Call for Zone 8 Rules Change Proposals for 2017

[Steve Grosekemper]

Anyone who says RE-71R's are 95% of Hoosiers has never driven a fresh set of A/R-7's in the same size back to back.
I went from 245/275 R-6 to 225/245 R-7 and gained about a second of lap time per minute.
R-7's are easily 3 seconds a minute faster than RE71's.

3 seconds a minute... 57 seconds vs. 60 seconds. 57 divided by 60 = 0.95. Aren't we saying the same thing?

Well if you use technical things like math!
Yes, you are 100% correct on math but your statement is misleading.
If a Hoosier is a 40 and NT-01 is a 100 shouldn't the Hoosier be over 50% faster??
BTW- A/R-7's are much faster than any other 40 TW tire so that also muddles the water as well.
My point is accept the system and deal with it.
Its a plastic trophy and this is for fun.

But yes, you are correct. I did not explain my point well.

[pecivil]

play the game like the fast/smart guys do with those "cheater" sticky street tires until the rules change again

My point is accept the system and deal with it.

so I guess the net result is either buy those cheater tires or lose 20 points to your competitors......

not much for rule changes are you Steve?

hey I am good with it. As noted its only a plastic trophy.

[jbrennen]

If a Hoosier is a 40 and NT-01 is a 100 shouldn't the Hoosier be over 50% faster??

That's why they call them treadwear ratings and not lap time ratings, right?

Hoosier : P-Zero ratio in treadwear rating is 1 : 5.50.
Hoosier : P-Zero ratio in lap time is what, in the range of 1 : 1.10, I'm guessing? (P-Zero 10 percent slower than a Hoosier?)


By the way, I ran Hoosier A7s within the past year on my Evo, and I think that a 40 TW rating is too high. Not a commentary on performance, but on actual treadwear. A 20 or a 25 would be more appropriate. I think I got 21 AX runs out of them before I noticed they were corded -- they probably corded earlier than that. Nothing like them when they're new -- but their transition from "new" to "trash" is ridiculously steep.

[Greg Phillips]

Last February we had a long discussion about SS and the new 200 treadwear tires in the technical section forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6545.

At that time I was trying to look at ways to improve the SS class, but the more I have considered it the best way to improve it is to eliminate the SS class.

Everyone already has to go through the Zone 8 classification page and so it does not simplify classification for SS and is inherently more fair as we have tried to take into account the base cars and effect of performance modifications.

Using CC class for everyone simplifies life and would help to have more competition in each remaining class.

The 200 treadwear tires are another issue. They are not cheater tires, but the do provide the "Unfair Advantage" that everyone looks for.
This is mainly generated by the SCCA rules and the tire manufacturers have responded by providing tires with great grip and in many cases wider tires than their nominal sizes and treadwear ratings.

The options include leaving them as is and expect that if you don't use them you will be at a disadvantage or find a way to classify them more realistically.

They could be classed individually- see below how NASA classes them. I think this has the most utility, you could give them points more in line with their performance potential.

Greg

NASA tire points
1) The following DOT-approved R-compound tires: BFG R1S, Goodyear Eagle RS AC (auto- cross), Hoosier A7, Hankook Z214 (C90 & C91 compounds only), Hoosier Wet DOT (if used in dry conditions—see section 5.6) +22
2) The following DOT-approved R-compound tires: Hoosier A6 +17
3) The following DOT-approved R-compound tires and those with a UTQG treadwear rating of 40 or less not listed otherwise in these rules: BFG R1, Goodyear Eagle RS, Hankook Z214 (C71, C70, C51, C50), Hoosier R7, Kumho V710 +10
4) The following DOT-approved R-compound tires: Hoosier SM7 +9
5) The following DOT-approved R-compound tires: Hoosier R6, Hoosier SM6 (note: Continental Tire Sportscar Challenge EC-Dry tires (225, 245, 275) OK) +8
6) The following DOT-approved R-compound tires: Toyo Proxes RR, Hankook TD, Pirelli Trofeo R +7
7) The following DOT-approved tires and those R-compound tires with a UTQG treadwear rating over 40: BFG Rival S, Bridgestone RE071-R, Maxxis RC-1 (examples: Kumho V700, Kumho V720, Michelin Pilot Sport Cup & MPS Cup 2, Nitto NT01, Pirelli PZero Corsa, Toyo R888, Toyo RA-1, Yokahama A048, etc.) +6
8 ) DOT-approved (non-R-compound) tires with a UTQG treadwear rating of 120-200 (examples: BFG g-Force Rival, Toyo R1R, Dunlop Direzza Sport Z1 Star Spec, Bridgestone Potenza RE070, Kumho Ecsta XS, Yokohama Advan A046 & Neova AD08, Hankook R-S3) +2
9) Non-DOT-approved racing slicks +30 (of any origin--re-caps and re-treads are not permitted)

[pecivil]

They are not cheater tires, but the do provide the "Unfair Advantage" that everyone looks for

RE71's are about a 100 TW tire but that is the system we use as does everyone else on the planet doing what we do.

NASA tire points
1) The following DOT-approved R-compound tires: BFG R1S, Goodyear Eagle RS AC (auto- cross), Hoosier A7, Hankook Z214 (C90 & C91 compounds only), Hoosier Wet DOT (if used in dry conditions—see section 5.6) +22
2) The following DOT-approved R-compound tires: Hoosier A6 +17
3) The following DOT-approved R-compound tires and those with a UTQG treadwear rating of 40 or less not listed otherwise in these rules: BFG R1, Goodyear Eagle RS, Hankook Z214 (C71, C70, C51, C50), Hoosier R7, Kumho V710 +10
4) The following DOT-approved R-compound tires: Hoosier SM7 +9
5) The following DOT-approved R-compound tires: Hoosier R6, Hoosier SM6 (note: Continental Tire Sportscar Challenge EC-Dry tires (225, 245, 275) OK) +8
6) The following DOT-approved R-compound tires: Toyo Proxes RR, Hankook TD, Pirelli Trofeo R +7
7) The following DOT-approved tires and those R-compound tires with a UTQG treadwear rating over 40: BFG Rival S, Bridgestone RE071-R, Maxxis RC-1 (examples: Kumho V700, Kumho V720, Michelin Pilot Sport Cup & MPS Cup 2, Nitto NT01, Pirelli PZero Corsa, Toyo R888, Toyo RA-1, Yokahama A048, etc.) +6
8 ) DOT-approved (non-R-compound) tires with a UTQG treadwear rating of 120-200 (examples: BFG g-Force Rival, Toyo R1R, Dunlop Direzza Sport Z1 Star Spec, Bridgestone Potenza RE070, Kumho Ecsta XS, Yokohama Advan A046 & Neova AD08, Hankook R-S3) +2
9) Non-DOT-approved racing slicks +30 (of any origin--re-caps and re-treads are not permitted)

Thanks Greg. It looks like the work was already done for us?

[jbrennen]

It's a reasonable proposal on tire model points, but who maintains the list of mappings from tire model -> point value, and how often can it change?

The RE-71R hit the autocross world like a ton of bricks in about April 2015 (maybe late March). For PCASDR, this was mid-season. Nobody could have rated the tire before the season started, but by the end of the season, it was clear that its performance was not in line with other 200 TW tires.

(Note that the widespread availability in April was no accident. To be eligible for SCCA Solo Nationals, a tire must be widely available by April 30 of that year.)


So if you go with that system, just remember that you're tasking somebody, somewhere, to stay up-to-date on the newest tires and their performance characteristics, and maybe giving that person (or committee) the authority to really tick people off. The nasty part about it is that they'll be fielding complaints even if they do a great job...

[pecivil]

So if you go with that system, just remember that you're tasking somebody, somewhere, to stay up-to-date on the newest tires and their performance characteristics, and maybe giving that person (or committee) the authority to really tick people off.

Maybe not so much, because looking at the NASA values, they seem pretty comprehensive and I suggest pretty accurate. If a new hot tire comes in, and after a good amount of time it is seen and recognized to perform better than its wear rating indicates, it could be reviewed for a points increase, using our method of proposed rule changes and our established process, just like the proposal we have now for RE-71's.

I have not read one post yet where anyone says they are not a 40 point tire. So unless that argument is being made, its seems easy to change. Add one line in the rule book. Not everyone can run RE-71's anyway as noted in the thread in the tech section, and its not like the rule book is 3 paragraphs long.

I guess I dont see "The sky is falling" aspect to this but I am still a newbie autocrosser compared to many of the grognards in SDR.

[JayG]

A couple of things

Steve, Mark. I didn't know you did not need to have adjustable springs for corner balancing, thanks for the info.

Mark, it would be great if you can do some coaching at the upcoming AX with me. I welcome it.

Why is it that there is this push to eliminate SS classes? What positive effect would it have on our membership and participants in events?
Shorten the awards time at an AX? If you don't want to stay, leave. Many don't stay anyway. Save a few $$ on trophies?
Many want to compete, yes COMPETE in a stock unmodified car. Not everyone has the desire or in some cases the $$$ to modify their car.
We are far better off having stock classes where new (or old) drivers can be competitive and get the thrill of an award, rather than being at the bottom of the pile.
It is more conducive to more participation and a greater likelihood that they would want to move up to a prepared class as they gained skills

IMHO it will be a dark deep rabbit hole if we try to classify individual specific tires differently. First of all the tire manufacturers can and do change tire models often.
How often would the list be updated? As it would be a rules change, it could only happen once a year, so a tire introduced or noticed by people after June 30 of a year would have 1.5 years before it could be classified
Just how would the tire performance be quantified? Are we going to invest in track time to do testing? There is already a rating system in place, TW numbers. Is it flawed, absolutely.
At the end of the day, when it comes to tires, it is an even playing field. If you want the advantage of a better performing tire, you have the same opportunity as everyone else to buy it

[pecivil]

Why is it that there is this push to eliminate SS classes?

I think it is because people are asking for SS classes to add a points system to equate the various performance options better among cars, and the logic of adding points to the SS system appears to not be viewed favorably considering we have the CC system nailed down pretty nicely, and an unmodified car is welcome in CC classes. So the push to include points in the SS classes is generating the suggestions to eliminate it.

be careful what you wish for.

[JayG]

Why is it that there is this push to eliminate SS classes?

I think it is because people are asking for SS classes to add a points system to equate the various performance options better among cars, and the logic of adding points to the SS system appears to not be viewed favorably considering we have the CC system nailed down pretty nicely, and an unmodified car is welcome in CC classes. So the push to include points in the SS classes is generating the suggestions to eliminate it.

be careful what you wish for.

I believe the rule proposal is not about adding points to SS classification, but relating to a specific model configuration.
It just used points as an example of the performance increase a PDK provides. Similar for example to a 987 Cayman R being in a different class than a 987 Cayman S

[jbrennen]

We are far better off having stock classes where new (or old) drivers can be competitive and get the thrill of an award, rather than being at the bottom of the pile.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but let's take a new driver who shows up in a 981 Boxster S. He has PDK, but no other performance options. His car will point out at 478 + 20 (PDK) + 90 (tire points) = 588. So he's in CC08, or he can run SS06.

Go look at recent results in CC08 and SS06 at four events this year:

Code: Select all

Event Date     SS06 Win          CC08 Win          SS06 Trophy      CC08 Trophy
15 May         1:19.21           1:19.03           1:20.22          1:24.07
23 Apr         1:17.82           1:17.30           1:17.97          1:18.71
26 Mar         1:20.06           1:21.69           1:23.80          Any time would have trophied
06 Feb         1:14.46           1:15.89           1:17.24          1:17.26


Now is it really true that he's more competitive in SS06 than he would be in CC08? Those look pretty even to me, except for the fact that it's easier to trophy in CC08 because of the lower participation numbers.

I'm questioning the assertion that SS are "easier" classes for a newbie than CC classes. Yes, there are a few CC classes where a newbie would really struggle -- but that's not because of the point system, it's because classes like CC04, CC07, and CC11 are top-heavy with some really good drivers. But a newbie is going to get beaten by a wide margin in SS04 or SS06 as well.

[JayG]

We are far better off having stock classes where new (or old) drivers can be competitive and get the thrill of an award, rather than being at the bottom of the pile.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but let's take a new driver who shows up in a 981 Boxster S. He has PDK, but no other performance options. His car will point out at 478 + 20 (PDK) + 90 (tire points) = 588. So he's in CC08, or he can run SS06.

Go look at recent results in CC08 and SS06 at four events this year:

Code: Select all

Event Date     SS06 Win          CC08 Win          SS06 Trophy      CC08 Trophy
15 May         1:19.21           1:19.03           1:20.22          1:24.07
23 Apr         1:17.82           1:17.30           1:17.97          1:18.71
26 Mar         1:20.06           1:21.69           1:23.80          Any time would have trophied
06 Feb         1:14.46           1:15.89           1:17.24          1:17.26


Now is it really true that he's more competitive in SS06 than he would be in CC08? Those look pretty even to me, except for the fact that it's easier to trophy in CC08 because of the lower participation numbers.

I'm questioning the assertion that SS are "easier" classes for a newbie than CC classes. Yes, there are a few CC classes where a newbie would really struggle -- but that's not because of the point system, it's because classes like CC04, CC07, and CC11 are top-heavy with some really good drivers. But a newbie is going to get beaten by a wide margin in SS04 or SS06 as well.

yes but a better class vs class to look at is SS02 vs CC06. In virtually every AX event, the CC06 cars are seconds faster than SS02, even PDK equipped 987's in SS02
(most SS02 cars with factory tire sizes would be in CC06 without mods)

Its not a question of easier. Someone new driving in SS is not having an easier time vs someone in a CC class

yes, you are correct, the drivers in CC classes tend to be more skilled than those in SS classes. Not always the case, but true more often than not.
All the more reason to have SS classes

There will always be exceptions. One could have a really good or bad day. Over all the person driving in their SS class would not do as well in their CC class

[pecivil]

It just used points as an example of the performance increase a PDK provides

Jay I see that now and stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification.

[Andrew Raines]

There is not (yet) a proposed rule change to eliminate SS classes. I was curious as to the history of SS classes and started the discussion. The reason I started the discussion was to understand the statement, "SS was designed so someone could just come to the AX and not need to figure out points for their car." This is now irrelevant so I was looking for additional history or need for the SS classes as SS classes are additional overhead (rules management, timing management, etc.) for the club volunteers.

To date on this conversation I have heard both for removal and for leaving as is. For removal: Agreement that SS are no longer needed because of the zone 8 classification system, i.e. you don't need to know how to point out your car because, if it is stock, the required zone 8 classification system does it for you. For leaving as is: SS classes are needed because the current points system is not fair (with rebuttal) and that we need more classes for more awards because SS contains mostly new drivers (with rebuttal).

Andrew

[jbrennen]

yes but a better class vs class to look at is SS02 vs CC06. In virtually every AX event, the CC06 cars are seconds faster than SS02, even PDK equipped 987's in SS02
(most SS02 cars with factory tire sizes would be in CC06 without mods)

Is anybody in SS02 running the RE-71R? If not, you haven't optimized your car for SS02.

I picked up at least 3 seconds per run when I switched to the RE-71R from the OEM Goodyear tires. That's not just a guess, that's backed up by the data, comparing times to other benchmark drivers.

The CC rules certainly do not adequately account for tire performance -- that much is true. By my estimate of 3 seconds per run when switching to the RE-71R, that's about a 4% gain in speed. If you look at the BRI indexes, a 4% gain in speed is equal to about 5 CC classes, or 250 points.

In the CC point structure, the RE-71R tire is a major bargain in terms of performance per point. But you can't use that to talk about how SS isn't competitive with CC, because the RE-71R is SS legal -- at least for now. Yes, you are perhaps more likely to run up against an RE-71R driver in a CC class, but I know that Andrew Raines and I were two of the earliest adopters of the RE-71R here in SDR last year, and we were both in SS.