SCCAForums.com

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. 

 no,i completely understood. as marka stated, you are not allowed to do what you are proposing. if you did, then you would be cheating.

i think the rule you are qouting would be good for say a 2004 s2000 to 2008 s2000 CR. you can convert the 04 to CR specs if you swap over the complete option package. you are not allowed to just pull the faster rack, and leave off the heavy ass lip and spoiler. currently, these cars are both on the same stock class line and SP lines, which will allow this.

Actually, converting an '04 to '08 CR specs would be illegal in Stock because it involves separate model years.  The rule is pretty clear on this.  The SP classification of the car is completely irrelevant when considering the Stock class conversion clause.  And yes, the conversion has to be complete in every way - right down to the badging if appropriate.

The question becomes whether or not the conversion is considered an "Option Package" or a separate model.  Option package conversions are legal in Stock, regardless of class (4-cylinder Accord -> V6 Accord, HS -> GS for example).  I believe the rulebook supports the idea that the M3 is an Option Package of the 3-series cars.  See the DS listing for the 6-cylinder 3-series cars... it specifically identifies the (non-M) NOC cars as DS.  If the cars were separate models, the designation (non-M) would not be necessary.

Regardless, it would be a long way to go to solve a problem.  And, as Mark notes, the burden on the competitor to show that their car is a complete and legal conversion would be substantial in the event of a protest.

A VIN check wouldn't prove anything on a legally converted car.  Most cars have the option packages built into the VIN now.  For example, converting an automatic car into a manual is clearly legal in Stock (provided its complete), but the VIN would not match that of a manual transmission car.

Andy 

adhowe70:

Actually, converting an '04 to '08 CR specs would be illegal in Stock because it involves separate model years.

okie, maybe i was wrong on this. i do not know all the stock class rules, as i never competed there. that is how i interpreted them. 

adhowe70:

.A VIN check wouldn't prove anything on a legally converted car. 

now you are arguing just to argue. the vin tells whether the car is an m3 or a standard 3 series. converting a 3 series into an m3 is clearly not legal.

prostcj:

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.

What we can't  just have a "fuel cell" rule?

Meth/Alcohol injection helps protect an engine.

Letting people tub the car out for bigger tires would be nice, but that gets into changing the frame.

I don't see alcohol injection becoming legal in any classes, due to the fact that it is explicitly made not legal in the safety section, 3.3.3.A.19.

19) Alcohol may not be used in manifold injection or spray bottles
unless it is specified for this use by the OEM.

 It is as illegal as those "spinner" steering wheel knobs.
 

I'd like to look at the FI adder vs. multiplier outside of any given chassis. Assume you're already happily at a given, competitive weight.

Would you rather have:

An FI 1.6L or an NA 3.0L?
An FI 2.0L or an NA 3.4L?
An FI 3.0L or an NA 4.4L?
An FI 4.0L or an NA 5.4L?

In all four of the questions above, assuming a seriously built engine, I'd rather have the FI one (and am building one) for two reasons:

1) I think it'll make equal or possibly better torque and power (think twinscrew if you fear turbo lag)
2) If I'm going to lay down thousands to build, I'd rather invest in an engine that can be easily converted to run on pump gas if/when I ever need to part the car out or sell it to someone with different goals. I can't imagine the resale market on 13.5:1 NA engines is too hot.

I'm not saying that Miatas are or aren't at the right weight, but I'm not sure the problem is with the FI adder, though that is an easy thing to point to. I think it already (slightly) favors FI over NA, and changing it to a multiplier would make a 1.6L FI equal a 2.2L NA -- that seems like an easy choice to me.

mageep:

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.

A Miata at 2240 lbs and 340whp will have about the exact same weight/power ratio as my RX-7 at Nationals this year. Seriously, a Miata with that kind of power will do just fine if the rest of it is done properly.

-Andy M. 

Rodney:

now you are arguing just to argue. the vin tells whether the car is an m3 or a standard 3 series. converting a 3 series into an m3 is clearly not legal.

Kudos.  Way to dodge the substantive part of my post.  A more productive response would have been to refute my arguments about whether an M3 and a 3 series are separate models or merely different option packages.  But your insightful post has made me see the light.

On topic:  What would I personally like to see in the future of SM?  Rules stability.  Without it, I'm going to pick up my marbles and go back to Stock.  I'm tired of trying to hit a moving target.
 

boxboy:

mageep:

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.

A Miata at 2240 lbs and 340whp will have about the exact same weight/power ratio as my RX-7 at Nationals this year. Seriously, a Miata with that kind of power will do just fine if the rest of it is done properly.

-Andy M. 

Not to split hairs, but if you take that "critical mass" number down to 320 hp and change the FI penalty from an adder to a multiplier the weight to power ratio stays just about the same.  Even so, the chassis ( I know I coulda/shoulda/woulda picked a dfferent one) will still be tire limited in relation to the rx-7s and corvettes.  320 is a pretty healthy FI engine from a 1.8.  Glenn's car ,the old Pedroza machine, might be making that much power, but he is in XP now.  I am 100% certain that half the SM2 miatas at nationals this year were nowhere near 300 HP and am reasonably sure the other half weren't either.  Are we going to be closer next year?  I sure hope so, but I can tell you my target HP is still below 300.  I know it's not about what is out there, but about what could be out there.  But a reasonably reliable 340hp Miata is not something I see lots of folks building. 

I know I have a dog in this fight.  But if we lowered the penalty there might be more dogs, maybe even some different kind of dogs who knows....
 

ChrisSwearingen:

But a reasonably reliable 340hp Miata is not something I see lots of folks building. 

Andy, how many times have you rebuilt your engine?

What's the old addage? You can have fast, cheap, or reliable. Pick two.

Joking aside, I think the engine you describe is cheaper and more probable than a lot of other engines. It's one of the most common sports car engines ever made. There's a formula already out there, proven to work. It just takes some money. That's the exact reason I went with the setup I did: there are many examples of people who have built almost the exact engine I'm building. 200whp/liter in an FI motor isn't all that exotic, and you can usually acheive it with a very good torque curve, especially with a blower.

ChrisSwearingen:

I know it's not about what is out there, but about what could be out there.

You got it right here. We don't have the flexibility to change the class every few months as people make strides in development, not to mention that would be a huge disaster. We don't need "lots of folks" building the Miata we are all thinking of in our heads. We need one or two. For every "ultimate Miata" built, I'd expect quite a few lesser prepared examples to start showing up. I applaud you guys who are giving it (and have given it) a go. I'm doing the same with my MR2. A lot of what we debate is perception, and it only takes one car and one person to change that.

rnoll98:

Joking aside, I think the engine you describe is cheaper and more probable than a lot of other engines. It's one of the most common sports car engines ever made. There's a formula already out there, proven to work.

 Please tell me that formula involves a twin screw blower and a '99 head with some intercooling and water injection in a white '92 chassis ....

adhowe70:

Kudos.  Way to dodge the substantive part of my post.  A more productive response would have been to refute my arguments about whether an M3 and a 3 series are separate models or merely different option packages.  But your insightful post has made me see the light.

 again, you are arguing just to argue. the m3 and 325 are two different models, no updating/backdating between the two. end of story.

adhowe70:

On topic:  What would I personally like to see in the future of SM?  Rules stability.  Without it, I'm going to pick up my marbles and go back to Stock.  I'm tired of trying to hit a moving target.

ah, you have been in SM, what? 15 minutes? i have been here since the introduction of the class, and have seen it go through many transformations, most of them favorable. i would like to see the class progress, and try to even out the playing field between the wildly different chassis that can compete there.  i am in a chassis that is not supposed to do well, but i like the challenge and creativity of the class. if you can't handle an ever-evolving class, you are right, stock is for you.

I was reading these posts and you guys had some good ideas.......

So, I then thought I would talk to the wife about all this-----

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' she said " I will go along with the screw, as long as I get some alcohol, but you know me and you know Jewish girls, so you can forget that blower"

David Lehman:

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' she said " I will go along with the screw, as long as I get some alcohol, but you know me and you know Jewish girls, so you can forget that blower"

You didn't mention that it was a Twin-Screw, did you?

boxboy:

A Miata at 2240 lbs and 340whp will have about the exact same weight/power ratio as my RX-7 at Nationals this year.

-Andy M. 

Yeah, but I meant W/P ratio in the DRY, Andy! ;)

 I appreciate your $.02, but I guess I'm a little unclear on the thinking. If I could ask you to elaborate..The RX7s are not drastically heavier than I am thinking, are they?

Did anyone check SM class this year or last for guys running methonal injection? 

I'd like to see the Civic/Integra ASR subframe brace be unquestionably legal for SM. 14.7/8:"Non-standard lateral members which connect between the brackets for the bar are not permitted."

I agree with Rodney's update/backdate on the same chassis point.

Twisted:

Did anyone check SM class this year or last for guys running methonal injection? 

In general I'd say,
It's SM, give us some room to play! 

gtitronic:

I agree with Rodney's update/backdate on the same chassis point.

The way to do this is to propose the following rules change:

The allowance inherited from 15.1.C regarding the interchange of specifications between different years and models of vehicles is extended to include all variants and years of the model in question, regardless of classification in Street Prepared.  Model is taken to be as defined in 12.3.

Andy