SCCAForums.com

Fred P:

So what did the teams do - We put on brand new tires for qualifying - every race. The top teams had brand new tires on for every session.

Be careful about using street tires. A tire like the Toyo RA-1's last a long time. They are at their best when brand new for the first 2-3 laps. After that they settle in and are the same heat cycle after heat cycle. However the club teams with money or tire deals will always have new tires for each event thereby forcing each car to do the same. 

Tires will always be an expense.

Spot on, Fred.  Look, it's not rules that cause things to be expensive, it's competition.  No one to compete against?  No need to use autocross tires, new tires for every qualifying session, etc, etc.  Got lots of competition?  Those with budgets will buy lots of new tires.  Doesn't matter what kind of tires they are, they'll find ways to spend their budget, and therefore, anyone else who wants to compete will be forced to.

BTW, a big testing budget, even in SS, tends to lead to significantly faster cars.  Doesn't matter what modifications are allowed.  As long as you can change tire pressure and toe-in, testing will be valuable.  Want to compete with the teams that test a lot?  Better do some testing yourself.  Got money?

About the only way that the modification allowances can lead to lower costs is to AVOID CHANGING THEM.  Every time there's an allowance change, it's likely someone will have to spend money.  All of a sudden, the rules allowances become an ongoing cost instead of a fixed cost.  Not good. 

So don't go assuming that rules changes can make racing cheaper.  I firmly believe they can't.  They might reduce the initial build cost, which is what appears to make SS cheaper than anything else, but the cost of these new cars to build makes SS, with more limited mods, a lot more expensive to build a car for than some other classes.  Yes, Prepared, Production, even IT has a lot more allowances, so you can spend a lot more on building a car.  But you can start with a car that's much much cheaper.  Are those classes really more expensive than SS?  They have roughly the same ongoing costs, as long as the modification allowances don't change very often.

The CRB/BOD/ad-hocs can do only one thing to keep costs down: avoid frequent changes to the rules.

The participants can do only one thing: pick a class without much competition.  Because as long as you guys with big tire and testing budgets are in these classes, the ongoing cost to compete will be very high.

 

---

Josh Sirota
Go, Dog. Go! Racing

pkeane:

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?

 

 

Pete, it's great that you would participate here and take some heat too.  A lot of good ideas shared, nearly all focus on cost reduction and parity.  That's a winning formula, but tweaking things won't solve it IMO.  Revisions have to make a real difference in both of those areas.  You could make a nice outline just from many of the posts here.  Nothing wrong with reclassing some cars and adding several more if the rules of cost and parity are followed.  There's plenty of time to get SS right for '09.

Max:

IMO(in my opinon) Showroom stock has become an obsolete concept. How about let us remove passenger seat, back seat, carpet. we use a spec tire & spec shocks,aftermarket rotors. Allow aftermarket wheels but with a minimum weight depending on diameter of the wheel.

Okay, you just presented the idea for a new set of preparation allowances for race cars.  You need to justify it!  Why would this improve entry levels?  Or if there's some other goal, what is that goal, why is it a good goal, and why would your proposal fulfill it?

If it's about reducing costs, see my post at the top of this page.

---

Josh Sirota
Go, Dog. Go! Racing

JSirota:

 You need to justify it!  Why would this improve entry levels?  Or if there's some other goal, what is that goal, why is it a good goal, and why would your proposal fulfill it?

If it's about reducing costs, see my post at the top of this page.

 

 

Josh already has the answer to all the questions in this thread...he's gone to an IT class.  IT has a well aged and proven set of rules and as a result it's one of the largest number of entries at any event anywhere in the country.  Am I being too simplistic in thinking that the answer to SCCA's class restructuring could be better accomplished by 6 IT classes and putting all the T1-3, SSB/C cars in.  Yes, it would cost $$ intially to fully build to IT specs (but only spend as much as you can afford, like any racing class...at least those with cars are starting out with a capital asset) but the competition numbers would be large...the problem would still be the standard SCCA one..some cars will be a better choice than others, but I believe that the prep levels of IT rules do an awful lot of the equalizing of different makes...and the old SCCA problem of lack of quick changes would still remain...I feel that SCCA's incorporation of T2 cars into A Sedan this year is an excellent template...they did not give the T2 cars too much so the existing A Sedan cars were not threatened with loss of years of class buidling...the philosophy could be applied to blending T and SS cars into IT classes...and make them all National of course...simplistic?  or a good idea?...rp

---

Racing in 5 different decades!

Just an observation - Spec Miata is very popular for many reasons - some of it is because of the "Spec" Nature - some of it is because of a manufacturer who put out much effort - and most importantly because of passionate visionary people like Shannon McMasters, Jim Daniels and many others.

It is a bit different in SS - we have many models/mfrs but few are deeply invested - we have many adjustments needed throughout the season - and we DO have some passionate people but they sometimes feel ignored or disadvantaged and need to jump to another COTY.  Don't blame them or the circumstances.

I applaud Peter for having the dialog - he is one member who is putting his passion to work for racers - as are our ad hocs, etc.  It is a big undertaking to fix something that has many levers that could improve results or dampen enthusiasm.  I don't envy their jobs.

Just my opinion - I would stay away from driving any of this SS rejuggle into IT - lets leave that alone!  I agree with Bubba it is working so let's not stir that chili pot - how'd they feel about it?  Here they have a nice Regional deal that works and we start dropping lots of newer stuff on them that could raise their costs, too.  Just my opinion.

I agree we ought to let SSC be SSC and if there's a merge it might be T3/SSB.  I agree we need to class more cars into C but I don't know any others that would lower the cost to the average Joe Racer.  Perhaps it is now IT for the new folks and National classes have become too expensive.

I was recruiting a new member today and his budget is so low he could only make it in a 20 YO car he has partially ready for IT.  He could not afford anything in the National Classes.

---

PaulG
56 T3

Richard Pryor:

Josh already has the answer to all the questions in this thread...he's gone to an IT class.  IT has a well aged and proven set of rules and as a result it's one of the largest number of entries at any event anywhere in the country.  Am I being too simplistic in thinking that the answer to SCCA's class restructuring could be better accomplished by 6 IT classes and putting all the T1-3, SSB/C cars in.  Yes, it would cost $$ intially to fully build to IT specs (but only spend as much as you can afford, like any racing class...at least those with cars are starting out with a capital asset) but the competition numbers would be large...the problem would still be the standard SCCA one..some cars will be a better choice than others, but I believe that the prep levels of IT rules do an awful lot of the equalizing of different makes...and the old SCCA problem of lack of quick changes would still remain...I feel that SCCA's incorporation of T2 cars into A Sedan this year is an excellent template...they did not give the T2 cars too much so the existing A Sedan cars were not threatened with loss of years of class buidling...the philosophy could be applied to blending T and SS cars into IT classes...and make them all National of course...simplistic?  or a good idea?...rp

Well, don't call it IT.  IT has no competition adjustments.  No guarantee of competitiveness.  And especially, no new cars!  If you want to add new cars (which invites manufacturer influence), and you expect competition adjustments ... those are two things that are definitely not in the IT philosophy, and would probably ruin some of the aspects that make the category popular.

You'll also note that the restructuring committee considered the possibility of making the IT classes national, and rejected it.  So, there will not be a National Champion in any of the IT classes.  Of course, with the new IT Triple Crown, there is still something to strive for.

 

 

 

---

Josh Sirota
Go, Dog. Go! Racing

Alot of good idea's being posted here -but what do we do today??

I am dragging my feet on a new car as my 1st Gen Neon goes End of Life this year from SSC. The class has not stabilized from the last changes to the Tour/SS Group

1st Qtr Participation had SSC in 16th Place

http://www.scca.com/documents/Club_Events/2008%20National%20Participation%20MASTER.pdf

2nd Qtr Participation now has SSC in 20th Place

http://www.scca.com/documents/2008%20Runoffs/2008%20National%20Participation%20MASTER.pdf

 

---

1996 Nitro Yellow Green Neon SSC

NYG:

2nd Qtr Participation now has SSC in 20th Place

http://www.scca.com/documents/2008%20Runoffs/2008%20National%20Participation%20MASTER.pdf

Let's put these numbers in perspective.

Average turnout in SSB (the strongest of the SS/T classes) is less than 3.5 entries.  In T3, the weakest, it's only 2 entries.

Average turnout in all classes is about 4 entries.

Only 5 classes have an average turnout of greater than 5 entries.  Ironically, one of them is a Production class, which most people describe as "broken."

Pretty much no one wins National program contingencies.  Pretty easy for the manufacturers to offer them :-)

Bottom line: National Racing is very broken.  Turnout is PATHETIC.  Consolidation isn't enough to fix the problem.

---

Josh Sirota
Go, Dog. Go! Racing

JSirota:

NYG:

2nd Qtr Participation now has SSC in 20th Place

http://www.scca.com/documents/2008%20Runoffs/2008%20National%20Participation%20MASTER.pdf

Let's put these numbers in perspective.

Average turnout in SSB (the strongest of the SS/T classes) is less than 3.5 entries.  In T3, the weakest, it's only 2 entries.

Average turnout in all classes is about 4 entries.

Only 5 classes have an average turnout of greater than 5 entries.  Ironically, one of them is a Production class, which most people describe as "broken."

Pretty much no one wins National program contingencies.  Pretty easy for the manufacturers to offer them :-)

Bottom line: National Racing is very broken.  Turnout is PATHETIC.  Consolidation isn't enough to fix the problem.

Josh,

Perhaps we might consider what the top two or three classes can tell us about what racers really appreciate. 

1) The top three classes have a tremendous turnout compared to the rest of the classes and they are all three tightly restricted "spec" classes.  That seems to indicate that many more racers are interested in and satisfied with the concept of equalized cars with the drivers' skills at setup and driving being the real factors in winning and losing.

2)The cars do not become obsolete easily, are relatively easy to repair and setup (once one learns the specific car and the potentials of changes).

3) The absence of sudden obsolescence means that the costs get spread out over many seasons and the cars are really very, very cost effective in the long run (cheap means easier justification at home, lower levels of impact on family budgets, happier spouses, etc.).

4) Driving the same car for many years makes it possible to begin to wear the car like a good familiar pair of shoes and get closer and closer to the limits of the car.  Some people really like being in the same type of car year after year.  It's like a good marriage should be. 

Now, how are the Touring and Showroom classes similar and different from these factors?  Frankly, in almost every aspect they are different.  No wonder we have problems with turnout and consistency.

I suspect that if we had three or four or more  "Spec" classes such as "Spec Vette," "Spec Subaru," "Spec S2000," "Spec Solstice," and "Spec Cobalt (or Kia, Focus, etc.), we might well see some growth because folks could anticipate being under the same rules and conditions for enough time to spread out the costs, really master the cars, find out what they can do as drivers and preparers without drastic new problems to consider each season.

Of course, that would not make some manufacturers very happy if they were not in the mix and the concept of "Touring and Showroom" would be pretty much gone--but might it not provide more happiness for the drivers, less continual carping about being unequal, overlooked, overpenalized, and on and on---!

Perhaps, if the SCCA really had some Cajones, they would say: "We are going to have 10-12 classes only and they are going to be almost all spec classes and here are the classes we are creating. If you don't want to race in these classes, we can't help you."

It appears to me that the task of trying to find a place for every kind of car to race is simply too big a task and too expensive in terms of the energy/time/thought/grief it takes to make it work. It is a noble concept, but since it is about humans wanting to race and compete, it can't succeed--too many people trying to satisfy too many other people and it doesn't work very well at the National level right now. 

Crazy, huh?
 

---

Jack SSB Z4 #09

Based on the PARTICIPATION numbers, it would make more sense to merge T3 with T2 or maybe even T1 with T2 (more of a stretch).   I still don't see the reason why they are messing with SSB (and by default SSC).  Clearly, more folks are interested in (or moreso able to afford) SSB and SSC vs. the Touring classes.  I like Touring alot but it's just not in my budget. 

The numbers don't lie.

---

Steve Taake
SSC #5
SWDiv SCCA

Y'all may want to check this out.

http://www.scca.com/newsarticle.aspx?hub=1&news=3359

 

The link is not working. If you copy and paste to your tool bar it will get you to were you need to go.

 

Brent

You guys need to keep racing those SSC cars!

---

Peter Keane
SCCA CRB

pkeane:

You guys need to keep racing those SSC cars!

are you giving us a hint?

unfortunately after the Sprints I have to take a month off, so it will be August before I can add to the SSC numbers 

 

This has been mentioned before but we've seemed to have forgotten, Touring and SS  (especially touring) we're just fine and growing very well until the recently misplaced ringers and overdogs were "given"  their respective classes. The whole Turbo issue in T2 (more so the Solstice) and assorted overdogs in SS that have been obvious backroom politics appointments have run the classes into the pooper or pushed competitors to other sanctioning bodies. The emphasis should be on getting the BOD or CRB to class the cars more effectivly or honestly. I remember not to long ago a car needed to run up a class before consideration for a specific class. The Solstice walked right by that premise and a very balanced rest of the field watched it run away.

SS/Touring needs nothing fancy or elaborate to get the numbers back. Class the cars correctly and honestly and send the builders and board members that are in bed together packing!

---

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