SCCAForums.com

Eric Prill talks about the task force and the recommendations for national class consolidation in his"Rumor Mill" blog entry from today.

It's doesn't get into much detail, but it's good to hear from someone who was on the task force.

 

---

Josh Sirota
Go, Dog. Go! Racing

Honda's official letter is already in.. and the manufacturers are attempting to get organized to voice the collective opinion.

---

Honda/BF Goodrich/ Cobalt Friction/AEM/Traqmate

jlipper81:

Well, I sat around reading all 52 posts here and I finally need to say a few words. This speculation and the nonsense you guys gathered around your telephones are planning does nothing but hurt the classes, competitors and car builders.

First and foremost, to the CRB, BOD & the rest of the decision makers: LEAVE SSC ALONE!!!!! Unless you can name me any other class that has a greater number / variety of makes & models that can be competitive, take your big stick and please go poke it somewhere else.

SSC currently has the following cars which have recently won National Races (anybody care to add a car I may have forgotten?)

    - Honda Civic Si
    - Mazda 3       
    - Chevy Cobalt
    - Toyota Corrolla XRS
    - Toyota Celica
    - Dodge Neon

Of those 6 cars, 5 of them pay contigency money for National Race wins...the other for Divisional and Runoffs wins. Why are we even considering a change to classes the manufacturers help support? This money helps our drivers pay for their weekends racing.

Secondly, I've been racing SSC for a number of years.....I personally have built a number of different makes and models and not once has my telephone rang to be asked my opinion about any of the cars. It's not like my phone number is difficult to find??? It's in my profile and on virtually every post of mine.  My point here, call the drivers...ask the guys running up front WHAT THEY THINK!  We are the ones towing to the races and spending our hard earned money.

My final thought - The Board and BOD have proven time and time again that YOU CANNOT EQUALIZE CARS IN A TIMELY MANNER. There is a simple solution that was submitted to the board and leadership of SCCA months ago. It was politely turned down. Go dig it up, it has my name on it....

Finally, a question to the BOD, Comp Board, Advisory Committee:

    > When the last time each of these people have driven a showroom stock car and/or any race car at a national race?  
    > When was the last time each of you has held a valid National Competition License with the required number of yearly races?

If you haven't been racing in these classes or have not been racing at all, maybe its time to move on to something else.... 

A final recap....leave showroom stock C alone and go somewhere else and play the rules.  If I wasn't clear about my opinion, LEAVE SSC ALONE! 

Sorry for the harsh words, but I'm getting tired of this.  We are just recovering from the Mini Cooper S crap and now we have this consolidation cast upon us. 

Best Regards to all...
Joel Lipperini
570-262-1018
www.RaceLabz.com 

 

There are some good thoughts here, but "leaving SSC alone" is not the answer.  Participation is at an all-time low and I could have one the last Cendiv National in a Kia with street tires.  There weren't any cars, ZERO.  This class is badly broken and has to be fixed.  Frankly there is no reason to administer any class with such a low turnout.  I know, that's a dangerous statement in itself which would eliminate many SCCA classes.  Participation in SSC is so low that it would be difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from recent results.  Not a large enough sample of cars or drivers competing.

IMO a participation goal has to be set, such as averaging 10 cars per National race.  What's that going to take?  Parity and lower cost.  New Honda Accord?  Forget it, too expensive.  Get this class back to its' roots.   Sentras, Corollas, Civics, 3's, Cobalts, Scions, Focus, Saturns and some of the older cars.  Put a cost ceiling on new cars coming in.  Equalizing this group of cars shouldn't be too tough.  You can use weight (even lighter for some cars instead of weight penalties for others), tire sizes, cold air kits for some, sway bar sizes.  Simple and inexpensive things.  Parity and cost containment will bring back the numbers.   As for the CRB, I have to assume that most of the members are business people.  Treat this problem like a business that's losing money.  Fix it and fix it quick.  The stakes are high, failure is not an option, get it done!  If those in place can't do it, find others that can and will.

 

jrem72:

Tell me if I am crazy but why wouldn't SCCA create a spec showroom stock class similar to Neon Charity Challenge where everyone races the same car? Might even get some support for the class from someone like Mazda, Toyota or Honda? Am I crazy?

Just throwing this out to see your thoughts!

 

jrem72

 

You're not crazy.  It's a big departure from traditional SCCA thinking, but it works in Spec Miata. 

I'd bet that if several manufacturers were solicited, at least one would step up with a nice contingency program and other support for the drivers.  Do a contract for 5 years or so and solicit new proposals for after that time.  This would make life on the CRB a lot easier too. 

A simple clarification....

"Leave SSC alone" does not mean do not try to equalize cars and keep costs down.
The "Leave SSC alone" statement is directed to the idea of consolidating some SSB cars into SSC. 
I am all for finding ways to decrease costs, increase participation numbers and level the playing field.

Let's explore Decreasing Costs - the cost of the car is only part of the problem. It is the operating cost per weekend of the car that is out of control. We've had this discussion....even if a car cost $30,000 (divide it over the 10 year rule, that's $3,000 per year). Now, try calculating your tire budget for the year, including the Runoffs?  makes the cost of the car seem insignificant! Let's try the idea of adopting a no R compound tire rule in SS. Last time I said this you guys laughed.  You say it won't work, cars are no fun, tires wear out, etc, etc, etc.....All I hear is a bunch of hot ari! I see the Porsche Club running non DOT tires every weekend at their races.....and those 500+hp Porsches look like alot of fun :^)

A radical change like the tire rule would cut driver operating cost dramatically......what would we do with all that cash? Simple....RACE MORE!!!!!!

I'm sorry my comments were unclear...about leaving SSC alone....I guess I should have said "DO NOT CONSOLIDATE SHOWROOM STOCK CLASSES"!

Joel 

---

http://www.RaceLabz.com
570-655-7272

Earlier today, I sent a letter to the BOD with Joel's post above, and Joe Mctexas' post.  I told them that they had embarrassed their CRB and SS Ad Hoc committee members by not even infoming them that this consolidation was being planned by the BOD.  They didn't even know about it until it showed up in FASTRACK!!

My idea was to let the people who decided to consolidate our classes see what we really thought.  Since I could not have said it better, or with more passion than Joel/Joe, I just forwarded their posts to the BOD.  In response, I got a nice letter back from Mike Sauce Area 7 Director (at the bottom).  So I followed up with this one to both the BOD and the CRB,  I have been SS racing for a long time, and this is my take on it. 

I encourage everyone to take keyboard in hand and fire off your letters to the BOD and CRB ASAP.  Just go to the SCCA Home page, look under BOARDS and e mail them directly. 

It could have a positive effect.

Bill Hagerty
SSC Cobalt

    From:       woh2@pacbell.net
    Subject:     Re: Class consolidation SSB/SSC
    Date:     June 3, 2008 12:33:49 PM PDT
    To:       saucmik@aol.com

Mike.  Thanks for listening.  I know that the SS Ad Hoc committee has been working on this issue for awhile.  But it is the uncertainty as to what cars will be in SSC/T4, what weights, what preparation rules, changes+new cars in mid year, what trunk kits, etc that has driven the participation numbers down, not the desire to race the showroom stock cars.

History: I had held the SSC track records in the SOPAC Division for many years with my Honda Civic.  But in 2005, when the supercharged Mini Cooper S (too large an overdog) was dropped into the class, I was whooped at the first Race at PIR.  So to be competitive in SSC, I had to ante up $30,000+ for a Mini/wheels/spares, etc.

The CRB then proceeded to penalize the Mini once a month for 4 straight months with weight and then a restrictor.  But the damage had been done.  Other SSC competitors who could not find the $30K just parked their SSC cars, and went to do something else.  That was the beginning of the slide in participation numbers for SSC.  The absolute random and apparently capricious moves by the CRB/BOD are what is destroying the class.  Drivers who had considered SS started going to other classes with cars that would not have to be modified to meet new rules monthly, or went to other race series.   (FYI, the restrictor plate for the Mini cost me over $300 to get made).

A reasonable driver considering what class to race in, and what series (SCCA, NSASA, HSR, PCA) is understandably being deterred from joining in to race in SS because it is like trying to hit a moving target.  The rules change monthly.  Reasonable requests and recommendations to equalize the classes have been treated with the perfunctory "thank you for your input".  But the CRB recently approved an engine oil cooler for the Toyota, that is WAAAY overboard for SS!   Yet it denies other lesser requests as "not in keeping with the spirit of the class".  You can't keep treating us like dumb children.  That has turned off and away many drivers.

SSA/SSB/SSC classes have always had overdogs.  Of all the cars classified in the GCR, realistically, only a few are ever seriously raced.  In 1995, when the Neon ACR was dropped into SSC, it immediately killed the older Miatas, who had been the king for many years.  The Neon reigned supreme until the Honda Civic came along in 1999.

But as Joel Lipporini correctly observes in the first Forum post I sent, in 2008, there are more varied SSC National winner marques than I can ever remember.  And as Joe McClughan also correctly observes in the second post, certain cars favor certain tracks.  So the cars must be handicapped for the Runoffs track.  At HPT, it is handling.  At RA, it will be horsepower.  So in November 2008, that should be equalized.

Testing:  I was at Leithauser's SS testing at Buttonwillow in the mid 1990's where Jim invited some of us to bring our cars for testing.  Hot shoe Pierre Kleinubing drove the cars.  I know that there were also attempts to test SS cars after the Runoffs on Monday at Mid Ohio.  Problem with both of these tests is that if a driver wants his car to be slow at the tests, and not to be penalized with weight, he puts on crappy tires, screws up tire pressures, alignment and other things, so as to slow the car down, so it will not receive a lead trophy for going to fast.  The only numbers that truly count for car comparisons are Runoffs times, where people have compliant cars and are showing what they got.

So what would I do if I were king?  I understand that there are about 17 factors used to categorize new cars into SS.  I believe that the weight to HP/torque calculation should receive more consideration than it does now.  Classify cars into SS by Jan 1, not March 1.  We in SOPAC (as well as SEDIV) have a double national on Jan 8.  If someone wants a car into a class after Jan 1, classify it one class higher for the year.  Consider adding weight based on performance during the year, as pro racing used to in Touring Car racing - but only if the competitor beats say 5 other cars in his SS class in a race.  Then reshuffle weights/classifications after the Runoffs.

As to low participation.  There are already rules for that.  If a class does not meet the 2.5 rule, make it a Regional class until it does.  But that rule would not have applied to either SSB/SSC this year, based upon 2007 numbers.  So why are our classes the big target for consolidation??  How bout going after GP/GT-3 and some of those who did NOT make the 2.5 rule, and/or did not make the top 24 participation numbers?  We were 13th - SSB and 18th - SSC.  See chart below.

Summary/Recommendations.  Immediately reverse/publicize consolidation decision in recent FASTRACK.  Classify SS cars by Jan 1.  NO LATE ADDS, except if in higher class.  Emphasize hp/torque to weight.  Only change weights during the year.  There will be overdogs.  For class consolidation, go after those with lower participation numbers, not numbers 13, 18.  If you leave the SS classes alone during the year, so potential competitors can see what the competitive cars are in the classes, they will be more likely to buy one, and the numbers will come up.  After what you have done in FASTACK this month, what driver in his right mind would want to buy any SS car this year???

Thanks for listening.

Bill Hagerty
Escondido, Ca
SSA, SSB, SSC (1982-2008 - 102 National wins :)

(The class participation chart was here - I could not get it to paste - also available on SCCA website - search 2007 Class Participation).

On Jun 3, 2008, at 9:57 AM, saucmik@aol.com wrote:

Mr. Hagerty- Thank you for comments.The BOD also is made of volunteers and we want what is best for SCCA.We are reevaluating the Showroom Stock situation and all other class consolidation issues as well.I ask of you to answer this for me.Would you rather be consolidated or when car participation numbers drop below the 2.5 rule be reverted back to a Regional only class?We want to do what the members want and what is best for participation..Your feedback as well as your SS competiors feedback is important.By the way the CRB has tried to consolidate Showroom Stock with Touring  for some time and has done much research to that end.Member imput has been unpopular for that consolidation but the numbers of entries from SSC continue to decline.I urge you to continue commenting as I personally use the competitors comments for stability to consolidation arguements.Thanks for being a member and taking the time to contact us with your comments.. Mike Sauce Area 7 Director
-----Original Message-----

 

Well, "Billy the Haggard," Joel, Joe, et.al, you've aired some great thoughts about the consolidation proposal (edict?). 

Chris Dryden and I have just sent the BOD letters in opposition to combining the T3/SSB/SSC classes because we believe that the performance spread is too great from class to class.  It seems likely that a car from the slower class moved upward will have to spend a fair buck to get competitive in the higher class, and even then, only if the higher class cars are restricted in some manner to slow them. 

We doubt that the slower cars will be too happy about the extra costs (think Motons) and the faster cars will not be happy about being slowed up very much--turning them into pigs is what the drivers might begin to feel like--hey, I know what it feels like to make a nice car into a bus.

Is the BOD suggesting to freeze the performance levels of these joined classes forever and equalize all new marques coming in to meet that level,. or is this a one, two, three year standard?  What happens when the price of gas finally forces the makers to build less powerful, more economical cars, ditching the performance race that has made us so happy for the last several years? Who will want to bring slower cars into the racing scene?  They won't be cheaper, I'd bet.  (The price of fuel is already dropping some of the attendance, I'm positive.)

SSC and T3 have some serious number problems at the moment, and SSB could stand to get going here in the middle of the country, but the numbers for these classes were not among the weakest classes last year, so why combine classes that still have decent numbers overall? (Get out there T3/SSB and SSC, or I'll be egg faced). 

I agree with Bill that some form of power/weight ratio measures could help with the equalizing, as would some actual dyno testing of cars coming off of the track (seems to me that I recall dyno work on the Miatas a number of years back at Mid Ohio--very revealing!).  Leithauser made a valiant effort to create parity in the mid 90's and actually began to do that. The CRB has actually gotten fairly close this year in SSB--it needs slight tinkering and might need a bit more for Road America next year, but there has been progress--so why throw the baby out with the bathwater when you are so close?

We do have a few friends on the CRB and the Advisory Committee, so let's tread a bit lightly on the attack mode, if possible.  (You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar--er--not that CRB/Advisory Committee members are-- ah--poor choice of--ah, bad analogy, huh? Just be as nice as you can without making your head explode.)

Jack
SSA, SSB, SSC, T3, ITA, ITB, EP, GT3, geez, I should know better--well, only one at a time, anyway.
 

---

Jack SSB Z4 #09

jlipper81:

I am all for finding ways to decrease costs, increase participation numbers and level the playing field.

Let's explore Decreasing Costs - the cost of the car is only part of the problem. It is the operating cost per weekend of the car that is out of control. We've had this discussion....even if a car cost $30,000 (divide it over the 10 year rule, that's $3,000 per year). Now, try calculating your tire budget for the year, including the Runoffs?  makes the cost of the car seem insignificant! Let's try the idea of adopting a no R compound tire rule in SS. Last time I said this you guys laughed.  You say it won't work, cars are no fun, tires wear out, etc, etc, etc.....All I hear is a bunch of hot ari! I see the Porsche Club running non DOT tires every weekend at their races.....and those 500+hp Porsches look like alot of fun :^)

A radical change like the tire rule would cut driver operating cost dramatically......what would we do with all that cash? Simple....RACE MORE!!!!!!

Joel 

Fantastic idea. As you and I both know, it requires a significant investment in tires to be competitive. Ideally I'd like a set to last 2-3 race weekends, if not more.

Weren't the R compounds DOT to begin with though? I think I'd like a minimum treadwear rating, or something like that.

Brakes, entry fees, and gas are the only other obstacles I can think of.

We might be able to do something about brakes, if allowed cooling ducts on each car. Though, when I had the Civic I always bought the Duralast rotors, and returned them for a refund or exchange as soon as they warped, which was pretty much each race weekend.

The races are longer, so more wear and tear. 30 minutes?

Gas I don't think we can do much about.

If SS were allowed simple bolt on modifications, which are not expensive, can attract sponsors, and possibly more contingency money. NASA seems to be king of that right now, as just about every other day I get a new update about another sponsor offering contingency money. They are small, but they all add up.

 

---

It's all about Hot Nasty Bad-Ass Speed.

Jmac36, I guess us as the SS/T committee and the CRB have not done our job communicating with the competitors about the Process very well. Here goes and if I leave something out, please do not hang me. The Process is based on manufactures published horse power and torque (we can debate that, but that is where we started) to come up with a power number for each car.  Originally we took each existing class and picked out our target cars for the particular class (more than one). Once we established our “Bogie” cars we came up with a power to weight ratio target for each class. We also considered chassis configurations, allowed enhancements and any anomalies such as good or bad brakes, etc. This data was complied into spread sheets and then we started to look at trends and see what shook out. My comment about SSC being the easiest is because currently all the cars are front wheeled drive and there are not as many variables. From Runoffs input we decided to leave SSC as our true show room stock class, so that is why those cars are getting weight adjustment and no performance help. SSB is a little bit tougher because some manufactures want to play and some do not. That is why we came up with the “al la carte” plan to help the cars that did not have factory packages. T3 again is kind of like SSC except for a couple of turbo cars. T2 is a nightmare with the different configurations, but I think we have done a decent job of balancing them, for our first attempt. From what I have been told around the country, T2 has been some of the best races this year. I hope this helps, feel free to ask question, because I am sure I left some detail out.

 

Now I will try and answer some of your other question. Like I said above, we are trying to keep SSC the true SS class so it is pretty much power to weight. The problem for some cars is they will never be able to get down to their process weight and there is no slower class to send them to, so they are stuck. Some one else above said the Focus will not be competitive, I did not request it, I sure did not tell anyone they had to build it, but we did give it the process weight.

 

I can not tell you right now what cars if any will be dropped into your class. I do not believe that the CRB has clear direction of what the BOD wants us to do. The BOD meets tonight and I think after the meeting we will get a clearer direction. If we are directed to do consolidations than the CRB will hash it out, and it will not be in a vacuum. I will say that currently SSB is the strongest SS/T class we for 2008. Please do not assume anything, because we honestly do not know what we are going to do yet.

 

As for the Accord, I was trying to show that we are using the process to go to cars that we would have not gone to before. Your assessment is that it will haul the mail down the straight, but be a pig in the corners. Once again that is showroom stock, some guy wants the straight line speed, and some want the handling. I will submit though, if we do are job with the process as a hole things will be fair, will some tracks favor some cars, absolutely. I believe if the power to weight is the same, than the cars will accelerate similar. We are going to once again use the data boxes at the runoff to collect data. We are trying to get as many volunteers as possible to put the boxes in cars to collect data. I personally have real heart burn adjusting cars for a certain track, but I welcome data collection at our premier events and making change for what we can prove.

 

Finally, I would like to apologize for you guys feeling like we are not listing. I realize that the track record sucks, but that is how I ended up here. I took it in the wrong hole from the CRB and complained enough to get put on a committee and then the CRB. I will try to have the committee and myself do a better job of communicating. PK

 

P.S. I have read Joel’s “leave it alone” thread and I know what he meant. I believe with the process and some car stability SSC will return to its hay day. Also, how come no one on here made fun of Joel when he listed six SSC cars that are competitive?

 

---

Peter Keane
SCCA CRB

I may be wrong but the last time I looked the price of a quality "non-R"  tire was more expensive than a special "R" compound that the participating tire manufacturers are building for us.. Especially the bigger and more exclusive sizes. It may vary but I think the type of tire is not the issue. It's more a matter of to be competitive you have to limit heat cycles or use fresh tires.

Another way to cut costs is to stop the fuel monopoly (rape)at the track!  We ran in Seattle 2 weeks ago and paid around  $8.00 a gallon for 100 octane race gas. A week earlier we paid almost $11.00 a gallon to the exclusive provider at the track in Portland! The vendor pays SCCA or the track ( I'm not sure who controls that) for exclusive rights and is then not monitored or controlled.

Speaking of T3   Watch out for Wiley Timbrook in his Honder at the Runoffs. Man, that car is Faaast!   Nice racin with ya Wiley!

---

Joe Hermes
T2 #22
Gran Prix Imports
Lamborghini Portland
Joe@gpimports.com

Peter - thanks for yoour explanation.  It helps to know what you guys are doing in the smoke filled room with the doors wired shut :)

If you have the black boxes, and plan on using them at HPT (which will be no longer representative/real important after October 2008), how about getting someone to bolt them into a few cars at the June Sprints at RA in a couple of weeks, so you can collect data that you can use in your November 2008 for the 2009 Runoffs. 

 
Thanks again 

WOH:

If you have the black boxes, and plan on using them at HPT (which will be no longer representative/real important after October 2008), how about getting someone to bolt them into a few cars at the June Sprints at RA in a couple of weeks, so you can collect data that you can use in your November 2008 for the 2009 Runoffs. 

Thanks again 

 

If you guys want to bolt a black box in my car for the sprints that would be cool by me

Peter, thank you for the explaination, it does make since to a some extent. However, the one point that you guys seemed to have missed in all of this is, again, what do you plan to do to make changes quicker? What can be done to make the cars even on a week to week basis? The weight thing is great, but let me give you an example here; The 3's a set at 2850#, however there is not one of them running right now that can get under 2900#. Thats 50#'s we are all overweight. Now the guys that I race with and who know me, know that about 6-8 weeks before the runoffs I start to starve myself to drop 25-30 #'s off of my ass, which brings me, as I recall to 2903 at HTP last year. The Cobalt is  3100 with lead, and if they want to drop weight they can, I don't know about the Honda, but you see my point? If you guys were to drop something into the class that starts to kill us, the cobalt, and the honda( the 3 top runners as of right now), what do we do? Trust me, I can get that last 50#'s out of the car, but you won't like how I do it, and it's about 100-200$ a pound to do, not really in the spirit of the class.

I'm glad you jumped on here and talked to us. I welcome the new blood to the crb, but, you have to understand, we are all scared to death of you guys. The track record, as you say, is not too good.  ....JM

---

Joe McClughan
McClughan Racing Enterprises

nobody is addressing the unicorn and skittles.  what gives?

seriously, a couple observations.

1.  I spend waaaaaaaaay too much on tires for a so called "budget" class.  A6, R6, BFG R1, Kumho.  Too many choices and they all have their advantages/disadvantages.  It's an obsession.  If there was a spec tire, I wouldn't be able waste huge gobs of money on tires.  A long lasting spec tire like the new toyo or even the nitto would be best.  Or even spec the Hoosier R6.  I can at least get 6 - 8 heat cycles out of that before it starts fading.  Then I wouldn't be tempted to buy and test everything out there.  A good non-r tire is just as expensive as an r, and i'd shave it and the life would be the same as an r.  Then I'd have about 10 good tire choices and really go broke testing.  Help me.

2.  Seats and carpet (w/ padding) on most cars are a minimum of 30 lbs.  That would help tons on getting cars to weight and helping w/ competition adjustments.  Can't we take them out already?  I mean we have to pull everything to put a cage in anyhow.  I understand "Showroom Stock", but to me it's no different then pulling the radio and a/c out.  I've never seen a car on a showroom floor w/ a race seat, cage, fire system and a big huge gaping hole where the radio and a/c used to be.  Plus I'd rather have less "flammable" items around me.

luke

(still trying to figure out what class, series, organization to race in next year)

Hey,  I like this--this SSB/C forum was almost moribund (look it up!) for months and now a simple little rules proposal gets the old forum hot and jumpin'!

Luke, I like the idea of a longer lasting tire, the biggest part of most budgets for the showroom folks (except for damage to the car--ahem).  I also like the idea of removal of passenger seats--as much for the extra room for hauling gear as for the weight savings and removal of stuff that can burn!!!!!    Oh, is that important?  Nah, just a little fire, we have fire equipment in the cars, don't we? 

Folks who look in my car always ask,"why is there another seat in there?"  I try to explain the wisdom of the "Showroom Stock" principles, but it seems to escape them--they comment on room to get out, weight, fire, etc.  No matter.   Somehow the Showroom Stock designation doesn't quite require a full interior to the spectators--what do they know that the BOD/CRB doesn't?

---

Jack SSB Z4 #09

lukerussell:

nobody is addressing the unicorn and skittles.  what gives?

seriously, a couple observations.

1.  I spend waaaaaaaaay too much on tires for a so called "budget" class.  A6, R6, BFG R1, Kumho.  Too many choices and they all have their advantages/disadvantages.  It's an obsession.  If there was a spec tire, I wouldn't be able waste huge gobs of money on tires.  A long lasting spec tire like the new toyo or even the nitto would be best.  Or even spec the Hoosier R6.  I can at least get 6 - 8 heat cycles out of that before it starts fading.  Then I wouldn't be tempted to buy and test everything out there.  A good non-r tire is just as expensive as an r, and i'd shave it and the life would be the same as an r.  Then I'd have about 10 good tire choices and really go broke testing.  Help me.

2.  Seats and carpet (w/ padding) on most cars are a minimum of 30 lbs.  That would help tons on getting cars to weight and helping w/ competition adjustments.  Can't we take them out already?  I mean we have to pull everything to put a cage in anyhow.  I understand "Showroom Stock", but to me it's no different then pulling the radio and a/c out.  I've never seen a car on a showroom floor w/ a race seat, cage, fire system and a big huge gaping hole where the radio and a/c used to be.  Plus I'd rather have less "flammable" items around me.

luke

(still trying to figure out what class, series, organization to race in next year)

 

One brand tire for all cars would be good.  The caveat is they have to have a full range of sizes.

 

I also would like to see the interior removal to be at least an option.  Don't require it but let the competitor decide.

 

I would also like to see the above carried over to T3.  

 

Peter 

---

T3 S2000
E46 M3 OLOA Project