SD-Jacks

This thread was started as a search for new class for Sevens. A new class would have rules and likely conflicts. A remedy will be needed to resolve conflicts. The SCCA has set up rules in an attempt to create a level playing field. Unfortunately, no ‘scruttineering’ is done (as it is in SCCA Club Racing), and the only challenges allowed are through protests. Competitors will differ in their personal interpretation of the rules. Because protest is the only enforcement tool SCCA offers, the D-Mod rules have been contested several times. A few years ago, Del Long protested a fellow D-Mod competitor. That competitor was disqualified and the next year returned with corrective changes—and has run uncontested since then. This protest, although, clarifying one point, left other areas of prep unanswered. Differences of opinioin, will naturally occur, and as long as SCCA only offers a “protest” as the remedy to rule interpretation, it takes on an element of being personal. The impound and mandatory scrutiny that occurs in SCCA Club Racing..to confirm rule compliance, engine displacement, etc would be less contentious,less personal, more equitable, and likely to encourage compliance.

Reply to Locostv8...sorry to spoil your "if you can't beat them..."theory... I had beaten the car in the Mid Div in August.....the protest was made during the Nationals...day #1 in Sept....prior to 2nd day ...as required by the rules...(6 line item rule infractions..that IMHO were out of compliance..). IT MAYBE NOTEWORTHY; I OFFERED THE DRIVER OF THE PROTESTED CAR THE USE OF MY CAR PRIOR TO THE DECISION OF THE PROTEST COMM., SO IN THE EVENT HIS CAR HE WAS DRIVING WAS DISQUALIFIED,,HE WOULDN'T MISS THE CHANCE TO WIN THE EVENT.(this driver could beat me with a shopping cart). sorry it wasn't about winning,,but about the rules of the class and how much you can push the envelope you are right the protest is with SCCA...the D-Mod class had protested the rule changes in 2005 and 2006...the real complaint lies with lack of enforcement at National events...short of weighing the car...no other rules are checked....ie displacement,,compliance with safety ie driveshaft hoops..shut off switches..etc...so the only way to address any of the issues is unfortunately by a protest..the class has solicited SEB (solo events board)at SCCA.....I think it will take a bigger contingent of Sevens writing in to SEB to effect any change... this sound like a fun group...hopefully can figure a way to make Tail of the Dragon...work....would be fun to run with this large a group of Sevens...Lee

Didn't answer Lococtv8's aerodynamic question....I'm not an aerodynamic expert...so I had previously asked one,,,PhD. Mech Engineering,Aeordynamics..he uses the same Fluent software the big dogs like Ferrari racing use....two of the six protests on the car above.. were the scuttle ( which was raised 2 inch )taller than the 'factory'Locost scuttle...engine bay sealed,,radiator moved to the side..exit ports to create a 'tunnel' and the 2nd was the hood (acting as a spoiler) using the increased angle of attack of the hood...these two combined give only 25#s of downforce at 30mph..but double every 15mph..so at 60mph you get almost 100# of aero (not mech) downforce..so yes it is worth the effort...when you look at the fenders and nosecone air management on the new CSR Caterham...they claim alomost 100#s of downforce..the portion on the wheels is really 'sweet' is this all unsprung when you watch the SCCA SM classes with the bigger rear wings..you really can see the benefit of aerodyanamic aids...even at relatively slow autocross speeds, check out the times of SM SM1,,SM2,,these guys are hard...at least for me to catch....Lee

Good morning...thanks to one of your founders for an invite to this group.. I'm the 'nerd' who protested the above car: 1)I've run against this car many times..with the car in many 'dresses' 2) I was fortunate to the beat the car at Midwest Div. Heartland Park, Topeka in August 2006 the protest at Nationals was based on the 2006 Solo rules....the protest dealt mainly with changing the car for aeordynamic purposes...(the protest is long and this is probably not the format to post it..however, if you want it..send your e-mail address to and I'll send a zip file to you)--it will give you some insight to a protest..and an outcome that leaves no one happy My major concern with SCCA, has been the lack of a competive class to run a: Lotus7/7A, Caterham,,etc in, unless, you are willing to cut up the frame,,move the motor to the right,,add aerodynamic aids ,,etc.. There are a large number of particularly Seven owners..who treat their car as a person(child) and are unwilling to cut them up to compete. In my opinion, it is the reason that more 7's are not seen at National events.. a 2nd area has been the yearly changes in the rules for D-Mod..the most recent have required adding wt to make the car weigh 1420#s..with driver for 2.0l car...this has resulted in competitors who have had to add almost 300#s to a 950+/Caterham/Zetec...to make the class wt 1420's It would be great if there were SCCA, classes..that would allow original 7's ie motors sorry for the long post... Lee Mabee (1994 Caterham 1700cc and 2001 Superlight R) both in need of a better driver...