Poll #3: Stock Street Tire rules [Archive]

SalahK

11-13-2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by rdub

guys are now having to buy specific wheels and tires for street tire class!where's the love!
you won't be competetive in street tire class without Azenis or BFG KDs.
SIMPLIFYING IS A GOOD THING

Absolutely correct!

If people are having to buy a seperate set of wheels and tires for stock, street tire (SST through HST) OR for street touring (STS, STX) classes, either at the local OR at the national level, then there is definately something WRONG with the idea of having such classes in the first place.

If you compete with street tires, you ought to drive on the SAME street tires as well.

weidnerpaul

11-13-2003, 07:49 PM

KEEP stock street tyre classes:
The following from another thread:

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).

This is why i support it, BTW there were street tyre classes for the MINI in Iowa with the DMVRSCCA events too...

Paul

MNbiker

11-13-2003, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by SalahK
If people are having to buy a seperate set of wheels and tires for stock, street tire (SST through HST) OR for street touring (STS, STX) classes, either at the local OR at the national level, then there is definately something WRONG with the idea of having such classes in the first place.

If you compete with street tires, you ought to drive on the SAME street tires as well.

:flame:

[rant mode on]
This is a TOTALLY unrealistic viewpoint that ignores human nature. Face it, some folks are going to prepare to the limit of the rules, if they believe it helps their chances of winning. There's absolutely no way you could ever police a "run what you drove in on" rule, as people could just park around the block &amp; change tires. While the intent of local Street Tire classes may be low prep, low pressure, I've seen some pretty heated competition in SST classes at MAC events. Also, some people may not enjoy driving on stiff, noisy tires every day - especially if they have a long commute.

Futhermore, lumping STS/STX in with MAC's local Stock Street Tire classes is a significant misrepresentation of what these classes are all about. STS &amp; STX are National classes, with serious competitors, just like any other SCCA class - which means dedicated tires/wheels or anything else that's within the rules and will give drivers that last little edge. It costs $5K - $10K to properly prep an STX car. However, one of the big attractions of STS/STX is that ongoing tire costs are FAR lower than Stock or SP classes, due to FAR better tire longevity (Hoosiers are EXPENSIVE and don't last very long!). Most of the math I've seen shows that for regular (20+ events/year) competitors, an STX car is cheaper to run than a Stock car by the 2nd year, even with the cost of all the mods.

The SCCA must be doing something right with STS &amp; STX, as they were two of the five most popular classes at Solo2 Nationals this year.
[/rant mode off]

Have a nice evening!;)

-Steve

Dave Keillor

11-14-2003, 08:01 AM

I'm not too hung up on whether there's a street tire class or not, but I'm not in favor of indexing. It adds another level of unnecessary (in my opinion) complication. It takes long enough to get the non-PAX results posted now!

Dave Keillor

psundberg

11-18-2003, 11:14 AM

Hey Paul Weidner, it's TIRE, not tyre. Brit wantabes, sheesh.

SalahK

11-18-2003, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by MNbiker

[rant mode on]
...STS &amp; STX are National classes, with serious competitors, just like any other SCCA class - which means dedicated tires/wheels or anything else that's within the rules and will give drivers that last little edge. It costs $5K - $10K to properly prep an STX car. However, one of the big attractions of STS/STX is that ongoing tire costs are FAR lower than Stock or SP classes, due to FAR better tire longevity (Hoosiers are EXPENSIVE and don't last very long!). Most of the math I've seen shows that for regular (20+ events/year) competitors, an STX car is cheaper to run than a Stock car by the 2nd year, even with the cost of all the mods.

You are right about people wanting to max out the rules. My arguement is more philosophical in nature.

What does not make any sense is that Stock cars with their limited camber adjustments (and therefore MORE WEAR than in STS/STX) are running Hoosiers, while Street Touring gets to run with street tires. It ought to be the other way around OR both classes should be on street tires.

Originally posted by MNbiker
The SCCA must be doing something right with STS &amp; STX, as they were two of the five most popular classes at Solo2 Nationals this year.
[/rant mode off]

-Steve

Then, can you imagine how many more people will compete in Stock, if street tires were allowed there as well...?

All in all, there are just TOO many classes in SCCA SOLO II competition. Maybe they should eliminate the STS/STX designations and take all the SP classes and make THEM abide by the STS/STX set of "limited mods" Essentially, STS and STX would be reborn with more classes and more car types. Obviously such a rule cannot be implemented immediately as it would make many cars obsolete, but SP could be phased into Street Touring over the course of several years, starting with classes where it is easier to switch from SP to ST.

Steve, If ONLY you could do THIS --&gt; :flame: to me in an AUTOCROSS :tease:

fitz

11-19-2003, 02:49 PM

I can certainly see an arguement for merging Street Touring and Street Prepared rules (at least the ones that don't conflict :D ) so as to still allow all of those competitors to run. But the old tire (tyre) debate is still going to be there.

Since Stock Street Tire is so popular it might make sense to declare that stock means stock and make R compound tires illegal in Stock classes. Boom, we eliminate an entire category and combine a bunch of classes, which is nice. But that still won't stop those with he desire and the pocketbooks from getting a set of superlight wheels with Azenis or KD's on them. So again, the great tire (tyre) debate won't end. Folks can still complain that things won't be equal for new competitors - which is more a theoretical than a real problem IMHO.

When it comes right down to it all I can say is... damn I'm happy I'm not the rules chair anymore :dancin:

MNbiker

11-20-2003, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by SalahK
Steve, If ONLY you could do THIS --&gt; :flame: to me in an AUTOCROSS :tease:
All in good time...;)

914 Dave

11-20-2003, 06:15 AM

Fitz- so you're saying STOCK means all stock, including tires, and a car w/stickies, and no other mods would be in a STREET PREP class? Not a bad idea, as far as keeping it simple... but I guess no matter what we suggest, the member clubs still have to kick it around and vote on it. I like this idea.

fitz

11-20-2003, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by 914 Dave

Fitz- so you're saying STOCK means all stock, including tires, and a car w/stickies, and no other mods would be in a STREET PREP class? Not a bad idea, as far as keeping it simple... but I guess no matter what we suggest, the member clubs still have to kick it around and vote on it. I like this idea.

I do see merit in declaring that R compound tires would be a "Street Prepared" modification. It is perhaps the one single modification that is most obviously for strictly competition purposes and not general street use on the family grocery-getter.

SaturnRaycer

11-20-2003, 12:35 PM

Why didn't we think of that! Fitz, your idea comes at the issue from the other direction. Instead of assuming that stock meant stock except for tires, we can keep a lot of folks happy, and those who want to play in the SCCA "stock" class with stickies can do it at SCCA events.

Who wants to tackle Street prepared in the same manner??;)

ITSrotary

11-20-2003, 01:17 PM

What are we trying to do ?

After reading these threads it appears to me there is no common end result we are trying to achieve. Lots of interesting suggestions for a variety of classing options that achieve different results. I'm confused.

Reminds me of the old saying "if you don't know where your going, any road will get you there."

Is there any mention of guarantee of competitiveness in the rules or club by-laws? I voted to eliminate street tire stock because like Randy I feel the Stock class is where they belong. Maybe it's just my bias but that's the way I was introduced to the sport via the SCCA and I had to accept the fact that I wasn't as prepared , car or driver wise, as some of the other competitors and that if I didn't trophy maybe I didn't deserve it. It didn't stop me from coming back, in fact it made me want to get better and improve both car and driver. If it's only the trophies that keep them coming back then we have a problem that goes beyond classing. You want a trophy, earn it.

I also think some are giving too much credit to R-compounds. In the right circumstances they have a distinct advantage, but they are not going to make an unskilled novice a regional champion. You still have to drive! If your car isn't set up to use them and your driving ability can't extract their performance then they are no advantage at all over some of the current street tires. Particularly at Midway, which in my experience has always been slippery, especially in colder weather, I don't think the R-compounds had much of an advantage. Look at the results.

Again, what is our goal? It's a tough job making everyone happy, but I don't think adding a bunch of classes achieves or creates more competition, it dilutes it as people chase trophies in obscure classes that are poorly subscribed. Likewise, combining classes that have different levels of preparation is a poor option as well (STS &amp; SP, R-compound Stock &amp; SP). Bottom line is, regardless of the final classing structure we decide on, if you want to win you'll have to prepare your car and driver to the limit of the rules. If your not prepared to do that then you can't complain when you get beat by someone who did.

Adopting the SCCA classing and rule structure makes the most sense and provides a stable, consistent platform to work off of every year. While not perfect, it does seem to work pretty well for the rest of the country.

probably more than $.02,

Steve

Dave Kral

11-20-2003, 08:03 PM

It seems to me that if we decide to adopt the SCCA rules then we are giving up a lot of control over what we have to live by. Since the SCCA rules don't come out until after the Met Council Rules Meeting, if we didn't like something the SCCA did we would have to live with it until the following December to propose a supplemental Met Council rule to change it.

Since the existing Met Council rules are a fairly close parallel to the SCCA rules already (i.e. SCCA rules already tweaked to Met Council conditions), I don't see what the advantage is to throwing out the existing rules and starting over from scratch.

Dave

DCM

11-21-2003, 06:27 AM

Yes, well, when the street tire classes were proposed, I was all for them.

'let's welcome this group into our bosom'

Then when street prepared street tire was added, well, it just became too complicated.

As far as the SCCA rules go, SCCA has the entire nation to compare and see what works and what doesn't.
Don't think for one minute they aren't 'keepin' an eye on US'

:)

We say we don't want the complications of shifter carts, and of the various MOD classes, but, it might be a good idea to.
After all, we now in effect have excluded certain other cars from competing.
And speaking of complications, 'STREET TIRES'

Shifter carts, and MOD cars have invested a significant amount of $$$$. they are in it for the long haul.
Street tire types just aren't. Well I won't include all of them, but................

So we have to ask ourselves the question; 'What are we trying to accomplish' ?????

Our concern is the attrition , or a constant turnover of people. Why aren't we retaining more?
I can't really answer that, except that it's not for everyone. or is it something else?

What we need to do is add more types of motorsports.
Llew and myself have gotten our heads together. [justdon'tvisualizethatone]
We think a new Met. council series should be started.
Each particpating club would put on an event that would be different.
Club A. an auto cross.
Club B. a high speed event, such as AARRF,or COM with relatively higher speeds.
Club C. dare I say it, a drifting event.
Club D. A TSD rally.
Club E. [once againI'mgonna'beintrouble] A DRAG RACE.
Club F. A hill climb
The individual clubs would score the event their own way,and points would be tallied by class.
this would add some real excitement to the whole sport!

OK, this was more than 2 cents, but...........
DCM:dancin:

fitz

11-21-2003, 07:06 AM

Yeah, what Dwight said.

MNbiker

11-21-2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Dave Kral
It seems to me that if we decide to adopt the SCCA rules then we are giving up a lot of control over what we have to live by. Since the SCCA rules don't come out until after the Met Council Rules Meeting, if we didn't like something the SCCA did we would have to live with it until the following December to propose a supplemental Met Council rule to change it.

Since the existing Met Council rules are a fairly close parallel to the SCCA rules already (i.e. SCCA rules already tweaked to Met Council conditions), I don't see what the advantage is to throwing out the existing rules and starting over from scratch.

Dave

Dave,

IMHO - the fact that 2004 SCCA rulebooks won't be out until January shouldn't be a real concern for the December 14th Met Council Rules Meeting. Most changes from the 2003 Rules were published by the SCCA months ago, and are common knowledge. As car classing seems to be the biggest issue for MAC, I'm unaware of any significant classing changes that would lead to significant uncertainty about the 2004 SCCA Rules.

I believe the most significant area where adopting the SCCA Rules would be helpful is in car classing. The SCCA Rules provide a consistent set of car classifications and modification allowances that are shared by most clubs, throughout the U.S. Consistent, uniform classes make it far easier for drivers to attend events in other areas. Speaking from personal experience, I have chosen not to attend any events in Madison, because the club there has a unique class structure, not aligned with SCCA classes. If MAC events weren't so close to home, I'd be tempted to skip them as well, due to some classing deficiencies. It's been difficult for MAC to keep up with class changes resulting from new cars/models, competitive balance shifts, rules clarifications, etc. The SCCA is evaluating &amp; updates car classifications on a monthly basis, via FasTrack documents (freely available on the web).

-Steve

fitz

11-21-2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by MNbiker

Dave,

If MAC events weren't so close to home, I'd be tempted to skip them as well, due to some classing deficiencies. It's been difficult for MAC to keep up with class changes resulting from new cars/models, competitive balance shifts, rules clarifications, etc. The SCCA is evaluating &amp; updates car classifications on a monthly basis, via FasTrack documents (freely available on the web).

-Steve

Not to be rude but MAC has relied on the SCCA classifications for years and while I can't speak for current practice, I know when I was in charge of such things we were ahead of SCCA in classing many cars.

MNbiker

11-21-2003, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by fitz
Not to be rude but MAC has relied on the SCCA classifications for years and while I can't speak for current practice, I know when I was in charge of such things we were ahead of SCCA in classing many cars.

Not to be rude back, but my admittedly brief experience has been that we're not only behind in classing cars - we're missing entire Classes, some of them extremely popular with clubs across the country. In theory, a relatively small, localized club should be more nimble than the SCCA. In practice, the Met Council rule-making process appears to slow things down, and the SCCA has the advantage of full-time staffers, versus a few volunteers with plenty of other demands on their time.

I'll freely admit my opinions are strongly influenced by the fact that the class I've chosen to compete in isn't even in the current Met Council Rules - even though it was the 4th-largest class at Solo2 Nationals this year.

MAC has a laudable history as an autocross pioneer (even before it was called autocross or Solo2, as Phil likes to remind us!;)). I'm sensitive to the fact that many, including you, have spent years building the club, and are rightfully proud of your legacy. I'd simply like to see us streamline &amp; standardize things a bit, so we can all spend more time racing:) (sorry Phil, "testing our driving skills"!:p )

aansorge

11-25-2003, 01:51 AM

Joe Tharpe from Iowa runs stock class in his Miata and buys one set of Hoosiers per year, right before Nationals. He then runs the same set for the rest of the year and all of next year. Of course Miata's are very light, have the power going to the correct set of wheels, and have good suspension adjustability and geometry. My CRX would go through a set every year and a half and that is with co drivers at every event. I also went to some track day events. Of course this is on Kumho's. . .

In 2001, a guy bought an '88 CRX identical in appearance to mine for $400 put another 1500 into it and got 4th at Nationals. Stock can still be cheap.

Originally posted by MNbiker

Originally posted by SalahK
If people are having to buy a seperate set of wheels and tires for stock, street tire (SST through HST) OR for street touring (STS, STX) classes, either at the local OR at the national level, then there is definately something WRONG with the idea of having such classes in the first place.

If you compete with street tires, you ought to drive on the SAME street tires as well.

:flame:

[rant mode on]
This is a TOTALLY unrealistic viewpoint that ignores human nature. Face it, some folks are going to prepare to the limit of the rules, if they believe it helps their chances of winning. There's absolutely no way you could ever police a "run what you drove in on" rule, as people could just park around the block &amp; change tires. While the intent of local Street Tire classes may be low prep, low pressure, I've seen some pretty heated competition in SST classes at MAC events. Also, some people may not enjoy driving on stiff, noisy tires every day - especially if they have a long commute.

Futhermore, lumping STS/STX in with MAC's local Stock Street Tire classes is a significant misrepresentation of what these classes are all about. STS &amp; STX are National classes, with serious competitors, just like any other SCCA class - which means dedicated tires/wheels or anything else that's within the rules and will give drivers that last little edge. It costs $5K - $10K to properly prep an STX car. However, one of the big attractions of STS/STX is that ongoing tire costs are FAR lower than Stock or SP classes, due to FAR better tire longevity (Hoosiers are EXPENSIVE and don't last very long!). Most of the math I've seen shows that for regular (20+ events/year) competitors, an STX car is cheaper to run than a Stock car by the 2nd year, even with the cost of all the mods.

The SCCA must be doing something right with STS &amp; STX, as they were two of the five most popular classes at Solo2 Nationals this year.
[/rant mode off]

Have a nice evening!;)

-Steve

aansorge

11-25-2003, 02:16 AM

Sorry that the last post was a bit off topic, I'm jumping in kinda late. . .

I have to say that I am with Steve on this one. The SCCA has employees and thousands of members giving input to decide about car classes and rules. Why should we try and develop our own set of rules and classes (which seems to go through major overhauls every few years)? The benefits do not seem worth it to me. Also, the bumping order is established and it can help us create 'fewer' classes.

That being said, I am going to contradict myself and say that I am very much in favor of a street tire pax class just like back in 1999 when I started. It was awesome! 20 to 30 cars in one class going for best pax. A third place finish in that class meant a lot more than a first place finish in many of todays street tire classes. I am also not so in favor of the novice class as I figure why not just jump in with both feet? I believe most Novices start in the Novice class simply because they are encouraged to do so at registration.

adam

washburn

11-25-2003, 11:34 AM

I have not really had much on an opinion on this discussion...seems to happen every couple a years.

I will say however, that I hope we do not go down the path of "Street Tires only for stock classes". This would be a mistake IMHO. If I were inclined to take a stand right now, I would say that we should adopt SCCA classing across the board, with the understanding that SCCA also encourages local regions to create and run any other classes they see fit. (Not being a region, we could do this anyway...I'm just reinforcing that even die hard SCCA regions are not only free to do this, they are encouraged to do so.) Membership recruitment and retention happens at the local level, not from the National office. If anything, the rules and classing offered by SCCA would serve as a solid foundation we can work from, with the heavy lifting of classing decisions being made by other more well researched people.

rdub

11-26-2003, 09:40 AM

History 101
back in my early MAC (Minnesota Opel Drivers)years,we tryed to maintain and enforce our own rules.
BAD BAD BAD IDEA
The guys with the srongest opinion/pull within the club would go to the Rules Meeting and get their cars moved around to where they wanted them ,or at least make a big thing of it!
This is too hard for the club board members to handle.
I've been involved with this since 1978,so I'd hope folks will listen and just stay out of Rules stuff.Use SCCA and forget about it.Thats what we did,don't go backwards.
This street tire vs R compound tire crap is getting old too.Too many choices!to many classes.
Put everyone back in their respective stock classes,THE CREAM WILL STILL RISE TO THE TOP!
If you're a racer you'll get the right stuff to compete,or you'll just have fun with what you got.

DCM

11-26-2003, 02:38 PM

Thanks for the history lesson Randy. [justhowlonghaveyoubeenaroundanyway?]
I agree, we need to follow much more closely to SCCA rules, and add what we need to at the local level.
The 'fun factor' will be every bit as high without STOCK STREET TIRES!
DCM
PS does da prez get to give more than 2 cents?:dancin:

Darryl

11-26-2003, 02:47 PM

SCCA rule book.

Street tire:

RWD - index/pax

FWD - index/pax

Simple

Darryl

chuck b

11-26-2003, 03:25 PM

I agree with Adam's three points
1) SI- not needed, but ok
2) one huge PAXed street class was FUN! Less classes and bumping. PAX aint perfect but close enough for us hack drivers.....and as Randy says- the cream rises....
3) SCCA classes work fine

So taking Darryl's one step further
A) SCCA classes
B) Street Tire- Stock- one PAXed class
even simpler!

haro

11-26-2003, 04:04 PM

I 've got two pennies burning a hole in my pocket........Randy's words.....BULLSEYE!!
Why should the wheel be reinvented every couple of years? I know some of you have ill fellings towards the SCCA, but geez, get over it. From my perspective, we all share the same passion. Adopt the latest SCCA rules. Yes, regions do have classes for whatever they deem appropriate, so add Rd and Fd street tire and PAX 'em!

I think far too much has been focused outwardly towards fellow competitors, car prep, and tire choice. Turn that that focus inward....look in the mirror...hard!

Newcomers will always come and go. As long as they have fun, they will likely come back. I was a newcomer at the Peru National Tour, I had my *ss handed to me, waxed, crushed, mutilated. I had (as my hands wouldn't stop shaking) four former National Champions ask, "well, did you have fun?".........Yah!!!!!
I am going back.

Harry Aro
CSP Miata

StevenMosley

11-26-2003, 06:38 PM

Harry is right on the money. Once this stops being fun for me I will
stop coming.

As for classes. I really hate the idea of any class using paxed scores. It just seems to defeat the purpose of having a class. I'm starting to lean towards just using SCCA rules
and leave good enough alone. It seems to work fine at LOL events it should work fine here.

Happy Thanks Eating Day everyone!!

fitz

11-27-2003, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by washburn

I have not really had much on an opinion on this discussion...seems to happen every couple a years.

I will say however, that I hope we do not go down the path of "Street Tires only for stock classes". This would be a mistake IMHO. If I were inclined to take a stand right now, I would say that we should adopt SCCA classing across the board, with the understanding that SCCA also encourages local regions to create and run any other classes they see fit. (Not being a region, we could do this anyway...I'm just reinforcing that even die hard SCCA regions are not only free to do this, they are encouraged to do so.) Membership recruitment and retention happens at the local level, not from the National office. If anything, the rules and classing offered by SCCA would serve as a solid foundation we can work from, with the heavy lifting of classing decisions being made by other more well researched people.

I think we do this pretty well already. If you look at the rulebook, our Stock and Street Prepared rules differ little from SCCA. In Prepared and Mod we allow more flexibility because we simply don't have the means to enforce SCCA-type rules in those categories. In many ways we have been ahead of SCCA - they still don't have an equivilant to our very popular Stock Street Tire category and we had the equally popular Street Prepared Street Tire several years before SCCA came up with the broadly equivilant Street Touring. When it comes to classifying cars we copy the SCCA exactly - except that again, I know we have some cars classed that they don't (I know, I classed them). When we do happen to run into a car that's not classed in our rules, I know the first place we look is to SCCA to see if they have an update.

In short, I think just adopting the SCCA rulebook lock, stock and barrel is a bit of a copout. It robs us of some of the flexibility we have had to make things that work for us here on the local level. The only area where I see any need to mimic SCCA exactly is in classifying cars. At our level its simply more bother than its worth to do that ourselves, but again, that's how we are already doing it anyway.