SCCA classes available to a Miata?

oldsaw wrote: Over 25 years ago the stock-class competitors wanted to use r-comps and lobbied the SCCA to allow them. The club paid attention and eventually changed the rules to accommodate the wishes of its' members. The decision was never taken lightly and received a lot of review before the change was implemented; it followed a process used for literally every change to the "national" ruleset.

Tires are a lot different now from 25 years ago. Carefully reiterating that I'm not lobbying for anything, but I'm wondering whether the same logic that applied 25 years ago with just r-comps and normal tires still applies with r-comps, normals, and the middle ground of just-over-140-treadwear tires.

Is there anywhere a sticky, FAQ, or historical record that could help me understand the historical considerations instead of asking these questions without context?

oldsaw wrote: Your view obviously differs, but I'm not seeing anyone (on this thread or others) who are SHOUTING you down for your opinions. We are, however, trying to explain why things are the way they are AND we are trying to explain how those who share your agenda can effectively change the rules.

No need to apologize. Yes, I understand that there is a process. That process has been explained. Certainly as a non-member I am outside that process and therefor fall into the "Didn't vote? Don't bitch" category. What has not been explained is why the rules are this way beyond the immediately obvious point that they are because they are. I have never seen any information about the logic behind the original decision beyond the simple "majority voted for it". 25 years ago both tire tech and the automotive hobby were radically different than they are now. That to me is a valid consideration. Yet in this case - elsewhere too, though there are numerous examples of it in this very thread - the decision seems unimpeachable largely because it was made 25 years ago. The prevailing opinion seems to be "it's been decided forever and changing it would be painful, so it can never be changed".

But you complain about how the SCCA administers to its' members and still refuse to join the club.

Ummm, would it not be risky at best to join a club when you knew in advance you were not happy about the way that club administered to its members?

Then, you complain because your local non-SCCA club uses an index that doesn't favor your ability/desire to compete on a higher level.

Actually, I must not have been clear somewhere. My local non-SCCA club doesn't even use a tire index. Anybody can run any tires. It's a small club and we all know each other and know how we stack up. Classing is loosely based on the SCCA format (and to their credit, the SCCA has continued to allow this) but it is tweaked depending on who shows up that day. It's a different animal from a national organization, and I understand that.

My complaint about the T index value Philly Region uses (which as I understand was derived from national pax data) was minor and I have pointed that out. I also pointed out that I find the T index to be a step in the right direction. But my issue is that this option is not available to everyone because it is a region-by-region choice.

You're not using an argument that shows the clubs as the source(s) of your frustrations.

Not sure I follow. My argument is that I don't understand the logic behind the rule configuration. The rules were configured by the club and the only response I've ever gotten from anybody associated with the club is that the decision has been made and should not be questioned. That is the source of my frustration. That is a deterrent to me joining the club. Why doesn't that demonstrate that the club is the source of my frustration with it?

If you're making an oblique reference to my frustration stemming from a noncompetitive autocross effort (through any combination of skill, commitment, or resources), then I take full credit/blame for both not being a great driver and for not choosing to commit the resources required to excel. That part is not the rules' fault.

But for an organization that seems like it is trying to recruit new members, I think the lowest financial hurdle to being competitive is still too high. There appear (from this semi-outsider's standpoint) to be a few sacred cows that are hindering that recruitment effort. Some of the responses in this thread have not done very much to demonstrate otherwise.

[edit] - I see while I was busy being longwinded, ransom treed me on one of my points.

ransom wrote: Tires are a lot different now from 25 years ago. Carefully reiterating that I'm not lobbying for anything, but I'm wondering whether the same logic that applied 25 years ago with just r-comps and normal tires still applies with r-comps, normals, and the middle ground of just-over-140-treadwear tires.

This is true. The cars are a lot different as well. Take the sway bar rule, for example. Having driven an early 70's car before and after a sway-bar change, the car in stock form would have been down-right dangerous to auto-x. Cars simply weren't designed with the same handling capabilities they have now.

I don't know of any written record of the tire ruling, but a friend from a MINI club tried to explain the situation in another forum where much of the same arguement was occuring. The problem is he wrote a freakin novel over a a number of posts in response to some specific comments (some of which had nothing to do with r-comps), so I'll attempt to pare it down a bit:

Much of the rule stems from a time when a few manufacturers decided to have a tire-war in auto-x, with sponsored drivers, 'special' tires and all that. Those with an "in" had a significant advantage. The tires were DOT-stamped and legal on the street (FWIW, it's technically perfectly legal to run Hoosier A6's on the street - and I've met a few who have who can't or don't want to swap tires at an event), but were essential race tires.

Bearing in mind, these tires were arguably not as grippy as the current crop of ST tires... which have tread compounds that barely last long enough to be acceptable street tires (I drive 35K+ miles a year - if I were to build my DD into an ST* car, I'd still have to swap tires for auto-x).

Probably the two most relavant paragraphs he wrote (back in early 2009) with regards to r-comps:

Had the economy not crashed you'd have been 'lucky' enough to watch a first-hand re-enactment that rule's origin over in the ST* classes (it's still brewing, actually). In the 1980s there was a Manufacturer's tire war in the Stock classes (yeah - in Autocross!?!) where a handful of competitors had access to custom tires that were completely DOT legal... for about 25 feet of travel. Then they were basically full race rubber. After numerous attempts to reign them in, the Solo people simply gave up trying to police an un-policable situation. Keep in mind that a set of race tires aren't radically more expensive than Street Tires (sometimes cheaper) and they are available to everyone. So why create another layer of bueracracy for something you may not be able to stop anyway? The solution was to encourage the creation of Novice classes to accomodate the more casual participants.

Personally, the biggest arguement I have for maintaining the status quo is the choice of tire sizes. The TW140 rules is fine and dandy if you run a car with at least 17" wheels as you have tones of tire choices. However, for those of us running 16" and smaller, the choices get limited very fast. For example, when looking at top-level TW140 tires, only the Star Spec is available in 14" sizes.

Ian F wrote: Personally, the biggest arguement I have for maintaining the status quo is the choice of tire sizes. The TW140 rules is fine and dandy if you run a car with at least 17" wheels as you have tones of tire choices. However, for those of us running 16" and smaller, the choices get limited very fast. For example, when looking at top-level TW140 tires, only the Star Spec is available in 14" sizes.

Thanks for the overview! I need to re-read the whole thing more carefully, but this part jumped out as related to another of my basic questions: If the tire manufacturers weren't doing both R-comps and TW140s, would we see broader size availability of the remaining tire type?

As my primary project/autox car is a BMW 2002 and I'm eyeballing Miatas, the sub-16" tire segment is the only one that actually impacts me for now.

ransom wrote: Thanks for the overview! I need to re-read the whole thing more carefully, but this part jumped out as related to another of my basic questions: If the tire manufacturers weren't doing both R-comps and TW140s, would we see broader size availability of the remaining tire type? As my primary project/autox car is a BMW 2002 and I'm eyeballing Miatas, the sub-16" tire segment is the only one that actually impacts me for now.

It's hard to say... when companies are starting to drop even budget 13" tires (Sumitomo recently dumped the 175/70-13 HTR200), 'hoping' they'll fill a void left by disallowing the A6 and V710 is a shot in the dark. One reason R-comps cost so much is not because of the material costs for Hoosier and Kumho, but because they produce so few numbers of some many different sizes. Also, Hoosier's sole business is race tires, so they sell a lot less and need to make a reasonable profit on every tire to stay in business.

I've been trudging down this road since buying my E30 last year. The stock size is 195/65-14 - of which practically nothing is available. The closest is the 195/60-14 Star Spec. It gets little better when looking for an equivelant +1 size for 15" tires.

I've been hoping companies like Coker and Universal will step up and fill the void left as the majors leave the performance-oriented, smaller-size market.

Ian F wrote: Personally, the biggest arguement I have for maintaining the status quo is the choice of tire sizes.... For example, when looking at top-level TW140 tires, only the Star Spec is available in 14" sizes.

SCCA stock category really caters to mostly new cars. What cars come with less than 15" wheels? It is interesting that all the ST tires come in 15" sizes now. Falken has always had a 14" size RT.

The top R-compounds (A6, V710, Z214 C71) don't come in that broad of sizes either. I've seen several original Minis at events this year. Where's the 10" A6s (they all had those one Yokohamas). Look at the Toyo treadwear 100 tires. Those come in a lot more sizes, and are a lot more practical to drive on the road.

ransom wrote: Thanks for the overview! I need to re-read the whole thing more carefully, but this part jumped out as related to another of my basic questions: If the tire manufacturers weren't doing both R-comps and TW140s, would we see broader size availability of the remaining tire type?

Ianf presents a really accurate cliff's-notes synopsis.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the "big" tire suppliers (Hoosier, Goodyear, et al) were also really big players in club-racing. Upstart companies like BFG and Yokohama wanted to make their names (and improve market share) by competing in growth markets. Products like the Comp T/A R's and A001r's and A008r's were introduced with DOT specs but they hardly behaved like "traditional" DOT tires. The wars began and (as noted) some competitors were receiving development-compound tires that others could never hope to use.

To level the playing field and to appease the competitors, the SCCA made rules adjustments that mandated size-availibility and also effectively eliminated DOT "ringer" compounds. For a long time, Hoosier tires were on an exclusion list - prohibiting the use of their tires in Stock classes. Lobbying commenced (through Hoosier and competitors), the company's bias-plies were allowed in Stock and the tire wars escalated - again.

The same scenario was/is revisited when shocks and brakes rules were/are addressed.

When the SCCA saw dwindling membership numbers, the club wanted to recruit new members. Efforts were made to embrace and attract automotive enthusiasts; the result was the adoption of mini-trucks and, eventually, the ST-based classes. ST was created for the Fast and Furious import crowd - the kids who showed up with modified cars (on street tires). The rules (covering those mods) put the newbies in classes where the regulars would unmercilessy trounce them. So ST came to be (as previously and accurately, noted) SP-lite and as car-design advanced, the other ST-based classes expanded.

HStockSolo wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Now I want to go, have some fun with a couple of buddies, run the event and go home to the family and spend time with them without ever touching a jack, tire wrench etc.

Changing tires at events is a little annoying. Some claim that top SCCA ST* competitors will also trailer cars and/or change tires at events, but that really isn't even true at the national events.

Yes, but the % difference in time between turning up on true daily driven street tires and shaved 140 tread wear tires on special lightweight rims, that are only put on the car after it's been pulled of the trailer! Is magnitudes less than the difference between those same true daily driven street tires and a set of new A6's.

Forget national guys, but if Joe Blow turns up in his DD and get's beaten by a couple of seconds by gut on ST tires he'll probably think, hey that was fun, I could do that again. Now same Joe blow turns up in his DD and get's beat by someone on A6's by 4-5 seconds. He then goes over and looks at the tires and see's what to the general public are all out race slicks, that while they may claim to be DOT legal are in fact flat out illegal and notably non practical to drive on the street, he'll probably think, procreate this, and not come back.

I can totally see the argument for R comps at a National level, but I think you'd be better of having all local events run on street tires, if the serious guys want to run R comps then run in an indexed stock class. This is just my opinion, and as such is obviously 100% correct, but let's not forget just like the part of my anatomy I'm sitting on, every one has an opinion, it's just those opposing mine are obviously wrong :)

In reply to Adrian_Thompson:

If Joe Blow wants to try golfing and buys a set of clubs off e-bay, he's going to quit if he can't beat the club-pro? What about doing it just for fun?

If he's really "into it" he'll do everything within his capablilities to improve his game. If he just decides to quit because his performance is not to "par", it's an ego issue, not equipment.

In reply to oldsaw:

Having run local/clubbie kind of events for close to 2 decades, that does happen.

Once we got street tire classes, they boomed. In one season, they would go from R's to normal tires, so that they did not have to switch.

I know it seems very hard to understant, it seems. But it actually happened.

until the council split specific SP classes off, the largest classes we had, by a really wide margin, were the street tire classes that were roughly (but more liberally) street mod. IIRC, out of 80 drivers, we'd have more than 20 in ONE of those classes.

Thankfully, the whole "appeal to the rules committee" is a whole lot easier for the DCSCC. I was on the governing body when we came out with our version of street mod, and was on it when we added a street tire version, and was on it when we added street tire street prepared. (and I have a very, very, very strong opinion of SM and ST- as a concept, they are brillaint, but classing...eh)

Although, the street tire/stock class started well before I moved to Michigan 20 years ago.

So imagine you have 15in wheels in stock class. Testing the 6 or 7 or so "fast" ST tires in 195-225 / 15s isn't going to be cheaper than R-tires. Also, the A6 has been the dominant tire for the past several years. The fastest street tire changes every other year or so. And what's fastest on some courses may be slower on others, so folks who care about how they do are still going to be spending as much, if not more on tires. I still don't see the benefit, except to the people who don't care to do this to be competitive, and quite frankly, if they don't care to be competitive, I don't understand where the complaint about R-Compounds begins in the first place. If it's an answer of "competing is too expensive", then I've shown why that's not the case with the current tire market on R-Compounds v. streets. If it's the "I don't want to take two sets of tires to events", I've shown why that won't be helped either. You'll still need drys/wets/hots/colds. Plus, for drys, you'll be shaving the tires anyways, so they wouldn't exactly be that much more friendly than R-tires to drive on the street.

If you don't want to be at the top of the field, I don't understand where the complaint is, still. You'd rather be behind by one second than by three, but would still refuse to do what it'd take to win, and as a result, make life IMMEASURABLY more difficult on those up top who just order up a set or two of Hoosiers each year, and run them, without any more testing brands and crap.

oldsaw wrote: If he's really "into it" he'll do everything within his capablilities to improve his game. If he just decides to quit because his performance is not to "par", it's an ego issue, not equipment.

Exactly. When I've seen this, it's almost 100% an ego issue. They want to believe it's the tires that make that other drive so much faster, when in reality it's the loose nut behind the wheel.

These are usually also the same guys who bitch about being at an event for 8 hrs for 4-6 mins of seat time.

You can bend over backwards to appease these types and they'll still complain and never be happy. So the rules commitee listens to and writes the rules for those who come back week after week, year after year.

Ian F wrote:

oldsaw wrote: If he's really "into it" he'll do everything within his capablilities to improve his game. If he just decides to quit because his performance is not to "par", it's an ego issue, not equipment.

Exactly. When I've seen this, it's almost 100% an ego issue. They want to believe it's the tires that make that other drive so much faster, when in reality it's the loose nut behind the wheel. These are usually also the same guys who bitch about being at an event for 8 hrs for 4-6 mins of seat time. You can bend over backwards to appease these types and they'll still complain and never be happy. So the rules commitee listens to and writes the rules for those who come back week after week, year after year.

Word to this. Takeoff Hoosiers are STUPID cheap, and within half a second or so of fresh ones. If you're cheap, buy a set of takeoffs, and if you aren't that close to the guy who's beating you, then don't worry about the tires :). Or better still, just ask to codrive your competitor's car. If you're knocking on his door, I'll bet he'd want to see how much of a car advantage he's got on you as well. I love putting folks in mine who've got good odds to beat me in my own car.

alfadriver wrote: I know it seems very hard to understant, it seems. But it actually happened.

It's not hard to understand at all. It's a lot easier when you have the BTDT t-shirt; I have a few..........

What bothers me is a refusal to recognize the differences between a national ruleset and those tailored to local interests. It's akin to Montana residents who visit urban Virginia and then beotch about the difference in speed limits.

SpeedTheory wrote: Or better still, just ask to codrive your competitor's car. If you're knocking on his door, I'll bet he'd want to see how much of a car advantage he's got on you as well. I love putting folks in mine who've got good odds to beat me in my own car.

True... I would love to build or buy a competitve car - not so much because I think it would let me win, but because then I'd having a better shot of getting one of our local hot shoes to co-drive with me for half a season or so and basically get free coaching.

What region do you run with? I'm in the DC Region and will be traveling up to Philly / Susquehanna events next year when I'm free, no idea where Croydon is, hence my question :).

Ian F wrote:

oldsaw wrote: If he's really "into it" he'll do everything within his capablilities to improve his game. If he just decides to quit because his performance is not to "par", it's an ego issue, not equipment.

Exactly. When I've seen this, it's almost 100% an ego issue. They want to believe it's the tires that make that other drive so much faster, when in reality it's the loose nut behind the wheel. These are usually also the same guys who bitch about being at an event for 8 hrs for 4-6 mins of seat time.

When I bought my car it had been owned by a self-confessed back marker. The car was operating well below capacity and without making any changes at all, within 6 events, I'm now in extremely close contention against 2 of the local hotshoes in a Caterham 7, both of whom are quick, experienced road racers and autocrossers.

Now, before you go all "I told you it was an ego issue", I say this because I am 100% certain that I could hand my car to any one of a dozen folks in the Philly Region and watch it go that much faster again. It's not an ego issue.

I'm also usually one of the first people there in the morning and I am always one of the last to leave. I won't saddle up until I see the doors of the timing truck get shut and locked.

oldsaw wrote: What bothers me is a refusal to recognize the differences between a national ruleset and those tailored to local interests.

What bothers me is the refusal to recognize that the way it IS might not actually be the best way it COULD BE, plus the implication that anyone who thinks so is Bob Costas.

But seriously, while Ian took the time to explain the genesis of it, that's the first actual information I've ever really heard in several years of having this discussion. Thank you for that, at least.

I think ANYONE will admit that it's not the best it could be. Hell, A-Stock exists....

I think a LARGE majority would consider it reasonable, but most of the people who are the most active in the club (national competitors), and who bring the club the most money, are also those who have already purchased, built, and developed their cars based on the fact that they're going to be using R-Compound tires.

I still don't buy that R-Compounds are any more expensive than street tires to COMPETE on. There's no ban on street tires in stock, so the barrier to entry is the same. If it was a "stock cars MUST run on R-Compounds", I'd agree with the proposal more.

If it were possible to spec a compound / size / tread depth, I'd support that. But it isn't. There will ALWAYS be more money to be spent to get on top. Look at how much ST guys spend on tire testing, and how many guys actually winning do you see driving to events on their competition tires? So you're still buying another set of tires, still shaving the second set, so you'll be at comparable wear, still dealing with getting two sets of tires (or more) to the event. Oh, and you get to go slower, too. I think last weekend's H-Stock runs would still be in progress if they were stuck on street tires. Where's the "upside" to changing?

Duke wrote: What bothers *me* is the refusal to recognize that the way it IS might not actually be the best way it COULD BE, plus the implication that anyone who thinks so is Bob Costas.

So, get off the internets, put some skin in the game and prove you're not a Bob Costas; nothing will change until an effort is made. Yes, it is possible your desires won't be realized. Until then, you're really just labeling yourself.

Even if you fail, you can hold your head high and honestly proclaim you fought the good fight. If you choose not to, you can always portray yourself as the martyr of "competitive balance" but you may not receive any more support than you have already been granted.

Your choice.............

oldsaw wrote:

alfadriver wrote: I know it seems very hard to understant, it seems. But it actually happened.

It's not hard to understand at all. It's a lot easier when you have the BTDT t-shirt; I have a few.......... What bothers me is a refusal to recognize the differences between a national ruleset and those tailored to local interests. It's akin to Montana residents who visit urban Virginia and then beotch about the difference in speed limits.

With all due respect, I think that's exactly the point. Why should autocrossers who want to run on street tires HAVE to run local club events? Why should it be optional that a local chapter either run street tire classes or not?

There are a whole host of non "national" classes for SCCA road racing, all goverened by rules from the national office. But for this one part, you make it optional for local clubs to the point where they are better off going to non SCCA clubs.

Then again, I'm not exaclty a fan of the "national vs. local" attutude, either.

Add it all up, it's why I'm not an scca member, can count the scca events I've been to on one hand, yet have averaged around 10 autocrosses a year for close to 20 years. Every time I think it would be interesting to see if I could do well at the championships, I always find better reasons not to.

I feel as though my points are being dodged.

Duke wrote: What bothers *me* is the refusal to recognize that the way it IS might not actually be the best way it COULD BE, plus the implication that anyone who thinks so is Bob Costas.

Again, it comes back to what I said before; if we were writing the rules from scratch, it would be easy to create a rules set that made sense to current technology... but we aren't starting from scratch....

alfadriver wrote: With all due respect, I think that's exactly the point. Why should autocrossers who want to run on street tires HAVE to run local club events? Why should it be optional that a local chapter either run street tire classes or not? There are a whole host of non "national" classes for SCCA road racing, all goverened by rules from the national office. But for this one part, you make it optional for local clubs to the point where they are better off going to non SCCA clubs. Then again, I'm not exaclty a fan of the "national vs. local" attutude, either. Add it all up, it's why I'm not an scca member, can count the scca events I've been to on one hand, yet have averaged around 10 autocrosses a year for close to 20 years. Every time I think it would be interesting to see if I could do well at the championships, I always find better reasons not to.

:golf clap: Why thank you. I was getting tired of being cast as the Unabomber here. And really, oldsaw and I agree on many other things around the forum, but here I'm seeing exactly the attitude that is keeping me out of the SCCA. It's a shame.

SpeedTheory wrote: I feel as though my points are being dodged.

As do I.

SpeedTheory wrote: I think ANYONE will admit that it's not the best it could be. Hell, A-Stock exists.... I think a LARGE majority would consider it reasonable, but most of the people who are the most active in the club (national competitors), and who bring the club the most money, are also those who have already purchased, built, and developed their cars based on the fact that they're going to be using R-Compound tires. I still don't buy that R-Compounds are any more expensive than street tires to COMPETE on. There's no ban on street tires in stock, so the barrier to entry is the same. If it was a "stock cars MUST run on R-Compounds", I'd agree with the proposal more. If it were possible to spec a compound / size / tread depth, I'd support that. But it isn't. There will ALWAYS be more money to be spent to get on top. Look at how much ST guys spend on tire testing, and how many guys actually winning do you see driving to events on their competition tires? So you're still buying another set of tires, still shaving the second set, so you'll be at comparable wear, still dealing with getting two sets of tires (or more) to the event. Oh, and you get to go slower, too. I think last weekend's H-Stock runs would still be in progress if they were stuck on street tires. Where's the "upside" to changing?

Ok.

For your first point, I've supplied my club's partial data that shows a pretty strong preference for street tire classes. Why do you think the "active" club members are national drivers? Or did you not notice that the rules are heavily set toward them. (reminds me of that "argument" I had on miata.net- where the consensus is that CSP drivers have to accept that their cars will have $10 in modifications.... yea, inviting to beginners)

As for the expense- yes, R compount tires ARE more expensive. By at least one extra set of wheels and and extra set of tires. Adrian's point that people show up, run, and go home w/o changing tires should point that out.

As for your "testing", again, you focus on the national competitor, where money is generally on the line. How that prevents the national SCCA from writing rules that are more local centric is beyond me. Drivers do extensive tire tests for R tires, too- there are more than one of those available, too. So the testing "excuse" is pretty moot to me.

What else?

I'm doing my best to approach things from the most reasonable point of view I can. I see the merits for both ways. It'd be a 50/50 for me if we were able to start from scratch and make the rule NOW. But taking back and restructuring the existing class structure as a result, turning also-rans into overdogs, and vice versa, isn't good for anyone. Also, as I've said, street tires in today's market setting ARE NOT ANY CHEAPER to win on than R-Compounds.

Can someone PLEASE point out where the opposition is. I'd really like to take the time to address the problem, and even write a letter in if you can provide a convincing argument, but I haven't seen anything that seems to make a good case to switch (at the National level) over to the 140TW rating in stock.