SCCAForums.com

CamaroFS34:

SpyderVenom:

A well written letter to be sure but let's look at the rule:

4.9 MINIMUM PARTICIPATION LEVEL FOR NATIONAL 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. This is not intended as the only criterion for class consolidation, elimination, or restructuring; the SEB may pursue such actions as deemed necessary to address participation problems. The SEB may take into account participation levels at other events such as National Tours when making decisions regarding the need for changes.

Emphasis mine.  

Classes that do not meet minimum participation levels must be adjusted by the SEB.  That is what the rule says. 

Red bolding is mine. If you're going to quote something, make sure it actually completely supports your argument. The classes must be looked at by the SEB, but they do not have to consolidate or eliminate solely based on attendance at the National Championships, and they can come up with other plans to increase participation "as deemed necessary".

Underlining mine...   

I took that part of the rule the complete other way...  If read with emphasis on the word only, restructuring may be done by the SEB even before the stated limits are reached.  For example, if there are 17 GP cars in the entire nation and they all only show up at Nationals, but each only shows up at 1 NT or Divisional, then the SEB may decide to look at the lack of participation in NTs and restructure the class.  For example, the recent move of the Miata (I'm forgetting the exact model) from CS to ES was a 'restructure' of the ES class but was done even though ES was making it's numbers.  17 is the limit where the SEB must do something.  At least that is how I've read the rule and had it explained to me in the past...

Replying to Pat Washburn -- Certainly alternatives are possible. But looking at some of them, and the way things seem headed today. it just seemed a better solution was to eliminate the rule altogether. It just strikes me as a solution looking for a problem. I would agree that "Having a couple classes where just one or two people show up every year would just be sad" except that we have almost 35 of them now -- Ladies classes. Thing is, I also agree with and accept the concept of the Ladies' classes, so that becomes a non-argument for me.

--Rocky

Replying to Rob Leone, Karen Kraus -- The rule specifies three options should a class fall afoul of the dreaded 17 cutoff: consolidate, eliminate, restructure.

One class has so far fallen to this rule -- B Prepared. The option chosen? Eliminate.

And by doing so we accomplished what, exactly?

I challenge the very concept that anything "must" be done as a matter of rule. I much prefer the concept that the SEB can look at any class, any car, at any time, and evaluate it and make changes as appropriate -- with proper notification  to the membership and a proper timeline for a change to be effected. (And making a group of cars uncompetitive is not an acceptable solution.)

The 17 rule is unnecessary, but while it exists it forces changes that may not be needed (under this rule A Mod should be long gone!). But if the SEB can find a better way to do something, it should pursue that. However some things might be best left alone -- example: leave A Mod be even if it does only have six cars -- a six-car A Mod is better than no A Mod.

I also challenge the concept that there must be some numerical cutoff just to be allowed to compete, but find more acceptable the notion that some level of challenge should be present to be able to claim the mantle of champion. So go ahead and let the BP and AM and GP and all the Ladies run, but only those who have outrun, say, at least nine other competitors can call themselves "Champion" and get the coveted jacket. That's a class of 10, which even a few Ladies classes are able to achieve.

 --Rocky

I think I said the same thing!  lol  emphasis added.

 "I wouldn't get rid of any classes. More should be added IMHO in the street tire area.  But I don't think any jacket should be rewarded for classes with fewer than 10 drivers, and classes that happens to should be collapsed and combined/run in temporary indexed classes, similar to Pro Solo indexing.  So what if BP falls too low?  Combine it with GP and run them indexed.  Ladies classes?  For those not making the minimum (all of them?) combine all stock classes into oneindexed class, SP classes, M classes and P classes as well.  So you have a stock indexed ladies champ, etc.  That way no classes are eliminated but the winning of a jacket in a two driver class doesn't happen either.  My 2 cents.  Oh, and through creative scheduling you could run these drivers in the same heat.  Just make it clear ahead of Nationals when that is based on the rgistration list. "

CamaroFS34:

Red bolding is mine. If you're going to quote something, make sure it actually completely supports your argument. The classes must be looked at by the SEB, but they do not have to consolidate or eliminate solely based on attendance at the National Championships, and they can come up with other plans to increase participation "as deemed necessary".

That's another bucket of uncertainty that can scare people away from a class on the bubble. Who knows what the SEB will do to it if only 15 people show up for a few years? Why should I build a car for a potentially doomed class? I already have one outlawed car. The next one is going to XP - no rules is good rules!

Howdy, 

SpyderVenom:

CamaroFS34:

SpyderVenom:

A well written letter to be sure but let's look at the rule:

4.9 MINIMUM PARTICIPATION LEVEL FOR NATIONAL 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. This is not intended as the only criterion for class consolidation, elimination, or restructuring; the SEB may pursue such actions as deemed necessary to address participation problems. The SEB may take into account participation levels at other events such as National Tours when making decisions regarding the need for changes.

Emphasis mine.  

Classes that do not meet minimum participation levels must be adjusted by the SEB.  That is what the rule says. 

Red bolding is mine. If you're going to quote something, make sure it actually completely supports your argument. The classes must be looked at by the SEB, but they do not have to consolidate or eliminate solely based on attendance at the National Championships, and they can come up with other plans to increase participation "as deemed necessary".

Underlining mine...   

I took that part of the rule the complete other way...  If read with emphasis on the word only, restructuring may be done by the SEB even before the stated limits are reached.  For example, if there are 17 GP cars in the entire nation and they all only show up at Nationals, but each only shows up at 1 NT or Divisional, then the SEB may decide to look at the lack of participation in NTs and restructure the class.  For example, the recent move of the Miata (I'm forgetting the exact model) from CS to ES was a 'restructure' of the ES class but was done even though ES was making it's numbers.  17 is the limit where the SEB must do something.  At least that is how I've read the rule and had it explained to me in the past...

That's the way the SEB folks at the time told the ES competitors at the time when they had ES in their sights for revamping...  Its also the interpretation that was used by the SEB to tell the PAC what to do w/regards to AP (which is a recent example of a class that failed to meet minimums and got restructured, btw).

Mark

The P/M classes are wide open to innovators and do-it-yourselfers. The cars are really fast. They are true thoroughbred race machines, with the look, sound, performance and technology of world class race cars. Driving and working on purpose built cars is so much more fun that street-based production cars you won't believe it. Once you've tried it, you'll never go back. The dream of designing, building, and the huge challenge to get one-off dialed-in and winning is very cool and I admire everyone that has tried. Of course, those dreams and feelings of accomplishment aren't unique to our classes. It's just that in our classes we have a lot more 'degrees of freedom' within which to accomplish them. We get to play with it pretty much to my heart's content. And that's the magic of P/M.

Now if only one car showed up in class after years of hard work to put his dreams and his machining, fabricating, and engineering skills to the test and he finishes. We should put him on the podium, give him a jacket, and shake his hand. Why would we want any rule that would eliminate this.

Neal Stanley

lightning:

The P/M classes are wide open to innovators and do-it-yourselfers. The cars are really fast. They are true thoroughbred race machines, with the look, sound, performance and technology of world class race cars.

Are you talking about SCCA Prepared cars?  They only allowed fuel injection, without a weight penalty, LAST YEAR.  ABS can not be added to cars that didn't have it (and you can't modify it if it did).  Traction control systems are illegal.  And the list can go on.  

I'm definitely not saying that the cars aren't fun, only that the prepared classes are not typically on the forefront of technology used on world class race cars. 
 

That point is really about mod cars, but the overall the opinion holds water. Just maybe the prepared classes should open up the rules to allow for more innovation. I do not run in prepared. For me, AM is only class that allows so much freedom to design and test ideas is such wide range of areas. But, I still don’t like the idea of having a class of cars going away just because of a number, especially when that class involves a high degree of effort.

Neal Stanley

Howdy,

SpyderVenom:

lightning:

The P/M classes are wide open to innovators and do-it-yourselfers. The cars are really fast. They are true thoroughbred race machines, with the look, sound, performance and technology of world class race cars.

Are you talking about SCCA Prepared cars?  They only allowed fuel injection, without a weight penalty, LAST YEAR.  ABS can not be added to cars that didn't have it (and you can't modify it if it did).  Traction control systems are illegal.  And the list can go on.  

I'm definitely not saying that the cars aren't fun, only that the prepared classes are not typically on the forefront of technology used on world class race cars. 
 

Can you name a racing series where traction control is allowed, but people don't *** about how "the car is doing the driving, not the driver"?  Isn't F1, the top level of all motorsports on the planet, moving to a standard ECU in large part so that they can disallow traction control?

Sometimes technological change isn't desired overall by participants and fans.  Sometimes it is.  Every form of motorsports has to draw a line in there somewhere.  I'd tend to agree that Prepared used to draw the line more conservatively than a lot of people (particularly those outside the class) thought it should be drawn, but that's largely gone away these days.  About the only rule I see as a hold over to the bad old days is wheel restrictions, but even those have loosened up in recent years.

So continue your list above please.  I think you'll quickly run out of "archaic" restrictions.  At best I think you could add aero rules, but I can't think of anything else.

In the meantime, name me another category that allows you to design a suspension from scratch, run any tire (whether its available to anyone other than you or not), not require a bunch of heavy street interior bits that don't do a damn thing to make the car faster, or allows you to reinforce your chassis in any way you see fit?

Mark 

marka:

...So continue your list above please.  I think you'll quickly run out of "archaic" restrictions.  At best I think you could add aero rules, but I can't think of anything else...

Weight.

As a whole, Prepared classes have minimum weights that are way too high. They keep the cars dumb and simple. More like what most people think of NASCAR rather than F1. Even XP, the flagship Prepared class with the lightest minimum weights still has fairly high weight requirements for small displacement cars, the cars that should be encouraged to autocross.

There wasn't a DP car in grid at Nationals in '07 without a dumbell or other signifigant ballast bolted into the chassis. And most of them hadn't even lightened the car to the extent of the allowances.

marka:

Howdy,

SpyderVenom:

lightning:

The P/M classes are wide open to innovators and do-it-yourselfers. The cars are really fast. They are true thoroughbred race machines, with the look, sound, performance and technology of world class race cars.

Are you talking about SCCA Prepared cars?  They only allowed fuel injection, without a weight penalty, LAST YEAR.  ABS can not be added to cars that didn't have it (and you can't modify it if it did).  Traction control systems are illegal.  And the list can go on.  

I'm definitely not saying that the cars aren't fun, only that the prepared classes are not typically on the forefront of technology used on world class race cars. 
 

Can you name a racing series where traction control is allowed, but people don't *** about how "the car is doing the driving, not the driver"?  Isn't F1, the top level of all motorsports on the planet, moving to a standard ECU in large part so that they can disallow traction control?

Sometimes technological change isn't desired overall by participants and fans.  Sometimes it is.  Every form of motorsports has to draw a line in there somewhere.  I'd tend to agree that Prepared used to draw the line more conservatively than a lot of people (particularly those outside the class) thought it should be drawn, but that's largely gone away these days.  About the only rule I see as a hold over to the bad old days is wheel restrictions, but even those have loosened up in recent years.

So continue your list above please.  I think you'll quickly run out of "archaic" restrictions.  At best I think you could add aero rules, but I can't think of anything else.

In the meantime, name me another category that allows you to design a suspension from scratch, run any tire (whether its available to anyone other than you or not), not require a bunch of heavy street interior bits that don't do a damn thing to make the car faster, or allows you to reinforce your chassis in any way you see fit?

I was responding to lightning - that the SCCA Prepared classes are not allowed to use the [his words] "technology of world class race cars."  Considering that there are very few world class race series and those that are around allow a lot of technology, I feel that my statement is accurate. 

But fine...  If the SEB wants to create a progression where cars travel along a S-ST-SP-SM-P-M route, the rules from each should build on the former.  If I'm allowed to run TC, launch control, any wheels, etc. from the previous classes - why remove it at P.  Also, I'll comment on the fact that many top P cars don't even use the open allowances that the P rules give them.  Sure, there are cars that swap mcstrut to a-arms.  But who really uses the "open" part of shocks and have some trick computer controlled magnetic set-up?  How many cars still use carbs?  I do understand that the momentum isn't there yet because rules just changed...  and that P isn't as archaic as it used to be but many of the top cars are.  And that is what people see...  This may be what the competitors want.  If that is true, then it needs to be marketed better because the numbers are declining. 

Howdy,

modernbeat:

Weight.

As a whole, Prepared classes have minimum weights that are way too high. They keep the cars dumb and simple. More like what most people think of NASCAR rather than F1. Even XP, the flagship Prepared class with the lightest minimum weights still has fairly high weight requirements for small displacement cars, the cars that should be encouraged to autocross.

There wasn't a DP car in grid at Nationals in '07 without a dumbell or other signifigant ballast bolted into the chassis. And most of them hadn't even lightened the car to the extent of the allowances.

When we were figuring out what weight formula to use for DP, one of the primary "setters of the weight" was the 1.6 liter miata.  We picked a weight that we thought they could get to with reasonable modifications and set the other cars based on that (primarily).  Since the 1.6 miata and 1.8 miata are essentially the same car, I'm not sure how you'd get around having the 1.8 car carry more ballast than you might otherwise like while still keeping the 1.6 miata able to reach its minimum.

To me, setting up the weights so that cars generally either can't quite get to the minimums or can just barely get there is silly.  If you've done that, there will be other cars in class that can't reasonably get there, which means having to take advantage of high cost stuff to drop weight.  EP, to me, is a great example of stupid minimum weights.  Many/most cars in EP can't get to their minimums with backyard means, which gives Mr. Spendy Pants yet another advantage.
 

Obviously this can be taken too far in either direction, but my personal feeling on it is that DP & CP are classes where the weights are more right than wrong across the class.  I don't know enough about FP to have an opinion, and EP is stupidly low.  But everyone has their own opinion.  :-)

Mark

Howdy,

SpyderVenom:

But fine...  If the SEB wants to create a progression where cars travel along a S-ST-SP-SM-P-M route, the rules from each should build on the former.  If I'm allowed to run TC, launch control, any wheels, etc. from the previous classes - why remove it at P.  Also, I'll comment on the fact that many top P cars don't even use the open allowances that the P rules give them.  Sure, there are cars that swap mcstrut to a-arms.  But who really uses the "open" part of shocks and have some trick computer controlled magnetic set-up?  How many cars still use carbs?  I do understand that the momentum isn't there yet because rules just changed...  and that P isn't as archaic as it used to be but many of the top cars are.  And that is what people see...  This may be what the competitors want.  If that is true, then it needs to be marketed better because the numbers are declining. 

I agree that the rules should progress.  But SM was never put in the book between SP and P... It was put in the progression path between SP and M.  SM and P are parallel paths between SP and M, for better or worse.  In Prepared you can play with the chassis but need to stay related to the stock motor.  In SM you can't touch the chassis, but you have a lot more freedom on the motor.  The progression from each is DM/EM.

That said, I 100% agree that Prepared should inherit all SP allowances.  The only place that breaks that I know of is wheels.  And you can find plenty of posts from me bitching about the current wheel penalties... :-) 

If you have a top car that's winning today with carbs and non-adjustable shocks, why would you change it?  Fact of the matter is that the advantage FI has over a carb is limited to a few (important, to be sure) areas.  If your car isn't lacking in those areas, why would you change?  See also... CP cars. 

Use another motorsport for some examples btw... MotoGP has allowed pneumatic valves for quite a while now and Honda has _just_ moved to that technology for the coming year.  Why?  Because they were competitive without it until the 800cc era.

Also... Are you sure the numbers in Prepared are declining?  My impression from the sidelines has been that Prepared #'s are relatively stable these days, if not increasing a little.  There's a perception that Prepared #'s are declining, but I think that's driven more by the changes to the minimum participation rules than anything else.

Mark 

marka:

Howdy,

modernbeat:

Weight.

As a whole, Prepared classes have minimum weights that are way too high. They keep the cars dumb and simple. More like what most people think of NASCAR rather than F1. Even XP, the flagship Prepared class with the lightest minimum weights still has fairly high weight requirements for small displacement cars, the cars that should be encouraged to autocross.

There wasn't a DP car in grid at Nationals in '07 without a dumbell or other signifigant ballast bolted into the chassis. And most of them hadn't even lightened the car to the extent of the allowances.

When we were figuring out what weight formula to use for DP, one of the primary "setters of the weight" was the 1.6 liter miata.  We picked a weight that we thought they could get to with reasonable modifications and set the other cars based on that (primarily).  Since the 1.6 miata and 1.8 miata are essentially the same car, I'm not sure how you'd get around having the 1.8 car carry more ballast than you might otherwise like while still keeping the 1.6 miata able to reach its minimum.

To me, setting up the weights so that cars generally either can't quite get to the minimums or can just barely get there is silly.  If you've done that, there will be other cars in class that can't reasonably get there, which means having to take advantage of high cost stuff to drop weight.  EP, to me, is a great example of stupid minimum weights.  Many/most cars in EP can't get to their minimums with backyard means, which gives Mr. Spendy Pants yet another advantage.
 

Obviously this can be taken too far in either direction, but my personal feeling on it is that DP & CP are classes where the weights are more right than wrong across the class.  I don't know enough about FP to have an opinion, and EP is stupidly low.  But everyone has their own opinion.  :-)

Mark

The problem that I have, particularly with DP, is that if I take advantage of every allowance in the lowest buck, backyard builder format that I can, I will end up adding 200 lbs of ballast to a 1.6 Miata, and even more to a 1.8 or car with 10" wheels. So, the minimum weights encourage me to NOT take advantage of all allowances, when some of them are simple and easy to take advantage of.

FWIW, I am a backyard builder. And even I am struck by the futility of many of the allowances in the class.

 

Howdy,

modernbeat:

The problem that I have, particularly with DP, is that if I take advantage of every allowance in the lowest buck, backyard builder format that I can, I will end up adding 200 lbs of ballast to a 1.6 Miata, and even more to a 1.8 or car with 10" wheels. So, the minimum weights encourage me to NOT take advantage of all allowances, when some of them are simple and easy to take advantage of.

FWIW, I am a backyard builder. And even I am struck by the futility of many of the allowances in the class.

Really?  Where's Steve Hudson or the Reeves... They're running 1.6 DP cars and I didn't think they had any hope in hell of getting to 200 lbs under the minimum before ballast.

I'll freely admit I'm no miata expert, but the info I had at the time said that the DP weight formula put the 1.6 miata at around 50 lbs over what a car using all the reasonable weight saving allowances could get to.  If you really do need to add 200 lbs to a 1.6 miata (and a 1st gen MR2) then I'll agree with you that the weight in DP needs to be less. 

Mark 

marka:

Howdy,

modernbeat:

The problem that I have, particularly with DP, is that if I take advantage of every allowance in the lowest buck, backyard builder format that I can, I will end up adding 200 lbs of ballast to a 1.6 Miata, and even more to a 1.8 or car with 10" wheels. So, the minimum weights encourage me to NOT take advantage of all allowances, when some of them are simple and easy to take advantage of.

FWIW, I am a backyard builder. And even I am struck by the futility of many of the allowances in the class.

Really?  Where's Steve Hudson or the Reev