Classing SP and P cars

[eastcoastbumps]

Rulebook Section:
****************************************
Car classes
****************************************

Old Rule:
****************************************
SPB is all 6 cylinder cars that are naturally aspirated, forced induction 4 cylinders, etc. SPA is naturally aspirated 8 cylinders, forced induction 6 cylinders, etc.

****************************************

New Rule:
****************************************
I feel car classes should be strictly on a power to weight ratio basis. It makes no sense for cars with over 400whp, whether they are forced induction 4 cylinders or 6 cylinders to be classed with cars of lesser power. For instance
---
Somehow my proposal was sent before I was finished.

Of course then you need to take into account the suspension mods and whatnot so if it is possible I think more classes may be needed to truly make these events fair. It shouldnt matter what size engine the car has. If it is making double the power of a big engine, of course it will be faster.

Find an easy way to measure hp and weight accurately at the track and it will work. Otherwise, its not going to happen.

I suggested moving to a points based classing system like NASA does at last years rules meeting, but it was deemed too complicated, hard to enforce, would make class records null etc. Personally, I think NASAs classing system is the best out there. A mildy modified WRX goes in the same class as a stock STi. A crazy light weight tube frame with a N/A 4 cylinder could be in the same class as a C6 Z06.

I feel bad for anyone running a Miata in SPC or PC and anyone who runs in SPB or PB without 400+hp.

[brucesallen]

Miatas kicked butt for years in SPC. I always wondered when someone was going to "build to the rules" and now many have and many are thinking about it--- like several people that started developing Miatas with Honda S2000 engines. Miatas that ran the stock engine as required in SCCA Spec Miata were winning all the time. Now at least they must hop up the engine like was intended in SP.

[eastcoastbumps]

Miatas kicked butt for years in SPC. I always wondered when someone was going to "build to the rules" and now many have and many are thinking about it--- like several people that started developing Miatas with Honda S2000 engines. Miatas that ran the stock engine as required in SCCA Spec Miata were winning all the time. Now at least they must hop up the engine like was intended in SP.

Thats the problem with the current SP and P rules. They're so open that anyone can build a ringer. But building that ringer is going to be costly and time consuming. Is that how the BOD and members want those classes to be? You can't be competitive unless you've spent thousands of dollars or have a ton of hp?

It would be great if the rules were built to the cars, not the other way around. That way no one can show up with a ringer. It would be refreshing if everyone could go through the rule book and after finding their class could say 'Yeah, that makes sense. And I'll be competitive.' Most people have quite the opposite reaction when they find out they're in SP or P.

[962porsche]

pete i feal your pain !!!! i too like the way NASA classes there cars . i run a bone stock 944 with the exception of camber plates ,front adjustable coilovers and 350 LBS front springs . it is in no way a SPC car but thats were its classed and runs . i also have a 87 gti that is much faster than the 944 . but becouse i installed the L14 2.0 8V euro spec motor that was offered in that car and for that year over seas but not in the US . i would also have to run that car in SPC . it would be a 3rd place finisher . if i ran the vw in ST4 it would be finishing in the top 1st or 2nd places ez . i picked up a mazda AZ1 thinking i would run that with comscc but there is just no good class for a 1.3L 3 cylinder turbo . so now over the winter i'm going to get an other car a diasio 962r or a porsche 968 and build it just for comscc racing . so yep you do have to spend thousends to win ! but i'm looking at it this way now i have a car to run wheel to wheel with in spec racing and then i will also have a car to just do time trails with .

[breakaway500]

We could just make more classes,like they do at car shows.That way,everyone wins a trophy!

[Mick]

We should just hand out trophies to everyone at registration.

Kidding aside. Pete, sorry to hear you got discouraged when suggesting this idea to the board. However I think that the rules meeting may not have been the best time to suggest a ratical change to how the club is run. To get something this big done it would need to be organized and presented it in a way that would demonstrate why it would be better for the club. It would also help if you took ownership of it and voluntered to write the new rule book and help come up with a plan for how it would be implemented.

[962porsche]

We could just make more classes,like they do at car shows.That way,everyone wins a trophy!

i don't think thats the case . becouse if you leave the track at the end of the day with a smile on yuor face you did win !!!!!!! but when where are cars that are way out classed something needs to get changed ? NO ? say your running a F500 and your put in a class were you have to run agianst full down forced formula cars . is that a fair way to class cars ? so at that point your going to the track with comscc like i do for seat time and to win that coveted smile !!

[horizenjob]

It's very hard to get this right. We have already added classes over the years, there used to be just "street stock" , which was pretty open and then "prepared" which was nearly wide open.

Here's a radical idea. Considering how much it costs to enter these days ( I think I remember something like $35 in the old days ). So 100 entrants times $250 is $25,000. That's enough to buy a car and we all drive the same car! I don't mean spend that much for the beater we share, but just showing how much money we spend just on the entry fee, compared to the cost of a car.

Probably not practical, we would just argue about what car and what parts. A Formula Ford would be a good choice, but too restrictive so far as size of driver etc. Maybe something like a mini-modified set up for road racing? It would be tremendously strong and reliable and faster then most of the other cars.

So we add one class called BS, Beater Spec?

[breakaway500]

Much of the satisfaction I get from driving on track is how my car performs.Not necessarily in how I place in the final standings,but how the car met my expectations on the modifications and changes I have performed. I don't believe I would enjoy driving a communal car half as much as driving a product of my own making. One of the things I look foreward to is the experimentation of new equipment and ideas to help me travel around the track in less time than the last time. Sometimes they work..and sometimes they don't. But,that is part of the allure that keeps me coming back. I also enjoy seeing what others are doing in their quest for speed. I learn a great deal from others.

We could all rent identical Toyota Corollas and have one HUGE class.

I would probably find something else to do....

[cuda6666]

Mark. I agree with you 110%. That's why I run in SP rather than ST - more room for experimentation. My favorite flavor of automotive perversion is taking a car that looks like a loser on paper and turning it into something my wife hates and my competitors need to worry about. I don't need to finish first as long as my presence is noticed

[horizenjob]

Much of the satisfaction I get from driving on track is how my car performs.

Pretty much the same here. Having a formula car though also gives me something to measure how I perform. When I drove a street car, it was a conscious effort. The formula car connects directly to my spinal cord though, no conscious thought involved really. That's a very powerful experience, it is leaps and bounds more immersive. On the the banked turns I think it does 2 g's or better cornering and braking.

There's plenty to do on a track car and in fact you can adjust the brakes and anti-roll bars while your driving around. If you like the satisfaction of having your car perform, imagine if it performed really, really well! It would mean you had been successful with your efforts at building/improving.

We could all rent identical Toyota Corollas and have one HUGE class.

That's why I was suggesting a purpose built track car for this, the Corolla wouldn't be much fun. There wold be plenty to do on a communal car, and it's starting to sound so cheap that you could all still have your regular car too. Over time we could build demand and build a few...

Something that could do 1:10's all day at the NH track is what I was thinking....

[brucesallen]

It would be great if the rules were built to the cars, not the other way around. That way no one can show up with a ringer.

That is truly the question, Pete. COM has always been "Design for the class" like SCCA and not "Design the rules for the car" like NASA. With this philosophy the simplistic and easy-to-enforce SP rules have worked well for almost ten years.

[tju-vette]

I too like the NASA classing system since you only get hit for what you actually have. However, I was a member of a mostly autocross club and tried to get a different type of series going and know how much work it can be so I agree with Mick:

To get something this big done it would need to be organized and presented it in a way that would demonstrate why it would be better for the club. It would also help if you took ownership of it and voluntered to write the new rule book and help come up with a plan for how it would be implemented.

I think the NASA system is worth looking at and would certainly offer to help anyone that would be interested in putting together a proposal like that.

[boltonite]

One way to evaluate a new class scheme would be to reclassify current cars using the "proposed" scheme to see what that would do to the TT results and classes. Doing so would at least provide a baseline for people to see what the "proposed" scheme does to Time Trials in terms of distribution of cars and results in each class (apart from issues of how to tech cars or enforce new class rules). Of course you might need more specifics re mods on current SS/ST/SP and P cars but it would be possible to use one set of TT results to evaluate both the current and new schemes. If the BoD were to seriously consider such a change, it might be easier to set up a 2nd, "shadow classification" at the start of the season and use a full seasons' results to evaluate a new scheme.

From my experience, anyone who has built a car to the current rules will be upset if classes are changed in a way that makes their car uncompetitive or in need of big $ updates. Messing w/ classifications and class rules tend to hurt people no matter what, giving 1-2 year notice is not uncommon.

FF

[mr2sc]

wow...about 5 yrs ago I had argued this whole thing, right down to suggesting adding one more class in SP and what I deemed a more reasonable formula for equalizing cars, based on 'displacement' ...because that at least is a tangible that affects 'potential' (remember, this is SP).

At the time, I recall having been shut down by;

1) there aren't enough SP entrants to populate 1 additional class
2) displacement is harder to police than whether or not there is a snail hung over the side of an engine (it made no difference whether the car had a turbo or SCer).

It didn't matter whether the engine was 1.6l SC'd or 2.5l turboed...all the same.
Basically, I was told to either get another car that is more suitable for a specifc SP class, or simply spend gobs of $$$ on engine swaps.etc.

Today, I feel the level playing field issue is further complicated due to modern aero advances giving newer cars an edge and as well as the proliferation of e-nannies and paddles.

I guess it all boils down to everyone knowing what the 'ringer' cars are in every class and driving those, if its really the competition that one is after.
For me, the result of the classification oversimplification was that ever since, I've only participated with COM for seat time, not for the thrill of competition. And frankly, despite my affinity for COM, in many instances, the structured run-group format offers less seat time than most open-track groups.