Adolf Hates R-Comps

oldsaw wrote:

Raze wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Age means nothing when attitude and committment are in play.

Um, age usually means more $$$, and given the competition, many 'aged' drivers have competitive attitudes and committments if not moreso than the younger drivers. I'd be curious to see some statistics regarding comptetitve driver's ages and income...

Let me clarify the point. If a "young" driver decides that he/she wants to excel to a higher level, their attitude and committment to achieve that goal determines their success. The majority of national-level competitors are "aged" but an awful lot of them run on shoe-string budgets. Raw talent will only take someone so far, even if money is not an issue. It's experience, attitude and committment that pay the real dividends.

Yes, but how many 'aged' national level competitors learned from experience/contacts how to run on a shoe string budget? I'm just sayin, money and or time are equalizers, the best usually have both on their side...

Ian F wrote: Again, we are forgetting what the conditions were when the rules were written. FSB's and shocks are allowed "stock" upgrades because "back in the day" most new cars were practically undrivable in auto-x. Having driven our '73 Volvo 1800ES with the OE FSB and then with an IPD FSB upgrade (which were available when the car was new), the difference in handling is dramatic. What was once literally scary is transformed. Modern cars are much more capable off the showroom floor. This is obvious... but what would you do? Change the rules so that a guy who has been running the same car for 30 years in his local events and doesn't give a hoot about nationals (more common that you would think) is now bumped into a class where his car is hopelessly outclassed?

You're not listening. I have no problem with your updated shocks and sway bar, because they approximate what's commonly available in other stock cars. Heck, if you're competitive in a 1800es, I take my hat off to you. I just think that tires should be the sort of thing that would be used on the street under normal conditions in stock class.

And it KILLS me to agree with Adolph!

MadScientistMatt wrote:

96DXCivic wrote: Shouldn't the stock class be cars that are driven to the competition and straight on to the coarse without switching tires? I think it should.

I can't be the only one on this board who's done that repeatedly with R-comps...

I'm with you brother. What's 30 extra miles of cruising going to do? Besides, it gives me a chance to wear out the inside shoulders too

moxnix wrote:

kreb wrote: No street car comes with R-comps,

The Lotus Elise Sport comes with the Yokohama ADVAN A048 a 60 Treadwear Track and Competition DOT tire. http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Yokohama&tireModel=ADVAN+A048

This

kreb wrote: You're not listening. I have no problem with your updated shocks and sway bar, because they approximate what's commonly available in other stock cars. Heck, if you're competitive in a 1800es, I take my hat off to you. I just think that tires should be the sort of thing that would be used on the street under normal conditions in stock class.

No, you aren't listening. My point is where do you draw the line? Stock allows any DOT approved tire. Period. There's no law that prohibits driving V710's or A6's on the street. Whether or not you 'should' is up to you... As mentioned, you can buy a Lotus with a 60 rated tire off the showroom floor. What do you do if a manufacturer decides they want to use auto-x as a marketing tool and offers a factory package that includes some super-sticky tire? What about shaved tires - as most serious ST-class drivers have?

Seriously... do some research on how the Solo rules ended up where they are. They've been down this road before and it simply isn't worth the hassle. If local regions want to have ST Stock classes - fine, but on the National level, I don't see such drastic changes the rules being much of a benefit other than decimating Stock class participation at the Nationals. And this is coming from someone who will be running ST tires in Stock this year.

I still don't understand why people have such a hang up about having auto-x specific tires. Then again, I'm one of those types who likes having the proper tool for the task at hand. To me, "grassroots" does not mean "half-assed".

Several points.

A. People keep touting the various ST classes if people want to daily drive their autocross car on street tires. I call B.S. on that. ST allows basically SP level of suspension prep, I call that undrivable on many roads, particularly in SE Michigan. Also a top level ST suspension is many many $$'s which many drivers can't afford even if they want to be serious.

B. R-comps are very very different from what they were even a few years ago. When I was serious about autocross BFG R1's were still hot, Hoosier was only just coming on. A set of tires was no more expensive than a set of street tires and would last well. I'd say R comps of 15 years ago are equal to ST tires today. Hoosier changed the playing field by developing what were/are effectively full race tires made DOT legal.

C. Even the DOT legal but is a very gray area. Over on SpecialStage.com recently there was a thread on tires for the up coming tarmac rally New York http://specialstage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39661&highlight=New+york+Toyo . DOT tires are legal for that so people were thinking R comps. It turns out that many R comps while branded as DOT compliant aren't necessarily Approved by the DOT for highway use. How silly is that? I would say that a Stock class should have fully legal street tires, thus approved by the DOT.

D. 10-15-20 years ago no serious Prepared runners would run 'street tires' (R-comps) The only way to be successful was to run real racing slicks as allowed by the rules. Well these days many top runners DO run R-comps dependant upon the surface, even at Tours and Nationals. That to me shows how sill today's stock class tires have become.

I fully understand how the stock rules evolved, but that's the point, they evolve. I think the next evolution should be either a move to ST tires, or a move to sensible R-comps on an approved list. I doubt that will happen though as companies like Hoosier have made a very successful business model out of exploiting the rules to build race tires branded as street tires and they are very generous to the sport and clubs that have allowed that, the SCCA won't piss of a major contributor.

One more thing while evolving the rules. Front sta bars were allowed as cars of 30+ years ago were almost undrivable understeering pigs as they were predominantly RWD with very little roll resistance and god awful camber curves. It made sense. Well today the bigger issues is getting FWD cars to rotate, so how about a similar allowance for Rear Sta bars. How about one or the other, not both??

I've just had a thought, how has PAX changed over the last 15 years for race tire Vs 'street' tire classes? Without researching it I'd guess that the stock and SP classes have tougher PAX's than then used to as the tires have allowed them to get closer to the Prepared and Mod classes.

I suppose I should clarify that I don't really disagree with the idea of updating Stock class rules into the 21st century. My beef is with the unrealistic proposals being tossed around that don't have a snowball's chance in hell of even being considered, let alone passed. A more staged, systematic and less confrontational approach needs to be tried if the ST-Stock proponents want to be taken seriously. I personally don't really care one way or the other.

In reply to Adrian_Thompson:

Adrian, if you want to "walk-back" the rules for Stock, you have to recruit thousands of competitors who agree with you. But, you will be at odds with thousands of competitors who have taken advantage of the rules as they now stand.

That's likely to be an interesting, but ugly, fight.

oldsaw wrote: In reply to Adrian_Thompson: Adrian, if you want to "walk-back" the rules for Stock, you have to recruit thousands of competitors who agree with you. But, you will be at odds with thousands of competitors who have taken advantage of the rules as they now stand. That's likely to be an interesting, but ugly, fight.

I'm not talking about walking back the rules. I think that R comps have nothing to do with high performance street legal tires. I even think the street legality of most R comps is in question, read the bit about DOT approved. I think we should put better definition around street legal. I'm also proposing a new alowance, front or rear sta bar, not front only.

I don't really care, as I gave up on the SCCA years ago. Just expressing an opinion.

IMO R-comp tires aren't an issue. Anyone who wants to compete at that level can choose to go buy them, and the same brands are available in almost all sizes, so each car can, in theory, run the same tire.

Things like the new Hyundai Genesis R-Spec not being able to use the supplied camber bolts, while other cars have "legal" factory adjustable camber, is a bigger shame of stock class.

Regarding street legality. I'm pretty sure that if I was pulled over with a NEW set of A6's on the car, the car wouldn't move again without the aid of a towtruck.

njansenv wrote: Regarding street legality. I'm pretty sure that if I was pulled over with a NEW set of A6's on the car, the car wouldn't move again without the aid of a towtruck.

Ditto.

I've seen buddies of mine get hassled over RT615s on their hawnduhs. (While i'm sitting behind them on some huge RS2s. Huge for the car, that is.)

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

oldsaw wrote: In reply to Adrian_Thompson: Adrian, if you want to "walk-back" the rules for Stock, you have to recruit thousands of competitors who agree with you. But, you will be at odds with thousands of competitors who have taken advantage of the rules as they now stand. That's likely to be an interesting, but ugly, fight.

I'm not talking about walking back the rules. I think that R comps have nothing to do with high performance street legal tires. I even think the street legality of most R comps is in question, read the bit about DOT approved. I think we should put better definition around street legal. I'm also proposing a new alowance, front or rear sta bar, not front only. I don't really care, as I gave up on the SCCA years ago. Just expressing an opinion.

I read the bit about DOT-approved tires. It's apparent the issue is how the ruling was applied in a rally-only context. What works for rally events doesn't automatically apply to solo events.

Re-defining what is and is not street legal opens up a whole new world of hurt. This was evidenced by the controversy over "approved vs non-approved" catalytic converters for the ST classes.

If a local club wants to ban or restrict R-comps, more power to them. If a SCCA region wants to add a Street Tire class for its' members, more power to them. Imposing this kind of rule-set on a national level is a bit more problematic.

oldsaw wrote: I read the bit about DOT-approved tires. It's apparent the issue is how the ruling was applied in a rally-only context. What works for rally events doesn't automatically apply to solo events.

I don't think it's rally only. It came from a rally context. If it's not approved by the DOT I don't see how it's truly street legal. Take a group of cars with A6's R6's or V710's to your local police station and ask the opinion of the cops who come out if the cars are legal to drive on the street.

oldsaw wrote: Re-defining what is and is not street legal opens up a whole new world of hurt. This was evidenced by the controversy over "approved vs non-approved" catalytic converters for the ST classes.

Agreed, doesn't mean it's right.

oldsaw wrote: If a local club wants to ban or restrict R-comps, more power to them. If a SCCA region wants to add a Street Tire class for its' members, more power to them. Imposing this kind of rule-set on a national level is a bit more problematic.

Most local club's do and that's a good thing.

I really don't belive anything will change, you'd piss of Hoosier and others too much, I just think it should change. I have no dog in this fight though, I don't run SCCA anymore and don't intend to in the future.

When I mentioned history, I wasn't referring to the recent past of how these ideas have been 'articulated' in the past, and then shot down as the response of those already on R-comps is great. Rather, how did we end up with Stock classes approving R-DOT's? (not anecdotal evidence, as the issue of 'aging out' a stock car has provided less than accurate information) When was this allowed? For what reasons? Have those reasons become less compelling while competitors enjoyed liberal definitions of stock? While I completely understand the inability for some 'stock' cars to autox (the volvo story from above), is this a problem with the majority of cars seen at nationals in stock classes?
Remember, locally we can pretty much define what we want for classing to meet the needs of the local region/chapter.

So who's got the real story of why we can use these tires nowadays? (the info about the increasing grip of r-DOT's over time is intriguing, BTW)

Eric G

It may be kinda telling who has and has not R-comps due to the voracity of the posts. ;)

mkiisupra wrote: (not anecdotal evidence, as the issue of 'aging out' a stock car has provided less than accurate information)

Stock class cars do age out for national competition (new rule for 2010) after 30 years. They are still eligible for regional competition

See the 2010 rules. Section 13 second paragraph. http://scca.com/documents/Solo_Rules/2010_Solo_Rules_13-19_final_draft.pdf

Solo Rules said: A car will remain eligible for Divisional, National Tour, and National Championship events through the end of the 30th calendar year after the manufacturer-designated model year of the car. This eligibility limitation applies only to the Stock classes.

They will be adding an "R" to all models in appendix A that are 30 years or older to denote them as regional competition only but it is taking a while to add those.

Ian F wrote:

kreb wrote: To me, stock is something approximating what would come from the factory. No street car comes with R-comps, so they shouldn't be allowed. SCCA has too many classes as it is. You'd think that they'd start with a genuinely "stock" class, and allow Rs on the plethora of modified classes rather than muddying things by allowing a modification as profound as Rs in "stock".

Again, we are forgetting what the conditions were when the rules were written. FSB's and shocks are allowed "stock" upgrades because "back in the day" most new cars were practically undrivable in auto-x. Having driven our '73 Volvo 1800ES with the OE FSB and then with an IPD FSB upgrade (which were available when the car was new), the difference in handling is dramatic. What was once literally scary is transformed. Modern cars are much more capable off the showroom floor. This is obvious... but what would you do? Change the rules so that a guy who has been running the same car for 30 years in his local events and doesn't give a hoot about nationals (more common that you would think) is now bumped into a class where his car is hopelessly outclassed? And while we refer to A6's and V710's as "r-comps" they are DOT approved, street legal tires. Treadwear ratings are a moving target at best... For example, the Dunlop Star Spec (TW 200) has beaten a number of other "softer" tires (TW 140) in comparison tests. So I have little doubt that Hoosier would mildly rework the A6 or R6 into a 140 rated tire. It really isn't as simple as it sounds and the SEB has been down this road before. Are the current rules perfect? No. But for the most part they work and provide a stable platform for competition.

Agreed.

And as to the OP, cost is always going to be an issue, even if you move to ST. Why? Because in order to be competetive, you still (and possibly even moreso) need the hottest new car in class in order to win unless you're REALLY good. So spending $20k to get the hot new autocross car in stock class (or $50k to get a SS car like a Z06) is concievable, but an extra set of wheels with R comps is just too much to go racing with?

When I wanted to be competetive and use R comps, I simply chose a less expensive car to begin with and the costs were more than offset. And when I didn't have R comps, I simply mentally cut 2 seconds off my time to see how I would have done had I had them. I still got to drive fast on a track and have fun. I just missed out on the $2 plastic trophy for 1st place.

Unless your buddies already have the hot car in class and can drive the pis out of it, they probably aren't going to be competetive even with a change to street tires, so using the added cost as a reason to not race is lame, as the lack of R comps would not be the real limiting factor on competetiveness.

In reply to Chris_V:

And I totally disagree with you. The "hot" car is a myth. In 2009 at Nationals:

• AS - 1989 Corvette (1st)
• ASL - 1989 Corvette (1st)
• ES - 1994 Miata (1st)
• ES - 1988 924S (2nd)
• ES - 1984 944 (3rd)
• ESL - 1984 944 (1st & 3rd)
• ESL - 1993 MR2 (2nd)

Spec classes come about because the SCCA rules-writes themselves into a corner. If stock allowed F&R sways, NO trick shocks (OTS non-adjustables only), and was on ST tires there would be so many MORE cars with the "chance" to win. Great things happen when a trend gets bucked (creation of ST, the 240SX win in STS2, 328is win in STX in 09, etc, etc).

Using r-comps on STOCK cars is like slavering salisbury steak in A1.

Chris_V wrote: Unless your buddies already have the hot car in class and can drive the pis out of it, they probably aren't going to be competetive even with a change to street tires, so using the added cost as a reason to not race is lame, as the lack of R comps would not be the real limiting factor on competetiveness.

True, but what you and Oldsaw are assuming is that these people wouldn't be competitive. Or if now the cost of seat time (ie, what it takes to get competitive) has now been slashed.

Instead of having to spend LITERALLY THOUSANDS on tires a year, for test 'n tune's, regional's, dvisional's, Nationals, you could get away with spending much less.

Read some of the stories on SCCA forums about how many events/street miles guys are putting on ST class tires and still remaining competitive.

Then remove the need to have $1000 a corner shocks that have compression valving super stiff to mock the stiffer springs you aren't allowed to replace, and all of a sudden you just made Stock more afforadable and open it up to many new guys, or even veterans that just don't have the money to go out and buy a $25,000 MINI then drop another $5k in suspension that will render it worthless on the street, then add in wheels/tires.

I have no dog in the Stock fight either and likely never will. Just from the outside the rules seem a bit, well, dated.

moxnix wrote:

mkiisupra wrote: (not anecdotal evidence, as the issue of 'aging out' a stock car has provided less than accurate information)

Stock class cars do age out for national competition (new rule for 2010) after 30 years. They are still eligible for regional competition See the 2010 rules. Section 13 second paragraph. http://scca.com/documents/Solo_Rules/2010_Solo_Rules_13-19_final_draft.pdf

Solo Rules said: A car will remain eligible for Divisional, National Tour, and National Championship events through the end of the 30th calendar year after the manufacturer-designated model year of the car. This eligibility limitation applies only to the Stock classes.

They will be adding an "R" to all models in appendix A that are 30 years or older to denote them as regional competition only but it is taking a while to add those.

I 'thought' I saw something in the FastTrack from a few months ago... Interesting. I was busy searching for the STR rules and came across that.

Eric G

Thanks for the rumor-dispelling, you get the snopes award of the day!

P71 wrote: In reply to Chris_V: And I *totally* disagree with you. The "hot" car is a myth. In 2009 at Nationals: * AS - 1989 Corvette (1st) * ASL - 1989 Corvette (1st) * ES - 1994 Miata (1st) * ES - 1988 924S (2nd) * ES - 1984 944 (3rd) * ESL - 1984 944 (1st & 3rd) * ESL - 1993 MR2 (2nd) Spec classes come about *because* the SCCA rules-writes themselves into a corner. If stock allowed F&R sways, NO trick shocks (OTS non-adjustables only), and was on ST tires there would be so many MORE cars with the "chance" to win. Great things happen when a trend gets bucked (creation of ST, the 240SX win in STS2, 328is win in STX in 09, etc, etc). Using r-comps on STOCK cars is like slavering salisbury steak in A1.

that ES 944 in 3rd place? My old buddy Greg Fordahl, a MULTI time national champion who has set up more nationals winning cars than anybody else I know, as well as being crew chief for Team Seattle and Park Place Motors racing (setting up Sebring winning Porsches and Saleens). That car didn't win, HE did, and pretty much any class he enters in any car he chooses, he's either the winner or on the podium. If he's registered for a nationals, he's one of the people predicted to win in SportsCar magazine (or anyplace else that covers Solo). The 2nd place car in there is another fellow club member who's car was set up by Greg. NO one else in those cars would be anywhere near as fast. I've been friends with he and his wife for decades, and have raced with them literally countless times. I do believe that's the 944 I painted for him back in the early '90s when they started racing it.

ESL? Greg's wife, Jodi, who is also ALWAYS predicted to win at nationals if she shows up. They've been trophying in whatever car they choose to show up in since the late '80s. If Greg preps the car, it's a winner. If greg or jodi drives teh car, regardless of who owns it, it's a winner.

Not an effective argument.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: A. People keep touting the various ST classes if people want to daily drive their autocross car on street tires. I call B.S. on that. ST allows basically SP level of suspension prep, I call that undrivable on many roads, particularly in SE Michigan. Also a top level ST suspension is many many $$'s which many drivers can't afford even if they want to be serious.

My solution? New class called "STS 500". It's for cars that are STS-spec but the drivers also wouldn't mind if they had to leave the autocross venue and immediately set out on a 500 mile road trip in. It'd be pretty tough to enforce, though, given some drivers' tolerance for pain.

The above is tongue-in-cheek. I don't see the need to mess with the rules. I have an STS car and a STR car and all they are are decent street cars that happen to get autocrossed. I put them together for the 320 days I'm driving them around town rather than the 30 days I'm forcing them to dance through cones, so they're not punishing cars impossible to live with on a daily basis. I also have no desire to run at a national level.

It's not an effective arguement that an experienced person could setup a NOT HOT car in these rules and still podium? Uh, hello? That's the whole friggin point! If the sheep stopped following each other we'd have more variety and lower cost of entry! I race with these guys! Jerry (the ES winner) is at every event I am. Glenn (924) is selling that car for under $5K with all of the spares. The Fordhal car is for sale as well.

Take these same drivers /setup people and apply my proposed rules. The costs will go down by THOUSANDS in tires alone, plus losing the shocks! Now there will be more than one "gotta have it" car in every class, and the price of entry will be lower. Plus it will open up regional competition like crazy (new blood in the sport).

P71 wrote: If stock allowed F&R sways, NO trick shocks (OTS non-adjustables only), and was on ST tires there would be so many MORE cars with the "chance" to win.

How do you enforce the OTS part? I can get bilstein shocks revalved to whatever I want them to be and they are still non adjustable and externally look just like an OTS shock (I don't know enough about internals to know if those would look different or not). Are you going to have a shock dyno plot for every possible shock and require people to pull the shocks from their stock class car?

How about if I glue my Koni's adjuster? would that be legal?

Different sways/tires/shocks will change the car to win but I don't think it will give more cars the chance to win.