Author Topic: WCMA Road Race Classing Review  (Read 58359 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

October 08, 2014, 09:05:54 AM
Reply #120

Spec Volcanic

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 129
  • Karma: +0/-0
The adoption of NASA rules does carry with it the possibility of losing cars due to the nature of the classification. If we did not have CC class, which I believe will stay regardless, my old RX-7 would be hopelessly out-classed where it would fit, without extensive and allowable upgrades. The problem is that the upgrades would cost a lot more money than I am prepared to spend, so, as I couldn't afford a different car, I'd just be out of luck and probably off the track. It is highly unlikely that I would de-tune the car to go slower.

Brooke,
This is an interesting point, and I'll start with I expect CC to be around for a few more year but let's pretend it is gone tomorrow.

Today in the WCMA structure "Your old RX7" would be hopelessly out classed in against STU (a CC is not IT legal), against Domo's 2.4L Honda, and and SM that would like to run there for double points.

In NASA you would be near the front of Performance Touring (PT) E with My mean green sentra, IT3 civics, etc and would could do some improvements or with a change of tires and maybe a little extra weight you might be able to be in PTF.

I have not seen any empirical evidence to show it is in fact the tuners that are our source of new cars. Lots of guys in other disciplines want to stay where they are, and do not see road racing as an automatic upgrade in their motorsport careers.

True there are a lot of autocrosser's and time attacker's that love autocross/Time attack and are not interested in doing road racing, but there are are also a lot that are interested in roadracing. Many do not see a path from one to the other, and see the move to racing is starting over in a new sport. A clear path and progress would help that.

For empirical evidences below is a list of guys would started in Solo (most Slalom and then TA, but some just one or the other) and are now racing
Me - Gary Roberts
Chris Semanciw
Anthony Lo (yes that is all the drivers from the LA1K winning team... All crew were from solo too)
Gerard Tobin
Doug Campbell
Bob Veroba (4 of the time 5 in SM)
Kent Seymour
Simon Kong
Brando Choy

5 on this list have had a Race lic 3 years or less and is about 1/3 rd of the new drivers.
4 or five on this list choose to start racing in Chumpcar, because the classing / rules / value made more sense then the WCMA.

I also I think the following started in Solo or lapping
Zac Burke
Martin Reid
Andrew Moschuk
Sean Lin
Peter Lawrence
Gary Lohues

October 08, 2014, 12:24:21 PM
Reply #121

Tachyon

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 142
  • Karma: +1/-0
Solo -

Add Gary Leadbetter, Rick Coutts, Shawn Bishop, Gary Lohues and Brian Sinfield  and we were all in the same solo classification in the 1982, 1983 , 1984, 1985  and we all went road racing when Race City opened. Rick and I had been in schools, competitions  and involved in motorsports before that, however Solo to Road racing is a very nice and easy step.

Access from autocross to road racing & back to autocross events use to be a very easy transitions.  Today, with the right class structures this back and forth should continue and be even easier with the new modern cars with incredible brakes, stiffer unibody construction, suspensions and of course the incredible advancements in tire technology. 
Let's make these "potential" new rules work for today and well into the future. Let's move forward.

October 08, 2014, 02:59:50 PM
Reply #122

ChrisS

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 231
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Alberta Spec Miata Championship Coordinator
I wonder if 'tuner' isn't really the right word in this context...

To me, there are really two ways people get in to racing:
1. They want to get into racing, so they look at what is the popular class.  Then they go buy/build one of those.
2. They have a car they enjoy, and want to race it (or just want to build a ____ race car).  I think this is what the 'tuner' category is trying to express.

I think it's important that any rule set finds a clear home for both groups.

Chris
Spec Miata #13

October 08, 2014, 04:34:58 PM
Reply #123

giantkiller

  • **
  • Information Offline
  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 50
  • Karma: +1/-0
I wonder if 'tuner' isn't really the right word in this context...

To me, there are really two ways people get in to racing:
1. They want to get into racing, so they look at what is the popular class.  Then they go buy/build one of those.
2. They have a car they enjoy, and want to race it (or just want to build a ____ race car).  I think this is what the 'tuner' category is trying to express.

I think it's important that any rule set finds a clear home for both groups.

Chris

I think this is a great discussion and it shows there are a lot of passionate people who are interested in making the experience better.

There are no shortage of racers (or racecars) in the region just a shortage of racers who choose to race here. I cant remember the last time I was at an ICSCC, SCCA, NASA or BMWCCA event where I didn't run into someone from AB who I didn't know prior. Many factors contribute to this but in the end I think building a framework of rules (I think NASA does a good job) that allows consistency, fairness and mobility of classing is a good start.

Without that framework which allows for a competitive reduction in classes you will always have people that prefer to take their limited racing time and budget elsewhere, either because of a lack of clarity, competitiveness or just sheer numbers.

Good luck at the AGM and I will monitor this thread for the results. I will be in the US stretching the racing season.

Anthony

October 09, 2014, 07:45:44 AM
Reply #124

jcm0791

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: +0/-0
I am certainly not saying that a rules system change would be bad.  I motorsports, it is very easy to look very critically at how rules changes will effect ones own car and not have a firm grasp on the problems faced by other competitors ... Or the full benefits.

As in life, everyone has a agenda.  One must always consider how actions will affect the one ... Nobody else is in a position to see that perspective as clearly.

I agree that tuner friendly rules will not open a flood gate of new racers.  I believe it is important to see the potential market for what it is ... One of few outlets for car enthusiasts that exists anymore.  One that society as a whole could benefit from their finding a legal place to race (thinking street racers here) or simply a place where people are conditioned to spend money modifying their cars.  They are certainly not all going to drink the Koolaid and come road racing ... Not any more than we are going to jump ship and go drag racing, or vice versa ... I don't have all the answers, I only have my perspective.  This is what the AGM is about, bring prospectives together.

I believe that the ST (U and O) classes have great potential to attract the 'tuner' type cars.  It is not without flaws, no system is.  I believe that the ST rules are too restrictive in some ways and not restrictive enough I others.  Primarily, the trouble is that as rules adapted from the SCCA rules 3 classes are trying to force cars into 2 classes.  This ; the penalties for some mods are too high while others are too low.). The 'production weight + 180 is a good idea, but ultimately creates instability.  Why would I prepare a car for a class where it is written in the rules that if I am too fast I will be penalized.

I like the idea of greater variety of cars, but am always opposed to more classes than competitors.  Any comparison of the number of classes from one rules system to another must go beyond comparing the number of available classes in each system.  Rather, we need to compare the number of utilized classes vs. the number that will be utilized under a new system. Example: We can't really count GT4 and 5, right now there are no cars in either and most modern cars won't fit there anyway.  The SCCA addressed this by combining GT4 and 5 into GTL ... It may be a matter of eliminating classes that are unsubscribed at present thereby preventing cars from being built.  Toes will be stepped on no matter what changes are made ... I don't know how to avoid that.


October 09, 2014, 07:59:59 AM
Reply #125

jcm0791

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: +0/-0
Brooke:

A first gen RX7 could be made to work well in STU.  The rules used to allow (not sure if they changed) cars outside of the MY 1985 rule if they were specifically built for ST ... Why else would there be so many carburetor rules?

Anyway,  the live axle rules are such that a great many changes could easily be made to fix the problems with an early RX7 (high roll center, short swing arm in sideview, limited travel) and the engine swap rules are such that a later fuel injected, street ported engine could be installed.  The early cars are the only ones that truly can make the weight allowed in STU (1962 + 180) for 13b's. ... That or a first gen Miata with 13b ... The only trouble you may face is getting enough tire under the car.

October 09, 2014, 12:24:19 PM
Reply #126

10cc

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • WCMA Affiliate Executive
  • Posts: 136
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • ARCA Race Director
I believe the main concern in all of this is car counts, and how to improve them. Rule changes may do that, maybe not. We have lots of cars and drivers in Alberta, but many that we never see. Some we haven't seen for years, some we haven't seen recently. Part of the problem is that we have local racers who have for some reason decided not to race here. If you don't race here, you are part of the car count problem. Why not race here?

Is it the rules? Those of us who choose to race here and support the local racing community do so under the current rules. We have found classes for our cars, and prepared them to those rules. The rules may be an issue, but many of the cars that do not race here any longer still fit into our current rule structure. These rules may be an issue for new racers, people who want to build cars that do not fit into our classes, and change here could prove to be an attraction. New rules would also maybe bring some of the other racers back.

Is it the track? Many people have told me they won't race at our current facility because of safety concerns, because of track layout, because of parking / paddock space etc. Well, all of these are concerns that we have been dealing with at this new facility, but let's remember, it is a NEW facility, and it takes time to work out the bugs. Again, those of us who raced here all summer long found that everything gradually improved over the season. Walls have been moved. Runoffs have been increased. Parking / paddock space is being addressed over the winter. Curbing is being laid. In order for the track to improve, we need competitors to sign up, so if people don't support the local facility, it will be unable to afford the sort of improvements we all want. Catch 22. You don't like it the way it is, so you don't come, and if you don't come, it can't be improved from the way it is.

Is it the type of races? Lots of drivers have decided that they prefer the Chumpcar style of racing, long endurance races with multiple drivers over the shorter sprint style races that we currently have here. If that is the issue, those concerns should be presented to the organizing clubs to see if we can change the mix. We did have a good endurance race this summer, and I was a little disappointed in the car count, so maybe type of race isn't an issue after all.

Is it where we live? Many of the comments I hear from racers who travel to the USA rather than race here is that these other tracks have more people, are nicer tracks etc. I am just winging it here, but population base is likely a factor in our area. Many of the tracks folks go to in the USA are closer to larger populations, hence a bigger pool of potential racers. As to the tracks being "nicer", well, as I mentioned, that is being worked on.

So....where are we? why are we here? and how do we move to over there?..wherever that is. We need to dig deeply enough into all of the issues to determine our future. There is little doubt in my mind that the rules need to be overhauled. Whether we scratch our existing structure outright and import a rule set from elsewhere, or we look at what we have, and bring it into the 21st century is a discussion we will certainly have at the AGM. I believe the car count issues are deeper than simply rule changes.

So much for that.

Now, as to making my CC car into an STU, well, sure it is possible, but again, mucho $$$ to do that. I have thought about it a lot, and have figured out what I would need to do, and it is extensive, much the same as with the NASA rule set. I need to go over the NASA rules again, but looking at all the stuff on my car currently, I would need to do a lot to be competitive in PTE with 325is BMW's, Mustangs etc. We'll play in CC for a while longer, but the class won't last forever. As far as that goes, either will I... ;D
G. Brooke Carter
#10 ST5
ARCA Race Director

October 09, 2014, 05:37:10 PM
Reply #127

GTcalgary

  • Guest
SCCA Runoffs Car Count October 2014: http://www.motorsportreg.com/index.cfm/event/event.status/uidEvent/D565C2B0-9AD3-935D-9D429ADE171FC6C1#.VDcppvmCN8F

"There are 523 entries for the race, a majority of them West Coast entries, split among 27 classes. Here’s the full entry list link.

Spec Miata leads the way with 46 entries, followed closely by Spec Racer Ford with 45. Several classes (Formula Enterprises, Formula 500, B-Spec and STU) have only 11, one over the 10 minimum required for a National Championship race to be held.

A live multimedia experience will take place with video, live timing and more, via SCCA.com/SCCALive. More information is linked here.

Live broadcast will be done through SpeedCastTV, with veteran motorsports broadcasters Rick Benjamin and Greg Creamer joined by SCCA Champion Randy Pobst and Pirelli World Challenge broadcaster Jeff Lepper for the on-air call. Heyward Wagner will man pit lane throughout the weekend. Information can be found at SCCA.com/Runoffs."


October 10, 2014, 07:12:56 AM
Reply #128

84TurboSupra

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
For WSCC, It looks potentially like this:
 
1) IT3 will split into 2 (possibly 3) classes: PTF, PTE and PTD
2) STU will split into 2 Classes: PTD and PTC
3) STO will split into 3 Classes: PTC, PTB and ST3

 
So, it would seem that the solid 3 classes we have now would split into 6 smaller classes. The point made "too many classes" is completely the opposite for us. This change would increase within WSCC and this is not practical for WSCC.
 
Aside from this, these are the issues I see with this classing system from polling some random cars from our own group...
 
1) As IT3 gets split up, is there enough cars in that former class that fit into NASA H4 or H2 instead to ask for a special spec class and ditch PTx? If so, where does the remaining ITx/PTx cars fit? or do they run a class of single competitor? <-- results in more classes
 
2) PT/ST/SU strongly encourages that cars be dyno'd to prove their power to weight ratio and to ensure they fit into the correct class...
     i) Dyno time isnt cheap
     ii) Limited Availability - There are only a couple dyno's in the city and I know of only one that is willing to do imports, "Dyno days" rare
     iii) None are AWD capable and it's unacceptable to ask a member to send their car on a journey to Calgary or Minneapolis.
     iv) Many of our racers are not from Winnipeg and would be required to make special trip(s) to get their race car Dyno'd
 
3) Ultimately, WSCC does not have enough steady racers (currently 22) to expand beyond our current classing system and no barrage of new racers will come to fill the gap.
 
4) As far as classing not matching neighboring regions, I would say that the few that have gone elsewhere (Brainerd for example) find somewhere to fit; and if someone were to come to GMP, we would find somewhere for the visitor racer to fit as well. Having a NASA classing system, in my opinion, does not increase the appeal for out-of-towners to drive long distances to come to GMP.

5) Singling out PTE...several of our cars fit into the bottom of this class by mod points. There is much room for advancement within the class with available points. This opens the door to a money race and encourages the larger disparity between cars of same class...opposite of the intent of the change and opposite to the rule set observed by our current IT class competitors.

Someone had mentioned in one post that a reason could be the way the rules are currently written for newcomers to build their car accordingly. I agree with this as I struggled when I built my first car and found myself in a class that wasn't what I intended. I got over it and am successful in the class I currently reside so no harm no foul.

Change is good if its for the better however WSCC's expected classing result makes it look to us like this is change for the sake of change. It will disrupt our current classing and split everybody up who would otherwise have close competition with each other!

The majority of our racers (in fact I would say all) are opposed to this plan and would like to continue as we are.

Darin W.
Winnipeg Sports Car Club President
« Last Edit: October 10, 2014, 07:18:27 AM by 84TurboSupra »

October 10, 2014, 07:54:32 AM
Reply #129

Spec Volcanic

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 129
  • Karma: +0/-0
For WSCC, It looks potentially like this:
 
1) IT3 will split into 2 (possibly 3) classes: PTF, PTE and PTD
2) STU will split into 2 Classes: PTD and PTC
3) STO will split into 3 Classes: PTC, PTB and ST3

 
So, it would seem that the solid 3 classes we have now would split into 6 smaller classes. The point made "too many classes" is completely the opposite for us. This change would increase within WSCC and this is not practical for WSCC.
 
Aside from this, these are the issues I see with this classing system from polling some random cars from our own group...
 
1) As IT3 gets split up, is there enough cars in that former class that fit into NASA H4 or H2 instead to ask for a special spec class and ditch PTx? If so, where does the remaining ITx/PTx cars fit? or do they run a class of single competitor? <-- results in more classes
 
2) PT/ST/SU strongly encourages that cars be dyno'd to prove their power to weight ratio and to ensure they fit into the correct class...
     i) Dyno time isnt cheap
     ii) Limited Availability - There are only a couple dyno's in the city and I know of only one that is willing to do imports, "Dyno days" rare
     iii) None are AWD capable and it's unacceptable to ask a member to send their car on a journey to Calgary or Minneapolis.
     iv) Many of our racers are not from Winnipeg and would be required to make special trip(s) to get their race car Dyno'd
 
3) Ultimately, WSCC does not have enough steady racers (currently 22) to expand beyond our current classing system and no barrage of new racers will come to fill the gap.
 
4) As far as classing not matching neighboring regions, I would say that the few that have gone elsewhere (Brainerd for example) find somewhere to fit; and if someone were to come to GMP, we would find somewhere for the visitor racer to fit as well. Having a NASA classing system, in my opinion, does not increase the appeal for out-of-towners to drive long distances to come to GMP.

5) Singling out PTE...several of our cars fit into the bottom of this class by mod points. There is much room for advancement within the class with available points. This opens the door to a money race and encourages the larger disparity between cars of same class...opposite of the intent of the change and opposite to the rule set observed by our current IT class competitors.

Someone had mentioned in one post that a reason could be the way the rules are currently written for newcomers to build their car accordingly. I agree with this as I struggled when I built my first car and found myself in a class that wasn't what I intended. I got over it and am successful in the class I currently reside so no harm no foul.

Change is good if its for the better however WSCC's expected classing result makes it look to us like this is change for the sake of change. It will disrupt our current classing and split everybody up who would otherwise have close competition with each other!

The majority of our racers (in fact I would say all) are opposed to this plan and would like to continue as we are.

Darin W.
Winnipeg Sports Car Club President

I have started to add more info on your forum, some which I tried to add at the time but was unable to do to security settings,  so I added it to the WSCC facebook page but someone removed the info from there.

I think a big issue is there a lot of miss information in Winnipeg.

October 10, 2014, 09:12:57 AM
Reply #130

Spec Volcanic

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 129
  • Karma: +0/-0
Fresh off the Presses... the pre-agm package

[attachment deleted by admin]

October 10, 2014, 09:13:15 AM
Reply #131

Spec Volcanic

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 129
  • Karma: +0/-0
WMCA Road Racing Classing Review – Pre-AGM Package.
Authors: Doug Campbell and Gary Roberts
Please review prior to the AGM.
Contents
Definitions (Page 1)
Summary of Competitor Feedback (Page 2 + 3)
Overview (Page 2)
Comments on Rationale (Page 2)
Comments on Mandate (Page 2)
Comments on Criteria (Page 2)
Comments on Summary (Page 2)
Comments on Conclusions (Page 3)
Comments on Recommendations (Page 3)
Proposal for presentation and review at the AGM (Page 4 + 5)
Tech Committee Recommendation (Page 4 + 5)
Part 1.a “Core Classing Structure” (Page 4)
Part 1.b “Stability Period” (Page 4)
Part 2. “Additional Classes” (Page 4)
Part 2.a “Adding an Additional Class(es)” (Page 4 + 5)
Part 2.b “Retiring an Additional Class(es)” (Page 5)
Authors’ Contact Info ( Page 5)
Definitions
GT – Grand Touring
IT – Improved Touring
NASA - National Auto Sport Association, a for profit American motorsports organization not affiliated with ACCUS nor the FIA
PT – Performance Touring
ST (NASA) – Super Touring
ST (WCMA) – Sport Touring
WCMA – Western Canadian Motorsport Association

Summary of Competitor Feedback for a Tech committee review.
Overview
Feedback regarding the “WMCA Road Racing Classing Review – Preliminary Report” was received via E-mail, Web forums (ie WCMA, Straightpipe), in person at WCMA events and WMCA Member club meetings (CSCC and NASCC). Despite request for formal feedback in the form of an email, many limited their comments to conversation (whether in person at meetings or events or via web forum), for that reason some of the summary may seem/be anecdotal.
Comments on Rationale
Most competitors seem to largely agree with the rationale, while some took issue with one point or another. The vast majority clearly agree that a review is appropriate and needed. Some pointed out that no matter what rules are used, there will always be disparity between some cars in the same class and the rule set was unlikely the main reason we have minimal visitors from, or competitors traveling to, other areas (excluding ChumpCar). Only 3 competitors thought the rules worked as is.
Comments on Mandate
There was one only comment on the mandate, which came from several competitors in a variety of ways, but largely in the form of questions. “How will we add new classes in the future, like was done recently with Spec Miata, or could be done with American Iron? And how/when do we remove classes when their attendance drops, or is zero, like GT4 and 5, or one day will happen to Challenge Car”
Comments on Criteria
The majority of the criteria was widely accepted. However there was one item that was conflict-ridden “Must align with areas that members could visit, or other racers could visit from”. Many felt that we could have our own unique rule set. About 40% of competitors providing feedback felt changes to our current rules were the best options, however there was very little consistency in what the changes should be.
There was one item that was missed and that should be added based on the feedback “Must be conducive to growing motorsports in the WCMA”
Comments on Summary
In regards to the commentary on the CASC-OR – GT (lap time based classes) one competitor at the NASCC felt that it was unfair to describe it as “not it the spirit of racing in the WCMA”, as it had worked well for the annual “GT money Race”. However all in the room (except this competitor) agreed this would not be the correct approach for the WCMA.

Comments on Conclusions
There was very little feedback suggesting that a different region or body offered a better solution than NASA ST and PT or that any of individual the conclusions “Preliminary Report” were wrong. There was some feedback that there may be some concerns in the form of dyno time and the related cost.
Some concerns raised that were not in conclusions:
1)   PT‘s Preparation Points system - How do we know what is being claimed as preparation points?
a.   Solution offered: PT classing form must be filled out and kept in Vehicle logbook.
2)   Measuring an HP rating at the track… no mobile dyno
a.   Solution offered: Traqmates could be used for compliance (Used in Regional events in NASA)
3)   PT’s Point system – Is somewhat complicated and points could be hard to calculate
a.   NASA has a spreadsheet to make this very easy
4)   PT’s Dyno Reclassing – PT’s cars are not dyno reclassed solely on HP to Weight, NASA does not publish how they reclass and we may not reclass the cars the same as NASA
a.   No solution at this time,
i.   Trial and error.
ii.   Approach NASA for formula
Some other points of support raised that were not in conclusions:
1)   Ease of Changing classes in the NASA system
a.   There are a series of smaller steps and by adding or removing single parts or weight, competitors are able to easily move up or down a class where there may be more competitors
Comments on Recommendations 
The comments on the final recommendations were varied but there are a few items that are not included in the recommendations and should be adopted, whether or not the classing rules are changed.
1)   Guide lines for the addition of classes
2)   Guide lines for the retirement of classes
3)   A commitment to rules stability for a specified period of time

There were many suggestions on how to modify our current rules set, but which were different, with a majority looking to include some sort of power to weight calculation, as a major change from our current formula. With comments online and via email, about 2 in 3 responses were in support of adopting the NASA ST and PT rules, however while attending an NASCC meeting only about 1 in 3 supported the proposal.  This puts competitors who responded formally or informally at about 50/50, it is important to note that not all of the 50% opposed to NASA are set against the idea. Many are open to the proposal but feel the WCMA could come up with something better.

While It would be possible to say that adopting the NASA ST and PT rules was the clear winner with 50% in support and the other 50% spit between a dozen different ideas, and some of that 50 % willing to accept the NASA rules, that would not be fair to the idea that the WCMA can come up with something better.
Proposal for presentation and review at the AGM
The follow proposal is the recommendation of the WCMA Tech Committee based on member feedback from original proposal authored by Gary Roberts and Doug Campbell. The WCMA Tech Committee recommends that the competitors adopt the following as presented below:
Tech Committee Recommendation
Part 1.a “Core Classing Structure”
Effective Jan 1st 2016 the WCMA will terminate the following classes, Improved Touring, Sport Touring and Grand Touring classes and replace with NASA’s Performance Touring and Super Tour classes (pending NASA’S permission).
Spec Miata, Challenge Car, IT-J, Open Wheel and Vintage classes and the sporting regulations are not affected by this proposal and will remain the same
This will not in any way affiliate the WCMA with NASA.
If unable to attain permission from NASA to use their classes’ rules, then empower the WCMA Tech Committee create classes in the same format, spirit, structure, and comparable to NASA’s Performance Touring and Super Tour classes, having a power to weight calculation, and preparation points calculation options.
Part 1.b “Stability Period”
This “Core Classing Structure” will be in place for a minimum of 3 years (until at least Dec 31st, 2018), with a comment to review in 2018 for the 2019 season. It is our intent that the rules will remain stable during this period with yearly updates to realign with NASA, however Technical Bulletins or clarifications maybe issued as required.
Part 2. “Additional Classes”
Additional classes are defined any closed wheel class not in the “Core Classing Structure”. The WCMA Tech committee recognizes a need for a structure to add and retire additional classes to the core structure. This additional Classes are often Make, Model, or Country of manufacture specific. 
Part 2.a “Adding an Additional Class(es)”
1)   To have a “new” class added the WCMA you must propose the new class at an AGM. This is done in advance to allow the Tech Committee to monitor participation for the following 2 seasons
2)   In the following season cars will declare themselves to the new class but run in the appropriate PT or ST classes. If the average car count for the new class is 5 or higher (class/event) at any track for the season, or is higher than 10/class at one event, the class will be added the following season (example if there was no Spec Miata, SM cars could run in Performance Touring D as SM’s and be classed and Score in PTD for a season).
3)   Exceptions.
a.    In cases where a member is able to provide compelling evidence that a class will immediately meet the minimum car count (5), or a complete business case for development, the Tech Committee may add the classes at its discretion following the AGM.
b.   In case of additional “Class Structures” (example German Touring Car, Honda Challenge, etc), Tech Committee may its discretion, add all the classes in the structure once any two classes have met the minimum car count.

Part 2.b “Retiring an Additional Class(es)”
If an “Additional Class” fails to maintain an average car count of 4 cars per event (at any one track), the class will be put on probation at the AGM. If the class fails to maintain an average car count of 4 cars per event (at any one track) in the following seasons, the class will be retired. Cars from the retired Class will be able to run in the appropriate Performance Touring and Super Tour classes.
In case of additional “Class Structures”, the whole Structure should generally be retired at once. Tech Committee may at its discretion, retire all the classes at the structure at once if there aren’t two classes meeting the minimum car count.

Authors’ Contact Info.
Thank you for taking the time to review summary and our proposal on behalf of the Tech Committee.
Gary Roberts and Doug Campbell

Gary Roberts
gary.roberts@dnow.com
Doug Campbell
talongeo@shaw.ca


October 10, 2014, 09:36:18 AM
Reply #132

Audi27

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 1
  • Karma: +0/-0
To start, I am one of the Winnipeg competitors who has concerns regarding the adoption of the NASA classing system and don't appreciate our concerns being written off as merely the product of 'misinformation'. We have genuine concerns which merit the appropriate consideration and response of the WCMA.

I'm currently running in STO and based on the NASA classing system I will be running ST should these rules be adopted. As ST is organized on the basis of minimum adjusted power to weight ratios, the existing NASA rules REQUIRE that my car be dyno tested to be properly classed.

As my car is AWD, this means I need to travel between 800 - 1200 kms to either Minneapolis or Calgary to have my car dyno tested just to be classed, and potentially after every modification I make to the power train.

That will very quickly become cost prohibitive, which is one of the criteria that the WCMA says would disqualify the adoption of the NASA rules. A potential compromise has been suggested, where the use of traqmate can be substituted for an actual dyno graph, but I would like to be assured that if that is the proposed compromise that there be a commitment for at least the next three years (the expected duration of the NASA rules freeze) guaranteeing that won't be rescinded.

As one of two new WSCC competitors in STO this year, who have invested a significant amount of money in building our cars, the introduction of these rules, at least at first blush, seems to be having exactly the opposite of it's desired effect.

We're exactly the people you're trying to attract to the sport, but this NASA proposal may make it impractical for me to come back next year.

October 10, 2014, 09:53:07 AM
Reply #133

Spec Volcanic

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 129
  • Karma: +0/-0
To start, I am one of the Winnipeg competitors who has concerns regarding the adoption of the NASA classing system and don't appreciate our concerns being written off as merely the product of 'misinformation'. We have genuine concerns which merit the appropriate consideration and response of the WCMA.

Your concerns are not being written off as misinformation but more the have the considers raised on the WSCC Forum are in fact untrue... EI saying the Seat regs are going to change.

I'm currently running in STO and based on the NASA classing system I will be running ST should these rules be adopted. As ST is organized on the basis of minimum adjusted power to weight ratios, the existing NASA rules REQUIRE that my car be dyno tested to be properly classed.

As my car is AWD, this means I need to travel between 800 - 1200 kms to either Minneapolis or Calgary to have my car dyno tested just to be classed, and potentially after every modification I make to the power train.

I has clear PT does not require a dyno for OEM engine cars, Yes ST requires a Lb-HP calculation.

That will very quickly become cost prohibitive, which is one of the criteria that the WCMA says would disqualify the adoption of the NASA rules. A potential compromise has been suggested, where the use of traqmate can be substituted for an actual dyno graph, but I would like to be assured that if that is the proposed compromise that there be a commitment for at least the next three years (the expected duration of the NASA rules freeze) guaranteeing that won't be rescinded.

Details regarding the use of a traqmate and how to use it's results vs. a dyno for HP validation or classing would need to be finalized but yes anything done would be for the length of the freeze

As one of two new WSCC competitors in STO this year, who have invested a significant amount of money in building our cars, the introduction of these rules, at least at first blush, seems to be having exactly the opposite of it's desired effect.

We're exactly the people you're trying to attract to the sport, but this NASA proposal may make it impractical for me to come back next year.

I'm disappoint that for many in Winnipeg this last weekend was the first they have heard of it, some members of the WSCC knew in February and at least one expect to share the info... attempt's were made to get this to all competitors emails/forums/facebook. It is really ashame that for some it is first blush.

I understand that for your cas there are some issues that need to be addressed and I'm glad you have raise your concerns. we will be sure to address them.

October 10, 2014, 10:29:40 AM
Reply #134

84TurboSupra

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0

 EI saying the Seat regs are going to change.

This was not stated. It was merely a comparison between current and NASA SM regs...


Darin W.
Winnipeg Sports Car Club President