SCCA classes available to a Miata?

kazoospec wrote: 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.

I forgot about your Torsen so, yes, you're looking at STR.

Don't worry about the lack of competition in the class; focus on your driving and getting more seat time. Compare your times against the hotshoes in ST. When you start gaining on them, you'll know you're making progress where it counts - behind the wheel.

If you want to add springs, bars and different wheels or tires because you want to enjoy the extra street performance, go for it. That's how people usually end up in the SP, ST and SM classes anyway.

But modifying the car (to the limit of the rules) before you can accurately assess the results just doesn't make enough sense yet. Give yourself some time, though, and you'll get there.

And, HAVE FUN.

ransom wrote: 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.

You may be over-thinking the situation.

Only the Prepared and Modified classes specifically allow slicks. However, if you're so inclined, you can also use r-comps or the TW140s; you just may not be as quick if you were running slicks.

The Stock, SM and SP mandate r-comps, but you can still use TW140s if you want; you just may not be as quick if you were running r-comps.

The ST classes are restricted to any tire with a rating above 140; you can run PepBoys clearance specials if you want. You just may not be as.......... I think you get the idea by now.

I'll suggest that overlap isn't the problem. Determining what class you want to compete in, and at what level, seem to be the hurdles.

In reply to oldsaw:

I'm not having any difficulty understanding classing or where you can run which tires. Am I explaining myself that badly? (Not sure I want that answered...) What I am having difficulty understanding is why the world needs to bother with R&Ding, producing, stocking, and shipping R-comps when they are just another dedicated competition tire, just like a slick.

We've artificially created a third type of tire where it seems we only need two.

An R-comp is no more useful than a slick. It can't really be used on the street. It no longer fills its original role of being a super-performance street tire for classes which didn't allow slicks. We have Street Tire classes because we recognize that R-comps are not street tires, no matter what the DOT says.

If Stock, SP, and SM are going to be allowed dedicated competition tires, why not just run slicks?

If there's a specific technical reason we can't substitute slicks for R-comps, that's a piece of info I'm missing. SpeedTheory mentioned a reduction in camber sensitivity, but that really doesn't sound like much of a hurdle to me, and I give it even odds of being a positive thing in terms of its effect on the field of available cars and how they respond.

The question of whether nominally-streetable cars like Stock, SP, and SM belong on dedicated comp tires or streetable tires is an entirely separate issue (which has also been going on in this thread). I'm just talking about this weird extra tire type that as far as I can see serves no purpose outside of making the Hoosier (and Goodyear, Kumho, etc...) catalog thicker and increasing their warehouse and tooling costs.

In reply to ransom:

The reasons are historical and have been mentioned previously.

At one time, competitors only had to choose between street tires and slicks. The class you ran dictated the choice. Then, manufacturers (like Hoosier) introduced specialty tires with DOT ratings that were little more than treaded slicks but were still technically legal; the SCCA allowed their use.

The decision to develop and offer classes restricted to tires with ratings over TW140 came when the club wanted to attract more members and to placate those who were looking for "cheaper" rubber to race on.

Seemed like a good idea at the time but people will always find something to complain about.

I understand that we have R-comps for historical reasons.

I understand that in reality, they're not going away next week, even if they don't make sense.

But nobody has addressed the questions I've raised about whether the niche presently filled by the dedicated competition R-comp could be filled by the dedicated competition slick, or whether maintaining a distinction between R-comps and slicks is sensible.

I said I was going to drop it a few posts ago, and just go enjoy my V710s. I apologize for not sticking to my word.

In reply to ransom:

Stock and Street-based classes must use tires built to DOT regulations and have visible tread; r-comps meet the letter of the law and are legal.

Slicks aren't nearly as robust. They are also available in much softer, stickier compounds which can be problematic when used with relativley unmodified, stock suspensions. Gotta keep the shiny side up.

Enjoy V710s? Yuck ;).

kazoospec wrote: 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.

Exactly. Except that doesn't exist, at least not in all regions. And apparently we are (or, more specifically, I am) a whiny bitch for daring to question the bureaucratic status quo.

For what it's worth, I'll bet at least one of the participants in this thread thinks he has a very accurate idea of me, my attitude, and my performance. I guarantee he's wrong. I run in SSM (so stock class isn't even my venue any more) and I run on R-comps (which I already own, though they are overdue for replacement). I just know that the Solo program doesn't really offer an entry-level path unless a particular region happens to offer the T index.

And to think, I had considered yet again (for the umpteenth time) joining the SCCA this fall. Good thing the local guys don't act like this or I'd probably have quit autocrossing after my first event. As it is, I'll probably stay out of the SCCA for another year after hearing this attitude. And as I said before, it's a shame. Every club needs new faces.

*oldsaw wrote:* 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.

This I can certainly agree with.

kazoo, take your car, enter it in whatever class it legally fits (you can even start in Novice class in most regions, regardless of prep) and have fun. That's what this is all about. If it's not fun, there's no reason to be doing it. Everybody's definition of that word varies, of course, but the fundamental truth holds.

It's really not about arguing like this and most guys are great to hang out with and very helpful. Some just get defensive about the rules, and some don't understand that defensiveness.

In reply to Duke:

You're daring to question the status quo but refuse to make any effort to effect a change. You take your arguments to the internet and find a few other people who share your views. Yet, those who trend in supporting your points also won't make the effort to get involved in club activities and influence the direction. You claim to know that there is no entry-level path while virtually every region has procedures to embrace new people with Novice programs and (often) driving schools. Those that cannot invest in such efforts always have members who openly offer assistance and advice to fledgling autocrossers.

You have been provided an accurate history on why and how "things" have developed to the current state. You have been given tips and advice on how to implement changes. All to no apparent avail.

Honestly, you make it real easy for some (me, specifically if you wish) to develop some preconceived notions. Wish it weren't so..........

This is an observation from one who isn't an SCCA member and hasn't been for at least five years.

Duke wrote:

kazoospec wrote: 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.

Exactly. Except that doesn't exist, at least not in all regions. And apparently we are (or, more specifically, *I* am) a whiny bitch for daring to question the bureaucratic *status quo*. For what it's worth, I'll bet at least one of the participants in this thread thinks he has a very accurate idea of me, my attitude, and my performance. I guarantee he's wrong. I run in SSM (so stock class isn't even my venue any more) and I run on R-comps (which I already own, though they are overdue for replacement). I just know that the Solo program doesn't really offer an entry-level path unless a particular region happens to offer the T index. And to think, I had considered yet again (for the umpteenth time) joining the SCCA this fall. Good thing the local guys don't act like this or I'd probably have quit autocrossing after my first event. As it is, I'll probably stay out of the SCCA for another year after hearing this attitude. And as I said before, it's a shame. Every club needs new faces.

*oldsaw wrote:* 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.

This I can certainly agree with. kazoo, take your car, enter it in whatever class it legally fits (you can even start in Novice class in most regions, regardless of prep) and have fun. That's what this is all about. If it's not fun, there's no reason to be doing it. Everybody's definition of that word varies, of course, but the fundamental truth holds. It's really not about arguing like this and most guys are great to hang out with and very helpful. Some just get defensive about the rules, and some don't understand that defensiveness.

You area aware that you could buy a Nationals-trophy capable ST, STS, or ES car for 5-6K, right? How is that not "entry level"?

SpeedTheory wrote: You area aware that you could buy a Nationals-trophy capable ST, STS, or ES car for 5-6K, right? How is that not "entry level"?

It's not anywhere near "entry level" when newcomers arrive with the car they own and just want to try their hand at competing.

See my post about I class then ;).

There's NO class structure that'll provide for every car to be competitive. NASA is trying it with their TT program, SCCA IT is better than it could be, but there will always be better and worse cars.

In reply to SpeedTheory:

The issue need not be clouded by comparisons to TT or IT; track events do not equal auto-x events.

I agree that classing structure will never guarantee parity between cars. If that is the agenda propelling contrarian points, those who think so should be running for public office.

Now, back to live-streaming for ALMS..............

When I actually went out and autoxd I drove my car on R-comps year round. You're not going to do this in an otherwise unmodified car though, I think both sides of this argument are high on themselves. The OP should go enjoy himself and he will naturally progress with his car because that's what we do.

oldsaw wrote: In reply to Duke: You're daring to question the status quo but refuse to make any effort to effect a change.

Because the slightest criticism winds up just like this, where discussion gets shouted down in favor of no-change! Did I or did I not predict this very outcome in my first post in this thread? I did.

It is mighty hard to evince change when opposing viewpoints are not tolerated. And it is certainly hard to do it when you're an outsider. Must I invest 10 years in becoming a regionally-known autocrosser, go to every club meeting, go to every event, sit on every committee before I'm allowed to express an opinion?

Yeah, no thanks. I think I'll just drive.

Duke wrote: It is mighty hard to evince change when opposing viewpoints are not tolerated. And it is *certainly* hard to do it when you're an outsider. Must I invest 10 years in becoming a regionally-known autocrosser, go to every club meeting, go to every event, sit on every committee before I'm allowed to express an opinion? Yeah, no thanks. I think I'll just drive.

it's really hard to effect any changes anywhere ... including the SCCA with that as your attitude... suggestion:

join a club, a-x what you have, have fun, run for office, write letters to the board, encourage others to do the same....

actually the powers that be don't put as much stock in who you are ( though there is some of that ) as in how many of you write in a ask for a particular change... it's a club of volunteers who serve at the pleasure of the members.... they tend to do ( eventually ) what the membership indicates it wants... ( which is why there are R-comps in stock and why there is now consideration of a Tire class at the national level )

oldsaw wrote: In reply to ransom: Stock and Street-based classes must use tires built to DOT regulations and have visible tread; r-comps meet the letter of the law and are legal.

That is the definition of the way things are, not an explanation of why they should remain that way.

oldsaw wrote: Slicks aren't nearly as robust. They are also available in much softer, stickier compounds which can be problematic when used with relativley unmodified, stock suspensions. Gotta keep the shiny side up.

Thank you! This is an actual answer to a central question of mine! So slicks are too sticky for Stock (may pose a safety hazard), and don't wear as long as (or are otherwise more fragile than) R-comps. Those strike me as real, still-valid considerations.

I appreciate being given a reason why things should remain as they are. I think it's always a bad thing when you can't even have a discussion about whether the status quo makes sense and instead just refer to history.

That's the part you're supposed to do before you go trying to actually change the rules, right?

this is an excerpt from the Sasco tire web site

COMPOUNDS Compounds available for Dunlop vintage racing tires are the traditional 204 (hard) and 484 (somewhat softer). Generally heavier, more powerful cars use the harder compound for longer life, while lighter cars choose the softer 484 compound. FIA rules for pre-'66 cars require the 204 compound to reduce suspension load, as do the rules for the HMSA in the U.S. Dunlop Formula Ford tires come in the traditional 9092 spec compound (medium) and in the new softer 476 compound. The FFord 476 tire has been tested to be 1 to 1.5 seconds per lap faster than the 9092. Formula V tires also come in the 476 compound. Goodyear contemporary tires are available in a range of compounds as shown in the spec sheet. Please inquire as to recommendations.

Duke wrote:

alfadriver wrote: With all due respect, I think that's exactly the point. Why should autocrossers who want to run on street tires HAVE to run local club events? Why should it be optional that a local chapter either run street tire classes or not? There are a whole host of non "national" classes for SCCA road racing, all goverened by rules from the national office. But for this one part, you make it optional for local clubs to the point where they are better off going to non SCCA clubs. Then again, I'm not exaclty a fan of the "national vs. local" attutude, either. Add it all up, it's why I'm not an scca member, can count the scca events I've been to on one hand, yet have averaged around 10 autocrosses a year for close to 20 years. Every time I think it would be interesting to see if I could do well at the championships, I always find better reasons not to.

:golf clap: Why thank you. I was getting tired of being cast as the Unabomber here. And really, oldsaw and I agree on many other things around the forum, but here I'm seeing *exactly* the attitude that is keeping me out of the SCCA. It's a shame.

sorry you feel that way. i can tell you that in 10 years of autoXing (bouncing between Stock and ST* classes) i've only run two National-level events (2 Pros) and if they got rid of R-comps in Stock, I wouldn't bother running it. I'd find another class. So it's not the "national competitor" cabal keeping the "street tire stock" guys down.

I think the point you're missing is that it's on YOU to justify changing a rule on a national level that obviously works very well on a national level; Stock class is not hurting for competitors at national events (and as mentioned, local regions are encouraged to set rules to accommodate local competitors).

Duke wrote:

oldsaw wrote: In reply to Duke: You're daring to question the status quo but refuse to make any effort to effect a change.

Because the slightest criticism winds up just like this, where discussion gets shouted down in favor of no-change! Did I or did I not predict this very outcome in my first post in this thread? I did. It is mighty hard to evince change when opposing viewpoints are not tolerated. And it is *certainly* hard to do it when you're an outsider. Must I invest 10 years in becoming a regionally-known autocrosser, go to every club meeting, go to every event, sit on every committee before I'm allowed to express an opinion? Yeah, no thanks. I think I'll just drive.

Duke, once again you're offering criticism in the wrong place. Rounding-up an internet posse does nothing if the crew has no standing with those who implement the rules.

If you (or others) won't make the effort, you're gonna get feedback from those who have.

Glad you found a place where you can compete and feel comfortable - good for you.

ransom wrote: Thank you! This is an actual answer to a central question of mine! So slicks are too sticky for Stock (may pose a safety hazard), and don't wear as long as (or are otherwise more fragile than) R-comps. Those strike me as real, still-valid considerations. I appreciate being given a reason why things should remain as they are. I think it's always a bad thing when you can't even have a discussion about whether the status quo makes sense and instead just refer to history. That's the part you're supposed to do before you go trying to actually change the rules, right?

Those rules were adopted because of history; the decisions were made in the best interests of competitors and clubs.

It's possible that future autocross historians will look back and reflect upon the days when people argued over r-comps vs ST140's. They may even conclude that those guys were effing morons, we have more important issues on table, now.

Who knows?

As someone who's had to make the change from R comps (Toyo RA1) to tw140 (Toyo R1R), lemme tell you there's a huge difference in performance! Wow. No difference in price or lifespan as far as I can tell, the tw140s just don't work as well.

but they are incredible when compared to the R-comps of many yrs ago... not really apropos to anything in this thread .... just some general interest

The evolution to where DOT-R's are now is just typical scope creep. We'll end up with 140TW tires that are identical when shaved at some point if the rules changed.

and then people will complain about them. or something else that is keeping them from winning.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to Ian F: So there's no contigency money. And there's no such thing as Pro Solo. got it.

i doubt anyone putting in the effort to be competitive on a National level is doing it for a few hundred bucks in contingency money. Tire costs aside, it's not cheap to drive to Nebraska for a week. It's a terrible way to make money.

and what does Pro Solo have to do with anything?