Sunoco 468x60 Banner
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 30 Mar 2014 08:45 AM by  pknowles
SP Nats Attendance 2008-2012
 51 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 2 of 3 << < 123 > >>
Author Messages
madarash
New Member
New Member
Posts:79


--
07 Mar 2013 03:22 PM
SMSupercoupe wrote:
I'm an ESP driver (or I will be as soon as I fix my Camaro). I have a fairly well-prepped car: well prepped enough that I know that the driver is holding the car back and not vice versa. It's emissions legal (in my county, anyway), I drive it to events with the tires and tools in the car, and I get 25 mpg doing it. For the most part, I'm pretty happy with the SP rule set.

I'd rather not see it get merged with ST or SM in any kind of way that would destroy such a fun class to run in and instantly make all the pony cars uncompetitive. I'm not sure how pony cars could ever compete with the likes of M3s, Evos, and STIs currently in STU and SM. I also don't want to go to CP with a car that's grossly overweight to keep it street legal, or a non-street legal car that requires me to buy a truck and trailer.

ESP in particular fulfills a very nice niche between stock and prepared classes. SSP, CSP, and FSP also seem to be very healthy from the tours I've been to. I don't want to kill anyone's class, but if the day comes when one particular SP class is just dead, killing it alone would be better than eliminating all of SP. Just as was done with eliminating BP rather than all prepared classes. With that said, I guess if I end up as the last guy in ESP, I'll turn off the lights.

I agree, I think the reason ESP's numbers are better than all the other SP classes is we have nowhere else to go. We would get killed in SM by the EVO's and in ST were to heavy and wide to compete on tiny ass little tires.

ratt_finkel
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1650


--
07 Mar 2013 03:41 PM
cbramey wrote:

SP rules have only a few flaws: R compound tires instead of streets; unlimited mini clutches; stock long blocks; and the propensity to class tiny or featherweight cars with big or heavy ones that seems to cross all the SCCA classes.

Look, heads/cam/strokers wont make that big a performance difference for a lot of cars for solo, but would sure open up the class to a more heavily populated demographic.

That same demographic wants to be able to open track, drag, and street drive their cars so a miniclutch is ridiculous.

No one wants to spend $1500 on a set of 12 - run tires, so race tires are ridiculous.

No want wants to spend wind tunnel money, or drive around with a scraper so low in the front they can't get into a parking lot, or with a bunch of home depot crap bolted all over their car, so any aero mods should be essentially regulated to be non functional.

Then you would have the best set of rules yet. I expect attendance would skyrocket, especially if marketed properly.

the SM rules were a valiant effort to do SOMETHING to shake the inertia, but the rules are a complete and total disaster. ST was just another strange response to the tire issue; phase both into the new SP rules and you have a great class that will appeal to a lot of enthusiasts.

What? No. This is just all wrong Chris.

If someone is losing because they don't have a mini-clutch, then there is something wrong. I can daily drive my exedy twin clutch perfectly fine on the street. It's very livable. It's not uber-light. But it's overkill for 400whp. I choose it for the ease of rebuilding and durability for pro launches with a co-driver. In reality, a single plate ACT or similar clutch with lightweight flywheel would be more than enough.

Who is blowing blocks in SP? With an aggressive co-driver I get 50 competitive runs out of Hoosiers and 70+ useable runs. Kumhos are about 100. The bfgs look to be close the Kumho in wear. And strokers? Come on man. Who runs those in solo now?

Who ever mentioned the sway bar comment about ripping mounts. There are many stock cars that do that, and many ST cars that do it. So what?



mlane350z
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:238


--
07 Mar 2013 04:00 PM
cbramey wrote:

SP rules have only a few flaws: R compound tires instead of streets; unlimited mini clutches; stock long blocks; and the propensity to class tiny or featherweight cars with big or heavy ones that seems to cross all the SCCA classes.

Look, heads/cam/strokers wont make that big a performance difference for a lot of cars for solo, but would sure open up the class to a more heavily populated demographic.

That same demographic wants to be able to open track, drag, and street drive their cars so a miniclutch is ridiculous.

No one wants to spend $1500 on a set of 12 - run tires, so race tires are ridiculous.

No want wants to spend wind tunnel money, or drive around with a scraper so low in the front they can't get into a parking lot, or with a bunch of home depot crap bolted all over their car, so any aero mods should be essentially regulated to be non functional.

Then you would have the best set of rules yet. I expect attendance would skyrocket, especially if marketed properly.

the SM rules were a valiant effort to do SOMETHING to shake the inertia, but the rules are a complete and total disaster. ST was just another strange response to the tire issue; phase both into the new SP rules and you have a great class that will appeal to a lot of enthusiasts.

No.

ACM
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:115


--
07 Mar 2013 06:06 PM
Re cbramey's comments :

There is no way I would go back to running street tyres - even if race tyres force me to weld my upper A-arm mounts back into the bodyshell every season !

Oh, and for the record, I run the same clutch in my autocrosser as I do in my daily driver - different flywheels, but they weigh roughly the same - JUN in the a/x car, Fidanza in the street car.

Does any upper level autocrosser do anything else with his SP autocross car - why would you compromise your a/x car that badly ? Besides, if I wanted to do track days, I'd just build another car - much more convenient.

I agree on your aero comments, but for a completely different reason - aero is SM, it has no place in SP imho.

One of SP's problems now is the cost of entry - the last few rule changes (camber kits, brake kits for two) have added significant cost to prepping an SP car. But in truth, it's only an issue running nationally - it takes years to develop your driving chops to that level anyway, so the build cost is not that big a deal when spread over time.

Strokers, cams and heads - give 20 hp or 20 ft/lb to a novice and no, they won't go any faster, they won't gain any advantage, I'll agree completely. But give that same power boost to Daddio, Maderash or Strano - do you really think they won't go any faster ? On your planet perhaps not, but the planet we all race SP on ? So now, anyone who wants to compete at this level has to build their own cammed stroker motor. So what you actually just did was raise the cost of competing nationally by several thousand dollars, just so some non-serious locals can have a (slightly) less intimidating class to play in.

Charles

djsilver
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:187


--
07 Mar 2013 08:13 PM

Jeremy has opened up a tough subject with no easy answer. I started in 2002 and from my perspective, ST classes have largely replaced SP as the transition between Stock and SM/M/P.

SP allows changes that make cars un-streetable, but don't allow changes to suspension geometry to fix basic flaws (i.e. roll-center), and give boosted cars allowances, with no analagous allowances for everyone else. My car is an NA 4-cylinder in DSP (LOL!). I'm considering sticking on a turbo and moving to SM so I can make needed suspension changes (but didn't SM start out as a class for street cars with engine swaps? ;-)

I agree with Terry that ST needs to make room for the muscle cars.

For the folks that still DD their SP cars, it might make sense to shift to ST. For those that are too far gone. SM or P might be the only option.

Don Johnson

Buccaneer Region

Savannah, GA

cbramey
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:766


--
08 Mar 2013 12:19 AM
As someone who used to try to recruit car nuts into our sport, i just disagree with some of you guys. None of the guys i brought in stuck with it, largely because of rules.

I know miniclutches have gotten better since they were allowed, but seriously, do you really think allowing a $5000 14 lb clutch/fw assembly with no self adjuster and very debatable streetability is a good idea for street prepared?

12 -20 runs was my experience on a6's before you start losing tenths. Even if i is 90 that is still over $20 per run for a lot of cars. Not a real amateur friendly tire.

Aero is a pet peeve, but allowing aero can never be described as anything other than an extensive money and time investment for no good reason. Something bad for any amateur sport.

I dont really care much anymore about long block mods, as factory power has now exceeded even hoosier rubber. My stock z already makes more power than any tire can put down.

Longlocks would be a bigger deal in the slower sp classes.

The main reason i advocate for it is that it would be a major improvement to our ability to get car enthusiasts on board with our sport.

I love you guys. I just disagree.
snaponbob
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:2862


--
08 Mar 2013 09:15 AM
They left because of RULES? Wow. Chess, bridge, shooting .... rules.
Andy Hollis
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts:6197


--
08 Mar 2013 01:16 PM
cbramey wrote:
I know miniclutches have gotten better since they were allowed, but seriously, do you really think allowing a $5000 14 lb clutch/fw assembly with no self adjuster and very debatable streetability is a good idea for street prepared?

There was a point in time when mini-clutches were almost disallowed. Can't remember if it was ever put in Fastrack, but it was certainly discussed at the SEB level.

IMO, the right answer for SP is stock type and diameter (working surface and OD) of both clutch and flywheel. Stock # of plates, too. That allows additional clamping force to be used as needed for SP gains over OE power and grip, and also allows a lighter flywheel (cheap and common acceleration improvement). But it keeps out the stupid expensive custom stuff.

ratt_finkel
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1650


--
08 Mar 2013 05:10 PM
Andy Hollis wrote:
cbramey wrote:
I know miniclutches have gotten better since they were allowed, but seriously, do you really think allowing a $5000 14 lb clutch/fw assembly with no self adjuster and very debatable streetability is a good idea for street prepared?

There was a point in time when mini-clutches were almost disallowed. Can't remember if it was ever put in Fastrack, but it was certainly discussed at the SEB level.

IMO, the right answer for SP is stock type and diameter (working surface and OD) of both clutch and flywheel. Stock # of plates, too. That allows additional clamping force to be used as needed for SP gains over OE power and grip, and also allows a lighter flywheel (cheap and common acceleration improvement). But it keeps out the stupid expensive custom stuff.

I actually like this idea. But again, a lot of this is "perceived" costs. My clutch didn't cost half of what Ramey thinks they do.

This is a sport? that allos you the ability to participate at any commitment level. And that's really what it's all about. You have the ability AND option to dump 5 grand into your car or 50k and run against people with budgets covering the same spread. No offense to Andy, but remember when Canak came in an kicked STS2's ass with a budget under-prepped car.

ron
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:767


--
08 Mar 2013 07:53 PM
He did it twice, not once.
Andy Hollis
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts:6197


--
08 Mar 2013 08:05 PM
ratt_finkel wrote:
No offense to Andy, but remember when Canak came in an kicked STS2's ass with a budget under-prepped car.

It was .048 seconds over two days. Each of us beat the other by a half-second on one day. I would not exactly call that an ass-kicking. :)

But I understand the point you are making...that a budget car was at least the equal of a higher-dollar effort in that particular situation. Or perhaps he was as much a better driver as his car was a lesser car.

Fair
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1021


--
12 Mar 2013 11:19 AM

"cbramey" wrote:

SP rules have only a few flaws: R compound tires instead of streets; unlimited mini clutches; stock long blocks; and the propensity to class tiny or featherweight cars with big or heavy ones that seems to cross all the SCCA classes. Look, heads/cam/strokers wont make that big a performance difference for a lot of cars for solo, but would sure open up the class to a more heavily populated demographic. That same demographic wants to be able to open track, drag, and street drive their cars so a miniclutch is ridiculous.No one wants to spend $1500 on a set of 12 - run tires, so race tires are ridiculous.

 

No want wants to spend wind tunnel money, or drive around with a scraper so low in the front they can't get into a parking lot, or with a bunch of home depot crap bolted all over their car, so any aero mods should be essentially regulated to be non functional.

Then you would have the best set of rules yet. I expect attendance would skyrocket, especially if marketed properly.

the SM rules were a valiant effort to do SOMETHING to shake the inertia, but the rules are a complete and total disaster. ST was just another strange response to the tire issue; phase both into the new SP rules and you have a great class that will appeal to a lot of enthusiasts.

 

Yep, all good points Chris. After spending five figures on race tires last year I am getting pretty sick of it. "70 usable runs" on Hoosiers is a pipe dream, as it is more like 10-20 before they start to go off. That is absurd.

And mini-clutches were ALWAYS a bad idea. I like Andy's "stock type and diameter (working surface and OD) of both clutch and flywheel. Stock # of plates, too" proposal. That should be, like... an SP rules proposal.

And I was there with Chris when SMod was introduced, fighting to get the sane changes in that SP was missing. We fought and fought with DG, but ultimately SMod has been mostly an attendance failure, due to some odd rules allowed and other common aftermarket mods that were banned.

And I could give up aero if it was EQUAL among all SP entries.

"ratt_finkel" wrote:

If someone is losing because they don't have a mini-clutch, then there is something wrong. I can daily drive my exedy twin clutch perfectly fine on the street. It's very livable. It's not uber-light. But it's overkill for 400whp. I choose it for the ease of rebuilding and durability for pro launches with a co-driver. In reality, a single plate ACT or similar clutch with lightweight flywheel would be more than enough.

Just because you haven't done a miniclutch in your SP car doesn't mean the next SP guy isn't thinking about blowing the $$$ on one. If you think "they don't help" then support the SP clutch proposal above to outlaw them.

 

"ratt_finkel" wrote:

Who is blowing blocks in SP?

Boosted cars have to deal with head gasket, head and block damage. You have an EVO, which has a brute strength iron block. Not many other motors with stock internals can run 30+ psi of boost regularly without damage.

 

"ratt_finkel" wrote:

With an aggressive co-driver I get 50 competitive runs out of Hoosiers and 70+ useable runs. Kumhos are about 100. The bfgs look to be close the Kumho in wear.

On concrete, and Nationally competitive? 100 runs? I would disagree, massively. Didn't you get straight-timed by a street driven CSP Miata last weekend??

 

"ratt_finkel" wrote:

And strokers? Come on man. Who runs those in solo now?

Who runs strokers? They are outlawed in many classes. But anyone that is allowed to and wants to be competitive would, if they didn't have a turbo. You have your "cubic inch displacer" (turbo), but there isn't a similar mod for NA cars that can add the same level of power. And anytime you have turbo and NA cars in the same SP class.... the turbo cars will ALWAYS make more power.

 

So many SCCA classes are somehow "displacement based" (Prepared, SMod) that even when they are allowed, stroker motors are often penalized heavily. But if you run a turbo you can run as much boost as you want, and using the 1970s FIA based displacement/turbo equivalency rules you still end up lighter and with more power. It is starting to improve, little by little, in classes like XP... but those classes still heavily favor a small displacement boosted engine.

"ratt_finkel" wrote:

Who ever mentioned the sway bar comment about ripping mounts. There are many stock cars that do that, and many ST cars that do it. So what?

There are bigger problems in many SP classes than swaybars. A-arms ripping out of cars, ball joints failing, unibody seams splitting, wheel hubs failing. These are areas that cannot legally be upgraded in SP to match the grip forces that massive R-compounds can provide. This isn't as big of a problem in Stock or ST, and in SMod you can change much of this... but it is a real problem in SP. CSP Miatas flinging wheels off willy nilly.

 

"djsilver" wrote:

SP allows changes that make cars un-streetable, but don't allow changes to suspension geometry to fix basic flaws (i.e. roll-center), and give boosted cars allowances, with no analagous allowances for everyone else. My car is an NA 4-cylinder in DSP (LOL!). I'm considering sticking on a turbo and moving to SM so I can make needed suspension changes (but didn't SM start out as a class for street cars with engine swaps? ;-)

Whoa! Good points in there, Don. My ESP car was becoming very unstreetable, and I hadn't even yanked the A/C or emissions yet, but for this season we had to do all of that and more to try to be competitive. And it had all sorts of WACKY rear geometry that basic lowering causes on these Solid Axle RWD cars. Anti-squat problems that are normally easy to fix with $100 bolt on lower control arm relocation brackets...

 

_DSF8968-S.jpg DSC_2117-S.jpg

But those brackets are banned in SP, and I think even in SMod. Moving pick-up points is verboten in so many SCCA classes. We added those brackets to my ESP car after the 2012 Solo Nats and it made a tremendous improvement, and now I'm never taking them off (welded them on a week ago). $100 bolt-on brackets that push this car into C Prepared. Super common aftermarket mod done to many thousands of solid axle RWD cars. Been popular for a couple of decades, just not in the SCCA.

"djsilver" wrote:

I agree with Terry that ST needs to make room for the muscle cars.

I wish more people would agree, and then send in a letter to the SEB.

 

"cbramey" wrote:

As someone who used to try to recruit car nuts into our sport, i just disagree with some of you guys. None of the guys i brought in stuck with it, largely because of rules.

Truth. Chris and I both worked with a large collegiate sports car club for many years, and pushing the somewhat stuffy Solo rules on young college kids that were all doing common, aftermarket mods was tough - because almost everything they wanted to do or had already added to their cars put them into very tough classes... Prepared, Mod, etc. These were all average, daily driven cars built on extreme "broke student budgets", but the rules were killing these guys. And still are.

 

solo-school-M.jpg

The Texas SCCA region had a Solo School over the last weekend (above) with record attendance (after two Cars & Coffee events got us in front of the right people) and all 5 students I worked with had done simple mods to their daily drivers that pushed them into weird, uncompetitive classes. I didn't scare them off with any of that, just tried to get them hooked on the sport, improve their skills, and show up to the Solo event the next day. "Just run Novice tomorrow... we'll figure out classing later", but that only works for so long. Then they see all of their common mods push their cars into crazy classes, and that's where the struggle begins - how do you KEEP these people in the sport?

"cbramey" wrote:

I know miniclutches have gotten better since they were allowed, but seriously, do you really think allowing a $5000 14 lb clutch/fw assembly with no self adjuster and very debatable streetability is a good idea for street prepared? 12 -20 runs was my experience on a6's before you start losing tenths. Even if i is 90 that is still over $20 per run for a lot of cars. Not a real amateur friendly tire.

90 competitive runs on modern R compounds (aka: Hoosiers, until the R1-S gets more data; Kumhos were pushed out of the tire wars years ago) is a pipe dream, Chris. As someone who durometers their tires regularly, and has been data logging for years, that number can be cut by a factor of 4. Then the tires are still "quick" and usable, just not as fast as when new.

 

"cbramey" wrote:

Aero is a pet peeve, but allowing aero can never be described as anything other than an extensive money and time investment for no good reason. Something bad for any amateur sport.

 

True... on our "ESP" Mustang we've played with splitters, spoilers and rear wings and have made multiple iterations of each... and we still haven't even scratched the surface of proper testing. Have been reading Neil's book (ThinkFAST) and picking his brain and we have a LOT of aero testing ahead of us for NASA TT3 competition. If they had banned the 1960s-era spoilers in SP, I would have gladly pulled off that big mess out back - then we wouldn't be at any potential disadvantage to other cars in the class.

_DSC9787-S.jpg DSC_9951-S.jpg
Several rear aero iterations on our multi-use Mustang. Left is our track set-up, right was for ESP autocross

"cbramey" wrote:

I dont really care much anymore about long block mods, as factory power has now exceeded even hoosier rubber. My stock z already makes more power than any tire can put down. Longlocks would be a bigger deal in the slower sp classes. The main reason i advocate for it is that it would be a major improvement to our ability to get car enthusiasts on board with our sport. I love you guys. I just disagree.

I'm with you on 95% of your points, Chris, but like you I'm on the outside lookin in. I've always pushed for more common sense mods that match what the aftermarket is offering, mods that the average guys are doing, to attract them to Solo.

 

I heard positive noises after the recent SCCA convention. The word "change" was apparently used a lot. I hope the folks running Solo can work on the entrenched people/rules/classes and apply this new idea. SP and SM need major updates, and an eventual merge of these two categories could help attendance. Add one or two more ST classes, to allow more cars into this category, and then we're getting somewhere.

Cheers,

mwood
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:2279


--
12 Mar 2013 11:57 AM

I think there's a basic question that has to be answered re: viability of SP classes.

Is it the ruleset or the basic concept that is flawed?

Rules can be fixed (somewhat and with trial/error, at times), if the concept is past its sold by date, that's another story...

 

cbramey
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:766


--
12 Mar 2013 01:01 PM
Posted By mwood on 12 Mar 2013 11:57 AM

I think there's a basic question that has to be answered re: viability of SP classes.

Is it the ruleset or the basic concept that is flawed?

Rules can be fixed (somewhat and with trial/error, at times), if the concept is past its sold by date, that's another story...

 

Well, my firm opinion is that SP should be the fundamental basis for tweaking into new class, and I think it would quickly become the most popular class solo has ever seen.

SP is a fundamentally sound rules set concept.    Its major issues are fixable;  1) improved streetability, 2) costs, particularly tire and R&D costs, 3) some classes still try to fit cars  together that are just too radically different (Lotus/Vette, eg.), 4) it disallows drivetrain mods that are most popular with our target demographic. 

My answer: commencing the 3rd year out, merge ST into SP using the SP rules as is, except as follows:

1. Use street tires as ST currently defines them;  I'd shop the manufacturers with the widest size selections and try to make it a spec tire class with volume discounts.   (prevents testing $$ requirements);  either that or fund a club tire test every year with most of the major tires, tested on at least 3 representative platforms.  I'd also consider marking one set of tires for every national event and that is the only set you get to run at that event.  Maybe 5 tires total to account for flats or other problems.

2.  Claimer shocks - $1000 buys the winner's shocks at any national event.

3.   full diameter/disc clutche/fw  - you could even set a minimum weight

4.   ac removal requires  front ballast, say 30 lbs

5.   non emissions legal/inspection sticker adds  ballast, say  50 lbs

6.   I'd consider ballast or minimum weights for race seats too, perhaps the ST rule is the right way to go.

7.    any non stock aero gets significant penalties;  some ideas for penalties would include 1) requiring  10% of total vehicle weight  as ballast, 2) set criteria such that no significant downforce is produced, 3) significantly limit tire sizes for cars with non stock aero.  

8.    I'd consider allowing off the shelf aftermarket cams/heads/stroker components, at least for some classes where such mods are popular and readily available. 

Many cars now can overwork a set of street tires as is, even without those components, so allowing them may improve the class attractiveness to the track day/street race/car magazine crowd that feeds our sport, without really upsetting the apple cart.

9.    put a roller in grid every car has to get over in order to run, confirming a semi streetable minimum ride height.

10.   Screen the class placements to prevent the tiny/large car pairings or other obvious mismatches, and promote popular platforms (vettes/miata/muscle car/bmw/porsche etc.).

 

I'd certainly run the hell out of this class, along with a lot of people I know that are currently sitting out solo. 

 

Then if you really want to make this sport attractive, carry this identical rules set into time trials and club racing.    Then you have a car you can really put to use and enjoy in all kinds of ways.  Solo would become more appreciated for what it is:  the most intense and challenging drivers sport out there, but have a place of respect in the track/road race community as well.

 


Z3papa
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:525


--
12 Mar 2013 03:05 PM
I doubt this is a reality that much of SP wants to hear but as ST_ has continued to expand and found homes for more cars using ST tires, SP numbers have progressively dropped. Not sure whether ST will ever be a good answer for high HP heavy cars like the pony cars or Vettes but for much of the rest, its popularity is rooted on a decent amount of allowances and affordable tires which last longer.
Fair
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1021


--
12 Mar 2013 03:05 PM
Posted By cbramey on 12 Mar 2013 01:01 PM  

Then if you really want to make this sport attractive, carry this identical rules set into time trials and club racing.    Then you have a car you can really put to use and enjoy in all kinds of ways.  Solo would become more appreciated for what it is:  the most intense and challenging drivers sport out there, but have a place of respect in the track/road race community as well.

Changing SCCA Club Racing to something that even remotely matches Solo is highly unlikely, but I like the idea. From what I have seen, very few SCCA Club Racers give much respect or notice to SCCA autocrossers. There isn't as much crossover as there used to be.

I think you would like the similarities between NASA Time Trial and NASA-X auto-x classing/rules, and the ease at which their club transitions drivers from HPDE > Time Trial > Club Racing.This is something that some SCCA regions are desperately trying to copy (see SCCA's PDX program).

hklvette
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:184


--
13 Mar 2013 02:10 PM
Posted By ACM on 07 Mar 2013 06:06 PM
Re cbramey's comments :

Statement 1:
Does any upper level autocrosser do anything else with his SP autocross car - why would you compromise your a/x car that badly ? Besides, if I wanted to do track days, I'd just build another car - much more convenient.

Statement 2:
One of SP's problems now is the cost of entry - the last few rule changes (camber kits, brake kits for two) have added significant cost to prepping an SP car. But in truth, it's only an issue running nationally - it takes years to develop your driving chops to that level anyway, so the build cost is not that big a deal when spread over time.



So the cost of entry has nothing to do with having a dedicated autocross car?  This does not compute...  As people move on to other classes, how many people are willing to spend the coin to buy/ build/ run an SP car in their stead?  I would rather spend that money on HPDE's in a near-stock car than build an SP car...
ACM
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:115


--
13 Mar 2013 06:06 PM
Posted By hklvette on 13 Mar 2013 02:10 PM
Posted By ACM on 07 Mar 2013 06:06 PM
Re cbramey's comments :

Statement 1:
Does any upper level autocrosser do anything else with his SP autocross car - why would you compromise your a/x car that badly ? Besides, if I wanted to do track days, I'd just build another car - much more convenient.

Statement 2:
One of SP's problems now is the cost of entry - the last few rule changes (camber kits, brake kits for two) have added significant cost to prepping an SP car. But in truth, it's only an issue running nationally - it takes years to develop your driving chops to that level anyway, so the build cost is not that big a deal when spread over time.



So the cost of entry has nothing to do with having a dedicated autocross car?  This does not compute...  As people move on to other classes, how many people are willing to spend the coin to buy/ build/ run an SP car in their stead?  I would rather spend that money on HPDE's in a near-stock car than build an SP car...

That's fine if you can't justify the cost of SP, that's your prerogative.  If your choice is between HPDEs and running an SP car, then I'm guessing SP doesn't interest you that much - which is fine too, but...

One thing I didn't consider was a top level autocrosser switching classes - there would be significant cost incurred in that scenario, but it never seems to get in the way does it   Building an SP car is no worse than building an SM car, probably cheaper - doesn't appear to hold those classes back ? 

Or maybe Andy Hollis' comment "To me, SP is like P, except you have to do everything the hard/expensive/fragile way to get the performance." hits the mark ?  Would addressing this help ?  I do agree with the fragility comment, definitely - allowing SP to do things 'right' rather than 'repeatedly' would definitely be helpful. 

 

I certainly will not give up my race tyres, that's a deal breaker for me, no question.

 

Milan
New Member
New Member
Posts:75


--
13 Mar 2013 10:39 PM
could the culprit be track days and HPDE events. They seem plentiful and fairly inexpensive nowadays.
I'm not in SP or P, but the fact that I want to do HPDE events this year is one reason i'm moving from Stock to RT.
mpfannen
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:143


--
21 Mar 2013 06:39 PM
BSP has/had quite a few joining for the next two seasons. Hopefully the recent fastrack gets burned and those interested in the calss weren't scared off...

-Marc
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 2 of 3 << < 123 > >>


Leroy Engineering Micro Button Sunoco 88x31 Button
Woodhouse Motorsports
SPS 88x31 Button G-Loc Button
Vorshlag 88x31 Button

Advertise on SCCAForums.com and reach thousands of visitors per day!

SafeRacer FREE SHIPPING over $99

Shop for Pirelli tires at Tire Rack. blank



Sunoco Bottom 468x60 Banner