May Fastrack

[jcox07]

I agree with too many classes, but don't mess up the other classes just because of the tire issue and it not being affordable to buy hoosiers and I agree that you have to pay to play. How much you want to play is up to you.

[steverife]

I just don't agree that moving to 200TW is going to dictact that you have to have a co-driver. There will be tires where that will be a benefit and there will be tires where that is a disadvantage. A lot of the FWD Toyo folks were swapping tires between runs to manage the heat at nats.

[integra55]

In the thought that some of you will be writing letters, I want to throw a few things out there for you to consider. The SEB/SAC know my opinions on this stuff.

When we go to street tires, does a camber adjustment make sense for the "entry level" class?
1) The tires will wear longer and have less grip. The camber challenged cars had a hard time with Hoosiers since they had lots of grip and tended to wear quicker. Since the tire is being loaded harder due to the grip, it has a tendency to use the shoulder more. Doesn't happen with street tires.
2) These are supposed to be dual-purpose cars. They will see a lot more street miles than race miles. Allowing people to get lots of camber will accelerate tire wear on the street.
3) To the newbie coming in that just bought a new car and is making payments, does this make things easier on car prep? You have to find camber plates that don't change the ride height of the car. You possibly have to drill holes in the strut tower of your new car. You have to spend $500 on camber plates. Starts sounding like the argument against shock allowances to me.

Does the +/- wheel allowance make sense in the "entry level" class? Right now, if someone goes and buys aftermarket street wheels that aren't the right size, most of the time they just go grab the stock wheels they already had and throw some tires on the wheels and go. Usually those aftermarket street wheels are a different width as well.
Let's take the example of a car running 16" wheels. Under the new proposal, they can run a 15, 16, or 17" wheel. Now, if you want to be sure you are really fast, you have to test three different wheel diameters. Maybe you even run different diameters for different courses. Does this sound cheap or "entry level"? Why not write the rule so that cars with diameters smaller than 15" can run up to a 15" wheel and cars with wheels larger than 18" can run as small as 18"? That way, people don't invest a bunch of money in different wheel and tire combinations and the cars that can't get a decent 200TW tire can still compete.

couple of thoughts here .... ( disclaimer: I don't run stock, have never run stock, and can't imagine ever running stock) so the only complaint I have ( well 2 actually) is 1: that they've finally found a way to get rid of my Toyo's ( and even as Rife has pointed out, they're 5 - 6 yo .. but are still the best out there for certain cars ) ... and 2: I'm in agreement with you about the +/- 1 on the wheels ... come up to 15... go down to 18... +/-1 doesn't do any good ( tire selection wise) for those that are screwed by their manufacturer with the 20's, 21's ... etc. ...

as for camber on the street .. I haven't seen any adverse tread wear due to excessive camber, and I drive my car to and from events ( 120 - 150mi each event) .... toe on the other hand will eat your tires up ... and toe can be added without regard to the rules

it seems to me that the powers-that-be can't make up their minds for whom they're doing this .... the nooby that hears about the sport and shows up ... they usually already have mods that aren't addressed in this, or the national level driver that already has $$$$$$$ invested in they're current set-up ... don't see how this is going to help them

my solution (and have written the letter, for all that anyone "up there" cares, they seem bound-and-determined to do SOMETHING ... so leaving it the way it is for a few yrs isn't an option) is leave things where they are/were .. the club was ONE year into the RT experiment ... not much data to go by .. if they want to see if street tires in stock is what the membership wants then they need to make the RT classes jacket eligible (assuming they meet the participation # requirements) and let the members vote with their participation

so... like I said ... other than the 195 pixie dust tires ... and I forgot ... the exhaust thing ... I really don't care

[disneyd]

Does anyone know SCCA's reason behind this radical change?

Are a lot of members complaining about rcomps in stock?

Has there been a big drop of stock class competitors?

Are they greedy and think this change will somehow massively expand SCCA membership? (I don't think it would increase membership)

Are they bored and just decided to screw with everyone?

Seriously, does anyone know their reasoning?

[thrdeye]

Does anyone know SCCA's reason behind this radical change? See below

Are a lot of members complaining about rcomps in stock? Yes.

Has there been a big drop of stock class competitors? Define big. However, yes it's been in decline since 2008. I think somehwere around 200 less in stock at nationals 2012 than there were in 08. I think that's pretty big.

Are they greedy and think this change will somehow massively expand SCCA membership? (I don't think it would increase membership) The goal is always to increase membership. I think the street tire change alone would have a positive impact, but the real work in getting members comes at the local level.

Are they bored and just decided to screw with everyone? The SEB is made up of quite a few respectable folks. I feel like they have been given a task to perform with stock class participation and they're doing the best they can.

Seriously, does anyone know their reasoning?

The quick answers to your questions are above, and this was the preamble from last months fastrack where the initial proposal was.

Stock Category Changes

Preamble – Over the last several years the sport has seen a consistent and ongoing decline in the participation in
the Stock Classes. After months of deliberation, the SEB has concluded that the cause of the decline cannot be
traced to a single factor, but rather is indicative of a category formula that is no longer meeting the needs of much
of our membership. We believe that there needs to be a category that is easily accessible to newcomers to the
sport, while also supporting a highly competitive environment for our most dedicated members. We also believe that
for this environment to exist we must have a ruleset that is reflective of the needs of modern vehicles. Automobile
manufacturing, government regulation, and advances in suspension design have created the safest, most comfortable
vehicles the industry has ever seen, and we believe that the current ruleset is not reflective of that reality. We have
been monitoring the situation for several seasons and have spent a considerable amount of time undertaking a major
rewrite of the ruleset with the following tenets in mind:

The category ruleset must address our Core Values in the following ways:

1. The available allowances should create a diverse field of cars. The allowances should also reverse some of the
built in limitations that prevent cars from performing on the autocross course.

2. Consumable items should have a “cost per run” that fits with the expectations of our members.

3. The ruleset should be forward looking so that vehicles produced during the coming years can compete in a
manner that our membership expects.

We believe the underlying reason that members love this sport is that they “want to have fun with cars!” We want this

SCCA Fastrack News

April 2013

Page 21

ruleset to broaden the base of cars and people who can do this within the SCCA’s Solo program.

With that in mind, we propose the following update to Section 13 of the Solo Rules. Highlights include the use of high
performance street tires (140 treadwear in 2014, 200 treadwear in 2015), a reduction in the shock absorber allowance
(2 adjustments, no remote reservoirs beginning in 2015), an opening of the camber allowance (additional camber
allowed via camber plates, camber bolts, and slotted struts), an opening of the wheel allowance (OE diameter plus or
minus 1”), and an opening of the swaybar allowance (changes permitted to both bars). These changes are proposed
as a way to make the category more relevant to today’s cars and today’s enthusiasts, while keeping the core concepts
of vehicles that are easy to prepare and easy to live with in normal street usage. You will also notice that we changed
the name from “Stock” to “Street”. This change reflects the fact that these cars aren’t actually as delivered off the
showroom floor, something that has caused confusion in the past.

In addition to the proposed changes to Section 13, you will also find accompanying changes to Section 14 and Section
15. Section 14 changes are limited to housekeeping – some allowances in Section 14 have been moved to Section
13, and thus removed from Section 14. Section 15 has similar housekeeping, but also a new rule – 15.12, which
allows for cars prepared to the Section 13 rules to run as Street Prepared “Limited Prep” with R-comp tires and remote-
reservoir shocks. This is intended to give current Stock category competitors who have invested in higher end shocks
and/or prefer driving on R-comp tires a place to keep running their car with no changes needed. Limited Prep car
classifications will be included in an upcoming FasTrack.

With these rule changes, car classifications for Section 13 cars may also change in many cases. An updated version
of Appendix A will be published for member comment in an upcoming FasTrack. In order to make sure we have the
ability to correct any mistakes made in such a large reorganization, the entire affected sections of Appendix A will be
considered new classifications and subject to the 12 month reclassification window listed in 3.2

The proposed changes to Section 13, shown with revisions in its entirety, are as follows:

[MARKP]

To quickly sum it up, there seems to be a consensus that stock is broken. I don't necessarily agree but we appear to be going down that path either way. I just hope we don't end up with a ruleset that gives us allowances that we end up regretting when everyone exploits the rule to the nth degree, again.

Sent from the Galaxy

[thrdeye]

I'm still out on the camber allowance. I voiced a no in my last letter, but one thing that I have always had a problem with is that some cars can adjust camber simply because that method was in the factory service manual for repairs. Obviously, cars that did not need any crash damage repairs were using crash bolts to get a performance advantage. I guess I really don't have an opinion.

If it get's put through, I'll probably just add a camber bolt in the lower hole and try to get to -3. I know that it's not that simple on all cars.

Another thought on the camber allowance is that I'm hopeful that it would allow "also-rans" to actually be in the noise of competition.

It's clear that newer cars that are coming out are getting regulated to death to the point that they are getting less and less fun for what we do. The street tire thing was bound to happen, and I think they decided they needed to try to future proof things as much as possible "while there in there" making changes. I am glad the SEB and BoD are trying to get ahead of this, and it seems like the community is more or less on the same page with most of the proposed allowances.

[ConeEater]

the problem isn't strictly the cost of the tires though that's keeping local people from nationals

It's the travel time, hotel, and other expenses as well.

We've had a very good crop of stock class cars in our own street tire index for the past 3 years and not one of those people did ANY national event last year in and RT class.

the 3 drivers we had @ nationals this year in RTR was 1 driver that has come back to autocross after time away and is liking the RT class. 1 driver was our solo chair that wanted to support RT so came our in his RX-8 instead of his SS C5Z, and he had a co-driver that was normally an STS driver.

will those guys be back in ST this year? Maybe 1 of them will be.

Will we get OTHERS or NEW people out in RT this year... our season hasn't start yet up in the arctic circle so that's too early to say.

SS went from 61 drivers in 2009 to 41 in 2011. That's a big drop , but also hard to say since that's the most expensive stock class cars and the economy had allot to do with it too. Some just didn't autocross nationally at all as well.

I just don't see these rules as a whole getting more people out nationally.

Regions can still choose to run classes how they see fit as well. We don't have novice or Pro classes, but we have a tire index classed based on PAX with a special extra multiplier in to make them competitive for driver of the year points.

A non-scca region here runs street tires in their stock classes and R-comps get thrown into a PAX class

[MARKP]

Another thought on the camber allowance is that I'm hopeful that it would allow "also-rans" to actually be in the noise of competition.

However, this isn't really the case. Cars are typically classed on performance potential. If a car can get camber, it has more performance potential than one that can't. Therefore, you have offsetting factors. My 140hp Celica can get camber. The 240hp Neon can't. Give them camber and it starts looking more like a DS car.

Sent from the Galaxy

[steverife]

The camber this is by far the worst thing about the proposal. It benefits a limited number of cars. A lot of camber plates aren't going to be by the book legal, so it is going to be an enforcement nightmare. ...and it often requires drilling into brand new cars.

How are you going to explain to n00bs that they can run camber plates, but they can't run THOSE camber plates? Well, what camber plates can I run? I don't know, you'll just have to research the stock measurements and geometry, then contact the aftermarket manufacturers.

[thrdeye]

Rife, I agree with that. I couldn't tell you what camber plates I could run and I know a fair amount about my car.

Mark, cars will be reclassed based on new performance potential.

[ConeEater]

exactly... the stock class rules are pretty damned clear cut as they are.

New people don't ever come up to me and say " I can't understand these rules ". I have more people talk about how dumb the ST/SP/SM rules are about what they can and can't do.

our tire index has more SP/SM cars in it than anything else.

[jcox07]

If this goes thru, I think a lot of people like Strano, Pilson and the likes might go to a different car and this is a major expense, so it will add cost and possibly drive outstanding drivers away from the sport just to satisfy the new comers. I may wind up in asp and all though it does not hit me in sm yet, I do think it will continue to bleed over in other classes down the road. If the scca runs off the core of its classes just to please the newbies because they don't want to spend the money to try and win, then the scca will lose more members not gain them.Look at any form of motor racing and if you don't have the money, guess what you will not win. That is just the way it is and always has been in racing.

[ConeEater]

Well, Sam's already said repeatedly that if it went thru as v1 stated that he wouldn't run the GS in SS and would possibly leave the sport altogether. He has done SP and doesn't enjoy high HP cars on street tires.

I'm not putting words in his mouth just paraphrasing what he's said in person and also online in various forums.

now that v2 is out and leaves SS alone for now, a bunch of us are staying put.

Mark and I talked @ the last event abuot "what if...." scenarios not only for what I would feel about things or do, and also what he had thought.

Let's see what happens this year as well. You might see people already planning for the future and sell their cars before the market is flooded or before their cars get too old to trade in and so on.

then you need to poll all those people that leave stock at the end of the year and find out WHY they left either just the class, or the sport in some cases.

[MARKP]

Mark, cars will be reclassed based on new performance potential.

Exactly. Wait until that one comes out.

Sent from the Galaxy