SCCAForums.com

Howdy,

modernbeat:

marka:

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 

Steve's got some weights bolted down in the Miata. Just ask him. 

The photo shows them in the passenger's footwell, but last time I saw it, I thought they were in the trunk. And Steve's car isn't close to using all the allowances.

http://www.pbase.com/stevemhudson/image/36444058 

That looks like about 50 lbs of weight... :-)  Once again, having to add a small amount of ballast isn't a bad thing.  Not to mention that anyone who's dealt with SCCA scales will want to run 25 lbs or so over the minimum weight anyway.

What allowances could Steve be using that would dramatically reduce his weight (and that aren't stupidly expensive)?  150 lbs is a lot to come by...

Mark

(btw, in my opinion the "have to use all the allowances in the book" thing, while appropriate in stock classes, isn't so appropriate in a class like DP, where a whole _lot_ of things are allowed, but you frequently can get into diminishing returns) 

marka:

...That looks like about 50 lbs of weight... :-)  Once again, having to add a small amount of ballast isn't a bad thing.  Not to mention that anyone who's dealt with SCCA scales will want to run 25 lbs or so over the minimum weight anyway.

What allowances could Steve be using that would dramatically reduce his weight (and that aren't stupidly expensive)?  150 lbs is a lot to come by...

Mark

(btw, in my opinion the "have to use all the allowances in the book" thing, while appropriate in stock classes, isn't so appropriate in a class like DP, where a whole _lot_ of things are allowed, but you frequently can get into diminishing returns) 

Steve's car is remarkably stock in many areas. The suspension arms, uprights, brakes, controls, inner fenders, bodywork, intake manifold and exhaust could all easily be lighter. When I last looked at the car at '07 Nationals, the subframes were fairly stock also. I know that changes for the sake of changes aren't worth much, and that the Miata is great out of the box, but I think I'd be carving on the car some more. That's what I would do. Steve went the other way and built a REAL motor.

stevemhudson:

...that photo was taken in 2003, over 4 years ago.  The DP rules and my car have both undergone revision since then. 

Adding stickers doesn't count as a revision Steve.    just kidding...

modernbeat:

marka:

...That looks like about 50 lbs of weight... :-)  Once again, having to add a small amount of ballast isn't a bad thing.  Not to mention that anyone who's dealt with SCCA scales will want to run 25 lbs or so over the minimum weight anyway.

What allowances could Steve be using that would dramatically reduce his weight (and that aren't stupidly expensive)?  150 lbs is a lot to come by...

Mark

(btw, in my opinion the "have to use all the allowances in the book" thing, while appropriate in stock classes, isn't so appropriate in a class like DP, where a whole _lot_ of things are allowed, but you frequently can get into diminishing returns) 

Steve's car is remarkably stock in many areas. The suspension arms, uprights, brakes, controls, inner fenders, bodywork, intake manifold and exhaust could all easily be lighter. When I last looked at the car at '07 Nationals, the subframes were fairly stock also. I know that changes for the sake of changes aren't worth much, and that the Miata is great out of the box, but I think I'd be carving on the car some more. That's what I would do. Steve went the other way and built a REAL motor.

stevemhudson:

...that photo was taken in 2003, over 4 years ago.  The DP rules and my car have both undergone revision since then. 

Adding stickers doesn't count as a revision Steve.    just kidding...

The lower the minimum weight, the more money it costs to get a car there.  When we were writing the rule we considered the trade off between cost versus weight.   You may feel that we erred on the side of heavy and cheap and your entitled to that opinion.  If the min. weight is so low that you have to buy expensive parts to get there, it would discourage folks from even starting a build.

And I hope all of you have written the SEB and given them your thoughts on the minimum participation rule, seb@scca.com.

My personal opinion and not official.........

 

Returning to the original subject of the minimum participation rule....

I take note of an action of the PAC at a recent meeting of which I have since been informed. [Here I originally quoted PAC minutes that I have since learned were not public property, so I have now deleted them, but I will say the PAC recommendation is a reasonable solution to the issue and it has my support.]

One SEB member has already told me that letters will be important on this issue. Send to seb@scca.com, and cc bod@scca.com.

 --Rocky

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.  It could mean something as little as adding cars to the class or as large as elimination.  That's up to the SEB.  All the other classes change all the time - cars are added and moved, allowances are granted and taken back, and interpretation of rules change over time as members of the SEB change.  Why should Prepared or Mod be any different?

What if you were to look at the class minimum as the minimum to ensure fair competition?  That it's not about overall participation numbers. 

If you want Nationals full, move it to before kids go back to school.  There are plenty of college kids and teachers who would come out to Nationals if it didn't interfere with school.

Mainly due to the amount of work going into those cars and the time it takes to perform that work. It could easily take years to build a Mod car. Frequent rule "changes" can lengthen that considerably, if not make the design obsolete before it's done.  

DaveH:

Extend the time before a class is eliminated so it has to not meet the lower limit for four or five consecutive years, instead of just two.  Make it so you have to have a long-term disinterest in the class, instead of just a dip in attendance, to kill it.

For what its worth, I think A-mod should be exempt from the minimum participation rule.  There's something to be said for having an open class for a designed-from-scratch dedicated autocross car.

That last sentence got to me. So is a re-designed-from-scratch door slammer or 2 seater that far off your exempt idea that D Mod should be chopped then? There is a ton of work that goes into Mod cars in general. Just because it's hidden behind some body panels must be the reason they haven't caught your eye and heart . :>)