Autocross changes for 2010

Stolen from another forum

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/09/11/09-fastrack-nov-solo.pdf

That's a big document, worthy of SCCA's history of promoting confusion! One needs a current rule book, a lot of time and perhaps a lawyer to digest the whole thing.

Some will say "hooray" for the proposed changes, some will say "BOHICA", because the more things change, the more they stay the same.

We should have an Under 2 liter class and an over 2 liter class.

EricM wrote: We should have an Under 2 liter class and an over 2 liter class.

There's some sense in that. It's ridiculous to have a plethora of classes with one, two, or no participants. When I ran e-mod, I thought that the little checkered flag sticker was something that they sent all participants. Talk about hollow victory!

Customers call me up and ask what effect some part will have on their SCCA class. I will not answer, life's too short to keep up with the SCCA.

We used to run the NASA classing system in our local autocross series. Flexible, fairly easy to understand and everyone ends up in one of a few easy-to-understand classes. Much better than the SCCA soup that changes every year.

Then I got a call from NASA threatening me with legal action if we continued to use their classing without becoming a NASA affiliate, which would have spiked the cost of running an event dramatically thanks to their special insurance costs. So we don't use their classing any more. But I still think it's a good way to go regardless.

Regarding the changes... I'll believe it when I see it in the 2010 rule book.

Locally (Atlanta), there's some noise about the Focus SVT moving from GS to HS.

Could this give Boxter/Cayman a class to be competitive? Cayman (non-S) might be good for BS, however I am very ignorant on what the current hot cars are in that class. It'd be up against STI's and Evo's and S2000's. I'm not a very competitive driver, but buying a car with a good Stock or ST* class is a consideration for me.

friedgreencorrado wrote: Locally (Atlanta), there's some noise about the Focus SVT moving from GS to HS.

That is an interesting move; it would seem that the SVT would be a very good car for HS, maybe even competitive with the Mini and the Mazda3.

The move of the Mini S to DS leaves my class (GS) wide open. I think my car and the RSX would both be good choices for the class.

jstein77 wrote:

friedgreencorrado wrote: Locally (Atlanta), there's some noise about the Focus SVT moving from GS to HS.

That is an interesting move; it would seem that the SVT would be a very good car for HS, maybe even competitive with the Mini and the Mazda3.

I agree. Maybe HS will have more variety with this move. On the other hand, it makes me think there needs to be an I-stock for cars like the Honda Fit.

The gap in potential across HS eligible cars is wider than in most classes, I think.

Keith wrote: Customers call me up and ask what effect some part will have on their SCCA class. I will not answer, life's too short to keep up with the SCCA. We used to run the NASA classing system in our local autocross series. Flexible, fairly easy to understand and everyone ends up in one of a few easy-to-understand classes. Much better than the SCCA soup that changes every year. Then I got a call from NASA threatening me with legal action if we continued to use their classing without becoming a NASA affiliate, which would have spiked the cost of running an event dramatically thanks to their special insurance costs. So we don't use their classing any more. But I still think it's a good way to go regardless.

are the rulesets intellectual property? what were they basing the proposed lawsuit on?

jstein77 wrote:

friedgreencorrado wrote: Locally (Atlanta), there's some noise about the Focus SVT moving from GS to HS.

That is an interesting move; it would seem that the SVT would be a very good car for HS, maybe even competitive with the Mini and the Mazda3.

I'm curious about this as well. Does anyone know how Cooper and SVT times compare?

As much as I enjoy running a MINI in HS, the class does seem to be more or less "Spec-MINI" at the National level... I remember looking at the Solo National results for this year. Of the top ten, I think there was one non-MINI?

Two - a Mazda3 in 6th and a 318i in 7th. A Mazda3 won the 2007 HS championship.

Tom Heath wrote:

jstein77 wrote:

friedgreencorrado wrote: Locally (Atlanta), there's some noise about the Focus SVT moving from GS to HS.

That is an interesting move; it would seem that the SVT would be a very good car for HS, maybe even competitive with the Mini and the Mazda3.

I agree. Maybe HS will have more variety with this move. On the other hand, it makes me think there needs to be an I-stock for cars like the Honda Fit. The gap in potential across HS eligible cars is wider than in most classes, I think.

I agree. I BELIEVE that both my Escort GT and my Celica would both be in HS at this point if they were stock. And there's no way i'm taking out a Mini in either. I'm not even sure i can wrap my brain around the Escort and the Celica being in the same stock class.

SCCA said: ITEM 25) In Appendix A, add under “Excluded” for ST, STX, STU, and STS: “All vehicles with pure electric or hybrid electric drivetrains.”

Wow I had no idea that the prius was such a weapon:

oldsaw wrote: One needs a current rule book, a lot of time and perhaps a lawyer to digest the whole thing.

The rule's for a particular class aren't really difficult to digest.

z31maniac wrote:

oldsaw wrote: One needs a current rule book, a lot of time and perhaps a lawyer to digest the whole thing.

The rule's for a particular class aren't really difficult to digest.

I agree; the rules are fairly straightforward in most cases. The reason some people might think a lawyer is required to understand them is that they are written with (usually) very precise language, which tends to make them sound somewhat like legalese.

autolex wrote: are the rulesets intellectual property? what were they basing the proposed lawsuit on?

Yes, they are intellectual property. Check the copyright info at the beginning of both NASA's and SCCA's rulebooks.

procainestart wrote: Yes, they are intellectual property. Check the copyright info at the beginning of both NASA's and SCCA's rulebooks.

Not trying to take this thread off topic OR pick a fight, and I don't have a NASA rulebook but I do have a 2009 SCCA. The copyright protection prohibits me from reproducing or transmitting the rule book, or any portion of it. I don't see how it prevents my local club from choosing to mimic their classing structure for our local events. If I copied their rule book and labeled it "ABC Autocross Club Rules", that would be a different story. Instead, all I'm saying is - "whatever class you would be at a SCCA event, you will be in the same class here".

I think the combination of BS and CS is probably a good thing, as their respective index factors were so close.

When I read the title I thought it was about changes to the AutoX for next year's Challenge. Since I really don't care what the SCCA does with their inane classing anymore, I'll begin ignoring this thread.....now.

Classing arguments are teh suck. Can't we all just drive 89 Si hatches?

I finally got around to looking at the NASA classing rules. What a neat idea, The engineer in me apreciates that lattatude the points based system gives me to make modificiations.

Too bad there are no local clubs that use a NASA style classing system.

I want to run a Mosler MT900 in XP.

That's all

jg

^I want to find a way to have my E30 be a nationally competitive SM car, just wont happen.

Maybe I could figure out some wild way to build a SLA in rear off the stock subframe points. Too bad I'm not an engineer or fabricator.

procainestart wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

oldsaw wrote: One needs a current rule book, a lot of time and perhaps a lawyer to digest the whole thing.

The rule's for a particular class aren't really difficult to digest.

I agree; the rules are fairly straightforward in most cases. The reason some people might think a lawyer is required to understand them is that they are written with (usually) very precise language, which tends to make them sound somewhat like legalese.

autolex wrote: are the rulesets intellectual property? what were they basing the proposed lawsuit on?

Yes, they are intellectual property. Check the copyright info at the beginning of both NASA's and SCCA's rulebooks.

Point taken, but how many times have you heard of SCCA going to court to keep a local club from using their rules? NASA does some good stuff (including making road racing classes for cars people actually want to build, and without the success of their HPDE program, I don't think SCCA would have ever even tried it)..but OTOH, NASA seems to run like a business, instead of a club.

I've got all the Business School Clones I can stand berkeleying up my workplace environment. I don't want to hear the same BMW E36 when I'm looking for recreation.

"..think of the stockholders!!!.." Yeah, I do. Every time I go to the pistol range.

friedgreencorrado wrote: ..but OTOH, NASA seems to run like a business, instead of a club.

NASA is a for profit business, IIRC.

Also, what's the SCCA's definition of a "supplemental class" - in the context of:

Nov Fastrack said:

ITEM 46) Add new supplemental class SMF as follows: - New 16.B.3: “Street Mod FWD (SMF), a supplemental class for two and four seat front wheel drive cars.” - New 16.C.3: “Street Mod FWD (SMF) Supplemental Class: a) All front wheel drive vehicles.” - Add in Appendix A as follows: Supplemental Class SMF Eligible Vehicles: All front wheel drive vehicles. Minumum Weight Calculations: All listed weights are without driver. 2 Seat FWD: 1650 + 125lbs/liter 4 Seat FWD: 1550 + 125lbs/liter Cars running in SMF using tires with a nominal width of 275 or less will NOT receive the weight break as stated in SM.