BIG Stock class change proposal

irish44j wrote:

mazdeuce wrote: 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.

ugh....I want rallycross rulebook to have NOTHING, NADA, ZERO, ZIPPY to do with the Solo rulebook. Rallycross rulebook is pretty good, and we only have 9 classes and straightforward rules. Not the giant clusterberkeley that solo has become...... It's not as if it's that hard to switch out camber bolts to regular between events, is it?

It kind of is if it's the same car that I'm taking the kids to school in, which it is. There's a good chance that I'm the only guy in the country trying to autocross and rallycross competitively at the local level and driving the kids to school in the car. Ok, maybe not the only one, but there probably aren't many of us. Perhaps you're right to keep the two groups from talking to each other.

Will wrote: This is exactly what I want to know. All these stock class guys get boned HARD in this Limited Prep scenario.

To be fair, it seems the first option for them is to run on street tires in the new class.

I'm trying to get behind this whole thing. Really hoping for the best. I can see a lot of potential problems, but you got to start somewhere I guess.

No one has asked the real question which is: is this good for the FRS/BRZ? I'm of the opinion that all SCCA autocross rules should use that question as a guiding force. If this thing takes off and that car works, I can see getting one in two or three years and having fun.

In reply to Will:

I didn't get that impression. It seemed hinted that a few previously classed Stock cars might get reclassed in a limited prep scenario, mostly geared towards higher powered rwd cars that tend not to work well on street tires, C5 Z06's and the like.

I'm sorry for the folks that run in regions that seem to adhere tightly to the Nationals run number. Here,the admins apologize pofusely if we only get 4 runs which sometimes happens if an event is heavily attended (120+ entries).

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Has the scca deemed the abarth 500 isn't a rollover risk yet? If not, I hope they make it so the Frisbee is never competitive.

Javelin wrote: 100% false. It's right in the SCCA rulebook that only three runs will be timed and scored. Even if your local region manages five, only three count, so what's the point?

You have the SCCA rulebook completely wrong like normal.

Solo Rulebook said: 7.3 MINIMUM OF THREE RUNS Each driver shall be allowed at least three (3) official timed runs per course, subject to severe circumstances beyond the control of the event organizers. Reduction in the number of runs offered at the National Championships may be done only with the concurrence of the Chief Steward, Event Chair, SEB Chair, and the Solo® National Office. Only the fastest official run per course will be scored.

In reply to Javelin:

We run 6 to 8 runs in NEPA SCCA. The best of the lot is your best time. I have been to CPA events in which we get 4 runs and the best of the 4 counts. Local regions can do what they want. NEPA is $30 for the 6 to 8 runs.

I've never seen an SCCA event give more than 3 runs. I was told they weren't allowed to do more.

I've never had less than four and as many as six.

carguy123 wrote: I've never seen an SCCA event give more than 3 runs. I was told they weren't allowed to do more.

You were lied to. That sucks. I might not go a lot if we only did three runs regularly. We usually do four, sometimes more, and any time we get someone from a different region they get all bent out of shape. "In Eugene we got 186 runs every time we had an event! All 11 of us!" That's often followed by "why is my work shift soooo long!"

How about we get the discussion back on track and ignore the same old scca haters with the same old tired song and dance they post 4-5x a year right on schedule shall we?

Swank Force One wrote: How about we get the discussion back on track and ignore the same old scca haters with the same old tired song and dance they post 4-5x a year right on schedule shall we?

It's all part of the issue. If Scca, or any entity wants to attract more racers they need to cater to the people who want to race. It doesn't matter if it's a changed rule set or how events are run.

And if you're hearing the same issues over and over again, then maybe you ought to stop and listen. If many people are saying the same thing then there's some validity to the point. Where there's smoke there's fire.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

carguy123 wrote: I've never seen an SCCA event give more than 3 runs. I was told they weren't allowed to do more.

You were lied to. That sucks. I might not go a lot if we only did three runs regularly. We usually do four, sometimes more, and any time we get someone from a different region they get all bent out of shape. "In Eugene we got 186 runs every time we had an event! All 11 of us!" That's often followed by "why is my work shift soooo long!"

Jeebus, I almost posted a really long rebuttal about folks from Eugene... Thought I was being painted a dogmatic SCCA-hater...

Swank Force One wrote: How about we get the discussion back on track and ignore the same old scca haters with the same old tired song and dance they post 4-5x a year right on schedule shall we?

Ah yes, don't like the message, then attack the messenger! Sorry bubba, but my opinion is just as valid as anyone else's. The 5 years of 20+ events attended per year in my logbook say it's probably worth about 2.1 cents, too, at that.

Fact is the SCCA's membership numbers and autocross numbers are going down. One flip through Sportscar will tell anyone that. People have started to realize that there's more than one sanctioning body, and have responded as such. Have you seen the entry list to a Goodguy's autocross?!? PCA, BMWCCA, and NASA all have nation-wide events, as does a lot of the various owner's club (Corvette and Alfa at least, I've run with both of them), plus the proliferation of non-affiliated local clubs. People don't want to deal with an obfuscating rulebook and 6 hours of work for 3 timed runs after blowing 4-digits on tires.

I applauded the SCCA for STR and STF, I applauded them for B-Spec (and the tie-in to AX), and I applauded RT. This, too, looks like a great step in the right direction. It's going to be too little, too late if they don't pick up the pace on all of the other issues as well.

In reply to ransom:

lol Sorry. Should have gone with Dubuque. Maybe Poughkeepsie. I used to always use Paducah. Thought I'd change it up a little. FWIW, I hear Oregon is awesome. Never been. I may retire there though. Nothing personal.

Man, really is a lot of SCCA hate.

Javelin, you seem like a good guy and yes, your opinion is worth as much as anyone else's. This thread is about new proposed rules to make the SCCA more inviting to more people. Chime in with any opinion you may have about that.

It did kinda get off track, talking about SCCA events and seat time, etc. Sorry for my input on those topics. I'm really interested in hearing what people think about this proposed rule change, though, and would like to see this thread stay on track. I don't have any problem with you starting a different thread about what they could do to get people more runs at events. That would be great.

3 runs, or 3 timed runs, or whatever is very rare at a local event. This is the first time I've ever heard of it. I guarantee no one works a six hour shift. If you have ideas for making some of that better, I'm sure people would be interested. I just think maybe this thread isn't the place to talk about that.

carguy123 wrote: If many people are saying the same thing...

Or, you know, two people...

Javelin wrote: People have started to realize that there's more than one sanctioning body, and have responded as such. Have you seen the entry list to a Goodguy's autocross?!? PCA, BMWCCA, and NASA all have nation-wide events, as does a lot of the various owner's club (Corvette and Alfa at least, I've run with both of them), plus the proliferation of non-affiliated local clubs.

You left out the Jaguar clubs....they always use the same course, but I've had fun doing it.

Javelin wrote: People don't want to deal with an obfuscating rulebook and 6 hours of work for 3 timed runs after blowing 4-digits on tires.

Yup. There are many issues with autocross. We've hashed through most of them before. If any local clubs want to increase turn out, they can try adopting some of the ideas listed in these threads:

http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/tims-editorial/23980/page1/
http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/fix-autocrossing-pt-2/23486/page1/
http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/so-really-why-are-autocrosses-on-sundays/39996/page1/

Tom_Spangler wrote:

Javelin wrote: 100% false. It's right in the SCCA rulebook that only three runs will be timed and scored. Even if your local region manages five, only three count, so what's the point?

It does? I don't remember that, though I must admit I haven't looked at an SCCA rulebook since the late 90s. Anyhow, really, only the fastest ONE run counts, so......

Jav. I think you're confusing Nationals and National Tour events ... regional events can be run anyway that satisfies the members requirements ..

the 2 regions I run with both utilize a "pro" class ... this class does adhere to the 3 runs count of per the Nationals rule set ... the rest of us count our fastest run from ALL our runs ( one region is typically 4 runs and the other is typically 6 runs ) ... so you're right and you're wrong ...

carguy123 wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: How about we get the discussion back on track and ignore the same old scca haters with the same old tired song and dance they post 4-5x a year right on schedule shall we?

It's all part of the issue. If Scca, or any entity wants to attract more racers they need to cater to the people who want to race. It doesn't matter if it's a changed rule set or how events are run. And if you're hearing the same issues over and over again, then maybe you ought to stop and listen. If many people are saying the same thing then there's some validity to the point. Where there's smoke there's fire.

It's not many people. It's 2 or 3.

Yes, the SCCA has some issues, but the subject at hand is why the new Street class sucks/doesn't suck.

We don't need to hear about the whole "Well you only get 3 runs with the SCCA but with this other organization i get 40 runs every event and it only costs $5!!!!" when clearly the majority gets well more than 3 runs. Seriously. Every single time someone talks about SCCA autocross that's where the discussion heads.

It's really tiresome.

Javelin wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: How about we get the discussion back on track and ignore the same old scca haters with the same old tired song and dance they post 4-5x a year right on schedule shall we?

Ah yes, don't like the message, then attack the messenger! Sorry bubba, but my opinion is just as valid as anyone else's. The 5 years of 20+ events attended per year in my logbook say it's probably worth about 2.1 cents, too, at that. Fact is the SCCA's membership numbers and autocross numbers are going down. One flip through *Sportscar* will tell anyone that. People have started to realize that there's more than one sanctioning body, and have responded as such. Have you seen the entry list to a Goodguy's autocross?!? PCA, BMWCCA, and NASA all have nation-wide events, as does a lot of the various owner's club (Corvette and Alfa at least, I've run with both of them), plus the proliferation of non-affiliated local clubs. People don't want to deal with an obfuscating rulebook and 6 hours of work for 3 timed runs after blowing 4-digits on tires. I applauded the SCCA for STR and STF, I applauded them for B-Spec (and the tie-in to AX), and I applauded RT. This, too, looks like a great step in the right direction. It's going to be too little, too late if they don't pick up the pace on all of the other issues as well.

I don't care about the message, we all got the memo the first time. This discussion is about Street vs. Stock. Not about a mythical 3-run maximum with the SCCA vs Unlimited runs for free somewhere else or whatever it is you and your friend are talking about. This isn't saying your opinion is null and void, it's just as valid as mine or anyone else's. It's also off topic and irrelevant to the subject at hand. Your opinion is valid, but your statements about a 3 run maximum are not.

I realize there's other organizations and they're probably awesome. What's their equivalent of Nationals where 1200 cars show up?

Can we talk about Street vs. Stock now? I'd be more than happy to make another thread for you and carguy to discuss the fallacies of a 3 run maximum specified in a rulebook that also specifically says to modify any and all rules to suit regional competition requirements.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: This thread is about new proposed rules to make the SCCA more inviting to more people. Chime in with any opinion you may have about that.

Sorry about that!

As for the new rules, they really are going in the right direction. Honestly, 140TW might not even be "high" enough. RT's original proposal was 180 and Goodguys runs 200. IMO, it should be 200 or 300 on the "Street" category. The wheel +1/-1 is a great idea. There's plenty of wheels in the stock width, so I applaud that as well. I like the no remote-reservoir shocks, but honestly, they need to drop shocks all together. It's just not necessary. I liked the old one sway bar or the other, I think allowing both is too much.

The SP "Lite" is an interesting idea as a transitional class. Make it dead by 2016. All of the big-money "Stock" spenders need to be in SP anyway.

Javelin wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: This thread is about new proposed rules to make the SCCA more inviting to more people. Chime in with any opinion you may have about that.

Sorry about that! As for the new rules, they really are going in the right direction. Honestly, 140TW might not even be "high" enough. RT's original proposal was 180 and Goodguys runs 200. IMO, it should be 200 or 300 on the "Street" category. The wheel +1/-1 is a great idea. There's plenty of wheels in the stock width, so I applaud that as well. I like the no remote-reservoir shocks, but honestly, they need to drop shocks all together. It's just not necessary. I liked the old one sway bar or the other, I think allowing both is too much. The SP "Lite" is an interesting idea as a transitional class. Make it dead by 2016. All of the big-money "Stock" spenders need to be in SP anyway.

If you read it, it is 200TW in 2015 with a transition year of 140 in 2014

Oh, and camber plates is not a good idea. I like the bolts only. I don't care how much easier the plates are to adjust at the track, if you're doing stuff like that you don't need to be in "Street" anyway. Plenty of front McStrut cars need the camber bolts, they are easy and cheap to install, and are easy to live with on the street.

In reply to Javelin:

There are several cars that don't attach the strut to the spindle by means of the "2 bolts" method. VW's for example mount the strut basically in a tube that is part of the spindle. Camber plates are really the only solution on these cars.

doc_speeder wrote: In reply to Javelin: There are several cars that don't attach the strut to the spindle by means of the "2 bolts" method. VW's for example mount the strut basically in a tube that is part of the spindle. Camber plates are really the only solution on these cars.

Yep. On a Mk IV, the strut is pinched into the carrier. In theory, you can move the bottom of the carrier away from the LCA, but that places extra strain on the CV joints. Even Camber plates don't allow much room for adjustment when you're stuck with OE diameter springs.

MINI's are similar. Fortunately, Ireland Engineering sells a very affordable (under $200) fixed camber plate that does wonders for tire wear.

Mandating camber bolts only would mean a few cars would benefit and most would be screwed.

Yeah, the camber bolts only work for the cars that can run them. I think this is in response to the people who are always clammoring that they should be able to adjust camber somehow too. Which does make sense, I suppose.

I see people adjust camber plates while they're getting their car ready, but I never understood how that could work well. Adjusting camber like that changes toe. Seems like you still need to set it and leave it alone.