Backwards classing.

I posted this to FAceyspace, but thought it would be a fun discussion here:

Just to show how backwards the SCCA Solo board can be at times..... the 2012 Accent and Rio were deemed "too much car" for STF. The RSX-S was deemed as a perfect for STF.

So, by SCCA standards a 140hp Hyundai or Kia is a better auto-x car than an Acura RSX? I believe an epic facepalm is in order here.

Background for this train of thought came from the wife's '08 Rio acting funky the day Kia starts putting out ads for 0% financing for some of their new cars. Got to looking at them and then remembered that the Accent/Rio got stuck in STS instead of STF because they were "too much for the class". Then looking at the top of the STF field this year at NAt's and seeing that a 200+hp RSX is allowed and the proposal to move it to STX was denied.

That led me to thinking about a pair of new cars for both of us which could be done for $300/month for BOTH cars at 0% APR and the idea of a new Forte SX Turbo and can I run it in STF (no, it is ALSO in STS) and then bad thoughts of tunes and exhaust and big tires etc....

BUt back to the topic....what the hell were they thinking?

If you wrote another letter today, I'm inclined to believe they would add the cars to the class - especially the Rio.

Bobzilla wrote: So, by SCCA standards a 140hp Hyundai or Kia is a better auto-x car than an Acura RSX? I believe an epic facepalm is in order here. then remembered that the Accent/Rio got stuck in STS instead of STF because they were "too much for the class". Then looking at the top of the STF field this year at NAt's and seeing that a 200+hp RSX is allowed and the proposal to move it to STX was denied. BUt back to the topic....what the hell were they thinking?

really??? don't you just love politics..... as to what they were thinking

drdisque wrote: If you wrote another letter today, I'm inclined to believe they would add the cars to the class - especially the Rio.

My other favorite one.... the Elantra is also classed in STS instead of STF while the Forte is classed in STF. Its the same car. It would be like classing the ES300 and CAmry V6 into different classes.

Hmm... roll-over concern? That's all I got...

Ian F wrote: Hmm... roll-over concern? That's all I got...

that would mean they were just not allowed.

EDIT: Not going to lie, I'm afraid to write these letters because I'm afraid they'll just yank the Forte over to STS and completely eliminate any chance this car ever had to compete. Hell, its stock class is GS. With the Turbo Fords, GTI's and the like. Completely outclassed there.

In reply to Bobzilla:

True... and it seemed to be more of a concern in the old Stock class with soft springs and grippy R-comps...

Sense isn't part of their process.
NA Miata with factory torsen LSD = STR instead of STS, why not?

I went to a SCCA match tour in my $2014 toyota echo, I was expecting to be in STF. they forced me into STS! the echo was in STF but midyear they changed it to STS saying it was a mistake and it was never supposed to be in STF. they still let me run in STF for just that event because there was only one other person(he wanted me in stf also) and since they changed the classing a few days before the event, it wasnt fair. Please explain to me why they put a 107hp car with bad suspension in STS?

In reply to echoechoecho:

Don't try to understand it......how many years did the Mini Cooper S DOMINATE G-stock?

You'll end up an angry old man if you try to understand it.

Just saw that my pax index just got harder, for whatever reason. I didn't spend too much time getting worked up over it because it won't change it. Kinda have to be that way sometimes and just let it roll off your shoulders.

Just build something for E-mod. Then you know you will always get screwed by Pax and...

E-mod got softer!

Fastest raw time is the winner. Anything else is false.

That's ok for years in SP Mitsubishi Mirage, Dodge Colt, and Eagle Summit were in different classes. You know the differences between the cars? A nameplate and options. Same engine, chassis, etc. I spent some time with the SP chair at the time getting that whole mess cleaned up.

If I ever want to Autox more there is an interesting loop hole created where you can put a 2.4L Summit van into a 93 franken mirage and have an under 1900 LB 150-160 HP and Torque FSP car but I digress.

Dietcoke wrote: Fastest raw time is the winner. Anything else is false.

within your class, agreed. I'm not worried about PAX. I'm worried about the other cars I'm competing against in my class. Why bother if you are stuck in a class where everyone is 2 seconds faster because they weigh half as much?

With the Kias, it's mostly due to a lack of data. When presented with a lack of data, they will generally err on the side of placing a car in too fast of a class and putting the responsibility on the competitors get it knocked back. They'd rather create an orphan than an overdog.

A letter to the STAC with some hard data and comparisons would probably go a long way toward proper classing.

SnowMongoose wrote: Sense isn't part of their process.

How about all E46 BMWs lumped together in F Street? From the mighty M3 through the 330i ZHP all the way down to the lowly base model 325i.

Uh huh, that makes a boatload of sense. That's a spread of approximately 150 horsepower in cars sharing the same chassis. The M3 has about 85% more power than my car does... but we're classed together.

CSP got much worse this year. That's why I only care about raw time. PAX can get stuffed.

I'm pretty sure I'll be saying screw it to my Mazda2 STF plans and just doing whatever I want for faster raw time for fun locally. FSP or SMF.

Or sell the strut housings I built and just save money for something else. A Corvette or Miata seem to be pretty safe classing-wise.

Uh......unless there's a reasonable argument, the RSX is slated to be moved to STS per my request.
The board is actively trying to realign street classes and all it takes is a reasonable argument (hopefully with good data) and they'll move cars.
Now, it's a reasonable argument that the bottom classes are too fast for cars like the Mazda2. It might be time for someone to suggest an even slower class and see what they say.

The RSX is a heavier car still stuck on narrow wheels and tires. Its entirely plausible that a lighter car even with way less power will be faster.

Lots of cars that aren't that fast are not allowed in STF and are stuck in STS where the spec Civic will crush them.

JG Pasterjak wrote: With the Kias, it's mostly due to a lack of data. When presented with a lack of data, they will generally err on the side of placing a car in too fast of a class and putting the responsibility on the competitors get it knocked back. They'd rather create an orphan than an overdog. A letter to the STAC with some hard data and comparisons would probably go a long way toward proper classing.

I'm currently happy with the Forte's current STF classing. I think it is a great fit and has potential. It's also the same reason I am NOT writing the letters.

Besides, I'm not getting a new car anytime soon. There's absoltely nothing wrong with the ones we have. Stupid reliable cars.

ProDarwin wrote: The RSX is a heavier car still stuck on narrow wheels and tires. Its entirely plausible that a lighter car even with way less power will be faster. Lots of cars that aren't *that* fast are not allowed in STF and are stuck in STS where the spec Civic will crush them.

It's maybe 300lbs heavier. With literally 2x the power. They make waaay more power with mods(have the most to gain) than anything else in STF gains with ST mods. It's even more noticeable on large national style courses. Which is what counts.

I'm more than happy to stick around at the bottom in HS.