Autocross Classing

[gl21133]

Jan 25, 2016 17:26:22 GMT dietcoke said:

Be disappointing to have to run wingless in e/m though

Eh, I'd get over it .

Locally we have a "catch all" class that is intended to allow all mods provided the car is street legal and on street tires.  I'm half tempted to just dominate it for a year (they kick you out if you win the class for the year) to be a dick.

[dietcoke]

We have run what you brung 4,6,8cyl classes locally. Probably run B/M since that will be legal if the exo gets classed into d or E/m just so I can run aero.

[dietcoke]

Every letter listed got demoted to 'on the agenda'

[boileralum]

I don't believe that tracking system at all, lol. I trust what I was told by a MAC member, I guess we'll know next week.

[gl21133]

March is out. I'm not seeing anything in it though...

[dietcoke]

Me either. Disappointing. Maybe April. Blown away some of these letters are 4 months old now and haven't been addressed.

[dietcoke]

It probably wouldn't hurt to solicit more letters through the fb page.

[papabear]

Wonder if Taylor or Kevin at Exomotive heard anything else. Taylor posted 1/25 that they had been contacted.

[dietcoke]

I got a response on my proposal to XP, but none from my D/EM letter yet, which was longer (18758). XP is really the best place for these cars to be IMO, because it allows them to run with the wing as designed. Granted, you'd have to be 1560lbs without driver as a 1.8 miata, but ballast is easy Probably not the answer for an ls based exocet, as youd be required to weigh 2226 pounds empty, but its a start.





SCCA No Reply <[e-mail]>

3:32 PM (2 minutes ago)

to me
Your letter has been reviewed by the Prepared Committee and sent to the Solo Events Board.

Here are your letter details:
Letter: #18761
Category: Prepared
Class: XP
Title: Exocet Classing into XP
Author's Request: This is a synonym to letter #18758, I believe the exocet also may qualify for entry into XP given the wording of the 2016 rulebook. The car fits into the current weight ruling, and is a production car, being factory produced (if not finished) not unlike the Factory FiveRoadster & Challenge Car and Type 65 Coupe already eligible for XP.Although it is a tube chassis car, the solo rulebook also states that tube chassis cars are acceptable per 17.11. As Exomotive is the manufacturer, and exomotive provides bodywork for these cars, I see nothing in the prepared rulebook that would otherwise not qualify the exocet from running in XP, other then not being 1000+ produced in a year - that is, the exocet would require a specific listing, just like the Factory Five cars currently have. Cant we make this happen? The 16-1900 pound exocets do not belong in AM, which is the only current place they can be raced.

[dietcoke]

I have some new information about the D/EM delay I'll post up later tonight.

[dietcoke]

So apparently the discussion has gone back and forth twice now between the MAC (modified advisory committee) and the SEB which writes the rules. Here is the current dilemma that is being discussed

The modified class allows for substantial modifications from stock form; I give you this "jeep wrangler"



Obviously it isn't really a jeep anymore, but it has all the bits according to the rules. The discussion is being hung up at this statement: If your base chassis was an exocet, what could be built out of it according to the current rulebook, and how would that effect current parity in the D/EM classes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the listed criteria in the rulebook for kits, specifically.

The SCCA® will evaluate each submitted kit model individually and the evaluation will ensure that the specific model:
a. Follows current DM and EM allowances regarding minimum floor pan dimensions (see Section 18.1.C.1).
Way oversize, no issue
b. Has no unusually advantageous aerodynamic features.
Aero of a brick with too small a frontal area for a useful splitter and no clean air for a useful spoiler
c. Has no exceptionally low center of gravity.
Doesn't
d. Has no exceptionally high strength-to-weight ratio.
Plain mig'd mild steel, so good here
e. Has no other unique features that would upset the competitive balance in DM and EM.
Doesn't
f. Has independently-verifiable evidence of at least 10 examples which meet the approved specification produced. Extremely limited production sports racer-type efforts are discouraged.
Not sure what chassis number we're on now, but we're obviously in the hundreds


So, according to the letter of the law (the rulebook) the chassis is 100% eligible, minus the wing, which of course cant be used in D/EM. This is why the application for classing hasn't been denied, because it is eligible according to the rulebook. This can end in one of three ways: Board says yes, Board says no, or Board changes the class rules. We shall see, but hopefully it's a yes - I only wish they'd make up their mind.


Now, I previously posted my letter to the prepared committee about classing the car in XP. XP is a lower power:weight class with less modifications allowed to the structure of the car. While it wouldn't be a great fit for V8 powered cars, it's almost a perfect fit for all of the others due to the weight requirements vs. engine displacement. Furthermore, it would eliminate entirely the hangup they are currently having classing the car into D/EM, because the structure of the car can not be largely modified in XP. As a side bonus, XP allows aero, so the typical wings we put on these cars would be fine to run there.

[dietcoke]

Here are the XP weight requirements (without driver). Since a very small amount of weight may be needed to add to hit these #s, it's really a good fit competitively for the smaller engined cars, especially with XP's generous PAX.


Engine displacement less than 4.0L (lbs.)
RWD........................................................................................1200 + 200 per liter
Turbocharged or supercharged versions of all engines will be classified on a basis of 1.4 times the actual displacement.

IE: 1560 pounds for a 1.8L or 1704 pounds for a Turbo 1.8L, both easily attainable with minimal ballast (or a passenger, since their weight counts but yours does not)

Engine displacement of 4.0L or greater (lbs.)
RWD........................................................................................1200 + 180 per liter

IE: 2226 pounds for a 5.7L LS1, probably not practical to get that heavy - thats miata territory.


c. Regardless of the Minimum Weight Calculations above (b), no car with a supercharged or turbocharged engine shall weigh less than the following minimum weights (lbs.):
RWD.......................................................................................................................1700

[jwagner]

I don't think there's any way to build a NA Exocet into a competitive XP car, with the likes of Zust's FrankenLotus and the other insanity running there. On the other hand, there's no way the Exocet will be competitive in DM against the 7 clones, especially with a 1.8L BP motor. I know the SCCA doesn't want to upset the status quo, but I just can't see what they're worried about.

[dietcoke]

Me either.

[dietcoke]

Both of my letters are pending the SEB now. Maybe April fastrack will be the good news. Board meets Mar 16.