Loren Williams <Loren@kscable.com> wrote:
>Jeff Lloyd wrote:
>>
>> Appendix k
>> Section C
>> Subset 5
>> Page 264 of the 2000 rulebook
>>
>> "The firewall, roof, doors, rear quarter panels, floor pan, trunk lid
must
>> remain stock
>> holes may be drilled to allow the attachment of body kits, specifically
>> allowing
>> replacement hoods, fenders, wings, front and rear facias, and side
skirits
>>
>> so they are limited in the rear.. I don't think that cuts it.
> But the SP rules, which are part of the SM rules, allow "fenders and
> bumpers" to be modified for tire clearance as well as the installation of
> fender flares.
> So, as I read this, your rear quarters must be stock in that they cannot
be
>replaced. But, as in SP, the fenders can be flared.
> Where's Dennis when you need him?
Right here.
SM allows the flaring allowance on the rear fenders, but that's as far as
it goes.
Let me put it this way: SM is designed so that all legal SP cars that meet
the eligibility requirements are legal SM cars. There is a clear
progression from Stock->SP->SM.
"What Street Prepared Givith, Street Modified Shall Not Taketh Away"
<-Grave that in stone!
However, I admit that BSM/SM2 presents a problem on the "how do we keep
parity" front. SM handles the problem by kicking out the offenders. But
BSM, which is really more like (! SM) doesn't have that luxury - at least,
not as currently written.
I like the idea of controlling tire size better than controlling rim size,
because I'd rather not see rules that encourage people to run anything
other than the design width rim for the tire. Limit rim width, and people
will cram the biggest tire they can squeeze on onto that rim. Limit tire
size, and people are free to run whatever rim they want, and so the design
rim is the natural choice. I know this for a fact, because my inner
suspension design limits my tire width choice, and the SP fender flare
allowences don't solve the problem. So when I bought wheels, I bought the
design width for the tire.
But tire sizes are NOT standard, any more than women's dress sizes are.
Require a tire size, and you're open to tire manufactuer quirks and monkey
business. And a compound change/difference renders any width formula moot
in a hurry - anybody want to claim that a 245 Toyo or Yoko is the equal of
a 245 Hoosier Autocross compound?
So I rather suspect that any sort of sliding-scale, tire-size-vs-weight
rule is really worth the effort to administer it.
Unless it were made really course-grained. Like:
2500lbs+ any tire
2499lbs- 205
Because what the REAL problem here is not heavy, powerful cars on wide
tires. It's the small, lightweight cars. You need to cap their performance
somehow, so that the heavier cars have a chance to make up the difference.
***BUT*** I rather think the the best, simplest decsion is to just not
worry about it, and not write any sort of tire/wheel width at all. Just
throw them all into the mix, and see what happens. Then, if a problem
_really_ appears, you discuss *with the class participants* the best way to
fix the problem.
I was absolutely convinced last year that I was going to need to split SM
into three separate classes this fall, based on what I saw as performance
differential potential between all the cars that were allowed in the class.
But so far, none of that has materialized in the real world. It may still
happen yet, but until it breaks, why spend time and energy trying to fix
it?
DG
|