Cal Club Autocross Forums

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 3:15 pm**

Kurt Rahn wrote:
Jason Isley BS RX8 wrote: Asking everyone else to make a change to suit you, ridiculous.
If it was just to suit me, I would agree completely. No matter how much you stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalalala", there is a demand there.

Kurt - I think he is saying the ball is in your court. Real world data (what is actually sent to the SEB) indicates otherwise. It is up to you and the others demanding this to be heard in a forum that actually matters.

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 3:39 pm**

Getting the word out about SK classes at the SD tour and the El Toro Pro and hoping for a good turn out is a start.
This might help attendance if people know they can show up with street tires on their "stock" car and compete at bigger events like these.

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:11 pm**

KJ Christopher wrote:Kurt - I think he is saying the ball is in your court. Real world data (what is actually sent to the SEB) indicates otherwise. It is up to you and the others demanding this to be heard in a forum that actually matters.

Understood, and agreed. I'm going to write a letter, and I'm going to try and get others to do the same. Will it work? Dunno. Over the last couple days I can see why people don't bother writing a letter to the SEB, though. But I like lost causes and I'm pretty stubborn.

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:22 pm**

Kurt Rahn wrote: Understood, and agreed. I'm going to write a letter, and I'm going to try and get others to do the same. Will it work? Dunno. Over the last couple days I can see why people don't bother writing a letter to the SEB, though. But I like lost causes and I'm pretty stubborn.

I'm not sure why more people don't. So easy to cut/paste/email. Don't even need a stamp anymore. Come up with a template. Put it on multiple forums. PM people at http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/402179.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; with the template. Post on there.

I hadn't thought of Marshall's split analysis before - makes sense to me. I'd still like someone to answer my question above on what concessions you would want if forced to run 180 rated tires in stock class.

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:36 pm**

Why 180 ?

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm**

I have fun running street tires on my S2000 (a BS car) but I will concede that I wouldn't want to run a Z06 or Viper on street tires.

The National Street Tire Challenge hosted by the Milwaukee Region last year was widely advertised, and might give some indication of how popular the idea of street tires in stock would be.

There were 104 entries. The local event with the least entries had 102. Most events were closer to 140.

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:54 pm**

Mako Koiwai wrote:Why 180 ?

Just pulled a number out of my butt.

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:35 pm**

KJ Christopher wrote:
Mako Koiwai wrote:Why 180 ?
Just pulled a number out of my butt.

ew

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:53 pm**

Chad Stubblefield wrote:
KJ Christopher wrote:
Mako Koiwai wrote:Why 180 ?
Just pulled a number out of my butt.
ew

Yeah, TMI

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:58 pm**

Chad Stubblefield wrote:
KJ Christopher wrote:
Mako Koiwai wrote:Why 180 ?
Just pulled a number out of my butt.
ew

What can I say? I'm an accountant by trade....

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 6:09 pm**

I'd still like someone to answer my question above on what concessions you would want if forced to run 180 rated tires in stock class.

Assuming that this was approved and the classes were created, how would you measure the 180 wear rating and who would determine which tires met the requirement? Just asking.

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 6:17 pm**

John Fendel wrote:
I'd still like someone to answer my question above on what concessions you would want if forced to run 180 rated tires in stock class.
Assuming that this was approved and the classes were created, how would you measure the 180 wear rating and who would determine which tires met the requirement? Just asking.

That's the best question of all. Don't have an answer, but that's going to be an issue at some point, whether this is approved or not.

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 6:25 pm**

Kurt Rahn wrote:
John Fendel wrote:
I'd still like someone to answer my question above on what concessions you would want if forced to run 180 rated tires in stock class.
Assuming that this was approved and the classes were created, how would you measure the 180 wear rating and who would determine which tires met the requirement? Just asking.
That's the best question of all. Don't have an answer, but that's going to be an issue at some point, whether this is approved or not.

Irrelevant. Focus on the question and not this or other variables that are assumed in the facts given.

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 6:35 pm**

John Fendel wrote:
I'd still like someone to answer my question above on what concessions you would want if forced to run 180 rated tires in stock class.
Assuming that this was approved and the classes were created, how would you measure the 180 wear rating and who would determine which tires met the requirement? Just asking.

It doesn't really matter. People will gravitate to the fastest tire, whether that tire is a 'cheater 180' or a real 180.

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:12 pm**

ST does just fine with a tire rule. And having a category of classes that focused on UHP tires did bring in interest from real tire companies. Face in the big scheme of things Hoosier tire could not be more irrelevant. And how much of a contribution are you going to get out of Hoosier when marketing focus doesn't leave the world of motorsports.

If I owned a stock class civic, mini, focus, sentra, genesis, etc, it would probably make sense to compete on street tires. I don't think those Shelby Mustang folks would care to. Nor the SS or AS guys. BS, CS, ES you'd probably find a close split.

I bet if you created one street tire class that allowed in current GS and HS cars using stock rules, except ST tires and I'd even consider an open wheel rule allowing any diameter and up to 7" width. Why? 15x7 rims are super cheap and so are 195/205-50-15 UHP tires. No paxing. They all run together that why just the GS and HS cars. Street tires become the limiting factor so HP is less important. Sorry, Kurt... You should have gotten the N/A mini.

Doesn't matter anyway as it would never happen.

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:39 pm**

KJ Christopher wrote:Irrelevant. Focus on the question and not this or other variables that are assumed in the facts given.

camber plates and a rear bar

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:50 pm**

With oem springs, camber plates probably won't do you much good on a Mini ... there would be hardly any room to move the strut

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:51 pm**

Then the argument is go to Street Touring.

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:06 pm**

KJ Christopher wrote: I'm not sure why more people don't. So easy to cut/paste/email. Don't even need a stamp anymore. Come up with a template. Put it on multiple forums. PM people at http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/402179.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; with the template. Post on there.

Because 50 copies of one members opinion is still just one members opinion. Because a copy/paste letter says "I don't care enough about this subject to type one sentance of my own".

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:08 pm**

Eric Clements wrote:
KJ Christopher wrote: I'm not sure why more people don't. So easy to cut/paste/email. Don't even need a stamp anymore. Come up with a template. Put it on multiple forums. PM people at http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/402179.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; with the template. Post on there.
Because 50 copies of one members opinion is still just one members opinion. Because a copy/paste letter says "I don't care enough about this subject to type one sentance of my own".

I was hoping that they would be smart enough to reword/rephrase. But that is a good point. Kurt, might want to mention that in your template.

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:38 pm**

Eric Clements wrote:
KJ Christopher wrote: I'm not sure why more people don't. So easy to cut/paste/email. Don't even need a stamp anymore. Come up with a template. Put it on multiple forums. PM people at http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/402179.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; with the template. Post on there.
Because 50 copies of one members opinion is still just one members opinion. Because a copy/paste letter says "I don't care enough about this subject to type one sentance of my own".

I would think they'd rather count the signatures than to read a bunch of letters asking for the same thing.

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:13 pm**

So where do I sign?

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:20 pm**

Dan Shaw wrote:So where do I sign?

: 7484.gif (2.5 KiB) Viewed 42280 times

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:50 pm**

Chad Stubblefield wrote:
Eric Clements wrote:Because 50 copies of one members opinion is still just one members opinion. Because a copy/paste letter says "I don't care enough about this subject to type one sentance of my own".
I would think they'd rather count the signatures than to read a bunch of letters asking for the same thing.

You would be wrong. As Eric posted, if you don't care enough about an item to do your own work, the people reading it will take notice.

Posted: **Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:55 pm**

When the SK class was first introduced, part of the intent was to return to "run what you brung", mainly for drivers that had no intention of going to Nationals, and there were a lot of choices for SK tires are very reasonable prices. Most drivers got a full season from a set of tires or maybe 2 seasons from 3 sets. Within a few years, new tires were introduced, and the choices became limited if you wanted to be competitive. Also, SK started as 1 class, but it became apparent that the larger, higher horsepower cars were more impacted by street tires than the smaller, lower horsepower cars (based on the SCCA Stock classes), so SK was broken into 2 groups.
As for driving a car with horsepower in SK, I drove an '88 Firebird Formula 350 in SK in the early '90s. The tire then was a Yoko, don't remember the model. I had a blast - it was not easy to control understeer going into a corner and oversteer out of a corner, but isn't learning how to control a car part of Solo2? I learned. It was not the cost of tires that ended my use of the car, but instead the price of normal maintenance.
When I competed in SK, the tires stayed on my car full-time and I drove the car to work. When I competed in the sticky-tire classes, I got real tired of loading tires and a jack, unloading, changing, changing back, loading and unloading for each event - a lot of work for 3-6 runs. Plus, a place to store the extra wheels/tires in my garage.
Remember, Solo2 is a hobby and fun.
Keith Lyon - participated from 1984-2005

Cal Club Autocross Forums

National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?

Re: National SK Class?