PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 24 Jan 2011 01:55 PM by  47CP
CM approved manufacturers?
 19 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
mwood
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:2279


--
19 Jan 2011 04:03 PM
    Has the list of approved FFords been removed from the 2011 rules? Doesn't seem to be where I remember seeing it in the past.
    PCalhoun
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:149


    --
    19 Jan 2011 04:20 PM
    It does appear to have been left out of the draft version, but member feedback was never sought to actually remove it from the rules. The majority of CM compeitiors are in favor of keeping it, though it does need some updating since it was originally drafted in the early 90's.
    Lynn
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2522


    --
    19 Jan 2011 04:40 PM
    What's was the point of the list? If the car is a GCR legal FF or S2000, let it run.
    PCalhoun
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:149


    --
    19 Jan 2011 05:12 PM

    The point is to eliminate purpose built, solo specific, yet GCR legal formual fords and to maintain the resale value of the competing cars by not 'chopping' them up. The creation of this rule was to eliminate what was happening in BM at the time w/ shortened and narrowed chassis powered by alum block V8s to F5000 rules for example.

    The approved manufacturer list of volume produced cars is a good thing (and volume is all relative here) for CM and should not go away.

    Lynn
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2522


    --
    19 Jan 2011 05:37 PM

    That makes sense, Peter, but it does leave out some nice cars, such as the Kitty Hawk.


    PCalhoun
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:149


    --
    19 Jan 2011 05:44 PM
    Yes, that car is a one off homebuilt, though a very nice one at that.
    Jim G
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:837


    --
    19 Jan 2011 06:37 PM
    The MAC is checking into the omission of the list.
    Dick Rasmussen
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:931


    --
    19 Jan 2011 06:45 PM
    Jim or Peter,

    Didn't you post once that getting a legit road racing FF added to the list basically requires asking the SEB to add it?
    pru
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:151


    --
    19 Jan 2011 07:19 PM
    I'm with Lynn on this one. In the summer 2000, I published the following in cm-q:

    Quote:

    Proposal

    At least once a year, the question is raised as to how one goes about adding a new manufactures to the ‘series produced’ listing to make a given car eligible for CM.

    I for one, cannot reason why CM needs such a listing. The first sentence of the SCCA National Solo 2000 Rules for “Modified Class C” on page 209 is clear and to the point: “GCR legal SR, SRF, FF1600, S2000.” I believe that if a FF / S2 is GCR legal it is, by default, automatically eligible for CM.

    To that end, I would like your input on the following proposal:

    TO: Solo Events Board / Modified Advisory Committee
    FROM: Chris Pruett, Editor cm-q
    SUBJECT: CM Manufacture Eligibility

    SEB / MAC,

    Please consider the removal of the “Modified Class C” paragraph that begins with the sentence “FF1600 and S2000 are open only to ‘series produced’ cars” found on page 210 of the SCCA National Solo 2000 Rules. The paragraph goes on to list out those FF1600 and S2000 manufactures eligible for CM.

    Regarding the eligibility of a specific make for CM, it is my belief that the first sentence of the SCCA National Solo 2000 Rules for “Modified Class C” on page 209 is clear and to the point: “GCR legal SR, SRF, FF1600, S2000.” That is, if a FF / S2 is GCR legal it is, by default, automatically eligible for CM negating the need to spell out and update a listing of eligible CM makes.

    Please note that there are number of makes not currently called out in the CM manufacture listing that are actively being road raced; Carbir, Piper, Ray, Stohr, and Vector to name just a few. Although I realize the manufacture listing paragraph ends with the sentence “The SEB may add to this list at any time, effective upon notification of the membership,” I believe this is to be stopgap measure.

    If my proposal is adopted, there would be no need for a potential CM competitor who is considering a non-listed GCR legal FF1600 / S2000 to petition the SEB / MAC for class eligibility. This would dramatically ease the process of running in new chassis CM.

    Thank you for your consideration,

    Chris Pruett
    pru
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:151


    --
    19 Jan 2011 08:32 PM
    BTW: the above proposal has been rejected twice by the SEB/MAC; when originally submitted in 2000 and when resubmitted in 2006.

    That said, I'm still not sure what a Solo specific CM car would look like. That is, all CM cars need to comply to the GCR which detail construction requirements (min/max wheelbase, track, etc). If someone wants to build a CM car, I say let them as long as is homologated with the SCCA (i.e. complies with the GCR).

    At this point, I'm "agreeing to disagree" with CM exclusion list. That is, I do not think CM needs the exclusion list, but I am done requesting its removal (i.e. I was surprised as everyone else that it was missing from the 2011 Solo Rules draft).
    Jim G
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:837


    --
    19 Jan 2011 09:41 PM
    pru wrote:
    That said, I'm still not sure what a Solo specific CM car would look like. That is, all CM cars need to comply to the GCR which detail construction requirements (min/max wheelbase, track, etc). If someone wants to build a CM car, I say let them as long as is homologated with the SCCA (i.e. complies with the GCR).

    At this point, I'm "agreeing to disagree" with CM exclusion list. That is, I do not think CM needs the exclusion list, but I am done requesting its removal (i.e. I was surprised as everyone else that it was missing from the 2011 Solo Rules draft).

    Good points but why mess with a successful class? There are some incredibly bright people in the solo program. Why tempt them? What is the advantage of ditching the exclusion list? Anyone who wants a car added, just make the request.

    PCalhoun
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:149


    --
    19 Jan 2011 09:47 PM
    pru wrote:
    That is, all CM cars need to comply to the GCR which detail construction requirements (min/max wheelbase, track, etc). If someone wants to build a CM car, I say let them as long as is homologated with the SCCA (i.e. complies with the GCR).

    So would your require homologation and issuance of a logbook? I think this is an important step in keeping the purity of the class. Building a car to comply to the GCR is one thing, getting it actually homologated is quite another. This is an important detail that keeps CM what it is, unlike the prepared classes vs their road racing cousins for example, where there is no direct crossover. We are one of the few classs in Solo that abides by the GCR for its rule packages, which adds stability and a larger potential market of cars.

    Purpose built cars, without homologation have plenty of other mod classes to play in. All we need to do, is update the list to include the handful of makes that have made FF in any volume in the last 20 years: Piper, Ray, & Vector. No one else in the recent past has sold a car in double digits numbers in the States.

    Lynn
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2522


    --
    19 Jan 2011 10:11 PM
    I've thought that a Tatuus F2000 converted to FF would make a good CM car with its narrow track. All I need is to win the lottery which I almost never play.
    pru
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:151


    --
    19 Jan 2011 10:19 PM
    Jim G wrote:
    Good points but why mess with a successful class? There are some incredibly bright people in the solo program. Why tempt them? What is the advantage of ditching the exclusion list? Anyone who wants a car added, just make the request.


    Thanks for the feedback Jim (especially given your SEB/MAC background!). Good points as well.

    Again, I am not sure I see the point of the list. That is, right now someone could build a GCR compliant FF specifically for CM (again, I'm not sure how different this car would be from most of the cars running right now in either Solo or Club Racing) and submit a request to the SEB/MAC to have it added to the list. It would then be up to the SEB/MAC to decide if the car merits inclusion on the list.

    The Kitty Hawk noted above is the perfect example of the point I am striving to make. A "one-off", GCR compliant, FF that has run numerous Club Races yet is ineligible for Solo. Why?
    pru
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:151


    --
    19 Jan 2011 10:35 PM
    PCalhoun wrote:
    So would your require homologation and issuance of a logbook?  I think this is an important step in keeping the purity of the class. Building a car to comply to the GCR is one thing, getting it actually homologated is quite another.  This is an important detail that keeps CM what it is, unlike the prepared classes vs their road racing cousins for example, where there is no direct crossover.  We are one of the few classs in Solo that abides by the GCR for its rule packages, which adds stability and a larger potential market of cars.

    Purpose built cars, without homologation have plenty of other mod classes to play in.  All we need to do, is update the list to include the handful of makes that have made FF in any volume in the last 20 years:  Piper, Ray, & Vector.  No one else in the recent past has sold a car in double digits numbers in the States.



    Thanks for the feedback Pete.

    Yes, my definition of a GCR compliant CM car includes the requirement of homologation / logbook. Which, I think, all CM car owners should have to "maintain the value the car" in case it returns to Club Racing.
    na94
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:38


    --
    21 Jan 2011 04:11 AM
    pru wrote:

    That said, I'm still not sure what a Solo specific CM car would look like. That is, all CM cars need to comply to the GCR which detail construction requirements (min/max wheelbase, track, etc). If someone wants to build a CM car, I say let them as long as is homologated with the SCCA (i.e. complies with the GCR).

    I think I know what it would look like, and it would probably be unsafe to road-race. Suspension kinematics and packaging might look quite different due to tiny brake calipers and uprights with more holes than material, thin wall tubing used wherever it can be, no room whatsoever for a fire bottle, 2 gallon fuel cell, extremely thin body work, steering rack that plays nice with lots of ackerman (maybe a t-rack for packaging).

    I'm sure I could come up with a number of unsafe things that would pass homologation, but be beneficial in autocross... which goes directly against the spirit of this class.



    Dick Rasmussen
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:931


    --
    21 Jan 2011 08:04 AM
    na94 wrote:
    pru wrote:

    That said, I'm still not sure what a Solo specific CM car would look like. That is, all CM cars need to comply to the GCR which detail construction requirements (min/max wheelbase, track, etc). If someone wants to build a CM car, I say let them as long as is homologated with the SCCA (i.e. complies with the GCR).

    I think I know what it would look like, and it would probably be unsafe to road-race. Suspension kinematics and packaging might look quite different due to tiny brake calipers and uprights with more holes than material, thin wall tubing used wherever it can be, no room whatsoever for a fire bottle, 2 gallon fuel cell, extremely thin body work, steering rack that plays nice with lots of ackerman (maybe a t-rack for packaging).

    I'm sure I could come up with a number of unsafe things that would pass homologation, but be beneficial in autocross... which goes directly against the spirit of this class.



    And a strong floor frame for supporting a lot of ballast to get up to minimum weight for all but the heavier drivers <grin>


    r33rob
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    23 Jan 2011 09:55 PM

    I'm not a big fan of lists, but this is a case where an accurate updated list makes sense. Without it, sooner or later someone will build a "super" C-mod FF chassis (optimized for Solo) that happens to be GCR legal, and screw up this good thing we have going. But the list as it exists discourages drivers from using newer chassis in C-mod. Case in point .... a few years ago I was considering the purchase of a Ray chassis for C-mod, but it wasn't on the list. While I was finding out what it would take to have it added to the list, the car was sold to someone else. That's the catch-22 of an outdated list. So if we are to have a list, it should be updated every year or two with any new "series produced" chassis builders added. Shouldn't be that difficult .... Sportscar has an annual chassis builder issue, right?

    Rob S.

    CM-33

    Nederland, TX

    Dick Rasmussen
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:931


    --
    24 Jan 2011 12:39 PM
    r33rob wrote:

    I'm not a big fan of lists, but this is a case where an accurate updated list makes sense. Without it, sooner or later someone will build a "super" C-mod FF chassis (optimized for Solo) that happens to be GCR legal, and screw up this good thing we have going. But the list as it exists discourages drivers from using newer chassis in C-mod. Case in point .... a few years ago I was considering the purchase of a Ray chassis for C-mod, but it wasn't on the list. While I was finding out what it would take to have it added to the list, the car was sold to someone else. That's the catch-22 of an outdated list. So if we are to have a list, it should be updated every year or two with any new "series produced" chassis builders added. Shouldn't be that difficult .... Sportscar has an annual chassis builder issue, right?

    Rob S.

    CM-33

    Nederland, TX

    Send a letter. <grin>.


    47CP
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2742


    --
    24 Jan 2011 01:55 PM
    The MAC is researching this and it sure seems like the list was just accidentily deleted from the draft. Assuming that is the case, it would be too late to fix it in the book,but it could be corrected via errors and omissions in Fastrack.

    None of this is absolute or official (only the SEB can do that), but I probably wouldn't start building a CM car not on last years list yet. :)

    DaveW
    You are not authorized to post a reply.


    Woodhouse Motorsports SPS 88x31 Button
    G-Loc Button Vorshlag 88x31 Button
    Sunoco 88x31 Button

    Advertise on SCCAForums.com and reach thousands of visitors per day!

    SafeRacer FREE SHIPPING over $99

    Shop for Pirelli tires at Tire Rack. blank



    Sunoco Bottom 468x60 Banner