SCCAForums.com

With all the talk about moving these cars to STX (and bigger tire sizes) I was wondering if a date was set for a decision from the SCCA on if they will be dropped down into STX from STU?

 

Would this be a possible 2009 rule change or could this happen before the end of 2008? 

 

Thanks, 

---

1987 BMW 535is - 3300 Pounds Of Flaming Dynamite - STX, AZ Region- #17

Appliance Racing (yeah, like your refrigerator....only louder) ;-)

1984 BMW M635 - #408

Neither move has gone out for member comment yet, so any talk of a move at this point is just that, talk and speculation.  The only thing thats gone out as a proposal so far is the tire increases, and if those go through, I wouldn't expect to see any reclassing proposals till AT THE EARLIEST sometime next year.

 If the tire stuff goes through (which i hope it doesn't, just my opinion), the earliest it would take place would be '09.  Of the two options, tire size increase, OR, E36 M3/RX8 move, I'd rather see the move with keeping them on the current STX tires.

---

IA Region #52 STX WRX

Otto,

At the earliest, these tire proposals would be for 2009.

HTH,

DaveW

Aaron B:

Of the two options, tire size increase, OR, E36 M3/RX8 move, I'd rather see the move with keeping them on the current STX tires.

+1 I would also rather see the cars moved instead of an increase in tire width. Also, one more thing to consider, there's talk of the Solo nats site moving after '08. If Nats is held on a concrete site again, then the re-classing of these two cars should be put on hold imho...

---

Chike Dellimore - Blue Ridge/Washington DC Regions
2006 Galaxy Gray 6MT Mazda RX-8 (B-stock)
Former 2006 Steel Gray 5spd WRX (D-stock)

"Between now and Nats, f!ck seat time - I'm working on crazy!!!"

Then do you suggest that STU go to the same rules? Same maximum tire widths on all cars? I think giving the 2WD cars a little more tire would be great to help regain some of the deficit on the WRX's.

---

00' 328Ci
01' Tahoe LT
98' Camaro Z28 - dead
95' 325is - STX 182

STX rules should remain the same. If those 2 cars remain in STU the AWD cars should have reduced tire sizes instead of increasing the tire sizes for the 2WD cars. Yeah it's too bad that someone has to do a give-back, but it happens in many forms of racing where one type of vehicle is handicapped with weight or some other type of "give-back" to make competition fair. (All you whiners can chime in on this one, I know how y'all hate give-backs.) To me, giving bigger tires to cars that may not be able to fit them is rather pointless.

 

If they send those cars back to STX that's OK too (I need someone to run against)....even though I think putting the RX8 into STX is a joke! That's no back seat, I've looked into the back of an RX8 with the seat in the driving position and the front seatback was up against the rear seat cushion......and the M3 isn't that much better. But from what I've seen so far neither are unbeatable.

 

 

---

1987 BMW 535is - 3300 Pounds Of Flaming Dynamite - STX, AZ Region- #17

Appliance Racing (yeah, like your refrigerator....only louder) ;-)

1984 BMW M635 - #408

The backseat in the RX8 is real and usable.  I am 6'2" and drive with kids in carseats in the back of the car.  It can definitely carry four adults.

I have no idea what that comment has to do with anything aside from some reference to the two seat rule? 

FWIW, I would love to see the RX8 in STX.  It has no freaking chance whatsoever in STU unless driven by somebody whose name ends with "addio."
 

Otto Krosse:

To me, giving bigger tires to cars that may not be able to fit them is rather pointless.

 

The take back would be very short cited, for a couple of reasons.

1) the SEB's main goal is to have a number of ST classes that are accessible for your someone that is an enthusiast (who is likely to drive a car with some basic modifications)

2) Since cars are getting heavier, more and more are coming stock with big wheels and tires, we should be considerate of what lies ahead for the future development of the class. Good rules are written to anticipate some of these things, while allowing for good competition.

3) The SEB needs for STX and STU to get faster. By having take backs for AWD you have done nothing but opened the door even wider for it to become another spec civic class for STX, and STU just remains an expensive ST class dominated by a tire munching beast. If a sports car/sedan was made competitive (read not slowing AWD) then the class might see some more diversity, and increased competition. This is good. 

Also, there has been increased consideration for the ST ruleset to be friendly to allow the car to easily move on to SP prep levels. In doing so, they are well served for the ST classes to also mimic the theoretical performance spread of SP indexing. Without the perceived difference in speed, the incentive to spend the money on a "faster" class is reduced (IMHO). Many have made the observation that the classes are so close in performance that they should just collapse them. I think this is a really bad idea, and I think its time for these classes to improve.

By opening the allowances, you have only made it easier for more vehicles to potentially be competitive. If a small/lighter car can't fit a wide tire, it might not have been able to take advantage of it anyway; many rules are present in all prep levels that can't be advantageous for all the cars in their respective classes. Besides, don't we have enough classes for small light cars to be competitive? From what I have been told, the primary objective for ST was to provide classes for cars that are either not classed competitively in stock, or are no longer classed competitively, but have a stong support/enthusiast base. This is to widen the pool from which to pull new members. A take back on wheel/tire size for AWD accomplishes non of these things, in fact it hurts most, and it could serve to reduce your STX participation levels if the currently run cars don't feel like they should re-tire/wheel to continue to play.

 

 

Before we get to far into this lets approach this from a "local" auto-xers point of view, since that is where most of the auto-xing happens on a monthly basis. This should tone down all the guys that run at the national events from getting too excited. Besides if they couldn't drive they wouldn't be at the nationals so what we're discussing here has no bearing on the hot-shoes.

...and remember you said this:  "By opening the allowances, you have only made it easier for more vehicles to potentially be competitive". I ask you....Isn't that what it's all about, and not have one or 2 cars dominating a given class.....as it appears is happening already?! How fair is that to the guy that choses to drive a car he likes and not one that is an auto-x ringer....just so he can be competitive one weekend a month?

The SCCA racing should be trying to get people involved in racing at an affordable level, by continueing to change rules it becomes more expensive for everyone in the affected classes. Many ST class cars are daily drivers at our events and with rules changes allowing even bigger this-or-that it'll make those classes tougher to compete in and make the car considerably less streetable. It won't likely encourage newcomers to continue coming out when they see they need to spend another $2000 to $3000 to compete in class.....providing their car can compete....AND make there car less street friendly?!

 

I don't care about "class progressions" by the time an auto-xer has gotten to the point of running in SP they have likely already bought a different car specifically for that purpose. Few people start auto-xing in well prepped cars, after starting they usually go out and buy tires and wheels, then the suspension gets some tweaks.

 

In a perfect world everyone would own a trailer and haul their race car to the track, but lets stop dreaming and get back to reality, most people that do this every month in an ST class are using their daily driver.....driven to and from the track..... (and I'll continue to do so ). Most auto-xers also do not make plans to attend a national event, although many would like to go. So let the masses speak on this one and everyone can continue to race with rules that make it attractive to newcomers to continue auto-xing and keeps costs down for the local racers too. The more expensive you make it the harder you make it for people to auto-x, have fun, be competitive and keep coming back.

 

If there are dominant cars in other classes that's another problem altogether, and maybe it needs to be addressed. Class bleed-over should have it's own rules to limit cars jumping to a class they would not traditionally compete in.

 

The tire size topic has also been beaten to a pulp in another thread so lets keep this one on topic...... How (or if) those 2 cars coming to STX affects the class.  

 

 

---

1987 BMW 535is - 3300 Pounds Of Flaming Dynamite - STX, AZ Region- #17

Appliance Racing (yeah, like your refrigerator....only louder) ;-)

1984 BMW M635 - #408

Being a smaller/lighter FWD driver, there is only one thing that i would ask if the E36 and RX8 were to be dropped into my class. That would be to give us the ability to fit whatever max width of tire that may be set for STX. By ability i mean fender rolling or cutting. I have heard rumors of the tire width getting bumped up to 255 for fwd's. Problem is not a single FWD i know can fit a 255 without modifications to the fenders.

 

If that can be made legal for us, i wouldn't have any issues if they decide to collapse them to STX. 

---

Jake Kaminskis
2002 Honda Civic Si STX
SCCA MKE Region

www.MidwestTuning.com
www.Datatoys.com

I've put a lot of thought into this over the last few months, there just doesn't seem to be any one good answer that will make everyone happy.  Take backs suck and I think that any big 2wd allowance will further alienate any car that's not a WRX or BMW.

 As it sits now, very few people, and almost none of the front runners, use the current max tire width of 245, pretty much everyone is running a 235/40R17.  Allowing use of a 265 on a 9" wheel for 2wd cars as was put forth in Fastrack ONLY benefits the BMW's, how many other semi competitive or locally competetitive STX cars can run that combo?  Ok, I suppose Mustangs, but I doubt that would be enough to put them up towards the front.

 An idea I had (and this is coming from a WRX driver) limit the AWD STX cars to the tire and wheel combo they're ALREADY running, 235's on 8" wheels.  Give the 2wd cars 245's, who's to say that some manufacturer won't finally make a decent 245/35R17 that the 2wd cars would be able to take advantage of?  Another thought, also allow them to run 8.5" wheels.  There's a few thoughts behind that one too, first, it's a small allowance in their direction, second, it helps on the local level for all the E36 non M3 guys that show up running M3 wheels which finally leads to the option of moving down the E36 M3 if there's still a percieved performance gap as they'd actually be able to run their stock wheel size.

 Just my thoughts.

---

IA Region #52 STX WRX

mleach:

Otto Krosse:

To me, giving bigger tires to cars that may not be able to fit them is rather pointless.

 

The take back would be very short cited, for a couple of reasons.

1) the SEB's main goal is to have a number of ST classes that are accessible for your someone that is an enthusiast (who is likely to drive a car with some basic modifications)

2) Since cars are getting heavier, more and more are coming stock with big wheels and tires, we should be considerate of what lies ahead for the future development of the class. Good rules are written to anticipate some of these things, while allowing for good competition.

3) The SEB needs for STX and STU to get faster. By having take backs for AWD you have done nothing but opened the door even wider for it to become another spec civic class for STX, and STU just remains an expensive ST class dominated by a tire munching beast. If a sports car/sedan was made competitive (read not slowing AWD) then the class might see some more diversity, and increased competition. This is good. 

Also, there has been increased consideration for the ST ruleset to be friendly to allow the car to easily move on to SP prep levels. In doing so, they are well served for the ST classes to also mimic the theoretical performance spread of SP indexing. Without the perceived difference in speed, the incentive to spend the money on a "faster" class is reduced (IMHO). Many have made the observation that the classes are so close in performance that they should just collapse them. I think this is a really bad idea, and I think its time for these classes to improve.

By opening the allowances, you have only made it easier for more vehicles to potentially be competitive. If a small/lighter car can't fit a wide tire, it might not have been able to take advantage of it anyway; many rules are present in all prep levels that can't be advantageous for all the cars in their respective classes. Besides, don't we have enough classes for small light cars to be competitive? From what I have been told, the primary objective for ST was to provide classes for cars that are either not classed competitively in stock, or are no longer classed competitively, but have a stong support/enthusiast base. This is to widen the pool from which to pull new members. A take back on wheel/tire size for AWD accomplishes non of these things, in fact it hurts most, and it could serve to reduce your STX participation levels if the currently run cars don't feel like they should re-tire/wheel to continue to play.

 

Very nicely said Matt!

 

Otto Krosse, you are completely missing the point of these rules. Yes, they do have an effect on you at your local level, but these rules are not being written for YOU and the club that you run with. In the same light, what if I was running a 2wd car that can fit larger wheels and tires than currently allowed in a region where I was getting killed by awd cars in STX? Would I not need larger wheels and tires to make it fair? Honestly, there is no way of telling, and there is no way national rules can be based off of what is best for this car or that car in certain regions, or even nationally. The rules need to improve the class and be good for the sport as a whole. You were close 3 seconds behind two STS civics on a 35 second course at your last event, what should be do to the rules to help prevent this from happening? Put the civics on 165mm tires (I am ALL for this BTW..hehee) and 5.5 inch wheels? Move them to STU? I think trying to make STX and STU faster is the right thing to do in the current situation.

I feel these changes will go a long way towards making this class what it should be. I feel the wider wheels and tires will open it up to more cars as well. I would love to see some Mustangs running in STX and other cars that are currently hurt by the rules. I would love to see STX become faster (we need to, especially with the 225/45R15 coming from the civics) and this is a good way to accomplish this as a whole and also to put the WRX's and 2WD cars on a more even playing field. A similar tire disparity rule is in effect in STU and the 2WD cars still struggle to stay alive. I think even larger tire allowances for STU (proposed) cold help open this class up to more competition and make it a better class as a whole on the national and regional level. A Camaro becomes a fun STU if allowed to run 285's at all four corners. I do not think they are going to beat the top level STi's and EVO's, but I think it would be a very good thing for the class and the sport as a whole.

 Along with these rule changes, we really need to have allowances that would enable these cars to fit the larger wheel and tire combinations.

 

---

00' 328Ci
01' Tahoe LT
98' Camaro Z28 - dead
95' 325is - STX 182

Mooobunnny:

Along with these rule changes, we really need to have allowances that would enable these cars to fit the larger wheel and tire combinations.

I agree 100%. I would love to run 265 or 275 wide rubber on my 2wd STU car, but the way the rule is written now it contradicts itself (roll your fenders to fit the biggest tire allowed... just don't roll your fenders!)

I also agree with the mention that if Nationals moves to a different (concrete) site, that STU would be a lot more competitive and interesting even with the current mix of cars. The AWD Turbo buggies will always be faster in a straight line than the RX-8 and M3, but on a course with some grip, that deficit can be overcome (IMO) and at least make the class more competitive and interesting.

As far as moving the M3 and RX-8 to STX: I don't think they'd immediately kill the class, but I'd be surprised if they weren't both in the trophies at Nationals. I don't think I would want to downgrade from the stock wheels and tires to run there... It's hard to go backwards in overall grip and still feel like you're fast!

---

-Chris
94STU - 97 M3

... but the way the rule is written now it contradicts itself (roll your fenders to fit the biggest tire allowed... just don't roll your fenders!)

Sorry to go OT, but I don't see a contradiction.  You can roll the fender lips, you can't cut or flare.  I guess my thought is looking at it from the other side, I wouldn't feel real great if I HAD to hack up or bend my M3 just to compete in the class because there's a few people willing to do it.  That would keep me out of the class. 

---

Patrick Washburn
STU Evo
www.winghats.com

Patrick Washburn:

Sorry to go OT, but I don't see a contradiction.  You can roll the fender lips, you can't cut or flare.  I guess my thought is looking at it from the other side, I wouldn't feel real great if I HAD to hack up or bend my M3 just to compete in the class because there's a few people willing to do it.  That would keep me out of the class. 

 The rule is relatively clear, but using the commonly-available and widely-used Eastwood roller, there's just about no way you can roll the fender lips without also bulging the fender outwards. The only STU M3's I know of that are legally (and I use that term as meaning "not protested at Nats 07") fitting 265 wide rubber either destroyed the paint on their fenders trying to follow the rule to the letter (Fair) or had a bodyshop roll them flat and repaint (Mike S.). To me, paying a bodyshop to create the tire clearance isn't in the cards - I know I can use the fender roller and heat gun to get the job done without cracking the paint, cutting up the fenders, and making them look ridiculous...

I agree with you, I will not be cracking the paint off my fenders to fit 285's if they were to become legal... But I think a 265/35-18 fits pretty nicely on both Terry & Mike's cars... It would be nice to also do that without having to worry about the resulting bulge being questionable (or illegal).

That, of course, brings up the question of how exactly to enforce the 'contour' rule as it is written, but that's another topic that doesn't belong here, as this is already far OT.

My 2c (as an M3 driver): Leave the M3 alone and move Nationals to someplace grippy. :)

---

-Chris
94STU - 97 M3

fsmtnbiker:

My 2c (as an M3 driver): Leave the M3 alone and move Nationals to someplace grippy. :)

 

---

Patrick Washburn
STU Evo
www.winghats.com

Otto Krosse:

Before we get to far into this lets approach this from a "local" auto-xers point of view, since that is where most of the auto-xing happens on a monthly basis. This should tone down all the guys that run at the national events from getting too excited.

. . . 

So let the masses speak on this one and everyone can continue to race with rules that make it attractive to newcomers to continue auto-xing and keeps costs down for the local racers too. The more expensive you make it the harder you make it for people to auto-x, have fun, be competitive and keep coming back.

see, the thing is:  the rules are written for Nationals.  if your local region feels different rules would better serve the local members, your region is free to institute whatever rules it sees fit.  for example, my region has an STU2 class.  others have "street tire" stock classes.  all it takes is some initiative and a willingness to do some extra work.

that's probably a better solution than forcing those who are committed to winning to conform to the wishes of people who aren't as committed.

---

Mike - #44 STS2
'91 Miata - racer
'07 CX-7 - dog taxi
www.phillyscca.com
www.GreyhoundAngelsAdoption.com

It's about keeping rules in line with what any given car in class can accomodate, instead of making a rule then having only one or two cars in that class able to take advantage of the new rule. If the rules are written for nationals it's being done back-ass-wards. The rules should be written for the locals and used at the nationals, especially since the vast majority of races happen at the local level. It might just be your (or anyone elses) luck to have to run against more people with a chance to beat you. Heaven forbid you should have any competition!

 

It's got absolutely NOTHING to do with "commitment to winning"! It's got more to do with keeping it affordable and competitive with more types of cars competing, it's not about just the Miatas and Subarus. I don't drive an auto-x car, I drive a car I really like at the auto-x. There are more of people like me than people that go out and buy their auto-x car and use it for daily driving.....and we are the core of the SCCA. Rules should accommodate the core and everyone else should fall in line. There are enough classes in the SCCA that there will never be a shortage of classes to go to to be a hard-core racer, all I ask is you leave the street tire classes alone and have rules that most any car can accommodate.

 

A good example of rules run amuck: Allowing 275 tire sizes in a class (STU) that only 1 or 2 cars can fit is sure to make for some pretty dull racing, and it will drive some people away because they won't (or can't) buy a car to be competitive in.....or they won't hack their car up for the sake of being "competitive". 

 

.....OOOOHH....wait a minute! Now I see why there is so much talk about rules changes.....the bigger the tires and more crap you can get allowed into a given class makes for less competition within your class and thus gives you a better chance of winning your class.......very interesting concept. Winning by default isn't much of a win though. I would rather beat 15-20 cars in my class (like I've done in Novice 3 for the past 4 months) than 4 or 5 highly prepped cars in a higher class. FYI, I'm hoping they move the RX8 and E36 M3 to STX, then I'll have some serious competition. By reading your comments it's sounds more like you have a fear of losing. If you're any good you'll relish more competitors instead of trying to eliminate them via a new rule!

 

It's already gotten to the point that a newB can't compete in even a stock class without spending $500-1000 just for tires. Just how far can all these rules changes go before you make it too difficult for someone to get started. 

 

Lets face it: HIGHER NUMBERS OF COMPETITIVE CARS = MORE DRIVERS = BETTER COMPETITION = A MORE REWARDING EXPERIENCE WHEN YOU BEAT THEM!

---

1987 BMW 535is - 3300 Pounds Of Flaming Dynamite - STX, AZ Region- #17

Appliance Racing (yeah, like your refrigerator....only louder) ;-)

1984 BMW M635 - #408

Otto Krosse:

.....OOOOHH....wait a minute! Now I see why there is so much talk about rules changes.....the bigger the tires and more crap you can get allowed into a given class makes for less competition within your class and thus gives you a better chance of winning your class.......very interesting concept. Winning by default isn't much of a win though. I would rather beat 15-20 cars in my class (like I've done in Novice 3 for the past 4 months) than 4 or 5 highly prepped cars in a higher class. FYI, I'm hoping they move the RX8 and E36 M3 to STX, then I'll have some serious competition. By reading your comments it's sounds more like you have a fear of losing. If you're any good you'll relish more competitors instead of trying to eliminate them via a new rule!

It's already gotten to the point that a newB can't compete in even a stock class without spending $500-1000 just for tires. Just how far can all these rules changes go before you make it too difficult for someone to get started. 

 

These rule changes make MORE competition in the class, not less. I think your conce