The SCCA’s unlimited production-based 200tw autocross divisions–Classic American Muscle and Xtreme–are ready to roll out their 2023 rules package, and you’re invited to take part in a live town hall to help finalize the guidelines.
Taking place at 8 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday, December 14, the town hall will review the initial rules proposal from last week, which has now …
Are the proposed rules somewhere we can review them?
Panhandler said:Are the proposed rules somewhere we can review them?
this is the link JG posted to the FB.group last week:
https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_files/scca/downloads/000/065/237/2023%20CAM%20and%20Xtreme%20Rules%20Draft%20includes%20CAM%20XS%20EV%20v11.pdf?1670270024
I don't know if that's the "updated" file he mentioned above, or not... though?
sleepyhead the buffalo said:Panhandler said:Are the proposed rules somewhere we can review them?
this is the link JG posted to the FB.group last week:
https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_files/scca/downloads/000/065/237/2023%20CAM%20and%20Xtreme%20Rules%20Draft%20includes%20CAM%20XS%20EV%20v11.pdf?1670270024I don't know if that's the "updated" file he mentioned above, or not... though?
The updated file is still—well, as of about 30 seconds ago when I closed my email app—being finalized. And it wil probably get tiny tweaks right up to meeting time. But the proposal is darn close at this point.
I meant to write this this morning... but got distracted by 2023 Prius content.
Caveats:
I am not an SCCA member.
I have not competed in XS, nor Solo... except one event back in 2015.
I have a deep-seated hatred for the Solo GCR, the Road Race GCR, and the SCCA.TT classing.
I realize my comments to follow will sound similar to the "That's not a $2000 car" comments GRM $Challenge gets.
I believe I understand the current reasoning behind the points I'm about to criticize.
those out of the way...
I really don't agree with the restriction requiring that HEV/PHEV/BEV vehicles retain OEM battery systems in a class that is named "extreme" and is intended to allow an "anything goes" approach to street-vehicle modification.
I understand that this is probably because of the concern about modifications to these systems leaving the subject cars to becoming significant fire hazards. {feel free to insert your own image of a burning Tesla}?
However, as written, this rule would seem to restrict allowing to "upswap" a CR-Z with a NiMH pack to an OE Lithium pack from a later CR-Z... or utilize an OE Civic IMA module to provide higher assist. Similarly, it would technically restrict updating a 2G/3G Prius to using 4G NiMH cells, or any aftermarket NiMH pack replacement. Further, it restricts the use of ProjectLithium LiFePo4 swaps into 2nd/3rd/4th gen Prius or various Camry Hybrid and HS-250h's. Or 48kWh pack swapping early 1G Leaf with a 'base' 2G pack.
All of these example applications will work within the existing architecture of their vehicle's EV systems, and would have minimal enhanced fire susceptibility... but are denied thanks to the lack of experience with the subject by the current rules committee... and yes, the concern that smaller regions would potentially lack the information/experience/equipment to handle an EV system change, adjudicate it's reasonableness, nor an ability to deal with a voltage induced fire.
I do expect this is currently a "niche"/"corner" case variety of concern. However, you asked for feedback... so it seems like a reasonable time/place to raise this... so that a) those of on the forum with some experience can chime in; b) the "powers-that-be" can begin considering/learning about the topic in order to eventually allow legitimate "anything goes" performance enhancements.
Edit:
Also, these rules continue to "effectively" preclude the participation of EV swaps in Solo.
Why the exclusion of the Kumho V720's?
I don't see a class for V8 Miata's. XB doesn't include 8 cylinder engines. XS has min weight of 2680 for tire width of 275 or less. A Miata with Ford 5.0 or LS wouldn't fit in either class...
In reply to Panhandler :
XS?
In reply to Panhandler :
I was thinking along the same lines. The minimum weights are too high for older imports. A fully dressed VW, Fiat, MG, etc. that hasn't been lightened will not make the minimum class weight.
A few more items:
#1: the point is going for a "finished" interior. Paint on all surfaces is pretty much the lowest bar for that.
#2: yes the other classes require carpet, yes allowing it to be removed in those two classes makes absolutely no sense.
#3: I don't pay much attention to aero rules but I believe someone said the wing rules are a direct copy of tt max class rules.
In reply to QuasiMofo (John Brown) :
My 5.0 weights in at just over 2400 pounds. I'd have to add 250 pounds of ballast to run in XS. Where do I put 250 pounds of anything in a Miata?
Panhandler said:In reply to QuasiMofo (John Brown) :
My 5.0 weights in at just over 2400 pounds. I'd have to add 250 pounds of ballast to run in XS. Where do I put 250 pounds of anything in a Miata?
Is it 2400 lbs with or without you in it?
In reply to Panhandler :
So run tires larger than 275mm, problem solved. =)
Panhandler said:In reply to QuasiMofo (John Brown) :
My 5.0 weights in at just over 2400 pounds. I'd have to add 250 pounds of ballast to run in XS. Where do I put 250 pounds of anything in a Miata?
If need be, my recommendation would be as close to the rear bulkhead on the passenger side as you can get it, to distribute the weight of the driver. Lead is a heck of a compact ballast...
What a E36 M3 show
The rationale of bringing in SCCA outsiders will never be achieved while primarily SCCA types are writing the rules.
When the biggest talking points, beyond laying out the changes, are
the classes are attracting the wrong people, the right people are being excluded, and the objective has failed.
My hopes that JG being involved could possibly temper the SCCA machine have been obliterated. These are not the fun, easy to understand, run what you brung classes they are touted to be.
gumby said:What a E36 M3 show
The rationale of bringing in SCCA outsiders will never be achieved while primarily SCCA types are writing the rules.
When the biggest talking points, beyond laying out the changes, are
- Fender liners
- Soft tops
- We didn't realize v8 Miatas were so light
the classes are attracting the wrong people, the right people are being excluded, and the objective has failed.
My hopes that JG being involved could possibly temper the SCCA machine have been obliterated. These are not the fun, easy to understand, run what you brung classes they were INTENDED to be.
I remember when it was brought out. Indy region wanted a class that was a single sheet of paper, run what you brung like a good guys or optima style. Now, it's just yet another bloated class full of srs bzns people with nothing better to do than cry about rules. I mean, we saw the first protest at nats this year over a bumper by some weenie that has no idea what the class was meant to be.
Glad to say I'm out. Sad that those 11+ years I spent doing things feels tainted. Congrats SCCA, you've managed to run off more members and ruin more classes. Hope you're happy.
I'm really struggling to figure out how the soft top discussion is a discussion at all. I'm pretty sure "roof" is a body panel and therefore is allowed to be replaced/modified.
The thing that bothers me is there seems to be a disconnect in the classing system. The category is based on being able to do literally almost any and all mechanical modifications you want, yet we're trying to split the classes by the performance potential of the stock configuration of the vehicle? To use the comparison that was belabored in the meeting, yeah an M3 and a GT3 don't look very similar, but that GT3 REALLY doesn't look like an s2000 or nc Miata, which are going to be the most common XS cars. (Side note, you can still have a 996 GT3 clone in XA, better exclude BS cars from that class too) Within the rules, the only functional difference between any two cars are the external dimensions. So why couldn't an M3 and a porsche be in direct competition with each other?
Rules like this are always tweaked yearly to favor a particular car flavor of the month. Honestly, I don't care. Stick my car in any class you want Mr. Official. I'm not here for trophies but to have fun. Run what ya brung.
I'm sure someone will show up in a C8 ZR1 with a suspension that costs more than my car anyway.
gumby said:What a E36 M3 show
The rationale of bringing in SCCA outsiders will never be achieved while primarily SCCA types are writing the rules.
When the biggest talking points, beyond laying out the changes, are
- Fender liners
- Soft tops
- We didn't realize v8 Miatas were so light
the classes are attracting the wrong people, the right people are being excluded, and the objective has failed.
My hopes that JG being involved could possibly temper the SCCA machine have been obliterated. These are not the fun, easy to understand, run what you brung classes they are touted to be.
100% agree. I've been following the discussion on the FB page too. Honestly I think it should just all be 1 class with tire width limits based on weight.
Only the SCCA could take 2 classes and 1 page of simple rules, balloon it to 4 classes and 3 pages of rules, and believe they made autocross more inviting to outsiders.
Tire width vs weight chart would also let lighter cars compete. Right now if you have something very lightweight yet streetable, like a hopped up classic Beetle, or perhaps a classic Lotus restomod... there is no where to play at SCCA. XB RWD only goes down to 2330 lbs, which excludes a lot of cool vintage stuff. At that point I might as well just run with PCA or BMWCCA.
Panhandler said:I don't see a class for V8 Miata's. XB doesn't include 8 cylinder engines. XS has min weight of 2680 for tire width of 275 or less. A Miata with Ford 5.0 or LS wouldn't fit in either class...
I wrote a proposal last night that would put them in XB, along with the Lotuses we overlooked with the SS exclusion. I think it will probably go through.
In reply to maschinenbau :
This isn't the only group of classes in SCCA autocross. Vintage stuff has a whole category for themselves with options for street tires (HCS) and race tires (HCR). Then you have all the classes where an old tin can of a car is the right choice in CSP, FSP, EP, DP, and XP. A multi-time CSP national champion in a Datsun 2000 still competes locally in CSP and usually sets FTD. There are two entire classes dedicated to Lotus 7s in DM/EM.
A hopped up beetle is going to be just as outclassed in the above classes as it will be in a parallel XS class. If you want to drive and have fun, you aren't getting excluded.
Let me address these three first:
Now let's talk about:
"The category is based on being able to do literally almost any and all mechanical modifications you want, yet we're trying to split the classes by the performance potential of the stock configuration of the vehicle? "
Yeah, because those are the cars that exist now, in the real world, not on paper or a message board post. I got a lot of flak that a 997 bulked up to GT3 specs could technically run in XA, but no one could point me to an actual car built to those limits that's competing in this sport. With a supplemental class, one of the advantages is the ability to be agile with classing and clarifications. In a ruleset like this there's going to be edge cases (Lotuses screw everything up, the fact that 911s are offered in trims from GT2RS to sub-Miata performance, etc.). Being flexible gives us a chance to react to the edge cases on a case by case basis with a minimum of fuss (but still some fuss, because you can't ever eliminate all fuss).
As for
" 1 class with tire width limits based on weight"
I pitched it at one point. It is highly flawed based on the current realities of the sport. A 3000lb front engined four-seat car with struts is very different from a 3000lb mid engined two seat car with A-arms. And if you're like "Well you can convert that four-door strut car to A-arms by fabricating subframes." Cool. Show me the car. When all these cars that could exist actually start existing the ruleset is flexible enough to properly accommodate them.
And, yeah, rules bloat is a real thing. If you recall, the $2000 Challenge used to have a very short set of rules, and the event almost failed because of it. Still, I'll say there's very little under this X/CAM ruleset that you CAN'T do. Literally ANY car built to the limits of these rules could win any of these classes. But cars built to the limits of these rules simply don't exist, and one of the ways to hopefully nurture these classes to the point where those cars DO exist is to seed them with a sensible mix of cars that exist today from the current and likely marketplace.
In reply to ojannen :
None of those are "run what you brung" nor accessible to outsiders. Heritage Classic is just nostalgic masturbation, barely allows any mods, and forget engine/suspension swaps. Prepared and Street Prepared rules are each 20 pages long and also highly restrictive for builders, not exactly inviting. And forget swapping slicks "just" to autocross.
Gumby's criticism is on the nose - we have serious, semantic, rule-loving SCCA types trying to over-engineer a class to attract casual non-SCCA types who just want to play with their weird junk.
I got bored of all the rules, so I started playing in Mod classes. Tons of fun, and even though my car *should* be FTD capable, I still have a long way to go. One of my friends with a CAM-C Mustang is one of my top competitors. Dude can drive though, and at the end of the day... that's all that really matters to me.
If you want a specially tailored class so YOU can win, go do something weird where there's no competition, or go play a simulator where you make the rules. =)
You'll need to log in to post.
