SCCAForums.com

Hmmm.  back to the discussion.  I think Cole kinda pointed out something (maybe this was not his intent), but adding more classes presents problems in terms of the goal of REDUCING the number of classes.  Also, adding more street tires classes would undoubtedly pull some folks out of stock classes, so you haven't added, one for one, to the popularity of the sport, you instead hurt Hoosier and Kumho tire sales.  I still think street tire classes would promote SOME sport growth and would allow more people without the means to buy three sets of tires every year a chance to compete with their daily drivers. 

 A murky topic to be sure..

---

Jer
#196 ES
#187 SS retired

Surferjer:

Hmmm.  back to the discussion.  I think Cole kinda pointed out something (maybe this was not his intent), but adding more classes presents problems in terms of the goal of REDUCING the number of classes.  Also, adding more street tires classes would undoubtedly pull some folks out of stock classes, so you haven't added, one for one, to the popularity of the sport, you instead hurt Hoosier and Kumho tire sales.  I still think street tire classes would promote SOME sport growth and would allow more people without the means to buy three sets of tires every year a chance to compete with their daily drivers. 

WHO says the goal is to reduce the number of classes. I can't believe I gotta explain how contingencies and trophy positions are relevant, but you hit the nail on the head in a number of ways:

1) You've fallen into the groupthink that it is perfectly OK to have to 35 small Ladies classes that award National Championships and pay contingencies...and 14 of 35 Open classes that are small (well maybe not CP) and give out identical bragging rights and contingencies as 50-car classes, but we don't dare add a couple of more extremely well subscribed ST and indexed Stock classes. Too many classes or too many of the wrong classes? Why combine STS and STS2 that, as is, might have 40 + 40 = 80 cars at Nationals, but that together in one combined class would have 60 due to PO'd displaced owners. Why put Miatas and Solstices in STX and S2000s in STU and completely transform the class possibly adding 10 to current numbers (e.g., 40+10+40+10=100) instead of having 4 classes (new STX2 and STU2) all with 40+ for a total of 160+. Who deserves the contingency more...the small Ladies class you accept or the new large classes you won't even consider.

2) Think you hit the nail on the head that if we create new large classes in the ST arena that it would draw some folks away from the R-tire classes. R-tire guys know that fewer drivers on R-tires means higher costs for them. If you sit on the SEB and have Kumho as a sponsor, can you ignore your sponsor when making a decision that potentially hurts them? In addition, more classes means distribution of a given pot of contingency money to more drivers. If you as a tire-maker find out you are paying more, you are gonna be inclined to reduce the amount per class payed out. If you as a driver are already getting the big bucks in small classes it behooves you to use phrases like diluted-competition and too-many-classes to keep the status quo to prevent more better-subscribed classes. It isn't a conspiracy, it's human nature....nobody wants to give up their good thing.

3) You will never gain substantial new members by increasing numbers of Ladies, Junior, Prepared, or Modified classes. You could gain many new members with more stock classes and more ST classes...especially if some of those classes offered SCCA member discounts ala Bridgestone IN ADDITION to contingencies. 

Surferjer:

 Also, adding more street tires classes would undoubtedly pull some folks out of stock classes, so you haven't added, one for one, to the popularity of the sport, you instead hurt Hoosier and Kumho tire sales. 

Kumho already makes a ST type street tire.  If the classes were THAT popular maybe Hoosier would make one too.  They are a race tire company, so they probably wouldn't.  But they could if they wanted to.

 

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

Catch 22:

Surferjer:

 Also, adding more street tires classes would undoubtedly pull some folks out of stock classes, so you haven't added, one for one, to the popularity of the sport, you instead hurt Hoosier and Kumho tire sales. 

Kumho already makes a ST type street tire.  If the classes were THAT popular maybe Hoosier would make one too.  They are a race tire company, so they probably wouldn't.  But they could if they wanted to.

---

Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio.

Cole, don't put words in my mouth and make stupid assumptions.  I never said I approved of 35 ladies classes. I think Nationally they shouldn't exist and locally it should be a paxed class.  I also believe there are too many prepared and mod classes and not enough stock classes.  But that's just my opinion.  And I certainly I didn't ask you to "explain" anything to me regarding trophies or contingencies. Trust me, don't need your "help".  

 But I do agree that adding more street tire classes will grow the sport.  And much of that growth will come from younger drivers who can't afford to "build" a car, even a stock car. Or they can't afford special tires.  But they might later. I think it's good to nab 'em young and have them in motorsports the rest of their life. 

---

Jer
#196 ES
#187 SS retired

Surferjer:

Cole, don't put words in my mouth and make stupid assumptions.  I never said I approved of 35 ladies classes. I think Nationally they shouldn't exist and locally it should be a paxed class.  I also believe there are too many prepared and mod classes and not enough stock classes.  But that's just my opinion.  And I certainly I didn't ask you to "explain" anything to me regarding trophies or contingencies. Trust me, don't need your "help".  

 But I do agree that adding more street tire classes will grow the sport.  And much of that growth will come from younger drivers who can't afford to "build" a car, even a stock car. Or they can't afford special tires.  But they might later. I think it's good to nab 'em young and have them in motorsports the rest of their life. 

Apologize for appearing to lecture. I just get upset when folks say we have too many classes without qualifying it or admitting that the classes we currently have are not peachy keen and set in stone. The "explain" part was directed at those claiming I was going off topic, blah blah blah, even though your earlier equally "off topic" example was a breath of fresh air (reviving a dead thread) in pointing out the big picture issues and interrelationship of all classes and rules. Nothing in Solo, as you point out indirectly, stands in isolation.

I was just amused at the hand wringing in this thread over how (and whether) to squeeze 2-seaters into current ST classes without ever considering the possibility of new classes that clearly would succeed.

Dammit.  It hurts.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting Cole, but it seems you think we should just add a bunch of ST classes because "We Can."

I agree.  We could.  We could probably add 3 or 4 new ST classes for 2 seaters and currently excluded cars RIGHT NOW and they would be successful.  But why would you do that?  Why would you just add classes instead of figuring out what the actual best class structure *should* be?  On the one hand you seem to complain that ladies and P and M classes take up space and represent more than 50% of total classes and far less than that in total entries but on the other hand you seem to be a fan of just willy nilly adding ST classes.  Does that sum it up?  That certainly appears to be what you are suggesting.

Sorry, I suppose you can take whatever position you want, but I just don't believe in 2 classes when 1 would do the job.  I look at some of the current PAX factors and it tells me we have some issues right now.  For example, the GS and DS PAX is about the same.  That tells me there are some cars in those two classes that ought to be in the same class (cough *MINI* cough).  The same currently goes for STS and STS2 (although I agree that it needs a couple more years to play out there).

We *should* be focusing on making sure that cars that *should* be running against each other are doing so and *should* only be adding classes when the need is apparent and the cars that would fit there won't fit anywhere else.  Simply having 2 seats should NOT be a factor in that determination.  Not any more than a turbo or All Wheel Drive or a Rotary.

I can't believe I got pulled into this again.  Will Shout get blood out of a Tshirt?

 

 

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

Catch 22:

I'm not sure what you are suggesting Cole, but it seems you think we should just add a bunch of ST classes because "We Can."

I agree.  We could.  We could probably add 3 or 4 new ST classes for 2 seaters and currently excluded cars RIGHT NOW and they would be successful.  But why would you do that?  Why would you just add classes instead of figuring out what the actual best class structure *should* be? 

3 or 4? Huh? How about 2 new ST classes....one combining CS and ES cars currently excluded in STS2, and the other combining AS/BS cars and maybe some SS cars currently excluded. That would bring ST up to the same number of classes as SP which seems completely appropriate given their popularity.

I'm trying to figure out why this issue even upsets you. You have a car that fits in STS2 and you know it will be a National class next year. You have a wife who can run in STS2L and earn you some tires, so I'm not seeing a bone of contention there. You can get a $100 rebate for tires that don't cost much in your size and with your car's light weight they will last forever...still not seeing the problem. WHY ARE YOU COMPLAINING!! 

On the one hand you seem to complain that ladies and P and M classes take up space and represent more than 50% of total classes and far less than that in total entries but on the other hand you seem to be a fan of just willy nilly adding ST classes.  Does that sum it up?  That certainly appears to be what you are suggesting.

I'll sum it up. I keep reading about "providing a variety of classes to satisfy a range of economies and commitments" and "long-term benefit for the majority of members." Then I look at those P and M and Ladies and Junior classes and ask, "Do these members constitute the majority?" Seriously, Ladies can't be more than 10% of SCCA members even though more than that participate at National Events...but it still ain't anyway near the 50% that their class numbers would imply. P and M members can't be more than 10% of members yet they have two (previously 3) slots on the SEB and apparently a powerful buddy on the BoD....thus perpetuating 14 classes in categories where some classes could be consolidated using competition adjustments. Other classes don't meet the 17 minimum, yet get excused year after year.

Meanwhile 18 Stock drivers on street tires run at last year's Milwaukee NT and not one, but two SEB members are there to see it, but ignore new classes to satisfy that niche and "range of economies and commitments" that would bring in new members...especially when new folks could see the obvious membership benefit of a $100 rebate when buying Bridgestone street tires. I was thinking since only Andy Seipos has signed up for the Milwaukee NT that perhaps the street tire craze has diminished there. Nope, I count 50 drivers out of 170 running stock street tire classes at the May 27th Milwaukee region event (28 in Open Stock and 38 in ST classes). A majority, no. A force to be reckoned with, yes. Yet two SEB members from that area continue to ignore this trend.

So you know why I'm complaining. There is no motion or activity that I can see where rational SEB members will act together in a logical manner to fulfill their core values.

Sorry, I suppose you can take whatever position you want, but I just don't believe in 2 classes when 1 would do the job.  I look at some of the current PAX factors and it tells me we have some issues right now.  For example, the GS and DS PAX is about the same.  That tells me there are some cars in those two classes that ought to be in the same class (cough *MINI* cough).  The same currently goes for STS and STS2 (although I agree that it needs a couple more years to play out there).

We *should* be focusing on making sure that cars that *should* be running against each other are doing so and *should* only be adding classes when the need is apparent and the cars that would fit there won't fit anywhere else.  Simply having 2 seats should NOT be a factor in that determination.  Not any more than a turbo or All Wheel Drive or a Rotary.

Not too much to argue about here. Clearly you can redistribute cars within 9 stock classes from time to time and the SEB does a pretty good job of doing that. If the 2007 Mini S proves the equal of the Integra Type R, I wouldn't doubt that it, the ITR and other Mini S would end up together. Would also agree with you that an '89 Civic Si could be made the equal of the CRX and old Miatas...someday after the 89 Civic gets older and less popular....but won't agree that other STS cars could fit in STS2 unless weighing a similar amount.

Don't use PAX to consolidate cars but do use it to consolidate Ladies classes so they face the same competitive numbers as men...if you are going to give them the same contingencies as men. Obviously from results around the nation, you would have no difficulty getting folks to enter a national indexed stock street tire class either. The potential error in PAX values is certainly no larger than the error in equality between different stock or ST cars within a given stock or ST class. We accept the latter...we certainly can accept the former to increase ladies class sizes and create a single indexed stock street tire class. Adding two new ST classes for two-seaters and one indexed stock street tire classes doesn't break the class bank...but it would satisfy the SEB core values. 

Cole:

I'm trying to figure out why this issue even upsets you. You have a car that fits in STS2 and you know it will be a National class next year. You have a wife who can run in STS2L and earn you some tires, so I'm not seeing a bone of contention there. You can get a $100 rebate for tires that don't cost much in your size and with your car's light weight they will last forever...still not seeing the problem. WHY ARE YOU COMPLAINING!! 

I'll admit that I stopped reading your post right there because there is no need to go further.  You can't even tell the difference between someone who cares about the future of the sport and the class and someone who is only interested in personal gain.  Maybe you think everyone should *only* be interested in their own personal gain?  Maybe you think anyone who doesn't agree with you really has no dog in the fight?  Nice job Cole.  I guess that about sums you up.

Thank GOD the SCCA is full of people willing to work on things even if they have nothing to gain from it.  Take that away and we'll never ever run another event.  Ever.

You're right.  I shouldn't care.  But I do.  Maybe that should tell you something????  Ya think???

I guess we now know for sure now where YOU stand (assuming we didn't already know, which we sort of did).

Have a nice day.

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

Catch 22:

Cole:

I'm trying to figure out why this issue even upsets you. You have a car that fits in STS2 and you know it will be a National class next year. You have a wife who can run in STS2L and earn you some tires, so I'm not seeing a bone of contention there. You can get a $100 rebate for tires that don't cost much in your size and with your car's light weight they will last forever...still not seeing the problem. WHY ARE YOU COMPLAINING!! 

I'll admit that I stopped reading your post right there because there is no need to go further.  You can't even tell the difference between someone who cares about the future of the sport and the class and someone who is only interested in personal gain.  Maybe you think everyone should *only* be interested in their own personal gain?  Maybe you think anyone who doesn't agree with you really has no dog in the fight?  Nice job Cole.  I guess that about sums you up.

Thank GOD the SCCA is full of people willing to work on things even if they have nothing to gain from it.  Take that away and we'll never ever run another event.  Ever.

You're right.  I shouldn't care.  But I do.  Maybe that should tell you something????  Ya think???

I guess we now know for sure now where YOU stand (assuming we didn't already know, which we sort of did).

Have a nice day.

You've been to our events. My son and I are the first to arrive and last to leave every Solo event...12 hour days x 12 events a year.

We set up and tear down every course and I'm Solo Safety Steward at every event which often means not running if no other SSS is present. Yeah, I'm in it for the personal gain.....

Heck, I'd be satisfied with ANY gain for me and my son from this organization.

Wow.

Just... Wow.

 

---

'91 ITB Civic DX

Patrick Washburn:

Another thread Coled away.  :)

 

Coned a run away, Coled a thread away ... heh.

 

I think that a serious discussion among the STAC members when there is hard data comparing the results of cars whose only difference is the number of seats is necessary.  It makes sense to have an intellectually honest discussion about the future of such classes.  Classes based on older cars do tend to lemming towards a spec car (see STS Civics and ES MR2s); why is there a need to provide a safe haven for an 18 year old car when it doesn't make sense?  Why fear a paper overdog (teh S2000 can nevAr lose) in STU?  

 

ST* could provide a very diverse field with just three classes, but arbitrary exclusions based on the number of asses that a car can hold is wonky.

---

- Wes 2000 Contour SVT (CP 3L powah) 1995 Miata (CSP, finally on sticky tires)

Any news on this? I've read this tread completely and I couldn't agree more.  I know of so many people with s2000's, 350z's, e46 M3's that would love to compete in a street tire class.  Heck, I have an s2000 and I have to buy a hitch and a trailer if I even want to get my car and my wheels to the event and be competitive. 

I'm going to talk to my local region about this.  I think I might go STU if they'll let me after the Pro Solo tour leaves town. 

 

 

---

2002 E46 M3 Manual

Writing a letter to the SEB will get you further than talking to your region in the long run: :)

---

Andrew
STS2 114 - 1992 Miata

Haru:

Any news on this? I've read this tread completely and I couldn't agree more.  I know of so many people with s2000's, 350z's, e46 M3's that would love to compete in a street tire class.  Heck, I have an s2000 and I have to buy a hitch and a trailer if I even want to get my car and my wheels to the event and be competitive. 

I'm going to talk to my local region about this.  I think I might go STU if they'll let me after the Pro Solo tour leaves town.

the philly region created a local STU2 class.  national has apparently been calling solo chairs and asking if there'd be interest in a national STU2 so we're a bit ahead of curve there.    if i could ever get a log # for my emails i'd be more hopeful so i went the local region route as an interim measure.
 

---

Doug #81 STS2
1990 Mazda Miata
STU 2000 Audi S4 (retired)
STU 2005 Mazda RX-8 (retired)

You must include your member number when you write or I've found they hit the bit bucket with no reply. 

---

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.

Catch 22:

Wow.

Just... Wow.

 

 

You're missing the point. 2 seaters aren't excluded just because they have 2 seats. The problem is cars like the s2000, rx8, spyder, and 99 miata are epic handling cars stock, and they become COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS once they have more camber and whatnot. Plus they're narrower and lighter than most other stuff. Yeah maybe the s2000 would be down 100whp from an STI, but it would STOMP it in STU.

SpyderVenom:

You must include your member number when you write or I've found they hit the bit bucket with no reply. 

 

The SCCA letter system is up there with the Chinese Communist Party of the 1960's as the most progress hindering method of doing something.  

Has anybody that is complaining about getting no reply tried to write something recently?  I was under the impression that with the new assistant that they hired in March? (Brian Harmer) that people were actually getting responses in a decent time frame now.

---

STS2 - 1990 Mazda Miata
Borrowing BS - RX-8