April SCCA Fastrack

[ABQautoxer]

Dont be so quick to judge. You guys are the members and participants, it's not always just about the hardcore guys. We may not have much to say but we can read.

[TRev]

Originally Posted by Mitch

Even in Stock, there needs to be some equalization between platforms for the class groupings to work. Camber plates are on par with a sway bar in cost and on some platforms with no factory adjustment can go a long way to reduce tire costs via reduction in premature failure. I'd say that, if anything, sway bars are less in the spirit of stock than camber adjustment.

The issue I see with these camber allowances is overly aggressive alignment settings that are not "street" friendly.

The allowance for two sway bars does the same thing. One is sufficient to balance the car.

There are usually at least 50-60 competitors on street tires at the Milwaukee events and I have talked to many of them. Never have I once heard any complaints on unreasonable tire wear due to lack of camber allowance.

I also attended the road tire meeting at Nationals and do not recall any discussion of unreasonable tire wear due to lack of camber allowance. The same was also true in grid.

Manufacturers like BFGoodrich are designing their tires like the Rival to work well with limited camber.

The SCCA will have to shuffle classes regardless and cars will get classed according to their abilities based on the rule set.

[ABQautoxer]

Trevor, do you know whats the quickest street tire killer car in stock right now (meaning wears them out the most quickly)? At least from your region?

[Sam Strano]

I'm here. Been a little, well..... busy the last few days.

Make no mistake, I care about this sport, all of it. I know there are a lot of things that look great on the face and its causing a lot of *yeah me* things. However, there a number of issues ranging from boning folks with very real investments already to turning the world over when, for example 2 RT cars made it to Dixie out of 240. Its more popular out west, which says its not ready to take over, yet. Also the proposals set out will cost you more to prep a car, not less.

I see street tires coming at least in most stock classes, but the rest of the rule changes don't make any sense to me, its ST lite and further from the really good dual purpose car they forsee. I want to be clear when I tell you that we are trying to be fair to everyone. Tom supports RT, I like r's but see the reason for RT. We're even friends I stopped to visit when I went west in ABQ, NM in fact. And when I wrecked my wheels a 4 hour round trip from him, he came there to lend me wheels and tires for my FR-S.

[Sam Strano]

I believe the camber is a bad idea. Street tires wear better that's the key, right? I've seen nobody complain about wear. Camber mods cost you more money. Crazy camber makes a less streetable car. Camber completely upsets classing structure. That may not concern you individually if it favors you. I have to be concerned with everyone. And personally I'm wired to not want an advantage in rules my competitors cannot also use.

I urge you to write letters and voice your opinions. I also humbly ask you consider all aspects for the good of the sport, not just what might suit you personally because next time you might be on the otherside and I think fairness is important.

These are my statements, not official stuff from SAC or SCCA, and not speaking for Tom either.

[TRev]

Originally Posted by ABQautoxer

Trevor, do you know whats the quickest street tire killer car in stock right now (meaning wears them out the most quickly)? At least from your region?

I can't say for sure. The only time I have heard of complaints, the competitors have under inflated tires or tires that are not well suited for competition. For example a Corolla on under inflated all season tires with an aggressive novice driver.

[simpleisbest]

Originally Posted by Mitch

I'd say that, if anything, sway bars are less in the spirit of stock than camber adjustment.

I agree about the sway bars. It seems to be raising the level of prep without a clear reason.

The camber I can understand, as it potentially lowers "cost per run". Not totally sold on allowing for BOTH camber bolts and plates, maybe an EITHER/OR scenario would be more "fair", as not many A-arm cars can get close to the -3 degrees of camber some companies are claiming their kits can achieve. I would prefer to use plates vs bolts, as I could possibly return the camber to more streetable levels in between events.

The wheel diameter allowance is a weird one, too.
Discussion within my club suggest that the goal is to allow folks access to "good rubber". (Most good sizes/brands seem to be in the 15" to 18" range)

I would like to see it more focused/directed than it is now, though. Why not just come out and say something like:

13,14" allow for size up to 15" w/min width 6.5" (Go try to find 15x5.5 rims with proper offset!!!)
19" and over allow size down to 18"

For the 19" and over wheels, there may need to be a width reduction penalty, as some of those large OEM wheels get pretty wide. When downsized, they might be able to give a too happy of a stretch, IMO. Also, shouldn't allowable variance from original OEM tire diameter be limited somewhat?

Dunno...I been thinking about what points to include in my letter to SEB and kicking around these ideas.

[Sccabrz192]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

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).

C-Stock index is .834, STX index is .827. less mods on R-comps = significantly faster than street tires with significant more modification. That is down-right FACT.

Now if you want to argue the opinion of it... my opinion is that higher G levels and higher speed = more fun, it doesn't matter if you are on a track or in a parking lot. My letter argues the value of the R-comp for how fun it is to drive on without having to prep your car to the SP level. You can argue that if you want. But otherwise you are just putting words in my mouth.

[Sccabrz192]

Originally Posted by neurokinetik

A few carriage returns would be helpful in that post. It is almost unreadable the way it is right now.

Sorry it was a copy-paste job from the letter which was written in word, obviously the forum didn't like the formatting. I'll fix it now.

[Gearhd79]

I really want to thank the people involved in trying to make this sport more novice friendly and I hope these changes would make the sport grow and be more fun for all involved.
That being said, I am having a hard time trying to plan aout my CS RTR build. I guess i will just stick with my sticky Dunlops on my stock wheels and leave it at that this season until these proposed changes get figured out

[Rougenite]

Originally Posted by Sccabrz192

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.

My brand new set of RS-3s are a 200 TW....checked them again today....only two of them say it, too lazy to check the manufacture date of all 4 tires....ill do it tomorrow....

[-max-]

If we can get street tires in stock, I will be ecstatic. If that is all that comes out of this, I think most will be happy.
Not in favor of the 2 bars.

The +- wheel issue and the camber issue I like for what might be selfish reasons. I steered clear of a new Mustang because of the 19s. I can't see running in even RT with them. When the new STI comes out, I want one. But I am almost sure it won't have front camber adjustment and would probably end up in STU with only camber bolts.
The camber and wheel size would open up cars to me that I would not normally look at. Selfesh, maybe, but I'm probably not the only one.
It would definitely throw classes out of wack.

[jdrxb9]

Originally Posted by Sccabrz192

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

...snipped a whole big bunch of stuff...

If you want betime reading material, head over to here - 20 pages worth of stuff!

I agree that the details of some of the wordings needs refined/clarified. I agree with one bar only. I don't think the new rules (aside from the 2 bar part) create less streetable cars. The only really 'new' mod would be camber allowance and that will be limited by the 'no mods to center hole'. We already allow tire killing toe settings. This is no worse and for a lot of cars a lot better than what we have now. Also, I've personally seen folks leave because they show up, kill the shoulders of their tires and then find out doing something about it will put them in a class they don't want to be in. Or worse, they find out their grid neighbor does get to fix camber but they don't just because one manufacturer has the right parts in the catalog and the right words in the FSM.

TomR - One data point - at 1.3 to 1.5 deg F camber on the BRZ, I flipped my continually front-back rotated AD08's at ~115 runs. Also, consider that the people/cars that this is intended to help the most might not be currently running in stock, or even running at all.

Also, wheel update/backdate would be really good for some folks, but I doubt they will open that can of worms in stock/street. (first wheels, then what else?)

Overall, there is no doubt that the way it is proposed, it is a huge 'take back' for the folks who like R's and think they are worth the $. I've not actually driven A6's, but I can still remember WAY back to my first ride-along in a fast car on R-comps and how fun running R's can be (enough grip to put my old neon on two wheels on occasion!). OTOH, I think there is an effort to get away from more/indexed classes, not learning to live with them.

What if a tweaked version of the allowances was implemented across the board in 'street' and then, since the classes are going to need shuffled anyway, split off 2-3 classes for R tires (Super Street A/B/(C)?) and put in whatever truly fast/quick and/or big power/tire cars fit. Rearrange the remaining 6-7 classes (Street A/B/C/etc?) to contain ALL cars currently in stock. Cut classes that don’t make numbers per normal procedures in the out years. This would be much less of an impact to current competitors (incl. SP folks) and seems like a good compromise to me.

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by Sccabrz192

C-Stock index is .834, STX index is .827. less mods on R-comps = significantly faster than street tires with significant more modification. That is down-right FACT.

so you're going to base your argument off indicies that are arbitrary and change year-to-year?

okay.

Originally Posted by Sccabrz192

Now if you want to argue the opinion of it... my opinion is that higher G levels and higher speed = more fun, it doesn't matter if you are on a track or in a parking lot.

your opinion is your own, but let me quote a few passeges from the rule book that governs your sport.




I.1.4 S

olo® Event

A Solo® Event is a non-speed driving skill contest such as, but not limited

to, autocrosses and slaloms. These events are run on short courses

that emphasize the driver’s ability and the car’s handling and agility.

2. COURSE

Solo® courses should be open enough to allow good competition between

larger and smaller cars, and should not emphasize high speed,

power-to-weight ratio, extreme maneuverability, memory, or visual acuity.

2.1 COMMON SENSE AND SOLO® COURSES

Although Solo® events are non-speed events under the Solo® Rules

of the SCCA®, speed alone is not the operative factor in determining

what is and is not a proper Solo® event. Hazard is the operative word;

hazards must not exceed those encountered in legal highway travel.
Generally, maximum speeds in the mid 50s to low 60s (mph) are contemplated
for Stock, Street Touring®, and Street Prepared category

So while absolute speed may be FUN it is not the POINT

And so the entire premise to your letter is nothing more than a personal plea to keep your black-crack addiction fueled. There is a reason it got its nickname, maybe it's time to reflect?