In reply to Duke:
The "intent" of Stock rules has always been to adapt to the wishes of the competitors; that's why they have evolved into their current state.
When enough people (read - MOST) demand the exclusion of R-comps in Stock, it will happen. If anyone doesn't like it, then have to become club members (those with a vested interest) and actively lobby (in the prescribed manner) to get changes implemented. It's a cumbersome and lenghty process, but it works.
Well... at the risk of falling down this cliff again, the rule is perfectly consistent with the intent of the class... as they were written... back before many of us were born... the problem is changing the rule would gain little (make a few casual autocrossers happy ) and piss off many (the people who show up at events week after week), not to mention make a whole slew of currently popular (and cheap) cars basically obsolete due to the lack of good, grippy street tires in smaller sizes.
Over on SCCAforums, a guy posted a link to a very good web page that spelled out the history of Stock, Street Touring and tires and why the rules are what they are. It's well worth seeking out. I keep forgetting to save the bloody link...
To be honest, the tire situation in ST has annoyed me almost to the point where I'm thinking of running my 325is in DSP - just so I can put R-comps on the damn car and be done. The car isn't really prepped for either class, so competition-wise, it matters little, but finding good ST-legal tires for something as common as an E30 has proved much more difficult than I had anticipated when I bought the car - seriously to the point where I'm somewhat disenchanted with it.
So with all that in mind, would I want to run ST tires in Stock? berkeley no.
In reply to Ian F:
I started autocrossing just before R-comps were allowed in Stock. Since modifications to my car automatically put me in Street Prepared, I had no dog in that hunt.
Some people running in Stock grumbled, but virtually every "serious" competitor wanted that change. Keep in mind that Hoosier compounds were originally excluded when Stock went to R-comps, but even that changed within a few, short years.
Why were Hoosiers finally allowed? Because a large majority of drivers wanted them.
I did not dismiss Nationals. I simply am stating that National Tours and Regionals/Divisionals carry relevance as well. IMO, more relevance than Nationals. What happens over the course of 7-8 National Tours has a lot more statistical significance than what happens at a single event.
Again, people are sheep. They watch what the "fast guys" do and copy ad naseum, forgetting Murphy's Law and "any given Sunday". Any given car prepped to the rules driven by somebody at least equally as competent has a chance.
Also, just to clarify since you like putting words in my mouth, I did not say the NA would be the best. I said it had potential to win, as well as the 944S2/968 and the GTUs FC RX-7. I think the 911 that's allowed in STR could have a chance too just looking at the paper statistics. 400Lbs (to start) is a damn good advantage, no matter the class. When you're talking 2000-2600Lb cars, that's 15-20% of their total weight!!!
Oh, and on r-comps in Stock, I've said my piece. They ain't stock, and the gigantic popularity of street-tired Stock class cars in Regionals points out that the majority of normal paying SCCA members agree with me. If you wanna play race car, move to a real class. Stock means stock, unless it's NASCAR.
Why ST tires need to be in Stock (from the update on GRM's own STR car):
"Along with finding ways to make the car go faster, another fundamental part of this project is keeping the car streetable. To that end, our driver, Chris Harvey, drove 250 miles to and from the event on the same tires and wheels he raced on—just like we did for the Peru National Tour two weeks earlier. No tire changes were needed. The rest of our gear for the weekend was packed into the car. Chris’s only complaint: what to do with all of his spare time at the event. Could going fast get any easier?"
P71 wrote: Oh, and on r-comps in Stock, I've said my piece. They ain't stock, and the *gigantic* popularity of street-tired Stock class cars in Regionals points out that the majority of normal paying SCCA members agree with me. If you wanna play race car, move to a real class. Stock means stock, unless it's NASCAR.
If the majority of normal paying SCCA members agree with, quit yer bitchin' on GRM (or any other board) and begin your campaign to get the rules changed. You (and your minions) can make it happen, but your task is to convince those that make the rules.
Whining about it here accomplishes one thing - it makes you look like a whiner.
Fine, if "7-8 National Tours has a lot more statistical significance than what happens at a single event." then its pretty signifigant that only a single person has run a NA Miata at a tour in STR this year.
You would say its because people are mindless sheep that follow what the fast guys do (for good reason). I say its because they know a dead horse when they see one.
As far as races tires in stock go I also suggest you "quit yer bitchin" start a letter writing campaign to the SEB. Even if hell freezes over and they do ban r-compounds in stock then Hoosier will just make an A6 with tread, slap a 140 treadwear rating on it. The guys who want to win will buy them and nothing will have changed.
P71 wrote: and the *gigantic* popularity of street-tired Stock class cars in Regionals points out that the majority of normal paying SCCA members agree with me.
"Gigantic" where? Nobody in my region has ever asked for it - correction... one. He whined about it as well a couple of years ago...
Like everyone else, would he do the necessary leg-work to get the rule changed? No. He just whined about it, whined about not getting enough seat-time, whined about getting his ass handed to him in BSP against Evo's on R-comps and finally quit. Obviously, auto-x is not for him. Whatever. Life goes on.
ST tires are already getting close to where the 140 rating is B.S.
P71 wrote: In reply to Soma007: So when that 240SX showed up out of nowhere and blew STS (now ST) out of the water, it wasn't because the class is supposed to be Spec 89 Civic Si? I'll tell you *exactly* why only 1 or 2 cars "rise to the top". Because somebody fast builds one, and everybody else follows them, completely unwilling to try anything new.
If I remember correctly Jason Rhoades won STS (ST now) in '06 ... and if the stories are to be believed (don't know if Snoops.com would cover this...lol) he spent (it's been said) somewhere in the region of $15+K in development of that car and then won when Andy Hollis's car was found to have some sound deadening material removed (IIRC ~ 20 # worth) the protest was made and upheld so the second place car was moved to 1st.... and no one since has been able to crack the spec Civic class...(Jason didn't defend the next yr)
Not quite, Jason won STS on speed alone. Hollis was running STS2 that year in a Miata. I can't confirm but I think the missing sound deadening was from the year prior and I don't think Andy was involved.
But it I wouldn't doubt Jason had that much, if not more in the 240. He put it up for sale briefly before turning it into a SM car.
http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/208510.aspx
When Jason Rhoades won STS he did not win on speed alone. The Mankiewicz/Frank civic was faster but was protested for missing sound deadening and a few other things and was DSQed.
Also the year Jason Rhoades won he had an advantage of being able to use tires that the civics could not because of their size (I think it was yokohama's or bridgestones while the civics were still stuck with RT-615's)
You can see an older comparison of costs to build an at the time spec civic to the 240SX. http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/226622.aspx
Soma007 wrote: Not quite, Jason won STS on speed alone. Hollis was running STS2 that year in a Miata. I can't confirm but I think the missing sound deadening was from the year prior and I don't think Andy was involved. But it I wouldn't doubt Jason had that much, if not more in the 240. He put it up for sale briefly before turning it into a SM car. http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/208510.aspx
Yep!
Jason did an incredible job of researching and choosing a car that had potential to win in what is now referred to as SpecCivic. But, he had to perform a lot of time-consuming (i.e., expensive) development to reach that level. Then again, any determined, talented competitor will go to the same lengths - regardless of class. Seems like I remember an article from some magazine that featured Jason's car, too.
Hollis was not the one targeted in the missing insulation fiasco, but that was an episode that illustrated that serious competitors will protest anything that doesn't meet the rules. Andy has had his share of "teachable moments", but his is a good story of how (ultimately) class wins over style.
canoes are not the best autoX vehicles, but would be great in STR i think.
In reply to Soma007: Looks like P71 was right, I was wrong. At nationals last week, a well driven NA Miata in STS (w/o a torsen LTD slip diff) can beat a well driven STR NC Miata!
Weight bad, NA good 
In all fairness though:
The STS Miata (in STS-spec) would have came in 2nd overall in STR (2nd was an S2000 with a 124.557). Give that same Miata a Torsen (or heck, a 1.8 too)...
Ian F wrote: Later NB and NC Miatas run in C-stock. We have a couple of reasonably well prepped CSP Miatas in our region. IMHO, if you want to be competitive, run in ES or CSP. If you don't care and just want to play with the car, SSM (add boost) might be fun. IIRC, a car built to Spec Miata rules is in D-Prepared (there is a specific comment about them).
not D-Prepared it goes to DSP (D Street Prepared).. as long as it has no more mods than are allowed in Spec Miata..
Javelin wrote: Weight bad, NA good
I don't entirely disagree with you (I think a '99 base/sport or an '03 Club Sport could be very competitive in STR), but STS has had way more time to develop than STR. I think we may be surprised by what car(s) ultimately rule the roost in STR. The leaders right now are simply the most obvious top picks, and most people will gravitate toward the easier cars to prep. I don't see any reason to rail against 'sheeple'. Let people drive what they want. Anyone who thinks they have a better idea simply needs to step up, build it, and show everyone that they are wrong 
You'll need to log in to post.
