Huge SCCA Stock class changes proposed
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,707
Likes: 0
From: Virginia Beach
Originally Posted by Apeatwo' timestamp='1363872811' post='22418247
My biggest problem is the shocks as I planned to run a tour event in RTR this year and give it a chance (which means I'm ok with street tires, if the majority want it). I prepped my car for stock because I wouldn't have to throw a ton of money at it to be competitive. Why eliminate remote reservoirs, because of the cost? ha. There are plenty of non can shocks in the same price range, with the same dyno curves. Ryan makes very valid points IMHO.
I don't think any of the other allowances would benefit my car and I don't have a desire to keep modding to BSP/LP because I have remote cans or holes in the car.
In a nutshell, if this were to go through it would cause me to spend more money no matter what class I chose to run.
I don't think any of the other allowances would benefit my car and I don't have a desire to keep modding to BSP/LP because I have remote cans or holes in the car.
In a nutshell, if this were to go through it would cause me to spend more money no matter what class I chose to run.
You mention shocks specifically. You're right that there are high-end double-adjustable shocks available that don't have remote reservoirs. I see this as a bummer for those people who already own doubles with remotes, but they've been given two outs: either make the minimal investment to move to LPSP, where they'd be able to keep their remotes and their R-compounds, or keep using their remotes until 2015 (which is two years from now -- half of us will have sold our cars by then
). For everyone else, this change may not contain costs (or it may -- most manufacturers' top line products are remotes), but I don't see it increasing them either. Am I missing something?What else? Again, not trying to pick a fight or prove you wrong. I really want this proposal to succeed, and part of making that happen is identifying weaknesses and writing letters to the SEB to get those weaknesses corrected.
Instead of buying Hoosiers this week - I buy ZII/Rivals and save a few bucks (I can accept this as of 2014 if the majority want it)
Have to sell Motons (at lesser value and because there is a preception problem) - Pick up another high end shock little/no less capable (significant cost)
Then there are the questions;
Will I need larger diameter wheels/tires? Maybe not, don't know.
Will I need a second bar because the car handles so differently? Probably, based on STRs experience.
Traction control? Don't have it.
Or I can keep my shocks and hoosiers and bump up to SP/LP class which would no doubt result in more cost to be competitive. Hell, maybe I save a little money and keep my motons (ha, never thought save money and motons would be in the same sentence) and save a little bit with street tires and go STR. Oh wait, yeah, STR is far more prep than I'm willing to do on a car I drive on the street and still take my wife out to dinner in. I'm not concerned with being competitive locally, I'm concerned about nationals.
In short, let me keep my remotes so I don't go broke reinventing the wheel.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
I see this as a bummer for those people who already own doubles with remotes, but they've been given two outs: either make the minimal investment to move to LPSP, where they'd be able to keep their remotes and their R-compounds, or keep using their remotes until 2015
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,742
Likes: 211
I'm new to auto-xing, but the changes make sense to me. Looks like they're trying to make the "stock" (eventually street) class more friendly to the guy that daily drives his car, but wants to take it auto-xing occasionally. These sort of people aren't going to have race tires and a spare set of wheels and are likely going to make some tweaks to their car. I'm sure it sucks for people who have prepped their car for the stock class (but then again any change is going to hurt these people), but I can certainly understand why they're proposing the changes.
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
@apeatwo
If you were planning on running RTR with motons I can see how this might be upsetting... But short term pain for long term gain maybe? Other than the shocks which I am sure you could sell to someone looking to run STR all the new additions are relatively cheap. For example the ms5 front sway bar on the rear which is popular in STR is about $125 from the dealer. Camber would need to be addressed because, as was mentioned, none of those options work for the s2000. I don't see any benefit to going to 18s other than stiffer sidewalls from lower profile maybe? Since they are phasing it in or slowly phasing things out though you could let it ride in the mean time.
As a side note I am curious if the ohlin ttx shocks would be fair game since we already have the similar external reservoir in the rear from the factory.
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,707
Likes: 0
From: Virginia Beach
@apeatwo
If you were planning on running RTR with motons I can see how this might be upsetting... But short term pain for long term gain maybe? Other than the shocks which I am sure you could sell to someone looking to run STR all the new additions are relatively cheap. For example the ms5 front sway bar on the rear which is popular in STR is about $125 from the dealer. Camber would need to be addressed because, as was mentioned, none of those options work for the s2000. I don't see any benefit to going to 18s other than stiffer sidewalls from lower profile maybe? Since they are phasing it in or slowly phasing things out though you could let it ride in the mean time.
As a side note I am curious if the ohlin ttx shocks would be fair game since we already have the similar external reservoir in the rear from the factory.
[/quote]
RTR was exactly the plan. If the SP/LP shakes out that the car is still competitive I'll be happy (no more money) but, I have little faith in that happening at this point. If I could do a one for one swap of my motons for a top level no can shock, great, but I don't see that happening either.
I have the same question too, the oem s techically has remote rears so,,,,,,,
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,465
Likes: 52
From: ATL
Proper STR prep is not cheap. High-end shocks. 17x9 wheels, replace seats with something lighter, full exhaust from header back, intake, some kind of tuning, fancy front sway. All of those things add up for sure and I'm probably missing a few things. None of the cars winning are that close to stock.
Jeff, if the Ohlins TTX stuff proves to be legal you could probably sell the Motons and get into those at minimal cost.
Jeff, if the Ohlins TTX stuff proves to be legal you could probably sell the Motons and get into those at minimal cost.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,376
Likes: 2
Here's the letter I sent in...
My knee-jerk reaction was "this is awesome." Now, after giving it a bit more thought, I'm less enthusiastic about the proposal as a whole.
Things I like...
"Street < ST < SP < SM < Prepared < Modified" I like the revised pecking order and have always thought r-comps ruined the "Stock" part of the stock classes. R-comps are in no-way-shape-or-form stock.
Wheel diameters +/- 1.0". I think this is a good thing. It will allow people many other options when considering wheel/tire combos. For people who have 19" factory wheels that are narrow, switching to 18"s would dramatically improve tire selection options. A larger tolerance on the width allowance (+/- 0.5") would be complementary to the diameter allowance.
Camber plates. So, you just purchased $1,200 dollars worth of tire... too bad they're going to be shredded on the outer shoulder because your car is camber limited to .5 degrees. Well, now that won't necessarily be the case. This is a step in the right direction, but I think it should be opened up for all cars (regardless of suspension design) to take advantage of. But Jake, doesn't your car have double a-arms and a decent camber curve? Yes, but it still needs 3+ degrees of camber before it stops killing the outside edges of tires. Why limit the tire love to just McPherson strut cars?
Change/add/remove both front and rear anti-roll bars. This should have happened years ago.
Things I don't like...
Low-prepped SP classes. I'm worried about the plan to integrate the LP cars with existing SP classes. There are quite a few people worried that this will drastically disrupt the existing SP class structure. We haven't seen any details just yet...but I hope the method errors on the side of caution.
The restructuring is directed towards new drivers; veteran stock-class auto-xers (decent percentage of the membership base) are getting a bit shafted. I understand the logic behind making Solo more attractive to new comers...this is something that my own region has struggled with for a long time. But, this rule change is doing a disservice to the long-standing stock class auto-xers who have invested in remote-reservoir dampers and enjoy competing in stock classes with r-comps. Yes, they'll be permitted to run in LP SP classes. If the SEB wants to avoid the mixup of the SP classes, mentioned above, the LP SP cars will have to be classed at a disadvantage. If I were previously competitive in stock classes, enjoyed running on r-comps and owned remote-reservoir dampers.. I'd be quite irritated with this proposal. Good thing I've dumped tons of $$$ into an STR build, right?
Removal of remote-reservoir dampers in Street classes. This doesn't solve much and certainly doesn't restrain costs. One-level of damping adjustability is relatively straight forward to accomplish with a valving system integral to the damper shaft. Double-adjustability (rebound & compression individually) integral to the damper shaft is expensive, rare and more challenging to accomplish with monotube dampers. Penske has a non-reservoir double-adjustable damper design. It costs about the same as the remote-reservoir dampers they offer, at the same performance level. It also creates some packaging issues for cars that require short damper tubes. Twin-tube dampers seem to have less of an issue with the double adjustability, but then you're back to the whole twin-tube damper vs monotube damper argument. Summary: remote reservoirs are not the cost driver for high-end dampers.
140 TW rating for 2014, 200 TW for 2015+. Due to lack of standardization of TW ratings, these numbers are pointless. Use the exclusion list to better control tire choices if the majority of the membership feels there is a tire that drastically outperforms the others.
Cheers,
Jake
My knee-jerk reaction was "this is awesome." Now, after giving it a bit more thought, I'm less enthusiastic about the proposal as a whole.
Things I like...
"Street < ST < SP < SM < Prepared < Modified" I like the revised pecking order and have always thought r-comps ruined the "Stock" part of the stock classes. R-comps are in no-way-shape-or-form stock.
Wheel diameters +/- 1.0". I think this is a good thing. It will allow people many other options when considering wheel/tire combos. For people who have 19" factory wheels that are narrow, switching to 18"s would dramatically improve tire selection options. A larger tolerance on the width allowance (+/- 0.5") would be complementary to the diameter allowance.
Camber plates. So, you just purchased $1,200 dollars worth of tire... too bad they're going to be shredded on the outer shoulder because your car is camber limited to .5 degrees. Well, now that won't necessarily be the case. This is a step in the right direction, but I think it should be opened up for all cars (regardless of suspension design) to take advantage of. But Jake, doesn't your car have double a-arms and a decent camber curve? Yes, but it still needs 3+ degrees of camber before it stops killing the outside edges of tires. Why limit the tire love to just McPherson strut cars?
Change/add/remove both front and rear anti-roll bars. This should have happened years ago.
Things I don't like...
Low-prepped SP classes. I'm worried about the plan to integrate the LP cars with existing SP classes. There are quite a few people worried that this will drastically disrupt the existing SP class structure. We haven't seen any details just yet...but I hope the method errors on the side of caution.
The restructuring is directed towards new drivers; veteran stock-class auto-xers (decent percentage of the membership base) are getting a bit shafted. I understand the logic behind making Solo more attractive to new comers...this is something that my own region has struggled with for a long time. But, this rule change is doing a disservice to the long-standing stock class auto-xers who have invested in remote-reservoir dampers and enjoy competing in stock classes with r-comps. Yes, they'll be permitted to run in LP SP classes. If the SEB wants to avoid the mixup of the SP classes, mentioned above, the LP SP cars will have to be classed at a disadvantage. If I were previously competitive in stock classes, enjoyed running on r-comps and owned remote-reservoir dampers.. I'd be quite irritated with this proposal. Good thing I've dumped tons of $$$ into an STR build, right?
Removal of remote-reservoir dampers in Street classes. This doesn't solve much and certainly doesn't restrain costs. One-level of damping adjustability is relatively straight forward to accomplish with a valving system integral to the damper shaft. Double-adjustability (rebound & compression individually) integral to the damper shaft is expensive, rare and more challenging to accomplish with monotube dampers. Penske has a non-reservoir double-adjustable damper design. It costs about the same as the remote-reservoir dampers they offer, at the same performance level. It also creates some packaging issues for cars that require short damper tubes. Twin-tube dampers seem to have less of an issue with the double adjustability, but then you're back to the whole twin-tube damper vs monotube damper argument. Summary: remote reservoirs are not the cost driver for high-end dampers.
140 TW rating for 2014, 200 TW for 2015+. Due to lack of standardization of TW ratings, these numbers are pointless. Use the exclusion list to better control tire choices if the majority of the membership feels there is a tire that drastically outperforms the others.
Cheers,
Jake
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Nice letter... I like your point about the the 200 tread wear which is something that I forgot to comment on.
While I agree with the idea of upping the tread requirement in theory, it does make me wonder how many manufacturers will bother relabeling their tires for 2015 to 200. We are just seeing a refresh of street tires, and another refresh wont be due for at least a few more years I am assuming. This would mean that a few of the tires to have currently could potentially be excluded. Not the end of the world but equally frustrating if you are in the market for tires right now or in the near future. Personally I feel that the current tires perform pretty well cost wise.
While I agree with the idea of upping the tread requirement in theory, it does make me wonder how many manufacturers will bother relabeling their tires for 2015 to 200. We are just seeing a refresh of street tires, and another refresh wont be due for at least a few more years I am assuming. This would mean that a few of the tires to have currently could potentially be excluded. Not the end of the world but equally frustrating if you are in the market for tires right now or in the near future. Personally I feel that the current tires perform pretty well cost wise.