SCCAForums.com

Father LeadFoot:

I would definitely like to see AWD have a minimum of 2800-2900 lbs, but what AWD cars would classify for SM2? They'll need to do something about the EVOs, as those become more developed they'll be unstoppable.

The Fast Track is also proposing the displacement multiplier for AWD cars to go from 275lbs/litre to 325lbs/litre. I think they need to raise the total weight limit for the AWD cars as well. 3,100 lbs is a little too low to make this change effective. A turbo 2L motor adds 1105 lbs (3.4 x 325) to an AWD car. Are there many AWD cars that would be weighed down by this?

Great news, I forwarded the notice to lots of Miata people.  I will write my letter thanking the smac and SEB this weekend.  I am almost sorry to see that Erik has to add weight.  I do think this will bring some more small cars to the game. 

Since Erik has to add weight, has there been any discussion on the location of said weight?  I am still a proponent for allowing ballast anywhere, not just the spare tire well or trunk. 

Again, I think this is fantastic.  Using the tire width as the determining factor is genius until/unless Kumho comes out with a 285/35/15
 

Erik you could always run 275 tires on the RX-7.  Instead of gaining 100 pounds you could LOSE 100 pounds.

He he he    WOOT I crack me up.

Jaker:

Father LeadFoot:

I would definitely like to see AWD have a minimum of 2800-2900 lbs, but what AWD cars would classify for SM2? They'll need to do something about the EVOs, as those become more developed they'll be unstoppable.

 

The Fast Track is also proposing the displacement multiplier for AWD cars to go from 275lbs/litre to 325lbs/litre. I think they need to raise the total weight limit for the AWD cars as well. 3,100 lbs is a little too low to make this change effective. A turbo 2L motor adds 1105 lbs (3.4 x 325) to an AWD car. Are there many AWD cars that would be weighed down by this?

So, under your proposal, SM minimum weights for AWD cars like the EVO and STi will require many ST and SP class cars to actually add weight to be legal.  My '04 STi that was run in ESP and SM in 2005 was 3110 with stock seats, stock battery, and zero weight savings per SM rules.  

Interesting.

Chris H. 

Without giving my personal opinion on the AWD multiplier, a simple look at using 325 would make an EVO 2905lbs, which is right about the SM class winning weight.  There are different ways to argue this one, but I would suggest you address the fact that AWD would still be competitive at the new multiplier if you used Daddio as your data point.

 If you use the STI as an example I think the new weight would be 3068lbs with AWD 2.5 liter Turbo.  The only differentiator between the STI and EVO is the extra 0.5liters of displacement.  Argue why the car would not be competitive at that weight if you don't agree with the proposal.

 In any case, it you put AWD on 275's you could be 2705lbs with the EVO and 2868lbs with the STI if both proposals went through.

 -Andy M.

subrew:

So, under your proposal, SM minimum weights for AWD cars like the EVO and STi will require many ST and SP class cars to actually add weight to be legal.  My '04 STi that was run in ESP and SM in 2005 was 3110 with stock seats, stock battery, and zero weight savings per SM rules.  

First, I think we need to draw the line between ballasting and just "gutting less". An Elise may have to ballast, you can just choose to leave in some of the stock parts. Since every chassis starts out differently, some will have to work harder than others to get to their target weight. Assuming your new min weight is fair, wouldn't you rather be at it without spending money on exotic lightweight parts? You can always destroke/swap the motor or run 275s if you think the lighter combo will be faster.

If you think the new min weight is unfair, please write us and let us know why. The more feedback we get (for and against) the better the chances are that more people are happy. :D

Jaker:

Father LeadFoot:

I would definitely like to see AWD have a minimum of 2800-2900 lbs, but what AWD cars would classify for SM2? They'll need to do something about the EVOs, as those become more developed they'll be unstoppable.

 

The Fast Track is also proposing the displacement multiplier for AWD cars to go from 275lbs/litre to 325lbs/litre. I think they need to raise the total weight limit for the AWD cars as well. 3,100 lbs is a little too low to make this change effective. A turbo 2L motor adds 1105 lbs (3.4 x 325) to an AWD car. Are there many AWD cars that would be weighed down by this?

I'm already ballasting my AWD car to be legal at 2625 pounds.  I think I could be SM legal at 2425 if the minimum weights would allow it (2625 - 200 for <=275 tires) as I could easily shave a bunch of weight out of the car as it sits right now.  325 per liter would increase my minimum weight to 2775 (with >275 tires) and I would likely leave for XP.  A WRX or Evo would have to weigh about 2900 pounds and an STi would have to weigh about 3050 pounds.  *I would choose to run 275's at 2575 before I added the extra 200 pounds of ballast.*

As we increase minimum weights, we remove older chassis from being competitive.  My minimum weight is currently more than the curb weight of my car as delivered from the factory.  Is this the intent? 

Andy, I certainly understand your frustration on this one. Playing devil's advocate, why would your car be uncompetitive at the new proposed weight?  Curb weight really is irrelevant except as a perception number. 

 -Andy M.

Andy,

The letter that I wrote to the SEB last night says, "Accept these items as a whole or reject them as a whole."  I thought about it for a while and I think the proposal takes the class towards perceived parity.  If, however, we accept the weight increases without giving credit for skinny tires, older chassis (which tend to be the light chassis) are given an incentive to go away.  A lot of older cars are tire limited, so the combination of the two changes doesn't hurt them as much.  I'm OK with this if its taken as a whole.

Overall, I've grown weary of the constant rules changes (and proposed rules changes) and increasing minimum weights for AWD cars.  When I started building my car, the goal was 295's and 2400 pounds.  Then it became 295's and 2625 pounds.  Now it could be 275's and 2575 (or 295's and 2775 pounds). 

From where I stand, my decision to basically halt development appears to be a good one.  I'm glad I didn't spend any money on wide custom wheels over the winter.  Now I'll wait to see what gets approved before I start shopping.

Andy H. 

adhowe70:

Andy,

The letter that I wrote to the SEB last night says, "Accept these items as a whole or reject them as a whole."  I thought about it for a while and I think the proposal takes the class towards perceived parity.  If, however, we accept the weight increases without giving credit for skinny tires, older chassis (which tend to be the light chassis) are given an incentive to go away.  A lot of older cars are tire limited, so the combination of the two changes doesn't hurt them as much.  I'm OK with this if its taken as a whole.

Overall, I've grown weary of the constant rules changes (and proposed rules changes) and increasing minimum weights for AWD cars.  When I started building my car, the goal was 295's and 2400 pounds.  Then it became 295's and 2625 pounds.  Now it could be 275's and 2575 (or 295's and 2775 pounds). 

From where I stand, my decision to basically halt development appears to be a good one.  I'm glad I didn't spend any money on wide custom wheels over the winter.  Now I'll wait to see what gets approved before I start shopping.

Andy H. 

Andy H,

Thanks for your thoughts. Your named popped into my head as we were discussing this as I knew you'd be affected. I think your car would still be a top contender at either 275/2575 or 295/2775 (tho I'd probably go 315). I'd throw in another idea of possibly running SM2 at 275/2375. Lighter than the RX7s with AWD could be a tasty combo.

Randy,

If the perceived problems are AWD cars are overdogs and tire limited cars are uncompetitive, the proposal makes sense.  Once I get past the frustration of needing to change the "plan" again, I like it.  I think it will be good for class health, but it won't be popular with the quickly growing AWD crowd.

Andy H.

When the M3 finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 7th in '06 in SM for '06, was something done?  That was much more dominate than 1st & 3rd for the Evo in '07.  SM actually looked very competitive for '07, 2 AWD, 2 RWD, and 2 FWD cars in the trophies.

Why does SM/SM2 use the weird addition equivalency factors rather than the multipliers that all other SCCA (and NASA, FIA, etc.) classes use?  E.G. for a turbo three rotor, 2.0L x 2.0 (rotary factor) x 1.4 (forced induction factor) =  5.6L

Grintch:

When the M3 finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 7th in '06 in SM for '06, was something done?  That was much more dominate than 1st & 3rd for the Evo in '07.  SM actually looked very competitive for '07, 2 AWD, 2 RWD, and 2 FWD cars in the trophies.

And we didn't do anything to change that. I don't think ANY car from the '07 trophies will have to change, including the winning Evo. The AWD "change" is actually a move to maintain the status quo.

rnoll98:

And we didn't do anything to change that. I don't think ANY car from the '07 trophies will have to change, including the winning Evo. The AWD "change" is actually a move to maintain the status quo.

Hoops' SM evo was 2880 at 07 nationals.  He was 3rd place. 

Marshall Grice:

rnoll98:

And we didn't do anything to change that. I don't think ANY car from the '07 trophies will have to change, including the winning Evo. The AWD "change" is actually a move to maintain the status quo.

Hoops' SM evo was 2880 at 07 nationals.  He was 3rd place. 

Maybe the lovely new SP seat weight mins will get him right where he needs to be for '09 then if this proposal goes through. ;)

Does the 25# make the rule change any less fair? Should he be allowed to go 150# in the other direction? Write a letter.

I didn't think that the SP seat weight applied to SM since we have a minimum weight.

The multiplier change along with the tire width weight allowance seem reasonable to me. I don't have any experience to really comment so I'll sit back and read the back and forths, of which I expected to see more.

tashko:

I didn't think that the SP seat weight applied to SM since we have a minimum weight.

I think the SP seat weight does apply.  I didn't find anything in the SM rules to give a more generous allowance.  If you have a rule in mind, enlighten me... I'd like to make my car lighter.  Oh, wait. 

I'm wrong. SP seat weight does apply. It was a case of reading what I wanted to read. <sigh>

<--- as it says over there, I only have a few posts and am new to these rules.

There's a movement afoot up here with many clubs adopting SCCA rules so I figure I should pay attention this year and try prep my car to some extent. I think I read somewhere that weights were taken in SM at Nationals last year. If so, was this info made available or did you have to be looking over the shoulder to find?

The rules don't seem to allow much in terms of weight reduction unless you go for the composite panels, aluminum control arms, aluminum calipers, composite drive-shaft, etc.  All big buck items yet you can't remove the carpet under padding!

Anyway, don't want to go off topic.

I guess I'll have to go back and re-read all the Fastracks and pay attention to the other class rule changes also. I didn't pick up on the 25# seat rule. It'll be funny to see people ballasting their seats. Maybe they should make it a minimum seat weight w/driver in it.

Let the learning process begin. 

rnoll98:

Grintch:

When the M3 finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 7th in '06 in SM for '06, was something done?  That was much more dominate than 1st & 3rd for the Evo in '07.  SM actually looked very competitive for '07, 2 AWD, 2 RWD, and 2 FWD cars in the trophies.

And we didn't do anything to change that. I don't think ANY car from the '07 trophies will have to change, including the winning Evo. The AWD "change" is actually a move to maintain the status quo.

 Then what is the point of changing the rules, adding weight to AWD cars?  Evo's aren't the only AWD car in the world you know.  This would potentially further slow various Subaru's, Audi's, VW's, etc. that aren't overly competitive now. 
 

Grintch:

rnoll98:

Grintch:

When the M3 finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 7th in '06 in SM for '06, was something done?  That was much more dominate than 1st & 3rd for the Evo in '07.  SM actually looked very competitive for '07, 2 AWD, 2 RWD, and 2 FWD cars in the trophies.

And we didn't do anything to change that. I don't think ANY car from the '07 trophies will have to change, including the winning Evo. The AWD "change" is actually a move to maintain the status quo.

 Then what is the point of changing the rules, adding weight to AWD cars?  Evo's aren't the only AWD car in the world you know.  This would potentially further slow various Subaru's, Audi's, VW's, etc. that aren't overly competitive now. 
 

Bruce, There are many cars in the world that don't show up to autocross, much less show up in SM, built within a far cry from the limit of the rules, and driven by a top notch driver. We do what we can to create parity. We have two classes with which we get to throw every USDM car into. No doubt some will rise to the top. Please note the SM STI that ran XP due to mechanical issues that kept him from making the SM heat. He posted scratch times good enough for 4th place in SM.

Right now we have evidence that the Evo and STI can run at the top of SM at ~2900#. The fact that BSP beat SM should tell us that there's probably still room for these cars to get even faster. Leaving open an allowance for someone to build a similar AWD car that weighs 200# less doesn't seem like a responsible thing to do, and doesn't seem to be in the best interest of those currently running the class. If you still disagree, or have other ideas on how to better serve the class, please write us.