SCCAForums.com

Just a quick poll, is everyone who registered in SM2 still planning on attending and staying in the SM2 class?

Numbers are small, we need 17 for the class to survive into next year.  We have 20 signed up.  Not much margin for error.
 

---

Chris
51 SM2

SEB/BOD/Whoever makes the final decision just needs to drop the axe and do what they plan on doing so people can start developing for the class that will take over.  Merge SM with SM2 or whatever plan  they have...implement it!  SM2 is not gonna last!  They're not gonna base SM2 survival on just Nationals attendance.

 

d 

---

Dan Pedroza
GS 127
WikiWiki!

Having 17 might not save it, but having only 16 will kill it.

---

Chris
51 SM2

I agree with Dan...SM should be combined in some way.

 
 

---

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

I agree changes are in order and that if changes are going to happen the sooner the better.  But ..

The wording in the rule book says

"4.9 Minimum participation level of nation classes

 If in two consecutive years at the Solo National Championship a class fails to field a combined total (Open and Ladies) of at least seventeen (17) entrants, then for the following year that class will be consolidated, eliminated, or restructured, using competition adjustments( for example, weights and or wheel sizes) if necessary and applicable within the affected category ...."

Whatever the ultimate plans for SM2 are, I would hate to see the issue forced by a low turnout. There have been lots of discussions about what the "right" answer is, but so far no conclusion or reccomendation or even a request for member comment. As I write this it comes across as all about me, but I hope there are others who feel a planned transition to a new structure is better than one forced to occur rapidly. 

Those combined and competition adjustments phrases scare me.  I don't want to ballast up ( some of you know my current weight limit feelings) to SM weights and try to be competitive.  Stripping the car to XP level doesn't appeal to me either.  

 

---

Chris
51 SM2

Chris, the sad thing is, this year's low attendance isn't going to force anything.  This has been a long time coming.  We all got together (SMAC) with the SEB last year at Heartland Park and they (SEB) basically told us get our sh*t together or they're gonna make some changes. It was basically like being called into the principal's office at elementary school and being chastised :) it wasn't a fun meeting.  Those changes are merging the two classes somehow.  The efforts being discussed internally now are not to save SM2, it's how it can be mated effectively with SM.  That generic rulebook quote unfortunately doesn't truly, or rather, individually has a bearing on the fate of SM2.  SM2 has been on the chopping block or mixing block for quite a while now.  I just wish that they'd put out some OPTIONS for merging the two for member feedback so that we can start figuring out how to build future cars.

dp 

---

Dan Pedroza
GS 127
WikiWiki!

Dan,

Thanks for the background.  I am just starting to play at the National level this year.  Notice I said play not compete 8^(  

I have picked up on some of the various threads on what the future holds for SM2.  Is there any formal list of the ideas being considered?

One I haven't seen, although I am relatively certain someone must have suggested it, is and over and under three liter displacement (personally 1.6 seems about right with no add on for forced induction). 

---

Chris
51 SM2

Chris, really the only "formal" list is a private list.  All of the AC groups have a forum that the members communicate over, including ideas of different topics.  Many many many suggestions have been discussed, formulas, equations, weights, no weights, tire limits, etc.  It all gets discussed on the SMAC forum, which is private.  To be heard, though, send your emails to seb@scca.com and Doug Gill will filter them to the appropriate Advisory Commitee.  The SMAC does read everyone addressed to SM/SM2 and considers its merits and even implements many of the ideas!

I haven't been on it for awhile, but have a good idea of what's going on through some insiders ;)  I just wish some info would be leaked out for member feedback!  Here we're getting close to the end of '07 and '08 is still a question mark when I was under the impression that changes were going to be made for '08.  Now we probably have to wait until '09!  make a decision!  we need direction!  write your letters!  ;)

 

d
 

---

Dan Pedroza
GS 127
WikiWiki!

sm2dan:

SM2 has been on the chopping block or mixing block for quite a while now. 

 Well, everytime the rules got mixed and got closer to prepared you lost people.  That should have been an indication that the rules were headed in the wrong direction. 

<--- Still very bitter about time/money invested building an SM2 car only to have it obsoleted at the swipe of a pen "for the betterment of the class" - a truly pyrrhic victory to keep mid-engined cars out of the class. 

---

Rob Leone

'07 Solstice GXP in AS
'87 Toyota Corolla in EP
ex - '91 MR2 Turbo in SM2 <- If you can't set a good example, serve as a horrible warning.

sm2dan:

Chris, really the only "formal" list is a private list.  All of the AC groups have a forum that the members communicate over, including ideas of different topics.  Many many many suggestions have been discussed, formulas, equations, weights, no weights, tire limits, etc.  It all gets discussed on the SMAC forum, which is private.  To be heard, though, send your emails to seb@scca.com and Doug Gill will filter them to the appropriate Advisory Commitee.  The SMAC does read everyone addressed to SM/SM2 and considers its merits and even implements many of the ideas!

I haven't been on it for awhile, but have a good idea of what's going on through some insiders ;)  I just wish some info would be leaked out for member feedback!  Here we're getting close to the end of '07 and '08 is still a question mark when I was under the impression that changes were going to be made for '08.  Now we probably have to wait until '09!  make a decision!  we need direction!  write your letters!  ;)

 

d
 

 

I have written them (the SEB and SMAC) on the current weights in SM2, suggesting that less of a weight penalty for forced induction might encourage more Miatas.  Something about being at minimum weight with working ac and a stereo and convertible top and trailer hitch and stock passenger seat and on and on ... 

I know everyone fears an overdog being legislated into the class, but you have to draw participation from somewhere, or wait until the changes happen and see where we end up.  I agree if sweeping changes are to come it's almost too late for this year.  So back to my original question, are we going to have the 17 drivers required to draw this out another year?

--Chris 

---

Chris
51 SM2

SpyderVenom:

<--- Still very bitter 

really?  couldn't tell.

d 

---

Dan Pedroza
GS 127
WikiWiki!

Just to reply to some of the doom and gloom predictions, as long as numbers are made this year, SM2 is fine for 2008 and beyond.  There is not anyone forcing the merging of SM2 and SM, and there have been no letters from the membership wanting this to happen.  The basic talk has been, "if we don't make numbers, what do we do with SM2?".  The board consensus was trying to combine SM2 to SM on short notice would not be the right thing to do to a healthy SM class.  So we hoped for the best that numbers would be made, and if they weren't, there was always XP.  Seems that numbers will be made and the class will survive.  We are trying to strive for stability within the rules, so there are no plans for any hasty changes.  

Right now we have 19 entered, as Jason Rhoades will not be coming.  As long as no cars blow up by the Solo 2 (visualize me knocking on my wooden desk), we should make numbers fine.

Look forward to seeing everyone in a few days and having some fun racing!

 

 

 

---

Erik Strelnieks
93 3-ROTOR RX7
01 Honda S2000
05 SLK 350 AMG
08 BMW 135i

sm2dan:

SpyderVenom:

<--- Still very bitter 

really?  couldn't tell.

d 

---

Rob Leone

'07 Solstice GXP in AS
'87 Toyota Corolla in EP
ex - '91 MR2 Turbo in SM2 <- If you can't set a good example, serve as a horrible warning.

See?  information is a good thing!  i don't think ANYBODY short of the SEB/SMAC knew this and were expecting the demise of SM2 based on past discussions, threads, etc.  Don't be a member of the Secret Car Club of America

See ya in a few, Erik.  We're bringing the Nintendo Wii and having a virtual bowling competition if you wanna come throw a few frames.

d 

---

Dan Pedroza
GS 127
WikiWiki!

ErikZ06:

.......As long as no cars blow up by the Solo 2 (visualize me knocking on my wooden desk), we should make numbers fine...

Just make sure everyone has a backup car ready......

---

Steve Garnjobst
#75 XP
'99 Mazda Mutant

So, does that mean that for 2008 a two-seater that easily meets SM displacement/weight will still be stuck in SM2? I'm thinking specifically of a normally-aspirated 300XZ, but there's others. Power and weight seem like much better predictors of performance than the number of seats.

Consider a late model Z28 and the 300ZXna. They are both in ESP. The Z28 is in SM (assuming no turbo or stroker), while the 300ZXna is in SM2, a faster class. The Z28 is in CP, while the 300ZX is in FP, a slower class. Then they come together again for EM. That seems like a fairly strange progression to me.

A Z28 certainly isn't an overdog in SM. A well-prepared 300ZXna is at best evenly matched with a Z28 on technical courses, and certainly won't win a turn-to-turn drag on a fast course. In case anybody is wondering, I own the Z28, not the 300ZX, but I've driven both. Can a well-prepared 300ZX ever have an unfair advantage over a well-prepared M3? I don't think so.

While there are a few two seaters that may inherently belong in SM2 (Elise, RX7TT, Miata, Vette, MR2 ?), some don't. Even some older "true" sports cars don't really belong in SM2. Is anybody seriously afraid of my MGB? Probably not.

There's already precedent in the opposite direction. Various 4-seaters are already excluded from SM. Then there's the so-called SM "crapbox". All in all, the number of seats seems like a very poor basis for classing. 

Granted, this isn't really the right thread to debate classing, but I've been following it hoping to hear that yes, changes were in the works for 2008. Instead, the answer seems to be another year of wait and see.

I agree, though, that the time to start publishing the seriously-considered proposals, whatever they may be, is NOW. And that's really my main point. A possible SM/SM2 overhaul lurking out there in a year or so is a problem for both.
 

 

Money spent is a much better indicator of performance than number of seats. 

Everything that you said above has been stated before in this and other forums.  You can't really compare SM to any other class (except XP) since you can make as much power as you want in this class.  Take either of the two cars you mention, and each can be made faster according to rules.  Which car do you think will be faster if you drop $30,000 on it?

Believe it or not, people were/are afraid of your MG.  It's a very small car and it's light.  Couple that with "enough" power and you have a good combination to make a very nice SM2 car.  This is how the unbalasted minimum weights started.  Your MG would not have been eligibe for the class from the start.

IMHO, the things that are killing the class:  Open boost in SP (this is where locally the classes were getting people who chipped cars), it's proximity to XP (if a National competitor already has a dedicated trailered car, why not use the better weights in XP and non-DOT slicks), rules instability, and the money/time/effort to make a National level car. 

Understand that as much as I'm bitter about spending all that money, I loved the class while I was in it.  As Dan can attest, I drove 800 miles to a ProSolo and was doing practice starts on Friday on an engine that had only started on Wednesday.  I loved the fact that if there was a problem with some aspect of the car, that the problem could be fixed not just find a workaround.

---

Rob Leone

'07 Solstice GXP in AS
'87 Toyota Corolla in EP
ex - '91 MR2 Turbo in SM2 <- If you can't set a good example, serve as a horrible warning.

SpyderVenom:

As Dan can attest, I drove 800 miles to a ProSolo and was doing practice starts on Friday on an engine that had only started on Wednesday.  I loved the fact that if there was a problem with some aspect of the car, that the problem could be fixed not just find a workaround.

The day we finished our stroker motor (friday afternoon) I drove it to Houston as its break-in period and raced it at the Houston National Tour :)

but back on point to the previous post, using the 300ZX is only one of hundreds of car comparisons that we can drum up.  The bottom line is that not all cars are competitive and can't be matched on the same plane.  The 300ZX vs. Camaro is as valid as comparing a 22RE Toyota Pickup vs. a Chrysler Sebring.  One belongs in SM2, the other in SM, and I'd bet they're probably fairly equal in course times!  but while that's the class in which they each fall, respectively, they're just not the top dogs in their respective fights.

dp 

---

Dan Pedroza
GS 127
WikiWiki!

I like the thought of classed by how much money you spent.

Overdogs????  I can think of a couple SM2 overdogs  one is black and one is red. If there is less than 80K in either of the two cars I will eat my 914 piece by piece.

Sm  the class of cubic dollars   

XP  where SM left off.

---

Want to go faster, please send money.

Howdy,

Locally, the SM category makes a lot of sense I think.  There are lots of people that like to play with stuff that SP doesn't allow, but either don't want to take the car to Prepared or can't stomach a limitation Prepared imposes.

My camaro is a good example.  I got the car because it was a good deal on a car I thought would be fun.  I could either prep it for ESP and have a nationally competitive car with inferior parts or I could prep it for SM and have an uncompetitive car with modifications that made sense to me.  I chose the later route, and its been fun.  In my case, the "non SP legal" stuff I wanted to do was spherical suspension bushings, alternate control arms, different final drive gearing, and a brake upgrade.

I have a lot of fun every time I drive the car and locally I'm competitive enough with the other SM folks (none of which have anything like a nationally competitive SM car).  For a national event however, I can only run for "best of the rest" or whatever.  If anyone with an at all serious SM car shows up, I'm outta luck.

Now, that may well not prevent me from going to the event anyway and having fun, but its also a bit of a downer.  I'm not looking for any particular help here (afterall, I knew full well what I was doing when I chose this direction), but I can see why the class would be doing well locally and not so great nationally.

Its sorta like the NASA points system.  Its fun for everyone, until folks get serious.

I'm not sure what you can do to address this rules-wise without a lot more SM classes.  There are a lot of people out there like me as regards having an uncompetitive SM car, but we're all uncompetitive for different reasons.  Whatever set of allowances you come up with is likely to work just as poorly at making us all have a shot as the current ones do.

Mark

(btw, CP is another choice for me and would make lots of sense in some ways, but so far I just flat out refuse to do it until the completely unjustifiable and stupid wheel _diameter_ penalty is dropped.  I don't care if the extra 200 lbs or 100 lbs or whatever it ends up being next year will actually slow the car down or not, the penalty just p*sses me off.)