2006 Car classification proposal

[brucesallen]

Kevin,
Herb is rules chair. But rules submission is through on-line form. Nate Hine is the chief steward.

[therooster]

Hello everybody! As Kevin Foote mentioned I have been busy with other stuff the last few months. I have slowly been working on a data base of car info that would support some changes to the SS classes. I currently have info (HP Weight, gears, rims and tires, etc...)on about about 330 cars and growing. Some of this info I have gotten from the SCCA Touring and SS spec, some I have combed the web for,. If any one wants a copy I can email them, otherwise I will plan on being at the next BOD meeting.

Chris A.

[kfoote]

Thanks Chris, I meant to ask you about this the last time I saw you, but you were a bit otherwise occupied.

I know we had talked about a few additions and corrections to the list (including the Nissan 350Z into SSGT) I posted here, but it's a good basic overview.

[johnb]

Kev,

how would we classify a RSX Type S? Thanks.

-John

[kfoote]

Under my proposal, the RSX-S would go into SSA.

[johnb]

ouch - that will be a tough class for the car. the competition will be good. Alignment will be everything......

[HerbD]

Kevin,

I am definitely willing to give the new classification proposal a shake
if you (or your qualified designee) wants to present it NEXT Wednesday
at the October board meeting. There isn't much of a slate planned for
the next meeting, and I think this deserves its own hearing, separate
from the annual rules fight, er, I mean, meeting.

If you are going to be there, I would appreciate knowing this week so
we can send out a notice to the membership, since I think it would be
appropriate to have as many as are interested in this process participate
as possible.

[kfoote]

I will be at the BOD meeting, as will Chris Aylward as stated above. I'm going to do a bit more analysis before the BOD meeting, and will post the results here as I come up with them. In brief, here is why I feel the rules need to be changed, and main points and requirements of this, or any, proposal:

1. The cars that are showing up now are faster than 10 years ago
2. Many of the the "tuner" cars have sufficiently high enough production numbers to deserve an SS class to run in.
3. More of the cars that are showing up will be more competitive in the class they are running in.
4. There should be the same number of, or fewer classes
5. Track records should not have to be reset
6. Reference to SCCA SS classes should be eliminated
7. The cars that are likely to show up more in the next few years should have a place to run and be competitive.

[Georgethefierce]

Kevin, under the proposed Combo of the ST3 and 4 would this make the 1.8 swap into the 1st Gen Miatas legal?

[Grippy]

Kevin,
Under your proposed class structure, all ST4 and ST3 Miata's will be in SSC? What are the mods allowed in the new SSC? My car is built to ST3 rules and I do not want to go backwards to SS, nor do I want to move up to SP.

While I'm ranting, I feel that the ST rules need to allow more engine mods to find a middle ground between SS and SP. It doesn't make any sense to go from "can't change anything except the air filter" to "put in any engine you want with the same number of cylinders".

[christine]

While I'm ranting, I feel that the ST rules need to allow more engine mods to find a middle ground between SS and SP. It doesn't make any sense to go from "can't change anything except the air filter" to "put in any engine you want with the same number of cylinders".

I think at least part of the reason for not allowing much in the way of engine mods is the fact that a roll bar is optional in ST. Even something as simple as a chip can dramatically increase horsepower in some cars. Start allowing much more in the way of performance, and the club would pretty much have to require rollover protection in the class. (I can think of at least one ST car that really should get a rollbar).

Also this falls under the heading of "easy to police".

Christine

[SSNH]

Kevin, under the proposed Combo of the ST3 and 4 would this make the 1.8 swap into the 1st Gen Miatas legal?

Kevin, under the proposed Combo of the ST3 and 4 would this make the 2.0 swap into the 2nd Gen Sentras legal?

[kfoote]

Rules for levels of SS and ST swaps and preparation would remain as is, meaning a current ST4 car would still be an ST4 car under the new rules. As engine swaps are not currently allowed in ST, they would still not be allowed in ST. The only cars that would move from ST to SS would be cars that currently start out in ST but are still at SS prep levels, such as the E36 BMW M3.

My proposal keeps the same classes that currently exist, only shuffling what cars go where.

[WillM]

I think at least part of the reason for not allowing much in the way of engine mods is the fact that a roll bar is optional in ST. Even something as simple as a chip can dramatically increase horsepower in some cars. Start allowing much more in the way of performance, and the club would pretty much have to require rollover protection in the class. (I can think of at least one ST car that really should get a rollbar).

Also this falls under the heading of "easy to police".

Christine

I agree with you that the reasoning behind the current rules is for 'safety', but I don't really agree with that assessment. I have heard many times that ST as the 'suspension mod' class, and I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning. Just about any car can be in ST - from a LeCar to a Subaru WRX STi. The difference in hp put out between ST4 cars and SSGT cars is huge. Is one inherently more dangerous than the other? Should all 'higher level' ST cars (ST1? STGT?) require rollbars? (I am not advocating this, by the way!)

An aftermarket ECU would add minimal power to the typical ST4 or ST3 car, but could potentially add a lot to cars in 'higher' ST classes. The point about allowing aftermarket ECUs if we already allow aftermarket chips is valid, in my opinion.

My 1.8T Audi (ST2) is 'chipped', increasing hp/tq from 150hp/180ft-lb to 200hp/245ft-lb, an increase of 50hp and 65ft-lbs, respectively. Not bad! The typical 4-cylinder naturally-aspirated ST4 or ST3 car would MAYBE add a couple of hp, at best. On the other hand, a replacement ECU could add perhaps 5-12hp, if tuned correctly. The rule, as it is currently written, favors newer cars with more robust factory ECUs, especially those with turbos. Given the fact that rule puts certain cars at an advantage, why not even the playing field a bit by allowing aftermarket ECUs?

Maybe what this points to is the need to set rules for the different levels within the classes. For example, allow a set of modifications in ST4, ST3, ST2, that are different from the modifications allowed in ST1 and STGT (this is only an example). The problem is that complexity is added to the rule structure. However, if the rule structure is already created around factory engine size/displacement/output, then wouldn't such a classing structure make sense? If cars are classed by the amount of power they make, shouldn't modifications within those classes be tailored to those classes?

I am not necessarily advocating that either way, just food for thought. However, if the reasoning to keep ST the 'suspension mod class' is safety (rollcage requirements for more power), then isn't it talking out of both sides of our mouths by treating cars with 90hp the same as cars with 300hp?

By the way, where is Lee? It isn't easy being the devil's advocate.

[WillM]

Kevin,
Under your proposed class structure, all ST4 and ST3 Miata's will be in SSC? What are the mods allowed in the new SSC? My car is built to ST3 rules and I do not want to go backwards to SS, nor do I want to move up to SP.

No, if I am reading Kevin's reclassification correctly, all 1990-1997 Miatas start off in SSC and move up to ST4 (if they are prepared to ST specifications). Since your '95 is prepared as an ST car, your new class would be ST4.