I don't think it would help me stay in the middle of the pack, because I wouldn't lose ground. I could only gain ground on those who beat me (in terms of weight and power, that is). I can still drop 165lbs to reach that weight, and I was very close to several of the non-Evos ahead of me.

 

I was at 2980 at nationals this year. Not sure exactly where I stand on this, cause so many things can change here. I guess we will see how it plays out.

 

I'm just concerned that this proposal will serve to limit the EVOs potential and make the STI even more uncompetitive (3067#min.). The EVO hasn't yet been completely dominant, so I don't see the need to change anything until it does get "unbeatable". They are trying to pass other rules to help cars get lighter, but then trying to make us heavier.

Vic was only about a tenth off Mark on day 1, and Vic had the flu. Not slighting Mark's accomplishment, but that surface is going to to continue to get more and more grippy and the "advantage" of AWD will continue to diminish.

I'm just pissed because I've already been working on losing more weight to get in the 2700's, building to the 2008 rules, and now I may have to add it all back in. . . and sell the parts I just bought for pennies on the dollar. . .

EVOlutionary

 

This is a bone for the SM2 miata gang. They've been *****in about having to add ballast to an otherwise CSP car to run in SM2. 200lbs should allow them to run w/o ballast.

i mean really though...275's aren't *that* much smaller then 285's. not sure if you could really get an evo down to 2705lbs though.

 

The BSP car was 2970-ish at nationals. Kinda makes all the expensive allowances in SM seem kind of silly if this goes through.

the current weight limit does seem very expensive, so i'm not exactly opposed to some sort of weight increase. I just think 2905 is maybe a touch too heavy.

 

I think it's also because of the Honda's that run the new 275 tires. You are right - 275's are not THAT much smaller, so how can you give someone a 200# free pass by running 10mm narrower tires? All they need to do is lower the min. weight for the 2wd category so the Miatas can fit, and leave us alone.

And yes, 2705 # IS attainable. My car was going to be around 2750# by nationals this year with all off the shelf bolt on parts. No custom 1-off stuff. True, the last 50# will be the most expensive 50#, but that's why they say SM stands for "Spend Money".

Tire choice would be 275/35/18 or 275/40/17 and both have 1/2" less tread width and about 3/4" taller diameter. And that's only Hoosier. Kumho doesn't have a 275/35/18 so if you run Kumhos you would have to buy all new wheels and tires . . .

 

Guys, the thing here is not about competing with ourselves, it is the fact that they are raising the EVO's min. weight but no other competitive car.

If the Hondas, Bimmers, or Miatas find a way to get just a little bit quicker, do you really think they are going to lower the AWD weight penalty back down to make us more competitive. If we give it up now, it will be twice as hard to get it back . . .

 

what i dont think is fair is that the m3's have dominated this class since its existance but now that these lil rice rockets are taking over, they start making regulations, why didnt they slow down them m3's after the 10 years or whatever that they won it?

 

It's not a rule yet, but it will be if we don't stand up for ourselves. You can be sure if they tried to raise the min. weight for the M3 there would be a flood of letters. We need to do the same thing.

 

does anyone on here know about the performance friction 2 piece rotors? are they lighter than stock?

 

Hmmmm. Sounds interesting, could you give a little more info on these????

 

It kinda looks like it's Marks fault by kicking butt at nationals while being ~245lbs over min weight. It's some what of a tough argument to say evo's aren't competitive at 2905 lbs when clearly they're competitive at 2980. Coupled with the 275's weight allowance, if min weight is really your goal the evo's can take advantage of a 30lb min weight decrease over the current limit with minimal sacrifice in tire size.

That seems like a tough decision to me.

 

But why change anything!?? You have 2 choices -
1 - leave the rules alone (except just enough to allow Miatas in). Let all cars get faster. Let all competitors work on getting faster.

2 - make a bunch of new rules that will cap the EVO's performance while helping or at least not hurting every other car.

Seems like an easy choice to me - just let things be. The more they try to change the basic nature of the class the more it is going to hurt participation. There has already been talk in this class, as well as others, how rules instability is making it impossible for some to justify building a new car to make a run at the championship when next year that car may be ruled out.

This is Street Mod class. It is supposed be the pinnacle of "street tuner" type cars. It is supposed to be the fastest of the fast. It is supposed to be crazy fast cars that you can still drive a couple hundred miles to get to a race (if you really want to). The biggest motor you want. The fattest tires you want. The lowest weight you can get to.

 

Here is a copy of the letter I sent to seb@scca.com

Please feel free to use it as a template to add your own opinions on the topics at hand. Thanks!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello, my name is Jarrod Hoops, member # xxxxxx. I have been competing for 4 years - 2 years nationally. I place 9th in SM at 2006 Nationals, and 3rd in SM at the 2007 National Championship. I would like to give some feedback on the proposed rule changes for Street Modified/SM2 class laid out in the March Fast Track.

Proposal 1 - to add allowances for replacing trunk lids and removeable rear fenders to make it easier to acheive minimum weight. I agree with and support this proposal. Carbon trunk lids are a very simple, popular and cost effective way to shave some weight off the car. I think this will help draw more participants to SM/SM2 classes.

Proposal 2 - lower weight minimum based on tire size. I disagree with and do not support this proposal. If the intention of this rule is to allow CSP Miata into SM without needing to add balast, I believe there is a better solution. Instead of creating a completly new rule that could affect ALL cars, simply change the minimum weight calculation for RWD vehicles to allow your average CSP Miata to qualify. IF this proposal passes, it needs to read . . . "Add to 16.2: Cars running tires with a rated width of LESS THAN 275 on all four wheels may compete at a minimum
weight 200 pounds less than their calculated weight per Appendix A." Currently the "best" or most popular tire size for the FWD cars and small RWD cars is the 275 width on a 15 or 16" wheel. These cars should not be given a free pass to lower weights. It needs to be a trade-off -- you chose to run a narrower than "standard" tire and you get to drop some weight. You chose to stay with the gold standard and you have to stay at your current weight. There have been protest in this and other classes about rules instability making it diffucult for racers to choose to make an investment in building a competitive car. This proposal serves to completly change the face of StreetModified/SM2 classes as we know them - and not for the better.

Proposal 3 - I have no opinion on this matter.

Proposal 4 - allow aftermarket side mirrors. I agree with and support this proposal. It will allow competitors to shave a couple pounds and use popular aftermarket "street tuner" parts. That is, afterall, one of the original ideas behind SM - to allow common "tuner car" modifications like body kits, spoilers, ground effects, carbon fiber hoods, etc. . .

Proposal 5 - to increase the weight minimum for AWD cars. I STRONGLY oppose this proposal. There is currently no need for a change to this rule. With the current weight minimums in place at the 2007 Nationals the EVO or STI certainly was NOT an overdog or unbeatable. On day 1 Vic Sias was within 0.2 seconds of the fastest AWD car, and he was not at 100% (had the flu I believe). Had it not been for cones, the gap on the 2nd day would have been close also. At the 2006 Nats Bob Tunnell finished 1.3 seconds ahead of Vic, but there were no proposals to slow Bob's car down. It was up to the other cars to get faster.

With this proposal the minimum weight for an EVO with a stock 2.0L motor would be 2905 pounds. That is MORE than what some EVOs weighed at Nats LAST year. You will be forcing us to ADD weight back into our cars. Cars that are currently very competitive with others in our class.

My Street Modified class EVO currently sits just under 2800#, with only readily available aftermarket bolt-ons. No custom parts. No exotic 1-off hyper-$$$ pieces. No custom titanium tubular control arms. The minimum weight for a 2.5L STI would balloon to 3067 pounds. This is going to push cars that are currently evenly competitive right out of contention (especially if the proposed tire rule passes and allows other cars to get even lighter).

SM class at Nats this year looked like this : EVO, BMW, EVO, Honda, BMW, Honda. The top 4 spots had AWD, RWD, FWD - all chassis type at the top of the class. That is EXACTLY what we want. Last year it was BMW, BMW, BMW, BMW, Honda, Volkswagen. Clear BMW domination.

The reasoning of the first proposal was to allow cars to more easily attain minimum weight, and you are tying to reduce certain car's minimums even more with the tire rule (proposal 3). Then you try to slow down AWD cars. It just doesn't make sense to me. Historically SM class times have not been too far ahead of CSP, BSP, or ASP - at least not as far as they SHOULD be. Please don't slow the class down. If anything the class needs to be faster. It needs to be the logical progression on our way to XP.

To summarize:
Proposal 1 - Support
Proposal 2 - Disagree as is, possibly change to "Add to 16.2: Cars running tires with a rated width of LESS THAN 275 on all four wheels may compete at a minimum weight 200 pounds less than their calculated weight per Appendix A."
Proposal 3 - No opinion
Proposal 4 - Support
Proposal 5 - Strongly Disagree. Do not support.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I urge you to please not make any drastic changes to Street Mod/SM2 classes.

Jarrod Hoops
#78 SM
SCCA # ******

 

Nice job Jarrod, that was time-consuming to be sure.

Can we get some sort of online petition going? It appears the momentum seems to be moving in the direction of essentially segregating us (AWDers) to our own classes...