April SCCA Fastrack

[xwd]

I don't think trying to replace the performance potential of race tires is the intent of the other rule changes. Race tire are fun, there is no debating that, they are just too expensive at this point and can't be driven on the street. The camber one has been talked about before and is beneficial to cars with both street tires or race tires. I also think any proposal which includes additional classes is a non-starter. The SEB does not want to add more classes, period.

The autocross vs. track thing is tired, please don't bring that into this thread. They are both exciting in their own ways. Speed matters in both venues equally.

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by dwx

The autocross vs. track thing is tired, please don't bring that into this thread. They are both exciting in their own ways. Speed matters in both venues equally.

Gotta be more specific than that.

There is absolute speed and there is relative speed.

Absolute speed does not matter in autocross. Relative speed for a given day matters, that is how you win.

If you take out a class of tyres, relative speed differenetials remain the same, competitieness remains.

If a competitor is keen on absolute speed then the autocross venue is a poor choice for that. That's why different series exist.

Having done both i see far too many people on both sides wanting things in their series that dominates the other one. I used to be one of these people until i let go. Now i go to the track when i want track stuff and i do autocross when i want autocross stuff.

I am not debating which one is better. I don't understand how you could gleam such intent from my words. I am merely reminding that there is in fact a difference.

That is why i am in full support of these proposed changes as i feel they will transform autocross into a series more representative of its own persona.

[TRev]

Originally Posted by dwx

The camber one has been talked about before and is beneficial to cars with both street tires or race tires.

I think that the need for camber with street tires is being over estimated. I only had .7 degrees of camber in the front of the Genesis Coupe when I was running street tires as the camber bolt allowance was not legal. Per my previous post, that .7 degrees corded Hoosiers in 20 runs flipping them on the rim up front. With the RE11's (can't be flipped), that same alignment was good for 150+ runs and 7000+ aggressive street miles and they still had a couple tenths of tread left and were still competitive after all that abuse.

[simpleisbest]

Originally Posted by TRev

I think that the need for camber with street tires is being over estimated.

Totally vehicle dependent. Your opinion would be different if you were driving a Mini with almost no neg camber and shred tires every event...

Overall, I think it's needed for the class. Most modern car designs do not take the need for "performance" alignments into account and cars are seemingly becoming less and less alignment adjustable...

[TRev]

Originally Posted by simpleisbest

Totally vehicle dependent. Your opinion would be different if you were driving a Mini with almost no neg camber and shred tires every event...

I talked to quite a few drivers at National events as I used to run in G Stock and they said the Genesis was even worse than their cars after looking at my Hoosiers after 3 runs. Jeff Schaadt would be a good person to comment on the Hoosiers because he has raced both the Mini and the Genesis Coupe in GS. I also have talked to a couple that were running RTF and there were no comments about the cars eating through street tires up front. The Mini also has the advantage in that the rims are not staggered like the GC so they can be swapped front to back.

[Tt3Sheppard]

As Vin Diesel always said..winning's winning...

[mkiisupra]

Originally Posted by TRev

With the RE11's (can't be flipped).

Sure they can. Just ask your tire installer. Any directionality is usually gone when the tires get down to wear bars (plenty of sticky left)

Even if the proper outside shoulder possesses some extra reinforcement, its still a decent proposition to flip tires.

Water siping will be pretty much gone, but that is the case when they get down to 5/32's anyway.

Eric G

[TRev]

Originally Posted by mkiisupra

Sure they can. Just ask your tire installer. Any directionality is usually gone when the tires get down to wear bars (plenty of sticky left)

Even if the proper outside shoulder possesses some extra reinforcement, its still a decent proposition to flip tires.

Water siping will be pretty much gone, but that is the case when they get down to 5/32's anyway.

Eric G

Poor choice of words on my part. Not something that I would consider doing with the RE-11's based on the way they were wearing and their construction. The Hoosier's on the other hand it was worthwhile and needed.

[neurokinetik]

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

[simpleisbest]

Originally Posted by TRev

I talked to quite a few drivers at National events as I used to run in G Stock and they said the Genesis was even worse than their cars after looking at my Hoosiers after 3 runs. Jeff Schaadt would be a good person to comment on the Hoosiers because he has raced both the Mini and the Genesis Coupe in GS. I also have talked to a couple that were running RTF and there were no comments about the cars eating through street tires up front. The Mini also has the advantage in that the rims are not staggered like the GC so they can be swapped front to back.

Like I said vehicle dependent. Your friends were most likely driving later model Mini that had some camber adjustment (half a degree in the front or so). The early models (R50) had none.

GS? That must have been some time ago. Cooper S is DS and Cooper is HS, I believe.

Regardless, the point is that there are many modern cars that do NOT have much camber adjustment from the factory and would generate more front tire wear than other older/new stock cars with less available front.

Personally, I feel that the camber allowance is needed to keep the majority of newer strut cars on par with A-arm cars.

[TRev]

Originally Posted by simpleisbest

Like I said vehicle dependent. Your friends were most likely driving later model Mini that had some camber adjustment (half a degree in the front or so). The early models (R50) had none.

GS? That must have been some time ago. Cooper S is DS and Cooper is HS, I believe.

Regardless, the point is that there are many modern cars that do NOT have much camber adjustment from the factory and would generate more front tire wear than other older/new stock cars with less available front.

Personally, I feel that the camber allowance is needed to keep the majority of newer strut cars on par with A-arm cars.

2005-2007 models. I was referring to 2009 the last year they were in G Stock and the first year that the Genesis was available. I have been running street tires almost exclusively since then.

Regardless of what other changes there are as long as it involves getting away from the black crack and doesn't void drivetrain warranty, I am for it.

I do not think camber plates are in the best interest of a street class though.

[Mitch]

Originally Posted by TRev

2005-2007 models. I was referring to 2009 the last year they were in G Stock and the first year that the Genesis was available. I have been running street tires almost exclusively since then.

Regardless of what other changes there are as long as it involves getting away from the black crack and doesn't void drivetrain warranty, I am for it.

I do not think camber plates are in the best interest of a street class though.

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.

[ABQautoxer]

Very interesting feedback so far.

I'm lurking as I'm sure Sam is too...


Tom

SAC member

[Kido1986]

Originally Posted by ABQautoxer

Very interesting feedback so far.

I'm lurking as I'm sure Sam is too...


Tom

SAC member

I don't think Sam care's about the discussion here as there are few serious autocrossers. Facebook shows that he's doing a lot more than lurking, he's just not bringing anything here as it would have no benefit as he is actively trying to make changes to this. Here, he would discuss with 4-5 serious people and the rest would be keyboard warriors who likely have <5 autocrosses in their lifetime yelling that they don't agree with him and I don't blame him for not wanting to do that, even if I have differing opinions