May FasTrack

[John Stimson]

The aversion to the 2-groove tread design is that it's a major reason why the ST category has taken off. I used to think it had something to do with street legality of the cars, but they're rapidly throwing all that stuff overboard. I just don't see the STAC letting the tire rules slip back towards what we have in Stock and SP because that's the main differentiator between ST and SP.

The Fastrack proposal wasn't about street tires in stock -- it was about changing the treadwear number used for ST (and therefore, for the RT trial class).

[Craig Naylor]

Ok, this one is just plain STUPID.

Street Touring
6. The following new listing, effective immediately upon publication, has been provided by the STAC:
Fiat 500 (2012) STF (#7568)

There are no requirements that you actually do anything to you car to run in ST classes. So the SEB has specifically within this same Fastrack excluded the Fiat 500 (Arbath) from Stock class, but allows it (and the base model) in ST with no minimum required alterations. In other words, it's unsafe to run in stock, so slap a STF on the car... and poof... the magnetic/vinyl application to the doors just made your car safe to drive.

Someone didn't think that one through very well.

[Jayson Woodruff]

In other words, it's unsafe to run in stock, so slap a STF on the car... and poof... the magnetic/vinyl application to the doors just made your car safe to drive.

In many regions they don't even care too much about having class letters!

Now I can tell people I'm saving lives selling vinyl.

Jay W

[Davin Swanson]

In stock you can run R-comps, in STF you can't. More lateral force = higher rollover risk.

[Marshall Grice]

In stock you can run R-comps, in STF you can't. More lateral force = higher rollover risk.

^this. someone has been paying attention!

[Marshall Grice]

The aversion to the 2-groove tread design is that it's a major reason why the ST category has taken off. I used to think it had something to do with street legality of the cars, but they're rapidly throwing all that stuff overboard. I just don't see the STAC letting the tire rules slip back towards what we have in Stock and SP because that's the main differentiator between ST and SP.

The Fastrack proposal wasn't about street tires in stock -- it was about changing the treadwear number used for ST (and therefore, for the RT trial class).

there is nothing in the ST rules that prohibit 2 groove tires. there's also nothing preventing anyone from shaving legal st tires down to zero tread (other than they would likely suck because of the variable hardness tread compounds they use to give high performance and high treadwear numbers). The treadwear limit is the major difference between SP and ST.

it's possible this isn't the right thread to talk about street tires in stock but it's tough to figure out which of the 4 threads about the topic is the right one.

[Mako Koiwai]

So the SEB has specifically within this same Fastrack excluded the Fiat 500 (Arbath) from Stock class, but allows it (and the base model) in ST with no minimum required alterations.

Luckily John E's FIAT is safe to race

[John Stimson]

there is nothing in the ST rules that prohibit 2 groove tires.

Nothing explicit, but there is the exclusion list.

there's also nothing preventing anyone from shaving legal st tires down to zero tread (other than they would likely suck because of the variable hardness tread compounds they use to give high performance and high treadwear numbers). The treadwear limit is the major difference between SP and ST.

That's a valid point -- I wonder what the STAC will do if it's ever discovered that shaving a tire bald is advantageous.

[Davin Swanson]

In stock you can run R-comps, in STF you can't. More lateral force = higher rollover risk.

^this. someone has been paying attention!

That semester of graduate level multibody dynamics comes in handy sometimes. Actually this gives me flashbacks to one of the questions on my dynamics qualifying exam that used car suspension as an example problem. I nearly threw up waiting to go in for that one... Probably because I had failed it the first time. :barf:

[Jayson Woodruff]

Put R-comps on your "ST" 500 and run street prepared. (5th paragraph, sec 15).

We had lots of discussions like this when I was on the RXB. I ended most of them by asking if we really wanted to apply different safety rules to different classes, Howard would say 'no'.

Jay W

In stock you can run R-comps, in STF you can't. More lateral force = higher rollover risk.

^this. someone has been paying attention!

[John Stimson]

The rollover guidelines still apply to cars that are classed in ST, SP, and the more modified classes, and should be applied when necessary. In Stock, it's possible to directly correlate being classed with not being a rollover risk, because in Stock you aren't allowed to play with the track (okay, +/- 1/2") and you aren't allowed to play with the ride height (okay, you can influence it slightly with the gas pressure in the shock). In the other categories, tall skinny cars get classed because it's possible to lower the CG and widen the track so that the cars aren't a rollover risk. Those rules also allow you to raise and narrow a car so that it becomes a rollover risk. So you have to evaluate it on a case by case basis. I was at a non-SCCA event where a Mustang was running in CP on oversized slicks and stock suspension. The slicks raised the car higher than stock, and sure enough I got a great view of the undercarriage. I dare you to try to ban Mustangs from CP. You just can't directly relate official classing with rollover safety in any prep category other than Stock.

[John Stimson]

I ended most of them by asking if we really wanted to apply different safety rules to different classes, Howard would say 'no'.

The rollover guidelines are the same for all the classes. For cars where it's not obvious, you determine the SSF if possible, or else you measure the track width and overall height to determine compliance.

[Mike Simanyi]

I ended most of them by asking if we really wanted to apply different safety rules to different classes, Howard would say 'no'.

The rollover guidelines are the same for all the classes. For cars where it's not obvious, you determine the SSF if possible, or else you measure the track width and overall height to determine compliance.

Which is exactly what Tech has to do for any Fiat500 running with us. If it's a stock car with ST placards on the side, it's not allowed to run.

We're trying to find ways for people to run with these cars - apparently a bazillion people want to run them, or there's one nut with a lot of spare time to complain that he isn't allowed - but they are not within our safety margins when they're stock.

So Tech - pay attention!

Mike

[Pete Loney]

I ended most of them by asking if we really wanted to apply different safety rules to different classes, Howard would say 'no'.

The rollover guidelines are the same for all the classes. For cars where it's not obvious, you determine the SSF if possible, or else you measure the track width and overall height to determine compliance.

Which is exactly what Tech has to do for any Fiat500 running with us. If it's a stock car with ST placards on the side, it's not allowed to run.

We're trying to find ways for people to run with these cars - apparently a bazillion people want to run them, or there's one nut with a lot of spare time to complain that he isn't allowed - but they are not within our safety margins when they're stock.

So Tech - pay attention!

Mike

This rule seems to be getting more airplay versus 5 years ago.

I wonder how I was able to run my Stock Height Forester back in the day?
I thought I saw that the Forester was updated to not legal for stock.
Luckily I never ran it with Hoosiers though at Stock Height.
And then I immediately I was lowered and in STU.

[Steve Ekstrand]

Get a clue guys.... The Toyo R1R thoroughly and completely pisses off a small subset of oldtimers who despite the real world experience and knowledge to know better, cling to the notion that durometer readings mean everything. That's all this is about. The SEB is probably tired of the constant whining from the "get these ST tires off my lawn" people and have put this out there so they can hide behind member feedback. So, feed back members.

[Morgan Trotter]

so whats the rule now? 140 for ST and is RT also 140?

I dont really see the problem, limiting it to 140 seems fair enough, it opens the competitor to a few more lines of tires. Limit to 200 and you lower the number of tires available.

[John Stimson]

Besides the magic Toyo BS, there has been some word that some people from some tire companies talked to some people at the SCCA and suggested that they would prefer it if the SCCA tire standards matched the standards for other organizations that use street tires. For whatever that's worth, which isn't much in my opinion.

[Craig Naylor]

With such a blandly written request for comments on 140 vs 200 treadwear, this was my letter:

RE:STOCK
- The SEB is seeking member input on the possibility of changing the minimum treadwear rating for the Road Tire (RT) Supplemental classes to 200.
STREET TOURING
- The SEB is seeking member input on the possibility of changing the minimum tire treadwear rating for ST to 200.

Not sure exactly how to respond. First I though RT was supplemental for 2012... but prior verbiage stated 2013 changes. So the first question is RT going to remain a supplemental next year, become a real class, or be eliminated. Depending on the answer to that, the 200TW proposal could be mute.

Moving on to RT (continuation) and ST. The question then becomes why?

Contingency:
Currently only 140TW manufactures offer contingency. Does the SEB want to run them off? Do they have better offers from non competitive brands, who can't compete against the 140's. So is the issue a monetary one for the SCCA, vs. a competition one for the drivers.
Cost:
Currently the Toyo is the tire to beat, both on the track, and in the pocket book. Does the SEB want to make tire choice more costly? Are they trying backhandedly to make the cost difference between a Toyo/Dunlop/Hankook and a Hoosier/Kumho smaller to remove that from the DOT vs. STire argument in stock mute?
Competition:
Is their to few other tires being used (specifically in STC and STS). Does it matter? Stock currently has a dominant: Hoosier and a close second: Kumho.

This proposal is so left field to myself and my competitors, we don't understand why it is being raised?

Obviously it can't be a concern about the Toyo being unmatched in competition. If it was, they would just exclusion list it, rather than posing this question so generically one is left to question what the reasoning behind the question is.

That said, I'd like to see a greater mix of tires in grid, but raising the TW is not the solution. If their is concern the Toyo is a "cheater" tire, address it as such. I believe it's dominance is just as much a lemming issue, as it might possibly be a truly better tire. Empirical tests would play this out, not conjecture asking for "comments" so generically.

[Ed Holley]

With such a blandly written request for comments on 140 vs 200 treadwear, this was my letter:

RE:STOCK
- The SEB is seeking member input on the possibility of changing the minimum treadwear rating for the Road Tire (RT) Supplemental classes to 200.
STREET TOURING
- The SEB is seeking member input on the possibility of changing the minimum tire treadwear rating for ST to 200.

Not sure exactly how to respond. First I though RT was supplemental for 2012... but prior verbiage stated 2013 changes. So the first question is RT going to remain a supplemental next year, become a real class, or be eliminated. Depending on the answer to that, the 200TW proposal could be mute.

Moving on to RT (continuation) and ST. The question then becomes why?

Contingency:
Currently only 140TW manufactures offer contingency. Does the SEB want to run them off? Do they have better offers from non competitive brands, who can't compete against the 140's. So is the issue a monetary one for the SCCA, vs. a competition one for the drivers.
Cost:
Currently the Toyo is the tire to beat, both on the track, and in the pocket book. Does the SEB want to make tire choice more costly? Are they trying backhandedly to make the cost difference between a Toyo/Dunlop/Hankook and a Hoosier/Kumho smaller to remove that from the DOT vs. STire argument in stock mute?
Competition:
Is their to few other tires being used (specifically in STC and STS). Does it matter? Stock currently has a dominant: Hoosier and a close second: Kumho.

This proposal is so left field to myself and my competitors, we don't understand why it is being raised?

Obviously it can't be a concern about the Toyo being unmatched in competition. If it was, they would just exclusion list it, rather than posing this question so generically one is left to question what the reasoning behind the question is.

That said, I'd like to see a greater mix of tires in grid, but raising the TW is not the solution. If their is concern the Toyo is a "cheater" tire, address it as such. I believe it's dominance is just as much a lemming issue, as it might possibly be a truly better tire. Empirical tests would play this out, not conjecture asking for "comments" so generically.

Dude!! I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict no SCCA Christmas party invite for you.

[Mako Koiwai]

All that talk of the Toyo, but the other popular 140 wear tire is the Hankook RS3. The Toyo isn't the tire to have for heavier stock cars, especially with it's traditional Toyo soft side walls ... that does help make for a light tire.

The stiff sidewalled Dunlop is great for heavier cars.

[John Stimson]

*moot

[Eric Clements]

Looks like the new guy has it figured out! When the SEB asks for member input that's what they want.
Yes I think this proposal is a good idea or no it's not. Maybe add a little bit as to why you think one way or the other. From my time on committees I'd say Criags letter is going to go into the "why'd he bother writing such a long letter and never tell us if he likes or dislikes the proposal?" category.

With such a blandly written request for comments on 140 vs 200 treadwear, this was my letter:

RE:STOCK
- The SEB is seeking member input on the possibility of changing the minimum treadwear rating for the Road Tire (RT) Supplemental classes to 200.
STREET TOURING
- The SEB is seeking member input on the possibility of changing the minimum tire treadwear rating for ST to 200.

Not sure exactly how to respond. First I though RT was supplemental for 2012... but prior verbiage stated 2013 changes. So the first question is RT going to remain a supplemental next year, become a real class, or be eliminated. Depending on the answer to that, the 200TW proposal could be mute.

Moving on to RT (continuation) and ST. The question then becomes why?

Contingency:
Currently only 140TW manufactures offer contingency. Does the SEB want to run them off? Do they have better offers from non competitive brands, who can't compete against the 140's. So is the issue a monetary one for the SCCA, vs. a competition one for the drivers.
Cost:
Currently the Toyo is the tire to beat, both on the track, and in the pocket book. Does the SEB want to make tire choice more costly? Are they trying backhandedly to make the cost difference between a Toyo/Dunlop/Hankook and a Hoosier/Kumho smaller to remove that from the DOT vs. STire argument in stock mute?
Competition:
Is their to few other tires being used (specifically in STC and STS). Does it matter? Stock currently has a dominant: Hoosier and a close second: Kumho.

This proposal is so left field to myself and my competitors, we don't understand why it is being raised?

Obviously it can't be a concern about the Toyo being unmatched in competition. If it was, they would just exclusion list it, rather than posing this question so generically one is left to question what the reasoning behind the question is.

That said, I'd like to see a greater mix of tires in grid, but raising the TW is not the solution. If their is concern the Toyo is a "cheater" tire, address it as such. I believe it's dominance is just as much a lemming issue, as it might possibly be a truly better tire. Empirical tests would play this out, not conjecture asking for "comments" so generically.

Dude!! I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict no SCCA Christmas party invite for you.

[KJ Christopher]

All that talk of the Toyo, but the other popular 140 wear tire is the Hankook RS3. The Toyo isn't the tire to have for heavier stock cars, especially with it's traditional Toyo soft side walls ... that does help make for a light tire.

The stiff sidewalled Dunlop is great for heavier cars.

Could be that the Toyo is a true 140 tire, and the RS3 is a 200 labeled as a 140.

[Mako Koiwai]

How hard would it be for the SCCA to do their own durometer testing. Compare A6's/710's to the ST tires. The ST tires have to be X harder then R's

[Steve Ekstrand]

How hard would it be for the SCCA to do their own durometer testing. Compare A6's/710's to the ST tires. The ST tires have to be X harder then R's

And your durometer test proves what exactly?