310 replies to this topic

[ner88]

The Northeast Division has been running SM2 (SM rules for NA cars only) for three years now with great success.

Did it dilute SM? not one bit, these are cars that in most cases would be sitting idle as many saw them as no longer competitive.

these cars often double-dip in SM for extra track time, just like SM cars in STL...........

SSM requires a special build and are not often available for resale.

by the way, SSM started in the NE and has gone away with the exception of MARRS.

[Highwayracer]

In light of the news from the weekend that SEDIV is prepared to institute SM-SE, which as I understand it is essentially 91-94 1.6 Miatas prepared to current SM rules, I feel compelled to make my feelings known to all involved.  I have been involved with Estus White in his efforts to create SSM in SEDIV since very early on, and my car has essentially been used as the prototype.

When Estus first presented the idea of SSM to me, I was actually a strong proponent of adopting SM2 rules. I thought it was the easy button.  However, I was understanding the problem presented by uncompetitive 1.6 cars, but not the solution.   As everyone knows, SM2 is essentially 91-94 1.6 Miatas prepared to current SM rules, or basically the same as what SEDIV/SARRC is preparing to adopt.  However, when Estus explained that SSM is a class designed to provide a level playing field while at the same time controlling costs, and how that objective was accomplished, he convinced me that I was wrong, that SM2 would do nothing to control costs, and as such would not be a strong incentive to attract others to join those of us interested in a cost controlled, even playing field. 

 

In my mind, SM-SE, like SM2, is simply a subset of SM.  There are all kinds of areas where a competitor can spend money to buy speed.  More importantly, it doesn't do enough to separate the class from conventional SM.  The SMAC is working on ways to make the 1.6 cars competitive within SM, and that is where the people who are willing to make that kind of major investment in a 1.6 car will go.

 

SSM is NOT SM-Light.  It is a different class built on the same platform, designed to appeal to a different competitor with a different set of values and objectives.  SSM is thriving in the WDC region area as a cost controlled spec series.  I believe there is a lesson to be learned there.  SEDIV would be better served to adopt SSM to attract the competitor initerested in a lower cost spec series and let the SMAC provide a solution for the people who want to run a 1.6 in SM.  We would get the best of both worlds.

[LarryKing]

Hiway, I think you meant 1990-1993.

[E-Speed Motorsports]

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

I understand that you are not in this region (division), A lot of posters here are not. With that said and regardless of your and others location, I think that your and others ideas and opinions on this subject are extremely important. I thank you for taking the time to post. I have stated my opinion that there is a need for a lower cost rule set. I agree with you 100%. I have also stated that I am glad that someone realized that there is a need for a class and did something to address it, even though I don't agree with the exact direction that it is in.

[Jim Drago]

All these cars sitting idly by.. If you get 5% of them out, I will be amazed. It is easy to blame the rules. That is the easy answer. This didn't work the last time Atlanta region tried it, actually it was a complete failure. It wont work this time either. If you want a 1.6 only class, make a 1.6 only class like SSM. Learn from DC region, use what worked and copy it.

[Steve Scheifler]

I'm still skeptica about SSMl. I get the idea of cost containment in terms of engines, but is that really the biggest factor keeping many cars from participating? I don't think so. It takes so much more than that to comepete at the front.

But even if you are correct, I still see things like crap suspension and limited camber as far more of a negative than a positive in multiple ways. Makes no sense to me at all. If the restricted engine idea can work then it will work with a more practical suspension package, for the best of both.

And I still say that regardless of the rules you come up with it will stop "working" so well as soon as it attracts a bunch of talented drivers willing and able to spend whatever time effort and $$ on tires and the multitude of little things that add up. Until then, if it boosts participation overall then what the heck, maybe it's worth trying.

[Highwayracer]

Hiway, I think you meant 1990-1993.

Duh!  Of course.  Brain fart.  My car is actually a 90.

[Highwayracer]

If you want a 1.6 only class, make a 1.6 only class like SSM. Learn from DC region, use what worked and copy it.

 

This is exactly what we (me, Estus, CCPS, and others) have been working on. 

 

The thing I don't understand is that we have been doing this completely in the open, have talked about it at events and away with 1.6 owners and others, including some Regional Executives.  Steve Eckerich was kind enough to include our SSM ruleset as an eligible class at the Daylight Into Darkness at CMS in August.  We had 5 entries across 2 groups as a sort of demonstration run.  Several people stopped by to look at my car and talk about what we were trying to do.  Yet none of us were included in discussions about SM-SE or were even aware it was going to happen until it was an apparently done deal. 

[Jim Drago]

Things to consider..
The DC SSM is successful bc is it very well run and they are fortunate that for whatever reason, they have a ton of people that all race at one track. They have it down right now and would be the right thing to copy.I am sure Alan Olsen and whomever is working on it up there would be willing to offer any advice/help they could. Unfortunately it will be harder as the tracks are spread through the SE, not just one like Road Atlanta. I'm sure it is doable, but it will be harder to achieve than what they did in DC region and those guys did a really good job.

I am still not sold on the need for it... but I am only one opinion.

[Todd Lamb]

.  Yet none of us were included in discussions about SM-SE or were even aware it was going to happen until it was an apparently done deal. 

 

 

Pretty much my point in my first post on this topic. I think this is just a cash grab by the SE with no regard for the class or what the racers want, and it undermines what the SMAC is working on for 1.6 parity.

 

I would support SSM (but I was not asked) on a regional level, but I cannot in good faith support SM-SE as a splinter class to SM. My "job" with the SMAC is to do things in the best interests of the class (SM/SSM/SM5 etc).

[ner88]

SSM in the NE was started back when SM went National and new rules drifted from the original set.

All NA cars met SSM rule set then and NAtional rules required changes.

DC region had a group of supporters that kept it alive.

Today, most all NA cars have been converted to SM rules.

trying to build a SSM class would require several changes to the cars to comply.

[Mitch Reading]

What Highway said!

 

Adopt SSM and allow the SMAC to monkey with the SM class. 

 

Would be great to see SSM popular at more tracks than Summit. 

[Johnny D]

You have to see how this looks...

 

Different strokes for different folk with different regions.

 

All NB, running majors, No knowledge or NA being built.

 

All NA running regional in another. No major participation.

 

SM2 in another

 

SSM huge in another

 

SMM, SMT , SM in the same run group (Sealed, regional on RR's, Nat's on Hoosiers)

 

SCCA has to see this. There is no perfect answer.

 

Mine is better than yours ?? not in another region.

J~

[Brandon]

Jim, 

 

I applaud your effort with SMSE and I think you understand the problem. Where I differ in opinion is that SMSE wont work, it doesn't address the solution. Its just another "MeToo" class that splits the current crop of entrants and really does nothing to get 1.6 cars back on track. I can't understand why areas of the country that want to do something like this don't use the VERY successful WDCR-SCCA SSM program as a template. It works! It has proven it works for OVER 10 YEARS! We get more SSM entries than SM entries at regional races, on average 40 SSM to 25 SM, those are unique entries, not double dippers. The cost to take a SM 1.6 to SSM trim is negligible and it evens the playing field, SMSE does not accomplish that and until groups around the country understand the 1.6 solution, agreeing to the problem doesn't help. Create 1.6 ONLY class with tight rules and an even playing field and the cars will come out in droves, the SM rules don't do that.

 

Logistics, logistics, logistics...so how about compliance fees to purchase a few (25+) mobile dynos to seal everything around the country?

 

Your 'collection of regions' (I don't know any others besides WDCR & SJR) there around Summit have a reasonably large number of 1.6s and the two (only/currently) sealing locations are within a few hours tow of most of those participants.  Having a sealed/dyno'ed class is easy with those logistical hurdles (minimal).

Consider getting the NER or any of the NY regions involved in a sealing program...best guess is not gonna happen.

 

And BTW, I don't have a solution to the issue of a lack of 1.6 participating in ANY class with the SCCA.  Until a plan is put in stone at the national level, there will be this continued fractioning of the 1.6 entrants whether intended or not.

[Danica Davison]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but already 8 SMSE cars registered for Turkey trot out of 34 SM/SMSE entries...i dont know how many 1.6s registered for that race last year but i dont think it was that high.

[High Chair]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but already 8 SMSE cars registered for Turkey trot out of 34 SM/SMSE entries...i dont know how many 1.6s registered for that race last year but i dont think it was that high

Good, not bad for the second race. The ARRC only had 5 1.6s in the race and 3 of those were SMSE which was not a bad start. I would imagine we will see the majority of 1.6 entries at the Turkey Trot racing SMSE. I guess people did want the class after all.

[Todd Lamb]

Yep it is working exactly as intended: we are taking entries away from SM and they are going to SMSE. Nope, not fracturing the class at all. No sir.

[LarryKing]

 

we are taking entries away from SM and they are going to SMSE

 

Hmmm, if viewed from a marketing perspective what can we learm from this?

 

Is it possible that some 1.6 owners are not satisfied with the product that SM offers?

[Todd Lamb]

They have no reason to be unsatisfied from a performance perspective. The better question is why are we fracturing the class?

[LarryKing]

The beatings will continue until moral improves.