SCCAForums.com

Catch 22:

PS - OK, lets forget about the s2000 (even though we shouldn't) because its an evil A Stock car.  Lets talk about why the B Stock 2 seaters aren't allowed in STU...  Lets discuss the 350z and BMW M Coupe (99-00).  B Stock cars that aren't in STU with all the other B Stock cars simply because they have 2 seats.  Someone please help me with my obviously flawed logic here and explain this.

Thanks in Advance.

So what would you think about Miata w/Torsen, S2K and 350Z/G35 coupe in STU with the AWD 245 tire limit? imho I think those cars could go in there with that tire limit and not upset the class yet still be able to play.

---

Jason Isley
2005-2006-2007-2008 B Stock National Champion

What happens if the 350z dominates STU???  Same thing that happened when the Z06 took over SS or the Mini owned GS or the Civic dominated STS...  Everyone gets a 350z. 

What is your damned point?

You can't get paralysis because you are afraid of such things and you can't apply "but we're scared of overdogs" rules to STU that you aren't applying to SS, STS, GS or ASP or whatever.  Just stop it. 

If I stopped to think about everything that could kill me out there I'd board up the windows and never leave the house.  If the SCCA tries to never ever ever ever potentially create an overdog then I guess we're finished classing new cars.

All I'm asking is why the 350z isn't in STU with all the other B Stock cars and you are asking for it to somehow prove it won't be a class killer.  First off, nobody can positively do that with ANY car unless you potentially misclass everything.  Second, you didn't have the same requirements of the other STU cars when THEY were classed.   Why?  Because they have 4 seats.  THAT ISN'T VALID CLASSING METHODOLOGY!!!  Thats using a class philosphy created when ST was nothing but STS.  And STU cars are in a wayyyyyyyyyy different category than STS cars.  Talk about round fruit.

You are driving me NUTS.

I'm really going to try to give up now.  Its giving me a headache.

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

RX7 KLR:

So what would you think about Miata w/Torsen, S2K and 350Z/G35 coupe in STU with the AWD 245 tire limit? imho I think those cars could go in there with that tire limit and not upset the class yet still be able to play.

Miata with torsen ought to be in STX with the 2nd gen MR2.

I can see the Mazdaspeed Miata (because its a turbo), S2000, and MR2 Turbo in STU with a tire restriction.  I really see no reason for the B stock normally aspirated 2 seaters to have a tire restriction. 

Again, and I can't stress this enough... Its illogical to assume that (for example) a BMW M Coupe needs a tire restriction to level it with an M3 in STU when it needs no such restriction in either Stock or Street Prepared.  What you are saying at that point, literally, is that 2 seat cars are inherently faster on street tires than 4 seat cars.  THATS what doesn't make sense and nobody has yet to justify.

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

Catch 22:

All I'm asking is why the 350z isn't in STU with all the other B Stock cars and you are asking for it to somehow prove it won't be a class killer.  First off, nobody can positively do that with ANY car unless you potentially misclass everything.  Second, you didn't have the same requirements of the other STU cars when THEY were classed.   Why?  Because they have 4 seats.  THAT ISN'T VALID CLASSING METHODOLOGY!!!  Thats using a class philosphy created when ST was nothing but STS.  And STU cars are in a wayyyyyyyyyy different category than STS cars.  Talk about round fruit.

---

Jason Isley
2005-2006-2007-2008 B Stock National Champion

Catch 22:

Miata with torsen ought to be in STX with the 2nd gen MR2.

I can see the Mazdaspeed Miata (because its a turbo), S2000, and MR2 Turbo in STU with a tire restriction.  I really see no reason for the B stock normally aspirated 2 seaters to have a tire restriction. 

Again, and I can't stress this enough... Its illogical to assume that (for example) a BMW M Coupe needs a tire restriction to level it with an M3 in STU when it needs no such restriction in either Stock or Street Prepared.  What you are saying at that point, literally, is that 2 seat cars are inherently faster on street tires than 4 seat cars.  THATS what doesn't make sense and nobody has yet to justify.

---

Jason Isley
2005-2006-2007-2008 B Stock National Champion

So after all that success with IT, why the move down to ST?  Just pokin' at cha...

I don't really know much about IT, but is it not a collection of classes, each comprised of maybe 5-15 cars?  My point being, the number of cars, modifications, weights, etc., was relatively finite.  I liken this more to adding a new SP class, and performing some class reshuffling, where you have plenty of data to back the changes.

The difference about ST, is that at present, it allows hundreds, if not thousands, of different car types to enter.  To make the paradigm change, that humongous collection of cars has to be distilled down by the poor overworked, volunteer AC and SEB members to the 5-15 per class the "club" wants to see competing.  A lot of feelings get hurt in this process "you mean I have to compete against a (car a) in my (car b)?!?!?!", or "whaddaya mean I can't run my (unpopular/unknown car) in STS anymore, I used to be able to?!?!?" etc.  Another problem making that process extra difficult, is we don't have a lot of good data on what makes an ideal ST car vs. an SP or Stock one.  We know how fast a Civic can go, Imprezas (2.5RS/WRX/Sti), M3s, Evos, 240s, and maybe a couple others, but that's about it.  All the others would have to be guessed at using piecemeal information.

The risk, if this is not all done right/carefully, is "tipping the apple cart" so bad it makes all the current front-runners, back markers.  There are legions of Civic, WRX, and M3/StEvo drivers out there who will be very effective in contrary letter-writing to any proposal that threatens to unseat their positions.  Everybody wants to see a successful future to the category, but if it comes at the cost of sacrificing a significant cost and time investment for a large number of people, then support will no doubt be lessened.  That's why I say that any new paradigm needs to protect the investment of the current participants to have a chance of getting off the ground- ASt, BSt, Cst, etc. will have a much better chance if the current ST classes each fit neatly into one of the new performance-based classes.

The present "seats and motor size" methodology which you say (in all caps) "isn't a valid methodology" is made valid by the fact that it's presently being used in ST, but also by SM, to class cars.  Its use, makes it valid - maybe not ideal, but valid.  In general, 2-seat cars are much more likely to be designed from the beginning for sport applications (smaller, lower, lighter, better suspensions), so when using very broad strokes for classification, it makes a good first swing.  When you start breaking things into 5+ classes as ST is presently it starts to show its shortcomings, but it wasn't such a bad tool to start a new category with.

Movement to a performance-based classing methodology as per Stock and SP has the following challenges:

• Distill virtually limitless number of cars down to 5-7 classes of 5-10 cars each, with very little solid data to go on
  
• Maintain/preserve competitiveness/investment for members of presently highly subscribed classes, both initially and for a while after the change
• Build in consistency of rules across the category to minimize confusion (tire sizes, why does CSt get cats and diffs but BSt doesn't?, etc.)
• Justify creation of any new classes needed in the conversion

I see that as being a lot of work, one that could easily take 5 years, hence my 20-teens comment.  Maybe it'll be sooner, who knows, but it's going to take a lot of effort to do it right.  Applied to the present question, you can't just stop at the 350Z - you have to consider not only the S2000 and MR2, but every other non-STS2 2-seater made, ever.  You know well how two very intelligent and educated people can disagree all day and night on how competitive a given car would be in a given class.  To get this done, hundreds of compromises will have to be made by dozens of people, many of them just as stubborn as you.  Maybe the 20-teens was being generous...

---

--Jason Rhoades

RX7 KLR:

As far as the S2K you are 200 lbs lighter than the RX-8 with more power and have LSD issues in stock, fix that in STU and give it a 275 and the class is Spec S2K. However again I think a skinny 245 could keep it in check.

 So what would people think if we push to have the 2 seater cars allowed into STU with the 245 tire limitation?  I think it would be a good idea to see the car's potential.  Then if the cars can't hack it on 245s maybe in the future push to have them allowed on 275s.  That seems like a good way to do it.  I don't have a dog in this fight but would really like to see a place for the 2 seaters to play in ST* other than STS2.

---

Keith
2008 Honda S2000

skeeter119:

 So what would people think if we push to have the 2 seater cars allowed into STU with the 245 tire limitation?  I think it would be a good idea to see the car's potential.  Then if the cars can't hack it on 245s maybe in the future push to have them allowed on 275s.  That seems like a good way to do it.  I don't have a dog in this fight but would really like to see a place for the 2 seaters to play in ST* other than STS2.

---

Jason Isley
2005-2006-2007-2008 B Stock National Champion

And Rotaries are notorious for making HUGE power gains when you make modifications to them, especially in the exhaust.  So maybe the RX8 is a potential STU overdog that needs narrow tires???  See my point?  I can pick SOMETHING on just about any car you can throw out there that might make it an overdog somewhere.

But ignore what I just wrote.  I keep asking what 2 seats has to do with the price of buttermilk in Bhutan and you picked out some specific things about the 350z that has nothing to do with the 2 seats.  Fact is, if the 350z had a couple of little dinky rear seats in it it would very very likely ALREADY BE IN STU.

What if Mazda rolled out a version of the RX8 that is EXACTLY THE SAME as the current car except it has no rear doors and a storage bin instead of rear seats???  Should it suddenly not be allowed in STU???!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Please understand that this is the point.  Stop nitpicking this and that about particular cars.  Please.

Jason... Time, Money and Commitment.  Its a whole lot less in STS2 than it is in ITC.  I miss racing, but I don't miss what it takes to race.

 

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

RX7 KLR:

 

I don't think STU needs to be screwed with, they are one of the biggest classes at most events. However I do see on a lot of forums a number of people asking for a place to run a sports based cars in ST. Giving them a tire restriction that already exist in the class could be a way to let them play without upsetting the current "balance" (aka AWD domination) in the class. jmho

 

 

As Catch 22 sticks his fingers in his ears and makes noises as other people speaks, I'll address this...

I agree and I have said that STU does not need to be screwed with since the turnout, as it is, is fantastic and there are several makes competitive.   But, we all know that if the 2-seaters were to be given a place to play in STU with serious limitations--and said 2-seaters were far from competitive--people would yell about this also.  What's the point of doing this--for the locals?  As has been pointed out time and time again, locals are free to create any class they want.  I see no reason to handicap what could be an overdog into something that's not competitive.

Seriously, it's a no-win to do this IMO.  That's why I am asking that folks be patient and write their letters in 2008.  For goodness sake--it's a freaking year to wait.  If enough people want a class for 2-seat based sports cars, then one might likely be considered.

As for the other bold statement Catch22 made--if the 350Z is put into STU and seriously upsets the apple cart, people are going to be upset.  Catch needs to study SP classing a little closer to see how cars and shuffled around there and forget about stock class for a second, because how stock class behaves is a million miles away from what ST and SP do.  I've addressed that already but I guess my description was not good enough.

---

Todd
Too many ST cars

"Restricted Area Racing"

Catch 22:

And Rotaries are notorious for making HUGE power gains when you make modifications to them, especially in the exhaust.  So maybe the RX8 is a potential STU overdog that needs narrow tires???  See my point?  I can pick SOMETHING on just about any car you can throw out there that might make it an overdog somewhere.

I wish the RX-8 could make big power...... The most I have seen from a BSP or STU trim RX-8 is 200 rwhp. Yep that is big. lol I guess no one will tell you what you want to hear so there is no point in going on.

---

Jason Isley
2005-2006-2007-2008 B Stock National Champion

Catch 22:

PS - There STILL hasn't been any valid reason given for the B Stock 350z and M Coupe to not be in STU.  I wish I'd never mentioned the S2000 because *some* folks can't let that go and actually answer the real question.  Which is, one last time, "Why do 2 seats and street tires mean cars need a separate class?"  It really is just that simple a question.  I swear it is.  It seems really simple and straightforward because it IS simple and straighforward.  At least until we succeed at complicating it.

 

I'm currently one of the freaks driving an M3 in STU.  Let me tell you what would happen with my '00 S52 M coupe in STU, given the same tire limitations as the M3.

The AWD guys wouldn't know what hit them.  It wouldn't be remotely close.  Would I love that?  No.  Competition and challenge is what this is about, not decimating the other drivers.

I know that isn't your point in the comment, but it's relevant to the concepts in this thread.  If we could create a class where the field is reasonably close, I'd love to run the M coupe.  That car is *perfect* for the ST rule set!  Not too much power, not too much weight (relatively speaking), stock suspension that sucks...

Mike

Keith Casey - IMHO...:

why mix it up when the class (STU) is still in it's formative years?

because that's the perfect time to do it before it becomes so ingrained and inbred it's impossible to make any changes.

Again, look at the removal of UD/BD in STS. It happened, but because it was early in, not that many people were hurt, but some still were.

The philosophy of STS was penned when there was only... STS. (4 door sedans). The category has grown, I would guess faster than many had anticipated. Do those in charge want to keep the status quo, or, do they have a bigger vision they'd like to share?

--kC

(possibly a dupe post, browser crashed... )

The folks that were hurt in the ST UD/BD, how many quit or changed classes?   Zero, or ??  Is ST as a whole bigger today or not?  Would there be more people affected by this or less?
I'm really asking, not just rhetoric there... I truly don't know those answers... it may change my view to hear them.

When STS was formed, there were indeed 2 seat sports cars out there, it's not like they just popped up in the last 2 or 3 years.  Was the reason they were 'omitted' then b/c no one really thought they'd deign to run 'just' a street-tire class?  I may be way off, but most folks I know who buy those sweet little 2-seat sports cars kind of stick their noses up at sedans anyway.  That's no reason to exclude them, for sure... but I would laugh my butt off if this allowance was made and no one attended anyway.  No, not making a point there, just idle observation :)

People keep hinting at " no one guarantees your car will remain competitive..."...  likewise no one guaranteed your car would have a place to run when purchased.  I didn't buy my first WRX to autox, didn't even know what autox was.  It was just lucky that it's worked out.  Thanks to Subaru for putting the freebie SCCA membership in the glove-box. 

All that said, I also agree with the notion that if 'properly' limited, the cars could be wedged in the class.  Define properly limited now.  I also understand the point about SCCA possibly having a grander scheme at work and we'd all love to see it if it exists.  It could quell this mini-revolt right now.

 

---

#555 STU HouSCCA
underprepped and proud of it! ( or just very, very cheap, your call :p )

Catch 22:

And Rotaries are notorious for making HUGE power gains when you make modifications to them, especially in the exhaust.  So maybe the RX8 is a potential STU overdog that needs narrow tires???  See my point?  I can pick SOMETHING on just about any car you can throw out there that might make it an overdog somewhere.

But ignore what I just wrote.  I keep asking what 2 seats has to do with the price of buttermilk in Bhutan and you picked out some specific things about the 350z that has nothing to do with the 2 seats.  Fact is, if the 350z had a couple of little dinky rear seats in it it would very very likely ALREADY BE IN STU.

What if Mazda rolled out a version of the RX8 that is EXACTLY THE SAME as the current car except it has no rear doors and a storage bin instead of rear seats???  Should it suddenly not be allowed in STU???!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Please understand that this is the point.  Stop nitpicking this and that about particular cars.  Please.

Jason... Time, Money and Commitment.  Its a whole lot less in STS2 than it is in ITC.  I miss racing, but I don't miss what it takes to race.

Addressing only your bold comment there:  If Mazda made such a beast, would you think it'd have better or worse weight distribution, power/weight, stiffness and handling?  Killing two gaping holes in the body structure would surely make the car stiffer, eliminating their weight makes it lighter.. those two things alone are pretty big differences.  Surely there are more, I'm not that smart to think of them all though.
 

RX8's have double-wishbones, right?  Most of the 'top' STU cars are strut. If I had to pick, I'd pick wishbones to have.  You're -only- focusing on seats b/c that was a convenient metric to separate sports-cars from sedans.  You're omitting the notion that most 2-seat sports cars actually are designed to handle better right out of the box, not to speak of how they'd do w/the allowances that the porky/pushy sedans in ST classes get just to make them handle a -little- better.

 

---

#555 STU HouSCCA
underprepped and proud of it! ( or just very, very cheap, your call :p )

RX7 KLR:

I wish the RX-8 could make big power...... The most I have seen from a BSP or STU trim RX-8 is 200 rwhp. Yep that is big. lol I guess no one will tell you what you want to hear so there is no point in going on.

Thanks for helping me make my point.  All I did was speculate that RX8s could make huge power gains in STU trim because Rotaries traditionally make huge power gains due to all the factory restrictions for noise and emissions. Based on known information, that is a valid speculation.  If nobody had ever built an STU RX8 I could effectively argue to try to keep it out of the class as a potential killer.

All you did was speculate that a 350z could dominate STU because it could add camber and an LSD.

See... We both speculated.  See what happened there?  Oh, and that 350z gets that camber and LSD in BSP but last I checked it wasn't killing the world there.  See?

And none of that still has anything to do with 2 seats. Remember the old 300zx 2+2???  What if Nissan made a 350z 2+2???  Should it then be allowed in STU???  I bet if they already made it it would already be in STU and if Jason is right EVERYONE would be running 350zs instead of AWD turbo cars.  You guys can keep nitpicking this and that if you want.  You're right, I have my fingers in my ears because what's being said still hasn't answered the original question.

And I haven't helped.  I've tried to engage in debate using examples and all that has done is help many of you get off track.  What I should have done is answer EVERY response with "But what does that have to do with having 2 seats instead of 4?"

Lets just take as written that this is my future response to every post in this thread.

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

jamesohoh7:

 

RX8's have double-wishbones, right?  Most of the 'top' STU cars are strut. If I had to pick, I'd pick wishbones to have.  You're -only- focusing on seats b/c that was a convenient metric to separate sports-cars from sedans.  You're omitting the notion that most 2-seat sports cars actually are designed to handle better right out of the box, not to speak of how they'd do w/the allowances that the porky/pushy sedans in ST classes get just to make them handle a -little- better.

Dammit.  You guys just keep drawing me back in.

To automatically exclude 2 seaters from classes because its assumed they will be better than 4 seaters is absurd.  Suspension design???  Well, the 88-91 CRX and Civic have the EXACT SAME suspension.  Same part numbers even.  How about the M Coupe and roadster, which by many BMW folks accounts doesn't have as good a suspension design as its brother the M3 coupe/sedan.

I could come up with more, but there isn't any point in bothering.

If the SEB wants to pick a couple of 2 seaters that legitimately look like overdogs for STU and exclude them or saddle them with a tire restriction... Fine.  But exclusions and tire restrictions JUST BECAUSE IT HAS 2 SEATS is just plain silly.

 

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

Catch 22:

Thanks for helping me make my point.  All I did was speculate that RX8s could make huge power gains in STU trim because Rotaries traditionally make huge power gains due to all the factory restrictions for noise and emissions. Based on known information, that is a valid speculation.  If nobody had ever built an STU RX8 I could effectively argue to try to keep it out of the class as a potential killer.

All you did was speculate that a 350z could dominate STU because it could add camber and an LSD.

See... We both speculated.  See what happened there?  Oh, and that 350z gets that camber and LSD in BSP but last I checked it wasn't killing the world there.  See?

And none of that still has anything to do with 2 seats. Remember the old 300zx 2+2???  What if Nissan made a 350z 2+2???  Should it then be allowed in STU???  I bet if they already made it it would already be in STU and if Jason is right EVERYONE would be running 350zs instead of AWD turbo cars.  You guys can keep nitpicking this and that if you want.  You're right, I have my fingers in my ears because what's being said still hasn't answered the original question.

And I haven't helped.  I've tried to engage in debate using examples and all that has done is help many of you get off track.  What I should have done is answer EVERY response with "But what does that have to do with having 2 seats instead of 4?"

Lets just take as written that this is my future response to every post in this thread.