SCCA Reclassifies Tesla Model 3–All the Way to the Top Rung

this was added to section 3.2 of the rulebook in the June fastrack. 

“If a manufacturer issues an official specifications change (software or otherwise) to any previously-classed vehicle, and that change is deemed significant enough to warrant reclassification, the SEB can request the BOD to approve an immediate classing change.”

Cool. Sounds like the rule structure is already there. That'll hold for a little while as performance increases remain fairly uncommon. In 10 years when performance specs could potentially be much more fluid overall, reclassification could be a full time job. 

I won't be convinced the current SCCA classing system is not broken.  It's overly micro classed at this point and fasttrack tries to continually patch it.  
NASA-X's classes make much more sense.

As far as 3.2, we must have different definitions of significant.  

It will be defined as "other competitors complaining" :)

In reply to Keith Tanner :

yep, definitely going to be interesting to see how things progress. 

SK360 said:

I won't be convinced the current SCCA classing system is not broken.  It's overly micro classed at this point and fasttrack tries to continually patch it.  
NASA-X's classes make much more sense.

 

As far as 3.2, we must have different definitions of significant.  

I'm not claiming that SCCA's class structure is perfect. But it's built the way it is, for a reason, and works very well overall. If you don't like it, you can go play with other people. 

You have a lot of skin in the game vested in your opinions with how you feel about the Tesla Model 3 performance. I pulled the data out 3 pages ago in the thread towards why the SEB has their reasons. 

SK360 said:

I won't be convinced the current SCCA classing system is not broken.  It's overly micro classed at this point and fasttrack tries to continually patch it.  
NASA-X's classes make much more sense.

 

As far as 3.2, we must have different definitions of significant.  

Again, the ota update was not the reason for the reclass.

I'm not saying that the scca classing system is perfect by any means. But AS is literally the second largest class in the sport right now and usually the most competitive as well. So clearly people like it as is. Throwing in the still relatively unknown Tesla to disrupt the class just for the three people who want to autocross them is asinine by any measure. It is a little bit of a chicken and egg thing because the car needs to be classed reasonably to get people interested in the first place, but a car is never going to get favorable classing if it's not popular. The Tesla was clearly an overdog of sorts in BS from the beginning. If 40 people showed up to Nationals in them, I bet it wouldn't have been moved. But they didn't, five people did, two of which have already moved on because they didn't like it. There's all kinds of cars buried in basically every street class that never get moved because there isn't enough demand to outweigh the risk.

spacecadet said:

SK360 said:

I won't be convinced the current SCCA classing system is not broken.  It's overly micro classed at this point and fasttrack tries to continually patch it.  
NASA-X's classes make much more sense.

 

As far as 3.2, we must have different definitions of significant.  

I'm not claiming that SCCA's class structure is perfect. But it's built the way it is, for a reason, and works very well overall. If you don't like it, you can go play with other people. 

You have a lot of skin in the game vested in your opinions with how you feel about the Tesla Model 3 performance. I pulled the data out 3 pages ago in the thread towards why the SEB has their reasons. 

I just went back to see the data you posted.  Brooks from dragtimes is who got 2.9 0-60 with the newest update with 1ft rollout.  Interestingly enough you can watch a video of his from earlier in the year where he was able to get 3.0 with a 1ft rollout on the previous "BS" power level.  Looking at the CANBUS data I posted in the last page can confirm this as well, there's a negligible difference.  
That's a fantastical article, nothing I would base performance opinions on

But this will just keep going in circles as we won't agree, yes I am passionate about it because owning the vehicle and knowing that the impact of the 2 performance updates that have been released in the last 2 years have been minimal at best but people talk like the BiWeekly OTA updates constantly contain performance tweaks and that's far from the truth. Track mode hasn't gotten a tweak since release, I'm hoping for more customization around it.

SK360 said:

spacecadet said:

SK360 said:

I won't be convinced the current SCCA classing system is not broken.  It's overly micro classed at this point and fasttrack tries to continually patch it.  
NASA-X's classes make much more sense.

 

As far as 3.2, we must have different definitions of significant.  

I'm not claiming that SCCA's class structure is perfect. But it's built the way it is, for a reason, and works very well overall. If you don't like it, you can go play with other people. 

You have a lot of skin in the game vested in your opinions with how you feel about the Tesla Model 3 performance. I pulled the data out 3 pages ago in the thread towards why the SEB has their reasons. 

I just went back to see the data you posted.  Brooks from dragtimes is who got 2.9 0-60 with the newest update with 1ft rollout.  Interestingly enough you can watch a video of his from earlier in the year where he was able to get 3.0 with a 1ft rollout on the previous "BS" power level.  Looking at the CANBUS data I posted in the last page can confirm this as well, there's a negligible difference.  
That's a fantastical article, nothing I would base performance opinions on

 

But this will just keep going in circles as we won't agree, yes I am passionate about it because owning the vehicle and knowing that the impact of the 2 performance updates that have been released in the last 2 years have been minimal at best but people talk like the BiWeekly OTA updates constantly contain performance tweaks and that's far from the truth. Track mode hasn't gotten a tweak since release, I'm hoping for more customization around it.

You're still missing the point (understandably so because a lot of others are as well). The latest update had nothing to do with the reclass. You're correct that the update performance data doesn't support a class change...because that's not the data they based the class change on.

There's an easy solution for you anyway. Local clubs are allowed to modify the rules to suit the needs of their region. Non scca clubs have even more freedom because they're not actually bound to the rules. So talk to the leaders of the club you run with, explain to them the BS (pun intended) of the situation, and get them to allow you to run in BS. Or find a nasa-x event.

In reply to dps214 :

so where's your source since you're so confident the OTA updates had nothing to do with reclassing the Tesla in SS? 

Okay, "nothing" may have been strong wording on my part. But several SAC/SEB members have made it clear that the concern isn't over that specific update as much as the OTA update system overall and all the unknowns and unpredictability of it, on top of the fact that the car is arguably beyond the performance envelope of BS as it sits right now. Words used included "if it was an ICE car we likely still would have moved it".

In reply to dps214 :

ok, we're totally on the same page then. I'm friends with those same people. 

the performance was being discussed here on page 5, but if you go back to the beginning of the thread. I made reference to the same concerns on page 1. 

 

I can accept the last OTA update not having an impact on the reclassing.  Using "what could be" from OTA updates as a reason is hard for me since in 2 years nothing of massive significance has come out, I'm really hoping there's a Ludicrous update for the performance coming soon but I'm guessing it will come with a higher model with 100kw battery pack.   If they really feel it's competitive in SS as is, I guess we will see how the year goes.

I don't care enough about a plastic trophy to care where I run personally, I just enjoyed watching the cars represent at Nationals and open some eyes to what they can do.

Also the car is eligible for ASP, all existing solutions to add camber adjustability makes it illegal there too.  It's a real pickle since they tend to eat the outside shoulder of tires when driven hard.

SK360 said:

I can accept the last OTA update not having an impact on the reclassing.  Using "what could be" from OTA updates as a reason is hard for me since in 2 years nothing of massive significance has come out, I'm really hoping there's a Ludicrous update for the performance coming soon but I'm guessing it will come with a higher model with 100kw battery pack.   If they really feel it's competitive in SS as is, I guess we will see how the year goes.

SCCA Solo is not about giving every car a competitive class. it's about giving every car a class. (barring rollover safety issues, looking at you base Fiesta and Fiat 500).

The M3P very much started changing perceptions the moment they showed up. The Model 3 performance is the EV we've been promised as car people for years. Not only going fast in a straight line, but having the thermal management to continue to turn laps and having the dynamics that it does. Totally mind bending.

and on the performance in SS. it's expected to win any event it enters with rain. 

In reply to Keith Tanner :

Torque vectoring like this? https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15116128/2014-mercedes-benz-sls-amg-electric-drive-first-drive-review/

Top Gear also drove this car; Jeremy Clarkson found it a lot of fun due to the torque vectoring. I believe I also read a description that said that with the torque vectoring you could actually push the accelerator further to turn tighter/correct your line because the software would overdrive the outside wheels more.

The SLS Electric Drive is probably the coolest electric car made so far.

Keith Tanner said:

Adrian_Thompson said:

Serious Q on the OTA updates.  Does it prevent the car running?  Does it need to be off line like a phone or a watch?  The reason I ask is I was talking to to someone over X mas dinner who is a marathon runner.  He has a (I think) Garman or Fit bit running watch.  Whatever it was, it was a top line smart watch just for runners.  He traveled to Japan for the (again I think) Tokyo Marathon and early morning local time the day of the marathon the watch received a forced over the air update.  Suddenly thousands of runners getting hyped up for the race find their fancy watch MIA.  He said there were hundreds of people calling back to the US, where it was still business hours the day before, yelling at customer service who apparently did abort the push.  I wonder if this could happen with cars too?  BTW, they now check major international race dates and avoid software pushes for 24 hours before.  

The car is unavailable for about 25 minutes. When an update is available, the car will let you know and then offer to set an update time - it defaults to the middle of the night. You can also choose to do it immediately. When the time comes, it counts down the last couple of minutes and gives you an abort option up to the point where the update starts. You also get notifications on your phone that say the same thing.

So while it would be theoretically possible to get yourself in a situation where you need the car and it's unavailable for 25 minutes, it would be pretty difficult to do so.

Ooo, ooo, that means that SCCA needs to add another classification for reason you can't run, the EDNS instead of mechanical did not start.  There is also an emergency mechanical problem allowance but that has a time limit IIRC (never used it nor seen it used).

At the Solo Nationals you never have 25 minutes between runs, so you'd miss one if things went the worst possible way.

Lug_Nuts_23 said:

In reply to Keith Tanner :

 I believe I also read a description that said that with the torque vectoring you could actually push the accelerator further to turn tighter/correct your line because the software would overdrive the outside wheels more.

This was one of the interesting characteristics I found with driving a spool in a rear drive car.  Once past a certain amount of lateral force, adding power would tuck the nose tighter into the corner like someone was pulling on the bumper with a rope.  I think it's because the inside tire would be past the point of max grip on its slip ratio curve, so accelerating would result in mainly the outside tire getting the grip.

This is one example...  It was kind of eye opening with my S60R that I could tighten a line by accelerating, albeit it was nowhere near as pronounced an effect.  (Something something 4000lb car on 8" wheels)

PT_SHO said:

At the Solo Nationals you never have 25 minutes between runs, so you'd miss one if things went the worst possible way.

That's absolutely not true. Especially when you add mechanicals into the equation. Would be interesting to see the ruling on if forced software update is a valid reason for a mechanical.

As I noted, it would basically be your own damn fault for getting into that situation. It's not something that happens by surprise. It would be like having to do an emergency oil change.

In reply to Keith Tanner :

"Emergency oil change" sounds like the guy who shows up at a half hour before closing on a Friday, with no appointment, and he needs an oil change because he's going on vacation that weekend.

Toebra said:

EV has 100% of its torque available instantly, not the case with ICE

Not true.  It takes 1/10th of a second.

Keith Tanner said:

GRM did a great summation of the SCRAMP fracas at Laguna Seca. I'm hoping they take a deep dive into what these self-modifying cars mean for the SCCA and rule sets in general, because that's more interesting than the fact that it's a Tesla that brought the issue to light. They're the perfect magazine to do it well.

That was the grand and omnipotent Steven Cole Smith.  Just point him at this subject and he'll get to the bottom of it.

In reply to Jerry From LA :

Let me fire up the SCS Signal. 

SCCA just moved ALL Model 3's to SS.  Quoting Dyno Mode (which Tesla immediately nerfed so that it doesn't work when GPS detects movement) and Track Mode V2 (which is a Performance only feature which was already SS).  Complete joke and shows how out of touch they are.

In reply to SK360 :

Software is hard to prove, though.  And can you foil the GPS with some Reynold's Wrap?

In reply to SK360 :

Where would you class a car that can get software updates that affect performance at any time?  I think the rules committee is trying to avoid an emergency class bump/ban when an update comes out a few days before nationals.