1
2
3
4
5
Some autox'rs are advocating eliminating R-comps from SCCA solo stock-class competition.
Now, an infamous National Socialist has joined the bandwagon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIyQvDbRbeU
Slow drivers will always get beat by fast drivers, regardless of the rubber compound.
I would love to see this happen it would make stock class so much cheaper. I think it would allow a lot of younger people to compete.
In reply to 96DXCivic:
I'll respectfully disagree; R-comps are not required to run in any stock class.
The SCCA has the ST classes for those who choose to run on harder rubber, but the consistently fast drivers still have substantial tire budgets.
Age means nothing when attitude and committment are in play.
I know they aren't required but I know several college aged guys that would love to autocross more seriously but they can't afford a set of race slicks every year much less more then one. And the ST class allows more modifications equaling more money. Shouldn't the stock class be cars that are driven to the competition and straight on to the coarse without switching tires? I think it should.
Sometimes i question your committment to Sparkle Motion.
I agree. I never could understand why SCCA allowed R tires in a stock class.
And yet they won't allow a bigger rear bar.
In reply to 96DXCivic:
Again, no disrespcect intended, but if your acquaintances are even remotely serious, they should concentrate on honing their driving skills.
They can gain that 1.5-2.0 sec (that R-comps MIGHT provide) by gaining experience and asking for help from willing, high-caliber competitors. I picked-up nearly 2 seconds on my next run after riding with a national-level driver in my own car and still didn't beat his times - in my own car.
As for requiring that stock-class cars be driven to events and forbidding changing tires, there is nothing in the spirit or intention of the rules to suggest such a thing.
Yeah, there is ST for street tires. But that is just street prepared, with street tires. Still $$$$
I see both sides of the argument. However, I am fairly sure there are pleanty of people that think having to spend a ton of money on extra wheels and R comps, not to mention exhaust and fancy shocks, to try and compete in the STOCK class, doesn't make much sense. Or seem fair. If you don't think there is talent that can't afford these things, guess again. I know people that are nationally competitive, that are leaving the sport for that reason.
But even with the street tires, people are going to shave them, and have extra sets, and blah blah blah. Viscous cycle.
Oh, well.
Do street tires last longer than r-comps when autocrossing?
ManBearSTIG wrote:But even with the street tires, people are going to shave them, and have extra sets, and blah blah blah. Viscous cycle.
Oh, well.
Pretty much my point. There is no ruleset that can eliminate a competitor's desire to find and exploit the smallest of loopholes. There is also the issue that "this year's hot car" will be an also-ran before the last payment is made to the bank.
Any car-related activity will be as expensive as the person allows. AutoX can be relatively cheap fun, even when one's budget doesn't come close to those at the top of the heap.
im gonna make one bitching about why they dont have a listing for a roush mustang and just throw you into SMST even when you have one with no suspension upgrades, yet you can change your shocks and still run in stock class.
I'm not convinced that it's cheaper to run "street tires". Let's face it, some guys have a LOT of money into their "street tire" setups that aren't much more than well disguised R's. 
It's not hard to find cheap used R compounds from the "fast guys", and they save your street tires.
Nathan
njansenv wrote:I'm not convinced that it's cheaper to run "street tires". Let's face it, some guys have a LOT of money into their "street tire" setups that aren't much more than well disguised R's.
Nathan
problem with that is that used R's are still a tenth or 2 at least off of a fresh R.
Pricing tires for my Mustang the ST tires are usually much cheaper then the R's (hoosier or khumo). ($75-$100 per tire)
that said, Rcomps are crack and its a moot point for me as I am SP
njansenv wrote:I'm not convinced that it's cheaper to run "street tires". Let's face it, some guys have a LOT of money into their "street tire" setups that aren't much more than well disguised R's.
Nathan
Two years ago I ran an ST 89 Civic Si. Even with switching back and forth between Toyos and Bridgestones, we ran 6 drivers on a $1500 tire budget.
Last year I ran my SM 89 Civic Si on Hoosiers. Only 3 drivers, yet we spent over $3000 on tires.
Do the math and the street tires cost 1/4 as much. They are cheaper to buy and last a LOT longer. The last set of Hoosiers got 60 runs. That's the high for the season. If we didn't get well over 100 out of the ST tires we were doing something wrong.
I LOVE the idea of ST tires in stock. The advantages outweigh the 2 second speed differential to a huge degree IMO.
^ I agree.
But, hopefully they dont change the rules before March 14th.. because thats when ill be forgoing my fast but street-tired SM car and bolting r-comps onto my stock Mazda3 and tearing up the PAX with my local club.
Take that all you people who modify your cars hoping you will place better. G or H stock on R-comps = i win.
I have used street tyres for solo2 in the past. then I would drive home and drive around for a week or so of tyres with funny handling characteristics until the abnormal wear from the autox was countered by normal usage. Come winter though, these tyres were crap for snow because the shoulders were rounded off.
R comp or not, I would still need two sets of wheels/tyres.
My R comps would last for several seasons. You avoid the stickiest stuff and it is cheaper.
I no longer autox , and if Rcomps were banned, I simply would not bother.
Once you know what a set of R comps can do, going back to tall flexible blocked street rubber would be like turning motor racing into croquet or something like that.
It's not just the winning, but the way the car feels.
m
I was wondering when this discussion would make its way over here...
I'm on the fence... I plan to run ST tires in HS this year, partly for budget reasons and partly because I'm not sure I should run R-comps in my 2nd year and would learn more on street tires.
That said, my street tires will be exclusively used for auto-x as they will be much too small to run on the street, so I'll still be swapping tires at the event.
In my current situation (running my daily driver in HS) I'm not sure running a single set of tires would save me any money, even if I was to go with $800 worth of V710's + cheap all-seasons vs. $500 for Star Specs that may not last more than a few months given how much I drive...
In reply to Ian F:
Star Specs are a pretty long lasting tire IIRC
+1 on street tires only in 'Stock' class.
ST classes were borne out of street tuner parts on an otherwise stock daily driver. Rcomps do bring a big $, may wear longer (much debate here as the longevity may make $$ work out, but DILYSI has data to show different)
While were at it, lets get rid of the shock allowances also in stock. No remote rez shocks, maybe only single adjustables. Perhaps no sway bar change at all...
As others have pointed out, fast drivers will still be fast. However, maybe Natn'l tours will enjoy larger turnouts and higher competition from unknown 'hotshoes' not in a place to spend $$ on r-comps. No biggie if a competitor wants several sets of ST tires, thats their choice.
That is, if SCCA really wants to expand its membership, there have always been funny stories and rumors of the opposite.
Eric G
I think things like swapping the front sway are further from the idea of "stock" than swapping "DOT legal" tires. Tires, shocks, and even exhausts are wear items that may have to be replaced, and may not always be able to be replaced by a stock item (out of production vehicles). How is a front say bar (not rear, mind you) a wear item?
I'm all for ST type tires in stock classes (no R-comps).
The argument I've heard in favor of more modifications is something along the lines of "Stock is not "stock" - meaning OEM. Stock as we are discussing it is a preparation level - a set of allowed modifications."
I would rather they actually meant OEM
96DXCivic wrote:Shouldn't the stock class be cars that are driven to the competition and straight on to the coarse without switching tires? I think it should.
I can't be the only one on this board who's done that repeatedly with R-comps...
Gimp wrote:I think things like swapping the front sway are further from the idea of "stock" than swapping "DOT legal" tires. Tires, shocks, and even exhausts are wear items that may have to be replaced, and may not always be able to be replaced by a stock item (out of production vehicles). How is a front say bar (not rear, mind you) a wear item?
Exactly!
Wear items should be allowed to be replaced, and I think that there is a caveat in the SCCA solo rules for suitable replacements when OEM isn't available (?). Are stock cars ever 'aged' out of classes by rules, or do they just fall out of favor?
Personally, I think the history of SCCA's stock solo rules may help some of us understand how we got here...
Eric G
I don't think there is any point in changing the rules. There is nothing stopping clubs from having a seperate street tire class. It doesn't matter what the rules are, there will still be some people that spend huge amounts of money to go that little bit quicker on a National level. If the rules are changed to limit to street tires, they will just show up on shaved street tires that may wear even quicker than R comps. If you limit it to single adjustable shocks, people will start buying mulitiple sets of shocks and changing them for different courses or condidtions. Short of a claim rule (not going to happen) there will always be people who will spend money to get a small advantage.
