Cal Club Autocross Forums

Solo section, http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/ass ... t-solo.pdf.

My letter was not recommended. Oh really??? So putting an E9x M3 (faster than the 3 Audi models I proposed) in FS with a softer index is the right move? }:)

I suspect they learned their lesson from Trans Am - AWD cars can totally screw up a class...

I guess the MAC doesn't like Kiesel's diffuser...

Robert Puertas wrote:I suspect they learned their lesson from Trans Am - AWD cars can totally screw up a class...

But the thing is that currently, the B6/7 (2004-2009) S4's are in FS, and they have similar horsepower number compared to mine. }:)

Toyo 195 users can breathe easy... squeaky wheel gets the grease!

Marshall Grice wrote:I guess the MAC doesn't like Kiesel's diffuser...

You mean to tell me that a 50's bugeye sprite didn't have a batwing growing from underneath?

Sebastian Rios wrote:

Marshall Grice wrote:I guess the MAC doesn't like Kiesel's diffuser...

You mean to tell me that a 50's bugeye sprite didn't have a batwing growing from underneath?

is that supposed to be some sort of "waiting..." reference?

and the rules allow diffusers to be added, just apparently not good ones.

Vincent Wong wrote:Solo section, http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/ass ... t-solo.pdf.

My letter was not recommended. Oh really??? So putting an E9x M3 (faster than the 3 Audi models I proposed) in FS with a softer index is the right move? }:)

No, that means that somebody on the board (or one of their good buddies) owns an E9x M3. Look who shows up driving one next year.
As usual, it's not about what's good for the class, it's about what's good for ME.

Steve Lepper wrote:

Vincent Wong wrote:Solo section, http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/ass ... t-solo.pdf.

My letter was not recommended. Oh really??? So putting an E9x M3 (faster than the 3 Audi models I proposed) in FS with a softer index is the right move? }:)

No, that means that somebody on the board (or one of their good buddies) owns an E9x M3. Look who shows up driving one next year.
As usual, it's not about what's good for the class, it's about what's good for ME.

^^^^That sure does sound correct now doesn't it. ^^^^ I agree with you Vincent, I don't see how they could move the E46 and E92 M3's and not move the Audi. They seem to fit perfectly into the theme of that class (high horsepower Germans) minus the all wheel drive. With that said, you won't hear much complaining from me. Yay, free time!

Steve Lepper wrote:

Vincent Wong wrote:Solo section, http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/ass ... t-solo.pdf.

My letter was not recommended. Oh really??? So putting an E9x M3 (faster than the 3 Audi models I proposed) in FS with a softer index is the right move? }:)

No, that means that somebody on the board (or one of their good buddies) owns an E9x M3. Look who shows up driving one next year.
As usual, it's not about what's good for the class, it's about what's good for ME.

I can't speak for the other ACs ('though I imagine they operate just like ours) but the SPAC in no way operates like this. You should see and hear the gnashing of teeth as we try to make things fair and equitable. On the contrary, we constantly get letters from people asking for "ISP" = I/Me Street Prepared.

Steve Lepper wrote:No, that means that somebody on the board (or one of their good buddies) owns an E9x M3. Look who shows up driving one next year.

I'm sorry you think like that.

So I guess Vincent is then asking for a logical explanation to their decision ...

Steve Lepper wrote:No, that means that somebody on the board (or one of their good buddies) owns an E9x M3. Look who shows up driving one next year.
As usual, it's not about what's good for the class, it's about what's good for ME.

Have you ever spent time on one of the advisory committees? It would be extremely difficult to develop that level of collusion.

Have they ever changed a car's class sort of experimentally then changed it back the next year? There were no stock M3's at nationals last year so it seems hard to know how they or the S4's would compare at that level in BStock. I guess if M3 guys go out and dominate RTR they could change them back to a higher indexed class right?

I personally think that they're underestimating the E46 M3, but it sounds like people have been impressed with the performance of the newest Mustang and don't think any of the cars being moved will dominate. I think the E90 is probably not as quick as the E46 due to the added weight & size. I haven't formed an opinion about the new S4 because I don't know anything about them. What the SAC typically looks at, in absence of solid event results, is power & torque numbers and curves, wheel size (especially width), driven wheels, achievable wheel camber, availability and type of limited slip differential, defeatable or always-on stability control, and gearing. If you can make a case based on comparing all those specs to cars that are already in or being proposed to move to FS, the SEB ought to at least add it to the existing proposal.

Vince, did you send your letter before the proposed move of all the AS/BS cars into FS, or was it in response to that proposal? I'd suggest sending another letter, making the case that the new S4 is comparable to the other cars being moved, and asking that it be added to the proposed list, if that's not what your original letter was about.

John Stimson wrote:

Steve Lepper wrote:No, that means that somebody on the board (or one of their good buddies) owns an E9x M3. Look who shows up driving one next year.

I'm sorry you think like that.

Nothing personal John, but there are far too many instances of where a rule set gets implemented or a car gets moved, and lo and behold it turns out one of the people directly involved in the decision magically shows up with the car in question. I won't name names here, but there is plenty of evidence here to support my opinion and most of us here know who they are.

KJ Christopher wrote:

Steve Lepper wrote:No, that means that somebody on the board (or one of their good buddies) owns an E9x M3. Look who shows up driving one next year.
As usual, it's not about what's good for the class, it's about what's good for ME.

Have you ever spent time on one of the advisory committees? It would be extremely difficult to develop that level of collusion.

KJ, I would love to, but I guarantee they wont have me.

John Stimson wrote:I personally think that they're underestimating the E46 M3, but it sounds like people have been impressed with the performance of the newest Mustang and don't think any of the cars being moved will dominate. I think the E90 is probably not as quick as the E46 due to the added weight & size. I haven't formed an opinion about the new S4 because I don't know anything about them. What the SAC typically looks at, in absence of solid event results, is power & torque numbers and curves, wheel size (especially width), driven wheels, achievable wheel camber, availability and type of limited slip differential, defeatable or always-on stability control, and gearing. If you can make a case based on comparing all those specs to cars that are already in or being proposed to move to FS, the SEB ought to at least add it to the existing proposal.

Vince, did you send your letter before the proposed move of all the AS/BS cars into FS, or was it in response to that proposal? I'd suggest sending another letter, making the case that the new S4 is comparable to the other cars being moved, and asking that it be added to the proposed list, if that's not what your original letter was about.

I sent my letter AFTER the proposed move. I basically suggested that they should also consider moving those Audi's IF the other German muscle cars get moved to FS. I also created this table (http://vwong.net/images/temp/SCCA%20Proposal.pdf) for comparison.

edit: BTW, I did send that table along with the letter to SEB. I guess it didn't have enough info?

Matt Ales wrote:Have they ever changed a car's class sort of experimentally then changed it back the next year? There were no stock M3's at nationals last year so it seems hard to know how they or the S4's would compare at that level in BStock. I guess if M3 guys go out and dominate RTR they could change them back to a higher indexed class right?

While recent results may be lacking, a number of top drivers had developed and run the E46 M3 in AS years ago, there is a pretty good idea of its performance capabilities. In the case of the Audi there is really no solid data on its (solo) performance potential.

Steve Lepper wrote:Nothing personal John

Steve, what you've got to realize is that the people on the SEB and the SAC are regular people who participate in autocross and these forums. When you make a comment like that, it is absolutely personal.

I won't name names here, but there is plenty of evidence here to support my opinion and most of us here know who they are.

Nicely vague, so that it impugns the maximum number of people without any way to refute it directly.

No John, this doesn't mean I have a problem with anybody involved as a person, and I'm not painting every person who has ever served with the same brush. However, there are several cases where personal interest got in the way of clear decision making. If you want to know specific instances, I'll be happy to share details in a private message.