Merge of SpecE30 and Spec3

#21

Well, this announcement seems premature at best… What is the intent of stirring the bee’s nest? Already we have responses from people who are planning to join the ranks in a panic that their new builds are going to be for naught.

The current series is growing, and arguably the racing is the best it’s ever been. Leave well enough alone. Have a contingent plan in place when/if the series starts to wane. Until then what is the point? Until then keep the contingent plan under wraps. We do not need a current solution to a problem that does not currently exist.

#22

We are NASA’s largest class, and we are an E30 class. NASA’s primary interest is to keep us as customers, that is to say, keep us happy. Lets give them some breathing room to explain their plan for keeping us happy. The sky is not falling. The people making the rules really do give a shit about us because we are the ones feeding their children.

#23

My take on this is that it is just Carter and Jerry looking way down the road (several years) at what the future might look like. It’s alright for them to plan for a transition at some point. Good leaders and successful people do that. I think it would be premature to implement plans (such as more rule changes) for the next phase (the decline) of Spec E30 while it is still growing and new cars are being built. The time to implement the transition will become clear when there are no new SE30’s being built, our numbers are declining and Spec 3 is growing. If racers weigh the cost of building a Spec E30 compared to a Spec 3 car and chooses Spec 3, this will take care of itself over time. But if people build new Spec E30s every year in spite of the cost of donor cars that should confirm Spec E30 in its current form is worth preserving a while longer. Let the free market work. Until then there is no need to do anything except plan unless it is someone’s goal to expedite the process and the decline of SE30…

#24

Ummm, because this is where Carter posted the “Jerry says we’re going to do this” thread??

I would recommend fixing this issue before folks decide to sell cars or stop building for the series.

[quote]DeVinney can chime in with the “combined” success of Miatas. Aren’t they still racing/turning-out in record numbers?[/quote]Yes, but the cars are way closer “spec” than Spec3 and E30. The top two classes in SCCA racing are Spec Racer Ford and Spec Miata. In NASA they are Spec E30 and Spec Miata. The highest participation in SCCA in a mixed-spec class is 1/2 as much as SM. Many of those entries are from SM drivers seeking additional track time.

I really don’t have a dog in this fight any more. This does simplify my decision about whether to build another E30 and rejoin the class in a couple years.

#25

When I can’t find 100 used E30’s from a simple craigslist search within 200 miles of my house, I may start to worry. Until then, I see no issue and no reason to change the rules.

Now, if small changes to reduce weight were implemented to start, I would totally be in favor of that.

#26

KEEP SPEC E30 SPEC!

SPEC3 would have to run with GTS not with us.

max HP and TRQ rule should have been at the start of last season to save some drivers $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

#27

I’m one of 3 drivers who can say that he raced in the inaugural Spec E30 race in 2003. I’ve seen the ups and downs, raced through 4 spec tires, the slow rollout of the spec exhaust, you name it. I’ve been opposed to some of the rules changes in the past, but they were livable. But this is a rule change on an entirely different level. It is not technically feasible. As soon as you add a different chassis, it’s no longer Spec. The E30 and E36 share almost nothing in common. I think that the Roundel on the hood might be the same size. Everything relevant to spec racing is different: Chassis geometry, suspension, engine, aero.

When choosing a series, we could all have signed up for GTS and raced against different chassis’d cars. All about power to weight. But we didn’t.

There are reasons for this proposed change that I clearly don’t understand. Political? Regional? I don’t know. I’ve heard chatter about the West Coast guys wanting to make a series more like Pro3…I dunno. Is any of this related to the non-existent turnout at Nationals? I dunno…just wish we were more open about all of this BS…sigh

-Vic

#28

I agree that the supply of these cars is slowly dwindling. The last time I went to the Pick-n-Pull where I live there were maybe two, where there used to be 6-8 or more. These cars are old now. How many other 1980s cars do you see on the roads in any number? It will be a concern in the future, and I think looking down the road now is a wise decision vs waiting until the numbers on track start to dwindle. E36’s are becoming common for pocket lint money, and the few Spec3 cars I’ve seen on the track haven’t impressed me with being significantly faster or better handling.

I disagree, however, that true parity is going to be easily achievable. Can’t say about other regions, but where I am the Spec3 participation numbers I can count on one hand. I therefore would think it makes more sense to make those cars meet our performance standards rather than vice-versa or moving both in a similar direction. Maybe that’s not achievable; I don’t know much about E36’s other than the interiors suck. :lol:

Conclusion: looking ahead is a good idea, as there certainly is a timeline until our cars become ‘vintage’ racers. However, (and I believe Carter understands this) any changes to the formula must be extremely well thought out, tested, and make sense while costing as little as possible.

#29

[quote=“victorhall” post=74921]I’m one of 3 drivers who can say that he raced in the inaugural Spec E30 race in 2003. I’ve seen the ups and downs, raced through 4 spec tires, the slow rollout of the spec exhaust, you name it. I’ve been opposed to some of the rules changes in the past, but they were livable. But this is a rule change on an entirely different level. It is not technically feasible. As soon as you add a different chassis, it’s no longer Spec. The E30 and E36 share almost nothing in common. I think that the Roundel on the hood might be the same size. Everything relevant to spec racing is different: Chassis geometry, suspension, engine, aero.

When choosing a series, we could all have signed up for GTS and raced against different chassis’d cars. All about power to weight. But we didn’t.

There are reasons for this proposed change that I clearly don’t understand. Political? Regional? I don’t know. I’ve heard chatter about the West Coast guys wanting to make a series more like Pro3…I dunno. Is any of this related to the non-existent turnout at Nationals? I dunno…just wish we were more open about all of this BS…sigh

-Vic[/quote]

Vic, if I missed the first spec e30 race it wasn’t by too many months. I remember the VIR race in February when we thought a 2.31 minute lap was fast. Oh, well, guess we’re a bit faster now.

Your thoughts (especially the last sentence) express exactly what I’m feeling.

RP

#30

It’s funny Robert, you may remember that when Spec E30 began, there were 2 classes: SO and SU, one each for the “i” and “e” cars respectively. They were different classes, because the cars were so different. You didn’t just add ballast to an “i” car to make one class. That’s part of why this new idea is so absurd. By the same “logic”, why not make one giant super class? The numbers would be great, right, and you wouldn’t have to worry about those pesky hard-to-find E30 shells…there are only SEVERAL on my local craigslist right now.
-Vic

#31

Guys, Guys, relax - “If you like your Spec E30, you can keep it!”

Waaaaaait a mintue, i’ve heard that one before somewhere…

(joke credit to SGrace, whether he wants it or not)

#32

what about letting the poor bastards that want to run an iC in?? Did I already say that? Plenty of shells out there, really. It’s just that people listen to internet geniuses and will not buy an “e” or M42 car. For some reason people do not like 4 door’s either. The 800 car was an “e” I guess with the engine rule you could buy a super e and do a top end rebuild with i cam and springs, add a 173 ECU and there ya go. Dang, now I sound like an internet genius.

No doubt cars are getting tougher, rust, wrecks, street-modders etc. I just toured 7 junkyards and there was 1 e30…

Al

#33

But Al, the convertible is WAAAY too different, whereas an E36 is so similar…no wait, that’s not right! Ok, I’ll stop laying it on so thick. You got screwed with your car - if anything you should have received a grandfather for the vert. More and more, I feel as though the racers have less and less say in these types of fundamental decisions. It’s a damn shame. For what it’s worth, I think that 4-door racecars are the ONLY way to go.
-Vic

#34

A lot of these rule changes and proposals are being handled like SCCA would.

#35

Thank you for your input.

:evil:

#36

Lololol

#37

Actually not. SCCA board members are volunteers all racers or with racing experience. SCCA is NOT for profit. From my perspective, Improved Touring, changes are made that benefit the series in general. Rules changes are generally effective the beginning of the next year so you have good time to comply. Car classification and weights are run through a process that is widely known and transparent, and mistakes are handled promptly.

#38

You must have had a better experience than the rest of us. Most people don’t pay much attention to IT. It isn’t a national class. Then again, it could be now. I haven’t paid a lick of attention to SCCA since I stopped racing with them back in 2006.

And Chuck, your car is competitive as classified. Thank you for your input.

#39

Yes, I have had, since 2003, a better experience with SCCA than NASA. I ran GTS1/2 for a couple of years until my car was legislated noncompetitive. I won a lot of races. Over the years, SCCA has gone to extremes to make IT a competitive group of dislike cars each with it own strengths and weaknesses. IT is now a direct crossover to ST if you want to go nationals racing. I plan to run STL at the Majors (Road Atlanta, March) with a reasonably competitive car.

Each group has its strengths/weaknesses. I prefer to use my engineering and fabrication skills so I run SCCA, whereas others prefer the spec classes that do not allow much variation. YRMV

#40

The nice thing about the SCCA is that they usually propose changes, and have an easy way for members to provide feedback on those changes. If the proposal isn’t popular, then it’s scrapped or modified.