291 replies to this topic

[Jim Boemler]

Part of my job developing myself as a driver is figuring out how to capitalize off my strengths and your weaknesses. Where can I focus my efforts to gain an edge?

Apparently by making rules that favor you.

[LarryKing]

"First they took the Jews..."

Really?!?

I will reiterate, anyone who can not make weight in a 1.6 is not trying hard enough. Bozo has said countless time that he compromises so that his car is streetable, that's his choice.
I spent last winter lightening my 1.6, and I didn't have to work too hard. At 205 lbs I can still make 2275 in a 1.6. Next year I'll have to put weight back in.

[Blake Thompson]

"First they took the Jews..."

Godwin's. /argument

[Cnj]

So why do we have this entry-level class at all? Do we not have it because the rest of the racing world is financially unavailable to most? Does this class not exist specifically to allow a greater number of people to race? I mean, if you take your your view, most of us couldn't race at all, our entire lives! You included, I expect. We try to keep our racing expenses down for good reason, and that reason is precisely to enable more of us to race.

"First they took the Jews..."

Jim, I like a lot of what you post, but (apparently) equating your protection of the SM future to Niemoller's activism seems a stretch.

Cnj

[Cnj]

Apparently by making rules that favor you.

Not what I heard Keith say. On the other hand if we are going to consider rules that favor the individual I want to weigh in. I carry over 100 lbs of extra weight in my 99 to get to 2450 so I think (purely in the interests of "it's all about me") that we should stop screwing around with 2400 and drop to 2350. That should give me some of the unfair advantage that I rightfully deserve over my more well endowed competitors.

Cnj

[Jim Boemler]

Call it a slippery slope if you prefer. But not a terribly stretched slippery slope. Those of us who've been doing this a while have seen a really FUN class devolve into something else. It still has some appeal, but it's just not the same anymore. In my mind it all went south when this group decided that the "intent" statement didn't mean anything. We -- this group right here, not the SMAC or CRB or BOD -- sealed our fate by denying our own heritage. It's been downhill ever since.

BTW, I much enjoyed your tongue-in-cheek, but honest, talk about dropping the 99 to 2350!

I'm a little torn on the question of folks who just have to have these super-low minimum weights. Part of me rails at the notion that they feel the need to disadvantage those heavier than they are. On the other hand, I have to feel for their sense of inferiority -- the idea that they don't dare race heavier folks on an even footing.

The biggest amusement comes when people complain about having to add so much ballast. They spend tremendous effort building a super-light car, and then have to add ballast. Somehow it never occurs to them that they could avoid the effort in the first place. Maybe people's brains are proportionate to their mass?

[Keith Novak]

Apparently by making rules that favor you.

Quite the contrary. I see you wanting the rules to fit your needs to the detriment of others who don't fit your situation. I don't agree with that and don't really appreciate being demonized for having what I think is a valid opinion that you disagree with but I do think the value in extreme positions is that they make the middle ground seem a whole lot more sane.

I can hear the next argument now...How is raising the base weight to the detriment of others? For one, it marginalizes the work some people have done to fit into or even capitalize off the rule set. The way I see it, you're saying level of effort shouldn't count for anything. Do you suggest that people post the suspension settings and tire pressures on the outside of their car so we can learn from their setup experience. As an "entry level" class where people come in with significant racing experience, do you suggest we take a page out of the ALMS rules and add or subtract weight from cars based on finishing position to keep the racing closer or grid in reverse order from the qualifying times to make things more competitive? You've said yourself that you've been doing this for a while so how do we neutralize that advantage for people who haven't?

Adding significantly to the nominal weight, you're also neglecting the 16 year old kid coming into the class or the 5% female. I weighed 135 at 16 years old. The 5% female weighs 108 lbs and the standards I'm familiar with require not optimizing around one end of the spectrum or another but trying to fit things around the 90% in the middle which requires compromises. Being 6' 180#, I'm pretty close to the middle of the bell curve (requiring a significant effort passing the 40 y.o. mark) and I have a spec weight that requires a bunch of steel bolted to the floor regardless so I don't really have a dog in the hunt other than I favor rules that are balanced rather than catering to any special interest.

Anyhow...hope to see you at James' place tomorrow for the post-enduro get together. Fun win.

[Ron Alan]

You 2 Northwest engineers need to get a room and battle it out with your slide rules!

The sad part of this whole discussion is it doesn't matter for 3 years!!!!

Things just aren't like the good old days...so said my grandparents, parents, myself and now my kids

Our 2 years in this hobby have been great...must have been off the hook way back when!

[Jim Boemler]

Bring some of your surplus red herring to the party, Keith!

With the minimums raised, everyone can make weight. It's even easier for the light guys, because they wouldn't have to remove so much. Some of the females could probably race with stereos, which they'd love. Most importantly, everyone CAN be at equal weight.

With the minimums lowered, everyone works harder to get down to minimums. Some make it, and some don't. Competition is thus uneven. It's not a matter of how much work is involved, for many drivers it's simply not POSSIBLE to make weight. That is to say, it's simply not possible to have a heads-up race.

There are lots of factors that can't be equalized. But we do try to equalize what we can, and weight is one of the things we CAN equalize. Pretty easily, in fact. For most light-weights, the difference would be as simple as starting with 3/4 of a tank of fuel instead of 1/4. BFD.

What exactly is gained by having an artificially low (that is, unattainable by some) weight? The whole field goes infinitesimally faster. Again, BFD. The loss is equal competition. If I was able to use the rules to get such an advantage in a race, I'd be embarrassed to take a trophy -- I just wouldn't figure I'd earned it fairly. An honorable driver wouldn't stand for accepting such an advantage.

PS: I do realize that this is a purely philosophical argument. Yes, the rules won't change for three years (see "the check's in the mail"). And I will probably never see the inside of a race car again regardless. But for the good of the class I still believe the issue is important. As you guys see your groups get smaller and smaller, maybe you'll reconsider what's important for your survival.

[Jim Drago]

To further this philosophical debate ...

The guys who could make weight at 2250 with no ballast now will have 50-100 lbs of ballast. That is huge in terms of setting up and scaling your car and a BIG ADVANTAGE over the guys who are barely making weight and have little to no ballast. I have been in that spot my entire racing career, likely always will. So it still pays to make your car light as possible and regardless of your body weight, until the weight of the ballast surpasses the weight of the driver, seat, belts and gear, it is advantage within a class such as SM. This is a fact, not an opinion.

[DDG]

Kool..... H Production

[Blake Thompson]

Call it a slippery slope if you prefer.

I took like a semester of debate in high school. Slippery Slope and accused fascism are two completely invalid arguments. I call it slippery slop or sumthin.

[Todd Green]

What exactly is gained by having an artificially low (that is, unattainable by some) weight?

How many times does this have to be answered? Please go read previous posts. Also we're not artificially lowering weight, we're artificially adding weight.

The whole field goes infinitesimally faster. Again, BFD. The loss is equal competition. If I was able to use the rules to get such an advantage in a race,

Wait. You just said the difference is infinitesimal, then on the other hand it is a a big advantage. Which is it? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I'd be willing to bet hefty quantities of beer that in a blind back-to-back test most of the SM drivers couldn't tell the difference in 25 lbs in their car and couldn't run consistent enough laps to show a difference. Or especially if you tested where you lied to them and told them they were going to go out first with the weight out and then you were going to add the weight in, but did just the opposite. Or didn't actually change the weight at all. Trying to put on my neutral hat, I will agree that it is annoying as hell to feel like you are leaving something on the table to your competitors.

As you guys see your groups get smaller and smaller, maybe you'll reconsider what's important for your survival.

This is the crux of the matter. However you need to show that field sizes are shrinking due to people not being able to make weight. We've already shown that 200+ lb drivers can make weight under the old rules. The new rules should allow 225-250 depending on car prep and amenities (e.g., cool suit) Since that falls within the 85 percentile that you said would be fine, can we please move on (at least for 1.6's. No idea on the other cars)? Or is this a case of "I want to have my cake and eat it to"? Sorry, couldn't resist.

FWIW our region has been struggling with entries as of late. AFAIK, not a single one of the people who've stopped coming out can't make weight. Most have significant ballast. That would leave me to believe that there are other factors with the shrinking fields. At least at our races.

[Keith Novak]

No need to start confusing things unnecessarily with facts and data, and in the spirit of good sportsmanship, I'll be the first to reach out my hand and humbly admit that I'm right and Jim's wrong.

[Long Road Racing]

NASA had the weights and restrictor sizes perfect for 2011 - wish they had left it alone. At all the races we ran with NASA last year, one of each car (90, 94 or 99) could win.

[tahoez]

i vote runoffs at willow springs!

[dstevens]

i vote runoffs at willow springs!

On Horse Thief Mile. That will separate the men from the boys....

[pat slattery]

Nasa caved in to the SCCA power brokers

[Ron Alan]

Nasa caved in to the SCCA power brokers

Not that I care but I see it was NASA that forced the issue...and SCCA moved more towards them. Unless you mean NASA should never have moved off their 2011 weights and plates then I see your point. But I think in the end it doesn't matter as both clubs can only benefit from coming together 100% What's 15lbs among friends?

[john mueller]

Nasa caved in to the SCCA power brokers

Really Pat? I'm glad you know how everything works... You say something like this yet you don't show-up at Nationals? Come'on man! I really hope you were trying to make a joke.

I worked closely with SMAC to do what 99.999% of SM'ers wanted - the same rule for both organizations. I and NASA were willing to make changes as long as it supported the plate and weight philosophy we decided upon for 2011 while achieving 'unification'... If we agreed to enlarge the 99's RP, the appropriate weights were added as well and the other cars were then adjusted. It's all related so somewhat easy to balance.

• Mid-season I started to believe that the 99 was a teeny-tiny bit under powered but needed to see it play out more.
• One thing I admitted early on is that I made an error on was making the 99's I tiny bit light in 2011.
• +1 mm is about 1.5-2 hp and +10lbs is about -1/2 hp for a gross of 1-2 hp which is just about what I felt was needed. (these are broad estimates, you engineering types keep you panties on)

All you naysayers, if you really think NASA and SCCA are that wrong and out of touch, either prep your cars and prove it to us or shut your pie-holes and move-on.