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. 

---

Once you go Mac, you never go back!

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

---

Once you go Mac, you never go back!

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.   

---

Once you go Mac, you never go back!

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.

subrew:

*subrew goes to build his Hyundai Scoupe Turbo

 

Damn, a Sonnet and a Scoupe Turbo, you are king of the obsure race cars!  I should introduce you to my friend with an FSP LeCar. 

---

Once you go Mac, you never go back!

I'd just like to congratulate Chris Travis on his 2009 SMF National Championship...

 

Does anyone see *ANYTHING* besides an EF/EG Civic with a built NA K20 winning once cars get developed?

I don't like the 1.4 adder either.  It should be at least a multiplier in a SMF class.  There's such a huge point of diminishing returns on power to weight with a FWD chassis.  A turbo 1.6L has to weigh 200 lbs more than a 2L NA motor.  With the Honda K20 making 230+ whp with bolt-ons, cams, and an ECU.... how much is a 300 whp turbo 1.6L worth when it has to push around an extra 200 lbs?

 

---

Jesse
-2002-2006 E-stock 93 MR2 (sold)
-2007-2008 XP Spyder

subrew:

I briefly thought of the Lotus, but then remembered SM bans all Lotus', and SM2 only specifically allows a couple.

 You're right, I had a brainfart.  I thought I remembered the FWD Elan being on the "All excluded except..." list.  It's not.

MattP:

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?

 1st gen crx has a wheelbase of 86". 2nd is at 90". they are much shorter then the equivalent civic, to the tune of 12~15" in just wheelbase alone (a foot and a half compared to later cars). given equal power, weight etc the smaller car will always be faster then the larger one. we currently have uber lightweight classes for said crx and civics (sts, sts2, ep).

an ep car with an interior and dot tires will surely trump a late model vw, honda, scion, mazdaspeed, cobalt, etc. an example of what will be a fast fwd SM car would be Jose Mercado's rsx. he has a 2 liter supercharged powerplant with 315's up front. he will be required to weigh 2330 under the new ruleset. his car is currently 2700, but he still has sunroof, a/c, etc. the car can drop 200 easily, and with some $ and development he can be much closer. he has not had the drive to do this when he has to compete against evo's that weigh roughly the same, make much more power and have 2 extra drive wheels. he has had renewed vigor as of late, because SMF is on the horizon.

there are plenty of these examples out there, for instance the srt4 neon from ohio (sorry, forgot his name). the srt would be a perfect match for Jose's rsx. as well as the current civic si, and previous gen civics, gti's, etc.

for those who still want to campaign an early civic/crx, how would you propose we equate a 20 year old crx with a recent srt4? short of adding a large amount of weight, i do not think there is anything you can do to equalize the cars. again, if you have a early civic/crx and want a competitive class, you have STS/STS2. want race tires? CSP. want to gut the car and run real slicks? EP.

a friend has a 1.6 supercharged crx. car weighs 2160, as it is not fully prepped for the class. under the new proposal, it will have to weigh 2400. excessive? yes, most think so. now think of it this way: if the min weight was to be 2200 for said car, it would surely annilate jose's aforementioned rsx, and i would personally run the crx of the rsx. but, jose's car at 2330 with 300whp will have a def chance against a 2400lb 225whp crx. 

another data point for crx ballast: a csp crx with the 1.6 naturally aspirated will have to weigh 1970 (100+ over csp weights), before the added 150 lbs. i hate to use jose's car reference again, but would you rather be in a 2400lb rsx or a built 1.6 csp crx with 200whp that weighs 1970? again, easy choice. okie, add 150 and the 2120. still very competitive imho, but clearly not the overdog it would be at csp weight of ~1840. 

all this weight talk is making me realize i am a fat bastard and need to drop 40lbs.... ok, i have to go to bed. 

129STS:

I'd just like to congratulate Chris Travis on his 2009 SMF National Championship...

 

lol, i dunno how i completely missed that.... talk about counting chickens before they hatch, eh? thanks for the vote of confidence though  

 

---

Hi! I'm Rodney. "Hi Rodney!" I'm addicted to Solo....

ok, still not in bed, but my eyes are tearing quite badly.... 

rushman:

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'.
 

 as much as it pains me to say it, but fwd will never be able to keep up with the current awd contingent and past m3's that have won nationals repeatedly. lord knows i have tried.... SMF evens out the playing field. no more 1.588 60' launches...(awd celica at dc pro). we will all be in the 2's, whether i have a 1970lb crx or a 2800lb mazdaspeed. as far as it being "new", many people have half prepped fwd SM cars, and prefer to stay away from big events with fear of not being competitve. with SMF, everyone will be on that same field.

 ok, the wife yelled at me as i a typing too loudly... good night.  

---

Hi! I'm Rodney. "Hi Rodney!" I'm addicted to Solo....