Cal Club Autocross Forums

I'm sure it's been discussed at length on SCCA Forums but I think there should be a street tire class for the S2000s (and of course other similar performance-oriented cars) given their popularity. Their prices have come down enough so that they should be economically viable to buy and build. I really think the class would thrive, as STU has. I'm certain the drive experience to be more rewarding and pleasant than a tire-eating, force- induced, overly-mechanical, overly-complicated, foul sounding and unbalanced handling tub of metal such as a Subaru STi.

;)

Unlike what Isley thinks, a slammed S2000 on bling wheels is far sexier than a stock RX-8 on R comps, nevermind how similar their times may be. I'm more interested in letting the suspension geometry extract the best time possible as opposed to the superior grip of an R comp tire.

PS. Nothing against Subaru or Isley.

We'll have SST, locally, this year for this reason Ken...

...and if you need a tire warmer ;)

I don't know about STX2, but what class would this car be in?
http://www.aptera.com/look.php

The husband of one of my girlfriend's girlfriends designed this; they're here in SoCal.

SUCS

Slow and Ugly Car Stock

Darren Cole wrote:I don't know about STX2, but what class would this car be in?
http://www.aptera.com/look.php

Believe it or not, we do have 2 electric car classes, one for stock production cars (EL) and one for conversions (ECC). Must be pure electric, no hybrids. Somehow Craig Angel convinced us to create them when he was considering building an electric quite a while ago.

Yes, every car should have a place to run in a street tire class. However, instead of 2 seat vs. 4 seat, they should classify based on performance. ie. combine STS and STS2 to form the slowest ST class. Add the 350Z, S2K, Boxter, etc to the faster classes, STU , STX, etc..

Michael Heinitz wrote:Yes, every car should have a place to run in a street tire class. However, instead of 2 seat vs. 4 seat, they should classify based on performance. ie. combine STS and STS2 to form the slowest ST class. Add the 350Z, S2K, Boxter, etc to the faster classes, STU , STX, etc..

so like an ST1 and ST2... (sk1/sk2)

Jonathan Lugod wrote:

Michael Heinitz wrote:Yes, every car should have a place to run in a street tire class. However, instead of 2 seat vs. 4 seat, they should classify based on performance. ie. combine STS and STS2 to form the slowest ST class. Add the 350Z, S2K, Boxter, etc to the faster classes, STU , STX, etc..

so like an ST1 and ST2... (sk1/sk2)

No.
no pax.

Michael Heinitz wrote:

Jonathan Lugod wrote:

Michael Heinitz wrote:Yes, every car should have a place to run in a street tire class. However, instead of 2 seat vs. 4 seat, they should classify based on performance. ie. combine STS and STS2 to form the slowest ST class. Add the 350Z, S2K, Boxter, etc to the faster classes, STU , STX, etc..

so like an ST1 and ST2... (sk1/sk2)

No.
no pax.

AST, BST, CST...

Bill Schenker wrote:The husband of one of my girlfriend's girlfriends designed this; they're here in SoCal.

Tell them to give me a good deal!

Curt Luther wrote: AST, BST, CST...

Heaven forbid the class names make sense and follow the other SCCA naming structures.