Met Council Rules Meeting

[SaturnRaycer]

December is slowly sneaking up on us. Early December is when the "privileged few" make up the rules and screw everybody. Let me clarify that last sentence.

The Rules Meeting is open to every member of every club that belongs to the Met Council. In the past, attendance has been pretty thin - normally about 10 people. Those attending the meeting propose rules changes and verbally support their positions to the other attendees. In many cases these changes revise wording, expand or narrow the scope of an existing rule. Everyone who attends votes on the proposed rule changes. The ones that pass are sent to each member club for ratification.

Beginning in January each club votes on the proposed rule changes. The club may vote to accept or reject each proposed change, but they can't modify the proposed change. last year 5 changes were proposed. In the end, three passed and became part of the rules.

For the most part, Met Council rules follow the SCCA Solo Rules. There are actually two parts to the book. The first deals with the conduct of the event, the second is classification of vehicles. Other than correcting a typo, the basic rules haven't changed in several years. Now that we understand the process, lets start the proposals.

Here is my proposal: Accept the SCCA rules and classes from the 2004 Solo book lock, stock and barrel. It will add the category STX, eliminate the SC1/2 classes and clear out the duplication of stock and stock street tire classes. It also adds a number of modified classes (currently we recognize A Mod and B Mod).

Now for the logic.

Pax indexes were developed to level the playing field between cars in stock and street prepared who were running "R" compound tires vs cars in those classes who were running true street tires. This logic applies to the SC1/SC2 classes as well as the stock street tire classes (AST thru HST).

In the past, we've had few competitors in modified classes that weren't either B-Mod (essentially a Corvette class) or A-mod that covered the Formula SAE and Legends cars. I believe that it's extremely unfair to follow this old logic because there are some cars that are potentially competitive, but not if a Corvette is in the same class. The mod classes allow great creativity and allow similar vehicles (weight, power, handling capabilities) to compete against each other.

Last but not least, adopting the SCCA book in its entirety allows us to have a seamless co-sanctioned event where competitors can chase SCCA points AND Met Council points.

[Dave Kral]

Originally posted by SaturnRaycer


Pax indexes were developed to level the playing field between cars in stock and street prepared who were running "R" compound tires vs cars in those classes who were running true street tires. This logic applies to the SC1/SC2 classes as well as the stock street tire classes (AST thru HST).




Are you sure about that statement, Rex? The Pax numbers that have been posted with the MOWOG results are the same for the stock street tire (AST - HST) as those for stock cars on "R" compound (AS - HS). I thought SCCA came up with the Pax numbers as a means of evaluating drivers across the spectrum of stock, street prepared, prepared and modified classes. Is there another set of Pax numbers that we haven't seen posted here?

I can see the advantage of reducing the number of classes as far as minimizing some confusion among the newer people in stock classes about what class they should write on the entry form. Phil Sundberg can talk about any added stress on the trophy guy.
My concern with eliminating the stock street tire classes is that they offer a place for the "run-what-ya-brung" people to participate without having to feel they need an extra set of wheels and tires to be competitive. They are obviously popular classes since almost a third of the cars (111 out of 389 through MOWOG 5.5) run in them.

Dave

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by SaturnRaycer
Here is my proposal: Accept the SCCA rules and classes from the 2004 Solo book lock, stock and barrel. It will add the category STX, eliminate the SC1/2 classes and clear out the duplication of stock and stock street tire classes. It also adds a number of modified classes (currently we recognize A Mod and B Mod).......


Yes, yes! This is almost exactly what I was going to propose. Since we're already following the SCCA rules so closely, it seems logical to take the next step and simply adopt the rulebook, versus re-writing it every year. This will save a lot of time & effort, and will take advantage of all the SCCA staff & member resources dedicated to ongoing rules development. This move would also be of benefit to MAC members who wish to enter other regional/national events, as they'll be operating under the same rules everywhere.

I propose we retain an indexed Street Tire class, in addition to STS/STX. The advantage of having an indexed Street Tire Class is that it really doesn't matter what car/mods you have - you still have a place to play.

Here's an excellent example of what I have in mind. The Fairfield County Sports Car Club (a non-SCCA club that seems very similar to MAC) uses the SCCA rulebook, with a small set of Supplemental Rules, which add an indexed Street Tire class and a few other items unique to their particular club. (just like we would likely want to do)
http://www.fcscc.com/2003rules.htm

-Steve

[Drew]

I'd also support the idea of simply adopting the SCCA rules and classes. Consistency with the SCCA rules that are more universally used may result additional interesting entries at our events. Also, indexed street tire classes are a good way to provide for those who want to run their stock cars with street tires. Milwaukee has lots of cars running on street tires. They use front wheel drive and rear wheel drive indexed street tire classes.

[phile]

>B-Mod (essentially a Corvette class)

Huh? Corvette class? The most active member in the Met Council B-Mod class drives a Caldwell Formula Vee. Other contenders include a Formula Ford. Jim McKamey's old (Solo2) A-Mod car would be legal in this class. Where is the Corvette that is going to keep up with them?

Phil Ethier

[MNbiker]

Rex,

As stated above, I'm in agreement with your proposal. As stated by others, your supporting statements contain at least a couple errors.

Peace!

-Steve

[SalahK]

I would also prefer to adopt the SCCA rules in their entirety with the exclusion of "ladies classes" and the inclusion of a single, paxed class for SST through HST. This is how MAC had it setup back in 1999 when I first started autocrossing. The class usually had 30+ entrants and the top 1/3 got trophies based on the standard PAX index.

Look at the bright side...at least we don't have to deal with a hoard of redundand "ladies" classes. :oneeye:

[StevenMosley]

It is great to see that people are taking interest in this. I'm so glad that Rex brought this up.

Last year MAC voted to eliminate Si and Stock Street Tire classes. The Met Council voted against both and neither changed. So I want to warn you that if we do make
vote for these changes at this meeting it doesn't mean anything unless we can sell the Met Council members on it and get the vote in our favor. Who wants to be our Sales guy/gal?

I think we should follow SCCA closely, but like Salah said exclude Ladies classes and not like what Salah, throw all of the stock R-compound cars into PAX class. If you look at the numbers we usually have a harder time getting stock R-compound classes then street tire classes. Also to replace Si we could keep the class called "X". X doesn't post times like Si, but it doesn't give out trophies or force you to run in another class if you don't feel the desire.

[DCM]

I have in the past brought up, why not ladies classes?
Well the answer is, or has been,
'we don't want to appear disciminatory' or some such sillynes. [spelling]
But, the rest of the country and SCCA have these classes.
Maybe that's why they have more of the fairer sex participation?
Nikki, or Tammy, or anyother gal, why not jump in here and give us your take on this?

Hmmm?
Dwight

[SalahK]

Originally posted by DCM


I have in the past brought up, why not ladies classes?
Well the answer is, or has been,
'we don't want to appear disciminatory' or some such sillynes. [spelling]
But, the rest of the country and SCCA have these classes.
Maybe that's why they have more of the fairer sex participation?
Nikki, or Tammy, or anyother gal, why not jump in here and give us your take on this?

Hmmm?
Dwight

There are two strong arguements against having ladies classes at a club like MAC. The first arguement is philosophical and the second, practical.

Philosophical:
Unlike in tennis, there is no proof that men have a genetic advantage when it comes to driving a car. Although the Williams sisters might make the same arguement for Tennis as well ;)

Practical:
Who wants to see a bunch of classes with one, MAYBE two participants each. When was the last time three women (the minimum requirement for a single class) competed within a single class at MAC?

[SaturnRaycer]

I stand corrected on my statement about B-Mod being a "Corvette Class" I was confusing it with B Prepared.

[SalahK]

Originally posted by StevenMosley


I think we should follow SCCA closely, but like Salah said exclude Ladies classes and not like what Salah, throw all of the stock R-compound cars into PAX class. If you look at the numbers we usually have a harder time getting stock R-compound classes then street tire classes.


Actually, I would like to see the addition of a PAX-based points race that allows ALL drivers to compete for year-end championship honors. A lot of big AutoX clubs around the country have adopted such a system.

[MattD]

Well, I don't know if Nikki is avoiding this, or just hasn't seen it...but it seems she doesn't really care for "ladies' class". She won the ladies' class in La Crosse a while back, and didn't really even want to recognize the win. It didn't matter to her. It's 'driver' against 'driver'. Ditch ladies'!

And we all know the Type-R can kick the SRT-4's butt any day, so the ladies' class is irrelevant. :D

-BiasedMatt

[StevenMosley]

Originally posted by SalahK
Actually, I would like to see the addition of a PAX-based points race that allows ALL drivers to compete for year-end championship honors. A lot of big AutoX clubs around the country have adopted such a system.

I think this would be a good idea too. We don't even have to work through the Met Council on this. It would not be a class, but just a points system.

[fitz]

Originally posted by StevenMosley


I think we should follow SCCA closely, but like Salah said exclude Ladies classes and not like what Salah, throw all of the stock R-compound cars into PAX class. If you look at the numbers we usually have a harder time getting stock R-compound classes then street tire classes.


I think that's a hell of an idea.

Two separate groups of Stock classes isn't really helping the sport. It just results in smaller classes which are LESS FUN to compete in. Heck, when I started in this sport 12 years ago I was running in DSP when it wasn't unusual to get 14 entries in that class. Now I look at the entry list to see if ANYONE is going to be running in my class.

The alternatives are to:

1. Throw out the tire distinctions - Stock is Stock.
2. PAX the Stock Street Tire classes like we used to.
3. PAX the Stock sticky tire classes which tend to see less turn out anyway.

1 and 3 seem to make the most sense. 1 because SCCA doesn't distinguish between Street and sticky tires so why should we? Anyone who is REALLY SERIOUS about being competitive will do whatever it takes to win, and in Stock that means tires, whether they are the most ultra-sticky if impractical Street Tires or stickies. So what difference does it make? I run in Stock Street Tire but that's ONLY because it allows me to be cheap and lazy and not have to run out immediately to buy new tires to be competitive. If I got put in with other cars running stickies though I wouldn't complain. I know what I need to do if I need to be really competitive.

3 makes sense because people who are investing in a special set of tires JUST FOR AUTOCROSS are likely to be more serious about being competitive anyway. It's like a de-facto Pro class. That way we can still coddle all the folks like me who aren't running sticky tires but want a chance to trophy.

As for ladies classes, as was said before, we don't have enough female entries to justify them and they are not needed as female drivers can be every bit as fast as male.

[1/2mv^2]

I would just like to advocate any change that incorporates SM2 as a class!

Recognizing SM and not SM2 was silly, and I'm just darn sick of running against the open wheel cars.

So, if following SCCA rules gets us SM2, then I vote for it!

I also like the 1 big PAX points competition.

[kit]

I also concur with what Ed said, adopt SM2, in short adopt SCCA with all the tiny adjustments everyone else mentioned.

I think there are more than just two of us who can duke it out at SM2 (more miata FI drivers!!) rather than just trying to close the x sec leads the open wheel cars put on us. The advantage i can see is a chance to throphy plus to get PAXed on your actual class.

[StevenMosley]

I plan to run in SM2. (can you have race rubber in this class?)

Jeremy and Tim could run in this class too. It could be a MR2
vs Miata battle.

:gunnin:

[kit]

Originally posted by StevenMosley


I plan to run in SM2. (can you have race rubber in this class?)

Jeremy and Tim could run in this class too. It could be a MR2
vs Miata battle.

:gunnin:

yup you can have race rubber... being cheap as i am right now i think i will be competing on Azenis next year though which will still be a huge improvement over my current tires.

Modified Z06s can run on this class also and a bunch more 2 seaters who have modified the heck out of their cars.

[Chin]

Kit, are you sure you can have race rubber in SM2? I remember an argument, locally, around SM and them allowing race rubber which was against SCCA rules. Maybe I am not remembering correctly...

Christian

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by Chin
Kit, are you sure you can have race rubber in SM2? I remember an argument, locally, around SM and them allowing race rubber which was against SCCA rules. Maybe I am not remembering correctly...

Christian

DOT (r-compound) race tires are approved for SM/SM-2, the same as for Stock & SP. Racing Slicks are not.

[StevenMosley]

Chin,

I was thinking of the same issue a few years back. I was thinking it was
following the STS/STX plan, but allowing more mods, but Steve knows the
rule book pretty well.

All,

Does an bigger intercooler move me into SM2 from ASP or do I have to play with boost first?

Also I still don't understand why the Met Council board has last say on any rule changes we decide for MAC? Is there something I am miss understanding?


Steven

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by StevenMosley
Does an bigger intercooler move me into SM2 from ASP or do I have to play with boost first?

Nope - intercoolers may be modifed to your heart's content in SP. One note - you can't add a water sprayer in SP, unless your car came with it stock(ex. STi & Evo 8). Boost may not be modified.

Some other items you can upgrade in SP - ditch the cat(s), ditch the A/C, water injection, race seats, fender flares and/or cutouts for big wheels/tires, aftermarket clutch, limited slip, alternate engine control (as long as it doesn't touch boost). Fun, Fun, Fun! :dancin:



Originally posted by StevenMosley
Also I still don't understand why the Met Council board has last say on any rule changes we decide for MAC? Is there something I am miss understanding?

Seems kinda goofy to me as well......:sarc

[DCM]

Steve, the met council doesn't have the last say on rules for MAC.
We is them!

The Met-council rules committee, is made up of anyone attending the rules meeting.
ANYONE!
And those rule changes are only a proposal, that will be presented to the vatious clubs at the annual
Met-Council party.
Then it goes back to each individual club for ratification, or rejection.
That's why it's important to attend these meetings.
I understand if you are a loooong way from the meeting, work night's, can't get a babysitter, etc.
Been there, done that!
Thank you Lord, they are all raised and autoxing themselves.
Oops!
Was that a public prayer?
Safety Fast
DCM
'77 MGB, '59 Bugeye, '97 S10, '97 Camry, '01 Lancer, '94 Miata, several Bugeye body shells and enough to build several cars.

:flame:

[washburn]

What Dwight implied, but didn't come right out and say, is that if we are going to maintain continuity across all the clubs that participate in the Met Council, the same rule set must apply to all the member clubs. Can't have a MC Series if the rules are all different for each club. This may be why there are existing concessions to the SCCA rules.

I personally don't have a problem with a slightly different rules set. If you are serious enough to be travelling to other big time SCCA events, you will most likely make sure you comply to the more strict interpretation according to the SCCA book. If you get thrown into a faster MC class, that's part of the comprimise.

By the same token, I wouldn't mind seeing a wholesale adoption of the SCCA rules with the understanding that we can still create classes as we wish. This becomes a function of convincing the Met Council member clubs that this rule set will not hurt their club. My selling point is that it allows future growth potential becuase you can attract entrants that are already SCCA legal, but you can STILL creat a bunch of Marque specific classes for your club if you want to.

These are some of the things that need to be considered when proposing new rules, not just what MAC wants. Like it or not, it IS a political process since we have a group of clubs, all with their own interests primarily in mind. This is one reason some of last year's proposals did not float. I hope that whatever rule changes are proposed this year are researched and "litmus tested" a little better prior to final wording them.

Everyone who has offered a tangible comment in this thread on proposed rule changes should be at the meeting, but remember that it isn't always easy, someone *will* try to tear it apart later, and that some forethought is always wise. Me? I am kind of neutral and can be convinced either way with a well worded rule change, so I am not going to the meeting. (Plus it's too far to drive!) ;)

[StevenMosley]

Originally posted by DCM


Steve, the met council doesn't have the last say on rules for MAC.
We is them!

The Met-council rules committee, is made up of anyone attending the rules meeting.
ANYONE!
And those rule changes are only a proposal, that will be presented to the vatious clubs at the annual
Met-Council party.
Then it goes back to each individual club for ratification, or rejection.
That's why it's important to attend these meetings.
I understand if you are a loooong way from the meeting, work night's, can't get a babysitter, etc.
Been there, done that!
Thank you Lord, they are all raised and autoxing themselves.
Oops!
Was that a public prayer?
Safety Fast
DCM
'77 MGB, '59 Bugeye, '97 S10, '97 Camry, '01 Lancer, '94 Miata, several Bugeye body shells and enough to build several cars.

:flame:

Thanks for the refresher. I forgot how it all worked from last year.

I will try and make it to the Rules meeting, but our monthly meetings are tough for
me to make. Hell I was Canuckville for the last meeting. At least I got to see an Acura EL. (looks like a Civic EX with leather, wheels, and Acura badges)

[StevenMosley]

Now that the season is over we need to really start thinking about this.

So where were we?

[SaturnRaycer]

There have been a lot of good ideas floated in the past few weeks. If you think something should change, write it down and present it at the rules meeting. The more clearly you communicate your ideas, the better chance it will make it as a proposed rule change.

Some things to remember: a. Our rules are based on SCCA rules. b. We need continuity across the various clubs - not every club will agree with your proposal. c. Review the thread of posts - if you and someone else are really close on an idea, get together and combine the best of them into one proposal.

The rules meeting is scheduled for Sunday 14 December 2003 at my house in St Paul.

I'm also looking for someone to take on the role of Met Council Rules chair for next year.

Rex Schultrich
2003 Met Council Rules Chair.

[fitz]

Originally posted by StevenMosley

Also I still don't understand why the Met Council board has last say on any rule changes we decide for MAC? Is there something I am miss understanding?


Steven


That's because MAC has, for many years chosen to adopt the Metropolitan Council of Sports Car Clubs autocross rules and car classings for... well for a really long time now. MAC is of course a long-time member of Met Council and as such may propose any changes to the rules that it likes, either by having a chosen representative attend the rules meeting or having individual members attend the meeting (or both).

Rules changes recommended by all present at the Met Council Rules Committee meeting are then voted on by all the member clubs of the Met Council. Thus, a rule change championed by one organization may not be adopted by all.

[phile]

Originally posted by fitz



Originally posted by StevenMosley

Also I still don't understand why the Met Council board has last say on any rule changes we decide for MAC? Is there something I am miss understanding?


Steven


That's because MAC has, for many years chosen to adopt the Metropolitan Council of Sports Car Clubs autocross rules and car classings for... well for a really long time now.

It was already that way when I started autocrossing in 1968. This is before the existence of Solo2. The part of our club which was in existence then was called "The Upper Midwest BMC Club", and was known as an autocross (or "gymkhana") club even then.

[housecat]

The ladies class was introduced as an effort to get more people involved in autox (i.e. the wives of the mostly male autox population). So basically the ladies class is a novice class-- in fact the trophies are figured the same way the trophies in novice class are figured, with the exception that you can trophy in ladies class more than once.

So what is the point in having TWO novice classes? And is it really fair to the ladies that are novices to be competing against ladies that are experienced autox-ers? And doesn't "ladies class" sound really stupid?

The all inclusive SI class works out just fine as a novice class and (if I may speak for Shannon, Tammy, Gen, and myself) we are doing just fine competing in our cars' respective classes against both men and women.

my $0.02

or maybe that was more like $0.75

oh well,

nikki:D

[DCM]

OK Nikki, then that means you would prefer NO LADIES CLASS, right?

But if it would bring in more of the 'fairer sex' wouldn't that be good?

SCCA has those classes.
If we adopt more thoroughly their rules. Then.........
DCM

[weidnerpaul]

If we get those rules knowing some of the MAC guys, someone will dress up as a "Redskins Hogette" to get a trophy --- we might need DNA testing before we award trophies...

[StevenMosley]

Originally posted by weidnerpaul


If we get those rules knowing some of the MAC guys, someone will dress up as a "Redskins Hogette" to get a trophy --- we might need DNA testing before we award trophies...

Paul,

They would have to beat Nikki first though, but at least you are honest with your
intentions.

Steven

[MNbiker]

Rex & crew,

I'd be happy to draft a formal recommendation to adopt the SCCA rulebook, along with a short set of Supplemental rules (I used to make a living as a technical writer). I've gleaned the following potential Supplemental Rules from this thread:

-Add PAXed Street Tire Class(es). I suggest we have two - FWD & RWD/AWD.
-No Ladies Classes
-Add SI/Novice Class
-Add Season Points Series rules
-Expand on SCCA class bumping language to effectively reduce the total number of classes by combining classes with less than 3 (or some other number?) participants
-Add a catch-all allowing Event Masters to waive certain SCCA rules, at their discretion. We probably need a rule like this to avoid problems with some of the pickier SCCA rules.

These Supplemental Rules could be encompassed in no more than 1-2 pages.

Anything else?

-Steve

[miata#37]

Steve,
Do I presume correctly that, under your proposal, those people currently running in SC1/SC2 could run in F or R/AWD under their respective Street Prepared pax? Just checking before we vote someones class out of existance...

-Chris

[Jon Kotek]

steve,

Write it up in word and I will post it up on the site for people to view/comment on

Jon

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by miata#37
Steve,
Do I presume correctly that, under your proposal, those people currently running in SC1/SC2 could run in F or R/AWD under their respective Street Prepared pax? Just checking before we vote someones class out of existance...

-Chris

Excellent question. The short answer to your question is that yes, current SC1/SC2 entrants would likely run in the PAXed Street Tire classes. In fact, I anticipate the SC1 folks would end up being the core of a RWD/AWD Street Tire class, along with the Stock Street Tire Miatas. It looks like this would be a really fun class, with 8-10 entrants per event.

In analyzing registrations for the season, we averaged a bit under 4 entrants per event in SC1, consisting of RX7, MR2, 914 & Miata. We had zero (0) entrants in SC2 for the entire season.

The current SC1/SC2 rules are essentially Street Prepared on street tires.

My biggest concern with only two PAXed Street Tire Classes is that the FWD class would be pretty large, if you combine the entrants we've been getting in DST/GST/HST. This may not be a big deal, as some drivers will undoubtedly opt to run in Stock, rather than run in a large indexed Street Tire class. Also, a lot of the DS/GS cars are naturals for STX, so this would spread the numbers further.

-Steve

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by Jon Kotek
steve,

Write it up in word and I will post it up on the site for people to view/comment on

Jon



I'll wait a week or so for a few more comments/suggestions, then write something up.

-Steve

[weidnerpaul]

Steven

They would have to beat Nikki first though, but at least you are honest with your intentions.
And I figured you'd be the one doing it...
Paul

[StevenMosley]

Originally posted by weidnerpaul


Steven

They would have to beat Nikki first though, but at least you are honest with your intentions.
And I figured you'd be the one doing it...
Paul

Mr. Mini,

Don't make me start a battle of words that I can't win. At least
my Beetle has a Turbo.

Steven

[weidnerpaul]

Steven,
Well My car has a Supercharger!!!!
And according to Salah --- handles better
So There,
Steven

[StevenMosley]

Super what? Super lag!!!! I have Turboium.

Get some displacement and an extra valve per cylinder. Then maybe
you can make less horseypower like my Beetle. German/Mexican cars
are way better then German/British cars.

Your car does handle better, but my car breaks more.


As for rules:
I'm all for adopting SCCA classes and adding some of our own.

1. Keep the Street Tire Stock classes since a large number of our drivers run in this class, I know Mil does it like Steve is suggesting, but we are different and have a different audience. Take Mowog 7 as a sample.
-32 stock street tire cars
-6 stock r-compound cars

It doesn't make sense to have 2 street tires classes and 8 r-compound stock classes for in this case 6 cars, lets use the normal SCCA stock classing, but only when we have the numbers.

2. Change the street tire definition for stock classes. Bump the wear rating number to 225 or a higher number. This will keep out all of the Falken Azenis and Kuhmo MX guys out of stock, these tires are good enough to be competitive in an r-compund class, and some people don't even run them on the street.

3. If there are not 3 race tire stock cars in a class they should be bumped into
a stock race rubber class and paxed, if less then 5 total will all be thrown together. (even though I hate paxing)

4. No ladies classes, Niki will sue us if we do and I don't want to see guys dressed
in drag.

5. Get rid of Si, and keep X. This will give us a real no pressure class, and save
some tape. (x's are a lot easier to make then S's)


:argue:

[SaturnRaycer]

Those of you who attended last year's rules meeting recall that SC1/SC2 was created to mirror STS for 2 seat cars which are specifically eliminated from STS. SM is a class under SCCA Solo Rules that allows more modifications than STS. SM2 is a class designed for 2 seat cars.

Steve, you offered to write up a proposal that would capture most of the changes MAC wants as supplemental to the SCCA Rules book. Fire up that pen!

Regarding Ladies Classes. SCCA has them, but they appear to be parallel to the regular classes. The idea is more one of having female drivers to compete against female drivers than a "novice" class. Unlike many women's sports, the classing and rules are the same for men and women.

SI Class exists in both sets of rules (ours and SCCA). We don't need something extra there.

I guess I still fail to see why we need a separate set of street tire classes beyond what SCCA offers. As many have said, if you are determined to be competitive at a national level, you'll do what is necessary - including finding the $$ for sticky tires and wheels.

[phile]

>SI Class exists in both sets of rules (ours and SCCA).

Really? SCCA stole Randy's class idea? I don't think so.

SI was a brilliant idea. It works for so many different reasons.

Someone commented we should get rid of SI to save on tape. In the original SI rules, the class did not have to be on the car for SI, only the number. The idea was that the more-easily we could get new folks in a car and running, the better. We can harp on them to get decent class letters for their cars later!

[jberman]

As far as putting "SI" on the side of SI cars with tape, with our timing system as long as everybody has a unique number, we don't need the actual class on the car to accurately enter the car into the computer.

[Dave Kral]

Originally posted by MNbiker

-Add a catch-all allowing Event Masters to waive certain SCCA rules, at their discretion. We probably need a rule like this to avoid problems with some of the pickier SCCA rules.

-Steve


I thought Phil E would jump down your throat on this one, but since he didn't, I'll chime in -

No how, no way!! If people come to an event wondering which rules the EM will eliminate that day it will be a receipe for chaos.

I'm also not a big fan of the PAX system for reasons already expressed in other threads. The PAX numbers are developed by the SCCA on events using big, wide open courses. I don't think they translate well to the tight courses we're usually dealing with (e.g. Keith B as one of the slowest drivers around according to PAX).

Dave

[housecat]

no ladies class.

The ladies class is not similar to the regular classes because it does not put the car in a class, it puts the driver in a class (like novice). I also don't think it would bring in more of "the fairer sex" because the ladies class feels cheap ... like me competing is some kind of novelty ... like women can compete in their own little class, but should really be prevented from fully competing with the men... it kinda feels like a kid's class...

does this make sense?

If you want more women to compete, invite them.

[weidnerpaul]

Rex,

I guess I still fail to see why we need a separate set of street tire classes beyond what SCCA offers. As many have said, if you are determined to be competitive at a national level, you'll do what is necessary - including finding the $$ for sticky tires and wheels.

Some of us want to be competetive in our cars on a LOCAL level (we are a local club), there were 9 cars in GST at the last MOWOG with .053 btween the first and third place and .288 between the first and fifth place --- great close competition and fun, all of these would have been 1.50 sec plus behind the sticky tyred car that won in GS (three cars in class). If its about the best driver in the class getting an award, then having a street tyre class keeps the tyres out of it so awards are due more to skill than equipment (this said by the non trophy winning 3rd place GST driver).
Paul

[DCM]

Nikki, I think the original intent of ladies classes, was to prevent the women from being intimidated.
You certainly ARE NOT!
And that's very good.
And we have invited them. Over and over, a lady will be with her partner, who is competing, encouraged to run, but declines for fear of being laughed at or derided.
Fear of failure. I personally will tell them the stories of all my, shall we say, shortcomings.
Try to put them at ease, and encourage them to participate.

But, in this region, most prefer not to add 'Ladies classes'.

Now that yourself and a few other's have overcome this barrier, the best thing to do is have you be the 'Ambassador' for the ladies. Get them to participate, tell them they will be better drivers on the road, they can avoid accidents, etc.
That's why we do this sport.
Well OK, I like to make my engine roar too, and driving flat out even for just a few seconds is a hoot.
But really, it does improve your regular driving skills. I've heard many stories from lot's of people how they have avoided accidents, etc.
My nickel,
Dwight

[washburn]

Originally posted by DCM


Nikki, I think the original intent of ladies classes, was to prevent the women from being intimidated.
You certainly ARE NOT!.......

Dwight

I will also add that when a married team has a co-driver, there are rules preventing a 3 driver car. This allows a huusband/wife team to also run a co-driver since Open and Ladies Classes always run in different heats. This is all National stuff of course, but it's another reason why it's there.

I know many female competitors at the National level. I highly respect those that compete in Open class. (Some doing extremely well regardless of anything) I watched Shauna Maranus win the SCCA National Championship in ASP open class. I respect the other gal's right to run in an L class if it's offered, but I have a soft spot for those that run open.

[StevenMosley]

Originally posted by weidnerpaul
Some of us want to be competetive in our cars on a LOCAL level (we are a local club), there were 9 cars in GST at the last MOWOG with .053 btween the first and third place and .288 between the first and fifth place --- great close competition and fun, all of these would have been 1.50 sec plus behind the sticky tyred car that won in GS (three cars in class). If its about the best driver in the class getting an award, then having a street tyre class keeps the tyres out of it so awards are due more to skill than equipment (this said by the non trophy winning 3rd place GST driver).
Paul

I'm with Paul on this one. The majority of the people that are in our club are weekend warriors and don't have any aspirations to compete at a higher level. If we counted the number of members that went to nationals (2) or a divisional ( <10) we would see how small of a percentage this is.

This being said, I was one that wanted to remove the stock street tire classes last year, but after hearing the rebuff I understand how big of a mistake it would be. The majority of our club runs in these classes. The minority run r-compound. I think we should go with the majority and develop rules to make the r-compound stock class work.

Here are the options I have seen:

1. Make FWD and RWD/AWD stock street tire classes
Pros:
-It gives people a class to run in against other street tire competitors
-Huge classes
Cons:
-Randy’s Yugo could be competing against Nikki’s Type-R or
Bob’s conversion van against Salah’s Type-R.
-A PAX might have to be used (even worse)

2. Keep Stock Street Tire classes
Pros:
-Majority of our members get to continue to run in there class
-Paul on Hoosiers will not be competing against Chuck on snow tires
Cons:
-We would have 8 extra classes
-Someone could get a set of purpose built autocross tires (Falken Azenis, Kuhmo MX’s, or BFG KD’s) and be competing against someone on factory all season rubber.

As for Si, I am under the assumption that it was a no pressure class for beginners. Times will not be posted and if you win you can’t run in this class again. Why would there be a winner in a no pressure class? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose? Do we need a open class? I think so, but I think “Si” needs some tweaks.

[MNbiker]

Excellent discussion & ideas - that's why I didn't want to write something up right away.

It seems like the most challenging area to gain consensus will be how to handle Street Tire classes. Acknowledging that a majority of MAC members currently run on Street Tires, how about this approach?

1. Keep Stock Street Tire classes intact. Combine classes if there are less than 3 entrants in any one class using the SCCA Bumping Order - just like for the other SCCA classes.

2. Replace SC1/SC2 with a single indexed (PAXed) Street Tire class. I believe this is a more comprehensive and fair approach than the current arrangement, as it will allow ANY car with more than stock preparation an opportunity to compete on Street Tires. It's also simpler to write/maintain Supplemental Rules for! Note - STS/STX would be excluded from this class.

As for SI, it seems to be pretty popular/successful in it's current state. Does anyone have specific recommendations about how it could be improved?

-Steve

[StevenMosley]

Originally posted by MNbiker

2. Replace SC1/SC2 with a single indexed (PAXed) Street Tire class. I believe this is a more comprehensive and fair approach than the current arrangement, as it will allow ANY car with more than stock preparation an opportunity to compete on Street Tires. It's also simpler to write/maintain Supplemental Rules for! Note - STS/STX would be excluded from this class.

As for SI, it seems to be pretty popular/successful in it's current state. Does anyone have specific recommendations about how it could be improved?

-Steve

I think Steve is on to something with one SC class. Here is what I found after looking at the current rules for SC1 and SC2.

No forced induction cars can compete in either of these classes. So this eliminates, Audi TT's, RX7 Turbo’s, MR2T’s, Supercharged MR2’s, 300ZX Turbo’s, 944T’s, 911T’s, Lotus Espirt Turbo’s, and countless other 2 seat sport cars that are not NA. It also leaves no non-stock street tire classes for modified STI’s, EVO’s or M3’s. If we plan to keep a class like this for modified cars that are not able to run in STS or STX we should make sure it is a catch all class were Miata’s, CRX’s, EVO’s, STI’s, Z06’s, MR2’s, Viper’s,
and MG’s can play together in harmony.

Sure this is a mixed bunch, but it could become a fun challenging class and would bring together a wide variety of slightly modified sports cars.

The one thing that might have to be modified for this to happen from the STX rules, would be that we would have to increase the tire width limit. I believe the width is limited to 245 and some of these cars come with tires wider then this from the factory.
Maybe we make a rule to limit tire size under or equal to 245, or a section width 20 over stock.

How does this sound to people?

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by StevenMosley
The one thing that might have to be modified for this to happen from the STX rules, would be that we would have to increase the tire width limit. I believe the width is limited to 245 and some of these cars come with tires wider then this from the factory.
Maybe we make a rule to limit tire size under or equal to 245, or a section width 20 over stock.

How does this sound to people?


We really don't need any special rules for tire/wheel width. Simply revert to the applicable SCCA class rules (SP, Mod, Prepared). PAX will equalize for differences between classes. The only Supplemental tire rule we would need is one stating tires must have a minimum treadwear rating of 140 (identical to SCCA ST rules).

-Steve

[StevenMosley]

Originally posted by MNbiker

We really don't need any special rules for tire/wheel width. Simply revert to the applicable SCCA class rules (SP, Mod, Prepared). PAX will equalize for differences between classes. The only Supplemental tire rule we would need is one stating tires must have a minimum treadwear rating of 140 (identical to SCCA ST rules).

-Steve

It must be STS that limits tire width. (7.5 inch wide rims and 225 wide tires)

I am kind of confused now. I'm not sure how a PAXED class would work. I would
personally like to go with RAW times and take my punches as they come.

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by StevenMosley

It must be STS that limits tire width. (7.5 inch wide rims and 225 wide tires)

I kind of confused now. I'm not sure how a PAXED class would work. I would
personally like to go with RAW times and take my punches as they come.

STS (225) and STX (245) both have tire-width limits. I don't know any way (other than PAX) that we could come up with a single class that puts cars with potentially wildly different capabilities on a reasonably equal footing. Otherwise, someone with an overdog car is going to have a huge advantage (turbo Miata in SM2 trim, Lotus 7 clones, etc.)

From a scoring perspective, I'm pretty sure our software can automatically generate results for PAXed classes (I may be wrong on this point). If not, it's a couple minutes worth of calculations.

-Steve

[StevenMosley]

I was thinking the SC class wouldn't allow SM2 type mods and was following the STS
and STX rules, but was created for a new assortment of cars.

[phile]

Originally posted by Dave Kral



Originally posted by MNbiker

-Add a catch-all allowing Event Masters to waive certain SCCA rules, at their discretion. We probably need a rule like this to avoid problems with some of the pickier SCCA rules.

-Steve


I thought Phil E would jump down your throat on this one, but since he didn't, I'll chime in -

No how, no way!! If people come to an event wondering which rules the EM will eliminate that day it will be a receipe for chaos.

I'm also not a big fan of the PAX system for reasons already expressed in other threads. The PAX numbers are developed by the SCCA on events using big, wide open courses. I don't think they translate well to the tight courses we're usually dealing with (e.g. Keith B as one of the slowest drivers around according to PAX).

Dave

No need to chime in. You did fine.

One minor point: SCCA did not invent PAX, nor do they admister it. As far as I know (Washburn can correct me) there is no mention of PAX in SCCA rules at all.

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by Dave Kral
No how, no way!! If people come to an event wondering which rules the EM will eliminate that day it will be a receipe for chaos.

If we adopt the SCCA rulebook, the alternative is to exclude a number of SCCA sections that MAC is simply not prepared to administer. One glaring example - a number of SCCA classes have weight limits. MAC doesn't even own a set of scales!


Originally posted by Dave Kral
I'm also not a big fan of the PAX system for reasons already expressed in other threads. The PAX numbers are developed by the SCCA on events using big, wide open courses. I don't think they translate well to the tight courses we're usually dealing with (e.g. Keith B as one of the slowest drivers around according to PAX).

As stated by Phil, PAX is not an SCCA creation. The most commonly used PAX table is calculated/maintained by the Chicago Region SCCA club. While the PAX numbers aren't perfect for MAC's (current) small lots, they're the best means available to compare the results of drivers in significantly different cars.

For some reason, the issue of PAX seems to be a really hot one with MAC members. Some love it and want PAX-based season series. Some seem to hate it. (For the record, I'm somewhere in the middle - I like it as a means to gauge my progress, versus top local drivers; I hate it because MAC doesn't currently have an STX class, so I get the shaft on indexed time.)

-Steve

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by StevenMosley
I was thinking the SC class wouldn't allow SM2 type mods and was following the STS and STX rules, but was created for a new assortment of cars.


This would be along the lines of the ST2 proposals being kicked around at the SCCA. The biggest problem I see with this approach is that it pretty much excludes Vettes and other high-HP cars. I assume that's how we ended up with SC2 in the first place. I think the biggest problem in coming up with a non-indexed class at this point is that anything we create will be a one-off, until the SCCA gets around to creating ST2 or equivalent(s).

I'll bow to the majority on this issue. Those who have been running SC or would run in a sports car-based street tire class - what do you want?
A) A class defined similar to STS/STX, with a very narrowly defined set of allowable mods.
B) A more broadly defined PAX class, based on the SCCA class for the prep level of your car.
C) Keep the current SC1/SC2 (mod rules based largely on SCCA Street Prepared) with some minor tweaks. Note - while SC1 was reasonably popular, SC2 is obviously not fulfilling it's intended purpose, as we had zero entrants in SC2 this year.

-Steve

[miata#37]

Originally posted by MNbiker



Originally posted by StevenMosley
I was thinking the SC class wouldn't allow SM2 type mods and was following the STS and STX rules, but was created for a new assortment of cars.


This would be along the lines of the ST2 proposals being kicked around at the SCCA. The biggest problem I see with this approach is that it pretty much excludes Vettes and other high-HP cars. I assume that's how we ended up with SC2 in the first place. I think the biggest problem in coming up with a non-indexed class at this point is that anything we create will be a one-off, until the SCCA gets around to creating ST2 or equivalent(s).

I'll bow to the majority on this issue. Those who have been running SC or would run in a sports car-based street tire class - what do you want?
A) A class defined similar to STS/STX, with a very narrowly defined set of allowable mods.
B) A more broadly defined PAX class, based on the SCCA class for the prep level of your car.
C) Keep the current SC1/SC2 (mod rules based largely on SCCA Street Prepared) with some minor tweaks. Note - while SC1 was reasonably popular, SC2 is obviously not fulfilling it's intended purpose, as we had zero entrants in SC2 this year.

-Steve

Perhaps a little history is in order about how SC1/SC2 came into existance. Back before STS/STX came into vogue, we used to have street tire versions of every street prepared class. In an effort to reduce the total number of classes, we voted to eliminate the *SPT and replace them with STS. This was great except it didn't leave a place for the sports car crowd to play. SC1/2 were proposed to be sports car versions of STS (not STX or street prepared) to pick up those people who just had their *SPT class eliminated. SC1 was for the small bore sports cars and SC2 was for the big bore sports cars. The split was based strictly on engine displacement. The rules as they were written are a rough draft at best copied almost (but not quite) word for word from STS.

The first year, nobody ran them or seemed to know that they existed. This year was different. When looking at the class popularity, don't forget to check the other Met-Council clubs. I think SC2 is a little more popular with the corvette clubs. (I haven't looked yet myself though)

The SC rules haven't been tweaked since the classes were created. Some cars are excluded that were never intended to be. eg. any Porsche with 4 seats. Should we keep them around? I think so. The SCCA won't have an ST2 for 2004, but I'm willing to wager that they will by 2005. There's too much interest on the boards for it not to happen. We, and some other clubs, are just ahead of the game by having the classes now. Do we need to look at including the forced induction sports cars and rally inspired AWD cars that are left behind by STS/STX? Absolutely. I'm not opposed to re-writing the rules for SC1/2 or even to renaming them ST2/STX2. It's time to look at the class split too. Maybe we can find a new place to draw the line that will allow some otherwise non-competetive but popular cars to suddenly become the car to have. Normally, I'd agree with just following the SCCA's lead, but let's exersise our "Independent Car Club" freedom on this one and make something good. This is one instance where the SCCA will catch up to us eventually. ;)

[StevenMosley]

Now I think were are getting it.

Great input Chris and Steve.

I think we need to keep SC1 and SC2. We could change the rules on SC2 to fill in the
gap for the Corvettes and non-NA cars. If those cars are not allowed locally, then I see
SC2 will not be used at all.

SC2 could get bumped into SC1 if we don't get enough people.

Maybe we could use factory rated HP as a guideline instead of displacement.

SC1 tops at 225hp and SC2 has a 400hp limit or better yet none.

[SaturnRaycer]

As Chris put it so well, SC1/SC2 were put together using STS rules. The break point is somewhat arbitrary on displacement. We certainly could expand SC2 to cover forced induction cars.

We haven't seen much (if any) SC2 activity at our events because our sites don't give us much room to play. I know this is going off topic, but having several events next year at St Cloud, and allowing room to run might draw some competitors for SC2.

[StevenMosley]

I think going by displacement is a huge mistake though.

Lets say I find a sweet deal on a 3.0 NSX, S2000, or an RX8, and plan to run it in SC1. I wouldn't think it would be to fair to someone in a 160hp Miata or a 140hp MR2. I think it would be a lot wiser to go by stock hp over displacement. No rules are going to be pefect, but I feel this might help.

[miata#37]

Using published HP figures for defining the split has it's drawbacks too. Sometimes those numbers aren't reliable (coughmazdaRX8coughsrt4cough) and they don't account for vehicle weight, tire size, suspension, etc.

How about we just look at the stock class listings and decide on a place to draw the line. BS/CS or CS/ES seem like likely candidates depending on whether or not you want SC1 to be a class for older sports cars or not. This would toss the FS pony cars into SC1, but that might be ok. Remember, it's a class for street tires and tuned suspension; there won't be any massive HP increases for the F-Stockers. Is there a more interesting split?

Eligibility: Any car not eligible or STS or STX.

LSD's: allow any LSD that could be obtained from the factory in that car, that model year.

Tires: Street tires of any diameter and width up to 225 or the stock width, whichever is greater.

Keep the rest of the rules in line with STS.

Thoughts?

[914 Dave]

...published hp figures... fair... S2000 in SC-1... how does this work out with the whopping 95 ponies in the air-cooled antique?

While hard to enforce, it might be cool to make the SC's, 1 and 2, power to weight classes. But how to measure the actual power and weight of each car... Honor system? This would give a place for the forced induction 2 seaters, or newer tech 2 seaters, to go and play in SC-2, while the stockers (old sports cars) could do battle in SC-1.

A nice idea, but pretty un-doable.

Chris may be on to something, using STS as a basis for chassis/wheel/tire mods.

Another rambling thought. While I haven't looked at the SC-1 and street prepaired line for line, but they seem to be pretty similar except for engine, wheel width, and "R" tires. If there really is a need for change, maybe use the street prep rules, and allow any wheel width that will fit under stock fenders for SC-1, but keep stock engine and "street" tires. So once you get your suspension and steering nut well adjusted, moving up a class just means new skins and some motor work if you want. But there is still the question of where to draw the line for 1 and 2, and how to pax them, if at all. How do we draw the line for 1 and 2? Maybe n/a 4 cyls in 1, everything else in 2?

I like the idea of using, word for word if needed, the rules from a "higher" class to define a "lower" class. This makes rules review easier for everyone to understand, from seasoned members, to newbies, to the tech guys who have to try to class new cars to the club. This would also make understanding mods easier, so knowing what will move you class to class would be clearer. Maybe.

[SaturnRaycer]

When we created SC1 and SC2 we took the STS rules straight from the SCCA rulebook. and eliminated the requirement to have seats and seatbelts for 4 passengers. We put in a split at 3.1 liters to separate the small bore cars from the bigger ones. It just happens that most of the folks in SC1 would fall into CSP.

During that same rules meeting, we accepted STS directly from the SCCA book as well as SM.

I believe we should keep SC1 and SC2 as they are, but create a 2 seat class based on the STX rules. Lets compare STX and SM, then create the class using that as a basis.

Trying to design a split based on horsepower or power:weight is opening a can of worms. First, the "stock" horsepower is meaningless because modifications allowed in SC alter that. Unless we require entrants to bring a certified dyno slip and weight certificate there is no way to police it. There is no way we can make the field completely level. SCCA juggles classes periodically to reward or penalize certain cars.

My .75 - again.

[914 Dave]

This being the case, any thoughts on using STS/STX/SM pax factor for the SC classses?

[MNbiker]

The 2004 PAX/RTP Index is now online. The new numbers and archives dating back to 1994 can be found here (http://www.scca-chicago.com/solo/indexes/). Here's the deltas between 2003 and 2004 (negative is "easier"). STS got bumped the most. (Sorry Chris M. - no more "soft" PAX for you! ;) )

SS 0.836 (0.001)
AS 0.828 0.000
BS 0.826 0.001
CS 0.811 (0.003)
DS 0.794 (0.001)
ES 0.804 0.000
FS 0.803 (0.003)
GS 0.781 (0.001)
HS 0.776 (0.002)
ASP 0.848 0.002
BSP 0.839 (0.001)
CSP 0.837 (0.002)
DSP 0.819 0.001
ESP 0.824 (0.002)
FSP 0.813 (0.002)
AP 0.868 (0.003)
BP 0.863 (0.002)
CP 0.854 0.001
DP 0.844 (0.001)
EP 0.861 (0.002)
FP 0.862 0.001
AM 1.000 0.000
BM 0.945 (0.001)
CM 0.913 (0.003)
DM 0.886 (0.005)
EM 0.894 (0.005)
FM 0.889 (0.005)
STS 0.791 0.007
STX 0.795 (0.003) Hehe
SM 0.838 0.004
SM2 0.849 (0.002)
F125 0.938 0.000
FSAE 0.960
FJ1 0.775
FJ2 0.792
FJ3 0.825
FJ4 0.834

[StevenMosley]

Here is how I think we should change SC1 and SC2:

The rules currently state:

8.8.2
SC1 will consist of 2 seat NA cars with a maximum displacement of 3149cc. Vehicles must be registered for street use and meet federal emission standards.

8.8.3
Sc2 will consist of 2 seat NA cars with a maximum displacement of 3150cc. Vehicles must be registered for street use and meet federal emission standards.

My proposal:

8.8.2
SC1 will consist of cars that would be otherwise categorized in ASP, BSP, and CSP. Vehicles must be registered for street use.
8.8.3
SC2 will consist of cars that would be otherwise categorized in DSP, ESP, and FSP. Vehicles must be registered for street use.


Reasoning:

If you look at the PAX numbers Steve so kindly gave us. The PAX numbers are very close between ASP, BSP, and CSP; And likewise between DSP, ESP, and FSP.

On a 60 second PAX course here would be the PAXed times for each class if each car ran a 60 second time:
ASP: 50.88
BSP: 50.34
CSP: 50.22
DSP: 49.14
ESP: 49.44
FSP: 48.78

If you look at those there is a very distinct line there between CSP and DSP. You will also notice that I left out 2 seat sports cars and emissions. Leaving out 2 seat sports cars allow cars that are not allowed in STS or STX, but have more then 2 seats to be able to compete. I also suggested that we leave the emissions out, because we have no way to test this at our level. Unless we want everyone to start bring there CARB stickers for intakes, and exhausts.

So how does that look?

REX, When is the meeting again?

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by StevenMosley
Here is how I think we should change SC1 and SC2:

The rules currently state:

8.8.2
SC1 will consist of 2 seat NA cars with a maximum displacement of 3149cc. Vehicles must be registered for street use and meet federal emission standards.

8.8.3
Sc2 will consist of 2 seat NA cars with a maximum displacement of 3150cc. Vehicles must be registered for street use and meet federal emission standards.

My proposal:

8.8.2
SC1 will consist of cars that would be otherwise categorized in ASP, BSP, and CSP. Vehicles must be registered for street use.
8.8.3
SC2 will consist of cars that would be otherwise categorized in DSP, ESP, and FSP. Vehicles must be registered for street use.


I like this proposal a lot. The current SC1/SC2 rules are actually more closely aligned to Street Prepared rules than Street Touring rules. In addition, this would open up SC1/SC2 to a wider range of cars - helping ensure we actually have people running in these classes. Plus, we don't need to deal with the complexities of PAX-based classes.

Steve's proposal would allow us to delete most of the additional SC1/SC2 rules, with the exception of a section for tires/wheels. I propose we include the following tire/wheel restrictions (pretty much identical to current SC rules):

A. Wheels may be no more than 1" wider than the car's Stock Category wheels. Wheels may be of any diameter or offset that fits over the car's stock brakes.

B. Tires must have a minimum treadwear rating of 140 and be manufacturer and DOT-approved for use on public roadways. Tires must have a minimum all-around treadwear depth of 2/32" in all major tread grooves, exclusive of wear-bar areas. Tires may be of any width that fits on the wheels without interference.

-Steve

[miata#37]

Originally posted by MNbiker


I like this proposal a lot. The current SC1/SC2 rules are actually more closely aligned to Street Prepared rules than Street Touring rules. In addition, this would open up SC1/SC2 to a wider range of cars - helping ensure we actually have people running in these classes. Plus, we don't need to deal with the complexities of PAX-based classes.

Steve's proposal would allow us to delete most of the additional SC1/SC2 rules, with the exception of a section for tires/wheels. I propose we include the following tire/wheel restrictions (pretty much identical to current SC rules):

A. Wheels may be no more than 1" wider than the car's Stock Category wheels. Wheels may be of any diameter or offset that fits over the car's stock brakes.

B. Tires must have a minimum treadwear rating of 140 and be manufacturer and DOT-approved for use on public roadways. Tires must have a minimum all-around treadwear depth of 2/32" in all major tread grooves, exclusive of wear-bar areas. Tires may be of any width that fits on the wheels without interference.

-Steve

I politely disagree with Mr. Garnjobst's statement about the SC rules being closer to Street Prepared than Street Touring. We can discuss that over a beer sometime though.
:argue: :beer: :alc:

I do like Mr. Mosley's proposal and split for the classes though. It would make for some large, fun classes. The question though is where would the current STS (and STX?) class fit in? We would have essentially recreated the whole Street Touring catagory. If they wanted, everyone running STS could jump into their respective SC class. The Street Touring name has developed some good recognition in the autox world. We certainly wouldn't want to be without it.

Hmmmm

What do you all think of this as a goal for the next rules meeting: Using Steve's class split, create an ST1/ST2 classing system to replace STS/SC1/SC2 and allow all the Street Prepared legal makes/models to run. The rules will need to be as close as possible to the SCCA's STS rules with just the bare allowances necessary for the increased variation in available vehicles. Ideally, the current crop of STS cars will be almost seemlessly absorbed into ST1 without any loss of competetiveness. STX might be trickier to absorb though and may have to stand on it's own. (At this time, STX isn't a Met-Council class.) Mr Garnjobst is as familiar as anyone with the STX rules, perhaps he could comment on this.

If we could do it, we will have succeeded in reducing the total number of classes at Met-Council events by one and still leave a street tire/tuned suspension option open to everyone. The "Street Touring" name will also have been kept around and that's good PR in the autox world.

-Chris

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by miata#37
I politely disagree with Mr. Garnjobst's statement about the SC rules being closer to Street Prepared than Street Touring. We can discuss that over a beer sometime though.
:argue: :beer: :alc:

I do like Mr. Mosley's proposal and split for the classes though. It would make for some large, fun classes. The question though is where would the current STS (and STX?) class fit in? We would have essentially recreated the whole Street Touring catagory. If they wanted, everyone running STS could jump into their respective SC class. The Street Touring name has developed some good recognition in the autox world. We certainly wouldn't want to be without it.

Hmmmm

What do you all think of this as a goal for the next rules meeting: Using Steve's class split, create an ST1/ST2 classing system to replace STS/SC1/SC2 and allow all the Street Prepared legal makes/models to run. The rules will need to be as close as possible to the SCCA's STS rules with just the bare allowances necessary for the increased variation in available vehicles. Ideally, the current crop of STS cars will be almost seemlessly absorbed into ST1 without any loss of competetiveness. STX might be trickier to absorb though and may have to stand on it's own. (At this time, STX isn't a Met-Council class.) Mr Garnjobst is as familiar as anyone with the STX rules, perhaps he could comment on this.

If we could do it, we will have succeeded in reducing the total number of classes at Met-Council events by one and still leave a street tire/tuned suspension option open to everyone. The "Street Touring" name will also have been kept around and that's good PR in the autox world.

-Chris
Chris,

I see several difficulties with this approach:

1. On average, STS was the single largest class for MAC events this year. I'm not sure why we would want to add even more cars to our largest class.

2. The current SC1/SC2 rules start with the Street Touring rules, but add 2 pages of language pulled straight from the Street Prepared rules. Does that make SC closer to ST or SP? We could probably debate that issue all day. However, the fact remains that the STS rules allow a VERY narrow range of upgrades, compared to the SC rules. If we try to force SC1/SC2 into this narrow definition, we're going to significantly reduce the number of cars eligible to run in the classes.

3. I feel pretty stongly that we need to have both the STS & STX classes, and that we need to leave their rules intact. STS & STX were two of the five largest classes at the Solo2 Nationals this year. And both are growing very quickly, having been designed to attract new drivers to autocross.

4. There are significant differences between STS and STX that would create some ugly rules-writing challenges, if we try to combine them with SC1/SC2. One of my primary reasons for advocating that the Met Council adopt the SCCA rules is to ease the ongoing rules making & maintenance burden. Steve M.'s proposal would require VERY little Supplemental language, and would be open the SC1/SC2 classes to a good number of cars.

5. I think efforts to reduce the number of classes are misplaced. If you look at what generally occurs at a regional level, MAC included, only a fraction of the defined classes are actually used. Just because the rules include numerous classes, that doesn't mean we'll have lots of cars running by themselves. The SCCA rules (and the current Met Council Rules) provide a clear process for combining classes, if there aren't enough drivers in any given class.

Just my $.25 ;)

-Steve

[StevenMosley]

I personally would like to keep all SCCA classes minus ladies.

That means adding STX and SM2.

Which in turn means we have the following club classes.

AST, BST. CST. DST. EST. FST. GST, HST, SC1 (ST1), SC2 (ST2), and Si.

This may seem like a lot, but as a club we will see a lot of bumping on the
stock-r compound tire classes.

The reason I like my idea for ST1 and ST2 is that it is wide open which will create
bigger classes. For example ST2 could have, my brothers SER, Steve's WRX, Dwight's MG, Camaro's, Mustang's, and VW's. ST1 could have Phil's CRX, Jeremy's MR2, Harry's Miata, Corvette's, my MR2, Salah's Evo (assuming they are moved to BSP), and RX7's. The list doesn't stop. I think it could be very popular which should be the goal of custom classes. I think big classes are healthy classes.

[miata#37]

Ok guys. I looked at the class listings for the various street prepared classes last night. Rolling STS into the SC mix isn't going to be a good idea. The first issue I saw was that the "cream-of-the-crop" STS Civics would have to fend for themselves against the corvettes, S2k's, M3's, etc in SC2. I don't think we want to do that. There were some other things too, but that was enough to convince me. I withdraw the proposal.

You know, trying to come up with reasonable fair classing and rules makes a person feel for the folks on the SCCA's SEB.

Before re-writing the SC rules, it would be nice to hear a little more from the people who actually ran in SC1 last season to see what they'd like to class to become. Especially since almost all of the SC1 competiters would be bumped up to SC2 in Steve's propopsed system.

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by miata#37
Before re-writing the SC rules, it would be nice to hear a little more from the people who actually ran in SC1 last season to see what they'd like to class to become. Especially since almost all of the SC1 competiters would be bumped up to SC2 in Steve's propopsed system.

Couldn't we just flip-flop the assignment of classes from Steve's proposal, so they could stay in SC1? Seems like an easy fix to me....


-Steve

[StevenMosley]

Originally posted by MNbiker



Originally posted by miata#37
Before re-writing the SC rules, it would be nice to hear a little more from the people who actually ran in SC1 last season to see what they'd like to class to become. Especially since almost all of the SC1 competiters would be bumped up to SC2 in Steve's propopsed system.

Couldn't we just flip-flop the assignment of classes from Steve's proposal, so they could stay in SC1? Seems like an easy fix to me....


-Steve

Good idea. It would help keep the momentum of the class that built up last year.

[914 Dave]

More rambling thoughts from cheese land... Do we really need to re-invent the SC's? Rex notes that the initial SC rules were partly based on STS. I myself, not being all SCCA and such, would like to know the difference between STS and STX. I've been in a keep it simple mode of late. What if the street tire classes, such as AST, BST, CST and so on, were a single PAX adjusted class. The other club classes would all follow SCCA rules, for the small percentage of our group that wants to play with that larger club more often. This would allow other SCCA folk from outside MAC to fit in more easily. And what about the SC's? In looking over the current MAC rules, SC seems pretty similar to both STS and SP classes. The 914 would currently fit into either group. So, in line with KISS, why not have STS2 and STX2, for the 2 seaters, and let them build cars to fit the classes. In this way we would have a national rule book for the race tire group, (perhaps a more serious gang...) a good "pick up" group for the local street tire crew, and still have a place for the 2 seaters. Hey, why not just allow the 2 seaters in with the current STS cars, and add the STX?

Who is the average SC driver? I dont' think its me, I read the rules weekly, and keep waiting for something new to sink into my brain for car prep. The 85 MR2 that make a few of the early season events was, as I would recall, pretty stock, except for a "plus" size wheel/tire combo, and maybe some shocks. The only other car to make more than 3 events was a 90 RX-7, and from what I recall he was going to sign up for SI but someone in registration suggested SC1, so he went there. All the other entrants were less than 3 events, and that would consist of the RexS 91 RX-7, and Chris in his Miata for one event before he went "R".

What does this mean? I'm not sure we need to be concerned about running off a crowd of SC-1 guys, since the 914 could run STS type rules, or CP type rules. The other 2 cars were basically stock as far as I know, and could possibly fit into several other classes as well.

I stand by my thoughts to keep it simple. Maybe a single pax street tire class is a bit much change to accept, but if we have SI with a big pile of cars of different potentials, why not street tire as well? Use the SCCA rules for the rest of the classes, and either allow 2 seaters built to STS/STX rules to play in those classes, or create mirror image STS2/STX2 classes for them. Maybe allow non factory turbo/superchargered 2 seaters to run STX2, if the power/weight would be similar to the rest of the class. And lastly, maybe with the onset of super "street" cars, like STI and EVO 8's, maybe a 4wd/turbo pax class...

Just some thoughts, kick them around and see what comes of them.

[Ken Johnson]

There has been much talk about sc1/sc2, sts/stx. I'm not really a follower of these classes as I am fairly new to the sport. I have run in DSP, HST & CSPT. My "novice" view is that we should keep SI (or "X") as an entry level or street tire or dumb ass friend that thinks he can drive class, (run what you have & feel the adrenaline), trophey #1 & make them move on (as current rules suggest). We should also eliminate all other street tire catagories. I competed well in DSP on street tires & when I had the money, made the ultimate performance upgrade with "R" tires. I've also been in HST when there weren't enough entants & been bumped to FST & GST. That just doesn't seem right when there were 2 other cars in HS. Another option would be to open a completely stock class & run it like SI (run, win, move on). Another issue that should be looked at is multi-driver cars, and staging of these cars. If things stay as they are, I will find a friend to run with me next year so I can compete with two of my cars, in two classes & have the heat in the tires & memory of the the track to win. There were several times this year where Jeremy or Tim Engle ran 3 runs before I ran one. Just a rookie view on things

[phile]

>but if we have SI with a big pile of cars of different potentials, why not street tire as well?

Because in SI, when one person dominates, he's gone. Inequities don't matter in SI because they are not permanent. Whatever else you do to the rules structure, Special Interest is a brilliant idea, and should be left alone.

We have had the street-tire-stockers as a single PAXed class in the past. And street-tire-street-prepared, too, as it's own PAXed class. They were large classes.

Classing in recent years has become ridiculously complicated. To my mind, there are only two prudent courses of action, and they are mutually exclusive:

1) Go on a serious class-reduction binge. Recognize that driver talent and dedication is way more important in this sport at the local level than small differences in cars and modification types and get rid of the ever-expanding conglomeration of alphabet-soup "I" classes. In many cases, the type and age of the tires on your car are more important than anything you have done to the car.

or

2) Accept all of the national SCCA Solo2 classes (except ladies classes and go-karts) and let Topeka (I'm old enough to remember when it was "Westport") worry about car classifications. They may be silly, but they are a national standard.

[914 Dave]

As a newer guy, why did or didn't the "big pile of street tire" Pax'd classes work, for stock and/or street prepaired? I would think the pax would sort of make an even playing field, even on our midway "short course", and perhaps even more so on the St Cloud "long course".

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by 914 Dave
As a newer guy, why did or didn't the "big pile of street tire" Pax'd classes work, for stock and/or street prepaired? I would think the pax would sort of make an even playing field, even on our midway "short course", and perhaps even more so on the St Cloud "long course".

I'd like to get some feedback on past experiences with the PAXed Street Tire classes as well. On the surface, the easiest compromise for our rules would seem to be this:

1. Adopt SCCA Solo2 Rules, minus Ladies & Kart classes.

2. Add SI as currently defined. I agree with Phil, this is a very cool concept.

3. Create two PAXed street tire classes - Stock Street Tire and SP Street Tire in place of all the current SST & SC classes. Not a perfect solution, but IMHO it's better than the current jumbled mess of mirrored Stock & SST classes. (donning flame suit ;) )

One scoring note - we already calculate PAX for everyone, so can't imagine a PAxed class or two will further slow down results processing.

-Steve

[Dave Keillor]

One scoring note - we already calculate PAX for everyone, so can't imagine a PAxed class or two will further slow down results processing.

-Steve

But their is currently no burning need to compute PAX. If some classes were indexed it might be weeks before you knew where you finished. Raw times are much easier to handle from a results reporting perspective. In fact, in today's digitial world, I see no good reason why the data can't be pulled right out of the timing software and posted directly on the web with little or no intermediate manipulation. Computing PAX would add another wrinkle to the reporting process.

Dave Keillor

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by Dave Keillor
But their is currently no burning need to compute PAX. If some classes were indexed it might be weeks before you knew where you finished. Raw times are much easier to handle from a results reporting perspective. In fact, in today's digitial world, I see no good reason why the data can't be pulled right out of the timing software and posted directly on the web with little or no intermediate manipulation. Computing PAX would add another wrinkle to the reporting process.

Dave Keillor

You misunderstand - PAX is automatically computed by the T&S software. It doesn't require any additional work. Therefore, PAX classes are no more work than any other classes.

From a reporting standpoint, we still need to deal with class bumping - a task our T&S software currently can't complete.

-Steve

[fitz]

Originally posted by MNbiker

I'd like to get some feedback on past experiences with the PAXed Street Tire classes as well. On the surface, the easiest compromise for our rules would seem to be this:

1. Adopt SCCA Solo2 Rules, minus Ladies & Kart classes.

2. Add SI as currently defined. I agree with Phil, this is a very cool concept.

3. Create two PAXed street tire classes - Stock Street Tire and SP Street Tire in place of all the current SST & SC classes. Not a perfect solution, but IMHO it's better than the current jumbled mess of mirrored Stock & SST classes. (donning flame suit ;) )

-Steve

I drove in SPt when it was a PAX class. Won the year-end top trophy and I think there were something like 20+ competitors in the running at the end. Far and away the most satisfying championship I've won. I LOVE running in big classes. There are so many classes now because we keep trying to cater to so many special interests that big classes are going to be a permanent thing of the past if we don't do something.

Just MHO, valued at precisely $0.02.

[weidnerpaul]

Steve,
Sending flames your way...

As stated earlier with many reasons (and agreed to by Steven Mosley) I support keeping stock street tyre classes:

You are an exception to the usual "weekend warrior" that comes out to a MAC event and therefore your priorities are different, I think that MAC needs to look at what classes our current members run in (almost half run on street tyres) and not run the club in an exclusionary way for them. In many ways MAC is a "beginners" club, we have lots of new drivers each year, we do a novice school for ~50 drivers each year, we see lots of new faces each year. Lets not run the club in such a way they don't feel welcome, after all its the 80 plus entries each event that keeps us comfortably in the black and allows us the opportunity to have the $$$ to do things like Valleyfair next year. If we try to be too hardcore enthusiast orientated we run the risk of fragmenting the club and losing the more casual participant that helps fund the club.

I strongly feel that someone who comes out to try autocross with us should be able to drive their car as is w/o special tyres, be competitive and get a chance to trophy --- Having the stock tyre class allows this, while its nice for someone who has spent more $$$ on dedicated tyres/rims to have more competitors in their class it is possible for them to actually be a worse driver than the guy on street rubber and get the award because of the tyre advantage. This rewards the guy who spends more, not the skill level...

If they become hard core, spend $$$ on tyres/rims etc and change classes great, but we need to be able to keep them if they don't want to do that much commitment too.

While large classes are nice (9 GST drivers last event) whats inherently wrong with giving out more trophies/having more classes anyway, I see lots of comments as to how to cut the # of classes but not a lot of justification as to why its so important to do so.

I'll get off my soapbox now :D :D :D

Paul

[914 Dave]

Interesting thoughts, Mr British wanna be guy... I still can't believe any spell check worth anything would let you keep getting away with "tyres"...:p

How about this for a thought, as one of the small handful of SC drivers:

-take on SCCA classses and rules, but no ladies classes or karts. (sorry all lady cart drivers). This would add STX and SM2 for the "hardcore" guys. This would dump the SC classes, so our total # of classes would stay the same.

-keep SI, as it is a good starting spot for the newbies.

-keep stock street tire classes only. No street prep street tire classes. This provides a stepping stone for the newbies, who can then choose to bump up in car prep and tire choice or not.

This would allow folks with national event aspirations to prep their cars to a single, unified class structure, and would also allow other national level drivers to come and go for an event or 2 if in the area when one is scheduled, like that guy from SLC UT and his mini cooper. It would still cater to the weekend warrior as well. What it would not do is minimize the total # of classes, and bring back 20+ car groups. But, as Paul said, whats wrong with more classes and more mantle dressing? And, if we can get more entrants to use the on line sign up, would this be any harder for T/S to handle, more smaller groups rather than fewer larger groups?

[weidnerpaul]

By Dave Parsons
-keep stock street tire classes only. No street prep street tire classes. This provides a stepping stone for the newbies, who can then choose to bump up in car prep and tire choice or not.

I can live with this suggestion, my intent is to have a area for stock cars to play, once they start prep then it's their choice where to spend the $$$, tyres (sorry Dave) or other mods.

I will steer clear of the other suggestions --- pro or con as I'm not familiar enough with them...

Paul

[DCM]

This is good!
Really getting a lot of particapation in this rules discussion. Just hope we get a good turnout for the meeting.

Now for a little comic releif.
Say uuhh Dave, I was working on my MG the other day, and decided that I needed to check the car over. So I started by removing the TYRES, checking the brakes, and then reinstalling them and toqueing down the wheels.
Then I raised the BONNET, and checked the oil, the drive belt tension on the DYNAMO, and then for LEAKS. Which of course there are numerous one's. Then I looked over the SU carburetors, and made some small adjustments.
At this point, I thought it might be wise to check on the spare TYRE, so I raised the BOOT cover, and also checked to see if the [LUCAS] BOOT light might be stuck on, running down the battery. But it was OK.
Now ifthere were only something I could do to clean up the scatches in my WINDSCREEN!
But these LIMEY cars sure are fun, and ADVENTUROUS.
DCM:dancin:

[fitz]

Originally posted by weidnerpaul


Steve,
Sending flames your way...

As stated earlier with many reasons (and agreed to by Steven Mosley) I support keeping stock street tyre classes:

In many ways MAC is a "beginners" club, we have lots of new drivers each year, we do a novice school for ~50 drivers each year, we see lots of new faces each year. Lets not run the club in such a way they don't feel welcome, after all its the 80 plus entries each event that keeps us comfortably in the black and allows us the opportunity to have the $$$ to do things like Valleyfair next year. If we try to be too hardcore enthusiast orientated we run the risk of fragmenting the club and losing the more casual participant that helps fund the club.

I strongly feel that someone who comes out to try autocross with us should be able to drive their car as is w/o special tyres, be competitive and get a chance to trophy --- Having the stock tyre class allows this, while its nice for someone who has spent more $$$ on dedicated tyres/rims to have more competitors in their class it is possible for them to actually be a worse driver than the guy on street rubber and get the award because of the tyre advantage. This rewards the guy who spends more, not the skill level...

If they become hard core, spend $$$ on tyres/rims etc and change classes great, but we need to be able to keep them if they don't want to do that much commitment too.

While large classes are nice (9 GST drivers last event) whats inherently wrong with giving out more trophies/having more classes anyway, I see lots of comments as to how to cut the # of classes but not a lot of justification as to why its so important to do so.

I'll get off my soapbox now :D :D :D

Paul

My problem with Stock Street Tire is that its an absolute fantasy - and this from someone who has been running in Street Tire classes the last 6 years!

Anyone who wants to really be competitive in a Street Tire class is going to maximize their chances by exploiting the limits of the rules. That means they will go out and buy some ringer tire (Azenis) that, however impractical on a day-to-day basis will be a cut above the average "street tire" on the track.

So how is that any different than having a unified Stock class without distinctions based on treadwear indexes? Either way you'll still have some with the unfair advantage of gummy rubber and others who won't be competitive becuase they run what they brung.

No difference at all. The gap between the have's and the have-nots is a little narrower, but that's about it.

PS

As for what's wrong with small classes - they are boring as ----. It destroys competition and drives out the seasoned old timers that form the core of the club. We may attract a lot of new blood but our retention rates are pretty crappy IMHO.

[StevenMosley]

The problem I see with getting rid of Stock Street tires is that this is where a majority of the people run. We ran into this issue last year and it is still not resolved.

Do we want street tire classes?
A third of the drivers run in them so, I think so.

Do we need 8 stock street tire classes?
No

So maybe we could have 3 stock street tire classes.
S1 with SS-CS cars (PAX deviation of .025 or 1.5 seconds on a 60 second course)
S2 with DS-HS cars (PAX deviation of .010 or .6 seconds on a 60 second course)
S3 with GS-HS cars (PAX deviation of .006 or .36 seconds on a 60 second course)

Class sizes based on MOWOG 7 2003:
S1: 7
S2: 12
S3: 13

I also liked the idea of a street tire street prepared class under the same guidelines:
SP1 with ASP-CSP
SP2 with DSP-FSP

This would allow a wide variety of cars and could be very popular and could take people out of different SCCA SP classes and have them competing head to head when they otherwise would be running alone.

It would remove half of our custom classes and change 2 to be a lot more flexible.

Two things that I ask for when creating custom classes:
1. Never have a class that uses PAX.
2. Promote improved competition

[fitz]

Originally posted by StevenMosley




The problem I see with getting rid of Stock Street tires is that this is where a majority of the people run. We ran into this issue last year and it is still not resolved.

Do we want street tire classes?
A third of the drivers run in them so, I think so.

This relies on an unproven assumption. That these same folks would not run at all if there was no separation between "street" and competition tires.




Do we need 8 stock street tire classes?
No

Why not? If your first arguement is correct, that is all the more reason to have 8 Stock Street Tire classes.



I also liked the idea of a street tire street prepared class under the same guidelines:
SP1 with ASP-CSP
SP2 with DSP-FSP

This would allow a wide variety of cars and could be very popular and could take people out of different SCCA SP classes and have them competing head to head when they otherwise would be running alone.

It would remove half of our custom classes and change 2 to be a lot more flexible.

We of course used to have a Street Prepared Street Tire category before we had Street Touring. Problem with Street Prepared rules is that they are designed for autocrossing - they do not reflect the kinds of modifications popular with many non-autocrossers today. That's why we got rid of SPt. How many times would someone show up to their first autocross with some minor, often non-important modification that bumped them straight into either the Prepared or even Mod categories where they were even more hopelessly outgunned. If you think eliminating Stock Street Tire is a bad way to encourage new participation, this is worse.

[Dave Keillor]

I compete in street tire class, but I'd just as soon see it gone. Tires are basically a continuum these days, so why try to make some arbitrary division? In R tires, Hoosiers generally beat Kumhos, but are a lot more expensive per event. So why not a separate class for Hoosiers? In "street" tires, Azenis beat Dunlop SP 8000s and Dunlop SP 8000s beat OEM Bridgerocks. So why not a separate class for high performance street tires? Or maybe we should just index based on tires? Or maybe also based on how old the tires are -- anyone have a durometer? That would really level the playing field!

Okay, enough with the sarcasm. In today's high performance tire world, "street tires" is a meaningless designation. So, my position is to reduce and simplify by eliminating street tire class altogether.

Dave Keillor

[kit]

just my 2cents here,

with R compounds and street tires grouped in the same class, those with R compounds are generally going to throphy (unless the driver is plain bad). This would either result into:
a) disappoint a street tire running driver because he/she can't get a throphy and this driver will not join any more events.
b) be encouraged to drive faster on street tires to humiliate the R-shod driver :D. Eventually get real obsessed on beating that other driver so that he/she gets Hoosiers.
c) just "compete" with the other drivers on the same class that run street tires but don't expect to get throphys. Be happy with it, at least you know you're faster than the rest of em!

I'm probably a b) but there's no point trying to beat an open wheel car :D.

I can't complain much, I ran street tires that were not even Azenis and was classed running against open wheel cars. it doesn't make me feel less competitive.

[StevenMosley]

This relies on an unproven assumption. That these same folks would not run at all if there was no separation between "street" and competition tires.

I don't see the assumption. People had the choice to run Stock SCCA or our Stock Street classes and they choose our classes.





Why not? If your first arguement is correct, that is all the more reason to have 8 Stock Street Tire classes.

It seems that we are looking to reduce the number of custom classes. The ideas I suggested would do just that.





We of course used to have a Street Prepared Street Tire category before we had Street Touring. Problem with Street Prepared rules is that they are designed for autocrossing - they do not reflect the kinds of modifications popular with many non-autocrossers today. That's why we got rid of SPt. How many times would someone show up to their first autocross with some minor, often non-important modification that bumped them straight into either the Prepared or even Mod categories where they were even more hopelessly outgunned. If you think eliminating Stock Street Tire is a bad way to encourage new participation, this is worse.


The most populars mods people do are intakes, exhaust, springs, and those fancy tail lights. Sure some do add items that would move them out of SP, but the rules have to be drawn somewhere. This is usually true unless the person has a car with a Turbo. The first thing people usually do with these cars is crank the boost which would put them into prepared.

I honestly don't think that classing is going to cause a person to choose the sport or not. The thing most likely to bring people back is the willingness of us regulars to interact with them and learn their names and make them part of the family. Eventually the friendships become as important as the driving.

The next time someone wants to reply in the future. I think it would be polite if people would come up with solutions and not just negative opinions with no ideas of how to fix anything.

[weidnerpaul]

The next time someone wants to reply in the future. I think it would be polite if people would come up with solutions and not just negative opinions with no ideas of how to fix anything.

Steven,
I'll get out the boxing gloves and sell tickets for tonights meeting :D

As I stated before I want the club available to all, especially new and less experienced drivers, we've all seen clubs where "it's my way or the highway" or "we do it cause we always have" and where the club is set up to and caters to the old-timers...

Those clubs usually slowly fail as they get no new blood and the membership dwindles due to infighting or losing interest. I have no interest in MAC being that type of club, I have interest in keeping MAC as an inclusionary type club and thats the only type of club I'll ever be involved in.

One thing I've enjoyed aboiut the club is the way people are included, this shoudn't be just the friendship that you alluded to, but also how the welcoming the structure of the club (and that includes classes) is set up. Myself, Darryl, Dave K, Nikki, Matt, Alex and many more I haven't mentioned all have started within the past few years and have been made to feel welcome, and the result has been lots of volunteerism from all of us.

Where is this message going???
Don't know, gotta sign off but had to say something after reading the past few threads...
Paul

[JPK]

Here is another idea:
Adopt SCCA rules. Class the drivers. Novice, pro and expert. I think a poor driver in a great car will be defeated by a great driver in a poor car. Those who are serious will compete at one level, less serious at another. Have a season series for each driver class and SCCA class.....

That is the sound of my 2 pennies.....

[StevenMosley]

Originally posted by weidnerpaul



The next time someone wants to reply in the future. I think it would be polite if people would come up with solutions and not just negative opinions with no ideas of how to fix anything.

Steven,
I'll get out the boxing gloves and sell tickets for tonights meeting :D


Paul


Paul,

Are you always trying to make a buck. I won't be at the meeting. I am
at Disneyland this week.

Steven

[fitz]

As a frequent enforcer of the rules back when we had SPt, I can't count how many people I had to bump over the most minor (but popular) mods. It happened at every event and it was a real pain in the butt. Trust me, Street Touring rules are infinately better than SPt rules for what we might call the casual autocrosser with a modded car. And Street Touring makes for fewer classes than SPt did to boot, so its really a win-win.

Now, one may argue the same distinction holds true for Stock vs. Stock Street Tire, and maybe that's ture, but I would still argue that if the tire-based distinctions between the two Stock categories were eliminated, it would have little to no effect on turnout.

Not being negative, just citing history, because we all know what happens when we don't learn from it. Besides, Street Touring ain't broke, so there's no need to fix it.

BTW

If offering a differing opinion is negative and shouldn't be allowed, what is the point of this discussion anyway?

[fitz]

When does the 04' SCCA rulebook come out anyway? If we are considering adopting SCCA rules in full, should we not know what they are first?

Just a thought.

[SaturnRaycer]

Doug Dill, the SCCA LOL rep says right around the first of the year. Too late for this year's meeting unless we elect to accept the 03 rules and live a year behind SCCA.

What have we done in the past?

[fitz]

Originally posted by SaturnRaycer


Doug Dill, the SCCA LOL rep says right around the first of the year. Too late for this year's meeting unless we elect to accept the 03 rules and live a year behind SCCA.

What have we done in the past?

In the past we always did the rules our own way (based somewhat loosely on SCCA's rules from the previous year) but relied on SCCA for individual car classifications.

This year the idea has been floated to adopt lock, stock and barrel the SCCA classing and rule structure, which leaves us two choices;

1. Adopt the 03' rules.
2. Adopt 04' rules even though we don't know what they are yet.

[DCM]

See my post in 'Street tire rules'
DCM

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by fitz
In the past we always did the rules our own way (based somewhat loosely on SCCA's rules from the previous year) but relied on SCCA for individual car classifications.

This year the idea has been floated to adopt lock, stock and barrel the SCCA classing and rule structure, which leaves us two choices;

1. Adopt the 03' rules.
2. Adopt 04' rules even though we don't know what they are yet.

Guys, you're making this far more complicated than it needs to be. If we adopt the SCCA rule book, we simply adopt the "current edition" of the SCCA rule book, including ongoing changes published in monthly FasTracks. I'm not sure I understand why we would want to lock ourselves into an outdated set of rules.....

As for not knowing what the 2004 Rules will be, that's simply not true. Although the 2004 Rulebook won't be published until January, virtually all the upcoming changes have already been published in Fastracks, per SCCA advance notice requirements. I can bring a complete set of SCCA rules & Fastracks to the Rules Meeting, if anyone cares to peruse them.

-Steve

[DCM]

Don't forget, the 14th of December. At Rex's house. Annual rules meeting.
This one is soo important. or are they all important?
DCM

[DCM]

Just trying to keep the rules meeting right up there in front.

Don't want anyone to forget.

This is going to be the most important meeting in many years.

DCM

[rdub]

Just one last word from me on this rules @$%$. Looking at all these posts
of everyones "great ideas" tells me again ,that you will get no agreement from anyone
on what is best.Classing drivers!!!!come on ,whos gonna POLICE that !why discuss this kinda crap,it MUDDYS the water.
MAC OUTTA THE RULES MAKING! SCCA rules ,and you all can skip the rules meeting and go KART racing,which is where I'll be because I don't believe we should be making rules.

[StevenMosley]

Originally posted by rdub


Just one last word from me on this rules @$%$. Looking at these all these posts
of everyones "great ideas" tells me again ,that you will get no agreement from anyone
on what is best.Classing drivers!!!!come on ,whos gonna POLICE that !why discuss this kinda crap,it MUDDYS the water.
MAC OUTTA THE RULES MAKING! SCCA rules ,and you all can skip the rules meeting and go KART racing,which is where I'll be because I don't believe we should be making rules.

AMEN!!!!

[MNbiker]

Unfortunately, at least one of us has to be at the rules meeting, in order to get MAC out of the rules business....so that's where I'll be.:(

[rdub]

we'll miss ya at the Kart track
maybe we'll send an empty Kart around the track in your honor.

[fitz]

Originally posted by MNbiker


Unfortunately, at least one of us has to be at the rules meeting, in order to get MAC out of the rules business....so that's where I'll be.:(


MAC isn't in the rules making business. Rules are made by the Met Council.

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by fitz

Originally posted by MNbiker

Unfortunately, at least one of us has to be at the rules meeting, in order to get MAC out of the rules business....so that's where I'll be.:(


MAC isn't in the rules making business. Rules are made by the Met Council.

Technically, you are correct (shame on the new Met Council Rules Chair for my misstatement!:p ).

In reality, MAC is currently the ONLY club using the Met Council rulebook, and the rules have been written by MAC members.

-Steve

p.s. IMHO - the Met Council shouldn't be in the rule making business either, with limited exceptions.

[fitz]

Originally posted by MNbiker



Originally posted by fitz

Originally posted by MNbiker

Unfortunately, at least one of us has to be at the rules meeting, in order to get MAC out of the rules business....so that's where I'll be.:(


MAC isn't in the rules making business. Rules are made by the Met Council.

Technically, you are correct (shame on the new Met Council Rules Chair for my misstatement!:p ).

In reality, MAC is currently the ONLY club using the Met Council rulebook, and the rules have been written by MAC members.

-Steve

p.s. IMHO - the Met Council shouldn't be in the rule making business either, with limited exceptions.

Any club hosting an event as part of the MCAS uses the Met Council rules. If Met Council shouldn't be in the rules making business, there is not much more reason for them to exist... IMHO.

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by fitz
Any club hosting an event as part of the MCAS uses the Met Council rules. If Met Council shouldn't be in the rules making business, there is not much more reason for them to exist... IMHO.

There hasn't been a Met Council Series for two years, which prompted me to ask exactly the same question. Dwight & others provided some pretty good reasoning for why the Met Council is still relevant. Here's a link to the thread:
http://forum.mnautox.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=836

-Steve