HOOSIERS?

[ttweed]

As I suggested earlier, perhaps a rewrite of the S/S rules is more appropriate for what Gary is trying to accomplish, which is to make a street tire class for a 30+ year-old car which does not qualify under the rather stringent definitions we have for S/S, due to minor modifications over the years. I would rather see a proposal that raised the allowed point value slightly for S/S in the A-I classes (which are populated by the "vintage" models) and/or removed some of the exclusions that keep people from running there, while maintaining the "street-tire" mandate and the full list of exclusions for the J class and higher cars. I think this is a natural and logical point for separating the requirements for S/S, due to the evolution of design and the age of the cars.

In particular, the following exclusions from our list have little or no relevance to the early cars, and yet they serve to exclude people and send them to Stock instead of SS:

1. Modification or Removal of catalytic converter--Cats were not even used on Porsches prior to 1978, and according to Dan C., this was the single item that caused him to move to S class. The removal of this item on the older cars to promote longevity of the engine should not be penalized. Exhaust was free in the stock classes prior to this S/S rule. On the '75-77 911s, the stock exhaust with thermal reactors was a known cause of heat stress that ruined many engines, and they were removed by many owners years ago. The performance increase is negligible, considering that a racing Cat could be used that would be little more restrictive than a test pipe.

2. Modification or replacement of factory airbox or filter to increase flow--Similarly, the airboxes in the early cars do not provide the kind of restriction that increases performance when replaced with an aftermarket filter, and many of the older cars have had to replace such equipment due to age and lack of availability of OEM parts.

3. Headers--the early OEM heat exchangers from 1965-1974 are nothing but a set of equal-length headers encased in a heating plenum. There is no difference in performance compared to racing headers, except for a few ounces of weight. As long as diameter is not increased, this does not apply to early cars.

5. Aftermarket Mass airflow kits--this is not even applicable to the induction on earlier cars.

6. DME chips--the Bosch DME system was not incorporated until 1984, and does not even apply to I class and lower cars.

By easing some of these restrictions for the lower classes, and perhaps allowing 4 points instead of 2, to include some of the common improvements people have made over the years, like tire and rim size, etc., perhaps the people who want to run in a street tire class would be able to do it, instead of being bumped to Stock, where they need to run race tires to be competitive.

S/S as it exists is fine for the newer cars, as they came from the showroom recently, and I understand the resistance to any modification of those cars, but the older cars which drove off the showroom floor 30+ years ago need some kind of allowances to allow them to compete in greater numbers in the S/S class, on street tires, if that is what the owner desires, IMHO.

TT

[Gary Burch]

Gary, you seem to be doing two things you shouldn’t be doing. First is assigning your definition of stock to the class, rather than the rules definition of stock. Second is ignoring the “with 8 points”. I gather your definition of “stock class” is something along the lines of a dictionary definition of a “stock” car. What is the rules definition of stock? It’s really pretty plain and simple. Zero to eight points. That’s how the rules define “stock.” No other meaning or interpretation is implied or should be inferred. Any 8 points of mods except slicks is “stock” by the rules definition.

This seems to be what the entire discussion is about, the definition of slicks. Or is my view from the cabbage patch distorted by the DOT numbers on the HOOSIERS?

Tom, you can sit and pontificate all you want about the meaning of stock or the way it was in the old days, the fact is at this point in time tires define the car and the driver.

[Don Middleton]

Tom Brown's

well articulated argument to leave the classifications as they are

...explains why I've never been able to make sense of S/S, Stock (mini-Prepared) and Prepared. It is not meant to make sense. It's just legacy. Tom's "tribal knowledge" explains how we got to where we are. The explanation was very helpful. Thanks.

As Tom Tweed has suggested, we just need focus on ideas to bring things back in order without disrupting what is good and working. I think his last post is very interesting and worthy of serious consideration. Thanks for staying with the issue...

[cam]

1. Modification or Removal of catalytic converter--Cats were not even used on Porsches prior to 1978, and according to Dan C., this was the single item that caused him to move to S class. The removal of this item on the older cars to promote longevity of the engine should not be penalized. Exhaust was free in the stock classes prior to this S/S rule. On the '75-77 911s, the stock exhaust with thermal reactors was a known cause of heat stress that ruined many engines, and they were removed by many owners years ago. The performance increase is negligible, considering that a racing Cat could be used that would be little more restrictive than a test pipe.

2. Modification or replacement of factory airbox or filter to increase flow--Similarly, the airboxes in the early cars do not provide the kind of restriction that increases performance when replaced with an aftermarket filter, and many of the older cars have had to replace such equipment due to age and lack of availability of OEM parts.

3. Headers--the early OEM heat exchangers from 1965-1974 are nothing but a set of equal-length headers encased in a heating plenum. There is no difference in performance compared to racing headers, except for a few ounces of weight. As long as diameter is not increased, this does not apply to early cars.

5. Aftermarket Mass airflow kits--this is not even applicable to the induction on earlier cars.

6. DME chips--the Bosch DME system was not incorporated until 1984, and does not even apply to I class and lower cars.



TT

Does seem odd that you can run in a "Showroom Stock" class with these improvements that for the most part aren't street legal in California.

[chris914]

When looking at the rules it seems pretty clear on how to classify a car into a driving class. What seems to be missing is the rational on why each driving class was set up as it was.

Were the driving classes set up to organize different speed cars into groups or were there other reasons as well?

When trying to look at the big picture this is all I could find.

General
I PURPOSE
The intent of these rules is to promote fairness and equal competition in the spirit of
sportsmanship.
These rules are applicable to all Zone 8 sanctioned competitive events.
The rules and/or regulations set forth herein are designed to provide for the orderly
conduct of these events and to further participant and spectator safety.

Maybe before changing the existing driving class rules it would be helpful to define the rational and scope for having each driving class.

[ttweed]

Does seem odd that you can run in a "Showroom Stock" class with these improvements that for the most part aren't street legal in California.

Which ones are not street legal on a pre-'76 car, which constitute all the A thru F classes? My point was that the S/S rules were written with a focus on the newer cars, and the impact of the rule on the early cars was largely ignored. It was an attempt on our part to make the Zone rules conform with Parade rules for Showroom Stock, but the Parade rules do not even allow a car older than 1989 into Showroom Stock. We made a mistake by applying the stringent National rules to the older cars, and I think our S/S class participants in the lower classes suffered for it. Perhaps it is time to take a look at how we might change that. If there is a demand for a street tire class that allows more participation by older cars with too many mods to qualify for S/S, that is one of the ways we might accomplish it. There was an attempt to do this last year which was poorly crafted and not well understood or supported. A better proposal might gain traction, but it also might be too late, as people who were bumped out of S/S when the rules changed have already migrated to Stock class and made additional improvements to their cars to be competitive there. At this point, a race tire exclusion for Stock class might meet member needs better, I don't know. It would certainly be much easier to write and understand than to compose something to change the S/S class in a way that is fair and even-handed throughout the diversity of years and models in the A thru I classes.

TT

[Dan Chambers]

At this point, a race tire exclusion for Stock class might meet member needs better, I don't know. It would certainly be much easier to write and understand than to compose something to change the S/S class in a way that is fair and even-handed throughout the diversity of years and models in the A thru I classes.

Hmmm. It appears things are coming full circle?

Several pages back I wrote something about >149 wear-rating in Stock class, then a second idea about >99 in Stock, then made a joke about To heck With It: open it up .... blah blah.

Well, are we now re-thinking the idea about limiting tire ratings in stock class? Nah. Couldn't be. I'm missing something again.

Obviously, I've given up on the idea of a philosophical debate about what the spirit of stock is. I'd do better to keep trying to teach my pig how to sing. Now: where's that pitch-pipe?

Gary: thanks for opening up a very interesting, if hotly debated topic. It's been a real eye-opener.

Dan C.

[gulf911]

I'm missing something again.

Yep,

I didn't take an official count but out of the very few people responding the consensus is:
Slicks are not allowed already and are not R compound.
Stock is a class and not a definition
You have 8 points in Stock Class to 'modify' your car
Everybody has the same points in the class
Leave the rules alone and use the points as you see fit.

If you must continue on this path, lobby for change in S class only and leave existing classes alone.
To help you understand, The 'Spirit' of the modified classes is to go faster ..IMHO, competition tires are part of that spirit.

My apologies that my post can't be more constructive...

[ttweed]

At this point, a race tire exclusion for Stock class might meet member needs better, I don't know. It would certainly be much easier to write and understand than to compose something to change the S/S class in a way that is fair and even-handed throughout the diversity of years and models in the A thru I classes.

Well, are we now re-thinking the idea about limiting tire ratings in stock class? Nah. Couldn't be. I'm missing something again.

I thought you weren't responding to my posts anymore, Dan? I notice you did take the attribution out of this one though.

You are indeed missing something if you think what I wrote above means I am "rethinking" my support for the idea of excluding R-compound tires from Stock class. I'm not. I don't know if it would serve member needs better to do so. I am certainly open to proof that it would. There is not enough evidence in this limited discussion to say one way or the other. Some are for it, some are against. I still think that a majority of Stock class participants in Zone 8 events would not want such an exclusion, but if they did, it would be easier to propose and write such a rule than to compose one that would allow people in the position and mindset that you and Gary are in to run in S/S, so that you could have your street tires and a few modifications as well when running in an older car in the lower classes.

Is that clearer?

TT

[Dan Chambers]

You are indeed missing something if you think what I wrote above means I am "rethinking" my support for the idea of excluding R-compound tires from Stock class. I'm not.

No. I didn't think you were re-thinking the idea, I said "we" and I meant all those participating in this thread. I think I understand where you're coming from, and I have no problem with it. I may not always agree with you on these issues, and I'm okay with that dissagreement.

I don't know if it would serve member needs better to do so. I am certainly open to proof that it would. There is not enough evidence in this limited discussion to say one way or the other. Some are for it, some are against. I still think that a majority of Stock class participants in Zone 8 events would not want such an exclusion, but if they did, it would be easier to propose and write such a rule than to compose one that would allow people in the position and mindset that you and Gary are in to run in S/S, so that you could have your street tires and a few modifications as well when running in an older car in the lower classes.

Agreed. I think you've hit on something very important earlier: S/S was derived, I'm guessing, for the newer cars, and older cars weren't considered to be effected. That appears not to be the case, and you've identified a real glitch in the system.

I also wish Gary and I (and others who are interested) could run in a class that only allowed street tires and minor mod's, but as Dan A., and you, and pretty much everyone else points out, that's not in the rules as they stand today. My attempt to arouse interest in that idea only seemed to arouse contempt. I regret that.

Is that clearer? TT

Yes, thanks.

I'd like to think we all get along and want the best for everyone concerned. Gary and I may not share the same ideas as others, however I hope that doesn't make us "bad guys." ....At least not all the time.

DC

[Gary Burch]

I guess we will never get a definition of SLICKS. The tire companies are going to slap a DOT on anything to skate by any rule and those in charge and those in favor will carry that DOT justification as far and as high and as long as they can.

It really doesn't matter to me.

We started with a simple question, do slicks belong in stock classes? And you know what, we still don't know. We went from that to a complete tire and class overhaul, no wonder none of this ever changes.

It doesn't matter.

I am close to all those on HOOSIER and 710 guys with my RA-1's. Drive hard boys and spend that cash.

Dan and I are on your tails

[LUCKY DAVE]

What's that I hear over the freeway noise? Can it be "Kumbaya" being sung around the campfire?

( quick, back to reality before the voices notice... )

Perhaps there is a reasonable need for an "old car" class with rules similar to Dan and Tom's suggestion. Older unmodified cars are as rare as hen's teeth, and by this time most are either rust piles or being pampered for concours. I can understand the point made as far as the older cars being non competitive in stock form, (and there not being any in stock form at this age anyway) so why not make a class just for them? The class rules could reflect the most typical car of that age as far as mods, and be a street tire class to please the purists. The competition rules commitee has to keep up with the reality of the cars driven in events, and these older cars aren't getting any younger (just like their drivers ) so why not? Is it time?
There's a special Cayenne class.....

[ttweed]

Can it be "Kumbaya" being sung?

Ya...Group hug, now.

...so why not make a class just for them?

The easy solution would be to add more street tire classes, but I think you will find even more resistance to that idea. Reference Bill Behun's post in this thread on page 3: "As an AX chair this year I say "OH, NO.... PLEASE, NOT ANOTHER CLASS!"

The problem with altering the S/S rules for older cars is that our classing is not completely according to age. In A-F class, it would be fairly simple, as all of those cars are pre-smog and fairly similar. When you get to G, H, I and J classes (the others that include the older cars not eligible for Showroom Stock under the Parade GCRs), the mix of models includes vintages from 1967 thru 1991. Any allowances you tried to make for older cars in those S/S classes would not be fair to those who had newer cars in the same class which were not included in the age allowance. I don't see any easy work-around for that which wouldn't include separating cars into further sub-classes, which would have the same negative administrative/organizational effects as creating new Stock/ST (Street Tire) classes separate from the existing Stock classes. I have spent a lot of time thinking about it, and believe me, if there was an easy, slick, clean solution, I would have proposed it by now.

TT

[ttweed]

I guess we will never get a definition of SLICKS. The tire companies are going to slap a DOT on anything to skate by any rule and those in charge and those in favor will carry that DOT justification as far and as high and as long as they can.

Gary,
Yes, the tire companies will try to "game" the DOT regulations to some extent, but there is no getting around the testing involved. They cannot "slap" a DOT rating on anything. I guarantee you that no manufacturer will ever achieve DOT certification for their TRUE RACING SLICKS--their purpose-built tires for racing use only will never be durable enough to pass the tests. Hoosier even had to totally redesign their DOT radials a few years ago because of the stringent updating of the DOT requirements, and they gained about 2 lbs. each in the process. You can thank Firestone and the Ford Explorer for that.

The current Standard FMVSS No. 139 includes four performance requirements for tires: a strength test that evaluates resistance to puncture in the tread area, a resistance to bead unseating test that evaluates how well the tire bead is seated on the rim, an endurance test that evaluates resistance to heat buildup when the tire is run at 85%, 90%, and 100% of its rated load nonstop for a total of 34 hours in an under-inflated condition, and a high speed test that evaluates resistance to heat buildup when the tire is run at 88% of its maximum load at speeds of 75 miles per hour (mph), 80 mph, and 85 mph for 30 minutes at each speed. No true racing slick will pass these tests. They are much too lightly built--meant to achieve maybe 50-75 laps of high performance driving on a relatively smooth and hazard-free racing surface and then be thrown away, if they don't cord and blow out first.

TT

[SDGT3]

I guess we will never get a definition of SLICKS. The tire companies are going to slap a DOT on anything to skate by any rule and those in charge and those in favor will carry that DOT justification as far and as high and as long as they can.

It really doesn't matter to me.

We started with a simple question, do slicks belong in stock classes? And you know what, we still don't know. We went from that to a complete tire and class overhaul, no wonder none of this ever changes.

For some odd reason, this sounds very similar to the debate on where to put the "new" airport and the various studies that go with it...