Nam: only ones you've mentioned that points doesn't reflect performance is safety mods, and that's because Aaron wants it (real safety concern, or my guess, liability reasoning). by not allowing splitter (or r-comp or final drive) doesn't change competition, as ALL are not allowed splitter (in Street). allowing say splitter, put less emphasis on driver skill, not the other way around. say I am willing to go crazy on splitter, 5" extended, 1" off ground, which require me towing and destroying one every event. vs. someone doing 2" extended and 5" off ground.

for others, here are the reasoning for this year's rule. you might not like it (Richard bitch about everything anyway):

1. there is a reason it is called "STREET" class, running street tire is one of them. this means non-hard core guys with modest mods (suspension, wheels, etc) can use tires that they daily on.

2. did you guys forget that in April, big storm. some of you had to pull over and find a motel overnite, because you were running R-Comp tires. you guys couldn't even handle 40MPH at Freeway. I was towing, and passed a bunch of you, because my truck was on street tires. Many times in the past in winter, it snows / rains up at Grapevine, and ice up. it is impossible to drive on r-comp, and outright dangerous. Mod class guys can tow (quite a few does now).

3. many of you are getting hard core (many towing, few have roll cages), which is a good thing. but it also scare noobs, so having a not so crazy class (stock and street) is a good thing. catering to hard core is what most organization do, but they eventually forgot about noobs. you need fresh meat for the sport to grow.

4. SV don't require roll bar, you can be driving an Enzo, doing 1:40 at Roval, and not required to have roll bar / cage. it is difficult to enforce everyone to run roll bar.
it is encouraged, but I don't know of an HPDE group requiring roll bar now.

5. that's why there is a negative points for safety equipment. it encourages safety mods w/o making everybody do it. as more mods are allowed, more possibility of equipment failure. But I am not opposed of requiring roll bar in mod class.

6. look at RTA. Street class is on street tires.

7. as for splitter and wing, and final drive. Easy is the main reason. if final drive doesn't gain advantage, then why bother (I do believe it is an advantage, and makes the car harder to live with on street) ? as for splitter, it is a PITA to install, it is very effective, but you will destroy one every other event. it also cost a lot, because every piece a custom job (no such as universal S2K splitter or for any car), many hours of labor to mount it. it doesn't fit the spirit of "Street". if you can't have a splitter, big wing is not needed. but I am not against having a big wing, not useful in Street class, but heck if they want it.

8. cost is an issue for street class, you don't want to scare away noobs.
currently, there is a street class, it is for lightly modded S, on street tires. no splitter, that is "STREETABLE", and is noob friendly.
for the hard core guys, there is a "MOD" class.

9. lastly, don't forget the CRs. Street class was to mimic stock CR as close as possible (plus wheels/tires). if you go hard core on street class, do you create another class just for CR ?

I haven't been running S2K Challenge this year, so I won't have a say in the rules for next year. When you make new rules, pls make sure you don't alienate noobs. if we allow what many suggested here. for a Street class car next year, it would have roll bar, harness, combinations of either splitter, r-comp, final drive (I've destroyed 2 final drives in my S/C Miata this past year), or $2k wing, that weren't allowed this year. then run mod class, not STREET.

2010:
unlimited - crazy power, which leads to engine blowing up.
mod - crazy suspension mods, aero mods. very fast car, but no big ticket item like blown engine, turbo or s/c.
street - streetable modded S
stock - for noob, or someone not crazy about modding or driving a lease car (cough cough Si)

if you make Street more hard core, where do S with light mods (there are a ton) and stockish CR go ?

My $2 on your $0.02.

1. Points are points. "Street" is just a class name. "Stock" is the class that allows virtually no mods, and that's where I run at the moment. If I want to spend 2.50 of my 3.50 points on R-comps in Street Class, then I should be able to do it. Or else make R-comps 4 points so it's not possible to run them in Street.

2. There is no way in hell that the rule about no R-comps in street class was intended to make it safer to drive home in the rain. If it was, tell me who is the idiot was who insisted on that consideration being forced on a competition points system, so I can punch him in the face. I have driven home on very well worn (no tread at all) RA-1s in pouring rain over the Grapevine. It isn't a concern.

3. I'm not a noob. I run in Stock Class. Charles Ng is certainly not a noob. He runs in Stock Class. I really don't understand the point you are trying to make.

4. SV is a business that would lose money if it required rollbars, because less drivers would come out. NCRC is requiring rollbars, and helping drivers pay for them. You can say safety is a personal decision, but SV required rollbars on Miatas, why not S2Ks. And if SV won't do it, why doesn't the S2K community police itself?

5. Negative points are not available in Stock Class. They should be.

6. RTA doesn't have rules that make the slightest bit of sense. Basically their only rule is Street tires in Street class. You can have 1000 whp and run in Street Class with RTA. Don't compare yourself to RTA, everyone hates their rules.

7. No comment.

8. No one can tell me with a straight face that the rules are to save the drivers money. Some of these guys will spend $4000+ for a Mugen hardtop. Why don't you limit hardtops in Stock and Street?

9. This makes my point. Why can't I use up 2.5 of my points on R-comps in Street class to try to compete with a CR that has Aero, hardtop, lower weight, etc.? In my opinion the CR should be required to run Mod class. That rule would be more consistent with "no R-comps in Street class."

2. That wasn't the case after the last BW event, where cars were limping home over the grapevine

4. S2k's have factory rollbars; Miatas do not. They are, albiet, not very useful for most people with a helmet on

5. the whole point of stock class is to have a stock or nearly stock car. A car with a roll bar installed is not a nearly stock car.

8. money is always a factor. Someone with a bigger budget can, and will have a faster car.

9. I'd put money down that a AP1 and a CR have comparable weights, if the AP1 isn't lighter.

r-comp - I don't want to argue about that. I don't feel that strongly about requiring street tires, as this wasn't the case first year. I still feel street class should allow street tires only, but not something I would argue with Sheriff over. whatever makes Sheriff happy is important.

roll bar - obviously Miata has to have roll bar, we've seen quite a few roll. a-frame is made of paper. S is much stronger. I was for requiring roll bar in mod class, but was voted down, negative points was a compromise. which I believe was a good compromise, I can think of few that negative points is what push them over the edge to install a roll bar. Nam is now married, we should ask for his new wife's opinion about roll bar rules.

cost - some rules are to save money. you can guy $4k Mugen hard top, because it is not a track only mod. even wing is not a track only mod for many. many like big JDM wing, because it looks good (and JDM). one should limit cost escalation, which I believe splitter and final drive ratio is. both high cost item, not practical on street.

as for stock (or street) class being noob friendly. you and Charles run it, doesn't make it not noob friendly. it is noob friendly so one shows up in a stock or lightly modded car, they can feel comfortable running it. it makes noob queasy when they line up against big wing, big splitter, r-comp, 5" lowered S with 275 stickers on it.
no, that's one of the justification. most importantly, it is the spirit of the "street" class. and created because CR guys bitched first year, thus the new spec CR class.

it is also more of equality thing. a similar points street class S. one with r-comp would have more advantage on a low speed bumpy course like SOW vs one on street tire, with wing. when you have more parity on equipment, it creates better competition imo.+1. as long as competition is good, and no one is gaining significant advantage.

Imo, we should find loop holes in the rule for 2011. like someone found a $10k zero point mod that goes 2 seconds faster.

how come none of the mod guys are complaining ?

I disagree that a splitter and final drive are costly.

I spent $120 for a 4x8 piece of aluminum honeycomb sign board and bolts, nuts and cable on my splitter. Then I spent about 4 hours cutting, trimming and installing it. Mike's splitter is made from plywood. doesn't get any cheaper than that. If you wanted to purchase a splitter, they are $350 from APR.

My reason for allowing final drive changes in stock/street is that most S2000s already have final drive changes. The performance gain to be had is confined to a track or tracks. A 4.8 might be better for streets, but its terrible for ACS. And I'd bet good money that no one in our series is going to change their rear end from track to track. I don't want to see people deterred from running in the series, if the only thing keeping them from running is the fact their drive is non-stock.

William, all your arguments are based on one assumption: that if we allow a certain modification in a certain class, that everyone in that class will be forced to also get that modification to be competitive in that class. That argument is flawed. For example, your arguments imply that if we allow a splitter and final drive in street class, that everyone will have to get those high-cost, not-practical-for-the-street modifications to be competitive, leading to "cost escalation". These arguments are flawed, and I will explain why.

The sole purpose of having the points system in the first place is that people can choose how to modify their cars. It the responsibility of those who come up with the rules to make a points system that is realistic and fair.

1) You say that a final drive is zero points because it adds zero performance advantage, yet you imply that allowing one will lead to cost escalation. Why is that? Because perhaps final drive actually does have a performance advantage? Then maybe we should figure out what that performance advantage is and quantify it appropriately in terms of points.

2) Once the performance advantage of modifications like a splitter, final drive, R-compound tires, etc. have been appropriately quantified in terms of points, it is then up to the participant on how he wants to modify his car for the class he wants to compete in.

Let's say a final drive is 0.5 points, splitter is 0.5 points, coilovers are 2.0 points, and a CR wing is 0.5 points. That would cost quite a lot of money, and the net result would be a car with 2.5 performance points.

RichardEvo can say, "to hell with that, that's not how I want to modify my car. I'd rather just slap on some NT01's and call it a day." He will have spent about $600, and the net result would also be a car with 2.5 performance points.

If the people who came up with the points system were unbiased, and made a points system that directly correlated with real, actual performance advatange, then RichardEvo's car should be just as fast as the guy with the final drive, splitter, coilovers and wing. Richard will have spent far less money than the other guy, and if he is a better driver, will be rewarded for his driving skill, and not necessarily how much money and time he put into the car.

I don't understand why this concept is so hard to understand. If you don't want to spend big bucks on a splitter, final drive, etc., then don't. It is up to the rule makers to make sure that every modification, whether they be cheap or expensive, are appropriately quantified in terms of points so that the participants can decide for themselves whether they want cheap or expensive modifications for their cairs.

In contrast, let me demonstrate how having biased value systems that have no bearing on performance deters this from happening.

1) High flow catalytic converter being zero points. Emilio was a big proponent of this last year, because it was cheap and environmentally friendly, and this should encourage people that use a test pipe to use a HFC instead. Actually, all this has done is force people who have OEM converters to buy a HFC to gain that free performance advantage.

2) 235 front tires being zero points. Again, a lot of people were a big proponent of this, and the main argument is, "hey it's cheap and it will still fit on the OEM wheel." Actually, this has even hindered newcomers to Stock Class with 215's or 225's from having a fair fight. They must be thinking, "great, I thought this was the Stock Class, arrive and drive, but now I need to get myself some 235's to be competitive." People in Street Class have even downgraded from 255 fronts to 235 to free up points to buy other things. How has this saved people money?

3) No R-comps in Street Class. Again, a value system that has no bearing on points. Instead of allowing newcomers who don't want to spend much money on their cars the option of buying R-comps and calling it a day and competing in Street Class, they're required to buy all these other mods that are obviously more expensive to be competitive. Or just stay in Stock Class like RichardEvo has.

4) Roll bar protection being -0.5 points. Again, this really forces everyone to get a roll bar to be competitive. I can understand the justification for this one, but you should also realize that this also hinders people who do not really care for installing a roll bar from having a fair competition.

TAKE HOME POINT: design the rule system to accurately reflect the real performance advantage of every modification, whether they be cheap or expensive, and it won't matter how much money or time you have to be competitive.