Page 5 of 6
Re: New local classes for '09
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:00 pm
by Bob Beamesderfer
Bob Florey wrote:Bob Beamesderfer wrote:
If CSM is a catch-all class, then changing it to catch more participants is entirely logical.
It's a bit unclear how
excluding cars with R tires catches
more participants. People were always allowed to run street tires or R tires in CSM. Now it's to be street tires only?
My statement didn't endorse limiting the class to one tire option or the other. I do think that a CSM class with a street tire index would catch more new participants. Whether they commit themselves to prepare their cars to a national class is unknown.
Again, I ask for some sort of clear goal for changing or adding classes.
Is it alter CSM and so gather more new participants regardless of whether their cars as currently prepared mesh with National classes?
Or do we want new classes that will bring in new people with the goal of their eventually being able to compete in existing National classes?
If I've missed some key statement that would answer my questions, enlighten me.
Re: New local classes for '09
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:04 pm
by Mike Simanyi
Good points Bob. I'm curious, what's that current "street legal" car you mention that would have to run XP?
The theory behind this is the SCCA now provides legitimate classes for most of the cars running in CSM. Most will fall in SM (the category) or XP. When CSM was created, SCCA didn't have those categories and classes available.
That said... the idea is to create a more *welcoming* environment, not banning cars and potential participants as you point out.
Mike
Re: New local classes for '09
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:17 pm
by Randy Chase
Just FYI, my car is not legal for XP and can only run in CSM or AMOD. I would be happy to run a street tired CSM on my street Dunlops.
Re: Discussion of local classes for '09
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:21 pm
by Mike Simanyi
Okay, having read all the messages posted I can see a lot of arguing and I want to address some of the major points.
I started this thread to kill two birds with one stone. Newbies tend to show up with street tires and modifications that don't permit them to run in Stock, which means they aren't eligible for SK. In many cases they can't run ST due to the exclusions in the category, so that forces us to place them in SM or CSM where they'll be utterly destroyed by the experienced competitors who have R compounds. Nothing says "Go home and never come back" like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
I'd like to change our local classes to (1) better accommodate the new participants so we don't scare them off and (2) offer a local ST category for those locals who may be interested in a future ST class.
Here's what I see in the general scope of the thread:
CSM is our catch all class, intended to let anyone run anything. Except it has to be California street legal. And meet the SCCA safety rules.
If we want to insist on California Smog Compliance, virtually none of the current CSM competitors are legal. Most of them *do* have an official class they can play in though, whether it's in Street Prepared, Street Modified or XP.
We should put a street tire index on all the SP, SM and CSM classes to accommodate everyone all the time.
Running on an index is far from running heads up and certain doesn't simplify the class for the competitors serious about their annual points competition. It's confusing and makes any competition course-dependent. Furthermore it's difficult to tell how much time you need to make up vs the other guy on the other tires. It dilutes competition. And I strongly agree with KJ and Kurt that attempts to solve all problems solve none (see Bailout, U.S. Banking System circa 2008).
I personally wouldn't support this, but I can see putting it to a vote.
CSM should be preserved with R compounds because that's the way it was created.
I strongly believe putting CSM on 140+ street tires offers many newbies an easy place to land while they're familiarizing themselves with SCCA autocross. I think the few non-newbies who'll be running in the class - a certain someone in a Noble on street tires, for example - won't have a huge problem with the street tire requirement, and won't be put off by the change.
We should put a Street Tire index in our SP and SM classes to promote national participation.
There is no way anyone driving their car on 140+ tires will be able to hop in the same car on R-compounds and be remotely competitive in their full SCCA class. People need experience on R-compounds to be competitive, and putting a Street Tire index will be a disservice to them, as well as further confuse our participants.
Our "Super ST class" should be all-encompassing on the vehicles included and it should run under STU rules.
Jayson Uyeda convinced me that an open ST class should be just that: open. If someone wants to bring their Z06 in and try to run it heads-up with an S2000 on 285 street tires, I say let 'em. I think we'll all have a good laugh, and I think we'll see at the end of the year that the top drivers in the class aren't high-powered cars, but smaller, more nimble cars that are currently excluded from ST classes. Is the next National ST class going to be based on these rules? Heck if I know, but info we (the STAC and SEB) gather here could play a role in defining a new class.
I'll try to distill this down to a couple options we can consolidate in a poll and table it for discussion at an upcoming board meeting.
Mike
Re: Discussion of local classes for '09
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 8:14 pm
by Mike Simanyi
Try this on for size:
CSM remains unchanged.
Add CST as a local class. It's CSM on street tires - 140+ treadwear rating - and gives us a catch-all class for newbies, and even carries forward the nomenclature nicely.
Add SST as a local class. It's open to all non-ST classed cars and operates under STU's ruleset.
Tear it up!
Mike
Re: New local classes for '09
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 8:28 pm
by Reijo Silvennoinen
Christine Berry wrote:Robert Puertas wrote:Jason Uyeda wrote: I don't think CSM is necessarily a good novice class as the differences in car prep would be huge and very likely discouraging.
What could be more discouraging than losing to that other novice in a stock Mini despite turning a faster time, simply because his HS index is softer than the EM index placed on your supercharged & sub frame connected Mustang?
Being told that you, in your stock mini, need to run heads up with that guy over there in a corvette?
'vette losing to the stock mini? raw time
R.
Re: Discussion of local classes for '09
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 8:52 pm
by Robert Puertas
I like it.
ALOT.
Make CST the default novice class and you've got a winner.
Mike Simanyi wrote:Try this on for size:
CSM remains unchanged.
Add CST as a local class. It's CSM on street tires - 140+ treadwear rating - and gives us a catch-all class for newbies, and even carries forward the nomenclature nicely.
Add SST as a local class. It's open to all non-ST classed cars and operates under STU's ruleset.
Tear it up!
Mike
Re: Discussion of local classes for '09
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 8:58 pm
by Curt Luther
Thanks Mike,
Everytime I try to read this thread, my head hurts. Tonight I've been drinkin' since 5:30. Your "proposal" makes perfect sense to even my drunk ass

Re: New local classes for '09
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 8:59 pm
by Bob Beamesderfer
Mike Simanyi wrote:Good points Bob. I'm curious, what's that current "street legal" car you mention that would have to run XP?
Mike
You mean that Bob Florey mentioned, just to be clear.

Re: Discussion of local classes for '09
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:03 pm
by Bob Beamesderfer
Robert Puertas wrote:I like it.
ALOT.
Make CST the default novice class and you've got a winner.
Excellent approach. A simple addition of two classes. Nobody gets pushed from CSM, we get a catch-all novice class and add another class that offers opportunity to those running cars that don't fit in the current ST structure.
Mike Simanyi wrote:Try this on for size:
CSM remains unchanged.
Add CST as a local class. It's CSM on street tires - 140+ treadwear rating - and gives us a catch-all class for newbies, and even carries forward the nomenclature nicely.
Add SST as a local class. It's open to all non-ST classed cars and operates under STU's ruleset.
Tear it up!
Mike
Re: Discussion of local classes for '09
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:14 pm
by Kurt Rahn
CSM remains unchanged.
Add CST as a local class. It's CSM on street tires - 140+ treadwear rating - and gives us a catch-all class for newbies, and even carries forward the nomenclature nicely.
Add SST as a local class. It's open to all non-ST classed cars and operates under STU's ruleset.
Perfect
Re: Discussion of local classes for '09
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:31 pm
by Steve Ekstrand
CSM uses the SM2 pax right? That's .867.
FP you can throw racing slicks on the car and its only an .872.
Fp is such a huge hit to you? When Steve Abbot is going to do donuts on your ass before handing it to you in CSM??? I'd hide in FP and wait for me to buy the old Nagler>Cox Bimmer or pick up a GT3.
Re: Discussion of local classes for '09
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:45 pm
by Richard Jung
Mike Simanyi wrote:Try this on for size:
CSM remains unchanged.
Add CST as a local class. It's CSM on street tires - 140+ treadwear rating - and gives us a catch-all class for newbies, and even carries forward the nomenclature nicely.
Add SST as a local class. It's open to all non-ST classed cars and operates under STU's ruleset.
Tear it up!
Mike
+1.

Re: Discussion of local classes for '09
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:49 pm
by Steve Ekstrand
On my 20th ounce of Don Julio Blue Agave Juice, so its all good.
Go with it Mike.
I'm buying a Noble for SST.

Re: New local classes for '09
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:51 pm
by Bob Florey
Bob Beamesderfer wrote:Bob Florey wrote:Bob Beamesderfer wrote:
If CSM is a catch-all class, then changing it to catch more participants is entirely logical.
It's a bit unclear how
excluding cars with R tires catches
more participants. People were always allowed to run street tires or R tires in CSM. Now it's to be street tires only?
My statement didn't endorse limiting the class to one tire option or the other. I do think that a CSM class with a street tire index would catch more new participants. Whether they commit themselves to prepare their cars to a national class is unknown.
Again, I ask for some sort of clear goal for changing or adding classes.
Is it alter CSM and so gather more new participants regardless of whether their cars as currently prepared mesh with National classes?
Or do we want new classes that will bring in new people with the goal of their eventually being able to compete in existing National classes?
If I've missed some key statement that would answer my questions, enlighten me.
Bob-
I wasn't picking on you. Just addressing the issues raised in far too many posts to quote them all.
CSM works fine as is. Or, at least it used to. Competitors in CSM seem to be more on-again off-again than the more traditional classes. That doesn't mean the class fails. It's just "different".
Newbies may, or may not, get stomped in CSM, but they will get stomped worse in XP, EM, or where ever the legally fall.
CST is fine, but I'm not sure another class is needed due to declining turnout. They probably would end up combined w/ CSM anyway like Prep/Mods are now. Not a happy solution.
In truth, I think the declining number of participants is the real issue. There are many more local motorsports opportunities than just a few years ago. Almost all allow more seat time. CSCC could add more runs, but the powers that be don't want to make the necessary changes.
Re: Discussion of local classes for '09
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:59 pm
by Bob Beamesderfer
No worries, Bob, I didn't think you were picking on me. I wanted to make it clear that IF a change makes it easier for new folks to take part, then it makes sense.
Re: New local classes for '09
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:13 pm
by Bob Florey
Mike Simanyi wrote:Good points Bob. I'm curious, what's that current "street legal" car you mention that would have to run XP?
The theory behind this is the SCCA now provides legitimate classes for most of the cars running in CSM. Most will fall in SM (the category) or XP. When CSM was created, SCCA didn't have those categories and classes available.
That said... the idea is to create a more *welcoming* environment, not banning cars and potential participants as you point out.
Mike
See the avatar.

Prepared to PCA Zone 8 J Prepared rules (roughly, very roughly, equivalent to Street Prepared) limits, with suspension and interior changes beyond SP and SM2 allowances. I suppose I could put the interior bits back in (or at least toss them in the trunk, er, hood) and be SM2 legal. But it's an aesthetic thing as well as a weight loss thing and the glory of CSM is it's "run what you brung". XM, aside from the confusing (is that redundant?) SCCA rules, is going to attract serious competitors who build to those rules. To do so means a streetable car will lose out every time. CSM is more of a grab bag. Some days you have the hot car, some days Steve A. (or E., or T.) shows up. I can live with that.
I strongly agree CSCC needs to attract more and new people (see above post). I'm just not sure mucking up CSM will help. We do have a novice class for the timid. But most of us old farts went straight into the fire and survived it okay. I think part of the answer is more runs and part is a bit more congeniality.
Good luck.
Re: Discussion of local classes for '09
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:27 pm
by Bob Florey
Steve Ekstrand wrote:CSM uses the SM2 pax right? That's .867.
FP you can throw racing slicks on the car and its only an .872.
Fp is such a huge hit to you? When Steve Abbot is going to do donuts on your ass before handing it to you in CSM??? I'd hide in FP and wait for me to buy the old Nagler>Cox Bimmer or pick up a GT3.
Good points, although I don't give a rat's ass about PAX indices for the most part.
And, I don't mind (much) being stomped by Steve A. He donates a lot of time at PCA events with course walks and instructing. I expect him to show me where those 6 seconds are any day now.
In fact, I plan on running VictoRacers next (A6s have been fun, but it looks like 3 sets a year will be needed just for PCA and CSCC events!) I can get away with Victo's on the street and have 90% of an R tire. Slicks require another, rather dear, wheel set. If FP was a separate class, I could compete, more or less, with the current folk in the class. In combined Prep/Mod, however, that index crap kills me if anyone shows up in one of the other classes.
Re: Discussion of local classes for '09
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:38 pm
by Bob Florey
Mike-
I'm good with your most recent proposal, although the smog thing is a red herring. It's just silly to require smog stuff on cars that exceed SP/SM rules (if you ignore Glenn, this will go away

).
And, the original requirement that the car must be
able to be registered is enough. It has long been agreed that means the car was once registered and could be restored to registerable (is that a word?) condition. That keeps out (
or should) purpose built race cars, like the Legends Car that slipped in a ways back. A lot of the cars that have shown up in CSM are in fact registered, but there is no reason to make that a requirement. After all, Stock class cars don't need to be registered.
Re: Discussion of local classes for '09
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:50 pm
by Mike Simanyi
Bob Florey wrote:Mike-
I'm good with your most recent proposal, although the smog thing is a red herring.
Thanks Bob. I think that option preserves the flexibility some people want and presents a positive Welcome for many of our new participants. We'll discuss it at the next board meeting.
Mike
PS I don't display avatars so I didn't see your image.
Re: Discussion of local classes for '09
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:53 pm
by Randy Chase
It makes me sad to think my avatar of a barely clothed hot babe is wasted on Mike.
Oh well....
p.s. I like the proposal. Just leave me a place to run (as business and travel will allow).
Re: Discussion of local classes for '09
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:01 pm
by Rick Brown
Mike Simanyi wrote:Try this on for size:
1. CSM remains unchanged.
2. Add CST as a local class. It's CSM on street tires - 140+ treadwear rating - and gives us a catch-all class for newbies, and even carries forward the nomenclature nicely.
3. Add SST as a local class. It's open to all non-ST classed cars and operates under STU's ruleset.
Tear it up!
Mike
1. Check.
2. Well, OK. I'm still not really convinced this is all necessary. Are we then removing the Novice class if this is the new catch-all?
3. And what's this for? Having run a kart for 4 years and basically the same car for 30 years before that, I'm not up on ST classes and what their purpose/goals are. How many cars are left out and why? If there is a big demand for these cars in an ST class why isn't there a National version?
Re: Discussion of local classes for '09
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:38 pm
by Glenn Duensing
Rick Brown wrote:Mike Simanyi wrote:Try this on for size:
1. CSM remains unchanged.
2. Add CST as a local class. It's CSM on street tires - 140+ treadwear rating - and gives us a catch-all class for newbies, and even carries forward the nomenclature nicely.
3. Add SST as a local class. It's open to all non-ST classed cars and operates under STU's ruleset.
Tear it up!
Mike
1. Check.
2. Well, OK. I'm still not really convinced this is all necessary. Are we then removing the Novice class if this is the new catch-all?
3. And what's this for? Having run a kart for 4 years and basically the same car for 30 years before that, I'm not up on ST classes and what their purpose/goals are. How many cars are left out and why? If there is a big demand for these cars in an ST class why isn't there a National version?
I'm not convince either on 2 and 3. However we should be steering newbies towards SCCA classes. If we move towards allowing novices to run all year, they will have time enough to make changes if they want to or run our CSM class.
We should be asking novices/newbies that don't return, why and what can we/SCCA do to retain them.
Re: Discussion of local classes for '09
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:39 pm
by Robert Puertas
Rick Brown wrote:Mike Simanyi wrote:Try this on for size:
1. CSM remains unchanged.
2. Add CST as a local class. It's CSM on street tires - 140+ treadwear rating - and gives us a catch-all class for newbies, and even carries forward the nomenclature nicely.
3. Add SST as a local class. It's open to all non-ST classed cars and operates under STU's ruleset.
Tear it up!
Mike
1. Check.
2. Well, OK. I'm still not really convinced this is all necessary. Are we then removing the Novice class if this is the new catch-all?
3. And what's this for? Having run a kart for 4 years and basically the same car for 30 years before that, I'm not up on ST classes and what their purpose/goals are. How many cars are left out and why? If there is a big demand for these cars in an ST class why isn't there a National version?
1. yes.
2. replace the novice class with the Rookie of the Year award. Make it the highest finishing Rookie in CST counting their 6 best events.
3. National Solo is slow to add classes, but this is the next one. Or at least an ST class built around the S2000, 350Z, NC Miata, etc. This gives Cal Club drivers a jump on building a car for the next ST class.
Re: Discussion of local classes for '09
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:30 pm
by Bob Florey
Mike Simanyi wrote:Bob Florey wrote:Mike-
I'm good with your most recent proposal, although the smog thing is a red herring.
Thanks Bob. I think that option preserves the flexibility some people want and presents a positive Welcome for many of our new participants. We'll discuss it at the next board meeting.
Mike
PS I don't display avatars so I didn't see your image.
Mike-
Sounds good.
No avatars? Man, you need to dump that 8088 machine.

Its a 1984 Porsche Carrera Factory Wide Body w/ maxed out wheels and suspension, some weight reduction, but stock engine.