SCCAForums.com

Howdy,

EWCMR2:

ICTSolo2:

 Steve - I'm curious to know why you refer to mistakes in regards to ST?  Isn't it pretty healthy, even still in it's infancy?

I'm not Steve but I'm thinking big wings and big brake kits. Allowances that are beyond the next step (street prepared) in progression. No one wants to take stuff off their car to go to the next faster class.

Personally, not allowing brake kits in SP has always seemed dumb to me and ST legal wings don't scare me either.  So there's another way to fix that progression...

 :-)

Mark

rnoll98:

Joojoo, if you really believe your idea still has merit, actually draft it as a ruleset. Put every single bloody car into one of your classes. Until you go through that process, it's nothing but an untested idea, even to you. The actual translation of the idea to a written rule is a very strong vetting process in and of itself. If you still think it has merit, then post it here for the internet jockeys to flame. If you have any shred of self confidence left after that, submit it to the SPAC. If you actually want to drive change, I'd suggest this route. Prepare to take your lumps, just like the ones you're dishing out to whoever constructed the current rules.

 

I plan to.

I can take the lumps without a hitch but lets get one thing clear in terms of me "dishing out" criticism.  It's not to "whomever" made the current set of rules but to the fact that not enough changes have been made over the years to keep up with classing so we don't get stagnant cars in classes or dominant cars year after year.

Let alone the rules. They are old and need updating badly. And again, that is not directed at any one person. 

I personally hope you guys leave things alone.

As a newcomer to SCCA Street Prepared was my class of choice.  I was very sucessfully last year racing in an rx7(my car of choice) and have since built an 85 rx7 to the limits of CSP.  Whens the last time an RX7 won CSP?  Not since the Miata came out, I suspect the miata is simply cheeper to make fast and people have chosen it as their platform of choice.  But what you are implying looks to me like you would want to bump my rx7 down into DSP where due it its age and lack of use and the lack of modifications most CSP rx7s have.  I expect to be beating higly prepared Miatas as soon as everything is dialed in.

The reason why I choose SP is the engine is still stock though I can modify everything else.  It sets the class at a certain cost expectation that can go wild when you add porting, cams, boost ect ect.  A fulley prepped SP motor cost me around 5k.  A Fulley prepped SM motor or Mod motor would have cost me double that easily, not to mention the suspension geometry change allowaces.

 I would also like to add you must be out of touch.  Go to a local street race.  They dont have interior and dont care to have it not even A/C and other junk often not even heaters and blower motors.  Many have even stripped the tar paper out of their street cars, its not uncommon at all.  Less weight equals equals more speed without spending to get it.  When I was in my teens I didnt have carpet or A/C or heat in cars I raced.  I yanked it.  The car I fulley prepared is actually my first car purchased in 99.  I actually had to go to the junk yard and get things to add to my car so that I could be SP legal!!  I hate having an interior, I wish we had IT rules on interiors.

Anyways Im happy with the rules even the ones I dont really like, specially the ones that really hurt my cars performance but dont really hinder competitors cars in any way. 

 

Even if I had been to a street race....I dunno if I'd ever admit it in public.

You can use IT rules in SP....you just have to use all of them and not mix/match between the 2 sets.

---

Jay Storm
96 Impreza L FSP
98 98 Impreza 2.5RS- co-driver DSP
Wives are like SCCA rules...
If she doesn't say you can...you can't

I know, and an SP car will dominate an IT prepared car.

Its ok if you dont admit it.  I will, Im not embarassed to admit I did stupid things as a kid.  I was a teenager at one time and I drag raced, I smoked pot and drank beer too.  Was it dangerouse and supid.  Yah.

Was it a hell of a lot of fun?  Hell yah.

Would I do it anymore.  Hell no!

If "fixing" SP amounts to a bunch of take-back rule changes, that's not fixing it. You're just putting the cost that you're trying to protect newbies from onto those who already have those mods and now must undo them. Of if they can't be undone, forcing them out of the class. But maybe that's really the desired goal, to force the well-developed cars out.

Right now ST serves its purpose of being a class between Stock and SP. Trying to turn SP in to "ST + R comps" carries no guarantee to increase participation, but it will drive many from the class -- or even the sport -- who have invested in car development. 

 

 

---

Bob Beamesderfer '94 CSP Miata
Cal Club and SDR

Sidewinder:

Trying to turn SP in to "ST + R comps" carries no guarantee to increase participation, but it will drive many from the class -- or even the sport -- who have invested in car development. 

Yeah, and then we'd have two class categories running ST rules with the equivalent of R comps. ;)

---

Randy Noll

It would force me to SM where I would be totally outclassed and beyond my budget.

 I was upset about the 60lbs seat rule for this year. How lame.  Im sorry I spent money to buy a nice seat.  At least mine mounts to the stock location though.

I bet the guys who had the seats mounted differntly were pissed.

 If they try and dial back the SP rules Id quit.  Maybe people who invested in their cars could all get together and sue them if it ever happened.  They should just create a new class if theres need for it not screw up one thats established.

turbozmike:

 

 I was upset about the 60lbs seat rule for this year. How lame. 

Yeah, that blows!  You'ld think they could have done something reasonable like 20lbs.

 EC

Howdy,

turbozmike:

Maybe people who invested in their cars could all get together and sue them if it ever happened.  They should just create a new class if theres need for it not screw up one thats established.

Yeah.  We need more lawsuits in autocross.

Mark

EWCMR2:

Yeah, that blows!  You'ld think they could have done something reasonable like 20lbs.

Eric, that assumes that the only thing "unreasonable" about the new seat rule is the weight he quoted. 

IMO, the new SP seat rule is the most poorly thought out rule the SEB has produced in 20 years. 

---

Steve Hoelscher
#27 DP - Toyota MR2
http://www.terriehoward.com

Steve, I would totally agree with that.  Weight doesnt mean added saftey.  In fact if I get heavier (fat) Im likely to die sooner!

Requiring use of stock mounting holes is stupid and may inadvertanly cause some people to have poorly mounted 60lb seats as most seats dont/wont mount to the car in the stock fashion.

Then we have the seat hight issue!  My helmet touches the metal part of my roof in normal seating position, forget the headliner!  Its REALLY a stupid rule.  Im following it for now.  Luckily I built my car after this rule was put in place.

 The rule should read

Any seat designed and intended for use an automobile with an minimum 24 inch seat back (not including headrest) and that is securely mounted is allowed.

I tend to agree. I think that the seat mounting should be a tech issue, just like belts, batteries and brakes.

I don't doubt the good intentions of the SEB.  I served on the SEB and know most of the members who were on the board when the rule was drafted and proposed.  What I don't understand is how any of these otherwise reasonable people figured it was a good idea. 

A safety rule enforced by competitor protest instead of tech?  The purpose of tech is to ensure the safety of the car before it competes!  As this rule is competitor enforced, it is likely that the seat will only be inspected in impound after competition, if at all.

A safety rule that specifies a minimum weight but has no intention of ever requiring that the seat be weighed.  In a catagory that doesn't have specified weights on any other item, or require scales for any other purpose. 

A safety rule that is virtually un-enforceable at local events where protests and scales are virtually un-heard of and the problem most likely to be the worst.

A safety rule that has no madate that the item be safe, only that it weight 20 lbs. 

A safety rule that makes it impossible to legally mount a race seat in some cars. 

A safety rule that by its own existance, a tech inspector or safety steward is virtually prohibitted from making a judgement call on an unsafe seat/mount.  He is only allowed to verify that it meets weight. 

This is beyond stupid.  Its the ligitamization of absurdity and sets a dangerous precedent. 

---

Steve Hoelscher
#27 DP - Toyota MR2
http://www.terriehoward.com

Steve,

We might have disagreed on  VVVT, but on SP and the seat issue specifically, we're on the same page and you've pointed out further absurdities in this rule. If I use Grade 8 titanium bolts, elastic stop nuts and backing plates or large washers [think harness belt mounts], I think I've covered the security of the mounting in a way that's as if not more substantial than a factory mount. Especially true on older cars. If I put a 1960s oil-cooled VW into SP and use the stock mounting points, I've endangered myself to follow the rule. But, we have a rule without specific reference to FIA or SFI standards.

I heard some of the rationalization from a former SEB member, but it doesn't really wash given the points you've made or reality in general.  

 

---

Bob Beamesderfer '94 CSP Miata
Cal Club and SDR

I don't think you find anyone that really likes the seat weight rules in ST or SP.  You seem to understand the problems with stupid seats so write a rule that is better than this one.  This rule as are many is a compromise and the best we could come up.  Do a better job and I am sure the current SEB will thank you.  :)

Marcus

Former SEB member

---

Marcus
ESP 89
www.margravemotorsports.com

Thanks Bob.  

Sidewinder:

I heard some of the rationalization from a former SEB member, but it doesn't really wash given the points you've made or reality in general.  
 

 

What I was told: "it removes the incentive to use an unsafe seat."   ....wow...brilliant...  That totally solves the issue of somebody that doesn't know any better zip-tieing a seat out of a Barbie Vette to the floor of his car.  All you have to do is; get a protest form (they have those at your local events right?) submit the completed form, with the fee citing the violation.  After the heat has run, the protest chair (they have one at your local event right?) will accept your protest and have a hearing.  He will likely ask the competitor in question to weigh his seat (you do have scales at your local event don't you?).  So the offending seat is determined to be illegal as its under weight and therefore unsafe.  So the offender is dsq'ed for the day, after he competed with his unsafe seat and the next week he comes back with 12 lbs of lead zip tied to the back of the seat.  Since the seat now weighs 20 lbs, it is therefore deemed safe by the glory of our esteemed seat safety rule.  See how easily it works. 

By the way, the tech guy told him the seat was unsafe but couldn't do anything about it.  And when he returned a week later with the extra weight on it, he again told the guy it was unsafe but could do nothing to prevent the car from running. 

See how effective this rule is?  It totally prevents the guy from having any competitive advantage from running an ultra-light seat. 

---

Steve Hoelscher
#27 DP - Toyota MR2
http://www.terriehoward.com

ESP89:

I don't think you find anyone that really likes the seat weight rules in ST or SP.  You seem to understand the problems with stupid seats so write a rule that is better than this one.  This rule as are many is a compromise and the best we could come up.  Do a better job and I am sure the current SEB will thank you.  :)

Marcus

Former SEB member

A compromise? From what? Objections were raised about the mounting and the weigh aspects. If you wanted to outlaw kart seats, that could have been accomplished by stating that the seat had to have been made for use in an automobile and passed the minimal standard for FIA homologation. All but the cheapest POS seats qualify. If there can be a rule about the secure mounting of bolt-in roll bars, then there can be the same kind of rule written about seats.  Grade 5 hardware minimum, minimum bolt size, require backing plates if the bolt doesn't run through a structural part of the car. Brackets must be 6061 Aluminum of a minimal width and thickness. Hint: 1-inch by .125 thickness is plenty. Restraints cannot be mounted to the seat, but can share secure mounting points. How hard is that?

 

---

Bob Beamesderfer '94 CSP Miata
Cal Club and SDR

ESP89

The rule should read

Any seat designed and intended for use an automobile with an minimum 24 inch seat back (not including headrest) and that is securely mounted is allowed. 

I spent a few min writing that post and wrote a far superior version of the rule.  Is there a way I can submit suggested rule changes to the SEB?  I could add afew things like minimum 4 mounting points per seat, grade 8 hardware or comparable/better required.  backing plates/washers/reinforcement required if mounted through floor pan and not mounted to the stock mounts.

 

 

turbozmike:

  I could add afew things like minimum 4 mounting points per seat, grade 8 hardware or comparable/better required.  backing plates/washers/reinforcement required if mounted through floor pan and not mounted to the stock mounts.

 

Actually, in this application Grade 5 is probably a better choice. Grade 5 hardware is more resilient than Grade 8 or Ti. Rock climbers use G5 expansion anchors on bolted routes. G8 is unnecessarily expensive and not a good choice where vibrational loads exist along more than one axis.  

 

---

Bob Beamesderfer '94 CSP Miata
Cal Club and SDR