Rules proposals online

[savage217]

^^^

I agree with classing cars in practice based on previous time trials but what you are talking about sounds like classing drivers by skill, not vehicle potential. The problem with that is the fact that the (slower inexperienced drivers with very high potential cars) will eventually start getting faster, at least they should.... So based on that a lot of experienced, talented drivers with lesser cars will be put at an unfair advanatage for what could be more than one event. I do not see the point in that. I do strongly agree with you on run groups based on driver skill and lap times versus the potential of the car. To me it will make the entire event run smoother and will ultimately be a better learning experience for all.

[Mick]

Reminder:
- Nate aggregated the 2012 rules proposals into a spreadsheet for the membership to review. They have been available since October.
- The monthly board meetings, where these rules are debated and voted upon, are open to all members In fact, we encourage all members to participate in the process.

Classification of the Atom was debated for quite a while and there was a convincing argument put forth that since the car has a VIN and Cert of Origin it belongs in SS.

I don't want to stifle the conversation. I do think it's important to discuss it on the forum. Just know that if you want to enact change there is a process for it. Put together a proposal, come to a meeting, and voice your opinion. If you can't make the meeting submit a written proposal with a your rationale explained.

It's your club, and the BOD always tries to vote the will of the membership. Sometimes we get it right, sometimes we get it wrong.

[McMahonRacing]

Actually, I have mentioned the arrangement/class by time to several COM mebers & borad members over the years & even more so as of late ( esp. since I know we have lost members due to it & have seen first hand practice groups have issues relating to it ) ... I'm not going to try to upset the apple cart, esp. since I am told the data is not yet available to do this accuratly/fairly at this point in time & since I also expect to move on in the next year or so .....

[McMahonRacing]

Actually, I have mentioned the arrangement/class by time to several COM members & borad members over the years & even more so as of late ( esp. since I know we have lost members due to it & have seen first hand, practice groups have issues relating to it ) ... I'm not going to try to upset the apple cart for a couple reason ---- first, I am told the data is not yet available to do this accuratly & fairly at this point in time ---- second, I suspect I will be moveing on in the next year or so .....

FYI .. classing based on car potential is great (NASA formate), but there are plenty of drivers that don't for their own resons drive too the cars potential, if you leave those individuals at the bottom of ladder w/ no chance of winning all the time why would they want to come back .. theory is, regardless of car/driver if a time improves to a point they bump to the next class till they reach their potential & if the class is tight enough then they could always be in the hunt ..... ex: My Dad's Healy has more "potential" than my Cobra yet I am much faster than he, should he really be in a higher class w/ no expectaion of winning ....

This is all just food for thought .........

[breakaway500]

COM constantly reclassifies cars based on their actual on track performance.Some move up,some down.This is done in the spirit of competition. While I agree a stock Atom does not belong in SSU technically, by current COM rules(not "mass" produced) I see this as a non issue competitively for the class. A well driven stock GT-R Nissan will absolutely destroy a well driven stock Atom.(both on DOT rubber) I can tell you this from personal on track experience.

While the Atom is a very entertaining car to drive,it is not the best choice for all out high performance driving. It's just a cool,fun car...

As Mick has explained,anyone can submit a rule change if they so desire. I had no imput into the Atom being classed into SSU.
I also have no desire to drive a stock Atom on track...

[nateh]

Almost all SS and ST cars are now classed according to power to weight ratio. Re-classing can happen (each winter, not during a season) if a valid argument can be made for a given car's other characteristics (e.g. center of gravity) being exceptionally bad or good enough to move it up or down.

The best method to accomplish this is to submit a proposal at http://comscc.org/rules, with complete rationale for the change included.

[betelgeuse]

If the Ariel Atom has no chance of winning in SSU why was it put in that class? Shouldn't it have been put in SSGT or SSA?

I don't think anyone should have to go to a meeting to argue against a kit car being classed in SS. According to the current rules (the way I read them) they are to be classed in the Street Prepared.

Greg

[nateh]

We classed the production version in SS. The kit version would not be stock, and hence not fall within SS.

The stock Atom 3 has a power-to-weight ratio of 6.8, which places it squarely in SSU - well above any SSGT car, but not the best in SSU.

Many different cars arguably could not win their classes if all cars in the class were driven perfectly. We can't have a separate class for every car.

If somebody shows up with an Atom that makes these arguments look wrong, then I (or someone else) should propose another revision of the rule.

[betelgeuse]

We classed the production version in SS. The kit version would not be stock, and hence not fall within SS.

The stock Atom 3 has a power-to-weight ratio of 6.8, which places it squarely in SSU - well above any SSGT car, but not the best in SSU.

Many different cars arguably could not win their classes if all cars in the class were driven perfectly. We can't have a separate class for every car.

If somebody shows up with an Atom that makes these arguments look wrong, then I (or someone else) should propose another revision of the rule.

Production version? Again, from their website;
The Ariel Atom 3 is a unique and limited hand-built, high performance motor vehicle. All new Ariel Atom 3s sold within the North American market are partially or fully assembled in the USA by TMI AutoTech, Inc. (‘TMI’). Ariel Atom 3s are built and sold by TMI AutoTech, Inc. for the purposes of off-road/competition use (i.e., organized or private track day; slalom; Solo 1 events, etc.). Ariel Atom 3s are not considered to be federalized, production vehicles and do not necessarily meet applicable FMVSS criteria. Therefore, Ariel Atom 3s are not available with 17-digit VIN or PIN numbers.....

I don't know where you got the hp/weight figure from but according to the AA website the 300 hp version is 4.6lbs/hp.
They also make a 500+ hp v8. where is that one going to be classed?
Anyway IMO if the car doesn't come with a 17-character VIN from the factory...it's a kit car and should be classed in one of the SP classes.

Greg

[breakaway500]

Funny..all three of my Atoms have 17 digit factory stamped VIN's,and have titles. I believe TMI is being..coy...

The base Atom3 model is 200bhp. More HP is optional,like many cars. The 500hp version makes 330whp...is a special model,and I doubt anyone will ever see one,as to date there are none in the USA.

[nateh]

I have to admit I missed the optional engines for the Atom 3. (The Atom 500 V8 is not classified, and there is no proposal to do so.)

Anyone who actually cares about changing this, as opposed to arguing about it (which is often more fun, I admit), should submit a rules change proposal.

You don't have to attend the meeting to have your proposal considered. Just make a good argument as part of the online submission. Many proposals have succeeded in this way.

[nateh]

The 500hp version makes 330whp.

Crank HP is what we go by, not wheel HP.

[breakaway500]

The Atom500 V-8 actually only makes 375bhp. Most of the Atom HP figures are hype...

Here is a picture of my Atoms VIN..

[Dtangard]

I think there would be some definite benefits to moving towards a NASA style car classification at some point down the road. For one we could eliminate the debate between 1.6 miatas competing with 1.8s. We could also add points based on tire selection to keep the cars in each class on an even playing field (see below).

From the NASA TTA-TTF classification form:
A. TIRES:
1) The following DOT-approved R-compound tires: Hankook Z214 (C90 & C91 compounds only), Hoosier A6 +13
2) DOT-approved R-compound tires with a UTQG treadwear rating of 40 or less (examples: BFG R1, Goodyear Eagle RS,
Hankook Z214 (C71, C70, C51, C50), Hoosier R6, Kumho V710, etc. --note: G.A.C.& VRL Hoosiers OK) +10
3) DOT-approved R-compound tires with a UTQG treadwear rating of 50 to 130 (ex. Kumho V700, Michelin Pilot Sport
Cup, Nitto NT01, Pirelli PZero Corsa, Toyo R888, Toyo RA-1, Yokahama A048, etc) +7
4) DOT-approved (non-R-compound) tires with a UTQG treadwear rating of 120-200 (examples: Toyo R1R, Dunlop
Direzza Sport Z1 Star Spec, Bridgestone Potenza RE070, Kumho Ecsta XS, Yokohama Advan A046 & Neova AD08,
Hankook R-S3) +2
5) Non-DOT-approved racing slicks +30 (of any origin—re-caps and re-treads are not permitted)

We could use this type of system for weight reductions, suspension modifications, and engine modifications as well. I'm upset my car will now be classified in Street Prepared because the carpeting has been removed to accommodate a roll cage. I could've trimmed the carpet around the cage mounting points but the carpeting was already starting to fold down towards the pedals creating an unsafe situation. It doesn't seem fair to be penalized like that when the performance advantage is negligible (<10 pounds of carpet vs 100 pounds of cage). My car would have no chance in street prepared unless I spent serious time and money on engine modifications.

I also think classifying drivers based on their abilities and not the capabilities of the car would hurt competition. The best driver should win in a class, not the person with the fastest car. With a points system, it seems more likely for the best driver to win.

I'm sure this system would take a lot of work to accomplish and I'm just throwing it out there as fuel for thought. If I can, I'll try to make it out to the next meeting and argue my point for carpeting.

[TroyV]

Not trying to start a fight here..

I submitted a rule change to get the carpet out of there in cases where the stock method of fastening was no longer possible....as when a cage is installed. I was at the meetings to watch it get shot down twice. It is ok for me to completely gut the doors in any class to place NASCAR bars in there when a cage is installed, but not ok to remove the carpet, which has been reduced to something almost as loose as a floor mat. (which as a loose item in cockpit, floor mats must be removed). Based on what I observed at the meeting, the proposal was shot down not based on the merit of the rule itself, but swept under the more stereotypical "too much rules creep" carpet. (pun intended). I was told I could use glue or sheet metal screws to fasten the carpet to the floors. Seriously? It seemed pointless for me to continue arguing as even before I was able to plead the case, BOD mems were already saying no just as the proposal was being read through by Nate. Even when Liz explained that Jeff's gas pedal was stuck in the carpet causing an off situation, and the proposal was resubmitted, we were told to just cut the carpet in that area.

I can't speak for everyone in the class, I'm never going to protest anyone for something as silly as having removed their carpet, but as the current rule exists, if someone sets a lap record and asks a steward to tech their car, they'll have to ding them on it.

I submit this is one of the times the BOD got it wrong, but I still plan to leave my carpet in. For now.