So a CRX with rear seats would qualify for SM?

--- In stu@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Shenefield" <chris@r...> wrote:
> But my point was that at a certain power level, FWD cars
> are fighting a severe uphill battle.
>

It's unfortunate, but some are more uphill than others.  The camber
compensation that certain Honda's enjoy result in large differences in
available straight line traction with equal cornering capability.
None of the other FWD cars come even close to matching it.

Owen

--- In stu@yahoogroups.com, "trog@w..." <trog@w...> wrote:
> No Corvettes in SM either.
> Speed Touring == SM
> Speed GT == SM2
> You do have FWD and RWD running against each other in Speed
> Touring, no?
> DG

Well, road racing is very different; so it's not a perfect comparison
obviously.  But my point was that at a certain power level, FWD cars
are fighting a severe uphill battle.

Chris

Even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while?
VBG

BW

-------------- Original message --------------

>
> I, occasionally, play golf - >
> Every once and a while, I'll hit a shot that reveals that
> I'm not completely without talent;
SNIP
  > Do you see where I'm going with this?
>
> DG

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Let's make this easy, Any car that is faster than me
should be moved to another class.

--- "R. Jason Sams" <rjsams@...> wrote:

> >
> > oh its going to be a spectacle
> > and maybe let the Elise run as well while were at
> it :\
>
>  I would support that :) Too bad the min weights are
> without driver
> otherwise FI would be a no-brainer for the car.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>




____________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com

well personally i think its a trend sort of thing. a long time ago
the type R was the car to have by autox nuts, now i dont see one in
our events. also a while back I had an AWD turbo and pretty much
everyone in SM runs suped up civics. I think they all/most of them
grew up or matured and bought brand new cars and the rally-street
cars are the obvious upgrade for their lifestyle. I now have a
beater econocar :)

>   _____
>
> From: Bruce Moody [mailto:bruce.moody@a...]
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:57 AM
> To: 'stu@yahoogroups.com'
> Subject: RE: [SM] FWD cars in SM
>
>
>
> FWIW:  I did a quick comparison the other night of how the AWD
cars have
> been trending over the last 5 years at our club.
>
>
>
> I think that I've come to the conclusion that at least for my
local chapter
> that if nothing is done to separate AWD from FWD in the SM class
and if the
> trend of AWD entrants keeps growing then by attrition there won't
be many
> FWD's left in the SM class at my club.  I'm not sure what that
trend means
> for FWD but I just thought I would share the data with the group
for just
> food for thought. To get a good data pool I used the event in each
year
> which had the largest # of SM entrants for points.
>
> Take a look below and you will see what I mean.
>
>
>
> SCCA - Oregon Region Solo 2 (Northwest) SM class # of AWD out of
all SM cars
> entered for points.
>
>
>
> 2005 - 11 AWD out of 13 cars (05/22/05)
>
> 2004 - 7 AWD out of 15 cars (04/18/04)
>
> 2003 - 7 AWD out of 9 cars (05/18/03)
>
> 2002 - 1 AWD out of 8 cars (04/13/02)
>
> 2001 - 1 AWD out of 7 cars (03/11/01)
>
> 2000 - 2 AWD out of 10 cars (05/19/00)
>
>
>
>
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bad example... (for you, anyway)

Mazdas get to build darn-near race motors, while
Acuras are almost stock, and BMW's are weight
penalized...

It's even more evidence of RWD superiority to those
who know HOW those cars are equalized.

Mike

--- "trog@..." <trog@...> wrote:

> You do have FWD and RWD running against each other
> in Speed
> Touring, no?
>
> DG
>




____________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com

For some reason this email never went so I'm resending it.



   _____

From: Bruce Moody [mailto:bruce.moody@...]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:57 AM
To: 'stu@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [SM] FWD cars in SM



FWIW:  I did a quick comparison the other night of how the AWD cars have
been trending over the last 5 years at our club.



I think that I've come to the conclusion that at least for my local chapter
that if nothing is done to separate AWD from FWD in the SM class and if the
trend of AWD entrants keeps growing then by attrition there won't be many
FWD's left in the SM class at my club.  I'm not sure what that trend means
for FWD but I just thought I would share the data with the group for just
food for thought. To get a good data pool I used the event in each year
which had the largest # of SM entrants for points.

Take a look below and you will see what I mean.



SCCA - Oregon Region Solo 2 (Northwest) SM class # of AWD out of all SM cars
entered for points.



2005 - 11 AWD out of 13 cars (05/22/05)

2004 - 7 AWD out of 15 cars (04/18/04)

2003 - 7 AWD out of 9 cars (05/18/03)

2002 - 1 AWD out of 8 cars (04/13/02)

2001 - 1 AWD out of 7 cars (03/11/01)

2000 - 2 AWD out of 10 cars (05/19/00)





Bruce



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> so, what are the minimum weight differences then?
>


Not really relevant to the discussion as they exist now.

Now if you assigned weight to a specific model car and had provisions for
ballasting or additional weight removal allowances to meet weight, that
would change a lot.  More work than the SEB is willing or even able to take
on, in my opinion.

----- Original Message -----
> > Sure, with "competition adjustments" to make them equal.
>
> so, what are the minimum weight differences then?
==============================================
It's not an "across the board" weight adjustment, rather equipment and
weight adjustments are made on a vehicle by vehicle basis.

Firstly, "competition adjustments" are made primarily through the adjustment
of a vehicle's base weight, RPM limits and intake restrictor sizing.  Each
individual vehicle has a spec sheet listing what their max compression ratio
is, max cam lift, max overbore, gear ratios, restrictor size, minimum
weight, etc.

The weight program is the most dynamic part of this adjustment system.  As
you might be aware, Speed World Challenge uses weight as a variable in each
driver's car with a program called REWARDS, Rewarding of Equalizing Weight
Assigned to Reduce Driver Sensitivity.  The weight adjustment is based on
the finishing position of individual drivers in the previous race(s).  The
scale is as follows:

1st:  +75#
2nd:  +60#
3rd:  +45#
4th:  +30#
5th:  +15#
6th:  +0
7th:  -10#
8th:  -20#
9th:  -30#
10th:  -40#
11th:  -50#
12th:  -60#

There is also a "Team Compensation Weight" program in which a driver that
finishes below the 50% mark gets to remove 25# of weight and this continues
up (down) to a maximum of 100# under their vehicle's listed minimum weight.
That weight is added back in 25# increments should the driver finish within
the top 40% of the field.  This continues just until the car is back to it's
minimum listed weight and then the whole process starts over again should
that driver finish in the top 12 spots or below the 50% mark.

SM cannot have this sort of a weight adjustment program since ballast weight
is not legally "addable or removeable", let alone allowing different
equipment specifications per each vehicle, so the only logical thing to do,
IMO, is to split them up according to drivetrain configuration.

Can you see the twist of my logic?

Eric

so, what are the minimum weight differences then?

> Sure, with "competition adjustments" to make them equal.  SM has no such
> "adjustment" scale, and cannot have one.  So, since there is no "legal"
> way
> to make them play on an equal footing the only logical solution is to
> split
> them up.
>
> Eric

> Speed Touring == SM
> Speed GT == SM2
================================
Perhaps in your world, Dennis.  When I watch Speed GT races I see plenty of
SM legal cars.  Cars like Volvos, Audis, GTOs, Cadillacs (HELLO!),
Mustangs, Neon SRT4s, etc.  The difference is that Speed World Challenge
uses "performance adjustments" to make the field more level.  SM has no such
provisions, nor can it.


> You do have FWD and RWD running against each other in Speed
> Touring, no?
===================================
Sure, with "competition adjustments" to make them equal.  SM has no such
"adjustment" scale, and cannot have one.  So, since there is no "legal" way
to make them play on an equal footing the only logical solution is to split
them up.

Eric

> Here's another example.... take Speed World Challenge for
> example.... you have Touring and GT.  No FWD cars in GT.

No Corvettes in SM either.

Speed Touring == SM
Speed GT == SM2

You do have FWD and RWD running against each other in Speed
Touring, no?

DG

--- In stu@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Mott" <jmott@h...> wrote:
> Is the market appeal really that huge?
>
> Don't most people who actually work hard enough on a car to make
it SM fast
> usually opt for a platform that isn't (as you seem to argue)
obviously
> inferior?

There are ALOT of very serious FWD racecars in the world.  And
considering Street Mod is a "Street" class, it follows that FWD cars
should have a place that they can compete.

And in another way of looking at the same question, most people that
work hard enough on a car to make it SM fast usually opt for a car
that can win; so i really think alot of the FWD guys will never move
toward the current Street Mod because of that reason...which is a
shame because it's a great formula.

>
> There is a huge "import tuner" market yes. But 99% of those people
have no
> intention of going SM fast...
>

99% of any tuner market doesn't want to go SM fast, it's not just
imports, right?  Just because there are a million guys with body
kits doesn't mean there are any less real performance guys out there.

> The situation will be pretty much the same for those 99%, people
with Honda
> Civics with body kits or turbos and such will still be in a class
where they
> lose,  badly,  to more serious contenders, like yourself.

Yes, but it's a more level playing field from the start.  I see this
as similar to STS but with more options, and that's exciting.  I'm
never one to hide info....so I'll be one of the classes biggest
cheerleaders, like STS.  It's got very good potential for great
competition, and SCCA should see the marketing potential as second
to none.

Here's another example.... take Speed World Challenge for
example.... you have Touring and GT.  No FWD cars in GT.  :)

Chris

Is the market appeal really that huge?

Don't most people who actually work hard enough on a car to make it SM fast
usually opt for a platform that isn't (as you seem to argue) obviously
inferior?

There is a huge "import tuner" market yes. But 99% of those people have no
intention of going SM fast...

The situation will be pretty much the same for those 99%, people with Honda
Civics with body kits or turbos and such will still be in a class where they
lose,  badly,  to more serious contenders, like yourself.


>  And combined with a
> huge market appeal, it seems like 1 truly correct way to go.  I
> really do understand the concerns it brings up and have known that

Chris, I have to agree with you on this one. In fact
I've mentioned it in the past that there should be
classification based off drive axle in SM. The only
way that the FWD have a chance I believe is in a NA
car down to the legal limit (1800 LB) with a torquey
motor (tough to find in a 4 cylinder but there are
some out there like a stroker 2.3L Mitsubishi 4G
series) and a lot of tire and TONS of chassis
development. It will never happen on a power course
but if the course is tight and technical, there are
some chances.

Here lies the problem, most of the good canidates for
that type of car are straddled with a lot of
handicaps. Either in the available engine choices or
the base chassis configrations. I guess if someone was
keen enough to do it they "could" engineer a double
a-arm assembly that would bolt into the existing top
strut mounting plate. It would be a heavy engineering
job to say the least.

I'm still in favor of at least breaking off the FWD
crowd from the SM masses.

Just my $.02

Mike

--- Chris Shenefield <chris@...>
wrote:

> --- In stu@yahoogroups.com, "trog@w..." <trog@w...>
> wrote:
> > Topic statement...
> >
> > > We are just now beginning to compete
> > > in a 88 Civic for SM now and  have run it again
> Daddio in
> > > SM at Toledo.... and with that under my  belt, I
> am even
> > > more sure that FWD is a very steep uphill battle
>  against
> > > the top cars.
> >
> > ...supported by a statement of evidence that
> starts with "We
> > are just now beginning to compete"
> >
> > Do you see the issue here?
> >
> > Let's try a slightly reworded version of the same
> statement:
> >
> > "We are just now beginning to compete in a Forumla
> 1 car now
> > and have run against Schumacher in F1 in
> Montreal.... and
> > with that under my belt, I am even more sure that
> our car is
> > a very steep uphill battle against the top cars."
> <snip>
>
> That's a very good point, and I know it makes my
> argument hard to
> understand.  But I've been doing this long enough
> and talked to
> enough people to maintain my opinion on this.  And
> combined with a
> huge market appeal, it seems like 1 truly correct
> way to go.  I
> really do understand the concerns it brings up and
> have known that
> for years now (like you have), and I'm still
> thinking that this
> isn't a bad idea.
>
> I really appreciated your thoughtful response.
> Truly.  And I'm
> certainly not expecting a magical FWD SM class to
> apear, but it is
> worth mentioning for me since I really do know
> something about them
> and feel it'd be a worthwhile improvement for the
> large number of
> FWD SM mindset people out there.
>
> At the Philly event yesterday, the car did very well
> and it'll
> continue to do better and better.  Peru may give us
> another glimmer
> into the issue, but I don't expect it'll tell us
> anything much since
> Daddio, Sias, Tunnell, and Reitmeir/Richardson won't
> be there.
>
> I'm perfectly happy running regular SM as long as I
> feel I have a
> chance.  Right now, I don't think I have much of a
> chance.  But
> we'll see for sure soon.
>
> Thanks again for the thoughtful response.  It was
> well received.
> Chris
> RedShift Motorsports
>
>
>

--- In stu@yahoogroups.com, "trog@w..." <trog@w...> wrote:
> And likewise, I understand that I'm trying to get the whole
> damn sport to start thinking in a new way - to change from
> "how do I get the rules changed to fit my car" to "how do I
> change my car to fit the rules".

Actually, my main purpose is to make autocrossing more fun for my
customers (mostly FWD guys obviously)....and obviously for all FWD
guys.  And without question, this has topic has stirred alot of
interest with everyone.

We'll see.  I know this is a tough subject.... but I'm hoping my
involvement will get it noticed a little more.  It is the right thing
to do I think.  I hope the letters are being written because that's
the only way we'll be able to tell.

Chris
RedShift

I agree with everything Mike said.

Just to be momentarily contrarian.....

Remember some of those John Thomas perfromances in a lowly EP Civic resulted
in faster or atleast comparable times to faster classes in P.

Call it alien driving, or lack of competition, or fluke of weather, or maybe
slicks on concrete in a very lightweight and relatively low torque car
eliminate all negatives to putting power down in a FWD vehicle?  Maybe the
John Thomas example isn't relevant as putting 200hp or more down with DOT's
in a FWD car just isn't as effective.  The EP Civic is a little lighter and
a little less powerful and has a lot more grip than the theoretical SM FWD
car.

-STE

--- "trog@..." <trog@...> wrote:

> Entirely reasonable, right? You'd expect that a
> brand new F1
> team - even one that had a lot of experience in
> junior
> series like F3 or even CART or the IRL - would
> struggle for
> a while before finding the pace. Some teams, like
> Minardi or
> Jordan, may *never* find the pace.

If that team were a FWD F1 team, I would fully expect
them to not compete (ever). I'm betting there's a
reason a FWD F1 team doesn't exist, even beyond the
spec-F1 rules.

> 2) It devalues the performances of drivers and cars
> in deep
> classes with a lot of talent and well-prepped cars.
> If you
> wound up fifth in an F1 race, you'd be beside
> yourself with
> joy, but fifth in an autocross is somehow a failure.
> Hell,
> to some people *second* is an abysmal failure.

At the risk of being offensive, you could fix the
number of classes, number of winners, and the
devaluation in deep classes problems altogether by
simply eliminating Ladies classes. (not that I'm
suggesting doing that, just suggesting that it would
fix all 3 mentioned problems)

> This is systemic to autocrossers - I'm not picking
> on
> anybody in particular here. It is baked into the way
> we all
> do business, and it is one of the largest sources of
> trouble
> we have. The whole "EVO/STi in ESP" thing is largely
> due to
> people who feel entitled to winning resisting
> anything that
> would threaten their status quo.

Either that, or it's simply a $$$ issue, and they're
protecting their investment...

> somebody new
> to the class who gets beat down with his first
> efforts
> should be "must work harder!" NOT "must get rules
> changed or
> new class built!"

How many people accused you of this back when STU
first made it to a public discussion? <grin>

Luckily, like the marketing Chris describes, the
numbers were on your side and your new class
prospered.

> The argument is a lot stronger in Stock classes,
> because the
> primary determinant of the performance potential of
> the car
> is the OEM design. No HS Mini will ever be able to
> beat a SS
> Z06 because the rules expressly forbid the Mini from
> making
> the sorts of modifications that could potentially
> even the
> playing field.
>
> This is not true in SM, where you have enormous
> freedom to
> address the shortcomings of your car. The more
> modifications
> you allow, the fewer classes you need to keep the
> playing
> field level.

Actually Chris's argument is strong for ANY category.

Think about it...

What's the fastest Stock class? (SS) Are there any FWD
cars there? (NO) How far down do you have to go before
you find a winning FWD car? (DS)

Use the same argument for ANY category.

For SP, it's ASP, NO, and CSP.
For Prepared, it's AP, NO, and EP
For Modified (only allowing the production-based
classes) it's EM, NO, and DM

In ANY category we have, with the same prep rules in
each category, FWD can only achieve the 3rd or 4th
fastest class in their respective category.

I already know the first counter... "All those top
classes are full of SM2 cars, not SM cars..." OK, even
if you removed SM2 cars from each category, you still
end up with FWD only being the 2nd or 3rd fastest
class.

So, if you were to eliminate classes within each
category like SM does, you would end up with RWD/AWD
cars as the dominant cars in ANY category, even if you
took out the SM2 cars from consideration, no matter
what the prep rules are.

I think Chris has physics on his side on this one.

Mike S.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

> Consider this - imagine how the FWD world would react to a
> team BEATING the Daddio EVO in straight-up competition.
> Doesn't that offer more market value?
==================================
Sure.................in the Twilight Zone.  ;^)


> And I'm glad you got the vein in which it was offered. Some
> people think I'm just cranky all the time. ;)
==================================
Not cranky, just another Canadian with permanent brainfreeze.  ;^)

Eric

> That's a very good point, and I know it makes my argument
> hard to  understand.  But I've been doing this long enough
> and talked to  enough people to maintain my opinion on
> this.  And combined with a  huge market appeal, it seems
> like 1 truly correct way to go.  I  really do understand
> the concerns it brings up and have known that  for years
> now (like you have), and I'm still thinking that this
> isn't a bad idea.

And likewise, I understand that I'm trying to get the whole
damn sport to start thinking in a new way - to change from
"how do I get the rules changed to fit my car" to "how do I
change my car to fit the rules".

That's tough going. But it's worth it in the end.

Consider this - imagine how the FWD world would react to a
team BEATING the Daddio EVO in straight-up competition.
Doesn't that offer more market value?

By way of comparison... I was talking to one of my sponsors
once about a race we had just completed & won. The fact that
I won was nice, but when I mentioned offhand that I had
outrun most of a large SS field (I think I would have taken
2cd in SS about a tenth off Strelnieks) he went apeshit. The
issue was that my poor lil' DSM had outrun a bunch of
*Corvettes*. That was a really big deal to him.

As autocrossers, we tend to concentrate on *drivers* more
than cars - it's "I beat Daddio" or "I beat Tunnell" not "I
beat an EVO" or "I beat a Z06". But the outside world
doesn't know you, me, Daddio, or Tunnell from a hole in the
ground. But they DO know cars.

If the goal is fame, or recognition, or to astonish, or
whatever you want to call it - to gain notice amongst a
market - you are better off with an as heterogeneous car mix
as you can get. It makes the win worth more in the eyes of
the outside world.

> I really appreciated your thoughtful response.

And I'm glad you got the vein in which it was offered. Some
people think I'm just cranky all the time. ;)

DG

--- In stu@yahoogroups.com, "trog@w..." <trog@w...> wrote:
> Topic statement...
>
> > We are just now beginning to compete
> > in a 88 Civic for SM now and  have run it again Daddio in
> > SM at Toledo.... and with that under my  belt, I am even
> > more sure that FWD is a very steep uphill battle  against
> > the top cars.
>
> ...supported by a statement of evidence that starts with "We
> are just now beginning to compete"
>
> Do you see the issue here?
>
> Let's try a slightly reworded version of the same statement:
>
> "We are just now beginning to compete in a Forumla 1 car now
> and have run against Schumacher in F1 in Montreal.... and
> with that under my belt, I am even more sure that our car is
> a very steep uphill battle against the top cars."
<snip>

That's a very good point, and I know it makes my argument hard to
understand.  But I've been doing this long enough and talked to
enough people to maintain my opinion on this.  And combined with a
huge market appeal, it seems like 1 truly correct way to go.  I
really do understand the concerns it brings up and have known that
for years now (like you have), and I'm still thinking that this
isn't a bad idea.

I really appreciated your thoughtful response.  Truly.  And I'm
certainly not expecting a magical FWD SM class to apear, but it is
worth mentioning for me since I really do know something about them
and feel it'd be a worthwhile improvement for the large number of
FWD SM mindset people out there.

At the Philly event yesterday, the car did very well and it'll
continue to do better and better.  Peru may give us another glimmer
into the issue, but I don't expect it'll tell us anything much since
Daddio, Sias, Tunnell, and Reitmeir/Richardson won't be there.

I'm perfectly happy running regular SM as long as I feel I have a
chance.  Right now, I don't think I have much of a chance.  But
we'll see for sure soon.

Thanks again for the thoughtful response.  It was well received.
Chris
RedShift Motorsports

> From the nature of this thread about classing I realize
> I'm  writing not only to competitors like myself, but also
> to some  the most dedicated SM drivers in the nation; or
> possibly the  lunatic fringe.

I, occasionally, play golf - or at least, a game related to
golf. (same technique, similar equipment and facilities,
more time spent in tall grass, sand, and ponds searching for
golf balls)

Every once and a while, I'll hit a shot that reveals that
I'm not completely without talent; that given time and
plenty of practice, I could actually play on a competitive
basis - and perhaps some day ascend to the highest ranks.

I'm not interested. Golf is what I do to help get away from
the extreme pressures that come along with being part of the
National-level lunatic fringe. I see the potential (rarely)
but I'm not interested in picking up a new windmill to tilt
at.

Now a couple of years ago, a golf-nut friend of mine dragged
me onto a PGA-level golf course. I went along partially so I
could see what playing on a top-level course would be like.

I lost 12 balls on the first hole.

12.

I settled down from there and lost maybe another 12 over the
remaining 17 holes... but the course really kicked my ass.
The sonofabitch who designed the course placed something
nasty to exploit any flaws in one's technique. If you drive
about 220 yards with a slice (as I do) there was something
there on the course to punish you for it. The course was
EVIL.

It was also a total blast to play on. It made you WORK. When
I bogied one hole, I was happier than a pig in a waller.
Making par on one hole probably would have killed me with
the pure joy of it.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

DG

> I think the most basic truth is that for a novice driver,
> the  best investment is improving the nut behind the
> wheel.  For a  driver who has been at it for awhile and
> gotten the best from a  few schools, it makes sense to
> focus on getting the most from  the machinery.

Even when the class is full of National Champions, the end
result depends on the combination of how good the machinery
is and how effective a performance the driver produces on
the day.

Some days, you get the bear. Other days, the bear gets you.
We can't all win.

DG

> I'm speaking from some experience here and have a fairly
> strong  opinion that FWD cars currently cannot compete
> well enough in SM.

Topic statement...

> We are just now beginning to compete
> in a 88 Civic for SM now and  have run it again Daddio in
> SM at Toledo.... and with that under my  belt, I am even
> more sure that FWD is a very steep uphill battle  against
> the top cars.

...supported by a statement of evidence that starts with "We
are just now beginning to compete"

Do you see the issue here?

Let's try a slightly reworded version of the same statement:

"We are just now beginning to compete in a Forumla 1 car now
and have run against Schumacher in F1 in Montreal.... and
with that under my belt, I am even more sure that our car is
a very steep uphill battle against the top cars."

Entirely reasonable, right? You'd expect that a brand new F1
team - even one that had a lot of experience in junior
series like F3 or even CART or the IRL - would struggle for
a while before finding the pace. Some teams, like Minardi or
Jordan, may *never* find the pace.

And that's in a series awash with money and talent, and
where the cars are (in the broad strokes) all identical.
There is a lot more in common between a Minardi and a
Ferrari than there is between your Civic and Daddio's EVO,
and yet clearly the Ferraris are a very good deal faster.

> So, I don't know what the perfect solutions is, but I do
> know that  given my interest in seeing the traditional FWD
> cars having a chance  to do well and knowing the huge
> popularity of FWD SM type cars, it's  seems crazy not to
> offer a place for them to compete without feeling
> overwhelmed by other faster cars.  From a market point of
> view, I'd  argue that a FWD SM class has about 100x the
> market appeal as a few  other classes.

Well, that's another issue entirely, and it is something
I've been thinking a lot about lately. I also had
opportunity to talk to a number of people about this at this
weekend's ProSolo, and it turns out I'm not the only person
who has  been thinking along these lines.

One of the side effects of the bazillion classes we have is
that we have a disproportionate number of winners per event.
The Oscoda Pro had 140 drivers and probably (somebody feel
free to count them) 30 classes. That means that 21% of the
addendees won. If you go to a Pro, strictly on the numbers
(reality is a little different) you have a 1 in 5 chance of
walking away a "winner".

Compare to, oh, a PGA Tour event, where you start with 400
(? somebody please check this) participants and wind up with
1 winner.

This has a couple of side effects of its own:

1) It tends to produce a disproportionate expectation of
winning, such that if you don't win immediately and easily
there is something wrong going on.

2) It devalues the performances of drivers and cars in deep
classes with a lot of talent and well-prepped cars. If you
wound up fifth in an F1 race, you'd be beside yourself with
joy, but fifth in an autocross is somehow a failure. Hell,
to some people *second* is an abysmal failure.

3) It leads to a feeling of entitlement amongst those who
have done well in the past, such that if they start doing
less well, the problem lies outside themselves. (Incidently,
I didn't come up with this one; somebody I was talking to
this weekend pointed this out and he's spot on)

This is systemic to autocrossers - I'm not picking on
anybody in particular here. It is baked into the way we all
do business, and it is one of the largest sources of trouble
we have. The whole "EVO/STi in ESP" thing is largely due to
people who feel entitled to winning resisting anything that
would threaten their status quo.

This is something that should be resisted. It is bad for the
sport, and it is bad for the participants in the sport. The
reflex, encouraged throughout the SCCA, to seek legislative
relief to address one's non-competitiveness is something
than needs to be taken head-on and eliminated.

Now we DO have to try and keep things fair too, so there are
tradeoffs that can be made (and have been made) to try and
keep the playing field as level as we can within the
constraints we have. But the first instinct of somebody new
to the class who gets beat down with his first efforts
should be "must work harder!" NOT "must get rules changed or
new class built!"

> In my
> opinion, giving FWD their own SM Class is as reasonable
> as any stock class assortment needing their own class.

The argument is a lot stronger in Stock classes, because the
primary determinant of the performance potential of the car
is the OEM design. No HS Mini will ever be able to beat a SS
Z06 because the rules expressly forbid the Mini from making
the sorts of modifications that could potentially even the
playing field.

This is not true in SM, where you have enormous freedom to
address the shortcomings of your car. The more modifications
you allow, the fewer classes you need to keep the playing
field level.

DG

local results don't really mean much.

all it means is than an STI is closer to a real SM car in stock form than
your car is.

at nationals, the AWD cars did not even trophy, and there was not a single
AWD car faster than the top FWD cars either.

so:

make sure you are on the best tire
make sure your alignment and springs are serious
drop as much weight out of the car as you can
and learn to drive =)

SM is an expensive, crazy, fun class.




From: "Bruce Moody" <bruce.moody@...>
To: <stu@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 10:17 AM
Subject: [SM] AWD, FWD and RWD in the SM class - perspective from a novice.


> Hi I'm new to the group and a somewhat novice SM driver (less than 10
> auto-x
> events driven)  who drives an Accord 4 door (boat) with a JDM H22A NA
> engine
> making about 220HP at the crank and about 180 WHP.
>
>
>
> Anyway, I've been recently following your thread about AWD, FWD and RWD in
> SM and I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents worth from a newbies perspective.
>
>
>
> I usually race at Portland Oregon International Raceway at our local SCCA
> auto-x club and yes I get beat most of the time in the SM class but I
> still
> have a lot of fun.
>
> Typically there are about 10 or more WRX Sti's and EVO's that race in SM
> at
> our events and typically they are placing in the top spots in the SM class
> and a few take the some of the top spots out off all the classes.  If
> there
> is any amount of rain on the track (which happens a lot here) they pretty
> much totally dominate.
>
> Take a look at the results of our recent race and you'll see what I mean
>
> http://www.oregonregionsolo2.com/Events/05E4.HTM
>
> Towards the middle of the page it will show all the AWD cars taking the
> top
> spots out of 11 cars running for points.  I and a few other SM cars didn't
> run for points that day but if we had the subis still would have beaten us
>
> The next day event (which I didn't attend) pretty much the same story with
> AWD cars dominating SM.
>
> http://www.oregonregionsolo2.com/Events/05E5.HTM
>
>
>
> In my opinion (and again I'm a novice / newbie) I'd like to see at least a
> 2
> way separation of AWD, FWD/RWD in the SM class.  I'd go as far as saying
> it
> would be nice to have a 3 way separation AWD, FWD and RWD.  And if I could
> have anything then I'd even separate the 2 door cars from the 4 door cars
> but that's just me wishful thinking since I drive a 4 door boat ;o)
>
>
>
> Anyway, since I don't know enough I can't comment on all the technical
> reasons for separating the AWD, FWD and RWD cars only that from my local
> SM
> experience last year and this year that's my perception for what it's
> worth
> :-)
>
>
>
> Bruce Moody
>
> Owner and moderator of
>
> http://www.hondapitstop.com <http://www.hondapitstop.com/>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> SM/SM2 FAQ - http://streetmodified.org/faq.html
>             http://streetmodified.net/faq.html (mirror)
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Dave, thank you for your reply and insight.  I appreciate it :-)



HP - Right now my chp is at about 220 maybe 230 but last dyno showed 176HP
but more like 180hp because the dyno's shop fan broke and I couldn't keep my
engine cool enough for a real run.



WEIGHT - Including me in the car 2900lbs without me it's about 2735 - yes I
only weight 165.  I guess being skinny pays off in Autox.  So I can still
lighten my Accord but it's an EX and has leather, ABS, etc weighing it down
and it's too nice to strip too much ;o)  I still need to get a lighter
battery and maybe put in some dune buggy plastic seats for race days.



CAR PREP - H&R Springs drop about 2", Tokico blue shocks (non-adj), ST sway
bars (yes I know some people don't like bigger sway bars but I like them)
alignment is at about -1 degree but I can set it up to about -2 or so
degrees I think, Quaiffe LSD, V2 intake, AEM Adj timing cams, DC sports SS
header, custom 2.5" exhaust, PS and AC removed, 35lbs wheels/tire combo.  I
think that's about the major things I can think of.  More is listed at
http://www.hondapitstop.com <http://www.hondapitstop.com/>  on the front
page click on the black accord and more specs are there.  There are many
things I could do to the car to make it faster if money were available such
as more power to the engine either NA or turbo, No2, engine management, etc.
and auto-x race tires would help a lot but since I'm a novice I'm prolly
going to wait until next season when I can make more than 4 events.  Two
boys in baseball tends to conflict with auto-x race days ;oP



WINNING AND FUN - Even though I get my butt wooped I still have a great
time.  Really the only reason I'm in SM is because I bought a car with a JDM
swapped engine and a CF hood.  Otherwise I'd probably go to a different
class because without the money and knowledge SM is a harder class to be in.
With that said I still think that some novice drivers with my same
experience and abilities who are driving the WRX's have the advantage
especially in the rain.  There are several I know in this category and I bet
if I hopped in their car that I could get a faster time.  Yes they have more
HP but on the tracks we run at PIR you rarely get past 2nd gear and their
turbo's aren't spooled up that much from what I can tell.  The advantage is
really apparent when you see a WRX with street tires on rainy days ;o)

Anyway, some of what I say may be misperception but for whatever reasons
people in my local area are buying and driving the WRX's and EVO's probably
because they are at the top of the charts on winning and people know that
out of 10 events 5 of them will have some sort of rain involved ;o)



Bruce



   _____

From: stu@yahoogroups.com [mailto:stu@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave W
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 8:25 PM
To: stu@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [SM] AWD, FWD and RWD in the SM class - perspective from a
novice.



From: "Bruce Moody" <bruce.moody@...>
> Hi I'm new to the group and a somewhat novice SM driver (less
> than 10 auto-x events driven)  who drives an Accord 4 door (boat)
> with a JDM H22A NA engine making about 220HP at the crank
> and about 180 WHP.
[snip]
> Typically there are about 10 or more WRX Sti's and EVO's that
> race in SM at our events and typically they are placing in the
> top spots in the SM class and a few take the some of the top
> spots out off all the classes.

Bruce,

1) The STi comes with 300HP stock. You're giving up a lot of power to
those cars. Drivetrain is free in SM, so feel free to add more power.
2) How close are you to the FWD weight limit? You call your car a
"boat" so I'd think it's not close.
3) How well-prepared is your car overall? Even just the basic
Stock-legal things like alignment, tires, a sway bar, and decent
shocks can make a big difference.
4) Experience. It's often said that autocross is 80% driver and 20%
car. As a rookie, expect to be huge amounts of time away from
experienced autocrossers, even if they're driving mediocre cars. After
a few years, you may catch up to them. Learning to autocross is pretty
easy; learning to autocross well can be really tough. I've been
autocrossing for over 10 years now, and I still drive crappy
sometimes. Okay, maybe a lot of times. ;-)

> but I still have a lot of fun.

And that's the most important thing.

Good luck,
Dave W.



SM/SM2 FAQ - http://streetmodified.org/faq.html
              http://streetmodified.net/faq.html (mirror)





   _____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



*  Visit your group "stu <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stu> " on the
web.

*  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  stu-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:stu-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

*  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Service.



   _____



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I said, in part:

> > > So, if I have this straight, the best way to win in SM2 is to
> > > get a 4-seater car that normally runs in SM and lighten it to
> > > death.  Does that strike anyone as strange?

Jack replied, in part:

> >Since you brought my car into this discussion...  :)
> >
> >I think that demonstrated the other thing brought up, that autoX
> >is 80% driver?  Dan runs with the front runners while driving an
> >underprepped car which is set up more for the road course than
> >for the autoX course.  His budget also restricts his ability to
> >improve the car -- he's still running normally aspirated!!! When
> >he jumps in a car which has more investment in modifications
> >than his entire car costs, with decent power (~390 crank HP),
> >and with a suspension tuned for autocross, it's no wonder that
> >he can win... (And of course, I can't imagine a car easier to
> >just jump in and drive fast...)

The car vs. driver discussion will never be resolved.  A given
driver will always be faster in a better car.  On the other
hand, a given car will always be faster with a better driver.

With that in mind, you may say the sport is 80% driver because
Dan does so well in a (gasp) normally aspirated car.  On the
other hand, you could say the sport is 80% car because in SM2,
Dan jumps from, say, 3rd to 1st by simply driving a more capable
car.

I think the most basic truth is that for a novice driver, the
best investment is improving the nut behind the wheel.  For a
driver who has been at it for awhile and gotten the best from a
few schools, it makes sense to focus on getting the most from
the machinery.

Best wishes,
David Lane
dlane@...
'85 GSL-SE (Cartech Turbo)
Info on the car at:
http://www.wankel.net/DavidLane/

Bill,

Your car is fun to watch and looks good with the CCWs on it. Hopefully you can
come out again and this time have no issues. We have an event and a school the
weekend of 9th and 10th.

Hassan
>
> From: "Bill Sims" <Bill-Sims@...>
> Date: 2005/06/24 Fri PM 05:29:52 EDT
> To: <stu@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [SM] I wish they had SM years ago
>
> About 15 years ago I developed a car for time trials.  When the Navy moved me
around the country I couldn't always get into a time trial club, so I switched
to autocross.  Because this street car had alot of mods, I had to run in
Prepared class, against all-out race cars that had been stripped to minimum
weight, no glass, etc.  It wasn't fun knowing I couldn't beat them no matter
what.  Heck, even if I matched their hp, the car was so much heavier, even
though I stripped out about 300 pounds.   Sure, I could have  knocked out the
glass and stripped the car, but I really didn't want to junk it.
>
> Because of this I dropped out of autocross for 3 years.  Switched to a
different car in the end anyway, but IMO classes like STS, STU, SM, and SM2 have
been where most of the new participants come from, and that's good for the
sport.  People who have done mods to their cars have a class where they can
play.
>
> As for the wide range of cars in SM, I consider that a plus.  I get a hoot out
of running my 4 door Alfa sedan against everything from Hondas to V-8 pony cars.
And I get a bigger hoot knowing I can be competitive at the local level driving
something most people don't even recognize.  And no, I definitely don't want an
SM class just for 4 doors--I'd have nobody to run against!   Did I have to do
alot of work and spend alot of $$$ to make this old sedan competitive locally? 
You bet.  Is it fun to drive?  For sure.  Competitive nationally?  In my dreams.
But go back to the "fun" part.  Acceleration of a muscle car--when it doesn't
have boost leaks--and decent handling.   Alot more grins after a run that when
it was in G Stock.
>
> So while we lament what is wrong now, keep in mind how far we've come.
>
> Bill Sims
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> SM/SM2 FAQ - http://streetmodified.org/faq.html
>              http://streetmodified.net/faq.html (mirror)
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

About 15 years ago I developed a car for time trials.  When the Navy moved me
around the country I couldn't always get into a time trial club, so I switched
to autocross.  Because this street car had alot of mods, I had to run in
Prepared class, against all-out race cars that had been stripped to minimum
weight, no glass, etc.  It wasn't fun knowing I couldn't beat them no matter
what.  Heck, even if I matched their hp, the car was so much heavier, even
though I stripped out about 300 pounds.   Sure, I could have  knocked out the
glass and stripped the car, but I really didn't want to junk it.

Because of this I dropped out of autocross for 3 years.  Switched to a different
car in the end anyway, but IMO classes like STS, STU, SM, and SM2 have been
where most of the new participants come from, and that's good for the sport. 
People who have done mods to their cars have a class where they can play.

As for the wide range of cars in SM, I consider that a plus.  I get a hoot out
of running my 4 door Alfa sedan against everything from Hondas to V-8 pony cars.
And I get a bigger hoot knowing I can be competitive at the local level driving
something most people don't even recognize.  And no, I definitely don't want an
SM class just for 4 doors--I'd have nobody to run against!   Did I have to do
alot of work and spend alot of $$$ to make this old sedan competitive locally? 
You bet.  Is it fun to drive?  For sure.  Competitive nationally?  In my dreams.
But go back to the "fun" part.  Acceleration of a muscle car--when it doesn't
have boost leaks--and decent handling.   Alot more grins after a run that when
it was in G Stock.

So while we lament what is wrong now, keep in mind how far we've come.

Bill Sims

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]