|
|
 |
|
Joined: 10/19/2011
Posts: 35
|
|
|
The 200# break for using 275 wide tires, has made the minimum weight of my car (SSM Miata) and probably some others unachievable. Is it worth the time to write in for additional tailored allowances?
My thought is to ask for doors made from alternate materials ie; fiberglass or CF. The door is a bolt on item like a hood or trunk lid and would not require extensive modification to the car. While providing 50 or so pounds of weight to be removed.
I'd propose a rule of;
"Normally aspirated cars under 2.5L are allowed door shells of alternate material providing all OE interior panels, windows, regulators and latch mechanisms are in place and functional."
thoughts?
|
|
|
|
 | |
|
|
 |
 |
Joined: 1/2/2009
Posts: 607
|
|
|
What all SM allowances have you exploited so far to remove weight from your Miata? How far are you from minimum?
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
Joined: 3/9/2008
Posts: 173
|
|
|
Why limit it to small displacement vehicles? There are tons of larger cars that can't come anywhere close to meeting SM minimums, regardless of the 275 weight break.
I don't want to turn SM into XP light, but I think allowing more cars to meet their minimum weight, and therefore maybe be competitive, would be a good thing.
99 Camaro Z/28
ESP #46 CRSCCA
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/19/2011
Posts: 35
|
|
|
Everything legal in CSP.
I'm lacking gutting the deck lid 5#, gutting the hood 3#, a head light swap, maybe 10#. Theres another 10 that can be gotten in suspension work.
I'm 1890 and need 1728, so 160 so over weight
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/19/2011
Posts: 35
|
|
|
SMSupercoupe wrote:
Why limit it to small displacement vehicles? There are tons of larger cars that can't come anywhere close to meeting SM minimums, regardless of the 275 weight break.
I don't want to turn SM into XP light, but I think allowing more cars to meet their minimum weight, and therefore maybe be competitive, would be a good thing.
cool! I'd love to have the big cars in on it too. I don't know anything about them so I went from my knowledge base.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 8/15/2007
Posts: 262
|
|
|
how about we just get rid of the "200lb for 275 tires" rule? miata's are already near the bottom of the weight range for the class.
or just modify it for say "40lbs for 275's" so that you can hit your minimum weight?
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 3/9/2008
Posts: 173
|
|
|
Or we could just raise some of the minimum weights so that more cars could meet them without spending any extra money.
99 Camaro Z/28
ESP #46 CRSCCA
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
Joined: 6/27/2001
Posts: 499
|
|
|
The 200lb weight break was a offering to those cars running smaller tires that perceived they were competing at a disadvantage, especially when they could get below their weight minimums to begin with. It was never intended as a new "target" that rules would be aligned with.
In my personal opinion (for what it's worth), a car like a Miata is already competitive with the weight break as is, and probably competitive even without the weight break. In any case, we've already hit pretty much every low hanging fruit there is to be had for weight savings short of just going to XP level encroachments. Also, I don't think the class needs another expensive area for additional modifications.
-Andy M.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 6/20/2001
Posts: 654
|
|
|
you've got to be kidding... the lightest possible minimum weight we should be considering for any class with the word 'street' in it should be about 1900-2000 for a class solely for miata/mr2 sized cars, 27-2800 for a sports car class, and 31-200 for a sedan class.
why the SCCA has dozens of classes for cars weighing under 1800 pounds is truly staggering.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/19/2011
Posts: 35
|
|
|
boxboy wrote:
The 200lb weight break was a offering to those cars running smaller tires that perceived they were competing at a disadvantage, especially when they could get below their weight minimums to begin with. It was never intended as a new "target" that rules would be aligned with.
-Andy M.
thanks
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Joined: 3/25/2003
Posts: 312
|
|
|
Are you sure that's all the weight you can drop? Are your hood and trunk some sort of composite materials? Have you gone to lightweight aluminum brake calipers and aluminum hats on your brake rotors? How heavy are your seats? Are there still airbags in the car? What about your starter battery. There's some fine examples out there that weigh around 2 1/2 to 3 lbs.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 9/3/2001
Posts: 97
|
|
|
This is all amusing to me. I'm struggling to get my big Datsun down to ~3550 on fumes (and keep it truly streetable w/o concessions like A/C, radio removal etc)--what am I thinking... lol
George B.
* '09 Datsun GT-R--SSP/SM Weapon... 10.6@ 131+
* '90 ZR-1 368CI SGC built 'Factory Black Motor' (11.0 @ 130.2 & 11.2 @132.4 w/ the 368--sprayed 120 shot)--NOT the greatest Auto-X tool...
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
 |
Joined: 4/18/2003
Posts: 2204
|
|
|
you can't get to the minimum in many vehicles, we covered it all before in previous threads if you want to read more of the same answer
you can either live with it or add displacement and/or forced induction to achieve the minimum target weight/power ratio
This is not about racing. This is about life being ahead of you and you run at it! Because you never know how far you can run unless you run.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
Joined: 1/7/2010
Posts: 18
|
|
|
And then there's me in SM with an AWD car that is asking for lower minimum weights for AWD. I'm actually planning on running the 275 tire next year to get a min weight of 2770 when the car weighs 2690. And thats still with heavy brakes/wheels, cast metal intake and exhaust manifold, stock 2-piece driveshaft....the list goes on. If I did every allowance it'd be in the 25xx range.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Joined: 5/16/2008
Posts: 154
|
|
|
PMcCartin wrote:
The 200# break for using 275 wide tires, has made the minimum weight of my car (SSM Miata) and probably some others unachievable. Is it worth the time to write in for additional tailored allowances?
My thought is to ask for doors made from alternate materials ie; fiberglass or CF. The door is a bolt on item like a hood or trunk lid and would not require extensive modification to the car. While providing 50 or so pounds of weight to be removed.
I'd propose a rule of;
"Normally aspirated cars under 2.5L are allowed door shells of alternate material providing all OE interior panels, windows, regulators and latch mechanisms are in place and functional."
thoughts?
The issue I see is that you have to keep in mind all the SM classes. There are cars (RWD cars too) in SM that can easily reach minimum with the 275 tire break, and are well below minimum on tires above 275. I'll play the me, me, me bit a moment and say that I would rather see the 200lb break go away, but keep the lower break weight minimum.
285/315 at the 275 weight sounds good to me.
|
|
|
|