Take part in the future of 200tw autocrossing

One of the benefits of running in a dead class in my local club (CSP, I'm the only one in the class) is that I learned that my competition is self-determined and event-wide. Though I do try to keep any mods inside the ruleset for CSP, nobody cares what I do to my car as long as it passes tech, and I consider my competition to be whoever is setting times close to me. That means my Miata is competing against Porsches and Luxuses (Lexii??) as well as my personal goal of beating every other Miata at the event (finally accomplished at the last event of the season this year :P). It's relaxed and fun and I think that's what autocross is supposed to be.

I suppose that's not particularly helpful to the topic at hand, other than to say that at least at the local level classing doesn't have to have much impact on a novice's experience. My dad and I have been introducing my sisters to the sport and they have no real care about what class they're in, they just come to drive. You run what you brung, you end up in the class you end up in, and then you race people who lay down similar times to you regardless of which class they are in and you have a good time. IDK if adding more classes will really affect the novice experience that much.

I remember the early days of Street Touring...  the design objective was to attract the import/tuner crowd and the classing rules were unconventional (by SCCA standards) - relying upon the cumulative effect of mods rather than make/model.  How'd that work out for attracting street racers?  Nope, it mostly had a parasitic effect drawing existing participants to the new classes.

Autocross classing is rooted in the notion that you can equalize the equipment to emphasize the driving talent - RTP/PAX is the mutated spawn of this thinking.

The novelty of XS - in its infancy, was that suddenly we were racing cars... and the car mattered.  Run wut you brung, and if you brung 400hp and AWD and you can drive worth a damn, you're probably gonna beat me.  But I'm going to try to make you sweat trying.   Locally it seems a lot of people are okay with that.  I am.  I know I bring a knife to a gunfight.

So who is XS designed to attract anyway?  Having it be a nationally recognized class gives it legitimacy over your regional street-tire concoction, but will probably ruin as a local catch-all.  Too bad.  

Yeah that's the thing. If we're trying to make classes based on how cars perform in roughly stock trim...we already have those classes. If we're trying to make a "run what you brung" class, then it doesn't really matter how good the car is in stock form or how many seats the factory installed or anything other than wheelbase and weight, because those are basically the only controlled parameters within the rules.

These classes already existed and were fairly popular within a lot of regions as some type of street mod-street tire class. The original point of XS was to create a common ruleset for consistency, and make it eligible for national events.

Edit: I understand the club doesn't control PAX, but as long as we're giving these classes indexes based on ultimate performance, we should be basing the classing on that as well. If we're going to have this "street plus" classing system, can we at least get Rick Ruth to give us "street plus" indexes?

When in doubt, add more classes. That'll fix it!

JG Pasterjak said:

XR7 said:

One other weird CAM C - CAM T issue. What is the reasoning behind allowing CAM T cars to run in CAM C if they meet the minimum weight requirement? CAM C cars can't run in CAM T if they meet the CAM T minimum weight requirements. Either separate the two classes completely or combine it into a single class.

This was mostly to allow the CAM T cars with wings who didn't want to remove them a place to run.

Just remove the stupid wing rule. Done!

AMiataCalledSteve said:

One of the benefits of running in a dead class in my local club (CSP, I'm the only one in the class) is that I learned that my competition is self-determined and event-wide. Though I do try to keep any mods inside the ruleset for CSP, nobody cares what I do to my car as long as it passes tech, and I consider my competition to be whoever is setting times close to me. That means my Miata is competing against Porsches and Luxuses (Lexii??) as well as my personal goal of beating every other Miata at the event (finally accomplished at the last event of the season this year :P). It's relaxed and fun and I think that's what autocross is supposed to be.

I suppose that's not particularly helpful to the topic at hand, other than to say that at least at the local level classing doesn't have to have much impact on a novice's experience. My dad and I have been introducing my sisters to the sport and they have no real care about what class they're in, they just come to drive. You run what you brung, you end up in the class you end up in, and then you race people who lay down similar times to you regardless of which class they are in and you have a good time. IDK if adding more classes will really affect the novice experience that much.

Competition seen as setting times close to one another is less relevant to me than how I  compare to those in the pointy end of a particular class in a particlar type of car.

No, my STR car is not going to win against a new Miata, but for me it's fun to know that I'm within x of a particular car type/driver set.

If I put my car in XB where lots of things are allowed that I won't spend the money and effort on, eh, fun to go around the cones anyway, but I can save the entry fee drive up Mt. Lemmon to go around corners if I don't care about how I really compare. 

Sort of the point about having a place to run the E21 with it's mild mods that put in modified categories.   While I swapped the cam and induction, it's not a 306 deg monster and side drafts, it's a mild street cam and a Weber progressive.  I can run it in XB, but if a bunch of flared winged turbo Miatas show up, eh, no reason to bring it to an event.  

So, classing matters to me. YMMV.

As to run what you brung, sure, but if I'm going to be timed I still care about how the car and driver fare against others in "similar" equipment.

The rules for XS allow an awful lot, but not everybody has the same time, proclivity, fabrication skill, money, or type of car. 

Maybe some of the CAM classes and XS could be combined in some way for those that max out their time, proclivities, fab skills and money on a car for a max effort nationals effort, but if those complaing about too many classes don't care about some level of playing field, why are you bitching about classes anyway?

Run your car in "Open" with no classing at all and be done with it.

Kudos to JG "5' 6" with a tailwind" Pasterjak for getting involved in this effort. Pretty clear from the live town hall that he's balancing out the SCCA default approach of "we need a rule for everything" (both at a rules maker input level and in tempering participant's input). Really like how he emphasized this is a new process they're trying to establish more so than an unflexible set of rules that will be unchanged for the foreseeable future (especially for XS....CAM seems relatively stable). They reserve the right to make changes to keep things from getting out of hand (in the event someone actually builds the proverbial paper tiger).

We should all be glad that the input sent in via email and through the townhall was considered and led to very quick changes to the proposed rules. That pace of update isn't something see for "jacket" classes where it's debated for months, goes through at least two committees, and doesn't actually take effect until the next year at the earliest.

I'm a CAM-T competitor, so I won't comment on the XS side of things, but I'm glad to see we're mostly keeping the status quo with some slight tweaks that make sense (ex: weight with driver...even though I typically benefit from weight sans driver). If the most contentious thing they're facing is how to deal with aero allowances....and the debate is really only for 1 class, I'd say they're doing a good job of staying true to CAM's roots and not excluding the main target audience of potential competitors.

Edit: had to include JG's middle name.

First thanks to whoever removed my inadvertent posts. Second, I am really excited these classes have been added.  For the most part is does give a place for street cars that have been modified to the owner's liking and not to a specific class rule set. Third, I think the rules do still miss the mark on inclusivity by a bit. The minimum weight needs to be lower in the light weight category.  Sure it seems reasonably light for modern cars, many of which can remove significant weight and still be above the minimum,  but many small older cars started out life already below the limit.  So we're saying old cars aren't allowed to make any modifications that reduce weight and by the way we want to saddle them with extra weight just to slow them down.  My 50 year old car is already at a disadvantage from the technology and engineering standpoint and now I have to add an extra 50 to 200 lbs of dead weight!

Yep, I'm still feeling excluded. 

The most liked local club in the area has a total of 3 street tire classes based solely on engine displacement (with a displacement multiplier for forced induction) plus one anything goes class where any car can compete and displacement doesn't matter. There are R comp classes to match with tires being the only difference. This system to work pretty well and people have a good time at the events. 

As an XB local class winner in my turbo Tercel 2 years in a row ill give my proper opinion vs the casual BSing I have been doing on FB and Discord.

The rules were largely just fine originally and worked.  I understand maybe some added clarity was needed.  It seemed like the main issue was people were complaining about was aero.

That doesnt affect me directly as I have no aero mods.  If I were to add aero, I would just build to whatever the ruleset is, so I cannot comment on it.

I think the 2ndary general concern was the idea some insane car can just come in and wipe us all out...hasnt yet seem to happen.  I see comments about that Lotus...however.

MY view on things...

The first thing I have always felt was weight should be with driver, and I am glad it has been implemented..it helps level it out for those of us that prefer Tacos.  To me it just makes sense, all sorts of body types in this sport.

I think there should be a lower class for really light cars, I have a few friends with really light little Japanese cars that cannot come and race with us, but otherwise would be a shoe-in for the XS mindset.  The class should be called XC for sub 1900lbs cars.

Thats about it.  I do like the idea of maybe a tire size cap for say XB to help keep "big" cars out.

My only other note would be having the cars be more street liveable.  But thats a highly opinionated subject and I am biased on the street side of that equation.

Here is my pile, some of you may know it.  100% streetable, about 140whp, full interior and ice cold AC.  I run 225/45 205/50 when racing and I use $7 brake pads lol.  I love running XB and all this mess has me starting to look elsewhere.

I really understand your pain when it comes to the weight thing, and I assure you none of these decisions were easy ones. But it is something we literally track to a very precise level—we actually have a spreadsheet with recorded weights from ever cat that's been across the scales at every national solo event—and we'll be keeping a close eye on those numbers and others going forward.

Or course, that data only tells part of the story, because it doesn't tell you anything about the cars that AREN'T showing up. And the best remedy for those cars is to be the squeaky wheel. We read every email sent to camxsrules@scca.com and of the 120+ we received nearly all of them are having their issues addressed in the final draft of the rules which should drop Monday, if not before. 

But I can also tell you that when it came to comments about weight, the letters fell into two categories:

1. "These minimum weights are too low!" (Pretty much anyone with a car manufactured after 1992)

2. "These minimum weights are too high!" (Pretty much anyone with a car manufactured before 1992, Lotus people, and a couple psychos with Subarus that must have rusted beyond recognition)

I can also tell you we got waaaaaaaaay more letters in category 1 than category 2. So on some level the rules reality needs to reflect the will of the current competitors, while leaving enough leeway to entice the folks with edge cases to come play. And if it turns out that those edge cases weren't so edgy after all, well, that's where the beauty of a supplemental class comes in.

Honestly I think weight should be without driver, purely for the logistical simplicity. But also I think weights should be lower, or at least more evenly distributed, such that most people aren't pushing the limits because they can't reasonably, and therefore the with/without driver difference is basically meaningless. IMO nobody should need to be adding ballast unless they have some kind of build specifically intended to be exceptionally light or are making the choice to add weight in exchange for wider tires. As it stands now it seems like all the light cars need triple digit ballast, and most of the heavy cars are several hundred pounds overweight.

My thing with the weight...it can actually make it more competitive cuz if we can build to an overall matched weight then its really down to driver and setup.  The old rules effectively can allow large weight gaps between cars.   

Again, I am not entirely against weights as a way to group cars, but there is no category for truly light cars and my competitive and engineering brain has a hard time with the concept that I have to make my car heavier than stock or I won't be allowed in any Xtreme class. As I mentioned the local club uses engine displacement and tire type as its only differntiator between classes. No method is going to be perfect but the rules shouldn't send the message "you're not wanted here." 

With the engine displacement classing example I mentioned there is no minimum on the smallest bore class and there is no maximum on the biggest bore class. You want to run an 8 liter V8, bring it we have a place for you. You want to run a 500cc Fiat, you are welcome too. The more the merrier. The proposed weight classes as they tell the Fiat guy to take a hike or get 3 big friends to cram into the car with you. 

Hopefully I've made my point here. The lowest weight class whatever it is should not have a minimum, it should only have a maximum. There are already other rules about being a production car and about body panels and such that should prevent someone hacking off half of their car or bringing an FSAE car and trying to run in Xtreme Street. 

"Final" rules have been posted. All the "protecting M3s from GT3s" talk is extra funny now that the updated rules exclude all 3 series (or maybe just the E30 and E36 depending on your interpretation) from XA.

I do applaud the removal of XE, at least that's one step in the right direction.

dps214 said:

"Final" rules have been posted.

Link please?  I'm a dumbass and my googles aren't working...

It's on the solo rules page, down below the original proposed rules.

https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_files/scca/downloads/000/065/394/2023_CAM_and_Xtreme_Rules_v12.pdf?1671294735

Looks like they dropped the 3,4,5,6 cylinder requirement in XB. V8 Miatas and similar can now be in XB with min weight at 2330 with driver.  If I am reading that right...

dps214 said:

... now that the updated rules exclude all 3 series (or maybe just the E30 and E36 depending on your interpretation) from XA.

 

Still not seeing the BMW drama, but thanks for the link.

XA and XB both exclude all models with any trim on the street class exclusion list. Said exclusion list includes the E30 m technic and the E36 m3 lightweight. So all versions of the 3 series/m3 are excluded. Some new minis are in the same boat.

Now that this a done deal for 2023, what is the advantage of the current ruleset compared to something like this:

XA: 2900lb RWD minimum with slight changes for FWD/AWD, front internal combustion engine, no cars from cam-s
XB: 2300lb RWD minimum with slight changes for FWD/AWD, front internal combustion engine, no cars from cam-s, a few line item additions (ex: Toyota MR2, Solstice?)
XS: no minimum weight, electric/hybrid/rear/mid-rear engines allowed, cam-s cars allowed

The short version is a class for modern cars with safety equipment, a class for miatas and hondas, and a supercar class that also happens to be a catch all.  Porsches are roughly equally screwed as they are in the current rules (I am not sure why that is important but there is rough rules parity).  A few more cars on the fringes get included like Kei cars and that one guy with a lexan windshield.  Local competition stays good because the 6 random cars that show up can still run heads up in the same class.

I am not a rules writer so please poke holes.  I assume some ridiculous car slots into one of these classes and ruins everything.

ojannen said:

Now that this a done deal for 2023, what is the advantage of the current ruleset compared to something like this:

XA: 2900lb RWD minimum with slight changes for FWD/AWD, front internal combustion engine, no cars from cam-s
XB: 2300lb RWD minimum with slight changes for FWD/AWD, front internal combustion engine, no cars from cam-s, a few line item additions (ex: Toyota MR2, Solstice?)
XS: no minimum weight, electric/hybrid/rear/mid-rear engines allowed, cam-s cars allowed

The short version is a class for modern cars with safety equipment, a class for miatas and hondas, and a supercar class that also happens to be a catch all.  Porsches are roughly equally screwed as they are in the current rules (I am not sure why that is important but there is rough rules parity).  A few more cars on the fringes get included like Kei cars and that one guy with a lexan windshield.  Local competition stays good because the 6 random cars that show up can still run heads up in the same class.

I am not a rules writer so please poke holes.  I assume some ridiculous car slots into one of these classes and ruins everything.

That's not too far from where we actually ended up. Unfortunately there's always going to be a few cars that break the classes, like the Lotuses, and the fact that 911s and Boxsters/Caymans come in such a HUGE delta of performance trims. Also, there's some really heavy/crappy two seaters that fit better into XA, like the 350/370Z and Supras. MC Miatas also mess with this ruleset, because they're heavier than you might think. 

I actually just sent over a proposal to clarify the SS/AS exclusions with a specific list of cars. A few cars got cught in that overly broad net and were unintentionally excluded (like 3/4-Series BMWs) and sent to XS. 

I know this is done and this is beating a dead horse, but I just need to say again that factory preformance range has zero bearing on any of this. And even as a Porsche fan, if you gave me a limitless budget to could the fastest x_ car possible I don't think I would choose a porsche as the starting point. Or if I did, the build probably wouldn't include any gt car specific parts.

Also, the big problem I see with that rules idea is that there's still more classes than the current participation can support.

In reply to JG Pasterjak :

The difference I see is nobody is excluded and there is a bump class everyone can run in.  When I convince my rallycross buddies to run an autocross, we would love a catch-all class that fits a mr2 Spyder, base 1st gen boxster, an engine swapped Impreza, and an e36 BMW.  We are probably going to end up in ssm so we can run in the same heat.

While you are fixing the exclusion list wording, take a look at Minis.  The 1st gen jcw is on the exclusion list because it was a dealer installed option for a few years and the second gen GP model was limited production.  A decently modded car is underweight for XS.

dps214 said:

I know this is done and this is beating a dead horse, but I just need to say again that factory preformance range has zero bearing on any of this.

In theory, I completely agree with this, and I think the long term evolution of the class will reflect this more than the current setup. But for now, we did have to take into account the kind of cars that currently exist in the target marketplace, and provide logical ways for them to transition into the X classes if that's where they wanted to go. You just can't successfully create a class around theoretical builds which don't currently exist. Once the pointy end starts sharpening itself naturally, I think it will become more clear if any class refinement is needed.