SCCAForums.com

hey all, just curious what future allowances you would like to see in SM. please, no moronic things like "fwd gets slicks, awd has to run 195 width blizzaks". well, as much as i would like that one, it would never get passed. things imho, that should be part of the rules structure would be:

1) all cars can update/backdate to the same chassis, regardless of trim. ie: all e36 3 series on the same line, all 5th generation civics on the same line etc. currently, many cars are segmented into multiple SP classes. this would allow little parts to be added/removed so you do not have the pick the "perfect" chassis to begin with.

2) mirrors: i have seen numerous people at local and even national events with swapped mirrors. i think this should be a legal mod.

 anybody else have any ideas that would be beneficial for most if not all cars? 

3) Change forced induction "penalty" from an adder to a multiplier ( Helps all cars under 5 liters)

4) Allow ballast to be bolted anywhere not just in the trunk 

prostcj:

Alky/meth injection.

 isn't that forbidden from solo altogether?

Rodney:

prostcj:

Alky/meth injection.

 isn't that forbidden from solo altogether?

Pretty much.  3.6.B prohibits the use of oxygen or nitrogen bearing additives in all Solo classes except as present in service station fuels.  This rule applies to SP, SM, P, and M.  S and ST have an even tighter restriction (pump fuels).  I'm not sure who's left.

Andy 

Rodney:

prostcj:

Alky/meth injection.

 isn't that forbidden from solo altogether?

It's a safety thing.  Do you really want people driving around a solo course with a gallon or so of flammable liquid in "any old container" in their car?  As I stated in the other tread about this, I believe it can be legal in SM - if a replacement fuel tank (an allowed mod in SM) has two sections - one for gasoline and the other for the alcohol (E85).  Everything else - lines, injectors, intake, fuel pumps, etc. are free.

If you are talking about pure alcohol - do we REALLY want 100% pure alcohol burning race cars (the logical end result of this allowance) and all that entails?  Invisible fires, water fire extinguishers, drums of water, full race suits...
 

I'm with you.  I can see how it would be hard to control the safety of the second tank (I'm talking about injection into the intake).  I know in our region there have been a couple guys you just turn off the system to run with the plastic meth containers still in the trunk.  I would think this would be just as illegal since it is a safety thing.

I've just never heard of a safety problem with any of the alky/meth systems.  I have heard of engines blowing due to clogged lines, bad pumps, etc. I think NASA allows such systems so maybe there is a precident there.  The only reason I keep bringing it up is because I think that secondary injection could safely be incorporated into the rules of SM.....but then again, maybe it's more trouble than it's worth.

Rodney:

1) all cars can update/backdate to the same chassis, regardless of trim. ie: all e36 3 series on the same line, all 5th generation civics on the same line etc. currently, many cars are segmented into multiple SP classes. this would allow little parts to be added/removed so you do not have the pick the "perfect" chassis to begin with.

With the unlimited engine/drivetrain swapping choice, and pretty good freedom in the suspension/brake department , what type of parts are you looking to swap between models, that you can't now?

Erik Strelnieks

ErikZ06:

what type of parts are you looking to swap between models, that you can't now?

Erik Strelnieks

well, in regards to the 92-95 civics that i know most intimately, i would be able to remove pass mirror, rear wiper, sound deadening etc. i see it only as making a particular chassis the same as it's lighter optioned brethen. it is only as fair as e36's being able to swap doors to the lightweight. i remember having this conversation with Vic a few years back, as the e36 based non m3's wanted the doors and other trinkets.

 i agree that alky will cause more problems, so imho it should be left out of solo altogether.

If we're going to go past the UD/BD allowance as defined in SP, why not allow the swapping of parts from any year in a model series?  Or any US-spec part from that manufacturer?  Or from non-US market cars?  The line has to be drawn somewhere and many of these "stock" parts are direct-fit within the guidelines of SP except for the source of the new part.

Personally, I like the current update/backdate rule.  It has its issues, but its does form a natural progression from SP.

Andy 

adhowe70:

 why not allow the swapping of parts from any year in a model series?  Or any US-spec part from that manufacturer?  Or from non-US market cars? 

now, that is going off the deep end... i am just saying, that if vic's 95 m3 can swap to alum doors, why can't i swap my 95 325 to the same doors since i have the same exact chassis? that is a valid arguement i have heard. it makes not have to get the "perfect" chassis, as you can change your configuration around to the lightest of that model. putting parts from a 1992 cabriolet on a 1977 scirocco is not the point here... oh wait, that is legal in fsp

I've only just started in SM & SCCA and don't know the rule book inside out, but I'd like to be able to remove that damn carpet padding!

One simple desire...
 

Rodney,

Thinking out loud and taking your argument about the 325 / M3 in a different direction...

How close are the 325 and M3 in other specs?  The chassis originated as a 325, but could it be converted to M3 specs under the Stock class conversion rules?  After this conversion, could it then be modified under the rules of SP/SM to the desired configuration?  The list of parts that can't be swapped in SM is really pretty small so the parts to be converted to make a legal "M3" would be pretty small.

Same thing with your Civic... what would it take to convert your car to DX specs and then prep it for SM?  (I understand that is is a cart before the horse problem now, but the resulting configuration would be the same.)

I think you can have those parts as long as your conversion to the specs of a vehicle on the same line in SP is complete, discounting the SM legal mods that happen "after" the conversion.

What do you think?

Andy
 

adhowe70:

How close are the 325 and M3 in other specs?  The chassis originated as a 325, but could it be converted to M3 specs under the Stock class conversion rules? 

m3 and 325 are in different stock classes, AS & DS iirc

adhowe70:

After this conversion, could it then be modified under the rules of SP/SM to the desired configuration?  The list of parts that can't be swapped in SM is really pretty small so the parts to be converted to make a legal "M3" would be pretty small.

incorrect. m3 is in BSP, the 325 is in DSP. there is NO update/backdate between the two, as they are in different SP classes.

adhowe70:

Same thing with your Civic... what would it take to convert your car to DX specs and then prep it for SM? I think you can have those parts as long as your conversion to the specs of a vehicle on the same line in SP is complete,

 again, my civic is an si. they both start out life in HS, then like the bimmers, are segmented into different SP classes. the si is DSP and the DX is FSP. so, again there is no update/backdate between the two. the result is starting with a more heavily optioned vehicle in SM. i made this mistake when i purchased the car back in 99. since this is SM, imho this is an allowance that i think is totally reasonable.

my goal for this ruling is to benefit all other vehicles then the dominant ones. the m3 and evo are already the top dogs, and they can update/backdate between their current SP lines to convert their vehicle to the best possible configurations for SM. why can't we attempt to level the bar?

for me personally, this arguement doesn;t matter. i am building a completely new car that will not be hindered by this, but i am thinking for the good of everyone else.

1-4 all look good to me, but I'd want to change the multiplier for 3 from 1.4 (which is about right for 6-8 psi) to a more realistic 2.0.

And I'd like to see the weight minimums cap at 4.0 liters displacement, since 100 HP per liter is easy under the rules.  The SMAC has already stated that over 400 hp is relatively unusable.  Little 1.6 liter Toyota motors legal for the class often make 250 HP in Formula Atlantic trim, which is about 150 HP per liter.

Justin

Admittedly this is only my first year in SM2 after about 3 years in CS, and 2 in STS2 before that (we ran STS2 before SCCA recognized it as a provisional class), but I have to agree with Chris re: the multiplier versus adder for the forced induction cars.

 Frankly, after seeing it in a few different places, I had to lean on some of my more seasoned SM2 Nat competitors to make sure I had the correct understanding. But with that in mind, I was pretty shocked tp learn it was an adder and not a multiplier

So for a RWD SM2 car that equates to:

1600 pounds + 200 pounds / liter (1.8+1.4= 3.2... 3.2 x 200= 640) = 2240 minimum weight... If it were a multiplier, that min. weight drops to 2104.

FWIW, in my rush to get my Miata converted from CS to SM2, the only areas I touched were the supercharger, the suspension, and wheels and tires. No new seats, steering wheel, body panels or the like to reduce weight. All were as-installed by Mazda. And I was weighed in at 2262 -- only 22 pounds over minimum weight. Good thing I had 3 more gallons of gas than I needed! ;)

I understand it from many of the companies buliding FI Miatas, you really start to hit critical mass on a 1.8 Miata at just over 300 RWHP -- Let's say 340. Even at that output, the Miata will always be at a drastic disadvantage versus the RX7s from a pure power/weight ratio. Sure, PWR isn't EVERYTHING, but it is a very big thing. With that in mind, I am not positive, but I am going to guess conservatively most RX7s (whether 2 or 3-rotor) are at maybe 500+RWHP and 2500 pounds. So for a comparably fragile and stout 340 RWHP Miata to match that ratio, it would have to cross the scales at 1700 pounds. I know. Very fuzzy, but just to make the basic point.

Now I don't intend this at all as sour grapes. Quite the contrary. I really enjoyed my new class-mates in SM2. GREAT group. Fortunately for me, weight limit aside, my driving precludes me from being a trophy-grade competitor. But what is the goal of the rules? Is it more to create a spec class or to encourage inclusion? If it is the latter, I think changing to a multiplier grows the options for the SM2 class, and makes some of the fringe competitors step up.

Stepping off of my soapbox now... Thanks for listening

Torque arms.  Cross brace welded/bolted between subframe connectors for the sole purpose of mounting the T/A.

Tubular K-members.  Using the original factory mounting points. 

No alky/meth. 

Howdy,

If you can find a way to write the rule, I tend to agree that update/backdate should be per chassis, not per line in the SP rules.

It doesn't make any sense at all that a non-M3 E36 can't run the lightweight doors like its M3 brother can.

Mark

Rodney:

adhowe70:

How close are the 325 and M3 in other specs?  The chassis originated as a 325, but could it be converted to M3 specs under the Stock class conversion rules? 

m3 and 325 are in different stock classes, AS & DS iirc

I think you lost what I was trying to say right here at the beginning. 

In Stock you can convert one car into another provided the conversion is complete and the resulting car matches the factory specifications.  This applies independent of which class the two cars are in.  If this is possible, one could convert a '96 3-series coupe into a '96 M3 (yes, this would change its class... but that doesn't matter.)  The resulting car would be, for our purposes, an E36 M3.  Then move to the SP rules and update / backdate within the guidlines of what you can do to an E36 M3 in SP.  Then move to SM and prep the car for the class. 
Does this make sense?

I think the mechanism to do what you want to do is already in place.  You just have to be creative to make it happen.

Howdy,

adhowe70:

I think you lost what I was trying to say right here at the beginning. 

In Stock you can convert one car into another provided the conversion is complete and the resulting car matches the factory specifications.  This applies independent of which class the two cars are in.  If this is possible, one could convert a '96 3-series coupe into a '96 M3 (yes, this would change its class... but that doesn't matter.)  The resulting car would be, for our purposes, an E36 M3.  Then move to the SP rules and update / backdate within the guidlines of what you can do to an E36 M3 in SP.  Then move to SM and prep the car for the class. 
Does this make sense?

I think the mechanism to do what you want to do is already in place.  You just have to be creative to make it happen.

First, even in your example, prove that the car is exactly the same as a '96 M3.  The VINs won't match, and that alone disqualifies it for many people.

Second, the M3 was only out from '95 to '99 or whatever... I.e. if you've got a '92 325 (first year of the E36 IIRC), you're still out of luck.

In SP, any time I can think of where a chassis is split across multiple lines, it would seem to be primarily due to drivetrain differences...  I.e M3 vs. other E36, Corvette ZR1 vs. other C4's, Civics in DSP/FSP (I don't know they cars as well though), Subaru Imprezza vs. WRX vs. STi, and probably others.

In SM, where drivetrains are unlimited (at least in this regard), this is a pretty darned artificial line in the sand.  It makes a _lot_ more sense to limit UD/BD to all cars that share a chassis.  My only question would be if there's a way to write that rule without listing every car model like SP does.

Mark