310 replies to this topic

[chris haldeman]

Here is my question. I am a mid pack, low budget 1.6 SM driver. I have an older Rossini rebuilt motor, Fat Cats, Hoosiers and RR's (run both NASA & SCCA). I have no problem going back to RA1's, going to need new tires for 2016 anyway. The only issue is of retro fitting the stock shock hats and what do I do about my motor? Do we just de-tune to 113 and seal it, or do I need to look for a stock 1.6 head to refresh, or an entire junkyard motor?

Likely with the stock air box and spec exhaust you would need very little detuning too be sealed for ssm. Easily accomplished with either timing and or afr

[Steve Scheifler]

It was stated that the dyno/seal aspect is not strictly necessary but others say it is key. We all (should) know that in SM the difference between finishing positions of the typical 1.6 is at best minimally about the engine and mostly about other prep, expense (tires more than one a year etc.) and the driver. Contradictions. Point being, even if you could do the sealed engine nationally, if a bunch of highly motivated and adequately skilled people then joined the class it would up with them winning all the races just like they do now, if by perhaps a slightly smaller margin.

Todd, my point was that less camber, whether mandated or unavoidable, must surely increase costs more than it saves. It seems to me a perfect example of one-time penny wise for recurring dollar foolish. How can that not be the case? Back in the day, guys running several seconds off the pace talked about even tire wear and 20+ heat cycles without noticeable (to them) degradation. Anyone running at full pace knew better. I can't see how this would be any different.

[Mike Collins]

This thread is about SMSE and the fact that it doesn't address the problem it just acknowledges it exist.

In SSM we have a max amount of allowable timing and we use timing and AFR to adjust HP. Chris H and I talked about it at the runoffs. There are some really good SSM engines that hit peak HP and then run flat line through the entire power band.... A top flight, stout SSM motor cost about $3500 and I have 6 of these cars for sale all between $8500-$11000 depending on data and extras not the provenance of the car. We can build one new (for ourselves) ready to race for under $11k.

I do spend more on tires than some of my competition, shaving toyo's to 1/32 rolled shoulder tires and only running them for a weekend. An SSM is an SSM and with good prep/ set-up you can win. We keep proving it over and over by putting top drivers in random cars. We do nothing more than put it on the scales, make some changes to the set up and a quick string alignment.

Like SMSE you need a good regional support. UNlike SMSE we have rules that the region can enforce and keep the playing field level.

[Johnny D]

FYI, SFR SCCA run RR's for drys, RA1's is ok but really for wets.

RR's not as fast as Hoosiers but a very good value and faster than RA1's so you run in the pack.

No shaving and if you double dips your good to go.

It's a run what you brung class.
J~

[38bfast]

Splitting SM into SMSE with the same rule set does not make sense to me at all. Why don't we just give everyone a first place trophy when they register. If you want to limit prep to keep cost and effort down with a new rule set I can see that.

[E-Speed Motorsports]

As some of you may know, I was one of the ones pushing for SSM in the SE. I had a meeting with Jim Creighton shortly after the SM-SE class was approved, and before it was announced. I told Jim that I would support the class and be a point man for it.

 

Jim told me that for now until the SEDiv meeting in February the rules will be straight up SM, except for the 1.6's. He assured me the final rule set for 2016 would not be set in stone till then. I voiced my opinion that the class needs to be differentiated and restricted for cost control from SM. We talked about the SM vs SSM classes. Jim ask me if I would be willing to come to St. Simon SEDiv meeting and discuss the issues and I agreed to be there. The last thing that Jim said to me was he WILL listen to the competitors input and the final outcome will be based on that input. So, I STRONGLY suggest that all concerned parties voice their opinions pro, con, or neutral here and other venues, and come to the February meeting.

 

I will be happy to voice my personal opinions, and I'm sure that I will. The bottom line is I applaud Jim for taking action, and I will support the class regardless of what form it ends up.  

 

Estus White

[Jim Creighton]

Again, I will clearly state SMSE requires nothing to be changed for a standard prepared 1.6 currently racing SM in the SEDiv. For the start, we will run the class under current SCCA GCR prep level. So, none needs to detune, etc. We will not be using the current DC SSM rules or other rules except the SCCA GCR.

 

We will have a meeting at the ARRC to discuss what direction if any we might go. And we will have a meeting the SEDiv annual Convention in February to discuss any changes from the GCR we might go. As for tires, we did discuss and decided we needed more input before making that important decision.

 

Reading some of the replies indicates to me some of you never race in 40 or 50 car fields. We've had 5 regional races in SEDiv this year where more than 50 SM cars started. And 16 where it was 25 or more. No, not everyone gets a trophy.

 

And so far, all the scheduled races will have SMSE running with SM. And at the ARRC, SSM is still a class.

 

 

 

 

[Todd Lamb]

I don't understand announcing a class before getting input from people that know a lot about the topic and have a strong voice in being for or against? Or announcing a class before getting input at said meetings to discuss changes?

Who specifically has asked for this class? What rules did they want to race under and why? This is not at all lining up with the feedback we've been getting.

[LarryKing]

The only input that should count is that from 1.6 owners.

[Cnj]

The only input that should count is that from 1.6 owners.

Nonsense.

This series may or may not work, I have no idea. But to suggest that the SMAC (with both NA and NB represented) should have no ability for input or comment on a subject that affects the class that they have been asked to represent is myopic at best.

CNJ

[Johnny D]

I agree with some of the comments, feedback, etc.

But isn't this a few sentences in a regional supp, that Jim doesn't have to ask permission for ??
J~

[LarryKing]

I don't feel represented.

I guess 1.6 owners can vote with their entry fees.

[E-Speed Motorsports]

Walter, you CAN vote with your entry fee. With a 1.6 you can enter SM, SMSE, or with some slight modifications you can enter SSM at the ARRC or any CCPS event. CCPS plans on offering ALL options for the 1.6-- SM SMSE and SSM.

 

Cnj, SMSE and the SSM variant are separate classes from SM. The SMAC's role is SM only. With that said, I know that the SMAC has 2016 1.6 SM rules that are looking good, good to the point that a 1.6 may be the got to have car. SMSE and SSM targets a completely different competitor from SM. I do not see that any of this will hurt or fracture SM. The 1.6 owners that want to compete in SM will use the new rules, and the ones that don't want a $38000 1.6 will not have to stay at home. In my opinion it will add, not detract and deter. 

[Cnj]

I don't feel represented.
I guess 1.6 owners can vote with their entry fees.

I think your feelings have been very clearly articulated by the tone of your pithy emails on the subject. I doubt anyone on the SMAC (past or present) has any confusion on your position. Given the amount of 1.6 parity work that SMAC volunteer members have been doing at considerable personal cost, i'm sure it's discouraging to read posts which disrespect thier intent. They certainly have my respect and thanks.

CNJ

[Cnj]

Walter, you CAN vote with your entry fee. With a 1.6 you can enter SM, SMSE, or with some slight modifications you can enter SSM at the ARRC or any CCPS event. CCPS plans on offering ALL options for the 1.6-- SM SMSE and SSM.
 
Cnj, SMSE and the SSM variant are separate classes from SM. The SMAC's role is SM only. With that said, I know that the SMAC has 2016 1.6 SM rules that are looking good, good to the point that a 1.6 may be the got to have car. SMSE and SSM targets a completely different competitor from SM. I do not see that any of this will hurt or fracture SM. The 1.6 owners that want to compete in SM will use the new rules, and the ones that don't want a $38000 1.6 will not have to stay at home. In my opinion it will add, not detract and deter.

Thanks for your response. I do understand that the SSM is a different class and highly effective in some regions (not in Texas). However it is not clear how SMSE is a different class given that it is intended to follow SM rules. I fail to see how this would be different from the club deciding to start a NB only class (still based on SM rules), thus excluding NA's, which would be considered a class fracturing move by many.

If you are suggesting a rapid move to a SSM like local class for 1.6 cars with the goal of keeping cost low (via a different rule set) then all sounds good to me. But thats not I read in the release.

Anyway, it's not my region so I get no vote. My only reason for jumping in the fray was to debate Walters point

CNJ

[E-Speed Motorsports]

 I do understand that the SSM is a different class and highly effective in some regions (not in Texas). However it is not clear how SMSE is a different class given that it is intended to follow SM rules. I fail to see how this would be different from the club deciding to start a NB only class (still based on SM rules), thus excluding NA's, which would be considered a class fracturing move by many.

If you are suggesting a rapid move to a SSM like local class for 1.6 cars with the goal of keeping cost low (via a different rule set) then all sounds good to me. But thats not I read in the release.



CNJ

 

I, as the CCPS administrator, was working independently from Jim and the SEDiv to bring a low cost entry level Miata class in. We adopted a modified version of WDCR's SSM rules because I saw a need for such a class to exist. There are probably 100's of 1.6's out there collecting dust. It is my opinion that a new Miata class needs to be different in some form from straight up SM. Even though SMSE is currently straight up SM, it is a starting point. SEDiv saw that there was a need for such a class, and acted on it. I still plan on backing Jim and SEDiv's decision even though Jim and I have a difference of opinion in the class concept. I have butted heads with Jim so hard in the past that I thought I had a concussion. We have talked about the old days and sang Kum-bya. What becomes of the SMSE class is ultimately up to us, the competitors.     

[Cnj]

I, as the CCPS administrator, was working independently from Jim and the SEDiv to bring a low cost entry level Miata class in. We adopted a modified version of WDCR's SSM rules because I saw a need for such a class to exist. There are probably 100's of 1.6's out there collecting dust. It is my opinion that a new Miata class needs to be different in some form from straight up SM. Even though SMSE is currently straight up SM, it is a starting point. SEDiv saw that there was a need for such a class, and acted on it. I still plan on backing Jim and SEDiv's decision even though Jim and I have a difference of opinion in the class concept. I have butted heads with Jim so hard in the past that I thought I had a concussion. We have talked about the old days and sang Kum-bya. What becomes of the SMSE class is ultimately up to us, the competitors.

As I noted in my post (the portion you deleted), I have no vote in what you do in your region. With that said, my bias would be that if there is a seperate group/class, that it should run under a distinct rule set that legitimately lowers (and more importantly controls) cost if it is to bring in both new and previous competitors to racing. Good luck in navigating these waters!

CNJ

[David L]

As a past WDCR SSM driver I believe that this class is a good idea but will not have the desired effect. My recent move to Florida forced the sale of my SSM car, other regions adopting a new true SSM class such as the WDCR would seriously make me consider building another. The problem for many that truly gets over looked on this forum is that most posters here (from appearance only) is that most posters are in the minority when it comes to budget racing.  First and foremost many if not most SM drivers do not have the budget to keep up with pro cars no matter the talent level. There is plenty of talent in SSM maybe just not plenty of money. As an example I ran consistently up front top 2-5 barring my mistakes, and still using old tires( read someone else s used tires) for 2 years, thats right I raced in almost all of the WDCR events and didn't buy a tire for 2 years!!!!!!!!!!!!! I could only scale my car once per year. I am not bragging or proud of this it is just the facts of my life. I prepped as I could to the best of my budget.That is how close the WDCR SSM class is That car has just as good a chance of winning as MIke's which we all now would be a "no budget build" except there is NO REASON to throw money at it.. That is the definition of a drivers class there is no incentive to outspend the next guy unless you like fancy paint (in which we all do) 

[David L]

And as a side note that 3000 motor that Mike was talking about I don't agree with. My motor completely rebuilt minus gaskets cost only 1200 dollars at the local machine shop which included a cylinder hone, head machined to FSM specs, block decked for flatness (because mine wasnt) cost just 1100 dollars at the machine shop. And it made more than enough power with a very nice curve. 

 

If any WDCR guys want that contact info PM me.   

[Bench Racer]

These Spec Miata 1.6 splinter classes are a wash rinse and repeat of the 1st gen Mazda Rx7/Spec 7 classes from the mid  1990's. The 1st gen RX7 couldn't compete within the ITA class.