Call for Zone 8 Rules Change Proposals for 2017

[jbrennen]

This is what a single autocross can do to an OEM N-rated tire (Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 2):



Top part of picture taken on a Saturday; bottom part taken the next day after a PCA-SDR autocross.

Multiple tears in the rubber on the shoulder; the outermost of the center ribs is peeling away badly.

These tires were five months old, and I didn't autocross on them again. When I took the tire into a tire shop shortly after this to have a puncture repaired, they told me all they could do was plug it without dismounting it -- due to the tears in the shoulder, they didn't feel they could safely dismount and remount the tire.

If we claim to be "safety first", we should at least let SS competitors have their pick of tires that are safe for autocross, and that stay safe for at least multiple events.

[marcus981]

During discussions about last year's tire rule change proposals, I posted a very similar set of before/after photos showing rough wear on the OEM N-Spec Pirellis on my Cayman after my very first two AX's.

http://forum.pcasdr.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6343&p=43216&hilit=pirelli#p43216

I also showed how that compared to the RE-11 after 2 AXs plus a DE (night and day difference). The grip performance between those two tires may be roughly on par on dry pavement, but the durability for performance driving seems to be quite different.

Damaged caused by AX-ing on expensive 20" OEM tires for anyone driving near the limit will likely discourage newer people from participating. I feel bad enough when PDS students have to quit early or buy a new set of tires in the middle of the school because their OEM tires didn't hold up for a single day, so we shouldn't set up a system to perpetuate that experience for AX's.

(Also submitted comment to ruleproposals@zone8.org).

[cag4]

FWIW, Here's the Super Sport after practice runs. Only about 5K miles on the tires, with one prior auto-x.

IMG_3484 by charles gillespie, on Flickr

[martinreinhardt]

This is what a single autocross can do to an OEM N-rated tire (Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 2):



Top part of picture taken on a Saturday; bottom part taken the next day after a PCA-SDR autocross.

Multiple tears in the rubber on the shoulder; the outermost of the center ribs is peeling away badly.

These tires were five months old, and I didn't autocross on them again. When I took the tire into a tire shop shortly after this to have a puncture repaired, they told me all they could do was plug it without dismounting it -- due to the tears in the shoulder, they didn't feel they could safely dismount and remount the tire.

If we claim to be "safety first", we should at least let SS competitors have their pick of tires that are safe for autocross, and that stay safe for at least multiple events.

I'm assuming these are the front tires? I've seen this numerous times on newer street stock cars. In my opinion this is a by product of:
- modern cars with electronic aids correcting under-steer
- driven at the limit on sticky STREET tires
- tight and/or non-flowing track elements in the design with 180 deg or more turns etc.
- the deteriorating asphalt surface at the stadium doesn't help. It's chewing up tires

I don't have this issue with race tires, but I also don't have any electronics aids left, and the chassis setup is different to a street stock class car. But, the stadium surface does rip out chunks out of my tires too, especially during a spin or power sliding.

As for the sticky street stock tires, IMO yes they are cheater tires and wear out quick. Motorsports is expensive. Anyone driving on these tires wants to be competitive anyway and should be running in a CC class. SS classes should be only for cars driving off the showroom.

[jbrennen]

I'm assuming these are the front tires?

For what it's worth, no, that was the driver's side rear tire.

The front tires were in better shape, but that doesn't really affect my core claim which is that Porsche doesn't deliver cars that are autocross ready -- when driven at the limit on the Qualcomm Stadium surface. They're close -- they only need better tires. And from my experience -- again, when driven at the limit on the Qualcomm Stadium surface -- Bridgestone RE-71R tires outlast the OEM tires.

"SS classes should only be for cars driving off the showroom" is close to "SS classes should be the place tires go to die."


Note that all of this is based on driving the car at 10/10ths. If you come out and autocross at 6/10ths or 7/10ths, you may get a whole season out of OEM tires. But if you're autocrossing at 7/10ths, you're probably not worried about classing or being competitive.

[LUCKY DAVE]

Just a thought -
I always counsel my newbie students to buy RE71R's or equivalent as their next set of tires so they can continue to enjoy autocrossing without spending a fortune on OEM tires that are a shredded delaminated mess after one event. I also tell them that putting up with being moved to a class where they won't be competitive (for a long time if ever) isn't ideal, but it's better than dropping out permanently out due to tire costs that are ridiculous for a not-so-serious beginner. I tell them green beginners have just as much fun as the highly experienced class winner, and it's all about having fun..
If there was a way to quantify how many beginners walked away from our sport after the first day because of projected tire cost I bet it would be eye opening. We can eliminate this "newbie repellent" with a rule change. Either let 'em run the good tires or eliminate SS classes. Eliminating SS classes will fill out the CC classes making them more relevant (less classes with only one or two cars) and that makes for more competition. Winning a one car class is like winning the special olympics.
Anything we can do to make getting into autocross more attractive to beginners will be good for the program in the long run.

[c4s4pcs]

I agree with everything that Dave just said. Also, based on the comments on this thread, it looks like there is room for a serious conversation as to the intended purpose and intended audience for the SS class - is it an intro class to get new drivers into the sport or is it intended as a practice ground for Parade competitors? In one case controlling costs should be highly important, in the other case strict adherence to National rules would be indicated. Thoughts?

[martinreinhardt]

I'm assuming these are the front tires?

For what it's worth, no, that was the driver's side rear tire.

Ok, so It sounds like it's a similar issue we had back in the days with the Toyo RA/1. They were also great tires (not exaclty street tires), but needed to be shaved to last longer as dry weather tire. The tread was too deep for the soft compound and chewed up the edge of the tread especially at the stadium.

Best to run sticky tires is to adjust the camber accordanly of course. But, the problem is you can't get enough negative camber without camberplates and/or modifing suspension which will put them in a higher CC class anyway. It's one big slippery slope as you know

[jbrennen]

Also, based on the comments on this thread, it looks like there is room for a serious conversation as to the intended purpose and intended audience for the SS class - is it an intro class to get new drivers into the sport or is it intended as a practice ground for Parade competitors?

Or can it be a place where serious competitors can compete against other serious competitors in cars that are very close to equal in performance?

Just as an example... If you want to claim to be the best MX-5 Miata autocrosser in the country, go win a C Street championship at SCCA Solo Nationals. (SCCA Street classes are the closest in rules and concept to Zone 8 SS classes.) You will be up against the best, and you won't be able to out-spend them or out-prep them, you'll have to out-drive them.

I've seen it said among folks on this forum and some folks I've talked to at events that if you want to be a serious competitor, you should move to the CC classes... That type of thinking doesn't exist in SCCA autocrossing; in fact, I think it's generally recognized that at Solo Nationals, the Street classes are probably the most competitive classes of all. It would be almost unheard of for somebody there to be told that they're getting too good or too competitive to stay in Street class.

Just as an anecdotal example of one, Bryan Heitkotter, who is a Pirelli World Challenge driver, returned to SCCA Solo Nationals in 2015 and won his class, which was F Street, in a 2012 BMW M3. Bryan could probably be competitive in almost any SCCA class -- he has 7 Solo Nationals championships to his name in 7 different classes. But he thought that winning a Street class championship was an appropriate challenge.

[c4s4pcs]

And that's another use case that I hadn't considered - as far as I'm concerned, another reason for discussion. I think that the tuning of the SS rules is at the least problematical without a clear definition of the purpose and the target drivers for the class.

[pecivil]

Or can it be a place where serious competitors can compete against other serious competitors in cars that are very close to equal in performance?

This describes the CC classes, not SS, right? Reading back, it seems like most all the posters on this thread agree SS classing is not really accurate, nor comprehensive. It does not account for things that add points in CC, like PDK, PTV, et al.

So if our "intent" for SS classes are for newbies and those "just for fun" drivers to come and have fun and be "competitive" with each other, allowing seasoned autoX drivers in, with sticky tires, flying on the edge of the rules to help them win, seems against the spirit of what we want SS class to be.

Obviously there are many seasoned competitive drivers who do NOT want to run in CC. Why is that? You have already modified your car to be faster by changing out tires. Some have proposed adding points in SS to make it more "fair", when we all agree it really isn't near as fair as CC. Is it just about trophies and less chance to win something?

Don't we want the newbies and "just for fun" drivers that we want to attract and keep to have a chance to win and get hooked? Or do we want them driving against seasoned expert drivers who will always win every time? Running autoX is expensive. Tires are expensive, sticky or not. If people run in SS and hurt their tires, hopefully they want to change them out to better ones and run in CC. Then we have them hooked. If they ruin their tires and quit, then we never were going to have them anyway. A wise man once told me, what part of "Porsche" and "racing" did you think was cheap, son? We drive expensive cars. Tires are expensive. Autocross is an expensive playground.

[jbrennen]

Or can it be a place where serious competitors can compete against other serious competitors in cars that are very close to equal in performance?

This describes the CC classes, not SS, right?

The SS classes do a better job than the CC classes of making sure that everybody in the class is in roughly the same category with respect to power and weight, and that they have the same options available to them for tires.

I'm not suggesting that every car that ends up classed in SS06 will be equal in performance -- however, I'm suggesting that everybody who optimizes an SS06 car is probably going to end up at a very similar place, no matter where they plan to run. You can't say that about the CC classes, where optimizing for a big track is very different than optimizing for autocross.

[Gary Burch]

new cars are setup to understeer,
so if you suffer from this,
you can get a more aggressive alignment,
or enter the corner at a slower speed.
remembering in slow-out fast would not only help the inexperienced driver,
but the experienced one as well

[mrondeau]

The SS classes do a better job than the CC classes of making sure that everybody in the class is in roughly the same category with respect to power and weight, and that they have the same options available to them for tires.

I'm not suggesting that every car that ends up classed in SS06 will be equal in performance -- however, I'm suggesting that everybody who optimizes an SS06 car is probably going to end up at a very similar place, no matter where they plan to run. You can't say that about the CC classes, where optimizing for a big track is very different than optimizing for autocross.

Jack, I'm not sure that's completely accurate. While my car is optimized for the big track, it takes very little adjustment to make it a top 5 TTOD car and usually finishes in the top 3 BRI spots. The key is to make sure that I have new(ish) tires. I think the CC classes do a better job of leveling the playing field by taking HP and weight into consideration, along with any other improvements. SS classes have a broad spectrum in each class which makes if more difficult to level the field. If you review the rules and order a car correctly, you can have a huge advantage in an SS class. More drivers in SCCA do this and they typically know which cars are the best to use in each street class., Most of our SS drivers tend to be new drivers who've come out to play with their car and see what it can do. It's a different competitive culture.

I think most of the rule proposal issues come from drivers who are in their first few years of driving and think that the reason they aren't winning is because of the car. If it is the car, it's probably because it's not set up correctly. If a car's set up is optimized within the rules and it still isn't competitive, then it's the driver. If I lose in my car on new sticky tires, I screwed up. I've lost in the past and I'll lose in the future. It's the nature of the game. Of the two ways to go faster, only one of them will stay with you forever. Become a better driver.

[jbrennen]

If you review the rules and order a car correctly, you can have a huge advantage in an SS class. More drivers in SCCA do this and they typically know which cars are the best to use in each street class., Most of our SS drivers tend to be new drivers who've come out to play with their car and see what it can do. It's a different competitive culture.

And that's part of my question -- whether we want to encourage good drivers to go that route. I guess I'm a good driver, and when I bought my Cayman GTS, I basically used the car configurator to build the ultimate factory autocross Cayman GTS -- really, all it lacks is PCCB. (Although I'm fairly new to PCA, I began autocrossing in 2003, and this wasn't the first time I ordered a car factory built to maximize its autocross performance.) The car is also capable of top 3 BRI, where it's batting 1.000 (3-for-3) in that department when running on sticker RE-71R tires.

There seems to be a little bit of attitude to push guys like me into the CC classes. If that's the culture -- leave SS for the newbies -- then so be it, but I had to ask about the potential to have competitive SS classes.

(And I took the leap to CC myself for this season, but going back to SS is an option for next year. Whether I do obviously depends very much on what the tire rules end up looking like.)