mkiisupra wrote: 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
Stock cars are aged out after 25 years.
oldsaw wrote: Age means nothing when attitude and committment are in play.
Um, age usually means more $$$, and given the competition, many 'aged' drivers have competitive attitudes and committments if not moreso than the younger drivers. I'd be curious to see some statistics regarding comptetitve driver's ages and income...
sobe_death wrote: In reply to Ian F: Star Specs are a pretty long lasting tire IIRC
On our MINI... I would agree... after 3 auto-x events, the tires hardly look worn at all... but on a heavier, softer-sprung and more camber-challenged VW Mk IV? Tough to say...
Regardless, I'll find out as they are what I plan to use for auto-x tires... hopefully I'll have them by the first event on 3/28. I'm running a much smaller (2" diameter difference) tire in an effort to turn my 2nd and 3rd gears into 1st and 2nd to make better use of a TDI's low redline. Fortunately, if the idea turns into a dismal failure, I shouldn't have too much trouble unloading the tires.
mw wrote:mkiisupra wrote: 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 GStock cars are aged out after 25 years.
Are you certain of that, mw? Here is the SCCA's complete listing for solo classification by make, circa 2009:
http://cms.scca.com/documents/Solo_Rules/2009_Stock_Category_Classifications_By_Manufacturer.pdf
There are plenty of cars more than 25yrs old on that list.
mw wrote: Stock cars are aged out after 25 years.
Not true. Spitfires, classic Minis and even Volvo 1800's are still listed in H-Stock.
MadScientistMatt wrote: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...
Not me personally, but a guy with a '73 911 (original owner; cool car) will drive it from northern NJ to Philly region events (in Philly) on his A6's.
I agree about the "history" thing... I've learned a little about how we got to where we are and it's something many of the "ST Stock" folks seem to be missing. This also seems to be a not-new subject by any stretch... whch may explain some of the responses to the idea.
For cars in lighter/lower HP classes, the ST change wouldn't be a big deal, IMO. Maybe even in CS... But for those running in SS, AS, BS and FS, I'm not so sure... and since those are some of the biggest classes at nationals, their opinion matters. And I don't see the SCCA splitting the stock classes into ST and R-comp halfs.
Ian F wrote: And I don't see the SCCA splitting the stock classes into ST and R-comp halfs.
Though a fair number of Regions do this on the local level.
Raze wrote:oldsaw wrote: Age means nothing when attitude and committment are in play.Um, age usually means more $$$, and given the competition, many 'aged' drivers have competitive attitudes and committments if not moreso than the younger drivers. I'd be curious to see some statistics regarding comptetitve driver's ages and income...
Let me clarify the point.
If a "young" driver decides that he/she wants to excel to a higher level, their attitude and committment to achieve that goal determines their success.
The majority of national-level competitors are "aged" but an awful lot of them run on shoe-string budgets. Raw talent will only take someone so far, even if money is not an issue. It's experience, attitude and committment that pay the real dividends.
mw wrote: 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.
They don't wear quicker. The Toyo R1R is the softest of the ST tires. A R1R shaved to 4/32" lasts 2-3 times as long as a Hoosier A6.
The cost of stuff like shocks, swaybars, etc. aren't nearly as bothersome, because they aren't a consumable. If I buy $2000 worth of shocks, I can use them for a few years, and sell them for $1500. Total cost = $500. If I buy $2000 worth of tires, they are worth zilch when I'm done with them. Total cost = $2000.
The cool thing is that the higher end the part, the better it retains it's value. A set of $500 shocks may only be worth $300 used. A set of $5000 shocks will be worth very close to $5000 used.
Ian F wrote:sobe_death wrote: In reply to Ian F: Star Specs are a pretty long lasting tire IIRCOn our MINI... I would agree... after 3 auto-x events, the tires hardly look worn at all... but on a heavier, softer-sprung and more camber-challenged VW Mk IV? Tough to say... Regardless, I'll find out as they are what I plan to use for auto-x tires... hopefully I'll have them by the first event on 3/28. I'm running a much smaller (2" diameter difference) tire in an effort to turn my 2nd and 3rd gears into 1st and 2nd to make better use of a TDI's low redline. Fortunately, if the idea turns into a dismal failure, I shouldn't have too much trouble unloading the tires.
FWIW, the Mini is one of the worst cars there is for tire life. There are stories of stock Mini guys getting less than 20 runs out of a set of Hoosiers.
cghstang wrote:Ian F wrote: And I don't see the SCCA splitting the stock classes into ST and R-comp halfs.Though a fair number of Regions do this on the local level.
Regions can be more flexible with the rules to match their members needs. For example, Pro and Novice classes are a Regional thing... not an SCCA mandate. In my region, most of the faster and more experienced drivers compete against each other by Pro-PAX. These are the dozen or so guys that attend (and have won at) National events. The rest of us compete in the open classes and most newcomers go into Novice PAX.
It's not that I don't think moving to 140 tires in at least some stock class couldn't work, but the proponents need to build up more of a member base beyond a few regions (we have none of this in Philly, nor have I heard anyone ask for it). Asking for such a drastic, wholesale rule-change that would effect so many members is too much, too quickly without appropriate research.
Ian F wrote:mw wrote: Stock cars are aged out after 25 years.Not true. Spitfires, classic Minis and even Volvo 1800's are still listed in H-Stock.
Soory about that. I had been told that by someone, but never looked it up since I don't have a vehicle old enough to be affected.
Ian F wrote:MadScientistMatt wrote:Not me personally, but a guy with a '73 911 (original owner; cool car) will drive it from northern NJ to Philly region events (in Philly) on his A6's.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...
I only live a few miles from the local venue and I have driven home on mine a few times. (after 2 hot days I dont really feel like doing the swap until I cool off in the shower) Street driving on R's is its own special breed of insanity. Had a local non-ax ricer boy try to race me while I was on my way home and he was going to tailgate me around the cloverleaf off-ramp. I used the R's abilities and the guy almost hit the guardrail trying to keep tailgating me. 
with the right car (lightweight little wear) running v700's or similar on the street could be a heck of a lot of fun if you could afford it
To me, stock is something approximating what would come from the factory. No street car comes with R-comps, so they shouldn't be allowed. SCCA has too many classes as it is. You'd think that they'd start with a genuinely "stock" class, and allow Rs on the plethora of modified classes rather than muddying things by allowing a modification as profound as Rs in "stock".
Isn't there an issue with "stock" cars occasionally rolling over on R comps?
My personal view? Run the cars with stock equipment, excluding wear items with the caveat that all wear items must be DOT/Emissions legal. Tires and wheels are "free" provided they meet the OEM specs for size and tread wear.
If you want to mod the car, then move up to ST or SP, etc.
I have just never seen a car come stock with R comps.
Call me crazy, but I can't help but feel like cars that are being raced as stock should be raced as stock.
kreb wrote: To me, stock is something approximating what would come from the factory. No street car comes with R-comps, so they shouldn't be allowed. SCCA has too many classes as it is. You'd think that they'd start with a genuinely "stock" class, and allow Rs on the plethora of modified classes rather than muddying things by allowing a modification as profound as Rs in "stock".
So if my new car comes with some POS tire that is hard as a rock, or sucks in the snow, I have to stick with it?
Gimp wrote: So if my new car comes with some POS tire that is hard as a rock, or sucks in the snow, I have to stick with it?
Negatory. Anything goes that will fit on your stock rims, is DOT approved, and has a certain minimum treadwear rating - say 150. Now that wasn't hard, was it?
kreb wrote:Gimp wrote: So if my new car comes with some POS tire that is hard as a rock, or sucks in the snow, I have to stick with it?Negatory. Anything goes that will fit on your stock rims, is DOT approved, and has a certain minimum treadwear rating - say 150. Now that wasn't hard, was it?
Cool... you just created ST.
And how do we verify that all treadwear is reported correctly (in the event a manufacturer makes a cheater tire, even if just for one event for "sponsored" drivers).
In reply to Gimp: As someone mentioned earlier, you'll sometimes have the occasional cheater or monumental spender. If someone has the jack for custom valved Penske shocks and custom rubber compounds, they're only making themselves look like an idiot.
kreb wrote: To me, stock is something approximating what would come from the factory. No street car comes with R-comps, so they shouldn't be allowed. SCCA has too many classes as it is. You'd think that they'd start with a genuinely "stock" class, and allow Rs on the plethora of modified classes rather than muddying things by allowing a modification as profound as Rs in "stock".
Again, we are forgetting what the conditions were when the rules were written. FSB's and shocks are allowed "stock" upgrades because "back in the day" most new cars were practically undrivable in auto-x. Having driven our '73 Volvo 1800ES with the OE FSB and then with an IPD FSB upgrade (which were available when the car was new), the difference in handling is dramatic. What was once literally scary is transformed.
Modern cars are much more capable off the showroom floor. This is obvious... but what would you do? Change the rules so that a guy who has been running the same car for 30 years in his local events and doesn't give a hoot about nationals (more common that you would think) is now bumped into a class where his car is hopelessly outclassed?
And while we refer to A6's and V710's as "r-comps" they are DOT approved, street legal tires. Treadwear ratings are a moving target at best... For example, the Dunlop Star Spec (TW 200) has beaten a number of other "softer" tires (TW 140) in comparison tests. So I have little doubt that Hoosier would mildly rework the A6 or R6 into a 140 rated tire.
It really isn't as simple as it sounds and the SEB has been down this road before. Are the current rules perfect? No. But for the most part they work and provide a stable platform for competition.
kreb wrote: No street car comes with R-comps,
The Lotus Elise Sport comes with the Yokohama ADVAN A048 a 60 Treadwear Track and Competition DOT tire.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Yokohama&tireModel=ADVAN+A048
I could be mistaken here but I've been told that the treadwear rating is not standardized.
One company's 150 could be another's 200.
Again, this is only what I've been told, I have no hard facts.
Shawn
Trans_Maro wrote: I could be mistaken here but I've been told that the treadwear rating is not standardized. One company's 150 could be another's 200. Again, this is only what I've been told, I have no hard facts. Shawn
Hmm, the NHTSA might disagree with you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treadwear_rating
It can be under reported, but not to exceed the results found by the NHTSA.
BTW, the thing that stops "cheater" tires would be the sanctioning body listening to their constituents and self-policing amongst the racers.
This is all for trophy's and dash plaques guys, this isn't saving the world or making a million dollars.
R-Comps are stupid for "Stock" and always have been. Stock should be:
Everything else on the car should be as delivered or closest OEM equivalent. Make filters (air/oil) open (so drop-in K&N's are allowed), open plugs/wires/rotor/cap, open fluids, and allow factory catalog accessories (add-on lips, mudflaps, non-performance appearance items).
ST should be the "step up" with SP being the "entry-level" r-comps class.
You'll need to log in to post.
