SCCA classes available to a Miata?

Ian F wrote:

Duke wrote: What bothers *me* is the refusal to recognize that the way it IS might not actually be the best way it COULD BE, plus the implication that anyone who thinks so is Bob Costas.

Again, it comes back to what I said before; if we were writing the rules from scratch, it would be easy to create a rules set that made sense to current technology... but we aren't starting from scratch....

Wait, so the SCCA is incapable of adjusting the rules?

Yea, I don't buy that one second. Since I've been autocrossing, starting with Street Mod, whole new classes were defined, and new rules have been made. What you are saying is that a minor change where a street tire is beyond the ability of SCCA rule makers, but SM/SM2/ST/STS/STR AND the entire re-write of the Prepared rules are possible?

wow.

alfadriver wrote:

SpeedTheory wrote: I think ANYONE will admit that it's not the best it could be. Hell, A-Stock exists.... I think a LARGE majority would consider it reasonable, but most of the people who are the most active in the club (national competitors), and who bring the club the most money, are also those who have already purchased, built, and developed their cars based on the fact that they're going to be using R-Compound tires. I still don't buy that R-Compounds are any more expensive than street tires to COMPETE on. There's no ban on street tires in stock, so the barrier to entry is the same. If it was a "stock cars MUST run on R-Compounds", I'd agree with the proposal more. If it were possible to spec a compound / size / tread depth, I'd support that. But it isn't. There will ALWAYS be more money to be spent to get on top. Look at how much ST guys spend on tire testing, and how many guys actually winning do you see driving to events on their competition tires? So you're still buying another set of tires, still shaving the second set, so you'll be at comparable wear, still dealing with getting two sets of tires (or more) to the event. Oh, and you get to go slower, too. I think last weekend's H-Stock runs would still be in progress if they were stuck on street tires. Where's the "upside" to changing?

Ok. For your first point, I've supplied my club's partial data that shows a pretty strong preference for street tire classes. Why do you think the "active" club members are national drivers? Or did you not notice that the rules are heavily set toward them. (reminds me of that "argument" I had on miata.net- where the consensus is that CSP drivers have to accept that their cars will have $10 in modifications.... yea, inviting to beginners) As for the expense- yes, R compount tires ARE more expensive. By at least one extra set of wheels and and extra set of tires. Adrian's point that people show up, run, and go home w/o changing tires should point that out. As for your "testing", again, you focus on the national competitor, where money is generally on the line. How that prevents the national SCCA from writing rules that are more local centric is beyond me. Drivers do extensive tire tests for R tires, too- there are more than one of those available, too. So the testing "excuse" is pretty moot to me. What else?

Well, here's my take on that.

A. Street Tire Stock classes. Philly region does this, it works.

B. Okay, see my next comment.

C. "Extensive tests" for R-Compounds? No. The A6 is the only game in town right now. The Goodyear may make strides, but that's still TWO types versus several. Alright, if you aren't willing to test tire compounds, you don't care to be competitive. If you don't care to be competitive, why not just run street tires in stock class against the other cars? Is it seriously because you'd rather be 1 second back than 4?

SpeedTheory wrote: I think a LARGE majority would consider it reasonable, but most of the people who are the most active in the club (national competitors), and who bring the club the most money, are also those who have already purchased, built, and developed their cars based on the fact that they're going to be using R-Compound tires.

So, nobody moved from Stock to STwhatever when those classes appeared, because they already had their life savings invested in a "stock" car setup that was carefully crafted to wrench the utmost from R-comp tires?

I still don't buy that R-Compounds are any more expensive than street tires to COMPETE on.

Does each and every competitor spend huge sums of money personally field testing tire candidates? No. The vast majority of us try something, share our results on the 'net, and gather the shared results of hundreds of other people like us before making further buying decisions. It's not like I think to myself, "Well, the new Tire Rack catalog is here, time to order 5 sets of street tires and see which one marginally outperforms the others. Boy, sure am glad I don't have to waste money on those ridiculous Hoosiers." I talk to people, I cadge rides and drives for samples when I can, and I use Teh Googles. Then I pick a likely prospect and buy it.

...just like the vast majority of all the other autocrossers out there. No, not like the hardcore multi-jacket Nats heroes - but like everybody else.

SpeedTheory wrote: C. Alright, if you aren't willing to test tire compounds, you don't care to be competitive. If you don't care to be competitive, why not just run street tires in stock class against the other cars? Is it seriously because you'd rather be 1 second back than 4?

This is a spot that underscores some of the fallout from the national/local separation.

Yes, if you want to be competitive at Nats, you're going to have to test tires (R-comps aside for now) (Or you could wait to hear what The News On The Street is before buying your Nats tires). You're going to have to do a lot of things you probably wouldn't at the local level.

But (and it's the kind Sir Mix-A-Lot would like), at the local level, running the second or third best TW140 tire driven to the event is going to be a much smaller disadvantage against a fresh, shaved set of the best TW140s than it is against a set of A6s.

That's not the sort of thing that moves you from 1 to 4 second losses. That's the sort of gap that can likely be made up in setup and driving. If you've got a fierce, close rivalry and the local championship is important to you, maybe you'll get a fresher set of tires sooner. But for the most part, variation between TW140s is going to look like statistical noise in the time slips when compared to the difference between TW140s and R-comps.

Once again, I will reiterate that I'm not nailing anything to the SCCA's door; I'm just not convinced that the proliferation of tire subcategories and their current usages is the best compromise, or even all that close (while still recognizing that it's probably true that it can be a fairly lousy compromise and still be less painful than fixing it).

SpeedTheory wrote: Well, here's my take on that. A. Street Tire Stock classes. Philly region does this, it works. B. Okay, see my next comment. C. "Extensive tests" for R-Compounds? No. The A6 is the only game in town right now. The Goodyear may make strides, but that's still TWO types versus several. Alright, if you aren't willing to test tire compounds, you don't care to be competitive. If you don't care to be competitive, why not just run street tires in stock class against the other cars? Is it seriously because you'd rather be 1 second back than 4?

A- again, the point is to have one set of rules, why should the drivers in Detroit have to rely on Philly to write rules? The point is to have one common set.

C- you see the Goodyears this year, and looking at last year's results, there's also Kuhumos. But, how, exactly, does it make it better/cheaper for the R tires? Regardless, if I drive the car on the street, the R's FORCE me to have a second set of wheels and tires. That would be an expense.

As for the competetive crack- thank you for pointing that out. SCCA is, indeed, national centeric vs. local centric. Next think you'll tell me is that if I want a real CSP Miata, I have to spend the $$ on Penske shocks and a Motec so that I can use a 2001+ engine..... Else it's pointless.

alfadriver wrote: As for your "testing", again, you focus on the national competitor, where money is generally on the line. How that prevents the national SCCA from writing rules that are more local centric is beyond me. Drivers do extensive tire tests for R tires, too- there are more than one of those available, too. So the testing "excuse" is pretty moot to me.

"money on the line"? How? To win a plastic trophy and maybe a set of tires? Nobody who competes at the national level is doing it for the money. They do it to win. And there are a number of them who will spend a crap-load of money to do so. They will look for any rules advantage they can in order to win. They look for loop holes to exploit. They look for soft-PAX classes and build their car to for that class.

Is this nuts? Sure. But over the decades, that is what the Solo rules have been written around. When writing rules for the local area, those kind of folks can get drummed out. At the National level it's not so easy. For example, as simple and straight forward as NASA's classing rules are, these type would salivate over them as they would see dozens of ways to exploit them that we of the "run for fun" crowd couldn't even dream of.

I agree with you, and like I said, it's a difference between regional and national competition. The folks who DO want to be competitive at a national level will continue to compete in their existing manner, and those who say "Okay, I don't care about wearing a jacket, but I want to run against similar cars locally" will have a place to play if more local street tire classes are adopted. I also think that for those who are interested in making street tires prevalent at the National level, getting more street tire classes locally would do a lot to show National that there's a lot of interest in it.

With that said, the guys who want to run at the top will STILL be finding more and more ways to stay up there.

As for the comment about the CSP car (or indeed any car), as I'm of the competitive type, I'd agree with that. I wouldn't build a 50% CSP car and run it on street tires, then complain that I wasn't winning.

I think "I" class is what you're describing. Where the rules should bend to what I have done to my car, and to my budget.

Yeah... one advantage of running an E30 in STX... there basically is no tire testing as there are only 2 tires that really fit right now: the Toyo R1R and the Hankook RS3.

Ian F wrote: Yeah... one advantage of running an E30 in STX... there basically is no tire testing as there are only 2 tires that really fit right now: the Toyo R1R and the Hankook RS3.

195 Toyos v 225s (simple answer for that, the 195 is a better tire). 225 RS3s. The RS3s will be better on hot dry days, the Toyos will own in the wet and cold.

The "all the people who left stock to join ST" analogy is a red herring. They CHOSE to jump into another car, not because their current stock car was rendered a large hunk of expensive metal. I wouldn't leave the sport if stock went to streets, but I'd certainly leave stock. Or I'd buy an Elise and destroy the rest of SS wheelspinners.

Ian F wrote: Yeah... one advantage of running an E30 in STX... there basically is no tire testing as there are only 2 tires that really fit right now: the Toyo R1R and the Hankook RS3.

195 Toyos v 225s (simple answer for that, the 195 is a better tire). 225 RS3s. The RS3s will be better on hot dry days, the Toyos will own in the wet and cold.

The "all the people who left stock to join ST" analogy is a red herring. They CHOSE to jump into another car, not because their current stock car was rendered a large hunk of expensive metal. I wouldn't leave the sport if stock went to streets, but I'd certainly leave stock. Or I'd buy an Elise and destroy the rest of SS wheelspinners.

In reply to Ian F:

So there's no contigency money. And there's no such thing as Pro Solo.

got it.

None the less, focusing the rule specifically for national championships as opposed to meeting some pretty simple needs for local drivers seems like an issue.

Much like the SM classes are broken up by the number of doors on a car. As opposed to looking at SP, since many of the mods are the same. And since SM didn't work enough, now we have SM FWD, and Super SM.

Or that ST was for Fast and Furious, and was for a specific group of cars. Which wasn't good enough, and now there's STS, STX, STU, and STR.

Yes, it's nuts to spend freely for a jacket.

But that does not make it right to ignore those who have no desire to get a jacket.

Which is why I support local street tire classes. Maybe some letters to the SCCA about instituting them in the same way as Club Racing runs IT*, and perhaps an ARRC-like event that'd be the same as a "National Championship for those on street tires". (ARRC is the equivalent of Runoffs for IT guys).

SpeedTheory wrote: I think "I" class is what you're describing. Where the rules should bend to what I have done to my car, and to my budget.

Wow, with that, I'll stop posting after I write this.

This isn't about classes like SM, where one guy figured that his car wasn't competetive, and made his own class. Or about ST where it appears that the exact same thing happened.

This is about freaking street tires. It's about people who want to show up drive and go home and have a fair measure of their driving. It's about people who have done nothing to their cars, and wonder why other stock cars have $2000-3000 of modifications on their cars that are still stock.

God, I'm glad I'm not a member of the SCCA. I would have stopped autocrossing over a decade ago.

SpeedTheory wrote: 195 Toyos v 225s (simple answer for that, the 195 is a better tire). 225 RS3s. The RS3s will be better on hot dry days, the Toyos will own in the wet and cold. The "all the people who left stock to join ST" analogy is a red herring. They CHOSE to jump into another car, not because their current stock car was rendered a large hunk of expensive metal. I wouldn't leave the sport if stock went to streets, but I'd certainly leave stock. Or I'd buy an Elise and destroy the rest of SS wheelspinners.

Great... so now I have to buy BOTH of them? Thanks... that helps...

ST was designed to bring more folks into the sport with common street tuner modifications. Yes, scope creep? It'll happen with ANY class. People will find the "one" right car to have for the class, and it'll become spec X. Just as it is now, but with a different spec, and on street tires instead. It's just how anything competitive works.

I'm not trying to offend you, but this sounds an awful lot like the guys who come to events in a Miata with FM Frame Reinforcements, and wonder why they're running against much faster guys, and thusly hate the SCCA.

Ian F wrote:

SpeedTheory wrote: 195 Toyos v 225s (simple answer for that, the 195 is a better tire). 225 RS3s. The RS3s will be better on hot dry days, the Toyos will own in the wet and cold. The "all the people who left stock to join ST" analogy is a red herring. They CHOSE to jump into another car, not because their current stock car was rendered a large hunk of expensive metal. I wouldn't leave the sport if stock went to streets, but I'd certainly leave stock. Or I'd buy an Elise and destroy the rest of SS wheelspinners.

Great... so now I have to buy BOTH of them? Thanks... that helps...

Well, what you should do is buy an RX8....;).

But this points out a fundamental difference in thinking, and why I think I'm having a hard time grasping the point. I'm of the "Okay, which car that I'll enjoy is currently competitive in a class I can afford to run", then go buy that car.

A LARGE majority of autocrossers starting out don't comprehend what it takes to be at the top end. They think "oh, if I just had R-Comps, I'd be RIGHT THERE!". As a guy who felt the same way at one point, and who went out and bought R-Comps, it ain't the damned tires. It's a THOUSAND other factors, most of which aren't car-related, but philosophy, approach, talent, and technique related.

My comment about the I-class is that it seems a lot of the folks are upset because of the delta in times between their car that isn't fully prepared, and a guy who goes out to prepare their car to the limit. They want to decrease that delta by changing the rules to better accomodate the way THEY want to autocross (on street tires, because according to them, they're cheaper).

My feeling on that is twofold. If there's a demand for a class regionally, it behooves both the region (more money on entry fees), AND the competitor (because they'll get what they want) to adopt it. So PUSH FOR IT! Get in touch with your REs and PUSH IT!

Second, there's no need to go and change a bunch of existing classes, mostly recommended by those who haven't actually gone in deep and seen what it REALLY takes to compete. There's a reason a lot of the top guys want to keep the rules how they are, and surely, it isn't because they're scared about being put on a more level playing field with the local yokel who doesn't want to write a check to Hoosier.

Right there with ya, ST.......

We have folks who feel completely justified in their position(s) because they don't like the baseline rules. Then, even after they have found other means to participate, they insist on throwing rocks at a program that works for many thousands of other competitors.

Such people would go all-Renee Richards and still complain that they couldn't make the grade at Wimbeldon; as if they ever had the right stuff to begin with. No amount of surgery will change their minds or performance(s).

Sorry for the harsh characterization, but for those who criticize and then do nothing to change the situation, it is earned.

Wow, I totally didn't mean to start all this with a fairly simple question, but I guess maybe it wasn't that simple of a question. Maybe I should have explained what I meant when I said I wanted to be able find a class I could compete in. I have no desire to go to Nats (except maybe to watch and learn a thing or two). And I certainly am not looking for a class in which my car is the sure-fire, can't miss winner. All I really want is a class where I don't have to spend thousands on wheels/tires/the most trick suspension set up to be in the ballpark. What I was looking for is a class where, having invested a reasonable amount of time and money, on my best day, I might be able to beat a pretty decent driver on his worst. What I don't like about the whole R compound in stock class at a local level is the fact that MOST of us don't run race tires. We simply don't have that kind of discretionary income. Almost any other uber dollar mod can be OCCASIONALLY overcome by a really good drive on the part of the competition. R compounds vs. street tires, not so much. I've seen this in a lot of other hobbies. Anytime you can win repeatedly (to the point of snuffing out the competition) at a particular level of competition simply by spending more money, you begin to narrow interest in the hobby to a few fat cats. Inevitably, the average guy gives up and moves on. I can't see staying interested in an organization that relegates me to perpetual backmarker just because I'm not willing to spend a couple grand per season on the lastest wheel/race tire combo.

kazoospec wrote: Wow, I totally didn't mean to start all this with a fairly simple question, but I guess maybe it wasn't that simple of a question.

Kazoo, this is hardly your burden to bear and don't feel like you're (in any way) responsible - you're not.

Your question was simple, as is the answer; you can run your car in any of several classes. Based on your chosen level of prep, ST or STR seem like the best fit.

First and foremost, jump in and have fun. If you like what you're doing and how you're performing, it's a win-win situation. If you want to improve your performance, concentrate on your driving skills (read - seat time and schools) and worry about the car as a last place to spend your money. Get the "fast guys" in your class to ride with you; most all of them will be glad to help.

Enjoying yourself and learning how to get faster has much more to do with your attitude than how much money you spend or how much time you spend wrenching on the car.

What would happen if tomorrow R-comps ceased to exist and we just used slicks everywhere we now use R-comps?

This is not a suggestion, it's a question, which I'd love to have answered before I continue my train of thought.

The only thing R-comps have over slicks that I can think of is that you can legally drive to the venue on them. Do people use that enough for it to be a meaningful difference? Is there another meaningful difference?

To the repeated suggestions that this is all motivated by the "I'm not winning just the way I am" bug: My interest in the tire rules has nothing to do with bending the class to my whim. Before my E30 became my late, lamented E30, I was locally competitive in SM on V710s. If SM switched to slicks, I'd buy slicks. If it switched to TW140s, I'd run those.

My interest in the tire rules is fundamentally fueled by what I see as a lot of overlap between TW140s, R-comps, and slicks. I'm trying to figure out whether the continued existence of all three tire types makes as little sense as I think it does.

Oldsaw - I assumed my street touring option was only STR, based on the torsen LSD. Am I correct? There's usually a decent turnout in ST (unlike STX, where I ended up with my Nissan b/c it also has a torsen), so that would be a viable alternative if I absolutely can't keep up with the R comps in ES or I get the irresistable urge to modify. STR is a virtual ghost town at events around here.

Kazoospec: Have you considered buying used R-Compounds? They're CHEAP in 14in. Hell, I'll sell the A6s on my car for $200 in a month or so. Cheaper than two R1Rs, and much faster :).

And there's my point. The delta isn't as big if you just buy takeoffs, as I've done for local tires in the past. No reason to ever buy a set of sticker Hoosiers if you aren't interested in competing at the NATIONAL level. Us idiots get rid of enough sets to keep you new guys in tires for years :).

Ransom: Slicks would require the same setup changes + overdog creation due to oddball stuff like size, camber would matter less, etc. I object to it for the same reason I'd object to street tires in stock. It'd berkeley too many people over. Plus again, more brands to test (Goodyear, Hoosier, Avon can all run up top with given circumstances. Then cantilever v. not, too many variables. I'm happy in Spec-A6 land right now).

The only people who'd get berkeleyed over would be those who thought they'd get half of next season out of this year's leftover A6s. Everybody else would have to buy new tires anyhow. And if you're after that top rung, are you really running leftovers?

Reduction in camber sensitivity sounds like an equalizer between cars to me.

At some point, it's likely that somebody will knock the A6 off it's perch. R-comp is not going to be perpetually immune to tire testing. To say that a set of rules makes sense as long as one manufacturer dominates and creates a de-facto spec tire is illogical. If you're going to rely on testing avoidance, mandate a spec tire.

Cantilevers: no. Either for stock, or for everything outside mod. I see cantilevers as a loophole to be closed. If you're going to allow cantilevers, just open up rim width, or mandate tire size. Close the dang loophole. There's one less tire type for manufacturers to stock.

I don't want to arrive at the conclusion that the rules should change. That's a giant PITA. But there are so many things that seem crazy about the current rules that it sounds like stability in the same way that Mr. Burns had Three Stooges syndrome in that Simpsons episode: There were so many things wrong that nothing could stand out.

I dunno. I find this an interesting topic, and the longer we go the less convinced I am that the status quo makes sense. BUT, I'm going to drop it. I'll continue to race, within the rules, mostly with the SCCA. Thanks for fielding my questions.