G-LOC Brakes
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 17 Apr 2015 03:43 PM by  tomsn16
SMF minimum weights raised by 200lbs for 2013!?
 34 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 1 of 212 > >>
Author Messages
Black R
New Member
New Member
Posts:18


--
26 Sep 2012 02:16 PM

    1850lbs + 125lbs/L for a 2-seater!?

    1750lbs + 125lbs/L for a 4-seater!?

    +1L addition for forced induction.

    Now which of you wrote letters to the SEB asking for MORE weight?


    Please help me to understand the rationale behind this.





    OasisTan
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1355


    --
    26 Sep 2012 05:37 PM
    This is just my guess...... Hondas are dominating the class, and, they are trying to open the class up to other makes/models by bumping the weight on the Hondas. Either that, or, you guys were dominating PAX at every event and this was an attempt to level the PAX playing field since RR is unlikely to boost the SMF PAX by more than 0.020 for 2013. ;-) haha, just kidding on PAX of course....
    boxboy
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:512


    --
    26 Sep 2012 05:39 PM

    This proposal was originally floated after feedback from SMF competitors, including folks who drive Civics. And there were letters written in support of the proposal before the SEB approved it.

    Please read the text in the fastrack for the rationale. You may not agree with it, but it was there.

    -Andy M.

    Black R
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:18


    --
    26 Sep 2012 08:49 PM
    It would have made more sense to have capped tire widths based on weight IMO.

    This still won't prevent Hondas from dominating the class - it just attempts to run off the crx guys.


    As a matter of fact, with these rules a stock 86 crx would have to add weight to a meet weight!

    So people wrote letters saying they would run their (insert ~2300lb ff car here) if the Hondas had to add 200lbs to even the score?

    What about the people who HAVE been running this class?
    Everyone who has gotten close to minimum weight and developed their car now has to add 200lbs of weight somehow? That's a nice couple of lead suitcases.

    I know this year there were several podium possibles that couldn't make it to nationals because of various other commitments...

    boxboy
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:512


    --
    26 Sep 2012 10:29 PM
    I certainly understand people not wanting to add weight. However, like I said, this proposal originated from feedback from SMF competitors, some of them Civic drivers, who wanted to get more people into the class. That included some later generation Civics or Integras or who knows what.

    The class was also recommended to the BOD to be a National Class, so I certainly hope the combination of weights and national status will prove a boon to overall participation. It, won't make everyone happy, but not everyone was apparently happy with the way weights were before.

    And while I don't like the perception effect of stock weights being too low for a class, the complaint is still off the mark to me. The point of the class is to make weights that will allow the most cars to compete fairly according to the preparation rules of the class. The starting weight is somewhat irrelevant. From a cost perspective, it is a whole lot easier on competitors to add weight or at least not have to focus on every little allowance just to make min weight.

    All IMHO.

    -Andy M.
    Rob The Racer
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    27 Sep 2012 09:05 AM
    Adding weight is a common BoP (Balance of Performance) measure. Be glad the rules didn't say Honda CRX (1986) +200ibs. But then in other series, that is common as well.
    Black R
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:18


    --
    27 Sep 2012 11:25 AM
    Hey, if I sound like a jerk then I apologize.

    It's very frustrating because you build a car for a class, hell I was in the middle of building a second car for smf when this got voted on.
    And building to the limit of the rules made many of us shop for the lightest chassis that would fit the class.

    Anyway, you can see where I'm coming from.
    There are many more developed cars with a lot more money in them than mine, and I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

    Here's an example: my 91 si was my first smf car. I kept feeling that the weight of the car was hurting my times ( which it was - the more I stripped to the rule limits, the faster I ran).
    I shopped for years before finally locating a solid 88 std hatch in CA. I paid top dollar for this car. I got it shipped back to ATL. I dug into it, removing weight to the limit of the rules.
    Bam! Weights changed.

    I'll have no choice but to still run this class - I can't get down close to 1400# for Ssm, and I don't feel like SM will be welcoming what with all the awd and 500whp cars.

    Personally, I still feel that maybe imposing tire width limits for lighter cars would have made more sense.
    Black R
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:18


    --
    27 Sep 2012 11:25 AM
    From another forum:[QUOTE=Dwendel;1115098]I think I am more screwed, 75% complete build flushed down the toilet. I wrote a letter using the SEB form and it said it still has not been reviewed.No way will I be competitive in SSM, 1350lbs min weight lol no...Add 200lbs of BS to the car making it heavier then stock, have to add stupid amount of power to compensate for it. Not about to dump 5x what the car is worth on a engine.Adding in the SM and SSM 200lbs weight break for cars with less then 275mm tire would help keep competition between lighter cars and heavier cars balanced. I would suggest a change down to a 225 instead of 275 tires since most FWD can not use bigger sizes such as 295+. This way you get to keep the lighter cars and the heavier cars that can take advantage of the wider tire. The class grows and we are all happy. I am going to calculate out basic weight for contact area of the tire to compare a car's basic amount of grip. Imagine that all the cars listed are all the same other then weight and tire size. Names are only given for comparing. I am leaving HP out of this since IMO crazy HP numbers do not matter with a FWD car, unless we are drag racing, and we are not.For ease of calculations I am basing the contact area of the standard width of the tire x1 inches of length for contact patch area with the same size tire on all 4 corners. If you want to take in weight distro and such be my guest. Basic pressure per square inch of tire contact patch. Again these number are just for comparison. 2500lb "non-Honda" with 275s = 57.10 psi2500lb "What Ever" with 295s = 53.83 psi2350lb Mini Copper with 275s = 54.24 psi2150lb Civic with 275s = 49.63 psi2010lb CRX with 275s = 46.40 psiSame CRX with 255s = 50.10 psi1810lb CRX with 255s = 45.11 psiSame CRX with 225s = 51.07 psi2900lb Odyssey with 345s = 53.39 psiThere is still no way a 2500lb Non-Honda What Ever can be super competitive in SMF unless it has huge tires on it. Why do I think stupid HP (250+) is pointless in a FWD. We all know that when a Hoosier gets too hot it gets slick. So what does doing a burn out from corner exit to the next corner entry doing other then cooking the tires. Yes you can modulate the throttle, but then why have all that HP if you not going to use it. You now arrive at the entry of a corner you have to brake more since you are going faster after your 3rd gear burn out. So lets just heat up the front tires even more. Go to turn in weight gets transferred to your on fire front tires, not optimal grip due to the amount of heat in the tire. Come corner exit 3rd gear burn out to next cone. I would rather have just enough, no spinning tires at WOT, can brake later since not going as fast, go faster in and out of the corner since my tires are not on fire, able to get on the gas sooner and harder since I won't have to worry about wheel spin corner exit. My average speed might be even higher then your high HP car.[/QUOTE]
    JR125
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:60


    --
    27 Sep 2012 12:08 PM
    but now your car would be more balance by putting the ballast in the rear, you will still have an edge over a car that just barely get to the min weight. your effort will not be wasted.
    JBrettHowell
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    27 Sep 2012 01:05 PM
    You are not the only one who was bitten by this change, but then again, there is plenty of examples of people who have been bitten in a similar manner. You just discovered first hand the value of rules stability...and the cost of a lack thereof. It sucks for you...I sympathize.

    Hollis was similarly burned with his One Lap CRX - he was planning on running it in SMF and with this change, it just does not make sense to him anymore. This does not make it suck any less for you, I realize, but at least you are in good company (misery loves company and all).

    But...the belief is that adding 200 lbs to the min weights will bring more entrants and a wider variety of vehicles to the class. If it succeeds, then we can look forward to a future of full classes in which to compete. Also, as JR125 mentioned, you have the ability to place the ballast strategically to enhance the balance of your chassis, so you can still make lemonade out of the lemons you've been handed.
    90_crx_si
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:89


    --
    27 Sep 2012 04:16 PM
    Well, it is 1810 + 125 etc...I see why they did it, but it does suck for me as well. I'm glad I started with a 90 Si and not an 88 HF or something! Good thing I haven't gotten too crazy with the reduction.
    JBrettHowell
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    27 Sep 2012 04:33 PM
    I'll be honest. I've been thinking of autocrossing my CRX more. Like trying to actually be competitive in it. But it's an Si chassis (89) and I knew that was the wrong starting point for the old SMF. Now with the min wt increase, I'm thinking this is a better idea.

    It does make me wonder what I'm gonna do with that fiberglass one piece front end I bought off Hardy though...

    edit: actually, I would probably still use the one pc front end - even with the new weights - as that would allow me to put the weight exactly where it would do the most good. Sort of like starting with an 88 base chassis.

    Black R
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:18


    --
    27 Sep 2012 06:38 PM
    JBH, you thinking about selling that front end?

    If so, shoot me a pm at ecefc.com.
    90_crx_si
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:89


    --
    27 Sep 2012 07:49 PM
    JBH, I've still given thought to still replacing the sunroof in mine and adding weight in the rear, probably the spare tire well.
    WrongWheelDrive
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:26


    --
    04 Oct 2012 12:44 PM
    I too have to ballast.
    But I have no problem with it. As stated already, I think it will help balance the class out and encourage more competition.

    Now you don't HAVE to run/find the 88 (Not that you had to to begin with, our car that won this year is a 91 :))!
    People under weight still have an advantage of being able to strategically ballast, and now the heavier cars won't feel like they are always at a disadvantage. The class probably looks more appealing to newer, heavier cars too.

    My 2 cents.
    Mrsideways
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1058


    --
    11 Oct 2012 03:16 PM

    I say give the modern cars a shot and raise it by more then that. Or raise the engine size modifier %. It's been years since I read the Solo Rule book and I just looked up SMF in it. Am I reading something wrong. No additional modifier for Forced Induction over N/A?

    90_crx_si
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:89


    --
    11 Oct 2012 04:23 PM
    A 1L displacement is added to the weight formula. I think it's in the appendix.
    Andy Hollis
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:6197


    --
    12 Oct 2012 09:07 PM
    90_crx_si wrote:
    A 1L displacement is added to the weight formula. I think it's in the appendix.

    1.4 adder is in the appendix, but it is being changed to adder of 1 for SMF only for next year. Latest Fastrack has details.

    fsparv
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:45


    --
    27 Dec 2012 11:30 PM
    Hmm, googled and didn't find the 2012 weights, were they published? I was under the impression that the class winner in SMF this year wasn't running very close to minimums anyway... (but maybe I'm confused)
    Andy Hollis
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:6197


    --
    28 Dec 2012 12:02 PM
    fsparv wrote:
    Hmm, googled and didn't find the 2012 weights, were they published? I was under the impression that the class winner in SMF this year wasn't running very close to minimums anyway... (but maybe I'm confused)

    Class winner was forced induction, so no issue on weight. In fact, those cars get a bonus going foward with the FI adder reduction from 1.4 to 1. Which cancels out much of the 200 overall adder.

    You are not authorized to post a reply.
    Page 1 of 212 > >>


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