PAULES56@aol.com wrote:
> Ben Thatcher has posted that a "Open Street Prepared" class is a good
> regional catch-all class to provide people a place to play when
preparation
> level does not fit an SCCA Solo II class. I have to agree with most of
the
> intent. It is a great place for new people to run what they have before
they
> make an inventment to compete under the Solo II classifications.
And I have to agree too. My only serious cheeze-off this year about the
whole SM experience was the number of regions that actively discouraged
people from trying to run SM. Regions that have an OSP or OSP-like class
have a better excuse than those that don't. (So it's hard to get mad at the
San Fransisco folks, who had OSP for a loooong time. I can understand their
reluctance to split their existing class into SM and non-SM-legal-OSP)
> However, my region (which was Ben's previous region) experienced a
problem in
> that people were BUILDING cars specifically to compete in OSP. Since
there
> were only two rules (DOT tires and a licence plate), a level playing
field
> was difficult to find, and there was no PAX factor to apply to the widely
> diverse vehicles that were being entered under OSP.
Which is one of the problems SM was specifically intended to address.
The logic works like this:
1) Most people like to build power
2) Power is only effective if it can be put to the ground
3) Chassis, suspension, and weight are typically more effective than power
4) Chassis and suspension are WAY more expensive than power
ergo
Make motor rules pretty wide open, but keep careful control of chassis,
suspension, and weight stuff, while still allowing popular bolt-on crap,
and control what cars are allowed in so as to keep the playing field as
level as possible.
And so far, it's worked pretty well.
We are, however, completely open to suggestions, and we NEED observations
from the trenches. If you start seeing something happening in regional SM
that you don't think is right, let us know!
> My region had decided to abandon the OSP class in favor of the SM class
with
> regional allowances the remove some of the restrictions of the official
SM
> (as we have also done withe STS and STR). We also have a good turn out
in
> these classes. Some just come to play, many join SCCA and choose a class
to
> build too.
Just outta curiosity, which of the SM rules have you removed?
> Success is yet to be measured, since this is our first year using the
plan.
> We will evaluate and adjust as needed.
Of course. We're doing the same thing. :)
DG
|