SCCA Solo C Street Discussion

[SeanRTR]

Originally Posted by Stang70Fastback

Hey guys. I'm having a hard time deciding between 225 and 245 section width for C-Street. My friend ran 245s last year and he seemed to do fine. Is there any benefit to one over the other? I imagine I'd obviously get a bit more ultimate lateral grip out of 245s, but I'm wondering whether it might be a bit too much tire, and whether a 225 will be more... "nimble..." for lack of a better word?

I think it's a no brainer to just get the new 235/40/17 size.

[Stang70Fastback]

That would be amazing, but does the RE71R come in that size? That's the tire I'll be getting.

[simpleisbest]

I've heard that the 235/40-17 isn't going to happen for the US market. Not enough potential sales volume for that size to justify, supposedly.

[SeanRTR]

In that case I guess I'm glad I'm hoarding these 225's in the kitchen of my apartment, even though they were quite slow at solo nationals. I'm happy to be reporting that my 235-45-17's are still on my car in Mid December in Michigan, and despite the rears having zero tread at all, and are smoother than my Hoosier SM-7 race slicks, they are working just fine in sub 40 degree temps. Below 35 is a bit sketch, but a few hard stops and tail wags through the round-abouts put enough heat in the tires to keep them safe. Driving this morning to work in the rain probably wasn't that safe, but as long as there's no standing water/puddles, tire tread is over-rated. In the dry over 50 degrees the tires still feel great, and I really don't feel them losing grip due to being 'cycled out', like I did when I ran Rivals or ZII's deep after the wear bars. I kind of miss the crap-ass heat cycled tires with huge slip angles and such in these non-competition months, but I'll probably just put the prius-tires back on here pretty soon, as my rear RE71's have got to start showing chords any minute now.

[Stang70Fastback]

Originally Posted by simpleisbest

I've heard that the 235/40-17 isn't going to happen for the US market. Not enough potential sales volume for that size to justify, supposedly.

Ah, well if that's the case, then I guess I'm back to my original question. 225 or 245? Lol.

[SeanRTR]

Originally Posted by JC1

I don't see it happening. From the Dec Fastrack...

#17835 BRZ-FRS Twins
Under the current wording of port installed options, the SAC cannot make an exception for the BRZ to install the TRD springs and bars.

If you make this exception to the rules you'd have a zillion letters coming in asking for similar "exceptions". "Me too, me too!!"

Jeff

I just totally disagree with this. These are joint-venture cars, that are essentially the same car. What other can of worms could possibly be opened by allowing the BRZ to have the same mods as the FR-S? Why can't SCCA just make a clause that says all 'joint-venture' cars that share identical drivelines are on the same line for Street (and probably everything else)? What am I missing that would make this a bad thing? If the cars use the same driveline, what's the difference? I can see it causing issues for something like the new ND Miata, and the Fiat counter part, but those cars have different motors, not quite the same thing. I just think SCCA is royally screwing this up if the FR-S and BRZ are not in the same street classes with similar prep allowed.

[TrqlessWonder]

Asked a different way, what *is* keeping Subaru from buying the TRD springs, putting a Subaru part number on it, and offering it as a port-installed item going forward? It's not like people won't buy the "SPT" package or whatever it would get called.

[simpleisbest]

It is funny that the SAC is bring so stubborn on this, as the cars would be classified as "joint-venture" for SM (to use both Subaru and Toyota engines) in 16.1.D.1 "Models produced as a joint venture between manufacturers may utilize any engine from any partner in the joint venture...".

Not sure how far down would the effects be felt in other classes other cars, though.

Having the cars classed separately in CS and DS probably won't be approved, as it could cause a event organizational nightmare. Image being able to "jump" classes while in the registration line at Tour or Nationals? You could potentially have huge migrations of registrations between the classes depending on course layout....or if an "alien" happen to land in your class

[Stang70Fastback]

I agree with @SeanRTR on this one. I'm not an autocross expert, but as I understand it the whole point of the classing rules are to allow people with similar performing cars to compete against each other. If the rules are causing the opposite to occur, it sounds more like the rules need to be revised, rather than just saying, "Them's the rules!"

[simpleisbest]

Change only happens if you write those letters!!!

https://www.crbscca.com/

[TrqlessWonder]

Originally Posted by Stang70Fastback

I agree with @SeanRTR on this one. I'm not an autocross expert, but as I understand it the whole point of the classing rules are to allow people with similar performing cars to compete against each other. If the rules are causing the opposite to occur, it sounds more like the rules need to be revised, rather than just saying, "Them's the rules!"

I'm not so sure the rules are causing the opposite to occur, it's just that this particular example stings for a bunch on this forum. The classing rules and allowances aren't there to guarantee perfect parity, rather just to corral it to a "more or less" kinda level. And sometimes they miss on that, too.

Basically, what I'm saying is, that the opposite policy is not what we'd want, either, effectively bringing update/backdate into Street classes.

[Biggins]

My CS and DS split was just an idea... they have very similar PAX and it's only really going to matter at the National level. I did fine without the TRD stuff locally (and nationally). The Miata is classed in three different street classes, so why can't we put FRS/BRZs in two classes? "Trunk kit" in CS, true stock & BRZ in DS?

See you all in the CS grid this spring!

[Stang70Fastback]

Honestly, for me it has nothing to do with the competitive nature of it. I just wanted to lower my car ~1" for the looks, and the TRD springs would allow me to do that and still run in C Street. As it stands, I'm stuck at stock height, which will look even uglier once I get different DD wheels, as I'll be repurposing my OEM STi wheels as a dedicated autocross set.

[TMF]

I really have no problem with the BRZ's running the TRD parts and I'm for a rule change. But I do understand the SAC's perspective, in that they do not want to make a one-off or even a "blanket" exception. There are other cars in similar situations (soltice vs. sky; wrx vs 9-2x aero; etc) but I don't believe they are as mechanically similar as the FRS and BRZ. It would be tough to write the rule properly without creating other loop holes. If you think you can craft the proper rule, draft it and send it to the SAC - but the idea of a "one-off" rule has already been shot down.

In the end, there have been plenty of cars historically that were competitive in their original Street class, only to be buried in a tougher class a year or two down the road. This is essentially what happened to the BRZ owners, and I'm sorry. FRS owners got "lucky" I guess.

So if you own a BRZ and want to be competitive, I think your options are: trade your BRZ for a FRS, make the jump to STX, or get adopted by the elusive "insanely fast driver's planet" and return to earth as an alien.