IMHO, a more open ruleset based on power:weight with modifiers for tire choice has a lot more potential for participation than a 'spec' class with limited choices for vehicles and mods.
It's good to see SCCA trying to get outside their box... I hope it succeeds.
In reply to ClearWaterMS :
I'd even be cool with just GTIs, honestly. All the 2.0T cars are a solid platform.
Spec Classes make sense in wheel-to-wheel, because they offer competition at lower prices and parity of competition. For a "Race what you drive" set of events as being proposed here a spec chassis is just exclusionary by definition.
The only logical way to go is some kind of formula of Power, Weight, and Tire Width with a few general rules:
1) Cars must be street legal, licensed, tagged, and insured (since Road Rally is an competition event)
2) Cars must use tires with a treadwear rating of 200 or above
3) Cars must have a full exhaust system and meet standard trackside noise restrictions
4) Competitors must wear a Snell SA2015 or SA2020 helmet
DocRob said:Spec Classes make sense in wheel-to-wheel, because they offer competition at lower prices and parity of competition. For a "Race what you drive" set of events as being proposed here a spec chassis is just exclusionary by definition.
The only logical way to go is some kind of formula of Power, Weight, and Tire Width with a few general rules:
1) Cars must be street legal, licensed, tagged, and insured (since Road Rally is an competition event)
2) Cars must use tires with a treadwear rating of 200 or above
3) Cars must have a full exhaust system and meet standard trackside noise restrictions
4) Competitors must wear a Snell SA2015 or SA2020 helmet
so i.e. sport class in time trials and street category in autocross, require license plates and insurance.
to me allow track reliability mods in street class autocross (larger radiators, additional coolers, etc.) and you have a pretty good solution.
Wasn't this the original purpose of the ST classes? It seems like we are full circle again or at least it looks like it. I mean a good ST car should be able to do all of the above.
That's what my little JDM car is. It autocrosses in XB (Only because the steering wheel is on the right side), does track time, and is my summer DD. In reality, it would be an STX car if it was USDM.
I'd love to see a 4-door sedan included, something affordable and widely-available that would do OK on track and in an autocross, especially with a spec-kit suspension upgrade. You could haul 4 tires with you, and with the right roll cage, still drop the kids off at baseball practice. Call it the dad class if you like.
The police package Charger and Taurus come to mind, maybe a Sonic sedan or Focus, even the Accord.
David S. Wallens said:I think SSC works well because the cars involved were all built to the same spec. You don’t need to hunt for a unicorn–no need to find that non-sunroof 16v Jetta coupe.
I vehemently disagree with this.
It's defined monopolization of modification options. that's great for whoever gets to define the "spec part" and profit off it, for a time... but it leaves anyone outside of the "spec" farting in the wind (see Kia Rio B-spec) if/when that company folds (is SCCA even big enough to keep a part company afloat these days?).
I'd agree with maschinenbau's idea of weight:power... but through the lens of defined minimum weights. That and tire width. Make it 300tw, not 200tw... then you've got a tire you can do all these events and go there-and-back on.
want a tight rule set that provides room to try things out, but still close competition? Hezmana, it's even got "club" shared in the name!
https://www.grid.life/falken-club-tr
honestly, the more I think about this, the more I come away with two thoughts:
1) Hayward seems to have to gimmick up some new idea every couple of years in order to justify his salary.
2) This smells of Hayward trying to carefully back a "Blinkered SCCA Horse" into a "different kind of motorsports association", without the existing membership realizing he's doing it. The problem is, he's making a hash of the process by sticking to what SCCA Members are comfortable/used to: "spec" "single car model" etc.
all under the guise of "fooling" those who would "ruin the fun".
standard buffalo caveats:
this is just my opinion, ymmv, caveat lector, I'm a known disliker of SCCA ruleboo... tomes, feel free to ignore my anti-SCCA curmudgeony
sleepyhead the buffalo said:Make it 300tw, not 200tw... then you've got a tire you can do all these events and go there-and-back on.
I tried that survey, and it tanked on me...
although, that survey is emblematic of how this process is flawed from the outset. 300tw isn't even an option; nor is "none of the above". slicks, cheater tires, or gtfo? {sigh}
I had a similar problem with this questions:
I don't see an option for "I might join SCCA if it became more like GridLife".
selecting any of these options would imply that I think the SCCA was doing things right in the past (b) {nope}; has done things to address things wrong in the past (a) {nope}; or neither {sorta}... which sure as hell isn't "no opinion". I think they've moved in the right direction, in the wrong way... and not far enough by a thousandth.
I live in a state where "removal of airbags" is not allowed in any street registered car. new enough cars, with roof-beam mounted side-curtain airbags generally are "incompatible" with "advanced [personal protection] items" installations (safety being the original erroneous term). again, the reality that a) I'd want advanced PPE devices, but that their installation may conflict with "spec" parts and/or "existing defined PPE item design/installation guidelines" isn't even a consideration.
The one car for autox and rallyx will require some solid compromises in the suspension package. Not that it's a bad thing. It could even keep costs down. From what I've read here, lowering springs (with a small drop) and replacement struts/shocks are the way to go for rallyx duty. The inexpensive coilovers don't seem to do as well in the dirt.
The concept of "one car to rule them all" makes me think of rally cars and rally cars are rad.
As an old scca guy who, hasn't been involved with them in a long time, I think the original improved touring rules were simple and affordable.
In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :
I think one thing SCCA does do / has done badly is taking a great idea for a spec class and then let it get completely out of control. It starts out as a reasonable level, then goes full National and then racers being racers they start throwing money at it and the cost escalate to ridiculous levels.
If I had lunch with Wagner I'd tell him that the focus always seems to be National-level centric but the bulk of the members are regional competitors. Between the RunOffs, Solo Nationals and Rally-X Championships we are looking at around 2000 people participating; yet there are 65000 members. So 97% of members are participating locally.
This needs to be focused on regional level competitors / participants.
We ran the SS class back in the day. To say they were STOCK is like saying WWE is real, or NASCAB is racing.
Nice idea, love to see it happen.
YRMV
ojannen said:Whatever we pick, could we include a seat swap allowance or pick a car with more interior room? I don't fit in Miatas, BRZs, Civics, or Corvettes with stock seats. Technically, I fit in a Miata but I would have to trailer it to events in case it rained on the way home.
The ~360hp early M2 would be a fun pick. Prices are depressed because you can get them with 80 more hp. Room for kids in the back. Carbon roof means extra headroom. DCT or manual.
Hardtops increase Miata headroom, I am a wedge fit in an NB and a tight squeeze in an NA with the soft top up and no helmet, a hardtop turns that into a tight squeeze in an NB (dashboard takes away shin room) and NA turns into all day driver, with helmet.
I race both a Spec Miata and a Club Ford both of which are spec cars so I'm obviously not opposed to the concept of spec cars but I don't think that the SCCA needs another class of car. If they really want to encourage running the same car in multiple types of events perhaps they could just create classes for existing cars. A Spec Miata class for autocross or hillclimb for example. Or create classes for some of the NASA spec series cars.
As at least one other person pointed out a cage in a street car is problematic so I think a car that can run in multiple competition type events and be driven on the street is a non-starter.
How about just a points series that includes multiple disciplines. Maybe use the PAX multiplier that already exists based on your autox class. Nobody has to buy a new car!
RacingComputers said:We ran the SS class back in the day. To say they were STOCK is like saying WWE is real, or NASCAB is racing.
Nice idea, love to see it happen.
YRMV
I owned Eric Morehouse's SSC Miata; he was on the podium twice with the car.
I know for a fact the car was 100% legal and stock. There was nothing trick about it.
Yes, many competitors pushed the intent of the rules or were outright cheating but you could still do well without resorting to cheating.
sleepyhead the buffalo said:sleepyhead the buffalo said:Make it 300tw, not 200tw... then you've got a tire you can do all these events and go there-and-back on.
I tried that survey, and it tanked on me...
although, that survey is emblematic of how this process is flawed from the outset. 300tw isn't even an option; nor is "none of the above". slicks, cheater tires, or gtfo? {sigh}
I had a similar problem with this questions:
I don't see an option for "I might join SCCA if it became more like GridLife".
selecting any of these options would imply that I think the SCCA was doing things right in the past (b) {nope}; has done things to address things wrong in the past (a) {nope}; or neither {sorta}... which sure as hell isn't "no opinion". I think they've moved in the right direction, in the wrong way... and not far enough by a thousandth.
I live in a state where "removal of airbags" is not allowed in any street registered car. new enough cars, with roof-beam mounted side-curtain airbags generally are "incompatible" with "advanced [personal protection] items" installations (safety being the original erroneous term). again, the reality that a) I'd want advanced PPE devices, but that their installation may conflict with "spec" parts and/or "existing defined PPE item design/installation guidelines" isn't even a consideration.
Going in the wrong direction now doesn't require that it was ever going in the right direction 
The other option missing from the membership question is "I'm a member until a viable alternative surfaces". That would probably get a majority of the votes from the autocross crowd if it was there.
I feel like there should be an option between "I prefer extra safety equipment" and "I'm not interested in extra safety equipment". I'm willing to live without it but would be interested if it could be done without chopping up the car and in a way that's not a competitive disadvantage. But that doesn't really fit either of those choices.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure this survey is what you get from someone who either has no clue what they're doing, or knows exactly what they want to do and are looking for "data" to support their vision.
APEowner said:As at least one other person pointed out a cage in a street car is problematic so I think a car that can run in multiple competition type events and be driven on the street is a non-starter.
I don't think that's what I was saying. Further, I don't particularly agree with a mindset offered on the board here frequently that "a street car's PPE is designed to work one way, and race car PPE is designed another way; and you can't mix-and-match them".
I realize that I'm an outlier on that... and I don't want it to be confused with my having "a death wish".
Instead, these comments I've made flow from an opinion that... a) modern cars are strong/crumple-zoney enough that some of the reinforcement mandated in the past isn't required (as exemplified by some newer cars having different NHRA limits). b) that computing power is strong enough that alternative "cab reinforcement" structures/concepts could be researched and evaluated, that would work without impeding the manufacturer installed "explosive containment PPE elements".
I'm enough of an outlier, and enough of a realist, to accept that the possibility of that future coming to fruition is dim.
dps214 said:Anyway, I'm pretty sure this survey is what you get from someone who either has no clue what they're doing, or knows exactly what they want to do and are looking for "data" to support their vision.
I think you're right. I think there's a couple of concepts in the running... and this survey is meant to "pick" between the two already settled concepts.
Tom1200 said:
I think one thing SCCA does do / has done badly is taking a great idea for a spec class and then let it get completely out of control. It starts out as a reasonable level, then goes full National and then racers being racers they start throwing money at it and the cost escalate to ridiculous levels
Some of the rules of late, seem to take in to account the idea that any rules set will inevitably have someone "go full National" on it... and the "only" thing the organization can do is try to constrain it from the outset. Rather than create a culture where people are deterred from attempting that; or if they are undeterred, the org politely encourages them to seek their Competitive Domination in an existing class that is historically suited for that mentality.
dps214 said:spec classes are good at attracting people who are already involved but not so much at attracting new participants. I'm not sure anyone has ever shown up to their first autocross ever in an SSC car.
That was my thought as well. I like the idea of having an out-of-the-box platform to help people move from autocross and track days to other events. The problem is that people new to the sport tend to like "cool" cars (I.e. expensive and new) and generally want to mod these cars to make them unique. More advanced drivers tend to find value in spec classes because they're focused more on driver development and less on wallet racing. I think a lot of people find more satisfaction in bolting on go-fast parts than they do in trying to find an extra 0.1 second through skill to beat their competition. I wonder how many people will spend the time and money to build a street car that's not necessarily the fastest or coolest car. It seems counterintuitive to a lot of people that the purpose of building a spec car is not to be the fastest, but to level the driving field by taking away competitive advantages.
Great idea- I was planning on autocrossing and vintage racing the last race car we had. And possibly taking it to Mexico once.
That being said, seems like a great idea for a challenge class. Find a cheap and common car that can be improved with inexpensive stock car parts (where springs are really cheap). Maybe allow some good engine mods. And for sure a gutted car so that it can lose some weight and be more fun.
BTW, as much as the Miata is the answer, I also think that the most likely car will be a car with a top. Has the added benefit of original structure when the cage is added.
Anyway, something to think about for next spring's Challenge.
In reply to ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) :
Well said.
ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) said:dps214 said:spec classes are good at attracting people who are already involved but not so much at attracting new participants. I'm not sure anyone has ever shown up to their first autocross ever in an SSC car.
That was my thought as well. I like the idea of having an out-of-the-box platform to help people move from autocross and track days to other events. The problem is that people new to the sport tend to like "cool" cars (I.e. expensive and new) and generally want to mod these cars to make them unique. More advanced drivers tend to find value in spec classes because they're focused more on driver development and less on wallet racing. I think a lot of people find more satisfaction in bolting on go-fast parts than they do in trying to find an extra 0.1 second through skill to beat their competition. I wonder how many people will spend the time and money to build a street car that's not necessarily the fastest or coolest car. It seems counterintuitive to a lot of people that the purpose of building a spec car is not to be the fastest, but to level the driving field by taking away competitive advantages.
This sounds a lot like the reasoning behind Street Touring: Let’s welcome people with cars and mods commonly seen on the street. We were there and participated in those conversations. The goal was to find a place for those running the sport compacts of the day.
I ran Street Touring the first year it was offered at Solo Nats as a supplemental class. This was 1999, and I ran a Neon ACR. The rest of the class featured the expected mix. Did you want the torque of a Prelude of the light weight of a torsion bar Civic Si? Or maybe you wanted a Calais 442. It was a varied, healthy field.
And then people found the ringer–1989-’91 Civic Si–and, quickly, we had a spec class.
A related question: How do you keep people from being so competitive?
I have a lot of thoughts about this, but one of the most important is: MAKE IT EASY! There are probably a bunch of people out there interested in motorsports but who are not experienced with working on cars or who don't want to spend a bunch of time developing a competitive vehicle. They want to have some involvement with the car and they want to drive something that's reasonably competitive right out of the gate but without the hassle of building something completely on their own. A Spec Miata-like kit of parts should be a consideration for whatever these classes/vehicles end up being. Buy the kit and bolt everything on. Boom, ready for competition.
If the GLTC proves anything it's that there are a lot of people out there with ideas on what might be fast and how to go about achieving that speed. I think a fair bit of people in motorsports want to a place to express their personality and creativity and yet still have a hope for being competitive. The way GLTC has structured their rules seems to accomplish this. It's probably something that should be considered. (And yes I get that this is almost diametrically opposed to the "kit of parts" thing. I am nothing if not contradictory. :-) )
Finally, I think if there will be multiple iterations of these rules, they should be spread across a 3-4 budget levels. Acknowledge that some people don't have a lot to spend and some people do and give them a level that they feel comfortable working within.
David S. Wallens said:A related question: How do you keep people from being so competitive?
That's really a core issue that creating new classes only circumvents for a short period of time, yet is precisely what the creation of new classes is trying to do - make accessible motorsports to those who are less inclined to be national-level competitors.
Here's the thing, the critical thing that folks seem to forget - People don't like lots of rules. Scratch that, Americans, particularly the average blue collar American, don't like lots of rules. If the goal is to enhance membership and participation in the Sports Car Club of America, then the change has to be cultural shift within the SCCA a shift:
1) Away from extensive rule books and towards a more laid back attitude about building cars - that encourages exploration.
2) Strict enforcement of safety and on-track/off-track behavior. Enforcement that leaves no room for ego in the equation. This will help quell the hyper competitive folks. I.e., less focus on technical violations of vehicles, more focus on don't be an a-hole to your competitors and everyone else.
If SCCA wants to make changes they can just look at very recent motorsports history...The 24hrs of Le Mans celebrated 100 years this past weekend. And most Americans couldn't have given two pennies about it, including many people who like racing. Except...you stick a Hendrick's Motorsport NASCAR Camaro in there and all the sudden people know that 24H of Le Mans was last weekend, and that it's been running for a 100 years, and that Camaro NASCARs are fast in both right and left turns. FIA/Le Mans was smart creating the Garage 56 Initiative a few years ago, to give people a place to explore.
Where, in SCCA-land, do we have a place to explore? To thumb our noses at the rule book to do what Americans do well - which is come up with creative solutions to new problems?
You'll need to log in to post.
