same in SP would be yet another additional blur between those two categories, which is something I personally want to avoid as much as possible. Unlike your statement in this thread, I *want* to see SP continue and thrive. I readily admit that it needs to evolve -- the aftermarket world has indeed changed. Whining (and I really do hear it as whining, Mark) that Billy's car gets to do X because Billy picked a car with the X allowance in update/backdate, while you can't because your weapon of choice doesn't present that opportunity isn't a valid reason to make a rule change (This is, again, strictly IMO and I do not represent anyone but myself here). SP has long been about using the rules allowances to make the best silk purse out of whatever sow's ear of a car you have. There is no guarantee that your chosen weapon will be competitive in its class. Every effort is made to put like with like, of course, but let's face it: the 3rd- and 4th-gen Camarobirds in ESP are not at a competitive disadvantage to the SN95 Mustangs because the Mustangs can UD/BD to Cobra R spec with a piece of carpet in place of the rear seat. IIRC, the top-finishing (a somewhat distant 2nd place to a 3rd-gen Firebird) SN95 in ESP at Nationals last year *had* the rear seat in it. The 3rd place car is a for-real '95 Cobra R that never had one in the first place.

The rear seat thing is just something I brought up because it was a PITA to fit back into my car (that had had a rollbar installed).  It started off as being only a way to show that we all have annoying things in the rules to deal with, but since there its gone a little farther of course.  I agree that what I've emphasized here ("the Cobra R can do it, why can't I?") is more whining than not, but I really do believe that allowing rear seat removal if you have a rollbar/cage installed is a good idea.  The rollbar/cage adds more weight than the rear seat and adds it up higher.  Safety is increased.  Rollbar design doesn't need to be compromised by the rear seat.  And yes, I wrote the letter.  :-)

We'll have to agree to disagree on the spherical bearings I guess.  Personally I'd much rather have spherical bearings than custom machined Delrin in _any_ car.  Each is just as "unstreetable" as the other.  The primary differences between SM and SP, to me, is that in SM you can go crazy with the drivetrain as well as go crazy with one off suspension stuff like custom machined spindles.  Alternate control arms and/or spherical bearings in stock control arms aren't in that "crazy" realm to me.

 

Hey, we're human. We're volunteers. Given that we're not getting paid for the hours invested in research and discussion, I happen to think the Club is getting pretty good value. You've been on an AC, you know the score there.

Personally, though, just once I'd like to not get called an idiot or worse, without any sort of alternative suggestion. Gotta problem? Propose an alternative solution. Word it like it should appear in the rule book. Send it to seb@scca.com. Be a help, not a pain in the backside. Don't like it and just want to vent about it? Fine, put it in a letter and send it off to the same address.

Seen on a button: "Don't yell at me. I volunteered for this s***!" Every person who has served on the SEB and/or one of the ACs should wear said button proudly.

FWIW, my intention isn't to call anyone on the SEB or an AC dumb or an idiot.  Hopefully I haven't given that impression, but if I have I apologize, it wasn't my intent.

I _do_ think some of the rules in SP are stupid.  So are some of the rules in every other category.  I know for a fact that some people think some of the rules I helped write are stupid.

But that doesn't mean that I think _you_ are stupid or an idiot or whatever.  You're one of the folks whose opinion I greatly respect in autox actually, and I think thats generally true for all the members of ACs & the SEB who I know.

Mark