SCCA Solo Class Article/Discussion

[Michael Smith]

...making some adjustment to whats allowed in stock, maybe front AND rear bars, or one or the other...

+1

[Mako Koiwai]

I think a big part of the problem is that all of us seasoned AX'ers view this subject from a "know it all" position instead of taking the newbie's position. Theoretically newbies start where ever and if they get bitten, will then figure out where they want to go ... which is usually not a Stock Class. The question is, do we want to make the Stock Classes more attractive.

With our various ST classes, there is little incentive for them to go to a Stock Class. With our local ST and Run What You Brung classes, WE are doing well offering newbies alternatives. The original issue raised by SoloMatters was what can be done to help out the Stock Classes, locally and presumably at National events.

Since it is generally agreed that R tires were used in Stock Classes originally because street tires weren't that great back then, but that now ST tires can be very good, what's the big deal switching to 140 wear tires? (Newbies quickly recognize that their OEM tires are lacking, and they get worn out quickly) At the same time why not allow rear and front sway bars? And there should be some way to control shock costs? A Koni Spec shock (in exchange for Solo sponsorship)? I would think a tire width restriction would also be a good idea. Perhaps a Plus 1 upgrade option in wheel/tire sizes but limited to ?

[Bob Pl]

Maybe the improving economy will help the stock classes? I'm assuming most newbies come at the stock or near-stock level.

I'm also assuming and hoping the economy down there is finally improving! It is certainly doing pretty good up here!

R

Hi Reijo,

I think it's mostly the opposite. Most noobs come to the sport already having done a bunch of (questionable) mods and get told they can't run in stock class. I don't think there is much you can do to rectify that, except if they haven't done much, explain that they can put it back to stock.

And +1 what Tom said about rear bar. It's a pretty dumb rule that lets you put any bar on the front & not touch the rear.

Finally why all the hate for Dot R tires? Are there not enough new classes that specify 140 + wear, you all want to force that on stock too? IMO that'll kill stock even more.

[Jeff Stuart]

Finally why all the hate for Dot R tires? Are there not enough new classes that specify 140 + wear, you all want to force that on stock too? IMO that'll kill stock even more.

It's the only thing that keeps me running in SK2 and not CS.

But then again, I think it was well established in a previous iteration of this thread that I am in the minority...

[Don Salyers]

Hi Reijo,

I think it's mostly the opposite. Most noobs come to the sport already having done a bunch of (questionable) mods and get told they can't run in stock class. I don't think there is much you can do to rectify that, except if they haven't done much, explain that they can put it back to stock.

And +1 what Tom said about rear bar. It's a pretty dumb rule that lets you put any bar on the front & not touch the rear.

Finally why all the hate for Dot R tires? Are there not enough new classes that specify 140 + wear, you all want to force that on stock too? IMO that'll kill stock even more.

I totally agree!!! I tried to run SK1 with my '98 Mustang (Cobra) bought another set of rims some RT 615 Falkens (hot tie at the time) and was going to run the V710's for Tour and Pro. That was not fun.....Street Tires <> over 300 hp. Does anyone want to buy some 245-40-17 with about 3 runs on them plus one trip to Packwood as street tire to the Tour and Pro with a trailed set of V710.

Don

[Steve Towers]

IMHO - no bar changes (front or rear), no adjustable shocks, suspension/alignment/lowering only on the factory hardware, any tire on OEM or equal wheels = stock. Anything else is a modification.

[Jonathan Lugod]

Originally Posted by Geoff Chambers
As much as I want to agree with some of you that say Street Tires in stock class will lower the cost of competition in those classes and draw in more of the "local" competitors that don't want to spend the money on Hoosers I just cant. I think this is a perception, not a reality. I think we can all agree that the top competitors are going to test tires and shave tires and win the contingencies and get tire deals etc, etc. That's a given. It already happens now. And, for the casual competitor, it's not going to lower their expense at all. They will remain the same if not increase due to higher entry fees to National events and travel expenses. They're already spending the money for street tires, car expenses and entry fees.

What I can't agree with is the other part. These "local" competitors don't step up, in my experience from working with a lot of the Indy locals, because they are more afraid of the level of competition and the commitment of time. And, by forcing a changing to street tires, this level of competition isn't going away unless all those top competitors get pissed because of the change and leave. There are always going to be competitors who are willing to do whatever it takes to win and there will always be the others who are not willing to. Nothing at all is going to change this.

[Morgan Trotter]

For those concerned, what is your biggest complaint about Stock classes?
Before you answer. Remember, "Stock" is a level of preparation. It can be increased or decreased.
If there is a good idea that most people can agree to. There is no reason letters can't be sent.

[Michael Wood]

...making some adjustment to whats allowed in stock, maybe front AND rear bars, or one or the other...

+1

Having both bars open goes to a higher level of prep...one or the other is a different discussion ;)

Also, I'd love to see an actual proposal for shock limitations. "OEM"? Doesn't cut it. What's "OEM"? If I have an '02 Z06, can I install the '04 Z06 damper? UD/BD? Also, it is very possible to change internals within an OEM body...are we going to bring a shock dyno to all events? Those are just the most obvious issues...there're plenty more.

[Tom Denham]

For those concerned, what is your biggest complaint about Stock classes?
Before you answer. Remember, "Stock" is a level of preparation. It can be increased or decreased.
If there is a good idea that most people can agree to. There is no reason letters can't be sent.

I'll ask you, Do you like stock the way it is or do think improvements can be made?
I think there is some room for a couple of more allowances for stock, i mentioned one.
Camber might be another, but that is a big can of worms.

[Curt Luther]

Banning R comps in Stock ain't the magic bullet. I got no problem if they do (yeah, I've changed my mind on that), it's just not the "problem" everyone makes it out to be. Still gotta have "the" tire and with more choices than the current 3 R comps, you're gonna spend a bit of money finding it for your car. I gotta chuckle recently when someone bought Toyos for his 3500 lb STX Mustang because it was "the" tire for ST* Civics and then he was shocked when they heated up like toaster ovens after 2 runs on a cold day...

Anyway, in my know it all opinon, the decline in stock numbers has more to do with the popularity of ST* classes and the economic downturn than the "cost" of R comps. I stopped pouring money into a stock class car two years ago because I became concerned about the latter in my personal situation and if I was gonna start burning money again I would do an ST* car. If you polled the actual people who have pulled out (*snicker*) I bet you would actually find similar responses.

Resume party...

[Morgan Trotter]

Tom,
It's hard to say what would be good or bad. I personally think its good to allow any size tire on wheels with the .25in offset rule. I would be ok doing away with the bar allowances. And possibly even switching to street tires. But the shocks are a reasonable rule to keep. Enforcing an "oem rule would be too difficult. I also would go so far as to allow cat back exhaust replacement rule to be left in place. Camber is a huge can of worms if you asked me. But that's just me.

[Tom Denham]

Just to clear up the facts- i am not advocating for the bannage of r's in stock. I might be on board for the Front or Rear bar in stock, but i feel it is fine the way it is otherwise.
Now you want to talk car classing? Let me get out the my book of !@#$%^ expletives first.

I'm Done

[Morgan Trotter]

Oh man. Car clashing is a mess! But clearing it up seems unlikely. I don't even know where to begin!

[Robert Puertas]

It might be interesting to go to 140 tires, and take away the sway bars and fancy shocks, but allow common methods of getting front camber.

It makes for an interesting trade off, and I bet some cars would actually benefit more from the camber allowance than they do from the bar...

[Bill Schenker]

...140 tires...

For 2012, allow me to introduce you to the "Hoosier 140ST" *


*Note recommended for street use.

[Michael Wood]

I'll ask again. Can anyone share how you might "limit" shocks?

Outside of external items, like reservoirs, give an enforceable example, please.

Bill, the "what is a legal tire" issue can be managed...or mismanaged, depending on what a person wants to run.

[Robert Puertas]

I'll ask again. Can anyone share how you might "limit" shocks?

Outside of external items, like reservoirs, give an enforceable example, please.

Bill, the "what is a legal tire" issue can be managed...or mismanaged, depending on what a person wants to run.

The only thing less than the current shock rules that makes any sense is OEM.

[Bill Schenker]

...Bill, the "what is a legal tire" issue can be managed...or mismanaged, depending on what a person wants to run.

Mike,

Can it really, though? Is SCCA going to have to do their own durometer test to create the exclusion list? The list has worked in the past because the tire was obviously marked with a low treadware number, no? But Hoosier could put that old "holographic" tread pattern in again on an A6 and call it a 140 tire! An exaggeration, I know, but not that far from what could happen I think :unimpressed:

[Jeff Stuart]

Can it really, though? Is SCCA going to have to do their own durometer test to create the exclusion list? The list has worked in the past because the tire was obviously marked with a low treadware number, no? But Hoosier could put that old "holographic" tread pattern in again on an A6 and call it a 140 tire! An exaggeration, I know, but not that far from what could happen I think :unimpressed:

There are already plenty of ST classes with tons of participation and they haven't done it yet.

I think the exclusion list is enough to solve this particular problem. As long as SCCA is firm that they will use it, I can't imagine tire manufacturers would spend the money to develop and release a new tire aimed a such a (relatively) small group of potential customers with the risk that the SCCA could outlaw it at the drop of a hat.


Also, this whole idea that going to street tires wouldn't lower costs seems crazy to me. Yes, I agree that some people could end up spending more money with an ST rule testing the various tires, and still showing up with a fresh set to every event, but IMO, those aren't really the people that we're talking about here. The article is talking about raising participation, and getting more noobs to come out. It seems like majority of the resistance to an ST rule change comes from few people who would have to spend more.

IMO, the SCCA should reach out to all the participants in the SK (and similar variants) classes throughout the country and see what those people want, because those are the people that I think we're talking about here. I have no idea if the outcome of such a survey would lead to a change to street tires in the stock class, but I think those are the people that should be asked what they really want. I would guess that a majority of those people don't have any plans of trying to go to Nationals anyways, but you never know until you ask them.

All I know is that for me personally, having to buy an extra set of wheels and tires (that are 50% more expensive and don't last as long), lug them to every event, and change them out twice a day is the only deterrent to me running in Stock. I probably still wouldn't go to nationals even if I competed locally in stock, but I would be much more likely to.


In summary: A change to stock tires is what I personally want, but I'm not convinced it would significantly change participation numbers at nationals. I do think it would change local participation numbers.

[Vincent Wong]

For those concerned, what is your biggest complaint about Stock classes?
Before you answer. Remember, "Stock" is a level of preparation. It can be increased or decreased.
If there is a good idea that most people can agree to. There is no reason letters can't be sent.

I'm happy with the Stock rules now with the exception of the tires. IMO, Stock is stock, and it means that you can literally buy a car from the dealer on a Saturday, and bring it out to race the next day, then use it to commute daily the following weeks and months and years. No need to buy another set of wheels just for the R-tires, and no need to swap wheels/tires just for the race. I did that for a short period of time when I ran in Street Mod. While I enjoyed the level of grip, I didn't really enjoy loading/unloading, and swapping wheels/tires at the event for 3-4 runs. I won't mind doing that for whole day of track, but for 3-4 runs....I'd rather just run on whatever tires I drove in with.

But then I'm not a top competitor, and I don't like to drive the same car ("the car to have" in the class) that everyone drives.

[Steve Ekstrand]

I'd say most top ST cars that are actually driven on the street swap out tires/wheels. Sure there are a few exceptions. But I've run ST for a long time and for the most part on shaved dedicated race rubber that is managed. Dry sets, wet sets, fresh shaved heat cycled in tires for big events. No difference except that I get a whole lot of runs out of my 140 tires. But I have a light weight car with great camber curves. I'm sure I'd be on the high end of R-comp tire life too, but it wouldn't be as great.

I don't see 140 tires as a joke. You have to restrict it to real UHP tires marketed for the street. Not only can you have an exclusion list. You can have an inclusion list. Its manageable as long as from the very beginning Hoosier is on notice, that an A6 with tread is not acceptable. A lot of very influential racers cried foul with the Toyo R1R's because it feels so soft. In practice, that tire has not proven to be out of line with Hankooks, Dunlops, Yokos, Bridgestones, etc.

One thing R-comps do is stick. Is that a good thing for many stock class cars? For a Z06? Of course. Mustang? Obviously. But does an a R-Comp make a Yaris better? At rolling over maybe? Seems like it just makes body roll and lack of camber more noticeable as you obliterate the outside shoulder in 10 runs for many econoboxes. High horsepower cars are crap on streets. But the cheap stuff is probably better off with streets. What do you do with that?

Like I said before, I see huge problems ahead with stock class. It started with camber challenged strut cars. Now we have electronic diffs replacing real LSD's in performance models. And the nanny state is requiring ever increasing and often non-defeatable driver aids. And then there are the black box and gps possibilities with warranties, insurance, and state police. How does stock survive that future?

[Michael Wood]

I'll ask again. Can anyone share how you might "limit" shocks?

Outside of external items, like reservoirs, give an enforceable example, please.

Bill, the "what is a legal tire" issue can be managed...or mismanaged, depending on what a person wants to run.

The only thing less than the current shock rules that makes any sense is OEM.

What does "OEM" mean? Is it model year specific? Option package specific? How do we monitor internal valving modification? Or, do they just have to "look" OEM?

Also, for many cars a set of aftermarket Koni Yellows or Bils are a lot cheaper than OEM. How are we helping the folks with the big mark up OEM stuff? Make them pay more to go slower?

I don't see it, but I'm not saying I have the answer, either

[Robert Puertas]

The shocks that came on your car are cheaper than Penskes, Motons or 2812's.

Do we police ECUs in stock? How about displacement? LSDs?

[John Fendel]

[quote]All I know is that for me personally, having to buy an extra set of wheels and tires (that are 50% more expensive and don't last as long), lug them to every event, and change them out twice a day is the only deterrent to me running in Stock. I probably still wouldn't go to nationals even if I competed locally in stock, but I would be much more likely to.

In summary: A change to stock tires is what I personally want, but I'm not convinced it would significantly change participation numbers at nationals. I do think it would change local participation numbers.
Jeff Stuart [quote]

Way back when, stock used to mean stock. Everybody bitched because at any point in time, a particular car would be the one to have if you wanted to win. So the rules were revised a little to allow some "minor" changes to help equalize the competition. Everybody bitched because the "minor" change didn't help their car. So more "minor" changes were enacted until we have the current rules. No matter what changes are made, somebody will bitch. It is a matter of finding the right balance of changes. And the current rules could be the best balance.
The R tire vs 140+ tire may not be the fix for stock. Part of the reason that R tires were allowed was for economics. It was cheaper to buy an R tire than test 6 or 8 different brands of 140+ tires to find the one that worked best on your car. And some 140+ tires were just as or more expensive than the equivalent size R tire. And it leveled the playing field somewhat, because SCCA could put some pressure on the few R tire manufactures to offer several sizes that they couldn't do to all the different tire manufactures of the 140+ tires.
SK classes are giving people another place to play that may fit their preferences on how they want to prepare their car. But it did dilute the Stock classes a bit. The economy is probably the biggest factor for reduced participation. Some of that won't be fixed until the economy improves. But we need to start advertising again. That is something that this group doesn't do well. We need to start promoting Solo around the LA area. That is how we will increase local participation and ultimately national particapation.