SCCAForums.com

CamaroFS34:

BTW, how come no one mentions the abomination that is ES in all this "let's speed up classes and get rid of old, hard-to-find, build-to-spec cars" talk? The newest car winning there is a 1993 MR2 and a 1994 Miata R. If the Camaro deserved to die because it was last made in 2002, then can't we just shunt the MR2 and the "outdated" Miatas back into CS?

I'm sure the ES drivers would love that proposal just as much as what's currently out there on the board.

 ES is not an abomination!  What do you have against poor people, Karen? 

I'll readily admit some bias currently owning an MR2, but having at least one stable and cheap stock class has to be good for membership.  It's a hell of a lot more accessible to tight-budget racers.  Now, if they bury MR2's and older Miatas with something that is still on the cheaper end of the scale like a few outclassed CS cars, I suppose I couldn't complain much since it would at least demonstrate that they understand the value of a "cheap stock" class.  But, if they blow the class up and the cheapest stock class ends up costing 2+ times as much, it would be disappointing.

 

DaveH:

SpyderVenom:

In 2010:  The rest of DS joins GS.  

But why would they move all the FWD cars in one group and all the RWD/AWD cars in a second group?  I'm betting the cars left in DS will get stuck into BS, CS, or ES.

But that's not what they've proposed. The AWD turbo DSM cars were specifically listed in the "go to GS, go directly to GS" group. The other AWD cars are left mouldering. I guess if Justin and I hadn't been retarded enough to drive his WRX last year, it, too, would have gone to GS because "no one runs one." <shrug>

---

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

Ok, there is that one exception.  I still think my theory is right. 

But from the looks of it, the WRX has a great shot for 2009.

---

Dave Heinig

07 GXP Z0K (Thanks Rob!)

CamaroFS34:

The whole push for moving the MCS to DS was that it was faster than DS. Now the ITR would "upset the applecart in GS"? Will people just make up their minds?

Could it be that those were different groups of people?

---

John S.
S2000 #42as

CamaroFS34:

But that's not what they've proposed. The AWD turbo DSM cars were specifically listed in the "go to GS, go directly to GS" group. The other AWD cars are left mouldering. I guess if Justin and I hadn't been retarded enough to drive his WRX last year, it, too, would have gone to GS because "no one runs one." <shrug>

I think the DSM cars are in there because they're perceived as old and not as quick as the more recently produced AWD cars in D Stock.  But going back to 2000 National Championship results, it looks like they are fairly close to the Type R.  That might be one to leave out of that wholesale move if that's the case.  This is why things are put out for member comment...but more data and less disdain would be more helpful and much better received.

---

John S.
S2000 #42as

I hardly think that it is a question of relative finance or not.  Anyone who participates in this sport has some disposable income, so I would hardly classify them as poor.

I believe the question of the SAC's intent is more appropriate.  If only the SAC clearly communicated what the intent of the big shuffle is, then perhaps we would not be in arms over these reclassifications.  Of note, why have the proposals thus far excluded E Stock?  Is E Stock hallowed ground for someone?  I am of the firm belief that the intent is to speed up each class to make room for the top; we have seen this before, most recently with F Stock and the inclusion of the tuner Mustang as well as in 2000-2001 with some D Stock and G Stock consolidation.

Since the cost issue was brought up, why was a decently subscribed class such as F Stock tinkered with?  If having a class or two to play in with relatively low cost is important, then F certainly wasn't one of the one's to tinker with.  Consider that until the Shelby showed up, you could be competitive in the class with "sports" cars ranging from third and fourth generation Camaro's or fox-body Mustang's which could be bought new for around twenty two thousand dollars on the high end.  Just about everyone ran stock wheels and R-compound tires that were comparatively cheap.  Today is an entirely different story, with the price of entry having gone up to around thirty five thousand dollars.

 A similar "price war" was threatening Super Stock, but the comparative value of new and used C5 Z06s made the class at least somewhat accessible.  Luckily for those in the class, it seems that a wholesale move of the current Super Stock cars will happen, but that good fortune certainly does not look to be trickling down.

 

---

Mark Valera
2001 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28 "1NE"
FS #93

Orthonormal:

CamaroFS34:

But that's not what they've proposed. The AWD turbo DSM cars were specifically listed in the "go to GS, go directly to GS" group. The other AWD cars are left mouldering. I guess if Justin and I hadn't been retarded enough to drive his WRX last year, it, too, would have gone to GS because "no one runs one." <shrug>

I think the DSM cars are in there because they're perceived as old and not as quick as the more recently produced AWD cars in D Stock.  But going back to 2000 National Championship results, it looks like they are fairly close to the Type R.  That might be one to leave out of that wholesale move if that's the case.  This is why things are put out for member comment...but more data and less disdain would be more helpful and much better received.

There would certainly be less disdain if we were allowed to understand the reasoning behind the moves. Since we won't get that for another month at least, it's difficult to figure out how to write a letter with regards to the proposals without knowing what the intended result of the shifts is supposed to be (why do I feel like a broken record at this point?). Considering I've seen instances already where it was clear that the request for member input was only put into Fastrack as a formality, as the following issue had the proposal approved by the SEB, I feel that waiting until the August Fastrack to see any possible glimpse into the ideas for 2010 is too late.

I know that the ACs and the SEB are volunteers, and put a lot of time into what they do. However, we all put a lot of our disposable income into this hobby, and it just seems that some of the proposals come out of the blue, such as this one. Without knowing the why (is it to reshuffle cars in preparation for the 2010 restructure?), it's really difficult to swallow the changes as they have been laid out. 

---

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

CamaroFS34:

There would certainly be less disdain if we were allowed to understand the reasoning behind the moves. Since we won't get that for another month at least, it's difficult to figure out how to write a letter with regards to the proposals without knowing what the intended result of the shifts is supposed to be (why do I feel like a broken record at this point?). Considering I've seen instances already where it was clear that the request for member input was only put into Fastrack as a formality, as the following issue had the proposal approved by the SEB, I feel that waiting until the August Fastrack to see any possible glimpse into the ideas for 2010 is too late.

I know that the ACs and the SEB are volunteers, and put a lot of time into what they do. However, we all put a lot of our disposable income into this hobby, and it just seems that some of the proposals come out of the blue, such as this one. Without knowing the why (is it to reshuffle cars in preparation for the 2010 restructure?), it's really difficult to swallow the changes as they have been laid out. 

To Steve's point in this or one of the 3 separate threads going on about this right now, the proposals in the current FT are separate from what you will see for 2010 upcoming.  While they may have some parts that seem to fit together, they are separate proposals, and based on feedback, one could be implemented and the other not.  I'm sorry we dont have the detail you are after in the proposal listing, but leaving them a bit ambiguous helps get feedback from a variety of points of view IMO.  If you dont feel like the proposals make sense, write in and tell us why. 

---

-- Drew
AS S2000

CamaroFS34:

Considering I've seen instances already where it was clear that the request for member input was only put into Fastrack as a formality, as the following issue had the proposal approved by the SEB, I feel that waiting until the August Fastrack to see any possible glimpse into the ideas for 2010 is too late.

it's really difficult to swallow the changes as they have been laid out. 

 I really don't recall an instance where this could be true.  I can tell you that its absolutely false in the three years I've been on the SAC.  The proposals in the July FT won't be decided until after Nationals.  You'll see the 2010 proposals on or about July 20th.  Those decisions won't be decided until after Nationals 2009 (new venue data can be incorporated).  Most likely you'll see one or two revised 2010 proposals by this time next year.  Basically you've got 90 days to consider the 09 stuff and you've got 455 days to consider the August FT.  Is that too late?

 

bconners:

Basically you've got 90 days to consider the 09 stuff and you've got 455 days to consider the August FT.  Is that too late? 

90 days is more than enough. Thanks, Brian.

---

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

The SEB meetings are Sept 24th and Oct 22nd.

Realistically you have 3 days after Nationals.   It all depends what the SEB has on their plate and if the decisions are clear cut.  It could get pushed till October but they will want to inform the membership ASAP; so they will want to get it done.

Town Hall is a great place to voice concerns but the mob mentality doesn't usually sway opinions.  To influence the process people have to be clear, concise and organized.  Communication is key. 
 

I notice that in 2008 the Exige comes in three models, the S, the S-240, and the Club Racer.  Are all three being proposed for SS in 2009?  The S-240 adds 50hp to a base Exige (which is no longer available in 2008) and drops about 40 lbs according to Edmunds. I have no idea what comes with the Club Racer model other than a $67,000 price tag.

How many of these cars, the Elise SC and the Exige S, S-240 and Club Sport are they making for the US market?  Anyone?

---

Ted

2004 Z16/Z06 SS

20 cars?  The Lotus Sport Elise was 50 cars.  

bconners:

Has to be street legal. 

Since all three are listed on Edmunds with MSRPs I'd assume they all are street legal.  Am I wrong?

---

Ted

2004 Z16/Z06 SS

Its street legal.  First I've heard of the car.  Too busy working on 2010.  I edited the post.

This article really doesn't tell us much, but all the gushing over the extra power just re-affirms my belief that the SC Lotus will bump all of the current SS cars.  Not only did it get a SC, but at full throttle the cam change comes in at 4k rpm now, rather than 6k.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3819898

Does anyone have good dyno plots for the N/A and SC versions?  

Dave G.

Dave, you don't really need to go there.  The supercharged Lotuses will reign supreme over the existing SS class. 

 I don't think that will be a worry, though.  I expect the NA Lotus and Z06s to continue their battles for years in a separate class. 

---

Jer
1993 MR2 #196 ES
2005 Lotus Elise (retired)
1999 Dodge 4X4 tow vehicle
1993 Miata (just tired)
1987 Corolla Lemons car
1984 Citation Lemons car

The question is, is there going to be a Super SS with the Supercharged Elise, 997 GT3/RS, 996/997 Turbo, F430, Viper ACR etc.  or is it going to be a new tweener class Cayman S, BMW M Coupe, New BMW M3, C5/C6 Vette (thats for you Scott) and other popular cars that fall between AS & SS.  I would vote for the Tweener class as I highly doubt the Super SS would generate sufficient participation levels.   

 

I have no dog in this fight as I have migrated to FP :-) with the GT3 and E46 M3.

 

 Peter

---

T3 S2000
Porsche 996GT2 with a few mods. 2009 OLOA project

I'm torn on this issue.  On one hand, I do believe that super stock should showcase the fastest cars available.  On the other hand, super stock as it exists is a pretty "attainable" class... because of the Z06 primarily.  Obviously, adding power and a broader torque curve to the Lotuses isn't going to make them slower cars.  Since the Elise is arguably capable of winning in the current SS, the new cars would be the new top dogs.

The GT3 is a conundrum to me.  I think it's probably the top car for the class on most courses.  But there were, if I recall correctly, seven drivers in GT3s at nationals last year.  Seven, out of a nearly 70-driver class.  A GT3 can be reasonably attained for $65,000.  The Elise SC lists for $55k and the Exige S lists for $61k.  Track pack and LSD add over $3,000 to the purchase price.  Hmmm.  GT3 territory, in a car that is arguably less practical to own as something other than an autocross machine.  That suggests to me that if the cars were let in, that SS participation would likely drop:  people with Z06s and Elises (non supercharged) will feel disenfranchised and incapable of winning if an Elise SC shows up, and not many people will be willing to pony up the cash to attain one of the sc'd Lotuses for autocross use.  Then again, maybe it's just that nobody wants to spend $65,000 on a USED Porsche.  (shudder).  Comparing new to used isn't really fair.

My feeling is that we should probably leave them in ASP for the moment and see who shows up to compete with them with the goal of locking the current class structure for two years and then revisiting the issue when more data exists.

 

 

---

John Vitamvas
'04 Z06
'00 Boxster S (For Sale)