Go to previous topic
Go to next topic
Last Post 21 Dec 2017 01:29 PM by  snakebit8
Move E36 M3 to STX?
 115 Replies
Author Messages
Hank
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
20 Sep 2010 08:09 PM

    Since a ST car won STX this year, maybe it's time to consider moving the E36 M3 to STX? Didn't the ST car prove that the leading STX cars are too slow?

    RobertoC
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:49


    --
    20 Sep 2010 08:55 PM

    I think that the thinking process to state than "STX cars are slow" and “including the M3 on STX will fix it” has a flaw.

    First, if the only criteria used to make the statement that “the STX cars are too slow” is the 2010 National results of STX. 1 event is not enough data.

    Second, if it really was a problem, moving the M3 from STU (where it finished 22nd) to STX will not resolve it.

    (Using the same criteria) “Based on the same 2010 STU best M3 times”, the top 2 M3 would have finished in 21st and 31st positions on STX. That won't solve the (questionable) issue.

    Maybe the Civic that won STX was not on complete ST trim and used some STX allowances, or maybe Andy really drove better than the competition ;)

    Hank
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    20 Sep 2010 09:05 PM

    Andy has stated that his car was ST legal. I doubt that anyone would argue that the fastest M3s (no insult intended to those that did compete) were there. Most M3s, including mine, stayed home because they have no chance in the current STU class. My thinking is that a STU M3 is only marginally faster than the current crop of 325/328 cars in STX.

    The argument against moving the M3 in the past was that it was too fast for the class. Isn't is possible that the leading STX cars are "too slow for the class"? Having a ST legal car win STX suggests that this might be the case.

    redwhale240
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:310


    --
    20 Sep 2010 09:50 PM
    Hank wrote:

    Andy has stated that his car was ST legal. I doubt that anyone would argue that the fastest M3s (no insult intended to those that did compete) were there. Most M3s, including mine, stayed home because they have no chance in the current STU class. My thinking is that a STU M3 is only marginally faster than the current crop of 325/328 cars in STX.

    The argument against moving the M3 in the past was that it was too fast for the class. Isn't is possible that the leading STX cars are "too slow for the class"? Having a ST legal car win STX suggests that this might be the case.

    You just answered your own question. You didn't compete so you have no data to back up the statement that you could be marginally faster than the 325/328 unless your talking local but then you would need an apple to apple comparison between 100% prepped cars. And would you think it's a wise choice for them to move the car into STX to go marginally faster for buying and prepping a car the cost more in on all fronts?

    Butt Dyno
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:414


    --
    21 Sep 2010 04:53 AM
    Hank wrote:

    I doubt that anyone would argue that the fastest M3s (no insult intended to those that did compete) were there. Most M3s, including mine, stayed home because they have no chance in the current STU class.

    How many full bore STU E36 M3s have we seen at Lincoln in the two years nationals has been there?

    IanF
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:140


    --
    21 Sep 2010 05:57 AM
    In Philly we have a well prepped STU E36 M3 (pretty much a dedicated auto-x car). The owner wasn't sure if it was him or the car that wasn't competitive, so he had a VERY competitive STU driver (who ran a STU now BSP Evo 8) in our region do some runs in the car. Even that driver was not able to put up significantly faster times and was still not competitive at all against prepped and reasonably well driven Evos.
    AutoX Z
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:231


    --
    21 Sep 2010 06:22 AM
    I think the more logical answer would be to propose a rule change that carse elidgeble for ST and not permitted to run in other classes. The same would go for cars in STX not running in STU and so on. The problem with moving the M3 is that it is faster than all the other 325's and 328's. It would instantly render all of those cars non-competative and destroy the class. For now just accept that any 2wd car in STU is not going to be able to get it done and wait for the re-org to come.
    IntrigueGX
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:997


    --
    21 Sep 2010 06:35 AM

    STX just continues to be proved to be a mostly irrelevant class. I have changed my mind, the e36 M3s should not remain excluded from STX. They might seem to make some other STX cars irrelevant. They might also be 100 lbs heavier than a 325/328. The E30 and E36 M3s might be competitive with the ST Civics. A good argument could be made that some of the other specifically excluded cars would fit well with these too.

    I don't want to buy an overpriced 1980's car with a lack of safety features just to be competitive at autocrossing.

    Hank
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    21 Sep 2010 06:36 AM
    redwhale240 wrote:
    Hank wrote:

    Andy has stated that his car was ST legal. I doubt that anyone would argue that the fastest M3s (no insult intended to those that did compete) were there. Most M3s, including mine, stayed home because they have no chance in the current STU class. My thinking is that a STU M3 is only marginally faster than the current crop of 325/328 cars in STX.

    The argument against moving the M3 in the past was that it was too fast for the class. Isn't is possible that the leading STX cars are "too slow for the class"? Having a ST legal car win STX suggests that this might be the case.

    You just answered your own question. You didn't compete so you have no data to back up the statement that you could be marginally faster than the 325/328 unless your talking local but then you would need an apple to apple comparison between 100% prepped cars. And would you think it's a wise choice for them to move the car into STX to go marginally faster for buying and prepping a car the cost more in on all fronts?

    There is plenty of data that supports my assertion that the M3 is marginally faster. You can look at some of the national tour results from the last couple of years to see that. Look at the Finger Lakes NT this year where I did compete. I agreed with keeping the M3 out of STX to protect the 325/328 until I saw that an ST car won STX.

    Chiketkd
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    21 Sep 2010 06:39 AM

    AutoX Z wrote:
    I think the more logical answer would be to propose a rule change that carse elidgeble for ST and not permitted to run in other classes. The same would go for cars in STX not running in STU and so on. The problem with moving the M3 is that it is faster than all the other 325's and 328's. It would instantly render all of those cars non-competative and destroy the class. For now just accept that any 2wd car in STU is not going to be able to get it done and wait for the re-org to come.

    +1 On everything he said.

    Honestly, the bottom line is that we need more ST classes. These classes are all well-subscribed and are definitely resonating well with the membership. Personally, I'd like to see another provisional ST* class created to slot in between STX and STU in the re-org, with the target cars being the E36 M3 and 2.5L WRX (note the 2.5L WRXs have open front and rear diffs and are not competitive against the STI and Evo's in STU). Depending on how the class develops, STU also-rans could be added or any STX overdogs (if any become apparent as the class continues to develop).

    splash
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:960


    --
    21 Sep 2010 06:59 AM
    IMO, I wouldn't expect ANY sort of changes regarding what cars go where until the re-org happens and goes into effect for 2012... (unless we actually spend more than a year arguing about it, in which case, 2013...)
    talon95
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1924


    --
    21 Sep 2010 07:37 AM
    Chiketkd wrote:

    Honestly, the bottom line is that we need more ST classes. These classes are all well-subscribed and are definitely resonating well with the membership. Personally, I'd like to see another provisional ST* class created to slot in between STX and STU in the re-org, with the target cars being the E36 M3 and 2.5L WRX (note the 2.5L WRXs have open front and rear diffs and are not competitive against the STI and Evo's in STU). Depending on how the class develops, STU also-rans could be added or any STX overdogs (if any become apparent as the class continues to develop).

    Makes the most sense to me to include all the cars that are in Stock and SP. It's quickly becoming the most popular category in Solo.

    Dave G.

    mwood
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2279


    --
    21 Sep 2010 08:07 AM

    AutoX Z wrote:
    I think the more logical answer would be to propose a rule change that carse elidgeble for ST and not permitted to run in other classes. The same would go for cars in STX not running in STU and so on. The problem with moving the M3 is that it is faster than all the other 325's and 328's. It would instantly render all of those cars non-competative and destroy the class. For now just accept that any 2wd car in STU is not going to be able to get it done and wait for the re-org to come.

    +2

    Further, AWD, whether on R comps or ST, can't be reconciled into a 2WD "skill set". Sure, you can find 2WD cars to run with the Evo or other AWD cars...with unacceptable amount of dependency on course and conditions. I hope the ST reorg does what the SPAC/SEB has been unwilling to do and carve out AWD as standalone. Anything else is a kluge.

    splash
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:960


    --
    21 Sep 2010 08:25 AM

    Are you suggesting a single AWD class to encompass everything from an Impreza RS to an EVO? Or do you want a separate set of AWD classes to go along with the set of 2WD classes?


    IntrigueGX
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:997


    --
    21 Sep 2010 08:42 AM

    mwood wrote:
    Further, AWD, whether on R comps or ST, can't be reconciled into a 2WD "skill set". Sure, you can find 2WD cars to run with the Evo or other AWD cars...with unacceptable amount of dependency on course and conditions. I hope the ST reorg does what the SPAC/SEB has been unwilling to do and carve out AWD as standalone. Anything else is a kluge.

    Yet the 2.5RS is an also ran in ST. It doesn't seem like AWD and turbo helps the WRX all that much either. 

    AutoX Z wrote:
    I think the more logical answer would be to propose a rule change that carse elidgeble for ST and not permitted to run in other classes. The same would go for cars in STX not running in STU and so on. The problem with moving the M3 is that it is faster than all the other 325's and 328's. It would instantly render all of those cars non-competative...

    They already all are non-competitive. STX is faster than ST, just the fastest cars (Civics) are never prepped for it. The existing ST/STX structure makes the Civic dominate in both classes. It makes less sense to ban the Civics from the faster class than it does to ban them from slower one. It is just silly to not allow the E36 M3 in STX. It fully meets all the other requirements for the class and has only shown to be slower than the ST Civics (not a real STX Civic which has yet to be developed fully.)

    cbailey
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:206


    --
    21 Sep 2010 09:39 AM

    I find it marginally amusing when several people who don't run STX come out and say "STX is too slow" when they really mean, "I am driving too slow for STU but might feel better going slow in STX."

    Seriously, if you think the M3 is "marginally faster" than STX cars, then you answered your own question about why it shouldn't be moved since you would immediately disenfranchise a large number of car owners. The premise that another class' speed has anything to do with needing to make STX faster is absurd. And your self-serving conclusion doesn't serve the already large STX class, just M3 owners.

    STX was the third largest class at Nationals this year, and the largest ST* class. There were a large number of BMW's which would be displaced by a smaller number of more expensive M3's. Not broken; do not fix.

    Mooobunnny
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:170


    --
    21 Sep 2010 09:47 AM
    cbailey wrote:

    I find it marginally amusing when several people who don't run STX come out and say "STX is too slow" when they really mean, "I am driving too slow for STU but might feel better going slow in STX."

    Seriously, if you think the M3 is "marginally faster" than STX cars, then you answered your own question about why it shouldn't be moved since you would immediately disenfranchise a large number of car owners. The premise that another class' speed has anything to do with needing to make STX faster is absurd. And your self-serving conclusion doesn't serve the already large STX class, just M3 owners.

    STX was the third largest class at Nationals this year, and the largest ST* class. There were a large number of BMW's which would be displaced by a smaller number of more expensive M3's. Not broken; do not fix.

    Very well said Chris!

    The E36 M3 will NOT be moved to STX in my opinion.

    Nationals this year was not typical for several reasons. The 325's and 328's can outrun the civics. You cannot use one event as a benchmark. The ST cars are, in general, better prepped than the STX cars and have had more development time.

    Chiketkd
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    21 Sep 2010 10:16 AM

    cbailey wrote:
    STX was the third largest class at Nationals this year, and the largest ST* class. There were a large number of BMW's which would be displaced by a smaller number of more expensive M3's. Not broken; do not fix.

    Agree 100%. Why fix a class that's working so well? And the reason why classes like STX (and STR) are so well subscribed is b/c there's no clear overdog. Whether you have a BMW (E30/E36/E46), RX8, WRX or even an ST civic you have a shot at being on the top spot with some good driving. Heck, many haven't expected you to do as well as you have in an RSX Chris. I also feel a well-driven turbo mini has a solid shot at being in the trophies (and I'm sure there are many cars I'm leaving off -- 5.0 Mustang, Cobalt SS turbo...)

    Hank
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    21 Sep 2010 10:49 AM
    cbailey wrote:

    I find it marginally amusing when several people who don't run STX come out and say "STX is too slow" when they really mean, "I am driving too slow for STU but might feel better going slow in STX."

    This is just flame bait and I should resist, but... You might have no idea who I am and to assume that "I am driving too slow for STU" is ridiculous. I understand that drivers in STX will come to the defense of cars in that class, but your assumptions are just silly.

    sjrife
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:521


    --
    21 Sep 2010 11:03 AM
    Hank wrote:

    This is just flame bait. You might have no idea who I am, but to assume that "I am driving too slow for STU" is ridiculous. I understand that drivers in STX will come to the defense of cars in that class, but your assumptions are just silly.

    ....but you posted...

    [quote]Most M3s, including mine, stayed home because they have no chance in the current STU class.

    Hank
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    21 Sep 2010 11:07 AM
    Do the STX competitors believe that an ST car won this year because of a course dependency?
    sjrife
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:521


    --
    21 Sep 2010 11:11 AM

    Hank wrote:
    Do the STX competitors believe that an ST car won this year because of a course dependency?

    I was an STX driver, albeit a very slow one. I believe that Mr. Hollis was the best driver those two days and that a few of the BMW drivers could have won if they were on their A+ game.

    Dave OH
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:105


    --
    21 Sep 2010 11:12 AM

    Meh. I think the STU M3's need to at least come CLOSE to matching STX 325/328 times before they can actually complain about their cars being outgunned in STU.

    Fastest STU BMW... 3.1s slower than fastest STX BMW...


    Hank
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    21 Sep 2010 11:17 AM
    Dave OH wrote:

    Meh. I think the STU M3's need to at least come CLOSE to matching STX 325/328 times before they can actually complain about their cars being outgunned in STU.

    Fastest STU BMW... 3.1s slower than fastest STX BMW...


    The fastest STU M3 drivers stayed home, or decided to drive something else. Check the results of STU for the past couple of years and you will see why.

    Shinny
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    21 Sep 2010 11:36 AM
    This seems to be a circular argument. There will always be a car that's perfect for a class. At nationals where everyone is driving on that edge it comes down to the car. Just because the car you picked isn't fastest doesn't mean it should be moved to another class. If you can't buy the most competitive car that's what co-drivings for. Drive yours locally and HAVE FUN with it. The attitude about nationals is why I'm going to set my CRX to run both auto and rally x instead of being nationally competitive
    Shinny
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    21 Sep 2010 11:36 AM

    Dave OH
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:105


    --
    21 Sep 2010 11:38 AM

    Hank wrote:
    Dave OH wrote:

    Meh. I think the STU M3's need to at least come CLOSE to matching STX 325/328 times before they can actually complain about their cars being outgunned in STU.

    Fastest STU BMW... 3.1s slower than fastest STX BMW...


    The fastest STU M3 drivers stayed home, or decided to drive something else. Check the results of STU for the past couple of years and you will see why.

    Like 2009? Where Bryce was faster in the 328 than the fastest STU M3, or 2008? Where Chris Conant in his E30 M3 was ~even with the fastest STU M3?

    jhunter
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    21 Sep 2010 11:57 AM
    Hank wrote:

    Since a ST car won STX this year, maybe it's time to consider moving the E36 M3 to STX? Didn't the ST car prove that the leading STX cars are too slow?

    What about the rest of STU, since a STS CRX raw timed them on the east course, and would have been 5th overall? Heck the STS Miata (not even fully developed) would have been 4th overall in STU, and would have won STX and ST. STU and STX are supposed to be faster then STS, right?

    Your logic is flawed. We all understand that an E36 M3 is probably not going to win STU. Honestly, I think the ST civics should not be allowed to bump up into STX, where they could have a possible advantage. The classes aren't about which is faster. It is more about a type of car. A fully prepped E36 M3 WILL be faster then a fully prepped E36 325/328. No ifs, ands, or buts. It will be an overdog to the rest of the class.

    Hank
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    21 Sep 2010 01:15 PM
    Dave OH wrote:

    Hank wrote:
    Dave OH wrote:

    Meh. I think the STU M3's need to at least come CLOSE to matching STX 325/328 times before they can actually complain about their cars being outgunned in STU.

    Fastest STU BMW... 3.1s slower than fastest STX BMW...


    The fastest STU M3 drivers stayed home, or decided to drive something else. Check the results of STU for the past couple of years and you will see why.

    Like 2009? Where Bryce was faster in the 328 than the fastest STU M3, or 2008? Where Chris Conant in his E30 M3 was ~even with the fastest STU M3?

    You have to look further back. Most of the nationally competitive M3's stopped going after 2007.

    Hank
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    21 Sep 2010 01:26 PM

    jhunter wrote:

    A fully prepped E36 M3 WILL be faster then a fully prepped E36 325/328. No ifs, ands, or buts. It will be an overdog to the rest of the class.

    I question if the E36 M3 would be an overdog. I expect that the RX8 will continue to improve and that it is just a matter of time until the 325/328 is not competitive.

    One of the following should be true:

    1. The ST cars should be prevented from running in STX if they are going to be faster.

    2. Faster cars should be allowed into STX to keep it ahead of ST.

    I have NO INTEREST in turning STX into a spec-M3 class. However, I would like to see a ST* class where the M3 has A CHANCE to compete. There are a lot of M3's out there just waiting for the SCCA to class it properly. IMO, STX seems like it might be a good fit.

    If a ST reorg is coming, it can't come fast enough.

    splash
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:960


    --
    21 Sep 2010 01:28 PM

    So now your logic is that we haven't seen M3's for 3 years, their drivers either stay home or drive something else, and we're supposed to upset the applecart of a very successful class to make whomever is left happy?

    Does that about sum it up?

    I know a way to make STX faster than ST... Move the EVO and STi there... (and even that won't work 100% of the time)

    cbailey
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:206


    --
    21 Sep 2010 01:33 PM
    Hank wrote:
    cbailey wrote:

    I find it marginally amusing when several people who don't run STX come out and say "STX is too slow" when they really mean, "I am driving too slow for STU but might feel better going slow in STX."

    This is just flame bait and I should resist, but... You might have no idea who I am and to assume that "I am driving too slow for STU" is ridiculous. I understand that drivers in STX will come to the defense of cars in that class, but your assumptions are just silly.

    Well, if you can muster the courage to skip over the part where I insult you by making gross hyperbolic assumptions about your self-centered intentions, you'll see that I am actually making an argument concerning the popularity of the STX class as it sits and why it doesn't make sense to add any faster cars at present.

    I'll rephrase my previous post so as to engender less hostility and more clearly communicate my point:

    You, Hank, are an amazing driver and person. I wish that all STX drivers were as intelligent and refined as you. If so, we would likely have chosen M3's, too! [:D] However, STX is overwhelmingly popular in it's current form, and as such I feel that it would behoove the SCCA to strongly consider leaving the class alone and simply using a restricted list of allowed vehicles similar to STR to foster the diverse competition that STX currently allows, including several forms of BMW that would immediately be outclassed by the M3. I urge you, Hank, to reconsider your well-founded opinion and consider how many people might be made unhappy or negatively affected financially were we to support your request regarding the M3. Thanks for considering the rest of us, and drive fast!

    The Nebulizer
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1819


    --
    21 Sep 2010 01:42 PM

    I think it is clear that now is not the time for a move to STX. But, I anticipate we will see some new classing for the M3s in the reorg proposal that achieve an equally satisfying solution - a class essentially between STX and STU.

    a few points:

    - the best M3 drivers were not at nationals (and for a reason). I was the 27th place STU driver in the e46 M3 (the fastest e46 M3 ever in STU [:P] ). I am pretty good and had good runs, but I'd guess just outside of trophy material had I driven as well in a STi/Evo. The best estimates from owners of both put e46 M3 about 1.5sec slower (at national length course) than the Evo/STi in back to back testing - greatly depending on course and weather (which only make things worse - never better).

    - many top drivers were prepping M3s a couple years ago and abandoned the projects when it became clear the M3 could not get it done in STU. I know of several top level drivers (I assume better than me) that are now in other vehicles/classes (Mayfield, Fair, Pomeranke, Pounds, Bear, Irish, Orgeron to name a few). And, others I don't know like the OP of this thread (and a guy in SD I have heard of) that are simply staying home. I think the numbers are there if the class existed. The M3 is too much fun to be classed out of competition.

    - despite what was posted above, the 22nd place e36 M3 was fully prepped. It was the same car that got a lower trophy in 2009 for STU with M. Bear driving. It is a team owned vehicle that has had extensive testing. I am not familiar with the drivers, but I believe the higher finishing co-driver was pretty solid (i.e. trophy threat had he been in a STi/Evo). And, my e46 M3 is as well prepped as any in the country (only needs lighter seats, no sunroof, and a driver that can tune it better than just copying everyone else).

    - there is general agreement in the BMW world from what I have read that the e36 M3 is if anything the better STU prepped M3 due to lower weight and size compared to the e46 M3. (I mention this as so far only e36 M3 has been discussed and I think any classing should include both e36 and e46 M3s). I am also not sure the e90/e92 M3 will be any faster as it is even heavier still and has more unusable power. I don't currently fear the e90/e92 M3 in ST trim (but I have no actual experience - just speculating).

    STX is a very healthy class nationally. I believe the 2nd largest class. No need to make any changes to this class and certainly not right before a reorg is coming. The better option in my opinion is to lock down classes (ST eligible cars can't run STX etc. - in other words, make ST* inclusion classes) and create a class between current STX and STU where cars like the e36&e46 M3s, Mazdaspeed3, S4, IS350, 300zx, 350z, 370Z, G37, SRT4, C4, SRT6, Camaro 5.7, V8 mustang, GT500, 2003+ supercharged Cobra, XKR, IS-F, Espirit, turbo RX-7, Mercedes Benz C32 & C63 AMG, CLK55, SLK32 AMG (2002-04), SLK350, SLK55, Mini JCW, Firebird, trans am, GTO, supra, s60R, etc. can go. I am anticipating something similar to both of these options will be detailed very shortly in the reorganization proposal.

    I think the interest is there if the STAC decide to make an STX/STU tween class. There are other cars currently unclassed and the M3s are getting downright cheap. And, there are a lot of people waiting and hoping for the M3 to be well classed. The M3 is so much fun to drive (and challenging), I hope it has a good place to play in the future in ST*.

    Hank
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    21 Sep 2010 03:34 PM

    I will skip over Chris' post because it is clear that he just wishes to turn this into mud-slinging...

    The original question was based on the fact that a ST-prepped car won STX. If ST-prepped cars are capable AND ALLOWED to run in STX, something needs to change. Having a dog in the fight (actually a dog waiting to fight), I asked if it is the right time to consider adding the E36 M3 to STX in an attempt to get STX faster than ST. I didn't want to turn this into a "STU is broken" discussion. We have beat that dead horse.

    I wonder how many of the STX drivers-that-I-pisssed-off with this question would also be upset if a group of the ST drivers decided to run in STX all next year?!

    rp1
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:219


    --
    21 Sep 2010 03:47 PM
    Hank wrote:

    Most M3s, including mine, stayed home because they have no chance in the current STU class. My thinking is that a STU M3 is only marginally faster than the current crop of 325/328 cars in STX.

    Put Neal in his car in STU and you'll see that with a good driver, a 325is could place well in STU. If an M3 is "marginally" faster, then by this deduction, an M3 should do relatively well Nationally in STU, if not outright be able to keep up and win against the boost buggies.

    At Blytheville, Eric Sienkiewicz would have placed 2nd in STU in a 325is

    At San Diego, Derek Punch would have placed 4th (T) in STU (and less than 5 hundredths back from 2nd place)

    At Texas, Jerry Irvine would have placed 4th (T) in STU (and that was on a pretty long set of courses by the look of the times)

    At Dixue, Eric Sienkiewicz would have won STU outright by over a second

    At Nationals Hollis would have gotten 4th in STU in an ST car and Neal Tovsen would have gotten 7th

    The M3 belongs in STU despite no-one has won or has done well in one Nationally in the last two years (besides Tin Bui in SD). I believe it will be overclassed in anything between STX and STU. Let's be honest, most people do not want to race around getting their butts kicked for 11 months just to have a shot on concrete at Blytheville, Peru and Lincoln. I know I wouldn't. It's just a shame that at the one place the E36 M3s do have a shot, all the really well prepared cars didn't show up.

    Do you want to class the car by Nationals results, National Tour results or regular season results?

    mwood
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2279


    --
    21 Sep 2010 05:48 PM
    splash wrote:

    Are you suggesting a single AWD class to encompass everything from an Impreza RS to an EVO? Or do you want a separate set of AWD classes to go along with the set of 2WD classes?


    Two: STA-1 (Evo, STi) and STA-2 (everything else). How's that sound?

    cbailey
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:206


    --
    21 Sep 2010 06:19 PM
    Hank wrote:

    I will skip over Chris' post because it is clear that he just wishes to turn this into mud-slinging...

    The original question was based on the fact that a ST-prepped car won STX. If ST-prepped cars are capable AND ALLOWED to run in STX, something needs to change. Having a dog in the fight (actually a dog waiting to fight), I asked if it is the right time to consider adding the E36 M3 to STX in an attempt to get STX faster than ST. I didn't want to turn this into a "STU is broken" discussion. We have beat that dead horse.

    I wonder how many of the STX drivers-that-I-pisssed-off with this question would also be upset if a group of the ST drivers decided to run in STX all next year?!

    Civics ran in STX all this year and last year at least. How would you feel if they ran STU and crushed all the M3's running there? That's why rulesmakers are already discussing options. (None of which involve the M3 in STX which is probably not the best available option.)

    Also, yes, an ST-prepped Civic won STX, but an STX-prepped Civic (8-inch wheels!) only took 3rd. Maybe we should assume that STX mods make cars slower?

    Sarcasm aside, I'd actually agree the M3 is overclassed in STU, and I would not oppose it having a competitive place to play if something akin to Jason's proposal were brought up. He's clearly put a fair amount of thought into some possibilities which would be worth considering.

    redwhale240
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:310


    --
    21 Sep 2010 06:46 PM

    Hank wrote:

    I would like to see a ST* class where the M3 has A CHANCE to compete.

    I was waiting for that to come out. This is purely an I Class debate, and because you have an M3 doesn't mean the car should be shuffled.

    splash
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:960


    --
    21 Sep 2010 08:55 PM
    mwood wrote:

    Two: STA-1 (Evo, STi) and STA-2 (everything else). How's that sound?

    Like you've at least given it some thought...

    Though, using the same logic, you could likely have STF-1 (Civic) and STF-2 (everything else FWD), then STR-1 (M3 and RX8) and STR-2 (everything else RWD)



    justint5387
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:176


    --
    21 Sep 2010 09:05 PM

    I was working when STU ran at the 2010 nationals. None of the M3s were well driven, I can see seconds being gain with a top level driver.

    Didn't the E36 finish higher than RX8 when they both were in STU?

    Butt Dyno
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:414


    --
    21 Sep 2010 09:28 PM
    Hank wrote:
    cbailey wrote:

    I find it marginally amusing when several people who don't run STX come out and say "STX is too slow" when they really mean, "I am driving too slow for STU but might feel better going slow in STX."

    This is just flame bait and I should resist, but... You might have no idea who I am and to assume that "I am driving too slow for STU" is ridiculous. I understand that drivers in STX will come to the defense of cars in that class, but your assumptions are just silly.

    http://www.scca.com/documents/resul...esults.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.scca.com/documents/resul...esults.pdf

    http://www.scca.com/documents/resul...esults.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.scca.com/documents/resul...esults.pdf">Day 2 was dry for everyone, right?

    Hank
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    21 Sep 2010 09:49 PM
    Butt Dyno wrote:
    Hank wrote:
    cbailey wrote:

    I find it marginally amusing when several people who don't run STX come out and say "STX is too slow" when they really mean, "I am driving too slow for STU but might feel better going slow in STX."

    This is just flame bait and I should resist, but... You might have no idea who I am and to assume that "I am driving too slow for STU" is ridiculous. I understand that drivers in STX will come to the defense of cars in that class, but your assumptions are just silly.

    http://www.scca.com/documents/resul...esults.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.scca.com/documents/resul...esults.pdf

    http://www.scca.com/documents/resul...esults.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.scca.com/documents/resul...esults.pdf" mce_href="http://www.scca.com/documents/resul...esults.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.scca.com/documents/resul...esults.pdf">Day 2 was dry for everyone, right?

    Yes, it was dry.

    StreetTireStock
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    22 Sep 2010 06:30 AM

    I'll throw this argument into the thread--

    If ST is supposed to be the "base" class and the "slowest", and currently the Civic in ST trim driven by huge talent can do well or win in all of the other upper ST* classes, then I don't see how banning the base/slowest class car is helpful. While I do agree that like what is being tested with STR is having cars only being slotted into specific classes and not being able to jump classes is good for competition (but not if you have multiple codrivers that need a place to play).

    If the base car/class is so fast, then I would automatically think that we are not being given enough allowances in the "faster" classes to actually make the times faster. I have no doubt in my mind that if Andy would have driven my car in STX that he would have gone faster than me, but not faster than his or any other Civic. I know there is a super-thread on Bimmerforums that the AWD cars should have even less tire/wheel than they currently have and the 2WD cars should get even more tire/wheel (specifically regarding STU), but what does that matter when you're getting beaten raw by a 2WD Civic on 225's...or heck 195's?

    Unless it's a talent issue in STX and STU (which I do not think it's a problem, both classes had excellent drivers even if Andy had run ST), I say make STX and STU faster to match or surpass the base times of ST and STS if the intent of the heirarchy of classes was to be Base-Faster-Fastest. If not, lump us all together in one class and let us duke it out :)

    Andy Hollis
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:6197


    --
    22 Sep 2010 07:00 AM

    Just a couple of comments, since my name is getting tossed about here.

    1) One data point is not enough to draw any rational conclusions. It might be enough to get your attention, but further research is always needed.

    2) Nats is a VERY unusual data point, in general. The huge amount of OPR on the racing surface changes lots of relative performance benchmarks. And different tires react differently to it than they do on a clean surface. Also, the way various people react to the pressures of running for a jacket vary widely.

    3) The east course this year had several high risk areas, where significant time could be gained, but with little margin for error. Not everyone took maximum advantage of those areas, and many did but were rewarded with cones.

    4) Neal is a fantastic driver, and coned away a run that was faster than mine on the east course (see #3). But Neal is also on record on other forums as saying that he's been a bit "off" this year, including Nats. Still, his east course scratch time does make a case for course dependency.

    5) IMO, STX has not shown well at Nats since Fenter left the class. Put him back, in the same car, and I believe things change substantially.

    6) It is no secret that the upcoming re-org proposal is based on subjective classing, rather than the formula-based setup we have now. STR was built this way from day one. So there will be no more up-classing. Problem solved.

    7) And just to reign in expectations, while the term "re-org" is being bandied about, expect less change in car classings rather than more. Once the subjective structure is in place, it can certainly be tweaked going forward based on real data.

    --Andy "not official, just one guy on a committee, yada, yada..."

    jhunter
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    22 Sep 2010 07:03 AM

    I keep seeing this ST is base, and all the others "should" be faster. Who says? They are simply different classes, for different cars to play in. Being in a "higher" class, does not mean you are in a faster one. Look at ASP vs CSP this year. Winning time in CSP was around 3 seconds faster.

    The allowances should be pretty much the same across the board for all of the ST classes. STX and STU are already allowed to have LSDs. What else should they be given?

    Bronxbomber252
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:32


    --
    22 Sep 2010 07:07 AM

    Id argue that since the 89si is lightyears faster than the rest of ST, and is obviously competitive in higher ST* classes. that it should be excluded from ST, this would speed up STX a little, and make ST more diverse....

    for the record this is not an I class request... I have an STR S2000

    Butt Dyno
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:414


    --
    22 Sep 2010 07:24 AM
    Andy Hollis wrote:

    6) It is no secret that the upcoming re-org proposal is based on subjective classing,

    How is it no secret? Has anything been officially (Fastrack or otherwise) announced on the matter?

    People speaking unofficially on forums (mostly you) has been my only source of information about the reorg. Everything else has been speculation as far as I know.

    rp1
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:219


    --
    22 Sep 2010 07:36 AM

    Andy Hollis wrote:
    1) One data point is not enough to draw any rational conclusions. It might be enough to get your attention, but further research is always needed.

    This can't be stressed enough, as every year we get the post-Nationals knee jerk.

    Andy Hollis wrote:
    2) Nats is a VERY unusual data point, in general. The huge amount of OPR on the racing surface changes lots of relative performance benchmarks. And different tires react differently to it than they do on a clean surface. Also, the way various people react to the pressures of running for a jacket vary widely.

    As this is my second year running at Nationals, I don't have as much experience as most others at the Big Show, but this year it's really sunk in that though car prep. is important at Nationals, driver prep is about 1000x more important. Why is it that at local events I'm a second or so behind Bounds and Smith but when I get to Nationals I'm 2+ seconds back per day? Nationals shakes people.

    Andy Hollis wrote:
    3) The east course this year had several high risk areas, where significant time could be gained, but with little margin for error. Not everyone took maximum advantage of those areas, and many did but were rewarded with cones.

    Could you elaborate more and learn me some fast driving, Andy? :)

    The rest of the points are well founded as well, but they all lead into the same conclusions. When top STX drivers could have trophied (or very nearly trophied) in STU while driving an "off day" in a "lesser" E36, it's absurd to think the E36 M3 is too slow for STU. Does it take someone with the E36 experience of Bob Tunnel to win STU in an M3? I dunno. But the times don't lie and well driven M3s have nipped at the heels of the boost buggies despite their seemingly insurmountable advantages. I would fear that any class between STX and STU would create a Spec-M3 class at the National level. At the local and regional level, however, I would expect this class to flourish well and capture a lot of BMW CCA members into the ranks of the SCCA.
    StreetTireStock
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    22 Sep 2010 07:42 AM
    jhunter wrote:

    I keep seeing this ST is base, and all the others "should" be faster. Who says? They are simply different classes, for different cars to play in. Being in a "higher" class, does not mean you are in a faster one. Look at ASP vs CSP this year. Winning time in CSP was around 3 seconds faster.

    The allowances should be pretty much the same across the board for all of the ST classes. STX and STU are already allowed to have LSDs. What else should they be given?

    I do recall something about ASP having one day in the wet, but I was already on my long trip home before I got to watch them :)

    Andy Hollis
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:6197


    --
    22 Sep 2010 07:49 AM
    Butt Dyno wrote:
    Andy Hollis wrote:

    6) It is no secret that the upcoming re-org proposal is based on subjective classing,

    How is it no secret? Has anything been officially (Fastrack or otherwise) announced on the matter?

    People speaking unofficially on forums (mostly you) has been my only source of information about the reorg. Everything else has been speculation as far as I know.

    Nothing official, correct. But it was widely discussed during the STR feedback period. In fact, the final iteration of the STR proposal had this added:

    "Note: Classing for STR will not be formula based, but will utilize a list of eligible vehicles. Cars *not* on this list are not eligible. However, as in all subjective classing, cars may be petitioned by the membership for inclusion and will be reviewed on a case by case basis."

    It would make no sense to put an official comment in FastTrack on only a single element of the re-org proposal. But setting expectations when people start flying off the handle (this thread) will help when it does get released.

    --Andy

    tkm
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1055


    --
    22 Sep 2010 07:51 AM
    Isn't the annual "E36 M3 to STX" thread a little early this year? Usually we don't see it until sometime in the winter.
    Andy Hollis
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:6197


    --
    22 Sep 2010 07:57 AM
    rp1 wrote:

    Andy Hollis wrote:
    3) The east course this year had several high risk areas, where significant time could be gained, but with little margin for error. Not everyone took maximum advantage of those areas, and many did but were rewarded with cones.

    Could you elaborate more and learn me some fast driving, Andy? :)

    The opening four-cone offset slalom (after the chute) could be done w/o slowing down, *if* you were right on the marks with your steering inputs. Most people don't have much experience with offset slaloms, so they treat them like regular slaloms.

    The second place was the "bus stop" right before the closing sweeper. Fast section coming in, fast section going out, so overslowing would kill your exit speed. Still many people got scared by being slightly late on inputs and then staring at that big back wall of cones.

    [quote]

    ... I would expect this class to flourish well and capture a lot of BMW CCA members into the ranks of the SCCA.

    I just have to comment on this.

    IMO, SCCA will *never* make a dent in either BMWCCA or PCA members coming to SCCA events. It is not about classing. It is about "marque loyalty" as a club premise versus "sport loyalty". Different mentality. Different focus. Different culture.

    --Andy

    Chiketkd
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    22 Sep 2010 08:02 AM
    tkm wrote:
    Isn't the annual "E36 M3 to STX" thread a little early this year? Usually we don't see it until sometime in the winter.
    You know I was thinking that when I first clicked on this thread yesterday. I'd love to see the E36 M3 competitively classed, but STX isn't the place for it. The OP is trying to cut down the wrong tree...
    Hank
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    22 Sep 2010 08:24 AM

    rp1 wrote:
    The rest of the points are well founded as well, but they all lead into the same conclusions. When top STX drivers could have trophied (or very nearly trophied) in STU while driving an "off day" in a "lesser" E36, it's absurd to think the E36 M3 is too slow for STU. Does it take someone with the E36 experience of Bob Tunnel to win STU in an M3? I dunno. But the times don't lie and well driven M3s have nipped at the heels of the boost buggies despite their seemingly insurmountable advantages. I would fear that any class between STX and STU would create a Spec-M3 class at the National level. At the local and regional level, however, I would expect this class to flourish well and capture a lot of BMW CCA members into the ranks of the SCCA.

    I will disagree that the M3 has a chance in STU, but then again it might be that there is a very large course and surface dependency. If there was a non-ProSolo event on concrete within a reasonable distance I would be willing to test it against the best in STU.

    Hank
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    22 Sep 2010 08:30 AM

    Andy Hollis wrote:

    [quote]

    ... I would expect this class to flourish well and capture a lot of BMW CCA members into the ranks of the SCCA.

    I just have to comment on this.

    IMO, SCCA will *never* make a dent in either BMWCCA or PCA members coming to SCCA events. It is not about classing. It is about "marque loyalty" as a club premise versus "sport loyalty". Different mentality. Different focus. Different culture.

    --Andy

    In general, I agree. Many of the BMWCCA guys have little interest in SCCA events and their points system doesn't map well to SCCA classes. In the NorthEast though, many of the fastest STU M3's are driven by SCCA guys. We just drive something else for the SCCA events.

    rp1
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:219


    --
    22 Sep 2010 08:39 AM
    Andy Hollis wrote:

    I just have to comment on this.

    IMO, SCCA will *never* make a dent in either BMWCCA or PCA members coming to SCCA events. It is not about classing. It is about "marque loyalty" as a club premise versus "sport loyalty". Different mentality. Different focus. Different culture.

    --Andy

    And after reading your post, I have to agree. However, Atlanta is just a strange place. We have a pretty active group that go between events as well as a BMW CCA autocrossing board that are very friendly with the ARSCCA SOLO Chair. As the general rule, I believe you are totally spot on, though.

    The Nebulizer
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1819


    --
    22 Sep 2010 10:51 AM

    justint5387 wrote:

    I was working when STU ran at the 2010 nationals. None of the M3s were well driven, I can see seconds being gain with a top level driver.

    As stated previously, the top M3s in 2010 were likely a couple seconds off what top level drivers could get. We drove "pretty well" - with room for improvement. Here are my runs (I welcome informed critiques - PM me):

    East Course

    West Course

    rp1 wrote:
    The rest of the points are well founded as well, but they all lead into the same conclusions. When top STX drivers could have trophied (or very nearly trophied) in STU while driving an "off day" in a "lesser" E36, it's absurd to think the E36 M3 is too slow for STU. Does it take someone with the E36 experience of Bob Tunnel to win STU in an M3? I dunno. But the times don't lie and well driven M3s have nipped at the heels of the boost buggies despite their seemingly insurmountable advantages. I would fear that any class between STX and STU would create a Spec-M3 class at the National level. At the local and regional level, however, I would expect this class to flourish well and capture a lot of BMW CCA members into the ranks of the SCCA.

    Randall, you point to several results of non-Ms doing pretty well if put in STU. The presumption being an M3 is significantly faster than the non-M - which is of course true in stock form. But, from what we have discussed at bf.c the non-M is capable of huge power gains with proper tuning - to above stock M3 levels at 210rwhp. I can't speak for the e36 M3, but I know the e46 M3 is not capable of much power increase with ST tuning. Also, I understand the e36 M3 has more weight than the non-M e36. I am just wondering if your data is actually supporting what the original poster is saying in that maybe the non-M is really not that different from the e36 M3 when properly prepped for ST* (which BTW is not my point - I am in favor of a new class). Yes, there is a significant difference in stock form, but is that difference anywhere near as big in ST* trim?

    I think suggesting the M3 would be overclassed in anything between STX and STU is not supported by any data. I'd say it is pure speculation.

    Another (albeit single) datapoint that I think is pretty interesting, Christopher Mayfield drove an M3 in STU at the 2009 nationals and finished 29th (another SCR team built M3 like this year's 22nd place e36 M3). This year he switched to an Evo in SM and is the 2010 National Champion.

    redwhale240
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:310


    --
    22 Sep 2010 10:55 AM
    Thank you Andy for mentioning Fenter. He dominated STX in 2007 and beat ST handily. As for an M3 in STU does Bob Tunnel need to jump into the mix, I'm just sayin. As many names and facts we try to throw around to make accurate comarisons the planets need to align and the effort needs to be put in to have the best driver with the best set up under the same conditions to rule out any uncertainty. Just because an ST car won doesn't mean that STX doesn't have the potential to be faster. It already has been proven that the potential is there, somebody just needs to bring it out again.
    rp1
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:219


    --
    22 Sep 2010 11:34 AM

    The Nebulizer wrote:

    Randall, you point to several results of non-Ms doing pretty well if put in STU. The presumption being an M3 is significantly faster than the non-M - which is of course true in stock form. But, from what we have discussed at bf.c the non-M is capable of huge power gains with proper tuning - to above stock M3 levels at 210rwhp. I can't speak for the e36 M3, but I know the e46 M3 is not capable of much power increase with ST tuning. Also, I understand the e36 M3 has more weight than the non-M e36. I am just wondering if your data is actually supporting what the original poster is saying in that maybe the non-M is really not that different from the e36 M3 when properly prepped for ST* (which BTW is not my point - I am in favor of a new class). Yes, there is a significant difference in stock form, but is that difference anywhere near as big in ST* trim?


    I think suggesting the M3 would be overclassed in anything between STX and STU is not supported by any data. I'd say it is pure speculation.

    I can attest that with bolt-ons, E36 M3s gain similar power. Intake, headers, UDPs, full exhaust and tuning will yield nearly 230-240HP to the wheels. You'll see the same differences in power and torque between the S50 and S52 engines. In the case of the M3s, though i don't have any solid data yet (working on it), I believe the 1995s were actually a bit lighter than 96+ cars. Though from the factory the 325is is lighter than the 328is, all the ST allowances create parity between the car (my car was 2800 flat with a 1/4 tank of gas and right around 2760 when the car starts to starve fuel - i'll try to find my picture).

    As to your other point, in ST trim there's VERY FEW differences between the M and non-M. Once you replace all the suspension, the driveline (different engine, slightly different cooling pieces, heavier driveshaft and axles, iirc) is the only thing that remains truly different as well as some of the sound deadening, dashboard internals and trim pieces. The actual uni-body and sub-frames are all the same as far as I've been able to tell after being party to taking them both types of cars apart. They have the same tire / wheel clearance issues. You are still talking about a 150-200 lbs difference, as far as I can tell. There's a few M3s in the Atlanta area I'm going to try to bring by my sponsor's shop to get some solid numbers though.

    As for my "speculation" - You cannot deny the overlapping of the performance of car and drivers between STX and STU. Look at the results. If you have cars and drivers that could trophy in a 325is/328is in STU, would it not make sense that if you put one of those drivers in an M3 in ST-between-X-and-U he'll be nipping at the heels of STU and you'll have complaints that "Class Slow is faster than Class Fast"? I personally would love to see more well prepared STU E36 M3s with great drivers running against the boost buggies at National Tours and if they just continue to languish, I'll concede. But not with the data points we have right now.

    The Nebulizer wrote:

    Another (albeit single) datapoint that I think is pretty interesting, Christopher Mayfield drove an M3 in STU at the 2009 nationals and finished 29th (another SCR team built M3 like this year's 22nd place e36 M3). This year he switched to an Evo in SM and is the 2010 National Champion.

    I've been talking with Chris all year abut building up my car and he freely admits that a number of circumstances prevented him from doing well, no matter how well he drove (he had very old, worn AD07s). If you look at Mark Baer's car (Chris had a hand in setting this car up), you'll see that Mark trophied. Who's to say that this year wasn't Chris's "break-out" year? Like you said though, this is a single data point and I think Mark's data point is more significant than Chris's.

    Chiketkd
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    22 Sep 2010 12:39 PM

    rp1 wrote:
    They have the same tire / wheel clearance issues. You are still talking about a 150-200 lbs difference, as far as I can tell.

    Randall,

    The difference is actually less than 100lbs between cars. Using Edmunds.com as my source, I got the following data:

    1995 325is/325i -- weight 3,087lbs -- 189hp/181tq

    1996 328is/328i -- weight 3,120lbs -- 190hp/207tq

    1995 M3 (3.0L) -- weight 3,175lbs -- 240hp/225tq

    1996 M3 (3.2L) -- weight 3,175lbs -- 240hp/236tq

    To verify my data go here: [url]http://www.edmunds.com/used/bmw/ind...;/url]

    To the OP: Stock-vs-stock, the M3 has a 88# and 55# weight disadvantage vs the 325 and 328 respectively. All while having a 50hp advantage (and a 20-30tq advantage over the 328 and a 40-50+tq advanatge over the 325). I don't see any possible parity between the 325/328 vs M3. There's no reason a well set-up AND developed STU M3 should be slower than a STX 325/328. Especially when the cars have a similar wheelbase, width, etc.

    The Nebulizer
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1819


    --
    22 Sep 2010 12:57 PM

    duplicate post...

    The Nebulizer
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1819


    --
    22 Sep 2010 12:59 PM

    Chiketkd wrote:

    rp1 wrote:
    They have the same tire / wheel clearance issues. You are still talking about a 150-200 lbs difference, as far as I can tell.

    Randall,

    The difference is actually less than 100lbs between cars. Using Edmunds.com as my source, I got the following data:

    1995 325is/325i -- weight 3,087lbs -- 189hp/181tq

    1996 328is/328i -- weight 3,120lbs -- 190hp/207tq

    1995 M3 (3.0L) -- weight 3,175lbs -- 240hp/225tq

    1996 M3 (3.2L) -- weight 3,175lbs -- 240hp/236tq

    To verify my data go here: [url]http://www.edmunds.com/used/bmw/ind...;/url]

    To the OP: Stock-vs-stock, the M3 has a 88# and 55# weight disadvantage vs the 325 and 328 respectively. All while having a 50hp advantage (and a 20-30tq advantage over the 328 and a 40-50+tq advanatge over the 325). I don't see any possible parity between the 325/328 vs M3. There's no reason a well set-up AND developed STU M3 should be slower than a STX 325/328. Especially when the cars have a similar wheelbase, width, etc.

    My e46 weighed 3250lbs at nationals [:(]

    jzr
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1350


    --
    22 Sep 2010 12:59 PM

    I suspect these sorts of discussions will go away soon (2012).  Each ST class was built to cater to a different group of cars, and soon they will do so in a more explicit fashion.  It isn't important which class is faster than the other, only that each class makes solid numbers and groups cars in a way that minimizes course dependency.

    You don't hear CSP Miata drivers complaining they can't also run their cars in BSP or DSP, even though times are often similar between the classes.  

    everbruin
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:80


    --
    22 Sep 2010 01:11 PM

    true in sfr/silicon valley area too; i've run w/ bmw ggr and various pca.

    ps i look fwd to a reorg where a rwd/m3 won't have to deal w/ awd beasts [that's what i felt when driving an stu evo]

    Andy Hollis wrote:
    I just have to comment on this.

    IMO, SCCA will *never* make a dent in either BMWCCA or PCA members coming to SCCA events. It is not about classing. It is about "marque loyalty" as a club premise versus "sport loyalty". Different mentality. Different focus. Different culture.

    Hank
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    22 Sep 2010 01:58 PM
    Chiketkd wrote:

    rp1 wrote:
    They have the same tire / wheel clearance issues. You are still talking about a 150-200 lbs difference, as far as I can tell.

    Randall,

    The difference is actually less than 100lbs between cars. Using Edmunds.com as my source, I got the following data:

    1995 325is/325i -- weight 3,087lbs -- 189hp/181tq

    1996 328is/328i -- weight 3,120lbs -- 190hp/207tq

    1995 M3 (3.0L) -- weight 3,175lbs -- 240hp/225tq

    1996 M3 (3.2L) -- weight 3,175lbs -- 240hp/236tq

    To verify my data go here: [url]http://www.edmunds.com/used/bmw/ind...;/url]

    To the OP: Stock-vs-stock, the M3 has a 88# and 55# weight disadvantage vs the 325 and 328 respectively. All while having a 50hp advantage (and a 20-30tq advantage over the 328 and a 40-50+tq advanatge over the 325). I don't see any possible parity between the 325/328 vs M3. There's no reason a well set-up AND developed STU M3 should be slower than a STX 325/328. Especially when the cars have a similar wheelbase, width, etc.

    I never suggested that a properly setup STU M3 would be slower than a STX 325/328. I agree that it is/should be marginally faster.

    rp1
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:219


    --
    22 Sep 2010 03:12 PM
    jzr wrote:

    I suspect these sorts of discussions will go away soon (2012). Each ST class was built to cater to a different group of cars, and soon they will do so in a more explicit fashion. It isn't important which class is faster than the other, only that each class makes solid numbers and groups cars in a way that minimizes course dependency.

    You don't hear CSP Miata drivers complaining they can't also run their cars in BSP or DSP, even though times are often similar between the classes.


    fsmtnbiker
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:19


    --
    22 Sep 2010 06:17 PM
    The Nebulizer wrote:

    Another (albeit single) datapoint that I think is pretty interesting, Christopher Mayfield drove an M3 in STU at the 2009 nationals and finished 29th (another SCR team built M3 like this year's 22nd place e36 M3). This year he switched to an Evo in SM and is the 2010 National Champion.

    Yes - I would also suggest not showing up to Nationals on tire you suspect are on their way out. It makes it hard to compete. :)

    I drove my E36 M3 in STU for 3 seasons - In my opinion, the car *can* be competitive in STU, given the right course, and a great driver.

    My car was *much* faster when I ran 285 Neova's, but the fender rolling rules in STU make fitting them questionably legal. Once again - In my opinion - if the fender rolling rule was written to allow fitting those tires, the E36 M3 would be just as quick or quicker than an equally prepped/driven STi or Evo and it would become very course dependent as to who won. West course? I'll take an M3. East course? tossup... Lots of sweepers, couple of big acceleration spots. I think a well-driven E36 could have trophied this year just like Mark did last year. Mark is an outstanding driver (note his finish this season in BSP, in the WET on day 2) and just got into the trophies last year. The car was very well prepared and was a (relatively rare) non-sunroof car as well.

    I will be driving something on street tires next season, at least locally. Hoosiers cost a lot and the Evo kills them pretty fast. I'd love to drive my M3 again... I'm excited/interested in this re-org.

    Hank
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    23 Sep 2010 05:56 AM

    fsmtnbiker wrote:

    My car was *much* faster when I ran 285 Neova's, but the fender rolling rules in STU make fitting them questionably legal. Once again - In my opinion - if the fender rolling rule was written to allow fitting those tires, the E36 M3 would be just as quick or quicker than an equally prepped/driven STi or Evo and it would become very course dependent as to who won. West course? I'll take an M3. East course? tossup... Lots of sweepers, couple of big acceleration spots. I think a well-driven E36 could have trophied this year just like Mark did last year. Mark is an outstanding driver (note his finish this season in BSP, in the WET on day 2) and just got into the trophies last year. The car was very well prepared and was a (relatively rare) non-sunroof car as well.

    I will be driving something on street tires next season, at least locally. Hoosiers cost a lot and the Evo kills them pretty fast. I'd love to drive my M3 again... I'm excited/interested in this re-org.

    I, along with others, wrote letters to ask that the fender rolling rule be clarified. They did, by removing the part about its intent to fit the maximum allowed tire. :(

    splash
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:960


    --
    23 Sep 2010 07:42 AM

    ^^ They sort of HAVE to do it this way... Rolling the lips is one thing, but pulling IS flaring, and flaring is Street Prepared territory. So far, almost all the mods allowed in ST* are relatively easy to undo if you wanted to return to stock and sell the car easily. Allowing fender flares of ANY variety removes this ability.

    As far as what they removed from the rules, they needed to do that too. Intent is useless in a rule book.

    The Nebulizer
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1819


    --
    23 Sep 2010 08:10 AM
    splash wrote:

    ^^ They sort of HAVE to do it this way... Rolling the lips is one thing, but pulling IS flaring, and flaring is Street Prepared territory. So far, almost all the mods allowed in ST* are relatively easy to undo if you wanted to return to stock and sell the car easily. Allowing fender flares of ANY variety removes this ability.

    As far as what they removed from the rules, they needed to do that too. Intent is useless in a rule book.

    Agreed. I would never roll my fenders and if that were allowed in the class I would have to just settle for being poorly prepared. Also, it removes an important and difficult to define variable of car performance and I speculate this will be accompanied by the removal of defined tire and wheel width restrictions in the ST reorg. Just speculating though. When is this proposal coming? I am really curious.

    Hank
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    23 Sep 2010 08:54 AM
    splash wrote:

    ^^ They sort of HAVE to do it this way... Rolling the lips is one thing, but pulling IS flaring, and flaring is Street Prepared territory. So far, almost all the mods allowed in ST* are relatively easy to undo if you wanted to return to stock and sell the car easily. Allowing fender flares of ANY variety removes this ability.

    I understand that I am in the minority here, but I would consider flaring. The E36 is the only car that I know of in STU that would require rolling to fit 285s.

    splash wrote:

    As far as what they removed from the rules, they needed to do that too. Intent is useless in a rule book.

    Agreed that intent is useless in the rule book, but I was hoping that they would rewrite the rule to allow fitting the maximum allowed tire. I didn't expect that, but I hoped.

    Orthonormal
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    23 Sep 2010 09:14 AM
    Bronxbomber252 wrote:

    Id argue that since the 89si is lightyears faster than the rest of ST

    Just like it was light years faster than the rest of ST in 2005, before Jason Rhoades built a 240SX and won the Solo and ProSolo championships in it?

    Orthonormal
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    23 Sep 2010 09:25 AM
    splash wrote:
    So far, almost all the mods allowed in ST* are relatively easy to undo if you wanted to return to stock and sell the car easily. Allowing fender flares of ANY variety removes this ability.
    Can you tell me how to un-roll fenders? The irreversibility of rolling fenders was a sticking point when I considered setting up my S2000 for STR. It would be especially problematic with a Miata, where the rear fenders also have to be rolled. The Miata's rear fenders are an integral part of the unibody (at least, they were on the '99-2005), so you can't just buy new ones and bolt them on.
    BRODA
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:41


    --
    23 Sep 2010 09:59 AM
    Why would you want to unfold that tiny lip on the inside of the fender? I can't see that a rolled fender lip would deter anyone from buying the car, if they even noticed. Perhaps your concern is that this would affect a leased car?
    Chiketkd
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    23 Sep 2010 10:26 AM

    Hank wrote:
    Agreed that intent is useless in the rule book, but I was hoping that they would rewrite the rule to allow fitting the maximum allowed tire. I didn't expect that, but I hoped.

    Personally, if it ever made it to member comment, I'd support a rule revision allowing fender rolling in ST* (no cutting). Why? There's no weight advantage to rolling fenders and it could bring some more parity to the class (2wd vs awd).

    Who am I to decide whether someone should roll their fenders or not to keep the re-sale value of their car??? We're talking about an E36 M3 that's over 10 years old where '95 models can be bought for 8K or less. If I bought an 8K car, I wouldn't think twice about doing a full fender roll *if it was allowed* (a 25K+ used E46 M3 is a another story though - but that car doesn't need a fender roll to fit 285's)

    John V
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1854


    --
    23 Sep 2010 11:13 AM
    Uhm... rolling fenders isn't already allowed?
    Chiketkd
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    23 Sep 2010 11:24 AM

    John V wrote:
    Uhm... rolling fenders isn't already allowed?

    I think the OP was referring to rolling the fenders to the point where they are flared. Obviously, this isn't allowed under the current rules.

    John V
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1854


    --
    23 Sep 2010 11:31 AM
    Chiketkd wrote:

    John V wrote:
    Uhm... rolling fenders isn't already allowed?

    I think the OP was referring to rolling the fenders to the point where they are flared. Obviously, this isn't allowed under the current rules.

    Okay, so let's call it flaring, or pulling.

    If someone is concerned about rolling fenders due to resale value, they probably shouldn't be autocrossing.

    splash
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:960


    --
    23 Sep 2010 11:46 AM

    Orthonormal wrote:
    Can you tell me how to un-roll fenders? The irreversibility of rolling fenders was a sticking point when I considered setting up my S2000 for STR. It would be especially problematic with a Miata, where the rear fenders also have to be rolled. The Miata's rear fenders are an integral part of the unibody (at least, they were on the '99-2005), so you can't just buy new ones and bolt them on.

    You don't have to. If you have done a legal ST lip roll, you can't tell unless you get under there and look.

    However, some SP flares look like something just short of what you'd find in IMSA, or at least a Formula D event...

    Hank
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    23 Sep 2010 12:14 PM
    To be clear, I meant rolling to the point that each car can fit there maximum tire size. Are there cars other than the E36 that have trouble fitting their allowed maximum?
    rp1
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:219


    --
    23 Sep 2010 12:27 PM

    Hank wrote:
    To be clear, I meant rolling to the point that each car can fit there maximum tire size. Are there cars other than the E36 that have trouble fitting their allowed maximum?

    As a thought exercise, if someone wanted to run a BMW 2002 in STX, allowing the "rolling of fenders to allow for the maximum allowed tire size" would be tantamount to fully flaring fenders. This is one of the few rules that, as much as I would hate to spend the money, I would love the option to fit full 265 width tires in STX (or 285 in STU) under my fenders without risk of destroying them.

    Chiketkd
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    23 Sep 2010 12:37 PM

    John V wrote:
    If someone is concerned about rolling fenders due to resale value, they probably shouldn't be autocrossing.

    Agreed.

    Hank wrote:
    To be clear, I meant rolling to the point that each car can fit there maximum tire size. Are there cars other than the E36 that have trouble fitting their allowed maximum?
    There are many cars out there (especially fwd).

    I know most STX BMWs either have to run serious camber and/or perfect offset wheels to get 265's to fit. Being able to flare or pull the fenders will definitley help them reduce rubbing. IIRC, other cars like the IS300 have problems fitting the max allowed width in STX. There not many competitive cars in STU that could benefit from this, but I've been told that cars like the Pontiac GTO and Pontiac G8 aren't able to run 285's in STU (not that you'd want to run either of these cars in STU or autocross for that matter).

    fsmtnbiker
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:19


    --
    28 Sep 2010 11:50 AM

    Chiketkd wrote:
    I know most STX BMWs either have to run serious camber and/or perfect offset wheels to get 265's to fit. Being able to flare or pull the fenders will definitley help them reduce rubbing. IIRC, other cars like the IS300 have problems fitting the max allowed width in STX. There not many competitive cars in STU that could benefit from this, but I've been told that cars like the Pontiac GTO and Pontiac G8 aren't able to run 285's in STU (not that you'd want to run either of these cars in STU or autocross for that matter).

    I know the STAC/SEB are totally against making 1-car rules, and I can understand that. In this case, I think it would immediately help the E36 M3 but could also open up other potential options that, when fitted with larger rubber, could also be class-competitive.

    Fitting 265's or larger is very close on any E36. My Sedan actually seems to have a touch more room in a couple key spots than some coupes I've worked on, but overall they're pretty much the same. With 18" wheels you can run a little higher offset wheel depending on what and where the rubbing is. I was able to achieve my usual alignment (-2 camber, 3/16" total toe-in) on any of the wheel and tire combos that I ran on my car, from 17x9/255 to 18x10/285. The 265 Dunlops on 18x9 SSR's fit great, and didn't rub anywhere.. but I also tend to run a stiffer spring than most people like for a mixed-use car. (I'm still young enough that the ride isn't harsh, it's sporty!)

    The earlier E36 325s seem a little tighter on fender clearance than the M3's I've worked on, not sure if it's just a fluke or not.

    My main problem with the current ST* fender rolling rule is that it doesn't allow you to roll your fenders in the traditional sense of 'rolling', which is to go get the commonly available, hub mounted fender roller, and roll your fenders - this device relies on pushing outward on the fender and will always change the 'contour' or whatever we're calling it now. The only way to be truly within the rules is to use a hammer, and RUIN the paint. Obviously within the spirit of the class.

    *grumble*

    I remember now why Street Mod was so appealing this season! Lots of money? Yes. Rules? Not many!

    splash
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:960


    --
    28 Sep 2010 12:28 PM
    I used the exact roller you describe and a heat gun so the paint would stretch with the fender lip. I still have the stock fender contour. The idea is to make many passes, and to not be a gorilla about it.
    Chiketkd
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    28 Sep 2010 12:54 PM

    splash wrote:
    I used the exact roller you describe and a heat gun so the paint would stretch with the fender lip. I still have the stock fender contour. The idea is to make many passes, and to not be a gorilla about it.

    Don't you have a '04 or '05 STi? It's a lot easier "stretch" the paint on a 5 or 6 year old car, than it is on a 11-15 year old car. I've seen the outer layers of paint literally flake off the fenders during a "careful & slow" fender roll on a mid 90's M3.

    splash
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:960


    --
    28 Sep 2010 02:15 PM

    Heck it could just be Subaru's thin paint ... We did an '02 WRX the same way and it cracked and flaked like mad, while my STi didn't do it at all, and the only difference was the heat gun. It was even the same blue color...

    I was speaking more to the "contour" issue. With those rollers, you start by pressing up, then out. If you're not in a hurry, it just folds up nicely and you don't have to use the kind of force that turns it into a fender pulling...

    mholzi@aol.com
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:524


    --
    28 Sep 2010 07:41 PM
    splash:

    Are you suggesting a single AWD class to encompass everything from an Impreza RS to an EVO? Or do you want a separate set of AWD classes to go along with the set of 2WD classes?


    Two: STA-1 (Evo, STi) and STA-2 (everything else). How's that sound?

    I agree with AWD classes. The high for the WRX at nationals was 17 cars, this year only 8 came to nationals, with the highest finish of 16th. The WRX #ers will continue to go down unless something is done (tire size or different class). It would be a shame to lose the WRX.

    fsmtnbiker
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:19


    --
    28 Sep 2010 09:24 PM

    splash wrote:
    I used the exact roller you describe and a heat gun so the paint would stretch with the fender lip. I still have the stock fender contour. The idea is to make many passes, and to not be a gorilla about it.

    You imply that you did not change the outer fender contour *at all* ? I'm talking, not even .001" of change?

    Oh, maybe a few thousandths? Where do you draw the line?

    My point is that to legally extract every available bit from the rules now, requires you to use a hammer. There's no way you can roll the inner fender lip totally flush with a fender roller without exerting enough strain on the whole fender to change it's overall shape. I've rolled lots of fenders, I work at a shop that specializes in that kind of stuff.

    It's really a moot point, I'll just wait and see what 2012 brings.

    rp1
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:219


    --
    28 Sep 2010 09:31 PM
    mholzi@aol.com wrote:
    splash:

    Are you suggesting a single AWD class to encompass everything from an Impreza RS to an EVO? Or do you want a separate set of AWD classes to go along with the set of 2WD classes?

    Two: STA-1 (Evo, STi) and STA-2 (everything else). How's that sound?

    I agree with AWD classes. The high for the WRX at nationals was 17 cars, this year only 8 came to nationals, with the highest finish of 16th. The WRX #ers will continue to go down unless something is done (tire size or different class). It would be a shame to lose the WRX.

    If as the E36s and RX-8s (and what ever else shows itself to be quick in STX) continue to progress in speed, I would love to see the AWD contingent get 255s to bring some of the WRXs back into the mix.

    splash
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:960


    --
    29 Sep 2010 06:12 AM

    I look at it this way, if I can't measure the change after the rolling, you won't be able to measure it if you protested me for it...

    piknockout
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:323


    --
    29 Sep 2010 07:20 AM
    Using the fender roller, even if it changes by a bit, as long as it's within the factory tolerances then you're good. I would wager that using a fender roller would still keep it within those tolerances.
    The Nebulizer
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1819


    --
    29 Sep 2010 08:37 AM

    If they allow fender flaring then they need to continue regulating wheel and tire size. I am guessing that is going away with the reorg. There should be no reason to continue to restrict certain cars by tire size to balance things within a class when classes will be based on performance. If a car is too fast or slow for a class there is no need to adjust tire restrictions, just move it to a new class. I would be against flaring as a principle since it really does damage a car. Perhaps not a big deal on a 20+ year old car (though I think differently), but certainly a big deal if this should be necessary for a newer car.

    I think we are discussing issues that may very well be irrelevant in a couple weeks though.

    Chiketkd
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    29 Sep 2010 09:21 AM

    rp1 wrote:
    If as the E36s and RX-8s (and what ever else shows itself to be quick in STX) continue to progress in speed, I would love to see the AWD contingent get 255s to bring some of the WRXs back into the mix.

    Since awd cars are limited to 245's in STU, I don't see that happening unless the STU awd tire limit gets increased as well.

    Personally, what I'd like to see in the re-org for STX are similar tire limits, but no wheel limits. So a STX WRX can run a 245 tire on a 9.0" wheel.

    rp1
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:219


    --
    29 Sep 2010 09:54 AM
    Chiketkd wrote:

    rp1 wrote:
    If as the E36s and RX-8s (and what ever else shows itself to be quick in STX) continue to progress in speed, I would love to see the AWD contingent get 255s to bring some of the WRXs back into the mix.

    Since awd cars are limited to 245's in STU, I don't see that happening unless the STU awd tire limit gets increased as well.

    Personally, what I'd like to see in the re-org for STX are similar tire limits, but no wheel limits. So a STX WRX can run a 245 tire on a 9.0" wheel.

    As part of moving away from the concept that "STU is faster than STX" and towards "All the cars in STX are of similar performance. All the cars in STU are of similar performance", the tire limit of STU doesn't matter...as long as 245 is still appropriate for the AWD cars in STU. As for the tire / wheel limit, while I am mostly in agreement with you, the thought of buying new rims for my car makes my wallet ache as I would go with wider wheels and keep running 255 / 265 width tires.

    splash
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:960


    --
    29 Sep 2010 10:14 AM

    In an ideal world, ST as a category should have unified rules across the whole class structure within. I would continue to allow lip rolling (within OE contour specs) but no flaring or pulling, and then allow whatever wheel/tire fits. After that, class accordingly. Treat the fenders as 'sacred' and the wheel/tire limits will control themselves. If a given car is advantaged or disadvantaged, move it up or down a class.

    The same would be true of exhaust/cat/emissions. The same rules across the board, class accordingly.

    That said, I can see where that could be a LOT of work, perhaps too much work for the re-org already planned. As it is, I think it will end up being a lot like Prepared is today, where some rules are category wide, but some are also class-specific.

    IntrigueGX
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:997


    --
    29 Sep 2010 10:44 AM

    STX is overrun with moved up ST cars. Most of the "STX" BMWs are ST cars. A clutch-pack LSD was only standard on the E30 M3 and 325is--and the E30 325is was more of an option package on a E30 325i anyway. The rest of the BMWs came with an open differential and the factory LSD option was not even available after 1994 for the 325 and never on the 323/328/330/etc. These BMWs are no more or less in STX than a Civic.

    FWIW: I just bought one of those optional factory LSDs for my 325i. :)

    splash
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:960


    --
    29 Sep 2010 11:08 AM

    I'm not sure what the point of all that was, but NONE of the STX BMW's are legal for ST like Andy's Civic was. Even the black STX Civic had 15x8 front wheels for its 225 tires. You'd also have to be aware of any relocated cats and longer-tube headers, as that would turn a ST car into a "honest" STX car as well.

    I think the point others were making concerned ST-legal cars poaching trophies in STX. It's quite possible STR could have had something similar happen with a STS-legal car.

    murph1379
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:627


    --
    03 Oct 2010 08:34 PM
    I'm sure I missed a similar point from someone else, but the re-org is coming, everyone knows it. Making a place for the E36 and E46 M3s in ST* will be a good idea for the SCCA, just a matter of what else will compete with them. I elect the RX-8 their punchin, er, competition... :P
    Chiketkd
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    04 Oct 2010 08:46 AM

    murph1379 wrote:
    I'm sure I missed a similar point from someone else, but the re-org is coming, everyone knows it. Making a place for the E36 and E46 M3s in ST* will be a good idea for the SCCA, just a matter of what else will compete with them. I elect the RX-8 their punchin, er, competition... :P

    While it would be a great thing to give these M sedans a place to play, there's no reason to kill the RX-8 off in ST* to do it. These classes are popular and well-subscribed and there would be good justification for the STAC to create a new class for them.

    FWIW, the RX-8 hasn't been proven (yet???) to be any faster in ST* trim than a E36 325/328.

    murph1379
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:627


    --
    04 Oct 2010 02:26 PM

    lol, I know Chike, just messin' with ya. ;)

    But then, what happens when the RX-8 is allowed to run whatever tire they can fit? I know I'd pick an RX-8 on 285s over an E36 on 265s. But then the ZHP could be on 285s as well... mmm.... :)

    StreetTireStock
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    04 Oct 2010 06:08 PM
    rp1 wrote:

    As part of moving away from the concept that "STU is faster than STX" and towards "All the cars in STX are of similar performance. All the cars in STU are of similar performance", the tire limit of STU doesn't matter...as long as 245 is still appropriate for the AWD cars in STU. As for the tire / wheel limit, while I am mostly in agreement with you, the thought of buying new rims for my car makes my wallet ache as I would go with wider wheels and keep running 255 / 265 width tires.

    I would like to see something official in supporting the argument that nowhere is the concept that one class should not be faster than another in a heirarchy. I think the general intent of all classes, in Stock, ST, SP, Prep and Mod are that they should theoretically be fastest to slowest. What's the point if not? SS should be faster than HS. ASP should be faster than BSP....if not, the cars would get moved.

    If ST had a bunch of slow cars and one fast car (Civic) that happened to be faster than anything else, you'd think it would either get moved (ala any other class), or other classes may get allowances to be faster? If my HS Impreza was creaming GS, it would get moved to GS eventually common sense would imply. If an FSP car was murdering the class as well as CSP and DSP, it would probably be moved. Why should ST* be so dang special that we stand alone in our category?

    Leave Civic in ST but have it raw time all or nearly all other ST classes....something has to change. Put the STI and Evo in ST so that it can run with "similar performance"? Flawed still. Move the Civic up to a different class as you would in all other class groups/categories? Probably not, the benefit of ST* has been different allowances in each class. But if the total goal is that every single ST* class runs the identical raw time, then what's the point of multiple classes at all?

    "Civic" used for reference, insert E36/M3/Evo/STI/RX-8/WRX/MINI/whatever you want in there. I think I am more just stuck on the idea that folks think that the SCCA would design a group of classes that "should not be faster than one another in ascending/descending order".

    /noob rant.

    Chiketkd
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    04 Oct 2010 08:14 PM

    murph1379 wrote:
    But then, what happens when the RX-8 is allowed to run whatever tire they can fit?

    At this point, that's a big 'if' Matt... 

    rp1
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:219


    --
    05 Oct 2010 07:40 AM
    StreetTireStock wrote:
    rp1 wrote:

    As part of moving away from the concept that "STU is faster than STX" and towards "All the cars in STX are of similar performance. All the cars in STU are of similar performance", the tire limit of STU doesn't matter...as long as 245 is still appropriate for the AWD cars in STU. As for the tire / wheel limit, while I am mostly in agreement with you, the thought of buying new rims for my car makes my wallet ache as I would go with wider wheels and keep running 255 / 265 width tires.


    I would like to see something official in supporting the argument that nowhere is the concept that one class should not be faster than another in a heirarchy. I think the general intent of all classes, in Stock, ST, SP, Prep and Mod are that they should theoretically be fastest to slowest. What's the point if not? SS should be faster than HS. ASP should be faster than BSP....if not, the cars would get moved.

    If ST had a bunch of slow cars and one fast car (Civic) that happened to be faster than anything else, you'd think it would either get moved (ala any other class), or other classes may get allowances to be faster? If my HS Impreza was creaming GS, it would get moved to GS eventually common sense would imply. If an FSP car was murdering the class as well as CSP and DSP, it would probably be moved. Why should ST* be so dang special that we stand alone in our category?

    Leave Civic in ST but have it raw time all or nearly all other ST classes....something has to change. Put the STI and Evo in ST so that it can run with "similar performance"? Flawed still. Move the Civic up to a different class as you would in all other class groups/categories? Probably not, the benefit of ST* has been different allowances in each class. But if the total goal is that every single ST* class runs the identical raw time, then what's the point of multiple classes at all?

    "Civic" used for reference, insert E36/M3/Evo/STI/RX-8/WRX/MINI/whatever you want in there. I think I am more just stuck on the idea that folks think that the SCCA would design a group of classes that "should not be faster than one another in ascending/descending order".

    /noob rant.

    So, when 5 years down the road (after proper development time) we find that class X is faster than class Y we should go back and change all the names? There are FAR more important things than the names of the classes. How would you calculate the standard? What happens when half the BSP cars are faster than ASP and the other half are slower? Your HS/GS example would work, but who is to say that GS will be faster than HS? What if GS has a bunch of slower, non-Nationally competitive drivers that year and the whole class slows? What if your fictitious car KILLS HS on asphalt but slows down in line when the all HS cars run on concrete? If we were talking about 100% prepared cars with the best drivers in the nation in EVERY CASE, there might be credence for that.

    AS was slower than BS or CS at Nationals this year. Does that mean we should go an change the whole classification system of those other cars? CSP was faster than BSP. What magic event is the standard for classing cars?

    Why does ST have to change? It's one of the largest classes Nationally. It's cheap to build cars for. It attracts some of the most talented drivers in the country. Why are we "breaking" what isn't broken? These are the metrics by which we measure how successful a class is. By this measure, the ST* categories are the most popular and healthy classes in the country. We should be tweaking here and there, not reshuffling haphazardly. If the system was broken, people would stop playing and go back to Stock or Street Prepared classes.

    The point is, what the hell do we care what the classes are called so as long as the cars in that classes are competitive and we have some diversity, that's all we could possibly ask for. As long as the classes have cars being built for them, who cares what they are called. Just give people as many places (within reason) to play with their toys and actually be able to compete with one another and leave them to their devices. Changing classing, rules, etc. pisses people off because in the end, it means they have to spend more money and no one wants to do that when things are fine as they are.

    StreetTireStock
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    05 Oct 2010 05:19 PM
    rp1 wrote:
    StreetTireStock wrote:
    rp1 wrote:

    As part of moving away from the concept that "STU is faster than STX" and towards "All the cars in STX are of similar performance. All the cars in STU are of similar performance", the tire limit of STU doesn't matter...as long as 245 is still appropriate for the AWD cars in STU. As for the tire / wheel limit, while I am mostly in agreement with you, the thought of buying new rims for my car makes my wallet ache as I would go with wider wheels and keep running 255 / 265 width tires.


    I would like to see something official in supporting the argument that nowhere is the concept that one class should not be faster than another in a heirarchy. I think the general intent of all classes, in Stock, ST, SP, Prep and Mod are that they should theoretically be fastest to slowest. What's the point if not? SS should be faster than HS. ASP should be faster than BSP....if not, the cars would get moved.

    If ST had a bunch of slow cars and one fast car (Civic) that happened to be faster than anything else, you'd think it would either get moved (ala any other class), or other classes may get allowances to be faster? If my HS Impreza was creaming GS, it would get moved to GS eventually common sense would imply. If an FSP car was murdering the class as well as CSP and DSP, it would probably be moved. Why should ST* be so dang special that we stand alone in our category?

    Leave Civic in ST but have it raw time all or nearly all other ST classes....something has to change. Put the STI and Evo in ST so that it can run with "similar performance"? Flawed still. Move the Civic up to a different class as you would in all other class groups/categories? Probably not, the benefit of ST* has been different allowances in each class. But if the total goal is that every single ST* class runs the identical raw time, then what's the point of multiple classes at all?

    "Civic" used for reference, insert E36/M3/Evo/STI/RX-8/WRX/MINI/whatever you want in there. I think I am more just stuck on the idea that folks think that the SCCA would design a group of classes that "should not be faster than one another in ascending/descending order".

    /noob rant.

    So, when 5 years down the road (after proper development time) we find that class X is faster than class Y we should go back and change all the names? There are FAR more important things than the names of the classes. How would you calculate the standard? What happens when half the BSP cars are faster than ASP and the other half are slower? Your HS/GS example would work, but who is to say that GS will be faster than HS? What if GS has a bunch of slower, non-Nationally competitive drivers that year and the whole class slows? What if your fictitious car KILLS HS on asphalt but slows down in line when the all HS cars run on concrete? If we were talking about 100% prepared cars with the best drivers in the nation in EVERY CASE, there might be credence for that.

    AS was slower than BS or CS at Nationals this year. Does that mean we should go an change the whole classification system of those other cars? CSP was faster than BSP. What magic event is the standard for classing cars?

    Why does ST have to change? It's one of the largest classes Nationally. It's cheap to build cars for. It attracts some of the most talented drivers in the country. Why are we "breaking" what isn't broken? These are the metrics by which we measure how successful a class is. By this measure, the ST* categories are the most popular and healthy classes in the country. We should be tweaking here and there, not reshuffling haphazardly. If the system was broken, people would stop playing and go back to Stock or Street Prepared classes.

    The point is, what the hell do we care what the classes are called so as long as the cars in that classes are competitive and we have some diversity, that's all we could possibly ask for. As long as the classes have cars being built for them, who cares what they are called. Just give people as many places (within reason) to play with their toys and actually be able to compete with one another and leave them to their devices. Changing classing, rules, etc. pisses people off because in the end, it means they have to spend more money and no one wants to do that when things are fine as they are.

    As I recall back in the late '90s when STS was created and the years after that, people wanted a place for faster cars go. They created STX. Then, after that became popular, people wanted a place for faster cars to go. They created STU.

    I don't see any flaw in my reasoning, as that was the general consensus at least in my home region(s) at the time the classes were created years ago.

    There is a reason why HS cars are HS cars and SS cars are SS cars: Speed. America is all about speed. Hot nasty, badass speed. Elanor Roosevelt was right. And if an X car was found to be consistently faster than Y car, it would get moved. Period. It's not about creating diversity, it's about being formulaic. ST* classes are similar, as are SP* classes. Anyone remember when Taka Aono was murdering FSP in his Corolla? It got moved to DSP. Your argument would not hold for the sake of diversity of FSP if he was winning by 6 seconds (true story). Years later, as FSP as a whole got faster, it got moved back. These things happen.

    We're not here to piss people off, we are here to create parity within classes as well as adhering to our class structure and heirarchy.

    rp1
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:219


    --
    05 Oct 2010 08:44 PM
    StreetTireStock wrote:

    As I recall back in the late '90s when STS was created and the years after that, people wanted a place for faster cars go. They created STX. Then, after that became popular, people wanted a place for faster cars to go. They created STU.

    bzzzz. People wanted a place for their car to go...those cars just happened to be thought of as faster. Without a class and hundreds of well prepared cars ahead of time, you really couldn't say if an EVO, an M3, a 325is or an RX-8 would actually be faster than STS when prepared to the ST* level. They were just though of faster because they are, in *most* cases, faster cars. They are newer cars. They are cars with more power. But one couldn't objectively say they would be faster, especially with all the variables I explained above.

    StreetTireStock wrote:
    I don't see any flaw in my reasoning, as that was the general consensus at least in my home region(s) at the time the classes were created years ago.

    No one ever does, but you have to admit REALITY has shown that (by your definition) "faster" cars are not necessarily faster when prepared to the same level within ST rules, especially when you take into account the tire limits at each level of competition. However, most of the cars in the ST* classes have been reasonably similar in performance, and as such, we don't really care because some people put vinyl on their cars and why have everyone in all the classes re-vinyl when all the cars in the class play well together, no matter the name.

    StreetTireStock wrote:
    ... It's not about creating diversity, it's about being formulaic...

    Wrong, flat out. It's about keeping as many cars of similar performance in the same class. It's about putting as many cars that are of similar performance level in the same class as to allow individual affinity for a certain marque or model and not have 24 "spec" classes. I would bet that the reason that STX was the second largest (and only by one or two cars) was because there were 6 different makes and models of cars in the hunt to actually win the class. There's another 4-5 cars which weren't represented which would probably also be legit contenders with the proper development. How is that NOT a huge part of what makes a great class?

    StreetTireStock wrote:
    We're not here to piss people off, we are here to create parity within classes...

    I completely agree...

    StreetTireStock wrote:
    ...as well as adhering to our class structure and heirarchy.

    ...and you lost me again.

    Who the hell cares what the classes are called. Just put cars that are the same speed in the same class and call is Class 1, Class B and Class iii. Just keep cars that are the same speed together. Simple. You're going to have weird situations where Class "Slow" is faster than Class "Fast". The SCCA does their best to prevent that, but no club is perfect and as such, the STAC (and other committees) have done a generally good job at keeping the classes fair, yet diverse.

    Look at the Modified class. Why aren't you complaining about your "formulaic consistency" there? Where's the structure?

    Bottom line - ST* are probably the healthiest classes in the nation. The cost, the diversity, the street friendly mods, the cars. Why are we arguing?

    And back to the topic...keep the M3 in STU.

    Chiketkd
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    06 Oct 2010 06:57 AM
    rp1 wrote:
    Bottom line - ST* are probably the healthiest classes in the nation. The cost, the diversity, the street friendly mods, the cars. Why are we arguing?

    And back to the topic...keep the M3 in STU.

    Agree 100%. Counting only open classes, we have 9 stock classes, 6 street prepared classes, 7 prepared classes, 6 Mod classes and only 5 ST* classes. The ST* classes are popular (locally and nationally) and have the numbers to justify the creation of an additional 1-2 classes.

    FWIW, I'm with Randall on this one. Who cares what ST* class is faster than another. Class cars with similar speed together, and let's go racing. People are obviously turning up, so let's not mess with a winning formula at this time....let's build on it!

    splash
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:960


    --
    06 Oct 2010 07:29 AM

    [quote]Who the hell cares what the classes are called. Just put cars that are the same speed in the same class and call is Class 1, Class B and Class iii. Just keep cars that are the same speed together. Simple. You're going to have weird situations where Class "Slow" is faster than Class "Fast". The SCCA does their best to prevent that, but no club is perfect and as such, the STAC (and other committees) have done a generally good job at keeping the classes fair, yet diverse.

    He didn't lose you. Acknowledgment that having class 'slow' be faster than class 'fast' constitutes "weird" is proof you are aware of the class hierarchy. If there was no intent for a descending progression of speed, they would not start with 'A' and go down from there. Ask yourself why, when Super Stock was created, it got listed above A-Stock... After all, by your logic, it's just another stock class, why not list it at the bottom since it's newer, or even because it starts with 'S'? It gets listed at the top of Stock category because it's supposed to be the fastest Stock class.

    That said, every category has exceptions to the hierarchy;

    FS is faster than ES, and both are faster than DS. (for 4 years, GS was faster than DS too)

    ESP is faster than DSP

    CP is the 2nd slowest in Prepared, next to GP

    FM is faster than EM

    ST is faster than STX(?)

    Not that any of these ever stay that way. Cars get moved, someone develops a certain car better, someone builds a class killer, etc... They (SEB and AC's) try to maintain the hierarchy, but it rarely ever stays in order. However, that doesn't mean the hierarchy and its intended progression of speed doesn't exist.

    rp1
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:219


    --
    06 Oct 2010 07:55 AM

    splash wrote:
    He didn't lose you. Acknowledgment that having class 'slow' be faster than class 'fast' constitutes "weird" is proof you are aware of the theoretical class hierarchy.

    Fixed.

    splash wrote:
    If there was no intent for a descending progression of speed, they would not start with 'A' and go down from there.

    Intent and reality are two different things.

    splash wrote:
    Ask yourself why, when Super Stock was created, it got listed above A-Stock... After all, by your logic, it's just another stock class, why not list it at the bottom since it's newer, or even because it starts with 'S'? It gets listed at the top of Stock category because it's supposed to be the fastest Stock class.

    No, I'm saying two things:

    1. Who cares what we call it? By your own admission, the fastest Stock class starts with S. Doesn't that mean we should shift all the classes back on? (AS->BS, BS->CS, etc.)

    2. We can't always predict what class or car will be faster than another, especially when creating an entirely new class (and moving the entire class to a "faster" part of the hierarchy)...which is different than putting a new or existing car into a class hierarchy and moving it due to speed concerns.

    splash wrote:

    That said, every category has exceptions to the hierarchy;

    FS is faster than ES, and both are faster than DS. (for 4 years, GS was faster than DS too)

    ESP is faster than DSP

    CP is the 2nd slowest in Prepared, next to GP

    FM is faster than EM

    ST is faster than STX(?)

    Not that any of these ever stay that way. Cars get moved, someone develops a certain car better, someone builds a class killer, etc... They (SEB and AC's) try to maintain the hierarchy, but it rarely ever stays in order. However, that doesn't mean the hierarchy and its intended progression of speed doesn't exist.

    So what are we arguing about again? How does any of that affect the quality or participation at an autocross? Intent falls away when reality sets in and STR is proof of this. There has been no mention as to the where STR should fit into the loose ST* hierarchy. Additionally, the ST* classes are NAMED and not lettered. Street Touring, Street Touring Extreme, Street Touring Sport, etc. Additionally, the formula has completely changed with its introduction - subjective vs. objective classing. The only truly meaningful hierarchy we have is PAX.

    Example - Currently ST outperforms STX at many National events. ST is officially above "STX" in the rules book. Then, next year all the top drivers from ST pack themselves into STX. Over the course of two years STX proves itself to be much faster than ST and even STU. The E36, E46, RX-8, E30 M3, STX Prepared Civics, etc. are all still considered at parity with one another. So, move all the cars in STX into ST because it's an allegedly "faster" class? No. We leave them where they are and everyone just shuts up and drives.

    splash
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:960


    --
    06 Oct 2010 09:25 AM

    Reality, is that the hierarchy is NOT theoretical. It's not steadfastly adhered to either, but it is real and there is an effort to maintain it, if not a strong one.

    Indeed, you are correct about ST, so far. There is no order of letters to denote potential speed, though common sense would tell you that an EVO should be faster than a Civic, even though this is not always true. Even as such, wouldn't you expect that the "Xtreme" version of a class should be faster? Maybe perhaps that the "Ultra" version of a class should be faster? Sure, Sport and Roadster are much more vague in those terms, and we really don't know if Ultra is faster then Xtreme, but really, the word choices alone establish some amount of an order to them, especially when the "base" class is simply ST.

    Speaking of PAX on this subject, I spoke with Rick when the 2010 index came out because the STX and STU indexes were higher than ST by a larger amount than they were in 2009, normally meaning that, not only were they faster than ST, but also that they had accelerated this gap wider in the last year. If this was supported by the numbers, it would have been news to me. His reasoning at the time was "Don't you think STX and STU SHOULD be faster than ST?"... I just thought that was pertinent to this discussion, given your assessment that PAX is the only "meaningful" hierarchy we have, and its creator is using the same logic James and I are...

    StreetTireStock
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    06 Oct 2010 06:30 PM
    And it's a good thing that there are boards and committees that create and rule on classings to maintain order, and not just one person...ie rp1. Nothing against you personally, I just don't agree with your ideas about classing. But we can still be friends [:D]
    rp1
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:219


    --
    06 Oct 2010 07:56 PM

    StreetTireStock wrote:
    And it's a good thing that there are boards and committees that create and rule on classings to maintain order, and not just one person...ie rp1. Nothing against you personally, I just don't agree with your ideas about classing. But we can still be friends [:D]

    *phew* :) What region are you in, btw? You're James, right?

    StreetTireStock
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    08 Oct 2010 04:53 PM
    rp1 wrote:

    *phew* :) What region are you in, btw? You're James, right?

    I get called all kinds of things :)

    fastmike
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2415


    --
    08 Oct 2010 06:58 PM

    STR, imo, should be "above" STX yet STX cat rule is easier and 2wd cars get wider tires in STX vs. STR?????

    In fact, I think there was "official" SCCA documentation that said that STR was designed to be "above" STX.

    I don't know where that was but the CAT RULE SUCKS in STR.

    FM

    splash
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:960


    --
    08 Oct 2010 07:44 PM
    You surprised me Mike, I thought for sure you were gonna say "the TIRE RULE SUCKS in STR."... LOL
    fsmtnbiker
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:19


    --
    08 Oct 2010 10:21 PM

    Fastmike wrote:
    I don't know where that was but the CAT RULE SUCKS in STR.

    I agree. Pick a policy, and stick with it.

    I like the STX/U rules on cats. Simple, concise, keeps the cars emissions legal in at least 49 of the 50 states, and allows you to make more power (we all want that.)

    snakebit8
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:20


    --
    21 Dec 2017 01:29 PM
    So.. To bring an old thread back from the dead. Any hope of this ever happening? I think that car prepped correctly would be a good match for the Twins. The non M e36s don't really have a chance so its not like this move would be what makes them obsolete. The M3 just doesn't seem to have a chance in the current STR field. Thoughts on this?


    ---