http://www.scca.org/news/fastrack/02-02.pdf

Not quite sure what they are trying to accomplish with this class but the main differences to STS as I see it are:

1) up 5.1L normally aspirated vehicles are permitted, or 2.0 forced induction, and
2) a limited slip can be added.

Still a street tire class and most other STS rules apply. How do you think 2.0 and less FWD cars will fare in this class against the bigger displacement cars?

Thoughts, opinions?

Mike

 

Personally, I think the class is kind of silly. It appears (to me) to be a catch-all for the whiners.

Lets look at the rules:

Mustangs are now eligable.
WRX's are now eligable.
DSM cars are now eligable.
ITR's are now eligable.

LSD equipped cars that were previously STS eligable (except for the limited slip) are now eligable (BMW 3XX, Lexus IS 300, ITR, etc).

Note the rules though. The 225 width tire with a 7.5 inch rim width is still there. That pretty well kills the hopes of most Mustang drivers.

I just don't see a lot of reason for this class. It is just a step closer to street prepared, and even more in line with the original "spirit" of street prepared.

Why not just make street prepared just that, *street* prepared. The cars must be street legal (granted, that varies widely from state to state).

Scott

 

Strange displacement limit. You could run a 5.0 or 4.6 Mustang, but the latest V8 Camaros and Firebirds would be excluded.

Maybe they're trying to get the guys who have already modded a bit more than STS regs. Seems like a class in search of a car.

 

Not sure what the point of this class is either but... what do people think would be a good car for this class? a 2.5RS with a pair of Quaifes, a well-prepped Celica w/LSD (which I still think could be a good STS car even right now)? Thoughts?

 

I don't see why you would need a class between Street Touring and Street Prepared. My only complaint is that Street Prepared should allow rotor replacement.

 

I think the spirit here is to provide a home for all the cars which are currently in production or to be released which don't have a reasonable "next-step" class in the current structure. For instance, a TypeR, SVT Focus, SE-R Spec V, IS300, WRX, etc. when modified go straight to SM or to an SP class and are utterly and completely non-competitive there. This next step class continues to select the same style and type of cars in the original STS concept, but with the main additional of the LSD which exluded them in the past.

I don't think anyone will deny that most of the cars listed above will likely be very popular autocross cars if not now, they will be in the near future. Given that, it makes very good sense to create a next-step home for owners who buy and modify these cars, which is sure to be many. I, myself, believe the SCCA is not only going after the traditional autocrosser, but the non-traditional member who can drive up in his, for example, new modded SE-R Spec-V, and not only compete, but be competitive.

Another good example would be the WRX and the free SCCA membership new owners get. The SCCA is targeting growth and new faces and creating a new class which gives them a home only makes sense IMO.

Think outside the box....

 

No kidding. At the current pace, the SCCA is on track to be creating single marque classes for every car ever produced. Don't like how your car is classed? Just petition the SCCA, and they seem all too willing to create YET ANOTHER class for your car. Seriously, this is getting ridiculous...
What are they up to now? 27 classes for Solo2? And how many of them even have people running in them? Last I looked, there were at least 10 unrepresented classes at the last autocross I attended. I seem to be the only one who thinks this way, but they could just rewrite the rules for an existing class, and accomplish the same thing. Not competitive in DSP? Bump the car to FSP. Those rotors bump you into Modified? Not anymore. Etc. Etc. (and seriously, what is 1 inch diameter more of brakes going to get you in an autocross?)The crap with SM2 is similarly silly. The whole idea behind the SP classes-how they started out-is what the SM class is trying to be. So why not just change the SP classes to preserve the spirit of the rules? I would totally endorse a rewrite to my car. To the extent that it renders it uncompetitive, or re classes it, so be it. Becoming a better driver will help you overcome most classing issues anyway. I am not suggesting that you pit a twin turbo Supra against a CRX, (though I know more than one CRX driver who would be just as fast), but a reasonable medium could be reached. Sorry for the length. Just tired of seeing people drive their cars to the event to compete against trailered race cars, and wondering where it all went wrong. Ending rant now...

 

I think to keep most of the STS whiners quiet, you'd have to allow aftermarket clutches and a race seat. These seem to be the two biggest issues from what I've been hearing.

STS is (and needs to be) a nice balance between Stock and SP. I don't think adding another ST class is the answer, but I'm not the one making the decisions either.

 

What do you propose the SCCA do with all the cars I listed that aren't eligible for STS but are prime candidates for the class? Include them in the existing STS? Allow the STX concept to continue? Tell them to **** off, we don't need another class for you guys?

Honest, I don't have the answer, but I think what has been proposed will work well.

And about the STS whiners I agree with allowing aftermarket clutches, but not the seats. You don't have to fill me in on the discussion either. I lived it on the STS mailing list!

 

Nope, keep counting...

SS
AS
BS
CS
DS
ES
FS
GS
HS

9x2 (don't forget the women) = 18

ASP
BSP
CSP
DSP
ESP
FSP

6x2 = 12

AP
BP
CP
DP
EP
FP

6x2 = 12

AM
BM
CM
DM
EM
FM

6x2 = 12

SM
STS
F125

3x2 = 6

Is that 60? Sheesh.

 

I don't have an answer either. My biggest hangup with the current SM/STS trend is an unclear statement of the goal of adding these classes. Yes, I know the goal was to draw in more deivers. What I want is a goal of how all these classes should fit together.

Stock -> STS -> SP -> SM

Expect, SP doesn't really fit. And P isn't on the map at all.

I do like the current Stock and SP rules, where the rulebook is the same for all the subclasses. Cars are moved within subclasses based on potential with the rules. I do not like the current STS/STX plan, where not only are the classes cars different, but the rules are also different (LSD, clutch, whatever). So, STS/STX are not related in the same way ASP/DSP/CSP/etc are related. Same thing applies to SM/SM2 - not only are the cars classed differently, but the rules are different. Keep this trend up and you have Prepared, where there are competition adjustments and each car has different rules to follow. Blech, not a good idea, too confusing.

Every try to write some rules? I have now "lurked" on the creation of at least three sets (SM, STS, Honda Challenge). I also have a stake in the DC Region Spec RX-7 rules, which are voted on yearly, but never change (75% active drivers must agree - we can't agree that the sky is blue). Anyways, the point is it's difficult to write them. And almost as dificult to read and interpret them. Every step should be taken to avoid complexity in rules.

What's the point? i dunno, just felt like ranting a bit.

Later,
Al

 

Point of information: If you guys didn't already read, this is a replacement for STR, so in theory it's not a new class, but a rewritten one.

<Soapbox> I think too many people have been SCCA Solo racing too long and don't have the vision to look outside the box to see where the trends are going and how to incorporate growth and change within and outside the organization. The cars, the drivers, the technology are all changing and the classing structure needs to adapt to preserve and hopefully increase participation not only by existing competitors, but also new "non-traditional" participants.

Call me a whiner, say I'm bitching, but it makes good strategic sense for the SCCA to create/change a class to better reflect the membership, their cars, and the technology currently available? I competely agree SP needs overhauled too, but if you've ever tried to argue/discuss something on team.net you'll quickly understand the infinitely large the "resistance to change" mentality of the group as a whole is and how unlikely and/or unpopular major changes to those classes will be. The STX concept is a great segway or second step (STS was the first) in that process and will hopefully show some of our competitors the light on where we need to go in the future. </Soapbox>

BTW- can anyone remember how well recieved the STS classes were by the "veteran" autocrossers a few years ago? It wasn't good from my recollection.... Well, times have certainly changed and I think it's a beaken for us all to see what a success that class has had and the future it has before it. STX can follow in those footsteps if we don't kill it along the way.

 

typer_801 = Dennis Grant Jr.????

Just kidding Jeff!

Seriously though, I'd like to see SP overhauled too, but try to tell that to the guys who have 10years invested in their car from 197x that will always be dominant and you'll receive a tounge lashing for that. This is what I got when I tried to get the R out of CSP.

All we can do is hope that these new classes catch on and SP numbers dwindle, then we'll see changes. I agree though, FSP is not needed. I even question whether or not ASP and BSP should be seperate sometimes.

Stock>STS>STX>SM is a somewhat logical progression. SP does not fit in that model, as mentioned. Nor does Prepared. I do think STR had a purpose...perhaps it was ahead of it's time as a SP replacement.

 

I feel like it today, even though I despise the guy!

 

Why don't everyone run PAX and set a PAX adjustment for every class instead of car?

 

PAX is not an exact science! PAX is a committee's best guess at the potential of a car in a certain class.

Different cars will PAX better or worse depending upon course. And you can always tell what kind of course it is depending upon whether or not SP wins PAX or stock does.

 

Also add, time of day, amount of rubber on course, weather, etc. PAX is a very general guideline of how to rank cars, but is plagued with many flaws and really shouldn't be used to "rank" cars at events.

 

Unfortunately, it rains too much around here to have worthwile PAX competition.

I can see it now..... STSA, STSB, STSC, STSD.....

 

LOL, it'd get worse...

ST2.5RS, STIntegra, STSE-R Spec V, STRSX-S...

 

Kurt Spitzner is the former marketing guy at SCCA. He also used to be Tarheel SCC President. Some people in the club cornered him a year or so ago when he was back in town and got this out of him:

The SCCA is catching a bunch of **** from the environmentalists about promoting a class for street driven cars (street prepared) where the driver can remove all the emission equiptment. They have no problem with prepared and modified cars since they are generally not streetable and are carried around on trailers instead of driven to events. The SCCAs answer is street touring, basically an emissions legal form of street prepared.

I would not be shocked to see street prepared done away with or renamed as something else, with street touring taking it's place.


[Modified by MaddMatt, 6:17 AM 12/18/2001]

 

>>I agree though, FSP is not needed.<<

Heh, as my sig sez, that's where I've been for a year. But, I still agree. FSP is pretty much a waste of time. I'm SM bound...

 

Just thinking... Will an ITR (for example) modified within STX on street tires be any faster than an ITR modified within the D Stock rules on Kumhos or Hoosiers?

 

Probably not. The mods allowed within the ST classes might get you an extra 5-6 hp over a stock ITR, which won't be enough to overcome the grip and speed you can get from an R tire

 

Dunno, I'm kinda wondering the same thing myself. One would hope, but that might be overly optmistic given the serious reduction in tire stickiness. Suspension and engine tuning will help, but I'm not sure it's enough.

 

A stock R on Hoosiers will be faster than an STX prepared R, guaranteed. You can get more HP than 5 or 6 in STX format by a long shot, and suspension will help considerably as well.

Still, the stock R on Hoosiers will be faster.