Problems with new restrictor for E36 BMW 325

Explained that way I get it. Sort of like Max5 in England - no allowances for changes. Only thing I think I've learned about SCCA Spec classes is when they are said to be "Spec Classes", they are anything but.

R
 
SSM is a Regional only SM class. They splintered off when SCCA accepted SM into the GCR as a class and added some allowances for intake, exhaust and tires. SSM stays real true to the original concept as developed before it was an SCCA class with the primary goal to keep close fair racing cost effective.



SSM is larger in NER than SM.



AB
[/b]
Click to expand...


Andy,

I know that several people think that the SCCA dorked-up SM when they codified it. I also know that most Regions have a policy of 'get enough cars together to form a class, and we'll give it to you'. But honestly, is there really a need for it, beyond generating more revenue for the Regions? I've seen cars w/ SM/SSM class designations on them.

Oh, and I forget what thread it was in, but someone said that one benefit of dual classification was to allow two people to race one car. The only thing I can say on that one, is don't do it. With rare exception, it just doesn't work. Evenutally someone will feel that they're contributing more to the car/effort than the other person. Not to mention the issue of having one person have an incident (mechanical or otherwise) before the other person gets to race. They've already been out for qualifying, so they've turned a wheel, so no refund on the entry fee. All in all, sharing a car is a bad idea. I saw it come between two very good friends.
 
SSM stays real true to the original concept as developed before it was an SCCA class....
AB
[/b]
Click to expand...

Clarify that this was in the Northeast. In SOWDIV were SM was born (simultaneously? first?) we had open intakes on the 1.6 cars (at the same weight split as NEDIV), we had "adjustable AFM" rules (hmm...now adopted nationally, but not initially), could remove passenger side glass (ditto).

I think the main thing is SSM did not want to have to deal with an intake and exhaust of the month, and as a side benefit they figured the Mazdacomp exhaust (at ~$180 stainless steel) and stock intake would limit the power advantage of a pro motor. The other problem they had was more cars than they could fit in one session at some tracks. SSM was seen as a win-win.
 
... The other problem they had was more cars than they could fit in one session at some tracks. SSM was seen as a win-win.
[/b]
Click to expand...

This is a great example of the kind of policy oddness that I think we should really try to avoid.

** On the one hand, too-full grids get cited as a rationale for having SM and SSM

** On the other, the opportunity to enter one car in both classes is equally a rationale for having SM and SSM

We get situations like this when we make policy decisions based on the short-term, or on vocal insistence of minority points of view. Or - most often - based on what otherwise seems like a logical reason, when viewed through a soda straw.

But, yeah - that conversation has goe to a different strand...

K
 
Kirk,

The birth of SSM in the NE has NOTHING to do with any of those issues. They are a by-product of two very popular classes.

Antonio - since SSM doesn't exsist anywhere else, it must have been born in the NE... :)
 
I think the main thing is SSM did not want to have to deal with an intake and exhaust of the month, SSM was seen as a win-win.
[/b]
Click to expand...

It is too bad that SSM didn't become the modern "SM" today. It'd definitely have saved money for competitors and possibly made a much better class. If SSM could have avoided the "clutch of the month" issues, as well as "cam of the month", and "engine builder of the month", etc. it'd have be awesome.
 
Here's what is amazing to me. In the three years I've been racing (since 2003), I've seen SM go from clearly being the cheapest, best place to race to a complete farked up mess. Maybe it is turning out to be teh flavor of the day after all. Formula Jr. anyone?
 
The birth of SSM in the NE has NOTHING to do with any of those issues. ...
[/b]
Click to expand...
Sure it does, as long as people are suggesting that a benefit of the DC option is multiple entries in the same car AND folks are doing that with SS/SSM.

If everyone agreed with you that this is NOT an intended benefit arising from DC implementation and quit trotting it out as one, I'd totally agree with you but I don't see that happening - see Evan's and Jason's enthusiasm back in the other thread. There are a LOT of folks out there, I'm betting, who will latch onto that as the great rationale for double-listing and, from their "tactical" point of view, I can see how that's reasonable.

Is that what YOU intend? Is that what the ITAC and CRB intend?

If so, my worries are WELL FOUNDED from the get-go. If not, you got some 'spaining to do to the membership 'cause they're going to grab that bait and run with it - dragging us toward the unintended expansion of DCs to other classes in IT, to other categories, and even to the extreme of the LP/IT crossover idea. Incrementalism moves plates in the earth's crust so it can sure as heck move our rules to places we never intended them to go.

If that gun stays in the holster, nobody can get shot. If you draw it, we are likely to lose control of it.

It is too bad that SSM didn't become the modern "SM" today. It'd definitely have saved money for competitors and possibly made a much better class. If SSM could have avoided the "clutch of the month" issues, as well as "cam of the month", and "engine builder of the month", etc. it'd have be awesome.
[/b]
Click to expand...

...and you'd think that we could LEARN from that mistake.

It's not like the IT rules that are "old," when it only requires three years of institutional memory to understand what went wrong. (Of course, some stakeholders LOVE the current situation and it's completely to be expected that they would steer the policy toward their intentions.)

Now, would SSM cars be any cheaper in reality, if someone wanted to spend pointy-end SM money on one? Probably not but the gains that might be purchased would arguably be lower.

Regardless, it's those incremental allowances at it again. (See also, "Dual Classification")

K
 
Sorry Kirk, the birth or SSM didn't have anything to do with what we are talking about here. You couldn't be more wrong. SSM was created in complete opposition to the few rules that SCCA made 'open' when they adopted SM. In fact, the two camps were decidedly polar.

Here in NER, there was resistance from the Road Racing Board about adding a Regional class where there was already a recognized class. For the first two years, SSM and SM ran in the same run group so not only was 'multiple entries' not a thought, it wasn't even possible.

Both groups grew so much that we had to split them up (excess of 25 in BOTH SSM and SM on 1.6 mile tracks). It wasn't until THIS YEAR that the proliferation of double (and even triple when you include ITA) entries have manifested themselves.

'Unintended expansion' is the worry I have finnally grabbed from your posts. Like I said at the very beginning, the same fear was voiced when PCA's came out...and we are holding strong there.
 
For the sake of the eternal IT.com record, I was talking about policy rationale after the fact, rather than the birth of SSM. I actually know the hisory of the class but didn't worry about it since the point is that, even after all of the policy shifts that you describe, dual entry opportunities in SM/SSM are now being suggested as an example of why having two classes to enter with one car is a good idea - post hoc.

But whatever. I've used up all my bullets, and even reloaded and shot a couple of them twice. I know that the ITAC has kept the lid on the PCA kettle but it's still early days but again, my concerns aren't with the current administration.

I hope that I'm wrong but, if this goes sideways in a few years and becomes a big pain in the butt, I am SO going to show up at your door and make you buy the beer while find 27 different, long-winded ways to say, "told you so."

:birra:

K
 
I do not believe that car sharing or double dipping is a good reason for DCs but I know it will happen and it is not a reason to not allow DCs. The question to me is would there be a down side to tweeners being Dced.

What will be interesting in the SM world is if with the class being national will there be less big money cars in regionals? Also while you can spend big money to build an SM, I think they are still cheap to race not counting body repairs.
 
Kirk - HOW CAN IT GO SIDEWAYS?

I have no problem with somebody telling me that they 'told me so' but only if they could actually tell me how we are getting to the problem instead of just giving me the final address... :D



AB
 
ANDY - I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

...but that's the inherent problem and difference in our approaches: I'm not currently willing to believe that the small upside is worth the inherent risk because I can easily picture how it might be repurposed, based on observations of IT culture over the last 20 years. The CRB and ITAC are willing to completely ignore the chance that it will rage out of control some day, to realize the immediate gains that they've identified, and dismiss silly ideas like cross-listing LP and IT cars because it "can't ever happen."

Either way, i can't help you out at this point I'm afraid.

"So - do you feel lucky?"

K
 
Kirk,



You act like the world could colapse, yet you can't tell me how. You say a small upside and a huge risk but I don't by it. I just don't subscribe to that kind of thinking. I don't pretend to think that NOTHING can go wrong, it's just that given the current policies, I can't foresee anything going wrong. And if something did, I can't foresee it being anything to write home about.

If this is the kind of attitude we need to take to keep IT out of trouble, we should have frozen the rules 20 years ago - and we know that isn't the right thing to do - times change, cars change, the class needs to be dynamic - to a point, not static.

Do I feel lucky? Nope. I feel like I know the situation well enough so that it won't go bad.

Oh, and if in 20 years everyting was cross-classed and intertwined to make it easy to move all over the GCR - why would that be a bad thing?
 
Andy,

With the benefit of 20 years of hindsight, I can understand Kirk's concerns. Everyone's intentions are usually pure, but once one reliquishes control of the current situation it's usually bastardized to fit the new agenda. We've seen it time, after time, after time, after time again.

I can't foresee anything going wrong...[/b]
Click to expand...

That's the funny (ironic) part: no one ever does. Since intentions are pure, it's inevitable that rose-colored blinders get slid on the nose. No one can POSSIBLY consider all alternatives, which is why it's so damn hard to be a rulesmaker. You make something idiot-proof, and someone goes off and builds a new idiot...

As an aside, the one part about DC that really chaps my hide, for example, is that here in NE we have an extra race group on Regional weekends simply because of the dual-classed Spec Miatas. I mean, how many classes do we need for Miatas to compete in, for Kee-rist's sake? How many tech stickers do I issue each race that read "SM/SSM" or "SM/ITA" "SSM/ITA" or "SM/SSM/ITA"? How many groups will we have to add - at the expense of all other competitors that don't drive Miatas/BMWs/other DC cars - until we say "enough"? 'Cause if this DC idea starts adding in so many cars such that I'm getting 30 minutes of track time each weekend, I'm gonna find another hobby...
 
I hear you guys in the fundamental but in the practical you haven't brought anything to the table.

As far as the anti-Miata agenda goes - suck it up. If the car counts come, they come. If 25 NX2000/SE-R's showed up and wanted to call it Spec SR20, so be it. Regionally, car counts talk. If someone is willing to pay the entry fees, they have just as much right to the track.

If all 50 Miata' were in SM, we would have to send the 12 slowest of them home (which will never happen in NER) - or off to another run group in a consolation race - and THAT would effectively be the SAME thing as two 25 car classes.

Besides - all those SM crossovers are bolstering your ITA Championship payout... :)
 
... If this is the kind of attitude we need to take to keep IT out of trouble, we should have frozen the rules 20 years ago - and we know that isn't the right thing to do - times change, cars change, the class needs to be dynamic - to a point, not static.[/b]
Click to expand...
Now, in addition to being an old fart, I'm an obstructionist? When people here and elsewhere were freaking out because I and a couple others wanted to completely mess things up so much a short few years ago? ITA has become de facto IT2 (which was going to completely fark up ITA, according to legions of CRX owners) and Kirk and his e-radicals got all kinds of grief because we championed a formulaic approach to setting minimum weights. I believe the rallying quote right here in these forums was, "Formulas will NEVER WORK!"

You forget your history, Andy which is kind of a disappointment.

Oh, and if in 20 years everyting was cross-classed and intertwined to make it easy to move all over the GCR - why would that be a bad thing?[/b]
Click to expand...
That's okay, I guess - if it's what everyone wants.

Uncle.

Now - and I am absolutely serious about this, having sucked it up and accepted yet another aspect of the new way of thinking - if it's good enough for SSM/SM/ITA multiple entries, I absolutely DO want the opportunity to make bank renting my spare seat time out, too. Please. I can set up a MkIII Golf with a 200# hot-swapable ballast kit in an afternoon, and make the change in minutes between sessions. Heck, I could save a gazillion hours of labor by not stripping the undercoating off of the next one in the first place and I don't even have to buy new wheels! I may need to use larger tubing on the next shell's rollcage but that won't be a problem.

So my request will be forthcoming just as soon as the new plan is in the books. I'll also petition NCR to make sure that ITB and ITC are in different run groups, to make it possible for me to get a new racer on the track in my car and maximize their revenues. I recognize that there might be some obstructionists in charge there but we'll wear them down.

And if your first reaction is to say NO to this, don't you dare unless you can explain to me why. YOU convinced ME that it is a good idea. Either the rationale presented here...

More options for certain cars, increased multiple run group options, easier entry into Club Racing, a potential solution for tweeners, increased revenue for the club, etc.[/b]
Click to expand...

...is valid or it is not. I confess that I don't yet know what the protest will look like exactly, but there will be one if the rule as applied to my request isn't consistent with other DC-listed models and the language that ends up in the GCR/ITCS. The bonus - I think that's what it was called when Jake first mentioned it? - cannot fairly be just for "certain cars," if proposals for "other cars" fall into the parameters defined by DC-approved models.

Kirk (who gets a little sea sick rolling over for stuff like this but is willing to do what it takes to not be IT's Chicken Little)
 
Seems to me it's all about drawing a line, and creating a policy that is institutionalized.

One thing about a move like this, is that any ITAC can do it at any time. If this ITAC says OK to DC for a certain subset of cars that meet certain parameters, (Like only DC-ing cars that move up to new classes), thats great, but future ITACs don't have to respect that.

Further, if this ITAC says no DC, now or ever, future ITACs can choose to ignore thatand do as they see fit.

I DO, I really DO, see how one thing leads to another, but.....just because it isn't done now is no guarantee to won't be in the future. As a matter of fact, it is conceivable that it could be done now, and be done right, and future ITACs won't feel the need to change it...whereas if it hadn't been done they might decide to do it, but go much further. Point is that there is no guarantee.....

I appreciate Kirks comments...he has a very long institutional memory (esp considering his actual age). I've spoken with him and he knows a tremendous amount about SCCA policy history. Thats important info. We can guide our future from lessons learned in the past.

My questioning of this concept has been to challenge the critics to dig deep in their collective reasoning and come up with predictions and possible scenarios. I fully agree that an inability to come up with a scenario is NOT the same as saying there arenone and that there is nothing wrong with the concept. But by the same token I think it's important to really explore the options.

I thank those who have comments....it's a good discussion and the decision will be better for it.

Thinking out loud, what if verbage describing the conditions and requirements for a car to be DC'ed were part of the IT philosophy statemnt and added to the GCR??
(Yes, I know that future boards can strike or chage that, but it does create a much larger hurdle)
 
Now, in addition to being an old fart, I'm an obstructionist? When people here and elsewhere were freaking out because I and a couple others wanted to completely mess things up so much a short few years ago? ITA has become de facto IT2 (which was going to completely fark up ITA, according to legions of CRX owners) and Kirk and his e-radicals got all kinds of grief because we championed a formulaic approach to setting minimum weights. I believe the rallying quote right here in these forums was, "Formulas will NEVER WORK!"

You forget your history, Andy which is kind of a disappointment.[/b]
Click to expand...

No way. IT2 excluded RWD. You exclude 3 of the most popular cars in ITA today, the 240SX, the Miata and the CRX. THAT is why I didn't buy into it. Just because the misclassed 4cyl S cars went to ITA means nothing. And I still submit a hard-and-fast formula can't work. We all know it isn't what is being done now.


That's okay, I guess - if it's what everyone wants.
Uncle.
Now - and I am absolutely serious about this, having sucked it up and accepted yet another aspect of the new way of thinking - if it's good enough for SSM/SM/ITA multiple entries, I absolutely DO want the opportunity to make bank renting my spare seat time out, too. Please. I can set up a MkIII Golf with a 200# hot-swapable ballast kit in an afternoon, and make the change in minutes between sessions. Heck, I could save a gazillion hours of labor by not stripping the undercoating off of the next one in the first place and I don't even have to buy new wheels! I may need to use larger tubing on the next shell's rollcage but that won't be a problem.
So my request will be forthcoming just as soon as the new plan is in the books. I'll also petition NCR to make sure that ITB and ITC are in different run groups, to make it possible for me to get a new racer on the track in my car and maximize their revenues. I recognize that there might be some obstructionists in charge there but we'll wear them down.
And if your first reaction is to say NO to this, don't you dare unless you can explain to me why. YOU convinced ME that it is a good idea. Either the rationale presented here...[/b]
Click to expand...

Just like I posted in the first part of this discussion: "Maybe a section needs to be added to the GCR limiting the exposure of the dual classification (DC). This would work just like the PCA's that caused your first heart-attack. ;) "Thank you for your request, car is currently classified properly". Every request will get consideration, but precious few would actually be viable for a DC."

I am not a proponent of 'full-blown' DC's as a policy decision from the SCCA. I am for using them sparingly, when it makes sense for tweeners - similar to the application of PCA's. Again, these are all peripheral benefits that make up a concept that seems to have merit - you seem to be hung out on one aspect of the 'plus' items.
...is valid or it is not. I confess that I don't yet know what the protest will look like exactly, but there will be one if the rule as applied to my request isn't consistent with other DC-listed models and the language that ends up in the GCR/ITCS. The bonus - I think that's what it was called when Jake first mentioned it? - cannot fairly be just for "certain cars," if proposals for "other cars" fall into the parameters defined by DC-approved models.
Kirk (who gets a little sea sick rolling over for stuff like this but is willing to do what it takes to not be IT's Chicken Little) [/b]
Click to expand...

You don't have to roll over - stick to your guns but your post seems a little whiney. Who knows. I guess I am just sick of the "I will TELL YOU SO when in 20 years we aren't exactly where we are today" thought process. We can only do our best and let the chips fall where they may. Some decisions are good, some are bad - but they will all be made in good faith with the short and long term health of the class as primary goals.

Write the CRB and tell them why you think this idea stinks...but put some actual downside so they have something to consider. We are at an impass. Others should continue in the other thread.

PS: Here is an estimate on your multiclassing: 2000 in ITA, 2350 in ITB and 2760 in ITC. Think you can get to anything other than ITB? Like I said before, DC works for tweeners, probably not for cars classed properly.
 
As an aside, the one part about DC that really chaps my hide, for example, is that here in NE we have an extra race group on Regional weekends simply because of the dual-classed Spec Miatas. [/b]
Click to expand...
Greg, this is absolutely positively not true. Ner had SM and SSM in the same run group before 06 and when SSM was first approved by the NE- Div council it was stated that the intent was for the two classes to run together. With both classes running together we were “breaking out” and having to rearange the schedule during the race weekend. We resisted splitting the groups for as long as possible. AFTER the groups were split we began getting more double dippers.

Heck if the SM and SSM still ran together maybe there would be even more special me’s in ITA. I think the group that got hurt the most by the new race group was ITC, instead of racing with the fine upstanding ITA drivers they are now out there in a sea of Miatas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top