Take part in the future of 200tw autocrossing

maschinenbau said:

In reply to ojannen :

None of those are "run what you brung" nor accessible to outsiders. Heritage Classic is just nostalgic masturbation, barely allows any mods, and forget engine/suspension swaps. Prepared and Street Prepared rules are each 20 pages long and also highly restrictive for builders, not exactly inviting. And forget swapping slicks "just" to autocross.

Gumby's criticism is on the nose - we have serious, semantic, rule-loving SCCA types trying to over-engineer a class to attract casual non-SCCA types who just want to play with their weird junk.

What's an example of a car that you're referring to here that's being eliminated by this ruleset?

In reply to JG Pasterjak :

Approximatly half of the winners of the $2000 Challenge

JG Pasterjak said:

" 1 class with tire width limits based on weight"

I pitched it at one point. It is highly flawed based on the current realities of the sport. A 3000lb front engined four-seat car with struts is very different from a 3000lb mid engined two seat car with A-arms. And if you're like "Well you can convert that four-door strut car to A-arms by fabricating subframes." Cool. Show me the car. When all these cars that could exist actually start existing the ruleset is flexible enough to properly accommodate them.

 

And, yeah, rules bloat is a real thing. If you recall, the $2000 Challenge used to have a very short set of rules, and the event almost failed because of it. Still, I'll say there's very little under this X/CAM ruleset that you CAN'T do. Literally ANY car built to the limits of these rules could win any of these classes. But cars built to the limits of these rules simply don't exist, and one of the ways to hopefully nurture these classes to the point where those cars DO exist is to seed them with a sensible mix of cars that exist today from the current and likely marketplace.

WRT tire size, I floated an over/ under tire size within XB, for a selfish enough reason, to give my little E21 a place to play, and cars like it. 

In the class you can go wild with motor swaps and turbos, etc, but I won't be doing that,  so as the car stands now, with a few traditional hot rod tweaks, wouldn't fit anywhere else.

But if you keep XB as is with the exception of bigger/smaller than say 225, then the wild built machines and mild built machines have a place to go. 

Nobody is going to turbo and wing up an old Miata and leave it on narrow tires anyway, or an X1/9, etc. 

And while the E21 will never be competitive for fastest in class on anything, at least I could reasonably see how it compares to similar machines. 

Once I get it sorted it'll see autocross no matter what, so it won't keep me away, just like having a non-competetive in STR NB1 Miata doesn't keep me away.

But, like in STR, at least I could be in the ball park of some category. 

In reply to JG Pasterjak :

You're focused on the rule making and missing my point. The first two weren't rules issues, they are issues with the type of competitor the rules are attracting. That garbage doesn't matter to what CAM/XS claim to be about, but it does matter to these detractors. The third was an oversight because of an effort to appease the SCCA mentality. Screw the eligibilities down too tight and you're gonna miss people, everytime.

As far as builds that cannot fit into any of these classes, my truck is excluded because of a wheelbase change; in classes where suspension and body mods are basically free. I wrote my email and wasn't even graced with a TYFYI. Again, the rules are SCCA'd and overcomplicated in an area that doesn't matter within the scope of potential performance at a minimum weight on 200tw tires. 

I built my $2,000 challenge Miata to the cam class rules in 2018. Extreme street B was created based on those rules. Locally we have 30 to 40 cars showing up every event in extreme street A&B. Adding more rules and exceptions and exemptions is not what our class shows up for. We show up for a street race that's been sanctioned around cones. Safety should be about the Only Rule outside of full interior and 200 tread wear. The rest is full on run what you've rung. Scca and trying to clarify and add more to the rule package for extreme street is going to kill the class. Somewhere in this thread it was even stated that for the first time it counted it Nationals they had the biggest turnout ever. So it's essentially saying we've got a great thing going let's berkeley with it until we don't.

maschinenbau said:

In reply to JG Pasterjak :

Approximatly half of the winners of the $2000 Challenge

Yeah but you;re talking about cars with interiors fully gutted of both trim and structure, single seats, no glass, radical outer panel removal. None of that was ever within the design parameters of these classes. 

Still, you could make a case that a lot of top finishing cars from the Challenge could easily adapt to these rules. Ed Malle's cars, The V8 RX7 for example.

Still, none of the Challenge cars are completely eliminated from Solo competition. Dan ran AMod in the LMP360, EMod would welcome cars like the Ga. Tech BMW and D and EMod are suitable for Exocet-type cars. 

Dusterbd13-michael said:

Somewhere in this thread it was even stated that for the first time it counted it Nationals they had the biggest turnout ever. So it's essentially saying we've got a great thing going let's berkeley with it until we don't.

Literally zero cars that ran at Solo Nationals have been eliminated from the category under these new rules. Most got additional allowances.

In reply to JG Pasterjak :

The type of person that XS appeals to doesn't want to run in a slicks class with 1 other way-too-serious competitor. They want to run in the class with the best party. Cutting it up into too many classes with too many rules ruins the party.

dps214 said:

#1: the point is going for a "finished" interior. Paint on all surfaces is pretty much the lowest bar for that.

#2: yes the other classes require carpet, yes allowing it to be removed in those two classes makes absolutely no sense.

#3: I don't pay much attention to aero rules but I believe someone said the wing rules are a direct copy of tt max class rules.

To point #1, the Lotus Elise has an aluminum interior, personally I like that a whole lot better than paint and it looks very "finished" to me when I sit in it.

I don't want to pile in but my MG Midget would love to play in XS.  But despite being street legal on 200tw tires it is ~400lbs underweight.   It's fine to exclude things but recognize it for what it is.  CAM is the same way, it's not the free for all it was presented as.  To my knowledge none of the rules proposed are fundamentally safety driven they are the same as all the rules in SP/P and M that protect a certain vision for the class and that is fine.  I would love to see A/D/E mod on street tires, that is my vision of an ideal Autox class but there isn't apparently much market for that.  That's not what this class is and that's fine, I don't need to try to make it that.  I hope XS is successful because it has a lot of good people trying to make it work.  

te72 said:

In reply to Panhandler :

So run tires larger than 275mm, problem solved. =)

Ah, no. Larger than 275 and min weight goes up to 2830.  Let's see, if I cut the fenders off and...

I forget the year I bailed from a long running SCCA membership, but its been something like 30 years ago now, yeah I'm an old fart, outspoken, not politically correct and what I am about to say was true when I bailed out way back when and apparently is still true today based on what others are saying above. Without further ado...

The SCCA has always been just a little or maybe even a lot too big for its britches. A bit more attitude and Ego than was necessary or appropriate. Making rules for the sake of rule making, not necessarily in the interest of safety, common sense or fairness to competitors, but more about making the SCCA look good and about its own self promotion. It was sickening then and its no more appealing today. I won't pay bloated membership fees to belong to an organization that acts like its poop doesn't stink. And it has enough piles of it laying around that it should do some serious house cleaning. I have removed myself from the organization because of the management at the national level. The people I knew and rubbed elbows with at the local level were always for the most part agreeable and reasonable and friendly easy going folks to deal with and I miss those associations, but because the people in the trenches who really are the core of SCCA were not being heard and have historically been run roughshod over, I felt like I had had enough abuse to last me. Its sad that the so called leaders didn't have enough insight in their policies and actions to recognize they were running people off in droves. But thats what happens when you get too many chiefs and not enough indians and when the chiefs don't listen to the indians, it creates a situation that likely now is not repairable. Its sad...and frustrating. I gave a lot of years to the cause, dragged people kicking and screaming into the sport and some stayed. Some didn't. I didn't stay in SCCA and wont go back.

Now its track days with other sanctioning bodies and less BS to deal with - I don't play as often, but I have more fun, and I spend more money - haha.

Panhandler said:

In reply to QuasiMofo (John Brown) :

My 5.0 weights in at just over 2400 pounds. I'd have to add 250 pounds of ballast to run in XS.  Where do I put 250 pounds of anything in a Miata? 

As an aside, I wouldn't see a terrible lot of difference between your V8 Miata and some turbo'd thing legal in XB, which is why I suggest that my over/under tire size for the class allows flexibility. 

I submit that even on 225s you're not hooking up at all, and probably plowing the back 40 on corner entry.

245s are probably a minimum need, so you and all the big boys can run XB1, and those of us that can get by on 205s and 225s would run a more equal group for us in XB2.

Rabbits and Civics and such should be able to hit their weights pretty easily, and if those FWD guys get radical, well, tire size levels some playing fields while letting everybody build what they want. 

Does that seem to work, or am I smokin' dope?

One other weird CAM C - CAM T issue. What is the reasoning behind allowing CAM T cars to run in CAM C if they meet the minimum weight requirement? CAM C cars can't run in CAM T if they meet the CAM T minimum weight requirements. Either separate the two classes completely or combine it into a single class.

XR7 said:

One other weird CAM C - CAM T issue. What is the reasoning behind allowing CAM T cars to run in CAM C if they meet the minimum weight requirement? CAM C cars can't run in CAM T if they meet the CAM T minimum weight requirements. Either separate the two classes completely or combine it into a single class.

This was mostly to allow the CAM T cars with wings who didn't want to remove them a place to run.

maschinenbau said:

In reply to JG Pasterjak :

The type of person that XS appeals to doesn't want to run in a slicks class with 1 other way-too-serious competitor. They want to run in the class with the best party. Cutting it up into too many classes with too many rules ruins the party.

That's been an unofficial SCCA rule for a long time. 

Our area already struggles to fill spots for the 2 classes originally created, so I'm a bit bummed to see even more division. I also don't understand the car with driver weight, just stick to car weight please. Looks like I'll be kicked from XSA to XS if I don't add ballast or eat a lot more cheeseburgers.

Also can anyone explain to me why we have a Domestic "CAM" class and then do an Import class that also allows Domestic? It seems silly to divide it out just to include some on one side but not others? I never understood that notion when the XS class was created and am still baffled by it. Maybe I'm missing context or something.

With all of that said, my car isn't built to take advantage of any ruleset so if I manage to get pummeled by a more prepared car that's fine. I just want a place to have fun.

I suppose in a few years the SCCA will make a new "anything goes" class to fill the slot of the old "anything goes" that they mercilessly carved up and saddled with all sorts of rules. I'm sorry, this new ruleset seems like a complete step backwards. Everyone I knew running the class liked the lack of rules and simplicity of classing. Dividing up a fledgling class seems like a surefire way to kill it.

In reply to captainawesome :

CAM was designed to bring out the big domestic iron on street tires that ran good guys and optima and bring them into the world of the SCCA. The show car guys that wanted to drive it kinda hard and enjoy it. It was never meant to be a srs bzns jacket class. Rules on one page, anything goes. The original idea didn't even split them up by generation. Literally run what you brung. Imports weren't really the crowd they were shooting for. 
 

then the national office got their claws on it and bastardized it beyond recognition and lost all of the original intent. The people they wanted to bring in the srs bzns people ran off and then you get protests for a bumper in cam at nationals. Jumped the shark. 
 

wheb you look at the original intent and plan this isn't it. At all. To be honest I'm a little upset they even use the same name at this point. 

In reply to bobzilla :

CAM still isn't a jacket class, and I'm pretty sure the national office only just took over control of it this year.

I was a little surprised by the nationals challenge, both that it happened and that it went through the normal protest process. It does really seem like these classes should have their own protest system.

In reply to dps214 :

Raleigh has been working on it with the national office side for the last few years. So yay they haven't made it a jacket class but they've still made it the very thing it wasn't meant to be. 

NickD said:

 that they mercilessly carved up and saddled with all sorts of rules. I'm sorry, this new ruleset seems like a complete step backwards. 

Dude we actually loosened the restrictions on an already largely unrestricted class. Basically everyone in the class is now allowed to do more stuff than they were this year.

XS may be a flop. We'll know soon enough. If it is, we'll dump it and figure out something else, which is the beauty of a supplemental class. 

Let me take this in a different direction...what are we doing with XE? I mean I understand the club's hesitancy to allow modified EV drivetrains, but I can't imagine anyone in the club wants to go beyond EVX prep but is willing to not touch the drive system. That leaves the class populated exclusively by...those NSX drivers that got kicked out of XA/XS for some reason I can't even begin to understand. When I first read the new rules I assumed XE was replacing EVX because why would we want to have two basically identical classes when the first one alone didn't draw much interest?

In reply to dps214 :

Anecdotally, evx limits you to one suspension arm and if you are modifying your tesla for non-scca purposes, you are replacing both.  I would rather put them in XS and kill both of the EV classes.  The anti-EV contingent is loud and more persuasive than I am though.

Panhandler said:

te72 said:

In reply to Panhandler :

So run tires larger than 275mm, problem solved. =)

Ah, no. Larger than 275 and min weight goes up to 2830.  Let's see, if I cut the fenders off and...

2830??? What do they think you're driving, a school bus? =P

To add to the conversation, competition is what you make of it. I have friends who run on the very pointy end of CAM in Utah, and I compete with them in a 200tw DM. Two very different approaches to having fun.