BIG Stock class change proposal

Duke wrote: I'm with you, Ian. I like the idea that they're thinking about revamping the Stock idea, but they're only getting it partly right. All the verbage in the Solomatters introduction is focused exclusively on the Nats participation. OK, so Nats attendance in Stock is down a couple hundred drivers - frankly, *big deal* - those national-level drivers are just showing up in other classes, *not* disappearing entirely. The idea of Stock SHOULD be an entry-level class that attracts new members who can drive what they already have in their garage. Once they get some cone experience, *then* they begin the process of modding and/or choosing the car and class they want to campaign in. And ST is there for the enthusiast crowd who have already built a typical fun street car before discovering autocross.

FWIW - While the shrinking Nationals attendance was certainly the biggest catalyst, when we took out that clean sheet of paper it was absolutely focused on what makes a good entry level class. A dual purpose car that is fun to drive and gives a good bang for the buck was the central theme. The allowances developed from there.

In reply to jstein77:

The point is that consumbale items are allowed to be changed with items that are legal for road use. The fact that you drive on Koni yellows or that I've driven through rain storms on Victoracers is irrelvant. They are legal.

Just like any brake compound is legal. Just like any non metallic bushing is legal.

If one really understands that, then you should have a far easier time to argue that just because they are legal does not mean they should be run- example- IIRC, the really high end Penske shocks are legal on the street, but not legal in Stock- this is a reasonable restriction on what steet legal parts really mean.

Now, does my point make sense?

Just saying that "they are not real tires" is not a good argument. The are as real and legal as anything else. The problem is that someone in the 80's showed up with some Yoko A008 that WERE street tires, and that started the R tire war that could have been nipped in the bud right there. Just like the shocks, the system let it get out of hand before doing anything about it.

Understand both sides, and you will have a better time making peope agree with your point.

Here are my thoughts

Front and rear swaybars - Good, they are needed. (already been done)

Camber plates - VERY Good, these were sorely needed as many camber challenged cars were grinding off the outside edges of their tires drastically shortening their life expectancy.

Rim +/- 1" - Good, due to the DUB movement or whatever you want to call it, many new cars are coming from the factory with overly large rims that you can't get tires for. Also some of the older cars have really small rims that you can't find good tires for.

I don't think anyone is really arguing with those points. I have not heard anyone complaining about them.

The real thing sticking in peoples craw is the street tire thing.

When you have a set of tires (which you can't be competitive without!) that has a life expectancy of 50-60 runs (I have had someone tell me this number, I have even heard less) in the INTRODUCTORY class level it is a bit absurd.

The reverse side is that they(rcomps) are FUN, and that even if street tires are mandated, you will always have people who shave them and such, or have multiple sets of tires (to match conditions) and such. There will always be wallet racers and some pro-rcomp people state that the street tire is a false savings.

Personally, I can see how people who are invested in the current setup are ticked, but I also see how it is the right move for the sport. The sport is changing, people don't like change. I think that this will bring more numbers to the entry class (stock, street, whatever), especially more people who are not as serious. The problem is that fresh blood is needed and those already there hate change, but change is needed to attract that fresh blood.

aussiesmg wrote: Treadwear 140 for 2014, 200 for 2015.

yeah this ^^^^

do what ever you want to the "stock/street" class, I have no dog in that fight ... never ran in stock, don't plan on running in stock ... but please back off the take-backs for ST ... the best subscribed classes in SCCA and you got to start/continue berkeleying with them ... WTF

Apexcarver wrote: When you have a set of tires (which you can't be competitive without!) that has a life expectancy of 50-60 runs (I have had someone tell me this number, I have even heard less) in the INTRODUCTORY class level it is a bit absurd.

Not really. "Stock" was not meant to be the "introductory" class. It was just a prep level. Yes, it's the lowest prep level as well as having a ruleset containing a ton of baggage left over from the early 70's, but in the end, it is still just a prep level. The fact it was called "stock" led many to believe it's supposed to be "entry level" when that was not the intention in the beginning.

Now as Dave has hinted, "Street" is designed from the get-go to be "entry level". Yes, you can start with a totally stock car and go have fun, but if the bug gets you, there is now a more cost-conscious path to take towards making your car more fun to run and competitive without going nuts and building a dedicated car (which many ST cars have become).

wbjones wrote:

aussiesmg wrote: Treadwear 140 for 2014, 200 for 2015.

yeah this ^^^^ do what ever you want to the "stock/street" class, I have no dog in that fight ... never ran in stock, don't plan on running in stock ... but please back off the take-backs for ST ... the best subscribed classes in SCCA and you got to start/continue berkeleying with them ... WTF

Eh... whatever... this gives Toyo and Hankook 2 years to either change the molds on the R1R and RS3 to read "200" instead of "140" or introduce new tires.

The whole thing also makes one wonder if Hoosier may try getting back into the street tire business.

Now there will also be a more logical path up through the ranks: Street, Street Touring, Street Prep, Prepared, Modified.

DILYSI Dave wrote: FWIW - While the shrinking Nationals attendance was certainly the biggest catalyst, when we took out that clean sheet of paper it was absolutely focused on what makes a good entry level class. A dual purpose car that is fun to drive and gives a good bang for the buck was the central theme. The allowances developed from there.

OK, but... isn't that exactly what ST is supposed to be? The verbose intro basically said that "ST was supposed to be a dual-purpose car class, but people keep showing up in cars that aren't really dual-purpose any more." Well, that's not Stock's fault.

Maybe I'm standing too much on semantics. Maybe I like things to be rationally clean. Maybe I'm still bitter over the trunk kits getting added to Showroom Stock (and its subsequent decline), even though I never road raced in my life.

I do think this is a positive move overall! I just also think that they are not quite getting their own point.

Duke wrote: OK, but... isn't that exactly what ST is supposed to be? The verbose intro basically said that "ST was supposed to be a dual-purpose car class, but people keep showing up in cars that aren't really dual-purpose any more." Well, that's not Stock's fault.

Stock's fault? No, probably not, but the class was affected by the increase in ST. At the same time, I can see the frustration of many who wanted to play in ST but didn't want to go nuts with building a trailer-queen ST car. But hell, in my region, we have trailer-queen Stock cars. So what would you do? Introduce a rule that says no Stock or Street Touring car can arrive at an event on a trailer? That's getting a bit silly.

I think you are getting hung up on the semantics. The thing is while modern cars are quite capable these days, if you decide to regularly autocross one, running a "stock" car quickly becomes expensive and less-fun due to the tire wear.

ST was never supposed to be entry level. It was supposed to be common street mods.

Holy cow! Now if they can get off their "3 runs and done" horse I might actually autocross with them again.

Duke wrote: The idea of Stock SHOULD be an entry-level class that attracts new members who can drive what they already have in their garage. Once they get some cone experience, *then* they begin the process of modding and/or choosing the car and class they want to campaign in. And ST is there for the enthusiast crowd who have already built a typical fun street car before discovering autocross.

This exactly. When I first started, I was running H-stock with a fukus......the whole first season there were 2 mini's with hoosiers that were untouchable. That wasn't benificial to new people at all. I saw far too many get pissed and leave.

That ground alone is why I endorse this. It should be good for the local regions.

Ian F wrote:

Duke wrote: OK, but... isn't that exactly what ST is supposed to be? The verbose intro basically said that "ST was supposed to be a dual-purpose car class, but people keep showing up in cars that aren't really dual-purpose any more." Well, that's not Stock's fault.

Stock's fault? No, probably not, but the class was affected by the increase in ST. At the same time, I can see the frustration of many who wanted to play in ST but didn't want to go nuts with building a trailer-queen ST car. But hell, in my region, we have trailer-queen Stock cars. So what would you do? Introduce a rule that says no Stock or Street Touring car can arrive at an event on a trailer? That's getting a bit silly. I think you are getting hung up on the semantics. The thing is while modern cars are quite capable these days, if you decide to regularly autocross one, running a "stock" car quickly becomes expensive and less-fun due to the tire wear.

This right here 1000 times. I watch competitors get scared away because they can't justify the cost of r comps and wheels nor can they afford to properly build a ST car. You're losing guys because after their first 3 events where the OMG factor wears off and they come to realize they don't have the resources to ever be competitive. Never mind the fact that most of the time they have to make up is in driving, they get discouraged by the prep costs and quit. Like I said, I see it at nearly every event and I lived it a decade ago when I walked away from autocross because I couldn't afford r comps and diapers at the same time.

On a semi-related note, I had a very nice conversation with Howard Duncan, knower of all things Solo, at the Dixie Tour. We have some fun stuff in the words for Solo Nats. Come hungry.

Wow, SCCA is finally doing something smart. If I hadn’t bought and started working on the SAAB for Rally cross I’d actually be interested in SCCA autocross again.

For the argument that if they say DOT they are legal, I understand, but it’s very tenuous. I think years ago, even keeping R comps legal they should have added wording outlawing any tire that had not recommended for highway use’ on the side. 20 years ago you could DD BFG R1’s on the street or the original 048’s, no big deal, but those tires are what ST tires are today.

I have a question about springs. If the intent to allow shocks and struts then why not springs at the same time? Sure that is a greater expense but the pinch for changing springs later provides a double shot of labor charges. And many companies offer packages ready to bolt in.

vwcorvette wrote: I have a question about springs. If the intent to allow shocks and struts then why not springs at the same time? Sure that is a greater expense but the pinch for changing springs later provides a double shot of labor charges. And many companies offer packages ready to bolt in.

Welcome to street touring

mazdeuce wrote:

Ian F wrote: Stock's fault? No, probably not, but the class was affected by the increase in ST. At the same time, I can see the frustration of many who wanted to play in ST but didn't want to go nuts with building a trailer-queen ST car. The thing is while modern cars are quite capable these days, if you decide to regularly autocross one, running a "stock" car quickly becomes expensive and less-fun due to the tire wear.

This right here 1000 times. I watch competitors get scared away because they can't justify the cost of r comps and wheels nor can they afford to properly build a ST car. You're losing guys because after their first 3 events where the OMG factor wears off and they come to realize they don't have the resources to ever be competitive. Never mind the fact that most of the time they have to make up is in driving, they get discouraged by the prep costs and quit. Like I said, I see it at nearly every event and I lived it a decade ago when I walked away from autocross because I couldn't afford r comps and diapers at the same time.

And that, exactly, is why think they're in the right woods but still barking up the wrong tree.

Stock should be stock, run-what-ya-brung, entry-level class, no R-comps.

Trim ST back a little so that it actually is what it was intended to be: the class for dual-purpose, enthusiast-owned, lightly-modded cars. If people are over-modding because the rules let them, then change the rules here too. Tires seems OK as is for ST.

Move the expensive and street-unfriendly ST mods up to SP, to smooth the transition and get the trailer queens away from dominating ST.

That way you have a clearer progression, with the minimum buy-in starting at the cost of the car and tires, and increasing smoothly as you go up in category, rather than staring out fairly high and taking big jumps up.

But hey, I'm just an active local SCCA autocrosser, never going to be nationals material, and too busy to volunteer on the rules committees. So my thoughts are only worth about what they cost me to type them.

In reply to vwcorvette:

Struts/shocks by themselves aren't an insurmountable obstacle for a completely oem car vs one with aftermarket ones. Springs on the other hand, can create more of a difference. Same difference with a catback or filter in the airbox.

The sway bar ruling that started this year was a great thing, as the rule was obviously written for rwd only cars. It is either front or rear, but not both isn't it?

Duke said: Stock should be stock, run-what-ya-brung, entry-level class, no R-comps.

Nothing in the proposed rules prevents competitors from running "stock" cars. Instead, they have just have more options to upgrade components without getting bumped to classes with a higher, more expensive prep level. Oh, and they won't get beat by someone with a Hoosier-sized tire budget.

I'm thinking you're still a bit too caught up in the semantics and not the intent.

Plus, don't forget that we're talking about the national-level rules. For local events, SCCA regions are free to make changes as needed to suit their members.

Want a class for nothing but bone-stock NA Miatas? Yes, it can be done.

Stock tires, stock shocks, stock everything? That can happen, too.

Someone just has to get involved and make it happen.

oldsaw wrote:

Duke said: Stock should be stock, run-what-ya-brung, entry-level class, no R-comps.

Nothing in the proposed rules prevents competitors from running "stock" cars. Instead, they have just have more options to upgrade components without getting bumped to classes with a higher, more expensive prep level. Oh, and they won't get beat by someone with a Hoosier-sized tire budget. I'm thinking you're still a bit too caught up in the semantics and not the intent.

I'm guessing this is a big reason why the class is no longer called "Stock." Calling the class "Street" helps to remove some of the Stock legacy b.s. complaints.

To me the whole treadwear rating seems like false economy. As tire technology continues to increase all new tire models will be better/faster than their predecessors - and we all know treadwear numbers aren't reliable anyway.

Why not just have an exclusion list for Street and ST, then each year as the new tires are released you can compare the reviews and exclude as needed?

Hot damn!...A proposal that actually makes me want to become a member again.

oldsaw wrote:

Duke said: Stock should be stock, run-what-ya-brung, entry-level class, no R-comps.

Nothing in the proposed rules prevents competitors from running "stock" cars. Instead, they have just have more options to upgrade components without getting bumped to classes with a higher, more expensive prep level.

Of course nothing prevents you from running an underprepared car; that's always been true before or after this proposed change. But that's exactly the point mazdeuce was making above, except he made it about ST, not Stock:

mazdeuce wrote: I watch competitors get scared away because they can't justify the cost of r comps and wheels nor can they afford to properly build a ST car. You're losing guys because after their first 3 events where the OMG factor wears off and they come to realize they don't have the resources to ever be competitive.

So in other words, in order to avoid bumping people to a higher (more expensive) prep level, you open up the rule set of the lower level... thereby increasing the amount of money that has to be spent to be competitive in the lower class. That's circular logic I just don't understand.

I am in huge agreement about the tire changes in Stock (...errrr, "Street"). Eliminating remote-reservoir dampers, yeah man. The other stuff, I'm not as much in favor of, even though it actually helps me prep my daughter's car. I'd rather see the transitions between S>ST and ST>SP bumped down a little on the mod scale so that the commitment level is lower in lower classes.

David S. Wallens wrote: Plus, don't forget that we're talking about the national-level rules. For local events, SCCA regions are free to make changes as needed to suit their members. Someone just has to get involved and make it happen.

But wouldn't it be nice if the national rules already reflected that, and didn't need a bunch of regional-only changes to reach what I see is a much bigger pool of potential drivers who are not being accommodated?

Every issue of SportsCar is thumping the war drums for us to fight declining enrollment and recruit new members... so why is the effort to reach thousands of potential new members being compromised to fit the profile of a couple hundred national-level drivers who would likely just switch to a slightly different class anyway?

I guess Captain Obvious should be telling me that what I think the Comp Board's intent should be doesn't necessarily align with what they really think it is.

I had been thinking about focusing on rallycross next year but the prospect of these new rules has me down right excited! My shocks need to be replaced anyway and then I'm just a set of sways from being right where I want to be.