SCCAForums.com

sjrife:

IMO, huge wheels and tires is the only reason to run SP.

More power, good spring rates, lower CG, and huge tires and wheels...  More supportive seats are in there but not high on the list.   

brian94ht:

No, in ten years those of us that want to be constructive and make the sport grow will be discussing and exploring the possibilities of hybrid, electric, and biofuel classes.

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

In ten years those of us that want to be constructive will be sending letters and serving in capacities within the organization where we can drive change, and doing so without making direct personal assaults toward our fellow members.

Those still just "discussing" and "exploring" on message boards will be doing just that. It is absolutely mind-boggling the amount of people who will spend hours in these forums trying to articulate their opinions, and passionately defend them, but won't spend a fraction of that time to send an email to an address where that idea is actually read by the people that can do something about it.

Joojoo, if you really believe your idea still has merit, actually draft it as a ruleset. Put every single bloody car into one of your classes. Until you go through that process, it's nothing but an untested idea, even to you. The actual translation of the idea to a written rule is a very strong vetting process in and of itself. If you still think it has merit, then post it here for the internet jockeys to flame. If you have any shred of self confidence left after that, submit it to the SPAC. If you actually want to drive change, I'd suggest this route. Prepare to take your lumps, just like the ones you're dishing out to whoever constructed the current rules.

Howdy,

DaveH:

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.

Yeah!  And those gearing changes are never done by people with street cars!

Wait, yes they do.

Yeah!  Gears are psycho expensive!

Wait, a gearset costs something like $150 for my car.

If you're worried about saving money, why the h*ll are you driving a car like an Evo MR?

Mark

Did I ever say anything about me wanting to save money?  I was reinforcing a general sentiment expressed by other people on this board that SP could benefit (from a participation standpoint) by having the cost of entry reduced.  They're right.  Whether it would benefit the classes from a compeition standpoint is up for debate.  The three specific changes I suggested wouldn't save you one red cent.  Cutting fenders and removing A/C and radio are all free.  I'm not doing any of those anyway.  If I get the car built and get out to Nationals and come in 2nd by 0.1 seconds (not likely), I might think about yanking the A/C and radio the next year.  I won't be cutting fenders, but Evo's don't really need to do that to be competitive. 

BTW, thanks for the sarcasm.  It's very constructive.

rnoll98:

In ten years those of us that want to be constructive will be sending letters and serving in capacities within the organization where we can drive change, and doing so without making direct personal assaults toward our fellow members.

You know Randy, Jesus Villarreal hit the nail on the head.  Like clockwork, every year a new batch of newbies comes along and decides they are the only people that really understand the problems and are going to save us all of our old, misguided ways.  This has been going on since the beginning of the Team.net days.  Brian wants me to sit it out so the "younger people" can fix it.  When I was a teenager and smarter than everybody else, I would have thought the same thing. 

 So the newbies would discard the people that have the experience of having witnessed the birth, growth and maturity of Street Prepared so they, with no experience, knowledge or understanding of history, can fix all of our problems. 

 It was George Santayana that said:

 "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted; it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians."

In how many parts of our lives can that quote be applied?  As a teenager, I never held the council of my grandfather in much regard, but then what teenager does?

I have run Street Prepared since the category was created and before some of these critics were born.  I watched SP start as the same basic idea that ST was and mature to the state it is now.  I then watched the people that concieved ST make the same assumptions and mistakes that were made with SP.  They dismissed the advise and council of those with the knowledge and experience to guide them around those mistakes.  And so it is again. 

Brian, there are those of us who have made this sport part of our lives.  We are protective of the things that we love.  So when we see people who would destroy it through ignorance and inexperience, we are not so inclined to "sit this one out".  This is why people with no knowledge or experience are NOT placed in charge of anything important.  Be patient.  Watch, listen and learn.  Your time will come.

Steve Hoelscher:

    I then watched the people that concieved ST make the same assumptions and mistakes that were made with SP.  They dismissed the advise and council of those with the knowledge and experience to guide them around those mistakes.  And so it is again. 

 Steve - I'm curious to know why you refer to mistakes in regards to ST?  Isn't it pretty healthy, even still in it's infancy?

ICTSolo2:

Steve Hoelscher:

    I then watched the people that concieved ST make the same assumptions and mistakes that were made with SP.  They dismissed the advise and council of those with the knowledge and experience to guide them around those mistakes.  And so it is again. 

 Steve - I'm curious to know why you refer to mistakes in regards to ST?  Isn't it pretty healthy, even still in it's infancy?

As far as I'm concerned, the biggest mistake in ST was opening the pandora's box of emissions. It should have been a suspension allowance only class.

ICTSolo2:

 

 Steve - I'm curious to know why you refer to mistakes in regards to ST?  Isn't it pretty healthy, even still in it's infancy?

Well SP is healthy too but reading the some of the posts in this thread that doesn't seem to matter. 

The stated original intent of ST was to capture those people who came out to run and had "popular" mods to their cars.  These cars were prepared beyond Stock but would get smoked in SP.  So STS was created so they would have a place to run and not go home with their tail between their legs, never to return.  That was fine and ST worked for years as a regional class in that capacity.  When it was made a National Class, that intent was destroyed.  National competitors began preparing ST cars to National standards.  So the local newbie who shows up with this Honda, with a cold air intake, a fart can muffler and cut springs will now get smoked just as bad in STS as he would in SP.   Bad move.

Street Tires.  Yeah, right.  So you now have to have "the tire of the moment" to win STS.  So you buy the trick Bridgestones, shave them to 2/32s and mount those on your ultra light "race wheels" and swap them at the event.  No longer do they compete on "real street tires".   So tell me how this is different from what we have in Stock or SP where "R" tires are not banned? 

Emissions testing.  This is the really big lie.  ST was supposed to leave the cars emissions legal, yet the rules allows the ecu's to be reprogrammed.  I doubt any of the top cars in STS are emissions legal. 

While turn out in ST is good, it is hardly recognizable as originally concieved.    So how long is it going to be before we see a thread titled: "What's wrong with Street Touring"?   

I won't bother going into 600+ lbs/in springs on the back of Hondas, etc.....  Oh, and all of this was predicted by the people who know and understand Street Prepared.

Steve Hoelscher:

Street Tires.  Yeah, right.  So you now have to have "the tire of the moment" to win STS.  So you buy the trick Bridgestones, shave them to 2/32s and mount those on your ultra light "race wheels" and swap them at the event.  No longer do they compete on "real street tires".   So tell me how this is different from what we have in Stock or SP where "R" tires are not banned? 

Although I understand and agree with most of what you're saying, I'm not sure it's 100% correct.  One thing to keep in mind is "perception" by the newbie is probably more important than reality.  A newbie will likely see him/herself more competitive when running against real treaded street tires (even if they are relatively extreme street tires) than full slick R compounds that can't even be driven on the street.  Of course that's assuming the tire companies don't eventually circumvent the 140 treadwear rule like has happened with the DOT rule in stock/SP, which they might.

Dave G.

talon95:

Although I understand and agree with most of what you're saying, I'm not sure it's 100% correct. 

Well, if somebody agreed with me 100% I might be worried

What about the average kid who shows up for his 1st/2nd/3rd event in his Civic, with a cold air intake, 17" wheels, cheap 30 profile street tires and fart can.  He looks over at Andy Hollis, unloading his fully nationals prepped STS car, then swapping the "street tires" for his trick Bridgestone "race tires" and spanking the local FSP heros by a full second.

You are right; perception is reality.  His perception is; he has to have dedicated "race" tires to compete in STS.  He isn't wrong.  He might be closer on time to Andy Hollis's STS Civic than Jinx Jordan's FSP Civic but I think the subtleties of you point will be lost on him. 

If STS had remained a regional class it would still fullfill this role in providing a place for this kid to run, against similarly prepared cars and driver's of similar ability.  He would be much happier.  As he progressed and wanted to move up the competition ladder he could then be main streamed into one of the existing National catagories: Stock, Street Prepared, Prepared, etc....   The elevation of STS to National status attracted national caliber drivers, car builders and tire manufacturers looking for a marketing vehicle.  That maturing process moved STS away from its original purpose and down the path beaten by Street Prepared.  Eventually, STS will become fully mature and a new generation of newbies will have the same complaint about STS that they do about SP.    So when you see the first post about how we need to put the "street back in street touring", I get to say 'I told you so'. 

And before anybody gets all worked up about me wanting to take away STS's national status, that's not what I said.  I simply made an observation and a conclusion. I didn't advocate anything.

Steve Hoelscher:

Brian, there are those of us who have made this sport part of our lives.  We are protective of the things that we love.  So when we see people who would destroy it through ignorance and inexperience, we are not so inclined to "sit this one out".  This is why people with no knowledge or experience are NOT placed in charge of anything important.  Be patient.  Watch, listen and learn.  Your time will come.

"destroy it through ignorance and inexperience" your cracking me up, a couple rule changes designed to INCREASE attendance/participation and POOF! everybody disappears right?

You have yet to tell us exactly how "backing off" the intensity of the Street prepared rules is going to scare everyone off. All I hear from you is, "stop it! I created this sport and it cant work any other way". :)

So you say you have made this sport part of your life, are you interested in making it part of anyone elses life?

I dont believe in any of my posts I have stated that SP is broken, quite the contrary. But I also believe that the class structure on a whole leans toward spending a LOT of money to win a jacket. Why are you so opposed to modifying classes so they are more appealing to a greater amount of the enthusiast population, and the way they modify their only car? SP IMO is just the catagory to tame down (since Iam sure we wont get a whole new set of classes that slots between stock and SP) in order to  give people a place to play that dont have the means or just plain dont want to buy a gas guzzling Dodge dually, enclosed trailer, pit crew, and a dedicated race car.

I was reading a leaflet in the SCCA site acquisition folder titled "Economic Impact". It states "Average Household income $128,439", are these the only people SCCA wants to attract? The classing structure would say yes.

I know you have your view of the sport, but (economic) times are changing. Lets come up with some ideas (hint: its all about the rules) to increase attendance at national events (I'd like to hear what you have done to increase attendance). The wider acceptance of the sport might even help with new site acquisition (which is at an all time low).

I'd like to see a 2000+ driver west coast and a 2000+ driver east coast final before nationals where you might fiind 3-4000+ drivers, contingency money from a lot more manufacturers, etc. Wheres Chevys contingency money? They dont give any because there arent enough eyes at these events to warrant the advertisement.

You say "my time will come", actually it probrobly wont. Sure I might write a letter this year, but eventually I will get tired of trying to express my ideas of how to keep up with a changing membership, and how to increase participation against the odds. Like I said what are your ideas? Leave it alone? That works if you are fine with the public perception of our sport, current attendance at national events, and winning nothing more than a jacket and a tire for your efforts.

Iam just throwing out ideas/suggestions for a problem that ALREADY EXISTS. Iam not trying to put somebodys slower car in my class so I can beat it, or trying to get my car out of a class where its being beat or anything of that nature. I would just like to see the sport grow and increase the satisfaction a bit, why would anyone disagree with that?

JMHO, YMMV (and probrobly will).

brian94ht:

"destroy it through ignorance and inexperience" your cracking me up, a couple rule changes designed to INCREASE attendance/participation and POOF! everybody disappears right?

You have yet to tell us exactly how "backing off" the intensity of the Street prepared rules is going to scare everyone off. All I hear from you is, "stop it! I created this sport and it cant work any other way". :)

That assumes your changes "designed to increase participation" actually have that effect.  That assumption has yet to be proven, ever.

I never said it can't work any other way.  I only offered that your intentions would not have the desired effect. 

brian94ht:

So you say you have made this sport part of your life, are you interested in making it part of anyone elses life?

That's silly.  If you read the quote its plural, inclusive.  Its this kind of flippant attitude that puts people off.  How can anyone take you seriously when you make these kinds of statements.

brian94ht:

I dont believe in any of my posts I have stated that SP is broken, quite the contrary. But I also believe that the class structure on a whole leans toward spending a LOT of money to win a jacket. Why are you so opposed to modifying classes so they are more appealing to a greater amount of the enthusiast population, and the way they modify their only car? SP IMO is just the catagory to tame down (since Iam sure we wont get a whole new set of classes that slots between stock and SP) in order to  give people a place to play that dont have the means or just plain dont want to buy a gas guzzling Dodge dually, enclosed trailer, pit crew, and a dedicated race car.

I was reading a leaflet in the SCCA site acquisition folder titled "Economic Impact". It states "Average Household income $128,439", are these the only people SCCA wants to attract? The classing structure would say yes.

So if SP isn't broken what are we fixing?

Show me a class that doesn't require "spending a LOT of money to win a jacket".   People with experience know that you can't legislate money out of the sport.  They have been trying, unsuccessfully, to do that in F1 for years.  And in no way am I opposed to "modifying classes so they are more appealing to a greater amount of enthusiast" , I am oppossed to your stated method because it won't have the desired effect.  

Your stated position would hold true for any of the catagories, so why aim at SP?  Why not Modified?  You think its expensive to win a jacket in SP, Its REALLY expensive to win a jacket in A-mod.  And under your definition we have a bigger problem there than in SP.   The fact is, it costs money to win at the higher levels of any form of racing.  You will never change that.  We have been through all of this many times over the years, that you don't know this proves you don't know the history of the sport or understand how we got where we are now.  SP evolved through member input to be what it is.  If you don't like the way SP is, don't run there.  Why screw it up for those that do?  

The proven fact is; rules instability lowers participation.  If people can't be assured that the SP ruleset will have a certain level of stability in the future, they will sit on the sidelines and not commit to the catagory until it does.  And if you make a major take back on rules, you dis-enfranchise the existing base and they leave.  New participation will sit out until they are sure of the catagories future.  In your effort to "improve" you destroyed what was already good.

Giles St. Aubyn wrote in the biography of King Edward VII:  "It is melancholy to reflect that Mankind has suffered more from ill-judged philanthropy than from calculated malice. The road to Hell is no less harrowing for being paved with good intentions."

brian94ht:

I know you have your view of the sport, but (economic) times are changing.

The SCCA has survived more than 50 years of changing economic times and Solo has 35 of that.  Economic times are always changing.  When I started in the sport, the country was truely in recession.  "Today" is hardly a hiccup and we have had worse in 1987 and 1998. 

The fact is that to truly address the needs of the membership the sport needs to have varying levels of preparation and cost.  Not everybody is a starving college student or a young head of household with three kids struggling to pay off college loans.  There is a place for those people but we also need a place for those who have the resources and desire to make their cars something more.  If not we force them to leave to go any further and that is counter productive.   We have Stock and ST_ for those of limited disposable income.  Why must SP become that too?  And if SP, why not Prepared and Mod?  Are they not afflicted with the same issue?

This year I celebrate my 20th year as a member of SCCA.  I am proud to say I have worked at every level the sport has to offer.  I chased cones, was a Safety Steward, Event Chairman, Regional Executive, site aquisition guy, driving instructor, national protest committee member and Solo Events Board representative.  And at the '07 nationals, I chased cones as my work assignment.  I have always tried to contribute to this sport to the extent I am able.  In addition, I have won 4 National Championships in Street Prepared and 1 in Prepared, so I know what it takes to win.  So far, I only know that you complain a lot.  You asked what I have done, there it is.  By your own admission you said you won't contribute beyond a letter.  Why not?  And if you won't, why should we listen now?

The fact that you think Iam complaining pretty much says it all Steve.

I didnt ask what positions you worked or what National Championships you won (dont care), I asked what have you done to increase participation.

"The fact is, it costs money to win at the higher levels of any form of racing." This is far from a higher level of racing. Solo is as low as you can go, its an amature SPORT, its not "racing" and you should know that.

Iam not trying to change anything, and Iam not complaining, Iam throwing out ideas. I dont run in SP, I dont care if I ever win a National Championship.

Iam not targeting mod because I think they should still exist and spend loads of money to win. I just think the scale should weigh heavier on the side of more classes with a lower cost of admission (SP or not). It would make it much easier to hook more customers in order to feed those dwindling mod classes.

"By your own admission you said you won't contribute beyond a letter.  Why not?  And if you won't, why should we listen now?"

Because of people like you Steve. Iam happy to contribute locally, and I do, but to go butt heads with people like you on a national level isnt the reason Iam into this sport. I have the workplace to fill that niche.

brian94ht:

The fact that you think Iam complaining pretty much says it all Steve.

Sounds like you are complaining to me.

brian94ht:

I didnt ask what positions you worked or what National Championships you won (dont care), I asked what have you done to increase participation.

If someone wasn't filling those positions, there would be no participation.   Specifically to increase participation?   Are you serious?   You want me to make a list?   How about I start with this one:  I am trying to prevent you from *reducing* participation. 

brian94ht:

 Solo is as low as you can go, its an amature SPORT, its not "racing" and you should know that.

Geez.... I was talking about winning at the National level of solo.  That's higher than the regional level.  As for "racing"  how about "motorsports compeition" instead.  There, that changed everything.

brian94ht:

Iam not trying to change anything, and Iam not complaining, Iam throwing out ideas. I dont run in SP, I dont care if I ever win a National Championship.

OK, now you are confusing me.  If you are not trying to change anything, then why are you "throwing out ideas" for changing everything?  If you don't run SP why do you care?  If you don't want to win a national championship, why do you care what it costs to do so? 

brian94ht:

 

Because of people like you Steve. Iam happy to contribute locally, and I do, but to go butt heads with people like you on a national level isnt the reason Iam into this sport. I have the workplace to fill that niche.

Brian, if you are going to offer up such ideas, people who differ will object.  This forum is just a first step toward you implementing your idea.  You have to be able to defend your idea against its critics.  As offered, its easy to knock the legs out from under it.  That's all I did.  Is your goal to "increase participation" as you noted above?  If so, here is your criticism.  If you are serious about the goal, go back, work on your idea, revise the idea on increasing participation and bring it back.  Debate will strengthen your argument.  When people like me can't kick the legs out from under it with such ease you will have a strong and well tested idea.  When you have achieved that, you will have a very strong argument to present to the SEB and the membership.  

It appears to me that you are more interested in implementing your idea as is than "increasing participation".   I hope I am wrong.

brian94ht:

I was reading a leaflet in the SCCA site acquisition folder titled "Economic Impact". It states "Average Household income $128,439", are these the only people SCCA wants to attract? The classing structure would say yes.

I'd like to see a 2000+ driver west coast and a 2000+ driver east coast final before nationals where you might fiind 3-4000+ drivers, contingency money from a lot more manufacturers, etc. Wheres Chevys contingency money? They dont give any because there arent enough eyes at these events to warrant the advertisement.

How does tripling the size of nationals and sweetening the payout to the winners lower the cost of entry for everyone else? Sounds like it'll just give those winners more disposable income to build even better cars. Ask someone who's been around for 15-20 years what ProSolo was like when you could win enough money to nearly support yourself. When you raise the stakes, you usually lower the fun for everyone but the winners. Nothing is going to change for the guy in 14th other than he might now be in 28th and even further off the lead time-wise.

Why do you want increased participation overall? At local events, all increased participation means to me is less runs and longer work groups. If the region isn't breaking even, charge more. If national isn't breaking even, charge more. Individual regions might have attendance issues that should be addressed by the region, but we're already at/near critical mass for a 4-day Nationals. Nationals would take 2-weeks with your idea, and the Pro would take another week. You'd probably never have enough vacation time to run both events, much less see all your friends run. Doesn't sound like fun to me.

In many people's minds, the ProSolo season drove down participation this year at both Tours and Pros. Maintaining a full Pro season and scheduling Tours and Pros on the same site on back-to-back weekends (as it has been as long as I can remember) should remedy the participation issue.

brian94ht:

The wider acceptance of the sport might even help with new site acquisition (which is at an all time low).

Yeah, because everyone is begging folks to build dragstrips and NASCAR ovals in their backyards. It's not a Solo issue, it's a motorsports issue.

I don't want 4,000 people at nationals. I don't want big companies throwing around a lot of money. I'm perfectly happy with the public perception of our HOBBY (we drive cars around cones in parking lots). I don't even want the jacket, just the respect of my fellow competitors, who happen to be my friends. I'd be willing to pay half-again as much to keep it that way, if that's what it takes. I don't think I'm alone.

rnoll98:

Yeah, because everyone is begging folks to build dragstrips and NASCAR ovals in their backyards. It's not a Solo issue, it's a motorsports issue.

 I would say it's an ambulance-chaser legal system issue.  No one is willing to take on the liability, since our waivers apparently don't mean a damn thing in court.  Crap like this is why we can't get new sites.

[/rant]

Dragstrips and Nacsar aside, road course new construction is/has been at an all time high for the past 10+ years. :)

Regardless, you kicked the legs out from under me (and Joojoo too it looks like), swept me off my feet even, especially when you quoted Giles.

'till next year!