SCCAForums.com

Well, since nobody else has posted about it:

 The SMAC has proposed the rules for a supplemental FWD class as follows: Add new section 16.4 as follows:

o Add to 16.B (and renumber following subsection accordingly):

3. Supplemental Class SMF

o Add to Appendix A under STREET MODIFIED CATEGORY:
Supplemental Class SMF
SMF is a supplemental class open to front-wheel-drive vehicles only. Its rule set will follow that of Street Modified, with
the following exceptions:

§ Minimum weight of 1650lbs. + 200 lb/liter. The 1.4 adder for forced induction still applies.
§ +150 pounds for 2-seat cars (CRX)

The intent of this proposal is to create a class for slightly heavier FWD cars that don’t fit competitively within the current SM rules.
Front-drive vehicles are still eligible to compete in SM or SM2 under those classes’ present weight minimums. If the proposal for
reduced minimum weights for tires 275mm or smaller is accepted for Street Modified, it will not be applicable to SMF.

I don't understand the weight penalty for 2 seaters in a FWD only SM class.  What's the advantage of a CRX over a Civic of the same year?  It's lighter!  Why does that matter in a class with minimum weights?

 If a car removes their back seat as allowed by rules, must it add 150 lbs of ballast?

MattP:

I don't understand the weight penalty for 2 seaters in a FWD only SM class. 

 

The presumption of a shorter wheel base?  I see the point but think the # is excessive. 

---

SCCA RoadRally 2009 National Tour Champion, Sportsman

gary p:

MattP:

I don't understand the weight penalty for 2 seaters in a FWD only SM class. 

 

The presumption of a shorter wheel base?  I see the point but think the # is excessive. 

Affects the Del Sol, which has only a slightly shorter wheelbase than a 4th gen Civic (which I guess is the lightest and shortest common current SM FWD car)

I think this kills the massive Saab Sonett interest in the class, too!

MattP:

I think this kills the massive Saab Sonett interest in the class, too!

 

Damn, my double-top-secret V-4, three-on-the-tree "September Surprise" class killer project has been found out

---

SCCA RoadRally 2009 National Tour Champion, Sportsman

All V4s were 4-speeds, and only the '67-69s had them on the tree.  Oh, and the Sonett III floor shifter easily swaps over.  But don't waste your time.  A hot rodded Sonett II V4 will be 500-600 pounds too heavy for FSM.  Thats' right...500-600 pounds.

We still have our '68 Sonett V4 race car in the family...and it was always in-between classes with its engine mods.  We usually ran OSP at our local events and the car was sitting at 1,450lbs with heavy wheels and stock low-back early seats, barely taking into account SM like mods.  It was essentially a cheater CSP/DSP car that run locally with other cheater CSP/DSP cars back when OSP was first created.  Looking at the rules though...it would be FSM legal in terms of engine, trans, suspension mods, and in fact would have more freedom for further build out.

Based on the weight rules, a 1.5L Sonett  would need to weigh 2100 pounds if left naturally aspirated with the 2-seat penanlty, or 2140 for the 1.7L.  And yes, a Sonett is obscure so it is a bad example.

But, what does a 1st gen CSP CRX weigh these days?  1,700-1800 lbs.?  Maye less if built off an HF or early '83/84 base chassis.  A 1st gen would need to be at the same 2100 lbs.  So build an EP like motor...and then add 300-400 pounds.  Why not just run EP?  Or throw in a B18 and run at 2,160 lbs.

I guess the comments about a class specific to heavy FWD is the focus.  I didn't realize there were so many Accords and Maximas running SM.

Chris H.

Hi Chris,

Just saw your edit - I think you're seeing the picture now.  When you no longer have the burden of making the front-drive cars competive with RWD or AWD, you can focus more on trying to design a class that would fun or appealing to the widest range of popular FWD chassis.  It is entirely possible this class would not be as fast as CSP.  We're hoping that in that context, our initial stabs at weight minimums are ok.  Always looking for feedback though!

---

--Jason Rhoades

Hi Jason,

 

Yeah, i started ranting for a while, then edited.  At first, all the small fun sporty cars came to mind...and I couldn't think of one that wouldn't be horribly underweight for FSM.  I guess this is geared for later model Civics, Neons, SE-R etc.

And here I was hoping for a place to play with the Sonett!  /me goes to look at SM2 weight limits...or even XP...

Chris H.

edit: 1538# for SM2 and 1425# for XP which would be easily acheivable given that we could rid ourselves of the heavy cast iron lump of an engine in XP.

jzr:

  We're hoping that in that context, our initial stabs at weight minimums are ok.  Always looking for feedback though!

I don't see any problems with the weight minimums (heavier than I'd like, but I understand why) but I question the need for the 2 seater penalty and don't understand the reasoning behind it in a class that already has weight minimums.  If we're trying to control for wheelbase or some other factor, why not penalize for that directly.  In a class where you can take out rear seats, what does the number of seats have to do with performance?

If you exclude the CRX and the Sonett, most of the modern FWD 2-seaters (Del Sol and...um....uh....) will be above the minimum weights anyways.  Unless someone really thinks they could get a Del Sol down to 1,980 pounds in NA trim using legal SM mods. 

I agree, I dont see the need for a 2 seater penalty, but then I don't think it will really hurt any one car that class is designed around.

Perhaps someone will build the ultimate Mercury Capri XR2 FSM car.  We know that motor will suport a good deal of power...

Chris H.

Don't forget the FWD Lotus Elan, that's the great unknown to me.  Are they any good, or are they just good for what they are stock?

MattP:

Don't forget the FWD Lotus Elan, that's the great unknown to me.  Are they any good, or are they just good for what they are stock?

 Can open, worms everywhere!  We'll never know if it was any good stock or not.   

---

SCCA RoadRally 2009 National Tour Champion, Sportsman

It makes sense, civics didn't dominate SM, so they added civic dominated SM class ;-) .

But in all honesty, I don't see the need.  The SM rule set could be modified to equalize cars more using weight, I don't see the need for yet another class that doesn't accomplish something 'new'.
 

---

ESP Camaro
Record:
Wins:0 (lost 1 by .001...... or 1.05 INCHES!!)
Losses:8
Woulda won if I hadn't.....:8

I briefly thought of the Lotus, but then remembered SM bans all Lotus', and SM2 only specifically allows a couple.  If FSM builds on SM, then it wouldn't be allowed, correct?  And even if it was, they are in the 2400lb range stock, so they could realistically expect to get down to what...2100-200 pounds?  They won't be infringing much on the added weight for 2 seaters.

I do agree that it could be rather potent.  That little Isuzu can crank out real power, and be at the same weight as boosted or K20 swapped Civics, in a much better platform.

Chris H.

 

MattP:

Well, since nobody else has posted about it:

I don't understand the weight penalty for 2 seaters in a FWD only SM class.  What's the advantage of a CRX over a Civic of the same year?  It's lighter!  Why does that matter in a class with minimum weights?

 If a car removes their back seat as allowed by rules, must it add 150 lbs of ballast?

I think we both started a thread within a couple minutes of each other. I'll post what I had started in here:

So now that the proposal is out what do people think?

I figured the min weight target would be high and for most cars and it seems to be in that 2200-2500lbs range. I didn't expect to see the outright weight penalty for the 2 seaters. I guess I should have kept my mouth shut about CRX weights :)

Looks like the early cars are pretty much weighted correct, a NA 2.0L (K series anyone) will put min weight at 2050 (if in a CRX it's 2200, WTF) which is easy to get to using an EF chassis. Early VW's should also fall into that ~2000lbs category as well, fiesta's and early civic's might be adding some extra weight. Looks like the min for a cobalt SS is around 2350, I doubt they will get down to that level though...

Ian

The whole 2 seater thing is kinda weird. Looking at honda's there is not much difference between the civic/CRX so the penalty does not make sense there. That penalty is probably directed at some specific car, and I'm guessing the lotus will be excluded from SMF???

Ian
 

---

--CRX Addict
--Recovered Mini Addict

I agree with Ian's comments...it looks like the targeted weight is around 2200-2500 or so.  Perfect for a lot of swapped Hondas and VWs. 

It leaves out most of the smaller stuff (not really...but why bother building a 2200lbs CRX) and still seems unrealistic for the new FWD hot stuff like Cobalt SS, MS3, Civic Si and the like.

 * subrew goes to build his Hyundai Scoupe Turbo

 Chris H.