Problems with new restrictor for E36 BMW 325

[Andy Bettencourt]

SSM is a Regional only SM class. They splintered off when SCCA accepted SM into the GCR as a class and added some allowances for intake, exhaust and tires. SSM stays real true to the original concept as developed before it was an SCCA class with the primary goal to keep close fair racing cost effective.



SSM is larger in NER than SM.



AB

[Bill Miller]

SSM is a Regional only SM class. They splintered off when SCCA accepted SM into the GCR as a class and added some allowances for intake, exhaust and tires. SSM stays real true to the original concept as developed before it was an SCCA class with the primary goal to keep close fair racing cost effective.



SSM is larger in NER than SM.



AB
[/b]

Andy,

I know that several people think that the SCCA dorked-up SM when they codified it. I also know that most Regions have a policy of 'get enough cars together to form a class, and we'll give it to you'. But honestly, is there really a need for it, beyond generating more revenue for the Regions? I've seen cars w/ SM/SSM class designations on them.

Oh, and I forget what thread it was in, but someone said that one benefit of dual classification was to allow two people to race one car. The only thing I can say on that one, is don't do it. With rare exception, it just doesn't work. Evenutally someone will feel that they're contributing more to the car/effort than the other person. Not to mention the issue of having one person have an incident (mechanical or otherwise) before the other person gets to race. They've already been out for qualifying, so they've turned a wheel, so no refund on the entry fee. All in all, sharing a car is a bad idea. I saw it come between two very good friends.

[AntonioGG]

SSM stays real true to the original concept as developed before it was an SCCA class....
AB
[/b]

Clarify that this was in the Northeast. In SOWDIV were SM was born (simultaneously? first?) we had open intakes on the 1.6 cars (at the same weight split as NEDIV), we had "adjustable AFM" rules (hmm...now adopted nationally, but not initially), could remove passenger side glass (ditto).

I think the main thing is SSM did not want to have to deal with an intake and exhaust of the month, and as a side benefit they figured the Mazdacomp exhaust (at ~$180 stainless steel) and stock intake would limit the power advantage of a pro motor. The other problem they had was more cars than they could fit in one session at some tracks. SSM was seen as a win-win.

[Knestis]

... The other problem they had was more cars than they could fit in one session at some tracks. SSM was seen as a win-win.
[/b]

This is a great example of the kind of policy oddness that I think we should really try to avoid.

** On the one hand, too-full grids get cited as a rationale for having SM and SSM

** On the other, the opportunity to enter one car in both classes is equally a rationale for having SM and SSM

We get situations like this when we make policy decisions based on the short-term, or on vocal insistence of minority points of view. Or - most often - based on what otherwise seems like a logical reason, when viewed through a soda straw.

But, yeah - that conversation has goe to a different strand...

K

[Ron Earp]

I think the main thing is SSM did not want to have to deal with an intake and exhaust of the month, SSM was seen as a win-win.
[/b]

It is too bad that SSM didn't become the modern "SM" today. It'd definitely have saved money for competitors and possibly made a much better class. If SSM could have avoided the "clutch of the month" issues, as well as "cam of the month", and "engine builder of the month", etc. it'd have be awesome.