The only race that matters

I'm afraid that several of the cures here are worse than the disease and would likely kill the patient.

H is a relatively healthy class purely by the numbers, but nowhere near big enough to be safely split into two classes. It strikes me that in effect the full sequence would amount to - kill off G, move some of the cars into H, scaring off half the H cars, then move the surviving ex-G cars back into a new G, leaving a too-small H class to either die or be merged back into G, losing half or more of the original members of both classes along the way. That might be the best case, the worst case being that both G and H would die or be merged into F.

A complete overhaul of Prod on a strict displacement and weight/cc basis tosses out the historic performance-based concept of Prod, will inevitably result in a few specific cars being "the car to have" and the ensuing turmoil might well wreck all of Prod once and for all.

With moves still afoot (I fear) to pare the total class count down to ~15 there is strength only in class size, class splits (were they somehow to be approved) would be near suicide.

Killing all but 3 (E,F,H) Prod classes was a bad idea and the resulting turmoil has driven many competitors away from SCCA Prod. Most are not coming back. Adding major reorganizations, class splits, etc will likely just make things a lot worse. Tweak and tune, sure. Major overhauls or splits, no way.

(I am generally annoyed by apocalyptic pronouncements that "if we do X, Prod or SCCA or racing or life on earth will cease" but splitting H or radically reorganizing all of Prod strike me as spectacularly bad ideas at this point in time)

Al Seim
HP VW Scirocco 1.6
 
Al - I understand your concern, but with only one roadster and NO LBC's at last year's runoffs, one could say that the classes are already split from a Runoffs standpoint, and yet the participation was at a reasonable level at Daytona.

My proposal calls for the existing class to be sped up, removing weight from the sedans, making them more fun to drive and possibly adding cars for that reason. It also calls for creating a spec for the roadsters to speed them up to be able to compete with these faster sedans. This would bring some of the F cars down to this class also increasing car counts in the existing class. It might make sense to bring in the 1.6L Miata which would also add cars to the existing class.

The new class is for roadsters with limited prep motors (and what remains of the 948 and 850 Fiat). Because the performance characteristics of these cars are very similar, they can be balanced out very easily with weight, and limited prep motors are very similar in power so racing should be close which might attract drivers who are interested in competing based on driver skill rather than horsepower or track location.

The only risk is that this new class will not take off, but if it fails the cars can immediately be absorbed into the existing class at a competitive disadvantage only a little worse than now, or can convert to the new spec that was created when the sedans and full-prep roadsters were sped up.

As I said, there is very little likelihood that they will go for this, but there shouldn't be a concern that the new class will cannibalize the existing one, and there may just be two healthy classes if they do it.
 
I am going to humor a few people here. :D :twisted:

For those who think that power/weight ratio is all that matters (not similar power AND weight), how about we make an exception to the rules and allow a few drivers who are willing to be guineapigs to run a well prepped and driven LBC at 2000lbs with the same power/weight as Hussey's Daytona winning CRX?

Based on my (limited) knowledge of the current top-1275 Spridgets, they are carrying about 13.7lbs for every HP (PM me if I am far off here). Is anyone willing to divulge how much power it would have to make at 2,000lbs to be have the same power/weight ratio at the top tin tops??

Anyone willing to step up and take that challenge then let the results stand at MO in September??

Give me a Huffaker chassis at 2,000lbs, and the same power to weight as the tin tops and I am in for MO and Indy next year.

Now where's that 8 port head? :ask: :whistle:
 
The class is pretty good as it is. I dont see enough cars to split the class to G and H. Fiat 850? Show me 2.
Maybe address the one group of cars that seem to have a following.
I suggested adding 200# or 1700# to the Spridget and adding power. Anymore, where are you going to put the 500#? What about the brakes and the other engineering considerations, clutch, trans, suspension. You will need a complete retrim for springs ,bars gears.
Any more than 1700# and the parts wont keep up, IMHO.

Doing the math and looking at the track records for the Spit show that car is the car to have for MO.


The situation will take care of itself this year and next. IMHO
 
RICK HAYNES":7p60zezg said:
Jay, I don't remember what Basil was promoting. If it was a weight per Hp approach that was used to justify grouping a wide range of weights and motors together in one class I can understand why it failed. If it was used to balance cars with similar weights and motor sizes with in the same class, I have no reason to think it wouldn't have worked then as well as working now. This is what I would like to see;
D/p over 2000 cc
E-p 1600 to 2000 CC's, with 1600cc full prep cars in E
F/p 1275 to 1600 CC's with 1600cc LP cars in F
G/p and H/p I am not sure but a split that might allow the 948 cars with big valves and open carbs to compete again in a H/p class.
with all weights in all class's proportional to CC's

When I started racing in G/p in 1974 I some times got beat by H/p sprite drivers Randy, Jim, Ray, Martin and other, if you don't know their last names it doesn't matter. They all had 1st class cars that they drove the wheels off of. Needless to say my motor building and race-craft that 1st year was not too good. But by the 2nd year I had improved enough that didn't happen any more and I was happy as hell to beat those guys with my 1100cc 15% bigger motor. But I had the good scene not to point it out to anyone less I look like a complete fool. We now live in a SCCA world where it is seen as perfectly logical to group cars with motors from 948cc to 1850cc together, almost a 100% difference. I think that is completely absurd and if any one has missed the point of this analogy I guess that doesn't matter ether.
Click to expand...

Well it didn't work then and it won't work now. Go back and read my initial post. The issue is simply more complex than that and beyond our practical capabilities to manage. Give up!
 
Back in the day Rick's cc (aka HP or torque) and weight model used to work pretty darn well since pretty much all of the car engines and to a far greater degree chassis........... were pretty crude and quite similar.



Please.........anyone........Within a single class, show me another case where you can mix 1959 technology (Bugeyed Sprite) with 2016 technology (Toyota Yaris) with a level playing field??? It's not EZ and I would say totally impractical.

Think about computers in 1959 vs. computers in 2016
Think about airplanes in 1959 vs. airplanes in 2016
Think about telephones in 1959 vs. telephones in 2016

Bottom line......57 years of technology evolution is too steep of a hill to climb for any reasonably equitable equivalency adjustment. There are too many layers to this onion.
 
Jay Lutz":12e55t3p said:
Bottom line......57 years of technology evolution is too steep of a hill to climb for any reasonably equitable equivalency adjustment. There are too many layers to this onion.
Click to expand...
Right you are. So what do you do? You separate the two types of cars so that they can be more closely matched against each other.

Think about it. The SCCA has run off the old-technology cars and they are racing in vintage. Maybe with a stable rule set and a place for that type of car to race against similar types we could get some of them back. There are plenty of LBC's racing vintage now and, as Hap pointed out, are spending gobs of money to have the best motor. With a limited prep motor formula they could have one of the best motors without costing a fortune, and I know they don't like paying those big entry fees. Some of them like to just parade their cars around, but some of them think they are racing and might want to actually compete.

Or... maybe I am crazy.
 
I don't understand the old car thing...

Steve Sargis was ripping lap times seconds clear of any other FP car and could have put the car in the top 10 of EP at Road America. He also had some 10+ seconds lead over the field too. The one year it was close, Steve share he switched to radials for the weekend with no previous testing, and it was the worst handling car he ever drove.

Nigel Saurino in the family car with a thorough R&D cycle had almost 2 seconds a lap on Huffaker, and had a 14 second lead over him halfway through the race before backing off. If it weren't for them we would be hearing how the Midget barely eeked out a win over the Miata. Instead it was one of the biggest smack downs in recent Prod history (minus Justin Pritchard in the rain at Road America).

Joe having a fire lit under his butt came back last year at a track no one said he stood a chance at, but he wanted to for the fun of it - was passing the Integra's and the Miata's on the banking and was running away with it at one point. He also finalized 2nd in GTL in what was essentially FP trim plus some weight.

And put John Baucom in his dad's car and no one would have been even close.

Put a Huffaker or a Saurino effort with a driver to match in any number of the old cars - MGB, TR4, P1800, etc and they would decimate the Miata's and Integra's. They'll all make equal to or more HP, with a blank sheet suspension, and are hundreds of lbs lighter.

Take a look at the Moser and Loshack CRX effort. You have tons of money with current proffesional racing engineers and mechanics working on it - it's a proffesional race car with proffesionally coached drivers- it should be winning.

I think people are overstating the old technology aspect of the full prep cars... (Any transmission, blank sheet suspension, etc).
 
The conversation morphed to HProd many pages ago and all your good examples are FProd, not HP Bob. As far as FP goes you are right.....except many of the full prep cars can never make weight. Like a lot of the 1800-2200cc cars classed in FP a 2L p-1800 could destroy FP at listed weight but that would require a fit driver and the removal of 800 pounds from the stock vehicle. These old cars are not full of easy to remove electronics and insulation like newer ones.
 
Yes, lots of cross currents in this discussion!

Jay, I've got to disagree with most aspects of the "age" issue. There really aren't any magic high tech aspects of a Yaris that make it so superior to a Spridget. The issue is (to make up some numbers!) 60% size/weight/track / 30% "Yaris is too new to the class to be well understood by the rulesmakers" / 10% Electronic Fuel Injection (is easier to keep "right" from dyno to track). Only the EFI is technology.

I totally agree that it isn't easy to class very different cars such that they are raceable together and not extremely track dependent. But it's mostly just physics and very little is age of design.

One of the things that has always drawn me to Prod is the very different cars (type, size and age) that we see racing together - the opposite of Nascar or that boring old SM class.... :twisted:

As a not terribly relevant example from a rather different sport - look at Unlimited Air Racing. Once jets were banned it's been dominated by 70 year old machines! Engineers back then weren't all that stupid after all.

Al Seim
 
Al Seim":3fhf5bf5 said:
Yes, lots of cross currents in this discussion!

Jay, I've got to disagree with most aspects of the "age" issue. There really aren't any magic high tech aspects of a Yaris that make it so superior to a Spridget. The issue is (to make up some numbers!) 60% size/weight/track / 30% "Yaris is too new to the class to be well understood by the rulesmakers" / 10% Electronic Fuel Injection (is easier to keep "right" from dyno to track). Only the EFI is technology.

I totally agree that it isn't easy to class very different cars such that they are raceable together and not extremely track dependent. But it's mostly just physics and very little is age of design.

One of the things that has always drawn me to Prod is the very different cars (type, size and age) that we see racing together - the opposite of Nascar or that boring old SM class.... :twisted:

As a not terribly relevant example from a rather different sport - look at Unlimited Air Racing. Once jets were banned it's been dominated by 70 year old machines! Engineers back then weren't all that stupid after all.

Al Seim
Click to expand...


OK........so maybe the real question is.......

* do you want to race? OR
*do you want to build/develop?

If you want to race pick up a SM or SRF and find out what your driving skills are truly made of.
If you want to build/develop keep your prod racer and shut up about the racing equity issue.
It's your choice.....You can't have both............choose ONE.

I switched paths and enjoyed the ride........so did Ray Yergler and Brian Linn. Plenty more I'm sure. Why not get them to comment?
 
Just a point of clarification.

You can "race" in SM without doing development. You can't WIN in SM without doing development.

SM only sounds like a no development class. As you, I, and many many others found out, it's not.

-Kyle
 
By all means I don't want to start a pissing match about SM being a development class as compared to production. By comparison it is not a hardware development class, it sure is a driver development class to play at the pointy end. :mrgreen:

Daytona was a great example no matter which tire was chosen, some of the normal pointy end guys on wet or dry tires couldn't get a sniff of the pointy end. Not a slam, only an observation.
 
Jay -

That makes more sense to me, each to his own.

For me the "engineering" is half the fun. I also suspect I'm a better engineer than race driver!

I totally get that the spec classes offer the best setting for driver development, just as the "builder" classes are the best place to have fun with engineering/tinkering. And the broad mix of cars, at least for me, adds to the engineering interest.

FWIW, you're going to have a very hard time convincing the Prod Forum denizens to ditch their individualistic Prod cars in favor of Spec Whatever. Just like the opposite won't happen. Individuals of course may be lured to the Dark Side... 8)

Funny, sort of - I think Prod is built on a 50+ year foundation of people complaining about racing equity issues. Prod racing equity - or lack thereof at times - is based on human judgement, for better and for worse. And thus susceptible to squeaky wheels sometimes getting more grease etc. It can be maddening but has led to some pretty cool racing over the decades!

Al Seim
 
One David Bednarz of Ann Arbor, MI has moved from the dark side to F production and he was fast last fall at his first time to Mid Ohio with production class car.
 
Damn David. I looked it up and assuming that was the club course he was real fast. Did he build a new car? buy one? borrow one? Will he be at the RunOffs in FP this year?
 
IIRC, pro course, new build (hardware development :mrgreen: ) and I'm sure he'll be at the Runoffs. One of the nicest guys at the track, including his wife. He is a protégé of the late Harry Manning.
 
FWIW, you're going to have a very hard time convincing the Prod Forum denizens to ditch their individualistic Prod cars in favor of Spec Whatever. Just like the opposite won't happen. Individuals of course may be lured to the Dark Side...
Click to expand...

Some of the classes were essentially spec. Spec Midget with a Comptune or one of the other two or three engine builder's packages. Chassis were likely a variant or a copy of one of the couple shops that did that work. Kind of like the FP Miata being Spec Prather Miata (and I mean that in a complimentary way).

It made for the appearance of parity, but it really had more to do with it being a monoculture.
 
David Dewhurst":vua9nrz8 said:
By all means I don't want to start a pissing match about SM being a development class as compared to production. By comparison it is not a hardware development class, it sure is a driver development class to play at the pointy end. :mrgreen:

Daytona was a great example no matter which tire was chosen, some of the normal pointy end guys on wet or dry tires couldn't get a sniff of the pointy end. Not a slam, only an observation.
Click to expand...

David,

SM is not just a driver development class at the pointy end.....that's true wherever you are in the pack. I was a firm SM mid packer and by the time I sold the SM I was a far better driver than I EVER was in the Sprite......but I had far better success in the Sprite. So I guess you would say I'm a better engineer than driver.....but I already knew that. Thinking now.....Sure would be fun to try a Sprite again now that I've learned more about racecraft.

Buuuuut...........now I've discovered Chumpin which seems to be floating my boat for the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top