April SCCA Fastrack

[-max-]

Originally Posted by Shankenstein

As others have said, moving Stock away from R-comps and remote-resevoir shocks is a really smart move.

Yesterday, I purchased a set of 17x7's and Direzza's (before I heard about this proposal). It was a tough decision because my club does not offer RTR. It was a conscious decision to have fun rather than be competitive. I find R-comps to be completely against the idea of Stock. The class should be about minimalism. What is the minimum preparation required to have a good time at the track?

The answer is simple. Tires and the support of their wear rate. Minor compensation for understeer-happy manufacturers.

That's exactly what the proposal attempts to do, and I am 100% behind the effort.

I'm right there also. No local Rt classes and run stock wheels with z2 with a camber plate in STX and a front bar. These rule changes fit me perfectly.

[Sccabrz192]

So I did a real quick cost breakdown of my car in "street" category

All in all, I am somewhere in the $3800 range... which isn't too far off the initial build cost of my planned stock prep... trick/fancy dampers would make that go up significantly, but I was never planning on that. Also, I'd be interested to see a clarification on "external" reservoir dampers versus "remote" my take is external would still be legal per the wording, but remote mounting is not.

Parts list:
Enkei RPF01's (same as stock class)
BFG Rivals
Koni Sports front and rear
GC Caster/Camber plate (per the letter of the law, it sounds like these are allowed, but I dont think they necessarily work with OE springs... would have to call GC... if not the whiteline caster/camber upper mount is about 250 cheaper)
Whiteline FSB/RSB combo (replacing the initial plan to use the Strano bar... cant wait to feel what this will be like driving around michigan roads)
Whiteline Camber Bolts
Nameless Track Pipe (same as stock class)
Brake Pads (same as stock class)


I essentially traded in half my starting tire budged to go from A6's to BFG Rivals (which will be banned starting in 2015) for some caster/camber plates, aftermarket camber bolts, and front and rear swaybars with end links instead of just the front w/o end links.

So all in all, same initial investment cost but quite a bit lower cost per run assuming you are set up for good even tire wear. and probably a less street friendly driving car (assuming the double sway bar allowance get's utilized to the fullest extent).

[TRev]

Originally Posted by Sccabrz192

BFG Rivals (which will be illegal to run in 2015)

From the proposal:

13.3 Tires
1. Effective 1/1/14 - Minimum UTQG tread wear rating of 140
2. Effective 1/1/15 - Minimum UTQG tread wear rating of 200

Am I missing something...the Rivals are 200 UTQG so why would they be illegal in 2015?

[Sccabrz192]

Originally Posted by TRev

From the proposal:

13.3 Tires
1. Effective 1/1/14 - Minimum UTQG tread wear rating of 140
2. Effective 1/1/15 - Minimum UTQG tread wear rating of 200

Am I missing something...the Rivals are 200 UTQG so why would they be illegal in 2015?

My bad, you are correct, they are 200...

RS-3 and R1R would be illegal... or they would just re-cert as 200 TW if the manufacturers cared about such things.

[Biggins]

I like it. It sucks for some, but I like it. I also like the E36 moving to GS, but that's not really relevant for this forum.

Will all the tire companies just arbitrarily up their treadwear ratings to 200 by 2015? I know my ZIIs will be well-used by then, but I assume the tire companies would help us out too?

[xwd]

Most likely. The ZII, Rival, and RE11A are all 200 already. I imagine the next generation Hankook, Toyo, etc. will also be 200.

[xwd]

Originally Posted by neurokinetik

I did not see any allowance for using camber plates. Only an allowance for the slotting of struts. There is a big difference there. One mod is basically free, while the other is $200-500.

Read it again. Camber plates, aftermarket camber bolts, as well as making alterations to the top mounting holes are allowed. Some cars like BMWs can't benefit from slotting since there is no holes/bolts on the bottom of the strut.

[neurokinetik]

Originally Posted by dwx

Read it again. Camber plates, aftermarket camber bolts, as well as making alterations to the top mounting holes are allowed. Some cars like BMWs can't benefit from slotting since there is no holes/bolts on the bottom of the strut.

Yeah, I saw it this time, and you quoted me before I could delete the post!

If I were running in this class, I'd be a little annoyed at having to change from the less-expensive Hankooks to the BFGs just on the basis of the treadwear rating.

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by neurokinetik

Yeah, I saw it this time, and you quoted me before I could delete the post!

If I were running in this class, I'd be a little annoyed at having to change from the less-expensive Hankooks to the BFGs just on the basis of the treadwear rating.

the UTQG rating is a minimum, not a maximum

since the consumer is dumb people associate a lower UTQG rating with 'speed'

so its very easy for a manufacturer this way to market their tire as fast just by putting a lower stamp on it when the reality COULD BE that the tire lasts much longer

so if SCCA rules change all the tire has to do is prove that the tire is worthy of a 200 rating and then slap 200 on their tires.

i'm sure BFG will figure out a way

[Kido1986]

Originally Posted by Sccabrz192

RS-3 and R1R would be illegal... or they would just re-cert as 200 TW if the manufacturers cared about such things.

A little birdie told me that Hankook has a very slightly (read: rerelease of same compound with a slight tread redesign) R-S3 with a 200TW ready for release due to last year's near-requirement of 200TW in RTR.

[Sccabrz192]

Originally Posted by Kido1986

A little birdie told me that Hankook has a very slightly (read: rerelease of same compound with a slight tread redesign) R-S3 with a 200TW ready for release due to last year's near-requirement of 200TW in RTR.

Not surprising in the least.

[Sccabrz192]

If anyone has any trouble sleeping, here's my letter to the SEB, it'll put you right out.


Good Evening,
I am writing this letter tonight to provide my feedback with respect to the proposal to replace “stock” with “street” class. I will preface my letter by saying I am an 8 year SCCA member, I have participated over the last 8 years in E-stock, STX, and ASP/BSP on a competitive national level with other events in B-Stock and STR. I have recently purchased a BRZ and had full intentions of preparing it for C-Stock national competition over the next two seasons. Understandably, those plans were put on hold as of yesterday.

First, I want to address the proposal explanation as posted by Solomatters. Then I want to provide my feedback about the individual rule changes.

I can fully understand the need to take action to update what is being called a very out of date rule set, but I do have an issue with the treatment of R-comp competitors, and the proposal to create “SP limited prep”. As described on solomatters “The limited preparation cars would run in a slower class than their SP classing. The SEB’s goal would be to place cars where they are competitive but do not become the car to have for the class.” I read this as saying that the limited prep cars would be purposely placed in the best fit category where possible, but focus would be paid to true SP prep cars rather than limited prep cars. I don’t feel like this helps. Extremely popular stock class cars will upset the SP apple cart if they are placed favorably, or they will be left to die when placed less favorably. Popular heavy cars or those with very large stock tires like those in SS (other than the lotus), FS, etc… are not treated favorably by the new street tire rules and with this limited SP prep, do not truly belong in the new classification either. That is honestly a damn shame for a car like the Corvette which has been such a staple in autocross and continues to be a weapon of choice for both the most veteran, and the most novice who have the means to own or drive one.
In addition, those that have significant propensity toward race tires over road tires are also left out to dry (such as myself) by the club no longer offering an entry prep level with these tires. I feel that the price difference between R-comp and street tire is fully worth the R-comp investment in the level of fun and enjoyment they provide. You simply cannot replace the performance potential with other modifications and keep it cheap and entry level… I have a hard time swallowing this pill that I will spend more money and create more significant modifications to the basic chassis and structure of my car by prepping for “street” class instead of stock class in order to go around the course SLOWER. I understand I am in the minority in this regard, but I do not feel I am at all alone with my opinion either.

To give you some background on this claim, I have put together a comparison of what it would cost me to prepare my car for C-Stock versus “street”. The initial setup cost (including first set of sticker tires) of a nationally competitive C-Stock BRZ should be around $3550. This includes wheels, Hoosier A6 tires, Koni sport dampers, brake pads, muffler delete, front sway bar, and OE “crash bolts” for stock legal camber adjustment. In contrast I estimate it will cost me $3850 for a “street” preparation which includes the same wheels, same brake pads, same muffler delete, same dampers, with BFG rival tires, aftermarket camber bolts, front and rear swaybar set (much stiffer than the stock class one I was planning to use), and camber plates. I have also calculated I will save approximately $560 a year in tires, with a pretty extensive schedule. I’ll admit the $560 a year off the racing budget is a lot to most of us, but I honestly believe the performance level and the fun the R-comp provides over a street tire is worth that price.

As an alternative, I would propose to create a new RT classification. Instead of “road tire” it would be “race tire” run on the index. I believe folks who would chose to run R-comps would be willing to accept the short comings and faults of an index system if it meant they could compete with cars that would otherwise be buried. Plus, we have a significant database to support the index in terms of the current stock class structure based on R-comp tires. It is truly being misused as a basis for the road tire classifications, I believe we all understand that. Why not use it for what it was actually made to represent? If not permanently, it should at least be offered for a few years as a stop gap for those who recently invested into stock prep, just to have the rug pulled from under them starting next season. We are not F1, we do not have budgets to change gears so quickly… even stock class, who are typically the most budget minded. Why should we rush through this process and put out such a “don’t care” vibe to current and loyal SCCA members, just to try to attract new ones?

This is reminiscent of all those introductory deals for cable companies, where you incentivize new customers but don’t offer the same level of gratitude for those you already have. Don’t be a cable company by neglecting those 273 national stock competitors you did have, you won’t replace them all, and chances are, after a sour taste as this, many wouldn’t come back! This upcoming season I was expecting a good friend to co-drive with me. He left the sport for the most part back in 2009 after all the STX rule changes because he felt the membership voice was ignored in the decisions. Now I told him about this change, his response “Stupid SCCA!”


I’d also like to comment briefly on the thought that this rule change will encourage new participation by offering a more truly dual purpose rule set. I will get into each line item, but I do not feel that is the case, I feel the new allowances give the opportunity for more overall aggressive setups… a car by today’s stock class rules is far more close to a street-able vehicle than the new rule set, I know a common complaint is not showing up with the car on the set of wheels and tires you will be competing on, but people will learn quickly they will want to do that anyway because of how fast tires wear. A good friend I work with has a 2008 STI, he was on very high treadwear rated OE tires, they were essentially new. He ran only a handful of events, only 1 of which was with a codriver and loved the experience, but he was done in the sport because his tires wore out too fast and he was not willing to buy more. If he were on R-comp tires, they would have lasted longer. THIS IS NOT THE ANSWER TO PARITICIPATION!!!!! People THINK this is the answer, but tire longevity is really based upon how the driver uses the tires and the type of surface they are on. Novices will still see high tire wear because many overuse the tires when they first start out, going to 200TW street tires doesn’t change their perception of autocross=extreme tire wear. In contrast, I would suggest we try to come up with ideas on how to support a shorter day for all when autocrossing. The #1 complaint I always here locally is a day of autocross is too long relative to the seat time. I know this complaint is a lot of times brushed off “it’s what it takes to run an all-participation event” I don’t think this is necessarily always true. I think aggressively addressing this concern would bring out significantly more local participation, but I digress.


Now for the proposals, I’ve talked a lot about street tires already in my letter, so I will skip that portion of the proposal, here are the rest of my thoughts:
1) Camber allowances for strut vehicles. I like the theory but I have two issues, 1) some level of additional adjustment should be allowed for all cars. Lobed camber bolts and slotting of bolt holes in the strut housing are acceptable modifications in my mind, because they can be removed by replacement damper housings and replacing the bolts. 2) I am very concerned with the allowance of the upper camber plate.

a. Many camber plates on the market are designed as caster AND camber plates, where there are separate adjustments for both, the rule states that the resulting caster change is allowed, I read that as caster/camber plates with separate adjustments are NOT allowed because caster adjustment is not explicitly called out, only the resultant caster of a camber adjustment. This should be clarified.

b. Many camber plates on the market are also designed to position the top of the fully extended strut in a location other than stock, this could provide a lowering characteristic otherwise not allowed. This is not defined as illegal by the new rule set because the max extended strut length could still fall within the +/-1” rule, the lower spring seat could be within the proper distance from the strut mount, and the upper hat is now essentially open as defined. Alternatively, if the upper spring seat is positioned in such a way that it is located under the stock location, a not-as mechanically inclined competitor could fail to realize they have just essentially added a spacer to the top of their strut assembly, and now the car has additional ride height, and poses a greater roll over risk.

c. I feel camber plates requiring body modification do not fit within the ideals of an entry level category. I personally view boring out or slotting holes on the strut tower, an integral part of the body structure, as a significant modification, and one which is more suited for a street touring or street prepared category. If you have to bore it out or slot it, it is not “bolt on”.


2) I do feel something needs to be addressed with current and future traction control and electronic stability control systems. As they become further regulated, the OE manufacturers WILL completely lose the ability (and essentially already have) to offer their customers the ability to fully defeat the systems. But I do have concerns:

a. A rule is only as good as the ability to govern it. How do we plan to govern this rule and prevent those that have the abilities from modifying their traction control systems to a performance advantage from doing so?

b. The rule states by any means possible. I am concerned that some methods may leave the door open to lose our ability to police other controller based modifications which are otherwise illegal, such as brake bias, ABS, traction systems, or engine management. This sounds to me that we are potentially opening a can of worms inadvertently.

c. This allowance provides the ability to defeat dummy lights like TPMS, CEL, and Trac lights… I think for an otherwise street-ready car, we are proposing “legal” class modifications not consistent will following street car warranties for items or issues which otherwise are not autocross related. This will be a turnoff for new competitors and current stock competitors alike.

d. I propose we gather the right people who may work in this field and come up with some allowable methods for temporarily disabling such systems which don’t open the door for other unintended consequences.


3) 2-sway bar allowance – I do not feel that the additional sway bar is beneficial for stock class.

a. Being able to modify 1 bar allows a competitor to rebalance the car. 2 allows the competitor to drastically alter the behavior and capability as they can significantly alter the spring rates during cornering and maintain vehicle balance. Doing this through a sway-bar has a negative effect upon the dual purpose capability of a vehicle, and puts excessive stress into the mounts of the bar in a way that will likely fail parts not designed for such high loading.

b. I would recommend leaving the allowance at 1 bar. And I would even go as far as to say we should allow an OE +/- X% spring rate tolerance before we open up a 2 sway bar allowance. The spring rates are the PROPER way to make this type of adjustment, NOT a sway bar set.


4) Wheel allowance – I have no issue with the new wheel allowance, but would suggest to also discuss further a +/- ½” width allowance, or have some sort of update/backdate allowance for wheel packages offered between years of the same model. It is INCREDIBLY aggravating when the next year comes out with an extra ½” wheel width and you are sunk. I honestly can see this happening on the BRZ/FR-S and instantly us early adapters with the 2013 models will be sunk. IN addition, speaking from experience, finding a good set of inexpensive 17”x7” wheels is REALLY hard, the aftermarket loves to support 7.5” wide and 8” wide wheels. God bless Enkei for releasing a 17x7” RPF01 this year, basically because of the BRZ/FR-S, but even with the diameter allowances, another half inch would be a godsend for wheel choice for these performance cars which still come with 7” wide wheels.


5) Damper allowance change

a. I think it needs to be further clarified if external reservoir dampers are no longer allowed or just remote mounted ones. There are suppliers which have integrated external reservoir dampers, which do not require remote mounting.

b. I understand the desire to remove some of the potential expensive from this item, but just excluding remote mounting doesn’t do it, and I personally don’t have a suggestion on how to accomplish that. I do think the majority of competitors, whom may have serious damper envy, also understand that a set of $6,000 dampers is not mandatory to be a winner.


I think that covers it. I appreciate anyone who took the time to read my thoughts and sincerely hope you ponder my input with as much care as I have taken in writing it down. First and foremost my desire is for the club to succeed and grow, and I really hope that the input I have provided is beneficial to the club accomplishing that. I really don’t know if a “street” class is somewhere that I desire to participate, and I guess I will have to make that determination after a final ruling is cast. In the meantime I will maintain in limbo, I have no desire to spend money preparing my car for a non-existent ruleset, I think many who have already started the process prior to me would appreciate a more open discussion in the club’s publications of what the end goals are and a realistic timeline of what is being thought of. I don’t see any reason for us as a club to make such bold changes from one year to the next, such big innovative progressions in our classing structure should be done with care, and provide an appropriate crossover point so people get what they were looking for out of their investment into this sport/hobby. No one likes to waste money, and I am glad I hadn’t started down that path already.

[TRev]

@Sccabrz192, I think you have some very good points and agree with a number of them especially the 2 sway bar rule. I understand the concern with allowing modifications to the nannies, CEL's, etc but what methods are currently available to keep people honest with their ECU's?

Having driven street tires for a few years on a Genesis Coupe that corded Hoosiers up front after 20 runs (flipping them on the rim), I feel you are off base on the wear rates or what competitors will experience with proper inflation. My street tires, RE-11's, were good for 150+ runs and 7000+ miles of spirited summer driving and they were not falling off more than a couple tenths at the most. I have raced on different street tires on a few other cars with similar results though none of them devoured Hoosiers like the GC did.

One possible change to the shock rule could be removing the allowance for monotubes. I have not heard too much discussion on that as a possible solution though Andy Hollis commented on it that it would significantly limit choices.

If the exclusion rule is exercised as it should be, unicorn tires like the Toyo will be short lived even if manufacturers start to get creative.

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by Sccabrz192

stuff

i will disagree with you on one point which i feel is entirely subjective yet you claimed it as almost fact

"You simply cannot replace the performance potential with other modifications and keep it cheap and entry level…"

I'm sorry but are you (and your minority) here to prove to everyone else that you're a good driver or to set "fast times" on an arbitrary 60 second course made of pylons. If it's the former then it shouldn't matter because everyone will be hit with the same limitation and if it's the latter then i think you're in the wrong sport, you can keep your r-comps and go to track days and reach speeds and g-forces that will tickle your pickle plenty more than an auto-cross ever will.

i see this from autocrossers all the time, "i want to go fast", and i ask them "why? all you have to be is 0.000001 seconds faster than everyone else you've proved your point". If you want to set records and hit ridiculous speeds there are venues for this sort of thing, and it's not autocross. I don't see how "speed" matters in a sport where you're in 2nd gear half the time and where the track changes every single time you're out (sometimes within the same day).