So long SCCA Stock; hello Street

ransom wrote:

racerdave600 wrote: My point is, the tread wear number is just a number. There will be tires built to win this class, and there will be a favorite. They will slowly get faster and faster, and you will end up needing a second set of wheels, and they will end up shaved and last only a couple of events. There are always people who want to win and will find a way to do it, and that usually means spending more money.

The tendency is there, yes, absolutely true, but I just can't go along with the blanket statement that tire limits are essentially utterly unenforceable and why should we even try? Even if that were the case, then why don't we just let everybody have slicks in every class? Why pretend the tires are going to be good for anything but autox?

Didn't mean to imply that it shouldn't be tried, just that in the end, it will be similar if you want to win. In saying that, I should point out that I meant win at the national level and should have worded my response differently.

On your second point, you and I too would fall in the wanting to have fun category. I have run national events in the past, but I never had the time or money to do it on a regular basis. Running at the local or regional level to me is for fun. In doing so, I don't think you need to have the best of everything, including shaved sets of tires for each event. I still wanted to win, and still did what I needed to have a shot, but it's no where near as much as it would have been heading to divisionals or nationals.

In the mid '90's I did have a quasi tire deal for my MR2 Turbo and got a bunch of free tires, and it was a good thing since it went through a set of shaved tires for each event. Yes it was stock, and camber was the one of the contributing factors.

I suppose I see so many parallels to what I've been through before, and know that this simply changes one can of worms for another. It's like picking up the deck and shuffling the "must have" cars and the "must have" tires. Some people are going to like it, others are going to think it's the tool of satan.

To me, I don't really have a preference, and I hope it works well enough to boost participation.

oldsaw wrote: In reply to racerdave600: It's nice to see a contribution from another of the "Been There, Done That, Got a Bunch of T-shirts" crowd. I started in the mid-80's when I worked for a local tire company. With my employee discount, I bought 001R's and the 008's and autocrossed them for a year. By that time, they were heat-cycled out but made great street tires - unless it rained. Yes, my circumstances allowed to have multiple sets of wheels and tires.

I hear ya! The first time I bolted a set of Yokohama's my jaw dropped. It's hard to tell people the difference they made at the time. The only way I can explain it would be to imagine you only ever had no name all weather tires, and you suddenly bolted on any R-spec tire. It was like running a slick with better turn-in. Amazing at the time.

The only other time I had that experience was when I drove Hoosier Dirt Stockers in the rain for the first time. You could go almost as fast in the wet as you could in the dry.

In reply to ransom:

Yea, I haven't tried any of the 140tw class, but my SS's have always lasted numerous events and 20k ish miles....they don't like cold though and wear faster then.

Thank you for the perspective...

It is all a giant can of worms, and it's already open...

I'd love to see this as a step toward flushing R-comps, and as a result slightly simplifying all the breakdowns, and giving street-based local competitors simple classes in which they can all be playing in the same ballpark on the tires they drive to work on. I feel like it would have a real simplification at the local level even if it doesn't save folks anything at the national level. Frankly, I think the emphasis belongs on encouraging local participation.

And that's quite enough out of me...

I'm going to regret beating this dead horse, but...

For everyone saying "this is important to encourage local competition":

If newbies were quitting because of a perceived need for R-comps, why didn't your region just create your own street-tire class before now?

This argument is not directed at the "I don't want to pay for Hoosiers" guys. I get the cost thing.

Many regions did just that, and they turned out to be their biggest classes at every event for 2-4 years running.

So I view this as a logical conclusion.

In reply to Swank Force One:

As far as I know, Indy region only had the street mod street tire class going......I did miss out this season though.

In reply to yamaha:

We didn't have that, and so I ran around on the street in my SM/DD E30 on crap econo-tires because I spent a bunch of money on R-Comps...

Grumble grumble. It just occurred to me that this was a prime example of the compromises required of someone who wants to be competitive in a street driven car. Sure, I could've eaten at Taco Bell more often and bought a nice set of street tires, too, but why should I need a mounted set of street legal performance tires for the street and a separate mounted set of street legal performance tires for autocross?

In reply to ransom:

You still don't get it.

If you want to win, you're going to have at least equal the efforts of those you want to beat.

And what's wrong with Taco Bell? I really enjoy a few Chicken Soft Tacos w/a mitt-full of hot sauce for each one.

ransom wrote: In reply to yamaha: We didn't have that, and so I ran around on the street in my SM/DD E30 on crap econo-tires because I spent a bunch of money on R-Comps...

Complaining about R-Comps in Stock is one thing... but complaining about them in Street Prepared and Street Mod is ... confusing. In a class where heavily modified AWD Evos play, running an E30 will be difficult regardless of your tires.

My region ran/runs a SP/SM street tire PAX class. A couple of the M3 guys ran there for awhile until they went back to STU for more competition... although they were still often beat by the boost buggies (Evo & STI).

If the stars align and somehow my E30 gets resurrected with a S52, I'll have no qualms with buying Hoosiers for it because I think it would be more fun. However, I have no delusions about winning against one of the best prepared and co-driven Evo's in the country.

In reply to Ian F/oldsaw:

Ian F said: Complaining about R-Comps in Stock is one thing... but complaining about them in Street Prepared and Street Mod is ... confusing. In a class where heavily modified AWD Evos play, running an E30 will be difficult regardless of your tires.

Yeah, tough row to hoe; but my point is that if we're all driving around every day on equivalent tires, why should we each spend thousands so we can compete on... equivalent tires?

oldsaw said: If you want to win, you're going to have at least equal the efforts of those you want to beat.

What you don't seem to be understanding is that I went that route. But requiring R-Comps for a "street" class is to me like saying "If you want to win this knife fight, you're going to have to bring a gun just like everybody else." And I did. But why the berk are we all spending thousands of dollars on guns when we just want to compare our fighting skills with a comparable level of armament?

I did run R-Comps, and I was competitive. I got what I wanted out of the class except for having to have two sets of tires... No, I never took an outright win in the short span before the E30 was unfortunately totaled, but the point was that I generally finished within the pack of boost buggies, and fairly often toward the front... What I wanted was close, reasonably even competition, and I got that.

If SM were on TW200 (or TW140, or any other actually-streetworthy tire), we would have had the same group of people on the same rough category of tire, having the same level of competition.

My two cents; not worth the zinc they're stamped from.

In reply to ransom:

Um.... we're not all driving around on "equivalent tires". Some people actually buy good, decent tires to drive around on. Other's buy the cheapest (sometimes) round and black thing that might hold air that will be good enough.

In reply to Bobzilla:

Ah, but if you didn't need to buy a set of R-comps, you could have a nice set of TW200s on spiffy wheels for less than the cost of two sets of wheels, a set of R-comps, and a set of round-and-blacks...

That's what I would have done. Instead, as outlined above, I ponied up for R-comps and lived with cheapies on the street because the important part was the race tires, and I couldn't justify two sets of nice tires and wheels...

In reply to Ian F:

Our Street Mod Street tire class was normally the largest class we had locally.....I ran it once at a E36 M3ty no grip for E36 M3 venue and finished in the middle of the class with a '91 ford taurus...... Many lulz were had.

Will wrote: If newbies were quitting because of a perceived need for R-comps, why didn't your region just create your own street-tire class before now?

Swank Force One wrote: Many regions did just that, and they turned out to be their biggest classes at every event for 2-4 years running. So I view this as a logical conclusion.

^^^^^^ Exactly. Philly Region added 3 Road Tire classes (RWD, FWD, AWD) with your pax index being what open class you would have otherwise run in.

So then suddenly there were a bunch of extra classes in an organization that already had a bewildering (to newcomers, definitely) array of classes. Plus, also, it was kind of a "marriage / civil union" thing. It just wasn't the same as running in an actual class.

ransom wrote: In reply to Ian F/oldsaw:

Ian F said: Complaining about R-Comps in Stock is one thing... but complaining about them in Street Prepared and Street Mod is ... confusing. In a class where heavily modified AWD Evos play, running an E30 will be difficult regardless of your tires.

Yeah, tough row to hoe; but my point is that if we're all driving around every day on equivalent tires, why should we each spend thousands so we can compete on... equivalent tires?

oldsaw said: If you want to win, you're going to have at least equal the efforts of those you want to beat.

What you don't seem to be understanding is that I went that route. But requiring R-Comps for a "street" class is to me like saying "If you want to win this knife fight, you're going to have to bring a gun just like everybody else." And I did. But why the berk are we all spending thousands of dollars on guns when we just want to compare our fighting skills with a comparable level of armament? I *did* run R-Comps, and I *was* competitive. I got what I wanted out of the class **except for having to have two sets of tires**... No, I never took an outright win in the short span before the E30 was unfortunately totaled, but the point was that I generally finished within the pack of boost buggies, and fairly often toward the front... What I wanted was close, reasonably even competition, and I got that. If SM were on TW200 (or TW140, or any other actually-streetworthy tire), we would have had the same group of people on the same rough category of tire, having the same level of competition. My two cents; not worth the zinc they're stamped from.

Your arguments aren't falling on deaf ears. However, the confusing nature of your position leads me to be increasingly indifferent.

Initially, the topic was about removing r-comps from Stock. Now, it seems as if you're suggesting going so far as to eliminate them from SM. Just how far do want to go with this? Are Prepared and Modified the next targets for your crusade against sticky tires?

Yes, you invested a lot of time, money and emotion and had some success. Then, things changed and you made the adjustments that made sense to you. That's the right way to go about things. But, what is "right" for you may not be what is "right" for everyone else.

In reply to oldsaw:

Yeah... I'm confused... I'm drawn to prepping a car for Street Prepared because of R-Comps... not in spite of them. Swapping tires at an event is a positive to me, not a negative. That way I don't have to give a crap about what tires I keep on the car during normal driving or have a set of "winter tires" for when the car gets stuffed into the back-yard for the winter.

racerdave600 wrote: My point is, the tread wear number is just a number.

This is NOT true.

Here is the NHTSA test procedure for determination of the numbers.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Vehicle%20Safety/Test%20Procedures/Associated%20Files/TP-UTQG-W-01.pdf

Granted, like everything NHTSA does, the manufacturer SELF CERTIFIES that the tires meet the standard. If the tires are later tested by NHTSA and shown to NOT meet the standard, they are recalled.

The real answer is for SCCA to ACTUALLY USE THE EXCLUSION LIST. However, this is understandably a slippery slope. (does the tire represent the advances of the next coming generation of technology that all will get to, or a "cheater" variant) The 195 R1R probably should have been on the exclusion list.

That all said, through testing, most classes will arrive at one tire that almost everyone runs. The results ring fairly true to this. Someone does the testing and almost everyone else follows.

If a really rare, or expensive tire ends up dominant, then a failure to use the mechanism SCCA built in (exclusion list) then it really is detrimental to the sport.

I see it as really about barriers to being a bare minimum of competitive. Rcomps represented a LARGE upkeep expense that was a requirement to be marginally competitive. Arguments about using castoffs are null, not everyone can find those deals. Furthermore, a specialized expense that was not usable for just about anything BUT AX (or trackdays, again, not really a valid point).

The thing is that taking R's out of the picture makes more sense. Some people will always fight change. Yeah, the manufacturer self-cert represents a barrier, but there are mechanisms in place to overcome it.

I keep trying to pare down what I think is where we're at cross purposes...

Ian, am I correct in thinking that your SM car basically gets no use outside events?

Am I crazy for thinking that the Street classes should be predicated on a car whose owner wants to enjoy it fully all the time, and not just at events?

I know you guys aren't nuts; and I don't think I am. I think there must be a difference in fundamental assumptions.

I honestly could care less what they do in stock or street or whatever but I don't think Street Prepared should be forced to use non-R-comps. That is the point of ST.

ransom wrote: Ian, am I correct in thinking that your SM car basically gets no use outside events?

If I go the route of rebuilding the TDI for FSP, no - the car will be my main daily driver. However, I've gotten to the point where I get no extra enjoyment for having super-sticky street tires on a car I drive over 30,000 miles a year. So even if I did build the car for TW200 tires (which I may initially for learning purposes) those tires would still only be used for autocross.

The E30 was initially run in STX, but even then, it was purchased primarily for autocross with every other use secondary. Even as a weekend toy, I have other cars that are more fun for me (GT6 & Mini). Even the E30 was only bought because SWMBO nixed me running our MINI (which was run in HS & RTF with plans to prep it for STF).

93EXCivic wrote: I honestly could care less what they do in stock or street or whatever but I don't think Street Prepared should be forced to use non-R-comps. That is the point of ST.

This... in a nutshell...

93EXCivic wrote: I honestly could care less what they do in stock or street or whatever but I don't think Street Prepared should be forced to use non-R-comps. That is the point of ST.

Your right. I view it as SP is the new Stock. If you want to run purple crack you build SP->P->Mod. SP is now the gateway to "slicks". The analog is that they should now make 3 "Street" classes. Street->ST->SM Street, Street Touring, Street Mod. Rename Street Prepared to SoloPrepared to avoid confusion. Require Street Mod to run on 140TW and above. Create a ST class for existing superstock cars to play in. Adjust SP to not allow so much horseE36 M3 that generates a bit more competition. Reduce it back to Suspension/Rims open, Update backdate within options packages but not engine swaps.

nocones wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: I honestly could care less what they do in stock or street or whatever but I don't think Street Prepared should be forced to use non-R-comps. That is the point of ST.

Your right. I view it as SP is the new Stock. If you want to run purple crack you build SP->P->Mod. SP is now the gateway to "slicks". The analog is that they should now make 3 "Street" classes. Street->ST->SM Street, Street Touring, Street Mod. Rename Street Prepared to SoloPrepared to avoid confusion. Require Street Mod to run on 140TW and above. Create a ST class for existing superstock cars to play in. Adjust SP to not allow so much horseE36 M3 that generates a bit more competition. Reduce it back to Suspension/Rims open, Update backdate within options packages but not engine swaps.

That makes way too much sense for the SCDCA to use, but it's a really, really good idea.

In reply to nocones:

Holy BERK that's a lot of Street classes... and you guys bitch about how confusing the rules are NOW...

What's the difference between the current ST and SP, then? ...unless you were being sarcastic...

Right now, my only complaint with the SP rules is cars with superchargers should be allowed pulley size changes to be in line with boost increase allowances for turbo cars.

Javelin wrote: That makes *way* too much sense for the SCDCA to use, but it's a really, really good idea.

I disagree. It makes ZERO sense.

In reply to Ian F:

Now that I can agree with.....both points oddly enough.

The way I see it, SCCA's system should always have been in level of modifications allowed....Stock>ST>SP>SM>P>M. Don't berkeley with that current scale, and don't screw with the current classing(as that would create more uproar than the current purple crackheads.