Announcing SCCA Club Spec: One car, multiple disciplines

David S. Wallens said:

The nice thing with SSC is that you really just have to find a BRZ or FR-S from the right year range fitted with a stick. NC Miatas make sense for that same reason: Even though you have a few engine and transmission choices, I’m thinking that you still have a good supply of donor cars. 

[emphasis mine]

this is a comment I brought up in the livestream (thanks JG!), but I think the import of it was missed.

why does it have to be a stick?  why, if it's a "spec" class, shouldn't/couldn't there be a balance added to the manual cars to allow parity between the autos and manuals?  If, at least part of, the emphasis here is on bringing in new people... then having a level playing field for auto and manual would go a long ways to bringing people in without slapping them upside the face if they never learned (or want to learn) how to drive a manual.  Otherwise, you've just written off something like 60% of the drivers today... and like 85% of the drivers under 30.  How is that in any way forward looking?

In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :

That's why for this kind of spec class I would lean more towards something like the Elantra N (or maybe VW GTI) with the available DCT, over any of the manual-only hot (econo) boxes.

In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :

Maybe you could make autos and manuals equal. My point was just that you didn’t need to find a non-sunroof model fitted with the competition package, the lower final drive, the summer package and some rare option group. You just needed to find a car from a rather healthy supply. That was it. 

In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :

How would you make manuals and automatics equal in SSC?  I believe automatics are legal in SSC, they just aren't as fast at autocross.

Just on the narrow front of, "attract more people to motorsport" and "don't leave them feeling outgunned, outsmarted, and unwelcome by a complex rule set"

It seems to me what SCCA wants is the 1995 Neon Challenge which was well defined for both autox and track.  

Now, imagine this car with graphics in a similar vein:

Tesla 3 purchases are FAR outpacing the purchases of most all "sporty cars" combined.  The product is out there.  It has been out there, so used is available, and it continues to be out there.  

Like with Mopar of 1995 maybe get some factory involvement.  One example would be to get Tesla to write some HP/Weight software that levels some of the various years.  Perhaps some retarding of hp on their more hyper models.  Perhaps software to make even dual motors (awd) to run as just rwd.  Or, if popular enough, a awd class too.   

Love them or hate them, the cars are being bought.  For most buyers, it's the fastest car they have EVER owned.  Lets encourage them to explore their car in various ways.  Some leveled playing field, easy to follow motorsports could be the answer.  Both autox and time trial type stuff...whichever is more readily available in their area.  

All we need to be here is the gateway drug.  Maybe this is the "dad class."  He's bought the car, and they ain't cheap so he has all his marbles in this one bag.  It does the commute.  The back seat delivers the kids.  Lets invite him out for some low threshold entry into motorsport.  Without inviting him to motorsport the typical owner might only focus on the "economy" of his car...and motorsports dies a little more every day.  

As for gateway drug and hp retarding....all we have to do is get them hooked.  Moving up to full hp and the other classes that are made for that could be the right answer for the dad "bitten" by the competition bug.  Or, we might find that for his second year he realizes he wanted a 300z in highschool and this might just the time/reason to get one.  

And a class for NCs to remedy the fact that they are overlooked and outgunned.  But, this will be a class for people who largely already know of autox.  

ojannen said:

In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :

How would you make manuals and automatics equal in SSC?  I believe automatics are legal in SSC, they just aren't as fast at autocross.

• >>Anyone want to give me the "tl;dr" of what SSC allows, so I don't have to go dive into a rulebook?

nevermind, I found this dated as for 2022... which I'll assume is "close enough for these purposes":
https://www.tirerack.com/images/pdf/SCCA_Solo_Spec_Coupe_SSC_Rules_0820.pdf

which was the third hit on duckduckgo, after:
https://www.tirerack.com/content/tirerack/desktop/en/events_sponsorships/SCCASSC.html
and this... (which has a two links to the same site, that's now dead):
https://www.scca.com/articles/2008298-official-specifications-announced-for-new-scca-solo-spec-coupe-class
 

In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :

A suspension kit, heavy wheels, heavy exhaust, spec tire, brake pads, and an oil cooler.

In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :

main things I see allowed in SSC are:
1) mid-pipe & muffler, and "air filter element"
2) 17# minimum 17x8 wheels with 225/45 Falken RT660's (which tirerack quotes at 24#s). (oem wheels are generally quoted as 20.2#s, and 21#s for the OEM 215 Michelin Primacy equivalents)
3) Suspension Kit
4) Harness bar of 2 or 4 point mounting
5) The spare tire, tools, and jack can be removed (which we can peg, based on different evidence, of around 30#s)

specs for the BRZ list for 2013 a 6m Curb Weight of: 2762#s (Premium) & 2776#s (Limited)
specs for 6A list a Curb Weight of: 2809#s (Premium) & 2882#s (Limited)
with a 13.2gal tank. (which is ~79#s... of which 60#s probably 'useable')

looking around... there seems to be a "stock" DynoJet SAE readings for the 6M of around 162whp  (resulting in an approx driveline loss of 19%); while the 6A seems a bit harder to track down; but 150whp seems 'reasonable', (since that would be a driveline loss of 25%)?  I've already spent about an hour on this, so I'm not going to go track down what the exhaust could benefit to power/weight.

I'll use the "FAA Standard Passenger Weight" of 175#s, and 1/2 a tank of fuel...
6M 'race weight:power' -- (2762 - 30{jack/spare} - 30{fuel} + 175{driver} )#s / (162whp) = 17.76 #/hp
6A 'race weight:power' --  (2809 - 30{jack/spare} - 30{fuel} + 175{driver} )#s / (150whp) = 19.49 #/hp

so, there's 2#/hp that would "need" to be balanced, which is 45#s and ~12hp.

off hand, I'd offer the suggestion that some combination of the following be allowed for the autos: have a minimum wheel weight of 15#s, a replacement intake, and a lithium 12V battery (and possible require that the manuals retain the spare/jack in the car).  That'd probably get the automatics "in the ball park" balancing with the manuals.

In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :

How would you set the rules for swapping cars if the automatic had an advantage on one course and the manual on the second course during a 2 day event?

In reply to ojannen :

Each has a roughly equal chance of a minor advantage... No changes necessary.

Spec Miata balances performance well enough between multiple generations of car, which will inevitably happen in SSC too if it's going to stick around for the long run, such that mild balancing for autos should also entirely be a non-issue... Except to 'that guy'. 

Don't be 'that guy'.

In reply to Driven5 :

I have already seen people bring two cars to an important autocross in case of rain.  B-spec competitors own multiple cars optimized cars for different race tracks.  I don't know much about spec Miata but the front of the field all looks the same to me.  No 1st gens on the podium in big races.

How are SSC or the upcoming spec classes different?  We can try telling everyone in paddock to be cool if you want.  I think potentially doubling the cost of the class is the reason there are no special allowances for the auto.

ojannen said:

In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :

How would you set the rules for swapping cars if the automatic had an advantage on one course and the manual on the second course during a 2 day event?

that's pretty vague of a question, and I could view it in a couple different contexts:
1 - SSC as it has run from 2018 to 2023/2024 at Solo Nats
2 - SSC as it has run from 2018 to 2023/2024 at Regional/Local Events
3 - SSC as it has run within Sport5 TT Nats/Regionals

4 - SSC as I've suggested it could have been balanced 6M/6A,  in the above  contexts

5 - SCC as I've suggested be balanced for 6M/6A for SSC to morph into Club Coupes for Solo Nats 2024+
6 - SCC as I've suggested be balanced for 6M/6A for SSC to morph into Club Coupes for Solo Regional 2024+
7 - SCC as I've suggested be balanced for 6M/6A for SSC to morph into Club Coupes for Solo Local 2024+
8 - SCC as I've suggested be balanced for 6M/6A for SSC to morph into Club Coupes for TT Nats 2024+
9 - SCC as I've suggested be balanced for 6M/6A for SSC to morph into Club Coupes for TT Regional 2024+
10 - SCC as I've suggested be balanced for 6M/6A for SSC to morph into Club Coupes for Other TT 2024+
11 - SCC as I've suggested be balanced for 6M/6A for SSC to morph into Club Coupes for RallyX Nats 2024+
12 - SCC as I've suggested be balanced for 6M/6A for SSC to morph into Club Coupes for RallyX Regional 2024+

The first 3 scenarios are kind of moot, and I'm not going to address them.

The 4th context I have ideas, but to test their validity would require a familiarity with the Solo Tome that I determined ~3 years ago (when trying to compare GridLife's rules to TT's rules and Solo's rules) that I have no interest in waisting my time achieving.  If you, or someone else, wants to screen cap and paste every 'relevant' rules from Solo covering driver responsibility, conduct, and mechanical hardship; I might take a stab at it.

Contexts 5 through 12 (and further contexts w.r.t. using the Club Spec cars in multiple SCCA venues) are around a currently nebulous proposed ruleset that intends to encourage participation, 'time with cars/people', and will be run contingently at Solo Nats for the first couple of years.  As such, I'd have a 'competitor expectations' section lined out in the class rules {with an eye for that wording to be distributed to all the Solo classes, except 'Mod'} that specifically requires a driver be associated with a single vehicle entry for an event duration, outside of exigent mechanical distress; and that has an expectation that drivers comport themselves with dignity, grace, and put the integrity of the club and the event they're attending ahead of their own final outcome.

Adjudication of mechanical distress/swapping will be conducted by a survey of the peers competitors and a single "lead" on-site, and would require the distressed/swapping entity provide sufficient coffee/donuts or pizza/soda to facilitate the adjudication as necessary; unless the aggrieved part is a student, on disabilty or unemployment... or there have been multiple adjudications at an event*.

Further, I'd propose that if an entrant is found to be violating the (as yet formally defined) code of conduct, and emphasis on placing integrity and other competitors ahead of your own competitive outcome, that they be either re-classed into a 'higher' class or DQ'd from the event (although I'm open to hearing other forms of progressive reinforcement that "your approach isn't welcome here").

so, along the lines of what Driven5 has stated:  Don't be a dick, or the class has the right to be a dick to you.
With the intention of this being as way of informing them that their mindset is not aligned with the core traits of the class.

*usual Buffalo caveats
this is a work in progress, I probably got some part wrong... especially w.r.t. Solo;  this is just, like, my opinion man;  caveat emptor;  caveat lector;  ymmv;  iirc;  I'm not trying to rob you, Bilboa;  etc.

edited 06.16.2023 @ 16:27
fixed Sport6 to Sport5

So, NC Miata for this new category. Which engine, which transmission? Do we care? Hmmm. And what about a roll bar? 

In reply to David S. Wallens :

2.0, 5spd MT. 

That'll give you 167hp, 4.10 final drive, and an LSD out of the gate. 

1.8s didn't get LSDs and autos didn't get LSDs. Only 2.0 manuals did. 

The 5spd got the 4.10 gears, the 6spd has 3.72s and a taller OD (.67 vs. .84 in the 5spd). 

Now you're looking for a 2006-2009 NC 2.0/5spd car. 

And already we know there is a potential ringer. 

David S. Wallens said:

So, NC Miata for this new category. Which engine, which transmission? Do we care? Hmmm. And what about a roll bar? 

Why not NA Miatas?

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

Remember I'm on team, "How about everything?" 

But the short answer is - NA Miatas are beginning to appreciate in value. NCs are reaching the depreciation minimum with plentiful donors and parts.

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

David S. Wallens said:

So, NC Miata for this new category. Which engine, which transmission? Do we care? Hmmm. And what about a roll bar? 

Why not NA Miatas?

NCs are probably cheaper and generally in better shape at this point.

I’m thinking the NC Miata would give you a good supply of relatively newer cars that are currently at or nearing the bottom of their depreciation curves. This chassis has already been developed for track. 

Plus you could run a bigger tire (so maybe easier on wear). These cars aren’t as popular in Solo these days, but I bet Mazda Motorsports would like to change that.

My biggest question surrounds the roll bar. For track use, maybe run an aftermarket hardtop so there’s room for a taller bar? Or a lower seat? Not a worry? Keith? 

DocRob said:

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

Remember I'm on team, "How about everything?" 

But the short answer is - NA Miatas are beginning to appreciate in value. NCs are reaching the depreciation minimum with plentiful donors and parts.

I agree. How about everything. What if you have an old RX7 sitting in your garage? Look at all the old cars showing up at North Texas rallycross events. Yes, low mileage NAs are appreciating in value. High mileage beater NAs are not. There are lots of old NAs that already have roll cages that could be recycled. What about the Lemons rule. Anything for $500 and then put the safety equipment in it. What about a beater autocross class?

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

Yes, I think a low-buck beater class would be cool. Don’t forget, local regions are free to create classes that appeal to their local members. Beater class? Sure. Some kind of vintage class not currently offered? Love it. A class for only NA Miatas prepped a certain way? You can do that. 

Up in Jacksonville, we used to have a breakout-type class–kinda like you have in drag racing. In St. Pete, I once won a trophy for the fastest automotive journalist. (I think it was rigged.)

From what I gather, the SCCA national office is simply looking to expand the SSC format to other chassis as it’s a proven winner. JG and I were for the SSC announcement (it was held next to our tent at Solo Nats), and soon after we had a conversation: How could this formula be expanded to cover other cars? And now it looks like we’re there. 

Everyone here took the survey, right? 

In reply to John Welsh :

One potential problem with the Tesla idea would be that a decent number of tracks aren't allowing electric cars to participate due to lack of suitable firefighting capability. Maybe the SCCA introducing this class could force their hand in getting the right gear, but that's not a guarantee. Or I guess the class could be restricted to autocross rather than TT or W2W

David S. Wallens said:

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

Yes, I think a low-buck beater class would be cool. Don’t forget, local regions are free to create classes that appeal to their local members. Beater class? Sure. Some kind of vintage class not currently offered? Love it. A class for only NA Miatas prepped a certain way? You can do that. 

Up in Jacksonville, we used to have a breakout-type class–kinda like you have in drag racing. In St. Pete, I once won a trophy for the fastest automotive journalist. (I think it was rigged.)

From what I gather, the SCCA national office is simply looking to expand the SSC format to other chassis. JG and I were for the SSC announcement (it was held next to our tent at Solo Nats), and soon after we had a conversation: How could this formula be expanded to cover other cars? And now it looks like we’re there. 

Everyone here took the survey, right? 

Yep. I did.

Maybe something for the builders too. Like the Challenge only for local autocross. Build whatever you want for under $2,000 and run it. Or maybe the Lemons for autocross. $500 purchase price. Then you can add tires and suspension. Bolt on stuff only.

In reply to gixxeropa :

Other than that, it’s kinda like the Tesla 3 answer was hiding in plain sight.

Plus major props to John for presentation on his Tesla argument. :) 

In reply to ojannen :

The type of people who do that will always find a way to exponentially "increase the cost of the class" (for themselves) regardless of what cost controls are put in place. I find the psychology of it at the amateur level interesting, but worrying about it is an exercise in futility.

For a spec class: They can buy multiple cars and dyno them to pick the one that make the best power. They could even mix and match the cars to combine the best engine with the best chassis. They can buy and bench test numerous suspension kids and mix and match the a set of the stiffest springs and shocks for dry, and softest springs and shocks for wet. They can buy many tires and only keep the ones with the least imbalance, have them all shaved to different levels for dry vs wet and hot vs cold, and have fresh ones for each event. They could buy numerous sets of the lightest allowed wheels, have them custom machined to perfect balance and exact minimum weight.

None of which necessitates "doubling the cost of the class" for all the other participants. The percentage of people willing and able to do all of that is not statistically significant enough to worry about at the organizational level, mostly because even within that tiny fraction of the class only a small fraction of them are also actually capable of gaining a functional competitive advantage from it anyway.

Of the few top national level drivers I've known, they've all been some of the least 'that guy' people. Constantly changing the car setup to try to account for variable conditions, as so many drivers are want to do, is often a double edged sword.