Take part in the future of 200tw autocrossing

Are the proposed rules somewhere we can review them? 

Panhandler said:

Are the proposed rules somewhere we can review them? 

this is the link JG posted to the FB.group last week:
https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_files/scca/downloads/000/065/237/2023%20CAM%20and%20Xtreme%20Rules%20Draft%20includes%20CAM%20XS%20EV%20v11.pdf?1670270024

I don't know if that's the "updated" file he mentioned above, or not... though?

sleepyhead the buffalo said:

Panhandler said:

Are the proposed rules somewhere we can review them? 

this is the link JG posted to the FB.group last week:
https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_files/scca/downloads/000/065/237/2023%20CAM%20and%20Xtreme%20Rules%20Draft%20includes%20CAM%20XS%20EV%20v11.pdf?1670270024

I don't know if that's the "updated" file he mentioned above, or not... though?

The updated file is still—well, as of about 30 seconds ago when I closed my email app—being finalized. And it wil probably get tiny tweaks right up to meeting time. But the proposal is darn close at this point.

I meant to write this this morning... but got distracted by 2023 Prius content.

Caveats:   
I am not an SCCA member.
I have not competed in XS, nor Solo... except one event back in 2015.  
I have a deep-seated hatred for the Solo GCR, the Road Race GCR, and the SCCA.TT classing.  
I realize my comments to follow will sound similar to the "That's not a $2000 car" comments GRM $Challenge gets.  
I believe I understand the current reasoning behind the points I'm about to criticize.

those out of the way...

I really don't agree with the restriction requiring that HEV/PHEV/BEV vehicles retain OEM battery systems in a class that is named "extreme" and is intended to allow an "anything goes" approach to street-vehicle modification.

I understand that this is probably because of the concern about modifications to these systems leaving the subject cars to becoming significant fire hazards.  {feel free to insert your own image of a burning Tesla}?

However, as written, this rule would seem to restrict allowing to "upswap" a CR-Z with a NiMH pack to an OE Lithium pack from a later CR-Z... or utilize an OE Civic IMA module to provide higher assist.  Similarly, it would technically restrict updating a 2G/3G Prius to using 4G NiMH cells, or any aftermarket NiMH pack replacement.  Further, it restricts the use of ProjectLithium LiFePo4 swaps into 2nd/3rd/4th gen Prius or various Camry Hybrid and HS-250h's.  Or 48kWh pack swapping early 1G Leaf with a 'base' 2G pack.

All of these example applications will work within the existing architecture of their vehicle's EV systems, and would have minimal enhanced fire susceptibility... but are denied thanks to the lack of experience with the subject by the current rules committee... and yes, the concern that smaller regions would potentially lack the information/experience/equipment to handle an EV system change, adjudicate it's reasonableness, nor an ability to deal with a voltage induced fire.

I do expect this is currently a "niche"/"corner" case variety of concern.  However, you asked for feedback... so it seems like a reasonable time/place to raise this... so that a) those of on the forum with some experience can chime in;  b) the "powers-that-be" can begin considering/learning about the topic in order to eventually allow legitimate "anything goes" performance enhancements.

Edit:   

Also, these rules continue to "effectively" preclude the participation of EV swaps in Solo.

Why the exclusion of the Kumho V720's?

I don't see a class for V8 Miata's.  XB doesn't include 8 cylinder engines. XS has min weight of 2680 for tire width of 275 or less.  A Miata with Ford 5.0 or LS wouldn't fit in either class...

In reply to Panhandler :

XS?

In reply to Panhandler :

I was thinking along the same lines.  The minimum weights are too high for older imports. A fully dressed VW, Fiat, MG, etc. that hasn't been lightened will not make the minimum class weight. 

A few more items:

• "Exposed metal interior surfaces must be painted." Why? This seems like arbitrary nonsense. This isn't a car show and I don't see how a coat of paint provides any safety. 
• CAM-S and XS both state "Interior floor covering may be removed." Does this imply that the other CAM and Xtreme classes must have carpet? If so this would be another arbitrary restriction. 
• Wings - This rule seems pretty straightforward and overall a little more lenient than what I remember of the XP class rules such as allowing the wing to extend a distance behind the body. My concern is the chord length restriction. If I remember correctly in XP there is no chord restriction but there is a total wing area restriction that includes both elements.  I have a narrow car so I built a wing to maximize the allowed wing area. This resulted in an 18" chord length, which by the propsed Xtreme class rules would be illegal. However, a wing with 2 elements each with a 12" chord would be within the rules for Xtreme, but would exceed the allowable wing area for XP.    That seems like an undesirable inconsistency.  

#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.

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? 

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? 

Is it 2400 lbs with or without you in it?

In reply to Panhandler :

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

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? 

If need be, my recommendation would be as close to the rear bulkhead on the passenger side as you can get it, to distribute the weight of the driver. Lead is a heck of a compact ballast...

What a E36 M3 show 

The rationale of bringing in SCCA outsiders will never be achieved while primarily SCCA types are writing the rules.

When the biggest talking points, beyond laying out the changes, are

• Fender liners
• Soft tops
• We didn't realize v8 Miatas were so light

the classes are attracting the wrong people, the right people are being excluded, and the objective has failed.

My hopes that JG being involved could possibly temper the SCCA machine have been obliterated. These are not the fun, easy to understand, run what you brung classes they are touted to be.

gumby said:

What a E36 M3 show 

The rationale of bringing in SCCA outsiders will never be achieved while primarily SCCA types are writing the rules.

When the biggest talking points, beyond laying out the changes, are

• Fender liners
• Soft tops
• We didn't realize v8 Miatas were so light

the classes are attracting the wrong people, the right people are being excluded, and the objective has failed.

My hopes that JG being involved could possibly temper the SCCA machine have been obliterated. These are not the fun, easy to understand, run what you brung classes they were INTENDED to be.

I remember when it was brought out. Indy region wanted a class that was a single sheet of paper, run what you brung like a good guys or optima style. Now, it's just yet another bloated class full of srs bzns people with nothing better to do than cry about rules. I mean, we saw the first protest at nats this year over a bumper by some weenie that has no idea what the class was meant to be. 

Glad to say I'm out. Sad that those 11+ years I spent doing things feels tainted. Congrats SCCA, you've managed to run off more members and ruin more classes. Hope you're happy. 

I'm really struggling to figure out how the soft top discussion is a discussion at all. I'm pretty sure "roof" is a body panel and therefore is allowed to be replaced/modified.

The thing that bothers me is there seems to be a disconnect in the classing system. The category is based on being able to do literally almost any and all mechanical modifications you want, yet we're trying to split the classes by the performance potential of the stock configuration of the vehicle? To use the comparison that was belabored in the meeting, yeah an M3 and a GT3 don't look very similar, but that GT3 REALLY doesn't look like an s2000 or nc Miata, which are going to be the most common XS cars. (Side note, you can still have a 996 GT3 clone in XA, better exclude BS cars from that class too) Within the rules, the only functional difference between any two cars are the external dimensions. So why couldn't an M3 and a porsche be in direct competition with each other?

Rules like this are always tweaked yearly to favor a particular car flavor of the month.  Honestly, I don't care.  Stick my car in any class you want Mr. Official.  I'm not here for trophies but to have fun.  Run what ya brung.  

I'm sure someone will show up in a C8 ZR1 with a suspension that costs more than my car anyway.  

gumby said:

What a E36 M3 show 

The rationale of bringing in SCCA outsiders will never be achieved while primarily SCCA types are writing the rules.

When the biggest talking points, beyond laying out the changes, are

• Fender liners
• Soft tops
• We didn't realize v8 Miatas were so light

the classes are attracting the wrong people, the right people are being excluded, and the objective has failed.

My hopes that JG being involved could possibly temper the SCCA machine have been obliterated. These are not the fun, easy to understand, run what you brung classes they are touted to be.

100% agree. I've been following the discussion on the FB page too. Honestly I think it should just all be 1 class with tire width limits based on weight.

Only the SCCA could take 2 classes and 1 page of simple rules, balloon it to 4 classes and 3 pages of rules, and believe they made autocross more inviting to outsiders.

Tire width vs weight chart would also let lighter cars compete. Right now if you have something very lightweight yet streetable, like a hopped up classic Beetle, or perhaps a classic Lotus restomod... there is no where to play at SCCA. XB RWD only goes down to 2330 lbs, which excludes a lot of cool vintage stuff. At that point I might as well just run with PCA or BMWCCA.

Panhandler said:

I don't see a class for V8 Miata's.  XB doesn't include 8 cylinder engines. XS has min weight of 2680 for tire width of 275 or less.  A Miata with Ford 5.0 or LS wouldn't fit in either class...

I wrote a proposal last night that would put them in XB, along with the Lotuses we overlooked with the SS exclusion. I think it will probably go through.

In reply to maschinenbau :

This isn't the only group of classes in SCCA autocross.  Vintage stuff has a whole category for themselves with options for street tires (HCS) and race tires (HCR).  Then you have all the classes where an old tin can of a car is the right choice in CSP, FSP, EP, DP, and XP.  A multi-time CSP national champion in a Datsun 2000 still competes locally in CSP and usually sets FTD. There are two entire classes dedicated to Lotus 7s in DM/EM.

A hopped up beetle is going to be just as outclassed in the above classes as it will be in a parallel XS class.  If you want to drive and have fun, you aren't getting excluded.

Let me address these three first:

• Fender liners: Solved. Cut 'em up to your heart's content
• Soft tops: I wrote a proposal last night to solve this.
• We didn't realize v8 Miatas were so light: Nope, sorry. My bad on that one. The proposal I wrote last night should fix that, too.

Now let's talk about:

"The category is based on being able to do literally almost any and all mechanical modifications you want, yet we're trying to split the classes by the performance potential of the stock configuration of the vehicle? "

Yeah, because those are the cars that exist now, in the real world, not on paper or a message board post. I got a lot of flak that a 997 bulked up to GT3 specs could technically run in XA, but no one could point me to an actual car built to those limits that's competing in this sport. With a supplemental class, one of the advantages is the ability to be agile with classing and clarifications. In a ruleset like this there's going to be edge cases (Lotuses screw everything up, the fact that 911s are offered in trims from GT2RS to sub-Miata performance, etc.). Being flexible gives us a chance to react to the edge cases on a case by case basis with a minimum of fuss (but still some fuss, because you can't ever eliminate all fuss).

As for

" 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.

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.

I got bored of all the rules, so I started playing in Mod classes. Tons of fun, and even though my car *should* be FTD capable, I still have a long way to go. One of my friends with a CAM-C Mustang is one of my top competitors. Dude can drive though, and at the end of the day... that's all that really matters to me.

If you want a specially tailored class so YOU can win, go do something weird where there's no competition, or go play a simulator where you make the rules. =)

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.

One of the benefits of running in a dead class in my local club (CSP, I'm the only one in the class) is that I learned that my competition is self-determined and event-wide. Though I do try to keep any mods inside the ruleset for CSP, nobody cares what I do to my car as long as it passes tech, and I consider my competition to be whoever is setting times close to me. That means my Miata is competing against Porsches and Luxuses (Lexii??) as well as my personal goal of beating every other Miata at the event (finally accomplished at the last event of the season this year :P). It's relaxed and fun and I think that's what autocross is supposed to be.

I suppose that's not particularly helpful to the topic at hand, other than to say that at least at the local level classing doesn't have to have much impact on a novice's experience. My dad and I have been introducing my sisters to the sport and they have no real care about what class they're in, they just come to drive. You run what you brung, you end up in the class you end up in, and then you race people who lay down similar times to you regardless of which class they are in and you have a good time. IDK if adding more classes will really affect the novice experience that much.

I remember the early days of Street Touring...  the design objective was to attract the import/tuner crowd and the classing rules were unconventional (by SCCA standards) - relying upon the cumulative effect of mods rather than make/model.  How'd that work out for attracting street racers?  Nope, it mostly had a parasitic effect drawing existing participants to the new classes.

Autocross classing is rooted in the notion that you can equalize the equipment to emphasize the driving talent - RTP/PAX is the mutated spawn of this thinking.

The novelty of XS - in its infancy, was that suddenly we were racing cars... and the car mattered.  Run wut you brung, and if you brung 400hp and AWD and you can drive worth a damn, you're probably gonna beat me.  But I'm going to try to make you sweat trying.   Locally it seems a lot of people are okay with that.  I am.  I know I bring a knife to a gunfight.

So who is XS designed to attract anyway?  Having it be a nationally recognized class gives it legitimacy over your regional street-tire concoction, but will probably ruin as a local catch-all.  Too bad.  

Yeah that's the thing. If we're trying to make classes based on how cars perform in roughly stock trim...we already have those classes. If we're trying to make a "run what you brung" class, then it doesn't really matter how good the car is in stock form or how many seats the factory installed or anything other than wheelbase and weight, because those are basically the only controlled parameters within the rules.

These classes already existed and were fairly popular within a lot of regions as some type of street mod-street tire class. The original point of XS was to create a common ruleset for consistency, and make it eligible for national events.

Edit: I understand the club doesn't control PAX, but as long as we're giving these classes indexes based on ultimate performance, we should be basing the classing on that as well. If we're going to have this "street plus" classing system, can we at least get Rick Ruth to give us "street plus" indexes?

When in doubt, add more classes. That'll fix it!

JG Pasterjak said:

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.

Just remove the stupid wing rule. Done!

AMiataCalledSteve said:

One of the benefits of running in a dead class in my local club (CSP, I'm the only one in the class) is that I learned that my competition is self-determined and event-wide. Though I do try to keep any mods inside the ruleset for CSP, nobody cares what I do to my car as long as it passes tech, and I consider my competition to be whoever is setting times close to me. That means my Miata is competing against Porsches and Luxuses (Lexii??) as well as my personal goal of beating every other Miata at the event (finally accomplished at the last event of the season this year :P). It's relaxed and fun and I think that's what autocross is supposed to be.

I suppose that's not particularly helpful to the topic at hand, other than to say that at least at the local level classing doesn't have to have much impact on a novice's experience. My dad and I have been introducing my sisters to the sport and they have no real care about what class they're in, they just come to drive. You run what you brung, you end up in the class you end up in, and then you race people who lay down similar times to you regardless of which class they are in and you have a good time. IDK if adding more classes will really affect the novice experience that much.

Competition seen as setting times close to one another is less relevant to me than how I  compare to those in the pointy end of a particular class in a particlar type of car.

No, my STR car is not going to win against a new Miata, but for me it's fun to know that I'm within x of a particular car type/driver set.

If I put my car in XB where lots of things are allowed that I won't spend the money and effort on, eh, fun to go around the cones anyway, but I can save the entry fee drive up Mt. Lemmon to go around corners if I don't care about how I really compare. 

Sort of the point about having a place to run the E21 with it's mild mods that put in modified categories.   While I swapped the cam and induction, it's not a 306 deg monster and side drafts, it's a mild street cam and a Weber progressive.  I can run it in XB, but if a bunch of flared winged turbo Miatas show up, eh, no reason to bring it to an event.  

So, classing matters to me. YMMV.

As to run what you brung, sure, but if I'm going to be timed I still care about how the car and driver fare against others in "similar" equipment.

The rules for XS allow an awful lot, but not everybody has the same time, proclivity, fabrication skill, money, or type of car. 

Maybe some of the CAM classes and XS could be combined in some way for those that max out their time, proclivities, fab skills and money on a car for a max effort nationals effort, but if those complaing about too many classes don't care about some level of playing field, why are you bitching about classes anyway?

Run your car in "Open" with no classing at all and be done with it.

Kudos to JG "5' 6" with a tailwind" Pasterjak for getting involved in this effort. Pretty clear from the live town hall that he's balancing out the SCCA default approach of "we need a rule for everything" (both at a rules maker input level and in tempering participant's input). Really like how he emphasized this is a new process they're trying to establish more so than an unflexible set of rules that will be unchanged for the foreseeable future (especially for XS....CAM seems relatively stable). They reserve the right to make changes to keep things from getting out of hand (in the event someone actually builds the proverbial paper tiger).

We should all be glad that the input sent in via email and through the townhall was considered and led to very quick changes to the proposed rules. That pace of update isn't something see for "jacket" classes where it's debated for months, goes through at least two committees, and doesn't actually take effect until the next year at the earliest.

I'm a CAM-T competitor, so I won't comment on the XS side of things, but I'm glad to see we're mostly keeping the status quo with some slight tweaks that make sense (ex: weight with driver...even though I typically benefit from weight sans driver). If the most contentious thing they're facing is how to deal with aero allowances....and the debate is really only for 1 class, I'd say they're doing a good job of staying true to CAM's roots and not excluding the main target audience of potential competitors.

Edit: had to include JG's middle name.

First thanks to whoever removed my inadvertent posts. Second, I am really excited these classes have been added.  For the most part is does give a place for street cars that have been modified to the owner's liking and not to a specific class rule set. Third, I think the rules do still miss the mark on inclusivity by a bit. The minimum weight needs to be lower in the light weight category.  Sure it seems reasonably light for modern cars, many of which can remove significant weight and still be above the minimum,  but many small older cars started out life already below the limit.  So we're saying old cars aren't allowed to make any modifications that reduce weight and by the way we want to saddle them with extra weight just to slow them down.  My 50 year old car is already at a disadvantage from the technology and engineering standpoint and now I have to add an extra 50 to 200 lbs of dead weight!

Yep, I'm still feeling excluded. 

The most liked local club in the area has a total of 3 street tire classes based solely on engine displacement (with a displacement multiplier for forced induction) plus one anything goes class where any car can compete and displacement doesn't matter. There are R comp classes to match with tires being the only difference. This system to work pretty well and people have a good time at the events. 

As an XB local class winner in my turbo Tercel 2 years in a row ill give my proper opinion vs the casual BSing I have been doing on FB and Discord.

The rules were largely just fine originally and worked.  I understand maybe some added clarity was needed.  It seemed like the main issue was people were complaining about was aero.

That doesnt affect me directly as I have no aero mods.  If I were to add aero, I would just build to whatever the ruleset is, so I cannot comment on it.

I think the 2ndary general concern was the idea some insane car can just come in and wipe us all out...hasnt yet seem to happen.  I see comments about that Lotus...however.

MY view on things...

The first thing I have always felt was weight should be with driver, and I am glad it has been implemented..it helps level it out for those of us that prefer Tacos.  To me it just makes sense, all sorts of body types in this sport.

I think there should be a lower class for really light cars, I have a few friends with really light little Japanese cars that cannot come and race with us, but otherwise would be a shoe-in for the XS mindset.  The class should be called XC for sub 1900lbs cars.

Thats about it.  I do like the idea of maybe a tire size cap for say XB to help keep "big" cars out.

My only other note would be having the cars be more street liveable.  But thats a highly opinionated subject and I am biased on the street side of that equation.

Here is my pile, some of you may know it.  100% streetable, about 140whp, full interior and ice cold AC.  I run 225/45 205/50 when racing and I use $7 brake pads lol.  I love running XB and all this mess has me starting to look elsewhere.

I really understand your pain when it comes to the weight thing, and I assure you none of these decisions were easy ones. But it is something we literally track to a very precise level—we actually have a spreadsheet with recorded weights from ever cat that's been across the scales at every national solo event—and we'll be keeping a close eye on those numbers and others going forward.

Or course, that data only tells part of the story, because it doesn't tell you anything about the cars that AREN'T showing up. And the best remedy for those cars is to be the squeaky wheel. We read every email sent to camxsrules@scca.com and of the 120+ we received nearly all of them are having their issues addressed in the final draft of the rules which should drop Monday, if not before. 

But I can also tell you that when it came to comments about weight, the letters fell into two categories:

1. "These minimum weights are too low!" (Pretty much anyone with a car manufactured after 1992)

2. "These minimum weights are too high!" (Pretty much anyone with a car manufactured before 1992, Lotus people, and a couple psychos with Subarus that must have rusted beyond recognition)

I can also tell you we got waaaaaaaaay more letters in category 1 than category 2. So on some level the rules reality needs to reflect the will of the current competitors, while leaving enough leeway to entice the folks with edge cases to come play. And if it turns out that those edge cases weren't so edgy after all, well, that's where the beauty of a supplemental class comes in.

Honestly I think weight should be without driver, purely for the logistical simplicity. But also I think weights should be lower, or at least more evenly distributed, such that most people aren't pushing the limits because they can't reasonably, and therefore the with/without driver difference is basically meaningless. IMO nobody should need to be adding ballast unless they have some kind of build specifically intended to be exceptionally light or are making the choice to add weight in exchange for wider tires. As it stands now it seems like all the light cars need triple digit ballast, and most of the heavy cars are several hundred pounds overweight.

My thing with the weight...it can actually make it more competitive cuz if we can build to an overall matched weight then its really down to driver and setup.  The old rules effectively can allow large weight gaps between cars.   

Again, I am not entirely against weights as a way to group cars, but there is no category for truly light cars and my competitive and engineering brain has a hard time with the concept that I have to make my car heavier than stock or I won't be allowed in any Xtreme class. As I mentioned the local club uses engine displacement and tire type as its only differntiator between classes. No method is going to be perfect but the rules shouldn't send the message "you're not wanted here." 

With the engine displacement classing example I mentioned there is no minimum on the smallest bore class and there is no maximum on the biggest bore class. You want to run an 8 liter V8, bring it we have a place for you. You want to run a 500cc Fiat, you are welcome too. The more the merrier. The proposed weight classes as they tell the Fiat guy to take a hike or get 3 big friends to cram into the car with you. 

Hopefully I've made my point here. The lowest weight class whatever it is should not have a minimum, it should only have a maximum. There are already other rules about being a production car and about body panels and such that should prevent someone hacking off half of their car or bringing an FSAE car and trying to run in Xtreme Street. 

"Final" rules have been posted. All the "protecting M3s from GT3s" talk is extra funny now that the updated rules exclude all 3 series (or maybe just the E30 and E36 depending on your interpretation) from XA.

I do applaud the removal of XE, at least that's one step in the right direction.

dps214 said:

"Final" rules have been posted.

Link please?  I'm a dumbass and my googles aren't working...

It's on the solo rules page, down below the original proposed rules.

https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_files/scca/downloads/000/065/394/2023_CAM_and_Xtreme_Rules_v12.pdf?1671294735

Looks like they dropped the 3,4,5,6 cylinder requirement in XB. V8 Miatas and similar can now be in XB with min weight at 2330 with driver.  If I am reading that right...

dps214 said:

... now that the updated rules exclude all 3 series (or maybe just the E30 and E36 depending on your interpretation) from XA.

 

Still not seeing the BMW drama, but thanks for the link.

XA and XB both exclude all models with any trim on the street class exclusion list. Said exclusion list includes the E30 m technic and the E36 m3 lightweight. So all versions of the 3 series/m3 are excluded. Some new minis are in the same boat.

Now that this a done deal for 2023, what is the advantage of the current ruleset compared to something like this:

XA: 2900lb RWD minimum with slight changes for FWD/AWD, front internal combustion engine, no cars from cam-s
XB: 2300lb RWD minimum with slight changes for FWD/AWD, front internal combustion engine, no cars from cam-s, a few line item additions (ex: Toyota MR2, Solstice?)
XS: no minimum weight, electric/hybrid/rear/mid-rear engines allowed, cam-s cars allowed

The short version is a class for modern cars with safety equipment, a class for miatas and hondas, and a supercar class that also happens to be a catch all.  Porsches are roughly equally screwed as they are in the current rules (I am not sure why that is important but there is rough rules parity).  A few more cars on the fringes get included like Kei cars and that one guy with a lexan windshield.  Local competition stays good because the 6 random cars that show up can still run heads up in the same class.

I am not a rules writer so please poke holes.  I assume some ridiculous car slots into one of these classes and ruins everything.

ojannen said:

Now that this a done deal for 2023, what is the advantage of the current ruleset compared to something like this:

XA: 2900lb RWD minimum with slight changes for FWD/AWD, front internal combustion engine, no cars from cam-s
XB: 2300lb RWD minimum with slight changes for FWD/AWD, front internal combustion engine, no cars from cam-s, a few line item additions (ex: Toyota MR2, Solstice?)
XS: no minimum weight, electric/hybrid/rear/mid-rear engines allowed, cam-s cars allowed

The short version is a class for modern cars with safety equipment, a class for miatas and hondas, and a supercar class that also happens to be a catch all.  Porsches are roughly equally screwed as they are in the current rules (I am not sure why that is important but there is rough rules parity).  A few more cars on the fringes get included like Kei cars and that one guy with a lexan windshield.  Local competition stays good because the 6 random cars that show up can still run heads up in the same class.

I am not a rules writer so please poke holes.  I assume some ridiculous car slots into one of these classes and ruins everything.

That's not too far from where we actually ended up. Unfortunately there's always going to be a few cars that break the classes, like the Lotuses, and the fact that 911s and Boxsters/Caymans come in such a HUGE delta of performance trims. Also, there's some really heavy/crappy two seaters that fit better into XA, like the 350/370Z and Supras. MC Miatas also mess with this ruleset, because they're heavier than you might think. 

I actually just sent over a proposal to clarify the SS/AS exclusions with a specific list of cars. A few cars got cught in that overly broad net and were unintentionally excluded (like 3/4-Series BMWs) and sent to XS. 

I know this is done and this is beating a dead horse, but I just need to say again that factory preformance range has zero bearing on any of this. And even as a Porsche fan, if you gave me a limitless budget to could the fastest x_ car possible I don't think I would choose a porsche as the starting point. Or if I did, the build probably wouldn't include any gt car specific parts.

Also, the big problem I see with that rules idea is that there's still more classes than the current participation can support.

In reply to JG Pasterjak :

The difference I see is nobody is excluded and there is a bump class everyone can run in.  When I convince my rallycross buddies to run an autocross, we would love a catch-all class that fits a mr2 Spyder, base 1st gen boxster, an engine swapped Impreza, and an e36 BMW.  We are probably going to end up in ssm so we can run in the same heat.

While you are fixing the exclusion list wording, take a look at Minis.  The 1st gen jcw is on the exclusion list because it was a dealer installed option for a few years and the second gen GP model was limited production.  A decently modded car is underweight for XS.

dps214 said:

I know this is done and this is beating a dead horse, but I just need to say again that factory preformance range has zero bearing on any of this.

In theory, I completely agree with this, and I think the long term evolution of the class will reflect this more than the current setup. But for now, we did have to take into account the kind of cars that currently exist in the target marketplace, and provide logical ways for them to transition into the X classes if that's where they wanted to go. You just can't successfully create a class around theoretical builds which don't currently exist. Once the pointy end starts sharpening itself naturally, I think it will become more clear if any class refinement is needed.

ojannen said:

In reply to JG Pasterjak :

The difference I see is nobody is excluded and there is a bump class everyone can run in.  When I convince my rallycross buddies to run an autocross, we would love a catch-all class that fits a mr2 Spyder, base 1st gen boxster, an engine swapped Impreza, and an e36 BMW.  We are probably going to end up in ssm so we can run in the same heat.

While you are fixing the exclusion list wording, take a look at Minis.  The 1st gen jcw is on the exclusion list because it was a dealer installed option for a few years and the second gen GP model was limited production.  A decently modded car is underweight for XS.

Yeah my latest clarification proposal allowed all the Minis into classes they're more appropriate for.

JG Pasterjak said:

dps214 said:

I know this is done and this is beating a dead horse, but I just need to say again that factory preformance range has zero bearing on any of this.

In theory, I completely agree with this, and I think the long term evolution of the class will reflect this more than the current setup. But for now, we did have to take into account the kind of cars that currently exist in the target marketplace, and provide logical ways for them to transition into the X classes if that's where they wanted to go. You just can't successfully create a class around theoretical builds which don't currently exist. Once the pointy end starts sharpening itself naturally, I think it will become more clear if any class refinement is needed.

Okay...so why are you making classing based on theoretical builds that don't exist? Nobody is ever going to build a porsche GT car anywhere close to the limit of the rules, and the fact that the GT cars exist has zero effect on the performance potential of the base cars. Kick the GT cars and similar high performance trims to XS if you feel you need to, but there's absolutely no reason to punish the base cars just because the factory happened to build a good version.