SCCAForums.com

Rodney:

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

I agree. 

Rodney:

rnoll98:

Given that it sounds like FWD cars are maxxed out no matter what the rules (they can't get lighter or effectively use more power), do you think putting an SM2 Miata in with the SM FWD cars per this "SM Lite" makes sense? It sounds like anything RWD would put power down much better than anything FWD.

 well, in a perfect world we would segment SM into drivetrains, and have FWD SM etc... but, since the class is already segmented into 2 classes already, why not move the rules around to suit everyone? personally, i think a high hp miata is going to be tough to put the power down, hence a better match for the FWD competitors vs m3/rally car. on the flip side, i think a miata would rather run against me then a rx7/vette. so, basically you take the two backmarkers of SM and SM2, and put them together, and the winning cars of the classes and run them together. i have been around a while, and i am just making suggestions to make the class more competitive for most. the only people i can see that have a problem with this are the class winners.... why, you don't want any competition? 

129STS:

Add 200 lb to min weight to cars that want to run 285 and wider rubber.  So you could still build Vic's M3 or Andy's RX7 to their level of prep.  The advantage would be that you can ballast them as needed back up to their new mins.

 

 i cannot speak for SM2 cars, but in SM adding 200 lbs to the 285+ shod crowd will not change anything. daddio's car would not change, as he is a few hundred over now. similiar with the sias car, although he may only have to add only about 40lbs or so. it would have to be more then 200, and then i think it is totally unreasonable. 

I agree that brining up the minimum weight of the higher powered cars will not change anything. I don't think we should get hung up on tire width either. I personally feel the 275 for the miata is pretty decent size for what the car weights, granted still not quite on the same level as an RX7, M3, Vette, but the main reason it gives up on Contact Patch is the Tire Height, that is where the smaller cars are giving up in Braking and Accel Traction. Put a set of 305s on Andy's RX7 that are 23" tall and watch it become as slow as a miata.

Father LeadFoot:

I agree that brining up the minimum weight of the higher powered cars will not change anything. I don't think we should get hung up on tire width either. I personally feel the 275 for the miata is pretty decent size for what the car weights, granted still not quite on the same level as an RX7, M3, Vette, but the main reason it gives up on Contact Patch is the Tire Height, that is where the smaller cars are giving up in Braking and Accel Traction. Put a set of 305s on Andy's RX7 that are 23" tall and watch it become as slow as a miata.

So what do you purpose Logan?  You said earlier that you want the MR2s and Elises in your SM Lite class, and both of those cars can run the big tires, AND put power down BETTER than the RX7s.  So why are the RX7's scary, and the MR2s and Elises not?

129STS:

Father LeadFoot:

I agree that brining up the minimum weight of the higher powered cars will not change anything. I don't think we should get hung up on tire width either. I personally feel the 275 for the miata is pretty decent size for what the car weights, granted still not quite on the same level as an RX7, M3, Vette, but the main reason it gives up on Contact Patch is the Tire Height, that is where the smaller cars are giving up in Braking and Accel Traction. Put a set of 305s on Andy's RX7 that are 23" tall and watch it become as slow as a miata.

So what do you purpose Logan?  You said earlier that you want the MR2s and Elises in your SM Lite class, and both of those cars can run the big tires, AND put power down BETTER than the RX7s.  So why are the RX7's scary, and the MR2s and Elises not?

Good points, I had forgot that an MR2 could get that 285/30/18 under the car and of course the advantages of mid engine. You know I could probably run a staggered setup on the miata with the 275/35/15 Fronts and 285/30/18s in the rear with just a tad more ride height...that would make it close to a MR2 or Elise, but further stretch an advantage out on the Hondas. Hmmmmm, that would put Miatas and Civics right back where they are now. Hahah, alright lets go back to Mid-engined not being allowed in any SM classes.

Would proposing a tire height be a totally rediculous suggestion?

Rodney:

what do you guys think of SM being split into 2 weight based classes? for instance SM light and SM heavy. i would say the weight break about 2400. this would merge the SM2 winning cars with SM winners, and imho, i think it is totally reasonable. on the other side of the coin, the backmarkers in both classes will be up against each other.  

i totally support this even before all these weight penalty/breaks and other formulas. How about SM-GT (AS to DS?) and and SM-Touring (ES to HS?) :) but whatever we end up calling it I think it will work. let sportscars race sportscars, let the losing sportscar owner accept defeat easier, so to speak. I never feel bad for losing because I have the crapmobile in SM2, it does suck for the newbs and seasoned sportscar owners i happen to beat, sometimes i feel like apologizing (for the crapmobile and the fumes at the grid)

as for  the alternative sidemirrors, well you know I support that as well. most ricers replace sidemirrors before hoods and SM was created for them :P

Father LeadFoot:

Would proposing a tire height be a totally rediculous suggestion?

This is something I've bit my tongue on because I don't have an evidence to back it up either way. I personally think factors like pressure, sidewall height, camber, tire volume, etc. could effect contact patch as much as diameter while the car is in motion. Some would even argue that the taller sidewall on the 275/17 should put power down better than the short sidewall of the 285/18. But, I don't posess the formula to figure it all out. I don't know how you'd come up with data to support either side. If we were going to go there, I'd also want it weighed against the extra inch or more in lower CG that the car could acheive on the smaller tire. I think there are a lot of cars in the field running higher ride heights than they'd like in order to fit bigger tires. I'd guess the corvettes are the only cars that might not be in this scenario. I know the RX7s could go lower on smaller tires.

Your idea to run staggered tires is a good one. I believe there was a car running 225/15 (14?) fronts and 245/16 rears a few years back. Those would be the same heights as 275/15 and 285/18. Off hand, that's the same combo I'm starting on with my 2500# MR2, and I'm making that same decision to ride a little higher in back in order to put a wider tire on.

While we're talking about putting power down. Has anyone run the numbers on what the F/R dist would be on a CSP miata that's ballasted up to SM2 weight with all the ballast in the trunk? I have a hunch that you could acheive >50% rear bias.

rnoll98:

snip

While we're talking about putting power down. Has anyone run the numbers on what the F/R dist would be on a CSP miata that's ballasted up to SM2 weight with all the ballast in the trunk? I have a hunch that you could acheive >50% rear bias.

 

Not sure about a CSP car, but here are my sm2 weights from last year, with A/C, PS, radio, speakers, soft top, and hitch. No ballast at all.  Edit: no ballast but the driver.  The car is at minimum weight.

*corner weight calculation courtesy of Dennis Grant FarNorthRacing.com

itsrip:

 How about a SM 3 for all the Camaro’s & Mustangs’ that are over prepared for ESP & under for CP ??

 

Rodney:

what do you guys think of SM being split into 2 weight based classes? for instance SM light and SM heavy. i would say the weight break about 2400. this would merge the SM2 winning cars with SM winners, and imho, i think it is totally reasonable. on the other side of the coin, the backmarkers in both classes will be up against each other.  

It sounds like SM and SM2 maybe ready for adjustments to allow more growth and closer competition. Adding a third Street Mod class (SM Heavy or SM3 ?) could achieve more participation by adding another link between SP and Prepared.  For example, there are a lot of cars caught between ESP and CP and because of the level of completion with cars that have more refined chassis, they won't participate. Personally I would move to SM3 but never to CP due to the amount of "Surgery" it requires. 

itsrip:

 How about a SM 3 for all the Camaro’s & Mustangs’ that are over prepared for ESP & under for CP ??

 

i have never seen a camaro/mustang prepped to the limit in SM. there are rarely at local events, and rarely if ever at national events. creating a class specifically for them would be counter productive. if there ever is a SM3, it better be for FWD, as we have prepped to class rules, and deemed still competitive. 

boxboy:

So please continue the thread and throw 'em out there. 
 

-Andy

 I can open this can of worms again... allow inner fender modifications (IE mini-tub) ...but restrict it to ONLY the fenders and nothing else. This may bring back a lot of C5s into the mix, mainly because currently in order to have 335s in the rear...we have to go out which puts our wheel base at 1.5 RX7s wide.

Howdy,

Rodney:

i have never seen a camaro/mustang prepped to the limit in SM. there are rarely at local events, and rarely if ever at national events. creating a class specifically for them would be counter productive. if there ever is a SM3, it better be for FWD, as we have prepped to class rules, and deemed still competitive.

I've never seen _any_ "prepped to the limit" SM car period, including the car that won the national championship this year.  What's your point?

Around here, SM ponycars are just as popular as any other SM car.  Nationally you'd have to be a complete lunatic to think you could compete with a pony car, even before the AWD wonder cars started being developed.

Btw, I have to laugh when I hear someone propose "SM Heavy" and have a proposed weight of 2600 lbs... :-)

How about a 3000 lb weight limit, at least 50% of the weight on the front wheels, and 2wd?  _THAT_ would be SM Heavy... :-)

Mark

(whose apparently non-existent SM camaro is going back to ESP this year) 

Howdy,

MrPickles:

I can open this can of worms again... allow inner fender modifications (IE mini-tub) ...but restrict it to ONLY the fenders and nothing else. This may bring back a lot of C5s into the mix, mainly because currently in order to have 335s in the rear...we have to go out which puts our wheel base at 1.5 RX7s wide.

Personally, I think this is already legal per 16.1.P.  If its not, then that section of the rules should just be removed.

Mark 

That would hitch on a PC's interpretation of "minor".  If you cut away 2" of the fiberglass inner fender on a Vette and move it in, is that the same as a metal car cutting a similar size piece?  Does it become  "not minor" at 3"?

 The minor mods rule allows alot of leeway to do "logical" things that are hard to write specific rules to encompass, but it is obviously grey.

-Andy M.

boxboy:

That would hitch on a PC's interpretation of "minor".  If you cut away 2" of the fiberglass inner fender on a Vette and move it in, is that the same as a metal car cutting a similar size piece?  Does it become  "not minor" at 3"?

 The minor mods rule allows alot of leeway to do "logical" things that are hard to write specific rules to encompass, but it is obviously grey.

 

-Andy M.

Isn't there a rule that specifies "No body modifications behind the hub face" or something along those lines? If that were the case to allow the Vettes to do that, then I'd would want the rule to allow modifications to the inner fender wells to try and fit 285/30R18s.

Then I would proceed to rule SM2, Bwahahahah.  I can dream at least......

marka:

MrPickles:

I can open this can of worms again... allow inner fender modifications (IE mini-tub) ...but restrict it to ONLY the fenders and nothing else. This may bring back a lot of C5s into the mix, mainly because currently in order to have 335s in the rear...we have to go out which puts our wheel base at 1.5 RX7s wide.

Personally, I think this is already legal per 16.1.P.  If its not, then that section of the rules should just be removed.

I sent letters back in 2004 about this (asking for both SP and SM clarifications) and was told this was definitely not allowed in either class and the SPAC later added the hub face rule.

 

Rob, the rules are what they are.  The only thing "definite" is that a PC would make a decision based upon the wording the existing rules.  While SM absorbs the SP rules for fender flaring, the "minor mods" rule opens things up a bit.   For example on a metal fendered car I'd accept some banging away with a hammer to get "some" more inner fender clearance as perfectly legal, thought that's just my interpretation of "minor" mods to facilitate and allowable change like big tires.  Where you draw the line would be up to the PC, and they very well might say the wording is too vague, do what you want.

 So how wide are the Vette's running the 335's, anyway?  My RX7 is over 74" wide in the rear.

 -Andy M.

MrPickles:

 I can open this can of worms again... allow inner fender modifications (IE mini-tub) ...but restrict it to ONLY the fenders and nothing else. This may bring back a lot of C5s into the mix, mainly because currently in order to have 335s in the rear...we have to go out which puts our wheel base at 1.5 RX7s wide.

isn't that already allowed in XP? i  think cutting up the unibody should be a Mod class modification, not something in the Street classes.

marka:

I've never seen _any_ "prepped to the limit" SM car period, including the car that won the national championship this year.  What's your point? 

 calm down there cowboy... i have nothing against the domestic iron... i was saying f bodies/mustangs are few and far between in sm. creating a class just for that style car is pointless, as there are not many fielded. yes, i am probably biased as there are none running around me, but i cannot remember any national event where one showed up, much less prepped. actually, the romulus tour, there was a guy with a mustang i think. conversely, i think vic's car is pretty well prepped. you are saying my car is not well prepped? 

boxboy:

So how wide are the Vette's running the 335's, anyway?  My RX7 is over 74" wide in the rear.

 -Andy M.

i would like to know as well. my civic is at 73" in the front, not exactly thin.... :P 

boxboy:

Rob, the rules are what they are.  The only thing "definite" is that a PC would make a decision based upon the wording the existing rules.  While SM absorbs the SP rules for fender flaring, the "minor mods" rule opens things up a bit.   For example on a metal fendered car I'd accept some banging away with a hammer to get "some" more inner fender clearance as perfectly legal, thought that's just my interpretation of "minor" mods to facilitate and allowable change like big tires.  Where you draw the line would be up to the PC, and they very well might say the wording is too vague, do what you want.

Banging, yes...  Tubing involves cutting the chassis and moving it inboard 3-6" and then re-fiberglassing the cut piece.  On a Vette, I could do the work in a couple hours with $5 worth of materials - a minor modification in my book (and is one of the reasons that I could see it being legal under the minor modifications allowance).  But it's the changing the chassis that tortures the rule for me.  That is why I asked for a clarification.  I got it, it wasn't legal.  Here is a thread reference from 2004 (same people talking about the same topic FTW). 

http://sccaforums.com/forums/5/123510/ShowThread.aspx  

SpyderVenom:

Tubing involves cutting the chassis and moving it inboard 3-6" and then re-fiberglassing the cut piece....

[cheapshot] hey tubby, it is "tubbing" not "tubing"....[/cheapshot]