BIG Stock class change proposal

R-comp haters rejoice! Your wish has come true:

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/13-fastrack-april-solo.pdf

And a nutshell overview:

http://www.solomatters.com/2013/03/street-catagory-proposal-explained/

I don't hate R-comps. I just think they shouldn't be in a stock class. I think making stock a low-end street tire class will bring in more casual/entry-level competitors.

That said, it's been 15 years since I owned a car that would qualify

I like it. It makes sense really. I was really surprised that R compounds were the norm when I first started autocrossing. I ran my 94 Miata in ES for a white and I enjoyed it but the tires were always a PITA.

Treadwear 140 for 2014, 200 for 2015.

I like it on first read, but I just hope they don't reshuffle the new classes as often.

I have no hate for r comps. I actually love them, but think this makes great sense.

I like the idea but...
These events are sponsored by the largest online tire retailer in the nation.
Will there be sponsor influence?

R1's may not be needed to be competitive but Plus1's may be:

Changes to 13.4 allow a plus or minus 1 inch of change of diameter on wheels to ensure that all cars have greater access to “the tire to have.”

No mention of width.

The more I think about this proposal, the less I like it. And I liked it at first. The wheel and camber proposals make a ton of sense. It's the unintended consequences that worry me.

The balance of power in stock will change significantly. If SS has to run on street tires, the Elise is going to dominate against heavier cars. Every class will have a similar example.

I really don't like the "limited prep" Street cars in SP. That will be a huge mess. Full prep Z06s will stay in SSP, and limited prep Z06s will go...where? to CSP? ESP? Do not want.

If RT was supposed to prove that stock-class competitors want street tires, then why did Stock out-draw RT 66 to 12 at Dixie?

Street tire classes make a ton of sense at the local level, and the SCCA allows each region to create these classes as they see fit. I just don't think this proposal makes sense for national competition.

JohnRW1621 wrote: R1's may not be needed to be competitive but Plus1's may be:

Changes to 13.4 allow a plus or minus 1 inch of change of diameter on wheels to ensure that all cars have greater access to “the tire to have.”

No mention of width.

Given the way modern cars are sized, they'd probably be Minus1s.

Good that Solo is proposing this, maybe altering wheel diameter for Stock class in RallyCross will gain more momentum.

I'll probably come around. I dunno. I sure did have a lot of fun in my E Stock MR2 on r-comps. I just thought it was neat that I had a car that was so cheap, but could pull gs like that. But no denying "stock" set up had become something very odd. Will be nice not to have to change tires on one of the race cars, too.

In reply to JohnRW1621:

Read the proposed rules. No change in width allowed (maintains status quo).

Yes, the big question is what will these changes do to the current classing structure. And what will the whole "SP-Lite" idea entail... We can be sure there will be much grumbling from the SS, AS and FS classes. My guess is eventually the SP-Lite cars will just get their own classes while the number of Street classes is reduced.

There is no simple answer that will make everyone happy and you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, so we'll just have to wait and see.

For the sake of my writing, I'm talking as if this has already been passed.

Will wrote: The balance of power in stock will change significantly. If SS has to run on street tires, the Elise is going to dominate against heavier cars. Every class will have a similar example.

Yes... and no. Current crop of street tires is practically R-comps anyways, and the tire rating is mostly an arbitrary number. Aside from this, my biggest argument against it was similar: R-comps put everything on a base level. Well, fact is, they will still be on a base level. With some time, the cars that are now classed incorrectly will eventually be moved into an appropriate class. Elise is now better than all the heavier cars? Elise gets moved to ASP.

Will wrote: I really don't like the "limited prep" Street cars in SP. That will be a huge mess. Full prep Z06s will stay in SSP, and limited prep Z06s will go...where? to CSP? ESP? Do not want.

Why not CSP? SS vs. CSP index is nearly the same, which means the times turned in are nearly the same. It would be interesting for sure.

Will wrote: If RT was supposed to prove that stock-class competitors want street tires, then why did Stock out-draw RT 66 to 12 at Dixie?

Too small of a sample size to make a conclusion. Lets see what happens for the rest of the tour events, and Nationals.

Will wrote: Street tire classes make a ton of sense at the local level, and the SCCA allows each region to create these classes as they see fit. I just don't think this proposal makes sense for national competition.

This is where I really do agree with you. Nationals is the best of the best, the big show. You're playing with the big boys, you're gonna have to use the big-boy toys.

I still feel this has been the most idiotic thing in the scca rulebook. But then again, I've never autox'd on rcomps. I have beaten a few rcomp equipped cars in gstock with star specs on my old redline though. Honestly, I think its a good move for the stock classes as it lowers the buy in of consumables significantly and new people will be more competitive from the get go, which will probably lead to more people sticking around for more than an event or two

I like the proposal, really. Most of what they want to replace doesn't make sense in today's world.

How close will the proposal meet reality? I don't have any faith. They could berkeley up a plain bologna sandwich.

yamaha wrote: I still feel this has been the most idiotic thing in the scca rulebook. But then again, I've never autox'd on rcomps. I have beaten a few rcomp equipped cars in gstock with star specs on my old redline though. Honestly, I think its a good move for the stock classes as it lowers the buy in of consumables significantly and new people will be more competitive from the get go, which will probably lead to more people sticking around for more than an event or two

You need to look at the book closer.

While it's not smart to have race tires on a stock car, you should also see the other side that you should be able to run any tire that is actually legal to drive on the street. The R compounts are fully legal to drive around on- have DOT certification and everything.

Compare that to deciding that a class should have cars with 4 seats and not allow 2 seats as being the main gate- that is stupid. So a BMW M3 is head to head against a Honda Accord, but a Miata, or even an MG Midget, or better a CRX- can't be part of it. All of the classes from SM on have dumb things like that. But Street Mod started it all...

Will wrote: Street tire classes make a ton of sense at the local level, and the SCCA allows each region to create these classes as they see fit. I just don't think this proposal makes sense for national competition.

I disagree. Judging by nationals attendance, there are maybe what - 100 or so competitors in the entire country who prep stock cars to the Nationals level? Keep in mind, most Stock class cars are 2-driver cars (plus additional duplication in L), so the actual number of competing cars is a fair bit less than the raw numbers would represent. It seems the biggest beef so many have with the Stock rules were that they continued to pander towards this small group of competitors. Is that really what's best for the whole?

Of course, there are also those who simply don't like the SCCA and will continue to bitch about the rules no matter what is proposed or changed.

As a competitor at the very slow end of the field (as far as PAX goes anyway) I welcome these changes. I want to be able to compete with my friends locally as well as step up and attend some national events. Right now participating in stock is an exercise in grinding the shoulders off tires, whether they be r comps or not. Pretty much every new small car needs additional camber just from a tire longevity standpoint. At the slow end of the field we also have a lot of young guys or guys with families. They can put Z2 on their stock wheels and run the car for a year on the street and at events and not have to buy wheels or take the time to change them or try to figure out where to store extra wheels in an apartment with a wife and two small kids.
I think this will be huge for my end of the field. As to the SS guys, they're playing a different game and I really don't have any problem with allowing r comps for them. I imagine there might be a few Corvette owners who walk away from autocross because they can't afford tires, but it's few.
What I really want to see, and what I'll be spending a lot of time and energy pushing for, is for rallycross to adopt the same rule set, with different tires, for their stock class. I want to be able to participate in everything in the same car and I want both sides of the sport to be accessible to as many people as possible. Telling me that my camber bolts move me to a class with prepped cars on rally tires (how it is now) is ridiculous once you allow them in the very lowest classes auto crossing.

While it's not smart to have race tires on a stock car, you should also see the other side that you should be able to run any tire that is actually legal to drive on the street. The R compounts are fully legal to drive around on- have DOT certification and everything.

While the R-comps are DOT certified, they are NOT legal for street use. Here is what Hoosier says about the A6/R6:

WARNING: DOT 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.

Now about the proposal, I think it is a good start. It's not perfect yet, so write to the SEB and let them know what you think about it and any changes you think would be better.

In reply to 81cpcamaro:

Written by Hoosier's legal dept. "Not intended for..." and "not legal" are not the same.

Ian F wrote: In reply to 81cpcamaro: Written by Hoosier's legal dept. "Not intended for..." and "not legal" are not the same.

exactly.

Yep, my Hankook Z214's say that right on the side of the tire: "NOT FOR HIGHWAY USE". I think this is a very realistic proposal, judging by the decline in stock class entries. For example, at the last autocross I attended, there were 11 stock class entries out of 79, or 14%. At it's heyday, stock class usually drew more than 50% of the entries.

JG and I ran in the Road Tire class this weekend, which I guess you could call a pre-cursor to these new Street classes--basically Stock-class cars on Street Touring tires. While I love running on R-comp, we thoroughly enjoyed our weekend in RT.

jstein77 wrote: Yep, my Hankook Z214's say that right on the side of the tire: "NOT FOR HIGHWAY USE". I think this is a very realistic proposal, judging by the decline in stock class entries. For example, at the last autocross I attended, there were 11 stock class entries out of 79, or 14%. At it's heyday, stock class usually drew more than 50% of the entries.

If there's a DOT stamp on the side, and all the correct other stamping required- the "warning" does not mean they are ilegal. It means that Hankook is covering themselves.

An alternate example- Koni Yellows are nice an stiff shocks, legal in stock. Would you want to drive on those, too? Having driven R tires on the street (fully legaly), and super stiff shocks on street tires- they are not all that much different in terms of lack of comfort.

I'm not saying that R's are the way to go, I'm just trying to point out the other side of why they ARE allowed. They ARE street tires, technically.

Long term- it's very possible that SCCA can come up with an agreement with the tire manufacturers to drop the DOT requirement, but retain the "street" construction which will save some money on the rest of the people required to run them. Not that I ever see that happening.... But it's possible.

Ian F wrote:

Will wrote: Street tire classes make a ton of sense at the local level, and the SCCA allows each region to create these classes as they see fit. I just don't think this proposal makes sense for national competition.

It seems the biggest beef so many have with the Stock rules were that they continued to pander towards this small group of competitors. Is that really what's best for the whole?

I'm with you, Ian. I like the idea that they're thinking about revamping the Stock idea, but they're only getting it partly right. All the verbage in the Solomatters introduction is focused exclusively on the Nats participation. OK, so Nats attendance in Stock is down a couple hundred drivers - frankly, big deal - those national-level drivers are just showing up in other classes, not disappearing entirely.

The idea of Stock SHOULD be an entry-level class that attracts new members who can drive what they already have in their garage. Once they get some cone experience, then they begin the process of modding and/or choosing the car and class they want to campaign in. And ST is there for the enthusiast crowd who have already built a typical fun street car before discovering autocross.

alfadriver wrote:

jstein77 wrote: Yep, my Hankook Z214's say that right on the side of the tire: "NOT FOR HIGHWAY USE". I think this is a very realistic proposal, judging by the decline in stock class entries. For example, at the last autocross I attended, there were 11 stock class entries out of 79, or 14%. At it's heyday, stock class usually drew more than 50% of the entries.

If there's a DOT stamp on the side, and all the correct other stamping required- the "warning" does not mean they are ilegal. It means that Hankook is covering themselves. An alternate example- Koni Yellows are nice an stiff shocks, legal in stock. Would you want to drive on those, too? Having driven R tires on the street (fully legaly), and super stiff shocks on street tires- they are not all that much different in terms of lack of comfort. I'm not saying that R's are the way to go, I'm just trying to point out the other side of why they ARE allowed. They ARE street tires, technically. Long term- it's very possible that SCCA can come up with an agreement with the tire manufacturers to drop the DOT requirement, but retain the "street" construction which will save some money on the rest of the people required to run them. Not that I ever see that happening.... But it's possible.

Legal, true, but not very smart. Here in Florida, our famous afternoon rainshowers would have you skating off into the weeds at the first puddle.

I drive on Koni Yellows on my DD. I just dial them back to a softer setting after the race.