Rules Proposal - Octane

Moderators: Mike Simanyi, Rick Brown, Michael Palero

User avatar
Adam Tarnoff
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:38 pm
Club: CASOC
Car#: 49

Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Adam Tarnoff » Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:36 pm

I propose that we should replace the current Fuel rules for Street and ST

"3.6 FUEL
A. Street and Street Touring® category vehicles will use fuel which is “Federally
approved for use on public highways,” and which does not exceed
an octane rating of 93 AKI (Anti-Knock Index = [R+M]/2) with an allowed
variance up to +0.9. Fuel may not exceed 15% ethanol (E15). This includes
the pump fuel known as E85, but does not allow racing-type fuels which
are available at service station pumps. Fuels comprised of more than 15%
ethanol may only be used when specified by the manufacturer (e.g., in the
owner’s manual for flex-fuel vehicles)."

With an abbreviated version

"3.6 FUEL
A. Street and Street Touring® category vehicles will use fuel which is “Federally
approved for use on public highways.”"

As a region, we have no way to enforce the rule as currently written. We have no octane tester, or the means to properly extract fuel from a modern system. Not to mention, with as hot as it gets at ACS and El Toro, it would serve the membership to use higher octane fuels (if they so chose) to prevent pre-detonation.
#49 C Street Mazda RX-8

User avatar
Rick Brown
Club Representative
Posts: 4744
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:25 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 240
Location: Lake Elsinore, CA

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Rick Brown » Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:06 pm

Are you talking about local rules? Is that even in the required sections for regional events?
Since light is faster than sound...many people look bright until they speak...

User avatar
Sean Fenstermacher
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:56 pm
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 81

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Sean Fenstermacher » Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:56 pm

Honestly as I personally disagree with the recent SEB rule change purposals, I am bias, but I do think Adam's proposal has some merrit.

Regionally, it can be argued that the recent octane rule and current seat proprosal for ST classes threaten to deminish our local market competiviness to attract the tuner and trackday crowd that have huge populations in SoCal.

Just stuffing those guys just into CST may not be the "cure all" in this situation, especially when other local organizations quickly establishing places for guys to play with cars of similar type and mods. (ie, 86Cup, RoadsterCup, Nissan Challenge, etc...)

Simplifing some of the National specific limitations to open things up and broaden the local appeal could be a positive.

User avatar
Anthony Porta
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 713
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 30
Contact:

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Anthony Porta » Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:27 pm

It's pretty simple, run whatever you want as we don't have the means to test it.

Jonathan Lugod
King of Fastrack!
Posts: 932
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:29 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 194
Location: Oceanside
Contact:

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Jonathan Lugod » Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:45 am

:lol: :lol: :lol:
http://www.osgiken.net
4 STR- 2016 Mazda ND Miata
OS Giken / Bridgestone / Bride

User avatar
Adam Tarnoff
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:38 pm
Club: CASOC
Car#: 49

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Adam Tarnoff » Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:28 am

Anthony Porta wrote:It's pretty simple, run whatever you want as we don't have the means to test it.


Ok let's get that in the supps then... :clap:
#49 C Street Mazda RX-8

User avatar
Mike Simanyi
Executive Board Member
Posts: 2271
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: No$
Car#: 6

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Mike Simanyi » Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:08 pm

It's not an option. The fuel requirements are in 3.6, which is a required section of the national rules.

We can't "supp regs" that out of existence if we want to operate SCCA events.

User avatar
Adam Tarnoff
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:38 pm
Club: CASOC
Car#: 49

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Adam Tarnoff » Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:13 pm

Mike Simanyi wrote:It's not an option. The fuel requirements are in 3.6, which is a required section of the national rules.

We can't "supp regs" that out of existence if we want to operate SCCA events.


It's also a rule that we have no means of enforcing.
#49 C Street Mazda RX-8

User avatar
Anthony Porta
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 713
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 30
Contact:

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Anthony Porta » Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:38 pm

Mike Simanyi wrote:It's not an option. The fuel requirements are in 3.6, which is a required section of the national rules.

We can't "supp regs" that out of existence if we want to operate SCCA events.


Sure we can "Vehicle classifications (e.g., Section 3.2) are not mandatory" just call it stx-L for local. Stx-N for national and everyone runs STX combined.

Or because that's ridiculous and we can't enforce the rule just wait until someone protests, which we cant verify.
Last edited by Anthony Porta on Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Mike Simanyi
Executive Board Member
Posts: 2271
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: No$
Car#: 6

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Mike Simanyi » Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:42 pm

True - he can run in a different class, one that allows the octane he wants to run.

User avatar
Adam Tarnoff
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:38 pm
Club: CASOC
Car#: 49

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Adam Tarnoff » Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:22 pm

I think i'll just look the other way if my competitors want to use real fuel.
#49 C Street Mazda RX-8

User avatar
Mike Simanyi
Executive Board Member
Posts: 2271
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: No$
Car#: 6

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Mike Simanyi » Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:08 pm

Perhaps I'm being naive, but my *hope* is that all our competitors value the competitive spirit and developing their skills more than they value cheating.

I know I hate the feeling when I lose, but greatly appreciate a hard-earned win.

User avatar
Sean Fenstermacher
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:56 pm
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 81

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Sean Fenstermacher » Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:50 pm

My take on it is it's not about cheating, but more about broadening our regional inclusiveness.

I would imagine our more serious national level competitors would run per national standards to get their cars sorted for Lincoln.

User avatar
Mike Simanyi
Executive Board Member
Posts: 2271
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: No$
Car#: 6

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Mike Simanyi » Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:50 pm

Because newbies wanna spend $10+ per gallon to have their butts kicked?

This isn’t even slightly about being more inclusive.

User avatar
Sean Fenstermacher
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:56 pm
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 81

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Sean Fenstermacher » Fri Apr 13, 2018 7:37 am

Sounds like you have never been to a trackday event, huh?
Tell you what. I think you need to go and see who our regional motorsports competition is and what their customers are doing with their cars. Maybe by seeing it first hand, you can start to understand what we are up against to attract more drivers that like to #havefunwithcars.

I'm not referring to the recruitment of the wide eyed newbie that doesn't own a helmet.
There's already a large local population pool of motorsport savy customers that a good potion may be interested in the high performance, low risk environment autocross offers.

Feedback from current members is insufficient in this case, please go check out some events yourself.

User avatar
Adam Tarnoff
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:38 pm
Club: CASOC
Car#: 49

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Adam Tarnoff » Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:32 am

Mike Simanyi wrote:Perhaps I'm being naive, but my *hope* is that all our competitors value the competitive spirit and developing their skills more than they value cheating.

I know I hate the feeling when I lose, but greatly appreciate a hard-earned win.


I don't believe this is about cheating - If I see a member use 100 octane, I just won't throw paper.
#49 C Street Mazda RX-8

User avatar
Anthony Porta
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 713
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 30
Contact:

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Anthony Porta » Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:08 pm

Mike Simanyi wrote:Perhaps I'm being naive, but my *hope* is that all our competitors value the competitive spirit and developing their skills more than they value cheating.

I know I hate the feeling when I lose, but greatly appreciate a hard-earned win.



But the seb said there was no advantage to 100 octane, right? I think people just want more of a safety margin against knock in the summers.

User avatar
Marshall Grice
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 21

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Marshall Grice » Sat Apr 14, 2018 11:41 am

Anthony Porta wrote:But the seb said there was no advantage to 100 octane, right? I think people just want more of a safety margin against knock in the summers.

^fake news. at no point has the SEB's claim been that 100 octane is of no advantage. the claim is that performance gained from using expensive race fuel represents an inadequate return of value to the members participating in our lowest preparation categories and that the allowance of these fuels is driving down participation.

User avatar
Marshall Grice
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 21

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Marshall Grice » Sat Apr 14, 2018 12:36 pm

Sean Fenstermacher wrote:Sounds like you have never been to a trackday event, huh?
Tell you what. I think you need to go and see who our regional motorsports competition is and what their customers are doing with their cars. Maybe by seeing it first hand, you can start to understand what we are up against to attract more drivers that like to #havefunwithcars.

I'm not referring to the recruitment of the wide eyed newbie that doesn't own a helmet.
There's already a large local population pool of motorsport savy customers that a good potion may be interested in the high performance, low risk environment autocross offers.

Feedback from current members is insufficient in this case, please go check out some events yourself.

the good news is I am certain we have a category/class these types of people can participate in if they're interested in our high performance, low risk environment. the simple fact that ST limits treadwear to 200 or less doesn't mean we need to redefine the whole category to attract track day people at the cost of alienating our core membership.

candaul berber
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby candaul berber » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:30 am

Marshall Grice wrote:
Anthony Porta wrote:But the seb said there was no advantage to 100 octane, right? I think people just want more of a safety margin against knock in the summers.

^fake news. at no point has the SEB's claim been that 100 octane is of no advantage. the claim is that performance gained from using expensive race fuel represents an inadequate return of value to the members participating in our lowest preparation categories and that the allowance of these fuels is driving down participation.


Disagreeing with the SEB's participation based on "facts" is pretty easy. "that the allowance of these fuels is driving down participation" is patently false and is the SEB's version of fake news.
Here is a table I created as part of my fact-based argument against our SEB's most recent take back(seats) proposal:
ST_Growth.PNG
ST_Growth.PNG (15.89 KiB) Viewed 1467 times

The "driving down participation" claim is completely at odds with the fact that we had a cap on Nationals last year, thanks in part to one of the largest overall ST classes. Considering the age of the rule and the numbers(actual facts), this was simply not a rule that needed to be "fixed". Please write your letters-they still get heard, but with little feedback the SEB thinks people LOVE their decisions, when the truth is closer to "someone else will write" being the general assumption.
I'm happy to post/share my fuel and seat letters for those that would prefer edit as they wish and submit vs sitting down to write their own. People are busy....#suchagiver

Derek

User avatar
Reed Gibson
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:33 pm
Club: SCNAX

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Reed Gibson » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:00 pm

candaul berber wrote:
Marshall Grice wrote:
Anthony Porta wrote:But the seb said there was no advantage to 100 octane, right? I think people just want more of a safety margin against knock in the summers.

^fake news. at no point has the SEB's claim been that 100 octane is of no advantage. the claim is that performance gained from using expensive race fuel represents an inadequate return of value to the members participating in our lowest preparation categories and that the allowance of these fuels is driving down participation.

I'm happy to post/share my fuel and seat letters for those that would prefer edit as they wish and submit vs sitting down to write their own. People are busy....#suchagiver

Derek


Feel free to post them or send them to me so I can distribute them to at least our SCNAX membership!

candaul berber
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby candaul berber » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:09 pm

Fuel Change letter I sent in-feel free to edit/copy/change as per your opinions(even if you disagree)

Fuel Rule in effect for more than 15 years

From the earliest introduction of ST one was restricted to "Federally approved for use on public highways"fuels. This rule made sense for ST since it was just the type of thing that a typical ST potential entry would do to their car in the quest for performance. Game on- and thank you Sunoco.

Did the STAC get this wrong for 15 years?



Biggest growth in classes has been in ST with the current rule set

So much has been made of this years National being the largest EVER, so much so that there was a Wait list for entries that went above the cutoff.

A first and yet we’re talking about adding costs to support a long standing fuel rule-for an unclear purpose? What is so broken that we’re trying to fix with this change?

Change is not free

This proposed change should be looked at aggressively from a cost, mission and ease of implementation point of view. Of these 3 we know this adds a $400 to $700 cost to a large established community of racers to an unclear end. Most everyone has availale tunes for 91 and 100 octane, but a scant few would have anything for a 93 map. This will not change the need to transport fuel in jugs to events and adds the additional burden of having to “roll your own” mixture in many cases to make 93. Buy 91, buy 100 and mix. This is a mess.

A quick view of the available 93 Octane station maps across the US highlights the scarcity of these stations as we move west of Nebraska. As an aside the maps show none in Utah, Colorado and Nevada.

This move all but renders useless the now “open boost” allowance for boosted ST cars. The close parity of boosted and NA cars that we have now is going to disproportionally impact the boosted cars further alienating a significant portion of the competing population.


I oppose this move on the basis of the unnecessary burden it imposes on the competing core of ST drivers especially with little clarity as to what benefit it hopes to bring.

ST has had a good period of rule stability and an outstanding period of growth by all objective measures. Lets’ not mess with what has clearly been a successful recipe.

candaul berber
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby candaul berber » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:11 pm

Reed Gibson wrote:
candaul berber wrote:
Marshall Grice wrote:^fake news. at no point has the SEB's claim been that 100 octane is of no advantage. the claim is that performance gained from using expensive race fuel represents an inadequate return of value to the members participating in our lowest preparation categories and that the allowance of these fuels is driving down participation.

I'm happy to post/share my fuel and seat letters for those that would prefer edit as they wish and submit vs sitting down to write their own. People are busy....#suchagiver

Derek


Feel free to post them or send them to me so I can distribute them to at least our SCNAX membership!



Seat Take Back Letter:
Same copy/edit/tweak suggestions as per fuel letter apply

Stated Core Values of SCCA SOLO Triangle
1. Increased Participation and involvement
a. This value is listed at the peak of the triangle as the premier core value
2. Variety of competition experiences
3. Evolving rules in a planned manner
The ST growth rate is over 62% taking just the last 10 years into consideration. This alone suggests that the SCCA is meeting the Top core value of the SCCA Solo triangle of Increased participation and involvement.
I contend that the propsed changes to ST 14.2.B are at odds with that core value.
The Minimum seat weight and airbag rule proposal is being put forward to “better align the allowances with the weights of todays common seats and mounting hardware.” Firstly, there is no such thing as a “common” seat. Stock ND Miata seats come in close to the actual minimum weight of todays’ rules and Stock BMW seats are no where near it and in some cases double the minimum weight. It’s a poor argument. Worse yet, it is a reversal of class intent to make a class designed to represent the common things an enthusiast would do. Now suddenly we need to be “better aligned with today’s common seats and mounting hardware”(what exactly is a “common seat”?).
Many of the Stock ST seats weigh more than the proposed 35lbs and significantly more than the current 25lb rule making them ideal candiates to change under current allowances. The purpose of the additional 10lbs is unclear and ill thought out as it has nothing to do with safety and seems to impose an undue financial burden on a majority of the ST participants. At the very core of the SCCA Solo Triangle is the evolution of rules. Takebacks, as this would represent, are not an evolution of rules designed to attract members(their reason for showing up has not changed), but represent a REvolution that does nothing to continue to welcome this unique class of P1s.
The continued takebacks of long standing well regarded and accepted rules are more likely to have the “take my ball and go home” effect vs driving towards the main core value. Fuel takeback, propsed steering wheel airbag take back are just some of recent annoyances that if not addressed will continue unabated and finally stifle continued growth. It’s time to stop.
One of the things that makes SOLO racing so attractive is the purity of the concept-there are no spectators to cheer us on, it’s driver vs driver and keeping it driver centric is the key to our continued success. Drivers want cool racing seats in the aftermarket, this is the target audience of ST. Let’s not loose sight of this.
The ST seat allowance has been in effect for over 10 years and the over 62% growth in the class since that time is evidence of the SCCA meeting the top core value of increased participation
There are a few well reported cases (some occuring at Solo Nationals 2017) of airbag deployment without impact in racing and some street driven scenarios. The strong adherence to course set up safety rules within Solo has made it remarkably free from incidents where having seats with integral airbags have been relevant. If the argument is made for these being street driven cars, consider that the bulk of cars in ST are street registered and reflect the desire of adult participants to make certain modifications to their street driven cars. They understand the risks of seats with integral air bag removal and have spoken with their participation. This unique class of P1 adults represents the SCCA solo’s fastest growing class and they have come off the streets to this venue of like minded auto enthusiats. Let’s ensure they continue to be welcomed.
I oppose this rule change proposal on the above grounds and think this progression (Airbag take back, Fuel take back) represents moves that serve only to alienate the very unique class of P1s.
http://www.sebscca.com

User avatar
Marshall Grice
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 21

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Marshall Grice » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:30 pm

ST is popular because it requires cheap daily driveable tires. Applying the same logic to stock (now street) resulted in a reversal of a huge decline in participation. Everyone loved that change also. (<— sarcasm)

100 octane is the fuel equivalent of hoosiers. Think about it.

Do you think ST is popular because it allows you to use 12 dollar per gallon fuel or in spite of it?

candaul berber
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby candaul berber » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:49 pm

Marshall Grice wrote:ST is popular because it requires cheap daily driveable tires. Applying the same logic to stock (now street) resulted in a reversal of a huge decline in participation. Everyone loved that change also. (<— sarcasm)

100 octane is the fuel equivalent of hoosiers. Think about it.

Do you think ST is popular because it allows you to use 12 dollar per gallon fuel or in spite of it?


No argument-definitely in spite of it.
Hoosier may be a stretch too far, as the Hoosier expense is a huge delta over the next nearest tire-as in cost_and_lower life.
Given the rule set allowance for fuel, timing, using the Federally mandated fuel rules makes sense. What does not make sense is to give unlimited boost and take fuel away-talk about ticking time bomb. Taking away fuel from ST, with the current rule set, makes it more like Street warmed up...not enough distinction. The growth of ST was due to the fun factor delta between street/stock and ST. Narrowing that gap, helps serious competitors question "why bother with ST?" and makes the folks who were originally coaxed off the street (with common mods) either go away(track) or simply not show up-both of which seem to go against the stated tenets of the SCCA's ST program.
The rationale for the change is still unclear. The "decline in participation" argument is not even specious , but just plain untrue.


Return to “Public Rules Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests