So long SCCA Stock; hello Street

Bobzilla wrote: I never understood running a stock class anyway. Pick the wrong car and you suck. That's why I liked ST- so much. You could pick the wrong car but still be halfway competitive because you can overcome their faults. This is realyl important to people that want to "run what you have".... like me.

^^^ This.

I never ran Stock; all my time (and money) was spent in Street Prepared, Prepared and ST. Yeah, I've actually run on r-comps, slicks and tires with high TW ratings. Funs was had regardless of the tires.

The new ruleset has created ST-Lite.

oldsaw wrote:

ransom wrote: Why should we try to regulate with an eye on cost? Racing is expensive; if you can't or won't join the fiscal arms/tires/shocks race, take up birdwatching.

I have absolutely no problems with regulating to reduce costs. I have problems with those casual participants who (wrongfully) believe they are just a set of tires away from winning.

That was some cheap-shot snark on my part, for which I should be ashamed. And it was triggered by a lot of arguments around this idea on a lot of topics, and I wasn't very clear about that.

I agree that it's an important distinction, and that some folks may be anti-R-comp for that reason. I just feel that it's a high expenditure with little reward for street-driven cars at the local level.

I feel that any street-licensed class should be run on tires you could reasonably drive a weekend-toy type car on as much as you want to drive that car.

Otherwise, folks who actually use their street-licensed cars on the street have to have two sets of wheels and tires, while the folks who only use their cars for autocross still only need one set, and are only deprived of an advantage over DDers who don't have R-comps, and fundamentally, I wouldn't want that. It just means I'm racing in an effectively smaller unwritten sub-class.

R-comps are, to me, a historical fork which should wither. Whether TW140 or TW200, street legal tires should be actual street-usable tires, and any classes which shouldn't be restricted to that should be allowed slicks (which will presumably be autocross-compounded). R-comps are no more useful than slicks.

Ian F wrote: In my experience in talking with some who tried auto-x for awhile and then quit, it had less to do with R-Comps (although it was a common knee-jerk excuse) and more to do with not realizing how hard it would be after the initial novelty wore off. They don't want to admit they can't or won't do what it takes to get better so they blame R-comps. Re-writing the rules to appeal to these people is a fool's errand.

Isn't this supposed to be a fun sport? Aren't we all racing for bragging rights and the occasional chotschky? SCCA and other AX clubs should definitely pander to the occasional racer, the serious folks are well taken care of, either by staying in Stock and continuing to kick Kotzien levels of butt or in other classes if they want to run stickier tires or other mods. At the end of the day, what are we doing? Running door to door at 100+ MPH? No. We're driving very fast around orange cones in a parking lot, its not a serious sport to the outsider. To them its like Frisby Golf or LARPing. So calm down, build your car to the class you want to run, sit down, shut up and run.

Honestly, I think it makes sense to try and keep "stock" cars closer to stock with a few allowed improvements that many make to their own vehicles without having to monitor manufacturers TW ratings for each tire they put on their cars. Again, this is supposed to be fun and keeping the playing field level without a huge, seemingly required, buy-in is just one way to do it. The other is to provide as much assistance as possible to the new and/or occasional racers so they don't feel so lost or overwhelmed.

When I seriously went autocrossing a few years ago, I specifically skipped the local SCCA series that was less than 30 minutes away because they were just too serious and I just wanted to have some fun, so I drove 3 hours south to race with some laid back folks that I had raced with when I was younger. The wife and I also got to enjoy some areas of our state that we've not seen before, which made it much more palatable to have the S.O. onboard and enjoying it herself.

Having spousal buy-in and proper scheduling are the sorts of things that some people have to do in order to make their chosen auto sport work. Its not like other sports where you can just show up at the park/rec center, etc and play a pick up game or meet up with a bunch of friends and play for a few hours and go home (one could dream of something like that for autocross). Even track day events are easier to deal with since you can practically find a track day nearly every weekend, show up, pay your money, and drive very quickly around the track for a while, then go home. No work requirement, no special equipment aside from a helmet, no BS classing. No scoring either, except the occasional bragging rights.

I know I'm not going to ever win an event, I'm just not that dedicated nor am I that good a driver and I'd much rather put the money and energy it would take to chase that sort of recognition into Road Racing with Chump/LeMons/SCCA/NASA/ETC. With that said, I'll run my 924 next year with the local PCA folks because they run a good event and there's no BS, just show up, run/work and have some fun. SCCA can either continue down the road of alienating the occasional racer for the very small group of dedicated folks, or they can try to win some of them back.

Sigh, its going to be a looooong winter around here.....

In reply to Bobzilla:

I'll be back in a prepared class before long.....heck, the sho wasn't even legal for SM when I was running it, too fragile though

Here is a valid question to everyone, Who and when was it decided that R-compound tires should be legal for stock classes?

I welcome you back with open arms for some buttkicking from the correct Korean car. As much as I loved old Porky, that Elantra had nothing on this one.

In reply to turboswede:

People want different things out of autocross.

Personally, I don't see autocross as being "fun" from a driving perspective. To me, it is the competition. The test of how well I can read, remember, and drive the course. While I want to run a car that is competitive against others in my class, in reality I'm only competing against the course and myself.

Some just want to drive fast. These types often complain about the amount of seat time or runs they'll get for the amount of time spent at the event. To me, that's not want autocross is about.

In reply to ransom:

I'm really pretty ambivalent about r-comps getting deleted from Stock; I see the issues from both sides.

I also know the history of when and why r-comps found their way into the class. A full generation's worth of drivers have invested a lot of time and money into something and now its' going away; they are naturally going to be a bit contentious.

The tire-expense issue has been (kinda) resolved but it won't take long for another to take its' place.

In reply to Bobzilla:

You might be able to beat the ti in pax.....I doubt you'll be able to raw time it. (even if it shows up n/a)

yamaha wrote: Here is a valid question to everyone, Who and when was it decided that R-compound tires should be legal for stock classes?

It goes back aways. When I first started back in 2009, we had a long, drawn out discussion about this subject. Some quotes from that discussion by a guy who was there:

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.

Hmmm, wait a minute....

Quote: Originally Posted by IanF
Yeah... the tire rules have made me scratch my head for years...

When did the "200 treadwear for ST rule" get changed to 140? /Quote

When a couple of tire companies pushed a bunch of well known competitors to petition the Solo board for the change (the argument was that the 200 number was just outside the popular 'performance' range and therefore less attractive for manufacturers to support.... which was kind-of the point of the original 200 rule).

Quote: Originally Posted by IanF
IIRC, the ST_ classes were created in an attempt to attract the "tuner" crowd... and they had the "no R-comp" rule so they could run their regular tires. /Quote

Not so much to attract them to the event, but to get them to come back after trying it once (and losing to the serious people).

Right now a former Subaru STU front-runner has acquired a BugEye WRX (the lightest body) and is updating the drivetrain/suspension to 2009 specs (better power & geometry). Not exactly what you might call a 'casual tuner' that needs to be accomodated...

Quote: Originally Posted by IanF
But I agree... my Federal tax return instructions were easier to decipher... Makes you wonder if the people running the SCCA are lawyers... /Quote

Worse... they're written via a democratic membership-driven process.

For the record, the writer races a F500 in Club Racing.

yamaha wrote: Here is a valid question to everyone, Who and when was it decided that R-compound tires should be legal for stock classes?

Yokohama got that ball rolling in the mid-80's when they introduced tires like the 001R and A008R. They were DOT-approved, thinly disguised race tires with extremely limited tread wear, but they were legal within the rules. Then people noted that the Hoosier tires used in Street Prepared had the same legal properties and the club was lobbied (by members) to remove them from an exclusion list. BFG soon joined the fray. They all offered contingency money and the war was on.

The club made the decision because of influences from members and vendors.

Basically they failed to nip the problem the first time around so now they're finally fixing it.

I remember even in the late 70s there were tires that were definitely faster and desired. I think the Phoenix Stahlflex was considered a fast tire that you had to have.

In reply to yamaha:

No, they're responding to member input, just like they did almost 30yrs ago.

Wouldn't it make more sense to put a minimum treadwear of 400, so you cant "thinly" disguise anything? Make it also that tires most have a certain minimum tread depth so you can't shave tires.

In reply to PHeller:

Because that would impact people with high-end sports cars.

The only true way to get around this is the mandate that the tires you run meet the TW requirements of your OEM tires, which would be nearly impossible to police, especially if the car manufacturers got involved. Not too mention that the tire manufacturers could still fudge the numbers anyway they'd like as those are guidelines really.

turboswede wrote: To them its like Frisby Golf or LARPing.

I laughed so hard! Autocross - the racing cars version of LARPing!

Excellent post through, that really drives home the reasons for the changes, and the challenges AX faces as a sport on the whole.

Looking forward to having you around next season. Coming to Spirit Mountain next month?

Also, there's a local slot car club that races all winter. Since I have about 200 HO Scale slot cars, I need to do this, or shut up and set up my own damn tracks and invite people over.

In reply to PHeller:

I still think the shaved tires thing only prevents that "New tire squirm".....I haven't been able to tell any difference in star specs between new, slightly worn, to "Where the hell did you get dunlop slicks?" They've always been good to me, I'm hoping that the Z II will continue that for the years to come.

In reply to Javelin:

Well, its true if you look at it from the outside perspective. When I'm introduced to people as someone who "races" and I try to explain what kind of racing I do, the eyes glaze over and well I just trail off since the moment has passed. Maybe its me? Even ChumpCar racing is hard to explain since the average person only knows how to relate by how fast you go in a straight line. Let alone purposely building a cheap POS to go racing with for 12-36 hours at a time.

At least with modern tech, I can show people videos and pictures off my phone, etc., without that, I'd just be that weird guy with the old, broken cars that drives too quickly around parking lots occasionally (not that I mind, but it is hard to sell people on the idea to come out and try it).

On that note, I really wish we could take passengers at the AX to help introduce people to it. Oh well. Also not sure about next month yet. Need to fix the car first before making the decision.

I do agree and support the changes that the OR-PCA are making for the Non-Porsche classes. It really is a matter of you either over regulate the situation and make yourselves crazy or you un-regulate it and try and separate the major drivetrain types and let them duke it out for the bragging rights.

In reply to turboswede:

You mean your region doesn't allow passengers?

In reply to yamaha:

OR-PCA doesn't, unless they are an instructor. SCCA does I believe and so does the EESCC that I used to run with in Eugene. The wife really enjoyed riding with me when I ran with EESCC, so much so, she got her own helmet (that and she hated borrowing other people's helmets, heh).

yamaha wrote: In reply to turboswede: You mean your region doesn't allow passengers?

Our insurance stopped allowing it besides specific instructors named on our policy for 2013. Our Instructors give multiple new people/spectators/first-timers rides every event. I don't know if that's how the insurance industry is trending, though.

I started autocrossing in the early-mid '80's, about the time R-spec tires were starting out. I remember when you had to have A001's, and the then the A008R's. This argument started even then. Before that, the Phoenix was indeed the tire to have.

When I bought my first set of A008's, I ran them for two seasons and would drive to events on them. I loved those things, but they probably wouldn't even win a street tire class today.

My point is, the tread wear number is just a number. There will be tires built to win this class, and there will be a favorite. They will slowly get faster and faster, and you will end up needing a second set of wheels, and they will end up shaved and last only a couple of events. There are always people who want to win and will find a way to do it, and that usually means spending more money.

It doesn't make this wrong or right, it's just the way it is. If you just want to play, don't worry about it. If you want to win, you're still going to have to spend money. Stock class has never been the cheapest class. It's always been the one where you need the latest car, shocks, tires, etc. I just don't see this changing at all with the new rules.

The thing to watch going forward is "camber".

Knowing what the max-min requirements of your competition will be running will make policing easier. No camber plates will benefit the non-McPherson strut cars to an overwhelming degree. NO crash bolts. The BMW situation is an example of nanny under-steer based on positive camber manufactured in and smaller front rims/tires.

The plus/minus on the rims does not specifically cover the question of a square set-up. If you change one end do you need to add to both?

Yes, there are lots of Lawyers. I had the opportunity to instruct a LA city district attorney. He had a very nice Z06.

What are the SS cars going to do now without the Ho-Ho's.

racerdave600 wrote: My point is, the tread wear number is just a number. There will be tires built to win this class, and there will be a favorite. They will slowly get faster and faster, and you will end up needing a second set of wheels, and they will end up shaved and last only a couple of events. There are always people who want to win and will find a way to do it, and that usually means spending more money.

The tendency is there, yes, absolutely true, but I just can't go along with the blanket statement that tire limits are essentially utterly unenforceable and why should we even try? Even if that were the case, then why don't we just let everybody have slicks in every class? Why pretend the tires are going to be good for anything but autox?

Current TW140 tires are, at least many of them, totally usable on the street. If we have to pull in some other identifiers, like durometer at 40 degrees fahrenheit, so be it. They are physical objects, and if treadwear won't tell us enough, we can measure it other ways.

Moreover, having a "best" tire doesn't even bother me; I'm still just hoping to get TW-based tires on the street-related classes. The difference between a Rival and a Star Spec is still little enough to not let one or the other walk away at the local level.

racerdave600 wrote: It doesn't make this wrong or right, it's just the way it is. If you just want to play, don't worry about it. If you want to win, you're still going to have to spend money. Stock class has never been the cheapest class. It's always been the one where you need the latest car, shocks, tires, etc. I just don't see this changing at all with the new rules.

The important thing for me is that I, and I think a lot of people, fall into a middle ground you skipped over: I'm not going to shell out for fresh Hoosiers every season because I absolutely have to win the Podunk Championships, but on the other hand, I'm out for more than driving around in a parking lot.

I want to be able to gauge my results against other competitors.

This false division of local competitors into cost-is-no-object paragons of bloody-mindedness or goofballs who just want to slide around on all-season tires with a silly grin is an inaccurate representation of the variety of people involved.

In reply to racerdave600:

It's nice to see a contribution from another of the "Been There, Done That, Got a Bunch of T-shirts" crowd.

I started in the mid-80's when I worked for a local tire company. With my employee discount, I bought 001R's and the 008's and autocrossed them for a year. By that time, they were heat-cycled out but made great street tires - unless it rained. Yes, my circumstances allowed to have multiple sets of wheels and tires.

At one time, I was actually gifted a set of early production BFG r-comps. A bigger improvement came from a used set of Hoosier bias-ply Autocrossers that I bought from fellow SP competitor who moved up to Prepared.

Regardless of how much I spent, I still went faster than a whole bunch of far more expensive cars running in Stock.

In reply to jr02518:

I know the "camber" issue was probably a big debate topic with the poobahs. Like you noted, it benefits some cars over others and it renders some popular cars relatively uncompetitive. I guess when people start complaining about excessive tire wear because they don't have enough camber, things might change.

Or they can just go and buy the best car-de jour; like that's the cheapest alternative.