2019 Rule Change Ideas

[Loren]

So currently modifying exhaust is fine. Does that include exhaust manifold and o2 housing? Also the 25% above rule. Is that only applicable if it's from an engine swap?

FAST rules are "if it doesn't say you can't, then you can".

No restriction on exhaust. Or manifold. Or O2. However... your car has a factory turbo. So, if you don't want to bump up due to turbo mods, you need to pay attention to that. It says you can't change the turbo or the intercooler. Doesn't say anything about the manifold or the exhaust.

Doug's copy lost all the formatting. Just go to the website!

25% is part of the engine swap rule. Why? Because those are generally attainable numbers. We can look up what the stock power of your car was, and we can lookup the stock power of your donor engine. Any other specific power limit we'd try to do would require dyno testing to verify. That ain't gonna happen.

[Loren]

Any number of the not allowed upgrades are probably unenforceable on site as not enough time in tech. Probably just as well to do Mod cars on a case by case basis and not give them any more ideas? Here's the list if anyone wants a refresher. Guess it's up to the other class competitors judgement to look the other way or not?

Our rules, and every other local level autocross club's rules are largely unenforceable. Obvious things competitors can look for. Less obvious things, we just have to trust people on. It's not like we're going to take your car apart like they might at the Solo Nationals.

And the job of our tech inspectors is not to check for "class legality". They're doing a safety check. What class you're in is not really their business.

[nathanwilliams617]

Couple more ideas that have come up:

Allowing engine swaps in Modified -- Do we need to?
What if we drop the engine swap rule? 1.8-swapped early Miatas are pretty rare these days. (they were one of the big considerations when that rule first came up) Most people just buy the proper car to start with any more. (because old Miatas are ALL cheap now) I'm not sure I can think of anyone who would be affected by dropping that allowance.

Whoa now, there maybe and engine swap in the near future for my stang. The thing is tired and modifying the current engine just seems boring. Also the quote above says things like, nobody does it much anymore etc, so why change the rule? If it's not really bothering anybody let it be, and let me exploit the crap out of it.

[Loren]

and let me exploit the crap out of it

Several people have expressed "concern" over the rule. Otherwise, you're right, it's not causing problems. We still might "tighten it up" a little. The intent was to allow the simple, bolt-in, "obvious" swaps. Allowing someone to plung a V8 in place of a 4-cylinder was not the intent. (you can certainly DO that, but you should take a class bump for it)

[twistedwankel]

Now we can replace a V8 with a turbo 4 and get much more power and less weight. I've actually been thinking along these lines

[Loren]

Now we can replace a V8 with a turbo 4 and get much more power and less weight. I've actually been thinking along these lines

Truth!

[jaball77]

I'm still in favor of giving all HS cars a class to be competitive in regardless of their tire width. Lumping HS with ES just isn't fair to so many cars... Looking at Nationals results, the fastest HS driver would finish 14th in ES...

Something like my Accord or Dan's Mazda 3 *would* be eligible for S5 but would be hosed by the tire width rule. HS has the largest number of eligible cars but none of them have a chance against the ES Miatas.

I don't know what the solution is, whether it's moving HS to S5 or changing the tire width restriction (again) or what, but I think it's worth thinking about.

[jev61]

I'm still in favor of giving all HS cars a class to be competitive in regardless of their tire width. Lumping HS with ES just isn't fair to so many cars... Looking at Nationals results, the fastest HS driver would finish 14th in ES...

Something like my Accord or Dan's Mazda 3 *would* be eligible for S5 but would be hosed by the tire width rule. HS has the largest number of eligible cars but none of them have a chance against the ES Miatas.

I don't know what the solution is, whether it's moving HS to S5 or changing the tire width restriction (again) or what, but I think it's worth thinking about.

I like Jason's thinking on this, I don't know what the answer is but he is on to something. What if the tire width restriction applied to S4 cars moving down to S5 only? And the tire width increased to 205 so NB2's could play in S5 also.

[Loren]

Jason's thought is good. But, Joe, you're going in the wrong direction!

The purpose of FAST S5 is to give us a class for something that the SCCA has truly forsaken. A place where a truly SLOW car can be competitive. The SCCA's slowest class is H Street, which has no restriction on tire width or LSD. To be competitive in that class, you need something on par with a MINI Cooper S on Fiesta ST on 205's. Their slowest class is far from slow!

The only reason we allow E Street cars (Miatas) to run in S5 is for numbers. We need a viable class with enough competition to be fun, and we suspected that opening it up to Miatas would give us a few more competitiors. And it does.

It is NOT intended to be "another Miata class", though that is how it turned out this year. (might not have had I chosen a different car) We certainly don't need to ease the restrictions in S5, though. You wanna run an NB (or any other S4 eligible car) in S5, you certainly can! There is nothing keeping you from running an NB with an open diff and 195 tires in S5. Have at it! You want more tire or an LSD... you belong in S4.

I actually proposed to Steve a couple months ago that we drop the E Street cars from S5. He talked me out of it with the argument that the class still needs the numbers. It's a fact that not a lot of people show up at an autocross with a "slow car". But, we still want to maintain our "slow car" classes for the ones that do. S5 and M4 will stick around as long as possible to provide that.

Jason, your argument would carry a lot more weight if you actually competed in something other than the Miata. You might not beat National-level competitors with an HS Accord or Mazda 3, but with proper setup and tires... you might very well win FAST S4. You don't know, you haven't tried. Dan knows, he's managed some solid finishes in S4 with his Mazda 3 with minimal setup, killer tires, and only a few years of experience.

We could create another class... S4-and-a-half? But, are there enough drivers to support that class? We've already played the "if you build it, they may come" came with both S5 and M4 with marginal success.

Looking at S4 at Open events over the past 6 months, the competitors are E Street cars (mostly Miatas, typically 8-10 of them) and:
Mazda 3S (x2)
Fiesta ST (x3)
2015 Altima
MINI Cooper (x2)

Aside from the Altima, if any of the above cars had decent shocks, a good swaybar setup, good alignment, good tires, and any one of the top-3 drivers in class... they would be more than capable of winning the class on any given day. I think that's pretty good. It's not possible to have a class structure (especially one with as few classes as we have) in which EVERY car can be competitive. And, given the flexibility of FAST rules, and the fact that at least one variant of the Altima comes with 235's... you could run a LOT of tire on that car... a person who really WANTED to be competitive in that car, could find a way to be.

Of the group mentioned above, most of the competitors in non-Miatas were one-timers. If we had a class for those cars, there would be literally two people competing in it. (Dan and Ben)

To sum up: We don't want to mess with S5. Doesn't need to be more open. Doesn't have the numbers to be more restrictive right now. And we don't have anywhere near the numbers to support a class between S4 and S5.

[jev61]

Jason's thought is good. But, Joe, you're going in the wrong direction!

To sum up: We don't want to mess with S5. Doesn't need to be more open. Doesn't have the numbers to be more restrictive right now. And we don't have anywhere near the numbers to support a class between S4 and S5.

Let me try one more time, I was trying to suggest the cars bumping down from ES and GS be restricted, while the cars in HS remain on their OEM tire width or an agreed upon wider width. I did not explain myself very well as I was in a hurry. I am not suggesting a new place for S4 Miatas to play, only exploring an option for the HS cars to level the playing field.

[Loren]

Okay, I gotcha.

Problem is, that would give us "HS". Which, as I mentioned, is WAY TOO FAST for the intent of S5. If you've got one of those top-tier HS cars, you can compete in S4.

Now, we could put an additional restriction on ES cars that run in S4. But, really... about the only thing we could do is make them run 185's. Or require them to run >300 TW tires. I'm not sure either of those would be great solutions.

In theory, there's really not that much difference between the top ES cars and the top HS cars other than the fact that ES is "RWD 2-seat sports cars" and HS is "FWD economy cars". The PAX difference is .006 (.787 to .781). If you had a course where A Mod was running 30 seconds. ES would be running 38.119 and HS would be running 38.412. So, we're talking about a difference of about 3 tenths on a typical FAST course.

It's not the top-level HS cars that need a place to compete, they're okay in S4. We're keeping the fastest HS (and ES) cars from reaching their full potential in S5 with the tire width restriction.

Just looking at the last two points events, S5 is 2.5 to 5 seconds behind S4. Even the well-shod S5 Miatas. A good 2 seconds or more back. And that's where they should be. That's why S5 exists.

If we want to give the ES cars in S5 more of a handicap, we could. But, not without adding complexity to the rules... which people usually balk at.

Or... we lower the bar for ALL of S5 in some way. Allow 205 tires, but restrict them to 300TW?

But, again, there are precious few HS cars that are "stuck" in S4 right now. So, we're not going to gain much in S5 numbers by allowing more tire width in S5. And if we want to make it harder for ES cars to walk away with S5, we'd need to do the opposite... less tire. (either less width or less grippy)

[Jamie]

The purpose of FAST S5 is to give us a class for something that the SCCA has truly forsaken. A place where a truly SLOW car can be competitive. The only reason we allow E Street cars (Miatas) to run in S5 is for numbers. We need a viable class with enough competition to be fun, and we suspected that opening it up to Miatas would give us a few more competitors. And it does.

It is NOT intended to be "another Miata class", though that is how it turned out this year....

And last year, as well. And it'll continue...all other things being equal, an ES car prepped for S5 will dominate the class. I know I'm a broken record on this subject, but your strategy for S5 runs on hope, not the reality one sees in the results. Except for a very few drivers, those truly SLOW cars will not be competitive. Most with competitive ambition who initially show up with a "slow car" will abandon it for something else -- probably a Miata.

I actually proposed to Steve a couple months ago that we drop the E Street cars from S5. He talked me out of it with the argument that the class still needs the numbers. It's a fact that not a lot of people show up at an autocross with a "slow car". But, we still want to maintain our "slow car" classes for the ones that do.

You won't attract a stable population of "slow cars" until you eliminate the ES cars, so you'll never find out if the concept really works until you do. We don't worry about numbers on the upper end (S0), so why worry about it on the lower end? Set it out there as HS with tire restrictions, and see what develops.

[Loren]

I don't disagree, Jamie. As I said, I proposed this very thing to Steve a couple months ago and was talked out of it.

That doesn't mean that if enough people piped up in favor of "purifying" S5 that we wouldn't consider doing it.

[jev61]

Or... we lower the bar for ALL of S5 in some way. Allow 205 tires, but restrict them to 300TW?

This is an idea that has come up before. It might be time to "kick the tires" again. S5 having a treadwear restriction instead of a width restriction.

Using Tire Rack's default search size of 225/45/17 in a Max Performance and Ultra High Performance Summer categories yielded 16 tires of at least 300 treadwear. Using the 205/50/15 size yield 4 tires in the same categories of at least 300 treadwear. A lot of the higher treadwear tires are cheaper than the lower treadwear tires.

Anyway, food for thought.

[Doug]

I'm in favor of a real HS class no tire changes needed.

[Loren]

We've been down that though exercise path before, as well. Or, I have. While a 300TW limit would rule out the current top-dog uber-tires, it's pretty useless otherwise, and it gives cars that can fit 17-18" tires a HUGE advantage.

14" tires, you can't get squat. There's maybe one or two 200TW tires available sometimes. But, if we're ruling those out, all you get is pure economy-grade all-season tires.

15" tires are a little better, but still... you get the very high end summer tires... and you get all-season crap.

17" and up? You get stuff like This and This. (Conti ExtremeContact Sport, BFG g-Force Comp 2, Direzza DZ102, etc)

The available 300+ 17" tires would be fine... if there were comparable tires available in the 14-15" sizes.

Wait... woohoo! The 15" tire situation has improved! It's just the 14" tire selection that is lame. The only 14" tires that are worth considering are 200TW or less. Even then the only choices are a 185 Direzza Z3 or a 195 Azenis.

I guess we could say something like "Max 300TW or Max 195 width Azenis". That might give the smaller cars that can't fit a big tire a slight edge, but I doubt it would be much. And those who are running a 300TW tire would be capable of fitting a wider tire.

Buuuuut... what do we gain from changing the 200TW limit to 300? We've still got the same set of cars. What does it change besides lowering the overall performance potential of the class? I'm not sure it's a change worth making.

If we want to address the issue of E Street cars whooping up on S5, that won't do it unless the 300TW applies only to those cars. Which would be interesting...

[Loren]

I'm in favor of a real HS class no tire changes needed.

Doug, your profile is sufficiently vague as to mask who you are and what you drive.

If you're looking for H Street, that's S4. A good driver in a properly prepared competitive HS car should be plenty competitive in S4.

If you're looking for a class for the "also ran" cars of H Street... that's what S5 is for.

[Jamie]

Or... we lower the bar for ALL of S5 in some way. Allow 205 tires, but restrict them to 300TW?

This is an idea that has come up before. It might be time to "kick the tires" again. S5 having a treadwear restriction instead of a width restriction.

Higher treadwear is relatively meaningless, unless you mandate snow tires or something. Especially for low-powered (and usually lower weight) cars, where extra tire width is worth proportionately more.

If you're looking for a class for the "also ran" cars of H Street... that's what S5 is for.

On paper...but not in reality. Cars that come to mind for S5 are things like 80s and 90s Corollas. EG-chassis Civics. LBCs. Cars that came with skinny tires from the factory. But if you wait for competitors to come and ask for the ringers to be pitched out, you'll grow old first...the incumbent ringers aren't going to ask, and the few "also ran cars" that drift in now and then won't stay long enough to develop a voice.

Not really enjoying flogging the dead horse, but statements like the above keep propping it up and calling it a pony.

[Loren]

There are still a lot of cars that either come with, or could easily go one size smaller and run 195 width tires.

Here are the base model tire sizes for a bunch of new economy cars:
2018 Corolla = 195/65-15
2018 Yaris = 175/65-15
2018 Rio = 185/65-15
2018 Accent = 185/65-15
2018 Sentra = 205/55-16
2018 Versa = 185/65-15
2018 MINI Cooper = 175/65-15
2018 Mazda 2 = 185/60-16
2018 Mazda 3 = 205/60-16
2018 Fiat 500 = 195/45-16
2018 Honda Fit = 185/60-15
2018 Focus = 195/65-15
2018 Sonic = 195/65-15
2018 Golf = 195/65-15
2018 Cruze = 195/65-15
2018 Forte = 195/65-15
2018 Elantra = 195/65-15
2018 Fiesta = 185/60-15
2018 Impreza = 205/55-16
2018 Jetta = 205/55-16
2018 Spark = 185/55-15
2018 Camry = 205/65-15

All of these new cars, plus all of the equivalent older models. That's what S5 is for.

In general, my philosophy has always been that if a car comes from the factory with more tire than 195, it does so because it has more POWER. If you want to bring more power into S5 (with an eligible car), that's fine. But, you have to make that power work with the same tire that the lower-powered cars are using.

Is this a big market segment in the autocross community? Nope. That's why SCCA has forsaken it. But, I still like the idea of keeping it around.

[Jamie]

There are still a lot of cars that either come with, or could easily go one size smaller and run 195 width tires.

Here are the base model tire sizes for a bunch of new economy cars....

Even better. But you have to get the ES cars out of S5 before these will shine.