PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 17 Apr 2013 06:37 PM by  jrubins
M3 swap e36 325is class
 44 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 2 of 3 << < 123 > >>
Author Messages
jrubins
New Member
New Member
Posts:19


--
12 Mar 2013 11:10 PM

Posted By mrazny on 12 Mar 2013 10:21 PM

Posted By <a href="http://www.sccaforums.com/user-profile/userid/43179">jrubins</a> on 12 Mar 2013 08:01 PM



Posted By <a href="http://www.sccaforums.com/user-profile/userid/38584">mrazny</a> on 12 Mar 2013 07:15 PM


is a short shifter really all that neccesary for a Corvette? For Autocross? Do we really need to change to a points system to allow short shifters?



Said Corvette short shifter guy probably has a TON of *driver* improvement to go through before he no longer has his @$$ handed to him. Making it easier to have a short shifter is not a net positive Club Level solution.


<p>Baby...bathwater. Don't throw one out with the other. <img alt="" src="http://www.sccaforums.com/DesktopModules/ActiveForums/themes/sf/emoticons/smile.gif" align="middle" style="border-width: 0px;border-style: solid;" /> </p>
<p>You should care if the short-shifter guy can come out and at least have a decent time. He should be able to at least figure out what class he's  in without reading a 352 page document . Autocross is many people's first experience with motorsport and it shouldn't require a PhD in rocket surgery to have a decent time with it, improve, and eventually be competitive. </p>


<p>Or he can ask Tech.  It's not that complicated.  If that competitor needs to win a trophy to enjoy entry level racing for doing nothing at all, not a person we need.  Done.  If the run itself isn't enough to have a decent time, said "competitor" is a waste of our time and effort.</p>
<p>Bottom Line:  It's actually not hard to take the sport seriously.  And it's also incredibly easy to enjoy it and NOT take it seriously.  If we pander to people that have no interest in taking it seriously, everyone loses.  It's actually a really easy angle to understand.  Not sure why it's going over your head.</p>

Wow. That is precisely the douchebaggy attitude that gets motorsport tarred as elitist and needlessly over complicated. If a reasonably well educated, relatively intelligent person can't read through 352 pages of rules and get the answer to a simple question, then there is a real problem with your rules IMHO.
It's not about being a champion right out of the gate, it's about having a CLEAR path to being competitive - without having to buy a new car.
Milan
New Member
New Member
Posts:75


--
13 Mar 2013 12:09 AM
Posted By jrubins on 11 Mar 2013 06:25 PM
No to drive my thread too far off the rails .... 

But I disagree, I think that's an implementation issue, not one of design. Considering the umpteen years that SCCA has had autocross going, it's had the time to tweak the rules. That has lead to truly byzantine legalese that you must *build a car to* versus a system that allows you to build what you like and be classed accordingly. Yes, that means that very different cars can be run in the same class, but that's part of the fun, and with a few years of national level experience, the ruling body can tweak the points system for what makes sense in AutoX (where NASA classing was really based on TT). 

That's just my perspective as a newcomer(though I ran a locally competitive car in NASA-X for a couple of years). Since AutoX is generally the newcomer's entry point to motorsports, we should strive to have a simple, easy to understand system that allows for a run-what-you-brung mentality instead of a I-pushed-the-rulebook-farther-than-you mentality. 

That's just my humble $.02 

 So your original post was about classing within SCCA AutoX, the remainder of your posts have been about bashing the SCCA. I take offense to that(as a member) and beleive you are a fraud. I find  it difficult to believe that a newcomer, with 2 yrs. experience in NASA and, i'm guessing, no yrs. in SCCA would be so educated about both. everyone has given you good, polite answers.

Thats just my Humble $.02

 



tuskenraider
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:126


--
13 Mar 2013 12:23 AM
Posted By jrubins on 12 Mar 2013 11:10 PM
Wow. That is precisely the douchebaggy attitude that gets motorsport tarred as elitist and needlessly over complicated. If a reasonably well educated, relatively intelligent person can't read through 352 pages of rules and get the answer to a simple question, then there is a real problem with your rules IMHO. 
If a "reasonably educated person" doesn't know how to use the Table of Contents to avoid the chaff, well.................muster up the courage, big boy, and ask somebody, like, in a forum on the internetz or at the event. Elitist? Sure. Hopefully, I don't run into the Jerry Springer crowd while autox'ing, but I'll answer any question by a newcomer in a friendly manner. The "Easy" button generation...........sigh.


jrubins
New Member
New Member
Posts:19


--
13 Mar 2013 12:44 AM

Posted By Milan on 13 Mar 2013 12:09 AM

Posted By <a href="http://www.sccaforums.com/user-profile/userid/43179">jrubins</a> on 11 Mar 2013 06:25 PM


No to drive my thread too far off the rails .... 

<p>But I disagree, I think that's an implementation issue, not one of design. Considering the umpteen years that SCCA has had autocross going, it's had the time to tweak the rules. That has lead to truly byzantine legalese that you must *build a car to* versus a system that allows you to build what you like and be classed accordingly. Yes, that means that very different cars can be run in the same class, but that's part of the fun, and with a few years of national level experience, the ruling body can tweak the points system for what makes sense in AutoX (where NASA classing was really based on TT). </p>
<p>That's just my perspective as a newcomer(though I ran a locally competitive car in NASA-X for a couple of years). Since AutoX is generally the newcomer's entry point to motorsports, we should strive to have a simple, easy to understand system that allows for a run-what-you-brung mentality instead of a I-pushed-the-rulebook-farther-than-you mentality. </p>
<p>That's just my humble $.02 </p>
<p> So your original post was about classing within SCCA AutoX, the remainder of your posts have been about bashing the SCCA. I take offense to that(as a member) and beleive you are a fraud. I find  it difficult to believe that a newcomer, with 2 yrs. experience in NASA and, i'm guessing, no yrs. in SCCA would be so educated about both. everyone has given you good, polite answers. </p>
<p>Thats just my Humble $.02</p>
<p> </p>





milan, I did indeed get my answer early on in the thread. I'm not bashing the scca by any stretch. They're doing God's work to bring motorsport to the masses. I just get very frustrated that is *has to* be so darn complicated to figure out a class that after reading the rules, doing some googling, I *still * had to ask random Internet people. (which is not to say that I don't like you guys, just that it's a bit crappy that the answer wasn't self evident). The rest of the thread is my attempt to propose a much easier to use system based on my experience in nasa AND scca autocross.

Things were going pretty civilly for the most part until mrazy got a bit condescending.

The contract example is a pretty good one since it's a very feasible scenario. Such person has the choice of being non competitive in a higher class or being non-competitive in the stock class if he removed his one mod. That's a pretty frustrating position to be in. My position is that the scca has to decide if it's an organization that's in the business of promoting motorsport or if it's in the business of having a place for wonks with cars built for a class compete on 1/10ths of a second. One is a lot more enjoyable to a broad range of people than the other.

That said, I'll join the scca. I'll do some autocross, and I'll have a good time. But I'll have bought a car for a class just for the reason of joining a class, which is not something everyone has the luxury of doing.

jrubins
New Member
New Member
Posts:19


--
13 Mar 2013 12:51 AM

Posted By tuskenraider on 13 Mar 2013 12:23 AM

Posted By <a href="http://www.sccaforums.com/user-profile/userid/43179">jrubins</a> on 12 Mar 2013 11:10 PM


<span style="font-size: 1.3em; font-style: normal; line-height: 24px; font-family: Arial, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;">Wow. That is precisely the douchebaggy attitude that gets motorsport tarred as elitist and needlessly over complicated. If a reasonably well educated, relatively intelligent person can't read through 352 pages of rules and get the answer to a simple question, then there is a real problem with your rules IMHO. </span>

If a "reasonably educated person" doesn't know how to use the Table of Contents to avoid the chaff, well.................muster up the courage, big boy, and ask somebody, like, in a forum on the internetz or at the event. Elitist? Sure. Hopefully, I don't run into the Jerry Springer crowd while autox'ing, but I'll answer any question by a newcomer in a friendly manner. The "Easy" button generation...........sigh.






Thanks for continuing to demonstrate my point. You will notice, however that I have in fact asked some people on the Internet. A few of whom have provided actually useful insight.

You guys remind me of engineers being shown that users can't use the product as intended. Your first response is to get defensive. Well this is a "know thy user" moment. Don't attack me because I'm telling you the truth about the rules, and providing a potential solution, find a way to make it better.
Incidentally, what Page is it on in the class rules that a car with a greater model swap can't be classed as the greater model (e.g. Si motor into a dx)?
Milan
New Member
New Member
Posts:75


--
13 Mar 2013 01:11 AM
I still think your a fraud. Since you avoided my question, or, you're acting like a child because you haven't won a National trophy in your second year of motorsports. Or because you can't have your short shifter. Which is it ? 
jrubins
New Member
New Member
Posts:19


--
13 Mar 2013 10:49 AM

Posted By Milan on 13 Mar 2013 01:11 AM
I still think your a fraud. Since you avoided my question, or, you're acting like a child because you haven't won a National trophy in your second year of motorsports. Or because you can't have your short shifter. Which is it ? 

A fraud? Charming. In what way am I a fraud? And where was a question? I didn't see one.
Once again, it's not about national campionships, etc. It's about being competitive.
I don't have a car right now, so I don't have anything with which to be competitive. I am in the somewhat enviable position of being able to buy a car, with an understanding enough family to allow me to consider scca classing as part of my purchasing decision. Not everyone can buy a car to fit a class. For those people, scca classing is a big hurdle to being competitive (again not *winning *, just being competitive). For me though, the scca rules are just unnecessarily complicated. They don't have to be. I've autocrossed under both scca and nasa rules, and I can tell you from experience that nasa is much simpler and can be just as competitive within a class.

I'm just a dude trying to get back into autocross.
tuskenraider
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:126


--
13 Mar 2013 11:04 AM

Hang around long enough and you should find rules can't be simple, because competition won't allow it. You can join the SCCA, be welcomed by many and offer input right away to the advisory committees on how to improve things..............

mrazny
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:462


--
13 Mar 2013 11:07 AM
Posted By jrubins on 13 Mar 2013 12:44 AM


Things were going pretty civilly for the most part until mrazy got a bit condescending.


whose mrazy?

You should get an editor.  Your "tone" is not what you think it is.  You keep coming back to a page count when its not that hard.  If you want to interpret my tone how you want, go ahead.  You threw out what looked like theoreticals when apparently you meant you, or else why are you getting so defensive.
You implied that a newcomer needs to be in a competitive class to have any chance of fun.  That was in your text, read back.  If we're supposed to take that as the basis, then yes; a first-timer that only cares about looking like they're doing well and not finding the inherent joy of autocross, there's nothing we can ever do for classing that will fix that.  Your approach will bring more manipulation, and more money into what's an already working system.
In what world should an engine swap be no big deal?  That's not just a "simple question", and it really shouldn't be.  There are a LOT of components on the 1993 325 that are *lighter* than M3 pieces, and not a lot of those M3 components net faster autocross times.  To allow you to race with other M3's while you have the lighter chassis?  Why should that be allowed?
"Why should things be allowed" is the starting point.  And making everyone's car competitive will dilute the competition.  More variables equals more disparity, not less.
read into tone however you want, that's your creation.  Right now, you come across more like a troll than anything else.




Milan
New Member
New Member
Posts:75


--
13 Mar 2013 11:51 AM
Posted By jrubins on 13 Mar 2013 10:49 AM

Posted By Milan on 13 Mar 2013 01:11 AM
I still think your a fraud. Since you avoided my question, or, you're acting like a child because you haven't won a National trophy in your second year of motorsports. Or because you can't have your short shifter. Which is it ? 

A fraud? Charming. In what way am I a fraud? And where was a question? I didn't see one.
Once again, it's not about national campionships, etc. It's about being competitive.
I don't have a car right now, so I don't have anything with which to be competitive. I am in the somewhat enviable position of being able to buy a car, with an understanding enough family to allow me to consider scca classing as part of my purchasing decision. Not everyone can buy a car to fit a class. For those people, scca classing is a big hurdle to being competitive (again not *winning *, just being competitive). For me though, the scca rules are just unnecessarily complicated. They don't have to be. I've autocrossed under both scca and nasa rules, and I can tell you from experience that nasa is much simpler and can be just as competitive within a class.

I'm just a dude trying to get back into autocross.


I believe your a fraud because you claim to be a newcomer, with 2yrs. experience. And I don't believe that. Did you just read the rule book for 2 yrs. or did you actually compete ?  From your posts, "eg., our c5 corvette" sounds like your mad because someone didn't change the rules to suit you. From your tone, you sound like a 5 yr.old that can't get his way. So, tell us your REAL experience with motorsports. I have 4 yrs. of experience, and I don't have a car for the class. I compete at local, regional and national levels. I drive a 85 bmw 318i in HS. Far from elitist or big budget. iI have a blast weather i'm winning or losing. And yes sometimes i beat a Mini. From sheer driving not because i have the car for the class. Maybe your a bad driver.
jrubins
New Member
New Member
Posts:19


--
13 Mar 2013 12:38 PM
Posted By Milan on 13 Mar 2013 11:51 AM
Posted By jrubins on 13 Mar 2013 10:49 AM

Posted By Milan on 13 Mar 2013 01:11 AM
I still think your a fraud. Since you avoided my question, or, you're acting like a child because you haven't won a National trophy in your second year of motorsports. Or because you can't have your short shifter. Which is it ? 

A fraud? Charming. In what way am I a fraud? And where was a question? I didn't see one.
Once again, it's not about national campionships, etc. It's about being competitive.
I don't have a car right now, so I don't have anything with which to be competitive. I am in the somewhat enviable position of being able to buy a car, with an understanding enough family to allow me to consider scca classing as part of my purchasing decision. Not everyone can buy a car to fit a class. For those people, scca classing is a big hurdle to being competitive (again not *winning *, just being competitive). For me though, the scca rules are just unnecessarily complicated. They don't have to be. I've autocrossed under both scca and nasa rules, and I can tell you from experience that nasa is much simpler and can be just as competitive within a class.

I'm just a dude trying to get back into autocross.


I believe your a fraud because you claim to be a newcomer, with 2yrs. experience. And I don't believe that. Did you just read the rule book for 2 yrs. or did you actually compete ?  From your posts, "eg., our c5 corvette" sounds like your mad because someone didn't change the rules to suit you. From your tone, you sound like a 5 yr.old that can't get his way. So, tell us your REAL experience with motorsports. I have 4 yrs. of experience, and I don't have a car for the class. I compete at local, regional and national levels. I drive a 85 bmw 318i in HS. Far from elitist or big budget. iI have a blast weather i'm winning or losing. And yes sometimes i beat a Mini. From sheer driving not because i have the car for the class. Maybe your a bad driver.




I was really trying to hold back on this.... Whether mrazny believes it or not, I am well aware of my tone and etiquette.... But for the love of GOD man, it's YOU'RE . YOU - ARE. Not YOUR, which is possessive.

FWIW, I've never driven a c5. Someone else brought that up. But it's an instructive example. One mod can put you into a prepared class. But taking off that one mod puts you in stock... which you would never be competitive in unless you spend a grand or two on wheels and tires.

I'm no crybaby here. I'm just trying to get back into a hobby that I really enjoy, and finding it more confusing than I remember (maybe I'm just getting old). I'm just voicing my frustration with what I see as a non-optimal situation. My apologies for being the voice of the SCCA's customer and being treated like a heel for it. My deepest apologies for trying to improve a small corner of the world.

jrubins
New Member
New Member
Posts:19


--
13 Mar 2013 12:40 PM
Posted By tuskenraider on 13 Mar 2013 11:04 AM

Hang around long enough and you should find rules can't be simple, because competition won't allow it. You can join the SCCA, be welcomed by many and offer input right away to the advisory committees on how to improve things..............



Thank you for a decent, considerate response. I'll counter though that rules DON'T have to be that complicated. My experience in the several years I spent autocrossing with NASA rules. Which worked quite well, and could be made to work even better with a more dedicated, responsive organization such as the SCCA.
mrazny
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:462


--
13 Mar 2013 12:56 PM
you could always experiment with your region. You can always send a letter to the SEB, propose your points system (though they will expect more than just mentioning a points system, like maybe the baseline points), but lamenting on the internet won't do a thing. This isn't an official forum, no matter the appearances.

The points system is just not for the SCCA, and I really don't think it ever will be. Most areas have smaller clubs as well as their SCCA activites that can do the points thing if they want. The way to clear confusion is *in person*, not on the internet. Anybody that's confused at an event can talk to probably 80% of the people there and find helpful conversation. But if you want a points system, maybe try creating a post saying "Points proposal", and having something like a full proposal.

"could be made to work even better with a more dedicated, responsive organization such as the SCCA" implies "SCCA do it for me, i gave you the smallest seed of an idea, please grow it for me". The solo branch is Volunteer. The BOD, the SEB, the ACs aren't ghost entities. They are people, they are findable, they will talk to members, but they are doing ALL of that on their own time, unpaid. If you want change, you will have to bring the plans to the table for any forward traction. There's just no impetus to run with what's been presented.
Milan
New Member
New Member
Posts:75


--
13 Mar 2013 01:08 PM
Thanks for telling us the truth about your experience, Finally. Several years is much different than 2 yrs. Thats why i thought you
were a fraud. As for the c5, you're the one that posted "eg our c5". And your posts are still all about you. If your experience with NASA is so great why come here and bash the SCCA ? You have the right, as a SCCA member, to email the advisory committee.
Have you done that yet ?
jrubins
New Member
New Member
Posts:19


--
13 Mar 2013 01:16 PM
Posted By mrazny on 13 Mar 2013 11:07 AM
Posted By jrubins on 13 Mar 2013 12:44 AM


Things were going pretty civilly for the most part until mrazy got a bit condescending.


whose mrazy?

You should get an editor.  Your "tone" is not what you think it is.  You keep coming back to a page count when its not that hard.  If you want to interpret my tone how you want, go ahead.  You threw out what looked like theoreticals when apparently you meant you, or else why are you getting so defensive.
You implied that a newcomer needs to be in a competitive class to have any chance of fun.  That was in your text, read back.  If we're supposed to take that as the basis, then yes; a first-timer that only cares about looking like they're doing well and not finding the inherent joy of autocross, there's nothing we can ever do for classing that will fix that.  Your approach will bring more manipulation, and more money into what's an already working system.
In what world should an engine swap be no big deal?  That's not just a "simple question", and it really shouldn't be.  There are a LOT of components on the 1993 325 that are *lighter* than M3 pieces, and not a lot of those M3 components net faster autocross times.  To allow you to race with other M3's while you have the lighter chassis?  Why should that be allowed?
"Why should things be allowed" is the starting point.  And making everyone's car competitive will dilute the competition.  More variables equals more disparity, not less.
read into tone however you want, that's your creation.  Right now, you come across more like a troll than anything else.






Perhaps you should get an editor, also. You can share his fee with Milan. My tone is exactly what I intended - one of frustration with a system that seems to be needless complex, not particularly effective at it's stated goal, and defended by trolls. Once again, it's not about winning. It's about being competitive. That means being in a class that you would have some hope of winning given good driving, etc. You should be able to look at your competition and say "I can beat those guys if I work on my driving" not "I can beat those guys if I get new wheels, tires, and a sway bar". It's supposed to be about the driver, not about the car. A good classing system does that. It makes it transparent what your path to victory is - whether that's car improvements or 'tightening the loose nut behind the wheel'. Of course a novice should be able to come out and have a good time. But it's really difficult to know how good (or bad) you are if you are in a class where everyone else's car is so much better prepped than yours. And it's fine if you dont' care about the novice. But I'm telling you, as someone who's been away from the sport, that we (as sports car enthusiasts) could do much better at attracting new people to the sport by simplifying. What's more, is that we can keep the national level competitions competitive while doing so. It really isn't *that* difficult. So stop acting like I insulted your mom's cooking when I'm talking about the rulebook. It was made by people, not handed down by Moses. Now, you actually make a great substantive point that is actually relevant to my initial question
In what world should an engine swap be no big deal?  That's not just a "simple question", and it really shouldn't be.  There are a LOT of components on the 1993 325 that are *lighter* than M3 pieces, and not a lot of those M3 components net faster autocross times.  To allow you to race with other M3's while you have the lighter chassis?  Why should that be allowed?

That's a great question. I don't know if it should be or not. However, Update/Backdate allows me to swap a 328is motor into a 325 chassis in DSP. As you noted earlier. So why is that allowed and an m3 swap not?

95 m3 weight 3219lb
93 325is 3087
98 328is 3142

engine weights
S50 152kg - 335.16lbs
M50 136kg - 299.88lbs
M52 118kg - 260.19lbs (aluminum block)

So a 325 with a 328 motor is lighter than an 325 with more torque and more HP capability (same hp stock). So why is that allowed? 30+ pounds of the weight differential between the m3 and the 325 is engine itself. The trans and larger diff probably make up a fair chunk of the rest. What would be the other differences? Heavy Vader seats? The suspension bits are a bit different, but are they that much different? This is what is confusing and difficult - nowhere is it spelled out that UD/BD allows swaps, but upgrade doesn't and why not? It doesn't make sense, it's not spelled out clearly, and it favors people who have the money to build a class-specific vehicle

That's my beef.
jrubins
New Member
New Member
Posts:19


--
13 Mar 2013 01:25 PM
Posted By Milan on 13 Mar 2013 01:08 PM
Thanks for telling us the truth about your experience, Finally. Several years is much different than 2 yrs. Thats why i thought you
were a fraud. As for the c5, you're the one that posted "eg our c5". And your posts are still all about you. If your experience with NASA is so great why come here and bash the SCCA ? You have the right, as a SCCA member, to email the advisory committee.
Have you done that yet ?


I spent 3-4 years autocrossing with NASA and 2 or so years autocrossing with the SCCA concurrently towards the end of that time, so that's why I used the shorthand of a 'couple years'. Yes, I have experience with both systems. I'm not sure why coming from a place of some experience is a bad thing. The C5 example came from
Posted By 85rx-7gsl-se on 11 Mar 2013 06:13 PM
Honestly for all of its faults, I still greatly prefer the scca's rules to those of nasa-x. While its true some of the scca rules result in somewhat arbitrary results (ie a c5z that is bone stock with the exception of a short shifter is now sp), but its also much more clear on how to build a car for class. Nasa's rules end up pitting full on race cars against streets cars and is just a mess for anything greater than local fun imho.
Not from me. I just felt that it was a good, instructive example. Why come to the SCCA at all? Right now I'm questioning that decision. However, if you want to autocross (and I do) in this part of the world, there's only one game in town. Once again, I'm not criticizing the SCCA, I'm criticizing the rules. I'm frustrated that some don't make sense, and I'm greatly annoyed that a 352 page document didn't answer my question directly. So, yes, my posts are about me. They are about my experience in the past running with the SCCA and NASA. I'm telling you (from my experience) that NASA rules are much easier to understand, and are more fair (broadly).
Milan
New Member
New Member
Posts:75


--
13 Mar 2013 07:23 PM
Hey Troll, your words, so when you posted "eg our c5" you lied ? Seems to me you just talk in circles.
Yes, i'm not as polite to some people as the rest of this forum. But thats just me.
I invite you to co-drive with me. I'd love to meet you face to face.
jrubins
New Member
New Member
Posts:19


--
13 Mar 2013 08:04 PM
Posted By Milan on 13 Mar 2013 07:23 PM
Hey Troll, your words, so when you posted "eg our c5" you lied ? Seems to me you just talk in circles.
Yes, i'm not as polite to some people as the rest of this forum. But thats just me.
I invite you to co-drive with me. I'd love to meet you face to face.


By 'our C5', I simply meant the example we were addressing at the time. As previously stated it was someone else's example. Stop getting hung up on minutiae and focus on the meat of the issue.

Sure. where are you. I'm in the bay area, CA these days. Though, in all fairness, I spun the last e30 I autocrossed

mrazny
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:462


--
14 Mar 2013 11:51 AM
The "Novice" is handled on the local level, not the national rulebook. It's on the class itself to decide how to handle it. The RTR class could very well just let the C5 example slide, that's on that class to allow/disallow. Most times when talking to Novices (in person, not on the internet), they opt to just class their cars appropriately anyway and try to improve.

Insert multi-winning national champion into an RTR car with no fancy wheels, sway, shocks, etc., and so long as the tires are in the range, they would demolish the competition. On the local level, we do care about our novices. It's on OUR REGIONS to do this. The rulebook is for the highest level of National competition. I'm working with as many Novices as I can, and brokered one guy who feels he hit a wall in his RTF Civic to co-drive with a more experienced driver so that no matter what he has an in-car benchmark on improvement.

As to your engine swap, it's on the listing. There isn't an unlimited Update/Backdate, and that's spelled out. It's an UD/BD on the line that it's listed. Why they separate the 325/328 in DSP and the M3 in BSP? There are a lot of reasons that could have gone into it. The first being that the 325/328 in DSP is a good fit with the other cars in DSP (the make the class work first model), while the M3's power made them move it to BSP. There are more components different than that, a Ton actually. Just go on RealOEM to see how many times the same part is a different part number. ALL BMW seats are heavy, the Vaders a little bit more.

The UD/BD does not have to say "here go Engine Swaps", it's implied within the language. It starts from nothing done to a car and goes up from there, not the other way around. It doesn't start with the mod and describe which classes allow it. It all comes from the philosophy that we are building competitive *Classes*, not fitting every car in every way somewhere. That focus has its down spots, but it allows a robust National Championship where 1,200 people show every year.

Not every car can fit, there are too many. There are wrinkles of course, including you can ask for clarifications within a letter to the SEB, and even ask for allowances. AKA, you can present your case for why there is no advantage from your 325 bits within BSP and *ask* to be allowed in for National competition. There is simply no way for a volunteer sport to consider every possible permutation that every driver might think up. They have a ruleset that they hope works as is, then people can ask from there. ST does not class every car for national competition, but will consider any cars brought to them for classing. Its the only way to manage the workload.

There is nothing that would stop you from asking directly your region to be allowed into BSP. It's most helpful to bring as much data as you can, and I'll give you the easiest thing to point out. You don't have the M3 LTW aluminum doors. There's nearly no way for you to be lighter because you aren't exercising that aspect. But it's on them to allow it, or perhaps they would leave it to the BSP contingent to allow it. That's done on the regional level, the one whose responsibility it is to foster the Novice. But without that SEB letter, you wouldn't be eligible in that class for Tours, Pros, or Nationals.

It's not that bad a system. The starting point is unmolested cars. Any car that's effectively showroom, with some *good* 140 UTQG tires on has a chance in the RT classes, guaranteed. The lighter wheels, sways, shocks aspect are not class killing things, they are helpful tools sure, but good drivers can drive around them or past the "noise" of them. You start opening up pandora's box of mods, the variables start getting wonky. The competition needs some controls. Some mods do a ton more for cars then others, so now your points have variables.

There are solutions to problems that don't include blow up the system. But the only way to affect change is to go beyond this forum with it's horrible quote mechanics. Local Regions should care about Novices, and if they don't the day of, they are a failing region. But it's not the classes that are most important, its the community that the Region can be that is. Fix that first, don't muck up the National competition that works however well it is.
jrubins
New Member
New Member
Posts:19


--
15 Mar 2013 01:27 AM
Posted By mrazny on 14 Mar 2013 11:51 AM
The "Novice" is handled on the local level, not the national rulebook. It's on the class itself to decide how to handle it. The RTR class could very well just let the C5 example slide, that's on that class to allow/disallow. Most times when talking to Novices (in person, not on the internet), they opt to just class their cars appropriately anyway and try to improve.

Insert multi-winning national champion into an RTR car with no fancy wheels, sway, shocks, etc., and so long as the tires are in the range, they would demolish the competition. On the local level, we do care about our novices. It's on OUR REGIONS to do this. The rulebook is for the highest level of National competition. I'm working with as many Novices as I can, and brokered one guy who feels he hit a wall in his RTF Civic to co-drive with a more experienced driver so that no matter what he has an in-car benchmark on improvement.

As to your engine swap, it's on the listing. There isn't an unlimited Update/Backdate, and that's spelled out. It's an UD/BD on the line that it's listed. Why they separate the 325/328 in DSP and the M3 in BSP? There are a lot of reasons that could have gone into it. The first being that the 325/328 in DSP is a good fit with the other cars in DSP (the make the class work first model), while the M3's power made them move it to BSP. There are more components different than that, a Ton actually. Just go on RealOEM to see how many times the same part is a different part number. ALL BMW seats are heavy, the Vaders a little bit more.

The UD/BD does not have to say "here go Engine Swaps", it's implied within the language. It starts from nothing done to a car and goes up from there, not the other way around. It doesn't start with the mod and describe which classes allow it. It all comes from the philosophy that we are building competitive *Classes*, not fitting every car in every way somewhere. That focus has its down spots, but it allows a robust National Championship where 1,200 people show every year.

Not every car can fit, there are too many. There are wrinkles of course, including you can ask for clarifications within a letter to the SEB, and even ask for allowances. AKA, you can present your case for why there is no advantage from your 325 bits within BSP and *ask* to be allowed in for National competition. There is simply no way for a volunteer sport to consider every possible permutation that every driver might think up. They have a ruleset that they hope works as is, then people can ask from there. ST does not class every car for national competition, but will consider any cars brought to them for classing. Its the only way to manage the workload.

There is nothing that would stop you from asking directly your region to be allowed into BSP. It's most helpful to bring as much data as you can, and I'll give you the easiest thing to point out. You don't have the M3 LTW aluminum doors. There's nearly no way for you to be lighter because you aren't exercising that aspect. But it's on them to allow it, or perhaps they would leave it to the BSP contingent to allow it. That's done on the regional level, the one whose responsibility it is to foster the Novice. But without that SEB letter, you wouldn't be eligible in that class for Tours, Pros, or Nationals.

It's not that bad a system. The starting point is unmolested cars. Any car that's effectively showroom, with some *good* 140 UTQG tires on has a chance in the RT classes, guaranteed. The lighter wheels, sways, shocks aspect are not class killing things, they are helpful tools sure, but good drivers can drive around them or past the "noise" of them. You start opening up pandora's box of mods, the variables start getting wonky. The competition needs some controls. Some mods do a ton more for cars then others, so now your points have variables.

There are solutions to problems that don't include blow up the system. But the only way to affect change is to go beyond this forum with it's horrible quote mechanics. Local Regions should care about Novices, and if they don't the day of, they are a failing region. But it's not the classes that are most important, its the community that the Region can be that is. Fix that first, don't muck up the National competition that works however well it is.


Dude, thank you for a well-thought-out, reasoned post. This is a great starting place for a discussion.

#1, I'm not married to the idea of having an m3 swap. I'll go with whatever works for the class I'm targeting (ST* because that's the mod level I'm comfortable with, and I don't want to buy hoosiers) . 

My main point is that the classing system is confusing. I think it's needlessly so. Unlike most people who just b***h privately about SCCA classing rules, I'm presenting a possible solution. Maybe not the best one, certainly not a perfect one. I don't *really* think that SCCA Sr. Leaders are going to be like "hot damn, let's drop everything we've done for 20 years and do what random-internet-guy says". But it's about the discussion. The discussion is : do we need to have such specificity in our rulebook ? mrazny, it seems you think so. 

Starting with stock cars and thinking of possible modifications is precisely what I'm proposing. Just add points so that if m3 is class X and 325is is class Y, then the engine swap is enough points to bump the 325is into the X class. If the 325 is faster, then it can start out with additional points assigned to it so the engine swap bumps it to a higher class, or so the 325is can't have more mods (other than the swap) without going into the next-higher class. Or, another way of looking at it, the m3 would still be able to "afford" to add a mod that makes it competitive with the 325is again. Because it's just 'points' not moving whole classes around (or fracturing off special one-off classes for specific cars - I'm looking at you STC). So, I feel that a NASA type of solution is more flexible. 

What you are proposing is prototyping a class structure within a region, which is a great idea. It would give time to iron out the kinks and gather data with no impact to how the game is currently played. It's a great suggestion and one I'm likely to follow up on. First, though, I need some data to start my analysis. 2012 Finals is as good a place as any, and some may have done some previous analysis, so I'll see what I can find out from them. 

There are solutions to problems that don't include blow up the system.

True, but even with an entrenched system, it's better to think not "how can I improve what I have", but rather "if I were to design the ultimate system, what would it look like". Think ground up, even if it brings you back to the starting point. That's what I do for a living, think about making things better for my customers. 

But the only way to affect change is to go beyond this forum with it's horrible quote mechanics

No.Joke. (y'all don't jump on me for saying this, but the forum software here is not very good)

You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 2 of 3 << < 123 > >>


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