BIG Stock class change proposal

Let me make an analogy here:

In the beginning, motorcyclists used to drive with their lights on all day, to improve their visibility to cars. They stood out because they were brighter.

So some genius decided if it helped us notice motorcycles, then it would help us notice everything. So they mandated DRLs for all vehicles. So now all cars run around with their high beams on at 60% during the day, and nobody stands out because nobody is brighter anymore. All they've done is raise the background noise, not addressed the original problem.

I see adding mods to Stock class as raising the background level you have to overcome to be competitive (assuming equal drivers, of course). I think there should be a national spot for untouched cars on real street tires. Just my opinion - I won't belabor it any further.

Duke wrote: So in other words, in order to avoid bumping people to a higher (more expensive) prep level, you open up the rule set of the lower level... thereby increasing the amount of money that has to be spent to be competitive in the lower class. That's circular logic I just don't understand.

This is where intent loses reality. Why can't the rules be if I want to do XYZ and the rules say I can do TWO of those in any combination, but if I do the third, I get bumped into the next higher logical(?!?!?!) classification in the same category? Either you will mod until you are out of things to do and get bumped into a class you have no reason being in or you will demod until you are comfortable running in some class. Point being, I have a Dakota that should be H-stock legal, but because I have a truck handicap to start with (stupid IMO), the only places I can be classed is in CP or the mod categories, based on what I have already done modification-wise (again stupid). It's crap like this that keeps me away. I'm not flush with cash to go out and buy something else, car based (BLAH!), but I shouldn't be forced into a class I have no reason to be in either.

Duke said: assuming equal drivers, of course

And there's your problem..............

Duke said: I think there should be a national spot for untouched cars on real street tires

There is and always has been............

But what you're suggesting can only lead to one-car classes because (inevitably) a single car will dominate. At least until a better car comes along and everyone is forced to upgrade or be relegated to a non-competiive status, or move to another prep level, or quit.

Apexcarver wrote: Camber plates - VERY Good, these were sorely needed as many camber challenged cars were grinding off the outside edges of their tires drastically shortening their life expectancy.

Camber bolts definitely makes sense to me, but I'm far from sold on the camber plates. I would actually say that this is my biggest potential gripe with the current proposal so far. Don't most camber plates specifically allow for both separate camber and caster adjustements? On the face of it they seem a bit like allowing R-Comps in stock. You can argue until you're blue in the face that they're primarily for providing more even tire wear, which I understand having previously run a 'strut' ST class car including camber plates...But the same could be said of allowing stiffer/lower springs. Drilling the chassis to installing big anodized aluminum racing derived parts sold for street use currently feels like much more of an ST class level modification that falls outside what the intended spirit of these class rules should be. But that's just my lone humble opinion, so feel free to disagree with me or try to convince me otherwise.

What are we arguing about again?

Driven5 wrote:

Apexcarver wrote: Camber plates - VERY Good, these were sorely needed as many camber challenged cars were grinding off the outside edges of their tires drastically shortening their life expectancy.

Camber bolts definitely makes sense to me, but I'm far from sold on the camber plates. I would actually say that this is my biggest potential gripe with the current proposal so far. Don't most camber plates specifically allow for both separate camber and caster adjustements? On the face of it they seem a bit like allowing R-Comps in stock. You can argue until you're blue in the face that they're primarily for providing more even tire wear, which I understand having previously run a 'strut' ST class car including camber plates...But the same could be said of allowing stiffer/lower springs. Drilling the chassis to installing big anodized aluminum racing derived parts sold for street use currently feels like much more of an ST class level modification that falls outside what the intended spirit of the class rules should be. But that's just my lone humble opinion, so feel free to disagree with me or try to convince me otherwise.

+1 on the camber plates. Bolt yes, plates no.

For the rest, I like those new rules. They are not perfect (see above), but a solid step in the right direction. It means I will be competitive this years, instead of waiting next year to have the budget.

I think it starts for the 2014 season fanfoy

Driven5 wrote:

Apexcarver wrote: Camber plates - VERY Good, these were sorely needed as many camber challenged cars were grinding off the outside edges of their tires drastically shortening their life expectancy.

Camber bolts definitely makes sense to me, but I'm far from sold on the camber plates. I would actually say that this is my biggest potential gripe with the current proposal so far. Don't most camber plates specifically allow for both separate camber and caster adjustements? On the face of it they seem a bit like allowing R-Comps in stock. You can argue until you're blue in the face that they're primarily for providing more even tire wear, which I understand having previously run a 'strut' ST class car including camber plates...But the same could be said of allowing stiffer/lower springs. Drilling the chassis to installing big anodized aluminum racing derived parts sold for street use currently feels like much more of an ST class level modification that falls outside what the intended spirit of these class rules should be. But that's just my lone humble opinion, so feel free to disagree with me or try to convince me otherwise.

The big difference there is that camber plates don't make it worse on the street. Springs definitely do.

Camber bolts do let you achieve the improved tire wear and better performance of camber plates, without the pimpy aluminum, but they are harder to live with. More likely to slip, and harder to adjust. With plates, you can adjust your camber for a day of autox in WAY less time than it takes to change wheels, and then you can change it back at the end of the day, easily, repeatable, etc.

Dual purpose was key, and easily adjusting camber seemed to be appropriate for that goal. $.02

Duke wrote: So in other words, in order to avoid bumping people to a higher (more expensive) prep level, you open up the rule set of the lower level... thereby increasing the amount of money that has to be spent to be competitive in the lower class. That's circular logic I just don't understand.

I believe the thinking is that most people who may be open to autocrossing are not afraid of making a few modifications to their car in order to make it more fun to autocross - especially if those changes don't drastically affect the DD comfort of the car. I sort of see it like this:

Stage 1 - new guy tries autocross in his bone-stock car. "Woo hoo! That was fun! I want to do that again!"

Stage 2 - a few events later... "ok... that was fun, but what can I do to make my car more fun. Tires!"

Stage 3 - after a few more events... "Damn... these tires are getting wasted... I know a lot of it is me, but my car is really camber challenged... " In the past, he'd either have to suck it up or move to the appropriate ST class. Now there is a reasonable upgrade path within the entry level class before you bump into the next class level.

I am in *huge* agreement about the tire changes in Stock (...errrr, "Street"). Eliminating remote-reservoir dampers, yeah man. The other stuff, I'm not as much in favor of, even though it actually helps me prep my daughter's car. I'd rather see the transitions between S>ST and ST>SP bumped down a little on the mod scale so that the commitment level is lower in lower classes.

So what proposed allowances would you remove from Street? Now is the time to suggest them.

I don't see the point of keeping the Stock class around, either regionally or locally. So it could be as sparsely attended as many of the Mod classes?

I can't think of a single modification to my car that will save me money autocrossing. Oh wait, yes I can, anything that will allow me to adjust camber. Not having camber bolts will cut the life of my $600 tires in half. $30 in bolts to save $300 in tire life. Even if you can't run bolts and need to run plates or some other camber device it should end up being cost effective by the second set of tires. Letting people adjust camber to save tire life is the most intelligent part of this whole proposal.
Then there is the wheel size thing. Going up or down an inch isn't a huge deal performance wise, but it can really open up you ability to purchase tires if your car is old or your manufacturer is not so bright. Again, I think this is a good idea. Sway bars. Here I'm not so sure. It seems that the only one bar rule lets you change the balance of the car. That makes sense. If I can run bars as big as my leg on both ends then things get a bit wacky. I'm not hugely in favor of allowing changes to both bars.
Shocks are a wear item. Please don't make me put crappy shocks back on my car. Mine are a year old and are already begging to be replaced. I would like to buy something that is quality and will last longer.
I'll say it again, please adopt the same rule set for "stock" class rallycross. Don't make me tear my car apart just so I can play competitively in the dirt. I want to autocross one weekend and rallycross the next weekend and just change tires. I don't want to spend three of my weeknights between events changing around the car.

Another lesser issue is that wheel offset was able to be changed to facilitate the installation of lighter aftermarket wheels of stock size, now wheel diameter has been opened up to allow the use of more common tire sizes...However one of the biggest things holding back many lower class (HS) cars from being able take advantage of this still is the ability to find wheels, regardless of diameter or offset, in the same width. This is specifically in regards to a lack of availability of wheels narrow enough. Personally I would say that since the spirit of these are to facilitate the use of popular tires, they should make an option for something along the lines of allowing small/narrow factory wheel cars being able upgrade to a maximum 15" diameter (for cars on 13's too) and/or a maximum 6.5" wide wheel, requiring a maximum 195mm (maybe 205mm) wide tire when taking advantage of one or both wheel size allowances...Which are respectively among the smallest/narrowest commonly available sizes for autox performance level street tires. Yes, as described this thought has holes you could land a jumbo jet in, but I think a well minded group putting more than my current 30 seconds of thought into it could make something good out of it...Or they could find its fatal flaw and scrap it entirely.

Javelin wrote: Holy cow! Now if they can get off their "3 runs and done" horse I might actually autocross with them again.

plus eleventy thousand billion

I autcross in just about any venue but SCCA due to the fact that I will have to put in 10+ hours to get 3 - 30-45 second runs. A minute long run is a rarity in my area.

Every other club/sanctioning body with the same number of attendees gives us longer runs (at the same physical location) and more runs plus a few fun runs at the end if you stay and help clean up. This proves that it's the system not the limitations of the location.

77 thousand classes (OK maybe it's not that many, but it feels like it when you're sitting there burning in the sun) makes for an unwieldy event.

DILYSI Dave wrote: With plates, you can adjust your camber for a day of autox in WAY less time than it takes to change wheels, and then you can change it back at the end of the day, easily, repeatable, etc.

For those that can use them, I suppose. Maybe I've been out of the tuner scene for too long, but last I had any awareness most of the cars with the worst problems that would see the most benefit from this rule (think HS rather than DS cars) were unlikely to have camber plates intended to work with stock springs commercially available, or had an upper mount design that prevented the use of camber plates entirely. Obviously it's impossible to create rules that apply to all cars equally, but I would hope that in practice this rule will actually help far more models of Honda, Ford, and Mazda, than BMW and Porsche.

.

Also sticking to strut cars and moving on to thinking about shocks, I could see a benefit to limiting the allowed shocks to those offered for sale in both conventional and strut type (or strut insert) construction. This would prevent strut cars from not having access to the same types of higher quality shocks that the conventional shock cars can get...Or is this the answer to a problem that doesn't exist? It just always seemed to me that conventional shock cars have more high end shock options that will still allow them to fit within the rules than strut cars.

I'm glad to see a lot of people happy about the proposal. Also glad to see many thinking it will be less expensive to be competitive. I'm not sure that's true. It might be, but not sure.

In general I like what they're trying to do. We'll just have to see if it works. Just a couple of things that seem odd to me. If the idea is to make it more inviting for people, and make it seem less like you have to spend a lot to run a competitive car, I'm not sure if camber plates are going to make that sell. I understand the intent there. I can't imagine trying to run a modern, small FWD car in stock. They must go through tires like crazy, and that will help. But the folks who know that aren't first timers checking it out. Think back to before you wrenched a lot. Camber plates would have looked like a big deal to me. Bolting on wheels and tires? I can do that. Taking aparty my front suspension? Not so much. Remember, a lot of this is perception, not reality.

I just don't see it changing the landscape for a first timer a lot. You're still going to come out and get your ass handed to you by people who are better drivers. When they tell you that you can make a lot of that time up without doing anything to your car, you're not going to believe them. You're going to see them all running the same tires, which aren't the all-seasons you have and aren't a reasonable year round optoin. You're gonig to see camber plates and big sway bars and say "well, I'd be fast too if I was rich". You'll be just as wrong as you are today, but that's what you'll say.

On the other side, here's another round of cars that people have spent time and money on becoming obsolete. If it's followed by a load of "street" classinig changes, it will be the same again. My biggest fear with autocross isn't that my tires will be made obsolete, it's that my car will. Makes a set of A6s look like a hell of a bargain. That was a big part of the thinking that went into my move to FSP where I saw older cars doing well year after year.

It's a tricky tight rope to walk. I hope this all works out the way they intend. I guess I still haven't made up my mind. I'll let the chips fall and when the dust settles I'll figure out where I am. My old MR2 already isn't a competitive E Stock car anymore. The Celica may never be a good FSP car. We'll see. If it all works as intended I may buy something in a few years that will work in "Street". I just really hope it doesn't work for a year, then get shuffled to some other "Street" class where it doesn't.

In reply to Driven5:

I'm not sure what you mean. The shock rules are revised in the proposal to limit (or try to) use of expensive shocks.

Not enough runs at an event is a local region problem, not a SCCA rules problem. I know in the Philly region they try very hard to get at least 4 runs. Five is more common and occasionally 6 if the stars align.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Also glad to see many thinking it will be less expensive to be competitive. I'm not sure that's true. It might be, but not sure. hope it doesn't work for a year, then get shuffled to some other "Street" class where it doesn't.

It may not be much cheaper when your looking for that last .0000000000000000000000000000001 seconds for a Nationals win, but I think you'll find the average Joe can get a lot closer for a lot less without A6's and Penske's, that's what matters.

If you have a DD that runs on street tires and your not prepared to invest in or want to swap on and off a second set of wheels and tires, you'r still going to be a couple of seconds closer to the pro's, who even if they bring dedicated wheels and tires, are still on real tires, not pure racing slicks with a shadow of a groove and some meaningless DOT stamp on the side.

In reply to Adrian_Thompson:

That's a good point. The gap should be smaller. Maybe that does help with perception.

Anyone understand this Street Prepared Light idea? Are they going to dump them into existing SP classes or set up new limited SP classes? I'd think a ton of cars that were "Stock" will end up in FSP if it's the former. I'd think there are going to be a lot of classes with 2 people in them if it's the latter.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Dave may be able to answer better, but I wouldn't expect any definite information any time soon. My guess is they'll want to let the dust settle from this change first.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

I'm thinking the poobahs have a database on Stock w/R-comps vs SP classes and will then assign cars to the SP classes with roughly equivalent times.

LPSP is likely to see a big shake-up on how "stock" cars compare to seriously built SP cars.

I've been in this a long time, so I have a few opinions. When I started, my first set of autocross tires were the A008R's. You could run them for 1 to 2 seasons, and still be able to drive these some on the street. My last set of "R's" that I ran on a stock class car lasted about about 3 events. Do I think that's an issue, yes. I personally like the idea of no "R's" in stock, but some people will not.

But I think by far the biggest issue is too many classes. There are at least a half more classes, maybe closer to 2/3's more than when I started. Anything that can be done to streamline these and give a clear path is a good thing in my opinion. This seems to address that to some degree, but I think some tweaking is in order.

When Street Prepared was first introduced, it was meant as more or less the same thing ST is now, just with R compounds. It was a step to prepared. I think SP though can be even more expensive to run, and they mucked about with the rules so much they are nothing but dedicated cars, when they were meant to be for modified street cars.

No one is ever going to be happy with the changes, but I think this is a good first step for address the issues. Personally, I like it.

racerdave600 wrote: When Street Prepared was first introduced, it was meant as more or less the same thing ST is now, just with R compounds. It was a step to prepared. I think SP though can be even more expensive to run, and they mucked about with the rules so much they are nothing but dedicated cars, when they were meant to be for modified street cars.

I think this is inevitable with any preparation rules system.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I understand the intent there. I can't imagine trying to run a modern, small FWD car in stock. They must go through tires like crazy, and that will help.

Mine never did......granted I rotated them religiously after events. The biggest load of E36 M3 was learning while having nationally competitive people on hoho's in your class. You couldn't tell if you were actually doing something right or not. The redline was much different than the focus I learned on though, it was the reincarnation of Thor's hammer when it was dropped into G-stock. Oh, your in a mini S/gti/svtf/srt4/etc, you're screwed.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Anyone understand this Street Prepared Light idea? Are they going to dump them into existing SP classes or set up new limited SP classes? I'd think a ton of cars that were "Stock" will end up in FSP if it's the former. I'd think there are going to be a lot of classes with 2 people in them if it's the latter.

The concept is that they would run in existing SP classes, but built to a Limited Prep level. A stock car playing in SP would obviously be classed in a slower SP class than that same car being built to SP allowances.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Anyone understand this Street Prepared Light idea? Are they going to dump them into existing SP classes or set up new limited SP classes? I'd think a ton of cars that were "Stock" will end up in FSP if it's the former. I'd think there are going to be a lot of classes with 2 people in them if it's the latter.

The concept is that they would run in existing SP classes, but built to a Limited Prep level. A stock car playing in SP would obviously be classed in a slower SP class than that same car being built to SP allowances.

This just sounds utterly confusing......Just leave the street prepared classes the way they are. SCCA doesn't really need more classes, it just needs the amount it has now and fixed(which you guys are doing)