SCCAForums.com

AceInHole:

So you want to move to a "faster" (by PAX) class? :P

 

I never said anything about pax or the competition that my car would be up against, was just saying my horse in the race doesnt have any issues with the proposal.

---

Scott
07 Mazdaspeed 3

I like the idea of moving all FWD limited slip cars into a single class, so it looks like the SCCA is making a good move in this regard. Most of the FWD cars with a limited slip have their pros and cons and are fairly evenly matched.  Of course there will still be dominant cars, but there are dominant cars in every class.

That being said, I see no reason why the ITR should be excluded from the party.  It has been one of the dominant cars in DS (and formerly GS) for 10 years, but before Heartland Park, the 330 was becoming THE car to have supplanting the Type R.  The surface at Heartland park seems to favor the attributes of the Type R over the 330. But what about over the Mini?  Lump all the DS and GS trophy winners from 2007 together and the Mini starts to look to be the better car (or at least the equal of).

How about the TT? JT showed that the Type R is vulnerable. 

Additionally, what will happen in 2009 if we move to concrete?  Will an ACR SRT4 all of a sudden become a lot more competitive? How about an MP3?  What about cars that are about to make an appearance on the marketplace (speculative, for sure, but supported by years of observation that cars tend to get quicker).

I don't own a Type R, but I do drive one at the big events, including Nationals.  So in a sense, I am a subjective party. I know that some of the issue is its age and availability, but I see them on the marketplace still, and there will always be enough (they are a future classic) to provide for the few autocrossers who really want them.  I mean, how many national caliber autocrossers are running or want to run type R's? 10? 20? 30?

Adam Ansorge

P.S. ....and yes, I will send a letter in...

aansorge:

I know that some of the issue is its age and availability, but I see them on the marketplace still, and there will always be enough (they are a future classic) to provide for the few autocrossers who really want them.  ..

I actually understand the idea behind this. I certainly want a Type-R, but the availability and theft rate make them a bad daily drive / double duty car, and the cost (considering the age) make them a bad choice as a dedicated racer. 10 years isn't enough?

---

DS #313 | the rolling couch of doom | La-Z-Boy Racing

Why not put all FWD LSD cars in GS (including the Mini Cooper S and Type-R)?  Because a car is more likely to get stolen is a poor reason to exclude a car from the class.

There are those of us who do own a stock class car, which we only use for autocrossing or track days and not as daily drivers.  That said, leave it up to the competitor to decide which car they want to race.  If you have the ability to have a car only as a dedicated autocross car, then buy a Type-R (they are out there).   If you need the car to double as a daily driver, buy a Mini Cooper S.  Both cars are competitive at local and national level events.

micmic:

Why not put all FWD LSD cars in GS (including the Mini Cooper S and Type-R)?  Because a car is more likely to get stolen is a poor reason to exclude a car from the class.

There are those of us who do own a stock class car, which we only use for autocrossing or track days and not as daily drivers.  That said, leave it up to the competitor to decide which car they want to race.  If you have the ability to have a car only as a dedicated autocross car, then buy a Type-R (they are out there).   If you need the car to double as a daily driver, buy a Mini Cooper S.  Both cars are competitive at local and national level events.

Again, none of us has any official clue as to why the proposals have been made. I would like to know why first as it makes sense to me that somebody ought to explain why they are doing this before wondering why they are making these class changes. As it is now, I don't have a problem with the ITR, Crossfire, BMWs, WRXs, etc. that are now in DS and I don't want my SRT-4 moved to GS unless there's some other reason for it. 

---

Steve W.
ACR SRT-4

I don't think the theft rate of the ITR has any bearing on the thinking behind this...I do think it has everything to do with the availability of ITR's, which were tough to find when new and have just become harder and harder to find in truly stock legal condition...the other "old cars" that are class competitive (ES MR2, Miata, AS C4 etc) are common, in comparison. The other thing is the need to open up an existing class to a new car description...rally cars.

 

---

In slow, out fast.
In fast, out backwards.

Fastmike:

Steve: When black helicopters start flying overhead, you will understand the big picture.

Seriously, I am just guessing on what is going on.

R U going to Packwood next week?

FM

I know you're guessing and your ideas sound like what could be the plans the SAC/SEB are putting together. I just am flabergasted at why they would release this information in the manner they did.

 Nah, won't be at Packwood. I wish I could cuz if I was on my game and all, I'd probably be a decent benchmark for you and your new car. It would be neat to even do some car swapping, too. It's just that with high gas prices, taxes, increased health insurance costs and an ex, I'm pretty much toast this season.

---

Steve W.
ACR SRT-4

SteveW:

I know you're guessing and your ideas sound like what could be the plans the SAC/SEB are putting together. I just am flabergasted at why they would release this information in the manner they did.

I am going to cut/paste Brian's notes from the other thread, because they pretty much exactly mirror my thoughts on this. Ideally this would have all been together, but we only had so much of this put together by the deadline for this FT, and it was the last chance to get anything in for 09. 

bconners:

The sky isn't falling.  In a perfect world both halves of the proposal would have been published at the same time.  Since all this work is done in our spare time as volunteers we couldn't get both sets done in time for July.  The July fastrack is our cutoff for making 09 changes and the SAC suggested to the SEB we wanted the options to make some moves based on results that haven't happened yet.  Nothing has been decided as the SEB or the SAC haven't yet heard from the membership.  Take what we have published and think about it.  Watch what unfolds between now and Nationals along with what comes out next month.  There will be lots of opportunity to communicate to the SAC and SEB what you would like to see happen.

---

-- Drew
AS S2000

mwood:

I don't think the theft rate of the ITR has any bearing on the thinking behind this...I do think it has everything to do with the availability of ITR's, which were tough to find when new and have just become harder and harder to find in truly stock legal condition...the other "old cars" that are class competitive (ES MR2, Miata, AS C4 etc) are common, in comparison. The other thing is the need to open up an existing class to a new car description...rally cars.

 

As stated by others: "They are out there".  Even in stock form.  But for arguments sake, lets say you find a "molested one" that has different sway bars, wheels, and coil overs.  Such a car would be only marginally more difficult to setup than one that is stock.  Anybody running one seriously in stock class is going to change out the shocks, and need different wheels anyhow.  If the springs evaporated that could be more difficult, but I'm guessing that the ITR forums have plenty of stock goods available.  Now if said car is missing its driver seat or has been turboed, it will be more difficult but do-able.

I don't need to bring up the MSR issue, do I? 

I'll also add that what you see in the July FT is not necessarily intertwined with the proposals to come.  The next proposal will be a 1/1/2010 implementation date, and I wouldn't expect a decision on that one until early 2009 at the soonest.  This current slate of proposals must be decided on by shortly after nationals, at the latest.

I highlighted and bolded that because that is what they are, proposals.  We look into our crystal ball as best we can, and based on those future predictions make proposals today.  None of this stuff is certain, maybe some parts not even likely.  Perhaps your opinion changes as the season progresses and we see what some of the newer cars can do.  Feel free to provide comment now, or wait for next month or wait until Nationals (but if you wait that long, you'll really need to get that comment in before the weekend following, or it'll be too late).  

One other point.  One of the reasons to hold off on the 2010 proposal is to avoid confusing people.  If these were published side by side, a whole lot of people would have assumed one was contingent on the other.  Just recently we published a slight wording change for ST, concerning a limit on the maximum material removal allowed on brake rotors.  It was surprising how many letters we got in protest to this new big brake kit allowance, when BBKs were already on the books!

All completely unofficial, and only my personal views.

-Steve

I posted this in the other "Fastrack, WTF?" thread, but I'll stick it here too.  I know there are thoughts on creating a class above SS for a bunch of the currently straight-to-ASP cars.  From the looks of this, DS is being dismantled and split up into BS and GS.  Then SS, AS, BS, and CS will all drop a letter and the new SS class will come into existence.  I'm guessing that they're struggling with what to do with the WRX, Crossfire, R32, etc, which is why they've been left in DS for now.  Either that or they're considering combining them with the existing CS cars eventually.  I can't see a "rally car" stock class.  A class with the Evo, STi, WRX, and the new Ralliart won't be much of a class.

---

Dave Heinig

07 GXP Z0K (Thanks Rob!)

So, GS and DS ran similar times at Nationals last year between the MCS and ITR.

 

So rather than putting the two in the same class, one stays in GS the other bumps UP to BS?

 

Am I missing the logic here? My "big picture" frame appears to be a bit empty at this point.

 

Where can I find a copy of this "big picture" everyone keeps talking about? All I see in the current Fasttrack is a few pixels. 

 

 

---

Brian Cembor
It's like a koala bear crapped a rainbow in my brain!
25 STS 1989 Civic Si

BigB:

So, GS and DS ran similar times at Nationals last year between the MCS and ITR.

 

So rather than putting the two in the same class, one stays in GS the other bumps UP to BS?

 

Am I missing the logic here? My "big picture" frame appears to be a bit empty at this point.

 

Where can I find a copy of this "big picture" everyone keeps talking about? All I see in the current Fasttrack is a few pixels. 

It comes down to one simple question.  Do you believe the current MCS can feasibly beat the ITR with equal drivers?  If not, then there isnt much point to moving the ITR with the other cars except to completely obsolete the current GS with a difficult to procure car that hasnt been produced for 8 years.  I think the proposal is rather clear.  The other LSD'd FWD cars could be competitive in the current GS whereas they may not be in DS currently.  This could offer more options to a GS competitor than the cookie-cutter MCS while opening people's minds to new cars to try in DS.  Again, we dont have a crystal ball here, which is why these are proposals submitted for member comment.  Also notice that the movement of the cars down to GS is a separate proposal to moving the ITR up.  You dont have to be for both, or either, but they are separate proposals.

This is of course, all completely unofficial, personal opinion on my part.

---

-- Drew
AS S2000

One way to open more options in Gstock is to take the Mini out of G stock and move it to D stock with all the other LSD FWD's and then leave the rest of  G stock alone!  If they are going to move those cars to G as they "propose", then they had better move all the rest of G to H. Oh but then the H stock Mini might get buried then. We wouldn't want to do that!

BigB:

 

 

"Ha, you dumb b@stard.  It's not a schooner, it's a sailboat."

 

That picture is a nice way to sum it all up.

---

2006 Subaru WRX STi
Sponsored by AgileAuto.com
D.C./Philly Region - 3 STU
cardomain.com/id/piknockout

I think the goal is to "create" another class to increase car choices and hopefully increase participation as a whole.

Is it for the AWD cars or for the XSS cars? Maybe it is for the tweener cars between AS and SS?

FM

I believe that there is much more of a perception (real or perceived) that the car in the wrong class is the Cooper S, not the Type R. The only real data we have is National Tours, Divisionals, and The Big Show.  The data indicates that the Type R is no quicker than the Mini (perhaps slower) and has some real competition in DS. ACR's, Type R's, Crossfires, R-32's and 330's all seem to be competitive enough for people to drive halfway across the country to compete.

Now take a look at GS from 2007.  The picture looks a bit different. 

I agree with dumping DS into GS.  It has the potential to be as diverse as the current DS plus one.  Unfortunately it looks as though the CrossFire and 330's may not make the journey.  Again, the best choice maybe to just switch the Mini S!

 We shall see.  I can always dump my co-driver and his Lucky Lugnut.

Fastmike:

I think the goal is to "create" another class to increase car choices and hopefully increase participation as a whole.

Is it for the AWD cars or for the XSS cars? Maybe it is for the tweener cars between AS and SS?

FM

My vote is for an AWD class. (I'd like to see something like this in the ST classes too.)

---

Jason P.
Indy Region Moderator
STU - M3 e46

The Nebulizer:

Fastmike:

I think the goal is to "create" another class to increase car choices and hopefully increase participation as a whole.

Is it for the AWD cars or for the XSS cars? Maybe it is for the tweener cars between AS and SS?

FM

My vote is for an AWD class. (I'd like to see something like this in the ST classes too.)

Because the WRX guys would love being dumped into a stock class with the Evo, STi, and GT3.  Yeah, that would work.  Maybe the base Impreza should go there too?

Everyone keeps saying we should segregate the AWD cars, but you end up having to create a whole new batch of classes.  Proposing one AWD class is useless.  It's like saying we should put Miatas and Corvettes in the same class because they're both RWD.

---

Dave Heinig

07 GXP Z0K (Thanks Rob!)

DaveH:

The Nebulizer:

Fastmike:

I think the goal is to "create" another class to in