SCCAForums.com

Patrick Washburn:

Hmmm...lots of circular jerking going on in this entertaining thread.  I personally do not think it's possible to do a classing structure like this.  As I suggested on the other thread, since the fact remians that many, many cars have not been fully prepped and run seriously with the right diver, there is NO database available to accurately class those cars.  You simply do not know the performance potential of those cars.  Your system is completely predicated on the ability to know what the ultimate performance envelope is for every car eligible for SP.  Aint going to happen.

OK, so maybe you say "take an initial stab at it, and throw them in the fire to let it all sort itself out".  How many years will that take?  You think SP is F'd up now?  Wait until your car gets re-classed once a year based on empirical data, for how many years?.  Twice a year?   I don't know...how often are you going to re-class everyone????  One guy picks a car near the bottom of your "bracket",. preps it and kicks everyone's behind:  Ok that car needs re-classing.  Please explain what is different about that than what we have now????

Given a highly structured, and unforgiving "bracket racing" type classing structure, (showing your hand gets you re-classed)  I do feel that sandbagging will become part of the game.  Doesn't matter if it exists right now...it will. We've also already discussed the wildly in-accurate data you will get when you throw two diametrically opposed types of vehicle into the same class.  Course design, weather, ....*will* affect the results in a more dramatic way, making the data gathering process almost impossible.  These thing cannot be ignored in your plan.  Who you going to get to apply the subjective "equalizers"....Cole?  :)

I await your proposed classing structure based on existing historical data.  Good luck, I mean that.  Going through this process might bring to the forefront some of the reason why people are saying this won't work.  Have at it....can't wait to see the results.

 

That's how the classing is done now as well. "Projected" performance. That's never going to change without hard numbers. But some cars are obviously placed in the wrong classes currently. So no one is ever going to consider driving them. It opens up the choices.

The biggest advantage of this would be faster and slower cars have a place to go. And more cars will be able to compete.  Class changes would not happen as often as your post suggests.

Sandbagging will not be able to happen because people gravitate to the winning car so they would have to do their best to beat a car that is the same car as theirs. I think sandbagging does currently happen but only based on if others in the same class don't do well (cone their runs). And how many serious competitors are in class.

Because I can't exactly lay out every scenario perfectly does not mean it wont work. It would have to be a collective solution. 

SpyderVenom:

Patrick Washburn:

OK, so maybe you say "take an initial stab at it, and throw them in the fire to let it all sort itself out".  How many years will that take?  You think SP is F'd up now?  Wait until your car gets re-classed once a year based on empirical data, for how many years?.  Twice a year?   I don't know...how often are you going to re-class everyone????  One guy picks a car near the bottom of your "bracket",. preps it and kicks everyone's behind:  Ok that car needs re-classing.  Please explain what is different about that than what we have now????

Given a highly structured, and unforgiving "bracket racing" type classing structure, (showing your hand gets you re-classed)  I do feel that sandbagging will become part of the game.  Doesn't matter if it exists right now...it will. We've also already discussed the wildly in-accurate data you will get when you throw two diametrically opposed types of vehicle into the same class.  Course design, weather, ....*will* affect the results in a more dramatic way, making the data gathering process almost impossible.  These thing cannot be ignored in your plan.  Who you going to get to apply the subjective "equalizers"....Cole?  :)

I await your proposed classing structure based on existing historical data.  Good luck, I mean that.  Going through this process might bring to the forefront some of the reason why people are saying this won't work.  Have at it....can't wait to see the results.

I've asked him repeatedly to class three cars in two classes to take his classing scheme through it's logical progression - once the cars are classed and in the two car class either the fast car gets moved up into a class where it is an also-ran or a slow car moves down where it is an overdog. And then the next year where you have to ask the question on moving the car again...

I've also asked him to explain how this is different than how classing is done right now except that cars are also moved down every year (and the additional workload that the  already overworked SEB would need to do). 

The other thing that is missing is the "How do we get there from here?" question.  It could be the most perfect plan around but if there isn't a clear path on how to get there, it simply can not be done.

 

To the OP - sorry for keeping this part of the thread alive.  To bring it back a little, I believe that SP isn't drawing new blood because the cost of entry is too high.  If you look at the top cars, they have had a lot of work done to them.  People, and class fillers specifically, really really like to lemming.  They want to be able to look at the top car and replicate it bolt for bolt easily so they don't have to spend the R&D money.  I think if you remove the aero, engine internal mods, and any other mod that a "average" autocrosser can't do in a home garage - I think you will start getting people back.

 

First, don't stretch the truth. You asked me exactly ONCE. And I told you I'm not going to because I don't have enough information to do that putting me on the spot if it's not perfect.

"How do you get from here to there". Well sh*t why don't we just give up and we all go by a BMW for DSP. If it needs fixing it needs fixing. Whatever the solution is it might take several years to fix. Lets do it now before it gets worse.

I think the idea is a solution not the solution. There isn't a perfect solution.

A DSP dominate car is a perfect example of having nowhere to go. They were going to put the BMW in BSP where you'd have to install an M3 motor to keep up. Or go buy a new M3. That's even worse.

Steve Hoelscher:

brian94ht:

 [Why dont you sit this thread out and let the younger generations that are willing to accept and discuss change talk about this,

No problem.  I will be glad to let you play in Fantasy Land with the rest of the children.  Have at it.  The adults will handle reality. 

 

Steve Hoelscher:

brian94ht:

 [Why dont you sit this thread out and let the younger generations that are willing to accept and discuss change talk about this,

No problem.  I will be glad to let you play in Fantasy Land with the rest of the children.  Have at it.  The adults will handle reality. 

 

Steve, you and I were in at the beginning of the SP class. We are both,for the most part, out of the class. We both have a really good historical perspective of what the class was, and has become. I agree with you that ST is going thru exactly what SP went thru in the late 80's and early 90's.

Remember when the hot sh*t guy's were shaving there A001's. For those of you who don't know what an A001 is just look at the new bread of ST tire. History is about to repeat it's self IMO. Most of the noob's just don't know it yet.

Somewhere in this thread someone said that no one cut's there fenders on a street car. In the old day's my RX3 in street trim ran on 5" wide wheels. Most street cars in those days did. That is why the rule was put in place. With cut fenders we could put "giant" 13 x 8 wheels on the cars. It seems kind of comical to look back at it now. Most sport sedans have 8" wide wheels from the factory, but that is the way it was.

If the younger guy's want to come in and change the class, let them do it. If they are right, the classes will grow again to what they were. If they are wrong, it's egg on there faces.

I want to finish with this. None of you should be bad mouthing Steve. He put a lot of his personal time and reputation on the line for this sport that we love . Until YOU Jack**fs put in the time and effort that he did, you will not have one inch of the credability that he has. It's easy to sit behind a key board and type all the stupid things we do, but far far more difficult to build something that works for all of us.You all need to stop attacking each other, come to some sort of concensus and ACT on what you believe the sport should be.

Chris Cox

3 time National Champion and proud to have competed with Steve

Jojoo:

SpyderVenom:

Patrick Washburn:

OK, so maybe you say "take an initial stab at it, and throw them in the fire to let it all sort itself out".  How many years will that take?  You think SP is F'd up now?  Wait until your car gets re-classed once a year based on empirical data, for how many years?.  Twice a year?   I don't know...how often are you going to re-class everyone????  One guy picks a car near the bottom of your "bracket",. preps it and kicks everyone's behind:  Ok that car needs re-classing.  Please explain what is different about that than what we have now????

Given a highly structured, and unforgiving "bracket racing" type classing structure, (showing your hand gets you re-classed)  I do feel that sandbagging will become part of the game.  Doesn't matter if it exists right now...it will. We've also already discussed the wildly in-accurate data you will get when you throw two diametrically opposed types of vehicle into the same class.  Course design, weather, ....*will* affect the results in a more dramatic way, making the data gathering process almost impossible.  These thing cannot be ignored in your plan.  Who you going to get to apply the subjective "equalizers"....Cole?  :)

I await your proposed classing structure based on existing historical data.  Good luck, I mean that.  Going through this process might bring to the forefront some of the reason why people are saying this won't work.  Have at it....can't wait to see the results.

I've asked him repeatedly to class three cars in two classes to take his classing scheme through it's logical progression - once the cars are classed and in the two car class either the fast car gets moved up into a class where it is an also-ran or a slow car moves down where it is an overdog. And then the next year where you have to ask the question on moving the car again...

I've also asked him to explain how this is different than how classing is done right now except that cars are also moved down every year (and the additional workload that the  already overworked SEB would need to do). 

The other thing that is missing is the "How do we get there from here?" question.  It could be the most perfect plan around but if there isn't a clear path on how to get there, it simply can not be done.

 

To the OP - sorry for keeping this part of the thread alive.  To bring it back a little, I believe that SP isn't drawing new blood because the cost of entry is too high.  If you look at the top cars, they have had a lot of work done to them.  People, and class fillers specifically, really really like to lemming.  They want to be able to look at the top car and replicate it bolt for bolt easily so they don't have to spend the R&D money.  I think if you remove the aero, engine internal mods, and any other mod that a "average" autocrosser can't do in a home garage - I think you will start getting people back.

 

First, don't stretch the truth. You asked me exactly ONCE. And I told you I'm not going to because I don't have enough information to do that putting me on the spot if it's not perfect.

"How do you get from here to there". Well sh*t why don't we just give up and we all go by a BMW for DSP. If it needs fixing it needs fixing. Whatever the solution is it might take several years to fix. Lets do it now before it gets worse.

I think the idea is a solution not the solution. There isn't a perfect solution.

A DSP dominate car is a perfect example of having nowhere to go. They were going to put the BMW in BSP where you'd have to install an M3 motor to keep up. Or go buy a new M3. That's even worse.

JoJoo

it is sounding more and more like your are trying to change a class for one person. You. What about all the other people that have looked at DSP and made the corredt choice(for the time being) and bought a BMW. If you fix the class for yourself and your poor choice of car , you screw all the other people that have invested in the class. They won't stand for it and will always have the numbers to keep you from getting your way. 1 is not the only number out there. Even if you were on the SEB or the BOD you would not have the votes because of the majority status of the BMW's . I am sorry for your choice but that is the way it is. If you can change things on your own, than a fix was needed.

You are better off putting your efforts into those 275-15's and a 5.5" clutch and see where that gets you.

Sorry I can't support your position any more.

Jojoo:

... I told you I'm not going to because I don't have enough information to do that putting me on the spot if it's not perfect. .

Yeah, that's sort of my point.  No one has the data to support this without additional guesswork and conjecture, which I propose will throw the classes into chaos.  All of the incorrect "guesses" will have cars constantly moving around in an attempt to do "corrections".  The "corrections" will not become apparent until someone builds a car and proves the initial classing wrong...this could take many years causing SP to be a huge uncertainty for anyone considering going into the category.  Geez, do a good job and risk getting "corrected".  How is that stable or more sensible that what we have now?  What did we fix?

You must know that most people are going to poke holes in your idea.  The reason to push you, the originator of the idea, on some real life sample data is to get you to actually do it so you can see what problems we are talking about.  Until you actually do it, it's just a nice idea that has no merit...it's just forum chat. I don't think it is unfair to ask you to prove out your theory.  Throwing it out there and hoping someone runs with the ball historically does not work.

BTW, in the other response you mentioned that we already class based on performance potential.  Maybe to a certain small degree, but there most class structures are based on car type, drive, engine size, wheel size,....  That does most of the classing, not someones conjecture over how fast it will actually be.

Jojoo:

Whatever the solution is it might take several years to fix. Lets do it now before it gets worse.

OK...I admire your tenacity.  But, who is the "let's" in "let's do it"?  Pending you getting a major concensus that things are really broke, and "yeah, geez it really is all broke, we all need to do something now...", the burden is going to be with you.  I'm a listener...I will listen to your idea.  Simply saying it all needs to be fixed, and not proposing something concrete for me to evaluate has taxed my attention span however.  Throw out the proposed classing and all of the written rules that govern it, and I'm a listener again.  [shrug]  That's the bottom line really.

---

Patrick Washburn
STU Evo
www.winghats.com

CHRISFP78:

Jojoo:

SpyderVenom:

Patrick Washburn:

OK, so maybe you say "take an initial stab at it, and throw them in the fire to let it all sort itself out".  How many years will that take?  You think SP is F'd up now?  Wait until your car gets re-classed once a year based on empirical data, for how many years?.  Twice a year?   I don't know...how often are you going to re-class everyone????  One guy picks a car near the bottom of your "bracket",. preps it and kicks everyone's behind:  Ok that car needs re-classing.  Please explain what is different about that than what we have now????

Given a highly structured, and unforgiving "bracket racing" type classing structure, (showing your hand gets you re-classed)  I do feel that sandbagging will become part of the game.  Doesn't matter if it exists right now...it will. We've also already discussed the wildly in-accurate data you will get when you throw two diametrically opposed types of vehicle into the same class.  Course design, weather, ....*will* affect the results in a more dramatic way, making the data gathering process almost impossible.  These thing cannot be ignored in your plan.  Who you going to get to apply the subjective "equalizers"....Cole?  :)

I await your proposed classing structure based on existing historical data.  Good luck, I mean that.  Going through this process might bring to the forefront some of the reason why people are saying this won't work.  Have at it....can't wait to see the results.

I've asked him repeatedly to class three cars in two classes to take his classing scheme through it's logical progression - once the cars are classed and in the two car class either the fast car gets moved up into a class where it is an also-ran or a slow car moves down where it is an overdog. And then the next year where you have to ask the question on moving the car again...

I've also asked him to explain how this is different than how classing is done right now except that cars are also moved down every year (and the additional workload that the  already overworked SEB would need to do). 

The other thing that is missing is the "How do we get there from here?" question.  It could be the most perfect plan around but if there isn't a clear path on how to get there, it simply can not be done.

 

To the OP - sorry for keeping this part of the thread alive.  To bring it back a little, I believe that SP isn't drawing new blood because the cost of entry is too high.  If you look at the top cars, they have had a lot of work done to them.  People, and class fillers specifically, really really like to lemming.  They want to be able to look at the top car and replicate it bolt for bolt easily so they don't have to spend the R&D money.  I think if you remove the aero, engine internal mods, and any other mod that a "average" autocrosser can't do in a home garage - I think you will start getting people back.

 

First, don't stretch the truth. You asked me exactly ONCE. And I told you I'm not going to because I don't have enough information to do that putting me on the spot if it's not perfect.

"How do you get from here to there". Well sh*t why don't we just give up and we all go by a BMW for DSP. If it needs fixing it needs fixing. Whatever the solution is it might take several years to fix. Lets do it now before it gets worse.

I think the idea is a solution not the solution. There isn't a perfect solution.

A DSP dominate car is a perfect example of having nowhere to go. They were going to put the BMW in BSP where you'd have to install an M3 motor to keep up. Or go buy a new M3. That's even worse.

JoJoo

it is sounding more and more like your are trying to change a class for one person. You. What about all the other people that have looked at DSP and made the corredt choice(for the time being) and bought a BMW. If you fix the class for yourself and your poor choice of car , you screw all the other people that have invested in the class. They won't stand for it and will always have the numbers to keep you from getting your way. 1 is not the only number out there. Even if you were on the SEB or the BOD you would not have the votes because of the majority status of the BMW's . I am sorry for your choice but that is the way it is. If you can change things on your own, than a fix was needed.

You are better off putting your efforts into those 275-15's and a 5.5" clutch and see where that gets you.

Sorry I can't support your position any more.

 

This has nothing to do  with my car at all. I've already said in this forum that I think the Integra type R is/can be competitive with the BMWs. You're totally off base there. Defending cars that aren't even in my class is I classing? I've also said that the BMW should stay in DSP because of the 275 35 15.

I don't even know how you came to this conclusion based on what I said in that post?? 

Patrick Washburn:

Yeah, that's sort of my point.  No one has the data to support this without additional guesswork and conjecture, which I propose will throw the classes into chaos.  All of the incorrect "guesses" will have cars constantly moving around in an attempt to do "corrections".  The "corrections" will not become apparent until someone builds a car and proves the initial classing wrong...this could take many years causing SP to be a huge uncertainty for anyone considering going into the category.  Geez, do a good job and risk getting "corrected".  How is that stable or more sensible that what we have now?  What did we fix?

You must know that most people are going to poke holes in your idea.  The reason to push you, the originator of the idea, on some real life sample data is to get you to actually do it so you can see what problems we are talking about.  Until you actually do it, it's just a nice idea that has no merit...it's just forum chat. I don't think it is unfair to ask you to prove out your theory.  Throwing it out there and hoping someone runs with the ball historically does not work.

 That's how it already is. Till someone builds a car, it wont be classed but from guessing. But why would someone build a car they know can't compete in a class just so they can lose that year so the car can be reclassed? But currently running cars can be classed well based all all the data we have with minor corrections. But as I said there are cars completely wrong classed even without anyone building the car. That's how bad it is.

You expect one guy to come up with the entirely perfect system....not going to happen.  For the same reason the SEB meets and goes over classing cars. There are many more people qualified to do this but to rest the entire system on one person is anything but sane. I'm not going to put myself in the position for other to base the idea on one persons possible mistakes.

Patrick Washburn:

BTW, in the other response you mentioned that we already class based on performance potential.  Maybe to a certain small degree, but there most class structures are based on car type, drive, engine size, wheel size,....  That does most of the classing, not someones conjecture over how fast it will actually be.

 That is how cars are placed to begin with, entirely. Until someone runs the car.

 
But yet, that is not actually how the classing really is. There are a mixed bag of different types of cars in each class. And that's partially what's wrong.Basing cars on type instead of speed.

 

Patrick Washburn:

OK...I admire your tenacity.  But, who is the "let's" in "let's do it"?  Pending you getting a major concensus that things are really broke, and "yeah, geez it really is all broke, we all need to do something now...", the burden is going to be with you.  I'm a listener...I will listen to your idea.  Simply saying it all needs to be fixed, and not proposing something concrete for me to evaluate has taxed my attention span however.  Throw out the proposed classing and all of the written rules that govern it, and I'm a listener again.  [shrug]  That's the bottom line really.

 

Exactly, but no one can convince someone things are broken. The majority of people I have talked to (almost all local) about classing admit there is something wrong or things wrong. And they feel strongly about it usually. Maybe they don't have a solution. Or they feel it's a waste of time trying to get the SEB to see it. Or feel they are going to get ignored (I know that feeling). Whatever the reason....

As soon as I class a single car where others completely disagree, the entire idea goes out the window (even one mistake). I'm not going to put myself in that position.  Don't like the idea don't support it. I could put it together perfectly in reality and there would still be people who disagree. I'm presenting a general idea that would make classing easier and progression of classing smoother.

I guess the idea will die with me if I don't verbalize the entire idea if I ever have it completely figured out. In the mean time very few ideas are being put out because no one wants to support it because it's not perfect to begin with. I guess we'll be stuck with the way it is. In which case, I wont support this organization the way I could if I believed in an idea (mine or not) and I definitely don't support the current way it's being done.  I'm tired of the SEB not seeing the bad classing even after writing a letter about a specific car. I'll try doing it again and see where it might go again. (crosses fingers)

Ok - let's start off by saying that you are asking for the National classing rules to be changed.  No one is going to build a car for Nationals that they don't believe could win (or trophy).  Additionally, people are not going to build a car that they believe will get reclassed to an uncompetitive class if they go too fast.  Can we agree with these two statements about people who run at the National Level?   

 

Jojoo:

That's how it already is. Till someone builds a car, it wont be classed but from guessing. But why would someone build a car they know can't compete in a class just so they can lose that year so the car can be reclassed?

There are very very few real 100% completely set-up SP cars out there.  We will never know the true speed of an SP car unless a known driver spends a few months in a 100% built car to learn it and set it up correctly.

The majority of people I have talked to (almost all local) about classing admit there is something wrong or things wrong. And they feel strongly about it usually.

I guess the idea will die with me if I don't verbalize the entire idea if I ever have it completely figured out. In the mean time very few ideas are being put out because no one wants to support it because it's not perfect to begin with. I guess we'll be stuck with the way it is. In which case, I wont support this organization the way I could if I believed in an idea (mine or not) and I definitely don't support the current way it's being done.  I'm tired of the SEB not seeing the bad classing even after writing a letter about a specific car. I'll try doing it again and see where it might go again. (crosses fingers)

You can't really talk to local people about National classing.  Like I said, there are very few cars even at the National level that are 100% set-up and when you get down to the local level still less are.  You also get into depth of driving talent when you start talking about local drivers too so comparisons become really hard.  If you want to get involved - talk to your local organizers about implementing your ideas.  Regions do not have to follow the classing outlined in the rulebook - only the safety procedures.  They are free to make/change classes as local demand dictates.  Our region runs an STX2 class and is talking about a STU2 class too. 

I'm not going to read ever post you've made again - what car are you complaining about?  The BMW?  Maybe people here can help you understand why the car isn't going to be reclassed.
 

---

Rob Leone

'07 Solstice GXP in AS
'87 Toyota Corolla in EP
ex - '91 MR2 Turbo in SM2 <- If you can't set a good example, serve as a horrible warning.

My .02 cents.  I'm relatively new to SP and I'm currently building an Impreza for FSP.  I've only been autocrossing for a few years, so anything I say should be read with that in mind.  I see two problems with SP that people are highlighting.  One is modifications allowances and the other is sudden rule changes upsetting people. In regard to modifications, some people want SP to be more like ST, but that's not really my preference - it should be a noticeable step up, or else the more distant classes like SM and Prepared will be too far away for a progression to a new class, as I progressed here from STS.

---

So in regard to modification allowances, one thing I find troublesome still is the unlimited boost allowance for turbo cars.  It was apparently (to me anyway) allowed because no one knew a good way to prevent it and no one believed it would allow significant power without supporting mods that were already disallowed.   It seems like it has been proven more effective a modification than was originally assumed.  I think a change like that should have been made to correspond with a similar change for others (maybe supercharger cars can change their pulley ratios and NA cars can change cams). 

Since I'm building an engine now, it seems like no-gap piston rings would be nice, but they appear to be specifically disallowed.  I feel like I'm putting a lot of work into disassembling and machining the engine to run well, and I should be reassembling it as well as possible too.  Street Prepared does not mean bolt-ons when you can (and should) put this much work into an engine, so I feel like skipping things like that when rebuilding is just a little wasteful.  I think working SP down to near-ST bolt-on status is the wrong direction.  In SP, it's allowing a certain amount of engine work for those willing to build an engine, and I think that at least allowing smarter decisions in there would be worthwhile.  By making a few concessions toward Prepared, you can increase the ST->SP gap a bit and still keep Prepared still very ahead of SP in terms of power.

---

The other issue is that no one seems to be able to come up with a way to introduce changes without drastically upsetting people and classing.  So, there is an overwhelming resistance to change, because it would upset things.  If you make additional allowances, than things will change and some people who've invested a lot in their cars will have to settle for that.  If no-gap piston rings are allowed, then I've got to settle for not having them or tear apart my new engine again.  It's only natural to be annoyed by this, but you can't use that as an excuse not to do it.
 
I think you can reduce the difficulty of introducing allowances like this by announcing them 2 years ahead of schedule.  If you do that, people with built cars to current rules will still have a good year or two in them without having to react to new rules.  New people to the class can schedule their build according to rules or hold off their build, knowing they want to wait for particular rules.  And this will essentially slow things down for a class that is supposed to be steadier and less unpredictable than stock for example.  I think making new allowance rules follow a two-year delay would probably be a good policy for announcing new rules without upsetting people too drastically, but still allowing a class to progress moreso than SP has.

Anyway, people asked for ideas and I figured these seemed fair.
-N
 

---

#128 FSP - '99 Soloru Wagon - NER

Jojoo:

As soon as I class a single car where others completely disagree, the entire idea goes out the window (even one mistake). I'm not going to put myself in that position.  Don't like the idea don't support it. I could put it together perfectly in reality and there would still be people who disagree. I'm presenting a general idea that would make classing easier and progression of classing smoother.

Okaaaayyy....what will happen when the reclass happens for real and it's wrong?  Do you think anyone is willing to change a long standing National Class structure based on "well I think we should do things better".  I'm not trying to offend you.  This would have to trial run before you were to change the world of hundreds (thousands?) of SP competitors who have major investments. 

No one will ever agree on everything, as you are well aware.  You're afraid of making a mistake....I would expect the mistakes, I'm afraid of someone making a mistake when doing the real thing.  You need to make these mistakes now while it's still a proposal.  Get input, fix them, and come back again.  Get it shot down, try again.  Keep at it until there are no more valid arguments.  Only then will anyone ever be able to see what your talking about.  (Even then, they may still not like it of course)  You might think I'm arguing against you...I'm not.  Just throwing out what I would want to see if I were to give this thing any consideration at all.  That's the end of that tangent as far as my input goes.

To the original topic, I ask a similar thing.  List in detail the actual things that are broke, and list the new detailed wording that will correct them.  Without that, I don't even really understand exactly what we're discussing.  Just a lot of "SP is broke", "it needs to change" kinda stuff. 

---

Patrick Washburn
STU Evo
www.winghats.com

SpyderVenom:

To the OP - sorry for keeping this part of the thread alive.  To bring it back a little, I believe that SP isn't drawing new blood because the cost of entry is too high.  If you look at the top cars, they have had a lot of work done to them.  People, and class fillers specifically, really really like to lemming.  They want to be able to look at the top car and replicate it bolt for bolt easily so they don't have to spend the R&D money.  I think if you remove the aero, engine internal mods, and any other mod that a "average" autocrosser can't do in a home garage - I think you will start getting people back.

I agree, put the "street" back in street prepared.  As an example, when these rules were made, most cars didn't have A/C, and it wasn't a big deal to remove it.  The A/C was generally on its own drive belt, and the whole system came out in an hour or two.  Today's cars, you can't even see the vast majority of the A/C system when you open the hood.  I think SP should be ST* on steroids.  ST* rules + R-comps + open boost, ECU, pulleys for supercharged cars, and cams for N/A cars.  Get rid of stuff like cut fenders, A/C + radio removal, etc, to lower costs and have a fully prepped SP car still somewhat streetable.  Include a grandfather clause with a sunset (i.e. if you can prove the car was raced in SP prior to the rule change you can run under the current rules until 2011, then you have to conform to the new ones or off you go to Prepared), or phase in the rule changes over several years to keep the costs down for current SP drivers.

---

Dave Heinig

07 GXP Z0K (Thanks Rob!)

If you want to do away with cut fenders, you'll have to instate a maximum wheel size rule.  Would you do this by class or by car?  Even so, there will be cars that still absolutely can't fit legal sized rubber without cutting.  Personally I'd like to see a few more mods allowed in the current Street Prepared.  I've always thought that rear seats should be able to come out.  I'd also like to see gearing changes since we can't all update/backdate between eight different transaxles.

 

mike

---

Mike Snyder (little)

Yes I still have it, 62hp at the wheels, more than I should have spent- any more questons?

No, you're missing the point.  You can fit what you can fit, and yes, this might change the classification of some cars.  Once you start cutting fenders, the car is not longer a "street" car and shoudn't be in a class called Street Prepared.  If you put in gearing changes for all cars, you're drastically raising the $$ required to build a nationally competitive car because now everyone has to have custom gears.  The goal is to get more people to step up from the ST classes, so raising costs is the wrong direction.  If you want to do all that there's a perfectly good set of Prepared classes that your car will fit in.

---

Dave Heinig

07 GXP Z0K (Thanks Rob!)

Geez...... this thread has beome pointless, it's going nowhere with some thick skulled newbies trying to make the experienced people change their points of view.

 

The moderators should kill this thread!!!

 

 

---

Jesus Villarreal
D mod Europa