UPDATE rules for new SCCA classes

[mossaidis]

I propose we change all references of defunct SCCA classes to the new ones.

I.e. DP is now STU, BP is now STO, etc.

[brucesallen]

please look through the GCR and submit specific changes on line. Nate and I are doing so for FP.

[CP]

How about a true Spec Miata class? Myself, Peter Faill and a few others would qualify for the class. I'm not exactly competitive in SPC even if I do pull my restrictor plate and lead weight from the passenger floor.

[WillM]

Propose one! The club reviewed the possibility of a SM class years ago. There are many that still run with the club!

[CP]

Do you guys have access to scales at all the tracks you run at? If so, then I think you could defer to that year's SCCA rule package as far as restrictor plates and weights for the different model years. At the same time this would require some extra work from an already overworked contingent of organizers. It was just a thought...

[WillM]

Hi Cy,

The only track that we go to with access to scales in NHMS, and I'm not sure we always have access to them (not sure if the one in the North Garages works?).

[mossaidis]

COMSCC has pretty vocal in the past about trying NOT to mimick SCCA clssess. I believe rulebook uses references to SCCA classes as a guideline for newcomers with SCCA experiences/cars place them in the correct COM classes.

[jimalley]

There are many SM & SSM cars and potential entrants out there that might be more tempted to come to events if there was a class that they could be competitive in. Today they cannot compete in SPC.

In 2004 when I first joined COM the SPC class had alot of parity. Although I havent looked at the records to confirm, I seem to remembner that the number of entrants was quite respectful. Just sayin!~!

[WillM]

There are many SM & SSM cars and potential entrants out there that might be more tempted to come to events if there was a class that they could be competitive in. Today they cannot compete in SPC.

In 2004 when I first joined COM the SPC class had alot of parity. Although I havent looked at the records to confirm, I seem to remembner that the number of entrants was quite respectful. Just sayin!~!

For several seasons, when spec Miata was relatively new, SPC seemed (to me) to be the holy grail of COM competition for 4-cyl cars. There were a lot of well-driven Spec Miatas and one particular Nissan Sentra SE-R. It was great fun to watch. That said, those SPC cars were not the best choice for the class, and were not nearly built to the rules of the class. While there are a few different cars running in SPC today, cars which are a better platform to start with than a Miata, those cars are still not nearly built to the specification of the class. For the past few seasons, the class has been mostly run by lightly-modified ST2 cars running against lightly-modified ST4 cars.

The problem, as I see it, is that there is too much of a difference between ST rules and SP rules, and not enough between SP and P. Especially the rules regarding engine modifications.
ST - absolutely no changes allowed. Not even a valve job or "port match"
SP - Anything goes. Any engine, provided that it has the same # of cylinders offered in that chassis.
P - Anything goes.

Trophies are nice, but many of us run with COM because of the other things we get out of the club, and a love for the sport in general. That said, we are a competition club and I think we do our members a bit of disservice when we downplay that. Perhaps it is time to stir the pot a bit...

[horizenjob]

That said, we are a competition club and I think we do our members a bit of disservice when we downplay that. Perhaps it is time to stir the pot a bit...

I agree pretty strongly here. This was something that distinguished us from the autox and marque clubs. We used to count some of the fastest people in the country among our members. National champions in Formula Atlantic and GT1, probably others too. People that competed in Can-Am and Trans-Am, at least on a couple of occasions.

We did this while still being an approachable, enjoyable club and a good place for novices. COM was the generally acknowledged stepping stone to any serious level of driving.

I can't really comment on the classes very much, because I've been out of circulation for awhile. I would say that we seem to have a good number more classes then we used to though. Also that point systems make sense, but I don't see how we could police them. We don't have scales or dynos though. Depending on a dyno sheet someone produces from a third party seems like a pandora's box. Without even trying, I can think of ways a car would not dyno as well in a shop as on a straight at the track...

I think one big difference is that we used to use the cumulative times, so each run at Loudon was a 4.8 mile race, not 3 1.6 mile races. No warmup lap. This is a small but noticeable raising of the bar. It also applies a little more to street driving, where you don't get 2 or 3 miles warmup to do an avoidance maneuver. "We did those things, and the other things, not because they were easy, but because they were hard..." Or something like that

[WillM]

I think one big difference is that we used to use the cumulative times, so each run at Loudon was a 4.8 mile race, not 3 1.6 mile races. No warmup lap. This is a small but noticeable raising of the bar. It also applies a little more to street driving, where you don't get 2 or 3 miles warmup to do an avoidance maneuver. "We did those things, and the other things, not because they were easy, but because they were hard..." Or something like that

More stirring of the pot, I love it.

I'm a fan of cumulative lap times for a few different reasons. The biggest drawback would be to timing & scoring, as the majority of "catches", as far as I can tell, decide to keep their good 1 or 2 laps instead of running again. Still, we do not get that many catches (thanks to timing & scoring!).

While I'm not totally sold on the idea, I like the cumulative approach because:
1. It rewards consistency
2. It removes the "sacrifice lap" strategy.
3. It would allow one competitor to win the class, yet the 2nd place guy to actually set the fastest lap (or potential track record, etc).
4. It rewards consistency

[boltonite]

More stirring of the pot, I love it. <snip>
While I'm not totally sold on the idea, I like the cumulative approach because:
1. It rewards consistency
2. It removes the "sacrifice lap" strategy.
3. It would allow one competitor to win the class, yet the 2nd place guy to actually set the fastest lap (or potential track record, etc).
4. It rewards consistency

+1. The SSGT winner at WGI, the SPC winners for LCMT and NHMS-3, and the SPB winner for NHMS-4 all would have changed w/ this system (at LCMT it would have depended on how "catches" were handled).

Also, a trophy can be awarded for the most consistent (i.e., least variant) lap times ...
So, even if you blow your 1st lap you can still win a trophy by consistently blowing your other laps.

[WillM]

To play devil's advocate, counting all 3 laps as part of the competition also encourages going all-out right from the pits. That said, we do give competitors at least 1/2 a warm-up lap...

[breakaway500]

Hmm..cumulative timed laps. Basically, a three lap time trial. Interesting. It would change strategy.My first lap is usually my slowest and the last lap where I tend to push it. I'm in...

[brucesallen]

Hmm..cumulative timed laps. Basically, a three lap time trial. Interesting. It would change strategy.My first lap is usually my slowest and the last lap where I tend to push it. I'm in...

Yes, and you might auger-in on the first lap if it was as important as all laps. That is why the Board changed format a few years ago.