Adolf Hates R-Comps

Go factory shocks only then. Heck, you could even leave the shocks they have now (except remote reservoirs, that is insanely stupid). The point is to:

A - Make the class more affordable ($500 set of tires will last all year vs. $1000+ set of tires 3x a year)

B - Make "stock" make sense (R-Comps and $3000 shocks, really?)

C - Make the cars street drivable again (Trailering an H-Stock MINI to a Regional? Really?)

D - Make the line of progression (Stock >>> ST >>> SP >>> P) clear

E - Open up AX to new competitors

All the nutso budget spec-class guys can move to the SP/P/M categories where they belong and let the normal income house/kids/9-5 non-car job guys actually compete in Stock and ST.

moxnix wrote:

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.

Relatively simple. A competitor can pay their money and claim the car is illegal and how. The steward, etc will then have you take the car apart and prove that it is legal. If you refuse you're DQ'd. If you're ruled as illegal then you're DQ'd. Better be prepared to prove those are legal. Expect this to happen at a National-level event.

If you pay the money to have the Bilsteins revalved, what would stop someone from having their stock units revalved? The point is that revalving is fine in my mind since you usually have to make adjustments to the car at the track which means the valving will more than like be wrong, therefore negating your advantage and allowing a care with less "prep" to be just as competitive.

The fact is that there are cars from the factory that come with adjustable shocks/struts. Whether they are mechanically adjustable or electronically adjustable, this type of rule banning otherwise OEM pieces would cause them to be an exemption to the rules or bumped to a higher prep level, which I've never found fair (though sometimes understandable given the range some models had/have).

The point is to provide an easy way for someone to get started in the sport. Making them feel like they need to buy a ton of new tires and wheels along with adjustable shocks is wrong for a class labeled as "Stock"

Set the rules as thus:

OEM equivalent replacement parts only.

No suspension component changes unless it is a factory update or back-date within the same generation of model and/or a factory option.

No tire/wheel size changes unless it is an update/back-date within the same generation of model or is a factory option.

Tire treadwear rating must be within 10% of the OEM tires.

From there, move up to Street Tire, Street Prepared, Prepared, Mod, etc. Not that those rules make sense at the moment, but they aren't really part of the main discussion here.

If someone wants to have parts made to cheat, then they'll eventually look the fool and you can have the car inspected if you need to. Also, many times they'll get bored with winning (or still losing) and move on (or you will)

If a manufacturer wants to make a "trunk kit" then perhaps rule that dealer installed performance options are illegal for Stock and move the vehicle to ST. This still allows dealer installed A/C or decal kits or alloy wheels (that are similar in dimension to OEM but are merely differently styled)

Perhaps limit ST modifications to C.A.R.B. legal changes with DOT tires, body kits and fully-functioning emissions systems. Since this is racing, forcing cars to be registered for the street seems silly.

SP mods drops the CARB legalities, provided the vehicle is emissions legal (Street, remember?) opens up the tires to anything "DOT" legal but still retain full interiors, limited slip differentials, more radical suspension changes (set minimum ride height to something reasonable) engine swaps limited to available engines within a vehicle's production range. Add weight penalties to engine swaps or forced induction, etc.

Prepared would do away with the interior, glass, emissions systems and open up engine swaps within manufacturers (perhaps limiting the number of cylinders to the maximum ever used in that model or something of the like)

Mod is pretty clearly defined already.

The real problems tend to be factory options, like limited slips, wider tires, better suspension pieces, more power. Not sure how to get around that without making classing nearly impossible to sort out. Perhaps bump factory LSD's up a class? What do you do with AS? Move them to AST or ASP?

Trans_Maro wrote: I could be mistaken here but I've been told that the treadwear rating is not standardized. One company's 150 could be another's 200. Again, this is only what I've been told, I have no hard facts. Shawn

If I remember my suspension / steering class correctly the treadwear rating is relative only within a particular company, so you're right a 150 from one company could be a 200 at another .... but that same 150 would relate to it's on company's 200 in a linear manner... I think..

P71 wrote: In reply to Chris_V: Using r-comps on STOCK cars is like slavering salisbury steak in A1.

that could only help salisbury steak...

Chris_V wrote:

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.

I am the OP, and I approve this message.

P71 wrote: Go factory shocks only then. Heck, you could even leave the shocks they have now (except remote reservoirs, that is insanely stupid). The point is to: A - Make the class more affordable ($500 set of tires will last all year vs. $1000+ set of tires 3x a year) B - Make "stock" make sense (R-Comps and $3000 shocks, really?) C - Make the cars street drivable again (Trailering an H-Stock MINI to a Regional? Really?) D - Make the line of progression (Stock >>> ST >>> SP >>> P) clear E - Open up AX to new competitors All the nutso budget spec-class guys can move to the SP/P/M categories where they belong and let the normal income house/kids/9-5 non-car job guys actually compete in Stock and ST.

That seems to make a LOT of sense, to me. I am not terribly interested in stock classes, but the rules seem "off" to me.

Stock should mean stock, not upgraded front sway + shocks... Stock should be the slowest of the classes, allowing it to have the R-Comps makes the stock classes as fast or faster than there ST equivalents.

I have heard concerns that mixing sticky Rcomps with soft stock suspension can lead to an increased risk or roll over. For those of you running stock class is this B.S. ? I cant really see a Miata rolling over but the Honda fit looks awfully tall and narrow....

Capt Slow wrote: Stock should mean stock, not upgraded front sway + shocks... Stock should be the slowest of the classes, allowing it to have the R-Comps makes the stock classes as fast or faster than there ST equivalents. I have heard concerns that mixing sticky Rcomps with soft stock suspension can lead to an increased risk or roll over. For those of you running stock class is this B.S. ? I cant really see a Miata rolling over but the Honda fit looks awfully tall and narrow....

This has happened. If you search the web, you will see pics of a Saturn SC2 at nationals at 45 degrees. Soft shocks/springs mixed with concrete and super sticky Hoosiers. Stock cars have rolled over before.

Actually, the Scion xB actually isn't allowed in stock because of this, but it is eligible for ST only if it has lower/stiffer springs (if I remember correctly, someone correct me if I'm out of line).

In reply to Brotus7:

Too many different posts saying similar things to try and quote replies.

I'm not anti stock class as it is today, I don't blame the SCCA for how it's developed. Some one asked how the SCCA allowed R comps into stock. Simple. When stock was created R comps didn't exist, the rule was street legal tires to stop race slicks. Over the decades tire technology advanced and we started to get R comps, which were more like today's ST tires. The problem was that as R comps continued to develop and we end up today with A6's and V710's which ARE race slicks with the bare minimum of grooves to make them look something like a street legal tire. Perhaps someone at a National level could turn up to Nationals in Stock on ST tires then protest everyone else on the grid with R comps then ask them for proof that they are DOT approved, because they're not.

My proposal would be to add either a) inclusion list of tires or b) make a requirement that stock class tires are either DOT approved and/or over 140/150 tread wear. I'd set that to come in for 2013 or 2014 so people wouldn't have to junk tires and Hoosier, Khumo etc could react without impacting their business.

Shocks, I think the current situation with shocks is unfortunate but unavoidable. Even if you mandate OEM shocks you'll have people cheating by having them re-valved and how do you prove what is or isn't an OEM shock for a 1984 Porsche 944?? I guarantee what you buy from the Porsche dealer today isn't what came on the car 25 years ago. Also Shocks aren't nearly as important as tires. The step up in performance for a 95th percentile driver from off the shelf Koni's to $5,000 external reservoir triple adjustable custom built titanium bodied specials is probably a few 10ths, while the difference in performance for the same car/driver from ST tires to A6's is probably 2-3 seconds on a Nationals course. The shocks are a diminishing return item, the tires are essential.

I'm in the berkeley it, I'll go and have fun on stock equipment category. I own the car I like, not what's popular and I don't care, I want to have fun with my buddies. Fifteen years ago I was a different person, I cared. I had adjustable shocks, 2-3 set's of tires a year and traipsed around the mid West and down to Nationals. Guess what, I have just as much fun these days too.

In reply to Adrian_Thompson:

Good points, about the shock's diminishing returns and the importance/effectiveness of stickies

As a fellow rabble-rouser, the idea of showing up to Nats in stock class with the intention of protesting DOT-ness sounds very, very tempting. That, so far, has been the strongest suggestion, with the least number of people involved.

'Grandfathering' stickies out over a few years would definitely be in order. This addresses a few of the 'but we spent gobs and gobs of $ on our 'whatever' to be competitive, but unruly on the streets' complaints.

So who wants to show up to a NATs gunfight with a knife and rules on their side? Could we find a decent ST-only tire company to sponsor this movement? Hehehehehe... Me smells revolution!!!

Eric G

Everything I read about the standard autox tires says they are DOT legal can you tell me in what way they are not DOT legal?. I was not able to find any information in that special stage link that said how they where not legal and they eventually just went with FIA regulations.

This is the testing procedure for tires that I could find. http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Vehicle%20Safety/Test%20Procedures/Associated%20Files/TP-139-03.pdf I see nothing there about having a tire that is DOT legal but not highway legal.

https://www.hoosiertire.com/rrtire.htm

Hoosier said: NOTE: D.O.T. Labeled Hoosier Racing Tires meet Department of Transportation requirements for marking and performance only and are NOT INTENDED FOR HIGHWAY USE. It is unsafe to operate any Hoosier Racing Tire including DOT tires on public roads. The prohibited use of Hoosier Racing Tires on public roadways may result in loss of traction, unexpected loss of vehicle control, or sudden loss of tire pressure, resulting in a vehicle crash and possible injury or death.

Not intended does not mean they are not legal for it.

Also the solo rules only state they must have Department of Transportation approval. They do not say anything about highway use.

If you feel that Hoosier/Kumho tires are not DOT legal I would suggest contacting the DOT about them.

I have no preference about whether R tires are permitted in stock or not. However, all the SCCA would have to do is approve and ban specific tires. That would do it. I understand that many on the board would love to have a very minimal prep class for those on a limited budget, but there will always be someone willing to push the envelope.

What must be understood is that there are many enthusiasts who will spend money for better equipment. It is mostly young participants who cannot afford to do so. Why should there be national class for new participants of any age who probably have neither the skill nor the means to be competitive at the national level.

Those who are young and starting out should be more concerned with their driving rather than whether or not they will be competitive with the field.

I ran my first three years in my 84 Charger 2.2 on Firestone Firehawk tires. I was slow, but I learned more about driving and car setup those first three years than anytime before or since. I decided that I would compete against myself. If I was quicker by the end of the day I considered it a success. As I progressed I bought better equipment and then a better car (my current 99 Neon which I bought new in 99). I have has the car for 10-years and still enjoy driving it. Neons are no longer competitive on the national level, but neither am I.

For most people too much emphasis is placed in the hit car or hot set up than having fun.

moxnix wrote: Everything I read about the standard autox tires says they are DOT legal can you tell me in what way they are not DOT legal?. I was not able to find any information in that special stage link that said how they where not legal and they eventually just went with FIA regulations. This is the testing procedure for tires that I could find. http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Vehicle%20Safety/Test%20Procedures/Associated%20Files/TP-139-03.pdf I see nothing there about having a tire that is DOT legal but not highway legal. https://www.hoosiertire.com/rrtire.htm

Hoosier said: NOTE: D.O.T. Labeled Hoosier Racing Tires meet Department of Transportation requirements for marking and performance only and are NOT INTENDED FOR HIGHWAY USE. It is unsafe to operate any Hoosier Racing Tire including DOT tires on public roads. The prohibited use of Hoosier Racing Tires on public roadways may result in loss of traction, unexpected loss of vehicle control, or sudden loss of tire pressure, resulting in a vehicle crash and possible injury or death.

Not intended does not mean they are not legal for it. Also the solo rules only state they must have Department of Transportation approval. They do not say anything about highway use. If you feel that Hoosier/Kumho tires are not DOT legal I would suggest contacting the DOT about them.

This is the Crux of it. Hoosier say that meet DOT requirements. It doesn't say they are approved by the DOT. That was the point on SS with regard to Rally New York. Meeting requirements and being approved are two different things.

I don't think (could be wrong) that Hoosiers are DOT approved. Therefore I (my personal opinion) think they shouldn't be allowed. Even if they are I still think it's silly to have tires that are completely useless on the street in a stock class.

Let's get real here, were talking about street tires that can't be used on the street!!!!

Again, I doubt anything will happen. If it did I would still recommend a 3 year transition so no one ends up out of pocket with useless tires and the tire companies have time to react.

An easy solution is to ask your local autocross group to have a class of stock cars on non R tires (typically with wear ratings over 140).

The Detroit Council of Sports Car Clubs has those classes- very popular. As are our versions of STS. Well over half of a typcial CCM, AROC, or MSCC events are people on non R tires.

Eric

alfadriver wrote: An easy solution is to ask your local autocross group to have a class of stock cars on non R tires (typically with wear ratings over 140). The Detroit Council of Sports Car Clubs has those classes- very popular. As are our versions of STS. Well over half of a typcial CCM, AROC, or MSCC events are people on non R tires. Eric

I know, I'm one of them.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: This is the Crux of it. Hoosier say that meet DOT requirements. It doesn't say they are approved by the DOT. That was the point on SS with regard to Rally New York. Meeting requirements and being approved are two different things. I don't think (could be wrong) that Hoosiers are DOT approved. Therefore I (my personal opinion) think they shouldn't be allowed. Even if they are I still think it's silly to have tires that are completely useless on the street in a stock class. Let's get real here, were talking about street tires that can't be used on the street!!!! Again, I doubt anything will happen. If it did I would still recommend a 3 year transition so no one ends up out of pocket with useless tires and the tire companies have time to react.

I can find nothing that says that the DOT actually approves tires (or anything else) can you?

I think it is like motorcycle helmets where they set a standard and the makers have to test and certify that they meet the standards.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=172

Gimp wrote: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=172

Exactly what I was saying.

Tirerack said: many tires are developed and produced without being tested by their manufacturer to confirm they meet all U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Without conducting the tests and certifying these tires meet U.S. requirements, these tires are not allowed to be branded “DOT” (shown below) and cannot be legally driven in the United States.

So DOT on the side (Hoosier/Kumho/all other DOT legal tires have this) means the maker certifies they meet the standards and are legal to drive on the street.

Therefore, if you ask a cop and they say they aren't legal, that cop may be wrong and not the final authority.

It sounds like Hoosier is saying, "Well, technically these tires meet all the legal requirements for a street tire, but just because the law allows it doesn't mean it's a good idea to actually use them on the street."

MadScientistMatt wrote: It sounds like Hoosier is saying, "Well, technically these tires meet all the legal requirements for a street tire, but just because the law allows it doesn't mean it's a good idea to actually use them on the street."

Yep!

R-comps are rarely capable of dealing with wet surfaces. I used to run A008R's on a DD, 1st gen CRX; they were great fun right up until the drops started to fall. Then the grin changed quickly to a grimace.

oldsaw wrote:

MadScientistMatt wrote: It sounds like Hoosier is saying, "Well, technically these tires meet all the legal requirements for a street tire, but just because the law allows it doesn't mean it's a good idea to actually use them on the street."

Yep! R-comps are rarely capable of dealing with wet surfaces. I used to run A008R's on a DD, 1st gen CRX; they were great fun right up until the drops started to fall. Then the grin changed quickly to a grimace.

Hmm. the A008RSIIs I used on my V8 RX7 in the pacific northwest were better in the rain than the BFG Comp T/A non-R comps that were on there, or any number of normal performance tires (and vastly better than any all seasons). And a lot of us that were autocrossing in the rain on those tires constantly amazed newbies to the scene who were wondering how those apparently bald tires were gripping so well out on the wet track.

I used the A008RSIIs as street tires on that car, as well, and got 15k combined miles of street/track use, then switched to A032Rs as dual purpose tires.

The soft compound heated up even in the wet and sort of squeegeed the water out of the way (at least at street speeds and autocross speeds. Wouldn't have wanted to do it at road race speeds)

P71 wrote: 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.

I've raced with them for many years, as well. Greg knows that car inside and out and has owned/raced it for decades. So not only is he a multi-time national champion in ANYTHING, that particular car is wired into his hindbrain in a way that pretty much no one else's car will ever be, so it's not surprising that HE can win with it, same with Jodi. But that doesn't mean that anyone else can get into that car and be even slightly competitive.

Listen, the deal still is that R comps are NOT necessarily a cost-prohibitive way of going. My own RX7 above (which Greg did the suspension setup on) was on R comps for 5 years (only used two sets in all that time) and cost less than a lot of cars in class. I also didn't have multi-adjustible suspension (Tokiko HPs and Tokiko sport springs). And the limiting factor in being competitive will ALWAYS be the driver. Limiting to stock tires won't change that, nor will it end up costing less (ever see stock tires chunk up from being overheated in competition use? To really do it properly, you will STILL want a second set of wheels and tires, so the savings might be less than a hundred bucks a season. When you start with a $20-25k new-er car, that's chump change). And if someone wants to be competetive, they will STILL be at the same disadvantage to winning based on skill running against the same people.

Chris_V wrote: I've raced with them for many years, as well. Greg knows that car inside and out and has owned/raced it for decades. So not only is he a multi-time national champion in ANYTHING, that particular car is wired into his hindbrain in a way that pretty much no one else's car will ever be, so it's not surprising that HE can win with it, same with Jodi. But that doesn't mean that anyone else can get into that car and be even slightly competitive. Listen, the deal still is that R comps are NOT necessarily a cost-prohibitive way of going. My own RX7 above (which Greg did the suspension setup on) was on R comps for 5 years (only used two sets in all that time) and cost less than a lot of cars in class. I also didn't have multi-adjustible suspension (Tokiko HPs and Tokiko sport springs). And the limiting factor in being competitive will ALWAYS be the driver. Limiting to stock tires won't change that, nor will it end up costing less (ever see stock tires chunk up from being overheated in competition use? To really do it properly, you will STILL want a second set of wheels and tires, so the savings might be less than a hundred bucks a season. When you start with a $20-25k new-er car, that's chump change). And if someone wants to be competetive, they will STILL be at the same disadvantage to winning based on skill running against the same people.

Sorry, still not buying it. First of all "Stock" should mean just that, STOCK! R-Comps (which are all but illegal to use on the street) and aluminum-bodied remote-reservoir shocks are not "stock" nor representative of the intent of the rules.

But back to the main arguement, which is cost, I think your theoritical #'s are way off of reality. For 205/50/15's (typical Miata/Honda size) a ST legal Bridgestone RE11 (the current "hot" tire) is $97 each. Even if you shave them they'll last a whole season, so $400 for a set per year. A6's are $210 each. Even if by some miracle you get a whole season (8-10 autocrosses at 3-5 runs each) you're still looking at $840 for tires. God forbid it rains, then you'll need a set of wets at $210 each as well.

Tire Rack

That's a huge difference and you can't tell me with a straight face that 1 set of r-comps will last that long. It's expensive, and that's all there is to it.

Still though, r-comps are not "stock" and do not fit the intent of the original rules. That's why there needs to be change.

P71 wrote: Still though, r-comps are not "stock"...

And again...

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