603 replies to this topic

[Danny Steyn]

..... More tech sounds great until you have to provide the volunteer manpower.
...... We also need to police our class.

Paul
Several very important issues you raise here

• First off I think that we all agree that without any tech there is always rules creep. in 2011 there was almost ZERO tech at any of the Nationals other than weight and sometimes looking at restricotrs. Rules creep occurs at the front of the class and at the back - if we are not going to get bounced we push the limit.
• We would all prefer someone else to do it for us - we would rather have stiff tech and pay an additional compliance fee to have it.
• None of us want to be the unpoplular driver so we avoid protesting. In reality we should all cheer the protestor at the track and applaud him on the forum on Monday. I remember Jamie Tucker organizing the protest of the yellow 1.6 at PBIR a few years back and how happy the entire field was - we need more of this. It's easy to do to someone you dont know or dont like, but its really tough to do to a friend or a championship contender

For the class to thrive we have to limit the rules creep - so increase tech or self police, or preferably both

[Chris Fulton]

I started racing this class because of the field size and knowing that in this class you could race where ever you were in the field. I think it's still that way today.

I think the economy is hurting the field sizes, shoot, look at all the other classes.

I think the compliance fee should be brought back, at least something was teched. I just got back from the SIC at RR and all they looked at was our stickers on our cars and patches on our drivers suits. They caught a bunch of cheaters and made them go buy the appropriate sticker and or patch.

In the 4 years of racing SM I have made some good friends and had a ton of fun while improving my driving. I have no suggestions to curb the arms race, but I offer this, the only constant is change? I am sure some change is coming, some will like it and others will bitch, it'll still be fun.

[screaming monkey]

I joined this class because in my understanding, it was a class of equal cars relying on talent to race to the top of their class and have a shot at a career in racing. Huge fields of cars racing close. 10 cars nose to tail into corner 5 at RA without touching. A class like fv once was. Cheap and fun. When you're done laughing, you can read the rest. Imagine what I know after studying the class for two seasons while finding out I'm not as fast as I thought I would be or as able to afford to race for a national title as I though I would be. 1.6 vs 1.8 vs 99? Pro motors? I'm stressed...but still having more fun than should allowed by law. That being said, separating classes by years or regional vs national will just hurt other aspects of the class. Low budget guys with talent should still have a path to the front and all Miatas should be competitive.
I think the power to weight ratio is the key measurement and torque should be factored into the equation. Finding a way to police this electronically and then investigating red flags more thoroughly seems like a good solution.
Limiting the amount of tires you can bring to a weekend(only one new set) seems like a way to reduce costs as well.
Banning people caught cheating would end it in a hurry. Not grey area infractions but obvious stuff with stiffer punishment for the less obvious stuff.
I haven't been in the class for long, but I hope I will be and that we don't destroy it like almost every other formula in racing history and I hope I'm speaking for others that are new to the class or that are looking in from the outside. If not, it's just my 2 cents.

[Tom Sager]

I too think that bringing back the SCCA compliance program would be a positive step. It needs to be an agressive program more similar to what NASA did at their Championship event. You need someone to run it like Glen (and Mike) did there. They made observations on the grid and very quickly checked a number of things after each session on a number of cars. They hustled. They were very visible and active. The largest obstacle in doing this will be finding personnel at events that are anywhere near as capable when it comes to our cars. I also agree that blatant cheats need to result in stiff penalties.

Not yet discussed are double events (Regional and National). SCCA has had more of these in recent years and getting 2 events in a single weekend reduces per race expenses a lot. Frankly I wonder why that hasn't become the norm.

Lastly, I think that anyone can get a motor built to the current rules and be within 2-4 horsepower of front running cars assuming a good tune on the motor. A good local performance motor builder that takes advantage of the recent head rules doing a careful job with good parts should be able to accomplish this at a fair price. If anyone finds themselves way off in terms of power then they probably have a problem in the motor or a lousy tune or combination of both IMO.

[kverges]

FWIW I don't come here often and have loved racing SM due to close racing, reasonable costs, robust cars, and great camaraderie. I'll continue to race my lowly 1.6 car for fun.

I've been informed about my inadequate driving and my car was data logged at the '09 Runoffs and a lap drafting '99s used for comparison of performance. The 1.6 was deemed equal to the '99 and had I known how to drive I might have cracked the top 10.

That may be but my last TWS Double National I qualified a best in SM of 15 with a scratch and claw to 5th.

In a slightly smaller field I won one race in SRF. Same track. Same weekend. Rental SRF. The SRF racers were not quite as deep in talent I did not think, but there was talent in SRF.

I bought a SRF. We'll see how it goes and I plan to race both classes, but I am done with high dollar pro Miata engines. Sealed I would consider.

I honestly don't think perfect parity is possible from 1999-2001, but the arms race has worn me out. I'd like to have a competitive engine last longer before it becomes obsolete or needs refreshing. I'd consider splitting the class? No easy fix I am afraid.

[Rob Burgoon]

I don't feel it is appropriate for me to spell out a bunch of ways to cheat.

Even if I disagree with that philosophy, that's your right. The price of that is I can't take your claims 100% on faith and I remain unconvinced that the dyno isn't a useful tool in tech.

[CARacer]

There are different classes of costs, if I may use that terminology. There're the costs just to get to the track and run a car, and then there are the costs to be competitive and win. Of course, a lot, if not most, of the people in this discussion are experienced and successful and so we're talking a lot about cheating and $10,000 pro-built engines. For much or most of the field, though, those issues are irrelevant. If we're talking about attracting more racers and growing the fields, it's that first class of costs you need to be thinking about.

In my opinion there should be far more rules and the class should be much more spec. We should be actively looking for where people are spending their money, and more importantly, their time, and be actively squashing those things. That's how you'd make the class more attractive to newcomers and "increase retention."

A few examples and other brainstorming:
At least in San Francisco region we have different sound restrictions at different tracks so people are swapping exhausts/mufflers/pipes depending on the track. Spec the entire exhaust, including a 90 db muffler, and let's be done with it.

There's this nonsense with hub repacking. Let's find a hub that lasts 60,000 miles, add it to the spec, and be done with it. If you wanna still repack your hubs a few times a year, go ahead, but for guys that just want the car to run reliably that's more time and money in their pocket.

Let's find a brake pad that lasts a long time, probably a street pad, spec it, and spend less time and money swapping pads and rotors.

I know that policing tire shaving is difficult or impossible, but that would be nice.

Tire allocations, kinda like they do in F1. You start with four and then you get one tire allocated for each event you participate in. When you get a new tire, it gets registered to your name, taken from your allocation, and an ID or a stamp/seal/whatever is stenciled onto the sidewalls. Can't show up to pre-grid with non-registered tires. Maybe do occasional checks that people are running tires registered to them or maybe just let people swap tires around. This means a set of tires would have to last four events. I don't know how quickly the top guys are going through tires, maybe that number should be more or less. At least some people in the field will be stretching out their tires to last longer. Maybe Toyo won't like this, but maybe we could convince Toyo to market it as them being more environmentally responsible.

Not sure what to do about rain tires, but there has to be some way to do away with them.

For that matter, let's spec a street tire that'll last 10,000 miles. Other classes have done it. Then your allocation by the above plan will be more like 0.2 tires per event.

I'm not sure why a non-stock suspension was specced in the first place if the idea was to keep costs down, but I see there's no un-doing that. Makes no sense to me, though.

For me, and for several people I know, the biggest obstacle to racing is/was towing. One solution is to drive to the track, another is arrive-and-drive rentals. If you really want to increase field sizes, especially in places like SFR where land is expensive, you should be looking at ways to promote those. I have some ideas around that but I think they might be unpopular so I'll keep them to myself for now.

Tougher rules and enforcements around careless, dumb, or overly-aggressive drivers who are damaging and endangering other people's expensive equipment.

This is all just brainstorming (although I do think some of these ideas are fantastic )

[Charlie Hayes]

You can't really use "miles" to gauge anything on a racecar. It all depends on who drives the car and how its done for things to last. You go off sideways and catch air your hubs are toast usually no matter what....


Brake pads are really driver specific.

Tire shaving would be next to impossible to police as shops shave tires completely different. If a molded tire is chosen for regionals (hoosier/hankook/whatever) the problems will be solved. We will have to wait and see what NASA can do in 2013. Otherwise you need to test at the tracks you run at or look and see what kind of tires people are running at the pointy end and give that a shot.



I think NASA has the 99/1.6 pretty close. I think my car is getting up there in terms of car prep I don't have the big 123/105 numbers that I have seen on the interwebs but I know I can push some "fast" 99s around and they can do the same vice versa. As mentioned before I would like to see the flow from club to club effortless. I like the top 4 points Danny Steyn has posted

[dstevens]

A couple of thoughts CARacer...

Using street brake pads for this sort of racing would be dangerous. They wouldn't hold up.

Street tires that are speed rated this fast cost as much or more than RA-1s or Hoosiers with the new price. Using tires for racing for 10k miles won't work. They'll heat cycle out and be more dangerous. Old, slippery non race tires aren't safe.

Hubs are a non issue.

The spec suspension is made for racing. The stock suspension was not.

If you want to drive the car to the track fine. Just don't expect the rest of us to do it.

[Jim Creighton]

Concerning the post race tech at the SIC, we had only 4 tech workers (volunteers) plus we were really trying to keep things moving as fast as possible with the rain moving in rapidly. It really was all they could do to weigh cars & get everyone out before the next group. There were only 4 in your group but some groups had 17 cars in impound. Thanks for all the patches and decals everyone bought. Considering each of you had run at least 3 SARRC races in order to attend and the rules say you must have the patch on your suit and decals on the car, it was about time you complied. I heard Fowler say he had someone in his hauler with a sewing machine and there was a line out the door. Patch was $3, installation $30!

I've seen some good ideas here, but you have to realize that SM is just one of 40 different classes on a regional weekend. Yes, SM was the biggest class, but from my experience and from watching you guys over the years, I was satisfied that the cars running up front either were all ok or were all pushing the envelop equally. I watched the race and no one could pull away, no one shifted at that funny spot and no one misbehaved in the race ( well, almost).

In 2011 in SCCA, there were 1281 SM entries at National races and so far, there has been 2832 SM, 558 SSM, 598 SMT/SM2 & 2 SM5 entries at regional races through September. So round up regional to 4000 and National at 1281 for a total of 5281. If 2012 stays about the same, you can figure a budget of $60,000 for a compliance team assuming $10 each SM entry. With the high cost of travel & the difficulty of getting volunteers, that money won't do more than 60 races at best. I don't think SCCA National has the staff to do that many races so it's going to take one person from each division to handle.

So, start discussing where, when & how. In addition, you can email me at jcreig53@mindspring.com. If you want compliance at National, SARRC & ECR races here in SEDiv, we can put together a program. In SEDiv, we've had 1200 SM entries at regional races so far and had 320 at the National races. So, if we put together our own program, the budget would be about $15,000. Again, figure travel and something for the individual. Not a lot to work with for 13 National races and 30 regional weekends. Probably could do 15 races. And we would have to get around the wording in GCR that the sanctioning region is responsible for tear down costs. Most regions won't have funds to post tear down bonds. Otherwise, we'll be limited to looking from the outside.

It maybe too late to do this in 2012, but if you really want it, we could poll the RE's before the Annual meeting in January and if approved, have it for the January Winter Double Nationals. BTW, the Double National at Homestead is going to be a Double Rational and the Regional races will be SARRC points races. This is a chance for everyone to race at the Homestead January race. And the weather in Homestead is usually in the mid 70's with a nice breeze off the Keys. No snow, no slush, no chains, etc.

[Ron Alan]

Finishing our 2nd season in the class. Got into the class for all the reasons that have been mentioned numerous times already. But unlike many who seem to think things have changed for the worse, I just don't get it Have had a great time, made great friends(on and off track), and never a lack of information to be shared by many. It has been everything we expected it to be and more! If you can find a better bang for your buck in racing...go do it...and then come back and tell us so we can all jump ship

The suggestion that something needs to be done so the budget racer can compete with the deep pockets is ludicrous. Can all you rich guys please send a check to all us budget racers so after you kick our asses we can at least buy the beers(Wine...sorry!) Driving skills are #1 reason why guys are finishing at the pointy end, #2 is car set up and tires, #3 is HP and TQ...IMO. This is assuming all start within +/- 5HP. As Drago said, really doesn't matter how you change the rules for parity, the same fast drivers are still going to finish up front. No doubt, RA does favor TQ and top end speed which as the current rules are written does favor the NB. The biggest thing SCCA could do to stop the"current" arms race and throw a bone to the NA cars is move the runoffs to a tighter track with speeds under 105mph and short straights That said, is the future of the class really the 20 year old car?? Fast forward 10 years..."As the rules are written, my NB can't keep pace with the MX5, its just not fair!"

Sorry, back to the discussion It's naive to think we can't listen to guys like Jim D or Mike C when they tell us the dyno isn't the solution. That's like telling the heart surgeon you think your Gardner can do a better job with your triple bypass. He doesn't really need to explain when he tells you your nuts! We also have to remember we are a club, and clubs need volunteers. If we exclude people from what they do, know, or if they drive to serve at any variety of SCCA positions, we would have know one Thanks guys for volunteering to do a thankless job

-More compliance may be the only true deterant for rules creep and the blatant cheater. Plus pretty severe penalties for repeat offenders.

-Like the idea of some form of black/box, data logger...especially for the guys collecting trophies and contingency money!

This is the best class hands down. Lets just try and make it better, not reinvent the wheel

[Bruce Wilson]

100% agree with Mike and Jim that dyno is not a good solution.

Bring back the compliance Fee!!! We are still benefiting from the money that was spent on equipment, in the future the money could be spent on more travel and training, or donut/beer money for every tech crew at at every race. Just think how much more time and attention SM wouild get then

-bw

[Ron Alan]

There are different classes of costs, if I may use that terminology. There're the costs just to get to the track and run a car, and then there are the costs to be competitive and win. Of course, a lot, if not most, of the people in this discussion are experienced and successful and so we're talking a lot about cheating and $10,000 pro-built engines. For much or most of the field, though, those issues are irrelevant. If we're talking about attracting more racers and growing the fields, it's that first class of costs you need to be thinking about.

In my opinion there should be far more rules and the class should be much more spec. We should be actively looking for where people are spending their money, and more importantly, their time, and be actively squashing those things. That's how you'd make the class more attractive to newcomers and "increase retention."

A few examples and other brainstorming:
At least in San Francisco region we have different sound restrictions at different tracks so people are swapping exhausts/mufflers/pipes depending on the track. Spec the entire exhaust, including a 90 db muffler, and let's be done with it.

There's this nonsense with hub repacking. Let's find a hub that lasts 60,000 miles, add it to the spec, and be done with it. If you wanna still repack your hubs a few times a year, go ahead, but for guys that just want the car to run reliably that's more time and money in their pocket.

Let's find a brake pad that lasts a long time, probably a street pad, spec it, and spend less time and money swapping pads and rotors.

I know that policing tire shaving is difficult or impossible, but that would be nice.

Tire allocations, kinda like they do in F1. You start with four and then you get one tire allocated for each event you participate in. When you get a new tire, it gets registered to your name, taken from your allocation, and an ID or a stamp/seal/whatever is stenciled onto the sidewalls. Can't show up to pre-grid with non-registered tires. Maybe do occasional checks that people are running tires registered to them or maybe just let people swap tires around. This means a set of tires would have to last four events. I don't know how quickly the top guys are going through tires, maybe that number should be more or less. At least some people in the field will be stretching out their tires to last longer. Maybe Toyo won't like this, but maybe we could convince Toyo to market it as them being more environmentally responsible.

Not sure what to do about rain tires, but there has to be some way to do away with them.

For that matter, let's spec a street tire that'll last 10,000 miles. Other classes have done it. Then your allocation by the above plan will be more like 0.2 tires per event.

I'm not sure why a non-stock suspension was specced in the first place if the idea was to keep costs down, but I see there's no un-doing that. Makes no sense to me, though.

For me, and for several people I know, the biggest obstacle to racing is/was towing. One solution is to drive to the track, another is arrive-and-drive rentals. If you really want to increase field sizes, especially in places like SFR where land is expensive, you should be looking at ways to promote those. I have some ideas around that but I think they might be unpopular so I'll keep them to myself for now.

Tougher rules and enforcements around careless, dumb, or overly-aggressive drivers who are damaging and endangering other people's expensive equipment.

This is all just brainstorming (although I do think some of these ideas are fantastic )

I get where your post is going but IMO it lacks the element of reality. Show me one guy who doesn't look at their lap times or wants to finish 4 spots up the next race. Your ideas are for the ultimate budget racer. And after one day that budget racer is going to switch to the existing "spec" items and items within the rules to make them faster!! And those that are there don't want to go backwards. This hobbie excludes people because of costs... that's life. You really want it to look like a lemons race??


-We are racing, lets use equipment designed for this. If you total our car because you can't stop with your cheap pads or crappy street tires after 4 laps, we are going to have words Shaving tires is legal...and cheap...and makes you faster! We wore out our last set in 4 days(12 cycles)...I guess thats the cost of going fast. Our first set lasted 20 cycles...when we were a little slower. How would you propose eliminating rain tires...rain dance?

Your last 2 statements seem to be in a little conflict...at least from what i've seen renters tend to be in more accidents. If we kick them all out then what?

Messing with you Brandon...but lets not go backwards

[Jim Boemler]

Instead of the black box, what about using data acquisition to help police cheating?
Pull data from a number of cars during the event and check for anomalies with the data. Any car with suspicious data would then be looked at the old fashion way, in the Tech shed!
How difficult would it be to develop some software that could quickly scan a number of data points taken from various cars and highlight any discrepancies?
Maybe Glenn or Ron from Traqmate could chime in on this one and tell us the pros/cons?
On the surface, it seems like an efficient way finding cars that exaggerate the rules.

Joseph

Well, first you'd have to require everyone to have a data system. That's a pretty big expense. Second, different data systems use very different data formats, and they're all proprietary -- that is to say, intentionally secret. The only way around that would be to require that everyone buy the SAME data system. If you want to really piss off the guys who have a couple of grand invested in some other system, that would be a good method.

[JBlaisdell]

I still want to know/understand:
1) If, after qualifing, the top (5) and several random cars, go straight to a mobile dyno, at the track.
2) HP and TQ numbers are reviewed (by SCCA/NASA Tech ONLY). No data needs to shared with drivers.
3) Post race dyno of top (5) and several random cars go straight to the SAME mobile dyno, operated by the SAME operator.
4) How can this be "gamed"??? Besides BS limp mode...

I'm not trying to be a gardener preforming heart surgery...I simply want a clear explanation as to how and why this would NOT work. This "is" supposed to be a open discussion/brainstorming session...so, Jim D/Mike C., please share/educate us.

BTW...I would gladly pay $30-50 compliance fee per weekend(mobile dyno at the track)...to know the" immediate truth" (Danny's quote)...

[Jim Boemler]

Do you think you can arrange for a trackside dyno every race weekend, at every track in the country? Good luck.

[Bench Racer]

Do you think you can arrange for a trackside dyno every race weekend, at every track in the country? Good luck.

The key at this point in time is brainstorming , not trying to be a defeatest.

[Danny Steyn]

The key at this point in time is brainstorming , not trying to be a defeatest.

David - please DONT make posts like the one above - for the first time I am actually agreeing with you !!

[Mike Collins]

Jim Blaisdell,

The dyno while a great tool, is not the solution everyone wants it to be. At best it can give the operator or knowledgeable tech person enough information to figure out where to go look.

Jim D owns a dyno and I have unlimited access to the one I use. On average I dyno 3 or 4 cars each week for as much as 2 hours each sometimes more. You would be amazed at how easy it is "change" the result for a lower number, I have done it unintentionally so many times and chased it for hours.

All dyno's are not the same so using an arbritary number is a waste. Best car ever on our dyno is 114. That pulled 124 at the runoffs, which was great compared to the many 121 & 122 we saw. We did also see a 126. Was the 126 car cheating because he has 2 more than me ? I think not. He passed tech.

The root of our problem is not lack of rule or adding a dyno. It has already been addressed many times in this thread, enforcement! We have GREAT rules. Tech lacks the man power, time and at some races the ability perform the task. If you want more tech we need to start recruiting tech people, that specialty needs help.

Trivia question: how many mechanical protest were written an executed in the entire scca for 2010?

[Danny Steyn]

Its gratifying to hear that so many are still getting more grins per dollar in this class than anywhere else
The common thread is that we were all attracted to the class becuse of the LARGE fields, CLOSE racing, and that we were RACING, not lapping as in so many other classes.
There seems to be support for several items on the suggestion list, and some are going to work and some are not

I am not going to be the one to cull the list - keep the discussion going and lets add to the list - what this does is provoke the discussion and if and when changes are made, at least the rationale for the decisions will have been transparent

SUGGESTION LIST SO FAR

• Stop changing the spec - try and get to a sensible spec quickly and hold it for at least a few years - regular spec rule changes are not good for the class
• Close the gap between NASA and SCCA - find a middle ground on weight and restrictor size
• Close the parity issue between 1.6 and 99 - this is really hard as it is SO TRACK DEPENDENT
• Increase tech or the rampant cheating will escalate - I vote for returning the $10 tech compliance fee to tech NOT ONLY THE FRONT, but also RANDOM MID PACK racers
• Horsepower Cap?

• Set the cap limit at whatever - say 120HP.
• Make a portable dyno available at the track to all on test day before the race, and on race days. Get on teh dyno, pay a nominal fee, make sure you are under the cap
• After a qualifying or race session, send the top 3-5 PLUS at least 2 random mid pack runners to the dyno immediately - cannot go to pits or put the hood up.
• Dyno guy gets in and runs your car to see what their numbers are
• If your numbers are way over limit, lose your qualifying time or your race position.
• Detune the car to meet the cap.

• Split 90-97 Regional - 99+ National
• Dont split classes - too many classes already
• Engine claim rule
• Stiffer penalities / fines / bans for cheaters
• More self policing from SM racers - polite requests to protests
• Disallow tire shaving
• Enforce Power to weight ratio
• No pro motors
• Sealed motors
• Black box - some sort of mandated data capture for tech to check for anomalies
• No chin spoliers !!!
• stock suspension
• DOT tires

any more suggestions???