Now that the opposing view is at the front of your mind, go back and re-read the article to remind yourself why the SCCA elected the route they took.Quote:
Originally Posted by OZMDD
Printable View
Now that the opposing view is at the front of your mind, go back and re-read the article to remind yourself why the SCCA elected the route they took.Quote:
Originally Posted by OZMDD
I think a blend of what we have now with some minor tweaks would work.
- Bar on one end
- Cat back exhaust
- Shocks without remotes
- Tires 140
- Wheel size 1" +/- in size
- Camber adjustments (new cars are designed to understeer)
After several re-reads and a looking at the thoughts of a few prominent folks that have made it to the interwebs, I'm getting more comfortable with the general idea of the Street plan. I still like unrestricted sway bars, prefer a one-bar rule, and I am 100% behind the camber allowances and mild shock restrictions. The number of cars that become interesting with camber allowances is exciting. The Yaris was a different animal when I did the camber bolts on it, though it still ate front tires. :)
I still can't imagine the Yaris was all that fun to drive in any form. I had a new (4000 miles on the odometer) Corolla as a rental this past weekend, and it was hands down the worst car I've driven in several years. Shitty ergonomics, steering that was number than you rmouth after a root canal, and it had to downshift to 3rd to maintain 78 mph climbing the pass up into Sedona.
I like the idea as is. A one bar rule is great if you run run springs and str like suspension mods. I see Robert's point on the sway bars. Maybe use a percentage rule instead of a hard figure like the 1.6 proposal. Any way, I am ready to start today.
@Ian - It definitely wasnt as much fun as the NC, but it was 106 whp and 2150 lbs, so suprisingly nimble. A corolla is a pig by comparison.
If Faceplant is any indicator there are strong feeling for both sides of this proposal.
Ya gotta wonder how much of the original proposal will make it to a parking lot near you.
I currently agree with lostlorin, but I may change that stance later on today. ;-)
Proposal: http://www.solomatters.com/2013/03/s...sal-explained/
Feedback here: http://www.sebscca.com
Wow, that didn't take long. Couldn't stay away, eh? LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by MX5_Miata
The updated proposal is out. 140TW tires in 2014 going to 200 TW in 2015. Sway bars and shock rules stay the same as current stock rules. Allow camber adjustment for strut cars. Exhaust must exit in the stock location. A class for SS on R-comps, but they have to get 35 entrants at nationals to keep it. I like the new proposal it addresses the major problems I had with the original proposal.
http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...k-may-solo.pdf
The revised proposal makes think they should just change the R in the "road tire" to "race" and be done with it.
Camber rules are good I think. Im going to assume that half the letters submitted were about SSR and the other half about reservoir shocks.
If version 2 passes as is, would that mean the elimination of the regional "T" Tire class?
What would be the point of keeping "T" other than SP classes on Street tires?
What would that do to competition level on regional events?
Would you still end up with 2-3 people in D-Street and 2-3 drivers in G-Street....?
I like it, in-general. I thought the no-remote-canisters was a good idea, but not a big deal. I wonder if they will permit more cars to be classified as SSR, should they request it. Several AS and BS (even a few CS) cars can be considered competitive with SS at local events, though I doubt the SS top dogs would be threatened at Nats by a BS S2K or a CS MS-R.
Quote:
Originally Posted by general default
It would kill the regional tire class. Almost all the cars in T class are stock prep.
I sent my letter in favor of the change, with the request that the camber kits be given to everyone or no one.
I think we could still have the regional T class, though it seems a bit pointless. Hopefully, the new Street rules would increase participation in those classes and avoid the 1 or 2 person classes.
It could be an intermediate PAX class, but I am not sure of the point. Back in my dirt bike days we had novice, intermediate, and expert classes. They tended to have a lot of overlap, with the fastest novices faster than a lot of the intermediates, and the fastest intermediates faster than a lot of the experts. Do you want to be a fast intermediate or a slow expert?
I am not recommending it, just saying it’s an option.
If anything, we could use more classes. I saw a few people leaving the last SCCA event without trophies.
That ain't right. Everyone deserves a trophy!
In all honesty, I think SCCA could use a complete top-to-bottom revamp with a NASA style points ladder. There are far too many classes that have almost identical performance potential, but are separated by some artificial barrier ("No, this class is for roadsters. THAT one is for rally cars. The other one is for fat front drivers."). Trim it down to 10 classes, 15 at most, clearly separated by actual on course performance.
But that's never gonna happen. Not in my lifetime, anyway.
I just looked into it, and without Karts, Tire or Novice, there are 35 classes in SCCA. All I have to do is pick an obscure class and I can get a guaranteed win since most everyone is in an ST class. I'm actually excited to see the street tires in the stock class, maybe I'll leave my next miata alone.
Everyone wants to run in "I" class. A class "I" can win.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDmiata