SCCAForums.com

From another thread...

Phillip S. Osborne:

Yeah, the old D Stock ACR Neons are bottom feeders in G Stock...talk about a car that needs to be shipped to H Stock!  If a late model Civic Si can be moved to H Stock, not sure why a lowly Neon shouldn't go there also....

 

I have a 97 ACR and a Mazda3. The Mazda3 is just as fast and seems to handle the same and has TREMENDOUSLY better braking! The "obvious fix would be to put the "forced induction, LSD" MCS back in DS where it started (and the other higher horsepower/LSD cars are). And the MCS was moved to GS before it gained a LSD and more HP in 05- but still remained after the improvements that truely made it a DS car. But it seems that once the SCCA makes a classing decision, it sticks to it (even if it is wrong). GS was a healthy class like HS until they added an obvious DS car to GS (which made GS a ONE car class with identical PAX to DS- I wonder why). And DS needs some new car blood from cars that are identical to their top performers...

And the 07 MX5 MS-R street prepared trunk package for CS? Here's a little article..

 http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=124963

 

Springs, swaybars, chassis braces, smaller(lighter) wheels (than the other LSD cars with 18in wheels), and not installed by factory (port installed-sounds like Street prepared). The car is much improved over anything you can get from the factory (stock?) and should be moved up a class (to AS with S2000), or put in CSP, which it now is. I seems to be an obvious mistake to allow it, but it's NEVER too late to right a wrong.

So... what are the options? Correct the mistakes and make the classes healthy again? Or leave cars like the DS MCS in GS and the Street Prepared MS-R in CS and let them be a one car class, which disenfranchise the majority of cars in their correct class.

Should "port-installed" performance packages be allowed (or should the car be bumped to a different class if the items are significant, like the MS-R). Can the SCCA clarify the rules to allow cars to be classed in more fair and "equal" manner so that it can allow class leaders to be based more on driver skill and performance tweaks vs adding one model that renders the whole class obsolete? And that the car (MS-R) is not factory build (but port built or built from an order from Mazdaspeed)? I know all of these points have been raised before, but the answer of "it's already done" doesn't seem to right the wrong. Doesn't the SCCA have the authority to do this? What about sending a questionaire to the members to ask their opinions and suggestions, and that way you can get member input (and wisdom) and maybe correct some classings that would make it enjoyable for the majority? Just some thoughts....

 

Clay

SCCA seems to class some cars according to who pays the most contingency. Its all about money, not where the cars should be classed. There always seems to be an overdog in every class. GS was a much better class before the MC ended up there. One of the reasons SCCA is losing members. But as long as there are 25 MC running at national events the SCCA is happy and won't change anything!

SoloRT:

... snip to CS stuff...

Springs, swaybars, chassis braces, wider wheels

Most times including this one magazine articles are not quite correct. The MS-R does not come with wider wheels, it uses the same 17x7 as all the other 06+ cars (that have 17" wheels)
 

---

Mark Hirt
2007 MX-5 MS-R
Bowman Race Kart - rented
Webmaster Chicago Region SCCA

It's interesting to me how some people feel they have clear understanding of what car should be classed where.  Maybe you should volunteer to be on the Solo Events Board?   The MS-R already competed at Nationals where it took 3rd behind a 1999 Miata and a 2006 Solstice ZOK.  That doesn't sound like an A-Stock car to me.  I think the SCCA did the right thing by allowing the MS-R.  C-Stock is a great class and by adding the MS-R it will be a 3-car class (instead of the 1 car class it used to be before the Solstice and the MS-R).  The Solstice is a great handling car and arguably has a better suspension design than the MS-R.  But the Solstice has no trunk, which is a deal breaker for me as a daily driver.  The MS-R package takes a great daily driver car and makes it a competitive autocross car.  (Something it should have been before the safety regulators screwed it up with the damn bumper height rule).   It's not the class overdog, but a perfect fit.     

---

2007 Mazda MX-5 MRS (C-stock)

Your idea of classing the mx5 in AS has no ground, just look at last years national results.  I wouldnt consider one mx5 in the trophies a one car class especially when the old 99 and the solstice are right there in the mix.

Two things :

1) "Can" and "will" are two different things. "Can" the SCCA correct what are apparently classing "mistakes"? Sure they can. "Will" they? Probably not. The best thing for National level autocross right now for both Stock and Street Prepared categories would be an entire reorganization of both categories. The last time that was done for Stock was... late 90s, I think. Probably about 10 years ago. It's well past time that it was done again. Besides the addition of FSP to the category, I'm not sure it's ever been done for SP.

2) The MSR MX5 that was at Nationals was a brand new car that had zero setup and zero seat time. Darrin is a hell of a driver. That being said, however, I don't think it belongs in AS. However, if most of those "upgrades" are indeed port-added, then a letter to the SEB to rethink allowing the car in stock class is probably not a bad idea. There are port-added options for Subarus that aren't allowed in stock class for the simple fact that they are port-added. Just make sure that your letter details where you found the information pointing to this, since word-of-mouth isn't the same as coming from Mazda.

 

---

Karen Kraus
2005 SCCA SEDiv FS Champion
2007 SCCA DSL National Champion
2008 SCCA ProSolo L1 Champion

CamaroFS34:

Two things :

2) The MSR MX5 that was at Nationals was a brand new car that had zero setup and zero seat time. Darrin is a hell of a driver. That being said, however, I don't think it belongs in AS. However, if most of those "upgrades" are indeed port-added, then a letter to the SEB to rethink allowing the car in stock class is probably not a bad idea. There are port-added options for Subarus that aren't allowed in stock class for the simple fact that they are port-added. Just make sure that your letter details where you found the information pointing to this, since word-of-mouth isn't the same as coming from Mazda.

 

Guess someone should read Appendix F for Stock class clarifications, as the Subaru WRX port-installed items are listed as legal, they even give you a list of the parts. 

---

Jason Isley
2005-2006-2007-2008 B Stock National Champion

I'm taking this a little off topic but....

It seems to me that the manufactures are under intense pressure from the safety police to kill off what we would define as a true sports car.  

With the new federally mandated bumper height rule it difficult to maintain a low center of gravity.  Heck when Alan Dahl was originally campaigning his MX-5 you'd regularly see the car on 2-wheels due to the increase in ride height over the 1st and 2nd generation Miatas.

Weight also seems to be increasing.  Look at the new Nissan GT-R the BMW 1-series, etc...   Sports cars seem to be getting quite a bit heavier.

So with all this in mind, I'm actually glad that the manufactures have some "loop holes" in the rules to work with so they can still offer us decent autocross cars with a full factory warranty.  

---

2007 Mazda MX-5 MRS (C-stock)

conekiller2:

Your idea of classing the mx5 in AS has no ground, just look at last years national results.  I wouldnt consider one mx5 in the trophies a one car class especially when the old 99 and the solstice are right there in the mix.

 

Maybe not AS, but Disimo was 2 seconds faster than Robert carpenter at first Tour, and ES was faster than CS at Nationals. Not sure of conditions...

CamaroFS34:

:

1) "Can" and "will" are two different things. "Can" the SCCA correct what are apparently classing "mistakes"? Sure they can. "Will" they? Probably not. The best thing for National level autocross right now for both Stock and Street Prepared categories would be an entire reorganization of both categories. The last time that was done for Stock was... late 90s, I think. Probably about 10 years ago. It's well past time that it was done again. Besides the addition of FSP to the category, I'm not sure it's ever been done for SP.

2) The MSR MX5 that was at Nationals was a brand new car that had zero setup and zero seat time. Darrin is a hell of a driver. That being said, however, I don't think it belongs in AS. However, if most of those "upgrades" are indeed port-added, then a letter to the SEB to rethink allowing the car in stock class is probably not a bad idea. There are port-added options for Subarus that aren't allowed in stock class for the simple fact that they are port-added. Just make sure that your letter details where you found the information pointing to this, since word-of-mouth isn't the same as coming from Mazda.

 

 

1. Maybe "should" should be added to the list...

2. Maybe "port added" items "should" be reconsidered. And are any MS-Rs actually "port" built, or Mazdaspeed shipped parts?

Darins car was built with added parts.  I believe about 3-4k for the parts.

mitchman:

It's interesting to me how some people feel they have clear understanding of what car should be classed where.  Maybe you should volunteer to be on the Solo Events Board?      

 

I  think that they have a difficult job. I also think that if they make a "questionable" decision, It would be OK to reevaluate it and correct it if necessary. And as for the board appointment, I'd be glad to help!

 

And the MCS proper classing (the most obvious classing "questionable understanding") is explained how (to ALL the slower cars in that class)? And the MS-R "may" get faster with some development...

RX7 KLR:

CamaroFS34:

Two things :

2) The MSR MX5 that was at Nationals was a brand new car that had zero setup and zero seat time. Darrin is a hell of a driver. That being said, however, I don't think it belongs in AS. However, if most of those "upgrades" are indeed port-added, then a letter to the SEB to rethink allowing the car in stock class is probably not a bad idea. There are port-added options for Subarus that aren't allowed in stock class for the simple fact that they are port-added. Just make sure that your letter details where you found the information pointing to this, since word-of-mouth isn't the same as coming from Mazda.

 

Guess someone should read Appendix F for Stock class clarifications, as the Subaru WRX port-installed items are listed as legal, they even give you a list of the parts. 

Guess someone should read carefully before being snide to someone who didn't say "all WRX port-installed items are illegal" just that some (ie. "there are") are. Heck, "someone" didn't even say "WRX port-installed items," just that there are "Subaru port installed items," which could be 2.5RS or STi. <shrug>

---

Karen Kraus
2005 SCCA SEDiv FS Champion
2007 SCCA DSL National Champion
2008 SCCA ProSolo L1 Champion

SoloRT:

conekiller2:

Your idea of classing the mx5 in AS has no ground, just look at last years national results.  I wouldnt consider one mx5 in the trophies a one car class especially when the old 99 and the solstice are right there in the mix.

 

Maybe not AS, but Disimo was 2 seconds faster than Robert carpenter at first Tour, and ES was faster than CS at Nationals. Not sure of conditions...

The conditions were completely different.  This is not a good data point.  ES ran in cold and rain on Saturday and colder temps on Sunday.  Also SGMP gets much faster as the day goes on due to the rubber being laid down.

If you look at Sunday's results, they were closer than Saturday's.

---

Mark Davis
1993 Toyota MR-2 White "Casper"

SoloRT:

Maybe not AS, but Disimo was 2 seconds faster than Robert carpenter at first Tour, and ES was faster than CS at Nationals. Not sure of conditions...

At Nationals CS ran T/W, ES ran R/F.  Tuesday morning when CS ran was wet/sometimes raining.  All other days were dry.
 

---

Chris Kirkham
193 ES 1995 Miata R

     So what your saying then is that the integra type r should get moved up a class since it is obviously a class overdog. Do that and then move the mcs to D stock and everything will be cool. To me that opens up a couple of classes.

---

Ron Williams

Multi-time national champion---ship trophy winner

There is a reason that the neon is in G, believe me it is much faster in an autocross than your mazda 3.  If it got moved to H stock it would easily dominate the class and therefore is in G. 

---

Ron Williams

Multi-time national champion---ship trophy winner

A little history lesson for you, Results 1999 Mark Daddio winner D stock total time 120. 156.  G stock winner Bob Endicott total time 121. 480. Both classes ran in good weather. And by the way Ron Bauer  was in third with a type-r at 121.606.  I think a neon can be planty fast.

---

Ron Williams

Multi-time national champion---ship trophy winner

All the top guys were in type R's in G stock

---

Ron Williams

Multi-time national champion---ship trophy winner

Who says that those are mistakes, besides just you?  The author of that article really gushed over that "1g Miata" but I can assure you that it's no street prepared car.  It's no AS car either.  It would need another 50-60 horsepower at least.

So what if Disimo beat Carpenter at a Tour?  Even by a lot?  Buetzer has often beat Isley at local events, but I don't see anyone lobbying to put the '99 Miata into B Stock.

PS - Starting with the assumption that the SEB has made a mistake and asking if they're willing to fix them is a lot more confrontational than asking whether other people think that a particular classing might be inappropriate. 

 

---

John S.
S2000 #42as