The only drawback with running a Miata in stock class is that you'd have to get a little trailer to carry your race tires on and change them at the event. I do that too, but my tires fit in my Sentra's back seat. Otherwise, stock class is my favorite way to race.
Harbor Freight's cordless impact wrench rocks.
On Sale
DaveEstey wrote: Spec Miatas can run in DSP
as long as they stay true to the Spec Miata rules.... you can't pull in some of the SP mods that help
friend of mine often runs his STS prepped Miata in CSP on A6's that he drives to the site ( 2 1/2 hrs each way ) as long as you don't do any showing off on the exit and entrance ramps you really don't do much damage ( or cut the life ) of R-comps .... after a 60 mi run through the mts we usually stop for breakfast and his tires are cool to the touch.... one thing to remember is to check the weather forecast ... they're not much good in the rain 
HStockSolo wrote: The SCCA should adopt the ST* treadwear limitation to Stock.
Agreed. I really don't understand why "stock" cars run R compounds. But I don't race with the SCCA, so they probably don't really care what I think!
Thanks for all the feedback (more is welcomed BTW). Honestly, in the long run I'm leaning towards just running ES with some decent street tires and letting the chips fall where they may. I have no desire to pull a trailer of slicks with me to every event, buy a second set of wheels and do two complete tire changes for every day of racing. For the rest of this season, I think I'm just going to run it as is in ES with the lousy all seasons that came with it to start getting a feel for the balance and basic handling of the car.
Keith, Totally, 100% agree with you on this one. When I first started autocross and read the rules, I went on line to make sure I hadn't misread the rules about R compounds on "stock" cars. It kills me that some SCCA clubs put out signs that say "You can race your car today", and then have people bolting up featherweight wheels and R compounds to "stock" cars. Anyone who knows anything about cars knows that tires probably make the biggest performance difference of any changeable part on the car.
If your M-Edition year has the 15x6s rather than the 14x6s that the rest of us have, I'm reasonably convinced that on the right course, it's the right car to have in ES (more so than the R-Package lemmings like me ;)).
Mostly because of tire fitment (50mm wider tires than the 14s, you can jam a 275 onto the 6in wheel like DS ITRs), but also because of the ABS. Really, an ES car is a BLAST to drive on the street, and there's PLENTY of tinkering you can do to one to keep it fun. And expensive shocks are in EVERY class. And I've got an R-Package shock setup that's done well Nationally before that I'm happy to sell for around $350 if anyone wants it (revalved Bilsteins that Lillejord took to 2nd at Nats back in the day, mine are identically valved).
Oh, and I'd venture to say that the driver makes the biggest performance difference of any changeable part on the car ;). Buying someone else's takeoff Hoosiers, a set of Koni singles, and a spare set of stock wheels and a front sway (depending upon the car) is more than enough to be locally competitive in a stock class. If you can't win locally with that kind of a setup, unless the people you're running against are wearing National Champion jackets, it falls on you to improve (with that said, I fall in the camp of 'still working on driving' myself :)).
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: If you're worried about being COMPETITIVE in ES, i'd say it may be cheaper to run STR. I've seen enough multi-thousand dollar shock setups in "stock" class that it makes me want to puke.
Don't get me started. Every time I bring this up where there are a bunch of hardcore SCCAers around, I get shouted down by "WELL OBVIOUSLY THE MEMBERS WANT IT THIS WAY OR IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT!" Uh huh, sure, just how often does that work out in any bureaucracy?
It makes absolutely no sense to me that "stock" cars are allowed to run race rubber, but certain classes with a higher prep level are not. Let's see - take slow cars and put fast rubber on them, and take fast cars and put slower rubber on them. Yeah, that makes sense. There is no official home for people who don't/can't spend a lot of money. You have to invest it in tires for "Stock" or in mods for ST... no option to "run what ya brung" and still have a hope of being competitive unless your region happens to have a street tire index. And even in those (Philly has one), the index is way* smaller than the difference between good street tires and R-comps.
And that without even getting into the damper setups that are worth more than the car they are propping up as Celica points out above.
In reply to SpeedTheory:
1994 M Edition came with 10.5 lb. 14x6 wheels.
I'd get the 185/60R14 or 195/50R14 Star Specs. Though the 225/50ZR14 Z214 C71s are only $130. It is pretty nice having a small autocross car.
Duke wrote:92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: If you're worried about being COMPETITIVE in ES, i'd say it may be cheaper to run STR. I've seen enough multi-thousand dollar shock setups in "stock" class that it makes me want to puke.Don't get me started. Every time I bring this up where there are a bunch of hardcore SCCAers around, I get shouted down by "WELL OBVIOUSLY THE MEMBERS WANT IT THIS WAY OR IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT!" Uh huh, sure, just how often does that work out in *any* bureaucracy? It makes absolutely no sense to me that "stock" cars are allowed to run race rubber, but certain classes with a higher prep level are not. Let's see - take slow cars and put fast rubber on them, and take fast cars and put slower rubber on them. Yeah, that makes sense. There is no official home for people who don't/can't spend a lot of money. You have to invest it in tires for "Stock" or in mods for ST*... no option to "run what ya brung" and still have a hope of being competitive unless your region happens to have a street tire index. And even in those (Philly has one), the index is *way* smaller than the difference between good street tires and R-comps. And that without even getting into the damper setups that are worth more than the car they are propping up as Celica points out above.
kazoospec wrote: It kills me that some SCCA clubs put out signs that say "You can race your car today", and then have people bolting up featherweight wheels and R compounds to "stock" cars. Anyone who knows anything about cars knows that tires probably make the biggest performance difference of any changeable part on the car.
Well, you CAN race your car today. You'll just be extremely slow compared to the rest of the field.
Any surprise that the "Street Mod" classes are the only ones that really appeal to me anymore? And even then, i'd like to see a "Street Mod Street Tire" class go official, rather than just local.
oldsaw wrote:
My thoughts exactly. While I see some of the advantages of ST* tires in the Stock category, I'm totally ok with hand-of-god grip too.
HStockSolo wrote: In reply to SpeedTheory: 1994 M Edition came with 10.5 lb. 14x6 wheels. I'd get the 185/60R14 or 195/50R14 Star Specs. Though the 225/50ZR14 Z214 C71s are only $130. It is pretty nice having a small autocross car.
Ah, well disregard then. Forgot what years went up to the 15s. 95+?
I have some star specs on the car for driving to/from events, and to use as wets at locals. They're "okay", but a stock-class car on streets just isn't all that fun to drive. It IS really good for learning (did Phase 1 and Phase 2 Evolution schools on streets, and I feel like they helped me learn more than I would have done on A6s).
Here's my take on the street tires in stock controversy (having only been around the sport for 6 years or so). That road was gone down a LONG time ago. Whether it's right or wrong, it's there. To change the rule would upset the applecart of what is competitive and what isn't (for example, I think the MR2 would get back on top in ES over the Miata, as the 93+ cars are on 15s, and the tire selection is immeasurably better. Plus it'd make SS "Spec Elise", HS would see some resurgence of lighter early-90s cars rather than the Mini, etc.
The easiest way to deal with it is to approach "Stock" not as "the car is stock" but as a level of prep, just like street touring, street prepared, etc. Also, since I've found that most of the folks who are interested in running street tires are doing so for cost reasons (as you've pointed out), they don't tend to compete nationally anyways, so petition your local club to start a street tire pax class, and you'll have a place to play and be reasonably competitive.
I'm ALL for things that make the sport more accessible, which is why I support local street tire pax classes, but at the same time, improving accessibility while ostracizing those who have put thousands, or tens of thousands of dollars developing cars (for example, an SS GT3 would be completely outclassed if the rule changed) is NOT a favorable road to go down. Neither is adding additional national classes.
As for the "we don't have a lot of money" thing, what makes you think that stock classes going to street tires will save money for the folks who want to be competitive? Do you not know how many sets of tires the fast ST guys test? Right now, 195 Toyos for lighter cars / wet / cooler temps, 225 Hankooks for heavier cars / dry / warmer temps. Bring this to stock, and everyone who wants to run up front will be doing the same thing, except since there's no basis, they'll be testing WAY more than just two brands. There are four or so ST tires that I'd be testing on any car that wasn't stuck on 14s (like my Miata, the Star Spec is really my only decent option). That costs a lot more than "Okay, let's buy a set of Hoosiers). On camber-limited stock cars, you'll still burn through streets really damned fast, so the wear issue isn't that much of a difference. PLUS you're going slower. Spend more to go slower? Alright, that's on you guys. And I'd STILL be taking more than one set of tires to events, as I pointed out earlier, some tires are better in different conditions than others. Where's the plus to this?
Per Schroeder wrote: My thoughts exactly. While I see some of the advantages of ST* tires in the Stock category, I'm totally ok with hand-of-god grip too.
Agreed. If the proposal to move the E30 325is from DS to GS goes through, the parts that put my car in STX will go flying off and I'll be ordering a set of A6's. Hell, I may do that regardless of the DS-GS outcome.
don't---I've done the whole stock-suspension E30 on sticky tires thing---good way to two-wheel the car.
Even with a fat FSB? I'm really searching for a reason to keep the car, but I fear if I build it for STX, it'll get used for auto-x and nothing else. 
Keith wrote:HStockSolo wrote: The SCCA should adopt the ST* treadwear limitation to Stock.Agreed. I really don't understand why "stock" cars run R compounds. But I don't race with the SCCA, so they probably don't really care what I think!
Our club established a 140 treadwear limit for stock classes last year. There was bitchin and moaning like it was tax time, but now it's kind of established, and the people who run stock class enjoy not changing tires all the time.
car39 wrote:Keith wrote:Our club established a 140 treadwear limit for stock classes last year. There was bitchin and moaning like it was tax time, but now it's kind of established, and the people who run stock class enjoy not changing tires all the time.HStockSolo wrote: The SCCA should adopt the ST* treadwear limitation to Stock.Agreed. I really don't understand why "stock" cars run R compounds. But I don't race with the SCCA, so they probably don't really care what I think!
Pertinent questions to ask:
Are the people who used to win on r-comps still winning the class?
Have the stock classes seen a big increase in the number of entries?
Did the club see an increase in the number of new members because of the change?
Have members stayed around longer because of the change?
I'm not advocating for this, but I can't help but think the following thought.
What if all classes which involved street-legal cars had a wear limit that indicated actual street use for the tires?
Again, I don't think you can get there from here, and I'm not that concerned about it. But it does seem funny that we now have three different kinds of street legal tires: Everyday tires, super-performance summer tires with treadwear high enough for ST classes, and R-comps which are nominally street legal, but not actually street-usable. These latter are effectively an answer to a question that no longer exists, since we no longer let them compete against "real" street tires. So we've created a separate question for them in the Stock/Street Prepared/Street Mod classes.
As an alternative to kicking the stock/SP/SM cars down to 140-treadwear tires, they could be moved up to slicks.
As near as I can think, the only real fallout from discontinuing R-comps in favor of slicks would be the ability to drive to an event on the race tires. Not at all unheard of, but worth it for the complexity of a whole class of 'tweener tire?
Ian F wrote: Even with a fat FSB? I'm really searching for a reason to keep the car, but I fear if I build it for STX, it'll get used for auto-x and nothing else.
Yes, even with a big FSB.
Narrow track, tall greenhouse, limited travel in rear suspension = not so much fun. It's the one thing an E30 isn't all that good at--staying on its tires in stock class autocross trim.
I guess I'm just not a fan of having to mentally decide in the middle of a run if I want to push for the fastest time OR not roll the car.
that was before the latest crop of really sticky tires too.
For the management: Didn't intend to re-open a topic that's apparently been beaten to death long before my tenure here, but it is something that, as a relative noob (about 2 years autox'ing), I've never really understood.
Oh, and Speedtheory, the Miata is new to me and still has some expensive issues to sort out (most noteably the "see through top" option), or I'd be all over the R package set-up. If you still have it next spring, its MINE! 
Oh, no, don't worry about it. Arguing on the internet and autocross go hand in hand!
Per Schroeder wrote: Arguing on the internet and autocross go hand in hand!
No it doesn't
kazoospec wrote: For the management: Didn't intend to re-open a topic that's apparently been beaten to death long before my tenure here, but it is something that, as a relative noob (about 2 years autox'ing), I've never really understood.
Per is right!
Besides, the issue and aguments began over twenty five years ago. Some of the most vociferous proponents hadn't reached puberty or started breathing when this stuff first riled-up people.
You'll need to log in to post.
