603 replies to this topic

[MPR22]

My list of things for the class to thrive/survive.

1. Economy must improve!!

Without new blood the class will die. I would bet the average SM racer spends 2.2 years in the class. Buys car, spends 2 years learning to drive/race, figures out he/she needs more of the following: Talent (majority), Motah (not really), Practice/Setup (majority) and the big one, MONEY.
I have completed 2 seasons, I have 2 competitive cars in my division, and I am now at the front of mid pack in SW Division. My setup is good, (thanks JP3) my cars are pretty good (Thanks Pat Ross ,JP3 and my buddy Chris H.), my talent is ok, decision time now. Spend more money developing my car and engine, spend more time (money) practicing, or understand I am close to the end of my development cycle as driver. So as I see it I am one of those drivers that is either going to commit the time and money to get better or I will be out of racing in the next 12 months. Who will replace me? Maybe nobody if the economy does not improve. I entered this class for three reasons, it was completive, it was reasonably cheap and to spend more time having fun with my dad. The class is still competitive as ever. I have spent approximately 3x what I ever thought I could spend and I am still poor boying it compared to the best. Racing is expensive! Has always been expensive and will always be expensive. Can we change things in this class to mitigate for the cost of being at the top, probably not? With popularity comes a high price, the arms race. When this was Regional class it was true grass roots racing. Now it's a National Class, the horse is out of the barn. I still hang on to two of the three reasons I got into this, it is a competitive class and I get to have fun with my dad.

Danny,
I appreciate you trying to help out by gathering ideas for the powers that be. My honest opinion is the economy is a much bigger drain on this class than all of the other items in the list combined. However, I will put a number 2 on my list.

2. More tech!

Like Drago and others have said mid-packers think all the front runners are cheating and therefore start to bend the rules. Nothing like beating a guy out of turn with 5 MPH more exit speed to just have him drive away from you. They don't even check weights and plate 70% the time on the SW Davison after qualifying. Some random sampling of the mid packers would go a long way. IMHO if everyone feels they are on a level playing field then the arms race will slow down, not stop by any means but slow down. The top dogs are on a mission to win and will spend whatever it takes to bring a fast legal car to the big races. The midpack needs to be more affordable and teched.

[5X Racing]

From MPR22's post:

"2. More tech!"

We all agree on that, but the problem is the logistics of supporting the tech our class requires. I am not sure what SCCA does for SRF tech, but we are the only two classes that demand tech right? The clubs don't see the need to provide an all out compliance team for two classes unless it's a big event, in which they bring in experts like Mike and Glenn, so how do we get the clubs to provide volunteers for tech? We need some more input on how to make tech a reality at races, national or regional (I think the focus should be on national first though, as these are higher profile races). It's a known fact that everybody agrees the absence of tech is a problem, we just need to move on from the "need more tech" excuse and figure out how to make it happen!

Here's my input on a possible solution:
Is it possible to get some sort of program going where the racers in the class are required to be "tech workers" for a weekend, like in autocross when you have to go work a corner and pick up cones at least once or twice a day depending on how many people are needed when you're not on track? Perhaps 3 racers each weekend can be chosen by the event staff and either themselves, or a representative of that racer (a father that helps out in the pits, or a mechanic from an arrive and drive outfit that represents a renter from his paddock for example) has to be present for the post race tech to assist with checking items on the top 3 or 5 finishers? The racer would be responsible to make themselves present at the post race tech, and if they did not, they would have to be penalized or some other type of undesirable action. We have plenty of stewards at SCCA races, I believe the CFR has one specifically for the SM class, why couldn't this steward oversee this program? I know in NASA I could pretty much do what I wanted as race director, and in NASA the SM class has an SM Class Director who also races (Jim Blaisdell in NASA FL, Steve D in NASA SE). In NASA it would be easy, the Race director and SM director would work together to choose the people (fairly of course based on on a checklist of previous races used as the volunteer) and oversee what gets tech'd.

This might have a side benefit to hush the finger pointers too, as it can be a good learning experience for the new or disgruntled racer because they are going to be able to stick their nose into the winners engine bay and help check items (preferably from an established list, like Glenn and Mike had from the NASA Nats) officially instead of just assuming that somebody is illegal. They might find gratification in that, either in the form of "wow, that guys car is impeccably prepared and is not illegal like I thought it would be" or maybe in the form of finding an out of compliance part and busting a cheater. The compliance fee can be used to fund the tools needed and the research done to create a checklist, as well as provide a "tech supervisor" to oversee the operation and "volunteered" volunteers.

Just trying to provide solutions instead of creating more problems to the "no tech" dilemma, I am really not sure if this program would be feasible for the clubs or not, but I would like to think they have the ability to put something like this into position. Jim Creighton are you still scanning this? Is this a possibility?

[JP3]

Class needs sm1 for 1.6s sm2 for 1.8s then u can stop trying to make a 1.6 like a 1.8 car ? Everybody complaning about lack of teck, needs to work teck 1 weekend a season to help out . I am a Sr Scrutineer ! I go over help out when time allows , the stewarts will come find me if they need help with cars ,or other problems. They are usally overwhelled and under staffed .Just putting it out there they could use all of our help. Thanks for all yall input your driving DRAGO CRAZY

[davew]

I have been sitting here reading this cumbersome thread. Lots of good ideas. Here’s my thoughts:

At track dyno: Great idea in theory, just not practical to have at every race.

Tech/Protest manual: The SMAC actually started writing this a few years ago. That is where the engine component weights came from. Sam Henry wrote up a detailed method for checking transmission and diff gear ratios. I think Meathead wrote detailed instructions for the whistler. This still requires someone to protest, and we know that is not going to happen very often.

Simplify the rules: Actually, I would tighten the rules up. Allow less gray area. The gray areas do not come from the rule book, they come from racers looking for an advantage. As racers always will. Make the gray areas smaller and the development will become too costly. For example, the shock spec is very wide, competitors are taking advantage of this and are building shocks into the gray area and beyond. Tighten up the spec and the advantage for modified shocks becomes minimal. Bang for the buck goes up.

Disallow cylinder sleeving: This was allowed several years ago because people complained of worn blocks. Most vocal where 1.6 owners because their engines are the oldest. The recent allowance of 0.010” overbore (equivalent to .25 mm overbore) makes the sleeves a VERY expensive way of accomplishing the same thing. And eliminate the weight penalty for the overbore. <1 hp is not going to make any difference.

Sealed engines: Not a bad idea, but that horse is looooong gone.

SCCA vs NASA rules; Make them as close as possible. My last meeting as a member of the SMAC included John Mueller from NASA. He seemed to agree with the "SMAC recommended (later adopted by SCCA) specs". It was NASA headquarters that came up with their own plate/weight rules. Tires will be an issue for next year, as each group has contracts that must be satisfied. All we can do is live with it.

Splitting the class: This has only worked in one area of the country, where both SSM and SM has flourished as 2 distinct classes. By me, SM and SMT are the same cars. I feel splitting the class will be a detremint to both classes.

ECU: I really wish this had never become an issue. With the current technology it is almost impossible to police this after the fact. I would love to see SCCA issue ECUs on the grid prior to each session at The Sprints, Runoffs etc. Don’t know if it is practical or not.

Runoffs venue: Yes, Road America is a definite 99 track. No doubt, no argument. So right now, the people interested in competing at Road America are going to build mostly 99 cars. Will a change in Runoffs venue change that thinking, Maybe! I am very confident that The June Sprints will not be moving, so get used to 99s dominating at Road America.

Parity: I firmly believe that the vast majority of top level cars being built are 99s. I also believe the vast majority of top level drivers are in 99s. That is why 99s win most of the top level (SCCA National) events.

Parity part 2: This is my version of how to eliminate the entire (at least some of it) parity discussion. Stop worrying about the 1.6 cars. You will never get the 1.6 and 99 competitive with each other at every track, without helping the 1.6 drasticly or hindering the 99 more than it already is.

Allow 1.6 cars to upgrade to a 1.8 engine. This can be done using an adapter kit available from Flyin Miata or by swapping the entire electrical system from a 94-97 car. In my version, you can not put a 99 engine in a 1.6 car. Just the 94-97 version. The only other part to upgrade would be the brake calipers and rotors to the 1.8 spec. Then all NA cars can run without a restrictor and the 99s can be balanced using plate and weight.

This would not prohibit the 1.6 cars from running. It would however make them even less competitive. But should allow a much closer field of 1.8 powered cars.

This would require an extended period of time to impliment.

Cheating: I feel there are several versions of cheating.
Pushing the envelope at the Runoffs and getting caught is bad racing mojo. Expect to suffer the consequences if caught.
A mid pack guy running some minor illegal parts to save money, but he still finishes in the same spot, is no biggie to me. But this is VERY common
A mid packer who has a BIG motor, gets in the way of the leaders and finishes 5 positions ahead of where he should finish. This is also common and is a problem.

Drama: We have way too much of it. Spec Miata is the best thing out there. Is it perfect? HECK NO. But it does not need an overhaul. Not even a tune-up is needed. Just a fresh coat of wax to smooth out the rough spots.

Just a couple more cents worth.

Dave

[Jim Daniels - FIG]

Not sure we need more tech as we need better engine builders.

As with any none sealed motor class, those who buy a dyno and make it to tech to see what the words mean, rule.

I can write for hours but it boils down to a simple fact. You can't just buy a pro motor and think you have good power.

Enterprises ca do that with SRF but this is FAR from SRF.

In this class we have folks selling motors who have NO Fing CLUE how tech read the rule book. They sell to folks who buy hype that have even a lessor clue of the rules.

Drago is a great example of what it takes. He has bought a motor from everyone to only be disappointed, slow and motor poor.

Then, he tested the waters, same as any class, to find out what tech means. Now, he builds to that, case closed.

Don't be pissed cause your motor builder has not done his homework, loosing occurs MUCH more than on track.

Short a sealed motor program, you folks better learn how to build and to what technical inspection standard YOURSELF!

KUDOS to those in all classes who go through the trouble to be better, it is the ROOT of racing!

Now, lets talk about bspec

[john mueller]

The SMAC has been on going discussions for 2012 weight and plates. I have been in discussions with John Mueller and NASA. The goal being to arrive at a place where both sanctioning bodies are on the same rules besides the tires. We are on Hoosiers for the next three years and NASA is on Toyos for at least next year. I feel confident that both organizations will be on the same weights for 2012 and beyond.

SMAC ( and I believe NASA, but can't comment on their position) will monitor, but less a major unforeseen parity issue arises ( btw, there are NO major parity issues in NASA or SCCA right now, just so you understand what we are considering "major") there will be no competition adjustments for three years.

Yep, agreed !!

[Rob Burgoon]

I have been sitting here reading this cumbersome thread. Lots of good ideas. Here’s my thoughts:

At track dyno: Great idea in theory, just not practical to have at every race.

Yep, my scheme would only do the dyno thing when affordable local dynos are present. There is however the possibility of saving up a little at a time for a surprise portable dyno visit.

[Andrew Charbonneau]

yep a agree with my man jim danny boy plus dont forget great driver also likemyself pay and learn thats racing

[Andrew Charbonneau]

I would like to share a great story with you guys but i have my own forum now you must read it later

[Mr. Magoo]

Could it help to let 01-05 cars be more competitive?

[Connie 62]

Let's all agree that what we need for the success of SM is numbers. The mid-pack and back markers are the lifeblood of the class. The top 5 hot shots can go race with themselves and the result would be the same with 5 cars as it would with 35. The same car would probably win. But who would pay the bills?

So what does the rest of the pack want? They want to know that when they stand on the par 3 golf hole that they could get a hole in one. And no pro could do it any better. Translation: They don't have to win, but they need to know that they could (or perhaps their car could with another driver and a different setup).

So there's the lead in. I have spent 7 years trying to perfect and level the playing field in SSM in WDC. And I've come pretty close. The result is huge fields (35-45 SSMs per weekend) and happy drivers. We have a sealed engine process and any driver knows that he could be taken to the dyno after any session. Bust the number and you're out!!

There's no need to have a nationwide number for max HP. Dynos are different and each region would have access to different dynos. But the region could set the number on that dyno. Bust the number and...

What we need more than parity is "parity with an end to the arms race". Let's end (as much as possible) the R&D and contain the costs of one part of competition, the racecar. We just can't sustain an endless, relentless search for HP. It's gotten so out of hand that we are a class of "haves" and "have nots". It's so bad that I wonder why the mid pack keeps coming out. They know they can't get that hole in one.

More tech! More tech! Now we know that will never happen. But with a region certified dyno sitting next to the tech shed, the techies won't have to lift a hood. I can think of a lot more ways of cheating up my car than I can think of ways to game a dyno.

Lastly, I know this is feasible. Because I've seen it in WDC SCCA SSM, and NASA Mid-Atlantic SM.

Let's keep the hole in one within grasp of everyone.

Jim Thill
#11 SSM
#3 ITA
With a 99 sitting in my garage begging for a roll cage

[Gatoratty]

Why do people keep saying this is the "off-season"? Race next weekend at Sebring, November Turkey Trot at Sebring, Jan National at Sebring, and Feb at Sebring! Come join us.

[john mueller]

Danny,
I'm late the the party, just started reading page 8... Please add complete dash removal to your ever growing list. It's easy place to hide stuff and if one started to burn the vapors released would be harmful.

I'll have more comments later but I'm rather enjoying the discussion.

[Ron Alan]

Danny,
I'm late the the party, just started reading page 8... Please add complete dash removal to your ever growing list. It's easy place to hide stuff and if one started to burn the vapors released would be harmful.

I'll have more comments later but I'm rather enjoying the discussion.

The guy who wants to drive to the track will love this...my window is fogging up

[Todd Green]

Also the 2275 weight is a joke for 1.6's

How's it a joke? I weigh ~160 and have ~50 lbs of ballast. That means you could weigh 210 and still make weight in theory. Are there certain years of the 1.6 that can't get as light? My car has a RaceTech seat, Petty bar, radio, and glass/panels in the passenger door so it isn't even as light as it could be.

[Rob Burgoon]

The guy who wants to drive to the track will love this...my window is fogging up

So leave the blower and heater and add a duct. Or heaven forbid, anti-fog.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Rain In California? When?

[dmathias]

Mr. Thill,

I could not have said it better. +1

Let the average Joes get discouraged and quit and you'll have prod car-sized fields.

Denny

[Alberto]

I agree with Thill as well. He summarizes my thoughts well.

[pat slattery]

How about the 1.6 and 1.8 run SM, and move the 99 and up to run the new MX5 class.

I bet they will even promise to bring the MX5 cars in as an Underdog, not a overdog.


Pat