scca stock class becoming street class!
03-22-2013, 01:03 AM
#1
Pro
Thread Starter
scca stock class becoming street class!
Just thought this deserved its own thread.
http://www.solomatters.com/2013/03/s...sal-explained/
Street tires!
Camber mods!
Sway bars!
Finally many popular low budget mods that would make autocrossing more fun are allowed in the lowest prep class.
Should make the low powered Porsches eg boxster cayman more competitive.
http://www.solomatters.com/2013/03/s...sal-explained/
Street tires!
Camber mods!
Sway bars!
Finally many popular low budget mods that would make autocrossing more fun are allowed in the lowest prep class.
Should make the low powered Porsches eg boxster cayman more competitive.
03-22-2013, 05:20 AM
#2
Race Car
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL Duval County
Posts: 4,220
Likes: 0
Received 35 Likes
on
24 Posts
Yeah as soon as I get a competitive stock class car they do away with stock class. Go figure. I will miss R comps.
They already have this class; it's called STX. Why didn't they just tone down an ST class instead of totally change stock?
They already have this class; it's called STX. Why didn't they just tone down an ST class instead of totally change stock?
03-22-2013, 11:49 AM
#3
Three points:
1. knfeparty -- the proposed Street class is vastly different from the existing ST classes, including STX, in both intent and application. Read balefire's link.
2. There's no need to "miss R comps" -- if you want to keep running your car on them, go to Limited Prep Street Prepared. If you don't know what that means, again, read balefire's link.
3. This is a proposal, not a done deal. It won't necessarily be implemented in its current form; it may not be implemented at all. If you like it, write a letter to the SEB at http://www.sebscca.com. If you don't like it, write a letter to the SEB at http://www.sebscca.com. If you like it parts of it and dislike others, write a letter to the SEB at http://www.sebscca.com.
1. knfeparty -- the proposed Street class is vastly different from the existing ST classes, including STX, in both intent and application. Read balefire's link.
2. There's no need to "miss R comps" -- if you want to keep running your car on them, go to Limited Prep Street Prepared. If you don't know what that means, again, read balefire's link.
3. This is a proposal, not a done deal. It won't necessarily be implemented in its current form; it may not be implemented at all. If you like it, write a letter to the SEB at http://www.sebscca.com. If you don't like it, write a letter to the SEB at http://www.sebscca.com. If you like it parts of it and dislike others, write a letter to the SEB at http://www.sebscca.com.
03-22-2013, 08:11 PM
#4
Drifting
I'm really excited about the proposed new Street class 
I'd have long ago abandoned stock for STR if I could have. The new proposed Street class gives me everything I wanted to switch to STR for, but without the extra crap I was unwilling to do to my DD.
I especially love the new allowance for extending slots for more negative camber; it's really going to help us Boxsters dial out a lot of that understeer.
SEB is looking for feedback. If you like it, too, write your letters in support! I can guarantee you people who don't like it are writing theirs
http://www.sebscca.com/
I'd have long ago abandoned stock for STR if I could have. The new proposed Street class gives me everything I wanted to switch to STR for, but without the extra crap I was unwilling to do to my DD.I especially love the new allowance for extending slots for more negative camber; it's really going to help us Boxsters dial out a lot of that understeer.
SEB is looking for feedback. If you like it, too, write your letters in support! I can guarantee you people who don't like it are writing theirs
http://www.sebscca.com/
03-22-2013, 08:46 PM
#5
This is a bad idea.
1) stock needs fewer allowances, not more.
2) r-comps are the key issue - replace w/ 140 or 200TW & leave the rest alone until the dust settles.
3) take away the fragile tires & all of the sudden, tire life improves
4) open camber means you'll be running 2.5 to 3 deg to keep up w/ the fast guys
5) non-remote reservoir double adj shocks are still expensive.
Think about what a car 'fully prepared' to these rules becomes:
1) stock needs fewer allowances, not more.
2) r-comps are the key issue - replace w/ 140 or 200TW & leave the rest alone until the dust settles.
3) take away the fragile tires & all of the sudden, tire life improves
4) open camber means you'll be running 2.5 to 3 deg to keep up w/ the fast guys
5) non-remote reservoir double adj shocks are still expensive.
Think about what a car 'fully prepared' to these rules becomes:
- F&R ultra-stiff sways,
- Ultra-stiff shocks,
- Ultra-aggressive alignment,
- Smaller diameter wheels (for lowest CG & improved gearing).
Last edited by ToSi; 03-22-2013 at 09:31 PM.
03-22-2013, 10:13 PM
#6
Drifting
I'm kinda torn on that, ToSi. Philosophically, I still think stock class should be STOCK. Ideally, I feel someone should be able to drive a car off the lot, adjust pressure pressures and go. The problem is, most are are complete dogs out of the box, and getting worse. The trend for cars right now is heavier with intrusive traction control, horrible understeer. Even stock Porsches understeer horribly and have traction control that can't ever really be turned off at the switch. SEB is trying to design the new class around the reality of car performance limitations, and I can see their point. So while philosophically, I don't like the increase in allowances, practically speaking... they're exactly what I want to do to my car, which I look at as a DD first and Autox car second.
Stiff sway bars don't compromise ride comfort as much as stiff springs do.
Adjust your adjustable shocks back down for the drive home (Or just stick with stock porsche shocks which are pretty good already)
Camber doesn't eat tires, toe out does. Neutral toe might be slightly slower, but it's a reasonable compromise.
Smaller diameter wheels have cheaper tires, too. Win-win right here.
Stiff sway bars don't compromise ride comfort as much as stiff springs do.
Adjust your adjustable shocks back down for the drive home (Or just stick with stock porsche shocks which are pretty good already)
Camber doesn't eat tires, toe out does. Neutral toe might be slightly slower, but it's a reasonable compromise.
Smaller diameter wheels have cheaper tires, too. Win-win right here.
03-23-2013, 11:24 AM
#7
Pro
Thread Starter
Street: 200 TW, stock wheel width, full alignment and reasonable shocks but no springs, and no power mods except cat-back
ST: 140 TW, wider wheels, stiffer springs and ride height tweaks, and full intake/exhaust and reasonable tuning
SP: R-comps, infinite wheels, near-infinite suspension, tons of tweaking to your existing engine
SM: R-comps, infinite wheels, near-infinite suspension, near-infinite power mods (engine swaps, turbos, etc.)
This is a bad idea.
1) stock needs fewer allowances, not more.
2) r-comps are the key issue - replace w/ 140 or 200TW & leave the rest alone until the dust settles.
3) take away the fragile tires & all of the sudden, tire life improves
4) open camber means you'll be running 2.5 to 3 deg to keep up w/ the fast guys
5) non-remote reservoir double adj shocks are still expensive.
Think about what a car 'fully prepared' to these rules becomes:
1) stock needs fewer allowances, not more.
2) r-comps are the key issue - replace w/ 140 or 200TW & leave the rest alone until the dust settles.
3) take away the fragile tires & all of the sudden, tire life improves
4) open camber means you'll be running 2.5 to 3 deg to keep up w/ the fast guys
5) non-remote reservoir double adj shocks are still expensive.
Think about what a car 'fully prepared' to these rules becomes:
- F&R ultra-stiff sways,
- Ultra-stiff shocks,
- Ultra-aggressive alignment,
- Smaller diameter wheels (for lowest CG & improved gearing).
I think extremely few people will downsize their wheels just to get better gearing as they could already do that with lower profile tires. I think the wheel diameter +/-1" helps those with 14", 19", and 20" rims who previously have had very few choices for good tires.
Last edited by balefire; 03-23-2013 at 11:53 AM.
Trending Topics
03-23-2013, 01:55 PM
#8
Advanced
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless the corresponding realignment of car classifications screws up everything, the proposed "Street Class" rules are, to paraphrase Mary Poppins, "practically perfect in every way" and I enthusiastically support them.
In fact, I am so enthusiastic about this proposed class, that I've already started acquiring parts to make the transition with my Cayman S and, fingers crossed, will have my car prepped accordingly for the next local event on April 14th. I will then use the remainder of the year to get it dialed-in and hit the ground running come January 1, 2014, when I plan to start a serious National-level effort...
We shall see what we shall see, eh?
In fact, I am so enthusiastic about this proposed class, that I've already started acquiring parts to make the transition with my Cayman S and, fingers crossed, will have my car prepped accordingly for the next local event on April 14th. I will then use the remainder of the year to get it dialed-in and hit the ground running come January 1, 2014, when I plan to start a serious National-level effort...
We shall see what we shall see, eh?
03-23-2013, 02:36 PM
#9
Drifting
Unless the corresponding realignment of car classifications screws up everything, the proposed "Street Class" rules are, to paraphrase Mary Poppins, "practically perfect in every way" and I enthusiastically support them.
In fact, I am so enthusiastic about this proposed class, that I've already started acquiring parts to make the transition with my Cayman S and, fingers crossed, will have my car prepped accordingly for the next local event on April 14th. I will then use the remainder of the year to get it dialed-in and hit the ground running come January 1, 2014, when I plan to start a serious National-level effort...
We shall see what we shall see, eh?
In fact, I am so enthusiastic about this proposed class, that I've already started acquiring parts to make the transition with my Cayman S and, fingers crossed, will have my car prepped accordingly for the next local event on April 14th. I will then use the remainder of the year to get it dialed-in and hit the ground running come January 1, 2014, when I plan to start a serious National-level effort...
We shall see what we shall see, eh?
03-23-2013, 03:58 PM
#10
Advanced
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I know there will be some inevitable push-back from certain quarters about the current proposal, to my mind, it makes so much sense on so many levels, I would be very surprised if it's scrapped entirely or even if it's significantly revised, especially as (IMO) the SCCA clearly has a problem that must be addressed and sooner than later.
Worst case, I will be out ~$4,500 for a few months while everything gets sorted and if it's scrapped, I'll either sell the parts and take a loss or go run with NASA instead. But if it does come to be, I foresee that a lot of testing will need to be done to optimize one's car setup and getting a jumpstart on this is a gamble that I'm willing to take...
03-23-2013, 06:19 PM
#11
Sounds like you guys in support of this are blinded by perceived near-term advantages to your own particular cars.. if everyone is allowed these changes, the net competitive balance will change but not necessarily for the better.
For example, re: wheel sizes. Understand the intent is to allow cars stuck w/ odd sizes (19's +) to downgrade to more favorable sizes. The catch is that a car that comes w/ 16x7 wheels (common size usually w/ a 25" od tire) can now downside to 15x7's & run the same width tires in a 23" OD size.. Result? 1" lower CG, better gearing.
Bummer if someone in your class can do this but you can't. Double bummer if you can but don't want to live w/ the speedo error & goofy look. Big deal, right? Just get 2 sets of wheels.. thought that's what we're trying to 'fix' in the first place..
Bigger sways F&R sounds like a good idea right? Which ones? How many more iterations will you need to try to find the set that works the best? Bars are springs that function in roll, wouldn't add more 'spring' without more damping right? Now those fancy shocks are really required to make the most of things.
The net effect of increased allowances is to further separate the (perceived & otherwise) competitiveness of the newb who shows up w/ a truly stock car from the fast guys. If you want to encourage participation in the entry-level class, the goal should be to minimize the effect of car prep.
The base classing should account for inherent performance differences between cars, Achilles heals & all.
What really needs fixing?
The biggest current gripe w/ stock is the cost of r-comps & associated hassles to run them - get rid of them & the need for alignment allowances goes away too.
IMHO, the real issue for Porsche owners is the lack of a suitable place in ST* & the generally screwy progression between classes. ST should be SP-light -> minimal powertrain changes, bolt-on suspension & wheels, everything has to fit under stock bodywork, inclusive of *all* makes / models. I think this is really the class you're looking for.
For example, re: wheel sizes. Understand the intent is to allow cars stuck w/ odd sizes (19's +) to downgrade to more favorable sizes. The catch is that a car that comes w/ 16x7 wheels (common size usually w/ a 25" od tire) can now downside to 15x7's & run the same width tires in a 23" OD size.. Result? 1" lower CG, better gearing.
Bummer if someone in your class can do this but you can't. Double bummer if you can but don't want to live w/ the speedo error & goofy look. Big deal, right? Just get 2 sets of wheels.. thought that's what we're trying to 'fix' in the first place..
Bigger sways F&R sounds like a good idea right? Which ones? How many more iterations will you need to try to find the set that works the best? Bars are springs that function in roll, wouldn't add more 'spring' without more damping right? Now those fancy shocks are really required to make the most of things.
The net effect of increased allowances is to further separate the (perceived & otherwise) competitiveness of the newb who shows up w/ a truly stock car from the fast guys. If you want to encourage participation in the entry-level class, the goal should be to minimize the effect of car prep.
The base classing should account for inherent performance differences between cars, Achilles heals & all.
What really needs fixing?
The biggest current gripe w/ stock is the cost of r-comps & associated hassles to run them - get rid of them & the need for alignment allowances goes away too.
IMHO, the real issue for Porsche owners is the lack of a suitable place in ST* & the generally screwy progression between classes. ST should be SP-light -> minimal powertrain changes, bolt-on suspension & wheels, everything has to fit under stock bodywork, inclusive of *all* makes / models. I think this is really the class you're looking for.
03-23-2013, 08:31 PM
#12
Drifting
Surely you must realize sports cars are but a small minority niche in Sports Car Club of America, and not the focus of the club! Why would they be allowed in ST? Seriously, though, one of the SEB comments is that although they're getting constantly pestered to class cars in ST, it's clear most of those people don't want ST- they really lwant Street class. So they proposed creating it. Certainly tempers my desire for ST, as Street offers me everything I really want and doesn't force me to do much more.
I've been thinking about the proposed rules quite a bit, too; I've decided I'm opposed to the +/-1" wheels and ECU mods, for sure. I am extremely excited about street tires and camber. I have no false optimism that this will increase the competitiveness of any porsche besides maybe the GT3- the moment it looks like a Boxster is going to beat a Miata, S2000 or Corvette, it's going to get bumped up a class. I'm thinking front OR rear sway (not both) is probably still the best sweet spot- camber will help balance the car.
How much front negative camber can a 986/996 get by extending the slots?
I've been thinking about the proposed rules quite a bit, too; I've decided I'm opposed to the +/-1" wheels and ECU mods, for sure. I am extremely excited about street tires and camber. I have no false optimism that this will increase the competitiveness of any porsche besides maybe the GT3- the moment it looks like a Boxster is going to beat a Miata, S2000 or Corvette, it's going to get bumped up a class. I'm thinking front OR rear sway (not both) is probably still the best sweet spot- camber will help balance the car.
How much front negative camber can a 986/996 get by extending the slots?
03-24-2013, 12:40 AM
#13
Burning Brakes
I think the "both sway bars" was a total miscalculation and will not be implemented. ECU mods have been met with almost universal disdain as well... hard to see that implemented either. Limited Prep in Street Prepared? Please get real. Not gonna happen.
The good thing for all modern Porsches (GT3 excepted) would seem to be the camber allowance. But, remember that camber allowance + street tires will require massive re-ordering of the "street" classes. Boxster/Cayman versions all probably go up one level from where they are now. Alternatively, Corvettes all drop a level. C5Z06 against 1st gen Cayman S/996-50th in AS. Standard C5, maybe with a small rear tire option to solve its 2nd gear problem and make it faster, in BS.
The good thing for all modern Porsches (GT3 excepted) would seem to be the camber allowance. But, remember that camber allowance + street tires will require massive re-ordering of the "street" classes. Boxster/Cayman versions all probably go up one level from where they are now. Alternatively, Corvettes all drop a level. C5Z06 against 1st gen Cayman S/996-50th in AS. Standard C5, maybe with a small rear tire option to solve its 2nd gear problem and make it faster, in BS.
03-24-2013, 09:45 AM
#14
Drifting
It's a real possibility that Boxster/Cayman will all go up a level due to camber, but I really don't think this will hurt corvettes as much as the doomsdayers are predicting. Corvette isn't a great autocross car because it can put 400hp to ground, it's a great autocross car because it handles so fantastically, and that's not going to change. Plus, the new crop of street tires are just fantastic and damned near equivalent to the top performing DOR r-comps when many of those C5s were built, so it's not like we're forcing them to run linglongs or anything. I'm actually getting less launch tirespin on my ZIIs than I ever got on my V710s. I've heard a few vette drivers that are planning tests, so we should hopefully know soon. This year's RT results should help shed light as well.
I'm really surprised so few complaints from FS drivers, whom will be hit a lot worse. I've yet to hear a single FS driver complain, though- plenty of SS drivers referencing FS & AS, but few from those classes commenting on it. FS is more homogonous, though, and most cars will be hurt about the same. FS pax will change for sure, a few cars will likely be shuffled, and life will go on. I fear Elise may end up the real loser here, as it may find itself relegated to SSP... At least they could finally fix the oil starvation issues, I guess.
I'm really surprised so few complaints from FS drivers, whom will be hit a lot worse. I've yet to hear a single FS driver complain, though- plenty of SS drivers referencing FS & AS, but few from those classes commenting on it. FS is more homogonous, though, and most cars will be hurt about the same. FS pax will change for sure, a few cars will likely be shuffled, and life will go on. I fear Elise may end up the real loser here, as it may find itself relegated to SSP... At least they could finally fix the oil starvation issues, I guess.
03-24-2013, 09:45 AM
#15
Seriously, though, one of the SEB comments is that although they're getting constantly pestered to class cars in ST, it's clear most of those people don't want ST- they really want Street class. So they proposed creating it. Certainly tempers my desire for ST, as Street offers me everything I really want and doesn't force me to do much more.