Vorshlag 468x60 Banner
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 21 Dec 2017 01:29 PM by  snakebit8
Move E36 M3 to STX?
 115 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 6 of 6 << < 23456
Author Messages
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?
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 6 of 6 << < 23456


Mooresport 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