Da Groj

Jamie wrote: We chose not to separate novices for the same reason -- figured they learn more rubbing shoulders with the more experienced drivers than if they were separated out -- even figuratively -- by themselves. Plus it saved us from creating detailed rules on who was really a novice, and whne they were no longer a novice...it was really just a means for us to ID people who might need a little extra help, and they could shed the title as slowly or quickly as they liked.

Yes, I never talk to anyone outside of my class and I could imagine the reams of paper required to define a novice. And then once someone entered the novice class they would be trapped in that class forever! What a nightmare!

I think it's exactly the opposite. Having a separate novice class draws more attention to the novices and thus more people would be apt to strike up a conversation. "Hey, did you see Novice A beat Novice B." "Did you see that run that Novice C laid down. That's pretty impressive for a novice!"

Currently they are just some guy who finished 6th in class, and I think he had an N by his name on myautoevents which I last looked at 2 months ago.

Maybe I have been brainwashed by the SCCA to think that there needs to be a novice class, but I think it's one of the most interesting classes. It's one of the only SCCA classes where I actually pay attention to the results. But that might be because it's the only class with more than one entry.

treekiller wrote:What do I have to prove at a fast event? I'm not going to prep a car to the limits of a ruleset for a meaningless Sticker. or "class championship"

You could win a t-shirt made from the finest cotton, picked by nubile young waifs with buttery soft fingers.

Jeremy wrote:But that might be because it's the only class with more than one entry.

AScoda wrote:You could win a t-shirt made from the finest cotton, picked by nubile young waifs with buttery soft fingers.

Y'all are cracking me up here!

Jeremy wrote:Maybe I have been brainwashed by the Central Florida Region SCCA to think that there needs to be a novice class,...

Fixed that, because of the half-dozen SCCA regions I've run with regularly over the years, and an equal handful of independent clubs, CFR is the first I've been around that breaks out the novices into a completely separate class. I know they're not unique, but it's not a universal practice, even in the SCCA.

...but I think it's one of the most interesting classes. It's one of the only SCCA classes where I actually pay attention to the results. But that might be because it's the only class with more than one entry.

Which should make you wonder why they don't stick around after they're no longer novices, if that long. Or why CFR-W events get half to two-thrids our turnout (and even CFR-E doesn't do better than equal). I think the SCCA in general sets the standard for autocross competition, and I can't expalin why the local region's events aren't better subscribed, but given the reality of the numbers, I'm not anxious to copy their model.

I will, however, renew my SCCA membership this month and keep running in their events.

I don't think CFR's failure has anything to do with them having a novice class or not.

BUT maybe it does do more harm than good. Maybe people don't want to be separated out.

AScoda wrote:

treekiller wrote: You could win a t-shirt made from the finest cotton, picked by nubile young waifs with buttery soft fingers.

All right, good, and get me some breast milk from a Cambodian immigrant. And I want 100% Cambodian, None of this watered down Laotian crap.

[/quote]

You could win a t-shirt made from the finest cotton, picked by nubile young waifs with buttery soft fingers

.[/quote]

I don't care who you are that's funny Drew.

In re to camber checking. I don't think it's worth the effort. I can't even tell by looking how wide a wheel is let alone how much it's bent.
Put it right up there with internal engine components, electronic boost mods, flashed ecu's and DOT Hoosiers which say Do not drive on highway in all their literature.

Maybe there could be an "I" Class? First person to sign up runs alone.

G Class is certainly well subscribed and diverse. Pretty hard to have a "lock" on that class!! Probably have to spend alot of money to do that!! It does appear to make things difficult for worker assignments in the other heats tho'.

Perhaps G1 = +200HP and G2 <199HP?

Okay, I'll definitely agree with ditching the "how to check camber" part of that suggested rule. Nobody's going to do it, and I only suggested adding that bit because Jamie asked the question "how will we police it?"

So, add it to the list of rules that we have that we can't/won't police. But, I still think we need a specified "camber allowance" so that people don't HAVE to be "cheating" just to run a little camber. I'd just like to see us specifically state that "2 degrees of camber is okay" so that the people who don't want to cheat in any way shape or form can run enough camber to keep from destroying their tires in 2 events without feeling guilty about it. We already turn a blind eye to it, I'd just prefer to see us state that "it's okay".

--------------

Re: G1 and G2 - Horsepower isn't everything... not by a long shot. And we're not going to keep a database of cars vs. horsepower. The only good way to split G is to revert to the "source" classes that we combined to make it. That gives us SCCA CS and FS. I think if we did that, we'd have a slightly smaller G class (as most of the cars we have runnning in it are from CS) and a 2-3 car "G2" class (the FS cars, that we don't get many of). Personally, I don't think that's a great solution, and I'm not keen on coming up with a more complicated solution.

Here's an idea that could work. Create an "optional" Miata class. A classs that any stock-eligible Miata (G or H... though the H cars would have a distinct disadvantage, some of them still might go for it) can run in if they want to compete against only Miatas. If they'd rather mix it up with other cars, they can stay in G. That could potentially reduce the class size in G by 4-5 cars, and H by a couple, as well.

Do we really want another class?

Loren wrote:I'd just like to see us specifically state that "2 degrees of camber is okay" so that the people who don't want to cheat in any way shape or form can run enough camber to keep from destroying their tires in 2 events without feeling guilty about it. We already turn a blind eye to it, I'd just prefer to see us state that "it's okay".

In my opinion it's not okay and it's cheating. The problems I have with it are...

1. Now you must have 2 degrees of camber to be competitive.

2. Some people might have nice cars that they are unwilling to hack up to gain some camber.

3. We tried slotting shock bodies to get more camber and the bolts slipped after about 3 runs. Not very streetable and "production". I believe it did this on our dead Nitto NT-01's, which were probably less grippy than a new set of street tires.

It just doesn't fit into a production class, where it's a good possibility that a majority of cars will be bone stock. You'll effectively be running twice the tire of someone who chooses not to do this.

I'm okay with agreeing to disagree on this point. I don't think we should force people to go compete in a "mod" class over something as simple as alignment, just like we don't send them there for a cone air filter or a non-factory-sized set of wheels. We are not SCCA.

Our present rule is this:

(from the definition of Modified) wrote: Altered suspension geometry (relocated pickup points, alternate suspension parts to increase factory alignment adjustment range such as camber kits, camber plates, or slotted strut mounts)

I would propose that we amend that to "Altered suspension pick-up points on the car's body, frame or subframes" and add a separate line: "modifications to suspension geometry resulting in greater than 2.0 degrees of negative camber".

This effectively allows bolt-on parts or modifications to bolt-on parts (such as struts) specifically to change camber (not caster or toe or bump-steer or ride-height or anything else) and that regardless of factory specified alignment parameters, all cars are limited to -2.0 degrees of camber. That works both ways. Some cars can get MORE than 2 degrees, this limits them and levels the playing field a bit. I'd buy off on lowering the limit to -1.5 degrees, but I'm pretty sure there are some stock Miatas that would be in violation of that rule. I know I used to run -1.8 degrees on the back of mine with stock suspension.

I'll see your slipped camber bolt anecdote and raise you one torque wrench. (even with unmodified holes, there is still some slack between the bolt and the hole, and if you don't tighten it enough, you'll get a nasty "clunk" on hard cornering)

Loren wrote:I don't think we should force people to go compete in a "mod" class over something as simple as alignment.

I don't see any rule that says you can't run whatever alignment you want in production class.

So our new "production" class is going to be full of a bunch of cambered out daily drivers, who are going to need new tires every 6 months after driving on the interstates every day. (Ok that's a slight exaggeration). But you have to admit camber is great for cornering but terrible at everything else, which most of our production class cars will spend 99.9% of their lives doing that "everything else".

Our current definition of mod puts common simple camber mods out of production classes. 2 degrees of camber with proper
toe will not cause tire wear issues on the street. We can't be responsible for poor setup choices!

So some cars (1st gen Neons, last-gen Celicas, Miatas) can, using nothing more than the wiggle room the factory built in, get more static camber than other cars (most Hondas, VWs). I thought Loren started by proposing we restrict adjustments on the former...now it looks like a proposal to allow modifications (but not too much modification) to allow the latter to catch up. And I'm still looking for any indication in the results that says this is a problem that needs solving, especially when it makes the rules more complex.

Jamie wrote:So some cars (1st gen Neons, last-gen Celicas, Miatas) can, using nothing more than the wiggle room the factory built in, get more static camber than other cars (most Hondas, VWs). I thought Loren started by proposing we restrict adjustments on the former...

Um... no. To find out where I started, all you have to do is look at the first post in this thread... where I started. What I said was that I thought of "Adding some alignment specs to "stock" classes. I think we've sort of agreed that "reasonable/streetable" performance alignment specs are acceptable, even if they are obtained by "illegal" means. Rather than just turning a blind eye to it, I'd rather specify what we're willing to allow."

now it looks like a proposal to allow modifications (but not too much modification) to allow the latter to catch up.

Which is precisely where I started, you just chose not to read it that way for whatever reason.

And I'm still looking for any indication in the results that says this is a problem that needs solving, especially when it makes the rules more complex.

Changing one existing rule and adding one additional simple line isn't going to make things significantly more complex.

I don't get why you guys are so dead set against allowing the average guy who isn't driving a sportscar that HAS a favorable factory alignment range to run a reasonable allowance that will both help them autocross AND help their tires last longer. I tried driving my Yaris on good tires with a factory spec alignment and nearly destroyed the tires in 2 events. Why do we need to put people through that when we can allow simple camber bolts (or whatever) for them to get more than a degree of camber?

I talked with Jeff about this tonight. I think 1.75 degrees would be a good "max number" to use. No stock car that we know of has a factory camber spec that allows more than 1.75 degrees negative, indeed most can't even achieve that much with modification. (but some can... rear of a Miata, for example) And that's a good "streetable performance alignment" number.

Again, I'm not suggesting that we need to strictly police this any more than we do anything else. It's up to the competitors to question each other and satisfy themselves that all is well. Personally, I can eyeball 2 degrees of camber... so if we implement a 1.75 rule and I see something that looks like 2.0 or more, I'll at least ask them about it... which is about all we'd do with any other rule that we can't easily police. "Gee, your car sure accelerates like it has 26 psi boost... how did you manage to get that much boost without changing the fuel map?" (more on that in a bit) That's the limit of our involvement normally. If people choose to cheat AND lie about it... what are we gonna do?

Here's another rule that we may need to clarify.

The "rule" once again is in the definition of "modified":

Any external engine modification that alters fuel delivery (alternate carb, altered fuel injection, fuel-air ratio adjusters)

Our intent here was that anything you do, such as intake or exhaust mods, or changing a mechanical boost limiter, would not be fully effective without also adding more fuel. So, we limited the fuel to keep a lid on how much more power a "production class" car could make over "factory stock". Well, apparently, that rule is not specific enough.

It doesn't specifically address the issue of reprogramming an ECU (and I know that was on purpose because we have no means to police it). And allowing ECU reprogramming on a modern turbocharged car can easily allow additional boost AND the additional fuel to go with it without further modification to the fuel system.

Not sure how we should address this one, but this loophole has the potential to some cars to gain large amounts of additional power that is not considered in their classing. Pretty much anything we do is on the honor system. But, as it is, we're not restricting it, so ECU reprogramming is allowed. Arguably it "alters fuel delivery", but we're not being specific enough about that.

Discuss.

Loren wrote:Re: G1 and G2 - Horsepower isn't everything... not by a long shot. And we're not going to keep a database of cars vs. horsepower. The only good way to split G is to revert to the "source" classes that we combined to make it. That gives us SCCA CS and FS. I think if we did that, we'd have a slightly smaller G class (as most of the cars we have runnning in it are from CS) and a 2-3 car "G2" class (the FS cars, that we don't get many of). Personally, I don't think that's a great solution, and I'm not keen on coming up with a more complicated solution.

Here's an idea that could work. Create an "optional" Miata class. A classs that any stock-eligible Miata (G or H... though the H cars would have a distinct disadvantage, some of them still might go for it) can run in if they want to compete against only Miatas. If they'd rather mix it up with other cars, they can stay in G. That could potentially reduce the class size in G by 4-5 cars, and H by a couple, as well.

Do we really want another class?

I looked back thru this year's results and except for a couple unlisted cars it looks like CS and FS are pretty equal in attendance with only one BS I noticed.

4fs-6cs, 7fs-9cs, 4fs-3cs,7fs-5cs-1bs, 5fs-5cs, 6fs-5cs, enduro, 11cs-6fs first event of the season.

Looks pretty even to me? Maybe it's just me but if I spent $30-40k on a new pony car I really wouldn't want to get beat by a 4cyl anything. Perhaps that's why most of those cars have disappeared? I know of three people who changed classes mid season so they don't count? They were driving CS cars and moved to higher classes.

As someone aptly mentioned when there are 5-6 cars in a class you stand a 50%+ greater chance of getting a trophy than if there are 12+. I personally enjoy getting the little stickers!! My Only 3rd place trophy on a rainy day was a trip while driving my 86 GT on All season tires:) Even tho' I had no chance of ever winning with that setup I still had fun trying.

I think most people believe "size matters". Am I up to 4 cents yet?

Loren wrote:So, we limited the fuel to keep a lid on how much more power a "production class" car could make over "factory stock". Well, apparently, that rule is not specific enough.

It doesn't specifically address the issue of reprogramming an ECU (and I know that was on purpose because we have no means to police it). And allowing ECU reprogramming on a modern turbocharged car can easily allow additional boost AND the additional fuel to go with it without further modification to the fuel system.

Not sure how we should address this one, but this loophole has the potential to some cars to gain large amounts of additional power that is not considered in their classing. Pretty much anything we do is on the honor system. But, as it is, we're not restricting it, so ECU reprogramming is allowed. Arguably it "alters fuel delivery", but we're not being specific enough about that.

Discuss.

You raise several valid issues. Perhaps this view will help?

No one has ever cared about my car setup so long as they beat me.

I am on first name basis with my closest competitors and many of those running in G. We enjoy this close competition and share our minimal knowledge even if it is (unintentially) wrong. We all encourage new drivers and give them rides with us.

In the unlikely event someone thought my car illegal (and I knew they were a safe driver) I would offer to swap cars for at least one or two runs to settle it.

Loren I'm a little confused? You just told me that HP doesn't matter!!

In-class agreements to allow minor this minor mod or that are fine. It is good to be sure that ALL of your class knows about it, though.

Man, you guys love putting words in my mouth. What I said (scroll up and look!) was "Horsepower isn't everything... not by a long shot." I didn't say that it didn't matter, just that it can't be used as the sole basis for classing. The fact that you're aware that a stock Miata can beat a stock Mustang GT shows that you grasp this concept, so quit acting like you don't and quit giving me crap about it! ;P

Back to the topic at hand... I didn't realize that there were that man "FS" cars on a regular basis. If there is a healthy average of 5-6 of them, then we have our solution. We simply split G out into the two classes that make it up, FS and CS. And if we do that, I think that clinches the fact that we need to reletter classes.

Loren wrote:Man, you guys love putting words in my mouth. What I said (scroll up and look!) was "Horsepower isn't everything... not by a long shot." .

My bad. You did put it just that way

My fender liners are wearing out from rubbing on the tires. We should allow a simple fix of aftermarket springs in the production class, to prevent unnecessary wear on my fender liners.

This is a reasonable allowance that will allow people to autocross better AND keep their fender liners from wearing out.

Maybe we should just have a maximum spring rate, like say 600lb springs. I can tell by pushing on a fender if a car has 750lb springs, so I would instantly be able to tell whether or not a car is legal.

It's not fair that some cars come from the factory with stiff linear spring rates and I am stuck on my floppy progressive rates.

A bunch of people in production class are already running aftermarket springs, so I would just like to get the "Okay" that what they are doing is legal.