Announcing SCCA Club Spec: One car, multiple disciplines

Crossing my fingers this ends up working as an example of building a car to a certain attainable level without being too prescriptive. Guessing my tastes are too off the wall to be among the cars for this class, but getting away from the idea that a street driven car should be built to SCCA rules first and the owner's preferences to a distant second after that seems like a win.

Pure race cars need to be built to a rulebook. Cars that are used for competition, ice cream runs, daydreaming, and general joy-of-ownership maybe less so? Or at least the rulebook could be more useful if it accommodated that prioritization. (Yes, I am enthusiastic about XS)

Getting that part right is a good start. Figuring out how to maintain it without just saying "well, that was a successful couple of seasons but now there's a ringer. Guess we'll go back to the drawing board and start talking about a new class in a couple of years..." is the tricky but important bit.

Most regulatory systems are complicated. I think people are often too quick to say yes/no/all/none/"chuck it out and try a new one."

Bracket racing with corners? Computationally advanced individualized PAX based on power/weight/xyz/results? Based on logged data indicating the car's potential?

Sorry, I'm off on one of the topics I think this class hopes to address.

There are two different SCCA 'class' problems that seem to be getting conflated here.

1) People wanting to be more competitive with one car that fits multiple forms of amateur motorsport, who are willing and able to buy the car for the class.

2) People wanting to be more competitive with one car that fits multiple roles in their life, who are not willing and able to buy the car for the class.

This proposal is really only attempting to address the former problem, while most here seem to find the latter problem to be the one holding them back. Something that addresses both would be great... But that's also completely ignoring the (seemingly even larger) site proximity and availability issues that have been discussed elsewhere here.

IMHO, this all feels like an "ask the wrong questions, get the wrong answers" situation.

David S. Wallens said:

A related question: How do you keep people from being so competitive? 

If  it's predominately geared towards local competitors that will cut down on it a lot.

The SCCA has to ask itself how many people will actually run the same car nationally in Solo, Rally-X and Time Trials? 

What's the goal; bringing new and or retaining existing members?

I know how I would structure the class; the mods would be all suspension based and relatively mild. Pretty much what you deemed OEM+. My though is this allows a local competitor a chance to do a variety of events in their area.

Also unless there was a large outcry for it to be national I would make it regional only. 95% of the membership never goes to a national event.

At most local events a really good driver in an average car can still be competitive.............this eliminates the need to have the car of the month.

I could run my local autocross and time trials, then travel out of town to do some Rally-X. The concept is brilliant but it will only be so if it doesn't turn into a wallet waving contest. 

David S. Wallens said:

This sounds a lot like the reasoning behind Street Touring: Let’s welcome people with cars and mods commonly seen on the street. We were there and participated in those conversations. The goal was to find a place for those running the sport compacts of the day. 

I ran Street Touring the first year it was offered at Solo Nats as a supplemental class. This was 1999, and I ran a Neon ACR. The rest of the class featured the expected mix. Did you want the torque of a Prelude of the light weight of a torsion bar Civic Si? Or maybe you wanted a Calais 442. It was a varied, healthy field. 

And then people found the ringer–1989-’91 Civic Si–and, quickly, we had a spec class. 

A related question: How do you keep people from being so competitive? 

I guess to be clear- I do think Spec classes are the solution to some of these problems.  I race in the Spec-iest of Spec classes where we basically can't do anything at all to the car.  I just don't know how you make Spec classes an easier sell to people new to the sport. Keeping the costs down is a pretty good start.  For the love of Pete, PLEASE keep it on 200tw tires that allow you to compete on multiple weekends.  $1200/weekend for Hoosiers is a class killer for many people.  I know people with fresher tires will still be faster, but it would be within the white noise of skill level for many drivers.

SCCA only knows how to cater to drivers looking for a driving competition. They haven't yet figured out how to let builders have fun with their creations while not being totally outclassed. This is why I like the $2000 Challenge. This is also why I was excited about Xtreme Street. "Run what ya brung" appeals to so many of us out here. 

- a builder with 10 years of membership who questions that renewal every year. 

Driven5 said:

There are two different SCCA 'class' problems that seem to be getting conflated here.

1) People wanting to be more competitive with one car that fits multiple forms of amateur motorsport, who are willing and able to buy the car for the class.

2) People wanting to be more competitive with one car that fits multiple roles in their life, who are not willing and able to buy the car for the class.

This proposal is really only attempting to address the former problem, while most here seem to find the latter problem to be the one holding them back. Something that addresses both would be great... But that's also completely ignoring the (seemingly even larger) site proximity and availability issues that have been discussed elsewhere here.

IMHO, this all feels like an "ask the wrong questions, get the wrong answers" situation.

If it's the former and not the latter, then Club Spec is just another thing for a small group to enjoy.

And if that is the case - then a better solution to making a new class for street cars is to just refine and simplify existing Spec classes to lower the financial cost of entry; like changing spec tires to a 200tw or even 300tw tire and working to add Contingency payouts that pay (less obviously) at local and regional levels. 

Tom1200 said:

What's the goal; bringing new and or retaining existing members?

I have been wondering the same thing. I haven't seen anything that states a clear goal.

L5wolvesf said:

Tom1200 said:

What's the goal; bringing new and or retaining existing members?

I have been wondering the same thing. I haven't seen anything that states a clear goal.

there were comments about "bringing new people in"... but it was more about "bring people who used to do stuff, and have trouble doing stuff now"... but also a lot of discongruous comments (to me / imho) about "these cars are already in large numbers doing Solo/TT"

so... I think the answer is "yes"

further, Hayward (at a minimum) has the idea that eventually modification of cars for motorsports are going to inherently require "spec" parts.  I'm not going to go through the video to find the quote, but to paraphrase, Hayward made a comment along the lines of "we need to make/teach people to love Spec series"

Thinking about it now, as I'm typing, I suspect that was a subliminal nod to EO's; especially with the comments about "the possible motorsports apocalypse".

oh, also, "we" got called out for our claims that the survey seemed to indicate SCCA had things figured out ahead of time, and were just trying to find data to support their conclusions.  I'm at two-minds about whether that assertion is backed up by the evidence in the livestream; but I should probably walk away from the keyboard for the night.

L5wolvesf said:

Tom1200 said:

What's the goal; bringing new and or retaining existing members?

I have been wondering the same thing. I haven't seen anything that states a clear goal.

I'm a little confused on that. Early on there was some discussion about wanting more non-members to take their survey. Then later they talked about how the point wasn't to draw new participants in but to keep new participants involved. Those two things don't really align.

If the survey wasn't made up to support the vision that they already had in mind, then it's option two: they just don't know how to make a useful survey.

Edit: thinking about it more, it's likely a mixture of both. It is guided to giving the answers they want but not maliciously, just because the people that made the survey are too closely involved to make a fair survey.

I was actually encouraged by what was said.

SCCA is at least aware of people like me who want to compete on a more casual level well having fun with friends.

Tom1200 said:

I was actually encouraged by what was said.

SCCA is at least aware of people like me who want to compete solely with SCCA on a more casual level well having fun with friends.

ftfy

I know it’s impossible to have one class that caters to everyone, but I felt as if that talk was aimed at one person in particular: me.

Let me explain.

I’m a 30-plus-year SCCA member who’s been autocrossing since Day 1 and has experience across the full menu, including TSD rallies. 

I currently autocross for fun in a fun car–our Garage Rescue Miata. 

But that car isn’t totally built for the class. There’s more that could be done but, I admit, I don’t want to go there. I just don’t feel like rolling the fenders on an original-paint NA Miata. 

I’d also like to get back doing more track days but I don’t currently have a car that I’d like to put on track: I’d like a little more “car” around me than an NA Miata, and the M3 is simply too nice to put on track. To be honest, the M3 is also too fast for my comfort level without adding a bar, seat, etc. (Our local tracks are not slow ones: Daytona, Sebring, Roebling although we do have the FIRM, too.)

Time trial competition? Maybe I’d do that, too. But in what? 

Something else brought up: As autocross sites become harder to find, a car that could venue hop could better keep people involved. We’re seeing that now as we have lost some sites while we’re waiting for another’s pavement to cure. 

So, having one car to do it all appeals to me. I’d like something durable and fun to drive. Easy on tires is also a huge plus. I’m less interested in a car that requires an engine swap. 

I’m willing to buy something that would make a more competitive autocross car and be suited for track life. While our local site is curing, for example, I could run a TNiA somewhere else that month. 

The answer for me might just be a Solo Spec Coupe BRZ/FR-S, but some of the other cars discussed pique my interest: Civic Si, E9x BMW, etc. 

As I told JG after the broadcast, I might be running something different next year....

David S. Wallens said:

Something else brought up: As autocross sites become harder to find, a car that could venue hop could better keep people involved.

Long story short: After poorly planning out their classing overlap, rather than going back and fixing it at the root of the problem, they're just going to slap a band-aid on the symptoms.

They could have made it so that somewhere between many , most, and all competitors could similarly venue hop... But nah, let's just restrict it to a couple of specific spec cars that only apply to a tiny fraction of competitors.

If they're going to half-ass it, they should have just expanded SSC to the other venues and called it a day.

Driven5 said:

David S. Wallens said:

Something else brought up: As autocross sites become harder to find, a car that could venue hop could better keep people involved.

Long story short: After poorly planning out their classing overlap, rather than going back and fixing it at the root of the problem, they're just going after the symptoms.

They could have made it so somewhere between many , most, and all competitors could similarly venue hop... But nah, let's just restrict it to a couple of specific spec cars that only apply to a tiny fraction of competitors.

This, over and over again...

but, I'll add the dimensions of thinking the SCCA is too small to take on the changing of the world, but big enough that they can zero-sum motorsports participation.  Which leads them to avoid considering the idea that motorsports/car-people might want to be able to hop between more than just venues... but organizations too.

sleepyhead the buffalo said:

there were comments about "bringing new people in"... but it was more about "bring people who used to do stuff, and have trouble doing stuff now"... but also a lot of discongruous comments (to me / imho) about "these cars are already in large numbers doing Solo/TT"

so... I think the answer is "yes"

further, Hayward (at a minimum) has the idea that eventually modification of cars for motorsports are going to inherently require "spec" parts.  I'm not going to go through the video to find the quote, but to paraphrase, Hayward made a comment along the lines of "we need to make/teach people to love Spec series"

Thinking about it now, as I'm typing, I suspect that was a subliminal nod to EO's; especially with the comments about "the possible motorsports apocalypse".

oh, also, "we" got called out for our claims that the survey seemed to indicate SCCA had things figured out ahead of time, and were just trying to find data to support their conclusions.  I'm at two-minds about whether that assertion is backed up by the evidence in the livestream; but I should probably walk away from the keyboard for the night.

Some people don't quite get it. People don't want to 'learn to love spec classes', they want to 'just drive their cars without having to get into a rulebook that looks like a telephone book'. 

The problem the SCCA has isn't a coming 'motorsports apocalypse' it's a coming SCCA apocalyse. 

The SCCA seems to be following Einstein's Insanity Theorem, repeating themselves over and over, expecting a different result. When they should instead be following the Henry Ford theorem of, "Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, but wiser." 

Wisdom and objectivity seem to remain elusive.  

There's much wailing and gnashing of teeth in this thread, but I think it's a good idea personally, not that I have any interest in racing tin tops. I think the issue with a lot of SCCA classes is that racers lobby for rule changes to allow new modifications and then SCCA agrees which leads to an ever growing list of requirements to be competitive. What this class really needs to be, is that you buy a cheap car and a kit with all the parts you need to race it, and nothing else is allowed. It would also need to stay the same year to year so older cars remain competitive. Bad Obsession Motorsport has a series of videos preparing a car for a similar racing series in the UK and it seems pretty nice to be honest.

This is exciting for someone who has an itch to be competitive and have fun in several types of events, but not the funding to pursue purpose built car(s). I think there is a clear platform that can fill all the event types listed, autox, hill climb, TT, and rallyx. - the Ford Fiesta ST

• Cheap
• Readily available
• Wide aftermarket support
• fun out of the box
• capable of all event types 
• minimal track reliability upgrades needed (brakes and rad)
• I already own one (everyones biggest requirement right?)

I have used my car in autocrosses, rallycrosses, track days, and trackcrosses (tracksprints). This platform is capable and fun and cheap on all fronts. In my opinion it is an ideal candidate.

However it goes, excited to see how this plays out.

What if I want to buy instead of build? So I just looked for an SSC car. They’re out there at fair prices.

This tells me two things.

Thing 1: I can fairly easily buy a complete, competitive car that’s not about to get displaced by another make/model. Assuming the work was properly done, I know exactly what I’m getting. And I know that I’ll have a place to run it right away–one of the largest national classes, in fact. I don’t have to navigate the rule book, find the unicorn, spend months turning wrenches. 

Thing 2: When the time comes, perhaps this same secondary market will exist for my car. I know, an assumption, but as a guy who has spent 30 years reading GRM classifieds, I feel like the odds might slightly be in my favor here. 

This kinda follows the current GT3/GT4/TCR formula. You know what you’re buying, where you can run it, and what it might be worth when you’re finished with it. 

In reply to connorparise :

A lot of places will not let Fiestas rallycross due to rollover risk, too tall and narrow.

I do not think the SCCA would be interested in a spec class built around an out of production model, either.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to connorparise :

A lot of places will not let Fiestas rallycross due to rollover risk, too tall and narrow.

 

I do not think the SCCA would be interested in a spec class built around an out of production model, either.

I've never heard of them not being allowed to rallycross, but they probably shouldn't be allowed to autocross. Maybe on lowering springs, but that kills their rallycross-ability. They're not much less sketchy on track and "brakes and radiator" is putting it lightly on the track upgrades needed. At least for some of them, it seems to vary almost car to car how track intolerant they are. Mine was good for about two laps at a time before overheating and the brakes didn't last much longer. They also desperately need camber and a LSD.

SSC started the year after the car went out of production, and was originally intended to be spec C5, I don't think "in production" is a requirement. I'd bet money that NC or ND1 miata is going to be one of the cars.

I'm on a Lemons team that races a '96 Corolla.  3 of the team members also own Corollas of that era.  I'm going to buy one too.  We're going to choose autox, rallyx and TT events that all of us can attend and compete against each other.  CFCC (Central Florida Corolla Cup) is born!  Its going to be cheaper and more fun than Club Spec.  :)

sleepyhead the buffalo said:

Driven5 said:

David S. Wallens said:

Something else brought up: As autocross sites become harder to find, a car that could venue hop could better keep people involved.

Long story short: After poorly planning out their classing overlap, rather than going back and fixing it at the root of the problem, they're just going after the symptoms.

They could have made it so somewhere between many , most, and all competitors could similarly venue hop... But nah, let's just restrict it to a couple of specific spec cars that only apply to a tiny fraction of competitors.

This, over and over again...

but, I'll add the dimensions of thinking the SCCA is too small to take on the changing of the world, but big enough that they can zero-sum motorsports participation.  Which leads them to avoid considering the idea that motorsports/car-people might want to be able to hop between more than just venues... but organizations too.

How many people who might have considered running Improved Touring Class in the past will today go out and get a beater and run it in Lemons or Chump Car.

The North Texas Rallycross Group seems to have a class for just about any old beater or sports car you can find for under $3,000, and sometimes much less.

Or you can join SCCA and spend the big bucks on whatever brand new spec car from whatever manufacturer they managed to get to sponsor their series.

I really think that horse left the stable quite a while ago.

There used to be a time when SCCA unofficially had a “ladder” of sorts in road racing. A person could get a Showroom Stock car (mostly SSC as I recall) and run it for X number of seasons. Then they could build the car further and run it in Improved Touring for however long. Then build it out even further and run it in GT or Production. A person could also drive a SS or IT car on the street. I drove my IT car (with a quickly slipped on muffler) on the street occasionally in California. That may not be doable now.

The “ladder” concept should have also been applied to the various types of racing / driving – AutoX, time trials (called Solo1 back then), road rally, and road racing. There was no RallyX at that time.

The time trials and road race car prep rules (SS, IT, GT, Production, etc) were the same – which made the jump up to road racing easy. Plus, one season of Solo1 (time trials) was counted as equivalent to 1 of the 2 required SCCA race school weekends.

I have not kept up with SCCA’s car prep rules in AutoX or road rally, and I am still familiarizing myself with RallyX prep rules.

However, I doubt either of those rule sets allow for a simple jump to road racing.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to connorparise :

 

I do not think the SCCA would be interested in a spec class built around an out of production model, either.

This was discussed last night. Models not in production are on the table, but there needs to be a good supply of cars so there’s no need to find a unicorn.

I think that last part might make Corvette tough, for example. Even if you narrowed it down to a generation, which engine, gearbox, option package, etc.?

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. 

Yes the bigger issue is availability and uniformity. The twins were nice in that there's essentially zero options on the car other than auto/manual. As much as I'd really like to see spec cayman of some variety, there's a billion different option combinations, you'd have to either require a minimum configuration, or have the spec kit be comprehensive enough that the starting configuration doesn't matter.