BIG Stock class change proposal

In reply to Ian F:

Thanks fellas, I did not realize that there were such bad McSTrut designs out there. Maybe an exclusion list that allows camber-only plates for just those cars?

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I see people adjust camber plates while they're getting their car ready, but I never understood how that could work well. Adjusting camber like that changes toe. Seems like you still need to set it and leave it alone.

Yep. Even moving the strut top the mild amount the IE plates do does all sorts of things to the MINI. Granted, when I initially test-drove our MCS with the IE plates prior to getting it aligned, the turn-in response was incredible - likely due to the change in toe. After the alignment, the steering feel wasn't quite so immediate.

I do wonder what people think is magical about SCCA events that results in longer work shifts and less runs. Our local club used to run SCCA rules and we would get with a ~70 car turn out 5-6 runs and about 30 minutes of "fun runs" at the end of the event you ended up working on course for and entire heat which was half of the event if 2 heats 1/3 if 3. After SCCA issued the "weekend membership" and raised their insurance rates we decided to move to self sourced insurance at a similar cost to SCCA insurance however it was effective for the driver/car for the weekend not each event and did not require our membership to be SCCA members. This change was made simply due to cost we still run SCCA classing follow SCCA bump orders and use SCCA safety guidelins. After this change we we would get with a ~70 car turn out 5-6 runs and about 30 minutes of "fun runs" at the end of the event you ended up working on course for and entire heat which was half of the event if 2 heats 1/3 if 3. The Fact that we followed SCCA rules in no way effected how efficiently we ran our events or how many runs we got. This was simply a function of the ability of the site/course to allow multiple cars on course and the way we organized registration, tech, drivers meetings. I guess it did ad a tiny amount due to the mandatory course walk.

This is what confuses me about the SCCA number of runs bashing. SCCA requires you to have SCCA membership ($25/weekend or ~$80/yr) and pay insurance per car of ~$8 per event (IIRC at the last time I knew the amount). That's it. Anything else you pay is going to the organizing club. Our clubs private insurance is about the same cost and our entry fees are fairly stable compared to what they where pre-weekend membership SCCA. I'm not understanding what it is about the SCCA that "limits" runs.

mazdeuce wrote:

irish44j wrote: It's not as if it's that hard to switch out camber bolts to regular between events, is it?

It kind of is if it's the same car that I'm taking the kids to school in, which it is. There's a good chance that I'm the only guy in the country trying to autocross and rallycross competitively at the local level and driving the kids to school in the car. Ok, maybe not the only one, but there probably aren't many of us. Perhaps you're right to keep the two groups from talking to each other.

It seems to me that the simplest solution is to find a camber setting that is the best compromise between all three activities, set it there, don't change it. Which bolts are more than capable of. This way the rest of your alignment won't get screwed up every time you change from one setting to the other either. A bit of negative camber isn't as hard on tires as many people think, especially for a car that's utilizing it.

Javelin wrote: Thanks fellas, I did not realize that there were such bad McSTrut designs out there. Maybe an exclusion list that allows camber-only plates for just those cars?

Exactly...Otherwise only the few cars that can utilize camber plates also get to play with caster and the rest would be screwed.

.

In regards to number of runs at any autox events (not just SCCA):

As some have already mentioned, it's all about club/event organization at the local level. When I was a regular competitor in my area, Chicago had a cap frequently filled at 170 drivers and I recall Milwaukee pushing upwards of 200 drivers (and I want to say occasionally 200+) per event. Sure when compared to other 70 driver club events, the first car had to be off a couple of hours before the smaller club. Something like 8:30 instead of 10:30. But both larger regions would almost always get 5-6 runs, and more often 6 than 5 at that. They also managed to end the day not much after the smaller club while still occasionally included time for a couple of fun runs at the end of the day too. But there is only one way for any club to accomplish this type of efficiency...Good local leadership/experience and strong individual local member involvement.

Driven5 wrote: It seems to me that the simplest solution is to find a camber setting that is the best compromise between all three activities, set it there, don't change it. This way the rest of your alignment won't get screwed up every time you change from one setting to the other either. A bit of negative camber isn't as hard on tires as many people think, especially for a car that's utilizing it on a regular basis.

The fixed camber plates on the MINI had zero affect on tire wear. While my g/f can be an aggressive driver ocne in awhile, the car is driven pretty sedately 99.9% of the time. If anything, the additional negative camber (~2 deg total) made the tire wear more even.

Why are camber plates even a big deal? I mean it isn't like we are talking thousands of dollars.

93EXCivic wrote: Why are camber plates even a big deal? I mean it isn't like we are talking thousands of dollars.

Because it's a modification beyond stock. And on most cars, it requires taking apart the entire suspension, so with installation it can easily be in the $1000 range.

93EXCivic wrote: Why are camber plates even a big deal? I mean it isn't like we are talking thousands of dollars.

Maybe they're not. Whoever wrote the new rule seems to agree with you. I'm just not sure. I think a lot of what they're trying to address is perception. The sterotypical first timer who comes out and gets beat by 12 seconds, then feels intimidated or disinfrachised because they see $1,200 worth of tires on the car that won.

I just wonder if camber plates don't do the same thing. Maybe not- by the time you come out to an event, maybe they don't seem like a big deal. I just remember when I was a kid, taking struts apart sounded like a big deal. I'd just heard so many times that virtually eveyone who had ever tried was killed. It's only after you wrench a bit that you realize the vast majority of the time, people survive taking struts apart, and often they don't even lose a limb.

Javelin wrote: Because it's a modification beyond stock.

...and you keep forgetting the class won't be called Stock anymore.

What I get from all this is that the rules-writers decided (right or wrong - time will tell, not any of our b.s. opinions) that if you take away the R-Comps from Stock, a good number of competitors would jump ship, leaving the class even more emaciated that it has already become. Why? because a Stock car on r-comps is fun. A Stock car on ST tires gets boring PDQ. I know - BTDT & got the t-shirt.

It was fun for awhile, but then I started thinking, "do I spring for r-comps or change classes?" And I was running a MINI on star specs in HS, so it was a pretty decent car and I did really well against other street-tired HS cars and a couple of older HS cars on R-comps (the other HS MINI on R-comps and driven by a Pro-Tour-winner ran in the "Pro" class). However, even the most moderate modifications to the car to make it more fun and easier on the tires would have but it into ST where I would have been obliterated by well-developed Civics (this was all pre-STF).

I'm sorry - having installed them on I don't remember how many MINI's, adding camber plates to a car is not something I consider a big deal. Granted, it does bother me a bit about the loose wording about bearing material - a solid-bearing camber plate will drastically affect ride quality, but I'm also looking at things from a MINI point of view where we have a more ride-friendly option from I.E. that many cars don't. So I understand the decision to just leave it open for now.

Your arguement is jsut hard for me to understand. Stock is dieing and it's not just because of R-comps. It's because a modern Stock car isn't much fun to autocross after you get your feet wet. These new rules make a valid attempt to address this.

Javelin wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: Why are camber plates even a big deal? I mean it isn't like we are talking thousands of dollars.

Because it's a modification beyond stock. And on most cars, it requires taking apart the entire suspension, so with installation it can easily be in the $1000 range.

Consider this: in the old rule set, or the new rule set, you're probably looking at adjustable struts. Since they're a wear item anyway, you're going to pay to have them installed. Might as well do some camber plates while you're in there. And the cost is one time, instead of a consumable like tires.

I only have one hang up on the camber plates. I'm not sure I can put them on the MR2 with stock springs. I haven't found an option yet, anyway. I'll probably figure out how to do it, but I have access to a metal lathe. But, then again, I don't think the '91 MR2 is the car they were catering to with the new rules.

93EXCivic wrote: Why are camber plates even a big deal? I mean it isn't like we are talking thousands of dollars.

IMHO it's a big deal because it's for strut cars only. Any class where there's a mix of strut and non-strut suspension cars you've just handed a big advantage to the strut cars.

In reply to codrus:

Maybe. You could say double a arm cars got an advantage when they were built. But, that raises my other concern. I bet, once the dust settles on this, there will be another round of the seemingly never ending class shuffling. If that happens, someone will buy, develop and run a competitive car only to be re-classed as an also-ran.

I understand the idea of making the classes work for cars that are out there that we want to recruit to events. But when we continually re-class to make the “outdated” cars noncompetitive, we’re kind of breaking our backs to accommodate potential new folks at the expense of the folks who are actively supporting the club. Buying new tires is an expense. But it’s nothing compared to buying a new car.

After reading 6 pages of this, I'm glad I run E-Modified.

I have nothing useful to add other than stock should mean just that. Calling it street sounds like another SM or SSM or whatever they are calling it these days.

mazdeuce wrote: It kind of is if it's the same car that I'm taking the kids to school in, which it is. There's a good chance that I'm the only guy in the country trying to autocross and rallycross competitively at the local level and driving the kids to school in the car. Ok, maybe not the only one, but there probably aren't many of us. Perhaps you're right to keep the two groups from talking to each other.

mazduce, From a quick skim of the rallycross rulebook, it looks to me like you could run in PF with a "Street" Mazda2 , which in my region is usually pretty undersubscribed, and if you grab a spare set of wheels, and some used rally tires, I think a Mazda2 would be a decent car. It could still get clobbered by an SRT-4 or an MS3, but the same is true of SF anyway.
Also, if Mazda has "crash bolts" available like Dodge did for the Neon, you might be able to adjust your camber that way, and run in SF, as long as you use snow tires instead of rally tires.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

Javelin wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: Why are camber plates even a big deal? I mean it isn't like we are talking thousands of dollars.

Because it's a modification beyond stock. And on most cars, it requires taking apart the entire suspension, so with installation it can easily be in the $1000 range.

Consider this: in the old rule set, or the new rule set, you're probably looking at adjustable struts. Since they're a wear item anyway, you're going to pay to have them installed. Might as well do some camber plates while you're in there. And the cost is one time, instead of a consumable like tires.

Remember, I'm not for having struts at all. I think that should be stock. And it doesn't matter if it's called Stock or Street, it still needs to be the entry-level category. If you want to mod your car, move up!

fast_eddie_72 wrote: In reply to codrus: Maybe. You could say double a arm cars got an advantage when they were built. But, that raises my other concern. I bet, once the dust settles on this, there will be another round of the seemingly never ending class shuffling. If that happens, someone will buy, develop and run a competitive car only to be re-classed as an also-ran. I understand the idea of making the classes work for cars that are out there that we want to recruit to events. But when we continually re-class to make the “outdated” cars noncompetitive, we’re kind of breaking our backs to accommodate potential new folks at the expense of the folks who are actively supporting the club. Buying new tires is an expense. But it’s nothing compared to buying a new car.

You could say that -- except that advantage was factored into the class that they're assigned to and by canceling out that advantage it turns the class structure upside down. My dislike for that allowance isn't so much based on "fair" as on the class disruption.

My impression is that a lot of reclassing is done to try to keep popular cars in classes where they have a chance at winning. NA Miatas, to pick a not-so-random example, have been consistently the best represented car model at every autox I've ever been to, so there's a good argument for making sure that people who own those cars have a place to play.

The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to accept the idea of camber plates...Although a lot of it will depend on implementation. I believe that perception will be the biggest problem, as even I faced that having come from autoxing a car whose only camber plate option was on high end coilovers and required enlarging the center hole on the top of the chassis mounting point. In other words, I would have had absolutely no legal camber plate option, and would have been at a 'disadvantage' to all cars who have such luxuries available. The additional perception issue due to that, is that the cars I'm most familiar with camber plates are most certainly not one of the first performance handling modifications people do, which makes them seem out of place without the other ST class type modifications.

But consider that non-strut cars have a significant tire wear advantage already. Camber bolts and plates for those cars that have the ability to use them minimizes or eliminates this inherent disadvantage. Now while this will affect the handling capabilities of these cars, this will necessarily be taken into account as cars find their correct class home based on their relative performance potential after camber plate installation and on street tires. So a car that would currently be capable of competing at the top of one class without camber plates and R-compound tires, may very well be bumped into the next class now just as it would if the manufacturer has improved the suspension geometry and handling performance from the factory. No matter what class you're talking about there will always be dominant cars (not just drivers) and cars that simply can't win even with God as the copilot. But ultimately, this ability to reclass cars if their performance potential is too far from that of the class standard is the best equalizer available...Regardless whether they end up in their 'current' class or not.

I'm actually almost as excited at the possibility of being locally competitive in PAX in a true arrive-and-drive street car, as I am about completing my project that will be exciting to drive but woefully uncompetitive in D-Mod...Which by the way is also far from drama free.

Javelin wrote: Remember, I'm not for having struts at all. I think that should be stock. And it doesn't matter if it's called Stock or Street, it still needs to be the *entry-level* category. If you want to mod your car, move up!

So how do you write the rule for someone who wants to autox his mid-90s Mustang that has blown struts and Ford says the OEM ones are No Longer Available? (I don't know if this is the case for SN95 Mustangs or not, but Ford is known as being one of the most aggressive manufacturers as far as discontinuing stock parts availability as soon as they can).

You could say "no adjustable struts", but that simply means buying non-adjustables and having them revalved frequently, so this makes it more expensive, not less.

Many of the original Stock modification allowances are based on the idea that you should be able to get 3rd party replacements for wear items. Tires, shocks, brake pads, mufflers (in snow/salt areas) -- they all need to be replaced during the useful life of the car, and you can't always depend on being able to get the exact OEM ones.

Javelin wrote: In reply to Ian F: 100% false. It's right in the SCCA rulebook that only three runs will be timed and scored. Even if your local region manages five, only three count, so what's the point? And in my local region, the SCCA and the PCA run on the exact same lots, in the exact same time frames (obviously on different days). They do three runs in the AM and three fun runs at noon (provided your class runs first, if you run second you can't run in the AM) at $25 per plus the SCCA membership. We do 8-10 competition runs for everyone at $40 (nonmembers) or $35 (members). We average 65-75 cars and are usually totally done by 2. They commonly are just getting to PM run 3 around 3 or 4.

Your PCA club limits non Porsche entries to 30. You had 58 entries last weekend. Last SCCA event at the same venue had 108, and we're looking for more new folks. So both clubs had around 450 total runs that day. If SCCA cut off entries we could do the same 7-9 runs like you folks. We post all the runs on the site, three or six or whatever. Yes, 3 runs and your done with score. Autocrossing is hard Michael.

Since I would guess that the pandora's box of allowing both sway bars to be changed may have been opened as a cheaper alternative to the competitors using expensive shocks to add roll stiffness, as opposed to simply allowing just allowing one to be changed as a means of balancing the handling...An alternate proposal could be that camber plates (and their associated perception of mod level and fairness) could be eliminated entirely, due to the fact that competitors are allowed to significantly limit body roll anyways with really stiff sway bars at both ends.

codrus wrote: So how do you write the rule for someone who wants to autox his mid-90s Mustang that has blown struts and Ford says the OEM ones are No Longer Available?

I would kind of like to see it limited to a single adjustment, which is allowed to adjust compression, rebound, or both simultaneously...And no remote reservoirs. While it's nearly impossible to get rid of crazy expensive shocks at the top of the sport, it would also still make the shock rule FAR more in-line with the "street" theme of the class.

Javelin wrote: Remember, I'm not for having struts at all. I think that should be stock. And it doesn't matter if it's called Stock or Street, it still needs to be the *entry-level* category. If you want to mod your car, move up!

So you think it would be perfectly acceptable to have an entry level class that didn't attract anyone who wanted to stick around and not upgrade to a trailer-queen class?

I'm sorry but that whole concept is flawed.

I wonder wheat the breakdown really is with regard to how much people want to change their cars, in terms of how many people want to do what.

It seems like the number of people who are enthusiastic enough to autocross but don't want to change anything about their stock car is a small number. (I find myself temporarily in this group because I'm more worried about selling my WRX than enjoying it fully; or maybe there are a lot of people like that...)

I also wonder whether I'm correct in that I perceive a greater availability/popularity of coilover/damper packages. That makes camber plates more effective and provides one-stop shopping and relatively simple installation. Of course, that wanders into left field as well...

I wonder if tire evolution will ever see us back at two types: race and street. Street tires would be genuinely streetable; i.e. your weekend toy car would be raced on the same tires you use for a pleasant drive in the twisties. Race tires would be slicks. R-comps would be gone.

I feel like this tire change is a step toward that sort of thing, or at least making it plausible, and I'm happy about that. I'd love to see the R-comp go the way of the dodo, with any classes that want a sticky competition tire moving to slicks that don't pretend to be street tires.

codrus wrote: So how do you write the rule for someone who wants to autox his mid-90s Mustang that has blown struts and Ford says the OEM ones are No Longer Available? (I don't know if this is the case for SN95 Mustangs or not, but Ford is known as being one of the most aggressive manufacturers as far as discontinuing stock parts availability as soon as they can).

SHO specific struts have been discontinued for some time.......granted there aren't that many of us that autox them. Prolly under 15 total in the country.

I'd write the rule to allow either camber bolts or camber plates if you're going to allow those......honestly, I doubt with equal drivers that would make any more than a 1/4 second per run difference. Once again considering equal drivers, the R-comps in stock class was a much more signifigant gap....but it was funny beating the E36 M3 out of people who had more money than skill.