I was working on it, right now my car is wrecked so it was put on the back
burner but I am all with you, we plan on using the same displacements as SM
And same rules except I was planning to limit the width of the wheel they
can run by their weight. And then wheel width can be modified to retain
parity within the class
Since 2 seaters vary So much. Also Dennis G said I should allow SM legal
cars with motors prepped above the SM rules in SM2 well I don't know how to
implement this
For example
3000 + lbs e.g. Corvette 9"+
2500 + lbs e.g. Z3 1.9/ Rx7tt 8"
2000 + lbs e.g. Miata 7"
< 2000 lbs e.g. Lotus élan 6"
<= 1000 lbs e.g. lotus 7 5"
I am still preparing the proposal so any help will be appreciated
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-autox@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-autox@autox.team.net]On
Behalf Of William Schenker
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 12:43 PM
To: dg50@daimlerchrysler.com; autox@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: OSP and catch-all classes
A little off the point: anything happening w/an SM class for two-seaters,
like Miata's? I'm interested in building my 10AE purpose built to a
two-seat SM spec (read, FI).
Inquiring minds want to know!
Bill Schenker
10AE Miata
Team CalClub #36 csp
S.C.A.T. (SDR) #58 csp
----- Original Message -----
From: <dg50@daimlerchrysler.com>
To: <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 6:21 AM
Subject: Re: OSP and catch-all classes
> 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
>
|