They already seem to have a pretty good idea of what they want the class to look like and how little they want to deviate from the existing rule structure. Which is to say, not enough for me to find it appreciably more interesting than the existing DM/EM classes...Especially since that's realistically all that the "street" cars in the class will inevitably become a minor variation of anyways, if it does somehow manage to attain any level of long term success. Based on their (re)actions, they don't appear to be interested in actually brainstorming a wide variety of creative ideas for such a proposal, and I don't feel it would be appropriate to join the group just to be critical of their intended approach.
Edit: Since there is at least one person (Dean) participating here and in that group who seems interested in seeking out and hearing what other have to say, it seems a little standoff-ish to not still share some of my other thoughts.
"Street cars" are built around fitting street car wheel and tire sizes, not pure racing (Formula Atlantic) slick tire sizes. If true street tires are uncontrollable, they should at most be running DOT-R's. In my opinion even better would be "streetable" DOT-R's...But of course my power to weight ratio will be nothing like that of the Super Stalkers that this class is pretty obviously being designed around making ideally competitive.
Continuing with an antiquated engine displacement based weight classing, even with extra adjustments for pushrod/rotary/FI/etc, just to appease the Old Guard of the SCCA means that the (lack of) cost containment and streetability of competitive engines will end up being just as exceptionally outrageous as it is in the existing classes. This is what will ensure that it remains nothing more than a class for "street legal" cars otherwise essentially built around the current DM/EM rules, rather than being a genuine home for ALL kit and homebuilt street cars like they're advertising.
I saw the 1.8x turbo multiplication factor reiterated, again without any substantiation to the notion that a 1.4x multiplication factor is inadequate. Hell, a bigger turbo yet and more boost can just as easily yield well over 2x the power of a maxed out naturally aspirated race engine of the same displacement. But the important question is whether the resultant power curve actually provides equivalency, let alone an advantage, on an autox course? I have seen no evidence, let alone proof, to support their position that the 1.4x multiplier is inadequate. Sure SCCA has further restricted turbos in DM, but my understanding is that they have done so without the engines ever having proven to be over-competitive, even with all of the money that has been thrown at the engines in that class over the years. Not making forced induction engines under-competitive is one of the few ways to actually help contain the cost of making competitive power in a displacement limited class. Going from 2.0L to 2.5L will be a substantial bump in power for the naturally aspirated engines from current DM winning power levels, but turbos will still be stuck at the same 1.4L limit which has never even been dominant in DM.
They have a chance to help cost containment before it gets out of control and is forced by politics to stay that way, but seem to prefer walking right back into the same trap as before.
In general I don't see anything in their plan that would have any chance at maintaining the genuine "street car" nature of the class at the National Championship level, any better than DM/EM. Sure the requirements may be closer to a "street car" configurations, with two symmetrically space seats, and it may be light enough of competition the first few years that true street used cars are able to win. But as soon as the first person designs and builds a car from scratch with the explicit intent of maximizing the use of each and every rule to decimate this class full of joyriders looking for a jacket, the fairy tale will be over and the (cubic-dollar) arms race will begin all over again.
_________________ -Justin
"Orville Wright did not have a pilots license." - Gordon MacKenzie
Last edited by Driven5 on February 21, 2015, 11:35 pm, edited 5 times in total.
|