SCCAForums.com

Whiplash_Motorsports:

The requirement would be the same one used to hold on to the "SP" part of it.

Whats the difference between using "SP" for Street Prepared and "ST" for Street Touring? I see nothing wrong with it myself. They just need to alter the designations used within the class, which is why my suggestion  was for AST, BST, etc. We may not need a whole list of classes in ST yet but at least this method is inline with the current naming convention used in other classes and allows MUCH greater flexibility today and down the road.

I wasn't really thinking of SP when I posted it. I do not disagree with the idea it's fine. I just tryed to offer yet another string of characters.

I really don't care what the classes are called. Change them all or just change the classes with 2's on the end.

 I do think it wise to provide some expandability in the structure though.

---

02 wrx 78 stx

Norm Peterson:

Ummm . . . the entire classing system extends beyond the world of ST* (and has been around for somewhat longer, ST is the new kid on the block).  Just what is it that's broken about the S, ST, P, and M system that people seem to think needs fixing here?  What real benefit might exist?  If there really is something all that useful, maybe it should be shared with (forced upon?) the other categories and all done up at the same time.

One thing to consider that is different about ST is that as the classes go "up", not only do the basic car performance potentials go up, but the allowances for additional mods do too.  In that way, an STS car can add a diff and bigger wheels and play in STX.  Likewise, an STX car can go up in wheel/tire and run in STU.  So the "emphasis" added in each succeeding category name does indicate the further mods.  Not saying that's a deal-breaker, but is something to consider that does make ST different.

--Andy 

I'd argue the same is true of Prepared and Mod classes, and in those cases there's not necessarily a progression of allowances, just different ones.    They seem to make do with alphabetical classing just fine.

Andy Hollis:

47CP:

[

Write those letters.  The ones calling us stupid, corrupt and ignorant don't forward your point as well as others.

I believe the preferred code words are "chuckleheads" and "drunk monkeys". 

--Andy 

 

Typical SEB Meeting?

---

Once you go Mac, you never go back!

MattP:

I think to avoid sounding the same as SP classes (AST and ASP sound almost the same over a radio), we could use the other end of the alphabet.

STU, STV, STW, STX, STY, STZ

I had mentioned this before in another thread, and it seems to be the best option--at least less possibility of confusion for T&S.

The normal class designation method (AST, BST, etc.) should work fine if we could use a single "T" for Street Touring (AT, BT, etc.)

---

Matthew Huizing
1995 Saturn SC2 - H Stock
1993 Geo Storm GSi - STS

So then can an STS2 car add a diff, and bigger wheels and compete in STX?

DSPBMW:

So then can an STS2 car add a diff, and bigger wheels and compete in STX?

No.

---

2002 Mercedes C230k, retired, 2005 Nationals STU DFL

1969 Beach Solo Vee and 1985 Lynx B Solo Vee

Lynn:

DSPBMW:

So then can an STS2 car add a diff, and bigger wheels and compete in STX?

No.

But if there were an ST class for higher performing 2-seaters (e.g. STX2 or STU2 type thing) as has been discussed and is likely to be proposed sometime in the future, you'd naturally expect that to be the case there.

--Andy 

Andy Hollis:

But if there were an ST class for higher performing 2-seaters (e.g. STX2 or STU2 type thing) as has been discussed and is likely to be proposed sometime in the future, you'd naturally expect that to be the case there.

--Andy 

Here we go making yet more uneeded classes.  A ST prepped S2000 can run just fine with the StEvos twins and a ST prepped MX5 can run just fine with a WRX/BMW. 

I think the SEB should intact a rule that if you add a class, you have to take one away.  For example, if you still feel the need to add STX2, you have to dump GP    

 

---

Jason McCall #47 STU
'00 M Roadster - XP (under construction)

McCall:

I think the SEB should intact a rule that if you add a class, you have to take one away.  For example, if you still feel the need to add STX2, you have to dump GP    

 

If the PAC did not have such a politically astute chair, that chain of events would have been likely due to participation trends.  That, and the fact that the current SEB has four Prepared car owners, giving a % representation imbalance to that category.  Logic and politics do not usually agree.  Welcome to the SCCA.

--Andy

Andy Hollis:

McCall:

I think the SEB should intact a rule that if you add a class, you have to take one away.  For example, if you still feel the need to add STX2, you have to dump GP    

 

If the PAC did not have such a politically astute chair, that chain of events would have been likely due to participation trends.  That, and the fact that the current SEB has four Prepared car owners, giving a % representation imbalance to that category.  Logic and politics do not usually agree.  Welcome to the SCCA.

--Andy

Andy,

I am no longer a prepared car owner.  When I look in my garage, I see an unfinished EM car.  :) 

Anyway, I'm not sure what you are getting at with either the GP comment (they will make numbers in 2008) or the bias comment? 

DaveW

 

47CP:

Andy,

I am no longer a prepared car owner.  When I look in my garage, I see an unfinished EM car.  :) 

Anyway, I'm not sure what you are getting at with either the GP comment (they will make numbers in 2008) or the bias comment? 

DaveW

Dave, this is off-topic but I poke fun at GP because that is an example of a class that came out of nowhere and did not have to go the normal route of class creation.  Us in ST classes (STU and now STS2) had to endure years of non-national class status all while having sometimes 40+ entrants but somehow GP got it immediately.  I'm glad to see they will finally "make the numbers" but they should have had to do that first for a few years before it became a national class IMHO.

---

Jason McCall #47 STU
'00 M Roadster - XP (under construction)

McCall:

47CP:

Andy,

I am no longer a prepared car owner.  When I look in my garage, I see an unfinished EM car.  :) 

Anyway, I'm not sure what you are getting at with either the GP comment (they will make numbers in 2008) or the bias comment? 

DaveW

Dave, this is off-topic but I poke fun at GP because that is an example of a class that came out of nowhere and did not have to go the normal route of class creation.  Us in ST classes (STU and now STS2) had to endure years of non-national class status all while having sometimes 40+ entrants but somehow GP got it immediately.  I'm glad to see they will finally "make the numbers" but they should have had to do that first for a few years before it became a national class IMHO.

Well, blame Andy,   I think he was on that SEB. :)

Seriously, you bring a good point.  However, please remember that GP was essentially created at the behest of a former BoD member and the SEB/PAC of the time essentially had to accept the outcome.  IIRC, a proposal for DP, which had an attempt to level the field between modern DP cars and the LBC's and LIC's, was sent for BoD approval and rejected, essentially with a "you can resubmit whatever you want, but this plan (current GP) is all that we will pass."  I wasn't on the PAC or SEB at the time,  nor running in DP, so I likely don't know all the details or have some things wrong, but it was political at the highest levels. 

I suppose if your director has the same affinity for ST as one did for GP, you too could have a instant creation. 

FWIW, I don't think the creation of GP did anyone any favors, especially GP competitors.  The class had hands off status for several years and that almost killed it from indifference.  Only recently has the root problem been able to be addressed with a major proposal for trying to find new cars for the class.  This proposal is staying on the table regardless of attendance numbers.   Only time will tell if that is a base hit, home run or strikeout.  I do think that going forward, GP will (finally) be treated like all the other classes. 

HTH,

DaveW

Not official

 

 

I was on the PAC at the time and the creation of GP is basically as Dave describes it.  The board of directors mandated GPs creation.  Karen Babb describes the situation as the members of GP were "well served" by their board member.

 

And I only count one Prepared car owner on the SEB!

---

Steve Hudson
DP Miata

47CP:

This proposal is staying on the table regardless of attendance numbers. 

That was my point.  By "making a change", GP lives on since the PAC/SEB has "acted" to help participation.  Does anyone really believe that "limited prep" will bring in more cars?  That is essentially yet another prep category in between SP and P and only for a limited number of cars. And why are these cars a better mix than the previous DP cars that were considered "too different"?   I could go on, but that is a horse that has left the barn, so I'll leave it at that.  We can agree to disagree as to whether this is really a viable proposal or not.  I have given up on the GP thing.

I do think that going forward, GP will (finally) be treated like all the other classes. 

I really hope so, but I'm also a political realist.

--Andy

 PS: Thanks for relaying the GP creation story.  Not many people know about that whole deal.  I still bear the scars...

Does adding another class (in ST or any category) increase overall participation or does it just shift current competitors from one class to the new one?  Attendance at Nationals and Tours has not changed significantly in several years.

 

---

Steve Hudson
DP Miata

I have a question.  Since the below quote is listed under Tech Bulletins in the September Fastrack, does that mean it is currently legal to run your FWD/RWD STX car with 9" wheels and 265 tires?

In Aug the first part of the below section, in bold, was proposed to the BoD in the Street Touring minutes and this month it appears to be listed as a rule change under Tech Bulletins.  If this was meant as a clarification to the original proposal shouldn't it have been listed under the Street Touring minutes instead of being listed under Tech Bulletins? 

 

TECH BULLETINS
1. Stock: The following new listings, effective immediately upon publication and recommended by the SAC have been approved
by the SEB:
Chrysler 300M (’99-’04) HS (ref. 08-276)
2. Stock: Add to 12.4 as a new second sentence: “Port-installed options provided by the factory are considered to be the same
as those installed on the factory production line.” Comment: 12.4 allows configurations which could verifiably have been
ordered, whether they actually were or not, to be used in Stock classes. (ref. 08-239)
3. Street Touring: The following correction to a previously-published item has been noted by the STAC: The item which read as
follows:
Change 14.12.4, under STX, to read: “Rim restriction: maximum width of 9 inches, diameter/offset unrestricted. Tire restriction:
max width 265mm for FWD/RWD cars.”
should have read:
Change 14.12.4, under STX, to read: “Rim restriction: maximum width of 8 inches, diameter/offset unrestricted. Tire restriction:
max width 245 mm. For 2WD vehicles (FWD or RWD), these maximums are increased to 9 inches and 265 mm, respectively.”

---

BS RX8

MilesJ:

I have a question.  Since the below quote is listed under Tech Bulletins in the September Fastrack, does that mean it is currently legal to run your FWD/RWD STX car with 9" wheels and 265 tires?

In Aug the first part of the below section, in bold, was proposed to the BoD in the Street Touring minutes and this month it appears to be listed as a rule change under Tech Bulletins.  If this was meant as a clarification to the original proposal shouldn't it have been listed under the Street Touring minutes instead of being listed under Tech Bulletins? 

 

TECH BULLETINS
1. Stock: The following new listings, effective immediately upon publication and recommended by the SAC have been approved
by the SEB:
Chrysler 300M (’99-’04) HS (ref. 08-276)
2. Stock: Add to 12.4 as a new second sentence: “Port-installed options provided by the factory are considered to be the same
as those installed on the factory production line.” Comment: 12.4 allows configurations which could verifiably have been
ordered, whether they actually were or not, to be used in Stock classes. (ref. 08-239)
3. Street Touring: The following correction to a previously-published item has been noted by the STAC: The item which read as
follows:
Change 14.12.4, under STX, to read: “Rim restriction: maximum width of 9 inches, diameter/offset unrestricted. Tire restriction:
max width 265mm for FWD/RWD cars.”
should have read:
Change 14.12.4, under STX, to read: “Rim restriction: maximum width of 8 inches, diameter/offset unrestricted. Tire restriction:
max width 245 mm. For 2WD vehicles (FWD or RWD), these maximums are increased to 9 inches and 265 mm, respectively.”

No.  Read it again. 

Because they are correcting a previously published item you would go back to the previously published item and change the wording.  The previously published item is listed in the street touring miniutes as a proposal so this now changes the proposal from the Aug fastrack and from the aug fastrack

fastrack:

Unless noted otherwise the effective date for all rule, class, and listing change proposals herein is 1/1/2009.

So it still has not been approved and even if it had it would not be a rule until 1/1/09

---

STS2 - 1990 Mazda Miata
Borrowing BS - RX-8

Thanks for the clarification.  I figured it was there to amend the original proposal but it seemed odd to me that it was listed as a Tech Bulletin and not as a revision in the Street Touring minutes. 

---

BS RX8

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/08/08-fastrack-oct-bod.pdf

 

Everything sent to the BOD passed.

 

STX 2WD gets 265mm tires and 9" wheels, unless I am reading that incorrectly.

 

 

---

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