Dear SEB
With regards to the M-3 move to BSP or ASP its been tabled by the SEB with
no recommendation for 2001! We are not trying to "protect" certain types
of cars in ESP. Its called "keeping the class alive". ESP lost several
pony cars to SM at Nationals and several just didn't participate. I spoke
to 5 or 6 drivers of FS cars who wanted to move up to ESP but did not want
to compete in ESP against a car that should be in BSP or ASP. A petition
was signed on the grid at Nationals by most of the ESP competitors who felt
the M-3 was not in the proper class. Letters have been sent by most of the
competitive ESP drivers in the country to the SEB, all year long. Many of
these letter have contained pages of statistics and technical information
What does "lacking firm technical foundation" mean?
I do have one other question. What was the "firm technical foundation" for
moving the M-3 from CSP? Maybe this will give us an idea what you looking
for. I hope it wasn't because the M-3 was loosing, or because the M-3 was
to big or heavy to be competitive in CSP. If that was the case its time to
move all the pony cars out of ESP and into a separate class as you
basically have with FS. Prior to moving the M-3 to ESP last year maybe a
test with Hoosier tires would have been in order. Once the M-3 was shod
with Hoosiers Vs the BFG's it sure was a lot fast. As most of us know, the
BFG's were not competitive in 1999. The "firm technical foundation" for
this, I would think, would have been the National results.
In final closing, I was told by Howard Duncan at the beginning of this year
that one reason the M-3 was moved to ESP was because the M-3 drivers
thought it was a "good idea" and since the ESP existing drivers weren't
heard from it was "ASSUMED" we didn't care. The communication to the
drivers on this issue last year was POOR at best. The SEB has had plenty
of driver feed back this year.
Please review all the information you have received. Look at last years
results (in particular review how many times the M-3 would have won the BSP
class and in some cases the CSP or ASP class), Consider the effect on the
class ( ESP was one of the few classes at Nationals that was smaller,
despite a 20% increase in Nationals participation.) Please review all the
information and tell the us the M-3 is going to stay in ESP or move it.
After a year of debate we deserve more than four lines at the end of Item
10 in the SEPT 26th minutes which addresses "CLUTCH ASSEMBLIES"!
The current BSP cars are much more in line with the M-3 than the majority
of the ESP cars. I feel last year you made a poor discussion in moving the
M-3 to ESP. Lets not let it stand another year. I don't want to see a 20%
to 40% reduction of the class at Pro Solo, National Tour and Nationals.
Thank you, Steve Eguina #86 ESP
From: Brian Berryhill <brianberryhill@flashmail.com>
> To: Autox <autox@autox.team.net>
> Subject: Re: ?!?What does this mean?!?!?
> Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 8:23 PM
>
> "Change the first part of 14.10.L to read "Any metal clutch assembly,
metal
> flywheel, or metal torque converter that uses the standard attachment to
the
> crankshaft may be used. Non-metallic friction surfaces (e.g. clutch
disks)
> are permitted." Comment: the intent of this change is to prohibit
> non-metallic (e.g. carbon fiber) clutch assemblies in the Street Prepared
> category."
>
> Does this mean that Aluminum flywheels are legal in SP? Since
technically,
> an Al flywheel isn't "lightened" it is usually lighter than its steel
> counterpart.
>
> "The proposal pertaining to pulleys has been dropped. Comment: the
current
> wording permits any material including plastic, and this is seen as more
> realistic with the emergence of plastic as a common material for both OEM
> and replacement pulleys."
>
> Hmm.. tupperware pulleys!
>
> "Proposals to move the BMW M3 from ESP to BSP or ASP have been tabled at
> this time, and no action is recommended for 2001. Comment: The SEB
currently
> views these proposals as lacking firm technical foundation, and as being
> primarily based upon perceptions that certain types of cars in ESP should
be
> "protected"."
>
> Sounds good I guess...
>
>
>
> > The Quote was directly off of the SCCA website....
> > http://www.scca.org/news/tech/seb/9-26-00.html
> >
> >
>
|