SCCAForums.com

There are no fast DS cars in my region and GS is not all that quick either. By fast I mean can trophy at nationals.

---

David Hedderick
Pearland (Houston), TX
01 CRG YZ125 (FOR SALE! $2500)
08 Mazda 3s
02 Mazda Protege (automatic tow vehicle)
92 Miata SE - Fun half-arsed STS2 Car

ccytrader:

This would be the same BS JCW that goes DSP along with your standard issue GS Mini.  The ones that aren't that rare maybe by production numbers but in NT participation are seriously lacking in representation.  Since in 9 events last year there might have been 4 of them total, all in DSP, its tough to come up with something right off to use as 'leverage' in re-classing.  Funny point though to me is that a regular GS Mini was fast enough to take DSP 4 out of 9 events.

 

It's a bit of a "chicken or the egg" debate.  

 

On the Mini forum I belong to, I know of several JCW owners that backed away from autocrossing with SCCA when they found out what class they'd be in.  They decided to compete with BWMCCA.  So saying that JCW's are "rare" competing in SCCA, there's an answer.  How does that help SCCA?  It doesn't.

 

Why is it a surprise, that car owners do a little research, and ask some question before expending the money to autocross?   For JCW owners who want to be remotely competitive, SCCA isn't the answer for them.  For me, it happens to be the only game in town.

SteveW:

I submitted this some time ago as a way of straightening out some stock classes. It didn't go anywhere but it might add something to discuss as a type of classing structure in this thread:

 http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/188470.aspx

"What would be wrong with just defining what the classes are and letting the chips fall where they may? Example:

DS - FWD and forced induction and/or LSD; RWD four door or coupe version >2.5 <3.5 liter; AWD four door or coupe version >2.5 <3.5 liter or forced induction <2.0 liter

CS - new 2-seater sportscars or GT <2.5 liter

ES - old 2-seater sportscars or GT <2.5 liter; previous generation of current CS model

GS - FWD sport compacts <3.0 liters and no LSD but greater than 6" wheels and or camber adjustment; AWD and RWD NA <2.5

HS - 4-seater sedans/hatchbacks <2.0 liters and 6" or less wheels NOC

FS - 4-door sport sedans and RWD >3.5 liters; 2-door/4-seater coupes >3.5 liters

 

Steve W.

(tired of the never ending classing debates, creator of wacky Stock Category restructure ideas)"

 

This is good stuff Steve.  Where would one place a FWD forced induction car UNDER two litres?  Maybe I'm not reading it right.  (I'm on decongestants, so that's entirely possible.) 

Gromit801:

SteveW:

I submitted this some time ago as a way of straightening out some stock classes. It didn't go anywhere but it might add something to discuss as a type of classing structure in this thread:

 http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/188470.aspx

"What would be wrong with just defining what the classes are and letting the chips fall where they may? Example:

DS - FWD and forced induction and/or LSD; RWD four door or coupe version >2.5 <3.5 liter; AWD four door or coupe version >2.5 <3.5 liter or forced induction <2.0 liter

CS - new 2-seater sportscars or GT <2.5 liter

ES - old 2-seater sportscars or GT <2.5 liter; previous generation of current CS model

GS - FWD sport compacts <3.0 liters and no LSD but greater than 6" wheels and or camber adjustment; AWD and RWD NA <2.5

HS - 4-seater sedans/hatchbacks <2.0 liters and 6" or less wheels NOC

FS - 4-door sport sedans and RWD >3.5 liters; 2-door/4-seater coupes >3.5 liters

 

Steve W.

(tired of the never ending classing debates, creator of wacky Stock Category restructure ideas)"

 

This is good stuff Steve.  Where would one place a FWD forced induction car UNDER two litres?  Maybe I'm not reading it right.  (I'm on decongestants, so that's entirely possible.) 

 Well, in my mind, the MCSs with LSD would go to D because of the LSD while the non-LSD MCSs would be in GS. This puts the Mini in three classes, though. I put this together more as a starting point for discussion as opposed to a "final answer". I'm sure there are some holes in it and I was hoping the general concept of defining a class would take hold in which case, we could fill in the holes with further ideas from discussion.

I have other ideas that I think would equalize performance potential between like car designs and make classing easier but those increase the allowances to the Stock category. Things like camber kits and free swaybars, front AND rear. I don't think calling a category "Stock" in national level competition really works anymore, but that's just me. I understand what the SEB and the ACs are doing and think they do a great job. My only intention here is to try to improve the process, not nit-pick or criticize.

---

Steve W.
ACR SRT-4

SteveW:

Gromit801:

SteveW:

I submitted this some time ago as a way of straightening out some stock classes. It didn't go anywhere but it might add something to discuss as a type of classing structure in this thread:

 http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/188470.aspx

"What would be wrong with just defining what the classes are and letting the chips fall where they may? Example:

DS - FWD and forced induction and/or LSD; RWD four door or coupe version >2.5 <3.5 liter; AWD four door or coupe version >2.5 <3.5 liter or forced induction <2.0 liter

CS - new 2-seater sportscars or GT <2.5 liter

ES - old 2-seater sportscars or GT <2.5 liter; previous generation of current CS model

GS - FWD sport compacts <3.0 liters and no LSD but greater than 6" wheels and or camber adjustment; AWD and RWD NA <2.5

HS - 4-seater sedans/hatchbacks <2.0 liters and 6" or less wheels NOC

FS - 4-door sport sedans and RWD >3.5 liters; 2-door/4-seater coupes >3.5 liters

 

Steve W.

(tired of the never ending classing debates, creator of wacky Stock Category restructure ideas)"

 

This is good stuff Steve.  Where would one place a FWD forced induction car UNDER two litres?  Maybe I'm not reading it right.  (I'm on decongestants, so that's entirely possible.) 

 Well, in my mind, the MCSs with LSD would go to D because of the LSD while the non-LSD MCSs would be in GS. This puts the Mini in three classes, though. I put this together more as a starting point for discussion as opposed to a "final answer". I'm sure there are some holes in it and I was hoping the general concept of defining a class would take hold in which case, we could fill in the holes with further ideas from discussion.

I have other ideas that I think would equalize performance potential between like car designs and make classing easier but those increase the allowances to the Stock category. Things like camber kits and free swaybars, front AND rear. I don't think calling a category "Stock" in national level competition really works anymore, but that's just me. I understand what the SEB and the ACs are doing and think they do a great job. My only intention here is to try to improve the process, not nit-pick or criticize.

 

Well, Minis are already in three classes:  BS, GS, HS.  The question perhaps is if the JCW will continue to be a model set apart from the MCS.

My desire, is for the SEB to stop looking at the Nationals as the be-all and end-all of classification.  It's a MINORITY example. 

Davebs14:

There are no fast DS cars in my region and GS is not all that quick either. By fast I mean can trophy at nationals.

 

Sure.  How about this, you can prove my points and I will prove yours.    Most are looking at that small sample size as to what cars should go where.  Its just like this JCW in BS.  Is it competitive there?  Probably not unless its the only BS car registered.  But since thats where its classed for stock thats as far as people will look to see its competitive advantages/disadvantages.  If you look through KC Region at their local events, you will see GS times from Wilcox that make DS look like its standing still.  At the same time though when you look at Wilcox in an HS Mini, GS looks like its standing still.  GS at Nationals last year saw the top 10 spots at a 1 second spread, tighter than any other class that I looked at.  But again, thats 2 days of the top drivers going at it versus 110 regions putting on an average of say 10 events each per year.  If regions want to get me their event data I would be more than happy to go through and run some analysis on it to see whats going on and look for links.

---

Rob S.
116 FS 2008 Ford Mustang Bullitt

South Carolina Region

Gromit801:

My desire, is for the SEB to stop looking at the Nationals as the be-all and end-all of classification. It's a MINORITY example.

Tours are also considered, not just Nationals.

These are the only sources of seeing how the best drivers do in the best prepped cars. Regional and divisional events reflect too much on driver and not nearly as much on fully-prepared car potential.  Very few regional-only cars are fully prepared.

--Andy

 

Andy Hollis:

Gromit801:

My desire, is for the SEB to stop looking at the Nationals as the be-all and end-all of classification. It's a MINORITY example.

Tours are also considered, not just Nationals.

These are the only sources of seeing how the best drivers do in the best prepped cars. Regional and divisional events reflect too much on driver and not nearly as much on fully-prepared car potential.  Very few regional-only cars are fully prepared.

--Andy

 

 

Well that rather confirms some earlier comments.

 The overwhelming majority of autocrossers in SCCA are essentially ignored.  

A stock category is a stock category.  Aside from some stickier DOT approved tires, there not much more one is allowed to do to their car.  So what has "best prepped" have to do with a stock category?  I can set my car up with great tires, and place Fernando Alonso behind the wheel, but he's not going to win in my class, regionally or nationally, in STOCK form.

Nor are the drivers "entirely prepared" in all cases (speaking entirely for myself!).

Of what value is my NER STX class championship in a JCW Mini last year as a data point?  None!  It happened because the fast drivers and cars fought it out in STS and I only had to defend against folks running a partial season - a slow & steady story that tells nothing about car classing or car performance.  Gromit81 is not running STX because I assume he believes that at the National level a WRX in the hands of an equal driver would have a significant edge over the slightly FWD JCW.

At the regional level if I didn't really understand the local circumstances the results data would appear to be a minefield.  Averaging the anomalies across the country would probably produce a minefield mush, rather than improve the data's usefullness.

I have no quibble with the SEB looking towards the tip of the pyramid to write rules - it does not strike me as elitist, or blindered or anything of the sort.  It seems clear to me that the information needed to class cars can only be reliably obtained from the fastest cars and drivers.  Nationals and Tours seems inevitable.

---

Charlie Thompson
'04 JCW Cooper [STX]
NER Cannon Fodder

Andy Hollis:

Gromit801:

My desire, is for the SEB to stop looking at the Nationals as the be-all and end-all of classification. It's a MINORITY example.

Tours are also considered, not just Nationals.

These are the only sources of seeing how the best drivers do in the best prepped cars. Regional and divisional events reflect too much on driver and not nearly as much on fully-prepared car potential.  Very few regional-only cars are fully prepared.

--Andy

 

 

Wait, that makes almost no sense to me at all.   "Regional and divisional events reflect too much on driver and not nearly as much on fully-prepared car potential."  Now did you mean to say something more like regional and divisional events more on course design and location and not nearly as much on a fully-prepared car?  Because, and please know that I make a living from looking at things that most say do NOT exist, when I see a car classed before its even run at any length at any event that tells me its based somewhat on what the potential of the car could be if prepped to the letter of the rules. 

And keeping with the theme that few regional only cars are prepared to the letter of the rules, it would seem to me that their car/class choices and reasoning would be of great interest to a 'governing' body who's main purpose is to develop a nationwide, not national only, membership base.  So maybe a little more depth than a, just on the surface, should be considered for classing purposes.  The additional info gained from NT events is great, when there were roughly about 2050 total drivers in all NT events last year and only about 1580 different drivers.  Heck on that math and a stab in the dark, I could say that roughly 25% of the cars at NT events were prepped at any length beyond active regional drivers.   

---

Rob S.
116 FS 2008 Ford Mustang Bullitt

South Carolina Region

Andy Hollis:

Gromit801:

My desire, is for the SEB to stop looking at the Nationals as the be-all and end-all of classification. It's a MINORITY example.

Tours are also considered, not just Nationals.

These are the only sources of seeing how the best drivers do in the best prepped cars. Regional and divisional events reflect too much on driver and not nearly as much on fully-prepared car potential.  Very few regional-only cars are fully prepared.

--Andy

 

It seems that one way to work on classing questions is put the classes in question in the came run group at several tours and Nationals (if possible).

So, why not try to schedule DS and GS in the same run group at the next Tours and Nationals (if that's possible)and gather some aples to apples comparison data with Nationally prepped cars and top drivers? Or is there a better way?

And if that shows that the MCS is not competetive with DS, I will be glad to admit I am wrong!

cmt52663:

Nor are the drivers "entirely prepared" in all cases (speaking entirely for myself!).

Of what value is my NER STX class championship in a JCW Mini last year as a data point?  None!  It happened because the fast drivers and cars fought it out in STS and I only had to defend against folks running a partial season - a slow & steady story that tells nothing about car classing or car performance.  Gromit81 is not running STX because I assume he believes that at the National level a WRX in the hands of an equal driver would have a significant edge over the slightly FWD JCW.

At the regional level if I didn't really understand the local circumstances the results data would appear to be a minefield.  Averaging the anomalies across the country would probably produce a minefield mush, rather than improve the data's usefullness.

I have no quibble with the SEB looking towards the tip of the pyramid to write rules - it does not strike me as elitist, or blindered or anything of the sort.  It seems clear to me that the information needed to class cars can only be reliably obtained from the fastest cars and drivers.  Nationals and Tours seems inevitable.

 

You have the JCW class mistaken.  I have to run BS (such an appropriate set of letters).  That would be RX-8's, 350z's as the main runners.  It also includes a variety of Porsche's, Loti, BMW's, and even a couple Ferrari's.  The 2006 JCW is the ONLY FWD car in the whole class, with it's supercharged 1.6 engine. 

SoloRT:

It seems that one way to work on classing questions is put the classes in question in the came run group at several tours and Nationals (if possible).

So, why not try to schedule DS and GS in the same run group at the next Tours and Nationals (if that's possible)and gather some aples to apples comparison data with Nationally prepped cars and top drivers? Or is there a better way?

Have you looked at the Run Order for the 2007 Nationals when the final decision had to be made on the GS->DS MCS question?  DS and GS ran back-to-back on the same course, and did so late in the day when cold weather is less of an issue.  Coincidence?  Not hardly.  Done on purpose by request of the SEB.  And you can't put them in the same heat because both of those classes have too many participants to make it work.

Tours are under the jurisdiction of the national staff, and have more constraints due to larger variation in participation between classes.

Given that this classing decision was put out for comment and reviewed last year means it will not likely be reconsidered for at least another year.  That has been the typical response in the past even when new member letters come in.  That is, unless there is some radical new data discovery.

--Andy

 

No mistake - my car is prepared per STX rules.  Not a "stock JCW".

---

Charlie Thompson
'04 JCW Cooper [STX]
NER Cannon Fodder

If you move the MCS to DS, what happens to GS?  Eric K. has already shown that he can run with the LSD Coopers.  Also, if Shenefield had ran a new Si at nats the year before, we might have been saying how it is in the mix (No offense intended to Ben and Sam in the Civic, you guys beat me).  Would those cars get moved, too?  At this point, who is going to be in the class.  None of the "2nd tier" GS cars are still in production and pretty much all of the old school GS folks have moved on. 

I think the MCS could run with DS, but it is too late.  Why potentially upset the balance of TWO relatively happy classes? 

 

Gromit801:

cmt52663:

Nor are the drivers "entirely prepared" in all cases (speaking entirely for myself!).

Of what value is my NER STX class championship in a JCW Mini last year as a data point?  None!  It happened because the fast drivers and cars fought it out in STS and I only had to defend against folks running a partial season - a slow & steady story that tells nothing about car classing or car performance.  Gromit81 is not running STX because I assume he believes that at the National level a WRX in the hands of an equal driver would have a significant edge over the slightly FWD JCW.

At the regional level if I didn't really understand the local circumstances the results data would appear to be a minefield.  Averaging the anomalies across the country would probably produce a minefield mush, rather than improve the data's usefullness.

I have no quibble with the SEB looking towards the tip of the pyramid to write rules - it does not strike me as elitist, or blindered or anything of the sort.  It seems clear to me that the information needed to class cars can only be reliably obtained from the fastest cars and drivers.  Nationals and Tours seems inevitable.

 

You have the JCW class mistaken.  I have to run BS (such an appropriate set of letters).  That would be RX-8's, 350z's as the main runners.  It also includes a variety of Porsche's, Loti, BMW's, and even a couple Ferrari's.  The 2006 JCW is the ONLY FWD car in the whole class, with it's supercharged 1.6 engine. 

The JCW also falls into STX, which IMO is a much better fit.

---

Steve Rife
ETRSCCA

Patrick Washburn:

Jojoo:

[

Stop governing SOLO by waiting for letters. The classing shows it doesn't work. 

No flames...just a question.  I'm not so much interested in your classing proposals any more.  I would like to hear how you think SCCA Solo rules and classing *should* be governed.  Kindly be specific.

Here's how I see it now:  You, the member, are allowed free access to the board and the sub-committee's.  You are allowed to relay any opinion you like, in any way you like, with as many or as few facts as you see fit.  Whether you choose to beleive it or not, the letters are logged, distributed, read, and considered.  Classing decision are made for the National rule set, therefore it's natural that a classing requests like "In my local region, I get thumped all the time by a GS Cooper, therefore I think my AS Corvette should be moved to ES" tend to not influence the decisions regarding National classes.  Is that what you mean by "ignoring"?  So, if a member does not succeed in getting Corvette's moved to ES, he was ignored?  Free and equal access does not mean everyone will get what they want.  If you didn't get a personal phone call from the SEB explaining why they classed something, it doesn't mean there isn't a reason.  Are there mistakes in classing?  Probably, but wouldn't you agree that this is as good a vehicle as any to affect some change?

Not trying to be a smart ass...I truly want to know what you think.  Maybe your making a good point about how things should be done?  I don't know, but until you throw out an alternative I have no idea what you mean.

 

 

First, sorry I came in here bitching and whining without adding any ideas behind my rambling BS.

You're not being a smartass at all.

Member input would remain. That is one thing the SCCA and SEB has done right. That's a great thing.

But solely relying on member input alone is putting classing behind the eight ball not to mention the rules. Many people agree with things in need of change but don't write letters. It puts every member in a position of having to write a letter for every single situation they feel isn't right. Making them have to study every situation in it's entirerty so they can write a letter. Very few members would actually do this.

I haven't seen the letters myself but I'm willing to bet most if not almost all the letters are pertaining to the class the person is in that wrote the letter. So many cars simply get ignored.

I feel the SEB should be a permanent position and a paid one. I know some people will hate that but it's the same as having the members have a horse in the race.

But this way the classing and rules are evaluated more than once or constantly. Preventing cars that are misplaced from gathering dust because they are wrongly classed. This would not mean cars will be moved all the time. Once an order is put in, it mostly stays that way.

Hope that makes clear what I was going on about earlier.
 

Gromit801:

[Well that rather confirms some earlier comments.

 The overwhelming majority of autocrossers in SCCA are essentially ignored.  

A stock category is a stock category.  Aside from some stickier DOT approved tires, there not much more one is allowed to do to their car.  So what has "best prepped" have to do with a stock category?  I can set my car up with great tires, and place Fernando Alonso behind the wheel, but he's not going to win in my class, regionally or nationally, in STOCK form.

I don't think anyone is being ignored.  How else are you going to know what a cars full potential is except to gather up the best drivers in the best cars from around the country to find out?  You want to do that locally?  Go to 8 different regions and you will have 8 different classings based on what's going on in that region that day.  I don't understand why this concept doesn't fly with you, and I'm not sure why that offends you other than you feel your car is not properly classed.

What does best prepped have to do with stock?  Lots.  Shocks, sway bar, alignment, wheels/tires...   You can't pretend you don't know these things make a huge difference on most cars.  The part that most don't seem to get is that you can go ahead and shuffle everything up...base classing on prep points, car color, or on local popularity contests...whatever.  You are still going to end up with a few cars at the top of each class.  The winners will rise to the top.  Always do.  We'll be right here again talking about the same thing, but with different cars being mentioned. 

I look at the driver thing the other way around.  Slap some R's on an otherwise unprepped car and hand it over to Sammy, Daddio, or [insert favorite multi-time National Champ here] and locally/regionally your going to see that car win.  You may have a beef with where your car got classed, but I don't think it's fair to say everyone's being ignored and everythings F'd up because your not happy. Sorry, but that's how I see your arguments.

---

Patrick Washburn
STU Evo - SOLD!
<----- 2009 - Regain the coveted Tri Pod Trophy for the Hiedi's