Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 17:28:09 -0500
To: seb@scca.org
From: Bradley Lamont <lamont@xxx.xxx>
Subject: stock class reorganization comments

Hi -

I wanted to write in about my feelings regarding the proposed reclassification of the Honda S2000. Looking at the results from last years nationals and the events so far this year, I don't see the justification for moving the S2000 up a class.

We have set up our car to the limits of the stock rules. We have:

- Penske shocks revalved by Guy Ankeny
- Custom front sway bar
- Hoosier tires
- Mugen exhaust
- Porterfield brake pads

Based on the specs of the various cars in class 2 and class 3, the S2000 seems to be a better match with the slower cars of class 3.

The primary competition in class 2 will be the C4 vette, the Boxter S, and the BMW M Roadster/Coupe. The S2000 is at a significant torque disadvantage to each of those. It's primary strength, its transitional ability, is extremely course dependent, while the lack of torque will hurt it on all courses. Once the S2000 falls out of VTEC, it lacks any torque at all. Since the VTEC switchover is RPM, not throttle dependent like a turbo, there's no way to compensate for the "lag" as there is in a turbo car such as an RX7tt.

Leaving it in class 3 with the MR2 Turbo, Boxter, and Z3 Roadster/Coupe seems to be a better match. While it matches both in HP, it still is at a torque disadvantage to those cars as well.

The results of last years nationals and tour events this year seem to support the argument as well.

-----
2000 Nationals:

SS - Rob Falkner (Boxter S) - 107.008
AS - Gary Thomason (S2000) - 107.231

Both are considered "A Level" drivers. Rob ran in an earlier heat in potentially worse conditions, in a car that was not built to the limit (just tires and an alignment was what I heard). Gary had custom shocks and sway bar.

Joe Goeke (Boxter) - 108.315
Ron Bauer (S2000) - 109.163
GH Sharp (Boxter) - 109.252

Ron was the second finishing S2000 and was back significantly from the class leaders. When Ron & Joe co-drove their Type-R, they were usually within .5 sec of each other. This is carried out in the S2000/Boxter times. There was no 1st-5th finish for the S2000s which would indicate a mis-classification.

-----
2001 Meridian Tour:

SS - Rob Falkner (Boxter S) - 92.167
AS - GH Sharp (Boxter) - 92.096
AS - Jason Saini (S2000) - 92.246

SS ran the 1st heat in significantly worse conditions than AS at the tour so it's tough to make any comparisons. But the Boxter beat the S2000 with comparable drivers in cars set up to the limit of the stock rules.

-----
2001 San Diego Tour:

SS - GH Sharp (borrowed Boxter S) - 77.109
AS - Joe Goeke (S2000) - 76.876
AS - Andy McKee (Boxter) - 77.708
AS - Ron Bauer (S2000) - 77.845

I wasn't present so I can't comment on the conditions. But GH was not driving his own car and finished at the end of SS trophies, so it's tough to accept that he drove exceptionally well that day. Joe was driving the S2000 he bought from Gary Thomason, so it's already completely setup and dialed in. Gary ran the car for a year at Qualcomm stadium so he knew the exact setup for maximum performance. Other than Joe, 2nd and 3rd in AS were a close battle.

-----
2001 Dallas Tour:

AS - Joe Goeke (S2000) - 183.570
AS - GH Sharp (Boxter) - 185.814

The course was fast with a lot of transitions, something that the S2000 is extremely good at. There were no fast drivers in a Boxter S or C4 vette at Dallas so it's tough to compare the results to anything.

-----
Based on the performance of the cars, I don't see how the SCAC can recommend the movement of the S2000 into a faster class. There is no indication that the S2000 is a class overdog.

I hope you reconsider the move of the car before the stock class reorganization is completed.

Thanks
Brad Lamont
SCCA Member #xxxxxx
#93 AS

 

Good letter Brad.

 

never been in any of those events, but who would suggest a move like that, it's pretty drastic considering the S2000 hasn't always come on top. Nice letter though.

 

Hice letter. Some additional comments might help. In your Nationals and Meridian NT results, be sure to mention the Strelnecks RX7TT finishing _behind_ the Boxster S, and it's staying in SS, so why shouldn't the Boxster S. If they were to move the RX7TT also, then thier's no way the S2000 should be in this same class.

Also, Ron and I co-drove an A4 in GS, not the Type-R.

Finally, I had a chat with one of the SEB members to get a feel for where they are coming from with this new AS and the move to put the Boxster S in thier also. There thought is the C4 will dominate and they want to put in another "competitive" car, so they have added the Boxster S. We all know, this car will dominate this new AS class over the C4, and nothing else will stand a chance.

I say all of this cause their is very strong push to put the S2000 to the new AS. We can fight this some what, but I suggest letters to the SEB and SCAC that talk about the scope or purpose of the new AS. Is it a new class for the also rans of SS, or is it to be the old SS which allows the Z06 to own SS. In either case, their present proposal (C4 and Boxster S) is nither, and this needs to be stressed.

I believe the S2000 would be competitive with the also rans of SS, but with the C4 and Boxster S, no way in heck...unless you are in Texas or San Diego ;-).
---JCG

 

I've been looking back over the results, and nothing proves to me that the S2000 is some sort of over-dog in the class CURRENTLY. It certainly doesn't warrant being reclassed.

I look back at the old D-Stock... the CRX was the car to have back in the early 90's. Until the Neon came around. It then became the _perception_ that the CRX couldn't keep up. I happen to know for a fact that a properly prepared CRX could keep up with a Neon anyday. But the problem was the perception.

The S2000 somehow has gotten this stigma attached that it's a complete ringer for AS... I don't understand this. It simply hasn't been proven. In fact, right now if I were to list a 'who can win Nationals' there would be only 2 S2000's, 2 Boxsters and 3 MR2's on the list... seems pretty balanced to me, no? (In no particular order):

Pat Salerno - Boxster
Joe Goeke - S2000
G.H. Sharp - Boxster
Ron Bauer - S2000
Carter Thompson - MR2t
Derek Butts - MR2t
Andy McKee - MR2t/Boxster

It's not like there are 8-10 S2000's threatening to win Nationals. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE THE SEB IS COMING FROM OTHER THAN PERSONAL AGENDA I don't see how it benefits our sport to have 2 classes where $50k-plus Boxsters are the car to have, but that what we'll have if the current proposal goes through unchanged.

I urge everyone... write your letter!

BTW... NICE DRIVING, JOE!!

 

Its also worth noting that since the arrival of the S2000 in A Stock, the class has hardly suffered attendence-wise. AS has even outnumbered BS at every single Tour and Pro this year save for 2 (the Florida and Virginia Pros). Even if the S2000 were some kind of overdog, it's pretty hard to claim that it's hurting the class by being there.

 

I'm still working on my letter, but I'd like to point out important features of Brad's letter:

1. He is polite and does not question motives. The last thing you should do is sound angry, or accuse anyone on the SEB or SCAC of personal agendas. The point of your letter is to convince them of your position, right? Then first of all you want them to read it, and second to consider your reasoning. That is not going to happen if you start out with an insult. (It may feel good, but it isn't going to get you what you want.)

2. He makes his point clearly and briefly. One could address many issues on this: overall class philosophy, classing of S2000, classing of other cars in its potential classes, like Boxster S. Don't try to address too much in one letter. State your main point, then back it up with logic and facts, like this years results. Don't be tempted to cover too much in one letter. If you have more than one thing to cover, then consider two letters, or at least two well identified sections. Two pages max. One page is much better.

On the other hand the opening about car preparation is unneeded, and confusing as an introductory paragraph.

Again remember, the goal is to convince the SEB. You do this by being polite, respectful of their intentions, and stating your points clearly and briefly, with no extraneous fill.

And do WRITE. Personal contact is fine if you have the chance, but only as follow up to a letter. With a conversation or phone call, you are depending on your target's memory to get it back to the rest of the SEB.



[Edited by Gregg Lee on 05-31-2001 at 02:16 PM]

 

I share Jason's confusion about want the SCAC/SEB is now trying to accomplish with SS split. It's as though the SS split was in the original proposal and momentum has kept it there.

The originally published philosophy on this restructure was to create a place for the excluded cars. But thtis did not happen in the current proposal, except that perhaps the Z06 option might have been excluded.

I had also concluded, as Joe mentioned, that the new goal appeared to be to give the C4 Corvette a competitive home without making it the only car in the class. That's not why classes are usually created, but there are a lot C4's out there. (Of course it may be too late, with all the C5 switches that have already happened.)

These are points one could address in a classing letter, though separately from S2000 specifics.

Following is the philosophy from the June 4, 2000 SEB meeting. It is no longer on the SCCA web site, but I downloaded it last summer.



MEMO
To: Solo II Competitors
From: SCAC
Re: Proposed Re-structure of Stock Classes
The SCAC proposes a restructuring of the stock car classes to better
reflect the current sports car marketplace and to thereby better serve the
membership.
The rationale:
Current SCCA Solo_II Stock classification listings are good, but do not
serve the evolving "sports car" market. Over the years, the SCCA has tried
to be as inclusive as possible in offering a class for just about any
four-wheel street-driven passenger vehicle. What has evolved from this is
a system which is better at classing economy cars than it is at classing
"sports cars". This has been the case primarily for what are now Classes
D-Stock, E-Stock, and H-Stock. These are relatively low horsepower cars
which are largely 2+2 or four passenger vehicle configurations. Pure two
seaters are in evidence here and there, but they are never found as "class
leaders". While D-Stock has come to be dominated by economy sport sedans,
over the years E-Stock and H-Stock have had many vehicles overlap in terms
of performance. Both of these classes are comprised of economy
four-cylinder sedans or GT style coupes, a few low-power 6-cylinder cars,
and a few older two seater sports cars.
We also have classes for the 2+2 high horsepower pony car: Mustang and
Camaro types in F-Stock, and the recently revised "older small
displacement sports cars" which define C-Stock. Like D, E, and H, these
classes are also comprised of vehicles which are not at the upper end of
the sports car market in cost of acquisition. Yet F-Stock and C-Stock each
serve a distinct market segment.
Moving upscale in dollars, what that leaves us is a mid-priced vehicle
segment in B-Stock and G-Stock. Each of these classes has a very distinct
outreach. B-Stock is home to the Miata, the BMW Z-3, Porsche 914, and a
few others. Most are true two seater sports cars with normally aspirated
engines, light weight, and not considered "expensive" to acquire or
operate. G-Stock is home to a variety of sports coupes, some with turbo
charged motors, and most with roughly 200 horsepower or so. Some are
all-wheel drive, some front- wheel drive, and some rear-wheel drive. It's
a very diverse sports and sport sedan class. Because the technology and
drive systems in this class are somewhat more advanced than in B-Stock,
vehicles in this class may carry an appropriately higher price tag.


And that has left us with just two classes at the top of the Club for the
"up market" sports cars and sedans- Super Stock and A-Stock. Until about
ten years ago, this was working just fine. Since the early 1990s, however,
the vehicle manufacturers have brought a wide variety of high performance
vehicles to market. The effect on the top two classes has been noticeable,
with the C4 Corvettes losing ground to the RX-7tt at first, and the
balance of Super Stock left in the weeds. As manufacturers kept increasing
the horsepower and performance of their high end sports cars, vehicles
that threatened to dominate the Super Stock status quo were put into
Street Prepared classes where they were rendered uncompetitive. We don't
see that this is satisfactory for the membership, and especially not for
an organization called the Sports Car Club of America. What we propose is
to redistribute the existing Super Stock sports cars into two classes,
thereby making an accomodation for the new breed of vehicles being
produced . Rather than adding to the existing number of stock classes,
however, we feel it's time to redistribute the "load". Presently, the type
of vehicles running in E-Stock and H-Stock are nearly identical. The
performance is so close that it is the Stock Classification Advisory
Committee suggestion that these two classes can be combined.
What we further propose is to enhance the existing framework by setting up
each class with representative vehicles, and class-similar types with
those vehicles. What follows is the list of class representative vehicles
in nine Stock category classes. Again, this is not an increase in classes
but a redistribution of vehicles to better reflect the market dynamics
we've been experiencing for the past ten years, and expect will continue
into the next decade.