SCCAForums.com

SCCA Racing Forums, Discussions and Blogs

Welcome to SCCAForums.com Sign in | Join | Latest Posts | My Posts | Help
in Search

Feedback on SSC Proposal

Last post 06-18-2008, 9:59 PM by SSCRacer. 2 replies.
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  06-17-2008, 10:39 AM 305781

    • LD71 is not online. Last active: 09/06/2008, 9:02 AM LD71
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 05-23-2001
    • Washington Depot, CT,USA
    • Posts 563
    • Points 7,755

    Feedback on SSC Proposal

    I have uploaded a proposed set of rules changes for SSC, including 5 years of planned car eligibilty and competition adjustments.

    http://sscfuture.blogspot.com/

    The post is long, so it appears in a separate blog.  I'd like to get feedback here on the forums to keep input all in one place--leave comments at the blog posting if you like, but it will be easier to keep it together if discussion (if any) happens here.on the forums.

    For a number of years, I have asked the CRB to give us a real plan, nothing happened.  They continue to worry about adding a pound here, trying to move us into Touring, and throwing some older cars into the mix to shore up the entries without considering what will happen next year and the year after.  Maybe if we give them a blueprint they can give us a set of rules aimed at growth.

    I developed the ideas presented based on Communication between the CRB and the drivers, allowing time for notification of drivers and feedback from the people who are competing every weekend before a killer rule becomes law.  I also wanted to remove some pet peeves like the fuel test, and remain as close to the original idea as possible, Showroom Stock.

    Back in '99 or 2000, I went to the tent meeting at the Runoffs and asked that the CRB publish proposed new classificaions in FasTrack before they wrote them in the rulebook. And, I asked that all classifications be announced in January only. The idea was to eliminate the annual surprise classification in April or June that usually killed competiton for those of us that had ben racing since January.

    The Board member who handled such things did not seem to understand the need for this.  They grudgingly agreed, put the process in place for a few months, then proceeded to ignore it.  The Mini S move to C followed.

    Any feedback?  Flame away!  Cool

    LD71  Big Smile


    LD71
  •  06-17-2008, 10:47 AM 305783 in reply to 305781

    • LD71 is not online. Last active: 09/06/2008, 9:02 AM LD71
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 05-23-2001
    • Washington Depot, CT,USA
    • Posts 563
    • Points 7,755

    Re: Feedback on SSC Proposal

    Scott Sanda:

    Larry,

    It won't exist. SSB and SSC will be, and need to be rolled into the Touring naming convention, because what we have now is just plain confusing.


    Before you all flame on: SSB becomes T3, SSC becomes T4 and the rules for those classes MIRROR the SS rules, so the class is aimed at showroom configuration. Additionally, you put in an allowance for Springs/shocks/tire size/weight on a car by can basis to allow adjustments among the slower cars to help steer away from car of the month.

     Of course, the kicker here is a CRB and BOD that makes prudent and fair adjustments on a VERY LIMITED BASIS.

     Current T3 cars get de tuned to fit.

     Scott

    Scott,

    Don't know if you've had a chance to see the actual proposal, but I moved your note here to keep things in one place.  I appreciate your opinion.  The CRB and BOD have not shown much ability in the area you called 'the kicker'.  I agree that if we let the class drift, your conclusion will be correct.  I hope we can plan for the future rather than let it happen.  Cool

    LD71  Big Smile


    LD71
  •  06-18-2008, 9:59 PM 306003 in reply to 305783

    Re: Feedback on SSC Proposal

    Larry:

    It sounds like you've given this a lot of thought and have some great ideas. I am a little concerned that the calendar of events will be difficult to follow. The CRB has a history of using a different calendar than the rest of us. I am strongly in favor of the adjustments being made in relationship to the Runoffs track. We may also need to remind them also about weather changes. It seems like the MINI S always got adjustments after the first race of the year where the supercharger is much more effective than in the heat of the summer. Of course now with Road America in the fall, it may be the same weather as CMP in February.

    The other thing we need to address is the inherent danger in the way the club mandates the addition of ballast. Somebody is going to roll one of these cars and the weight bolted to the floor is going to pull through the unibody and kill someone. The FIA has a weight box that can be safely (and consistantly) attached to the RF floor. Additional plates are added or removed as needed.

    I'm not sure about the Mazda 3 being the benchmark. If we choose a slightly slower car, we may be able to accomodate the eco-friendly wave of vehicles on the way. The Manufacturers might like having a place to show that thier 3 cylinder, corn burning slugs actually can get out of their own way, or at least corner well enough to make it a good show.  

    Thanks for taking the lead here, just stay behind me on the track!

    Brad

     

View as RSS news feed in XML